ASTM B697-88(2010)

NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: B697 − 88 (Reapproved2010)
Standard Guide for
Selection of Sampling Plans for Inspection of
Electrodeposited Metallic and Inorganic Coatings
This standard is issued under the fixed designation B697; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope procedures. Such plans, when applicable, can reduce inspec-
tion cost and increase quality protection. Information on
1.1 This guide gives guidance in the selection of sampling
variables plans is given in Test Method B762, MIL-STD-414,
plans to be used in the inspection of electrodeposited and
ANSI/ASQC Z1.9-1979, and Refs (1-2).
related coatings on products for the purpose of deciding
whether submitted lots of coated products comply with the
2. Referenced Documents
specificationsapplicabletothecoatings.ThissupplementsTest
2.1 ASTM Standards:
Method B602 by giving more information on sampling inspec-
B602 Test Method for Attribute Sampling of Metallic and
tion and by providing additional sampling plans for the user
Inorganic Coatings
who finds the limited choice of plans in Test Method B602 to
B762 Test Method of Variables Sampling of Metallic and
be inadequate.
Inorganic Coatings
1.2 When using a sampling plan, a relatively small part of
2.2 ANSI Standard:
thearticlesinaninspectionlotisselectedandinspected.Based
ANSI/ASQC Z1.9-1979 Sampling Procedures and Tables
on the results, a decision is made that the inspection lot either
for Inspection by Variables for Percent Nonconformance
does or does not satisfactorily conform to the specification.
2.3 Military Standards:
1.3 This guide also contains several sampling plans. The
MIL-STD-105 Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspec-
plans are attribute plans, that is, in the application of the plans
tion by Attributes
each inspected article is classified as either conforming or
MIL-STD-414 Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspec-
nonconforming to each of the coating requirements. The
tion by Variables for Percent Defective
number of nonconforming articles is compared to a maximum
allowable number. The plans are simple and relatively few.
3. General
Additional plans and more complex plans that cover more
3.1 Procedure—The use of acceptance sampling consists of
situations are given in the Refs (1-7) at the end of this guide
a series of decisions and actions. These are listed in order
and in MIL-STD-105.
below and are discussed in this standard.
1.4 Acceptance sampling plans are used:
3.1.1 Select characteristics to be inspected,
1.4.1 When the cost of inspection is high and the conse-
3.1.2 Select type of sampling plan,
quences of accepting a nonconforming article are not serious.
3.1.3 Select quality level,
1.4.2 When 100 % inspection is fatiguing and boring and,
3.1.4 Define inspection lot,
therefore, likely to result in errors. In these cases a sampling
3.1.5 Select sample,
plan may provide greater protection than 100 % inspection.
3.1.6 Inspect sample,
1.4.3 When inspection requires a destructive test. Here,
3.1.7 Classify inspection lot, and
sampling inspection must be used.
3.1.8 Dispose of inspection lot.
1.5 Anothergeneraltypeofacceptancesamplingplanthatis
3.2 The need for acceptance sampling arises when a deci-
not covered in these guidelines is the variables plan in which
sion must be made about what to do with a quantity of articles.
measured values of characteristics are analyzed by statistical
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee B08 on Metallic and Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
Inorganic Coatings and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee B08.10 on Test the ASTM website.
Methods. Available fromAmerican National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 W. 43rd St.,
Current edition approved April 1, 2010. Published June 2010. Originally 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, http://www.ansi.org.
approved in 1981. Last previous edition approved in 2005 as B697 – 88 (2005). Available from Standardization Documents Order Desk, DODSSP, Bldg. 4,
DOI: 10.1520/B0697-88R10. Section D, 700 Robbins Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19111-5098.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
B697 − 88 (2010)
This quantity (called the inspection lot in this guide) may be a 3.7 Because acceptance sampling plans permit the accep-
shipment from a supplier, may be articles that are ready for a tance of inspection lots that contain nonconforming articles,
subsequent manufacturing operation, or may be articles ready basic to the selection of a sampling plan is a decision about the
for shipment to a customer. percentage of nonconforming articles that is acceptable. If the
function of the article is so important that no nonconformers
3.3 When acceptance sampling is done, several of the
can be tolerated, acceptance sampling cannot be used. In these
articlesintheinspectionlotareselectedatrandom(seeSection
cases, every article must be inspected, and, to guard against
7). These articles constitute the sample. Each article in the
error, may have to be inspected twice.
sample is inspected for conformance to the requirements
3.8 The protection that an attributes sampling plan provides
placed on it. If an article meets a requirement, it is classified as
conforming. If not, it is classified as nonconforming. If the against accepting an undesirable number of nonconforming
articles is determined by the size of the sample and by the
number of nonconforming articles in the sample is no more
than a predetermined number (called the acceptance number), acceptance number. The protection provided by a plan is
usually expressed in the form of an operating characteristic
the inspection lot is accepted. If it exceeds the acceptance
(OC) curve.
number, the inspection lot is rejected. Fig. 1 is the OC curve for the plan that calls for a
sampleof55articlesandanacceptancenumberoftwo.Plotted
3.4 The disposition of rejected inspection lots is beyond the
alongthehorizontalaxisisthequalitylevelofaninspectionlot
scope of this guide because, depending on the circumstances,
expressed as the percentage of the articles in the lot that are
lots may be returned to the supplier, kept and used, put to a
nonconforming (Note 1).The vertical axis is the probability, as
different use, scrapped, reworked, or dealt with in some other
apercentage,thataninspectionlotwillbeacceptedbytheplan
way. An exception is rectifying inspection (3.11) in which
(Note 4). Inspection lots with zero percent nonconforming
rejected lots are screened and used.
articles will be accepted 100 % of the time (Note 2). As the
3.5 Because the decision about the disposition of an inspec-
percentage of nonconforming articles in the inspection lot
tion lot is based on the inspection of a sample, and because
increases, the probability of acceptance decreases. For
there is a chance that a sample will not be representative of an
example,asshowninFig.1,aninspectionlotcontaining1.5 %
inspection lot, some inspection lots that have the desired
nonconforming articles has a 95 % chance of being accepted,
quality level (Note 1) will be rejected and some inspection lots
while one containing 9.6 % nonconforming articles has only a
that do not have the desired quality level will be accepted.
10 % chance of being accepted.
Thereareonlytwosituationsinwhichtheresultsofacceptance
NOTE4—TheverticalaxisoftheOCcurvecanhavetwomeanings.One
samplingaretotallypredictable(Note2).Oneiswhenthereare
is the probability that a particular inspection lot will be accepted. The
no nonconforming articles in the inspection lot. There, of
other meaning is the percentage of a series of lots of a given quality level
course,willbenononconformingarticlesinthesampleandthe
that will be accepted. The latter meaning is the one that is strictly correct
mathematically. The former meaning is also correct, as long as the
decision to accept the lot will always be made. The other
inspection lot is at least ten times bigger than the sample.
situation is when no article in the inspection lot conforms. All
of the articles in the sample will be nonconforming and the 3.9 The characteristics of a sampling plan are often ex-
pressed in terms of the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) and
decision to reject the lot will always be made (Note 3).
theLimitingQualityLevel(LQL).TheAQListhequalitylevel
NOTE 1—In this guide the term “quality level” means the percentage of
that will result in the acceptance of a high percentage of
nonconforming articles in an inspection lot or it means the average
incoming inspection lots; usually it is the quality level that will
percentage of nonconforming articles in a series of inspection lots
received from a single source. Terms such as high quality, increased result in the acceptance of 95 % of the incoming inspection
quality, and better quality mean a relatively smaller percentage of
lots. In Fig. 1, theAQL is 1.5 %. The LQL is the quality level
nonconforming articles, while terms such as low quality, decreased
quality, and poorer quality mean a relatively larger percentage of
nonconforming articles.
NOTE 2—In this discussion and elsewhere in this guide, it is assumed
that no errors are made.
NOTE 3—To be strictly correct, lots that contain no more nonconform-
ing articles than the acceptance number will always be accepted, and lots
that contain fewer conforming articles than the sample size minus the
acceptance number will always be rejected.
3.6 The discussion in 3.5 leads to two important points: (1)
acceptance sampling plans will permit the acceptance of
inspection lots that contain nonconforming articles, and (2)in
a series of inspection lots, each containing the same percentage
of nonconforming articles, some will be accepted and some
will be rejected, and the percentage of nonconforming articles
in the accepted inspection lots will be the same as in the
rejected lots. In other words, acceptance sampling does not, by
itself, result in higher quality. Rectifying inspection (3.11) will
result in higher average quality in the product leaving inspec-
FIG. 1 Operating Characteristic Curve for Single Sample, Attri-
tion. butes Sampling Plan, Sample Size = 55, Acceptance Number = 2
B697 − 88 (2010)
thatwillresultintherejectionofahighpercentageofincoming small. For example, if the incoming lots are of AQL quality,
inspection lots; usually it is the quality level that will result in 1.5 %, theAOQ is 1.4 %.At lower incoming quality levels the
the rejection of 90 % of the incoming inspection lots. In Fig. 1 relative improvement is greater; for example, at an incoming
the LQL is 9.6 %. In this standard, AQL and LQL are defined quality level of 3 %, the AOQ is 2.3 %.
as the quality levels that will be accepted 95 and rejected 90 %
NOTE 5—The AOQs and AOQLs in this guide are calculated on the
of the time, respectively.
basis that when rejected lots are screened the nonconforming articles
found are replaced with conforming articles. If the discarded nonconform-
3.10 Another characteristic of sampling plans that is used in
ing articles are not replaced, a practice that is frequently done, theAOQs
this standard is the 50/50 point. This is the quality level that
andAOQLs will be somewhat different from those in this guide. Chapter
will result in the acceptance of half of the incoming inspection
16 of Ref (4) discusses this point.
lots. In Fig. 1 the 50/50 point is 4.8 %.
3.11.3 Use of rectifying inspection will assure that with a
3.11 Rectifying Inspection:
continuous series of inspection lots the average quality level of
3.11.1 As stated in 3.4, one of the options when an inspec-
all the accepted articles, considered as a whole, will not be
tion lot is rejected is screening of the lot. In this procedure,
worse than the AOQL of the sampling plan used. However,
called rectifying inspection, all of the articles in a rejected lot
rectifying inspection can significantly increase inspection costs
are inspected and the nonconforming ones are removed and
since every rejected inspection lot is 100 % inspected. The
replacedwithconformingarticles.Thenow100 %-conforming
lower the quality of incoming lots, the more of them that will
inspection lot is accepted and is passed along with the
berejectedandthen100 %inspected.Fig.3showshow,forthe
inspection lots that were accepted on the basis of acceptance
sampling plan of Fig. 1 and lots of 550, the average number of
sampling. The addition of these 100 %-conforming inspection
articles inspected per inspection lot increases as the quality
lotsimprovestheaveragequalitylevelofalltheinspectionlots
levels of incoming lots decrease. In lots containing up to about
takentogether.Theamountthequalitylevelisimprovedcanbe
1.5 % nonconforming articles the increase in inspection is
calculated if the average quality level of incoming inspection
moderate. Beyond that point the average amount of inspection
lots is known. The calculations reveal that if the incoming
increases rapidly. At an incoming quality level of 2.1 % the
quality level is high, few inspection lots will be rejected and
amount of inspection is doubled. And with incoming quality
screened and so the average quality of the outgoing lots will be
levels of 15 % virtually every inspection lot is 100 % in-
only slightly improved over the incoming. If the quality level
spected.
of the incoming inspection lots is low, many of the inspection
3.11.4 Because the cost of inspection using rectifying in-
lots will be rejected and screened. The addition of this large
spection plans is so greatly influenced by the quality level of
number of 100 %-conforming lots will result in a high outgo-
incoming inspection lots, past information of that level is
ing quality level. At intermediate incoming quality levels, the
necessary before choosing an AOQL. The AOQL plans in
outgoing quality will be poorer than these two extremes, and
Table1givetherangeofincomingqualitylevelforwhicheach
there will be a particular incoming quality level for which the
plan is recommended. The cost of the inspection is also
outgoing level will be the poorest.
determined by the size of the inspection lot and by the size of
3.11.2 When rectifying inspection is used the average qual-
the sample. If rectifying inspection is to be used on a large
ity level of a series of outgoing lots is called the Average
sca
...