Chapter 10 Solutions

1. specs: 24 oz. to 25 oz. .0062 .0062

 = 24.5 oz. [assume  = =]
 = .2 oz.
-2.5 0 +2.5 z-scale
a. [refers to population]
24 24.5 25 16
 .5
z  2.5  2(.0062)  .0124
.2
 .2
b. 2  24.5  2  24.5  .10 or 24.40 to 24.60
n 16

2.  = 1.0 liter
 = .01 liter
n = 25
 1.006 out
a. Control limits :   2 b. * UCL
n 1.0043
[z = 2.17 for 97%] 
(liters) 1.002
.01 
UCL is 1.0  2.17  1.0043 Mean
1.000
25 
.998 
.01
LCL is 1.0  2.17  .9957 LCL
25 .9957
*
.994
3. a. n = 20 out
A2 = 0.18 = = 3.10 Mean Chart: =± A2 (= 3.1 ± 0.18(0.45)
D3 = 0.41 (= 0.45 = 3.1 ± .081
D4 = 1.59 Hence, UCL is 3.181
and LCL is 3.019. All means are within these limits.
Range Chart: UCL is D4(= 1.59(0.45) = .7155
LCL is D3(= 0.41(0.45) = .1845
In control since all points are within these limits.
4. Sample Mean Range
Mean Chart: =± A2(= 79.96 ± 0.58(1.87)
1 79.48 2.6
2 80.14 2.3 = 79.96 ± 1.1
3 80.14 1.2 UCL = 81.04, LCL = 78.88
4 79.60 1.7 Range Chart: UCL = D4(= 2.11(1.87) = 3.95
5 80.02 2.0 LCL = D3(= 0(1.87) = 0
6 80.38 1.4 [Both charts suggest the process is in control: Neither has any
points outside the limits.]
Solutions (continued)
5. n = 200
a. 1 2 3 4
.020 .010 .025 .045
 b. (2.0 + 1.0 + 2.5 + 4.5)/4 = 2.5%
c. mean = .025
p (1  p ) .025(.975)
Std. dev.    .011
n 200
d. z = 2.17
.025 ± 2.17(0.011) = .025% ± .0239% = .0011 to .0489.
e. .025 + z(.011) = .047
Solving, z = 2, leaving .0228 in each tail. Hence, alpha = 2(.0228)
= .0456.
f. Yes.
g. mean = .02
.02(.98)
Std. dev.   .0099 [round to .01]
200
h. .02 ± 2(.01) = 0 to .04
The last sample is beyond the upper limit.
p (1  p )
6. n = 200 Control Limits = p  2
n

25 .0096(.9904)
p  .0096  .0096  2
13( 200) 200
 .0096  .0138
Thus, UCL is .0234 and LCL becomes 0.
Since n = 200, the fraction represented by each data point is half
the amount shown. E.g., 1 defective = .005, 2 defectives = .01,
etc.
Sample 10 is too large. Omitting that value and recomputing
limits with
18
p  .0075 yields
12( 200)
UCL = .0197 and LCL = 0.
110
7. c  7.857 Control limits: c  3 c  7.857  8.409
14
UCL is 16.266, LCL becomes 0.
All values are within the limits.
Solutions (continued)
21
8. c  1. 5 Control limits: c3 c  1.5  3.67
14
UCL is 5.17, LCL becomes 0.
All values are within the limits.
9.
total number of defectives 87
p   .054
total number of observations 16(100)

p (1  p ) .054(.946)
Control limits are p  z  .054  1.96
n 100
 .054  .044. Hence, UCL = 0.10
LCL = 0.01
Note that observations must be converted to fraction defective, or control limits must be
converted to number of defectives. In the latter case, the upper control limit would be 7.9
defectives and the lower control limit would be .1 defective. Even though all points are
within these limits, the process appears to be out of control because 75% of the values are
above 4%.

10. There are several slightly different ways to solve this problem. The most straightforward
seems to be the following:
1) Observe that the upper control limit is six standard deviations above the lower control
limit.
2) Compute the value of the upper control limit at the start:
.01
15  6  15.06 cm.
1
3) Determine how many pieces can be produced before the upper control limit just
touches the upper tolerance, given that the upper limit increases by .004 cm. per
piece:
15.2cm. – 15.06cm.
= 35 pieces.
.004 cm./piece

11. Out of the 30 observations, only one value exceeds the tolerances, or 3.3%. [This case is
essentially the one portrayed in the text in Figure 10–9A.] Thus, it seems that the
tolerances are being met: approximately 97 percent of the output will be acceptable.

12. a.  = .146
n = 14

x
 x  150.15  3.85
39 39
 .146
Control limits are x  3  .385  3  3.85  .117
N 14
So UCL is 3.97, LCL is 3.73. Sample 29 is outside the UCL, so the
process is not in control.
Solutions (continued)
b. [median is 3.85]
Sample A/B Mean U/D Sample A/B Mean U/D
1 A 3.86  21 B 3.84 D
2 A 3.90 U 22 B 3.82 D
3 B 3.83 D 23 A 3.89 U
4 B 3.81 D 24 A 3.86 D
5 B 3.84 U 25 A 3.88 U
6 B 3.83 D 26 A 3.90 U
7 A 3.87 U 27 B 3.81 D
8 A 3.88 U 28 A 3.86 U
9 B 3.84 D 29 A 3.98 U
10 B 3.80 D 30 A 3.96 D
11 A 3.88 U 31 A 3.88 D
12 A 3.86 D 32 B 3.76 D
13 A 3.88 U 33 B 3.83 U
14 B 3.81 D 34 B 3.77 D
15 B 3.83 U 35 A 3.86 U
16 A 3.86 U 36 B 3.80 D
17 B 3.82 D 37 B 3.84 U
18 A 3.86 U 38 B 3.79 D
19 B 3.84 D 39 [B] 3.85 U
20 A 3.87 U
Test obs. exp.  Z Conclusion
Median 18 20.5 3.08 –.81 random
Up/down 29 25.7 2.57 1.28 random

13. a.

A A B B A B A B B A B A A B A A A B B B A B A B A B
 

  
   
  
   
    
  


D D D U D U D D U D U U D U U D D D U U D U D U D

b.
A A A A B A A B B B B B A B B B A A A A B B B B B B

  
  
    
     
 
   
  

U D U D U D D U D U D U D U D U D U D D U D U D D
Solutions (continued)
Summary: obs. exp.  z Conclusion
a. median 18 14 2.50 1.6 random
up/down 17 17 2.07 0.0 random
b. median 8 14 2.50 –2.40 nonrandom
up/down 22 17 2.07 2.41 nonrandom

14. a. [Data from Chapter 10, Problem 8]

Median is 1.5 A = Above, B = Below, U = Up, D = Down.
Sample: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Median: A A B B B A A B A B A B A B
Data: 2 3 1 0 1 3 2 0 2 1 3 1 2 0
Up/down: – U D D U U D D U D U D U D
b. [Data from #11] Median is 7.5.
Day: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Median: B A A A A B B A A B B B B A
Data: 4 10 14 8 9 6 5 12 13 7 6 4 2 10
Up/dow
– U U D U D D U U D D D D U
n
For part a and b:
N 14
E(r)med = 1   1  8 runs
2 2
2 N  1 2(14)  1
E(r)u/d =   9 runs
3 3
N 1 14  1
 med    1.803 runs
4 4
16 N  29 224  29
u / d    1.472 runs
90 90
For part a:
10  8 10  9
Zmed =  1.109 Zup/down   .679
1.803 1.472
For part b:
68 79
Zmed =  1.109 Z up/down   1.36
1.803 1.472
Since the absolute values of all Z statistics calculated above are less than 2, all patterns
appear to be random.
Solutions (continued)
Summary:
Test obs. Exp.  z Conclusion
a. median 10 8 1.80 1.11 random
up/down 10 9 1.47 .68 random
b. median 6 8 1.80 –1.11 random
up/down 7 9 1.47 –1.36 random

15.
Day Amount Day Amount Day Amount
1 B 27.69  21 B 28.60 U 41 B 26.76 D
2 B 28.13 U 22 B 20.02 D 42 B 30.51 U
3 A 33.02 U 23 B 26.67 U 43 B 29.35 D
4 B 30.31 D 24 A 36.40 U 44 B 24.09 D
5 A 31.59 U 25 A 32.07 D 45 B 22.45 D
6 A 33.64 U 26 A 44.10 U 46 B 25.16 U
7 A 34.73 U 27 A 41.44 D 47 B 26.11 U
8 A 35.09 U 28 B 29.62 D 48 B 29.84 U
9 A 33.39 D 29 B 30.12 U 49 A 31.75 U
10 A 32.51 D 30 B 26.39 D 50 B 29.14 D
11 B 27.98 D 31 A 40.54 U 51 A 37.78 U
12 A 31.25 U 32 A 36.31 D 52 A 34.16 D
13 A 33.98 U 33 B 27.14 D 53 A 38.28 U
14 B 25.56 D 34 B 30.38 U 54 B 29.49 D
15 B 24.46 D 35 A 31.96 U 55 B 30.81 U
16 B 29.65 U 36 A 32.03 U 56 B 30.60 D
17 A 31.08 U 37 A 34.40 U 57 A 34.46 U
18 A 33.03 U 38 B 25.67 D 58 A 35.10 U
19 B 29.10 D 39 A 35.80 U 59 A 31.76 D
20 B 25.19 D 40 A 32.23 D 60 A 34.90 U
Summary:
Test obs. exp.  z Conclusion
median 22 31 3.84 –2.34 non-random
up/down 35 39.67 3.22 –1.45 random
Since one of the tests suggests non-randomness, the conclusion must be that the process
is not in control. In other words, the variation in daily expenses is not random. Further
investigation would be necessary in order to determine what sort of pattern is present.
Solutions (continued)

3.5
16. Cm n=1
 = 0.01 cm
UCL
3.44
Mean

3 sigma
LCL

3 sigma
3.0 Cm

(i) The upper control limit is 6 standard deviations above the lower control limits.
0.01
(ii) When UCL = 3.5 Cm, the LCL = 3.5 – 6  3.5  0.06  3.44 Cm
1
(iii) Determine how many pieces can be produced before the LCL just crosses the lower
tolerance of 3 Cm.
3.44 – 3.00 0.44 440
= = = 440 pieces
0.001 0.001 1

17. It is necessary to see if the process variability is within 9.96 and 10.35. Two observations
have values above the specified limits, i.e., 10% of the 20 observations fall outside the
limits. Perhaps the process mean should be set a bit lower.

18. 1 Step 10% scrap, 2nd 6%, and 3rd 6%.

a. Let x be the number of units started initially at Step 1. With a scrap rate of 10% in
Step 1 the input to Step 2 is 0.9x. The input to Step 3 is (1 – 0.06) (1 – 0.10)x. With a
scrap rate of 6% at Step 3 the number of good units after Step 3 = (1 – 0.06) (1 –
0.06) (1 – 0.10)x = (0.94)2(0.90)x.
The required output is 450 units
(0.94)2(0.90)x = 450 units
x = 565.87  566 units
b. (1 – 0.03)2(1 – 0.05)x = 450 units
(0.97)2(0.95)x = 450 units
x = 503.44  504 units
Savings of 566 – 504 = 62 units
c. From (a)
The scrap = 566 – 450 = 116 units
@ $10 per unit, The Total Cost = $1,160.00
Solutions (continued)
19. Sample #

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
3 2 4 5 1 2 4 1 2 1 3 4 2 4 2 1 3 1 3 4
Median = 2.5 A B A A B B A B B B A A B A B B A B A A
A/B
Up/Down – D U U D U U D U D U U D U D D U D U U
N = 20
Standard
Observed Expected Deviation Z Conclude
Median 13 11 2.1794 0.9177 Random
Up/down 14 13 1.7981 0.5561 Random

20. a. 1 2 3 4
4.3 4.5 4.5 4.7
b. == (4.3 + 4.5 + 4.5 + 4.7)/4 = 4.5
std. dev. (of data set) = .192
c. mean = 4.5, std. dev. = .192 / 5  .086
d. 4.5 ± 3(.086) = 4.5 ± .258 = 4.242 to 4.758
The risk is 2(.0013) = .0026
e. 4.5 + z(.086) = 4.86
Solving, z = 4.19, so the risk is close to zero
f. None
g. (= (.3 + .4 + .2 + .4)/4 = .325
n=5
Means: A2 = 0.58 =± A2(= 4.5 ± 0.58(.325) = 4.3115 to 4.6885.
The last mean is above the upper limit.
Ranges: D3 = 0 0 to 2.11(.325) = 0 to .6875 All ranges are within the limits.
h. Two different measures of dispersion are being used, the standard deviation and the
range.
0.18
i. 4.4  3  4.4  .241  4.16 to 4.64. The last value is above the upper limit.
5
21. Solution
specification width .02 .02
a. Cp     1.11
process width 6(.003) .018
b. In order to be capable, the process capability ratio must be at least 1.33. In this
instance, the index is 1.11, so the process is not capable.
Solutions (continued)
22. Machine Standard Deviation (in.) Job Specification (in.) Cp Capable ?
001 0.02 0.05 0.833 No
002 0.04 0.07 0.583 No
003 0.10 0.18 0.600 No
004 0.05 0.15 1.000 No
005 0.01 0.04 1.333 Yes

23. Machine Cost per unit ($) Standard Deviation (mm.) Cp

A 20 0.059 1.355
B 12 0.060 1.333
C 11 0.063 1.27
D 10 0.061 1.311
You can narrow the choice to machines A and B because they are the only ones with a
capability ratio of at least 1.33. You would need to know if the slight additional capability
of machine A is worth an extra cost of $8 per unit.

24. Let USL = Upper Specification Limit, LSL = Lower Specification Limit,
X = Process mean,  = Process standard deviation

For process H:

X  LSL 15  14.1
  .93
3 (3)(.32)

USL  X 16  15
  1.04
3 (3)(.32)
C pk  min.938, 1.04  .93

.93  1.0, not capable

For process K:
X  LSL 33  30
  1.0
3 (3)(1)

USL  X 36.5  33
  1.17
3 (3)(1)

C pk  min{1.0, 1.17}  1.0

Since 1.0 < 1.33, the process is not capable.

Solutions (continued)
For process T:
 X  LSL 18.5  16.5
  1.67
3 (3)(0.4)

USL  X 20.1  18.5

  1.33
3 (3)(0.4)
C pk  min{1.67, 1.33}  1.33

Since 1.33 = 1.33, the process is capable.

25. Let USL = Upper Specification Limit, LSL = Lower Specification Limit,
X = Process mean,  = Process standard deviation.

USL = 90 minutes, LSL = 50 minutes,

X 1 = 74 minutes, 1 = 4.0 minutes
X 2 = 72 minutes,  2 = 5.1 minutes

For the first repair firm:

X  LSL 74  50
  2.0
3 (3)(4.0)

USL  X 90  74
  1.333
3 (3)( 4.0)
C pk  min{2.0, 1.33}  1.333

Since 1.333 = 1.333, the firm 1 is capable.

For the second repair firm:

X  LSL 72  50
  1.44
3 (3)(5.1)

USL  X 90  72
  1.18
3 (3)(5.1)
C pk  min{1.44,1.88}  1.18

Since 1.18 < 1.33, the firm 2 is not capable.

Solutions (continued)
26. Let USL = Upper Specification Limit, LSL = Lower Specification Limit,
X = Process mean,  = Process standard deviation.

USL = 30 minutes, LSL = 45 minutes,

X Armand = 38 minutes,  Armand = 3 minutes
X Jerry = 37 minutes,  Jerry = 2.5 minutes
X Melissa = 37.5 minutes,  Melissa = 2.5 minutes

For Armand:

X  LSL 38  30
  .89
3 (3)(3)

USL  X 45  38
  .78
3 (3)(3)
C pk  min{.89, .78}  .78

Since .78 < 1.33, Armand is not capable.

For Jerry:
X  LSL 37  30
  .93
3 (3)(2.5)

USL  X 45  37
  1.07
3 (3)( 2.5)
C pk  min{.93, 1.07}  .93

Since .93 < 1.33, Jerry is not capable.

For Melissa, since USL  X  X  LSL  7.5 , the process is centered, therefore we
will use Cp to measure process capability.

USL  LSL 45  30
Cp    1.39
6 (6)(1.8)
Since 1.39 > 1.33, Melissa is capable.