IE-472 Design of Experiments

Fall-21

Course Instructor: Prof. Dr. Misbah Ullah

Assistant Teacher: Engr. Muhammad Nauman

University of Engineering & Technology, Peshawar
Department of Industrial Engineering
Hardness Test Example
• Gauge & measurement systems capability studies are
frequent areas for applying Design of Experiments.
• A hardness testing machine operates by pressing a tip into a
metal test “coupon.”
• The hardness of the coupon can be determined from the
depth of the resulting depression.
• We wish to determine whether 4 different tips produce
different (mean) hardness reading on a Rockwell hardness
tester.
• Four tip types are being tested to see if they produce
significantly different readings.
• If we assume a completely randomized single-factor design,
for 16 runs, 16 different metal test coupons would be
required in this experiment, one for each run in the design.
• Assignment of the tips to an experimental unit; that is, a
test coupon. Structure of a completely randomized
experiment. However, the coupons might differ slightly in
their hardness (for example, if they are taken from ingots
produced in different heats).
• Hence, the experimental units (the coupons) will contribute
to the variability observed in the hardness data. As a result,
the experimental error will reflect both random error and
variability between coupons.
• We would like to make the experimental error as small as
possible; that is, we would like to remove the variability
between coupons from the experimental error. As the test
coupons are a source of nuisance variability.
• Alternatively, the experimenter may want to test the tips
across coupons of various hardness levels. The need for
blocking.
• Since coupons are large enough to test four tips on, a
randomized complete block design (RCBD) can be used,
with one coupon as a block. The word “complete” indicates
that each block (coupon) contains all the treatments (tips).
• Four blocks were used. Within each block (coupon) the
order in which the four tips were tested was randomly
determined.
• By using this design, the blocks, or coupons, form a more
homogeneous experimental unit on which to compare the
tips.
• Effectively, this design strategy improves the accuracy of
the comparisons among tips by eliminating the variability
among the coupons. Within a block, the order in which the
four tips are tested is randomly determined. Notice the
similarity of this design problem to the paired t-test.

Randomized Complete Block Design

• To conduct this experiment as a RCBD, 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.
• We wish to test,

H0: All tips give the same mean reading against the alternative.

Ha: At least two tips give different mean readings.

• Suppose that, we use b = 4 blocks

• Notice the two-way structure of the experiment.
• Once again, we are interested in testing the equality of treatment
means, but now we have to remove the variability associated with the
nuisance factor (the blocks).
Extension of ANOVA to RCBD
• Suppose that, there are a treatments (factor levels) and b
blocks.
• A statistical model (effects model) for the RCBD is,

 i = 1, 2,..., a
yij =  +  i +  j +  ij 
 j = 1, 2,..., b
• The relevant (fixed effects) hypotheses are,
H 0 : 1 =  2 = =  a where i = (1/ b) j =1 (  +  i +  j ) = +  i
b
• The degrees of freedom for the sums of squares in
SST = SSTreatments + SS Blocks + SS E
• are as follows:
ab − 1 = a − 1 + b − 1 + (a − 1)(b − 1)
• Therefore, ratios of sums of squares to their degrees of
freedom result in mean squares and the ratio of the mean
square for treatments to the error mean square is an F
statistic that can be used to test the hypothesis of equal
treatment means.
• a= treatments level, b= Number of blocks, N= a*b
𝑎 𝑏 2 𝑦..2
SST = 𝑖=1 𝑦
𝑗 =1 𝑖𝑗 −
𝑁

• Take square all the observations and add them. Then subtract (square
of grand summation/N) from this calculated value.
1 𝑎 2 𝑦..2
SSTreatments = 𝑦
𝑗 =1 𝑖. −
𝑏 𝑁

• Take square of all the levels/treatments averages, add all the

treatments averages and divide it by “b”. Then subtract (square of
grand summation/N) from this calculated value.
1 𝑏 𝑦..2
SSBlocks =
𝑎 𝑗 =1 𝑦.𝑗2 −
𝑁

• Take square of all the blocks mean (column summation) and add
them. Then divide this number by “a”. Then subtract (square of grand
summation/N) from this calculated value.
SSE = SST - SSTreatments - SSBlocks
• Reference Distribution for F0 is the Fa-1, a(n-1) distribution
• Reject the null hypothesis (equal treatment means) if,

F0 > Fα ,(a-1), (a-1)(b-1)

Is Blocking Required
• We may also be interested in comparing block means because, if these
means do not differ greatly, blocking may not be necessary in future
experiments.
• From the expected mean squares, it seems that the hypothesis
• H0 :βj =0

• F0 = MSBlocks/MSE

• If Fo is large, it implies that the blocking factor has a large effect and
that the noise reduction obtained by blocking was probably helpful in
improving the precision of the comparison of treatment means.
• Reject the null hypothesis (blocking has no effect) if,

F0 > Fα , (b-1), (a-1)(b-1)

• b-1, because randomization has been applied only to treatments within
blocks; that is, the blocks represent a restriction on randomization.
Hardness Test Example
• For α= 0.05, the critical value of F is
• F α, a-1, (a-1)(b-1) = F0.05,3,9= 3.86 because Fo (14.44) > F critical, the
P-value for the test is quite small.

• Hence, we reject null hypothesis. We conclude that the

type of top affects the mean hardness reading.
• Ho: βj = 0 (blocking means are not significantly different,
and blocking has no effect)
• Fo for blocking = MSBlocks/ MSE = 27.50/0.89 = 30.89
• F α, b-1, (a-1)(b-1) = F0.05,3,9= 3.86

• As value for Fo for blocking > F α, b-1, (a-1)(b-1)

• We reject null hypothesis. Null hypothesis is that block
means do not differ greatly.
• Hence, we conclude that block means differ significantly
and blocking is necessary for future experiments. It would
be a methodological flaw, if we ignore blocking.