R. Roy/Nutek, Inc.

Robust Product and

9/27/2004
Process Designs http:/nutek-us.com
1

Design of Experiment (DOE)

Overview

One of the effective ways to improve product and process quality is

to reduce variation in performance that potentially results in
reduced rework and rejects downstream. To assure minimum
performance variation requires building robustness into the design.
Robust products and processes are insensitive to the influence of
uncontrollable variables which are the major causes of variation in
performance. Use of the Design of Experiment (DOE) technique, in
particular, the standardized version of DOE and robust design
strategies proposed by Dr. Genechi Taguchi, is a proactive way to
achieve robust design. In this workshop, Dr. Roy of Nutek, Inc.
presents a brief overview of the basic principles of DOE
methodologies and introduces strategies involved in achieving
robust products. The use of Qualitek-4 software to accomplish
experiment design and analysis of results tasks may be
demonstrated.
Topics of Discussions

I. Overall Strategy
II. Making Quantum Improvement with
Simple DOE
III. Going After Basic Robustness
IV. Leaving No Stones Unturned Building
Robustness for Expanded Application
Capabilities
V. Qualitek-4 software for design and
analysis tasks (time permitting)
 Ref. Page 1-1

History of Quality Activities

Acceptance Sampling - 1910s

Economic Control of Quality of manufcd. products - 1920s
Design of experiments (DOE) - 1930s
Statistical quality control - 1940s
Management by objectives - 1950s
Zero Defects - 1960s
Participative problem solving, SPC, and quality circle - 1970s
Total quality control (TQM) - 1980s
Six Sigma - 1990s

Ref: The Evolution of Six Sigma, by Dr. S. Marash, Quality Digest, June
2001
Note: For some reason the author did not include ISO/QS 9000 which was popular
quality disciplines implemented by most manufacturing companies.
 Ref. Page 1-2

Where does DOE fit in the bigger picture?

Six Sigma TQM/

Lean

DOE

SPC

FMEA Taguchi
Approach
 Ref. Page 1-2

Source of Topic Titles

What is DOE

Design of Experiments (DOE)

Using The Taguchi Approach

Who is Taguchi What is it used for?

How do we apply it?
 Ref. Page 1-5

Product Engineering Roadmap (Opportunities for Building Quality)

Return on
Investment
* Production
* Test &
Validation
* Design &
Development
Where do we do quality
improvement?
* Design &
Analysis
 Driving Questions For Quality Improvement
(Opportunities for Building Quality)

DESIGN: New questions we may ask.

* Production
* Test &
Validation
* Design &
Development Is the performance at its best or at optimum?

Will it perform the same way all the time, under

all application environment?
* Customer Requirements and
Design Concepts (APQP) Is the design robust?

Is the manufacturing process robust &

adequate?
 Leading Questions in Validation Test Planning
(Opportunities for cost-effective testing)

TEST: New questions we may ask.

* Production
* Test &
Validation
* Design & Will the product perform under
Development extremes of application environment?

How can we cost-effectively test

* Customer Requirements products under all conditions before
release?
and Design Concepts
(APQP) What is the worst of all possible
application conditions?

Can we produce the optimized

products profitably?
 Ref. Page 1-7

New Definition of Quality

CONSISTENCY OF PERFORMANCE: Quality may be
viewed in terms of consistency of performance. To be
consistent is to BE LIKE THE GOOD ONES ALL THE
TIME.
REDUCED VARIATION AROUND THE TARGET:
Quality of performance can be measured in terms of
variations around the target.

This holds true also with

performance of any product or
process.
Looks of Improvement

Figure 1: Performance Before Figure 2: Performance After Study

Experimental Study

Improve Performance = Reduce and/or

Reduce m
m = (Yavg - Yo )
new

Yavg.
Yo
 Ref. Page 1-8

Being on Target Most of the Time

Poor Quality Not so Bad

Better Most Desirable

Making Quantum Improvement with Simpler
DOE

A minimum first level of effort is to apply

simpler experimental design techniques to
achieve performance at the desired
objective. This would help make the mean
population performance move toward the
expected level. Simpler DOE using
orthogonal arrays generally offer a
quantum improvement at a minimum cost.
Easier Ways to do DOE The Taguchi
Approach

Genechi Taguchi was born in Japan in 1924.

Worked with Electronic Communication
Laboratory (ECL) of Nippon Telephone and
Telegraph Co.(1949 - 61).
Major Attractions: standardized and
simplified techniques.
What is the Design of Experiment (DOE)?

It all began with R. A. Fisher in England back in 1920s.

Fisher wanted to find out how much rain, sunshine,
fertilizer, and water produce the best crop.
Design Of Experiments (DOE):
statistical technique
studies effects of multiple variables simultaneously
determines the factor combination for optimum
result
 DOE Project Application Steps
(Plan - Do - Act cycle by Dr. Deming)

PLAN
Define project
Determine performance
Need to follow a
objectives
structured
approach Identify factors to study

TEST & PREDICT

Need to know the

Conduct experiments
DOE technique Evaluate results
Predict improvements

CONFIRM ACHIEVEMENTS
No new knowledge Test predicted design and verify that the
required
performance achieved is acceptable.
 Ref. Page 1-10

DOE - the Taguchi Approach - Seminar Contents

PARAMETER DESIGN: Taguchi approach generally refers to
the parameter design phase of the three quality engineering
activities (SYSTEM DESIGN, PARAMETER DESIGN and
TOLERANCE DESIGN) proposed by Taguchi.
Off-line Quality Control
Quality Loss Function
Signal To Noise Ratio(s/n) For Analysis
Reduced Variability, a Measure Of Quality
 Ref. Page 1-10

How Does DOE Technique Work?

EXAMPLE APPLICATION
It is an experimental technique that determines the
solution with minimum effort.
In a POUND CAKE baking process with 5 ingredients,
and with options to take HIGH and LOW values of
each, it can determine the recipe with only 8
experiments.
Full factorial calls for 32 experiments. Taguchi
approach requires only 8
 Ref. Page 1-11

Ingredients for Baking Pound Cake

Factors Level-1
Level-2
A1 A2
A: Egg

B: Butter B1 B2

C: Milk C1 C2

D: Flour E1 E2

E: Sugar D2 D1

FIVE factors at TWO levels each make 25 = 32 separate recipes (experimental condition)
of the cake.
 Ref. Page N/A

Experimental Conditions

A1 B1 C1

Condition #1 D1 E1

A1 B1 C1

Condition #2 D1 E2
 Ref. Page N/A

Experimental Conditions

A1 B1 C1

Condition #3 D2 E1

A1 B1 C1

Condition #4 D2 E2
 Ref. Page N/A

Experimental Conditions

A1 B1 C2

Condition #5 D1 E1

A1 B1 C2

Condition #6 D1 E2
 Ref. Page N/A

Experimental Conditions

A1 B1 C2

Condition #7 D2 E1

A1 B1 C2

Condition #8 D2 E2
Experimental Conditions

Condition # 9 through 30 . . . . .
 Ref. Page N/A

Experimental Conditions

A2 B2 C2

Condition #31 D2 E1

A2 B2 C2

Condition #32 D2 E2
 Ref. Page N/A
Experimental Trial Conditions by L-8 Orthogonal
Array
 Ref. Page N/A

Experiment Design Using L-8 Array

 Ref. Page 1-11

Orthogonal Array - a Fish Finder

3 2-L factors = 8 Vs. 4 Taguchi expts.
7 = 128 Vs. 8 Expts.
15 = over 32,000 Vs. 16

Fishing Net
 Ref. Page 1-12

Why Taguchi Approach?

Standardized application and data

analysis
Higher probability of success
Option to confirm predicted
improvement
Improvement quantified in terms of
dollars
 Ref. Page 1-13
Example Case Study (Production Problem Solving)
I. Experiment Planning
Project Title - Clutch Plate Rust Inhibition Process Optimization Study (CsEx-05)
The Clutch plate is one of the many precision components used in the automotive
transmission assembly. The part is about 12 inches in diameter and is made from 1/8-
inch thick mild steel.
Objective & Result - Reduce Rusts and Sticky
(a) Sticky Parts During the assembly process, parts were found to be stuck together
with one or more parts.
(b) Rust Spots Operators involved in the assembly reported unusually higher rust
spots on the clutch during certain period in the year.
Factors and Level Descriptions
Rust inhibitor process parameters was the area of study.

Figure 1. Clutch Plate Fabrication Process

II. Experiment
Stamping / Design & ResultsDeburring Rust
Hobbing Clutch plates Inhibitor
One 4-level factor
Clutch plate and four 2-levelare
factors
tumbled in this experiment
Parts were
are studied using a
modified L-8
madearray.
from The 4-level factor submerged
was assigned to column 1 modified using original
in a large
1/16 inch container to in a
columns 1,thick
2, and 3.
rolled remove sharp chemical
steel edges bath
Cleaned and dried parts
are boxed for shipping.
Applications in Analytical Simulations

F
d L
Elasticity, EI
W

For a cantilever beam, the deflection equation can be expressed as:

D = d + F/K + [4FL3 ]/ [EWH3]

Since
Deflection at end is Fl3/(3EI) where I = WH3 /12, d = initial displacement
Tools for Experiment Designs - Orthogonal Arrays

Use this array (L-4) to design L8(27 ) Array

Use this array (L-8) Cols.>>
experiments with three 2-level to design experiments TRIAL#
factors 1 2 3 4 5 6
with seven 2-level 7
L4 (23) factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Array 1
Cols>> 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Trial# 1 2 3 2
1 1 11 3 1 2 2 1 1 2
2 1 2 2L9(34) 2
3 2 12 4 1 2 2 2 2 1
Trial/Col# 1 2 3 4
4 2 2 1 1
1 1 1 1 1

Ln
5 2 1 2 1 2 1

(XY)
2 1 2 2
2 2
Use this array (L- 3 1 3 3 6 2 1 2 2 1 2
9) to design 3 1
experiments with 4 2 1 2 7 2 2 1 1 of 2columns
No. 2
1 in the array.
four 3-level 3
5 2 2 3 8 2 2 1 2 1 1
factors
1 2
No. of rows No. of levels
6 2 3 1
in the array in the
2
columns.
7 3 1 3
2
8 3 2 1
3
9 3 3 2
 There are More Steps to Climb

For better returns on

investment, more DC
Loss
sophisticated experiment
design and analysis
techniques need to be OEC
employed. Problem solving

Noise Factors, S/N Analysis,

Robust Designs, ANOVA

Interactions
Mixed level factors

Experiment using Std. Orthogonal Arrays

Main effect studies and optimum condition
 III.
Going After Basic Robustness

To make design robust is to make its

performance insensitive to the uncontrollable
(Noise) factors. The strategy here is to select
the most desirable combination of the
controllable factors based on the performance
while exposed to the influence of the noise
conditions. The experiment design for such
studies require stringent disciplines and care.
Detail can be seen from example applications.
 Ref. Page 2-2

Nature of Influences of Factors at Different

Levels
Result/Response

Minimum TWO levels

THREE levels desirable
/QC

FOUR levels in rare cases

Nonlinearity dictates levels
A1 A2 A3 for continuous factors only
A2

Result/Response
Result/Response/

/QC
QC

A1 A2 A3
A1 A2 A4
A3
 Ref. Page 2-
Combination Possibilities Full Factorial 3

Combinations
NOTATIONS:
A (A1,A2) or A represent 2-level factor

Cond.# A B C

1 1 1 1
THREE 2-level
ONE 2-level factors
factor offer create
TWO test conditions (A ,A ).
1 2 2 1 1 2
TWO 2-level factors create FOUR (22 = 4 )
EIGHT (2 = 8) possibilities.
3
test conditions A1B1 A1B2 A2B1 A2B2) .
3 1 2 1

A1B1C1 A1B1C2 4 1 2 2
A1B2C1 A1B2C2 Simpler 5 2 1 1
notations for all
A2B1C1 A2B1C2 possibilities or 6 2 1 2
full factorial
A2B2C1 A2B2C2
7 2 2 1
8 2 2 2
 Ref. Page 2-
Full Factorial Experiments Based on Factors and 4

Levels

3 Factors at 2 level 23 = 8
4 Factors at 2 level 24 = 16
7 Factors at 2 level 27 = 128
15 Factors at 2 level 215 = 32,768

What are Partial Factorial Experiments?

What are Orthogonal arrays and how are they used?
 Ref. Page 2-
4
Orthogonal Arrays Experiment Design Tool

How are Orthogonal arrays used to design experiments?

What does the word DESIGN mean?
What are the common properties of Orthogonal Arrays?

2-Level Arrays
L-4 Orthogonal Array
L4 (23 ) Trial # 1 2
L8 (27) 3
L12 (211) 1 1 1 1
L16 (215) . . . . 2 1 2 2
3 2 1 2
4 2 2 1
3-Level Arrays
L9 (34), L18 (21 37) . . .
4-Level Arrays
L16 (45) . . . .
 Ref. Page 2-
5
Properties of Orthogonal Arrays

L-4 Orthogonal Array Array Descriptions:

Trial #A B C 1. Numbers represent factor levels
1 1 1 1 2. Rows represents trial conditions
2 1 2 2 3. Columns accommodate factors
3 2 1 2 3. Columns are balanced/orthogonal
4 2 2 1 4. Each array is used for many experiments

Key observations:
First row has all 1's. There is no row that has all 2's.
All columns are balanced and maintains an order.
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 columns of the array which means that the level combinations exist in equal
number.
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.

How does One-Factor-at-a-time experiment differ from the one designed using an
Orthogonal array?
 Ref. Page 2-
Orthogonal Arrays for Common Experiment 6

Designs

Use this array (L-4) to design

experiments with three 2-level
factors
Ln (X Y)
No. of columns
Trial# C A B in the array.
Results
1 1 1 1 xxx
No. of rows in No. of levels in
2 1 2 2 xxx the array the columns.

3 2 1 2 xxx

4 2 2 1 xxx
Orthogonal Arrays for Common Experiment Ref. Page 2-
6
Designs

Use this array (L-8) to design experiments

with seven 2-level factors

Trial#
1
2
A
1
1
B
1
1
C
1
1
D
1
2
E
1
2
F
1
2
G
1
2
Result
s
xx
xx
Ln (XY)
No. of columns
in the array.

3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 xx
No. of rows in No. of levels in
4 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 xx the array the columns.
5 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 xx
6 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 xx
7 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 xx
8 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 xx
Orthogonal Arrays for Common Experiment Ref. Page 2-
7
Designs

Use this array (L-9) to design

experiments with four 3-level factors No. of columns
in the array.
Trial A B C D Results
#
1 1 1 1 1 xx
2 1 2 2 2 xx

Ln (X Y)
3 1 3 3 3 xx
4 2 1 2 3 xx
5 2 2 3 1 xx
6 2 3 1 2 xx
7 3 1 3 2 xx No. of rows in No. of levels in
the array the columns.
8 3 2 1 3 xx
9 3 3 2 1 xx
 Ref. Page 2-
7
Steps in Experiment Design

Step 1. Select the smallest

orthogonal array Factors Level-1 Levl-2
A:Time 2 Sec. 5 Sec.
B:Material Grade-1 Grade-2
Step 2. Assign the factors to C:Pressure 200 psi 300 psi
the columns (arbitrarily)
L-4 Orthogonal Array
Trial #A B C
Step 3. Describe the trial 1 1 1 1
conditions (individual 2 1 2 2
experimental recipe) 3 2 1 2
4 2 2 1
Trial#1: A1B1C1 = 2 Sec. (Time), Grade-1 (Material), and 200 psi (Pressure)
Trial#2: A1B2C2 = 2 Sec. (Time), Grade-2 (Material), and 300 psi (Pressure)
Trial#3: A2B1C2 = 5 Sec. (Time), Grade-1 (Material), and 300 psi (Pressure)
Trial#4: A2B2C1 = 5 Sec. (Time), Grade-2 (Material), and 200 psi (Pressure)
 Experiment Designs with More Ref. Page 2-
8
Factors?
Experiment Designs With Seven 2-Level Factor
Experiments with seven 2-level factors are designed using L-8 arrays.
An L-8 array has seven 2-level columns. The factors A, B, C, D, ... G can
be assigned arbitrarily to the seven column as shown. The orthogonal
arrays used in this manner to design experiments are called inner
arrays.

L8 Orthogonal Array

Control
Factors
Trial# A B C D E F G
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
4 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
5 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
6 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
7 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
8 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
Inner
Array
 Ref. Page 2-
Full Factorial Arrangement with Seven 2-level Factors 9
 Ref. Page 2-
10
Common Orthogonal Arrays

2-Level Arrays
L4 (23)
L8 (27)
Ln (XY)
No. of columns
in the array.
L12 (211)
L16 (215) No. of rows in No. of levels
the array in the columns.

3-Level Arrays
L9 (34)
L18 (21 37)

4-Level Arrays
L16 (45)
 Ref. Page 2-
10
Planning Before Designing Experiments

PLAN
Identify Project and Select Project Team
Define Project objectives Evaluation Criteria

Determine System Parameters (Control Factors,

Noise Factors, Ideal Function, etc.)
DESIGN
Select Array and Assign Factors to the columns
(inner and outer arrays)

CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS

ANALYZE RESULTS
Factor Effects, Optimum Condition, Predicted
Performance, etc.
 Ref. Page 2-
11

Popcorn Machine Performance Study (Example Experiment)

An ordinary kernel of corn, a little yellow seed, it

just sits there. But add some oil, turn up the heat,
and, pow. Within a second, an aromatic snack
sensation has come into being: a fat, fluffy
popcorn.

Note: C. Cretors & Company in the U.S. was the

first company to develop popcorn machines, about
100 years ago.

This example is used to demonstrate

cradle to grave, mini planning,
design, and analyses tasks involved in
DOE.
 Ref. Page 2-
12
Experiment Planning & Design
Project - Pop Corn Machine performance Study
Objective & Result - Determine best machine settings
Quality Characteristics - Measure unpopped kernels (Smaller is better)

Factors and Level Descriptions

Factor Level I Level II
A: Hot Plate Stainless Steel Copper Alloy
B: Type of Oil Coconut Oil Peanut Oil
C: Heat Setting Setting 1 Setting 2

Trial# C A B Trial# C: Ht. A: Hot plate B: Oil Type

Results Setting
1 1 1 1 1 C1: Setting A1: Stainless B1: Coconut
1
2 1 2 2 2 C1: Setting A2: Copper B2: Peanut
1
3 2 1 2 3 C2: Setting A1: Stainless B2: Peanut
2
4 2 2 1 4 C2: Setting A2: Copper B1: Coconut
2
 Ref. Page 2-
12
Experiment Design & Results

Trial# C A B Trial# C: Ht. A: Hot plate B: Oil Type

Results Setting
1 1 1 1 1 C1: Setting A1: Stainless B1: Coconut
1
2 1 2 2 2 C1: Setting A2: Copper B2: Peanut
1
3 2 1 2 3 C2: Setting A1: Stainless B2: Peanut
2
4 2 2 1 4 C2: Setting A2: Copper B1: Coconut
2

Design Layout (Recipes)

Expt.1: C1 A1 B1 or [Heat Setting 1, Stainless Plate, & Coconut Oil]

Expt.2: C1 A2 B2 or [Heat Setting 1, Copper Plate, & Peanut Oil ]
Expt.3: C2 A1 B2 or [Heat Setting 2, Stainless Plate, & Peanut Oil ]
Expt.4: C2 A2 B1 or [Heat Setting 2, Copper Plate, & Coconut Oil ]

How to run experiments: Run experiments in random order when possible.

 Ref. Page 2-
13

Experimental Results and Analysis

Trial# C A B
Results
1 1 1 1 5
2 1 2 2 8 __
T = (5 + 8 + 7 +4)/4 =
3 2 1 2 7
6
4 2 2 1 4

Trial# C A B _
Results
1 1 1 1 5 _A1 = (5 + 7)/2 = 6.0
2 1 2 2 8
3 2 1 2 7 _
_A2 = (8 + 4)/2 = 6.0
4 2 2 1 4
 Ref. Page 2-
14
Analysis of Experimental Results

Calculations: ( Min. seven, 3 x 2 + 1)

_
Trend of Influence: C1 = (5 + 8) / 2 = 6.5
How do the factor behave? _
What influence do they have to the C2 = (7 + 4) / 2 = 5.5
variability of results? _
How can we save cost? A1 =(5 + 7) / 2 = 6.0
Optimum Condition: _
What condition is most desirable? A2 = (8 + 4) / 2 = 6.0
_
B1 = (5 + 4) / 2 = 4.5
_
9
U Main Effects B2 = (8 + 7) / 2 = 7.5
NP (Average effects of factor
OP 8
PE influence)
D
7
6
KE
R 5
N
EL 4
S
3
A1 Hot plate A2 B1 Oil B2 C1 Heat Setting
C2
 Ref. Page 2-
14
Role of Quality Characteristics (QC)

QC Plays a key roles in:

Understanding factor influence
Determination of the most desirable condition.

Quality Characteristics

Examples
Nominal is Best: 5 dia. Shaft,12 volt battery, etc.
Smaller is Better: noise, loss, rejects, surface roughness, etc.
Bigger is Better: strength, efficiency, S/N ratio, Income, etc.
 Estimate of Performance at the Optimum Ref. Page 2-
15
Condition

U 9 Main Effects
NP (Also called: Factorial Effects or Column Effects)
OP 8
PE
D
7
6
KE
R
A1 B1
5 C2
N
EL 4
S
3
A1 Hot plate A2 B1 Oil B2 C1 Heat Setting
C2

Based on QC: Smaller is better

Optimum condition: A1 B1 C2 ( Assuming A1 is less expensive than A2)

__ __ __ __ __ _ __
Yopt = T + ( A1 - T ) ( B1 - T ) ( C2 - T )
= 6.0 + ( 6 +6 ) + (4.5 + 6.0 ) + ( 5.5 6.0
)
= 4.0 (Assumption: Factor contributions are additive)
 Interpretation of the Estimated Ref. Page 2-
16
Performance
Expected Performance:
What is the improved performance?
How can we verify it?
What is the boundary of expected performance?
(Confidence Interval, C.I.)
Notes:
Generally, the optimum condition will not be one that has already been tested. Thus you will need to run additional
experiments to confirm the predicted performance.
Confidence Interval (C.I.) on the expected performance can be calculated from ANOVA calculation. These boundary
values are used to confirm the performance.

Meaning: When a set of samples are tested at the optimum condition, the mean of the tested samples is expected to be
close to the estimated performance.

Confidence level (C.L.), say 90%.

Confidence Interval, C.I. = +/-
0.50
(Calculation not shown)

3.5 Yavg. Yexp. = 4.0 4.5

 Ref. Page 2-
16
Performance Improvement
Improved performance from DOE =
Estimated performance at the optimum condition (Yopt)
Yopt = 4.0 (in this example)

The estimated performance can be expressed in terms of a percent

improvement, if the current performance is known.
Assuming that the current performance is the grand average of
performance (YCurrent ) = 6.0

(Yopt - YCurrent
Improvement = x
)
100 YCurrent
(4 - 6 )
= x 100 = - 33%
6
Practice and Learn

Solve
Problem 2A
 Ref. Page 2-41

Practice Problem # 2A: Experiment with L-4

 Ref. Page 2-41

Practice Problem # 2A

Which factor has the most influence to the variability of result?

If you were to remove tolerance of one of the three factors studied, which factor will it be?
 Ref. Page 2-
42
Practice Problem # 2A
2. Determine the Optimum Condition.
Optimum Condition (character notation) =
Optimum Condition (level description) =

3. What is the grand average of performance?

__
T =

4. Calculate the estimated value of the Expected Performance at the

optimum condition.
Yopt =

5. What is the estimated amount of total contributions from all significant

factors?
Total contributions from all factors =

6. Assuming that the result of trail # 2 represents the current performance,

compute the % Improvement obtainable by adjusting the design to the
optimum condition determined.
% Improvement =

[Answers: 1 - (Describe, Factor __ has the most influence, etc. ) 2 - Optimum Cond: 2,2,2, , 3 - Gd. Avg.=28.5, 4-
Yopt = 19, 5 - Contribution = 9.5, 6 - Improvement = 24% ]
Group Exercise - Class Project

I. Experiment Planning
Project Title -
Objective & Result -
(Describe why you initiated the project and what you wish to accomplish)
Quality Characteristics: (Describe what you are after and how you would measure the
results. Depending on what it is you are after, your quality characteristic will be bigger
is better, smaller is better, or nominal is the best)

Factors and Level Descriptions

Notation/Factor Description Level I Level II
A:
B:
C: etc.

II. Experiment Design & Results

Our plan is to use _____ array. We/I want to complete design by assigning factors
to the columns as.. Etc.
Experiment Designs with Noise Factors

Noise Factors
Outer Array
Humidity 31 2 2 1 L4
Temperature 2 1 2 1 2
Oven type 1 1 1 2 2
Control factors
Tr# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Results
1 R 11 R R R
2 R 21 R R R
3 .......
L8 . . .. . . .. .. . . .. .
*
R R R73 R
8 Inner Array R R R R
Evaluating Performance Based on Reduced Variation

Why AVERAGE of results is inadequate?

Why do we need a new YARDSTICK?

Nominal: MSD = [(Y1 -Yo) 2 +.(Y2 -Yo) 2 + (Y3 -Yo) 2 +. .]/n

Smaller: MSD = [( Y12 + .Y 22 +Y 32 + . .)]/n

Bigger: MSD = [(1 / Y12 + 1 / Y22 + 1/Y32 + ...... )]/n

S/N = - 10 LOG10 (MSD)

Why -(Minus)
Why base 10
Leaving no Stones Unturned Building Robustness
for Expanded Application Capabilities

While most systems (product and process

designs) tend to have a desired performance
goal, there are others which need to respond in
direct proportion to the strength of the input
(called signal factor) condition. For such
system, the goal is to achieve performance that
maintains a fixed relationship with the
magnitude of the input. Such systems are
considered to have dynamic response
characteristics and require special experiment
setup and analysis methods for optimizing
designs..
 Dealing with Dynamic Systems Process
Diagram

Representing the
subject
product/process design
as a system is a
necessary step for
understanding its
behavior. The system is
described in terms of
its parameters like
factors, signal,
response, noise, etc. An
absence of variable
input/signal to the
system renders it as a
static system which are
dealt with the standard
designs discussed
earlier.
Example of Dynamic System Response

y
Example Case: Fuel Gauge Reading

Nonlinear
High
variation *
Response *
M y = *
Least Desirable (y) M *
* *
y *
*
* *
, *
* Slope
*
Linear *
Large variation *
M1 M2 M3
Signal (M)
M
Comparison of Strategies for Static and Dynamic
System

Static System: Tiger Woods putting golf balls

August 11, 2004
Top spot: Tiger Woods' hold on the world number one ranking is
more tenuous now.

Vijay Singh has been on Tiger's heels for some time now, and if
either Singh, or Ernie Ells were to win the PGA Championship,
Woods would relinquish his spot atop the rankings.

Dynamic System: Lance Armstrong

biking for Tour de France
Lance Armstrong rides into Paris,
collects record sixth consecutive
Tour title (Tour de France), Sunday
July 25, 2004 5:39PM

PARIS (AP) -- Lance Armstrong

raced onto the crowd-lined Champs-
Elysees as a yellow blur, bathed in
the shimmering light of a 24-carat,
gold-leaf bike, a golden helmet and
the race leader's yellow jersey.
Dynamic System Examples

Example Case: Voltage Measuring Instrument

*
Signal Factor (M): Response *
Battery voltage *
(y) *
Response (y): * y = *
Voltage reading * M
*
Notes: * *
* , *
Slope
*
*
*
M1 M2 M3
Signal (M)
Dynamic System Examples

Example Case: Weighing Scale Design

*
Signal Factor (M): Response *
Weight of subject *
(y) *
Response (y): * y = *
Indicated weight * M
*
* *
Notes: * , *
Weight indicated should be the same Slope
*
as weight of the subject. *
*
M1 M2 M3
Signal (M)
Where to Apply and Why

Apply early in the engineering design

stage to optimize process and product
designs

WHY?
Very high return on investment (ROI)
 Presented
by
Ranjit K. Roy, Ph.D., P.E. PMP, Fellow of ASQ., President, Nutek, Inc.
And
Suren N. Dwivedi,,Ph.D., P.E., Professor, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
University of Louisiana at Lafayette