a,* b

10330
: gong_zax@hotmail.coma,*, napassavong.o@chula.ac.thb
ANSI/ASQ Z1.9







98.24
1.03 0.73
: , , ,

(ISSN: 1906-3636) 4 1
13 2555
3 2555
20 2555
Online at http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/
DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

Development of Cost Model of Variables Sampling

Plans for Comparing Capability of Process with Multiple
Parameters
Itsara Rukpuaka,* and Napassavong Rojanarowanb
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330,
Thailand
E-mail: gong_zax@hotmail.coma,*, napassavong.o@chula.ac.thb
Abstract. The objective of this research is to develop a cost model of ANSI/ASQ Z1.9 variable sampling plan to
compare the capability of the process that is caused by multiple parameters and to guide the selection of
parameters that cause the greatest losses in manufacturing. Since most manufacturers focus on reducing
production costs, the parameter selection is determined by the value of the loss of the capability of the
processes that affect the cost of quality. The cost model composes of internal failure cost and external failure
cost. Moreover, the out of target cost was also considered. The cost model has been developed to be used in
valuation of losses of bar soap manufacturing. The parameters that control the quality of the soap are weight,
moisture and free fatty acid content. The results of the comparison of the loss value showed that the soap
weight is a parameter that should be improved first, followed by free fatty acid and moisture, causing loss of
98.24 percent, 1.03 percent and 0.73 percent respectively.
Keywords: Comparing capability of process, cost model, variables sampling plans, cost of quality.

Engineering Journal (ISSN: 1906-3636) Volume 4 Issue 1

Received 13 July 2012
Accepted 3 September 2012
Published 20 November 2012
Online at http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/
DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

1.




(Statistical Process Control,
SPC) Cp Cpk [1, 2]
Cpk
Cpk
Cpk



Taguchi [3] (Taguchis loss function)

[4]



(Acceptance Sampling Plans)
(Lot)
[5]
(Attribute data)
(Variable data)

(Variables Sampling Plans)

[5-7]

[5, 7]
ANSI/ASQ Z1.9
ANSI/ASQ Z1.4

ANSI/ASQ Z1.9 [5]

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

19

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

(Cost of Quality) [8]

ANSI/ASQ Z1.9



(Out of Specifications Costs)
(Failure Costs) (Out
of Target Cost)

2.

ANSI/ASQ Z1.9 ( 4)
(Weight) (%Moisture)
(%FFA)


1. ANSI/ASQ Z1.9
2. ( ) (SD)
(p)
3.
(p) ANSI/ASQ Z1.9
4.

(In-Control Condition)
(Normal Distribution) [2]

20

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

3.
ANSI/ASQ Z1.9
ANSI/ASQ Z1.9
2 I ( k)
II ( M)
[5, 7] M

3.1.

ANSI/ASQ Z1.9 (n)

(Maximum Percent Defective: M)
(n) (Code Letter) (N) (
II) 15.4 [5] M
(Acceptance Quality Limit: AQL)
15.10 15.11 [5]

3.2.

(p) (QL, QU) QL

QU 15.12 [5]
[5]
( SD )
x LSL
QL
(1)
SD

USL x
QU
(2)
SD
LSL = ; USL = ; = ; SD =

M (p)
(M)
[5, 7]
: > M
+ > M

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

21

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

4.
ANSI/ASQ Z1.9
ANSI/ASQ Z1.9

1. (Failure Cost)
[9] 2 [8]
1.1
(Internal Failure Cost)
(1-Pa) (Cost of Lot
Rejection: Cr) (Scrap Cost)
(Rework Cost)
(Cost of Scrap Destruction)
1.2
(External Failure Cost)
(Pa)
(Cost of Lot Acceptance: Ca)
(Rescreen Cost)
(Penalty Cost) (Cost of
Product Replacement)
2. (Out of Target Cost: COT)

4.1.

TCi = i (/)
Cai = i (/)
Cri = i (/)
COT i = i (/)
CS i = i (/)
CRW i = i (/)
CSD i = i (/)
CRS i = i (/)
CPC i = i (/)
CPR i = i (/)

22

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

CSC i = i
(/)
CRWC i = i (/)
CSDC i = i (/)
Cp i = i (/)
CTP = (/)
cRW i = i (/)
cSD i = i (/)
cRS i = i (/)
cPC i = i (/)
cPR i = i (/)
cRWC i = i (/)
cSDC i = i (/)
Mi = i (/)
N = (/)
NC = (/)
Pai = i
Pi = i
PS i = i
PRW i = i
PPC i = i
PSn i = i
PRWn i = i
= i
Ti = i

4.2.

1

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

23

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

1
i :
TCi = Cri + COT i
(3)
i :
TCi = Cri + Cai + COT i
(4)
3 4
( 4.3) ( 4.4)
( 4.5) ( 4.3 4.4)
(Pa)
Pa Interpolation 15.13 [5]

() (Cr)
(COT) (Output)

(Ca)

4.3.
(1- Pa)
(Cr)
i :
Cri = CS i + CRW i + CSD i
(5)
Cr
1. :


24

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

CS i = (1-Pai)(N x Pi x PS i)(CP i)
(6)
2. :

CRW i = (1-Pai)(N x Pi x PRW i) (cRW i)
(7)
3. :

CSD i = (1-Pai)(N x Pi x PS i) (cSD i)
(8)

4.4.

(PPC)
100%

4.4.1.

Pa
(Outgoing Quality) [7] :
n<<N
PPC i = Pai(Pi)
(9)
i =

4.4.2.

(Ca)
i :
Cai = CRS i + CPC i + CPR i + CSC i + CRWC i+ CSDC i
(10)
Ca (Customer Complaints)
1. :


CRS i = PPC ix NC x cRS i
(11)
2. :

CPC i = PPC i x NC x cPC i

(12)
4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

25

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

3. :


CPR i = PPC i x NC x cPR i
(13)

[9]
4.
CSC i = PPC i x NC x PSn i x CTP
(14)
5.
CRWC i = PPC i x NC x PRWn i x cRWC i
(15)
6.
CSDC i = PPC i x NC x PSn i x cSDC i
(16)

4.5.
Taguchis Loss Function
[3]

2

2 ()
(T)
()
(Specifications)

26

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

A 100 10 (T= 100 ) 100
20 A1 ( 2)
A1 A2

COT i = (i Ti) N M i
(17)
:

A3

(LSL)




[4]

5.
ANSI/ASQ Z1.9

1
2
3
2 101,115
/
(< 80.3 ) (> 80.7 )
(1-Pa)

(Rework Cost) 7 (P)
(PRW = (PLSL/P) =1)
CRW = (1-Pa)(N)(cRW) (Cr)

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

27

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

1 1

18,000 /
12 / (216,000 /)
1. (Weight)
2. (%Moisture)
3. (%FFA)
ANSI/ASQ Z1.9
Weight: (II), AQL1% , n = 100, M = 2.18%
%Moisture: (II), AQL1.5% , n = 100, M = 3.06%
%FFA: (II), AQL1.5% , n = 100, M = 3.06%

3 R
3

(%Moisture) (%FFA)
3 756 /
1,058 / 2
Pa = 1

28

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

2 1

Cri

(/)

CRW

CRW = (1-Pa)(N)(cRW )
CRW = 0.2731 x 18,000 x 0.75

3,686.85

CRS

CRS = PPC x NC x cRS

CRS = 0.0124 x 18,000 x 4

892.8

CPC

CPC = PPC x NC x cPC

CPC = 0.0124 x 18,000 x 10

2,232

CPR

CPR = PPC x NC x cPR

CPR = 0.0124 x 18,000 x 6

1,339.2

CRWC

CRWC = PPC x NC x PRW x cRWC

CRWC = 0.0124 x18,000 x 1x 0.75

167.4

Ca

COT

COT = ( T) N M
108
COT = (80.74-80.5)(18,000)(0.025)

USL= 80.7
LSL = 80.3
Target = 80.5
TC = Cr + Ca + COT
= 80.74 , SD= 0.21
TC = 8,426.25 (/)
N = NC = 18,000 /
Pi = PLSL= 0.0171, PRW= 1
Pa = 0.7269
1-Pa = 0.2731
PPC = 0.0124
Cp = 0.32, Cpk= -0.06
cRW = 0.75 /
TC = 8,426.25 (/)
cRS = 4 /
x 21(/)
c = 10 /
TC = 101,115 (/) PC
cPR = 6 /
cRWC = 0.75 /
M weight = 0.025 /

(Cp= 0.32 Cpk = - 0.06)

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

29

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

3
1

%Moisture

%FFA

USL= 14%, LSL= 10%

Target = 12%
= 12.07%
SD = 0.398
COT
Cp = 1.68, Cpk = 1.62
P = 0.0000
Pa = 1
M = 0.05 /%Moisture
USL= 1.7%, LSL= 0.7%
Target = 1.2%
= 1.27%, SD = 0.124
Cp = 1.34, Cpk = 1.15
COT
P = 0.00018
Pa = 1
M = 0.07 /%FFA

COT = ( T) N M
COT = (12.07-12)(18,000)(0.05)

COT = ( T) N M
COT = (1.27-1.2)(18,000)(0.07)

(/)

63

TC = 63 (/)
x 12 (/)
TC = 756 (/)

88.20

TC = 88.20(/)
x 12 (/)
TC = 1,058 (/)

1
2
3

(/
)
101,115
1,058
756

(%)
98.24
1.03
0.73

6.




30

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

DOI:10.4186/ejth.2012.4.1.17

ANSI/ASQ Z1.9
(weight)
(%FFA) (%Moisture)
98.24 1.03 0.73

[1] H. T. Chen and K. S. Chen, Advanced multi-process performance analysis chart for an entire product
with joint confidence regions, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 2141-2159,
2007.
[2] W. L. Pearn, Y. C. Chang, and C. W. Wu, Multiprocess performance analysis chart based on process
loss indices, International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 429-435, 2006.
[3] G. Taguchi, Whit is experimental design for quality, in Taguchi Methods Design of Experiments, Quality
Engineering Series, vol. 4. USA: American Supplier Institute, 1993, pp. 1-10.
[4] ,
, For Quality Management, 177, 26-29, 2555.
[5] , -, ,
1, : (-), 2550, 633-670.
[6] C. W. Wu, M. Aslam, and C. H. Jun, Variables sampling inspection scheme for resubmitted lot based on
the process capability index Cpk, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 217, pp. 560-566,
2012.
[7] D. C. Montgomery, Other acceptance-sampling techniques, in Introduction to Statistical Process
Control, 5th ed. USA: John Wiley & Son, 2005, pp. 688-700.
[8] , , , 3, :
, 2553, 151-158.
[9] S. Sirikhumhom, and N. Rojanarowan, Development of Cost-Based Acceptance Sampling Plans for MultiStage Inspection Processes, in International Conference of Business and Industrial Research, 2010.

4 1, ISSN 1906-3636 (http://www.ej.eng.chula.ac.th/)

31