jqtv21i2ullman

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Aufrufe

jqtv21i2ullman

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Business Research Meths Contents
- Black Belt Knowledge six sigma
- What Does Product and Service Design Do
- Injection Molding
- Gender Discrimination
- pubdoc_12_29420_1565
- Cost of Quality - 3 September, 2010 - Dr. Paramjit Kaur
- Etd
- Bn 34404407
- stat401ch15_01
- Between Within Stata Analysis
- Anova Lecture
- The Differential
- seleksi mundur
- qcc_ewma
- Sample Quiz9
- p
- Optimization of Extrusion Process for Production of Texturized Flaxseed Defatted Meal by Response Surface Methodology
- Annova.pdf
- R Anova

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

NEIL R. ULLMAN

The methodology of the design of experiments has primarily been used to study the effects of a set

of factors on the mean response. Two principal techniques used in such analyses are the Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) and the Analysis of Means (ANOM), the latter being primarily a graphical method.

While variability in expl:lriments has been studied to some extent, e.g. use of a components of variance

analysis, it is only recently that the purpose of some experiments has been the systematic study of

variability. Taguchi and others have introduced the use of SN or signal-to-noise ratios as the response

variable and this has encouraged research into alternative statistics to study processes. T aguchi has

stressed the use of combined level/variation statistics; others have argued for transformations of the

data andlor separate analyses of mean and variation. This paper presents a simple extension of the

ANOM, designated "Analysis of Ranges-ANOR," for the analysis of dispersion effects and the

interactive relationships of mean and variation. Tables are provided for simplifying the computation

of limits for ANOR.

TATISTICAL design techniques such as the ANOVA

Another alternative is to separately analyze location

and dispersion effects and then simultaneously eval

and the ANOM (see Ott [1967, 1975]) are used to

uate them. Nair and Pregibon (1986) present one such

examine the average response of a process with the

approach; this paper presents a simple alternate pro

purpose of either determining the process settings

cedure.

which optimize the average output or the variables

which influence the average response. The major in Analysis of Means-(ANOM)

terest in the variability has been limited to either

Ott (1967) proposed a simple graphical alternative

checking on the homogeneity of variance assumptions

to the Analysis of Variance for comparing means from

or to locate the major sources of variation in the re

planned factorial experimental designs. The proce

sponse (components of variance analysis). Tests such

dure uses an extension of a Shewhart control chart

as Cochran's, Bartlett's, and others are used to check

where the data are not assumed to occur in time-de

whether the variance is constant over treatment com

pendent fashion. In a one-way layout, all the sample

binations. When the variance is not constant, then

means are compared by the use of "decision limits"

variance stabilizing transformations are often used

which are similar to control limits but account for the

(see Scheffe [1959]). In the ANOM procedure a range

simultaneous comparison of all the means.

control chart can be used to determine when the con

stant variance assumption is reasonable. Larger factorial designs can also be analyzed; in

such designs all sample means for each factor are av

Recently, there has been increasing interest in

eraged at each level and graphically compared. Mul

studies to determine the process settings that minimize

tiple readings at each treatment combination are re

variability (Taguchi and Wu [1985]). The use of "SN"

quired in order to obtain an estimate of within-sample

or Signal to Noise ratios in various forms (Taguchi

variation (although Schilling [1973] does develop a

[1986], Kackar [1985]) has been suggested as the ap

technique to use when multiple readings are not

propriate statistic to use in the study of process vari

available). The decision limits are based upon the

ability. Much of the concern has been on whether to

number of comparisons to be made, the size of the

use a single preferred statistic, such as the SN ratio

samples, and the degrees of freedom of the variance

(Phadke et al. [1983]), or to analyze both signal and

estimate. Two-way interactions can also be evaluated.

noise separately. Box (1988) has proposed the use of

The Analysis of Means for variables data with mul

Mr. Ullman is a Professor of Mathematics and Mechanical tiple readings obtained at each treatment combination

Engineering Technology. He is a Senior Member of ASQC. involves the following:

1 12 NEIL R. ULLMAN

1. Determine an estimate of experimental error. the estimate of the standard deviation of an obser

This is generally found by averaging the ranges of vation,

each of the subgroups and computing

u = 4.54/2.08 = 2.18 (where d = 2.08, and has

U = R/d dj -- 0.9(p)(k)(r - 1) = 0.9(4)(2)(3) = 21.6).

(where d*2 is found, for example in Ott [1975]). To

Note that this compares very closely to V5.07 2.25

test homogeneity of variance, the ranges can be plot

=

ted on a range "control chart," using, the Da and D4

in the ANOVA presented in Snedecor and Cochran

control chart factors (ASTM [197J).

(1980). A "control chart" for ranges would show no

2. Compute the overall mean, X.

unusual values.

3. For each main effect, the average response for

2. The overall average or grand mean is X = 21.4.

each level is computed and graphed.

3. For each factor the average response is deter

4. The decision limits for the comparison of means

mined for each level:

are

low high

Ott (1975)

Ammonia 18.9 23.9

or Salt 18.9 23.8

X h"uxVCk - l)/k Schilling (1973) Dung 20.4 22.4.

where Ha and ha are found in the indicated references 4. Since each level has a total of 16 readings,

and

Ux = 2.18/Y16 = 0.545.

Ux = u/VPr

The number of comparisons are k = 2, and we find

(pr number of values at each level, where p num

= =

from Ott (1975)

ber of samples being averaged for each level and r

= number of replicates in each sample). Note that H" Hom = 1.48 and Hom = 2.01.

h,,/Vk where k number of levels or means

Limits are:

= =

being tested.

5. Usually 5% and 1% limits are computed and UDL = Upper Decision Limits = X + Haux

points lying outside any limit implies that these effects

are significant. LDL = Lower Decision Limits = X - Haux

Consider the full 23 factorial design replicated 4

LDLo.tJr, 21.4 - 0.8 20.6

times (in 4 blocks) in Snedecor and Cochran (1980).

= =

The experiment involved treatments of ammonia (A), UDLoOI = 21.4 + 1.1 = 22.5

salt (S), and dung (D) applied to crops of mangold

plants. The data are shown in Table 1. LDLool = 21.4 - 1.1 = 20.3.

Following the above steps: The points and limits are plotted in Figure 1a. Ob

1. The average range, R = 4.54, is computed using serve that the effects for all three factors are statis

the eight treatment combinations. From this we find tically significant. Interactions can also be tested.

15.5 1 8.5 20.2 18.6 16.9 1 7.8 27.6 28.6

17.0 20.1 1 6.7 22.3 1 9. 5 18.6 29.1 28.7

11.7 1 9.2 20.7 21 . 1 21.9 1 9.0 25.4 28.5

THE ANALYSIS OF MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 1 13

25 part of the ANOM.

2. Determine the estimated standard error for the

24

range UR' This is a function of the number of replicates

23 r and is given by

.01

22 .05

"a

Gi where DR is provided in Table 2. This table is an ex

): 21

.05

.01 panded version of the one presented in Ott (1975, Ta

20

ble 13-10) or the Biometrika Tables (Pearson and Hartley

19 [1954, pg 46]) where these are listed as the standard

error of the range estimator of u.

18

3. The average range is found for each level of each

+ + +

main effect and is plotted.

Ammonia Salt Dung

4. Decision limits for the "Analysis of Range Chart"

FIGURE 1 a. are found essentially in the same way as for the

ANOM. First we calculate UIi, the estimated standard

error for the average range, as

Extension to Analysis of Ranges UIi = UR/VP = DRR/VP

Ott (1975, pp. 260-264) proposed that the ANOM where p is the number of subgroups or ranges in each

approach could be used to compare variability. This average range.

section suggests a procedure which can be used to

Then the decision limits are

examine whether variability varies with factor levels.

In this procedure the sample ranges for each level of RH"UIi

each main effect are averaged and compared to see if

or

significant differences exist. The procedure can be

used to find combinations of factor levels for which

variability is smallest.

where the H" is the same as previously defined.

The method uses the ANOM approach to analyze

the average ranges. Two alternative methods are pre Beta Approximation

sented for determining the decision limits; in the first In the Appendix a beta approximation to the dis

the limits are based on a normal approximation and tribution of the mean range ratios is developed and

in the second they are based on a more exact proce used to provide decision limits for the mean range. A

dure using a beta approximation to the distribution table of factors for determining the upper and lower

of mean ranges. decision limits for the mean range is given in Table

12. These factors are labeled Hu and HL, respectively,

Nonnal Approximation

and depend on the number of replications (r), the

It is known from the central limit theorem that number of samples in each average range (p), and the

means, even from very non-normal distributions, rap

idly approach normality as the sample size increases.

Thus, while the range is not normally distributed, the

means of ranges would be approximately normal. For TABLE 2. DR Fact ors f or ANOR

each factor in a two- or higher-way factorial design

Number of Replicates r

with replication there will be several sample ranges

from which an average range can be obtained. For 2 0.756

example, in a 23 experiment there are four treatment 3 0.524

combinations (groups) within each level. For each 4 0.428

5 0.371

group a range can be computed from the replicates

6 0.335

yielding four sampIe ranges for each level of the three 7 0.308

factors. The four ranges are averaged together for each 8 0.288

of the two levels and then compared. 9 0.272

10 0.259

The analysis procedure is as follows:

1 14 NEIL R. ULLMAN

number of comparisons (k). The decision limits for These decision limits are shown in Figure lb. From

the ANOR are then found as Table 12 with r = 4, P = 4, k = 2, the critical factors

using the beta approximations are

UDL = HuR

HL Hu

LDL = HLR.

0.05 0.709 1.291

Example 1 (Continued)

0.01 0.623 1.377.

We analyze, in Example 1, the average ranges for

each factor, first using the limits based on the normal When multiplied by R, these yield

approximation and then using the beta approxima LDL UDL

tion.

0.05 3.22 5.86

1. The average range is R = 4.54.

0.01 2.83 6.25.

2. The estimated standard error of the range is

These provide slightly tighter limits and are indicated

Ui/ 0.428(4.54) = 1.94.

in the margin of Figure 1b as alternate limits.

=

3. The average range at each level for each factor We will refer to this as the Analysis of Ranges here

is after abbreviated ANOR. The ANOR graph shows that

Low High at the 0.05 level the only significant difference in the

ranges is for the salt factor. Thus, we see that the

Ammonia 4.38 4.70

addition of salt significantly increases the yield and

Salt 5.95 3.12

reduces the variability. Ammonia significantly in

Dung 5.08 4.00.

creases the yield but has no affect on variability while

These are plotted in Figure lb. the presence of dung reduces the variability but not

4. The estimated standard error of the average significantly. (One other possibility is that there may

range is be some outliers among the data.)

The HOOG and Ho.ol values are as before and the decision for Consistency of Variation

limits using the normal approximation are

The Analysis of Ranges can be used to examine

0.05 level 4.54 1.48 (0.97) = 4.54 1.44 nonuniformity in variation. Its application will be

0.01 level 4.54 2.01 (0.97) = 4.54 1.95 demonstrated through two examples, one dealing with

an outlier and the other for evaluating the need and

or

success of a variance stabilizing transformation.

UDL LDL

0.01 2.59 6.49.

The first, example two, from Snedecor and Cochran

(1980, p. 280) is a simple one-way analysis consisting

RANGES of four treatment levels of one factor (in four blocks)

which contained a suspected outlier. The data are

7 ,------,

provided in Table 3. An analysis of the data by Sne

.01

6 .05 decor and Cochran using a statistic called the MNR

showed an apparent outlier (p < 0.01) whose value is

5 1.04, The ANOR procedure can be used even though

it is an extreme case (we have only one range for each

4 level of the single factor).

1. The ranges for the four levels are 0.03, 0.31, 0.04,

3 .05

and 0.07. The average range is R = 0.112 (with dj

.01

- 0.9(4)(3) 10.8).

=

2-r--_.----r_--._--_r--_.

+ +

2. Each sample consists of one range, therefore p

+

Ammonia Salt Dung = 1 and

THE ANALYSIS OF MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 115

TABLE 3. Example 2-Ratio of Dry to Wet Grain TABLE 4. Example 3-Survival Times

Nitrogen Applied at Different Times

Original Data Transformed Data

Remedies Remedies

None Early Middle Late

A B C D A B C D

0.72 0.73 0.73 0.79

0.72 0.78 0.72 0.72

Poison

0.70 1 . 04 0.76 0.76

0.31 0.82 0.43 0.45 3. 226 1 .220 2.326 2.222

0.73 0.76 0.74 0.78

0.45 1.10 0.45 0.71 2.222 0.909 2.222 1.408

0.46 0.88 0.63 0.66 2. 1 74 1 .136 1.587 1.515

0.43 0.72 0.76 0.62 2.326 1.389 1.316 1 . 61 3

Since HO.05 = 2.58 and HO.01 = 3.43, the decision limits II 0.36 0.92 0.44 0.56 2.778 1 . 087 2.273 1 .786

are 0.29 0.61 0.35 1.02 3.448 1.639 2.957 0.980

0.40 0.49 0.31 0.71 2.500 2.041 3.226 1.408

UDLo05 = 0.112 + 0.124 = 0.236 0.23 1 .24 0.40 0.38 4.348 0.806 2.500 2.632

UDLo01 = 0.112 + 0.164 = 0.276

0.21 0.37 0.25 0.36 4:762 2.703 4.000 2.778

LDLo.05 = 0.112 - 0.124 = 0 0.18 0.38 0.24 0.31 5.556 2.632 4. 1 67 3.226

0.23 0.29 0.22 0.33 4.348 3.448 4.545 3.030

LDLo.01 = 0.112 - 0.164 = O.

A technique used to stabilize variability is to per

Alternately, if we refer to Table 12 to obtain the

0.05 and 0.01 values of HL and Hu which are 0.282, form some type of transformation on the data. This

0.200,2.023,and 2.254,respectively,then the decision is usually appropriate when the means and variances

(or standard deviations) are correlated. The ANOR

limits using the beta approximation are

technique can be used to determine if such (j trans

UDLo.,Jr, = 2.023(0.112) = 0.227 formation is needed and then to evaluate whether it

was successful in stabilizing the variance.

UDLoo] = 2.254(0.112) = 0.252

Example 3

LDLoo" = 0.282(0.112) = 0.032

Example three is taken from Section 7.7 of Box,

LDLoo] = 0.200(0.112) = 0.022. Hunter, and Hunter (1978). The survival times of an

Figure 2 is an ANOR plot. The second point is well imals given three poisons and four treatments (which

beyond the 0.01 significance level limit confirming the I will call remedies to avoid confusion with treatment

result cited above. Using the alternate limits, we also effects) are presented. This is analyzed as a 3 X 4 rep

find that one value is significantly low. Again, we can licated factorial experiment (4 replicates). The data

see the advantage of the ANOR in that it not only are listed in Table 4. Both main effects of poisons and

indicates that something is significant but it points remedies and the interaction between poisons and

out where the significance lies. remedies were significant. A reciprocal transformation

was then used which resulted in an increase in the

significance of the main effects and the elimination

0.40 of the significance of the interaction.

The ranges and averages over the four replicates

0.30 for each factor level are given in Table 5. Computa

.01

tions for the ANOM and the ANOR limits are shown

., .05 in Table 6 for both the original data and the trans

Cl

c 0.20

01

a:

formed values.

The ANOM for the original means is displayed in

0.10

Figure 3a and shows the significant poisons and sig

.05

nificant remedies. In Figure 3b an ANOR is provided

0.00 .01

for the same data set. Note that the magnitudes of the

None Early Middle Late

ranges and hence the variances are significantly dif

Times ferent for different poisons (p < 0.01) as well as rem

FIGURE 2. edies (p < 0.05). The authors, recognizing that the

116 NEIL R. ULLMAN

variability may be dependent on the mean level, used TABLE 6. ANOM and ANOR Calculations for Example 3

a reciprocal transformation and reanaiyzed the data.

df - 0.9(k)(r - 1) = 0.9(12)(3) 32 d; = 2.07

=

An examination of the ANOM and the ANOR charts

Comparisons (k) 3 4

in Figures 3a and 3b shows that there is a degree of 2.04 2.28

HOD5

parallelism or consistency between the two charts, Ho.OI 2.58 2.85

indicating that the level of variability may be depen

dent on the mean. Means

In Figure 3c and 3d are the ANOM and ANOR charts Original Transformed

for the transformed values. Observe that the same U = R/d2 0.253/2.07 = 0.122 1.014/2.07 = 0.490

type of significance occurs in the means chart for the

original and transformed data, except that the points Ui = u/Vp;.

and lines are mirror images of one another in the two Poisons 0.122/m = 0.031 0.122

Remedies 0.122/v12 0.035 0.141

charts owing to the reciprocal transformation. How =

ever, the range chart for the transformed data now Limits: X H.ui

shows no points beyond the limits as the transfor Poisons

mation has removed or reduced the dependence be 0.05 0.416-0.542 2.371-2.869

tween the mean and the variance. 0.01 0.399-0.559 2.305-2.935

Remedies

Examining Signal and Noise 0.399-0.559 2.299-2.941

0.05

Considerable work in the analysis of experimental 0.D1 0.379-0.579 2.305-2.935

designs is now being undertaken in a format proposed

Ranges

by Taguchi (1986) based on the use of replicated frac

tional factorial designs. The results are analyzed by ua = DaR = 0.428R 0.108 0.434

computing sample averages, estimated standard de Uii =uRVP

viations, and a signal to noise ratio (SN) which may Poisons 0.054 0.217

Remedies 0.062 0.251

be a function of log(x/s). Several different SN func

tions have been proposed (Kackar [1985]) with the se Limits

lection depending on whether the objective is to re Poisons

0.05 0.143-0.363 0.571-1.457

duce the mean (smaller is better), increase the mean

0.01 0.114-0.392 0.454-1.574

(larger is better), or aim for a target. The means and Remedies

the SN values are then subjected to ANOVA calcula 0.05 0.112-0.394 0.442-1.586

tions and special graphs plotted. 0.D1 0.076-0.430 0.299-1.729

As an alternate approach, the means and the vari Alternate Method for finding limits for ANOR Charts

ances can be analyzed separately through the use of Poisons (k = 3, P = 4)

0.05 0.614(0.253) 0.155 = 0.622

ANOM and ANOR charts. This is appropriate, since

1.434(0.253) = 0.363 1.454

0.01 0.540(0.253) 0.137 = 0.548

1.536(0.253) 0.389 = 1.558

TABLE 5. Averages for Various Factor Levels Remedies (k = 4, P = 3)

for Example 3 0.05 0.529(0.253) = 0.134 0.536

1.576(0.253) = 0.399 1.598

Original Transformed 0.01 0.453(0.253) = 0.115 0.459

1.708(0.253) = 0.432 1.732

Factor Mean Range Mean Range

Poison

I 0.618 0.280 1.80 0.839 there are multiple readings for each treatment com

II 0.544 0.422 2.27 1.422 bination. Furthermore, although we can consider the

III 0.276 0.058 3.80 0.782 ANOM chart for studying the mean response or signal

Remedy and the ANOR chart for studying the response vari

A 0.314 0.123 3.52 1.369 ability or noise separately, it would be more efficient

B 0.677 0.407 1.86 0.844 to examine the two charts together. We then find five

C 0.392 0.163 2.95 0.836 possible situations for each main effect:

D 0.438 0.320 2.16 1.007

Case 1. Neither signal nor noise are significant.

Average 0.479 0.253 2.62 1.014

Case 2. Only Signal is significant.

THE ANALYSIS OF MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 117

0.7 2 ------,

.01

0.6 .01 .05

.05

0.5

c X Q)

III Cl

R

Q) C

:E III

a:

0.4 .05

.01

.05

0.3

.01

0.2 O'----r---.---'-------'-

II III A B c D II III A B C D

Poison Remedy Poison Remedy

Range Original

Case 4. Both are significant in a "complementary"

0.50 way. By complementary it is meant that the signal

.01 and noise change in such a way as to possibly provide

0.40 .05 an enhanced effect. Thus, if a decrease in signal level

is desirable (or easily adjusted for through another

Q) 0.30 factor) and the noise decreases at the same time along

Cl

c with the signal, this is a desirable coupling of the signal

III

a:

0.20 and noise. However, if the SN is computed as a mean

(signal) over noise (variation), this ratio may not show

.05

0.10 significant differences in either signal or noise. In such

.01

situations significant factors may be overlooked.

0.00 Case 5. Both are significant but in an "interactive"

II III A B c D or inverse way. A decrease in noise is generally con

Poison Remedy sidered desirable. If on the other hand the signal acts

in an opposite or less desirable way (which will depend

FIGURE 3b.

on the goals of the experiment), the combination may

vary in such a way that the root cause is difficult to

assess. Furthermore, the SN ratio may become ex

aggerated. The ratio of a small mean and large vari

Means Transformed

ation would yield a small SN; increasing the mean

4 ------

and simultaneously decreasing the variation might

then create a significant increase in the SN ratio.

.01

It is not intuitively clear how SN ratios for Cases 4

3 and 5 can be used if the objectives are "smaller is

.05

X better" or "larger is better" and the subsequent SN

.05 functions are not just ratios of the mean and variation.

2 .01 This will be pointed out again in the examples. Two

examples will be considered here.

Example 4

Example four comes from Quinlan (1985). In this

II III A B C D

experiment, an LI6 orthogonal array which is a frac

Polson Remedy

tional factorial design was used to evaluate 15 factors

FIGURE 3c. for their effects on the shrinkage of a speedometer

1 18 NEIL R. ULLMAN

2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.55 0.60 0.57 0.58 0.575 0.05

3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.088 0.04

4 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.175 0.03

5 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 0.13 0.22 0.20 0.23 0.195 0.10

6 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.145 0.05

7 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.25 0.225 0.06

8 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.175 0.06

9 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.120 0.12

10 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0.07 0.04 0.19 0.18 0.120 0.15

11 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 0.48 0.49 0.44 0.41 0.455 0.08

12 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.535 0.01

13 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.17 0.170 0.08

14 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.275 0.04

15 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.41 0.342 0.11

16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.58 0.62 0.59 0.54 0.582 0.08

0.2914 0.0719

casing. Four samples were taken at each of the 16 test values, and the mean and range for each set of

combinations of settings and SN ratios were calculated conditions is presented. For each factor the average

for each of these sets of conditions. In this case smaller response and average range at the low and high

is "better" since we want to minimize shrinkage. levels respectively are presented in Table 8.

Quinlan analyzed -10 log[l/n y2] using analysis of The ANOM and ANOR limits are listed in Table 9

variance. Box (1988) used this data set to argue that and the graphs are provided in Figures 4a and 4b.

it would be more appropriate to transform the data Note that the limits for the ANOM are based on sam

prior to analysis. His results differed from Quinlan's ples of size 32 (each mean based on 32 values) while

regarding which of the factors might be interpreted the ANOR limits are computed from the averages of

as being significant. eight values.

The ANOM and ANOR can be applied to this type

of data. In Table 7 the layout of the design array, the

TABLE 9. ANOM and ANOR Limits for Example 4

TABLE 8. Average Means and Average Ranges

k 2 H.o" = 1.43 HOI = 1.91 X = 0.2914

for Each Factor Level-Example 4

=

Ui = 0.0345/\"32 = 0.0061

Means Ranges

ANOM:

.05 UDL 0.2914 + 1.43(0.0061) 0.2914 + 0.0087 0.3001

1 (-) (+) 1 (-) (+)

= = =

Factor 2 2

LDL = 0.2914 - 1.43(0.0061) 0.2914 - 0.0087

= = 0.2826

0.1 UDL 0.2914 + 1.91(0.0061) = 0.3031

A Liner O.D. 0.258 0.325 0.060 0.084

=

0.319 0.264 0.071 0.072

=

B Liner Die

C Liner Material 0.337 0.246 0.065 0.079 ANOR:

D Liner Line Speed 0.261 0.322 0.085 0.059 UR = 0.428(0.0719) = 0.0308 p = 8 Uji = 0.0308/Vs = 0.0109

E Wire Braid Type 0.414 0.168 0.071 0.072

F Braiding Tension 0.328 0.255 0.090 0.054 0.05 UDL 0.0719

= + 1.43(0.0109) 0.0719 + 0.0156 0.0875

= =

= - 1.43(0.0109) = 0.0719 - 0.0156 = 0.0563

H Liner Tension 0.260 0.323 0.085 0.059 0.01 UDL = 0.0719 + 1.91(0.0109) = 0.0927

I Liner Temp 0.313 0.270 0.071 0.072 LDL = 0.0719 - 1.91(0.0109) = 0.0511

J Coating Material 0.291 0.292 0.070 0.074

Alternate ANOR limits: (r = 4, k = 2, P = 8)

K Coating Die Type 0.258 0.325 0.074 0.070

L Melt Temp 0.305 0.278 0.071 0.072 0.05 UDL = 1.208(0.0719) = 0.0869

M Screen Pack 0.278 0.305 0.082 0.061 LDL 0.792(0.0719) 0.0569

= =

N Cooling Method 0.288 0.295 0.064 0.080 0.01 UDL = 1.271(0.0719) = 0.0914

0 Line Speed 0.295 0.288 0.078 0.066 LDL = 0.729(0.0719) 0.0524 =

THE ANALYSIS OF MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 119

Means

0. 4 0 -

0.01

030

. __ X

0.01

0.2 0

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N o

FACTORS

FIGURE 4a.

Ranges

1. 00

0.01

0.9 0

0.05

0.8 0

r!i

e s

.-

0.7 0 R

:;;:...l

0.60

0.05

05

. 0 0.01

0. 40

- + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N o

FACTORS

FIGURE 4b.

120 NEIL R. ULLMAN

Case 1. Neither-J, L, M, N, 0

Example five comes from Phadke et al. (1983)

Case 2. Signal-Very Significant-E (hereafter abbreviated as Phadke). An L81 design was

Significant-C, K (B and I just significant) arranged to study the pre- and post-etch line widths

Case 3. Noise-none alone of microprocessor chips. The effects of the eight fac

Case 4. Complementary-Very Significant Effect F (both

tors (three at two levels and five at three levels) and

significant)

A (Signal is just significant, noise is

one interaction were estimated. Eighteen experiments

near significant) were performed with two wafers produced for each

Case 5. Interactive-G-This is very significant for signal and condition and five readings taken on each wafer.

near significant for noise in an

offsetting way

Since each condition has multiple readings,we are

able to apply the ANOM and ANOR to this data. The

ANOM follows the standard procedures described

previously. Each wafer is treated as a separate sample

and the range of the five readings is used in the ANOR

Since smaller is better, we search for conditions analysi&.

which decrease the absolute shrinkage as well as the

variability of the shrinkage value. Initially the charts Figure 5 shows the graphs for the pre-etch values.

are examined separately to observe which factors Since some of the factors have two levels and others

might be significant. On the signal or means graph have three, the number of samples averaged for each

(4a) two factors,E(wire braid) and G (wire diameter), point varies. Thus, the width of the decision limits

are highly significant. Eight additional factors are sta varies. In addition,the "BD" interaction includes only

tistically significant at the p < 0.01 level, but show three combinations of the two levels of Band D with

relatively small effects compared to E and G. (Two the result that the two levels of Band D do not have

other factors,Land M, are also just barely significant equal sample sizes.

at the p < 0.01 level.) The ANOR chart, which iden The relative importance of signal, noise, or their

tifies noise effects, shows one factor F as highly sig combination were examined for each factor. The ob

nificant (p < 0.01), and four other factors (A, D,G, and jective is to have the mean on target and the variation

H) as close to significant at the p = 0.05 level. as small as possible. In Phadke the SN was computed

The joint evaluation of the ANOM and ANOR is as a function of mean/standard deviation. Observe

shown in Table 10. Quinlan listed the order of impor that a Case 4 effect can end up with a SN ratio which

tance of the factors to be does not vary for the two levels, while a Case 5 effect

will greatly exaggerate the SN ratio. The joint ex

E (most important), G, K, A, C, and F (slight). amination of the two graphs together can avoid such

confusion. Table 11 summarizes the significant factors

Box (1988) suggested only E and G as important fac for this example.

tors. Phadke found that factors A, B, and C have signifi

With the ANOM/ANOR analysis, E is also found to cant effects on the mean pre-etch value while A and

be the most important effect. Factor G, wire diameter, F affect the SN. Except for factor G, for which the

is an important signal effect but there is an unclear mean (or signal) appears to be almost as significant

choice of optimum level since using level 2,the larger as C, and the ability to see the interactive relationship

diameter, decreases the magnitude of the shrinkage between signal and noise for factor A,the two analyses

but at the same time may cause an increase in the yield similar results. Nair and Pregibon (1986) also

variation. Factor F, braiding tension,is also important, found similar relationships using another type of lo

significantly affecting both the amount and variation cation-dispersion plot.

of shrinkage in a complementary way. An analysis was also performed on the post-etch

Although the assignment of appropriate levels for data. The factors are the same as before except for

these and the other factors yield essentially the same the addition of I, etch time. Figure 6 shows the ANOM

results as reported by Quinlan, the basis for making and ANOR for these results. The significant effects for

decisions on the levels to choose are more intuitive. signal are A (smaller than the rest), C, G, H, and B

In addition, we have the opportunity to see any re (again after separation from BD). Four, or possibly

lationships between the signal and noise. five, factors show significant noise effects-A,F, G, H,

THE ANALYSIS O F MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 12 1

SIGNAL

3. 00

290

.

(115)

2.80

0.01

2.70 X

0.01

2.60

(110)

2.50

2.40

23

. 0

(56)

220

.

A BD C E F G H B D

FACTORS

FIGURE 50.

0.36 NOISE

03

. 4 0.01

0.32- 0.05

0.30 (11)

0.28

.g

E

en

R

0.26 .g .

;(....:1

02

. 4

02

.2

0.05

020

.

0.01

01

. 8

A BD C E F G H B D

FACTORS

FIGURE 5b.

122 NEIL R. ULLMAN

1. Neither- I

2. Signal-Highly BD (B, D), G, G B, G

Slightly- H E

3. Noise-Highly F F

Slightly- E

4. Complementary-Highly- A G (Somewhat), H

5. Interactive- A, D

h. Organized by Factor Pre-Etch Post-Etch

GSpin Speed "S "S very signif

E Bake Time N barely significant S barely signif

F Aperture " N signif-S barely N somewhat signif

G Exposure Time "S "S & N signif , complement

H Developing Time Neither significant 'S & N signif, complement

I Etch Time Neither

Band D separated from the BD effect-the limits on the graph must be examined

carefully since the sample sizes are not the same for each level.

D Bake Temp Signal

and possibly D. The particular set of noise factors dis Concluding Remarks

covered here differs greatly with the conclusions of

Phadke, who found no factors affecting SN-his ver The ANOM and ANOR have been studied primarily

sion of the variation effect. Three of these factors, A, for cases with balanced experimental designs. How

G, and H are thus significant for both signal and noise. ever, work is being done to examine cases where the

We can also see that for factor A the signal and noise number of samples or sample sizes vary for each level,

act i the same way while for factors G and H, the as well as for cases in which there are missing data.

signal and noise act in opposite ways. These problems were evident in studying the Phadke

If we compare the pre- and post-etch graphs we data, especially for the Band D factors.

find that the signal effects operate in almost identical Further work is being done to investigate the use

fashion. This does not happen with the noise effects of standard deviations rather than ranges. Tables for

however. For factor A with the pre-etch data, the noise use with standard deviations are being developed.

at the low level is significantly low in value while However, in spite of the current availability of com

with the post-etch data, the noise at the low level is putational equipment which makes calculating very

significantly high. Factor F is unchanged from pre simple, a compelling reason for the continued use of

etch to post-etch. Factors G and H were hot significant the range is the ease of understanding it by the prac

in the pre-etch but are significant in the post-etch. titioner or more casual user. Furthermore, the sample

Although Phadke states that "ideally the signal fac sizes used in the Taguchi experiments typically are

tor should have no effect on the SN," we might take no greater than four or five and in these small sample

this as meaning that there should be no effect of signal size cases the range is a highly efficient estimator of

on the variation. In the post-etch analysis the signif the standard deviation.

icant noise effect due to G was missed, probably due It is important that we provide useful but simple

to using an ANOVA for SN where the error term was statistical techniques for general use. Industry has

very large (and all factors had mean squares less than undertaken major training programs in the broad use

the error mean square). of control chart methodologies. There is now a resur-

SIGNAL

3.70

36

. 0

35

. 0

3.4 0

33

. 0 0.01

X

32

. 0 0.01

3. 10

3. 00

2.90

2.8 0

12 23 123 23 23 23 123 23 12 12

A SD C E F G H I S D

FACTORS

FIGURE 60.

06

. 0 0.01

0.05

05

. 0

0.4 0

0.05

0.01

03

. 0

A SD C E F G H I S D

FACTORS

FIGURE 6b.

TABLE 12. ANOR Limits Using Beta Approximation

Replicates = 2

k

Com parisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

1) L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.156 1.844 0.068 2.438 0.053 2.795 0.044 3.058 0.038 3.263 0.034 3. 431

0.01 0.061 1.939 0.027 2.650 0.207 3.125 0.017 3.474 0.015 3.745 0.014 3.965

2 0.05 0.334 1.666 0.206 2.073 0.178 2.286 0.160 2.440 0.148 2.558 0.138 2.653

0.01 0.202 1.798 0.126 2.284 0.108 2.564 0.097 2.761 0.090 2.911 0.085 3.030

3 0.05 0.436 1.564 0.305 1.886 0.272 2.046 0.251 2.159 0.236 2.246 0.225 2.316

0.01 0.305 1.695 0.214 2.076 0.190 2.280 0.176 2.423 0.166 2.530 0.158 2.614

4 0.05 0. 503 1.497 0.375 1.770 0.341 1.900 0.319 1.992 0.303 2.063 0.292 2.119

0.01 0.377 1.623 0.282 1.941 0.256 2.106 0.240 2.219 0.228 2.304 0.220 2.371

5 0.05 0.550 1.450 0.427 1.690 0.393 1.801 0.371 1.880 0.355 1.939 0.343 1.987

0.01 0.432 1.568 0.336 1.846 0.309 1.985 0.292 2.058 0.279 2.151 0.270 2.208

6 0.05 0.587 1.413 0.468 1.630 0.434 1.728 0.413 1.797 0.397 1.850 0.385 1.892

0.01 0.474 1.526 0.379 1.774 0.352 1.895 0.331 1.978 0.322 2.040 0.312 2.089

7 0.05 0.615 1.385 0.502 1.583 0.468 1.671 0.447 1.734 0.432 1.781 0.420 1.818

0.01 0.509 1.491 0.415 1.717 0.387 1.826 0.370 1.900 0.357 1.955 0.347 1.998

8 0.05 0.639 1.361 0.529 1.545 0.497 1.626 0.476 1.683 0.461 1.726 0.449 1.760

0.01 0.537 1.463 0.445 1.671 0.418 1.770 0.400 1.837 0.387 1.887 0.378 1.926

10 0.05 0.675 1.325 0.573 1.486 0.542 1.557 0.522 1.605 0.507 1.642 0.496 1.672

0.01 0.582 1.418 0.494 1.560 0.467 1.684 0.449 1.742 0.437 1.784 0.427 1.817

12 0.05 0.703 1.297 0.606 1.443 0.577 1.506 0.557 1.549 0.543 1.582 0.532 1.608

0.01 0.616 1.384 0.532 1.547 0.505 1.622 0.488 1.672 0.475 1.709 0.466 1.738

14 0.05 0.724 1.276 0.633 1.410 0.604 1.466 0.585 1.506 0.572 1.535 0.561 1.559

0.01 0.642 1.358 0.562 1.506 0.536 1.573 0.519 1.618 0.507 1.652 0.498 1.678

16 0.05 0.741 1.259 0.654 1.383 0.627 1.435 0.609 1.471 0.596 1.498 0.586 1.520

0.01 0.664 1.336 0.587 1.473 0.561 1.534 0.545 1.575 0.533 1.606 0.524 1.629

20 0.05 0.768 1.232 0.688 1.342 0.663 1.387 0.646 1.418 0.633 1.442 0.624 1.461

0.01 0.698 1.302 0.626 1.422 0.602 1.475 0.586 1.510 0.575 1.536 0.567 1.557

Replicates = 3

k

Comparisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

P L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.343 1.657 0.215 2.055 0.186 2.263 0.168 2.412 0.155 2.527 0.146 2.620

0.01 0.211 1.789 0.133 2.265 0.115 2.536 0.104 2.728 0.096 2.873 0.090 2.989

2 0.05 0.511 1.489 0.383 1.757 0.349 1.884 0.327 1.973 0.312 2.041 0.300 2.096

0.01 0.386 1.614 0.291 1.925 0.265 2.085 0.248 2.195 0.237 2.278 0.228 2.343

3 0.05 0.594 1.406 0.476 1.618 0.443 1.714 0.421 1.782 0.405 1.833 0.393 1.874

0.01 0.483 1.517 0.388 1.760 0.360 1.878 0.328 1.959 0.330 2.020 0.320 2.067

4 0.05 0.645 1.355 0.537 1.535 0.504 1.614 0.483 1.669 0.468 1.711 0.457 1.745

0.01 0.545 1.455 0.454 1.659 0.426 1.755 0.408 1.821 0.395 1.869 0.386 1.907

5 0.05 0.681 1.319 0.580 1.477 0.549 1.546 0.529 1.594 0.514 1.630 0.503 1.659

0.01 0.589 1.411 0.502 1.589 0.474 1.671 0.457 1.727 0.445 1.768 0.435 1.801

6 0.05 0.708 1.292 0.613 1.435 0.583 1.496 0.564 1.538 0.550 1.570 0.539 1.596

0.01 0.622 1.378 0.539 1.537 0.512 1.610 0.495 1.659 0.483 1.695 0.474 1.723

7 0.05 0.729 1.271 0.639 1.402 0.611 1.458 0.592 1.496 0.579 1.525 0.568 1.548

0.01 0.649 1.351 0.569 1.497 0.543 1.562 0.526 1.606 0.514 1.639 0.505 1.664

8 0.05 0.746 1.254 0.660 1.376 0.633 1.427 0.615 1.462 0.602 1.488 0.592 1.509

0.01 0.670 1.330 0.593 1.464 0.568 1.524 0.552 1.564 0.540 1.594 0.531 1.617

10 0.05 0.772 1.228 0.694 1.335 0.668 1.380 0.651 1.410 0.639 1.433 0.630 1.452

0.01 0.704 1.297 0.632 1.414 0.608 1.466 0.593 1.500 0.582 1.526 0.573 1.546

12 0.05 0.792 1.208 0.719 1.305 0.695 1.345 0.679 1.373 0.667 1.393 0.658 1.409

0.01 0.728 1.272 0.661 1.377 0.639 1.423 0.624 1.454 0.613 1.477 0.605 1.494

14 0.05 0.807 1.193 0.738 1.282 0.716 1.319 0.701 1.343 0.690 1.362 0.681 1.377

0.01 0.748 1.252 0.684 1.349 0.663 1.390 0.649 1.418 0.639 1.439 0.631 1.455

16 0.05 0.819 1.181 0.754 1.264 0.733 1.297 0.719 1.320 0.708 1.337 0.700 1.351

0.01 0.764 1.236 0.703 1.326 0.682 1.364 0.669 1.389 0.659 1.408 0.652 1.423

20 0.05 0.838 1.162 0.779 1.235 0.759 1.265 0.746 1.285 0.736 1.300 0.729 1.312

0.01 0.788 1.212 0.733 1.290 0.713 1.324 0.701 1.346 0.692 1.362 0.685 1.375

TABLE 12-Conti nued

Replicates = 4

k

Comparisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

P L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.446 1.554 0.315 1.869 0.282 2.023 0.261 2.133 0.246 2.217 0.235 2.285

0.01 0.315 1.685 0.223 2.056 0.2 2.254 0.185 2.391 0.175 2.495 0.167 2.576

2 0.05 0.595 1.405 0.477 1.617 0.444 1.712 0.422 1.779 0.407 1.83 0.395 1.871

0.01 0.484 1.516 0.389 1.758 0.361 1.876 0.344 1.957 0.331 2.016 0.322 2.064

3 0.05 0.665 1.335 0.561 1.502 0.529 1.576 0.509 1.626 0.494 1.665 0.483 1.696

0.01 0.569 1.431 0.48 1.619 0.453 1.708 0.435 1.768 0.423 1.812 0.413 1.847

4 0.05 0.709 1.291 0.614 1.434 0.584 1.495 0.565 1.537 0.551 1.569 0.54 1.594

0.01 0.623 1.377 0.54 1.536 0.513 1.608 0.496 1.657 0.484 1.693 0.475 1.721

5 0.05 0.739 1.261 0.651 1.387 0.623 1.44 0.605 1.477 0.592 1.504 0.582 1.526

0.01 0.661 1.339 0.583 1.478 0.557 1.54 0.541 1.582 0.529 1.613 0.52 1.637

6 0.05 0.761 1.239 0.679 1.353 0.653 1.4 0.636 1.433 0.623 1.457 0.613 1.477

0.01 0.689 1.311 0.615 1.436 0.591 1.491 0.575 1.528 0.564 1.555 0.555 1.577

7 0.05 0.778 1.222 0.701 1.326 0.676 1.369 0.66 1.399 0.648 1.421 0.638 1.439

0.01 0.711 1.289 0.614 1.403 0.617 1.453 0.602 1.486 0.591 1.511 0.583 1.53

8 0.05 0.792 1.208 0.719 1.305 0.695 1.344 0.68 1.371 0.668 1.392 0.659 1.408

0.01 0.729 1.271 0.662 1.376 0.639 1.422 0.625 1.453 0.614 1.475 0.606 1.493

10 0.05 0.814 1.186 0.747 1.272 0.725 1.306 0.711 1.33 0.7 1.348 0.692 1.362

0.01 0.757 1.243 0.695 1.336 0.674 1.375 0.66 1.402 0.65 1.421 0.643 1.437

12 0.05 0.83 1.17 0.768 1.248 0.748 1.279 0.734 1.3 0.724 1.316 0.716 1.329

0.01 0.778 1.222 0.72 1.306 0.7 1.341 0.687 1.365 0.678 1.382 0.67 1.396

14 0.05 0.842 1.158 0.785 1.229 0.765 1.257 0.752 1.277 0.743 1.291 0.736 1.303

0.01 0.794 1.206 0.739 1.283 0.72 1.315 0.708 1.336 0.699 1.352 0.692 1.364

16 0.05 0.853 1.147 0.798 1.214 0.78 1.24 0.767 1.258 0.758 1.272 0.751 1.282

0.01 0.807 1.193 0.755 1.264 0.737 1.294 0.725 1.313 0.717 1.328 0.71 1.339

20 0.05 0.868 1.132 0.819 1.191 0.802 1.214 0.791 1.23 0.782 1.242 0.776 1.251

0.01 0.827 1.173 0.78 1.235 0.763 1.261 0.752 1.279 0.744 1.291 0.738 1.301

Replicates = 5

k

Comparisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

p L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.510 1.490 0.383 1.757 0.349 1.884 0.327 1.974 0.312 2.042 0.300 2.097

0.01 0.386 1.614 0.290 1.926 0.264 2.086 0.248 2.196 0.236 2.279 0.227 2.344

2 0.05 0.645 1.355 0.536 1.535 0.504 1.615 0.483 1.670 0.468 1.712 0.456 1.746

0.01 0.544 1.456 0.453 1.659 0.425 1.756 0.408 1.821 0.395 1.870 0.385 1.908

3 0.05 0.708 1.292 0.612 1.436 0.583 1.497 0.564 1.539 0.550 1.571 0.539 1.597

0.01 0.622 1.378 0.538 1.537 0.512 1.610 0.495 1.659 0.483 1.696 0.473 1.724

4 0.05 0.746 1.254 0.660 1.376 0.633 1.427 0.615 1.462 0.602 1.489 0.592 1.510

0.01 0.670 1.330 0.593 1.464 0.568 1.524 0.552 1.565 0.540 1.594 0.531 1.618

5 0.05 0.772 1.228 0.693 1.336 0.668 1.380 0.651 1.411 0.639 1.434 0.629 1.452

0.01 0.703 1.297 0.632 1.414 0.608 1.466 0.592 1.501 0.581 1.526 0.573 1.546

6 0.05 0.792 1.208 0.718 1.306 0.694 1.346 0.679 1.373 0.667 1.393 0.658 1.410

0.01 0.728 1.272 0.661 1.378 0.638 1.424 0.624 1.454 0.613 1.477 0.605 1.495

7 0.05 0.807 1.193 0.738 1.283 0.715 1.319 0.700 1.344 0.689 1.363 0.681 1.377

0.01 0.748 1.252 0.684 1.349 0.662 1.391 0.648 1.419 0.638 1.439 0.630 1.455

8 0.05 0.819 1.181 0.754 1.264 0.733 1.297 0.718 1.320 0.708 1.338 0.700 1.351

0.01 0.764 1.236 0.703 1.326 0.682 1.364 0.669 1.390 0.659 1.409 0.651 1.423

10 0.05 0.838 1.162 0.779 1.236 0.759 1.265 0.746 1.285 0.736 1.3CO 0.729 1.312

0.01 0.788 1.212 0.732 1.291 0.713 1.324 0.701 1.346 0.691 1.363 0.684 1.375

12 0.05 0.852 1.148 0.797 1.215 0.779 1.241 0.767 1.259 0.758 1.273 0.751 1.293

0.01 0.806 1.194 0.755 1.265 0.736 1.295 0.724 1.315 0.716 1.329 0.709 1.341

14 0.05 0.863 1.137 0.812 1.198 0.795 1.223 0.783 1.239 0.774 1.252 0.768 1.261

0.01 0.820 1.180 0.772 1.245 0.755 1.272 0.743 1.290 0.735 1.303 0.729 1.314

16 0.05 0.872 1.128 0.824 1.185 0.807 1.208 0.796 1.223 C.788 1.235 0.782 1.244

0.01 0.832 1.168 0.786 1.229 0.770 1.254 0.759 1.271 0.751 1.283 0.745 1.292

20 0.05 0.885 1.115 0.842 1.166 0.827 1.185 0.817 1.199 0.809 1.209 0.804 1.217

0.01 0.849 1.151 0.808 1.204 0.793 1.226 0.783 1.241 0.776 1.251 0.770 1.260

TABLE 12-Continued

Replicates = 6

k

Comparisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

P L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.555 1 .445 0.432 1.683 0.398 1.793 0.376 1.870 0.360 1.929 0.348 1.976

0.01 0.437 1.563 0.341 1.837 0.313 1.974 0.296 2.068 0.284 2.138 0.275 2.193

2 0.05 0.679 1.321 0.577 1.481 0.546 1.551 0.526 1.599 0.511 1.635 0.500 1.664

0.01 0.586 1 .414 0.498 1.594 0.471 1.677 0.454 1.733 0.441 1.775 0.432 1.808

3 0.05 0.736 1 . 264 0.647 1 . 391 0.620 1.445 0.601 1.482 0.588 1.510 0.578 1.532

0.01 0.657 1.343 0.579 1.483 0.553 1.546 0.537 1.589 0.525 1.620 0.516 1.645

4 0.05 0.770 1.230 0.691 1.338 0.666 1.383 0.649 1.414 0.637 1.437 0.627 1.455

0.01 0.701 1 . 299 0.629 1.417 0.605 1 .470 0.590 1.505 0.579 1.530 0.570 1 .551

5 0.05 0.794 1 . 206 0.722 1.302 0.698 1.341 0.683 1.368 0.671 1.388 0.662 1.404

0.01 0.732 1.268 0.665 1.372 0.643 1.418 0.628 1.448 0.617 1.470 0.609 1.488

6 0.05 0.812 1 . 188 0.745 1.275 0.723 1.310 0.708 1.334 0.697 1.352 0.689 1.366

0.01 0.754 1.246 0.692 1.339 0.671 1.380 0.657 1.406 0.647 1.426 0.639 1.442

7 0.05 0.826 1.174 0.763 1.254 0.742 1.286 0.728 1.308 0.718 1.324 0.710 1.338

0.01 0.772 1 . 228 0.713 1.313 0.693 1.350 0.680 1.375 0.670 1.392 0.663 1.406

8 0.05 0.837 1. 163 0.777 1.237 0.757 1.267 0.744 1.287 0.735 1.302 0.727 1.314

0.01 0.787 1 . 213 0.731 1.293 0.71 1 1.327 0.699 1.349 0.689 1.365 0.682 1.378

10 0.05 0.854 1. 146 0.800 1.212 0.782 1.238 0.770 1.256 0.761 1.269 0.754 1.279

0.01 0.809 1 . 1 91 0.758 1.261 0.740 1.291 0.728 1.310 0.719 1.325 0.713 1.336

12 0.05 0.867 1. 133 0.817 1.193 0.800 1.216 0.789 1.232 0.780 1.244 0.774 1.254

0.01 0. 825 1 . 1 75 0.778 1.238 0.761 1 . 264 0.750 1.282 0.742 1.295 0.736 1.305

14 0.05 0.876 1 . 1 24 0.830 1.178 0.814 1.200 0.803 1.215 0.796 1.226 0.790 1.234

0.01 0.838 1 . 1 62 0.793 1.220 0.778 1.244 0.767 1 . 260 0.760 1.272 0.754 1.281

16 0.05 0.884 1. 116 0.841 1. 167 0.826 1.187 0.816 1.200 0.808 1.210 0.802 1.218

0.01 0.848 1 . 152 0.806 1 . 206 0.791 1.228 0.781 1.243 0.774 1.253 0.769 1.262

20 0.05 0.897 1 . 103 0.857 1.149 0.842 1.166 0.834 1.178 0.827 1.187 0.822 1.194

0.01 0.864 1 . 1 36 0.826 1.183 0.812 1.203 0.803 1.216 0.797 1.225 0.792 1.233

Replicates 7

k

Comparisons 2 3 4 5 6 7

P L U L U L U L U L U L U

1 0.05 0.587 1.41 3 0.469 1. 628 0.435 1.727 0.414 1.796 0.398 1.848 0.386 1.890

0.01 0. 475 1 .525 0.380 1.772 0.352 1.894 0.335 1.977 0.322 2.038 0.313 2.087

2 0.05 0.703 1 . 297 0.607 1.442 0.577 1.504 0.558 1.548 0.544 1.581 0.533 1.607

0.01 0.616 1 . 384 0.532 1.546 0.506 1.620 0.489 1.670 0.476 1.708 0.467 1.735

3 0.05 0.756 1.244 0.673 1.360 0.647 1 . 408 0.629 1.441 0.617 1.467 0.607 1.487

0.01 0.683 1.31 7 0.608 1.444 0.584 1.501 0.568 1.539 0.556 1.567 0.548 1.589

4 0.05 0.788 1 . 212 0.714 1.311 0.690 1.351 0.674 1.379 0.663 1.400 0.653 1.417

0.01 0.724 1 .276 0.656 1.383 0.633 1 .430 0.618 1 . 462 0.608 1.485 0.600 1.503

5 0.05 0.810 1.900 0.743 1 .277 0.720 1.313 0.706 1.337 0.695 1.355 0.686 1.370

0.01 0.752 1.248 0.690 1.342 0.668 1.383 0.654 1.410 0.644 1.430 0.637 1.446

6 0.05 0.827 1 . 1 73 0.764 1.253 0.743 1.284 0.729 1.306 0.719 1.323 0.711 1.336

0.01 0.774 1 .227 0.715 1 .312 0.695 1.348 0.681 1.372 0.672 1.390 0.665 1.404

7 0.05 0.839 1 . 1 61 0.781 1.233 0.761 1.262 0.748 1.282 0.738 1.297 0.731 1.309

0.01 0. 790 1.210 0. 735 1.288 0.715 1.321 0.703 1.343 0.694 1.359 0.687 1.372

8 0.05 0. 850 1.150 0.794 1.218 0.776 1.245 0.763 1.263 0.754 1.277 0.747 1.288

0.01 0.803 1.197 0.751 1.269 0.733 1.299 0.721 1.320 0.712 1.335 0.705 1.346

10 0.05 0.865 1.135 0.815 1. 945 0.798 1.218 0.787 1.234 0.779 1.247 0.772 1.256

0.01 0.824 1. 176 0.776 1.240 0.759 1.267 0.748 1.284 0.740 1.297 0.734 1.307

12 0.05 0.877 1.123 0.831 1 . 1 77 0.815 1.199 0.805 1.213 0.797 1.224 0.791 1.233

0.01 0.839 1 . 161 0.795 1.219 0.779 1.243 0.768 1.258 0.761 1.270 0.755 1.279

14 0.05 0.886 1 . 1 14 0.843 1.164 0.828 1.184 0.818 1.197 0.811 1.207 0.805 1.215

0.01 0.851 1 . 149 0.809 1.202 0.794 1.224 0.785 1.238 0.778 1.249 0.772 1.257

16 0.05 0.894 1. 107 0.853 1.153 0.839 1.171 0.830 1.184 0.823 1.193 0.817 1.200

0.01 0.860 1. 140 0.821 1 . 1 89 0.807 1.209 0.798 1.222 0.791 1.232 0.786 1.240

20 0.05 0. 905 1 .095 0.868 1 . 137 0.855 1 . 153 0.847 1 . 164 0.841 1. 172 0.836 1.178

0.01 0.875 1 . 1 25 0.839 1 . 169 0.827 1.186 0.818 1.198 0.812 1.207 0.807 1.213

THE ANALYSIS Of MEANS (ANOM) FOR SIGNAL AND NOISE 12 7

gence of the ideas of using statistical experimental We then seek equal tail areas which are equivalent

design. The use of the Analysis of Means provides a to finding c and d where

smooth transition from process quality control to ex

perimental design. With the extension to permit sys

tematic study of variability, the ANOM should gain

f o

B( . )dx = 1'0

d

B( . )dx =

( aj2 k =

aj2k k > 2.

2

Each of the above solutions for c and d depends on k,

and used in practice.

p, and r. We then determine for each case above

Acknowledgments

ckR < < dkR or DLR < < DuR

I would like to thank R. Hogg for his valuable as

sistance in providing the theoretical basis and deri where DL = ck and Du = dk. Some values for c and d

vation of the alternate method of computing limits are provided in Table 12.

for the ANOR.

References

I would also like to thank the reviewers and the

ASTM (1976). "ASTM Manual on Presentation of Data and Con

Editor for their extremely valuable contributions.

trol Chart Analysis STP-15D." American Society for Testing

Appendix and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

Use of Beta Distribution Approximation Box, G. E. P. (1988). "Signal to Noise Ratios, Performance Criteria

and Transformation." Technometrics 30, pp. 1-17.

Assume that p samples of size r are selected from a

Box, G. E. P.; HUNTER, W. G.; and HUNTER, J. S. (1978). Statistics

N(f,L, u2) population and a range Ri is obtained from

for Experimenters. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

each sample. The average range for the p samples is

Cox, D. R. (1949). "The Use of the Range in Sequential Analysis."

computed as Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1 1 , Series B, pp. 1 01-1 14.

]! KACKAR, R. N. (1985). "Off-Line Quality Control, Parameter De

= L RJp. sign and the Taguchi Method." Journal of Quality Technology

17, pp. 176-188.

NAI R, V. N. and PRr:G I HON, D. (1986). "A Data Analysis Strategy

where the subscript j refers to the jth experiment (j

for Quality Engineering Experiments. " AT&T Technical Journal

= 1, 2, . . " k) involving the sampling of p samples

65, pp. 73-84.

each of size r. We assume (Cox [1949]) that each X OTT, E. R. (1967). "Analysis of Means-A Graphical Procedure."

= Rju has the same approximate gamma distribution Industrial Quality Control 24, pp. 101-109.

Interpretation of Data. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

where PHADKE, M. S.; KACKAR, R. N.; SPEENEY, D. V.; and GRIECO, M. J.

(1983). "Off-Line Quality Control for Integrated Circuit Fab

rication Using Experimental Design." The Bell System Technical

Journal 62, pp. 1 273-1309.

b = 1jO,

PEARSON, E. S. and HARTLEY, H. O. (1954). Biometrika Tables for

(dr u is the mean range and 0111 is the fractional coef Statisticians, VoJ. I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

ficient of variation of the range in random samples of Great Britain.

size m) where dr and b are denoted by dru and bTl! > re QUINLAN, J. (1985). "Product Improvement by Application of

spectively, in Cox (1949). If each R is reb, a) then R is Taguchi Methods." Third Supplier Symposium on Taguchi

distributed as r (pb, ajp). For k experimental 's, the Methods. American Supplier Institute, Dearborn, MI.

SCHEFFE, H. (1959). The Analysis of Variance. John Wiley & Sons,

overall average range

New York, NY.

R = (1jk) L SCHILLING, E. (1973). "A Systematic Approach to the Analysis

of Means." Journal of Quality Technology 5, pp. 93-1 08.

is distributed as r(kpb, ajkp). SNEDECOR, G. W. and COCHRAN, W. G. (1980). Statistic'al Methods.

Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.

The distribution of

TAGUCHI, G. (1986). Introduction to Quality Engineering. Asian Pro

w =

j L =

jkR is B(pb, (k - l )pb) . ductivity Organization, UNIPUB, White Plains; NY.

TAGUCHI, G. and Wu, Y. (1985). Introduction to Off-Line Quality

We are then interested in the two limits c and d such Control. Central Japan Quality Control Association, (available

that from American Supplier Institute, Dearborn, MI).

_ {I - a k = 2

Key Words: Analysis of Means, Analysis of Ranges, Ex

----- -----

1 - aj2 k > 2. perimental Design, Noise, Ranges, Signal, Taguchi Methods.

"-'

- Business Research Meths ContentsHochgeladen vonElizabeth Brown
- Black Belt Knowledge six sigmaHochgeladen vonandriwiryanto8493
- What Does Product and Service Design DoHochgeladen vonChie COncha
- Injection MoldingHochgeladen vonjsandeep1
- Gender DiscriminationHochgeladen vonVarun
- pubdoc_12_29420_1565Hochgeladen vonMuhammadAbdulRasool
- Cost of Quality - 3 September, 2010 - Dr. Paramjit KaurHochgeladen vonArushi ...
- EtdHochgeladen vonAliBaranIşık
- Bn 34404407Hochgeladen vonAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- stat401ch15_01Hochgeladen vonmelkyed
- Between Within Stata AnalysisHochgeladen vonMaria Pappa
- Anova LectureHochgeladen vonjermac17
- seleksi mundurHochgeladen vonLegi Lukmansyah
- The DifferentialHochgeladen vonSidra Irfan Malik
- qcc_ewmaHochgeladen vonAtoaBQ
- Sample Quiz9Hochgeladen vonMazin Alahmadi
- pHochgeladen vonrajpd28
- Optimization of Extrusion Process for Production of Texturized Flaxseed Defatted Meal by Response Surface MethodologyHochgeladen vonesatjournals
- Annova.pdfHochgeladen vonRKJhalendra
- R AnovaHochgeladen vonDedi Nugraha
- StatisticsHochgeladen vonSakshi Dhingra
- ANOVA Data.xlsxHochgeladen vonMark Antony Levine
- MT1.S15.SolvedHochgeladen vonPPP
- AnovaHochgeladen vonsara
- 7Hochgeladen vonSahil Gupta
- AnovaHochgeladen vonShaiswe SV
- 10 Qp0696hoyer Cep ReglasHochgeladen vonMedio Acido
- pfe_exer12Hochgeladen vonJustin Talbot
- Frequencies VariablesHochgeladen vonSri Rahayu
- SIP-FORMAT.docxHochgeladen vonDana Rivera

- gauss-markov theoremHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Inventing Prizes a HistoricalHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- j 3812012907585Hochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- ALGERIA profile.pdfHochgeladen vonKAKA
- jqtv29i2palmHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- jqtv37i4(308-315)Hochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- jqtv15i1lavignaHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Solvent Retention Capacity (SRC) Testing of Wheat FlourHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Give and Take eBook FinalHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Pm o Swot AnalysisHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Product Details2Hochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Product Details1Hochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Examples of Strategy Consulting Firm Client PresentationsHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Optimal Tolerance Design by Response Surface MethodologyHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Computer-Aided Tolerance Synthesis With Statistical Method and Optimization TechniquesHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- YFeng ThesisHochgeladen vonanita_mustikasari
- 1323876132387632-Q1-pdf32-Q1-pdfHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- 004inOutSampleErrors004 in Out Sample ErrorsHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Scribd 123Hochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Upload a Document _ ScribdHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- A_modernHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Classification Scheme for Lean Manufacturing ToolsHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- A Decision Framework for Maximising Lean Manufacturing PerformanceHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Trusting the Data_ Gage R&R in Transactional ProjectsHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon
- Split PlotHochgeladen vonmaxangelicdemon

- FPKHochgeladen vonKogilavani Muniandy
- Polaris Process_IT SectorHochgeladen vonalmighty777
- Probability and Statistics Course NotesHochgeladen vonCammi Smith
- whittemore_knafl_05.pdfHochgeladen vonAbdulkader Tukale
- science fair workbookHochgeladen vonapi-198750156
- Calculating BetaHochgeladen vonNikhil Jain
- qft07Hochgeladen vonKhüshbøø Tõmår
- Bylaws Foundation Course jamia hamdardHochgeladen vonAbdullah Zyxwv
- note-145_biostat_prof._abdullah_al-shiha.pdfHochgeladen vonAdel Dib Al-jubeh
- Crawford - Review de LaudanHochgeladen vonCrimson King
- pathintegral.pdfHochgeladen vonBilgaí Almeida Zamora
- RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..pptxHochgeladen vonkainath01
- Session 5. Confidence Interval of the Mean When SD is Known (18-22)Hochgeladen vonRoldan Soriano Cardona
- Criminality 101 Adventures in Pseudo SciencesHochgeladen vonDr. Randy Gonzalez
- 1991muhammadphd.pdfHochgeladen vonFajriah
- Chemical KineticsHochgeladen vonJosé Ramírez
- eportfolio signature assignment lab reportHochgeladen vonapi-277338728
- Sains - Tahun 3Hochgeladen vonSekolah Portal
- Outline Note Allan AgrestiHochgeladen vonrahmi
- hetprobHochgeladen vonngocmimi
- SEM-TEM Lecture19 Clh ClassHochgeladen vonMadhur Mayank
- Stat Handout 2Hochgeladen voncmacblue42
- KURNIAWATIHochgeladen vonDeway Anggraenis
- EDASage.pdfHochgeladen vonmariammari
- Ch13 ExcelHochgeladen vonMonal Patel
- Biology IntroductionHochgeladen vonWelkom Biologyproject
- 07TtestsHochgeladen vonFrazButt
- How is Learning FluctuatingHochgeladen vonLeandro Galvão
- Book Review on Communication TheoriesHochgeladen vonJessica Bacolta Jimenez
- M17_Part1_Tier1aHochgeladen vonAbhishek Alder