A 2^5 factorial experiment was conducted to estimate the effects of five factors on the quality of lightbulbs manufactured by a certain process. The factors were A: plant (1 or 2), B: machine type (low or high speed), C: shift (day or evening), D: lead wire material (standard or new), and E:

Question

A 2[latex]^5[/latex] factorial experiment was conducted to estimate the effects of five factors on the quality of lightbulbs manufactured by a certain process. The factors were A: plant (1 or 2), B: machine type (low or high speed), C: shift (day or evening), D: lead wire material (standard or new), and E: method of loading materials into the assembler (manual or automatic). One replicate was obtained for each treatment. Table 9.9 presents the results. Compute estimates of the main effects and interactions, and their sums of squares. Assume that the third-, fourth-, and fifth-order interactions are negligible, and add their sums of squares to use as a substitute for an error sum of squares. Use this substitute to test hypotheses concerning the main effects and second-order interactions.

Accepted Answer

We compute the effects, using the rules for adding and subtracting observations given by the sign table, and the sums of squares, using Equation (9.46). See Table 9.10.

[latex] ext{Sum of squares for an effect}=\frac{K( ext{contrast})^2}{2^p}[/latex] (9.46)

Note that none of the three-, four-, or five-way interactions are among the larger effects. If some of them were, it would not be wise to combine their sums of squares. As it is, we add the sums of squares of the three-, four-, and five-way interactions. The results are presented in the following output (from MINITAB).

Factorial Fit : Response versus A. B. C. D. E

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Response (coded units)

[latex]\begin{array}{lrrrrr} ext{Term}& ext{Effect}& ext{Coef}& ext{SE Coef}& ext{T}& ext{P}\ ext{Constant}& & 39.658 & 0.5854 & 67.74 & 0.000 \ ext{A}& 6.325 & 3.163 & 0.5854 & 5.40 & 0.000 \ ext{B}& 9.536 & 4.768 & 0.5854 & 8.14 & 0.000\ C & -2.066 & -1.033 & 0.5854 & -1.76 & 0.097 \D & 6.696 & 3.348 & 0.5854 & 5.72 & 0.000 \E & 0.576 & 0.288 & 0.5854 & 0.49 & 0.629 \A \star B & 2.840 & 1.420 & 0.5854 & 2.43 & 0.027 \A \star C & 0.183 & 0.091 & 0.5854 & 0.16 & 0.878 \A \star D & -3.385 & -1.693 & 0.5854 & -2.89 & 0.011 \A \star E & 0.595 & 0.298 & 0.5854 & 0.51 & 0.618 \B \star C & -0.494 & -0.247 & 0.5854 & -0.42 & 0.679 \B \star D & 4.131 & 2.066 & 0.5854 & 3.53 & 0.003 \B \star E & 0.654 & 0.327 & 0.5854 & 0.56 & 0.584 \C \star D & -0.179 & -0.089 & 0.5854 & -0.15 & 0.881 \C \star E & -0.809 & -0.404 & 0.5854 & -0.69 & 0.500 \D \star E & 0.239 & 0.119 & 0.5854 & 0.20 & 0.841\end{array}[/latex]

S = 3 .31179 R-Sq = 90 .89% R-Sq(adj) = 82 .34%

Analysis of Variance for Response (coded units )

[latex]\begin{array}{lrrrrrr} ext{Source}& ext{DF}& ext{Seq SS}& ext{Adj SS}& ext{Adj MS}& ext{F}& ext{P}\ ext{Main Effects}& 5 & 1443.1 & 1443.1 & 288.62 & 26.31 & 0.000 \ ext{2-Way Interactions}& 10 & 307.1 & 307.1 & 30.71 & 2.80 & 0.032 \ ext{Residual Error}& 16 & 175.5 & 175.5 & 10.97 & & \ ext{Tota1}& 31 & 1925.7 & & & &\end{array}[/latex]

The estimates have not changed for the main effects or two-way interactions. The residual error sum of squares ( 175.5) in the analysis of variance table is found by adding the sums of squares for all the higher-order interactions that were dropped from the model. The number of degrees of freedom ( 16) is equal to the sum of the degrees of freedom (one each) for the 16 higher-order interactions. There is no sum of squares for pure error (SSE), because there is only one replicate per treatment. The residual error sum of squares is used as a substitute for SSE to compute all the quantities that require an error sum of squares.

We conclude from the output that factors A, B, and Dare likely to affect the outcome. There seem to be interactions between some pairs of these factors as well. It might be appropriate to plan further experiments to focus on factors A, B, and D.

TABLE 9.9
Treatment	Outcome	Treatment	Outcome	Treatment	Outcome	Treatment	Outcome
1	32.07	d	35.64	e	25.1	de	40.6
a	39.27	ad	35.91	ae	39.25	ade	37.57
b	34.81	bd	47.75	be	37.77	bde	47.22
ab	43.07	abd	51.47	abe	46.69	abde	56.87
c	31 .55	cd	33. 16	ce	32.55	cde	34.51
ac	36.51	acd	35.32	ace	32.56	acde	36.67
bc	28.8	bcd	48.26	bce	28.99	bcde	45.15
abc	43.05	abcd	53.28	abce	48.92	abcde	48.72

Question 9.16: A 2^5 factorial experiment was conducted to estimate the eff...

Related Answered Questions

The following output (from MTNITAB) presents the ANOVA table for the weld data in Table 9.1 (in Section 9.1). Which pairs of fluxes, if any, can be concluded, at the 5% level, to differ in their effect on hardness? ...

Verified Answer:

For the data in Table 9.1, compute MSTr, MSE, and F . Find the P-value for testing the null hypothesis that all the means are equal. What do you conclude? ...

Verified Answer:

In an emulsion liquid membrane system, an emulsion (internal phase) is dispersed into an external liquid medium containing a contaminant. The contaminant is removed from the external liquid through mass transfer into the emulsion. Internal phase leakage occurs when portions of the extracted ...

Verified Answer:

Refer to Example 9.14. Construct an ANOVA table. For each effect and interaction, test the null hypothesis that it is equal to 0. Which factors, if any, seem most likely to have an effect on the outcome? ...

Verified Answer:

The design suggested in Example 9. 12 has been adopted, and the experiment has been carried out. The results (from MTNITAB) follow. Does the output indicate any violation of necessary assumptions? What do you conclude regarding the effect of drill speed on excess diameter? ...

Verified Answer:

Verified Answer:

Verified Answer:

The article “Uncertainty in Measurements of Dennal Absorption of Pesticides” (W . Navidi and A. Bunge, Risk Analysis, 2002:11 75-1182) describes an experiment in which a pesticide was applied to skin at various concentrations and for various lengths of time. The outcome is the amount of the ...

Verified Answer:

Use the preceding ANOVA table to determine whether the additive model is plausible for the yield data. If the additive model is plausible, can we conclude that either the catalyst or the reagent affects the yield? ...

Verified Answer:

In Example 9.4 (in Section 9.1), several measurements of the maximum hourly concentrations (in μg/m³) of SO2 were presented for each of four power plants, and it was concluded that the mean concentrations at the four plants were not all the same. The following output (from MINITAB) ...

Verified Answer: