ASSIGNMENT 3

AZ Evulukwu
Assignment 3 - Similitude,
Modelling, and Data
Analysis
Ee3580@mun.ca

Memorial
University
Newfoundland

709-691-3790

Dr Leonardo Lye

10/25/2011
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) ......................................................................................................... 5
a. ...................................................................................................... 5
b. ...................................................................................................... 6
c........................................................................................................ 6
2) ....................................................................................................... 17
a. .................................................................................................... 17
b. .................................................................................................... 18
c...................................................................................................... 26
d. .................................................................................................... 27
3) ....................................................................................................... 28
a. .................................................................................................... 28
b. .................................................................................................... 29
c...................................................................................................... 29
d. .................................................................................................... 32
4) ....................................................................................................... 33
a. .................................................................................................... 33
i.................................................................................................... 33
ii. .................................................................................................. 34
iii. ................................................................................................. 44

2
 Summary of Results
Q1)
We have done half the runs of a full factorial but have
still been able to get similar results. All effects gained from
this half factorial have very little % difference compared to
the full factorial. In practical terms, we have been able to
considerably reduce our cost without compromising the
results of the experiment.

Q2)
We have reduced our runs by half again but are still able
to get fairly similar results as before. The quality of results
though has taken a bit of a hit as Effect E has a 45%
difference from the half factorial design. This is too large a
difference to ignore as an anomaly. Overall we have further
reduced our cost but accuracy of the results has declined in
the process.

Q3)
The blocked design has forced us to lose some effects
but we ensured these were insignificant effects. The %
difference of blocked effects with the full factorial is very

3
little. This means the two designs are very similar. In fact we
could argue the blocked design is more suitable as its effects
are judged against a smaller range of variables i.e. lost
effects.

Q4)
Results are still fairly similar to full factorial. The
assumption of normal distribution no longer holds despite
transformation of the model. This puts in question whether a
combination of half factorial and block design is suitable to
analyse this type of data

4
1)
Consider Question 3 of Assignment 2. Assume that ce=600. Suppose that only ½ of the
32 runs could be made due to budget constraints

a.
Choose the half you think should be run.

 We have factors A, B, C, D, E
 To get the runs to make, we need to choose a defining contrast
 We want this contrast to be an effect that most likely have a
zero value as we lose it anyway
 I choose I= ABCDE as the defining contrast
 All runs with 2 letters or none in common go in the principal
block
 This is the block that is run and given in the table below TAB 1

TAB 1

1st Block (runs made)

a b
c abc
d abd
acd bcd
e abe
ace bce
ade bde
cde abcde

5
b.
What are the alias relationships for your design?

 We get our alias relationships by multiplying all effects by our

defining contrast (I= ABCDE).
 The multiplication is done as below

 Now as said earlier, we automatically lose our defining contrast

as an effect. We continue the above example for all the rest of
our 30 effects, we get the correlation for alias relationship
below TAB 2

TAB 2

Alias Relationships
A=BCDE AB=CDE CD=ABE
B=ACDE AC=BDE AE=BCD
C=ABDE BC=ADE BE=ACD
D=ABCE AD=BCE CE=ABD
E=ABCD BD=ACE DE=ABC

c.
Analyze the results and provide a practical interpretation of the results and compare
them to your answers for a full factorial design.

 Now we use design expert for our analysis

 We go to 2 factorial design
 We check 25-1, 1 replicate and 1 block
 We also want to show the generators so that we can alter it if
necessary

6
  Given our defining contrasts is I= ABCDE, we pick E=ABCD for
our factor generator
 We now label our factors
 We put in the yield values for the tc’s we want to run. Our table
is shown in TAB 3

TAB 3

 Next we go to the effects lists and turn any low value effects to
error. These are in-significant effects
 We now do an ANOVA analysis and look at our Prob > F values.
Any one greater than 0.05 or even close is insignificant
 We then go back to our effects list and turn these effects to
error
 We keep doing this till all our effects in the ANOVA are
significant
 Our effects list is shown below FIG 1

7
 FIG 1

 Our Normal plot vs. standard effects is shown below FIG 2

FIG 2

8
  It is pretty clear that our significant effects are A (1436.75), B
(3688.25), D (486.75), E (413.25) and AB (1236.75).
 These are the effects that fall outside the straight line
 The half normal vs. standard effects plot also shows similar
trends in FIG 3

FIG 3

 Our ANOVA table is shown below TAB 4

TAB 4

9
  The model overall though is significant as its F value is 211.27
 Now we get our model together
 A full model would look like below. We get our coefficient from
our ANOVA analysis (Effect divided by 2)

 But we only use significant effects which are A, B, AB, D and E

 The model now takes the form

 Now checking assumptions, we look at normality of the

residuals
 We make a normal plot of the residuals shown in FIG 4

FIG 4

 The residuals are all normally distributed as the values are all
fairly close to the straight line. And as a result our statistical
test is valid

10
  Next we check whether the residuals have a constant variance
with FIG 5 below

FIG 5

 The plot shows a nice scatter without a funnel shape. It means

variance is fairly constant
 We now check the independency of the results with the
 Residuals vs. Run plot in FIG 6

FIG 6

11
  We get a nice scatter or residuals and runs showing our runs
are independent of each other.
 FIG 7 shows a goodness of fit for predicted and actual values
 The diagram shows a very good fit

FIG 7

 We use our model graph for further analysis

 From previous work our significant effects are A, B, AB, D & E
 Now looking at our previous list, there a no significant
interactions between D, E & any of the other effects
 Looking at our graph below in FIG 8 & 9, compression strength
does not change much with change in D or E level
 We therefore ignore the D or E diagrams in the analysis
 Our analysis on compression strength will be based on A, B &
AB

12
FIG 8

FIG 9

13
  This is shown in FIG 10

FIG 10

 At low level A, interaction with low level B gives over 1000units

of compressive strength
 Interaction with high level B though gives close to 3600 units of
compressive strength
 At high level A, interaction with low level B gives about a
1000units of compressive strength
 Interaction with high level B gives over 5200units of
compressive strength
 The most gain is obtained from switch from low-high level B
 Therefore to get high compressive strength, we should increase
Time to as high as possible and keep the mix (effect A) as high
as possible
 Given the high interaction, we now look at conditional effects

14
  B+ has the highest value
 This means the effect B is has its highest impact when A is high
as well
 A- has the lowest value
 This means the effect A has the its lowest impact when B is low
as well
 Below is a table that compares values from the first and second
model TAB 5
 The principal values we look at are the effects

TAB 5

Full Factorial 1 half factorial % Difference

Effect A 1474.25 1436.75 2.54

Effect B 3550 3688.25 -3.89
Effect E 413.25 413.25 0
Effect D 486.75 486.75 0
Effect AB 1187.5 1236.75 -4.15

 The table show that there is not a large a difference between

effect values for the full factorial and half factorial
 The highest % diff are with Effect B (time) & Effect AB which are
3.89% and 4.15% respectively
 This translates to the various plots for each model being
similar.
15
 The significance of this is we needed 32 runs to get our data
fully analysed in Full factorial
 We only needed half of those runs to get similar results in the
second model
 This would mean a big savings in cost for any practical
situations

16
2)
a.
Repeat Problem 1 if only ¼ of the 32 runs could be run

 We have factors A, B, C, D, E
 To get the runs to make, we need to choose a defining contrast
 We want this contrast to be an effect that most likely have a
zero value as we lose it anyway
 Given we are only doing 8 runs out of a possible 32, we chose 2
defining contrast and the 3rd on automatically picks itself
 I choose I= ABCD = ACE = BDE as the defining contrasts
 Design expert decides the runs that are made with these
defining contrast
 This is the block that is run and given in the table below TAB 6

TAB 6

1st Block (runs made)

e cd
ad ace
bde bc
ab abcde

 We get our alias relationships by multiplying all effects by our

defining contrast (I = ABCD = ACE = BDE).
 The multiplication is done as below

17
  The resulting alias relationship would then be

 Now as said earlier, we automatically lose our defining contrast

as an effect. We continue the above example for all the rest of
our 30 effects, we get the correlation for alias relationship
below TAB 7

TAB 7

Alias Relationships

A = BCD = CE =ABDE
B = ACD = ABCE =ADE
C = ABD = AE = BCDE
D = ABC = ACDE = BE
E = ABCDE = AC =BD
AB = CD = BCE = ADE
BC = AD =ABE = CDE

b.
Construct the design and analyze the data that are obtained by selecting only the
response for the eight runs in your design

 We put in the yield values for the tc’s we want to run. Our table
is shown in TAB 8
 Next we go to the effects lists and turn any low value effects to
error. These are in-significant effects
 We now do an ANOVA analysis and look at our Prob > F values.

18
TAB 8

 Any one greater than 0.05 or even close is insignificant

 We then go back to our effects list and turn these effects to
error
 We keep doing this till all our effects in the ANOVA are
significant
 Our effects list is shown below FIG 11

FIG 11

19
  Our Normal plot vs. standard & half normal vs. standard effects
plots are shown below FIG 12 & FIG 13
 It is pretty clear that our significant effects are A (1500), B
(3850), D (550), E (600) and AB (1150).
 These are the effects that fall outside the straight line

FIG 12

FIG 13

20
  Our ANOVA table is shown below TAB 9

TAB 9

 The model overall though is significant as its F value is 609.84

 Now we get our model together
 A full model would look like below. We get our coefficient from
our ANOVA analysis (Effect divided by 2)

 But we only use significant effects which are A, B, AB, D and E

 The model now takes the form

 Now checking assumptions, we look at normality of the

residuals
 We make a normal plot of the residuals shown in FIG 14
21
FIG 14

 The residuals are all normally distributed as the values are all
fairly close to the straight line. And as a result our statistical
test is valid
 Next we check whether the residuals have a constant variance
with FIG 15 below

FIG 15

22
  The plot shows a nice scatter without a funnel shape. It means
variance is fairly constant
 We now check the independency of the results with the
 Residuals vs. Run plot in FIG 16

FIG 16

 We get a nice scatter or residuals and runs showing our runs

are independent of each other.

FIG 17

23
  FIG 17 shows a goodness of fit for predicted and actual values
 The diagram shows a very good fit
 From previous work our significant effects are A, B, AB, D & E
 Now looking at our previous list, there a no significant
interactions between D, E & any of the other effects
 Looking at our graph below in FIG 18 & 19, compression
strength does not change much with change in D or E level
FIG 18

FIG 19

24
  We therefore ignore the D or E diagrams in the analysis
 Our analysis on compression strength will be based on A, B &
AB
 This is shown in FIG 20

FIG 20

 At low level A, interaction with low level B gives over 500units

of compressive strength
 Interaction with high level B though gives close to 3650 units of
compressive strength
 At high level A, interaction with low level B gives about a
1000units of compressive strength
 Interaction with high level B gives over 5225units of
compressive strength
 The most gain is obtained from switch from low-high level B
 Therefore to get high compressive strength, we should increase
Time to as high as possible and keep the mix (effect A) as high
as possible
 Given the high interaction, we now look at conditional effects

25
  B+ has the highest value
 This means the effect B is has its highest impact when A is high
as well
 A- has the lowest value
 This means the effect A has the its lowest impact when B is low
as well

c.
Compare the answers obtained with that of the ½ factorial above

 The table below places all the Half factorial and Quarter
factorial effects side by side TAB 10

TAB 10

1 quarter
1 half Factorial % Difference
factorial
Effect A 1436.75 1500 -4.4
Effect B 3688.25 3850 -4.38
Effect D 486.75 550 -13
Effect E 413.25 600 -45.19
Effect AB 1236.75 1150 7
 The table show that there is one large difference between
effect values for the half factorial and quarter factorial
 The highest % diff are with Effect D (temperature) & Effect E
(Drying time) which are 13% and 45.19% respectively

26
  The % diff for Effect E is very big and as a result cannot be
particularly trusted
 Given our half factorial uses a resolution IV while our quarter
factorial uses a resolution III, we have to say our half factorial
model is more reliable
 Still all the plots for each model are similar.
 The significance of this is we needed 16 runs to get our data
fully analysed in half factorial model
 We only needed half of those runs to get similar results in the
quarter factorial model
 This did come at a cost though as the half factorial results seem
a lot more reliable than quarter factorial results
 Overall we achieved similar results at a lower cost but with less
precision

d.
Comment on this design.

 The design is good enough for normal analysis as it gives very

similar values to the half and full factorial designs
 But still it is a lot less precise than those designs

27
3)
Based on the problem of Question 3 of Assignment 2, if the 32 runs can only be
completed in 4 days,

a.
Set up the blocking scheme for the four days.

 We have 32 runs divided up in 4days.We are therefore going to

divide the runs in different blocks
 To do this, we go to 2-level factorial in design expert, we
choose 25, 1 replicate, 4 blocks
 We choose I = ABC = ADE as our defining contrast. An
additional effect is confounded but this is shown later
 In our principal block all the runs must have either 2 or 0 (even
numbers) letters in common with all our defining contrasts
 After this we multiply our principal block by runs that have not
been used yet to get the contents of the remaining blocks
 Our blocking scheme will look as in TAB 11

TAB 11

Principal
Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
Block
(Day 2) (Day 3) (Day 4)
(Day 1)
1 b ab a
bc c ac abc
abd ad d bd
acd abcd bcd cd
abe ae e be
ace abce bce ce
de bde abde ade
bcde cde acde abcde

28
b.
What additional effect is confounded with days?

 The extra confounded effect is shown by the multiplication of

the 2 defining effects above

c.
Analyze the data and determine which factors are significant.

 Now we input our yield values for each and every one of the
blocks

 Next we go to the effects lists and turn any low value effects to
error. These are in-significant effects
 We now do an ANOVA analysis and look at our Prob > F values.
 Any one greater than 0.05 or even close is insignificant
 We then go back to our effects list and turn these effects to
error
 We keep doing this till all our effects in the ANOVA are
significant
 Our effects list is shown below FIG 21

29
FIG 21

 Our Normal plot vs. standard & half normal vs. standard effects
plots are shown below FIG 22 & FIG 23
 It is pretty clear that our significant effects are A (1462.13), B
(3537.88), D (474.63), E (425.38) and AB (1199.63).
 These are the effects that fall outside the straight line

30
FIG 22

FIG 23

31
d.
Is there a difference in results between the full factorial and blocked designs? Give an
explanation.

 We use the table below to compare side by side the effects

from the Full factorial and clocked designs TAB 12

TAB 12

Full Factorial Blocked design % Difference

Effect A 1474.25 1462.13 0.82

Effect B 3550 3537.88 0.34
Effect D 486.75 474.63 2.4
Effect E 413.25 425.38 2.94
Effect AB 1187.5 1199.63 1.02

 We get our highest % difference in effects D and E. This is 2.4%

and 2.94 % respectively
 This shows a high level of similarity between our Full factorial
and blocked design
 We lose effects ABC, ADE and BCDE in our blocked design but
these effects are in-significant anyway
 In fact the blocked design is probably a better model because
it’s main effects a judged against a smaller range of variables
i.e. the lost effects

32
4)
a.
Based on the problem of Question 2, Assignment 2, if there is budget for only ½ the runs,
and only 4 runs can be completed per day

i.
Set up the blocking scheme

 We have 8 runs to be done, 4 runs can be done per day

 We choose 24-1 factorial (IV), 1 replicate and 2 blocks
 We choose I = ABCD as our factor generator and I = AB as our
block generator
 They are both effectively the same and help us half our runs
and generate the 2 needed blocks
 Note we lose effect ABCD but it is assumed in-significant
 Runs with 2 or 0 letters in common with AB go into our
principal block
 We multiply our principal block runs with ‘ad’ to get the rest of
the runs for block 2
 As said earlier ABCD is the factor generator so runs in block 2
must have at least 2 or zero letters in common with it.
 The blocks look as below TAB 13

TAB 13

Principal Block Block 2

(DAY 1) (DAY 2)
1 ad
ab bd
cd ac
abcd bc

33
ii.
Analyze the resulting data

 We now input our yield values for the various blocks and the
resultant table is shown below TAB 14

TAB 14

 Next we go to the effects lists and turn any low value effects to
error. These are in-significant effects
 We now do an ANOVA analysis and look at our Prob > F values.
 Any one greater than 0.05 or even close is insignificant
 We then go back to our effects list and turn these effects to
error
 We keep doing this till all our effects in the ANOVA are
significant
 Our effects list is shown below FIG 24

34
FIG 24

 Our Normal plot vs. standard & half normal vs. standard effects
plots are shown below FIG 25 & FIG 26
 It is pretty clear that our significant effects are A (1500), B
(3850), D (550), E (600) and AB (1150).
 These are the effects that fall outside the straight line

FIG 25

35
FIG 26

 Our ANOVA table is shown below TAB 15

TAB 15

 This table reveals a problem The Prob>F value for effect C is

0.0577
 This is a bigger value than 0.05 indicating C is not a significant
effect

36
  Normally we would need to go back and change C to error in
our error list
 Unfortunately this would also mean we change AC to error due
to hierarchy
 This gives a bad model where all the effects turn out to be in-
significant (Prob>F higher 0.05) shown in TAB 16

TAB 16

 We therefore have to assume C is significant despite the

ANOVA analysis saying otherwise
 This problem has been caused by the combination of the half
factorial and the blocking and has lead to slightly lower
accuracy of results

 Now moving from assuming C is significant, we get our model

together
 A full model would look like below. We get our coefficient from
our ANOVA analysis (Effect divided by 2)

 But we only use significant effects which are A, C, AC, D and AD

 The model now takes the form

37
  Now checking assumptions, we look at normality of the
residuals
 We make a normal plot of the residuals shown in FIG 27

FIG 27

 The plot shows the residuals does not follow a normal

distribution as the points do not fall on the straight line.
 To try to solve this, we need to perform a transform using
power transforms.
 We get our optimum lambda value from the box Cox plot
 From this lambda is 1.99
 We go to make the transform and this changes our ANOVA
table TAB 17 and overall model as below

38
TAB 17

 We make a second residual vs probability plot in FIG 28

FIG 28

 Once again the model points do not fall on a straight line. This
ultimates means the new model does not follow a normal
distribution regardless of transformation or not

39
  Next we check whether the residuals have a constant variance
with FIG 29 below

FIG 29

 The plot shows a nice scatter without a funnel shape. It means

variance is fairly constant
 We now check the independency of the results with the
 Residuals vs. Run plot in FIG 30

FIG 30

40
  We get a nice scatter or residuals and runs showing our runs
are independent of each other.
 FIG 31 shows a goodness of fit for predicted and actual values

FIG 31

 The diagram shows a very good fit

 From our significant effects are A, C, D, AC & AD
 Interaction AC is shown in FIG 32

FIG 32

41
 At low level A, interaction with low level C gives over 140units
 Interaction with high level C though gives close to 375 units
 At high level A, interaction with low level C gives over 375 units
 Interaction with high level C gives about 375 units
 The most gain is obtained from switch from low-high level A
 Therefore to get high results, we should increase Time to as
high as possible
 Given the high interaction, we now look at conditional effects

 A- has the highest value

 This means the effect A is has its highest impact when C is low
as well
 A+ has the lowest value
 This means the effect A has the its lowest impact when C is high
as well
 Interaction AD is shown in FIG 33

42
FIG 33

 At low level A, interaction with low level D gives over 257units

 Interaction with high level D though gives close to 257 units as
well
 At high level A, interaction with low level D gives below 257
units
 Interaction with high level D gives over 492.5 units
 The most gain is obtained from switch from low-high level D
 Therefore to get high results, we should increase Temperature
to as high as possible
 Given the high interaction, we now look at conditional effects

 D+ has the highest value

43
  This means the effect D is has its highest impact when A is high
as well
 D- has the lowest value
 This means the effect D has the its lowest impact when A is low
as well

iii.
Comment on your results

 The results are still fairly similar to that of the full factorial
experiment.
 But the combination of the half factorial and the blocking
makes the results a lot less accurate than before.
 Assumption of normal distribution no longer holds despite
transformation of the model
 This subsequently puts in question whether a combination of
half factorial and blocked design is suitable to analyse the data

44