Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Steven Wachs Leave a Comment

Analyzing the Experiment (Part 4) – Finding Solutions

Analyzing the Experiment (Part 4) – Finding Solutions

In the last article, we learned how to determine the coefficients of a predictive model for 2-level screening designs.  It is more complex to determine model coefficients for multi-level experiments so for those, we rely on statistical methods software.

In this article, we look at using the model to develop solutions.  So that we learn the basics, we first use some simple algebra to find a solution.  Then, in the next article, we will explore some common tools that are found in DOE software programs to help uncover solutions.

Let’s revisit the camera battery life example from the last article.  We ended up with the following model, where y-hat I the predicted battery life and the factors are:

  • X1 – Wall thickness
  • X3 – Material Type
  • X4 – Ambient Temperature

$$ \displaystyle \hat{Y}=46.5-2.5X_{1}-3.5X_{4}-3.5X_{3}X_{4} $$

This model is the “coded” model, which is based on factor levels ranging from “-1” to “+1”.  The coded model has some advantages in that the factors and interactions are all orthogonal to each other.  Essentially this allows us to have independent (clean) estimates of the main and interaction effects.   We can work with the coded model and then convert solutions to real units.

So, we have one equation and 3 unknowns.  Suppose our objective is to find a solution (levels of the factors) that would result in a predicted life of 45.  Obviously, we could find an infinite set of values for wall thickness, material type, and temperature that would produce a given result.  So, where should we start?  It is often helpful to interpret the main and interaction effects.  For the interaction effect, we use a 2-factor interaction plot.  We have:

When lithium (X3 low) is used, changes in temperature have no effect on battery life. This property is desirable.

This plot shows us that when the material type is “Lithium”, then the Ambient Temperature has no effect on the average battery life.  That may be a desirable situation since we cannot control the ambient temperature.  So, we will force X3 to the low value, which is “-1” on the coded scale, and then simplify the equation as shown below.

Starting with the model

$$ \displaystyle \hat{Y}=46.5-2.5X_{1}-3.5X_{4}-3.5X_{3}X_{4} $$

Suppose the target value is 45.0. We plan to use lithium so we set X3 = -1.

$$ \displaystyle 45=46.5-2.5X_{1}-3.5X_{4}-3.5\left(-1\right)X_{4} $$

Simplifying, we have:

$$ \displaystyle \begin{align*}
45 & =46.5-2.5X_{1}-3.5X_{4}+3.5X\\
45 & =46.5-2.5X_{1}
\end{align*} $$

As might be expected, the Temperature factor (X4), simply falls out of the equation when we force the material type to be -1 (Lithium).  We are left with a simple equation with only one unknown (X4 = Wall Thickness).  Finally, we can solve for the value of X1 that produces a response of 45.

Since we are left with 1 equation and 1 unknown, we can solve for X1.

$$ \displaystyle \begin{align*}
45-46.5 & =-2.5X_{1}\\
-1.5 & =-2.5X_{1}\\
0.6 & =X_{1}
\end{align*} $$

The solution is to set wall thickness equal to 0.6 (on the coded scale).

Note: each factor must fall between -1 and 1 for the solution to be feasible. We should not extrapolate beyond the region over which we experimented because we do not know of the nonlinearities or interactions that may exist beyond the design space we selected.

A key requirement is that the solution for the factor level must be within the range of which we varied the factor in the experiment (-1 to +1 on the coded scale).  Here, we got 0.6 which is a “feasible solution” since it is in the design space.  Solving for a solution that is outside of our design space is risky since we did not collect data in that region.

Finally, how do we know what the coded solution of 0.6 is in real units?  We must de-code this solution, so we know the actual wall thickness to use.  As shown in the graphic below the actual levels for wall thickness were, low = 0.8 mm and high = 1.6 mm.

If our coded solution were 0, it would be obvious that the uncoded solution would be halfway between 0.8 mm and 1.6 mm and would be equal to 1.2 mm. But what about our coded solution of 0.6?  We need to find the value on the uncoded scale that is 60% of the way between the middle value and high value.

We take 60% of the actual distance on the uncoded scale (0.6*0.4mm) = 0.24 mm

Then add this to the middle value of 1.2 mm.  We get 1.44 mm which is the uncoded solution.

In this example, things worked out rather nicely once we realized that we wanted the solution to be insensitive to ambient temperature changes.  By using Lithium, the temperature factor became insignificant and we were left with only one factor to solve for.  The real world is not this simple.  Let us look at one more example which will introduce an important graphical tool to help us find solutions.

In this example, we have a model which predicts “run out” of a key characteristic.  The desired value is 0.  The predictive model is developed and contains 3 significant factors (through three main effects and one 2-factor interaction)

An experiment was performed to understand the factors affecting “run out”. Tool coating, temperature, cycle time, and the temp/cycle time interaction were significatnt.

$$ \displaystyle \hat{Y}=2.2+2.5X_{1}-3.5X_{2}+3X_{3}+2X_{2}X_{3} $$

Target run out = 0 and to minimize cost, tool coating (X1) is set at -1. We then have:

$$ \displaystyle 0=2.2-2.5-3.5X_{2}+3X_{3}+2X_{2}X_{3} $$

After forcing one of the factors to be low for cost reason, we are left with one equation and two unknowns.  Many solutions are possible as illustrated below. If one solution exists, an infinite number of solutions will exist. Suppose we set X1 = 0.

$$ \displaystyle \begin{align*}
0.3 & =-3.5X_{2}+3X_{3}+2X_{2}X_{3}\\
0.3 & =-3.5\left(0\right)+3X_{3}+2\left(0\right)X_{3}\\
0.3 & =3X_{3}\\
X_{3} & =0.1
\end{align*} $$

So, one solution to the problem is:

$$ \displaystyle \begin{align*}
X_{1} & =-1\\
X_{2} & =0\\
X_{3} & =0.1
\end{align*} $$

Another solution, starting with:

$$ \displaystyle \begin{align*}
X_{1} & =-1\\
X_{3} & =\frac{1}{3}
\end{align*} $$

So, another solution to the problem is:

$$ \displaystyle \begin{align*}
\hat{Y} & =2.2+2.5X_{1}-3.5X_{2}+3X_{3}+2X_{2}X_{3}\\
0 & =2.2+2.5\left(-1\right)-3.5X_{2}+3\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)+2X_{2}\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)\\
0 & =2.2-2.5-3.5X_{2}+1+\frac{2}{3}X_{2}\\
-0.7 & =-3.5X_{2}+1+\frac{2}{3}X_{2}\\
-0.7 & =-2.83X_{2}\\
X_{2} & =0.247
\end{align*} $$

Clearly, given that X1 is held low, we could keep changing X2 and calculate a value for X3 that solves the equation.  A computer is good at quickly finding and displaying all the solutions graphically.  A contour plot allows us to view combinations of two different factors that provide a constant response (along a contour line).  The illustration below shows combinations of X2 and X3 that solve the equation for responses of -1.2, 0, 1.2.  So, the bold curve (contour) is our desired response and is the contour that we want. All of the possible solutions may be illustrated on a contour plot.

3 contours of Y given X1 = -1 with

$$ \displaystyle \begin{align*}
X_{2} & \in\left[-1,1\right]\\
\text{and}\\
X_{3} & \in\left[-1,1\right]
\end{align*} $$

We’ll explore the use of contour plots and other tools in the next article to help us quickly find solutions to our models.

 

Filed Under: Articles, Integral Concepts, on Tools & Techniques

« Part III: The 4 Basic Physical Failure Mechanisms of Component Failure: Overload
Delivering Outcomes, Building Trust »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles by Steven Wachs, Integral Concepts
in the Integral Concepts article series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Articles

  • How to Reduce Maintenance Cost The Right Way
  • Significance Over Success. Innovation Over Change. Anticipation Over Agility
  • Maintenance Planning and Scheduling for World Class Reliability and Maintenance Performance
  • Self-Discipline Part 1
  • Is Safety Training Helpful?

© 2023 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.