VDA Volume 4 DoE - Quality Assurence Prior To Serial Production

nd
2 revised edition 2008

translated and printed 2009
Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

VDA-QMC Internetportal am 13.08.2009 um 16:28
Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

We are grateful to the participating companies and their employees for their
commitment in writing this chapter. The following companies participated in
the drafting:
AUDI AG
BMW AG
Robert Bosch GmbH
Continental AG
DGQ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Qualität)
Fichtel & Sachs AG
Ford Werke AG
GETRAG Getriebe und Zahnradfabrik Hermann Hagenmeyer
GmbH & Cie
Kolbenschmidt AG
Mercedes Benz AG
Adam Opel AG
Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche AG
Siemens AG
Steyer Daimler Puch AG
ITT Automotive Europe GmbH
VDO Adolf Schindling AG
Wabco Fahrzeugbremsen
Volkswagen AG
ZF Friedrichshafen AG
We also wish to thank everyone who made suggestions for improvements.
Frankfurt/Main, May 1996
The chapter was revised
Oberursel, August 2008
Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA)

VDA Volume 4: Design of Internetportal
VDA-QMC Experiments am 13.08.2009 um 16:28 1

!"#$"#% '()$
* +$%,)" !- ./0$1,2$"#% 3+!.4 5

787 9/54$:&;5-$/ <
786 =4$>%(' :(,;4-35-$/ ?/: 34$>%(' ?/?%@,-, <
78687 =4$>%(' A$4'&%?5-$/ ?/: !(0-/(: B$?%, ?/: C>D(;5-E(, *
78686 F&4E(@ *
7868< G?4.(5 H&?/5-5@ *
7868* 9/3&5 ?4-?>%(, ?/: !?5? I$%%(;5-$/ ?/: =4(3?4?5-$/ *
7868J K(;$4:-/.L (E?%&?5-$/ ?/: ,(%(;5-$/ $0 -/3&5 E?4-?>%(, J
7868M 9/5(4?;5-$/, J
7868N 12?'3%( M
78< K(:&;-/. 5O( P&'>(4 $0 9/3&5 ?4-?>%(,L
F(%(;5-/. G(,5 A?;5$4, Q
78<87 K(34$:&;->-%-5@ ?/: 9/:(3(/:(/;( R
78<86 1E?%&?5-$/ I4-5(4-? ?/: 1E?%&?5-$/ F;?%( R
78<8< 9/3&5 ?4-?>%( S(-.O5-/. R
78<8* 9'3?;5 T?54-2 U?05(4 F;O(00%(4V 7W
78<8J 9/5(4?;5-$/, 7W
78<8M A?;5$4 %(E(%, 7W
78<8N A?;5$4 ,(%(;5-$/ ,&''?4@ -/ ? 0%$X ;O?45 77
78<8Q 12?'3%( 76
78* F(%(;5-$/ $0 ?/ 123(4-'(/5 F54?5(.@ 7<
78*87 F-/.%(#A?;5$4 123(4-'(/5 7<
78*86 A&%% A?;5$4-?% 123(4-'(/5 7*
78*8< A4?;5-$/?% A?;5$4-?% 123(4-'(/5 7J
78*8* A?;5$4 F(?4;O ?05(4 !8 FO?-/-/ 7N
78*8J !(,-./ $0 123(4-'(/5, ?;;$4:-/. 5$ B8 G?.&;O- 7R
78*8J87 !(E(%$3'(/5 $0 K$>&,5 =4$:&;5, ?/: =4$;(,,(, 7R
78*8J86 !(E(%$3'(/5 $0 K$>&,5 ?/: F(/,-5-E( =4$:&;5,
?/: =4$;(,,(, 67
78*8M 12?'3%( 66
78J 1E?%&?5-$/ $0 5O( 123(4-'(/5 K(,&%5, 6<
78J87 K(34(,(/5?5-$/ $0 5O( T(?,&4('(/5 K(,&%5, 6<
78J86 I?%;&%?5-/. 5O( 100(;5, 6M
78J8< F5?5-,5-;?% "/?%@,-, T(5O$: 6Q
78J8* 12?'3%( 6R
78M I$'3&5(4 F&33$45 <6
78N Y->%-$.4?3O@ <<

6 !"# $%&'( *+ !(,-./ $0 123(4-'(/5,

1 Design of Experiments (DoE)
1.1 Introduction
With the objective of ensuring that the products entering into production are
reliable and already correctly manufactured and ready for market, right from
the start of the series, it is crucial for design and product alternatives to be
tested even before series production is launched. This involves conducting
practical experiments or theoretical calculations (simulations) to examine
the effects that changes in parameters bring about and to evaluate these
effects.
Statistical experiment design is an effective method for examining the

effects that modified input variables (factors) have on the characteristics of
the target quantities. This is a process for examining alternative designs or
products with regard to interactions and the influence exerted on the target
quantities. It is advantageous that the scope of the experiment and depth of
information are precisely defined before starting the experiment, and the
result is statistically substantiated.
The following sections present possibilities for designing and conducting

experiments that can be used in each phase of production planning,
production preparation, development and manufacturing. Just as for
practical trials, theoretical calculations and simulations can be carried out
with the methods proposed, in order to obtain systematic findings about the
target quantities and cut costs.
1.2 Problem description and problem analysis
It is necessary to work meticulously in problem description and problem

analysis. Initially, this is time consuming. However, that time can made up
easily because it means that only the experiments that are actually
necessary have to be carried out. It is often the case that the desired result
in terms of task formulation has already been obtained after the problem
analysis.


1.2.1 Problem Formulation and Defined Goals and Objectives
The problem formulation and the defined goals and objectives must indicate
what the objective is: an improvement, attainment of one relative optimum
or the absolute optimum, or another objective. For this purpose, it is
necessary to define quality characteristics and evaluation criteria, by means
of which the degree to which the defined goals and objectives are attained
can be assessed.
1.2.2 Survey
Product:
In addition to a drawing or sketch, complete details on the functions that are
to be fulfilled are also required for a precise product description. These can
be prepared with the help of forms, similar to those used in the FMEA.
Process:
A process is deemed to include a manufacturing sequence and a functional
technical sequence. The process can be represented using a flow chart |1|
or flow schedule. If hierarchies or procedures with common dependencies
are to be shown, block diagrams |1| are also suitable.
Environment:
When describing the environment, important boundary or peripheral
conditions for the problem solution and noise variables that are already
known or assumed must be given for the problem solution. In practice,
these are usually system influences that cannot be controlled.
1.2.3 Target quantity
A fundamental step in problem analysis is the definition of the target

quantity or quantities. Target quantities are directly or indirectly measurable
physical quantities that are suitable for evaluating the achievement of the
objectives in the experiment.
1.2.4 Input Variables and Data Collection and Preparation
This step requires data acquisition that extends across the general field.
This includes data and facts from current production as well as results of
previous analyses.

4 VDA Volume 4: Design of Experiments

The information about the ACTUAL situation is structured, for which a
whole range of simple and proven tools are available:
Error check sheet, error location diagram |1|
Pareto analysis (also known as ABC analysis) |1|
Graphic representation (line or column graph, pie chart) |1|
Stratification, histogram, correlation diagram, box plots z |1|,
Probability network |2|.
For new developments, theoretical findings or findings derived from

simulation results should be taken into account.
1.2.5 Recording, evaluation and selection of input variables
Brainstorming sessions are held to derive and define the possible input
variables. The following aids for collecting and structuring assumed input
variables are employed:
Metaplan technique |3|
Cause and effect diagram (also known as a herringbone or Ishikawa
diagram) |1|
fault tree diagram |4|.
The input variables are then classified and grouped into a list. A distinction
is made between
individually adjustable and influenceable input variables, e.g.
technical or physical variables, such as size, pressure, rotational
speed,
input variables that can hardly be influenced, or not at all, e.g.
ambient temperature, air humidity, customer behaviour, usage
profile.
1.2.6 Interactions
It is necessary to consider any interactions. An interaction between input

variables is present when the effect of one input variable is dependent on
the level to which the other input variables(s) is/are set.


1.2.7 Example
A demonstration experiment |5| is discussed as an example for explaining

and illustrating the procedure in the framework of the design of
experiments. This concerns the driveshaft thrust bearing of an automatic
gearbox as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Driveshaft thrust bearing of an automatic gearbox, ∅ 31 mm
The survey and discussion of the initial situation determined that the
objective of the examination was improvement of the thrust bearing surface
quality. The target quantities for evaluating this process were set as follows:
1. Surface roughness Rz,
2. Chip form.
The surface roughness Rz with a diameter of 31 mm was measured in

accordance with DIN 4768, see. The evaluation of the chip form was carried
out according to the modified standard series INFOS (after W. König and
W. Eversheim 1977).


Figure 2 Determining the Surface Roughness RZ according to DIN
4768
After leaving out the start up length and the trailing length, the
measurement length is divided into five equal lengths for separate
measurement. The averaged surface roughness RZ is determined as the
arithmetic mean of the surface roughness values for the five consecutive
separate measurement lengths. The surface roughness Rmax is the largest
surface roughness of the five measured values.
The result of a detailed survey in the form of brainstorming for the input
variables that possibly determine the surface quality is shown in the cause
effect diagram in


1.3 Reducing the Number of Input Variables,
Selecting Test Factors
7$4 (23(8-(/9:; 5<( =$4>.4$&3 5<?5 3(40$4'(8 5<( 34$@%(' ?/?%:,-, ?%,$
9?44-(, $&5 5<( 3%?//-/. ,5(3 5$ 4(8&9( 5<( 3$,,-@%( -/3&5 A?4-?@%(,
8(5(4'-/(8 8&4-/. 5<( 34$@%(' ?/?%:,-,; ,$ 5<?5 5<( /&'@(4 $0 -/3&5
A?4-?@%(, -, ?5 ? %(A(% 5<?5 -, '?/?.(?@%( =-5< 4(,3(95 5$ 5<( (23(4-'(/5B
C<-, (/,&4(, 5<?5 ?%% (2-,5-/. 34?95-9?% ?/8 5(9</-9?% (23(45-,( 9?/ @(
&5-%-D(8 -/ ,(%(95-/. 5<( 0?95$4,B E?45-9&%?4 4(0(4(/9( 5$ F9<(00%(4 GHG -, '?8(
=-5< 4(.?48 5$ 5<( 34$9(8&4( 54(?5(8 <(4(B
Tool Material/workpiece
J&55-/.
(8.( 1 Carbon content
7 O?48/(,, TOLJU
?/.%( 3$,-5-A(Q/(.?5-A(
9&55-/. .($'(54:
E4-'?4: ,54&95&4(
J<-3 0$4' "%%$:-/. (%('(/5,
N 9&55-/.
.4$$A( O
4?8-&, E4(54(?45'(/5B.
J(4?'-9 =$4>3-(9(
N4-33-/.
OFF
C$$% EJ! =$4>3-(9(
'?5(4-?% R$5 ,-D(
JMP O?48 O?48 '(5?%
'(5?%
9$?5(8 Rz ( m)
Z
&/54?-/(8 Chip form

E$,-5-$/-/. 7((8 4?5( ! 1'3%$:((
C$$%Q=$4>3-(9( C-'(
54?-/(8 C-'( $0 8?:
7((8 8(A-9(
F<-05
J&55-/. M "55(/5-$/
J J&55-/. 8(35< ,3((8 R-.<5/-/.
=-5< =Q$ J$'3$,-5-$/ N4$&/8 0%$$4 C('3(4?5&4(

S/,5?%%?5-$/
" R&@4-9?/5
7%$$4 Human/environment
,'?%% S'3&4-5:
%?4.(
Machine
7-.&4( I J?&,(#100(95 !-?.4?' 0$4 5<( C?4.(5 K&?/5-5-(, F&40?9(

L$&.</(,, ?/8 J<-3 7$4' $0 5<( !4-A(,<?05 C<4&,5 M(?4-/. 0$4
?/ "&5$'?5-9 N(?4@$2

6 !"# $%&'( *+ !(,-./ $0 123(4-'(/5,

1.3.1 Reproducibility and Independence
It must be possible to set the selected input variables at defined levels with
known repeating accuracy. A change in the setting of one input variable is
not permitted to have any effect on the setting of other input variables.
1.3.2 Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Scale
Depending on the exact situation, evaluation criteria are defined for

selecting the input variables, and a suitable, multiple level scale is devised
for these criteria. Each favourable case is rated with a high value; the more
unfavourable the assignment to the evaluation criterion, the lower the
ranking.
For example:
Effort for setting the input variable

1 large ... 10 small
Assumed factor influence

1 small ... 10 large
Costs for changing the setting of the input variable

1 high ... 10 low
The multiplication of the means determined for each evaluation criterion

yields a statistical parameter for the priority of an input variable. The input
variables are ordered according to their priority.
1.3.3 Input Variable Weighting
All team members work together to evaluate and weight the input variables.
The initial result is an average ranking for each of an input variable's
evaluation criterion. Subsequently, all of an input variable's average
rankings are multiplied together. The result is a statistical parameter for this
input variable's priority. Finally, the input variables are ordered according to
their priority and thereby yield the weighting.


1.3.4 Impact Matrix (after Scheffler)
An impact matrix is a tabular presentation of the changes in a target

quantity or target quantities when input variables are varied. The wave form
and symbols characterize the assumed or known change.
Effect known
Effect known
and non linear
Effect
Effect
unknown
X1 – Xn = input variables
Y1….yn = target quantities
Figure 4 Impact Matrix after Scheffler
1.3.5 Interactions
In selecting a suitable and economical experiment design, it is particularly

important to acquire preliminary information on possible interactions
between the input variables. If interactions that actually exist are
unintentionally not taken into account when the experiment design is
defined, the experiment results may lead to incorrect statements.
1.3.6 Factor levels
Those input variables that are considered in the experiment design are
called factors. In the simplest case, two factor levels are assumed. The two
levels of the separate factors are selected with "suitable" separation from
each other, on the basis of technical considerations, boundary conditions
and experimental feasibility. For qualitative factors, the imprecision of the
setting must be negligibly small compared to the difference between the
intervals.


1.3.7 Factor selection summary in a flow chart
Input variable no Unsuitable for

1 reproducible experiment
design
independent
?
yes
Input variable evaluation

2 evaluation criteria and
evaluation scale
Input variable weighting

3 mathematic combinations from 2
Set up factor impact

4 matrix to target quantities
Optain preliminary information

5 on possible interactions among
the factors
Define factor levels

6
check compatibility
Figure 5 Flow Chart for Factor Selection and Factor Levels


1.3.8 Example
There is sufficient basic knowledge about the principle effects of the diverse
input variables for the machining process. With the help of this existing
knowledge, the following eight significant input variables are taken from
Figure 3 and defined as factors for the examination:
A = Cooling lubricant
S = Cutting speed
C = Cut depth
D = Feed rate
E = Material
F = Cutting edge angle
G = Chip format
H = Cutting radius
To obtain the simplest possible experiment plan, each of these factors was
examined at two levels. With the help of existing experience with the
process, the team defines the following factor levels:
Factor levels
Factor +
A no yes
B 100 m/min 150 m/min
C 1 mm 2 mm
D 0.2 mm/h 0.3 mm/h
E Material 2 Material 1
F 45° 75°
G small large
H 0.8 mm 1.2 mm
Figure 6 Factors and Factor Levels in the Machining Process
To the extent that knowledge or assumptions are available regarding the

effects of these input variables on the target quantities, they are shown in
the impact matrix shown in Figure 7.


Influencing 0 ! 6 8 7 < @
factors !""#$%& !(--$%& !(--$%& 7334 *,-3 9,-3*$,# !(--$%& !5$2 !(--$%&
#()*$+,%- 12334 432-5 :"*;2$3+3 34&3 ="*> *,4$(1
Target
,%&#3 &*""?3
quantity
. / . / . / . / . / . / . / . /
large
Surface roughness
small
unfavorable
Chip form
favorable
Figure 7 Impact Matrix for Known and Assumed Effects of the Eight
Selected Factors for the Target Quantity
1.4 Selection of an Experiment Strategy
Several especially frequently applied experiment designs will be described

in brief. They represent only a small extract from the known experiment
strategies. More comprehensive information is given by Juran |7|, for
example.
1.4.1 Single Factor Experiment
A single factor experiment is an examination of the effect that one

quantitative or qualitative factor has on one or more target quantities. The
factor is set to two or more levels. The examination is carried out on all
levels equally often (n > 1).
The effects of input variables that are not included in the experiment plan
must be eliminated. This is done either by keeping them constant during the
experiment or by randomly assigning the experiment units to the levels.


The single factor experiment supplies statements on the effect this factor
has on one or more target quantities under fixed, defined conditions.
Furthermore, the residual or experimental variance can be estimated.
Typical application: Examination of one factor's effect.
1.4.2 Full Factorial Experiment
Examination of the effects that multiple quantitative or qualitative factors

have on one or more target quantities. Each factor is set to two or more
levels. All possible factor level combinations are examined equally often (n
> 1 if possible)
must be eliminated. This is done either by keeping them constant or by
randomly assigning the experiment units to the factor level combinations.
The full factorial experiment supplies statements on the effects the

examined factors have on the target quantity or quantities, and on the
interactions among the factors examined. Furthermore, the residual or
experimental variance can be estimated.
Typical application:
Examination of the effects of a small number of factors, if interactions are
expected among them or if interactions cannot be ruled out.


Example:
Examination of the effects that four factors (A, B, C and D) have on one
target quantity when each factor is set to two levels, ' ' and ' + '. Term for
4
this experiment design: 2 .
No. A B C D
1
2 +
3 +
4 + +
5 +
6 + +
7 + +
8 + + +
9 +
10 + +
11 + +
12 + + +
13 + +
14 + + +
15 + + +
16 + + + +
This experiment supplies statements on:

the main effects: A, B, C and D
the two factor interactions AB, AC, AD, BC, BD and CD
the three factor interactions ABC, ABD, ACD and BCD and
the four factor interaction ABCD.
Further literature: E. Scheffler |6|.
1.4.3 Fractional Factorial Experiment
Examination of the effects that multiple quantitative or qualitative factors

have on one or more target quantities. Each factor is set to two or more
levels. The examination is carried out equally often with a selected portion
of the possible factor level combinations.


must be eliminated. This is done either by keeping them constant or by
randomly assigning the experiment units to the selected factor level
combinations.
The fractional factorial experiment supplies statements on the effects that

the examined factors have on the target quantity or quantities, and on the
interactions among the examined factors. Depending on the selection of the
factor level combinations, however, mixing can occur. Interaction effects are
mixed among each another and also with main effects. The level of mixing
depends particularly on the experiment plan that is selected.
Examination of the effects of a larger number of factors, if at least a portion
of the possible interactions can be shown to be nonexistent or can be
justifiably ruled out. Often it is assumed that higher level interactions,
meaning interactions among more than two factors, are negligible.
Example:
Examination of the effects of four factors (A, B, C and D) on one target
quantity when the factors are each set to two levels, ' ' and ' + '.
Performance of the examination with half of the possible factor level
combinations of the full factorial experiment.
Term for this experiment design: (1/2 . 24 =) 24 1.
No. A B C D
1
2 + +
3 + +
4 + +
5 + +
6 + +
7 + +
8 + + + +


This experiment provides statements on the following effects, which are
mixed:
A + BCD,
B + ACD,
C + ABD,
D + ABC,
AB + CD,
AC + BD,
AD + BC.
This experiment plan is therefore expedient if at least one of the four factors
does not have any interactions with the remaining factors and, in addition, if
higher level interactions can justifiably be shown to be negligible.
Further literature: E. Scheffler |6|.
1.4.4 Factor Search after D. Shainin
Refers to finding those factors that exercise the strongest effect on the
target quantity or quantities.
The most important input variables are selected for the examination and
sorted according to their assumed significance from the technological point
of view:
A, B, C, D, E, ... . . . .
Then two levels are assigned to each of these factors, a level ' + ', from
which the better effect would be expected for the target quantity from a
technological point of view, and a level ' ', from which the poorer effect
would be expected on the target quantity from a technological point of view.
In the first experiment phase, two experiments are performed with equal
frequency (at least twice). In the first experiment, all factors are set to the ' +
' level, and in the second experiment, all factors are set to the ' ' level. If
the difference between the two settings is significant, the second
experiment phase can be started.


If the difference between the two settings is not significant, the cause for
this must be determined. Either important input variables were overlooked
and not included in the examination as factors, or the levels "+" and " " were
incorrectly assigned to some extent. In a further brainstorming session by
the experts, the input variables are discussed again and the definition of the
levels is verified with the help of single factor experiments.
In the second experiment phase, the following four experiment results are
compared to one another:
A B , C , D , E , ...
A + B , C , D , E , ...
A B +, C +, D +, E +, ...
A + B +, C +, D +, E +, ...
Depending on how strong the effect of A is in comparison to the effect of

the remaining factors, A can be classified as the single significant factor, as
one of several significant factors, or as a non significant factor. The
analogous examination is then carried out on the other factors B, C, etc.,
until all significant factors have been found.
Working with a large number of factors, this method selects those factors
that exercise the strongest influence on the target quantity or quantities.
Furthermore, the residual or experimental variance can be estimated.
As a preliminary examination, if it is expected that very few factors exercise
a strong effect on the target quantity or quantities, while the majority of the
remaining factors show only a small effect on the target quantities (Pareto
principle). Subsequently, the full factorial experiment can be conducted on
the factors that have been identified as significant.
Further literature: K. Bhote |8|.


1.4.5 Design of Experiments according to G. Taguchi
Development of products and processes, that are robust over a wide range
of use profile quantities. This is a development tool for achieving the
following objectives:
Development and improvement of products and processes that

should be robust over a wide range of use profile quantities (robust
design).
Development and improvement of products and processes that
should be robust over a wide range of use profile quantities and
simultaneously react sensitively to one or more selected input
variables (dynamic characteristics).
Taguchi employs traditional experiment plans for his procedure. In two

level experiment plans, however, he uses the numbers '1' and '2' to identify
the levels, instead of ' ' and ' + '.
1.4.5.1 Development of Robust Products and Processes
If there is a use profile with a temperature range from 10°C to +40°C, as

shown in Figure and if constant product characteristics are demanded in
this range, material A2 would be preferred to Material A1. When developing
robust products and processes, both factors specific to the product,
meaning factors that determine the product characteristics and factors
specific to the process and use profile must be considered. The former are
sometimes called control or design factors, and the latter are referred to as
noise factors.


Tensile strenght
A1
A2
10 °C Temperatur 40 °C
Figure 8 Tensile strength of two materials in a temperature range
Product specific factors and noise factors are assigned to different, mutually
independent experiment plans, see
Figure . Each factor level combination of the product specific factors is
examined with all factor level combinations of the noise factors.
Noise parameter matrix

111
122
212
221
xyz
Factor A B C D E F G
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
4 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
Results
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
Figure 9 Schematic Experiment Arrangement for Product Specific

Factors and Noise Factors for Developing Robust Products and Processes


1.4.5.2 Development of Robust and Sensitive Products and
Processes
A vehicle's steering should be designed in such a way that it:
responds to changes the driver makes in the steering angle (signal

factors) over a wide range as well and uniformly as possible;
reacts as independently as possible of outside conditions (noise
variables), meaning that it ensures constant steering conditions
under the widest range of road conditions.
Measurement procedures should be designed in such a way that they:
react sensitively to changes in the quantity that is to be measured

(signal factor); and
supply reproducible results independently of outside conditions
(noise factors).
The development objective is therefore a product or measurement method

that, on the one hand, reacts sensitively to an input quantity, a so called
manipulated factor (such as steering angle) but, on the other hand, that
does not react to the use profile quantities (such as road conditions). As
can be seen in Figure, it is possible to expand the types of factors by an
additional group, namely the manipulated factors.

S1 S2
122
212
122
212
111
221
111
221
Noise parameter matrix xyz
Factor A B C D E F G
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
4 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
Results Results
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
Figure 10 Schematic Experiment Arrangement for the Development of

Robust and Sensitive Products and Processes
Further literature: M. Phadke |9|.


1.4.6 Example
In the example for the "Examination of the Thrust Bearing Surface Quality",
eight factors, each at two levels, are to be included in the experiment plan
(see Section 1.3.8). Consequently, this case involves factorial
examinations, each with two levels for each factor. In order to minimize the
experiment effort (number of sub experiments to be carried out differently),
a fractional factorial experiment was selected, in which the main effects (A,
B, C, etc.) are not mixed with two factor interactions (AB, AC, BC, etc.), but
instead only with higher interactions, while the two factor interactions are
mixed together with each other and with higher interactions. This is called
an experiment of resolution IV. Such experiments are characterized by the
fact that it is possible to obtain a good approximation for the main effects in
connection with low experimenting cost. On the other hand, the price that
must be paid for low experimenting cost is the fact that it is not possible to
determine interactions1.
Because the experiment includes a total of 16 sub experiments, which

cannot be conducted in one stage with different settings with unchanged
boundary conditions, an experiment in four blocks was planned, with each
of these blocks being conducted on four different days:
1 For this reason, these experiment plans are also often used as a starting point for an
examination. Initially, those factors causing significant main effects are determined.
Subsequently – if necessary experiments that also allow interactions to be determined can
be conducted with these (normally few) factors.


Sub Setting of factors
Block experim
ent
A B C D E F G H
2 + + +
I 3 + + + +
14 + + + +
15 + + + +
5 + + + + Matrix
II 8 + + + +
9 + + + +
12 + + + + (5)
6 + + + +
III 7 + + + +
10 + + + +
11 + + + +
1
IV 4 + + + +
13 + + + +
16 + + + + + + + +
Sample size for each sub experiment n = 10
1.5 Evaluation of the Experiment Results
The evaluation of the experiments is explained by way of example, using

k
factorial experiment plans with k factors, each at two levels (2 ).
1.5.1 Representation of the Measurement Results
The simplest, trivial case k = 1 corresponds to a single factor experiment, in

which the dependency of a target quantity y is examined by only one
influencing factor A. The dependency is shown in Figure .
The change in the target quantity y when changing from A to A+ is called

the effect of factor A. The size of the effect depends on the selection of the
A and A+ settings.
The above fundamental observations can be transferred to full and

fractional experiments with two or more input variables.


!"
!
2
Effect (A)
!
1
A A+ A
Figure 11 Graphical Representation of one Effect in a Single Factor

Experiment
In the two factor experiment, factors A and B are changed to two levels
according to the following plan matrix at two levels:
No. A B y
1 y1 Matrix
2 + y2 (6)
3 + y3
4 + + y4
Column y holds the means y1, ..., y4 of the results of the four experiment
rows. They can be represented in the following form:


B
B+ ! !
3 4
B y" !
1 2
A A+ A
Figure 12 Graphical Representation of the Results of a Two Factor

Experiment
!
"
y
4
!
3 B+
!
2
!
1
B
A A+ A
Figure 13 Graphical Representation of a Two Factor Experiment with the

Factors A and B


This form of representation can also be used if one (or more) of the factors
being examined is not a quantitative, adjustable variable, but instead a
qualitative variable with fixed levels (such as Material 1 Material 2).
Naturally, interpolation of intermediary values is not meaningful in this case.
1.5.2 Calculating the Effects
A factor's effect yields the change in the target quantity y when there is a
change in the setting from level to level +, averaged over the settings of all
remaining factors. Of course, the effect depends on the explicit choice of
levels.
The graphical determination of the effects for the two factor experiment
example is shown in Figures 14 to 16.
If the factors behave additively, the result is two straight lines running
parallel, as shown in Figure In contrast, if the effect of one factor depends
on the setting (level) of another, these two factors interact, and they do not
behave additively.
In addition to the columns for the factors A and B, the analysis matrix for the
two factor experiment contains a column AB for the interaction of these
factors.
No. A B AB y
1 + y1
2 + y2 (7)
3 + y3
4 + + + y4


y
y4
y B#
3 Effect (A)
y2
y1 B
A A+ A
y4
y2 B
+ Effect (B)
y3
y B
1
B B+ B
y4
Effect (A)
B
+ with B+
y3
y2 B Effec t (A)
y with B
1
A A+ A
Effect(AB) = (Effect(A) with B+ Effect(A) with B )/2
Figures 14, 15, 16 Graphical Representation of the Main Effects A and B

and the Interaction Effect AB


The effect of factor X is calculated as the difference between the mean of
all results y in which X has the level + and the mean of all events in which X
has the level . This computation rule similarly applies to interactions and
can be applied in general to orthogonal experiment plans with k factors.
Consequently, the following applies to the example being considered:
y2 + y4
Effect (A) =
2
Matrix
y3 + y4 y1 + y 2
Effect (B) = (8)
2 2
y1 + y 4 y2 + y3
Effect (Ab) =
2 2
In fractional factorial experiment plans a mixing of factors may occur,

resulting in interactions. The effects of the mixed quantities can then no
longer be considered separately. The effects of the combined variables can
then no longer be calculated separately.
1.5.3 Statistical Analysis Method
Based on the experiment repetitions, it is expedient to add corresponding

columns to the right of the experiment plan analysis matrix.
No. A B AB Results y si
1 + y11, ...,y1m y1 s1 Matrix
2 + y21, ...,y2m y2 s2 (9)
3 + y31, ...,y3m y3 s3
4 + + + y41, ...,y4m y4 s4


The determined statistical parameters make it possible to assess the
significance of the calculated effects by a comparison with the experimental
variance.
Further considerations or experiments are limited to those factors that

demonstrate significant effects and/or interaction effects.
The significance test is expediently conducted with the help of computer

support.
1.5.4 Example
The experiment was conducted as defined in matrix (5). The following

describes only the results for the surface roughness in detail. For each of
these sub experiments, the mean x and standard deviation s were
calculated for the 10 measured values. We dispense with a tabular
representation of these results here. The graphical representation in Figure
17 is clearer.
25
20
=
& = 14.36 m
15
&
in m
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 $% Sub experiment
Figure 17 Mean x of the 16 Sub Experiments


In the figure, it is already possible to see clear differences between the
results of the different sub experiments, which are caused by the factor
settings.
The required information about the impacts of the different factors is

obtained by determining the associated effects, see Sections 1.5.2 and
1.5.3. The calculation of the separate effects and their significance is
dispensed with in this context.
The results are summarized in Figure18 . In this figure, the effect D = 4.5
m means that the surface roughness increases by 4.5 m when the feed
rate is increased from the lower level = 0.2 mm/h to the upper level = 0.3
mm/h.
6
Feed rate
4 D
Surface Significant
roughness
effect 2
in m
Cutting ed ge angle Not
0
B F Cu tting d epth C significant
Cutting speed
2
H G A
4 Cooling lubricant Significant
E Chip format
6 Material Cutting radius
Figure 18 Effects of all Factors, Ordered by Absolute Value, and Their

Significance
At this point, we would like to point out again that this experiment plan only
allows the analysis of the main effects; statements about interactions are
not possible.
The chip form was analyzed in a manner similar to the surface roughness.
The result is represented in Figure19 . The smaller the chip characteristic
number is, the better the chip form evaluation.


2,0
Chip form groove
1,5 G Significant
Chip Cut depth

1,0
charac Cutting radius
C Cooling lubricant Not
teristic
0,5 H significant
number A Material
effect
0,0 E
E
D B
F Feed rate Cutting speed Significant
0,5
Cutting edge angle
Figure 19 Effects of all Factors, Ordered by Absolute Value, and Their

Significance
The best possible settings from the point of view of the two target
quantities, surface roughness and chip form, can be read off of Figures 18
and 19 as follows:
Factor
A B C D E F G H
Surface + (+) () + (+) + +

roughness
Chip form (+) (+) () +
The statements in parentheses are based on effects that are not significant.
The primary objective here is low surface roughness with a chip form that is
acceptable for manufacturing. At the same time, it is evident that the input
variables act on these two target quantities differently, and therefore a
compromise must be sought.


A follow up experiment with the optimal setting with respect to the surface
roughness
A B C D E F G H
+ + + + + +
resulted in excellent (slight) roughness, but a chip form that was not
acceptable for manufacturing. As a result, it was necessary to search for a
modified setting that both favoured a better chip form and interfered with the
roughness as little as possible. This is apparently possible with the help of
the factor G, which has a relatively small effect on the surface roughness,
but, on the other hand, the largest influence on the chip form. As a result,
the following was tried as the modified setting:
A B C D E F G H
+ + + + +
The experiment result supplied approximately the same roughness, with a

chip form that was considerably improved and acceptable for
manufacturing.
1.6 Computer Support
There is a wide range of software available for supporting users in statistical

experiment design. This includes both stand alone, closed programs and
programs that are an integral part of modularly constructed, comprehensive
statistical software. The range of submenus offered by these programs,
either as standard or optional features, is correspondingly diverse. The
majority of these programs support statistical and graphical experiment
analysis, but not the planning phase.


1.7 Bibliography
|1| Juran Institute: Quality Improvement Tools

|2| DGQ Document 18 19: Formblätter mit Wahrscheinlichkeitsnetz
|3| K. Nagel: Erfolg, Oldenbourg Verlag
|4| DIN 25 424: Fehlerbaumanalyse
|5| S. Häffner: Statistische Versuchsplanung in der betrieblichen Praxis,
Betriebsversuch Drehen, FHT Esslingen, Fachbereich
Feinwerktechnik, 1992
|6| E. Scheffler: Einführung in die Praxis der statistischen
Versuchsplanung, 2.Auflage VEB Deutscher Verlag für
Grundstoffindustrie, 1984
|7| J. Juran: Quality Control Handbook, McGraw Hill Book Company,
New York, 1988
|8| K. R. Bhote: Der Weg zur Weltspitze, Institut für
Qualitätsmanagement, Großbottwar, 1990 (Translation of World
Class Quality, American Management Association)
|9| M. S. Phadke: Quality Engineering Using Robust Design (in German
translation), Gfmt
|10| G. Box, W. Hunter, J. Hunter: Statistics for Experimenters, Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1978
|11| Retzlaff, Rust, Waibel: Statistische Versuchsplanung, Verlag Chemie,
Weinheim, 1978
|12| D. Wheeler: Understanding Industrial Experimentation, Statistical
Process Controls, Inc., Knoxville, 1988
|13| E. Spenhoff: Prozesssicherheit durch statistische Versuchsplanung in
Forschung, Entwicklung und Produktion, gfmt Verlags KG, 1991
|14| B. Gimpel: Qualitätsgerechte Optimierung von Fertigungsprozessen,
VDI Verlag Düsseldorf, 1991


VDA Volume 4 DoE - Quality Assurence Prior To Serial Production

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

VDA Volume 4 DoE - Quality Assurence Prior To Serial Production

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

nd

2 revised edition 2008

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

We also wish to thank everyone who made suggestions for improvements.

Frankfurt/Main, May 1996

The chapter was revised

Oberursel, August 2008

Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA)

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

* +$%,)" !- ./0$1,2$"#% 3+!.4 5

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

Statistical experiment design is an effective method for examining the

The following sections present possibilities for designing and conducting

1.2 Problem description and problem analysis

It is necessary to work meticulously in problem description and problem

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

1.2.3 Target quantity

A fundamental step in problem analysis is the definition of the target

1.2.4 Input Variables and Data Collection and Preparation

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

For new developments, theoretical findings or findings derived from

1.2.5 Recording, evaluation and selection of input variables

It is necessary to consider any interactions. An interaction between input

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

A demonstration experiment |5| is discussed as an example for explaining

Figure 1 Driveshaft thrust bearing of an automatic gearbox, ∅ 31 mm

The surface roughness Rz with a diameter of 31 mm was measured in

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

&/54?-/(8 Chip form

=-5< =Q$ J$'3$,-5-$/ N4$&/8 0%$$4 C('3(4?5&4(

7-.&4( I J?&,(#100(95 !-?.4?' 0$4 5<( C?4.(5 K&?/5-5-(, F&40?9(

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

1.3.2 Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Scale

Depending on the exact situation, evaluation criteria are defined for

Effort for setting the input variable

Assumed factor influence

Costs for changing the setting of the input variable

The multiplication of the means determined for each evaluation criterion

1.3.3 Input Variable Weighting

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

An impact matrix is a tabular presentation of the changes in a target

Figure 4 Impact Matrix after Scheffler

In selecting a suitable and economical experiment design, it is particularly

1.3.6 Factor levels

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt für Barbara Fliegel vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für Continental AG bestimmt.

Input variable no Unsuitable for

Input variable evaluation

Input variable weighting

Set up factor impact

Optain preliminary information

Define factor levels