DR.

AKHILESH DAS GUPTA INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

SQCR PROJECT FILE Year 2020-21

By
Yash Verma
Roll No. 40515611117
F-13 ME

Submitted to
Mr. Rajat Gupta (Professor)

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Experiment Number Page Number

Title Page 1

Table of content 2

Experiment 1 3

Experiment 2 5

Experiment 3 9

Experiment 4 12

Experiment 5 13

Experiment 6 16

Experiment 7 17

Experiment 8 18

Experiment 9 20

2|Page
Experiment 1
A semiautomatic turret lathe machines the thickness of a part that is
subsequently used in an assembly. The process mean is known to be 30 mm
with a standard deviation of 1.5 mm. Construct a control chart for the
average thickness using 3 limits if samples of size 5 are randomly selected
from the process. Table 6-1 shows the average thickness of 15 samples
selected from the process. Plot these on a control chart, and make inferences.

Solution:

The centreline is
CL = 30 mm
The standard deviation of the sample mean X is given by

Assuming a normal distribution of the sample mean thickness, the value oik in eq. (6-1) is
selected as 3.
The control limits are calculated as follows:
UCL = 30 + (3)(0.671) = 32.013
LCL = 30 - (3)(0.671) = 27.987
The centerline and control limits are shown in Figure 6-2. The sample means for the 15 samples
shown in Table 6-1 are plotted on this control chart. Figure 6-2 shows that all of the sample
means are within the control limits. Also, the pattern of the plot does not exhibit any nonrandom
behavior. Thus, we conclude that the process is in control.

3|Page
Errors in Making Inferences from Control Charts
Making inferences from a control chart is analogous to testing a hypothesis. Suppose that we
are interested in testing the null hypothesis that the average diameter Θ of a part from a
particular process is 25 mm. This situation is represented by the null hypothesis H0: Θ = 25;
the alternative hypothesis is Ha: Θ * 25. The rejection region of the null hypothesis is thus
twotailed. The control limits are the critical points that separate the rejection and acceptance
regions. If a sample value (sample average diameter, in this case) falls above the upper control
limit or below the lower control limit, we reject the null hypothesis. In such a case, we conclude
that the process mean differs from 25 mm and the process is therefore out of control. Types I
and II errors can occur when making inferences from control charts.
Type I Errors Type I errors result from inferring that a process is out of control when it is
actually in control. The probability of a type I error is denoted by a. Suppose that a process is
in control. If a point on the control chart falls outside the control limits, we assume that the
process is out of control. However, since the control limits are a finite distance (usually, 3
standard deviations) from the mean, there is a small chance (about 0.0026) of a sample statistic
falling outside the control limits. In such instances, inferring that the process is out of control
is a wrong conclusion. Figure 6-3 shows the probability of making a type I error in control
charts. It is the sum of the two tail areas outside the control limits.
Type II Errors Type II errors result from inferring that a process is in control when it is really
out of control. If no observations fall outside the control limits, we conclude that the process is
in control. Suppose, however, that a process is actually out of control. Perhaps the process
mean has changed (say, an operator has inadvertently changed a depth of cut or the quality of
raw materials has decreased). Or, the process could go out of control because the process
variability has changed (due to the presence of a new operator). Under such circumstances, a
sample statistic could fall within the control limits, yet the process would be out of control—
this is a type II error.

4|Page
Experiment 2
The thickness of the magnetic coating on audio tapes is an important
characteristic. Random samples of size 4 are selected, and the thickness is
measured using an optical instrument. Table 7-3 shows the mean Xand
standard deviation s for 20 samples. The specifications are 38 ±4.5
micrometers (μπι). If a coating thickness is less than the specifications call
for, that tape can be used for a different purpose by running it through
another coating operation.

(a) Find the trial control limits for an X- and an i-chart.

Solution:
The standard deviation chart must first be constructed. The centerline of the s-chart is

The control limits for the s-chart are

UCL = B4s = (2.266) (4.790) = 10.854
LCL = B3s= (0) (4.790) = 0
Figure 7-18 shows this standard deviation control chart. None of the points fall outside the
control limits, and the process seems to be in a state of control, theX-chart is constructed next.
The centerline of the X-chart is

5|Page
Figure 7-19 depicts the X-chart. All the points are within the control limits, and no unusual
nonrandom pattern is visible on the plot.

6|Page
(b) Assuming special causes for the out-of-control points, determine the
revised control limits.

Solution:
In this case, the revised control limits will be the same as the trial control limits because we
believe that no special causes are present in the system.
(c) Assuming the thickness of the coating to be normally distributed, what
proportion of the product will not meet specifications?

Solution:
The process standard deviation may be estimated as

(d) Comment on the ability of the process to produce items that meet
specifications.

Solution:
A proportion of 39.28% of product not meeting specifications is quite high. On the other
hand, we found the process to be in control. This example teaches an important lesson. It is
possible for a process to be in control and still not produce conforming items. In such cases,
management must look for the prevailing common causes and come up with ideas for process
improvement. The existing process is not capable of meeting the stated specifications.

7|Page
(e) If the process average shifts to 37.8 μm, what proportion of the product
will be acceptable?

Solution:
If the process average shifts to 37.8 μm, the standard normal values must be recalculated. At
the LSL,

8|Page
Experiment 3
Management has decided to set a standard of 3% for the proportion of
nonconforming test tubes produced in a plant. Data collected from 20 samples of
size 100 are shown in Table 8-3, as is the proportion of nonconforming test tubes
for each sample. The centerline and control limits, based on the specified standard,
are found to be

9|Page
10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
Experiment 4
The diameter of a part has to fit an assembly. The specifications for the
diameter are 5 ± 0.015 cm. The samples taken from the process in control
yield a sample mean X of 4.99 cm and a sample standard deviation * of 0.004
cm. Find the natural tolerance limits of the process. Would you consider
adjusting the process center?

Solution:
The upper and lower natural tolerance limits based on the sample estimates are found using
eq. (9-1):

12 | P a g e
Experiment 5
Construct an OC curve for a single sampling plan where the lot size is 2000,
the sample size is 50, and the acceptance number is 2.

Solution:
We are given N = 2000, n = 50, and c = 2. The probability of lot acceptance is equivalent to
the probability of obtaining 2 or fewer nonconforming items in the sample. The Poisson
probability distribution in Appendix A-2 is used to obtain the lot acceptance probability for
different values of the proportion nonconforming/;. Let's suppose that/? is 0.02 (i.e., the batch
is 2% nonconforming). Since np = (50) (0.02) = 1.0, the probability Pa of accepting the lot
(using Appendix A-2) is 0.920. Table 10-1 shows values of Pa for various values οϊρ. In some
instances, the probability values are linearly interpolated from Appendix A-2. A plot of these
values, the OC curve, is shown in Figure 10-2. The discriminating power of the sampling plan
N = 2000, n = 50, c = 2 can be seen from the OC curve in Figure 10-2. If a series of batches,
each of which is 1% nonconforming, comes in for inspection, then (using this plan) the
probability of lot acceptance is 0.986. It means that, on average, about 986 out of 1000 such
batches will be accepted by the sampling plan. On the other hand, if batches are 5%
nonconforming, only about 544 out of 1000 batches will be accepted. As the lot quality
becomes poorer, the probability of lot acceptance decreases, as it should. The steeper the drop
in the probability of lot acceptance as lot quality worsens, the higher the discriminatory power
of the sampling plan. Producer and consumer risk can also be demonstrated through the OC
curve. Suppose that our numerical definition of good quality (indicated by the AQL) is 0.01
and that of poor quality (indicated by the LQL) is 0.11. From the OC curve in Figure 10-2, the
producer's risk a is 1 - 0.986 = 0.014. We consider batches that are 1 % nonconforming to be
good. If our sampling plan is used, such batches will be rejected about 1.4% of the time.
Batches that are 11% nonconforming, on the other hand, will be accepted 8.8% of the time.
The consumer's risk is therefore 8.8%.

13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e
Experiment 6
Construct the AOQ curve for the sampling plan # = 2000, n = 50, c = 2.

Solution:
The probability of lot acceptance for various values of the incoming lot quality p is listed in
Table 10-1. Using these values of Pa and p, the values of AOQ are calculated for different
values of p. Figure 10-5 shows the AOQ curve for the sampling plan N = 2000, n = 50, c = 2.
Note that when the incoming quality is very good, the average outgoing quality is also very
good. When the incoming quality is very poor, the average outgoing quality is good because
most of the lots are rejected by the sampling plan and go through screening. In between these
extremes, the AOQ curve reaches a maximum, AOQL.
Average Outgoing Quality Limit The average outgoing quality limit (AOQL) is the
maximum value, or peak, of the AOQ curve. It represents the worst average quality that would
leave the inspection station, assuming rectification, regardless of the incoming lot quality. The
AOQL value is also a measure of goodness of a sampling plan. Note that the protection offered
by the sampling plan, in terms of the AOQL value, does not apply to individual lots. It holds
for the average quality of a series of batches. Consider Example 10-2 and the AOQ curve in
Figure 10-5. The AOQL value is approximately 0.0265, or 2.65%. This means that for the
sampling plan above, N = 2000, n = 50, c = 2, we have, some protection against the worst
quality for a series of batches that leave the inspection program. The average quality level will
not be poorer than 2.65% nonconforming. However, it is possible for an individual lot to have
an outgoing quality level of more than 2.65% nonconforming. The AOQL value and the shape
of the AOQ curve depend on the particular sampling plan. Sampling plans are designed such
that their AOQL does not exceed a certain specified value.

16 | P a g e
Experiment 7
Construct the ATI curve for the sampling plan where N = 2000, n = 50, c =
2.

Solution:
Consider the calculations for a given value of the lot quality p of 0.02. As shown in Table 10-
1, the probability of accepting such a lot using the sampling plan is Pa = 0.920.
The ATI for this value of p is
ATI = 50 + (1 - 0.920)(2000 - 50) = 206.
For other values of p, the ATI is found in the same manner. The ATI curve is plotted in Figure
10-6. Given the unit cost of inspection, the ATI curve can be used to estimate the average
inspection cost if the quality level of incoming batches is known.

17 | P a g e
Experiment 8

For the double sampling plan N=3000, nx =40, c1 = 1, r1 =4, n2 = 80, Ci = 3,

r2 = 4, find the average sample number for batches with a proportion
nonconforming of 0.02, assuming no curtailment.

Solution:

First, calculate Ρ , the probability of making a decision after the first sample:

18 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
Experiment 9
Find a single sampling plan that satisfies a producer's risk of 5% for lots that
are 1.8% nonconforming, and a consumer's risk of 10% for lots that are 9%
nonconforming.

Solution:

20 | P a g e
Alternatively, we could select a plan with the largest sample size, which provides the most
information. Here we would choose plan 2 with n = 76, c = 3. As discussed previously, this
plan satisfies the producer's stipulation exactly and comes as close as possible to the consumer's
stipulation.

21 | P a g e