Taguchi Method or Compromise Programming as Robust Design Optimization Tool: The Case of a Flexible Manufacturing System

Wa-Muzemba Tshibangu

2015

Abstract

Competitive advantage of a firm is usually reflected through its superiority in production resources and performance outcomes. In order to achieve high performance (e.g., productivity) and significantly improve product quality, major US industries have promoted and implemented Robust Design (RD) techniques during the last decade. RD is a cost-effective procedure for determining the optimal settings of the control factors that make the product performance insensitive to the influence of noise factors. In this research, we employ and compare two RD optimum-seeking methods to optimize a flexible manufacturing system (FMS). Taguchi Method (TM), which uses robust design concept, i.e., Signal-To-Noise Ratio (S/N) to reduce the output variation, is applied first. Taguchi’s approach to robust design drawn much criticism because it relies on the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio for the optimization procedure. Because of this paramount criticism, a second method known as the Compromise Programming (CP) approach, i.e., the weighted Tchebycheff, is also used. This method formulates the robust design as a bi-objective robust design (BORD) problem by taking into account the two aspects of the RD problem, i.e. minimize the variation and optimize the mean. This approach seeks to determine the RD solution which is guaranteed to belong to the set of efficient solutions (Pareto points). Both methods use a RD formulation to determine an optimal and robust configuration of the system under study. The results gained through simulations and analytical formulations show that the current ways of handling the multiple aspects of the RD problem by using Taguchi’s S/N ratio may not be adequate.

References

  1. Adeyeye et. al., 2012. Multi-objective methods for welding flux performance Optimization, RMZ - Materials and Geoenvironment, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 251-270.
  2. Anita et. al. 2012, A Mathematical Analysis of Compromising Programming Techniques. IOSR Journal of Mathematics ISSN: 2278-5728. Vol. 3.
  3. Berger, J.O., 1985,.Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis (New York: Springer-Verlag).
  4. Chen, W., Wiecek, M.M., Zhang, J., 1998, Quality UtilityA Compromise Programming Approach to Robust Design, ASME Design Technical Conference, paper no. DAC5601, Atlanta, GA.
  5. Cho, B.-R, Kim, Y.J., Kimbler, D.L., and Philips, M.D, 2000. An Integrated Joint Optimization Procedure for Robust and Tolerance Design. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38, N°10, 2309-2325
  6. Pignatiello, J. and Ramberg, J.S., 1991, Top Ten Triumphs and Tragedies of Genichi Taguchi. Quality Engineering, Vol. 4, N°2, 221-225.
  7. Gharis, 2012. A Compromise Programming Approach to Effectively Value and Integrate Forest Carbon Sequestration into Climate Change Policy. Dissertation, Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources , Raleigh, NC.
  8. Gorantiwar et. al., 2010, Multicriteria Decision Making (Compromise Programming) for Integrated Water Resources Management in an Irrigation Scheme, Future State of Water Resources & the Environment, EWRI-ASCE, Chennai.
  9. Park, T., Lee, H., and Lee H., 2001. FMS Design model with multiple objectives using compromise programming, International Journal of Production Research, Vol.39, N°15, 3513-28.
  10. Randhir T. O., Lee, J. G., Engel, B., 2000. Multiple Criteria Dynamic Spatial Optimization to Manage Water Quality on a Watershed Scale. Transactions of the ASAE, VOL. 43(2): 291-299 © 2000.
  11. Ribeiro, J.L., and Elsayed, E.A., 1995. A Case Study on Process Optimization Using the Gradient Loss Function, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 33, no. 12, 3233-48.
  12. Shang, J.S., 1995. Robust design and optimization of material handling in an FMS, International Journal of production Research, Vol.33, N°9, 2437-2454.
  13. Taguchi, G., 1985. Introduction to Quality Engineering (MI: American Supplier Institute); 1987, System of Experimental Design, edited by Don Clausing, Vol.1 and 2 (New York: UNIPUB/Kraus International Publications).
  14. Tshibangu, WM Anselm, 2013. A Two-Step EmpiricalAnalytical Optimization Scheme, A DOE-Simulation Meta-Modeling Approach, 10th International Conference on Informatics in Controls, Automation and Robotics.
  15. Tshibangu, WM. Anselm, 2004, Multiple Optimization of a FMS Using a Multivariate Quadratic Loss Function, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice, Auckland, New Zealand.
  16. Zeleny, M., 1974, A Concept of compromise solutions and the method of displaced ideal. Computer and Operations Research, Vol. 1, 479-496.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Tshibangu W. (2015). Taguchi Method or Compromise Programming as Robust Design Optimization Tool: The Case of a Flexible Manufacturing System . In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics - Volume 2: ICINCO, ISBN 978-989-758-123-6, pages 485-492. DOI: 10.5220/0005547404850492


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icinco15,
author={Wa-Muzemba Tshibangu},
title={Taguchi Method or Compromise Programming as Robust Design Optimization Tool: The Case of a Flexible Manufacturing System},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics - Volume 2: ICINCO,},
year={2015},
pages={485-492},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005547404850492},
isbn={978-989-758-123-6},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics - Volume 2: ICINCO,
TI - Taguchi Method or Compromise Programming as Robust Design Optimization Tool: The Case of a Flexible Manufacturing System
SN - 978-989-758-123-6
AU - Tshibangu W.
PY - 2015
SP - 485
EP - 492
DO - 10.5220/0005547404850492