2012 Taguchi S History and Latest Development of Robust Engineering

History and Latest Development
of
Robust Engineering
(Taguchi Methods)
ASQ NORTH JERSEY SECTION 0304
SPRING QUALITY CONFERENCE
"QUALITY FOREVER
Hanover Marriott, Whippany, NJ
APRIL 05, 2012
Dr. Genichi Taguchi
Shin Taguchi
CTO, ASI Consulting Group
President, American Supplier Institute, Inc.
shin.taguchi@asisua.com
2011 Copyright by ASI Consulting Group, LLC All rights reserved
History of Taguchi Method

T Methods
10s
Standardized S/N for Non-linear Ideal Function

Automotive
Robust Behavior Testing Mahalanobis Taguchi System
Hall of Fame
00s Robust Assessment Dynamic S/N Application to other Systems
1993
Robust Technology Noise Compounding
QES
90s Robust Design
Energy Thinking
Operating Window
80s
Dynamic S/N Application to Mechanical System
Imported to
USA
Non-dynamic S/N Tolerance Design

On-line Quality Engineering
Quality Loss Function
70s Dynamic S/N for Measurement
Inner Array
60s
50s
Parameter Design
Design
Of
Experiment
2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC
Focus on Work
Linear Graph
ANOVA
OA
Outer Array
2-Step Optimization
Deming Prize
India
Robustness
By Control x Noise
Customer Wants and Needs

The Kano Model
Satisfied
Didnt do
it at all
Did it
very
well
BASIC
NEEDS
Dissatisfied
Basic Needs and

Performance Needs
Focus of
Robust Engineering
&
Quality Loss Function
Dr. Taguchis work on Caramel Candy

- Morinaga Seika Co. 1948
y = Caramel Hardness
FUNCTION!!
Robustness !!
Before
When cold, can not even chew this

caramel, and when hot, it melts in pocket.
Robust Caramel !!
It just melts nicely
in your mouth.
After
0 deg.
10 deg. 20 deg. 30 deg. 40 deg.

NOISE FACTOR!!
Temperature (C)
4
Dr. Taguchi with

Electrical Communication Labs in 1950s
Development of Cross Bar Switching System
ECL (Electrical Communication Labs.) vs. Bell Labs.
Budget # People # Years

Result
50
5
7
Not finished
AT&T Bell Labs
NT&T ECL
Superior
Lease
Sell
ECL
Contractors
Mfg.
companies
Design
Users
Tel Co.
End
users
Leasing by ECL has

100% Warranty
- 40 Years for
Exchanger
-15 Years for
Tel. sets
During six years of

development, ECL has optimized
over 3000 Design Control Factors
for Robustness, i.e. looking for
robustness by studying
interactions between
Control and Noise.
5
Genichi Taguchi
W. E. Deming
Yuin Wu
1979 Basement of Dr. Demings House
Dr. Taguchi at the Bell Laboratories

In 1981, Dr. Taguchi offered a lecture at the Bell Laboratories.
Dr. Taguchi asked them to bring the most difficult problem that Bell Labs was facing. .
They challenged Dr. Taguchi with 256k IC
Photolithography Window Size problem.
Epoch Making Case Study at The Bell Labs

Photolithography was used to create 150,000 windows (holes)
on one chip with specification of: 3.00 0.25m
Yield was only 33%

Failure Modes: No window, Window Too big,
Window Too small, Shape Variability, etc.
How would you attack this problem?

.......
.......
.......
IC Chip
.......
.......
.......
.......
256k Chip Photolithography Window Size

Bell Laboratories in 1981
Response
y = Window Size
(Nominal-the-Best)
Photolithography
Noise Factors
Chip to Chip
Within Chip
P1
Control Factors
Plasma Etching Time
Exposure Time
Spin Speed
Bake Time
Aperture, Etc
Apply
2-step
Optimization
Step-2
Baseline
Performance
Step-1
P2
Q1
Q2
Three 2-level factors

Six 3-level factors
Q3
Q4
Q5
L18(23
36)
Target
( 3.0m )
Yield: 33%
87%
Published in:
Bell Systems Technical Journal, May 1983
Typical Taguchi Method Case Study from 80s.

Chrysler had Porosity problem with sheet molding compound
for automotive interior. Porosity is void that is a defect resulting in poor quality.
Because of Porosity, production direct-run yield was only 77%,
costing over $1million annually for Scrap & Rework.
Response
y Number of Porosity
(Smaller-the-Better)
Control Factors
Forming Pressure, Forming
Temperature, Cycle Time,
Pattern Design, Pretreatment,
Viscosity, Glass Type,
Amount of Additive, etc.
Deign of Experiment was

conducted, to look for an optimum
combination of control factors to
minimize
Number of Porosity.
It was confirmed the optimum
process resulted in Number of
Porosity reduced to nearly zero.
Yield was improved to 98% and the

annual scrap & rework cost reduced
by more than $1 million.
ROI was more than 32X times.
9
Fire-fighting Proactive Prevention

Sheet Molded Compound
Process Improvement
Chrysler, 1985
Response
y # of Porosity
STB
Objective
Minimize: and y
Control Factors
Forming Pressure,
Temperature, Cycle Time,
Pattern Design, Under
Coating, Weight,
Glass Type, etc.
Control Factors were

assigned to an L16 with
selected two-factor
interactions.
It was confirmed that the
optimum condition resulted
in just about no porosity.
Direct Run Yield was

improved from 74% to 96%.
Cost reduction due to
reduced rework was
$900,000/Yr.
Not objective of
Taguchi Methods.
Best in Class
Good Company
Typical Company
I have a big problem

with my son, Shin.
He helps his clients to
fire fight.
I am not interested in
Fire-Fighting.
Please do not use
Taguchi Methods for
Fire Fighting
G. Taguchi, 1988
Prevention
Prevention of
Re-occurrence
Fire Fighting
Dr. Genichi Taguchi

10
Traditional Product Development

Design-Build-Test Cycle
Vision
Mission
Strategies
&
VOC
Identify
Requirements
&
Establish
Targets
Generate Concepts & Select Concept(s)

Build/Simulate a prototype
Test it to see if it meets
Requirements
Ex. Worst Case Test
Life Test, Etc.
Does it meet Requirements?

Run out of Time/Budget?
Typical Company
spends more than 70% of
Engineering Resource to fire
fight!!
Study Design.
Change Design.
No
Yes
Release Design
Manufacturing
Customer
11
Whack-A Mole Engineering!!
12
Fire-fighting Proactive Prevention
13
CASE STUDY
Robust Optimization with Energy Thinking
1993 Fuel Pump by Ford
System
V = DC Volts
EEC
I = Current
ECT
RPM
Throttle Position
: :
: :
Back Pressure
Scope
Pump
y = Fuel Flow
Injector
P = Back Pressure
Excess hot fuel back to tank

(This is no longer allowed due to pollution standards)
Gas tank
14
1993
Fuel Pump by Ford
Ideal Function
I=Current
V=Voltage
P=Pressure
IV
Input Signal:
M
P
Output Response: y Fuel Flow
Ideal Function
y=M
Reality
Very complex
Optimization
After
Optimization
Before
Optimization
M
Learning through 1990s

M = IV/P
y = Fuel Flow
Fuel
Pump
Noise Factors
Fuel Temperature, Fuel Type

Tank Pressure, Pump Wear
Driving Conditions, Mfg. Variation, Etc
Reality
Very complex
Ideal Function
y=M
y
Response must be a
physical response that
represents Work
generated by the
system
Example: Torque,
Force, Displacement,
Voltage, Current, Flow,
Pressure, Velocity,
Time, 1/Time,
Temp, Pressure,
RPM, Volume
Removed, Work done,
Power, Power
integrated over time,
etc.
16
Learning through 1990s

P-diagram
Control Factors
Modulation Freq., Assembly Type

Motor Design, Valve Design
Mounting Angle, Etc
M = IV/P
Fuel Pump
y = Fuel
Flow
Change
Speed
Noise Factors

17
Ford Fuel Pump
Factors and Levels

Signal Factors and Levels
Level-1 Level-2 Level-3 Level-4 Level-5
6
8
10
12
14
V: Voltage (Volt)
250
300
350
P: Pressure (KPa) 200
M = IV/P
Fuel
Pump
Noise Factors
Noise Strategy (Compunded Noise)
Volatility
Fuel Temp
Vapor Pressure
Level-1:
Level-2:
Low Flow High Flow
High
Low
High
Low
0
10
y = Flow
Control Factors
Control Factors and Levels
Level-1 Level-2 Level-3
Tubine Gerotor
A: Pump Type
FDM
Bracket Jet Pump
B: Assembly Type
0
45
80
C: Mounting Angle
Med
High
D: Rated Pump Flow Low
4
9.6
19.2
E: Modulation Freq.
18
Fuel Pump
Inner Array and Outer Array

Control Factors:
Signal Factors: V, P
Noise Factor: N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
B
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
C
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
D
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
E
5
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
Inner
Array
e
6
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
e
7
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
e Outer
8 Array
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
Assigned to an inner array!
A, B, C, D, E
Assigned to an outer array!
Outer Array
N1
N2
P1
P2
P3
P4
P1
P2
P3
P4
V1
y1
y6
y11
y16
y21
y26
y31
y36
V2
y2
y7
y12
y17
y22
y27
y32
y37
M1 M2 M3 M4
y1 y2 y3 y4
V3
y3
y8
y13
y18
y23
y28
y33
y38
V4
y4
y9
y14
y19
y24
y29
y34
y39
.
.
V5
y5
y10
y15
y20
y25
y30
y35
y40
M40
y40
For each run of L18, one set of

outer array was conducted.
V: Voltage, P: Pressure and N:
Noise are set accordingly.
For each of 40 cell of V, P and
N, measurement was taken on:
o y = Fuel Flow
o I = Current
o P = Actual Pressure
o V = Actual Voltage
For each cell, the value of M is
calculated by V x I / P.
This will result in 40 pairs of M
and y values for each outer
array. S/N is calculated from
this set of data.
19
Fuel Pump
- Result
This performance represents their

accomplishment after 1.5 years of development.
Baseline Design S/N = 17.1 dB

140
120
Flow
100
N1
80
N2
60
40
20
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
IV/P
Optimum Design S/N = 28.2 dB

Flow
160
140
120
100
80
60
N1
N2
40
20
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
IV/P
0.2
0.25
0.3
At the validation, met

all requirements
20
Concept of Signal-to-Noise Ratio Calculation

The least
square best fit
line through
Zero
Signal-to-Noise Ratio is
given by:
F lo w
160
140
120
100
80
60
N1
N2
40
20
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
IV/P
0.2
0.25
0.3
2
S / N 10 log 2
Where:
= Slope of the best fit line
2 = Mean Square around the
best fit line (Average of
square of distance from
individual point to the best
fit line.)
21
Formulating Successful Robust Design Projects
Formulating a Robust Design Case Study

Robust Design Formulation
1. Define Scope For Optimization
Planning
Stage!!
Very Critical
2. Identify the Ideal Function

3. Develop Signal & Noise Strategy
4. Select Control Factors & Levels
5. Execute & Collect Data
6. Conduct Data Analysis
7. Predict and Confirm
8. Document and Go To Tolerance Design/ Verify
22
Cost & Weight Reduction by optimizing function for robustness

Intercooler by Nissan
1996
System & Background
Control Factors
18
1
2
P-diagram
Control Factors
Design Parameters
from Inter-cooler
M=Turbo
rpm
18 inter-coolers were built according to an inner Array of L18

with The outer array was executed for each of 18 runs, as
shown below.
Outer Array
Heat Exchanging meets the

target but it was too noisy.
Signal M
Optimization for Robustness
Noise Factors
Leaks, Temperature,
Humidity, Aging
Position to Position, etc
Where M is set by:

Turbo rpm, Input Air
Volume and Tube Cross
Section Area
Inner
Array
T/V RPM 6
Input Air Flow 6
M: Theoretical Airflow 29
Upper - Max Flow 3.4
Upper - Min Flow 2.7
Lower - Max Flow 15.4
Lower - Min Flow 13.6
8
8
6
8
30 40
5.6 6.7
4.4 y 5.4
=
21.8 24.0
18.3 20.0
8 10 10
10 6
8
46 41 50
9.0 8.5 10.7
7.0 Flow
6.5 8.4
Air
26.3 31.3 36.0
21.8 26.8 30.0
10
10
58
12.1
9.8
41.7
34.4
Results and Benefit

Output y
y =Air Flow
Inter
cooler
Ideal Function
y = M
18
ABCDEFGH
Symptoms
Audible Noise
Vibration
Poor Acceleration
Etc.
Ideal Function
y=M
8.8 dB Gain in S/N

and 10% increase
in b was
confirmed!!
Optimum
6 dBA quiter
20% increase in
Heat Exchanging
Efficiency!!
6 dBA
20% more efficient

than requirement,
Scale down to
reduce weight!!
$3.75 Cost Reduction
Baseline
20% increase
2005 Nissan
Steer by Wire
Robust Optimization of New Technology
Standardized S/N for non-linear ideal function & 2-Step Optimization

Noise Factors
Steering Gear
Variation in Level
of Control Factors
Signal
Response
Steering
Feel
Steering Rate
actuator
sensor
Steering Torque
Steering Column
sensor
ECU
Control Factors
System
Components
Devices
Sensors
:
Ideal
Profile
Ideal vs. Baseline Design
7
6
5
4
actuator
Ideal Profile
Baseline N1
Baseline N2
2
1
0
0
50
100
150
Ideal Profile
Step-1 OPT N1
Step-1 OPT N2
50
100
150
Ideal Profile
2
0
ECU
After Step-2: Adjust to ideal profile
After Step-1: Reduce Variability
sensors
motor
Step-2 OPT N1
Step-2 OPT N2
0
0
50
100
150
2006 Position Sensor by Alps Electric
Magnetism
Simulation Engine
Scope Big!!
Angle of
incidence
Magnetic Sensing System

M = True
Angle
(0 to 360 Deg)
Sensor
IC
Y = Computed
Angle
Software
S/N Improvement over iterations
L108
48
Control
Factors
49
Noise
Factors
L108
0
-10
x
108x108x360
= 4,199,090
computations
11
iterations
-20
-30
-40
38.7 dB Improvement
Baseline
Optimum
Number of Designs Explored

877,430,873,845,598,000,000,000
True Value (deg)
True Value (deg)
2008
Chrysler Frontal Crash
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
b
l
e
B
a
r
r
i
e
r
Front Sill +
Cowl Side
Lower
Shot gun front
Crush Can
Extension
Cradle
Front Leg
Use of 10-min. Spring Mass Model Simulation

vs. 36 Hour Full CAE Simulation
Mid Sill
Rear Sill
Front Tire
Crush
Can
Rail Tip
Cradle Frt X
-member Leg
Shock Tower
Rail Tip Extension

Engine to Front
X-member
Cradle
Middle Leg
OM651
Engine
Rail
Kick down
Main Cradle
Frt Tunnel
A-pillar + Cowl
Side Upper
Mid Rail
Gooseneck
+ Mount
Mid Tunnel
B-Pillar +
Aperture
Rear Rail
Underbody
Stay Brkt Reinf
Rear Tunnel
Loading Zone Mass Legends
Dynamic Operating Window Ideal Function

Dynamic Operating Window Ideal Function
After Optimization
Area
2 you dont
2 want
to deform
Input:
M = Velocity
Output:
Y=Deformation
Output:
Y=Deformation
200
Area you want
1 to deform
Area you want

1 to deform
Dash Intrusions (mm)
180
Intrusion
Before Optimization
W/O Cradle Base

W/O Cradle OPT #1
Cradle Baseline
Cradle OPT #1
Cradle OPT #2
Cradle OPT #3
160
140
120
100
Area
2 you dont
want to deform
80
60
40
20
0
Input:
M = Velocity
Cradle Concept L54 iterated 5 times

K-member Concept L54 iterated 5 times
Short Front Concept L54 iterated 5 times
D-Line Dash C-Line Dash A-Line Dash E-Line Dash

40 N1
40 N1
40 N1
40 N1
D-Line Dash C-Line Dash A-Line Dash E-Line Dash

40 N2
40 N2
40 N2
40 N2
Meeting
European 5-Star
Requirement
# of Designs Explored = 323 x 3 x 5 iterations > 1,400,000,000,000

27
It is most important is to recognize

the difference between
Assessment and Validation.
Conduct Assessment first, then Validate
Short Time,
~ One Day
To evaluate how robust

the function is against various
customers usage conditions
Ideal Function + Noise Strategy
Signal-to-Noise Ratio
Longer Time,
~ 3 Months.
To check if the product

meets all requirements.
Meet Requirement?
Anything Overlooked?
Any way to add Value?
28
Robust Assessment
M = IV/P
y = Fuel Flow
Fuel
Pump
Noise Factors

Reality
Very complex
Ideal Function
y=M
y
Response must be a
physical response that
represents Work
generated by the
system
Example: Torque,
Force, Displacement,
Voltage, Current, Flow,
Pressure, Velocity,
Time, 1/Time,
Temp, Pressure,
RPM, Volume
Removed, Work done,
Power, Power
integrated over time,
etc.
29
Ideal Function :
Example of Robust Assessment

M=Pressure, y=Flow
Vehicle-A
High Warranty
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
-0.5-20.0 0
-40.0
-60.0
-80.0
-100.0
O u tp u t F lo w
No
0.0
-2
-1
N1
0
N2
-50.0
O u tp u t F lo w
100.0
-3
Best in
Industry
Best-in-Class
A. High Waranty
50.0
S/N: 3.3 dB
: 30.4
y = M
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-100.0
No
0.5
1.5
2.5
N1
N2
S/N: 12.3 dB
: 36.3
Input Pressure
Input Pressure
Vehicle-B
Lower Warranty
B. Lower Warranty
80.0
60.0
40.0
No
20.0
0.0
-3
-2
-1
-20.0 0
N1
1
N2
O u tp u t F lo w
Output Flow
100.0
S/N: 7.1 dB
: 29.1
-3
-2
-1
-40.0
-60.0
-80.0
-100.0
-3
-2
-1
Input Pressure
No
N1
1
N2
S/N: 6.7 dB
: 31.9
No
N1
1
Competitor
F
Competitor H
N2
O u tp u t F lo w
F lo w O u tp u t
S/N: 8.6 dB
: 32.9
C. Low Warranty
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0 0
-40.0
-60.0
-80.0
-100.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0 0
-40.0
-60.0
-80.0
-100.0
Input Pressure
Input Pressure
Vehicle-C
Very Low Warranty
Competitor
G
Competitor J
-3
-2
-1
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0 0
-40.0
-60.0
-80.0
-100.0
No
N1
1
N2
S/N: 10.8 dB
: 12.6
Input Pressure
Make sure our new design is as good as Vehicle-C

30
31
Apply Decoupled Development

Step-1: Robust Optimization of Key Technology/ Product
Step-2: Application to family and future products
Step-2
Product
A
New
Technology
New Design
Std Design
Step-1
Robust
Optimization
Step-2
Product
B
Step-2
Robust
Design
Shelf
Product
C
Product
D
Strategies:
Identify Ideal Function based on
Energy Thinking and develop Noise
Strategy
Optimize Ideal Function for
Robustness against Noise Strategy.
Product
E
Step-2
Step-2
32
VOC
Strategic
Target
Product
Planning
RE Projects
Validation
Product Development Process
Launch
Step-2
RE Projects
Decoupled Development
- New Technology
- New Design Concept
- Common Components
- Robust BOM/BOD/BOP
- Reuse
- Best Practice
- Design Guideline
- Manufacturing Technology
Robust Assessment
& Optimization
Robust
Design
Shelf
(Scalable,
Adjustable &
Robust Design)
Step-1
Note:
Ideally, A should be 20%
and 80% for B.
Only way to reduce Timeto-Market drastically, say

from 48 months down to 12
months!!
Satisfy the VOC in 12
months is easier.
33
(b)
Meet Requirement
by DBTF Cycle
(a)
LSL
LSL
USL
Specification
(Requirement)
USL
Stop!!
y
Enjoy
Cost
(d)
Reduction !
(c)
Robust
Optimization
LSL
USL
LSL
USL
Note: When engineers think their job is just to meet the requirements by Design-BuildTest-Fix Cycle, you are missing numerous opportunities for cost reduction.
34
(a)
After
Optimization
LSL
USL
(b)
LSL
USL
Specification
(Requirement)
On the other hand, after optimizing Energy

Transformation for robustness, the design may not meet
Requirements. This an indication of Poor Design
Concept. It is extremely important for engineering
management to detect poor design concept in early stage
of development.
35
Thank you for your kind attention!!

Shin Taguchi
36

2012 Taguchi S History and Latest Development of Robust Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 Taguchi S History and Latest Development of Robust Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

History and Latest Development

Dr. Genichi Taguchi

History of Taguchi Method

Standardized S/N for Non-linear Ideal Function

Dynamic S/N Application to Mechanical System

Non-dynamic S/N Tolerance Design

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Customer Wants and Needs

Basic Needs and

Dr. Taguchis work on Caramel Candy

When cold, can not even chew this

10 deg. 20 deg. 30 deg. 40 deg.

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Dr. Taguchi with

Budget # People # Years

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Leasing by ECL has

During six years of

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Dr. Taguchi at the Bell Laboratories

Epoch Making Case Study at The Bell Labs

Yield was only 33%

How would you attack this problem?

256k Chip Photolithography Window Size

Three 2-level factors

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Typical Taguchi Method Case Study from 80s.

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Deign of Experiment was

Yield was improved to 98% and the

Fire-fighting Proactive Prevention

Control Factors were

Direct Run Yield was

I have a big problem

Dr. Genichi Taguchi

Traditional Product Development

Generate Concepts & Select Concept(s)

Does it meet Requirements?

Whack-A Mole Engineering!!

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Fire-fighting Proactive Prevention

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

1993 Fuel Pump by Ford

Excess hot fuel back to tank

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Learning through 1990s

Fuel Temperature, Fuel Type

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Learning through 1990s

Modulation Freq., Assembly Type

Fuel Temperature, Fuel Type

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Ford Fuel Pump

Factors and Levels

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Inner Array and Outer Array

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC

Assigned to an inner array!

Assigned to an outer array!

For each run of L18, one set of

This performance represents their

Baseline Design S/N = 17.1 dB

Optimum Design S/N = 28.2 dB

2007 ASI Consulting Group, LLC