DON IUID Marking Guide
DON IUID Marking Guide
SEPTEMBER 2011
Version 1.1
RECORD OF CHANGES
FOREWORD
This Department of Navy Item Unique Identification (IUID) Marking Guide provides
technical information for applying IUID data matrix symbols to legacy items owned by the
Department of Navy (DON). It is intended to support better decision-making by DON marking
managers, engineers, and implementers. The information contained in this guide is derived from
Department of Defense (DoD) standards, International Standards Organization (ISO) standards,
industrial organizations, and practical experience.
The guide captures the expertise of many years’ work by the IUID Center at the Naval Surface
Warfare Center (NSWC) Corona in applying, testing, and consulting on IUID data matrices. It is
not intended as directive, but shares the IUID Center’s insights with the widening community of
personnel involved in IUID marking to promote longevity and readability of marks.
We support efforts to improve this technical information and its accessibility to decision-makers
at every level, and encourage recommendations to enhance the usefulness of this guide. Marking
technologies, materials, and devices are constantly evolving, so your experiences could be
helpful in improving this guide. Your recommendations may be made to NSWC Corona’s IUID
Center at: [email protected]; or to the DASN (Expeditionary Programs and
Logistics Management) IUID policy staff at [email protected]. Comments may also
be submitted to:
DASN (Expeditionary Programs and Logistics Management)
1000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON DC 20350-1000
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1
3 Organization............................................................................................................................ 2
4 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 2
5 Permanent Data Matrices ........................................................................................................ 3
5.1 Marking Process Design................................................................................................... 3
5.1.1 Policy Options for Engineering Change Requests and Drawing Revisions ............. 3
5.1.2 Placement of the Mark .............................................................................................. 3
5.1.3 Readable Marks ........................................................................................................ 4
5.1.4 Minimizing Attachment Failures .............................................................................. 6
5.1.5 Choosing the Right Marking Method ....................................................................... 6
5.2 Proper Execution of the Marking Process ........................................................................ 7
5.2.1 Production Quality of the Mark ................................................................................ 7
Appendix A. Applicable Documents .............................................................................................. 8
Appendix B. Intrusive Marks........................................................................................................ 10
Appendix C. Policy for Conditional Exceptions to Engineering Analysis .................................. 11
Appendix D. Strategies for Minimizing the Impacts of Non-Recurring Engineering ................. 12
Appendix E. Marking Location and Surface Finish Information ................................................. 13
Appendix F. Data Matrix Module Size by Environment .............................................................. 18
Appendix G. Cell Size Limits & Techniques to Overcome Size Limits ..................................... 19
Appendix H. Surface Preparation ................................................................................................. 22
Appendix I. Marking with a Label................................................................................................ 24
Appendix J. Marking Techniques Overview ................................................................................ 27
Appendix K. Additive Marks........................................................................................................ 31
Appendix L. Common Part Marking Methods ............................................................................. 32
Appendix M. Removal of Data Matrix Marks .............................................................................. 33
Appendix N. Verification ............................................................................................................. 35
Appendix O. Quality Sampling Plans for Barcode Creation ........................................................ 37
Appendix P. Useful Process Control Techniques ......................................................................... 39
Appendix Q: Acronyms ................................................................................................................ 41
1 In tro d u c tio n
The purpose of this document is to consolidate and present technical information needed to mark
legacy items effectively with Item Unique Identification (IUID) compliant two-dimensional
(2-D) data matrix symbols. 1
Information within this guide was created by representatives from the major Automatic
Identification and Data Capture (AI/DC) manufacturers, government, and aerospace user groups
under a collaborative agreement with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).
This guide is published by the Department of the Navy (DON), through the Office of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (DASN), Expeditionary Programs and Logistics Management
(ELM).
2 Ba c kg ro u n d
Many items within the DON inventory are required to be marked with a Unique Item Identifier
(UII) encoded into a two-dimensional (2-D) Error Correction Code 2 (ECC) 200 data matrix
symbol (Figure 1) per MIL-STD-130 (latest version), Department of Defense Standard Practice:
Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property.
1
Other documents explain facets of IUID not covered herein. See Appendix A for references.
2
ECC is known as Error Checking and Correcting by some.
the surface of the item, as with dot peening, stamping, abrading, scribing, or etching.
While labeling is often the easiest method to implement, it may not always be the best solution.
To determine the best marking solution, the following factors about the item to be marked must
be considered:
• Function
• Available marking area
• Material type
• Color
• Hardness
• Surface roughness/finish
• Surface thickness
• Operating environment.
If it is determined that intrusive marking is required and such marking has been authorized by
quality assurance, safety, and engineering competencies for an item, then one or a combination
of the following may be required to safely mark legacy items:
• Appropriate engineering drawings and specifications
• Approved marking device settings
• Appropriate clamping fixtures
• Depth measurement and microscopic evaluation equipment
• On-site quality, safety, and engineering personnel to certify and monitor marking
operations
• Procedures to evaluate and disposition improperly applied markings
• Procedures to assess the cumulative effects of multiple marking removal and re-
applications.
There are a number of details and factors to take into consideration when selecting and utilizing
intrusive marking; the full discussion is beyond the scope of this document. An overview of
some common intrusive, direct part marking methods is presented in Appendix B.
3 Org a n iza tio n
This guide is organized as a relatively short body, supported by extensive appendices on
individual technical issues.
4 Scope
The information within this guide is provided for DON personnel and contractors to facilitate
identification of items using IUID compliant ECC 200 data matrix symbols. This marking guide
applies to DON organizations responsible for the use, maintenance, servicing, and/or storage of
legacy parts. This guide only applies to hardware owned by the Department of the Navy and
does not authorize methods for marking hardware owned by other government organizations.
The guidance provided by this document may be referenced or incorporated into detailed
maintenance guides as approved by the item manager(s) responsible for the legacy items to be
marked.
5 P e rm a n e n t Da ta Ma tric e s
A foundational requirement within IUID policy is that its data matrices remain readable
throughout an item’s normal life cycle. Achieving this is a matter of designing and executing the
marking process properly.
5.1 Ma rkin g P ro c e s s De s ig n
Designing the marking process for legacy items requires familiarity with relevant policy, the
lifecycle environmental exposure, and intended use of the items, as well as a variety of
requirements for producing technically sound data matrix marks.
5.1.1 Policy Options for Engineering Change Requests and Drawing Revisions
Given the tremendous burden in terms of cost, workload, and scheduling associated with
engineering change requests and drawing revisions, it is useful to take advantage of the broad
scope found in DON policy. SECNAVINST4440.34 provides conditional exemption from
engineering change requests and drawing revisions when affixing labels and/or data plates for
IUID purposes (see Appendix C).
If conditions for the above exemption cannot be met, then alternative plans must be made. The
Guidelines for Engineering, Manufacturing and Maintenance Documentation Requirements for
Item Unique Identification (IUID) Implementation, version 1.2 provides different strategies for
minimizing the impact of cost, workload, and schedule associated with performing engineering
and updating technical documentation for IUID marking (see Appendix D).
Where the IUID mark is placed on the item strongly influences the mark’s durability and
usefulness. Therefore, when determining where to place the mark, consider the following:
• Apply marks in protected areas when possible
• Apply marks on flat areas when possible
• The mark should be readable when the marked item is in-service
• The mark should be readable when the marked item is stowed
• Multiple identical marks can be applied to the same item.
Unless directed to the contrary by the technical authority, do not place marks/labels:
• On components or pieces authorized to be replaced during field maintenance
• Over vents and/or air intakes
• Over other information
Understanding what makes a data matrix readable is helpful in achieving a permanent mark.
There are four basic categories of techniques to help make a mark legible:
• Make the individual cells (modules) of the data matrix large
• Make the dark parts as black as possible, make the light parts as white as possible
• Match the dimensions, as closely as possible, to the specification 3
• Protect the mark with a cover or coating.
The data matrix symbol is made from a collection of small black or white squares 4 called “cells”
or “modules.” It is easier to fatally damage a small data matrix than it is to fatally damage a
larger data matrix containing the same data. In other words, if a small data matrix is scratched,
the likelihood that matrix will be rendered unreadable is greater than if the same scratch were
made to a larger data matrix. Damaged symbols with large cell sizes are more likely to be
reconstructed by the decoding software. Consequently, cell sizes must be enlarged to overcome
damage anticipated in harsh manufacturing, operational, and overhaul environments. See
Appendix F for suggested cell sizes for different operational environments. For techniques and
3
The ECC 200 data matrix specification is documented in ISO/IEC 16022 Information Technology – International Symbology
Specification – Data Matrix.
4
Some marking methods, such as dot peening, produce small circles as opposed to squares.
5.1.3.2 Contrast
Dark colored markings are generally applied to light surfaces and light markings applied to dark
surfaces. The minimum contrast difference between the symbol and its substrate that can be
reliably read is 40% as shown on a typical gray scale comparator (Figure 2).
A clear space (quiet zone) must be left around the outside of the symbol in order for the scanner
to successfully decode the data matrix. A minimum of one cell width of quiet zone must be left
around the symbol. However, due to variations in surface finish, it is helpful to extend this area.
If possible, allow an additional 10% of the longest symbol side.
Encroachment into the quiet zone occurs when (1) the data matrix is applied too closely to the
edge of the designated marking area; or (2) other information is applied too closely to the data
matrix (Figure 3). Both problems are shown on the right side of Figure 3.
Protective coatings and covers can add resilience to marks by protecting the mark, substrate, and
possibly adhesive from light and/or chemical induced damage. The coatings and covers should
have a matte finish to minimize unwanted reflection off the surface. When using clear adhesive
labels, avoid trapping air bubbles between the cover and the mark.
Failures of labels to maintain attachment to the item occur for a variety of reasons. In some
cases, the strength of attachment declines over time, while in other cases, the initial strength of
attachment is insufficient.
Attachment strength weakens over time due to the slow, persistent degradation of materials,
which can be caused by ultraviolet (UV) light, thermal expansion, or corrosion.
Adhesives/epoxies are often damaged by UV radiation. Choosing UV-blocking label stock
minimizes this failure mode. Rigid adhesives/epoxies physically degrade if attaching two rigid
materials to each other, which grow and shrink by different amounts as they heat and cool
(different materials almost always have different coefficients of thermal expansion). This is
prevented by using flexible adhesives/epoxies. Lastly, if two different types of metals are
attached to each other so that electricity can flow from one to the other, they will corrode over
time. This is a particularly serious problem for aluminum data plates riveted to large steel items.
Keeping the metals separated from each other with a non-conductive layer (often an adhesive
tape) prevents this problem.
Insufficient initial attachment strength is due to using marking materials ill-suited to the item’s
environmental requirements, or to the marking process. Therefore, select marking materials
based on the item’s environmental requirements as well as any maintenance procedures—both
authorized and unauthorized—to which the item is subjected. Adhesives and epoxies are at risk
of failure when they become brittle at low temperatures or soften at high temperatures, and they
break down completely if the temperature is high enough. Finally, improper surface preparation
(poor cleaning) leads to lower attachment strength and can be a prevalent, persistent, and perhaps
critical problem. For more information on surface preparation, see Appendix H. For more
information on the application of labels see Appendix I.
As mentioned above, it may be possible to use established marking processes and procedures.
They are likely the best choice, providing these processes support the creation of a high-quality
data matrix symbol.
However, when a new marking method is required, a survey of methods and materials is
appropriate. Although marking technologies have existed for a long time, new materials and
techniques continue to emerge. For an overview of some of the available marking techniques see
Appendix J.
In general, intrusive marks are the most durable types of marks available. These marks also
prove to be the riskiest. They should not be used unless adding material to the item is
unacceptable. See Appendix B for more information.
The next most durable marks fuse rugged material directly to the item’s surface to form the
mark. These additive marks vary in their inherent risks but can be nearly as durable as intrusive
marks. Available materials and application techniques continue to evolve rapidly in this area.
Many of the newest techniques and materials use lasers to fuse the mark to the surface. See
Appendix K for more information on additive marks. See Appendix L for more information on
common part marking methods.
Although applying labels is considered the least durable type of marking method, it should not be
considered inherently weak. As a case in point, Post-It-Notes® are likely the least durable type
of label, whereas a welded stainless steel plate could be among the most durable. The use of
labels, which are available in a variety of materials and can be applied using many different
methods, is often the cheapest and most convenient marking method available. See Appendix I
for more information.
Proper execution of the marking process requires the information encoded into the data matrix be
both formatted correctly and applied to the correct item. Although independent software exists
to evaluate the formatting of the data matrix symbol to check it meets IUID requirements 5, most
verification systems validate a mark’s syntax at the same time as verifying the mark’s production
quality.
Ensuring IUID marks are placed on the appropriate items is a matter of training, proper
management, and faithful adherence to quality assurance procedures. Procedures should be
devised to correct items after they have been marked incorrectly. These procedures should focus
on detecting errors within 60 days because there is only a 60 day window of opportunity to
correct information sent to the IUID Registry. See Appendix M for information about how to
remove a data matrix mark from an item.
DoD and DON policy requires the verification of IUID data matrix marks. Verification is the
process that checks the production quality of the mark—this is different from checking the
information encoded within the mark. See Appendix N for more details.
Verification can be performed on each data matrix or as part of a sampling plan. Appendix O
provides a workable sampling plan for IUID verification. It may be used in the absence of
direction to the contrary from the technical authority.
Verification of the symbol quality requires both specialized hardware (a verifier) and software.
Even so, there are a number of checks which can be done without a verifier to evaluate the
production quality of the mark. See Appendix P for details.
5
A useful example of syntax-checking software is the government-owned Quick Compliance Tool Suite available at
www.qcts.org.
Non-Government Documents
A-A-208 Ink, Marking, Stencil, Opaque (Porous and Nonporous Surfaces)
A-A-1558 Commercial Item Description: Paint, Stencil
A-A-56032 Ink, Marking, Epoxy Base
AIM BC11-ISS AIM Specification For Data Matrix
AIM DPM-1-2006 Direct Part Mark (DPM) Quality Guideline
ANSI MH10.8.2 Data Identifier And Application Identifier Standard
ANSI X3.182 Bar Code Print Quality - Guideline
ASME/ANSI B46.1 Surface Texture, Surface Roughness, Waviness And Lay
ATA Spec 2000 Chapter 9 Automated Identification And Data Capture
ISO/IEC 2859-1 Sampling Procedures For Inspection By Attributes - Part 1: Sampling Plans
Indexed By Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) For Lot - By - Lot Inspection
ISO/IEC 15415 Information Technology—Automatic Identification And Data Capture
Techniques—Bar Code Print Quality Test Specification — Two-Dimensional
Symbols
ISO/IEC 15418 Information Technology—EAN/UCC Application Identifiers And FACT Data
Identifiers And Maintenance
ISO/IEC 15434 Information Technology—Syntax For High Capacity ADC Media
ISO/IEC 15459-2 Information Technology—Part 2: Registration Procedures
ISO/IEC 16022 Information Technology—International Symbology Specification - Data
Matrix
MBO295-005 Material Cleanliness Level, Precision Clean Packaging
SAE ARP 6002 Marking; Standard Hose, Aircraft-FSC 4720; Should Be Used Instead of
MIL-M-6002A, Which Was Cancelled on 1 November 1999
SAE AS9132 Data Matrix (2D) Coding Quality Requirements For Parts Marking
TT-L-50 Clear, Acrylic Lacquer Aerosol, Type II
The documents listed in this appendix may have been revised since publication. Check for the
latest version of the reference.
Useful Websites
DASN (ELM) IUID website:
https://acquisition.navy.mil/rda/home/acquisition_one_source/item_unique_identification_iuid
distortion to the cells of the data matrix. If possible, avoid the use of labels for 2-D curves. If no
alternative exists, verify the marks after application to ensure the mark is remains readable.
Verification can be used to check stretch-induced cell deformation when performed after
application rather than before.
Labels applied to curved surfaces using adhesives may “flag” (that is, the edges may lift as the
material resumes its normal, flat, geometry). Flagging occurs when the label material retains its
original shape but the edges were not sufficiently seated to the base material. Therefore, both
surface preparation and burnishing the label’s edges are important when working with curved
surfaces. Note also the use of softer, thicker adhesives help prevent flagging.
Surface Roughness/Finish
Surface roughness poses different problems depending on whether you are trying to apply a label
or are trying to apply the mark directly to the item’s surface.
Using adhesives almost always works better on smoother surfaces. When a smooth surface is
unavailable, thicker adhesive can compensate as can double-sided adhesive tapes.
Structural epoxies vary in their chemistry and are optimized for a specific surface roughness.
Matching the epoxy to the item’s surface roughness is an important consideration.
When applying direct surface marks, the symbol marking should be limited to surface roughness
levels averaging between 8 and 250 micro-inches [millionth of an inch (0.0000254 mm)] as
measured per ASME/ANSI B46.1. A typical surface roughness gauge is illustrated in
Figure 6. Surfaces that fall outside of acceptable surface roughness levels (Figure 7) can be
resurfaced as directed by engineering; coated with laser-markable paint that fills the recesses; or
marked with labels, tags, or bands.
Processing
Roughness Average (Ra) µin.
Method
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 125 250 500 1000 2000
Lapped
Ground
Blanchard
Machining
Shape Turned
Milled
Profiled
Nonabrasive ECM
Finishing EDM
LBM
Grit Blasting
Blasting Sand Blasting
Shot Peening
Die
Investment
Shell Mold
Centrifugal
Cast
Permanent Mold
Surfaces
Non-ferrous
Sand
Ferrous Green
Sand
Figure 9. Comparator Showing Relationship Between Cell Size and Cast Surface Roughness
Note: Data matrices in Figure 9 are not IUID compliant.
Minimum suggested cell size Minimum suggested cell size Minimum suggested cell size
0.008-inch required for 0.010 inch (0.254 mm). 0.020 inch (0.508 mm) or
successful reading. larger.
Minor damage can render a Error correction can reconstruct Less error correction needed.
mark unreadable. symbol.
6
ISO/IEC 16022
7
MIL-STD-130N, ISO-IEC 15434
and then running the program using low power. Multiple passes are made across the area until
the bare metal surface is reached. The cleared area should include an additional area around the
mark which is as wide as half the symbol’s width (longest side if a rectangle).
Adhesive Tapes
Adhesive tapes have adhesive on both the top and bottom of a carrier. They are useful if the
label does not come with pre-applied adhesive. The carrier can be made of differing sponge-like
material (foam tapes). These are useful in situations where surface roughness is high and are
also useful in absorbing shock and vibration.
Structural Epoxies
Like adhesives, a large variety exists and continues to grow. Epoxies have many of the same
features and drawbacks as adhesives, but differ in a couple of critical areas. Epoxies do not rely
completely on adhesion to maintain attachment. Furthermore, because epoxies become hard,
they can mechanically bond to a surface that has a certain amount of roughness. This also means
that epoxies can withstand constant forces. However, because they get hard, epoxies are
susceptible to stresses and strains from differential expansion and contraction due to different
materials having different coefficients of thermal expansion.
Rivets
When using rivets to attach labels, ensure that either all of the materials are the same (that is, the
label is made of the same material as the rivets, which are of the same material as the item to
which they are being attached), or make sure the label is electrically isolated from the item.
Label Material
Although labels can be made out of any suitable material, the most widely used label materials
are plastics (such as polyester) and metal foils due to their convenience and inexpensive
application. If the material is thin enough, marking can be accomplished with a thermal transfer
printer quickly, conveniently, and inexpensively. When used with a suitable adhesive, these thin
labels have wide application but are not durable enough for every application. Thicker label
stock improves durability, but increases the complexity of marking.
Application of the Data Matrix to the Label Material
Any direct part-marking method can be used to apply the data matrix mark to the label material.
High-contrast materials can be chemically or mechanically fused to the label as is the case with
thermal transfer printers, ink jet, laser printers, and laser bonding. Photosensitive or thermally
sensitive materials can be applied to the label over a large area (typically during manufacturing)
before the marking process selectively induces a color change in the applied material. This is
how direct thermal printing works as well as the array of laser markable products. Direct
chemical or laser etching of the label can also be used to form data matrix marks, creating
intrusive marks in the label material.
The following is a representative list of laser markable materials: 8
• Rubber labels
• Fabric labels
• Two-ply acrylic labels
• Stainless steel labels
• Aluminum labels.
8
The commercial availability of laser markable products continues to grow and specialize into niche applications.
Laser and mechanically cut stencils need a symbol pattern that provides spacing between the data
cells to keep the pattern together. The spacing provides a grid of interconnecting data cell
elements that typically occupies approximately 36% of the individual data cell marking area
(Figure 13). Interconnecting data cell elements that occupy less than 26% of the allotted data
cell marking space can be damaged during stencil generation and handling, and those exceeding
46% of the allotted data cell area can adversely affect symbol readability.
Figure 15. Material Fused to a Surface Using the Laser Bonding Process
Laser Engraving Technique
CO2 lasers can be used to strip away organic coatings to expose an underlying substrate. For
legacy applications, this can be done by:
• Removing the top coat of two-ply label or black anodized label
• Removing a coating of contrasting color applied over an existing coating
• Removing the original coating applied to the part during manufacturing.
Markings made using this process expose the underlying material to corrosion, therefore
approval from the cognizant technical authority is required and approved procedures and
materials to apply when marking is complete are necessary. The corrosion preventive coatings
must be a clear matte finish or the mark will be ruined.
Labels
The least damaging method for removing labels applied with adhesive is the use of dry ice.
Applying dry ice to the label for 4-5 minutes causes the adhesive to become brittle. The label is
then tapped on the edge with a blunt object, preferably a plastic scraper, to free it from the item.
Any surface exposed after label removal should be restored to its original condition before the
new label is applied.
Ink and Paint
Ink and paint markings protected with a clear coat can be removed using a lint-free cloth
saturated with a solvent. In many cases this process will result in the part coating being
damaged. As such the appropriate Technical Authority should approve the solvent and processes
employed to remove the mark.
Appendix N. Verification
Verification is necessary because of the error correction capability built into the data matrix.
This error correction allows all the data within a data matrix, even one with some damage, to be
quickly and consistently read with a scanner. Once the damage increases past a certain point
however, the data matrix will be completely unreadable. (Note: the error correction applies to
the data within the data matrix and not the quiet zone around the mark or the solid and broken
lines that form the edge of the mark.)
To ensure marks with the longest useful life are used, it is not sufficient to just scan them
because this gives no indication of how close the marks are to failing (i.e. how much of the error
correction is already used to decode the mark). Instead, verification is needed to evaluate how
close to failing the mark is. Standards and thresholds are specified within MIL-STD-130:
Data matrix symbol quality can be determined using any of the following standards: ISO/IEC
15415, AIM DPM-1-2006, or SAE AS9132
• ISO/IEC 15415 is designed to verify high contrast (black on white) marks and should be
used when evaluating such marks whenever possible.
• AIM DPM-1-2006 is designed to verify direct-part-marked items which typically have
low or no inherent contrast. These marks derive contrast from shadows, which are created
by illuminating irregular surface features with light at an angle. This standard should be
used to verify direct part marks made by forming irregular surface features whenever
possible.
• SAE AS9132 should be used if the above standards cannot be used.
From ISO/IEC 15415
The symbol shall have a minimum quality grade of 3.0/05/650 measured with an aperture size of
0.005 inch (0.127 mm) with a light source wavelength of 650 nm ± 20 nm. As an exception, the
ISO/IEC 15415 parameters Modulation (MOD), Symbol Contrast (SC), or both, may measure as
low as 2.0, providing the overall ISO/IEC 15415 grade would be 3.0 if the MOD and SC grades
are 3.0 or higher. (This allows for lower contrast substrates, high density images, printing, over-
laminates and other such limiting factors to the parameters MOD, SC, or both on otherwise well
produced images.) Quality (symbol validation and verification) reports shall clearly show that
the MOD, SC, or both, are the only parameters measured as low as 2.0, and clearly show that the
overall grade would be at least 3.0 if MOD and SC were at least 3.0. Quality reports shall also
document the synthetic aperture size used. The methodology for measuring the print quality shall
be as specified in ISO/IEC 15415, where the overall grade is based on a single scan (not five
scans).
From AIM DPM-1-2006
The symbol shall have a minimum quality grade of DPM2.0/7.5-
25/650/(45Q|30Q|90|30T|30S|D) where:
i. Minimum quality grade = 2.0
ii. X dimension range of the application = 7.5-25 mils
iii. Inspection wavelength = 650 nanometers ± 20 nanometers.
iv. Lighting conditions = Medium Angle Four Direction (45Q) or Low Angle Four Direction
(30Q) or Diffuse Perpendicular (90) or Low Angle Two Direction (30T) or Low Angle
One Direction (30S) or Diffuse Off-axis (D).
Both validation and verification of machine readable information is required by MIL-STD-130.
In cases where labels are produced by a vendor and require verification and validation, a report
of conformance generated by verification and validation software can be used to document
compliance with the standard. If the labels are produced as a batch or lot where materials and
machine settings do not change and a sampling plan is employed, a set of reports of conformance
can be used to indicate compliance for the entire batch/lot, provided they include the size of the
batch/lot, define which labels fall within the population, and indicate which labels within the
population where verified. If labels are coated or covered by a protective substance after
manufacture, a sample should be verified to ensure that the coating or cover does not degrade the
quality of the mark below the standards cited in MIL-STD-130. If the marks may be subjected to
damage during operation, or cleaning, servicing, or repair processes, additional verification of
the marks may be necessary to ensure the marks remain useful through the item’s lifecycle or
next major overhaul.
Sampling Plan:
N = lot size
n = sample size (randomized)
c = acceptance number
d = number of defective items in the
sample
Decision Rule:
If d ≤ c, accept the lot; else reject the lot,
in which case a 100% inspection must be
done.
Because each label is not being verified, there are certain risks involved in this procedure:
producer’s risks and consumer’s risks.
For most sampling procedures, the producer’s risk is typically set at 5% and the consumer’s risk
is set at 10%.
The statistical properties of the acceptance sampling procedure can be determined by considering
how the acceptance probability depends on the true proportion d of defective items in the lot. It
is usual to define an Acceptable Quality Level (AQL), c say, so that a lot is considered
acceptable as long as d ≤ c. In this way the producer’s risk is the probability of rejecting lots that
are at an AQL. Another term often used is the Lot Tolerance Proportion Defective (LTPD).
This is the worst level of quality tolerable. The consumer’s risk then corresponds to the
probability of accepting lots at the LTPD.
Table 4 provides the random sample of labels that need to be verified and the maximum number
of defects that are allowed in the sample, in order for the entire lot to be accepted for a given lot
size. For example, if 100 labels were printed, 54 of them would be randomly verified. If more
than 4 barcodes failed verification, the quality of the lot would be rejected and all 100 barcodes
would be verified, discarding those that failed verification.
Lot Size Sample Size Max. Defects
to Test to Accept Lot
1-25 21 1
26-50 41 3
51-100 54 4
101-150 75 6
151-200 78 6
201-300 89 7
301-500 101 8
501-600 112 9
601-800 113 9
801-1000 114 9
1000-5000 125 10
A (4.0) If AN ≤ 0.06
B (3.0) If AN ≤ 0.08
C (2.0) If AN ≤ 0.10
D (1.0) If AN ≤ 0.12
F (0.0) If AN > 0.12
Table 5. Axial Nonuniformity Grading Rubric
Appendix Q: Acronyms
A&LM Acquisition and Logistics Management
EN European Standard
HDBK Handbook
MOD Modulation
UV Ultra Violet
WD Working Draft