Improved Shewhart-Type Charts for

Monitoring Times Between Events

N. KUMAR
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India

S. CHAKRABORTI
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

A. C. RAKITZIS
University of Aegean, Karlovasi 83200, Samos, Greece

In high-yield processes with a low defect rate, the recommendation is to monitor the times between
events (TBE) with variables control charts in order to overcome the weaknesses of conventional attribute
control charts. In this paper, we incorporate supplementary runs rules into one of the existing Shewhart-
type TBE charts, namely the tr -chart, in order to improve its small to moderate size-shift detection ability.
Moreover, because the existing tr -chart based on probability limits is biased, we provide a procedure for
designing a tr -chart, with or without runs rules, that is unbiased. The performance of several tr -charts
with runs rules is investigated, whereas comparisons with EWMA and CUSUM charts are also given. It is
seen that some of the runs rules enhanced tr -charts perform substantially better. A real-data example is
provided for illustration and some concluding remarks are given.

Key Words: Average Run Length (ARL); ARL-Unbiased Control Chart; Gamma Distribution; High-Yield
Processes; Runs Rules; Time Between Events; tr -Chart.

1. Introduction (TBE) has been recommended with variables control

C ONVENTIONAL attributes control charts (e.g., the
c- or the u-chart) are often found ineffective in
the context of monitoring high-yield processes with
a very low defect or failure rate, say, at parts per
million (ppm). This is mainly because, in these situ-
ations, many samples have zero defects, and a control
chart with the statistic consistently plotting at zero
is relatively uninformative (Montgomery (2012)). In
such situations, monitoring the times between events
Dr. Kumar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Statistics. His email address is nirpeksh@gmail.com.
Dr. Chakraborti is a Professor in the Department of In-
formation Systems, Statistics and Management Science. His
email address is schakrab@cba.ua.edu.
Dr. Rakitzis is a Lecturer in the Department of Mathe-
matics. He is the corresponding author. His email address is
arakitz@aegean.gr.
charts (cf., Xie et al. (2002a)) for detecting any shifts
in the process parameter.
The TBE control charts have drawn increasing in-
terest in the recent literature. Chan et al. (2000) pro-
posed the cumulative quantity control (CQC) chart,
or the t-chart, while Xie et al. (2002b) (see also
Zhang et al. (2007)) proposed the tr -chart (or the
Gamma chart), which is used for monitoring the
times between the rth failure, r ≥ 1, based on
the Erlang (or the Gamma) distribution. Both are
Shewhart-type charts and, for r = 1, the t1 -chart co-
incides with the t-chart. Apart from the Shewhart-
type charts, cumulative sum (CUSUM) and exponen-
tially weighted moving average (EWMA) type charts
have been proposed and studied by Lucas (1985),
Vardeman and Ray (1985), Gan (1994, 1998), Gan
and Chang (2000), Ozsan et al. (2010), Qu et al.
(2011), and Zhang et al. (2014). Also, synthetic-type
charts for TBE data have been studied by Scariano

Journal of Quality Technology 278 Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017

 IMPROVED SHEWHART-TYPE CHARTS FOR MONITORING TIMES BETWEEN EVENTS
and Calzada (2003), Yen et al. (2013), and Fang et al.
(2016), based on the t- and tr -charts. A comparative
study between various one- and two-sided charts for
TBE data was conducted by Liu et al. (2006). Ap-
plications of control charts for the TBE data can be
found in several areas of applied research, such as
in health-care management (Xie et al. (2010), Dogu
(2012)), in the monitoring of (i) the interfailure time
in a failure process (Xie et al. (2002b)), (ii) the times
between explosions in coal mines (Yang et al. (2016)),
or (iii) the times between earthquake occurrences
(Santiago and Smith (2013)).
We consider the Shewhart-type charts in this pa-
per, as they are still the preferred chart in many ap-
plications around the world. It is known that, while
Shewhart control charts detect larger process shifts
quickly, they are rather insensitive to smaller shifts
because they are based on the most recent observa-
tion. However, even though alternative charts, such
as the synthetic, the EWMA, and the CUSUM con-
trol charts are known to perform better in the detec-
tion of smaller shifts, they are not without their own
shortcomings. These charts have not been widely ac-
cepted by the quality practitioners due to their ‘rel-
ative complexity of use’, which is especially true for
the task of “tuning” these charts, i.e., choosing the
values for the chart design parameters necessary for
their implementation. Moreover, most of the avail-
able aforementioned charts are one sided and cannot
be used without some modifications when the direc-
tion of the shift (i.e., upward or downward) is not
known in advance. Even though two-sided EWMA
and CUSUM control charts for TBE data are avail-
able in the literature, the design and evaluation of
their performance can be very complex (Liu et al.
(2006)).
Thus, we focus on Shewhart-type TBE charts and
try to improve their performance. A well-accepted so-
lution to the problem of the small-shift insensitivity
of the Shewhart-type charts has been to add supple-
mentary runs rules to them. The use of supplemen-
tary runs rules was proposed as early as 1956 by the
Western Electric Company. Most textbooks in sta-
tistical process control (SPC) cover this topic; c.f.,
Montgomery (2012). During the last several decades,
the emphasis on the development of control charts
with runs rules was on monitoring the mean of a
process, by assuming that the underlying distribu-
tion is normal or, at least, that it can be well ap-
proximated by the normal distribution. We refer to
Koutras et al. (2007) for an up-to-date review in the
Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017
279
area of control charts with supplementary runs rules.
On the other hand, much less work seems to have
been done on control charts for skewed data, partic-
ularly in the area of TBE control charts. In this liter-
ature, Cheng and Chen (2011) and Chen and Cheng
(2011) considered two-sided t1 -charts with various
runs rules and evaluated their performance for up-
ward and downward shifts in the mean. Santiago
and Smith (2013) proposed a probabilistic method
(similar to the one employed by Lowry et al. (1995))
for the study of a t-chart with supplementary runs
rules. Recently, Rakitzis (2016) studied the so-called
modified t1 -charts with runs rules, using the mod-
ified runs rule of Antzoulakos and Rakitzis (2008).
Their analysis revealed that, when the modified runs
rule is applied only on the lower side of the chart, the
resulting schemes uniformly outperform the ones of
Cheng and Chen (2011) for every shift in the process
parameter.
Apart from using the runs rules, another effective
way to increase the sensitivity and shift-detection ca-
pability of the ordinary t-chart is to consider moni-
toring the times between the occurrences of r (r ≥ 2)
events (Xie et al. (2002b)). While this requires a
slightly more advanced level of data analysis, it can
produce better results. Thus, motivated by the works
of Cheng and Chen (2011) and Rakitzis (2016), we
incorporate various runs rules schemes into the tr -
control chart and study their performance in the de-
tection of upward and downward shifts in the mean
time between events.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2
consists of the basic properties of the tr -chart. The
considered runs rules schemes are presented in Sec-
tion 3, along with an algorithmic procedure for their
ARL-unbiased statistical design. Section 4 consists
of the results of an extensive numerical study along
with some practical guidance for the selection of the
most effective rule and the value of r needed to imple-
ment the control chart. Numerical comparisons with
other competitive charts for TBE are also provided.
A real-data example is given illustrating the practical
implementation of the proposed charts in Section 5,
while concluding remarks are provided in Section 6.
2. The tr-Control Chart for
the Known-Parameter Case
Let Tr , r ≥ 1, denote the waiting time until
the rth failure in a homogeneous Poisson process,
which is the sum of r independent and identically
distributed exponential random variables (r.v.), i.e.,
www.asq.org
280 N. KUMAR, S. CHAKRABORTI, AND A. C. RAKITZIS
the times between events. It is well known that Tr
follows a Gamma distribution with the probability
density function
λr r−1 −λt
fG (t | r, λ) = t e , t > 0, (1)
Γ(r)
where λ > 0 is the failure rate of the event. The pro-
cess is said to be in-control (IC) when λ = λ0 , where
λ0 is the given (known) or specified value of the fail-
ure rate. It should be noted here that, when λ0 is
not known from previous knowledge, it has to be es-
timated from a preliminary IC sample. In the sequel,
we assume that λ0 is known or that it has been esti-
mated from a (sufficiently) large phase I sample. The
unknown λ0 problem will be considered elsewhere.
Because Tr has a skewed distribution, the control
limits of the tr -chart are taken to be the probability
limits, obtained by using equal-tail probabilities asso-
ciated with half the nominal false-alarm rate (FAR).
That is to say, for a given nominal FAR, say α0 and
λ = λ0 , the equal-tail probability control limits UCL
(upper control limit) and LCL (lower control limit)
of a two-sided tr -chart are respectively given by (see
Xie et al. (2002b))
P [Tr > UCL] = α0 /2 and P [Tr < LCL] = α0 /2.
(2)
From the distributional properties of the random
variable Tr , we have that, when the process is IC,
2λ0 Tr follows a chi-square distribution with 2r de-
grees of freedom (d.f.), i.e., 2λ0 Tr ∼ χ22r . Therefore,
following Kumar and Chakraborti (2016), the UCL
and LCL given in Equation (2) can be more conve-
niently rewritten as
χ22r,1−α0 /2 χ22r,α0 /2
UCL = and LCL = , (3)
2λ0 2λ0
where χ22r,α denotes the 100α-percentile of the chi-
square distribution with 2r d.f. Moreover, the center
line (CL) is usually set equal to the median of the IC
distribution of Tr and it is given by
χ22r,0.5
CL = . (4)
2λ0
Note that the exponential distribution is a particu-
lar case of the Gamma distribution in Equation (1),
when r = 1. Hence, the equal-tail probability control
limits for exponential t-chart (or the t1 -chart) can
be directly obtained from Equations (3) and (4) by
setting r = 1.
An important issue regarding any control chart
is its performance. A commonly used metric for the
Journal of Quality Technology
performance evaluation of a control chart is the av-
erage run length (ARL). The ARL is defined as the
expected number of charting statistics plotted on the
chart, until for the first time it gives an out-of-control
(OOC) signal. In fact, it is the expected value of the
run-length distribution of a control chart. The run
length of a control chart is defined as the number
of points plotted on it until an OOC signal is trig-
gered for the first time. Specifically, for the Shewhart-
type control charts, with known parameter value(s),
which is the case here, the run length follows a ge-
ometric distribution with parameter β, where β is
the probability of a signal, i.e., the probability that
a single plotted point falls outside the control lim-
its. Consequently, the ARL is equal to the reciprocal
of β. Other metrics, such as the median run length
(MRL), can be examined but we focus on the ARL
here in order to conform more with the existing SPC
literature.
If the process is OOC in the sense that λ has
shifted to λ1 from its IC value λ0 , we write λ1 = δλ0 ,
where δ > 0 is a constant that reflects the shift in
λ0 . For δ > 1 (0 < δ < 1), an increase (decrease)
in λ0 has occurred, which is equivalent to a de-
crease (increase) in the expected time between events
and, thus, to process deterioration (improvement),
because the events occur more frequently (rarely).
For δ = 1, the process is IC.
Therefore, because 2λ1 Tr ∼ χ22r , the OOC proba-
bility β is
β = P (signal)
= 1 − P (LCL ≤ Tr ≤ UCL)
= 1 + Fχ22r (2λ1 LCL) − Fχ22r (2λ1 UCL)
= 1 + Fχ22r (δχ22r,α0 /2 ) − Fχ22r (δχ22r,1−α0 /2 ),
where Fχ22r (·) denotes the cumulative distribution
function (c.d.f.) of the chi-square distribution with
2r d.f. Clearly, for a given r, β depends on the shift
δ and the nominal FAR α0 . Consequently, the ARL
function of the ordinary two-sided tr -chart is given
by
ARL(r, δ, α0 )
1 1
= = ,
β 1 + Fχ22r (δχ2r,α0 /2 ) − Fχ22r (δχ22r,1−α0 /2 )
2
which is a function of r, δ, and α0 but does not de-
pend on the IC value λ0 . Figure 1 shows the ARL
curves for different tr -charts with r ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4},
nominal α0 = 0.0027 and for different values of the
shift δ.
Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017
 IMPROVED SHEWHART-TYPE CHARTS FOR MONITORING TIMES BETWEEN EVENTS
FIGURE 1. The ARL Function of the tr -Chart, r ∈
{1, 2, 3, 4}.
It can be observed from Figure 1 that all four ARL
curves do not have their maximum at δ = 1, so that
all four charts are ARL biased. This means that, near
the IC value of the rate parameter, the OOC ARL
may be greater than the IC ARL, which is clearly not
desirable. This is a common problem for two-sided
control charts that are based on a charting statis-
tic that has a skewed distribution; e.g., this is also
the case for the two-sided charts for monitoring the
variation of a normal process (Acosta-Mejia (1998),
Acosta-Mejia and Pignatiello (2009)) or the two-
sided charts for the TBE data (Chan et al. (2000),
Xie et al. (2002b)). Because the ARL-biased control
charts perform poorly in the detection of small down-
ward shifts (cf., Cheng and Chen (2011)), they can-
not be effectively used in practice where the magni-
tude or the direction of the shift may be unknown.
Thus, we consider tr -charts that are ARL unbiased.
For an ARL-unbiased design of the two-sided t-chart
with probability limits, see also Zhang et al. (2006).
Before closing this section, it is worth noting that,
so far in the literature, the proposal to improve the
performance of the basic t-chart has been to use a
higher value of r, i.e., using a tr -chart with r ≥ 2,
which allows aggregating more data. We consider two
major improvements to the basic tr -charts. First, we
turn them into unbiased charts and, second, we con-
sider additional improvements in the performance of
the unbiased tr -chart by incorporating (adding) sup-
plementary runs rules. To the best of our knowledge,
the unbiased tr -chart with runs rules has not been
studied in the literature so far.
Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017
281
3. The tr-Control Chart
with Runs Rules
In this section, we discuss the tr -chart with runs
rules. Let us first consider a two-sided tr -chart, for
r ≥ 1, with a UCL, a center line CL, and a LCL. Mo-
tivated by the works of Klein (2000a), Khoo (2003),
Cheng and Chen (2011), and Rakitzis (2016), we
consider the following charting schemes, written as
{RRU , RRL }, where the RRU (RRL ) is the runs
rule applied on the upper (lower) side of the tr -
chart. Thus, for two positive integers k and m, with
2 ≤ k ≤ m, the considered schemes are:
Scheme 1
An OOC signal is given if k out of m consecutive
points are plotted above the UCL or below the LCL,
whichever comes first. We will denote this scheme as
{k/m, k/m}.
Scheme 2
An OOC signal is given if a single point is plotted
above the UCL or if k out of m consecutive points
are plotted below the LCL, whichever comes first.
We will denote this scheme as {1/1, k/m}.
Scheme 3
An OOC signal is given if k out of m consecutive
points are plotted above the UCL, which are sepa-
rated by at most m − k points plotted between the
CL and the UCL, or if k out of m consecutive points
are plotted below the LCL, which are separated by
at most m − k points plotted between the CL and
the LCL, whichever comes first. We will denote this
scheme as {M :k/m, M :k/m}.
Scheme 4
An OOC signal is given if a single point is plotted
above the UCL, or if k out of m consecutive points
are plotted below the LCL, which are separated by
at most m − k points plotted between the CL and
the LCL, whichever comes first. We will denote this
scheme as {1/1, M :k/m}.
For r = 1, schemes 1 and 2 have been studied
by Cheng and Chen (2011) while schemes 3 and 4
are based on the so-called modified k-of-m runs rule
(M :k/m, see Antzoulakos and Rakitzis (2008)) and
have been studied by Rakitzis (2016). Also, for m =
k, schemes 1 and 3 as well as schemes 2 and 4 coincide
with each other. In that case, the runs rule is of the
form “k consecutive points” above (below) the UCL
www.asq.org
282 N. KUMAR, S. CHAKRABORTI, AND A. C. RAKITZIS
(LCL). Next, we consider schemes 1–4 for m ∈ {k, k+
1}; k ∈ {2, 3}, and r ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}.
Given the values of r, λ1 , UCL, and LCL, we can
evaluate the OOC ARL performance of the consid-
ered control charts. In the case of control charts with
supplementary runs rules, Markov chain techniques
are usually used for the study of the run-length distri-
bution and the evaluation of the ARL (c.f., Champ
and Woodall (1987), Fu et al. (2002), Fu and Lou
(2003), and references therein). Next, we consider the
ARL-unbiased tr -chart.
3.1. ARL-Unbiased Statistical Design of the
tr-Chart with Runs Rules
In order to construct the ARL-unbiased tr -chart
with or without the runs rules, we need to find the
pair of control limits (LCL, UCL) such that (i) the
in-control ARL value is equal to some desired nom-
inal value, ARL0 (say equal to 370.4), and (ii) the
ARL, as a function of the shift δ, attains its max-
imum at δ = 1, i.e., when the process is IC (c.f.,
Cheng and Chen (2011), Rakitzis (2016)). In order
to achieve these two objectives, the equal tail prob-
ability limits in Equations (3) and (4) need to be
modified appropriately.
Thus, we consider the (modified) tr -chart control
limits
χ22r,1−p∗ χ22r,γp∗
UCL = and LCL = , (5)
2λ0 2λ0
where γ ≥ 1 and p∗ ∈ (0, 1). The CL is as in Equa-
tion (4). Thus, the probability of a charting statistic
Tr plotting above the UCL is p∗ and plotting below
the LCL is γp∗ , respectively. The constant γ may
be viewed as an adjustment factor. If γ = 1, we
have the original tr -chart with equal tail-probability
limits, with the probability in each of the two tails
beyond the control limits (i.e., above the UCL and
below the LCL) equal to p∗ . For γ > 1, we obtain
a charting scheme with unequal tail-probability con-
trol limits. Thus, following Equation (3), and by in-
troducing the two parameters p∗ and γ in the for-
mulas for the chi-square percentiles that determine
the tr -chart control limits, we establish a flexible re-
lationship between the probabilities p∗ (probability
of charting above the UCL) and γp∗ (probability of
charting below the LCL) and the nominal false-alarm
rate (FAR) α0 . This relationship is given by
p∗ + γp∗ = (1 + γ)p∗ = α0 ,
and thus it becomes clear that there is not a unique
pair of (γ, p∗ ) values that gives the desired FAR α0
Journal of Quality Technology
(or, equivalently, the desired nominal IC ARL value
ARL0 ) because there are two unknowns to be deter-
mined from only one condition. Thus, we determine
the unique pair (γ, p∗ ) that gives a pair of control
limits that satisfies the conditions (i) and (ii). The
corresponding control chart is the ARL-unbiased tr -
chart.
Recall that, in order to obtain the ARL-unbiased
chart design, i.e., to find the control limits that sat-
isfy conditions (i) and (ii), the IC ARL must be equal
to the nominal value ARL0 and we need to maximize
the ARL at the IC value λ0 , i.e., at δ = 1. To this
end, we set the IC ARL = ARL0 and the first deriva-
tive of the ARL with respect to δ equal to zero at
δ = 1 (the IC value) because the ARL has to reach
its maximum value (the given nominal value ARL0 )
at δ = 1.
Hence, for an ARL-unbiased tr -chart, for a given
r and ARL0 , the γ and p∗ must satisfy
IC ARL = ARL(r, 1, γ, p∗ ) = ARL0
and 
d 
∗ 
ARL(r, δ, γ, p ) = 0.
dδ δ=1
Note that, for the runs rules enhanced ARL-unbiased
tr -charts, the ARL also depends on k and m but, in
order to keep the notation simpler, we write the ARL
as a function of r, δ, γ, and p∗ only.
We summarize the steps for finding the ARL-
unbiased tr -chart in practice as follows.
Step 1
Choose the nominal IC ARL value, ARL0 .
Step 2
Choose the desired value of r, r ≥ 1, and the pair
of runs rules RRU and RRL that would be used in the
upper and lower side of the chart. If the rule 1/1 is
chosen for both the upper and lower side of the chart,
the resulting chart is the tr -chart without runs rules.
Step 3
Choose a value of γ > 1 (e.g., 1.01) as an initial
value, say γ ∗ .
Step 4
Solve the equation ARL(r, 1, γ ∗ , p∗ ) = ARL0 for
p , where ARL(r, δ, γ, p∗ ) is the expression for the
∗
ARL function of the tr -chart, with or without runs
rules, and let p∗∗ denote the solution.
Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017
 IMPROVED SHEWHART-TYPE CHARTS FOR MONITORING TIMES BETWEEN EVENTS 283

Step 5 ∗
0.0020
Obtain the first derivative of the ARL function by
differentiating the ARL(r, δ, γ ∗ , p∗∗ ) with respect to
δ.
iso curve for D = 0
0.0015
Step 6

Calculate the value of the first derivative in Step

5 at δ = 1, say D, i.e.,

d  0.0010

D= ARL(r, δ, γ ∗ , p∗∗ ) . iso-ARL curve

dδ δ=1 intersecon point

Step 7
0.0005

If the value of D is ‘close enough’ to zero (say

of order 10−6 ), then (γ ∗ , p∗∗ ) is the required value of
the (γ, p∗ ) pair and the corresponding LCL and UCL
values, obtained from Equation (5), give the corre- 0.0000

sponding ARL-unbiased tr -chart. Otherwise, repeat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

steps 1–7 by increasing the value of γ until reach-

ing a D value ‘close enough’ to zero. The values of
the corresponding (γ ∗ , p∗∗ ) are the optimal values of
(γ, p∗ ).
∗ ARL value (see also Cheng and Chen (2011)) can
As it is clear that the values γ and p , and, hence,
the control limits following steps 1–7 cannot be com-
puted by analytical means, a numerical iterative pro-
cedure is used. After the optimal γ and p∗ are ob-
tained, the control limits for the ARL-unbiased tr -
chart can be calculated, by simply using these values
in Equation (5).
As an illustration, consider finding the unbiased
t2 -chart without any runs rules. For any other value
of r, the approach is exactly the same. The ARL
function, with the control limits given in Equation
(5), is equal to
ARL(2, δ, γ, p∗ )
1 unbiased t2 -chart
= .
1+ Fχ24 (δχ24,γp∗ )− Fχ24 (δχ24,1−p∗ )
For a given nominal ARL0 value of 370.4, the pair
(γ, p∗ ) must satisfy
ARL(2, 1, γ, p∗ )
1
= where, recall that λ0 is the known IC value of the
1+ Fχ24 (χ24,γp∗ )− Fχ24 (χ24,1−p∗ )
= 370.4.
Clearly, there can be multiple choices for (γ, p∗ )
satisfying the above equation. In order to explain this
further as we look for a solution, an iso-ARL curve,
i.e., a curve that shows the possible combinations of
FIGURE 2. Pairs (γ , p*) That Give the Same IC ARL
and D = 0.
the pairs of (γ, p∗ ) values that give the desired IC
be constructed. Among these values, there will be
a unique point (pair) that gives the desired ARL-
unbiased statistical design of the t2 -chart without
runs rules. This point can be also found as the point
of intersection between the iso-ARL curve and the
iso-curve that consists of all the possible combina-
tions of the pairs (γ, p∗ ) that give D = 0 (see steps
5 and 6). In Figure 2, we show these two curves as
well as the intersection point, where the pair (γ, p∗ ),
which results in the ARL-unbiased t2 -chart, is lo-
cated. For this specific design, it is seen that the opti-
mal (γ, p∗ ) = (4.678, 0.00048) and, thus, using Equa-
tion (5), we obtain the control limits of the ARL-
χ22r,γp∗ χ24,4.678·0.00048 0.06856
LCL = = = ,
2λ0 2λ0 λ0
χ22r,1−p∗ χ24,1−0.00048 10.0436
UCL = = = ,
2λ0 2λ0 λ0
rate parameter.
In case of the tr -chart with runs rules, the ap-
proach to finding the ARL-unbiased design is similar.
What is needed here of course is the ARL function of
the control chart. For that purpose, a Markov chain
method, similar to the one employed by Antzoulakos

Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017 www.asq.org

284 N. KUMAR, S. CHAKRABORTI, AND A. C. RAKITZIS
and Rakitzis (2008) can be used. A brief description
of this method can be found in Appendix A, along
with the analytical expressions for the ARL of the tr -
chart with the runs rules considered here. The seven
steps of the previously described algorithm for find-
ing the ARL-unbiased chart remain the same, only
the ARL function must be the one that corresponds
to the control chart under study. Note that the ARL
expressions depend on the values of k and m that
define the runs rule under consideration.
4. Numerical Results
In this section, we present the results of a numer-
ical study regarding the statistical design and per-
formance of the proposed two-sided, ARL-unbiased
tr -charts. The considered schemes are
{1/1, 1/1}, {2/2, 2/2}, {1/1, 2/2}, {3/3, 3/3},
{1/1, 3/3}, {2/3, 2/3}, {1/1, 2/3}, {3/4, 3/4},
{1/1, 3/4}, {M :2/3, M :2/3}, {1/1, M :2/3},
{M :3/4, M :3/4}, {1/1, M :3/4}.
Among these, note that the {1/1, 1/1} denotes the
ordinary ARL-unbiased tr -chart that gives an OOC
signal when a single point is plotted beyond the
(modified) control limits (UCL and LCL). In a sim-
ilar manner, the {1/1, 3/4} tr -chart gives an OOC
signal if a single point is plotted above the UCL or
if 3-out-of-4 consecutive points are plotted below the
LCL. All the remaining schemes are defined analo-
gously (see also Section 3).
Concerning the value of r, we considered r ∈ {1, 2,
3, 4}, and the desired nominal IC ARL value was set
equal to 370.4. However, due to space constraints, we
provide the ARL performance of the control charts
only for r ∈ {3, 4}. Our numerical analysis revealed
a similar pattern regarding the ARL performance of
the considered control charts for r = 1 and 2. The
complete study is available from the authors on re-
quest. Also, without any loss of generality, we assume
that λ0 = 1. In Tables 1 and 2, we present the ARL
profiles for the schemes 1–4. The ARL values for the
runs rules enhanced charts were evaluated using the
Markov chain technique of Antzoulakos and Rakitzis
(2008) (see also Appendix A). The first column in
each of Tables 1 and 2 refers to the shift δ in λ0 ,
where the boldfaced entries in any column indicate
the lowest OOC ARL value. The values of (γ, p∗ ) as
well as the respective control limits LCL and UCL for
each of the studied schemes, are given in the last four
rows of Tables 1 and 2, using a five-decimal accuracy.
Journal of Quality Technology
They were evaluated by using the methodology de-
scribed in Subsection 3.1. Finally, we considered the
upward shifts
δ ∈ {1.1, 1.2, . . . , 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 5.0, 10.0}
and the downward shifts
δ ∈ {0.95, 0.90, 0.80, . . . , 0.10, 0.01}.
It can be seen from Table 1 that the {M :3/4,
M :3/4} t3 -chart is the one that attains the lowest
OOC ARL value for δ ∈ [0.60, 5). For larger de-
creasing shifts (i.e., δ ∈ (0.01, 0.40]), the best scheme
is the {1/1, M :3/4} t3 -chart, whereas for very large
increasing shifts (i.e., δ > 10.0), the {1/1, 1/1} t3 -
chart is recommended. Also, for δ = 5.0 and 10.0,
the chart that attains the lowest OOC ARL value is
the {M :2/3, M :2/3} t3 -chart. For the performance
of the various t4 -charts, with or without runs rules,
almost exactly the same conclusions are drawn from
Table 2.
In summary, from the results in Tables 1 and 2, we
may propose, as a general guideline for practitioners,
the use of the tr -chart to monitor TBE data with a
larger value for r, say r = 4, supplemented with a
modified k-of-m runs rule. According to Xie et al.
(2002b), r should not be too large and would depend
on how long one can reasonably wait in a given con-
text before a decision is to be made. Note also that,
as the value of r increases, a further decrease in the
OOC ARL is achieved while the range of shifts, for
which the {M :k/m, M :k/m} scheme attains the low-
est ARL1 value, becomes narrower. For small to mod-
erate shifts, upward (i.e., 1.0 < δ ≤ 3.0) or downward
(i.e., 0.6 ≤ δ < 1.0), the modified runs rule should be
used on both sides of the chart, whereas, for larger
decreasing shifts (i.e., δ < 0.6), the modified runs
rule is effective only on the lower side of it. For very
large increasing shifts (i.e., δ ≥ 10), the {1/1, 1/1}
chart is recommended by taking also into account its
simplicity in use and interpretation.
In order to further highlight the effectiveness of
the proposed schemes, we provide in Table 3 a com-
parison between (i) the {1/1, 1/1} ARL-unbiased tr -
chart, (ii) the ARL-unbiased {M :3/4, M :3/4} charts
for r ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}, (iii) the two-sided exponential
CUSUM chart (Gan (1994)), and (iv) the two-sided
exponential EWMA chart (Gan (1998)). A brief de-
scription about the operation and the statistical de-
sign of these last two control charts can be found
in Appendix B. Note that the comparison with the
CUSUM and EWMA charts of Ozsan et al. (2010)
Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017
 TABLE 1. ARL Profiles of the ARL-Unbiased tr -Chart Using Schemes 1–4, when r = 3

δ {1/1, 1/1} {2/2, 2/2} {1/1, 2/2} {3/3, 3/3} {1/1, 3/3} {2/3, 2/3} {1/1, 2/3} {3/4, 3/4} {1/1, 3/4} {M:2/3, M:2/3} {1/1, M:2/3} {M:3/4, M:3/4} {1/1, M:3/4}

Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017

10.0 2.22 2.05 2.05 3.00 3.00 2.07 2.08 3.01 3.01 2.05 2.06 3.00 3.00
5.0 7.75 3.16 3.18 3.38 3.40 3.22 3.26 3.40 3.42 3.02 3.06 3.30 3.32
3.0 25.24 8.36 8.49 6.24 6.33 8.33 8.56 6.09 6.25 7.36 7.58 5.50 5.65
2.5 39.88 13.90 14.16 9.53 9.72 13.69 14.14 9.17 9.51 11.93 12.35 8.07 8.37
2.0 71.18 28.94 29.57 19.14 19.67 28.21 29.31 18.15 19.06 24.52 25.55 15.70 16.49
1.5 153.99 87.74 89.97 63.58 65.89 85.12 89.02 59.91 63.97 76.78 80.62 53.19 56.91
1.4 185.74 117.19 120.19 89.00 92.35 113.80 119.07 84.04 89.98 104.33 109.62 75.86 81.43
1.3 226.77 160.94 164.88 129.93 134.76 156.64 163.66 123.29 132.02 146.55 153.79 113.78 122.22
1.2 278.71 226.05 230.60 197.18 203.41 221.21 229.51 189.05 200.76 212.12 220.98 179.51 191.29
1.1 336.73 312.94 315.99 297.85 302.54 309.65 315.47 291.68 301.14 304.99 311.44 286.18 296.13

1.0 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40

0.95 357.27 348.62 350.37 343.53 346.10 346.59 350.20 339.81 345.67 344.91 348.93 338.00 344.17
0.90 316.08 288.23 294.27 274.42 282.34 281.16 293.76 262.83 281.19 276.41 290.16 258.52 277.35
0.80 186.97 145.50 155.19 131.65 141.60 133.88 154.55 115.89 140.41 128.63 150.31 112.45 136.61
0.70 85.67 62.64 68.21 57.31 61.62 54.95 67.89 47.54 61.06 52.38 65.81 46.18 59.33
0.60 36.03 27.32 29.14 26.35 26.62 23.42 29.01 21.33 26.41 22.36 28.22 20.86 25.76
0.50 15.23 12.84 12.79 13.37 11.89 11.02 12.74 10.90 11.82 10.59 12.46 10.75 11.59
0.40 6.74 6.67 5.91 7.62 5.60 5.85 5.90 6.42 5.58 5.68 5.80 6.38 5.50
0.30 3.22 3.91 2.95 4.92 2.85 3.56 2.95 4.37 2.84 3.50 2.91 4.37 2.81
0.20 1.73 2.64 1.66 3.64 1.63 2.51 1.65 3.43 1.62 2.49 1.64 3.44 1.62
0.10 1.13 2.11 1.12 3.10 1.11 2.09 1.12 3.07 1.11 2.08 1.12 3.07 1.11
0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00

γ 3.55673 1.48543 47.91698 1.20413 114.1208 1.54157 34.07919 1.24594 79.84048 1.48354 36.7671 1.21433 87.16344
p∗ 0.00059 0.02958 0.00090 0.10359 0.00108 0.02070 0.00091 0.07218 0.00109 0.02454 0.00096 0.08492 0.00114

UCL* 11.8559 7.00252 11.3545 5.27122 11.1369 7.4718 11.3414 5.78692 11.1259 7.2491 11.2776 5.55694 11.0722
IMPROVED SHEWHART-TYPE CHARTS FOR MONITORING TIMES BETWEEN EVENTS

LCL* 0.24739 0.77531 0.76941 1.21935 1.21257 0.68134 0.67363 1.05108 1.03592 0.71830 0.70941 1.11744 1.09892

www.asq.org
285
 286

TABLE 2. ARL Profiles of the ARL-Unbiased tr -Chart Using Schemes 1–4, when r = 4

δ {1 / 1, 1 / 1} {2 / 2, 2 /2} {1 / 1, 2 / 2} {3 /3, 3 / 3} {1 / 1, 3 / 3} {2 / 3, 2 / 3} {1 / 1, 2 / 3} {3 / 4, 3 / 4} {1 / 1, 3 / 4} {M:2/3, M:2/3} {1/1, M:2/3} {M:3/4, M:3/4} {1/1, M:3/4}

10.0 1.31 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.01 2.01 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
5.0 3.78 2.39 2.41 3.09 3.10 2.43 2.45 3.11 3.12 2.35 2.37 3.08 3.09

Journal of Quality Technology

3.0 13.58 5.17 5.25 4.56 4.62 5.14 5.27 4.47 4.56 4.69 4.81 4.18 4.27
2.5 23.12 8.42 8.60 6.51 6.64 8.28 8.54 6.26 6.46 7.37 7.62 5.68 5.86
2.0 46.25 18.10 18.57 12.60 13.00 17.52 18.25 11.87 12.46 15.35 16.03 10.45 10.97
1.5 119.48 63.00 65.06 44.97 47.05 60.59 63.79 41.85 45.00 54.23 57.36 37.02 39.91
1.4 151.06 88.43 91.41 65.60 68.84 85.16 89.81 61.20 66.15 77.35 81.99 54.86 5 9.49
1.3 194.41 129.04 133.36 101.33 106.47 124.67 131.49 95.05 103.08 115.53 122.51 86.96 94.68
1.2 253.43 195.41 201.11 166.07 173.74 190.05 199.27 157.62 170.05 180.77 190.56 148.40 160.84
1.1 325.36 295.64 300.20 277.49 284.58 291.50 299.20 270.02 282.33 285.93 294.50 263.65 276.65

1.0 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40

0.95 352.54 341.19 344.11 334.61 339.08 338.50 343.78 329.76 338.38 336.35 342.30 327.48 336.67
0.90 299.25 265.97 275.18 250.12 262.68 257.61 274.32 236.88 261.04 252.24 270.58 232.14 257.19
0.80 155.97 117.01 128.89 104.74 117.81 106.47 128.07 90.86 116.49 101.81 124.67 87.84 113.53
0.70 64.54 46.26 52.23 42.32 47.65 40.37 51.88 34.91 47.12 38.34 50.47 33.80 45.96
0.60 25.67 19.48 21.31 19.01 19.72 16.77 21.19 15.51 19.53 15.98 20.70 15.12 19.14
0.50 10.62 9.19 9.17 9.80 8.64 8.00 9.13 8.17 8.58 7.69 8.97 8.04 8.44
0.40 4.75 4.96 4.28 5.86 4.10 4.46 4.26 5.11 4.08 4.33 4.21 5.07 4.03
0.30 2.38 3.12 2.23 4.08 2.17 2.92 2.23 3.76 2.17 2.87 2.21 3.75 2.15
0.20 1.41 2.32 1.37 3.29 1.35 2.26 1.36 3.20 1.35 2.24 1.36 3.20 1.34
0.10 1.05 2.03 1.05 3.03 1.04 2.03 1.05 3.02 1.04 2.03 1.05 3.02 1.04
N. KUMAR, S. CHAKRABORTI, AND A. C. RAKITZIS

0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00

γ 3.00577 1.40714 43.05393 1.17367 105.3147 1.45328 30.48374 1.20879 73.32091 1.40605 33.12152 1.18238 80.54894
p∗ 0.00067 0.03068 0.00098 0.10525 0.00115 0.02155 0.00099 0.07358 0.00117 0.02544 0.00104 0.08633 0.00122

UCL* 13.5675 8.47283 13.0878 6.59848 12.8848 8.97858 13.075 7.16456 12.8629 8.74233 13.0125 6.91455 12.8096
LCL* 0.51976 1.30076 1.2909 1.88962 1.87534 1.17112 1.15724 1.67129 1.64952 1.22268 1.20776 1.75812 1.73353

Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017

 TABLE 3. ARL Profiles for Various TBE Control Charts, ARL0 = 370.4

Exponential Exponential
{1/ 1, 1/ 1} CUSUM EWMA {M :3/ 4, M :3/ 4}

Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017

ϑ λ r=1 r=2 r=3 r=4 (0.3, 3.0) (0.5, 5.0) λ∗ = 1/ 0.3 λ∗ = 1/ 3 r=1 r=2 r=3 r=4

0.30 3.33333 125.13 44.93 19.53 10.15 10.14 10.94 10.34 10.66 24.17 7.60 4.66 3.72
0.50 2.00000 208.21 117.58 71.18 46.25 26.29 36.51 24.00 22.12 76.70 28.74 15.70 10.45
0.60 1.66667 249.67 166.77 115.77 83.87 48.80 69.23 42.23 37.04 122.60 55.61 32.39 21.74
0.70 1.42857 290.53 224.15 175.82 141.01 94.34 127.10 80.05 69.63 185.05 104.45 68.21 48.72
0.80 1.25000 328.60 287.05 251.39 221.80 179.69 218.53 157.28 143.63 262.20 187.33 142.12 112.58
0.90 1.11111 358.31 344.40 330.56 317.38 305.55 326.44 296.69 287.90 336.99 302.10 272.70 247.93
0.95 1.05263 367.20 363.34 359.30 355.26 357.12 361.83 357.58 355.67 361.54 350.92 340.68 330.93

1.00 1.00000 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40 371.02 367.11 373.16 369.15 370.40 370.40 370.40 370.40

1.05 0.95238 366.97 362.83 358.53 354.24 340.12 340.74 336.36 318.48 361.62 351.08 340.92 331.24
1.10 0.90909 356.56 340.86 325.51 311.10 282.82 294.30 266.24 246.27 337.67 303.32 274.47 250.23
1.20 0.83333 317.57 269.44 231.30 201.48 171.87 195.57 155.27 135.64 266.95 194.97 151.59 123.00
1.50 0.66667 165.57 95.60 64.41 47.41 47.00 58.89 43.39 38.05 108.92 54.32 34.96 25.38
1.80 0.55556 81.43 39.39 24.49 17.21 21.90 26.49 20.96 18.92 53.74 24.18 15.28 11.18
2.00 0.50000 54.37 24.94 15.23 10.62 15.64 18.26 15.03 13.82 37.79 16.78 10.75 8.04
3.00 0.33333 14.84 6.55 4.07 2.95 6.51 6.76 6.21 6.06 13.94 6.77 4.88 4.08

γ 8.13667 4.67800 3.55673 3.00577 1.40667 1.27040 1.21433 1.18238

p∗ 0.00030 0.00048 0.00059 0.00067 0.07693 0.08249 0.08492 0.08633
ρ 0.201 0.149
hQ 2.35 2.05
hq 0.36 0.43
k+ 1.648 2.012
h+ 6.80 5.61
IMPROVED SHEWHART-TYPE CHARTS FOR MONITORING TIMES BETWEEN EVENTS

k− 0.516 0.402
h− 2.13 1.29

www.asq.org
287
288 N. KUMAR, S. CHAKRABORTI, AND A. C. RAKITZIS
and Zhang et al. (2014) is not done here because
those are for the unknown parameter case.
Table 3 consists of the ARL values for the above
mentioned control charts (i)–(iv), when the rate pa-
rameter is of the form λ = 1/θ, with
θ ∈ {0.3, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 1.0, 1.05, 1.1, 1.2,
1.5, 1.8, 2.0, 3.0}.
When λ = θ = 1, the process is IC. It is worth men-
tioning that the values θ < 1 (θ > 1) correspond
to process deterioration (improvement) because then
λ > 1 (λ < 1) (see also, Section 2) and the mean time
between events increases (decreases). We considered
only the {M :3/4, M :3/4} chart because it has been
proven to be the best scheme for a wide range of
shifts. Its ARL values were evaluated via the Markov
chain technique of Antzoulakos and Rakitzis (2008),
while, for the {1/1, 1/1} tr -chart, we used the for-
mula
ARL(r, δ, γ, p∗ )
1 mend the use of this control chart in practice because
=
1 + Fχ22r (δχ22r,γp∗ ) − Fχ24 (δχ22r,1−p∗ )
for appropriate values of γ and p∗ .
Concerning the two-sided exponential CUSUM
and EWMA charts, we used the values from Liu et
al. (2006) for their design parameters, slightly mod-
ified in order to achieve the desired IC ARL value
(i.e., 370.4) as well as ARL-unbiased performance.
Their ARL profiles were evaluated via Monte Carlo
simulation (25,000 iterations).
The values of the design parameters for each chart
are provided in the lowest part of Table 3. More
specifically, ρ ∈ (0, 1] is the smoothing parameter
of the two-sided exponential EWMA chart, whereas
hQ , hq are its upper and lower control limit, respec-
tively. This chart has been designed to be optimal
in detecting an OOC value λ∗ equal to 1/0.3 or 1/3.
The ARL profiles are given in the columns labeled
“λ∗ = 1/0.3” and “λ∗ = 1/3”, respectively.
Also, the two-sided exponential CUSUM chart
consists of two one-sided CUSUM charts that are
run simultaneously, one for detecting increases in λ,
whereas the other for detecting decreases in λ. Thus,
k− , h− (resp. k+ , h+ ) are the reference values and
the decision intervals, respectively, for the upward
(downward) CUSUM chart. The upward chart is de-
signed to be optimal in detecting an OOC value λ∗
equal to 1/0.3 or 1/0.5 whereas, for the downward
chart, the considered OOC values λ∗ are 1/3 and 1/5,
Journal of Quality Technology
respectively. The same values were chosen by Liu et
al. (2006). The ARL performance of the two two-
sided exponential CUSUM charts is shown in Table
3. The first consists of two one-sided CUSUM charts,
the first optimized for λ∗ = 1/0.3 and the other
for λ∗ = 1/3 (column labeled “(0.3,3.0)”) while, for
the second, the two one-sided CUSUM charts are
optimized for λ∗ = 1/0.5 and 1/5 (column labeled
“(0.5,5.0)”).
Table 3 reveals that the {M :3/4, M :3/4} t4 -chart
attains the lowest OOC ARL value for almost all
OOC cases. Except when θ = 1.05 and 1.1, the
{M :3/4, M :3/4} t4 -chart outperforms the two-sided
CUSUM and EWMA control charts. Moreover, the
numerical comparisons in Table 3 show that the pro-
posed ARL-unbiased tr -chart with runs rules, for
r ∈ {3, 4}, performs better than the CUSUM and the
EWMA charts. Clearly, for shifts other than θ = 1.05
and 1.1, there is at least one {M :3/4, M :3/4} tr -
chart that attains a lower OOC ARL value than
the CUSUM and EWMA charts. Thus, we recom-
it is not hard to design, implement, and interpret,
whereas it has an increased sensitivity in detection
of small and moderate shifts in the mean TBE.
However, it should be mentioned that, as was ex-
pected, for small process shifts, i.e., θ ∈ {0.8, 0.9, . . . ,
1.2}, the ARL values of all charts in Table 3 are very
large (more than 100), including the CUSUM and
the EWMA charts, as well as the {M :3/4, M :3/4}
tr -chart, r ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}. Similar results are seen for
all runs rules enhanced charts in Tables 1 and 2. This
fact may be attributed to the skewness of the distri-
bution of the time between events.
As already mentioned in the Introduction, the
two-sided exponential CUSUM and EWMA charts,
although appealing in some cases, can be quite com-
plicated and intimidating to implement in practice
because of the number of parameters that should
be determined (tuned) in order to have, e.g., ARL-
unbiased performance. For the exponential two-sided
CUSUM and EWMA charts, four and three design
parameters must be determined, respectively, which
requires further knowledge about the process. On the
contrary, the proposed runs rules enhanced tr -charts
require the determination of a pair of control limits,
which are obtained from a system of two (nonlinear)
equations with two unknown parameters, which can
be solved readily. Clearly, this is an advantage of the
proposed charting schemes. Finally, to the best of the
authors’ knowledge, there is no available study about
Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017
 IMPROVED SHEWHART-TYPE CHARTS FOR MONITORING TIMES BETWEEN EVENTS 289

two-sided ARL-unbiased TBE CUSUM or EWMA change in the mean TBE; an increase (which means
control charts and this constitutes a subject for fur- process improvement) or a decrease (process dete-
ther research. rioration). Also, among the various control charts,
apart from the {1/1, 1/1} t4 -chart, we consider the
5. An Illustrative Example {M :3/4, M :3/4} t4 -chart, which has been proven to
be the best chart for a wide range of small and mod-
In this section, we use the data from Table 6 of
erate shifts, both upward and downward. These two
Zhang et al. (2006) (see also Jarrett (1979)) in order
charts are both ARL unbiased and the IC ARL value
to illustrate the application of the proposed chart-
is equal to 370.4.
ing schemes. The data consist of the time intervals
in days between explosions in coal mines (i.e., the From Table 2, the control limits (see also Equation
events) from 15 March 1981 to 22 March 1962 (190 (5)) of the ARL-unbiased {1/1, 1/1} t4 -chart are seen
observations in total) in Great Britain. As in Zhang to be equal to LCL = 63.95, UCL = 1669.28 with CL
et al. (2006), we consider the first m = 30 observa- = 451.79. For the ARL-unbiased {M :3/4, M :3/4} t4 -
tions to be from an in-control process, from which chart, they are found to be LCL = 217.13 and UCL =
we estimate that λ̂0 ≈ 0.0081 (or, equivalently, the 853.92, with CL = 451.79. The two charting schemes
mean TBE is, approximately, 123 days). In the se- are shown in Figures 3 and 4, where the y-axis is
quel, we assume that this is the true in-control value in the logarithmic scale for better visualization. The
λ0 . Because our numerical analysis showed that r = 4 control limits for the ARL-unbiased {1/1, 1/1} t4 -
is the best choice, we apply the t4 -chart, with or chart are denoted as “LCL-1/1” and “UCL-1/1”
without the runs rules for these data. Thus, the re- whereas, for the ARL-unbiased {M :3/4, M :3/4} t4 -
maining 160 observations are first converted by accu- chart, they are denoted as “RRL-M3/4” and “RRU-
mulating a set of four consecutive failure times, and M3/4”.
the corresponding observations are shown in Table 4.
These are the times until the fourth failure and are As it can be seen from Figures 3 and 4, both
used for monitoring the process in order to detect a charts raise an alarm. The ARL-unbiased {1/1, 1/1}
t4 -chart gives an OOC signal for the first time at
TABLE 4. Times Between Events Data, r = 4 sample 27 while the ARL-unbiased {M :3/4, M :3/4}
t4 -chart gives an OOC signal for the first time at sam-
Failure Failure ple 26, because 3-out-of-4 consecutive points are plot-
number Days number Days ted above the UCL and the intermediate point (i.e.,
point 24) is plotted between CL and UCL. It should
1 426 21 557 be mentioned that these OOC signals indicate an in-
2 605 22 260 crease in the mean time between events or, equiv-
3 795 23 872 alently, a process improvement, because the events
4 315 24 684 (mine explosions) now seem to occur less frequently.
5 373 25 1,334 The results are consistent with the ones found in
6 414 26 1,575 Zhang et al. (2006).
7 300 27 2,030
8 274 28 1,126 For the sake of completeness, we show, in Figures 5
9 222 29 762 and 6, respectively, the ARL-unbiased {1/1, 1/1} and
10 392 30 1,480 {M :3/4, M :3/4} tr -charts for r = 1, for the complete
11 842 31 3,020 data set. The appropriate values of γ and p∗ were
12 504 32 2,731 taken from Table 3 and, with the aid of Equation
13 416 33 632 (5), the control limits are found to be LCL = 0.3007,
14 272 34 730 UCL = 998.02 for the ARL-unbiased {1/1, 1/1} t1 -
15 228 35 991 chart and LCL = 42.79, UCL = 266.61 for the ARL-
16 390 36 1,323 unbiased {M :3/4, M :3/4} t1 -chart, respectively.
17 527 37 495
18 494 38 1,962 During the monitoring of the remaining 160 obser-
19 548 39 271 vations (in phase II), both charting schemes show an
20 501 40 5,308 OOC signal. The ARL-unbiased {1/1, 1/1} t1 -chart
signals for the first time at the 104th time point after

Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017 www.asq.org

290 N. KUMAR, S. CHAKRABORTI, AND A. C. RAKITZIS

FIGURE 3. The ARL-Unbiased {1/1, 1/1} t4 -Chart for the Data in Table 4.

FIGURE 4. The ARL-Unbiased {M:3/4, M:3/4} t4 -Chart for the Data in Table 4.

Journal of Quality Technology Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017

 IMPROVED SHEWHART-TYPE CHARTS FOR MONITORING TIMES BETWEEN EVENTS 291

FIGURE 5. The ARL-Unbiased {1/1, 1/1} t1 -Chart for the Data in Table 6 of Zhang et al. (2006).

FIGURE 6. The ARL-Unbiased {M:3/4, M:3/4} t1 -Chart for the Data in Table 6 of Zhang et al. (2006).

Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017 www.asq.org

292 N. KUMAR, S. CHAKRABORTI, AND A. C. RAKITZIS
the beginning of phase II analysis, whereas the ARL-
unbiased {M :3/4, M :3/4} t1 -chart triggers an OOC
signal at exactly the 54th time point since phase II
monitoring started. Note that the latter signal in-
dicates a process deterioration because the required
number of points is plotted below the LCL. Espe-
cially, at time point 80, which corresponds to obser-
vation 50 of the phase II analysis, the value is equal
to zero and thus cannot be depicted in the chart be-
cause the y-axis is in the logarithmic scale. According
to Jarrett (1979), on this day, there were two explo-
sions; Zhang et al. (2006) considered this point as a
false alarm. Moreover, in case of the {M :3/4, M :3/4}
t1 -chart, it is worth mentioning that an OOC signal
is not given at sample 18 even though 3 out of 4
consecutive points are plotted below the LCL. The
reason is that the intermediate point 16 is not plotted
between the CL and the LCL.
Note that Klein (2000b) (see also Zhang et al.
(2006)) mentioned that detecting an increase in
the mean TBE (process improvement) can be effec-
tively done by using either a two-sided ARL-biased
chart (e.g., based on probability limits) or an ARL-
unbiased tr -chart and the performance of the latter is
comparable (if not slightly worse) to the performance
of the former in case of detecting decreasing shifts in
λ. However, the ARL-biased chart will have poor per-
formance in the detection of decreases in the mean
TBE (process deterioration) while the ARL-unbiased
charts are much more sensitive for that type of shift.
So, because in practice the type (direction) of
shift to be detected is usually not known a pri-
ori, we recommend practitioners use the two-sided
ARL-unbiased control chats, even though they may
be slightly worse than their two-sided ARL-biased
counterparts in the detection of process deteriora-
tion. Finally, if the direction of the shift is known,
then the use of one-sided control charts for TBE is
suggested. They have better performance than their
two-sided counterparts because the problem of ARL-
biased performance does not exist in the one-sided
case.
6. Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we incorporated runs rules into the
two-sided tr -charts of Xie et al. (2002b) in order to
enhance their ability to detect small and moderate
shifts, downward or upward, while monitoring the
mean time between events (TBE). Thus, we general-
ized the works of Cheng and Chen (2011) and Rak-
itzis (2016) on the unbiased t1 -chart to the tr -chart
Journal of Quality Technology
for r ≥ 2, proposed by Xie et al. (2002b), with or
without the runs rules. The proposed charts attain
the desired nominal IC ARL value and are ARL un-
biased. Based on our results, for small and moder-
ate upward or downward shifts (i.e., δ ∈ (0.5, 3.0]),
the tr -chart supplemented with the {M :3/4, M :3/4}
scheme is recommended while, for larger decreasing
shifts (i.e., δ < 0.5), the {1/1, M :3/4} chart is the
recommended one. By increasing the value of r, im-
proved chart performance can be achieved and, as a
practical guidance, we suggest using r = 4.
Several future research topics maybe of interest
as a follow-up. First, one can consider studying the
charts in the estimated parameter case. The effects
of parameter estimation on the performance of the
control charts is an important topic and has recently
drawn a lot of interest in the literature because the
assumption of known IC parameter values is a strong
one. In this context, phase I issues need to be studied,
along with the conditional performance of the pro-
posed charts. Another future area of work would be
using the proposed TBE charts with censored data.
This type of data is common in the reliability and
survival analysis contexts where the TBE charts have
some special significance. Other probability models
for the TBE data (e.g., Weibull times) can be also
considered. Moreover, the ARL-unbiased design of
CUSUM and EWMA TBE charts is a topic that is
worth investigation. Finally, all the calculations were
performed in MATLAB-R2014a and the programs
are available from the authors on request.
Appendix A
In this appendix, we provide details on the eval-
uation of the ARL for the proposed tr -charts with
runs rules. For this purpose, the Markov chain em-
bedding technique established in Antzoulakos and
Rakitzis (2008) was employed. Further details on the
technique can be found in Fu and Koutras (1994),
Antzoulakos (2001), and Fu and Lou (2003).
Let us consider a two-sided tr -chart where we de-
fine the following four regions: one extending above
the UCL (region 1), one between the CL and the
UCL (region 2), one between the LCL and the CL
(region 3), and one extending below the LCL (re-
gion 4). The probability that a single point (charting
statistic) falls in regions 1, 2, 3, and 4 is denoted as
p1 , p2 , p3 , and p4 , respectively. For an OOC value
λ1 = δλ0 (0 < δ = 1) and with the aid of Equation
Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017
 IMPROVED SHEWHART-TYPE CHARTS FOR MONITORING TIMES BETWEEN EVENTS 293

TABLE A1. States of the Embedded Markov Chain
State Sub-pattern
1 {2, 3}
2 4
3 43
4 44
5 434
6 443
7 {1, 444, 4344, 4434}
(5), it is not difficult to verify that
p1 = p1 (δ) = 1 − Fχ22r (δχ22r;γp∗ ),
p2 = p2 (δ) = Fχ22r (δχ22r;γp∗ ) − Fχ22r (δχ22r;0.5 ),
p3 = p3 (δ) = Fχ22r (δχ22r;0.5 ) − Fχ22r (δχ22r;1−p∗ ),
p4 = p4 (δ) = Fχ22r (δχ22r;1−p∗ ).
Next, let {Yt , t ≥ 1} be a sequence of i.i.d. trials,
taking values in the set A = {1, 2, 3, 4} and let
p1 = P (Yi = 1),
p2 = P (Yi = 2),
p3 = P (Yi = 3),
p4 = P (Yi = 4).
Consider the compound pattern E = {1, 444, 4344,
4434} and denote by N the waiting time for the first
occurrence of E. Then, the run-length distribution of
the {1/1, M :3/4} tr -chart coincides with the wait-
ing time distribution N of the compound pattern E
and, consequently, the expected value of N is the
ARL of the chart. Using the Markov chain technique
of Antzoulakos and Rakitzis (2008), we decompose
the pattern E to the following seven blocks (subpat-
terns). These blocks define the states of an embedded
Markov chain {Wt , t ≥ 1} and are labeled as in Table
A1.
Thus, the Markov chain {Wt , t ≥ 1} operates on
Yt , t ≥ 1, as follows: (a) the state 7 is the absorbing
state and (b) we assign to Wt the value  (2 ≤  ≤
6) if the maximum ending block of the first t trials
Y1 , Y2 , . . . , Yt (counting backward) is identified to be
the block corresponding to the label ; otherwise, we
assign to Wt the value one. The above definitions
establish the discrete-time Markov chain {Wt , t ≥ 1}
with a one-step transition probability matrix given
by
 
Q (I − Q)1
P=
0 1
⎡ ⎤
p2 + p3 p4 0 0 0 0 p1
⎢ p2 0 p4 p3 0 0 p1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ p2 0 0 0 0 p3 p1 + p4 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢ p2 + p3 0 0 0 p4 0 p1 ⎥ ,
⎢ ⎥
⎢ p2 0 0 p3 0 0 p1 + p4 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
p2 + p3 0 0 0 0 0 p1 + p4
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
where Q is the transition probability matrix between
the transient states of the embedding Markov chain,
I is the 6 × 6 identity matrix, and 1 denotes the row
vector of R6 with all its entries equal to 1. Thus,
the ARL of the {1/1, M :3/4} tr -chart is given by the
formula
ARL = E(N | δ, γ, p∗ ) = e1 (I − Q)1 ,
where ei is the ith unit row vector of R6 . It is noted
that a general form for Q cannot be derived and it
depends on the particular runs rule (i.e., the values
of k and m) that is applied on the chart. After some
straightforward but necessary algebraic calculations,
we get that the ARL of this chart is equal to
ARL
= 1 + p4 + (1 + p3 )p24 − p3 (1 + p3 )p34
÷ [1 + p3 (−1 + p4 (−1 + p3 p4 (−1 + p3 p4 )))
+ p2 (−1 + p4 (−1 + (1 + p3 )p4 (−1 + p3 p4 )))].
In Table A2, we provide a list of ARL expressions for
the proposed tr -charts with runs rules. These formu-
las can be directly used for determining the design
parameters (i.e., γ, p∗ ) of each chart by employing
the algorithm described in Subsection 3.1. We also
mention the ARL expression of the {3/4, 3/4} con-
trol chart is omitted because it is rather lengthy and
cumbersome for practical use.
Appendix B
In this appendix, we provide the charting statis-
tics and the operations of the two-sided exponential
CUSUM and EWMA charts. More details on these
charts can be found in Gan (1994, 1998) and Liu et
al. (2006).
Two-Sided Exponential CUSUM Chart
The two-sided exponential CUSUM chart consists
of two separate one-sided CUSUM charts: The first
one is an upward CUSUM, which is suitable for de-
tecting increases in the mean time between events
(i.e., process improvement), while the second one is
a downward CUSUM and it is suitable for detect-
ing decreases in the mean time between events (i.e.,

Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017 www.asq.org

 294

TABLE A2. ARL Expressions for the Proposed tr -Charts with Runs Rules

Journal of Quality Technology

Chart ARL = E(N | δ, γ, p∗ )

(1 − pk1 )(1 − pk4 )

{k /k , k /k }
(1 − pk1 )(1 − pk4 )(1 − p2 − p3 ) − (p1 − pk1 )(1 − pk4 ) − (p4 − pk4 )(1 − pk1 )
1 − pk4
{1 / 1, k /k }
1 − p4 − (p2 + p3 )(1 − pk4 )
1 + (1 + p2 + p3 )p4 − p21 (p2 + p3 )(2 + p2 + p3 )p24 + p1 (1 + p2 + p3 + p4 (2 + (p2 + p3 )(2 + p2 + p3 )))
{2 / 3, 2 / 3}
1 − p2 (1 + p1 p2 ) − p3 (1 + 2p1 p2 ) − p1 p23 − p4 (p2 + p3 )(p2 + p3 + p1 (2 + p2 (1 + p2 ) + p3 (1 + 2p2 + p3 ))) + p21 (p2 + p3 )2 (1 + p2 + p3 )p24
1 + p4 (1 + p2 + p3 )
{1 / 1, 2 / 3}
1 − (p2 + p3 )(1 + p4 (p2 + p3 ))
p54 + 2p44 p1 − 3p44 + p34 p21 − 3p34 p1 + 3p34 + p24 p1 − 2p24 − p4 − 1
{1 / 1, 3 / 4} 6 5 5
p4 + 3p4 p1 − 3p4 + 3p44 p21 − 6p44 p1 + 4p44 + p34 p31 − 3p34 p21 + 5p34 p1 − 3p34 + p24 p21 − 2p24 p1 − p4 p1 − p1
(1 + p1 (1 + p2 ))(1 + p4 (1 + p3 ))
{M :2 / 3, M :2 / 3}
1 − p2 (1 + p1 p2 ) − p3 ((1 + p1 ) + p1 p2 ) − p4 (p2 + p3 (p2 + p3 ) + p1 (1 + p3 + (1 + p2 )(p2 (1 + p3 ) + p23 )))
1 + p4 (1 + p3 )
{1/ 1, M :2 / 3}
1 − p2 − p3 − p4 (p2 + p3 (p2 + p3 ))
−1
p31 (−1 + p2 (−2 + p1 + p1 p2 ))) / (−1 + p1 (−1 + p1 (1 + p2 )(−1 + p1 p2 ))) + (p34 (−1 + p3 (−2 + p4 + p3 p4 ))
{M :3 / 4, M :3 / 4}
−1 + p4 (−1 + p4 (1 + p3 )(−1 + p3 p4 ))
N. KUMAR, S. CHAKRABORTI, AND A. C. RAKITZIS

1 + p4 + (1 + p3 )p24 − p3 (1 + p3 )p34
{1 / 1, M :3 / 4}
1 + p3 (−1 + p4 (−1 + p3 p4 (−1 + p3 p4 ))) + p2 (−1 + p4 (−1 + (1 + p3 )p4 (−1 + p3 p4 )))

Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017

 IMPROVED SHEWHART-TYPE CHARTS FOR MONITORING TIMES BETWEEN EVENTS
process deterioration). The charting statistics are, re-
spectively, given by
CSt− = max{0, CSt−1
−
− Xt + k− }, t ≥ 1,
CS0− = 0,
and
CSt+ = max{0, CSt−1
+
+ Xt − k+ }, t ≥ 1,
CS0+ = 0.
The two one-sided CUSUM charts are run simultane-
ously and an OOC signal is given when, for the first
time, one of the CSt− , CSt+ exceeds a specific value,
i.e., when CSt− > h− or CSt+ > h+ . The design pa-
rameters of the two-sided exponential CUSUM chart
are k− , k+ (the reference values) and h− , h+ (the de-
cision intervals). The reference value k (either k = k−
or k = k+ ) is determined by
ln λ1 − ln λ0
k= , Champ, C. W. and Woodall, W. H. (1987). “Exact Re-
λ1 − λ0
where λ1 is the OOC value of the failure rate λ that
has to be detected quickly. For the statistical design
of the two-sided CUSUM chart, four parameters (k− ,
k+ , h− , and h+ ) must be determined in order to have
the desired IC ARL performance.
Two-Sided Exponential EWMA Chart
The charting statistic for the two-sided exponen-
tial EWMA chart is given by
EWMAt = ρXt + (1 − ρ)EWMAt−1 , t ≥ 1,
EWMA0 = λ0 ,
where ρ ∈ [0, 1] is the smoothing parameter. An OOC
signal is trigged when, for the first time, EWMAt >
hQ or EWMAt < hq . The hQ , hq are the upper and
the lower control limits of the two-sided exponential
EWMA chart. For the statistical design of the two-
sided EWMA chart, three parameters ρ, hQ , and hq
must be determined, in order to have the desired IC
ARL performance.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the two anony-
mous referees for their insightful comments that have
significantly improved the manuscript.
References
Acosta-Mejia, C. A. (1998). “Monitoring Reduction in Vari-
ability with the Range”. IIE Transactions 30, pp. 515–523.
Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017
295
Acosta-Mejia, C. A. and Pignatiello, J. J. Jr. (2009).
“ARL-Design of S Charts with k-of-k Runs Rules”. Com-
munications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation 38,
pp. 1625–1639.
Antzoulakos, D. L. (2001). “Waiting Times for Patterns in
a Sequence of Multistate Trials”. Journal of Applied Proba-
bility 38, pp. 508–518.
Antzoulakos, D. L. and Rakitzis, A. C. (2008). “The
Modified r Out of m Control Chart”. Communications in
Statistics—Simulation and Computation 37, pp. 396–408.
Chan, L. Y.; Xie, M.; and Goh, T. N. (2000). “Cumulative
Quantity Control Charts for Monitoring Production Pro-
cesses”. International Journal of Production Research 38,
pp. 397–408.
Cheng, C. S. and Chen, P. W. (2011). “An ARL-Unbiased
Design of Time-Between-Events Control Charts with Runs
Rules”. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation
81, pp. 857–871.
Chen, P. W. and Cheng, C. S. (2011). “On Statistical De-
sign of the Cumulative Quantity Control Chart for Monitor-
ing High Yield Processes”. Communications in Statistics—
Theory and Methods 40, pp. 1911–1928.
sults for Shewhart Control Charts with Supplementary Runs
Rules”. Technometrics 29, pp. 393–399.
Dogu, E. (2012). “Monitoring Time Between Medical Errors
to Improve Health-Care Quality”. International Journal for
Quality Research 6, pp. 151–157.
Fang, Y. Y.; Khoo, M. B. C.; Teh, S. Y.; and Xie, M.
(2016). “Monitoring of Time-Between-Events with a Gener-
alized Group Runs Control Chart”. Quality and Reliability
Engineering International 32, pp. 767–781.
Fu, J. C. and Koutras, M. V. (1994). “Distribution Theory
of Runs: A Markov Chain Approach”. Journal of the Amer-
ican Statistical Association 89, pp. 1050–1058.
Fu, J. C. and Lou, W. Y. W. (2003). Distribution Theory of
Runs and Patterns and Its Applications. Singapore: World
Scientific.
Fu, J. C.; Spiring, F. A.; and Xie, H. (2002). “On the Aver-
age Run Lengths of Quality Control Schemes Using a Markov
Chain Approach”. Statistics and Probability Letters 56, pp.
369– 380.
Gan, F. F. (1994). “Design of Optimal Exponential CUSUM
Control Charts”. Journal of Quality Technology 26, pp. 109–
124.
Gan, F. F. (1998). “Designs of One- and Two-Sided Expo-
nential EWMA Charts”. Journal of Quality Technology, 30,
pp. 55–69.
Gan, F. F. and Chang, T. C. (2000). “Computing Average
Run Lengths of Exponential EWMA Charts”. Journal of
Quality Technology 32, pp. 183–187.
Jarrett, R. G. (1979). “A Note on the Intervals between
Coal-Mining Disasters”. Biometrika 66, pp. 191–193.
Khoo, M. B. C. (2003). “Design of Runs Rules Schemes”.
Quality Engineering 16, pp. 27–43.
Klein, M. (2000a). “Two Alternatives to the Shewhart X
Control Chart”. Journal of Quality Technology 32, pp. 427–
431.
Klein, M. (200b) “Modified S-Charts for Controlling Process
Variability”. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and
Computation 29, pp. 919–940.
Koutras, M. V.; Bersimis, S.; and Maravelakis, P. E.
(2007). “Statistical Process Control Using Shewhart Con-
www.asq.org
296 N. KUMAR, S. CHAKRABORTI, AND A. C. RAKITZIS
trol Charts with Supplementary Runs Rules”. Methodology
and Computing in Applied Probability 9, pp. 207–224.
Kumar, N. and Chakraborti, S. (2016). “Phase II Shewhart-
Type Control Charts for Times Between Events and Effects
of Parameter Estimation”. Quality and Reliability Engineer-
ing. International 32, pp. 315–328.
Liu, J. Y.; Xie, M.; Goh, T. N.; and Sharma, P. R. (2006).
“A Comparative Study of Exponential Time Between Events
Charts”. Quality Technology and Quantitative Management
3, pp. 347–359.
Lowry, C. A.; Champ, C. W.; and Woodall, W. H. (1995).
“The Performance of Control Charts for Monitoring Process
Variation”. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and
Computation 24, pp. 409–437.
Lucas, J. M. (1985). “Counted Data CUSUMs”. Technomet-
rics 27, pp. 129–144.
Montgomery, D. C. (2012). Introduction to Statistical Qual-
ity Control, 7th ed. New York, NY: Wiley.
Qu, L.; Wu, Z.; and Liu, T. I. (2011). “A Control Scheme
Integrating the T Chart and TCUSUM Chart”. Quality and
Reliability Engineering International 27, pp. 529–539.
Ozsan, G.; Testik, M. C.; and Weiss, C. H. (2010). “Prop-
erties of the Exponential EWMA Chart with Parameter Es-
timation”. Quality and Reliability Engineering International
26, pp. 555–569.
Rakitzis, A. C. (2016). “Monitoring Exponential Data Us-
ing Two-Sided Control Charts with Runs Rules”. Journal of
Statistical Computation and Simulation 86, pp. 149–159.
Scariano, S. M. and Calzada, M. E. (2003). “A Note on
the Lower-Sided Synthetic Chart for Exponentials”. Quality
Engineering 15, pp. 677–680.
Santiago, E. and Smith, J. (2013). “Control Charts Based
on the Exponential Distribution: Adapting Runs Rules for
the t Chart”. Quality Engineering 25, pp. 85–96.
Journal of Quality Technology
Vardeman, S. and Ray, D. (1985). “Average Run Lengths
for CUSUM Schemes When Observations Are Exponentially
Distributed”. Technometrics 27, pp. 145–150.
Western Electric Company (1956). Statistical Quality
Control Handbook. Indianapolis, IN.
Xie, M.; Goh, T. N.; and Kuralmani, V. (2002a). Statisti-
cal Models and Control Charts for High-Quality Processes.
Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Xie, M.; Goh, T. N.; and Ranjan, G. P. (2002b). “Some
Effective Control Chart Procedures for Reliability Monitor-
ing”. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 77, pp. 143–
150.
Xie, Y. J.; Tsui, K. L.; Xie, M.; and Goh, T. N. (2010).
“Monitoring Time-Between-Events for Health Manage-
ment”. Prognostics and Health Management Conference, pp.
1–8.
Yang, J.; Yu, H.; Cheng, Y.; and Xie, M. (2015). “Design of
Gamma Charts Based on Average Time to Signal”. Quality
and Reliability Engineering International 32, pp. 1041–1058.
Yen, F. Y.; Khoo, M. B. C.; and Lee, M. H. (2013).
“Synthetic-Type Control Charts for Time-Between-Events
Monitoring”. PLoS One, 8:e65440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone
.0065440.
Zhang, C. W.; Xie, M.; and Goh, T. N. (2006). “Design
of Exponential Control Charts Using a Sequential Sampling
Scheme”. IIE Transactions 38, pp. 1105–1116.
Zhang, C. W.; Xie, M.; Liu, J. Y.; and Goh, T. N. (2007).
“A Control Chart for the Gamma Distribution as a Model of
Time Between Events”. International Journal of Production
Research 45, pp. 5649–5666.
Zhang, M.; Megahed, F. M.; and Woodall, W. H. (2014).
“Exponential CUSUM Charts with Estimated Control Lim-
its”. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 30,
pp. 275–286.
Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2017