COPYRIGHT
Ledolter, J. and Hogg, R. V. Applied Statistics for Engineers and Physical Scientists, Third Edition Prentice Hall, 2009
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 293
Chapter
STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL
5.1 Shewhart Control Charts
All processes have some variation. When we manufacture a product, measurements on the ﬁnal product inevitably show variation from unintentional changes to the process as well as random variation. Many different factors enter into a production process, and a change in each will cause some variation in the ﬁnal product.This vari ation may come from differences among machines, lottolot variation, differences in suppliers and incoming raw materials, changes in the plant environment, and so on. Despite the fact that considerable effort is expended in attempting to control the variability in each of these factors, there will still be variability in the ﬁnal product. In the end, this variability has to be controlled. Statistical control charts or, more generally, statistical process control methods are procedures for monitoring process variation and for generating information on the stability of a process. It is important to check the stability of processes, because unstable processes will result in lost production, defective products, poor quality, and, in general, loss of consumer conﬁdence. For example, in the production of integratedcircuit boards, which involves several welding procedures, it may be the weld strength that is of importance. Selecting a small sample of such boards at regu lar intervals and measuring the weld strength by a certain pull test to destruction will provide valuable information on the stability of the welding process. In the produc tion of concrete blocks, it is the compressive strength that is of importance and that needs to be controlled. Measurements on a small number of concrete blocks—say, twice during each production shift—can give us valuable information on the stability of the production process. In the production of thin wafers for integratedcircuit devices by hightemperature furnace oxide growth processes, it is the thickness of the wafers that needs to be controlled. Measurements on the thickness of a few selected wafers from every other furnace run can indicate whether the thickness of the product is stable. Here we have given only three examples. Many others can be found, and we encourage the reader to think of still others.
293
Average x
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 294
294 Chapter 5 Statistical Process Control
90
UCL
86
Centerline
82
78
2
LCL
4 6
8
Sampling period
10
12
Figure 5.11 xchart for the sample means in Table 5.11 (see p. 297)
5.11
x Charts and RCharts
A control chart is a plot of a summary statistic from samples that are taken
sequentially. Usually, the sample mean and a measure of the sample variability, such
as the standard deviation or the range, are plotted on control charts. Figures 5.11
and 5.12 are two examples. Figure 5.11 shows the average compressive strengths of
=
blocks are taken from the production line, their compressive strengths are deter mined, and the average is entered on the chart. Since we plot averages, we call this an
x chart 1where “xbar” stands for average2. In Figure 5.12, we display the variability within the samples over time and plot the ranges from successive samples; we call such a plot an Rchart 1where R stands for range2.
. Twice during each shift, ﬁve concrete
concrete blocks from samples of size
n
5
Sampling period
Figure 5.12 Rchart for the sample ranges in Table 5.11 (see p. 297)
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 295
Shewhart Control Charts
295
Control charts also include bands, or control limits, that help us determine whether a particular average 1or range2 is “within acceptable limits” of random vari ation. Through these limits, control charts try to distinguish between variation that can normally be expected 1variation due to common causes2 and variation that is caused by unexpected changes 1variation due to special causes2. One should not tamper with the process if the measurements on these charts fall within the control
limits. However, if one notices shifts in the process level on the chart, and if plotted averages are outside the control limits, one must conclude that something has hap pened to the process. Similarly, if the process variation, as measured on the Rchart, changes by more than what could be expected under usual circumstances, one must conclude that the process variability is no longer stable. In these circumstances, steps have to be taken to uncover the special causes and keep them from recurring.
The theoretical explanation of the control limits in the chart is as follows: Let
us suppose that our observations are from a stable distribution with mean and
x
x
m
variance .Then the mean of a random sample of size n from this distribution has
an approximate normal distribution with mean and variance
X falls within the bounds
m  3 s > 1n
the lower control limit 1LCL2 and the upper control limit 1UCL2,
X falling between the
LCL and the UCL is very large. Consequently, it is rare that a sample average X from such a stable process would fall outside the control limits. Unfortunately, we usually do not know whether our process is stable, nor do we
respectively. Thus, with a stable process, the probability of
plotted on a chart, the probability that a sample average
>n . If averages are
s
2
X
m
s
2
and
m + 3 s > 1n
is 0.9974. If
m
and
s
2
are known, we call
m  3 s> 1n
and m + 3 s> 1n
know the values of
m and s ^{2}
.Thus, we begin by taking several samples, each of size n.
Let us say that there are k such samples. Let 
x 
_{1} , x _{2} , Á , x _{k} 
and s _{1} , s _{2} , Á , s _{k} 
be the 

means and standard deviations of these samples. Then we can estimate 
s 
by the 
average of the standard deviations, namely,
we are reasonably satisﬁed with the overall average of the nk observations in these k
samples, we can use chart; that is, we use
are given by
xp
is a
depends on the sample size n and is given
is beyond the scope of this
book. Note, however, that
because we use an estimate
are quite similar; for
and
3> 1n = 0.95 ; for larger n, the difference disappears almost completely. However, the calculation of the standard deviations involves a considerable amount of computation. An alternative, and simpler, procedure for estimating
3 s> 1n proceeds as follows: Let
is a
be the ranges of the k samples. Calcu
late the average range
good estimate of 3 s> 1n
depends on the sample size n and is also given in Table C.1. With this modi
when one is sampling from a normal distribution. The con
in Table C.1.The development behind the selection of
; this is
instead of the unknown standard deviation s . Note
also that, for moderately large sample sizes,
good estimate of
as the centerline in our control
. Moreover, if
s = 1s _{1} + s _{2} + Á + s _{k} 2>k
xp = 1x _{1} + x _{2} + Á + x _{k} 2>k
xp
as an estimate of
m
. With these estimates, the control limits around the centerline
 A
3
s
and
example, for
xp
+ A
3
s
, where the constant
3
s > 1n
. The constant
A
3
A
3
n
=
5
,
A
3
A
3
A
3
xp
is chosen in such a way that
A
A 3
3> 1n
3
s
= 0.98
,
in Table C.l is always slightly larger than
s
,
and
A
3
and
3> 1n = 1.34
;
3> 1n
for
n
=
10
,
= 1.43
R _{1} , R _{2} , Á , R _{k}
R
=
1R
_{1} + R _{2} + Á + R _{k} 2>k . It can be shown that
A
2
R
stant
A 2
ﬁcation, the
control limits
x
chart consists of a centerline at
xp
 A
2
R
and xp + A
2
R
.
xp
, which is an estimate of
m
, and
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 296
296 Chapter 5 Statistical Process Control
There are several control charts for measures of variability. Either the range R or the standard deviation s of samples of size n can be used to measure variability, and R and scharts can be constructed. In this book, we concentrate on Rcharts, on which we plot ranges of successive samples. We approximate the centerline of the Rchart with the average of the k values of
R,
UCL = D _{4} R , respectively. The constants and , and thus the limits, are chosen
so that, for a stable process, the probability of an individual R falling between the
LCL and the UCL is extremely large. The constants
Table C.1. In sum, the construction of the control charts is very simple. We take samples of
a few observations 1usually, the sample size n is 4 or 52 at various times. It is often
to 20 such samples be obtained before constructing
the control limits. Depending on the application, these samples can be taken every four hours 1see the weld strength example2, twice a shift 1compressive strength2, from every other furnace run 1wafer example2, every hour, from every tenth batch, and so on. The frequency of the sampling depends on the stability of the process; the more stable the process, the longer is the time between samples. The frequency
also depends on the potential loss that is caused when deteriorations of the
process are not recognized on time and, of course, on the cost of the sampling inspec
tion. From each sample, we calculate the average
chart
R = max1x
and the range
recommended that
and
namely,
R
. The lower and upper control limits are taken to be
D
3
D
4
D
3
and
D
4
LCL = D
3
R
are also given in
k
=
10
x
= g ^{n} _{=} _{1} x _{i} >n
i
_{1}
, Á , x _{n} 2  min1x _{1} , Á , x _{n} 2 , and we enter these quantities on the
x
and Rchart. From the k sample averages and ranges, we compute the grand average 1the average of the averages2,
xp
=
^{1}
k
k
a
j = 1
x
_{j} ,
and the average of the ranges,
R
=
^{1}
k
k
a
j = 1
R
_{j} .
These quantities form the respective centerlines in the
The control limits in the
x chart are given by
x chart and the Rchart.
LCL = xp
 A _{2} R
and
UCL = xp + A _{2} R.
The control limits in the Rchart are given by
LCL = D _{3} R
and
UCL = D _{4} R.
, depend on the sample size n. These constants are chosen such that almost all future
averages and ranges R will fall within the respective control limits, provided that the process has remained under control 1which means that the level has not shifted and the variability has not changed2. If the process is stable, it is rare that a sample average or sample range will fall outside the control limits. However, if there are shifts and drifts in the process, then the averages or the ranges 1or both2 are likely to exceed the limits and generate an alarm. We should also point to a limitation of the Rchart.Table C.1 shows that the con
, are zero for sample sizes smaller
stant
can be found in Table C.1 in Appendix C; they
The constants
x
A
2
D
3
, and
D
4
D
3
, and thus also the lower control limit D
3
R
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 297
Shewhart Control Charts
297
Table 5.11 Compressive Strength of Concrete 1kg>cm ^{2} 2 

Sample 
Compressive Strength 
x 
R 

i 
1 
91 
88 
88 
90 
83 
88.0 
8 

2 
84 
89 
80 
79 
87 
83.8 
10 

3 
93 
90 
87 
89 
85 
88.8 
8 

4 
76 
84 
82 
79 
82 
80.6 
8 

Samples used 
5 
83 
85 
81 
80 
86 
83.0 
6 

to determine 
6 
84 
84 
90 
79 
83 
84.0 
11 

the control 
7 
83 
89 
80 
82 
91 
85.0 
11 

limits 
8 
78 
79 
90 
81 
85 
82.6 
12 

9 
82 
81 
87 
86 
79 
83.0 
8 

10 
88 
90 
83 
84 
87 
86.4 
7 

Mean 
x = 84.52 
_{R} 
_{=} 
_{8}_{.}_{9} 

11 79 
87 
82 
85 
83 
83.2 
8 

12 72 
79 
76 
77 
78 
76.4 
7 
than 7. This implies that, for small n, the Rchart can warn about increases in vari ability, but not about reductions. That is unfortunate, because, in quality improve ment applications, one would also like to know whether certain actions have led to a reduction in variability. Consider the data in Table 5.11, which lists the compressive strength measure
ments on concrete blocks from
. The process was
sampled twice during each production shift, and the observations were taken while the process was under control, or at least thought to be under control. With n = 5 observations in each sample, we ﬁnd from Table C.1 that the constants are
A
k
=
10
samples of size
n
=
5
_{2}
= 0.577 ,
D
3
=
0
, and
D
4
= 2.115
.Thus, the control limits for the
x
chart are
LCL = xp  A _{2} R = 84.52  10.577218.92 = 79.38
and
UCL = xp + A _{2} R = 84.52 + 10.577218.92 = 89.66.
=
= 18.82 , which are the limits shown in Figures 5.11 and 5.12. We see
that the averages and ranges of all 10 samples are within these limits. We could have expected this, because we were told that the process was in control when the obser vations were taken. But let us plot the results of the next two samples, also given in
Table 5.11, on these charts. In that table, we ﬁnd that the twelfth average
smaller than the lower control limit on the chart. This fact should alert the user to
12.115218.92
The limits on the Rchart are
LCL = D
_{3}
R
=
10218.92
= 0 and UCL
=
D
4
R
x
= 76.4 is
x
the possibility that this particular sample represents the result of an unusual event, called a special cause. Such a ﬁnding should lead to an investigation 1i.e., discussions with workers on the production line, checking whether there were changes in raw materials, looking for any other unusual condition2 that will identify a cause that can
be assigned to this event. Finally, any causes found should be eliminated.
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 298
298 Chapter 5 Statistical Process Control
Control charts are useful methods that help us assess whether a process is stable. They alert the user to situations in which something has shifted. A point outside the control limits forces us to ﬁnd an assignable cause of this unusual event and, more important, to make certain changes in the process that prevent such conditions from happening again. Control charts will uncover many external sources that lead to shifts in the mean level and in the variability of the process. Their graphical simplic ity makes them a very valuable instrument for process control. The requirement to identify assignable causes and eliminate them forces management and workers to take an aggressive attitude toward maintaining the quality of the work.
Remarks: The use of control charts and a strategy of investigating and eliminating special causes will lead to stable processes. However, we want to make it clear at this point that control limits and speciﬁcation limits are not the same. That we have a stable process 1or, to say it differently, a process that is under control2 implies that we have been successful in eliminating special, unusual causes.The variability that is due to common causes, however, is still present and may lead to products that are outside the speciﬁcation limits. The ﬁrst step in improving processes is to bring them under control. Once we have eliminated special causes and have made a process stable, we can check whether the process also satisﬁes the required speciﬁcation limits. This can be done in the following way:
, where n is the size of each sample, it follows
. If the
that
underlying distribution is approximately normal 1unimodal and fairly symmetric with
. If
these two bounds are within the speciﬁcations, most items must be within speciﬁca
out long tails2, almost all items should be between
Because
1nA
2
R
A
2
R
is an estimate of
is an estimate of
3 s
3 s> 1n
. Thus,
xp ; 1nA
2
R
is an estimate of
xp  1nA
2
R
and
m ; 3 s
xp + 1nA
2
R
tions too. However, if one or both of the bounds are outside the speciﬁ
cation limits, it is highly likely that some of the items will be outside the speciﬁcation
limits.The situation should be reviewed carefully, with questions such as “How many items are outside the speciﬁcations?” and “Were the speciﬁcations determined cor rectly?” addressed. If a stable process is not capable of producing items within the speciﬁcation lim its, we must think about making changes to our process. In later chapters on the design of experiments, we will learn how to decide which changes are most promising.
xp ; 1nA _{2} R
5.12 pCharts and c Charts
Control charts are useful not only for averages and ranges, but also for proportions, such as proportions of defectives. Control charts are also useful not just in manufac turing applications, but in other areas as well, such as the service industry. In fact, they can be applied to virtually all situations in which data are taken sequentially in time. Suppose, for example, that we simply need to judge whether a manufactured item is satisfactory.That is, although we prefer to take more accurate measurements, here we just check an item on a pass–fail basis: that it is within or outside the speciﬁ cations. Assume that an inspector on the production line checks a sample of n items at certain stated periods 1every hour, halfday, day, etc., depending on the numbers of items produced each day2 and observes the number of defectives, say, d, among
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 299
Shewhart Control Charts
299
the n items. If this is done for k periods, we obtain the number of defectives d _{1} , d _{2} , Á , d _{k} .The average fraction of defectives is
Example
5.11
1d _{1}
+ d _{2} + Á + d _{k} 2
p
=
nk
Statistical theory implies that, in a stable process 1i.e., a process that produces
p 2, almost all of the future fractions of defectives, d>n, will be
^{.}
defectives at the rate
between the lower and upper control limits:
LCL
= p  3 B p11
 p2
n
and
UCL
= p + 3 _{B} ^{p}^{1}^{1}
^{} ^{p}^{2}
n
^{.}
limits are obtained from the sampling distribution of a proportion
which has variance
centerline at , are plotted on a chart; because we are plotting fractions of defectives,
or percentages, we call it a pchart. Fractions outside these limits suggest that the process has gone out of control and that the fraction of defectives has changed. In particular, a point exceeding the upper control limit indicates that the process has deteriorated. In such a situation, we should look for possible reasons for the sudden increase in the number of defectives.
. The control limits LCL and UCL, together with the
These
3
s
p
p11  p2>n
Each hour,
number of defectives:
n
= 50
fuses are tested. For the ﬁrst
k
= 20
hours, we ﬁnd the following
1
1
3
0
2
4
0
0
1
2
3
2
0
1
1
1
3
0
0
2.
Thus, given that
p = 27>1000 = 0.027
is the average fraction of defectives.We must ﬁrst decide whether this fraction is rep resentative for our particular process. If it is, then
nk = 1,000
, it follows that
LCL = 0.027 
3 B 10.027210.9732
_{5}_{0}
=  0.042
and
UCL = 0.027 +
3 B 10.027210.9732
50
= 0.096.
, and because the fraction defective, d>n, can never be less
than zero, we plot the LCL at zero or omit it entirely. In Figure 5.13, we have plotted
the preceding 20 values of the fraction defective, together with 6 more recent ones
1those with d values of 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, and 5, and fraction of defectives
2>50 = 0.04, 2>50 = 0.04, 2>50 = 0.04, 4>50 = 0.08
values would also be plotted as long as the process is under control. However, we ﬁnd that the sixth additional fraction defective is above the UCL. This suggests that the process has become unstable and that corrective action should be taken. In this example, we have assumed that 2.7 percent defective is acceptable and that we are willing to produce at that level; this may not be the case for other items.
Additional
1>50 = 0.02,
Because
LCL 6 0
, and
5>50 = 0.10
2.
Hour
Figure 5.13 pchart for the data in Example 5.11
_{}
The cchart is similar to the pchart, except that now we count the number of ﬂaws or defectives on a certain unit 1a bolt of fabric, a length of wire, and so on2, rather than the number of defectives among n items. Suppose that we determine the
number c of blemishes in 50 feet of a continuous strip of tin plate. This is done each
hour for k hours, resulting in
c _{1} , c _{2} , Á , c _{k}
, with an average of
c
=
1c _{1}
+
c _{2}
+
Á + c _{k} 2>k.
The cchart is a timesequence plot of the number of defectives,
1, 2, Á , k .
c , and the respective lower and upper control limits for the
c _{j} , j
=
Its centerline is given by cchart are
LCL 
= 
c 
 
3 1c 

and 

UCL 
= 
c 
+ 
3 1c. 
s
These are approximations to the The Poisson distribution with parameter
approximates the distribution of the number of defectives. The control limits are
l 1which is the mean, as well as the variance,
of the Poisson distribution2 with the sample mean.
l is appropriate in this context, because it
of a Poisson distribution.
3
limits
l ; 3 1l
obtained after replacing the parameter
Example 
We observe 
k 
= 
15 
50foot tin strips and obtain the following numbers of blemishes: 

5.12 
2 
1 
1 
0 
5 
2 
3 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
4 
3 
1. 
The average is
c = 26>15 = 1.73
, and we also have
LCL = 1.73  3 2 1.73 =  2.22 1 = 02
and
UCL = 1.73 + 3 2 1.73 = 5.68.
These 15 points, together with the 10 additional observations
3
1
1
0
2
2
5
0
1
2,
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 301
Shewhart Control Charts
301
Sampling period
Figure 5.14 cchart for the data in Example 5.12
are plotted on the cchart in Figure 5.14. Of course, as long as the process is under control, as it is with these 10 additional points, future points are plotted on this cchart. Occasionally, new control limits are calculated if the points continue to fall within the control limits; thus, the control limits may change slightly. Points outside the control limits, however, indicate that the process has become unstable. Causes of these unusual events must be found and eliminated.
_{}
Remarks: The control charts that we have been discussing in this section were developed in the late 1920s by Shewhart in the United States and by Dudding and
Jennet in Great Britain. In the United States, they are usually referred to as She whart control charts.
Charts for Sub
x  and
Stat 7 Control Charts 7 Attribute
Charts” construct control charts for attribute data, such as p and ccharts. When viewing timesequence plots such as Shewhart charts, you should guard against reading too much into short sequences of points. For example, in the desire to improve, a supervisor may believe that three successive points below the center line of a pchart are an indication that the process has improved. Of course, we rec ognize that the probability of getting three points below the centerline is fairly large, even if the process has stayed unchanged. Indeed, this probability is 1>8, as there is
Rcharts, or  and scharts. The commands in “
groups,” Minitab constructs control charts for measurement variables, such as
Through the commands in “
x
Stat 7 Control Charts 7 Variables
only one arrangement with all three points below the current level among 2 ^{3} = 8 equally likely ones. Sales managers, especially, are known to misinterpret their graphs. Two consecutive sales periods with sales above the stable level are often taken as evidence of improvement. Is that enough, however, to claim improvement
when, with no actual changes, the probability of such an arrangement is 1>4? Cer tainly not. Perhaps ﬁve observations above the stable level in succession would be more reason for celebration.The probability of such an event is 1>32, as there is only
2 ^{5} = 32
one arrangement with all ﬁve points above the stable level among the
equally likely ones. Because this probability is rather small, it seems more likely that
some signiﬁcant improvement has taken place.
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 302
302 Chapter 5 Statistical Process Control
5.13 Other Control Charts
Shewhart control charts provide a useful display of the data and give us a simple rule for making decisions as to whether a process has started to become unstable. Such charts require that measurements on the process be taken on a regular basis and that the results be prominently displayed. They create an atmosphere in which the qual ity of the process is checked on a regular basis. They enhance our awareness of the present state of the process and make us “listen to” the process. A disadvantage of these charts, however, is their relative insensitivity to small or moderate changes in the mean value. Cumulative sum 1cusum2 charts, by contrast, are more responsive to small changes in the mean level. In cusum charts, we consider 
deviations
of the observations 1or sample averages2 from a reference value g
x
_{i}
g
and calculate the cumulative sums
r
S _{r} = _{a} 1x _{i}  g2 = 1x _{r}  g2 + S _{r} _{} _{1} .
i = 1
The mean of the incontrol process is usually taken as the reference value g; that
is, g = xp.
ted against r. A rising cusum path is an indication that the level of the process may have increased. Statisticians have developed rules that help us decide whether a trend in the cusum path comes from a change in the level or whether it is due to random ﬂuc tuations in the process. [Interested readers may consult books on process control, such as D. Montgomery, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 5th ed. 1New York:
The cumulative sums, or cusums as they are often abbreviated, are then plot
Wiley, 20042].
Exercises 5.1
5.11 E. L. Grant notes that a particular dimension determines the ﬁt of a molded plastic rheostat knob in its assembly. The dimension was speciﬁed by the engi
inch.A special gauge was designed to per
mit quick measurement of the actual value of this dimension. Five knobs from
each hour’s production were selected and measured. The averages and the ranges 1in units of 0.001 inch2 for the ﬁrst 20 hours were as follows:
neering department as
0.140 ; 0.003
Hour
Average, x
Range, R
Hour
Average, x
Range, R
1 
137.8 
9 
11 
139.6 
12 
2 
143.0 
8 
12 
141.4 
9 
3 
141.2 
15 
13 
141.2 
3 
4 
139.8 
6 
14 
140.6 
8 
5 
140.0 
10 
15 
141.6 
9 
6 
139.2 
8 
16 
140.4 
13 
7 
141.2 
10 
17 
140.0 
6 
8 
140.0 
8 
18 
141.8 
8 
9 
142.0 
7 
19 
140.4 
8 
10 
139.2 
13 
20 
138.8 
6 
Construct an
satisfy the speciﬁcation limits?
x chart and an Rchart. Is this process under control? If so, does it
[E. L. Grant, Statistical Quality Control, 2d ed. 1New York: McGrawHill, 19522, p. 23.]
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 303
Shewhart Control Charts
303
* Astro Electronics, an RCA division, uses statistical quality control tools to ensure proper weld strength in several of their welding procedures.Weld strength is mea sured by a pull test to destruction. A sample of a small number of items 1in this case, ﬁve2 is taken periodically throughout the production process, usually at the beginning, the middle, and the end of each shift.The averages and the ranges of 22 such samples, taken from an article by Shecter, are listed as follows: 5.12 

Date 
Time 
Average 
Range 
1>3 
7:30 
5.48 
1.4 
11:25 
5.42 
1.6 

16:20 
5.42 
1.4 

20:00 
5.40 
0.5 

23:30 
5.52 
1.7 

1>4 
7:20 
5.32 
0.7 
11:25 
5.34 
1.6 

16:20 
5.58 
1.2 

20:20 
4.54 
0.6 

23:00 
5.42 
1.6 

1>7 
7:40 
5.58 
0.5 
10:20 
5.06 
1.4 

14:00 
4.82 
1.9 

20:20 
4.86 
1.3 

23:00 
4.68 
0.9 

1>8 
8:00 
5.28 
1.6 
11:20 
4.68 
1.1 

14:00 
4.94 
0.6 

1>9 
9:00 
4.90 
1.0 
1>10 
7:40 
4.96 
0.7 
11:00 
5.06 
1.8 

14:00 
5.22 
0.8 

Construct the  and Rcharts. Interpret your results and comment on the stabil ity of the process. Note that the frequency of sampling should depend on the sta bility of the process. Actually, Shecter reports that initially the samples were taken every hour, but the data showed a relatively stable process; thus, sampling about every 4 hours 1or less2 was thought appropriate. x 

[E. Shecter, “Process Control for High Yields,” RCA Engineer, 30132: 38–43 119852.] 

* A onemonth record of daily 100 percent inspection of a single critical quality characteristic of a part of an electrical device led to an average fraction defec 5.13 

tive of 
p = 0.0145 .After this one month of 100 percent inspection, the company 
switched to a sampling plan under which a sample of 500 units was selected each day. During the ﬁrst 10 days, the inspector found 8, 10, 7, 20, 13, 15, 8, 12, 45, and
30 defectives. Using as a centerline, plot this information on a
pchart and interpret your ﬁndings.
p = 0.0145
*
5.14
A company that produces certain bolts considers their quality adequate as long as the proportion of defectives is not larger than 2.5 percent. To monitor the quality, the company takes a random sample of 100 bolts each hour and counts
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 304
304 Chapter 5 Statistical Process Control
the number of defective bolts.With average proportion , calculate the
lower and upper control limits of the appropriate control chart. Now suppose that the numbers of defectives in the last six samples were 3, 0, 2, 1, 7, and 8. What conclusions would you draw from this information?
p = 0.025
5.15 * Past experience has shown that the number of defects per yard of material fol 

lows a Poisson distribution with 
l = 
1.2 
. This information was used to establish 
the control limits of the associated cchart. If the average number of defects shifts to 2.0, what is the probability that it will be detected by the cchart on the 

ﬁrst observation following the shift? What is the probability that this shift is not recognized for the next 10 1202 observations? 

5.16 In the production of stainless steel pipes the number of defects per 100 feet should be controlled. From 15 randomly selected pipes of length 100 feet, we obtained the following data on the number of defects: 6, 10, 8, 1, 7, 9, 7, 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, 9, 8, 5. Construct the appropriate control chart. Is this process under control? 

5.17 * The following data give the results of an inspection of 100yard pieces of woolen textile:The numbers of defects among the last 12 samples are 3, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 4, 0, 1, 0, 3, and 4. Calculate the control limits of the cchart. Is this process under control? 

5.18 A company that produces electronic components considers their quality ade quate as long as the proportion of defectives is not larger than 2 percent. To monitor the quality, the company takes a random sample of 80 components each hour and counts the number of defective items. 
, calculate the centerline and the lower and upper control
limits of the appropriate control chart. 1b2 Suppose that the numbers of defectives in the last six samples were 2, 0, 4, 1, 3, and 7.What conclusions would you draw from this information?
5.19 We are concerned that the level of a process might increase from a speciﬁed
. Assume that successive observations of X are independent
s . Suppose that one uses the Shewhart chart for individual
.
Deﬁne the run length T as the time at which the process exceeds the control limit
The
Á . expectation of this random variable, E1T2, is called the average run length 1ARL2.
1a2 Show that the ARL for the onesided Shewhart chart 1i.e., our only concern is whether we exceed the upper control limit2 is given by
1a2 Using
p
=
0.02
acceptable level
m 0
with standard deviation
observations
1n = 12
with centerline at
m
0
and upper control limit of
h = m
0
+ ks
for the ﬁrst time. T is a random variable that can take on integer values 1,2,
ARL =
^{1}
P1X 7 h2 ^{.}
1b2 Assume that the observations X come from a normal distribution. Calculate
the average run length for
k = 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 .
1c2 Calculate the average run lengths in part 1b2 for a twosided chart with
, where one is
lower control limit
concerned about increases as well as decreases in the level.
m
_{0}
 ks
and upper control limit
m
0
+ ks
Hint: The average run length in (a) is given by
ARL = 112P1T = 12 + 122P1T = 22 + 132P1T
= 32 + Á
=
112P1X _{1}
+
7 h2 + 122P1X _{2}
7
h
and
X _{2}
6
132P1X _{3}
7
h
h
and
X _{1}
6 h2
and
X _{1} 6 h2 + Á
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 305
Process Capability Indices
305
You can show the result in 1a2 by using the independence assumption 1which implies that the probability of an intersection of events is the product of the individual probabilities2 and properties of geometric sums.
5.110 A company manufactures paper containers for a detergent, and the dimension of the containers 1in centimeters, from front to back2 is of interest. Each hour, four cartons are selected from the production run and their dimensions are measured. Measurements for the last 25 hours are listed as follows:
Time 
Measurements 

6:30 A.M. 
25.1 
25.5 
25.0 
25.1 

7:30 
24.8 
25.2 
25.1 
24.9 

8:30 
25.1 
25.2 
25.2 
25.2 

9:30 
25.1 
25.4 
24.8 
25.0 

10:30 
25.2 
24.7 
24.9 
25.3 

11:30 
25.2 
25.2 
25.0 
25.1 

12:30 P.M. 
25.2 
25.2 
25.2 
25.3 

1:30 
25.2 
25.1 
25.3 
25.0 

2:30 
24.9 
25.1 
25.2 
24.8 

3:30 
25.1 
25.1 
25.3 
25.4 

4:30 
25.4 
25.0 
25.1 
24.9 

5:30 
25.3 
25.2 
25.1 
25.5 

6:30 
25.2 
25.1 
25.5 
25.2 

7:30 
25.0 
24.9 
25.6 
25.2 

8:30 
25.1 
25.2 
25.1 
25.1 

9:30 
25.0 
25.0 
24.9 
25.0 

10:30 
25.3 
25.1 
25.3 
24.9 

11:30 
25.2 
25.1 
25.2 
25.1 

12:30 A.M. 
25.1 
25.1 
25.4 
24.8 

1:30 
25.4 
25.0 
25.2 
25.0 

2:30 
24.8 
25.2 
25.0 
25.0 

3:30 
25.3 
25.4 
25.2 
25.3 

4:30 
25.1 
24.8 
25.2 
25.1 

5:30 
25.0 
25.4 
25.1 
25.1 

6:30 
25.1 
25.3 
25.3 
25.2 

Construct 
x  and Rcharts, and check whether the level and the variability of the 
process are under statistical control.
5.2 Process Capability Indices
5.21 Introduction
One must check whether processes are capable of producing products that satisfy required speciﬁcations. Typically, the customer requires that certain product
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 306
306 Chapter 5 Statistical Process Control
2,
a lower speciﬁcation limit 1LSL2, and an upper speciﬁcation limit 1USL2; they are also called the tolerances of the product.The speciﬁcations are determined by trans lating customer requirements into suitable product requirements. Engineering con siderations and the intended use of the product play important roles in setting the speciﬁcations. Once speciﬁcations are set, the production process must be monitored
to ensure that products meet the speciﬁcations. If they do, then we say that the pro cess is capable of producing to the required speciﬁcations. In this section, we introduce several process capability indices, examine their importance as well as their shortcomings, and discuss their implementation. The capability measures we examine are expressed in terms of the speciﬁcations 1the tar get value and the lower and upper speciﬁcation limits2 and the process characteris
s 2. Estimates of
tics 1the process mean m and the process standard deviation
speciﬁcations be met. Speciﬁcations are usually given in terms of a target value 1
T g
capability indices are obtained by taking samples from the process under study and replacing the process characteristics by their sample estimates. A simple approach in checking conformance is to construct a dot diagram of the measurements 1or a histogram if the data set is large2, adding the target value and the speciﬁcation limits to this graph and calculating the proportion of values that are
outside these limits. Of course, no 1or very few2 values should be outside the limits. We illustrate this approach with data on the width and gauge 1i.e., thickness2 of steel ﬂats. For the width, the target is 4 inches, with speciﬁcation limits LSL = 3.97 in.
For the gauge, it is 0.25 inch, with lower and upper speciﬁcation
and USL = 4.03 in.
limits
width and gauge measurements in Table 5.21 are shown in Figure 5.21.We notice 2 of the 95 width measurements 1or 2.1 percent2 outside the speciﬁcation limits, while 1 of the 95 gauge measurements 1or 1 percent2 is outside the speciﬁcation limits.The ﬁgures also show that the process is slightly off target, with process means for both width and gauge below their target values.
, respectively. Dot diagrams for the 95
LSL = 0.235 in.
and USL = 0.265 in.
Table 5.21 Width and Gauge Measurements on 95 Steel Flats 

Time 
Width 
Gauge 
Date 
Time 
Width 
Gauge 
Date 
16.10 
3.990 
.256 
May 19, 1990 
12.00 
3.988 
.242 

16.21 
3.993 
.252 
1.15 
4.000 
.262 

16.27 
3.968 
.257 
1.20 
4.004 
.252 

16.32 
3.993 
.250 
1.25 
3.998 
.247 

17.00 
3.998 
.248 
1.35 
3.992 
.248 

17.30 
4.002 
.247 
2.00 
3.992 
.250 

18.00 
3.994 
.247 
2.35 
3.989 
.248 

18.51 
3.990 
.273 
15.00 
3.992 
.244 

18.57 
3.989 
.257 
15.15 
3.995 
.247 

19.00 
3.990 
.252 
15.30 
3.992 
.249 

19.35 
3.988 
.257 
16.00 
3.992 
.247 

20.00 
3.985 
.254 
16.30 
3.989 
.247 
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 307
Process Capability Indices
307
20.30 
3.996 
.253 
17.00 
3.998 
.246 

21.00 
3.994 
.245 
17.30 
3.997 
.246 

21.30 
3.988 
.250 
18.00 
3.991 
.246 

22.00 
3.987 
.249 
18.30 
3.993 
.246 

22.30 
3.988 
.249 
19.12 
4.002 
.251 

23.00 
3.988 
.249 
19.50 
3.994 
.248 

23.30 
3.986 
.251 
20.00 
3.997 
.245 

24.00 
3.984 
.250 
20.30 
3.994 
.246 

0.30 
3.984 
.239 
May 20, 1990 
21.00 
3.991 
.248 

1.00 
4.000 
.246 
21.30 
3.988 
.250 

1.15 
4.012 
.249 
22.00 
3.987 
.248 

1.30 
4.012 
.246 
22.30 
3.989 
.245 

2.00 
4.003 
.248 
23.00 
3.997 
.245 

2.30 
3.994 
.252 
23.40 
3.990 
.250 

3.00 
3.994 
.250 
24.00 
3.991 
.248 

3.30 
3.990 
.247 
0.45 
4.006 
.248 
May 21, 1990 

4.00 
3.994 
.249 
1.00 
4.006 
.249 

4.30 
3.989 
.249 
1.40 
4.000 
.251 

5.00 
4.000 
.249 
2.00 
4.021 
.246 

5.30 
3.994 
.246 
2.30 
3.998 
.250 

7.05 
3.969 
.253 
3.10 
3.990 
.254 

7.10 
3.997 
.250 
3.30 
3.990 
.246 

7.15 
3.996 
.249 
4.00 
3.990 
.245 

7.20 
3.992 
.250 
4.30 
3.994 
.250 

7.30 
4.002 
.250 
5.00 
3.993 
.249 

8.00 
3.999 
.250 
5.30 
3.990 
.246 

8.05 
4.000 
.249 
6.00 
4.006 
.249 

8.20 
4.005 
.248 
6.30 
4.009 
.249 

8.30 
4.003 
.251 
7.00 
4.009 
.249 

9.20 
4.009 
.250 
7.30 
4.005 
.250 

9.30 
3.995 
.244 
8.30 
4.006 
.252 

9.50 
3.989 
.249 
8.35 
4.000 
.249 

10.00 
3.990 
.244 
8.40 
3.998 
.247 

10.30 
3.990 
.243 
9.00 
3.996 
.247 

11.00 
3.991 
.245 
9.30 
3.995 
.246 

11.30 
3.987 
.245 
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 308
308 Chapter 5 Statistical Process Control
Figure 5.21 Dot diagrams of width and gauge measurements
5.22 Process Capability Indices
Dot diagrams and histograms are effective graphical summaries of process capabil ity, and we recommend their use. However, it is common practice to calculate capability indices, and many companies require their suppliers to document the capability of their processes through such calculations. Capability indices quantify the capability of a process—in other words, the conformance of the process to the required speciﬁcations.
The
C p
Capability Index A commonly used capability index is
_{C} p _{=} USL  LSL
6
s
_{=} Allowable Spread
Process Spread
^{,}
where LSL and USL are, respectively, the lower and upper speciﬁcation limits and s is the process standard deviation.
covers virtually all of the
distribution—in fact, 99.73 percent if the distribution is normal.An interval of length
6 s measures the extent of the process variability and it expresses the process spread.
C p
cesses, we expect that the process spread is smaller than the allowable spread and
C _{p} 7 1 . A large
the speciﬁcation interval.The larger this index is, the better. For normal distributions
corresponds to 0.27 percent defectives, or 2,700 defec
tive parts per million. 1The speciﬁcation limits are three standard deviations from the target value, and we learned in Section 3.2 that, for a normal distribution, the probability beyond three sigma limits is 0.0027.2 Many companies require that
centered at the target,
indicates small process variability compared with the width of
relates the allowable spread, USL – LSL, to the process spread. For capable pro
For many distributions, the interval
1m

3 s, m
+
3 s2
C p
C _{p}
=
1
80371 05 293335 r2 sr
7/26/08
1:45 PM
Page 309
Process Capability Indices
309
C _{p} 7 1.33
tions with the normal distribution show2 or
1which implies no more than 63 defective parts per million, as calcula
1no more than 7 defective
be at
C _{p} 7 1.5
parts per million2. Some companies 1for example, Motorola2 require that
least 2.0 1implying no more than 0.1 defective part per million2.
C p
We estimate
C
p
by replacing the process standard deviation
s
by its estimate s,
which we obtain from past process data.The estimated
C p
is given by
N USL  LSL
C p _{=}
6s
^{.}
As an illustration, we use the width and gauge measurements in Table 5.21.The mean and standard deviation for the width are 3.9947 and 0.0080, respectively. For the gauge, they are 0.24894 and 0.00421. Hence,
N 4.03  3.97
C _{p} _{1}_{W}_{i}_{d}_{t}_{h}_{2}
_{=}
610.00802
^{=} ^{1}^{.}^{2}^{5}
^{a}^{n}^{d}
N 0.265  0.235
_{p} _{1}_{G}_{a}_{u}_{g}_{e}_{2}
^{C}
_{=}
= 1.19.
610.004212
These values are somewhat smaller than what we would like to see. We would have preferred values at least as large as 1.33.
makes no reference to the target value. It provides a good description
of capability only when the process is on target and the process mean and the target value are the same. However, it is misleading when the process is off target, as illus
trated in Figure 5.22. In the second illustration, the process is off target, causing a
s ,
is small in comparison to the allowable spread,
in this case, even though the process is not capable of meeting the speciﬁcations. Because C makes no reference to the target value, we do not recommend its use.
considerable fraction of defectives, despite the fact that the actual process spread,
is deceptively large
Caution:
C p
6
USL  LSL .
C
p
p
Case 3
Muito mais do que documentos
Descubra tudo o que o Scribd tem a oferecer, incluindo livros e audiolivros de grandes editoras.
Cancele quando quiser.