ASME B89 7 3 1 2001 Guidelines For Decision Rules Considering Measurement Uncertainty in Determining Conformance To Specifications PDF

ASME B89.7.3.
1-2001
GUIDELINES FOR DECISION RULES:

CONSIDERING MEASUREMENT
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
UNCERTAINTY IN DETERMINING
CONFORMANCE TO
SPECIFICATIONS
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
Copyright ASME International

Provided by IHS under license with ASME
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale
A N A M E R I C A N N A T I O N A L S T A N D A R D

--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
CONSIDERING MEASUREMENT
UNCERTAINTY IN DETERMINING
CONFORMANCE TO
SPECIFICATIONS
ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
Date of Issuance: March 18, 2002
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
This Standard will be revised when the Society approves the issuance of a
new edition. There will be no addenda issued to this edition.
ASME will issue written replies to inquiries concerning interpretation of

technical aspects of this Standard.
ASME is the registered trademark of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
This code or standard was developed under procedures accredited as meeting the criteria for
American National Standards. The Standards Committee that approved the code or standard
was balanced to assure that individuals from competent and concerned interests have had an
opportunity to participate. The proposed code or standard was made available for public review
and comment that provides an opportunity for additional public input from industry, academia,
regulatory agencies, and the public-at-large.
ASME does not “approve,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device,
or activity.
ASME does not take any position with respect to the validity of any patent rights asserted in
connection with any items mentioned in this document, and does not undertake to insure anyone
utilizing a standard against liability for infringement of any applicable letters patent, nor assume
any such liability. Users of a code or standard are expressly advised that determination of the
validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their
own responsibility.
Participation by federal agency representative(s) or person(s) affiliated with industry is not to
be interpreted as government or industry endorsement of this code or standard.
ASME accepts responsibility for only those interpretations of this document issued in
accordance with the established ASME procedures and policies, which precludes the issuance
of interpretations by individuals.
No part of this document may be reproduced in any form,

in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the publisher.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990
Copyright © 2002 by
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.

CONTENTS
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Committee Roster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Correspondence With the B89 Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3 Requirements for Decision Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3.1 Zone Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.2 Decision Outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.3 Repeated Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.4 Data Rejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4 Acceptance and Rejection Zones in Decision Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.1 Simple Acceptance and Rejection Using a N:1 Decision Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2 Stringent Acceptance and Relaxed Rejection Using a Z% Guard Band . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3 Stringent Rejection and Relaxed Acceptance Using a Z% Guard Band . . . . . . . . . 4
4.4 Decision Rules With a Transition Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5 Examples of Decision Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figures
1 An Example of Guard Bands Used for Creating a Binary Decision Rule
With Stringent Acceptance and Relaxed Rejection Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 An Example of Simple Acceptance and Rejection Using a 4:1 Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 Stringent Acceptance and Relaxed Rejection Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 Symmetric Two-Sided Relaxed Acceptance and Stringent Rejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5 Stringent Acceptance, Simple Rejection, and a Transition Zone Example

Using Symmetric Two-Sided Guard Banding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Nonmandatory Appendices
A Application of Decision Rules in the Customer-Supplier Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B Repeated Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C Outlier Measurement Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
D Special Issues of Decision Rules for Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
E Determination of Guard Band Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
F A Discussion of ISO 14253-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
G References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
iii

FOREWORD
The intent of these guidelines is to facilitate the development of understanding between

suppliers and customers regarding measurement uncertainty in the decision to accept or to
reject a product. Metrologists are continuously faced with the task of making decisions in
the presence of measurement uncertainty. To formalize this task, procedures known as
decision rules have been developed. A decision rule is a prescription for the acceptance
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
or rejection of products based on the measurement result of a characteristic of the product,

the permissible variation associated with that characteristic, and the uncertainty of the
measurement result. For workpieces, the permissible variation is commonly called the
tolerance; for instruments it is often given by the specification limits or maximum permissible
error (MPE). The terminology of ISO 14253-1 has been adopted and the permitted variation
of a product’s characteristic is referred to as the specification zone. This document is
intended to provide guidance on decision rules and their implementation.
A related document, ASME B89.7.2-1999, Dimensional Measurement Planning, specifies
requirements for preparation and approval of dimensional measurement plans and for the
use of approved plans in making dimensional measurements. The dimensional measurement
plan must contain or reference all information for making measurements, including specification
of a decision rule. ASME B89.7.3.1 serves as a resource to the dimensional measurement
planner by providing terminology and specifying the requirements for decision rules for
use in dimensional measurement plans.
The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, (GUM), NCSL Z540-2-
1997 provides a unified means of evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of a measurement
result; consequently the calculational details of evaluating the uncertainty of a measurement
result will not be discussed. Unless otherwise stated, the term “measurement uncertainty”
will be used to mean the expanded uncertainty, U, with a coverage factor of two, which
is the most common coverage factor used nationally and internationally.
Although all traceable measurement results include an uncertainty statement not all
measurement results involve decision rules. (See ISO International Vocabulary of Basic and
General Terms in Metrology.) Many calibrations, particularly at National Measurement
Institutes (NMIs), typically state a description of the measurement, its result, and its
uncertainty; decision rules are not involved since there are no specifications. Most products,
however, have stated specifications and a decision must be reached regarding the product’s
characteristic relative to its stated specifications.
The decision rule in use should be well documented to prevent ambiguity in the acceptance
or rejection of product. The selection of a particular decision rule is ultimately a business
decision; some of the factors to be considered are outlined in nonmandatory Appendices
A and D.
The concept of a decision rule has a long history and over the years has developed
many variations including “gauge maker’s rule,” “test accuracy ratio (TAR),” “test uncertainty
ratio (TUR),” “four-to-one rule,” “gauging ratio,” “guard bands,” “gauging limit,” and many
more. Most of these terms were defined before the development of the GUM and hence
concepts such as “accuracy” or “uncertainty” were nebulously defined. One of the motivations
of these guidelines is to explicitly define the decision rule concept and have some well-
documented decision rules that can be referenced. Consequently, these guidelines have
encapsulated some of the commonly used procedures and their specifically-named deci-
sion rules.
iv

The terminology used in these guidelines is consistent with national and international
standards whenever possible. Descriptors such as “stringent” and “relaxed,” used in describing
conformance and nonconformance, have been carefully chosen. For example, stringent
acceptance is meant to imply both a decrease in the acceptance zone width and an increase
in confidence that a measurement result in this zone is associated with an in-specification
product. Similarly, stringent rejection results in a decreased size of the rejection zone while
increasing the confidence that a measurement result in this zone is associated with an out-
of-specification product. The converse situation applies to relaxed acceptance and rejection.
The decision rules formulated using these guidelines ensure a self-consistent procedure
for an organization to accept or to reject products. The situation becomes more complicated
when two or more parties are involved, commonly a supplier and a customer, each of
which is using a different measurement system with a different uncertainty and possibly
using a different decision rule (this topic is very briefly discussed in nonmandatory Appendix
A). Such a situation has the potential for conflicting decisions by the different parties, and
conflict resolution is outside the scope of this document. When using decision rules in
multi-party commerce, it is prudent to anticipate the potential conflicts that can arise (which
depend on the details of the decision rules and the measurement systems involved) and
agree upon a conflict resolution procedure prior to performing measurements.
Comments and suggestions for improvement of this Standard are welcomed. They should
be addressed to: ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990
This Standard was approved by the American National Standards Institute on December
11, 2001.
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

ASME STANDARDS COMMITTEE B89
Dimensional Metrology
(The following is the roster of the Committee at the time of approval of this Standard.)
OFFICERS
B. Parry, Chair
D. Beutel Vice Chair
M. Lo, Secretary
COMMITTEE PERSONNEL
K. L. Blaedel, University of California/Livermore Lab, Livermore, California
J. B. Bryan, Bryan Associates, Pleasanton, California
T. Carpenter, US Air Force Metrology Labs, Newark, Ohio
T. Charlton, Jr., Brown and Sharpe Manufacturing Co., North Kingston, Rhode Island
G. A. Hetland, Hutchinson Technology, Inc., Hutchinson, Minnesota
R. J. Hocken, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina
M. Liebers, Professional Instruments, Minneapolis, Minnesota
B. R. Taylor, Renishaw PLC, Gloucestershire, England
R. C. Veale, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
SUBCOMMITTEE 7: MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY

G. Hetland, Chair, Hutchinson Technology, Inc., Hutchinson, Minnesota
D. Swyt, Vice Chair, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
W. Beckwith, Brown & Sharpe, North Kingston Rhode Island
D. Beutel, Caterpillar, Peoria, Illinois
J. Buttress, Hutchinson Technology, Inc., Hutchinson, Minnesota
T. Charlton, Brown & Sharpe, North Kingston, Rhode Island
W. T. Estler, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
H. Harary, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
B. Parry, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
S. Phillips, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
J. Raja, UNCC, Charlotte, North Carolina
P. Stein, P. G. Stein Consultants, Pennington, New Jersey
PERSONNEL OF WORKING GROUP B89.7.3: DECISION RULES

S. Phillips, Chair, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
J. Buttress, Hutchinson Technology, Hutchinson, Minnesota
T. Carpenter, US Air Force Metrology Labs, Newark, Ohio
H. Harary, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
B. Parry, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
vi

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE B89 COMMITTEE
General. ASME Codes and Standards are developed and maintained with the intent to
represent the consensus of concerned interests. As such, users of this Standard may interact
with the Committee by requesting interpretations, proposing revisions, and attending Committee
meetings. Correspondence should be addressed to:
Secretary, B89 Main Committee
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Three Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016-5990
Proposed Revisions. Revisions are made periodically to the standard to incorporate changes
that appear necessary or desirable, as demonstrated by the experience gained from the
application of the standard. Approved revisions will be published periodically.
The Committee welcomes proposals for revisions to this Standard. Such proposals should
be as specific as possible: citing the paragraph number(s), the proposed wording, and a
detailed description of the reasons for the proposal, including any pertinent documentation.
Interpretations. Upon request, the B89 Committee will render an interpretation of any
requirement of the standard. Interpretations can only be rendered in response to a written
request sent to the Secretary of the B89 Main Committee.
The request for interpretation should be clear and unambiguous. It is further recommended
that the inquirer submit his/her request in the following format:
Subject: Cite the applicable paragraph number(s) and provide a concise description.
Edition: Cite the applicable edition of the standard for which the interpretation
is being requested.
Question: Phrase the question as a request for an interpretation of a specific
requirement suitable for general understanding and use, not as a request
for an approval of a proprietary design or situation.
Requests that are not in this format may be rewritten in the appropriate format by the
Committee prior to being answered, which may inadvertently change the intent of the
original request.
ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of any interpretation when or if additional
information which might affect an interpretation is available. Further, persons aggrieved by
an interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME committee or subcommittee. ASME
does not “approve,” “certify,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device,
or activity.
Attending Committee Meetings. The B89 Main Committee regularly holds meetings that
are open to the public. Persons wishing to attend any meeting should contact the Secretary
of the B89 Main Committee.
vii
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

ABSTRACT
These guidelines provide suggestions for decision rules when considering measurement
uncertainty in determining conformance to specifications. Applying these guidelines can
assist businesses in avoiding disagreements with customers and suppliers about conformance
to specifications and in managing costs associated with conformance decisions.
viii
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

ASME B89.7.3.1-2001

CONSIDERING MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY
IN DETERMINING CONFORMANCE TO
SPECIFICATIONS
1 SCOPE uncertainty interval (of a measurement): the set of

values of a characteristic about the result of a measure-
These guidelines provide terminology and specify
ment that may be expected to encompass a large fraction
the content that must be addressed when stating a
of the distribution of values that could reasonably be
decision rule used for deciding the acceptance or rejec-
attributed to the measurand.6, 7
tion of a product according to specification.
N:1 decision rule: a situation where the width of the

specification zone is at least N times larger than the
2 DEFINITIONS uncertainty interval for the measurement result.8
decision rule: a documented rule, meeting the require-

ments of section 3 of these guidelines, that describes acceptance zone: the set of values of a characteristic,
how measurement uncertainty will be allocated with for a specified measurement process and decision rule,
regard to accepting or rejecting a product according to that results in product acceptance when a measurement
its specification and the result of a measurement. result is within this zone.9
binary decision rule: a decision rule with only two
possible outcomes, either acceptance or rejection.1
rejection zone: the set of values of a characteristic,
specification zone (of an instrument or workpiece): the for a specified measurement process and decision rule,
set of values of a characteristic between, and including, that results in product rejection when a measurement
the specification limits.2, 3, 4 result is within this zone.10
measurand: particular quantity subject to measure-

ment. See VIM, 2.6.5 transition zone: the set of values of a characteristic,
for a specified measurement process and decision rule,
expanded uncertainty: quantity defining an interval
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
that is neither in the acceptance zone nor rejection

about the result of a measurement that may be expected
zone.11
to encompass a large fraction of the distribution of
values that could reasonably be attributed to the measur-
and. See GUM, 2.3.5.
6
The width of the uncertainty interval is typically twice the expanded
uncertainty.
7
The uncertainty interval for the mean of repeated measurements
1
A binary decision rule does not have any transition zones (see 2.10). may decrease with increasing numbers of measurements.
2 8
The width of the specification zone is a positive number. A common example is the 4:1 ratio.
3 9
In the case of workpieces, the width of the specification zone is When claiming product acceptance, it is important to state the
identical to the tolerance. decision rule; e.g., “acceptance using the XX rule.”
4 10
Specification zone is equivalent to “tolerance interval” or “tolerance When claiming product rejection, it is important to state the
zone” defined in ISO 3534-2. decision rule; e.g., “rejection using the XX rule.”
5 11
The specification of a measurand may require statements about There may be more than one transition zone; each should be
such quantities as time, temperature, and pressure. separately labeled.

ASME B89.7.3.1-2001 GUIDELINES FOR DECISION RULES
guard band: the magnitude of the offset from the stringent rejection: the situation when the rejection
specification limit to the acceptance or rejection zone zone is increased beyond the specification zone by a
boundary.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 guard band.20
simple acceptance: the situation when the acceptance mean measurement result: results of repeated measure-
zone equals and is identical to the specification zone. ments are arithmetically averaged to yield a mean
measurement result. The mean result is used to deter-
simple rejection: the situation when the rejection zone mine acceptance or rejection.
consists of all values of the characteristic outside the
specification zone. data rejection with cause: repeated measurements may
indicate that one or more measurement results signifi-
stringent acceptance: the situation when the accept- cantly deviate from the rest of the results of measure-
ance zone is reduced from the specification zone by ment. If the measurement procedure has a documented
a guard band(s). See Fig. 1. 18, 19 policy for addressing measurement rejection then this
policy takes precedence. Otherwise, measurement re-
relaxed rejection: the situation when the rejection
sults may only be rejected if a physical cause can be
zone is partially inside the specification zone by the
established. Examples of physical causes for measure-
amount of a guard band. See Fig. 1.18
ment rejection include: improper instrument settings,
relaxed acceptance: the situation when the acceptance loose or improperly fixtured components, known tran-
zone is increased beyond the specification zone by a sient events such as vibrations caused by doors
guard band.20 slamming.
12
3 REQUIREMENTS FOR DECISION RULES
The symbol g is deliberately used for the guard band, instead of
the symbol U employed in ISO 14253-1 since U is reserved for
the expanded uncertainty which is associated with a measurement 3.1 Zone Identification
result and hence it is confusing to attach U to a specification
limit. The evaluation of U is a technical issue, while the evaluation A decision rule must have a well-documented method
of g is a business decision. of determining the location of the acceptance, rejection,
13
The guard band is usually expressed as a percentage of the and any transition zones.
expanded uncertainty, i.e., a 100% guard band has the magnitude
of the expanded uncertainty U.
14
Two-sided guard banding occurs when a guard band is applied to 3.2 Decision Outcome
both the upper and lower specification limits. (In some exceptional
situations the guard band applied within the specification zone, Each zone of a decision rule must correspond to a
gIn, could be different at the upper specification limit and at the
lower specification limit. This would reflect a different risk assess- documented decision that will be implemented should
ment associated with an upper or lower out-of-specification condi- the result of measurement lie in that zone. While this
tion depending on whether the characteristic was larger or smaller is automatic for the acceptance and rejection zones
than allowed by the specification zone.) If both the upper and
lower guard bands are the same size then this is called symmetric by definition, any transition zones must have their
two-sided guard banding. corresponding decision outcome documented.
15
A guard band is sometimes distinguished as the upper or lower
guard band, associated with the upper or lower specification limit. --`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Subscripts are sometimes attached to the guard band notation, g, 3.3 Repeated Measurements
to provide clarity, e.g., gUp and gLo. See Fig. 1.
16
The guard band, g, is always a positive quantity; its location, A decision rule must state the procedure for ad-
e.g., inside or outside the specification zone, is determined by dressing repeated measurements of the same characteris-
the type of acceptance or rejection desired. See Section 4.
17 tic on the same workpiece or instrument. See Appendix
While these guidelines emphasize the use of guard bands, an
equivalent methodology is to use gauging limits as in ASME B for further discussion of this issue.
B89.7.2-1999.
18
Stringent acceptance and relaxed rejection occur together in a
binary decision rule. 3.4 Data Rejection
19
The stringent acceptance zone is analogous to the conformance
zone described in ISO 14253-1. A decision rule must state the procedure for allowing
20
Relaxed acceptance and stringent rejection occur together in a data rejection with cause, that is, rejection of “outliers.”
binary decision rule. See Appendix C for further discussion of outliers.

GUIDELINES FOR DECISION RULES ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
Lower
specification
limit gLo Specification zone gUp Upper
specification
limit
Relaxed rejection zone Stringent acceptance zone Relaxed rejection zone
FIG. 1 AN EXAMPLE OF GUARD BANDS USED FOR CREATING A BINARY DECISION RULE WITH
STRINGENT ACCEPTANCE AND RELAXED REJECTION ZONES
Lower
specification Upper
Specification zone = specification
limit Simple acceptance zone limit
Simple U U Simple
rejection zone rejection zone
Measurement result
GENERAL NOTE: The measurement uncertainty interval is of width 2U, where U is the expanded uncertainty, and the
uncertainty interval is no larger than one-fourth the product’s specification zone. The measurement result shown verifies
product acceptance.
FIG. 2 AN EXAMPLE OF SIMPLE ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION USING A 4:1 RATIO
4 ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION ZONES IN result should be no larger than one-fourth of the allow-
DECISION RULES able product variation, which requires the expanded
uncertainty, U, to be no larger than one-eighth of the
4.1 Simple Acceptance and Rejection Using specification zone. Once the uncertainty requirement is
an N:1 Decision Rule satisfied, then the product is accepted if the measurement
This is the most common form of acceptance and result lies within the specification zone and rejected
rejection used in industry and is the descendant of MIL- otherwise. Note that instrumentation is sometimes speci-
STD 45662A. Simple acceptance means that product fied by a maximum permissible error (MPE), which
conformance is verified21 if the measurement result places a limit on the magnitude of the error regardless
lies in the specification zone and rejection is verified of sign. Hence the specification zone has a width of
otherwise (see Fig. 2), provided that the magnitude of twice the MPE, i.e., ±MPE, and a four-to-one ratio
the measurement uncertainty interval is no larger than requires the expanded uncertainty to be one-fourth the
the fraction 1/N of the specification zone. In recent MPE value; see Appendix D for further details. While
years, as tolerances have become increasingly tighter, the simple acceptance and rejection approach is straight-
the well-known ten-to-one ratio has transitioned to a forward, difficulties develop for measurement results
more commonly used ratio of four-to-one (see MIL- close to the specification limits. Even using the mean
STD 45662A) or even three-to-one (see International of repeated measurements, if the mean result is near
Standard 10012-1). A 4:1 decision rule means the the specification limit there may be a significant chance
uncertainty interval associated with the measurement that a product characteristic with simple acceptance
verified is actually out-of-specification and vice versa.
21
The term “verified” or “verification” is used in the ISO Guide To address this issue, an alternative decision rule based
25 sense; specifically avoided is the term “proven to conformance”
as only a statistical confidence level is asserted, not a proof in on “guard banding” can increase confidence in accept-
the mathematical sense of the word. ance decisions.
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3

--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Lower
specification
limit gIn Specification zone gIn Upper
specification
limit
Relaxed Stringent acceptance zone Relaxed

(a) Symmetric Two-Sided Guard Banding
Lower Specification zone

specification
limit gIn Upper
specification
limit
Simple Stringent acceptance zone Relaxed

(b) One-Sided Guard Banding
GENERAL NOTE: Products are accepted if the measurement result is within the acceptance zone.
FIG. 3 STRINGENT ACCEPTANCE AND RELAXED REJECTION EXAMPLES
4.2 Stringent Acceptance and Relaxed lishing an “acceptable risk” of accepting out-of-specifi-
Rejection Using a Z% Guard Band cation products. One-sided stringent acceptance is used
to guard band only one of the specification limits. For
Stringent acceptance increases confidence in product
example, workpiece “form error” is always positive by
quality by reducing the probability of accepting an
definition, hence the lower limit (zero) does not require
out-of-specification product through the use of guard
a guard band. Measurement results that lie in the
banding. The acceptance zone is created by reducing
acceptance zone are considered to verify the product
the specification zone by the guard band amount(s) as
to its specification.
deemed necessary for economic or other reasons, thus
ensuring product compliance at a specified level of
4.3 Stringent Rejection and Relaxed
confidence, or conversely, at an acceptable level of
Acceptance Using a Z% Guard Band
risk. In a binary decision rule, stringent acceptance is
accompanied by relaxed rejection. Relaxed rejection Stringent rejection increases confidence that a rejected
allows the rejection of products even when the measure- product is actually out-of-specification. Adding the
ment result lies within the specification zone by the guard band amount(s) to the specification zone creates
guard band amount. The size of the guard band is the rejection zone. It is typically the supplier who
expressed as a percentage of the expanded uncertainty. requests stringent rejection of the customer who may
It is typically the customer who requests stringent be seeking a refund for a product that is claimed to be
acceptance of the supplier and enforces this through out-of-specification. In a binary decision rule stringent
the contract. Some of the factors that should be consid- rejection is accompanied by relaxed acceptance. Relaxed
ered when establishing the size of the guard band are acceptance allows acceptance of products with measure-
given in Appendix E. ment results that lie outside the specification zone by
Figure 3 illustrates examples of stringent acceptance/ the guard band amount. Relaxed acceptance is often
relaxed rejection. The guard band applied within the used when a state-of-the-art measurement system still
specification zone, gIn, usually is determined by estab- has such large uncertainty that a significant number of

GUIDELINES FOR DECISION RULES ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
Lower Upper
specification specification
limit limit
gOut gOut
Specification zone
Stringent Relaxed acceptance zone Stringent

GENERAL NOTE: Products are rejected if the measurement result is within the rejection zone.
FIG. 4 SYMMETRIC TWO-SIDED RELAXED ACCEPTANCE AND STRINGENT REJECTION
Lower
specification
limit gIn Specification zone gIn Upper
specification
limit
Simple Transition Stringent acceptance zone Transition Simple

rejection zone zone zone rejection zone
GENERAL NOTE: Products are accepted if the measurement result is within the acceptance zone, rejected if in the rejection
zone, and subject to a different rule in the transition zone.
FIG. 5 STRINGENT ACCEPTANCE, SIMPLE REJECTION, AND A TRANSITION ZONE EXAMPLE

USING SYMMETRIC TWO-SIDED GUARD BANDING
good products would be rejected under simple or strin- 5 EXAMPLES OF DECISION RULES
gent acceptance rules. Figure 4 is an example of a
binary decision rule using relaxed acceptance. A decision rule must fulfill the requirements of
section 3. Hence the concepts of simple, stringent, or
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
4.4 Decision Rules With a Transition Zone relaxed acceptance or rejection discussed in section 4
need elaboration in order to become decision rules.
In some measurement situations additional alterna- Some examples of complete decision rules are given
tives to acceptance or rejection may be desirable. These in paras. 5.1–5.4. For binary decision rules a shorthand
can be implemented by the use of transition zones that name appears in parentheses describing the acceptance
lie in between the acceptance and rejection zones. The properties (since rejection can be deduced).
location and decision outcome of any transition zones
must be documented in the decision rule.22 Figure 5
presents an example of stringent acceptance, simple
rejection, and a transition zone created by symmetric
5.1
two-sided Z% guard banding. An example of a decision
outcome for a measurement result in the transition zone (Simple 4:1 Acceptance)
is the acceptance of the product at a reduced price. Simple Acceptance Using a 4:1 Ratio with Mean
Measurement Results and Rejection with Cause.23
22
It is crucial that both the supplier and customer agree upon both
the size of the guard band and the decision outcome for a
measurement result occurring in this zone; lack of these agreements
23
may lead to costly negotiations and legal expenses. See Fig. 2.

5.2 Transition zone outcome is 20% price reduction for

measurement results in these zones.26
(100% Stringent Acceptance)
In the examples given in 5.1–5.4, if repeated measure-
Stringent acceptance and relaxed rejection using sym-
ments are performed then the mean result is used to
metric 100% two-sided guard bands with mean measure-
verify acceptance.27 The uncertainty of the mean of
ment results and rejection with cause.24
multiple measurements may be less than the uncertainty
of a single measurement. Similarly, measurements can
5.3
only be rejected if a physical effect is identified as
(100% Relaxed Acceptance) the cause for the spurious result.
Relaxed acceptance and stringent rejection using sym- Appendix F briefly discusses the ISO 14253-1 stan-
metric 100% two-sided guard bands with mean measure- dard as it pertains to decision rules.
ment results and rejection with cause.25
5.4
(Stringent Acceptance and Simple Rejection Using
25
Symmetric 50% Two-Sided Guard Bands with Mean- See Fig. 4.
26
Measurement Results and Rejection with Cause) See Fig. 5.
27
Using the mean of several measurement results is appropriate for
workpiece characterisitcs. For some instrument specifications the
24
See Fig. 3 (first drawing). mean measurement result may be inappropriate. See Appendix B.
6
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
NONMANDATORY APPENDIX A
APPLICATION OF DECISION RULES IN THE CUSTOMER–SUPPLIER
RELATIONSHIP
The choice of a decision rule is ultimately a business decision rules and which party employs them, this issue
decision. It includes such factors as should be resolved in the contract negotiations. The
(a) the cost of rejecting an in-specification product; negotiated price of the product may vary significantly
(b) the cost of accepting an out-of-specification depending on which party applies which decision rule,
product; the uncertainty of the measurements, and the required
(c) uncertainty associated with the measurement level of confidence.
process; In some contractual situations different decision rules
(d) the distribution of the product’s characteristic may be used for the supplier and the customer, e.g.,
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
under consideration; and see International Standard 14253-1. For example, a
(e) the cost of making measurements. supplier may be required to use a decision rule involving
Once a decision rule is formulated, the responsibility stringent acceptance and relaxed rejection in order to
for its application should be unambiguously defined, sell the product to the customer. The same contract
in particular, which party (customer or supplier) will may require the customer to use stringent rejection and
apply a particular rule. For example, the use of stringent relaxed acceptance in order to demonstrate that the
acceptance with a 100% guard band may be a reasonable product is out-of-specification. In this example, there
requirement on the supplier if their measurement uncer- is an additional burden on the supplier (i.e., stringent
tainty is small relative to the specification zone. On acceptance) before they can sell the product, similarly
the other hand, the same decision rule used by a there is an additional burden on the customer (i.e.,
customer having a large measurement uncertainty rela- stringent rejection) before they can reject a product.
The use of this contract in this situation should greatly
tive to the specification zone could result in very
reduce any conflict regarding the acceptance or rejection
few products being accepted.1 Since there are obvious
of the product. If conflict still exists, e.g., the supplier
economic consequences associated with the use of
demonstrates acceptance and the customer demonstrates
rejection, then a first step in a resolution could be
1
A large uncertainty relative to the specification zone may be an to examine the reliability of each party’s uncertainty
indicator of inappropriate measurement equipment; the 100% guard
band protects against accepting potentially out-of-specification prod- statement. This issue is considered in ASME B89.7.3.3
ucts with a significant economic cost. (in the course of preparation).

ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
NONMANDATORY APPENDIX B
REPEATED MEASUREMENT
B1 WORKPIECES repeatability, then the standard uncertainty for these

sources is expected to decrease when using the mean
It is not uncommon for workpiece inspectors to
of several measurement results. For these sources, the
repeat measurements, particularly if the measurement
standard uncertainty of these contributors will typically
result lies just outside the acceptance zone. A subsequent
decrease inversely with the square root of the number
measurement may lie within the acceptance zone leading
of measurements. Hence a new, somewhat smaller
to a dilemma regarding the status of the product. Ad-
combined standard uncertainty may be calculated, re-
hoc procedures, such as selecting the best two out of
sulting in a smaller guard band, gIn. If the mean of
three measurement results (see Youden) or rejecting
the repeated measurements lies within this enlarged
measurements deviating more than three or four standard
acceptance zone the product can be accepted according
deviations from the mean, are unreliable, hence an
to the decision rules.
alternative procedure is needed. A conservative approach
appropriate for workpiece characteristics is to use the
mean of the measurement results as the best estimate
of the product characteristic under inspection. If the
B2 INSTRUMENTS
mean result lies in the acceptance zone then the product
can be considered acceptable. Measurement results can- With respect to the testing of instrumentation, the
not be rejected simply because they produce undesirable number of repeated measurements that may be per-
results, and measurements should be rejected only if formed during a performance test is controlled and
it clearly can be shown that the result was spurious. often repeated measurements are not allowed as the
See Appendix C. instrument reproducibility is one of the characteristics
Depending on the details of the measurement process, under investigation by the test. Accordingly, repeated
it may be possible to reduce the combined standard measurements during instrument performance tests are
uncertainty with the use of repeated measurements. generally not allowed unless explicitly permitted in the
Hence in the case of stringent acceptance, the guard testing procedure. For example, suppose the acceptance
band, gIn, might be reduced in magnitude. Many uncer- test for a caliper is to measure a calibrated gauge block
tainty budgets for workpiece characteristics are devel- ten times and determine that the largest observed error
oped for a single measurement result; if significant is less than the supplier’s stated MPE appropriated for a
uncertainty contributors are present that arise from single measurement. If the caliper’s errors are randomly
independent random variables,1 e.g., uncertainty due to
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
distributed (i.e., no systematic errors) then some will

be positive (i.e., the block is measured too long) and
some will be negative (i.e., the block is measured too
1
Often these sources will be “Type A” uncertainty sources as short). Since the measurand of interest in this test is
designated in the GUM; however, “Type B” uncertainties sometimes
represent independent and random uncertainty sources and conse- the error of a single reading, no averaging of errors
quently will also be reduced in magnitude as a result of repeated is permitted.
measurements. An example of a “Type B” uncertainty that may Whatever method is chosen for addressing repeated
represent a random uncertainty source is a “repeatability specifica-
tion” provided on an instrument specification sheet of the instrument measurements, it must be clearly defined and referred
that is used to inspect a workpiece characteristic. to when defining a decision rule.

ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
NONMANDATORY APPENDIX C
OUTLIER MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The literature regarding outliers contains many defi- The second condition requires that the anomalous
nitions, often differing on the technical method used measurement does not represent the system under test.
to identify the outlier; however, most agree on two A workpiece or artifact being measured might show
basic properties. An outlier can be described as a outliers due to some extraneous influence, such as
nonrepeatable, anomalous, erroneous measured value contamination or poor fixturing. In this case the anoma-
that does not represent the system under test. From a lous measurement can be considered an outlier. In
measurement point of view, an outlier must satisfy two many cases, however, it will not be possible to identify
conditions simultaneously: suspect data at the time of collection, so means of
identifying “outlier candidates” after the fact, may be
(a) the anomalous reading cannot be repeated; and necessary.
(b) the anomalous reading does not represent the Several statistical methods of identifying outliers have
system under test. been proposed in the past. All of them are useful,
The first condition is fairly straightforward and is a though they all carry some risk of a “false positive”
necessary but not sufficient condition for an outlier. indication if the measurement cannot be rechecked. As
Nonrepeatability may be an (undesirable) metrological a general rule, the process for handling outliers can
characteristic of a poorly designed or implemented be summarized as follows.
measurement system, and hence the anomalous measure- (a) Use some form of robust technique to determine
ment does not represent an outlier and is representative how “different” a suspected outlier actually is from
of the measurement system performance. In some cases the rest of the measurements. This in many cases will
involve some statistical process, for example see ANSI
additional measurements may be necessary; this is
ASTM E 178 (1989).
particularly true if the outlier occurs at the end of a
(b) Thoroughly check the data for obvious errors,
time series of measurements. In this case, additional
such as data transpositions, etc. If a known cause
measurements will reveal if the anomalous measurement can be assigned, the anomalous measurement may be
will repeat in the time series, as would be the case if identified as an outlier.
a sudden shift occurred in some measurement influence (c) Perform the same analysis with and without the
quantity. If the anomalous measurement can be repeated, suspected outlier in order to verify what effect it
then it is either a valid measurement of the system, actually has.
or it is the result of some unmodeled convolution of The most conservative approach is to assume that
characteristics of the measurement system. Further test- unless there is a known, documented reason for dis-
ing is then required to discover the reason for the carding an anomalous measurement, all data is consid-
anomalous measurement. ered valid.
9
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
NONMANDATORY APPENDIX D
SPECIAL ISSUES OF DECISION RULES FOR INSTRUMENTATION
The specification of instruments typically is in terms is described as “uncertainty in realizing the measurand”
of a maximum permissible error (MPE), i.e., the largest of the standard (see Phillips, et al.). It is this uncertainty,
observed error (regardless of sign) from a test procedure combined in an RSS manner with the uncertainty in
must be less than a supplier-specified MPE. Hence the the instrument’s resolution, that is propagated through
specification zone has a width of twice the MPE, i.e., the test analysis to yield the final test uncertainty.
±MPE and an N:1 decision rule require the uncertainty It is sometimes erroneously believed that the system-
interval (of width 2 U) to be no greater than 1/N of atic error and reproducibility of the instrument under
this value, hence the expanded uncertainty, U, is to test are also to be included in the uncertainty analysis.
be no greater than 1/N of the MPE value. (In contrast, This is incorrect, as the systematic error and reproduc-
with a true one-sided guard band, as occurs with ibility are the metrological characteristics under exami-
workpiece form errors, an N:1 decision rule requires nation by the performance test. It is only the RSS of
the expanded uncertainty to be 1/(2N) of the specifica- the uncertainty in the instrument’s resolution and the
tion value.) uncertainty in the realization of the measurand of the
An instrument specification is often the result of standard used in the testing procedure that must be
some type of evaluation test; hence the specification considered by a decision rule.
zone is in units of the test result.1 Similarly, the The calculation of the guard bands proceeds similarly
guard band values are calculated in terms of the test to the general case discussed in Appendix E, i.e., gIn p
uncertainty. To determine the uncertainty in the test hIn U, where U is the expanded uncertainty of the test
result, first the uncertainty associated with each of the result. In the case of instrumentation, the optimal value
individual test measurements must be determined. Then of the guard band is typically larger than in the
these uncertainties must be propagated through the test workpiece case, since errors associated with an instru-
analysis; this may weight the uncertainty of some ment will typically propagate into a large number of
measurements more significantly than others, e.g., as subsequent measurements performed using the instru-
in a RMS-formulated test result. ment, so economic considerations will tend to increase
The uncertainty of an individual test measurement the magnitude of the guard band.
is just the root-sum-of-squares (RSS) of the uncertainty When verifying the specifications of an instrument
in the display resolution of the instrument and the using the guard banding approach, it is crucial that the
uncertainty in the realization of the measurand embodied customer use a reference standard with an uncertainty
by the calibrated standard in use. The standard is no greater than that prescribed by the supplier. Similarly
intended to represent a “true value” of the measurand.
when a supplier establishes an instrument’s specification
Unfortunately, all standards have an associated uncer-
limits, the uncertainty of the realization of the measurand
tainty. This includes the uncertainty documented in its
of the standard will play an important role in the
report of calibration and the uncertainty in the standard
economics of establishing the specification limit. From
due to the conditions at the time it is used as a reference
this perspective, it is instructive to consider how the
standard. Uncertainty sources associated with the condi-
uncertainty of the standard becomes incorporated into
tions of use include thermal effects, clamping distor-
the specification limit.
tions, contamination, and similar problems that degrade
Consider a supplier who seeks to establish a specifi-
the accuracy of the standard. The combined uncertainty
cation limit on an instrument according to a given
due to both the calibration report uncertainty and the
performance test. (Assume for simplicity, that the test
uncertainty due to the conditions at the time of use,
procedure is just to select the largest of a series of
1
observed errors in the measurement of a calibrated
The units of the test result need not be the same as those of a
standard.) The supplier uses a calibrated standard and
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
measurement result; for example, the test may report the sum-of-
squares of the measurement errors. tests several instruments and observes that the worst-
10

NONMANDATORY APPENDIX D ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
case test result is less than 5 ␮m. Given this information, Specification zone
Upper
specification
and knowledge of the uncertainty of the standard, what zone
specification limit should be assigned so that all of the
product will be verified to be in specification according Acceptance zone
to the guard banding decision rule? Suppose that the
calibrated standard has an uncertainty that propagates gIn
to an uncertainty in the test results of 1 ␮m. Hence, Max. test result = 5 m
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
when using another nominally identical standard having
the same uncertainty the worst-case test results reason- 0 m 5 m 7 m
ably could range between 4 ␮m and 6 ␮m. See Fig. D1. Test result
Suppose further that the contract with the customer 4 m 6 m
specifies that stringent acceptance with a 100% guard
band will be used in the acceptance testing of the FIG. D1 AN EXAMPLE OF CREATING THE
instrument. Consequently the specification limit must SPECIFICATION LIMIT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT
be set to 7 ␮m so that an acceptance zone of 6 ␮m TEST RESULTS AND TEST UNCERTAINTY
allows the sale of the instruments when tested with a
calibrated standard that results in no more than 1 ␮m
uncertainty in the test results. This illustrates the general a high probability of selling the product. Accordingly,
principle that the specification limit must be set equal the use of well-calibrated standards in both the establish-
to the largest test result plus twice the test uncertainty ment of the specification limits and the subsequent
(5 ␮m + 2 ␮m ⴛ 1 ␮m p 7 ␮m) in order to have acceptance testing is a very significant consideration.
11

ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
NONMANDATORY APPENDIX E
DETERMINATION OF GUARD BAND LIMITS
Calculation of a guard band, gIn, used in stringent the workpiece is high, the uncertainty interval is compa-
acceptance and applied within the specification zone, rable to the specification zone, and the cost of accepting
typically starts with the calculation of the expanded an out-of-specification workpiece is low, then the eco-
uncertainty, U. This is a quantitative measure of the nomics may favor relaxed acceptance where hOut is
uncertainty of the measurement based on metrological large, e.g., hOut p 1. In this example the guard band
considerations. The value of gIn depends strongly on gOut is large, e.g., 100% of the expanded uncertainty.
the product being considered and is influenced by An equivalent way of interpreting h is to establish
economic factors. This can be expressed by the relation the acceptable probabilities of pass and fail errors,
gIn p hIn U, where hIn includes the economic factors, based on economic considerations, as described in
some of which are described in Appendix A. For clarity, Appendix D of ASME B89.7.2-1999. Similarly, while
gIn is usually stated as a percentage, i.e., hIn p 1 ASME B89.7.3.1 emphasizes the widths of the various
zones (analogous to ISO 14253-1), ASME B89.7.2
yields a guard band whose width is equal to 100% of
emphasizes the limits of the acceptance zone, known
the expanded uncertainty.
as gauging limits.
Consequently, gIn depends on metrological (quantified The calculation of the guard band applied outside
by U) and economic (quantified by hIn) issues. If the specification zone, gOut, typically is based on the
the relative cost of accepting an out-of-specification level of confidence needed to reject the product. Hence
workpiece is low, i.e., hIn is small or zero, then gIn sufficient confidence should be established that rejecting
will be small or zero for any reasonable value of U. the product will withstand (often legal) scrutiny. In
Conversely, if the cost of accepting an out-of-specifica- general the guard band used in stringent acceptance
tion product is high, then gIn will be large (see Williams will have a different magnitude than the guard band
and Hawkins). In some situations where the cost of used in stringent rejection.
12
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
NONMANDATORY APPENDIX F
A DISCUSSION OF ISO 14253-1
ISO 14253-1 attempts to define a set of default tion is supplied regarding the use of repeated measure-
decision rules. The standard specifies that the supplier ments or the rejection of outliers. Also, there is no
of a product is to use stringent acceptance in order to consideration of economic factors in the default rule.
sell the product. The customer of the product, using The absence of a decision outcome for measurement
their own measurement uncertainty, similarly uses a results that lie in the transition zone is particularly
100% guard band in stringent rejection. troublesome for customers who become resellers of the
The default rules require the supplier to verify strin- product. Contrary to the claim in 14253-1 that this
gent acceptance in order to sell the product, and the situation only occurs when the reseller’s uncertainty is
customer to demonstrate stringent rejection in order to larger than the supplier’s, it is a likely outcome even
reject the product. No information is supplied regarding when the reseller’s uncertainty is smaller than the
the decision outcome if the supplier’s measurement supplier’s as shown in Fig. F1.
result lies in their transition zone. Similarly, no informa-
Upper
specification
limit
Upper
specification
Specification zone Specification zone
limit
gs gc gc
Stringent Stringent Stringent

acceptance zone acceptance zone rejection zone
ys yc
2 . Us 2 . Uc
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(a) (b)
A supplier using stringent accept- The customer, with a smaller measurement uncertainty
ance with guard band gs verifies and a smaller guard band gc than the supplier, obtains
acceptance with measurement re- a measurement result yc (uncertainty Uc) in the transi-
sult ys (uncertainty Us) and sells tion zone and consequently must accept the product. If
the product. the customer now attempts to resell the product and
again produces the same measurement result yc in the
transition zone, stringent acceptance is not verified and
the product cannot be sold.
FIG. F1 EXAMPLES RELATING TO ISO 14253-1
13

ASME B89.7.3.1-2001
NONMANDATORY APPENDIX G
REFERENCES
ASME B89.7.2-1999, Dimensional Measurement ISO 14253-1: 1998, Geometrical product specifications
Planning. (GPS) — Inspection by measurement of workpieces
and measuring instruments — Part 1: Decision rules
Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engi- for proving conformance or nonconformance with
neers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY specification.
10016 Publisher: International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), 1 rue de Varembe, Case postale 56 CH-1121
Department of Defense MIL-STD-45662A, Calibration Geneve 20, Switzerland/Suisse
Systems Requirements. 1 August 1988.
Eagle, A. R. “A Method for Handling Errors in Testing
Publisher: OASD(PA)/DPC, 1400 Defense Pentagon, and Measuring,” Ind. Qual. Control. 10:3, pgs. 10–
Room 1E757, Washington, DC 20301-1400 15. 1954.
Grubbs, F. A. and H. J. Coon. “On Setting Test Limits
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Relative to Specification Limits.” Ind. Qual. Control

ISO, Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measure-
10:3, pgs. 15–20. 1954.
ment, 1993 (corrected and reprinted 1995). This docu-
Phillips, S. D., W. T. Estler, T. Doiron, K. R. Eberhardt,
ment is also available as a U.S. National Standard: and M. S. Levenson. “A Careful Consideration of the
NCSL Z540-2-1997. Calibration Concept,” Journal of Research of the Na-
ISO, International Vocabulary of Basic and General tional Institute of Standards and Technology. Vol. 106,
Terms in Metrology (Second Ed.). See 6.10. (ISBN pgs. 1–9. 2001.
92-67-01075-1). Williams, R. H. and C. F. Hawkins. “The Economics of
ISO 3534-2: 1993, Statistics — vocabulary and sym- Guardband Placement.” International Test Confer-
bols — Part 2: Statistical quality control. ence. 1993.
ISO 10012-1: 1993, Quality assurance requirements for Youden, W. J., “The Fallacy of the Best Two Out of
measuring equipment — Part 1: Metrological confir- Three,” Journal of Quality Technology. 4:1, p. 24.
mation system for measuring equipment. 1972.
14

L07701
--`,,```,,,,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---


ASME B89 7 3 1 2001 Guidelines For Decision Rules Considering Measurement Uncertainty in Determining Conformance To Specifications PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASME B89 7 3 1 2001 Guidelines For Decision Rules Considering Measurement Uncertainty in Determining Conformance To Specifications PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASME B89 7 3 1 2001 Guidelines For Decision Rules Considering Measurement Uncertainty in Determining Conformance To Specifications PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASME B89.7.3.

GUIDELINES FOR DECISION RULES:

Copyright ASME International

GUIDELINES FOR DECISION RULES:

ASME will issue written replies to inquiries concerning interpretation of

ASME is the registered trademark of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

No part of this document may be reproduced in any form,

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Copyright ASME International

3 Requirements for Decision Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

4 Acceptance and Rejection Zones in Decision Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

5 Examples of Decision Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5 Stringent Acceptance, Simple Rejection, and a Transition Zone Example

Copyright ASME International

The intent of these guidelines is to facilitate the development of understanding between

or rejection of products based on the measurement result of a characteristic of the product,

Copyright ASME International

Copyright ASME International

SUBCOMMITTEE 7: MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY

PERSONNEL OF WORKING GROUP B89.7.3: DECISION RULES

Copyright ASME International

Copyright ASME International

Copyright ASME International

GUIDELINES FOR DECISION RULES:

1 SCOPE uncertainty interval (of a measurement): the set of

N:1 decision rule: a situation where the width of the

decision rule: a documented rule, meeting the require-

measurand: particular quantity subject to measure-

that is neither in the acceptance zone nor rejection

Copyright ASME International

Copyright ASME International

Relaxed rejection zone Stringent acceptance zone Relaxed rejection zone

FIG. 2 AN EXAMPLE OF SIMPLE ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION USING A 4:1 RATIO

Copyright ASME International