Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics

Vol. 19, No. 2, 2008, pp.329-336

Adaptive SPC monitoring scheme for DOE-based APC∗

Ye Liang, Pan Ershun & Xi Lifeng

Dept. of Industrial Engineering and Logistics, School of Management Engineering,
Shanghai Jiaotong Univ., Shanghai 200240, P. R. China
(Received August 3, 2006)

Abstract: Automatic process control (APC) based on design of experiment (DOE) is a cost-efficient approach
for variation reduction. The process changes both in mean and variance owing to online parameter adjustment
make it hard to apply traditional SPC charts in such DOE-based APC applied process. An adaptive SPC scheme is
developed, which can better track the process transitions and achieve the possible SPC run cost reduction when the
process is stable. The control law of SPC parameters is designed by fully utilizing the estimation properties of the
process model instead of traditionally using the data collected from the production line. An example is provided to
illustrate the proposed adaptive SPC design approach.

Keywords: automatic process control, statistical process control, robust parameter design, process transitions.

RPD-like problems. Another major contribution of

1. Introduction
Robust parameter design (RPD), pioneered by
Taguchi[1−2] , has been widely used in complex
systems to select levels of the controllable factors
such that the system responses are robust to the
noise variations. It is an offline methodology based
on design of experiment (DOE) with a priori un-
derstanding of the noise factors[3] . Once the factor
levels are selected, they can be used in processes
without further online adjustments. However, when
the process is running, some of the noise factors may
be observable or measurable. Thus, it is desirable to
fully utilize this additional information to compen-
sate the changes online by manipulating the online
controllable factors to further reduce the process
variance. Pledger[4] discussed an alternative approach
of parameter design taking observable uncontrollable
factor into consideration. Jin[5] presented a new class
of automatic process control (APC) approach based
on the DOE regression model using observable noise
factors for discrete-part manufacturing. One major
contribution of that article is expanding the DOE
and RPD from offline design tool to a new class of on-
line APC technique, which is capable of better solving
* This project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (50405016; 70671065).
that article is to use regression models for automatic
process control purpose. It is noted that most of the
automatic control applications are at the machine
level, rather than at the process level. The major
obstacle to implementing the control theory at the
process level is the unavailability of appropriate
process models for control design. It is extremely
difficult or impossible to use differential or differ-
ence equations to describe the relationship among
the response variables, control variables, and noise
variables for complex manufacturing processes (e.g.
stamping, forging, welding, etc.). In such cases, DOE
has often been considered as an effective approach
to get a regression model of the process. The study
provides engineers with alternative methods to realize
the complex process control purpose.
Statistical process control (SPC) refers to statistical
methods used extensively to monitor and improve the
quality and productivity of manufacturing processes
and service operation. SPC primarily involves the
implementation of control charts, which are used to
detect any change in the process that may affect the
quality of output. The SPC methods are reasonable
under the assumptions that the process mean is con-
330
stant and the observations are independent. How-
ever, in a DOE-based APC controlled process, the
output mean and variance will change owing to the
shift of observable noise factors and the adjustment
of controllable factors. The concept of compensating
in real-time will cause a number of unscheduled man-
ufacturing state transition events. In this case, the
traditional SPC scheme cannot be applied to moni-
tor such a process with time-varying statistical pa-
rameter changes. The reason being that the control
chart designed for the previous manufacturing state
will become non-effective for continuous monitoring of
the subsequent process. Updating the parameters of
control charts by collecting sufficient process output
data seems to be impossible. Hence, it is necessary
to develop a SPC scheme integrated with the process
model and the process control strategy. The informa-
tion from the process model and the process control
law should be fully utilized to adjust the SPC param-
eters, which are quite different from the traditional
strategy, that is, the determination of SPC parameters
only depends on the output data from the production
line. We point out that traditional methods for SPC
parameter adjustment are basically corrective actions.
Here, we develop a real-time approach to update the
SPC parameters directly based on the manufacturing
process model as soon as a process state transition oc-
curs. The shift detection using the in-process sensor
can indicate when to conduct the adjustment for SPC
parameters.
In our proposed SPC scheme, the SPC parame-
ters, i.e., control limits, sample size, and sampling in-
tervals, are designed to be adjusted online according
to the changes of process state, which is enlightened
by the adaptive control charts literature. Reynolds[6]
and Runger and Pignatiello[7] explored the method of
varying the time between subgroups while keeping all
other control chart parameters constant. Amin and
Miller[8] and Reynolds[9] respectively presented a ro-
bustness study on X̄ chart with variable sampling in-
tervals and its monitor performance for non-normal
distributed data or correlated process. Daudin[10]
suggested a double-sampling X̄ chart similar to the
double-acceptance sampling plans. Prabhu[11] and
Costa[12] provided the design procedure of the X̄ chart
Ye Liang, Pan Ershun & Xi Lifeng
with adaptive sample size and showed that signifi-
cant improvements have been achieved particularly
for small shifts. Prabhu[13] and Costa[14] suggested
a combined adaptive chart with variable sample size
and sampling interval based on the latest obtained
data. Costa[15] and Magalhães[16] respectively dis-
cussed how to adjust all the chart parameters in X̄
chart with variable parameters. In summary, almost
all kinds of adaptive SPC schemes are designed for two
main purposes: one is to improve the detection per-
formance of traditional Shewart charts for small mean
shifts, while the other is to reduce the sampling cost
when the monitored process is greatly stable. Simi-
larly, the proposed SPC scheme in this article aims to
better track the process transitions in real time, and
to achieve the possible reduction of the sampling cost.
In this article, we intend to generate a SPC scheme
integrated with DOE-based APC approach, which is
capable of tracking the process transitions automat-
ically by integrating the process model and applied
control strategy, and reducing the sampling cost as
well.
2. Review and discussion of DOE-based
APC
In this section, a general but necessary introduction
of the DOE-based APC method is given since the pro-
posed SPC monitoring strategy is designed for better
monitoring the DOE-based APC controlled processes.
In DOE-based APC, an expanded regression model is
used to describe a discrete-part manufacturing process
as
Y = f (x, e, n) + ε (1)
where, Y is the process response variable, x are the
controllable factors that can be online adjusted during
each production/operation cycle, e represent online
observable factors measured or estimated from online
sensing signals, n represent the remaining noise factors
that cannot be estimated or measured, and ε is the
modeling error with ε ∼ N (0, σε2 ).
Generally, the following second-order regression
model is used in real case and can be expressed as
Y =β0 + β1T x + β2T e + β3T n + xT B1 e + xT B2 n+
xT B3 x + eT B4 n + ε (2)
Adaptive SPC monitoring scheme for DOE-based APC
where, x ∈ n×1 , e ∈ m×1 , n ∈ p×1 , and other
vectors and matrices are of appropriate dimensions.
The model parameters (β’s and B’s) do not change
over time.
Then, the quadratic loss function is selected as the
control objective function since DOE-based APC fo-
cuses on the nominal-the-best problems, i.e.,
J(x) = var(Y ) + (E(Y ) − t)2
where, var(Y ) and E(Y ) are the variance and expec-
tation of Y , respectively, and t is the target specified
by engineering design.
When the observation ê is obtained through an on-
line observer, the corresponding var(Y ) and E(Y ) are
Ee,n,ε (Y |x, ê) = β0 +β1T x+β2T ê+xT B1 ê+xT B3 x (4)
vare,n,ε (Y |x, ê) = (β2 + B1T x)T σê2 (β2 + B1T x)+
(β3 + B2T x + B4 ê)T σn2 (β3 + B2T x+
B4 ê) + tr(B4 σê2 B4T σn2 ) + σε2
The subscripts on E(·) and var(·) indicate the random
variables on which E(·) or var(·) operates. Therefore,
the objective function can be further expressed as
J(x) = (β0 − t + β1T x + β2T ê + xT B1 ê + xT B3 x)2 +
(β2 + B1T x)T σê2 (β2 + B1T x)+
(β3 + B2T x + B4 ê)T σn2 (β3 + B2T x + B4 ê)+
tr(B4 σê2 B4T σn2 ) + σε2
where, ê is the observation of e, σê2 represents the ob-
servation uncertainty, σn2 is the variance of remaining
noise factors, and tr(·) is the trace of a matrix.
The optimal setting of controllable factor x∗ is de-
fined as that which minimizes the quality loss. Since
the regression model in Eq.(2) is only validated within
the experimental region, any setting outside the exper-
imental region should be treated with caution. Hence,
a constraint on x is constructed to ensure that the
proposed optimal solution is within the experimental
region. Since x is coded as a value in [−1, 1] dur-
ing the experimental design, the unit hypercube of
{x : x∗ ∞
1} constrains the coded values of the
control settings. Mathematically
x∗ = arg min{J(x)}, s.t. x∗ ∞
1
x
331
and the corresponding minimum quality loss is J(x∗ ).
Next, the special feature of the DOE-based APC pro-
cess output is discussed and then the reason why an
alternative design of adaptive control chart should be
developed to monitor such process can be more com-
prehensible. From Eqs.(6), (7), it is seen that x∗ does
not hold constant and will change according to the
changes of ê during the production cycle. Thus, the
(3)
shifts both in mean and variance will occur conse-
quentially when the process parameters (i.e., x and e)
change in real time. This can be clearly observed when
the quality characteristic variables of the DOE-based
APC applied process are plotted in time sequence for
SPC monitor purpose. Figure 1 follows to illustrate
the special feature of DOE-based APC applied process
response, which was initially presented in Jin[5] .
(5)
Fig. 1 DOE-based APC applied stamping process
In Fig. 1, the first 12 points correspond to the case
of thick raw material and the next 12 points corre-
spond to thin raw material. In the stamping process,
the thickness of the raw material is treated as the ob-
(6) servable noise factor.
It can be found in Fig. 1 that the system response
plotted is not globally subject to identical normal dis-
tribution but piecewise subject to different normal dis-
tributions respectively. Each observable noise factor
shift and the corresponding regulation of x will change
process both in mean and variance. We point out that
the collection of samples used to estimate the changed
output distribution parameters can lead to a period of
downtime and reduce the SPC monitor continuous ef-
ficiency. In some cases, updating the control chart by
means of data collection is almost infeasible since dur-
ing the transition period, there may not be sufficient
response data, which are available for establishing the
new control chart. A class of control chart, which can
automatically update its parameters to consecutively
(7) monitor the changing process, is desired to be devel-
332
oped.
3. Design of adaptive control charts for
DOE-based APC applied process
Generally, the adaptive control chart is designed based
on the last sample points, that is, if the last sample
point is near the centerline, relative longer sampling
interval, smaller sample size, and looser control limits
are to be employed. On the contrary, if the last value
plotted is near the control limits, relative shorter sam-
pling interval, larger sample size, and tighter control
limits are to be used. All chart parameter adjustments
are conducted mainly to achieve two goals: better de-
tection performance and SPC cost reduction. In this
segment, a new class of adaptive control charts is de-
signed for the DOE-based APC applied process. The
proposed chart design procedure quite differs from the
previous research in the adaptive control charts lit-
erature in two aspects. Firstly, the adjustment law
of adaptive control chart parameters is generated di-
rectly based on the DOE-based APC applied process
model, rather than on the locations of last sampling
points. Secondly, the proposed chart adaptively ad-
justs its parameters to eliminate the influence of pre-
dictable causes rather than improve the power of de-
tecting small shifts in the process mean. A general
framework of the proposed adaptive control chart de-
sign is shown in Fig. 2.
3.1 Control limits adjustment for better tra-
cking process changes
In this segment, an adaptive control chart is designed
in the sense that sample size and sampling interval
Fig. 2 The framework of the proposed adaptive control chart design for DOE-based APC applied process
Ye Liang, Pan Ershun & Xi Lifeng
are fixed while control limits (i.e., center line (CL), up-
per control line (UCL), and lower control line (LCL))
are allowed to be regulated in real time. We suggest
using the conventional 3 sigma limits as a good bal-
ance of α risk (type I error) and β mistake (type II
error). Practice over the years has shown that plac-
ing the limits in such a way gains a better trade-off
between the economic consequences of failing to de-
tect a special cause when it does occur and wrongly
identifying the presence of a special cause when it has
really not occurred.
Based on Eq. (4), the center line of control chart
can be easily set at the estimated value of process
mean Ŷ , which is calculated by
Ŷ (x∗ , ê) = β0 + β1T x∗ + β2T ê + x∗T B1 ê + x∗T B3 x∗ (8)
Based on Eq. (5), the process variance can be effec-
tively estimated by
σ̂Ŷ2 = V (x∗ , ê) + σ̂ε2 (9)
V (x∗ , ê) = (β2 + B1T x∗ )T σê2 (β + B1T x∗ )+
tr(B4 σê2 B4T σn2 ) + (β3 + B2T x∗ +
B4 ê)T σn2 (β3 + B2T x∗ + B4 ê) (10)
where, σ̂Ŷ2 is the estimation value of DOE-based APC
applied process variance, and V (x∗ , ê) represents the
transmitted variance model.
As random term variance σε2 in Eq. (5) cannot be
estimated by just using the fitted regression model,
a “two-phase” method is used to build the adaptive
control chart with variable control limits. In the first
phase (i.e., the σε2 -estimation stage), some samples are
Adaptive SPC monitoring scheme for DOE-based APC
collected from the production line to estimate σε2 . The
calculation procedure for estimation is illustrated as
below.
(1) Calculate the mean-squared error (MSE) using
collected samples
n


1 sible cost reduction
MSE = (Yi − Ŷ1 )2 (11)
n−p−1 i=1
where, n is the number of samples being used to esti-
mate σε2 , p is the number of factors appearing in the
regression model. Ŷ1 is the estimation of process mean
at the σε2 -estimation stage. Note that the current level
of regression factors in the first phase x∗1 and ê1 should
be substituted into Eq. (8), since x∗ and ê may change
over time.
(2) Calculate the value of the transmitted variance
model at the σε2 -estimation stage, which is denoted by
V1 = V (x∗1 , ê∗1 ).
(3) Obtain the estimation of σε2 by
σ̂ε2 = MSE − V1 (12)
In the second phase (i.e., control chart application
phase), the adjustment law of floating control limits is
to be determined and a concrete calculation procedure
is presented to set up the proposed adaptive control
chart.
(1) Obtain the current observation of noise factors
denoted by êλ in real time. Then, the current optimal
settings of controllable factors x∗λ are determined using
the DOE-based APC approach.
(2) Calculate the current value of the transmitted
variance model Vλ by substituting x∗λ and êλ into Eq.
(10).
(3) Estimate the current process variance online by
σ̂Ŷ2 = Vλ + σ̂ε2 (13)
(4) The adaptive control chart can then be set up
using the following adjustment law for control limits.
CL = Ŷ (x∗λ , êλ )
UCL = CL + 3σ̂Ŷ (14)
LCL = CL − 3σ̂Ŷ
From the above procedure, it is seen that CL, UCL,
and LCL will automatically update their settings as
333
soon as the current process state (x∗λ , êλ ) changes. As
a result, for a given DOE-based APC applied process,
the associated adaptive control chart can then be es-
tablished and applied.
3.2 Sampling parameters adjustment for pos-
In this section, the adaptive control chart is designed
in the sense that the width of control limits is fixed
while the sampling parameters (i.e., sample size and
sampling interval) are allowed to be regulated for eco-
nomic design purpose. This scheme is motivated by
the fact that if the process is more stable and in good
control, relatively smaller sample size and longer sam-
pling interval should be used to reduce the SPC run
cost. In this article, the sample size is adjusted so that
when the process is in the in-control state, the average
run length (ARL) of the proposed chart is the same
under all process conditions. ARL is the expected
number of samples taken until the chart signals an
out-of-control condition, which can be calculated by
ARL = 1/(1 − β)
   
UCL − µ LCL − µ (15)
β=Φ √ −Φ √
σ/ n σ/ n
where, β is the probability of the type II error, Φ (·)
is the cumulative probability function of the standard
normal distribution, and µ and σ represent the process
mean and variance, respectively. By substituting Eq.
(14) into Eq. (15), we can further derive
ARL =
1
 √   √ 
Ŷ +3(σ̂Ŷ / n)−µ Ŷ −3(σ̂Ŷ / n)−µ
1−Φ √ +Φ √
σ̂Ŷ / n σ̂Ŷ / n
(16)
In Eq. (16), the difference between Ŷ and µ is the re-
gression model error, which is normal distributed with
expectation of zero. Hence, it can be seen that if ARL
is designed to be the same for various process states,
√
(σ̂λ / n) should hold constant. Based on this fact, the
adjustment law for sampling parameters is developed
and its design procedure is presented as below
(1) Pre-calculate all the possible estimated values
of process deviation σ̂λ under various observations of
334 Ye Liang, Pan Ershun & Xi Lifeng

noise factors. It is affordable because e has limited lev- Table 1 The factors in the injection molding
els pre-determined according to experimental design. experiment
Then, the maximal one can be found via a simple com- Controllable Observable noise Remaining noise
parison and is denoted by σ̂max . factors factors factors
(2) Determine the fixed width of control limits by A, Cycle time N, Moisture M, Percentage
±3σ̂max . Content regrind
(3) Estimate the current process variance σ̂λ2 follow- B, Mold temperature O, Ambient
ing the same procedures (1)∼(3) introduced in Section temperature

3.1. C, Cavity thickness

(4) Optimize the current sample size by D, Holding pressure

E, Injection speed
τ × σ̂ 2
nλ = 2 λ (17) F, Holding time
σ̂max G, Gate size

where, τ is the maximum allowable sample size de-

cided according to the available resources.
(5) If n = τ is used and holds constant, the optimal
sampling interval can be obtained by
τ ×υ
Iλ =
nλ
where, υ is the minimum sampling interval specified
by engineer according to the production rate.
(6) Set the control limits by
CL = Ŷ (x∗λ , êλ )
UCL = CL + 3σ̂max
LCL = CL − 3σ̂max
The regression model used in that article is
ŷ = 2.25 + 0.425A + 0.062 5C − 0.281 3D+
0.143 8E − 0.231 3G − 0.05M + 0.106 3M E−
0.125M C − 0.093 8M D + 0.587 5N C−
(18)
(20)
0.556 3N E + ε
To work out the variance, a couple of assumptions
have to be made. Assume that the remaining noise
factors M and O are subject to normal distribution
with expectations of zero and standard deviation of
0.5. Also, ε ∼ N(0, σε2 ), where, σ̂ε2 = 0.002 5 is ob-
(19) tained by analyzing the experimental data.
Therefore

From the above design procedure, it can be seen that E(y|A, C, D, E, G, Ĥ) =
if a smaller process variance (σλ2 < σmax
2
) is detected, 2.25 + 0.425A + 0.062 5C−
a smaller sample size or a longer sampling interval can 0.281 3D + 0.143 7E − 0.231 3G+
be adaptively determined and applied, and vice versa.
0.587 5N̂ C − 0.556 25N̂E (21)
4. Performance analysis of the proposed
adaptive SPC scheme var(y|A, C, D, E, G, N ) =
(−0.05 − 0.125C + 0.106 3E−
In this section, a case study is presented to demon-
strate the applicability of the proposed SPC chart and 0.093 8D)2 σM
2
+ σε2 (22)
evaluate its performance by means of ARL analysis. where, N̂ is the observation of noise factor N . Ac-
Engel[17] reports an experiment to improve an injec- cording to the DOE-based APC strategy, the control
tion molding process by minimizing the shrinkage of law for the injection molding process is given as below.
the product. Pledger[4] re-analyzed this experiment Mathematically
and changed the aim of the experiment by setting ⎧
⎪
⎪ (−1,−1,+1,−1,+1), if N̂ = +1
shrinkage to a low target (i.e., 1.6% shrinkage) rather ⎨
than minimizing it. The experiment consists of seven (A, C, D, E, G) = (−1,+1,−1,−1,+1), if N̂ = 0
⎪
⎪
⎩
controllable factors and three noise factors listed in (−1,−1,−1,−1,+1), if N̂ = −1
Table 1. All factors have two levels (i.e., +1 and −1). (23)
Adaptive SPC monitoring scheme for DOE-based APC 335

Then, estimations of process mean and variance can Markov chain. The second method is to solve an in-
be calculated for various process conditions. tegral equation to gain the ARL. The last approach
⎧ is to estimate the ARL via simulation. In this article,
⎪
⎪ [1.075, 0.006 4], if N̂ = +1
⎨ for each process condition, the injection molding pro-
[E(y), var(y)] = [1.669, 0.003 5], if N̂ = 0 cess is simulated 10 000 times using random signals
⎪
⎪
⎩
if N̂ = −1
[0.650, 0.011 3], to simulate the disturbance of noise factors to esti-
(24) mate the ARL. Both the disturbance process and the
According to the proposed adaptive control chart ARL-computing program are generated by means of
strategy, each detected shift of N̂ will trigger the ad- the software Matlab. The ARL estimation results are
justment of the control chart parameters. The ad- listed in Table 3.
justment law is obtained by the design procedure pre-
Table 3 ARL estimation results for the injection
sented in section 3 and is shown in Table 2.
molding process
Table 2 Adjustment law for adaptive control ARL
Mean shift
chart parameters Ĥ = +1 Ĥ = 0 Ĥ = −1 Average

Ĥ = +1 Ĥ = 0 Ĥ = −1 0.5σy 143 144 143 143

Adaptive control chart with variable control limits 1.0σy 46 44 43 45

and fixed sampling parameters 2.0σy 6 5 6 6

CL 1.075 1.669 0.650

The data in Table 3 lead to the following conclu-
UCL 1.315 1.846 0.969
LCL 0.835 1.491 0.331
sions:
Width of control limits 0.480 0.355 0.638 (1) For large mean shifts (i.e., 2.0σy ), ARL is equal
Sample size 5 5 5 to 6, which shows that the proposed adaptive control
Sampling interval 2 2 2 charts perform quite well (ARL<10);
Adaptive control chart with variable sampling (2) For medium mean shifts (i.e., 1.0σy ), ARL is
parameters and fixed width of control limits equal to 45, which shows that the performance of con-
CL 1.075 1.669 0.650 trol charts is well and acceptable (ARL<50).
UCL 1.394 1.988 0.969 (3) For small mean shifts (i.e., 0.5σy ), ARL is equal
LCL 0.756 1.350 0.331 to 143, which indicates that the control charts do not
Width of control limits 0.638 0.638 0.638 perform well (ARL>100).
Sample size 5 3 9 It can be seen that the performance of the proposed
Sampling interval 3.6 6.0 2.0 adaptive control charts is almost the same as that of
Shewart-type X̄ control charts. This is because the
In this case study, the fiducial sample size is set as aim of the proposed charts design is to better track
5, τ is equal to 9, and υ is 2 units of time (arbitrary the process changes that arise from predictable causes
assumptions for illustration). From Table 2, it can for application in DOE-based APC applied process
be seen that variable control limits are regulated for rather than to improve the power of detecting process
better tracking the process changes. It can also be mean shifts. If the detection of a smaller mean shift
seen that relatively smaller sample size (n = 3) and is critical, some advanced monitoring schemes such as
longer sampling interval (I = 6) are used when the EWMA charts or CUSUM charts should be integrated
process is detected to be more stable ((var(y)|N̂ = with the proposed SPC design for joint monitoring the
0) < (var(y)|N̂ = +1)) to monitor cost reduction. DOE-based APC applied process.
Generally, measures of performance for control
charts are often expressed in terms of the ARL. There
5. Conclusions
are three approaches widely used to obtain the ARL. DOE-based APC can better solve RPD-like problems
The first method is to calculate the ARL using a in the complex manufacturing process. However, on-
336
line process parameter control and observation shifts
of noise factors will change the process condition so
that the system output is not subject to independent
identical distribution any more. The proposed adap-
tive SPC scheme can be used to solve this problem.
The control law for UCL, LCL, and CL is designed to
be the function of the process state parameters, which
ensures the automatic control chart online update for
better tracking the process transitions. By use of the
optimal design for sample size and sampling intervals,
the SPC cost is reduced when the estimated process
variance indicates that the process is relatively more
stable. In a broad sense, this research is another good
attempt to generate an optimization design for SPC
based on the process model. More effect is required
to introduce other advanced chart techniques into the
proposed chart design for better detection power of
mean shifts in the process.
References
[1] Taguchi G. Introduction to quality engineering. NJ: Qual-
ity Resources, White Plains, 1986.
[2] Taguchi G. System of experimental design: engineering
methods to optimize quality and minimize cost. NJ: Qual-
ity Resources, White Plains, 1987.
[3] Montgomery D C. Design and analysis of experiments. (3rd
ed). NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
[4] Pledger M. Observable uncontrollable factor in parameter
design. Journal of Quality Technology, 1996, 28(2): 153–
162.
[5] Jin J H, Ding Y. Online automatic process control using
observable noise factors for discrete-part manufacturing,
IIE Transactions, 2004, 36(9): 899–911.
[6] Reynolds M R, Amin R W, Arnold J C, et al. X-charts
with variable sampling intervals. Technometrics, 1988(2),
30: 181–192.
[7] Runger G C, Pignatiello J J. Adaptive sampling for process
control. Journal of Quality Technology, 1991, 23(2): 135–
155.
[8] Amin R W, Miller R W. A robustness study of X charts
Ye Liang, Pan Ershun & Xi Lifeng
with variable sampling intervals. Journal of Quality Tech
nology, 1993, 25(1): 36–44.
[9] Reynolds M R, Arnold J C, Balk J W. Variable sampling
interval X charts in the presence of correlation. Journal of
Quality Technology, 1996, 28(1): 12–30.
[10] Daudin J J. Double sampling X charts. Journal of Quality
Technology, 1992, 24(1): 78–87.
[11] Prabhu S S, Runger G C, Keats J B. X chart with adap-
tive sample sizes. International Journal of Production Re-
search, 1993, 31(12): 2895–2909.
[12] Costa A F B. X charts with variable sample size. Journal
of Quality Technology, 1994, 26(3): 155–163.
[13] Prabhu S S, Montgomery D C, Runger G C. A combined
adaptive sample size and sampling interval X chart scheme.
Journal of Quality Technology, 1994, 26(3): 164–176.
[14] Costa A F B. X chart with variable sample size and sam-
pling intervals. Journal of Quality Technology, 1997, 29(2):
197–204.
[15] Costa A F B. X charts with variable parameters. Journal
of Quality Technology, 1999, 31(4): 408–416.
[16] Magalhães M S De, Costa A F B, Epprecht E K. Con-
strained optimization model for the design of an adaptive
X chart. International Journal of Production Research,
2002, 40(4): 3199–3218.
[17] Engel J. Modeling variation in industrial experiments.
Applied Statistics, 1992, 41(3): 579–593.
Ye Liang was born in 1981. He is a Ph. D. student
at the Department of Industrial Engineering and Lo-
gistics of Shanghai Jiaotong University. His research
focuses on quality control, SPC, DOE, and robust de-
sign. E-mail: schneideye@sjtu.edu.cn
Pan Ershun is an associate professor at the Depart-
ment of Industrial Engineering and Logistics of Shang-
hai Jiaotong University. E-mail: pes@sjtu.edu.cn
Xi Lifeng is a professor at the Department of Indus-
trial Engineering and Logistics of Shanghai Jiaotong
University. E-mail: lfxi@sjtu.edu.cn