You are on page 1of 76

University of Missouri

Industrial and Technology Development Center


Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Columbia, Missouri, USA

Quality By Design
Part 1: Quality Assessment using Quality Loss Function

Fall 2016
By
Prof. Dr. Eng. Ahmed Sherif El-Gizawy
Professor and Director Tech Development Center
University of Missouri, USA

Presentation Method

Case-based learning (CBL)


CBL involves the interactive, participantcentered exploration of realistic and
specific situations.
Realistic case studies are presented to
stimulate seminar discussion and
collaborative analysis and understanding
using tools and techniques presented in
the workshop.
CBL is used effectively in all professional
teaching (Medicine, Law and Business).

This Seminar Covers the Followings:

Quality by Design (QBD) is one of the most powerful quality improvement tools.

QBD aims at development of high performance, highly reliable services, products


and processes that are robust.

It is important to quantify quality loss associated with different services, product


and process designs.

Products or services with specification on the target values give best performance .

Sole reliance on specification limits leads to a focus on acceptable performance


rather than ideal performance.

The focus in the present seminar is on the application of the quadratic loss function
to quantify improvement opportunities in engineering industry.

Principles of Quality Engineering


Costs Associated with Product Life Cycle

Unit Manufacturing Costs


(fabrication cost)

Costs During Service


(costs of repair & replacement
due to quality loss)

Q.E. concerns with reducing both these costs.


It is important to quantify quality loss associated with different
product and process designs.
The old method of measuring quality by fraction defective
(GO/NOGO method) is misleading.
Products with specification on the target values give best
performance.
Example: Color density in TV set.
4

Example: Color density in TV set

Sony - USA

Sony - Japan

It is important to quantify quality loss associated with


different system designs.
The old method of measuring quality by fraction
defective (GO/NOGO method) is misleading.
Systems with outputs on the target values give best
performance.
5

Recent Techniques for Quality Engineering

A block diagram representation of the parameters that influence the


quality characteristics (responses, performance and outputs) of the
system

Noise Factors
They are the uncontrolled factors that cause Quality
characteristics to deviate from their target value.

Types of Noise Factors


1.
2.
3.

Outer Noise: Variation in operating environment


Inner Noise: Deterioration of parts, or variation on material
properties
Between Product Noise: Variation between different machines or
shifts

Robustness
Product and process designs that are insensitive to noise factors
are Robust.
Minimum Variability

The Design Process


System Design
It involves the development of a prototype design and determination of
materials, parts, components and assembly system.
Parameter Design
In this step, the levels (values) of controllable factors are selected to
minimize the effect of noise factors on the functional characteristics
of the product or the quality characteristics of the process.
Tolerance Design
To determine the allowable variation of the controlled parameters
without changing the quality.

10

11

Fundamental Principles of Robust Design


Noise Factors
They are the uncontrolled factors that cause Quality characteristics to
deviate from their target value.

Robustness
System designs that are insensitive to noise factors are Robust.

12

Measurement of Quality
During Design/Development

Quality Loss
Function

Signal To
Noise Ratio

Estimation of the Effects of Design


Parameters

Efficient
Experimentation
Using Design of
Experiments

(ANOVA)
Analysis of
Variances

13

Quality Loss Functions

Step Loss Function


m - 0

Quadratic Loss Function


Loss is Proportional to the Square
Deviation From Target Value

m + 0

Quality Loss Function (QLF)


Loss is proportional to the square of the deviation from the target
value

L(y) = k(y-m)2
k=

0 = Tolerance (allowance)
A0 = Quality Loss at y = y0 = (m + 0)
k = Constant
(y - m) is deviation from the target value
15

Variations of the
Quality loss function
(QLF)

16

Example (quality loss function)


The nominal value (target) of a power supply circuit of a TV
set is m = 115 volts. When the voltage exceeds the range:

115 20 volts
The average cost of repairing is $100

a.

Evaluate the quality loss function

b.

Assume that some adjustments have been made which


resulted in producing circuits with output = 110 volts,
evaluate the quality of the production

17

L(y)
Loss ($)
Nominal the Best

0 = $100.00

0 = $100.00
0 = 20 V
95

L = ( )2

k = 02 =
0

100

20 2

115
0

135
y = voltage

= 0.25


= 0.25 ( 115) 2
18

Nominal the Best

Smaller the Better

Larger the Better

Summary

22

Example (QL smaller the better)

The quality characteristic of concern in injection molding of a circuit


breaker base is:
y = % shrinkage of the plastic base
(y 0)

When the shrinkage is 1.5% or more, the product has to be replaced at a


cost of $80.
Two different plastics were tested. The following table shows the %
shrinkage values of the castings. Assuming the same cost in both cases,
evaluate the results and make recommendations.

Material
Data (% shrinkage)
A
0.28 0.24 0.33 0.30 0.18 0.26 0.24 0.33
B
0.08 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.03
23

Solution
Smaller the Better

k=

L= 35.55556 y2

35.55556

100
90
80

70

LOSS, $

60
50

40
30
20
10

0
0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

SHRINKAGE %

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

Material B
k=

35.5555

L= 35.55556 y2
average B =

0.0663

Standard deviation B =0.0307


Standard deviation square B = 0.0009
MSD B =

L=

0.0351
1.2468

Average square B= 0.0044

Material A
k=

35.5555

L= 35.55556 y2
average A =

0.0729

Standard deviation A =0.0510


Standard deviation square A =0.0026
MSD A =

L=

0.1239
4.4050

Average square A= 0.0510

Conclusion

A
L=4.4050

B
L=1.2468

The losses due to shrinkage in A is higher than in


B ,So material B is better

QLF- Case Study 1


An automobile manufacturer requires that the clearance between the cylinder
and the piston of a six cylinder engine be 3 (-2)(+7). Defect loss for each
cylinder and piston assembly is $200, and the monthly production is 50000
units. Data showing deviation from the target value for the first two months of
production are shown below. What are the quality levels during these two
months? What is the improvement, if any of the quality level?

Month
1

Deviations
-2

-2

-2

-1

-1

-2

-1

-1

-1

-2

-2

-2

-1

-3

the clearance between the cylinder and the piston of a six


cylinder engine be 3 (-2)(+7).

Solution
Nominal the Best

Unsymmetrical
m=3
For (y-m)>0
K=200/7^2= 4.081633
L= 4.081633(y-3)^2
For (y-m)<0
K=200/2^2= 50

L= 50 (y-3)^2

For (y-m)>0
K=200/7^2= 4.081633
L= 4.081633 (y-3)^2
For (y-m)<0
K=200/2^2= 50
L= 50 (y-3)^2
500

450

400

350
300

250

Chui1

200

150
100
50

0
-8

-6

-4

-2

Y-m

Results
Month1

Month2

Total loss per unit 215.8

Total loss per unit 155.3

Total loss $10790816.3

Total loss $ 7766034.985

Conclusion
There is improvement in the process during month 2
because the total loss of quality in month 2 is less than
loss of quality in month 1

QLF - Case Study 2


The strength of an adhesive is usually determined by the kilograms force
(kgf) needed to break apart specimens joined by the adhesive. Two types
of adhesives, S_1 andS_2, which cost $50 and $60 per unit weight,
respectively, are to be compared. The lower specification limits
is 5 kgf
for the breaking force. The out-of-specification units are discarded,
resulting in a loss of $70 per unit. The annual production rate is 120,000
units. Sixteen units were tested for each type of adhesive, and the
following data for the breaking force were obtained:
Type of adhesive

Breaking force (kgf)

10.2

5.8

4.9

16.1

15.0

9.4

4.8

10.1

14.6

19.7

5.0

4.7

16.8

4.5

4.0

16.5

7.6

13.7

7.0

12.8

11.8

13.7

14.8

10.4

7.0

10.1

6.8

10.0

8.6

11.2

8.3

10.6

Compare the quality levels of S1 andS2.

Solution

Larger the Better

K=70/5^2= 2.8

L= 2.8 (1/y^2)

0,35

0,3

L, $

0,25
0,2

0,15
0,1
0,05

0
0

10

15

Y-m
QLF for Joint Resistance

20

25

Results

S1

S2
Total loss per unit $ 0.064
Total loss of manufacture cost
$ 7674
Material cost $50
Total loss of manufacture cost + material
cost $7724

Conclusion
Even thought S1 is cheaper than S2, but the
total loss of quality is higher than S2

Total loss per unit $ 0.032


Total loss of manufacture cost
$ 3827
Material cost $60
Total loss of manufacture cost + material
cost $3887

Matrix Experiments Using


Orthogonal Arrays

Matrix experiments to test various combinations of factors and levels

The number of possible combinations (experiments)


N = LF
N = number of experiments
L = number of levels
F = number of factors

Method of running experiments


A. Full Factorial Design
- All levels of all factors are investigated
- Examplepage 43
- The process has 4 factors, each with
3 levels: N = (3) 4 = 81 experiments
- If a fourth level is added:
N = (4)4 = 256 experiments
38

(Method of running experiments, contd.)

In most manufacturing processes, the number of factors


= 10 to 15 with 3 levels to be tested.

N = (3)13 = 1,594,323 experiments

Full factorial design is not cost or time effective

B. One Factor at a Time


Inefficient for large number of factors
Interactions between factors are not included
Robustness is not explored

C. Orthogonal Array (O.A.)


Only a few experiments that give the most important information
about the system are selected.
O.A. defines a balanced combination of factor levels to be studied.
39

Example: Matrix Experiments


Powder Metallurgy Sintering Process
Factors
A = Temperature
B = Sintering Time
C = Atmosphere (inert gas)

Levels

900o

1200o
12 hr
Type 2

8 hr
Type 1

Quality characteristic (y) = Tensile strength


Number of parameters = 3
Levels = 2
3
Full factorial design requires (2) = 8 experiments

Full Factorial Design

Experiment run

Response (y)

y1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

1
1
1
2
2
2
2

1
2
2
1
1
2
2

2
1
2
1
2
1
2

y2
y3
y4
y5
y6
y7
y8

Orthogonality means that for any pair of columns, all combinations of factor levels
occur and they occur an equal number of times.
40

Important Statistical Measures In


Experimental Design
Degrees of Freedom
It measures the amount of information that can be obtained.

Example: What is the minimum number of comparisons needed to


know which material is the strongest?
The material factor has 3 levels (M1,
M2, M3)
Comparison can be made with
respect to M1 (M2 > M1), (M3 < M1)
3 levels 2 comparisons
M has two degrees of freedom
41

Degree of Freedom (D.F.) represents the number of


independent statements that can be made about a
factor.

D.F. (for a factor) = L 1


L = number of levels
Degree of freedom of an Orthogonal Array:

D.F. = N 1
D.F. (L4) = 4 - 1 = 3
(L8) = 8 - 1 = 7
42

Interaction

Interaction exists when the effect of one factor depends on


the level of others
43

Selecting an Orthogonal Array


Use Degree of Freedom
(D.F.) of O.A. = D.F. of all parameters and interactions
=N1
where N is the number of experiments or the order of O.A.

Example: A process has 5 controllable parameters A, B, C, D. Each

parameter will be tested at 2 levels except D (4 levels). There are two


expected interactions:

A x B, C x D
Select a suitable O.A.

Number of Experiments =
D.F + 1 = 11

Number of Degrees of Freedom


Sources
Number of Degrees of Freedom (df)
A
2-1
=
1
B
2-1
=
1
C
2-1
=
1
D
4-1
=
3
AxB
1x1
=
1
CxD
1x3
=
3
D.F.
=
10

44

(selecting an orthogonal array, contd)

Assigning Interactions
Interactions are located in specific columns to avoid confounding.

Example: L4 of the Powder Metallurgy example


A = Temperature
Column 1
B = Sintering Time
Column 2
C = The Type of Environment will be Ignored
A x B = Interaction Between Temperature and
Time is Located in Column 3

45

Exp. #

1
2
3
4

AxB

1
1
2
2

1
2
1
2

1
2
2
1

If C is significant; therefore,
C and A x B are Confound.

y1
y2
y3
y4

Linear Graphs

They are graphical means to help in


assignment of factors & interactions
to an orthogonal array.
Factors are assigned to dots

Examples: See Appendix C of


the textbook
Sintering Process Using L4

An interaction between two


factors is assigned to the line
connecting the two corresponding
dots
Factors may be assigned to lines,
not used for interactions.
46

Interaction Table
Interaction table is presented for each orthogonal
array to determine which column must assign
interaction.
Interaction column number is found where row (the
first factor) intersects column (the second factor).
The three column combination is interchangeable.

47

Table 7.3 ORTHOGONAL ARRAY AND ITS INTERACTION TABLE


(a) () orthogonal array

Column

Expt.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

(b) Interaction table for

Column

1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2

3
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1

4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2

5
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1

6
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1

7
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2

Factor Assignment

Column
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

1
(1)

2
3
(2)

3
2
1
(3)

4
5
6
7
(4)

5
4
7
6
1
(5)

6
7
4
5
2
3
(6)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(7)

Note: Entries in this table show the column with


which the interaction between every pair of columns
is confounded.

48

Analysis of Experimental Results


The experimental results are analyzed to determine the following:
a. Optimum process or product parameters
b. The expected response at the optimum combination of
parameters
c. The contribution of each factor process or product response
Method of Analysis
1. Evaluation of Quality Characteristic (Q.L.F.)
2. Main Effects (factor effects)
3. Interactions
4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
5. Signal to Noise Ratio
49

Main Effects
Estimation of Factor Effects
= Response (measurement of quality characteristic y or
signal to noise ratio S/N)
Overall mean value of response:

n = number of experiments

The mean effect of a factor level (mxi for factor x at level i)


Add the results of the experiments in which the factor and level occur
and divide by the number of these experiments.
Response Graph
Plotting main effects illustrates the results of each factor and level
and helps in selecting the optimum condition.
50

(main effects, contd)

Selecting Optimum Condition (factor levels)


1.

Quality Characteristic y
Smaller the better
Larger the better
Nominal the best

2.

Signal to Noise Ratio (S/N)


Optimum condition corresponds to maximum S/N

Additive (superposition) Model for Factor Effects:


A model to estimate the expected results at the optimum
condition can be expressed by the following additive model:
= + + + + +
m = overall mean
= ( ), = ( )
e = error in repeatability of

51

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)


Data collected from experiments are analyzed by ANOVA

ANOVA determines how much each parameter contributes


to the variation of the results from the effective mean
Variance (data variability) can be decomposed into different
effects:
1.
2.

Contributions of each factor


Amount of variation due to error

Variance is measured by the sum of the squared deviation


from the mean value

52

(ANOVA, contd)

Computation of Sum of Squares


Grand total sum of squares = = = sum of squares due to mean +
total sum of square
Sum of squares due to mean = n*
where: n = number of experiments
m = overall mean value
Total sum of squares = = ( )
= Sum of squares due to a factor x
= Total sum of squares of the deviation from the mean value for all
levels of that factor

(= ( ) + ( )+ )
= mean square due to factor =
(where = d.f of that factor = L 1)

Percentage contribution =


53

(ANOVA, contd)

Errors
If only one experiment is conducted at each experimental
condition, the error term is identically zero for each experiment.

Estimation of Error Variance


In most cases, all columns are used for studying the process factors and
therefore no degree of freedom is left to estimate error variance.

Approximate Estimation of Error Variance

(pooling method)
2

Error variance = =

2 can be obtained by pooling the sum of squares


corresponding to the factors having the lowest mean square.

54

(ANOVA, contd)

Variance Ratio (F value)


F calculated =

It is used to measure the effect of the factor compared with


the random effect due to error
The calculated F is compared with F table at a desired level
of confidence (95% is often used)
1 value on F table = d.f of the factor
2 value on F table = d.f of error
F table is the value at the intersection of 1 and 2
If F calculated is greater than F table, the factor is significant
to that level of confidence

55

F distribution table

56

Signal To Noise Ratios


The Signal to Noise (S/N) ratio is an
objective measure of quality and of the effect of
noise factors on quality.
(S/N) takes both the mean and variation into
account.
Robustness is measured by (S/N) ratio.
(S/N) is similar to the quality loss function.
Higher S/N means higher performance and
smaller loss measured by Q.L.F.
L(Y) = K (MSD)
(S/N) = = -10 log (MSD)
57

(signal to noise ratios, contd)

The Standard Types of (S/N) Ratios


- Smaller the better

- Larger the better

L(Y) = K(MSD) = K

S/N = = -10 log (MSD)


= -10 log

= -10 log ( + )
= mean =

= variance =

L(Y) = K(MSD) = K

S/N = = -10 log (MSD)


S/N = = -10 log

(correct)

=( )

58

(signal to noise ratios, contd)

Nominal the best

L(Y) = K(MSD) = K (

= K [( ) + ]
Where: t = target value
= mean value

S/N = = -10 log (MSD)


= 10 log ( )
= mean =

= variance =

=( )
59

Steps in Robust Design


(P Diagram)
A block diagram representation of the parameters that influence the
quality characteristic or response of the product or the process.

60

Questions:
1. Which input affects the 2. What is the relationship
output parameter y?
between the important
inputs and the output
parameter y?

3. How can y be
controlled?

Controllable Inputs (Factors)

Input
raw materials,
components,
and subassemblies

Measurement
Evaluation
Control

Product
Process

Output product
y = Quality
characteristic

Uncontrollable Inputs (Noise Factors)


61

Robust Design involves seven steps grouped


into three categories:
Planning the Experiment
1.
2.
3.
4.

Identification of the Quality Characteristic and the objective function to be


optimized
Identification of the Control Factors and their alternate levels
Identification of the Noise Factors and testing conditions
Design the Matrix Experiments

Performing the Experiment


5.

Conduct the Matrix Experiment

Analyzing and Verifying the Experiment Results


6.
7.

Determine optimum levels of the Control Factors and predict performance under
these levels (regular analysis and S/N analysis)
Conduct verification experiment and plan future actions

62

Exercise:
In order to optimize the process capability of an injection molding
process, the following factors were considered.
Control Factors:
A: Cool Time
B: Mold Temperature
C: Melt Temperature
D: Holding Pressure
E: Injection Speed
F: Holding Time
G: Injection Pressure
Noise Factors
H: Material Batch
I: Machine Type
J: Ambient Temperature

Level 1
A1
B1
C1
D1
E1
F1
G1

Level 2
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2

Level 1

Level 2

H1
I1
J1

H2
I2
J2
63

Quality Characteristic:

Percentage shrinkage
(smaller the better)

An orthogonal array L8 was chosen for the


inner array and L4 for the outer array.
1. Calculate S/N ratios
2. Construct the response table and graphs
3. Determine the optimum process condition

4. Estimate the value of S/N at optimum condition

64

Results

Control Factor
A

1
2
3
4
5

1
1
1
1
2

1
1
2
2
1

1
1
2
2
2

1
2
1
2
1

1
2
1
2
2

1
2
2
1
1

1
2
2
1
2

Noise Factors
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2.20
2.10
2.30
0.30
2.50
2.70
0.50
3.10
0.40
2.00
1.90
1.80
3.00
3.10
3.00

2.10

4.20

1.00

3.10

7
8

2
2

2
2

1
1

1
2

2
1

2
1

1
2

4.00
2.00

1.90
1.90

4.60
1.90

2.20
1.80

H
I
J

2
2
1
2.30
0.30
2.80
2.00
3.00

Smaller the Better Criterion

L(Y) = K(MSD) = K

S/N = = -10 log (MSD)


= -10 log

= -10 log ( + )
= mean =

= variance = =( )

Exercise Solution
Control Factor

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2

1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1

1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2

1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1

1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1

1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2

Level

Noise Factors
H
1
1
I
1
2
J
1
2
2.20 2.10
0.30 2.50
0.50 3.10
2.00 1.90
3.00 3.10
2.10 4.20
4.00 1.90
2.00 1.90

S/N
2
1
2
2.30
2.70
0.40
1.80
3.00
1.00
4.60
1.90

2
2
1
2.30
0.30
2.80
2.00
3.00
3.10
2.20
1.80

Response Table
C
D

1
2

67

Solution, contd
Control Factor

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2

1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1

1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2

1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1

1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1

1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2

Noise Factors
H
1
1
I
1
2
J
1
2
2.20 2.10
0.30 2.50
0.50 3.10
2.00 1.90
3.00 3.10
2.10 4.20
4.00 1.90
2.00 1.90

S/N
2
1
2
2.30
2.70
0.40
1.80
3.00
1.00
4.60
1.90

2
2
1
2.30 -6.95
0.30 -5.88
2.80 -6.98
2.00 -5.70
3.00 -9.62
3.10 -9.36
2.20 -10.73
1.80 -5.58

2.225

1.45

1.7

1.925

3.025

0.0092 1.77

2.1

0.0092

0.0025

2.6

3.175

1.9

1.87333 1.763 0.007

Response Table
Level

-6.37872 -7.953 -7.2881 -8.5715 -7.220127 -6.9632 -8.18761

-8.82381

2.445082 -0.703 0.62638 -1.9405 0.762277 1.27615 -1.17268

-7.25

-7.9145

-6.631 -7.982404 -8.2393 -7.01492


68

69

Final Solution

= 4.477
Y = 1.68 %

The Optimum Process Condition is:

The Response Equation at Optimum Condition is:

71

Case #1: Resistance Welding Process


Case statement
The results of L16 orthogonal array experiments are given in the attached
table.
Calculate S/N.
Construct the response table and draw the response graph for the strong
effects.
Estimate the response at the recommended condition.
Conduct ANOVA for the results and comment on all results.

72

Case #1: Resistance Welding Process


Case statement

73

Case #1: Resistance Welding Process


Case analysis

74

Case #1: Resistance Welding Process


Case analysis

75

Case #1: Resistance Welding Process


Case analysis

76