Standard Article

Concurrent Engineering: Research

and Applications
Use of the stochastic frontier and the 1–20
Ó The Author(s) 2020
grey relational analysis in robust design Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

of multi-objective problems DOI: 10.1177/1063293X20908317

journals.sagepub.com/home/cer

Mohamed Ali Rezgui and Ali Trabelsi

Abstract
A generic procedure for robust design in developing products and processes, which is referred to as RDPP-SF has been
proposed. The method uses the stochastic frontier model to encompass both stochastic noise (e.g. manufacturing unit-
to-unit variation, and measurement errors) and special-cause variation (e.g. environment, customer use, wearing, and
deterioration noises). Even then, the RDPP-SF method has fallen short of tackling robust design of multi-objective prob-
lems, and its applicability is restrained to the performance characteristics of magnitude type (i.e., ‘‘the larger is the bet-
ter’’ or ‘‘the smaller is the better’’). Aiming at these limitations, the article seeks to address the robust design of the
multi-objective problems using the RDPP-SF method. This is performed by reassessing the procedural scheme of the
RDPP-SF method and the statistical significance of the hypothesis test (H0: g = 0 vs H1: g . 0) at 5% level. Depending
on the statistical significance of the test (H0: g = 0 vs H1: g . 0), the arrays of the extrinsic and/or the intrinsic noise
insensitivity scores are assigned to the grey relational analysis matrix as performance measures. The most robust design
solution for the multi-objective problem is then obtained by sorting the overall grey relational grades. The amended
RDPP-SF method is finally demonstrated using three industrial multi-objective case studies.

Keywords
robust design, Taguchi method, multi-objective optimization, grey relational analysis, stochastic frontier, intrinsic/extrinsic
noise insensitivity, RDPP-SF

Introduction and monitoring of the design parameters to commensu-

In the literature, many definitions have been given to
the robust design perception. The pivotal point was
how desensitizing the product/process development to
the environmental sources of variation, even though
these sources are not eliminated (Fowlkes and
Creveling, 1995). Therefore, a special emphasis is
placed on reducing variation which emanates from the
natural and the non-natural sources. The applicability
of the Taguchi off-line procedure for quality engineer-
ing (QE), which is acknowledged as the most significant
contribution of Dr Taguchi is broad in scope, and it is
intended to optimize product and process design in
terms of performance, quality, cost, manufacturability,
and reliability longer before the production’s imple-
mentation stage (Bagchi, 1993; Taguchi et al., 2004;
Yang and El-Haik, 2003). The Taguchi method for
robust design is carried out by choosing outperforming
concepts and technologies in terms of noise sensitivity
rate the system inherent variation. The method pro-
ceeds according to three major steps: concept design,
parameter design, and tolerance design (Kackar, 1985;
Unal and Dean, 1991). Even though the burden of
developing robustness in technology and concepts falls
on the concept and the parameter design steps
(Taguchi and Phadke, 1989), the tolerance design is still
needed to hinder the effect of the residual variation and
assure the system functionality (Taguchi, 1995).
The Taguchi method combines experimental design
techniques with the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) to assure
Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Ingénieurs de Tunis, Laboratoire de
Mécanique, Productique et Energétique (LR18ES01), Tunis, Tunisia
Corresponding author:
Ali Trabelsi, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Ingénieurs de Tunis, Universite
de Tunis, 5 Taha Hussein, 1008 Tunis, Tunisia.
Email: Ali.Trabelsi@rnu.ensit.tn
2 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)
robustness. However, it is admitted that there is no sin-
gle technique that can solve different kinds of prob-
lems. The RDPP-SF method (Trabelsi and Rezgui,
2020) has adddressed robustnes using the stochastic
frontier (SF) model and the designed experiments. It
determines the design parameter levels, which yield the
least sensitive product/process response. The SF model
is also utilized in the econometric studies to assess the
technical inefficiency of firms, which use the same tech-
nology. Both the robustness perception and the ineffi-
ciency measurement are made possible because of the
two-term error structure of the SF model, that is, one
accountes for the neoclassic natural variation (e.g. unit-
to-unit, measurement, exogenous parameters) and the
other encapsulating the non-natural variation sources.
For the econometric studies, the non-natural error term
explains why the actual output of the decision-making
units (DMUs) cannot meet what it is postulated by the
production function beyond random disturbance. For
the robustness study, the non-natural error term
explains why a design solution having a small natural
variation is non-robust. Then, a parallel can be drawn
between the measurement of the technical inefficiency
of the DMUs and the RDPP-SF method since both
make use of the error structure of the SF model in an
equivalent fashion.
The remainder of the article is organized into four
sections. Section ‘‘Literature review’’ reviews the
Taguchi method for robust design. Section
‘‘Measurement of the TE using the SF technique’’ eluci-
dates the math model of the SF method and draws a
parallel between the RDPP-SF method (Trabelsi and
Rezgui, 2020) and the concept of the technical ineffi-
ciency (TE) of firms in econometrics. Section
‘‘Parameter design for the multi-objective problem’’ dis-
cusses the amendments which have been performed for
the RDPP-SF method to make it amenable to robust
design of multi-objective problems. Finally, in section
‘‘Empirical examples,’’ three industrial multi-objective
case studies are chosen to elucidate the breadth and the
practical utilization of the modified RDPP-SF method.
Literature review
As we argued earlier, the Taguchi method addresses
robustness in developing products/processes using three
major steps: concept design, parameter design, and tol-
erance design. The Taguchi’s parameter design
(Bisgaard, 1992; Box, 1988; Box and Fung, 1986;
Czitrom, 1989; Leon et al., 1987) is an optimization
step, which uses a crossed array design to take account
of the control and the noise parameters. The signal-to-
noise ratio (S/N) metric is used to determine the combi-
nation levels which yield the most robust design
solution. However, the Taguchi tactic and the S/N
metric have been criticized by countless of statisticians
and research fellows. Some discordance issues are
following:
1. The Taguchi method is restrained to single-
objective problems (Chen, 1997). Also, the statisti-
cal bases of the method remain open to discussion
in terms of efficiency and testimony (Box, 1988;
Nair et al., 1992; Tsui, 1992) and the procedural
scheme of the method in terms of experimentation
is missing (Antony et al., 2004).
2. The capability of the Taguchi S/N metric to be
receptive of induced noise in developing systems is
inappropriate since the sample mean and variance
should be analyzed separately for a Gaussian pro-
cess (Maghsoodloo et al., 2004; Steinberg, 1996).
3. The Taguchi linear graphs, which are used to
assign the design parameters and their interactions
to the columns of the Taguchi orthogonal arrays
(OAs), are confounding and overlook the effect of
the interactions. The choice of the parameters’
combination holding the most promise for robust-
ness is then unreliable (Maghsoodloo et al., 2004).
Above all, the Taguchi method ignores the interac-
tion effect between the design parameters (control-
lable factors) and the noise variables in the
institution of the crossed arrays and the S/N
metric (Myers et al., 2016).
4. The crossed array, which is used to model the
design and the noise variables, is not flexible and
computationally ineffective (Myers et al., 1992).
5. The expected loss function and the related process
model may fall short of the robustness expectation
level. Many research works (Dellino et al., 2015;
Park et al., 2006; Pignatiello, 1988) argue that inac-
curate results may happen.
6. Both the OAs and the S/N tools do not account
for constrained design problems (Park et al., 2006).
Moreover, because the Taguchi method does not
invest the whole ranges of the design parameters,
the tactic cannot anchor to the reality (Dellino
et al., 2015; Park et al., 2006).
7. In the dynamic Taguchi design (i.e. a certain corre-
lation exists between the signal and the process
response), the maximization of the S/N metric may
result in minimum average squared error loss;
thus, in case the target is the ‘‘nominal is the bet-
ter’’ (NTB), the S/N technique is appropriate only
if the standard deviation and the mean of the
response are proportional (Leon et al., 1987). In
the static Taguchi design, however, the S/N should
be avoided at just about any cost when the perfor-
mance characteristic (PCH) is of magnitude type
Rezgui and Trabelsi
and the coefficient of variation (CV) is lesser than
17% (Maghsoodloo et al., 2004). since spurious
results may occur.
In view of the limitations of the Taguchi method for
robust design, much research has been undertaken.
Leon et al. (1987) state that the S/N technique takes
advantage of the existence of special design parameters
called ‘‘adjustment parameters.’’ However, in many
design problems, the S/N metric is not independent of
the adjustment parameters giving rise to non-optimal
setting for the design parameters. Leon et al. (1987)
develop a technique, which states the performance mea-
sure independently from the adjustment parameters;
therefore, the adjustment parameters are managed in a
more general fashion than the Taguchi S/N technique
does. Based on the Leon’s assumption, Box (1988)
asserted that the same result could be obtained when
logging the system response in order to stabilize the
variability that is induced by the engineering and the
noise parameters. A more suitable transformation of
the system response is recommended using the l-plot
(Kunert and Lehmkuhl, 1997).
Welch et al. (1990) propose a single-objective design
methodology, which is based on a computer simulation
of the quality characteristic, Y = f(xcontrol, xnoise). The
minimum loss statistic is developed so that maximum
S/N ratio leading to the least sensitive design solution
for the engineering parameters (xcontrol) could be rea-
lized. The computational load of the design method,
however, is low in comparison to the Taguchi crossed
array procedure for robust design. Shoemaker et al.
(1991) enhanced the Welch’s method (Welch et al.,
1990) by developing Welch’s response combined array
and investigating the control-by-noise interaction plots,
which yield minimum effects of the noise factors. As a
result, the optimal combination of the engineering para-
meter levels is readily obtained. Though, the method is
disadvantageous since the product–array formulation is
still ineffective and it estimates many inutile effects.
Vining and Myers (1990) devise an alternative proce-
dure to the Taguchi approach, which was named as
‘‘dual response (DR).’’ The model integrates the
response surface methodology (RSM) into the robust
parameter design (RPD). The mean and the standard
deviation of the system response are stated in function
of the control variables using the RSM model. Then,
the regression of the mean and the standard deviation
functions are estimated using the ordinary least square
(OLS) estimator. Lin and Tu (1995) develope a more
effective and simpler optimization procedure for the
DR approach, which allows more general response
models to be entertained.
Ding et al. (2004) devise a weighted mean squared
error (WMSE) approach, which can improve the
3
optimization procedure of the dual response surface
methodology (DRSM). A data-driven approach is con-
ducted to determine the weights for the design para-
meters when the prior information is vague. This is
performed using an ideal ‘‘efficient curve,’’ which is
obtained from the sample data set. Shaibu and Cho
(2009) retrieve the DR approach, but on the basis of a
quadratic model for the RSM. They showe that higher-
order polynomial models are more suitable to assure
robust design solutions than ordinary linear models.
The method proves more effective and realistic since it
takes into account the curvature effect, which emanates
from the factors’ interactions. The analysis uses statisti-
cal metrics such as the prediction error sum of squares
(PRESS), the root mean square error (RMSE), the
coefficient of determination (R2 ), the adjusted R-
squared (R2a ), and the predicted R-squared (R2pred ) to
choose a group of factors in the higher-order form.
Freeny and Nair (1992) propose a generic approach,
which can address robust design when the noise vari-
ables are uncontrolled but observable. The noise vari-
ables are used as covariates, and the model’s location
parameters and regression coefficients are expressed in
function of the design factors. The coefficients are used
as substitute of the Taguchi S/N metric in order to
reduce the system variability. Chen et al. (1996) develop
a modified Taguchi method, which can reduce the var-
iation in the system response because of the noise and
the control parameters. The method uses the RSM and
the decision support problem (DSP) techniques and it
is advocated when the design problem has not a closed-
form solution. Bras and Mistree (1994) introduce the
compromise DSP to model engineering decisions
involving multiple trade-offs. They focus on how using
the Suh’s independence, the information axioms and
the robust design in a concurrent fashion. The
Taguchi’s S/N ratio is used as a metric for the reduc-
tion in the information content and increasing the
robustness of the design.
Scibilia et al. (2001) develope a novel procedure for
robust design, which is based on cross-product arrays.
The method estimates the effects of the control factors
on the noise factors rather than the S/N metric as a
response. Scibilia’s method is advantageous since it
provides much information about the system variation
using fewer experiments than the Taguchi method.
Lesperance and Park (2003) use a joint generalized lin-
ear regression model (GLM) to analyze robustness in
dynamic characteristic problems. Basically, the model
employs the standard regression modeling techniques
and uses the whole data rather than summary statistics.
Pal and Gauri (2010) devise an original method for
the robust design of multi-objective problems. The
method integrates the multiple regression and the
Taguchi S/N techniques. The total S/N values and the
4 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)
proximity of the observed responses to the target val-
ues, which are reflected in the expected mean squared
error (MSE) for the individual responses, are utilized to
determine the most robust design solution. Bashiri et al.
(2016) investigate the multivariate S/N for the multi-
objective design problems using the dynamic Taguchi
procedure. The study can determine the optimal levels
of the controllable design parameters in a continuous
space and allows for increasing robustness in the
dynamic Taguchi method. Pal and Gauri (2017) devel-
ope a procedure, which uses the multi-regression (MR)
technique and the Taguchi dynamic S/N ratio (DSN) to
optimize the multi-response dynamic systems. First, the
multiple regression equations for the dynamic system
are fitted based on the sample data, then, the dynamic
S/N ratio (known as MRDSN) for the different
response variables is calculated based on the multiple
regression values. The weighted MRDSN is considered
as the objective function for the optimization problem.
Gauri and Pal (2017) argue that a multiple regression–
based weighted S/N ratio (MRWSN) performance
metric can overcome the limitations of the composite
desirability function (CDF) for the multi-objective
problems. The results have shown that the MRWSN
method is superior to the CDF method in terms of opti-
mization performance. Pal and Gauri (2018) revise the
MRDSN method (Pal and Gauri, 2017) by introducing
a new performance metric called weighted predicted
response-based S/N ratio (WPRSNR). The experimen-
tal findings have shown that the modified MRDSN
method outperforms the MRDSN procedure in search-
ing the optimal design solution with respect to the total
S/N and the MSE of the individual responses.
Ozturk et al. (2006) propose a new approach for the
robust design of multi-objective optimization based on
the Taguchi’s parameter design and the integration of
neural networks and genetic algorithms to optimize the
process of the parameters setting in concurrent engi-
neering. The neural network is used to construct the
system response function. Then, a genetic algorithm is
applied to the network for searching the parameter set-
ting with an optimal response. Chen et al. (2011) devise
a robust product design process, which can help
improve quality, reduce variation, and increase cus-
tomer satisfaction and enterprise profit. The proposed
product design methodology proceeds in four interre-
lated steps that integrate the grey relation approach to
quality function deployment (QFD) and QE.
Recently, Trabelsi and Rezgui (2020) develop an
original procedure for robust design of products and
processes using the stochastic frontier methodology
(RDPP-SF). To our knowledge, no other parameter
design method has employed the SF mathematics to
address robustness in developing products and pro-
cesses. The method uses the SF model to analyze
systems which are laced with sensitivity to noise by
accommodating two variation components: one is the
intrinsic noise insensitivity (INI)—which represents the
neoclassic unit-to-unit manufacturing variation—and
the other is the extrinsic noise insensitivity (ENI)—
which accounts for the non-natural sources because of
environment, customer use, and deterioration. Based
on the regression form of the SF function and a series
of statistical hypothesis tests, the most robust design
solution is chosen depending on the ENI and/or the
INI scores. Inopportunely, the RDPP-SF method
(Trabelsi and Rezgui, 2020) cannot address the multi-
objective problems and does not accommodate the per-
formance characteristics of the NTB type. Purposely,
the article seeks to alleviate the former limitation of
the RDPP-SF method.
Measurement of the TE using the SF
technique
The SF technique can be traced back to the works of
Aigner et al. (1977), Meeusen and Van Den Broeck
(1977), and Schmidt and Lovell (1980). In econo-
metrics, the SF methodology is often used to estimate
the TE of the DMUs, which work under the same pro-
duction technology. The TE of a DMUi can be defined
in either input conserving (i.e. given an output, use of
the inputs in optimal proportions with respect to their
respective prices) or input expending fashion (i.e. maxi-
mization of an output forthcoming from the input com-
binations levels) (Coelli et al., 2005; Farrell, 1957). The
SF model is rooted in two error structures (Forsund
et al., 1980): (1) a symmetrical random error, which rep-
resents the natural unit-to-unit manufacturing distur-
bance, the measurement error and the uncontrolled
variables, and (2) another one-sided component—
which reflects the DMU inefficiency to utilize resources,
that is, latent sources that may prevent the DMUs to
achieve their maximum feasible production level
beyond natural causes. For a DMUi, the output-
oriented TE is the ratio of the actual to the best practice
firm output accounting for the DMUi observed inputs,
the production technology, and the socioeconomic fea-
tures (Murillo-Zamorano, 2004). In the input-oriented
TE, the TE may be defined as the ratio of the actual to
the best practice input levels given the firm’s observed
output, the production technology, and the socioeco-
nomic features (Murillo-Zamorano, 2004). Both mea-
sures of the TE can be obtained from the econometric
estimation of the SF model as suggested by Battese and
Coelli (1993, 1995). The Farrell empirical estimate of
the output-oriented TE is expressed as the ratio of the
observed production, yi, to the optimal production, yi
Rezgui and Trabelsi
(Farrell, 1957). Figure 1 illustrates the Farrell output-
oriented TE.
Assume a cross-sectional data of N DMUs being
indexed i (i = 1, ..., n), each using M inputs j (j = 1,
..., m), which are represented by the input vector, xi, to
produce an output, yi. Farrell’s TE of the DMUi is
stated as in equation (1). An equivalent point estimator
of the TE has been proposed by Battese and Coelli
(1988)
yi f ðxi ; bÞevi eui
TEi =  = = eui 2 ½0, 1
yi f ðxi ; bÞevi
where f (xi ; b) and ei = vi  ui are the deterministic
frontier and the composed error term, respectively;
viid 2
i; N(0; sv ) represents the random variation in the out-
put due to exogenous sources; and uiid 2
i; jN (m; su )j represents
the stochastic shortfall of the ith DMU from the ideal pro-
duction frontier assuming output-oriented TE.
Coelli et al. (2005) argued that the best predictor of
ui is E(ui jei ) as stated in equation (2)
Actual output Eðyi jui , Xi Þ
TEi = Eðui jei Þ = =
Potential output Eðyi jui = 0, Xi Þ
= expðui Þ
In the literature, many functional forms of the SF func-
tion have been considered. The Cobb–Douglas (CD)
(linear logs of outputs and inputs) and the TransLog
(TL) (a generalization of the CD function) are likely the
most popular, and this is because of their flexibility and lin-
earity in parameters. To facilitate the maximum likelihood
(ML) estimation of the SF parameters and the TE scores
of the DMUs, Battese and Corra (1977) proposed a new
parameterization, g = s2 =s2 + s2v , which is adopted in
the FRONTIER 4.1 computer program (Coelli, 1996;
Drinkwater and Harris, 1999). In this article, the
FRONTIER 4.1 program is used to estimate the SF model
parameters, the ENI scores, and check hypothesis tests con-
cerning the appropriateness of the CD versus TL and the
statistical significance of the ENI component.
Parameter design for the multi-objective
problem
The procedural scheme of the RDPP-SF methode is
systematic (Trabelsi and Rezgui, 2020). The method
has borrowed the concepts of the TE of the DMUs,
which are implemented in countless of the econometric
studies. Table 1 draws a parallel between the terminolo-
gies used in the econometric and the RDPP-SF method.
The RDPP-SF benefits from the structure of the
error term in the SF model. It accommodates the input
resources (engineering parameters) and the underlying
5
ð1Þ
Figure 1. Farrell’s output-oriented technical inefficiency
(Trabelsi and Rezgui, 2020).
production process such that the optimal combination
of the parameter levels will lead to the most robust
design solution, that is, locate closer to the SF envelope.
For a designed experiment, the regression form of the
SF envelope is obtained from the n outputs of the n
trials using FRONTIER 4.1. Each trial corresponds to
a combination of the design parameter levels. The esti-
mates of the natural (Vi) and the non-natural (Ui) varia-
ð2Þ tions are associated with the ENI (ENIi = eui ) and the
INI (INIi = evi ) scores. The INIi and the ENIi scores
belong to (0, + N) and (0,1), respectively, and the tar-
get value (full robustness) for both scores equals 1 (ui =
vi = 0). Practically, this corresponds to a design solu-
tion wherein the predicted value by the SF model and
the observed output locate both on the SF envelope as
shown in Figure 1. Therefore, the parameters combina-
tion yielding INI = ENI = 1 would hold the most
promise for robustness (Trabelsi and Rezgui, 2020).
The major contribution of the article resides in the amend-
ment of step 4 in the RDPP-SF flowchart of Trabelsi and
Rezgui (2020), which is shown in Appendix 1. The multi-
objective problem has been addressed according to the fol-
lowing new functional scheme (see Figure 2):
1. Each of the PCH should be handled separately.
Assume a threshold of 95% and a test significance
level of 5%; check the hypothesis (H0: g = 0 vs
H1: g . 0) to examine the incidence of the non-
natural sources of variation (ENI component) as
expressed by the ENI scores for each trial (design
solution). If the test is significant (i.e. the hypoth-
esis H0: g = 0 is to be rejected), then two cases
should be distinguished: (a) the test is strongly sig-
nificant (i.e. g ø 95%), then estimate of the ENI
score array is set in the grey relational analysis
(GRA) matrix (Deng, 1989) as performance mea-
sure for the PCH; or (b) the test is marginally
6 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Table 1. Terminologies used in the econometric and the RDPP-SF method.

Econometric RDPP-SF method

Production function Technology/process function

Industry technology Process method
Production frontier Process frontier
Decision making unit (DMU) Design solution (any trial in the designed experiment)
Cross-sectional data Planned or non-planned designed experiment
Panel data Replicates of designed experiment
exp(2Ui): DMUi’s TE Extrinsic noise insensitivity (ENI) of the design solution, i (experiment trial)
exp(Vi): DMUi’s random variation Intrinsic noise insensitivity (INI) of the design solution, i (experiment trial)
Input level Parameter level

Figure 2. Functional scheme of the modified RDPP-SF method for multi-objective problems.
Rezgui and Trabelsi 7

significant (i.e. g \ 95%), in which case estimate Table 2. Taguchi L25 for the Eicher 11.10 chassis frame
of both the ENI and the INI score arrays should optimization.
be considered in the GRA matrix as two distinct
Run Design parameters PCHs
performance measures for the PCH. If the hypoth-
esis test (H0: g = 0 vs H1: g . 0) fails to reject x1 (mm) x2 (mm) x3 (mm) Shear Deflection
the H0 assumption, then estimate of the INI score stress (mm)
array is only maintained in the GRA matrix as (MPa)
performance measure for the PCH. 1 3 3 3 150.450 5.015
2. Once the GRA matrix is compounded, the GRA 2 3 4 4 120.550 4.591
procedure is executed to convert the multiple 3 3 5 5 130.240 3.710
responses into a single response optimization prob- 4 3 6 6 114.800 3.436
5 3 7 7 98.638 3.108
lem and obtain the overall optimal solution (Deng,
6 4 3 4 129.730 4.681
1989). The ENI and/or the INI performance arrays 7 4 4 5 127.190 4.238
are normalized and then optimized depending on 8 4 5 6 118.780 3.637
the optimization target, that is, the ‘‘larger is the 9 4 6 7 109.686 3.438
better’’ (LTB), the ‘‘smaller is the better’’ (STB), or 10 4 7 3 123.990 3.675
11 5 3 5 123.300 3.924
the NTB. As it has been outlined earlier, the target
12 5 4 6 115.770 3.482
value for the INI and ENI scores is 1, corre- 13 5 5 7 110.390 3.164
sponding to the ideal robust design solution 14 5 6 3 122.350 3.437
(ui=vi = 0). The most robust design solution is 15 5 7 4 119.430 3.262
obtained by ranking the grey relational grades 16 6 3 6 112.220 3.431
17 6 4 7 99.647 3.027
(GRGs) of the formed matrix. The design solu-
18 6 5 3 111.440 3.330
tion having the highest grade would correspond 19 6 6 4 104.210 3.089
to the most robust design solution for the multi- 20 6 7 5 102.690 2.910
objective problem. 21 7 3 7 107.200 3.138
22 7 4 3 109.910 3.308
23 7 5 4 103.590 3.050
24 7 6 5 98.796 2.871
Empirical examples 25 7 7 6 70.489 2.742
Case study 1: shear stress and bending stiffness PCH: performance characteristic.
optimization for the Eicher 11.10 chassis frame
This case study has been retrieved from the work of Taguchi’s L25 (56) OA strategy where the engineering
Patel and Bhatt (2013). The study aims to optimize the parameters x1, x2, and x3 are evaluated at five levels
design of the Eicher 11.10 chassis frame in the ST52 each. Table 2 shows the experimental layout.
material. The optimization problem consists in maxi- Using FRONTIER 4.1 at 5% level, the tests on the
mizing the shear stress (in MPa) and minimizing the SF model for the shear stress and the deflection PCHs
deflection (in mm) in the Eicher 11.10 chassis frame. suggest TL (log ratio–statistic (LR-stat) = 18.02) and
For the deflection PCH, 1/y transformation is applied CD (LR-stat = 10.58) functional forms, respectively.
to satisfy the prerequisite of the SF condition of maxi- This is outlined in Table 3 (tests 1 and 4). The tests 2
mum production. The non-critical parameters are the and 5 (H0: g = 0 vs H1: g . 0) on the non-natural
web thickness (x1 in mm), the upper flange thickness sources of variation (ENI) in the design process are
(x2 in mm), and the lower flange thickness (x3 in mm). both statistically significant at 5% levels (LR-stat
The designed experiment is conducted according to a equals 16.94 and 4.9, respectively). Therefore, the ENI

Table 3. Hypothesis tests on the SF models for the shear stress and the deflection PCHs.

PCH Test Hypothesis a = 5% LR-stat x 20:95 value Decision

Shear stress Test 1 Cobb–Douglas vs TransLog 18.02 12.59 Reject

Test 2 g=0 16.94 2.71 Reject
Test 3 m = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 1.80 4.91 Fail to reject
Deflection Test 4 Cobb–Douglas vs TransLog 10.58 12.59 Fail to reject
Test 5 g=0 4.90 2.71 Reject
Test 6 m = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 0.00 4.91 Fail to reject

SF: stochastic frontier; PCH: performance characteristic; LR-stat: log ratio–statistic.

8 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Table 4. Estimates of the SF models’ parameters of the shear stress and the deflection PCHs.

Variables Parameter TL-SF model for the shear CD-SF model for the deflection
stress PCH (g 6¼ 0; m = h = 0) PCH (g 6¼ 0; m = h = 0)
Estimate t-test Estimate t-test

Cte. b0 3.204* 6.716 22.525* 2143.430

ln(x1) b1 2.170* 6.302 0.335* 124.562
ln(x2) b2 2.322* 3.389 0.345* 97.272
ln(x3) b3 21.538* 22.713 0.181* 29.069
ln(x1)2 b4 20.722* 28.532
ln(x1) 3 ln(x2) b5 21.268* 24.362
ln(x1) 3 ln(x3) b6 1.174* 3.920
ln(x2)2 b7 20.529* 23.454
ln(x2) 3 ln(x3) b8 0.787* 4.011
ln(x3)2 b9 20.621* 26.403
s2 ¼ s2v þ s2u 5.84 3 1023 4.59 0.75 3 1022 12.77
g 0.999 0.45 3 103 0.999 0.86 3 106
g* 0.997 0.997
m, h – – – –
Log (likelihood) 46.90 44.33
The t-test critical value (5% level) 2.13 2.08
g
g ¼ ½gþ(1g)p=(p2)  (Coelli, 1995)

PCH: performance characteristic; TL: TransLog; SF: stochastic frontier; CD: Cobb–Douglas.

component is accountable with regard to the total var- Table 5. ENI arrays for the shear stress and the deflection
iation for the shear stress and the deflection PCHs. The PCHs.
tests 3 and 6 in Table 3 on the distributional form of
Run Shear stress Deflection
the ENI components for the shear stress and the deflec-
tion PCHs suggest rather a half-normal distribution ENI ENI
(LR-stat equals 1.80 and 0.00, respectively).
1 0.98788 0.96735
The parameter estimates of the TL and the CD func- 2 0.84403 0.90830
tions for the shear stress and the deflection PCHs are 3 0.99898 0.99956
shown in Table 4. The starred parameters correspond 4 0.97453 0.98075
to the significant parameters using the t-test at 5% 5 0.92965 0.99997
6 0.93278 0.89348
level.
7 0.96547 0.85816
The high g* values of 0.997 for both PCHs indi- 8 0.98006 0.89588
cate that the bulk of variation is due to non-natural 9 0.99535 0.86554
noises (ENI). Moreover, because the g* values are 10 0.87918 0.89492
greater than 95%, the ENI score arrays for both 11 0.96968 0.94979
12 0.96241 0.93795
PCHs are maintained in the GRA matrix as perfor- 13 0.99915 0.92936
mance measures, which is shown in Table 5. The 14 0.99039 0.93650
ENI scores are structurally bounded above by 1; 15 0.99710 0.88827
therefore, the generation of the normalized data uses 16 0.96150 0.98884
the LTB attribute. 17 0.90754 0.98698
18 0.96674 0.96834
The composed GRA table shown in Table 6 sug- 19 0.93846 0.93063
gests that run no. 3 is the least sensitive design solu- 20 0.99835 0.89973
tion since it has the higher GRG of 0.9963. Then, the 21 0.99616 0.99852
robust design solution for the multi-objective prob- 22 0.95674 0.99987
23 0.95607 0.95320
lem consists in setting the web thickness at 3 mm and
24 0.99772 0.91320
the upper flange thickness and the lower flange thick- 25 0.78842 0.87733
ness at 5 mm each. Mean 0.95497 0.93690
Using the 95th percentile of the GRG, the run no. Standard deviation 0.05140 0.04496
21 is also a potential robust design solution, which is
ENI: extrinsic noise insensitivity; PCH: performance characteristic.
worthy of consideration for further functional and ENIi ¼ eui .
Rezgui and Trabelsi 9

Table 6. Grey relational analysis for the shear stress and the deflection PCHs.

Run Grey relational generation of each PCH Grey relational coefficient of each PCH Grey relational grade
Stress Deflection Stress Deflection Grey grade Rank Percentile (%)
ENI ENI ENI ENI

1 0.9465 0.7700 0.9033 0.6849 0.7941 7 76

2 0.2639 0.3536 0.4045 0.4361 0.4203 24 8
3 0.9992 0.9971 0.9984 0.9943 0.9963 1 100
4 0.8831 0.8645 0.8106 0.7868 0.7987 6 80
5 0.6702 1.0000 0.6025 1.0000 0.8013 4 88
6 0.6850 0.2490 0.6135 0.3997 0.5066 22 16
7 0.8402 0.0000 0.7578 0.3333 0.5456 21 20
8 0.9094 0.2660 0.8466 0.4052 0.6259 19 28
9 0.9820 0.0520 0.9652 0.3453 0.6552 17 36
10 0.4307 0.2592 0.4676 0.4030 0.4353 23 12
11 0.8601 0.6462 0.7814 0.5856 0.6835 15 44
12 0.8256 0.5627 0.7415 0.5334 0.6374 18 32
13 1.0000 0.5021 1.0000 0.5010 0.7505 8 72
14 0.9584 0.5525 0.9232 0.5277 0.7254 10 64
15 0.9903 0.2123 0.9809 0.3883 0.6846 14 48
16 0.8213 0.9215 0.7367 0.8643 0.8005 5 84
17 0.5653 0.9084 0.5349 0.8451 0.6900 13 52
18 0.8462 0.7770 0.7647 0.6916 0.7281 9 68
19 0.7120 0.5111 0.6345 0.5056 0.5701 20 24
20 0.9962 0.2932 0.9925 0.4143 0.7034 12 56
21 0.9858 0.9898 0.9724 0.9800 0.9762 2 96
22 0.7988 0.9993 0.7130 0.9987 0.8559 3 92
23 0.7956 0.6702 0.7098 0.6025 0.6562 16 40
24 0.9932 0.3881 0.9866 0.4497 0.7181 11 60
25 0.0000 0.1352 0.3333 0.3663 0.3498 25 4

PCH: performance characteristic; ENI: extrinsic noise insensitivity.

INIi ¼ eui 3yief ðxi bÞ and ENIi ¼ eui .

Case study 2: optimizing weld bead geometry

Figure 3. Ranking of the grey relational grade for the shear
stress and the deflection PCHs.
quality–cost balance as it is shown in Table 6 and
Figure 3.
parameters
This case study is a research work, which is published
by Prasad and Rao (2013). The objective is to optimize
weld bead geometry parameters in a micro-plasma-arc-
welded AISI 304L stainless steel sheet process. The
welding process uses four non-critical parameters: peak
current (x1 in A), back current (x2 in A), pulse rate (x3
in pulses/s), and pulse width (x4 in %). The objective is
to maximize the front-width (FW in mm) and the back-
width (BW in mm) and to minimize the front-height
(FH in mm) and the back-height (BH in mm). A trans-
formation, 1/y, is performed for the FH and BH
responses to agree with the SF condition of maximum
production. The designed experiment is a central com-
posite design (CCD). Table 7 shows the design matrix
and the observed values of the PCHs at each design
solution.
Using FRONTIER 4.1, Table 8 suggests that at 5%
level, the suitable functional forms of the SF models for
10 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Table 7. CCD design plan for the welding process optimization of AISI 304L.

Run Design parameters PCHs

x1 (A) x2 (A) x3 (pulses/s) x4 (%) FW (mm) BW (mm) FH (mm) BH (mm)

1 6.5 3.5 30 40 1.448 1.374 0.0609 0.0498

2 7.5 3.5 30 40 1.592 1.522 0.0588 0.0458
3 6.5 4.5 30 40 1.383 1.324 0.0630 0.0490
4 7.5 4.5 30 40 1.504 1.442 0.0569 0.0439
5 6.5 3.5 50 40 1.454 1.401 0.0581 0.0453
6 7.5 3.5 50 40 1.487 1.418 0.0595 0.0466
7 6.5 4.5 50 40 1.469 1.378 0.0599 0.0468
8 7.5 4.5 50 40 1.462 1.402 0.0578 0.0448
9 6.5 3.5 30 60 1.529 1.451 0.0599 0.0470
10 7.5 3.5 30 60 1.591 1.508 0.0571 0.0441
11 6.5 4.5 30 60 1.520 1.447 0.0572 0.0441
12 7.5 4.5 30 60 1.562 1.506 0.0552 0.0423
13 6.5 3.5 50 60 1.442 1.372 0.0605 0.0474
14 7.5 3.5 50 60 1.384 1.306 0.0590 0.0456
15 6.5 4.5 50 60 1.506 1.430 0.0600 0.0470
16 7.5 4.5 50 60 1.420 1.356 0.0584 0.0464
17 6.0 4.0 40 50 1.521 1.451 0.0598 0.0468
18 8.0 4.0 40 50 1.580 1.514 0.0569 0.0439
19 7.0 3.0 40 50 1.452 1.380 0.0575 0.0445
20 7.0 5.0 40 50 1.427 1.358 0.0564 0.0434
21 7.0 4.0 20 50 1.596 1.527 0.0582 0.0453
22 7.0 4.0 60 50 1.466 1.397 0.0564 0.0434
23 7.0 4.0 40 30 1.400 1.337 0.0636 0.0516
24 7.0 4.0 40 70 1.461 1.384 0.0602 0.0472
25 7.0 4.0 40 50 1.531 1.462 0.0606 0.0476
26 7.0 4.0 40 50 1.581 1.512 0.0597 0.0467
27 7.0 4.0 40 50 1.523 1.452 0.0607 0.0477
28 7.0 4.0 40 50 1.519 1.450 0.0606 0.0476
29 7.0 4.0 40 50 1.504 1.432 0.0607 0.0477
30 7.0 4.0 40 50 1.501 1.433 0.0576 0.0446
31 7.0 4.0 40 50 1.401 1.332 0.0597 0.0456

CCD: central composite design; PCH: performance characteristic; FW: front-width; BW: back-width; FH: front-height; BH: back-height.

Table 8. Hypothesis tests on the SF models for the FW, BW, FH, and BH PCHs.

PCH Hypothesis a = 5% LR-stat x 20:95 Decision

FW Test 1 Cobb–Douglas vs TransLog 45.14 18.31 Reject

Test 2 g=0 3.37 2.71 Reject
Test 3 m = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 0.00 4.91 Fail to reject
BW Test 4 Cobb–Douglas vs TransLog 44.00 18.31 Reject
Test 5 g=0 3.12 2.71 Reject
Test 6 m = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 0.00 4.91 Fail to reject
FH Test 7 Cobb–Douglas vs TransLog 36.08 18.31 Reject
Test 8 g=0 0.00 2.71 Fail to reject
BH Test 9 Cobb–Douglas vs TransLog 37.32 18.31 Reject
Test 10 g=0 0.00 2.71 Fail to reject

SF: stochastic frontier; FW: front-width; BW: back-width; FH: front-height; BH: back-height; PCH: performance characteristic; LR-stat: log ratio–statistic.

the four PCHs are a TL (LR-stat equals 45.14, 44.00,
36.08, and 37.32, respectively). The test (H0: g = 0 vs
H1: g . 0) on the non-natural sources of variation
(ENI) is statistically significant with regard to the FW
and BW PCHs (LR-stat equals 3.37 and 3.12,
respectively); however, it is insignificant for the FH and
the BH PCHs (LR-stat equals 0.00 for both; see tests 2,
5, 8, and 10 in Table 8). The tests 3 and 6 in Table 8
indicate that the ENI scores follow a half-normal for
the FW and the BW PCHs (LR-stat equals 0.00).
Rezgui and Trabelsi 11

Table 9. Estimates of the TL-SF models’ parameters of the FW, BW, FH, and BH PCHs.

Variables Parameter FW (g 6¼ 0; m = h = 0) BW (g 6¼ 0; m = h = 0) FH (g = 0, OLS) BH (g = 0, OLS)

Est. t-test Est. t-test Est. t-test Est. t-test

Cte. b0 218.055* 218.055 217.729* 217.729 2.039 0.369 26.326 20.880

ln(x1) b1 3.807* 3.807 3.196* 3.196 23.576 21.022 21.972 20.433
ln(x2) b2 0.119 0.119 20.548 20.548 24.143* 22.535 22.279 21.072
ln(x3) b3 2.873* 2.873 3.101* 3.101 1.428 1.774 2.487* 2.374
ln(x4) b4 4.837* 4.837 4.972* 4.972 2.125 1.979 4.028* 2.883
ln(x1)2 b5 1.253 1.253 1.375 1.375 1.257 1.674 1.431 1.464
ln(x1) 3 ln(x2) b6 20.474 20.474 20.100 20.100 0.802 1.395 0.345 0.461
ln(x1) 3 ln(x3) b7 21.109 21.109 21.149 21.149 20.529 21.875 20.785* 22.137
ln(x1) 3 ln(x4) b8 20.978 20.978 21.031 21.031 20.063 20.177 20.229 20.494
ln(x2)2 b9 20.726 20.726 20.765 20.765 0.738* 3.110 0.900* 2.915
ln(x2) 3 ln(x3) b10 0.361 0.361 0.276 0.276 20.104 20.647 20.303 21.451
ln(x2) 3 ln(x4) b11 0.368 0.368 0.462 0.462 0.253 1.248 0.083 0.315
ln(x3)2 b12 20.003 20.003 20.004 20.004 0.098 1.938 0.110 1.675
ln(x3) 3 ln(x4) b13 20.326 20.326 20.335 20.335 20.248* 22.489 20.343* 22.652
ln(x4)2 b14 20.285 20.285 20.303 20.303 20.180 22.109 20.306* 22.748
s2 ¼ s2v þ s2u 5.1 3 1024 5.1 3 1024 5.6 3 1024 5.6 3 1024 4.3 3 1024 – 7.2 3 1024 –
g 0.710 0.710 0.700 0.700 – – – –
g* 0.471 0.459
m, h – – – – – – – –
Log (likelihood) 84.57 82.73 86.49 78.33
The t-test critical
value (5% level) = 2.12
g
g ¼ ½gþ(1g)p=(p2)  (Coelli, 1995)

TL: TransLog; SF: stochastic frontier; FW: front-width; BW: back-width; FH: front-height; BH: back-height; PCH: performance characteristic; OLS:
ordinary least square.

The parameter estimates of the TL functions for the
four PCHs are shown in Table 9. The starred para-
meters are found significant using the t-test at 5% level.
At 5% level, the hypothesis test (H0: g = 0 vs H1: g
. 0) is statistically significant for the FW and the BW
PCHs, and their g* values equal 0.471 and 0.459,
respectively, suggest that both the arrays of the ENI
and the INI scores should be maintained in the GRA
matrix as performance measures for the FW and the
BW PCHs. The test (H0: g = 0 vs H1: g . 0) for the
FH and the BH PCHs is insignificant at 5% level (i.e.
the OLS model holds); therefore, only the INI score
arrays are retained in the GRA matrix as performance
measures for the FH and BH PCHs. Table 10 shows
the matrix of the GRA analysis, and the generation of
the normalized data uses the LTB attribute for the ENI
arrays and the NTB for the INI arrays.
The GRA table for the FW, BW, FH, and BH PCHs
is shown in Table 11. It is suggested that run no. 23 is
the least sensitive (most robust) design solution since it
has the highest GRG (=0.6458). Accordingly, the most
robust solution is obtained while setting the peak cur-
rent at 7 A, the back current at 4 A, the pulse rate at
40 pulses/s, and the pulse width at 30%, in natural
coding.
Allowing for 95th percentile of the design solutions,
Table 11 and Figure 4 indicate that the run no. 18 is also
a potential robust design solution, which should be eval-
uated in terms of functional and quality cost.
Case study 3: enhancement of the mechanical
properties of bone powder and coir fiber-reinforced
polyester composites
This case study is relevant to the work of Vignesh et al.
(2016). The objective is to optimize the process para-
meters so that the mechanical properties of bone pow-
der and coir fiber–reinforced polyester composites
could be improved. Four engineering parameters are
examined: coir fiber diameter (x1 in mm), coir fiber
length (x2 in mm), bone powder content (x3 in %), and
bone powder size (x4 in mm). In addition, four PCHs
are examined, that is, tensile strength (TS in MPa),
flexural strength (FS in MPa), compressive strength
(CS in MPa), and impact energy (IE in kJ/m2), which
12 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Table 10. ENI and INI arrays for the FW, BW, FH, and BH equals 20.10, 20.26, 20.68, and 21.60, respectively).
PCHs. The replication effect is insignificant as the tests 3, 7,
11, and 15 indicate.
Run FW BW FH BH
The parameter estimates of the CD functions for the
ENI INI ENI INI INI INI four PCHs—TS, FS, CS, and IE—are shown in Table
14, and the starred parameters are significant using the
1 0.9868 0.9905 0.9834 0.9924 1.0111 1.0039
t-test at 5% level.
2 0.9838 0.9877 0.9843 0.9932 1.0058 1.0149
3 0.9869 0.9908 0.9891 1.0002 0.9848 0.9893 At 5% level, the g* values pertaining to the hypoth-
4 0.9868 0.9911 0.9843 0.9933 1.0167 1.0138 esis test (H0: g = 0 vs H1: g . 0) for the four PCHs—
5 0.9834 0.9860 0.9848 0.9947 1.0024 1.0080 TS, FS, CS, and IE—equal 81.1%, 87.3%, 65.8%, and
6 0.9846 0.9875 0.9825 0.9924 0.9776 0.9659 73.7%, respectively. Since the g* values are all lesser
7 0.9881 0.9914 0.9840 0.9940 0.9924 0.9838
8 0.9845 0.9877 0.9860 0.9962 0.9974 0.9994
than 95%, the arrays of the ENI and INI scores should
9 0.9866 0.9882 0.9861 0.9943 0.9956 0.9989 be included in the GRA matrix as performance mea-
10 0.9844 0.9863 0.9851 0.9930 1.0065 1.0032 sures for the four PCHs. Table 15 displays the matrix of
11 0.9878 0.9899 0.9863 0.9947 1.0227 1.0230 the GRA analysis where the ENI and INI scores are
12 0.9878 0.9903 0.9875 0.9963 0.9930 0.9932 obtained by averaging the predicted values over the two
13 0.9856 0.9860 0.9846 0.9934 0.9816 0.9719
14 0.9834 0.9844 0.9814 0.9905 1.0079 1.0076 replications. The generation of the normalized data uses
15 0.9881 0.9893 0.9885 0.9989 0.9843 0.9794 the LTB attribute for the ENI arrays and the NTB for
16 0.9859 0.9870 0.9859 0.9950 0.9844 0.9780 the INI arrays.
17 0.9851 0.9867 0.9851 0.9941 1.0023 1.0005 The GRA matrix for the TS, FS, CS, and IE PCHs
18 0.9904 0.9952 0.9895 1.0009 0.9935 0.9915 is shown in Table 16. It is indicated that the run no. 4
19 0.9904 0.9948 0.9903 1.0025 0.9951 0.9940
20 0.9822 0.9849 0.9809 0.9903 1.0029 1.0002 has the highest GRG (=0.7008). The robust design
21 0.9865 0.9901 0.9859 0.9939 0.9824 0.9775 solution is then obtained by setting the coir fiber dia-
22 0.9896 0.9923 0.9894 1.0014 1.0363 1.0446 meter at 0.5 mm, the coir fiber length at 30 mm, the
23 0.9883 0.9936 0.9882 0.9996 0.9975 0.9925 bone powder content at 15%, and the bone powder size
24 0.9861 0.9866 0.9849 0.9930 1.0004 1.0040 at 120 mm.
25 0.9920 0.9990 0.9917 1.0065 0.9839 0.9746
26 0.9965 1.0270 0.9962 1.0362 0.9985 0.9930 Accounting for 89% percentile, run no. 6 is also a
27 0.9906 0.9953 0.9898 1.0015 0.9824 0.9726 potential robust design solution, which is worthy
28 0.9897 0.9935 0.9894 1.0006 0.9839 0.9746 consideration as it is underscored in Table 16 and
29 0.9856 0.9878 0.9843 0.9933 0.9824 0.9726 Figure 5.
30 0.9846 0.9868 0.9846 0.9936 1.0343 1.0390
31 0.9393 0.9654 0.9377 0.9698 0.9985 1.0165
Mean 0.9855 0.9901 0.9849 0.9964 0.9980 0.9962
Standard 0.0091 0.0088 0.0093 0.0096 0.0149 0.0193
Conclusion
deviation The RDPP-SF method (Trabelsi and Rezgui, 2020) has
ENI: extrinsic noise insensitivity; INI: intrinsic noise insensitivity; FW: been proposed to address parameter design in develop-
front-width; BW: back-width; FH: front-height; BH: back-height; PCH: ing products and processes for single-objective prob-
performance characteristic. lems. This article has amended the RDPP-SF method
INIi ¼ eui 3yief (xi :b) and ENIi ¼ eui . to commensurate multi-criteria decision-making prob-
lems. This is carried out by revising the step 4 in the
are to be maximized. The experimentation is conducted RDPP-SF method and using the GRA technique. To
using an L9 (34) OA, which is replicated once. The lay- assess the variation, which resides in the developed
out of the designed experiment is shown in Table 12. product/process, the test (H0: g = 0 vs H1: g . 0) is
Using FRONTIER 4.1, the tests 1, 5, 9, and 13 in conducted based on three levels of significance: strong
Table 13 suggest that at 5% level, the CD model fits (g ø 95%), marginal (g \ 95%), and insignificant
for the four PCHs (LR-stat equals 253.78, 267.64, (g = irrelevant). The GRA matrix is composed of the
281.40, and 282.18, respectively). The test (H0: g = 0 ENI and/or the INI score arrays for the different PCHs
vs H1: g . 0) on the non-natural sources of variation as performance measures depending on the outcome of
(ENI) is statistically significant for the four PCHs: TS, the hypothesis (H0: g = 0 vs H1: g . 0) at 5% level. If
FS, CS, and IE. The LR-stat equals 8.30, 11.12, 2.87, the test is insignificant, then the INI score arrays are
and 9.72, respectively, as it is indicated in tests 2, 6, 10, only maintained in the GRA matrix. When the test is
and 14 (Table 13). The tests 4, 8, 12, and 16 in Table 13 strongly significant, then the ENI score arrays are only
suggest that the ENI scores follow rather a half-normal maintained, and in case the test is marginally signifi-
distribution for the TS, FS, CS, and IE PCHs (LR-stat cant, then both the INI and the ENI score arrays are
Table 11. Grey relational analysis for the FW, BW, FH, and BH PCHs.

Run Grey relational generation of each PCHs Grey relational coefficient of each PCHs Grey relational grade
FW BW FH BH FW BW FH BH Grey grade Rank Percentile (%)
ENI INI ENI INI INI INI ENI INI ENI INI INI INI
Rezgui and Trabelsi

1 0.831 0.724 0.781 0.791 0.694 0.914 0.497 0.441 0.432 0.456 0.375 0.677 0.4798 18 45
2 0.778 0.645 0.795 0.812 0.840 0.666 0.428 0.374 0.449 0.483 0.543 0.343 0.4366 21 35
3 0.833 0.733 0.877 0.995 0.580 0.761 0.499 0.450 0.576 1.000 0.302 0.422 0.5418 10 71
4 0.831 0.743 0.795 0.816 0.540 0.691 0.497 0.46 0.449 0.488 0.283 0.36 0.4229 22 32
5 0.771 0.593 0.804 0.852 0.934 0.822 0.421 0.341 0.460 0.545 0.761 0.497 0.5042 15 55
6 0.793 0.638 0.764 0.789 0.383 0.235 0.446 0.369 0.414 0.454 0.226 0.184 0.3489 29 10
7 0.853 0.75 0.791 0.834 0.792 0.637 0.532 0.468 0.444 0.515 0.473 0.323 0.4593 20 39
8 0.791 0.643 0.824 0.894 0.927 0.986 0.444 0.373 0.487 0.628 0.741 0.950 0.6039 5 87
9 0.827 0.66 0.826 0.842 0.88 0.976 0.491 0.385 0.49 0.528 0.619 0.899 0.5686 8 77
10 0.788 0.605 0.809 0.806 0.82 0.928 0.440 0.347 0.466 0.475 0.512 0.717 0.4930 16 52
11 0.848 0.709 0.831 0.855 0.374 0.485 0.523 0.426 0.496 0.549 0.224 0.252 0.4118 24 26
12 0.848 0.720 0.850 0.897 0.807 0.847 0.523 0.437 0.526 0.636 0.492 0.537 0.5252 14 58
13 0.81 0.595 0.800 0.817 0.494 0.37 0.467 0.341 0.455 0.491 0.264 0.215 0.3722 28 13
14 0.771 0.548 0.746 0.736 0.781 0.83 0.421 0.315 0.396 0.398 0.46 0.509 0.4167 23 29
15 0.854 0.691 0.867 0.968 0.569 0.538 0.533 0.410 0.556 0.865 0.297 0.273 0.4890 17 48
16 0.815 0.623 0.823 0.863 0.571 0.506 0.474 0.359 0.485 0.564 0.297 0.260 0.4066 26 19
17 0.800 0.615 0.809 0.837 0.936 0.99 0.454 0.354 0.466 0.519 0.769 0.968 0.5883 6 84
18 0.893 0.862 0.885 0.976 0.821 0.809 0.609 0.642 0.592 0.900 0.513 0.479 0.6225 2 97
19 0.894 0.849 0.898 0.93 0.866 0.865 0.612 0.615 0.621 0.725 0.589 0.569 0.6219 4 90
20 0.750 0.564 0.737 0.733 0.920 0.995 0.400 0.324 0.388 0.395 0.717 1.000 0.5373 11 68
21 0.826 0.713 0.822 0.831 0.515 0.497 0.489 0.43 0.484 0.51 0.272 0.256 0.4070 25 23
22 0.879 0.777 0.883 0.961 0.000 0.000 0.579 0.501 0.588 0.835 0.152 0.147 0.4669 19 42
23 0.857 0.816 0.862 0.989 0.931 0.832 0.538 0.556 0.547 0.967 0.754 0.513 0.6458 1 100
24 0.819 0.612 0.806 0.805 0.989 0.910 0.480 0.352 0.462 0.474 1.000 0.668 0.5727 7 81
25 0.922 0.971 0.922 0.82 0.558 0.431 0.681 1.000 0.682 0.494 0.291 0.233 0.5635 9 74
26 1.000 0.218 1.000 0.000 0.958 0.844 1.000 0.206 1.000 0.147 0.850 0.530 0.6222 3 94
27 0.896 0.863 0.89 0.958 0.514 0.386 0.617 0.642 0.602 0.82 0.272 0.22 0.5288 13 61
28 0.881 0.812 0.882 0.984 0.558 0.431 0.584 0.55 0.586 0.936 0.291 0.233 0.5302 12 65
29 0.81 0.646 0.796 0.814 0.514 0.386 0.467 0.375 0.45 0.485 0.272 0.22 0.3781 27 16
30 0.793 0.617 0.802 0.823 0.056 0.126 0.446 0.355 0.457 0.499 0.160 0.165 0.3469 30 6
31 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.164 0.958 0.629 0.143 0.167 0.143 0.171 0.850 0.319 0.2989 31 3

FW: front-width; BW: back-width; FH: front-height; BH: back-height; PCH: performance characteristic; ENI: extrinsic noise insensitivity; INI: intrinsic noise insensitivity.
13
14 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

maintained in the GRA matrix. The modified RDPP-

SF method is actually broad in scope since: (1) it can
virtually tackle all design strategies (Taguchi OA, CCD,
factorial, etc.) without any restriction; (2) it can handle
multi-criteria decision making problems; and (3) it has
brought an alternative to the ineffective Taguchi S/N
metric for robust design.
However, the modified RDPP-SF method still needs
additional research efforts: (1) to solve robustness prob-
lems when the PCHs are of the NTB type since the SF
does not support optimization with nominal attribute
and (2) to determine the optimal levels of the controlla-
ble design parameters in a continuous space, thus allow-
ing for robustness growth.
Figure 4. Ranking of the grey relational grade for the FW,
BW, FH, and BH PCHs.

Table 12. Replicate of the Taguchi L9 OA for the TS, FS, CS, and IE optimization.

Run Design parameters PCHs

x1 (mm) x2 (mm) x3 (%) x4 (mm) Replication 1 Replication 2
TS FS CS IE TS FS CS IE
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kJ/m2) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kJ/m2)

1 0.2 30 10 80 27.35 54.42 55.69 62.4 28.32 54.62 56.18 63.83

2 0.2 50 15 100 28.40 57.46 59.33 64.32 28.93 58.38 60.62 64.94
3 0.2 70 20 120 32.49 57.66 61.72 65.32 31.36 58.26 62.14 63.71
4 0.5 30 15 120 30.39 59.04 61.56 60.91 31.21 58.16 62.17 62.13
5 0.5 50 20 80 30.44 58.73 53.2 68.28 32.22 58.12 56.73 66.63
6 0.5 70 10 100 31.78 56.94 55.34 65.43 31.05 57.63 56.43 65.29
7 0.8 30 20 100 29.24 54.65 55.72 66.23 29.56 55.87 55.84 65.65
8 0.8 50 10 120 28.78 55.28 54.35 64.93 27.64 55.36 54.79 63.04
9 0.8 70 15 80 27.39 54.28 55.29 62.57 27.56 54.99 55.40 62.46

OA: orthogonal array; TS: tensile strength; FS: flexural strength; CS: compressive strength; IE: impact energy; PCH: performance characteristic.

Table 13. Hypothesis tests on the SF models for the TS, FS, CS, and IE PCHs.

Hypothesis a = 5% LR-stat x 20:95 Decision

Tensile strength Test 1 Cobb–Douglas vs TransLog 253.78 11.07 Fail to reject

Test 2 g=0 8.30 2.71 Reject
Test 3 h = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 0.00 4.91 Fail to reject
Test 4 m = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 20.10 4.91 Fail to reject
Flexural strength Test 5 Cobb–Douglas vs TransLog 267.64 11.07 Fail to reject
Test 6 g=0 11.12 2.71 Reject
Test 7 h = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 26.20 4.91 Fail to reject
Test 8 m = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 20.26 4.91 Fail to reject
Compressive strength Test 9 Cobb–Douglas vs TransLog 281.40 11.07 Fail to reject
Test 10 g=0 2.87 2.71 Reject
Test 11 h = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 24.60 4.91 Fail to reject
Test 12 m = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 20.68 4.91 Fail to reject
Impact energy Test 13 Cobb–Douglas vs TransLog 282.18 11.07 Fail to reject
Test 14 g=0 9.72 2.71 Reject
Test 15 h = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 0.00 4.91 Fail to reject
Test 16 m = 0 (g 6¼ 0) 21.60 4.91 Fail to reject

SF: stochastic frontier; TS: tensile strength; FS: flexural strength; CS: compressive strength; IE: impact energy; PCH: performance characteristic; LR-
stat: log ratio–statistic.
Table 14. Estimates of the CD models’ parameters of the TS, FS, CS, and IE PCHs.

Variables Parameter TS (g 6¼ 0; m = h = 0) FS (g 6¼ 0; m = h = 0) CS (g = 0; m = h = 0) IE (g = 0; m = h = 0)
Est. t-test Est. t-test Est. t-test Est. t-test

Cte. b0 2.631* 4.700 3.638* 9.824 3.096* 10.804 4.283* 16.928

Rezgui and Trabelsi

ln(x1) b1 0.009 0.253 20.004 20.205 20.032 22.169 0.013 1.157

ln(x2) b2 0.064 1.585 0.010 0.404 20.019 20.843 0.025 1.238
ln(x3) b3 0.060 1.271 0.049 1.734 0.065 1.830 0.039 1.810
ln(x4) b4 0.091 1.087 0.056 1.101 0.187* 3.734 20.062 21.419
s2 ¼ s2v þ s2u 6 3 1023 1.944 1.5 3 1023 1.881 2 3 1023 1.854 0.1 3 1023 2.044
g 0.922 17.124 0.950 27.986 0.841 6.813 0.885 12.439
g* 0.811 0.873 0.658 0.737
m, H – – – – – – – –
Log (likelihood) 33.98 48.37 41.40 45.56
The t-test critical value (5% level) = 2.18
g
g ¼ ½gþ(1g)p=(p2)  (Coelli, 1995)

CD: Cobb–Douglas; TS: tensile strength; FS: flexural strength; CS: compressive strength; IE: impact energy; PCH: performance characteristic.

Table 15. ENI and INI arrays for the TS, FS, CS, and IE PCHs.

Run TS FS CS IE
ENI INI ENI INI ENI INI ENI INI

1 0.9590 0.9797 0.9642 0.9966 0.9767 0.9914 0.9805 0.9881

2 0.9160 0.9858 0.9858 0.9913 0.9849 0.9881 0.9875 0.9964
3 0.9630 1.0149 0.9604 0.9932 0.9747 0.9915 0.9796 1.0117
4 0.9830 0.9907 0.9931 1.0096 0.9920 1.0032 0.9551 0.9876
5 0.9850 0.9775 0.9933 1.0076 0.9564 0.9613 0.9908 1.0160
6 0.9860 1.0192 0.9927 0.9954 0.9792 0.9863 0.9912 1.0054
7 0.9400 0.9920 0.9380 0.9875 0.9382 0.9898 0.9897 1.0071
8 0.8970 1.0153 0.9566 0.9978 0.9371 0.9867 0.9866 1.0161
9 0.8680 0.9897 0.9445 0.9918 0.9907 1.0041 0.9229 0.9963
Mean 0.9441 0.9961 0.9698 0.9967 0.9700 0.9892 0.9760 1.0027
Standard deviation 0.0423 0.0161 0.0218 0.0074 0.0211 0.0124 0.0228 0.0111

ENI: extrinsic noise insensitivity; INI: intrinsic noise insensitivity; TS: tensile strength; FS: flexural strength; CS: compressive strength; IE: impact energy.
INIi ¼ eui 3yief (xi :b) and ENIi ¼ eui .
15
16 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Grey grade Rank Percentile (%)

100
33
67
11

78
89
44
22
56
Grey relational grade

7
4
9
1
3
2
6
8
5
0.4401
0.5407
0.4178
0.7008
0.5490
0.6940
0.4661
0.4264
0.5337
0.400
1.000
0.406
0.387
0.309
0.756
0.611
0.308
0.972
INI
Grey relational coefficient of each performance characteristics

0.444
0.700
0.423
0.191
0.959
1.000
0.849
0.649
0.111
Figure 5. Ranking of the grey relational grade for the TS, FS,
ENI

TS: tensile strength; FS: flexural strength; CS: compressive strength; IE: impact energy; ENI: extrinsic noise insensitivity; INI: intrinsic noise insensitivity.
IE

CS, and IE PCHs.

0.600
0.479
0.603
1.000
0.185
0.433
0.534
0.443
0.902
INI

Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the editor of the CERA journal
0.309
0.490
0.284
1.000
0.162
0.349
0.113
0.111
0.838

and the four anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions

ENI
CS

and criticism to the article.

0.754
0.366
0.450
0.337
0.412
0.607
0.268
1.000
0.387
INI

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
0.192
0.479
0.174
0.963
1.000
0.914
0.111
0.159
0.124

respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this

ENI
FS

article.
0.469
0.637
0.612
0.897
0.428
0.492
1.000
0.598
0.824
INI

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
0.353
0.174
0.391
0.831
0.937
1.000
0.243
0.142
0.111
ENI

port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this

TS

article: The financial support which is allocated to the

"Laboratoire de Mécanique, Productique et Energétique
0.260
0.779
0.271
0.231
0.003
0.667
0.559
0.000
0.769

(LR18ES01)" by the Tunisian Ministry of High Education

INI

and Scientific Reserch is gratefully acknowledged.

Run Grey relational generation of each performance characteristics
Table 16. Grey relational analysis for the TS, FS, CS, and IE PCHs.

0.843
0.946
0.830
0.471
0.995
1.000
0.978
0.932
0.000
ENI
IE

References
Aigner DJ, Lovell CAK and Schmidt P (1977) Formulation
0.779
0.692
0.781
0.917
0.000
0.646
0.736
0.657
0.895

and estimation of stochastic frontier production function

INI

models. Journal of Econometrics 6: 21–37.

Antony J, Somasundarum V, Fergusson C, et al. (2004)
0.721
0.870
0.684
1.000
0.352
0.767
0.019
0.000
0.976
ENI

Applications of Taguchi approach to statistical design of

CS

experiments in Czech republican industries. International

Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
0.725
0.303
0.456
0.230
0.394
0.629
0.000
0.824
0.347
INI

53(5): 447–457.
Bagchi TP (1993) Taguchi Methods Explained: Practical Steps
to Robust Design. New Delhi, India: Prentice Hall.
0.473
0.864
0.405
0.995
1.000
0.988
0.000
0.337
0.118
ENI

Bashiri M, Amiri A and Jalili M (2016) Taguchi design opti-

FS

mization using multivariate process capability index. Jour-

nal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 9(1): 57–78.
0.097
0.369
0.337
0.588
0.000
0.146
0.643
0.320
0.540
INI

Battese GE and Coelli TJ (1988) Prediction of firm-level tech-

nical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production func-
0.771
0.407
0.805
0.975
0.992
1.000
0.610
0.246
0.000

tion and panel data. Journal of Econometrics 38: 387–399.

ENI
TS

Battese GE and Coelli TJ (1993) A stochastic frontier produc-

tion function incorporating a model for technical inefficiency
effects. Working Papers in Econometrics and Applied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rezgui and Trabelsi
Statistics No. 69. Armidale, NSW, Australia: Department
of Econometrics, University of New England.
Battese GE and Coelli TJ (1995) A model of technical ineffi-
ciency effects in a stochastic frontier production function
for panel data. Empirical Economics 20(2): 325–332.
Battese GE and Corra GS (1977) Estimation of a production
frontier model: with application to pastoral zone of east-
ern Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics
21(3): 167–179.
Bisgaard S (1992) A comparative analysis of the performance
of Taguchi’s linear graphs. Center for Quality and Produc-
tivity Improvement (CQPI) Reports (Report no. 82).
Madison, WI: University Wisconsin–Madison.
Box GEP (1988) Signal-to-noise ratios, performance criteria,
and transformations. Technometrics 30(1): 1–17.
Box GEP and Fung CA (1986) Studies in quality improvement:
Minimizing transmitted variation by parameter design. Cen-
ter for Quality and Productivity Improvement (CQPI)
Reports (Report no. 8). Madison, WI: University Wiscon-
sin–Madison.
Bras B and Mistree F (1994) Concurrent axiomatic and robust
design using compromise decision support problems. Con-
current Engineering: Research and Applications 8(1): 17–31.
Chen LH (1997) Designing robust products with multiple
quality characteristics. Computers & Operations Research
24(10): 937–944.
Chen M-S, Lin C-C, Tai Y-Y, et al. (2011) A grey relation
approach to the integrated process of QFD and QE. Con-
current Engineering: Research and Applications 19(1):
35–53.
Chen W, Allen JK, Tsui KL, et al. (1996) A procedure for
robust design: minimizing variations caused by noise fac-
tors and control factors. Journal of Mechanical Design
118(4): 478–485.
Coelli TJ (1995) Estimators and hypothesis tests for a stochas-
tic frontier function: a Monte Carlo analysis. Journal of
Productivity Analysis 6(3): 247–268.
Coelli TJ (1996) A guide to FRONTIER 4.1: a computer pro-
gram for stochastic frontier production and cost function
estimation. CEPA Working Papers No. 7/96. Armidale,
NSW, Australia: Department of Econometrics, University
of New England.
Coelli TJ, Rao DSP, O’Donnell CJ, et al. (2005) An Introduc-
tion to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. 2nd ed. New
York: Springer.
Czitrom V (1989) An application of Taguchi’s methods recon-
sidered. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Meth-
ods 18(11): 4105–4119.
Dellino G, Kleijnen JPC and Meloni C (2015) Metamodel-
based robust simulation-optimization: an overview. In:
Dellino G and Meloni C (eds) Uncertainty Management in
Simulation-Optimization of Complex Systems (Operations
Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series 59). New
York: Springer, pp. 27–54.
Deng JL (1989) The introduction of grey system. Journal of
Grey System 1(1): 1–24.
17
Ding R, Lin DKJ and Wei D (2004) Dual response surface
optimization: a weighted MSE approach. Quality Engi-
neering 16(3): 377–385.
Drinkwater S and Harris R (1999) Frontier 4.1: a computer
program for stochastic frontier production and cost func-
tion estimation. The Economic Journal 109(456):
F453–F458.
Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A: Statistics
in Society 120(3): 253–290.
Forsund FR, Lovell CAK and Schmidt P (1980) A survey of
frontier production function and of their relationship to
efficiency measurement. Journal of Econometrics 13(1):
5–25.
Fowlkes WY and Creveling CM (1995) Engineering Methods
for Robust Product Design: Using Taguchi Methods in
Technology and Product Development. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Freeny AE and Nair VN (1992) Robust parameter design
with uncontrolled noise variables. Statistica Sinica 2(2):
313–334.
Gauri SK and Pal S (2017) Optimization of multi-response
dynamic systems using multiple regression-based weighted
signal-to-noise ratio. International Journal of Industrial
Engineering Computations 8(1): 161–178.
Kackar RN (1985) Off-line quality control, parameter design,
and the Taguchi method. Journal of Quality Technology
17(4): 176–188.
Kunert J and Lehmkuhl F (1997) The generalized [beta]-
method in Taguchi experiments. Technical Report No.
1997.07. Dortmund: Sonderforschungsbereich 475—Kom-
plexitätsreduktion in Multivariaten Datenstrukturen, Uni-
versität Dortmund.
Leon RV, Shoemaker AC and Kacker RN (1987) Perfor-
mance measures independent of adjustment: an explana-
tion and extension of Taguchi’s signal-to-noise ratios.
Technometrics 29(3): 253–265.
Lesperance ML and Park S-M (2003) GLMs for the analysis
of robust designs with dynamic characteristics. Journal of
Quality Technology 35(3): 253–263.
Lin DKJ and Tu W (1995) Dual response surface optimiza-
tion. Journal of Quality Technology 27(1): 34–39.
Maghsoodloo S, Ozdemir G, Jordan V, et al. (2004) Strengths
and limitations of Taguchi’s contributions to quality, man-
ufacturing, and process engineering. Journal of Manufac-
turing Systems 23(2): 73–126.
Meeusen W and Van Den Broeck J (1977) Efficiency estima-
tion from Cobb–Douglas production functions with com-
posed error. International Economic Review 18(2): 435–444.
Murillo-Zamorano LR (2004) Economic efficiency and fron-
tier techniques. Journal of Economic Surveys 18(1): 33–77.
Myers RH, Khuri AI and Vining G (1992) Response surface
alternatives to the Taguchi robust parameter design
approach. The American Statistician 46(2): 131–139.
Myers RH, Montgomery DC and Anderson-Cook CM (2016)
Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product
18
Optimization Using Designed Experiments (Wiley Series in
Probability and Statistics, 4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Nair VN, Abraham B, MacKay J, et al. (1992) Taguchi’s
parameter design: a panel discussion. Technometrics 34(2):
127–161.
Ozturk N, Yildiz AR, Kaya N, et al. (2006) Neuro-genetic
design optimization framework to support the integrated
robust design optimization process in CE. Concurrent
Engineering: Research and Applications 14(1): 5–16.
Pal S and Gauri SK (2010) Multi-response optimization using
multiple regression-based weighted signal-to-noise ratio
(MRWSN). Quality Engineering 22(4): 336–350.
Pal S and Gauri SK (2017) Optimization of multi-response
dynamic systems integrating multiple regression and Tagu-
chi’s dynamic signal-to-noise ratio concept. International
Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology 9(1):
16–33.
Pal S and Gauri SK (2018) Simultaneous optimization of
quantitative and ordinal responses using Taguchi method.
International Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering
7(2): 184–205.
Park G-J, Lee T-H, Lee KH, et al. (2006) Robust design: an
overview. AIAA Journal 44(1): 181–191.
Patel TM and Bhatt NM (2013) Shear stress prediction using
FEA-ANN hybrid modeling or Eicher 11.10 chassis frame.
IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering 9(2):
22–32.
Pignatiello JJ (1988) An overview of the strategy and tactics
of Taguchi. IIE Transactions 20(3): 247–254.
Prasad KS and Rao Ch-S (2013) Application of grey rela-
tional analysis for optimizing weld bead geometry para-
meters of pulsed current micro plasma arc welded AISI
304L stainless steel sheets. International Journal of
Advanced Design and Manufacturing Technology 6(1):
79–86.
Schmidt P and Lovell CAK (1980) Estimating stochastic pro-
duction and cost frontiers when technical and allocative
inefficiency are correlated. Journal of Econometrics 13(1):
83–100.
Scibilia B, Kobi A, Chassagnon R, et al. (2001) Robust
design: a simple alternative to Taguchi’s parameter design
approach. Quality Engineering 13(4): 541–548.
Shaibu AB and Cho BR (2009) Another view of dual response
surface modeling and optimization in robust parameter
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)
design. The International Journal of Advanced Manufactur-
ing Technology 41: 631–641.
Shoemaker AC, Tsui K-L and Jeff Wu CF (1991) Economical
experimentation methods for robust design. Technometrics
33(4): 415–427.
Steinberg DM (1996) Robust design: experiments for improv-
ing quality. In: Ghosh S and Rao CR (eds) Handbook of
Statistics, vol. 13. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp.
199–240.
Taguchi G (1995) Quality engineering (Taguchi methods) for
the development of electronic circuit technology. IEEE
Transaction on Reliability 44(2): 225–229.
Taguchi G and Phadke MS (1989) Quality engineering
through design optimization. In: Dehnad K (ed.) Quality
Control, Robust Design, and the Taguchi Method. Boston,
MA: Springer, pp. 77–96.
Taguchi G, Chowdhury S and Wu Y (2004) Taguchi’s Quality
Engineering Handbook. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Trabelsi A and Rezgui MA (2020) Robust design of processes
and products using the mathematics of the stochastic fron-
tier methodology (SF). The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 106(7-8): 2829–2841.
Tsui KL (1992) An overview of Taguchi method and newly
developed statistical methods for robust design. IIE Trans-
actions 24(5): 44–57.
Unal R and Dean EB (1991) Taguchi approach to design
optimization for quality and cost: an overview. In: Annual
conference of the International Society of Parametric Ana-
lysts, New Orleans, LA, 21–24 May, Document ID:
20040121019.
Vignesh K, Ramasivam G, Natarajan U, et al. (2016) Optimi-
zation of process parameters to enhance the mechanical
properties of bone powder and coir fiber reinforced polye-
ster composites by Taguchi method. ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences 11(2): 1224–1231.
Vining GG and Myers RH (1990) Combining Taguchi and
response surface philosophies: a dual response approach.
Journal of Quality Technology 22(1): 38–45.
Welch WJ, Yu T-K, Kang SM, et al. (1990) Computer experi-
ments for quality control by parameter design. Journal of
Quality Technology 22(1): 15–22.
Yang K and El-Haik B (2003) Design for Six Sigma: A Road-
map for Product Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rezgui and Trabelsi 19

Appendix 1

Figure 6. Functional scheme for the RDPP-SF method (Trabelsi and Rezgui, 2020).

Author biographies
Mohamed Ali Rezgui, Dr., is assistant professor at the High National School of Engineering
of Tunis (ENSIT, Tunisia). He gained a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the ‘‘Ecole
Centrale de Lyon’’, France in 1994. He is interested in study and analysis of forming processes
and friction stir welding of metal and polymer materials using experimental design strategies.
The use of the statistical tools and the regression models to better understand and analyze
microscopic and macroscopic phenomena occurring in friction stir welding and forming pro-
cesses are its major research activity.
20 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Ali Trabelsi, Dr., is assistant professor at the High National School of Engineering of Tunis
(ENSIT, Tunisia). In 1995 he gained a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the ‘‘Ecole
Centrale de Paris’’ in association with the university of Dundee, Scotland (U.K.), His research
activity concerns the tolerance representation and propagation in rigid and non rigid assem-
blies. Also, Dr. Trabelsi has actively worked on the use of the statistical tools to analyze sensi-
tivity and robustness in developing products and processes from the simultaneous engineering
perspective.