1 / 46

Do Static Weights Really Matter?

Do Static Weights Really Matter?. Bowl Expo Monday, June 27, 2011. From Ball Motion Study. Roll y = mx + b. Skid y = -mx + b. Hook y = ax 2 + bx + c. Full Factorial Designs. Fractional Factorial Designs. # of runs = 2 k – n 6 Factor Half Fractional 2 6 – 1 = 32 Runs.

manton
Download Presentation

Do Static Weights Really Matter?

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. Do Static Weights Really Matter? Bowl Expo Monday, June 27, 2011

  2. From Ball Motion Study Roll y = mx + b Skid y = -mx + b Hook y = ax2 + bx + c

  3. Full Factorial Designs Fractional Factorial Designs # of runs = 2k – n 6 Factor Half Fractional 26 – 1 = 32 Runs # of runs = 2k • 6 Factor Full Factorial • 26 = 64 runs

  4. Resolution and Confounding • Sparsity of effects principle • Higher order interactions are very rare • Resolution 6 • Main Effects confounded with 5-way • 2-way confounded with 4-way, 3-way • 3-way confounded with other 3-way

  5. 6 Factor – Half Fraction DOE 26 - 1 A center point was also ran.

  6. 6 Factor – Half Fraction DOE 26 - 1

  7. From Ball Motion Study Roll y = mx + b Skid y = -mx + b Hook y = ax2 + bx + c

  8. 6 Factor, Half Fraction DOE

  9. 6 Factor, Half Fraction DOE

  10. 6 Factor, Half Fraction DOE

  11. 6 Factor, Half Fraction DOE

  12. 6 Factor, Half Fraction DOE

  13. 6 Factor, Half Fraction DOE

  14. 6 Factor, Half Fraction DOE

  15. 6 Factor, Half Fraction DOE

  16. 3.75 1 Side 1 3.75 -1 -1 -3 3 Finger/Thumb -3.75 -3.75 -5.875 5.875 Top/Bottom Our Understanding of Ball Motion

  17. Phase II – Response Surface Design Factorial Design Center point Axial Points

  18. 3 Factor Central Composite Design

  19. Test Ball Data

  20. 3 Factor Central Composite DOE

  21. 3 Factor Central Composite DOE

  22. 3 Factor Central Composite DOE

  23. Influence to Overall Ball Motion - Central Composite

  24. Roll y = mx + b Skid y = -mx + b Hook y = ax2 + bx + c

  25. Roll y = mx + b Skid y = -mx + b Hook y = ax2 + bx + c

  26. Roll y = mx + b Skid y = -mx + b Hook y = ax2 + bx + c

  27. Roll y = mx + b Skid y = -mx + b Hook y = ax2 + bx + c

  28. Roll y = mx + b Skid y = -mx + b Hook y = ax2 + bx + c

  29. “Center Point” AnalysisWithin the -1 oz to +1 oz box

  30. “Center Point” Analysis From -1 oz to 1 oz of Side Weight Roll Slope Average at 60’ Intended at 60’ Average at 49’ 0.1602 Coefficient 4.06 2.274 4.268 Influence 8.12 boards 8.536 boards 4.548 boards 0.3204 (1.6364°)

  31. “Center Point” Analysis (60, 22.88) (60, 14.94)

  32. Influence to Overall Ball Motion - Central Composite

More Related