1 / 24

Follow-up Experiments to Remove Confounding Between Location and Dispersion Effects in Unreplicated Two-Level Factorial

Follow-up Experiments to Remove Confounding Between Location and Dispersion Effects in Unreplicated Two-Level Factorial Designs. Andr é L. S. de Pinho *+ Harold J. Steudel * S øren Bisgaard # * Department of Industrial Engineering - University of Wisconsin-Madison

jory
Download Presentation

Follow-up Experiments to Remove Confounding Between Location and Dispersion Effects in Unreplicated Two-Level Factorial

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Follow-up Experiments to Remove Confounding Between Location and Dispersion Effects in Unreplicated Two-Level Factorial Designs André L. S. de Pinho*+ Harold J. Steudel* Søren Bisgaard# *Department of Industrial Engineering - University of Wisconsin-Madison +Department of Statistics - Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) - Brazil #Eugene M. Isenberg School of Management - University of Massachusetts, Amherst

  2. Outline • Introduction • Motivation • Montgomery’s (1990) Injection Molding Experiment • Research Proposal • Current Research Results

  3. Introduction • Motivation • Ferocious competition in the market • High pressure for lowering cost, shortening time-to-market and increase reliability • Need to have faster, better and cheaper processes • Current trend: Design for Six Sigma (DSS) • Approach: Robust product design • Making products robust to process variability • DOE provides the means to achieve this goal

  4. Montgomery’s (1990) Injection Molding Experiment • fractional factorial design plus four center points with the objective of reducing the average parts shrinkage and also reducing the variability in shrinkage from run to run. • The factors studied • mold temperature (A), screw speed (B), holding time (C), gate size (D), cycle time (E), moisture content (F), and holding pressure (G). • The generators of the design were E = ABC, F = BCD, and G = ACD

  5. Injection Molding Experiment Data

  6. Probability Plot of Effects

  7. Plausible Location Models Two possible location models: Montgomery’s Model (M1) = 27.3125 + 6.9375A + 17.8125B + 5.9375AB McGrath and Lin’s model (M2) = 27.3125 + 6.9375A + 17.8125B + 5.9375AB –2.6875CG – 2.4375G

  8. Dispersion Effect Analysis Box and Meyer Dispersion Effect Statistics Dispersion effect

  9. Conclusion Montgomery's Model (M1) = 27.3125 + 6.9375A + 17.8125B + 5.9375AB (dispersion effect in C) McGrath and Lin’s Model (M2) = 27.3125 + 6.9375A + 17.8125B + 5.9375AB –2.6875CG – 2.4375G (no dispersion effects [d.e.])

  10. Minimum Number of Trials Montgomery’s (1990) injection molding • Addressed by McGrath (2001), 4 extra runs • The selection is done in such a way that A and B are fixed and each combination of the settings for columns 7 and 13 occurs • There are four sets of rows, (1, 5, 9, 13), (2, 6, 10, 14), (3, 7, 11, 15), and (4, 8, 12, 16). He selected (1, 5, 9, 13)

  11. A B C G - - - - - - - - - - + - - + + + Minimum Number of Trials Graphical Representation 60, 52 R = 8 26, 27 R = 11 60, 60 R = 0 32, 34 R = 2 B Recommended runs for replication 4, 16 R = 12 15, 5 R = 10 C 6, 8 R = 2 10, 12 R = 2 A

  12. 1 - Bayesian method of finding active factors • in fractionated screening experiments • [Box and Meyer (1993)] • 2 - Apply a suitable transformation to ensure constant variance • 3 - Sequential design method for discrimination among concurrent models • [Box and Hill (1967)] Research Proposal • Expanding Meyer, Steinberg and Box (1996) to accommodate the presence of d.e. in the models

  13. 1 - Bayesian Method of Finding Active Factors Scenario • Fractionated Factorial Designs • Sparsity Principle Underlines the Process Being Studied • Allow the Inclusion of Non-Structured Models

  14. Bayesian Method of Finding Active Factors Cont. Interpretation of the Posterior Probability The first one can be regarded as a penalty for increasing the number of variables in the model Mi. The second component is nothing less than a measure of fit

  15. Finding Active Factors – Injection Molding Experiment Considering non-structured models Considering structured models Marginal Posterior Probabilities – Pj

  16. Response M1 M2 X Two Rival Models Model Discrimination (MD) Criterion Overview Two Possible Models (M1) and (M2) to describe a Response

  17. MD Criterion Cont. MD in the context of DOE: Remark:Must have constant variance for all models considered!

  18. Outlines of the Transformation Procedure • Use WLS of the expanded location model is in the sense of the Bergman and Hynén (1997) method of identifying dispersion effects • Once we have available the residuals from the expanded location model we can then calculate the ratio,

  19. Rearranged Covariance Matrix of Y } d (-) } Symmetric d (+)

  20. Transformation – Injection Molding Experiment Montgomery’s (1990) Injection Molding Experiment (M1) = 27.3125 + 6.9375A + 17.8125B + 5.9375AB. (d.e. in C) (M2) = 27.3125 + 6.9375A + 17.8125B + 5.9375AB –2.6875CG – 2.4375G.(no d.e.) • The minimum number of trials to resolve the confounding problem is four • The possible sets of four runs that can be used for the follow-up experiment are (1, 5, 9, 13), (2, 6, 10, 14), (3, 7, 11, 15), and (4, 8, 12, 16) • McGrath then suggested (1, 5, 9, 13) for replication because it is near the optimum condition.

  21. Finding the Expanded Model • The set of active location effects is L = {I, A, B, AB} • The set of dispersion effect is D = {C} • M1-expanded model is represented by the set = {I, A, B, C, AB, AC, BC, ABC} • (M1-expanded) = 27.3125 + 6.9375A + 17.8125B – 0.4375C + 5.9375AB – 0.8125AC – 0.9375BC + 0.1875ABC • The estimated weight is = 0.167

  22. A B C G + + + + + + + + - - + - - + + + 60, 52 R = 8 26, 27 R = 11 60, 60 R = 0 32, 34 R = 2 B 4, 16 R = 12 15, 5 R = 10 Recommended runs for replication C 6, 8 R = 2 10, 12 R = 2 A MD Criterion – Injection Molding MD criterion and the design points Remark: McGrath’s suggestion, (1, 5, 9, 13), was the second-best discriminated follow-up design!

  23. References • Bergman, B. and Hynén, A. (1997). “Dispersion Effects from Unreplicated Designs in the 2k-p Series”, Technometrics, 39, 2, 191-198. • Box, G. E. P. and Hill, W. J. (1967). “Discrimination Among Mechanistic Models”, Technometrics, 9, 1, 57-71. • Box, G. E. P. and Meyer, R. D. (1993). “Finding the Active Factors in Fractionated Screening Experiments”, Journal of Quality Technology, 25, 2, 94-105. • McGrath, R. N. (2001). “Unreplicated Fractional Factorials: Two Location Effects or One Dispersion Effect?”, Joint Statistical Meetings(JSM) in Atlanta. • Meyer, R. D., Steinberg, D. M., and Box, G. E. P. (1996). “Follow-up Designs to Resolve Confounding in Multifactor Experiments”, Technometrics, 38, 4, 303-313. • Montgomery, D. C. (1990). “Using Fractional Factorial Designs for Robust Process Development”, Quality Engineering, 3, 2, 193-205.

  24. Thank you for your time!

More Related