Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to express our profound gratitude to Dr. Harrison Kelly III who gave us valuable support and inputs on a regular basis to complete this project successfully. We also thank University at Buffalo for providing us this wonderful learning opportunity.

Page 1 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

ABSTRACT
There can be a lot of factors which can affect the output of this process. We have shortlisted this list of factors to twelve. The variation in the output can arise due to the process or due to the gage variability. Firstly we chose gauges and conducted a linearity study to find their range of applicability and their inherent bias. Then we had to perform a gauge repeatability and reproducibility study to verify whether the gage could differentiate between two different batches and whether it could give the same measurement for the same batch as well. Next step in the project was to conduct a study to find the significant factors and how they contribute towards the variation. The task in hand was to collect data in an efficient manner. We definitely were not going to do a 4096 runs to find the effects. We chose a design to minimize our data collection and effectively find how each factor affected the output. Thereon we obtain the model of our process. We analyze the model and optimize this model to give us the best settings required. As we have this optimum setting we make sure whether the settings do lead to the best batch. We used to SPC to assign causes to variation in the output and used capability analysis to find whether our process was in control or not. Our model has been found to be adequate for this project. We have proceeded in performing this best batch and our process is in control. The variations have all been assigned causes. This project has given the precise understanding to tackle an industrial setting problem.

Page 2 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

DEFINE Project scope and goal
To achieve following three important responses: 1) Increase the Volume of kernels 2) Increase the Taste 3) Decrease the number of unpopped kernels

Project Charter
Project Description Start and Completion date Baseline Metrics Primary metrics Goal Customer Benefits Financial Internal productivity Define Phase milestones Plan Project & metrics Baseline Project MSA Wisdom of Organization Team Support The goal of the project is to maximize the volume and numbers of kernels popped as well as improve the taste 18th Jan, 2011 to 28rd April, 2011. KPOVs: Accuracy, repeatability, aesthetics of helicopter, features, conformance to standards, impact. Cost for making one helicopter To reduce the number of un-popped kernels and improve the taste and volume . Better taste and more popped kernels per bag. Increase in sales, profit, customer satisfaction More efficient design. Well defined approach, Team dynamics, trouble-spots, and points of disagreement during this process. Project Statement, Scope, Constraints. Define KPOV, Identification of internal & external customers, duration of the project. Whether the process in control or not. Data integrity, Gage R&R, Appropriate hypothesis Testing, Process Flowchart, Cause and effect diagram,. Dr. Harrison Kelly III Aanjan Ravi

Page 3 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Ashwin Santhanam Karthik Thirukonda Viswanath Krishna NG Prabhakar Narayanaswamy Sabh arish Murali Srihari Sankararaman Surendar Soundararajan Vikram Thuruvas Dinakaran Yuvaraj Kondaswamy

Page 4 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

MEASURE
The end product variation can be explained by process variation or measurement gage variation. To quantify the variation due to gage we conduct a Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (GR&R) study and a Gage Linearity study. By doing such a study we can measure the bias present throughout the range of operation. We also measured the applicability of the gage throughout the range and verify whether the gage is sufficient for the sake of this project. In this phase we look into the Gage Measurement Variation. We can have many operators who measure taste, volume and count of un-popped kernels for a process. There can be measurement differences between the values given by each operator for the same batch of popcorn. Thus we have to standardize our measurement gage and define precisely the measurement gage for output parameters such as taste since taste palate could differ for each person. Also we need to find whether the gage has no discrepancies throughout the range. The gages that we used were measuring jar, normal counting and human palette. Count: For Count we measure the number of un-popped kernels. We make a batch of popcorns and then pick out all popped corn and slightly popped kernels and then count all thats left out. Volume: For Volume we measured the volume of all popped kernels. We had a glass beaker with least count of 1ml. We assumed that the highest point in the surface would be the volume of popped kernels. Taste: For the taste of the kernels, we pre-decided on a scale. This scale was based on how much the batch was cooked. Taste 1 2 3 4 5 Measurement Not cooked Slightly cooked Perfectly cooked Slightly overcooked overcooked

Page 5 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Gage Linearity Study In order to find the performance of the gage we perform the Gage Linearity study. To explain we use Count .

From the graph layout we can see that the p-value for Bias is less than 0.05. Therefore we reject the null hypothesis that the bias is equal to zero. This means we have some bias and this can be seen from the graph. Its evident that we are counting less than the master value (i.e. most precise value) as the count increases. Likewise we also see the p-value for constant and slope is insignificant. For Volume:

Page 6 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

For Taste:

Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (GR&R):

Page 7 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Now that we know that the gage can measure accurately within a small degree of error we need to verify whether the gage can identify between two different batches. It should accurately differentiate between the batches. To ensure that the gage does differentiate between batches, we perform a GR&R study.
Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction
Source Parts Operator Parts * Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 30 59 SS 5385.15 0.23 4.10 321.50 5710.98 MS 598.350 0.117 0.228 10.717 F 2626.90 0.51 0.02 P 0.000 0.608 1.000

Alpha to remove interaction term = 0.25

Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction

Source Parts Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 48 59 SS 5385.15 0.23 325.60 5710.98 MS 598.350 0.117 6.783 F 88.2088 0.0172 P 0.000 0.983

Gage R&R
Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 6.783 6.783 0.000 0.000 98.594 105.378 %Contribution (of VarComp) 6.44 6.44 0.00 0.00 93.56 100.00 Study Var (6 * SD) 15.6269 15.6269 0.0000 0.0000 59.5768 61.5922 %Study Var (%SV) 25.37 25.37 0.00 0.00 96.73 100.00

Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation

StdDev (SD) 2.6045 2.6045 0.0000 0.0000 9.9295 10.2654

Number of Distinct Categories = 5

Page 8 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

%Study gives how much of the total variability is due to each term. We can see the R&R% is 25.37% which means this gage is marginally acceptable. In this gage we can see that most of the variation is coming from part to part meaning its recognizing the difference between each batch. This means that gage is performing well.

Gage R&R for Count

For Taste:
Gage R&R Study - Nested ANOVA Gage R&R (Nested) for Taste

Page 9 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Source Operator Parts (Operator) Repeatability Total DF 2 27 30 59 SS 5.7333 19.3500 15.5000 40.5833 MS 2.86667 0.71667 0.51667 F 4.00000 1.38710 P 0.030 0.192

Gage R&R
Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 0.624167 0.516667 0.107500 0.100000 0.724167 %Contribution (of VarComp) 86.19 71.35 14.84 13.81 100.00 Study Var (6 * SD) 4.74025 4.31277 1.96723 1.89737 5.10588 %Study Var (%SV) 92.84 84.47 38.53 37.16 100.00

Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Part-To-Part Total Variation

StdDev (SD) 0.790042 0.718795 0.327872 0.316228 0.850980

Number of Distinct Categories = 1

Gage R&R (Nested) for Taste

For Volume:
Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction

Page 10 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Source Parts Operator Parts * Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 30 59 SS 162508 31 595 6734 169868 MS 18056.4 15.5 33.1 224.5 F 546.276 0.469 0.147 P 0.000 0.633 1.000

Alpha to remove interaction term = 0.25

Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction

Source Parts Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 48 59 SS 162508 31 7329 169868 MS 18056.4 15.5 152.7 F 118.258 0.102 P 0.000 0.904

Gage R&R
Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 152.69 152.69 0.00 0.00 2983.96 3136.65 %Contribution (of VarComp) 4.87 4.87 0.00 0.00 95.13 100.00 Study Var (6 * SD) 74.140 74.140 0.000 0.000 327.754 336.035 %Study Var (%SV) 22.06 22.06 0.00 0.00 97.54 100.00

Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation

StdDev (SD) 12.3567 12.3567 0.0000 0.0000 54.6256 56.0058

Number of Distinct Categories = 6

Gage R&R for Volume

Page 11 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

ANALYZE:
The team started a screening test with all the variables to identify the significant factors. The alpha value was taken as 0.1.
Fractional Factorial Design
Factors: Runs: Blocks: 12 32 1 Base Design: Replicates: Center pts (total): 12, 32 1 0 Resolution: Fraction: IV 1/128

Factorial Fit: Unpopped versus Block, Kernel Type, Size, ...

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Unpopped (coded units) Term Constant Block Kernel Type Effect -8.08 Coef 88.05 7.10 -4.04 SE Coef 1.123 1.086 1.086 T 78.37 6.54 -3.72 P 0.000 0.000 0.004

Page 12 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Size Amount Type of NaCl Amt NaCl Cooking time Cooking Power Microwave Bag Venting Kernel Type*Size Kernel Type*Amount Kernel Type*Amt NaCl Kernel Type*Microwave Size*Type of NaCl Size*Bag Venting Amount*Amt NaCl Type of NaCl*Microwave S = 5.67962 R-Sq = 99.31% -20.45 49.43 -5.85 -5.82 -16.97 -29.60 -14.48 8.39 -26.52 -9.14 -12.14 13.45 4.70 -14.04 6.85 -8.02 -10.22 24.71 -2.92 -2.91 -8.49 -14.80 -7.24 4.20 -13.26 -4.57 -6.07 6.72 2.35 -7.02 3.42 -4.01 1.123 1.123 1.123 1.123 1.123 1.123 1.152 1.152 1.152 1.152 1.152 1.123 1.123 1.086 1.123 1.152 -9.10 22.00 -2.60 -2.59 -7.55 -13.17 -6.28 3.64 -11.51 -3.97 -5.27 5.98 2.09 -6.46 3.05 -3.48 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.012 0.006

PRESS = 2870.54 R-Sq(pred) = 93.83%

R-Sq(adj) = 98.06%

Analysis of Variance for Unpopped (coded units) Source Blocks Main Effects Kernel Type Size Amount Type of NaCl Amt NaCl Cooking time Cooking Power Microwave Bag Venting 2-Way Interactions Kernel Type*Size Kernel Type*Amount Kernel Type*Amt NaCl Kernel Type*Microwave Size*Type of NaCl Size*Bag Venting Amount*Amt NaCl Type of NaCl*Microwave Residual Error Total DF 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 28 Seq SS 2590.6 36857.0 1461.7 2927.1 22180.9 3.6 2.4 985.5 5591.6 3703.9 0.2 6785.7 3079.7 127.3 522.7 979.0 107.5 1207.8 371.2 390.5 322.6 46555.9 Adj SS 1379.3 32616.0 446.4 2671.1 15611.2 218.3 216.5 1840.2 5596.6 1273.9 427.9 6785.7 4271.4 507.8 895.7 1155.2 140.9 1347.5 299.4 390.5 322.6 Adj MS 1379.3 3624.0 446.4 2671.1 15611.2 218.3 216.5 1840.2 5596.6 1273.9 427.9 848.2 4271.4 507.8 895.7 1155.2 140.9 1347.5 299.4 390.5 32.3 F 42.76 112.34 13.84 82.81 483.95 6.77 6.71 57.05 173.50 39.49 13.26 26.29 132.41 15.74 27.77 35.81 4.37 41.77 9.28 12.11 P 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.012 0.006

Unusual Observations for Unpopped Obs 7 StdOrder 10 num 3 28.000 Fit 18.688 SE Fit 4.472 Residual 9.312 St Resid 2.66R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Estimated Coefficients for Unpopped using data in uncoded units Term Constant Block Kernel Type Coef 88.0478 7.10366 -4.04116

Page 13 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Size Amount Type of NaCl Amt NaCl Cooking time Cooking Power Microwave Bag Venting Kernel Type*Size Kernel Type*Amount Kernel Type*Amt NaCl Kernel Type*Microwave Size*Type of NaCl Size*Bag Venting Amount*Amt NaCl Type of NaCl*Microwave -10.2231 24.7144 -2.92276 -2.91057 -8.48526 -14.7978 -7.24085 4.19665 -13.2591 -4.57165 -6.07165 6.72307 2.34807 -7.02134 3.42276 -4.00915

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals- the residuals appear to follow a straight line. No evidence of nonnormality, skewness, outliers, or unidentified variables exists. Residual Plots Residuals versus Fits- the residuals appear to be randomly scattered about zero.
No evidence of nonconstant variance, missing terms, or outliers exists.

Residual Plots Residuals versus Order- the residuals appear to be randomly scattered about zero. No evidence exists that the error terms are correlated with one another.

Page 14 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Main Effects plot for Count: The greater the difference in the vertical position of the plotted points (the more the line is not parallel to the X-axis), the greater the magnitude of the main effect. From the graph, we infer that the cooking time and cooking power are main effects which have major effect on count.

Page 15 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Factorial Fit: Taste versus Block, Kernel Type, Size, ...

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Taste (coded units) Term Constant Block Kernel Type Size Amount of fat Type of NaCl Cooking time Cooking Power Bag Venting Kernel Type*Size Kernel Type*Amount of fat Kernel Type*Type of NaCl Kernel Type*Cooking time Kernel Type*Cooking Power Kernel Type*Bag Venting Size*Cooking Power Size*Bag Venting Amount of fat*Type of NaCl Type of NaCl*Cooking Power Cooking time*Bag Venting S = 0.292424 R-Sq = 97.42% Effect -0.7868 -0.2941 0.3578 0.7255 1.3505 0.6005 0.2328 -0.3578 0.2941 0.9118 0.5368 0.5368 0.4191 0.2941 0.9118 -0.4828 -0.4755 -0.4828 Coef 2.6998 -0.1691 -0.3934 -0.1471 0.1789 0.3627 0.6752 0.3002 0.1164 -0.1789 0.1471 0.4559 0.2684 0.2684 0.2096 0.1471 0.4559 -0.2414 -0.2377 -0.2414 SE Coef 0.05791 0.05947 0.05947 0.05677 0.05791 0.05791 0.05791 0.05791 0.05791 0.05791 0.05677 0.05947 0.05947 0.05947 0.05677 0.05677 0.05947 0.05791 0.05791 0.05791 T 46.62 -2.84 -6.61 -2.59 3.09 6.26 11.66 5.18 2.01 -3.09 2.59 7.67 4.51 4.51 3.69 2.59 7.67 -4.17 -4.11 -4.17 P 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.029 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.075 0.013 0.029 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.029 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.002

PRESS = 8.16391 R-Sq(pred) = 72.66%

R-Sq(adj) = 91.98%

Analysis of Variance for Taste (coded units) Source Blocks Main Effects Kernel Type Size Amount of fat Type of NaCl Cooking time Cooking Power Bag Venting 2-Way Interactions Kernel Type*Size Kernel Type*Amount of fat Kernel Type*Type of NaCl Kernel Type*Cooking time Kernel Type*Cooking Power Kernel Type*Bag Venting Size*Cooking Power Size*Bag Venting Amount of fat*Type of NaCl Type of NaCl*Cooking Power Cooking time*Bag Venting Residual Error Total DF 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 28 Seq SS 4.9144 9.9135 0.8107 0.1015 0.1897 0.5545 7.4419 0.7240 0.0911 14.2645 0.5216 0.0476 2.5106 0.4814 0.6897 0.6019 0.2761 5.5042 0.8760 1.2691 1.4863 0.7696 29.8621 Adj SS 0.6915 17.0273 3.7415 0.5739 0.8163 3.3554 11.6269 2.2988 0.3456 14.2645 0.8163 0.5739 5.0248 1.7415 1.7415 1.1654 0.5739 5.0248 1.4863 1.4413 1.4863 0.7696 Adj MS 0.6915 2.4325 3.7415 0.5739 0.8163 3.3554 11.6269 2.2988 0.3456 1.2968 0.8163 0.5739 5.0248 1.7415 1.7415 1.1654 0.5739 5.0248 1.4863 1.4413 1.4863 0.0855 F 8.09 28.45 43.75 6.71 9.55 39.24 135.97 26.88 4.04 15.16 9.55 6.71 58.76 20.37 20.37 13.63 6.71 58.76 17.38 16.86 17.38 P 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.075 0.000 0.013 0.029 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.029 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.002

Unusual Observations for Taste

Page 16 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Obs 13 StdOrder 8 Taste 4.00000 Fit 3.65931 SE Fit 0.24290 Residual 0.34069 St Resid 2.09R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Estimated Coefficients for Taste using data in uncoded units Term Constant Block Kernel Type Size Amount of fat Type of NaCl Cooking time Cooking Power Bag Venting Kernel Type*Size Kernel Type*Amount of fat Kernel Type*Type of NaCl Kernel Type*Cooking time Kernel Type*Cooking Power Kernel Type*Bag Venting Size*Cooking Power Size*Bag Venting Amount of fat*Type of NaCl Type of NaCl*Cooking Power Cooking time*Bag Venting Coef 2.69975 -0.169118 -0.393382 -0.147059 0.178922 0.362745 0.675245 0.300245 0.116422 -0.178922 0.147059 0.455882 0.268382 0.268382 0.209559 0.147059 0.455882 -0.241422 -0.237745 -0.241422

Page 17 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Factorial Fit: volume versus Block, Kernel Type, Size, ...

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for volume (coded units) Term Constant Block Kernel Type Size Amount Type of NaCl Amt NaCl Cooking time Cooking Power Microwave Bag Venting Kernel Type*Size Kernel Type*Amount Kernel Type*Amt NaCl Kernel Type*Cooking Power Kernel Type*Microwave Size*Type of NaCl Size*Bag Venting Amount*Amt NaCl Type of NaCl*Microwave S = 17.7361 R-Sq = 99.50% Effect -27.69 27.93 167.30 34.20 42.30 61.57 145.45 61.08 -40.30 131.17 30.55 84.30 23.69 -58.18 -43.18 47.32 -21.95 48.67 Coef 171.53 -30.84 -13.85 13.96 83.65 17.10 21.15 30.79 72.72 30.54 -20.15 65.59 15.27 42.15 11.85 -29.09 -21.59 23.66 -10.97 24.34 SE Coef 3.512 3.443 3.443 3.512 3.512 3.512 3.512 3.512 3.512 3.607 3.607 3.607 3.607 3.607 3.443 3.512 3.512 3.443 3.512 3.607 T 48.84 -8.96 -4.02 3.98 23.82 4.87 6.02 8.77 20.71 8.47 -5.59 18.18 4.23 11.69 3.44 -8.28 -6.15 6.87 -3.12 6.75 P 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000

PRESS = 27209.3 R-Sq(pred) = 95.18%

R-Sq(adj) = 98.44%

Analysis of Variance for volume (coded units) Source Blocks Main Effects Kernel Type Size Amount Type of NaCl Amt NaCl Cooking time Cooking Power Microwave Bag Venting 2-Way Interactions Kernel Type*Size Kernel Type*Amount Kernel Type*Amt NaCl Kernel Type*Cooking Power Kernel Type*Microwave Size*Type of NaCl Size*Bag Venting Amount*Amt NaCl DF 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Seq SS 46207 360491 805 2991 126989 240 673 10324 139413 78941 115 154420 69447 4 27299 1736 14876 10127 12173 4438 Adj SS 25239 348517 5088 4972 178435 7456 11408 24170 134865 22548 9816 154420 104003 5640 42953 3725 21576 11884 14855 3071 Adj MS 25239 38724 5088 4972 178435 7456 11408 24170 134865 22548 9816 17158 104003 5640 42953 3725 21576 11884 14855 3071 F 80.23 123.10 16.18 15.81 567.24 23.70 36.26 76.83 428.73 71.68 31.20 54.54 330.62 17.93 136.54 11.84 68.59 37.78 47.22 9.76 P 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012

Page 18 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Type of NaCl*Microwave Residual Error Total 1 9 28 14320 2831 563949 14320 2831 14320 315 45.52 0.000

Unusual Observations for volume Obs 6 StdOrder 9 vol3 290.000 Fit 318.309 SE Fit 14.267 Residual -28.309 St Resid -2.69R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. Estimated Coefficients for volume using data in uncoded units Term Constant Block Kernel Type Size Amount Type of NaCl Amt NaCl Cooking time Cooking Power Microwave Bag Venting Kernel Type*Size Kernel Type*Amount Kernel Type*Amt NaCl Kernel Type*Cooking Power Kernel Type*Microwave Size*Type of NaCl Size*Bag Venting Amount*Amt NaCl Type of NaCl*Microwave Coef 171.526 -30.8401 -13.8474 13.9632 83.6507 17.0993 21.1507 30.7868 72.7243 30.5386 -20.1489 65.5864 15.2739 42.1489 11.8474 -29.0882 -21.5882 23.6599 -10.9743 24.3364

Page 19 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Page 20 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

IMPROVE
Response surface method Response surface methods are mainly used to examine the relationship between the factors and the response. These methods are usually employed after identifying the significant factor and when we want to find the ideal factor settings that will optimize the response. For this experiment we have created central composite half design with following characteristics: Five factors After pooling we did response optimizer for ten significant factors and found optimal operating settings for all the ten factors. So in order to carryout response surface we just kept factors with Text as type constant throughout the experiment and we varied the remaining five numeric factors. 33 runs

2 blocks. The data is collected on two days; each day is a block Cube points: 16 Center points in cube: 6 Axial points: 10 Center points in axial: 1

Response Surface Regression: VOLUME versus Block, AMOUNT, COOKING TIME, ...

Page 21 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

The analysis was done using coded units. Estimated Regression Coefficients for VOLUME Term Constant Block AMOUNT COOKING TIME COOKING POWER % S = 77.4186 R-Sq = 37.70% Coef 156.229 -3.342 38.067 49.867 34.437 SE Coef 15.85 15.60 18.08 18.08 16.21 T 9.859 -0.214 2.105 2.758 2.125 P 0.000 0.832 0.045 0.011 0.044

PRESS = 203304 R-Sq(pred) = 15.47%

R-Sq(adj) = 27.73%

Analysis of Variance for VOLUME Source Blocks Regression Linear AMOUNT COOKING TIME COOKING POWER % Residual Error Lack-of-Fit Pure Error Total DF 1 3 3 1 1 1 25 9 16 29 Seq SS 2621 88054 88054 19068 41920 27066 149841 55759 94082 240516 Adj SS 275 88054 88054 26565 45586 27066 149841 55759 94082 Adj MS 275.1 29351.3 29351.3 26564.6 45586.0 27066.2 5993.6 6195.5 5880.1 F 0.05 4.90 4.90 4.43 7.61 4.52 1.05 P 0.832 0.008 0.008 0.045 0.011 0.044 0.443

Interpretation: Analyses of variance table shows the following: Blocks: data are collected on two consecutive days. The P-value of block 0.832(not less than 0.05) indicates that block does not have significant effect on the response. Regression: The regression model is significant (0.008) which indicates that atleast one of the term in regression equation has significant effect on the mean response. Squared Effect: Squared term indicates whether or not there is curvature term in response surface. It is evident from the above results that there is no square term so there is no significant evidence of quadratic effect. So our model is Linear. Lack-Of-Fit: indicates the variation due to model inadequacy. The P-value(0.443) is not significant which indicates that we have not eliminated any important term from the model We followed the same procedure for both unpopped and taste.

Response Surface Regression:UNPOPPED versus Block, AMOUNT Page 22 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

The analysis was done using coded units. Estimated Regression Coefficients for UNPOPPED Term Constant Block AMOUNT Coef 76.236 2.396 22.720 SE Coef 3.637 3.611 4.192 T 20.963 0.664 5.420 P 0.000 0.513 0.000

S = 18.0340 R-Sq = 52.12%

PRESS = 10713.1 R-Sq(pred) = 41.58%

R-Sq(adj) = 48.57%

Analysis of Variance for UNPOPPED Source Blocks Regression Linear AMOUNT Residual Error Lack-of-Fit Pure Error Total DF 1 1 1 1 27 2 25 29 Seq SS 4.3 9554.1 9554.1 9554.1 8781.1 226.3 8554.8 18339.5 Adj SS 143.2 9554.1 9554.1 9554.1 8781.1 226.3 8554.8 Adj MS 143.2 9554.1 9554.1 9554.1 325.2 113.1 342.2 F 0.44 29.38 29.38 29.38 0.33 P 0.513 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.722

Response Surface Regression: TASTE versus Block, aMOUNT OF FAT

The analysis was done using coded units. Estimated Regression Coefficients for TASTE Term Constant Block aMOUNT OF FAT S = 0.874260 R-Sq = 20.22% Coef 3.1532 -0.1802 0.4336 SE Coef 0.1742 0.1742 0.1825 T 18.100 -1.034 2.376 P 0.000 0.310 0.025

PRESS = 24.8327 R-Sq(pred) = 4.00%

R-Sq(adj) = 14.31%

Analysis of Variance for TASTE Source Blocks Regression Linear aMOUNT OF FAT Residual Error Lack-of-Fit Pure Error Total DF 1 1 1 1 27 3 24 29 Seq SS 0.9143 4.3155 4.3155 4.3155 20.6369 1.6429 18.9940 25.8667 Adj SS 0.8174 4.3155 4.3155 4.3155 20.6369 1.6429 18.9940 Adj MS 0.8174 4.3155 4.3155 4.3155 0.7643 0.5476 0.7914 F 1.07 5.65 5.65 5.65 0.69 P 0.310 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.566

Page 23 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Page 24 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Response Optimization:
Response optimization is used in product development to determine the optimal operating condition that will result in product with desirable properties.
Response Optimization
Parameters VOLUME TASTE YNPOPPED Goal Maximum Target Minimum Lower 20 2 100 Target 100 3 100 Upper 100 4 110 Weight 1 1 1 Import 1 1 1

Global Solution AMOUNT COOKING TIME aMOUNT OF FAT COOKING POWE = = = = 0.5 3.875 5.94019 100

Predicted Responses VOLUME TASTE UNPOPPED = = = 248.702 3.000 30.795 , , , desirability = desirability = desirability = 0.65802 1.000000 0.94698

Composite Desirability = 0.85413

Page 25 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Using this optimized factor setting we manufactured 20 optimal batches and assessed its performance using SPC.

CONTROL

Page 26 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

As we have performed sufficient modeling and having optimized the process of popcorn making, our obvious next step is to control the process output. Control is critical to our project since we need the process to give products which vary less compared to each other. In order to control our process output we resort to Statistical Process Control. Initially we verify whether the dataset is normally distributed. This can be verified by performing a normality test. For taste, we found that the p-value is less than 0.005 indicating that the dataset is not normally distributed. We can also verify from the plot if the red spots are not closely spread about the line. If the red spots lie similar to blue line we can confirm normality. Our dataset was found to be non-normal. Therefore we correct for this non-normality by performing a Box-Cox transformation using lambda value to be zero. By taking zero for lambda we perform a natural logarithmic transformation.

From the above Capability analysis and Capability six pack we can find that we can find that we attain a mean of 3 within the range of 1-5. The standard deviation was found to be 0.1974. We find our within (0.561565) std Deviation to be very close to their overall standard deviation (0.561951). Our Cpk value was found to be 0.89 which means most of our outputs meet requirements. Cpk value should be equal or more than unity. From our value of 0.89 we all infer that we have scope for little improvement. We need to infer the R-chart first and then the X-bar chart. Both suggest that the process is in control since they dont exceed the lower and upper control limits. Our R-chart says that the differences within subgroups consistent. The X-bar says that the subgroup averages vary within limits.

Volume:
Page 27 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Count:

Sampling Plan for SPC: We perform SPC to assign cause to variation. We need a sampling plan to perform a SPC study. The idea behind sampling plan is to detect shift in the process. This shift could be in short or in the long run. Our plan was to make a big batch of input mixed kernels. For the batch we added all the raw materials (kernels, fat, salt etc) together. Then we mixed all these together to make it as homogeneous as possible. Then we would take half tbs measure of kernels and make our batches. We used two similar microwaves and produced our output. This was to assign the cause for within and between subgroups. Microwave should be the cause for within subgroup variation. Batch preparation should be the cause for between subgroup variations. Our subgroup size is two. We performed the study in two batches: one of 5runs and one of 15 runs. This helps us to verify the shifts in the short and long runs. By doing such a sampling plan we can assign causes to variation arising due to microwave and due to mixing.
Page 28 of 29

Preparation of Microwavable Popcorn

Conclusion:
The process optimization was done to get the best cooked, maximum volume and least count of un-popped kernels. The optimum condition was taken as 100% microwave power, cooking time of 3.8mins, amount of kernels was a half teaspoon and amount of butter was 6%. This led to a taste of 3, un-popped count of 13 and volume of 182ml. Therefore we have shown that our model is satisfactory. Our process seems to be in control and all the variability seems to arise from within the subgroups. If we are not constrained by time, cost and man power we can probably have a much more efficient design.

References:

Montgomery, D.C, Design and Analysis of Experiments. Ed. 5th. John Wiley and Sons. Montgomery, D.C, Statistical Quality Control. Ed. 5th. John Wiley and Sons. http://www.isixsigma.com/library/downloads/charter.pdf Jaspreet Singh, N. S. (1999). Effects of different ingredients and microwave power on popping characteristics of popcorn. Journal of Food Engineering .

Page 29 of 29