Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1, 2, 3
Department of Industrial Administration, Tokyo University of Science
ABSTRACT
It is effective to use the orthogonal arrays in fractional factorial designs. The linear graph was developed by
Taguchi to allocate the factor to the orthogonal arrays easily. The linear graphs are prepared for each orthogonal
array beforehand. In three-level orthogonal arrays, the degree of freedom for a two factor interaction is four. Two
factor interactions will appear across two columns. Due to this reason, the number of factors that can be
considered is limited. Actually, there are only two prepared linear graphs for L27. The confounding happens if we
try to design the experiment other than the two prepared linear graphs. In this paper, we consider the
experimental design that cannot design in the prepared linear graphs for L27. We investigate the experimental
design to which a partial confounding is allowed. We propose the practical design of experiment to allocate more
INTRODUCTION
The experimental design is widely used in various fields including industry, medicine and psychology. The fractional factorial designs are
effective when the number of factors considered is large and when it is difficult to experiment all the combinations. It is effective to use
the orthogonal arrays in fractional factorial designs. The linear graph was developed by Taguchi to allocate the factor to the orthogonal
arrays systematically and easily. The linear graph is prepared for each orthogonal array beforehand. The orthogonal arrays which will be
used changes according to the number of factors and the number of levels considered. Two-level orthogonal arrays such as L8 and L16 are
used when factors of two levels are considered. Three-level orthogonal arrays such as L9 and L27 are used when factors of three levels are
considered. Their use and subsequent analysis are almost the same, but there is great difference in degrees of freedom. In three-level
orthogonal arrays, the degree of freedom a two factor interaction is four. Two factor interactions will appear across two columns. Due to
this reason, the number of factors that can be considered is limited. Actually, there are only two prepared linear graphs for L27. The
confounding happens if we try to design the experiment other than the two prepared linear graphs. In this paper, In this paper, we
consider the experimental design that cannot design in the prepared linear graphs for L27. We investigate the experimental design to
1
Syuhei Okada1, Yasuhiro Itoh2, Tomomichi Suzuki3
which a partial confounding is allowed. We propose the practical design of experiment to allocate more factors, and evaluate it by
simulation.
factorial experiment on which it experiments by all the level combinations when the number of factors taken up in the experiment
increases. Then, the obtaining necessary information can be done by an experiment frequency that is less than the factorial experiment by
providing experimental conditions by using the table that is called an orthogonal array.
frequency increases rapidly when the number of factors increases, and the inconvenience in the experiment is caused. For this case, the
orthogonal array experiment that is the method of not the experiment on all the level combinations but conducting only a part of the
experiment is useful. When the levels of all the factor taken up are three, the three-level orthogonal array is used. Table 1 shows the L27
orthogonal array.
The feature of the three-level orthogonal array that can be read from Table 1 is as follows.
1. Every column has the figure of “1”, “2” and “3” the same number of times.
2. There is a combination of (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,1), (2,2), (2,3), (3,1), (3,2) and (3,3) the same number of times when two
2
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TO ALLOCATE MORE FACTORS TO L27
The design of experiment using the three-level orthogonal array is basically the same as the case of two-level orthogonal array. The
analysis procedure like the allocation of factor, the analysis of variance, the estimation, and the forecast, etc. is almost the same.
However, we should take care that the degree of freedom of two-factor interaction A×B becomes AB = 2 2 = 4 because the degree of
freedom of three levels factors A and B are A = 3 – 1 = 2 and B = 3 – 1 = 2 respectively. In other words, the point "the interaction
appears across two columns though the main effect is allocated to one column" is a point remarkably different from the case of two-level
orthogonal arrays.
Linear graph
The relation between the factor and the interaction becomes complex when number of considered factors and interactions increase, and
allocating factors becomes difficult to orthogonal array by using component letters. For this case, the method of using a figure that is
called a linear graph is convenient. A linear graph is figure where the column of the orthogonal array is expressed by vertices and edges,
and the relation between the factor and the two-factor interaction is shown. This linear graph of each orthogonal array is prepared
beforehand. As for the linear graph of the L27 orthogonal array, two kinds of Figure 1 are prepared.
The edge shows the one column for two-level orthogonal array, and shows the column any two for the three-level
orthogonal array
The edge where the vertex and the vertex are connected shows the column to which the two-factor interaction between
The figure written in the vertex and the edge shows the column index.
Moreover, the procedure of the allocation that uses the linear graph is as follows.
1. The factor and the two-factor interaction considered by the experiment are shown in the vertex and edge
respectively, and the relation between the factor and the two-factor interaction is expressed in figure. The linear
2. The necessary (required) linear graph is built into “prepared linear graph”. As a result, it is decided that the
3. A factor not related to the two-factor interaction is allocated to the column of the vertex or the edge that has
become vacant.
3
Syuhei Okada1, Yasuhiro Itoh2, Tomomichi Suzuki3
factor interaction becomes four. Therefore, the two-factor interaction will be allocated in two specific columns. Therefore, it may be
difficult to allocate so that the confounding does not happen to factorial effects. Actually, there are only two prepared linear graphs for
L27. The confounding always happens if we try to design the experiment other than the two prepared linear graphs.
Here, we think about the simple allocation shown in Figure 2. This linear graph cannot be built into the prepared linear graphs.
Therefore, in the L27 orthogonal array, if we try to allocate factors to the linear graph as shown in Figure 2, the confounding always
happens and the design becomes impossible. The coverage of the L27 orthogonal array where two-factor interactions are allocated is
narrow. Also, because the number of factors that we can consider compared with frequency of experiment is not many, this design may
Then, when paying attention to “two-factor interaction appears across two columns”, if the confounding has not happened to the other
column though the confounding has happened to one of columns, it seems that some effect can be estimated by using the column in
In this paper, about the case where we cannot design by the prepared linear graphs for L27, we investigate the experimental design to
which a partial confounding is allowed. We propose the practical design of experiment to allocate more factors, and evaluate it by
simulation.
If this idea can be applied, the design that factor cannot be allocated shown in Figure 3 becomes possible. And applicable scope in the
“At what rate is the sum of squares of two-factor interaction distributed to two columns?” is not clear. Therefore, there might be a
This chapter considers it from two approaches of a theoretical viewpoint and a practical viewpoint. L9 orthogonal array is used because
4
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TO ALLOCATE MORE FACTORS TO L27
Theoretical approach
Factor A and B of three levels are allocated to the 1st column and the 2nd column of the L9 orthogonal array respectively as shown in
Table 2. From the linear graph of Figure 4, Two-factor interaction A×B appears to the 3rd column and the 4th column. It is assumed that
the data of a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i was obtained as a result of experimenting nine times in total according to the orthogonal array.
From this data, the sum of squares of the 3rd column and the 4th column is calculated to the following.
1
S [ 3] ( 2a 2 2ab 2b 2 2ac 2bc 2c 2 2ad 4bd 2cd 2d 2 2ae 2be
9
4ce 2de 2e 2 4af 2bf 2cf 2df 2ef 2 f 2 2ag 2bg
4cg 2dg 4eg 2 fg 2 g 2 4ah 2bh 2ch 2dh 2eh 4 fh
2 gh 2h 2 2ai 4bi 2ci 4di 2ei 2 fi 2 gi 2hi 2i 2 )
(1)
1
S[ 4] ( 2a 2 2ab 2b 2 2ac 2bc 2c 2 2ad 2bd 4cd 2d 2 4ae 2be
9
2ce 2de 2e 2 2af 4bf 2cf 2df 2ef 2 f 2 2ag 4bg
2cg 2dg 2eg 4 fg 2 g 2 2ah 2bh 4ch 4dh 2eh 2 fh
2 gh 2h 2 4ai 2bi 2ci 2di 4ei 2 fi 2 gi 2hi 2i 2 )
(2)
From eq. (1) and eq. (2), the following two equations can be derived.
2
S [ 3] S [ 4 ] (bd cd ae ce af bf bg cg eg
3 (3)
fg ah ch dh fh ai bi di ei )
S [ 3]
S [ 3] S [ 4 ]
{3(c e g ) 2 3(a f h) 2 3(b d i ) 2 (a b c d e f g h i ) 2 }
{3(c e g ) 2 3(b f g ) 2 3(c d h) 2 3(a f h) 2 3(b d i ) 2 3(a e i ) 2 2(a b c d e f g h i ) 2 }
5
Syuhei Okada1, Yasuhiro Itoh2, Tomomichi Suzuki3
(4)
S[ 3]
S[ 3 ] S[ 4 ] and constant
S[ 3 ] S[ 4 ]
From this relation, it is not necessarily the case that two-factor interaction is distributed in two columns at an equal rate.
Practical approach
From the result of foregoing section, the rate of the distribution of two-factor interaction effect to two columns fluctuates with changes
on the experimental data. Then, we think about the typical situation that can be assumed for two-factor interaction. The factor of three
levels that is continuous and is equal intervals is considered. And we are assumed that situation in which two-factor interaction exists or
not between those levels. Under such a situation, we investigate between the change in those conditions and the relationship that
Vision
Before the survey, we should think about the relation between three level values of the considered factor. Because, from the difference of
level value considered factor, there is a possibility that the difference is in the distribution of two-factor interaction on the 3rd column and
the 4th column. Then, we think separately by the difference of the level considered. Generally, main effects can approximate by linear
expression or quadratic expression. Factors A and B are assumed three-level factor consecutive and equal distance. For this case, four
patterns are thought as for how to take three level values (See to Figure 5). We think about the combination by 16 kinds of because factor
1. In each situation from Figure 5, data where two-factor interaction does not exist is made.
6
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TO ALLOCATE MORE FACTORS TO L27
2. To think about the situation where two-factor interaction exists between each level, the data of 1 is doubled.
Here, there is possibility that the difference comes out in the distribution of two-factor interaction effect to two columns
depending on the number of doubling data. Consequently, if the situation division is done to the number of doubling
From 8176 investigations, the following three patterns were able to be found.
Pattern 1
There were 880 cases where the sum of squares is distributed equally to two columns. It was able to divide into four groups according to
Figure 6. Graphs where the sum of squares is distributed equally to two columns
Pattern 2
There were 112 cases where all the sum of squares is distributed to the 3rd column or the 4th column. A part of seen feature is considered
to those graphs.
7
Syuhei Okada1, Yasuhiro Itoh2, Tomomichi Suzuki3
Figure 7. Graphs where all the sum of squares is distributed to the 3rd column
Figure 8. Graphs where all the sum of squares is distributed to the 4th column
PROPOSED METHOD
Figure 9 shows the partial confounding linear graph. In Figure 9, the figure to which star is attached shows the confounding column. In a
word, the confounding has happened to two factor alternate action AB and CD by the third column. Both the fourth column and the
13th column to remain clear, which means each column is not confounded.
[a] The column in which the confounding has happened is used as-is. In a word, the 3rd column and the 4th column for A×B
and the 3rd column and the 13th column for CD are used respectively as sum of squares. By the way, degree of freedom
is assumed to be 4.
8
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TO ALLOCATE MORE FACTORS TO L27
[b] The column in which the confounding has happened is excluded. In a word, the 4th column for A×B and the 13th column
for C×D are used respectively as sum of squares. By the way, degree of freedom is assumed to be 2.
[c] The square harmony of the row in which the confounding has happened is adjusted to 1/2, and distributes in two rows. In a
word, the 4th column and half of the 3rd column for A×B and the 13th column and half of the 3rd column for C×D are
Hereafter, three action methods to the sum of squares will be written by proposed method [a] or [b] or [c] respectively.
Procedure of simulation
1. To correspond to the level combination of nine kinds, the population means are configured (See to Table 3).
2. Each factorial effect is calculated from two way table. And, these are assumed to be a theoretical value.
3. 27 data is derived based on the statistical model shown in eq. (5) and design matrix (See to Table 4).
4. Based on the derived data, the simulation is carried out 10000 times by the method of analyzing three patterns, i.e. [a],
y ijklm i j k l ij kl ijklm
ijklm ~ N 0, 2
(5)
9
Syuhei Okada1, Yasuhiro Itoh2, Tomomichi Suzuki3
[i] Expected value in one specific combination of levels is greatly different from the linear relation (See Figure 10).
[ii] Location of the peak for one factor with the quadratic relation is affected by the other factor (See Figure 11).
[iii] Location height and width of the peak for one factor with the quadratic is affected by the other factor (see Figure 12).
We evaluate results of simulation to think about distribution of expectation variance. Furthermore, we compare proposed methods and
general “method”. Here, “general” method means the cases when no confounding occur.
Assumption [i]
In the beginning, we consider the result of the simulation on assumption [i]. Table 5 is one example of the simulation result. The average
and standard deviation of expectation of variance are shown each two-factor interaction and proposed method. The theoretical value is
10
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TO ALLOCATE MORE FACTORS TO L27
The accuracy of proposed method [b] can be perceived to be good from Table 5. The distribution of the expectation of variance is
Figure 13. Comparison between proposed method and general method about AB in assumption [i]
11
Syuhei Okada1, Yasuhiro Itoh2, Tomomichi Suzuki3
Figure 14. Comparison between proposed method and general method about CD in assumption [i]
Assumption [ii]
Next, we consider the result of the simulation on assumption [ii]. Table 6 is one example of the simulation results. The view in the table
The accuracy of proposed method [b] can be perceived to be good from Table 6. The distribution of the expectation of variance is
12
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TO ALLOCATE MORE FACTORS TO L27
Figure 15. Comparison between proposed method and general method about AB in assumption [ii]
Figure 16. Comparison between proposed method and general method about CD in assumption [ii]
13
Syuhei Okada1, Yasuhiro Itoh2, Tomomichi Suzuki3
Assumption [iii]
Finally, we consider the result of the simulation on assumption [iii]. It differed from assumption [i] and [ii], the result came out various
When these tables are seen, it is clear that the presumption of the effect doesn't go well if we always use the same proposal technique.
Discussion
We consider about assumption [i] and [ii]. From Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16, the proposed method may be possible for estimation of two-
Subsequently, we consider about assumption [iii]. A big difference is caused for the simulation results by situations and proposed
methods unlike assumption [i] or [ii] from Table 7, 8, 9 and 10. Consequently, it might be difficult to use the proposed method like
assumption [iii].
In fact, the sum of squares is distributed almost equally to two columns at assumption [i] and [ii]. Due to this reason, the estimation
went well by using proposed method [b]. On the other hand, because the distribution of the sum of squares to two columns was not
constant, it became a result that the estimation did not go well for assumption [iii].
CONCLUSION
We investigate the experimental design to which a partial confounding is allowed when it is not possible to design the experiment using
the prepared linear graph for L27. We set three typical patterns of two-factor interaction as assumption, and evaluated each of three
14
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TO ALLOCATE MORE FACTORS TO L27
Under the assumption [i] and [ii], there is a possibility that the estimation of two-factor interaction goes well. But, under the
assumption [iii], the difference is caused in the result of each proposed methods, and the estimation of two-factor interaction may fail. In
REFERENCES
Y. Ojima, T. Suzuki and S. Yasui (2001), An Alternative Expression of the Fractional Factorial Designs for Two-level and Three-level Factors , Frontiers
C. F. Jeff Wu and Michael Hamada (2000), Experiments – Planning, Analysis, and Parameter Design Optimization, John Wiley & Sons, New York
15