INTERNATIONAL ISO

STANDARD 7966
First edition
1993-12-15

Acceptance control Charts

Cartes de contr6le pour acceptation

iTeh STANDARD PREVIEW
(standards.iteh.ai)
ISO 7966:1993
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993

Reference number
ISO 7966:1993(E)
ISO 7966:1993(E)

Contents
Page

1 Scope .............................................................................................. 1

2 Normative references ..................................................................... 1

3 Def initions ................................................................................. 1

4 Symbols and abbreviations ....................................................... 1

5 Description of acceptance control Chart practice ..................... 2

6 Acceptance control of a process .............................................. 3

7 Specifications ............................................................................ 3

8 Calculation procedures .............................................................. 4

9 Examples ................................................................................... 8

IO Factors for acceptance control limits .................................... 11

Annexes
iTeh STANDARD PREVIEW
. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . 12
A Nomographs for acceptance control Chart design
(standards.iteh.ai)
. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. ... . . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . 21
B Bibliography
ISO 7966:1993
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993

0 ISO 1993
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or
by any means, electronie or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without per-
mission in writing from the publisher.
International Organization for Standardization
Case Postale 56 l CH-l 211 Geneve 20 l Switzerland
Printed in Switzerland

ii
 Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide
federation of national Standards bodies (ISO member bodies). The work
of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO
technical committees. Esch member body interested in a subject for
which a technical committee has been established has the right to be
represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental
and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO
collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
Draft International Standards adopted by the technical committees are
circulated to the member bodies for voting. Publication as an International
Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the member bodies casting
iTeh STANDARD PREVIEW
a vote.
(standards.iteh.ai)
International Standard ISO 7966 was prepared by Technical Committee
lSO/TC 69, Applications of statistical methods, Sub-Committee SC 4,
Sta tis tical
ISOprocess con trol.
7966:1993
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
Annex A forms an integral part of this International Standard. Annex B is
for31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993
information only.
ISO 7966:1993(E)

Introduction
An acceptance control Chart combines consideration of control impli-
cations with elements of acceptance sampling. lt is an appropriate tool for
helping to make decisions with respect to process acceptance. The bases
for the decisions may be defined in terms of

a) whether or not a designated percentage of units of a product or Service

derived from that process will satisfy specification requirements;

b) whether or not the process has shifted beyond some allowable zone
of process level locations.
A differente from most acceptance sampling approaches is the emphasis
on process acceptability rather than on product disposition decisions.
iTeh STANDARD PREVIEW
A differente from usual control Chart approaches is that the process usu-
(standards.iteh.ai)
ally does not need to be in control about some Single Standard process
level, but that as long as the within-subgroup variability remains in control,
it tan (for the purpose of acceptance) run at any ISO Ievel7966:1993
or levels within
some zone of process levels https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
which would be acceptable in terms of tol-
erance requirements. Thus, it is assumed that some assignable Causes
31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993
will create shifts in the process levels which are small enough in relation
to requirements that it would be uneconomical to attempt to control them
too tightly for the purpose of mere acceptance.
The use of an acceptance control Chart does not, however, rule out the
possibility of identifying and removing assignable Causes for the purpose
of continuing process improvement.
A check on the inherent stability of the process is required. Therefore,
variables are monitored using Shewhart-type range or Sample Standard
deviation control Charts to tonfirm that the variability inherent within ra-
tional subroups remains in a steady state. Supplementary examinations
of the distribution of the encountered process levels form an additional
Source of control information. A preliminary Shewhart control Chart study
should be conducted to verify the validity of using an acceptance control
Chart.

IV
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 7966:1993(E)

Acceptance control Charts

1 Scope
\\\\\\\\\\\\
Rejectable processes
This International Standard gives guidance on the
uses of acceptance control Charts and establishes RPLU
general procedures for determining Sample sizes, ac- Indifferente zone
tion limits and decision criteria. Examples are included
to illustrate a variety of circumstances in which this APL U
technique has advantages and to provide details of
the determination of the Sample size, the action limits 1’ Target level
and the decision criteria.

iTeh STANDARD PREVIEW Indifferente zone

2 Normative references
(standards.iteh.ai)
The following Standards contain provisions which, Rejectable processes
through reference in this text, constitute provisions ISO 7966:1993 \\\\\\\\\\\\\
of this International Standard. At the time of publi-
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
cation, the editions indicated were valid. All Standards
31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993Figure 1 - Two-sided specification limits: Upper
are subject to revision, and Parties to agreements
and lower APL and RPL lines in relation to
based on this International Standard are encouraged
processes of acceptable, rejectable, and
to investigate the possibility of applying the most re-
cent editions of the Standards indicated below. indifferente (borderline) quality
Members of IEC and ISO maintain registers of cur-
rently valid International Standards.

ISO 3534-1 :1993, Statistics - Vocabulary and sym- 4 Symbols and abbreviations
bols - Part 1: Probability and general statistical
terms. USL upper specification limit

ISO 3534-2:1993, Statistics - Vocabulary and sym- LSL lower specification limit
bols - Part 2: Statistical quality control.
ACL acceptance control limits
ISO 8258:1991, Shewhart control Charts. APL acceptable process level
RPL rejectable process level or non-acceptable
3 Definitions process zone

For the purposes of this International Standard, the n subgroup Sample size
definitions given in ISO 3534-1 and ISO 3534-2 apply.
Po acceptable proportion nonconforming
An acceptable process would be a process which is items
represented by a Shewhart control Chart (sec
Pl rejectable proportion nonconforming items
ISO 8258) with a central line within the acceptable
process zone (see figure 1). Ideally the average value probability of acceptance
pa
x of such a control Chart would be at the target value.
T target value, i.e. Optimum value of the
characteristic
ISO 7966:1993(E)

x average value of the variable X plotted on The acceptance control Chart is a useful tool for
a control Chart covering this wide range of approaches in a logical
and simple manner. lt distinguishes between the in-
z variable that has a normal distribution with herent variability components randomly occurring
zero mean and unit Standard deviation throughout the process and the additional location
factors which contribute at less frequent intervals.
ztP normal deviate that is exceeded by
100~' % of the deviate in a specified di-
When shifts appear, the process may then stabilize
rection (similarly for zor,zs, etc.)
at a new Ievel until the next such event occurs. Be-
a risk of not accepting a process centred at tween such disturbances, the process runs in control
the APL with respect to inherent variability.

ß risk of not rejecting a process centred at An illustration of this Situation is a process using large
the RPL uniform batches of raw material. The within-batch
variability could be considered to be the inherent
P process mean variability. When a new batch of material is intro-
duced, its deviation from the target may differ from
a Standard deviation corresponding to the
that of the previous batch. The between-batch vari-
inherent process variability
ation component enters the System at discrete inter-
within-subgroup Standard deviation vals.

Standard deviation of the subgroup aver- An example of this within- and between-batch vari-
age corresponding to the inherent process ation might very weil occur in a Situation where a
variability: 0~ = a/,/n. blanking die is blanking a machine part. The purpose
of the Chart is to determine when the die has worn
to a Point where it must be repaired or reworked. The
escription of acceptance
Chart practice
iTehcontra
STANDARD PREVIEW rate of wear is dependent upon the hardness of the
successive batches of material and is therefore not
readily predictable. lt will be seen that the use of an
In the pursuit of
(standards.iteh.ai)
an acceptable product or Service, acceptance control Chart makes it possible to judge
there often is room for some latitude in the ability to the appropriate time to Service the blanking die.
centre a process around its target Ievel. The contri-ISO 7966:1993
The acceptance control Chart is based on the
bution to Overall Variation of https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
such location factors is
Shewhart control Chart but is set up so that the pro-
additional to the inherent random variability of 31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993
individ-
ual elements around a given process level. In most cess tan shift outside of control limits if the specifi-
cases, some shifts in process Ievel must be expected cations are sufficiently wide, or be confined to
and tan be tolerated. These shifts usually result from narrower limits if the inherent variability of the pro-
an assignable Cause that cannot be eliminated be- cess is comparatively large or a large fraction of the
Cause of engineering or economic considerations. total tolerante spread.
They often enter the System at infrequent or irregular
intervals, but tan rarely be treated as random com- What is required is protection against a process that
ponents of variance. has shifted so far from the target value that it will
yield some predetermined undesirable percentage of
There are several seemingly different approaches to items falling outside the specification limits, or exhib-
treating these location factors contributing Variation its an excessive degree of process level shift.
beyond that of inherent variability. At one extreme is
the approach in which all variability that results in de- When a Chart of the average value of data sets from
viations from the target value must be minimized. a process is plotted, in sequence of the production,
Supporters of such an approach seek to improve the one notices a continual Variation in average values. In
capability to maintain a process within tighter toler- a central zone (acceptable process, figure 1), there is
ante limits so that there is greater potential for pro- product that is indisputably acceptable. Data in the
cess or product quality improvement. outer zones (figure 1) represent a process that is
producing product that is indisputably not acceptable.
At the other extreme is the approach that if tolerante
limits are satisfied, it not only may be uneconomic and Between the inner and the outer zones are zones
wasteful of resources to tightly control the process, where the product being produced is acceptable but
but it is very likely to be counterproductive to im- there is an indication that the process should be
proving the capability of reducing variability. This often watched and as the outer zone is approached correc-
is the result of the introduction of pressures which tive action may be taken. These criteria are the basic
encourage “tampering” with the process (over- concepts for the acceptance control Chart. The de-
control) by People qualified to work on control aspects scription in this International Standard is designed to
but not product or process quality improvement pro- provide practices for the establishment of appropriate
grammes.

2
 ISO 7966:1993(E)

action lines for one- and two-sided specification situ- Simplicity of Operation is of critical i’mportance to the
ations. use of a procedure such as an acceptance control
Chart. Only the acceptance control limits and the
Since it is impossible to have a Single dividing line that sampling instructions such as Sample size, frequency,
tan sharply distinguish a good from an unsatisfactory or method of selection need be known to the Operator
quality level, one must define a process level that who uses the Chart, although training him to under-
represents a process that should be accepted almost stand the derivation is not difficult and tan be helpful.
always (1 -a). This is called the acceptable process lt is thus no more complicated to use than the
level (APL), and it marks the outer boundary of the Shewhart Chart. The Supervisor, quality expert, or
acceptable process zone located about the target trained Operator will derive these limits without much
value (see figure 1). effort from the above considerations and will obtain
a more meaningful insight into the process accept-
Any process centred closer to the target value than ante procedure, and a better understanding of the
the APL will have a risk smaller than a of not being control implications.
accepted. So the closer the process is to target, the
smaller the likelihood that a satisfactory process will
not be accepted. 6 Acceptance control of a process
lt is also necessary to define the process level that
represents processes that should almost never be 6.1 Plotting the Chart
accepted (1 - ß). This undesirable process level is
labelled the rejectable process Ievel (RPL). Any pro- The Sample average value of the quality characteristic
cess located further away from the target value than is plotted on acceptance control Charts in the follow-
the RPL will have a risk of acceptance smaller than ing way. A Point is plotted on the Chart for each
Sample with an identification number (numerical or-
ß.
der, time Order, etc.) on the horizontal scale, and the
The process levels lying between the APL and RPL corresponding Sample average on the vertical scale.
iTeh STANDARD PREVIEW
would yield a product of borderline quality. That is,
process Ievels falling between the APL and RPL 6.2 Interpreting the Chart
(standards.iteh.ai)
would represent quality which is not so good that it
would be a waste of time, or represent over-control, When the plotted Point falls above the upper accept-
if the process were adjusted, and not so bad that the ante control limit ACLU or below the lower accept-
product could not be used if no shift in level were ISO 7966:1993
ante control limit ACLL, the process shall be
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
made. This region is often called the “indifferente considered non-acceptable.
Zone”. The width of this zone is a function 31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993
of the re-
quirements for a particular process and the risks one If a plotted Point is close to the control line, the nu-
is willing to take in connection with it. The narrower merical values shall be used to make the decision.
the Zone, i.e. the closer the APL and RPL are to each
other, the larger will the Sample size have to be. This
approach will permit a realistic appraisal of the effec- 7 Specifications
tiveness of any acceptance control System, and will
provide a descriptive method for showing just what The specification of the values of any two of the de-
any given control System is intended to do. fining elements APL (with risk a), RPL (with risk ß),
acceptance control limit (ACL) or Sample size (n) of an
As with any acceptance sampling System, four el- acceptance control Chart System determines the re-
ements are required for the definition of an accept- maining two values. In addition, the within-rational
ante control Chart. They are the following: subgroup value of 0 must be known or have been
estimated by the usual control Chart techniques such
a) an acceptable process Ievel (APL) associated with as using a = R/d,or sIc4,
a one-sided oc-risk;
Op = ++ - p)/n
b) a rejectable process Ievel (RPLj associated with a
one-sided ß-ris k; or sc= JC (see ISO 8258). lt is essential that the in-
herent random variability be in a state of statistical
c) an action criterion or acceptance control limit control in Order for the risk computations to be
(AC L); meaningful. This tan be monitored through the use
of a Shewhart-type control Chart for ranges or stan-
d) the Sample size (n). dard deviations. (See ISO 8258.)

NOTE 1 Generally, the defined risks are one-sided in this Several selections of pairs of defining elements may
International Standard. In the case of two-sided specifi- be Chosen.
cations, the risks are a 5 % risk to go above an upper limit
or a 5 % risk to go below a lower Iimit. This results in a a) Definition of the APL and RPL along with their re-
5 % (not 10 %) total risk. spective a- and ß-risks, and determination of the

3
ISO 7966:1993(E)

Sample size (n) and the acceptance control limit above and below the target, the Sample size for the
(ACL). more stringent Situation (i.e. smaller distance be-
tween the APL and RPL) shall be used (see 8.1.1).
Often, a = 0,05 is Chosen in acceptance control
Chart applications since there are few instances
where a process continuously runs at the APL. 8 Calculation procedures
This means that the risk of rejection on each side
of the target value, T, should always be smaller 8.1 Selection of pairs of elements
than a.
8.1.1 Defining elements APL and RPL
This Option is generally used when
In the case of variables x, the APL may be selected
1) acceptable processes are defined either for in several ways. If the specification limits are known,
economic or other practical reasons in terms as weil as the underlying distribution of the individual
of process capabilities that include allowance population items, the APL may be defined in terms
for small discrete shifts in process Ievel in ad- of an acceptable Proportion (or percentage) po of non-
dition to inherent random Variation, or in terms conforming items which would occur when the pro-
of an acceptable quality level described by the cess is centred at the APL. See figure2. If the
percentage of items exceeding specification underlying distribution is normal (Gaussian), a one-
limits, and tailed table of normal distribution values tan be used.
Correction factors to adjust for the two-tail prob-
2) when rejectable processes are defined either abilities required for APLs located very near to, or at,
for practical reasons in terms of unnecessarily the target value are given in table 1 and illustrated in
large shifts in process level, or in terms of a example 5 (in 9.5).
process Ievel yielding an unsatisfactory per-
centage of items exceeding specification limits. For samples of four or more, the assumption of a
normal distribution for control purposes is generally
iTeh STANDARD PREVIEW
W Definition of the APL (with CC)and the Sample size valid for x charting. However, the interpretation of the
n, and determination of the RPL for a given ß-risk proportion (percentage) of nonconforming items as-
and the ACL. (standards.iteh.ai) sociated with the APL and RPL levels is dependent
on the underlying distribution. Thus, for other distri-
This Option is used when acceptable processes ISO 7966:1993 butions, appropriate tables should be followed and the
are defined as in 1) above,https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
and when there is a Standard normal deviate values zp replaced accord-
restriction determining the allowable Sample 31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993
size. ingly. (In some references, the Symbols U or too are
used instead of z.) The choice of z is to emphasize
d Definition of the RPL (with ß) and n, and determi- that the distance represented is the absolute differ-
nation of the APL for a given a-risk and the ACL. ence between the distribution centre and the tail area,
whereas U generally represents the differente be-
This Option is used when rejectable processes are tween -00 and the tail area. The advantage of the z
defined as in 2) above, and when there is a re- approach in this application is that the limits and de-
striction determining the allowable Sample size. fining elements fall above and below the centre, so
that it is convenient to have identical a and ß values
d) Definition of the ACL and n, and determination of on both sides of the target rather than having to deal
the APL for a given a-risk and the RPL for a given with cxand 1 -t~ or ß and 1 -ß, depending on which
ß-risk. side of the centre is involved. This also aids in a geo-
metric interpretation such as
This Option is used primarily to interpret the
meaning of a given control Chart System by re- zol~~+zs~~ = (RPL - APL)
vealing its effective acceptable and rejectable pro-
cess levels. Upper APL (APLu) = USL - Zpoa,
-rl
I ne remaining combinations of defining elements Lower APL (APLL) = LSL + zpOow
(APL and ACL or RPL and RCL) tan be developed by
similar approaches, but are less frequently encoun- where
tered. The examples in this International Standard
deal with variables data and are described in terms USL is the upper specification limit;
of two-sided specifications with limits and levels de- LSL is the lower specification limit;
fined both above and below the target value. How-
ever, the method is equally valid for one-sided is the tut-off Point in the normal distri-
specification limits. In addition, there is no require- bution table for a Proportion po;
ment that the values selected above and below the
target value be symmetrical should more latitude be is the within-rational subgroup Standard
desired on either side. If different values are selected deviation.

4
 ISO 7966:1993(E)

See example 1 in 9.1 where x Charts with the APL by defining an unacceptable proportion (percentage)
and RPL are defined in terms of the percentage of p1 of nonconforming items which would occur when
nonconforming items. the process is centred at the RPL.

In some cases, the selection of an APL value may not Upper RPL (RPLu) = USL-z~,o,
be directly related to the specification limits, but may
be Chosen on an arbitrary basis. Experience may show Lower RPL (RPLL) = LSL+&a,
that the “uneconomic” or “not readily adjustable”
Causes for shifts in process level correspond to a where
narrow band. The edge of this band may be arbitrarily
designated as the APL (see example 2 in 9.2). In this USL is the upper specification limit;
case, the normal distribution assumption is not in-
voked since the APL is not directly related to the LSL is the lower specification limit;
specification limits. is the tut-off Point in the normal distri-
ZL&
In a similar fashion, the RPL may be selected in sev- bution table for a Proportion pl.
eral ways. lt tan be related to the specification limlts

Table 1 - Acceptance control limit factors

a = 0,05 a = 0,Ol

Differente Differente Diff erence

Diff erence between
between between z
between APL z Pa ACL and Pi3
ACL and APL and
and target target
target target

1 2 iTeh STANDARD
3=1+2 4 PREVIEW
5 6 7=5+6 8

>0,85 1,65 (standards.iteh.ai)

>2,50 0,950 >0,67 2,33 >3,00 0,990
0,80 1,65 2,45 0,951 0,60 2,33 2,93 0,990
ISO 7966:1993
0,70 1,66 2,36 0,952 0,50 2,33 2,83 0,990
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
0,60 1,67 2,27 0,953
31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993 0,40 2,37 2,77 0,991
0,50 1,68 2,18 0,954 0,30 2,37 2,67 0,991
0,40 1,71 2,ll 0,956 0,20 2,41 2,61 0,992
0,30 1,75 2,05 0,960 0,lO 2,52 2,62 0,994
0,20 1,80 2,00 0,964 0,oo 2,58 2,58 0,995
0,lO 1,87 1,97 0,969
0,oo 1,96 1,96 0,975

NOTES

1 For applications, see example 5 in 9.5.

2 The control limit factors given in table 1 are for use in locating acceptance and control limit lines:
APL = target value * (factorl)) @,,,,/Jn>
ACL = target value f (factor*)) (~,,,,/,/n)

1) Use appropriate factor from column 1 or 5.

2) Use appropriate factor from column 3 or 7.
ISO 7966:1993(E)

z>
d
a

.-:
3
II.-

iTeh STANDARD PREVIEW .-3

-0
L

(standards.iteh.ai)
ISO 7966:1993
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993

a
bL

13 * -JJd
Q; J-l-l 1
L =ucL v)
r23 aacr I

Figure 2 - Limits and defining elements of acceptance control Charts

6
 ISO 7966:1993(E)

Alternatively, the selection may be arbitrary, such as 8.1.3 Defining elements RPL, a fi and n
a feeling that there is no reason for the process to
exceed a certain distance from the target value. The RPL may be selected as specified in 8.1 .l . As
with the combination specified in 8.1.2, the Sample
Once the APL and a, and RPL and fl, values are de- size may be a convenient number or a value derived
fined, the upper acceptance control limit (ACLu) is lo- through iteration of the process. Given the RPL, /? and
cated at rt values:

(RPL, -APL”) ACL, = RPL, -zßaw/Jn

ACL, = RPL, +zp,/Jn

where za and zß are the tut-off Points for a proportion
APL” = ACLu -zaow/ Jn
a and b respectively.
APL, = ACLL + z,a,,,,/Jn
The lower limit is located at
See example 3 in 9.3.
ACL, = APL, - --&- (APL, - RPL,)
( a ß1
8.1.4 Defining elements ACL, a, /I and n
When the a- and /I-risks are selected to be equal, the
acceptance control limit lies halfway between the APL The ACL and n values may be selected from an
and RPL. existing Shewhart control System in Order to calculate
the APL (a) and RPL (fl) values.
The Sample size tan be calculated as
2 Given the ACL and n values:
n
1iTeh STANDARD PREVIEW APL, = ACLu-z,a,/
APL, = ACL, + z,a,/ Jn
Jn

For asymmetrical limits, as at the end of clause 7:

2 (standards.iteh.ai)
RPL, =ACLu+zßcw/ Jn

n = max

1
[
(‘a,U
+zß,Ubw or
RPL, - APLU
1 ISO 7966:1993
RPLL = ACLL-zßaw/ Jn

See example 4 in 9.4.

https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/a177f687-916e-42e2-8e9b-
31a46a3e968c/iso-7966-1993
tza,L
+ ‘ß,LJcVV 8.2 Frequency of sampling
APL, - RPL,
The relationship between Sample size and the a- and
fl-risks has been discussed above. The determination
of frequency of sampling will not be treated in this
A nomograph, which also provides an OC (operating
International Standard. If the history of a process is
characteristic) curve, tan be used instead of these
one of weil-behaved inherent variability and of level
calculations. Both the calculation and nomograph
shifts usually within the zone of acceptable pro-
I methods are easy to use (see annex A).
cesses, the sampling frequency may be relatively low
when compared to that for processes exhibiting less
8.1.2 Defining elements APL, a, fl and n stability. The costs of erroneous decisions are to
some extent considered in the selection of the a and
The APL may be selected as specified in 8.1 .l . The j? values, but are clearly related to the frequency of
Sample size may be specified as a matter of con- sampling as weil.
venience in the Operation, or it may be entered as a
trial proposal to discover what kind of RPL and J val-
ues will result. If these are unsatisfactoty, the process 8.3 Other cases
tan be iterated or one of the other combinations used
so that n is calculated. Given the APL, a and n values: For the attributes cases, such as the proportion (per-
centage) of nonconforming items, p, or the count of
ACL, = APLu+z,a,/ Jn nonconformities, C, the same type of considerations
ACLL = APL, - z,aw/ Jn hold. Forp Charts, the APL is defined directly asp, and
the RPL as pl. If some lesser category of imperfection
RPL, = ACLu + zsa,/ J,n than a nonconformity is selected, a value of po and pl
not related to the percentage of items exceeding
RPL, = ACLL -zßa,/ Jn specification limits may be selected. For c Charts, c.
and c1 will usually not be related to the number of
See example 2 in 9.2. items exceeding limits. The regular Shewhart p and c