Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Homework Solution 2
3-1 The tensile strength of portland cement is being studied. Four different mixing techniques can be
used economically. The following data have been collected:
Mixing
Technique
1
2
3
4
3129
3200
2800
2600
2890
3150
3050
2765
(a) Test the hypothesis that mixing techniques affect the strength of the cement. Use = 0.05.
Design Expert Output
Response:
Tensile Strengthin lb/in^2
ANOVA for Selected Factorial Model
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Sum of
Mean
Source
Squares
DF
Square
Model
4.897E+005
3
1.632E+005
A
4.897E+005
3
1.632E+005
Residual
1.539E+005
12
12825.69
Lack of Fit
0.000
0
Pure Error
1.539E+005
12
12825.69
Cor Total
6.436E+005
15
F
Value
12.73
12.73
Prob > F
0.0005
0.0005
significant
The Model F-value of 12.73 implies the model is significant. There is only
a 0.05% chance that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.
Treatment Means (Adjusted, If Necessary)
Estimated
Standard
Mean
Error
1-1
2971.00
56.63
2-2 3156.25
3-3 2933.75
4-4 2666.25
Treatment
1 vs 2
1 vs 3
1 vs 4
2 vs 3
2 vs 4
3 vs 4
Mean
Difference
-185.25
37.25
304.75
222.50
490.00
267.50
56.63
56.63
56.63
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
Standard
Error
80.08
80.08
80.08
80.08
80.08
80.08
t for H0
Coeff=0
-2.31
0.47
3.81
2.78
6.12
3.34
The F-value is 12.73 with a corresponding P-value of .0005. Mixing technique has an effect.
(b) Construct a graphical display as described in Section 3-5.3 to compare the mean tensile strengths for
the four mixing techniques. What are your conclusions?
S yi .
MS E
12825.7
56.625
4
2-1
Homework Solution 2
Scaled t Distribution
(4)
(3)
2700
2800
2900
(1)
3000
(2)
3100
Tensile Strength
Based on examination of the plot, we would conclude that 1 and 3 are the same; that 4 differs from
1 and 3 , that 2 differs from 1 and 3 , and that 2 and 4 are different.
(c) Use the Fisher LSD method with =0.05 to make comparisons between pairs of means.
LSD t
,N a
2 MS E
n
2( 12825.7 )
4
2-2
Homework Solution 2
Norm al % probability
95
90
80
70
50
30
20
10
5
1
-181.25
-96.4375
-11.625
73.1875
158
Residual
(e) Plot the residuals versus the predicted tensile strength. Comment on the plot.
There is nothing unusual about this plot.
Residuals vs. Predicted
158
Res iduals
73.1875
-11.625
2
-96.4375
-181.25
2666.25
2788.75
2911.25
3033.75
3156.25
Predicted
(f) Prepare a scatter plot of the results to aid the interpretation of the results of this experiment.
Design-Expert automatically generates the scatter plot. The plot below also shows the sample average for
each treatment and the 95 percent confidence interval on the treatment mean.
2-3
Homework Solution 2
Tensile Strength
3119.75
2939.51
2759.26
2579.01
1
Technique
(a) Rework part (b) of Problem 3-1 using Tukeys test with = 0.05. Do you get the same
conclusions from Tukeys test that you did from the graphical procedure and/or the Fisher LSD
method?
3.2
Minitab Output
Tukey's pairwise comparisons
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0117
Critical value = 4.20
Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean)
1
-423
53
-201
275
-15
460
67
543
252
728
30
505
No, the conclusions are not the same. The mean of Treatment 4 is different than the means of Treatments 1,
2, and 3. However, the mean of Treatment 2 is not different from the means of Treatments 1 and 3
according to the Tukey method, they were found to be different using the graphical method and the Fisher
LSD method.
(b) Explain the difference between the Tukey and Fisher procedures.
Both Tukey and Fisher utilize a single critical value; however, Tukeys is based on the studentized range
statistic while Fishers is based on t distribution.
3-4 A product developer is investigating the tensile strength of a new synthetic fiber that will be used to
make cloth for mens shirts. Strength is usually affected by the percentage of cotton used in the blend of
2-4
Homework Solution 2
materials for the fiber. The engineer conducts an experiment with five levels of cotton content and
replicated the experiment five times. The data are shown in the following table.
Cotton
Weight
Percentage
15
20
25
30
35
7
12
14
19
7
Observations
15
12
19
22
11
7
17
19
25
10
11
18
18
19
15
9
18
18
23
11
(a) Is there evidence to support the claim that cotton content affects the mean tensile strength? Use
= 0.05.
Minitab Output
One-way ANOVA: Tensile Strength versus Cotton Percentage
Analysis of Variance for Tensile
Source
DF
SS
MS
Cotton P
4
475.76
118.94
Error
20
161.20
8.06
Total
24
636.96
F
14.76
P
0.000
Yes, the F-value is 14.76 with a corresponding P-value of 0.000. The percentage of cotton in the fiber
appears to have an affect on the tensile strength.
(b) Use the Fisher LSD method to make comparisons between the pairs of means. What conclusions can
you draw?
Minitab Output
Fisher's pairwise comparisons
Family error rate = 0.264
Individual error rate = 0.0500
Critical value = 2.086
Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean)
15
20
25
20
-9.346
-1.854
25
-11.546
-4.054
-5.946
1.546
30
-15.546
-8.054
-9.946
-2.454
-7.746
-0.254
35
-4.746
2.746
0.854
8.346
3.054
10.546
30
7.054
14.546
In the Minitab output the pairs of treatments that do not contain zero in the pair of numbers indicates that
there is a difference in the pairs of the treatments. 15% cotton is different than 20%, 25% and 30%. 20%
cotton is different than 30% and 35% cotton. 25% cotton is different than 30% and 35% cotton. 30%
cotton is different than 35%.
(c) Analyze the residuals from this experiment and comment on model adequacy.
2-5
Homework Solution 2
95
90
Percent
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
-5.0
-2.5
0.0
Residual
2.5
5.0
Residual
2.5
0.0
-2.5
-5.0
10
12
14
16
Fitted Value
18
20
22
3-10 An experiment was run to determine whether four specific firing temperatures affect the density of a
certain type of brick. The experiment led to the following data:
Temperature
100
125
150
175
21.8
21.7
21.9
21.9
Density
21.7
21.5
21.8
21.8
21.9
21.4
21.8
21.7
21.6
21.4
21.6
21.4
(a) Does the firing temperature affect the density of the bricks? Use = 0.05.
2-6
21.7
21.5
Homework Solution 2
No, firing temperature does not affect the density of the bricks. Refer to the Design-Expert output below.
Design Expert Output
Response:
Density
ANOVA for Selected Factorial Model
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Sum of
Mean
Source
Squares
DF
Square
Model
0.16
3
0.052
A
0.16
3
0.052
Residual
0.36
14
0.026
Lack of Fit
0.000
0
Pure Error
0.36
14
0.026
Cor Total
0.52
17
F
Value
2.02
2.02
Prob > F
0.1569
0.1569
not significant
The "Model F-value" of 2.02 implies the model is not significant relative to the noise. There is a
15.69 % chance that a "Model F-value" this large could occur due to noise.
Treatment Means (Adjusted, If Necessary)
Estimated
Standard
Mean
Error
1-100
21.74
0.072
2-125 21.50
3-150 21.72
4-175 21.70
Treatment
1 vs 2
1 vs 3
1 vs 4
2 vs 3
2 vs 4
3 vs 4
Mean
Difference
0.24
0.020
0.040
-0.22
-0.20
0.020
0.080
0.072
0.080
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
Standard
Error
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
t for H0
Coeff=0
2.23
0.20
0.37
-2.05
-1.76
0.19
(b) Is it appropriate to compare the means using the Fisher LSD method in this experiment?
The analysis of variance tells us that there is no difference in the treatments. There is no need to proceed
with Fishers LSD method to decide which mean is difference.
(c) Analyze the residuals from this experiment. Are the analysis of variance assumptions satisfied? There
is nothing unusual about the residual plots.
2-7
Homework Solution 2
99
Norm al % probability
95
90
0.075
Residuals
80
70
50
30
20
10
-0.05
2
-0.175
5
1
-0.3
-0.3
-0.175
-0.05
0.075
0.2
21.50
21.56
Res idual
21.62
21.68
21.74
Predicted
(125)
21.2
21.3
21.4
(175,150,100)
21.5
21.6
21.7
21.8
Mean Density
(e)
My procedures for analyzing the data with a regression model are listed below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Fit the One-way ANOVA model using the original data. The result is not significant;
Fit the Regression model with Temp and Temp**2 as predictors. The result is not significant;
Fit the Regression model with Temp, Temp**2 and Temp**3 as predictors. The result is not
significant;
Minitab output marked obs 18 as an unusual observation. It may be a potential outlier, so, I
removed this point, and redo the above procedures.
Fit the One-way ANOVA model using the new data. The result is significant (p = 0.044);
Fit the Regression model with Temp and Temp**2 as predictors. P-values for Temp and Temp**2
are around 0.05;
Fit the Regression model with Temp, Temp**2 and Temp**3 as predictors. P-values for the three
terms are all around 0.05.
The overall model (after removing the outlier) for the cubic polynomial regression is a better fit
than the quadratic, based on both the p-value for the model and the adjusted R-squared value.
2-8
Homework Solution 2
Minitab output:
MTB > Let c7 = 'Temp' * 'Temp'
MTB > Let c8 = 'Temp' * 'Temp' * 'Temp'
MTB > Oneway 'Density' 'Temp'.
N
5
4
5
4
Mean
21.740
21.500
21.720
21.700
F
2.02
StDev
0.114
0.141
0.164
0.216
Pooled StDev =
0.160
MTB > Regress 'Density' 2
SUBC>
Constant;
SUBC>
Brief 2.
P
0.157
'Temp'
Coef
23.100
-0.02209
0.00008178
S = 0.1768
SE Coef
1.212
0.01834
0.00006701
R-Sq = 9.1%
T
19.06
-1.20
1.22
P
0.000
0.247
0.241
R-Sq(adj) = 0.0%
Analysis of Variance
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
Source
Temp
C7
DF
1
1
DF
2
15
17
SS
0.04722
0.46889
0.51611
MS
0.02361
0.03126
F
0.76
P
0.487
Seq SS
0.00067
0.04656
Unusual Observations
Obs
Temp
Density
18
175
21.4000
Fit
21.7389
SE Fit
0.0859
Residual
-0.3389
'Temp' C7 C8;
2-9
St Resid
-2.19R
Homework Solution 2
SE Coef
8.912
0.2027
0.001501
0.00000363
R-Sq = 30.2%
T
4.63
-2.16
2.11
-2.06
P
0.000
0.049
0.053
0.059
R-Sq(adj) = 15.3%
Analysis of Variance
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
Source
Temp
C7
C8
DF
1
1
1
DF
3
14
17
SS
0.15611
0.36000
0.51611
MS
0.05204
0.02571
F
2.02
P
0.157
Seq SS
0.00067
0.04656
0.10889
Unusual Observations
Obs
Temp
Density
18
175
21.4000
Fit
21.7000
SE Fit
0.0802
Residual
-0.3000
St Resid
-2.16R
N
5
4
5
3
Mean
21.740
21.500
21.720
21.800
Pooled StDev =
0.136
MTB > Regress 'Density' 2
SUBC>
Constant;
SUBC>
Brief 2.
StDev
0.114
0.141
0.164
0.100
'Temp'
F
3.57
P
0.044
Coef
SE Coef
2-10
Homework Solution 2
23.765
-0.03323
0.00012713
S = 0.1508
1.066
0.01624
0.00005983
R-Sq = 27.2%
22.29
-2.05
2.12
0.000
0.060
0.052
R-Sq(adj) = 16.8%
Analysis of Variance
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
Source
Temp
Temp**2
DF
2
14
16
DF
1
1
SS
0.11910
0.31855
0.43765
MS
0.05955
0.02275
F
2.62
P
0.108
Seq SS
0.01637
0.10273
SE Coef
7.592
0.1728
0.001281
0.00000310
R-Sq = 45.2%
T
5.18
-2.25
2.16
-2.06
P
0.000
0.043
0.050
0.060
R-Sq(adj) = 32.5%
Analysis of Variance
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
Source
Temp
Temp**2
Temp**3
DF
1
1
1
DF
3
13
16
SS
0.19765
0.24000
0.43765
MS
0.06588
0.01846
Seq SS
0.01637
0.10273
0.07855
2-11
F
3.57
P
0.044