MINIMIZING NECKING DEFECTS IN ALUMINUM BEVERAGE

CANS USING EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TECHNIQUES

Ibrahim Rawabdeh
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
Hisham Hilow
Department of Mathematics, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
Mohammed Abu Hammad
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

Abstract
Significant sources for defective cans in the manufacturing of aluminum beverage cans are
the ones causing necking deformation. A design of experiment approach, using fractional
factorials, is used to minimize necking defect. Four most important factors affecting the
necking process are investigated. They are top wall thickness, inside air pressure, lacquer
amount and top over varnish quantity. Three quantitative equally spaced levels for each factor
are utilized then 3IV4-1 fractional factorial design is employed with three replicates. Analysis
of variance is carried out to identify which factors and interactions are significant to the
necking process. A regression model is developed then a numerical iterative technique is
used to produce the best fitted regression surface. Several confirmation runs are performed to
validate the generated best factor settings. Statistical results show that top wall thickness,
inside air pressure and lacquer amount contribute significantly to the occurrence of the
necking defect while top over varnish quantity is not statistically significant.

Keywords: Beverage Cans, Necking Defects, Design of Experiments, Analysis of

Variance, Regression Model.

INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, aluminum beverage cans are widely used in many industries and have become a
major parallel of metal packaging. Aluminum cans production is moving ahead more rapidly
due to the introduction of new can designs and improved processing techniques, as well as
due to the increasing use of aluminum for several purposes, a situation leading to vast
opportunities for can manufacturers (Johnson, 1996). Today’s two-piece aluminum beverage
cans are evolving considerably and can be readily fabricated in various shapes and sizes.
However, even though there have been considerable advances in the can manufacturing
process, few problems that cause can defects still exist. A major problem in the can
manufacturing is the defect caused by the deformation at the top of the can edge during the
necking process (i.e., the necking defect), see Figure 1. The top of the can typically deforms
homogeneously to begin with, but eventually fails at a site where a narrow neck develops
along a line that crosses the gauge section from side to side (Hill, 2001). The failure in the
necking process is caused by variation in the processing factors, which affect the performance
of the necking machine and its output quality. Can makers realize that can quality and the
process efficiency are highly desirable objectives, hence more stringent quality requirements
on the can manufacturing limit the level of tolerable variation (Sun, 1998). Therefore,
applying different techniques to overcome the necking defect is of vital importance to the can
manufacturing industry.

(Take in Figure 1)

During processing of the can, the can passes through a necking machine to reduce the open-
end diameter and to permit the use of a thinner end (or lid) to close the can after filling.

1
However, due to lack of proper techniques, some can defects may still be produced. Different
techniques have been applied to evaluate the effect of processing factors on the quality of the
manufactured cans such as finite element method (Bennani and Bay, 1996; Baillet et al.,
1996), electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (Grandle and Taylor, 1997; Bastidas et al.,
1997), metallurgical experimental test (Sun, 1998), fracture mechanics theory (Hackworth
and Henshaw, 1998), smooth die and spin flow necking methods (Kikuta and Tsuchida,
1998), 3D numerical analysis (Ito et al., 2000), and experimental correlation technique
(Brunet and Mortestin, 2001). However, statistical methods were the least used for this
purpose.

The objectives of this paper are to investigate the effect of the potential factors influencing
necking in aluminum beverage cans and their interactions using Design of Experiments in
order to minimize this defect, to develop a mathematical model that relates the necking
defects with the affecting factors, to determine the best factor settings for better necking
performance, and to conduct confirmation runs to validate the results.

MANUFACTURING OF BEVERAGE CANS

Aluminum cans are one type of light gauge metal containers that are made on a necking
machine from sheets no greater than 0.33 mm thick. The necking process constitutes one of
the basic steps in forming aluminum beverage cans. A three-stage necking process is needed
to achieve the desired open-end diameter through several reduction steps of the aluminum
sheets (Baillet et al., 1996). The cylindrical can, received from the input conveyor, is pushed
into the necking die of the knockout punch assembly, while the latter is retracting. The can is
put in a necked condition after the can pad has stroked a full travel. During this travel, the
open end of the can is pushed into the necking die where the entire edge is deflected inward,
then the open end is made to contact the outside diameter of the knock-out punch as the
punch retracts to complete the neck. Upon completion of the necking operation, the knockout
punch reverses direction and begins mechanical stripping of the can to its normal position by
passing the air through the knockout punch. The sequence of the necking process is shown in
Figures 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively. In fact, the necking process is performed after
decorating the can and after internal spray operations have been completed. It is worth noting
that an essential neck lubrication process, known as “lacquering”, precedes the process of
necking. Hence, accurate metering of the lacquering are essential for efficient necking.

(Take in Figure 2)

The success of the necking process depends on a set of factors that affect the can production.
More than sixteen different machine and process factors are involved in such a process
(MECC, 2000). It is then necessary to identify which factor affects the occurrence of cans
defects so that the controller can adjust these machine and/or process factors. Furthermore,
interactions among the different factors must also be investigated because a change in one
factor may affect the other factors either positively or negatively. Therefore, design of
experiments (DOE) techniques are implemented in order to determine which of the factors
contribute more to the occurrence of the necking defects.

DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS (DOE)

Design of experiments (DOE) is an efficient experimental technique that can be used for
various experimental investigations. Today, many industries employ DOE to stay competitive
worldwide. Design of experiments is one of the powerful tools used to investigate deeply
hidden causes of process variation (Konda et al., 1999). Goh (1993) reported that the
application of designed experiment is a powerful methodology, which, if properly conducted,

2
allows for a great deal of insight about product and manufacturing processes. Furthermore,
experimental design is a strategic weapon to battle competitors worldwide for designing
robust products, reducing time to market, improving quality and reliability, and for reducing
life-cycle cost (Blake et al., 1994). Antony et al. (1999) reported more than eleven different
benefits for employing DOE. Among those not mentioned above are: improved customer
satisfaction with the product, reduced product and process sensitivity to environmental and
manufacturing variation and assisted the development of new manufacturing technologies.

There are mainly two principal approaches to the practice of DOE for factorial
experimentation. They are Taguchi’s robust factor designs, which often ignore factor
interactions, and the factorial designs, which take them into account (Montgomery, 1997).
Experimental designs based on Taguchi methodology have accentuated the importance of
reducing process variability around a specified target and the necessity of bringing the
process mean to target. These objectives can be accomplished by making processes
insensitive to various sources of noise (Rowlands et al., 2000). However, it has been reported
that Taguchi’s signal-to-noise ratios, which are process performance measures, are often
ineffective in identifying dispersion effects and the use of the Taguchi’s techniques can
sometimes lead to inefficient designs (Antony, 1996). Furthermore, Taguchi’s experimental
design techniques can be applied to extract information on factor main effects. On the other
hand, the application of full factorial designs are better suited for getting information about
factor main effect as well as higher order interactions, thus yielding conclusions valid over a
wider range of experimental conditions (Thomas et al., 1997).

A full factorial design with a single replicate requires carrying out the experiment under each
experimental condition created by the combination of all factor levels. Therefore, the number
of experimental runs increases with the number of factors. In some experimental factorial
investigations, the prime interest is to get information about the main effects of the factors
and their low order interactions. In these situations, a fraction of the full factorial design can
be used to reduce experimental cost. In fractional factorial designs high order interactions are
regarded insignificant and negligible. The selection of a fraction (i.e. subset) of the full
factorial experiment for a particular fractional design depends on the alias structure among
factorial effects (Montgomery, 1997).

LITERATURE REVIEW
There has been considerable research and experimentation on the use of aluminum beverage
cans in many fields, particularly in food industry. In fact, studies have been conducted on the
processes, materials, and quality requirements for the improvement of cans manufacturing.
High quality aluminum can is characterized by low frequency of wrecked cans during can
forming (Ekstrom et al., 1998). Producing high quality cans requires low earing defects,
minimal tears off and necking defect, high surface quality and tight dimensional control so as
to reduce their manufacturing cost. Steverson (1998) reported that to achieve more
advancements in can design and manufacturing, can fabricating process must be designed and
aligned to optimize the outcomes while minimizing variability. Courbon (2000) developed a
framework of tests and models that use metallurgy simulator and finite element analysis so as
to achieve marginal improvement in the quality of the beverage cans. Can bodies having
excessive earing behavior are unacceptable from the technical point of view because high
earing can cause mechanical difficulties in the drawing and ironing stages (Baolute, 1996).
However, wrinkling defect of the aluminum beverage can become more troublesome with the
advent of the 202 stackable bottom (Betts, 1996).

3
The can manufacturing process involves many factors that contribute significantly to the
success of this process and in producing non-defective cans. The formation pressure is one of
the major factors and a good contributor to can defects. Markhauswer (1982), Hackworth and
Henshaw (1998), Reid et al. (2001) and Saur (1998) studied the effect of pressure (or load) on
can deformation and processing. Cans may behave differently depending on the material
properties of the plane blanks, the formation pressure, and the operating conditions (Seem
and Knussmann, 1996). In fact, out of the total necking force, only 40% is used for the
reduction of the can diameter at the neck while 31% of the force is used to overcome friction,
and the remainder is used for bending and unbending (Dennis, 1982). Markhauser (1982)
calculated the necking load during extruding necks of the aluminium beverage cans. Dennis
(1982) developed a procedure to predict the reduction of can diameter during necking. He
developed flow patterns in which the metal follows the contour of the die, determined the
general solution of the necking equations, then derived a formula for the necking force.

The coatings (lacquer amount and top over varnish quantity) are also significant contributors
to the can defects generation. The lacquer amount has been evaluated in several studies
(Bastidas et al., (1997); Grandle and Taylor, (1997); and Shimizu et al., (2000)). Suitable
coatings to the can metal is highly essential in reducing the coefficient of friction between the
can metal and the die. The coating influences the drawing and friction forces through its oil
contents and the cooling effects (Sauer, 1998). Coating for beverage cans is also important
for its role in protecting the metal from corrosion as well as for decorative purposes. Grandle
and Taylor (1997) examined a sample of cans using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
(EIS) and analyzed the measured low-frequency impedance (based on one-month exposure)
to evaluate the performance of the coating. Shimizu et al. (2000) investigated the effect of
differential can coating on resistance seam weldability. They reported that the path length
during welding at the interfaces can be improved by decreasing the can coating weight of the
upper side.

Another important factor in the canning process is the aluminum sheet wall thickness. The
wall thickness has been studied by Markhauser (1982), Dennis (1982), and Kikuta and
Tsuchida (1998) as one of the main factors affecting necking during necking process. It is
concluded that a smaller wall thickness variation is beneficial for both the trimming and
necking operations (Sun, 1998).

In summary, the literature on beverage can manufacturing reveals that although a large
number of publications are reported, most of the work has been limited to the direct impact of
a certain set of factors on the performance of the can manufacturing process. However, more
work on the fundamental aspects of the can processes is still needed (Boudeau and Gelin,
2000). Thus, more techniques are required to improve the performance of the canning
process. From this perspective, DOE are proposed to be implemented in beverage can
industry. However, literature in this field does not exist.

METHODOLOGY
This paper implements experimental design techniques to study the main factors affecting the
necking deformation in aluminum beverage cans, as well as their interactions.
Experimentation is carried out at Middle East Can Manufacturing Co. (MECC), Amman,
Jordan, in association with Crown Cork and Seal, England.

Fractional factorial designs are utilized since the main interest is to identify important factors
affecting necking deformation and their low order interactions. The selection of the factors

4
has been identified through implementing Konda et al. (1999) nine-step strategy, which
included a brainstorming session with people from production and quality control at the
MECC factory, and using cause and effect diagram. The factors affecting necking
deformation are classified into two categories: the controllable and the uncontrollable. Four
factors are identified as the most important controllable factors. They are top wall thickness
(A), inside air pressure (B), lacquers amount (C) and top over varnish quantity (D). The
factors’ working ranges have been chosen appropriately so that the necking process functions
without machine or can failure, see Table I. The material properties effect was excluded from
this study since aluminum sheets were from one single supplier, and manufactured by a
single type of process (Hot and cold rolling). Also, can material variation is considered to be
minimal since the material has been already hardened to its limits by the preceding heavy
metal works operations (Markhauser, 1982).

Table I shows that all factor levels are quantitative and their three levels are equally spaced.
Combinations of all these levels define a bounded four-dimensional region representing the
domain of the experimental response function (i.e. necking defect). The three levels of each
factor are often termed as low (0), intermediate (1), and high (2). Combinations of 0, 1, 2
digits denote the treatment combinations.

(Take in Table I)

For four three-level factor experimental design, a full factorial experiment requires a total of
81= (34) experimental runs (Treatment Combinations) for a complete replicate. For 3
replicates of each treatment, this means a total of 243 experimental runs. The cost of these
243 experiments and the time needed to complete them would be extraordinarily high and
prohibitive. Hence, information on the main effects of these four factors in Table I and their
low order interactions is obtained by running only a fraction of the complete factorial
experiment under the assumption of negligibility of high order interactions. The largest
regular fraction of the full 34 factorial design (i.e. 34-1 fraction) with defining relation
I=AB2CD has been selected. This 34-1 fractional factorial design is shown in Table II.

(Take in Table II)

Every treatment combination of these 27 experiments has been replicated three times so that
the effect of the uncontrollable factors (on the experimental results) shows up and an estimate
of the experimental error is obtained. Duration time for each experiment is 4-hrs, and the
production rate is kept constant during the run of the experiments (12,000 can/hour). The type
of aluminum sheets used for can production is AA3004. The response (number of necking
defects) is recorded at the end of each trial. The resulting average responses are shown in
Table III along with standard deviations (SD) for each of these 27 experimental conditions.

(Take in Table III)

Having conducted all the needed experiments and having collected the experimental data, the
analysis strategy has been descriptive means analysis followed by analysis of variance, see
Table III. Regression analysis is then carried out to fit a mathematical relationship between
the response of interest (number of necking defects) and each of the four factors. To obtain
the optimal factor settings, a numerical iterative analysis is applied to locate factor(s)
combinations which result in optimal performance (minimum no. of necking defects). Several
confirmation runs have been conducted to experimentally verify this optimality.

5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of the data in Table III starts first with the computation of some descriptive
statistics for each one of the twenty-seven experimental conditions. These computations are
shown in Table IV. Following this descriptive means analysis, the anlysis of variance is used
to see which factor and interaction effects are significant to the necking defect.

(Take in Table IV)

Analysis of Variance
The analysis of variance of the 34-1 design ( for I = AB2CD) is accomplished by modeling the
responses (no. of defects) as a function of the four factors A, B, C, and D, and their two-factor
interactions. The variability in the response data is partitioned into two parts; one part is
attributed to the studied factors and their interactions; and the other part is attributed to
experimental error and to the uncontrollable factors, sees Table V. This analysis is carried out
under the assumption of negligibility of three or four interactions, otherwise, the main and
two-factor interaction effects will be confounded and aliased with each other and it will be
difficult to differentiate between their effects on the response (Montogemry, 1997).

(Take in Table V)

From Table V, about 98 percent of the variability in the necking defect can be explained by
the four three-level factors (A, B, C and D) and their two-factor interactions. Furthermore,
testing for statistical significance leads to the conclusion that the analysis of variance explains
the variability in the experimental data in Table III. It is also clear from Table V that factors
A, B, and C have significant effects on the necking defect while factor D has not. Some two-
factor interaction components are also significant, namely AB, AD, BC, BD, CD, AC 2, AD2,
however, some other two-factor interactions are not, namely AC, CD2.

The analysis of the two-factor interactions reveals that interactions between top wall
thickness, inside air pressure, lacquer amount, and top over varnish quantity are statistically
significant. High level of top wall thickness (0.0067 inch) improves the necking process and
minimizes necking defect under almost all conditions. The top wall thickness shown to be an
important factor and contributes significantly to can defects generation. This improvement is
more pronounced when using inside air pressure and lacquer amount, especially at medium
levels no matter whatever the top over varnish quantity is.

These results suggest that neck deformation can be effected by the top wall thickness, inside
pressure, and lacquer amount interactions, that reflects the friction effect. When using large
top wall thickness (0.0067 inch), it will cause the compressive force from the necking die to
be distributed uniformly around can neck circumference (Kikuta and Tsuchida, 1998).
Spraying a film weight of lacquer coating of 2.65 mg/inch 2 uniformly into interior can will
provide excellent reduction in friction forces and facilitate necking process. However,
applying a film of over varnish into exterior top of the can facilitates can sliding into the die.
Results reveal that lacquer amount has an inverse effect on necking defect for values greater
than 2.65 mg/inch2.

Inside air pressure level greater than 36 psi will increase the necking defect. However, for a
top wall thickness of 0.0065 inch, increasing both inside air pressure and lacquer amount
decreases the necking defect. When using small top wall thickness (0.0063 inch), the thick
wall become soft by compressive force during necking process and the can metal does not
follow the die profile. Also using little lacquer amount (2 mg/inch 2) and introducing low air
pressure (30 psi) increases the friction between the die and the can metal so that the can

6
cannot stand against necking load. This will lead to deformation at the trimmed can edge with
the reduction of neck diameter. Therefore, a decrease in the necking defects is more
pronounced when using a large top wall thickness (0.0067 inch).

Necking is facilitated by externally lubricating the can neck area. The necking process under
a better lubricating condition can produce a surface with more fine cracks due to a thicker oil
film on the working zone. It is reported that the differential friction (difference between die
friction and punch friction) are two important factors in determining the total necking force
and force distribution (Sun, 1998). However, A lower top wall tension is always more
desirable for reasons of potential benefits in fewer can defects.

Regression Analysis
Regression analysis is utilized to extrapolate between the levels of the four factors in order to
deduce a mathematical model relating the necking defect with these four underlying factors.
This is possible since the three levels of the four factors are quantitative. Possible regression
models are the linear and the quadratic models. Higher degree polynomial regression models
can’t be used because only three levels from each factor are employed in this 3 4-1 fractional
experiment. Therefore, four regression models are suitable to the data in Table VI. Variables
X1, X2, X3, and X4 represent, respectively, the four factors in Table I. When all the ranges of
these four factors are taken into account, these levels define the following experimental
region in a four-dimensional space. This region represents the domain over which the
following four response functions will be fit:
0.0063≤ X1 ≤ 0.0067 inch
30 ≤ X2 ≤ 50 psi
2 ≤ X3 ≤ 3 mg/inch2
1.8 ≤ X4 ≤ 2.2 mg/inch2
(Take in Table VI)

From Table VI, it is clear that model-4 has the largest R 2 which means it is the one that best
explains the variability in the experimental data. Hence, 96.3% of the variability in the
necking defect can be explained by the linear and quadratic effects of the four factors A, B, C
and D as well as their interactions. The least-square analysis of the regression model-4 is
given in Table VII.

(Take in Table VII)

The fitted regression equation of model-4 can be read from Table VIII as:
ŷi = 1803688 - 527,511036 X1- 31476 X2- 113608 X3 + 23110 X4 + 9406542 X1 X2
+14311381 X1 X3- 3537618 X1 X4 + 368.33 X2 X3 + 39115696921 X12 +
22354 X32 - 27,79443 X1X32 – 714860052 X2 X12- 86.10 X2 X32 + 0.868 X3 X22

The presence of significant cross product terms in the best fitting regression equation
confirms the results of the analysis of variance, which also show that some interaction effects
among the four factors were statistically significant. The analysis of variance of the fitted
regression model-4 is shown in Table VIII.

(Take in Table VIII)

NECKING PROCESS OPTIMIZATION

The best fitting non-linear regression model-4 is now considered for the optimization of the
necking process. The model is used to find the optimal settings of the four factors in order to

7
achieve the minimum necking defects in 4-hrs production. Differential calculus and
numerical analysis are used to locate the stationary points of this surface. These points
characterize the optimal settings of the can production process. Labview software has been
used to find this best solution. This optimization yields that the minimum number of defects
that can be achieved is 34 defective cans/4-hrs under the following optimum factor operating
conditions:
Top wall thickness (X1) = 0.00665inch
Inside air pressure (X2) = 36 psi
Lacquer amount (X3) = 2.65 mg / inch2
Top over varnish quantity (X4) = 2.2 mg / inch2

In order to verify the optimal results above, thirty confirmation runs (4-hrs shift each) were
performed at these optimum values. The mean and standard deviation of the necking defect
of these forty runs at the optimal settings turn out to be 37 and 4.81, respectively. The 99 per
cent confidence interval (CI) for the mean necking defect from the confirmation runs at the
best found conditions, given that t 0.005 = 2.39 and the number of runs =30, is 37 ± 2.39 (4.81 /
301/2) = 37 ± 4.

8
 50
No of Can's Necking Defect

45

40

35

30

25

20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Trial No

Figure 3. Number of Can’s defects for the 30 confirmation runs

The minimum predicted necking defect from the best-fitted regression model-4 is estimated
to be 34 cans. This value lies in the range of the 99% confidence interval. Therefore, the
suggested can production process under the derived best operating condition is concluded to
be satisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS
Having found the best setting of the four factors that minimize the number of necking defect,
it was concluded that running the can manufacturing process at these settings is quite
satisfactory. The mean necking defect at the factory’s old operating condition was estimated
to be 250 can/4-hrs. However, the mean necking defect at the new condition is 37 can/4-hrs
which means 85% reduction in the necking defects is achieved. Results showed that top wall
thickness, inside air pressure and lacquer amount contribute significantly to the occurrance of
the necking defect while top over varnish quantity was not statistically significant.

9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to acknowledge the Middle East Can Manufacturing Company (MECC) for
their support in conducting this research.

REFERENCES

1. Antony, J., (1996), “Likes and dislikes of Taguchi methods”, J. of Productivity, Vol.
37 No. 3, pp. 477-481.
2. Antony, J., Hughes, M., and Kaye, M. (1999), “Reducing manufacturing process
variability using experimental design technique: a case study”, Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 162-169.
3. Baillet, L., Brunet, M. and Berthier, Y. (1996), “Experimental and numerical dynamic
modeling of ironing process in aluminum beverage cans manufacturing”, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 60, pp. 677-684.
4. Baolute R. (1996), “Texture causing high 00 / 1800 earing in can body stock”,
Aluminum Alloys for Packaging TMS Annual Meeting II, PA, USA. pp. 49-57.
5. Bastidas, J.M., Cabanes, J.M. and Catala, R. (1997), “Effect of passivation treatment
and storing on adhesion and protective properties of lacquered tinplate cans”, Journal
of Coatings Technology, Vol. 69 No. 871, pp. 67-75.
6. Bennani, B. and Bay, N. (1996), “Limits of lubrication in backward can extrusion”,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 275-288.
7. Betts, W.M., (1996), “Metallurgical and mechanical effects on can bottom wrinkling”,
Aluminum Alloys for Packaging, TMS Annual Meeting II, PA, USA. pp. 253-262.
8. Blake, S., Launsby, R.G. and Weese, D.L. (1994), ”Experimental design meets the
realities of the 1990s”, Quality Progress, October, pp. 99-101.
9. Boudeau, N. and Gelin, J.C. (2000),” Necking in sheet metal forming. Influence of
macroscopic and microscopic properties of material”, Int. J. of Mechanical Sciences,
Vol 42 No, 11, pp. 2209-2232.
10. Brunet, M., and Mortestin F. (2001), “ Experimental and analytical necking studies of
anistropic sheet metals”, J. of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 112 No. (2-3),
p.214-226.
11. Courbon J. (2000), “Mechanical metallurgy of aluminum alloys for the beverage can,
Aluminum Alloys: Their Physical and Mechanical Properties”, PTS 1-3 Materials
Science Forum, Vol. 3 Parts 1-3, pp. 17-30.
12. Dennis, A. (1982), “The theory of necking load of cans or other cylindrical shells in
dies”, Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res., Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 117-123.
13. Ekstrom, H., Lindh, E., and lewin K. (1998), “The effect of annealing and cold rolling
conditions on the earing and formability of can body stock”, Aluminum Alloys for
Packaging, TMS Annual Meeting II, PA, USA, pp. 113-122.
14. Goh, T. N. (1993), “Taguchi methods: some technical, cultural and pedagogical
perspectives”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 9, pp. 185-202.
15. Grandle, J.A. and Taylor, S.R. (1997), “Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy as a
method to evaluate coated aluminum beverage containers”, CORROSION, Vol. 53,
No. 5, pp. 347-355.
16. Hackworth, M.R. and Henshaw J.M. (1998), “Fracture mechanics of aluminum
beverage containers: An Experimental Investigation”, Aluminum Alloys for
Packaging, TMS Annual Meeting III, PA, USA. pp. 89-101.
17. Hill, R. (2001), “On the mechanics of localized necking in anisotropic sheet metals”,
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids”, Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 2055-2070.

10
18. Ito, K., Satoh, K., Goya, M. and Yoshida, T. (2000) “Prediction of limit strain in sheet
metal-forming processes by 3D analysis of localized necking”, Vol. 42 No. 11, pp.
2233-2248.
19. Johnson, D. (1996), “Necking two-piece beverage cans in the 90’s”, Aluminum
Alloys for Packaging TMS Annual Meeting II, PA, USA. pp. 161-177.
20. Kikuta Y., and Tsuchida S., (1998), “Necking formability of D&I cans during SDN or
SFN”, Aluminum Alloys for Packaging TMS Annual Meeting III, PA, USA. pp. 189-
195.
21. Konda, R., Rajurkar, K.P., Bishu, R.R., Guha, A., and Parson, M. (1999), “Design of
experiments to study and optimize process performance”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 56-71.
22. Markhauser, A. (1982), “Forming extruded necks of cans”, Int. J. Mach. Tool Des.
Res., Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 131-146.
23. MECC, (2000), Middle East Can manufacturing Company Technical Report.
24. Montgomery, D. C. (1997), “Design and Analysis of Experiments”, Fourth Edition,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
25. Reid, J.D., Bielenberg, R.W. and Coon, B.A. (2001), ”Indenting buckling and
piercing of aluminum beverage cans”, Finite element in Analysis and Design, Vol 37
No. 2, pp. 133-144.
26. Rowlands, H., Antony, J. and Knowless, G. (2000), “An application of experimental
design for process optimization”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 78-83.
27. Sauer, R. (1998), “Ironing for production of tinplate cans”, Metal Processing
Technology, 52 (10-11), p0. 580+.
28. Seem, J.E. and Knussmann, K.D. (1996), “Statistical methods for on-line fault
detection in press-working applications”, Dynamic Systems and Control, ASME, Vol.
2, pp. 969-975.
29. Shimizu, N., Nishimoto, N., Morita, S., Fukai, J. Baba, S. and Miyatake O. (2000),
“Effect of differential tin coatings on resistance seam weldability of low tin-coated
steel for beverage cans”, J. of the Iron and Steel, Vol. 86 No. 8, pp. 519-525.
30. Steverson, W.B. (1998), “Can sheet performance as a function of aluminum UBC
quality”, Aluminum Alloys for Packaging, TMS Annual Meeting III, PA, USA. pp.
151-179.
31. Sun, T.C. (1998), “Advancements in Manufacturing D&I Can Bodies”, Aluminum
Alloys for Packaging, TMS Annual Meeting III, PA, USA. pp. 135-149.
32. Thomas, M., Beauchamp, Y., Youssef Y.A. and Masounave J. (1997), “ An
experimental design for surface roughness and built-up edge formation in lathe dry
turning”, International Journal of Quality Science, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 167-180.

11
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3. Number of Can’s defects for the 30 confirmation runs

Table I. Input factors (factors) and their levels

Table II. The 34-1 fractional design with I = AB2CD

(coded & uncoded)

Table III. Mean and Standard Deviation for No. of cans necking defect
(Design I = AB2CD)

Table IV: Means analysis of 3IV4-1 design (I = AB2CD)

Table V. Analysis of Variance for the 3IV 4-1 design (I = AB2CD)

Table VI: Four regression models and their coefficient of determination

Table VIII. Analysis of variance for regression model-4

12
 Table I. Input factors (factors) and their levels

Factor Description Range of values Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Top wall thickness (A) 0.0063 - 0.0067 inch 0.0063 0.0065 0.0067
Inside air pressure (B) 30-50 psi 30 40 50
Lacquer amount (C) 2-3 mg/inch2 2 2.5 3
Top over varnish quantity (D) 1.8-2.2 mg/ inch2 1.8 2 2.2

13
 Table II. The 34-1 fractional design with I = AB2CD
(coded & uncoded)

Factor Levels Factor Levels

( coded) ( un-coded)
EXP.# A B C D A B C D
1 0 0 0 0 .0063 30 2 1.8
2 0 1 0 1 .0063 40 2 2
3 1 1 0 0 .0065 40 2 1.8
4 1 0 0 2 .0065 30 2 2.2
5 0 2 0 2 .0063 50 2 2.2
6 1 2 0 1 .0065 50 2 2
7 2 0 0 1 .0067 30 2 2
8 2 1 0 2 .0067 40 2 2.2
9 2 2 0 0 .0067 50 2 1.8
10 0 0 1 2 .0063 30 2.5 2.2
11 0 1 1 0 .0063 40 2.5 1.8
12 0 2 1 1 .0063 50 2.5 2
13 1 0 1 1 .0065 30 2.5 2
14 1 1 1 2 .0065 40 2.5 2.2
15 1 2 1 0 .0065 50 2.5 1.8
16 2 0 1 0 .0067 30 2.5 1.8
17 2 1 1 1 .0067 40 2.5 2
18 2 2 1 2 .0067 50 2.5 2.2
19 2 2 2 1 .0067 50 3 2
20 0 0 2 1 .0063 30 3 2
21 0 1 2 2 .0063 40 3 2.2
22 0 2 2 0 .0063 50 3 1.8
23 1 0 2 0 .0065 30 3 1.8
24 1 1 2 1 .0065 40 3 2
25 1 2 2 2 .0065 50 3 2.2
26 2 0 2 2 .0067 30 3 2.2
27 2 1 2 0 .0067 40 3 1.8

14
Table III. Mean and Standard Deviation for No. of cans necking defect
(Design I = AB2CD)

Exp. ABCD n* Rep Rep Rep 3 Mean no. of SD

# (coded 1 2 cans necking
factor defect
levels )
1 0000 3 2436 2606 2746 2596.00 155.24
2 0101 3 2142 1725 2027 1964.67 215.37
3 1100 3 664 578 716 652.67 69.69
4 1002 3 846 994 1035 958.33 99.42
5 0202 3 1971 1549 1638 1719.33 222.45
6 1201 3 826 1017 904 915.67 96.03
7 2001 3 611 531 581 574.33 40.41
8 2102 3 437 388 309 378.00 64.58
9 2200 3 461 537 431 476.33 54.63
10 0012 3 2516 2210 1940 2222.00 288.18
11 0110 3 1049 1270 1195 1171.33 112.38
12 0211 3 1207 1340 1386 1311.00 92.95
13 1011 3 520 437 458 471.67 43.15
14 1112 3 371 418 329 372.67 44.52
15 1210 3 945 1120 973 1012.67 94.00
16 2010 3 417 318 376 370.33 49.74
17 2111 3 232 197 113 180.67 61.15
18 2212 3 385 457 311 384.33 73.00
19 2221 3 440 537 483 486.67 48.60
20 0021 3 2079 2163 2478 2240.00 210.35
21 0122 3 2123 1976 1854 1984.33 134.69
22 0220 3 1335 1108 1466 1303.00 181.13
23 1020 3 866 751 683 766.67 92.50
24 1121 3 393 570 437 466.67 92.15
25 1222 3 563 689 607 619.67 63.95
26 2022 3 443 368 409 406.67 37.55
27 2120 3 346 315 278 279.67 65.52

15
 Table IV: Means analysis of 3IV4-1 design (I = AB2CD)

Levels of N* Mean SD Levels of N* Mean SD

Factorial Defect Factorial defect
effects effects
A BC
0 27 1834.36 498.82 0 27 1063.03 759.71
1 27 692.96 234.34 1 27 940.96 695.89
2 27 393.00 120.79 2 27 919.59 667.71
B BD
0 27 1178.44 877.59 0 27 1020.15 771.93
1 27 688.45 688.45 1 27 901.44 653.94
2 27 454.60 454.60 2 27 999.00 698.73
C CD
0 27 1137.26 751.87 0 27 1099.70 919.18
1 27 832.96 642.14 1 27 1002.19 596.17
2 27 950.37 702.50 2 27 818.70 526.76
D AC2
0 27 958.74 686.59 0 27 1034.44 824.08
1 27 956.81 705.95 1 27 998.81 701.24
2 27 1005.04 740.76 2 27 887.33 580.50
AB AD2
0 27 1160.48 911.41 0 27 899.26 707.03
1 27 962.70 611.48 1 27 1066.59 708.58
2 27 797.41 496.85 2 27 945.74 709.22
AC CD2
0 27 1007.59 833.91 0 27 966.56 796.00
1 27 933.78 581.91 1 27 978.15 636.25
2 27 979.22 695.09 2 27 975.89 693.94
AD
0 27 918.07 706.51
1 27 1012.96 674.67
2 27 989.56 748.7

*N = no. of observations for each mean

16
 Table V. Analysis of Variance for the 3IV 4-1 design (I = AB2CD)

Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean F Value Pr > F

Square (p-value)
Model 26 38710346.17 1488859.47 99.09 0.0001
A 2 31245088.91 15622544.46 1039.78 0.0001
B 2 1801458.47 900729.23 59.95 0.0001
C 2 1271773.73 635886.86 42.32 0.0001
D 2 40251.95 20125.98 1.34 0.2705
AB 2 1784355.28 892177.64 59.38 0.0001
AXC Interaction 4 392921.75 98230.43 6.53 0.0001
(AC) 2 (74868.32) (37434.16) 2.49 0.0923
(AC2) 2 (318053.43) (159026.71) 10.58 0.0001
AXD Interaction 4 524257.97 131064.49 8.72 0.0001
(AD) 2 (131952.69) 65976.35 4.39 0.0171
(AD2) 2 (392305.28) 196152.64 13.06 0.0001
CXD Interaction 4 1101266.27 275316.56 18.32 0.1901
(CD) 2 1099226.84 549613.42 36.58 0.0001
(CD2) 2 2039.43 1019.72 0.07 0.9345
BC 2 332477.73 166238.86 11.06 0.0001
BD 2 216494.10 108247.05 7.20 0.0017

Error 54 811344.00 15024.89

Corrected Total 80 39521690.17

R2 = 0.98
R: The coefficient of determination (the proportion of variability in the data explained by the factors and their
interactions).

17
 Table VI: Four regression models and their coefficient of determination

Model-1 R2 = 0. 75
ŷi = o +1 X1+2 X2 +3 X3 + 4 X4 + e

Model-2 R2 = 0. 80
ŷi = o +1 X1+2 X2 +3 X3 + 4 X4 +12 X1X2 +13 X1X3 + 14 X1X4 +e

Model-3 R2 = 0. 87
ŷi = o +1 X1+2 X2 +3 X3 + 4 X4 +11 X12 +22 X2 2 + 33 X32 +44 X42 +e

Model-4: R2 = 0. 963
ŷi = o +1 X1+2 X2 +3 X3 + 4 X4 +12 X1X2 +13 X1X3 + 14 X1X4 +
23X2X3 + 11X12 + 3 X32 + 33 XX32 + XX2 +
33 XX32 +  X3 X22 + e

18
 Table VIII. Analysis of variance for regression model-4

Source DF Sum of Mean Fo Value Prob > F

Squares Square (p-value)

Regression 14 38056256.98 27,18304.07 122.43 0.0001

Model
Error (Residual) 66 1465432.98 22203.53
Total 80 39521690.17

19
Dr. Ibrahim Rawabdeh
Chairman
Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Jordan,
Amman, 11942
Jordan
Te: +962 6 5355000 ext. 2793
Fax.: +962 6 5355588

Dr. Hisham Hilow

Assistant Professor
Department of Mathematics
University of Jordan
Amman 11942
Jordan
Te: +962 6 5355000 ext. 2933
Fax.: +962 6 5355588

Eng. Mohammed Abu Hammad

Research Assistant
Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Jordan,
Amman, 11942
Jordan
Te: +962 6 5355000 ext. 2793
Fax.: +962 6 5355588

20
 MINIMIZING NECKING DEFECTS IN ALUMINUM BEVERAGE

CANS USING EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TECHNIQUE

Ibrahim Rawabdeh

Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

Hisham Hilow

Department of Mathematics, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

Mohammed Abu Hammad

Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

Abstract

One significant source of defective cans in the manufacturing processes of aluminum

beverage cans are the ones caused by necking deformation. A design of experiment approach,

using fractional factorials, is used to minimize the necking defect. Four most important

factors affecting the necking process are investigated. They are top wall thickness, inside air

pressure, lacquer amount and top over varnish quantity. Three quantitative equally spaced

levels for each factor are selected and 3IV4-1 fractional factorial design is employed with three

replicates. Analysis of variance has been carried out to identify which factors and interactions

among factors are significant to the necking process. A regression model was developed, a

numerical iteration technique has been used to produce the best fitted regression surface, and

confirmation runs were performed to validate the best settings. Results show that top wall

thickness, inside air pressure and lacquer amount contribute significantly to the occurrence of

the necking defect while top over varnish quantity was not statistically significant.

21
Keywords: Beverage Cans, Necking Defects, Design of Experiments, Analysis of
Variance, Regression Model.

22