Designed Experimentation Solutions for HW3 6.7 An experiment was performed to improve the yield of a chemical process.

Four factor were selected, and two replicates of a completely randomized experiment were run. The results are shown in the following table: a) Estimate the factor effects.
Estimated Effects and Coefficients for C9 (coded units) Term Constant A B C D A*B A*C A*D B*C B*D C*D A*B*C A*B*D A*C*D B*C*D A*B*C*D Effect -9.063 -1.313 -2.687 3.937 4.062 0.688 -2.187 -0.563 -0.188 1.688 -5.187 4.687 -0.938 -0.938 2.437 Coef 82.781 -4.531 -0.656 -1.344 1.969 2.031 0.344 -1.094 -0.281 -0.094 0.844 -2.594 2.344 -0.469 -0.469 1.219 SE Coef 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 0.4891 T 169.24 -9.26 -1.34 -2.75 4.02 4.15 0.70 -2.24 -0.57 -0.19 1.72 -5.30 4.79 -0.96 -0.96 2.49 P 0.000 0.000 0.198 0.014 0.001 0.001 0.492 0.040 0.573 0.850 0.104 0.000 0.000 0.352 0.352 0.024

S = 2.76699

R-Sq = 92.47%

R-Sq(adj) = 85.42%

Answer: There are a number of significant terms (w/ P values LE 0.05): A, C, D, AB, AD, ABC, ABD, ABCD. Since factor B is included in an interaction, it will also be added to the model in the next step. b) Prepare an analysis of variance table, and determine which factors are important in explaining yield.
Term Constant A B C D A*B A*D A*B*C A*B*D A*B*C*D Effect -9.063 -1.312 -2.687 3.937 4.062 -2.187 -5.188 4.688 2.437 Coef 82.781 -4.531 -0.656 -1.344 1.969 2.031 -1.094 -2.594 2.344 1.219 SE Coef 0.4855 0.4855 0.4855 0.4855 0.4855 0.4855 0.4855 0.4855 0.4855 0.4855 T 170.51 -9.33 -1.35 -2.77 4.06 4.18 -2.25 -5.34 4.83 2.51 P 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.011 0.001 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.020

S = 2.74638

R-Sq = 89.80%

R-Sq(adj) = 85.63%

Analysis of Variance for C9 (coded units) Source Main Effects 2-Way Interactions 3-Way Interactions 4-Way Interactions Residual Error Lack of Fit Pure Error Total DF 4 2 2 1 22 6 16 31 Seq SS 852.63 170.31 391.06 47.53 165.94 43.44 122.50 1627.47 Adj SS 852.63 170.31 391.06 47.53 165.94 43.44 122.50 Adj MS 213.156 85.156 195.531 47.531 7.543 7.240 7.656 F 28.26 11.29 25.92 6.30 0.95 P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.491

Unusual Observations for C9 Obs 13 StdOrder 13 C9 99.0000 Fit 92.6875 SE Fit 1.5353 Residual 6.3125 St Resid 2.77R

Answer: The same factors and interactions are still influential as were found in part a. Factor B does not contribute to the overall model, (i.e., is not statistically significant at the a=0.05 level) but has been added to maintain the hierarchy of effects. c) Write down a regression model for predicting yield, assuming that all four factors were varied over the range from -1 to +1 (in coded units).
y = 82 .78 4.53 X A 1.34 X C +1.97 X D + 2.03 X AB 1.09 X AD 2.59 X ABC + 2.34 X ABD +1.22 X ABCD

Answer: The regression model appears above. Coefficients were obtained from the Minitab analysis above. d) Plot the residuals vs. predicted yield and a normal probability plot. Does the residual analysis appear satisfactory?

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals

(response is C9)
99

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

-3

-2

-1 0 1 Standardized Residual

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values

(response is C9) 3

Standardized Residual

-1

-2 70 75 80 85 F itted Value 90 95 100

Answer: Both the NPP and Residuals vs. Fitted values appear to support the ANOVA analysis assumptions of e~NID(0, 2). The NPP passes the fat pen test indicating

normality and the scatter plot has a shotgun pattern indicating independently distributed residuals with mean equal to zero and constant variance. e) Two three-factor interactions, ABC and ABD, apparently have large effects. Draw a cube plot in the factors A, B and C with the average yields shown at each corner. Repeat using the factors A, B and D. Do these two plots aid in data interpretation? Where would you recommend that the process be run with respect to the four variables?

Cube Plot (data means) for C9

85.25 75.75

84.00 1

83.50

86.00

78.75 1 C

94.00 -1 -1 A

75.00 -1 1

Cube Plot (data means) for C9

85.25 82.75

84.00 1

76.50

95.50

75.50 1 D

84.50 -1 -1 A

78.25 -1 1

Answer: The two cube plots appear above. The recommended setting for maximizing yield is A: low, B: low, C: low and D: high. This information comes from studying the two cube plots and determining which side of the cube (for each factor) has the higher average response. The selection is confirmed by examining the regression equation and

seeing that it agrees with the results listed above (Factors A, B, and C at the low level and factor D at the high level). 6-15 A nickel-titanium alloy is used to make components for jet turbine aircraft engines. Cracking is a potentially serious problem in the final part because it can lead to nonrecoverable failure. A test is run at the parts producer to determine the effect of four factors on cracks. The four factors are pouring temperature (A), titanium content (B), heat treatment (C), and mount of grain refiner used (D). Two replicates of a 24 design are run, and the length of the crack (in mm X 10-2) induced in a sample coupon subjected to a standard test is measured. The data are shown in the following table a) Estimate the factor effects. Which factor effects appear to be large?
Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Crack Length (coded units) Term Constant Pour Temp TI content Heat Treat Amt Grain Ref Pour Temp*TI content Pour Temp*Heat Treat Pour Temp*Amt Grain Ref TI content*Heat Treat TI content*Amt Grain Ref Heat Treat*Amt Grain Ref Pour Temp*TI content*Heat Treat Pour Temp*TI content*Amt Grain Ref Pour Temp*Heat Treat*Amt Grain Ref TI content*Heat Treat*Amt Grain Ref Pour Temp*TI content*Heat Treat* Amt Grain Ref S = 0.284885 R-Sq = 99.77% Effect 3.019 3.976 -3.596 1.958 1.934 -4.008 0.076 0.096 0.047 -0.077 3.137 0.098 0.019 0.036 0.014 Coef 11.988 1.509 1.988 -1.798 0.979 0.967 -2.004 0.038 0.048 0.024 -0.038 1.569 0.049 0.010 0.018 0.007 SE Coef 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 T 238.04 29.97 39.47 -35.70 19.44 19.20 -39.79 0.76 0.95 0.47 -0.76 31.15 0.97 0.19 0.35 0.14 P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.459 0.355 0.645 0.456 0.000 0.345 0.852 0.728 0.890

R-Sq(adj) = 99.56%

Answer: Factors A, B, C, D, AB, AC, and ABC are all significant at the 99.9% level as indicated by their small P values. b) Conduct an analysis of variance. Do any of the factors affect cracking? Use =0.05.
Effect 3.019 3.976 -3.596 1.958 1.934 -4.008 3.137 Coef 11.988 1.509 1.988 -1.798 0.979 0.967 -2.004 1.569 SE Coef 0.04530 0.04530 0.04530 0.04530 0.04530 0.04530 0.04530 0.04530 T 264.66 33.32 43.89 -39.70 21.61 21.35 -44.24 34.63 P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Crack Length (coded units) Term Constant Pour Temp TI content Heat Treat Amt Grain Ref Pour Temp*TI content Pour Temp*Heat Treat Pour Temp*TI content*Heat Treat S = 0.256234 R-Sq = 99.72%

R-Sq(adj) = 99.64%

Analysis of Variance for Crack Length (coded units) Source Main Effects 2-Way Interactions 3-Way Interactions Residual Error Lack of Fit Pure Error Total DF 4 2 1 24 8 16 31 Seq SS 333.496 158.423 78.751 1.576 0.277 1.299 572.246 Adj SS 333.496 158.423 78.751 1.576 0.277 1.299 Adj MS 83.3740 79.2116 78.7512 0.0657 0.0346 0.0812 F 1269.86 1206.46 1199.45 0.43 P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.888

Unusual Observations for Crack Length Obs 16 StdOrder 16 Crack Length 15.6530 Fit 15.1981 SE Fit 0.1281 Residual 0.4549 St Resid 2.05R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual.

Normal Probability Plot of the Standardized Effects

(response is Crack Length, Alpha = .05)
99 Effect Type Not Significant Significant B ABC A D AB C AC
Factor A B C D Name Pour Temp TI content Heat Treat Amt Grain Ref

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

-40

-30

-20

-10 0 10 20 Standardized Effect

30

40

50

Answer: The ANOVA analysis confirms that all four main effects and the AB, AC and ABC interactions are significant at the 99.9% level as indicated by their small P values. This is confirmed by the NPP of effects which indicates significance levels for all included variables. c) Write down a regression model that can be used to predict crack length as a function of the significant main effects and interactions you have identified in part b. Answer: The regression model appears above. Coefficients were obtained from the Minitab analysis above.

y = 11 .99 +1.51 X A +1.99 X B 1.80 X C + 0.98 X D + 0.97 X AB 2.00 X AC +1.57 X ABC

d) Analyze the residuals from this experiment.

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals
(response is Crack Length)
99

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

-3

-2

-1 0 1 Standardized Residual

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values

(response is Crack Length) 2

Standardized Residual

-1

-2 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 F itted Value 15.0 17.5 20.0

Answer: Both the NPP and Residuals vs. Fitted values appear to support the ANOVA analysis assumptions of e~NID(0, 2). The NPP passes the fat pen test indicating normality and the scatter plot has a shotgun pattern indicating independently distributed residuals with mean equal to zero and constant variance.

e) Is there an indication that any of the factors affect the variability in cracking? Answer: Yes, our ANOVA tells us that all the main effects, and the AB, AC and ABC interactions are all contributing to the variability in crack length with significance levels all in excess of 99.9%. In fact, this model explains close to 100% of the variability in crack length as shown by R2 values of greater than 99%. f) What recommendations would you make regarding process operations? Use interaction or main effects plots to assist in drawing conclusions. g)
Main Effects Plot (data means) for Crack Length
13.0

Mean of Crack Length

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0 -1 Amt G rain Ref 1

Interaction Plot (data means) for Crack Length

-1 16 1

12

Pour T emp

Pour Temp -1 1

8 16

TI content -1 1

TI content

12

8 16

12

Heat T reat

Heat Treat -1 1

8 -1 1 -1 1

Cube Plot (data means) for Crack Length

10.1845 14.2673

12.8145 1

18.6378

TI content

11.1843

5.1238 1 Heat Treat

7.7313 -1 -1 Pour Tem p

15.9613 -1 1

Answer: The main effect D is not involved in any significant interactions, therefore a main effect plot shows that a smaller crack is achieved with that factor at the low setting. To select the rest of the recommended settings, it is helpful to look at the cube plot of ABC. On this plot it is best to compare the opposite sides of the cube. Here we see that a lower pour temperature (A) is recommended (by comparing the

left and right sides of the cube we see lower average values on the left side). For factor B we compare the top and bottom of the cube and see lower average values on the bottom indicating that we should use the higher titanium content for improved yield. For factor C, we compare the front and back of the cube and from the interaction plots above, we find that we should select the high setting. This is also consistent with the decision to hold factor A at the low setting from the AC interaction plot, we see improved results with the high setting of factor C. 6-16 Continuing with 6-15. One of the variables in the experiment in 6-15, heat treatment method (C), is a categorical variable. Assume that the remaining factors are continuous. a) Write two regression models for predicting crack length, one for each level of the heat treatment method variable. What differences, if any, do you notice in these two equations?
Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Crack (coded units) Term Constant A B C A*B A*C B*C A*B*C Effect 7.0266 3.8799 2.0346 -1.2034 0.0574 0.0116 0.0839 Coef 13.7862 3.5133 1.9399 1.0173 -0.6017 0.0287 0.0058 0.0419 SE Coef 0.07570 0.07570 0.07570 0.07570 0.07570 0.07570 0.07570 0.07570 T 182.12 46.41 25.63 13.44 -7.95 0.38 0.08 0.55 P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.715 0.941 0.595

S = 0.302801

R-Sq = 99.74%

R-Sq(adj) = 99.51%

Answer: To create this analysis, the results for crack length for the low setting were put in a 23 twice replicated design and analyzed. The regression model changed from: Original: Modified to C = - setting:
y = 13 .79 + 3.51 X A +1.94 X B +1.02 X D 0.60 X AB

y = 11 .99 +1.51 X A +1.99 X B 1.80 X C + 0.98 X D + 0.97 X AB 2.00 X AC +1.57 X ABC

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Crack (coded units) Term Constant A B C A*B A*C B*C A*B*C Effect -0.9889 4.0719 1.8809 5.0716 0.0956 0.0829 0.1121 Coef 10.1899 -0.4944 2.0359 0.9404 2.5358 0.0478 0.0414 0.0561 SE Coef 0.06644 0.06644 0.06644 0.06644 0.06644 0.06644 0.06644 0.06644 T 153.37 -7.44 30.64 14.15 38.17 0.72 0.62 0.84 P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.492 0.550 0.423

S = 0.265764

R-Sq = 99.70%

R-Sq(adj) = 99.44%

Answer: To create this analysis, the results for crack length for the high setting were put in a 23 twice replicated design and analyzed. The regression model changed from: Original: Modified to C = + setting:
y = 10 .19 0.49 X A + 2.04 X B + 0.94 X D + 2.54 X AB

y = 11 .99 +1.51 X A +1.99 X B 1.80 X C + 0.98 X D + 0.97 X AB 2.00 X AC +1.57 X ABC

b) Generate appropriate response surface contour plots for the two regression models in part a.
Contour Plot of Crack vs B, A
1.0
Crack < 8 8 - 10 10 - 12 12 - 14 14 - 16 > 16 Hold Values C -1

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-0.5

0.0 A

0.5

1.0

Answer: Since the original factor D (referred to in this reduced model as factor C) was not involved in any significant interactions and since the lower setting was recommended, we see the contour plot above with C held at the low heat treat setting.

Contour Plot of Crack vs B, A

1.0
Crack < 5.0 5.0 7.5 7.5 - 10.0 10.0 - 12.5 > 12.5 Hold Values C -1

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-0.5

0.0 A

0.5

1.0

Answer: Since Original factor D is not involved in an interaction and the lower setting was recommended, we see a contour plot above that was created with factor C at the high heat treat setting.

c) What set of conditions would you recommend for the factors A, B and D if you use heat treatment method C=+?
Interaction Plot (data means) for Crack
14 13 12 11 Mean 10 9 8 7 6 5 -1 B 1
A -1 1

Answer: From the interaction plot above, we see that the smallest crack length is obtained with A at the high setting and B at the low setting. This is consistent with the contour plot from part b. We again will recommend that factor D be held at the low setting, as was found from the original analysis.

d) Repeat part c assuming that you wish to use heat treatment method C= -.
Interaction Plot (data means) for Crack
20 18 16 Mean 14 12 10 8 -1 B 1
A -1 1

Answer: There is a much smaller interaction for factors A and B when heat treatment method (-) is used. We see that we get the smallest crack length when both factors A and B are held at their low levels. Once again we recommend holding factor D at the low setting as was found from the original analysis. 7-3) Consider the alloy cracking experiment in problem 6-15. Suppose that only 16 runs could be made on a single day, so each replicate was treated as a block. Analyze the experiment and draw conclusions.
Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Crack (coded units) Term Constant Block A B C D A*B A*C A*D B*C B*D C*D A*B*C A*B*D A*C*D B*C*D A*B*C*D Effect 3.019 3.976 -3.596 1.958 1.934 -4.008 0.077 0.096 0.047 -0.077 3.138 0.098 0.019 0.036 0.014 Coef 11.988 0.022 1.509 1.988 -1.798 0.979 0.967 -2.004 0.038 0.048 0.024 -0.038 1.569 0.049 0.010 0.018 0.007 SE Coef 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 0.05169 T 231.90 0.43 29.20 38.46 -34.78 18.94 18.71 -38.76 0.74 0.93 0.46 -0.74 30.35 0.95 0.18 0.34 0.14 P 0.000 0.673 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.471 0.368 0.654 0.469 0.000 0.358 0.856 0.735 0.893

S = 0.292428

R-Sq = 99.78%

R-Sq(adj) = 99.54%

Analysis of Variance for Crack (coded units) Source Blocks Main Effects 2-Way Interactions 3-Way Interactions 4-Way Interactions Residual Error Total DF 1 4 6 4 1 15 31 Seq SS 0.016 333.496 158.609 78.841 0.002 1.283 572.246 Adj SS 0.016 333.496 158.609 78.841 0.002 1.283 Adj MS 0.0158 83.3740 26.4348 19.7103 0.0016 0.0855 F 0.19 974.97 309.13 230.49 0.02 P 0.673 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.893

Answer: We see that blocks was not a significant variable, indicating that there was no variation from one day to the next. The same results finding factors A, B, C, D and the AB, AC and ABC interactions as highly significant has not changed from the previous questions. This is indicated by the small P values for these terms showing that they are statistically significant at the 99.9% level. The model once again explains over 99% of the variability in crack length as shown by the R2 values.