Sei sulla pagina 1di 55

By

Dr. K.Somasundara Vinoth

Faculty, Department of Production Engineering ,
PSG College of Technology
Coimbatore 641004

“Latest Research and Developments in Composite Materials”

An Experimental
Design is the laying
out of a detailed
experimental plan in
experiment.
Design of Experiment Types

 The following is a summary of some of the most common DOE types.

 One Factor Designs
These are the designs where only one factor is under investigation, and
the objective is to determine whether the response is significantly
different at different factor levels
 Factorial Designs
In factorial designs, multiple factors are investigated simultaneously
during the test.
 As in one factor designs, qualitative and/or quantitative factors can be
considered.
 The objective of these designs is to identify the factors that have a
significant effect on the response, as well as investigate the effect of
Two-level full factorial designs
Consider the two-level, full factorial design for three factors,
namely the 23 design.
A 2 two-level, full factorial design
3

table showing runs in `Standard

Order'
run X1 X2 X3

1 -1 -1 -1
2 1 -1 -1
3 -1 1 -1
4 1 1 -1
5 -1 -1 1
A 23 two-level, full factorial 6 1 -1 1
design; factors X1, X2, X3 7 -1 1 1
8 1 1 1
Simple example
Suppose that we wish to
improve the yield of a Metal
Cutting of a composite
material.

The three inputs (factors) that

are considered important to
the operation are
• Speed (X1)
• Feed (X2)
• Depth (X3).

We want to ascertain the

relative importance of each of
these factors on Material
Removal Rate(Y)
High (+1), Low (-1), and Standard (0) Settings
Low (-1) Standard High (+1) Units
(0)
Speed 16 20 24 rpm
Feed 0.001 0.003 0.005 cm/sec
Depth 0.01 0.015 0.02 cm/sec
A 23 Two-level, Full Factorial
Design; Factors X1, X2, X3.
(The arrows show the
direction of increase of the
factors.)
There are three main effects, three two-factor interactions, and a
three-factor interaction, all of which appear in the full model as follows

Y=β0+β1X1+β2X2+β3X3+β12X1X2+β13X1X3+β23X2X3+β123X1X2X3+ϵ
Standard order

 The numbering of the corners of the box in the

refers to a standard way of writing down the
settings of an experiment called `standard
order'
Full Factorial Design Table
Showing Runs in `Standard
Order'
X1 X2 X3
1 -1 -1 -1
2 +1 -1 -1
3 -1 +1 -1
4 +1 +1 -1
5 -1 -1 +1
6 +1 -1 +1
7 -1 +1 +1
8 +1 +1 +1
Replication
Running the entire The 23 Full Factorial Replicated
design more than Twice and Presented in Standard
once makes for Order Speed, X1 Feed, X2 Depth, X3
1 16, -1 .001, -1 .01, -1
easier data 2 24, +1 .001, -1 .01, -1
analysis because, 3 16, -1 .005, +1 .01, -1
4 24, +1 .005, +1 .01, -1
•each run (i.e., 5 16, -1 .001, -1 .02, +1
`corner of the 6 24, +1 .001, -1 .02, +1
design box') 7 16, -1 .005, +1 .02, +1
obtain average 8 24, +1 .005, +1 .02, +1
9 16, -1 .001, -1 .01, -1
value of the 10 24, +1 .001, -1 .01, -1
response 11 16, -1 .005, +1 .01, -1
•dispersion 12 24, +1 .005, +1 .01, -1
13 16, -1 .001, -1 .02, +1
(variability, 14 24, +1 .001, -1 .02, +1
consistency) of 15 16, -1 .005, +1 .02, +1
the response at 16 24, +1 .005, +1 .02, +1
that setting
Randomization
Suppose now that four settings are run in the day and four at night,
and that (unknown to the experimenter) ambient temperature in the
machining shop affects Yield.
The 23 Full Factorial Replicated Twice
The 2 Full Factorial Replicated Twice with Random Run
3

Order Indicated and Center Point Runs Added

with Random Run Order Indicated
Rand Stand X1 X2 X3 Random Standard X1 X2 X3
Order Order
om ard
Order Order 1 0 0 0
1 5 -1 -1 +1 2 5 -1 -1 +1
2 15 -1 +1 +1 3 15 -1 +1 +1
3 9 -1 -1 -1 4 9 -1 -1 -1
4 7 -1 +1 +1 5 7 -1 +1 +1
5 3 -1 +1 -1 6 3 -1 +1 -1
6 12 +1 +1 -1 7 12 +1 +1 -1
7 6 +1 -1 +1 8 6 +1 -1 +1
8 4 +1 +1 -1 9 0 0 0
9 2 +1 -1 -1 10 4 +1 +1 -1
10 13 -1 -1 +1 11 2 +1 -1 -1
11 8 +1 +1 +1 12 13 -1 -1 +1
12 16 +1 +1 +1 13 8 +1 +1 +1
13 1 -1 -1 -1 14 16 +1 +1 +1
14 14 +1 -1 +1 15 1 -1 -1 -1
15 11 -1 +1 -1 16 14 +1 -1 +1
16 10 +1 -1 -1 17 11 -1 +1 -1
18 10 +1 -1 -1
19 0 0 0
Blocking
To eliminate the SPEED FEED DEPTH X1*X2* BLOC
influence of extraneous X1 X2 X3 X3 K
factors when running an
experiment.
When one has to -1 -1 -1 -1 I
change to a new batch +1 -1 -1 +1 II
of raw materials halfway -1 +1 -1 +1 II
through the experiment.
+1 +1 -1 -1 I
In this case, we need
to divide our experiment -1 -1 +1 +1 II
into two halves (2 +1 -1 +1 -1 I
blocks), one with the
-1 +1 +1 -1 I
first raw material batch
and the other with the +1 +1 +1 +1 II
new batch.
Genichi Taguchi (January 1, 1924 – June 2, 2012)

Taguchi Design OF Experiments

 The Taguchi approach is more effective method than
traditional design of experiment methods such as
factorial design, which is resource and time consuming.
 For example, a process with 8 variables, each with 3 states,
would require 38=6561 experiments to test all variables (full
factorial design).
 However using Taguchi's orthogonal arrays, only L8
experiments are necessary, or less than 0.3% of the original
number of experiments.
 Limitations of the Taguchi method.
 Most critical drawback of the Taguchi method is that it does
not account higher order interactions between design
parameters.
 Only main effects and two factor interactions are considered.
Parameter diagram (P-diagram) of a process/system
The Taguchi Approach to DOE
 Traditional Design of Experiments (Fisher’s DOE)
focused on how different design factors affect the
average result level
 Taguchi’s DOE (robust design)
 Variation is more interesting to study than the
average
 Run experiments where controllable design
factors and disturbing signal factors take on 2
or 3 levels.
Signal to Noise Ratio
 a loss function is used
to calculate the
deviation between the
experimental value
and the desired value
 The loss function is
further transformed
into utility function
 The utility function
developed by Taguchi
is called the Signal-to-
Noise (S/N) ratio
Signal-to-Noise (S/N) ratio
 Lower the better (for making
the system response as low
as possible)

 Nominal the best (for

reducing variability around a Where:
target) n = the number of tests
y ijk = experimental value
of i th performance
 Higher the better (for
characteristic in the j th
making the system response
experiment at the k th test
as high as possible)
Flowchart indicating steps involved in Taguchi method
A Simple case of Taguchi Design

Ref : Chaulia, Prabir Kumar, and Reeta Das.

"Process parameter optimization for fly ash brick
by Taguchi method." Materials Research 11.2
(2008): 159-164.
Parameter
Design
Methodology
Selection of control
factors and their levels
of some preliminary
trial experiments
conducted in the
laboratory and also
from literature review
on the subject.
Selection of Taguchi array
Design of
Experiment
An L9 (34) standard
orthogonal array11 as
shown in Table 2 was
employed

This array is most

suitable to provide the
minimum degrees of
freedom as 9 [= 1 + 4
x (3–1)] required for
the experimental
exploration.
Larger the
Better
Compressive strength
is a 'larger the better'
type of quality
characteristic since
the goal is to
maximize the
strength.
The F–ratio and the percent
contributions of the various
parameters as quantified
under the respective columns
of Table 6 reveal that, both
water/binder ratio and stone
dust have significant effect on
the compressive strength at
the 95% confidence level.

Moreover, the impact of fly

ash and coarse sand are
insignificant since their F–
ratios are lower than the
critical value (3.55).

The optimal levels of the

process parameters were
found to be A3, B3, C1, and D2
corresponding to water/binder
ratio of 0.4, fly ash of 39%,
coarse sand of 24%, and
stone dust of 30%
Thus a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the predicted mean of optimum QC on a confirmation
test is estimated using the following two equations:

 where, F (α, 1, fe) is the F–ratio required for 100 (1– α) percent confidence
interval,
 fe is DOF for error,Ve is the error variance,
 R is number of replications for confirmation experiment (= 3), and
 Neff is effective number of replications.
 N is total number of experiments [= 27 (9 x 3)]
 and TDOF is the total degrees of freedom [= 8 (2 x 4)

 From ANOVA Table, the values are: Ve = 40.963, f.e= 18, and from standard
Statistical Table, the required F–ratio for α = 0.05 is: F (0.05,1,18) = 4.41.

 Substituting these values in Equations above , the calculated confidence

interval is: CI = ± 10.97.

 Thus the 95% confidence interval of the predicted optimal compressive

strength is obtained as:
(166.22 ± 10.97) kg.cm–2 i.e. 155.25 < Smp (kg.cm–2) < 177.19

This condition has to be confirmed from the confirmation experiment

Experimental investigation of surface quality in ultrasonic
machining of WC-Co composites through Taguchi method

http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/matersci.2016.3.1222
Factors Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
A-cobalt content in % 6 24

mm

D-tool material nimonic- Silver Stainles

80A steel s steel.
E-grit size in mesh 200 320 500
F-power rating in % 40 60 80
S.No A B C D E F SR1 SR2 Mean S/N
value ratio
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.782 0.751 0.7665 2.308
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 0.787 0.851 0.819 1.7277
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 0.291 0.213 0.252 11.869
2

33 2 1 2 3 3 2 0.295 0.275 0.285 10.897

8
34 2 2 1 3 1 3 1.171 1.187 1.179 -
1.4305
35 2 2 1 3 2 1 0.629 0.641 0.635 3.9441
36 2
A-cobalt 2
content 1 3 3 2 0.515 0.524 0.5195 5.688

B-thickness of work piece

C-tool geometry
D-tool material
E-grit size
F-power rating.
Source DOF SR (raw SR (S/N ratio)
data)
F P F P
A 1 4.48 0.039* 0.43 0.52
B 1 13.23 0.001* 5.75 0.026*
C 1 12.47 0.001* 5.83 0.025*
D 2 2.87 0.065 1.44 0.261
E 2 118.12 0.000* 55.96 0.000*
F 2 3.13 0.051 1.63 0.22
AXD 2 7.89 0.001* 2.95 0.076
BXD 2 0.61 0.549 0.34 0.717
CXD 2 1.23 0.299 0.74 0.491
Error 56
Total 71

D-tool
B-thickness of work C-tool material E-grit F-power
A-cobalt content piece geometry size rating.
*Significant at 95%
F- Fisher’s ratio P- Probability value confidence level.
Figure 7. Mean effect plot for surface roughness.

Ravinder Kataria, Jatinder Kumar, B. S. Pabla

Experimental investigation of surface quality in ultrasonic machining of WC-Co composites through Taguchi method

AIMS Materials Science,2016,3(3)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/matersci.2016.3.1222
Figure 8. Interaction plots—(A) raw data, (B) S/N ratio.

Ravinder Kataria, Jatinder Kumar, B. S. Pabla

Experimental investigation of surface quality in ultrasonic machining of WC-Co composites through Taguchi method

AIMS Materials Science,2016,3(3)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/matersci.2016.3.1222
Cause and Effect diagram of various factors that influence
machinability and wear characteristics of AMC

Experimental investigation of surface

quality in ultrasonic machining of WC-
Co composites through Taguchi
method
Constructions
of Taguchi's
orthogonal
arrays
Kacker, Raghu N., Eric
S. Lagergren, and
James J. Filliben.
"Taguchi’s orthogonal
arrays are classical
designs of
experiments." Journal
of research of the
National Institute of
Standards and
Technology 96.5
(1991): 577.
Number of Interaction Limitations When used
experiments between design
needed variables

Taguchi Extremely low Poorly estimated Consider poorly In the beginning

method (L9) nonlinear effect and of a project,
interactions initial design
between variables (mostly)

Full factorial High Well estimated Expensive. Final design

design 27 Coms impractical
for large number of
variables (>5)

Fractional Low-Medium Depend on Smaller fractions – Final design

factorial (9 for fraction less information
design 1/3 fraction)

Central Medium 15 Relatively well Expensive Final design

composite estimated
design
Selected topics in Statistics
7 Step Process of Statistical Hypothesis Testing
 Step 1: State the Null Hypothesis
 H0: no statistically significant
difference between sample &
population (or between samples)
 Step 2: State the Alternative
Hypothesis
 H1: statistically significant difference
between sample & population (or
between samples)
 Step 3: Set α
 Often, the significance level is set to 0.05
(5%), implying that it is acceptable to have a
5% probability of incorrectly rejecting the   In Reality
null hypothesis Decision H0 is TRUE H0 is FALSE
 Step 4: Collect Data Accept
Type II Error
OK β = probability of
 Step 5: Calculate a test statistic H0
Type II Error
 Step 6: Construct Acceptance / Type I Error
α =
Rejection regions Reject H0
probability of
OK
 Step 7: Based on steps 5 and 6, Type I Error
draw a conclusion about H 0
Statistical Hypothesis Testing -ANOVA
 Step 1: State the Null
Hypothesis
 The null hypothesis in ANOVA is always
that there is no difference in means.
 Step 2: State the Alternative
Hypothesis
 The research or alternative hypothesis
is always that the means are not all
equal
 Step 3: Set α
 Step 4: Collect Data
 Step 5: Calculate a test
statistic
 Step 6: Construct Acceptance
/ Rejection regions
 Step 7: Based on steps 5 and
6, draw a conclusion about H0
Starting Point

 Central aim of
statistical tests:
 Determining the likelihood
of a value in a sample,
given that the Null
hypothesis is true: P(value|
H 0)
 H0: no statistically significant
difference between sample &
population (or between
samples)
 H1: statistically significant
difference between sample &
population (or between
samples)

 Significance level: P(value|

H0) < 0.05
Types of Error
Population

H0 H1

b-error
H0 1-a
(Type II error)
Sample
H1 a-error
1-b
(Type I error)
Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher FRS (17 February 1890 – 29 July 1962)
Introduction

 An experiment is a test or a series of

tests
 Experiments are used widely in the
engineering world
 Process characterization & optimization
 Evaluation of material properties
 Product design & development
 Component & system tolerance
determination
 “All experiments are designed
experiments, some are poorly designed,
45 Ref: DOX Montgomery
Plan and Conduct of Experiments
 Trial-and-Error Approach
 Performing a series of experiments each of which
gives some understanding. This requires making
measurements after every experiment so that
analysis of observed data will allow him to decide
what to do next
 Design of experiments
 A well planned set of experiments, in which all
parameters of interest are varied over a specified
range, is a much better approach to obtain
systematic data
Four Eras in the History of DOX
 The agricultural origins, 1918 – 1940s
 R. A. Fisher & his co-workers
 Profound impact on agricultural science
 Factorial designs, ANOVA
 The first industrial era, 1951 – late 1970s
 Box & Wilson, response surfaces
 Applications in the chemical & process
industries
 The second industrial era, late 1970s – 1990
 Quality improvement initiatives in many
companies
 Taguchi and robust parameter design, process
robustness
 The modern era, beginning circa 1990
The Basic Principles of DOX
 Randomization
 Running the trials in an experiment in random
order
 Notion of balancing out effects of “lurking”
variables
 Replication
 Sample size (improving precision of effect
estimation, estimation of error or background
noise)
 Replication versus repeat measurements? (see
page 13)
 Blocking

48 Dealing withDOX
nuisance factors
6E Montgomery
Strategy of Experimentation
 “Best-guess” experiments
 Used a lot
 More successful than you might suspect, but
 One-factor-at-a-time (OFAT)
experiments
 Sometimes associated with the “scientific” or
“engineering” method
 Devastated by interaction, also very inefficient
 Statistically designed experiments
 Based on Fisher’s factorial concept

49 DOX 6E Montgomery
Determining the design space

Ref :http://www.gmpua.com/World/Manu/07/i.htm
Methods of statistical design of experiments

Ref :http://www.gmpua.com/World/Manu/07/i.htm
Formula to find Taguchi’s Loss Fn
Taguchi uses Quadratic Equation to determine
loss Curve
 L (x) = k (x-N)²
Where L (x) = Loss Function,
k = C/d² = Constant of proportionality,
where C – Loss associated with sp limit
d - Deviation of specification from
target value
x = Quality Features of selected product,
N = Nominal Value of the product and
(x-N) = Tolerance
Main Effect Plot
Interactions Plot
P Value