Design of Engineering Experiments

12/4/2000
Design of Engineering Experiments
IEE 572 (Fall2000)
PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by:
Balkiz Oztemir
Ravi Abraham
Vijai Atavane
Page 1 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
C!ORIE !O"" ""OCITED #IT$ E%ERCI"E E&'IP(E)T
O*+e,ti-e of t.e Experiment/
The following experiment tries to maximize the calories burned using biccle
exercise e!uipment with three different design factors namel" the speed #rpm$ of the
e!uipment" the duration of the exercise #time$ and the le%el of difficult&
C.oi,e of Fa,tors0 !e-els an1 Ranges/
' preliminar obser%ation of the biccle e!uipment indicates three conditions with
different difficult le%els ranging from 1(10#10 being the most difficult$& These
conditions are)
*andom +ondition
,ill +ondition
-anual +ondition
.e ha%e selected one of the abo%e conditions" that is /*andom +ondition0 for
running all of our obser%ations with two different difficult le%els #11 and 12$ and two
other parameters" namel time and rpm& .e ha%e selected 2 biccles randoml for the
experiment& The following are the design parameters3
Difficult le%el #1e%el 1 and 1e%el 2$
*pm #40 and 50$
Time in minutes #6 and 10$
7ther factors that might affect the experiment ha%e been classified as follows)
Held- Constant Fators:
Diet) The person using the training e!uipment for our experiment is alread a
member at / .eight .atchers .eight 1oss Program0& 8nder this program the
food that is consumed corresponds to certain number points #1(2(2 step
program$&
9ender
Page 2 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
!uisane Fators:
:nherent %ariabilit in the e!uipment
Training effect
;tate of ,ealth&
The following table summarizes the factors" le%els and ranges&
"!
)o
Fa,tors T2pe Pre,ision Range
(!o3)
Range
($ig.)
1 Difficult le%el +ategorical :n increments of 1 1e%el 1 1e%el 2
2 *pm <umerical 1 rpm 40 50
2 Time <umerical 1 minute 6 minutes 10 minutes
"ele,tion of Response 4aria*le/
+alories burnt ha%e been selected as the response %ariable for the experiment& This
can be measured b obser%ing the readings directl on different biccle e!uipment& The
following table summarizes the characteristics of the response %ariable&
Response
-aria*le
)ormal Operating
!e-el an1 Range
(,alories)
(eas5rement
pre,ision an1
a,,5ra,2
Relations.ip of response
-aria*le to o*+e,ti-e
+alories 0(=== 1east count of 1 's high as possible

C.oi,e of experimental 1esign/
.ith the abo%e design parameters" we propose conducting a 2
6
,ompletel2
ran1omi7e1 *lo,8 1esign9 .e propose to use 2 different biccle e!uipments in a
random order and bloc> each biccle in order to reduce the %ariabilit that might affect
the results& The choice of bloc>ing is also attributed to eliminating the >nown and
controllable factor that is diet in the particular experiment& Thus" we can sstematicall
eliminate its effect on the statistical comparisons among treatments #Design and 'nalsis
of Experiments" D&+& -ontgomer" 2000$& The experiment is completel randomized to
guard against the un>nown and uncontrollable factors& ,ence" three biccles" each in one
bloc> and three replicates are chosen for the design
The choice of number of replicates had been decided with the help of design expert&
' replicate size of two indicates a 2 standard de%iation of =2&?@ and replicate size of 2
Page 2 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
indicates ==&4 @ at =6@ confidence inter%al& ;ince a higher standard de%iation reflects
better difference in %ariabilit" we therefore ha%e performed a 2
6
,ompletel2 ran1omi7e1
*lo,8 1esign9
Performing t.e experiment/
The experiment was conducted in the ;tudent *ecreation +omplex of 'rizona ;tate
8ni%ersit& Aefore running the original experiment" few pilot runs were carried out to
obser%e the response %ariable and to chec> the %ariabilit in the sstem& These runs
pro%ided consistenc in the experimental data&
The experiment was conducted in bloc>s as planned and all the runs in each bloc>
were randomized& 'll the runs in a particular bloc> were performed on one single da&
The experiment was spread o%er a period of one wee>& The following spreadsheet is a
summar of the experiment&
Standard Random Blocks Levels RPM Time Calories
Order Order
1 2 Block 1 1 60 5 24
2 13 Block 2 1 60 5 24
3 19 Block 3 1 60 5 24
4 5 Block 1 2 60 5 28
5 9 Block 2 2 60 5 27
6 23 Block 3 2 60 5 27
7 3 Block 1 1 80 5 24
8 12 Block 2 1 80 5 24
9 22 Block 3 1 80 5 24
10 6 Block 1 2 80 5 28
11 15 Block 2 2 80 5 28
12 20 Block 3 2 80 5 28
13 4 Block 1 1 60 10 46
14 10 Block 2 1 60 10 46
15 21 Block 3 1 60 10 46
16 8 Block 1 2 60 10 52
17 16 Block 2 2 60 10 53
18 24 Block 3 2 60 10 53
19 7 Block 1 1 80 10 47
20 11 Block 2 1 80 10 47
21 17 Block 3 1 80 10 47
22 1 Block 1 2 80 10 54
23 14 Block 2 2 80 10 55
24 18 Block 3 2 80 10 54
Page 4 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
"TTI"TIC! )!:"I" OF T$E DT
The statistical analsis software pac>age #Design Expert$ has been used to analze
the data collected from the experiment& The data was analzed through certain graphs and
model ade!uac testing and confidence inter%al estimation procedures were carried out&
*esidual analsis was also done& The detailed analsis of the experiment has been
enumerated herewith& The 'nalsis of Bariance table summarizes the sum of s!uares"
degrees of freedom and the C statistic for the experiment #;ee 'ppendix 1$
Estimating Fa,tor Effe,ts/
Preliminar in%estigation on the experimental results indicates negligible %ariabilit
in the response %ariable with respect to the factors considered& The raw data indicates that
the effect of time and le%el as factors contribute significantl to the response %ariable& :t
is also obser%ed that for a few treatment combinations the %alue of the response %ariable
i&e& calories burnt was the same& This can be seen from runs 4 and 10 of the experimental
data& The %alue of the response remains more or less the same for certain runs in different
bloc>s&
"tatisti,al Testing of t.e Initial (o1el/
The statistical analsis was conducted considering all the main factors" the two and
three factor interactions in the initial model& Crom the '<7B' table #'ppendix 1$" the
model C %alue of 2565&41 implies the model is significant& There is onl a 0&01@ chance
that a /-odel C Balue0 this large could occur due to noise& The factor effects on the
response %ariable as shown in the '<7B' table indicate that ' #le%els$ and + #time$ are
highl significant& This can be Dudged from the C %alues and P %alues& :t is also noted that
factor A #rpm$ and the two factor interactions 'A" '+ and A+ are also significant"
though their C %alues are not as high as that of the effects ' and +& The three(factor
interaction 'A+ is negligible&
The <ormal Probabilit Plot as shown in #'ppendix 1$ does not %iolate the normalit
assumption& The independence and constant %ariance assumptions are also not %iolated&
Page 6 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Refine1 (o1el/
Crom the initial model" it can be seen that the 'A+ interaction is insignificant" hence
we drop it from the original model& ;ee modified '<7B' table #'ppendix 2$& The
%alues of *(;!uared and 'dD *(;!uared in the initial model" 0&===6 and 0&===2
respecti%el show that ==&=6@ of the total %ariabilit in the experiment is explained b
the model& The P*E;; %alue for the initial model is 6&42& 'fter refining the model the
P*E;; %alue is found to be 4&=1 indicating that we ha%e a better experiment without
'A+ interaction&
Resi15al nal2sis/
The residual graphs are shown in the Design Expert +omputer 7utput #'ppendix 2$&
' graph of residuals %s& predicted #'ppendix 2$ shows that higher the calories burnt more
is the %ariabilit in the sstem&
The plot of residuals %s& 1e%el shows that 1e%el 1 is more robust with almost no
%ariabilit in the response %ariable& 1e%el 2 indicates that the 1e%el factor has a
dispersion effect in the experiment" whereas the other factors do not indicate such an
effect #;ee 'ppendix 2$& This could also be attributed to the range in the factor le%els
being selected too close to each other& The *P- was chosen to be 40 and 50 respecti%el
considering the human potential of conducting the experiment& The same %alues in the
response %ariable for both le%els of *P- considered could be attributed to noise&
Interpretation of t.e res5lts/
Crom the modified '<7B' table" it is seen that the main effects are %er important&
The table also indicates that the two factor interactions are significant& ,owe%er" when
we loo> at the interaction graphs #'ppendix 2$" we see that the interaction among the
factors do not pla a significant role as compared to the main factors& Therefore further
in%estigation of the contour plots #'ppendix 2$ suggests that there is a slight downward
trend in the response %ariable with increase in *P- for both 1e%el 1 and 1e%el 2& 7ne of
the reasons for this trend could be the fact that more effort is re!uired to maintain a low
Page 4 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
*P- to o%ercome the inertia of the e!uipment" howe%er at the high *P- the momentum
generated b the e!uipment tends to reduce the effort re!uired b the experimenter&
Re,ommen1ations an1 Con,l5sions/
's a result of this experiment" we ha%e concluded that b running the experiment at a
low *P- for a longer time will increase the calories burnt& :ncreasing the le%el also burns
more calories under the abo%e(mentioned conditions& ,ence we recommend a low *P-
and high 1e%els and longer duration to maximize the calories burnt&
Cinall" after re%iewing the results of this experiment" we recommend that further
experimentation can be done b increasing the range of *P- #40 to 100$ to a%oid noise
and also to o%ercome the inertia effects& .e recommend a similar approach for the
1e%els&
Page ? of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
A""#!$%& -'
Page 5 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
<ote) The following statistical ouptuts ha%e been sourced from Design Expert ;oftware&
Response/Calories ;5rnt
)O4 for "ele,te1 Fa,torial (o1el
nal2sis of -arian,e ta*le <Partial s5m of s=5ares>
Sum of Mean F
Source Squares DF Square Value Prob F
Block 0.08 2 0.042
Model 3697.83 7 528.262 3858.61 < 0.0001 significant
A 170.67 1 170.667 1246.61 < 0.0001
B 4.17 1 4.167 30.43 < 0.0001
C 3504.17 1 3504.167 25595.65 < 0.0001
AB 0.67 1 0.667 4.87 0.0445
AC 16.67 1 16.667 121.74 < 0.0001
BC 1.50 1 1.500 10.96 0.0052
ABC 0.00 1 0.000 0 1.0000
Residal 1.92 14 0.137
Co! "otal 3699.83 23
"#e Model $%&ale of 3858.61 i'(lies t#e 'odel is significant. "#e!e is onl)
a 0.01* c#ance t#at a +Model $%,ale+ t#is la!ge cold occ! de to noise.
,ales of +-!o. / $+ less t#an 0.0500 indicate 'odel te!'s a!e significant.
0n t#is case A1 B1 C1 AB1 AC1 BC a!e significant 'odel te!'s.
,ales g!eate! t#an 0.1000 indicate t#e 'odel te!'s a!e not significant.
0f t#e!e a!e 'an) insignificant 'odel te!'s 2not conting t#ose !e3i!ed to s((o!t #ie!a!c#)41
'odel !edction 'a) i'(!o&e )o! 'odel.
5td. 6e&. 0.37 R%53a!ed 0.9995
Mean 37.92 Ad7 R%53a!ed 0.9992
C.,. 0.98 -!ed R%53a!ed 0.9985
-R855 5.63 Ade3 -!ecision 127.5271
"#e +-!ed R%53a!ed+ of 0.9985 is in !easona.le ag!ee'ent 9it# t#e +Ad7 R%53a!ed+ of 0.9992.
+Ade3 -!ecision+ 'eas!es t#e signal to noise !atio. A !atio g!eate! t#an 4 is desi!a.le. :o! !atio
of 127.527 indicates an ade3ate signal. "#is 'odel can .e sed to na&igate t#e design s(ace.
Page = of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Coefficient Standard !"# C$ !"# C$
Factor %stimate DF %rror Lo& 'i() V$F
0nte!ce(t 37.92 1 0.08 37.75 38.08
Block 1 %0.04 2
Block 2 0.08
%0.04
A%;e&el 2.67 1 0.08 2.50 2.83 1
B%R-M 0.42 1 0.08 0.25 0.58 1
C%"i'e 12.08 1 0.08 11.92 12.25 1
AB 0.17 1 0.08 0.00 0.33 1
AC 0.83 1 0.08 0.67 1.00 1
BC 0.25 1 0.08 0.09 0.41 1
ABC 0.00 1 0.08 %0.16 0.16 1
$inal 83ation in "e!'s of Coded $acto!s<
Calo!ies B!ned =
37.92
2.67 > A
0.42 > B
12.08 > C
0.17 > A > B
0.83 > A > C
0.25 > B > C
0.00 > A > B > C
$inal 83ation in "e!'s of Actal $acto!s<
;e&el 1
Calo!ies B!ned =
5
%0.05 > R-M
3.8 > "i'e
0.01 > R-M > "i'e
;e&el 2
Calo!ies B!ned =
3
%0.016666667 > R-M
4.466666667 > "i'e
0.01 > R-M > "i'e
Page 10 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Dia(nostics Case Statistics
Standard *ctual Predicted Student Cook+s Outlier
Order Value Value Residual Levera(e Residual Distance t
1 24 23.96 0.042 0.417 0.147 0.002 0.142
2 24 24.08 %0.083 0.417 %0.295 0.006 %0.285
3 24 23.96 0.042 0.417 0.147 0.002 0.142
4 28 27.29 0.708 0.417 2.507 0.449 3.253
5 27 27.42 %0.417 0.417 %1.474 0.155 %1.546
6 27 27.29 %0.292 0.417 %1.032 0.076 %1.035
7 24 23.96 0.042 0.417 0.147 0.002 0.142
8 24 24.08 %0.083 0.417 %0.295 0.006 %0.285
9 24 23.96 0.042 0.417 0.147 0.002 0.142
10 28 27.96 0.042 0.417 0.147 0.002 0.142
11 28 28.08 %0.083 0.417 %0.295 0.006 %0.285
12 28 27.96 0.042 0.417 0.147 0.002 0.142
13 46 45.96 0.042 0.417 0.147 0.002 0.142
14 46 46.08 %0.083 0.417 %0.295 0.006 %0.285
15 46 45.96 0.042 0.417 0.147 0.002 0.142
16 52 52.63 %0.625 0.417 %2.212 0.349 %2.642
17 53 52.75 0.250 0.417 0.885 0.056 0.877
18 53 52.63 0.375 0.417 1.327 0.126 1.368
19 47 46.96 0.042 0.417 0.147 0.002 0.142
20 47 47.08 %0.083 0.417 %0.295 0.006 %0.285
21 47 46.96 0.042 0.417 0.147 0.002 0.142
22 54 54.29 %0.292 0.417 %1.032 0.076 %1.035
23 55 54.42 0.583 0.417 2.064 0.304 2.385
24 54 54.29 %0.292 0.417 %1.032 0.076 %1.035
?ote< -!edicted &ales inclde .lock co!!ections.
-!oceed to 6iagnostic -lots 2t#e ne@t icon in (!og!ession4. Be s!e to look at t#e<
14 ?o!'al (!o.a.ilit) (lot of t#e stdentiAed !esidals to c#eck fo! no!'alit) of !esidals.
24 5tdentiAed !esidals &e!ss (!edicted &ales to c#eck fo! constant e!!o!.
34 Btlie! t &e!ss !n o!de! to look fo! otlie!s1 i.e.1 inflential &ales.
44 Bo@%Co@ (lot fo! (o9e! t!ansfo!'ations.
0f all t#e 'odel statistics and diagnostic (lots a!e BC1 finis# ( 9it# t#e Model D!a(#s icon.
Page 11 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Page 12 of 22
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
5 t d e n ti Ae d R e s i d a l s
?
o
!
'
a
l

*

(
!
o
.
a
.
i
l
i
t
)
?o !'a l ( lo t o f !e s i d a ls
% 2.21 % 1.03 0.15 1.33 2.51
1
5
10
20
30
50
70
80
90
95
99
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
4
2
44
2
4 22 22 22
22
- ! e d i c te d
R
e
s
i
d

a
l
s
Re s i d a ls &s . - !e d i c te d
% 0.625
% 0.291667
0.0416667
0.375
0.708333
23.96 31.57 39.19 46.80 54.42
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Resi15als -s9 Ea,. Design Fa,tor
Page 12 of 22
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
8
4
8
3
8
4
8 22 8
4
88
4
8
33
; e &e l
R
e
s
i
d

a
l
s
Re s i d a ls &s . ; e &e l
% 0.625
% 0.291667
0.0416667
0.375
0.708333
1 2
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
4
2
4 6
3
66
3
6 4
2
4 6
3
6
22
R - M
R
e
s
i
d

a
l
s
Re s i d a ls &s . R- M
% 0.625
% 0.291667
0.0416667
0.375
0.708333
60 63 67 70 73 77 80
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Page 14 of 22
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
6
3
66
3
66
3
6 4
2
44
2
4
22
" i ' e
R
e
s
i
d

a
l
s
Re s i d a ls &s . "i 'e
% 0.625
% 0.291667
0.0416667
0.375
0.708333
5 6 7 8 9 10
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
A""#!$%& - (
Page 16 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Response/Calories ;5rne1
)O4 for "ele,te1 Fa,torial (o1el
nal2sis of -arian,e ta*le <Partial s5m of s=5ares>
Sum of Mean F
5o!ce Squares DF Square Value Prob F
Block 0.083 2 0.042
Model 3697.833 6 616.306 4823.26 < 0.0001 significant
A 170.667 1 170.667 1335.65 < 0.0001
B 4.167 1 4.167 32.61 < 0.0001
C 3504.167 1 3504.167 27423.91 < 0.0001
AB 0.667 1 0.667 5.22 0.0373
AC 16.667 1 16.667 130.43 < 0.0001
BC 1.500 1 1.500 11.74 0.0038
Residal 1.917 15 0.128
Co! "otal 3699.833 23
"#e Model $%&ale of 4823.26 i'(lies t#e 'odel is significant. "#e!e is onl)
a 0.01* c#ance t#at a +Model $%,ale+ t#is la!ge cold occ! de to noise.
,ales of +-!o. / $+ less t#an 0.0500 indicate 'odel te!'s a!e significant.
0n t#is case A1 B1 C1 AB1 AC1 BC a!e significant 'odel te!'s.
,ales g!eate! t#an 0.1000 indicate t#e 'odel te!'s a!e not significant.
0f t#e!e a!e 'an) insignificant 'odel te!'s 2not conting t#ose !e3i!ed to s((o!t #ie!a!c#)41
'odel !edction 'a) i'(!o&e )o! 'odel.
5td. 6e&. 0.36 R%53a!ed 0.9995
Mean 37.92 Ad7 R%53a!ed 0.9993
C.,. 0.94 -!ed R%53a!ed 0.9987
-R855 4.91 Ade3 -!ecision 139.1435
"#e +-!ed R%53a!ed+ of 0.9987 is in !easona.le ag!ee'ent 9it# t#e +Ad7 R%53a!ed+ of 0.9993.
+Ade3 -!ecision+ 'eas!es t#e signal to noise !atio. A !atio g!eate! t#an 4 is desi!a.le. :o!
!atio of 139.143 indicates an ade3ate signal. "#is 'odel can .e sed to na&igate t#e design s(ace.
Coefficient Standard !"# C$ !"# C$
Factor %stimate DF %rror Lo& 'i() V$F
0nte!ce(t 37.92 1 0.07 37.76 38.07
Block 1 %0.04 2
Block 2 0.08
%0.04
A%;e&el 2.67 1 0.07 2.51 2.82 1
B%R-M 0.42 1 0.07 0.26 0.57 1
C%"i'e 12.08 1 0.07 11.93 12.24 1
AB 0.17 1 0.07 0.01 0.32 1
AC 0.83 1 0.07 0.68 0.99 1
BC 0.25 1 0.07 0.09 0.41 1
Page 14 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
$inal 83ation in "e!'s of Coded $acto!s<
Calo!ies B!ned =
37.92
2.67 > A
0.42 > B
12.08 > C
0.17 > A > B
0.83 > A > C
0.25 > B > C
$inal 83ation in "e!'s of Actal $acto!s<
;e&el 1
Calo!ies B!ned =
5
%0.05 > R-M
3.8 > "i'e
0.01 > R-M > "i'e
;e&el 2
Calo!ies B!ned =
3
%0.016666667 > R-M
4.466666667 > "i'e
0.01 > R-M > "i'e
Page 1? of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Dia(nostics Case Statistics
Standard *ctual Predicted Student Cook+s Outlier
Order Value Value Residual Levera(e Residual Distance t
1 24 23.96 0.042 0.375 0.147 0.001 0.143
2 24 24.08 %0.083 0.375 %0.295 0.006 %0.286
3 24 23.96 0.042 0.375 0.147 0.001 0.143
4 28 27.29 0.708 0.375 2.507 0.419 3.176
5 27 27.42 %0.417 0.375 %1.474 0.145 %1.540
6 27 27.29 %0.292 0.375 %1.032 0.071 %1.035
7 24 23.96 0.042 0.375 0.147 0.001 0.143
8 24 24.08 %0.083 0.375 %0.295 0.006 %0.286
9 24 23.96 0.042 0.375 0.147 0.001 0.143
10 28 27.96 0.042 0.375 0.147 0.001 0.143
11 28 28.08 %0.083 0.375 %0.295 0.006 %0.286
12 28 27.96 0.042 0.375 0.147 0.001 0.143
13 46 45.96 0.042 0.375 0.147 0.001 0.143
14 46 46.08 %0.083 0.375 %0.295 0.006 %0.286
15 46 45.96 0.042 0.375 0.147 0.001 0.143
16 52 52.63 %0.625 0.375 %2.212 0.326 %2.603
17 53 52.75 0.250 0.375 0.885 0.052 0.878
18 53 52.63 0.375 0.375 1.327 0.117 1.365
19 47 46.96 0.042 0.375 0.147 0.001 0.143
20 47 47.08 %0.083 0.375 %0.295 0.006 %0.286
21 47 46.96 0.042 0.375 0.147 0.001 0.143
22 54 54.29 %0.292 0.375 %1.032 0.071 %1.035
23 55 54.42 0.583 0.375 2.064 0.284 2.357
24 54 54.29 %0.292 0.375 %1.032 0.071 %1.035
?ote< -!edicted &ales inclde .lock co!!ections.
-!oceed to 6iagnostic -lots 2t#e ne@t icon in (!og!ession4. Be s!e to look at t#e<
14 ?o!'al (!o.a.ilit) (lot of t#e stdentiAed !esidals to c#eck fo! no!'alit) of !esidals.
24 5tdentiAed !esidals &e!ss (!edicted &ales to c#eck fo! constant e!!o!.
34 Btlie! t &e!ss !n o!de! to look fo! otlie!s1 i.e.1 inflential &ales.
44 Bo@%Co@ (lot fo! (o9e! t!ansfo!'ations.
0f all t#e 'odel statistics and diagnostic (lots a!e BC1 finis# ( 9it# t#e Model D!a(#s icon.
Page 15 of 22
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Page 1= of 22
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
5 t d e n ti Ae d R e s i d a l s
?
o
!
'
a
l

*

(
!
o
.
a
.
i
l
i
t
)
?o !'a l ( lo t o f !e s i d a ls
% 2.21 % 1.03 0.15 1.33 2.51
1
5
10
20
30
50
70
80
90
95
99
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
4
2
44
2
4 22 22 22
22
- ! e d i c te d
5
t

d
e
n
t
i
A
e
d

R
e
s
i
d

a
l
s
Re s i d a ls &s . - !e d i c te d
% 3.00
% 1.50
0.00
1.50
3.00
23.96 31.57 39.19 46.80 54.42
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Page 20 of 22
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
E = A< ;e&el
: = B< R-M
B% 60.000
BF 80.000
Actal $acto!
C< "i 'e = 9.53
B < R - M
0nte !a c ti o n D!a ( #
C
a
l
o
!
i
e
s

B

!
n
e
d
A< ; e &e l
1 2
24
31.75
39.5
47.25
55
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
E = A< ;e&el
: = C< "i 'e
C% 5.000
CF 10.000
Actal $acto!
B< R-M = 75.95
C < " i ' e
0nte !a c ti o n D!a ( #
C
a
l
o
!
i
e
s

B

!
n
e
d
A< ; e &e l
1 2
23.7526
31.5645
39.3763
47.1882
55
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Conto5r Plots/
Page 21 of 22
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
E = B< R-M
: = C< "i 'e
6esi gn -oi nts
C% 5.000
CF 10.000
Actal $acto!
A< ;e&el = 1
C < " i ' e
0nte !a c ti o n D!a ( #
C
a
l
o
!
i
e
s

B

!
n
e
d
B < R - M
60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00
23.709
31.5318
39.3545
47.1773
55
4
4
4
4
444 444
444
444
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
E = B< R-M
: = C< "i 'e
6esi gn -oi nts
Actal $acto!
A< ;e&el = 1
C a lo !i e s B !ne d
B < R - M
C
<

"
i
'
e
60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00
5.00
6.25
7.50
8.75
10.00
2 7 . 8 3 3 3
3 1 . 6 6 6 7
3 5 . 5
3 9 . 3 3 3 3
4 3 . 1 6 6 7
3 3
3 3
Design of Engineering Experiments
12/4/2000
Page 22 of 22
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
E = B< R-M
: = C< "i'e
6esi gn -oi nts
Actal $acto!
A< ;e&el = 2
C a lo !i e s B !ne d
B < R - M
C
<

"
i
'
e
60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00
5.00
6.25
7.50
8.75
10.00
3 1 . 6 6 6 7
3 5 . 5
3 9 . 3 3 3 3
4 3 . 1 6 6 7
3 3
3 3
6850D?%8E-8R" -l ot
Cal o!i es B!ned
E = A< ;e&el
: = B< R-M
G = C< "i 'e
C . e D!a ( #
C a l o ! i e s B ! n e d
A< ; e &e l
B
<

R
-
M
C < " i ' e
A% AF
B %
B F
C %
C F
2 4
4 6
2 4
4 7
2 7 .3 3 3 3
5 2 .6 6 6 7
2 8
5 4 .3 3 3 3