~

Journalof ManujhcturingSystems
Vol. 23/No. 2
2004

Optimization of Correlated Multiple

Quality Characteristics Robust Design
Using Principal Component Analysis
Ful-Chiang Wu, Dept. of Industrial Management, Vanung University, Chung-Li, Taiwan. E-mail: shogo@vnu.edu.tw
Chiuh-Cheng Chyu, Dept. of Industrial Engineering and Management, Yuan-Ze University, Chung-Li, Taiwan.
E-mail: iehshsu @saturn.yzu.edu.tw

Abstract

The following section presents a literature review

of the multiple quality characteristics associated with
the Taguchi method. Section 3 describes the concepts of Taguchi signal-to-noise (SN) ratios and proportion of quality loss reduction, section 4 introduces
principal component analysis, section 5 proposes a
parameter design optimization procedure for products or processes with correlated multiple quality
characteristics, and section 6 provides four illustrative examples selected from previously published
articles implementing the proposed procedure. Then
a numerical analysis of the model is provided, the
results are compared with those of prior approaches,
and conclusions are made.

The use of the Taguchi method for improving the design

and quality of products and processes has become widespread among different industries. The traditional Taguchi
method focused on one characteristic to optimize a combination of parameter conditions. In practice, most products
have more than one quality characteristic. The methods of
multiple quality characteristics design have become very
important for industries. Several studies have presented approaches addressing multiple quality characteristics. Few
published articles have focused primarily on optimizing correlated multiple quality characteristics. This research presents
an approach to optimizing correlated multiple quality characteristics by using proportion of quality loss reduction and
principal component analysis. The results reveal the advantages of this approach in that the optimal parameter design
using proportion of quality loss reduction is the same as that
using the Taguchi traditional method for one quality characteristic; the chosen optimal design is robust for optimizing
correlated multiple quality characteristics.

Literature Review
Several publications reveal approaches for addressing multiple quality characteristics. Derringer
and Suich (1980) proposed desirability function
models for all quality characteristics to maximize the
combined desirability. Khuri and Conlon (1981), on
the other hand, used an achievement function to
optimize multiple quality characteristics. Logothetis
and Haigh (1988) presented a two-stage procedure
for optimizing multiple quality characteristics.
Pignatiello (1993), meanwhile, derived the expression of expected loss function to minimize the function for multiple quality characteristics. Elsayed and
Chen (1993) have provided a multiple characteristic
model based on the loss function, which is similar to
Pignatiello's approach. Su and Tong (1997) presented
an approach based on principal component analysis. Tong and Su (1997) also employed the fuzzy
theorem to optimize the parameter design. Tong, Su,
and Wang (1997) introduced an approach to standardize the loss of each characteristic by setting standardization values between 0 and 1. Alternatively,

Keywords:Taguchi Method, Multiple Quality Characteristics,

Loss Function, Proportion of Quality Loss Reduction, Principal Component Analysis

Introduction
Over the years, several industries have employed
the Taguchi method to improve product or process
performance in keeping with sound management
practices. The method is robust for the design and
production stages so that manufacturers can produce
higher quality products at a lower cost and within
less time. The Taguchi method traditionally focused
on one characteristic to optimize a combination of
parameter conditions, yet most products have more
than one quality characteristic. In confronting a product with correlated multiple quality characteristics,
it is difficult to determine the optimal parameter setting for each of the quality characteristics, as each
usually varies according to different combinations
of parameter conditions.
134

Journal o f Manufacturing Systems

Vol. 2 3 / N o . 2
2004

Chen (1997) has built a multi-characteristic model

based on SN ratio instead of quality loss function.
He transformed each SN ratio to a commensurable
value between 0 and 1 to represent the designers'
degree of satisfaction with each quality characteristic. Vining (1998) employed a polynomial regression f u n c t i o n to o p t i m i z e m u l t i p l e quality
characteristics. Tsui (1999) extended Pignatiello's
approach and created a new model, which is more
complex in computation than Pignatiello's approach.
Although these studies have provided many valuable approaches on the optimal parameter design
of multiple quality characteristics, little research has
been done on the correlated multiple quality characteristics.

q=

_101og(l~

Taguchi (1990) has defined average quafity loss

as L = K x MSD, where L is the present existing average loss per unit, K is the loss coefficient, and MSD
is the sample mean square deviation when n units of
a product are measured. He presented the following
definitions for MSD.

1"

1]

forNTB

(2)

forLTB

(3)

In fact, the SN ratios can be transformed into proportion of quality loss reduction (PQLR) based on
the SN ratio of the starting conditions to obtain the
optimal parameter design for a single quality characteristic. Employing the geometric mean formula
to calculate the average proportion of quality loss
reduction in the PQLR model yields the same results
as are found by the Taguchi traditional method.

+ ( y - m ) z forNTB (1)
1l

n~ 7

=101og m

L' KMSD'
n'-~
PQLR = - - =
- 10 ,0
L KxMSD

for STB
=

MSD =

Taguchi did not define the SN ratio for NTB as

-101og(MSD), yet Wu and Chyu (2002) found by
simulation the similarity in efficiency in employing Taguchi's SN ratio or MSD to obtain optimal
parameter design for NTB. If we suppose after the
parameter design that the SN ratio has changed from
an existing rl0 to another value ri', the resulting new
average quality loss is L'. That is, in accordance
with Eqs. (1) and (2), we obtain the proportion of
quality loss reduction (PQLR) to be:

Relationship Between SN Ratios and

Proportion Quality Loss Reduction

!~
2
#l i=1 Yi

101ogl0

Principal Component Analysis

for LTB

Principal component analysis (PCA) is a multivariate analysis method that was first introduced by
Pearson (1901) and then developed by Hotelling
(1933). PCA involves a mathematical procedure that
reduces the dimensions of a set of variables by reconstructing them into uncorrelated combinations.
The analysis combines the variables that account for
the largest amount of variance to form the first principal component. The second principal component
accounts for the next largest amount of variance,
and so on, until the total sample variance is combined into component groups. The principal components are special linear combinations of the p
random variables X1, 7(2. . . . . Xp. These linear combinations describe the selection of a new coordinate
system obtained by rotating the original system with
X1, X2. . . . . Xp as the coordinate axes. The new axes

where
y = a measurable statistic of quality characteristic
m
=
target value for nominal-the-best quality characteristic
STB = smaller-the-better quality characteristic
NTB = nominal-the-best quality characteristic
LTB = larger-the-better quality characteristic
y
= sample mean of n units
2
S
sample variance of n units
Taguchi used SN ratios as performance measurement and presented the following definitions for
SN ratios.

135

Journal of Manufilcturing Systems

Vol. 23/No. 2
2004

describe the directions with maximum variability and

provide more concise description of the covariance
structure. If we assume that the random vector X'
IX1, X2 . . . . . Xp] have the covariance matrix ~ with
eigenvalue-eigenvector pairs (ka, el), k2, e2). . . . . (kp,
ep), where ha --> k~_>
> k s -> 0, then the ith principal component can be represented by
Yi = e / X

Step 6. Take the absolute value of Z and then

compute the weighted score o~s.
"
~:1
(8)
'=

The weight co; is decided by the percent of variance in principal component analysis.
Step 7. Use the geometric average to calculate the
factor effects based on oLj,and then decide the
optimal factor levels by smaller-the-better factor effects.

e i l X 1 -st- ei2X 2 + ... +

(4)

eipXp, i = l, 2, ..., p

War(Y/) = e i ' ~ e i = hi, i = 1, 2, ..., p

Cov(Yi, Yk) = ei']~ek = 0, i :~ k

i=1

Implementation

(5)

The effectiveness of the proposed optimization

procedure is demonstrated in four case studies.

(6)

Case 1

The principal components are those uncorrelated

combinations Y1, Y2. . . . . Y~, (Johnson and Wichern
2002).

The experimental data set for manufacturing VLSI

circuits, as used by Phadke (1989) for optimal parameter design of the polysilicon deposition process, is
tested. The control factors are deposition temperature
(factorA), deposition pressure (factor B), nitrogen flow
(factor C), silane flow (factor D), setting time (factor
E), and cleaning method (factor F). Each factor has
three alternate levels. These data are in Table 1.
There are three quality characteristics for the process. The first is surface defects-STB, the second
is
o
thickness-NTB, with target value of 3,600 A, and
deposition rate-LTB. The deposition rate is computed
by dividing the average thickness by the deposition
time. Obviously, the quality characteristics thickness
and deposition rate are dependent. An L~s orthogonal array is built and the factors are assigned in the
columns 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. The starting conditions
are AzB2C1D3EaF~. The assignment of control factors is shown in Table 2, and the experiment data for
the three quality characteristics are shown in Tables
3 and 4.

Proposed Optimization Procedure

To solve the multiple quality characteristics problems, an optimization procedure is proposed in this
section.
Step 1. Compute the SN ratio ('q') for each quality
characteristic and then calculate the main effect of factors for each quality characteristic.
Step 2. Estimate the average SN ratio (~q0) under
the starting conditions for each quality characteristic.
Step 3. Transform the SN ratios into proportion of
quality loss reduction for each quality characteristic.
Step 4. Normalize PQLR.
Let PQLR~/be the proportion of quality loss reduction for ith responses at jth trial and then
PQLR 0. is transformed into Y(i (0 ~ Yij ~ 1) by
employing the following formula:

Table 1
Control Factors and Their Levels of
Polysilicon Deposition Process

PQLR U- min PQLRis

J

Y~J- m.axPQLRij - rrfi.'nPQLR o

J

Factor
~
1
A. Depositiontemperature(C) TO- 25
B. Depositionpressure (mttor) P0 - 200
C. Nitrogenflow (seem)
N.~
D. Silaneflow (seem)
So- 100
E. Settingtime (min.)
T__o
E Cleaningmethod
None

(7)

Step 5. Perform the principal component analysis

based on Y,j and obtain the principal component score Z 0.

136

2
T_.o
P--o
N o - 150
So - 50
to+ 8
CM2

3
T O+ 25
Po + 200
N o - 75
So
to+ 16
CM3

Journal of" Manz(facturing Systems

Vol. 23/No. 2
2004

Table 2
L x 8 0 r t h o g o n a l Array and Factor Assignment for Case 1
Expt.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

1
e
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Column Numbers and Factor Assignment

3
4
5
6
B
C
D
E
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
3
1
3
2
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
i
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
1
3
1
3
2
i
2

2
A
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

7
e
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3

8
F
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1

Table 3
Surface Defect Data (Defect/Unit Area) for Case 1
Expt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Surface Defect (SD)

1
1
3
6
1720
135
360
270
5000
3
1
3
1
3
450
5
1200
8000

0
2
35
15
1980
360
810
2730
i000
0
0
1620
25
21
1200
6
3500
2500

1
8
106
6
2000
1620
1215
5000
1000
0
1
90
270
162
1800
40
3500
3500

2
180
360
17
487
2430
1620
360
3000
3
5
2t6
810
90
2530
54
1000
5000

0
5
38
20
810
207
117
1
1000
0
0
5
16
6
2080
0
3
1000

0
0
135
16
400
2
30
2
1000
0
0
4
1
1
2080
8
1
1000

i
126
315
15
2020
2500
1800
9999
3000
1
1
270
225
63
1890
14
9999
5000

1
3
50
40
360
270
720
225
2800
0
0
8
3
15
180
1
600
2000

0
1
180
18
13
35
315
1
2000
1
1
3
0
39
25
1
8
2000

Table 4
Thickness and Deposition Rate Data for Case 1
Expt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Thickness (TH)
2029
5375
5989
2118
4102
3022
3030
4707
3859
3227
2521
5921
2792
2863
3218
3020
4277
3125

1975
5191
5894
2109
4152
2932
3042
4472
3822
3205
2499
5766
2752
2835
3149
3008
4150
3119

1961
5242
5874
2099
4174
2913
3028
4336
3850
3242
2499
5844
2716
2859
3124
3016
3992
3127

1975
5201
6152
2140
4556
2833
3486
4407
3871
3468
2576
5780
2684
2829
3261
3072
3888
3567

1934
5254
5910
2125
4504
2837
3333
4156
3922
3450
2537
5695
2635
2864
3205
3151
3681
3563

1907
5309
5886
2108
4560
2828
3389
4094
3904
3420
2512
5814
2606
2839
3223
3139
3572
3520

137

Deposition Rate (DR)

1952
5323
6077
2149
5031
2934
3709
5073
4110
3599
2551
5691
2765
2891
3241
3235
4593
4120

1941
5307
5943
2130
5040
2875
3671
4898
4067
3591
2552
5777
2786
2844
3189
3162
4298
4088

1949
5091
5962
2111
5032
2841
3687
4599
4110
3535
2570
5743
2773
2841
3197
3140
4219
4138

14.5
36.6
41.4
36.1
73.0
49.5
76.6
105.4
115.0
24.8
20.0
39.0
53.1
45.7
54.8
76.8
105.3
91.4

Journal of Manufilcturing Systems

Vol. 23/No. 2
2004

Table 5

SN Ratio for Each Quality Characteristic

Expt. No.

A
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

B
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

C
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2

D
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1

E
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2

F
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1

Table 6(a)
Summary of Factor Effects for Surface Defect

Surface Defect
0.512
-37.304
-45.168
-25.761
-62.537
-62.231
-59.882
-71.686
-68.154
-3.468
-5.082
-54.854
-49.381
-36.537
-64.176
-27.305
-71.505
-71.996

Thickness

Deposition Rate

35.224
35.754
36.020
42.241
21.431
32.913
21.390
22.838
30.597
26.850
38.804
38.055
32.069
43.353
37.439
31.856
22.011
18.417

23.227
31.270
32.340
31.150
37.266
33.892
37.685
40.457
41.214
27.889
26.021
31.821
34.502
33.198
34.776
37.707
40.449
39.219

Table 7
Estimated /70 of Starting Conditions A2BzC1D3EIF1for Case 1

Quality Characteristics
A
B
C
D
E
F
-24.227 -27.548 -39.028 -39.203 -51.524 -45.558
-50.104 -47.442 -55.992 -46.848 -40.537 -41.576
-61.755 -61.097 -41.066 -50.036 -44.025 -48.951
Table 6(b)
Summary of Factor Effects for Thickness

A
35.118
34.908
24.518

B
31.605
30,698
32.240

C
34.386
27.853
32.305

D
31.684
34.697
28.163

E
30.684
32.869
31,157

B
32.027
34,777
35.544

C
32.806
35.294
34.247

D
32.207
34.530
35.610

E
34.058
33.990
34.299

-56.882 (db)

Thickness Deposition Rate

28.134 (db)

34.609 (db)

rl0 = A2 + B 2 + C 1 + D 3 + E t +F1 - 5 T
= -50.104-47.442

F
27,033
33,666
33,845

51.524-45.558-

- 39.028 - 50.0365x(-45.362)

=-56.882(db)

Table 6(c)
Summary of Factor Effects for Deposition Rate

A
28,761
34.131
39.455

Surface Defect

Starting
A2B2CID3EIF 1

U s i n g E q . ( 3 ) , w e can t r a n s f o r m the S N ratio ( x l ' )

o f e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s into P Q L R . T h e results
are s h o w n in Table 8. For e x a m p l e , the t r a n s f o r m e d
PQLR for the second experimental conditions
A 1 B z C z D z E z F 2 for surface d e f e c t is g i v e n b y

F
33.806
34.101
34.440

(-37,304-(-56.882))
P Q L R = 10

The computed SN ratios (-q') for all quality characteristics are listed in Table 5, and the main effect
of factors for each quality characteristic are shown
in Tables 6a-6c.
The estimated average SN ratios (q0) under the
starting conditions A2B2CID3E~FI for all quality
characteristics are listed in Table 7. For example,
the ~0 of starting conditions for surface defect is
given by

10

= 0.011

Next, we normalize PQLR 0 and perform the principal component analysis, then take the absolute
value of principal component score and compute %.
The weight toi for this case is 0.707, 0.193, and 0.101
for the first principal component, second principal
component, and third principal component, respectively. The results are listed in Table 9.
Employing Table 9, we finally calculate the main
effects using the geometric average and obtain the

138

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Vol. 23/No. 2
2004

Table 8
PQLR of Experimental Conditions for Each Quality Characteristic

Expt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

A
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

B
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

C
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2

D
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1

E
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2

F
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1

SD
0.512
-37.304
-45.168
-25.761
-62.537
-62.231
-59.882
-71.686
-68.154
-3.468
-5.082
-54.854
-49.381
-36.537
-64.176
-27.305
-71.505
-71.996

PQLR(sDI
0.000
0.011
0.067
0.001
3.677
3.427
1.995
30.226
13.404
0.000
0.000
0.627
0.178
0.009
5.363
0.001
28.995
32.462

TH
35.224
35.754
36.020
42.241
21.431
32.913
21.390
22.838
30.597
26.850
38.804
38.055
32.069
43.353
37.439
31.856
22.011
18.417

PQLRcr~)
0.195
0.173
0.163
0.039
4.680
0.333
4.725
3.385
0.567
1.344
0.086
0.102
0.404
0.030
0.117
0.424
4.096
9.369

DR
23.227
31.270
32.340
31.150
37.266
33.892
37.685
40.457
41.214
27.889
26.021
31.821
34.502
33.198
34.776
37.707
40.449
39.219

PQLRcoR~
13.745
2.157
1.686
2.217
0.542
1.179
0.493
0.260
0.219
4.699
7.225
1.900
1.025
1.384
0.962
0.490
0.261
0.346

Table 9
Normalized PQLR U and Principal Component Score

Expt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

A
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

B
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

C
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2

D
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1

E
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2

Normalized PQLR
SD
TH
DR
0.000
0.018
1.000
0.000
0.015
0.143
0.002
0.014
0.108
0.000
0.00l
0.148
0.113
0.498
0.024
0.106
0.032
0.071
0.061
0.503
0.020
0.931
0.359
0.003
0.413
0.058
0.000
0.000
0.141
0.331
0.000
0.006
0.518
0.019
0.008
0.124
0.005
0.040
0.060
0.000
0.000
0.086
0.165
0.009
0.055
0.000
0.042
0.020
0.893
0.435
0.003
1.000
1.000
0.009

F
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1

Absolute Value of
Principal Component Score
0.281
0.960
0.014
0.033
0.139
0.012
0.022
0.106
0.010
0.043
0.142
0.001
0.356
0.134
0.341
0.080
0.098
0.035
0.319
0.119
0.376
0.925
0.285
0.244
0.355
0.108
0.191
0.019
0.340
0.115
0.148
0.497
0.004
0.017
0.124
0.005
0.008
0.065
0.030
0.025
0.082
0.000
0.118
0.093
0.088
0.017
0.026
0.034
0.937
0.288
0.160
1.331
0.415
0.240

%
0.385
0.052
0.037
0.057
0.312
0.079
0.286
0.733
0.291
0.090
0.200
0.036
0.022
0.034
0.110
0.021
0.734
1.044

Table 10
Summary of Factor Effects (%)

Level . ~
A
Level 1 I 0.089
Level2
10.070
Level 3 I 0.315

A1B1C3D2E3F2, respectively. The optimal parameter

B
0.080
0.197
0.124

C
0.217
0.125
0.072

D
0.198
0.075
0.130

E
0.153
0.118
0.107

F
0.312
0.069
0.090

conditions to optimize multiple quality characteristics among published techniques using this case a r e
displayed in Table 11.
From Table 11, it is found that the obtained average PQLR of optimal conditions for proposed method
is the lowest. Although the result of optimal conditions is the same as those of Tong, Su, and Wang's
method, their method did not consider the correlation between quality characteristics.

optimal parameter conditions of A2B~C3DzE3F2 . The

results are listed in Table 10.
The optimal parameter conditions for Phadke
(1989), Su and Tong (1997), and Tong, Su, and
Wang (1997) are A1B2C1D3EzF2,A2B1C3D2E3F2, and

139

Journal o1" Manufacturing Systems

Vol. 23/No. 2
2004

Table 11
Comparative Analysis Among Methods Published

Optimal Conditions
Tong, Su, and
Su and Tong's
Wang's method
method
PQLR
PQLR
0.06%
0.00%
5.46%
5.20%
153.20%
527.49%
52.91%
177.56%

Phadke's
method
PQLR
0.01%
12.04%
326.78%
112.94%

Quality
Characteristics
Surface defect
Thickness
Deposition rate
Average PQLR

Table 12
Factors and Their Levels for Case 2

Factor
A: Disk writability
B: Magnetization width
C: Gap length
D: Coercivity of media
E: Rotational speed

Level 1
8,000
2.._55
0.3
1,200
3,000

Level 2
10,000
3.0
0....A
1,400
3,500

Proposed
method
PQLR
0.06%
5.46%
153.20%
52.91%

two characteristics: refractive index (RI)-NTB, target value of 2, and deposition thickness (DT)-NTB,
target value of 1,000 A. The factors and their chosen levels are listed in Table 15, and the experiment
data are shown in Table 16.
The starting conditions are AzB1C2D2EzFzG~H2with
estimated average SN ratios for RI and DT being
32.139 db and 26.260 db, respectively. The optimal
parameter conditions for Tong and Su (1997) and
Tong, Su, and Wang (1997) are A1BzC3D2EzF2GzH3
and A1B3CzDzE2F2GzH3, respectively. When the case
is re-analyzed using the proposed optimization procedure, the optimal parameter conditions found are
A~BIC3D2E2FzGzH3. The comparative analysis
among the other methods and proposed method is
shown in Table 17.
From Table 17, although the result of optimal conditions is slightly higher than those of other approaches, the correlation between quality
characteristics was not considered in their methods.

Level 3
3.5
0.5
1,600
4,000

Case 2

The second case used is that described by Su and

Tong (1997) and Chen (1997). The goal is to optimize the parameter design of a personal computer
hard disk system having four characteristics: 50%
pulse width (PW)-STB, high-frequency amplitude
(HFA)-LTB, overwrite (OW)-LTB, and peak shift
(PS)-STB. The factors and their chosen levels are
listed in Table 12, and the experiment data are shown
in Table 13.
The starting conditions are AIBaC2D2E2 with estimated average SN ratios for PW, HFA, OW, and PS
being-36.275 db, 50.465 db, 30.963 db, and-21.420
db, respectively. The optimal parameter conditions
found by Su and Tong (1997) and Chen (1997) are
AIB1C1D3E3 and AIBIC1DtE3, respectively. Reanalyzing the case using the proposed optimization
procedure, the optimal parameter conditions found
are A1B3C2D1E3. The comparative analysis among
previous methods and proposed method is shown
in Table 14.
From Table 14, it is found that the obtained average PQLR of optimal conditions for proposed method
is the lowest. According to the results of Case I and
Case 2, the PCA method of proposed method is better than Su and Tong's PCA method.

Case 4

The fourth case is a study from the Indian plastics

industry as described by Reddy, Nishina, and Babu
(1998). The goal is to optimize the parameter design
of an injection molding process having three characteristics: other diameter (OD)-NTB, target value
of 328 nun, height (HE)-NTB, target value of 114
mm, and pullout force (POF)-STB. The factors and
their chosen levels are listed in Table 18, and the
experiment data are shown in Table 19.
The starting conditions are A1B1C1DIE1F1G1 with
average SN ratios for OD, HE, and POF being 65.880
db, 52.990 rib, and 3.000 db, respectively. Re-analyzing this case using the proposed optimization procedure, the optimal parameter conditions found are
A2B1CID2E2F2GI, which is the same as those of
Reddy approach. The result is shown in Table 20.
The result shows that the chosen quality characteris-

Case 3

The third case, described by Tong and Su (1997)

and Tong, Su, and Wang (1997), entails a plasmaenhanced chemical vapor deposition process with

140

Journal o f ManuJacturing Systems

Vol. 23/No. 2
2004

Table 13
Data Summary by Experiment for Case 2

Expt. No.
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
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

B
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

Factor
C
D
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
2
1
3
2

E
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1

PW
63.5
64.2
65.6
54.5
56.2
87.5
63.6
64.3
65.6
47.7
74.9
74.9
47.7
75.0
74.9
54.5
56.2
87.4

66.0
66.0
67.0
56.6
57.8
89.3
66.1
66.1
66.9
49.5
77.0
76.5
49.5
77.0
76.5
56.6
57.8
89.3

HFA
286.7 257.6
343.0 310.6
381.1 354.4
328.1 295.4
368.3 333.0
234.3 213.5
288.0 259.2
335.8 304.9
312.7 282.8
451.0
393.8
291.6 263.0
346.8 312.4
447.9
393.8
312.8 280.5
271.9 245.4
385.2 336.7
378.7 341.5
270.6 244.6

OW
32.2
34.8
36.2
33.5
36.2
40.0
31.7
35.2
43.7
15.6
33.6
35.1
25.8
29.7
38.4
20.4
35.6
38.5

PS
30.l
33.3
35.5
31.5
34.9
38.4
29.5
33.9
46.5
22.3
32.6
33.8
22.3
28.9
38.9
17.2
34.6
37.0

10.9
11.6
13.6
9.2
10.2
17.8
10.1
10.7
14.4
11.0
16.3
16.9
10.0
14.6
18.0
11.6
12.1
19.4

12.0
13.0
14.7
10.8
11.2
19.1
11.8
12.1
15.4
11.8
17.9
18.6
11.6
16.5
19.2
13.4
13.4
21.3

Table 14
Comparative Analysis for Case 2

Quality
Characteristics
PW
HFA
OW
PS
Average PQLR

Chen's
method
55.66%
80.22%
152.02%
65.81%
88.43%

PQLR of Optimal Conditions

Su and Tong's
method
55.74%
65.66%
246.88%
64.78%
108.27%

and w i t h i n less time. This article p r e s e n t s an app r o a c h f o r d e s i g n i n g r o b u s t p r o d u c t s or p r o c e s s e s

with correlated multiple quality characteristics.
W h e n w e are c o n c e r n e d with the o p t i m a l p a r a m eter c o n d i t i o n s f o r e a c h q u a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , the
p r o p o s e d p r o c e d u r e has b e e n s h o w n to be as succ e s s f u l in o b t a i n i n g the o p t i m a l p a r a m e t e r c o n d i tions as w o u l d be f o u n d u s i n g the P Q L R . U s i n g
p r o p o r t i o n o f quality loss r e d u c t i o n as a s t a n d a r d
and e m p l o y i n g principal c o m p o n e n t analysis, b a s e d
o n the u n c o r r e l a t e d p r i n c i p a l c o m p o n e n t s c o r e s ,
this m e t h o d is m o s t able to c o n s i s t e n t l y o b t a i n the
optimal parameter design for correlated multiple
q u a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are
r e a s o n a b l e a n d i m p o r t a n t in p r a c t i c e so that the
o p t i m a l p a r a m e t e r level c a n be e a s i l y c h o s e n .

Table 15
Factors and Their Levels for Case 3

Factor
Level 1
A: Cleaning method
N_._q
B: Chamber temperature 100C
C: Number of runs after
1st
chamber is cleaned
D: Flow rate of Sill 4
6%
E: Flow rate of N2
30%
F: Chamber pressure
160 mtorr
G: R.E power
30 W
H: Deposition time
11.5 rain.

Level 2
Ye._._~s
200C
2nd

Level 3

7%
35%
190 mtorr
35 W
12.5 min.

8%
40%
220 mtorr
40 W
13.5 min.

Proposed
method
76.63%
100.45%
74.14%
86.93
84.54%

300C
3rd

tics are i n d e p e n d e n t in C a s e 4. W e also find that the

p r o p o s e d m e t h o d can deal with u n c o r r e l a t e d quality
characteristics p r o b l e m s .

Conclusion
Acknowledgments

T h e T a g u c h i m e t h o d is r o b u s t in the d e s i g n and
p r o d u c t i o n stage s u c h that m a n u f a c t u r e r s c a n use
it to p r o d u c e h i g h e r q u a l i t y p r o d u c t s at a l o w e r c o s t

T h e a u t h o r s w o u l d l i k e to t h a n k Dr. S a e e d
M a g h s o o d l o o o f A u b u r n U n i v e r s i t y f o r helpful and

141

Journal of Manttfacturing Systems

Vol. 23/No. 2
2004

Table 16
Data Summary by Experiment for Case 3

Factor

DT

Expt. No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2

1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1

1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2

1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3

1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1

RI
4

694 839 728 688

918 867 861 874
936 954 930 1058
765 828 842 768
709 743 753 752
795 785 846 722
711 816 1085 787
580 644 602 607
590 812 627 595
917 1142 1126 916
1389 1405 1219 2063
865 914 993 838
827 884 884 851
787 805 780 776
739 779 745 724
724 721 690 1023
771 806 785 869
712 781 749 692

704
851
958
801
989
833
1150
811
609
966
1392
893
1066
976
976
915
859
760

2.118
2.205
2.677
2.096
2.032
1.860
2.012
1.834
1.719
2.097
1.927
1.963
1.903
2.103
2.182
2.274
1.942
2.077

1.919
2.240
2.643
1.997
2.007
1.838
1.909
1.760
1.707
1.911
1.860
1.881
1.829
2.020
2.080
2.166
1.905
1.961

1.985
2.234
2.714
1.949
1.943
1.842
1.797
1.760
1.676
1.889
1.945
1.812
1.788
2.011
2.071
2.215
1.909
1.985

2.085
2.165
2.456
2.046
2.003
1.999
1.930
1.782
1.704
2.014
1.539
1.923
1.863
2.107
2.179
2.103
1.916
2.101

2.056
2.275
2,565
2.000
1.845
1.858
1.819
1.744
1.675
1.960
1.867
1.899
1.767
1.968
1.968
2.203
1.900
1.980

Table 17

Comparative Analysis for Case 3

PQLR of Optimal Conditions

Quality
Characteristics

Tong and Su's

method

Tong, Su, and Wang's

method

Proposed
method

DT
RI

34.25%
64.31%

83.73%
19.77%

25.28%
84.36%

Average PQLR

49.28%

51.75%

54.82%

Table 18

Hotelling, H. (1933). "Analysis of a complex of statistical variables

into principal components." Journal of Educational Psychology
(v24), pp417-441, 498-520.
Johnson, R.A. and Wichern, D.W. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Khuri, A.I. and Conlon, M. (1981). "Simultaneous optimization of
multiple responses represented by polynomial regression functions." Technometrics (v23, n4), pp363-375.
Logothetis, N. and Haigh, A. (1988). "Characterizing and optimizing
multi-response processes by Taguchi method." Quality and Reliability Engg. lnt'l (v4, n2), pp159-169.
Pearson, K. (1901). "On line and planes of closest fit to systems of
points in space." Philosophical Magazine (v6, n2), pp559-572.
Phadke, M.S. (1989). Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, 1st
ed. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pignatiello, J.L (1993). "Strategies for robust nmltiresponse quality
engineering." lIE Trans. (v25, n3), pp5-15.
Reddy, P.B.S.; Nishina, K.; and Babu, A.S. (1998). "Taguchi's methodology for multi-response optimization-a case study in the Indian plastics industry." Int'l Journal of Quality and Reliability
Mgmt. (v16, n6), pp 646-668.
Su, C.-T. and Tong, L.-I. (1997). "Multi-response robust design by
principal component analysis." Total Quality Mgmt. (vS, n6),
pp409-416.
Taguchi, G. (1990). Introduction to Quality Engineering, 1st ed.
Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.
Tong, L.-I. and Su, C.-T. (1997). "Optimizing multi-response problems in the Taguchi method by fuzzy multiple attribute decision
making." Quality and Reliability Engg. lnt'l (v13, nl), pp25-34.

Factors and Their Levels for Case 4

Factor
A: Mold temperature
B: Injection temperature
C: Hold-on pressure
D: Injection time
E: Hold-on time
F: Cooling time
G: Fill time

Units

Level 1

Level 2

C
kg/cm 2
kg/cm 2
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.

35
11.._.00
70
30
23
50
7

50
150
120
50
33
100
17

constructive suggestions and comments that significantly improved this paper.

References
Chen, L.-H. (1997). "Designing robust products with multiple quality characteristics." Computer Operations Research (v24, nl0),
pp937-944.
Derringer, G. and Suich, R. (1980). "Simultaneous optimization of
several response variables." Journal of Quality Technology (v12,
n4), pp214-219.
Elsayed, E.A. and Chen, A. (1993). "Optimal levels of process parameters for products with multiple characteristics." Int'l Journal
of Production Research (v31, n5), ppl 117-1132.

142

Journal of ManuJ?lcturing Systems

Vol. 23/No. 2
2004

Table 19
Data Summary by Experiment for Case 4
OD
Expt. No.

Factor
D

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2

1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1

1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2

1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1

1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1

HE

POF

Mean
(mm)

SN ratio
(db)

Mean
(ram)

SN ratio
(db)

Mean
(kg/cm 2)

1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2

329.30
329.41
329.45
329.48
329.48
329.45
329.43
329.60

65.88
65.08
64.02
66.89
60.29
67.89
72.12
69.57

113.21
114.07
113.20
113.54
113.88
114.00
113.85
113.72

52.99
58.83
43.26
45.17
47.79
50.21
52.21
52.75

3.00
1.66
1.69
2.12
2.77
1.48
2.13
2.58

Table 20
Comparative Analysis for Case 4
Quality
Characteristics
OD
HE
POF
Average PQLR

PQLR of Optimal Conditions

Reddy, Nishina, and Babu's method
Proposed method
36.6970
25.09%
132.13%
51.75%

36.69%
25.09%
132.13%
54.82%

Tong, L.-I.; Su, C.-T.; and Wang, C.-H. (1997). "The optimization of
multiresponse problems in the Taguchi method." Int'l Journal of
Quality & Reliability Mgmt. (v14, n4), pp367-380.
Tsui, K. (1999). "Robust design optimization for multiple characteristic problems." lnt'l Journal of Production Research (v37, n2),
pp433-445.
Vining, G.G. (1998). "A compromise approach to multiresponse optimization." Journal of Quali~ Technology (v30, n4), pp309-313.
Wu, E-C. and Chyu, C.-C. (2002). "A comparative study on Taguchi's
SN ratio, minimizing MSD and variance for nominal-the-best
characteristic experiment." Int'l Journal of Advanced Mfg. Technology (v20, n9), pp655-659.

Authors' Biographies
Dr. Ful-Chiang Wu is an associate professor in the Dept. of Industrial Management at Vanung University, Taiwan. He received his BS
in industrial engineering from Chung-Yuan Christian University and
MS and PhD in industrial engineering and management from YuanZe University in Taiwan. His current research activities include quality engineering, quality management, and statistics in industrial
applications.
Dr. Chiuh-Cheng Chyu is an associate professor in the Dept. of
Industrial Engineering and Management at Yuan-Ze University, Taiwan. He received his BS in mechanical engineering from National
Taiwan University, Taiwan, MS in management science from Stevens
Institute of Technology, New Jersey, and PhD in industrial engineering and operations research from the University of California-Berkeley. His current research interests include quality and reliability
engineering, stochastic modeling, production scheduling, and network optimization.

143