Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

इंटरनेट

इंटरनेट मानक Disclosure to Promote the Right To Information Whereas the Parliament of India has set

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”

” Jawaharlal Nehru “Step Out From the Old to the New” IS 14977 (2001): Control Charts

IS 14977 (2001): Control Charts Based on Inspection by Gauging [MSD 3: Statistical Methods for Quality and Reliability]

[MSD 3: Statistical Methods for Quality and Reliability] “ “ !ान $ एक न' भारत का
“ “

!ान $ एक न' भारत का +नम-ण

ै”
ै”

Satyanarayan Gangaram Pitroda

“Invent a New India Using Knowledge”

!ान एक ऐसा खजाना > जो कभी च0राया नहB जा सकता ह

Bhart hari—N īti ś atakam

“Knowledge is such a treasure which cannot be stolen”

*II*

Is 14977:2001

mG-RTFl-awTwmlRd fa-%QTw-R-m

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 two-sided 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 two-sided and one-sided (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

terms ( 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 n-a-b.

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 non-conforming.

4.2 Besides mechanical inspection of engineering items

for dimensional requirements by using pair of go-no- 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 over-weight; classi~ing fise- heads by their sensitivity into insensitive, normal and hypersensitive, etc.

4.3 Gauge-Limits

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 gauge-limits are taken as:

LGL = POvao

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 pre-assigned 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 Sub-group

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 sub-group size, compared to control charts for variables, is needed to ensure reasonable protection against wrong decisions. However, through optimal determination of gauge-limits 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 sub-group 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, ( b-a) 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 sub-group number) is not only more user-tliendly but also has better error- controlling properties as compared to a pair of charts for ( b - a ) and ( b + a ), almost everywhere in the two-dimensional 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 sub-group 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 Gauge-limits 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 x-axis meant

for sub-group numbers and the y-axis meant for both a and b.

There is

no central line.

6.3 Plotting

Items in each sub-group 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 sub-group 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 sub-group 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 control limit; and

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 sub-groups 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 X-chart and R-chart

8.7.1 If (~-R)

with Y-R

Chart

where n is the constant sub-group size, and t(pz ),

t (1 ~ ) are the values of standard normal variates

are given below:

tables. t(~) will be negative and t(1–pr) will be X- chart

positive.

7.2 The estimates of process mean(p) standard deviation (o) are obtained as:

corresponding

to areas

to the

letl

of

pr

and

1 ~

respectively,

to be obtained

from standard normal

and process

R - chart

UCL = Dz a. = 5.203

ucL=po+Acro=19.5+

1.134=20.634

~=

L t(l-p~)-

t(l–~)-

uf(P~)

t(fi)

LcL=po–AcJo=19.5+

1.134=18.366

LCL = DI 00 = 0.205

and o = t(l–~)–

U-L

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 sub-group numbers 14 and 15.

shows

8.7.4

that both a and b values are out of control, no point

in R-chart indicates an out of control situation process variation.

for ,,

maybe

1 ).

Just as no sub-group

in ( a,

b

)

chart

8.8 Similarly it can be shown from median chart that

the sub-group 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

18.28

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

19.63

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

21.76

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 sub-group numbers 14 and 15 are not in statistical control, these sub-groups 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

10.1

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

n-l.

10.4

At the ith stage, one of the following 3 decisions

is taken:

IS 14977:2001

 

a)

accept HO, if Ci= n-r+

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 sub-group 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 gauge-limits 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 sub-group sizes, (a, b)

size

the

performance of an ( ~– R )-chart or ( ~–s ) chart with

chart with sub-group

n

+

1 will

match

sub-group 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 time-consuming, and therefore more economical and user-friendly. 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 time-consuming.

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

ContinentalDevice 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

Lucas-TVS

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

 

SHRI 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

Organization

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

( Ex-officio Member

) ]

 

Basic Statistical Methods Subcommittee ( MSD 3:1

)

Calcutta

University,

Kolkata

 

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

(IAPQR),

Kolkata

 

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

New

( 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 335-336, Sector 34-A, CHANDIGARH 160022

Southern:

C. 1.T. Campus, IV Cross Road, CHENNAI 600113

Western : Manakalaya, E9 MIDC, Marol, Andheri (East) MUMBA1400 093

Telegrams:

Manaksanstha

( Common to all offices)

Telephone

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