Engineering Statistic ch06

Engineering Statistics 5th edition October 01, 2010
CHAPTER 6
Note to Instructor: For computer exercises, the procedure Regression under Stat in Minitab can be used for the
regression analysis except for computing confidence intervals on the regressor variables.
Sections 6-2
6-1. a) The regression equation is

Thermal = 0.0249 + 0.129 Density
Predictor Coef StDev T P

Constant 0.024934 0.001786 13.96 0.000
Density 0.128522 0.007738 16.61 0.000
S = 0.0005852 R-Sq = 98.6% R-Sq(adj) = 98.2%
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 0.000094464 0.000094464 275.84 0.000
Residual Error 4 0.000001370 0.000000342
Total 5 0.000095833
y 0.0249 0.129x
b) 0.0005747
-0.0007088
0.0001486
-0.0004799
-0.0000644
0.0005298
c) SSE = 0.000001370 V 2 = 0.000000342

d) se( E1 ) = 0.007738, se( E 0 ) = 0.001786
e) SST = 0.000095833
SSR = 0.000094464, SSE = 0.000001370, and SSR + SSE = 0.000095834
Therefore, SST = SSR + SSE
f) R2 = 98.6%. This is interpreted as 98.6% of the total variability in thermal conductivity can be explained by the
fitted regression model.
g) See the Minitab output given in part a.

Based on the t-tests, we conclude that the slope and intercept are nonzero.
Based on P-values, both the intercept and slope have P-values equal to 0.000 which are less than = 0.05. We
conclude that the intercept and slope are significantly different from zero.
h) See the Minitab output in part a). Based on the analysis of variance, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude
that the regression is significant because p-value is 0.000 less than = 0.05.
i) E0: 0.024934 r 2.776(0.001786); 0.02, 0.03

E1: 0.128522 r 2.776(0.007738); 0.107, 0.15
Zeros are not included in CIs, so both the intercept and slope are significantly different from zero. The conclusions
from part (g), (h) and (i) are the same.
1
j) Residual plots appear reasonable. The model provides an adequate fit.
Residuals Versus Density

(response is Conduct)
0.0005
Residual
0.0000
-0.0005
0.18 0.23 0.28
Density
Residuals Versus the Fitted Values

0.0005
Residual
0.0000
-0.0005
0.050 0.055 0.060
Fitted Value
2
Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals

1
Normal Score
-1
-0.0005 0.0000 0.0005
Residual
k) r = 0.993, P-value = 0. Therefore, there is a significant correlation between density and conductivity.
Because the slope is significantly different from zero based on the conclusions from parts (g) and (h), the correlation
coefficient is also significantly different from zero.
6-2. a)
y 8.51 9.25x
3
b)
c) SSE = 84 V 2 = 8
d) se( E1 ) = 2.648, se( E 0 ) = 0.05328
e) SST = 252383
SSR = 252299, SSE = 38, and SSR + SSE = 280621
SST = SSR + SSE
f) R2 = 100%. This is interpreted as 100% of the total variability in Usage can be explained by the fitted regression
model.
g) See the Minitab output given in part a).

Based on P-values, the test of the intercept has P-value = 0.003 and the test of the slope has P-value = 0.000 and
both are less than = 0.05. We can conclude that the intercept and slope are significantly different from zero.
that the regression is significant because The P-value = 0.000 < 0.05.
i) E0: 8.51 r 2.228(2.648); 2.61, 14.41

E1: 9.25 r 2.228(0.05328); 9.37, 9.13
Zeros are not included in CIs, so both the intercept and slope are significantly different from zero. The conclusions
j) Residual plots appear reasonable, so the model provides an adequate fit.
4
5
k) r = 1.000, P-value = 0, Therefore, we conclude there is a significant correlation between temperature and usage.

Deflect = 0.393 + 0.00333 Temp
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 0.39346 0.04258 9.24 0.000
Temp 0.0033285 0.0005815 5.72 0.000
S = 0.006473 R-Sq = 64.5% R-Sq(adj) = 62.6%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 0.0013727 0.0013727 32.76 0.000
Residual Error 18 0.0007542 0.0000419
Total 19 0.0021270
y 0.393 0.00333 x
6
b) -0.0054488
0.0072519
0.0065614
-0.0127685
0.0069249
-0.0004269
-0.0027627
-0.0044372
0.0002431
-0.0074196
0.0015643
0.0078738
0.0035833
-0.0077656
-0.0011131
-0.0024386
0.0105570
-0.0054342
-0.0014357
0.0068913
c) SSE = 0.0007542 V 2 = 0.0000419
d) se( E1 ) = 0.0005815, se( E 0 ) = 0.04258
e) SST = 0.0020402
SST = SSR + SSE
f) R2 = 64.5%. This is interpreted as 64.5% of the total variability in deflection can be explained by the fitted
egression model.
Based on P-values, both the intercept and slope have P-values = 0.000 < = 0.05. We conclude that the intercept and
slope are significantly different from zero.
that the regression is significant because the p-value is 0.000 less than = 0.05.
i) E0: 0.39346 r 2.101(0.04258); 0.304, 0.483
E1: 0.0033285 r 2.101(0.0005815); 0.00211, 0.00455
Zeros are not included in the CIs, so both intercept and slope are significantly different from zero. The conclusions
7
Residuals Versus Temp

(response is Deflect)
0.01
Residual
0.00
-0.01
68 73 78
Temp

0.01
Residual
0.00
-0.01
0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65
Fitted Value
8

1
Normal Score
-1
-2
-0.01 0.00 0.01
Residual
k) r = 0.803, P-value = 0, Therefore, we conclude there is a significant correlation between temperature and deflection.
6-4. a)
9
b)
c) SSE = 44758 V 2 = 3730

d) se( E ) = 211.3, se( E ) = 8.476
1 0
e) SST = 70917
SSR = 26159, SSE = 44758, and SSR + SSE = 70917
SST = SSR + SSE
f) R2 = 36.9%. This is interpreted as 40.6% of the total variability in turbidity can be explained by the fitted regression
model.
Based on the t-tests, we conclude that the slope and intercept are significantly different from zero.
Based on P-values, the test for the intercept has P-value = 0.065 and the test for the slope has P-value = 0.021 which
are less than = 0.05. We can conclude that the intercept and slope are significantly different from zero.
that the regression is significant because the P-value is 0.021 < = 0.05.
i) E0: 430 r 2.179(211.3); 30.42, 890.42
E1: 22.4 r 2.179(8.476); 3.93, 40.87
Zeros are not included in CIs, so both intercept and slope are significantly different from zero. The conclusions from
part (g), (h) and (i) are the same.
j) The normal probability plot of residuals appears reasonable. The plots of residuals against yi and xi seem to have
funnel pattern, so the model does not provide an adequate fit.
10
k) r = 0.607, P-value = 0.021. Based on this test there is a significant correlation between temperature and turbidity.
However, the residual plots indicate the model might not be valid and then these tests are invalid. Because the slope
is significantly different from zero based on the conclusions from parts (g) and (h), the correlation coefficient is also
significantly different from zero.
11

permeability = 40.6 - 2.12 strength

Constant 40.5536 0.7509 54.00 0.000
strength -2.1232 0.2313 -9.18 0.000
S = 1.038 R-Sq = 86.6% R-Sq(adj) = 85.6%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 90.759 90.759 84.28 0.000
Residual Error 13 13.999 1.077
Total 14 104.757
y 40.6 2.12 x
b) -0.97179
0.00066
1.56517
0.35430
0.21735
0.99417
0.79921
0.83762
0.24199
-1.22252
-0.49351
-0.38411
-0.74715
-2.15947
0.96808
c) SSE = 13.999 V 2 = 1.077

d) se( E1 ) = 0.2313, se( E 0 ) = 0.7509
e) SST = 104.757
SST = SSR + SSE
f) R2 = 86.6%. This is interpreted as 86.6% of the total variability in permeability can be explained by the fitted
regression model.
Based on P-values, both the test that the intercept is zero and the test that the slope is zero have P-values = 0.000 < =
0.05. We can conclude that the intercept and slope are significantly different from zero.
H) See the Minitab output in part a). Based on the analysis of variance, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude
that the regression is significant because the p-value is 0.000 less than = 0.05.
i) E0: 40.5536 r 2.16(0.7509); 38.93, 41.18
E1: -2.1232 r 2.16(0.2313); -2.62, -1.62
Zeros are not included in the CIs, so both the intercept and the slope are significantly different from zero. The
conclusions from part (g), (h) and (i) are the same.
12
Residuals Versus strength

(response is permeabi)
1
Residual
-1
-2
1 2 3 4 5
strength

1
Residual
-1
-2
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Fitted Value
13

1
Normal Score
-1
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2
Residual
k) r = -0.931, P-value = 0; Therefore, we conclude there is a significant correlation between strength and
temperature. Because the slope is significantly different from zero based on the conclusions from parts (g)
and (h), the correlation coefficient is also significantly different from zero.
6-6. a) The plot below implies that a simple linear regression seems reasonable in this situation.
14
9
8
7
6
5
y
4
3
2
1
0
60 70 80 90 100
x
b) The regression equation is

y = - 10.1 + 0.174 x
Predictor Coef StDev T P

Constant -10.132 1.995 -5.08 0.000
x 0.17429 0.02383 7.31 0.000
S = 1.318 R-Sq = 74.8% R-Sq(adj) = 73.4%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 92.934 92.934 53.50 0.000
Total 19 124.200
An estimate of V 2 = 1.737
c) y 10.1 0.174(85) 4.69. The predicted mean rise in blood pressure level associated with a sound pressure level
of 85 decibels is 4.69 millimeters of mercury.
6-7. a) 0.055215
b) (0.05304, 0.05738)
c) (0.052505, 0.057925)
d) The prediction interval is wider than the confidence interval because it predicts a range for a future observation
whereas the confidence interval predicts a range for the mean response.
6-8. a) 472.499
b) (471.183, 473.816)
c) (467.975, 477.024)
6-9. The regression equation is y 0.393 0.00333 x

a) 0.63976 = 0.393 + 0.0033(74)
b) (0.6366, 0.6430)
15
c) (0.6256, 0.6537)
6-10. The regression equation is y 430 22.4x

a) 354 = 430 + 22.4 (35)
b) (163.2, 544.8)
c) (121.4, 586.6)
6-11. a) 36.095
b) (35.059, 37.131)
c) (32.802, 39.388)
6-12. a) 4.683
b) (4.055, 5.312)
c) (1.844, 7.523)
6-13. a)
The regression equation is
Deflection = 32.0 - 0.277 Stress level

Constant 32.049 2.885 11.11 0.000
Stress level -0.27712 0.04361 -6.35 0.000
S = 1.05743 R-Sq = 85.2% R-Sq(adj) = 83.1%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 45.154 45.154 40.38 0.000
Total 8 52.981
V 2 1.118
Graph of Stress level vs Deflection
75
70
Stress level
65
60
55
50
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Deflection
b) y 32.05 0.277(75) 11.275

c) (-0.277)(5) = -1.385
16
1
d) 3.61
0.277
e) y 32.05 0.277(78) 10.444 . There are no residuals because there are no observations at x = 78%

BOD = 0.658 + 0.178 Time

Constant 0.6578 0.1657 3.97 0.003
Time 0.17806 0.01400 12.72 0.000
S = 0.287281 R-Sq = 94.7% R-Sq(adj) = 94.1%

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 13.344 13.344 161.69 0.000
Total 10 14.087
y 0.658 0.178 x
V 2 0.083
b) y 0.658 0.178(13) 2.972
c) 0.178(4) = 0.712
d) y 0.658 0.178(8) 2.082

e y y 2.1 2.082 0.018
e) Fitted yi :
0.83585
1.01391
1.37002
1.72613
2.08225
2.43836
2.79447
3.15058
3.50670
3.86281
4.21892
Scatterplot of y-hat vs y
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
y-hat
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

y
17
All the points would lie along the 45 degree line y y . That is, the regression model would estimate the values
exactly. At this point, the graph of observed vs. predicted indicates that the simple linear regression model provides a
reasonable fit to the data.
6-15. a) MINITAB output

Constant 0.6649 0.1594 4.17 0.001
x 0.83075 0.08552 9.71 0.000
S = 0.197 R-Sq = 88.7% R-Sq(adj) = 87.8%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 3.6631 3.6631 94.37 0.000
Total 13 4.1289
Coef 0.83075
Tx 9.7141
SE Coef 0.08552
P-valuex = 2*P(t > |9.71|): for degrees of freedom of 12 we obtain 2*(P-value < 0.0005) = P-value < 0.001
SS /(n p) 0.4658 / 12
2
R Adjusted 1 E 1 87.78%
SS T /(n 1) 4.1289 / 13
SS Total SS Re g SS E 3.6631 0.4658 4.1289
SS Error 0.4658
MS Error 0.0388
DFError 12
S MS Error 0.0388 0.197
MS Re g 3.6631
F 94.41
MS Error 0.0388
P valueregression 2 P( F1,12 ! 94.41) 2( P value 0.01) P value 0.02
b) V 2 0.0388
c) Based on the P-values from the F-test in the ANOVA table and the t-test for X in the output in part (a), 1 is
significantly different from zero. There P-values are always the same for simple linear regression.
d)
E1 t 0.025,12 se( E1 ) d E 1 d E1 t 0.025,12 se( E1 )
0.83075 2.179(0.08552) d E 1 d 0.83075 2.179(0.08552)
0.83075 0.18635 d E 1 d 0.83075 0.18635
0.6444 d E 1 d 1.0171
Because zero is not included in the 95%CI, the estimated coefficient (1) is significantly different from zero.
e) The results from part (c) and (d) are the same whenever the confidence level = 1 D.
f) y 0.6649 0.83075 x
y 0.6649 0.83075(2.18) 2.476
e y y 2.8 2.476 0.324
g) P Y 1.5 0.6649 0.83075(1.5) 1.911
1 ( x0 x ) 2 1 (1.5 1.76) 2
se( P Y 1.5 ) V 2 0.0388 0.057
n S xx 14 5.326191
95%CI
18
P Y x t 0.025,12 se( P Y x ) d P Y x d P Y x t 0.025,12 se( P Y x )

0 0 0 0 0
1.911 2.179(0.057) d P Y x d 1.911 2.179(0.057)

0
1.911 0.124 d P Y x d 1.911 0.124

0
1.787 d P Y x d 2.035 0
95%PI
1 ( x0 x ) 2 1 (1.5 1.76) 2
V 2 1 0.03881 0.205
n S xx 14 5.326191
1 (x x)2 1 ( x0 x ) 2
y 0 t 0.025,12 V 2 1 0 d Y0 d y 0 t 0.025,12 V 1
2

n S xx n S xx
1.911 2.179(0.205) d Y0 d 1.911 2.179(0.205)
1.911 0.447 d Y0 d 1.911 0.447
1.464 d Y0 d 2.358
The prediction interval is wider than the confidence interval because it predicts a range for a future observation

Constant 0.9788 0.3367 2.91 0.011
x -8.3088 0.5725 -14.51 0.000
S = 0.632 R-Sq = 93.8% R-Sq(adj) = 93.3%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 84.106 84.106 210.63 0.000
Total 15 89.696
Coef 8.3088
Tx 14.5132
SE Coef 0.5725
P-valuex = 2*P(t > |-14.51|): for degrees of freedom of 14 we obtain P-value < 2(0.0005) = P-value < 0.001
SS /(n p) 5.590 / 14
2
R Adjusted 1 E 1 93.32%
SS T /(n 1) 89.696 / 15
SS Total SS Re g SS E 84.106 5.590 89.696
SS Error 5.590
MS Error 0.3993
DFError 14
S MS Error 0.3993 0.632
MS Re g 84.106
F 210.634
MS Error 0.3993
P value 2 P( F1,14 ! 210.63) 2( P value 0.01) P value 0.02
b) V 2 0.3993
c) Based on the P-values from the F-test in the ANOVA table and the t-test for X in the output in part (a), 1 is
significantly different from zero. There P-values are always the same for simple linear regression.
d)
19
E1 t 0.025,14 se( E1 ) d E 1 d E1 t 0.025,14 se( E1 )

8.3088 2.145(0.5725) d E 1 d 8.3088 2.145(0.5725)
8.3088 1.228 d E 1 d 8.3088 1.228
9.5368 d E 1 d 7.0808
Because zero is not included in the 95% CI, the coefficient (1) is significantly different from zero.
e) The results from part (c) and (d) are the same whenever the confidence level = 1 D.
f) y 0.9788 8.3088 x
y 0.9788 8.3088(0.58) 3.84
e y y 3.30 (3.84) 0.54
g) P Y |0.6 0.9788 8.3088(0.6) 4.01
1 ( x0 x ) 2 1 (0.6 0.52) 2
se( P Y 0.6 ) V 2 0.3993 0.164
n S xx 16 1.218294
95%CI
P Y x t 0.025,14 se( P Y x ) d P Y x d P Y x t 0.025,14 se( P Y x )
0 0 0 0 0
4.01 2.145(0.164) d P Y x d 4.01 2.145(0.164)

0
4.01 0.352 d P Y x d 4.01 0.352

0
4.362 d P Y x d 3.658 0
95%PI
1 ( x0 x ) 2 1 (0.6 0.52) 2
V 2 1 0.39931 0.653
n S xx 16 1.218294
1 (x x)2 1 ( x0 x ) 2
y 0 t 0.025,14 V 2 1 0 d Y0 d y 0 t 0.025,14 V 1
2

n S xx n S xx
4.01 2.145(0.653) d Y0 d 4.01 2.145(0.653)
4.01 1.401 d Y0 d 4.01 1.401
5.411 d Y0 d 2.609
The prediction interval is wider than the confidence interval because it predicts a range for a future observation
Section 6-3

y = 351 - 1.27 x1 - 0.154 x2
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P VIF

Constant 350.99 74.75 4.70 0.018
x1 -1.272 1.169 -1.09 0.356 2.6
x2 -0.15390 0.08953 -1.72 0.184 2.6
S = 25.50 R-Sq = 86.2% R-Sq(adj) = 77.0%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 12161.6 6080.8 9.35 0.051
Total 5 14112.0
Source DF Seq SS
X1 1 10240.4
x2 1 1921.2
20
b) -24.9866
24.3075
11.8203
-20.4595
12.8296
-3.5113
c) SSE = 1950.4 V 2 = 650.1
d) R-Sq = 86.2%, R-Sq(adj) = 77.0%; R-Sq(adj) is less than R-Sq because the model contains terms that are not
contributing significantly to the model. The adjusted R2 value will penalize the user for adding terms to the model that
are not significant.
e) See part a). Based on the P-value from the ANOVA table, the regression model is significant at the 0.10 level of
significance.
f) se( E 0 ) = 74.75, se( E1 ) = 1.169, se( E 2 ) = 0.08953
g) See part a). Based on the P-values for each coefficient, each regressor is not significantly different from zero at the
0.05 level of significance.
h) E0: 350.99 r 3.182(74.74); 113.17, 588.81

E1: -1.272 r 3.182(1.169); -4.99, 2.45
E2: -0.1539 r 3.182(0.08953); -0.439, 0.131
i) Obs SRES1 COOK1

1 -1.65529 1.69265
2 1.35770 0.63183
3 0.51526 0.02083
4 -1.05590 0.27192
5 1.09375 1.48548
6 -0.18436 0.00898
Residuals Versus x1
(response is y)
30
20
10
Residual
-10
-20
-30
0 10 20 30 40
x1
21

(response is y)
30
20
10
Residual
-10
-20
-30
100 150 200
Fitted Value

(response is y)
1
Normal Score
-1
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Residual
j) The VIFs are 2.6. There is no indication of a problem with multicollinearity.

MPG-y = 38.4 - 0.00165 Weight-x1 - 0.0403 Horsepower-x2
Predictor Coef StDev T P VIF

Constant 38.387 3.719 10.32 0.000
Weight-x -0.001648 0.001325 -1.24 0.245 1.8
Horsepow -0.040308 0.006299 -6.40 0.000 1.8
22
S = 2.135 R-Sq = 91.2% R-Sq(adj) = 89.2%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 423.41 211.70 46.44 0.000
Total 11 464.44
Source DF Seq SS
Weight-x 1 236.70
Horsepow 1 186.71
b) 0.16464
-1.41661
2.33925
-1.31445
1.58629
-1.08273
1.12759
-3.77526
1.79269
0.63652
-2.14613
2.08818
c) SSE = 41.03 V 2 = 4.56
d) R-Sq = 91.2%, R-Sq(adj) = 89.2%. R-Sq(adj) is slightly less than R-Sq. The adjusted R2 value will penalize the user
for adding terms to the model that are not significant.
significance.
E E E
f) se( 0 ) = 3.719, se( 1 ) = 0.0013, se( 2 ) = 0.0063
g) See part a). Based on the P-values for each coefficient, only x1 is not significantly different from zero at the 0.05
level of significance.
h) E0: 38.387 r 2.262(3.791); 29.8118, 46.9622

E1: -0.0016 r 2.262(0.0013); -0.0045, 0.0013
E2 : -0.0403 r 2.262(0.0063); -0.0546,-0.0260
i) Obs SRES2 COOK2

1 0.09379 0.00141
2 -0.78074 0.07819
3 1.31029 0.24630
4 -0.64814 0.01519
5 0.80217 0.03558
6 -0.56461 0.02547
7 0.57213 0.01895
8 -1.84772 0.10479
9 0.97075 0.10581
10 0.35819 0.01897
11 -1.18468 0.18208
12 1.53073 1.13238
23
Residuals Versus Horsepow

(response is MPG-y)
Residual
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
100 200 300 400 500 600
Horsepow
Residuals Versus Weight-x

(response is MPG-y)
1
Residual
-1
-2
-3
-4
2500 3500 4500
Weight-x
Residuals Versus the Order of the Data

(response is MPG-y)
1
Residual
-1
-2
-3
-4
2 4 6 8 10 12
Observation Order
24

(response is MPG-y)
Residual
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
10 20 30
Fitted Value

(response is MPG-y)
1
Normal Score
-1
-2
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Residual
j) The VIFs are 1.8. There is no indication of a problem with multicollinearity.
6-19. a) The results from Minitab follow.
Regression Analysis: EX6-19Sat versus EX6-19Age, EX6-19Sev, ...
25

Sat = 136 - 0.701 Age - 0.670 Sev - 0.79 Surg 0.90 Anx
b)
26
27
c) SSE = 3083.8 V 2 = 154.2
d) R-Sq = 71.2%, R-Sq(adj) = 65.5%. R-Sq(adj) is less than R-Sq because the regression equation contains terms that
are not contributing significantly to the model. The adjusted R2 value will penalize the user for adding terms to the
model that are not significant.
significance.
f) se(E 0 ) 10.63 , se(E1 ) 0.2336 , se(E 2 ) 0.2185 , se(E 3 ) 5.55 , and se(E 4 ) 1.842
g) See part a). Based on the P-values for each coefficient, only Age is significantly different from zero at
the 0.05 level of significance.
h) E0: 136.21r 2.201 (10.63); 112.813, 159.607

E1: 0.7006 r 2.201 (0.2336); 1.2148, 0.19
E2 : 0.6703 r 2.201 (0.2185); 1.1512, 0.19
E3: 0.788 r 2.201 (5.550); 13.004, 11.428
E4 : 0.899 r 2.201 (1.842); 4.953, 3.155
i)
SRES COOK
28
29
30
31
j) The VIFs are all less than 10. There is no indication of a problem with multicollinearity.
Regression Analysis: Density versus Cont, Loss
32

Density = - 0.110 + 0.407 Cont + 2.11 Loss

Constant -0.1105 0.2501 -0.44 0.670
Cont 0.4072 0.1682 2.42 0.042 390.1
Loss 2.108 5.834 0.36 0.727 390.1
S = 0.00883422 R-Sq = 99.7% R-Sq(adj) = 99.7%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 0.23563 0.11782 1509.64 0.000
Total 10 0.23626
Source DF Seq SS
Cont 1 0.23562
Loss 1 0.00001
The regression equation is y 0.110 0.407 x1 2.11x2 where

x1 DielectricConst x2 LossFactor
b)
-0.0089354
-0.0090847
-0.0030180
0.0025153
0.0074740
0.0087559
0.0079298
0.0098885
0.0008422
-0.0051274
-0.0112404
c) SSE = 0.00062 V 2 = 0.00008
d) R-Sq = 99.7%, R-Sq(adj) = 99.7%. R-Sq(adj) is equal to R-Sq.
significance.
f) se( E0 ) 0.2501 , se( E1 ) 0.1682 , and se( E 2 ) 5.834
g) See part a). Based on the P-values for each coefficient, only Cont is significantly different from zero at the 0.05
level of significance.
h) E0: -0.1105 r 2.306(0.2501); -0.6872, 0.4662

E1: 0.4072 r 2.306 (0.1682); 0.01933, 0.7951
E2 : 2.108 r 2.306 (5.834); -11.345, 15.561
i)
SRES COOK
33
-1.23832 0.255007
-1.44997 0.692448
-0.37215 0.008618
0.32815 0.011784
0.92827 0.058551
1.08437 0.077203
1.02796 0.109710
1.35664 0.287682
0.11001 0.001337
-0.67570 0.054084
-1.59530 0.485253
Residuals Versus Loss

(response is Density)
0.010
0.005
Residual
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045

EX6-20Loss
Residuals Versus Cont

0.010
0.005
Residual
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

EX6-20Cont
34

0.010
0.005
Residual
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

Fitted Value

0.010
0.005
Residual
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Observation Order

99
95
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02
Residual
j) The VIFs are 390.1. There is an indication of a problem with multicollinearity.
Regression Analysis: EX6-21Y versus E6-21X1, EX6-21X2, ...
35
Y = - 103 + 0.605 X1 + 8.92 X2 + 1.44 X3 + 0.014 X4

Constant -102.7 207.9 -0.49 0.636
X1 0.6054 0.3689 1.64 0.145 2.3
X2 8.924 5.301 1.68 0.136 2.2
X3 1.437 2.392 0.60 0.567 1.3
X4 0.0136 0.7338 0.02 0.986 1.0
S = 15.5793 R-Sq = 74.5% R-Sq(adj) = 59.9%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 4 4957.2 1239.3 5.11 0.030
Total 11 6656.3
Source DF Seq SS
X1 1 3758.9
X2 1 1109.4
X3 1 88.9
X4 1 0.1
The regression equation is y 103 0.605 x1 8.92 x2 1.44 x3 0.014 x4

b) -18.7580
1.8862
23.3109
-8.9565
9.1852
6.6436
4.8136
-0.1568
-17.8502
-12.9376
6.6216
6.1980
c) SSE = 1699.0 , V 2 = 242.7
d) R-Sq = 74.5%, R-Sq(adj) = 59.9%; R-Sq(adj) is less than R-Sq because the regression equation contains terms that are
not contributing significantly to the model. The adjusted R2 value will penalize the user for adding terms to the model that
are not significant.
significance.
f) se( E 0 ) = 207.9, se( E1 ) = 0.3689, se( E 2 ) = 5.301, se( E 3 ) = 2.392, se( E 4 ) = 0.7338
g) See part a). Based on the P-values for each coefficient, the regressors are not significant.
h) E0: -102.7 r 2.365(207.9); -594.38, 388.98

E1: 0.6054 r 2.365(0.3689); -0.267, 1.478
E2 : 8.924 r 2.365(5.301); -3.613, 21.461
E3: 1.437 r 2.365(2.392); -4.22, 7.094
E4: 0.0136 r 2.365(0.7338); -1.722, 1.75
36
i)
SRES COOK
-1.62309 0.430586
0.29990 0.092382
2.08556 0.820139
-0.83969 0.159823
0.67773 0.029524
0.72611 0.200284
0.36035 0.009353
-0.01285 0.000021
-1.67866 0.646149
-0.93670 0.047782
0.47341 0.010787
0.44599 0.010213
Residuals Versus X1
(response is Y)
20
10
Residual
-10
-20
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
X1
Residuals Versus X2
(response is Y)
20
10
Residual
-10
-20
21 22 23 24 25 26
X2
37
Residuals Versus X3
(response is Y)
20
10
Residual
-10
-20
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
X3
Residuals Versus X4
(response is Y)
20
10
Residual
-10
-20
90 95 100 105 110
X4

(response is Y)
20
10
Residual
-10
-20
230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310
Fitted Value
38

(response is Y)
20
10
Residual
-10
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Observation Order

(response is Y)
99
95
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Residual
j) The VIFs are all less than 10. There is no indication of a problem with multicollinearity.

HFE = 47.2 - 9.74 Emitter + 0.428 Base + 18.2 EtoB

Constant 47.17 49.58 0.95 0.356
Emitter -9.735 3.692 -2.64 0.018 6.6
Base 0.4283 0.2239 1.91 0.074 2.5
EtoB 18.237 1.312 13.90 0.000 9.3
S = 3.480 R-Sq = 99.4% R-Sq(adj) = 99.3%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 30532 10177 840.55 0.000
Residual Error 16 194 12
Total 19 30725
39
Source DF Seq SS
Emitter 1 23959
Base 1 4233
EtoB 1 2340
b) -0.90039
1.83266
-0.31872
-6.78384
-2.18117
-1.51602
1.90876
2.29305
2.01911
-5.96711
-2.21540
3.41999
3.16536
-0.57066
-1.96916
2.64163
-0.93420
6.68822
1.14227
-1.75438
c) SSE = 194 V 2 = 12
d) R-Sq = 99.4%, R-Sq(adj) = 99.3%. R-Sq(adj) is almost equal to R-Sq.
significance.
E
f) se( 0 ) = 49.58, se( E E ) = 3.692, se( E B ) = 0.0039, se( E EtoB ) = 0.2239
g) See part a). Based on the P-values for each coefficient, Emitter and EtoB are significantly different from zero at the
h) E0: 47.17 r 2.120(49.58); -57.9396, 152.2796

EE: -9.735 r 2.120(3.692); -17.5620, -1.9080
EB : 0.4283 r 2.120(0.2239); -0.0464, 0.9030
EEtoB : 18.237 r 2.120(1.312); 15.4556, 21.0184
i) SRES COOK
-0.27777 0.002938
0.59321 0.023627
-0.10665 0.001012
-2.08750 0.159577
-0.67100 0.016418
-0.45280 0.004106
0.63705 0.035375
0.68266 0.008518
0.67761 0.041745
-1.77388 0.055072
-0.68134 0.016855
1.12620 0.099229
0.93545 0.012570
-0.17625 0.001204
-0.59731 0.010172
0.86378 0.054946
-0.40464 0.052052
40
2.16785 0.319631
0.54024 0.124644
-0.53676 0.009606
Residuals Versus EtoB

(response is HFE)
Residual
-5
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
EtoB
Residuals Versus Base

(response is HFE)
5
Residual
-5
220 230 240
Base
41
Residuals Versus Emitter

(response is HFE)
Residual
0
-5
14 15 16
Emitter

(response is HFE)
5
Residual
-5
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Observation Order

(response is HFE)
5
Residual
-5
50 100 150 200
Fitted Value
42

(response is HFE)
Normal Score
0
-1
-2
-5 0 5
Residual
j) All the VIFs are less than 10. There is no indication of a problem with multicollinearity.
6-23. a) 128.1
b) (49.0, 207.3)
c) (40.5, 296.8)
d) The prediction interval is wider than the confidence interval. The prediction interval is wider than the confidence
interval because it predicts a range for a future observation whereas the confidence interval predicts a range for the
mean response.
6-24. a) 27.398
b) (25.226, 29.570)
c) (22.091, 32.705)
mean response.
6-25. a) 98.35
b) (87.99, 108.71)
c) (76.69, 120.02)
mean response.
6-26. a) 0.97068
b) (0.95909, 0.98226)
c) (0.94724, 0.99411)
mean response.
6-27. a) 287.56
b) (263.77, 311.35)
c) (243.69, 331.44)
mean response.
6-28. a) 91.424.
b) (85.953, 96.895)
c) (83.249, 99.599)
43
mean response.
6-29. The regression equation is

Useful range (ng) = 239 + 0.334 Brightness (%) - 2.72 Contrast (%)

Constant 238.56 45.23 5.27 0.002
Brightness (%) 0.3339 0.6763 0.49 0.639
Contrast (%) -2.7167 0.6887 -3.94 0.008
S = 36.3493 R-Sq = 75.6% R-Sq(adj) = 67.4%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 24518 12259 9.28 0.015
Total 8 32446
a) y 238.56 0.3339 x1 2.7167 x 2

where x1 % Brightness x 2 %Contrast
b) V 2 1321
se( E 0 ) 45.23 , se( E1 ) 0.6763 , and se( E 2 ) 0.6887
c) Based on the P-values from the t-test for each coefficient, the estimated coefficient of brightness (1) is not
significantly different from zero while contrast (2) is significant at the 0.05 level of significance.
d) y 238.56 0.3339(70) 2.7167(65) 85.3475

se(P Y 70,65 ) 14.5
y 0 t0.025,6 V 2 [ se(P Y 70,65 )]2 d Y0 d y 0 t0.025,6 V 2 [ se(P Y 70,65 )]2
85.3475 2.447 * 1321 (14.5) 2 d Y0 d 85.3475 2.447 * 1321 (14.5) 2

85.3475 95.7540 d Y0 d 85.3475 95.7540
10.4065 d Y0 d 181.1015
e) P Y 70,65 238.56 0.3339(70) 2.7167(65) 85.3475

se(P Y 80,75 ) 14.5
y 0 t0.025,6 se(P Y 70,65 ) d Y0 d y 0 t0.025,6 se(P Y 70,65 )
85.3475 2.447(14.5) d Y0 d 85.3475 2.447(14.5)
85.3475 35.4815 d Y0 d 85.3475 35.4815
49.866 d Y0 d 120.829
f) The prediction interval is wider than the confidence interval because it predicts a range for a future observation
whereas the confidence interval predicts a range for the mean response for the same values of x1 and x2.

y = - 171 + 7.03 x1 + 12.7 x2

Constant -171.26 28.40 -6.03 0.001
x1 7.029 1.539 4.57 0.004
x2 12.696 1.539 8.25 0.000
S = 3.07827 R-Sq = 93.7% R-Sq(adj) = 91.6%
44
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 842.37 421.18 44.45 0.000
Total 8 899.22
a) y 171.26 7.029 x1 12.696 x 2
b) V 2 9.48
se( E0 ) 28.40 , se( E1 ) 1.539 , and se( E 2 ) 1.539
c) Based on the P-values from the t-test for each coefficient, both regressors appear to be significant at the 0.05 level of
significance.
d) y 171.26 7.029(14.5) 12.696(12.5) 89.3605

se P Y 14.5,12.5 1.50
y 0 t 0.025, 6 V 2 [ se ( P Y 14.5,12.5 )] 2 d Y0 d y 0 t 0.025, 6 V 2 [ se ( P Y 14.5,12.5 )]2
89.3605 2.447 * 9.48 (1.50) 2 d Y0 d 89.3605 2.447 * 9.48 (1.50) 2

89.3605 8.381 d Y0 d 89.3605 8.381
80.980 d Y0 d 97.742
e) PY 80 , 75 171.26 7.029(14.5) 12.696(12.5) 89.3605
se( P Y 80 , 75 ) 1.50
y 0 t 0.025, 6 se ( P Y 80, 75 ) d Y0 d y 0 t 0.025, 6 se ( P Y 80 , 75 )
89.3605 2.447(1.50) d Y0 d 89.3605 2.447(1.50)
89.3605 3.6705 d Y0 d 89.3605 3.6705
85.690 d Y0 d 93.031
f) The prediction interval is wider than the confidence interval because it predicts a range for a future observation

Constant 3.318 1.007 3.29 0.003
x1 0.7417 0.5768 1.29 0.210
x2 9.1142 0.6571 13.87 0.000
S = 0.832643 R-Sq = 88.5% R-Sq(adj) = 87.6%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 133.366 66.683 96.18 0.000
Total 27 150.698
Coef x1 0.7417
Tx1 1.2859
SE Coef x1 0.5768
Coef x 2 9.1142
Tx 2 13.8682
SE Coef x 2 0.6571
P-valuex1 = 2P(t > |1.29|) and for degrees of freedom of 25 we obtain
2(0.10) <P-value < 2(0.25) = 0.20 < P-value < 0.50
45
P-valuex2 = 2P(t > |13.87|) and for degrees of freedom of 25 we obtain P-value < 2(0.0005) = P-value < 0.001
SS 17.332
R2 1 E 1 88.50%
SS T 150.698
DFError DFTotal DFRe g 27 2 25
SS Error 17.332
MS Error 0.6933
DFError 25
S MS Error 0.6933 0.832646
MS Re g 66.683
F 96.182
MS Error 0.6933
P valueregression 2 P( F2, 25 ! 96.18) 2( P value 0.01) P value 0.02
b) V 2
0.693
c) Based on the ANOVA from MINITAB output in part (a), F0 96.18 ! F0.05, 2, 25 3.39 and P-value = 0.000
< = 0.05. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the regression is significant.
d) 1: T0 1.29 t 0.025, 25 2.060 and P-value = 0.210 > = 0.05. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that 1
differs from zero.
2: T0 13.87 ! t 0.025, 25 2.060 and P-value = 0.000 < = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that 2 is
different from zero.
e) 95% CI for 1

E1 t 0.025, 25 se E1 d E 1 d E1 t 0.025, 25 se E1
0.7417 2.060(0.5768) d E 1 d 0.7417 2.060(0.5768)
0.7417 1.188 d E 1 d 0.7417 1.188
0.4463 d E 1 d 1.9297
Because zero is included in the 95% CI, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that 1 differs from zero.
f) 95% CI for 2

E 2 t 0.025, 25 se E 2 d E 2 d E 2 t 0.025, 25 se E 2
9.1142 2.060(0.6571) d E 2 d 9.1142 2.060(0.6571)
9.1142 1.354 d E 2 d 9.1142 1.354
7.7602 d E 2 d 10.4682
Because zero is not included in the 95% CI, we reject the null hypothesis that 2 equals zero.
g) Only 2 is significantly different from zero (parts d) and f)), and the regression is significant (part c)). The next step
would be to fit a model with x2 as the sole predictor. A residual analysis should be carried out to make sure that the
chosen model is adequate.
6-32. a) MINITAB Output

Constant 6.188 2.704 2.29 0.027
x1 9.6864 0.4989 19.42 0.000
x2 -0.3796 0.2339 -1.62 0.112
x3 2.9447 0.2354 12.51 0.000
S = 0.912336 R-Sq = 90.8% R-Sq(adj) = 90.2%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 363.01 121.00 145.37 0.000
Total 47 399.63
46
Coef x1 9.6864
Tx1 19.4156
SE Coef x1 0.4989
Coef x 2 0.3796
Tx 2 1.6229
SE Coef x 2 0.2339
Coef x 3 2.9447
Tx 3 12.5093
SE Coef x 3 0.2354
P-valuex1 = 2P(t > |19.42|): for degrees of freedom of 44 we obtain P-value < 2(0.0005) = P-value < 0.001
P-valuex2 = 2P(t > |-1.62|): for degrees of freedom of 44 we obtain 2(0.05) < P-value < 2(0.1) = 0.1 < P-value < 0.2
P-valuex2 = 2P(t > |12.51|): for degrees of freedom of 44 we obtain P-value < 2(0.0005) = P-value < 0.001
SS 36.62
R2 1 E 1 90.84%
SS T 399.63
SS Error 36.62
MS Error 0.8323
DFError 44
S MS Error 0.8323 0.912305
MS Re g 121.00
F 145.38
MS Error 0.8323
P value 2 P( F3, 44 ! 145.38) 2( P value 0.01) P value 0.02
b) V 2
0.83
c) Based on the ANOVA from MINITAB output in part (a), F0 145.37 ! F0.05,3, 44 2.824 (interpolated) and
P-value = 0.000 < = 0.05. We reject null hypothesis and conclude that the regression is significant.
d) 1: T0 19.42 ! t 0.025, 44 2.017 (interpolated) and P-value = 0.000 < = 0.05. We reject the null hypothesis and
conclude that 1 is different from zero.
2: T0 1.62 t 0.025, 44 2.017 (interpolated) and P-value = 0.112 > = 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that
2 equals zero.
3: T0 12.51 ! t 0.025, 44 2.017 (interpolated) and P-value = 0.000 < = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis that 3
equals zero.
e) 95%CI for 1

E1 t 0.025, 44 se E1 d E 1 d E1 t 0.025, 44 se E1
9.6864 2.017(0.4989) d E 1 d 9.6864 2.017(0.4989)
9.6864 1.006 d E 1 d 9.6864 1.006
8.6804 d E 1 d 10.6924
Because zero is not included in the CI, we reject the null hypothesis that 1 equals zero.
f) 95%CI for 2

E 2 t 0.025, 44 se E 2 d E 2 d E 2 t 0.025, 44 se E 2
0.3796 2.017(0.2339) d E 2 d 0.3796 2.017(0.2339)
0.3796 0.472 d E 2 d 0.3796 0.472
0.8516 d E 2 d 0.0924
Because zero is included in the 95% CI, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that 2 equals zero.
g) 95%CI for 3

E3 t 0.025, 44 se E3 d E 3 d E3 t 0.025, 44 se E3
2.9947 2.017(0.2345) d E 3 d 2.9947 2.017(0.2345)
2.9947 0.473 d E 3 d 2.9947 0.473
2.5217 d E 3 d 3.4677
Because zero is not included in the CI, we reject the null hypothesis that 3 equals zero.
47
h) The tests for 1 and 3 are significant while 2 is not significant. Also, the regression is significant (part (c)). A
model with x2 omitted should be considered. Residual analysis should be applied to make sure that model is adequate.
Section 6-4

y = 643 + 11.4 x1 - 0.933 x2 - 0.0106 x1x2 - 0.0272 x1^2 +0.000471 x2^2

Constant 642.685 0.000 * *
x1 11.3862 0.0000 * * 2675.3
x2 -0.933346 0.000000 * * 1283.4
x1x2 -0.0106334 0.0000000 * * 8342.1
x1^2 -0.0271620 0.0000000 * * 502.4
x2^2 0.00047076 0.00000000 * * 3301.5
S = *
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 5 14112.00 2822.40 * *
Residual Error 0 * *
Total 5 14112.00
Source DF Seq SS
x1 1 10240.37
x2 1 1921.21
x1x2 1 827.86
x1^2 1 1056.39
x2^2 1 66.17
b) Because VIFs are much greater than 10, multicollinearity is present in the second-order model.
c) Because SSE(Full Model) is not available the test statistic can not be computed.

MPG = 53.5 - 0.0074 W - 0.101 HP +0.000001 W*HP +0.000001 W^2 +0.000079 HP^2

Constant 53.49 27.17 1.97 0.096
W -0.00736 0.02063 -0.36 0.733 496.2
HP -0.10098 0.08450 -1.19 0.277 368.3
W*HP 0.00000146 0.00002559 0.06 0.956 639.0
W^2 0.00000104 0.00000371 0.28 0.788 767.9
HP^2 0.00007854 0.00005398 1.46 0.196 65.7
S = 1.977 R-Sq = 95.0% R-Sq(adj) = 90.7%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 5 440.988 88.198 22.57 0.001
Total 11 464.438
Source DF Seq SS
W 1 236.699
HP 1 186.707
W*HP 1 9.307
W^2 1 0.001
HP^2 1 8.274
b) Because the VIFs are much greater than 10, multicollinearity is present in the second-order model.
c) The regression equation is
48
MPG = 38.4 - 0.00165 W - 0.0403 HP

Constant 38.387 3.719 10.32 0.000
W -0.001648 0.001325 -1.24 0.245 1.8
HP -0.040308 0.006299 -6.40 0.000 1.8
S = 2.135 R-Sq = 91.2% R-Sq(adj) = 89.2%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 423.41 211.70 46.44 0.000
Total 11 464.44
[41.03 23.449] /(9 6) 5.8603

f0 1.4995
23.449 / 6 3.908
This results in P-value = P(f 3,6 > 1.4995) = 0.3073. Because the P-value > 0.05, we fail to reject H0 and conclude
that the second-order terms do not significantly contribute to the model.
6-35. a) All possible regressions.
Response is Sat
S
A S u A
Mallows g e r n
Vars R-Sq R-Sq(adj) C-p S e v g x
1 82.1 80.8 4.4 9.3577 X
1 57.0 54.0 27.3 14.487 X
2 87.9 86.1 1.1 7.9723 X X
2 83.0 80.4 5.5 9.4476 X X
3 88.0 85.0 3.0 8.2768 X X X
3 87.9 84.9 3.0 8.2942 X X X
4 88.0 83.6 5.0 8.6446 X X X X
b) Forward selection. Alpha-to-Enter: 0.25
Response is Sat on 4 predictors, with N = 16
Step 1 2
Constant 136.2 146.7
Age -1.43 -1.12

T-Value -8.01 -5.76
P-Value 0.000 0.000
Sev -0.56
T-Value -2.51
P-Value 0.026
S 9.36 7.97
R-Sq 82.07 87.92
R-Sq(adj) 80.79 86.06
Mallows C-p 4.4 1.1
c) Backward elimination. Alpha-to-Remove: 0.1
Step 1 2 3
Constant 146.2 146.2 146.7
Age -1.12 -1.12 -1.12
49
T-Value -5.25 -5.51 -5.76

P-Value 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sev -0.59 -0.59 -0.56

T-Value -2.11 -2.22 -2.51
P-Value 0.058 0.046 0.026
Surg 0.1
T-Value 0.03
P-Value 0.979
Anx 0.5 0.6

T-Value 0.22 0.25
P-Value 0.832 0.809
S 8.64 8.28 7.97

R-Sq 87.98 87.98 87.92
R-Sq(adj) 83.61 84.97 86.06
Mallows C-p 5.0 3.0 1.1
d) Model with only age and severity seems to be the best among all. It has a large R-Sq(adj) and small Cp and
values.
Response is Density
C L
o o
Mallows n s
Vars R-Sq R-Sq(adj) C-p S t s
1 99.7 99.7 1.1 0.0083967 X
1 99.5 99.5 6.9 0.010964 X
2 99.7 99.7 3.0 0.0088342 X X
Response is Density on 2 predictors, with N = 11
Step 1
Constant -0.2005
Cont 0.4679
T-Value 57.81
P-Value 0.000
S 0.00840
R-Sq 99.73
R-Sq(adj) 99.70
Mallows C-p 1.1
Response is Density on 2 predictors, with N = 11
Step 1 2
Constant -0.1105 -0.2005
Cont 0.4072 0.4679

T-Value 2.42 57.81
P-Value 0.042 0.000
Loss 2.1
T-Value 0.36
P-Value 0.727
50
S 0.00883 0.00840
R-Sq 99.74 99.73
R-Sq(adj) 99.67 99.70
Mallows C-p 3.0 1.1
d) Model with only Dielectric constant seems to be the best among all. It has a high R-Sq(adj) and small Cp and S
values.
Response is y
Adj. x x x x
Vars R-Sq R-Sq C-p s 1 2 3 4
1 64.5 60.9 1.7 15.381 X

1 56.5 52.1 3.9 17.022 X
2 73.1 67.2 1.4 14.095 X X
2 64.6 56.8 3.7 16.173 X X
3 74.5 64.9 3.0 14.573 X X X
3 73.2 63.1 3.4 14.944 X X X
4 74.5 59.9 5.0 15.579 X X X X
Response is y on 4 predictors, with N = 12
Step 1 2
Constant -90.1607 0.5287
x2 15.2 10.3
T-Value 4.26 2.36
P-Value 0.002 0.042
x1 0.50
T-Value 1.71
P-Value 0.122
S 15.4 14.1
R-Sq 64.46 73.14
R-Sq(adj) 60.90 67.17
C-p 1.7 1.4
Step 1 2 3 4
Constant -102.7132-101.6100 0.5287 -90.1607
x1 0.61 0.61 0.50

T-Value 1.64 1.76 1.71
P-Value 0.145 0.117 0.122
x2 8.9 8.9 10.3 15.2

T-Value 1.68 1.80 2.36 4.26
P-Value 0.136 0.109 0.042 0.002
x3 1.4 1.4
T-Value 0.60 0.65
P-Value 0.567 0.536
x4 0.01
T-Value 0.02
P-Value 0.986
51
S 15.6 14.6 14.1 15.4

R-Sq 74.47 74.47 73.14 64.46
R-Sq(adj) 59.89 64.90 67.17 60.90
C-p 5.0 3.0 1.4 1.7
d) The model with only x1 and x2 seems to be the best among all. It has a high R-Sq(adj) and small Cp value.
6-38. a) All possible regressions
Response is y
x x x
Vars R-Sq R-Sq(adj) C-p S 1 2 3
1 99.1 99.0 7.1 3.9403 X

1 78.0 76.8 542.9 19.389 X
2 99.2 99.1 5.7 3.7418 X X
2 99.1 99.0 9.0 4.0433 X X
3 99.4 99.3 4.0 3.4796 X X X
Step 1 2 3
Constant -23.62 66.13 47.17
x3 21.51 20.12 18.24

T-Value 44.28 21.59 13.90
P-Value 0.000 0.000 0.000
x1 -5.4 -9.7
T-Value -1.72 -2.64
P-Value 0.103 0.018
x2 0.43
T-Value 1.91
P-Value 0.074
S 3.94 3.74 3.48

R-Sq 99.09 99.23 99.37
R-Sq(adj) 99.04 99.13 99.25
C-p 7.1 5.7 4.0
Step 1
Constant 47.17
x1 -9.7
T-Value -2.64
P-Value 0.018
x2 0.43
T-Value 1.91
P-Value 0.074
x3 18.2
T-Value 13.90
P-Value 0.000
S 3.48
R-Sq 99.37
52
R-Sq(adj) 99.25
C-p 4.0
d) The model that contains all the first-order terms seems to be the best among all. It has the highest R-Sq(adj) and
smallest Cp value.
6-39. a) Note that x2 = 0 if using tool type 302 and x2 = 1 if using tool type 416.

y = 49.2 + 0.143 x1 - 0.117 x2

Constant 49.244 2.262 21.77 0.000
x1 0.142851 0.008297 17.22 0.000
x2 -0.116925 0.002677 -43.67 0.000
S = 0.6802 R-Sq = 99.3% R-Sq(adj) = 99.2%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 1083.55 541.77 1171.07 0.000
Total 19 1091.41
Source DF Seq SS
x1 1 201.09
x2 1 882.46
Unusual Observations
Obs x1 y Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid
7 248 37.520 36.030 0.240 1.490 2.34R
R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual
Because the P-value < 0.01, the regression model is significant at 0.01.
b) Regression model for tool type 302 is

y-Tool1 = 11.3 + 0.154 Tool1

Constant 11.266 1.324 8.51 0.000
Tool1 0.154042 0.005533 27.84 0.000
S = 0.3671 R-Sq = 99.0% R-Sq(adj) = 98.9%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 104.46 104.46 775.21 0.000
Total 9 105.54
The regression model for tool type 302 is significant at 0.01.
Regression model for tool type 416 is

y-Tool2 = 5.60 + 0.122 Tool2

Constant 5.603 3.944 1.42 0.193
Tool2 0.12160 0.01673 7.27 0.000
53
S = 0.8053 R-Sq = 86.9% R-Sq(adj) = 85.2%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 34.277 34.277 52.85 0.000
Total 9 39.466
Unusual Observations
Obs Tool2 y-Tool2 Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid
7 248 37.520 35.760 0.332 1.760 2.40R
R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual
The regression model for tool type 416 is significant at 0.01.
Supplemental Exercises
6-40. a)
No, a linear relationship does not appear plausible.
b) The regression equation is kWh = 2.44 + 0.009 Dollars

c) Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 0.00008 0.00008 0.00 0.950

Residual Error 13 0.26309 0.02024
Total 14 0.26317
The test statistic is
SSR / k
f0
SSE / ( n p)
Reject H0 if f0 > fD,1,8 where f0.05,1,13 = 4.67
Using the results from the ANOVA table
0.00008 /1
f0 0.004
0.2631/13
54
Because 0.01 < 4.67 we fail to reject H0. The regression model is not significant at D = 0.05.
P-value > 0.10 (from computer output the P-value = 0.950
d) Predictor Coef StDev T P

Constant 2.4422 0.6087 4.01 0.001
Dollars 0.0089 0.1387 0.06 0.950
0.0089 t0.025,13 (0.1387) d E1 d 0.0089 t0.025,13 (0.1387)

0.0089 2.160(0.1387) d E1 d 0.0089 2.160(0.1387)
0.291 d E1 d 0.308
e) The test statistic is

E 1
t0
se(E 1 )
Reject H0 if t0 < tD/2,n-2 where t0.025,13 = 2.160 or t0 > t0.025,13 = 2.160

Using the results from the table above
0.0089
t0 0.0642
0.1387
Because 2.160 < 0.0642 < 2.160 we fail to reject H 0 There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that Dollars is a predictor of
electrical usage at D = 0.05.
f) The test statistic is

E 0
t0
se(E 0 )
Using the results from the table above
2.4422
t0 4.012
0.6087
Because 4.012 > 2.160 reject H 0 and conclude the intercept differs from zero at D = 0.05.
SSE
6-41. Using R 2 1 Syy
,
( n 2) 1 S E
SS
yy Syy SSE Syy SSE
F0 SS E SS E
V 2
S yy n2
Also,
SSE ( yi E 0 E 1xi ) 2
( y y E ( x x )) 2
i 1 i
( yi y) E 12 ( xi x ) 2 2E 1 ( y i y)( x i x )
( yi y) 2 E 12 ( xi x ) 2
SST SSE E 12 ( xi x ) 2
E 12
Therefore, F0 t 20
V 2 / S xx
Because the square of a t random variable with n - 2 degrees of freedom is an F random variable with 1 and n-2 degrees of
freedom, the usual t-test that compares | t 0 | to t D / 2 ,n 2 is equivalent to comparing f 0 t 20 to f D ,1,n 2 t D / 2 ,n 2 .
55
0.9(23)
6-42. a) From the previous exercise f 0 207 . Reject H 0 :E1 0.
1 0.9
23R 2
b) Because f0.05,1,23 4.28, H 0 is rejected if ! 4.28 .
1 R2
That is, H 0 is rejected if
23R 2 ! 4.28(1 R 2 )
27.28R 2 ! 4.28
R 2 ! 0.157
6-43. For two random variables X 1 and X 2 ,

V( X1 X 2 ) V( X1 ) V( X 2 ) 2Cov( X1 , X 2 )
Then,
V(Yi Y ) V( Y ) V( Y ) 2Cov(Y , Y
i i i i i)

V 2 V(E 0 E 1xi ) 2V 2 n1
( xi x)2
S xx
( xi x)2 21 ( xi x) 2
V 2 V 2 n1 2V n
S xx S xx
( x x) 2
V 2 1 ( n1 iS )
xx
a) Because ei is divided by its standard error (when V is known), ri has a unit standard deviation.
b) No, the term in brackets in the denominator is necessary for the standardized residuals to have unit standard
deviation.
c) If xi is near x and n is reasonably large, ri is approximately equal to the standardized residual
d) If xi is far from x , the standard error of ei is small. Consequently, extreme points are better fit by least squares
regression than points near the middle range of x. Because the studentized residual at any point has variance of
approximately one, the studentized residuals can be used to compare the fit of points to the regression line over the
range of x.
6-44. a)
2
DCoutput
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
WindVel
The scatter diagram shows definite curvature. A higher-order polynomial model or a transformation of variables may
be appropriate.

DCoutput = 0.131 + 0.241 WindVel
56

Constant 0.1309 0.1260 1.04 0.310
WindVel 0.24115 0.01905 12.66 0.000
S = 0.2361 R-Sq = 87.4% R-Sq(adj) = 86.9%
y 0.131 0.241x
c) Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 8.9296 8.9296 160.26 0.000
Total 24 10.2112
The P-value from the ANOVA table is approximately zero. Therefore, reject H0 and conclude that the regression model
is significant at D = 0.01. The test can also be conducted in more detail as follows:

SS R / k
f0
SS E / ( n p)
8.92961 / 1
f0 160.257
.
128157 / 23
Because 160.257 > 4.28 reject H0 and conclude that the regression model is significant at D = 0.05.
d)
Residual Plot for DC Output Residual Plot for DC Output
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Residuals
Residuals
0 0
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Predicted Wind Velocity
The plots exhibit nonrandom patterns that indicate model inadequacy.
e) Examining the residual plots in part d), a transformation on the x-variable, y-variable, or both would be appropriate. A
simple linear regression of y on the transformed variable 1/x may be satisfactory.
f) The following analysis employs the transformed variable, 1/x

DCoutput = 2.98 - 6.93 1/WindVel

Constant 2.97886 0.04490 66.34 0.000
1/WindVe -6.9345 0.2064 -33.59 0.000
57
S = 0.09417 R-Sq = 98.0% R-Sq(adj) = 97.9%
y 2.98 6.93x where x* = 1/x
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 10.007 10.007 1128.43 0.000
Total 24 10.211

SS R / k
f0
SS E / ( n p)
10.0072 / 1
f0 1128.43
0.203970 / 23
Residual Plot for DC Output Residual Plot for DC Output
0.19 0.19
0.09 0.09
Residuals
Residuals
-0.01
-0.01
-0.11
-0.11
-0.21
-0.21
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Predicted
1/WindVel
Using 1/WindVel
From the random appearance of the residuals in the plots we conclude that he model is adequate. The transformation,
1/(Wind Velocity), appears to be satisfactory as a regressor of DC Output.
6-45. a) p = k + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3
Average size = p/n = 3/25 = 0.12
b) Leverage point criteria:

h ii ! 2( p / n)
h ii ! 2(0.12)
h ii ! 0.24
h17 ,17 0.2593
h18,18 0.2929
Points 17 and 18 are leverage points

y = 3829 - 0.215 x3 + 21.2 x4 + 1.66 x5
58

Constant 3829 2262 1.69 0.099
x3 -0.2149 0.1088 -1.97 0.056
x4 21.2134 0.9050 23.44 0.000
x5 1.6566 0.5502 3.01 0.005
S = 43.66 R-Sq = 99.3% R-Sq(adj) = 99.3%
y 3829.26 0.215x 3 21213

. x 4 1657
. x5
b) Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 9863398 3287799 1724.42 0.000
Total 39 9932036
H 0 :E 3 E4 E5 0
H 1:E j z 0 for at least one j
SS R / k
f0
SS E / ( n p)

9863398 / 3
f0 1724.42
68638.2 / 36
Because 1724.42 > 4.38 reject H0 and conclude that the regression model is significant at D = 0.01. The P-value <
0.00001
c) All at D = 0.01 t0.005,36 = 2.72

H 0 :E 3 0 H 0 :E 4 0 H 0 :E 5 0
H 1:E 3 z 0 H 1:E 4 z 0 H 1:E 5 z 0
t0 = -1.97 t0 =23.44 t0 = 3.01
| t 0 | ! t D / 2 ,36 | t 0 | ! t D / 2 ,36 | t 0 | ! t D / 2 ,36
Fail to reject H 0 Reject H 0 Reject H 0
Potentially the x3 term can be removed from the model.
d) R2 = 0.993 R 2adj 0.9925

The slight decrease in R 2adj may be reflective of the insignificant x3 term.
e)
59
Normal Probability Plot
99.9
99
95
cumulative percent
80
50
20
0.1
-80 -50 -20 10 40 70 100
Residuals
The normality assumption appears reasonable. The residuals fall along a line.
f)
Residual Plot
100
70
40
Residuals
10
-20
-50
-80
3 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8

Predicted (X 1000)
The plot is satisfactory. There does not appear to be a nonrandom pattern in the residual vs. predicted plot.
g)
60
Residual Plot for y
100
70
40
Residuals
10
-20
-50
-80
28 28.4 28.8 29.2 29.6 30 30.4

(X 1000)
x3
There is a slight indication that variance increases as x3 increases. There is a fanning out appearance of the
residuals.
h) Using the equation found in part a):
y 3829.26 0.215(28900) 21.213(170) 1.657(1589) 3854.943

y* = 19.7 - 1.27 x3* + 0.00541 x4 +0.000408 x5

Constant 19.690 9.587 2.05 0.047
x3* -1.2673 0.9594 -1.32 0.195
x4 0.0054140 0.0002711 19.97 0.000
x5 0.0004079 0.0001645 2.48 0.018
S = 0.01314 R-Sq = 99.1% R-Sq(adj) = 99.0%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 0.68611 0.22870 1323.62 0.000
Residual Error 36 0.00622 0.00017
Total 39 0.69233
H 0:E 3 E4 E5 0
H 1:E j z 0 for at least one j
SS R / k
f0
SS E / ( n p)
0.686112 / 3
f0 1323.62
0.00622033 / 36
P-value < 0.00001
61
b) D = 0.01 t .005,36 2.72

H 0:E 3 0 H 0 :E 4 0 H 0 :E 5 0
H1:E 3 z0 H 1:E 4 z 0 H 1:E 5 z 0
t0 1.32 t0 19.97 t0 2.48
| t 0 | ! t D / 2 ,36 | t 0 | ! t D / 2 ,36 | t 0 | ! t D / 2 ,36
Fail to reject H 0 Reject H 0 Fail to reject H 0
E3: Fail to reject H0. There is not sufficient evidence that the coefficient of ln(x3) in the model differs from zero at D =
0.01.
E4: Reject H0. The coefficient of x4 in the models differs from zero at D = 0.01.
E5: Fail to reject H0. There is not sufficient evidence that the coefficient of x5 in the model differs from zero at D =
0.01.
c)
Residual Plot for ln(y)

Residual Plot for ln(y) (X 1E-3)
(X 1E-3)
38
38
28
28
18
18
Residuals
Residuals
8
8
-2
-2
-12 -12
-22 -22
8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032
(X 0.01)
Predicted ln(x3)
Curvature is evident in the residuals plots from this model, whereas non-constant variance was evident in the previous
model.
6-48. a)
62

SS R / k
f0
SS E / ( n p)
26.633 / 2
f0 572
0.163 / 7
Because 572 > 4.74 reject H0 and conclude that the regression model is significant at D = 0.05.
c) H 0 :E11 0
H 1:E11 z 0
E 1 E1,0
t0
se(E )
1
Using the results from the table given in part a)
0.005699 0
t0 9.498
0.0006
Because 9.498 < 2.365 reject H 0 and conclude the quadratic term contributes significantly to the model at D = 0.05.
d)
63
There might be a slight indication of non-constant variance. There is greater variability in the residuals as the predicted
values decrease.
e)
Normality assumption is reasonable. The residuals fall along a line.
6- 49. a)
64
Engineering Statistics 5th edition, SI
6- 49. Note: Problem 6-49 should read as follows:
a)
The simple linear regression model seems appropriate. The data fall along a straight line.
65
b)
= 0.28 + 20.6x
c) = 0.28 + 20.6(1) = 20.88
d)
= 0.28 + 20.6(0.5) = 10.58
ei yi y i 11.8 10.58 1.22
e) The least squares estimate minimizes ( y i x i ) 2 .
Upon setting the derivative equal to zero, we obtain
2 ( y x )( x ) 2[ y x x 2 ] 0
i i i i i i
Solving for ,
yi xi
2
xi
f)
= 0.28 + 20.6x
66
Examining the plot, the model seems appropriate in this case. In part b) the coefficient for the intercept was not
significantly different from zero (P-value = 0.811) so that the zero intercept model could be expected to provide an
adequate fit in this exercise.

6-50. a) has a t distribution with n 1 degrees of freedom.
2
x2i
b) From the previous exercsie
21031461
. , 3.611768, and
x 2i 14.7073 .
Therefore,
21031461
.
t0 22.3314 and H 0 : 0 is rejected at usual values.
3.611768
14.7073
6-51. a)
A linear regression model seems appropriate. The data fall along a line.
67
b)
c) y 18101.3 254.85(20) 13004.3
d)
68

If there were no error, the values would all lie along the 45 axis. YES, the plot indicates that age is a reasonable
regressor variable.
6-52. a)
Plot of Strength vs z=x-xbar Plot of Strength vs Age
2800 2800
2600 2600
2400 2400
Strength
Strength
2200 2200
2000 2000
1800 1800
1600 1600
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 0 5 10 15 20 25
z Age
The slopes of both regression models are the same, but the y-intercepts differ.

y = 2132 - 37.0 z

Constant 2132.41 22.15 96.28 0.000
z -36.962 2.967 -12.46 0.000
S = 99.05 R-Sq = 89.6% R-Sq(adj) = 89.0%
y 2132.41 36.9618x
69
0 2625.39 0 2132.41
vs.
36.9618
1 1 36.9618
Because the data is shifted by the mean of age, the intercept in the model Y 0* 1* z is now the average of
strength.
1
6-53. t0
2 / S xx
After the transformation
b
1 1 ,
a
S xx a 2 S xx ,
x ax , 0 b 0 ,
and b .
b 1 / a ( b / a ) 1 1
Therefore, t 0 t0 .
( b ) 2 / a 2Sxx ( b / a ) 2 Sxx 2 Sxx
6-54. H 0 :1 10
H 1:1 10
1 1,0
t0
se( )
1
Reject H0 if t0 < t/2,n-2 where t0.005,10 = 3.17 or t0 > t0.005,10 = 3.17
Using the data from the referenced exercise
9.21 10
t0 23.37
0.0338
Because 23.37 < 3.17 reject H 0 . The coefficient of the regressor is significantly different from 10 at = 0.01.
P-value = 0.
Response is y*
x
x x 3 x x x
Vars R-Sq R-Sq(adj) C-p S 1 2 * 4 5 6
1 98.8 98.7 54.7 0.015088 X

1 98.5 98.5 72.0 0.016462 X
2 99.1 99.0 32.7 0.013115 X X
2 99.1 99.0 34.4 0.013277 X X
3 99.5 99.4 6.8 0.010145 X X X
3 99.4 99.4 10.9 0.010663 X X X
4 99.5 99.5 4.6 0.0097127 X X X X
4 99.5 99.4 6.3 0.0099487 X X X X
5 99.5 99.5 5.1 0.0096421 X X X X X
5 99.5 99.5 6.6 0.0098471 X X X X X
6 99.5 99.5 7.0 0.0097668 X X X X X X

Response is y* on 6 predictors, with N = 40
Step 1 2 3 4 5
Constant 7.275 6.837 6.698 6.728 -15.490
x4 0.00565 0.00430 0.00332 0.00333 0.00280

T-Value 54.80 11.31 6.52 7.98 5.63
70
P-Value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
x2 0.00003 0.00006 0.00003 0.00002

T-Value 3.65 4.66 2.52 1.23
P-Value 0.001 0.000 0.016 0.227
x6 -0.00159 -0.00330 -0.00461

T-Value -2.66 -5.25 -4.86
P-Value 0.011 0.000 0.000
x5 0.00041 0.00026
T-Value 4.33 2.11
P-Value 0.000 0.042
x3* 2.2
T-Value 1.81
P-Value 0.080
S 0.0151 0.0131 0.0122 0.00995 0.00964

R-Sq 98.75 99.08 99.23 99.50 99.54
R-Sq(adj) 98.72 99.03 99.17 99.44 99.48
C-p 54.7 32.7 23.7 6.3 5.1

Response is y* on 6 predictors, with N = 40
Step 1 2 3
Constant -16.26 -15.49 -23.51
x1 -0.00004
T-Value -0.37
P-Value 0.713
x2 0.00002 0.00002
T-Value 1.25 1.23
P-Value 0.220 0.227
x3* 2.3 2.2 3.0

T-Value 1.82 1.81 2.90
P-Value 0.078 0.080 0.006
x4 0.00312 0.00280 0.00296

T-Value 3.14 5.63 6.12
P-Value 0.004 0.000 0.000
x5 0.00027 0.00026 0.00026

T-Value 2.11 2.11 2.07
P-Value 0.042 0.042 0.046
x6 -0.00463 -0.00461 -0.00501

T-Value -4.81 -4.86 -5.56
P-Value 0.000 0.000 0.000
S 0.00977 0.00964 0.00971

R-Sq 99.55 99.54 99.52
R-Sq(adj) 99.46 99.48 99.47
C-p 7.0 5.1 4.6
d) The model with only x3*, x4, x5, and x6 seems to be the best among all. It has a high R-Sq(adj) and small Cp value.
Response is Sat
S
A S u A
Mallows g e r n
Vars R-Sq R-Sq(adj) C-p S e v g x
71
1 82.1 80.8 4.4 9.3577 X

1 57.0 54.0 27.3 14.487 X
2 87.9 86.1 1.1 7.9723 X X
2 83.0 80.4 5.5 9.4476 X X
3 88.0 85.0 3.0 8.2768 X X X
3 87.9 84.9 3.0 8.2942 X X X
4 88.0 83.6 5.0 8.6446 X X X X
Step 1 2
Constant 136.2 146.7
Age -1.43 -1.12

T-Value -8.01 -5.76
P-Value 0.000 0.000
Sev -0.56
T-Value -2.51
P-Value 0.026
S 9.36 7.97
R-Sq 82.07 87.92
R-Sq(adj) 80.79 86.06
Mallows C-p 4.4 1.1
Step 1 2 3
Constant 146.2 146.2 146.7
Age -1.12 -1.12 -1.12

T-Value -5.25 -5.51 -5.76
P-Value 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sev -0.59 -0.59 -0.56

T-Value -2.11 -2.22 -2.51
P-Value 0.058 0.046 0.026
Surg 0.1
T-Value 0.03
P-Value 0.979
Anx 0.5 0.6

T-Value 0.22 0.25
P-Value 0.832 0.809
S 8.64 8.28 7.97

R-Sq 87.98 87.98 87.92
R-Sq(adj) 83.61 84.97 86.06
Mallows C-p 5.0 3.0 1.1
d) Model with only age and severity seems to be the best among all. It has a large R-Sq(adj) and small Cp and S
values.

rads = - 440 + 19.1 mAmps + 68.1 exposure time

Constant -440.39 94.20 -4.68 0.000
mAmps 19.147 3.460 5.53 0.000
exposure time 68.080 5.241 12.99 0.000
72
S = 235.718 R-Sq = 84.3% R-Sq(adj) = 83.5%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 11076473 5538237 99.67 0.000
Total 39 13132310
a) y 440.39 19.147 x1 68.080 x 2

where x1 mAmps x 2 ExposureTime
b) 55563
2
se( 0 ) 94.20 , se( 1 ) 3.460 , and se( 2 ) 5.241

c) Based on the P-values from the t-test for each coefficient in the table above, both coefficients differ from zero at the
d) y 440.39 19.147(15) 68.080(5) 187.215
se( Y 15,5 ) 47.1
95% PI = (-299.8, 674.3)

ARSNAILS = 0.488 - 0.00077 AGE - 0.0227 DRINKUSE - 0.0415 COOKUSE
+ 13.2 ARSWATER

Constant 0.4875 0.4272 1.14 0.271
AGE -0.000767 0.003508 -0.22 0.830
DRINKUSE -0.02274 0.04747 -0.48 0.638
COOKUSE -0.04150 0.08408 -0.49 0.628
ARSWATER 13.240 1.679 7.89 0.000
S = 0.236010 R-Sq = 81.2% R-Sq(adj) = 76.5%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 4 3.84906 0.96227 17.28 0.000
Residual Error 16 0.89121 0.05570
Total 20 4.74028
a) y 0.4875 0.000767 x1 0.02274 x 2 0.04150 x3 13.240 x 4 where

x1 AGE x 2 DrinkUse x3 CookUse x 4 ARSWater
b) 2 0.05570 se( 0 ) 0.4272 , se( 1 ) 0.003508 , se( 2 ) 0.04747 , se( 3 ) 0.08408 , and se( 4 ) 1.679
c) y 0.4875 0.000767(30) 0.02274(5) 0.04150(5) 13.240(0.135) 1.9307
73

Engineering Statistic ch06

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Statistic ch06

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Statistics 5th edition October 01, 2010

6-1. a) The regression equation is

Predictor Coef StDev T P

c) SSE = 0.000001370 V 2 = 0.000000342

g) See the Minitab output given in part a.

i) E0: 0.024934 r 2.776(0.001786); 0.02, 0.03

j) Residual plots appear reasonable. The model provides an adequate fit.

Residuals Versus Density

0.18 0.23 0.28

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values

0.050 0.055 0.060

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals

-0.0005 0.0000 0.0005

d) se( E1 ) = 2.648, se( E 0 ) = 0.05328

g) See the Minitab output given in part a).

i) E0: 8.51 r 2.228(2.648); 2.61, 14.41

j) Residual plots appear reasonable, so the model provides an adequate fit.

6-3. a) The regression equation is

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

S = 0.006473 R-Sq = 64.5% R-Sq(adj) = 62.6%

Residuals Versus Temp

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values

0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals

c) SSE = 44758 V 2 = 3730

6-5. a) The regression equation is

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

S = 1.038 R-Sq = 86.6% R-Sq(adj) = 85.6%

c) SSE = 13.999 V 2 = 1.077

Residuals Versus strength

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals

b) The regression equation is

Predictor Coef StDev T P

S = 1.318 R-Sq = 74.8% R-Sq(adj) = 73.4%

6-9. The regression equation is y 0.393  0.00333 x

6-10. The regression equation is y 430  22.4x

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

S = 1.05743 R-Sq = 85.2% R-Sq(adj) = 83.1%

Graph of Stress level vs Deflection

b) y 32.05  0.277(75) 11.275

6-14. a) The regression equation is

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

S = 0.287281 R-Sq = 94.7% R-Sq(adj) = 94.1%

b) y 0.658  0.178(13) 2.972

d) y 0.658  0.178(8) 2.082

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

6-15. a) MINITAB output

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

S = 0.197 R-Sq = 88.7% R-Sq(adj) = 87.8%

P Y x  t 0.025,12 se( P Y x ) d P Y x d P Y x  t 0.025,12 se( P Y x )

1.911  2.179(0.057) d P Y x d 1.911  2.179(0.057)

1.911  0.124 d P Y x d 1.911  0.124

6-16. a) MINITAB output

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

S = 0.632 R-Sq = 93.8% R-Sq(adj) = 93.3%

E1  t 0.025,14 se( E1 ) d E 1 d E1  t 0.025,14 se( E1 )

 4.01  2.145(0.164) d P Y x d 4.01  2.145(0.164)

 4.01  0.352 d P Y x d 4.01  0.352

6-17. a) The regression equation is

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P VIF

S = 25.50 R-Sq = 86.2% R-Sq(adj) = 77.0%

h) E0: 350.99 r 3.182(74.74); 113.17, 588.81

6-9. The regression equation is y 0.393 0.00333 x

6-10. The regression equation is y 430 22.4x

b) y 32.05 0.277(75) 11.275

b) y 0.658 0.178(13) 2.972

d) y 0.658 0.178(8) 2.082

P Y x t 0.025,12 se( P Y x ) d P Y x d P Y x t 0.025,12 se( P Y x )

1.911 2.179(0.057) d P Y x d 1.911 2.179(0.057)

1.911 0.124 d P Y x d 1.911 0.124

E1 t 0.025,14 se( E1 ) d E 1 d E1 t 0.025,14 se( E1 )

4.01 2.145(0.164) d P Y x d 4.01 2.145(0.164)

4.01 0.352 d P Y x d 4.01 0.352

The regression equation is y 0.110 0.407 x1 2.11x2 where

The regression equation is y 103 0.605 x1 8.92 x2 1.44 x3 0.014 x4

a) y 238.56 0.3339 x1 2.7167 x 2

d) y 238.56 0.3339(70) 2.7167(65) 85.3475