Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Research article Topical Sections

Investigating the impact of biomass quality on near-infrared models for switchgrass feedstocks

  • The aim of this study was to determine the impact of incorporating switchgrass samples that have been in long term storage on the development of near-infrared (NIR) multivariate calibration models and their predictive capabilities. Stored material contains more variation in their respective spectral signatures due to chemical changes in the bales with storage time. Partial least squares (PLS) regression models constructed using NIR spectra of stored switchgrass possessed an instability that interfered with the correlation between the spectral data and measured chemical composition. The models were improved using calibration sample sets of equal parts stored and fresh switchgrass to more accurately predict the chemical composition of stored switchgrass. Acceptable correlation values (rcalibration) were obtained using a calibration sample set composed of 25 stored samples and 25 samples of fresh switchgrass for cellulose (0.91), hemicellulose (0.74), total carbohydrates (0.76), lignin (0.98), extractives (0.92), and ash (0.87). Increasing the calibration sample set to 100 samples of equal parts stored to senesced material resulted in statistically increased (p = 0.05) correlations for total carbohydrates (0.89) and ash (0.96). When these models were applied to a separate validation set (equal to 10% of the calibration sample set), high correlation coefficients (r) for predicted versus measured constituent content were observed for cellulose (0.94), total carbohydrates (0.98), lignin (0.91), extractives (0.97), and ash (0.90). For optimization of processing economics, the impact of feedstock storage must be investigated for implementation in conversion processes. While NIR is a well-known high-throughput technique for characterization of senesced switchgrass, the selection of appropriate calibration samples and consequent multivariate models must be taken into careful consideration for NIR application in a biomass storage facility for rapid chemical compositional determination.

    Citation: Lindsey M. Kline, Nicole Labbé, Christopher Boyer, T. Edward Yu, Burton C. English, James A. Larson. Investigating the impact of biomass quality on near-infrared models for switchgrass feedstocks[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(1): 1-22. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.1.1

    Related Papers:

    [1] Álvaro Antón-Sancho . The moduli space of symplectic bundles over a compact Riemann surface and quaternionic structures. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(6): 13451-13475. doi: 10.3934/math.2025604
    [2] Dan-Ni Chen, Jing Cheng, Xiao Shen, Pan Zhang . Semi-stable quiver bundles over Gauduchon manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 11546-11556. doi: 10.3934/math.2023584
    [3] Rajesh Kumar, Sameh Shenawy, Lalnunenga Colney, Nasser Bin Turki . Certain results on tangent bundle endowed with generalized Tanaka Webster connection (GTWC) on Kenmotsu manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 30364-30383. doi: 10.3934/math.20241465
    [4] George Rosensteel . Differential geometry of collective models. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(2): 215-230. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.2.215
    [5] Yanhui Bi, Zhixiong Chen, Zhuo Chen, Maosong Xiang . The geometric constraints on Filippov algebroids. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 11007-11023. doi: 10.3934/math.2024539
    [6] Yanlin Li, Aydin Gezer, Erkan Karakaş . Some notes on the tangent bundle with a Ricci quarter-symmetric metric connection. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 17335-17353. doi: 10.3934/math.2023886
    [7] Sang-Eon Han . Semi-topological properties of the Marcus-Wyse topological spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12742-12759. doi: 10.3934/math.2022705
    [8] Mohammad Nazrul Islam Khan, Uday Chand De . Liftings of metallic structures to tangent bundles of order $ r $. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 7888-7897. doi: 10.3934/math.2022441
    [9] Derya Sağlam, Cumali Sunar . Translation hypersurfaces of semi-Euclidean spaces with constant scalar curvature. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 5036-5048. doi: 10.3934/math.2023252
    [10] Ali H. Alkhaldi, Akram Ali, Jae Won Lee . The Lawson-Simons' theorem on warped product submanifolds with geometric information. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 5886-5895. doi: 10.3934/math.2021348
  • The aim of this study was to determine the impact of incorporating switchgrass samples that have been in long term storage on the development of near-infrared (NIR) multivariate calibration models and their predictive capabilities. Stored material contains more variation in their respective spectral signatures due to chemical changes in the bales with storage time. Partial least squares (PLS) regression models constructed using NIR spectra of stored switchgrass possessed an instability that interfered with the correlation between the spectral data and measured chemical composition. The models were improved using calibration sample sets of equal parts stored and fresh switchgrass to more accurately predict the chemical composition of stored switchgrass. Acceptable correlation values (rcalibration) were obtained using a calibration sample set composed of 25 stored samples and 25 samples of fresh switchgrass for cellulose (0.91), hemicellulose (0.74), total carbohydrates (0.76), lignin (0.98), extractives (0.92), and ash (0.87). Increasing the calibration sample set to 100 samples of equal parts stored to senesced material resulted in statistically increased (p = 0.05) correlations for total carbohydrates (0.89) and ash (0.96). When these models were applied to a separate validation set (equal to 10% of the calibration sample set), high correlation coefficients (r) for predicted versus measured constituent content were observed for cellulose (0.94), total carbohydrates (0.98), lignin (0.91), extractives (0.97), and ash (0.90). For optimization of processing economics, the impact of feedstock storage must be investigated for implementation in conversion processes. While NIR is a well-known high-throughput technique for characterization of senesced switchgrass, the selection of appropriate calibration samples and consequent multivariate models must be taken into careful consideration for NIR application in a biomass storage facility for rapid chemical compositional determination.


    Statistical process control (SPC) is a widely utilized quality control procedure to monitor industrial processes by using statistical techniques. In any production process, both natural and unnatural variations occur. To maintain process stability and reduce variation, various tools are employed. Control charts play a significant role in monitoring production processes. These charts can be categorized as memory-less control charts and memory-type control charts. The fundamental memory-type control chart is the exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) control chart. Additionally, there are other control charts such as the extended-EWMA (EEWMA), cumulative sum (CUSUM) and hybrid-EWMA (HEWMA), which have been developed for the quick detection of small to moderate shifts. Several variations of the EWMA control chart have been introduced to detect small shifts, some of which can monitor changes in both mean and variance simultaneously.

    Literature suggests that EWMA control charts primarily rely on the assumption of normality for process distribution. For instance, Chen et al. [1] monitored variations in the mean and variance of a normal process. Yeh et al. [2] developed an improved EWMA control chart for monitoring the variability in multivariate normal processes. Other studies have proposed various applications of normal distribution-based EWMA control charts. Zhang and Chen [3] introduced the double EWMA (DEWMA) control chart as an enhancement of the traditional EWMA control chart. Khoo and Wong [4] extended the DEWMA methodology by introducing the double moving average approach. Haq [5] proposed a new control chart named the HEWMA control chart, which combines concepts from the traditional EWMA control chart. Shabbir and Awan [6] presented a Shewhart-type control chart to monitor moderate-sized shifts effectively in the process mean. Naveed et al. [7] introduced EEWMA-based and EWMA-based monitoring charts for tracking the process location parameters by using the moving average statistic, considering both known and unknown additional information.

    One favorable property of the EWMA chart, along with the mentioned charts, is its robustness to non-normality. However, in reality, there are cases in which the assumption of normality may not hold, making non-normality an important issue in ongoing process monitoring. Therefore, the development of control charts based on non-normality conditions is essential. Borror et al. [8] and Maravelakis et al. [9] demonstrated that EWMA control charts can robustly monitor the mean and variance of a process when the normality assumption is violated. They also provided useful transformation schemes for handling non-normal data. Several other studies have highlighted the critical role of a normality assumption in Phase I, while non-normality becomes a concern in Phase II monitoring. Specifically, when the sample size is not sufficiently large, non-normality becomes problematic. To address this, monitoring schemes based on control charts have been developed for non-normal symmetric and skewed distributions. In recent years, scholars have focused on using EWMA and CUSUM control charts to monitor non-normal processes. For example, Borror et al. [10] developed a Poisson EWMA control chart, and Gan [11,12] applied an EWMA control char to monitor binomial observations and Poisson observations. Yu et al. [13] used EWMA control chart schemes to monitor the water quality in the negative binomial distribution. Gan [14] provided an EWMA control chart with reflecting boundaries. Maravelakis et al. [9] investigated the use of EWMA chart as a tool to monitor dispersion in non-normal distributions. Abbasi et al. [15] studied EWMA control charts for both normal and non-normal processes, exploring several non-normal distributions such as the logistic and Student's t distributions. Raza et al. [16] developed EWMA charts under the multivariate student's t distribution and multivariate gamma distribution. Zhang and Chen [3] designed EWMA charts for monitoring the mean of censored Weibull lifetimes. Pascual [17] developed an EWMA control chart for monitoring location parameters, and he assumed Weibull distribution parameters. Arif et al. [18] introduced the EWMA-np control chart for Weibull distribution.

    In real-life scenarios, non-normal datasets are commonly encountered across various applied fields such as the engineering, agricultural and industrial sectors. While statistics offers a range of established distribution models to characterize these non-normal datasets, practical situations often arise whereby these conventional distributions prove inadequate. In such cases, alternative statistical distributions, including the inverse counterparts of typical distributions, become necessary to effectively capture the data's behavior. One notable candidate for modeling non-normal distributions is the Maxwell distribution. Particularly in the context of lifetime modeling, this distribution exhibits significant distributional properties and finds applications not only in the realm of statistics but also in fields of chemistry, physics and statistical mechanics. It is important to recognize that utilizing the inverse of a distribution is often less parsimonious compared to using the original distribution itself. Consequently, Singh and Srivastava [19] introduced the IM distribution, derived from the Maxwell distribution, to expand its applicability. They conducted a comprehensive exploration of various statistical properties, including moments, survival functions, and parameter estimation techniques. However, it is worth noting that none of the aforementioned research endeavors delved into practical applications of this distribution. This absence of applied usage, coupled with the unavailability of some crucial statistical properties, served as the primary motivation for our current study. Furthermore, in the existing literature, there is a notable absence of memory-type control charting methods apart from that associated with IM EWMA (IMEWMA). Therefore, an attempt was made to address this gap by introducing another memory-type control chart, known as the IM extended EWMA (IMEEWMA).

    While the aforementioned distributions are commonly considered for data modeling, there is a need to explore other non-normal distributions in theoretical and real-life fields. Karlis and Santourian [20] demonstrated an improvement in the parsimony of real distributions by considering the inverse of a distribution, using the example of the inverse Gaussian distribution. In the literature, several studies have derived and applied different forms of inverse distributions, such as inverse exponential, inverse gamma, inverse Rayleigh, inverse Lindley, inverse Weibull and IM distributions [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. The IM distribution is another positively skewed non-normal distribution. Essentially, the IM distribution is derived from the Maxwell distribution and has heavier tails than the Maxwell distribution, which means that it has a higher probability of observing extreme values than the Maxwell distribution. This statement was presented by Karlis and Santourian [20] who compared the coefficient of skewness for both the Maxwell and IM distributions. They also suggest that the IM distribution enhances the applicability of the Maxwell family of distributions. Although the theoretical properties of the IM distribution have been investigated, no real-life applications of this distribution have been attempted yet. Arafat et al. [25] conducted a study on the survival times of breast cancer patients and found that these times followed an IM distribution. As part of their research, they developed an EWMA control chart to enable the early detection of breast cancer cells for timely patient treatment. This study is motivated to consider the IM distribution because its application in control charts has many potential advantages over other heavy-tailed distributions. These advantages include the following. i) The IM distribution can be a suitable choice when your data follow a distribution that is characterized by a heavy tail, which means that it has a higher probability of extreme values. This distribution allows you to model data with longer tails, endowing it with the flexibility to capture extreme events or outliers in a process under study. ii) If data closely follows the characteristics of an IM distribution, using it in control charts can result in a better fit to the data than other heavy-tailed distributions. A better fit can lead to more accurate statistical process control. iii) Control limits in control charts are typically based on the assumed distribution of the data. If the data follow an IM distribution, control limits derived from this distribution may be more appropriate for identifying significant deviations from the mean or median of the process. iv) In situations wherein a process yields extreme values or outliers that are essential to detect, a heavy-tailed distribution like the IM distribution can provide increased sensitivity to these events. It can help to identify process shifts or variations that might be missed when using control charts based on distributions with thinner tails. An IM distribution is more sensitive to quick shift or outlier than the Maxwell distribution and other heavy-tailed distributions. The distribution is widely used in statistical mechanics, lifetime modeling and chemistry applications.

    Hossain et al. [21] proposed the Shewhart-type chart for the Maxwell distribution (VM chart) specifically for the purpose of analyzing and monitoring data that follows the Maxwell distribution. The VM control chart is based on a sample mean and range, and its statistical properties were evaluated by performing a simulation study. The authors demonstrated that the proposed control chart performs well in terms of monitoring process parameters. Further Hossain et al. [22] provided an improved and efficient version of the VM chart by introducing a CUSUM control chart for monitoring the failure rate in the boring process. Hossain and Omar [23] conducted a study on Shewhart-type control charts for observing processes that adhere to a Rayleigh distribution. They developed a chart designed to effectively monitor the scale parameter of the Rayleigh-distributed process. Morals and Panza [24] presented an adaptive version of the EWMA control chart with rigorous limits that allow one to obtain the mean from an asymmetric normal distribution. Lin et al. [25] utilized a Bayesian approach to construct a Phase II EWMA control chart for monitoring the variance of distribution-free service processes. There is a wealth of literature available that explores the applications of EWMA control charts based on different non-normal distributions. Al-Omari et al. [26] investigated the theoretical properties of the IM distribution. The IM distribution provides a suitable option for modeling various types of life or survival time data and genetic data, with potential applications in various fields, including statistical mechanics and chemistry.

    The primary objective of this study is to address the need for effective monitoring of processes when the underlying distribution deviates from normality and follows a heavy-tailed IM distribution. The focus is specifically on detecting changes in the scale parameter of an ongoing process. The motivation for this research stems from the recognition that non-normality is prevalent in real-life processes, and assuming normality can lead to inadequate process monitoring. While existing literature has explored control charts based on various non-normal distributions, there is a lack of research that specifically targets the IM distribution by using the EEWMA control chart, which yields heavier tails than the Maxwell distribution and has potential applications in life or survival time data and genetic data analysis.

    The crux of this paper lies in the development of an EEWMA control chart tailored to the IM distribution, aiming to provide valuable insights for accurate process monitoring and contribute to improved quality control practices. By addressing the limitations of assuming normality and focusing on the IM distribution, this study was proposed to enhance understanding in the field of statistical process monitoring and facilitate more robust and reliable quality control techniques.

    In Section 2, we discuss the existing control charts related to the IM and IMEWMA control charts. Section 3 presents the development of the proposed control chart, while Section 4 describes the different performance measures associated with the proposed control chart. In Section 5, a comparison between the IMEEWMA control charts and the existing V and IMEWMA charts is presented through the result of simulation. Furthermore, Section 6 includes a real-life application to illustrate the application of the proposed control chart. Finally, in Section 7, the manuscript provides a general discussion of the findings.

    In order to investigate the properties and performance of the proposed chart, we present the methodology and related details for the chart's development in different sub-sections. Subsection 2.1 offers a concise introduction to a heavy- tailed IM distribution, including its properties. Additionally, subsection 2.2 provides a reproduction of existing control charts that are based on the IM distribution.

    Let us consider that Y is a continuous random variable that follows the Maxwell distribution with the scale parameter σ. The probability distribution function is given as follows:

    $ f\left(y, \sigma \right) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }} {\sigma }^{-3}{y}^{2}{e}^{\frac{-{y}^{2}}{-2{\sigma }^{2}}} ; \quad\quad y > 0, \sigma > 0 $ (1)

    where X = $ {Y}^{-1} $ then, then Z can be defined as an IM random variable. The probability density function (PDF) of the IM distribution with scale parameter σ is defined as follows:

    $ f\left(x, \sigma \right) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }} {\sigma }^{-3}{x}^{-4}{e}^{\frac{-1}{2{{x}^{2}\sigma }^{2}}} ;\; x > 0, \sigma > 0. $ (2)

    The IM distribution has one scale parameter $ \sigma. $ The maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) $ \widehat{\sigma } $ of $ \sigma $ is given below

    $ \widehat{\sigma } = \sqrt{{3n}^{-1}\sum _{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{{{x}^{2}}_{i}}} . $ (3)

    If it is assumed that an ongoing production process follows an IM distribution, and interest is in monitoring the process scale parameter σ, then there are two control charts available for monitoring the process for a possible shift in the value of its scale parameter. This section presents methods for developing the available control charts for an IM distributed process, i.e., A memory-less Shewhart-type (VIM) control chart and a memory-based EWMA control chart. A VIM control chart is given by Omar et al. [31], and a memory-based EWMA control chart is given by Arafat et al. [32] in order to monitor the scale parameter of a positively skewed process.

    Omar et al. [31] proposed an IM distribution-based control chart for monitoring the scale parameter $ \sigma $, and their suggested control chart is named the $ {V}_{IM} $ control chart. Their plotting statistic for the IM distribution-based control chart is given by

    $ {V}_{IM} = {\left(3n\right)}^{-1}\sum _{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{{{r}^{2}}_{i}} . $ (4)

    The expected mean and variance of $ {V}_{IM} $ are given, respectively, by $ E\left[{V}_{IM}\right] = {\sigma }^{2} $ and $ Var\left({V}_{IM}\right) = \frac{2{\sigma }^{4}}{3n} $

    The control limits for the proposed chart can be expressed as follows,

    $ {LCL = R}_{1} \; {{\sigma }_{0}}^{2}, \; CL = {{\sigma }_{0}}^{2}, \; {UCL = R}_{2}{{\sigma }_{0}}^{2}, $

    where, $ {R}_{1} = \left[1-L\sqrt{\frac{2}{3n}}\right] $, and $ {R}_{2} = \left[1+L\sqrt{\frac{2}{3n}}\right] $.

    R1 and R2 factors may be used to simplify the calculations involving the L control chart coefficient. Utilizing these factors will significantly contribute to reduce the complexity involved in the construction of the VIM control chart for monitoring a scale parameter.

    During the monitoring of the IM scale parameter, two situations regarding the availability of required process parameters may need to be addressed in different practical situations:

    i) when $ {\sigma }^{2} $ is known,

    ii) when $ {\sigma }^{2} $ is unknown.

    For an unknown $ {\sigma }^{2} $, the control limits are given below,

    $ {LCL = R}_{1} {\stackrel{-}{V}}_{IM}, CL = {\stackrel{-}{V}}_{IM}, {UCL = R}_{2}{\stackrel{-}{V}}_{IM}. $

    If any data point exceeds the upper control limit (UCL) or falls below the lower control limit (LCL), it indicates that the process is out of control. On the other hand, if the data points remain within these control limits, we can conclude that the process is in control.

    The EWMA control chart was first introduced by Roberts [35] but this chart is based on the normality assumption and considering Arafat et al. [32] established a new EWMA control chart in the case of non-normal distribution. In their case, the non-normal distribution is the IM distribution and the proposed control chart is the IMEWMA chart. The chart is reproduced as given below.

    The plotting statistic for the IMEWMA control chart is defined as follows

    $ {Z}_{i} = \lambda {{V}_{IM}}_{i}+\left(1-\lambda \right){Z}_{i-1} . $ (5)

    In the above statistic, $ {{V}_{IM}}_{i} $ is the current observation for $ \left(i = \mathrm{1, 2}, 3, \dots \dots \right) $. $ {Z}_{i-1} $ represents the previous value of the statistic. The smoothing constant $ \lambda $ lies between 0 and 1 $ \left(\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}., \mathrm{ }0 < \lambda \le 1\right) $.

    The initial value $ {Z}_{0} $ is taken to be $ {{\sigma }^{2}}_{0} $. If we do not have any information about the target scale parameter, then it can be estimated from phase I sample. An alternative form of the EWMA statistic can be written as follows

    $ {Z}_{i} = \lambda {{{\left(1-\lambda \right)}^{j}V}_{IM}}_{i-j}+{\left(1-\lambda \right)}^{j}{Z}_{0} . $ (6)

    The mean and variance of IMEWMA statistics, respectively, are given by;

    E$ \left({Z}_{i}\right) = {\sigma }^{2} $, and Var$ \left({Z}_{i}\right) = \frac{2{\sigma }^{4}}{3n}\left\{\frac{\lambda }{2-\lambda }\left(1-{\left(1-\lambda \right)}^{2i}\right)\right\} $,

    where, $ {\sigma }^{2} $ is the square of the scale parameter. So, the control structure of an IMEEWMA chart is given as follows

    $ {{UCL = P}_{1}\sigma }^{2} , \quad CL = {\sigma }^{2} , \quad {UCL = P}_{2}{\sigma }^{2} , $ (7)

    where $ {P}_{1} = \left[1-L\sqrt{\frac{2}{3n}\times \frac{\lambda }{2-\lambda }\left(1-{\left(1-\lambda \right)}^{2i}\right)}\right] $, and $ {P}_{2} = \left[1+L\sqrt{\frac{2}{3n}\times \frac{\lambda }{2-\lambda }\left(1-{\left(1-\lambda \right)}^{2i}\right)}\right] $.

    P1 and P2 factors may be used to simplify the calculations involving the L control chart coefficient. Utilizing these factors will significantly contribute to reduce the complexity involved in the construction of the IMEWMA control chart for monitoring a scale parameter.

    As previously mentioned two different scenarios may need to be present to monitor the scale parameter in the IM distribution, and these scenarios are stated as follows

    i) when $ {\sigma }^{2} $ is known,

    ii) when $ {\sigma }^{2} $ is unknown.

    For an unknown $ {\sigma }^{2} $, involved control limits are given below

    $ {LCL = P}_{1}{\stackrel{-}{V}}_{IM}, \quad CL = {\stackrel{-}{V}}_{IM}, \quad {UCL = P}_{2} {\stackrel{-}{V}}_{IM}. $

    If any data point is beyond the UCL or falls below the LCL, it signifies that the process is out of control. Conversely, if the data points consistently remain within these control limits, we can deduce that the process is under control.

    Naveed et al. [36] presented an extended form of the Robert [33] EWMA control chart known as an EEWMA control chart. Like an EWMA control chart, the EEWMA control chart is also based on the assumption that the distribution of an ongoing process is a normal distribution. This study was designed to develop the Naveed et al. [36] EEWMA control chart for a non-normal distribution by following the methodology proposed by Arafat et al. [32], and Omer et al. [31]. For this study, the non-normal distribution is a positively skewed IM distribution, and the proposed control chart is referred to as the IMEEWMA control chart. The structure of the proposed IMEEWMA chart is designed and illustrated in the following text.

    Considering a random variable Q, where, Q = $ \frac{1}{2{x}^{2}{\sigma }^{2}} $, the PDF of Q is given by

    $ {f}_{Q}\left(q\right) = \frac{1}{{\bf{\Gamma }}\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)}{q}^{\frac{3}{2}-1}{e}^{-q} . $ (8)

    The above expression is a pdf of the gamma distribution which shows that the shape and scale parameters are 3/2 and 1, respectively. As per the additive property of the gamma distribution, we can write the IM variates as $ \sum _{i = 1}^{n}{Q}_{i} \sim gamma\left(\frac{3n}{2}, 1\right). $ Here, we introduce another variable $ {V}_{IM} = {\left(3n\right)}^{-1}\sum _{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{{{x}^{2}}_{i}} $ which is the square of the MLE of scale parameter $ \sigma $. Finally, we consider the pivotal quantity S which follows a gamma distribution with scale and shape parameters of 3/2 and 1. Here, S is a gamma-distributed random variable, so its mean is $ E\left[\mathrm{S}\right] = E\left[\frac{3n{V}_{IM}}{2{\sigma }^{2}}\right] = \frac{3n}{2}. $ Thus we can write the mean and variance of $ {V}_{IM} $ as $ E\left[{V}_{IM}\right] = {\sigma }^{2} $ and $ Var\left({V}_{IM}\right) = \frac{2{\sigma }^{4}}{3n} $ respectively.

    The plotting statistic for the proposed EEWMA control chart which is an extension of the EWMA chart that gives positive weight to the current observation and negative weight to the proceeding observations, is defined as

    $ {u}_{i} = {\varphi }_{1}{{V}_{IM}}_{i}-{\varphi }_{2}{{V}_{IM}}_{i-1}+\left(1-{\varphi }_{1}+{\varphi }_{2}\right){u}_{i-1} . $ (9)

    The smoothing constants of $ {\varphi }_{1} $ and $ {\varphi }_{2} $ lie between 0$ < {\varphi }_{1}\le 1 $ and 0$ < {\varphi }_{2}\le {\varphi }_{1} $ respectively. For the proposed statistic, $ {{V}_{IM}}_{i} $ is the current observation for $ \left(i = \mathrm{1, 2}, 3, \dots \right) $. The quantity $ {{V}_{IM}}_{i-1} $ represents the previous value of the variable and $ {U}_{i-1} $ represents the previous value of the statistic. The initial value $ {u}_{0} $ is taken to be $ {{\sigma }^{2}}_{0} $. If we do not have any information about the target scale parameter, then it can be estimated from Phase I sample. The mean and variance of IMEEWMA statistics are respectively as follows.

    E$ \left({u}_{i}\right) = {\sigma }^{2} $,

    and

    $ \text{Var}\left({u}_{i}\right) = \frac{2{\sigma }^{4}}{3n}\left\{{{\varphi }_{1}}^{2}+{{\varphi }_{2}}^{2}\right\}\left[\left\{\frac{1-{a}^{2i}}{2\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)-{\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)}^{2}}\right\}-\left\{\frac{1-{a}^{2i-2}}{2\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)-{\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)}^{2}}\right\}\right], $ (10)

    where, $ {\sigma }^{2} $ is the square of the scale parameter. So, the control structure of an IMEEWMA chart is given follows:

    $ {LCL = W}_{1}{\sigma }^{2} , CL = {\sigma }^{2} , {UCL = W}_{2}{\sigma }^{2} , $ (11)

    where, $ {W}_{1} = \left[1-K\sqrt{\frac{2}{3n}\left\{{{\varphi }_{1}}^{2}+{{\varphi }_{2}}^{2}\right\}\left[\left\{\frac{1-{a}^{2i}}{2\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)-{\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)}^{2}}\right\}-\left\{\frac{1-{a}^{2i-2}}{2\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)-{\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)}^{2}}\right\}\right]}\right] $

    and $ {W}_{2} = \left[1+K\sqrt{\frac{2}{3n}\left\{{{\varphi }_{1}}^{2}+{{\varphi }_{2}}^{2}\right\}\left[\left\{\frac{1-{a}^{2i}}{2\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)-{\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)}^{2}}\right\}-\left\{\frac{1-{a}^{2i-2}}{2\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)-{\left({\varphi }_{1}-{\varphi }_{2}\right)}^{2}}\right\}\right]}\right] $.

    In the process of monitoring the scale parameter of the IM distribution, we may need to encounter two situations:

    i) when $ {\sigma }^{2} $ is known,

    ii) when $ {\sigma }^{2} $ is unknown.

    In the case of known $ {\sigma }^{2} $, the control limits can be written as follows

    $ {LCL = W}_{1}{{\sigma }_{0}}^{2}, CL = {{\sigma }_{0}}^{2}, {UCL = W}_{2}{{\sigma }_{0}}^{2}. $

    But in the second case when $ {\sigma }^{2} $ is unknown, we estimate $ {V}_{IM} $ and use it as follows

    $ {LCL = W}_{1}{\stackrel{-}{V}}_{IM} , CL = {\stackrel{-}{V}}_{IM} , {UCL = W}_{2}{\stackrel{-}{V}}_{IM} . $ (12)

    K control chart coefficients (see, Tables 16) are used to calculate $ {W}_{1} $ and $ {W}_{2} $. The factor K which is mentioned in Eq (11) was obtained by conducting Monte Carlo simulation with $ {\sigma }_{0} $ = 1 in such a manner that the expected in-control average run length $ \left({ARL}_{o}\right) $ can been obtained. K determines the width of the control limits and its value can be selected according to $ {ARL}_{o} $.

    Table 1.  Values of K coefficient for ARL0$ = 370 $.
    Sample size $ {\varphi }_{1} $= 0.1, $ {\varphi }_{2} $=0.03 $ {\varphi }_{1} $= 0.3, $ {\varphi }_{2} $=0.05 $ {\varphi }_{1} $= 0.5, $ {\varphi }_{2} $=0.07 $ {\varphi }_{1} $= 0.1, $ {\varphi }_{2} $=0.0005 $ {\varphi }_{1} $=0.25, $ {\varphi }_{2} $=0.1
    2 4.990 4.011 4.125 2.799 5.093
    3 5.530 4.070 4.069 2.769 5.532
    5 6.420 4.224 4.065 2.757 6.281
    6 6.801 4.306 4.087 2.753 6.599
    9 7.799 4.540 4.173 2.749 7.459

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  Factors for IMEEWMA control chart with $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} $ = 0.1, $ \mathtt{φ}_{2} $ = 0.03 and $ {ARL}_{0} = 370 $.
    Time (i) Sample size (n)
    2 3 5 6 9
    W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2
    1 0.69922 1.30078 0.72784 1.27216 0.75525 1.24475 0.76332 1.23668 0.77839 1.22161
    2 0.72027 1.27973 0.74689 1.25311 0.77239 1.22761 0.77989 1.22011 0.79390 1.20610
    3 0.73985 1.26015 0.76460 1.23540 0.78832 1.21168 0.79529 1.20471 0.80833 1.19167
    4 0.75806 1.24194 0.78108 1.21892 0.80314 1.19686 0.80962 1.19038 0.82175 1.17825
    5 0.77500 1.22500 0.79641 1.20359 0.81692 1.18308 0.82295 1.17705 0.83423 1.16577
    6 0.79075 1.20925 0.81066 1.18934 0.82973 1.17027 0.83534 1.16466 0.84583 1.15417
    7 0.80540 1.19460 0.82391 1.17609 0.84165 1.15835 0.84687 1.15313 0.85662 1.14338
    8 0.81902 1.18098 0.83624 1.16376 0.85274 1.14726 0.85759 1.14241 0.86666 1.13334
    9 0.83169 1.16831 0.84770 1.15230 0.86304 1.13696 0.86756 1.13244 0.87599 1.12401
    10 0.84347 1.15653 0.85836 1.14164 0.87263 1.12737 0.87683 1.12317 0.88467 1.11533
    11 0.85443 1.14557 0.86828 1.13172 0.88155 1.11845 0.88545 1.11455 0.89275 1.10725
    12 0.86462 1.13538 0.87750 1.12250 0.88984 1.11016 0.89347 1.10653 0.90025 1.09975
    13 0.87409 1.12591 0.88607 1.11393 0.89755 1.10245 0.90093 1.09907 0.90724 1.09276
    14 0.88291 1.11709 0.89405 1.10595 0.90472 1.09528 0.90786 1.09214 0.91373 1.08627
    15 0.89110 1.10890 0.90146 1.09854 0.91139 1.08861 0.91431 1.08569 0.91977 1.08023
    16 0.89873 1.10127 0.90836 1.09164 0.91759 1.08241 0.92031 1.07969 0.92538 1.07462
    17 0.90582 1.09418 0.91478 1.08522 0.92336 1.07664 0.92589 1.07411 0.93061 1.06939
    18 0.91241 1.08759 0.92074 1.07926 0.92873 1.07127 0.93108 1.06892 0.93546 1.06454
    19 0.91854 1.08146 0.92629 1.07371 0.93372 1.06628 0.93590 1.06410 0.93998 1.06002
    20 0.92424 1.07576 0.93145 1.06855 0.93836 1.06164 0.94039 1.05961 0.94418 1.05582

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Factors for IMEEWMA control chart with $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} $ = 0.3, $ \mathtt{φ}_{2} $ = 0.05 and $ {ARL}_{0} = 370 $.
    Time (i) Sample size (n)
    2 3 5 6 9
    W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2
    1 0.29569 1.70431 0.41648 1.58352 0.53090 1.46910 0.56346 1.43654 0.62420 1.37580
    2 0.47177 1.52823 0.56236 1.43764 0.64818 1.35182 0.67260 1.32740 0.71815 1.28185
    3 0.60383 1.39617 0.67177 1.32823 0.73613 1.26387 0.75445 1.24555 0.78861 1.21139
    4 0.70287 1.29713 0.75383 1.24617 0.80210 1.19790 0.81583 1.18417 0.84146 1.15854
    5 0.77715 1.22285 0.81537 1.18463 0.85157 1.14843 0.86188 1.13812 0.88109 1.11891
    6 0.83286 1.16714 0.86153 1.13847 0.88868 1.11132 0.89641 1.10359 0.91082 1.08918
    7 0.87465 1.12535 0.89615 1.10385 0.91651 1.08349 0.92231 1.07769 0.93312 1.06688
    8 0.90599 1.09401 0.92211 1.07789 0.93738 1.06262 0.94173 1.05827 0.94984 1.05016
    9 0.92949 1.07051 0.94158 1.05842 0.95304 1.04696 0.95630 1.04370 0.96238 1.03762
    10 0.94712 1.05288 0.95619 1.04381 0.96478 1.03522 0.96722 1.03278 0.97178 1.02822
    11 0.96034 1.03966 0.96714 1.03286 0.97358 1.02642 0.97542 1.02458 0.97884 1.02116
    12 0.97025 1.02975 0.97535 1.02465 0.98019 1.01981 0.98156 1.01844 0.98413 1.01587
    13 0.97769 1.02231 0.98152 1.01848 0.98514 1.01486 0.98617 1.01383 0.98810 1.01190
    14 0.98327 1.01673 0.98614 1.01386 0.98886 1.01114 0.98963 1.01037 0.99107 1.00893
    15 0.98745 1.01255 0.98960 1.01040 0.99164 1.00836 0.99222 1.00778 0.99330 1.00670
    16 0.99059 1.00941 0.99220 1.00780 0.99373 1.00627 0.99417 1.00583 0.99498 1.00502
    17 0.99294 1.00706 0.99415 1.00585 0.99530 1.00470 0.99562 1.00438 0.99623 1.00377
    18 0.99471 1.00529 0.99561 1.00439 0.99647 1.00353 0.99672 1.00328 0.99718 1.00282
    19 0.99603 1.00397 0.99671 1.00329 0.99736 1.00264 0.99754 1.00246 0.99788 1.00212
    20 0.99702 1.00298 0.99753 1.00247 0.99802 1.00198 0.99815 1.00185 0.99841 1.00159

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4.  Factors for IMEEWMA control chart with $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} $ = 0.5, $ \mathtt{φ}_{2} $ = 0.07 and ARL0$ = 370 $.
    Time (i) Sample size (n)
    2 3 5 6 9
    W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2
    1 00000 2.20240 00000 2.20240 0.25060 1.74940 0.31219 1.68781 0.42659 1.57341
    2 0.31463 1.68537 0.31463 1.68537 0.57284 1.42716 0.60795 1.39205 0.67316 1.32684
    3 0.60934 1.39066 0.60934 1.39066 0.75652 1.24348 0.77653 1.22347 0.81370 1.18630
    4 0.77732 1.22268 0.77732 1.22268 0.86122 1.13878 0.87262 1.12738 0.89381 1.10619
    5 0.87307 1.12693 0.87307 1.12693 0.92089 1.07911 0.92739 1.07261 0.93947 1.06053
    6 0.92765 1.07235 0.92765 1.07235 0.95491 1.04509 0.95862 1.04138 0.96550 1.03450
    7 0.95876 1.04124 0.95876 1.04124 0.97430 1.02570 0.97641 1.02359 0.98033 1.01967
    8 0.97649 1.02351 0.97649 1.02351 0.98535 1.01465 0.98655 1.01345 0.98879 1.01121
    9 0.98660 1.01340 0.98660 1.01340 0.99165 1.00835 0.99234 1.00766 0.99361 1.00639
    10 0.99236 1.00764 0.99236 1.00764 0.99524 1.00476 0.99563 1.00437 0.99636 1.00364
    11 0.99565 1.00435 0.99565 1.00435 0.99729 1.00271 0.99751 1.00249 0.99792 1.00208
    12 0.99752 1.00248 0.99752 1.00248 0.99845 1.00155 0.99858 1.00142 0.99882 1.00118
    13 0.99859 1.00141 0.99859 1.00141 0.99912 1.00088 0.99919 1.00081 0.99933 1.00067
    14 0.99919 1.00081 0.99919 1.00081 0.99950 1.00050 0.99954 1.00046 0.99962 1.00038
    15 0.99954 1.00046 0.99954 1.00046 0.99971 1.00029 0.99974 1.00026 0.99978 1.00022
    16 0.99974 1.00026 0.99974 1.00026 0.99984 1.00016 0.99985 1.00015 0.99988 1.00012
    17 0.99985 1.00015 0.99985 1.00015 0.99991 1.00009 0.99991 1.00009 0.99993 1.00007
    18 0.99991 1.00009 0.99991 1.00009 0.99995 1.00005 0.99995 1.00005 0.99996 1.00004
    19 0.99995 1.00005 0.99995 1.00005 0.99997 1.00003 0.99997 1.00003 0.99998 1.00002
    20 0.99997 1.00003 0.99997 1.00003 0.99998 1.00002 0.99998 1.00002 0.99999 1.00001

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 5.  Factors for IMEEWMA control chart with $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} $ = 0.1, $ \mathtt{φ}_{2} $ = 0.0005 and ARL0$ = 370 $.
    Time (i) Sample size (n)
    2 3 5 6 9
    W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2
    1 0.83840 1.16160 0.86947 1.13053 0.89933 1.10067 0.90820 1.09180 0.92518 1.07482
    2 0.85448 1.14552 0.88245 1.11755 0.90934 1.09066 0.91733 1.08267 0.93263 1.06737
    3 0.86896 1.13104 0.89415 1.10585 0.91836 1.08164 0.92556 1.07444 0.93933 1.06067
    4 0.88200 1.11800 0.90468 1.09532 0.92649 1.07351 0.93297 1.06703 0.94537 1.05463
    5 0.89374 1.10626 0.91417 1.08583 0.93380 1.06620 0.93964 1.06036 0.95080 1.04920
    6 0.90431 1.09569 0.92271 1.07729 0.94039 1.05961 0.94564 1.05436 0.95570 1.04430
    7 0.91383 1.08617 0.93040 1.06960 0.94632 1.05368 0.95105 1.04895 0.96011 1.03989
    8 0.92241 1.07759 0.93732 1.06268 0.95166 1.04834 0.95592 1.04408 0.96407 1.03593
    9 0.93013 1.06987 0.94356 1.05644 0.95647 1.04353 0.96031 1.03969 0.96765 1.03235
    10 0.93708 1.06292 0.94918 1.05082 0.96080 1.03920 0.96426 1.03574 0.97087 1.02913
    11 0.94334 1.05666 0.95423 1.04577 0.96470 1.03530 0.96781 1.03219 0.97377 1.02623
    12 0.94898 1.05102 0.95879 1.04121 0.96821 1.03179 0.97102 1.02898 0.97638 1.02362
    13 0.95405 1.04595 0.96289 1.03711 0.97138 1.02862 0.97390 1.02610 0.97873 1.02127
    14 0.95863 1.04137 0.96658 1.03342 0.97422 1.02578 0.97650 1.02350 0.98084 1.01916
    15 0.96274 1.03726 0.96991 1.03009 0.97679 1.02321 0.97883 1.02117 0.98275 1.01725
    16 0.96645 1.03355 0.97290 1.02710 0.97910 1.02090 0.98094 1.01906 0.98447 1.01553
    17 0.96979 1.03021 0.97560 1.02440 0.98118 1.01882 0.98284 1.01716 0.98601 1.01399
    18 0.97279 1.02721 0.97802 1.02198 0.98305 1.01695 0.98454 1.01546 0.98740 1.01260
    19 0.97550 1.02450 0.98021 1.01979 0.98474 1.01526 0.98608 1.01392 0.98866 1.01134
    20 0.97794 1.02206 0.98218 1.01782 0.98626 1.01374 0.98747 1.01253 0.98979 1.01021

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 6.  Factors for IMEEWMA control chart with $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} $ = 0.1, $ \mathtt{φ}_{2} $ = 0.25 and ARL0$ = 370 $.
    Time (i) Sample size (n)
    2 3 5 6 9
    W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2
    1 0.20826 1.79174 0.29783 1.70217 0.38246 1.61754 0.40772 1.59228 0.45338 1.54662
    2 0.32702 1.67298 0.40315 1.59685 0.47509 1.52491 0.49656 1.50344 0.53538 1.46462
    3 0.42797 1.57203 0.49268 1.50732 0.55383 1.44617 0.57208 1.42792 0.60507 1.39493
    4 0.51377 1.48623 0.56878 1.43122 0.62075 1.37925 0.63627 1.36373 0.66431 1.33569
    5 0.58671 1.41329 0.63346 1.36654 0.67764 1.32236 0.69083 1.30917 0.71466 1.28534
    6 0.64870 1.35130 0.68844 1.31156 0.72599 1.27401 0.73720 1.26280 0.75746 1.24254
    7 0.70140 1.29860 0.73518 1.26482 0.76709 1.23291 0.77662 1.22338 0.79384 1.20616
    8 0.74619 1.25381 0.77490 1.22510 0.80203 1.19797 0.81013 1.18987 0.82477 1.17523
    9 0.78426 1.21574 0.80866 1.19134 0.83173 1.16827 0.83861 1.16139 0.85105 1.14895
    10 0.81662 1.18338 0.83736 1.16264 0.85697 1.14303 0.86282 1.13718 0.87339 1.12661
    11 0.84413 1.15587 0.86176 1.13824 0.87842 1.12158 0.88340 1.11660 0.89239 1.10761
    12 0.86751 1.13249 0.88250 1.11750 0.89666 1.10334 0.90089 1.09911 0.90853 1.09147
    13 0.88738 1.11262 0.90012 1.09988 0.91216 1.08784 0.91575 1.08425 0.92225 1.07775
    14 0.90427 1.09573 0.91510 1.08490 0.92534 1.07466 0.92839 1.07161 0.93391 1.06609
    15 0.91863 1.08137 0.92784 1.07216 0.93654 1.06346 0.93913 1.06087 0.94382 1.05618
    16 0.93084 1.06916 0.93866 1.06134 0.94606 1.05394 0.94826 1.05174 0.95225 1.04775
    17 0.94121 1.05879 0.94786 1.05214 0.95415 1.04585 0.95602 1.04398 0.95941 1.04059
    18 0.95003 1.04997 0.95568 1.04432 0.96102 1.03898 0.96262 1.03738 0.96550 1.03450
    19 0.95753 1.04247 0.96233 1.03767 0.96687 1.03313 0.96823 1.03177 0.97068 1.02932
    20 0.96390 1.03610 0.96798 1.03202 0.97184 1.02816 0.97299 1.02701 0.97507 1.02493

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    W1 and W2 are used directly to simplify the calculations involving the K control chart coefficient. Utilizing these factors will significantly contribute to reduce the complexity involved in the construction of the IMEEWMA control chart for monitoring a scale parameter.

    Regarding monitoring the process scale parameter for the case of the IM distribution, the hypotheses are given as follows:

    $ {H}_{o} = {\sigma }^{2} = {{\sigma }_{0}}^{2}; $ or, $ \delta = 1; $ (no shift in the process)

    $ {H}_{1} = {\sigma }^{2} = {{\sigma }_{1}}^{2} = \delta {{\sigma }_{0}}^{2}; $ or, $ \delta \ne 1; $ (shift occurs in the process)

    here $ \delta $ indicates the process shift.

    We can evaluate the performance of control charts by using various measures such as the average run length (ARL), the standard deviation of run length (SDRL) and the median run length (MRL). These measurements are famous standards for comparing the performances of different control charts. The RL is the number of sample points on the control chart before signaling the first out of control (OOC) point. The ARL is the expected number, and SDRL is the standard deviation of the RL. The ARL0 for an in-control process (IC) should be larger than the ARL1 for an OOC signal when a shift in the process parameter is observed. The ARL decreases when the shift increases so an alarm for an OOC situation can be raised quickly [37]. There are several ways to conduct a performance evaluation for control charts such as the integral equation method, Markov chain method and Monte Carlo method [38,39]. Here we use the ARL along with the SDRL to evaluate the performance of the proposed IMEEWMA control chart and other relevant control charts. The Monte Carlo simulation was performed by using R language to compute the ARLs and SDRLs. In order to compute control chart coefficients for the proposed control chart and other control charts, ARL0 was fixed at 370 (see Tables 711).

    Table 7.  ARL and SDRL results for IMEEWMA chart with $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} = \mathrm{ }0.1, \mathtt{φ}_{2} = 0.03 $ and ARL0$ = 370 $.
    Sample size and K coefficient
    $ \boldsymbol{\delta } $ n = 2 & K=4.990 n = 3 & K=5.530 n = 5 & K=6.420 n = 6 & K=6.801 n = 9 & K=7.799
    ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL
    1 372.94 349.87 368.13 342.32 368.70 332.83 368.62 332.51 368.86 332.37
    1.25 34.21 22.29 28.16 15.86 22.72 10.49 21.20 9.08 18.47 6.67
    1.5 14.57 8.69 12.29 6.48 10.16 4.48 9.51 3.93 8.42 3.00
    1.75 8.79 5.40 7.40 4.03 6.13 2.84 5.76 2.50 5.10 1.96
    2 6.14 3.81 5.14 2.90 4.24 2.05 4.00 1.85 3.55 1.44
    2.25 4.68 2.96 3.93 2.24 3.24 1.61 3.03 1.44 2.69 1.13
    2.5 3.76 2.40 3.15 1.81 2.60 1.31 2.45 1.17 2.16 0.93
    2.75 3.16 2.01 2.65 1.53 2.19 1.10 2.06 0.98 1.82 0.79
    3 2.74 1.73 2.32 1.30 1.91 0.94 1.80 0.85 1.59 0.67
    5 1.53 0.80 1.33 1 1.16 0.39 1.11 0.33 1.04 0.20

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 8.  ARL and SDRL results for IMEEWMA chart with $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} = 0.3, \mathtt{φ}_{2} = 0.05 $ and ARL0$ = 370 $.
    Sample size and K coefficient
    $ \boldsymbol{\delta } $ n = 2 & K=4.011 n = 3 & K=4.070 n = 5 & K=4.224 n = 6 & K=4.306 n = 9 & K=4.540
    ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL
    1 369.97 369.34 367.74 364.25 368.58 364.85 368.41 363.79 371.05 365.71
    1.25 38.41 35.63 28.15 25.20 18.71 15.31 16.22 12.75 11.74 8.29
    1.5 13.10 11.02 9.48 7.35 6.40 4.36 5.65 3.66 4.34 2.49
    1.75 7.17 5.59 5.29 3.76 3.71 2.32 3.31 1.97 2.62 1.39
    2 4.89 3.63 3.69 2.47 2.64 1.56 2.37 1.32 1.91 0.95
    2.25 3.73 2.66 2.83 1.83 2.08 1.17 1.87 0.99 1.54 0.71
    2.5 3.05 2.09 2.34 1.45 1.74 0.91 1.59 0.78 1.33 0.55
    2.75 2.60 1.72 2.02 1.19 1.53 0.75 1.41 0.64 1.21 0.44
    3 2.28 1.47 1.79 1.01 1.40 0.64 1.29 0.53 1.13 0.35
    5 1.39 0.68 1.19 0 1.05 0.22 1.03 0.16 1.00 0.06

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 9.  ARL and SDRL results for IMEEWMA chart with $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} = \mathrm{ }0.5, \mathtt{φ}_{2} = 0.07, $ and ARL0 $ = 370 $.
    Sample size & K Coefficient
    $ \boldsymbol{\delta } $ n=2 & k=4.125 n=3 & k=4.069 n=5 & k=4.065 n=6 & k=4.087 n=9 & k=4.173
    ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL
    1 367.43 364.80 367.58 365.35 368.35 365.24 367.33 364.78 367.64 365.22
    1.25 49.28 47.91 36.39 34.77 23.45 21.60 20.04 18.06 13.86 11.80
    1.5 16.28 14.91 11.34 9.92 7.03 5.49 6.00 4.54 4.33 2.90
    1.75 8.37 7.15 5.87 4.66 3.83 2.64 3.31 2.15 2.48 1.43
    2 5.44 4.38 3.88 2.83 2.62 1.65 2.33 1.38 1.79 0.92
    2.25 4.03 3.08 2.94 2.00 2.04 1.18 1.84 1.00 1.46 0.68
    2.5 3.22 2.33 2.39 1.53 1.71 0.92 1.56 0.77 1.27 0.51
    2.75 2.72 1.90 2.05 1.25 1.51 0.75 1.38 0.62 1.17 0.40
    3 2.36 1.58 1.81 1.04 1.37 0.62 1.27 0.51 1.10 0.31
    5 1.40 0.70 1.19 0 1.04 0.21 1.02 0.15 1.00 0.05

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 10.  ARL and SDRL results for IMEEWMA chart taking $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} = 0.1, \mathtt{φ}_{2} = 0.0005 $, and ARL0$ = 370 $.
    Sample size & K Coefficient
    $ \boldsymbol{\delta } $ n = 2 & K=2.799 n =3 & K=2.769 n =5 & K=2.757 n = 6 & K=2.753 n = 9 & K=2.749
    ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL
    1 370.23 378.65 368.68 376.47 368.72 374.11 368.30 376.02 369.83 375.15
    1.25 26.88 25.38 19.79 17.80 13.39 11.22 11.63 9.50 8.50 6.53
    1.5 9.67 8.34 6.99 5.71 4.76 3.61 4.17 3.05 3.10 2.10
    1.75 5.45 4.46 4.04 3.13 2.78 1.94 2.48 1.64 1.91 1.12
    2 3.83 3.03 2.84 2.07 2.03 1.28 1.81 1.07 1.46 0.73
    2.25 2.96 2.25 2.24 1.52 1.65 0.93 1.50 0.78 1.24 0.50
    2.5 2.44 1.76 1.89 1.19 1.43 0.71 1.32 0.60 1.13 0.37
    2.75 2.11 1.44 1.67 0.98 1.29 0.57 1.21 0.47 1.07 0.27
    3 1.90 1.24 1.50 0.81 1.13 0.37 1.14 0.39 1.04 0.21
    5 1.26 0.55 1.11 0.34 1.01 0.09 1.01 0.09 1.00 0.02

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 11.  ARL and SDRL results for IMEEWMA chart with $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} = 0.25, \mathtt{φ}_{2} = 0.1 $ and ARL0$ = 370 $.
    Sample size & K Coefficient
    $ \boldsymbol{\delta } $ n=2 & K=5.093 n=3 & K=5.532 n=5 & K=6.281 n=6 & K=6.599 n=9 & K=7.459
    ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL ARL SDRL
    1 371.15 362.81 369.69 358.55 367.60 350.12 367.63 352.58 368.90 353.59
    1.25 35.59 28.22 27.28 19.45 20.15 12.06 18.15 10.08 14.85 6.92
    1.5 13.92 9.36 10.98 6.43 8.53 4.14 7.86 3.56 6.70 2.58
    1.75 8.28 5.23 6.65 3.72 5.27 2.50 4.89 2.19 4.22 1.65
    2 5.81 3.63 4.74 2.64 3.78 1.82 3.50 1.60 3.04 1.23
    2.25 4.49 2.80 3.64 2.05 2.91 1.43 2.72 1.26 2.38 0.98
    2.5 3.63 2.26 2.98 1.66 2.40 1.17 2.24 1.04 1.95 0.81
    2.75 3.11 1.90 2.53 1.41 2.04 0.98 1.92 0.89 1.68 0.69
    3 2.72 1.65 2.22 1.21 1.80 0.85 1.69 0.77 1.48 0.60
    5 1.55 0.80 1.32 1 1.14 0.36 1.09 0.30 1.03 0.18

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In a simulation study, we generate a sample of random data in such a way that it replicates a real problem. The steps are taken as follows

    ● Generate data from IM distribution.

    ● Fix the sample size n for each random sample.

    ● Generate a random sample of size n from T ~ gamma$ \left(3/\mathrm{2, 2}{\sigma }_{0}^{2}\right) $.

    ● Take the square root of T to get a sample with a Maxwell distribution.

    ● Obtain a sample from the IM random variable R of size n by setting R = 1/x.

    ● Compute IEEWMA computing statistic, i.e., $ {u}_{i} $

    ● Repeat the first five steps until the expected number of subgroups is obtained.

    ● Develop the control limits as proposed in the previous section.

    ● Plot all values of the $ {u}_{i} $ statistic with respect to the control limits.

    We consider $ {\sigma }_{0} $ = 1 and generated 120 sample observations by adopting the K-S test, we then found that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for the generated data.

    Here, for the graphical representation of the IMEEWMA control chart in the case of the simulated data, we consider the design parameters as n = 6, λ = 0.25, $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} = \mathrm{ }0.1, \mathtt{φ}_{2} = 0.0005 $ and $ {\mathrm{A}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{L}}_{o} $ = 370. To check the ability of the chart to detect the process variations when it is OOC, we have considered a shift in the process scale parameter. We increased the scale parameter by 25% (i.e., δ = 1.25) and 30% (i.e., δ = 1.3) after the 10th sample and constructed the proposed IMEEWMA with the existing VIM charts (see Figures 1 and 2). It is obvious that for a 25% increment, there was no OOC signal for the VIM chart and the IMEWMA chart yielded the OOC signal after 13 data points whereas the IMEEWMA chart yielded the OOC signal after 4 data points. Similarly, for a 30% increment (δ = 1.3) we noticed that all points were within the control limits for the VIM chartand the IMEWMA chart yielded the OOC signal after 11 points whereas the control limits for the IMEEWMA chart were exceeded after 4 data points (see Figure 2). Hence the proposed IMEEWMA chart shows better detection ability than the V and IMEWMA charts for both small and moderate shifts.

    Figure 1(a).  VIM control chart with δ = 1.25.
    Figure 1(b).  IMEWMA control chart with δ = 1.25.
    Figure 1(c).  IMEEWMA control chart with δ = 1.25, $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} = 0.1 $, & $ \mathtt{φ}_{2} = 0.0005 $.
    Figure 2(a).  VIM control chart with δ = 1.3.
    Figure 2(b).  IMEWMA control chart with δ = 1.3, $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} = 0.1 $, & $ \mathtt{φ}_{2} = 0.0005 $.
    Figure 2(c).  IMEEWMA control chart with δ = 1.3, $ \mathtt{φ}_{1} = 0.1 $, & $ \mathtt{φ}_{2} = 0.0005 $.

    To demonstrate the performance of our proposed IMEEWMA chart, a real data set was collecte. The brake pad is a crucial component of a vehicle's braking system, and its lifetime refers to the distance covered by the vehicle while the brake pads are installed. In this particular dataset, we have information on the brake pad lifetimes of 98 vehicles. Therefore, we were able to utilize this dataset to construct our proposed chart, which, after truncation, included 84 samples, with each sample having a subgroup size of seven.

    Based on the design of the IMEEWMA control chart, the estimated value of the MLE was $ {\stackrel{-}{V}}_{IM} $ = 9.08×$ {10}^{-10} $ for the car's data sets. To create time-varying control limits for the three control charts mentioned in the text, we computed the R, P and W coefficients for n = 7 the results are provided in Tables 1215. Figures 35 present a graphical representation of the IMEEWMA chart using these values.

    Table 12.  W coefficients for IMEEWMA, VIM and IMEWMA control charts based on cars' brake pad lifetimes with δ = 1.25 and n = 7.
    I IMEEWMA VIM IMEWMA
    W1 W2 R1 R2 P1 P2
    1 0.914978 1.085022 0 2.1367 0.767696 1.232304
    2 0.923438 1.076562 0 2.1367 0.70962 1.29038
    3 0.931055 1.068945 0 2.1367 0.681574 1.318426
    4 0.937915 1.062085 0 2.1367 0.666834 1.333166
    6 0.944093 1.055907 0 2.1367 0.658822 1.341178
    7 0.959176 1.040824 0 2.1367 0.650554 1.349446
    8 0.963238 1.036762 0 2.1367 0.649781 1.350219
    9 0.966896 1.033104 0 2.1367 0.649347 1.350653
    10 0.970189 1.029811 0 2.1367 0.649103 1.350897
    11 0.973156 1.026844 0 2.1367 0.648966 1.351034
    12 0.975827 1.024173 0 2.1367 0.648889 1.351111
    13 0.978232 1.021768 0 2.1367 0.648846 1.351154

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 13.  ARL results for IMEEWMA, IMEWMA and VIM charts with ARL0 $ = 370 $ and n = 6.
    $ \boldsymbol{\delta } $Shift 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.35 1.5 1.75 2
    V 370.59 288.19 200.54 130.61 88.72 61.01 31.86 14.49 5.93 3.39
    IMEWA $ \boldsymbol{\lambda }=\boldsymbol{0.75} $ 368.97 194.87 110.04 67.69 43.70 29.79 15.99 8.01 3.84 2.49
    $ \boldsymbol{\lambda }=\boldsymbol{0.50} $ 368.97 172.76 90.06 51.65 32.85 21.85 11.90 6.33 3.36 2.34
    $ \boldsymbol{\lambda }=\boldsymbol{0.25} $ 371.20 143.43 66.41 36.41 22.68 15.69 9.18 5.50 3.35 2.46
    IMEEWA $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.1}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.03} $ 367.19 114.11 57.90 37.11 27.15 21.24 14.50 9.53 5.76 4.00
    $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.3}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.05} $ 367.80 139.26 65.10 36.68 19.18 16.05 9.53 5.64 3.32 2.37
    $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.5}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.07} $ 370.38 163.59 82.81 47.10 29.68 19.86 11.07 6.02 3.31 2.32
    $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.1}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.0005} $ 369.08 118.40 48.91 26.07 16.60 11.65 6.93 4.13 2.48 1.82

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 14.  SDRL results for IMEEWMA, IMEWMA and VIM charts with ARL0 $ = 370 $ and n = 6.
    $ \boldsymbol{\delta } $ 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.35 1.5 1.75 2
    V 369.30 282.50 203.72 131.35 88.68 61.04 31.68 13.93 5.41 2.84
    IMEWMA $ \boldsymbol{\lambda }=\boldsymbol{0.75} $ 366.39 194.13 110.24 66.63 42.75 29.11 15.11 7.21 3.04 1.72
    $ \boldsymbol{\lambda }=\boldsymbol{0.50} $ 367.53 170.38 88.23 50.16 31.36 20.17 10.46 4.99 2.25 1.39
    $ \boldsymbol{\lambda }=\boldsymbol{0.25} $ 369.58 140.45 63.31 33.06 19.65 12.79 6.64 3.44 1.80 1.20
    IMEEWA $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.1}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.03} $ 362.72 85.76 35.22 19.07 12.37 9.13 5.95 3.93 2.52 1.84
    $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.3}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.05} $ 364.90 134.78 60.10 32.33 19.18 12.65 6.81 3.61 1.98 1.33
    $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.5}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.07} $ 367.10 161.18 80.84 44.70 27.73 17.90 9.34 4.53 2.17 1.37
    $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.1}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.0005} $ 372.70 118.29 46.70 23.32 14.11 9.50 5.38 3.02 1.64 1.08

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 15.  MDRL for IMEEWMA, IMEWMA and VIM charts with ARL0$ = 370 $ and n = 6.
    $ \boldsymbol{\delta } $ 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.35 1.5 1.75 2
    V 256 204 139 91 63 42 22 10 4 3
    IMEMA $ \boldsymbol{\lambda }=\boldsymbol{0.75} $ 257 135 76 48 30 21 11 6 3 2
    $ \boldsymbol{\lambda }=\boldsymbol{0.50} $ 257 121 63 36 23 16 9 5 3 2
    $ \boldsymbol{\lambda }=\boldsymbol{0.25} $ 258 100 47 26 17 12 7 5 3 2
    IMEEWMA $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.1}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.03} $ 265 89 49 33 25 20 14 9 6 4
    $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.3}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.05} $ 256 98 47 27 17 13 8 5 3 2
    $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.5}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.07} $ 258 114 58 33 21 15 8 5 3 2
    $ {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{1}=\boldsymbol{0.1}, {\boldsymbol{\phi }}_\boldsymbol{2}=\boldsymbol{0.0005} $ 256 82 35 20 13 9 6 3 2 1

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 3.  ARL curves for IMEEWMA, IMEWMA and VIM chart for n = 6.
    Figure 4.  MRL curves for IMEEWMA, IMEWMA and VIM chart for n = 6.
    Figure 5.  IMEEWMA chart results for cars' brake pad lifetimes at δ = 1.

    We are aware that there are multiple criteria for detecting a lack of control. For instance, in Figure 5, if a point falls outside of the control limits or point 8 exceeds the control limit, it indicates a lack of control.

    Observing Figures 68 respectively, we note that the V, EWMA and IMEWMA charts for brake pad lifetime data use δ = 1.25 after the seventh sample. Despite a 25% increase in the shift, the VIM chart and IMEWMA chart still indicate that the process is in control. However, the IMEEWMA chart reveals that the process goes out of control since, among the seven points, four points fall outside of the control limits. Therefore, based on our car brake pad lifetime data, we can conclude that our proposed IMEEWMA control chart can detect small shifts more effectively than both the VIM chart and the IMEWMA chart.

    Figure 6.  IM chart results for cars' brake pad lifetimes at δ = 1.25.
    Figure 7.  IMEWMA charts for cars' brake pad lifetimes at δ = 1.25.
    Figure 8.  IMEEWMA charts for cars' brake pad lifetimes at δ = 1.25.

    In this study, we designed a control chart, named the IMEEWMA chart, to monitor a process following the IM distribution. The proposed chart is based on the MLE of the scale parameter of the IM distribution. The performance of the IMEEWMA chart was investigated by using RL characteristics like the ARL, SDRL and MRL. Based on these measures, it has been observed that the best performance of the IMEEWMA chart is obtained when the smoothing parameter value is small, and it keeps improving with the increase in sample size. The simulation study suggests that our proposed chart is more effective than the existing VIM chart and IMEWMA chart for small shifts, whereas the VIM chart and IMEWMA chart demonstrated better performance for larger shifts and small to moderate shifts respectively. We have also considered real-life scenarios and applied our designed IMEEWMA chart to monitor the process of car brake pad lifetimes.

    The authors declare that they have used Chat GPT as an artificial intelligence tool only to improve the readability of this article.

    The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University for funding this work through the Larg Groups Project under grant number (RGP.2/32/44) and this study was supported via funding from Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University project number (PSAU/2023/R/1444).

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    [1] Sanderson MA, Agblevor F, Collins M, et al. (1996) Compositional analysis of biomass feedstocks by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Biomass Bioenerg 11: 365–370. doi: 10.1016/S0961-9534(96)00039-6
    [2] Moore KA, Owen NL (2001) Infrared spectroscopy studies of solid wood. Appl Spectros Rev 36: 65–86. doi: 10.1081/ASR-100103090
    [3] Kelly SS, Jellison J, Goodell B (2002) Use of NIR and MBMS coupled with multivariate analysis for detecting the chemical changes associated with brown-rot biodegradation of spruce wood. FEMS Microbiol Lett 209: 107–111.
    [4] Hames BR, Thomas SR, Sluiter AD, et al. (2003) Rapid biomass analysis : new tools for compositional analysis of corn stover feedstocks and process intermediates from ethanol production. Appl Biochem Biotech 105–108: 5–16.
    [5] Starks JP, Zuli D, Phillips WA, et al. (2006) Development of canopy reflectance algorithms for real-time prediction of bermudagrass pasture biomass and nutritive values. Crop Sci 46: 927–934. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2005.0258
    [6] Labbé N, Ye XP, Franklin JA, et al. (2008) Analysis of switchgrass characteristic using near-infrared spectroscopy. BioResources 3: 1329–1348.
    [7] Vogel KP, Dien BS, Jung HG, et al. (2011) Quantifying actual and theoretical ethanol yields for switchgrass strains using NIRS analyses. Bioenerg Res 4: 96–110. doi: 10.1007/s12155-010-9104-4
    [8] Shenk JS, Workman JJ, Westerhaus MO (2001) Application of NIR spectroscopy to agricultural products, In Handbook of Near-infrared Analysis, 2eds., DA Burns, and EW Ciurczak, New York : Marcel Dekker, Inc., 383–431.
    [9] Wolfrum EJ, Sluiter AD (2009) Improved multivariate calibration models for corn stover feedstock and dilute-acid pretreated corn stover. Cellulose 16: 567–576. doi: 10.1007/s10570-009-9320-2
    [10] Nkansah K, Dawson-Andoh B, Slahor J (2010) Rapid characterization of biomas using near infrared spectroscopy coupled with multivariate data analysis: Part 1 yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.). Bioresource Tech 101: 4570–4576. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.046
    [11] Monono EM, Haagenson DM, Pryor SW (2012) Developing and evaluating NIR calibration models for multi-species herbaceous perennials. Industrial Biotech 8: 285–292. doi: 10.1089/ind.2012.0018
    [12] Templeton DW, Scarlata CJ, Sluiter JB, et al (2010) Compositional analysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks. 2. Method uncertainties. J Agric Food Chem 58: 9054–9062. doi: 10.1021/jf100807b
    [13] English BC, De La Torre Ugarte DG, Walsh ME, et al. (2006) Economic competitiveness of bioenergy production and effects on agriculture of the southern region. J Agric Appl Econ 38: 389–402.
    [14] Mooney DF, Larson JA, English BC, et al. (2012) Effect of dry matter loss of profitability of outdoor storage of switcghrass. Biomass Bioenerg 44: 33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.04.008
    [15] Yu TE, English BC, Larson JA, et al. (2015) Influence of particle size and packaging on storage dry matter losses for switchgrass. Biomass Bioenerg 73: 735–144.
    [16] Chaoui H, Eckhoff SR (2014) Biomass feedstock storage for quantity and quality preservation, In: Engineering and science of biomass feedstock production and provision, 1ed. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, 165–193.
    [17] Kenney KL, Smith WA, Gresham GL, et al. (2013) Understanding biomass feedstock variability. Biofuels 4: 111–127. doi: 10.4155/bfs.12.83
    [18] Shinners KJ, Boettcher GC, Much RE, et al. (2010) Harvest and storage of two perennial grasses as biomass feedstocks. Trans ASABE 53: 359–370. doi: 10.13031/2013.29566
    [19] Shah A, Darr MJ, Webster K, et al. (2011) Outdor storage characteristics of single-pass large square corn stover bales in Iowa. Energies 4: 1687–1695. doi: 10.3390/en4101687
    [20] Smith WA, Bonner IJ, Kenney KL, et al. (2013) Practical considerations of moisture in baled biomass feedstocks. Biofuels 4: 95–110. doi: 10.4155/bfs.12.74
    [21] Darr MJ, Shah A (2012) Biomass storage: An update on industrial solutions for baled biomass feedstocks. Biofuels 3: 321–332. doi: 10.4155/bfs.12.23
    [22] Larson JA, Yu TE, Boyer CN, et al. (2010) Cost evaluation of alternative switchgrass producing, harvesting, storing, and transporting systems and their logistics in the southeastern USA. Agric Fin Rev 70: 184–200. doi: 10.1108/00021461011064950
    [23] Larson JA, Yu TE, English BC, et al. (2015) Effect of particle size and bale wrap on storage losses and quality of switchgrass. SunGrant Conference, Auburn, AL.
    [24] American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM), ASTM in West Conshohocken, PA: From Standard practices for infrared multivariate quantitative analysis. Available from: http://enterprise.astm.org/filtrexx40.cgi?+REDLINE_PAGES/E1655.htm. Accessed 15 December 2014.
    [25] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2008) Determination of extractives in biomass. National Renewable Energy Lab. NREL/TP-510-42619.
    [26] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2008) Determination of total solids in biomass and total dissolved solids in liquid process samples. National Renewable Energy Lab. NREL/TP-510-42621.
    [27] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2008) Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass, National Renewable Energy Lab. NREL/TP-510-42618.
    [28] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2008) Determination of sugars, byproducts, and degradation products in liquid fraction process samples. National Renewable Energy Lab. NREL/TP-510-42623.
    [29] Labbé N, Ye XP, Franklin JA, et al. (2008) Analysis of switchgrass characteristics using near infrared spectroscopy. Bioresources 3: 1329–1348.
    [30] Çelen İ, Harper D, Labbé N (2008) A multivariate approach to the acetylated poplar wood samples by near infrared spectroscopy. Holzforschung 62: 189–196.
    [31] Taylor A, Labbé N, Noehmer A (2011) NIR-based prediction of extractives in American white oak hardwood. Holzforschung 65: 185–190.
    [32] Martens H, Naes T (1989) Multivariate calibration. Chichester: Wiley.
    [33] Esbensen KH (2002) Multivariate data analysis in practice: An introduction to multivariate data analysis and experimental design, 5 eds. Oslo, Norway: CAMO Process AS.
    [34] Rials TG, Kelley SS, So CL (2002) Use of advanced spectroscopic techniques for predicting the mechanical properties of wood composites. Wood Fiber Sci 34: 398–404.
    [35] Wold S, Sjöström M, Eriksson L (2001) PLS-regression: A basic tool of chemometrics. Chemometr Intell Lab. 58: 109–130.
    [36] Tsuchikawa S, Siesler HW (2003) Near-infrared spectroscopic monitoring of the diffusion process of deuterium-labeled molecules in wood. Part I: softwood. Appl Spectrosc 57: 667–674. doi: 10.1366/000370203322005364
    [37] Goulden CH (1952) Methods of statistical analysis, 2eds. New York: John Wiley.
    [38] Garde-Cerdán T, Lorenzo C, Alonso GL, et al. (2010) Employment of near infrared spectroscopy to determine oak volatile compounds and ethylphenols in aged red wines. Food Chem 119: 823–828. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.07.026
    [39] Arvelakis S, Koukios EG (2013) Critical factors for high temperature processing of biomass from agriculture and energy crops to biofuels and bioenergy. WIREs Energy Environ 2: 441–455. doi: 10.1002/wene.28
    [40] Evans RJ, Milne TA (1987) Molecular characterization of the pyrolysis of biomass. 1. Fundamentals. Energ Fuel 1: 123–137. doi: 10.1021/ef00002a001
    [41] Everard CD, Fagan CC, McDonnell KP (2012) Visible-near infrared spectral sensing coupled with chemometric analysis as a method for on-line prediction of milled biomass composition pre-pelletising. J Near Infrared Spectrosc 20: 361–369.
    [42] Lestander TA, Johnsson B, Grothage M (2009) NIR techniques create added values for the pellet and biofuel industry. Bioresource Tech 100: 1589–1594. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.08.001
    [43] Hayes DJM (2012) Development of near infrared spectroscopy models for the quantitative prediction of the lignocellulosic components of wet Miscanthus samples. Bioresource Tech 119:393–405. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.137
    [44] Sluiter A, Wolfrum E (2013) Near infrared calibration models for pretreated corn stover slurry solids, isolated and in situ. J Near Infrared Spectrosc 21: 249–257.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Muhammad Waqas, Song Hua Xu, Syed Masroor Anwar, Zahid Rasheed, Gilbert Masengo, An Enhanced EWMA Model for Statistical Insights in Process Monitoring with Application in Brake Pad Failure and Carbon Fiber Strength, 2025, 2214-1766, 10.1007/s44199-025-00110-5
    2. Muhammad Waqas, Song Hua Xu, Syed Masroor Anwar, Zahid Rasheed, Majid Khan, Enhanced Adaptive EWMA Control Chart to Observe Inverse Maxwell Process With Engineering and Healthcare Sector Applications, 2025, 0748-8017, 10.1002/qre.3772
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7608) PDF downloads(1314) Cited by(9)

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)  /  Tables(4)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog