SQB7012

Tutorial 1
3-7 The tensile strength of portland cement is being studied. Four different mixing techniques can be used
economically. The following data have been collected:

Mixing
Technique Tensile Strength (lb/in2)
1 3129 3000 2865 2890
2 3200 3300 2975 3150
3 2800 2900 2985 3050
4 2600 2700 2600 2765

(a) Test the hypothesis that mixing techniques affect the strength of the cement. Use  = 0.05.

Design Expert Output

Response: Tensile Strengthin lb/in^2
ANOVA for Selected Factorial Model
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Sum of Mean F
Source Squares DF Square Value Prob > F
Model 4.897E+005 3 1.632E+005 12.73 0.0005 significant
A 4.897E+005 3 1.632E+005 12.73 0.0005
Residual 1.539E+005 12 12825.69
Lack of Fit 0.000 0
Pure Error 1.539E+005 12 12825.69
Cor Total 6.436E+005 15

The Model F-value of 12.73 implies the model is significant. There is only
a 0.05% chance that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.

Treatment Means (Adjusted, If Necessary)

Estimated Standard
Mean Error
1-1 2971.00 56.63
2-2 3156.25 56.63
3-3 2933.75 56.63
4-4 2666.25 56.63

Mean Standard t for H0

Treatment Difference DF Error Coeff=0 Prob > |t|
1 vs 2 -185.25 1 80.08 -2.31 0.0392
1 vs 3 37.25 1 80.08 0.47 0.6501
1 vs 4 304.75 1 80.08 3.81 0.0025
2 vs 3 222.50 1 80.08 2.78 0.0167
2 vs 4 490.00 1 80.08 6.12 < 0.0001
3 vs 4 267.50 1 80.08 3.34 0.0059

The F-value is 12.73 with a corresponding P-value of .0005. Mixing technique has an effect.

(b) Compare the mean tensile strengths for the four mixing techniques. What are your conclusions?

MS E 12825.7
S yi . = = = 56.625
n 4

Based on examination of the plot, we would conclude that 1 and 3 are the same; that  4 differs from 1 and 3 ,
that  2 differs from 1 and 3 , and that  2 and  4 are different.

1
(c) Use the Fisher LSD method with =0.05 to make comparisons between pairs of means.
2MS E
LSD = t 
,N − a n
2

2( 12825.7 )
LSD = t 0.025,16− 4
4
LSD = 2.179 6412.85 = 174.495

Treatment 2 vs. Treatment 4 = 3156.250 - 2666.250 = 490.000 > 174.495

Treatment 2 vs. Treatment 3 = 3156.250 - 2933.750 = 222.500 > 174.495
Treatment 2 vs. Treatment 1 = 3156.250 - 2971.000 = 185.250 > 174.495
Treatment 1 vs. Treatment 4 = 2971.000 - 2666.250 = 304.750 > 174.495
Treatment 1 vs. Treatment 3 = 2971.000 - 2933.750 = 37.250 < 174.495
Treatment 3 vs. Treatment 4 = 2933.750 - 2666.250 = 267.500 > 174.495

The Fisher LSD method is also presented in the Design-Expert computer output above. The results agree with the
graphical method for this experiment.

(d) Construct a normal probability plot of the residuals. What conclusion would you draw about the validity of the
normality assumption?

There is nothing unusual about the normal probability plot of residuals.

N o rm a l p lo t o f re s id ua ls

99

95
Norm al % probability

90

80
70

50

30
20

10
5

-1 8 1 .2 5 -9 6 .4 3 7 5 -1 1 .6 2 5 7 3 .1 8 7 5 158

R e s id u a l

(e) Plot the residuals versus the predicted tensile strength. Comment on the plot.

There is nothing unusual about this plot.

2
 Residuals vs. Predicted
158

73.1875

Res iduals
-11.625

-96.4375

-181.25

2666.25 2788.75 2911.25 3033.75 3156.25

Predicted

(f) Prepare a scatter plot of the results to aid the interpretation of the results of this experiment.

Design-Expert automatically generates the scatter plot. The plot below also shows the sample average for each
treatment and the 95 percent confidence interval on the treatment mean.

One Factor Plot

3300

3119.75
Tens ile Strength

2939.51

2759.26

2
2579.01

1 2 3 4

Technique

3-19 A manufacturer of television sets is interested in the effect of tube conductivity of four different types of coating
for color picture tubes. The following conductivity data are obtained:

Coating Type Conductivity

1 143 141 150 146
2 152 149 137 143
3 134 136 132 127
4 129 127 132 129

(a) Is there a difference in conductivity due to coating type? Use  = 0.05.

Yes, there is a difference in means. Refer to the Design-Expert output below..

3
Design Expert Output
ANOVA for Selected Factorial Model
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Sum of Mean F
Source Squares DF Square Value Prob > F
Model 844.69 3 281.56 14.30 0.0003 significant
A 844.69 3 281.56 14.30 0.0003
Residual 236.25 12 19.69
Lack of Fit 0.000 0
Pure Error 236.25 12 19.69
Cor Total 1080.94 15

The Model F-value of 14.30 implies the model is significant. There is only
a 0.03% chance that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.

Treatment Means (Adjusted, If Necessary)

Estimated Standard
Mean Error
1-1 145.00 2.22
2-2 145.25 2.22
3-3 132.25 2.22
4-4 129.25 2.22

Mean Standard t for H0

Treatment Difference DF Error Coeff=0 Prob > |t|
1 vs 2 -0.25 1 3.14 -0.080 0.9378
1 vs 3 12.75 1 3.14 4.06 0.0016
1 vs 4 15.75 1 3.14 5.02 0.0003
2 vs 3 13.00 1 3.14 4.14 0.0014
2 vs 4 16.00 1 3.14 5.10 0.0003
3 vs 4 3.00 1 3.14 0.96 0.3578

(b) Estimate the overall mean and the treatment effects.

ˆ = 2207 / 16 = 137.9375
ˆ 1 = y1. − y .. = 145.00 − 137.9375 = 7.0625
ˆ 2 = y 2. − y .. = 145.25 − 137.9375 = 7.3125
ˆ 3 = y 3. − y .. = 132.25 − 137.9375 = −5.6875
ˆ 4 = y 4. − y .. = 129.25 − 137.9375 = −8.6875

(c) Compute a 95 percent interval estimate of the mean of coating type 4. Compute a 99 percent interval estimate of
the mean difference between coating types 1 and 4.

19.69
Treatment 4: 129.25  2.179
4
124.4155   4  134.0845

Treatment 1 - Treatment 4: (145 − 129.25)  3.055

(2)19.69
4
6.164  1 − 4  25.336

(d) Test all pairs of means using the Fisher LSD method with =0.05.

Refer to the Design-Expert output above. The Fisher LSD procedure is automatically included in the output.

The means of Coating Type 2 and Coating Type 1 are not different. The means of Coating Type 3 and Coating Type
4 are not different. However, Coating Types 1 and 2 produce higher mean conductivity than does Coating Types 3
and 4.

4
(e) Compare the means. Which coating produces the highest conductivity?

MS E 19.96
S yi . = = = 2.219 Coating types 1 and 2 produce the highest conductivity.
n 4

(f) Assuming that coating type 4 is currently in use, what are your recommendations to the manufacturer? We wish
to minimize conductivity.

Since coatings 3 and 4 do not differ, and as they both produce the lowest mean values of conductivity, use either
coating 3 or 4. As type 4 is currently being used, there is probably no need to change.

3-22 An article in Environment International (Vol. 18, No. 4, 1992) describes an experiment in which the amount
of radon released in showers was investigated. Radon enriched water was used in the experiment and six different
orifice diameters were tested in shower heads. The data from the experiment are shown in the following table.

Orifice
Diameter Radon Released (%)
0.37 80 83 83 85
0.51 75 75 79 79
0.71 74 73 76 77
1.02 67 72 74 74
1.40 62 62 67 69
1.99 60 61 64 66

(a) Does the size of the orifice affect the mean percentage of radon released? Use  = 0.05.

Yes. There is at least one treatment mean that is different.

Design Expert Output

Response: Radon Released in %
ANOVA for Selected Factorial Model
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Sum of Mean F
Source Squares DF Square Value Prob > F
Model 1133.38 5 226.68 30.85 < 0.0001 significant
A 1133.38 5 226.68 30.85 < 0.0001
Residual 132.25 18 7.35
Lack of Fit 0.000 0
Pure Error 132.25 18 7.35
Cor Total 1265.63 23

The Model F-value of 30.85 implies the model is significant. There is only
a 0.01% chance that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.

Treatment Means (Adjusted, If Necessary)

EstimatedStandard
Mean Error
1-0.37 82.75 1.36
2-0.51 77.00 1.36
3-0.71 75.00 1.36
4-1.02 71.75 1.36
5-1.40 65.00 1.36
6-1.99 62.75 1.36

Mean Standard t for H0

Treatment Difference DF Error Coeff=0 Prob > |t|

5
 1 vs 2 5.75 1 1.92 3.00 0.0077
1 vs 3 7.75 1 1.92 4.04 0.0008
1 vs 4 11.00 1 1.92 5.74 < 0.0001
1 vs 5 17.75 1 1.92 9.26 < 0.0001
1 vs 6 20.00 1 1.92 10.43 < 0.0001
2 vs 3 2.00 1 1.92 1.04 0.3105
2 vs 4 5.25 1 1.92 2.74 0.0135
2 vs 5 12.00 1 1.92 6.26 < 0.0001
2 vs 6 14.25 1 1.92 7.43 < 0.0001
3 vs 4 3.25 1 1.92 1.70 0.1072
3 vs 5 10.00 1 1.92 5.22 < 0.0001
3 vs 6 12.25 1 1.92 6.39 < 0.0001
4 vs 5 6.75 1 1.92 3.52 0.0024
4 vs 6 9.00 1 1.92 4.70 0.0002
5 vs 6 2.25 1 1.92 1.17 0.2557

(b) Find the P-value for the F statistic in part (a).

P=3.161 x 10-8

(c) Analyze the residuals from this experiment.

There is nothing unusual about the residuals.

Normal plot of residuals Residuals vs. Predicted

4

99

95 2
2
1.8125
Norm al % probability

90
80
Res iduals

70 2
50 -0.375

30
20
2
10
-2.5625
5 2

-4.75

-4.75 -2.5625 -0.375 1.8125 4 62.75 67.75 72.75 77.75 82.75

Res idual Predicted

6
 Residuals vs. Orifice Diameter
4

2
2
1.8125
Res iduals

2
-0.375

2
-2.5625
2

-4.75

1 2 3 4 5 6

Orifice Diam eter

(d) Find a 95 percent confidence interval on the mean percent radon released when the orifice diameter is
1.40.

7.35
Treatment 5 (Orifice =1.40): 65  2.101
4
62.152    67.848

(e) Compare the treatment means. What conclusions can you draw?

Treatments 5 and 6 as a group differ from the other means; 2, 3, and 4 as a group differ from the other means, 1 differs
from the others.

4-8 The effect of three different lubricating oils on fuel economy in diesel truck engines is being studied. Fuel
economy is measured using brake-specific fuel consumption after the engine has been running for 15 minutes. Five
different truck engines are available for the study, and the experimenters conduct the following randomized complete
block design.

Truck
Oil 1 2 3 4 5
1 0.500 0.634 0.487 0.329 0.512
2 0.535 0.675 0.520 0.435 0.540
3 0.513 0.595 0.488 0.400 0.510

(a) Analyze the data from this experiment.

From the analysis below, there is a significant difference between lubricating oils with regards to fuel economy.

Design Expert Output

Response: Fuel consumption
ANOVA for Selected Factorial Model
Analysis of variance table [Terms added sequentially (first to last)]
Sum of Mean F
Source Squares DF Square Value Prob > F

7
 Block 0.092 4 0.023
Model 6.706E-003 2 3.353E-003 6.35 0.0223 significant
A 6.706E-003 2 3.353E-003 6.35 0.0223
Residual 4.222E-003 8 5.278E-004
Cor Total 0.10 14

The Model F-value of 6.35 implies the model is significant. There is only
a 2.23% chance that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.

Std. Dev. 0.023 R-Squared 0.6136

Mean 0.51 Adj R-Squared 0.5170
C.V. 4.49 Pred R-Squared -0.3583
PRESS 0.015 Adeq Precision 18.814

Treatment Means (Adjusted, If Necessary)

Estimated Standard
Mean Error
1-1 0.49 0.010
2-2 0.54 0.010
3-3 0.50 0.010

Mean Standard t for H0

Treatment Difference DF Error Coeff=0 Prob > |t|
1 vs 2 -0.049 1 0.015 -3.34 0.0102
1 vs 3 -8.800E-003 1 0.015 -0.61 0.5615
2 vs 3 0.040 1 0.015 2.74 0.0255

(b) Use the Fisher LSD method to make comparisons among the three lubricating oils to determine specifically
which oils differ in break-specific fuel consumption.

Based on the LSD bars in the Design Expert plot below, the means for break-specific fuel consumption for oils 1
and 3 do not differ; however, oil 2 is different than oils 1 and 3.

One Factor Plot

0.675

0.5885
Fuel consumption

0.502

0.4155

0.329

1 2 3

A: Oil

(c) Analyze the residuals from this experiment.

The residual plots below do not identify any violations to the assumptions.

8
 Normal Plot of Residuals Residuals vs. Predicted
0.0223333

99

95
0.00678333
90
Normal % Probability

80

Res iduals
70

50 -0.00876667

30
20

10
-0.0243167
5

-0.0398667

-0.0398667 -0.0243167 -0.00876667 0.00678333 0.0223333 0.37 0.44 0.52 0.59 0.66

Residual Predicted

Residuals vs. Oil

0.0223333

0.00678333
Res iduals

-0.00876667

-0.0243167

-0.0398667

1 2 3

Oil

4-12 An aluminum master alloy manufacturer produces grain refiners in ingot form. The company produces the
product in four furnaces. Each furnace is known to have its own unique operating characteristics, so any experiment
run in the foundry that involves more than one furnace will consider furnaces as a nuisance variable. The process
engineers suspect that stirring rate impacts the grain size of the product. Each furnace can be run at four different
stirring rates. A randomized block design is run for a particular refiner and the resulting grain size data is as follows.

Furnace
Stirring Rate 1 2 3 4
5 8 4 5 6
10 14 5 6 9
15 14 6 9 2
20 17 9 3 6

(a) Is there any evidence that stirring rate impacts grain size?

9
Design Expert Output
Response: Grain Size
ANOVA for Selected Factorial Model
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Sum of Mean F
Source Squares DF Square Value Prob > F
Block 165.19 3 55.06
Model 22.19 3 7.40 0.85 0.4995 not significant
A 22.19 3 7.40 0.85 0.4995
Residual 78.06 9 8.67
Cor Total 265.44 15

The "Model F-value" of 0.85 implies the model is not significant relative to the noise. There is a
49.95 % chance that a "Model F-value" this large could occur due to noise.

Std. Dev. 2.95 R-Squared 0.2213

Mean 7.69 Adj R-Squared -0.0382
C.V. 38.31 Pred R-Squared -1.4610
PRESS 246.72 Adeq Precision 5.390

Treatment Means (Adjusted, If Necessary)

Estimated Standard
Mean Error
1-5 5.75 1.47
2-10 8.50 1.47
3-15 7.75 1.47
4-20 8.75 1.47

Mean Standard t for H0

Treatment Difference DF Error Coeff=0 Prob > |t|
1 vs 2 -2.75 1 2.08 -1.32 0.2193
1 vs 3 -2.00 1 2.08 -0.96 0.3620
1 vs 4 -3.00 1 2.08 -1.44 0.1836
2 vs 3 0.75 1 2.08 0.36 0.7270
2 vs 4 -0.25 1 2.08 -0.12 0.9071
3 vs 4 -1.00 1 2.08 -0.48 0.6425

The analysis of variance shown above indicates that there is no difference in mean grain size due to the different
stirring rates.

(b) Graph the residuals from this experiment on a normal probability plot. Interpret this plot.

Normal plot of residuals

99

95
Norm al % probability

90
80
70

50

30
20
10
5

-3.8125 -2.0625 -0.3125 1.4375 3.1875

Res idual

The plot indicates that normality assumption is valid.

10
(c) Plot the residuals versus furnace and stirring rate. Does this plot convey any useful information?

Residuals vs. Stirring Rate Residuals vs. Furnace

3.1875 3.1875

1.4375 1.4375
Res iduals

Residuals
2
-0.3125 -0.3125

-2.0625 -2.0625

-3.8125 -3.8125

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Stirring Rate Furnace

The variance is consistent at different stirring rates. Not only does this validate the assumption of uniform variance,

it also identifies that the different stirring rates do not affect variance.

(d) What should the process engineers recommend concerning the choice of stirring rate and furnace for this particular
grain refiner if small grain size is desirable?

There really is no effect due to the stirring rate.

4-20 An industrial engineer is investigating the effect of four assembly methods (A, B, C, D) on the assembly time
for a color television component. Four operators are selected for the study. Furthermore, the engineer knows that
each assembly method produces such fatigue that the time required for the last assembly may be greater than the time
required for the first, regardless of the method. That is, a trend develops in the required assembly time. To account
for this source of variability, the engineer uses the Latin square design shown below. Analyze the data from this
experiment ( = 0.05) draw appropriate conclusions.

Order of Operator
Assembly 1 2 3 4
1 C=10 D=14 A=7 B=8
2 B=7 C=18 D=11 A=8
3 A=5 B=10 C=11 D=9
4 D=10 A=10 B=12 C=14

The Minitab output below identifies assembly method as having a significant effect on assembly time.

Minitab Output
General Linear Model

Analysis of Variance for Time, using Adjusted SS for Tests

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Method 3 72.500 72.500 24.167 13.81 0.004
Order 3 18.500 18.500 6.167 3.52 0.089
Operator 3 51.500 51.500 17.167 9.81 0.010
Error 6 10.500 10.500 1.750
Total 15 153.000

11