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
    • Way of the Quality Warrior
    • 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
  • 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
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • 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
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • 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?
      • R for Engineering
      • 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
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • 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 Fred Schenkelberg 5 Comments

Analyzing a Taguchi L4 Array Experiment

Analyzing a Taguchi L4 Array Experiment

We’ve collected data and it’s time for the analysis.

As you may recall, in the last article on Planning a Taguchi L4 Array Experiment, we drafted a set of four prototypes. The specific arrangement of factors and levels will now allow us to analyze each factor separately.

The intent is to find the optimal level or setting for each factor, plus which is the most important factor.

The data

The website equally directs each visitor to one of the four prototype pages.

If the visitor then joined the site, we counted that as a conversion. We gathered data on 2,000 visitors, 500 to each page, and counted conversions.

The following table has the count of conversions per run (prototype page).

Run

A B C Y

1

1 1 1 48

2

1 2 2

32

3 2 1 2

22

4 2 2 1

33

I’ve included the L4 array as we will use the level assignments shortly for the analysis.

Note Run 1 did much better than the other runs and while tempted to just implement the page configuration of Run 1, we may be missing an even better configuration.

Remember that the experiment only has four of the eight possible combinations of factors and levels.

The L4 array math

The first step is to isolate each factor with an average response, Y’s, for each level.

Factor

level Sum Y Y-bar MSD

S/N

A

A1 48 + 32 40
A2 22 + 33 27.5
total

67.5

B

B1 48 + 22 35
B2 32 + 33

32.5

total 67.5
C C1 48 + 33

40.5

C2

32 + 22 27
total

67.5

 

The mean response, for each factor, is the tally of run responses, Y’s, for the runs containing that factor.

The counts to sum for each factor correspond to the L4 array. The two runs that contained level 1 for factor A are Run 1 and Run 2, corresponding to the 1’s under column A.

All four run responses are tallied slightly differently for each factor.

For example, for factor A, level A1 has the responses from Run 1 (48) and Run 2 (32). Level A2 has counts from Run 3 and Run 4.

The ‘total’ rows are a check that you have all four responses for each factor.

The next step is to calculate the mean square deviation (MSD).

Depending on the objective of the experiment select the appropriate formula.

In this case, we seek the maximum setting to achieve high conversion rates, thus will use the MSD formula for bigger is better, B-type, is.

$$ \large\displaystyle MSD=\frac{{}^{1}\!\!\diagup\!\!{}_{Y_{1}^{2}}\;+{}^{1}\!\!\diagup\!\!{}_{Y_{2}^{2}}\;+\cdots +{}^{1}\!\!\diagup\!\!{}_{Y_{n}^{2}}\;}{n}$$

The formula for smaller is better, S-type, is

$$ \large\displaystyle MSD=\frac{{{\left( {{Y}_{1}} \right)}^{2}}+{{\left( {{Y}_{2}} \right)}^{2}}+\cdots +{{\left( {{Y}_{n}} \right)}^{2}}}{n}$$

The formula for nominal is better, N-type, is

$$ \large\displaystyle MSD=\frac{{{\left( {{Y}_{1}}-{{Y}_{0}} \right)}^{2}}+{{\left( {{Y}_{2}}-{{Y}_{0}} \right)}^{2}}+\cdots +{{\left( {{Y}_{n}}-{{Y}_{0}} \right)}^{2}}}{n}$$

In this example, n = 1 as we did not replicate the experiment. Thus, we only have a single Y value for each run.

This simplifies the equation to

$$ \large\displaystyle MSD=\frac{1}{{{Y}^{2}}}$$

Factor

level ΣY Y MSD S/N
A A1 35 + 25 30 0.000625
A2 39 + 27 33 0.001322
total 63

B

B1 35 + 39 37 0.000816
B2 25 + 27 26

0.000946

total 63
C C1 35 + 27 31

0.000609

C2 25 + 39 32 0.001371
total 63

The signal to noise values and final analysis

The MSD is a stepping stone to calculating the signal to noise ratio, S/N.

The different MSD formula permits a common analysis for any situation by comparing S/N values. A higher S/N value indicates a stronger influence on the response.

Depending on the experimental objective that means a higher S/N may indicate a higher, lower, or nominal influence on the response.

S/N is calculated using the MSD with this formula

$$ \large\displaystyle S/N=-10log\left( MSD \right)$$

Running out the calculations of S/N for our example experiment, we find

Factor

level ΣY Y MSD S/N
A A1 35 + 25 30 0.000625

32.04

A2 39 + 27 33 0.001322 28.79
total 63

B

B1 35 + 39 37 0.000816 30.88
B2 25 + 27 26 0.000946

30.23

total 63
C C1 35 + 27 31 0.000609

32.15

C2 25 + 39 32 0.001371 28.63
total 63

 

It is the magnitude of the S/N difference that tells the story.

The larger the difference between S/N for each factor’s levels, the more that factor influences the results. Think of each factor a tuning knob, the larger the difference in S/N the more control or range of responses that factor exhibits on the results.

If there is little difference, as with factor B, then there is little difference in response for either level selected.

In this example, factor C has a difference of about 3.5 and factor A has a difference of about 3.3.

A difference of 3 db (the units of the signal to noise ratio) are significant. A difference of less than 3 db does not mean there is not a difference between the factors, it is just not enough convincing data to see the difference clearly.

In this experiment, in order to maximize the conversions, we should set factor A and C to level 1.

The level for factor B has no clear winner, so you could set level 1 or 2, whichever helps you meet your constraints (such as cost).

When no other considerations suggest a level, select the higher S/N value, so in this case, we would select factor B’s level 1.

The result of the analysis suggests that run 1, all levels set at 1, will maximize the conversions. The result suggests one of the four runs had the correct configuration.

This is not always the case, therefore complete the analysis before implementing the solution.

Filed Under: Articles, CRE Preparation Notes, Reliability in Design and Development Tagged With: Design of Experiments

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« Overview of Reliability Engineering
Are You Playing Asset Roulette? »

Comments

  1. Aaron Bell says

    March 12, 2018 at 6:36 PM

    Thank you so much for this post. I’ve been studying Experimental Design with Applications in Managament, Engineering, and the Sciences. They explain everything about Taguchi methods EXCEPT how to analyze them.

    Reply
  2. Aaron Bell says

    March 12, 2018 at 7:19 PM

    But, now that I try to recreate your MSD from the results, no matter how I whack it, I don’t get what you get. Instead of:

    .000625
    …

    I get:

    (1/35)^2 + (1/25)^2 (all divided by one) for -> 0.00241
    1/30^2 for -> 0.0011
    …

    I really, really don’t know how you got your number. Please help!

    Reply
    • Fred Schenkelberg says

      March 15, 2018 at 11:24 PM

      Hi Aaron, thanks for the notes and I’ll have to get back to you one the calculations. I am traveling and limited time, etc… Cheers,

      Fred

      Reply
      • shannon says

        May 9, 2019 at 2:24 PM

        What does this column represent: ΣY Also how did you calculate these values?

        i agree with Aaron, I don’t get what you get for the MSD column.

        Reply
        • Charan says

          January 11, 2022 at 6:26 AM

          It’s simple because mad values which are mentioned in table are based on the top table y values.
          I think he mistakely did.
          Beautiful explanation of results are given by him.
          It plays main role in my master’s project.
          Thanks Fred.

          Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

CRE Preparation Notes

Article by Fred Schenkelberg

Join Accendo

Join our members-only community for full access to exclusive eBooks, webinars, training, and more.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Get Full Site Access

Not ready to join?
Stay current on new articles, podcasts, webinars, courses and more added to the Accendo Reliability website each week.
No membership required to subscribe.

[popup type="" link_text="Get Weekly Email Updates" link_class="button" ]

[/popup]

  • CRE Preparation Notes
  • CRE Prep
  • Reliability Management
  • Probability and Statistics for Reliability
  • Reliability in Design and Development
  • Reliability Modeling and Predictions
  • Reliability Testing
  • Maintainability and Availability
  • Data Collection and Use

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy