IS : 2500 ( Part II ) - 1965

( Reaffirmed 2001 )

Indian Standard
SAMPLING INSPECTION PROCEDURES
PART II INSPECTION BY VARIABLES FOR PERCENT DEFECTIVE
Seventh Reprint AUGUST 1998
( Incorporating Amendment No. 1 )

UDC 519.271.3

: 620.111

(083)

(8 Copyright 1996

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

MANAK BHAVAN, 9 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR h4ARG
NEW DELHI 110002

Gr8

June 1966

IS : 2500 ( Part II ) - 1965

Indian Standard
SAMPLING INSPECTION
PART II INSPECTION

BY VARIABLES

Methods of Sampling Sectional

PROCEDURES
FOR PERCENT

Committee,

DEFECTIVE

SMDC

Refwsent{ng
The Tata Iron & Steel Co Ltd, Jamshedpur

Chairman
DR A. V. SUKHATME
Membtrs
SHRI V. D. ACARWAL

Light Metals and Their Alloys Sectional Committee,

SMDC 10, IS1
Refractories Sectional Committee, SMDC 18,*ISI
Ministry of Railways

SHRIJ. C. BANERJEE
SHRI A. K. BHATTACHARYA
SHRI M. N. BH~DE(dffernalc)
DR U. N. BHRANY
SHRI J. N. BURMAN(Alftmafc)
DR M. K. BOSE

Indian Iron & Steel Co Ltd, Burnpur

Precious Metals Sectional Committee, SMDC 13,
TST
Directorate General of Inspection (Ministry of
Defence)
-I_

SHRI S. K. DUTTA

SHRI M. M. GUPTA (Alternate)

SHRI D. N. ELCI~DANA
SHRI S. S. HONAVAR(Alternafc)
SHRIJ. P. PATEL (AZtmate)
.SHRI S. B. FIRKE

Italab Private Ltd, Bombay

Copper and Copper Alloys Sectional Committee,

SMDC 11, IS1
Cast Iron and Malleable Cast Iron Sectional
SHRI A. GUHA
Committee, SMDC 9, ISI
Ferro Alloys Sectional Committee, SMDC 8, ISI
SHRI PREMRAJ GUPTA
Indian Bureau of Mines (Ministry of Steel and
SHRI P. C. HAZRA
Mines), Nagpur
SHRI N. K. MUKHERJEF.
(Alternnlr)
Steel Tubes, Pipes and Fittings Sectional ComSARI P. L. JAIN
mittee, SMDC 22, 1SI
Lead, Zinc, Tin, Antimony and Their AIloh
SHRI F. A. JASDANWALA
Sectional Committee, SMDC 12, IS1
Essen & Co, Bangalore
DR N. JAYARAMAN
SHRI K. N. GURURAJACHAR
(Alfemale)
Foundry Sectional Committee, SMDC 17, IS1
SHRI R. M. KRISHNAN
Directorate
General of Ordnance
FaLtories
SHRI N. R. KRISHNA~WAMY
(Ministry of Defence), Calcutta
SHR~D. K. CHAKRAVARTY(Alternate)
SHRI D. SEN (Altcmafe)
(Cbnkiwd

STANDARDS
BUREAU
OF
INDIAN
&\NAK 1lEIAVAN,
9 BAI1ADUR SHAH %.41-.4R AfARCJ
NEW DFI11HI 110tl\i:!

otr pcgc 2)

IS : 2500 (Part II) - 1965

Members
SHRI D. B. L.AHIRI
DR A. MAT-THAI (Ahnate)
SHRI N. MAJUMDAR

Rcpresenting
Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta

Indian Non-Ferrous Metals Manufacturers Association, Calcutta

SHRI M. M. MOUDOILL(Alternote)
SHRI N. T. MATHEW
Army Headquarters
DR M. N. BHA-ITACHARYA
(Alternate1
Government of India Mint (Ministry of Finance)
SHRI N. C. MITRA
DR M. K. BOSE(Alternate)
National Test House, Calcutta
SHRI S. N. MUKERJI
Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals
SHRI E. K. N. NAMBIAR
(Inspection Wing) ; Wrought Steel Products
Sectional Committee, SMDC 5, ISI; Steel
Castings Sectional Committee, SMDC 20,
ISI; and Pig Iron Sectional Committee,
SMDC 24, ISI
Ores and Raw Materials Sectional Committee,
SHRI P. I. A. NARAYANAN
SMDC 16, IS1
Steel Forgings Sectional Committee, SMDC 2 1, ISI
SHRIA.PADMANAPHAN
Methods of Chemical Analysis Sectional ComSHRI A. SANGAMESWARA
RAO
mittee, SMDC 2, ISI
Methods of Physical Tests Sectional Committee,
SHRI S. VI~WANATHAN
SMDC 3, IS1
Director, ISI (ox-o&o Member)
SHRI B. N. SINGH,
Assistant Director (Statistics)
Secretary
SIIR~Y. K. BHAT
Extra Assistant Director (Statistics), IS1

Panel for Sampling Inspection

DR A. MATTHAI

Tables, SMDC

4 : P6

Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta

I!3 : 2500 (Part II) - 1965

CONTENTS
PAGE
0. FOREWORD
..
..
..
..
..
1. SCOPE
..
..
..
..
..
2. TERMINOLOGY AND SYMBOLS
..
..
..
3. CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE CHOICE BETWEEN THE ATTRIBUTESAND
VARIABLES INSPECTION . .
..
..
..
4. PRELIMINARIESTO THE SELECTIONOF VARIABLES INSPECTIONPLANS
4.1 Formation of Lots
..
..
..
4.2 Types of Single Sampling Variables Plans
1:
..
4.3 Drawing of Samples
..
..
..
..
5. SELECTION OF SAMPLING PLANS
..
..
..
5.1 Classification of Sampling Plans . .
..
..
5.2 Inspection Level
..
..
.
..
5.3 Lot Acceptability
..
..
..
..
5.4 Normal, Reduced and Tightened Inspection . .
..
6. TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES . .
TABLE 1 SAMPLE SIZE CODE LETTERS BY INS.PE&ION LEVEL;
AND SIZES OF LOTS
..
..
TABLE 2 SINGLE SAMPLING VARIABLES PLANS FOR VA&:
ABILITY KNOWN METHOD
TABLE 3 SINGLE SAMPLING VARIABLE; PLANS FORGARIABIL&
UNKNOWN - STANDARD DEVIATION METHOD
..
..
TABLE 4 SINGLE SAMPLING VARIABLES PLANS FOR VARIABILITY
UNKNOWN - RANGE METHOD
..
..
..
TABLE 5

THE UPPER LIMIT FORTHE VALUE OF&L

BILITY UNKNOWN TABLE 6

7
8
8
9
9
:o
11
12
13
15
15
16
17
18

FOR VARIA-

STANDARD DEVIATION METHOD

THE UPPER LIMIT FOR THE VALUE 01: &L

4
6
6

OR -

n .

U-L

19

FOR VARIABILITY UNI<NOWN- RANGE METHOD

..
20
EXAMPLES 1, 2, 3 AND 4
..
..
..
. . 21,22
APPENDIX A SYMBOLS
..
..
24.
APPENDIX B FORMULW AND TABLES FOR CONSTRUCTINGSINGLE
SAMPLINGAQL-LTPD
VARIABLESPLANS FORONE-SIDEDSPECIFICATION LIMITS
..
..
25
B-O. Stipulations of the Plans (Values to be gi,Ln)
::
B-l. Variability Known Method . .
4;
B-2. Variability Unknown - Standard Deviatidn Method: :
25
TABLE 7 THE VALUES OF t CORRESPONDING
TO A GIVEN FRACTION VARYING FROM0.00 TO 0.99
..
B-3. Variability Unknown - Ran& Method : :
..
APPENDIX C THE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICCURVES
..
3

IS : 2500 ( Part II ) - 1965

Indian Standard
SAMPLING

INSPECTION

PART. II INSPECTION

BY VARIABLES

0.

PROCEDURES
FOR PERCENT

DEFECTIVE

FOREWORD

0.1 This Indian Standard was adopted by the Indian Standards Institution
on 1 October 1965, after the draft finalized by the Methods of Sampling
Sectional Committee
had been approved by the Structural and Metals
Division Council.
0.2 Part I of this standard dealing with inspection by attributes and by count
of defects had been issued earlier with a view to facilitating the wide-spread
use of sampling inspection in those situations where items can be classified
as defectives or non-defectives, satisfactory or non-satisfactory.
However,
this type ofinspection may require comparatively larger sample size and hence
in certain situations like the determination
of warp breaking strength of
cotton fabrics, it may become uneconomical due to the destructive nature or
prohibitive cost of testing.
In such cases, inspection by variables, wherein
quality is measured on a continuous scale like tensile strength of steel wire,
This standard has been prepared to
may be more useful and economical.
meet the growing demand for the use of sampling plans for inspection by
variables.
0.3 Further economy in sampling inspection may be obtained if the units in
tire lot are quite uniform in quality as a smaller sample may then be adequate
to represent the lot. This uniformity may be achieved by controlling
the
quality at the production stage itself and helpful guidance may be obtained
in this respect from IS : 397-1952*.
0.4 Sometimes the quality characteristics can be inspected both by attributes
and by variables, for example, the diameter of a shaft can be checked either
In such cases, a decision has to be
by gauging or by actual measurement.
Some of
made whether inspection should be by attributes or by variables.
the important considerations which provide the basis for a suitable choice
have been given in 4.2.3 of IS : 1548-1960t.
However, a more detailed
discussion of such considerations is given in 3 of this standard.
*Method for statistical quality control during production by the use of control chart
(s&w revised).
tManua1 on basic principles of lot sampling (tince stied).

IS : 2500 (Part II) - 1965

1. SCOPE
1.1 This standard provides tables for single sampling plans for lot-by-lot
inspection, when the inspection is done by variables.
Besides, the formula:
and the necessary tables for the construction of ones own single sampling
plans are also given.
2. TERMINOLOGY

AND SYMBOLS

2.0 For the purpose of this standard, the following definitions shall apply.
The symbols used in this standard including those for some of the terms
defined below are explained in Appendix A.
2.1 Sampling Inspection - Inspection in which only a portion of a lot is
inspected with a view to making a decision about accepting or rejecting
the lot.
2.2 Sampling Plan - A statement
for making decisions about the lot.
2.3 Item - Ultimate
be performed.

of the sampling procedure

unit of product or material

and the rule

on which inspection

will

2.4 Lot - A collection of items from which a sample is drawn and inspected
to determine its acceptability.
2.5 Lot Size (N) 2.6 Sample

2.7 Sample

Size

2.8 Defective
requirements.

Number

Collection
-

(n) -

of items in a lot.

of items selected for inspection

Number

from a lot.

of items in a sample.

An item the quality of which does not meet the specified

2.9 Percent Defective-Hundred

times
defectives to the total number of items.

the

ratio

of the number

of

2.10 Single Sampling

Plan -A
type of sampling plan in which the decision
to accept or reject a lot is always reached after one sample from that lot has
been inspected.
2.11 Mean (3) -The
sum of the observations
observations (see also Appendix A).

divided by the number

of

2.12 Lot Standard

Deviation (u) -The
square root of the mean of the
squares of the deviation of all the observations in a lot from their mean
(see also Appendix A).
2.13 Sample Standard Deviation (s) - The square root of the quotient
obtained by dividing the sum of squares of deviations of the observations
from their mean by one less than the number of observations in the sample
(see also Appendix A).
6

.
IS : 2500 (Part II) - 1965
2.14 Range (R)The difference between the largest and the smallest
observations or test results in a sample (see also Appendix A).
NOTE 1 - If the sample size is less than 10, the range shall be calculated for the sample
as such. If, however, the sample size is 10 or more (in multiples of 5), the observations
shall be divided into subgroups of five each by taking them consecutively in the same
order as obtained.
The range of each subgroup shall then be separately determined.

2.15 Mean Range CR) - The mean of a set of ranges calculated for subgroups of five observations in the sample (see also Note 1 and Appendix A).
2.16 Process Average -The
average percent defective of the products
submitted by the producer for original inspection.
(Original inspection
is the first inspection for the particular quantity of product as distinguished
from the inspection of products which have been re-submitted after prior
rejeclion.)
2.17 Acceptable
Quality Level (AQL) - The maximum percent defective
that, for the purpose of sampling inspection, can be considered as a satisfactory process average.
NOTE2 - When a consumer designates some specific value of AQL, he indicates to the
producer that his (the consumers) acceptance sampling plan will accept the great majority
ofthe lots that the producrr submits, provided the process average level ofpercent defective
in thrse lots is not greater than the designated value of AQL.
Thus, the AQL is a
desigrlatcd value of percent defective that the consum+r indicates will be accepted most
of thr time (approximately 89 to 95 percent in this standard).

2.18 Lot Tolerance Percent Defective (LTPD) -The

percentage of
clefectivcs in a lot that can be tolerated in only a specified proportion of lots.
2.19 Producers Risk-The
risk (chance) of rejecting lots of quality
equal to the specified AQL.
The risk of rejecting lots of quality better than
the AQL will be smaller than the designated producers risk.
2.20 Consumers Risk-The
risk (chance) of accepting lots of quality
equal to the specified LTPD.
The risk of accepting lots of quality worse
than the LTPD will be smaller than the designated consumers risk.
3. CONSIDERATIONS
FOR
THE
CHOICE
ATTRIBUTES AND VARIABLES INSPECTION

BETWEEN

THE

3.0 When a characteristic of an item is amenable to both attributes and

variables types of inspection, as is the case when a dimension can be either
gauged or measured, the following considerations would help in choosing
the appropriate
type of inspection.
3.1 For any desired degree of protection, lesser number of items have to be
inspected for variables inspection than for attributes inspection in order
to determine the acceptability
(or otherwise) of a lot. In other words,
for the samples of the same size, inspection by variables gives a smaller risk
of accepting lots of unacceptable quality than inspection by attributes.
The
variables plans would be, therefore, ordinarily more useful and economical
in those cases where destructive or costly testing is involved.
7

Is

2500 (Part II)-1965

3.2 The measurement

OFan item under the variables inspection gives much

more information about the quality of the item than the attributes inspection.
Thus a container of copper naphthenate may show the copper content as 10.0
percent against the specification requirement OF 8.5 percent minimum.
In
case OF attributes plans the container would be simply classified as satisiactory with respect to the copper content but the Fact that the observed
value is 1.5 percent higher than the specified minimum value will not be
utilized as such.
The variables plans, on the other hand, use this additional
information in their acceptance criteria which are based on the mean and
the variation OF the test results. The variables inspection would, therefore,
yieId more information
about the quality of the lot than attributes
inspection.
3.3 Inspection by attributes may to some extent be subjective in the sense
that an item classified as defective by one inspector may be classified as
non-defective by another or by the same at a later time. This is particularly
so in the case of visual inspection and items of borderline quality.
Inspection
by variables, on the other hand, would require actual measurement of the
item quality and is, therefore, more objective and minimizes the possibilities
OF inspection bias and error.
3.4 The attributes inspection may be generally performed either visually or
by gauging and as such the cost of inspection per item is low; on the other
hand, inspection by measurement involves more time, labour, skill and more
complicated tools, thereby making the inspection costlier.
3.5 Variables~inspection
by way of computation

may require more record keeping and calculation

of mean, standard deviation, etc.

3.6 Variables plans are based on the assumption that the distribution of the
quality characteristic is normal.
Hence it is important that these plans are
not used indiscrimiitely.
In case the assumption of normality is in doubt,
it is advisable to obtain the guidance of a competent statistician to ascertain
the feasibility OF application of these plans.
4. PRELIMINARIES

TO THE
SELECTION
OF VARIABLES
INSPECTION PLANS
4.1 Formation of Lots - A lot (see 2.4) should, as far as possible, consist

of items of a single type, grade, class, size, etc, produced under relatively
uniform conditions of manufacture by a single firm so that the items in the
lot are of uniform quality.
In such a case, the size of the sample to be
tested in the lot for a given protection would be small and inspection would
be economical.
Furthermore, a lot should, consistent with the conditions
of homogeneity, be as large as possible so that the incidence of cost of inspection per item is minimized.
A lot can be a stationary lot or a moving lot
subject to the convenience of stacking, access to each item in the lot and
identification.
Each lot shall be properly identifiable and each stationary
lot shall be presented as far as possible, in such a way that the inspector
8

Is:

2!ioo

(Part II)-196!5

will have easy access to all parts of the lot to select at random
making up the sample.

the items

4.2 Types of Single Sampling Variables

Plans-There
are three
types of single sampling plans available in this standard for inspection by
These are applicable under the following three situations:
variables.
a)

Variability Known-When
the variability in the lot, that is, the
value of the lot standard deviation (u) is known beforehand either
from the past experience, control chart data or any other means.

b)

Variability
Unknown - Standard Deviation Method - When the variability in the lot is not known and is estimated from the sample
standard deviation (s).
Unknown - Range Method - When the variability
in
the lot is not known and is estimated from the sample range (R)
or sample mean range (H).

c) Variability

Each of the above sampling

following two categories :

plans has been treated

separately

for the

1) When one-sided specification limit, that is, either an upper specification limit (U) or a lower specification limit (L) is given.
2) When two-sided specification limits, that is, both the upper and the
lower specification limits are given.
4.2.1 For the same degree of protection, the sample size is minimum
for the variability known method and maximum for the range method and,
Moreover, from the administratherefore, the former is most economical.
tive and computational
points of view the variability known plans are
easiest to operate as they require the calculation of mean alone, further
computations remaining the same for all the three types of plans.
The
range plans come next as they require the calculation of both the mean
and the range and lastly the standard deviation plans which require the
calculations of both the mean and standard deviation, the latter being more
Though the variability known
cumbersome to calculate than the range.
plans are the simplest to operate, the requirement of a priori knowledge
of variability is a stringent one.
4.3 Drawing
of Samples
- The sampling inspection plans included
in the standard assume that the items constituting a sample are selected
from the lot at raxdum. Technically, a sample is said to have been selected
at random if the methcd of selection gives the same chance to every item
in the lot for being included in the sample.
Various methods available
for collecting a random sample including the approximation
methods
like systematic sampling with random start have been discussed in 3.3.2
of IS : 154%1960*.
*Manual on basic principles of lot sampling (sincerevised).

IS : 2500 (Part II) - 1965

5. SELECTION

OF SAMPLING

PLANS

5.0 Selection of a sampling plan should be guided by the cost of inspection

that will be incurred and the protection desired by the producer and the
consumer.
The protection provided by a sampling plan to the producer
and the consumer is described completely by its Operating Characteristic
Curve (OC Curve) which gives the probabilities of accepting (or rejecting)
lots with varying percentage of defectives.
The steepness of the OC Curve
reflects the power of the sampling plan to discriminate between good and
bad lots; the steeper the OC Curve, the better is its power of discrimination.
While the operating characteristic provides a complete picture, of the protection afforded by the sampling plan (see 8.3.3.1
of IS : 1548-1960*)
in the form of a function or a curve, it does not give a single value of the
measure of the protection.
In view of this, the choice of a sampling plan
is generally made with reference to certain specified points on the OC
Curve, as for example, those associated with the Acceptable Quality Level
(AQL), Lot Tolerance Percent Defective (LTPD),
etc.
The AQL, LTPD
or such other values may be chosen on the basis of the previous data available
and by an agreement between the parties concerned.
A comprehensive
set of sampling plans classified in terms of the AQL is given in this standard.
NOTE 3 - Each of the plans selected from the tables given in this standard has its own
OC Curve.
The plans based on the variability
known, variability
unknown - standard
deviation method and variability unknown - range methods corresponding
to a particular
combination
of a sample size code letter and the AQL value have approximately
the same
OC Curve.
For the variability
unknown -standard
deviation method, the OC Curves
are given in Appendix
C.
These curves would also approximately
hold good for the
corresponding
plans based on known variability
and range methods.
They can also be
utilized for reading LTPD or any other desired value associated with the OC Curve.

5.1 Classification

of Sampling

Plans

5.1.1 A QL Plans
- The comprehensive set of sampling plans classified
in terms of AQL provided in the standard includes the following:
a) Variability known plans (see Table 2 on P 16);
b) Variabiiity unknown plans, standard deviation method (see Table 3
on P 17) ; and
c) Variability unknown plans, range method (see Table 4 on P 18).
5.1.1.1 The choice of a sampling plan for a particular product requires
the decision on the quality requirements;
if AQL plans are being used,
it is necessary to choose an appropriate
AQL.
In selecting an AQL value
a compromise may have to be struck between the quality desired and the
quality attainable.
If the AQL is superior to the quality that cau be
attained under usual production conditions, an excessive amount of product
will be rejected; on the other hand, if AQL is not exacting enough, an
excessive amount of inferior products may be accepte.2.
The value of
AQL may be specified by agreement between the parties concerned, giving
*Manual

on basic

principles

of lot sampling

(since rcuised).

10

IS : !2500 (Part II) - 1965

due weightage,
whenever
possible, to the past performance
of the supplier
Sampling plans for certain nominal values of AQL ranging
of the product.
from 0.10 to 10.0 percent
are provided
for in the Tables 2 to 4. When
the specified AQL is a particular
value, other than those for which sampling
plans have been furnished
a suitable value close to it and available
in the
tables may be chosen subject to the agreement
between the parties concerned.
5.1.2 Ones Own Plans-To
help the construction
of ones own plans,
tables for values of factors and formuke have been given, when. stipulations
are made in terms of AQL and LTPD values.
These are the following :
a) Variability

known

b) Variability

unknown

plans,

c) Variability

unknown

plans,

These

plans;

plans have been explained

standard
range

deviation

method;

and

method.

in Appendix

B.

5.2 Inspection
Level - In order to determine
which of the sampling
plans given in the standard
are to be used in a particular
case, having
decided
upon the quality requirement,
it is necessary
to decide upon the
Inspection
Level.
The term Inspection
Level is used to designate
the
relative amount
of inspection
one is required
to do.
A higher inspection
level means relatively more inspection
and consequently
lesser risk of accepting lots of quality worse than the chosen AQL.
That is to say, the higher
the inspection
level, the greater is the protection
against acceptance
of low
quality lots; but then the cost of inspection
goes up.
It may, therefore,
be necessary
to strike a compromise
between
a large sample which gives
a reliable estimate of the lot quality and a small sample which reduces the
inspection
cost.
Such a compromise
can be arrived at by proper selection
of the inspection
level.
5.2.1 Table 1 (see P 15), which is auxiliary
to Tables 2, 3 and 4 gives
five inspection
levels with the sample
size in code letters
(see 5.2.2)
Inspection
level I calls for the smallest
sample size, thereby
minimizing
the cost of inspection.
Inspection
level V gives relauvely
the largest
sample size, thereby
lessening both the risk of accepting
bad quality lots
and rejecting
good quality lots but increasing
the cost of inspection.
For
majority
of products
under normal
conditions
of acceptance
inspection?
a reasonable
compromise
between
the high inspection
costs amd the ri:.k
involved
may be achieved
by taking the sample size corresponding
to the
inspection
level IV.
5.2.2 Table 1 gives code letters B, Cl, D, . , . . , to indicate
the sample
sizes under different
inspection
levels for varying
lot sizes.
Tt is in terms
of a code letter selected from Table 1 that a plan will be selected from Tables
2 to 4. These code letters are known as sample size code letters designating
as they do a particular
sample size.
For example,
J denotes
a ;ample
11

1% : 2500 (Part II) - 1965

of 25 for standard deviation method
(SCS Table 4).

(see Table

3) and 30 for range method

5.3 Lot Acceptability - The acceptability of a lot of materials submitted

for inspection shall be determined by using one of the sampling plans associated with a specified value of AQL.
Depending upon the specification
of one-sided or two-sided limits, the acceptability
criteria for the three
types of sampling plans would be as given in 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3.
Variability Known Method

5.3.1

5.3.1.1 For one-sided specijcatiqn limits - On the basis of the AQL and
the sample size code letter chosen, the value of the sample size (a) and a
suitable factor (k) shall be obtained from Table 2. The mean of the n test
results shall then be calculated and the lot shall be declared as acceptable if:
a) the value of the expression
fication limit (U) is given;
b) the value of the expression
fication limit (L) is given.

(E+ko)

<

OR
(Z-J/o)>

U, when the upper speci-

L, when

5.3.1.2 For two-sided speciJication limits-The

as acceptable if:
a) the value of the expression eL
below for the chosen AQL
0.10

AQL (%)

0.15

0.25

040

the

lot shall

Q the maximum

lower
be

speci-

declared

value specified

:
0.65

1.00

1.50 2.50

4.00

6.50

10.00

Upper Limit
of

-&

0.152 0,158 0.165 0.175 0.184 0.194 0.206 0.223 0.243 0.270 0.304
1

b) the value of the expression

(E+k u) < 17, and

c) the value of the expression

(Z--k o)>L.

5.3.2

Variability Unknown -

Standard Deviation Method

5.3.2.1 For one-sided SpeciJicationlimits - On

the sample size code letter chosen, the value of
suitable factor (k) shall be obtained from Table
standard deviation (s) shall then be calculated
the lot shall be declared as acceptable if:
4 the value of the expression (Z+ks)<
fication limit (U) is given;
OR
b) the value of the expression (X---~S) >
fication limit (L) is given.
12

the basis of the AQL .and

the sample size (n) and a
3. The mean (f) and the
from the test results and
U, when the upper speci-

L, when

the lower speci-

IS : 2500 (Part II) - 1365

5.3.2.2 For two-s&d
as acceptable

qG&ation

lot shall

limits-The

a) the value of the expression &

Q the maximum

in Table 5 (see P 19) for the particular

AQL and the sample size code letter,
b) the value of the expression

(Z++ks)<U,

c) the value of the expression

(E--ks)>L.

5.3.3

be declared

if:

Variability Unknown -

value specified

combination

of the chosen

and

Range Method

5.3.3.1 For one-s&d spzc$ication limits - On the

the sample size code letter chosen, the value of the
suitable factor (k) shall be obtained from Table 4.
range (R) if the sample size is less than 10, or the
sample size is 10 or more, shall then be calculated
The lot shall be declared as acceptable if:
a) the value of the expression (P+kR)
upper specification limit (U) is given;

basis of the AQL and

sample size (n) and a
The mean (Z)_and the
mean range (R) if the
from the test results.

or (Z+kR)

Q U, when the

OR
b) the value of the expression (a-kR)
or (R--kR)
lc ver specification limit (L) is given.
5.3.3.2 For two-sided spec&ation limits -The
Acceptable if:

a) the value of the expression FL

or GL

lot shall be declared

<

the maximum

specified in Table 6 (see P 20) for the particular

the chosen AQL and the sample size code letter,
b) the value of the expression (Z+kR)

or (Z+kR)

c) the value of the expression (Z-kR)

or (R-k@

5.4 Normal,

> L, when the

<
>

as

value

combination

of

U, and
L.

Reduced and Tightened Inspection

5.4.0 When the quality of the submitted lots shows significant shifts,
it is desirable to make appropriate changes in the sampling plans.
If the
quality deteriorates, it is necessary to tighten the inspection; if the quality
improves, it may be desirable to relax the inspection.
5.4.1 Notmal InsfJection- Inspection under a sampling plan that .is in
force for a particular product and producer is called Normal Inspection.
It may be continued as long as the quality of the product submitted is better
than or equal to the chosen AQL.
The consistency in maintaining this
13

IS : 2500part II) - 1965

level of quality by the producer can be ascertained either from a continuous
record of inspection data which can be used to estimate the process average
of the producer or from a knowledge of the proportion of the lots that are
not accepted.
In case the quality becomes consistently better than the
stipulated AQL, Reduced Inspection may be undertaken.
If, however,
the quality becomes consistently worse than the chosen AQL, Tightened
Inspection is to be resorted to.
5.4.2 Tightened Imjmtion - Inspection
shall be tightened
either by
raising the inspection level, that is, by selecting a sample size code letter
higher than the one adopted for normal inspection or by employing a smaller
AQL.
Since the former approach leads to an increased amount of inspection, tightening is done by using a sampling plan with an AQL smaller
than that used previously.
5.4.2.1 The following criteria shall be applied for changing from normal
to tightened inspection and vice versa:
a) If 2 out of the 5 (or less) consecutive lots have been rejected while
on normal inspection, change over to tightened inspection.
b) If, while on tightened inspection, 5 consecutive
accepted, change over to normal inspection.

lots have been

5.4.2.2 From the tables given in this standard the choice of a plan for
tightened inspection shall be made in the following manner :
Retain the same sample size code letter as before but refer to an AQL
a step lower than the AQL used for normal inspection.
For example,
if the AQL used for normal inspection is 4.0 percent for the code letter
K (in Tables 2, 3 or 4), the AQL to be used for tightened inspection shall
be 2.5 percent for the same code letter.
5.4.2.3 In certain cases such tightened inspection may lead to an
increase in the size of the sample.
For example, if an AQL of 0.65 percent
has been used for normal inspection for the sample size code letter D, the
AQL and the code letter to be used for tightened inspection shall be 0.40
and E respectively.
5.4.3 Reduced Insrpection- If the quality of the submitted lots is consistently
better than the AQL chosen, reduced inspection may be resorted to either
by selecting lower sample size code letter than the one used for normal
inspection or by relaxing the AQL.
Since the former approach leads
to economics in inspection it is preferable, unless there is an agreement
to the contrary, to reduce inspection by changing over to a plan with a
lower sample size code letter than the one adopted for normal inspection.
5.4.3.1 The following criteria may be applied for changing over from
normal to reduced inspection and vice versa:
a) If none out of 10 consecutive lots has been rejected while on normal
inspection, change over to reduced inspection.
14

IS : 2500 (Part II) - 1965

bj

If a lot is rejected, and if at the same time the rejected lot is preceded
by less than 10 lots accepted on reduced inspection, change over
to normal inspection.

5.4.3.2 From the tables given in this standard, the choice of a plan
for reduced inspection may be made in the following manner :
Retain the same AQL as before but refer to the sample size code
letter one step lower than that used for normal inspection.
For example,
if the code letter used for normal inspection is J with an AQL of 2.5
percent (in Tables 2, 3 or 4), then the code letter to be used for reduced
inspection may be H for the same AQL.
3.4.3.3 In certain cases suitable plans for reduced inspection given
in 5.4.3.2
may not be available.
Reduced
inspection may then be
resorted to by choosing the sample size code letter one step lower and the
AQL one step higher than that used for aormal inspection.
For example,
if the code letter D and the AQL of 0.65 percent have been used for normal
inspection, then the code letter and AQL to be used for reduced inspection
may be C and 1 .O percent respectively.
6. TABLES

TABLE

AND

SAMPLE

ILLUSTRATIVE

EXAMPLES

SIZE CODE LETTERS

BY INSPECTION
SIZES OF LOTS

LEVELS

AND

(Clause 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, and Examples 1, 2, 3 and 4)

LOT

INSPECTIONLEVELS
*
III
IV

%ZE
I
I

II

Size

( s a m pl e
2to
9 I,
16 ,,

8
15
25
50
26 >,
100
51 >,
150
101 ,,
300
151 ,,
500
301 ,,
501 ,,
1000
1001 ,,
3000
3001 ,, 10000
10OOlandabove

B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
D
E
F

B
B
B
B
B
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

J
K

15

Letters)

Code
B
B
B
B
C
D
E
F
G

,
II

B
B
C
D
E
F
G
J
K
L
M

C
D
E
F
G
J
K
L
M
M
N

TABLE2

v-

SINCLESAMIUNG

PLANS

?DR

lTY

VAKUBIL

KNOWN

MHKOD

--_irr
-1
4i 1 4 -c4
Cl
(Umues 5.1.1,

5.1.1.1.

5.2.1,

5.3.1.1

AaaPrAmm

SAWLE
I7.8

5.2.2,

coru

0.10

nY

0.15

rk-

0.25

0.40

QuAUlY

065

and lZ.m&s

mtd 5.4.2.2,

1 and

3)

LWBL

l-Ml

1.50

2.50

4.00

nk-k-Yr:Yn

k-

6.50

rk

1oaO

nk

E
F
G

2.39

1*56

I.36

1.25

1.09

0.936

0.755

0.573

1.42

1.33

1.17

1.01

oa25

0.641

0.728

1.94

1.81

I.69

I.56

I.44

1.28

I.11

0.919

%I9

2.07

I.91

lacl

1.69

1.53

1.39

1.20

0991

0.797

2.30

2.14

2.05

la6

I.78

I.62

1.45

I.28

1.07

11

0.877

246

2.34

2.23

2.08

1.95

I+0

I.63

1.49

10

1.31

12

1.11

14

0.906

2.49

2.37

2.25

2.13

1.96

1.83

10

1.70

11

1.51

13

1.34

15

1.13

17

0.924

2.50

2.36

2.26

2.13

10

1.99

I1

I.86

12

1.72

13

1.53

19

I.33

18

I.15

21

0.942

2.54

2.45

2.29

10

2.16

II

2.01

12

I+8

14

1.75

15

I.56

18

I.38

20

I.17

24

0.964

2.54

10

2.45

11

2.51

12

2.18

13

2.03

I4

1.69

15

1.75

18

1.57

20

1.38

23

1.17

27

O-965

II

2.59

12

2.49

13

2-35

I4

2.21

16

2.07

17

1.93

19

1.79

22

1.61

25

I.42

29

I.21

33

0.995

T-3

3XNGLEMMPLING

v-

?LANs FOR vDEVIATION

AfSlIiOD
5.2.2, 5.3.2.1 und5.4.2.2,

(Clmw5.1.1,5.1.1.1,5.2.1,

@lo

0.15

0.25

I t::

2.42

2.24
2.32

2.20

E
2151

;:30
241

::;8

22:;
2-60

2.45
2.45
2-50

2.24

Et
2135

UNKNOWN-3TANDARD

andExmnpk4)

1.00

1.50

2.50

4.00

6.50

0.765

lO*OO
T

1.4s
1.53

1.34
140

1.12
1.17
1.24

Y-t?
1107

Z:X:::

:6?
O-675

::g
1.79

::g
1.65

1.33
1.41
1.47

:::;
1.30

3.955
1.03
1.09.

0.755
0.828
0.886

::z
1.66

1.69
I*72
1.73

1.51
1.53
1.55

i:;

1.12
1.14
1.15

0.917
8:Z

1.76
1.76
1.80

1.57

::g
1.42

1.18
1.18
1.21

8:E
1.00

i:;

::g

-All AQL values are in percent defective.

1

Use first sampling plan below the arrow, that b. both sample size as well as k value.
acecds lot size, cvuy item in the lot shall be inspected.

When sample size equals or

TABLE4

8Amaamv~FLANsFoRvUFNLNOWN-MBTHOD

SMCL8

(C1aw.m5.1.1,5.1.1.1,5.2.1,5.2.2,5.3.3.1

amf5.4.2.2, andExmnplrt2aad4)

_0.10

0.15

0.25

0.40

0.65

1.00

1.50

2.50

03!39
1.05

I.01

o&3

0.502
0450
0431

0401
0.364
0.352

0.272

0.613
0.755
0.792

0.569
0.703
0.738

0.525
0.650
0.684

::%
0.610

0.405
0.507
0.536

0.336
0.424
0.452

0.266
0.341
0.368

0.779

0647
0.654
0.658

0.571
0.577
0.581

0.484
0.490
0.494

0.398

8%

0.591
0.598

0.503
0.510

0.415
0.42 I

;:g

8:::
0.848

E:

0.723
0.730
0.734

0.92 1
0.931

0.860
0.893

0.803
0.812

0.746
0.754

:::

t :::

;:z

!:E

0.978
0.988

-i-

0.587
0.525
0.498

*
0.659
0.811
0.850
O-896

1040

0.598
0.565

+
0.702
0.863
0.903
0.951
0.959
0.964

6.50

0.:51
0.614

0.916
0.958

4.00

EE

EC!

_All AQL values arc in percent defective.

1

Use first sampling plan below the arrow, that i, both ample
or exceeds lot size, every itan in the lot shall be inspected.

six as well as k value.

When sample size equala

TABLE 5 THE UPPER LIMIT FOR THE VALUE

UNKNOWN

STANDARD

(Claw

OF

DEVIATION

B
C
D

3
4
5

20

O-15

0.25

METHOD

5.3.2.2, and Exam@ 4)

ACCEPTABLE
5.10

FOR VARUBKITY

&-

040

065

QIJALXTY

L
1.00

LEVEL
1.50

2.50

4.00

6.50

10.00

0.436

0.453

0.475

0.502

0.339

0,353

0.374

0.399

0.432

0.472

0.294

0.308

0.323

0.346

0.372

0408

0.452

0.242

0.253

0.266

0280

0.295

0.318

0.345

0.381

0.425

0.214

0.224

0.235

0.248

0.261

0.276

o-298

0.324

0.359

0.403

0.195

0.202

0.211

0.222

0.235

0.248

0.262

0.284

0,309

0.344

0.386

o-190

0.197

0.206

0.216

0.229

0.242

0.255

0.277

0.302

0.336

0.377

0.238

0.251

0.213

0.297

0.331

0,372

25

0.187

0.193

0.203

0.212

0.225

30

0.185

0.192

0.201

0.210

0.223

0.236

0.249

0.270

0.295

0.328

0.369

35

0.183

0.189

0.198

0.208

0.220

0.232

0.2.45

0.266

0.291

0.323

0.364

nf

40

0.182

0.188

0.198

0.207

0.219

0232

0.245

0.266

0.290

0.323

0.363

0.204

0.317

0.356

50

0.178

0.164

@lQ4

0.203

0214

0.227

0.241

0.261

TN&E6

TElEuPPEnLIMITFoRTxiEvALuEoF

FOR VAmmnrrY

UNKNOWN-RANGE

METHOD

(Claurc 5.3.3.2,
and lZwmplr4)

f
sAyPLEslzs
CDDB

SAxFEL"

ACCEPTABLE

Quam

LEVEL

.5

l_JnTEa

0.10

0.15

0.25

3-----_--

4-----

10

15

0.40

0.65

l*OO

1.50

2.50

4.00

6.50

lO*oo

0.833

0.865

0.907

0.950

0.756

0.763

0.836

0.891

0.965

1.056

0.730

0.764

Oaol

0.857

0.913

I.011

1.118

0695

0.727 0.765

@I304

0.8s

0.910

0905

1.086

1.209

3,529

0.553

0.579 0.610

0.642

0.677 o-730

0.793

0.876

0.977

0.477

0.493

0.517

0.542 0.572

0.602

0.637 0.688

0.746

0.830

0.928

25

0447

0.463

0486

0.509 0.537

0.567

o+oo

0.707 0.785

0.879

30

0442

0.457

0.480

0.503

0.699

0.776

0.870

35

0.438

0.454

0.476

0.499 0.527

0.556

0.588 0.637 0.694

0.771

0.864

40

0.432

0.447

0469

0.492 0.519

0.548 0.580 0.628

0.684

0.761

O-852

50

0.426

0.441

0463

0486

0.542

0.676

0.752

0.843

0.531 0.560

0.503

0.649

0.593 0.642

0.573 0.621

IS t 25oo(Pmtn)-l965
likamjlt 1:
The specified minimum yield point for certain steel castings is 40.0
Suppose lots containing 400 items are submitted for inspection.
kg/n&.
A single sampling variables plan with inspection level III and an AQL
Suppose the variof 2.5 percent is adopted for the purpose of inspection.
ability (u) is known to be 1.O kg/mm*.
Reference to Table 1 then gives the sample size code letter F corresponding
to which Table 2 shows the sample size 5 and factor k equal to 1.39.
From the lot, 5 castings shall then be selected at random and their yield
points determined.
Suppose the yield points for the 5 castings are 421,
39.9, 40.7, 43.2 and 42.6.
The mean (3) is then found to be 41.7.
Also, the value of the expression (Z--ka) ccmes out to be 41.7- 1.39 x 1.O
Since this value is greater than the lower specification limit
=40.31.
of40.0, the lot shall be accepted.
The LTPD

value associated with the above plan as read from Fig. 8

of acceptance
being 10 percent).

(stt P 36) is obtained as 22 percent (with the probability

Example 2 :
i) The specified maximum resistance of a certain electrical component
is 660 ohms. Suppose lots containing 150 components are submitted for
inspection. If it is agreed to use inspection level IV, an AQL of one percent
and single sampling variables plans for variability unknown (standard
deviation method), then reference to Tables 1 and 3 gives the sample size
10 and the factor k equal to 1.72.
Suppose the resistances (in ohms) of the 10 components selected at random
from the lot are 639, 640, 650, 647, 662, 637, 652, 643, 657 and 649.
Then

f=647.6,
s=

and

(639~-647*6)*+(640-647.6;*+.
9

. . . . . +(649-647.6)

= @%3=8.09
The value .of the expression (Z+ks) =647.6 + 1.72 x 869 =661.5.
Since
this value is greater than the maximum specification limit of 660 ohms,
the lot shall be rejected.
ii) In the above example, if it is intenrsd to use the single sampling
variables plan for variability unknown (range method), then reference to
Tables 1 and 4 gives the sample size as 10 and factor k equal to 0.703.
21

IS : 25oo(PartII)-1965
Taking the above values of sample results, it is found that :
2 =647.6
Range of first 5 results -662 -639 =!3
Range

of last 5 results=657-637

Hence mean range (E) =

=20

23+20
2

=21.5

The value of expression (P+kkj=647.6+0.703~21.5=662.7.

this value is greater than the maximum specification limit of
the lot shall be rejected.

Since
660 ohms,

The LTPD

value associated with the above plans can be read from Fig. 6
Thus lots containing approximately 19.5 percent defectives
would be accepted only 5 percent of the times by the above plans.
(see P 34).

Exaniple

3:

The specified hardness range for certain types of spanners is 40 to 50

HRC.
Lots containing 2 000 spanners are submitted for inspection. A
single sampling variables plan with inspection level V and an AQL of 4.0
percent is adopted.
Suppose the variability (u) is known to be 2.5 HRC.
Reference

to Tables

k equal to 1.38.

1 and 2 gives the sample size as 20 and the factor

The upper limit for -&

is obtained as 0.243 from the

values under 5.3.1.2.

Applying

the first condition given in 5.3.1.2, we have the following :

2-5
=0.25 which is more than the permissible upper limit

&=m
of 0.243. Hence the lot is rejected straightway without drawing
items for sample inspection.
Exampk

the 20

4:

i) The specified melting range for a certain type of wax is 60 to 70C.

Lots containing 200 containers are submitted for inspection. A single
sampling variables plan with variability unknown (standard deviation
method) with inspection level IV and an AQL of 2.5 percent is adopted.
References to Tables 1, 3 and 5 give the sample size 15, the factor k equal
to 1.47 and the upper limit for -&
Suppose the melting
at random are:

equal to 0.284.

points for the material

in 15 containers selected

63.5, 66.0, 65.0, 68.5, 69.5, 66.5, 67.0, 62.5, 66.0, 67.5, 64.0, 69.0, 70.0,
66.0, 66.5
22

Is : 2!m(PartlI)-1965
Then

compute

997.5

mean

(2) = 15=66.5

(63.5-66.5)*+.

and s=

. . . . . +(66.5-665)s
14

Applying the first condition given in 5.3.2.2,

is less than the permissible

2.19
= 1.

GL

=0.219

Applying the second and third conditions, (2 +ks) =66.5+

69.7 is less than the maximum specification limit,
and (Z-ks)
fication limit.

=66.5-

which

limit of 0.284.

1.47 x 2.19=63.3

1.47

2.19 =

is more than the minimum

speci-

Hence the lot shall be accepted.

ii) In the above example, if it is intended to use the single sampling
variables plan for variability unknown (range method), then reference to
Tables 1, 4 and 6 gives the sample size 15, the factor k equal to 0.610 and
._
upper limit for GL
Taking
Mean

equal to 0.688.

the above values of sample results, we obtain,

(2) = 66.5

Range

of first 5 test results =69.5-63.5

=6.0

Range

of next 5 test results =67.5

=5.0

Range

of last 5 test results=70.0-64.0=6.0

Henoe mean range (R)

-62.5

6.0+5.0+6.0
3

=5.7

_
Applying

the first condition

less than the permissible

Applying
l

given in 5.3.3.2,

-&

=5<

=0.57

which

.i.s

limit of 0.688.

the second and third conditions,

2+k~=66~5+0.610~
limit,

5.7=70.0

is equal

and 3-k~=66~5-0~610~5~7=63~0
specification limit.

is

Hence the lot shall be accepted.

23

to the maximum
greater

than

the

specification
minimum

Is : 2500 (Part II) - 1965

APPENDIX

(Clauses2.H, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14and2.15)

SYMBOLS
mean; if x1, .x2,. . . . . .x, are the A measurements of the item in a
sample, then Z=

x,+x*.

lot standard deviation; if x1, x2,. . . . . . . .xN are the N measurements

of items in a lot and K is the corresponding mean, then :

(I=

(x1-

_g*+ . . . . + (xx- @a =

J
s

.N

(x12+. . . . . . +x2)
JJv

--Jvp

sample standard deviation; if x1, x2,. . . . . . . . , x,, are the n measurements of items in the sample, then :

s=

. . .+x,
n

(x1 -a>*+.

. . . . . + (xn -3)2_
(n-l)

- J-

(x,2+. . . . . . +x,*)---nz*
n-l

measurements of items in a
range; if x1, x,, . . . . . . . . x,, are the
sample, arranged in the ascending order of magnitude, then :

R=x,-x,
mean range; if R,, &, . . . . . . . . R, are the ranges of m sub-groups
of five observations each (so that sample size n=5 m), then:

R=

R1+R,.

. . . . . . .R,,,
m

coefficient of R or R in the acceptance/rejection criterion for single

sampling plans by variables with variability unknown (range
method).

coefficient of s in the acceptance/rejection criterion for single sampling

plans by variables with variability unknown (standard deviation
method).

coefficient of u in the acceptance/rejection criterion

sampling plans by variables with variability known.

upper specification limit.

lower specification limit.

<
>

less than or equal to.

greater than or equal to.
24

for

single

Is :25oo(PartlI)-1965

APPENDIX

(Clause 5.1.2)
FORMULA3 AND TABLES FOR CONSTRUCTING
SAMPLING
AQL-LTPD
VARIABLES PLANS
ONE-SIDED SPECIFICATION LIMITS
B-O. STIPULATIONS

SINGLE
FOR

OF THE PLANS (VALUES TO BE GIVEN)

pll = acceptable quality level (AQL) expressed as fraction defective

ps = lot tolerance percent defective (LTPD) as fraction defective
< = producers risk (fraction)
p = consumers risk (fraction)
L or U=lower or upper specification limit for item quality
It is desired to construct single sampling variables plans such that lots
with pfl fraction defective would be accepted (1 -c) times, and lots with
ps fraction defective will be rejected (1-B) times. From pr, ps, < and p
read the corresponding t values, namely :
t and t from Table 7
t
PY %:
(
B
where t= is the normal deviate exceeded with probability x.
El.

VARXABILITY

KNOWN

METHOD

El.1 The acceptance criterion for this method is given as before by

(X+ko)<
U or (Z--ku)> L where the sample size (n) and k have to
be found out. The values of n and k which determine the desired sampling
plan uniquely are given by the following formulas :

52.

VARIABILITY
METHOD

UNKNOWN - STANDARD

DEVIATION

B-2.1 The acceptance criterion for this method is given as before by

(Z+k$)<U or (X-ks) is >L w here the sample size (n) and k have to be
25

TABLE 7 THE VALUES OF t GORRESPONDING TO A GIVEN FXUGTION VARYlNG

FROM

9.96 TG oa9

(awe

B-O)

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0*04

0.05

2.326

2.054

l+l81

I.751

1645

1.555

1476

1.405

1.341

1.282

I.227

1.175

1.126

la80

I.036

0.994

0.954

0915

0.878

0.842

0.806

0.772

0.739

0.706

0.674

0.643

0.613

0.583

0.553

o-3

0.524

0.496

0.468

0440

0.412

0.385

0.358

0.332

0.305

0.279

0.4

0.253

0.228

0.202

0.176

0.151

0.126

0. loo

0075

0+50

0*025

0.5

OMO

FB 4OTlON4

0.06

0.07

008

0.09

-0m5

-0.050

-0.075

-O*lOO

-@126

-0*151

-0.176

-0.202

-0.228

0.6

-0.253

-0.279

-@305

-0.332

-0.358

-0.385

-0.412

-0440

-0.468

-0.496

0.7

-0.524

-0.553

-0ci83

-0.613

-0643

-0.674

-0.706

-0.739

-0.772

-0al6

0.8

-0a42

-0.878

-0.915

-0.954

-0.994

-1.036

-la80

-1.126

-1.175

- 1.227

0.9

- 1.282

-1.341

- 1.405

- 1.476

- 1.555

- 1645

- 1.751

-I*881

-2.054

-2.326

Is : 2!5oo(PartII)-1965
found out.
The values of k and n which determine
plan uniquely are given by the following formulae :

B-3. VARIABILITY

UNKNOWN-RANGE

the desired sampling

ME? HOD

B-3.1 The accepence

criterion for this method
(3+kR) or (Z+kR) Q U OR (f-kR)
or (Z-kj?)>L

is given as before by
[R is to be calculated
if the sample size is less than 10. In case the sample size is 10 or more,
R, based on the sub-groups of five samples each, is to be calculated].
The
values of k and n which determine the desired sampling plan uniquely are
obtained as given in B-3.1.1.

B-3.1.1 The values of n and k are first obtained by using the formulse
given under B-2.
In case n comes out to be less than or equal to 9, k is
determined from k=Dk where the values of D are given below for the
various sample sizes :
Sample Size, n

Values of D

om6

0.590 8

0.485 7

0.429 9

0.394 6

0.369 8

0.351 2

0.336 7

If, however, the value of n exceeds 9 and is not a multiple of 5, it shall

be raised to the first higher number which is a multiple of 5 and then k
is determined from k=0.429 9 k.
27

Is f 25oo(PartlI)-1965

APPENDIX

(.JVotc
3 under
Clause5.0)
THE OPERATING

GHARACTERB

TIC

CURVES

G-1. Figures 1 to 11 (su P 29-39) give the complete set of operating characteristic curves for the sampling plans based on variability unknownstandard deviation method as given in this standard. These curves are
obtained by plotting the percent of lots expected to be accepted against
percent defectives in submitted lots. The curves given would also approximately hold good for the plans pertaining to the variability known and range
methods with the same sample size code letter.
G-2. For any specified value of the acceptable quality level (see 2.17),
all the OC Curves obtained for the different sample size code letters are
given in the same figure. Thus, there are 11 figures corresponding to the
11 values of AQL from 0.10 to 10.00 percent specified in the standard.
The sample size code letter corresponding to any plan has been indicated
on the relevant OC Curves in each of the figures given.
C&S. For any percent defective, the percentage of lots expected to be accepted
may be read from the OC Curve corresponding to the chosen sampling
plan. As ,an example, for a plan with the sample size code letter L
and AQL of 2.5 percent, the relevant OC Curve is given in Fig. 8. It may
then be seen fkom this OC Curve that 8 percent defective lots would be
accepted in about 27 percent of the cases for the plan under consideration.

28

PERCfNT MFECTlVfS

IN SUBMITTED LOTS

knownurdmagemethxt

withthe

100

90

60

70

Y
.
: -60
Y

SO

2s L
5

?O

ti

3
bi

3o

I?

20

10

(2

16

20

24

26

32

36

44

40

B2

B6

64I

64

PERCENT DEFECTIVES IN SUBMITTED LOTS

(Oboe

cuwen would also approximately hold good for sam liig plans based on variability known sod raqe

Fro. 7

oc

CURVESFOP

sample size code Pettera w printed on the curva)

h,PUNG

hA2tS

kD

ON STANDARD

&VIATlON

hfETHOD,

methods with the UIIIC

AQL 1.50 ~RCENT

PERCENT DEFECTIVES

IN

SUBMITTED

LOTS

T,

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, NEW DELHI 110002

Telephones: 323 0131, 323 3375, 323 9402
Fax : 91 113234062,
91 113239399, 91 113239382
Telegrams : Manaksanstha
(Common to all Offices)
Ce~~traI Laboratory:

Telephone

Plot No. 2019, Site IV, Sahibebad

Industrial Area, SAHIBABAD

201010

8-77 00 32

Regional OMces:
Central
Eastern

: Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, NEW DELHI 110002

: 1114 CIT Scheme VII M, V.I.P. Road, Maniktola. CALCUTTA700054

Northern

: SC0 331336,

Sector 34-A, CHANDIGARH

160022

337 86 62
60 38 43

: C.I.T. Campus, IV Cross Road, CHENNAI 600113

TWestern : Manakalaya. E9 Behind Mar01 Telephone Exchange, Andheri (East),

Southern

MUMBAI

323 76 17

235 23 15
832 92 95

400093

Branch Oi7kes:
Pushpak,

Nurmohamed

Shaikh Marg, Khanpur, AHMEDABAD

SFeenya Industrial Area, 1st Stage, Bangaiore-Tumkur

BANGALORE 560058
Gangotri Complex, 5th Floor, Bhadbhada

Kaiaikathir Buildings, 670 Avinashi Road, COIMBATORE

Savitri Complex,

Road, FARIDABAD

116 G. T Road, GHAZIABAD

5501348
839 49 55

Road, T. T. Nagar. BHOPAL 462003

Plot No. 62-63. Unit VI, Ganga Nagar, BHUBANESHWAR

Plot No. 43, Sector 16 A, Mathura

380001

Road,

751001

55 40 21
40 36 27

641037

21 01 41
8-28 88 01

121001

8-71 19 96

201001

5315 Ward No. 29, R. G. Barua Road, 5th By-lane, GUWAHATI 781003

54 11 37

C&5%,

20 10 83

L. N. Gupta Marg, Nampally Station Road, HYDERABAD

E-52, Chitaranjan

Marg, C-Scheme,

1171418 B, Sarvodaya

500001

JAIPUR 302001

37 29 25

Nagar, KANPUR 208005

21 68 76

Seth Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Behind Leela Cinema, Naval Kishore Road,
LUCKNOW 226001

23 89 23

Patliputra Industrial

26 23 05

Estate, PATNA 800013

T. C. No. 1411421, University

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

P. 0. Palayam,
695034

6 21 17

NIT Building, Second Floor, Gokulpat Market, NAGPUR 440010

Institution of Engineers

52 51 71

( India ) Building, 1332 Shivaji Nagar, PUNE 411005

Sales Office is at 5 Chowringhee

CALCUTTA 700072

Approach,

TSaleS Office is at Novelty Chambers,

32 36 35

P. 0. Princep Street,
27 10 85

Grant Road, MUMBAI

*Sales Office b at F Block, Unity Building, Narashimaraja

BANGALCRE 560002

400007

Square,

309 65 28
222 39 71

Printed at New India Printing Press, Khurfa,

India

!*