15 views

Uploaded by Ndomadu

Acceptance Sampling Application in Process Design and Control

- ct02
- Biostat - BStat 102 Stat Data Collection
- PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS
- A study on Training Program for employees
- Statistical Quality Control
- 07ASCW001
- BRM-Chapter 11.pptx
- Final Revision Research Methodology
- 2.3_Distributions+分布
- Nursing Research Exam
- Acceptance Sampling
- ch09-Statistical Sampling For Testing Control Procedures.doc
- BarbieroManzi 2014 Package SunterSampling
- Method of Testing Grouts
- Untitled
- ISM-1_021512_Final (002)
- Calculator Shortcuts for AP
- Sample Size Estimation in Prevalence Studies.pdf
- description: tags: rV195-ResearchInstit-0412
- cmpe107 notes

You are on page 1of 21

CHAPTER 10

Acceptance Sampling

Introduction and Sampling Plans Solved Problems Objectives

Operating Characteristic Curve Discussion and Review Questions

After completing this supple-

Determining Single Sampling Plans Internet Exercises

ment, you should be able to:

Average Quality of Inspected Lots and Problems

Mini-Case: CRYSTAL S.A.

LO1 Explain acceptance

a Related Sampling Plan

sampling, and contrast

single and multiple

sampling plans.

LO2 Construct and use an

operating characteristic

curve.

LO3 Determine single sampling

plans.

LO4 Determine the average

quality of inspected lots,

and determine a related

sampling plan.

10S-2 PART 4 Quality

acceptance sampling A Acceptance sampling is a form of inspection that is applied to lots or batches of items either

form of inspection applied to before or after a process. In the majority of cases, the lots represent incoming purchased items or

lots or batches of items final products awaiting shipment to warehouses or customers. The purpose of acceptance sam-

before or after a process to pling is to decide whether a lot satisfies predetermined standards (specifications) for important

judge conformance with characteristics of the item. Lots that satisfy these standards are passed or accepted; those that do not

predetermined standards are rejected. Rejected lots may be subjected to 100 percent inspection or, if purchased, returned to

(specifications). the supplier for credit or replacement (especially if destructive testing is involved).

The alternatives to acceptance sampling are (1) 100 percent inspection and (2) no inspection.

The decision of which one to choose is mainly based on the costs. A measure used is the break-

even point BEP:1

BEP = cost of inspection per item/cost of later repair due to a defective item

Let P = estimated proportion of defectives in the lot. The decision is:

If P ≈ BEP, use acceptance sampling.

If P > BEP, use 100% inspection.

If P < BEP but P is variable, use acceptance sampling.

If P < BEP and P is stable, don’t inspect.

Example 1 A car assembly plant receives headlight assemblies from a new supplier in lots of 1,000 units. The

cost of testing a headlight assembly at receiving is $.10. If a defective headlight is assembled on a

car, the cost of disruption to the assembly line to replace the headlight is $100. It is expected that

only .05 percent to .1 percent of the headlight assemblies will be defective. Determine the extent

of inspection for the headlight assemblies.

SOLUTION BEP = $.1/$100 = .001. Because .001 ≈ .05% to .1%, perform acceptance sampling on the lot.

Noneconomic factors favouring acceptance sampling vs. 100 percent inspection include:

1. Time is short.

2. Destructive testing is required.

3. Fatigue or boredom caused by inspecting large numbers of items leads to inspection errors.

Acceptance sampling can be applied to both attribute (counts) and variable (measurements)

inspection. However, inspection of attributes is more widely used, so the discussion here focuses

exclusively on attribute acceptance sampling.

sampling plan A plan that A key element of acceptance sampling is the sampling plan. Given the lot size N, a sampling

specifies the sample size, the plan specifies the sample size, n; the number of samples to be taken; and the acceptance/rejection

number of samples, and the criteria. A variety of sampling plans can be used. Some plans call for selection of a single sample,

acceptance/rejection criteria. and others call for two or more samples, depending on the nature of the plan. The following

briefly describes some of the different types of sampling plans. In this supplement, our focus will

be on single sampling, which is the simplest and most commonly used.

Single-Sampling Plans

In this plan, one random sample is drawn from the lot, and every item in the sample is examined

and classified as either “good” or “defective.” If the sample contains fewer than or equal to a speci-

fied number of defectives, c, the lot is accepted; otherwise (if it contains more than c defectives) the

lot is rejected.

1

A. V. Feigenbaum, Total Quality Control, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991, pp. 504–05.

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 10 Acceptance Sampling 10S-3

Double-Sampling Plans

A double-sampling plan allows taking a second sample if the results of the initial sample are inconclu-

sive. Specifically, if the quality of the initial sample is high, the lot can be accepted without the need for

a second sample. If the quality in the initial sample is poor, the lot is rejected (and there is also no need

for a second sample). For results between those two cases, a second sample is then taken and the

items inspected, after which the lot is either accepted or rejected on the basis of the evidence obtained

from both samples. A double-sampling plan specifies the size of the initial sample, the accept/reject

criteria for the initial sample, the size of the second sample, and a single overall acceptance number.

With a double-sampling plan, two values are specified for the number of defective items in

the first sample, a lower level, c1, and an upper level, r1. For instance, the lower level might be

two defectives and the upper level might be five defectives. If the number of defective items in

the first sample is fewer than or equal to the lower value (i.e., c1), the lot is judged to be good and

sampling is terminated. Conversely, if the number of defectives in the first sample equals or

exceeds the upper value (i.e., r1), the lot is rejected. If the number of defectives in the first sample

falls somewhere in between c1 and r1, a second sample is taken and the total number of defec-

tives in both samples is compared to a third value, c2. For example, c2 might be six. If the com-

bined number of defectives does not exceed c2, the lot is accepted; otherwise, the lot is rejected.

Multiple-Sampling Plans

A multiple-sampling plan is similar to a double-sampling plan except that more than two samples

may be required. A multiple sampling plan will specify each sample size and two limits for each

sample. If, for any sample, the cumulative number of defectives found (i.e., those in the present

sample plus those found in all previous samples) is greater than or equal to the upper limit speci-

fied for that sample, sampling is terminated and the lot is rejected. If the cumulative number of

defectives is less than or equal to the lower limit, sampling is terminated and the lot is accepted. If

the cumulative number of defectives is between the two limits, another sample is taken. The pro-

cess continues until the lot is either accepted or rejected.

The cost and time required for inspection often dictate the type of sampling plan used. The two

primary considerations are the number of samples needed and the total number of observations

required. Single-sampling plans involve only a single sample, but the sample size is larger than the

expected number of observations taken under double- or multiple-sampling plans. This stems

from the fact that a very good or very poor quality lot will often be accepted or rejected early in a

multiple-sampling plan, and sampling can be terminated. Where the cost to obtain a sample is

relatively high compared with the cost to analyze the observations, a single-sampling plan is more

desirable. Conversely, where item inspection costs are relatively high, such as destructive testing,

it may be better to use double or multiple sampling because the average number of items inspected

per lot will be lower. Another advantage of a single sampling plan is that it is easy to understand

and use. For this reason, we will focus on single sampling in this supplement.

An important feature of a sampling plan is how it discriminates between lots of high and low quality.

The ability of a sampling plan to discriminate between lots of high and low quality is described by

its operating characteristic (OC) curve. A typical OC curve for a single-sampling plan is shown operating characteristic

in Figure 10S-1. The curve shows the probabilities of accepting lots with various qualities (proportion (OC) curve Curve that shows

defectives). For example, it shows that a lot with 3 percent defectives (a proportion of defectives of .03) the probabilities of accepting

would have a probability of .80 of being accepted (or a probability of 1.00 - .80 = .20 of being lots with various quality

rejected). Note the downward relationship: as lot quality decreases, the probability of lot acceptance (proportion defective).

decreases, although the relationship is not linear.

A sampling plan cannot provide perfect discrimination between good and bad lots; some low-

quality lots will inevitably be accepted, and some high-quality lots will inevitably be rejected.

Even lots containing more than 20 percent defectives still have some probability of being

accepted, whereas lots with as few as 3 percent defectives have some chance of being rejected.

10S-4 PART 4 Quality

.80

.70

.60

.50

.40

.30

.20

.10

.00

0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25

3% Lot quality (proportion defective)

The degree to which a sampling plan discriminates between good and bad lots is a function of

the steepness of its OC curve: the steeper the curve, the more discriminating the sampling plan

(see Figure 10S-2.) Principles of sampling imply that the larger the sample size n, the steeper the

curve. Note the curve for an ideal plan (i.e., one that can discriminate perfectly between good and

bad lots). To achieve that, you need to inspect 100 percent of each lot. Obviously, if you are going

to do that, theoretically all of the defectives can be eliminated (although errors due to boredom

might result in a few defectives remaining). However, the cost of additional discrimination may be

larger than the cost of additional inspection (i.e., it may not be cost-effective).

Buyers (or consumers) are generally willing to accept lots that contain small percentages of

defectives as “good,” especially if the cost related to a few defects is low. Often this percentage is

acceptable quality level in the range of .01 to 2 percent. This figure is known as the acceptable quality level (AQL).

(AQL) The percentage of AQL should be set based on the criticality of the characteristic that is being inspected—the more

defects at which a consumer critical the characteristic, the smaller the AQL should be. For example, for spoons, the defect of

(buyer) is willing to accept being cracked may have AQL of .5 percent whereas the defect of being scratched may have AQL

lots as “good.” of 2 percent. Also, AQL should be set so that the good incoming lots have quality equal to AQL.

Otherwise the supplier will be overwhelmed with rejected lots and there may not be enough

accepted lots for the buyer to continue production. For example, if the incoming lots generally

have 1 to 4 percent defectives, then AQL should be set to 1 percent.

The steeper the OC curve,

Ideal

the more discriminating the

sampling plan.

Probability of accepting the lot

Not very

discriminating

Better

0

“Good” “Bad”

Lot quality (proportion defective)

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 10 Acceptance Sampling 10S-5

Because of the inability of random sampling to identify all lots that contain more than AQL

percentage of defectives, consumers (buyers) recognize that some lots that actually contain more

defectives than AQL will be accepted. However, there is usually an upper limit on the percentage

of defective items that a consumer is willing to tolerate in accepted lots. The percentage just larger

than this is known as the lot tolerance percent defective (LTPD). Thus, consumers want lot tolerance percent

quality equal to or better than the AQL, and are willing to live with poorer quality, but they prefer defective (LTPD) The

not to accept any lots with a defective percentage greater or equal to the LTPD. LTPD should also percentage just larger than

be set based on the criticality of the characteristic that is being inspected—the more critical the the upper limit of the

characteristic, the smaller the LTPD. Also, LTPD should be set so that the bad incoming lots have percentage of defectives

quality equal to LTPD. Otherwise the seller may receive more rejected lots than expected or the of a lot that a consumer is

buyer may lose the opportunity to demand higher quality for bad lots. For example, if the incom- willing to accept.

ing lots generally have 1 to 4 percent defectives, then LTPD should be set to 4 percent.

As mentioned above, sampling plans are not perfect in discriminating between good and bad consumer’s risk The

lots, i.e., mistakes will be made in acceptance of bad lots and rejection of good lots. The probabil- probability that a bad lot

ity that a bad lot containing defectives equal to the LTPD will be accepted is known as the containing defects equal to

consumer’s risk, or beta (β), or the probability of making a Type II error. On the other hand, the the LTPD will be accepted on

probability that a good lot containing defectives equal to the AQL will be rejected is known as the the basis of sample data.

producer’s risk, or alpha (α), or the probability of making a Type I error. Many sampling plans are

designed to have a producer’s risk of 5 percent and a consumer’s risk of 10 percent, although other producer’s risk The

combinations are also used. Figure 10S-3 illustrates an OC curve with the AQL, LTPD, producer’s probability that a good lot

risk, and consumer’s risk. Note that the probability of accepting a lot with AQL quality is 1 - α. containing defects equal to

A certain amount of insight is gained by constructing an OC curve. The probability of observ- the AQL will be rejected on

ing up to and including c defectives in a sample of size n from a lot with proportion of defectives P the basis of sample data.

is given by cumulative hyper-geometric formula:

NP N − NP NP ! 1N − NP2 !

ba b a

x n−x c x! 1NP − x2 !1n − x2 ! 1N − NP − n + x2 !

c

P1x ≤ c2 = a = a (10S-1)

N N!

x=0

a b x=0

n n !1N − n2 !

.95 ␣ = .05

An OC curve with the AQL,

.90

LTPD, producer’s risk α, and

consumer’s risk β.

.80

.70

Probability of accepting the lot

.60

.50

.40

.30

.20

.10

 = .10

.00

0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25

AQL LTPD proportion defective

Indifferent in the lot

“Good” “Bad”

10S-6 PART 4 Quality

N

where x = number of defectives in the sample, and a b represents the number of combinations

n

(different ways) of choosing a sample of n from the lot N, etc. Note that the expected number of

defectives in the lot is NP. Intuitively, probability of observing x defectives in a sample of size n

from a lot of size N equals the number of ways to choose x defectives from all the defectives in the

lot (NP) times numbers of ways to pick n - x nondefectives from all the nondefectives in the lot

(N - NP) over the number of ways to choose a sample of n from the population N. For example,

suppose a short quiz will contain two questions. Each question is from a different topic. There are

four topics. You know two out of the four topics. There will be six different pairs of topics in the

quiz. One pair you know both questions, and another you don’t know either question. The remain-

ing pairs contain one question you know and one you don’t. There are four of these because there

are two ways to get the question you know multiplied by two ways to get the question you don’t

know. The probably that you will know both questions is 1/6, the probably that you will not know

either question is 1/6, and the probability that you will know exactly 1 of the two questions is 4/6.

Because there are no hyper-geometric tables, if the lot size N is large relative to sample size n

n

(so that ≤ 0.1 ) we can approximate the hyper-geometric probabilities by binomial probabilities.

N

The difference is that binomial probabilities assume that a sampled item is put back in a lot after

being inspected before the next item is selected from the lot. The probability of observing up to

and including c defectives in a sample (with replacement) of size n from a lot with proportion

defective P is given by cumulative binomial formula:

c

n!

P1x ≤ c2 = a P x 11 − P2 n−x (10S-2)

x=0

x !1n − x2 !

Example 2 Draw the OC curve for a situation in which a sample of n = 10 items is drawn from a lot contain-

ing N = 2,000 items, and the lot is accepted if no more than c = 1 defect is found and rejected if 2

or more defects are found in the sample.

SOLUTION Because the sample size is small relative to the lot size (10/2000 = .005 < .1), it is reasonable to

use the binomial distribution to obtain the probabilities that a lot will be accepted for various lot

qualities. Although we can use formula 10S-2 to calculate the probabilities, it is easier to use a

binomial table. A portion of the cumulative binomial table found at the end of this supplement is

reproduced here to facilitate the discussion.

PROPORTION DEFECTIVE, p

n x .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50 .55 .60

10 0 .5987 .3487 .1969 .1074 .0563 .0282 .0135 .0060 .0025 .0010 .0003 .0001

c=1 1 .9139 .7361 .5443 .3758 .2440 .1493 .0860 .0464 .0233 .0107 .0045 .0017

→ 2 .9885 .9298 .8202 .6778 .5256 .3828 .2616 .1673 .0996 .0547 .0274 .0123

3 .9990 .9872 .9500 .8791 .7759 .6496 .5138 .3823 .2660 .1719 .1020 .0548

To use the table, select various lot qualities (values of p listed across the top of the table), begin-

ning with .05, and find the probability that a lot with that percentage of defects would be accepted

(i.e., the probability of finding zero or one defect in this case). For p = .05, the probability of one or

no defects is .9139. For a lot with 10 percent defective (i.e., a proportion defective of .10), the

probability of one or fewer defects drops to .7361, and for 15 percent defective, the probability of

acceptance is .5443. In effect, you simply read the probabilities across the row for c = 1. By plot-

ting these points (e.g., .05 and .9139, .10 and .7361) on a graph and connecting them, you obtain

the OC curve illustrated in Figure 10S-4.

If the lot size N is large relative to sample size n (so that n/N ≤ 0.1) and np < 5, we can approxi-

mate the binomial probabilities by the Poisson probabilities. The probability of observing up to

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 10 Acceptance Sampling 10S-7

.9139 QC curve for single sampling plan

.90

n = 10, c = 1.

.80

.7361

.70

Probability of acceptance

.60

.5443

.50

.40

.3758

.30

.2440

.20

.1493 .0233

.0107

.10 .0860 .0045

.0464 .0017

.00

0 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60

Proportion defective in lot

and including c defectives in a sample of size n from a lot with proportion defectives P is given by

cumulative Poisson formula:

c e −nP 1nP2 x

P1x ≤ c2 = a (10S-3)

x=0

x!

where x = number of defectives in the sample. The Poisson approximation involves treating the

mean of the binomial distribution (i.e., np) as the mean of the Poisson (i.e., μ ): μ = np. As with the

binomial distribution, you select various values of lot quality, p, and then determine the probability

of accepting a lot (e.g., finding up to and including c defects) by either using formula 10S-3 or referring

to the cumulative Poisson table in Appendix B, Table C. Values of p in increments of .01 are often

used in this regard. Example 3 illustrates the use of the Poisson table in constructing an OC curve.

Use the cumulative Poisson table at the end of the textbook to construct an OC curve for the Example 3

following single sampling plan:

N = 5,000, n = 80, c = 2

Note that 80/5,000 = .016 < .1 and np < 5 for most means below. Therefore, we can use the SOLUTION

Poisson distribution.

Pac = [P (x ≤ 2) from

Selected Values of p μ = np Appendix B Table C]

.02 80(.02) = 1.6 .783

.03 80(.03) = 2.4 .570

.04 80(.04) = 3.2 .380

.05 80(.05) = 4.0 .238

.06 80(.06) = 4.8 .143

.07 80(.07) = 5.6 .082

.08 80(.08) = 6.4 .046

10S-8 PART 4 Quality

The probabilities of acceptance, Pac, are drawn against lot proportion defectives P to construct

the OC curve:

Pac

1.00

N = 5,000

.80 n = 80

c = 2

.60

.40

.20

.00

.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08

Proportion defective

As mentioned above, as long as lot size N is large enough relative to n, it will not have a sig-

nificant effect on the OC curve. However, the parameters n (sample size) and c (acceptance num-

ber) of a single sampling plan do affect the shape of the OC curve. To illustrate this, given c = 2, the

OC curves for various n values are shown in Figure 10S-5. As expected, the OC curve becomes

steeper (will have more discriminatory power) as n increases.

On the other hand, for fixed sample size (n = 80), the OC curve becomes steeper (will have

more discriminatory power) as acceptance number c decreases (see Figure 10S-6). Perhaps it is

easier to understand this by considering very large c values: in this case, most lots will be accepted,

i.e., no discrimination.

1.00

Probability of acceptance of the lot

n = 80

shape of the OC curve. .80

n = 50

.70

n = 125

.60

n = 200

.50

.40

.30

.20

.10

.00

.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .1 .11 .12 .13

Proportion defective

Figure 10S-6 n = 80

1.00

Effect of acceptance number c on .90 c=0

Probability of acceptance

.80 c=1

the shape of the OC curve.

.70

c=2

.60

c=3

.50

.40

.30

.20

.10

.00

.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .1 .11 .12 .13

Proportion defective

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 10 Acceptance Sampling 10S-9

A sampling plan and its operating characteristic (OC) curve have a one-to-one relationship.

Therefore, determining the sample size n and acceptance number c is equivalent to deter-

mining the sampling plan’s OC curve. One way to determine an OC curve is to specify two

points on it, for example, the two points (AQL, 1 - α) and (LTPD, β). Another approach, MIL-

STD-105E, created by the U.S. Armed Forces, uses the point (AQL, 1 - α), lot size N, and a

chosen inspection level to determine the sampling plan. We will illustrate these methods

below.

Substituting (AQL, 1 - α) in the cumulative binomial formula 10S-2:

c

n!

1−α= a 1AQL2 x 11 − AQL2 n−x (10S-4)

x=0

x !1n − x2 !

c

n!

β= a 1LTPD2 x 11 − LTPD2 n−x (10S-5)

x=0

x !1n − x2 !

We can try to solve equations (10S-4) and (10S-5) simultaneously to determine the two

unknown quantities n and c. However, this is not easy because these equations are nonlinear.

Fortunately, Larson has determined a nomograph (a graphical calculating device) that will provide

the solution (Figure 10S-7, located at the end of this supplement).

Suppose AQL = .02 with α = 5% and LTPD = .08 with β = 10%. Use Larson’s nomograph at the Example 4

end of this supplement to determine n and c.

Larson’s nomograph can be used as follows: the vertical line on the left-hand side is for lot per- SOLUTION

centage defectives such as AQL and LTPD. The vertical line on the right-hand side is for the prob-

ability of lot acceptance such as (1 - α) and β. Connect AQL with (1 - α) and LTPD with β with

straight lines. The intersection of these two lines gives the sample size n and acceptance number c.

In this case, n = 90 and c = 3 (see Figure 10S-7).

Using MIL-STD-105E

The MIL-STD-105E uses the point (AQL, .95), the lot size N, the level of inspection desired,

and the type of inspection required (depending on the past history of the supplier) to deter-

mine n and c.

The inspection level determines the relationship between the lot size and sample size. There

are three general inspection levels (I, II, and III) and four special inspection levels (S-1 to S-4). Level

II is designated as normal. Level I requires about half the amount of inspection as level II, and is

used when reduced sampling is required and a lower level of discrimination can be tolerated.

Level III requires about twice the amount of inspection as level II, and is used when more dis-

crimination is needed. The four special inspection levels S-1,S-2,S-3,S-4 use very small samples,

and should be used when small sample sizes are necessary, and when large sampling risks can be

tolerated.

There are three types of inspection (other than Discontinue inspection): Normal inspection,

Reduced inspection, and Tightened inspection. Reduced inspection results in smaller n (less dis-

crimination after a good history) and Tightened inspection results in larger n (more discrimina-

tion after a bad history). The Discontinue inspection requires corrective action by the supplier

10S-10 PART 4 Quality

before any new lots are purchased. The switching rules between the four inspection types are

displayed below:2

10 consecutive 5 consecutive

batches not batches not

rejected rejected

inspection inspection inspection inspection

1 batch not 2 of 5 5 consecutive

accepted consecutive batches remain

batches rejected on tightened

inspection

The following website will provide n and c according to the MIL-STD-105E: http://www.sqcon-

line.com/mil-std-105.html. Alternatively, a copy of the MIL-STD-105E document, which includes

results tables, can be found online, e.g., at http://www.dianyuan.com/bbs/u/39/1142140688.pdf.

Example 5 Suppose lot size N is 2,000 and AQL is 1 percent. We would like to use Normal type of inspection

at general inspection level 2. Determine the sample size n and the acceptance number c.

N and check to see that default values for AQL, inspection level, and type of inspection are right.

We click on Submit.

2

http://www.sqconline.com/switching_rules_enter.php4.

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 10 Acceptance Sampling 10S-11

The values for n and c for single sampling appear: n = 125 and c = 3 (see image below). As an

added bonus, the results for double sampling plan, which has a similar OC curve, and the OC

curve are also provided:

http://www.sqconline.com

Sampling Plan

It is fair to expect that acceptance sampling would reduce the proportion of defective items accepted.

Indeed, this is the case, provided that the rejected lots are not resubmitted for acceptance sampling

without improvement in quality. If they are, they will eventually be accepted and the whole point of

acceptance sampling is lost (i.e., the quality of accepted items will be the same as the quality of incom-

ing or rejected items). This fact can be seen by considering the following example: suppose that the

probability of a bad lot being accepted is .1. If this lot is rejected and is returned to the supplier but the

supplier sends it back to the customer unchanged, and this process is repeated 40 times, the probabil-

ity of acceptance within 40 tries is .1 + .9(.1) + .92(.1) + . . . + .939(.1) = .985. Therefore, the buyer has

to either require the supplier to perform 100 percent inspection of rejected lots or do it himself.

10S-12 PART 4 Quality

average outgoing quality The average outgoing quality (AOQ) of the inspected lots is average percentage

(AOQ) Average percentage defective of accepted lots assuming that rejected lots are 100 percent inspected and defective

defective of accepted lots items in those lots are replaced with good items. AOQ can be calculated using the following

assuming that rejected lots formula:

are 100 percent inspected

and defective items in those N−n

lots are replaced with good AOQ = Pac × pa b (10S-6)

N

items.

where

Pac = Probability of accepting the lot

p = Lot proportion defective

N = Lot size

n = Sample size

In practice, the last term in (10S-6) is often omitted because it is usually close to 1.0 and there-

fore has little effect on the resulting values. The formula then becomes:

Example 6 Construct the AOQ curve for N = 500, n = 10, and c = 1 using formula 10S-7:

SOLUTION Let values of p vary from .05 to .40 in steps of .05. You can read the probabilities of acceptance, Pac,

from the binomial table at the end of this supplement.

AOQ = Pac × p

(Outgoing proportion defective)

.08

P Pac AOQ

AOQ

.15 .5443 .082 .04

.20 .3758 .075

.25 .2440 .061 .02

.30 .1493 .045

.35 .0860 .030 .00

.10 .20 .30 .40

.40 .0464 .019

Incoming proportion defective

Note that the average outgoing quality is best for either very good lots or very bad lots (i.e., the

outgoing proportion defective is least for lots with either very low or very high incoming propor-

tion defective). The reason very bad lots also will have high outgoing quality is that they will likely

be rejected and then 100 percent inspected and rectified.

A quantity of interest to the buyer is the maximum outgoing proportion defective, also called

average outgoing quality average outgoing quality limit (AOQL). AOQL is the worst quality of outgoing (i.e., accepted)

limit (AOQL) The worst items. In Example 6, the AOQL is approximately 8 percent, associated with incoming lots of

quality of outgoing (i.e., approximately 15 percent defective.

accepted) items. .4

An approximate value for AOQL can be obtained using the formula 11.25c + 12 .3 For

n

.4

Example 6, AOQL ≈ 11.25 × 1 + 12 = .09 , or 9%.

10

3

J. M. Juran and F. M. Gryna, Quality Planning and Analysis, 3rd ed., 1993, New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 25.13.

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 10 Acceptance Sampling 10S-13

Key Terms

acceptable quality level (AQL) average outgoing quality limit (AOQL) operating characteristic (OC) curve

acceptance sampling consumer’s risk producer’s risk

average outgoing quality (AOQ) lot tolerance percent defective (LTPD) sampling plans

Solved Problems

Problem 1

A process for manufacturing shock absorbers for light trucks produces .5 percent defectives. Inspec-

tion cost per shock is $.40. Currently 100 percent inspection is performed, which is assumed to

catch all the defectives. If a defective shock absorber were to be installed on a truck, it must eventu-

ally be replaced at a cost of $120 per shock. Is 100 percent inspection justified?

Solution

The BEP = .4/120 = .0033 < .005, therefore 100 percent inspection is justified. However, if the

percentage defective is not stable, acceptance sampling should be used.

Problem 2

Shipments of 300 boxes of glassware are received at a warehouse. Random samples of five boxes are

checked, and the lot is rejected if more than one box contains a breakage. Construct the OC curve for

this sampling plan.

Solution

Because n/N = 5/300 = .0167 < .1, binomial distribution can be used to obtain the probabilities of

acceptance, Pac, for various lot percentage defectives. A portion of the cumulative binomial table is

shown below. Note that n = 5 and c = 1.

P = PROPORTION DEFECTIVE

n x .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30

5 0 .7738 .5905 .4437 .3277 .2373 .1681

c=1→ 1 .9974 .9185 .8352 .7373 .6328 .5282

2 .9988 .9914 .9734 .9421 .8965 .8369

3 1.0000 .9995 .9978 .9933 .9844 .9692

4 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9997 .9990 .9976

5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

.35 .40 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80

.1160 .0778 .0503 .0313 .0185 .0102 .0053 .0024 .0010 .0003

.4284 .3370 .2562 .1875 .1312 .0870 .0540 .0308 .0156 .0067

.7648 .6826 .5931 .5000 .4069 .3174 .2352 .1631 .1035 .0579

.9460 .9130 .8688 .8125 .7438 .6630 .5716 .4718 .3672 .2627

.9947 .9898 .9815 .9688 .9497 .9222 .8840 .8319 .7627 .6723

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

10S-14 PART 4 Quality

The table indicates that Pac = .9974 when lot quality is 5 percent defective, .9185 when lot quality

is 10 percent defective, .8352 when 15 percent, and so on. The resulting operating characteristic

(OC) curve is:

Pac

1.00

.80 N = 300

n = 5

c = 1

.60

.40

.20

0 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00

Lot proportion defective

Problem 3

Develop the AOQ curve for the previous problem using formula 10S-7.

Solution

AOQ = Pac × p

(Values of probability of acceptance Pac, can be taken from the top portion of the binomial table

shown on the previous page)

Max = .158

.16

(Outgoing proportion defective)

.12

AOQ

.08

.04

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8

Incoming proportion defective, p

.05 .9974 .050 .45 .2562 .115

.10 .9185 .092 .50 .1875 .094

.15 .8352 .125 .55 .1312 .072

.20 .7373 .147 .60 .0870 .052

.25 .6328 .158 .65 .0540 .035

.30 .5258 .158 .70 .0380 .027

.35 .4284 .150 .75 .0156 .012

.40 .3370 .135 .80 .0067 .005

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 10 Acceptance Sampling 10S-15

1. What is acceptance sampling and what is its purpose? c. Producer’s risk.

LO1 d. Consumer’s risk.

2. How does acceptance sampling differ from process con- 7. When can each of the following distributions be used in

trol using control charts? LO1 calculating the probability of acceptance of a lot? LO2

3. When should a buyer use sampling inspection vs. 100 a. Hyper-geometric.

percent inspection vs. no inspection? LO1 b. Binomial.

4. What general factors govern the choice between single- c. Poisson.

sampling and multiple-sampling plans? LO1 8. When would you use each of the four methods given in

5. What is an operating characteristic curve, and how is it this supplement for determining single sampling plans?

useful in acceptance sampling? LO2 LO3

6. Briefly explain or define each of these terms. LO2 9. Explain or define each of the following: LO4

a. AQL. a. AOQ.

b. LTPD. b. AOQL.

Internet Exercises

1. Visit http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/ 2. Visit http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/JF_2010/datapoints_

section2/pmc22.htm, read about (a) sequential, and jf10.html, and summarize why we still need

(b) skip lot sampling plans, and define or explain acceptance sampling (given the existence of

them. LO1 control charts). LO1

Problems

1. An assembly operation for the trigger mechanism of a a. Construct the OC curve for this sampling plan.

semiautomatic spray gun produces a small percentage of b. Construct the AOQ curve for this plan using formula

defective mechanisms. Management must decide 10S-7, assuming defectives found during 100 percent

whether to continue the current practice of 100 percent inspection are replaced with good parts. What is the

inspection, perform acceptance sampling, or replace approximate AOQL?

defective mechanisms after final assembly when all 3. Auditors use a technique called discovery sampling in

guns are inspected. Replacement at final assembly costs which a random sample of items is inspected. If any

$30 each; inspection during trigger assembly costs $12 defects are found, the entire lot is subjected to

per hour for labour and overhead. The inspection rate is 100 percent inspection. LO2 & 4

one trigger per minute. LO1

a. Draw an OC curve for the case where a sample of

a. Would 100 percent inspection during trigger assem- 15 credit accounts will be inspected out of a total of

bly be justified if there are (1) 4 percent defective? 8,000 accounts.

(2) 1 percent defective? b. Draw an OC curve for the case where 150 accounts

b. At what point would management prefer acceptance out of 8,000 accounts will be examined. (Hint: Use

sampling? p = .001, .002, .003, . . .)

2. Random samples of n = 20 circuit breakers are tested for c. Draw the AOQ curve for the preceding case (part b),

damage caused by shipment in each lot of 4,000 and determine the approximate AOQL.

received. Lots with more than one defective are pulled 4. Random samples of lots of textbooks are inspected

and subjected to 100 percent inspection. LO2 & 4 for defective books just prior to shipment to the

10S-16 PART 4 Quality

publisher’s warehouse. Each lot contains 3,000 inspection at general inspection level II. Determine

books. LO2 the sample size n and acceptance number c using

a. On a single graph, construct OC curves for n = 100 MIL-STD-105E.4 LO3

and (1) c = 0, (2) c = 1, and (3) c = 2. (Hint: Use 8. A manufacturer of colour TV picture tubes is wondering

p = .001, .002, .003, . . .) if its current sampling procedure can be improved.5 Cur-

b. On a single graph, construct OC curves for c = 2 and rently, the defects are classified into critical (C: e.g., con-

(1) n = 5, (2) n = 20, and (3) n = 120. taminated anode), major (B: e.g., bent pins) and minor (A:

5. A manufacturer receives shipments of several thousand e.g., wrong label). The company has also grouped its cus-

parts from a supplier every week. The manufacturer tomers into three groups and has one plan for each

has the option of inspection before accepting the group: LO3

parts. Inspection cost is $1 per unit. If parts are not

inspected, defectives become apparent during a later Existing Sampling Plans

assembly operation, at which time replacement cost is

$6.25 per unit. LO1 & 2 Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3

a. At what proportion defective would the manufac- Nonconformity

C&B A C&B A C&B A

turer prefer acceptance sampling? class

b. For the sample size n = 15, what acceptance number Lot size (N) 48 48 48 48 48 48

c would result in probability of acceptance close to Documented AQL 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

.95 for AQL = 2%? Documented

c. If the shipment actually contains 1 percent defective Normal Reduced Reduced

inspection severity

items and AQL =2 percent: Sample size (n) 8 8 5 5 3 3

i. What is the correct decision? Acceptance

ii. What is the probability that the lot would be 0 1 1 1 0 0

number (c)

accepted if acceptable number c = 0?

iii. What is the probability that it would be rejected For each plan and defect category, determine the sample

if c = 0? size n and acceptance number c using MIL-STD-105E.

iv. Answer the questions in part c for a shipment Compare your results with the current plans above.

that contains 3 percent defective items.

9. A single sampling plan uses sample size n = 100

6. Suppose there are two defective units in a and the inspector accepts the lot if there are 2 or

sample. LO2 & 4 fewer defectives in the sample.6 You may use the

a. If the acceptance number is c = 1, what decision Poisson approximation to answer the following

should be made? What type of error is possible? questions. LO2 & 4

b. If the acceptance number is c = 3, what

a. What is the probability of accepting a lot with pro-

decision should be made? What type of error

portion defective p = .01?

is possible?

b. What protection does the buyer have against accept-

c. Use formula 10S-7 to determine the average outgoing

ing lots with proportion defective p = .05?

quality for each of the following percent defectives if

c. What is the average outgoing quality AOQ for

c = 1 and n =15.

p = .01? Use formula 10S-7.

i. 5 percent. d. What is the average outgoing quality AOQ for

ii. 10 percent. p = .05? Use formula 10S-7.

iii. 15 percent. e. What is the average outgoing quality limit AOQL

iv. 20 percent. for this plan? You may use the approximation

7. Suppose lot size N is 432 and acceptable quality level .4

11.25c + 12 .

AQL is .65 percent. We would like to use Normal n

4

E. F. Bauer, “A Move from Attribute to Variables Acceptance Sampling in an ISO-Certified Manufacturing

Plant,” M.S. thesis, California State University, Dominguez Hills, 2000.

5

E. Gamino, “Improvement to the Acceptance Control System of a Manufacturer of Color Picture Tubes,”

M.S. thesis, California State University, Dominguez Hills, 2005.

6

P. W. M. John, Statistical Methods in Engineering and Quality Assurance, New York: Wiley, 1990, p. 188.

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 10 Acceptance Sampling 10S-17

*10. You are the quality manager for a company receiving large 13. A manufacturer inspects all of its shipments to its custom-

quantities of material from a supplier in lots of 1,000 units.7 ers prior to delivery using a double sampling MIL-STD-

The cost of inspecting the items is $.76 per unit. The cost of 105E standard plan, Inspection level II, Normal type of

repair if bad material is introduced into your product is inspection, and an AQL of 1 percent.10 The lot is 500

$15.20 per unit. A single sampling plan of 75 units with units. LO3

acceptance number of 2 has been suggested by one of a. Find the sampling plan used and explain it in words.

yourquality inspectors. In the past, lots submitted by this b. Upon delivery of the product, the customer also

supplier have averaged 3.4 percent defective. LO1–4 inspects the lot using a single sampling MIL-STD-

a. Is acceptance sampling economically justified? 105E standard plan, AQL = 1.5 percent, inspection

b. If you want to accept only lots of 4 percent defective level II, and Normal type of inspection. Find the cus-

or better, what do you think of the sampling plan of tomer’s sampling plan.

the inspector? c. If a lot that is 10% defective is produced, calculate

c. Suppose that rejected lots are 100 percent inspected. the probability that it will pass the manufacturer’s

If a supplier submits many 4 percent defective lots, inspection.

what will be the average outgoing quality of these d. Calculate the probability that a 10 percent defective

lots? Use formula 10S-6. lot will pass the customer’s inspection.

11. a. Determine a sampling plan that will have AQL = 1% e. What is the probability that a 10 percent defective

with producer risk α = .05 and LTPD = 5% with lot will pass both inspections?

consumer risk β = .10.8 LO3 14. Binder clips are packaged 12 to a box and 12 boxes to a

b. Suppose a sample is taken according to the sampling carton.11 You have received a lot consisting of four

plan derived in part a and two nonconforming units cartons of binder clips. LO3

are found. What action should be taken? a. Use MIL-STD-105E to determine a single sampling

12. A housing development company buys heavy-duty plan to decide whether to accept or reject the lot.

nails in lots of 10,000 nails. A destructive test is Use Inspection Level II, Normal type of inspection,

performed to determine the strength of the and an AQL of 2.5 percent.

nails.9 AQL is 1 percent and LTPD is 10 percent. b. If in inspecting your sample you find three defective

A single sample of n = 100 and c = 2 is used. binder clips, what would you do?

Determine α and β. LO3

MINI-CASE

CRYSTAL S.A. pallets are bought in lot sizes of 800. The percentage of defective

pallets in the past has ranged between 5 and 8 percent.

CRYSTAL S.A. is a Greek commercial fridge manufacturer.12 Dur-

ing packaging, CRYSTAL uses a wooden platform (pallet) under Questions

the fridge. The pallets use some wooden pegs (nogs). However, a. Should the company perform 100 percent inspection,

some nogs could be missing. The cost of inspecting a pallet is acceptance sampling, or no inspection?

$.119. The average cost of putting nogs in pallets missing them b. If acceptance sampling is best, what sampling plan should

is $.535 per pallet. If the defect is not identified before the pallet the company use? Justify your choice.

is used in packaging, it will cost $2.3 to take the fridge off, insert

the nogs in the pallet, and put the fridge back on the pallet. The

7

J. M. Juran and F. M. Gryna, Quality Planning and Analysis, 3rd ed., 1993, New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 487.

8

J. M. Juran and F. M. Gryna, Juran’s Quality Control Handbook, 4th ed., 1988, New York: McGraw-Hill,

pp. 25.26–25.27.

9

S. Nahmias, Production and Operations Analysis, 3rd ed., 1997, Chicago: Irwin.

10

E. I. Grant and R. S. Leavenworth, Statistical Quality Control, 4th ed., 1972, New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 445.

11

http://www.shsu.edu/~mgt_ves/mgt481/lesson9/lesson9.htm.

12

Y. Nikolaidis and G. Nenes, “Economic Evaluation of ISO 2859 Acceptance Sampling Plans Used with

Rectifying Inspection of Rejected Lots,” Quality Engineering 21 (1), 2009, pp. 10–23.

c

n

P1x ≤ c2 = a a bP x 11 − P2 n−x 0 1 2 3 4 x

x

10S-18 PART 4

x=0 c=1

P

Quality

n x .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80 .85 .90

1. . . . 0 .9500 .9000 .8500 .8000 .7500 .7000 .6500 .6000 .5500 .5000 .4500 .4000 .3500 .3000 .2500 .2000 .1500 .1000

1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

2. . . . 0 .9025 .8100 .7225 .6400 .5625 .4900 .4225 .3600 .3025 .2500 .2025 .1600 .1225 .0900 .0625 .0400 .0225 .0100

1 .9975 .9900 .9775 .9600 .9375 .9100 .8775 .8400 .7975 .7500 .6975 .6400 .5775 .5100 .4375 .3600 .2775 .1900

2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

3. . . . 0 .8574 .7290 .6141 .5120 .4219 .3430 .2746 .2160 .1664 .1250 .0911 .0640 .0429 .0270 .0156 .0080 .0034 .0010

1 .9928 .9720 .9393 .8960 .8438 .7840 .7183 .6480 .5748 .5000 .4253 .3520 .2818 .2160 .1563 .1040 .0608 .0280

2 .9999 .9990 .9966 .9920 .9844 .9730 .9571 .9360 .9089 .8750 .8336 .7840 .7254 .6570 .5781 .4880 .3859 .2710

3 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

4. . . . 0 .8145 .6561 .5220 .4096 .3164 .2401 .1785 .1296 .0915 .0625 .0410 .0256 .0150 .0081 .0039 .0016 .0005 .0001

1 .9860 .9477 .8905 .8192 .7383 .6517 .5630 .4752 .3910 .3125 .2415 .1792 .1265 .0837 .0508 .0272 .0120 .0037

2 .9995 .9963 .9880 .9728 .9492 .9163 .8735 .8208 .7585 .6875 .6090 .5248 .4370 .3483 .2617 .1808 .1095 .0523

3 1.0000 .9999 .9995 .9984 .9961 .9919 .9850 .9744 .9590 .9375 .9085 .8704 .8215 .7599 .6836 .5904 .4780 .3439

4 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

5. . . . 0 .7738 .5905 .4437 .3277 .2373 .1681 .1160 .0778 .0503 .0313 .0185 .0102 .0053 .0024 .0010 .0003 .0001 .0000

1 .9974 .9185 .8352 .7373 .6328 .5282 .4284 .3370 .2562 .1875 .1312 .0870 .0540 .0308 .0156 .0067 .0022 .0005

2 .9988 .9914 .9734 .9421 .8965 .8369 .7648 .6826 .5931 .5000 .4069 .3174 .2352 .1631 .1035 .0579 .0266 .0086

3 1.0000 .9995 .9978 .9933 .9844 .9692 .9460 .9130 .8688 .8125 .7438 .6630 .5716 .4718 .3672 .2627 .1648 .0815

4 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9997 .9990 .9976 .9947 .9898 .9815 .9688 .9497 .9222 .8840 .8319 .7627 .6723 .5563 .4095

5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

6. . . . 0 .7351 .5314 .3771 .2621 .1780 .1176 .0754 .0467 .0277 .0156 .0083 .0041 .0018 .0007 .0002 .0001 .0000 .0000

1 .9672 .8857 .7765 .6554 .5339 .4202 .3191 .2333 .1636 .1094 .0692 .0410 .0223 .0109 .0046 .0016 .0004 .0001

2 .9978 .9842 .9527 .9011 .8306 .7443 .6471 .5443 .4415 .3438 .2553 .1792 .1174 .0705 .0376 .0170 .0059 .0013

3 .9999 .9987 .9941 .9830 .9624 .9295 .8826 .8208 .7447 .6563 .5585 .4557 .3529 .2557 .1694 .0989 .0473 .0159

4 1.0000 .9999 .9996 .9984 .9954 .9891 .9777 .9590 .9308 .8906 .8364 .7667 .6809 .5798 .4661 .3446 .2235 .1143

5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9998 .9993 .9982 .9959 .9917 .9844 .9723 .9533 .9246 .8824 .8220 .7379 .6229 .4686

6 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

7. . . . 0 .6983 .4783 .3206 .2097 .1335 .0824 .0490 .0280 .0152 .0078 .0037 .0016 .0006 .0002 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000

1 .9556 .8503 .7166 .5767 .4449 .3294 .2338 .1586 .1024 .0625 .0357 .0188 .0090 .0038 .0013 .0004 .0001 .0000

2 .9962 .9743 .9262 .8520 .7564 .6471 .5323 .4199 .3164 .2266 .1529 .0963 .0556 .0288 .0129 .0047 .0012 .0002

3 .9998 .9973 .9879 .9667 .9294 .8740 .8002 .7102 .6083 .5000 .3917 .2898 .1998 .1260 .0706 .0333 .0121 .0027

P

n x .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80 .85 .90

4 1.0000 .9998 .9988 .9953 .9871 .9712 .9444 .9037 .8471 .7734 .6836 .5801 .4677 .3529 .2436 .1480 .0738 .0257

5 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9996 .9987 .9962 .9910 .9812 .9643 .9375 .8976 .8414 .7662 .6706 .5551 .4233 .2834 .1497

6 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9998 .9994 .9984 .9963 .9922 .9848 .9720 .9510 .9176 .8665 .7903 .6794 .5217

7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

8. . . . 0 .6634 .4305 .2725 .1678 .1001 .0576 .0319 .0168 .0084 .0039 .0017 .0007 .0002 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

1 .9428 .8131 .6572 .5033 .3671 .2553 .1691 .1064 .0632 .0352 .0181 .0085 .0036 .0013 .0004 .0001 .0000 .0000

2 .9942 .9619 .8948 .7969 .6785 .5518 .4278 .3154 .2201 .1445 .0885 .0498 .0253 .0113 .0042 .0012 .0002 .0000

3 .9996 .9950 .9786 .9437 .8862 .8059 .7064 .5941 .4470 .3633 .2604 .1737 .1061 .0580 .0273 .0104 .0029 .0004

4 1.0000 .9996 .9971 .9896 .9727 .9420 .8939 .8263 .7396 .6367 .5230 .4059 .2936 .1941 .1138 .0563 .0214 .0050

5 1.0000 1.0000 .9998 .9988 .9958 .9887 .9747 .9502 .9115 .8555 .7799 .6848 .5722 .4482 .3215 .2031 .1052 .0381

6 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9996 .9987 .9964 .9915 .9819 .9648 .9368 .8936 .8309 .7447 .6329 .4967 .3428 .1869

7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9998 .9993 .9983 .9961 .9916 .9832 .9681 .9424 .8999 .8322 .7275 .5695

8 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

9. . . . 0 .6302 .3874 .2316 .1342 .0751 .0404 .0207 .0101 .0046 .0020 .0008 .0003 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

1 .9288 .7748 .5995 .4362 .3003 .1960 .1211 .0705 .0385 .0195 .0091 .0038 .0014 .0004 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000

2 .9916 .9470 .8591 .7382 .6007 .4628 .3373 .2318 .1495 .0898 .0498 .0250 .0112 .0043 .0013 .0003 .0000 .0000

3 .9994 .9917 .9661 .9144 .8343 .7297 .6089 .4826 .3614 .2539 .1658 .0994 .0536 .0253 .0100 .0031 .0006 .0001

4 1.0000 .9991 .9944 .9804 .9511 .9012 .8283 .7334 .6214 .5000 .3786 .2666 .1717 .0988 .0489 .0196 .0056 .0009

5 1.0000 .9999 .9994 .9969 .9900 .9747 .9464 .9006 .8342 .7461 .6386 .5174 .3911 .2703 .1657 .0856 .0339 .0083

6 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9997 .9987 .9957 .9888 .9750 .9502 .9102 .8505 .7682 .6627 .5372 .3993 .2618 .1409 .0530

7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9996 .9986 .9962 .9909 .9805 .9615 .9295 .8789 .8040 .6997 .5638 .4005 .2252

8 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9997 .9992 .9980 .9954 .9899 .9793 .9596 .9249 .8658 .7684 .6126

9 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

10. . . . 0 .5987 .3487 .1969 .1074 .0563 .0282 .0135 .0060 .0025 .0010 .0003 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

1 .9139 .7361 .5443 .3758 .2440 .1493 .0860 .0464 .0233 .0107 .0045 .0017 .0005 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

2 .9885 .9298 .8202 .6778 .5256 .3828 .2616 .1673 .0996 .0547 .0274 .0123 .0048 .0016 .0004 .0001 .0000 .0000

3 .9990 .9872 .9500 .8791 .7759 .6496 .5138 .3823 .2660 .1719 .1020 .0548 .0260 .0106 .0035 .0009 .0001 .0000

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 10

4 .9999 .9984 .9901 .9672 .9219 .8497 .7515 .6331 .5044 .3770 .2616 .1662 .0949 .0473 .0197 .0064 .0014 .0001

5 1.0000 .9999 .9986 .9936 .9803 .9527 .9051 .8338 .7384 .6230 .4956 .3669 .2485 .1503 .0781 .0328 .0099 .0016

6 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9991 .9965 .9894 .9740 .9452 .8980 .8281 .7340 .6177 .4862 .3504 .2241 .1209 .0500 .0128

7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9996 .9984 .9952 .9877 .9726 .9453 .9004 .8327 .7384 .6172 .4744 .3222 .1798 .0702

8 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9995 .9983 .9955 .9893 .9767 .9536 .9140 .8507 .7560 .6242 .4557 .2639

9 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9997 .9990 .9975 .9940 .9865 .9718 .9437 .8926 .8031 .6513

10 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

15. . . . 0 .4633 .2059 .0874 .0352 .0134 .0047 .0016 .0005 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

Acceptance Sampling

1 .8290 .5490 .3186 .1671 .0802 .0353 .0142 .0052 .0017 .0005 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

2 .9638 .8159 .6042 .3980 .2361 .1268 .0617 .0271 .0107 .0037 .0011 .0003 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

10S-19

P

n x .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80 .85 .90

3 .9945 .9444 .8227 .6482 .4613 .2969 .1727 .0905 .0424 .0176 .0063 .0019 .0005 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

10S-20 PART 4

4 .9994 .9873 .9383 .8358 .6865 .5155 .3519 .2173 .1204 .0592 .0255 .0093 .0028 .0007 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000

5 .9999 .9978 .9832 .9389 .8516 .7216 .5643 .4032 .2608 .1509 .0769 .0338 .0124 .0037 .0008 .0001 .0000 .0000

6 1.0000 .9997 .9964 .9819 .9434 .8689 .7548 .6098 .4522 .3036 .1818 .0950 .0422 .0152 .0042 .0008 .0001 .0000

7 1.0000 1.0000 .9994 .9958 .9827 .9500 .8868 .7869 .6535 .5000 .3465 .2131 .1132 .0500 .0173 .0042 .0006 .0000

Quality

8 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9992 .9958 .9848 .9578 .9050 .8182 .6964 .5478 .3902 .2452 .1311 .0566 .0181 .0036 .0003

9 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9992 .9963 .9876 .9662 .9231 .8491 .7392 .5968 .4357 .2784 .1484 .0611 .0168 .0022

10 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9993 .9972 .9907 .9745 .9408 .8796 .7827 .6481 .4845 .3135 .1642 .0617 .0127

11 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9995 .9981 .9937 .9824 .9576 .9095 .8273 .7031 .5387 .3518 .1773 .0556

12 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9997 .9989 .9963 .9893 .9729 .9383 .8732 .7639 .6020 .3958 .1841

13 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9995 .9983 .9948 .9858 .9647 .9198 .8329 .6814 .4510

14 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9995 .9984 .9953 .9866 .9648 .9126 .7941

15 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

20. . . . 0 .3585 .1216 .0388 .0115 .0032 .0008 .0002 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

1 .7358 .3917 .1756 .0692 .0243 .0076 .0021 .0005 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

2 .9245 .6769 .4049 .2061 .0913 .0355 .0121 .0036 .0009 .0002 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

3 .9841 .8670 .6477 .4114 .2252 .1071 .0444 .0160 .0049 .0013 .0003 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

4 .9974 .9568 .8298 .6296 .4148 .2375 .1182 .0510 .0189 .0059 .0015 .0003 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

5 .9997 .9887 .9327 .8042 .6172 .4164 .2454 .1256 .0553 .0207 .0064 .0016 .0003 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

6 1.0000 .9976 .9781 .9133 .7858 .6080 .4166 .2500 .1299 .0577 .0214 .0065 .0015 .0003 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

7 1.0000 .9996 .9941 .9679 .8982 .7723 .6010 .4159 .2520 .1316 .0580 .0210 .0060 .0013 .0002 .0000 .0000 .0000

8 1.0000 .9999 .9987 .9900 .9591 .8867 .7624 .5956 .4143 .2517 .1308 .0565 .0196 .0051 .0009 .0001 .0000 .0000

9 1.0000 1.0000 .9998 .9974 .9861 .9520 .8782 .7553 .5914 .4119 .2493 .1275 .0532 .0171 .0039 .0006 .0000 .0000

10 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9994 .9961 .9829 .9468 .8725 .7507 .5881 .4086 .2447 .1218 .0480 .0139 .0026 .0002 .0000

11 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9991 .9949 .9804 .9435 .8692 .7483 .5857 .4044 .2376 .1133 .0409 .0100 .0013 .0001

12 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9998 .9987 .9940 .9790 .9420 .8684 .7480 .5841 .3990 .2277 .1018 .0321 .0059 .0004

13 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9997 .9985 .9935 .9786 .9423 .8701 .7500 .5834 .3920 .2142 .0867 .0219 .0024

14 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9997 .9984 .9936 .9793 .9447 .8744 .7546 .5836 .3828 .1958 .0673 .0113

15 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9997 .9985 .9941 .9811 .9490 .8818 .7625 .5852 .3704 .1702 .0432

16 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9997 .9987 .9951 .9840 .9556 .8929 .7748 .5886 .3523 .1330

17 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9998 .9991 .9964 .9879 .9645 .9087 .7939 .5951 .3231

18 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9999 .9995 .9979 .9924 .9757 .9308 .8244 .6083

19 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .9998 .9992 .9968 .9885 .9612 .8784

20 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 10 Acceptance Sampling 10S-21

n

⭐ 0.1

.01 N

0 1000

c n!

.02

700 P = P{m ⭐ c} = ⌺ pm(1 – p) n – m

5 m = 0 m!(n – m)!

500

400 p

Nu

ces (c)

.03 10 300 P

mb

.02

.04 .10

er

200

ccurren

20 .001

of

.05 140 .08

tria

40 100 .95

.06

ls

.005

Probability of occurrence in a single trial (p)

er of o

or

.07 70 .01

50

sa

.08 50

.02

m

70 40 n = 90

ple

.09

Numb

siz

100

20

e(

.10

n)

140 10 .20

.15

.30

5 .40

.50

.20 200 2 .60

0 .70

.25 .80

1 .90

.30

.95

2

(c)

.35 3 .98

ces

4 .99

ren

5 .995

.40

cur

7

Oc

.999

.45 9

30 20 10

70 50 40

.50 140 100

- ct02Uploaded byabhijit002
- Biostat - BStat 102 Stat Data CollectionUploaded byMichelle Teodoro
- PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONSUploaded byRaghuram Bhandari
- A study on Training Program for employeesUploaded byanil261262
- Statistical Quality ControlUploaded byJanine Artigo
- 07ASCW001Uploaded byYat Liu
- BRM-Chapter 11.pptxUploaded byMajid Kifayat
- Final Revision Research MethodologyUploaded bySue Ahmad
- 2.3_Distributions+分布Uploaded byJames Jiang
- Nursing Research ExamUploaded byJoe Smith Medina
- Acceptance SamplingUploaded byGirish Harsha
- ch09-Statistical Sampling For Testing Control Procedures.docUploaded byIamRuzehl Villaver
- BarbieroManzi 2014 Package SunterSamplingUploaded byakrause
- Method of Testing GroutsUploaded bysijua
- UntitledUploaded byMoses Chunga
- ISM-1_021512_Final (002)Uploaded byJarbas Zanon
- Calculator Shortcuts for APUploaded byVipin Arora
- Sample Size Estimation in Prevalence Studies.pdfUploaded byElizabeth Collins
- description: tags: rV195-ResearchInstit-0412Uploaded byanon-493742
- cmpe107 notesUploaded byjerendar
- 10 Sampling Questionnaire Interview Design RpUploaded byArul Dayanand
- SSC SyllabusUploaded bysidhdharajsinh
- Presentation 2Uploaded bySANTHOSH KUMAR V
- Normal distribution.pdfUploaded bysamriddha_671019633
- COMMUNICATION SCIENCE (SBB3802) LECTURE NOTES - Week 5Uploaded bymamat88
- S3 Notes.docxUploaded byRavi Nandha
- CUSTOMER_CARE_AND_SERVICE_PROVISION_IN_C.docUploaded bysigirya
- Business StatisticsUploaded byankurlala
- hypothesis_testing_MR_REPORT adjusted MARKTINGUploaded byHammna Emaan
- sampling designUploaded byManish Poonia

- Ch15 MaintenanceUploaded byNdomadu
- Risk-Management-Module-4-Summary.pdfUploaded byNdomadu
- Corrosion Management Course Summary Module 2Uploaded byNdomadu
- Corrosion Management Course Summary Module 3Uploaded byNdomadu
- Corrosion Management Course Summary Module 1 11Uploaded byNdomadu
- Risk Management Module 1 SummaryUploaded byNdomadu
- OGF-AIM-Course-3-Module-1.pdfUploaded byNdomadu
- Corrosion Management Course Summary Module 6Uploaded byNdomadu
- Risk-Management-Module-2-Summary.pdfUploaded byNdomadu
- Risk-Management-Module-2-Summary.pdfUploaded byNdomadu
- Corrosion Management Course Summary Module 5Uploaded byNdomadu
- reliabilityedge_v12i1Uploaded byNdomadu
- Risk Management Module 3 SummaryUploaded byNdomadu
- OGF AIM Course 2 Module 6Uploaded byNdomadu
- OGF AIM Course 3 Module 2Uploaded byNdomadu
- Risk-Management-Module-4-Summary.pdfUploaded byNdomadu
- AIM Course 1 Module 1Uploaded byNdomadu
- Organisational Integrity Module 2 SummaryUploaded byNdomadu
- Reliability Basics IIUploaded byNdomadu
- OGF AIM Course 1 Module 6Uploaded byNdomadu
- Organisational Integrity Module 1 SummaryUploaded byNdomadu
- Organisational Integrity Module 4 SummaryUploaded byNdomadu
- reliabilityedge_v11i1Uploaded byNdomadu
- Risk Management Module 5 SummaryUploaded byNdomadu
- OGF AIM Course 1 Module 5Uploaded byNdomadu
- Risk Management Module 6 SummaryUploaded byNdomadu
- AIM Course 1 Module 2Uploaded byNdomadu
- Organisational Integrity Module 3 SummaryUploaded byNdomadu
- AIM-OGF Course 1 Module 3Uploaded byNdomadu

- Asian PaintsUploaded bylokesh_045
- EUICS - The Burden of Crime in the EU.pdfUploaded byFirfirika
- 10-SQCUploaded bysingharvindkumar
- Ch 1 and 2Uploaded byzeyin mohammed aumer
- Gregoire_2011_Uploaded byPETER
- Field Sampling Guidelines-AustraliaUploaded byAngel Lara
- Qualitative Research in EducationUploaded byRafael Estrada
- 38294174 Research on Panasonic My Original ProjectUploaded byRAJUGOKULRAJ
- Methodist Project (Chapter 1 - 5) - David Mbugua (Kenya)Uploaded bywaruingi123
- Garcia Group Pr Def Bukas 1Uploaded bycan't aid 1k mmr
- Quality Management.pdfUploaded byArif Budiman Ken
- StatisticsUploaded bysalman672003
- A Summer Training Report of Litesh PahujaUploaded byamri21
- Research Quality in Case Study Research Ates EURAM08Uploaded bySiva Sankara Narayanan Subramanian
- Management of Accounts ReceivablesUploaded bySandesh Bharadwaj
- the Business Research ProcessUploaded byIman Nurakhmad Fajar
- Abrar.pptxUploaded byAbrar Mulla
- A Study of Sleeping ProblemUploaded bySabbir Ahmed
- D 1761 - 88 R00 _RDE3NJE_Uploaded byAnonymous 6SHxUn1xd1
- The Impact of Project Management Methodologies on Project Success: A Case Study of the Oil and Gas Industry in the Kingdom of BahrainUploaded byInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- Sherwin 2014Uploaded byMarlon Gabriel
- Bss Fhi2000Uploaded byAguu Derem
- Digital Image ClassificationUploaded byfleaxx
- Nattasha to PrintUploaded byRaman Kapoor
- Verbal ModelsUploaded byNilesh Asnani
- Statistics Chapter 8 SolutionsUploaded byWilliam Nguyen
- SamplingUploaded byDinesh Dhakad
- 5 SamplingUploaded byAnthonyJoahnnes
- Business Statstics/Series-4-2011(Code3009)Uploaded byHein Linn Kyaw
- Need Assessment Study of Mental Health and Substance of Puerto Rico 2016Uploaded byDescriminalización.org