Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Treating measurement uncertainty in industrial conformity control

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Central European Journal of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Every conformity control method based on measurements is subject to uncertainty, which distorts the decision. In the traditional conformity control approaches, this uncertainty is an inherent part of the deviation of the observed characteristic; however, the distribution of the real product characteristic may differ from the distribution of measurement uncertainty, which obscures the real conformity or nonconformity. The specification and consideration of this uncertainty are particularly necessary if it is high and/or the consequences associated with the decision errors are severe. This paper studies the effects of the cost structure associated with the decision outcomes and the skewness and kurtosis of the measurement uncertainty distribution. The proposed method can specify when and how the measurement uncertainty should be taken into account to increase the expected profit associated with the decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AIAG (2010) Measurement system analysis, 4th edn. ASQ AIAG—The Automotive Industries Action Group, Southfield, MI

  • Albers W, Kallenberg W, Nurdiati S (2006) Data driven choice of control charts. J Stat Plan Inference 136(3):909–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML (2008a) Evaluation of measurement data—guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, JCGM 100:2008. Technical report, Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology

  • BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML (2008b) Evaluation of measurement data—supplement 1 to the ”guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement”—propagation of distributions using a monte carlo method. JCGM 101:2008. Technical report, Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology

  • BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML (2012) Evaluation of measurement data—the role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment. JCGM 106:2012. Technical report, Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology

  • BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML (1995) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Technical report, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

  • D’Agostini G (2004) Asymmetric uncertainties: sources, treatment and potential dangers. arXiv preprint arXiv:physics/0403086

  • Esseen CG (1956) A moment inequality with an application to the central limit theorem. Scand Actuar J 1956(2):160–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurachem (2007) Use of uncertainty information in compliance assessment. Technical report, Eurachem

  • Forbes AB (2006) Measurement uncertainty and optimized conformance assessment. Measurement 39(9):808–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heping P, Xiangqian J (2009) Evaluation and management procedure of measurement uncertainty in new generation geometrical product specification (gps). Measurement 42(5):653–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrador MA, González A (2004) Evaluation of measurement uncertainty in analytical assays by means of Monte-Carlo simulation. Talanta 64(2):415–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ILAC (1996) Guidelines on assessment and reporting of compliance with specification. ILAC-G8:1996. Technical report, International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation, Silverwater, Australia

  • ISO (1999) Sampling procedures for inspection by attributes—Part 1: Sampling schemes indexed by acceptance quality limit (AQL) for lot-by-lot inspection (ISO 2859-1:1999). Technical Report, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

  • Jones FE, Schoonover RM (2002) Handbook of mass measurement. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mielniczuk J (1986) Some asymptotic properties of kernel estimators of a density function in case of censored data. Ann Stat 14(2):766–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery DC (2012) Statistical quality control, 7th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlovčič F, Nastran J, Nedeljković D (2009) Determining the 95 probability distributions. In: XIX IMEKO world congress fundamental and applied metrology. September 6–11, 2009, Lisbon, Portugal. IMEKO, pp 2338–2342

  • Pendrill L (2014) Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making and conformity assessment. Metrologia 51(4):S206–S218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendrill LR (2008) Operating ’cost’ characteristics in sampling by variable and attribute. Accredit Qual Assur 13(11):619–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinovich SG (2006) Measurement errors and uncertainties, 3rd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rényi A (1953) On the theory of order statistics. Acta Math Hungar 4(3–4):191–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi G (2014) Measurement-based decisions. In: Measurement and probability, Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology. Springer, Netherlands, pp 237–251

  • Rossi GB, Crenna F (2006) A probabilistic approach to measurement-based decisions. Measurement 39(2):101–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling EG, Neubauer DV (2009) Acceptance Sampling in Quality Control, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Shevtsova I (2011) On the absolute constants in the berry-esseen type inequalities for identically distributed summands. arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.6554

  • Synek V (2006) Effect of insignificant bias and its uncertainty on the coverage probability of uncertainty intervals part 1. evaluation for a given value of the true bias. Talanta 70(5):1024–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Synek V (2007) Effect of insignificant bias and its uncertainty on the coverage probability of uncertainty intervals part 2. evaluation for a found insignificant experimental bias. Talanta 71(3):1304–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilbaste M, Slavin G, Saks O, Pihl V, Leito I (2010) Can coverage factor 2 be interpreted as an equivalent to 95% coverage level in uncertainty estimation? two case studies. Measurement 43(3):392–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Martens H-J (2002) Evaluation of uncertainty in measurements—problems and tools. Opt Lasers Eng 38(3):185–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Magyar Tudományos Akadémia (Bolyai Hungarian Post-Doctoral Fellowship).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Quantitative Methods, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary

    Zsolt T. Kosztyán, Csaba Hegedűs & Attila Katona

Authors
  1. Zsolt T. Kosztyán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Csaba Hegedűs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Attila Katona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zsolt T. Kosztyán.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kosztyán, Z.T., Hegedűs, C. & Katona, A. Treating measurement uncertainty in industrial conformity control. Cent Eur J Oper Res 25, 907–928 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-017-0469-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-017-0469-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation