1

For Restricted Circulation Only

NO PART OF THIS BOOK SHAL BE PRODUCED
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM
INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE

2


DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
OF
EXPERIMENTS





C. R. PRASAD
Indian Statistical Institute, madras

B. N. JHA
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, New Delhi

CQA 209
12.88

3
PREFACE

Prevention is a major result of the Quality improvement Process,
lower costs improved quality and enhanced competitive position
are achieved through prevention rather than inspection. At the
heart of the Quality Improvement Process are technologies
oriented towards prevention and Design of Experiments is one
of them.
The role of design of experiments is to design quality into
products and processes so that the need for expensive controls
and inspection is reduced. To achieve robustness in quality at
economic costs, quality engineering efforts have to be initiated
at the product design stage and then carried on through process
design and manufacturing. Design of Experiments is an efficient
tool to optimize product and process designs, to accelerate the
development cycle, to reduce development costs, to improve the
transition of products from research and development to
manufacturing and to effectively troubleshoot manufacturing
problems. The extensive use of design of experiments has been
recognized as an important factor in the Japanese
manufacturing success in producing high quality products at low
costs.
Design of Experiments is a knowledge based upon statistical
and other scientific disciplines for efficient and effective planning
of experiments and for making sound inferences from the data.
This book concisely explains the basic principles of
experimentation and provides the statistical background
necessary to understand and successfully apply Design of
Experiments. The material for the book, including a few
illustrative case examples, is drawn largely from the published
translated versions of Professor, Genichi Taguchis Japanese
texts and the notes taken by the author during Dr. Taguchi
lectures in India in the winter of 1983. Other case examples in
this book have been drawn from the various BHEL units where
these techniques have been applied by their own engineers as
part of BHELs units where these techniques have been applied
by their own engineers as part of BHELs quality improvement
thrust.
The main objective of this text is to provide managers,
supervisors, engineers, scientists and quality professionals with
the knowledge of design of Experiments so that applications
towards product and process optimization and production
trouble shooting can be made, after going through this material it
is hoped that the managers, engineers and quality professional
will understand severe drawbacks of the traditional one-variable-
at a-time approach and learn how to conduct efficient

4
screening experiments to determine critical factors, how to
optimize product and process designs and apply this tool in their
own environment.
I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. B.N. Jha who has complied
and edited the case illustrations from the BHEL units included in
this and for his general support in preparing the text. My special
thanks are due to BHEL Management, in particular, to
Mr.K.L.Khurana, General Manager of CQA and to
Mr.S.N.Subramanian Senior Manager, CQA for providing me
with all the facilities. But for their unstinted support it would not
have been possible to bring out this text.

C. R. PRASAD
INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE


5
CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION - 1.1 1.8
2. CONCEPTS OF TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE - 2.1-2.12
AND ANALISIS OF VARAINCE
3. ANALYSIS OF VARAINCE TWO WAY CLASSIFICATION 3.1 3.17
4. FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTS 4.1-4.12
5. INTRODUCTION TO ORTHOGONAL ARRAY DESIGNS 5.1 5.6
6. LINEAR GRAPHA AND THEIR APPLICATIONS 61-6.26
7. ANALISIS OF CATEGORICAL DATA 7.1-7.12
8. MULTILEVEL ARRANGEMENTS 8.1-8.10
9. PSEUDO FACTOR DESIGNS 9.1-9.23
10. QUALITY EVALUATION THROUGH SIGNAL 10.1-1.15
NOISE RATIOS
11. APPENDIX A.1- A.13
* * * * * * * *


6










1. INTRODUCTION

7
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 An important part of many quality improvement and quality
development Programmes is an empirical evaluation of the effect of
process variables upon performance. The product quality, as is well
known depends on a number of factors or variables as they may be
called. Such variables known as independent variables may be
quantitative, such as temperature, pressure, or concentration of
catalyst or they may be reactor vessel, etc. Their effects and
dependent variables such as yield, percent impurity, strength
defectives, (know as response) are evaluated through empirical
investigations.
If often turns out in practice tat relatively a small number of variables
contribute to a vital share of the effect on the product quality or cost in
manufacture. These variables do not necessarily produce a constant
effect on the products. The question would therefore, arise as to how
efficiently and economically the contribution of each of these factors
can be assessed individually as also collectively to produce the total
effect on the product.
The traditional approach in industrial and scientific investigations is to
employ trial and error methods to verify and validate theories that may
be advanced to explain some observed phenomena. Sometimes
prolonged experiments might be conducted and yet the results might
be nowhere near because of poor planning. Is there no efficient
substitute for the trial and error approach to solve problems in
industrials? Cannot the traditional approach for design and
development of products and processes be improved? What we need
is a method which assures that a change made or trouble diagnosed in
the product or the process, is the correct change or right diagnosis
such a method should not be expensive or time consuming to
implement and should pinpoint and control the right factors. N
approach that fulfills these requirements is available in the statistically
designed experiments. Engineers have solved a variety of problems in
many industrials. They have extensively applied the statistically
designed experiments for developing new products and in the solution
of practical problems in production.
1.2 NEED FOR A STATISTICAL APPROACH
The main reason for deigning an experiment statistically is to obtain
unambiguous results at a minimum cost. The statistically designed
experiments and certain distinct advantage over the classical approach
of changing only in variable or factor at a time to evaluate is effect on
the process or product. The main draw back of the traditional approach
is that it leads to misleading ad erroneous conclusions if interaction,
more measurements are needed than in the modern approach. The
statistically designed experiment permits simultaneous consideration of
all the possible factors that are suspected to have a bearing on the
problem under consideration and as such even if interaction effects

8
exists, a valid evaluation of the main factors can be made. Even a
limited number of experiments would enable the experimenter to
uncover the vital factors on which future trails would lead him to track
down their most desirable combination which will yield the expected
results. Scanning a large number of variables is one of the ready and
simpler objectives that a statistically designed experiment would fulfill
in many quick, reliable and efficient.
The risk that managers and engineers take by bad guesswork about
factors responsible for process or product variations have been largely
eliminated. Hunches and guesses might play only a marginal part in
suggesting possible factors or solution to the problem. The statistical
principles employed in the design an analysis of the experimental
results assure impartial evaluation of the effects on an objective basis.
If hunches are right, the experiment might substantiate it sooner it will
also reject equally soon wrong theories advanced as solutions to the
problem on hand.
The importance of statistical concepts will be readily appreciated when
it is recognized that the results of no two experiments will be in
complete agreements, despite the best efforts to maintain constant
conditions, owing to aver large number of factors which are beyond
economic control. These differences, called experimental errors,
introduce a degree of uncertainty into any conclusions that may be
drawn from the experiment. Apparent effects attributes by the
experimenter to such factors as he varied, may in reality arise solely
through accidental flections in the conditions that are supposedly held
constant during the experiments.
Statistical methods, alone in such situations, offer sound and logical
means of treatment of at and there can be I alternative to a rigid
statistical test. In order to judge the trustworthiness of any observed
experimental result, we should compare the observed result with
experimental error by a test of significance. Statistical tests of
significance establish the significance or otherwise as well as the
extent of significance of each of the regulating variables with the
fewest number of trials.
In such test, it is usual to postulate that the effect-sought doe not exist
and to see whether on this hypothesis the observed difference can be
attribute to chance. The estimate of experimental error is used to
calculate the probability of finding a difference as large as or larger
than the one observed, if the true population difference is zero. If this
probability is small, say one in twenty, the observed difference is
judged to be statistically significant and the hypothesis of zero
difference, the null hypothesis, is considered disproved or rejected. If
the probability is greater than the regarded as defining significance, all
that can be said is that there is insufficient evidence to show that an
effect exists.


9
1.3 THE NEED FOR PLANNED EXPERIMENTATION
To achieve the goal of process optimization to prevent or atleast to
minimize the occurrence of defective product, a thorough
understanding of the process behavior under different sets of process
conditions is needed. This can be best obtained through designed or
planned experimentation. Planning an experiment so that information
relevant to the problem on hand will be made available is known as
designing and experiment. Experience has shown that if the data
collection is properly planned, organized, summarized and interpreted
using statistical principles, one will be able to draw valid and
meaningful conclusions fro the results. The design of experiments had
been found to be an excellent tool of effecting engineering
development, quality Improvement, process optimization as well as
cost reduction.
Let us take for example eh performance of a pump which, even when
assembles under practically identical conditions is still found to vary
considerably in its performance. The design engineers blame the
manufacturing personnel for not adhering to the drawing tolerance,
while the latter argue that it is no possible for them to pay equal
attention to all the umpteen dimensions as given by the designer. In
fact, the production man would like to know from the designer which
dimensions are really critical so that he can concentrate on them only.
These arguments and counter arguments ordinarily go on, along with
the chronic problem. However, on conducting a suitable planned
experiment, let us suppose that an impeller eye diameter is found to
behave as in Figure 1.1 whereas for the volute width the effect is found
to be as in Figure 1.2

10

It is clear from the Figure 1.2 that for the Volute width a specification of 3%
is wrong, whereas for the Impeller eye dia, if the specification happens to be
put as E 1% it can be easily stretched to E 2% without much adverse
effect.
In general, planned experimentation is necessary to distinguish
between critical factors (which have a dominating effect and need to be
controlled within narrow limits) and non-critical factors which are
insignificant and do not require close control as well as to identify the
optimum levels of the critical factors so as to achieve significantly
improved performance. The extent of improvement possible over the
existing performance can also be predicted.
1.4 PLANNING FOR AN EXPERIMENT
At the outset, the experimenter must clearly define the purpose and
scope of the experiment. The objective of the experiment may be, for
example, to determine the optimum operating conditions for a process,

11
to evaluate the relative effects on product performance of different
sources of variability, or to determine whether a new process is
superior to an existing one.
The problem must be first posed succinctly as possible. A list of
questions to e answered by the experiment must be correctly
formulated. Secondly the primary and secondary variables which are
suspected to have an influence on the product performance or the
process have to be identified and the ranges within their effects are to
be evaluated will have to be determined. Also the number of levels and
the spacing of the levels at which these variables are to be tested in
the experiment will have to e determined before hand.
The selection of the range of the variables depends in part upon
whether the ultimate purpose if the experiment is to learn about
performance over a region of experimentation would be more optimum
condition. A wider range of experimentation would be more appropriate
ion the frost case than in the second. The factors that are likely to have
interacting effects on the response must be specified. The
experimenter should also know beforehand what extraneous or
disturbing factors must be controlled, balanced or minimized and the
kind of control that is desirable.
To obtain the best and most economical design for an experiment
some prior estimate of the experimental error would be required. Such
information may be available from previous testing; otherwise it may be
wise to conduct some valid preliminary runs are different times under
supposedly identical conditions. If these runs result in large variability
in performance, the important variables that affect the results have nor
been identified and further research may be needed before the
experiment can commence.
The experimenter must also set a clear goal as to what improvements
are acceptable In other words to be of technical and practical
importance, the experimenter should specify the acceptable degree of
difference between the effect of the factors studies. He should also set
failure risks and consequence. For instance, an acceptable risk of
failing to find an improvement of the size noted above, and also the risk
of claiming an improvement, when none exists, must be specified
before hand.
A clear statement is required of the responses to be studies i.e. the
dependent variables to be evaluates. Frequently, there may be a
number of such response variables, for example tensile strength,
surface finish % elongation, leakage, % defectives, etc. It is important
that standard procedures for measuring each variable be established
and documented. For visual and sensory characteristics, it is
particularly important that standards be developed to remove
subjectively in judgments made by different observers at different
times.

12
Finally, the experimenter should e aware of the error introduced by
sampling and testing of materials. The experimenter may have to carry
out investigations to improve the existing methods of sampling and
analysis, to test and compare new methods, or to find the most
economical routine testing scheme for some particular material. The
information yielded by such investigation is often of greatly assistance
in estimating the errors likely to be encountered in any subsequent
experiment and thus in deciding the best experimental design to use.
In addition to defining the objective of an experiment, one must decide
upon its scope .Care must be exercised to make the scope of the
experiment sufficiently broad, since it is highly risky to draw inferences
about situations beyond the scope of the experiment. Thus, if the
results are material dependent, the material for fabricating
experimental units must be representative of what one might expect to
encounter in production. As far as possible the scope of the experiment
is to be broadened so as to include those variables, which in normal
production cycle must be lived with.
It is very important that an experimenter should carefully plan his
experiments in advance to guard against various pitfalls. For instance
inducting too general a truth from too limited an amount of data or
extending an induction from one set of circumstances to an entirely
new set of circumstances, under which it is not applicable, should be
avoided. Similarly one should avoid the fallacy of associated an effect
with a cause with which it is not, in truth, associated. The cure for this
fallacy is to ensure that the experiment has adequate control. Another
type of fallacy is to base decisions on the absence of contrary
evidence. Conclusions of the experiment should be based on the
presence of positive supporting evidence rather than the lack of contact
evidence. Thee typical fallacies of reasoning are responsible for mist of
the poor planning of the experiments and the consequent fallacious
results.
The experimental plan must ensure that when the experiment is
completed it answers efficiently and unambiguously those questions it
is intended to resolve. THE WORLDS BEST STATIATICAL ANALYSIS
CANNOT RESCUE A POORLY PLANNED EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRAMME.
An important advantage of the statistical planning of experiments is
that it forces he experimenter to consider in advance what he is
seeking and what steps must be taken to find it. The experimenter is
also forced to consider the likely magnitude of all possible sources of
error. A preliminary of this sort of great value since it often leads the
experimenter to recognize in advance pitfalls or fallacies and guard
against them.

13
1.5 METHODS FOR INCREASING ACCURAY AND PRECISION OF
COMPARISONS
To obtain valid results from a test program, some cardinal principles of
statistical logic are to be observed. It should be recognized that in
addition to the primary variables which the experimenter has identified
and has deliberately chosen to vary their levels in the course of the
experiments according to some design pattern there are other
variables which effect the experimental results. These may be
classified as (i) variables, which the experimenter wishes to hold
constant in the experiment, (ii) uncontrollable variables, and (iii)
background variables.
The variables to be held constant in the experiment must be identified
and the mechanisms for keeping them constant defined. Failure to
control these variables at their desired levels will result in increasing
the size of the experimental error, limiting the scope of resulting
inference.
Uncontrollable variables such as ambient conditions variation in
materials hardness, fluctuations in voltage, etc, contribute to the
experimental error as unaccounted variability. The more influential the
effect of such uncontrolled variables, the larger will be the resulting
experimental error and the more imprecise will be the evaluations o the
effects of the primary variables. The lack of uniformity ink the physical
conduct of the experiment or in other words failure to standardize the
experimental technique will cause extraneous variation. The
experimental techniques should be clearly specified at the outset for
the experiment and closely followed.
The background variables arise, for example, when an experiment is to
e run over a number of days, or when different machines and/ or
operators, batches of raw material, etc, are to be used. The
backgrounds variables are introduced into the experiment in the form of
experimental blocks. An experimental block represents a relatively
homogenous set of conditions within which different conditions of the
primary variables are compared.
The main reason for running an experiment in blocks is to assure that
the effects of a background variable doe not contaminate the
evaluation of the primary variables. However, blocking also permits the
effect of clocked variables to be removed from the experimental error,
thus providing more precise evaluations of the primary variables.
Further the effect of blocking variables upon performance can also be
readily evaluated- a further advantage of blocking.
The technique of blocking, grouping or balancing the experimental
units is known as the principle of LOCAL CONTROL. Its main purpose
is to ensure uniformity in the background conditions of comparison by
isolating disturbing factors.

14
In any investigation, the experimenter always tries to forestall
disturbances, caused by extraneous variables, from affecting the
comparisons in some systematic was, but he may not always succeed.
The eventual principle as regards extraneous variation is, to eliminate
or balance it is possible, otherwise randomize it over the treatments.
RANSOMISATION means that the sequence of trails, assigning
treatments to experimental units, taking measurements etc, is
randomly determined. Randomization helps to avoid any possible
systematic bias so that a particulate treatment is not unknown
variations in raw material, time trend, etc., over which the experimenter
has no control, that randomization is required.
Finally to make the tests of significance possible, provision must be
made in the experimental plan to obtain valid estimate of the
experimental error. This is achieved through repetition of the
experimental trials known as REPLICATION. There are various ways
of obtaining repeat results.
Different information about repeatability is obtained by taking replicate
measurements on the same sample unit, on different sample units
prepared independently of one another under the dame aimed at
conditions, or by repeating the same experimental combination at a
different point of time. One would expect greater homogeneity among
replicate measurements on the same sample than among
measurements on different samples or at different times. The
experimenter, by skillfully planning his experiments can obtain
information on short term as well as long-term variability. The ways in
which repeat information was obtained must also be known to perform
a valid analysis of the results.
The methods of increasing the accuracy of experiments may be
classified broadly into three types. The first is to increase the size of
the experiment, either through the provision of more replicates or by
the inclusion of additional treatments. The choice of homogeneous
experimental units or refinement of experimental technique although
helps to reduce the error, also reduces the applicability of the results
only to that particular class of units.
A different way of still reducing the experimental error is the use of one
or more concomitant variables. By this we mean the taking of
supplementary measurements, which predict at least to some extent
the performance of the experimental units. For instance, in an
experiment to measure the effects of different diets on the weights of
children, their weights at the start of the experiment would be
supplementary measurements of this kind, since the increase in the
weight of a child during the experiment is possibly correlated with his
initial weight.

15
1.6 TERMINOLOGY IN DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
FACTOR A variable or attribute, which influence or is
suspected of influencing the characteristic being
investigated. A factor may be variable and
measurable (e.g. temperature in degrees, time in
seconds) or it may be attribute whose presence or
identity may be determined (e.g. name of operator,
switch on or off, left or right hand moulds).
LEVEL The values of a factor being examined in an
experiment. If the factor is an attribute each of its
states is a level. For example, if a switch is either on
or off, switch setting (one factor) has two levels. If the
factor is available, the range is divided into two or
more intervals, each of which is then a level. For
example; if the temperature ranges from 800
o
C-
950
o
C, and three ranges are to be used, then 800
o
C-
850
o
Ccwould be one level. 850
o
C-900
o
C a second
level and 900
o
C-950
o
C third level.
TREATMENT One set of levels of all factors employed in a given
experimental trial. For example, an experiment
conducted using temperature T
1
, Machine M
1
,
Operator B would constitute one treatment.
EXPERIMENTAL Facility for conducting a trail. The experimental units
UNIT are allocated to different treatments.
RESPONSE Numerical result of trial with a given treatment.
Examples are yield, purity, tensile strongly, surface,
finish, number of defective etc.
EFFECTS Effects of a factor is the change in response due to
changes in levels of the factors.
MAIN EFFECT Effect of a factor averaged over different levels of the
other factors.
INTERACTION The different in effect of one factor when a second
factor is changed from one level to another.
RANDOMI- The process of assigning experimental units to treat-
ZATION ments in a purely chance manner. Purpose is to
assure that the source of variation not controlled in
experiment operate randomly so that the average
effect on any group is zero.
REPLICATION The execution of an experiment more than once. The
purpose is to increase precision and obtain a better
estimate of the experimental error.

16
EXPERIMENTAL It is the variation in response when the same treat -
ERROR ment is repeated, caused by conditions not
controlled in after the effects of main factors and
interactions have been removed.


17










2.
CONCEPTS OF
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
AND
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE



18
2.
CONCEPTS OF TESTS O SIGNIFICANCE
AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Enlightened companies are always on the look out, through their
managers to find new products, processes and markets, to reduce
costs, to increase output, quality and profits. Only through such
changes the company can stay active, strong and fresh. Discovery of
new knowledge for achieving breakthroughs cannot be left to accidents
or chance but must be acquired through systematic observation and
planned experiments. Man is an inquiring, observant creature and has
the unique ability to ponder on these observations and generalize from
them. The result of these observations and generalize from them. The
result of these wonderful powered in the discovery of new knowledge is
a continuing process, which is acquired through constantly posing a
series of questions ad seeking answers to these questions one rational
basis. Thus for instance, in the context of the control of quality of
manufactured product or the improvement of the level of existing level
one may wish to seek answers to questions such as.
1) One the basis of the sample observations, can it be inferred that the
process mean is controlled at the nominal value? Can it be inferred
that the process capable of meeting the specifications on the
product quality characteristic?
2) If the quality of a lot from a particular vendor as good as or better
than that from another vendor?
3) Will modifications in the existing process regime (operating
standards) lead to a better quality product?
4) What is the nature of the functional relationship between the quality
characteristic and the parameter values of the process?
5) Which among a host of factors contributes to the greatest
proportion of variation in the quality characteristic?
Reliable answers to questions such as the above can only be obtained
through carefully planned and designed experiments and the use of
statistical methods both in choosing the pattern of the experiments and
in interpreting the results. An important function o statistic is to provide
a rational basis for decision-making. By means of statistical methods
the intuitive type of reasoning which an intelligent person might apply
in drawing inferences from data is made objective and precise.

19
Suppose, for example, it was through that anew design would improve
the performance of a product. Some variation in performance from one
run to another will be expected even without changing the design. We
have to decide how large the improvement in performance has to be
before we can confidently assert that the new design improves
performance, if the improvements is very large, we will make the
assertion, perhaps even without the aid of statistical procedures. If it is
small, probably we check by further experiments. However, it is very
unlikely that everyone would use the same dividing line for his decision
and it will be difficult is nor impossible to state just how certain one is
that correct conclusion has been drawn. Using statistical procedures
we can draw valid conclusions and also state their reliability. In any
such investigation, the common problem encountered is one of
assessing whether the observed differences are due to experimental
error of by taking recourse to the statistical approach through what has
come to be called as TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE.
2.2 ERRORS IN DECISION MAKING
Data are taken in order to help make decisions to choose between
alternative courses of action. Decisions, of course, are based one
interpretation of data. This situation is not one that concerns only the
research engineer; it is a matter, which must also be dealt with by the
quality engineer, the production man, laboratory chemist, the manager,
etc. In doing so, the correctness of a decision in relation to reality has
the following situations.
Decision
Reality (Unknown)
True Not True
True Correct
Incorrect
(Type II error)
Not true
Incorrect
(Type I error)
Correct

In statistical parlance, the incorrect decision wherein reality is rejected
when true is called error of type I and the one wherein reality is
accepted when it is not true is called of type II.
Any enquiry or experiment is concerned with validity or otherwise of a
hypothesis. A HYPOTHESIS IS A STATEMENT FORMULATED
TENTATIVELY TO EXPLAIN CERTAIN PHENOMENON OR
SITUATION. For instance, our hypothesis may be the new design of a
product improves the performance. Our interest is to establish the
validity or otherwise of this tenable, it is accepted. Otherwise, it is

20
rejected. The question would then arise as to when have we sufficient
tested a hypothesis to accept or reject it?
The procedure would be to collect in a planned manner information in
the form of numerical observations. However, exhaustive the data may
be, it is not possible to be completely positive about the truth of the
hypothesis. So, one is compelled to take sample (s) from the
population and use the sample(s) to make a decision on the
hypothesis. As mentioned above errors indecision making (Type I and
Type II errors) cannot be completely eliminated. What is done is these
errors are controlled at predetermined and specified levels.
2.3 PROCEDURE FOR A TETS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The steps in framing and carrying out a test of significance are as
follows:
1) Formulation of Null Hypothesis
It is first assumed that the experimental results do not exhibit, any
real change. This assumption or hypothesis of no change is called
NULL HYPOTHESIS. This is denoted by H
0
. Thus, for instance, the
new design is as good as the current design and does not result in
improved performance can be our null hypothesis.
2) Formulation of alternative hypothesis
The new design is superior to the current design is called the
alternative hypothesis. This is denoted by H
1
. Such an alternative is
termed as a one-sided alternative and the test of significance is
called a one-sided test. On the other hand, if our alternative were,
the new design is either superior or inferior to the current design
we term the test of significance as a two-sided test.
3) Choosing the level of significances
We specify in advance, the risk of rejecting the Null hypothesis Ho
when the null hypothesis is true. This risk is denoted by o and
represents the type I error. It is usual to choose o as 0.05 or 0.01.
This is also called the level of significance. The error of Type II,
namely the risk of accepting the null hypothesis Ho, when the
alternative is true is not usually specified and controlled at a
predetermined level.
4) Test criterion
The experimental data are condensed into a single criterion or
index known as TEST STATISTIC. Depending on the hypothesis
tested appropriate test statistics are constructed. The test criterion
measures the departure from the Null Hypothesis.

21
5) Decision on Null Hypothesis
A decision is made whether the departure from the null hypothesis
indicated by the test criterion is such that this hypothesis must be
abandoned or accepted. For this, the probability of obtaining a
deviation as large as or larger than the observed one on the
assumption that the null hypothesis true, is obtained from the
relevant sampling distribution of the test statistic. If this probability is
lower say less than 0.05 or 0.01., the hypothesis is rejected. The
results are then said to be statistically significant. If the probability
is moderately, high no doubt is cast on the validity of the null
hypothesis by the available evidence. In practice the following
procedure is adopted.
a. The value of statistic corresponding to the probability level of
0.05 or 0.01 is obtained from the appropriate statistical tables.
b. The test statistic value, compute from experimental data, is
compared with the value obtained from the tables.
c. If the observed value of test statistic is less than the value
obtained from statistical tables, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Otherwise it is rejected.
The following table summarizes the generally accepted practices
regarding the decisions.
Probability of getting a
deviation as large or
larger than observed
Conclusions
Greater than 0.10 Not significant, H
o
is no rejected
Between 0.10 and 0.05
Possibly significant. Some doubt cast
on H
o
, but further evidence sought
before rejection.
Between 0.05 and 0.01
Significance, H
o
is rejected. If the
result is very important confirm with
further evidence.
Between 0.10 and 0.001
Highly significant. H
o
confidently
rejected.
Less than 0.001
Very highly significant. H
o
is rejected.
It is very unlikely that the conclusion is
incorrect.


22
2.4 WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE TEST DOES NOT TELL
As already stated in the significant test, the hypothesis that there is not
change o difference (null hypothesis) is tested based on sample
evidence. If we find that the test criterion indicates significance then we
conclude that the sample shows enough evidence to disprove the null
hypothesis. If the test shows that null hypothesis is insignificant
particularly when required number of observations have not been taken
then we cannot be certain that there exists no change. All that can be
said is that sample information is not sufficient to show the significance
of the change.
What is more important to note is that an effect which is statistically
significant may not be of economic importance. For instance, a small
difference can turn out to be statistically significant provided a
sufficiently large sample size is examined. But a cost benefit analysis
may reveal that the improvement indicated is not economically
worthwhile. On the other hand, a particular observed difference may be
statistically insignificant at the chosen level of significance, but the
improvement indicated may be economically worthwhile. In practical
situations, one should therefore be blindly guided by the statistical tests
of significance. They at best only indicate the relative importance of the
various effects sought. In the ultimate analysis, one should use
engineering judgment in taking decisions. Actually in experimental
work, we are not really interested in tests of significance but we are
more interested in estimation of effects that have a sizeable
contribution to the overall variation in the performance characteristics.
Those aspects are discussed in latter sections.
2.5 ANALYSIS OF VARAINCE: ONE WAY CLASSIFICATION
Suppose we wish to examine whether, the magnitude of deflection of
the bearings which are used in a certain machine had influence on the
magnitude of vibrations of the machine. Let us suppose we have
selected 16 bearings and classified then into two categories by the
magnitude of their deflection as
A
1
; Bearings with small deflection and
A
2
; Bearings with large deflection
Assume that of the 1 (=n) bearings selected 10 (=n
1
) belong to
category A
1
and 6 (=n
2
) belong to category A
2
. Let us suppose that
these bearings are used in the said machine and its vibrations are
measured for each. Suppose we obtain the following data.

23
Table- 2.1
DATA ON MACHINE VIBRATIONS (UNIT DB)
A
1
0.9
,
0.3
,
0.4
,
0.2
,
0.1
,
0.8
,
0.9
,
0.4
,
0.0
,
0.6

A
2
0.6
,
1.0
,
1.1
,
0.9
,
1.0
,
1.2


Data such as the above classified according to one attribute are termed
one-way classified data.
The total variation in the entire set of data is given by the sum of
squares of the deviations of the individual measurements from the
mean value. If we denote by x
1
, x
2
x
n
the individual observations and
by X the mean of the observations then the total variation, denoted by
S
T
is given by

n x
i
/ ) (
2
is termed s the correction factor;
For our data if we denote the totals for A1 and A2by the same symbols
and their averages by A
1
and A
2,
we have
A
1
= 4.6/10 or, A
1
= 0.460 (n
1
= 10)
A
2
= 5.8/6 or, A
2
= 0.967 (n
2
= 6)
C.F. =
16
) 8 . 5 6 . 4 (
2
+

=
16
) 4 . 10 (
2
= 7.0225
S
T
= (0.9)
2
+ (0.3)
2
+ . + (1.2)
2
CF = 8.9 7.0225
= 1.8775
Any one who examines these data will no doubt say that a major
portion of the total variation of vibration among the 16 bearings is
arising due to the differences between the two categories of bearings.
Then to what extent is this difference a cause for total variation of
1.8775 in the vibration of the machine?

24
Probably ant one would express the differences in deflections between
the two categories of bearings by the difference L between the mean
of bearings with large deflection.
L = (Mean of bearings with large deflection)
- (Mean of bearings with small deflection)
L = A
2
- A
1
=
6
8 . 5

-
10
6 . 4

= 0.967 0.460 = 0.507
Definition 1
In general is the observation are y
1
, y
2
,,,,,y
n
then nay liner combination
of the observations such as
L= c
1
y
1
+ c
2
y
2
+.+ c
n
y
n

Is termed as LINEAR CONTRAT provided,
The sum of squares of the coefficients c
1
, c
2
,,,,c
n
is termed the UNIT NUMBER D, and its reciprocal is termed the
EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE n
e

D= c
1
2
+c
2
2
+ . + c
n
2

n
e
=
D
1

Resolution of variation, Rue1
If L is a linear contrast, the sum of squares due to this contrast with one
degree of freedom (f=1) denoted by S
L
, is given by
S
L
=
2 2
2
2
1
2
....
n
c c c
L
+ + +
=
D
L
2
(f = 1)
The linear equation above is a contrast for the sum of the coefficients.
C1 +c2 + +c16 =
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
10
1
6
6
1
x x 10 = 0
We, thus, have
S
A
=
2 2
2
1 2
) 10 / 1 ( 6 ) 6 / 1 (
) 10 / 6 / (
+

X
A A
X 10 =
15 / 4
) 507 . 0 (
2


25
= 0.9639 (f=1)
Thus, it means that the difference in the magnitude of deflection of the
two categories of bearings accounts for a variation whose magnitude is
0.9639 in the total amount of variation of 1.8775 among the 16
bearings. The difference obtained by subtracting 0.9639 from 1.8775
expresses the magnitude of individual differences within the same
category. This is termed error variation S
e
.
S
e
= S
T
S
A
= 1.8775 0.9639 = 0.9136 (f=15 1=14)
The degrees of freedom or S
T
is 15, the degrees of freedom of S
A
is 1,
and the degrees of freedom of S
e
is (15-1) = 14.
V
e
= S
e
/14 =
14
9136 . 0
= 0.0652
Error variance is a measure, which indicates the magnitude of the
difference in vibration for a bearing within the same category. The
square root of error variance V
e
is termed the standard deviation of
individual difference of vibrations, and this is represented by the
symbols.
S=
e
V = 0652 . 0 = 0.2554 (d.b.)
In effect in this case, the total variation of the vibrations among the 16
bearings. ST is resolved into the variation of the difference between the
two categories of bearings.
S
T
= S
A
+S
e

1.8775 = 0.9639 + 0.9136 (variation)
15 = 1 + 14 (degrees of freedom)
To find the true differences between the two categories of bearings, it
is necessary to subtract the individual difference equivalent to one, or
in other words, the error variance from S
A
. This is termed the net
variation between the two categories of bearings. Let us express net
variation by affixing a prime.
S
A
= S
A
V
e
= 0.9639 0.0652 = 0.8987
The net variation of error S
e
, is obtained by adding the equivalence of
one error variance V
e
to S
e
.
S
e
= S
e
+V
e
= 0.9136 + 0.0652 = 0.9788
In other words,
S
T
= S
A
+ S
e

26
1.8775 = 0.8987 + 0.9788
What is obtained by dividing both sides of this by S
T
and multiplying by
100 is termed resolution of the contribution ratio.

A
+
e
=
8775 . 1
8987 . 0
x 100 +
8775 . 1
9788 . 0
x 100
= 47.87 + 52.13 (%)
Thus, he total amount of variation in machine vibrations is 1, 8775, and
of this the differences between the two categories of bearings
contributed 47.87% as cause and individual differences among
bearings had contributed 52.13% as cause. The above information can
be presented in an Analysis of variance Table as follows
TABLE 2.2
ANALYSIS OF VARAINCE OF VIBRATION DATA
Source d.f. s.s. M.S. F (%)
Between categories of
bearings
1 0.9639 0.9639 14.78 47.87
Error 14 0.9136 0.0652
Total 15 1.8775

It is important for engineers and researchers to familiarize themselves
with the calculations of analysis of variance and to be able to resolve
the total variation in any set of data to component parts identifiable with
some specific sources of variation and to be able to instantly calculate
the magnitude of influence of the causes he has considered on the
variation.
Definition 2
Given two linear contrasts
L
1
= c
1
y
1
+c
2
y
2
+ . + c
n
y
n

L
2
+ d
1
y
1
+d
2
y
2
+.. + d
n
y
n

We say that the two contrasts are orthogonal when the sum of the
products of the corresponding coefficients is 0, or in other words when
c
1
d
1
+ c
2
d
2
+ . c
n
d
n =
0
Resolution of variation, Rule 2

27
S
L1
=
2 2
2
2
1
2
.......
) (
n
c c c + +
+ . . . + +
n n 2 2 1 1
y c . y c y c

S
L2
=
2 2
2
2
1
2
.......
) (
n
d d d + +
+ . + +
n n 2 2 1 l
y d .. y d y d

form independent components in the total sum of squares S
T
and
S
e
= S
T
S
L1
S
L2

is a variation of degrees of freedom (n-2)
In general given (k < n) linear contrasts which are mutually orthogonal,
and if the sums of squares of these linear contrasts are expressed as
S
1
, S
2
. S
k
.
S
res
which is obtained by subtracting these sums of square from S
T
is
S
res
= S
T
(S
1
+ S
2
+ + S
k
)
and its degrees of freedom are (n-k).
For example, if A
1
is a foreign product, A
2
is a domestic product
company X and A3 is also a domestic product but of company Y, and if
six data points are contained by testing two samples of each product
designated as
y
1
, y
2
, y
3
, y
4
, y
5
and y
6
.
General mean
L
M
= 1/6 (y
1
+y
2
+ y
3
+ y
4
+ y
5
+y
6
)
Difference between foreign product and domestic product
L'
A
=
2
1
A
-
4
3 2
A A +

=
2
2 1
y y +
-
4
6 5 4 2
y y y y + + +

Difference between domestic products of companys X and Y
L A =
2
2
A
-
2
3
A

=
2
4 3
y y +
-
2
6 5
y y +


28
are mutually orthogonal linear contrasts.
For example, in the cases of m and LA the product of the co-efficient
of y
1
and y
6
is
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
2
1
6
1
x and the product of the coefficients of y
3

through y
6
is
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
4
1
6
1
x
Thus (
6
1
x
2
1
) x 2 + (
6
1
x -
4
1
) x 4 = 0
Similarly the orthogonality of the other contrast under consideration can
be verified. Therefore, the three sums of squares S
m
, s
A
and S
A
are
independent components each with one degree of freedom in the total
sum of squares S
T
.

Therefore, as
S
T
= y
1
2
+ y
2
2
++ y
6
2

We have
Se = S
T
(S
m
+ S
A
+S
A
)
As error sum of squares with degrees of freedom (6-3) = 3.
Rule of estimation
The 95% confidence limits of any given linear contrast L are given by
the following formula
95% confidence interval of L

29
[c
1
y
1
+ c
2
y
2
+ .. c
n
y
n
] +
e e
n x V F / 1 ) 05 . 0 (
1
0

where V
e
is the error variance from the analysis of variance table , and
F is the 5% upper percentage point of the F distribution with one
degree of freedom for the numerator and degrees of freedom for the
denominator where is the degrees of freedom of V
e
, and n
e
is the
effective sample size:
Confidence interval is defined a the range in which the unknown pare
meter () which is estimated by the linear equation L is expected to lie
with a confidence level of reliability of 95%.
The net variation of S
L
, denoted by S
L
, is
S
L
= S
L
V
e

The contribution ratio
L
=
T
L
S
S'
x 100


30











3.
ANALYSIS OF VARAINCE
TWO WAY
CLASSIFICATION



31
3.
ANALYSIS OF VARAINCE: TWO WAY CLASSIFICATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter we will explain in detail the layout and method of
analysis of experimental data by Analysis of variance where two
quantitative factors (or variables) are such examined at a specified
number of levels and experiments are carried on every combination of
these. These methods can be generalized to any number of factors
where each factor is examined at different numbers to any number of
factors where each factor is examined at different numbers of levels. In
short, whenever we want to investigate the contributions of various
sources of variation to the total variation observed in asset of data
classified according to the sourced, analysis of variance can be
employed to decompose the total variation into components parts
identifiable by the sources. This technique in general can be usefully
employed for the following two very different purposes:
a. To isolate the dominate factors from a list of suspects. We shall
say a factor is dominate of changing the level of the factor from one
value to another within the range encountered in practice produces
an important change in the average value o the response under
investigation. Alternatively, if the percentage contribution is of
sizeable magnitude we shall say the factor is dominant.
b. To estimate the best level for each important factor and thereby
the best combination of levels of the factors so as to achieve the
best value of response for the product or process.
We shall try to present the concepts of analysis of variance, the
procedure of computation and interpretation of the results through an
illustrative example and avoid an abstract mathematical treatment.
3.2 FACTORS, LEVELS, RANDOMIZATION OF EXPERIMENTS
Let us consider an investigation where our objective is to increase yield
rate of a certain chemical product. In general, several variables of the
process affect the yield rate but we shall restrict the scope of our
experiment to a study of only two variables, the temperature and the
bath concentration. Let us express the factor, which represents the
temperature by A and the factor which represents the bath
concentration by B. If we can empirically establish the relationship
between the yield rate, y, and the factors A and B, we can use this
relationship decide on the temperature and bath concentration, which
will increase the yield rate the most.
Based on the knowledge of chemistry or usually past experience, one
has a rough idea of the range of temperature that is best for raising the
yield rate. Let us assume that the temperature where the yield rate is

32
the highest is in the range of 200
o
C to 300
o
C. Regarding the bath
concentration too, many times an approximate picture is known, such
as that the yield rate is the highest when the bath concentration is at
least 0.2% and that when it is 0.8% or higher the yield rate does not
increase much no matter by how much more the bath concentration is
increased. Of course, there are situations when a range such as this is
very wide or too narrow. In many cases, however, even if such a range
is vaguely known, one can still anticipate appreciable difference of yield
rate within such a range, one then formally conducts experiments and
decided on the best temperature or bath concentration.
Having decided on the ranges of temperature and bath concentration
which are to be explored, one then decides a few temperatures and
bath concentrations from these ranges on which to actually
experiment,. For example, if it is adequate to experiment in the
temperature range of 200Oc to 300Oc one picks up a few points from
within this range. For example one might elect the 5 points of,
A1 = 200
O
c, A2 = 225
O
c, A3 = 250
O
c, A4= 275
O
c, A5 = 300
O
c
A temperature range such as the above, I selected, when it is
anticipated that a temperature which causes the highest yield rate
exists within this range or of this is known from a literature survey or it
is known that every other plant is producing the product keeping
temperature in the range 200
0
c to 300
0
c. Once the range of
experimentation for temperature us known, the questions to at how
many points in that range one should actually experiment depends on
the degree of complexity of the curve which expresses the relationship
between temperature and yield rate. In a case such as the above, often
times one experiments at 3 or 4 points of temperature. This is because
usually the curve of relationship between temperature and yield rate
possesses one peak or is monotonic smooth curve. If it is felt that there
may be two or more peaks, it would become necessary to increase the
number of points at which experimentation is carried.
Similarly, regarding the both concentration, too e choose a certain
number of levels. If it is known before the experiment that it is
necessary to increase the concentration of the bath if the temperature
is raised, then one has to change the range of the bath concentration
selected fro experimentation for each level of temperature. In a case
such as this, however, bath concentration, has no such relationship
with temperature and reaction time, this is clearly the case.
Suppose we consider the reaction
2H
2
+ O
2
= 2H
2
O
An Oxygen quantity of only about one-half s meaningful in the sense of
chemical equivalent top H
2
. If the quantity of h2 is varied as A1, a2, a3,
it means that for the quantity of oxygen whose cost is inexpensive, one
creates the three levels of

33
B
1
= Theoretical quantity (quality balancing the quantity of
hydrogen in the sense of chemical equivalent).
B
2
= 1.02 times B
1
(a 2% increase of the theoretical quantity for
oxygen).
B
3
= 1.04 times B
2
(a 4% increase of the theoretical quantity for
oxygen).
To answer why the experiments with B
2
and B
3
are necessary, it is
inevitable that in the case of a reaction such as this, there is possibility
that no matter how one tries an unreacted part will remain and one
wishes to determine by experimentation to what excess degree one
should, with advantage, introduce the less expensive oxygen in order
to minimize the loss that arises from such lack of reaction.
That the hydrogen quality was taken at levels also means that the
experimenter has interest in a comparison of the supplied quantity per
unit time. Clearly when the hydrogen quality is at A
2
the range and
oxygen quantity B will be different from that at A
1
. The range of oxygen
quantity is thus dependent on the level of hydrogen quantity.
It will be assumed here that one does not have the clear cut
expectation that one should vary the range of bath concentrations at
which one wishes to experiment, depending on temperature level. In
such a case in regard to the factor of the bath concentration, in effect
the range in which one wishes to experiment becomes determined
independent of the temperature. Let is assume that we have taken 4
levels at equal intervals in the range 0.2% to 0.8%. Let these be
B
1
= 0.2%, B
2
= 0.4, B
3
= 0.6%, B
4
= 0.8%
All the 20 possible combinations of the levels of factor A and B are
shown in Table 3.1.
One has to experiment successively on the 20 combinations of Table
3-1, and as to which combination is to be run earlier, is decided by a
drawing of lots. As to why we do is because causes which affect the
value of the yield rate are not only temperature or bath concentration, a
s shown above, but there are the inevitable variations, of for example,
the raw materials and auxiliary materials. As long as the substance (for
instance, bath solution) which are used in each run of the experiment
are not completely, the same, there will probably be measurement
errors while measuring the yield rates, or the results of the first few
experiment might be somewhat inferior due to inexperience.
In other words, even if one had intended to maintain the conditions
uniform, there might be changes in some of the conditions and these
might affect the experimental results; and again the results might be
influenced by unknown causes. To avoid possible biases from

34
systematically affecting the experimental comparisons we usually
randomize the sequence of trails.
These experimental values, as for example the yield rate value o 64%
fro A, B, incorporate not only the influence of temperature of 200
O
c and
the influence of the bath concentration of 0.2% but also the influences
of every other conditions at that tie, measurements error, etc
Let us then ask questions such as the following:
i) To what degree can it be said that the yield rate is influenced by
the variations in temperature or bath concentration.

35
Table 3.1
Experimental Combinations of the Two-way Classification
Experi
ment
No.
Level of
A
(Temp.)
Level of
B
(Concen
tration)
Combi
nation
AB
Specific condition
of experiment
Yield
%
Temp.
Concent
ration

1 1 1 A
1
B
1
200 0.2 64
2 1 2 A
1
B
2
200 0.4 65
3 1 3 A
1
B
3
200 0.6 76
4 1 4 A
1
B
4
200 0.8 64
5 2 1 A
2
B
1
225 0.2 67
6 2 2 A
2
B
2
225 0.4 81
7 2 3 A
2
B
3
225 0.6 82
8 2 4 A
2
B
4
225 0.8 91
9 3 1 A
3
B
1
250 0.2 76
10 3 2 A
3
B
2
250 0.4 81
11 3 3 A
3
B
3
250 0.6 88
12 3 4 A
3
B
4
250 0.8 90
13 4 1 A
4
B
1
275 0.8 76
14 4 2 A
4
B
2
275 0.4 84
15 4 3 A
4
B
3
275 0.6 83
16 4 4 A
4
B
4
275 0.8 92
17 5 1 A
5
B
1
300 0.2 73
18 5 2 A
5
B
2
300 0.4 80
19 5 3 A
5
B
3
300 0.6 84
20 5 4 A
5
B
4
300 0.8 91


36
ii) What is the curve that adequately represents the relationship of
temperature and yield rate and the relationship between bath
concentration and yield rate? Furthermore, what are the
confidence limits of this curve?
iii) At about what temperature and bath concentration is the yield
rate the highest?
Te methods of data analysis discussed in the following sections help
one to seek answers to the above questions.
3.3 DECOMPOSITION OF VARIATION AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABLE
What is being attempted here is to examine to what extent it can be
said that the yield rate has changed within the range of
experimentation. One seeks an answer by asking to what degree it is
possible to express the data as a synthesis of the two effects of
temperature and bath concentration.
If all of the values of the yield rate in Table 3.1 had been 64%, not only
would be conclude that neither temperature (A) nor bath concentration
(B) had influenced the yield rate in the range of experimentation but
one would also conclude that there were no other influences such as of
skill, material changes, measurement error, etc., which might have
changed during the 20 experimental trails.
However, it is a vital problem as to why the yield rate is 64% and not
100%. The reason why it has assumed a value of 64% is due to the
influence of cause fixed during the experimental period. In other words,
in general, the mean value of experimental data signifies the
cumulative effect of the cause which were fixed during the
experimental; period. If the bath solution had been changed or the
reaction rate has been changed, it might not have been 64%.
We shall now explain the computational procedure for calculating the
sums of squares of the various sources of a variation. In practice,
especially when calculations are manually done, one subtracts a
working mean, say 80 in this case, from the original data so as to
simplify the computational effort. The transformed data, recast in the
form of a two-way table are shows in table 3.2. These data are used
for further calculation.

37
Table 3.2
Transformed Data
B
1
B
2
B
3
B
4
Total
A
1
-16 -15 -4 -16 -51
A
2
-13 1 2 11 1
A
3
-4 1 8 10 15
A
4
-4 4 3 12 15
A
5
-7 0 4 11 8
Total -44 -9 13 28 -12

We first obtain the row totals, the column totals and the grand total. We
calculate the correction factor (CF)
As C.F. =
ns observatio of No
GrandTotal
.
) (
2
=
20
) 12 (
2

~ 7 (f=1)
The total amount of variation of data, S
T
, is
ST = (-16)
2
+ (-15)
2
+ .. (11)
2
CF
= 1600 7 = 1593 (f=19)
We next find the effect of A, S
A
as
S
A
= [(-51)
2
+ (1)
2
+ (15)
2
+ (8)
2
] - 7
= 772 (f=4)
We will explain why one can calculate SA by the above formula. From
Table 3.2, it may be seen that the effect of A exists at all of the four
conditions of B
1
, B
2
, B
3
and B
4
. Fundamentally, therefore to assess the
overall effect of A, one should find its effect for each of the bath
concentration of B
1
, B
2
, B
3
and B
4
and should average these. This
feeling is especially strong when the effect of A differs among B
1
, B
2
,
B
3
, and B
4
. Strictly speaking the curve of A usually differs depending on
other conditions of factors B, C, D .., some of these we may not
have explicitly considered in the experiment and presumably these
were supposed to be held constant. But in reality they might not have
remained constant throughout the experimental period. But we
consider the man curve of A as being the curve representing the effect
of temperature A and term it as the main effect curve. Although in

38
general the shape of the curve of temperature (A) differs depending on
the conditions of other factors, if the magnitude of this difference is not
particularly large, there will in effect be no appreciable error if one
seeks the optimum level by representing the effect of temperature A by
a single main effect curve which is the mean curve.
In balance, assessing the magnitude of difference between such a
main effect curve, or in other words of the magnitude of interaction, is
important. Therefore, even in seeking interaction, one should restrict to
only those interactions, which researchers especially need; to
experiment to see all interactions just because there are interactions is
entirely stupid. What we are saying is that there is no need to seek
interactions but that it is desirable to obtain an evaluation of their
magnitudes by the sum of squares of residuals.
This means that when expressing the data for the experimental
condition A
i
, B
j
, Y
ij
as a synthesis of the effect of temperature A and the
effect of bath concentration B, one should find the extent of error of this
expression; It is fundamental that errors of such a synthesis method or
in other words, the inadequacy of the model be assessed in this
expression, and what we intend is o seek the magnitude of the error
including interaction by the sum of squares of residuals.

The result are plotted in the graph of Figure 3.1 after adding the
working mean, the line T is drawn at the mean of the whole set of
observations which is 79.4.
i
a = A
i
/4 T/20 = (I=1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
i
a is the effect of the i
th
level if temperature on the yield rate. Clearly is
all of the 5 points above were to lie upon line T, one would without any
doubt say the temperature has no effect on the yield rate within this
range. One can therefore say that the magnitude of the effect of
temperature can be evaluated by.
Effect of A = (
1
a )
2
+(
2
a )
2
+(
3
a )
2
+ (
4
a )
2
+ (
5
a )
2


39
This is the effect of the mean curve, but since each temperature level is
repeated 4 times, it can be regarded that 4 times the effect of A is the
total amount of variation of data.
Therefore the sum of squares due to temperature effect A denoted by
S
A
, is

One calculates S
A
from the above formula using either the original
observations or the observations obtained by subtracting the working
mean.
For our data we have already shown that
S
A
= 772
The reason why (A
1
2
+A
2
2
+A
3
2
+A
4
2
+A
5
2
) was divided by 4 is because
each A
1
is the sum of 4 observations. In general in the calculation of
sum of squares by the analysis of variance, method, the value of the
square of any numerical total is divided by the number of observations
that constituted the numerical total.
Similarly,
SB =
5
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
1
B B B B + + +
- CF =
5
) 28 ( ) 13 ( ) 9 ( ) 44 (
2 2 2 2
+ + +
- 7
= 587 (f=3)
Therefore, if S
A
and S
B
are subtracted from the total variation of data
S
T
, it becomes [possible to evaluate the magnitude of effect of all
factors other than A and B (including interaction AB). This sum of
squares of residuals designed, S
e
, is termed error variation, and the

40
value, which is obtained by dividing Se by its degrees of freedom 12, is
termed the error variance, V
e
.
Se = S
T
S
A
S
B
= 1593 772 587
= 234 (f= 19 4 3=12)
Next, let us consider how to Performa the F test and calculate the
contribution ratio. Since the degrees of freedom of S
A
is 4, and is the
effect of temperature A is negligible the magnitude of S
A
should be
about 4V. Since both are estimate of error, they should be equal. This
means that one need but compare.
F =
Ve
SA 4 /

With value read from the table of F distribution at the chosen level of
significance with 4 degrees of freedom fro the numerator and 12
degrees of freedom for the denominator.
The real effect of A, termed the net variation SA, is estimated as,
S
A
= S
A
4V
e

The net variation S
A
of A, in this example, is found as
S
A
= 772 4 x 19.5 = 694.0
Similarly, the net variation S
B
of b is
S
B
= S
B
3 x V
e
= 1 x 587 3 x 19.5 = 528.5
The effect of all factors including A and B, except the effect of the
general mean is given by S
T
. The net residual effect S
e
is
S= S
T
S
A
S
A
= 1592 694.0
= 370.5
We see that the experimental values of yield rate varied from a
minimum of 64% to a maximum of 92%. What is the percentage
contribution of temperature change, to the total variation ST? To obtain
this percentage, one need but divide the net variation of A, defined
above, by S
T
. Among all the causes that contribute to the observed
total variation, the magnitude of variation explained by temperature,
expressed as a percentage of the total, is represented by the symbol
P
A,
where P
A
is given by,
P
A
=
aition Total
iationofA net
var
var
=
T
e A
S
V S 4


41
=
1593
694
= 0.436 or 43.6 (%)
Thus 43.6% of the total variation is caused by the temperature which
has been varied in 5 levels.

B
=
1593
5 . 528
= 0.332 or 33.2%

e =
1593
5 . 370
= 0.232 or 23.2%
CONTRIBUTION RATIO has the following meaning: The range of
variation in the data is 92-64=28, as 64 is the minimum value observed
and 92 is the maximum value observed in the 20 experimental runs. If
we fix the level of A, as 43.6% of the variation due to A gets controlled,
the only contributions to variation arises from b and error and their
power is 1-0.436 = 0.564. Therefore the range of variation is expected
to reduce to 28 x 564 . 0 = 21. This mean that for example, if 20 trails
has been conducted by fixing A at the best level (A
3
, as will be
explained later) it can be postulated that the range of variation in the
data will be the true value of A
3
10.5%. in similar manner, if it is
assumed that B also had been fixed at its best level (B4, as will be
explained later), since the power becomes, 1 0.436 0.332 = 0.232,
it can be postulated that the range of variation of data of 20
experiments will be the true value of A
3
B
4
(28/2) 232 . 0 =( 6.4%).
Essentially, the contribution ratio is the same as the square of the
correlation coefficient. Although correlation coefficient is useful only in
the case of a linear relationship between two variables, contribution
ratio is a more universal concept which can be used whatever be this
relationship.
Next, for testing significance of effects, one finds the ratio of V
A
and
error variance V
e
.
Where V
A
= S
A
/ 4 = 772/4 = 193
and one compares F = V
A
/V
e
= 193/19.5 = 9.9
With the 5% value (3.36) or the 1% value, (5.1) read from the table of F
distribution with 4 degrees of freedom fro the numerator and 12
degrees of freedom for the denominator. In this case the effect is
significant at 1% level. Significance of B by F-test is carried out in the
same manner. Contribution ratio and F-test can be displayed in an
Analysis of variance Table (ANOVA) as shown in table 3.3. If the
variance ratio F is greater than the 1% tabled value of F, the symbol
(**) is fixed, while if it is between the 5% value and 1% value, the
symbol (*) is affixed.

42
Table 3.3
ANALYSIS OF VARAINCE TABLE
Factor
Degrees
of
freedom
Varia
tion
Varian
ce
Variance
ratio
Net
Variati
on
Contribut
ion ratio
(%)
f S V F S
A 4 772 193 9.9** 694.0 43.6
B 3 587 196 10.1** 528.5 33.2
e 12 234 19.5 370.5 23.2
Total 19 1593 1593.0 100.0

3.4 ESTIMATION OF FACTORIAL EFFECTS
It has become clear from the forgoing analysis tat temperature and
bath concentration influence the yield rate rather considerably. What,
then, is the relationship between temperature and yield rate, and the
relationship between bath concentration and yield rate? What are the
best levels for each? What will be the expected yield rate when the
process is operated at the best level of temperature and the best level
of bath concentration? What will be the errors of the estimates? This is
the problem of estimation of factorial effects.
The relationship between the yield rate and temperature is plotted on a
graph with the levels of temperature shown on the abscissae and the
yield rates on the ordinate. From our data, we have
Temperature Average yield rate
200
O
c 67.25
225
O
c 80.25
250
O
c 83.75
275
O
c 83.75
300
O
c 82.08

The above information is presented in a graphical from in figure 3.2

43

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEMPERATURE AND YIELD RATE
What is important to note is that this plot indicates the main effect curve
of A. The confidence limits for the 5 points of the curve can be obtained
as follows; with a relationship pf 95%. The formula for confidence limits
is
e e
n FxV /
Where the error variance V is 19.5 and is obtained from the ANOVA
Table. F is the 5% value of the F.- table with 1 and 12 degree of
freedom and n
e
= 4, since each point in the plot is the mean of 4
readings.
Therefore the confidence limits are
4 / 5 . 19 75 . 4 x = 4.8
This is the width of the arrows affixed above and below each point in
Figure 3.2. After this, however, it remains fro the experimenter to draw
a suitable curve according to his best engineering judgment as to pass
within these limits. What has been drawn in this way is the solid curve
at dead center. It is also desirable to have inserted the mean of the
experiments, T, in the graph.
T = 80.0 + (-12)/20 = 79.40
This is shown by the dotted line in Figure 3.2.
Considering the factor B, now, it I possible to draw a similar graph from
the following:

44

Bath Concentration Yield rate
B
1
= 0.2 80 + (-44/5) = 71.2 + 4.3
B
2
= 0.4 80 + (-9/5) = 78.2 + 4.3
B
3
= 0.6 80 + (13/5) = 82.6 + 4.3
B
4
= 0.8 80 + (28/5) = 85.6 + 4.3


Here, the confidence limit value of 4.3 was obtained I the following
way. Note n
e
=5, since each point is a mean of 5 observations, F and V
e

are the same as for A.
e e
n FxV / = 4 / 5 . 19 75 . 4 x = 4.3
3.5 DETERMINATION AND PREDICTION OF YIELD RATE AT OPTIMUM
CONDITIONS
Next, let us find the temperature and bath concentration, which will
benefit us by increasing the yield rate the most. This constitutes
determination of the optimum conditions.
We usually find these from figures 3.2 and 3.3 by visual inspection. For
Example, to decide what the best temperature level is, one need but
roughly read off the value of the temperature corresponding to the
highest point on the curve. In general, essentially the best temperature

45
is not necessarily the temperature at which the yield rate is the highest
but it is the temperature t which profit is the greatest. In actual practice,
one estimates the cost of maintaining a specified level of temperature.
One drawn to curves of the results, one for the cost of maintaining
each temperature level and the other for the monetary value of eh yield
quality depending on yield rate against temperature. The operational
standard for temperature is shown as that temperature for which the
net benefit is he greatest.
From figure 3.2, it is clear that the maximum value seems to exist in the
neighborhood of 250
O
c and 275
O
c. It is usual to take the lower value,
250
O
c, if the yield rate does not seem to differ much within the range.
On the other hand, if even a slight difference is important then further,
experiments are carried within the range of 250-275
O
c.Let us assume
for the time being that it has been decided that 250
O
c is the best level.
Similarly, one decides the bath concentration, which would raise the
yield rate the most from figure 3.3. Tentatively, let us assume that 0.8
has been obtained as the best quantity.
The prediction of what will be the average yield rate. If product, from
now in is produced with the temperature at 250Oc and the catalyst
quantity at 0.8%, is the problem of finding the process mean and
confidence limits of the yield rate. These values are obtained as
follows.
Estimate process mean. u , when A
3
and B
4
are selected as the
operating levels is
u = (mean yield rate of the whole set of experiments, T )
+ (Amount by which the yield rate differs from T when A
3

I s selected)
+ (Amount by which the yield rate differs from T when B4
is selected)
= T + ( A
3
- T ) + ( B
4
-T ) = A
3
+ B
4
- T
= 83.75 + 85.60 79.40 = 89.95
95% confidence limits for u are
u
e e
n x xV F / 1 ) 12 , 1 (
where F
(1, 12)
is the 5% value of F read from Table
with 1 and 12 degrees of freedom
V
e
is the error variance, read from the Anova table

46
n
e
is the effective sample size of u
n
e
is given by the following formula for all orthogonal designs
n
e
= Total number of experiments .
Sum o degrees of freedom of the factors included
in the estimation of u including general mean.
=
3 4 1
20
+ +
=
8
20
= 2.5
For our example F (1, 12, 0.05) = 4.75 and V
e
= 19.5 and
Thus confidence limits for the process mean for the condition A
3
B
4
are
89.95 5 . 2 / 1 5 . 19 75 . 4 x x = 89.95 6.09
WHAT IS ESTIMATION OF THE PROCESS MEAN? To be precise this
means the estimation of the mean value of 20 data when a total of 20
experiments and been carried out only for the combination A
3
, B
4
, viz.,
(A
3
B
4
). In practice, however, this means the estimation of the mean
value when product is produced over and over again under condition
A
3
B
4
assuming that all other conditions that existed at the time of these
20 runs of experiments will persist.
However, we wish to estimate the value which will actually be realized
when confirmatory trials are run once or twice or in general r times for
the experimental condition A
3
B
4
.
In other words, our interest usually is in the prediction of the mean
value x and its confidence interval that will be realized from runs of
confirmatory trials at the conditions A
3
B
4
and compare the actual
results with the prediction to ascertain whether or not the conclusions
from these experiments had been correct. If the realized values lie
within the confidence band then it is taken as evidence that the
experimental conclusions are valid.
Since V ( x - u ) = (1/n
e
+ 1/r)
2
o
The 95% confidence limits for the average values when r confirmatory
trials are run at A
3
B
4
are given by
u ) / 1 / 1 ( ) 12 , 1 ( r n xV F
e e
+
The case of r= 1 is used most frequently.
Confidence limits when an individual trial is conducted at A
3
B
4
,
Range of variation of an individual x = u ) 1 / 1 ( ) 12 , 1 ( +
e e
n xV F

47
= 89.95 1 ) 5 . 2 / 1 ( 5 . 19 75 . 4 + x

= 89.95 11.39
In this case the upper limit of the confidence interval exceeds 100 and
we are less than happy; this has happened because we had analyzed
the data on yield which ranges from 0 to 100% by analysis if variance
without applying the omega ( O) transformation. It is advisable to
analyze the transformed data. Since we will discuss omega
transformation in Chapter 7, the reader is requested to regard the
upper limit as an approximation.
COMMENTS
I. It I often unless to include a very large number of factors and to
experiment at as many as 5 or 6 levels for the factors. This is
because if the values of 4 points are known, it is a simple matter by
which one can adequately estimate the intermediate values. There
is nothing less fruitful than to experiment by using as many a 1 or
20 levels when it I amply possible to approximate the response
function by a cubic curve, or in other words, when it suffice to
examine is an inept design of an experiment which doe not consider
at all the efficiency of experimentation.
II. The procedure discussed here for estimating the process means, in
the ultimate analysis, is relative in the sense that it depends on the
levels of the factors that are kept constant at the time of
experimentation. If at the time of running the confirmatory trails at
the optimum condition the factors kept constant are not maintained
at the same predetermined levels, it may happen that the
experimental values actually realized at the optimum condition may
not fall within the confidence interval at the specified confidence
level.
This is because the general mean, is used in the estimating equation,
is the effect of the fixed cause at the time of experimentation and if
these undergo changes the general mean value also changes. It is
usually presumed that the state at the time of experimentation
continues. In reality it may not happen for several reasons. However,
even it the state at the time of experimentation does not continue, it is
still useful to estimate the expected result at the optimum condition as it
may possible be regarded that there will be some approximate
reproducibility with respect to the difference between the estimated
process mean under the hypothesis of no change in the levels of fixed
factors and the actual process mean realized due to change in some
process conditions. However, it is laborious to estimate these changes
for every possible change in the levels of the factors kept constant. In
practice, what is important is how much better the process mean is with
the existing condition, compared to other possible conditions. If the
operating condition has been so chosen that or remains best no
matters what changes there might be in the levels of the other

48
uncontrollable factors, it does not matter if the process mean changes
depending on the levels of the factors beyond the control of the
experimenter. It is to be appreciated that changes in the general mean
level cannot be helped and that this is something relative to the actual
process conditions that prevail.
*******


49










4.
FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTS


50
4.
FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTS
4.1 Introduction
In Industrial applications frequently we know that several factors may
affect the Quality characteristics in which we are interested and we
wish to estimate the effects of each of the factors and how the effect of
one factor varies over the levels of the other factors. For example, the
surface finish of a component may be effected by several factors such
as speed, rate of feed, the geometry of tool, type of coolant, coolant
pressure, etc. one might try to test each of the factors, separately,
holding all other factors constant in a given experiment, but with a little
thought I might be clear that such an experiment might not give the
information required. The logical procedure would be to vary all factors
simultaneously, that is, within the framework of the same experiment.
When we do, we have what is now widely known as a complete or full
factorial experiment.
The factorial experiments are particularly useful in experimental
situations, which require the examination of the effects of varying two
or more factors. I a complete exploration of such a situation not is not
sufficient to vary one factor at a time, but that all combinations of the
different factor levels must be examined in order to elucidate the effect
of each factor and the possible ways in order to elucidate the effect of
eh factor and the possible ways in which each factor may be modified
by the variation of the other factors. In the analysis of the experimental
results the effect of each factor can be determined with the same
accuracy as if only one factor has been varied at a time and the
interaction effects between the factors can also be evaluated.
4.2 ADVANTAGES OF A FACTORIAL DESIGN
1. In increase the scope of the experiment and its inductive value and it does
so mainly but giving information not only on the main factors but no their
interactions.
2. The various levels of one factor constitute replications of other factors and
increase the amount of information obtained on all factors.
3. When there are no interactions, the factorial design gives the maximum
efficiency in the estimate of the effects.
4. When interactions exist their nature being unknown a factorial design is
necessary to avoid misleading conclusions.
5. In the factorial design the effect of a factor is estimated at several levels of
other factor and the conclusion hold over a wide range of conditions.

51
4.3 Designs with factor at two levels only: (2
n
Series)
The simplest class of factorial designs is that involving factors at two
levels, that is, the 2
n
class n being the number of factors examined in
the experiments. We shall disuses here how the main effects and
interactions are calculated, and how that are represented and
interpreted in the analysis of variance of the results. We shall first
introduce the notation used in the 2
n
designs due to Frank Yates.
Notation:
Letters A, B, C denote the factors; the two levels of A, B, C are
denoted by (1), a; (1), b; (1), c; respectively. As a convention the
lower case letters a, b, denote the high levels of the factors. The low
level is signified by the absence of the corresponding letters. Thus the
treatment combination bd, in a 2
4
factorial experiment, means the
treatment combination, which contains the first (low) levels of factors is
denoted by the symbol (1). We shall denote by symbol (ab), the mean
of all observations which receive the treatment combination ab. The
letters A, B, C, AB, when they refer to numbers will represent
respectively the main effects of factors A, B, C and the interaction
effect of factors A and B.
Main effects and Interactions:
The change in the average response produced by a change in the level
of a factor is called its main effect and if as something happens the
effect of one factor is different at different levels of one or more of the
of the factors, the two factors are said to interact. The interaction
between two factors is termed the First order interaction or Two factor
interaction and is denoted by AB. If the interaction between two factors
A, B, is different at different levels of a third factor C, then there is said
to be an interaction between the three factors. This is referred to as
Second Order Interaction or three factors interaction and is denoted
by ABC, Similarly third and higher order interactions are defined.
In a 2
2
experiment, the arithmetical computation for the main effects of
A and B and of the interaction AB can be represented, symbolically
following their definitions.

Level of A
Total
(1) a
Level of
B
(1) (1) (a) [(1)+ (a)]
b (b) (ab) [(b)+ (ab)]
Totals [(1)+(b)] [(a) +(ab)] [(1)+(a)+(b+(ab)]


52
Main effect of A = [(ab) + (a) - (a)- (b)] = (a-1) (b+1)
Main effect of B = [(ab) + (b) - (1)-(a)] = (a+1) (b-1)
Interaction AB = [(1) + (ab) - (b) - (a)] = (a-1) (b-1)
These quantities and the general mean M are shown in terms of the
means for the treatment combinations in the Table 4.1.
Table 4.1
MAIN EFEFCTS AND INTERACTIOSN EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF
INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT MENAS: 2
2
FACTORIAL
Factorial Treatment combination
Divisor
Effect (1) (a) (b) (ab)
M + + + + 4
A - + - + 2
B - - + + 2
AB + - - + 2

The row of table express the factorial effect in terms of the treatment
means. These relations are useful when an experiment has been
summarized in terms of the factorial effects and it is later desired to
estimate some of the simple effects. If we define factorial effect totals
as illustrated above, we will have
Effect total for (A) = [(ab)- () + (a) (1)]
Then the sum of squares for A in the analysis of variance is [(A)]
2
/4 r,
where r is the number of replicates. Corresponding formula hold for
the other factorial effects.
Main effects and Interactions: 23 designs
If we have 3 factors, A, B, C the there are 8 treatment combinations: In
Yates notation these are designed as
(1), a, b, ab, c, ac, bc, abc
In the standard order.
As before the main effects of A, B, C are defined to be
A= /4 [(abc)- (bc)+(ab)-(b)+ (ac)- (c)+(a)- (1)]

53
= [(a-1)(b+1)(c+1)]
Similarly
B= [(a+1) (b-1) (c+1)]
The interaction of A with B is now measure separately at each of the
two levels of C.
AB (C at second level) = [(abc)- (bc)- (ac)+ (c)]
AB (C at first level) = [(ab) (b)- (a) + (1)]
As would be expected, the quantity AB is taken as the average of these
two effects.
Thus AB = 1/ [(abc) - (bc) (ac) + (c) + (ab) - (b) (a) + (1)]
= [(a-1) (b-1) (c+1)]
Similarly
BC = [(a+1) (b-1) (c-1)]
AC = [(a-1) (b+1) (c-1)]
In additional we encounter a new interaction. Separate estimates were
given above for AB at each of the levels of C. The difference between
these two estimates is the effect of interaction of C with AB and is
termed as the ABC interaction. This difference with the conventional
factor defines the ABC interaction. Thus,
ABC = [(abc ) - (bc) (ac)+ (c) - (ab)+(b) + (a) - (1)]
Or
ABC = [(a-1) (b-1) (c-1)]
It can be easily verified that the same expression measures the
interaction of AC with B and that of BC with A and is termed the ABC
interaction. It is a second order interaction.
Three factor interactions are more difficult to understand and interpret
than two-factor interactions. Fortunately in practice three factor
interactions are often small relative to main effects and two factor
interactions, and quite frequently they can be neglected for the
purposes to which the results are to be put to use.
The expressions for the factorial effects in terms of the treatment
means are summarized in table 4.2. The rows of the table give the
factorial effects in terms of the treatment means, while the columns
give the treatment means in terms of the factorial effects.

54
Table 4.2
Main effects and interactions expressed in
terms of treatment means
Factorial
Effect
Treatment combination
Divisor
(1) (a) (b) (ab) (c) (ac) (bc) (abc)
M + + + + + + + + 8
A - + - + - + - + 4
B - - + + - - + + 4
AB + - - + + - - + 4
C - - - - + + + + 4
AC + - + - - + - + 4
BC + + - - - - + + 4
ABC - + + - + - - + 4


If r is the number of replicates, each factorial effect has the same
variance,
r 16
8
2
o
or
r 2
2
o
. The contribution of any effect to the sum of
squares for treatment sis (T
2
/8r), where T denoted the factorial effect
total e.g., A = [- (1) + (a) - (b) + (ab) - (c) + (ac) - (bc) + (abc)]
Standard order of treatment combinations and effects
When each factor is examined only at two levels is a conventional
order in which to write the treatment combinations and effects. For one
factor we simply write (1), for two factors add b, ab derived by
multiplying the first two by the additional letter b. For three factors and
c, ac, bc, abc derived by multiplying the first four by the additional letter
c, and so on.
The standard order for three factors A, B, and C will thus be (1), a, b,
ab, c, ac, bc, abc. Table 4.2 is written by algebraically expanding the
symbols expressions or the main effects and their interactions and the
terms rearranged in the standard order mentioned above.
In general if there are n factors each of two levels the total number of
treatment combinations is 2
n
. With n factors there are n main effects, n
(n-1)/2 fist order interactions, n (n-1) (n-2)/6 second order interactions,
and so on.

55
4.4 YATES METHOD OF COMPUTING FACTORIAL EFEFCTS:
Yates has developed a systematic tabular method, which is most
expeditious, when there are four or more factors. The steps in the
computation are as follows:
1. Arrange the treatment combinations in standard order.
2. Place the corresponding treatment totals, in the net column, Pair
the treatment totals in the order, e.g., (1, 2), (3, 4), (5, 6) and (7, 8).
3. Obtain the top half of the column (1), (next column) by adding the
response total sin each pair.
4. Obtain the lower half of column (1) by taking the differences of the
same pairs; the first member of each pairs is subtracted from the
second in every case.
5. By applying the same process, obtain column (2) from column (1).,
6. By applying the same process, obtain column (3) from column (2).
7. Repeat the process n times until we reach column (n) where n is
the number of factors involved in the study.
8. Obtain the factorial effect mean by dividing the factorial effect total
by 2
n-1
xr here r is the number of replicates.
9. Contributions to the sums of squares due to treatments of the
factorial effects (Main effects and interactions) are obtained by
dividing the squares of factorial effects total by 2
n
xr.
Example
Baffle plates are used in U-tube type heat exchangers for regulating
the flow o shell side fluid. Holes are drilled in these plates and tubes
are inserted. In a certain manufacturing shop, excess amount of drift in
drilled hole was observed, and as result, problems were faced while
inserting the tubes in baffle plate hole. It was decided to conducts an
experiment in order to study the effect of certain process parameters
on the amount of drift. Three factors were identified as experimental
factors. These factors with their levels are shown in Table 4.3.
The drilling operation is being done on double column-drilling machine
using 5-spindle attachment. The run out of all the five spindles was
brought to an acceptable range by proper rectification. This was
necessary in order to maintain uniformity in background conditions.



56
Table 4.3
AFCTORS AND LEVELS
Factor Code
Level
I II
Method of Drilling A Direct Sequential
Speed B 300 RPM 342 PRM
Feed C 0.25 mm 0.31 mm

Measurement of the drill was taken on Jig Boring Machine. All the eight
treatment combinations were run. Each trial was repeated twice and
two values of drift were obtained to get a better estimate of
experimental error. The responses with computational procedures by
YATESS METHOD are shown in table 4.4.
Table 4.4
Responses and analysis method
Treat-
ment
Comb.
Replicate
Total (1) (2) (3) Effect
Effect
mean
S.S.
I II
(1) 0.6525 0.7305 1.3830 2.0685 3.9150 7.3065 G 0.4566
a 0.3300 0.3444 0.4855 1.8465 3.3915 -0.3495 A -0.0429 0.1649
b 0.4875 0.5790 1.0665 1.5120 -0.9840 0.1455 B 0.0128 0.0013
ab 0.2700 0.5100 0.7800 1.8795 0.6405 0.3465 AB 0.0433 0.0075
c 0.3930 0.5070 0.9000 -0.6975 -0.2220 -0.5235 C -0.0654 0.0171
ac 0.4020 0.2100 0.6120 -0.2865 0.3675 1.6245 AC 0.2030 0.0073
bc 0.5850 0.5310 1.1130 -0.2880 0.4110 0.5895 BC 0.0737 0.0271
abc 0.4410 0.3225 0.7635 -0.3525 -0.0645 -0.4755 ABC -0.0594 0.011


The following computations by method of ANOVA can be verified
Grand Total = 7.3065
Number of observations = 16

57
Correction Factor (C.F.) = (7.3065)
2
/16 = 3.3365
Corrected sums of Squares = (Sum of Squares of individual ob3.)
- C.F. = 0.3039
Sums of Squares due to replicate
= (3.561)
2
+ (3.7455)
2
C.F.
B
= 0.002
Sums of Squares due to treatment =
(1.383)
2
+ (0.6855)
2
+ (1.0665)
2
..+ (0.7365)
2
- CF
2
= 0.2339
This will be equal to the sums of squares due to 7 factorial effects.
Error sums of Squares = 0.3039- 0.2339 - 0.002 = 0.068
The resulting ANOVA is shown in table 4.5.
Table - 4.5
ANOVA FOR RESPONSE
Source
of
Variation
D.F. S.S. M.S.
F-
ratio
Replicate 1 0.0020 0.0020 0.206
A 1 0.1649 0.1649 17.05*
B 1 0.0013 0.0013 0.136
C 1 0.0171 0.0171 1.768
AB 1 0.0075 0.1175 0.775
ABC 1 0.0141 0.0141 1.458
Error 7 0.0380 0.0097
Total 15 0.3039
* Significant at 5% level of significance

58
From the above table it is evident that factor A i.e. the method of
drilling I the only significant factor. The average drift for the to levels of
A are as follows:
2 A = 0.3350 1 A = 0.5581. It can be seen that the drift is less for the
second level of factor. A i.e. Sequential Drilling gives less drift
compared to direct drilling. Speed and feed are not significant.
FACTORIAL DESIGN WITH ALL FACTORS AT 3 LEVELS: 3n
SERIES:
There is sometimes ab advantages in using three levels of the factors,
because with three level information is supplied on both the linear an
quadratic components of the effects. A quadratic component may imply
a maximum or minimum response at some intermediate factor
combinations, or at a point outside the range examined for some or all
of the factors, indicating a need for further experimental work at a
different set f levels. There is thus special interest in designs with
factors at three levels when quantitative factors are involved. For n
factors these designs are usually denoted by 3
n
.
Notation used 3
n
Factorial designs
It is the usual to represent the factors b capital letters and the levels by
0, 1, 2, or by corresponding small letters with those numbers as
suffixes.
For example (a
0
, a
1
, a
2
) may be used to represent the levels of factor A
and (b
0
, b
1
, b
2
) the levels of a second factor B and so on. There is no
ambiguity in representing the factor combinations by the suffixes only.
Thus (a
0
, b
0
) may be represented by (00), (a
1
, b
1
) by (1,2). For 0 3
3

experiment, the treatment combinations (=27) will be a shown in Table
4.6.. The first number indicates the level of A, the second level of B,
and the third the level of factor C.
Table 4.6
Treatment combination in a 3
3
experiment

A
0
A
1
A
2

B
0
B
1
B
2
B
0
B
1
B
2
B
0
B
1
B
2

C
0
000 010 020 100 110 120 200 210 220
C
1
001 011 021 101 111 121 201 211 221
C
2
002 012 022 102 112 122 202 212 222



59
For three levels there are only 3 constants to represent the position
and shape of the response curve for a quantitative factor; these are the
mean, slope and curvature. If the observations at the three levels are
denoted by y
0
, y
1
and y
2
, then assuming the levels are at equal unit
intervals of the variable, the three constants are estimated by the
following orthogonal expressions.
Mean = (y
0
+ y
1
+ y
2
) /3
Linear component = (-y
0
+ y
2
)/2
Quadratic component (curvature) = (y
0
- 2y
1
+ y
2
)/6
Any 3
n
design can be analyzed by the standards analysis of variance
technique, but a systematic method exists for deriving the components
of the main effects and all interactions in 3
n
designs (all factors
assumed quantitative and levels equally spaced). This corresponds to
the yates technique for the 2
n
designs and involves writing the
treatment combinations in the standard order, dividing into sets of
three.
4.6 EXTENSION OF YATES TECHNIQUE TO ANALYSIS OF 3
n

EXPERIMENTS
The steps in the computation are:
1. Add the three numbers set. After writing the treatment combinations
in a standard order and dividing them into sets of three.
2. Subtract the first number from the third (linear).
3. Subtract twice the middle term from the sum of the other to
(quadratic)
4. Repeat the steps, as many times as there are number of factors.
The computational procedure is illustrated with the following example.
Example
In U-tube type of exchanger, the open ends of tubes are expanded
against the tube plates. The expansions done by applying high torque
and thereby ensuring the plastic deformation of material to achieve a
leak proof contact. For a new design where the material for tube and
tube plate were new, it was found that the desired thinning could not be
achieved because speed and torque for the expander were not
appropriately specified. Hence, a need was felt to conduct an
experiment at different levels of speed and Torque in order to find out
optimum process parameters. A full factorial experiment, considering
three levels each of speed and torque was designed. The experiment
was conducted for different hole sizes. The experimental trials an

60
response with respect to hole size of 22.40 m.m are shown in table 4.7.
Treatment combinations in the table are indicated in the bracket.
Table 4.7
PERCENTAGE THINNING OF HEAT EXCHANGER TUBES
Speed Torque (A)
(B) 365 (A
0
) 380(A
1
) 395(A
2
)
380 (B
0
) (00)15.26 (10)12.21 (20)15.44
500 (B
1
) (01)12.50 (11)11.76 (21)10.29
1000 (A
2
) (02)4.41 (12)6.61 (22)5.88

The computations are carried out using the steps outlined above. The
table 4.8 shows different steps of computation. For example, in column
(1), the first, fourth and seventh values using above steps are:
First value = 15.26 + 12.21 + 15.44 = 42.91
Fourth value = 15.44 15.26 = 0.18
Seventh value = 15.26+15.44 2 x 12.21 = 6.28
Column (2) is obtained from column (1) in the same manner. Column
(3) designates the effects.
In order to obtain the sums of squares of each of these effects, (al with
1 degree of freedom) we must use the proper divisor. Since these are
all linear functions of the response, the square of the entire in column
(2) must be divided by the sum of squares of coefficients contributing to
these effects. The general formula for calculating divisor is 2
p
x 3
q
x r
Where p = np. Of factors in the effect considered (for main
effect p=1)
q = no. of factors examined in the entire experiment
minus the number of linear terms in this effect.
r = no. of replicates.

61
Table 4.8
YATES METHOD O ANALYSIS FOR 3
2
EXPERIMENT
Standard
order of
treatment
comb,
Response (1) (2)
Effect
(3)
Divisor
(4)
Sum of
Squares
00 15.26 42.91 94.36 Mean -
10 12.21 34.55 -0.56 A
1
2x3x1 0..052
20 15.44 16.90 2.62 A
q
2x9x1 0.381
01 12.50 1.18 -26.07 B
1
2x3x1 112.75
11 11.76 -2.21 1.29 A
1
B
1
4x3x1 0.471
21 10.29 1.48 -9.21 A
q
B
1
4x3x1 7.07
02 4.41 6.28 -9.29 B
q
2x9x1 4.79
12 6.61 -.073 6.07 A
1
B
q
4x3x1 3.07
22 5.88 -2.93 5.81 A
q
B
q
4x9x1 0.937

The analysis of variance is shown in Table 4.9
Table 4.9
ANOVA FOR PERCENTAGE THINNIG
Source d.f. S.S. M.S. F ratio
A
1
1 0.052
A
q
1 0.381
A=A
1
+A
q
2 0.433 0.217 1
B
1
1 112.75 112.75 39.24**
B
q
1 4.73 4.79 1.66
A=B+B
q
2 117.54 58.77
A
1
B=A
1
B+A
1
B
q
2 3.486
A
q
B=A
q
B
1
+A
q
B
q
2 8.007
AB=A
1
B+A
q
B 4 11.493 2.873
Total 8 129.466


62
Since, there is no independent estimate of error, we cannot assess
interaction AB, so the effect A
1
B and A
q
B are merged to give the
interaction mean square 2.873.Liner effect of speed has been found to
be highly significant in the above analysis. Torque has no significant
effect on percentage thinning. Looking at the figures from the point of
view of the physical problem one would be inclined to expect a linear
dependence of thinning on speed and fit a linear rather than a
quadratic regression to these data. From such a fit one can decide on
the optimal level of speed to be maintained to achieve a thinning in the
range of 7.5 to 10 percent.


63











5.
INTRODUCTION TO
ORTHOGONAL ARRAY DESIGNS


64
INTRODUCTION TO ORTHOGONAL ARRAY DESIGNS
5.1 LIMITATIOSN OF CLASSICAL DESIGN
The object o an industrial experiment we noted is generally to study the
effect on quality characteristics like yield, defects, strength etc. (known
as responses) of processing factors such a temperature, concentration,
density, pressure, speed, operators, machines, time etc. suitable
alternatives for the values a factor a known as levels. An estimate of
the effect of a single facto obtained independently of the other factors
involved in the experiment is called the main effects. If the effect of one
factor is nor the same at different levels of another factor, there exists
what is known as interaction between the two factors.
Let us consider the case of 7 different factors, each being considered
at two alternative levels. The classical design of experimentation
almost universally adopted by untrained experimenters is to restrict
attention to one factor at time, the other factors being held constant.
Such a layout of experiments is exhibited in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
EXAMPLE OF CLASICAL LAYOUT
Expt.
No.
A B C D E F G
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
5 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
6 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
7 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2


Note: Entire in the body of the table refer to the level of the factor
associated with the column.
In this design, initially level A
1
and A
2
are compared while the other
factors B, C D, R, F and G are fixed (to the firs level B
1
, C
1
, D
1
, E
1
, F
1
,

65
G
1
for example). Generally speaking, while the difference of A
1
and A
2
is obtained precisely, as the difference between the results of the
experiments (1) and (2) it is to be noted that it is estimated under a
certain constant condition of the other factors. For this reason this
design suffers from the serious flaw of poor reproducibility of results.
No matter now precisely the effect of the factor A is estimated this
effect is correct only for the case where the levels of other factors this
effect is correct only for the case where the levels of other factors are
identical to the condition which was fixed at the time of the experiment;
there us no guarantee t al o obtaining the same factorial effect if other
factor conditions change. Accordingly, it is doubtful whether the results
obtained from the experimental data of the classical method will be
consistent if the researcher changes or if the raw material changes.
Thus, it is not sufficient to vary one factor at time, holding all other
factors constant in a given experiment. The logical procedure would be
to vary all factors simultaneously within the framework of the same
experiment in order to elucidate the effect of each factor and the
possible ways in which each factor may be modified by the variation of
the others. When we do so, we have a complete factorial experiment.
LIMITATIOSN OF COMPLETE FACTORAIL EXPERIMENTS
We noted that factorial design I sine in which al possible combinations
of the various factors are different levels are tried out; for example, if
temperature can be tried out a 3levels and similarly pressure at 4
levels, there can be in all 12 possible combinations of pressure and
temperature. While factorial experimentation is very useful from
statistical considerations of identifying and estimating critical main
factors and interactions of identifying and estimating critical main
factors and interactions, it becomes unmanageably large in the usual
industrial context, for example, there may be 10 different factors of
interest each of which may need to be tried out at three different levels-
one existing one higher and one lower. In this case, a full factorial
design will involve 310 = 59, 049 treatments (different combinations of
the eels of factors). A plant scale experiment of this size is unthinkable.
what then is an efficient design is only of a moderate size, say like a
26, requiring 64 trails, an experiment of this size may involve a number
of batches of raw materials, and different processing condition.
The heterogeneity in consequence of the size of the experiment results
in extraneous variation, which will be added to the experimental error.
The discriminating power of the test of significance will therefore be
reduced vitiating the conclusions to be drawn. Care must therefore be
taken that variations in the experimental material, backgrounds
condition, etc, do not bias the conclusions to be drawn.
FRACTIONAL REPLICATE DESIGNS
To get over this problem, statisticians have developed numerous
experimental designs to enable estimation of main effects and

66
technologically important interactions at a fraction of the cost of a full
factorials design. A reduction in the size of the experiment can be
achieved if one were willing to certified information on unimportant
comparisons and compromising the on the degree of accuracy in the
estimates. The high degree of accuracy in the estimates of the main
effects given by the complete factorial design may not be required by
the experimenter and hence economics resulting fro examination of a
portion only of he complete design may be if interest to him. Again, in
some cases the experimenter may be satisfied from prior knowledge of
the process or similar processes that many of the interactions,
particularly, the higher order ones, are not appreciable and moreover
he may already have a sufficient reliable estimate of the experimental
error. If the experimenters main interest is in only elucidating
information on the main effects and their more important interactions,
then it can be shown that these can be assessed in only a fraction of
the number of tests required for a complete factorial experiment.
For instance, if in a 2
3
design with 3 factors A, B, C each examined at 2
levels if the experimenter had reason to believe that ABC interaction is
unlikely to exists he can sacrifice information on that effect. From the
table of signs discussed in the previous chapter, the linear contrast
which defines interaction ABC is
ABC = [(-1)+(a)+(b)-(ab)+(c)- (ac)-(bc)+(abc)]
Suppose only trials are run by selecting either of the sets of four trials.
Either (1) ab ac bc
OR a b c abc
It is easily seen that the main effects of A, B, C can b estimated from
the contrasts
A = [(a)+(abc)-(b)-(c)]
B = [(abc)+(b)-(a)-(c)]
C = [(abc)+(c)+(a)-(b)]
When the second set of trials is selected.
Whereas AB, BC and AC interactions are respectively given by the
contrasts.
AB = [(abc)+(c)-(a)-(b)]
BC = [(a)+(abc)-(b)-(c)]
AC = [(abc)+(b)-(a)-(c)]

67
It is seen that the same contrasts are used to estimate main effect of A,
and interaction BC; main effect of b and interaction AC; and main effect
of c and interaction AB. The name aliases were given by Finney to two
factorial effects that are represented by the same comparison. We also
say A is confounded with BC, C with AB etc.
Thus C, AB; B, AC; A, BC are ALIASES and we write C = AB, B=AC,
AC= CB, ABC is not estimable at all and on the assumption that AB,BC
and AC interactions are unlikely one can estimate the three main
effects A, B, C with only 4 experimental runs.
We thus see tat by scarifying information on the interactions which are
unlikely, we can run only 4 trials in place of 8 trials required for a full
factorial experiment. Such designs where only a fraction of the total
number if trials required for a full factorial design are run are called
Fractional replicate designs.
Construction of fractional replicate designs, however, generally
requires sophisticated statistical knowledge on the part of the
experimenter and is subject to numerous constraints that limit
applicability and ease in conducting experiments in practice.
5.4 ORTHOGONAL ARRAY (OA) DESIGNS
This type of design was first (1947) discussed by Dr. C.R.Rao of the
Indian Statistical Institute. Is features can be seen by comparison of the
OA design with the classical design, as fro example in the case of 7
suspected factors, each at two levels, discussed earlier. Table 5.2
exhibits the orthogonal table L
8
(2
7
) or simply L
8
table.
Table 5.2
ORTHOGONAL ARRAY L
8
(2
7
)
Sl.
No.
of
Expt.
Factor:
Column:
A
1
B
2
C
3
D
4
E
5
F
6
G
7
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


68
There are eight experimenters as per the layout in table 5.2. Each of
the 7 columns consists of four 1s and four 2s. Consider any two
columns of this experimental layout; there are four kinds of
combinations in the horizontal direction 11, 12, 21 and 22. When any
two columns consist of numerals 1 and 2 all the possible combinations
1, 12, 21 and 22, occur with the same frequency, the two columns re
said to be balanced or orthogonal. It is found from table 5.2 that any
two among the seven columns are orthogonal since all the possible
combinations of the levels of the factors associated with the columns,
namely, 11, 12, 21 and 22 occur the same number of times namely
twice.
In general if n
i.,
represents the number of times level I (here I=1,2)
occurs in a column and n
.j,
represents the number of times level j there
j= 1.2) occurs in another column and n
ij
, represents the number of
times the combination (i.j.) occurs in the pair of columns then for
orthogonality.
n
ij
=
.. n
xn n
j
.
.
must be true for all pairs (i.j)
where n.. is the total of trials.
For example in the above array n
11
= n
12
= n
21
= n
22
= 2
n
1
. = n
.1
= n.
2
= m
2.
= 4 and n.. =B
Thus n11 =
..
.
1 . 1
n
xn n
=
8
4 4x
= 2. Similarly one can verify for any other
combination.
On comparing tables 5.1 and 5.2, it is seen that the classical design of
experimentation is much easier to perform that the orthogonal array
design, which, nevertheless, is strongly recommended. In the OA
design, the average effect of A
1
and A
2
(or the main effect of A) is
obtained by varying the levels of other factors, i.e., the average of A
2
is
calculated from the data got through experiment 5, 6, 7, 8. No doubt
this layout is time consuming as the conditions of many factors must be
varied for each experiment; further, the variation in the data between
experiments is generally larger compared to the experiments by the
classical design. Why then this time, consuming OA design of
experiments is recommended?
The main reason is the high reproducibility of factorial effects. In the
OA experimentation, the difference of the levels A
1
and A
2
is
determined as the average effect, while the conditions of other factors
vary. If the influence of A
1
and A
2
on the experimental results is
consistent, while the conditions of other factors vary, the effect
obtained from the OA experimentation tends to be significant on
analysis. On the other hand, if the difference between A
1
and A
2
either

69
reverses or varies greatly once the levels of other factors change,
effect tends to come out as non-significant on analysis.
If OA design is used, any factor having consistent effect with the
different conditions of the other factors, will turn out significant and its
effect can be reliably estimated. In other words, when a large factorial
effect is obtained from the OA design this does not vary if there are
some variations in the levels of other factors. The reliability of such
factorial effects needs to be recognized and appreciated. In factor, only
after the advent of OA design, the results of laboratory scale
experiments are being satisfactorily translated into actual
manufacturing practice this is because a factor whose effect is
consistent the various conditions of other factors has a good chance of
reproducing this effect even when the actual conditions in the plant
scale vary somewhat from the experimental conditions.
DEVELOPMENT OF OA DESIGNS
Dr. G. Taguchi (1959) of Japan, by developing the associated concept
of linear graph, was able to device numerous variants based on the OA
design, which can e easily applied by an engineer or a scientist without
acquiring advanced statistical knowledge, for working out the design
and analysis of even complicated experiments.
The main advantage of these designs lies in their simplicity, easy
adaptability to more complex experiments involving number of factors
with the factors being examined in the experiment at different numbers
of levels. They provide the desired information with the least possible
number of trails and yet yield reproducible results with adequate
precision. Thus, for instance, from a mere 27 experiments one can
estimate the main effects of 7 factors and first order interaction effects
(or two factor interactions) of any three of the seven factors where all
the factors are examined at 3 levels as against 2187 experiments
required for a full factorial design fro seven factors each at 3 levels.
A properly designed experiment will have;
i) Sufficient replication (involving more than one observation being
simultaneously made for each response for the same treatment,
i.e., combination of factors);
ii) Local control (conducting the experiments subject to the same
background conditions to the extent feasible) to minimize
experimental errors (i.e., extent of difference in results noticed on
repeating the experiment); and
iii) Randomization (scheduling the experiments in a random order to
avoid ant systematic bias) to give validity for the results obtained.
Statistical methods are used in the choice of appropriate designs
and in analyzing the data.

70









6.
LINEAR GRAPHS
AND
THEIR APPLICATIONS

71
6.
LINEAR GRAPHS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION

6.1 INTRODUCTION
G. Taguchi (1959) introduced the concept of Linear graph associated
with orthogonal arrays and also developed various techniques for
adapting orthogonal arrays to meet the requirements of different
practical situations. The use of linear graph enables a scientist of an
engineer to design complicated experiments without requiring a basic
knowledge of the methods of construction of designs.
The information one wants to get an experiment of not always limited to
the main effects; some times interactions are necessary. Also it is
unusual to design an experiment with all two level factors or all three
level factors. If there are four level factors or five level factors, it is
necessary to modify a two or three level series orthogonal table so as
to meet the requirements. Linear graphs are useful for these purposes.
A linear graph associated with an orthogonal array pictorially presents
the information about the interaction between some specified columns
of tat array. Such a graph consists of a set of nodes and a set of
edges, each of which joins certain pair of nodes. A node denote a
column of the array and the edge joining two nodes denotes the
column(s) of the array which represent the interaction of the factors
associated with the pair of columns under consideration, In this
chapter, the fundamental applications of Linear graphs are illustrated.
6.2 LINEAR GRAPHS OF ORTHOGONAL ARRAY L
8
(2
7
)
There are two linear graphs associated with this array.

The linear graphs above show that the interaction between columns 1
and 2 is column 3, the interaction between columns and 4 is column 5
an the interaction between columns 2 and 4 is column 6. Column 7 is
shown as an independent node, which is apart from the triangle. We

72
note that all the seven columns appear in the linear graph either as a
node or an edge.
Example 1
Suppose in an experiment we want to examine four two level factors A,
B, C, D and apart from main effects we also want to estimate
interactions. AxB, AxC and BxC. Then we use linear graph of Fig.
6.1(a) and make the following assignment:
A is assigned to column 1
B is assigned to column 2
C is assigned to column 4
D is assigned to column 7
Then interaction A x B is obtained from column 3
Interaction Ax C is obtained from column 5
Interaction B x C is obtained from column 6
Such assignments are easily possible by the use of the standard Linear
graph.
Linear graph Fig. 6.1 (b) is used for an experiment where the
interaction between one particular factor and some other factors are
important. This is illustrated in example 2.
Example 2
In an experiment, there are kinds of raw materials A
1
and A
2
, two
annealing method B
1
and B
2
, two temperatures C
1
and C
2
, and two
annealing times D
1
and D
2
. It is required to get information on the main
effects A, B, C, D and interactions B x C and B x D. These
requirements are shown by linear graph in figure 6.2. A, B, V, D are
represented by nodes and since interactions B x C and B x D are to be
estimated, the nodes representing B and C and B and D are joined by
edges.


73
The standard linear, graph (b) of Figure 6.1 corresponds closely to the
above-required graph. Experimental layout is easily arranged using
linear graph (b) of figure 6.1 with some modification. That is use two
lines out of the three radial lines in linear graph (b). The remaining
edge is deleted from the graph and the associated numbers are now
indicated as independent nodes as shown in figure 6.3. We can assign
factor B to column (1), factor C to column (2) and factor D to column
(4).

A node is used for the assignment of a main effect and an edge is used
for assignment of interaction effect. Factor A is assigned to any of the
remaining two nodes, since only the main effect is required for A. The
unassigned node can be used for estimating experimental error. Here
Col. 7 is unassigned and is designated as e. The layout is shown in
table 6.1.
Table 6.1
Layout of the Design
Expt. No. B C BxC D BxD A e
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

Such layout can also be arranged from linear graph 6.1 (a). Using
linear graph 6.1(a) remove column, 6 which is the line that connects
columns 2 and 4, indicate it is an independent node like column 7, then
assign factor A to 6 as shown in Figure 6.4.

74

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON LINEAR GRAPHS
In general the sets of the linear graphs are not complete. For example,
there are more than eight hundred kinds of linear graphs for the array
L
16
(2
15
), but only six standard types are shown normally. Using the
standard types of linear graphs associated with an array, we can derive
a number of linear graphs associated with the same array by means of
deleting one or more edges and / or by connecting some of the
unconnected nodes. We have already seen this in example 2.
Example 3
Consider the linear in Figure 6.5 (a) of the array L
16
(2
15
). Suppose we
join the nodes B and 12 in this figure, we can see from interaction
Table of L
16
(2
15
), appendix page A-B that the interaction between
columns 8 and 12 is given by column 4. Hence we get the graph 6.5
(b).

So far we considered only arrays with factors 5 levels for which the
interaction between any two columns is given by some (S-1) other
columns of the same array. For arrays of other types given in the
Appendix Page A-7 & A-11 this is not true in general. For example, for
the array L
12
(2
11
) the interaction between any two columns, is mixed
up with parts of the other columns. Hence the linear graph associated
with this array L12 (211) the interaction between any two columns is
mixed up with parts of the other columns. Hence the linear graph
associated with this array consists of eleven discontented nodes and it
is nor permissible to join by an edge any two of the nodes. Now

75
consider the array L18 (2
1
x 3
7
) in appendix page A-11, OA tables:
Actually the array given in the table consists of an additional Column
for a factor at two levels. Out of the total of eight columns of this array,
column no.1 is for a factor at two levels and the remaining seven
columns, i.e. (2 to 8) are for factors at three levels. If we choose
column 1 and any one of the remaining seven, all the six possible level
combinations occur exactly three times each. On the six possible nine
level combinations occur exactly two times each. According to the
more general definition of an orthogonal array by Rao (1973), this array
also can be considered an orthogonal array. In Raos notation this
array is denoted by (18, 7, 2
1
x 3
7
, 2).
If we take any two level columns, their interaction is distributed over all
the other columns of three-level. Hence, the interaction of any two
three-level factors is not estimable in this design. We note that all the
six possible level combinations of columns 1 and 2 occur with each
level of any other column equal number of times. Hence, the interaction
between columns 1 and 2 is orthogonal to tall the other columns. All
this information is given in summary form by the linear graph in Figure
6.6 associated with this array.

The eight columns of this array explain 15 degree of freedom out of a
total of seventeen. The remaining two degrees of freedom are for the
interaction between columns 1 and 2. It is not possible to derive any
other linear graph from the graph given above. With regard to other
arrays of this type, similar remarks can be made.
6.4 SYMMETRICAL FRACTIONAL FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTS
Suppose G is any liner graph associated with an orthogonal array. If
we use the nodes of the graph to denote factors, this will give us a
fractional replicate plan. From this fractional replicate, it will be possible
to estimate all the main effects and also all the two-factor interactions
corresponding to pairs of connected nodes, provided we assume that
all the other interactions are absent. This simple result provides a basis
for extensive use of linear graphs in the design and analysis of
fractional factorial experiments.
The following procedure is used in the design of Symmetrical fractional
experiments:
i) Decide on the main effects and first order interactions which are
required to be estimated. Calculate the degrees of freedom needed
to estimate these effects. The minimum number of trails is the total

76
degrees of freedom plus one. Choose the orthogonal array for
which the number of trails is the nearest to the one determined from
the degrees of freedom.
ii) Denote the factors under consideration by nodes. Whenever we are
interested in estimating some two-factor interactions, represent
these by joining the corresponding nodes. The resulting graph is
called the required linear graph.
iii) Select a standard type of linear graph associated with the chosen
orthogonal array whose pattern is as near as possible to the
required linear graph. Then obtain the required linear graph from
the standard type of linear graph through modification i.e., by
deleting one or more edges and/or by joining certain pairs of
unconnected nodes. Using this, assign factors and interactions to
the columns of the array.
6.5 APPLICATION OF L
16
(2
15
) ARRAY
An application is illustrated using arc-welding experiment. This
experiment was planned to find the best condition for the mechanical
strength, X-ray inspection, appearance and workability of the arc-
welded section between two steel plates. The following factors have
been chosen:
1. Type of welding rod (A) 2 levels A
1
= J100 A
2
= B17
2. Drying of welding rod (B) 2 levels B
1
= No drying B
2
= One
day drying
3. Welding material (C) 2 levels C
1
= SS41 C
2
= SB 35
4. Thickness of welded (D) 2 levels C
1
= 8mm D
2
= 12 mm
material
5. Angle of welded part (E) 2 levels E
1
= 70
o
E
2
= 60
o
6. Opening of welding part (F) 2 levels F
1
= 1.5 mm F
2
= 3.0 mm
7. Current (G) 2 levels G
1
= 150 A G
2
= 130 A
8. Welding method (H) 2 levels H
1
= Welding H
2
= Single
9. Preheating (I) 2 levels I
1
= No I
2
= 150
o
C
preheating preheating
Besides the main effects four interactions Ax G, AxH, GxH, and AxC are to be
estimated. Since we require a total of 13 degrees of freedom 9 for main
effects and 4 for interactions, the smallest array in which we cam
accommodate this is l16 shown in Figure 6.7.

77


The layout of the design can be obtained from the linear graph (figure 6.8.)
standard type 3(a) of L
16
(2
15
) as follows:



The two unused columns 14 and 15 are used for estimating error and hence
assigned to e. The final arrangement of columns is

A1, B4, C12, D5, E6, F7, G2,
H8, I11, e14, e15
AxG3, AxH9. GxH10 and AxC13

The layout of the design is given in table 6.2.

78
Table 6.2
Layout of welding experiment
Exp.
No.
A
1
G
2
AxG
3
B
4
D
5
E
6
F
7
H
8
AxH
9
HxG
10
I
11
C
12
AxC
13
E
14
E
15
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
5 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
6 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
7 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
8 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
9 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
10 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
11 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1
12 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
13 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
14 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2
15 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
16 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1

Generally, the selection of an experimental layout using orthogonal tables
consists of the following steps:
1. Decide on the factors and the number of levels at which each
factor is to be examined in the experiment. Decide on which
factorial effects (main effects and interactions) are required to be
estimated.
2. Express the information required in an experiment by way of linear
graphs. In the linear graph each main effect to be estimated is
represented by anode and if the interaction effect between two
factors is of importance the corresponding nodes are joined by an
edge. This graph is termed as the required linear graph.

79
3. Calculate the minimum number of trials needed toe estimate the
main effects & interactions of interest of the experimenter. This will
be one more than the total number of degree of freedom required
to estimate all the factorial effects. Choose an orthogonal array
nearest to the number of trails so obtained and choose the
standard linear graph of the corresponding array.
4. Compare the standard linear graph of the hosen orthogonal array
with the required graph as obtained in step (2);, select one of the
standard linear graphs which has close resemblance to the
required linear graph. Generally some modifications are made to
the selected linear graph. Then each factorial effect on the
required linear graph is corresponded with each number of
columns on the standard or modified linear graph respectively.
5. Correspond each factor with respective column of the orthogonal
table
6.6 EXAAMPLE ON L
8
(2
7
) DESIGN
High-pressure heaters are used to heat feed water. The essential
constitute of H.P, heater is a number of thick distribution pipes, which
act as inlet and outlet headers. These headers are connected to each
other by means of large number of cooled spirals. The spirals are
connected to the distribution pipes by mean of carbon steel stubs,
which are TIG welded to the spiral and manually arc welded to
distribution pipe. The position, location and condition of the stub to
distribution pipe point being unsuitable for radiography, these joints are
tested by hydraulic testing which cannot simulate actual site conditions
site conditions. Leakages were reported from many sites through this
joint and a need was felt to study the various parameters of manual arc
welding process and optimize them to ensure leak proof joints. In
addition to other process parameters a modified weld design was also
considered for study. Various experimental factors and their levels
considered for study are listed in Table 6.3.

80
Table 6.3
FACTORS AND LEVELS
Factor Code Factor Level 1 Level 2
A Weld Design Existing Modified
B
Cleaning
Method
Wire Brush Grinding
C
Preheating
Temp.
100
O
c 150
O
c
D
Post Weld
Heat
Treatment
Done Not done
E Accessibility Full Partial

In addition to the main effects of the above factors AD and CD interactions
were also suspected to exist.
To study the above effects 7 degrees of freedom are needed; 5 for main
effects and 2 for interactions. Accordingly, L
8
(2
7
) OA design was chosen. It
was decided to repeat each trial by three operators to get more number of
observations and to select the optimum process parameter which will
minimize operators effect as well. The allocation of various factors to columns
of L
8
(2
7
) is shown by linear graph in Fig 6.9. The layout of the experiment
along with one type of response i.e. hardness of the joint is given in table 6.4.



81
Table 6.4
Layout of experiment and responses: Hardness
(The hardness value shown in the table is 180 less than the actual value)
Trail No.
Factor
Column
D C A B E
Hardness
(Vickers)
1 2 4 6 7 Op.1 Op.2 Op.3
1 1 1 1 1 1 11 4 11
2 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4
3 1 2 1 2 2 4 1 14
4 1 2 2 1 1 4 0 9
5 2 1 1 1 2 9 8 4
6 2 1 2 2 1 4 1 1
7 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 4
8 2 2 2 1 2 14 4 8

The above data is summarized and the total response tables for main effects
and interactions are shown table 6.5 through 6.7.
Table 6.5
Operator wise total response table of main effects
Main effect Level
Operator
Total
1 2 3
A
1 25 17 33 75
2 26 9 21 56
B
1 38 16 37 85
2 13 10 23 46
C
1 28 17 20 65
2 23 9 34 66
D
1 23 9 38 69
2 28 17 17 62
E
1 20 9 24 53
2 31 17 30 78


82
Table 6.6
D
A

1 2
Op.1 Op.2 Op.3 Total Op.1 Op.2 Op.3 Total
1 15 5 25 45 8 4 12 24
2 10 12 8 30 18 5 9 32
Total 25 17 33 75 26 9 21 56

Table 6.7
Operator wise total response table for C x D
D
A

1 2
Op.1 Op.2 Op.3 Total Op.1 Op.2 Op.3 Total
1 15 8 15 38 8 1 22 31
2 13 9 5 27 15 8 12 35

The computations for carrying out ANOVA are shown below and the results
are summarized in ANOVA Table 6.8
Correction Factor =
ns observatio of No.
l) (GrandTota
2
=
24
) 131 (
2
= 715.04
SSA =
12
56 75
2 2
+
- CF = 15.04
SSB =
12
46 85
2 2
+
- CF = 63.37
SSC =
12
66 65
2 2
+
- CF = 0.04
SSD =
12
62 69
2 2
+
- CF = 2.04
SSA =
12
56 75
2 2
+
- CF = 15.04
SSE =
12
78 53
2 2
+
- CF = 26.04
SSO =
8
54 26 51
2 2 2
+ +
- CF = 59.08 (O stands for Operator)

83
SSAD =
6
32 24 30 45
2 2 2 2
+ + +
- CF - SSA-SSD = 22.04
SS CD =
6
35 31 27 38
2 2 2 2
+ + +
- CF - SSC-SSD = 9.37
SS AO =
4
21 33 9 17 26 25
2 2 2 2 2 2
+ + + + +
- CF - SSA-SSO = 11.09
SS BO =
4
23 31 10 16 13 38
2 2 2 2 2 2
+ + + + +
- CF - SSB-SSO = 27.26
SS CO =
4
34 20 9 17 23 28
2 2 2 2 2 2
+ + + + +
- CF - SSC-SSO = 35.59
SS DO =
4
17 37 17 9 28 23
2 2 2 2 2 2
+ + + + +
- CF - SSD-SSO = 59.09
SS EO =
4
30 24 17 9 31 20
2 2 2 2 2 2
+ + + + +
- CF - SSE-SSO = 1.59
SS ADO =
2
9 12 ....... 5 10 15
2 2 2 2 2
+ + + +
- CF - SSA-SSD-SSO-
SSAD-SSAO-SSDO
= 35.08
SS CDO =
2
9 12 ....... 5 13 15
2 2 2 2 2
+ + + +
- CF - SSC-SSD-SSO-
SSCD-SSCO-SSDO
= 5.25


84
Table 6.8
Anova for Hardness
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F
A 1 15.04 15.04 4.6
B 1 63.37 63.37 19.5**
C 1 0.04 0.04 +
D 1 2.04 2.04 +
E 1 26.04 26.04 7.98*
AD 1 22.04 22.04 6.76*
CD 1 9.37 9.37 +
O 2 59.08 29.54 9.06*
AO 2 11.09 5.54 +
BO 2 27.26 13.63 4.18
CO 2 35.59 17.79 5.45*
DO 2 59.09 29.54 9.06*
EQ 2 1.59 0.79 *
ADO 2 35.08 17.54 5.38*
CDO 2 5.25 2.62 +
Pooled Error (9) (371.97) (3.26)
Total 23 371.97 16.17
F Table: F (2, 9, 0.05) 4.26 F (1, 9, 0.05) = 5.12
+ Indicates factors pooled for error. * Significant at 5% level
** Significant at 1% level.
From the ANOVA table 6.8. it is seen that the difference between Operator is
significant and that is why the interaction effects CD. DO and ADO are
significant although the main effects of A, C and D are not significant. As it
has already been mentioned, since the operator effect is significant we will
select optimum parameter levels such that they are relatively insensitive to
operator differences. The response curve for ADO interaction is shown in

85
Figure 6.10. It I obvious from the figure that combinations A
1
D
2
and A
2
D
2
.
among A
1
D
2
and A
2
D
1
, it can be further seen that A
2
D
1
gives less average
value than A
1
D
2
. In order to maintain the hardness as near as possible to 180
VHN, it is recommended to use A
2
, D
1
combination. Similarly by analyzing CO
interaction it can be seen that C
1
gives better result than C2. The optimum
levels of B and E are selected by examining the average result of E are
desirable. Finally we arrive at optimum process parameter level combination
as A
2
B
2
E
1
D
1
C
1
.

EXAMPLE ON L
16
(2
15
) DESIGN
Heavy-duty gear wheels and inions are used in electric traction equipments.
One of the manufacturing shop was facing the problem of high rejection of
gear wheels involving heavy loss. Analysis of rejection data revealed that gear
wheel used for main drive of 165-*M type traction motor contributes to about
75% of the total rejection; hence this was selected for future study. While
studying the rejections at different stages of manufacturing process, it was
revealed that heat treatment contributes to maximum rejection. It was decided
to study the process of heat treatment by Design of experiment and evolve

86
optimum process parameters for heat treatment. The factors considered for
the experiment and their levels are shown in Table 6.9.
Table 6.9
Factors and Levels
Factor Code
Level
1 2
Hardening Temp. A 830
0
C 860
0
C
First Quenching
Time
B 50 Sec. 60 Sec.
Second Quenching
Time
C 15 Sec. 20 Sec.
Quenching Media D Raw Water Fresh Water
Quenching Method E Motor Side Down
Non-motor Side
Down
Preheating F No Preheating
Preheating 450
0
C
for one hour
Tempering Temp. G 190
0
C 220
0
C

In addition interaction effects AB, AC, AF, BD, BE, CD and CE were also
suspected. Nothing that 7 degrees of freedom are required for studying each
of seven main effects and another 7 degrees of freedom for studying each of
seven interactions a L
16
(2
15
) OA design was selected for experimentation.
The linear graph for the allocation of columns is shown in Figure 6.11. The
layout of the experiment along with response is given in table 6.10. Out of
many responses like Side hardness, Flank Hardness, distortion, etc, the data
on distortion and its subsequent analysis is shown in this example.


87
The distortion is measured by measuring chord over 7 teeth at 4 positions
before heat treatment and at the same position after heat treatment. The
change in the chord gives the distortion in a particular position. The response
considered for the analysis was the maximum value at the four positions in
this case.
Table 6.10
LAYOUT OF EXPERIMENT AND RESPONSES
Col. No.
Factor
Trial No.
1
D
2
F
6
S
10
B
15
C
8
E
4
G
Response
(Distortion)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -0.46
2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 -0.30
3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 -0.60
4 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 -0.56
5 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 -0.60
6 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 -0.60
7 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 -0.40
8 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 -0.50
9 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 -0.56
10 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 -0.52
11 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 -0.38
12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -0.40
13 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 -0.58
14 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 -0.42
15 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 -0.22
16 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 -0.28

Note: The -ve sign indicates that there has been reduction in the dimension.
The Computations needed for the Analysis of variance table are shown below:

88
ANALYSIS FOR DISTORTION

SSD =
16
) 36 . 3 02 . 4 (
2

= 272.22 x 10
-4
SSF = (3.42 3.96)
2
/16 = 182.22 x 10
-4
SSA = (3.24 4.14)
2
/16 = 529 x 10
-4
SSB = (3.8 3.58)
2
/16 = 30.25 x 10
-4
SSC = (3.78 3.6)
2
/16 = 20.25 x 10
-4
SSE = (3.8 3.58)
2
/16 = 30.25 x 10
-4
SSG = (4.04 3.34)
2
/16 = 306.25 x 10
-4
SSAB = (3.94 3.44)
2
/16 = 156.25 x 10
-4
SSAC = (3.68 3.7)
2
/16 = 0.25 x 10
-4
SSAF = (3.24 4.14)
2
/16 = 506.25 x 10
-4
SSBD = (3.88 3.5)
2
/16 = 90.25 x 10
-4
SSBE = (3.78 3.6)
2
/16 = 20.25 x 10
-4
SSCD = (3.62 3.76)
2
/16 = 12.15 x 10
-4
SSCE = (3.44 3.94)
2
/16 = 156.25 x 10
-4
SS error =
16
) 72 . 3 66 . 3 (
2

= 2.25 x 10
-4
The computational results are summarized in the ANOVA table 6.11.

89

Table 6.11
ANOVA FOR DISTORTION
Source P.F. SS x 10
4
MS X 10
4
F
D 1 272.22 272.22 23.50*
F 1 182.22 182.22 15.73*
A 1 529.00 529.00 45.66**
B 1 30.25 30.25 2.51 ns
C 1 20.25 20.25 1.75 ns
E 1 30.25 30.25 2.60 ns
G 1 306.25 306.25 26.44*
AB 1 156.25 156.25 14.49*
AC 1 0.25 0.25 1 ns
AF 1 506.25 506.25 43.7**
BD 1 90.25 90.25 7.79 ns
BE 1 20.25 20.25+
CD 1 12.25 12.25
CE 1 156.25 156.25 13.48*
Error pooled error (3) 34.75 11.58+
Total 15 2314.44

** Significant at 1% level. * Significant at 5% level.
It can be seen from the ANOVA table for distortion that main effects D, F, A, G
and interaction effects AB, AF, and CE are significant. Te average distortion
for main effects and significant interactions is given in table 6.12 through 6.16.

90
Table 6.12
AVERAGE DISTORTION OF MAIN EFFECTS
Factor Level 1 Level 2
D 0.502 0.420
F 0.427 0.495
A 0.405 0.517
G 0.475 0.447
B 0.475 0.447
E 0.475 0.447

Table 6.13
AVERAGE DISTORTION FOR AB
B
1
B
2

A
1
0.45 0.36
A
2
0.50 0.535

Table 6.14
AVERAGE DISTORTION FOR CE
E
1
E
2

C
1
0.455 0.490
C
2
0.495 0.405

Table 6.15
AVERAGE DISTORTION FOR AF
F
1
F
2

A
1
o.315 0.495
A
2
0.540 0.495


91
Table 6.16
AVERAGE DISTORTION FOR BD
B
1
B
2

D
1
0.57 0.41
D
2
0.465 0.43

From table 6.13, A
1
B
2
, from table 6.14 C
2
E
2
, from table 6.15 A
1
F
1
and from
table 6.15 B
1
D
2
are seen to given the minimum distortion. A compromise can
be made by selecting A
1
B
2
C
2
D
2
F
1
as the best combination. Similar analysis
is made for all other responses and after reconciling the conflicts by making
suitable trade off the overall combination has been identified as
Hardening temperature : 847
0
c
Preheating : No Preheating
First Quenching Time : 60 seconds
Second Quenching Time : 20 Seconds
Quenching Media : Fresh Water
Quenching Method : Non motor side down
Tempering Temperature : 220
0
C
6.8 THREE-LEVEL COLUMN IN THREE-LEVEL SERIES TABLES
In a three- level orthogonal array series, two nodes and the edge
joining then can be used to represent a factor at nine levels. The levels
of the two nodes will give none possible combinations and any one- to-
one mapping can be used to represent the levels of the nine-level
factor. For example, select line below from the linear graph L
27
(3
13
)
table.

Combinations 11, 12, 13; 21, 22, 23; 31, 32, 33 formed by the levels in
the columns 2 and 5 in the same row are corresponded to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7 and 9, which form a nine level column. These levels are inserted in
the table, and then column 2, 5, 8 and 11 are erased. The degrees of
freedom before and after the arrangement o not change, since four
columns with two degrees of freedom for each column is substituted by
a column with eight degrees of freedom.

92
EXAMPLE ON APPLICATION OF O.A. L
9
(3
4
)
Wire wound resistors are used in traction control. Complaints were received
from various loco sheds of Indian Railways regarding failure of wire wound
adjustable resistors. The main cause of failure was reported to be improper
contact and open circuit at the tapping band which may lead to burning of the
resistance wire. Any such failure brings the locomotive to a grinding halt.
Further, it was found that the problem s quite severe with 300W resistors and
failure of tapping ban is also quite high. So, it was decided to conduct an
experiment to improve the contact with the factors and levels as shown in
Table 6.17.
Table 6.17
Factors and levels
Factor Code
Levels
1 2 3
Material for tapping
band
A Hard
Copper
Brass Phosphorus
Bronze
Thickness of tapping
band
B 0.8 mm 1.2 mm 1.6 mm
Tightness of tapping
band (measured as
gap in tapping band
after final clamping)
C Less tight
(12 mm
gap)
Medium
tight (10
mm gap)
Very tight
(8 mm gap)
Shape of Dimple D Ball type Flat type V-type

Responses: Goodness of the contact is characterized by the contact
resistance. The lower the contact resistance better is the contact. Contact
resistance is measured in terms of voltage drop at the contact at a given
current (rated current for experimentation). With four factors at three levels
each, a full factorial requires (3x3x3x3) = 81 trials.
In order to minimize the number of trials, it was decided to conduct an
experiment using Orthogonal Array. The OA L9 (34) was used for this
purpose. Layout of the experiment along with the response is shown in the
table 6.18:

93
Table 6.18
LAYOUT OF EXPERIMENT AND RESPONSES
Sl. No.
Material Thickness Tightness
Shape
of
dimple
Voltage drop
A B C D Rep. I Rep. II
1 1 1 1 1 24 21
2 1 2 2 2 20 22
3 1 3 3 3 22 21
4 2 1 2 3 21 20
5 2 2 3 1 17 19
6 2 3 1 2 16 18
7 3 1 3 2 14 12
8 3 2 1 3 18 19
9 3 3 2 1 20 17

The experimental data is summarized and the table of average responses is
shown in Table 6.19
Table 6.19
TOTAL REPONSE TABLE
Factor
Level
1 2 3
A 130 111 100
B 112 115 114
C 116 120 105
D 118 102 121

The computations needed for Analysis of Variance table are shown below:

94
Grand Total G.T. = 341

Correction Factor
CF =
N
(G.T.)
2
=
18
) 341 (
2
= 6460.06

SA =
6
) 100 ( ) 111 ( ) 130 (
2 2 2
CF + +
= 76.77

SB =
6
) 114 ( ) 115 ( ) 112 (
2 2 2
CF + +
= 0.77

SC =
6
) 105 ( ) 120 ( ) 116 (
2 2 2
CF + +
= 20.11

SD =
6
) 121 ( ) 102 ( ) 118 (
2 2 2
CF + +
= 34.77

The sum of Squares,
ST = (24)
2
+ (21)
2
+ . + (17)
2
CF.
= 150.94

Error sum of Squares
S
e
= ST (SA + SB + SC + SD)
= 150.94 (76.77 + 0.77 + 20.11 + 34.77)
= 18.52

95
Table 6.20
ANOVA TABLE
Source of
Variation
Degrees of
Freedom
SS MS F ratio
A 2 76.77 38.385 18.65**
B 2 0.77 0.385 <1
C 2 20.11 10.050 4.88*
D 2 34.77 17.385 8.45**
Error 9 18.52 2.058
Total 17 150.94

* Significant at 5% level of significance
** Significant at 1% level of significance
Table values: F (2, 9) at 1% = 8.92
F (2, 9) at 5% = 4.26
It is clear from ANOVA table that factors A, C and D are significant.
To determine the optimum levels, treatment averages of significant factors are
presented in the table 6.21:
Table 6.21
TREATMENT AVERAGES
Level
Factor
1 2 3
A 21.67 18.50 16.67
C 19.33 20.00 17.00
D 19.67 17.00 20.17

Note: Underlined numbers are minimum average of a factor.
As the objective is to achieve a low value of response (change in my drop) for
good electrical conductance, we select the level corresponding to the
minimum treatment average as the optimum level.

96
Thus from the above table, optimum levels of significant factors are:
Factor A : 3
rd
level : Phosphorus Bronze
Factor C : 3
rd
level : Very tight
Factor D : 2
nd
level : V type Dimple
6.9 EXAMPLE ON L
27
(3
13
)
Transformer radiators are used to cool the transformed oil. The
radiators are subjected to oil pressure test for detecting leakage, if any.
The occurrence of these oil packages at oil testing stage was very
frequent and as a result heavy repair work has to be carried out.
Further, it was revealed that as many as 55% of leakages occur at the
edges of element, which are welded together by Semi automatic
Atomic Hydrogen Welding.
In order to reduce the leakage and optimize the process parameters for
the welding, an experiment was conducted.
The factors, each at three-levels considered for experimentation, are
shown in table 6.22:
Table 6.22
Level Factor 1 2 3
Machine (A) 1/B/212 1/B/121 1/B/148
Operator (B) I II III
Current (C) 35A 50A 70A
Speed (D) 70 85 100
Hyd. Press (E) 2 psi 3 psi 4 psi

Besides the main effects three interactions CXD, CXE and DXE were also
considered.
A full factorial experiment would require 35 i.e. 243 combinations. To reduce
the treatment combinations, an O.A. L27 (313) was selected

97
The following linear graph was selected:

The layout of the experiment combinations is shown in Table 6.23:
Table 6.23
LAYOUT OF EXPERIMENT
S. No./
Col. No.
Machine
(A)
9
Operator
(B)
10
Current
(C)
1
Speed
(D)
2
Pressure
(E)
5
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 1 1 2
3 3 3 1 1 3
4 2 2 1 2 1
5 3 3 1 2 2
6 1 1 1 2 3
7 3 3 1 3 1
8 1 1 1 3 2
9 2 2 1 3 3
10 2 3 2 1 1


98
Table 6.23 (Contd.)
S. No./
Col. No.
Machine
(A)
9
Operator
(B)
10
Current
(C)
1
Speed
(D)
2
Pressure
(E)
5
11 3 1 2 1 2
12 1 2 2 1 3
13 3 1 2 2 1
14 1 2 2 2 2
15 2 3 2 2 3
16 1 2 2 3 1
17 2 3 2 3 2
18 3 1 2 3 3
19 3 2 3 1 1
20 1 3 3 1 2
21 2 1 3 1 3
22 1 3 3 2 1
23 2 1 3 2 2
24 3 2 3 2 3
25 2 1 3 3 1
26 3 2 3 3 2
27 1 3 3 3 3

Response: As occurrence of leakages is a result of defective welding, the
following measure was taken as an index of the quality of weld:
Q =
weld of length Total
weld defective of Length
x 100%
Four replicates were considered for better precision. The responses for
various combinations are shown in Table 6.24:

99
Table 6.24
RESPONSES OF EXPERIMENTAL TRIALS
Sl. No.
Replicate
Response
Total
I II III IV
1 2.05 4.30 9.22 4.91 20.48
2 88.31 63.52 86.06 58.40 296.29
3 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 400.00
4 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 400.00
5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 400.00
6 61.06 72.13 23.15 66.39 222.73
7 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 400.00
8 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 400.00
9 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 400.00
10 34.90 32.55 38.67 33.25 139.37
11 9.22 12.09 12.29 6.76 40.96
12 3.89 11.68 15.57 11.06 42.20
13 26.02 40.77 31.14 46.31 144.24
14 79.30 37.09 69.05 23.56 209.00
15 65.33 41.98 58.96 44.81 211.08
16 98.42 100.00 100.00 100.00 400.00
17 63.67 24.76 33.02 24.29 145.74
18 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 400.00
19 20.80 35.84 28.25 39.78 121.67
20 37.85 3.77 18.16 3.06 62.84
21 22.87 7.78 14.38 11.55 56.58
22 14.38 19.57 10.85 14.15 58.95
23 12.73 7.78 12.50 22.14 55.15
24 58.44 40.73 34.83 17.62 151.62
25 6.17 9.90 13.67 16.98 46.72
26 90.51 100.00 100.00 3543 385.94
27 25.00 81.13 79.95 86.79 272.87

The experimental data is summarized and the average responses are shown
in Table 6.25:

100
Table 6.25
RESPONSE TABLE FOR VARIOUS FACTOS
Factor
LEVEL
1 2 3
Machine (A) 1687.49 1750.93 2443.83
Operator (B) 1386.26 2405.14 2090.85
Current (C) 2939.50 1730.41 1212.34
Speed (D) 1179.79 1852.77 2849.69
Pressure (E) 1729.85 1335.32 2157.08
Error 1 (Col. 12) 1413.84 2168.86 2299.55
Error 2 (Col. 13) 1971.81 1700.89 2209.55

The computations need for the Analysis of Variance Table are presented
below:
Correction Factor, CF =
N
Total) (Grand
2

=
4 7
2
x 2
(5882.25)

= 320378.38
Total sums of Squares,
S
T
= (2.05)
2
+ (4.30)
2
+ . + (86, 79)
2
- CF
= 152106.24
S
A
=
36
83 . 2443 ( ) 93 . 1750 (
2
CF + + ) (1587.49)

= 9779.5034
Similarly, other sums of Squares can be calculated.

101

Table 6.26
ANOVA TABLE
Source of
Variation
d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F
A 2 9779.50 4889.75 1.2
B 2 15123.54 7561.77 1.86
C 2 43642.38 21821.19 5.35*
D 2 39275.90 19607.95 4.81*
E 2 2584.88 1292.44 0.44
CxD 4 3798.97 949.74 0.23
CxE 4 8904.08 2226.08 0.55
e1+e2 4 16238.18 4074.71
Residual
error
81 10884.94 134.38
Total 107 152106.24

ANOVA table shows that the magnitude of experimental error is quite large an
may be due to a vital factor, which was not considered or frequent changes in
experimental conditions.
The main effects C and D are significant when compared with pooled error
estimate (Error + effects without Star mark).
The re-arranged ANOVA table displaying only the significant factors is shown
in table 6.27:

102
Table 6.27
RE-ARRANGED ANOVA TABLE
Source D.F. S.S. M.S.S. F.
C 2 43642.38 21821.19 21.92**
D 2 39215.95 19607.96 19.68**
Error 22 21908.92 995.86
Residual Error 81 10884.94
Total 107 152106.24

From this, it can be concluded that Factors C (Welding Current) and D (Speed
of welding) are significant.
From Table 6.25, it can be seen that minimum leakage is expected from 3
rd

level of Factor C, i.e. (70 Amp) and 1
st
level of factor D (i.e. 70).



103










7.
ANALYSIS OF
CATEGORICAL DATA


104
7
ANALYSIS OF CATEGORICAL DATA

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Dr. Taguchi recommends the use of accumulating analysis or the
frequency analysis for analyzing data when the characteristic examined
is classified into two or more classes. Which particular method to be
used depends on the nature of the classified data, which is being
analyzed. The accumulating analysis is used when there is order
between the classified groups, such as graded data, e.g., excellent,
good, fair or gauge values, e.g. -, +, ++ which were classified from
variables. On the other hand, the frequency analysis is used when
there is no order between classified classes such as data from making
a guess regarding cigarette brands or products of say, three
companies.
Again the method of estimation depends on whether the characteristic
under consideration follows a normal, Binomial or Poisson distribution.
We shall illustrate the method of analysis with numerical examples.
7.2 EXAMPLE ON ACCUMULATING ANALYSIS
In the Coal pulveriser unit of thermal Power Plants, Grinding rolls are
used for grinding of Coal. These grinding rolls are castings made but
Centrifugal casting method by first pouring Ni-hard iron followed by
pouring of Grey Iron. Over a substantial period of time about 14% of
rejection was reported in this casting of which 75% of rejections were
due to crack and low tread thickness. Tread cracks are further
classified as fin crack, bottom radius crack, horizontal body crack,
vertical through crack, etc. the roll has to be rejected whenever any of
these cracks occur as they may lea to catastrophic failures when in
service. These defects were found to be chronic in nature and hence a
major break through in the process of manufacture was felt to be the
need. Accordingly, and experiment was conducted with the few
process parameters selected for study as shown in table 7.1. Table
also shows various levels of these factors considered for the
experiment.

105
Table 7.1
FACTORS AND LEVELS
Factor Code
Level
1 2 3
Ni-hard weight (kg) A 280 310 340
Primary RPM B 150 160 170
Secondary RPM C 130 140 150
Carbon Equivalent %
in GI
D 3.4 3.6 3.7-3.9 -

In addition to the main effects of factors listed in table 7.1, interactions
AB, AC and BC were also considered to be of interest. Accordingly an
experiment was designed using the Standard Orthogonal Array design
of L-27 type. The linear graph of this design showing allotment of
various columns to the factors is shown in Fig. 7.1.

The responses were classified into three categories:
1 Good
If there is no crack and tread thickness is
greater than 42 mm
2 Normal
If there is no crack and tread thickness is
between 40 and 42 mm.
3 Bad
If there is a crack or tread thickness is less
than 40 mm or both.

Two castings were poured fro each trial. The treatment combinations
and results are given in Table 7.2. Two-way tables necessary for
computing the main effects A, B, C, D an interaction effects AB, AC
and BC are given in table 7.3 through 7.9.

106
Table 7.2
LAYOUT OF EXPERIMENT AND RESPONSES
Trail
No.
A B C D Good Normal Bad
1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0
2 1 1 2 2 0 1 1
3 1 1 3 1 2 0 0
4 1 2 1 2 0 1 1
5 1 2 2 1 1 0 1
6 1 2 3 1 2 0 0
7 1 3 1 1 1 0 1
8 1 3 3 2 1 0 1
9 1 3 3 1 2 0 0
10 2 1 1 2 2 0 0
11 2 1 2 1 2 0 0
12 2 1 3 1 2 0 0
13 2 2 1 1 2 0 0
14 2 2 2 1 2 0 0
15 2 2 3 2 1 0 1
16 2 3 1 1 1 0 1
17 2 3 2 2 0 0 2
18 2 3 3 1 2 0 0
19 3 1 1 1 1 0 1
20 3 1 2 1 2 0 0
21 3 1 3 2 2 0 0
22 3 2 1 1 2 0 0
23 3 2 2 2 1 0 0
24 3 2 3 1 2 0 0
25 3 3 1 2 1 1 0
26 3 3 2 1 2 0 0
27 3 3 3 1 1 0 1


107
Table 7.3
TABLE OF RESPONSES FOR FACTOR A

Good Normal Bad Cumulative
G N B
A
1
11 2 5 11 13 18
A
2
14 0 4 14 14 18
A
3
14 1 3 14 15 18

Table - 7.4
TABLE OF RESPONSES FOR FACTOR B

Good Normal Bad Cumulative
G N B
B
1
15 1 2 15 16 18
B
2
13 1 4 13 14 18
B
3
11 1 6 11 12 18

Table 7.5
TABLE OF RESPONSES FOR FACTOR C

Good Normal Bad Cumulative
G N B
C
1
12 2 4 12 14 18
C
2
11 1 6 11 12 18
C
3
16 0 2 16 16 18


108
Table - 7.6
TABLE OF RESPONSES FOR FACTOR D

Good Normal Bad Cumulative
G N B
D
1
15 0 3 15 15 18
D
2
9 3 6 9 12 18
D
3
15 0 3 15 15 18

Table 7.7
TWO WAY TABLE OF RESPONSES FOR FACTOR A & B

Non-Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative Frequency
G N B I II III
A
1
B
1
4 1 1 4 5 6
A
1
B
2
3 1 2 3 4 6
A
1
B
3
4 0 2 4 4 6
A
1
Sub-total (11) (2) (5) (11) (13) (18)
A
2
B
1
6 0 0 6 6 6
A
2
B
2
5 0 1 5 5 6
A
2
B
3
3 0 3 3 3 6
A
2
Sub-total (14) (0) (4) (14) (14) (18)
A
3
B
1
5 0 1 5 5 6
A
3
B
2
5 0 1 5 5 6
A
3
B
3
4 1 1 4 5 6
A
3
Sub-total (14) (1) (3) (14) (15) (18)
Grand Total 39 3 12 39 42 54



109
Table 7.8
TWO WAY TABLE FOR A & C
G N B I II III
C
1
A
1
3 1 2 3 4 6
C
1
A
2
5 0 1 5 5 6
C
1
A
3
4 1 1 4 5 6
C
1
Sub-total 12 2 4 12 14 18
C
2
A
1
2 1 3 2 3 6
C
2
A
2
4 0 2 4 4 6
C
2
A
3
5 0 1 5 5 6
C
2
Sub-total 11 1 6 11 12 18
C
3
A
1
6 0 0 6 6 6
C
3
A
2
5 0 1 5 5 6
C
3
A
3
5 0 1 5 5 6
C
3
Sub-total 16 0 2 16 16 18
Grand Total 39 3 12 39 42 54

Table 7.9
TWO-WAY TABLE FOR B &C
G N B I II III
B
1
C
1
5 0 1 5 5 6
B
1
C
2
4 1 1 4 5 6
B
1
C
3
6 0 0 6 6 6
B
1
Sub-total 15 1 2 15 16 18
B
2
C
1
4 1 1 4 5 6
B
2
C
2
4 0 2 4 4 6
B
2
C
3
5 0 1 5 5 6
B
2
Sub-total 13 1 4 13 14 18
B
3
C
1
3 1 2 3 4 6
B
3
C
2
3 0 3 3 3 6
B
3
C
3
5 0 1 5 5 6
B
3
Sub-total 11 1 6 11 12 18
Grand Total 39 3 12 39 42 54


110
7.3 DATA ANALYSIS
From the cumulative frequencies, variation of Classes I and ii are
calculated respectively as in the usual analysis of variance. A
composite variation is then obtained by multiplying the variation of
Class I by an appropriate weightage factor W
1
and adding to the
variation of classes I and II are obtained as follows:

Since the comparisons are made in each class, for each effect, d.f. is
computed for each class and cumulated. Degrees of freedom become
twice fro each effect when 3 classes are analyzed.
Total variation ST is calculated as:

The two variations are multiplied by the weights of the two classes to
get the composite total variation:
S
T
= 54 p
1
(1-p
1
) x W
1
+ 54 p
2
(1-p
2
) x W
2
= 108
In the accumulating analysis, total variation S
T
reduces to the following
simple figure:
S
T
= (total no. of observation) x (No, of classes analyzed)
There is therefore no necessity to calculate S
T
using weights.
To calculate SA, Individual for class I and class II are calculated first.
These are then multiplied by weights W
1
ad W
2
.Composite CF is then
subtracted.

111

The resulting ANOVA table is shown in table 7.10. It can be seen from
the table that even after pooling the insignificant effects A, B, AB, AC
and BC, the only factor that turned out to be significant is D.

112
Table 7.10
ANOVA TABLE
Source d.f. S.S. M.S.O. F % F
A 4 2.306 0.5765 0.541 -
B 4 4.78 1.195 1.123 -
C 4 6.44 1.61 1.513 2.5% 1.733
D 2 8.57 4.285 4.026 5.3% 4.612*
AB 8 5.34 0.6675 0.627 -
AC 8 6.99 0.819 0.82 -
BC 8 1.20 0.15 0.12 -
Error 68 18.97 1.064 -
Pooled Error (100) (92.99) (0.929)
Total 106 108

* Significant at 5% level of significance.
DEGREE OF CONTRIBUTION ( )
The proportion of contribution of each effect to that pf the total is called
degree of contribution and is denoted by . In analysis of variance, the
components of variation are split in order of sources of variation. If any
source of variation is found to be insignificant then o means the mean
square of theta source is same as error mean square. For instance in
table 6.7, if C were nor a significant factor then sum of squares due to
C divided b degrees of freedom for C should be of the same order of
magnitude as error mean square. Thus, the difference between Sum of
Squares due to C and error variance multiplied by degree f freedom for
C represents the magnitude\de of the factorial effect C. Therefore, the
net effect of or net variation SC is estimated by,
S
C
= S
C
4 X Ve
Contribute of C
c
= (S
C
4 Ve)/S
T

Or
c
= (6.55-4 x 0.929)/108
= 0.025 or 2.5%

c
represents the percentage of total variation explained by factor C.
Thus degree o contribution is substantially identical with the square of

113
coefficient of correlation. Coefficient of correlation in useful in the linear
relationship of two variables, while degree of contribution is a general
concept; it is useful no matter what kind of relationship exists.
Similarly,
D
= (8.57-2 X 929)/108
= 0.053 or 5.3%
7.4 ESTIMATION OF SIGNIFICANT EFEFCTS
Effect of significant factors incase of accumulating analysis is best
obtained by using the normal frequency. In case, interactions turnout
for be significant, the effect of factors involved in the interaction are
seen from normal frequency table of interaction and not from the main
effect of the factor. In this example only factor .D. was found to be
significant, hence the effect of D will be studied from the table of
normal frequency for D as shown in table 7.11.
Table 7.11
EFFECT OF D
G N B Total &G %N %B
D1 15 0 3 18 83.0 0.00 17.0
D2 9 3 6 18 50.0 17.0 33.0
D1 15 0 3 18 83.0 0.00 17.0

In this experiments, the objective is to maximize the percentages of
good castings, hence D
1
and D1;, are better than D
2
. Hence D1 is
taken as the recommended level. Other neither factors, though not
found to be significant by this analysis, were analyzed using alternative
method called concurrent measures, which will not be discussed here
and the optimum combination of the factors was found as A2B1C3D1.
Using the additive model of ANOVA, the estimate of optimum response
is given by:

However, according to Dr. Taguchi, for a characteristic such as fraction
detective etc., arithmetic additivity does not hold in the neighborhood of
0% and 100%. He suggested that it is more practical to consider
hyperbolic additivity. The method for such calculations is given in
following paragraphs.

114
7.5 ESTIMATION OF PROCESS AVERAGE USING OMEGA ( O)
METHOD
In this method we define O for the given optimum condition A
2
B
1
C
3
D
3

as follows:

Where 1 3 1 2 D and C , B , A represent the proportion defective when A is at
second level, B is at first level, C is at 3
rd
level and D is at first level,
represents overall proportion defective. The process average is then
estimated as:
u =
O + 1
1

u From the above, O =
u
1
-1
In the additive model we estimate u as:
u - T 3 D C B A 1 3 1 2 + + +
It can be noted that if we use the above equation to calculate the
Omega value, terms in the above equation plus sign appear in the
numerator in the form of reciprocals. Also terms with minus sign appear
in the denominator in the form of reciprocal.
Taking logarithm,
Log (
u
1
-1) = Log O
= Log 1) - 1 B (1/ Log 1) - 2) A (1/ + + --- + ---
-3 log 1 - ) T (1/
The above equation indicates that effects in logarithm of (reciprocal-1)
are arithmetically added. In other words, there is arithmetical additivity
in terms of decibel. On order to make calculations easier, decibel unit is
defined as:
db (p) = - 10(
p
1
-1) log
The above equation then becomes:

115
db ( u ) = db 1) - A ( 2 + db ) B ( 1 --- 3db ) T (
The appropriateness of Omega method id proved only by the
comparison of the fraction defective obtained from the actual
production with the estimated value. To continue our discussion with
above example, we use Omega method to estimate process average
as follows:
Estimation of Class I
A2 = 14/18 = 0.777 and db ) A ( 2 = 5.421
B1 = 15/18 = 0.833 and db ) B ( 1 = 6.979
C3 = 16/18 = 0.888 and db ) C3 ( = 8.992
D1 = 15/18 = 0.833 and db ) D1 ( = 6.979
T = 39/54 = 0.722 and db ) T ( = 4.145
Noting that,

It is thus predicted that if the optimal condition is implemented the
percentage of good castings will be about 97.5%.

CONFIDENCE LIMITS
The error variance for u and u
2
are estimated by

1
v = .929 x u
1
(1- u
1
) = 0.0046

2
v = .929 x u
2
(1- u
2
) = 0.0028

Effective no.of replication, n
e
is given by

n
e
= Total no.of observations (i.e. total d.f. including mean)
(d.f. of mean) + (d.f. of A) + (d.f. of B)+ (d.f.of C)+ (d.f.of D)

116

= 54 = 3.375
2+4+4+4+2

Confidence limit of u
1

=
1
u
e
n
v F 1 v

,
1

= 0.975
375 . 3
0046 . 0 94 . 3 x

= 0.995 0.073


117








8.
MULTI
LEVEL
ARRANGEMENTS


118
8
MULTI LEVEL ARRANGEMENTS

8.1 INTRODUCTION
This technique is useful in designing fractional factorial experiments
when different factors are examined at different numbers of levels. For
such an experiment, a multi level arrangement is needed. Here we are
concerned with how to arrange four or eight level factors into columns
of two-level series orthogonal tables, or to arrange a nine or twenty
seven-level factor into columns of three level series orthogonal tables.
This technique generally gives orthogonal main effect plans only and
as such some caution is necessary when interactions are present.
However, as well shall see later the case where some interactions are
present can also be handles in a limited manner. In this chapter, such
arrangements are illustrated.
8.2 MULTI LEVEL ARRANGEMENT IN -LEVEL SERIES TABLES
Let us consider the problem of accommodating a four-level factor in the
two-level orthogonal array series. We can represent a four-level factor
by two two-level factors and their interaction. In the linear graph, the
representation of a four- level factor is made by two nodes and the
edge joining them. In other words, we use three columns of the array
for a four-level factor. The levels in the two columns corresponding to
the two nodes give four possible level combinations: (1.1), (1.2), (2.1),
and (2.2). We can then use the following one-to one correspondence
to obtain the four-level factor.
(1,1) 1, (1,2) 2, (2,1) 3, (2,2) 4
Example: 1: A 4
1
x 2
4
design in 8 trials.
This is possible, if an assumption is made that all interactions are
absent. In other words, we can only a main- effects plan, Let A
represent the four-level factor and B, C, D and E represent the two-
level factors. The required linear graph is shown in Figure 9.1 (a) and
the standard type (2) graph in (b).

119

We obtain the modified linear graph from standard type (2) as shown in
Fig. 8.1 (c). The modification is done as follows:
Line 3 with two nodes 1 and 2 in the standard linear graph, is selected
for the assignment of the 4 level factors. These three columns are
removed from the linear graph and rearranged in a four-level column
as shown in Figure 8.1 (c) using the mapping described above. A four-
level column requiring three degrees of freedom replaces the three
columns 1. 2 and 3 each with one degree of freedom. Figure (c) above
is the linear graph when A is at 4 levels. The layout of the design is
given in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1
Layout of 4 x 2
4
design OA L
8
(4
1
x 2
4
) from OA L
8
(2
7
)
Experi-
ment
No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Experi-
ment
No.
1 2 3
A
4
B
5
C
6
D
7
E
1 1 1 1 (1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 (1) 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
3 1 2 2 (2) 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 2
4 1 2 2 (2) 2 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 1
5 2 1 2 (3) 1 2 1 2 5 3 1 2 1 2
6 2 1 2 (3) 2 1 2 1 6 3 2 1 2 1
7 2 2 1 (4) 1 2 2 1 7 4 1 2 2 1
8 2 2 1 (4) 2 1 1 2 8 4 2 1 1 2

Suppose we are also interested in the interaction between a two-level
factor and a four-level factor. To be specific, let us consider the array
is L
16
(2
15
). Let column 1 represent a two-level factor say A and
columns 2, 4 and 6 represent a four-level factor, say B. What columns
of the array represent the interaction AxB? This question is very easily
answered by the linear graph. Consider the triangle whose vertices are
1, 2 and 4. The interaction between columns 1 and 2 is 3, the
interaction between columns 1 and 4 is 5, and interaction between

120
columns 2 and 4 is 6 and the interaction between columns 1 and 6 is
column 7. This information can be pictorially represented as below by
drawing a perpendicular from node 1 to the base (2,4).

The interaction A x B is then given by Columns 3, 5 and 7.
Example 2: A4 x 2
7
experiment in 16 trials.



121
Table 8.2
LAYOUT OF 4 X 27 DESIGN IN 16 TRAILS

Experiment
No.
A
1
B
2, 8, 19
C
12
D
4
E
5
F
14
G
6
H
15
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2
3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
5 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 2
6 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 1
7 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
8 1 4 1 2 2 2 1 2
9 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
10 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1
11 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
12 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2
13 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 1
14 2 4 2 1 2 1 2 2
15 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 2
15 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 2




122

The following experiment consisting of 8 factors relates to the
manufacture of synthetic rubber. The factors considered are:
1 Quantity of peroxide (A) - Two levels
2. Quantity of clay in Phr. (B) - Four levels
3. Type of Antigen (C) - Two levels
4. Quantity of Antigen in Phr. (D) - Two levels
5. Type of Lubricant (E) - Two levels
6. Quantity of Lubricant (F) - Two levels
7. Vulcanizing time (G) - Two levels
8. Quantity of carbon (H) - Two levels

All the interactions except A x B, A x C and A x G are likely to be
absent. The degrees of freedom for main effects are 10 and the
degrees of freedom for interactions are 5 making a total 15. Hence the
smallest array in which we can accommodate this design is L
16
(2
15
)
The required linear graph is shown in Figure 8.3

The design matrix is obtained from the standard linear graph type 3 (a)
of the L
16
(2
15
). This is shown in Figure 8.4.

123

The resulting design layout is given in Table 8.2
Example 3: a 4
2
x 2
5
experiment in 16 trials.
A, B, C, D, E - Factors ay two- levels
R and V - Factors at four-levels
The only interactions likely to be present are A x B and A x C. The total
degree of freedom for the main effects and required two-factor
interactions is 13. The smallest two-level orthogonal series in which we
can accommodate this experiment is L
16
(2
15
).
The required linear is shown in Figure 8.5. We modify the standard
linear graph 3 (a) associate with L
16
(2
15
) to get the required linear
graph. That is shown in Figure 8.6.


124

The two unassigned columns 12 and 13 used for estimating error.
Actually in this experiment performed to contain information concerning
life of tyres for passenger cars, four passenger cars R
1
, R
2
, R
3
and R
4

are used. Also it is known that the different positions in a car cause
different wear among the tyres; the condition of the rear tyres is worse
than the front, it is also different between the two front tyres, since a
car is not symmetrical. For the above reason, we must consider the
difference among the four positions in a car: V
1
(front right), V
2
(front
left), V
3
(rear right) and V
4
(rear left). Such influences should not
interfere with effect of the five factors A, B, C, D, E and interactions
AxB, AxC, We have therefore to assign the experiment so that the
differences among R and V shall not bias the factorial effects studied. It
should be noted that factors A, B, C, D and E are the control factors,
whose optimum levels are to be selected. R is a block factor, V, is an
indicative factor. The significance of the differences between levels in a
clock factor or an indicative factor is not important. Their purpose is
merely to avoid their effects from being mixed with control factors. The
layout o the experiment is shown in table 8.3.

125
Table 8.3
LAYOUT OF THE 4
2
X 2
5
EXPERIMENT ON LIFE OF CAR TYRES
Column
Expmnt.
No.
11
A
4
B
5
C
3
D
9
E
1,6,7
R
(car)
2,8,10
V
(position)
1 1 1 1 1 1 R
1
V
1

2 2 1 1 1 2 R
1
V
2

3 1 2 2 1 1 R
2
V
1

4 2 2 2 1 2 R
2
V
2

5 2 1 1 2 1 R
2
V
3

6 1 1 1 2 2 R
2
V
4

7 2 2 2 2 1 R
1
V
3

8 1 2 2 2 2 R
1
V
4

9 2 1 2 2 2 R
3
V
1

10 1 1 2 2 1 R
3
V
2

11 2 2 1 2 2 R
4
V
1

12 1 2 1 2 1 R
4
V
2

13 1 1 2 1 2 R
4
V
3

14 2 1 2 1 1 R
4
V
4

15 1 2 1 1 2 R
3
V
3

16 2 2 1 1 1 R
3
V
4


8.3 COMBINATION DESIGN
This is a kind of technique used to combine two-level factors in a three-
level series orthogonal table. Suppose there are two factors each at
two levels, and future suppose that their interaction is not required. In
such a situation the combination method is employed.
A combined factor (AB) at three levels is formed as follows:
(AB)
1
= A
1
B
1
; (AB)
2
= A
2
B
1
; (AB)
3
= A
1
B
2


126
Main effect of A can be obtained from the contrast (AB)
1
- (AB)
2
.
Similarly the main effects of B is obtained from the contrast (AB)
1

(AB)
3
. When there are 20 two-level factors in ten pairs and these
combined factors are assigned to L
27
table. If there are many two-level
factors, if seems better to assign these factors to L
32
(2
13
) table. But for
the experiment such as 2
10
x 3
6
type it is more practical to group the
ten two-level factors into five pairs and combine each pair as above to
get five three-level combined factors and assign them to L
27
table along
with the other six three-level factors. Also if it is necessary to obtain
the interactions between combined factor (AB) and a three level factor
C, then (AB) and C are assigned to two nodes and the edge joining
the pair of nodes represents the interaction (A) x C, as shown below:

A three level factor (A) and a two-level factor B can be combined to
form a combined four-level factor.
(AB)
1
= A
1
B
1

(AB)
2
= A
2
B
1

(AB)
3
= A
3
B
1

(AB)
4
= A
3
B
2

The variation of a combined three- level factor (AB) obtained from the
two factors (A, B) each at two-level is calculated as
S
(AB)
=
r
n
x
1
3
1

[(AB)
1
2
+ (AB)
2
2
+ (AB)
3
2
] - CF
Where r is the number of replications of A
1
B
1
, A
2
B
1
and A
1
B
2
. However
the following relation does not hold good since A and B are not
orthogonal.
S
(AB)
= S
A
+ S
B
is not true
If we want to separate A and B, calculate,
S
A
=
r
AB AB
n
2 3
] ) ( ) [(
1
2
2 1
x

S
B
=
r
AB AB
n
2 3
] ) ( ) [(
1
2
3 1
x

127
and decompose S
(AB)
into
S
(AB)
= S
A
+ S
res

S
(AB)
= S
B
+ S
res


8.4 EXAMPLE ON COMBINATION DESIGN
In a certain machine shop, frequency and wear out of taps was
reported. The frequency of breakage was found to b more in a
particular components. A study was taken up with a view to determine
feasible optimum operating conditions in tapping, so as top increase
tap life in terms of holes tapped for each tap without in any way
affecting the quality of tapped hole. The problem being of chronic
nature it was decided to conduct an experiment. The factors
considered for experimentation and their levels are shown in Table
8.10.

Table 8.10
FACTORS AND LEVELS FOR TAPPING EXPERIMENT

Factor Code
Level
1 2 3
Machine Speed A 1025 rpm 875 rpm 600 rpm
Fixtures B Fixture 1 Fixture 2 -
Coolant used C Continuous Usual -
Tap make D D1 D2 -
Piercing Tool E E1 E2 -

The technique of combination design was used by combining two two-
level factors into one three level factor. By this device we can
accommodate the four factors in an L
9
(3
4
) array. Otherwise a larger
array would be needed. In this case, factors B and C were combined
into a single factor designated (BC) with the three levels of the factor
defined as,

(BC)
1
= B
1
C
1


(BC)
2
= B
1
C
2


(BC)
3
= B
2
C
2



128
The number of holes tapped by a ingle tap was counted and the
response was categorized as follows:

Category I : When number of tapped holes is less than 200.
Category II : When number of tapped holes is between 0200
and 1500.
Category III : When number of tapped holes is more than 1500.
The layout of the experiment along with responses is shown in Table
8.11
Table 8.11
LAYOUT OF EXPERIMENT AND RESPONSES
Expmnt.
No.
1
A
2
(BC)
4
D
3
E
Responses
Category
1
Category
2
Category
3
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
2 1 2 2 2 0 1 0
3 1 3 1 1 0 1 0
4 2 1 1 2 0 0 1
5 2 2 1 1 1 0 0
6 2 3 2 1 0 0 1
7 3 1 2 1 0 0 1
8 3 2 1 1 1 0 0
9 3 3 1 2 0 0 1

The data were analyzed by the method outlined in Chapter VII and
the results of analysis are shown in table 8.12.

129
Table 8.12
ANOVA TABLE FOR TAP LIFE
Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F
A 4 2.1857 0.5464 1.62
(BC) 4 11.4429 2.8607 8.48*
D 2 1.5107 1.7554 2.24
E 2 1.5107 0.7554 2.24
Error 4 1.3500 0.3975
Total 16 18.00
* Significant at 5% level.
From the above table can be seen that only combined factor (BC) is
significant. The totals of responses for (BC) combination are given in
table 8.13.
Table 8.13
TOTAL RESPONSES FOR COMBINATION FACTOR
Level
Cumulative Frequency
Category I Category II Category III
(BC) 1 0 0 3
(BC) 2 2 3 3
(BC) 3 0 1 3
Total 2 4 9

From the above table it can be seen that (BC) combination gives the
best result as all the three trials have shown life of more than 1500
holes. As, larger machine speed is more productive 1025 rpm shall be
maintained. Both the makes of taps and both piercing tools are equally
good as far as tap life is concerned.

130










9.
PSEUDO FACTOR
DESIGNS

131
9
PSEUDO FACTOR DESIGNS

9.10 INTRODUCTION
We have so far explained how to layout experimental plans in
multifactor experiments when a number of factors are examined at
different numbers of levels like 2, 3 or 4. In particular we explained how
top accommodate a 4 level factor in a 2 level series design or a 3 level
factor in a 2 level series design. We also explained how to
accommodate a 2 level factor in a 3 level series design. These
modifications, it may be recalled are respectively achieved through the
method of collapsing and the use of a dummy level.
In this chapter, we shall illustrated techniques called Pseudo factor
designs with the aid of which we can layout more complex
experiments. These methods are particularly useful in studying factors
at 5, 6 and 7 levels along with factors are 2, 3 or 4 levels in a 2n series
design. They are also immensely useful in situations where different
kinds of processes are researched together in a single integrated
experiment.
9.2 WHAT IS PSEUDO FACTOR DESIGN?
Pseudo factor design is a robust technique, which permits us to assign
two factors to a singe column of an orthogonal array or to assign
factors at 3, 5, 6 or 7 levels to a dingle column of an orthogonal array
by simple manipulations. To be more specific this techniques enables
us:
1. To associate with a single column of an orthogonal array, two
different factors at the same or different numbers of levels.
Each factor being associated with a different process condition
when a branching occurs in the production process. This
concept is illustrated through an example. This is also referred
to as the Axial-factor method.
2. To assign, 3- level, 5-level, 6 or 7 level factors in 2-level series
orthogonal tables or to assign 7 level-factors in 3-level series
orthogonal table. This method is called the Idle-Column
method.
3. This technique can also be employed skillfully to assign block
factors to isolate extraneous variations.
9.10 AXIAL FACTOR (OR NESTED FACTOR) METHOD
We shall in this section, explain the procedure for laying out the design
using the method where we have alternative routes available for

132
processing a product and our objective is to select the best route and
also determine the best conditions of processing associated with the
selected route. The procedure will be illustrated here with a couple of
practical examples.
At the manufacturing stage of carbon-resistance, carbon power is
coated on the surface of ceramic pipes using a suitable method. In
order to find a better production condition, the following factors were
considered.
Factor A denotes two kinds of ceramic pipes. Factor B designates
carbon power coating temperature at two levels. After the coating
process of carbon powder, there are two methods of finishing:
C
1
: Enamel coating (the existing, method)
C
2
: Bakelite moulding had been known, these two conditions
(Designated as C
1
and C
2
) would be assigned in an
orthogonal table with factors A and B together. However,
these optimum conditions were still unknown.
To find optimum operating conditions for enamel coating the following
factors were considered:
D : Kind of enamel 2 levels
E : Number of coatings 2 levels
The optimum condition of enamel coating was then compared with that
of bakelite moulding which has the following associated factor:
D : Moulding Temperature two levels
The problem is therefore to design an experiment so as o obtain the
main effects of factors A and B, main effects D, E under condition C
1
,
main effect of D under condition C
2
, then compare the optimum
conditions of C
1
and C
2
. (We assume that interactions AxC, BxC, etc,
are non-existent). When factors under C
1
and C
2
are not the same as
shown above, they are assigned by the following way of thinking.
Ordinarily, the interaction of C and D is obtained by the following
decomposition:
Factorial
Effect
Degrees of freedom
C 1
D 2
CxD 1
Total 3

133
In our example D is nested in C. The levels of the factor D for C1 have
no correspondence with the levels of D fro C
2
. In this situation it is more
meaningful to study the effect of factor D separately for C
1
and C
2
. This
results in following break up.
Factorial effect Degrees of freedom
C 1
D (Under condition C
1
) 1
D (Under condition C
2
) 1
Total 3

In this way the decomposition is perfect no matter how the effect of D
varies from C
1
to C
2
. This leads us to consider the possibility that factor
D could be different factor for C
1
and C
2
. Thus a factor D which is D for
C
1
and becomes D for C
2
is called a Pseudo-factor.
The above analysis shows that when we want to study the effect of a
pseudo factor d separately for each level of another factor C, then we
should use a design which permit the estimability of interaction C x D.
Since the one degree of freedom for the interaction is a part of the
main effect of D, separately for each level of C, we should not assign
any factor to the column representing the interaction of C and D and it
must be left free or erased from the orthogonal table. Pictorially such a
situation is represented as below in the linear graph.

Similarly, when we require the men effect E, under C
1
we use the
interaction between factor C and the pseudo factor E. In this case E
is E C
1
, and becomes error for C
2
.
The required linear graph of the arrangement is shown in Figure 9.1
which can easily be obtained from the standard liner graph of the array
L
8
(2
7
).

134

The layout of the experiment is given in the Table 9.1.
Table 9.1
LAYOUT AND DATA FOR THE EXPERIMENT ON CARBON POWDER
Expt.
No.
Factor
Col. No.

C
1
D
D
2
3
E
e
4
5

A
6

B
7
Data (%
deterior
ation (y)
(y-4.0)x10 Total
1 D E
1 1 1 1 1 3.0 3.2 -10 -8 -18
2 1 1 2 2 2 3.5 3.3 -5 -7 -12
3 1 2 1 2 2 6.2 6.4 22 24 46
4 1 2 2 1 1 5.1 5.2 11 12 23
D e
5 2 1 1 1 2 3.8 2.5 -2 -5 -7
6 2 1 2 2 1 3.0 2.8 -10 -12 -22
7 2 2 1 2 1 3.5 3.3 -5 -7 -12
8 2 2 2 1 2 4.4 4.6 4 6 10
Total 8

In Table 9.1 column 3 (the interaction f column 1 where factor C is
assigned and column 2, where pseudo-factor D is assigned) is erased.
Instead two factors D and D are put into column 2 according to the
indication of C1 and C2 in column 1. Similarly, column 5 (the
interaction of columns 1 and 4) is erased. Factor E is assigned in
column 4 when column 1 indicates numeral 2. In other words, e is

135
calculated from experiments No.5, 6, 7 and 8. Data of experiments No.
1, 2, 3 and 4 correspond to enamel coating and data of experiments
No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 correspond to bakelite moulding.
9.10 DATA ANALYSIS
S
M
= (40 X 16+8)
2
= 262.44 (d.f. =1)
16 x 100
For data such as percent of deterioration, percent of wear of similar
data, the deviation of mean from zero (the objective value) is an
important piece of information. Therefore, it is desirable to obtain S
m

prior to the subtraction of the data from the working mean.
CF =
16
8
2
= 4
S
T1
- [(1-18)
2
+ (-12)
2
+ . + (10)
2
] 4
= 1940 (d.f. = 7)
S
A
=
16
) 0 8 (
2

= 4 (d.f. =1)
S
B
=
16
) 37 26 (
2

= 272 (d.f. =1)
Effects C is tentatively calculated from the average values of enamel
coating and bakelite moulding.
S
C
=
16
) 31 39 (
2
+
= 306 (d.f. =1)
Main effects D and e which are the factors associated with enamel
coating are calculated from the experiments of C
1
, or experiments
No.1, 2, 3, and 4.
S
D
=
8
)] 23 46 12 18 [(
2

(d.f. =1)
SE =
8
) 11 28 (
2

= 36 (d.f. =1)
Main effects D is calculated from the experiments of C
2
, or
experiments No. , 6, 7 and 8.

136
S
D
=
8
)] 2 ( 29 [
2

=91 (d.f. =1)
S
e1
= S
T1
(S
A
+S
B
+... +S
D
)]
= 1941 (4+ 272 + 91)
= 7 (d.f. =1)
Alternatively, it may be calculated from claim 4 under C
2
as
S
e1
=
8
)] 10 22 ( 12 7 [
2
+
= 6
The two calculations differ by 1 due to error or rounding. The error
variation between repletion is calculated by subtracting S
T1
from the
total variation.
S
e1
= [(-10+8)
2
+ + (4-6)
2
]
= 17 (d.f. = 8)
Analysis of Variance is shown in table .2. A and e
1
have been pooled
with e
2
to get e and significance test is conducted against e.
Table 9.2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
Source d.f. S.S. M.S. F S e(5)
m 1 26244 26244 9720.0** 26247.3 93.0
A 1 4 4 - - -
B 1 272 272 100.7** 269.3 1.0
C 1 306 306 113.3** 303.3 1.1
D (C
1
) 1 1225 1225 453.7** 1222.3 4.3
E(C
1
) 1 36 36 13.3** 88.3 0.3
D (C
2
) 1 91 91 33.7** 88.3 0.3
e
1
1 6 6 - - -
e
2
8 17 2.1 - -
(e) (10) (27) (2.7) - 43.2 0.2
T 16 28202 28202.0 100.0

137
The optimum condition is the combination for which the percent of
deterioration is the least.
T = 4.05 0.09,
1
B =3.64 0.13 2 B =4.46 0.13
1 C = 4.49 0.13 2 C = 3.61 0.13
D (C
1
)
1
D = 3.25 0.18
2 D = 5.72 0.18
E (C
1
) 1 E = 4.70 0.18
E (C
1
) 2 E = 4.28 0.16
D (C
2
)
1
' ' D = 3.28 0.18

2
' ' D = 3.95 0.18
It is more important in pseudo-factor design to separately find the
optimum conditions of enamel coating and bakelite moulding, then the
overall optimum condition is found from the two. The optimum condition
of C
1
D
1
E
2

Since the average of D
1
, 2 D and the average of 2 1, E E equals
C . the process average of C
1
D
1
E
2
is obtained by
u (C
1
D
1
E
2
) = D
1
+ E
2

1
C


= 3.25= 4.28- 4.49
= 2.04 + 0.22 (1)
Also the optimum condition of C
2
is C
2
D
1

u (C
2
D
1
) =
2 C
2
+ ( D
1
2 C ) D
1

=3.28 +0.18 (2)
the confidence interval of equation (1) is

16
6
027 . 0 96 . 4 x x = 0.22
Here

138
e
n
1
= 1(Main effect of m) + effect of C) + 2(D
1
) + (E
2
)
Total number of experiments
=
16
6

In the above equation, the degrees of freedom of D1 is 2 (1+1),
since it I estimated from Pseudo- factor D and interaction DxC.
Similarly the degrees of freedom of E is 2; it is estimated from
pseudo-factor E and interaction E x C. The value of n
e
in equation
(2) for the confidence limit is 4.
From (1) and (2), the comparison of the two optimum conditions
shows enamel coating is better.
In order to know the significance of the difference between 3.04 and
3.28
The difference 3.28 3.04 = 0.24
is compared with the rot of the sum of squares of the two
confidence intervals.


139

9.10 IDLE OLUMN METHOD
This method is used main to accommodate three level factors in a two
level orthogonal series.
Let A be a factor at two levels A
1
, A
2
and let B be a factor at three
levels, B
1
, B
2
and B
3
, B is treated as a Pseudo factor at two levels. If it
is assigned in a 2 level- series table, part of b forms B
1
and B
2
when A
is A
1
and forms B
2
and B
3
when A is A
2
. In this way, we can compare B
and B
2
within A
1
and compare B
2
and B
3
within A
2
. Similar to the
previous method, the column AxB which is the interaction of factor A
and pseudo factor B in the orthogonal table must be erased. The
distribution of the degrees of freedom is as follows:
Factorial Effects Degrees of Freedom
A 1
B
1
VS B
2
(from A
1
) 1
B
2
VS B
3
(from A
2
) 1
Total 3

Such a layout in the confounding of the effect between B1 and B2 (or
precisely, half the effect between B1 and B3) with the effect between
A
1
and A
2
. However, the effect due to factor A many be calculated after
making corrections due to effect of factor B. Since such a correction is
not desirable, the column where A is assigned is kept unassigned. The
column of interaction between the unassigned column and column B is
erased from the orthogonal table as it is used up. The unassigned
column is called ass idle column. Only when there is a shortage of
columns t is recommended to use idle column or the arrangement of
any useless factor such as a block factor.
A simple idle column may be used for more than one factor with three
levels. We should use a design which permits estimability of the
interaction between the idle column and the pseudo factor,
representing a three-level factor. Those columns should be erased
from the orthogonal table as they are already used up.

140
We shall explain the procedure for laying out an experimental plan for
factors at 3 levels using the idle column with an example.
A 3
2
x 2
2
experiment in 8 trials using idle column can be designed in
the following manner.
Let A and B be factor with three levels and C and D be factors with
two-levels. Using any one of the linear graphs associated with the array
L
8
(2
7
) the following arrangement can be obtained. The assignment
using the column method is shown in figure 9.2 and Table 9.4.


Table 9.3
THE LAYOUT OF 3
2
X 2
2
EXPERIMENT
USING IDLE COLUMN METHOD
Expt.
No.
Idle
1
A
2 3
B
4 5
C
6
D
7
Expt.
No.
Idle
1
A
2 3
B
4 5
C
6
D
7
1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 1 2
2 1 1 2 2 2 6 2 2 3 2 1
3 1 2 1 2 2 7 2 3 2 2 1
4 1 2 2 1 1 8 2 3 3 1 2

9.10 EXAMPLE ON PSEUDO FACTOR AND IDLE COLUMN DESIGN
Determination of optimum process parameters for an alloy steel
casting:
In an alloy steel foundry about 60-70% of the castings were found to
have porosity after machining. About 20% could be salvaged in

141
machine shop through welding operations. The material of the casting
was 13% Chromium steel of ASTM-A 21774 C grade-CA15. Porosity
was observed after finish machining operation. There were occasions
when the assembly department could not meet the delivery schedules
in spite of processing twice the quantity required. In an effect to reduce
the incidence of porosity an experiments was taken up in the foundry to
improve the yield of good and acceptable castings by determining the
optimum process parameters at melting and moulding stages. At the
casting stage the direction of moulding chosen may be horizontal or
vertical. If horizontal moulding is hosen, then an allowance has to be
given for machining. If vertical moulding is chosen a chill has to be
provided. Thus if we designated by f the direction of moulding with F1
as horizontal moulding and F2 as, vertical moulding and designate by
G1 the pseudo factor which is G namely, machining allowance, when
F is at F1 and is G namely chill when f is at F2. In other words G is
nested in f and we represent this in the linear graph as follows,
provided G and G are each at 2 levels.

A appropriate modification has to be made if either or both of G and G
are at 3 levels. The factors and levels chosen for the experiment are
exhibited in the table 9.3
Table 9.4
FACTORS AND LEVELS: ALLOY STEEL COATING EXPERIMENTS
Factors Levels
1 2 3 4
A Percent of fresh charge 20 40 45 -
B Percent carbon in metal 0.15 0.10-0.15 0.10 -
C Percent chromium in metal 12-5-14.0 11-12.5 - -
D Superheating time in minutes 60 30 - -
E Furnace temperature in
0
C 1590 1710 1650 -
F Direction of Moulding Horizontal Vertical - -
G (F
1
) Machining allowance in (mm) 40 5 15 -
G (F
2
) Chill Full Nil Half -
H Core Venting Without With - -
I Core painting With Without - -
J Choke area in gating system Existing 80% of
existing
- -
K Deoxidizer K
1
K
2
K
3
K
4

L Pouring time lag Slow Std. Quick -
M Grain size of moulding sand 30-60 60-140 - -

142
Since the majority of the factors are at 3 levels, one would normally
have chosen a 3
n
series design and accommodated the 2 and 4 level
factors by introducing suitable modification. In this experiment, our
interest is restricted to only the main effects. To estimate all the main
effects we would need 23 trials and the nearest OA design available in
the 3
n
series is the design layout with 27 trails and it can only
accommodate a maximum of 1 factors. However, we have 14 variables
or factors in our experiment and so it would not be feasible to use the
L
27
layout. The next higher design in the 3
n
series would require 81
trials and so was ruled out.
It was decided to use 2
n
series with 32 experimental combinations the
three level factors were accommodated by using the idle column
method and the four-level factor was accommodated by the method of
collapsing two columns. Also by judicious allocation of the factors to
the columns of the O.A. array the number of heats was reduced to 16
from 32. The metal from each heat was made into two equal parts and
one part is further processes under a particular set of conditions and
the other by a different set of conditions as specified by the
experimental plan. The modified linear graph with column allocations is
as shown in figure 9.3.

It is left to the reader as an exercise to prepare the design layout.
9.10 EXAMPLE ON IDLE OLUMN DESIGN
Safety valves are used in minimum oil type circuit breakers to release
the excessive pressure development inside the contact chamber. In a
particular type of safety valve, the opening and closing pressure
requirements were not being met in spite of maintaining al dimensions
as per design specification. Hence, a need was felt to study the
alternative dimensions of critical components in the assembly of safety
value and to find out a set of dimensions, which will ensure the desired

143
opening and closing pressure. Dimensions and components
considered for study are shown pressure. Dimensions and components
considered for study are shown in table 9.5.
Table 9.5
FACTORS AND LEVELS FOR VALVE EXPERIMENT
Component
Factor
Code
Level Unit
1 2 3
Valve
Housing
A
45.35 to
45.45
45.55 to
45.65
m.m.
Spindle B
27.7 to
27.9
27.9 to
28.1
28.1 to
28.3

Valve Disc C
24.8 to
25.0
25.20 to
25.40
m.m.
Holder D
1.65 to
1.85
1.90 to
2.10
m.m.

In addition to the main effect of above factors, BC and BD interactions
were also suspected. Accordingly L16 (215) Standard O.A. design was
selected fro experimentation. Using column 1 as idle column, factor B
was allocated to columns 2 and 3 and in the layout levels 1 and 2 of
factor B were compared at first level of idle column and levels 2 and 3
factors B were compared at second level of idle column. The resulting
layout is given in table 9.6 along with response. The allocation of
columns is shown Figure 9.4 with help of linear graph.


144
The responses considered in this experiment were opening pressure,
closing pressure and gap. Gap is defined as the difference between
openings of valves. In this example the response on gap is analyzed
and discussed.
Table 9.6
LAYOUT OF EXPERIMENT AND RESPONSE ON GAP
Trial
No.
Factor
Idle
1
A
1 2
B
2 3
C
4
D
5
BxC BxD
Response
(Gap)
6 7 10 11
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.7
2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1.0
3 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 0.6
4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.0
5 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 0.7
6 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 0.5
7 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 0.7
8 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0.5
9 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 0.8
10 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 0.7
11 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 0.7
12 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 0.5
13 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 0.6
14 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 0.7
15 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 0.5
16 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.9

The experimental data is shown in order and the table of total response
is given in table 9.7.


145
Table 9.7
TOTAL RESPONSE TABLE FOR MAIN EFFECTS
Level
Factor
A
(Idle col.
Level I)
B
(Idle col.
Level I)
B
(Idle col.
Level II)
C D
I 5.7 3.3 - 5.7 5.3
II 5.4 2.4 2.7 5.4 5.8
III - - 2.7 - -

TOTAL RESPONSE TABLE FOR INTERACTIONS
Column
Interaction

Level
I II
6 5.8 5.3
7 5.4 5.7
10 5.4 5.7
11 4.6 6.5

The computations needed fro analysis of variance table are shown
below. The sums of squares for factor B are calculated by comparing
B
1
, with B
2
at the first level of idle column, B
2
and B
3
at second level of
idle column.
SS (Idle Column) = (5.7-5.4)
2
/16 = 0.005625
SS (A) = (5.7-5.4)
2
/16 = 0.005625
SS (B) (1-2) = (3.3-2.4)
2
/8 = 0.10125
SS (B) (2-3) = (2.7-2.7)
2
= 0
SS (C) = (5.7-5.4)
2
/16 = 0.005625
SS (D) = (5.3-5.8)
2
/16 = 0.005625
SS (BC) (Col.6) = (5.8-5.3)
2
/16 = 0.005625
SS (BC) (Col.7) = (5.4-5.7)
2
/16 = 0.005625
SS (BD) (Col.11) = (4.6-6.5)
2
/16 = 0.225625
SS (Total) = 8.11 - (11.1)
2
/16 = 0.409375

146
Table 9.8
ANOVA FOR GAP
Source
Idle
D.F. S.S. M.S. F-ration
Idle 1 0.005625 0.005625 1.25
A 1 0.005625 0.005625 1.25
B 2 0.10125 0.050625 11.25*
C 1 0.005625 0.005625 1.25
BC 2 0.021875 0.0109037 2.49
BD 2 0.021875 0.115625 25.6**
Error 5 0.225 0.0045
Total 15 0.409375

* Significant at 5% level.
** Significant at 1% level
It can be seen from the ANOVA table 9.8 that main effect of B and
interaction BD are significant for gap.
Table 9.9
AVERAGE RESPONSE TABLE FOR BxD
D
B
I II III
I 0.65 0.65 0.55
II 1.0 0.55 0.8

From the table 9.9 and keeping in view the requirement for gap to be
between 0.5-1.5 kg/cm
2
, an average gap of 1.0 kg/cm
2
is achieved by
B
1
D
2
combination. Hence this can be suggested for future use.
9.10 THE CASE WHEN A FACTOR AT 5, 6 OR 7 LEVELS OCCURS WITH
2 OR 3 LEVEL FACTORS
It is rather troublesome to assign many factors at different levels in a
single experiment using the multi-level techniques. For such an

147
experiment, pseudo factor design is very useful. For example let us
consider a 7 x 3
3
x 2
2
experiment. Let A be the seven-level factor, B, C,
and D be the three-level factors and E & F be two-level factors. Only
main effects of these factors are considered. We shall try to assign the
factors to the columns of L
16
Table.
We consider A as a pseudo with 4- levels and use the idle column as
follows:
Level of idle
Column
Four levels of the pseudo factor
A
1
A
2
A
3
A
4

1 A
1
A
2
A
3
A
4

2 A
1
A
5
A
6
A
7


For the experiments for which 1 is marked in the idle column, a
comparison is made between A
1,
A
2,
A
3
and

A
4.
Similarly for the
experiment where 2 is marked in the idle column, a comparison is
made between A
1,
A
5,
A
6
and A
7
. In this way, a comparison of all levels
can be unbiassedly made through the common level A
1.
A
1
is called

a
control level. The control level may not be limited to A
1.
a more

important level is usually selected for the control level. When A is a 6
level factor, two control levels may be taken as shown in the table
given below.
Level of idle
Column
Four levels of the Pseudo factor
A
1
A
2
A
3
A
4

1 A
1
A
2
A
3
A
4

2 A
3
A
4
A
5
A
6


The same idle column is also used for factors B, C and D. the required
linear graph and modified graph are given in Figure 9.5.

148



MODIFIED LINEAR GRAPH
If we use the base of a triangle to represent a four-level factor and the
vertex opposite a two-level factor, then the three degrees of freedom
for the interaction between the two-level factor and the four-level factor
is given by the two sides of the triangle and the perpendicular from the
vertex to the base. The three degrees of freedom for the base and the
three degrees of freedom for the interaction between the vertex and
base make up the six degrees of freedom fro comparison between the
levels of A within the levels of the idle column. The levels of A are
prepared in the following way. From columns 2, 4, and 6, a 4-levels
column is obtained using a multi-level arrangement. Then from the idle
column and this 4-level column, the levels of A are obtained. This is
done by assigning A
1,
A
2,
A
3
and

A
4
to numerals 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the 4-
level column respectively when the idle column is marked 1. Also
assign A
1,
A
5 ,
A
6
and

A
7
to numerals 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the 4-level column

149
respectively when the idle column is marked by 2. The actual
assignment is shown in table 9.10.
Table 9.10
LAYOUT OF 7 X3
3
X2
2
EXPERIMENT USING L
16
TABLE
Expt.
No.
Column
IDLE

A B C D E F
2,3,4,
5,6,7
8,9 10,11 12,13 14 15
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2
4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
5 1 3 1 2 1 2 2
6 1 3 2 1 2 1 1
7 1 4 1 2 2 1 1
8 1 4 2 1 1 2 2
9 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
10 2 1 3 3 3 2 1
11 2 5 1 1 3 2 1
12 2 5 3 3 1 1 2
13 2 6 1 3 1 2 1
14 2 6 3 1 3 1 2
15 2 7 1 3 3 1 2
16 2 7 3 1 1 2 1

9.10 USE OF IDLE- COLUMN FOR COMPLEX ASYMMETRIC
FRACTIONAL EXPERIMENTS
The pseudo-factor technique can be used to construct complex
asymmetrical fractional experiments. For example we shall consider a
5
2
x 3
2
experiment in 16 trials. Let A and B the factors at 5 levels and C
and D be the factors at levels.

150
When a 5-level factor is to be put into a 2-level series table the idle
column is constituted by a line as shown in Figure 9.6.

The figure shows the case of a 5-levels factor. In the array L
16
(2
15
)
first form a four-level column, say using columns 1, 2 and 3. Consider
A and B as pseudo factors whose levels are obtained as below using
the four-level column as idle column.
Level of idle
column
Level of Pseudo
Factor a
Level of Pseudo
Factor B
1 A
1
, A
2
B
1
, B
2

2 A
1
, A
3
B
1
, B
3

3 A
1
, A
4
B
1
, B
4

4 A
1
, A
5
B
1
, B
5


Then use column 1 as idle column for factors C and D. We get the
required linear graph as shown in Figure 9.7.

151

Table 9.11
LAYOUT OF A 5
2
X 3
2
EXPERIMENT IN 16 TRIALS
Expt.
No.
IDLE A B C D
Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2
4 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
5 1 2 2 1 1 1 2
6 1 2 2 1 3 2 1
7 1 2 2 3 1 2 1
8 2 2 2 3 3 1 2
9 2 1 3 1 1 1 1
10 2 1 3 1 4 3 3
11 2 1 3 4 1 3 3
12 2 1 3 4 4 1 1
13 2 2 4 1 1 1 3
14 2 2 4 1 5 3 1
15 2 2 4 5 1 3 1
16 2 2 4 5 5 1 3


152
9.10 THE CASE WHEN BLOCK FACTORS EXIST
In order to explain the application of the Pseudo factor technique of an
experiment with block factors, a life test experiment with three-
wheelers is cited. There are two seven level factors A and B, a 3- level
factor C, and two 2- level factors D and E. Only main effects are
discussed here. Nine three wheelers are provided for the test, and no
restriction and driving conditions was placed. The nine three wheelers
are denoted by R
1
, R
2
. R
9
. The three different positions for wheel are
denoted by V
1
(front), V
2
(rear left) and V
3
(rear right) respectively.
In this case R is a block factor of size 3 and V is an indicative factor.
Main effect of R has little technical meaning; It is satisfactory of the
variance between blocks is roughly estimated. For this reason, some
effects of the control factors may be partially confounded. On the
contrary, one must avoid confounding effect of r with any control factor.
If the experiment is assigned in orthogonal table L
27
, R will be a 9 level
factor since its clock size is 3. Now our problem is how to assign 7
2
x 3
x 2
2
type control factors. A, B, C, D, E, one nine-level factor R and one
3-level factor V in L
27
. The linear graph for the layout of the experiment
in 27 trials obtained from the standard linear graph (2), (a) of L
27
(3
13
) is
shown in Figure 9.8.

Two level factors D and E are assigned using combination design. The
seven-level factors A and b are obtained by using the Pseudo factor
design as follows:
Level
of Idle
column
Pseudo Factor A Level
of Idle
Column
Pseudo Factor B
A
1
A
1
A
1
B
1
B
2
B
3

1 A
1
A
2
A
3
1 B
1
B
2
B
3

2 A
1
A
4
A
5
2 B
1
B
4
B
5

3 A
1
A
6
A
7
3 B
1
B
6
B
7


Column 1 is the idle column. R is assigned in a 9-level column, which is
obtained from columns 1 and 2. The layout is shown in Table 9.12.

153
Table- 9.12
LAYOUT OF 7
2
X 3 X 2
2
TYPE EXPERIMENT WITH A BLOCK
FACTOR OF BLOCK SIZE 3 AND AN INDICATIVE FACTOR
AT 3 LEVELS
No.
R A B C D E V
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (12) 13
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2
3 1 3 3 3 1 2 3
4 2 1 2 3 1 2 3
5 2 2 3 1 1 1 1
6 2 3 1 2 2 1 2
7 3 1 3 2 2 1 2
8 3 2 1 3 1 2 3
9 3 3 2 1 1 1 1
10 4 1 1 1 2 1 3
11 4 4 4 2 1 2 1
12 4 5 5 3 1 2 2
13 5 1 4 3 1 1 2
14 5 4 5 1 2 1 3
15 5 5 1 2 1 2 1
16 6 1 5 2 1 2 1
17 6 4 1 3 1 1 2
18 6 5 4 1 2 1 3
19 7 1 1 1 1 2 2
20 7 6 6 2 1 1 3
21 7 7 7 3 2 1 1
22 8 1 6 3 2 1 1
23 8 6 7 1 1 1 2
24 8 7 1 2 1 1 3
25 9 1 7 2 1 1 3
26 9 6 1 3 2 1 1
27 9 7 6 1 1 2 2


154
Example 1: For the improvement of the characteristics of EPP rubber
by mean of heat treatment, the following factors and levels were cited:
Primary mixing A Quantity of heat treating agent, type 1
(parts) A
1
=0.2, A
2
= 0.5, A
3
= 0.8
B Quantity of heat treating agent, type 2
(parts) B
1
= 0.2, B
2
= 0.5.
C Quantity of heat treating agent, type 3
(parts) C
1
= 4, C
2
= 6.
D Heat-treating temperature (
o
C) D
1
= 160, D
2

=180, D
3
= 200.
Secondary mixing E Vulcanizing agent, DCP (parts) E
1
= 2,
E
2
= 3.
Interactions A x B, A x C and B x C to be estimated. The required linear
graph and assignment are shown in Figure 9.9.


155
Table 9.13
LAYOUT OF 3
2
X 2
2
DESIGN IN 16 TRIALS
Expt.
No.
Idle A B Idle AxB C Idle AxC BxC E D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
4 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
5 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2
6 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
7 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1
8 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2
9 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2
10 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 3
11 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 3
12 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2
13 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3
14 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2
15 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2
16 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3

156










10.
QUALITY EVALAUTION
THROUGH
SIGNAL NOISE RATIOS


157
10
QUALITY EVALAITION THROUGH SIGNAL NOISE RATIOS

10. INTRODUCTION
Traditional techniques of analysis of experimental designs focus on
identifying factors that affect the level of a manufacturing of a
manufacturing process. These are termed the location effects of the
factors. In the technique of analysis of variance it is assumed that the
variability in the response characteristic remains more or less the same
from one trial to another. This assumption is termed as the
homoschedasticity of variances and on this assumption of equality of
variances for the treatment combinations, the mean responses are
compared. Such caparisons cannot e deemed valid when there is
heteroschedasticity. There is also some empirical evidence to suggest
that as the mean response increases, the variability increases. To
overcome this problem authors like Box gave suggested that the data
be suitably transformed before performing analysis of variance.
Depending on how the mean response is related to variability, several
transformations have been suggested in the literature.
Taguchi was the first to suggest that statistically planned experiments
could and should be used in the product development stage to detect
factors that affect the variability of the output. These will be termed the
dispersion effects of the factors.
He argues that by setting the factors with important dispersion effects
at their optimal levels the output can be made robust to changes in
operating and environmental conditions in the production line. Thus the
identification of the dispersion effect is also crucial in improving the
quality of a process. We thus have to consider for each treatment
combination, a location effect as well as dispersion effect. If m
represents the mean effect and o
2
represents the variance, then
Dr.Taguchi suggests that we combine these two measures into a single
measure represented
2
2
o
m
. Borrowing the terminology from
communications engineering. m
2
may be termed as the power of the
signal and o
2
may be termed as the power of the noise. Thus
2
2
o
m
is
the ratio of the power of signal to the power of noise and is called the
SIGNAL NOISE RATIO (S N Ratio).
This ratio is used as the yardstick for comparing different experimental
conditions. The experimental condition for which the SN ration is the
maximum is considered the optimum condition. Such a choice would
ensure that the means response is relatively insensitive to variations in
the level of uncontrollable or noise factors. Dr. Taguchi further

158
suggests that if the mean response for the condition which maximizes
SN Ratio is not at the specified or target value, this can be brought to
the targets but adjusting the level of some other factor, he terms signal
factor which is linearly related to the mean response. A number of
measures fro SN Ratios are proposed by Taguchi for both dynamic as
well as non dynamic characteristics.
10.1 CONCURRENT MEASURES FOR NON-DYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS
Taguchi classifies the quality characteristics into the following three
categories.
1. The smaller the better (S Type characteristic) e.g., pollution,
impurity content, noise, cost, percent defectives, etc.
2. The larger the better (L Type characteristic) e.g., yield, efficiency
Strength, etc.
3. Nominal the better (N type characteristic) e.g., dimensions, output
voltage, etc.
Different SN Ratio or concurrent measures as Taguchi calls then are
suggested fro the different types of characteristics. These are sated
below:
10.1.1 S-Type Characteristic
Let y
1
, y
2
y
n
represent n observations on the quality characteristic y.
For smaller the better type of characteristic the ideal target value is
zero. The closer y is to Zero (From the right side) the better. Dr.
Taguchi suggests that we employ the concurrent measure,

to compare two production conditions and choose the condition with
the larger value of this measure.
10.1.2 L-Type Characteristic
Here the larger the characteristic value, the better it is. Thus if y is the
characteristic value, y is to be as larger as possible, or 1/y should be as
small as possible. In this case, the concurrent measure is calculated
as:



159
10.1.3 N- Type Characteristic
The characteristic value in this case should be as close to the target
value as possible. The concurrent measure in this case is calculated
as:

Where

The above SN Ratio is suggested when there is no signal factor
present. Suppose we have identified signal factor, say, M. Let this
factor be examined in the experiment at three equality spaced levels,
say M-h, M, M+h, where M is a suitable nominal value of M and h is
small. M being a signal factor, the level of M and the mean response
are linearly related. Let B represent the slope of the line. B represents
the effect of the signal on the output represents the effect of all noise
variables. The appropriate concurrent measure to use is:

Usually this measure is made use of for dynamic characteristics.
10.1.4 Digital type one signal: R type
10.1.5 A Vending machine provides an item when it receives a signal that is
a coin is instead in the slot of the machine. Let the variable y take the
value of 1 if a product is delivered and o otherwise. When a signal is
input. I.e., a coin is inserted. if n signals are given and on r occasions
a product is delivered, then an estimate of the reliability of the machine
is
p =
n
r

The appropriate concurrent measure suggested in this situation is,
n = 10 log (
p
1
-1) for 0 <p < 1

160
Use p =
1 2
1
+ n
if p is nearly zero
p =
1 2
2
+ n
n
if p is nearly one.
10.2 TAGUCHIS APPROACH TO OPTIMISATION
Professor Taguchi opines that identifying and controlling extraneous
sources of variation is wasteful effort. His overall approach is to follow
a two-stage procedure to minimize the effects of cause in preference to
eliminating the causes. He thus first determines the levels of
controllable factors at which the cumulative effect of noise factors on
the quality characteristic is east and then in the second stage tries to
secure further reduction in the variation of the quality characteristics
through specifying narrower tolerances for the critical noise factors.
The objective of his data analysis is to determine the factor level
combination that has the mean response as near the target value as
possible and has the least variation. In Taguchis approach the control
factors are assigned to the columns of an L
18
(2 x 3) array or an L
36

(2
11
x3
12
) O.A. array. He recommends these arrays as the interaction
effects are uniformly distributed over the columns. Each factor is
examined at most at 3 levels, which are widely spaced. This he terms
as an inner O.A.
Because of product-to-product variation or deterioration over time, the
parameters levels may not remain constant. In order to study the
effects o such changes in the parameter level s due to uncontrollable
distributions, or noises, professor Taguchi suggests that the factor
levels prone to such variations be assigned to another O.A. array, h
terms an outer O.A. General error or noise factors and signal factors
are assigned to the columns of the outer O.A
Thus in all 18 x 18 or 36 x 36 evaluations of eth response characteristic
are made depending on eth array chosen. Appropriate SN Ratio are
then calculated from the response values in the outer O.A.
corresponding to each experimental condition of the inner O.A. These
SN Ratio are then treated as responses for the inner O.A. and an
ANOVA performed to identify parameters having significant effect on
SN Ratio. For each significant control factor the level with the highest
SN Ration is chosen as the optimal level.
If it happens that the combination of the levels of parameters so
chosen does not meet the target value, the level of a signal factor is
manipulated to attain the target if however, the target value is met but
the variability around the target is still deemed to be large. Taguchi
suggests the use of a tolerance design to secure further reduction in
variation. The component effects contributing to large proportion of
variability are identified. These components are then considered for up

161
gradation with a view to reduce overall variability in the quality
characteristic. Tolerance design is intended to reduce the variations
caused by inner and outer noise factors and is done after parameters
design is completed.
10.3 EXAMPLE: 1 ON CONCURRENT MEASURE
Manufacture of Semi Conductor device is a highly sophisticated
process. An important characteristic to be achieved during
manufacturing is CARRIER LIFE TIME. The end properties of the
device like Forward Voltage Drops and Turn Off Time depend on the
Carrier lifetime. An important step in device manufacturing is Aluminum
Diffusion followed by Gallium-diffusion. For a particular type of device,
the career life after Aluminum and Gallium diffusion was found to be
below the required value. Since Gallium diffusion actually increases the
carrier Life Time, the low value of carrier lifetime was attributed to the
Aluminum Diffusion Process. Hence a study was conducted to evolve
optimum process for Aluminum Diffusion in order to improve carrier
lifetime. Seven factors were identified as experimental factors. The
descriptions of the factors and their levels are shown in Table 10.1.
Following factors were kept constant while conducting the experiment:
i) Resistivity of DI water
ii) Resistivity of Millipore water.
iii) Sealing Vacuum Level.
iv) Source of Trichloroethylene.
Table 10.1
FACTORS AND LEVELS
FACTOR CODE
LEVEL
I II
Aluminum source A Source P Source- Q
KOH Source B Source X Source Y
Water used for cleaning C
DI water +
Millipore
Millipore
Drying of water D
Vacuum at
160
O
c
Air at 120
O
c
Cleaning after KOH E With Hcl Without Hcl
Temp. & Time of
diffusion
F
1230
O
c and 25
hrs.
1238
O
c and 20
hrs.
Weight of Aluminum in
each boat
G 135 mgm. 472.5 mgm.

162
There was no interaction of interest hence L
8
(27) was used to design
an experiment for this purpose. The allotment of factors to columns is
shown in Fig. 10.1. The raw material for manufacture of the device
namely, wafers, was procedures D from two sources S1 and S2.
Hence all the eight trials were conducted for wafers from both the
sources. Two wafers from each source were subjected to each trial and
three devices were obtained from each wafer. The measurement of
carrier life-time was done using Open Circuit Decay Technique. With
the above arrangement it was possible to get six values of carrier
lifetime against each trial for each source of wafer supply. The data is
shown in table 10.2.
A B C D E F G
- - - - - - -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 10.1: LINEAR GRAPH
The data was analyzed with L-Type concurrent measure which
maximizes the average and minimize the variability i.e.

The value of concurrent measure for each trial is also shown in the
Table 10.2. The ANOVA on concurrent Measure is given In ATBLE
10.3 ND 10.4. The average response based on concurrent measure is
given in Table 10.5.
Table 10.2
MINORITY CARRIER LIFE TIME (IN MICROSECONDS)
Sl. No.
Source
of
Wafer
Diode No.
Average
Concurrent
Measure
1 2 3
1
S1 6.1 6.4 6.5 6.37
S1 5.8 6.5 6.5 6.27 15.99
S2 6.2 5.3 5.9 5.8 15.99
S2 5.0 5.7 6.7 5.8
2
S1 26.1 22.2 22.8 23.7
S1 32.5 40.7 43.5 38.9 29.03
S2 41.9 42.1 43.2 42.4
S2 44.9 43.6 45.0 44.4 32.74

163
Table 10.2 (Contd.)

3
S1 15.2 18.7 23.3 19.07
S1 8.8 7.8 10.6 9.07 21.03
S2 21.2 21.6 17.2 20
S2 21.8 22 28.1 23.97 26.58
4
S1 6.5 7.3 6.6 6.8
S1 7.2 9.8 10.3 9.1 17.59
S2 6.8 7.7 7.5 7.33
S2 7.5 7.7 9.9 8.37 17.73
5
S1 33.9 35.4 35.9 35.07
S1 53.5 56.3 37.8 49.2 31.97
S2 65 63 56.2 61.4
S2 63.2 68 73 68.2 36.15
6
S1 4.8 6.1 5.4 5.43
S1 4.2 4.6 6.7 5.17 14.15
S2 7.1 8. 9.3 8.13
S2 7.1 7.8 9.8 8.23 18.06
7
S1 25.8 25.2 19.2 23.4
S1 29 34.8 33.5 32.43 28.39
S2 16.7 14.5 12.3 14.5
S2 18 16.1 16.6 16.90 23.71
8 S1 6.2 8.5 5.9 6.87
S1 7.5 8.5 6.9 7.63 16.95
S2 12.8 14 18.7 15.17
S2 5.8 5.8 5.3 5.63 17.40


164
Table 10.3
ANOVA TABLE FOR CONCURRENT MEASURE
Source DF SS MS
S 1 9.64 9.64
A 1 7.48 7.48
B 1 35.58 35.58
C 1 0.95 0.95
D 1 77.97 77.97
E 1 323.99 323.99
F 1 38.32 38.32
G 1 233.17 233.17
SA 1 1.38 1.98
SB 1 5.64 5.64
SC 1 14.33 14.33
SD 1 0.99 0.99
SE 1. 2.05 2.05
SF 1 1.30 1.30
SG 1 14.75 14.75
TOTAL 15 767.55

Table 10.4
POLLED ANOVA TABLE
Source DF SS MS F
B 1 35.58 35.58 6.08*
D 1 77.97 77.97 13.32**
E 1 323.99 323.99 55.37**
F 1 38.32 38.32 6.55*
G 1 233.17 233.17 38.85**
Error 10 58.51 5.851
Total 15 765.55

F 1,10,0.05 = 4.96

165
The factors. Drying of wafer (D), Weight of Aluminum (G), and cleaning
after etching (E) were found to be significant at 1% level. Source of
KOH (B) and Temperature and Time of diffusion (F) were found to be
significant at 5% level. Though the source of wafer is not significant but
interaction between the source of wafer and water used for cleaning as
also the source of wafer and weight of Aluminum were marginally
significant at 10% level. The average response is given in Table 10.5
for main effects and Table 10.6 shows average response for two
interactions i.e. SxB and SxG.
Table 10.5
AVERAGE RESPONSE TABLE FOR CONCURRENT MEASURE
(MAIN EFFECTS)
Source Level-1 Level-2 Remarks
Wafer Source 21.89 23.44 Source 2 better
A 21.98 23.35 A2 better
B 24.16 21.17 B1 better
C 22.42 22.91 C1 or C2
D 24.87 20.46 D1 better
E 18.16 27.16 E2 better
F 21.12 24.21 F2 better
G 18.85 22.18 G2 better

Table 10.6
AVERAGE RESPONSE TABLE OF CONCURRENT MEASURE
(INTERACTION EFFECTS)
B 1 2
S
1 22.79 20.59
2 25.53 21.36
G 1 2
S
1 19.13 24.75
2 18.66 28.22
S: Wafer Source

166
Based on the response, following optimum combination was decided:
Wafer from source S2
A2 B1 C1 D1 E2 F2 G2
The average carrier Life Time expected under the optimum
combination was:
63.33 13.89 u sec.
Example 2: ON USE OF CONCURRENT MEASURE:
Different types of catches are used in Switch gear fro controlling of
tripping mechanism. Catches are hardened to required hardness by the
method of induction Hardening. Rework of the order of 22% was being
carried out due to low hardness value. An experiment was conducted
to study the effect of Process Parameters ad evolve an optimum
Process to achieve required average hardness with minimum variation.
Table 10.7
FACTORS AND LEVELS
Factor Code
Level
1 2 3
Coil A Existing New Design -
Voltage B 300 V 330 V -
Coupling C 3 mm 6 mm 9 mm
Time D 30 Sec 75 Sec 100 Sec.

In addition, interactions B C and B D were also suspected. Standard
OA design L
16
(2
15
) was used to design the experiment. Allocation of
variance factors is shown in linear graph in Figure 10.2.


167
Three catches were subjected to hardening against each trial.
Hardness value was measured at five positions on each catch thus
resulting in 15 measurements of hardness against each trial. Data were
analyzed using ANOVA with hardness value as response and also
using the Concurrent Measure given below:
n = 10 log

e
e m
nV
V S

where n = number of observations
S
m
= n x / ) (
2

V
e
= 1 / ) (
2
1

=
n x x
n
i
i

The sample data of trial 1 and 2 is given in table 10.8. Value of n for
each trial is given in table 10.9 factor wise mean SN Ratio is given in
table 10.10. Based on the mean SN Ratio, following combination
was found to be optimum.
A
2
B
2
C
1
D
2

Table 10.8
DATA ON HARDNESS
Trial No.
Catch
No.
Position
1 2 3 4 5
1
1 53 28.5 25 36 49
2 33 24 23 23 22
3 32.2 22 19 21 22
2 1 61.5 31 32 27 46.5
2 59 27 26 26.5 32.5
3 60 40 27 21 27


168
Table 10.9
SN RATIO FOR TRIALS
Factor Trial No.
1 8.9 9 7.9
2 8.3 10 25.4
3 7.7 11 30.2
4 15.1 12 27.6
5 14.3 13 21.7
6 18.9 14 11.1
7 6.6 15 29.2
8 28.8 16 6.9

The Analysis of variance of the data in Table 10.9 is shown below in
Table 10.10.
Table 10.10
ANALYSIS OF VARAINCE OF SN RATIO
Source of
variance
D.F. S.S. M.S. F
Idle column (1) 1 165.12 165.12
Idle column (9) 1 166.41 166.41
A 1 0.09 0.09 Not Significant
B 1 15.21 15.21 - do -
C
1
Vs C
2
1 102.25 102.25 1.97 n.s.
C
1
Vs C
3
1 61.60 61.60 1.19 n.s.
D
1
Vs D
2
1 7.60 7.60 n.s.
D
1
Vs D
3
1 96.60 96.60 1.86 n.s.
B x C 1 50.00 50.001 1.93 n.s.
1 285.61 285.61 11.00 **
B x D 1 81.92 81.92 3.16. n.s.
1 126.41 124.41 4.88 n.s.
Error 3 77.88 25.96
Total 15 1236.70


169
The only effect significant is the interaction BxC. None of the main
effects are found to be significant.
The factor wise Mean Response Table is, given in Table 10.11.
Table 10.11
FACTORWISE MEAN SN RATIO
FACTOR
LEVEL
MEAN S.N. RATIO
REMARKS
1 2
A 16.71 16.71 ns
B 15.81 17.76 ns
C
1
Vs C
2
10.00 17.15 ns
C
1
Vs C
3
22.78 17.23 ns
D
1
Vs D
2
12.60 14.55 ns
D
1
Vs D
3
16.55 23.48 ns
B
1
C
1
V B
1
C
2
8.30 10.45 ns
B
2
C
1
V B
2
C
2
11.70 23.85 ns
B
1
C
1
V B
1
C
3
19.05 25.45 ns
B
2
C
1
V B
2
C
3
26.50 9.00 Significant
B
1
D
1
V B
1
D
2
11.60 7.15 ns
B
2
D
1
V B
2
D
2
13.60 21.95 ns
B
1
D
1
V B
1
D
3
14.80 29.70 ns
B
2
D
1
V B
2
D
3
18.25 17.25 ns

B
2
C
1
D
2
is the best combination. Either level 1 or 2 may be used for
the factor A. the optimum combination is A
1
B
2
C
1
D
2
or A
2
B
2
C
1
D
2
.
Confirmatory trials with the combination A
2
B
2
C
1
D
2
were conducted for
15 catches. The average hardness value achieved was found to be
58.9 with O=0.8, which means less than 1% of catches will have
hardness below lower limit of 57 HRC, the upper limit being 62 HRC.

170
Example 3: USE OF A SIGNAL FACTOR
Particle board and other paneling productions are manufactured by
bonding wood chips together with a urea formaldehyde resin. After
manufacturing the emission of free formaldehyde is an undesirable
feature of the product. The current standard required that no boards
should emit more than 0.445 ppm of formaldehyde. The process is
currently operating at a mean emission level of 0.33 ppm and a
standard deviation of appropriate a mean emission level of 0.35 ppm
and a standard deviation of approximately 0.25 ppm. Obviously,
process performance is unacceptable.
A designed experiment was used in an effort to reduce variability in
formaldehyde emissions and to improve the process mean, the
following sic factors are expected to gave a significant influence on
formaldehyde emissions. An L
8
(2
7
) orthogonal array was used in which
each factor was examined at two levels.
S. No.
FACTOER
DESCRIPTION
CODE
NUMBER OF
LEEVLS
1. Type of Resin A 2
2.
Concentration of
scavenger solution
B 2
3. Press cycle time C 2
4. Press Temperature D 2
5. Chip Moisture Content E 2
6. Pressure F 2

The following is the assignment of the factors to the columns of the L
8

(2
7
) array.
A B C D E F
- - - - - -
4 2 1 6 5 3
The above design allows estimation of the main effects for factors, A,
B, C, D, E and F only. At each experimental trial, five boards were
tested, and the average and standard deviation of formal de hyde
emission was calculated. Instead of working directly with the mean and
standard deviation, the SN Ratios were analyzed.
In terms of process optimization, we wish to determine the factor levels
that maximize SN Ratio while keeping the mean emission level low.
Problem is solved in two stages.

171
1. Determine factors that have a significant effect on the SN ratio.
These factors are called control factors implying that they control
the signal-to-noise ratio. Find the factor levels that maximize the
signal to-noise ratio.
2. Select a factor that has the smallest (ideally no) effect on the SN
ratio from among all factors that affect the process mean. This
factor is called the SIGNAL FACTOR. Set the level of the signal
factor so that the process mean is optimized. Factors that do not
influence either the SN ratio or the process mean may be set to any
value desired or convenient with process operation.
Table overleaf shows the mean, standard deviation and SN ratio for
each run.
Table 10.12
DATA FOR FORMAL DE HYDE EMISSION
Trial No. Mean X s.d. SN ratio
1 0.42 0.05 18.49
2 0.28 0.33 -1.43
3 0.49 0.35 2.92
4 0.42 0.19 6.89
5 0.24 0.02 21.58
6 0.38 0.29 2.35
7 0.21 0.36 -4.68
8 0.40 0.38 0.45

Using the SN ratios as response, the total responses of the factors on
the SN ratio are calculated as:
A
1
= 38.31 B
1
=40.99 C
1
= 26.87 D
1
= -0.84 E
1
= 24.21
F
1
=12.86
A
2
= 8.26 B
2
=5.58 C
2
=19.70 D
2
= 47.4 E
2
=22.36
F
2
=33.74
The table of Analysis of variance is shown below:

172
Table 10.13
ANOVA TABLE OF SN RATIO
Source d.f. S.S. M.S.
A 1 112.88 112.88
B 1 156.73 156.73
C 1 6.43 6.43
D 1 291.00 291.00
E 1 0.43 0.43
F 1 54.65 54.65
Error 1 0.03 0.03
Total 7 622.15

We see from the above table that the effect of resin type (A),
Scavenger concentration (B) and Press Temperature (D) are large.
Setting A at the low level, B at the low level and D at the high level
would maximize the SN Ratio. In fact, the estimated process response
at this set of conditions or levels of the control factors are:
Mean = (0.42+0.24)/2 =0.33 ppm
Standard Deviation = (0.05+0.02)/2= 0.035 ppm
While the standard deviation of the process is lower at this set of
conditions, the process mean is unacceptably high. We need to
examine the data for a SIGNAL factor, so that the process mean can
be lowered to an acceptable level. We see from the ANOVA Table that
Factor E ha the least effect on the SN Ratio. Thus the only signal factor
is E (moisture content) the average emission at the low level of E is
0.2875 and at the high level of E is 0.4225. Thus increasing E from the
low to the high level would increase the mean. Thus decreasing the
Moisture content would lower the mean emission level. The data in
table indicate that if A and B are at the low level and D is the high level,
then if e is the low level, the process mean is 0.24 ppm (Run 5) and the
standard deviation is 0.02 ppm. This is a substantial improvement over
the current process performance.
If it is convenient to change the signal factor during manufacturing,
then it can become a major part of an on-line process control scheme.
When the X cart (for mean emission) indicates that the process mean
has shifted to an undesirable level, the signal factor can be adjusted to

173
bring the process back on target. In the particle board process, the
moisture content in the chips cannot be easily changed during
production, but it can monitored to provide a leading indicator fro
emission control.

****************


174










APPENDIX

175


176


177




178



179





180





181



182




183




184






185



186




187




188

Bibliography
1. Taguchi G. - Introduction to experimental design
(Maruzen, Tokyo)
2. Taguchi G. - Statistical Analysis (Maruzen, Tokyo)
3. Cochran W.G. and - Experimental Designs (John Wiley
Cox G.M. and Sons)
4. Davies O.L. - Design and Analysis of Industrial
Experiments (Oliver and Boyd,
London)
5. Pater W.M. John - Statistical Design and Analysis of
Experiments (Wiley, New York)
6. Montgomery Douglas C. - Design and Analysis of Experiments
(John Wiley and Songs)

* * * * * * * * *