Cummins ISB LTMS2 This package contains charts and figures that supplement the LTMS2 template put forth by Statistics Task Group. LTMS2 Template document.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
General Cost Center Planning
Advertisements

IIIG LTMS V2 Review. LTMS V2 Review Data Summary: – Includes 285 Chartable reference oil results from all test laboratories – Most recent chartable reference.
Supplemental Figure 1 A No. at risk T T T
World Health Statistics. Life Expectancy* The following charts are based on Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy (DALE) for which the World Health Organization.
4-1 Statistical Inference The field of statistical inference consists of those methods used to make decisions or draw conclusions about a population.
Office 365 & Charts. Office 365 Features Latest versions of Office suites No tension of loosing your work Access from anywhere and on any device Share.
Formulae For each severity adjustment entity, X i = i th test result in original units in end-of-test order T i = i th test result in appropriate units.
1 The Second Addition of LTMS (Theoretical Sneak Peak for the VG) VG SP: May 2010.
JACTest Monitoring Center Test Monitoring Center Report to the Mack Test Surveillance Panel June 17, 2002 Montreal.
Enhancements to IIIG LTMS By: Todd Dvorak
C13 LTMS discussion Follow-up to San Antonio O&H meeting Elisa Santos November 29 th, 2005.
© 2011 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved. ISB Data Review Presented to Cummins Surveillance Panel Addendum 3 Cam/Tappet Interactions Jim Rutherford.
Date of download: 6/24/2016 Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. From: Association Between Time to Initiation of Adjuvant.
LTMS Task Force Statistics Subgroup Report to Joint LTMS Open Forum San Antonio, TX May 11, 2010.
General Cost Center Planning
Service Contract with Periodic Billing
LTMS Version 2 Sequence VID Example
Volume 355, Issue 9212, Pages (April 2000)
Yard Management for Inbound Deliveries
Formulae For each severity adjustment entity,
MSA / Gage Capability (GR&R)
Lean Warehouse Management
Calibration Status of the art – the first tTrig calculated from data
LTMS Task Force Statistics Subgroup Report to Joint LTMS Open Forum
Punch items for LTMS Version 2 Surveillance Panel Consideration
Volume 22, Issue 16, Pages (August 2012)
Chapter 9 Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 7th Edition by Douglas C. Montgomery. Copyright (c) 2012  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Asset Acquisition through Direct Capitalization
Human Wellbeing Index.
Cervical disc arthroplasty for symptomatic cervical disc disease: Traditional and Bayesian meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis  Shun-Li Kan,
Weighted Interval Scheduling
Types of Information Systems
LESSON 6-3 Extending Financial Statement Information on a Work Sheet
Unit 1 Review.
Types of Information Systems
Revision of Error Margins Agenda point 9 (point for decision)
Dr. N. S. Harding Chemical Engineering 477 March 8, 2018
Weighted Interval Scheduling
Volume 80, Issue 4, Pages (November 2013)
Summary of Slide Content
Revision of Error Margins Agenda point 3.4 (point for decision)
Lab Mass and Weight Page 51 – November 1, 2017.
Figure 1. Randomization and dropouts.
External model validation of binary clinical risk prediction models in cardiovascular and thoracic surgery  Graeme L. Hickey, PhD, Eugene H. Blackstone,
Presentation transcript:

Cummins ISB LTMS2 This package contains charts and figures that supplement the LTMS2 template put forth by Statistics Task Group. LTMS2 Template document name: “Cummins ISB LTMS Version 2 Proposal.docx” The LTMS2 template contains possible values for the various chart limits. Page 2 of this document summarizes these values. Pages 3-11 show the control charts and alarms of LTMS1 and proposed LTMS2. Pages 12-14 contain some comments on Excessive Influence calculations and alarms in LTMS1&2. Art Andrews November 30, 2010

LTMS1 LTMS2 lambda=0.2 No Fast start Fast start with three reference oil results No e alarms Level 1 e limit = 1.351 (e.g. hardware change) Level 2 e limit = 1.734 (reduced interval) Level 3 e limit = 2.066 (immediate re-reference) No Z alarms Level 1 Z limit = 0 (dead band) ACWS Level 2 Z limit = +/- 1.5 (immediate re-reference) ATWL Level 2 Z limit = +2/-1.5 (immediate re-reference) Shewhart severity (Y) limit = +/-1.96 (immediate re-reference) No Y Alarms No Excessive Influence calculation Excessive Influence calculation; uses Level 3 e limit as its tolerance No extended reference intervals Ee = 1.05 Ez = 0.66 (eligible for +20% and +40% reference intervals)

focus: Shewhart severity (Y) alarms LTMS1 focus: Shewhart severity (Y) alarms

ACSW

ATWL

LTMS2 focus: e alarms

ACSW

ATWL

Comparisons LTMS1 / LTMS2 focus: number of reference interval extensions and reductions

Reference Interval Extensions and Reductions 37 total reference oil results 12 were calibration tests 37-12=25 tests were eligible for extended intervals 9/25 (36%) received extended intervals in LTMS2 7/37 (18.9%) failed in LTMS2

RMSE overall for all labs RMSE by lab

Comments on Excessive Influence and Alarms Appendix Comments on Excessive Influence and Alarms

Tappet weight loss severity charts showing Excessive Influence calculation Excessive Influence calculation adjusted Y results from green filled circle to cyan circle.

The dotted line is Level 2 e alarm, and solid line Level 3 e alarm Tappet weight loss precision charts showing e These are examples of results that trigger alarms in LTMS2 but not LTMS1. While their Y results are not excessive, their e values are high (~1.1) because they outlie the lab’s Z baseline (~-0.9). This is an example of a result that would trigger alarm in either LTMS1 and LTMS2. It has a high Y value that exceeds LTMS1 limit. It has a high e value because its result (~2.8) outlies the lab’s Z baseline (~0.1). The dotted line is Level 2 e alarm, and solid line Level 3 e alarm