PROJECT

2021SP - INTRO EXPT DESIGN

MAY 20-21

Name:
Date:
Submitted to
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This section is to thank all those people who helped in this project which are supervisors , co-
supervisor, teacher students and all the stuff which were involved in this project.
 ABSTRACT

Rockwell hardness tester, we want to see whether four different tips yield different (mean)
hardness readings. DOX is often used in gauge and measuring device capacity tests. The tips are
assigned to an experimental device, i.e., a research coupon. A completely randomized
experiment's structure. The research coupons are a source of unwelcome variation.
 Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................2
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................3
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................5
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................6
1.1 The Blocking Principle.....................................................................................................6
1.2 The Hardness Testing........................................................................................................6
ANOVA’s Extension.......................................................................................................................7
2.1 Extension of the ANOVA to the RCBD...........................................................................7
2.2 ANOVA Display for the RCBD.......................................................................................8
Example:......................................................................................................................................8
Experiments with a Single Factor (RESULTS).............................................................................10
3.1 Determining the effects of temperature on process yields..............................................10
3.2 Temperature Vs Process yields.......................................................................................10
3.3 ANOVA for Temperature Data (3 levels).......................................................................12
3.4 RBD Analysis.................................................................................................................12
3.5 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................................13
Randomized Block Design............................................................................................................13
4.1 Randomized Block Design..............................................................................................13
4.2 Incorrect Analysis of the Metal Coupons Experiment as a Completely Randomized
Design........................................................................................................................................13
4.3 Additional Facts..............................................................................................................13
4.4 The Latin Square Design.................................................................................................14
4.5 Latin square designs........................................................................................................14
4.6 BALANCED INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGN..........................................................15
4.7 Residual Analysis for the Vascular Graft Example........................................................16
4.8 Other Aspects of the RCBD............................................................................................16
4.9 Random Blocks and/or Treatments.................................................................................16
REFERENCES [Literature Cited].................................................................................................17
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Main Effects and 2 way interactions................................................................................8
Figure 2: Main Effects and 2 way interactions................................................................................9
Figure 3: Batch of Raw Material...................................................................................................12
Figure 4: Analysis of variance Incomplete block..........................................................................12

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Randomized Block Design for the Hardness Testing Experiment....................................7

Table 2: Analysis of Variance for a Randomized Complete Block Design....................................8
Table 3: Randomized Complete Block Design for the Vascular Graft Experiment........................9
Table 4: Temperature Data............................................................................................................12
Table 5 : Analysis of the metal coupons........................................................................................13
Table 6: Analysis of Batch of Raw Material.................................................................................15
Table 7: Analysis of Variance Incomplete Block..........................................................................15
 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Blocking Principle

Blocking is a strategy for grappling with nuisance factors. A nuisance element is one that may
have an impact on the response but is uninteresting to the experimenter... However, the
uncertainty it transmits to the answer must be kept to a minimum. Typical annoyance causes
include raw material batches, operators, test instruments, time (shifts, days, etc.), and various
experimental units. Many industrial trials should (or should not) require blocking. Failure to
block is a typical error in experiment design. We use blocking if the nuisance vector is known
and controllable. If the nuisance element is established and uncontrollable, we may also use
measurement of covariance to exclude its effect from the analysis. If the bothersome aspect is
unknown and uncontrollable (a "lurking" variable), we hope that randomization will cancel out
its effects through the experiment. When many sources of uncertainty are merged in a block, the
result is an aggregate variable.

1.2 The Hardness Testing

On a Rockwell hardness tester, we want to see whether four different tips yield different (mean)
hardness readings. DOX is often used in gauge and measuring device capacity tests. The tips are
assigned to an experimental device, i.e., a research coupon. A completely randomized
experiment's structure. The research coupons are a source of unwelcome variation. Alternatively,
the experimenter would choose to put the tips through their paces on coupons of varying
hardness ratios.
For this experiment, allocate all four tips for each voucher as an RCBD. Each coupon is called a
"block;" in other words, the testing unit is more homogenous. There can be significant variations
between blocks and comparatively minor variability within a block. A block is a particular
nuisance factor amount in general. Per block carries out a full recreation of the simple
experiment. A block is a randomization constraint. Both runs are randomized within a block.
Suppose that we use b = 4 blocks:
Please note the two-way experiment arrangement. Again, we want to assess fair justice methods,
but first we have to exclude the variability of the nuisance element (the blocks)
Randomized Complete Block Design for the Hardness Testing Experiment
Test Coupon (Block)
1 2 3 4
Tip 3 Tip 3 Tip 2 Tip 1
Tip 1 Tip 4 Tip 1 Tip 4
Tip 4 Tip 2 Tip 3 Tip 2
Tip 2 Tip 1 Tip 4 Tip 3

Table 1: Randomized Block Design for the Hardness Testing Experiment

ANOVA’s Extension

2.1 Extension of the ANOVA to the RCBD

Treatments (factor levels) and b blocks can be assumed. A RCBD mathematical model
(model effects).
i=1,2 , … , a
yij = µ + ῖi + βj + εij{j=1,2 , … , b
The respective hypotheses (fixed effects) are:
b
H0 : µ1 = µ2 = … = µa where µi = (1/b) ∑ (µi + ῖi + βj) = µ+ῖi
j=1
ANOVA partitioning of total variability:
a b a b

 ( yij  y.. )2   [( yi.  y.. )  ( y. j  y.. )

i 1 j 1 i 1 j 1

( yij  yi.  y. j  y.. )]2

a b
 b ( yi.  y.. )  a  ( y. j  y.. ) 2
2

i 1 j 1
a b
  ( yij  yi.  y. j  y.. ) 2
i 1 j 1

SST  SSTreatments  SS Blocks  SS E

The degrees of freedom for the sums of squares in
SST = SSTreatments + SSBlocks = SSE
are as follows:
ab-1 = a-1 + b-1 + (a-1)(b-1)
The ratios of square sums to their degree of freedom end in medium squares and the ratio
of medium to error square is a F statistic which can be used to evaluate the theory of fair
care.
2.2 ANOVA Display for the RCBD

Analysis of Variance for a Randomized Complete Block Design

Source of Degrees of
Sum of Square Mean Square F0
Variation Freedom
Treatments SSTreatments a-1 SSTreatments/a-1 MSTreatments/MSE
Blocks SSBlocks b-1 SSBlocks/b-1
Error SSE (a-1)(b-1) SSE/(a-1)(b-1)
Total SST N-1

Table 2: Analysis of Variance for a Randomized Complete Block Design

Use software to analyze the RCBD (Design-Expert, JMP).

Manual computing:
a b
SST = ∑ ∑ y2ij – y2 ../N (4.9)
i=1 j=1

a
1
SSTreatments = ∑ y2i – y2 ../N (4.10)
b i=1

b
1
SSBlocks = ∑ y2j – y2 ../N
a j=1
(4.11)

and the error sum of squares is obtained by subtraction as

SSE = SST – SSTreatments – SSBlocks (4.12)

Example:
Vascular grafts are made by a surgical device maker (artificial veins). The grafting are
manufactured with the combination of a tube with the extraction of billets of
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin. Any of the tubes in the manufacturing process also have
thin, tough surfaces on the outside. These faults are referred to as "flicks." The failure causes the
machine to be rejected.
The vascular graft inventor assumes that extrusion pressure causes flick occurrence and thus
plans to perform an experiment to examine this hypothesis. The resin is thus produced by an
external provider and is supplied by lots to the maker of medical equipment. It also suspects that
there could be major batch-to-batch variations, because the sample will probably not be
attributed to production variations in the process, even though its parameters including molecular
weight, average particle size, retention and peak height ratio will be constant. Thus, with a
randomized full block architecture treating resin batches as bricks, the product developer agrees
to explore the impact of four distinct extreme pressure thresholds on flicks. In table 3, the RCBD
appears. Please note that four extrusion (treatment) and six resin batches are available (blocks).
Recall that the extruder pressure inside each block is checked in random order. The answer
vector is the percentage or yield of tubes which do not produce flicks in the production tunnel.
The four pressures for each of the 6 lots of resin are assigned for conducting this experiment as
an RCBD. Per piece of resin is called a "block," that is, a more homogeneous device for testing
the pressure of extrusion.
Randomized Complete Block Design for the Vascular Graft Experiment
Batch of Resin (Block)
Extrusion 1 2 3 4 5 6 Treatment
Pressure Total
(PSI)
8500 90.3 89.2 98.2 93.9 87.4 97.9 556.9
8700 92.5 89.5 90.6 94.7 87.0 95.885.5 550.1
8900 85.5 90.8 89.6 86.2 88.0 93.4 533.5
9100 82.5 89.5 85.6 87.4 78.9 90.7 514.6
Block 350.8 359.0 364.0 362.2 341.3 377.8 y.. =
Totals 2155.1
Table 3: Randomized Complete Block Design for the Vascular Graft Experiment

To perform the analysis of variance, we need the following sum of squares:

4 6
SST = ∑ ∑ y2ij – y2.. /N
i=1 j=1

= 193,999.31 – (2155.1)2/24 = 480.31

4
1 2
SSTreatments = ∑y i. - y2.. /N
b i=1

1
= [(556.9)2 + (550.1) 2] + (533.5) 2+(514.6) 2 – (2155.1) 2/24
6
= 178.14
4
1 2
SSBlocks = ∑y j - y2.. /N
a j=1

1
= [(350.8)2 + (359.0) 2 +…+ (377.8) 2] – (2155.1) 2/24
4
= 192.25
SSE = SST - SSTreatments - SSBlocks
= 480.31 – 178.17 – 192.25
= 109.89
Using a = 0.05, the criticial value of F is F0.05,3.15 = 3.29. Because 8.11 > 3.29, we conclude that
extrusion pressure affects the mean yield. The P-value for the test is also quite small. Also, the
resin batches (blocks) seem to differ significantly, because the mean square for blocks is larger
relative to error.

Experiments with a Single Factor (RESULTS)

3.1 Determining the effects of temperature on process yields

Case I: Two levels of temperature setting

Case II: Three levels of temperature setting

3.2 Temperature Vs Process yields

Temperature
_________________________________________________________
Day 250 0F 3000F

M 2.4 2.6

Week#1
{ }
T 2.7 2.4
W 2.22.8 Week # 3
Th2.5 2.5
F 2.02.2

M 2.5 2.7

Week#2
{ }
T 2.8 2. 3
W 2. 93.1 Week # 4
Th2. 4 2.9
F 2. 1 2.2
Figure 1: Main Effects and 2-way interactions
 Figure 2: Main Effects and 2-way interactions

3.3 ANOVA for Temperature Data (3 levels)

Source of Variations d.f. SS MS F
Temperature 2 1.545 0.7725 8.91
Within 27 2.342 0.0867 p-value = 0.001
Reject H0
Total 29 3.887
Table 4: Temperature Data

3 3 10
SStemp = ∑ ¿yij)2/n - (∑ ∑ yij)2/an
i=1 i=1 j=1

3 10 3 10
SStotal = ∑ ∑ yij2 – (∑ ∑ yij) 2/an
i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1

SSwithin = SStotal - SStemp

3.4 RBD Analysis

By suppressing a cause for variability, this architecture technique increases the precision
of distinctions between treatments. Suppose we usually have therapies and b blocks to
 compare. - treatment block has an observation and each treatment is performed in random
order. The blocks constitute a randomization limit.

3.5 Statistical Analysis

Complete squares are divided between:
SStotal = SStreatment +SSblocks +SSwithin
There are N total observations, so SStotal has N -1 degrees of freedom. There is a level of
the factor, so SStreatment has a - 1 degrees of freedom. There are b blocks, so SSblocks
has b - 1 degrees of freedom. Thus, we have (a – 1)(b – 1) degrees of freedom for
SSwithin.

Randomized Block Design

4.1 Randomized Block Design
The results we would have achieved if we had not known the randomized block designs
are fascinating to see. Assume we actually used four specimens, assigning each randomly
the tips and the same pattern (by chance). The wrong analysis of the data as a random
construct results in F = 1.7, but the equivalent conclusion is impossible to dismiss.

4.2 Incorrect Analysis of the Metal Coupons Experiment as a

Completely Randomized Design
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F0
Variation Squares Freedom Square
Type of Tip 38.50 3 12.93 1.70
Error 90.50 12 7.54
Total 129.00 15

Table 5 : Analysis of the metal coupons

The randomization of the blocks (variability) sufficiently decreases the amount of noise
in the data to distinguish variations between the four treatments.

4.3 Additional Facts

We assume that therapies and blocks are not interactive. If there is interaction, the
measurement of variation will be severely affected and potentially invalidated. In
conditions that are of concern both variables and their potential interaction, factorial
designs should be used and replications should be made.
4.4 The Latin Square Design
The randomized block design is a method of reducing residual error in experiments by
eliminating uncertainty caused by a known and controllable nuisance component. This
blocking theory is used in a variety of other designs. The Latin square pattern is used to
remove two nuisance causes of variability; that is, it requires blocking in two directions
systematically.
Example:
A pharmaceutical company is researching the effects of five separate medication
formulations. Each formulation is made from a batch of raw material that is only big
enough to evaluate five formulations. The formulas are prepared by a team of operators
with vastly different expertise and experience. There are two nuisance considerations to
average out: raw material batches and operators.
Solution: Make use of a Latin square pattern.

4.5 Latin square designs

The rows and columns in a Latin square pattern represent two randomization constraints.
A Latin square with p variables, also known as a pp Latin square, is a square with p rows
and p columns. - of the resulting squares includes one letter representing a treatment, and
each letter appears only once in each row and column.
Latin Square Design for 3 treatments

Columns
A B C
Rows C A B
B C A

Latin Square Design for 4 treatments

Columns
A B C D
D A B C
Rows
B C D A
C D A B
Example: Dynamite
Formulation
An experimenter examines the influence of five explosive mixture formulations A raw
material batch is sufficient for just five formulations. Five operators draw up
formulations
4.6 BALANCED INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGN
We might not be able to perform all the treatment variations in certain studies using
randomized block designs in each block. Random block architectures may be used in
which no therapy exists in - block. Symmetric design: any treatment pair occurs as well
as any other pair. Will run replicates to predict a stronger error.
Example
Time of reaction for a chemical process is a function of the type of catalyst employed.
Symmetric design

Treatment (Catalyst) Block (Batch of Raw Material)

1 2 3 4 yi’
A1 73 74 -- 71 218
B2 -- 75 67 72 214
C3 73 75 68 -- 216
D4 75 -- 72 75 222
y’i 221 224 207 218 870 = y. .
Table 6:
Analysis of Batch of Raw Material

Analysis of Variance Incomplete Block Design

Source of Sum of Degree of Mean F0
Variation Squares Freedom Square
Treatments 22.75 3 7.58 11.66
(adjusted for
blocks)
Blocks 55.00 3 --
Errors 3.25 5 0.65
Total 81.00 11
Table 7: Analysis of Variance Incomplete Block

Conclusion: 11.66 > F 0.05,3,5 =5.41 The catalyst employed has a significant
effect on the time of reaction.
4.7 Residual Analysis for the Vascular Graft Example
Basic residual plots show that the expectations of normality and constant variance are
met. No clear randomization problems. No residual vs. block patterns. Can even plot
residues against pressure (factor residues). These images provide more detail about the
expectation of continuous variation, potential outliers.

4.8 Other Aspects of the RCBD

The RCBD uses an additive approach – no treat-block interaction. Random impact
treatments and/or blocks. missing values. missing values. If we should have, what would
the repercussions not be blocked?

4.9 Random Blocks and/or Treatments

Assuming that the RCBD model Equation is appropriate, if the blocks are random and the
treatments are fixed, we can show that:
E(yij) = µ + ῖi, i = 1, 2, …, a
V(yij) = σ2β + σ2
Cov (yij, yi’j’) = 0, j ≠ j’
Cov (yij, yi’j’) = σ2β, i ≠ i’
The variance of observations is thus stable, the covariance of the two independent blocks
of observations being zero, but the covariance of the two blocks of one block is σ2β. From
the normal ANOVA partitioning, the predicted average squares are:
a
E(MSTreatments) = σ2 + b ∑ ῖ2i /a-1
i=1

E(MSBlocks) = σ2 + a σ2β
E(MSE) = σ2
The appropriate statistic for testing the null hypothesis of no treatment effects (all ῖi = 0)
is
F0 = MSBlocks /MSE
which is exactly the same test statistic we used in the case where the blocks were fixed.
Based on the expected mean squares, we can obtain an ANOVA-type estimator of the
variance component for blocks as
σ2β = MSBlocks – MSE/a
For example, for the vascular graft experiment the estimate of σ2β is
σ2β = MSBlocks – MSE/a = 38.45 – 7.33/4 = 7.78
 REFERENCES [Literature Cited]

[1] “Experimental Design-Day 2 Experiment Graphics-Exploratory Data Analysis Final analytic

approach.”
[2] https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat503/lesson/4/4.3