Assignment 2
2k Factorial Designs
JUNE 30, 2024
MILIND PATEL
Conestoga College
Executive Summary
This report summarizes findings from an experiment on a polymer production process, investigating the
impacts of temperature, catalyst concentration, time, and pressure on molecular weight and viscosity. It
identifies temperature and time as key influencers of molecular weight, with higher values correlating
to increased molecular weight. Conversely, temperature and catalyst concentration strongly affect
viscosity, where higher levels of both lead to greater viscosity. The linear models developed fit the data
well, highlighting a trade-off between molecular weight and viscosity due to temperature's dual impact.
The report recommends additional experimentation focused on these critical factors to refine models
and optimize the production process, offering insights to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in
polymer manufacturing
1. Introduction
This report presents the findings of an experiment conducted on a chemical process that
produces a polymer. The study aimed to optimize the production process by investigating the
effects of four factors on two key responses: molecular weight and viscosity. The factors
examined were:
1. Temperature (A): 100°C (low) and 120°C (high)
2. Catalyst Concentration (B): 4% (low) and 8% (high)
3. Time (C): 20 minutes (low) and 30 minutes (high)
4. Pressure (D): 60 psi (low) and 75 psi (high)
The primary goal was to maximize the molecular weight of the polymer.
2. 2k Factorial Design Details
A full 2^4 factorial design was implemented, resulting in 16 experimental runs plus 4 centre
points. This design allows for the estimation of all main effects and interactions between the
factors. The inclusion of centre points enables the assessment of curvature in the response
surface.
3. Initial 2k Modelling.
The initial full factorial model for molecular weight included all main effects and interactions
up to the 4-way interaction. Key observations from this model:
1. Model equation (uncoded units):
Regression Equation in Uncoded Units & Model Summary of Responses:
Molecular = -11156 + 124 Temprature (c) + 3104 Catayst Conc (%) + 684 Time ( min)
Weight + 210 Pressure (psi) - 27.6 Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)
- 5.92 Temprature (c)*Time ( min) - 1.92 Temprature (c)*Pressure (psi)
- 156 Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min) - 47.5 Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi)
- 9.0 Time ( min)*Pressure (psi)
+ 1.39 Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)
+ 0.427 Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi)
+ 0.082 Temprature (c)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi)
+ 2.12 Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi)
- 0.0190 Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi)
- 43.0 Ct Pt
Model Summary For Molecular Weight:
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
64.8434 97.43% 83.71% *
The above summary shows a standard deviation of residuals (S) at 64.8434, indicating the
typical difference between observed and predicted values. The R-squared value is 97.43%,
suggesting that the model explains 97.43% of the variability in Molecular Weight. The adjusted
R-squared is 83.71%, providing a more accurate measure for models with multiple predictors.
However, the predicted R-squared, which estimates the model’s predictive power, is not
available in this case.
Viscosity = 23618 - 212 Temprature (c) - 3731 Catayst Conc (%) - 904 Time ( min)
- 355 Pressure (psi) + 37.4 Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)
+ 8.68 Temprature (c)*Time ( min) + 3.45 Temprature (c)*Pressure (psi)
+ 141.9 Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min) + 60.5 Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi)
+ 14.09 Time ( min)*Pressure (psi)
- 1.391 Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)
- 0.601 Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi)
- 0.1353 Temprature (c)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi)
- 2.26 Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi)
+ 0.0222 Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi)
- 6.1 Ct Pt
Model Summary for Viscosity
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
37.6420 97.48% 84.04% *
Similarly, above summary shows a standard deviation of residuals (S) at 37.6420, indicating
the typical difference between observed and predicted values. The R-squared value is 97.48%,
suggesting that the model explains 97.48% of the variability in Molecular Weight. The adjusted
R-squared is 84.03%, providing a more accurate measure for models with multiple predictors.
However, the predicted R-squared, which estimates the model’s predictive power, is not
available because of some reasons.
2.Analysis Of Variance:
For Molecular weight response:
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value
Model 16 477927 29870 7.10
Linear 4 361595 90399 21.50
Temprature (c) 1 98910 98910 23.52
Catayst Conc (%) 1 812 812 0.19
Time ( min) 1 261632 261632 62.22
Pressure (psi) 1 240 240 0.06
2-Way Interactions 6 102285 17048 4.05
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%) 1 93025 93025 22.12
Temprature (c)*Time ( min) 1 2601 2601 0.62
Temprature (c)*Pressure (psi) 1 2025 2025 0.48
Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min) 1 3249 3249 0.77
Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi) 1 361 361 0.09
Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 1 1024 1024 0.24
3-Way Interactions 4 4881 1220 0.29
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min) 1 1722 1722 0.41
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi) 1 812 812 0.19
Temprature (c)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 1 2256 2256 0.54
Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 1 90 90 0.02
4-Way Interactions 1 3249 3249 0.77
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 1 3249 3249 0.77
Curvature 1 5917 5917 1.41
Error 3 12614 4205
Total 19 490541
Source P-Value
Model 0.066
Linear 0.015
Temprature (c) 0.017
Catayst Conc (%) 0.690
Time ( min) 0.004
Pressure (psi) 0.826
2-Way Interactions 0.139
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%) 0.018
Temprature (c)*Time ( min) 0.489
Temprature (c)*Pressure (psi) 0.538
Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min) 0.444
Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi) 0.789
Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 0.656
3-Way Interactions 0.868
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min) 0.568
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi) 0.690
Temprature (c)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 0.517
Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 0.893
4-Way Interactions 0.444
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 0.444
Curvature 0.321
Error
Total
As shown above ANOVA results for the molecular weight model indicate overall marginal significance
(p = 0.066), suggesting it explains a notable portion of the variance in molecular weight. Here,
Temperature and Time significantly influence molecular weight (p = 0.017 and p = 0.004, respectively),
while Catalyst Concentration and Pressure show no significant effects (p = 0.690 and p = 0.826,
respectively). Additionally, most interactions, including two-way and higher interactions, are not
statistically significant (p > 0.05), indicating limited support for their impact on molecular weight based
on the available data.
Analysis of Variance of viscosity Response :
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value
Model 16 164454 10278.4 7.25
Linear 4 140752 35188.1 24.83
Temprature (c) 1 72630 72630.2 51.26
Catayst Conc (%) 1 65280 65280.3 46.07
Time ( min) 1 441 441.0 0.31
Pressure (psi) 1 2401 2401.0 1.69
2-Way Interactions 6 13843 2307.1 1.63
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%) 1 1482 1482.2 1.05
Temprature (c)*Time ( min) 1 1225 1225.0 0.86
Temprature (c)*Pressure (psi) 1 3969 3969.0 2.80
Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min) 1 784 784.0 0.55
Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi) 1 4900 4900.0 3.46
Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 1 1482 1482.3 1.05
3-Way Interactions 4 5316 1329.1 0.94
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min) 1 1764 1764.0 1.24
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi) 1 784 784.0 0.55
Temprature (c)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 1 12 12.2 0.01
Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 1 2756 2756.2 1.95
4-Way Interactions 1 4422 4422.2 3.12
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 1 4422 4422.2 3.12
Curvature 1 120 120.0 0.08
Error 3 4251 1416.9
Total 19 168705
Source P-Value
Model 0.064
Linear 0.012
Temprature (c) 0.006
Catayst Conc (%) 0.007
Time ( min) 0.616
Pressure (psi) 0.284
2-Way Interactions 0.370
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%) 0.382
Temprature (c)*Time ( min) 0.421
Temprature (c)*Pressure (psi) 0.193
Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min) 0.511
Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi) 0.160
Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 0.382
3-Way Interactions 0.543
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min) 0.346
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Pressure (psi) 0.511
Temprature (c)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 0.932
Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 0.257
4-Way Interactions 0.175
Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%)*Time ( min)*Pressure (psi) 0.175
Curvature 0.790
Error
Total
The results for the viscosity model suggest that the model is marginally significant with a
p-value of 0.064. It can be observed Temperature (p = 0.006) and Catalyst Concentration
(p = 0.007) have significant impacts on viscosity, while Time (p = 0.616) and Pressure (p =
0.284) do not. None of the two-way or higher interactions are statistically significant at
the 0.05 level, except for the four-way interaction (p = 0.175), which is marginally
significant.
3.Graphical Analysis Of Model:
Figure 1
Figure 2
In the Pareto chart shown in Figure 1, only factors A and C among the four main effects are statistically
significant, while factors B and D are not. Additionally, the interaction between factors A and B shows
statistical significance, whereas all other interactions included in the analysis are not statistically
significant. These findings suggest that in this specific analysis, factors A and C and their interaction
with B are the key contributors to the observed outcomes, while factors B, D, and other interactions do
not significantly influence the response variable.
In Figure 2, it is evident that only factors A and B exhibit statistical significance and have a significant
effect on the response variable.
So, we can remove the non-significant terms from the model and develop a new reduced model
which can more accurately predict the values.
Figure 1
I. The Normal probability plot reveals that most of the plots align neatly on the normal line.
II. The Residual vs fit plot demonstrates a random distribution of plots, while the Histogram presents us
with a normal distribution. This observation suggests a good fit for the data.
4. Reduced Model for Response & Model Adequacy :
We need to eliminate the non-significant terms from the model (i.e. only keep significant terms) or
we can use stepwise method which helps eliminate all the non-significant terms and gives best
statistical model. This non-hierarchical model excludes many statistically insignificant terms,
including factors and interactions, resulting in regression equations expressed in coded units.
Notably, these equations vary across response variables as they only incorporate statistically
significant terms relevant to each specific outcome.
1) For Molecular weight:
In this Model, Only Factor A, C, and interaction Of A&B is kept as they significantly Effect
the Factor.
Molecular Weight = 4216 - 15.01 Temperature (c) - 422.9 Catalyst Conc (%)
+ 25.58 Time ( min)
+ 3.813 Temprature (c)*Catayst Conc (%) - 43.0 Ct Pt
Model Summary:
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
46.4791 93.83% 91.63% 87.82%
As shown above summary indicates a standard deviation of residuals (S) at 46.4791, reflecting
the variations, between observed and predicted values. The R-squared value stands at 93.83%,
signifying that the model accounts for 93.83% of the variance in Molecular Weight. An
adjusted R-squared of 83.82% offers a more precise evaluation suitable for models with
multiple predictors.
2) For Viscosity:
Viscosity = 1168 + 6.74 Temperature (c) + 31.94 Catalyst Conc (%) - 6.1 Ct Pt
Model Summary:
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
43.7850 81.82% 78.41% 71.80%
The given summary presents a standard error of the estimate (S) at 43.7850, which signifies the
average discrepancy between observed and forecasted values. The model accounts for 81.82%
of the variability in the response variable, as indicated by the R-squared value. The adjusted R-
squared value stands at 78.41%, offering a more cautious assessment of the model’s fit by
considering the number of predictors. Furthermore, the predicted R-squared value of 71.80%
suggests the anticipated accuracy of the model in predicting new data points.
5. Linearity Of Model:
The responses both exhibit a linear relationship as the p-value for Curvature in Tables 1 and 2
exceeds 0.5, a value that is not statistically significant. Additionally, the proximity of the center
point to the line in the main effect plot (as depicted in Figure 3 & 4) suggests that the points in
the Findings are nearly aligned along a straight line.
Table 1 Table 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
As shown in figure 3, The Main Effects Plot for Molecular Weight with Fitted Means in the
image illustrates the impact of three factors on the Mean Molecular Weight. It shows that an
increase in temperature and catalyst concentration leads to a slight reduction in molecular
weight, while an increase in time results in a significant rise.
As shown in figure 4, it interprets the relation between Temperature and Catalyst
Concentration on Molecular Weight. The plot’s nonparallel lines suggest that the effect of
temperature on molecular weight varies with different catalyst concentrations. This interaction
effect is crucial in understanding the combined influence of these factors on molecular weight.
6. Maximizing the Molecular weight:
To maximize the Molecular weight, we can do it by using Response Optimizer in Minitab.
In which, first we have to select the factor which we need to maximize, than set the goal to
maximize and run it. We can also use Cube Plot to see max Molecular Wt. At which level of
factors ( i.e. 3458.63) For ( +1 of temperature, +1 of time,+1 of Catalyst Conc.).
Parameters
Response Goal Lower Target Upper Weight Importance
Molecular Weight Maximum 2921 3493 1 1
Solution
Catayst Molecular
Temprature Conc Time ( Weight Composite
Solution (c) (%) min) Fit Desirability
1 120 8 30 3458.63 0.939904
Multiple Response Prediction
Variable Setting
Temprature (c) 120
Catayst Conc (%) 8
Time ( min) 30
Response Fit SE Fit 95% CI 95% PI
Molecular Weight 3458.6 26.0 (3402.9, 3514.4) (3344.4, 3572.8)
Recommendation :
Therefore, To maximize Molecular Weight following Condition are required:
Temperature :120 c
Catalyst Conc.: 8 %
Time:30 min
7. Conclusion:
1. For Molecular Weight:
Temperature and time are the most critical factors.
Increasing both temperature and time will lead to higher molecular weight.
Moreover Catalyst Conc. should be kept higher as its interaction with temperature also effect
it positively.
2. For Viscosity:
Temperature and catalyst concentration are the most influential factors.
Increasing temperature and catalyst concentration will increase viscosity.
3. The models for both responses are linear and adequately fit the data.
4. There is a trade-off between molecular weight and viscosity, as temperature affects both positively.
Management should consider the desired balance between these properties in the final product.
5. Further experimentation focusing on the significant factors could help refine the models and
optimize the process further. rewrite this in para format.
8. References :
1. Assignment 2 - 2k Factorial designs - QUAL8116-24S-Sec1-Advanced Design of
Experiments - eConestoga.
https://conestoga.desire2learn.com/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_submit_files.d2l?db
=1012741&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=1125197.
2. Residual plots for Analyze Factorial Design - Minitab. (C) Minitab, LLC. All Rights
Reserved. 2024. https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/help-and-how-
to/statistical-modeling/doe/how-to/factorial/analyze-factorial-design/interpret-the-
results/all-statistics-and-graphs/residual-plots/.
3. Interpret the key results for Factorial Plots - Minitab. (C) Minitab, LLC. All Rights
Reserved. 2024. https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/help-and-how-
to/statistical-modeling/using-fitted-models/how-to/factorial-plots/interpret-the-
results/key-results/?SID=112650.
4. Interpret the key results for Cube Plot - Minitab. (C) Minitab, LLC. All Rights
Reserved. 2024. https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/help-and-how-
to/statistical-modeling/using-fitted-models/how-to/cube-plot/interpret-the-
results/key-results/?SID=128103.
