ETM501& Applied&Statistics&And& Design&&&Analysis&Of&Experiments&&&

ENGINEERING&AND&TECHNOLOGY&MANAGEMENT&
ETM501&
APPLIED&STATISTICS&AND&
DESIGN&&&ANALYSIS&OF&EXPERIMENTS&&&
&
Ali&R.&Kaylan&
kaylan@boun.edu.tr&
&
Boğaziçi&University&
Department&of&Industrial&Engineering&
Bebek,&İstanbul,&Turkey&
&
Lec$4.$Comparison$of$K$Populations$and$
Kaylan$/$ETM501$ 1$
Block$Designs$
COMPARISON&OF&K[POPULATIONS&AND&BLOCK&DESIGNS&
OUTLINE((
&
I.&Completely&Randomized&Designs&
&
II.&Model&Adequacy&Checking&
&
III.&Tensile&Strength&Experiment&
&
IV.&Randomized&Block&Design&
&
V.&Hardness&TesZng&Experiment&
&
VI.$Latin$Square$Design&
Lec$4.$Comparison$of$K$Populations$and$
Kaylan$/$ETM501$ 2$
Block$Designs$
What&if&there&are&more&than&two&factor&levels?&
The&t[test&does&not&directly&apply.&
&
There&are&lots&of&pracZcal&situaZons&where&there&are&
either&more&than&two&levels&of&interest,&or&there&are&
several&factors&of&simultaneous&interest.&
&
The&analysis&of&variance&(ANOVA)&is&the&appropriate&
analysis& engine &for&these&types&of&experiments.&
Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Kaylan / ETM501
and Block Designs 3
What&if&there&are&more&than&two&factor&levels?&
The&ANOVA&was&developed&by&Fisher&in&the&early&1920s,&
and&iniZally&applied&to&agricultural&experiments.&
&
Used&extensively&today&for&industrial&experiments.&
&
The&name& analysis&of&variance &stems&from&a&
parZZoning&of&the&total&variability&in&the&response&
variable&into&components&that&are&consistent&with&a&
model&for&the&experiment&
(
Kaylan / ETM501
and Block Designs 4
EXPERIMENTS&TO&COMPARE&k&AVERAGES&
QuesZon:&Do&all&the&techniques&give&essenZally&the&same&results?&
# H 0 : µA = µB = µC = µD
"
!H1 : At least one mean differs

Kaylan / ETM501
and Block Designs 5
EXAMPLE(1((Montgomery):(
Three&brands&of&baeeries&are&under&study.&It&is&suspected&that&the&
lives&(in&weeks)&of&the&three&brands&are&different.&Five&baeeries&of&
each&brand&are&tested&with&the&following&results.&
& Brand 1 Brand 2 Brand 3
108 96 74
100 92 83
98 91 79
94 96 79
100 100 75
TOTAL 500 475 390
MEAN 100 95 78
S.Square 104 52 52

Kaylan / ETM501
and Block Designs 6
EXAMPLE(1(a)(State the type of design, the mathematical

model and the underlying assumptions.!
&
Completely Randomized Design. Fixed Effects Model
&
Yij = µ + τ j + ε ij , j = 1,2,3, i = 1,2,...,5
µ = Overall mean
τ j = jth treatment effect
ε ij ~ IIDNormal (0, σ 2 )

Kaylan / ETM501
and Block Designs 7
EXAMPLE(1(b)(Check homoscedasticity (common variance)

using F statistics.
H 0 : σ 12 = σ 22
H 1 : σ 12 ≠ σ 22
104
F= = 2 < F0.05, 4, 4 = 6.39
52
Do not reject H0 at 5% level of significance.

Kaylan / ETM501
and Block Designs 8
EXAMPLE(1(c)(Construct a 99% interval estimate on the mean

difference between the lives of battery brands 1 and 3. !
99% Confidence Interval on µ1 − µ 3 :

( y1. − y 3. ) ± t 0.005,12 2 MSE / 5
(100 − 78) ± 3.06 2 * (208 / 12) / 5
22 ± 3.06 * 2.63
22 ± 8.05
13.95 ≤ µ1 − µ 3 ≤ 30.05

Kaylan / ETM501
and Block Designs 9
EXAMPLE(1(d)(Which&brand&would&you&select&for&use?&If&the&
manufacturer& will& replace& without& charge& any& baeery& that&
fails& in& less& than& 85& weeks,& what& percentage& would& he&
expect&to&replace?&
Select&Brand&1&(longest&life).&&
Assuming&normality,&
( 85 − 100 %
Φ&& ## = Φ(−3.603) = 0.0002
' 17.333 $

Kaylan / ETM501
and Block Designs 10
COMPLETELY&RANDOMIZED&DESIGN&
EXAMPLE(2.(Comparison&of&four&Techniques&(A,&B,&C,&D)&
Design&Issues:&24&Experiments&with&4,&6,&6,&8&replicaZons&
respecZvely.&In&what&order&to&carry&out&experiments?&
TECHNIQUE
A B C D
20 12 16 23
2 9 7 3
11 15 1 6
10 14 17 18
4 13 22
8 21 19
5
24
Numbers&in&the&layout&designate&the&order&of&the&tests.&&
Kaylan / ETM501
The(underlying(mathemaCcal(model:(((
( Y = µ + τ + ε
ij j ij
Y = µ + ε
ij j ij
where&
&Yij&=&ith&observaZon&in&group&j&
&µj&=&True&mean&of&group&j&
&εij&=&Error&
&&
& ε ij : IIDN (0, σ 2 )

Kaylan / ETM501
Carry&out&the&24&experiments&in&the&specified&completely&randomized&order.&
A B C D
62 63 68 56
60 67 66 62
63 71 71 60
59 64 67 61
65 68 63
66 68 64
63
59
GROUP AVER. 61 66 68 61
GROUP VAR. 3,33 8,00 2,80 6,86
N 4 6 6 8
WITHIN S.S. 10 40 14 48
GRAND AVER. 64
GROUP DEV. -3 2 4 -3

Kaylan / ETM501
CalculaCon(of(Variance(:(
Within(groups:(
( k nj
2
( y
∑ ∑ ij - y j )
2 j =1 i =1
sw =
N −k
Between(groups:( nj
k
2
(y
∑∑ j - y )
2 j =1 i =1
s =
b
k −1

Kaylan / ETM501
While&sums&of&squares&cannot&be&directly&compared&to&test&the&
hypothesis&of&equal&means,&mean&squares&can&be&compared.&
&
A&mean&square&is&a&sum&of&squares&divided&by&its&degrees&of&
freedom.&
&
If&Ho&is&true&(the&treatment&means&are&equal),&the&treatment&and&
error&mean&squares&will&be&(theoreZcally)&equal.&&
&
If&H1&is&true&(treatment&means&differ),&the&treatment&mean&square&
will&be&larger&than&the&error&mean&square.&
(

Kaylan / ETM501
Analysis(of(Variance(Table:(
(
SOURCE SSq. Dof MeanSq. F-RATIO
Mean 98304 1
Between 228 3 76,00 13,57
Within 112 20 5,60
TOTAL 98644 24
F3,20,0.01&=&4.94,&F3,20,0.05&=&3.10&
&
Do&not&accept&Ho&at&5%&level&of&significance.&
&

Kaylan / ETM501
DecomposiCon(of(observaCons:&
&
62 63 68 56 1 -3 0 -5
60 67 66 62 -1 1 -2 1
63 71 71 60 2 5 3 -1
59 64 67 61 = 64 + -3 2 4 -3 + -2 -2 -1 0
65 68 63 -1 0 2
66 68 64 0 0 3
63 2
59 -2
OBSERVATION& Grand&Mean& Group&deviaZon& Error&

Kaylan / ETM501
The(AddiCve(property(of(sum(of(squares:(((
(
D=T-M
k nj k nj
2 2 2
(y
∑∑ ij - y) = y
∑∑ ij - N y
j=1 i =1 j=1 i =1
D = G+ R
k nj k k nj
2 2 2
∑ ∑(y ij - y) = ∑n j (y j - y ) + ∑ ∑ (y ij - yj)
j =1 i =1 j= 1 j= 1 i= 1

Kaylan / ETM501
SST = SSTreatments + SS E
k nj k k nj
2 2 2
(y
∑∑ ij - y) = n (y
∑ j j - y) + (y -
∑∑ ij jy )
j=1 i =1 j=1 j=1 i =1
SSTreatments&&&:&&A&large&value&reflects&large&differences&in&treatment&
means.&
A&small&value&likely&indicates&no&differences&in&treatment&means.&

Kaylan / ETM501
ObservaCon(=(Mean(+(Treatment(Effect(+(Residual(
(((((((((((T((((((((=((((((M(((+(((D(
(((((((((((((T((((((((=((((((M(((+(((((((((((((G(((((((((((((((+(((((((R(
Orthogonality(:(((
(
D⊥M G ⊥R M ⊥R M ⊥G

Kaylan / ETM501
MODEL&ADEQUACY&
(Checking(AssumpCons:(
(
& & &Normality&
& & &Constant&variance&
& & &Independence&
&
Have%we%fit%the%right%model?%
%
(
Kaylan / ETM501
MODEL&ADEQUACY&
Residual(Analysis:(
(InvesCgate(if(there(are(any(apparent(abnormaliCes.(
(
1.  Residual(Dot(diagrams(
(
2.(((Residuals(by(techniques(
(
3.(((Residuals(in(Cme(sequence(
(
(

Kaylan / ETM501
TENSILE&STRENGTH&EXPERIMENT&
EXAMPLE(3.((Montgomery,(3.10(p.132):(
A&product&development&engineer&is&interested&in&invesZgaZng&
the&tensile&strength&of&a&new&syntheZc&fiber&that&will&be&used&to&
make&cloth&for&men’s&shirts.&The&engineer&knows&from&previous&
experience&that&the&strength&is&affected&by&the&weight&percent&
of&coeon&used&in&the&blend&of&materials&for&the&fiber.&
Furthermore,&he&suspects&that&increasing&the&coeon&content&will&
increase&the&strength,&at&least&iniZally.&He&also&knows&that&
coeon&content&should&range&between&about&10&percent&and&40&
percent&if&the&final&cloth&is&to&have&other&quality&characterisZcs.&

Kaylan / ETM501
The&engineer&decides&to&test&specimens&at&five&levels&of&coeon&
weight&percent:&15&percent,&20&percent,&25&percent,&30&percent,&
and&35&percent.&He&also&decides&to&test&five&specimens&at&each&
level&of&coeon&content.&
a=&5&levels&
n=&5&replicates&&
25&runs&should&be&made&in&random&order.&

Kaylan / ETM501
2
Observed Tensile Strength (lb/in )
% Weight 1 2 3 4 5 Totals (yi ) Aver.
15 7 7 15 11 9 49 9,80
20 12 17 12 18 18 77 15,40
25 14 18 18 19 19 88 17,60
30 19 25 22 19 23 108 21,60
35 7 10 11 15 11 54 10,80

Kaylan / ETM501
Does&changing&the&coeon&
weight&percent&change&the&
mean&tensile&strength?&
Is&there&an&opCmum&level&for&
coeon&content?&

Kaylan / ETM501
Source of Variation S.Sq. D.o.f. M.Sq. F0

Cotton Weight % 475,76 4 118,94 14,76
Error 161,2 20 8,06
Total 636,96 24

Kaylan / ETM501
Reference&DistribuZon:&

Kaylan / ETM501
ANOVA&Computer&Output&(Design[Expert)&
&Response:&Strength&
&((((((((ANOVA(for(Selected(Factorial(Model&
&Analysis(of(variance(table([ParCal(sum(of(squares]&
& &Sum(of & &Mean &F &&
&Source&&&&Squares &DF &Square &Value &Prob(>(F&
&Model &475.76 &4 &118.94 &14.76 &<&0.0001&
&A &475.76 &4 &118.94 &14.76 &<&0.0001&
&Error &161.20 &20 &8.06&
&CorTotal &636.96 &24&
&
&
&Std.&Dev. &2.84 & &R[Squared &0.7469&
&Mean &15.04 & &Adj&R[Squared &0.6963&
&C.V. &18.88 & &Pred&R[Squared &0.6046&
&PRESS &251.88 & &Adeq&Precision &9.294&

Kaylan / ETM501
GRAPHICAL&VIEW&OF&RESULTS&

Kaylan / ETM501
MODEL&ADEQUACY&CHECKING&
DE S IG N-E X P E RT P l o t Normal plot of residuals
S tre n g th
ExaminaCon(of(residuals( 99
DesignÊxpert(generates( 95
the(residuals.(
Norm al % probability
90
80
( 70
Residual(plots(are(very( 50
useful.( 30
20
( 10
Normal(probability(plot(of(
1
residuals.(
-3.8 -1.55 0.7 2.95 5.2
Res idual

Kaylan / ETM501
OTHER&RESIDUAL&PLOTS&
DE S IG N-E X P E RT P l o t Residuals vs. P redicted
DE S IG N-E X P E RT P l o t Residuals vs. Run
S tre n g th
S tre n g th
5.2
5.2
2.95
2.95
2
Res iduals
Res iduals
2
0.7
0.7
2
2
-1.55
-1.55
2
2
2 -3.8
-3.8
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
9.80 12.75 15.70 18.65 21.60
Run Num ber

Predicted

Kaylan / ETM501
Post[ANOVA&Comparison&of&Means&
The(ANOVA(tests(the(hypothesis(of(equal(treatment(means.(If(
that(hypothesis(is(rejected,(we(don t(know(which(specific(means(
are(different.(
(
(Assume(that(the(model(is(valid.((Residual(analysis(yields(
saCsfactory(results.)(
(
Determining(which(specific(means(differ(following(an(ANOVA(is(
called(the(mulCple(comparisons(problem.(
(
(Pairwise(t^tests(on(means((Also(called(Fisher s(Least(Significant(
Difference(Method(or(Fisher s(LSD).(

Kaylan / ETM501
DESIGN[EXPERT&OUTPUT&
&(Treatment(Means((Adjusted,(If(Necessary)&
& &EsCmated & &Standard&
& &Mean & &Error&
&&1[15 &9.80 & &1.27&
&&2[20 &15.40 & &1.27&
&&3[25 &17.60 & &1.27&
&&4[30 &21.60 & &1.27&
&&5[35 &10.80 & &1.27&
&
& &Mean & &Standard &t(for(H0 &&
&Treatment &Difference &DF &Error &Coeff=0 &Prob(>(|t|&
&&&1&vs&&2 &[5.60 &1 &1.80 &[3.12 &0.0054&
&&&1&vs&&3 &[7.80 &1 &1.80 &[4.34 &0.0003&
&&&1&vs&&4 &[11.80 &1 &1.80 &[6.57 &<&0.0001&
&&&1&vs&&5 &[1.00 &1 &1.80 &[0.56 &0.5838&
&&&2&vs&&3 &[2.20 &1 &1.80 &[1.23 &0.2347&
&&&2&vs&&4 &[6.20 &1 &1.80 &[3.45 &0.0025&
&&&2&vs&&5 &4.60 &1 &1.80 &2.56 &0.0186&
&&&3&vs&&4 &[4.00 &1 &1.80 &[2.23 &0.0375&
&&&3&vs&&5 &6.80 &1 &1.80 &3.79 &0.0012&
&&&4&vs&&5 &10.80 &1 &1.80 &6.01 &<&0.0001&
&
&

Kaylan / ETM501
GRAPHICAL&COMPARISON&OF&MEANS&
Tensile&strength&averages&from&the&coeon&weight&percentage&experiment&in&
relaZon&to&a&t&distribuZon&with&a&scale&factor&&
& &(MSE/n)0.5=(8.06/5)0.5=&1.27&

Kaylan / ETM501
RANDOMIZED&BLOCK&DESIGN&
Blocking(Principle:(
(Blocking&is&a&technique&for&dealing&with&nuisance&factors.(
(
•  A&nuisance(factor&is&a&factor&that&probably&has&some&affect&on&
the&response,&but&it s&of&no&interest&to&the&experimenter…&
However,&the&variability&it&transmits&to&the&response&needs&to&
be&minimized.&
•  Typical&nuisance&factors&include&batches&of&raw&material,&
operators,&pieces&of&test&equipment,&Zme&(shiws,&days,&etc.),&
different&experimental&units.&
•  Many&industrial&experiments&involve&blocking.&
•  Failure&to&block&is&a&common&flaw&in&designing&an&experiment&
(Consequences?)&
Kaylan / ETM501
Blocking(Principle:(
(If&the&nuisance&variable&is&&
& &known&and&controllable,&we&use&blocking. ( ((
( (known(and(uncontrollable,&&
& & &someZmes&we&can&use&the&analysis(of(covariance&to&
remove&the&effect&of&the&nuisance&factor&from&the&analysis.&
( (unknown(and(uncontrollable&(a& lurking (variable),&&
& & &we&hope&that&randomizaCon&balances&out&its&impact&
across&the&&experiment&
&
SomeZmes&several&sources&of&variability&are&combined&in&a&block,&
so&the&block&becomes&an&aggregate&variable&

Kaylan / ETM501
A B C D E SUM
I 16,9 18,2 17 15,1 18,3 85,5
II 16,5 19,2 18,1 16.,0 18,3 88,1
III 17,5 17,1 17,3 17,8 19,8 89,5
SUM 50,9 54.5 52,4 48,9 56,4 263,1

Kaylan / ETM501
The(underlying(mathemaCcal(model:(((
( Y = µ + βi + τ + ε
ij j ij
where&
&Yij&=&ith&observaZon&in&group&j&
&µ=&Grand&Mean&
&βi=&Block&i&&
&τj=&Treatment&j& &&
&εij&=&Error&
&&
2
& ε ij : IIDN (0, σ )

Kaylan / ETM501
DecomposiZon&of&the&Sums&of&squares&:&&
&
SST = SSTreatments + SS Blocks + SS E
Degrees&of&freedom&decomposiZon&are&as&follows:&
&
&
ab − 1 = a − 1 + b − 1 + (a − 1)(b − 1)
RaZos&of&sums&of&squares&to&their&degrees&&of&freedom&result&
in&mean&squares.&
RaZo&of&the&mean&square&for&treatments&to&the&error&mean&
square&is&an&F&staZsZc&that&can&be&used&to&test&the&
hypothesis&of&equal&treatment&means.&

Kaylan / ETM501
ANOVA(TABLE(:(((
SOURCE SSq. Dof. MSq. F-RATIO

DUE TO MEAN 4614.77 1
BLOCKS 1.65 2 0.825 0.944
TREATMENT 11.56 4 2.89 3.308
RESIDUAL 6.99 8 0.874
TOTAL 4634.97 15
F4,8,.05&=&3.84,&F4,8,.10&=&2.81&
&
Treatment&effect&is&significant&at&10%&but&not&at&5%&level.&

Kaylan / ETM501
HARDNESS&TESTING&EXPERIMENT&
EXAMPLE( 4.( Suppose& we& wish& to& determine& whether&

or&not&four&different&Zps&produce&different&readings&on&
a& hardness& tesZng& machine.& An& experiment& such& as&
this&might&be&part&a&gage&capability&study.&The&machine&
operates&by&pressing&the&Zp&into&a&metal&test&coupon,&
and& from& the& depth& of& the& resulZng& depression,& the&
hardness& of& the& coupon& can& be& determined.& The&
experimenter&has&decided&to&obtain&four&observaZons&
for&each&Zp.&&

Kaylan / ETM501
Single Factor Design: One Factor – tip type

16 different metal test coupons are required.
Response is measured in Rockwell C scale hardness
minus 40.
Completely randomized design:
Randomly assigning each one of the 4x4=16 runs to an
experimental unit (metal coupon) and observing the
hardness reading that results.
(Potentially serious problem. Why?)

Kaylan / ETM501
Structure of a completely randomized experiment

(Potentially serious problem. Why?)
•  Assignment of the tips to an experimental unit ( test

coupon) which may be a source of nuisance variability .
•  Alternatively, the experimenter may want to test the tips

across coupons of various hardness levels.
The need for blocking

Kaylan / ETM501
To conduct this experiment as a RBD:

Assign all 4 tips to each coupon
Each coupon is called a block ; that is, it s a more
homogenous experimental unit on which to test the tips.
Variability between blocks can be large, variability within
a block should be relatively small.
In general, a block is a specific level of the nuisance
factor.
A complete replicate of the basic experiment is conducted
in each block.
A block represents a restriction on randomization .
All runs within a block are randomized .

Kaylan / ETM501
Two-way structure of the experiment:
Interested in testing the equality of treatment means, but now we
have to remove the variability associated with the nuisance
factor coupon(the blocks)
(Coded Data)
Coupon (Block)
Type of Tip 1 2 3 4 yi.
1 -2 -1 1 5 3
2 -1 -2 3 4 4
3 -3 -1 0 2 -2
4 2 1 5 7 15
y.j -4 -3 9 18 20

Kaylan / ETM501
(Randomized Block Design:

Type of Tip 38,5 3 12,83 14,44
Coupons 82,5 3 27,5
Error 8 9 0,89
Total 129 15

Kaylan / ETM501
Incorrect Analysis (Completely Randomized Design):

Type of Tip 38.5 3 12.83 1.7
Error 90.5 12 7.54
Total 129 15

Kaylan / ETM501
Design-Expert Output
(Response:&&Hardness&
&((((((((ANOVA(for(Selected(Factorial(Model&
&Analysis(of(variance(table([ParCal(sum(of(squares]&
& &Sum(of & &Mean &F &&
&Source &Squares &DF &Square &Value &Prob(>(F&
&Block &82.50 &3 &27.50&
&Model &38.50 &3 &12.83 &14.44 &0.0009&
&A &38.50 &3 &12.83 &14.44 &0.0009&
&Residual &8.00 &9 &0.89&
&Cor&Total&129.00 &15&
&
&Std.&Dev. &0.94 & &R[Squared &0.8280&
&Mean &1.25 & &Adj&R[Squared &0.7706&
&C.V. &75.42 & &Pred&R[Squared &0.4563&
&PRESS &25.28 & &Adeq&Precision &15.635&
Kaylan / ETM501
Design-Expert
DE S IG N-E X P E RT P l o t Output – Residual Analysis
Normal plot of residuals
Ha rd n e ss
99
95
Norm al % probability
90
80
70
50
30
20
10
-1 -0.375 0.25 0.875 1.5
Res idual

Kaylan / ETM501
Design-Expert Output – Residual Analysis
DE S IG N-E X P E RT P l o t Residuals vs. P redicted
DE S IG N-E X P E RT P l o t Residuals vs. Run
Ha rd n e ss Ha rd n e ss
1.5 1.5
0.875 0.875
Res iduals
Res iduals
0.25 2 0.25
-0.375 -0.375
-1
-1
-2.75 -0.31 2.13 4.56 7.00

1 4 7 10 13 16
Predicted Run Num ber

Kaylan / ETM501
Design-Expert Output – Residual Analysis
Basic residual plots indicate that normality and

constant variance assumptions are satisfied.
No obvious problems with randomization .
Can also plot residuals versus the type of tip
(residuals by factor) and versus the blocks.
These plots provide more information about the
constant variance assumption, possible outliers.

Kaylan / ETM501
Multiple Comparisons: Which tips are different?
Treatment Means (Adjusted, If Necessary)

Estimated Standard
Mean Error
1-T1 0.75 0.47
2-T2 1.00 0.47
3-T3 -0.50 0.47
4-T4 3.75 0.47
Mean Standard t for H0

Treatment Difference DF Error Coeff=0 Prob > |t|
1 vs 2 -0.25 1 0.67 -0.38 0.7163
1 vs 3 1.25 1 0.67 1.87 0.0935
1 vs 4 -3.00 1 0.67 -4.50 0.0015
2 vs 3 1.50 1 0.67 2.25 0.0510
2 vs 4 -2.75 1 0.67 -4.13 0.0026
3 vs 4 -4.25 1 0.67 -6.38 0.0001

Kaylan / ETM501
LATIN&SQUARE&DESIGN&
Used&to&simultaneously&control&(or&eliminate)&two(
sources(of(nuisance(variability.&
• &A&significant&assumpZon&is&that&the&three&factors&
(treatments,&nuisance&factors)&do(not(interact.&
&
• &If&this&assumpZon&is&violated,&the&LaZn&square&design&
will&not&produce&valid&results.&
&
• &LaZn&squares&are&not&used&as&much&as&the&RCBD&in&
industrial&experimentaZon.&&

Kaylan / ETM501
Position (j)
Run(i) 4 2 1 3
II A B D C
III D C A B
I C D B A
IV B A C D

Kaylan / ETM501
Position (j)
Run(i) 4 2 1 3 Sum Aver.
II 251 241 227 229 948 237
III 234 273 274 226 1007 251,75
I 235 236 218 268 957 239,25
IV 195 270 230 225 920 230
Sum 915 1020 949 948 3832
Aver. 228,75 255 237,25 237 239,5

Kaylan / ETM501
MATHEMATICAL MODEL :
Y = µ + βi + τ + ηk + ε
ijk j ijk

Kaylan / ETM501
ANOVA TABLE :
SOURCE SSq. Dof. MSq. F-RATIO

DUE TO MEAN 917764 1
POSITIONS 1468,5 3 489,5 7,99
RUNS 986,5 3 328,83 5,37
MATERIALS 4621,5 3 1540,5 25,15
RESIDUAL 367,5 6 61,25
TOTAL 925208 16
F3,6,.05&=&4.76&
&

Kaylan / ETM501

ETM501& Applied&Statistics&And& Design&&&Analysis&Of&Experiments&&&

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETM501& Applied&Statistics&And& Design&&&Analysis&Of&Experiments&&&

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENGINEERING&AND&TECHNOLOGY&MANAGEMENT&

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

EXAMPLE(1(a)(State the type of design, the mathematical

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

EXAMPLE(1(b)(Check homoscedasticity (common variance)

Do not reject H0 at 5% level of significance.

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

EXAMPLE(1(c)(Construct a 99% interval estimate on the mean

99% Confidence Interval on µ1 − µ 3 :

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

& ε ij : IIDN (0, σ 2 )

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

OBSERVATION& Grand&Mean& Group&deviaZon& Error&

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Source of Variation S.Sq. D.o.f. M.Sq. F0

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

-3.8 -1.55 0.7 2.95 5.2

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Run Num ber

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

SOURCE SSq. Dof. MSq. F-RATIO

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

EXAMPLE( 4.( Suppose& we& wish& to& determine& whether&

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Single Factor Design: One Factor – tip type

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Structure of a completely randomized experiment

• Assignment of the tips to an experimental unit ( test

• Alternatively, the experimenter may want to test the tips

The need for blocking

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

To conduct this experiment as a RBD:

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

(Randomized Block Design:

Source of Variation S.Sq. D.o.f. M.Sq. F0

Lec 4. Comparison of K Populations

•  Assignment of the tips to an experimental unit ( test

•  Alternatively, the experimenter may want to test the tips