ASSIGNMENT – 1

Devesh Prasad Mishra – PGP/20/077

NNS Rohit –PGP/20/093
Suhail Ahmed Khan – PGP/20/117
Kaustav Roy – PGP/20/218

Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method

Two-Way ANOVA Table with Interaction

Source DF SS MS F P

Part number 9 91.0764 10.1196 185.111 0.000

Operator 1 0.4285 0.4285 7.838 0.021
Part number * Operator 9 0.4920 0.0547 0.882 0.557
Repeatability 20 1.2402 0.0620
Total 39 93.2371
α to remove interaction term = 0.25

If the p-value for the operator-by-part interaction is ≥ 0.25, Minitab generates a second ANOVA
table that omits the interaction term from the model

Two-Way ANOVA Table without Interaction

Source DF SS MS F P

Part number 9 91.0764 10.1196 169.419 0.000

Operator 1 0.4285 0.4285 7.174 0.012
Repeatability 29 1.7322 0.0597
Total 39 93.2371
Gage R&R
Variance Components
%Contribution
Source VarComp (of VarComp)

Total Gage R&R 0.07817 3.01

  Repeatability 0.05973 2.30
  Reproducibility 0.01844 0.71
    Operator 0.01844 0.71
Part-To-Part 2.51497 96.99
Total Variation 2.59314 100.00
Gage Evaluation
Study Var %Study Var
Source StdDev (SD) (5.15 × SD) (%SV)

Total Gage R&R 0.27959 1.43988 17.36

  Repeatability 0.24440 1.25866 15.18

  Reproducibility 0.13579 0.69930 8.43

    Operator 0.13579 0.69930 8.43

Part-To-Part 1.58586 8.16720 98.48

Total Variation 1.61032 8.29316 100.00
Number of Distinct Categories = 7

Gage R&R study

Reported by:
Gage name: Tolerance:
Date of study: Misc:

Components of Variation Data by Part number

100 % Contribution
% Study Var
74
Percent

50
72

70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part
Part number
R Chart by Operator
1 2 Data by Operator
0.8 UCL=0.8005
Sample Range

74
0.4 _
R=0.245
72
0.0 LCL=0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
70
Part number 1 2
Operator
Xbar Chart by Operator
1 2
Part number * Operator Interaction
Sample Mean

Operator
74 __ 1
UCL=73.307 74
X=72.846 2
Average

LCL=72.386
72
72
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
70
Part number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part number
Observations & Inferences
 Differences between parts accounts for most of the variability; and variability from repeatability
and reproducibility is be very small
 Since the %StudyVar is 17.36 % (less than 30 %) the measurement system may be acceptable
 The number of distinct categories are 7. This indicates that the system is acceptable and can
distinguish between parts
 From the x-bar chart we observe that many points are above or below the control limits. These
results indicate that part-to-part variation is much greater than measurement device variation.
 The operators appear to be measuring the parts consistently, with approximately the same
variation as the line in the operator’s graph is parallel to x-axis

Conclusion
Based on the above observations we can conclude the measuring system contributes very little to the
overall variation, as confirmed by both the gage R&R table and graphs and hence is acceptable for use.