DOCSLIB.ORG

Orthogonal Arrays of Strength 3 and Small Run Sizes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Orthogonal Arrays of Strength 3 and Small Run Sizes ORTHOGONAL ARRAYS OF STRENGTH 3 AND SMALL RUN SIZES ANDRIES E. BROUWER, ARJEH M. COHEN, MAN V.M. NGUYEN Abstract. All mixed (or asymmetric) orthogonal arrays of strength 3 with run size at most 64 are determined. 1. Introduction In this paper we study mixed orthogonal arrays of strength 3. Let s1, s2, . , sk be a list of natural numbers, and for each i, let Qsi be a set of size si. For natural numbers t, N, a multiset F of size N whose elements are from Qs1 ×Qs2 ×· · ·×Qsk is called an orthogonal array of strength t, notation OA(N, s1, s2, ··· , sk, t), if t ≤ k, Q and, for every index set I ⊆ {1, ··· , k} of size at most t, each row of i∈I Qsi occurs equally often in the projection of F onto the coordinates indexed by I. We refer to the elements of F as runs, so N is the number of runs of F, also called its run size. The coordinates of Qs1 × Qs2 × · · · × Qsk are called factors, so k is the number of factors. Moreover, si is called the level of the factor i. Instead a b c of s1, s2, s3,... we also write 2 · 3 · 4 ··· , where the exponents a, b, c, . indicate the number of factors at level 2, 3, 4, etc. An orthogonal array is called trivial if it contains each element of Qs1 × Qs2 × · · · × Qsk the same number of times. Orthogonal arrays of strength 2 have been studied extensively. In this paper, we study the case of strength t = 3. We restrict ourselves mainly to N ≤ 64. Theorem 1. For every set of parameters N, s1, s2, . , sk, t with t = 3 and N ≤ 64 such that an orthogonal array OA(N, s1, s2, ··· , sk, t) exists, we construct at least one such array. More precisely, if k = 3 such an array is trivial, and if k > 3 a construction is indicated in Table 1. Of course the existence of OA(N, s1, s2, ··· , sk, t) does not depend on the or- dering of the parameters sj, and we can take them in non-decreasing order if we wish. Sometimes we shall find it useful to consider arrays with si = 1 for some i. An OA(N, 1, s1, s2, ··· , sk, t) is equivalent to an OA(N, s1, s2, ··· , sk, t), provided t ≤ k. We prove the main theorem in three parts. In Section 2, we recall known facts, establish some upper bounds on the parameters of a strength 3 orthogonal array with run size at most 64, and provide further basic material. In Section 3 we de- termine the feasible parameter sets. In Section 4, we provide explicit constructions for all cases mentioned in Table 1. In Section 5, we give the non-existence proof for parameters not appearing in the table. Date: November 1, 2003. Key words and phrases. Fractional factorial designs, orthogonal arrays. 1 2 ANDRIES E. BROUWER, ARJEH M. COHEN, MAN V.M. NGUYEN N Levels Existence Construction Nonexistence 8 2a a ≤ 4 (H) 16 2a · 4 a ≤ 3 (M) 16 2a a ≤ 8 (H) 24 2a · 6 a ≤ 3 (M) 24 2a · 3 a ≤ 4 (M) a = 5 24 2a a ≤ 12 (H) 27 3b b ≤ 4 (L) b = 5 32 2a · 8 a ≤ 3 (M) 32 2a · 42 a ≤ 4 (AD) 32 2a · 4 a ≤ 7 (M) 32 2a a ≤ 16 (H) 36 22 · 32 (T) 40 2a · 10 a ≤ 3 (M) a 40 2 · 5 a ≤ 6 (X1) a = 7 40 2a a ≤ 20 (H) 48 2a · 12 a ≤ 3 (M) 48 2a · 4 · 6 a ≤ 2 (M) a = 3 48 2a · 6 a ≤ 7 (M) a 48 2 · 3 · 4 a ≤ 4 (X2) a = 5 48 2a · 4 a ≤ 11 (M) a 48 2 · 3 a ≤ 9 (X3) a = 10 48 2a a ≤ 24 (H) 54 3b · 6 b ≤ 3 (M) b = 4 a b 54 2 · 3 a ≤ 1, b ≤ 5 (X4) (a, b) = (0, 6) 56 2a · 14 a ≤ 3 (M) 56 2a · 7 a ≤ 6 (J) a = 7 56 2a a ≤ 28 (H) 60 22 · 3 · 5 (T) 64 2a · 16 a ≤ 3 (M) 64 2a · 4 · 8 a ≤ 4 (M) 64 2a · 8 a ≤ 7 (M) 64 4c c ≤ 6 (L) 64 2a · 45 a ≤ 2 (S) a = 3 a 4 64 2 · 4 a ≤ 6 (X5) 64 2a · 43 a ≤ 8 (S) a = 9 64 2a · 42 a ≤ 12 (AD) 64 2a · 4 a ≤ 15 (M) 64 2a a ≤ 32 (H) Table 1. Parameters of orthogonal arrays of strength 3 with N ≤ 64. We briefly explain the table. In the second and third column, a set of levels 2a3b4c ··· is specified for which there exists an orthogonal array of strength 3 and run size N as indicated in the first column. In the fourth column we give a reference to a construction. In the fifth column we give references to nonexistence proofs. Some of the obtained arrays are given in the appendix. We use the terms “factor” and “column”; “fractional design” and “array” alternatively in the whole paper. ORTHOGONAL ARRAYS OF STRENGTH 3 AND SMALL RUN SIZES 3 2. Basic facts We start by fixing some notation and recalling well-known results which will be used throughout the paper. 2.1. Taking the derived design. Proposition 2. Let k ≥ t ≥ 1. From an orthogonal array OA(N, s1, s2, ··· , sk, t), we find, for each choice of column j (1 ≤ j ≤ k) and each choice of symbol s ∈ Qsj , an orthogonal array OA(N/sj, s1, ··· , sj−1, sj+1, ··· , sk, t − 1) by taking the runs that have an s in the j-th position, and deleting that coordinate position. Proof. This is immediately clear from the definition. 2.2. Rao’s generalized bound. We recall the following well-known result (cf. [7], Theorem 9.4, [3], Theorem 2.6.2, [4]). Theorem 3 (Rao’s generalized bounds for mixed orthogonal arrays). Let k ≥ t ≥ 1, and assume an orthogonal array OA(N, s1, s2, ··· , sk, t) exists. • If t is even, then t/2 X X (2.1) N ≥ Πi∈I (si − 1). j=0 |I|=j • If t is odd, then a lower bound for N is found by applying the above bound to the derived design OA(N/sk, s1, s2, ··· , sk−1, t − 1), where sk is the largest among the sj. We will need this result for t = 2 and t = 3. Let us give the explicit form of the above bound in case t = 2. Corollary 4 (Rao’s bound when t = 2). Assume an orthogonal array of the form OA(N, s1, s2, ··· , sk, 2) exists. Then k X (2.2) N ≥ 1 + (si − 1). i=1 For instance, an OA(N, 35.2, 3) has derived design OA(N/3, 34.2, 2), so that N/3 ≥ 1 + 4.(3 − 1) + (2 − 1) = 10, that is, N ≥ 30. These bounds are very well known. It is possible to derive additional information in case equality holds (cf. [3] (5.4.6), [8]). P Proposition 5. Let F be an OA(N, s1, s2, ··· , sk, 2) with N = 1 + (si − 1). P Then for any two runs we have j∈J sj = k − 1, where J is the set of columns where the two runs agree. P Proof. Fix one run, say, the top row. Let the weight of row r be w = j∈J(r) sj, where J(r) is the set of columns where row r agrees with the top row. Let there P be nw rows of weight w. Put σ = (si − 1). Double counting (over all rows other than the top row) now yields X nw = N − 1, w X X N wn = ( − 1)s = Nk − σ − k, w s i w i i 4 ANDRIES E. BROUWER, ARJEH M. COHEN, MAN V.M. NGUYEN X 2 X N X N 2 2 w nw = ( − 1)sisj + ( − 1)si = Nk(k − 1) − (σ + k) + N(σ + k) sisj si w i6=j i so that X Nσ (w − c)2n = (N − 1 − σ) w N − 1 for c = k − σ/(N − 1). Since this last sum is nonnegative, N ≥ 1 + σ. In case equality holds, every weight is equal to c, and c = k − 1. For example, if an OA(24, 221.3, 2) exists, then any two runs have 21 weighted agreements. Since all weights are even except that on the last column, any two runs agree in the last column. Contradiction, so no such array exists. 2.3. Divisibility condition for the run size. For any orthogonal array F, the fact that derived designs exist implies a divisibility condition for the run size of F. Lemma 6. Let k ≥ t ≥ 0. In an OA(N, s1, s2, ··· , sk, t), the run size N is divisible Q by the least common multiple (lcm) of all numbers i∈I si where |I| = t. Proof. This says that the t times derived design has an integral run size. 5 1 For example, in an OA(N, 3 .2 , 3), the run size N must be a multiple of N0 = lcm(3 · 3 · 3, 2 · 3 · 3) = 54. 2.4. Strength 3 transversal designs. Orthogonal arrays are equivalent to trans- versal designs. Here is the version appropriate for mixed arrays. Definition 7. A transversal design (TD) of strength t, is a triple (X, G, B), where X is a set of points; G is a partition of X into groups; and B is a collection of subsets of X called blocks such that: (1) t ≤ |G|, (2) every block meets every group in precisely one point, (3) for every choice of t distinct groups, all t-sets meeting each of those groups in precisely one point are contained in the same number of blocks.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Orthogonal Arrays and Row-Column and Block Designs for CDC Systems
    Current Trends on Biostatistics & L UPINE PUBLISHERS Biometrics Open Access DOI: 10.32474/CTBB.2018.01.000103 ISSN: 2644-1381 Review Article Orthogonal Arrays and Row-Column and Block Designs for CDC Systems Mahndra Kumar Sharma* and Mekonnen Tadesse Department of Statistics, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Received: September 06, 2018; Published: September 20, 2018 *Corresponding author: Mahndra Kumar Sharma, Department of Statistics, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Abstract In this article, block and row-column designs for genetic crosses such as Complete diallel cross system using orthogonal arrays (p2, r, p, 2), where p is prime or a power of prime and semi balanced arrays (p(p-1)/2, p, p, 2), where p is a prime or power of an odd columnprime, are designs derived. for Themethod block A designsand C are and new row-column and consume designs minimum for Griffing’s experimental methods units. A and According B are found to Guptato be A-optimalblock designs and thefor block designs for Griffing’s methods C and D are found to be universally optimal in the sense of Kiefer. The derived block and row- Keywords:Griffing’s methods Orthogonal A,B,C Array;and D areSemi-balanced orthogonally Array; blocked Complete designs. diallel AMS Cross; classification: Row-Column 62K05. Design; Optimality Introduction d) one set of F ’s hybrid but neither parents nor reciprocals Orthogonal arrays of strength d were introduced and applied 1 F ’s hybrid is included (v = 1/2p(p-1). The problem of generating in the construction of confounded symmetrical and asymmetrical 1 optimal mating designs for CDC method D has been investigated factorial designs, multifactorial designs (fractional replication) by several authors Singh, Gupta, and Parsad [10].
    [Show full text]
  • Orthogonal Array Experiments and Response Surface Methodology
    Unit 7: Orthogonal Array Experiments and Response Surface Methodology • A modern system of experimental design. • Orthogonal arrays (sections 8.1-8.2; appendix 8A and 8C). • Analysis of experiments with complex aliasing (part of sections 9.1-9.4). • Brief response surface methodology, central composite designs (sections 10.1-10.2). 1 Two Types of Fractional Factorial Designs • Regular (2n−k, 3n−k designs): columns of the design matrix form a group over a finite field; the interaction between any two columns is among the columns, ⇒ any two factorial effects are either orthogonal or fully aliased. • Nonregular (mixed-level designs, orthogonal arrays) some pairs of factorial effects can be partially aliased ⇒ more complex aliasing pattern. This includes 3n−k designs with linear-quadratic system. 2 A Modern System of Experimental Design It has four branches: • Regular orthogonal arrays (Fisher, Yates, Finney, ...): 2n−k, 3n−k designs, using minimum aberration criterion. • Nonregular orthogonal designs (Plackett-Burman, Rao, Bose): Plackett-Burman designs, orthogonal arrays. • Response surface designs (Box): fitting a parametric response surface. • Optimal designs (Kiefer): optimality driven by specific model/criterion. 3 Orthogonal Arrays • In Tables 1 and 2, the design used does not belong to the 2k−p series (Chapter 5) or the 3k−p series (Chapter 6), because the latter would require run size as a power of 2 or 3. These designs belong to the class of orthogonal arrays. m1 mγ • An orthogonal array array OA(N,s1 ...sγ ,t) of strength t is an N × m matrix, m = m1 + ... + mγ, in which mi columns have si(≥ 2) symbols or levels such that, for any t columns, all possible combinations of symbols appear equally often in the matrix.
    [Show full text]
  • Latin Squares in Experimental Design
    Latin Squares in Experimental Design Lei Gao Michigan State University December 10, 2005 Abstract: For the past three decades, Latin Squares techniques have been widely used in many statistical applications. Much effort has been devoted to Latin Square Design. In this paper, I introduce the mathematical properties of Latin squares and the application of Latin squares in experimental design. Some examples and SAS codes are provided that illustrates these methods. Work done in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Michigan State University MTH 880 advised by Professor J. Hall. 1 Index Index ............................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Latin square........................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Orthogonal array representation ........................................................................... 3 1.3 Equivalence classes of Latin squares.................................................................... 3 2. Latin Square Design.................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Latin square design ............................................................................................... 4 2.2 Pros and cons of Latin square design...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Orthogonal Array Application for Optimized Software Testing
    WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on COMPUTERS Ljubomir Lazic and Nikos Mastorakis Orthogonal Array application for optimal combination of software defect detection techniques choices LJUBOMIR LAZICa, NIKOS MASTORAKISb aTechnical Faculty, University of Novi Pazar Vuka Karadžića bb, 36300 Novi Pazar, SERBIA [email protected] http://www.np.ac.yu bMilitary Institutions of University Education, Hellenic Naval Academy Terma Hatzikyriakou, 18539, Piraeu, Greece [email protected] Abstract: - In this paper, we consider a problem that arises in black box testing: generating small test suites (i.e., sets of test cases) where the combinations that have to be covered are specified by input-output parameter relationships of a software system. That is, we only consider combinations of input parameters that affect an output parameter, and we do not assume that the input parameters have the same number of values. To solve this problem, we propose interaction testing, particularly an Orthogonal Array Testing Strategy (OATS) as a systematic, statistical way of testing pair-wise interactions. In software testing process (STP), it provides a natural mechanism for testing systems to be deployed on a variety of hardware and software configurations. The combinatorial approach to software testing uses models to generate a minimal number of test inputs so that selected combinations of input values are covered. The most common coverage criteria are two-way or pairwise coverage of value combinations, though for higher confidence three-way or higher coverage may be required. This paper presents some examples of software-system test requirements and corresponding models for applying the combinatorial approach to those test requirements. The method bridges contributions from mathematics, design of experiments, software test, and algorithms for application to usability testing.
    [Show full text]
  • Generating and Improving Orthogonal Designs by Using Mixed Integer Programming
    European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 629–638 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect European Journal of Operational Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor Stochastics and Statistics Generating and improving orthogonal designs by using mixed integer programming a, b a a Hélcio Vieira Jr. ⇑, Susan Sanchez , Karl Heinz Kienitz , Mischel Carmen Neyra Belderrain a Technological Institute of Aeronautics, Praça Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50, 12228-900, São José dos Campos, Brazil b Naval Postgraduate School, 1 University Circle, Monterey, CA, USA article info abstract Article history: Analysts faced with conducting experiments involving quantitative factors have a variety of potential Received 22 November 2010 designs in their portfolio. However, in many experimental settings involving discrete-valued factors (par- Accepted 4 July 2011 ticularly if the factors do not all have the same number of levels), none of these designs are suitable. Available online 13 July 2011 In this paper, we present a mixed integer programming (MIP) method that is suitable for constructing orthogonal designs, or improving existing orthogonal arrays, for experiments involving quantitative fac- Keywords: tors with limited numbers of levels of interest. Our formulation makes use of a novel linearization of the Orthogonal design creation correlation calculation. Design of experiments The orthogonal designs we construct do not satisfy the definition of an orthogonal array, so we do not Statistics advocate their use for qualitative factors. However, they do allow analysts to study, without sacrificing balance or orthogonality, a greater number of quantitative factors than it is possible to do with orthog- onal arrays which have the same number of runs.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthogonal Array Sampling for Monte Carlo Rendering
    Eurographics Symposium on Rendering 2019 Volume 38 (2019), Number 4 T. Boubekeur and P. Sen (Guest Editors) Orthogonal Array Sampling for Monte Carlo Rendering Wojciech Jarosz1 Afnan Enayet1 Andrew Kensler2 Charlie Kilpatrick2 Per Christensen2 1Dartmouth College 2Pixar Animation Studios (a) Jittered 2D projections (b) Multi-Jittered 2D projections (c) (Correlated) Multi-Jittered 2D projections wy wu wv wy wu wv wy wu wv y wx wx wx u wy wy wy v wu wu wu x y u x y u x y u Figure 1: We create high-dimensional samples which simultaneously stratify all bivariate projections, here shown for a set of 25 4D samples, along with their six stratified 2D projections and expected power spectra. We can achieve 2D jittered stratifications (a), optionally with stratified 1D (multi-jittered) projections (b). We can further improve stratification using correlated multi-jittered (c) offsets for primary dimension pairs (xy and uv) while maintaining multi-jittered properties for cross dimension pairs (xu, xv, yu, yv). In contrast to random padding, which degrades to white noise or Latin hypercube sampling in cross dimensional projections (cf. Fig.2), we maintain high-quality stratification and spectral properties in all 2D projections. Abstract We generalize N-rooks, jittered, and (correlated) multi-jittered sampling to higher dimensions by importing and improving upon a class of techniques called orthogonal arrays from the statistics literature. Renderers typically combine or “pad” a collection of lower-dimensional (e.g. 2D and 1D) stratified patterns to form higher-dimensional samples for integration. This maintains stratification in the original dimension pairs, but looses it for all other dimension pairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Association Schemes for Ordered Orthogonal Arrays and (T, M, S)-Nets W
    Canad. J. Math. Vol. 51 (2), 1999 pp. 326–346 Association Schemes for Ordered Orthogonal Arrays and (T, M, S)-Nets W. J. Martin and D. R. Stinson Abstract. In an earlier paper [10], we studied a generalized Rao bound for ordered orthogonal arrays and (T, M, S)-nets. In this paper, we extend this to a coding-theoretic approach to ordered orthogonal arrays. Using a certain association scheme, we prove a MacWilliams-type theorem for linear ordered orthogonal arrays and linear ordered codes as well as a linear programming bound for the general case. We include some tables which compare this bound against two previously known bounds for ordered orthogonal arrays. Finally we show that, for even strength, the LP bound is always at least as strong as the generalized Rao bound. 1 Association Schemes In 1967, Sobol’ introduced an important family of low discrepancy point sets in the unit cube [0, 1)S. These are useful for quasi-Monte Carlo methods such as numerical inte- gration. In 1987, Niederreiter [13] significantly generalized this concept by introducing (T, M, S)-nets, which have received considerable attention in recent literature (see [3] for a survey). In [7], Lawrence gave a combinatorial characterization of (T, M, S)-nets in terms of objects he called generalized orthogonal arrays. Independently, and at about the same time, Schmid defined ordered orthogonal arrays in his 1995 thesis [15] and proved that (T, M, S)-nets can be characterized as (equivalent to) a subclass of these objects. Not sur- prisingly, generalized orthogonal arrays and ordered orthogonal arrays are closely related.
    [Show full text]
  • 14.5 ORTHOGONAL ARRAYS (Updated Spring 2003)
    14.5 ORTHOGONAL ARRAYS (Updated Spring 2003) Orthogonal Arrays (often referred to Taguchi Methods) are often employed in industrial experiments to study the effect of several control factors. Popularized by G. Taguchi. Other Taguchi contributions include: • Model of the Engineering Design Process • Robust Design Principle • Efforts to push quality upstream into the engineering design process An orthogonal array is a type of experiment where the columns for the independent variables are “orthogonal” to one another. Benefits: 1. Conclusions valid over the entire region spanned by the control factors and their settings 2. Large saving in the experimental effort 3. Analysis is easy To define an orthogonal array, one must identify: 1. Number of factors to be studied 2. Levels for each factor 3. The specific 2-factor interactions to be estimated 4. The special difficulties that would be encountered in running the experiment We know that with two-level full factorial experiments, we can estimate variable interactions. When two-level fractional factorial designs are used, we begin to confound our interactions, and often lose the ability to obtain unconfused estimates of main and interaction effects. We have also seen that if the generators are choosen carefully then knowledge of lower order interactions can be obtained under that assumption that higher order interactions are negligible. Orthogonal arrays are highly fractionated factorial designs. The information they provide is a function of two things • the nature of confounding • assumptions about the physical system. Before proceeding further with a closer look, let’s look at an example where orthogonal arrays have been employed. Example taken from students of Alice Agogino at UC-Berkeley A Airplane Taguchi Experiment This experiment has 4 variables at 3 different settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Aspects of Design of Experiments
    Some Aspects of Design of Experiments Nancy Reid University of Toronto, Toronto Canada Abstract This paper provides a brief introduction to some aspects of the theory of design of experiments that may be relevant for high energy physics experiments and associated Monte Carlo investigations. 1 Introduction `Design of experiments' means something specific in the statistical literature, which is different from its more general use in science. The key notion is that there is an intervention applied to a number of experimental units; these interventions are conventionally called treatments. The treatments are usually assigned to experimental units using a randomization scheme, and randomization is taken to be a key element in the concept in the study of design of experiments. The goal is then to measure one or more responses of the units, usually with the goal of comparing the responses under the various treatments. Be- cause the intervention is under the control of the experimenter, a designed experiment generally provides a stronger basis for making conclusions on how the treatment affects the response than an observational study. The original area of application was agriculture, and the main ideas behind design of experiments, including the very important notion of randomization, were developed by Fisher at the Rothamsted Agri- cultural Station, in the early years of the twentieth century. A typical agricultural example has as exper- imental units some plots of land, as treatments some type of intervention, such as amount of or type of fertilizer, and as primary response yield of a certain crop. The theory of design of experiments is widely used in industrial and technological settings, where the experimental units may be, for example, man- ufactured objects of some type, such as silicon wafers, the treatments would be various manufacturing settings, such as temperature of an oven, concentration of an etching acid, and so on, and the response would be some measure of the quality of the resulting object.
    [Show full text]
  • Robust Parameter Design of Derivative Optimization Methods for Image Acquisition Using a Color Mixer †
    Journal of Imaging Article Robust Parameter Design of Derivative Optimization Methods for Image Acquisition Using a Color Mixer † HyungTae Kim 1,*, KyeongYong Cho 2, Jongseok Kim1, KyungChan Jin 1 and SeungTaek Kim 1 1 Smart Manufacturing Technology Group, KITECH, 89 Yangdae-Giro RD., CheonAn 31056, ChungNam, Korea; [email protected] (J.K.); [email protected] (K.J.); [email protected] (S.K.) 2 UTRC, KAIST, 23, GuSung, YouSung, DaeJeon 305-701, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-41-589-8478 † This paper is an extended version of the paper published in Kim, HyungTae, KyeongYong Cho, SeungTaek Kim, Jongseok Kim, KyungChan Jin, SungHo Lee. “Rapid Automatic Lighting Control of a Mixed Light Source for Image Acquisition using Derivative Optimum Search Methods.” In MATEC Web of Conferences, Volume 32, EDP Sciences, 2015. Received: 27 May 2017; Accepted: 15 July 2017; Published: 21 July 2017 Abstract: A tuning method was proposed for automatic lighting (auto-lighting) algorithms derived from the steepest descent and conjugate gradient methods. The auto-lighting algorithms maximize the image quality of industrial machine vision by adjusting multiple-color light emitting diodes (LEDs)—usually called color mixers. Searching for the driving condition for achieving maximum sharpness influences image quality. In most inspection systems, a single-color light source is used, and an equal step search (ESS) is employed to determine the maximum image quality. However, in the case of multiple color LEDs, the number of iterations becomes large, which is time-consuming. Hence, the steepest descent (STD) and conjugate gradient methods (CJG) were applied to reduce the searching time for achieving maximum image quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Robust Product Design: a Modern View of Quality Engineering in Manufacturing Systems
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 26 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0517.v1 Robust Product Design: A Modern View of Quality Engineering in Manufacturing Systems Amir Parnianifarda1, A.S. Azfanizama, M.K.A. Ariffina, M.I.S. Ismaila a. Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. ABSTRACT: One of the main technological and economic challenges for an engineer is designing high-quality products in manufacturing processes. Most of these processes involve a large number of variables included the setting of controllable (design) and uncontrollable (noise) variables. Robust Design (RD) method uses a collection of mathematical and statistical tools to study a large number of variables in the process with a minimum value of computational cost. Robust design method tries to make high-quality products according to customers’ viewpoints with an acceptable profit margin. This paper aims to provide a brief up-to-date review of the latest development of RD method particularly applied in manufacturing systems. The basic concepts of the quality loss function, orthogonal array, and crossed array design are explained. According to robust design approach, two classifications are presented, first for different types of factors, and second for different types of data. This classification plays an important role in determining the number of necessity replications for experiments and choose the best method for analyzing data. In addition, the combination of RD method with some other optimization methods applied in designing and optimizing of processes are discussed. KEYWORDS: Robust Design, Taguchi Method, Product Design, Manufacturing Systems, Quality Engineering, Quality Loss Function.
    [Show full text]
  • Matrix Experiments Using Orthogonal Arrays
    Matrix Experiments Using Orthogonal Arrays Robust System Design 16.881 MIT Comments on HW#2 and Quiz #1 Questions on the Reading Quiz Brief Lecture Paper Helicopter Experiment Robust System Design 16.881 MIT Learning Objectives • Introduce the concept of matrix experiments • Define the balancing property and orthogonality • Explain how to analyze data from matrix experiments • Get some practice conducting a matrix experiment Robust System Design 16.881 MIT Static Parameter Design and the P-Diagram Noise Factors Induce noise Product / Process Signal Factor Response Hold constant Optimize for a “static” Control Factors experiment Vary according to an experimental plan Robust System Design 16.881 MIT Parameter Design Problem • Define a set of control factors (A,B,C…) • Each factor has a set of discrete levels • Some desired response η (A,B,C…) is to be maximized Robust System Design 16.881 MIT Full Factorial Approach • Try all combinations of all levels of the factors (A1B1C1, A1B1C2,...) • If no experimental error, it is guaranteed to find maximum • If there is experimental error, replications will allow increased certainty • BUT ... #experiments = #levels#control factors Robust System Design 16.881 MIT Additive Model • Assume each parameter affects the response independently of the others η( Ai , B j , Ck , Di ) = µ + ai + b j + ck + di + e • This is similar to a Taylor series expansion ∂f ∂f f (x, y) = f (xo , yo ) + ⋅ (x − xo ) + ⋅ ( y − yo ) + h.o.t ∂x x= x ∂y o y = yo Robust System Design 16.881 MIT One Factor at a Time Control Factors Expt. A B C D No.
    [Show full text]