Chemical Engineering 4C04 [Assignment 05]

Submitted By: Fion Lam [1065111] & Phillip Ho-Sang [1066162] Due: April 7, 2016

Question 1

a) The following values were determined for the subgroup sizes of 3 and 4.

Subgroup Size, n
3 4
Target 75.27 75.25
Upper control limit 85.65 84.52
Lower control limit 65.87 65.98

b) In the following generated plot for a subgroup size of 3, most of the data points lie within
the control limit range, however, upon further inspection, there exists an outlier which
falls below the lower control limit.

Figure 1. Subgroup average with size of 3

For the subgroup size of 4, the following plot was generated, and here, it is clear that all
points lie within the range, with no outliers present.
 Figure 2. Subgroup average with size of 4

c) Upon revision of the subgroup size of 3, with the outlier removed, the following were
determined, followed by the revised plot of the data.

Target Upper Control Limit Lower Control Limit

75.42 85.80 65.03

Figure 3. Revised subgroup average with size of 3, with removed outlier

d) The following show the determined values, and as indicated in the generated plots to
follow, for a purity where n is 3, and 4, respectively. There are no data points with means
which fall outside of the upper and lower control limit ranges, thereby, requiring no
revision of data.

Purity, n
3 4
Target 61.23 61.27
Upper control limit 50.80 70.38
Lower control limit 50.80 52.15

(a) (b)

Figure 4. (a) where purity, n = 3 (b) where purit, n = 4

Question 2

𝑥̅ – 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡

a) 𝐶𝑃𝐾 =
3×𝜎

283.4 − (0.95 × 283.4)

𝐶𝑃𝐾 =
3×5

𝐶𝑃𝐾 = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟒𝟓

b) Following the same set of equations used in part (a), the lower specification limit was
determined to be 263.9
c) In order to maintain the constant target value, by proportionality, if the target weight
cannot be changed, then the sigma value would need to be varied to achieve this. Using
the same equation above, but rearranging to solve for 𝜎, plugging in the desired values
yields a 𝜎 of 3.63.

Question 3

After hearing from Andrea Moore, several good points were raised. One for example was the
indication that the food processing industry is mainly comprised of primary processing. This
involves gathering ingredients from source, mainly animals, when referring to processing
involving meat, for example, bacon processing. Another good point was the notion that data is
hard to define. This suggests that one can never be too sure when to cut off the data collection
stages of an experiment. How do you know when to stop? When do you have enough data? Does
more data harm the experiment? These are a few questions that were brought into light, and
reflected on the DOE experiment that was recently completed as well.