Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Taguchi Approach
Solve Problems
Optimize products
Why?
Where?
Manufacturing
Development
Design
Author
Page ii
Table of Contents
Section Headings
Page
1-1
1-2
1-4
1-6
1-7
1-9
3-1
3-5
3-6
3-14
4-1
4-2
4-6
4-10
4-11
4-13
4-14
Page iii
Table of Contents(Continued)
Module-5: Robust Design Strategy (18 Pages)
5.1 Ambitious Business Goals
5.2 Mechanics of Outer Array Designs
5.3 Benefits of Outer Array Design
5.4 Analysis of Repeated Results
5.5 Definition of MSD for the three QC's
5.6 Experiment Design and Analysis Strategies
5.7 Experiment Design Tips
Review Questions
5-1
5-3
5-5
5-6
5-8
5-12
5-13
5-15
6-26
6-29
6-31
7-1
7-5
7-9
8-2
8-3
8-5
8-8
8-10
9-1
6-1
6-5
6-6
6-13
6-15
6-17
6-19
6-22
6-24
Page iv
Quick References
TOPICS
o Module 1:
Module 2:
Module 3:
Module 4:
Module 5:
Module 6:
Module 7:
Module 8:
PAGE
Review Questions
Review Questions
Review Questions
Review Questions
Review Questions
Review Questions
Review Questions
Review Questions
1-15
2-23
3-25
4-17
5-21
6-36
7-6
8-9
2-8
6-14
2-11, 4-2, 5-8, 5-14, 5-16, 6-2
6-22, 6-25, 6-28, 6-30
8-14
A-2
A-5
A-16
A-13
A-17
A-19
A-28
A-33
General Reference
Taguchi, Genichi: System of Experimental Design, UNIPUB Kraus Intl. Publications, White Plains,
New York, 1987
Roy, Ranjit: A Primer on the Taguchi Method, The Society of Manufacturing Engineers, One SME Drive, Dearborn,
Michigan, USA.
INTERNET: For general subject references (Taguchi + Seminar + Software + Consulting + Case Studies +
Application Tips), try search engines like Yahoo, Lycos, Webcrawler, etc. For Nutek products, services, and
application examples, visit:
http://www.rkroy.com
http://www.wwnet.com/~rkroy/wp-inb.html
http://www.wwnet.com/~rkroy/wp-ind.html
http://www.wwnet.com/~rkroy
http://www.wwnet.com/~rkroy/wp-inc.html
http://www.wwnet.com/~rkroy/wp-ine.html
Module - 1
Overview and Approach
There are a number of statistical techniques available for engineering and scientific studies.
Taguchi has prescribed a standardized way to utilize the Design of Experiments (DOE)
technique to enhance the quality of products and processes. In this regard it is important to
understand his definition of quality, the method by which quality can be measured, and the
necessary discipline for most application benefits. This module presents an overview of
Taguchis quality improvement methodologies.
Page 1 - 2
How do you improve quality in Design, Development, and Validation and Production?
The Taguchi approach presents an attractive option in all activities mentioned above.
B
Development
C
Test & Validation
D
Production
Return on investment is much higher when applied in concept design. The return is
immediately realized in problem solving applications.
Page 1 - 3
$Loss
L=K(y -Yo)
Target
Yo
Target
m
What you are now
Mean
Target
To improve quality(Q)
Page 1 - 4
Some thinking
Try this
Try that
Page 1 - 5
There are five basic steps in application of Taguchi experimental design technique to
a project. The brainstorming is a necessary first step in the application process.
New Approach
(A Parallel Process)
Do Lots Of Thinking
(Brainstorming)
- What are we after?
- How do we measure results?
- etc.
Application Steps
I. Planning
II. Designing
Trial#1
Trial#2
III. Doing
Conduct Experiments
Analyze Results
IV. Analyzing
Run confirmation
Experiments
V. Confirming
Page 1 - 6
Key Points
Page 1 - 7
Page 1 - 8
Loss
Function
Dynamic
Characteristics.
* Problem solving
* Overall Evaluation
Criteria (OEC)
Module - 2
Experiment Designs Using Standard Orthogonal Arrays
Modern Industrial environments pose experiments of numerous kinds. Some have few factors,
some have many, while there are others that demand factors to have mixed levels. A vast
majority of the experiments, however, fall in the category where all factors possess the same
number of levels. In Taguchi approach a fixed number of orthogonal arrays are utilized to
handle many common experimental situations.
Topics Covered:
Basic Experiment Design Techniques.
Experiments with standard orthogonal arrays.
Standard analysis of experimental results.
2.1
Page 2 - 2
should you consider testing at more than two levels? Results of tests with two levels
produce only two data points. Two data points when joined together represent influence
that behave in a straight line, whether the actual behavior is linear or not. So what if the
actual behavior is non-linear? We can only detect that in the results when there are more
than two data points from tests that have more than two levels. Thus, if non-linear
behavior is suspected, we should consider testing at more than two levels of the factor.
Response with Two Levels
A 1
A2
A1
Factor A
A2
Factor A
A3
While studying the influence of a factor, if we decide to test it at two levels, only
two tests are required, where as, if three levels are included, then three tests will have
to be performed.
A1
A2
A => A1 A2
B1
B => B1 B2
B2
4 Experiments:
A1B1
A1B2
A2B1
A2B2
Page 2 - 3
A: A1, A2
8 Experiments:
B: B1, B2
C: C1, C2
A1B1C1
A1B1C2
A1B2C1
A1B2C2
A2B1C1
A2B1C2
A2B2C1
A2B2C2
Which can be written in notation form as: (use 1 for level 1, etc.)
A
1
1
1
etc.
B
1
1
2
C
1
2
1
The total number of possible combinations (known as the full factorial) from a given
number of factors all at 2-level can be calculated using the following formulas.
Experimental Condition
3 Factors at 2 level,
4 Factors at 2 level,
7 Factors at 2 level,
15 Factors at 2 level,
Full Factorial
3
2
4
2
7
2
15
2
=
=
=
=
8
16
128
32,768
Of course the full factorial experiments are always too many to do.
How to do the least number of experiments to get the most information? How do
you select which ones to do?
To design common industrial experiments, Taguchi constructed a set of special
orthogonal arrays.
An L-4 array is used to design an experiment to study three 2-level factors
The word "DESIGN" means determining the number of experiments to be performed
and the manner in which they should be carried out, i.e., number and the factor level
combinations. Taguchi has constructed a number of orthogonal arrays to accomplish
experiments design. Each array can be used to suit a number of experimental
situations. The smallest among the orthogonal array is an L-4 constructed to
accommodate three two level factors.
Page 2 - 4
A
1
1
2
2
B
1
2
1
2
Array Descriptions:
1. Numbers in array represent the
levels of the factors
2. Rows represents trial conditions
3. Columns indicate factors that can
be accommodated
3. Columns of an OA are
orthogonal
4. Each array can be used for many
experimental situations
C
1
2
2
1
Key observations: First row has all 1's. There is no row that has all 2's. All columns
are balanced and maintain an order.
The columns of the array are ORTHOGONAL or balanced. This means that there are
equal number of levels in a column. The columns are also balanced between any two.
This means that the level combinations exist in equal numbers.
Within column 1, there are two 1's and two 2's. Between column 1 and 2, there is one
each of 1 1, 1 2, 2 1 and 2 2 combinations.
Factors A, B And C All at 2-level produces 8 possible combinations (full factorial)
Taguchis Orthogonal array selects 4 out of the 8
EXPT #1
EXPT #2
EXPT #3
EXPT #4
A1
A1
A2
A2
B1
B2
B1
B2
C1
C2
C2
C1
An experiment designed to study three 2-level factors requires an L-4 array which prescribes
4 trial conditions. The number of experiments for seven 2-level factors which require an L-8
array is eight.
Page 2 - 5
One factor at a time experiments with three 2-level factors require the same number of
experiments as described by the scheme below (One Factor at a Time).
Test# A
1. 1
2. 2
3. 1
4
1
B
1
1
2
1
C RESULT
1
Y1
1
Y2
1
Y3
2
Y4
Factor effects can be easily obtained by subtracting the result of Test #1 from another as
shown below.
Effect of A = Y2 -Y1,
Effect of B = Y3 -Y1
Effect of C = Y4 -Y1
Expt#A
1
1
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
B
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
C
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
D
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
E
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
F
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
G
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Experiment design with seven 2-level factors using an orthogonal array (L-8) which requires
the same number of experiments. L-8 OA design is recommended in spite of the same size of
experiments for a number of reasons.
- Use average effect for basis of conclusion.
- Higher reproducibility.
- Optimum based on robust design.
Page 2 - 6
2
B
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
C
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
D
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
5
E
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
6
F
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
7
G
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
Notes:____________________________________________________________
Historical Development of OA
Orthogonal arrays were first conceived by Euler (Euler's Greco-Latin Squares). OA's are used for expressing
functions and assigning experiments. (Reference: System of Experimental Design by G. Taguchi, pp. 165, also
1021 - 1026 ).
Latin Squares of dimension n x n are denoted by L1, L2 . . . Ln-1. 3 x 3
L1
1 2 3
2 3 1
3 1 2
L2
1 3
2 1
3 2
_
2
3
1
Orthogonal arrays used by Taguchi are constructed by combining the Latin Squares
The development of orthogonal arrays dates back to times before Taguchi. Theories and procedures of
orthogonal arrays are beyond the scope of this seminar.
Page 2 - 7
F1
A1
B1
C1
C2
Tr#1
A2
B2
C1
C2
B1
C1
C2
B2
C1
G2
G1
F2
D1
G2
Tr#3
G1
E2
F1
G2
Tr#5
G1
F2
??
Tr#7
G2
G1
E1
F1
G2
Tr#8
G1
Tr#6
F2
D2
G2
G1
E2
F1
Tr#4
G2
G1
F2
G2
Tr#2
Tr#1, Tr#2, etc. are location/description of the trial conditions defined by the orthogonal array.
?? is the location/combination of the optimum condition to be determined.
C2
Page 2 - 8
L-4 (23)
Trial #\
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
(4)
5
4
7
6
1
(5)
6
7
4
5
2
3
(6)
Orthogonal Array
A
B
C
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(7)
8 9 10
9 8 11
10 11 8
11 10 9
12 13 14
13 12 15
14 15 12
15 14 13
(8)1 2
(9)3
(10)
11 12
10 13
9
14
8
15
15 8
14 9
13 10
12 11
3
4
2
5
1
6
(11) 7
(12)
13
12
15
14
9
8
11
10
5
4
7
6
1
(13)
14
15
12
13
10
11
8
9
6
7
4
5
2
3
(14)
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(15)
ETC...
L8(27 ) Array
COL.>>
TRIAL#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
5
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
6
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
7
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
Column =>
Cond.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Page 2 - 9
L12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
6
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
7
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
8
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
9
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
10
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
11
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
Note:
The L-12 is a special array designed to investigate main effects of 11 2-level factors.
This array is not recommended for analyzing interactions
L16
Column
Cond.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
10 11
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
12 13
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
14 15
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
Page 2 - 10
L n (l m )
Where
n = Number of experiments
L = Number of levels
m = Number of factors
L8 (27),
8 = Number of experiments
2 = Number of levels
7 = Number of factors
==>
(2-level arrays)
==>
(3-level arrays)
==>
(4-level arrays)
L16 45 , L32 21 , 4 9 ,
(Brainstorm)
- What are evaluation criteria
- How do we measure them
- How do we combine the criteria
- What are the factors
- What are the levels
etc.
Design
Perform
Analyze
Confirm
Page 2 - 11
Page 2 - 12
- How would we evaluate results after the experiments are carried out?
- How do you decide what are the factors?
- How do you determine which factors to include in the study?
- What are the levels of the factors and how are they established?
- How do you plan to measure the performances?
- What are the criteria of evaluation?
- How do you plan to combine them if there are multiple criteria?
Answers to these and many other questions regarding the experiments are resolved
in the experiment planning (Brainstorming) session.
NOTE: Any time the project team involves more than two people, formal brain -storming
should be carried out. The following are some of the desirable characteristics of an
effective brainstorming session.
- all who have first hand knowledge of the project are invited
- it is facilitated by a person who is not involved in the project
- enough time allowed for discussions of related items
- all in attendance are allotted one vote (one person one vote) regardless
of their responsibilities or position
- all decisions in the sessions are made by consensus
- all in attendance understand and participate in all discussions
etc.
Page 2 - 13
Topics of Discussions
a) Project Objectives ( 2 - 4 hours)
- What are we after? How many objectives do we wish to satisfy?
- How do we measure the objectives?
- What are the criteria of evaluation and their quality characteristic?
- When there are more than one criterion, would we have a need to combine them?
- How are the different evaluation criteria weighted?
- What is the quality characteristic for the Overall Evaluation Criteria(OEC)?
Page 2 - 14
Worst
Best
Quality
Relative
Sample 1
reading
reading
Characteristics
Weighting
Readings
Tensile strength
12000
15000
Bigger
55 %
12652
Rupture Strain
0.10
0.30
Nominal
30 %
0.207
Brinnel Hardness
60
45
Smaller
15 %
58
O E C = > 30.0
Before evaluations from different criteria can be combined, the following three conditions must be met.
- Units of measurements must be the same (This is generally done by expressing the evaluation in term of a
fraction/ratio of the highest magnitude of evaluations)
- Quality characteristics(QC) for all must be either Bigger or Smaller (For Nominal characteristic, Deviation
calculated subtracting the Target value from the evaluation
is used. Deviation always bears the Smaller QC which can then be converted to Bigger QC by subtracting the
ratio from 1.0)
- Each criteria must be included with appropriate weighting (This can be reflected by multiplying the
contribution each evaluation makes by the Relative weighting )
Page 2 - 15
A B C
1 1 1
1 2 2
2 1 2
2 2 1
= 250 psi
= 150 deg.
= 6 sec.
= 250 psi
= 200 deg.
= 9 sec.
etc.
Page 2 - 16
RESULTS: In most text books on design of experiments, the performance of the product or process under study,
is termed as the response. Since the performance may be evaluated by multiple evaluation criteria, the single
quantity which represent the combined effects of all evaluations(OEC) represents the performance of the test
sample and is called the result..
Repetition and Replication refer to the manner in which the experiments are carried out.
REPETITION: In this method the trial condition is selected randomly, then all samples in the trial are carried
out in sequence.
REPLICATIONS: This is the most random way of carrying out the trial conditions. The order of running the
test is selected by randomly selecting the sample to be tested from among the total samples.
Process Diagram - Function of a product or a process can be viewed in terms of a SYSTEM which require an
INPUT to produce OUTPUT making use of many FACTORS. Such schematics representing the functions of a
system is popularly known as the Process Diagram.
- When the input does not change during the investigation, it is called a STATIC SYSTEM
- When the input is variable, it is called a DYNAMIC SYSTEM
The function of the system under study (product or process) can be viewed in terms of its Process Diagram which
reflects OUTPUT as a result of INPUT and other INFLUENCING FACTORS to the system.
Process Diagram
Control Factors
and Levels
Input to the
Process
* Sugar
* Butter
* Flour
* Milk
* Heat/Electricity
Result ,
System/Process
Input
Output
Response, Quality
Characteristic, or
Overall Evaluation
Criteria(OEC)
- Evaluation
(Readings)
- Observations
Noise Factors
* Oven Type
* Kitchen Temp
* Humidity
Page 2 - 17
Trial/Col.
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
2
2
B
1
2
1
2
C
1
2
2
1
Results
30 (Y1)
25 (Y2)
34 (Y3)
27 (Y4)
_
T = ( 30 + 25 + 34 + 27 ) / 4 = 29
factor
Average effect of a factor = --------------------------------------------------------Sum of all results containing the effects of the
Number of results included in the sum
Factor averages
__
A1 = (Y1 + Y2 ) / 2
__
A2 = (Y3 + Y4 ) / 2
__
B1 = (Y1 + Y3 ) / 2
__
B2 = (Y2 + Y4 ) / 2
__
C1 = (Y1 + Y4 ) / 2
__
C2 = (Y2 + Y3 ) / 2
(30 + 25 )/ 2 = 27.5
(34 + 27 )/ 2 = 30.5
(30 + 34 )/ 2 = 32.0
(25 + 27 )/ 2 = 26.0
(30 + 27 )/ 2 = 28.5
(25 + 34 )/ 2 = 29.5
Page 2 - 18
Main Effects
34.0
(B1 - T)
32
32.0
(C1 - T)
30.5
30.0
29.5
Grand Avg.
28.0
28.5
27.5
(A2 - T)
26.0
26
A1
A2
B1
B2
C1
C2
Factor Levels
Main effect, Factorial effect, or Column effect refers to the trend of change of the
average effect of the factor assigned to the column. Main effect is generally expressed by
the difference of the average effects at the two levels(for 2-level factor) or by plotting the
average effect. Expressed numerically.
__
__
Main effect of factor A = (A2 - A1) = (30.5 - 27.5) or show graph
(Always draw graph if the factor has 3 or more levels)
Page 2 - 19
Quality Characteristics
To determine which among the levels of the factor is most desirable for achieving project
objectives, it is necessary that we establish the Quality Characteristic (QC) applicable.
The QC appropriate is by the OEC equation in cases where there are multiple objectives
and the results are obtained by combining the individual evaluations.
Quality Characteristics
1. Nominal Is Best
2. Smaller is Better
3. Bigger Is Better
Example
12 volt for a 12 volt battery
surface roughness
strength
The Condition which is likely to produce the most desirable results is obtained from
the plot of average effect.
Based on QC = Bigger is Better,
Optimum Condition = A2 B1 C2
Factor Influence A(up)
B(down)
C(up)
Expected Performance
Performance at the optimum condition is estimated by adding the amount each selected
average effect is deviant from the grand average to the grand average.
Yopt
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
= T + (A2 - T) + (B1 - T) + (C2 - T)
= 29 + (30.5 - 29) + (32 - 29) + (29.5 - 29)
= 34
Page 2 - 20
S - Sum of Squares
f - Degree of Freedom
V - Variance (Mean Square)
F - Variance Ratio
The detailed description of ANOVA and the calculations involved will be discussed
later in this seminar. For now, some familiarity with the use of ANOVA results will be
our immediate objective.
ANOVA Table
The last column in the ANOVA table indicates the relative influence of the column
effects (factor or interaction assigned to the column). The numbers in % are
determined by taking ratio of the column variation(S) to the total variation. The nature
of the relationships among the different statistical items will be discussed later in this
seminar.
From the last column of ANOVA table, significance of the factor influences can be
determined by testing for significance. A small percentage of influence to the variation of the
results means that the factor tolerance can be relaxed, while the tolerances for factors that
show higher percentages of influence, may have to be tightened or watched carefully.
The sum of all percentage influence always add up to 100%. The last row of the table
indicates the influence of All Other Factor/Experiential Error is obtained by taking away all
factor influences from 100%.
ANOVA Screen
Page 2 - 21
(Qualitek-4 software)
4 Factors At 2-Level
5 Factors At 2-Level
6 Factors At 2-Level
7 Factors At 2-Level
L8(27 ) Array
Col.>>
Trial#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
5
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
6
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
There are many other applications of an L-8 array which will be discussed in the later
sections. For now consider the following application situations.
How do we assign factors to columns?
What if we do not have enough factors?
7
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
Page 2 - 22
15
Note: A large number of experiments can be designed using standard orthogonal arrays. There is
also much to be gained by doing simpler experiments such as the ones discussed so far. For starting
experiments, standard arrays are strongly recommended.
Page 2 - 23
Trial
1
2
3
4
Y1 =
Y2 =
Y3 =
Y4 =
A
1
1
2
2
B
1
2
1
2
C Results
1 Y1
2 Y2
2 Y3
1 Y4
30
48
75
63
T = (30 + 48 + 75 + 63)/4 = 54
Averages:
A1 = (30+48)/2 = 39
B1 = (30+75)/2 = 52.5
C1 = (30+63)/2 = 46.5
A2 = (75+63)/2 = 69
B2 = (48+63)/2 = 55.5
C2 = (48+75)/2 = 61.5
30
33
60
63
Y2 =
Y4 =
Y6 =
Y8 =
45
48
75
78
Maximum Value = 78 which checks with the optimum above obtained from orthogonal array experiment
shown above. Since the system represented by the equation in terms of factors A, B and C is assumed to
behave in a linear manner, the orthogonal array results, which is based on linear model, produces 100%
accuracy. (Note that the highest value, which happens to be the eighth combination(Y8), is not necessarily
the last combination.
Page 2 - 24
Module - 3
Interaction Studies
Interactions among factors under study is quite common. Any one factor may interact with
any or all of the other factors creating the possibility of presence of a larger number(N x {N1}/2) of interactions. Determining the scope of experiment by balancing the number of factors
and interactions to be included in the study, requires clear understanding of the interaction
effects. This module provides a detail procedure for detection and analysis of interaction
between two 2-level factors.
Topic Objectives:
* Design Experiments to include interaction studies.
* Test for existence and relative influence of interactions.
* Determine optimum condition and estimate optimum performance when
interaction is significant.
3.1
Page 3 - 2
T2
Research with orthogonal arrays showed that when factors a (2-level) and b (2-level) are
placed in columns 1 and 2, their interaction effect, if any, is mixed with effects of a
factor assigned to column 3.
Notations AxB Represents Interaction Between Factors A and B
.
Notation 1x2 => 3 means that the interaction effect of two factors assigned to column 1 and
column 2 will be mixed with effect of factor placed in column 3. Thus if a factor is indeed
present in column 3 and the factors in column 1 and 2 do indeed have interaction, then the
effect determined for factor in column 3 will not be true. On the other hand if we wish to
determine the effect of interaction between factors in column 1 and 2, then we may want to
leave column 3 empty and not assign any factor.
The three columns (col# 1, 2 and 3) which contains the interacting factors and their
interaction effect, form an interacting group.
The columns in an interacting group are commutative, i.e.
1 x 2 => 3,
1 x 3 => 2
and
2 x 3 =>1
Page 3 - 3
How to determine interactions between factors which are assigned to any two arbitrary
columns?
1 x 4 => ?
5 x 6 => ?
etc.
Taguchi provided the Triangular Table which contains information with respect to
interaction between factors assigned to any two columns.
The triangular table is used to determine interaction between factors. There are separate
triangular tables for two, three and four level factors. The discussions in this seminar will
be limited to interactions between two 2-level factors. Use of the 3-level or 4-level
triangular table and the corresponding study of the interactions will be left to the
attendees for future study.
To study interaction between two 2-level factors, we need to reserve one 2-level column
as indicated by the triangular table. Interaction column assignments obtained from the
Triangular Table can be represented in graphical form which are known as linear graphs.
How to read the triangular table
From the table shown in the next page.
3 x 4 => 7,
3 x 4 => 7,
2 x 7 => 5, 1 x 5 => 4
1 x 5 => 4, 1 x 4 => 5, etc.
4
5
6
7
(4)
5
4
7
6
1
(5)
6
7
4
5
2
3
(6)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(7)
8 9 10
9 8 11
10 11 8
11 10 9
12 13 14
13 12 15
14 15 12
15 14 13
(8)1 2
(9)3
(10)
11 12
10 13
9
14
8
15
15 8
14 9
13 10
12 11
3
4
2
5
1
6
(11) 7
(12)
13
12
15
14
9
8
11
10
5
4
7
6
1
(13)
14
15
12
13
10
11
8
9
6
7
4
5
2
3
(14)
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(15)
ETC...
Page 3 - 4
2
1
3
5
7
6
2
6
Design Consideration
5 Factors at 2-levels requires 5 columns. two interactions between two 2-level factors
require 2 additional columns.
An L8 has 7 2-level columns. It might work! (We say might, as we do not know yet
whether the array will satisfy all design requirements).
3.2
Page 3 - 5
Design Strategy:
Assign interacting factors first. Then reserve the column for their interaction effect. Next,
consider other interacting factors if any. Assign the remaining factors to the available
column at random.
TRL#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
L8(27 ) Array
A
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
C
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
AxC B D BxC E
3
4
5
6 7
1
1
1
1 1
1
2
2
2 2
2
1
1
2 2
2
2
2
1 1
2
1
2
1 2
2
2
1
2 1
1
1
2
2 1
1
2
1
1 2
Page 3 - 6
Col:>
Expt #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
C AxC B D BxC E
2 3
4 5 6 7
Results
1 1
1 1 1 1
66
1 1
2 2 2 2
75
2 2
1 1 2 2
54
2 2
2 2 1 1
62
1 2
1 2 1 2
52
1 2
2 1 2 1
82
2 1
1 2 2 1
52
2 1
2 1 1 2 78
Total = 521
__
B1
= (66 + 54 + 52 + 52)/4
= 56.00
= (66 + 75 + 52 + 82)/4
= 68.75
D1
= (66 + 54 + 82 + 78)/4
_____
(AxC)1 = (66 + 75 + 52 + 78)/4
= 70.00
__
C1
__
____
= 67.75
_____
(BxC)1 = (66 + 62 + 52 + 78)/4
__
E1
= (66 + 62 + 82 + 52)/4
__
A2
__
B2
__
C2
__
D2
= 64.50
= 65.50
Page 3 - 7
FACTORS
A:EGG
C:MILK
AxC
B:BUTTER
D:FLOUR
BxC
E:SUGAR
LEVEL-1
64.25
68.75
67.75
56.00
70.00
64.50
65.50
LEVEL-2 DIFFE.(2-1)
66.00
1.75
61.50
-7.25
62.50
-5.25
74.25
18.25
60.25
-9.75
65.75
1.25
64.75
-0.75
A2
C1
C2
B1
B2
D1
D2
E1
E2
76
Page 3 - 8
72
68
64
60
56
(AxC)1
(AxC)2
(BxC)1
(BxC)2
The interaction plots shown above comes from the columns which are reserved for the
interaction. The slopes of the lines indicate the relative influence of the interaction
effects in qualitative terms. It cannot, however be used to determine whether interaction
is indeed present and if present, whether it is significant.
Test for presence of Interaction:
Whether interaction is present or not, can be found by test of presence of interaction.
Test for significance of interaction:
Whether the interaction is significant or not is found by test of significance. This test can
only be done by using ANOVA. It also requires the interaction column effects calculated
and plotted as shown above.
Strategy:
First test to see if interaction exists. if interaction is present then proceed to determine if
it is significant.
Situation
* Interaction absent
* Interaction present but
not significant
* Interaction present and
is significant
Action
No action needed
No action needed
Action Needed
* Modify optimum design
* Revise optimum performance
To carry out the first test of interaction, i.e., to see if interaction really is present, we need to
make some extra calculations for average effects of the two interacting factors together.
Since we are dealing with factors that are at 2 levels, there are 4 such combinations are
possible.
Page 3 - 9
COL:>>
EXPT #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
C
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
AxC
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
B
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
D
5
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
BxC
6
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
E
7 RESULTS
1
66
2
75
2
54
1
62
2
52
1
82
1
52
2
78
TOTAL = 521
Average effect of A1C1 is found by averaging results which contain of both A1 & C1.
_____
(A1C1) = (66 + 75)/2 = 70.50 (first two trial results only)
Similarly
_____
(A1C2) = (54 + 62)/2 = 58.00
_____
(A2C2) = (52 + 78)/2 = 65.00
_____
(A2C1) = (52 + 82)/2 = 67.00 and
____
(A1C1) = 70.50
____
and (A1C2) = 58.00
Page 3 - 10
_____
_____
(B1C1) = 59.00
_____
(B2C1) = 78.50
(B1C2) = 53.00
____
(B2C2) = 70.00
and
The presence of interaction can be easily tested by plotting the combined factor averages
78.5
76
72
68
B2
Plots for Test of Presence of Interaction
70.5
70.0
A1
67.0
A2
64
65.0
59.0
60
B1
58.0
56
53.0
52
C1
C2
C1
C2
Key Observation:
If the lines are non-parallel (need not be intersecting), then interaction is present.
1. A and C interaction is strongly present. B and C interaction is negligible.
2. Among the four combinations of A and C used for the plots, condition
A1C1 represent the highest value (desired for BIGGER IS BETTER QC)
Severity Index: The strength of presence of interaction can be measured in terms of a numerical
quantity which measures the angle between the two lines. The Severity Index is formed such that it is
100% when the lines are perpendicular and 0% when the lines are parallel. For interaction between A
and C, the generalized formula for the Severity Index is as shown below.
ABS [ (A1C2 -A1C1) - (A2C2 - A2C1) ] x 100
Interaction Severity Index(SI) =
%
2 x ABS[ Highest - Lowest ]
Page 3 - 11
Example:
For AxC,
For BxC,
Conclusion: Factor levels A1C1 must be included in the description of the optimum
condition.
Leading Questions:
* Is interaction present?
* If interaction is present, what are its influences?
* How significant are interactions? (determined by ANOVA, not done at this time)
* How do we find out what are best factor levels when interaction is present?
Combined factor averages used for test of presence of interactions such as A1C1,
A1C2, B1C1, etc. are calculated using the column where factors A and B are assigned.
The calculations do not make use of the columns reserved for AxC or BxC. Thus, it is
possible to test for interaction between any two factors (say D and E) even if we didn't
reserve a special column for their interaction effect (DxE). The above observation
naturally leads to the following conclusions:
- It is possible to examine whether two factors interact or not even if we didn't think
about it or made any special provision to study them.
- Thus if seven 2-level factors are studied using 7 columns of an L-8, it is possible to
test for presence of interaction between any two factors.
Then why did we sacrifice a column for AxC, BxC, etc. in our experiment design?
- Special columns for interaction effect are reserved to carry out the complete study.
- Without a separate column for interaction, although presence of interaction
can be tested, the relative significance cannot be determined.
- Test for presence of interaction yields only qualitative (subjective)
information, whereas, the test of significance for the column effects
(in this case the column of AxC, BxC, etc.) yield influence of the
interactions in a quantitative manner.
Actions to Follow:
If interaction exists, then we need to determine its influence on:
- optimum condition
- performance at optimum condition
Page 3 - 12
_ _ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
65.125 + 18.875
= 84.00
Page 3 - 13
When interaction effects of factors A and C are considered, the revised optimum factor
levels become: A1C1B2D1E1 (with interaction)
(Since from test of presence of interaction
_ _
Page 3 - 14
___
_ _
In the above expression the level of the interaction column AxC is determined from the
average effects for the interaction column in the same manner as the level for the factor is
done. [Optimum expression used by QUALITEK-4 software]
Alternative Method: In this expression, the terms (A2 - T) and (C1 - T) in the original
expression for optimum performance, are replaced by the term (A1C1 - T).
YOPT. = T + A1C1 T + B2 T + D1 T + E1 T
= 6 5 .1 2 5 + 5 .3 7 5 + 9 .1 2 5 + 4 .8 7 5 + 0 .3 7 5 = 8 4 .8 7 5
Note: In cases where two pairs of interactions (AxC & BxC) produce different levels of
the same factor (say C) select the optimum that produces a conservative estimate.
- Select the lower calculated value if QC is Bigger is Better
- Select the higher calculated value if QC is Smaller is Better
Page 3 - 15
Module - 4
Experiment Designs With Mixed Level Factors
Experiment designs with all factors in the same level are easier to accomplish. Generally, one
of the standard arrays can be used as is. Frequently, however, factors that are included in the
study have different levels(2, 3 or 4 levels), particularly if many of the factors are of discrete
type. This module describes procedures of modifying standard orthogonal arrays to
accommodate factors at different levels.
= number of level - 1
= number of level - 1
= total number of column DOF
= total number of results - 1
Page 4 - 2
L-8 Array
COL >>
EXPT #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2 3
4 5 6 7
1>1 1 1 1 1 1
1>1 1 2 2 2 2
2>2 2 1 1 2 2
2>2 2 2 2 1 1
1>3 2 1 2 1 2
1>3 2 2 1 2 1
2>4 1 1 2 2 1
2>4 1 2 1 1 2
MODIFIED ARRAY
WITH FACTOR ASSIGNMENTS
COL >>
X
A
B
C
EXPT # NEW COL
4
5
6
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
4
2
2
2
1
5
3
1
2
1
6
3
2
1
2
7
4
1
2
2
8
4
2
1
1
Page 4 - 3
D
7
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
Design
* Assign the 4-level factor to column 1.
X: Casement Structure
* Assign the remaining four 2-level factors to columns 4, 5, 6 & 7:
A: Air Gap B: Impregnation C:Contact Brush D:Stator Structure
=
=
=
=
=
Trial # 2
Casement Structure
Air Gap
Impregnation
Contact Brush
Stator Structure
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Textured....................Level
Present Gap.............. Level
Present type.............. Level
Type 2.......................Level
Epoxy Coated ..........Level
Trial #
etc.
3
Casement Structure
Air Gap
Impregnation
Contact Brush
Stator Structure
2
1
1
2
2
Page 4 - 4
Arrangements
- results of one sample per trial are placed in the respective trial/rows.
COL >>
EXPT #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MODIFIED ARRAY
WITH FACTOR ASSIGNMENTS
X
A
B
C
D
NEW COL
4
5
6
1
Results
1
1
1
1
1
50
1
2
2
2
2
62
2
1
1
2
2
70
2
2
2
1
1
75
3
1
2
1
2
68
3
2
1
2
1
65
4
1
2
2
1
65
4
2
1
1
2
74
Page 4 - 5
Note: More elements of ANOVA are known to us now. The terms like S, V, F and S' are still
not known to us yet.
The expected result at the optimum condition represents the average performance of a
number of samples tested at the optimum condition. No sample may perform exactly as the
optimum value, but all samples are expected to perform near the expected value (bounded by
the Confidence Interval).
4.3
Page 4 - 6
Downgrading Columns
(Changing a 3-Level column to 2 or 4-Level to 3)
Suppose that we have three 3-level factors and one 2-level factor.
No standard array is available. an l9 has four 3-level columns.
The process of down-grading a column involves taking the standard column and simply
changing one level to another.
The process is commonly known as Dummy Treatment
For the case above start with an l-9 array
- Select a column, say col. 3
- Replace level 3 with 1
- Note the number changed by marking with a (')
- Select the substituting level as one where performance is known to be less stable.
L9 Array
EXPT#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
B
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
C
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
A
3
1
2
1'
2
1'
1
1'
1
2
D
4
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
Note:
1. When a column is dummy treated, by replacing 3 with 1', as done for the third column above, the column
looses balance within itself as well as with other column. Even though one or more columns of the orthogonal
array is no longer balanced, the design still is valid and ready to yield the desired conclusions upon completion of
analysis.
2. The level substituted for the highest column level may be any of the lower ones. However, level where
performance is expected to exhibit larger variations, should be selected when possible.
3. In the similar manner a 4-level column can be reduced to a 3-level column by replacing 4 with 1 or any other
desired level.
Page 4 - 7
6 x (2 - 1)
2 x (3 - 1)
1 x (4 - 1)
Total DOF
=
=
=
=
6
4
3
13
1 2 3
4 8 12
7 9 14
(These sets are only one selection among many other possible interacting groups of
columns)
Change all three sets first into 4-level columns. then dummy treat any two of these 4-level
columns to two 3-level columns. assign the two 3-level factors to these two columns.
Assign the 4-level factor to the 4-level column prepared from the set 7 9 14.
Page 4 - 8
Original L16
COND.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
10 11
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
12 13
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
14 15
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4 8 & 12 to form A
3-level col. new 4"
NEW 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4=1'
4=1'
4=1'
4=1'
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
8
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
7 9 & 14 to form A
4-level col. new 7"
12
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1>1
NEW 4
1
2
3
4=1'
1
2
3
4=1'
1
2
3
4=1'
1
2
3
4=1'
1 2>2
9
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2 1>3
14
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
NEW 7
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
2 2>4
Page 4 - 9
Modified (L-16)
Expt\Col:1
expt 1 1
expt 2 1
expt 3 1
expt 4 1
expt 5 2
expt 6 2
expt 7 2
expt 8 2
expt 9 3
expt 10 3
expt 11 3
expt 12 3
expt 13 1
expt 14 1
expt 15 1
expt 16 1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
5
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
6
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
7
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10 11
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 2
2 1
1 2
2 1
2 1
1 2
2 1
1 2
12 13
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 1
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 2
14 15
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 1
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 2
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 1
When the orthogonal array is modified, the factors can then be assigned to the appropriate
columns. While the 3-level and 4-level factors are assigned to the columns prepared to
accommodate them, if there are interactions between two level factors, there assignments must
carefully follow the rules of interaction design discussed earlier.
LEVEL-4
------------------------------------------------Plant W
---------------------------------
Page 4 - 10
L4(23) Array
Trial#
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
The trial conditions described by the rows of level in the OA are arranged such that any
level of a factor, say a1, must exists with all levels of other factors such as B1, B2, C1,
C2, etc.
For example, A1 must go with B1 in Trial #1 and with B2 in Trial #2. In some situations
trials may be incompatible and may not be carried out.
HOW to avoid incompatibility
* Combine factors only when they do not interact.
* It is always possible to combine two 2-level factors into one 4- level factor.
/ X1
FACTOR X =|
\ X2
/ Y1
FACTOR Y =|
\ Y2
It is always possible to combine two 2-level factors into one 4-level factor. Thus X and Y
can be combined to create a new factor at 4-level.
New factor (XY) obtained by combining X and Y
(XY) > (XY)1 = X1Y1 , (XY)2 = X1Y2, (XY)3 = X2Y1 , (XY)4 = X2Y2
Consider:
Page 4 - 11
L9 OA has 4 3-level columns. in the combination design, one of the four 3-level columns
can be used to accommodate the two 2-level factors.
If we were to look for a standard array to handle the five factors, we will need to go for an
L-16. Use of L-9 will result in 7 less experiments.
Assign A, B & C TO Columns 1, 2 & 3.
Since factors X and Y can only be assigned to one column, they are combined to create a
new factor (XY) which may be assumed to have four levels as shown below.
X1Y1 = (XY)1
X1Y2 = (XY)3
X2Y1 = (XY)2
X2Y2 = (XY)4
Select any three levels, say (XY)1 (XY)2 (XY)3. Ignore the remaining level, Level
(XY)4 in this case.
Assign (XY)1 (XY)2 (XY)3 to the 3 levels of Col. 4
* Level 1 of column 4 will mean (XY)1 i.e. X1Y1
* Trial condition 1 will then be (A1B1C1X1Y1)
FACTORS
EXPT.#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
B
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
C
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
(XY)
4
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
Once the experiments are carried out and the results collected, the average effects of
factors assigned to various columns can be calculated. Thus the three average effects of
the fictitious factor (XY), i.e., (XY)1, (XY)2 and (XY)3 are obtained.
Analysis of Results:
Page 4 - 12
___
____
MAIN EFFECT OF X = (XY)2 - (XY)1
____
___
= X2Y1 - X1Y1 AT FIXED Y = Y1
___
___
MAIN EFFECT OF Y = (XY)3 - (XY)1
____ ____
= X1Y2 - X1Y1
AT FIXED X = X1
conclusions about the main effects are drawn based on a fixed value of the other factor. The main effect of
X above is only valid when Y = Y1.
Page 4 - 13
Course Recap
Design
- Simple cases, standard OA
- Interaction
- Mixed levels
- Combination design
- Robust/noise factor design
...yet to be discussed
Analysis
- Main effects
* Influence
* Optimum
* Estimated performance
- Analysis of variance
* % contribution
* Confidence interval
Loss Function
...yet to be discussed
...yet to be discussed
Brainstorming
Page 4 - 14
Review Questions
4-1: Design experiments to study the following situations with factors at mixed levels.
Select the appropriate orthogonal array and indicate the column assignments.
a. Three two level factors and one 4-level factor
b. Four 2-level factors and one 3-level factor
c. Two 3-level factors and one 2-level factor
d. Seven 3-level factors and one 2-level factor
e. Four 4-level factors and three 2-level factors
f. Three 4-level factors, two 3-level factors and five 2-level factors.
4-2: Design an experiment to economically study three 3-level factors (A, B and C) and
two 2-level factors (D and E). Assume that interaction between factors D and E is absent.
4-3: For the following experiment design.
COL.#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
FACTORS
LEVEL-1
LEVEL-2
LEVEL-3
LEVEL-4
CASEMENT STRUCTURE PRESENT
TEXTURED BOLTED
PRES.FIT
M/U
M/U
AIR GAP
PRESENT
INCREASE
IMPREGNATION
PRESENT
HARDER
CONTACT BRUSH
TYPE 1
TYPE 2
STATOR STRUCTURE
PRESENT
EPOXY
#\COL:
TRIAL 1
TRIAL 2
TRIAL 3
TRIAL 4
TRIAL 5
TRIAL 6
TRIAL 7
TRIAL 8
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
5
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
6
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
7
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
a. Determine the trial # for the condition described below. (Check the correct answer)
Casement Structure
= Bolted
Air Gap
= Increased Gap
(a) Trial #2
Impregnation
= Present Type
(b) Trial #6
Contact Brush
= Type 2
(c) Trial #7
Stator Structure
= Present Design
(d) Trial #5
Page 4 - 15
L-9 Array
Factors(XY)
Trial
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
3
8
3
9
3
A
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
B
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
C
4
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
Results
60
50
40
55
45
35
65
60
55
Page 4 - 16
____
X1Y1 =
____
X1Y2 =
____
X2Y1 =
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
7
4
6
8
9
6
5
5
4
6
5
7
9
10
8
7
6
Average
5
5
3
5
7
8
7
6
7
4
6
4
Ans. _______
Ans. _______
Ans. _______
Ans. _______
Ans. _______
vi) Extra DOF of the experiment (over what the factors need).
Ans. _______
vii) Identify the orthogonal array that has enough DOF to satisfy the needs of
Three 3-level factors
One 4-level factor
and
Two 2-level factors
Ans.
Array _________
Page 4 - 17
L-8
Trial\Col#
A
1
B
3
D
4
C
5
E
7
Results
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
4
6
8
6
3
5
4
8
Ans. ________
Ans._________
Ans. ________
iv) For Smaller is Better quality characteristic, plot the main effect and identify the level of
factor D which is desirable for the optimum condition.
__
D1
__
D2
__
D3
D1
D2
D3
Page 4 - 18
Trial\Factor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(XY)
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
7
4
6
8
9
6
5
5
4
6
5
7
9
10
8
7
6
5
5
3
5
7
8
7
6
7
Average
4
6
4
____
X1Y2 =
____
X2Y1 =
X1
X2
__
B1 =
__
B2 =
__
B3 =
__
C1 =
__
C2 =
__
C3 =
Page 4 - 19
Calculated values:
Grand Avg. =167.29
Levels: 2 1 2 1 1
Yopt = 232.83 w/o Int.
= 258 (with one Int.)
Page 4 - 20
4-12: An L-8 OA was used to study one 4-level factor (A, col. 1) and four 2-level factors (B,
C, D and E cols. 4, 5, 6 and 7). One sample at each trial condition produced the following
results:
Test Results: 71
68
70
75
68
65
65
and
74
4-13: An experimenter used an L-9 OA to study three 3-level factors (A, B, and C in
cols. 1, 2, and 3) and two 2-level factors (X and Y in col. 4 as X1Y1 X1Y2 and X2Y1).
The results of the nine trials are as follows:
Test Results:
42
45
38
56
36
52
64
68
54
If LARGER value of the result is desired, determine: a) The optimum condition, b) Main
effect of factor X and c) Optimum performance.
Module - 5
Robust Design Strategies
Variation in performance occurs mainly due to control factor and noise factors
(uncontrollable). While DOE can identify the influential control factors which can indeed be
adjusted to improve the consistency in performance, for many system, the uncontrollable
factors cause most of the variation. In such situations, Taguchi, in his ROBUST DESIGN
strategy, proposes to minimize the influence of uncontrollable factors by adjusting the levels
of the controllable factors. In this approach, the desired design is sought not by selecting the
best performance under ideal condition, instead by looking for a design that produce
consistent performance having been exposed to the influence of the uncontrollable factors.
Page 5 - 2
How to Repeat?
Just repeat or repeat with a purpose?
What is the purpose?
Our purpose is to reduce variation of performance around the target.
What causes variations? Variation in performance is caused by factors we cannot control,
do not want to control or are not aware of their influence. Such factors are called "Noise
Factors".
What do we want to do about the influence of the noise factors? Contrary to the
traditional approach to determine the causes of variation and try to control them, in
ROBUST DESIGN strategy, the approach is to reduce the influence of the noise factors
by simply controlling the controllable factors.
What can you do to reduce the influence of the noise factors?
Design experiments with controllable factors as usual. Identify the applicable noise
factors for the subject project and determine their combinations by using the appropriate
orthogonal array. Repeat the trial conditions by exposing them to the influence of the
noise factors.
Page 5 - 3
- Combine the noise factors using the orthogonal array (outer array) to produce a
number of noise conditions.
- Repeat samples in the same trial conditions exposing each to the noise conditions.
Consider that we have three 2-level noise factors in the experiment with the cake
baking process.
Noise Factors:
Page 5 - 4
Noise Factors
Humidity3
Temperature 2
Oven type 1
Control factors
Tr#
1
2
3
*
8
Outer Array
2
2
1
L8
Inner Array
Results
R11 R
R
R
R
R
. . 21
.....
. . .. . . .. .. . . .. .
R
R
R 73
R
R
R
L4
R
R
R
R
Page 5 - 5
5.3
* Optimum condition determined using outer array is least sensitive to the variation of
noise factors. (robust design)
* Number repetition and the conditions of the noise factor levels are discretely
determined by the size of the outer array.
* Influence of noise factor can be easily calculated in the same manner as control
factors (main effect of noise factors).
* Interaction between control factors and noise factors can also be determined if
desired.
Level-1
0.020
0.015
N/A
0.150
N/A
N/A
0.025
Level-2
0.070
0.040
0.20
0.040
Factor Dec.
Temperature
Pressure
Fuel Type
Level-1
70 F
200
Type A
Level-2
150 F
350
Type B
Page 5 - 6
Note: Noise condition is considered random when the noise factors are identified and the
experiments are carried out at their varying noise levels.
1
2
3
4
R1
20
30
32
36
R2
30
34
34
32
R3
22
23
26
30
R4
26
27
28
30
AVG.
24.5
26.0
30.0
32.0
9
9
10
11
=> Average 9
=> Average 9
This two set would look the same if we only compared the averages. Nature of
distribution of data represented by Standard Deviation, Scatter, etc. will be required to
accurately compare the two data sets.
Page 5 - 7
Observations:
- Need a single quantity to compare each trial condition
- Average alone does not tell the whole story
- Require a quantity that includes both average and standard deviation
Conclusion:
- Need to devise a new yardstick of measurements which will be simple, yet include all
the desirable characteristics.
MSD And S/N Ratio
Mean Squared Deviation (MSD)
Reducing variation around the target is the objective of taguchi experiments. MSD
measures variation around the target and is also a function of Average and Standard
Deviation.
Avg.
_
Y
Target
Yo
Lower (Yavg. - Y0) And STD. Deviation are satisfied by minimizing MSD.
MSD = A measure of Deviation of result from the target.
Page 5 - 8
generally speaking
MSD =
(Yi - Yo)2/n
Which means that MSD can be minimized by lowering standard deviation and /or
reducing the distance of the average to the target.
Nominal:
Smaller:
Bigger:
Page 5 - 9
S/N ratio and MSD are defined such that, regardless of the quality characteristic,
i.e. bigger, smaller or nominal,
* Smaller value for MSD and
* Larger value for S/N ratio is desired
Example 6: Cam Lifter Design Study
An experiment with
three 2-level factors (A,
B and C) and 3 samples
per trial yielded the
following results (QC =
Smaller is Better)
Expt.
1
2
3
4
A
1
1
2
2
B
1
2
1
2
C
1
2
2
1
R1
2
4
4
3
R2
3
5
5
5
R3
4
3
6
7
S/N Avg.
- 9.86 3
-12.2 4
-14.1 5
-14.4 5
= 9.666
= 16.666
Col# Factors
1 Spring Rate
2 Cam Profile
3 Wt of Push Rod
Level-1
-11.04
-11.97
-12.14
(L2-L1)
-3.23
-1.35
-1.02
Page 5 - 10
-13
-14
-15
A1
A2
B1
B2
C1
C2
Optimum Condition : A1 B1 C1
Note that optimum condition is selected based on the higher values of S/N. while performing S/N
analysis, higher values will always be selected regardless of quality characteristic (in this case, smaller
the better).
Estimate of Performance at the Optimum Condition
(QC: smaller is better)
Factor description
level description
Level#
Contribution
Spring rate
Current design
1
1.6105
Cam profile
Type 1
1
0.6729
Wt. Of push rod
Lighter
1
0.5100
Contribution from all factors (total).........................
2.79336
Current grand average of performance........................
-12.64613
Expected result at optimum condition.........................
-9.85276
Example 7: Engine Idle Stability Study
Three Factors at 3-levels each
Three Repetitions ( normal operating noise)
Design Factors and their Levels
Col. # Factors
level-1
level-2
1
Indexing
-30 deg
o deg
2
Overlap area
-30%
0%
3
Spark advance
20 deg
30 deg
4
Unused/upgraded
M/U
Characteristic: Smaller is better (as selected for analysis)
level-3
+50 deg
+30 %
40 deg
L9(34)
COL==>
COND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Page 5 - 11
TRIAL RESULTS
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
4
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
Trial#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
34
45
13
23
35
56
R(1)
25
36
34
23
36
25
45
46
35
R(2) R(3)
26 -------- -------26 -------- -------26 -------- -------22 -------- -------45
35 -------34 -------- -------53 -------- -------75 -------- -------46
53 --------
S/N Ratios
-27.5358
-30.1815
-31.0913
-25.9550
-------- -31.8051
-28.8649
-33.0528
-35.5939
-------- -33.1175
Col.#/Factor
1 Indexing
2 Overlap
3 Spark Adv.
Other/Error
Total:
8
Level 4
(L2-L1)
0.7278
-3.6789
0.9135
Page 5 - 12
Level#
...
...
Contribution
1.9247
1.9518
1.0484
4.9251
-30.7998
-25.8747
The expected result (-25.874) shown above represents the S/N ratio of the results of multiple
samples tested at the Optimum Condition. To get an estimate of the performance expressed in
the measured units, the S/N must be transformed back as follows:
But
MSD
= 10 - [(S/N)/10]
(Since S/N is now known)
= 10 - [(-25.874)/10] = 749.376
MSD
Or Y expected = [ MSD ] 1/2 = [ 749.376 ] .50 = 27.374 (in terms of the original units)
Page 5 - 13
EXPERIMENT DESIGN
ROADMAP
Designs Using
Standard Arrays
Assigns Factors
Arbitrarily
Run Experiments
in Random Order
Page 5 - 14
4-L
Fact
ors
Interacti
ons
Design Practices
Orthogonal array and column assignments
(Solutions are not necessarily unique)
1
2
2-3
2
1 - AxB
4-7
1-4
1-4
3-6
1 - AxB
3-5
3-4
10
11
4-5
2- AxB
BxC
3 - AxB,
BxC and
CxA
3 - AxB,
AxC and
AxD
2 - AxB
CxD
12
811
13
14
12 15
-
Present
but
ignored.
-
15
1- 2
24
2
Similarly hundreds of such common experiment designs can be conceived and proposed for everyday use by
experimenters. A large set of such designs are available in the web site:
http://www.wwnet.com/~rkroy/wp-tip.html
Page 5 - 15
REVIEW QUESTIONS
5-1: Design experiments to suit the following experimental study objectives. Determine the
appropriate INNER and OUTER arrays.
a. Four 2-level factors and three 2-level noise factors.
b. Five 2-level factors and three 3-level noise factors.
c. Ten 2-level factors and five 2-level noise factors.
5-2: Check the answers that most closely match yours, in the following situations.
a. Why do we need to consider running multiple samples for each trial condition?
Ans: To [ ] obtain better representative performance [ ] reduce trials [ ]
reduce experimental error.
b. While repeating experiments, what was the objective/purpose Taguchi wanted
to satisfy?
Ans: [ ] study more factors [ ] learn about noise factors [ ] design robustness.
5-3: Answer the following questions as they relate to projects you are involved in.
a. What are noise factors? Give an example of noise factors related to a project
you know of. What does robust design mean as applied to your project.
b. Can averages be used to compare two data sets? Discuss the limitations.
c. Why is MSD preferred as a better representative of a data set over the average?
d. What are the advantages of transforming MSD to S/N ratio.
e. If set A: has MSD = 5 and set B: has MSD = 6, Would S/N for set B: be
higher than set A:
5-4: An L-16 OA was used to design an experiment to study fifteen 2-level factors. What
is the degree of freedom of an error factor when:
a.) Each trial condition is tested once.
b.) Each trial condition is repeated 3 times and standard analysis is carried out.
c.) Each trial condition is repeated 5 times and the S/N ratio of the result is
used for analysis.
5-5: What does zero error term (fe = 0, Se = 0) mean? Check all appropriate boxes.
a. ( ) It indicates a poorly run experiment.
b. ( ) It represents a very well run experiment.
c. ( ) It does not mean that there is no experimental error. It simply means that the
information concerning error sum of squares can not be specifically determined.
Page 5 - 16
5-8: Compare S/N ratios of the following two sets of data and determine which set is
more desirable. Consider the Target/nominal value = 12.
SET 1:
SET 2:
Ans: Comparing the S/N ratios, Since -6.627 > -9.038 set 1 is the desired set.
(Please Show All Calculations)
Page 5 - 17
Ans. _______
ii) Which orthogonal array will you use to formally include five 2-level noise factors?
Ans.________
iii) For an experiment designed using an L-16 inner array and L-9 outer array, how many samples will you need
to complete the experiment?
Ans. ________
iv) An experiment was designed to study seven 2-level factors and three 2-level noise factors as shown below.
Using descriptions of the control factors and the noise factors, determine the following items:
(a) Describe the condition(levels) of the noise for the second sample in trial # 1.
Ans. Toll Holder ______
Coolant ________
Operator __________
Noise Factors
X: Operator
Y: Coolant
Z: Tool Holder
Ans. _________
Level 1
Average
Oil
Type A
Level 2
Above average
Water Base
Type B
Outer Array
Noise Factors
(X, Y, and Z)
4
7
6
5
4
5
3
7
3
4
7
4
5
4
5
6
Control Factors
L-8
Trial\Col#
A
1
B
2
C
3
D
4
E
5
F
6
G
7
Results
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
4
6
8
6
3
5
4
8
Inner Array
5
6
5
5
4
4
3
6
Page 5 - 18
Results
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
4
7
5
3
6 5 7
8 6 7
6 4 3
2 4 2
S/N
-14.98
-16.94
-13.32
- 9.16
trial 1:
MSD = ( 42 + 62 + 52 + 72 ) / 4 = 31.5
S/N = - 10 Log (MSD) = - 10 Log(31.5) = -14.98
trial 2:
MSD = ( 72 + 82 + 62 + 72 ) / 4 =
S/N = -16.94
trial 3: MSD = ( 52 + 62 + 42 + 32 ) / 4 =
S/N = -13.32
trial 4: MSD = ( 32 + 22 + 42 + 22 ) / 4 =
S/N = -9.16
_
Grand Average T = ( -14.98 - 16.94 - 13.32 - 9.16 )/4 = -13.60
__
A1 = (-14.98 - 16.94)/2 = -15.96
__
B1 = (-14.98 - 13.32)/2 = -14.15
__
A2 = (-13.32 - 9.16)/2 = -11.24
__
B2 = (-16.94 - 9.16)/2 = -13.05
__
C1 = (-14.98 - 9.16)/2 = -12.07
__
C2 = (-16.94 -13.32)/2 =
Optimum Condition : A2 B2 C1
Yopt
Module - 6
Standard and S/N Analyses with ANOVA
To demonstrate how the results of experiments are analyzed, including the detailed steps in
ANOVA, a number of hypothetical examples are treated in this section. Analysis for single
and multiple sample results by standard method(using averages) are demonstrated first.
Treatment of results of multiple samples using S/N ratios, and under the three different
quality characteristics, are shown next. Practitioners of DOE who wish to manually analyze
results and develop finer understanding of statistical implications, may find this section
helpful.
Topic Objectives:
* Perform standard analysis with single and multiple runs.
* Carry out analysis using S/N ratios.
* Calculate elements of ANOVA for relative percentage influences.
* Revise percentage influence by "Pooling" insignificant factors.
* Determine confidence interval for optimum performance.
Page 6 - 2
ANALYSIS STRATEGY
Multiple samples
per trial
Single sample
per trial
With or without
Noise Factors and
Outer Array
Perform
S/N Analysis
Perform
Standard Analysis
QC
SMALLER is better
BIGGER is better
NOMINAL is the best
Page 6 - 3
A
Cols:1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
C
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
AxC
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
D
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
5
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
BxC
6
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
E
7 RESULTS(y)
1
42.00
2
50.00
2
36.00
1
45.00
2
35.00
1
55.00
1
30.00
2
54.00
or
_
A1 = 173/4 = 43.25
or
_
A2 = 174/4 = 43.50
or
C1 = 182 / 4 = 45. 50
or
C2 = 165 / 4 = 41. 25
Similarly B1 = 143
B2 = 204
D1 = 187
D2 = 160
E1 = 172
_
B1
_
B2
_
D1
_
D2
_
E1
= 35.75
= 51.00
= 46.75
= 40.00
= 43.00
____
(AxC)1
____
(AxC)2
____
(BxC)1
____
(BxC)2
= 44.00
= 42.75
= 44.00
= 42.75
Page 6 - 4
Average factor effects can now be plotted and preliminary determination of OPTIMUM CONDITION
can be made.
50
_
T= 43.375
40
30
A1
A2
C1
C2
B1
B2
D1
D2
E1
E2
For smaller is better characteristic, without considering interaction, the optimum condition
becomes:
A1 C2 B1 D2 E1
Page 6 - 5
Combined factor averages for interaction plots for AxC and BxC
A1C1
A1C2
A2C1
A2C2
____
= y1 + y2 = 42 + 50 = 92 or A1C1
____
= y3 + y4 = 36 + 45 = 81
A1C2
____
= y5 + y6 = 35 + 55 = 90
A2C1
____
= y7 + y8 = 30 + 54 = 84
A2C2
B1C1 = y1 + y5 = 42 + 35 = 77
B1C2 = y3 + y7 = 36 + 30 = 66
B2C1 = y2 + y6 = 50 + 55 = 105
B2C2 = y4 + y8 = 45 + 54 = 99
= 92/2 = 46.00
= 81/2 = 40.50
= 90/2 = 45.00
= 84/2 = 42.00
____
B1C1
____
B1C2
____
B2C1
____
B2C2
= 77/2 = 38.50
= 66/2 = 33.00
= 105/2= 52.52
= 99/2 = 49.50
Plots of Interactions
52.5
B2
49.5
50
46.0
A1
A2
45.0
40
42.5
40.5
38.5
B1
33
30
C1
C2
C1
C2
Page 6 - 6
For plotting purposes, either factor can be chosen as the x-axis. The shape of the plot,
however, may look different, but the conclusions derived will not.
Observations:
Based on the plot above, B and C interact slightly and A and C interact more. ignore BxC,
consider AxC. for the "Smaller is better " QC, A1 C2 (40.5) produce the lowest average value.
therefore, A1 C2 must be included in the optimum condition. in this case, A1 C2 is already
included.
A1 C2 B1 D2 E1
Even though interaction is present, how significant is it compared to the factors? Generally
optimum condition is modified only if the interaction is determined to be significant.
Interactions for which a column has been reserved, can be tested for significance from anova.
6.3
The main objective of ANOVA is to determine relative influence of the factors and
interactions to the variation of the results. The variation of the results is determined by
calculating the deviation of the results from the target.
As defined earlier
Mean Squared Deviation,
MSD =
( yi - yo )2
TSD
( yi - yo )2 ,
Therefore
TSD
/ n ,
i = 1, 2, .........n
i = 1, 2, .........n
N x MSD
Yi
Y0
Yavg
Yi
Again
( yi - yo )2
[ ( yi - y avg)
+ ( yavg - yo ) ]2 ,
i = 1, 2, .........n
Page 6 - 7
[ ( yi - y avg)2
= n x [ ( yi - y avg)2 /n + 0 +
( yavg - yo )2
or
( yi - yo )2
n x 2
Variation due to
individual data
about the mean of
the data
Total variation
about the target
value
+ n x m2
Variation of the
mean from the
target
(S )
where
m = ( yavg - yo ) and
or [ ( yi - y avg) = n
The variation around the mean of the data is called the total sum of squares, ST
therefore,
ST
= [ ( yi - y avg)2 /n
n 2 = ( yi - yo )2 - n m2
that is
ST
yi2
n x y avg 2
yi2
n x ( T/n )2
m = y avg and
Page 6 - 8
ANOVA Statistics
STEP 3. Total sum of squares as the basis for comparing variations around the mean
n
__
ST = ( Yi + Y ] 2
i=1
8
ST = Yi2 - C.F
i=1
= ( 422 + 502 + 362+ ..... + 542) - 15051.125
= 599.88
SD
SE
Page 6 - 9
= 3.125
= 3.125
SA
(A1 - A2)2
(173 - 174)2
=
(NA1 + NA2)
= 0.125
(4 + 4)
Similarly
(143 - 204)2
SB
= 465.125
(4 + 4 )
2
(182 - 165)
SC
= 36.125
SD
= 91.125,
(4 + 4)
SAxC = 3.125,
SE = 1.125
SBxC = 3.125
Se = ST - ( SA + SB + SC + SD + SE +SAxC + SBxC )
= 599.88 - 599.88 = 0
The errors sums of squares, Se, will always equal to zero when all columns of the array are
occupied and all experiment degrees of freedom of the experiment are used up.
Notations:
NA1 = Total # of experiments in which factor A1 is present
NB1 = Total # of experiments in which factor B1 is present
A1 = Total of results (yi) which include factor A1
B1 = Total of results (yi) which include factor B1
etc.
These short formulas for sums of squares used above apply only for 2 - level factors.
Page 6 - 10
= 8-1
fC = 1, fD = 1,
fE = 1
fAxC = fA x fC = 1 x 1 = 1 fBxC = fB x fC = 1 x 1 = 1
DOF of error term,
(If Error DOF is zero, the error sums of squares must also equal to zero)
= 0.125
VB
VC = SC /fC = 36.125 / 1
= 36.125
VD = SD /fD
VE = SE /fE = 1.125 / 1
= 1.125
= SB /fB
= 465.125 / 1 = 465.125
= 91.125 / 1
= 91.125
= 3.125
When the variance of error term (Ve) is zero , variance ratios and pure sum of squares (S') of
the column effects cannot be calculated at this time.
PB = SB/ST
Page 6 - 11
A N O V A Table
Pooling:
Pooling is a common practice of disregarding the column influence(P%) which are
considered insignificant. Whether a column effect is insignificant or not, is determined by
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE. But the test for significance can only be performed when the
error DOF is non-zero. POOLING however, should always be attempted even when
significance test cannot be performed. A common practice is to start pooling with the
weakest factors.
Pool factors A, E, AxC and BxC as their contributions are judged to be negligible (less than
1%)
Step 1. Sum of squares of error
Se = ST - (SB + SC + SD ) = 599.88 - (592.4) = 7.5
Note: Se will now be equal to (SA + SE + SAxC + SBxC) i.e. Sum of all factors pooled.
= 7.5 / 4
= 1.875
=4
Page 6 - 12
= 34.25
= 89.25
= 34.25/599.88 = 5.71%
PB = SB'/ ST
= 463.25/599.88 = 77.22%
PD = SD'/ ST
= 89.25/599.88 = 14.88%
Page 6 - 13
fe = fT - (fB + fD )
= 7-2
Ve = Se / fe = 43.625 / 5
= 8.725
= 5
FB = VB / Ve = 465.125 / 8.725
= 53.309
FD = VD / Ve = 91.125 / 8.725
= 10.444
91.125 - (8.725 x 1)
= 82.40
= 76.08
= 13.74
To study the possibility of pooling, is to perform test of significance for factor C. The
significance test is carried out by comparing the experiment F-ratio with the standard table
value for a desired Confidence Level (subjective: 90, 95 or 99% commonly used).
From the ANOVA table
FC = 19.267
Recommendations:
Create non-zero DOF for the error term by pooling the weaker
factors. Test for significance first, then pool. Attempt to pool until the DOF for the error term
is about half the experiment DOF.
Page 6 - 14
The F-ratios are contained in F-Table developed by R. A Fisher and are available in most
common books on statistical science. There are tables for most commonly used confidence
levels (90%, 95%, 99%, etc. are common). F-Ratios are arranged in a two dimensional table
corresponding to a degree freedom for the factor (horizontally toward right) and the degree of
freedom for the error term (vertically down). In some text, the F-Tables are specified by level
of significance instead of the confidence level. The level of significance (symbol: Greek letter
Alpha) is complementary to the level of confidence. That is to say 95% confidence level is
equivalent to 5% level of significance.
Sample Table Readings at 95% confidence level:
F (3, 8 ) = 4.0661(3rd column, 8th row) F (2,5) = 5.7862 ( 2nd column ,5th row)
n2\n1
1
2
1
161.45 199.50
2
18.513 19.000
3
10.128 9.5521
4
7.7086 6.9443
5
6.6079 5.7862
6
5.9874 5.1433
7
5.5914 4.7374
8
5.3277 434590
9
5.1174 4.2565
10
4.9646 4.1028
11
4.8443 3.9823
12
4.7472 3.8853
13
4.6672 3.8056
etc. .. ..
F-TABLE (95%)
3
4
5
215.71 224.58 230.16
19.164 19.247 19.296
9.2766 9.1172 9.0135
6.5914 6.3883 6.2560
5.4095 5.1922 4.3874
4.7571 4.5337 4.3874
4.3468 4.1203 3.9725
4.0661 3.8378 3.6875
3.7626 3.6331 3.4817
3.7083 3.4780 3.3258
3.5874 3.3567 3.2039
3.4903 3.2592 3.1059
3.4105 3.1791 3.0254
6
233.99
19.330
8.9406
6.1631
4.2839
4.2839
3.8660
3.5806
3.3738
3.2172
3.0946
2.9961
2.9153
7 ..etc.
236.77
19.353
8.8868
6.0942
4.2066
4.2066
3.7870
3.5005
3.2927
3.1355
3.0123
2.9134
2.8321
To perform test of significance at other confidence levels, the corresponding F-Table must be
secured first. F-Table at other confidence levels may be found in the reference section of this
seminar handout.
Qualitek-4
Pooling
Method
Page 6 - 15
Ne = 8/(1+1) = 4
Which gives
i.e the main effect of factor C at level C1 will be 45.5 +/- 1.9034
in 95 out of every 100 experiments conducted.
50
45.5
40
41.25
30
C1
C2
Factor C
Page 6 - 16
T = 347 / 8 = 43.375
Since factors B, B and D are considered significant, the performance at optimum condition
will be estimated using only these three factors.
_
_
_
_ _
_ _
Yopt = T + (B1 - T) + (D2 - T) + (C2 - T)
= 43.375 + (41.25 - 43.375) + (40 - 43.375) + (33 - 43.375) = 30.25
Note: The optimum condition for smaller is better quality characteristic is B1 D2 C2.
Optimum Condition and Confidence Interval (C.I)
C.I. Formula:
______________
THE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL (C.I.) = + \/ [F( 1,n2) x Ve /Ne]
Where
F(1,n2) = F - Value from the F-Table for factor DOF & Error DOF
at the desired Confidence Level
Ve
= Variance of the Error Term(from ANOVA)
Ne = Effective Number of Replication
Total number of Results or S/N
=
DOF of Mean(always=1) + DOF of all factors included
estimating the Mean performance at Optimum Condition.
Page 6 - 17
The confidence interval calculated earlier assumes a large number of repetitions. when only a
finite number of repetitions are planned, the formula for confidence interval is slightly
modified.
______________________________________
F = 4.0674
n1 = 1
Ne = 2.666667
Nr = 3
Confidence interval:
6.6
n2 = 5
Ve = 8.725
Page 6 - 18
Page 6 - 19
R1
38.00
45.00
38.00
55.00
30.00
65.00
40.00
58.00
R2
42.00
50.00
36.00
45.00
35.00
55.00
30.00
54.00
R3
46.00
55.00
34.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
20.00
50.00
Avg
42.00
50.00
36.00
45.00
35.00
55.00
30.00
54.00
Page 6 - 20
Standard analysis is carried out the average values of the trial results. the variation of
the results in the same trial does not influence the computation of main effects.
The Main Effects
ANOVA
DOF = 8 x 3 - 1 = 23
B1 = (38.0 + 42.0 + 46.0) + (38.0 + 36.0 + 34.0)
+ (30.0 + 35.0 + 40.0) + (40.0 + 30.0 + 20.0) = 429
Note: B1 is obtained from results of trial conditions 1, 3, 5 & 7.
B2 = (45.0 + 50.0 + 55.0) + (55.0 + 45.0 + 35.0)
+ (65.0 + 55.0 + 45.0)+ (58.0 + 54.0 + 50.0) = 612
The formula used below to calculate sum of squares in only for 2-level factors.
SB =
( B1 - B2)2
(429 - 612)2
=
2
(NB1 + NB2)
= 1395.375
24
VB = SB / fB
= 1395.375 / 1
= 1395.375
FB = VB / Ve
= 1395.375/39.72
= 35.126
Page 6 - 21
= 1355.65
Page 6 - 22
6.8
Example 9A: S/N analysis - Nominal is the best (same design as ex. 8a)
Trial \ Rep.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
R1
38.00
45.00
38.00
55.00
30.00
65.00
40.00
58.00
R2
42.00
50.00
36.00
45.00
35.00
55.00
30.00
54.00
R3
46.00
55.00
34.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
20.00
50.00
S/N
-11.67
-20.67
-12.72
-19.63
-16.21
-24.65
-22.22
-23.16
etc.
(L2 - L1)
-5.39
-1.14
-1.13
-6.33
-1.64
-2.41
1.35
Note: In case of analysis using S/N, regardless of the quality characteristic, optimum condition is determined based on the
higher value of main effect.
ANOVA Calculations
Page 6 - 23
fT
= 8-1 = 7
= 163.77
A N O V A Table
Cols: FACTORS
f
1
FACTOR A
1
2
FACTOR C
(1)
3
INT. AxC
(1)
4
FACTOR B
1
5
FACTOR D
(1)
6
INT. BxC
1
7
FACTOR E
(1)
ALL OTHER/ERROR 4
TOTAL:
7
S
58.063
(2.56)
(2.56)
80.029
(5.33)
11.548
(3.680)
14.130
163.77
V
58.063
POOLED
POOLED
80.029
POOLED
11.548
POOLED
3.53
F
16.44
S'
54.53
P
33.30
22.659 76.50
46.71
3.270
8.02
4.87
15.10
100.00%
Page 6 - 24
CONTRIBUTION
2.6940
3.1628
1.2014
7.0583
-18.8604
-11.8021
= -10 LOG10(MSD)
= -32.50
Trial \ Rep.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
R1
38.00
45.00
38.00
55.00
30.00
65.00
58.00
R2
42.00
50.00
36.00
45.00
35.00
55.00
54.00
R3
46.00
55.00
34.00
35.00
40.00
20.00
50.00
S/N
-32.50
-34.01
-31.14
-33.21
-30.95
-29.86
-34.67
Page 6 - 25
Col.#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Main Effects
FACTOR NAMES
LEVEL 1
FACTOR A
-32.71
FACTOR C
-33.09
INT. AxC
-32.75
FACTOR B
-31.10
FACTOR D
-33.30
INT. BxC
-32.82
FACTOR E
-32.61
Cols: FACTORS
1
FACTOR A
2
FACTOR C
3
INT. AxC
4
FACTOR B
5
FACTOR D
6
INT. BxC
7
FACTOR E
OTHER/ERROR
TOTAL:
f
(1)
1
(1)
1
1
(1)
(1)
4
7
LEVEL 2
-32.59
-32.21
-32.55
-34.19
-32.00
-32.47
-32.69
A N O V A Table
S
V
(0.03) POOLED
1.518 1.518
(0.09) POOLED
19.097 19.097
3.361 3.361
(0.25) POOLED
(0.01) POOLED
0.37
0.09
24.35
(L2-L1)
0.12
0.87
0.20
-3.09
1.29
0.35
-0.08
S'
16.23
1.42
5.85
204.230
35.948
19.00
3.26
78.04
13.42
2.69
100.00%
Page 6 - 26
or
Yexpected = [MSD] 1/2
= [1004.8 ]0.5
= 31.698
= - 10 Log10(MSD) = 32.38
= 5.773 x 10
Main Effects
ANOVA
Page 6 - 27
Page 6 - 28
The expected limits in the original units of measurement can be calculated as follows:
S/N = 34.2975,
When
S/N = 35.349
Yexp. = Sqr. Root { 1/( 10
- [S/N)/10]
S/N = 34.2975
Yexp. = Sqr. Root { 1/( 10
- [S/N)/10]
S/N = 36.4005
Yexp. = Sqr. Root { 1/( 10
- [S/N)/10]
Page 6 - 29
All
DOF
ZERO
NON ZERO
NON ZERO
IMPLICATIONS
Must be zero
LOW
HIGH
Runs
I. High DOF
High% Influence
expect results to vary appreciably
at the same trial condition.
Array
Trials
Runs
Array
Trials
Runs
Array
Trials
Page 6 - 30
Key Decisions
1. Is the experiment satisfactory?
When the experiments are carried out and the results analyzed, determine the OPTIMUM
condition, the performance at this condition, and the CONFIDENCE INTERVAL(C.I.).
Run a few samples at the optimum condition (Confirmation tests). If the results fall
within the confidence interval, you have good results.
The confirmation of the results is independent of the error term in your experiment.
Larger error term(% influence) will produce wider C.I., accounting for larger variation in
the expected results at the optimum condition.
What if the confirmation is unsatisfactory?
Most likely cause for this are the interactions among the factors included in the
experiments. If columns have been reserved for interactions, examine the significance of
interactions and adjust factor levels accordingly. If interaction actions were not
considered, you can still test for presence of interaction. Select factor levels based on
severity of presence of interactions of a few pairs. If this does not work, re-run
experiments considering few suspected interactions.
What to do about Low or high error term?
- If error % is small (smaller than the least significant factor), it means that the factors selected for study
indeed are the important factors.
- If error % is large (as big or bigger than the most significant factor), it does not mean the experiment is
inconclusive, it calls for more analysis. Pay special attention to the noise factors and go for robust design.
When should you consider the need to repeat the experiments from the start?
suspicion that the control factors not included in the experiment may cause such high values.
Page 6 - 31
Review Questions
6-1: What does it mean when ANOVA indicates a high percentage of influence
(Pe = 30%, 60% or 80%; fe > 0)? Check all appropriate answers.
a. ( ) It shows the experiment was poorly conducted and should be repeated.
b. ( ) It does not necessarily indicate that the experiment was bad.
c. ( ) It indicates that the performance of the product/process is largely
influenced by factors not included in the study.
d. ( ) It means that the results at the same trial condition varies significantly
when repeated.
e. ( ) It means that the results vary extensively from trial condition to trial
condition.
6-2: How do you determine when and what factors to `pool'? Check all correct answers.
a. ( ) Pool all factors which fail the test for significance (say 95% confidence).
b. ( ) Start pooling with the factor that has the least % influence (Pe).
c. ( ) There is no general % guideline for pooling. It depends on several factors.
d. ( ) You should always attempt to pool if error DOF = 0.
e. ( ) In general, try to pool until the error DOF is about half the total DOF.
6-3: Why do we perform ANOVA? Check all appropriate answers. To determine:
a. ( ) Optimum performance.
b. ( ) Relative influence of individual factor on the variation of results.
c. ( ) Significance of influence of individual factor.
d. ( ) Best design condition.
e. ( ) Confidence level of expected performance at optimum.
f. ( ) Confidence level of Main Effect of a factor.
g. ( ) Performance at conditions other than those covered by the experiment.
6-4: When should you perform analysis using S/N?
6-5: If you have multiple samples (results) per trial condition, could you perform standard
analysis?
6-6: If you analyze the experiment using both S/N and Std. analysis, should you arrive at
the same conclusions?
6-7: The three basic steps in analysis are :
* Average column effects
* ANOVA
* Optimum performance calculations
Which steps must you follow to determine optimum condition?
Page 6 - 32
6-8: Refer to the ANOVA table below to answer the following questions:
ANOVA
Factor Desc.
f S
V
F
P
EGG
1 33.063 33.063
25.190 35.11
CHIPS
1
1.563 1.563
1.190
0.28
SUGAR
1
0.563 0.563
0.429
0.00
BUTTER
1 14.063 14.063
10.714 14.10
FLOUR
1
5.063 5.063
3.857
4.15
TIME
1 18.063 18.063
13.762 18.52
NUTS
1
7.563 7.563
5.762
6.91
ALL OTHER/ ERROR 8 10.500 1.310
20.94 20.94
TOTAL
15 90.440
100.00%
(Experiment used an L-8 array and 2 samples/trial conditions)
Page 6 - 33
Trial\Column
1
2
3
4
A
1
1
2
2
B
1
2
1
2
C
1
2
2
1
Results
12
10
15
16
A
B
C
Average Effects
L1
L2
11
15.5
13.5
12.5
14
12.5
T = ( 12 + 10 + 15 + 16 ) = 53
A1 = (12 + 10 )
or
= 22
_
T = 13.25
C.F. = 53 x 53 /4 =702.25
A2 = (15 +16) = 31
+ 162
) - 702.25 = 22.75
SA = ( 22 - 31 ) 2 /( 2 + 2) = 20.25
DOF of A,
VA =
PA =
fA = 2 - 1 = 1
= 89.01 %
ANOVA
Col Factor
1
A
2
B
3
C
Error factor
Total
f
1
1
1
0
3
S
20.25
0.25
2.25
22.75
V
20.25
0.25
2.25
F
----------
S
20.25
0.25
2.25
P(%)
89.01
1.09
9.89
----100
Page 6 - 34
POOLED ANOVA
Col Factor
1
A
2
B
3
C
Error factor
Total
f
1
(1)
1
1
3
S
20.25
POOLED
2.25
.25
22.75
V
20.25
F
81
S
20
P(%)
87.91
2.25
.25
2.0
8.79
3.30
100
Ans. ________(1.33)
_______________
C. I. = \/ (1.6 x
)/1.33
= +/- 0.548
Module - 7
Loss Function
Taguchis Loss Function is a mathematical formulation which attempts to quantify effect of
poor quality in terms of monetary units. In his formulation, lack of quality is designated by
variation around the target value. Since S/N ratio represents the status in respect to the
variation, using the Loss Function, any improvement in S/N, like in the performance at the
Optimum condition, can be translated in to loss in dollar amounts. The difference between the
loss before and after the experiments can be shown to produce savings. This module describes
how the Loss Function is used to quantify savings in dollars due to improvement in the design.
Topics objectives:
* Understand the need for loss functions.
* Define customer tolerance.
* Calculate $ loss per product at a design condition.
* Determine manufacturer and supplier tolerance.
New Way
zero$
cost of rejection
cost of rejection
Page 7 - 2
$Loss
Old Concept
$Loss
No Loss
Lower Limit
Target Yo
<= y =>
Upper Limit
New Concept
Loss = Cost of Rejection
$Loss
No Loss at Target
LCL
y
Target Yo
<= y =>
UCL
Sony TV Example
Questions were raised by studying Sony TV production and disproportional amount of
warranty returns.
- There are warranty returns even if all parts are made within specifications
- How to compare two batches, both made within the limits
- Loss can't be a step function, but a continuous one.
Page 7 - 3
$/Unit product
Where
L = loss/unit product in $
k = a constant
yo = target value
y = performance measure
= 50 per unit
Cost of rejection
= $8 per unit
Therefore:
Loss
Page 7 - 4
Page 7 - 5
7.2
Example 11:
Nominal value of quality characteristic (y)
Tolerance of y
Cost to repair a nonfunctional unit by customer
Cost to repair a nonfunctional unit by manufacturer
Cost to repair a nonfunctional unit by supplier
=
=
=
=
=
100 lb.
+/-15 lb.
$ 40
$ 15
$ 5
L = K (Y - Yo)2
L = K (TOL)2
OR
Manufacturer Tolerance
_____
________
TOL = +/- \/(L/K) = +/- \/(15/.1778) = +/- 9.18
Supplier Tolerance
_____
________
TOL = +/- \/ (L/K) = +/- \/ (5/.1778) = +/- 5.3
Target
+/- 5.3
+/- 9.18
+/- 15
Page 7 - 6
f(x) =
(x-)2
2 2
= average(Mean) of population,
From a given set of data, statistics such as average, standard deviation, MSD, S/N, Cpk, Cp
and the normal distribution can be plotted. Of course for Cp and Cpk calculations,
specifications limits must be known. Conversely, if S/N ratio is known, average and Standard
deviation can be calculated. Once the average and the standard deviation is known, the normal
distribution can be plotted using the Gaussian equation.
When S/N is given, MSD can be calculated
MSD = 10
also, since
value
-[(S/N)/10]
MSD = 2 + (a - yo )2
Standard deviation, can also be calculated when a and yo are known or assumed.
Example:
Data: 8.9 8.6 9.1 9.3 8.3
Page 7 - 7
-[(S/N)/10]
MSD = 2 + (a - yo )2 = 2
[(S/N)current - (S/N)imprved]
20
10
Page 7 - 8
Number of samples
N = 12
Current Design
a = 8.98
= 0.59
MSD = .32 and
S/N = 4.92
Improved Design
S/N = 6.50
a = 9.0
= 0.49
-3
-2
-1
1
68.27 %
95.45 %
99.73 %
Page 7 - 9
REVIEW QUESTIONS
7-1. Match the symbols of this formula to their proper definitions. L(y) = k(Y - YO)2
_______ Measured value of quality characteristic
(a) L
(b) (y)
(d) Y
(e) Yo
7-2. Consider a typical project in your own area and see if you can apply Taguchi's Loss
Function to quantify the savings that may result form an improved design. Discuss
with your group how you would determine the following items:
a.)
b.)
c.)
d.)
e.)
f.)
7-3. Taguchi's loss equation helps you calculate the $ loss associated with a production
process. Discuss how can you use it to determine expected savings.
Page 7 - 10
= 19.0
= 21.25
Partial Solution:
$ Loss
L = K (y - Yo )2
$ .03
when
y = Yo +/- Tol,
$ .017
then
K = $ 0.15 / (().25)
or K = 2.40
9 Volts
L = 2.40 x = $0.03/unit
L = 2.40 x
= $ 0.017/unit
= $ 5.850 / month
ii) Calculate the savings resulting from the new process design which is expected to produce
S/N = -12.60. The current performance is at 20,000 units per month at a cost of $ 65 per unit.
The reject rate is 400 pieces per month and the current S/N is estimated to be at -15.0.
Compute the saving expected from the new design.
Partial solution:
Current Loss = 400 x $ 65 / 20000 = $ 1.30
L = K (MSD), MSD = 10 -(SN/10)
Therefore, New Loss
Thus, Savings
= $.75 /unit
= $ 11,000 / month
Page 7 - 11
7.6: An experiment used an L-9 to study three 3-level factors (A, B and C in cols. 1, 2 and
3) and one 2-level factor (D in col. 4 with level 3 changed to 1). Each of the 9 trials were
repeated 3 times and the following results were recorded. The TARGET value of the
performance is 50 (Nominal is the best).
Trial#
1.......
2.......
3.......
4.......
5.......
6.......
7.......
8.......
9.......
59
48
45
78
67
72
45
55
65
Results
58 60
49 52
44 41
71 65
69 65
67 69
54 59
56 57
66 68
= 20,000 units
= $ 6.5/unit
= $ 10/unit
= $ 3/unit
e) -18.099
Module - 9
Robust Design
for
Dynamic Systems
Experiment Design and Analysis using
Dynamic Characteristics
by
Page 9 - 2
9.1 Introduction
The word robust means insensitive. Insensitive to what? It means insensitive or immune to the
influence of uncontrollable (noise) factors. When a product or process is robust, its response is
less influenced by the uncontrollable factors. A robust design has less variation.
In robust design method, the attempt is to determine a design that is most insensitive to
variation. More specifically, robust design refers to the technique of advance experimental
design approach proposed by Dr. Genichi Taguchi in which the system design is optimized
with customer satisfaction as the primary objective.
Design of Experiment (DOE)
DOE is a statistical technique used to study multiple variables simultaneously. It is used
mostly in studying product or process parameters through experimental investigation. DOE
allows one to logically organize the experimental strategy and draw objective conclusions
about the factors involved.
DOE Using Taguchi Approach
It is a special form of DOE practiced and popularized by Dr. Genichi Taguchi of Japan. The
Taguchi approach is a relatively simpler and standardized type of DOE. In the Taguchi
approach, the goal is to determine optimum design condition, not by seeking the best
performance, but by evaluating the design that produce the minimum variation. This approach
further employs a formal way to study the effect of uncontrollable factors and relate the effect
of variation around the target, quantitatively, in terms of dollars(Loss Function).
Robust Design Method - a Different Perspective
Robust design requires a different approach to designing products and developing
technologies. The differences are pronounced in all aspects of experimental studies.
I.
Conventional approach:
Whats wrong and how can we fix it?
Robust design approach:
What is the product or process expected to do?
What is the intended function?
How can we design it to do the intended job the best way?
II.
Conventional approach:
Page 9 - 3
Conventional approach:
Measuring symptoms of poor quality and making decision based on it.
Robust design approach:
Measuring how well the performance input is transformed into the intended function.
9.2 Why Robust Design?
It is a more formal approach than conventional practice.
Conventional practice:
DESIGN ===> BUILD ====> TEST
Concept
Design
Parameter
Design
Tolerance
Design
Robust design method is applied in the parameter design phase of the Taguchis quality
engineering recommendation shown above.
Page 9 - 4
Parameter Design
I. Planning
II. Designing
III. Doing
Expt 1
Expt. 2
Expt. 3
IV. Analyzing
AnalyzingAnaly
Analyze results
V. Confirming
Etc.
Page 9 - 5
Voice of Customer
Customer
Intent
Perceived
Results
Examples:
* Slow down vehicle
The intent is an action on the part of customer. The measured value of the intent in
quantitative term, is called the SIGNAL.
Example: Amount steering wheel is turned, Force applied on the brake to slow down
vehicle, etc.
Page 9 - 6
Customer
Intent
Signal
Perceived Result
Energy
Transformation
* Fluid pressure
activates brake pads
* Steering linkages
turn wheels
* Vehicle turns
Page 9 - 7
Customer
Intent
Perceived
* Intended
Functions
Variations in
Control factors
* Other than
Intended
Functions
Energy
Transformatn.
on
Signal
Customer usage
Wear &
Tear
Environmental
Conditions
Response (y)
Transfer System
Ideal Function
Transfer
Function
Page 9 - 8
or
(proportional to ) M
y = M
(linear relationship)
where
= Constant of proportionality which establishes the constant relationship between the
signal and the response.
Transfer
Function
Ideal Function, y = M
(Engineering responsibility)
Page 9 - 9
y
Water
flow
rate
Amount
wheel
turned
y = M
y = M
Fuel
gauge
reading
Idle
engine
RPM
y = M
y = M
Air flow
rate
Cooking
time
y = M
Fan speed
y = M
M
Energy level in microwave
Page 9 - 10
Nonlinear
Low variation
Nonlinear
High variation
Least Desirable
Linear
Large variation
Linear
Low variation
M
Most Desirable
The most desirable ideal function is the one which is linear and the variation is minimum at
any point on the line.
Page 9 - 11
Suppose that
y = Mn
which is polynomial of nth order. By taking Log of both sides,
Log (y) = Log( ) + n Log (M)
or
Y = C + n M ( a linear equation)
M = Log (M)
Page 9 - 12
Signal M1
Signal M2
N1
N2
N1
N2
Inner
Array
Results
*
*
*
Respons
e
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
M1
M4
Ideal
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
M2
M3
Signal Factor
Analysis Approach
* Determine how all data for each trial condition deviate from the ideal function. Express the
variation of the data in terms of a single number (S/N ratio). Use these numbers to carry out
analysis of the experiments and determine the optimum condition.
Page 9 - 13
Desirable
Large variations
??
Nonlinear
Response
??
Desirable
Signal
factor
most undesirable
Signal
Goal - Design the system such that the response follow a straight line with the least amount of
variation around it.
Analogies:
Robust Static System - performs like a golfer who has a consistent putting record.
Robust Dynamic System - is like a good biker who always steadily rides on a straight line up
and down the hill.
Page 9 - 14
Dynamic Characteristic
Reference texts:
1. Taguchi Methods by Glen S. Peace, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. NY, 1992,
Pages 338-363
2. Quality Engineering Using Robust Design by Madhav S. Phadke, PTR Prentice Hall,
Englewood , Cliff, NJ. Pages 114 - 117.
3. Taguchis Quality Engineering Philosophy and Methodology by Shin Taguchi, American
Supplier Institute, Inc. Allen Park, MI.
4. Robust Technology Development by Yuin Wu, American Supplier Institute
Page 9 - 15
Page 9 - 16
Zero Point proportional - Select this type of equation when response line
passes through the origin. The signal may be known, unknown or vague.
Response (y)
Zero Point proportional
Signal Strengths(M)
Reference Point proportional - this type of equation should be the choice response line does
not pass through the origin but through a known value of the signal or when signal values are
wide apart or far away from origin.
Response (y)
Reference Point proportional
Ref. Point
Signal Strengths(M)
When the signal values are known, zero point or reference point
proportional should be considered first. If neither is appropriate,
the linear equation should be used.
Linear Equation - is based on the least squares fit equation and should be
used where neither zero and reference point proportional equation are not
appropriate. Use it when signal values are close together and response does
not pass through the origin.
Page 9 - 17
Response (y)
Linear Equation
Signal Strengths(M)
y = M
yi =
yij
j = 1,2.. ro
Where
y = response of the system (QC) ,
M = Signal factor strength
= slope of the (ideal) response line, k = number of signal levels
ro = number of samples tested at each signal level
M1, M2, etc, are strength of the signal levels
y11, y12, etc, are response from sample 1 and 2 under signal level 1.
y1, y2, etc., are totals of responses under signal levels 1, 2, .. k, etc.
Slope
r 2
Page 9 - 18
Error Variance:
S/N:
Se = St - S
Ve = Se / (Kro - 1)
= 10 log 1 (S - Ve)
r
Ve
y - ys = (M - Ms)
ys = 1/ro(y1 + y2 + ...........yro)
where ro = no. samples for each signal level
Ms = reference signal strength
yi = (yj - ys)
j=1
ro
St = (yij - ys)2
i =1
j=1
Error Variance:
S/N:
Se = St - S
Ve = Se / (Kro - 1)
= 10 log 1 (S - Ve)
r
Ve
Page 9 - 19
y = m + (M-M)+ e
Linear Equation:
where
_
_
m = y,
e = error
_
M = (M1 + M2 + ..... + Mk) / k
_
_
_
2
2
r = ro[(M1-M) + (M2 - M) + .. (Mk - M )2
yi = yij
j = 1,2.. ro
__
__
__
= 1/r [ y1(M1 - M) + y2(M2-M) + yK(MK-M) ]
k
ST = y
11
+y
12
+y
kro
ro
- ( yij )2 /k.ro
I=1 j=1
__
__
__
S = [y1 (M1 - M) + y2 (M2 -M) + yK(MK-M) ]2 / r.
: Variation associated with error or non linearity
Se = St - S
Error Variance:
S/N:
Ve = Se / (Kro - 2)
= 10 log 1 (S - Ve)
r
Ve
Page 9 - 20
Example calculations:
Case of LINEAR EQUATION (Expt. file: ASI400.QT4)
The results of samples tested for trial#1 of an experiment with dynamic
characteristic. There are three signal levels, two noise levels, and
two repetitions per cell.
M1
M2
M3
Noise 1 Noise 2
Noise 1
Noise 2
Noise 1 Noise 2
____|_________________|_____________________|_________________
Trl#1| 5.2 5.6 5.9 5.8 | 12.3 12.1 12.4 12.5 | 22.4 22.6 22.5 22.2
Signal strengths: M1 = 1/3,
M2 = 1,
M3 = 3
= 22.5
= 49.3
= 89.7
Page 9 - 21
Se = St - Sb
...
Likewise, S/N for all other trial conditions in the experiments are calculated. The analysis of
results is then carried out just the same way as done for the static S/N case. The optimum
condition determined by selecting the higher average factor effects as DYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTIC is nothing but a special case of NOMINAL IS THE BEST quality
characteristic. The optimum so determined, represents the control factor level combination
which is expected to produce linear response with the least variation along the straight line.
The exact value of the response, of course, is dependent on the strength of the signal and may
be estimated by the ideal function of the S/N equation.
Page 9 - 22
Sytem configuration(P-Diagram)
Page 9 - 23
Page 9 - 24
y M
ro
1
Q=
kro
ij
i = 1 j 1
The quality loss comprises of two components: a) Deviation from linearity (error e), b) The slope(Beta) being
other than one. The slope can be estimated by minimization of the loss (estimated by least squares criterion).
yij = M i + eij
y M
=0
ro
d
d
ij
i =1 j =1
that is
y M
M
ro
ij
=0
i =1 j =1
which yields
y M
ro
ij
i =1 j =1
k ro
M
2
i
i =1 j =1
Qa =
K
kro
K
=
kro
v M
ro
ij
i =1 j =1
y
M
k
ro
ij
i =1 j =1
1
= 2
kro
= K
Page 9 - 25
y M
ro
ij
i =1 j =1
kr 1
kro
2
e
2
2e
= K 2
y M
1
=
kro 1
2
e
ro
ij
i =1 j =1
S/N = = 10 log10
2
e2
Note:
Slope (Beta) is the change in y produced by unit change in signal strength(M). Thus the square of slope quantifies
effect of signal. The denominator(square of Sigma) represents the effect of noise. Hence the quantity (Eta) is
called S/N ratio.
In case where there is a target, we must make adjustments to both slope and the intercepts. This leads to response
equation of Reference Point Proportional type as shown below
y = ao + 0 M
Module 8:
Page A - 1
Reference Materials
Appendix
Contents
Table of F Ratios(F-Tables)
90% and 95% Confidence Level
99% and 97.5% Confidence Level
List of common orthogonal arrays
L4(23)
Pages
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
L8(27)
A-5
L12(211)
A-6
L16(215)
A-6
L32(231)
A-7
L9(34)
A-8
L18(21x37)
A-8
L27(313)
A-9
L16(45)
A-10
L32(21x49)
A-11
Triangular Tables
2-level arrays
how to read the triangular table
linear graphs for 2-level arrays
3-level arrays
4-level arrays
A-12
A-13
A-13
A-14
A-15
Glossary of terms
Mathematical relationships
References
Practice session using qt4
Class project outline
Report cover
Variation Reduction Plot
Program Evaluation
A-16
A-18
A-21
A-22
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
Module 8:
Page A - 2
F-Table (90%)
n2\ n1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ETC.
1
39.864
8.5263
5.5393
4.5448
4.0604
3.7760
3.5894
3.4579
3.3603
3.2850
3.2252
3.1765
3.1362
3.1022
3.0732
2
493500
9.0000
5.4624
4.3246
3.7797
3.4633
3.2574
3.1131
3.0065
2.9245
2.8595
2.8068
2.7632
2.7265
2.6952
3
53.593
9.1618
5.3908
4.1908
3.6195
3.2888
3.0741
2.6238
2.8129
2.7277
2.6602
2.6055
2.5603
2.5222
2.4898
4
55.833
9.2434
5.3427
4.1073
3.5202
3.1808
2.9605
2.8064
2.6927
2.6053
2.5362
2.4801
2.4337
2.3947
2.3614
5
57.241
9.2926
5.3092
4.0506
3.4530
3.1075
2.8833
2.7265
2.6106
2.5216
2.4512
2.3940
2.3467
2.3069
2.2730
6
58.204
9.3255
5.2847
4.0098
3.4045
3.0546
2.8274
2.6683
2.5509
2.4606
2.3891
2.3310
2.2830
2.2426
2.2081
7
58.906
9.3491
5.2662
3.9790
3.3679
3.0145
2.7849
2.6241
2.5053
2.4140
2.3416
2.2828
2.2341
2.1931
2.1582
F-Table (95%)
n2\n1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
161.45
18.513
10.128
7.7086
6.6079
5.9874
5.5914
5.3277
5.1174
4.9646
4.8443
4.7472
4.6672
4.6001
4.5431
2
199.50
19.000
9.5521
6.9443
5.7862
5.1433
4.7374
4.4590
4.2565
4.1028
3.9823
3.8853
3.8056
3.7389
3.6823
ETC.
3
215.71
19.164
9.2766
6.5914
5.4095
4.7571
4.3468
4.0661
3.7626
3.7083
3.5874
3.4903
3.4105
3.3439
3.2847
4
224.58
19.247
9.1172
6.3883
5.1922
4.5337
4.1203
3.8378
3.6331
3.4780
3.3567
3.2592
3.1791
3.1122
3.0556
5
230.16
19.296
9.0135
6.2560
4.3874
4.3874
3.9725
3.6875
3.4817
3.3258
3.2039
3.1059
3.0254
2.9582
2.9013
6
233.99
19.330
8.9406
6.1631
4.2839
4.2839
3.8660
3.5806
3.3738
3.2172
3.0946
2.9961
2.9153
2.8477
2.7905
7
236.77
19.353
8.8868
6.0942
4.2066
4.2066
3.7870
3.5005
3.2927
3.1355
3.0123
2.9134
2.8321
2.7642
2.7066
Module 8:
Page A - 3
F-Table (97.5%)
n2\n1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ETC.
1
647.79
38.506
17.443
12.218
10.007
8.8131
8.0727
7.5709
7.2093
6.9367
6.7241
6.5538
6.4143
6.2979
6.1995
2
799.50
39.000
16.044
10.649
8.4336
7.2598
6.5415
6.0595
5.7147
5.4564
5.2559
5.0959
4.9653
4.8567
4.7650
3
864.16
39.165
15.439
9.9792
7.7636
6.5988
5.8898
5.4160
5.0781
4.8256
4.6300
4.4742
4.3472
4.2417
4.1528
4
899.58
39.248
15.101
9.6045
7.3879
6.2272
5.5226
5.0526
4.7181
4.4683
4.2751
4.1212
3.9959
3.8919
3.8043
5
921.85
39.298
14.885
9.3645
7.1464
5.9876
5.2852
4.8173
4.4844
4.2361
4.0440
3.8911
3.7667
3.6634
3.5764
6
937.11
39.331
14.735
9.1973
6.9777
5.8197
5.1186
4.6517
4.3197
4.0721
3.8807
3.7283
3.6043
3.5014
3.4147
7
948.22
39.355
14.624
9.0741
6.8531
5.6955
4.9949
4.5286
4.1971
3.9498
3.7586
3.6065
3.4827
3.3799
3.2194
F-Table (99%)
n2\n1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
4052.2
98.503
34.116
21.198
16.258
13.745
12.246
11.259
10.561
10.044
9.6460
9.3302
9.0738
8.8616
8.6831
2
4999.5
99.000
30.817
18.000
13.274
10.925
9.5466
8.6491
8.0215
7.5594
7.2057
6.9266
6.7010
6.5149
6.3589
ETC.
3
5403.3
99.166
29.457
16.694
12.060
9.7795
8.4513
7.5910
6.9919
6.5523
6.2167
5.9526
5.7394
5.5639
5.4170
4
5624.6
99.249
28.710
15.977
11.392
9.1483
7.8467
7.0060
6.4221
5.9943
5.6683
5.4119
5.2053
50354
4.8932
5
5763.7
99.299
28.237
15.522
10.967
8.7459
7.4604
6.6318
6.0569
5.6363
5.3160
5.0643
4.8616
4.6950
4.5556
6
5859.0
99.332
27.911
15.207
10.672
8.4661
7.1914
6.3707
5.8018
5.3858
5.0692
4.8206
4.6204
4.4558
4.3183
7
5928.3
99.356
27.672
14.976
10.456
8.2600
6.9928
6.1776
5.6129
5.2001
4.8861
4.6395
4.4410
4.2779
4.1415
FOR COMPLETE F-TABLE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONSULT ANY TEXT ON THE SUBJECT. A LIST OF
TEXTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE REFERENCE PAGE.
Module 8:
Page A - 4
TYPE OF
ARRAY
NUMBER OF
FACTORS
LEVELS
L4(23)
L8(27)
L12(211)
11
L16(215)
15
L32(231)
31
L9(24)
1
and 7
2
3
13
1
and 25
2
3
L81(340)-modified
40
L16(45)-modified
L32(21,49)-modified
and
1
9
2
4
L64(421)
21
L18(21,37)
L27(313)
L54(21,325)-modified
etc.
Module 8:
Page A - 5
Interactions
(Linear Graphs)
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
3
1x2 =>3
L8(27 ) Array
COL.>>
Trial#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
5
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
6
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
7
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
7
5
6
4
7
Module 8:
Page A - 6
Column =>
Cond. 1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
2
8
2
9
2
10
2
11
2
12
2
L12
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
6
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
7
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
8
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
9
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
10
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
11
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
NOTE:
The L-12 is a special array designed to investigate main effects of 11 2-level factors.
THIS ARRAY IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ANALYZING INTERACTIONS
Column
Cond.
L16
1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
9
10
11
12
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
13
14
15
16
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
Module 8:
Page A - 7
L32 (231)
Col =>
Cond1 2
1
1 1
2
1 1
3
1 1
4
1 1
5
1 1
6
1 1
7
1 1
8
1 1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
6
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
7
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
8
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
9
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
7
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
8
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
9
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
0
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
5
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
6
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
7
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
8
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
9
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
0
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
Module 8:
Page A - 8
COL==>
COND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
4
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
L18 ( 21 37 )
Col==>
Trial 1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
5
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
6
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
7
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
8
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Module 8:
Page A - 9
Column =>
Cond.
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
1
L 27 ( 313 )
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
6
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
7
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
9
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
10
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
11
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
12
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
13
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
Module 8:
Page A - 10
5
16 ( 4 )
Col. => 1
Trial
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
3
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
3
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
3
4
1
2
Linear Graph of L
16
3, 4, 5
Module 8:
Page A - 11
L32 (21x49)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
6
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
7
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
8
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
9
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
10
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
3
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
3
4
1
2
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
3
4
1
2
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
2
1
4
3
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
3
4
1
2
Trial\Column==>
Module 8:
Page A - 12
4
5
6
7
(4)
5
4
7
6
1
(5)
6
7
4
5
2
3
(6)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(7)
8 9 10
9 8 11
10 11 8
11 10 9
12 13 14
13 12 15
14 15 12
15 14 13
(8)1 2
(9)3
(10)
11 12
10 13
9
14
8
15
15 8
14 9
13 10
12 11
3
4
2
5
1
6
(11) 7
(12)
13
12
15
14
9
8
11
10
5
4
7
6
1
(13)
14
15
12
13
10
11
8
9
6
7
4
5
2
3
(14)
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(15)
ETC...
1 x 2 => 3
3 x 5 => 6
Etc.
The set of three columns (4, 7, 3), (1, 2, 3), etc. are called interacting groups of columns.
Module 8:
Page A - 13
6
7
14
13
15
11
6
2
6
12
9
14
15
14
10
11
6
12
12
15
11
10
13
Module 8:
Page A - 14
(1) 3
4
(2)
3
2
4
1
4
(3)
2
6
3
7
1
8
3 11
1
9
2 13
(4) 10
12
(5)
10
11
12
13
5
7
9
12
10
11
8
13
1
7
(6)
5
6
10
13
8
12
9
11
1
6
1
5
(7)
9
10
5
11
7
12
6
13
2
11
4
13
3
12
(8)
8
10
6
12
5
13
7
11
3
13
2
12
4
11
1
10
(9)
8
9
7
13
6
11
5
12
4
12
3
11
2
13
1
9
1
8
(10)
12
13
5
8
6
10
7
9
2
8
3
10
4
9
2
5
4
7
3
6
(11)
11
13
6
9
7
8
5
10
4
10
2
9
3
8
3
7
2
6
4
5
1
13
(12)
11
12
7
10
5
9
6
8
3
9
4
8
2
10
4
6
3
5
2
7
1
12
11
ETC.
Module 8:
Page A - 15
2
3
4
5
(2)
3
2
4
5
1
4
5
(3)
4
2
3
6
1
3
5
1
2
5
(4)
5
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
(5)
6
7
8
9
10
14
18
11
16
21
12
17
19
13
15
20
(6)
7
6
8
9
11
15
19
10
17
20
13
16
18
12
14
21
1
8
9
(7)
8
6
7
9
12
19
20
13
14
19
10
15
21
11
17
18
1
7
9
1
6
9
(8)
9
6
7
9
13
17
21
12
15
18
11
14
20
10
16
19
1
7
8
1
6
8
1
6
(9)
10 11
11 10
12 12
13 13
6
7
14 15
18 19
7
6
17 18
20 21
8
9
15 14
21 20
9
8
16 17
19 18
2
3
14 16
18 21
3
2
17 15
20 19
4
5
15 17
5
4
16 14
19 20
(10) 1
Module 8:
Page A - 16
Glossary of Terms
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance is a table of information which displays relative influence
of factor or interaction assigned to the column of the orthogonal array.
Controllable factors: A design variable that is considered to influence the response and
is included in the experiment. Its levels can be controlled at experimenter's will.
Error: The amount of variation in the response caused by factors other than controllable
factors included in the experiment.
Histogram: A graphical representation of the sample data using classes on the Horizontal
Axis and frequency on the Vertical Axis.
Interaction: Two factors are said to have interaction with each other if influence of one
depends on the value of the other.
Linear Graph: A Graphical representation of relative column locations of factors and
their interactions. These were developed by Dr. TAGUCHI to assist in assigning different
factors to columns of the Orthogonal Array.
Loss Function: A mathematical expression proposed by Dr. TAGUCHI to quantitatively
determine the harm caused by the lack of quality in the product. This harm caused by the
product is viewed as a loss to the society and is expressed as a direct function of mean
square deviation from the target value.
Noise Factors: Those factors that have influence over the response but cannot be
controlled in actual applications. They are of three kinds.
Outer Noise - Environmental Conditions vs. Humidity
Temperature, Operators, etc.
Inner Noise - Deterioration of Machines, tools and parts.
Between Product Noise - Variation from piece to piece.
Off-Line Quality Control: The Quality enhancement efforts in activities before
production. These are activities such as upstream planning, R & D, systems design,
parameter design, Tolerance design and loss function, etc.
Orthogonal Array: A set of tables containing information on how to determine the least
number of experiments and their conditions. The word orthogonal means balanced.
Quality Characteristic: The yardstick which measures the performance of a product or a
process under study. For a plastic molding process, this could be the strength of the molded
piece. If we are after baking the best cake, this could be a combination of taste, shape and
moistness.
Module 8:
Page A - 17
Module 8:
Page A - 18
c
T
St
= Total sums of squares
MSD = Mean Squared Deviation
y
n
= Result
= Number of results
ANOVA
( yi - yo )2
=
=
=
[ ( yi - yavg) + ( yavg - yo ) ]2 ,
i = 1, 2, .........n
[ ( yi - y avg)2 + 2 ( yi - y avg) ( yavg - y 0) + ( yavg - yo )2
n x [ ( yi - y avg)2 /n + 0 + ( yavg - yo )2
( yi - yo )2
or
n T2
(1)
.....
(2)
.....
(3)
.....
(4)
.....
(5)
+ n m2
Variation due to
individual data
about the mean of
Total variation
about the target
value
.....
Variation of the
mean from the
target
the data ( ST )
T2 = [ ( yi - y avg)2 /n
or [ ( yi - y avg)2 = n T2
The variation around the mean of the data is called the total sum of squares, ST
therefore (by definition of total sums of squares),
ST
= ( yi - y avg)2
n T2 =
that is
( yi - yo )2 - n m2
(since ST = n T2)
yi2
yi2
m = y avg
n y avg 2
n ( T/n )2
.....
(6)
Module 8:
Page A - 19
and ST = ( yi - y avg)2
Therefore,
MSD = ( yi - yo )2 /n
or
MSD = [n T2 + n m2 ] / n
(from Eqn. 5)
MSD = T2 + (yavg - y 0) 2
or MSD = ST / n
.....
(7)
MSD = T2 + (yavg - 0) 2
and
MSD =
for QC = Smaller
[ 1 + 3 T2 / (yavg) 2 ] / (yavg) 2
for QC = Bigger
therefore,
or
MSD =
and
c2 = [ ( yi - y avg)2 / (n - 1)
T2 n / (n-1)
.....
(9)
c2 n / (n-1) + m2
.....
(10)
= - 10 Log (MSD)
.....
(11)
.....
(12)
.....
(13)
= - 10 Log (T2 + m 2 )
= - 10 Log (c2 n / (n-1) + m2 )
or
MSD = 10 -[S/N]/10
Capability Index
and
Module 8:
Page A - 20
Loss Function
For multiple parts,
.....
(14)
= K [T2 + m 2 ]
= K [c2 n / (n-1) + m2 ]
L1, (S/N)1, L2, and (S/N)2 are Loss and S/N before and after experiments, then savings can
be calculated as
Substituting L = L1 and MSD = MSD1
in the above, the constant
K = L1/ (MSD)1
Therefore,
L = L1 [MSD] / (MSD)1
Substituting
then
L2 = L1[(MSD)2 ] /(MSD)1
or
(15)
.....
+ [ (S/N)1 - (S/N)2]/10
] x 100
(16)
) / L1
% of L1
where
(S/N)1 = S/N ratio of the current and (S/N)2 = S/N ratio of the improved design
Also, since MSD is proportional to square of the standard deviation, the improved S/N can
be estimated when the expected performance at optimum, and the average performance and
S/N at cured condition are known.
(S/N)2 = (S/N)1 + 20 Log - e [Yaverage./Yexpected.] / Log - e [10]
Module 8:
Page A - 21
References
1. Patrick M. Burgman. Design of Experiments - The Taguchi Way. Manufacturing
Engineering. May 1985, PP 44-46
2. Yuin Wu and Dr. Willie Hobbs Moore. 1986. Quality Engineering Product and Process
Optimization. Dearborn, Michigan. American Supplier Institute.
3. Ronald L. Iman and W.J Conover. 1983. A Modern Approach to Statistics. John Wiley
& Sons.
4. Yuin Wu. 1986. Orthogonal Arrays and Linear Graphs. Dearborn, Michigan. American
Supplier Institute.
5. Burton Gunter. 1987. A Perspective on the Taguchi Methods. Quality Progress.
6. Lawrence P. Sullivan. June 1987. A Power of the Taguchi Methods. Quality Progress.
7. Philip J. Ross. 1988. Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering, McGraw Hill
Book Company. New York, NY.
8. Thomas B. Baker and Don P. Causing. March 1984. Quality Engineering by
Design - The Taguchi Method. 40th Annual ASQC Conference.
9. Jim Quinlan. 1985. Product Improvement By Application of Taguchi Methods,
Flex Products, Inc., Midvale, Ohio. Winner of Taguchi Applications Award by
American Supplier Institute.
10. Genichi Taguchi. 1987. System of Experimental Design, UNIPUB, Kraus International
Publications, New York.
11. Ranjit K. Roy, 1996, QUALITEK-4 (for Windows): Software for Automatic Design
of Experiment Using Taguchi Approach, IBM or Compatible computer, NUTEK Inc. 30600
Telegraph Road. Suite 2230, Birmingham, Michigan 48025. (Fax. 1-248-642-4609). Free
DEMO from http://www.rkroy.com
12. Ranjit K. Roy. 1990. A Primer on the Taguchi method, Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan, USA. ISBN: 0-87263-468-X Fax: 1-313-240-8252 or 1313-271-2861
Module 8:
Page A - 22
Module 8:
Page A - 23
Click OK to return to the main screen. From the file menu select Open and select any other
experiment file from the list of over 50 files. Analyze results by following steps 3 -8.
Experiment Designs
9. Prepare a list of factors and levels for a practice experiment(say 5 factors at 2-level each).
Click on the DESIGN menu and select Manual Design. Check L-8 for your design. When in
design screen, describe factors and their levels by assigning to any rows (which are columns
of the array). Since you will be using five of the seven available columns, click on the
UNUSED button to designate the two columns as unused. Click OK to move to the
Orthogonal Array screen. Click OK to experiment file screen. Supply only the first eight
characters of your file name. The file extension .Q4W is automatically added.
10. After design is completed, you may review the trial condition by clicking on REVIEW
menu and selecting Trial Condition. Should you want to carry out these experiments, you may
print some or all the trial conditions.
Result Entry
11. Once the experiments are carried out, you will need to enter the results by clicking on
RESULT menu and then, selecting Enter Result option. If your result includes multiple
evaluation criteria, you will sleet Multiple Criteria(OEC) option. Enter results/evaluation
criteria as applicable. When done entering results, perform analysis following steps 3 - 8 as
described above.
(e) Prob. 7-6 at Page 7-11 (S/N analysis, variation reduction, and savings)
(f) Prob. 8-7 at Page 8-10 (Prepare OEC from readings in each trial condition/ Outer array)
Capturing, Pasting, and Cropping QT4 screens for reports and presentations
In addition to the standard print output, you can capture any screens and conveniently size and
paste it into your WORD document. (1) Be in the screen of your choice (2) Press
Alt+PrintScreen together (3) Open WORD document (4) Select EDIT and PASTE to place the
screen on WORD document. (5) Select picture(screen), then from INSERT menu select
Frame. (6) To crop picture, select and place the mouse on corner or middle posts. Then press
Shift key. Notice the mouse cursor shape changes. Press right button on mouse and drag to
desired location and release.
Module 8:
Page A - 24
Module 8:
Page A - 25
Date:________
1.______________________ 2.____________________________
3._____________________
CRITERIA DES.
Worst Value
4.____________________________
Best Value
QC
Rel. Weighting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.
2.
3.
4.
etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OEC/RESULT = (
)x
+ (
)x
+ (
)x
+ (
)x
Example:
FACTORS
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.
2.
3.
4.
etc.
Noise factors and Outer array :
NOTE: Show Design, results and analysis. Prepare report and make copies for all seminar attendees.
Module 8:
Page A - 26
MSD = 10 -[S/N]/10
or
= 2 + (yavg - y 0) 2
= 2 + (yavg - 0) 2
= [ 1 + 3 2 / (yavg) 2 ] / (yavg) 2
for QC = Nominal
for QC = Smaller
for QC = Bigger
When Average and S/N of current results are known, MSD and Std. Dev. can be calculated from above. If
the S/N at improved condition is available, the Std. Dev. can be estimated (Std. Dev. proportional to Square root
of MSD).
Since only an estimate of ( S/N) at improved condition is generally available at the completion of a designed
experiment, Std. Deviation, can only be approximated with the assumption that the average remain unchanged.
( subscript: 1 - current and 2 - improved conditions)
2 = 1 (MSD2 / MSD 1 ) 0.5
When Standard Deviations in the current and improved condition are known, the corresponding Cp and
Cpk values can be calculated.
Cp = (UCL - LCL) / (6 )
Cpk = [ yavg - ymin] / (3 )
for yavg < yo
= [ ymax - yavg] / (3 )
for yavg < yo
Savings = 10
+ [ (S/N)1 - (S/N)2]/10
] x 100
Module 8:
Page A - 27
Module 8:
Page A - 28
Program Evaluations
Program Title_____________________________________
________________________________________________________
Program completion date
Instructor__________________________
Training Location/host.____________________________________
We appreciate your comments and suggestions. Please take a moment to let us know how we can improve and serve you better. (Please use the
following numbers for evaluation purposes).
[6] Excellent [5] Very Good [4] Satisfactory [3] Poor [2] Unsatisfactory [1] Needs Improvement
Comments:___________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Reaction to Instructor:
Comments:___________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. What should be added and/or deleted to improve this program? (Please be specific)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. What portions of this program do you feel will be most helpful at your work?
How?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Do you feel the training provided you enough understanding of the technique for you to be able to start applying it to your own projects if
opportunities were available?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] May be
] yes
] No
] May be
[ ]YES
Ph: _____________________
[ ]NO
8. (Optional)
Your Name_____________________________________
Your Ph#/E-mail:___________________________________________
THANK YOU for taking the time to complete this evaluation.
Module 8:
Page A - 29
Page E - 1
Factors
A: Tool Type
B: Cuttine Speed
C: Feed Rate
Trial#\
(QC=B)
1
2
3
4
Level I
High Carbon
1500 rpm
2 mm/sec.
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
Level II
Carbide Tip
2000 rpm
5 mm/sec.
Results
Surface Finish (QC=S) Capability
17 micron
12
16
20
1.26
1.32
0.28
1.16
(a) Describe (recipe) the factor levels used to conduct 3rd experiment.
(b) Determine the Optimum Condition for the best surface finish.
(c) Determine the Optimum Condition for the best Capability.
(d) If experiment # 1 is considered the current performance, estimate the % improvement of
surface finish expected from the new process settings.
Page E - 2
Factors
A: Tool Type
B: Cuttine Speed
C: Feed Rate
D: Tool Holder
Level- I
High Carbon
1500 rpm
2 mm/sec.
Current Design
Level- II
Carbide Tip
2000 rpm
5 mm/sec.
New Design
A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
D
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
Results(QC= Bigger)
8 units
12
10
11
15
13
9
14
(a) Describe the condition of the eighth experiment with result 14.
(b) Determine the more severe of the three Interactions included in the study (AxB, BxC, and
CxA)
Hint: Calculate A1B1, A1B2, A2B1, A2B2, etc. For each pair, the angle between the line is indicated by
difference between the end points differences, i.e., (A1B2 A1B1) (A2B2-A1B2). The angle between the lines
indicates the strength of interaction.
(c) Is the interaction between factors C and D present? If present, how does it compare with
the three Interactions included in the experiment.
Hint: It is possible to test for the presence of Interaction, even though no column is reserved for it. Calculate
C1D1, C2D2, etc.
Page E - 3
Exercise 3: [Reference Module 4, Review questions 4-1, 4-2 and 4-12, page 2-26]
Concept Array modification to accommodate mixed level factors.
In the machining process optimization effort described in Exercise 2, the project team decided
to study four 2-level factors and one 3-level factor as described below. The modified array,
factor assignment, and the results are as shown.
Factors
A: Tool Type
B: Cuttine Speed
C: Feed Rate
D: Tool Holder
E: Part Complexity
Level I
High Carbon
1500 rpm
2 mm/sec.
Current Design
Simple
Level II
Carbide Tip
2000 rpm
5 mm/sec.
New Design
Common
Level III
Complex
Trial#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(a)
(b)
(c)
E
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
B
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
C
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
D
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
Results(QC= Smaller)
36 units
60
48
66
72
62
48
54
Page E - 4
Level I
Lower
Less than 0 deg
Below Spec.
Compliant
30 MPH
Level II
Current
0 degree
At Spec.
Rigid
70 MPH
Level III
Higher
More than 0 deg.
Above Spec.
Expt#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DE A
1 1
1 2
1 3
2 1
2 2
2 3
3 1
3 2
3 3
B
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
C
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
Results
(QC= Smaller)
29
24
27
32
30
21
18
22
16
Exercise 5:
Page E - 5
[Reference Module 5, Review questions 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3, page 5-26]
Trial#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control Factors
A: Concentration
B: Exposure time
C: Development Time
D: Light Intensity
E: Spin Speed
Level I
3.5%
8 Seconds
60 Minutes
Low
2000 rpm
Level II
5%
15 Seconds
90 Minutes
High
4000rpm
Level I
1 mm Thick
Air Conditioned
Fresh
Level II
mm Thick
No A/C
2 Hour Old
A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
B AxB C
1 1
1
1 1
2
2 2
1
2 2
2
1 2
1
1 2
2
2 1
1
2 1
2
D BxC E
1
1 1
2
2 2
1
2 2
2
1 1
2
1 2
1
2 1
2
2 1
1
1 2
(1)
10
20
27
32
2
3
26
17
Results (QC=Smaller)
(2)
(3) (4)
7
9
7
17
16
15
25*
30
23
34
33
30
5
2
4
5
4
2
12
10
16
15
7
16
(a) Describe the recipe for the test that produce second result (25*) of the third trial
condition. Indicate the noise condition to which this experiment was exposed.
(b) Calculate the Main Effect of the Noise Factor: Developer Type (Z)
[Key answers: ____, Main effect of Z = 14.437 15.625)
Page E - 6
Trial#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A B AxB C
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
2
1
2 2
1
1
2 2
2
2
1 2
1
2
1 2
2
2
2 1
1
2
2 1
2
D BxC E
1
1 1
2
2 2
1
2 2
2
1 1
2
1 2
1
2 1
2
2 1
1
1 2
(1)
10
20
27
32
2
3
26
17
Results (QC=Smaller)
(2)
(3) (4)
7
9
7
17
16
15
25*
30
23
34
33
30
5
2
4
5
4
2
12
10
16
15
7
16
S/N Ratios
-18.44
-24.66
-28.43
-30.18
-10.88
-11.30
_____
_____
[Key answers: -24.68, -23.11, 2 1 1 1 1, -21.46 + 11.406 = -10.054 S/N => 3.182]
Page E - 7
Calculate:
(a) ST = ?
Hint: C.F. = 190.125
Trial#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
B
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
C
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
D Results
1
4
2
3
2
8
1
7
1
4
2
6
2
2
1
5
Total = 39
VA = SA /DOF
FA = VA / Ve
SA =
(c) PA =
[Key answers: CF= 190.125, ST = 28.875, SA=21.375, VA=7.125, FA=57, SA=21, PA=72.72]
Exercise 8:
Page E - 8
[Reference Module 7, Review questions 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3, page 7-9]
Current
Performance
18 Sec. (total for 4 windows)
26
n = 10
25
Target = 20
16
Avg. = 22.2
22
Std. Dev.= 3.735
19
24
S/N = -12.742
26
27
19
(c) Calculate the expected value of the process capability, Cpk from the improved design.
[Key answers: $41,149/month, Std. Dev: 3.735 to 2.043, Cpk: 1.052 to 2.283]
Page E - 9
Level II
Type 2
Higher
Method 2
Higher Viscousity
Trial#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
D
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
(see below)
Trial#
Results:(8 Trial 24 results/trial)
1 20,80,13,25,66,73,23,81,52,30,46,23,21,90,20,88,12,95,87,19,65,87,87,55
2 44,63,69,86,18,2,59,44,92,74,40,75,48,59,89,58,62,34,86,69,12,76,10,88
3 69,61,85,27,18,95,48,64,85,53,62,8,38,99,94,24,41,1,10,76,60,22,74,33
4 46,73,16,74,95,20,35,23,11,21,23,78,96,81,82,43,55,3,16,22,90,88,28,16
5 23,85,60,93,97,98,85,62,96,70,31,36,11,93,85,5,30,56,42,59,45,50,89,90
6 63,95,19,41,77,2,93,92,44,54,34,54,91,82,69,55,47,13,28,23,40,75,36,86
7 52,47,87,2,93,94,11,76,3,26,60,44,96,58,51,20,88,7,98,20,96,85,20,58
8 99,94,90,54,23,55,79,43,66,86,15,80,82,43,51,19,26,76,40,11,50,40,36,10
Using Qualitek-4 software (Downloaded DEMO version from: http://www.rkroy.com or regular
program), design the experiment and analyze the results to determine the optimum condition.
[Key answers: Optimum cond 1 1 1 1, Perf. S/N 1.79 + 3.342 = 5.132]
Page E - 10
Report Content
1. Project Title
- include names of team members (participants in the study)
2. Brief Description of the project function and the purpose of the study
- Indicate reasons for the study and the benefits derived
3. Evaluation Criteria
- discuss how different objectives were measured
4. Factors and Levels
- explain how factors were selected from a larger list
- discuss the rationale for number of levels and their values
5. Noise Factors and Interactions, if any
- discuss how interaction(if included) were selected
- justify use of noise factors in the design (if included)
6. Orthogonal Array and the design
7. Main Effects indicate trend of influence of factors and interactions
8. ANOVA list factors with higher relative influence to the variation
9. Optimum Condition and Performance (convert if in S/N)
- indicate any factor level adjusted for interaction
10. Confidence Interval (C.I.)
11. Expected Savings from the new design
12. Conclusions and Recommendations
- based on the results, what do prpose for further study
- explain when would you know that the experiment is satisfactory
Page E - 11
Page E - 12
Program Evaluations
Program Title_____________________________________
______________________________________________________
Program completion date
Instructor
Training Location/host.____________________________________
We appreciate your comments and suggestions. Please take a moment to let us know how we can improve and serve you better. (Please use the
following numbers for evaluation purposes).
[6] Excellent [5] Very Good [4] Satisfactory [3] Poor [2] Unsatisfactory [1] Needs Improvement
Comments:___________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Reaction to Instructor:
Comments:___________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. What should be added and/or deleted to improve this program? (Please be specific)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. What portions of this program do you feel will be most helpful at your work?
How?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Do you feel the training provided you enough understanding of the technique for you to be able to start applying it to your own projects if
opportunities were available?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] May be
] yes
] No
] May be
[ ]YES
Ph: _____________________
[ ]NO
8. (Optional)
Your Name_____________________________________
Your Ph#/ & E-mail:_________________________________________
THANK YOU for taking the time to complete this evaluation.