Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new optimization criterion for robust parameter design — the case of target is best

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robust parameter design (RPD) is a set of techniques determining the levels of some set of controllable factors such that the sensitivity of the process to variations in another set of uncontrollable factors, the noise factors, is reduced; thus increasing the robustness of the process. The common assumption is that the noise factors can be controlled in an experimental environment. When this assumption does not hold true, a random effects model is applicable. Thus, if a fixed effects model is used for simplicity, an increase in the variance of the coefficient vector should be expected. In this article, we investigate the effects of this assumption, namely the effects of incorrect estimates of the regression parameters, on the final solution. Moreover, a new criterion is considered for optimization and the performance of this criterion is evaluated through a numerical example for the case of target is best.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Asgharpour MJ (1998) Multiple criteria decision making. Tehran University Press, Tehran

  2. Borkowski JJ, Lucas JM (1997) Designs of mixed resolution for process robustness studies. Technometrics 39:63–70

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Borror CM, Montgomery DC (2000) Mixed resolution designs as alternatives to taguchi inner/outer array designs for robust design problems. Qual Reliab Eng Int 16:117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Box GEP (1985) Discussion of off-line quality control, parameter design and the taguchi method. J Qual Technol 17:198–206

    Google Scholar 

  5. Box GEP (1988) Signal-to-noise ratios, performance criteria, and transformations (with discussion). Technometrics 30:1–41

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Box GEP, Bisgaard S, Fung C (1988) An explanation and critique of Taguchi’s contributions to quality engineering. Qual Reliab Eng Int 4:123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Box GEP, Jones S (1990) Designing products that are robust to the environment. Report Series in Quality and Productivity. CPQI, University of Wisconsin, Number 56

  8. Copeland K, Nelson PR (1996) Dual response optimization via direct function minimization. J Qual Technol 28:331–336

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chankong V, Haimes Y (1983) Multiobjective decision making: theory and methodology. New York, North Holland

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Draper NR, Smith H (1998) Applied regression analysis, 2nd edition. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Del Castillo E, Montgomery DC (1993) A nonlinear programming solution to the dual response problem. J Qual Technol 25:199–204

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fathi Y (1991) A nonlinear programming approach to the parameter design problem. Eur J Oper Res 53:371–381

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Hwang CL, Masud ASMd (1979) Multiple objective decision making methods and applications (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems; 164). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Khattree P (1996) Robust parameter design: a response surface approach. J Qual Technol 28:187–198

    Google Scholar 

  16. Khuri AI (1996) Response surface models with mixed effects. J Qual Technol 28:177–186

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lin D, Tu W (1995) Dual response surface optimization. J Qual Technol 27:34–39

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lucas JM (1989) Achieving a robust process using response surface methodology. Proc Am Stat Assoc: 579–593

  19. Lucas JM (1994) How to achieve a robust process using response surface methodology. J Qual Technol 25:248–260

    Google Scholar 

  20. Miettinen KM (1999) Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston Massachusetts

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Montgomery DC (1990) Using fractional factorial designs for robust process development. Qual Eng 3:193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Montgomery DC (1999) Experimental design for product and process design and development. J R Stat Soc D 48:159–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments, 5th ed. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  24. Myers RH, Carter W (1973) Response surface techniques for dual response systems. Technometrics 15:301–317

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Myers RH, Kim Y, Griffiths KL (1997) Response surface methods and the use of noise variables. J Qual Technol 29:429–440

    Google Scholar 

  26. Myers RH, Khuri AI, Vining GG (1992) Response surface alternatives to the Taguchi robust parameter design approach. The Am Stat 46:131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Vining GG, Kowalski SM, Borror CM (2004) Response surface methodology: A retrospective and current literature review. J Qual Technol 36:53–77

    Google Scholar 

  28. Myers RH, Montgomery DC (2002) Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nair VN (1992) Taguchi’s parameter design: A panel discussion. Technometrics 34:127–161

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7:308–313

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Pignatiello JJ, Jr, Ramberg JS (1991) The top-ten triumphs and tragedies of Genichi Taguchi. Qual Eng 4:211–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pledger M (1996) Observable uncontrollable factors in parameter design. J Qual Technol 28:153–162

    Google Scholar 

  33. Robinson TJ, Borror CM, Myers RH (2004) Robust parameter design: A review. Qual Reliab Eng Int 20:81–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shoemaker AC, Tsui KL, Wu CFJ (1991) Economical experimentation methods for robust parameter design. Technometrics 33:415–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vining GG (1998) A compromise approach to multiresponse optimization. J Qual Technol 30:309–313

    Google Scholar 

  36. Vining GG, Myers RH (1990) Combining Taguchi and response surface philosophies: A dual response approach. J Qual Technol 22:38–45

    Google Scholar 

  37. Welch WJ, Yu TK, Kang SM, Sacks J (1990) Computer experiments for quality control by parameter design. J Qual Technol 22:15–22

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Industrial Engineering Department, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, 16844, Iran

    M. K. Ardakani & R. Noorossana

Authors
  1. M. K. Ardakani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Noorossana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. K. Ardakani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ardakani, M.K., Noorossana, R. A new optimization criterion for robust parameter design — the case of target is best . Int J Adv Manuf Technol 38, 851–859 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-1141-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-1141-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation