Determining Optimum Sample Size
for Percent-Within-Limits Specifications
Nasir G. Gharaibeh, Sabrina I. Garber, and Litao Liu
Highway construction and materials acceptance plans use a sample size
that is often established on the basis of practical considerations such
as personnel and time constraints. Commonly used sample sizes range
between three and seven units. While a sample size within this range may
be practical, it may not be economically optimal. If this sample size is too
small, the probability of making erroneous acceptance or pay adjustment
decisions (and thus the expected cost consequences of these decisions)
would be too high for state departments of transportation (DOTs).
If this sample size is too large, the cost of sampling and testing would
be unnecessarily high, especially where destructive testing is used.
A computational model for determining the optimum sample size was
developed and is presented in this paper. This model is intended to help
highway agencies determine how much to sample to minimize their total
acceptance cost (cost of sampling and testing plus the cost of erroneously
accepting poor-quality materials and construction). Inputs to this model
can be obtained from an agency’s specifications book, historical data on
quality, prevalent unit bid prices, and prevalent sampling and testing
prices. The developed model was applied to determine the optimum
sample size for the AASHTO acceptance plan for binder content and
density of hot-mix asphalt concrete pavements. The model shows that,
when historical quality levels are satisfactory, the state DOT may consider
reducing sample size as much as practically possible (in most cases, a
sample size of three per lot for each acceptance quality characteristic is
optimal). Only in the case of large lot size, combined with historically
extremely poor quality and high unit bid price, was a larger sample size
found to be optimal (n ⴝ 7 to 8).
“Sample size” is defined here as the number of units tested randomly
from a highway construction or material lot for a given acceptance
quality characteristic (AQC). The sample’s mean, standard deviation,
and size are used for estimating the lot’s true quality and consequently
for accepting, rejecting, or assigning a pay adjustment to the lot.
State departments of transportation (DOTs) commonly use a sample
size between three and seven units per lot (1, 2). This range is typically
established on the basis of practical considerations such as personnel
and time constraints. While a sample size within this range may be
practical, it is unclear whether it is economically optimal. If the sample
size is too small, the probability of making erroneous acceptance or
pay adjustment decisions (and thus the expected cost consequences
N. G. Gharaibeh and L. Liu, Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M
University, 3136 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843. S. I. Garber, Transtec Group,
Inc., 6111 Balcones Drive, Austin, TX 78731. Corresponding author: N. G.
Gharaibeh, ngharaibeh@civil.tamu.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2151, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2010, pp. 77–83.
DOI: 10.3141/2151-10
77
of these decisions) would be too high for state DOTs. If the sample size
is too large, the cost of sampling and testing would be unnecessarily
high, especially where destructive testing is used.
This paper presents a methodology for determining the optimum
sample sizes for acceptance plans that use the percent-within-limits
(PWL) quality measure. PWL is considered a preferred measure of
quality because it considers both the central tendency and variability
in a statistically sound way (3). The developed methodology was used
for determining the optimum sample sizes for asphalt binder content
and hot-mix asphalt core density in the AASHTO Quality Assurance
Guide Specification for hot-mix asphalt concrete (HMAC) pavement.
When one considers the large amount of highway construction that
takes place every year throughout the United States [e.g., $66 billion
of highway and street construction took place in 2005 (4)], identifying
optimum sample sizes for commonly used AQCs could translate to
a considerable cost savings to state DOTs.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: first is a review
of the literature on methods for sample size determination. Second,
the computational model for determining optimum sample size for
AQCs under PWL-based acceptance plans is presented. Third, the
application of the developed model to AASHTO’s Quality Assur-
ance Guide Specification is discussed. Finally, key conclusions and
recommendations about sample size are presented for consideration
by state DOTs.
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
The sample size (per lot) required to meet allowable tolerance in
the mean of any given AQC, when considering both the seller’s risk,
α (i.e., the probability of rejecting high-quality product), and the
buyer’s risk, β (i.e., the probability of accepting poor-quality product),
can be computed as follows:
⎡ ( Zα + Zβ ) σ ⎤
2
n=⎢ ⎥ (1)
⎣ E ⎦
where
n = sample size,
Zα = standard normal distribution value for the specified seller’s
risk,
Zβ = standard normal distribution value for the specified buyer’s
risk,
σ = advanced estimate of the lot’s standard deviation of the AQC
under consideration, and
E = the maximum acceptable difference between the true average
and the sample average.
78
Equation 1 is widely used in statistics textbooks and is adopted by
Standard Practice for Calculating Sample Size to Estimate, With Speci-
fied Precision, the Average for a Characteristic of a Lot or Process
(ASTM Standard E122-07). [ASTM Standard E 122-07 represents
(Zα + Zβ) as a multiplier. For example, with a multiplier of 3.0, it
is practically certain that the sampling error will not exceed E.] Efforts
have been made to improve this formula for determining sample size.
Some of these key efforts are discussed in the following paragraphs.
McCabe et al. (5) developed a model to account for concerns
about confidence in the sample standard deviation obtained from a
small sample size. McCabe’s model provides a conservative approach
for estimating the population’s standard deviation (and thus the
sample size) by resorting to a modified population standard deviation.
The modified population standard deviation represents a confidence
interval instead of a mere deterministic and uncertain single value,
as shown in Equation 2.
⎛ σ⎞
σ ′ = σ ± Zα / 2 ⎜ ⎟ c
⎝ 2⎠
where
σ′ = modified estimate of population standard deviation,
c = gamma function parameter, determined as a function of
sample size n, and
σ = deterministic estimate of population standard deviation.
Velivelli et al. (6) applied this conservative approach to determine
the sample size for concrete strength in the specifications for airfield
concrete pavement (FAA P-501). This has resulted in a sample size
of five beams per lot for flexural strength and seven cylinders per lot
for compressive strength. Sheng and Fan (7) used Bayesian techniques
to apply prior distribution of quality to the statistical problem of
determining sample size. They concluded that when historical data
indicate “good” quality then the prior probability density function is
“optimistic” and the sample size can be reduced. For PWL-based
acceptance plans, sample size can be determined by using operating-
characteristic (OC) curves. OC curves allow for identifying sample
size for any desired levels of buyer’s and seller’s risks.
While the above methods for determining sample size consider
the probability of accepting poor-quality product (i.e., buyer’s risk)
Expected Cost, $
costD(n)
costT(n)
FIGURE 1 Sample size optimization.
Transportation Research Record 2151
and the probability of rejecting high-quality product (i.e., seller’s risks),
they ignore the consequences of these probabilities. Furthermore,
these methods ignore the historical trends in delivered quality. The
optimum sample size model presented in this paper addresses
these shortcomings by considering the following factors:
1. Cost consequences of accepting poor-quality materials as well
as the cost of sampling and testing and
2. Proportion of prior lots of rejectable quality throughout the state.
South (8) and Govindaraju (9) suggested that a desirable feature
of any sampling plan is a clear consideration of the economic impact
of the quality levels used in the plan. The main question to be addressed
is whether the acceptance plan is worth its cost.
SAMPLE SIZE OPTIMIZATION MODEL
(2)
The model presented in the following paragraphs allows for comput-
ing the sample size that minimizes the agency’s total cost of accept-
ing a construction or material lot. The total cost of lot acceptance
consists of two components:
1. Cost of sampling and testing and
2. Cost associated with making erroneous acceptance decisions.
Mathematically, the agency’s total cost of lot acceptance can be
formulated as follows:
total cost of lot acceptance = cost T ( n ) + cost D( n ) (3)
where costT(n) is the agency’s cost of sampling and testing, which
is an increasing function of sample size n, and costD(n) is the agency’s
expected cost from erroneous acceptance decisions, which is a
decreasing function of n.
The optimum sample size is determined as the sample size that
minimizes the lot’s total acceptance cost to the agency, as defined in
Equation 3. This sample size represents the agency’s sample size
(not the combined sample size from the contractor and agency). This
model appears graphically in Figure 1.
Total Cost of Lot Acceptance
Optimum Sample Size Sample Size, n
Gharaibeh, Garber, and Liu
The costT (n) component of Equation 3 is relatively straightforward
and can be computed as follows:
cost T ( n ) = n × m × c
where m is the number of replicates and c is the unit cost of testing.
The relationship between n and the cost of sampling and testing may
not be exactly linear in some cases; in those cases, where a linearity
assumption is not deemed to be appropriate, a discrete function can
be applied.
The costD(n) component of Equation 3, in contrast, is fairly complex,
especially when multiple AQCs are considered.
To balance the complexity of the developed method with the level
of accuracy needed to achieve the study’s objectives, the following
assumptions were made:
• An “erroneous acceptance decision” is defined as accepting a lot
that should have been rejected. It is assumed that erroneous decisions
associated with assigning the wrong pay adjustment cancel each other
out (i.e., in the long run and on a statewide basis, the cost to the state
DOT of paying more for a lot than it is worth is offset by the gain to
the state DOT of paying less for a lot than it is worth).
• AQCs are independent or weakly dependent. This assumption is
not unrealistic for most AQCs (including those addressed in this paper)
because contractors tend to pay attention to individual AQCs rather
than to combined measures of quality. In other words, if one AQC
has poor quality, it does not necessarily indicate that other AQCs also
have poor quality.
• Because the minimum sample size for variables acceptance
plans with unknown standard deviation is three, a lower cap of n = 3
was placed on optimum sample size. Thus, under this method, the
optimum sample size cannot be less than three.
• An agency’s expected cost due to erroneous acceptance decisions
is based on bid price and does not consider other costs such as user
costs or future maintenance and rehabilitation costs.
When the above assumptions are considered, costD(n) is computed
for acceptance plans with a single AQC and for those with multiple
AQCs, as discussed in the following sections.
100
Probability of Acceptance, %
Buyer’s Risk, β
0
0 100
Percent within Limits (PWL)
FIGURE 2 Typical OC curve for accept–reject acceptance plan.
79
Cost of Acceptance Decisions for a Single AQC
For acceptance plans with a single AQC, a lot is considered of poor
(4) quality if that particular AQC is rejectable [i.e., PWL is at (or below)
the rejectable quality level (RQL)]. Thus, the agency’s expected cost
due to erroneous acceptance decisions is computed as follows:
cost D( n ) = β RQL × PRQL × B × S (5)
where
βRQL = buyer’s risk [(i.e., probability of erroneously accepting a
lot that has a true PWL equal to or less than the RQL,
computed at the midpoint between zero and RQL), the
concept of buyer’s (agency’s) and seller’s (contractor’s)
risk being shown in Figure 2],
PRQL = proportion of prior lots of rejectable quality throughout
the state (this prior distribution of quality can be obtained
from the agency’s construction quality databases or paper
records of past construction projects),
B = unit bid price, and
S = lot size.
β is computed by using the closed-form solution provided in
Appendix A of this paper. This procedure has been verified and found
to agree with the OCPLOT software (a well-established simulation-
based computer program for developing operating characteristic
curves) (10).
Cost of Acceptance Decisions for Multiple AQCs
For an acceptance plan that considers k AQCs, a lot is considered
poor quality if at least one of the AQCs is rejectable (i.e., PWL is at
or below RQL). Thus, the agency’s expected cost due to erroneous
acceptance decisions is computed as follows:
l
cost D( n ) = ∑ [β i Pi × β i +1Pi +1 ×  × β k Pk ] j × B × S (6)
j =1
where l is the number of combinations of β and P for all AQCs
and β = βRQL and P = PRQL for at least one AQC. Combinations that
Seller’s Risk, α
RQL AQL
80 Transportation Research Record 2151

TABLE 1 Probability of Accepting Poor Quality Lot When Two AQCs Are Considered

Probability of Statewide
Acceptance for Historical
Scenario PWL Any Given Lot Occurrence Statewide Probability of Acceptance

Both AQC1 and AQC2 PWL1 ≤ RQL1 & PWL2 ≤ RQL2 β1RQL × β2RQL P1RQL × P2RQL β1RQL × β2RQL × P1RQL × P2RQL
are rejectable.
AQC1 is rejectable, and PWL1 ≤ RQL1 & RQL2 < PWL2 < AQL2 β1RQL × β2RQL-AQL P1RQL × P2RQL-AQL β1RQL × β2RQL-AQL × P1RQL × P2RQL-AQL
AQC2 is acceptable
without pay increase.
AQC1 is rejectable, and PWL1 ≤ RQL1 & PWL2 ≥ AQL2 β1RQL × β2AQL-100 P1RQL × P2AQL-100 β1RQL × β2AQL-100 × P1RQL × P2AQL-100
AQC2 is acceptable
with pay increase.
AQC1 is acceptable RQL1 < PWL1 < AQL1 & PWL2 ≤ RQL2 β1RQL-AQL × β2RQL P1RQL-AQL × P2RQL β1RQL-AQL × β2RQL × P1RQL-AQL × P2RQL
without pay increase,
and AQC2 is rejectable.
AQC1 is acceptable with PWL1 ≥ AQL1 & PWL2 ≤ RQL2 β1AQL-100 × β2RQL P1AQL-100 × P2RQL β1AQL-100 × β2RQL × P1AQL-100 × P2RQL
pay increase, and AQC2
is rejectable.

do not have all AQCs at the RQL are influenced by the acceptable
quality level (AQL) and include βRQL−AQL PRQL−AQL [where RQL <
PWL < AQL (i.e., accept without pay increase)], and βAQL−100 PAQL−100
[where AQL ≤ PWL ≤ 100 (i.e., accept with pay increase)].
Equation 6 may be further explained by the following example.
If it is supposed that an acceptance plan includes two AQCs, a
rejectable-quality lot can occur under any one of the five scenarios
in Table 1. For each scenario, the probability of acceptance is com-
puted as the multiplication of the individual probabilities of accep-
tance (i.e., βi). The prior proportion of built lots for each scenario
is computed as the multiplication of the individual prior proportions
(i.e., Pi). Finally, the statewide probability of accepting a rejectable-
quality lot is computed as the summation of Π i =1β i Pi for all scenarios
k time and on the same unmolded HMA specimen.
(i.e., sum of last column in Table 1).
APPLICATION OF DEVELOPED OPTIMIZATION
MODEL FOR SAMPLE SIZE
The optimum sample sizes for asphalt binder content and HMA core
density under the AASHTO Quality Assurance Guide Specification
for HMAC pavement were determined by using the developed model.
Relationships between sample size (n) and cost of sampling and
testing [costT(n)] for these AQCs (see Figures 2 and 3) were developed
on the basis of an interview with a commercial laboratory manager
from Austin, Texas, in 2008. Austin’s prices were adjusted to rep-
resent the national average prices by using a ratio of 0.803 (11). A
0.803 city index indicates that sampling and testing prices in Austin
are 80.3% of the national average prices.
The following assumptions were made in estimating the sampling
and testing costs for asphalt binder content:
• Testing is performed in the plant.
• Asphalt binder content and gradation are tested at the same
• Cost of sample preparation and testing is $57.50 per technician-
hour.
• Cost of transportation is $34.00.
• Testing duration is 3h per set of tests.
• Production rate is four sets of tests per day, assuming that the
plant will produce for 10 to 12 h and the technician stays at the plant
during that time period.
The following assumptions were made in estimating the sampling
and testing costs for HMA core density:

• Testing is performed in the commercial laboratory.

Model Inputs • Cost of transportation between laboratory and project site is
$115.10.
The acceptance plan parameters and three possible scenarios of
historical quality levels (poor, regular, and good), which are the inputs
to the optimum sample size methodology, are shown in Table 2. The TABLE 2 Inputs for Determining Optimum Sample Sizes
AQL, RQL, and acceptance limit (M) values were obtained from for Binder Content and HMA Core Density
the AASHTO Quality Assurance Guide Specification. However,
the analysis was performed by using M = 60% (as specified in the Historically Poor Historically Regular Historically Good
Input Quality (%) Quality (%) Quality (%)
AASHTO guide specifications) and by using M = 70% (i.e., midpoint
between RQL and AQL). Nonetheless, the resultant optimum sample AQL 90 90 90
size was the same for both values of M. RQL 50 50 50
The PRQL, PRQL−AQL, and PAQL−100 values assumed here are fairly con- M 60 and 70 60 and 70 60 and 70
servative (i.e., the actual proportion of lots in poor quality is often PRQL 15 5 0
smaller and the actual proportion of lots in good quality is often larger
PRQL-AQL 85 90 85
than shown here). If actual field data confirm these observations, the
PAQL-100 0 5 15
optimum sample sizes will be smaller than the ones computed here.
Gharaibeh, Garber, and Liu 81

3000 3000
Sampling and Testing

Sampling and Testing

2500 HMA Binder Content and 2500 Density of HMA Cores
Gradation Together (Plan)
2000 2000
Cost, $

Cost, $
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0
Sample Size, Samples per Lot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sample Size, Samples per Lot
FIGURE 3 National average cost of sampling and testing
for unmolded HMA (binder content and gradation together), FIGURE 4 National average cost of sampling and testing for HMA
2008 prices. density cores, 2008 prices.

• Cost of coring (including coring, preparation, and patching) is
$99.60 per core.
• Cost of maximum theoretical specific gravity testing is $52.30
per core.
• Cost of density testing is $26.20 per core.
Cost of Sampling and Testing Example
This example explains how Figures 3 and 4 were developed from the
cost assumptions presented above. The cost of sampling and testing
of five HMA cores for density is computed as follows:
Sampling or Testing Item
Transportation between lab and project site
Coring ($99.60/core)
Maximum theoretical specific gravity test
($52.30/core)
Density test ($26.20/core)
Total (for five cores)
Model Outputs and Sensitivity
The optimum sample size for asphalt binder content and HMA core
density (when both of these AQCs are included in the acceptance plan)
are shown in Table 3 for various scenarios of lot size, unit bid price,
and historical quality levels. Table 3 shows that, for most practical
cases, the optimum sample size is three tests per lot. Only in the case
of historically poor quality, high unit bid price, and large lot size is
a high sample size warranted (n = 7 or 8 tests per lot for a 4,000-ton lot
with a unit bid price of $100/ton or $120/ton, respectively; optimum
sampling frequency = optimum n ÷ lot size). That model does not
preclude agencies from replacing outliers with new sample units if
there is evidence that the outliers occurred because of sampling and
testing errors.
The AASHTO Quality Assurance Guide Specification specifies a
minimum sample size of five for density and a minimum sample size
of four for binder content. Based on the analysis performed here, the
AASHTO-recommended minimum sample sizes are unnecessarily
high for most practical cases. A sample size of three is more optimal.
The effect of the number of AQCs considered in the acceptance
plan on the optimum sample size is demonstrated here by using the
same AASHTO Quality Assurance Guide Specification for asphalt
binder content and HMA core density (discussed in the earlier section
Cost ($) on model inputs). To determine the effect of the number of AQCs
considered in the acceptance plan on optimum sample size, the
115.10
optimum sample sizes for the following scenarios were computed
498.00
261.50 by using the optimization model for sample size:
131.00 • Acceptance plan considers binder content only,
1,005.50 • Acceptance plan considers HMA core density only, and
• Acceptance plan considers both binder content and HMA core
density.
Figure 5 shows that, as the number of tested AQCs increases, the
optimum sample size for each AQC decreases. Furthermore, the total
amount of testing decreases. Thus, for any given total amount of
testing, it is more cost-effective to test more AQCs than to increase the
sample size for any individual AQC. This result is expected from both
theoretical and practical standpoints. From a theoretical standpoint, the
joint probability of occurrence for all scenarios involving the accep-
tance of rejectable quality [i.e., the term (Pi βi × Pi+1βi+1 × . . . × Pk βk)
in Equation 6] decreases as the number of AQCs (i.e., k) increases.
From a practical standpoint, the chances of detecting and rejecting

TABLE 3 Optimum Sample Size for Various Scenarios

Scenario Historically Poor Quality Historically Regular Quality Historically Good Quality

Lot = 2,000 tons, unit bid price = $80 per ton Binder content: 3 tests per lot
HMA density: 3 cores per lot
Lot = 3,000 tons, unit bid price = $100 per ton Binder content: 3 tests per lot
HMA density: 3 cores per lot
Lot = 4,000 tons, unit bid price = $120 per ton Binder content: 8 tests per lot
HMA density: 8 cores per lot
Lot = 4,000 tons, unit bid price = $100 per ton Binder content: 7 tests per lot
HMA density: 7 cores per lot
Binder content: 3 tests per lot
HMA density: 3 cores per lot
Binder content: 3 tests per lot
HMA density: 3 cores per lot
Binder content: 3 tests per lot
HMA density: 3 cores per lot
Binder content: 3 tests per lot
HMA density: 3 cores per lot
Binder content: 3 tests per lot
HMA density: 3 cores per lot
Binder content: 3 tests per lot
HMA density: 3 cores per lot
Binder content: 3 tests per lot
HMA density: 3 cores per lot
Binder content: 3 tests per lot
HMA density: 3 cores per lot
82
16
Optimum Sample Size (n) per Lot for
14
12
10
each AQC
8
0
Poor
FIGURE 5 Optimum sample size for single and double AQCs of HMA
(lot ⴝ 4,000 tons, unit bid price ⴝ $100/ton).
poor quality lots increase as more AQCs are tested, leading to lower
optimal sample size.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A computational model for determining the optimum sample size
for highway construction AQCs is provided in this paper. This
model can help highway agencies determine how much to sample to
minimize their total acceptance cost (cost of sampling and testing
plus the cost of erroneously accepting poor-quality materials and
construction). The developed model was applied to determine the
optimum sample size for AASHTO’s acceptance plan for binder
content and density of HMAC pavements. Inputs to this model can
be obtained from the agency’s specifications book, historical data
on quality, prevalent unit bid prices, and prevalent sampling and
testing prices.
From the results of this study, the following conclusions and
recommendations are offered for consideration:
• When historical quality levels are satisfactory, state DOTs may
consider reducing sample size as much as practically possible (in most
cases, a sample size of three per lot for each AQC is optimal). The
technicians’ time could be better spent on workmanship inspection
to identify isolated instances of poor quality rather than on quality
level testing.
• When historical quality levels are satisfactory, state DOTs that
use contractor test results because of a shortage in their sampling
and testing staff may consider performing the acceptance testing
themselves at lower frequencies.
• Only in the case of historically extremely poor quality, high
unit bid price, and large lot size, a larger sample size was found to
be optimal (n = 7 or 8).
• From the standpoint of total acceptance cost, large lots appear
to be more cost-effective than small lots.
• As the number of AQCs increases, the optimum sample size for
each AQC decreases and the total amount of testing decreases.
• Though the optimization model introduced in this paper can
help determine the optimum sample size in a mathematically sound
way, practical considerations are still extremely important. For
example, the effect of economy of scale and nondestructive testing
on cost of sampling and testing are not considered. Therefore, apply-
ing the findings from this study requires a good understanding of
Transportation Research Record 2151
Single Acceptance Plan (Density Only)
Single Acceptance Plan (Binder Content Only)
Double Acceptance Plan (Both Binder Content and Density)
Regular Good
Historical Quality
both the computational model and the practical aspects of sampling
and testing.
Finally, the computational model presented here is based on certain
simplifying assumptions. One such assumption is that, if an agency
chooses to decrease its sample sizes, there is no cost stemming from
the contractor’s reaction to reduced sample size. With a reduced
sample size, the possibility exists that there will be more instances
of investigational sampling and testing for dispute resolution. It is
also possible that some contractors will react to reduced sample size
by raising their quality levels (and thereby possibly increasing the
bid price) to reduce their risk of a pay decrease (i.e., seller’s risk).
To decrease, or possibly eliminate, the contractor reaction cost,
the agency can insert a retest provision in its acceptance plans. The
retest provision can also be used to replace outliers with new
sample units, if there is evidence that the outliers occurred from
sampling and testing errors. Taken together, the remaining simpli-
fying assumptions are conservative; in other words, the determined
optimum sample size is likely to be even lower.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was conducted as part of an FHWA Advanced Quality
Systems project. The authors are grateful to FHWA for funding the
work presented in this paper.
APPENDIX A
The procedure for computing seller’s (α) and buyer’s (β) risks uses
acceptance sampling by variables and was developed on OC curve
procedures provided in Duncan (12) and in Standard Recommended
Practice for Acceptance Sampling Plans for Highway Construction
(AASHTO R9-90).
The inputs to this procedure are listed below:
1. AQL (measured in PWL), %;
2. RQL (measured in PWL), %;
3. M (acceptance limit, minimum acceptable sample PWL), %; and
4. n (sample size, internally varied through a loop).
To be consistent with the cited literature, PWL is converted
internally to percent defective (PD), where PD = 100 − PWL.
Gharaibeh, Garber, and Liu 83

The procedure consists of the following steps (the calculations ( k − z1 ) ⴱ Zβ

below are performed in a loop of sample size n = 3 to 30, with Zα = ( A8)
z2 − k
increments of one):
Equations A7 and A8 were derived from the following formulas,
1. Compute the standardized normal variables of AQL and RQL which were offered by W. A. Wallis in 1947 and documented in
(z1 and z2, respectively) as follows: Duncan (12):

⎛ AQL ⎞ Z α ⴱ z 2 + Zβ ⴱ z1
z1 = ϕ −1 ⎜ ( A1)
⎝ 100 ⎟⎠ k= ( A9)
Z α + Zβ
and 2
⎛ k 2 ⎞ ⎛ Z + Zβ ⎞
n = ⎜1 + ⎟ ⴱ ⎜ α ( A10)
⎛ RQL ⎞ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ z1 − z 2 ⎟⎠
z 2 = ϕ −1 ⎜ ( A 2)
⎝ 100 ⎟⎠
4. Because Zα and Zβ are the standardized normal variables of
where ϕ−1 is the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution the α and β probabilities, respectively, α and β can be computed
function. by using Excel’s NormSDist (which returns the standard normal
To determine z1 and z2, one may use the standard charts for cumu- cumulative probability of Zα and Zβ) as follows:
lative probabilities of the normal distribution function (found in
most statistics and probability books) or Microsoft Excel functions seller’s risk = α = 1 − NormSDist ( Z α ) ( A11)
as follows:
buyer’s risk = β = 1 − NormSDist ( Zβ ) ( A12)
⎛ AQL ⎞
z1 = NormSInv ⎜ ( A3)
⎝ 100 ⎟⎠ α and β are computed for sample size n = 3, 4, 5, . . . , 30 and the
results (i.e., n and its associated α and β) are stored in the spreadsheet
⎛ RQL ⎞ for use in the cost optimization model.
z 2 = NormSInv ⎜ ( A 4)
⎝ 100 ⎟⎠

where NormSInv is a Microsoft Excel function that returns the inverse REFERENCES
of the standard normal cumulative distribution (AQL and RQL here
are expressed in PD). 1. Russell, J. S., A. S. Hanna, E. V. Nordheim, and R. L. Schmitt. NCHRP
Report 447: Testing and Inspection Levels for Hot-Mix Asphaltic
2. Compute the beta distribution value k equivalent to M. This can
Concrete Overlays. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
be determined through a trial-and-error procedure. Several k values 2001.
are tried to calculate PD by using the following beta distribution 2. Mahoney, J. P., and A. W. Backus. QA Specifications Practices.
function. The trial-and-error operation is stopped when a k value WA-RD 498.1. Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle,
results in a PD value that is equal to M (such k is considered 2000.
equivalent to M): 3. Burati, J. L., R. M. Weed, C. S. Hughes, and H. S. Hill. Evaluation of
Procedures for Quality Assurance Specifications. FHWA-HRT-04-046.
FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004.
( (
x = max ⎡⎣ 0 ,1 2 − k n ) 2(n −1))⎤⎦ 4. Construction Spending November 2008. Census Bureau, U.S. Depart-
PD = ∫ β ( a, b, x ) dx ( A5) ment of Commerce. http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html.
x =0 Accessed Feb. 16, 2010.
5. McCabe B., S. AbouRizk, and J. Gavin. Sample Size Analysis for Asphalt
where a = b = (n/2) − 1. Pavement Quality Control. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Vol. 5,
The above function is implemented in many statistical software No. 4, 1999, pp. 118–123.
6. Velivelli, K. L., N. G. Gharaibeh, and S. Nazarian. Sample Size Require-
tools. For example, it can be solved using Microsoft Excel’s function
ments for Seismic and Traditional Testing of Concrete Pavement Strength.
BetaDist, as follows: In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1946, Transportation Research Board of the National
PD = BetaDist(x, a, b, 0, 1) Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 33–38.
7. Sheng, Z., and D.-Y. Fan. Bayes Attribute Acceptance Sampling Plan.
where BetaDist returns cumulative beta probability density function IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 41, No. 2, 1992, pp. 307–309.
and x is computed as follows: 8. South, J. B. Selecting an Acceptance Sampling Plan That Minimizes
Expected Error and Sampling Cost. Quality Progress, Vol. 15, No. 10,
1982, pp. 18–22.
⎡⎛ 1
x = max ⎢ ⎜ 0, −
k n ⎞⎤
⎟⎥
( ) ( A6)
9. Govindaraju, K. Certain Observations on Lot-Sensitive Sampling Plan.
⎢ ⎜⎝ 2 2 ( n − 1) ⎟⎠ ⎥
Communications in Statistics: Theory and Method. Vol. 19, No. 2, 1990,
⎣ ⎦ pp. 617–627.
10. Weed, R. M. Quality Assurance Software for the Personal Computer.
3. Now that k, z1, and z2 are known, compute Zα and Zβ (which FHWA-SA-96-026. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1996.
are the standardized normal variables of the α and β risks) as follows:
11. Heavy Construction Cost Data. R. S. Means Publishing, 18th ed.
(E. R. Spencer, ed.), Kingston, Mass., 2008.
⎛ n ⴱ ( z1 − z 2 ) ⎞ 1 12. Duncan, A. J. Quality Control and Industrial Statistics, 5th ed. R. D. Irwin,
Zβ = ⎜ ⎟ⴱ ( A7) Homewood, Ill., 1986.
⎜ k2 ⎟ ⎛ k − z1 ⎞
⎝ 1+ ⎠ ⎜⎝ 1 + z − k ⎟⎠
2 2 The Management of Quality Assurance Committee peer-reviewed this paper.