IEE572 - DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS

ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE OF
BLENDER

Final Report

Team Members
Neelakandan Nagarajan
Lakshminarayanan Subramanian
Srinivas Krishnan

Table of Contents
1.Objective

2. Procedure

2.1 PRE-EXPERIMENTAL PLANNING

2.1.1

Recognition and statement of the problem

2.1.2

Choice of factor levels and ranges

2.1.3

Selection of response variable

2.2.Choice of experimental design

2.3.Performing the experiment

2.3.1 Experimental Set up and conduct of runs

2.3.2 Experimental Procedure

2.4.Statistical analysis of the data

2.4.1.Table of responses

2.4.2. Design Statistics

2.4.3.Analysis Of Variance

2.4.3.2 Diagnostics Case Statistics

2.4.3.3 Model Adequeacy

10

2.4.3.4 Residuals vs predicted

11

3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations.

18
1

4.0 References

19

1.Objective
To estimate and analyze the performance of the blender and consequently build a
Prediction model for the same.
To come out with a clear recommendation regarding the most favorable settings
that will result in minimum residue of the grain after grinding.

2.Procedure
2.1 PRE-EXPERIMENTAL PLANNING
2..1.1 Recognition and statement of the problem
Blenders are used in day today life to grind and blend flour for the purpose of cooking.
We use the different control variables like speed, number of blades, etc provided in the
blender to make the flour. The selections of these controls are arbitrary based on previous
experience. The outcome of the above procedure is not assured to be optimal and the user
has to repeat the grinding with different set of control variables to get better results. This
results in waste of time and resources of the user. The blender can be used for a variety of
purposes like chopping, blending, grinding, etc. Out of these different processes we have
taken up the process of grinding for our study. The objective of this study is to establish a
set of control variables that reduces the residue (remnants after straining the grounded
flour) of the grinding operation.

2.1.2. Choice of factor levels and ranges

The next step after recognition of the problem is to identify the various factors involved
in grinding operation . The factors identified by our team are as follows:
1. Mass of the grain that is to be grounded
2. Speed of operation ( blade speed)
2

3. Size of the blade

4. Number of blade fins
5. Time of operation
In practice the time of operation can varied over a wide range. Longer the time the better
the results. But this does not serve the purpose of optimizing the grinding process. Hence
we consider the factor time of operation as held constant factor and we vary the other
four factors to establish the optimal operating conditions.
The factor levels and their ranges are:
S.No

Factors

Low level

High level

1
2.
3
4

Mass of the grain (gms)

Speed of operation
Size of the blade(cm)
Number of blade fins

100
Low
4
2

200
High
6
4

2..1.3.Selection of response variable

The flour obtained by grinding the grain contains some ungrounded grains in it. These
ungrounded grains are removed by straining the flour through a strainer. The residue is
the ungrounded grain that remains in the strainer. The requirement of the grinding
operation is to have minimum residue. If the residue is more then the process is not in the
optimal region. Hence we have selected mass of the residue in the strainer as our
response variable.

2.2.Choice of experimental design

Number of factors: 4
Number of levels: 2

Quantitative factors:
Mass of the grain.
Number of blade fins.
3

Size of the blade.

Categorical factors:
Speed of rotation of the blade
As the experiment involves four factors each at two levels we decided on conducting a 2 4
full factorial design in 16 runs. As the raw material from a batch was not sufficient to
conduct all the sixteen runs, we need at least two batches of raw materials for conducting
our experiment. Hence a 24 design confounded in two blocks seems appropriate. The
highest order interaction (four factor interaction) is confounded with blocks. We now get
eight treatment combinations in each block.

2.3.Performing the experiment

2.3.1Experimental Set up and conduct of runs
* The experiment is conducted using a Blender, to produce the flour from the grain by
grinding.
* The experiment was conducted in a closed environment (Our Apartment) where the
temperature and humidity are held fixed.
* Care is taken to ensure that the ground flour is completely removed from the blender jar
after each run.
* The residue is obtained using the same strainer throughout the experiment.
* The different treatment combinations of the experiment was run by the same operator to
reduce the operator variability.
*The mass of the residue is measured using weighing scale to the accuracy of 0.1 gram.

2.3.2.Experimental Procedure
* The different treatment combinations are run in accordance to the random sequence
generated by the Design Expert (randomization).
4

* The experiment is done in randomized order in order to average out the effect of
extraneous factors that may be present and statistical methods require observations (all
errors) be independently distributed random variable.

2.4.Statistical analysis of the data

2.4.1.Table of responses
The resultant table of responses is shown below.
Standard
order
5
9
12
14
8
2
15
3
11
13
6
7
4
16
1
10

Run
order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Blocks

Mass

Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2

1
-1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
1
-1
1

Speed

B1
B1
B2
B1
B2
B1
B2
B2
B2
B1
B1
B2
B2
B2
B1
B1

Size

1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
1
-1
-1
1
1
1
-1
1
-1
-1

Number Residue
of
(gms)
blades
-1
65
1
3.5
1
51
1
49
-1
62
-1
68
1
2.5
-1
5
1
5
1
4.5
-1
65
-1
5
-1
69
1
52
-1
7
1
55

2.4.2. Design Statistics

Study type: Factorial

Number of runs 16

Initial Design: 2 level factorial

Blocks 2

Center points: 0
Design Model 3FI
5

Response

units

runs

minimum

maximum Trans

Residue

grams

16

2.5

69

None

2.4.3.Analysis Of Variance
The Half Normal Plot of the effects is as below
DE SI GN - EXP ERT P l ot
re si du e
A: m a ss
B: s p pe d
C: n o o f b la d es
D: s ize

H a lf N o rm a l p lo t
99

H a lf N o rm a l % p ro b a b ility

97

95
90

85
80

AC

70
60
40
20
0

0 .0 0

6 .5 9

1 3 .1 9

1 9 .7 8

2 6 .3 7

|E ffe c t|

Fig 1
Observation:From fig 1. We can see that effects A,C and interaction AC are the
significant ones.
Inference: The Mass of the grain,Number of Blades and their interaction have
significant effect on the grinding process
The ANOVA report of Design Expert is as below
Factor
A
B
C
D

Name
Mass
Speed
Size of Blades
No of Blade Fins

Units
Grams
Centimeters
Categorical

Type
Numeric
Categorical
Numeric
Numeric

Low
-1
-1
-1
-1

High
1
1
1
1
6

Response:

Residue

2.4.3.1.Anova for Selected factorial model

Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Source
Block
Model
Mass(A)
No of Blade Fins(C)
AC Interaction

Sum of Squares
1.56
4331.19
2782.56
1008.06
540.56
48.19
4380.94

DF
1
3
1
1
1
11
15

Mean Square
1.56
1443.73
2782.56
1008.06
540.56
4.38

F Value

Prob >F

329.57
635.19
230.12
123.40

< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001

Observation
1 .R-Squared

98.9%

2. Adj R-Squared

98.6%

3. Pred R-Squared

97.67%

4. Adeq Precision

36.644

5. PRESS

101.95

6. Mean Value of the residual

24.06

7. C.V.

8.70

8. Std. Dev.

2.09

Inferences: 1. The "Pred R-Squared" of 0.9767 is in reasonable agreement with the "Adj
R-Squared" of 0.9860.
2. "Adeq Precision" measures the signal to noise ratio.

A ratio greater than 4 is

desirable. Our ratio of 36.644 indicates an adequate signal. This model can be used to
navigate the design space.
3. PRESS Value is less compared to the SSTotal and hence the model is likely to be a
good predicator.
7

Factor

Coefficient
Estimate

Intercept
Block 1
Block 2
A-mass
C-No of blades
AC

24.06
0.31
-0.31
13.19
-7.94
-5.81

DF

Error

Low

High

VIF

1
1

0.52

22.91

25.21

1
1
1

0.52
0.52
-6.96

12.04
-9.09
-4.66

14.34
-6.79
1.00

1
1
1

Final equation in terms of coded factors

Residue = +24.06+13.19 * A-7.94 * C-5.81

Final equation in terms of actual factors

Residue = +24.06250 +13.18750 * mass -7.93750 * no of blades -5.81250 * mass
* no of blades
Observation
1.The p value of A,C and AC are observed to be less than 0.05.
Inferences:
1. Factors A ,C and AC are significant effects as p value is less than 0.05.
2. The Model F-value of 329.57 implies the model is significant.
2.4.3.2 Diagnostics Case Statistics
Standard Actual

Predicted

Order

Value

Value

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

14.00
55.00
12.00
50.00
11.00
24.00
9.00
26.00
13.00
50.00
13.00

12.69
51.31
13.31
50.69
9.06
23.19
8.44
23.81
13.31
50.69
12.69

Cooks
Residual
1.31
3.69
-1.31
-0.69
1.94
0.81
0.56
2.19
-0.31
-0.69
0.31

Leverage Distanse
0.3130
0.3132
0.313
0.313
0.3131
0.3130
0.3130
0.3131
0.313
0.313
0.3130

0.756
0.125
-0.756
-0.396
0.116
0.468
0.324
0.260
-0.180
0.396
- 0.180

Student
Residual
0.052
0.410
0.052
0.014
0.113
0.020
0.010
0.144
0.003
0.014
0.003

Out
lier t
0.741
2.639
-0.741
-0.380
1.130
0.451
0.311
1.299
-0.172
-0.380
0.172
8

12
13
14
15
16

49.00
9.00
23.00
6.00
21.00

51.31
8.44
23.81
9.06
23.19

-2.31
0.56
-0.81
-3.06
-2.19

0.313
0.3130
0.313
0.3130.313

1.333
0.324
-0.468
1.765
-1.260

0.161
0.010
0.020
0.283
0.144

-1.387
0.311
-0.451
-1.987
-1.299

Note: Predicted values include block corrections.

DES IG N-EXPER T Pl o t
re si d u e

O utlie r T
3 .5 0

O u tli e r T

1 .7 5

0 .0 0

-1 .7 5

-3 .5 0
1

10

13

16

R un N um ber

Fig 2
Observation
All the outlier values are within the acceptable limit of +3.5 to 3.5.The most negatve
value is 1.987 and the highest positive value is 2.64.
Inference
The model is good representative of the system.

2.4.3.3 Model Adequeacy

DE SIGN -EXP ERT P lo t
re si d u e

N o rm a l p lo t o f re s id ua ls
99

N o r m a l % p r o b a b ility

95
90
80
70
50
30
20
10
5
1

-3 .0 6 2 5

-1 .3 7 5

0 .3 1 2 5

3 .6 8 7 5

R e s id u a l

Fig 3
Observation
The normal plot clearly passes the flat pencil test.
Inference
The analysis of variance satisfies normality assusmption Errors are distributed normally
with mean 0 and variance 2 ie NID(0, 2 ).

2.4.3.4 Residuals vs predicted

10

DES IG N-EXP ERT Pl o t

re si d u e

R e s id ua ls vs . P re d ic te d
3 .6 8 7 5

R e s id u a l s

0 .3 1 2 5

2
-1 .3 7 5

-3 . 0 6 2 5
8 .4 4

1 9 .1 6

2 9 .8 8

4 0 .5 9

5 1 .3 1

P r e d i c te d

Figure 4
Observation
The plot of residual vs predicted / fitted values is structureless.
Inference
The assumption of constant variance holds good.

11

DES IGN-EXPERT Plo t

re s
idue

R e s id ua ls vs . R un
3 .6 8 7 5

R e s id u a ls

0 .3 1 2 5

-1 . 3 7 5

-3 . 0 6 2 5
1

10

13

16

R un N um ber

Fig 5
Observation
The residual vs runs plot does not reveal any obvious pattern.
Inference
The independence of variance check holds good.

12

DES IGN-EXPERT Plo t

re s
idue

R e s id ua ls vs . m a s s
3 .6 8 7 5

R e s id u a ls

0 .3 1 2 5

2
-1 . 3 7 5

-3 . 0 6 2 5
-1

m ass

Fig 6
DE SIGN -EXPERT P l o t
re si d u e

R e s id ua ls vs . s p p e d
3 .6 8 7 5

R e s id u a ls

0 .3 1 2 5

-1 . 3 7 5

-3 . 0 6 2 5
1

spped

Fig 7

13

DES IG N -EXPE RT Pl o t
re si d u e

R e s id ua ls vs . no o f b la d e s
3 .6 8 7 5

R e s id u a ls

0 .3 1 2 5
2
-1 . 3 7 5

-3 . 0 6 2 5
-1

n o o f b la d e s

Fig 8
DE SIGN -EXPE RT Pl o t
re si d u e

R e s id ua ls vs . s ize
3 .6 8 7 5

R e s id u a ls

0 .3 1 2 5

-1 . 3 7 5

-3 . 0 6 2 5
-1

s i ze

Fig 9

Observation
14

There is no pattern in variance for specific levels of factors.

Inference:
The independence of variance holds good.

Main effect and interaction plots

DESIGN-E XP ERT Plo t
re s
idue
X = A : m a ss
Actu a l Fa c to rs
B: s p p ed = B 1
C: n o o f b l ad e s= 0 .0 0
D: s i ze = 0 .0 0

O ne F a c to r P lo t
55

W a rn i n g ! F a c to r i n v o l v e d i n a n i n te ra c ti o n .

re s id u e

4 2 .7 5

3 0 .5

1 8 .2 5

6
-1 . 0 0

-0 . 5 0

0 .0 0

0 .5 0

1 .0 0

A: m a s s

Fig 10

15

DES IGN-EXPE RT Pl o t
re s
idue
X = C: n o of b l ad e s
Actu a l Fa c to rs
A: m a ss = 0.0 0
B: sp p e d = B1
D: si z e = 0 .00

O ne F a c to r P lo t
55

W a rn i n g ! F a c to r i n v o l v e d i n a n i n te ra c ti o n .

re s id u e

4 2 .7 5

3 0 .5

1 8 .2 5

6
-1 . 0 0

-0 . 5 0

0 .0 0

0 .5 0

1 .0 0

C : n o o f b la d e s

Fig 11
Observation
The main effects of A and C are plotted in the above figures . From the Fig 10 and 11,
we see that the effect of A is positive whereas the effect of C is negative .If we consider
only the main effects we would run the experiment at low level of A and high level. Since

16

There is a significant interaction between A nd C, let us examine the interaction plot.

DES IGN-E XPE RT Pl o t

re s
idue
X = A: m a ss
Y = C: n o of b l ad e s
C- -1 .00 0
C+ 1 .00 0
Actu a l Fa c to rs
B: sp p ed = B1
D: si z e = 0 .0 0

Inte ra c tio n G ra p h
C : n o o f b la d e s

55

re s id u e

4 2 .7 5

3 0 .5

1 8 .2 5

6
-1 . 0 0

-0 . 5 0

0 .0 0

0 .5 0

1 .0 0

A: m a s s

17

DES IGN -EX PER T Pl o t

re si d ue
X= A: m ass
Y= C: n o o f bl a d es
Ac tu al Fac to rs
B: sp pe d = B2
D: si ze = 1.0 0

51
4 0 .4 3 7 5

re s id u e

2 9 .8 7 5
1 9 .3 1 2 5
8 .7 5

1 .0 0
1 .0 0

0 .5 0

0 .5 0
0 .0 0

0 .0 0

C : n o o f b la d e- s0 .5 0
- 1 .0 0

- 0 .5 0
- 1 .0 0

A: m a s s

DESIGN- EXP ERT Plo t

re s
idue
X = A : m a ss
Y = C : n o of b l a d e s
De s i gn P oi n ts
Actu a l Fa cto rs
B: s p p ed = B 2
D: s i ze = 1 .0 0

re s id u e

1 .0 0

C : n o o f b la d e s

0 .5 0

2 2 .8 3 3 3
1 5 .7 9 1 7
0 .0 0

2 9 .8 7 5

3 6 .9 1 6 7
-0 . 5 0

4 3 .9 5 8 3

-1 . 0 0
-1 . 0 0

-0 . 5 0

0 .0 0

0 .5 0

1 .0 0

A: m a s s

Fig 12

18

By examining the contour plot we see that Residue decreases as the mass decreases and
the number of fins in the blade increases.

3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The best model for predicting the residual of the grinding process is
Residue = + 24.06250 + 13.18750 * A - 7.93750 * C - 5.81250 * AC
From the above model we can conclude that
The residue increases when the mass (A) increases and it decreases when the
number of fins in the blade(C) inceases.
The speed of rotation(B) and the size of the blade(D) does not have much influence
on the residue.
The model assumptions are validated by checking the residuals
We have taken the time of processing as a held constant factor in our
experiment.Further experimentation can be carried out with time as a variable
factor.
Type of material can also be taken as a variable factor in further experimentation.

4.0 .References
1.Design and Analysis of Experiments Dr.Douglas C. Montgomery,
Fith Edition,John Wiley & Sons,Inc.
2.Design Expert Software Package Version 6.0.1

19

20