4.7 Article

A comparison study of control charts for statistical monitoring of functional data

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 1575-1601

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207540802662888

关键词

quality; control chart; profile monitoring; functional data; PCA; regression; spatial statistic

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, University and Research of Italy (MIUR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The quality of products and processes is more and more often becoming related to functional data, which refer to information summarised in the form of profiles. The recent literature has pointed out that traditional control charting methods cannot be directly applied in these cases and new approaches for profile monitoring are required. While many different profile monitoring approaches have been proposed in the scientific literature, few comparison studies are available. This paper aims at filling this gap by comparing three representative profile monitoring approaches in different production scenarios. The performance comparison will allow us to select a specific approach in a given situation. The competitor approaches are chosen to represent different levels of complexity, as well as different types of modelling approaches. In particular, at a lower level of complexity, the 'location control chart' (where the upper and lower control limits are +/-K standard deviations from the sample mean at each profile location) is considered to be representative of industrial practice. At a higher complexity level, approaches based on combining a parametric model of functional data with multivariate and univariate control charting are considered. Within this second class, we analyse two different approaches. The first is based on regression and the second focuses on using principal component analysis for modelling functional data. A manufacturing reference case study is used throughout the paper, namely profiles measured on machined items subject to geometrical specification (roundness).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据