Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

Use of Orthogonal Arrays in optimising wax coat thickness

for hearing aid shell manufacture
Student X (09012345)
Abstract {word count = 197/200}
The application of Orthogonal Arrays (OA) in the optimisation of wax coat thickness is described for producing
hearing aid shells. The basic OA method for searching parameter design space is introduced through a simple two-
level L4 OA then a three-level L9 OA is used for the wax coating case study in order to observe the non-linear
effects of four design factors. The results show that the two most significant design factors affecting mean thickness
are different to those affecting variability, requiring compromise on optimal factors settings. Using the discrete
factor levels, the target thickness is closely achieved with a high Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), which is an
improvement on existing production. Response plots confirm the dip time-dependency of wax coat thickness and
reveal that the non-linear effects of the other design factors, especially wax temperature, have minima/maxima
within the limits explored. The SNR transformation is checked and confirmed as valid. Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) is applied in order to determine the significance of each factor effect and indicates that some important
factors were likely to have been missed from the experiment. Implementation of OA in design procedure is
discussed, particularly in relation to rapid and adaptable product development.

Keywords: Orthogonal Array; design factors; Signal-to-Noise Ratio; Analysis of Variance

1. Introduction {word count = 912/1000}

The work presented later in this report was conducted under a confidentiality agreement and therefore the identity of
the client is not revealed and sensitive detailed information and data are changed.
An Orthogonal Array (OA) is a matrix showing a coded plan for combining design factor levels into
experimental trials. They are based on Plackett-Burman arrays (Box et al, 1978), which were developed for Design
of Experiments (DoE) out of the pioneering statistical work of Sir R.A. Fisher in the 1930’s (Montgomery, 2004),
Their use in engineering design was popularised by Taguchi (Taguchi, 1987) in the 1980’s and 1990’s (Fowlkes and
Creveling, 1995) and they became standard techniques of quality improvement across the global automotive
industry. It is reasonable to claim that the enthusiastic use of ‘Taguchi Methods’ in the Japanese automotive
industry, well before their use in the West, made a significant contribution to its rise in reputation for quality and
reliability.
Figure 1a shows an OA for three two-level design factors assigned column-wise. The ‘1’ and ‘0’ entries are a
code for the actual values used for each design factor level, which is the same as the ‘1’ and ‘2’ or ‘-1’ and ‘1’ codes
used by some authors. Individual experiments or designs are represented by the rows of the OA. With most standard
OA, the design factor levels in any column occur an equal number of times (more correctly, for larger OA the
combination of any two columns) and ‘orthogonality’ is exhibited as a balancing property of the OA in a way that
isolates the effect of interest (Hedayat et al, 1999). Visualising the three two-level design factor settings in 3D space
(Figure 1b) highlights orthogonality in terms of the four designs (the four nodes shown) are arranged such that each
factor level (e.g. the mean of the two experiments where A=1, which are experiments 3 and 4) is exposed to both
levels of the other two design factors, and the other factor level is tested for different level combinations of the other
factors. The isolating of factor effects by this orthogonality is vital to the downstream reproducibility of the
experimental results and, depending on the OA selected, requires the design factors to be carefully chosen in order

Page 1 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

to avoid, or take account of, interaction effects between factors. Avoiding interaction affects is known as achieving
additivity, which infers that the main factor effects can be combined in a predictable way.

A
Design Design Design Results
Factor A Factor B Factor C

Exp 1 0 0 0
Exp 2 0 1 1
Exp 3 1 0 1 B
Exp 4 1 1 0
(a) Simple Orthogonal array (L4 OA) C (b) 3D design space

Fig. 1: Principle of orthogonality illustrated for three two-level design factors via an L4 Orthogonal Array

The net result of implementing the simple ‘L4’ OA shown in Figure 1 is that four experiments will be sufficient
to select the best levels for the three design factors as opposed to the eight experiments required with the
conventional one-factor-at-a-time (full-factorial) approach. This saving increases dramatically with more design
factors (Table 1). The four experiments used are not the only orthogonal combination, as can be seen in Fig. 1(b).

Table 1: No. of experiments for OA compared to full-factorial approach.

Standard Levelsfactors No of Exp trials Equivalent full-
OA factorial trials
L4 23 4 8
L8 27 8 128
L12 211 12 2,048
L16 215 16 32,768
L9 34 9 81
L18 (21 + 37) 18 4,374
L27 313 27 1,594,323

Having outlined the search mechanism of an OA, results obtained under ‘compound noise’ conditions CN1 and
CN2 are presented in Table 2 (note that design factor levels are now arbitrarily coded as ‘1’ and ‘2’), along with the
calculated mean.. These compound noise conditions are those due to other factors, typically the uncontrollable non-
design factors such as ambient conditions (e.g. temperature, humidity, wind), which also affect results and cause
common variation. In practice these noise conditions are promoted through repetitions over a period of time, i.e.
repeated cycles through the four experiments.

Table 2: Example experimental results

factor A factor B factor C Results Mea
CN1 CN2 n
Exp 1 1 1 1 1, 2, 3, 5 2.75
Exp 2 1 2 2 3, 1, 5, 4 3.25
Exp 3 2 1 2 6, 2, 4, 7 4.75
Exp 4 2 2 1 1, 0, 2, 1 1

Page 2 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

From the OA results data, the mean value for each factor level is displayed in a convenient format for
comparison purposes - the response table (Table 3). For example, the average value of the results when factor A is
at level 1 is the average of Exp 1 (2.75) and Exp 2 (3.25), which equals 3.

Table 3: Response table for treatment means.

Level 1 Level 2 difference rank
factor A 3 2.875 0.125 3rd
factor B 3.75 2.125 1.625 2nd
factor C 1.875 4 2.125 1st

In Table 3 the optimum level for each factor is that with the highest mean response (underscored) and a ranking
is made on the basis of the difference between the mean responses at each level. The differences are the effect a
factor level has when changed despite the other factor levels changing too. It is apparent from the difference values
that factor A and factor B individually have considerably greater main effects on the response than factor C. These
main factor effects can be represented graphically as a response graph (Figure 2), in which these effects are more
readily compared.

5
4
3
2 factor A
factor B
1
factor C
0
level 1 level 2
Fig. 2: Response graph

Assuming additivity has been maintained in this example, the optimum factor settings for the highest response
will be A1B1C2, which may or may not be a combination that was tested in the experiment (a 50% chance for this

L4). Each mean design factor effect and the overall mean are then be used to predict the expected optimum value of
y, E(y) using Equation 1:

E ( y ) = A1 + B1 + C 2 − 2 y() (1)
Therefore E(y) will be 3 + 3.75 + 4 – 2(2.9375) = 4.875, which is a better mean performance than observed in the
experiments.
As the L4 OA employs two levels per design factor then only linear relationships have been identified, which
means that if we attempt to interpolate within the design factor levels (Fig. 2) there is a risk of making erroneous
predictions. Thus the above example has been used to decide which design factor levels are the best to use. In
practice, ‘cheap’ two-level OA are most often used as a decision tool, also known as a screening experiment, where
good (i.e. significant) design factors are screened out for more in-depth investigation with higher order OA that can
handle design factors with three-levels or more.

Page 3 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

2. Method {word count = 998/1000}

2.1 Wax coating

A hearing aid shell is the distinctive plastic moulding worn on the outer ear, or in the ear, which houses the various
electronic components (Figure 3). In-the-ear shells must be made-to-measure when of a rigid construction. The
conventional production process for making in-the-ear hearing aid shells involves a wax coating stage, which
effectively increases the size of a silicon rubber impression of the ear canal in order to adjust the fit according to the
severity of hearing loss and also to improve surface smoothness of the finished product. The coating thickness is
around 200 to 300 microns (0.2-0.3mm) and it is important that this is achieved consistently otherwise the finished
product will be returned for re-working, which will be costly and detrimental to the reputation of the manufacturer.
This problem has constraints in terms of the wax dip time cannot be too quick otherwise there may not be an even
coating thickness due to the speed of immersion and extraction. Also, the resolution of temperature settings is
limited to about 2 degrees C due to the heating control system.

Figure 3: Hearing aids (http://www.national-hearing-services.co.uk/ accessed 21/01/10)

2.2 Signal-to-Noise Ratio as a performance measure

As process consistency is also an important objective then attention should be focused on a measure of wax coating
variability. Whilst standard deviation could be used as this variability measure, it will tend to zero as the mean tends
to zero and hence the two must ideally be monitored simultaneously in order to keep good performance in
perspective. The literature (Taguchi, 1987) promotes a signal-to-noise ratio expressed as per Eq. 2 for a nominal-is-
best response, i.e. the factor level settings that best achieve a target and minimise the influence of noise, which is a
measure of the strength of the mean performance in relation to the variability around it.

SNRNB = 10 log( y 2 / σ 2 ) (2)

2.3 Three-level Orthogonal Arrays for observing non-linear relationships

Two-level factors described in the introduction only reveal the best setting based on the assumption of a linear
relationship, whereas a three-level OA can reveal non-linear relationships between the factors and the measured
response of the system. For example, an L9 OA (Table 4) is used in order to explore the optimum factor settings for
four three-level design factors within their range of values.
Table 4: L9 OA.
A B C D
1 1 1 1
1 2 2 2
1 3 3 3
2 1 2 3
2 2 3 1
2 3 1 2
3 1 3 2
3 2 1 3
3 3 2 1

Page 4 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

The ‘saturated’ design of an L9 OA means that all its degrees of freedom are used up on main effects if
factors are allocated to all four columns. It is possible to observe an interaction between two columns if required but
this will employ two columns and render them unavailable for observing the main effects of two other factors and so
tends to be avoided. Therefore, the L9 OA will be used here on the assumption that the factors to be chosen for
experimentation will not have significant interaction, as was described in the introduction.
The method of calculating the mean response of each of the three levels for any factor is similar to that for a
two-level factor (as was shown in Table 3). Developing on from Equation 1, the predicted performance for an L9
will be:

E ( y ) = AL + BL + C L + DL − 3 y () (3)
SNR values can be used in Equation 3 if a prediction is desired in these terms.

2.4 ANOVA for quantifying contributions of mean factor effects

We will use Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for quantifying the relative contribution of each mean factor effect to
the overall response (Fowlkes and Creveling, 1995; Phadke, 1989), which is based on calculating the sums of
squares about the grand mean of the data. For example, the sum of squares due to design factor A is:
L
S A = ∑ L( A j − y ) (4)
j =1

Where L is the number of factor levels and Āj = mean response of factor A for level j.

The total sum of squares for n experiments is:

n
ST = ∑ ( yi − y )
2
(5)
i =1

The variability of data that cannot be attributed to design factors will be assumed to be due to error (experimental,
measurement and other unexplained variability):
Sum of squares due to error, Se = ST-ΣSA (6)

The degrees of freedom (dof) for a design factor are equal to its number of levels minus one, i.e. 2, and the total
degrees of freedom for the experiment will be 9-1=8, and using this:
dof for error, fe = fT-ΣfA (7)
Variance is a measure of variability per degree of freedom:
VT = ST/fT (8)
VA = SA/fA (9)
Ve = Se/fe (10)
Note that Ve ≠ VT-ΣVA.
The ratio of the factor variance to error variance is then used as a test of the factor effect:
FA = VA/Ve (11)
An F value of less than one suggests that the associated design factor effect is less than the error of the
additive model. An F value greater than two means the design factor effect is not small, and F larger than four
means the design factor effect is large (Phadke, 1989).

Page 5 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

To quantify the contribution of a design factor to the total response variability, the sum of squares must be
adjusted to remove the error contribution. Considering Equation 9, if VA is small then factor A is considered to have
no significant effect on the response variability, and the variability attributed to error is VA=Ve, which can be added
to that of other weak factors. Therefore Equation 10 becomes Ve=SA/fA, the error variation component, for a
‘saturated’ Orthogonal Array (on in which all columns are allocated a design factor) which means that SA=fAVe.
Equation 6 indicates how Ve is then pooled for more than one design factor. Pure sum of squares for A becomes:
S'A = SA - fAVe (12)
The percent contribution of design factor A to the total variability is then:
pc (%) = S'A/ST *100 (13)
If the percentage contribution due to error is below 15% it is unlikely that important design factors were omitted
from the experiment. If the percentage contribution due to error is over 50% then some important design factors
were likely to have been missed from the experiment.

Page 6 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

3. Results {word count = 200/200}

Four factors were chosen to control the wax coating process, mainly based on process temperatures and times, but
they are undisclosed in this report and the levels are changed to maintain confidentiality (Table 5).
Table 5: L9 OA factors and levels.
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
A 2 4 6
B 88 97 107
C 25 30 35
D 16 21 26

Several samples were taken on different days for each experiment in order to include noise factors such as
ambient conditions and unknown operational factors. The results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: L9 OA and results.
L9 OA N1 N2 N3
A B C D mean stdev SNR
1 1 1 1 0.15 0.20 0.18 0.25 0.23 0.18 0.13 0.21 0.30 0.20 0.05 11.85
1 2 2 2 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.02 20.95
1 3 3 3 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.18 0.16 0.02 18.92
2 1 2 3 0.17 0.16 0.28 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.13 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.04 12.65
2 2 3 1 0.37 0.35 0.38 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.42 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.07 12.65
2 3 1 2 0.25 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.04 13.52
3 1 3 2 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.10 0.14 0.02 17.73
3 2 1 3 0.46 0.45 0.47 0.66 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.57 0.65 0.54 0.08 16.83
3 3 2 1 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.17 0.12 0.02 13.68

0.23 0.04 15.42

The response table for mean factor effects (Table 7) shows the rank order effects are, B C D A.
Table 7: Response table for means.
1 2 3 diff
A 0.18 0.23 0.27 0.08
B 0.18 0.35 0.15 0.19
C 0.31 0.17 0.20 0.14
D 0.21 0.17 0.30 0.12

Table 8 shows the factor levels for best SNR are D2 A1 B2 C3 in rank order.
Table 8: Response table for SNR.

1 2 3 diff
A 17.24 12.94 16.08 4.30
B 14.07 16.81 15.37 2.74
C 14.07 15.76 16.43 2.36
D 12.73 17.40 16.13 4.67

The response graphs, Figures 4 and 5, present the results of Tables 7 and 8 graphically:

Page 7 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

0.40

0.35

0.30

Wax coat thickness (mm) 0.25

A
B
0.20
C
D
0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
1 2 3
Factor Level

Figure 4: Factor effects on mean wax coat thickness

20.00

18.00

16.00
Wax coat thickness SNR (dB)

14.00

12.00 A
B
10.00
C
8.00 D

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
1 2 3
Factor Level

Figure 5: Factor effects on wax coat thickness Signal-to-Noise Ratio

Aiming to minimise variance about a target thickness of 0.20mm and exploring predictions for various factor level
settings (Eq. 3) finds a suitable design of A1 B2 C3 D2:
Predicted mean for A1 B2 C3 D2 = 0.18 + 0.35 + 0.20 + 0.17 – 3(0.23) = 0.21mm
Predicted SNR for A1 B2 C3 D2 = 17.24 + 16.81 + 16.43 + 17.40 – 3(15.42) = 21.62 dB

Conducting ANOVA (Table 9) highlights that the mean effects of A and D are indistinguishable from error.
Table 9: ANOVA.
ANOVA-means f S V F S' pc(%)
A 2 0.01 0.00
B 2 0.07 0.03 4.02 0.05 38
C 2 0.03 0.02 2.00 0.02 12
D 2 0.02 0.01
(e) 4 0.03 0.01 50
T 8 0.13 0.02 100

Page 8 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

4. Discussion {word count = 1494/1500}

4.1 Evaluation of method and discussion of results

The L9 OA used has searched the equivalent design space of 81 full factorial experiments, which may have been a
prohibitive number in an industrial context for reasons of cost and inconvenience to the company. Thus the method
has enabled on-line industrial experiments (Huang et al., 2001) that might otherwise not be feasible. Design factor
selection was largely driven by convenience, which is not a good basis for an experiment, but it meant that
experiments could be performed with minimum disruption to the production line settings.
Observing interaction effects between factors using the L9 is not practicable as it has so few columns to assign.
An L8 OA could have been used for this purpose but it would have had the limitation of observing two-level factors
only and therefore the distinct non-linear effects observed in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 would not have been observed. An
alternative way of addressing interactions would be to employ the sliding factor level approach (Hamada, 1995).
The strength of interaction effects will be revealed in a subsequent verification experiment.
The Nominal-is-Best (NB) nature of the problem slightly complicates the identification of the best factors
settings as it is not immediately clear which are the best combination for producing the mean target thickness.
Whereas the SNR is always Larger-is-Better (LB) and is very interesting that its optimum design factor levels
produce an output that coincides with a most suitable mean thickness result. The suitability of the SNR as a data
transformation for promoting independence between mean and standard deviation can be evaluated using a plot of
the log of standard deviation versus log of means for each experimental trial pair. Hence, for an L9 OA nine points
are plotted in Fig. 6 and the slope of the line of best fit determined.

log stdev vs log mean

0.00
-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 -0.200.00
-0.40
y = 1.0393x - 0.7439
-0.60
log stdev

-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
-1.60
-1.80
-2.00
log mean

Figure 6: Empirical evaluation of SNR transformation

From Fig. 6 the slope of the line is very close to 1, which is a strong endorsement (Box et al, 1978) of a log-
based transformation like the SNR for this problem. The use of the SNR has been questioned in the literature (Box,
1988; León et al, 1987; Logothetis, 1990), particularly in regard to its theoretical foundations, e.g. its effect on
additivity. The Box-Cox transformation (Box, 1988) has been proposed as a more rigorous approach that determines
the transformation with the minimal error sum of squares (Eq. 6) via an iterative process. However, it seems to be

Page 9 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

used rarely in practical engineering problems presumably because its greater analytical complexity is too
burdensome.
ANOVA has identified factor B as contributing 38% of the observed effects on coating thickness and factor C as
contributing 12%. The commensurate error contribution of 50% obtained by the Taguchi pooling up strategy
indicates that other significant but unobserved factors have affected results. As only four design factors are observed
by an L9 then pooling two into error in this way oversimplifies the prediction equation (Eq. 3), which means it is
difficult to choose design factor settings that produce an acceptable coating thickness. Hence it has been abandoned
for this case. Graphical methods such as probability plots should have been used for comparison. Furthermore, the
dynamic output characteristic (Taguchi, 1987) would potentially produce results that mean optimum settings for any
desired thickness would be identified.
The original process settings A1 B1 C1 D1 produced a mean wax coat thickness of 0.20mm and SNR of 11.85
dB, compared to 0.21mm and 21.62 dB for the optimal process design A1 B2 C3 D2. The equivalent values of
standard deviation can be found by rearranging the SNR equation (Eq 2):

y2
σ= (14)
anti log⎛⎜
SNRNB ⎞
⎝ 10 ⎟⎠

Thus the optimal process settings produce a standard deviation of 0.019mm compared to 0.051mm for the
original settings, and if we assume tolerance limits of ± 0.1mm then the conventional ± 3σ process limits will be ±
0.057mm for the optimal settings, i.e. well within tolerance, compared to ± 0.153mm for the original settings, i.e.
well outside tolerance. Furthermore, if we look at the potential effect on production of this improved capability by
calculating the probability density under a Normal distribution beyond the tolerance limits in each case, then the
original process settings produce in excess of 9% whereas the optimal settings reduce this to less than 0.002%. This
is potentially a major process improvement identified by this optimisation method.

4.2 Implementation of OA in CAE

Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to implementing OA in CAE; using standalone DoE software that
specifies the experiments to be performed and analyses the results; or DoE functionality integrated into mainstream
CAE software. One advantage of the latter is that errors in transcribing the experimental plan are minimised and also
tolerances and constraints are more readily incorporated.
Matlab is, at first glance, used as a standalone DoE tool but there is scope for this functionality to be integrated
because it is also a program for creating, running and analysing simulations. Matlab statistics toolbox addresses
fractional factorial designs; in particular Plackett-Burman experimental designs are generated using Hadamard
functions provided. These designs are “screening designs”, i.e. two-level design factors only, which means they are
best employed in distinguishing between factors that do and do not contribute significantly to the observed effects.
Application of the method to factor effects using the standard toolbox relies upon knowledge of the theory in order
to combine the arrays with output data. However, the Model-Based Calibration product from Matlab provides a
comprehensive experimental design capability including application of constraints and tradeoff.

Page 10 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

ANSYS DesignXplorer (DX) is a design optimization module within ANSYS Workbench, the framework that
guides the user through the entire simulation process. DX has a range of DoE tools but does not specifically use
Orthogonal Arrays, providing instead higher order experimental designs. It also uses Variational Technology (VT),
which can explore the design space more quickly than DX over the tolerance values of the design parameters
selected in order to evaluate the robustness of the artefact. Multiple objectives and constraints can be handled in
order to identify trade-off solutions.

4.3 Effect on operation and management of design procedures

A lot of emphasis has been placed on Rapid Prototyping (RP) in terms of the manufacturing technologies that
quickly and (relatively) cheaply produce physical artefacts from CAD models. However, looking at the full
timescale of a development project, a lot of time can be saved when deciding significance and optimal values of
design factors by the use of OA as described in this paper. This reduction has implications for several stages of the
design process, in particular detail design and process design. Without overstating it, quicker and better decisions
made in these two stages can have simultaneous effects both ways – e.g. identifying the important design factors of
a product prototype maps to important process design factors and vice versa. For this reason, the screening function
of a simple two-level OA can be very important in the early stages of a simultaneous design process. The non-linear
relationships revealed by three-level OA become particularly useful in optimizing the product/process design factors
further downstream.
We have highlighted the impact of optimal process settings on its capability to meet tolerances, which presents a
major opportunity to understand costs of production, especially in terms of waste due to poor quality. Therefore a
secondary effect of monitoring design factor effects on variability (e.g. SNR) is that some insight is revealed about
the viability of specified tolerances.
Two common standards that affect the design process, namely ISO 9000 (quality systems) and BS 9000 (design
management), do not specifically require the application of design search methods but there are several sections that
highlight that the management system should address relevant issues such as meeting customer requirements,
employ design staff skilled in appropriate tools and techniques, and use statistical techniques to understand
variability.
In platform design products, there are planned product developments and exploratory applications that use parts
common across a product range that may have different usage and target performance specifications. Therefore,
these common parts may need to be adapted in order to adjust the variant function to target. These adaptive cases
should be considered dynamic systems where dynamic OA experiments can be configured to gain insight into the
dynamic responses of the system. A dynamic system is characterised by the following pattern:
Signal→System→Output, and the combined influence of design and noise factors also needs to be taken onto
consideration (Fig. 7).

Page 11 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

Noise Factors, z

Signal Factor, M product Response, y

Design Factors, x
Figure 7: Product parameters

Most engineering products and processes are dynamic in nature, even though they may have been designed as
static systems. Active dynamic systems are those that require adjustment as part of their function, e.g. a carburettor.
Passive dynamic systems are those that receive a signal and reproduce it with minimum error, e.g. radio receiver.
For complicated products even if the overall system does not require direct adjustment, its sub-systems will need to
be adjustable to optimise the product. Similarly, processes need to be adjustable for adapting to new materials or
products.
A three-level signal factor can be included in the format of an L8 OA as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: L8 OA with 3-level signal factor and compounded noise.
OA Results S/N
factors M1 M2 M3 Ratio
A B C D E F G N1 N2 N1 N2 N1 N2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 2 2 2 2
1 2 2 1 1 2 2
1 2 2 2 2 1 1
2 1 2 1 2 1 2
2 1 2 2 1 2 1
2 2 1 1 2 2 1
2 2 1 2 1 1 2

There is insufficient space here to explain how the analysis of a dynamic characteristic is carried out (see Fowlkes
and Creveling, 1995).

5. Conclusions {word count = 96/100}

A method employing Orthogonal Arrays in design has been described for a three-level OA that identifies optimal
design factor levels for a wax coating process that will reduce rejects by more than 8%. Evaluation of the method
confirms the suitability of the SNR.
Implementation in Matlab is a flexible means of applying OA to CAE problems while some mainstream CAE
packages now have OA-like embedded tools.
The effect on design procedures has been discussed in some depth and in particular the prospect of using OA
with dynamic characteristics offers significant enhancement to product and process development.

Page 12 of 13
 Conference on the Implementation of New Advances in Engineering Design 2010

References

Journals:
Box, G.E.P. (1988) Signal-to-noise ratios, performance criteria and transformations, Technometrics, Vol 30(1),
February 1988, pp 1-40.
Coleman, D.E., Montgomery, D.C. (1993) A systematic approach to planning for a designed industrial experiment,
Technometrics, Vol 35(1), February 1993, pp 1-12.
Hamada, M. & Wu, C.F.J. (1995) The treatment of related experimental factors by sliding levels, Journal of Quality
Technology, Vol. 27(1), pp 45-55.
Huang, M.C., Tai, C-C. (2001) The effective factors in the warpage problem of an injection-moulded part with a
thin shell feature, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol 110, pp 1-9.
León, R.V., Shoemaker, A.C., Kacker, R.N. (1987) Performance Measures Independent of Adjustment,
Technometrics, Vol 29(3), August 1987, pp 253-265.
Logothetis, N. (1990) Box-Cox transformations and the Taguchi Method, J. of Applied Statistics, Vol 39(1), pp 31-
48.

Books:
Box, G.E.P., Hunter, G.H. & Hunter, J.S. (1978) Statistics for Experimenters. John Wiley & Sons.
Fowlkes, W.Y., Creveling, C.M. (1995) Engineering Methods for Robust Product Design. Addison-Wesley.
ISBN:0-201-63367-1.
Hedayat, A.S., Sloane, N.J.A., Stufken, J. (1999) Orthogonal Arrays: theory and applications. Springer. ISBN: 978-
0-387-98766-8.
Montgomery, D.C. (2004) Design and Analysis of Experiments. 6th Edition. Wiley. ISBN: 978-0-471-48735-7.
Phadke, M.S. (1989) Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice Hall. ISBN: 013745167-9.
Taguch, G. (1987) System of Experimental Design (Vols 1 and 2), UNIPUB/Krauss International. ISBN: 978-0-527-
91621-3.
Taguchi, G, Chowdury, S., Taguchi, S. (2000) Robust Engineering, McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 0-07-134782-8.

Websites:
(Accessed 29th January 2010)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4652414.pdf
http://www.enotes.com/how-products-encyclopedia/hearing-aid
http://www.hearingreview.com/issues/articles/2004-03_03.asp
http://www.mathworks.com/
http://www.ansys.com/products/workbench/designxplorer.asp

Page 13 of 13