Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Improvement (and
product development)
CHAPTER 4
DESIGN/ANALYSIS OF
SINGLE FACTOR
EXPERIMENTS
Course Notes for ChE 425/622
Prof. Alexander Penlidis
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1
Tel: (519) 888-4567 x36634
E-mail: penlidis@uwaterloo.ca
A. Penlidis, 2015.
This copy is for individual use only in connection with this course.
It may not be resold or used to make additional copies.
OBJECTIVES
Randomization.
Replication.
Blocking.
Experimental design for comparative
studies.
Analysis of comparative studies.
DEPENDENT AND
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Independent variables or factors (settings, inputs,
regressors) are controlled by the experimenter.
Dependent variables or responses (outputs) are the
measured outcomes of an experiment and are
dependent upon the settings of the independent
variables.
Examples:
Independent Variables
Composition
Temperature
Water flowrate
% additive
Reaction time
Wood species
Plategap
Supplier
Dependent Variables
Freeness
Tensile strength
Burst Index
Opacity
Paper breaks
Caliper
Tear Index
Cost
WHAT IS A SINGLE
FACTOR EXPERIMENT?
This is an experiment which studies the effect
of a single independent variable or factor.
The levels at which the factor is studied are
often called treatments. In an experiment
there will be two or more treatments.
The factor can be quantitative, like temperature
at 50, 60, and 70 oC, or qualitative, like
different wood species A, B, C, and D.
This experiment determines if there are
significant differences in the results of the
measured response variable, depending on
the level of the independent variable.
EXAMPLES OF SINGLE
FACTOR STUDIES
Analytical labs
Method comparisons
Product development
Process optimization
Comparing different
operating conditions
Quality control
Compare different
suppliers raw materials
CONSIDERATIONS IN
DESIGNING A SINGLE
FACTOR STUDY
Guarantee the validity of the experiment with
randomization.
RANDOMIZATION
It is important that the sequence of trials in all experimentation
be assigned by some process of randomization.
1. To prevent personal bias on the part of the experimenter
or others from entering.
2. To eliminate biases in estimated effects caused by trends
in the errors or other independent variables not included
in the study. Under randomization, they are absorbed into
the error rather than the estimated effects.
3. To prevent time/order effects from masking the results.
4. To ensure that the observed effects were caused by the
changes to the factors made by the experimenter.
5. To make certain that the significance tests are based on
valid random variables.
REPRODUCIBILITY AND
EXPERIMENTAL ERROR
measurement error
uncontrollable or unknown errors
assignable sources of error.
REPLICATION
Question:
Answer:
It depends!
SAMPLE SIZE
TABLE
This table shows the sample sizes needed for a
comparative experiment with four treatments
using = 0.05.
True standard
deviation as a
percent of
mean
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
16
18
20
5
4
7
11
17
24
32
41
10
2
3
4
5
7
9
11
14
17
24
32
41
15
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
15
19
24
29
20
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
5
7
9
11
14
17
25
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
6
7
9
11
30
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
COMPLETELY RANDOMIZED
DESIGNS
Example:
Treatment
Totals
244
B
63
67
71
64
65
66
396
C
68
66
71
67
68
68
408
D
56
62
60
61
63
64
63
59
488
-diets allocated
randomly
-blood samples taken
and tested randomly
k or t = 4 treatments
n1 = 4 n2 = 6
n 3 = 6 n4 = 8
11
0
7
TIME
6
6
2
6
8
5
4
5
A
T
IE
D
12
COMPLETELY RANDOMIZED
DESIGNS
It is assumed that the effects model for this design is:
yti t ti
i 1,2,...nt
t 1,2,3,4
overall mean
t t deviation of treatment mean from
overall mean (treatment effect)
H0: t 0
nt
S Total yti y
t 1 i 1
1 k nt
2
yti k yti
t 1 i 1
nt t 1 i 1
k
nt
t 1
nt
t 1 i 1
62 2 60 2 ...59 2 -
1
1536 2
24
Total nt 1 23
t 1
14
nt
yti
2
k
k
i 1
1
SB
nt yt y
k
nt
t 1
t 1
nt
k nt
yti
t 1i 1
t 1
treatment totals2
nt
t=1
df B k 1 3
k nt
yti yt 2 STotal S B
t 1i 1
df
nt 1 df Total df B 20
W
t 1
15
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
df
SS
MS
DIETS
(between
treatments)
228
76
WITHIN
DIETS
(error)
20
112
5.6
TOTAL
23
340
df = degrees of freedom
SS = sum of squares
MS = mean square = SS/df
16
DIAGNOSTIC CHECKING
yti t ti
y
t yt y
ti yti yt
y ti yt
17
DIAGNOSTICS
Overall dot diagram, all residuals
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Residuals
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
60
62
64
66
68
70
Predicted values
18
F-TEST
H 0 : A B C D 0
H1: i 0 for at least one of i A, B, C , D
SB
Fobserved
SW
df B
dfW
MS B 76.0
13.6
MSW
5.6
19
F-TEST
20
MULTIPLE COMPARISONS
BONFERRONI t-TEST
H0: i j
H1: i j
yi y j
Tobserved
s
1 1
ni n j
k
t 1
21
MULTIPLE COMPARISONS
BONFERRONI t-TEST
1 1
1 1 0.05 0.40
10
22
MULTIPLE COMPARISONS
BONFERRONI t-TEST
To compensate:
1.
2.
3.
23
MULTIPLE COMPARISONS
LEAST SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCE (LSD)
2(5.6)
1.366
6
t20,0.025 2.086
s.e.
24
MULTIPLE COMPARISONS:
LSD
k 4
k (k 1) / 2 6
choose b 0.05
0.05
0.01
6
t0.005,20 2.845
means:
A
61
B
66
C
68
D
61
25