TOPIC: Analysis of methods of assembly of the metal chair through the Latin square

design.
INTRODUCTION:
Good afternoon teacher, hi classmates let me I am going to talk over It is about
identifying what is affecting the assembly time of the chair, for that we chose the Latin
square method to solve our problem.
BODY:
An industrial engineer investigates the effect of four assembly methods (A, B, C, and D)
on the assembly time of a component of a metal chair. Four operators are selected for
the study. In addition, the engineer knows that all assembly methods produce fatigue, so
that the time required for the last assembly may be longer than for the first, regardless of
the method.
That is, a trend develops in the required assembly time. To take into account this source
of variability, the engineer uses the Latin square design presented below. Analyze the
data from this experiment (α = 0.05) and draw the appropriate conclusions.In the design,
two block factors are controlled and a treatment factor is studied, which is why four
sources of variability are studied that may affect the observed response.
The block factors are the following: Factor A: method of assembly, Factor B: operators,
Variable response: assembly time. When applying the method we will obtain the best
option for both the method and the most skilled operator to develop this assembly
activity when making the chair.
CONCLUTION
• In the assembly time there is a variation between the averages because the workers
influence when assembling the chair element depending on their abilities.
• Operators influence the assembly time since it depends on them to develop fast or
slow according to their abilities.
• It is concluded that from the statistical point of view and in light of the experimental
results these four methods can be considered equal, this does not mean that they are
identical, but that their differences are minor.
ANALYTICAL SOLUTION:
ASSEMBLY OPERATOR
OF ORDER
1 2 3 4 Y.j Y´. j
1 C=12 D=15 A=8 B=9 44 11

2 B=9 C=18 D = 12 A= 9 48 12

3 A=7 B=15 C= 11 D=10 43 10.75

4 D=10 A=13 B=13 C=12 48 12

38 61 44 40 183

We order the table

Methods of Operators
assembly 1 2 3 4 Y i .. Y i ..
A 7 13 8 9 37 9.25

B 9 15 13 9 46 11.5

C 12 18 11 12 53 13.25

D 10 15 12 10 47 11.75

183

We propose the hypotheses

Factor A: method of assembly
Factor B: operators
Variable response: assembly time
H_o: the assembly method does not influence the working time.
H_1: the assembly method influences the working time.
H_o: the operators do not influence the working time.
H_1: the operators if they influence the working time.
Sum of squares

2 Y 2.. 2 2 2 2 1832
SCT =∑ Y ijk − =( 12 +15 + 8 + …+12 )− =2221−2093.06=127.94
N 16

2 Y 2.. ( 37 2+ 462 +532 + 472 ) 183 2

SCtrat=∑ Y i . /b− = − =2125.75−2093.06=32.69
N 4 16

2 Y 2.. ( 44 2+ 482 + 432+ 482 ) 1832

SC B 1=∑ Y /k − =
.j − =2098.25−2093.06=5.19
N 4 16

2 Y 2.. ( 382+ 612+ 442 + 402 ) 183 2

SC B 2=∑ Y /k− =
.k − =2175.25−2093.06=82.19
N 4 16
SC E=SCT −SCtrat−SC B 1−SC B 2=7.87

Anova Table

FV SC GL CM Decision

Assembly 32.69 3 10.90 12.52 4.76 Significant

time

Assembly 5.19 3 1.73 1.99 4.76 Not significant

method

Operators 82.19 3 27.40 31.49 4.76 Significant

Error 7.87 6 0.87

Total 127.94 15