इंटरनेट
मानक
Disclosure to Promote the Right To Information
Whereas the Parliament of India has set out to provide a practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, and whereas the attached publication of the Bureau of Indian Standards is of particular interest to the public, particularly disadvantaged communities and those engaged in the pursuit of education and knowledge, the attached public safety standard is made available to promote the timely dissemination of this information in an accurate manner to the public.
“ जान1 का अ+धकार , जी1 का अ+धकार”
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan
“The Right to Information, The Right to Live”
“ प0रा1 को छोड न' 5 तरफ ”
Jawaharlal Nehru
“Step Out From the Old to the New”
IS 14977 (2001): Control Charts Based on Inspection by Gauging [MSD 3: Statistical Methods for Quality and Reliability]
!ान $ एक न' भारत का +नमण ”
Satyanarayan Gangaram Pitroda
“Invent a New India Using Knowledge” ”
!ान एक ऐसा खजाना > जो कभी च0राया नहB जा सकता है”
Bhart ṛ hari—N īti ś atakam
“Knowledge is such a treasure which cannot be stolen”
*II*
Is 14977:2001
mGRTFlawTwmlRd fa%QTwRm
October
CONTROL
2001
BUREAU
MANAK
Indian Standard
CHARTS
BASED
ON INSPECTION
BY GAUGING
OF
BHAVAN,
ICS 
03.120.30 
0 
BIS 2001 
INDIAN
9 BAHADUR
STANDARDS
SHAH
ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI 110002
Price Group
4
Statistical
Methods
for Quality
and Reliability
Sectional
Committee,
MSD 3
FOREWORD
This Indian Standard was adopted by the Bureau of Indian Standards,
Methods for Quality and Reliability Sectional Committee had been approved by the Management and Systems Division Council.
Control charts based on inspection by gauging can be conveniently used for controlling both the location and the variability parameters of a measurable characteristic of a process, having twosided specifications. These control charts are used in situations where:
after the draft finalized by the Statistical
a) the underlying distribution is normal or nearly normal,
b) the location and the variability parameters are twosided and onesided (larger than the aimed value shifls) respectively,
c) the values of the process mean and process variation are known, and
d) inspection by attributes is preferred to that by variable from practical considerations.
These charts are particularly suitable when underlying inspection is destructive in nature.
The composition of the Committee responsible for formulation of this standard is given in Annex A.
In reporting
be done in accordance
the result of a test or analysis, if the final value, observed or calculated
with IS 2:1960
‘~les
for rounding
off numerical
is to be rounded off, it shall
)’.
values ( revised
CONTROL
IS 14977:2001
Indian Standard
CHARTS
BASED
ON
INSPECTION
BY GAUGING
1 SCOPE
This standard covers control charts when inspection
is based on gauging. The use of this control chart
has been illustrated with an example. Further the advantages of this chart over X– R charts and also
the estimation of population mean and population variation have been included.
2 REFERENCES
The following standards contain provisions, which through reference in this text constitute provisions
of this standard. At the time of publication, the editions
indicated were valid. All standards are subject to revision and parties to agreements based on this standard are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of the standards indicated below:
1S No.
Title
Method for statistical quality control
397 ( Part 1 ) :
1972 during production: Part 1 Control charts for variables (first revision )
7920 Statistical vocabulary and Symbols:
Probability and general statistical
(Part
1):
1994
_{t}_{e}_{r}_{m}_{s} _{(} second
revision)
(Part2
):1994
Statistical
revision
)
quality
control (second
_{3} TERMINOLOGY
For the purpose of this standard, the definitions given in IS 7920 ( Part 1 ) and IS 7920 ( Part 2 ) shall apply.
4 INSPECTION
_{4}_{.}_{1} Inspection
a pair of gauges, called Lower Gauge Limit ( LGL )
and Upper Gauge Limit ( UGL ), into the following three categories:
BY GAUGING
by gauging classifies items by using
a) those falling short of LGL,
b) those lying between LGL and UGL, and
c) those exceeding the UGL.
4.1.1 The number of items in a sample of size n
belonging to each of the above three ‘categories are denoted by a, c, and b respectively. Of these, numbers a and b are directly noted, and c is taken as nab.
4.1.2 Since UGL and LGL are usually different from
Upper Specification Limit ( USL ) and Lower Specification Limit ( LSL ) respectively, it is to be noted that the items falling under categories 4.1 (a)
and 4.1 (c) may not necessarily be nonconforming.
4.2 Besides mechanical inspection of engineering items
for dimensional requirements by using pair of gono go gauges, there are many other situations in which inspection results generate this t~pe of data, for example, classi&ing the items by weight into under weight, normal, and overweight; classi~ing fise heads by their sensitivity into insensitive, normal and hypersensitive, etc.
4.3 GaugeLimits
4.3.1 When the measurable
follows normal or any other symmetrical distribution,
LGL and UGL are placed symmetrically around the targeted process average. Thus if POand 00 are the
known values for process mean and process standard
the gaugelimits are taken as:
LGL = PO– vao
UGL = PO+ vao
4.3.2 The choice of v, when the underlying distribution
is normal, has been discussed in 6.
4.4 For symmetrical distribution such as normal, when
a sample of size n is gauged against a pair of gauges of the type mentioned in 4.3.1, the numbers a, ( below LGL ) and b ( above UGL ) are obtained. The measures ( b– a) and ( b + a) are sensitive to changes in process mean ( p ) and process standard deviation ( o ) respectively from their corresponding target values.
deviation respectively,
quality
characteristic
_{5} PRELIMINARY
5.1
STEPS
Choice
of Probability
of False
Alarm
Control limits for control charts based on inspection by gauging are set up ensuring a preassigned probability ct of falsely rejecting state of control. Here the concept of 3 c control limits is not pertinent. As such, a decision on the choice of a suitable in a given situation is to be taken. While a = 0.005 and 0.01 is normally suitable for the control chart purpose, a =0.01, 0.025 and 0.05 may also be considered if the tool is used for hypothesis testing.
_{5}_{.}_{2} Choice
of Subgroup
Sue
Control charts based on inspection by gauging are
1
IS 14977:2001
essentially attribute charts, similar to the conventional np charts. Thus, usually, a higher subgroup size, compared to control charts for variables, is needed to ensure reasonable protection against wrong decisions. However, through optimal determination of gaugelimits and control limits ( using criteria for decision under risk and/or uncertainty ), the error controlling properties of these charts may compare quite favorably with those of variable control charts even for identical sample size. In view of this, and also to keep subgroup size small, often a sample size between 7 to 10 should be adequate, contrary to the higher sample size for an attribute control chart.
_{5}_{.}_{3} Choice
of Control
Charts
_{5}_{.}_{3}_{.}_{1} As mentioned in 4.4, for a sample gauged against
a pair of gauges, ( ba) and ( b + a ) are sensitive to
changes in p and o. Hence a pair of control charts for ( b – a ) and ( b + a ) should be looked upon as
) charts
substitutes for the conventional ~and respectively.
5.3.2 However, it has been found that a single control
chart for a and b ( plotting two points corresponding to these measures against each subgroup number) is not only more usertliendly but also has better error controlling properties as compared to a pair of charts for ( b  a ) and ( b + a ), almost everywhere in the twodimensional parameter space for y and cr,except
on the line c = cro( that is, when o does not change ). In this case the latter pair of charts performs only marginally better.
that a single chart for
( a,b ) should be used.
5.3.3 Thus, it is recommended
R ( ors
_{6} _{(}_{a}_{,} 
h ) CHART 
6.1 
Setting 
_{6}_{.}_{1}_{.}_{1} 
Having decided on the subgroup size n and 
the probability ct of false alarm, find the values of the
gauge factor v and the single control limit r from Table 1.
6.1.2 The values of v and r for various combinations
of ( n, a ) have been given in Table 1 under the assumption that the distribution of quality characteristic is normal.
6.1.3 Since usually the optimal v values are smaller
gauges are
somewhat compressed or narrow as compared to standard tolerances. Therefore, these charts are sometimes referred to as compressed or narrow limit gauging charts.
6.1.4 Gaugelimits are set as:
than 3, as is evident from Table 1, the
LGL=pO–vaO and UGL=pO+vcO
2
where POand 00 are the known values of process mean and process standard deviation.
6.2 A control chart is drawn with the xaxis meant
for subgroup numbers and the yaxis meant for both a and b.
There is
no central line.
6.3 Plotting
Items in each subgroup are gauged one by one against
LGL ( PO– v ao) and UGL ( UO+ v GO) sequentially, and
( items
the numbers
exceeding UGL ) are noted. Against each subgroup number, two points A and 9 are plotted corresponding to a and b respectively. Successive points corresponding to each of a and b maybe connected by continuous and broken lines separately, preferably using two different colours.
_{6}_{.}_{2}_{.}_{1} A single control limit is drawn at y = r.
a ( items below
LGL
) and
b
Table 1 Values of Factors
v and r for Different
(n, 
a) Combinations 

(Clause.s6.l.1, 
6.1.2 and6.1.3 ) 

nv 
a = 0.005 r 
a = 0.010 r v 
a = 0.025 r v 
a v = 0.05 r 

2 
3.023 
1 
2.806 
1 
2,495 
1 
2.236 
1 

3 
1.894 
2 
1.735 
2 
1.506 
2 
2.388 
1 

4 
2.040 
2 
1.889 
2 
1.673 
2 
1.493 
2 

5 
2.113 
2 
1.997 
2 
1.790 
2 
1.618 
2 

6 
1.626 
3 
2.081 
2 
1.879 
2 
1.713 
2 

7 
1.713 
3 
1.595 
3 
1.951 
2 
1.789 
2 

8 
1.784 
3 
1.670 
3 
1.506 
3 
1.852 
2 

9 
1.844 
3 
1.732 
3 
1.573 
3 
1.440 
3 

10 
1.896 
3 
1.786 
3 
1.630 
3 
1.500 
3 

15 
1.747 
4 
1.657 
4 
1.833 
3 
1.712 
3 

20 
1.889 
4 
1.802 
4 
1.965 
3 
1.850 
3 

25 
1.762 
5 
1.907 
4 
1.690 
4 
1.950 
3 

30 
1.672 
6 
1.989 
4 
1.779 
4 
1.779 
4 

40 
1.547 
8 
1.611 
7 
1.579 
6 
1.579 
6 

50 
1.379 
11 
1.507 
9 
1.367 
9 
1.367 
9 
6.4 Interpretation
6.4.1
the control chart as follows:
The status of a subgroup will be indicated
in
S 1: both a and b lie below the control limit;
S2: a lies below the control lirni~ b lies on or above control limit;
IS 14977:2001
S3: b lies below the control limit, a lies on or above _{c}_{o}_{n}_{t}_{r}_{o}_{l} _{l}_{i}_{m}_{i}_{t}_{;} _{a}_{n}_{d}
S4 : both a and b lie on or above control limit.
S 1 indicates a state
indicate presence of assignable causes of variation in the process. S2 indicates a shift of process mean ( P ) to the right of u~. S3 indicates a shifi of process mean to the left of PO,and S4 indicates a sKIR( increase ) in process variation from (crO).
of control, while the other three
6.4.2 When the process is in a state of control, the
two lines connecting a and b values are expected to
frequently intersect each other. If they remain separated for a considerable period, even below the control limit, an ensuing shitl in location may be suspected.
7
STANDARD
ESTIMATION
OF PROCESS
DEVIATION
MEAN
AND
_{7}_{.}_{1} Collect a and b values from k subgroups taken
from a process under state of statistical
control,
actual measurements
facilitate comparison, these results have been retained.
8.3 For installing an ( a, b ) chart, the value a = 0.005
may be taken as it is nearest to the corresponding value of u in control charts for variables using 3c$Iinits. Forcx=0.005, n=7, from Table l,v= 1.713 andr=3.
Also PO = 19.5 andoo= 1.00
Hence LGL= 19.5 – 1.713 = 17.787
were not needed.
However, to
UGL=19.5
+1.713=21.213
8.4 For each sample, the items are gauged sequentially
against LGL and UGL and the values of a and b are noted. These values are shown in CO19 and 10 of Table 2.
8.5 The resultant control chart is shown in Fig. 1.
8.6 It appears from the chart that the points corresponding to b for control units number 14 and 15were found to have gone out of control limit. Suitable remedial action was taken to stabilize the process in terms of location after which the process was again found to be in a state of statistical control.
8.7 Comparison
chart had been applied for data given
in Table 2, the control limits for Xchart and Rchart
8.7.1 If (~R)
with YR
Chart
where n is the constant subgroup size, and t(pz ),
_{t} _{(}_{1} – ~ ) are the values of standard normal variates
^{a}^{r}^{e} ^{g}^{i}^{v}^{e}^{n} ^{b}^{e}^{l}^{o}^{w}^{:}
tables. t(~) will be negative and t(1–pr) will be _{X}_{} _{c}_{h}_{a}_{r}_{t}
^{p}^{o}^{s}^{i}^{t}^{i}^{v}^{e}^{.}
7.2 The estimates of process mean(p) standard deviation (o) are obtained as:
corresponding 
to areas to the 
letl 
of 
pr 
_{a}_{n}_{d} 
_{1} _{–} _{~} 
respectively, 
to be obtained 
from standard normal 
and process
_{R} _{} _{c}_{h}_{a}_{r}_{t}
_{U}_{C}_{L} _{=} _{D}_{z} _{a}_{.} _{=} _{5}_{.}_{2}_{0}_{3}
ucL=po+Acro=19.5+
1.134=20.634
^{~}^{=}
_{L} _{t}_{(}_{l}_{}_{p}_{~}_{)}_{}
t(l–~)
_{u}_{f}_{(}_{P}_{~}_{)}
t(fi)
LcL=po–AcJo=19.5+
1.134=18.366
_{L}_{C}_{L} _{=} _{D}_{I} _{0}_{0} _{=} _{0}_{.}_{2}_{0}_{5}
^{a}^{n}^{d} ^{o} ^{=} t(l–~)–
UL
t(pz)
where U and L are the UGL and LGL respectively.
_{8} EXAMPLE
FOR
(a, b ) CHART
_{8}_{.}_{1} In a certain firm producing composite conductors
of size 7/2.79 mm, it was decided to install suitable control charts for ultimate tensile strength expressed in units of kgf/mm2. From past data, the process average was to be centered around at 19.5 kgf7mm2. It was also known that the standard deviation of the process was 1.00 kgf/mm2. From each cable drum chosen as the control unit, 7 sample results were available corresponding to the 7 strands of the composite conductor.
8.2 The results are given in COI(2) to (8) of Table 2.
It maybe noted that for operation of ( a, b ) chart, the
8.7.2 For values of A, D, and D2, reference
made to IS 397 (Part
8.7.3 From the ~and R values given in the last two
columns of Table 2, it is clear, that in ~chart also,
the points going out of control are only those corresponding to subgroup numbers 14 and 15.
shows
8.7.4
that both a and b values are out of control, no point
in Rchart indicates an out of control situation process variation.
for ,,
maybe
1 ).
Just as no subgroup
in ( a,
b
)
chart
8.8 Similarly it can be shown from median chart that
the subgroup numbers 14 and 15 only would go out of control.
8.9 Thus, for this example (a, b ) chart is found to be
as sensitive as either an (~–
range ) chart.
R) chart or a ( Median,
3
IS 14977:2001
Table 2 Control 
Chart 
Data on Ultimate 
Tensile 
Strength 
( kgf/mm2 ) of Composite 
Conductor 
of the 

Size 
7/2.79 mm 

( Clauses 
8.2,8 
.4,8.7.1 
and8.7.3 
) 

Cable 
Item Number in Sample 
Mean 
Range 
Drum No. 
0 
b 
x 
R 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

(1) 
(2) 
_{(}_{3}_{)} 
(4) 
(5) 
(6) 
(7) 
(8) 
(9) 
(lo) 
(11) 
(12) 
1. 
19.63 
19.30 
18.81 
18.98 
19.30 
18.98 
19.80 
o 
o 
19.26 
0.99 
2. 
19.47 
19.14 
19.96 
18.00 
18.49 
18.32 
19.80 
0 
0 
19.03 
1.96 
3. 
19.14 
18.98 
18.32 
19.63 
19.30 
19.30 
19.30 
0 
0 
19.14 
1.31 
4. 
18.49 
18.81 
18.65 
18.98 
18.81 
18.81 
19.47 
0 
0 
18.86 
0.98 
5. 
18.32 
18.80 
18.81 
18.98 
18.32 
18.02 
18.81 
0 
0 
18.58 
0.96 
6. 
18.81 
18.00 
18.00 
18.32 
19.96 
19.30 
19.80 
0 
0 
18.88 
1.96 
7. 
19.14 
18.65 
18.00 
18.32 
18.49 
17.51 
18.65 
1 
0 
18.39 
1.63 
8. 
18.98 
18.32 
19.63 
19.80 
18.00 
22.74 
19.14 
0 
1 
19.52 
4.74 
9. 
19.80 
18.32 
20.78 
19.63 
19.43 
19.63 
20.94 
0 
0 
19.79 
2.62 
10. 
19.11 
18.00 
21.74 
19.27 
18.65 
20.75 
19.96 
0 
1 
19.64 
3.74 
11. 
18.32 
20.92 
19.96 
19.96 
20.78 
21.08 
20.78 
0 
0 
20.26 
2.76 
12. 
18.16 
18.00 
17.34 
18.65 
19.14 
18.32 
18.00’ 
1 
0 
18.23 
1.80 
13. 
18.12 
18.61 
_{1}_{8}_{.}_{2}_{8} 
18.61 
18.32 
18.32 
17.62 
1 
0 
18.27 
0.99 
14. 
22.90 
22.90 
20.94 
21.60 
19.96 
21.27 
21.90 
0 
5 
21.64 
2.94 
15. 
22.09 
19.47 
22.90 
23.39 
18.32 
22.90 
22.90 
0 
5 
21.71 
5.07 
16. 
18.00 
18.32 
_{1}_{9}_{.}_{6}_{3} 
18.12 
18.81 
19.63 
20.12 
0 
0 
18.95 
2.12 
17. 
17.83 
19.14 
18.32 
19.60 
17.79 
19.30 
18.28 
1 
0 
18.61 
1.81 
18. 
19.96 
18.80 
_{2}_{1}_{.}_{7}_{6} 
19.27 
21.25 
20.94 
20.29 
0 
2 
20.47 
2.49 
19. 
16.80 
17.79 
20.42 
18.32 
19.76 
17.29 
18.28 
2 
0 
18.38 
3.62 
1234567 
091011121314 
1516171319 

DRUMNo, 

*a 
+b 
FIG. 1 (a, b ) CHARTS
4
9 ESTIMATION OF PROCESS MEAN AND PROCESS STANDARD DEVIATION
As the subgroup numbers 14 and 15 are not in statistical control, these subgroups are eliminated while estimating the process mean p and process standard deviation o from the (a, b ) chart:
;=6/17
~=4117=0.235
=0.353
so that 
&=0.35317 
=.0504 
~= 
0.235/7= 0.336 
l–~=0.9664 

and 
t (p=) =–1.640 78, 
t(/–p5)=l.42141 
Hence using the formula given in 4.5.2, we get
^{p}^{=}
21 .213x 1.64078+
17.787x 1.42141
1.42141+1.64078
and CT=
21.213–17.787
= 1.119
1.421 41+ 1.64078
= 19.623
10 USE AS A HYPOTHESIS
TESTING
TOOL
above may also be
used as a tool for testing HO: L = po, c < croagainst
HI : II # PO,0>00
The null
_{1}_{0}_{.}_{1}
The
( a,
b ) chart
outlined
under a normal model.
hypothesis is to be rejected 
if either 
a 2 r or b 2 r or 

both. 

10.2 
However, in suth a situation, it may not be 
necessary to gauge the entire sample if a curtailed inverse sampling scheme, as discussed below is adhered to.
10.3 Here items are to be gauged one by one, at the
ith stage note the values of ai and bi, the numbers of
observations upto the ith item falling below LGL and exceeding UGL respectively, and Ci = i – ai – bi,
i=l,2 
nl. 
10.4 
At the ith stage, one of the following 3 decisions 
is taken:
IS 14977:2001
a) 
accept HO, if Ci= nr+ 
1 

b) 
reject HO: if ai or bi = r, or 

c) 
continue gauging an additional item. 

10.5 
If HOis neither accepted 
nor rejected 
during 
the gauging of first n 1 items, the nth item is finally
gauged, 
and one of the following 
two decisions 
is 
taken: 
a) reject HO,if an or bn = r, and
b) accept HO,otherwise.
10.6 Thus at most n items for each subgroup of size
n are to be gauged, and the average amount of inspection will be smaller than n. The amount of saving depends upon n, cxand the amount of shifts in v and cr. This feature is particularly appealing when inspection is destructive in nature and/or time consuming, and observations in the sample are available in natural sequence, for example, in life testing.
11 COMPARISON WITH (~11) OR(~–s) CHART
11.1 Although ( a, b ) chart is essentially a control
chart for attributes, because of the optimal determination of gaugelimits using criteria for decision making under risk and/or uncertainty, the error
controlling properties of the chart have been found
to compare quite favorably with those of ( ~– R ) and ( ~–s ) charts. For small subgroup sizes, (a, b)
size
the
performance of an ( ~– R )chart or ( ~–s ) chart with
chart with subgroup
n
+
1 will
match
subgroup size n, largely belying the popular belief to the contrary.
11.2 The chart enjoys a distinct edge over those based
First, here
inspection, record keeping and analysis of results are much simple and less timeconsuming, and therefore more economical and userfriendly. Secondly, unlike the latter two, this is adaptable to curtailed inverse sampling scheme, resulting in salvaging of substantial
inspection material and saving of time, when inspection
on ( ~– R ) or ( ~–s ) on the two counts.
_{.} is destructive
in nature and/or timeconsuming.
IS 14977:2001
ANNEX
( Foreword)
A
COMMITTEE
COMPOSITION
Statistical Methods for Quality and Reliability Sectional Committee, MSD 3
Organization
CalcuttaUniversity,Kolkata AseaBrownBoveri Limited,Bangalore BajajAuto Limited,Pune
Bharat HeavyElectrical
Limited,Hyderabad
_{C}_{o}_{n}_{t}_{i}_{n}_{e}_{n}_{t}_{a}_{l}_{D}_{e}_{v}_{i}_{c}_{e} India Limited,
New Delhi
Directorate General 
of Quality 
Assurance, 
New Delhi 

Directorate of Standardization, 
Ministry 
of Defence, 
New Delhi 

Escorts Limited, Faridabad 

HMT Limited, R & D Centre, 
Bangalore 
Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, 
New Delhi 

Indian Association for Productivity, Quality 
and Reliability 

( IAPQR), Kolkata 

Indian 
Institute of Management, Lucknow 

Indian 
Jute Industries’ Research Association, 
Kolkata 
Indian Statistical
Institute,
Kolkata
LucasTVS 
Limited, Chennai 

National 
Institution for Quality and Reliability, 
New Delhi 
Powergrid 
Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi 
SRF Limited,
Chennai
.
Standardization,
New Delhi
Tata Engineering
Jamshedpur
Testing
and Quality
Certification
Directorate,
and Locomotive
Company
Limited
( TELCO
6
),
Representative(s)
PROFS. P. MUKHERJEE( Chairman )
SHRI B. 
N. JHA 

SHRI R. S. SHRIA. BHARGAVA K. SRIVASTAVA( Alternate 
) 

SHRI S. N. JHA SHRIA. V. KRISHNAN( Alternate 
) 

SHRI G. V. SUBRAMANIAN SHRIMATIRENU NEHRU( Alternate 
) 

SHRI S. K. SRIVASTAVA LT COL P. VIJAYAN( Alternate 
) 

DR ASHOKKUMAR 

SHRI C. S. V. NARENDRA 

Ms N. V. NAIK 

DR S. D. 
SHARMA 

DR A. K. SRIVASTAVA( Alternate 
) 

DR B. DAS DR DEBABRATARAY ( Alternate) 

PROFS. C. CHAJCRABORTY 

SHRI U. 
DUTTA 

DR S. N. PAL ( Alternate ) 

PROFS. R. MOHAN PROFARVINDSETH ( Alternate) 

SHRI N. 
S. SREENIVASAN 

SHRI G. VIJAYAKUMAR( Alternate 
) 

SHRIY. K. BHAT 

_{S}_{H}_{R}_{I} G. W. DATEY ( Alternate ) 

DR S. K. AGARWAL SHRI D. CHAKRABORTY( Alternate 
) 
SHRI A.
SANJEEVARAO
SHRI RAMANI SUBRAMANIAN( Alternate
SHRI S.
K. KIMOTHI
SHRI P. N.
SRIKANTH( Alternate
SHRI S. N. DAS SHRI SHANTKSARUP ( Alternate
)
)
)
( Continued on page 7 ]
( Continuedfrom page 6 )
University
In personal
Impersonal
_{O}_{r}_{g}_{a}_{n}_{i}_{z}_{a}_{t}_{i}_{o}_{n}
of Delhi,
Delhi
capacity
capacity
( B 109
Malviya
Nagac New Delhi 110
(20/I
Krishna Nagac Safdarjung Enclave
017)
Representative(s)
PROFM. C. AGRAWAL
PROFA.
N.
NANKANA
SHRI D. R. SEN
IS 14977:2001
New Delhi 110029 
) 

Directorate General BIS 
SHRTP. K. GAMBHtR, 

Director and Head & Member 
Secretary 

~Representing 
Director 
General, 
BIS 

( Exofficio Member 
) ] 

Basic Statistical Methods Subcommittee ( MSD 3:1 
) 

_{C}_{a}_{l}_{c}_{u}_{t}_{t}_{a} 
_{U}_{n}_{i}_{v}_{e}_{r}_{s}_{i}_{t}_{y}_{,} _{K}_{o}_{l}_{k}_{a}_{t}_{a} 
PROFS. P. MUKHERJEE( Convener 
) 

Bajaj Auto Limited, Pune 
SHRI A. K. SRWASTAVA 

Directorate of Standardization, 
Ministry of Defence, 
New Delhi 
DR ASHOICKUMAR 

Indian 
Association for 
Productivity, Quality 
and 
Reliability 
DR B. DAS 

_{(}_{I}_{A}_{P}_{Q}_{R}_{)}_{,} _{K}_{o}_{l}_{k}_{a}_{t}_{a} 
DR A. LAHIRI( Alternate 
) 

Indian 
Statistical Institute, Kolkata 
PROFS. R. MOHAN 

National Institution for Quality 
and Reliability, 
New Delhi 
SHRI Y. K. BHAT 

SHRI G. W. DATEY ( Alternate 
) 

Powergrid Corporation 
of India Limited, New Delhi 
DR S. K. AGARWAL 
Standardization,
New Delhi
Testing
and Quality
Certification
Directorate,
SHRIS. K. KIMOTHI
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited 
(TELCO), 
SHRI SHANT1SARtJP 

Jamshedpur 

University 
College of Medical Sciences (UCMS), Delhi 
DR A. INDRAYAN 

University 
of Delhi, Delhi 
PROFM. C. AGRAWAL 

In personal 
capacity ( B 109 Malviya Naga~ New Delhi 110 
017) 
PROFA. 
N. 
NANKANA 

In personal 
capacity Nagar Safdarjung 
Enclave, 
SHRt D. R. SEN 

_{N}_{e}_{w} ( 20/1 Krishna ) Delhi 110029 
Bureau
of Indian
Standards
BIS is a statutory institution established under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 to promote harmonious development of the activities of standardization, marking and quality certification of goods and attending to connected matters in the country.
Copyright
BIS has the copyright of all its publications. No part of these publications maybe reproduced in any form without the prior permission in writing of BIS. This does not preclude the free use, in the course of implementing the standard, of necessary details, such as symbols and sizes, type or grade designations. Enquiries relating to copyright be addressed to the Director (Publications), BIS.
Review
of Indian
Standards
Amendments are issued to standards as the need arises on the basis of comments. Standards are also reviewed periodically; a standard along with amendments is reaffirmed when such review indicates that no changes are
needed; if the review indicates that changes are needed, it is taken un for revision. Users of Indian Standards
should ascertain that they are in possession of the latest amendme. of ‘BIS Catalogue’ and ‘Standards : Monthly Additions’.
r edition by referring to the latest issue
This Indian Standard has been developed
from Doc : No.
MSD 3 ( 150 ).
Amendments
Issued
Since
Publication
Amend No.
Date of Issue
Text Affected
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
Headquarters:
Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002 Telephones: 3230131,3233375,3239402
Regional Offices:
Central: 
Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg NEW DELHI 110002 
Eastern: 
1/14 C. I. T. Scheme VII M, V. 1.P. Road, Kankurgachi KOLKATA 700054 
Northern: SCO 335336, Sector 34A, CHANDIGARH 160022
Southern:
C. 1.T. Campus, IV Cross Road, CHENNAI 600113
Western : Manakalaya, E9 MIDC, Marol, Andheri (East) MUMBA1400 093
_{T}_{e}_{l}_{e}_{g}_{r}_{a}_{m}_{s}_{:}
_{M}_{a}_{n}_{a}_{k}_{s}_{a}_{n}_{s}_{t}_{h}_{a}
_{(} _{C}_{o}_{m}_{m}_{o}_{n} _{t}_{o} _{a}_{l}_{l} _{o}_{f}_{f}_{i}_{c}_{e}_{s}_{)}
_{T}_{e}_{l}_{e}_{p}_{h}_{o}_{n}_{e}
3237617
{ 3233841
3378499,3378561 

{ 
3378626,3379120 
603843
{ 602025
2541216,2541442
{ 2542519,2541315
8329295,8327858
{ 8327891,8327892
Branches 
: AHMADABAD. 
BANGALORE. 
BHOPAL. 
BHUBANESHWAR. COIMBATORE. 

FARIDABAD. 
GHAZIABAD. 
GUWAHATI. 
HYDERABAD. JAIPUR. 
KANPUR. 
LUCKNOW. NAGPUR. NALAGARH. PATNA. PUNE. RAJKOT. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Printed at New India Printing Press,
Khurja,
India
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.