Number of injuries (c) A

Month Year 1 Year 2 Average X

January 6 10 8.00
February 2 5 3.50
March 4 9 6.50
April 8 4 6.00
May 5 3 4.00
June 4 2 3.00
July 23 2 12.50
August 7 1 4.00
September 3 3 3.00
October 5 4 4.50
November 12 3 7.50
December 7 1 4.00

constants for control charts

 Average data Range data
Center line X Upper control line Lower control line Range Center line R
5.54 6.94 4.15 4 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 3 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 5 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 4 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 2 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 2 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 21 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 6 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 0 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 1 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 9 5.25
5.54 6.94 4.15 6 5.25

Mean control charts

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1

Average data Average X Center line X

Upper control line Lower control line
 Range data
Upper control line Lower control line
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49
9.01 1.49

We can see that in the months of January, July and

November there were many cases of accidents that
required first aid, more than what was estimated per
month, while in the months of February, May, June,
August, September and December There were fewer
cases of serious accidents than expected, so in those
months there was greater caution on the part of
workers, while in March, April and October there were
more serious accidents than expected.

8 9 10 11 12

er line X
er control line
 Average da
Cabinet No. Number of defects Average X
1 1 3.13
2 0 3.13
3 3 3.13
4 6 3.13
5 3 3.13
6 3 3.13
7 4 3.13
8 5 3.13
9 10 5.13
10 8 5.13
11 4 5.13
12 3 5.13
13 7 5.13
14 5 5.13
15 3 5.13
16 1 5.13
17 4 2.89
18 1 2.89
19 1 2.89
20 1 2.89
21 0 2.89
22 4 2.89
23 5 2.89
24 5 2.89
25 5 2.89

constants for control charts

 Average data Range data
Center line X Upper control line Lower control line Range Center line R
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10
3.68 5.21 2.15 10 10

Mean control cha

12

10

2
6

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1

Number of defects Center line X Upper

 Range data
Upper control line Lower control line
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59
15.41 4.59

It can be seen that an excess of defects was obtained, that is, ab

Mean control charts the maximum allowed durings in cabinets 4, 9, 10 and 13, while
between 1 and zero defects are obtained in cabinets 1,2, 16 and
from the 18th to the 21st, finally in the others there are defects
within what was expected.

The average length when you have 6 defects is 3.13.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Center line X Upper control line Lower control line

of defects was obtained, that is, above
s in cabinets 4, 9, 10 and 13, while
re obtained in cabinets 1,2, 16 and
ally in the others there are defects

have 6 defects is 3.13.

Sample No. Number defective sample size NP P
1 2 50 2 0.04
2 3 50 2 0.04
3 1 50 2 0.04
4 4 50 2 0.04
5 0 50 2 0.04
6 1 50 2 0.04
7 2 50 2 0.04
8 2 50 2 0.04
9 3 50 2 0.04
10 2 50 2 0.04
11 2 50 2 0.04
12 2 50 2 0.04
13 3 50 2 0.04
14 4 50 2 0.04
15 5 50 2 0.04
16 1 50 2 0.04
17 0 50 2 0.04
18 0 50 2 0.04
19 1 50 2 0.04
20 2 50 2 0.04
40
 S Upper control line Lower control line
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
1.358 6.073 1.88
 Mean control charts
7

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Number defective NP
Upper control line Lower control line

It is only seen that in samples 3, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, fewer defects
were obtained than expected, while in the other samples, quantities
of defects were obtained within the range of what was expected.
Sample number Number of defectives sample size
1 4 100
2 2 100
3 4 100
4 3 100
5 2 100
6 6 100
7 3 100
8 1 100
9 1 100
10 5 100
11 4 100
12 4 100
13 1 100
14 2 100
15 1 100
16 4 100
17 1 100
18 0 100
19 3 100
20 4 100
21 2 100
22 1 100
23 0 100
24 3 100
25 2 100
26 2 100
27 0 100
28 1 100
29 3 100
30 0 100
31 0 100
32 2 100
33 1 100
34 1 100
35 4 100
36 0 100
37 2 100
38 3 100
39 2 100
40 1 100
85
 NP P S Upper control line
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
2.125 0.0213 1.43 6.405
Lower control line
2.06 Mean control charts
2.06 7
2.06
2.06 6
2.06
5
2.06
2.06 4
2.06
2.06 3
2.06
2
2.06
2.06 1
2.06
2.06 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
2.06
2.06 Number of defectives NP
Upper control line Lower control line
2.06
2.06
2.06 This graph shows us that the majority of our samples are below the expected minimum
2.06 number of defects, while in only 15 of the 40 samples, the expected number of defects
2.06 occurred.
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
s

262728293031323334353637383940

er control line

re below the expected minimum

the expected number of defects