MSA 测量系统分析
七个工具回答「怎么把数据做好」,MSA 回答更前面的问题:这批数据本身可信吗。 量具是否有偏倚、分辨力够不够、评价员之间是否一致——测不准的系统,出的图再漂亮也没有意义。 本页按 AIAG《测量系统分析》手册第 4 版推荐的评价顺序把 8 项研究逐站展开, 每一站都给出判据、读图要点(理想态与典型错误)与可交互试算, 研究记录可勾选、导出与打印,直接进审核报告。
MSA 是什么、处在什么位置What & Where
MSA(Measurement Systems Analysis,测量系统分析)回答的是「数据从哪来、准不准」。 它是 SPC 与过程能力分析的前置条件:若 %GRR 达到 30%,那么 SPC 看到的「过程波动」 有一半来自测量误差,控制限与能力指数全部失去意义。本页以 研究序列为骨架:按 AIAG 手册的推荐顺序 逐站推进,而不是把 8 项研究当成可选项平铺。
为什么顺序不能随便挑
AIAG 手册明确推荐「分辨力 → 稳定性 → 偏倚 → 线性 → GR&R」的顺序, 原因是一条依赖链:分辨力不足时,后续算出的 %GRR 与 NDC 会同时失真; 量具在漂移时,偏倚根本不是一个常数,线性分析失去意义。 前一项不合格,后一项的结论可信度就会下降——所以本站的侧栏就是这条链,不是分类目录。
8 项研究一览(按推荐执行顺序)
量具能否分辨零件间的细微差异;不足时 %GRR 与 NDC 双双失真
数字型量具做分辨力研究(同一标准件由 5 名评价员各重复 10 次),观察判读数字的一致程度。
量具随时间的漂移(磨损、温漂、基准变动)
用标准件定期重复测量,做 X̄-R 控制图或线性趋势分析,识别磨损、老化与温漂;开工前校验(startup checks)也属此范畴。
读数相对参考值的系统性偏离;仅评价单点
用标准件或已知基准值重复测量并做 t 检验,判断零位错误、测头磨损与温度漂移;偏倚不显著才谈得上重复性与线性。
偏倚在全量程上的稳定性;回答「全量程准不准」
做线性回归,看偏倚是否随测量值大小系统性变化;至少取 3 个以上不同水平的基准点,并检验斜率/截距与失拟。
每个零件由多名评价员各重复测量;最常用的一种
每个零件由全部评价员各重复测量(推荐 10×3)。AIAG 第 4 版与 Minitab 均建议交叉型用 ANOVA 法,不用极差法。
每个零件只由一名评价员测(破坏性测量);不可分离交互
每个零件只由一名评价者测量(破坏性或不可重复测量),零件与操作者混杂。不可区分再现性与重复性,只能给出综合 %GRR;同样用 ANOVA 法。
新量具或大修后的单点能力验收;不能替代 GR&R
在单一测量点上评价重复性与稳定性:Cg 看重复性,Cgk 看重复性 + 偏倚。判据 Cg ≥ 1.33、Cgk ≥ 1.33(ISO 22514-2)。
合格/不合格这类二分类判定的一致性;Kappa 校正「碰巧一致」
多评价员 × 多零件 × 重复判定,产出混淆矩阵、一致率、Kappa 与信号探测(Sensitivity / Specificity);Kappa 校正「碰巧一致」,比裸一致率更可信。
研究选择指引
按目的选
- 评价量具与操作者的整体变差(能否可靠分辨零件或判定合格)→ ① GR&R 交叉型(破坏性测量 → ② 嵌套型)
- 核查测量值是否系统性偏离真值(准确度)→ ③ 偏倚
- 核查偏倚在整个量程上是否稳定 → ④ 线性
- 核查随时间是否稳定受控(漂移、磨损)→ ⑤ 稳定性
- 核查量具能否分辨过程变差(分辨力)→ ⑥ 分辨力 / NDC
- 新量具或维修后量具的单点能力验收 → ⑦ 量具能力 Cg/Cgk
按条件选
- 零件可由每位操作者重复测量 → ① 交叉型 GR&R
- 零件不可重复测量(破坏性、一次性装夹)→ ② 嵌套型 GR&R
- 仅在单一测量点进行比较测量 → ③ 偏倚
- 跨量程使用 → ④ 线性
- 需要跨时间监控 → ⑤ 稳定性
- 客户要求提供分辨力证据 → ⑥ 分辨力 / NDC
- 新量具导入或大修后验收 → ⑦ Cg/Cgk
Study Selector Guide
By purpose
- Evaluate overall gage and operator variation (whether parts can be resolved or accepted) → 1 Gage R&R Crossed (destructive → 2 Nested)
- Check whether readings are systematically offset from the true value (accuracy) → 3 Bias
- Check whether bias is stable across the range → 4 Linearity
- Check whether the system stays in control over time (drift or wear) → 5 Stability
- Check whether the gage can resolve the process variation → 6 Discrimination / NDC
- Accept a new or repaired gage at a single point → 7 Gage Capability Cg/Cgk
By condition
- Every part can be re-measured by each operator → 1 Crossed GR&R
- Parts cannot be re-measured (destructive or one-shot fixturing) → 2 Nested GR&R
- Only a single measuring point is used → 3 Bias
- Used across the range → 4 Linearity
- Requires monitoring over time → 5 Stability
- Customer requires discrimination → 6 Discrimination / NDC
- New gage introduction or post-overhaul acceptance → 7 Cg/Cgk
建议场景选择Study Selector by Scenario
| 场景 | 建议组合 | 说明 |
|---|---|---|
| 完整 MSA(新项目/新量具导入/客户审核) | ① 交叉型 GR&R + ③ 偏倚 + ④ 线性 + ⑤ 稳定性 + ⑥ 分辨力 | 五项齐备方为完整;稳定性需跨时间收集数据,可先启动、后续补充 |
| 年度例行复评 | ① GR&R + ③ 偏倚 + ⑥ 分辨力 | 若无线索提示变更,线性与稳定性可延长复评周期 |
| 破坏性 / 一次性测量 | ② 嵌套型 GR&R + ③ 偏倚 + ⑥ 分辨力 | 无法交叉测量时改用嵌套型 |
| 新量具验收 | ⑦ Cg/Cgk + ③ 偏倚 + ④ 线性 | 先完成量具自身能力的验收,再进行完整 GR&R |
| 仅需确认能否使用 | ① GR&R(+ ⑥ 分辨力) | 最快捷的路径;但不应据此外推准确度结论 |
| 过程判定异常或误判增多 | ⑤ 稳定性 + ③ 偏倚 | 先查是否随时间漂移 |
| 外观 / 计数型判定(目视、卡尺通止、功能判定) | ⑧ 计数型一致性分析(+ 标准样件共识) | 评价人之间的分歧来自判定标准而非量具分辨率;须先有客观基准样件 |
| Scenario | Recommended set | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Full MSA (new project / new gage / customer audit) | 1 Crossed GR&R + 3 Bias + 4 Linearity + 5 Stability + 6 Discrimination | All five make it complete; stability needs data over time, so start it early and add it later |
| Annual re-evaluation | 1 GR&R + 3 Bias + 6 Discrimination | Linearity and stability can be stretched out if nothing changed |
| Destructive / one-shot measurement | 2 Nested GR&R + 3 Bias + 6 Discrimination | Use the nested design when parts cannot be crossed |
| New gage acceptance | 7 Cg/Cgk + 3 Bias + 4 Linearity | Accept the gage first, then run the full GR&R |
| Rapid "is the gage usable?" check | 1 GR&R (+ 6 Discrimination) | Fastest route; the conclusion does not extend to accuracy |
| New or unexplained misjudgements in production | 5 Stability + 3 Bias | Check for drift over time first |
常见问题FAQ
Q1:零件数量是否必须为 10 个?
常用 10 个,但并非硬性要求。样本越少,K3 常数越大,估计越不稳定。关键在于覆盖过程变差:从同一批合格品中选取 10 个,不如跨批次、跨时段选取 8 个。
Q2:%GRR 应按「对总变差」还是「对公差」评价?
本程序采用对总变差(%Study Var)口径,这是 AIAG 最常用的口径。若客户要求对公差的 P/T 比,可用公式 P/T = 5.15·σGRR / 公差 换算。
Q3:%GRR 偏高而量具看似正常,应如何排查?
应依次核查三项:① NDC 是否 < 5(分辨力不足);② %PV 是否明显偏低(提示取样未覆盖过程变差、%GRR 被高估;AIAG 未规定 %PV 阈值,根本判据是 %GRR 与 NDC);③ 是否存在个别异常读数(查看极差图)。这三项是最常见的假性不合格原因。
Q4:偏倚与线性是否都需要开展?
偏倚评价单个测量点,线性评价整个量程。若量具仅在一个尺寸点上使用(如通止规式比较测量),偏倚通常已足够;若跨量程使用,则必须进行线性研究。
Q5:稳定性研究需要多长时间跨度的数据?
至少需要 20 个子组,且时间跨度应覆盖量具的典型使用周期(含换班、周末与环境变化)。在一天之内测满 20 组只能说明当日的重复性,不构成稳定性研究。
Q6:嵌套型与交叉型的结果是否可以相互比较?
不建议直接比较。嵌套型无法分离交互作用,结果通常略偏保守。同一量具的历次复评应采用同一设计。
Q7:数据是否可以只填写一部分?
不可以。计算前应补全所有测量值;若有缺失,程序会提示尚缺的数量。
Q8:导出的 Excel 是否包含公式?
导出的是数值快照,不含公式,便于归档并在任意环境打开。如需在 Excel 内重算,请联系版权人,使用原始工作簿模板。
Q9:数据存储在哪里?
所有数据保存在浏览器本地(localStorage),不会上传至任何服务器。清除浏览器数据时数据将一并清除,重要结果请及时导出。
Q1: Are 10 parts mandatory?
Ten is typical but not mandatory. Fewer parts give a larger K3 and a less stable estimate. The essential requirement is that the parts span the process variation; eight parts from different lots and time windows are more informative than ten from a single conforming batch.
Q2: Should %GRR be judged against total variation or tolerance?
This program reports %Study Var (against total variation), the most common AIAG basis. If the customer requires the P/T ratio against tolerance, convert using P/T = 5.15·sigma_GRR / tolerance.
Q3: %GRR is high although the gage appears satisfactory. Why?
Check three items: NDC < 5 (discrimination), %PV markedly low (a hint that the sampling does not span the process, so %GRR is overstated; AIAG sets no %PV threshold — the governing criteria are %GRR and NDC) and individual abnormal readings (from the R chart). These are the three most common spurious failures.
Q4: Are both bias and linearity required?
Bias covers a single point and linearity the whole range. If the gage is used at a single size (comparator style), bias is usually sufficient; if it is used across a range, linearity is required.
Q5: Over what period must a stability study be conducted?
At least 20 subgroups, and the time span must cover the typical duty cycle of the gage (shift changes, weekends, environmental swings). Twenty subgroups collected within one day demonstrate only that day's repeatability.
Q6: Can nested and crossed results be compared?
Not directly. The nested design cannot separate the interaction and is usually slightly conservative. The same design should be retained across repeated evaluations of the same gage.
Q7: Can only part of the data be entered?
No; every reading must be complete before calculating. The program displays the number still missing.
Q8: Does the exported Excel contain formulas?
The export is a value snapshot without formulas so that it opens in any environment. To recalculate in Excel, contact the copyright holder for the original workbook template.
Q9: Where is the data stored?
Entirely in the browser (localStorage); nothing is uploaded. Clearing browser data removes it as well, so important results should be exported promptly.
术语速查Glossary
| 术语 | 含义 |
|---|---|
| MSA | Measurement Systems Analysis,测量系统分析 |
| GR&R / GRR | Gage Repeatability & Reproducibility,量具重复性与再现性 |
| EV | Equipment Variation,设备变差(重复性) |
| AV | Appraiser Variation,评价人变差(再现性) |
| PV | Part Variation,零件变差 |
| TV | Total Variation,总变差 |
| NDC | Number of Distinct Categories,数据分级数 |
| Bias | 偏倚,观测均值与参考值之差 |
| Linearity | 线性,偏倚随量程的变化 |
| Stability | 稳定性,测量系统随时间的统计受控性 |
| Resolution | 分辨力 / 分辨率,量具可分辨的最小变化 |
| d2* | AIAG 附录C 常数,由子组容量与子组数查得,用于由平均极差估计 σ |
| Cg / Cgk | 量具能力指数 / 含偏倚的量具能力指数 |
| 盲测 | 操作者不知道被测零件编号与自己上一次读数的测量方式 |
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| MSA | Measurement Systems Analysis |
| GR&R | Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility |
| EV | Equipment Variation (repeatability) |
| AV | Appraiser Variation (reproducibility) |
| PV | Part-to-part Variation |
| TV | Total Variation |
| NDC | Number of Distinct Categories |
| Bias | Difference between the observed average and the reference value |
| Linearity | Change of bias across the operating range |
| Stability | Statistical control of the system over time |
| Resolution | Smallest change the gage can resolve |
| d2* | AIAG Appendix C constant, looked up by subgroup size and number of subgroups, used to estimate sigma from the average range |
| Cg / Cgk | Gage capability index / gage capability index including bias |
| Blind measurement | Operators do not know the part identity nor their previous reading |
| Attribute Gage R&R | Attribute measurement systems analysis — the output is a category judgement, not a reading (AIAG MSA 4th ed. Ch. III) |
| Effectiveness | Proportion of judgements agreeing with the agreed reference |
| False-negative rate | Reference-NG judged OK; acceptable limit 2% |
| False-alarm rate | Reference-OK judged NG; acceptable limit 5% |
| Po / Pe | Observed agreement / chance agreement; kappa normalises the difference |
| Cohen’s kappa | Agreement between two appraisers with chance agreement removed |
| Weighted kappa | Kappa for ordinal categories, penalising by grade distance (linear / quadratic) |
| Fleiss’ kappa | Agreement for any number of raters with equal trials per rater |
| d′ / c | Signal-detection sensitivity and criterion position; d′ > 1 acceptable, > 2 good, > 3 excellent; negative c means a loose criterion (elevated false-negative risk), positive c a strict one (elevated false-alarm risk) |
| X50 | Analytic-method reference value at 50% acceptance, obtained by probit analysis; should sit on the specification limit |
| Standard sample | Physically signed-off reference used to align judgement criteria — a prerequisite for any attribute study |
参考文件族(本页内容依据)
分辨力Resolution
两个概念
- 分辨力(Discrimination / Resolution):量具能检出的最小变化量,通常就是最小读数(如 0.01 mm)。
- 数据分级数 NDC:NDC = 1.41 × PV / GRR,表示测量系统能把过程变差有效分成多少个可区分的类别。
判定
| 指标 | 要求 | 说明 |
|---|---|---|
| NDC | ≥ 5 | NDC < 5 即不满足 AIAG 要求;业界常将 3~5 称为“边缘”、< 3 称为“不足”,属 Minitab 等补充解释,非 AIAG 第4版正文规定 |
| 10:1 规则 | 跨度 / 分辨率 ≥ 10 | 跨度取公差与 6σ 过程变差中的较小者(取较小者可避免过宽的公差放松对过程变差的分辨要求;过程变差通常是更严格的基准) |
数据分级数与 10:1 规则
观察内容:左图:过程变差被划分为多少个可区分的类别;右图:跨度与分辨率之比是否 ≥ 10。
判定方法:NDC ≥ 5(左图类别数足够)表示分辨力足够;跨度与分辨率之比 ≥ 10 表示满足 10:1 规则。
过程变差被划分为 5 个以上(理想为 10 个以上)清晰可区分的类别,跨度与分辨力之比不小于 10,满足 10:1 规则。量具能够可靠地区分产品差异,可用于 SPC 与合格判定;分辨力越高,能够监测到的过程波动越细。
若过程变差仅能划分为 1 至 2 个类别,跨度与分辨力之比小于 5,则 10:1 规则不满足。常见原因包括量具刻度过粗,或过程变差本身过小;此时测得的变化主要来自量具噪声而非过程波动,SPC 与能力分析均失去意义。
本模块的两种用法
- 读取 GR&R 结果(默认):选择「GR&R 交叉型」或「GR&R 嵌套型」作为数据来源,程序直接取 PV 与 GRR 计算 NDC,并把该研究的原始数据画成直方图检查取值台阶数。
- 独立分辨力检查:手动输入量具分辨率与变差跨度(公差或 6σ),程序做 10:1 规则检查并给出建议分辨率。
分辨力不足对结论的影响
提高 NDC 的两条路
- 降低量具变差 GR&R:改进重复性与再现性(见 GR&R 章节)。
- 扩大取样范围:使零件覆盖真实过程变差以提高 PV(此项最常被忽略)。
- 若两项措施均已实施而 NDC 仍 < 5,表明量具分辨率本身不足,需更换量具。
Two concepts
- Discrimination (resolution): the smallest change the gage can detect, usually the smallest increment (e.g. 0.01 mm).
- Number of distinct categories (NDC): NDC = 1.41 × PV / GRR, the number of distinguishable categories the system can resolve within the process variation.
Acceptance
| Metric | Requirement | Note |
|---|---|---|
| NDC | ≥ 5 | NDC < 5 fails the AIAG requirement; the "3-5 marginal / below 3 insufficient" bands come from software such as Minitab, not from the AIAG 4th edition text |
| 10:1 rule | span / resolution ≥ 10 | Span is the smaller of the tolerance and the 6σ process variation (taking the smaller value prevents a wide tolerance from relaxing the resolution required for the process variation, which is usually the stricter basis) |
NDC and the 10:1 rule
What to observe: Left: how many distinct categories the process variation is divided into. Right: whether span divided by resolution is at least 10.
How to judge: NDC >= 5 (sufficient categories on the left) indicates adequate discrimination; a span-to-resolution ratio of at least 10 satisfies the 10:1 rule.
Process variation is divided into 5 or more (ideally 10 or more) clearly distinguishable categories, and the ratio of span to resolution is at least 10, satisfying the 10:1 rule. The gage can reliably discriminate between products and is suitable for SPC and acceptance decisions; the higher the discrimination, the finer the process movement that can be detected.
Where process variation is divided into only 1 or 2 categories and the ratio of span to resolution is below 5, the 10:1 rule is not met. The usual causes are too coarse a scale or too small a process variation. The variation measured then comes mainly from gage noise rather than the process, and both SPC and capability analysis become meaningless.
Two ways to use this study
- From a GR&R result (default): choose the crossed or nested GR&R as the source; the program takes PV and GRR, computes NDC and plots the raw readings to check how many distinct steps the data actually contain.
- Standalone resolution check: enter the gage resolution and the variation span (tolerance or 6σ) and the program applies the 10:1 rule and recommends a resolution.
Why insufficient NDC is misleading
Two ways to raise NDC
- Reduce gage variation GRR: improve repeatability and reproducibility (see the GR&R sections).
- Widen the sampling range so that parts span the true process variation and PV increases; this is the option most often overlooked.
- If NDC remains below 5 after both measures, the gage resolution itself is inadequate and the gage should be changed.
稳定性Stability
稳定性是什么
稳定性描述测量系统随时间保持统计受控的能力,即同一零件在不同时间的测量结果是否一致。漂移、磨损、老化与温漂均会破坏稳定性。
标准做法
- 选 1 个零件或标准件(建议有已知参考值,可同时进行偏倚检验)。
- 按固定时间间隔(每班、每天、每周……)抽取子组,n ≥ 20 组(AIAG 第4版原文:g ≥ 20 个子组,示例为 20 组 × 5 次 = 100 个读数;20 个子组是 AIAG 规定的最低要求,实务中常取更多)。
- 每组测 m = 3~5 次(本程序默认 20 组 × 5 次)。
- 程序绘制 Xbar-R 控制图,并做漂移回归与偏倚 t 检验。
控制限
| 图 | 中心线 | 控制限 |
|---|---|---|
| Xbar | CL = X̄̄ | UCL/LCL = X̄̄ ± A₂·R̄ |
| R | CL = R̄ | UCL = D₄·R̄,LCL = D₃·R̄ |
A₂、D₃、D₄ 按子组大小 m 取自标准 SPC 常数表(m = 2~10)。
判异规则(程序内置)
第一原则——先看极差图:极差图代表重复性;若极差图失控,均值图的控制限本身即不可靠,此时均值图的任何信号都不得采信。
- 点超出控制限(3σ);
- 连续 9 点位于中心线同侧(阶跃偏移;本程序采用 Nelson 判异规则,若组织采用更严的西方电气规则——连续 8 点同侧——或 7 点判据,请在图上人工复核);
- 连续 6 点持续上升或下降(渐变趋势);
- 时间回归斜率 t 检验显著(漂移);
- 填写参考值时,偏倚 t 检验显著。
图形判读
Xbar-R 控制图
观察内容:均值图是否出界或出现连续同侧、连续升降;极差图是否随时间变宽。
判定方法:无出界、无连续同侧(阶跃)、无连续升降(渐变)表示受控;任一信号出现表示不稳定,应首先查明特殊原因。
X̄ 图各点均在控制限内随机分布,无连续同侧、无连续升降;R 图带宽在评价期内保持一致。表明测量系统处于统计受控状态,偏倚与变差不随时间漂移,此前获得的 GR&R 与偏倚结论在评价期内持续有效。
若 X̄ 图出现点出界、连续多点同侧或持续单向漂移,或 R 图带宽随时间增大,则表明稳定性不足,测量系统存在特殊原因变差。常见原因包括量具磨损、温度漂移、夹具松动或基准改变。应先确定变差出现的时间点与原因,经维护或校准后重新进行稳定性研究。
- ① 均值图:核查是否出界,有无连续同侧(阶跃)、连续升降(渐变)或周期性(温湿度、换班)。
- ② 极差图:核查重复性是否随时间恶化(极差变宽表示量具劣化)。
- ③ 趋势图:拟合直线的斜率为漂移速率;斜率显著表明量具正在缓慢变化,可据此缩短校准周期或进行定期修正。
判定与改进
无任何判异信号时判定为 稳定(受控);任一信号出现即判定为 不稳定,应查明特殊原因(校准记录、维修、换人、环境变化、标准件损坏),消除后重新收集数据复评。若存在显著漂移,宜按漂移速率设定校准周期。
What stability is
Stability describes whether the system remains in statistical control over time: the same part should give the same result when measured today and several months later. Drift, wear, ageing and thermal effects all degrade stability.
Standard procedure
- Pick one part or master (preferably with a known reference so a bias test runs alongside).
- At fixed intervals (per shift, daily, weekly...) collect n ≥ 20 subgroups (AIAG 4th ed.: g ≥ 20 subgroups; its example is 20 × 5 = 100 readings — 20 subgroups is the AIAG minimum, more are common in practice).
- Measure m = 3-5 times per subgroup (the default here is 20 × 5).
- The program draws Xbar-R charts and runs the drift regression and bias t-test.
Control limits
| Chart | Centre line | Limits |
|---|---|---|
| Xbar | CL = X-double-bar | UCL/LCL = X-double-bar ± A2·Rbar |
| R | CL = Rbar | UCL = D4·Rbar, LCL = D3·Rbar |
A2, D3 and D4 are the standard SPC constants for subgroup size m (m = 2-10).
Out-of-control rules applied
First principle — read the R chart first: it represents repeatability; if the R chart is out of control the Xbar limits are themselves unreliable and no signal on the Xbar chart may be relied upon.
- Point beyond the control limits (3 sigma);
- 9 points in a row on one side of the centre line (step shift; this program applies the Nelson rules — if your organisation uses the stricter Western Electric rule of 8 in a row, or 7, verify those cases by eye);
- 6 points in a row steadily increasing or decreasing (trend);
- Time-regression slope significant (drift);
- With a reference entered, bias t-test significant.
Reading the charts
Xbar-R control charts
What to observe: Whether the Xbar chart shows out-of-control points, runs on one side or a steady rise/fall; whether the R chart widens over time.
How to judge: No out-of-control points, no run on one side (step) and no steady rise or fall (trend) indicate an in-control system; any signal indicates instability and the special cause should be identified first.
All points on the X-bar chart fall within the control limits with no runs on one side and no steady rise or fall, and the R-chart band width remains constant over the study period. The measurement system is in statistical control, neither bias nor variation drifts with time, and earlier GR&R and bias conclusions remain valid over that period.
Points outside the limits, a run on one side or a steady one-way drift on the X-bar chart, or a widening R-chart band over time, indicate inadequate stability and the presence of special-cause variation. Typical causes include gage wear, thermal drift, a loose fixture or a change of reference. The time and cause of the change should first be identified, and the study repeated after maintenance or calibration.
- 1. Xbar chart: out-of-control points, runs on one side (step change), runs up or down (gradual change), cycles (temperature, humidity, shift).
- 2. R chart: whether repeatability degrades over time (a widening R indicates gage deterioration).
- 3. Trend chart: the fitted line gives the drift rate. A significant slope indicates slow change; use it to shorten the calibration interval or schedule periodic correction.
Verdict and improvement
No signal: stable (in control). Any signal: unstable; identify the special cause (calibration record, repair, operator change, environment, damaged master), eliminate it and re-collect the data. Where drift is significant, set the calibration interval from the drift rate.
偏倚Bias
偏倚是什么
偏倚 = 观测平均值 − 真值(参考值)。它描述测量系统的准确度。偏倚可能来自量具零点错误、测头磨损、标准件误差、测量力、温度、照明视差等。
标准做法(独立样本法)
- 取 1 个零件或标准件。
- 用更高等级的量具/计量室测其参考值 Xref。
- 由一名操作者,用正常方式,重复测量 n ≥ 10 次(AIAG 偏倚研究对 1 个零件重复测量次数,通常取10或15)。
- 程序计算偏倚、标准误、t 值与置信区间。
计算
| 量 | 公式 |
|---|---|
| 偏倚 | Bias = x̄ − Xref |
| 重复性 σr | 默认用样本标准差 s;若已知 GR&R 的 σ,可填入「已知重复性标准差」 |
| 偏倚标准误 | σb = σr / √n |
| t 值 | t = Bias / σb,自由度 df = n − 1 |
| 置信区间 | Bias ± t1−α/2, df × σb |
| %Bias | |Bias| / 公差 T × 100% |
判定
- 0 落在置信区间内(|t| ≤ 临界值):不能拒绝“偏倚 = 0”的原假设,判定为偏倚不显著、可接受(注意:不显著不等于偏倚确实为 0,只表示没有足够证据证明存在显著偏倚)。
- 0 不在区间内:偏倚显著,不可接受,应校准、修正或维修后重新评价。
- %Bias 是辅助指标,实务上常以 ≤ 10% 为参考(AIAG 未给硬性阈值)。
图形判读
偏倚与置信区间图
观察内容:单值图是否存在趋势或周期;偏倚置信区间是否跨过 0 线。
判定方法:点应在均值两侧随机波动且无趋势(存在趋势表明温漂或磨损,应先完成稳定性研究);区间跨过 0 表示不显著,完全位于 0 一侧表示显著。
单值图上的读数围绕均值随机分布,无趋势或周期;偏倚的置信区间跨过 0 线,且区间宽度小于量具分辨力的两倍。表明测量均值与参考值之间无系统性差异,读数可直接作为后续分析的量值,无需修正。
若读数呈持续上升或下降,或置信区间完全位于 0 线一侧且不包含 0,则表明存在系统性偏倚。持续上升或下降多源于温度漂移、量具磨损或基准变化,应先完成稳定性研究;区间落在 0 线一侧表明读数恒偏一个方向、一个固定量,须在软件或量具上补偿后方可使用。
- ① 单值图:点应在均值线两侧随机波动,不应有趋势或周期;存在趋势表明温漂或磨损,此时偏倚并非常数,应先进行稳定性研究。
- ② 偏倚置信区间:区间跨过 0 线表示不显著;完全位于 0 线一侧表示显著。
- ③ 直方图:应近似对称且为单峰;明显双峰提示装夹或读数方式不一致。(直方图是 AIAG 偏倚分析「控制图法」规定的图形步骤之一:子组容量 m ≥ 2 时相对参考值绘制,用于识别特殊原因与异常。)
常见误区
- 仅测量 3~5 次即下结论:样本量过小,置信区间过宽,既无法判定显著,也无法判定不显著。
- 参考值本身不准确:参考值应由更高等级、可溯源的标准或计量室确定,其不确定度应显著小于被测测量系统自身的重复性(计量领域常按不确定度比 TUR ≥ 4:1~10:1 选取,属计量惯例,并非 AIAG MSA 的规定)。
- 误认为偏倚合格即全部合格:偏倚仅评价单个测量点;整个量程应由线性研究评价。
What bias is
Bias = observed average − true value (reference). It describes the accuracy of the system. Sources include a wrong zero point, probe wear, master error, measuring force, temperature and parallax.
Standard procedure (independent sample method)
- Take one part or master.
- Determine its reference value Xref with a higher-order gage or metrology lab.
- Have one operator measure it n ≥ 10 times in the normal manner (the AIAG bias study repeats one part; its example uses 15 readings — the default here is 15).
- The program computes bias, standard error, the t value and the confidence interval.
Calculation
| Quantity | Formula |
|---|---|
| Bias | Bias = xbar − Xref |
| Repeatability σr | Sample standard deviation s by default; if you know σ from a GR&R, enter it in "Known repeatability" |
| Std. error of bias | σb = σr / √n |
| t value | t = Bias / σb with df = n − 1 |
| Confidence interval | Bias ± t(1−α/2, df) × σb |
| %Bias | |Bias| / tolerance T × 100% |
Acceptance
- 0 inside the CI (|t| ≤ critical): the null hypothesis "bias = 0" cannot be rejected, so the bias is judged not significant and acceptable (not significant does not prove the bias is exactly zero — only that there is insufficient evidence of a significant bias).
- 0 outside the CI: the bias is significant and not acceptable; recalibrate, apply a correction or repair, then re-evaluate.
- %Bias is an auxiliary metric; ≤ 10% is a common practical reference (AIAG gives no hard threshold).
Reading the charts
Bias and confidence-interval chart
What to observe: Whether the run chart shows a trend or cycle; whether the bias confidence interval crosses 0.
How to judge: Points should scatter randomly about the mean with no trend (a trend indicates drift or wear, so a stability study should come first); an interval crossing 0 is not significant, one lying entirely on one side is significant.
The readings scatter at random about the mean with no trend or cycle. The confidence interval for bias contains 0 and its width is less than twice the gage resolution. There is therefore no systematic difference between the measured mean and the reference, and readings may be used directly in subsequent analysis without correction.
A reading that rises or falls steadily, or a confidence interval that lies entirely on one side of 0 and does not contain 0, indicates a systematic bias. A steady rise or fall usually arises from thermal drift, gage wear or a change of reference, and a stability study should be completed first. An interval on one side of 0 means the reading is offset by a fixed amount in one direction, which must be compensated in software or at the gage before use.
- 1. Run chart: points should scatter randomly about the mean with no trend or cycle. A trend indicates thermal drift or wear; bias is then not a constant and a stability study should precede the bias study.
- 2. Bias confidence interval: if the interval crosses 0 the bias is not significant; if it lies entirely on one side it is significant.
- 3. Histogram: should be approximately symmetric and unimodal; a clear double peak suggests inconsistent fixturing or reading. (The histogram is one of the graphical steps prescribed by the AIAG bias analysis "control chart method": with subgroup size m ≥ 2 it is drawn against the reference value to detect special causes.)
Common mistakes
- Concluding from 3-5 repeats: with n this small the confidence interval is so wide that no conclusion can be drawn.
- An inaccurate reference: the reference must come from a higher-order, traceable standard or metrology lab, with an uncertainty clearly smaller than the repeatability of the system under study (metrology practice often uses a test uncertainty ratio of 4:1 to 10:1 — a metrological convention, not an AIAG MSA requirement).
- Assuming that an acceptable bias implies an acceptable system: bias evaluates a single point; the whole range is covered by linearity.
线性Linearity
线性是什么
线性描述偏倚在整个工作量程上的变化。理想情况下,量具在各测量点的偏倚都应接近 0;若偏倚随尺寸增大而系统性增大或减小,则为线性不良。
标准做法
- 选 g ≥ 5 个零件,其参考值均匀覆盖量具的工作量程(不应集中于中间)。
- 用更高等级量具确定每个零件的参考值 Xref,i。
- 由一名操作者对每个零件随机顺序重复测量 m ≥ 10 次。
- 程序计算各点偏倚,做最小二乘回归并给出置信带。
计算
| 量 | 公式 / 说明 |
|---|---|
| 各点偏倚 | bi = x̄i − Xref,i |
| 回归 | b = a + b₁·Xref(最小二乘) |
| 线性值 | Linearity = |b₁| × 过程变差 |
| %Linearity | 100 × |b₁|(相对过程变差的百分比) |
| 置信带 | ŷi ± t1−α/2, g−2 · s · √(1/g + (xi − x̄)²/Sxx) |
| 各点 t 检验 | ti = bi / (σr/√m),σr 为合并重复性 |
判定
- 主判据:若“偏倚 = 0”的水平线整个落在回归线的置信带内,则线性可接受;否则不可接受。(置信带 = 回归线的 95% 置信区间,即拟合值 ± t·s·√(1/g + (xᵢ−x̄)²/Sxx),不是回归线本身。)
- 量化参考:%Linearity < 5% 为优;5%~10% 为边缘;> 10% 为不良。
- 各点偏倚 t 检验显著的测量点,需要优先处理。
图形判读
偏倚 vs 参考值 / 各水平偏倚
观察内容:拟合线是否平缓、置信带是否包含 0 线;各水平偏倚随量程的走向。
判定方法:点贴近 0 线、拟合线平缓、置信带包含 0 线表示线性良好;递增或递减表示存在斜率,U 形表示非线性。
各水平上的偏倚点均靠近 0 线,拟合线近似水平、斜率接近 0,置信带全程包含 0 线。表明在整个量程内偏倚既小又稳定,量具在低量程与高量程具有一致的准确度。
若偏倚随参考值单调递增或递减,或两端为正、中间为负呈 U 形,则表明线性不良。此时偏倚的方向与幅度随量程变化,采用单一偏倚修正量无法覆盖全量程,须分段校准,或对量具进行维修、更换。
- ① 偏倚 vs 参考值:点应贴近 0 线,拟合线应平缓;置信带应包含 0 线。
- ② 各水平偏倚柱:核查偏倚随量程的走向。递增或递减表明存在斜率;U 形或倒 U 形通常表示非线性(线性模型可能不适用,应查看残差)。
- ③ 残差图:残差应随机散布于 0 线两侧;若呈现明显弯曲(如先正、后负、再正),表明存在非线性项,仅做单点线性修正不足。
改进
- 整机多点校准(而非仅校准单点);
- 建立线性修正曲线 / 查找表,由量具或软件自动补偿;
- 更换磨损测头、导轨、传感器;
- 控制温度(热膨胀是线性误差的常见来源);
- 缩小实际使用量程,只在该区间内保证精度。
What linearity is
Linearity describes how bias changes across the operating range. Ideally the bias is close to zero at every point; if it increases or decreases systematically with size, linearity is inadequate.
Standard procedure
- Select g ≥ 5 parts whose reference values evenly span the operating range (do not cluster them in the middle).
- Determine each reference value Xref,i with a higher-order gage.
- Have one operator measure each part m ≥ 10 times in random order (the AIAG linearity example is 5 parts × 12 readings; the default here is 12).
- The program computes the bias at each level, fits OLS regression and draws the confidence band.
Calculation
| Quantity | Formula / note |
|---|---|
| Bias per level | bi = xbari − Xrefi |
| Regression | b = a + b1·Xref (least squares) |
| Linearity | Linearity = |b1| × process variation |
| %Linearity | 100 × |b1| (percent of process variation) |
| Confidence band | ŷi ± t(1−α/2, g−2) · s · √(1/g + (xi − xbar)²/Sxx) |
| t-test per level | ti = bi / (σr/√m), σr = pooled repeatability |
Acceptance
- Main criterion: if the "bias = 0" line lies entirely within the confidence band, linearity is acceptable; otherwise not. (The confidence band is the 95% confidence interval of the regression line, i.e. fitted value ± t·s·√(1/g + (xᵢ−x̄)²/Sxx) — not the regression line itself.)
- Quantitative reference: %Linearity < 5% good; 5%-10% marginal; > 10% poor.
- Any level whose bias t-test is significant needs attention first.
Reading the charts
Bias vs reference / bias by level
What to observe: Whether the fitted line is flat and the confidence band contains 0; the pattern of per-level bias across the range.
How to judge: Points close to 0, a flat fitted line and a band containing 0 indicate good linearity; a rising or falling pattern indicates a slope, and a U-shape indicates non-linearity.
Bias points at every level lie close to 0, the fitted line is approximately horizontal with a slope close to 0, and the confidence band contains 0 throughout. Bias is therefore both small and stable across the range, and the gage is equally accurate at low and high range.
If bias increases or decreases monotonically with the reference, or is positive at both ends and negative in the middle in a U-shape, linearity is inadequate. The direction and magnitude of the bias then vary with the range, so a single bias correction cannot cover the whole range; segmented calibration, or repair or replacement of the gage, is required.
- 1. Bias vs reference: points should lie close to the 0 line and the fitted line should be flat; the band should contain the 0 line.
- 2. Bias by level: examine the pattern; a rising or falling trend indicates a slope, and a U or inverted-U shape usually indicates non-linearity (check the residuals).
- 3. Residuals: should scatter randomly about 0. A clear curve (positive, negative, positive) indicates a non-linear term; a single linear correction is then insufficient.
Improvement
- Multi-point calibration of the whole gage instead of a single point;
- Build a correction curve or lookup table applied automatically;
- Replace worn probes, guides or sensors;
- Control temperature; thermal expansion is a common source of linearity error;
- Narrow the range actually used and guarantee accuracy only within it.
交叉型 GR&RCrossed GR&R
什么时候用
当每个零件均可由每位操作者重复测量时,采用交叉型设计。这是使用最广泛的 GR&R 方案,也是客户审核中最常被要求的项目。
标准做法
| 要素 | 要求 |
|---|---|
| 零件数 m | 常用 10(范围 2–20)。样本必须覆盖过程变差,不得只选取合格品 |
| 操作者 o | 2–3 名日常操作者(范围 1–6) |
| 轮次 r | 2 或 3 次(建议 3 次,重复性估计更稳定) |
| 盲测 | 零件随机编号;操作者不知道所测零件编号,也看不到上一次的读数 |
| Attribute / Attribute Gage R&R | 计数型 / 属性量具分析,判定结果为类别的测量系统分析(AIAG MSA 第4版 第三章) |
| 有效性 Effectiveness | 与公认基准相比判定正确的比例 |
| 漏判率 False-negative rate | 基准为 NG 却被判成 OK 的比例,可接受上限 2% |
| 误报率 False-alarm rate | 基准为 OK 却被判成 NG 的比例,可接受上限 5% |
| Po / Pe | 实际一致率 / 偶然一致率;κ 由两者之差归一化得到 |
| Cohen’s κ | 两名评价人之间扣除偶然一致后的一致性 |
| 加权 κw | 等级资料的加权 Kappa,按等级距离施加惩罚(线性 / 二次) |
| Fleiss’ κ | 适用于多名评判者、每人判定次数相同情形的一致性指标 |
| d′ / c | 信号探测的辨别力与判据位置;d′ > 1 尚可、> 2 良好、> 3 优秀;c 为负表示标准偏松(漏判风险高),c 为正表示偏严(误报风险高) |
| X50 | 附录C 解析法(概率单位分析 probit)中 50% 接受概率对应的基准值,应尽量贴近限值 |
| 标准样件 Standard sample | 经多方签认、用于统一判定尺度的实物基准,是属性分析的前提 |
| 顺序 | 程序给出随机顺序清单,应严格按清单执行 |
指标含义与公式
| 指标 | 含义 | 公式 |
|---|---|---|
| EV | 重复性(设备变差):同一人同一零件多次测量的散布 | EV = R̄ × K1,K1 = 1/d2*(n=r, g=m·o) |
| AV | 再现性(操作者变差):不同操作者均值的差异 | AV = √max(0, (X̄diff×K2)² − EV²/(m·r)),K2 = 1/d2*(n=o, g=1) |
| GR&R | 量具总变差 | GR&R = √(EV² + AV²) |
| PV | 零件变差 | PV = Rp × K3,K3 = 1/d2*(n=m, g=1) |
| TV | 总变差 | TV = √(GR&R² + PV²) |
| %GRR | 量具变差占总变差的比例(核心指标) | %GRR = GR&R / TV × 100% |
| NDC | 数据分级数 | NDC = 1.41 × PV / GRR |
| 常数 | 用于 | n(子组大小) | g(子组数) |
|---|---|---|---|
| K1 | EV = R̄ × K1 | r(每个零件×操作者单元内的重复次数) | m·o(零件 × 操作者单元数) |
| K2 | AV(由操作者均值的极差估计) | o(操作者数) | 1 |
| K3 | PV = Rp × K3 | m(零件数) | 1 |
判定
| %GRR | 结论 | 处置 |
|---|---|---|
| < 10% | 合格 | 可继续使用,按周期复评 |
| 10% ~ 30% | 有条件接受 | 取决于应用:非关键特性或过程监控可用;关键特性使用前应先改进 |
| > 30% | 不合格 | 必须改进后复评 |
| NDC < 5 | 分辨力不足 | %GRR 会失真,应先解决分辨率或取样范围 |
六合一图逐图详解
① 极差 R 图
观察内容:各(零件×操作者)单元内极差的大小及其分布。
判定方法:各点应在同一水平带内围绕 R̄ 平稳波动;个别点显著偏高表示该次重复性失控(读数错误或装夹不当),应查明原因而不应直接剔除。
R 图与 Xbar 图的判读方向相反:R 图希望点落在控制限内(重复性受控);Xbar 图则希望零件均值点落在控制限外(说明量具能分辨零件差异),但操作者均值不应系统性偏移。
各(零件×操作者)单元的极差均处于控制限之内,围绕 R̄ 平稳波动且带宽一致。这表明同一零件重复测量的极差主要由量具的随机误差决定,重复性 EV 较小;测量方法的一致性与量具分辨力均满足要求。
极差图出现两类失控特征。其一个别极差显著高于其余各点,多由单次读数错误、装夹不良或零件表面缺陷造成,属单次异常;其二极差点持续偏高、或带宽随测量次序增大,多由操作手法不稳定或量具磨损造成,属系统性重复性不良。前者应核查该次测量过程,后者需重新培训或维修量具。两类情况均会增大 EV,并进而推高 %GRR。
② 均值 Xbar 图
观察内容:各子组均值沿随机测量顺序的分散程度,以及多数点是否超出 CL / UCL / LCL 控制限。
判定方法:Xbar 图把 10 零件 × 3 操作者按随机测量顺序排成 30 个子组,绘成一条均值折线并加控制限。多数子组均值点位于控制限之外,表示零件变差大于量具误差,量具有足够分辨力(有利);若多数点落在控制限内,表示零件变差过小或分辨力不足,NDC 可能不达标。若点列出现明显趋势或周期,则怀疑测量顺序、环境或量具漂移带来系统性影响。再现性(AV)及操作者差异应结合③交互作用图与方差分量综合判断。
各子组均值沿随机测量顺序明显散开,且多数点位于控制限之外,表明零件之间的差异大于量具误差,量具能够分辨零件。点列无趋势或周期,说明随机化执行正常。再现性(AV)大小应结合③交互作用图与方差分量综合判断。
均值图出现两类不良形态。其一多数子组均值落入控制限之内,表明量具无法分辨零件差异,通常源于分辨力不足或取样零件变差过窄;其二点列呈现上升、下降或周期性趋势,表明测量顺序、环境或量具存在系统性漂移。前者应通过 NDC 与分辨力分析确认,后者应核查随机化执行与量具稳定性。
③ 交互作用图
观察内容:三条操作者折线是否近似平行。
判定方法:近似平行表示操作者效应稳定、无显著交互;某条折线明显交叉或分叉表示存在操作者×零件交互,应重点核查。
三条操作者折线近似平行,仅在零件变化处同步升降,表明零件效应对各操作者一致,操作者与零件之间不存在交互作用。操作者之间的差异因此可用统一的修正量描述,管理上较为简单。
若某条折线在个别零件处交叉、分叉或明显偏离,则表明存在操作者×零件交互作用,通常源于该零件的装夹要求较高,或某位操作者的手法与该零件不匹配。此时仅依据整体 GR&R 不足以定位问题,应按操作者与零件的组合逐一核查,并统一作业指导书、增设定位夹具或安排针对性培训。
④ 变差分量图
观察内容:GR&R(红)与 PV(绿)分量的高度对比,以及 %Study Var 数值。
判定方法:PV 明显高于 GR&R 表示总体可接受;GR&R 分量越大、%GRR 越高,测量系统越不适用(10% 与 30% 参考线)。
GR&R 分量明显低于 PV 分量,%GRR 处于 10% 以内且 %PV 较高,表明总变差主要来自零件本身,量具误差占比较小。该量具适用于产品合格判定与过程控制。
若 GR&R 分量高于 PV 分量、%GRR 超过 30%,则量具误差已超过零件本身的真实差异,测量数据不足以区分合格与不合格产品,据此作出的判定、SPC 结论与过程能力分析均不可靠。应先改进量具或测量方法,再重新评价。
⑤ 按操作者分布
观察内容:三名操作者的测量点云是否重叠。
判定方法:三组点云高度重叠表示再现性良好(AV 较小);某操作者点云整体偏移或分离表示再现性不良,应统一方法并培训。
三位操作者的测量点云高度重叠,中心位于相近水平,离散程度相当,表明操作者之间既无系统性偏移,波动幅度也相近。再现性满足要求,该量具可由多名操作者共同使用。
若某一操作者的点云整体偏移或明显更为分散,属再现性不良。点云整体偏移多为读数习惯性偏差,如未归零、观测角度不同或夹持力度不同;点云更为分散多为手法不稳定。前者可通过校准与读数规范解决,后者需通过手法标准化并配置限位装置或夹具。
⑥ 按零件分布
观察内容:每个零件的测量点是否形成明显分开的簇。
判定方法:零件簇清晰分层且互不重叠表示分辨力良好、能够区分零件(NDC ≥ 5);各零件点云连成一片表示分辨力不足或取样范围过窄。
每个零件的测量点各成一簇,簇与簇之间清晰分开,且簇间跨度明显大于簇内宽度,表明量具能够可靠区分并量化零件差异,NDC≥5,适用于 SPC 与过程能力分析。
若各零件的点云混为一体、无法分辨成簇,或簇之间大量交叠,则表明分辨力不足,10:1 规则不满足。常见原因包括量具刻度过粗,或过程变差本身过小;此时测得的数据主要反映量具噪声而非零件的真实差异,SPC 失去意义。应选用刻度更细、分辨力更高的量具,或扩大取样范围。
改进方向
- 重复性(EV)主导 → 量具分辨率与校准、装夹/夹具刚性、测量力/速度一致性、环境(温度、振动、照明)、测头磨损。
- 再现性(AV)主导 → 编制作业指导书并严格执行、操作者培训与资格认定、统一读数规则与判定标准、改用数字量具/自动测量。
- %PV 偏低 → 提示取样可能未覆盖过程变差:PV 被人为压低,%GRR 随之被高估,应重新取样。注意:AIAG 未对 %PV 规定阈值;取样是否覆盖过程变差,应依据零件选取策略(跨批次、跨时段随机抽取)判断,最终判定仍以 %GRR 与 NDC 为准。
When to use
The crossed design is used whenever every part can be measured repeatedly by every operator. It is the most widely used GR&R design and the one most frequently required in customer audits.
Standard procedure
| Element | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Parts m | 10 typical (range 2-20). Must span the process variation; do not select conforming parts only |
| Operators o | 2-3 regular operators (range 1-6) |
| Trials r | 2 or 3 (3 gives a more stable estimate of repeatability) |
| Blind | Parts are randomly labelled; operators do not know which part they measure nor their previous reading |
| Order | Follow the randomized list generated by the program |
Metrics and formulas
| Metric | Meaning | Formula |
|---|---|---|
| EV | Repeatability (equipment variation): spread of repeated measures by one operator on one part | EV = Rbar × K1, K1 = 1/d2*(n=r, g=m·o) |
| AV | Reproducibility (appraiser variation): spread between operator averages | AV = √max(0, (Xdiff×K2)² − EV²/(m·r)), K2 = 1/d2*(n=o, g=1) |
| GR&R | Total gage variation | GR&R = √(EV² + AV²) |
| PV | Part-to-part variation | PV = Rp × K3, K3 = 1/d2*(n=m, g=1) |
| TV | Total variation | TV = √(GR&R² + PV²) |
| %GRR | Share of gage variation in total variation (the principal metric) | %GRR = GR&R / TV × 100% |
| NDC | Number of distinct categories | NDC = 1.41 × PV / GRR |
| Constant | Used for | n (subgroup size) | g (number of subgroups) |
|---|---|---|---|
| K1 | EV = Rbar × K1 | r (readings within each part×operator cell) | m·o (part × operator cells) |
| K2 | AV (from the range of operator averages) | o (operators) | 1 |
| K3 | PV = Rp × K3 | m (parts) | 1 |
Acceptance
| %GRR | Conclusion | Action |
|---|---|---|
| < 10% | Acceptable | Retain the gage; re-evaluate periodically |
| 10%-30% | Conditionally acceptable | Depends on the application: acceptable for non-critical characteristics or process monitoring; improve before use on critical characteristics |
| > 30% | Not acceptable | Improve and re-evaluate before use |
| NDC < 5 | Discrimination insufficient | %GRR is distorted; resolve resolution or sampling range first |
Chart-by-chart walkthrough of the six-in-one
1. Range (R) chart
What to observe: The magnitude and distribution of the range within each part-by-operator cell.
How to judge: Points should sit on one level band fluctuating steadily about Rbar. A single markedly high point means that reading lost control (misread or poor fixturing) and should be investigated rather than simply removed.
The R and Xbar charts are read in opposite directions: on the R chart points should fall inside the control limits (repeatability in control); on the Xbar chart the part means should fall outside the limits (the gage resolves real part differences), while operator means must not be systematically offset.
All ranges within each part x operator cell fall inside the control limits and fluctuate steadily about Rbar with a consistent band width. The range of repeated readings on the same part is therefore governed mainly by the random error of the gage, and repeatability (EV) is small; both the consistency of the method and the resolution of the gage are adequate.
Two out-of-control patterns are typical. First, a single range markedly higher than the others, usually caused by a misread, poor fixturing or a surface defect on that part, which is a one-off event. Second, ranges that remain high or a band that widens over time, usually caused by unstable technique or gage wear, which is a systematic repeatability problem. The first calls for a review of that measurement; the second calls for retraining or gage repair. Both increase EV and, in turn, raise %GRR.
2. Xbar chart
What to observe: The spread of subgroup means along the random run order, and whether most points fall outside the CL / UCL / LCL control limits.
How to judge: The Xbar chart arranges 10 parts × 3 operators into 30 subgroups in random run order, plots a single mean line, and adds control limits. Most subgroup means outside the limits indicate that part variation dominates gage error and the gage has enough discrimination (favourable). Most points inside the limits indicate insufficient part variation or discrimination, and NDC may fail. An obvious trend or cycle suggests a systematic effect from run order, environment or gage drift. Reproducibility (AV) and operator differences should be judged together with the Interaction plot and the variance components.
Subgroup means are clearly separated along the random run order and most points lie outside the control limits, indicating that part-to-part differences exceed the gage error and that the gage can discriminate between parts. The points show no trend or cycle, confirming that randomisation was carried out correctly. Reproducibility (AV) should be judged together with the Interaction plot and the variance components.
Two poor patterns are typical. First, most subgroup means fall inside the control limits, which indicates that the gage cannot discriminate between parts, usually because of insufficient resolution or too narrow a range of sampled parts. Second, the points show an upward, downward or cyclic trend, which indicates a systematic drift in run order, environment or gage stability. The first should be confirmed by an NDC and resolution study; the second calls for a review of randomisation and gage stability.
3. Interaction plot
What to observe: Whether the three operator lines are approximately parallel.
How to judge: Approximately parallel lines indicate a stable operator effect with no significant interaction; a line that crosses or diverges markedly indicates an operator-by-part interaction requiring investigation.
The three operator lines are approximately parallel, rising and falling together only where the parts change, indicating that the part effect is consistent across operators and that no operator-by-part interaction is present. Differences between operators can therefore be described by a single correction, which simplifies control.
Where a line crosses, diverges or departs markedly at one or two parts, an operator-by-part interaction is present. It usually arises because that part is difficult to fixture, or because the method of one operator does not suit that part. The overall GR&R alone is then insufficient to locate the problem; the operator-part combinations should be reviewed individually, the work instruction standardised, a locating fixture added, or targeted training arranged.
4. Variation components
What to observe: The height contrast between the GR&R (red) and PV (green) components, and the %Study Var values.
How to judge: A PV clearly taller than GR&R indicates acceptable overall performance; the larger the GR&R component and the higher %GRR, the less suitable the system (10% and 30% reference lines).
The GR&R component is clearly smaller than the PV component, with %GRR within 10% and %PV relatively high, indicating that total variation comes mainly from the parts and that gage error accounts for only a small share. The gage is suitable for product acceptance and process control.
Where the GR&R component exceeds PV and %GRR is above 30%, gage error is larger than the real part-to-part differences. The data are then insufficient to separate conforming from nonconforming product, and any acceptance decision, SPC conclusion or capability study based on them is unreliable. The gage or the measurement method must be improved before the study is repeated.
5. Spread by operator
What to observe: Whether the three operator clouds overlap.
How to judge: Closely overlapping clouds indicate good reproducibility (small AV); a cloud shifted as a whole or clearly separated indicates poor reproducibility and calls for a unified method and training.
The three operator clouds overlap closely, their centres lie at similar levels and their spreads are comparable, indicating neither a systematic offset between operators nor a difference in variation. Reproducibility is adequate and the gage may be shared among operators.
Where one operator cloud is shifted as a whole, or is clearly wider, reproducibility is inadequate. A shift is usually a habitual reading bias, such as failure to zero, a different viewing angle or a different clamping force; a wider spread is usually unsteady technique. The first is addressed by calibration and reading rules, the second by standardising the method and providing stops or fixtures.
6. Spread by part
What to observe: Whether each part forms a clearly separated cluster.
How to judge: Clearly separated clusters indicate good discrimination and the ability to tell parts apart (NDC >= 5); merged point clouds indicate insufficient discrimination or too narrow a sampling range.
Each part forms its own cluster, the clusters are clearly separated and the span between clusters is markedly greater than the width within them, indicating that the gage can reliably rank and quantify part differences, with NDC at or above 5. The gage is suitable for SPC and capability analysis.
Where the parts merge into a single cloud, no clusters can be distinguished, or the clusters overlap heavily, discrimination is inadequate and the 10:1 rule is not met. The usual causes are too coarse a scale or too small a process variation. The data then consist mainly of gage noise rather than real part differences, so SPC is meaningless. A finer scale or a higher-resolution gage should be used, or the sampling range widened.
Where to improve
- Repeatability (EV) dominant: gage resolution and calibration, fixturing rigidity, consistent measuring force and speed, environment (temperature, vibration, lighting), probe wear.
- Reproducibility (AV) dominant: establish and enforce a work instruction, train and qualify operators, standardise reading and decision rules, move to digital or automated measurement.
- %PV low: a hint that the sample may not span the process variation — PV is artificially depressed and %GRR is overstated; re-sample. Note: AIAG sets no %PV threshold; whether the sample spans the process must be judged from the part-selection strategy (random draws across lots and time windows). The verdict remains %GRR and NDC.
嵌套型 GR&RNested GR&R
什么时候用
当零件无法被所有操作者重复测量时使用:破坏性试验(拉伸、焊接强度、盐雾)、装夹一次只能测一次、测量会改变零件状态、或零件在工序间流动不可回溯。此时为每位操作者分配各自独立的一批零件,零件嵌套于操作者内部。
与交叉型的区别
| 对比项 | 交叉型 | 嵌套型 |
|---|---|---|
| 零件 | 同一批零件被所有操作者测量 | 每位操作者一套独立零件 |
| 能否分离交互作用 | 可以 | 不能(与再现性混杂) |
| 零件变差 PV 来源 | 零件均值的极差 Rp | 各操作者内部零件均值极差的平均 R̄p |
| 结果倾向 | 标准(均值-极差法) | 以 ANOVA 为准,避免传统法对 %GRR 的系统性高估 |
| 样本量压力 | 10×3×3 = 90 次 | 每人 8~10 件 × 2~3 次,总量更大 |
计算公式(嵌套方差分析 ANOVA)
本程序采用嵌套方差分析(三层随机效应模型:操作者 → 零件(嵌套于操作者)→ 重复)分解方差分量,这是 AIAG 与 Minitab 在嵌套设计下推荐的方法:
- 平方和:SS_O = m·r·Σ(操作者均值−总均值)²;SS_P = r·ΣΣ(零件均值−操作者均值)²;SS_E = ΣΣΣ(观测−零件均值)²
- 均方:MS_O=SS_O/(o−1),MS_P=SS_P/[o(m−1)],MS_E=SS_E/[o·m(r−1)]
- 方差分量:σ²_E = MS_E;σ²_P = (MS_P−MS_E)/r;σ²_O = (MS_O−MS_P)/(m·r)(负值截断为 0)
- 研究变差(6σ 口径):EV = 6σ_E,AV = 6σ_O,PV = 6σ_P,GR&R = 6√(σ²_E+σ²_O)
- %GRR = GRR/TV×100,TV = 6√(σ²_E+σ²_O+σ²_P),NDC = 1.41·PV/GRR
- F 检验:F_O = MS_O/MS_P(操作者效应),F_P = MS_P/MS_E(零件效应),p < α 表示该分量显著
- 符号约定:m = 每位操作者的零件数(不是总零件数),o = 操作者数,总零件数 = o × m;r = 每个零件的重复次数。
关键前提
六合一图逐图详解(嵌套型)
① 极差 R 图
观察内容:各(零件×操作者)单元内极差的大小及其分布。
判定方法:各点应在同一水平带内围绕 R̄ 平稳波动;个别点显著偏高表示该次重复性失控(读数错误或装夹不当),应查明原因而不应直接剔除。
各(零件×操作者)单元的极差均处于控制限之内,围绕 R̄ 平稳波动且带宽一致。这表明同一零件重复测量的极差主要由量具的随机误差决定,重复性 EV 较小;测量方法的一致性与量具分辨力均满足要求。
极差图出现两类失控特征。其一个别极差显著高于其余各点,多由单次读数错误、装夹不良或零件表面缺陷造成,属单次异常;其二极差点持续偏高、或带宽随测量次序增大,多由操作手法不稳定或量具磨损造成,属系统性重复性不良。前者应核查该次测量过程,后者需重新培训或维修量具。两类情况均会增大 EV,并进而推高 %GRR。
② 均值 Xbar 图
观察内容:各子组均值沿随机测量顺序的分散程度,以及多数点是否超出 CL / UCL / LCL 控制限。
判定方法:Xbar 图把 10 零件 × 3 操作者按随机测量顺序排成 30 个子组,绘成一条均值折线并加控制限。多数子组均值点位于控制限之外,表示零件变差大于量具误差,量具有足够分辨力(有利);若多数点落在控制限内,表示零件变差过小或分辨力不足,NDC 可能不达标。若点列出现明显趋势或周期,则怀疑测量顺序、环境或量具漂移带来系统性影响。再现性(AV)及操作者差异应结合③交互作用图与方差分量综合判断。
各子组均值沿随机测量顺序明显散开,且多数点位于控制限之外,表明零件之间的差异大于量具误差,量具能够分辨零件。点列无趋势或周期,说明随机化执行正常。再现性(AV)大小应结合③交互作用图与方差分量综合判断。
均值图出现两类不良形态。其一多数子组均值落入控制限之内,表明量具无法分辨零件差异,通常源于分辨力不足或取样零件变差过窄;其二点列呈现上升、下降或周期性趋势,表明测量顺序、环境或量具存在系统性漂移。前者应通过 NDC 与分辨力分析确认,后者应核查随机化执行与量具稳定性。
③ 交互作用图
观察内容:各操作者所属零件(零件不跨操作者)的均值折线是否处于相近水平,段内波动是否一致。
判定方法:嵌套型下零件归属唯一,操作者×零件交互无法分离,折线不跨操作者相连,因此不能按交叉型的方式判读交互作用(但可比较各区段的波动形态与整体水平)。具体看两点:各操作者区间内的波动形态是否相近;是否存在某一操作者的零件均值整体偏高或偏低。
三名操作者各自所测零件的均值处于相近水平,各段内部的波动幅度相当,段与段之间没有明显整体落差,表明操作者之间不存在明显的系统性差异。注意:嵌套型下零件不跨操作者,折线彼此不相连,不能据此判断交互作用。
若某一操作者所属零件的均值整体明显高于或低于其他操作者,则提示该操作者存在系统性偏差(嵌套型下该偏差与零件批次效应混杂,无法分离)。应核查取样是否严格随机、量具校准状态与该操作者的作业方法,并通过统一作业指导书、培训与增设定位夹具降低差异。整体 GR&R 偏高时,还应结合随机化取样方案复核零件批次效应。
④ 变差分量图
观察内容:GR&R(红)与 PV(绿)分量的高度对比,以及 %Study Var 数值。
判定方法:PV 明显高于 GR&R 表示总体可接受;GR&R 分量越大、%GRR 越高,测量系统越不适用(10% 与 30% 参考线)。
GR&R 分量明显低于 PV 分量,%GRR 处于 10% 以内且 %PV 较高,表明总变差主要来自零件本身,量具误差占比较小。该量具适用于产品合格判定与过程控制。
若 GR&R 分量高于 PV 分量、%GRR 超过 30%,则量具误差已超过零件本身的真实差异,测量数据不足以区分合格与不合格产品,据此作出的判定、SPC 结论与过程能力分析均不可靠。应先改进量具或测量方法,再重新评价。
⑤ 按操作者分布
观察内容:三名操作者的测量点云是否重叠。
判定方法:三组点云高度重叠表示再现性良好(AV 较小);某操作者点云整体偏移或分离表示再现性不良,应统一方法并培训。
三位操作者的测量点云高度重叠,中心位于相近水平,离散程度相当,表明操作者之间既无系统性偏移,波动幅度也相近。再现性满足要求,该量具可由多名操作者共同使用。
若某一操作者的点云整体偏移或明显更为分散,属再现性不良。点云整体偏移多为读数习惯性偏差,如未归零、观测角度不同或夹持力度不同;点云更为分散多为手法不稳定。前者可通过校准与读数规范解决,后者需通过手法标准化并配置限位装置或夹具。
⑥ 按零件分布
观察内容:每个零件的测量点是否形成明显分开的簇。
判定方法:零件簇清晰分层且互不重叠表示分辨力良好、能够区分零件(NDC ≥ 5);各零件点云连成一片表示分辨力不足或取样范围过窄。
每个零件的测量点各成一簇,簇与簇之间清晰分开,且簇间跨度明显大于簇内宽度,表明量具能够可靠区分并量化零件差异,NDC≥5,适用于 SPC 与过程能力分析。
若各零件的点云混为一体、无法分辨成簇,或簇之间大量交叠,则表明分辨力不足,10:1 规则不满足。常见原因包括量具刻度过粗,或过程变差本身过小;此时测得的数据主要反映量具噪声而非零件的真实差异,SPC 失去意义。应选用刻度更细、分辨力更高的量具,或扩大取样范围。
判定与改进
判定阈值与交叉型完全相同。改进时应注意:嵌套型下操作者差异与零件批次差异无法分离,因此降低 AV 除依靠培训与作业指导书外,更应确保取样分配严格随机;必要时增加每名操作者的零件数 m。
When to use
Use it when parts cannot be measured by all operators: destructive testing (tensile, weld strength, salt spray), one-shot fixturing, measurement that alters the part, or parts that cannot be traced back between operations. Each operator receives a distinct batch of parts, so parts are nested within operator.
Differences from the crossed design
| Aspect | Crossed | Nested |
|---|---|---|
| Parts | The same parts are measured by all operators | Each operator receives a separate batch |
| Interaction separable | Yes | No (confounded with reproducibility) |
| Source of PV | Range of part averages Rp | Average of within-operator part-average ranges Rbar_p |
| Tendency | Standard (average-and-range) | ANOVA-based; avoids the systematic overstatement of %GRR inherent in the traditional method |
| Sample effort | 10×3×3 = 90 readings | 8-10 parts per operator × 2-3 trials; larger total |
Formulas (Nested ANOVA)
This tool uses nested ANOVA (a three-level random-effects model: operator → part(nested) → repeat) to decompose the variance components; this is the method recommended by AIAG and Minitab for nested designs:
- Sums of squares: SS_O = m·r·Σ(operator mean − grand mean)²; SS_P = r·ΣΣ(part mean − operator mean)²; SS_E = ΣΣΣ(reading − part mean)²
- Mean squares: MS_O=SS_O/(o−1), MS_P=SS_P/[o(m−1)], MS_E=SS_E/[o·m(r−1)]
- Variance components: σ²_E = MS_E; σ²_P = (MS_P−MS_E)/r; σ²_O = (MS_O−MS_P)/(m·r) (negative floored to 0)
- Study variation (6σ): EV = 6σ_E, AV = 6σ_O, PV = 6σ_P, GR&R = 6√(σ²_E+σ²_O)
- %GRR = GR&R/TV×100, TV = 6√(σ²_E+σ²_O+σ²_P), NDC = 1.41·PV/GRR
- F tests: F_O = MS_O/MS_P (operator effect), F_P = MS_P/MS_E (part effect); p < α means significant
- Notation: m = parts per operator (not the total number of parts), o = operators, total parts = o × m; r = repeated readings per part.
Most frequently violated assumption
Chart-by-chart walkthrough of the six-in-one (nested)
1. Range (R) chart
What to observe: The magnitude and distribution of the range within each part-by-operator cell.
How to judge: Points should sit on one level band fluctuating steadily about Rbar. A single markedly high point means that reading lost control (misread or poor fixturing) and should be investigated rather than simply removed.
All ranges within each part x operator cell fall inside the control limits and fluctuate steadily about Rbar with a consistent band width. The range of repeated readings on the same part is therefore governed mainly by the random error of the gage, and repeatability (EV) is small; both the consistency of the method and the resolution of the gage are adequate.
Two out-of-control patterns are typical. First, a single range markedly higher than the others, usually caused by a misread, poor fixturing or a surface defect on that part, which is a one-off event. Second, ranges that remain high or a band that widens over time, usually caused by unstable technique or gage wear, which is a systematic repeatability problem. The first calls for a review of that measurement; the second calls for retraining or gage repair. Both increase EV and, in turn, raise %GRR.
2. Xbar chart
What to observe: The spread of subgroup means along the random run order, and whether most points fall outside the CL / UCL / LCL control limits.
How to judge: The Xbar chart arranges 10 parts × 3 operators into 30 subgroups in random run order, plots a single mean line, and adds control limits. Most subgroup means outside the limits indicate that part variation dominates gage error and the gage has enough discrimination (favourable). Most points inside the limits indicate insufficient part variation or discrimination, and NDC may fail. An obvious trend or cycle suggests a systematic effect from run order, environment or gage drift. Reproducibility (AV) and operator differences should be judged together with the Interaction plot and the variance components.
Subgroup means are clearly separated along the random run order and most points lie outside the control limits, indicating that part-to-part differences exceed the gage error and that the gage can discriminate between parts. The points show no trend or cycle, confirming that randomisation was carried out correctly. Reproducibility (AV) should be judged together with the Interaction plot and the variance components.
Two poor patterns are typical. First, most subgroup means fall inside the control limits, which indicates that the gage cannot discriminate between parts, usually because of insufficient resolution or too narrow a range of sampled parts. Second, the points show an upward, downward or cyclic trend, which indicates a systematic drift in run order, environment or gage stability. The first should be confirmed by an NDC and resolution study; the second calls for a review of randomisation and gage stability.
3. Interaction plot
What to observe: Whether the part-mean lines of each operator (parts are NOT shared between operators) sit at a similar level, and whether the scatter within each segment is comparable.
How to judge: In a nested design every part belongs to one operator only, so the operator-by-part interaction cannot be separated; the lines are not connected across operators and must NOT be read for parallelism in the crossed sense. They still allow two comparisons: whether the within-segment scatter is similar, and whether one operator's parts sit systematically higher or lower.
The part means measured by the three operators sit at a comparable level, the scatter within each segment is similar and there is no marked step between segments, so no obvious systematic operator difference is present. Note that in a nested design parts are not shared between operators and the segments are not connected, so this plot must not be read as an interaction test.
If the parts belonging to one operator are systematically higher or lower than those of the others, that operator shows a systematic offset (in a nested design it is confounded with the part-batch effect and cannot be separated). Check that sampling was strictly randomised, review the calibration state of the gage and that operator's method, and reduce the difference through a standard work instruction, training and locating fixtures. When the overall GR&R is high, also review the randomisation plan for a part-batch effect.
4. Variation components
What to observe: The height contrast between the GR&R (red) and PV (green) components, and the %Study Var values.
How to judge: A PV clearly taller than GR&R indicates acceptable overall performance; the larger the GR&R component and the higher %GRR, the less suitable the system (10% and 30% reference lines).
The GR&R component is clearly smaller than the PV component, with %GRR within 10% and %PV relatively high, indicating that total variation comes mainly from the parts and that gage error accounts for only a small share. The gage is suitable for product acceptance and process control.
Where the GR&R component exceeds PV and %GRR is above 30%, gage error is larger than the real part-to-part differences. The data are then insufficient to separate conforming from nonconforming product, and any acceptance decision, SPC conclusion or capability study based on them is unreliable. The gage or the measurement method must be improved before the study is repeated.
5. Spread by operator
What to observe: Whether the three operator clouds overlap.
How to judge: Closely overlapping clouds indicate good reproducibility (small AV); a cloud shifted as a whole or clearly separated indicates poor reproducibility and calls for a unified method and training.
The three operator clouds overlap closely, their centres lie at similar levels and their spreads are comparable, indicating neither a systematic offset between operators nor a difference in variation. Reproducibility is adequate and the gage may be shared among operators.
Where one operator cloud is shifted as a whole, or is clearly wider, reproducibility is inadequate. A shift is usually a habitual reading bias, such as failure to zero, a different viewing angle or a different clamping force; a wider spread is usually unsteady technique. The first is addressed by calibration and reading rules, the second by standardising the method and providing stops or fixtures.
6. Spread by part
What to observe: Whether each part forms a clearly separated cluster.
How to judge: Clearly separated clusters indicate good discrimination and the ability to tell parts apart (NDC >= 5); merged point clouds indicate insufficient discrimination or too narrow a sampling range.
Each part forms its own cluster, the clusters are clearly separated and the span between clusters is markedly greater than the width within them, indicating that the gage can reliably rank and quantify part differences, with NDC at or above 5. The gage is suitable for SPC and capability analysis.
Where the parts merge into a single cloud, no clusters can be distinguished, or the clusters overlap heavily, discrimination is inadequate and the 10:1 rule is not met. The usual causes are too coarse a scale or too small a process variation. The data then consist mainly of gage noise rather than real part differences, so SPC is meaningless. A finer scale or a higher-resolution gage should be used, or the sampling range widened.
Verdict and improvement
The thresholds are identical to those of the crossed design. In a nested design the operator effect and the batch effect cannot be separated; to reduce AV, in addition to training and standard operating procedures, the part assignment should be strictly random and, where necessary, the number of parts per operator m increased.
Cg / Cgk 量具能力Gage Capability
是什么
Type-1 量具能力研究(VDA 体系中常用,也广泛用于新量具验收):在单一测量点上,评价量具的重复性与偏倚相对于公差是否足够小。
做法与公式
- 取 1 个标准件/零件,参考值 Xref 已知;由同一名操作者在同一条件下重复测量 n ≥ 25 次(常用 25 或 50 次),测量过程中不重新装夹;研究范围取公差带的 20%(即 Cg 公式中的 0.2·T)。
- Cg = 0.2·T / (6·s):仅评价重复性,即 6s 占公差 20% 的比例。
- Cgk = (0.1·T − |x̄ − Xref|) / (3·s):同时考虑偏倚。
判定
- Cg ≥ 1.33 且 Cgk ≥ 1.33:合格(对应 6s ≤ 15% 公差)。两者必须同时满足:Cg 只反映重复性,Cgk 同时计入偏倚;任一低于 1.33 即不可接受。
- 1.0 ≤ 值 < 1.33:条件接受,需评估风险。
- < 1.0:不合格。
单值图(公差带内)
观察内容:所有点是否位于公差带内并围绕参考值随机波动;6s 宽度是否明显小于公差带的 20%。
判定方法:点位于公差带内并围绕参考值随机波动表示能力足够(Cg/Cgk ≥ 1.33);明显溢出或偏移表示能力不足。
读数全部位于公差带内,并围绕参考值小幅随机波动;Cg 与 Cgk 均不小于 1.33(理想不小于 1.67)。表明量具的重复性与准确度均足以满足该公差要求,波动带远小于公差带,可用于该工序的日常监控。
若读数带明显偏向公差带一侧、接近或超出公差界限,或波动带占据大部分公差,则表明量具能力不足。该公差对这把量具而言过紧,量具误差将消耗大部分公差余量。应改用精度更高、分辨力更好的量具,或与设计部门协商放宽公差。
图形判读
- ① 单值图:绿色带是公差带,中间浅绿区是 ±10% 公差(Cg 的几何含义区)。所有点应落在公差带内并围绕参考值随机波动。
- ② 直方图:分布的 6s 宽度应显著小于公差带的 20%。
Cg 本身不合格:量具精度等级不足,应更换量具或放宽公差。
Q:外观检验这类计数型判定,应该做 GR&R 吗?
A:不应。GR&R 适用于输出为连续数值的量具。计数型请用本工具的「计数型一致性分析」,其判定基准为有效性 ≥90%、漏判率 ≤2%、误报率 ≤5%、κ > 0.75。若把目视结果强行数值化再算 %GRR,会丢失判定信息并掩盖真实分歧。
Q:属性分析必须要有基准样件吗?没有怎么办?
A:计算漏判率与误报率必须有客观公认的基准(实验室分析、破坏性试验结果)。若无基准,只能计算评价人之间的一致性(③④⑤),无法回答「判得对不对」。此时应先建立一组经签认的标准样件,再重做研究;切勿用另一名评价人的判定充当基准,否则会把主观分歧记成客观错误。
What it is
A Type-1 gage study, widely used for gage acceptance: at a single measuring point, check whether the repeatability and bias of the gage are small enough relative to the tolerance.
Procedure and formulas
- Take one master/part with a known reference Xref; have the same operator measure it n ≥ 25 times (25 or 50 are common) under the same conditions, without re-fixturing; the study range is 20% of the tolerance band (the 0.2·T factor in Cg).
- Cg = 0.2·T / (6·s): repeatability only (the fraction of 20% of the tolerance occupied by 6s).
- Cgk = (0.1·T − |xbar − Xref|) / (3·s): includes bias.
Acceptance
- Cg ≥ 1.33 and Cgk ≥ 1.33: acceptable (equivalent to 6s ≤ 15% of the tolerance). Both must hold simultaneously: Cg reflects repeatability only, Cgk also includes bias; either below 1.33 is not acceptable.
- 1.0 ≤ value < 1.33: conditionally acceptable; assess the risk.
- < 1.0: not acceptable.
Run chart (inside the tolerance band)
What to observe: Whether all points lie inside the tolerance band and scatter about the reference; whether the 6s width is clearly below 20% of the band.
How to judge: Points inside the band scattering about the reference indicate adequate capability (Cg/Cgk >= 1.33); marked overflow or offset indicates inadequate capability.
All readings lie within the tolerance band and fluctuate only slightly about the reference, and both Cg and Cgk are at least 1.33 (ideally at least 1.67). The repeatability and accuracy of the gage are adequate for the tolerance, and the fluctuation band is far narrower than the tolerance band, so the gage may be used for routine monitoring of this process.
Where the band of readings is clearly shifted to one side of the tolerance, approaches or crosses the tolerance limits, or occupies most of the tolerance, the gage is not capable. The tolerance is too tight for this gage, whose error consumes most of the tolerance budget. A gage of higher accuracy and better resolution should be used, or the tolerance widened in agreement with design.
Reading the charts
- 1. Run chart: the green band is the tolerance; the lighter green centre zone is ±10% of the tolerance (the geometric meaning of Cg). All points should lie inside the tolerance band, scattered about the reference.
- 2. Histogram: the 6s width should be clearly below 20% of the tolerance band.
Cg itself fails: the accuracy class of the gage is insufficient; change the gage or review the tolerance.
Q: Should a visual / attribute judgement be studied with GR&R?
A: No. GR&R applies to gages that produce a continuous reading. Use the Attribute Agreement study instead, whose criteria are effectiveness ≥ 90%, false negatives ≤ 2%, false alarms ≤ 5% and kappa > 0.75. Coding a visual call as a number and computing %GRR discards the judgement itself and hides real disagreement.
Q: Is a reference sample mandatory for an attribute study?
A: False-negative and false-alarm rates require an objective reference (laboratory analysis, destructive test). Without one you can only compute inter-appraiser agreement, and cannot answer "were the calls right?". Establish a signed-off set of standard samples and repeat the study. Never use another appraiser’s call as the reference — that records subjective disagreement as objective error.
计数型一致性Attribute Agreement Analysis
前七个项目研究的都是计量型测量系统:量具给出的是连续数值(长度、重量、扭矩…),因此用 GR&R、偏倚、线性等方差分解方法评价。本章处理完全不同的另一类问题——计数型(属性)测量:量具给出的不是数值,而是类别判定,例如「合格 / 不合格」「外观 OK / NG」「缺陷等级 1/2/3/4」「通过 / 返修 / 报废」。
典型的计数型场景:外观检验(表面划痕、脏污、装配间隙目视)、通止规检验(卡尺/塞规/环规)、功能判定(点亮/不点亮、密封与否)、气味与色泽分级、焊接缺陷等级、来料判定(IQC 的 OK/NG)。这类判定的共同特点是:结果依赖人的读数规则,因此矛盾的主要来源不是量具分辨率,而是判定基准(什么算 NG)是否清晰、评价人是否 trained 同一套标准。
什么时候用
- 判定结果是类别而非数值:外观、间隙、缺陷等级、功能通断;
- 同一批样件由多人分别判定,需要量化「大家判得是否一样」;
- 需要量化漏判与误报:把 NG 判成 OK(漏判 escape)会让不良品流出,代价最高;把 OK 判成 NG(误报 false alarm)造成误废与成本;
- 客户或法规要求:IATF/IATF 16949、VDA 6.3 与多数汽车客户在「外观件」「特殊特性」上要求属性量具分析(Attribute Gage R&R);
- 申诉与赔偿争议:需要以数据说明「此判定系统是否可靠」。
标准做法(AIAG MSA 第4版 第三章)
| 要素 | 标准要求 | 本工具对应设置 | 说明 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 样件数 | 20 ~ 30 件,须覆盖整个判定区间 | 「样件数量」= 20(默认) | 样件必须跨越合格/不合格边界;全部合格或全部不合格时漏判率/误报率无定义,工具判为「不适用」 |
| 评价人数 | 3 ~ 5 人 | 「评价人数」= 3(默认) | 须覆盖实际使用该判定的全部班次/人员 |
| 重复次数 | 每人重复 2 ~ 3 次 | 「重复次数」= 2(默认) | 两次重复间的差异即「评价人内部一致性(重复性)」 |
| 判定基准 | 须有公认的标准样件或书面判定准则 | 基准判定逐件录入 | 无公认基准时无法计算漏判/误报,只能做评价人之间一致性 |
| 类别数 | 2(合格/NG);等级资料用 3 ~ 5 级 | 「类别数」= 2 或 4 | 等级资料必须用加权 Kappa,见 8.5 |
| 抽样规则 | 随机化、盲测 | 「随机种子」= 2026 | 样件顺序应随机,避免评价人形成规律性预期 |
指标含义与公式
工具输出 7 组指标,对应 AIAG MSA 第4版第三章的 7 张分析表。每一组指标都在回答一个不同的问题:
| 编号 | 指标组(界面小节) | 回答的问题 | 核心量 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ① | 研究要素表 | 计划与实际是否一致 | 件×人×次 计数 |
| ② | 与基准对比(风险分析法) | 判对了吗?漏了多少 NG?误报了多少? | 有效性、漏判数/率、误报数/率 |
| ③ | 评价人内部一致性 | 同一个人前后两次判得一样吗(重复性) | Cohen’s κ、列联表 |
| ④ | 评价人之间一致性 | 不同人之间判得一样吗(再现性) | 成对 Cohen’s κ |
| ⑤ | 全体一致性 | 把 6 个「评价人×次」当6 名评判者,整体一致性如何 | Fleiss’ κ |
| ⑥ | 加权一致性(等级资料) | 等级判定差一级与差两级,惩罚是否应不同 | 线性/二次加权 κw |
| ⑦ | 信号探测指标 | 「区分 NG 与 OK」的能力有多强、判据偏向哪一侧 | 命中率、误报率、d′、c |
· 有效性 = 正确判定数 ÷ 总判定数
· 漏判率 = 把 NG 判成 OK 的次数 ÷(基准为 NG 的次数)
· 误报率 = 把 OK 判成 NG 的次数 ÷(基准为 OK 的次数)
· Cohen’s κ = (Po − Pe) ÷ (1 − Pe),其中 Po 为实际一致率、Pe 为偶然一致率(由各评价人使用各等级的频率估计)
· Fleiss’ κ = (Po − Pe) ÷ (1 − Pe),其中 Pe 由全体评价人的等级频率汇总计算
· 辨别力 d′ = Φ⁻¹(命中率) − Φ⁻¹(误报率);判据 c = −½[Φ⁻¹(命中率) + Φ⁻¹(误报率)]
判定准则
| 指标 | 可接受 | 有条件接受 | 不可接受 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 有效性(与基准对比) | ≥ 90% | 80% ~ 90% | < 80% |
| 漏判率(NG 判成 OK) | ≤ 2% | 2% ~ 5% | > 5% |
| 误报率(OK 判成 NG) | ≤ 5% | 5% ~ 10% | > 10% |
| Cohen’s κ / 加权 κw / Fleiss’ κ | > 0.75 | 0.40 ~ 0.75 | < 0.40 |
七图逐图详解(工具内置演示数据)
以下 7 张图全部来自工具的内置演示数据(随机种子 2026):20 件样件 × 3 名评价人(A/B/C)× 每人 2 次,类别为合格/不合格,其中基准 NG 件 10、OK 件 10。图上每一个数值都与工具界面显示的表格逐位一致,不是另行复算的结果。
② 与基准对比:有效性 / 误报率 / 漏判率
观察内容:每位评价人的有效性(判对的比例),以及把 NG 判成 OK(漏判)、把 OK 判成 NG(误报)两种错误的分布。
读法:蓝色柱越高越好,须越过绿色虚线(90%);红色柱(误报)与橙色柱(漏判)越低越好,参考下方点线(5%)。三根柱中橙色(漏判)最具破坏性,应优先压到 0。
判读:评价人 A 有效性 100.00%,无漏判无误报;B 95.00%,误报 2 次(10.0%),漏判 0;C 97.50%,漏判 1 次(5.0%),误报 0。全体合计 120 次判定中 117 次正确,有效性 97.50%,漏判 1 次(1.67%)、误报 2 次(3.33%)。三人有效性均越过 90% 线。
风险提示:评价人 C 出现了 1 次漏判(5.00%,超过 2% 的可接受上限),评价人 B 的误报率 10.00% 已进入 5%~10% 的「有条件接受」区间。这两人是本例的改进对象。
③ + ④ 一致性全景:内部 κ 与成对 κ
观察内容:前 3 根蓝柱是评价人内部一致性(同一人两次重复判定之间的 κ,即重复性);后 3 根灰柱是评价人两两之间的 κ(即再现性)。6 根柱同用 0.75 / 0.40 两条判定线。
读法:内部与成对哪个更低,就该优先修哪个。内部低 → 是判定标准本身没吃透(同一个人前后不一);成对低 → 是不同人之间的标准没统一(需要培训与样件基准)。
判读:评价人 B 内部 κ = 0.798,落在 0.40~0.75 的「有条件接受」区间且明显低于同侪——同一个人前后两次判定都不稳定,属于标准理解问题,须重新培训并配标准样件。成对 κ 中 A–B 0.900、B–C 0.851,均为「可接受」但 B 参与的组合明显偏低。整体仍属「有条件接受」。
③ 内部一致性列联表(谁在错、错在哪)
观察内容:把某位评价人两次重复判定的结果摆成 2×2 表。对角线(左上→右下)为判定一致,非对角线为不一致。
读法:本例取评价人 A,两次 20 件判定全部落在对角线(10/10、10/10),故 κ = 1.000。表本身不判好坏,作用是定位错误方向:若右上格(判 OK 却判 NG)大 → 误报多,标准偏严;若左下格(判 NG 却判 OK)大 → 漏判多,标准偏松。
判读:评价人 A 的列联表为纯对角阵,说明其重复判定完全稳定。对照图 2,评价人 B 的 κ = 0.798 明显偏低,其列联表必有较大非对角元素,应调出该表确认是误报还是漏判方向。
⑦ 信号探测:命中率、误报率与 d′ / c
观察内容:上图为命中率(对 NG 件判对的比例)与误报率;下图为 d′(辨别力)与 c(判据位置)。
两个指标的分工:d′ 只看区分能力,与标准偏松偏严无关,越大越好(> 1 尚可、> 2 良好、> 3 优秀);c 只看判据偏向:c = 0 表示标准恰好在中间,c 为负说明标准偏松(倾向于把 NG 也判成 OK,漏判风险高),c 为正说明标准偏严(倾向误报)。二者必须分开读:d′ 高但 c 偏,是「会判但标准没对齐」。
判读:三人 d′ 分别为 3.92、3.24、3.60,均大于 3,说明「区分 NG 与 OK」的能力本身充足——问题不在看不清,而在标准。B 的 c = -0.339(偏负,标准偏松、倾向漏判),C 的 c = 0.158(偏正,标准偏严)。这正是「培训 + 标准样件」可解决的情形:能力够,缺的是共识。
属性量具分析(附录 C)概率图
什么时候用:当你手上没有 20 件已知基准的样件,只有「若干个已知基准值 Xt 的零件」时,可用 AIAG MSA 附录 C 的属性量具分析(解析法):对每个基准值 Xt 重复判定 m 次,得接受率 a/m,再经 probit 变换 z = Φ⁻¹(a/m) 做最小二乘直线拟合。
读法:点越贴近拟合线越好(R² 越接近 1,量具行为越像理论模型)。直线与 z = 0 的交点横坐标即 X50,代表「50% 接受概率」对应的基准值——它应当尽量贴近限值 USL。X50 落在 USL 左侧意味着量具在到达 USL 前就已开始偏向「拒绝」,整体偏保守;落在右侧则偏松。工具同时给出 X0.5 与 X99.5 两点,其差值用于反推重复性。
判读:本例拟合线 z = 5.37988 -537.988·Xt,R² = 0.9993(拟合极好),内部点数 K = 7(13 个基准点中仅 7 个落在 0 < a < m 的有效区间),数据跨度为全拒 2 点 / 全接 4 点 / 混合 7 点。X50 = 0.01000,与限值 0.010 完全重合,说明量具无偏(bias = -0.00000)。
属性量具分析(附录 C)性能曲线
观察内容:把拟合线换回概率空间,得到「基准值 → 被接受概率」的 S 形曲线,即量具性能曲线。红色虚线为限值 USL,紫色点为 X50 处的 50% 点。
读法:曲线应在 USL 附近穿过 50%——这是理想状态。曲线在 USL 左侧越早跌落,说明合格品越容易被判 NG(误报多、成本高);越晚跌落,则 NG 品越容易被放过(漏判多、风险高)。曲线越陡,说明量具分辨能力越强(对基准值变化敏感);平缓的曲线意味着「差一点点」也判不出区别,判定能力不足。
判读:本例 X50 与 USL 重合(偏倚 ≈ 0),但曲线过渡带极陡,在 Xt ≈ 0.008 ~ 0.012 的窄区间内完成从全接到全拒的跳变。工具据此算得重复性(未修正)0.00186、修正后 0.00172,换算为「重复性占公差比例」4433.2%,远超 GR&R 惯例中 30% 的不可接受线。结论:此量具偏倚合格但重复性完全不可接受——换言之判定基准本身是准的,但同一零件重复判定时结果不稳定,实务上必须用标准样件而非手感来判定。
⑥ 等级资料:非加权 κ vs 加权 κw
什么时候用:判定结果多于 2 个类别且有顺序时(缺陷等级 1/2/3/4、外观评分 优/良/合格/不合格)。此时非加权 κ 把「差 1 级」和「差 3 级」同等看待,会低估系统的一致性,因此必须改用加权 Kappa。
权函数:线性加权 w = 1 − |i − j| /(k − 1)(差 1 级轻罚、差越多罚越重);二次加权 w = 1 − (i − j)²/(k − 1)²(对小差异宽容、对大差异重罚)。工具对每一对评价人同时给出非加权、线性加权、二次加权三个值。
判读:本例非加权 κ = 0.941(A–B),而线性加权降至 0.912、二次加权降至 0.885。加权后数值下降,说明两人的分歧集中在相邻等级之间——「2 级还是 3 级」的边界最模糊。这比单看非加权 κ 更能指出改进方向:应补充「2/3 级分界」的实物标准样件,而非笼统要求「提高一致性」。另有一对评价人 κ = 1.000(完全一致),说明系统并非整体不可靠,问题集中在特定人员与特定边界。
典型案例(工具内置演示数据的完整解读)
第 1 步 看基准对比(②)。结论先落在有效性上:A 100.00%、B 95.00%、C 97.50%,合计 97.50%。三个人的点估计都越过 90%,说明大多数人能判对,问题不在标准完全缺失。
第 2 步 拆错误方向(②中的漏判/误报)。这一步决定改进优先级:B 的 2 次错误全是误报(把 OK 判成轻微/NG),误报率 10.00%,进入有条件区间;C 的 1 次错误是漏判(把 NG 判成 OK),漏判率 5.00%,超过 2% 的可接受上限。前者是「宁可错杀」,成本问题;后者是「放过不良」,是客户抱怨与退货风险,必须优先解决。
第 3 步 看一致性结构(③④⑤)。内部 κ:A 1.000、B 0.798、C 0.900;成对 κ:A–B 0.900、A–C 0.950、B–C 0.851;Fleiss’ κ = 0.900。B 的内部 κ 明显偏低,说明他本人前后两次就不一致——这不是班组间标准分歧,而是个人判定不稳定,培训应单独针对 B,而不是全员再培训一遍。
第 4 步 用信号探测定位病因(⑦)。三人 d′ 分别为 3.92、3.24、3.60,全部 > 3——区分能力充足,即他们都能敏锐地看出划痕有没有。再看 c:B 为 -0.339(负,标准偏松)、C 为 0.158(正,标准偏严)。结论明确:能力不缺,缺的是「多轻微算 NG」这条共识。
1. 为「轻微 / NG」边界补充 3 件实物标准样件并编号,明确「什么程度必须判 NG」,直接针对 c 偏负/偏正的成因;
2. 对评价人 B 做单独辅导:其内部 κ 已证明是个人稳定性问题;
3. 在作业指导书中加入光照条件与观察距离的规定(外观判定对照明极敏感,是 d′ 之外的隐性变差源);
4. 复做时增加样件至 30 件,重点观察漏判率是否降到 2%% 以内。
常见误区
| 误区 | 为什么错 / 正确做法 |
|---|---|
| 只看一致率 Po,不看 κ | Po 不扣除偶然一致。当评价人倾向只用一个类别时 Po 很高但毫无价值。必须用 κ(工具同时给出 Pe,可自行核对)。 |
| 把漏判与误报合并成「错误率」 | 两者代价差一个数量级。工具分列漏判率(≤2%)与误报率(≤5%),判定线不同,不可平均。 |
| 样件全部合格或全部不合格 | 此时漏判率或误报率的分母为 0,指标无定义。工具判为「不适用」且不参与最差判定——但这不代表系统没问题,而是本次研究无法证明它有问题,必须换用跨越边界的样件重做。 |
| 样件不跨越判定边界 | 全部靠近边界一侧时,评价人只需做简单二选一,κ 会虚高,掩盖实际存在的分歧。 |
| 等级资料用非加权 κ | 把「差 1 级」与「差 3 级」等同,会低估严重分歧。见 8.5 图 7 的实测对比。 |
| 不设公认基准却仍算漏判率 | 「基准」必须是客观认定的真值(如实验室化学分析、破坏性试验结果)。用另一个人判定当基准,等于把主观分歧记成客观错误。 |
| 把结果读成「量具好不好」 | 计数型研究主要评价判定系统与人员,而非量具硬件。要评价硬件仍需计量型 GR&R。 |
| 发现超差后只剔除「表现差的人」 | κ 普遍偏低通常说明判定标准未书面化。剔除人员只降低人员数,不消除根本原因,下次换人仍会重演。 |
改进方向
| 症状(看哪张图) | 根本原因 | 改进动作 |
|---|---|---|
| 内部 κ 低(③) | 判定标准未吃透、判据边界模糊 | 标准样件 + 书面准则 + 单人辅导;照明/距离/角度固定 |
| 成对 κ 低(④) | 班组间标准不一致、缺乏共同基准 | 跨班组联合评价会 + 标准样件共识会议 |
| d′ 高但 c 偏负(⑦) | 标准偏松,NG 易被放过 | 收紧判据、把 NG 样件排在样件序列中做阳性对照 |
| d′ 高但 c 偏正(⑦) | 标准偏严,成本与工效损失 | 分级放宽,明确「可接受外观」区间的样件 |
| 漏判率 > 2%(②) | NG 样件边界不清、照明不足 | 优先整改;漏判是本模块最高风险项 |
| 加权 κ 明显低于非加权 κ(⑥) | 分歧集中在特定等级边界 | 只针对该边界补标准样件,不必全面推翻标准 |
| 重复性占公差比例极高(附录C) | 判定重复性差、依赖手感 | 改用可自动判定的客观方法(影像测量、量规、传感器) |
The first seven projects cover variable (measurement) systems: the gage reports a continuous reading (length, weight, torque…), evaluated with GR&R, bias and linearity. This chapter handles the other class entirely — attribute systems, where the output is not a number but a category judgement: pass / fail, cosmetic OK / NG, defect grade 1–4, accept / rework / scrap.
Typical attribute applications: visual inspection (scratches, stains, assembly gaps), go/no-go gauging (plug gauges, ring gauges, calipers), functional pass/fail, colour or odour grading, weld defect classes, and incoming inspection (IQC OK/NG). What all of them share is that the result depends on a human reading rule. The dominant source of disagreement is therefore not gage resolution, but whether the acceptance criterion is written down and shared.
When to use it
- The output is a category, not a reading: appearance, gap, defect grade, functional go/no-go;
- Several people judge the same parts and you need to quantify how much they agree;
- You need to separate false negatives (NG called OK) from false positives (OK called NG), because their costs differ by an order of magnitude;
- Customer or regulation requires it: IATF 16949, VDA 6.3 and most automotive OEMs demand an attribute gage study for cosmetic parts and special characteristics;
- Claims and dispute resolution — you need data to show whether the judgement system is reliable.
Standard practice (AIAG MSA 4th ed., Ch. III)
| Element | Requirement | Setting in this tool | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parts | 20–30, spanning the whole decision range | Parts = 20 (default) | Parts must straddle the accept/reject boundary. If all parts are one class, false-negative / false-alarm rates are undefined and the tool reports them as not applicable |
| Appraisers | 3–5 | Appraisers = 3 (default) | Must cover every shift and person who applies the judgement |
| Trials | 2–3 per appraiser | Trials = 2 (default) | The trial-to-trial difference is the within-appraiser agreement (repeatability) |
| Reference | Requires agreed standard samples or a written criterion | Reference class entered per part | Without an objective reference, only inter-appraiser agreement can be computed |
| Categories | 2 (pass / fail); 3–5 for graded data | Categories = 2 or 4 | Graded data must use weighted kappa — see 8.5 |
| Randomisation | Randomised, blinded | Random seed = 2026 | Random order prevents appraisers from forming expectations |
Metrics and formulas
The tool reports seven metric groups, matching the seven analysis tables of AIAG MSA 4th ed. Ch. III. Each answers a different question.
| # | Metric group | Question answered | Key quantity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Study element table | Does the plan match what was actually done? | parts × appraisers × trials count |
| 2 | Agreement vs reference (risk analysis) | Were the calls right? How many NG escaped? How many false alarms? | effectiveness, false-negative / false-alarm |
| 3 | Within-appraiser agreement | Is the same appraiser consistent across trials? | Cohen’s kappa, cross-tabulation |
| 4 | Between-appraiser agreement | Do different appraisers agree with each other? | pairwise Cohen’s kappa |
| 5 | Overall agreement | Treating each appraiser×trial as a separate rater, how good is overall agreement? | Fleiss’ kappa |
| 6 | Weighted agreement (graded data) | Should a one-grade and a three-grade miss be penalised equally? | linear / quadratic weighted kappa |
| 7 | Signal detection | How well can NG be separated from OK, and is the criterion biased? | hit rate, false-alarm rate, d′, c |
· Effectiveness = correct judgements ÷ total judgements
· False-negative rate = NG judged OK ÷ (judgements on reference-NG parts)
· False-alarm rate = OK judged NG ÷ (judgements on reference-OK parts)
· Cohen’s kappa = (Po − Pe) ÷ (1 − Pe), where Po is observed agreement and Pe is chance agreement derived from each appraiser’s category frequencies
· Fleiss’ kappa = (Po − Pe) ÷ (1 − Pe), with Pe pooled across all raters
· Sensitivity d′ = Φ¹−¹(hit) − Φ¹−¹(false alarm); criterion c = −½[Φ¹−¹(hit) + Φ¹−¹(false alarm)]
Acceptance criteria
| Metric | Acceptable | Conditionally acceptable | Not acceptable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness vs reference | ≥ 90% | 80%–90% | < 80% |
| False-negative rate (NG called OK) | ≤ 2% | 2%–5% | > 5% |
| False-alarm rate (OK called NG) | ≤ 5% | 5%–10% | > 10% |
| Cohen’s kappa / weighted kappa / Fleiss’ kappa | > 0.75 | 0.40–0.75 | < 0.40 |
The seven figures, one by one (built-in demo data)
All seven figures below come from the tool’s built-in demo (random seed 2026): 20 parts × 3 appraisers (A/B/C) × 2 trials, two categories (pass / fail), with 10 reference-NG and 10 reference-OK parts. Every number on the figures matches the tool’s own result table digit for digit — nothing was recomputed separately.
Agreement vs reference: effectiveness, false alarms, false negatives
What to look at: each appraiser’s effectiveness, and how their errors split between calling NG "OK" (false negative) and calling OK "NG" (false alarm).
How to read it: taller blue is better and must clear the green 90% line; red (false alarm) and orange (false negative) should be as short as possible. Of the two error types, false negatives are the destructive ones — drive them to zero first.
Reading: appraiser A 100.00% effectiveness with no errors of either kind; B 95.00% with 2 false alarms (10.0%) and no false negatives; C 97.50% with 1 false negative (5.0%) and no false alarms. Pooled: 120 of 117 judgements correct, effectiveness 97.50%, false negatives 1 (1.67%), false alarms 2 (3.33%). All three clear the 90% line.
Risk flag: appraiser C recorded one false negative (5.00%, above the 2% acceptable limit) and appraiser B’s false-alarm rate of 10.00% falls in the 5–10% conditional band. These two are the improvement targets.
Agreement overview: within- and between-appraiser kappa
What to look at: the first three blue bars are within-appraiser kappa (repeatability). The three grey bars are between-appraiser kappa (reproducibility). Both use the same 0.75 and 0.40 decision lines.
How to read it: whichever of the two is lower is the one to fix first. Low within → the criterion itself is not understood (the same person disagrees with himself). Low between → the criterion is not shared across people (training and standard samples needed).
Reading: appraiser B’s within-appraiser kappa is 0.798, inside the 0.40–0.75 conditional band and clearly below peers — the same person is unstable across trials, which is a criterion-understanding problem requiring individual retraining and standard samples. Pairwise kappa: A–B 0.900, B–C 0.851. Overall: conditionally acceptable.
Within-appraiser cross-tabulation (who errs, and in which direction)
What to look at: an appraiser’s two trials arranged as a 2×2 table. The diagonal is agreement; off-diagonal cells are disagreements.
How to read it: the table itself is not a verdict — its job is to locate the error direction. A large upper-right cell (OK then NG) means excessive false alarms (criterion too strict); a large lower-left cell (NG then OK) means false negatives (criterion too loose).
Reading: appraiser A produced a pure diagonal matrix (10/10 and 10/10), i.e. kappa = 1.000. Compare with figure 2: appraiser B’s kappa of 0.798 is markedly lower, so his table must contain substantial off-diagonal counts — pull it up to see which direction they run.
Signal detection: hit rate, false alarms, d′ and c
What to look at: top panel — hit rate on NG parts versus false-alarm rate on OK parts. Bottom panel — d′ (sensitivity) and c (criterion position).
Why both are needed: d′ measures discrimination ability only, independent of how strict the criterion is; higher is better (> 1 acceptable, > 2 good, > 3 excellent). c measures criterion bias: c = 0 is centred, negative c means the criterion is loose and NG tends to slip through, positive c means it is strict. High d′ with an off-centre c means "can discriminate, but no shared standard".
Reading: d′ is 3.92, 3.24 and 3.60 — all above 3, so the ability to tell NG from OK is not the problem; the shared criterion is. B has c = -0.339 (loose, false-negative risk) and C has c = 0.158 (strict). This is precisely the situation that training plus standard samples resolves: the capability is there, the consensus is not.
Attribute gage analytic method (AIAG Appendix C): probability plot
When to use it: when you do not have 20 parts with known reference classes, but do have parts with known reference values Xt. Repeat the judgement m times at each Xt to obtain the acceptance rate a/m, apply the probit transform z = Φ¹−¹(a/m), and fit a straight line by least squares.
How to read it: the closer the points sit to the fitted line the better (R² near 1 means the gage behaves like the theoretical model). The x-intercept at z = 0 is X50, the reference value at which acceptance is 50% — it should lie as close to the specification limit as possible. An X50 to the left of the limit means the gage turns conservative before the limit; to the right means it is loose. The tool also reports X0.5 and X99.5, whose separation yields the repeatability estimate.
Reading: the fit is z = 5.37988 -537.988·Xt with R² = 0.9993 (excellent), K = 7 internal points (7 of the 13 reference levels fall inside 0 < a < m), spanning 2 all-reject, 4 all-accept and 7 mixed levels. X50 = 0.01000 coincides with the limit 0.010, so bias = -0.00000.
Attribute gage analytic method: gage performance curve
What to look at: the fitted line mapped back into probability space — the S-shaped gage performance curve. The red dashed line is the specification limit; the purple point is the 50% point at X50.
How to read it: ideally the curve crosses 50% at the limit. Falling early (left of the limit) means good parts are increasingly rejected — cost and false alarms. Falling late means defective parts escape — risk. A steep transition means high discrimination; a flat curve means the gage cannot resolve "slightly worse" from "slightly better" at all.
Reading: X50 coincides with the limit (bias ≈ 0), but the transition band is extremely steep: all-accept to all-reject happens within roughly Xt = 0.008–0.012. The tool derives repeatability 0.00186 (raw) and 0.00172 (corrected), i.e. 4433.2% of tolerance — far beyond the conventional 30% rejection limit. Conclusion: bias acceptable, repeatability not acceptable. In practice this gage can only be used against physical standard samples, never by eye.
Graded data: unweighted kappa versus weighted kappa
When to use it: when the outcome has more than two ordered categories (defect grades 1–4, cosmetic scores). Unweighted kappa treats a one-grade miss and a three-grade miss alike and therefore understates agreement, so weighted kappa must be used.
Weight functions: linear w = 1 − |i − j| / (k − 1) penalises proportionally to distance; quadratic w = 1 − (i − j)² / (k − 1)² is lenient for small gaps and strict for large ones. The tool reports unweighted, linear and quadratic values for every appraiser pair.
Reading: unweighted kappa for A–B is 0.941, dropping to 0.912 (linear) and 0.885 (quadratic). The drop under weighting shows the disagreements sit mostly between adjacent grades — the 2-versus-3 boundary is the fuzzy one. That is more actionable than the unweighted number alone: add physical samples that define the 2/3 boundary rather than issuing a blanket "improve agreement" instruction. One pair reaches kappa = 1.000, so the system is not broadly unreliable — the problem is concentrated on specific people and a specific boundary.
Worked example (built-in demo data, fully interpreted)
Step 1 — effectiveness against the reference. A 100.00%, B 95.00%, C 97.50%; pooled 97.50%. All three point estimates clear 90%, so the bulk of the judgement is right; the criterion is not missing altogether.
Step 2 — split the errors by direction. This sets the priority. B’s two errors are both false alarms (false-alarm rate 10.00%, conditional band); C’s single error is a false negative (false-negative rate 5.00%, above the 2% acceptable limit). The first is a cost problem; the second is a customer-escalation risk and must be fixed first.
Step 3 — read the agreement structure. Within-appraiser kappa: A 1.000, B 0.798, C 0.900. Between: A–B 0.900, A–C 0.950, B–C 0.851. Fleiss’ kappa = 0.900. B’s low within kappa means he disagrees with himself — this is not inter-shift disagreement but personal instability, so training should target B individually rather than retraining everyone.
Step 4 — locate the cause with signal detection. d′ is 3.92, 3.24, 3.60, all above 3 — everyone can see whether a scratch is there. But c is -0.339 for B (loose) and 0.158 for C (strict). The conclusion is unambiguous: capability is not the issue; a shared definition of "light enough to pass" is.
1. Add three numbered physical standard samples that define the "light / NG" boundary — this directly attacks the off-centre c values.
2. Coach appraiser B individually: his within-appraiser kappa shows the issue is personal stability, not group alignment.
3. Specify lighting and viewing distance in the work instruction; visual judgements are highly sensitive to illumination, an unmeasured variance source outside d′.
4. On re-run, increase to 30 parts and focus on bringing the false-negative rate below 2%%.
Common mistakes
| Mistake | Why it is wrong / what to do instead |
|---|---|
| Looking only at observed agreement Po | Po ignores chance agreement and stays high even when everyone uses a single category. Use kappa — the tool reports Pe so you can verify it. |
| Collapsing false negatives and false alarms into one "error rate" | Their costs differ by an order of magnitude. The tool judges them separately (2% versus 5% limits). |
| All parts passing, or all parts failing | One of the rate denominators becomes zero and the metric is undefined. The tool reports not applicable and excludes it — but that does not prove the system is sound, only that this study cannot demonstrate a problem. Re-run with parts spanning the boundary. |
| Parts not spanning the decision boundary | With all parts on one side, the judgement collapses to a trivial binary choice and kappa inflates, hiding real disagreement. |
| Unweighted kappa for graded data | Equating a one-grade and a three-grade miss understates severe disagreement. See figure 7. |
| Using another appraiser’s call as the "reference" | The reference must be objective (laboratory analysis, destructive test). Otherwise subjective disagreement is recorded as objective error. |
| Reading the result as "is the gage good?" | An attribute study mainly evaluates the judgement system and the people, not the hardware. For hardware, use variable GR&R. |
| Excluding the poor performer instead of fixing the cause | Low kappa across the board usually means the criterion was never written down. Removing people reduces headcount without removing the cause. |
Improvement directions
| Symptom (which figure) | Root cause | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Low within-appraiser kappa (fig. 3) | Criterion not internalised; boundary fuzzy | Standard samples, written criterion, individual coaching; fix lighting, distance and angle |
| Low between-appraiser kappa (fig. 4) | Shifts do not share a baseline | Cross-shift joint session plus agreed standard samples |
| High d′ with negative c (fig. 7) | Criterion too loose; NG escapes | Tighten the criterion; include NG parts in the sequence as positive controls |
| High d′ with positive c (fig. 7) | Criterion too strict; cost and cycle time | Grade the tolerance and define the acceptable cosmetic band with samples |
| False-negative rate > 2%% (fig. 2) | NG boundary unclear, insufficient lighting | Highest priority in this module |
| Weighted kappa well below unweighted (fig. 6 area / fig. 7) | Disagreement concentrated at one grade boundary | Add samples for that boundary only |
| Repeatability a huge share of tolerance (Appendix C) | Poor repeatability; judgement relies on feel | Move to an objective, automatable method (imaging, gauges, sensors) |
完整评价与报告Full Evaluation
不确定该做哪项研究、或客户审核需要完整评价时,按固定顺序一次做完: 分辨力 → 稳定性 → 偏倚 → 线性 → GR&R。 下表即 AIAG MSA 第 4 版推荐的完整评价汇总表;页面上方各研究的记录卡勾选后, 这里与侧栏的完成度会同步更新,可直接导出 CSV 进审核报告。
AIAG 判据速查
| 指标 | 可接受 | 有条件接受 | 不可接受 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 阈值 | 判定 | 阈值 | 判定 | 阈值 | 判定 | |
| %GRR | < 10% | 可接受 | 10%–30% | 有条件接受 | > 30% | 不可接受 |
| NDC | ≥ 5 | 可接受 | 3–5 | 边缘(建议改进) | < 3 | 不可接受 |
| Cg / Cgk | ≥ 1.33 | 可接受 | 1.00–1.33 | 有条件接受 | < 1.00 | 不可接受 |
| Kappa(一致性) | ≥ 0.75 | 可接受 | 0.60–0.75 | 有条件接受 | < 0.60 | 不可接受 |
| 有效率(一致性) | ≥ 90% | 可接受 | — | — | < 90% | 不可接受 |
延伸学习 · MSA 的知识、试算与数据采集分处三个形态,配套 SPC 做上游: