Home An Economic Design of Rectifying Double Acceptance Sampling Plans via Maxima Nomination Sampling
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

An Economic Design of Rectifying Double Acceptance Sampling Plans via Maxima Nomination Sampling

  • Mansooreh Razmkhah , Bahram Sadeghpour Gildeh ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Jafar Ahmadi ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: November 15, 2017
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

In industry when a lot of items is sent for inspection, double acceptance sampling plans (DASP) are considered as a way to decide on acceptance or rejection of the lot. If the lot contains items with high sensitivity, then the measuring of quality characteristics is destructive or costly. So we are looking for a method to decide that it has high performance. Using the ranked set sampling (RSS) method will make it stricter and more accurate whether or not to accept a lot. Moreover, it is affordable and will not burden extra costs on the buyer or the producer. In this paper, by using a special type of RSS, with the name of maxima nomination sampling (MNS), we design a DASP with regards to the total loss function. The results indicate that the total loss function, which is acquired by the MNS method, has lower values than the one using the simple random sampling (SRS) method.

MSC 2010: 62P30; 62D99

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief for his comments on the previous version of the paper which led to a significant improvement of that version.

References

[1] M. Abujiya and H. Muttlak, Quality control chart for the mean using double ranked set sampling, J. Appl. Stat. 31 (2004), no. 10, 1185–1201. 10.1080/0266476042000285549Search in Google Scholar

[2] M. Al-Rawwash, A. D. Al-Nasser and A. I. Al-Omari, Quality control charts using different ranked set sampling schemes, Math. Methods Sci. Mech. (2014), 173–177. Search in Google Scholar

[3] C. H. Chen and W. L. Chang, Optimal design of expected lifetime and warranty period for product with quality loss and inspection error, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010), no. 4, 3521–3526. 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.10.003Search in Google Scholar

[4] H. F. Dodge and H. Romig, A method of sampling inspection, Bell Syst. Tech. Journal 8 (1929), no. 4, 613–631. 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1929.tb01240.xSearch in Google Scholar

[5] M. Fallahnezhad and E. Qazvini, A new economical scheme of acceptance sampling plan in a two-stage approach based on the maxima nomination sampling technique, Trans. Inst. Measurement Control (2016), 10.1177/0142331216629203. 10.1177/0142331216629203Search in Google Scholar

[6] W. G. Ferrell and A. Chhoker, Design of economically optimal acceptance sampling plans with inspection error, Comput. Oper. Res. 29 (2002), no. 10, 1283–1300. 10.1016/S0305-0548(01)00029-6Search in Google Scholar

[7] K. Govindaraju, Inspection error adjustment in the design of single sampling attributes plan, Qual. Engrg. 19 (2007), no. 3, 227–233. 10.1080/08982110701456818Search in Google Scholar

[8] M. J. Jozani and S. J. Mirkamali, Improved attribute acceptance sampling plans based on maxima nomination sampling, J. Statist. Plann. Inference 140 (2010), no. 9, 2448–2460. 10.1016/j.jspi.2010.02.022Search in Google Scholar

[9] J. Klufa, Dodge–Romig aoql sampling plans for inspection by variables–optimal solution, Proc. Econ. Finance 12 (2014), 302–308. 10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00349-9Search in Google Scholar

[10] G. Köksal, A. Taşeli, L. E. Dolgun and İ. Batmaz, The effect of inspection error on quality and producer losses: The case of nominal-the-best type quality characteristic and rework, European J. Indust. Engrg. 7 (2013), no. 4, 497–528. 10.1504/EJIE.2013.055021Search in Google Scholar

[11] D. Lin, A bayesian life test acceptance sampling plan by variables with cost considerations, Comm. Statist. Simul. Comput. 28 (1999), no. 4, 1113–1133. 10.1080/03610919908813595Search in Google Scholar

[12] H. Moskowitz and K. Tang, Bayesian variables acceptance-sampling plans: Quadratic loss function and step-loss function, Technometrics 34 (1992), no. 3, 340–347. 10.2307/1270040Search in Google Scholar

[13] H. Muttlak and W. Al-Sabah, Statistical quality control based on ranked set sampling, J. Appl. Stat. 30 (2003), no. 9, 1055–1078. 10.1080/0266476032000076173Search in Google Scholar

[14] A. Pongpullponsak and P. Sontisamran, Statistical quality control based on ranked set sampling for multiple characteristics, Chiang Mai J. Sci. 40 (2013), no. 3, 485–498. Search in Google Scholar

[15] R. Salazar and A. Sinha, Control chart X based on ranked set sampling, Comun. Tecica 1 (1997), 1–97. Search in Google Scholar

[16] S. A. Starbird, Acceptance sampling, imperfect production, and the optimality of zero defects, Naval Res. Logist. (NRL) 44 (1997), no. 6, 515–530. 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6750(199709)44:6<515::AID-NAV1>3.0.CO;2-6Search in Google Scholar

[17] K. Tang and H. Schneider, The effects of inspection error on a complete inspection plan, IIE Trans. 19 (1987), no. 4, 421–428. 10.1080/07408178708975415Search in Google Scholar

[18] J. Terpstra, On estimating a population proportion via ranked set sampling, Biom. J. 46 (2004), no. 2, 264–272. 10.1002/bimj.200310022Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-8-29
Revised: 2017-8-29
Accepted: 2017-11-1
Published Online: 2017-11-15
Published in Print: 2017-12-1

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 21.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/eqc-2017-0018/html
Scroll to top button