Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:760–769
DOI 10.1007/s00170-008-1526-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Taguchi-based Six Sigma approach to optimize plasma
cutting process: an industrial case study
Joseph C. Chen & Ye Li & Ronald A. Cox
Received: 19 September 2007 / Accepted: 10 April 2008 / Published online: 18 June 2008
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008
Abstract This case study outlines the use of Taguchi
parameter design to optimize the roundness of holes made
by an aging plasma-cutting machine. An L9 array is used in
a Taguchi experiment design consisting of four controllable
factors, each with three levels. With two non-controllable
factors included in the setting, we conduct 36 experiments,
compared to the 81 parameter combinations (four factors,
three levels or 34) required in a traditional DOE setting.
Therefore, using the Taguchi method significantly reduces
the time and costs of a quality improvement process.
Conducted for two response variables—bevel magnitude
and the smallest diameter deviation of the hole—the
Taguchi experiments gave the optimal combination
A1B2C1D3 (small for tip size, 93 in/min for feed rate,
100 V for voltage, and 63A for amperage), which is
verified with a confirmation run of 30 work pieces. All 30
cuts meet the quality requirement for subsequent assembly.
Furthermore, statistical analysis indicates that the mean
value and standard deviation of the confirmation run data
J. C. Chen
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering,
Iowa State University,
221 I. ED. II,
Ames, IA 50011-3130, USA
Y. Li (*)
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems
Engineering, Iowa State University,
2019 Black Engineering,
Ames, IA 50011-2164, USA
e-mail: yeli@iastate.edu
R. A. Cox
Center for Industrial Research and Service (CIRAS),
Iowa State University,
Campus, 2272 Howe Hall, Suite 2620,
Ames, IA 50011-2272, USA
are smaller than those before Taguchi parameter design is
conducted.
Keywords Taguchi method . Quality . Six Sigma .
Process optimization
1 Introduction
Many small- and medium-sized industries have imple-
mented the two most popular process improvement meth-
odologies—lean manufacturing and Six Sigma—which
originated at Toyota and Motorola, respectively. Each
methodology has its unique structure and tools. The central
focus of lean manufacturing is to provide value by
eliminating waste, which is defined as anything that is not
value-added from the customer’s perspective. The “seven
deadly wastes,” as defined by this method, are over-
production, inventory, waiting, movement, transportation,
defects, and over-processing. By continuously eliminating
these wastes, the customer receives a high value product.
When the variation of a part or a service does not meet the
specifications of the downstream internal and/or external
customers, the methodology and tools of Six Sigma can be
implemented to improve the quality of the product or
service. The latest structure of Six Sigma is defined as the
define-measure-analysis-implementation-control (DMAIC)
model. Each stage of the model provides tools for
conducting Six Sigma quality improvements for any
process or service.
Figure 1 shows a summary of tools used in each stage of
Six Sigma management. In order to reduce the variation of
a process, many Six Sigma teams use design of experiments
(DOE) methodology to find solutions that will align
products with customer expectations. DOE is a statistical
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:760–769 761

Phase 0: Define
• Scope and Boundary Phase I: Process Measurement
• Define Defects • Map Process and Identify Inputs and Outputs
• Team Charter • Cause and Effects Matrix
and Champion • Establish Measurement System Capability
• Estimated $ Impact • Establish Process Capability Baseline
• Leadership approval

Phase II: Process Analysis

• Complete FMEA
• Perform Multi-Vari Analysis
• Identify Potential Critical Inputs
• Develop Plan for Next Phase

Phase III: Process Improvement

• Verify Critical Inputs
• Optimize Critical Inputs via
Taguchi
Fig. 3 Plasma table

Phase IV: Process Control

• Implement Control Plan
• Verify Long Term Capability
• Continuously Improve Process
Fig. 1 DMAIC process improvement methodology
tool that studies the relationship between independent
variables, the Xs (process variables), and their interactions
on a dependent variable, the Y, which is considered the
critical-to-quality (CTQ) of the product.
The most commonly used DOE tool is the 2k factorial
design, where k is the number of factors, each with two
levels. Thus, in a three-factor design, there are eight
treatment combinations, i.e., 23 or 2×2×2. Unfortunately,
for most manufacturing processes, two levels of each factor
may provide insufficient information about quality im-
provement. Often, three levels for each factor are needed.
For example, when studying the feed rate of a turning
operation, three levels could be evaluated (e.g., 0.005,
0.010, and 0.015 in. per revolution). Thus, for a three-
Fig. 2 Electric switchboard
factor, three-level design, there would be 27 treatment
combinations, i.e., 33 or 3×3×3. In addition, each treatment
combination should be run twice to achieve a more reliable
statistical data analysis, bringing the total number of
experiments to 54 (27×2). If the cost of each experiment
is $100, the Six Sigma team will spend $5,400 to analyze
a three-factor, three-level experiment design with two
replicates.
In many manufacturing processes, achieving a solution
that meets customers’ specifications may require an
evaluation of five or six factors. Costs will increase
accordingly. For example, assuming a base cost of $100
per experiment, a six-factor, three-level experiment design
with two replicates will cost $145,800 (3 6 or 729
combinations×2=1,458). This is the cost of conducting
DOE alone and does not include time spent on DOE, which
may reduce the productivity of other jobs and delay
resolution of the quality problem. In addition, during this
time, the process will produce more defects and wastes.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, resolving industrial
problems cost-effectively and in a timely manner requires a

Fig. 4 Indicator light

762
Fig. 5 Illustration of bevel
more economical DOE approach. Taguchi parameter
design, which is capable of providing the optimal solution
with a reduced number of experiment runs, is one such
approach.
One small-sized, Midwest manufacturer has an aging
plasma-cutting machine that produces defects and causes
production delays. Though it is easier to replace older
equipment with new machines, most small manufacturers
have limited capital. The manager of this company
approached the researchers for assistance in answering the
following questions:
1. What is the optimal setting to produce the highest
quality products?
2. Can the optimal setting lower the defect rate but
maintain the required productivity?
If the defect rate remains high after implementing
optimal settings, the manager will have the justification he
needs to invest in new equipment.
To address this challenge, the researchers conducted a
Taguchi parameter design study, using the results of that
study to make recommendations. The procedure and process
is demonstrated in the four phases outlined in Fig. 1.
2 Overview of Taguchi parameter design
Taguchi parameter design is one of several methods
developed by Dr. Genichi Taguchi [1]. One of the
Fig. 6 Illustration of smallest
diameter deviation
D normal
D smallest
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:760–769
Bevel magnitude
conventional approaches used in off-line quality control,
Taguchi’s philosophy is based on the belief that once
quality is designed into both the product and process, only
minimal inspection is necessary. Taguchi proposes a
holistic view of quality related to cost, which extends the
focus of quality beyond manufacturers at the time of
production by integrating the customer and society as a
whole. Taguchi defines quality as the (minimum) loss
imparted by the product to society from the time the
product is shipped. This economic loss is associated with
losses due to rework, waste of resources during manufac-
turing, warranty costs, customer complaints and dissatis-
faction, time and money spent by customers on failing
products, and the eventual loss of market share. Taguchi
methods provide an efficient and systematic way to
optimize designs for performance, quality, and cost. These
methods have been used successfully in Japan and the
United States in designing reliable, high quality products at
low cost in such areas as automotives and consumer
electronics.
Taguchi breaks down off-line quality control into three
stages, concept design, parameter design, and tolerance
design, which are summarized below:
– Concept design results in either a design concept or an
“up and limping” prototype. In the initial phase, more
than one design concept, each with its own set of pros
and cons, can be presented. The ideal design concept
will be the one that research shows best addresses
customer needs and is inherently robust.
Smallest diameter deviation: | Dsmallet - Dnormal |
Dsmallest : Smallest diameter
Dnormal : Nominal diameter
Continuous curve: Actual plasma-cut hole
Dashed curve: Nominal diameter hole, maximal roundness
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:760–769 763

Fig. 7 Fish bone diagram

– Parameter design is a critical production step. The optimal combinations of parameters for better performance.
nominal design features or selected process factor Ghani et al. [2] applied Taguchi parameter design to
levels are tested and the combination of product optimizing parameters for end milling process. Low
parameter levels or process operating levels least resultant cutting force and good surface finish were found
sensitive to changes in environmental conditions and with high cutting speed, low feed rate and low depth of cut.
other uncontrolled factors (noise) is determined. Zhang et al. [3] used a Taguchi parameter design
– Tolerance design is used to further reduce variation, if application to optimize surface quality in a CNC face
required, by tightening the tolerance of those factors milling operation, where the best surface roughness
shown to have a significant impact on variation. This (response) and signal-to-noise ratio were sought. Davim
stage utilizes loss function to determine whether and Reis [4] studied cutting parameters of composite
spending more money on materials and equipment will milling process using Taguchi-based experiments. Kirby
result in a better product, thus emphasizing the et al. [5] discussed the application of Taguchi parameter
Japanese philosophy of invest last not invest first. design to optimize turning operations for best surface
roughness. Palanikumar and Karthikeyan [6] used Taguchi
Taguchi parameter design is an experiment-based pro-
methods to conduct experiments in turning composite
cess that uses the following steps to identify settings of
material to achieve maximum material removal rate and
design parameters that maximize performance character-
minimum surface roughness. Taguchi parameter design has
istics (e.g., yield or productivity, etc.):
also been used to analyze optimal parameters for drilling
process [7, 8, 9, 10].
1. Identify initial and competing settings of design
Although many of the aforementioned projects were
parameters, as well as important noise factors and their
conducted primarily in laboratories, research can also be
ranges.
done in an industrial setting. The Iowa State University
2. Construct the design and noise matrices, and plan the
Center for Industrial Research and Service (CIRAS), an
parameter design experiments.
extension service unit of this Midwest land grant university,
3. Conduct the parameter design experiments and evaluate
the performance statistic for each test run of the design
matrix.
4. Use the values of the performance statistic to predict
new settings of the design matrix. Factor Units Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
5. Confirm that the new settings truly improve the A Tip Size - Small Medium High
performance statistic. B Feed Rate in/min 83 93 103
C Voltage volts (V) 100 105 110
Considering multiple factors simultaneously, the Taguchi D Amperage amperes (A) 43 53 63
parameter design method uses orthogonal experimental
combinations to shorten the product development cycle, Noise Low High
1 Air Pressure lbs/in2 (PSI) 45 60
which, in turn, saves time and money, Taguchi parameter 2 Pierce Time seconds (s) 0.70 1.40
design has been utilized in traditional manufacturing
processes such as milling, turning, and drilling to determine Fig. 8 Test parameters
764 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:760–769

Fig. 9 Taguchi experiment Noise Level Setting

table Noise 1 2 3 4
1-Air Pressure 45 45 60 60
2-Pierce Time 0.7 1.4 0.7 1.4
Control Factors and Levels
Run A B C D N1 N2 N3 N4 Avg Circularity σ σ2 η
1 1 1 1 1 y11 y12 y13 y14
2 1 2 2 2 y21 y22 y23 y24
3 1 3 3 3 y31 y32 y33 y34
4 2 1 2 3 y41 y42 y43 y44
5 2 2 3 1 y51 y52 y53 y54
6 2 3 1 2 y61 y62 y63 y64
7 3 1 3 2 y71 y72 y73 y74
8 3 2 1 3 y81 y82 y83 y84
9 3 3 2 1 y91 y92 y93 y94

has proposed this methodology to help industry to obtain
optimum manufacturing processes to meet customer
demands within a reasonable timeframe and budget. The
following sections will present the application of Taguchi
parameter design in helping a small business achieve the
Six Sigma paradigm.
3 Current problem with an older plasma-cutting
machine
The case study in this paper is based on a problem
presented by an electrical manufacturing company (Com-
pany A) located in Des Moines, Iowa. The major products
of Company A are large electrical switchboards (Fig. 2).
One step in the process of making the boards requires the
use of a plasma table (Fig. 3) to cut holes for hardware such
as an indicator light (Fig. 4). The current problem of the
plasma cutting process is that some of the holes do not
allow the fitting for the hardware. A close examination of
the holes reveals that two reasons may keep the hardware
from passing through the holes. First, the plasma cutting
process is beveling the edge of the holes it creates (Fig. 5),
which, in turn, obstructs the hardware. Meiji EMZ-5TR
zoom stereo microscope was used to measure the magni-
tude (unit: 0.001 inch) of the bevels for analysis. Second,
the holes have poor circularity (roundness). Roundness is
measured by finding the smallest diameter deviation, which
is the difference of the smallest diameter of the actual hole
from the nominal diameter (Fig. 6). Beveling and roundness
problems that prevent hardware from fitting properly into
the switchboard is a defect that requires rework. To
minimize production costs due to this rework, a Taguchi
analysis was undertaken to determine the optimal setting to
produce holes with minimum bevel and minimum out-of-
round diameter. Ideally, all of the holes cut by the plasma
machine would have best round shape and enable the
hardware to be inserted smoothly.
To accomplish this project for Company A, a Six Sigma
team consisting of operators, engineers, researchers and a
manager was formed, and the Taguchi parameter design
procedure was applied.
4 Six Sigma improvement process
4.1 Define
4.1.1 Factors and levels
Before the Six Sigma team could conduct the Taguchi
parameter design experiment, they needed to thoroughly

Fig. 10 Data of bevel (unit: Noise Level Setting

0.001”) Noise 1 2 3 4
1-Air Pressure 45 45 60 60
2-Pierce Time 0.7 1.4 0.7 1.4 S/N
Control Factors and Levels Ratio
Run A B C D N1 N2 N3 N4 Avg Bevel σ σ2 η
1 1 1 1 1 39 31 22 42 33.5 8.96 80.33 -30.73
2 1 2 2 2 35 25 35 35 32.5 5.00 25.00 -30.31
3 1 3 3 3 55 19 32 37 35.75 14.91 222.25 -31.60
4 2 1 2 3 40 47 44 82 53.25 19.38 375.58 -34.94
5 2 2 3 1 40 52 62 87 60.25 19.97 398.92 -35.94
6 2 3 1 2 45 54 60 62 55.25 7.63 58.25 -34.91
7 3 1 3 2 52 48 49 49 49.5 1.73 3.00 -33.90
8 3 2 1 3 39 47 46 52 46 5.35 28.67 -33.30
9 3 3 2 1 56 51 40 45 48 6.98 48.67 -33.69
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:760–769 765

Avg Bevel
A B C D Optima combinations(Raw Data)
done by determining normal settings for each factor and
level 1 33.92 45.42 47.25 47.25 smaller the better then setting one level lower (level 1) and one level higher
level 2 56.25 46.25 44.58 45.75 A1, B1, C2, D3 (level 3), using the existing settings as level 2. For
level 3 47.83 46.33 48.50 45.00
uncontrolled factors (noise factors), two levels were chosen,
S/N Ratio low and high. The levels and units of each factor are shown
A B C D Optima combinations(S/N Ratio) in Fig. 8. These levels were set to determine if changes to
level 1 -30.9 -33.2 -33 -33.5 larger the better
level 2 -35.3 -33.2 -33 -33 A1, B2, C1, D2 the factors impacted hole quality, and, if so, how much. In
level 3 -33.6 -33.4 -33.8 -33.3 this way, the most significant factor was identified, and the
optimal level for each factor determined. For the uncon-
Fig. 11 Response of controllable factors to bevel and S/N ratio
trolled factors, the two levels helped determine if back-
ground noises produce a significant effect. This effect will
be further analyzed with T-tests.

understand the plasma-cutting process. A brainstorming 4.1.2 Experimental design

exercise that examined all of the factors of the process
provided the necessary information. Since these factors
involve knowledge in different domains and could be either
controllable or non-controllable, it was necessary to have
all team members participate in the brainstorming. A
fishbone diagram based on this exercise revealed all
possible causes of defective plasma-cut holes from the
perspectives of method, material, machine, operator and
environment (Fig. 7). Through group discussion and
ranking, four factors were identified as controllable factors
(voltage, feed rate, amperage, and tip size) and two as
uncontrollable noise factors (air pressure and pierce time).
The Six Sigma team then determined ranges of the levels
to explore for each factor. For controllable factors, this was
Using these four controllable factors and two uncontrolled
noise factors, we constructed an L9 Taguchi experiment
table with the appropriate settings of each factor (Fig. 9).
For each controllable parameter setting combination, four
runs were conducted, each under a different noise factor
setting combination. Each trial run is represented as yij,
where i ranges from 1 to 9, denoting controllable parameter
setting for experimental run, and j from 1 to 4, denoting
noise factor setting. Thus, a total of 36 experimental runs
are conducted as a setting shown in Fig. 9. The average
value, standard deviation, variance and signal-to-noise (S/
N) ratio of the four runs under the same controllable
parameter setting were calculated. The same experimental

S/N Ratio S/N Ratio

Factor A: Tip Size Factor B: Feed Rate (ipm)
Ave Bevel Avg Bevel

-28 -31 50
sm md lg 60
-29 83 93 103
-32 49
-30
Avg Bevel

Avg Bevel
52
S/N Ratio

-31 -33 48
S/N Ratio

-32 44 -34 47
-33
-35 46
-34 36
-35 -36 45

-36 28 -37 44

S/N Ratio S/N Ratio

Factor C: Voltage (Volts) Avg Bevel
Factor D: Amperage (Amps) Avg Bevel

-32 100 105 110 54 -32 43 53 63 52

52 -33 50
-33
Avg Bevel
Avg Bevel

S/N Ratio

50
S/N Ratio

-34 -34 48
48
-35 -35 46
46

-36 -36 44
44

-37 42 -37 42

Fig. 12 Response graphs for bevel magnitude

766 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:760–769

Fig. 13 Data of smallest Noise Level Setting

diameter deviation (unit: inch) Noise 1 2 3 4
1-Air Pressure 45 45 60 60
2-Pierce Time 0.7 1.4 0.7 1.4 S/N
Control Factors and Levels Ratio
Avg
Run A B C D N1 N2 N3 N4 Bevel σ σ2 η
1 1 1 1 1 0.002 0.007 0.018 0.020 0.012 0.0087 0.000075 37.116
2 1 2 2 2 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.016 0.006 0.0071 0.000050 41.337
3 1 3 3 3 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.019 0.007 0.0081 0.000066 39.925
4 2 1 2 3 0.012 0.018 0.021 0.052 0.026 0.0179 0.003200 30.442
5 2 2 3 1 0.037 0.044 0.060 0.055 0.049 0.0104 0.000109 26.051
6 2 3 1 2 0.023 0.036 0.040 0.052 0.038 0.0120 0.000143 28.147
7 3 1 3 2 0.037 0.027 0.042 0.035 0.035 0.0062 0.000039 28.956
8 3 2 1 3 0.009 0.005 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.0096 0.000092 35.888
9 3 3 2 1 0.041 0.032 0.021 0.041 0.034 0.0095 0.000090 29.184

design table was used for two response variables, the bevel
magnitude and the deviation of the smallest diameter of
plasma-cut holes.
4.2 Measure and analysis
This section provides details of the Taguchi-based experi-
ments conducted for bevel magnitude and smallest diameter
deviation. Data were collected and analyzed using the
experimental design described in the previous section.
4.2.1 Taguchi experiment for bevel
Figure 10 shows the experiment data for the bevel size. The
response of each controllable factor on bevel magnitude
and the signal-to-noise ratio are shown in Fig. 11. The
quality characteristic is the-smaller-the-better; the formula
to calculate S/N ratio is given below and its derivation can
be found in [1]:
" !#
1 X4
h ¼
10 log y2
n j¼1 ij
where,
η S/N ratio,
yij individual response for each trial run,
n the number of runs due to noise factors; in this case,
n=4.
The bevel response table (Fig. 11) shows the mean
response of the variable (bevel) from each controllable
factor at each level in the Taguchi experimental design.
Each level of the controllable factors has three response
values in the orthogonal array (Fig. 10) and is calculated by
averaging these three values. The response table for the S/N
ratio (also in Fig. 11) was similarly obtained, using the S/N
ratios in the orthogonal array. With the response values and
the S/N ratio values, the response table can be used to
determine the optimal combination of levels of the
controllable factors that creates the minimum bevel.
Figure 12 is the graphical depiction of the response and
S/N ratio for bevel magnitude. Since the quality character-
istic for beveling is the-smaller-the-better, the optimal
setting combination for minimum bevel is A1-B1-C2-D3,
which is interpreted as small tip size, a feed rate of 83 in/
min, a voltage of 105 V, and amperage of 63A. For the S/N
ratio, we are looking for the largest value. Therefore, the
optimal setting combination for S/N ratio response is A1-
B2-C1-D2, which means small tip size, a feed rate of 93 in/
min, a voltage of 100 V, and amperage of 53A. The arrows
in Fig. 12 indicate the chosen level of each factor, and the
directions of the arrows show the quality characteristic with
upward denoting the-larger-the-better and downward the-
smaller-the-better.
4.2.2 Taguchi experiment for smallest diameter deviation
Similarly, Fig. 13 shows the experiment data for the
smallest diameter deviation. The response of each control-
lable factor on the smallest diameter deviation and the S/N
ratio are shown in Fig. 14. Figure 15 is the graphic display
of the response to smallest diameter deviation. The quality
characteristic is also the-smaller-the-better for the smallest
diameter deviation. The optimal setting combination for
minimum smallest diameter deviation is A1-B2-C1-D3,
which means small tip size, a feed rate of 93 in/min, a
Fig. 14 Response of controllable factors to smallest diameter
deviation
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:760–769 767

S/N Ratio S/N Ratio

Factor A: Tip Size Deviation
Factor B: Feed Rate (ipm) Deviation
40 0.080
50 0.050 0.075
48 38 0.070
46 0.065
0.000 36 0.060
44

Deviation
42 0.055
34 0.050

Deviation

S/N Ratio
40
S/N Ratio

-0.050 0.045
38 32 0.040
36 0.035
34 -0.100 30 0.030
32 0.025
28 0.020
30
-0.150 0.015
28 26 0.010
26 0.005
24 -0.200 24 0.000
sm md lg 83 93 103

S/N Ratio S/N Ratio

Factor C: Voltage (Volts) Deviation Factor D: Amperage (Amps) Deviation
50 0.040 60 0.040
48 58
56
46 0.030 54 0.030
44 52
50
42 0.020 48 0.020

Deviation

Deviation
S/N Ratio
S/N Ratio

40 46
38 44
0.010 42 0.010
36 40
34 38
32 0.000 36 0.000
34
30 32
28 --0.010 30 -0.010
26 28
26
24 --0.020 24 -0.020
100 105 110 43 53 63

Fig. 15 Response graph for smallest diameter deviation

voltage of 100 V, and an amperage of 63A. The S/N ratio
responses render the same parameter setting combination.
4.2.3 Setting selection
According to Figs. 12 and 14, bevel and smallest diameter
deviation as well as their S/N ratios have different optimal
setting combinations. These are summarized in the first four
rows of Table 1. For example, bevel S/N ratio response
gave level 2 (53A) for factor D (amperage), while all other
responses (bevel, smallest diameter deviation and its S/N
ratio) chose level 3(63A). However, Company A needs
only one overall optimal setting combination for its plasma
table. Therefore, the appropriate optimal setting combina-
tion is the level of each factor having the largest number of
occurrences. For example, level 3 of factor D occurred
three times, while level 2 occurred once. Therefore, level 3
for factor D is chosen as the overall optimal setting
combination. With this rule, the overall optimal setting for
the plasma table is A1-B2-C1-D3, as indicated in the bottom
row of Table 1. The setting A1-B2-C1-D3 means the small
tip size, a feed rate of 93 in/min, a voltage of 100 V, and
amperage of 63A.
4.2.4 T-test
To examine the effect of noise factors on the response
variables, a t-test was conducted for each noise factor. For
Table 2 T-test for air pressures effect on smallest diameter deviation
Air pressure (PSI) 45 60

Mean 0.019 0.030

Table 1 Optimal setting combination Variance 2.4791 e-4 3.0446 e-4
Observations 18 18
Selection Criteria Combination
df 34
Bevel A1 B1 C2 D3 Difference in mean 0.011
Bevel S/N ratio A1 B2 C1 D2 Std. Error (difference between the means) 0.0055
Smallest diameter deviation A1 B2 C1 D3 t Stat 2.0358
Smallest diameter deviation S/N ratio A1 B2 C1 D3 t Critical two-tail (alpha=0.005) 2.7284
Overall optimal setting A1 B2 C1 D3 P(T <=t) one-tail 0.0496
768 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:760–769

Table 3 T-test for pierce times effect on smallest diameter deviation Table 5 T-test for effect of pierce time on bevel

Pierce time (s) 0.7 1.4 Pierce time (s) 0.7 1.4

Mean 0.023 0.026 Mean 43.944 48.056

Variance 2.94 e-4 3.18 e-4 Variance 107.4673 290.9967
Observations 18 18 Observations 18 18

Df 34 Df 34
Difference in mean 0.003 Difference in mean 4.112
Std. Error (difference between the means) 0.0058 Std. Error (difference between the means) 4.7050
t Stat 0.6575 t Stat −0.8738
t Critical one-tail (alpha=0.005) 2.7284 t Critical one-tail (alpha=0.005) 2.7284
P(T <=t) one-tail 0.5153 P(T <=t) one-tail 0.3884

air pressure, a t-test determines if the two levels (45 psi and
60 psi) will have a significant effect on smallest diameter
deviation. The hypothesis is stated as
H0 : μ45 ¼ μ60
H1 : μ45 6¼ μ60
The t-test result is shown in Table 2. From the test result
it can be seen that the Abs (t Stat)=2.0358 < t critical two-
tail (alpha=0.005)=2.7284, or equivalently P (T <= t) one-
tail=0.0496 > alpha=0.005. The statistical conclusion is
that the difference in mean from the two air pressure levels
is not significant, so the hypothesis Ho can not be rejected.
Therefore, we can conclude that air pressure does not
significantly affect the smallest diameter deviation.
Similarly, three t-tests were conducted for the effects of
pierce time to smallest diameter deviation (Table 3), air
pressure to bevel (Table 4), and pierce time to bevel
(Table 5). From Table 3, it can be seen that the Abs
(t Stat)=0.6575 < t critical two-tail (alpha=0.005)=2.7284,
or equivalently P (T <= t) one-tail=0.5153 > alpha=0.005.
Therefore, pierce time does not significantly affect the
small radius. From Table 4, it can be seen that the Abs
(t Stat)=1.2667 < t critical two-tail (alpha=0.005)=2.7284,
Table 4 T-test for effect of air pressure on bevel
Air pressure (PSI) 45
or equivalently P (T <= t) one-tail=0.2139 > alpha=0.005.
Therefore, the air pressure does not significantly affect the
bevel magnitude. From Table 5, Abs (t Stat)=0.8738 < t
critical two-tail (alpha=0.005)=2.7284, or equivalently P
(T <= t) one-tail=0.3884 > alpha=0.005. Therefore, the
pierce time does not significantly affect the small radius.
4.3 Implementation
After the overall optimal setting combination for the plasma
cutter was identified, a confirmation run was conducted.
With this optimal setting (A1-B2-C1-D3), 30 cuts were made
to test the smallest diameter deviation and the bevel
magnitude. The hardware passed easily through all 30 cuts,
meaning no rework was needed. In addition, as the results
shown in Table 6 indicate, the mean value and standard
deviation of the confirmation run data were smaller than
those before Taguchi design was conducted.
4.4 Control
The optimal setting combination was sent to Company A’s
production department. The Six Sigma team is now trying
to uncover other possible causes of unacceptable deviation
so that other Taguchi experiments can be conducted for
continuous improvement of the process. For example, if
defects occur later following the optimal condition, the Six
Sigma team will follow the DMAIC procedure (Fig. 1) to
60 pursue the next cycle of process improvement. Taguchi

Mean 43.056 48.944

Variance 110.5 278.5 Table 6 Confirmation run data
Observations 18 18
Before Taguchi Conformation
Df 34 design run
Difference in mean 5.888
Std. Error (difference between the means) 4.6491 Smallest diameter μ=0.024 μ=0.006
t Stat −1.2667 deviation б=0.0173 б=0.0032
t Critical two-tail (alpha=0.005) 2.7284 Bevel μ=46 μ=35.2
P(T <=t) one-tail 0.2139 б=14.0672 б=4.5166
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:760–769
parameter design for optimal condition could then be
executed again.
5 Conclusion
Six Sigma and lean manufacturing are powerful strategies
for transforming an enterprise and escalating its competi-
tiveness. The fact that Six Sigma and lean manufacturing
can successfully save time and cut costs are important
considerations, especially for small- and medium-sized
enterprises with limited resources. This paper presented
the application of the Taguchi method to optimize the
roundness of the holes cut by an aging plasma-cutting
machine. Using the orthogonal array in the experiment
design for four factors, the Taguchi method reduced the
experiment set-up from 81 parameter combination settings
(34) in DOE to an L9 setting. With two noise factors
included in the Taguchi experiment design, 36 total experi-
ments are conducted. The optimal setting combination
received from Taguchi experiment design is A1B2C1D3
(small for tip size, 93 in/min for feed rate, 100 V for voltage,
and 63A for amperage), which maintains the existing feed
rate for productivity and improves quality of products. The
optimal setting combination gave no defects from the 30
plasma-cut holes in the confirmation run. In addition, the
recommended setting combination was well received by
Company A, and the problem with defects situation has been
much improved. With the reduced time and cost, Taguchi
experiment design has again demonstrated its effectiveness
in achieving Six Sigma and lean paradigm.
769
Acknowledgement This project was partially funded by the Iowa
Center for Industrial Research and Service, through a grant from the
Department of Commerce NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
References
1. Fowlkes WY, Clyde CM (1995) Engineering methods for robust
product design using Taguchi methods in technology and product
development. Addison-Wesley, Reading
2. Ghani JA, Choudhury IA, Hassan HH (2004) Application of
Taguchi method in the optimization of end milling parameters. J
Mater Process Technol 145(1):84–92 Jan 1
3. Zhang JZ, Chen JC, Kirby ED (2007) Surface roughness
optimization in an end-milling operation using the Taguchi design
method. J Mater Process Technol 184(1–3):233–239 Apr 12
4. Davim JP, Reis P (2005) Damage and dimensional precision on
milling carbon fiber-reinforced plastics using design experiments.
J Mater Process Technol 160(2):160–167 Mar 20
5. Kirby ED, Zhang Z, Chen JC, Chen J (2006) Optimizing surface
finish in a turning operation using the Taguchi parameter design
method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30(11–12):1021–1029 October
6. Palanikumar K, Karthikeyan R (2006) Optimal machining con-
ditions for turning of particulate metal matrix composites using
Taguchi and response surface methodologies. Mach Sci Technol
10(4):417–433 Dec 1
7. Deng C-S, Chin J-H (2005) Hole roundness in deep-hole drilling
as analysed by Taguchi methods. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 25(5–
6):420–426 March
8. Tsao CC (2007) Taguchi analysis of drilling quality associated
with core drill in drilling of composite material. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 32(9–10):877–884 April
9. Bagci E, Ozcelik B (2006) Analysis of temperature changes on the
twist drill under different drilling conditions based on Taguchi
method during dry drilling of Al 7075-T651. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 29(7–8):629–636 July
10. Tsao CC, Hocheng H (2004) Taguchi analysis of delamination
associated with various drill bits in drilling of composite material.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44(10):1085–1090 August