math

© All Rights Reserved

Als DOCX, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

32 Aufrufe

math

© All Rights Reserved

Als DOCX, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- The effect of constrained processing on auditors’ judgments
- Method Validation and Robustness
- Factorial Experiments
- Experimentos
- scimakelatex.2849.none (1)
- app2
- 2016 Design of Experiments
- JISTE 16.2 2012
- T9 Factorial
- Parametric Optimization of Shielded Metal Arc Welding Processes by Using Factorial Design Approach
- mel705-14.ppt
- Multiple Classification Analysis Using SPSS
- Friedman nonparametric test
- Manual Do R_ FrF2
- Full Factorial
- Evaluation Robust Design Methods Using a Model of Interactions in Complex Systems
- Agrillo Et Al 2015, Front Psych
- 2005Bonardi2
- F1-04
- Comparison of Alternatives Notes

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

As the number of factors to be tested increases, the complete set of factorial treatments

may become too large to be tested simultaneously in a single experiment. A logical alternative is

an experimental design that allows testing of only a fraction of the total numbers of treatments. A

design uniquely suited for experiments involving a large number of factors is the fractional

factorial design (FFD). It provides a systematic way of selecting and testing only a fraction of

the complete set of factorial treatment combinations. In exchange, however, there is loss of

information on some preselected effects. Although this information loss may be serious in

experiments with one or two factors, such a loss becomes more tolerable with a large number of

factors. The number of interactions effects increases rapidly with the number of factors involved,

which allows flexibility in the choice of the particular effects to be sacrificed. In fact, in cases

where some specific effects are known beforehand to be small or unimportant, use of the FFD

results in minimal loss of information.

In practice, the effects that are most commonly sacrificed by use of the FFD are highorder interactions-the four-factors or five-factor interactions and, at times, even the three factor

interaction. In almost all cases, unless the researcher has prior information to indicate otherwise,

he should select a set of treatments to be tested so that all main effects and two-factor

interactions can be estimated in agricultural research, the FFD is the most commonly used in

exploratory trials where the main objective is to examine the interactions between factors. For

such trials the most appropriate FFD are those that sacrifice only those interactions that involve

more than two factors.

With the FFD, the number of effects that can be measured decreases rapidly with the

reduction in the number of treatments to be tested. Thus, when the number of effects to be

measured is large, the number of treatments to be tested, even with the use of FFD, may still be

to large. In such cases, further reduction in the size of the experiment can be achieved by

reducing the number of replications. Although use of a FFD without replication is uncommon in

agricultural experiments, when FFD is applied to an exploratory trial the number of replications

required can be reduced. For example, two replications are commonly used in an exploratory

field trial in rice whereas four replications are used for a standard field experiment in rice.

Another desirable feature of FFD is that it allows reduced block size by not requiring a

block to contain all treatments to be tested. In this way, the homogeneity of experimental units

within the same block can be improved. A reduction in block size is, however, accompanied by

loss of information in addition to that already lost through the reduction in number of treatments.

Although the FFD can be tailor-made to fit most factorial experiments, the procedure for

doing so is complex and beyond the scope of this book. Thus, we describe only a few selected set

of FFD that are suited for exploratory trials in agricultural research. The major features of these

selected designs are that they:

Apply only to 2n factorial experiments where n, the number of factors, ranges from 5 to

7.

Involve only one half of the complete set of factorial treatment combinations (I.e., the

number of treatments is 1\2 of 2n or 2n-1).

Have a block size of 16 plots or less.

Allow all main effects and most, if not all, of the two factor interactions to be estimated.

The selected plans are given in appendix M. each plan provides the list of treatments to

be tested and the specific effects the can be estimated. In the designation of the various treatment

combinations for all plans, the letters a, b, c, Are used to denote the presence (or use of high

level) of factors A, B, C,. Thus, the treatment combination ab in a 25 factorial experiment

refers to the treatment combination that contains the high level (or presence) of factors A and

B and low level (or absence) of factors C, D, and E, but this combination that contains the high

level of factors A and B and low level of factors C, D, E, and F. In all cases, the treatment

combinations that consist of the low level of all factors is denoted by the symbol (1).

We illustrate the procedure for randomization, layout, and analysis of variance of a FFD

with a field experiment involving six factors A, B, C, D, E, and F, each at two levels (i.e. 26

factorial experiments). Only 32 treatments from the total of 64 complete factorial treatment

combinations are tested in blocks of 16 plots each. With two replications, the total number of

experimental plots is 64.

4.5.1 Randomization and layout

The steps for randomization and layout are:

STEP 1. Choose an appropriate basic plan of a FFD in appendix M. The should

correspond to number of factors and the number of levels of each factor to be tested. For

basic plans that are not given in appendix M, see Cochran and Cox, 1957.* Our example

uses plan 3 of appendix M.

STEP 2. If there is more than one block per replication, randomly assign the block

arrangement in the basic plan to the actual blocks in the field.

For example, the experimental area is first divided into two replications

(Rep. I and Rep. II), each consisting of 32 experimental plots. Each replication is further divided

into two blocks (Block 1 and Block 2), each consisting of 16 plots. Following one of the

randomization schemes of Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, randomly reassign the block numbers in the

basic plan to the block in the field. The result maybe as follows:

Block Number in

Block Number Assignment in field

Basic Plan

Rep. I

Rep. II

________________________________________________________

I

1

2

II

2

1

Note all 16 treatments listed in block 1 of the basic plan are assigned to block 2 of replication 1

in the field all 16 treatments listed in block II of the basic plan are assigned to block 1 of

replication I in the field and so on

STEP 3. Randomly reassign the treatments in each block of the basic plan to the

experimental plots of the reassigned block in the field (from step 2)

For this example, follow the same randomization scheme used in step 2 and randomly assign

the 16 treatments of a given block (in the basic plan) to the 16 plots of the corresponding block

in the field, separately and independently for

Each of the four blocks (i.e., two blocks per replication and two replications). The result of the

four independent randomization processes may be as follows:

Plot Number Assignment in field

Treatment

__________________________________________________

Rep.1

Rep.2

Number in

__________________

____________________

Basic Plan

Block 1

Block 2

Block 1

Block 2

_________________________________________________________________

1

2

3

4

14

3

11

7

6

6

3

15

5

4

10

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

8

7

11

16

12

9

10

5

6

1

2

15

13

1

15

4

14

9

3

5

8

12

16

13

2

10

12

1

5

13

7

2

10

11

8

4

9

16

14

6

12

1

3

8

16

11

15

2

14

9

13

7

replication I. In the same manner because treatment 2 of block II in the basic plan is af, treatment

af is assigned to plot 3 in block 1 of replication I; and so on. The final layout is shown in Figure

4.8.

The analysis of variance procedures of a FFD, without replication and replication, are

illustrated. We Yates method for the computation of large fractional factorial experiments.

Other alternative procedure are:

The application of the standard riles for the computation of sums of squares in the

analysis of variance (Chapter 3), by constructing two-way tables of totals for two-factor

interactions, three-way table of totals for three-factor interactions, and so on.

The application of the single d.f. contrast method (Chapter 5), by specifying a contrast for

each of the main effects and interaction effects that are to be estimated.

For illustration, we use data from replication I of table 4.20 is used. The computational

steps in the analysis of variance are:

STEP 1. Outlining the analysis of variance, following that given in appendix M,

corresponding to the basic plan used. For our example, the basic plan is

Block 1

Plot no.

Treatment

Block 2

Block 1

Block 2

Figure 4.8 A sample layout of a fractional factorial design with two replications 1\2 of 25

factorial treatments arranged in blocks of 16 plots each plan 3 appendix M and the outline

of the analysis of variance is:

__________________________________________________________________

Source

Degree

Sum

of

of

of

Mean

Computed Tabular F

Variation

Freedom

Squares

Squares

F

5% 1%

__________________________________________________________________

Block

1

Main effect

6

Two-factor

interaction 15

Error

9

Total

31

STEP 2. Determine the number of real factors (k) each at two levels, whose complete set

of factorial treatments is equal to the number of treatments (t) to be tested (i.e., 2k = t).

Then select the specific set of k real factors from

Table 4.20 Grain Yield Data from a 26 Factorial Experiment Planted in a1\2 Fractional

Factorial Design in Blocks of 16 Experimental Plots each, and with two replications

______________________________________________________________________

Grain Yield,

Grain Yield

t/ha

t/ha

_______________

_______________

Treatment Rep. I Rep. II

Total

Treatment Rep. I Rep. II

Total

______________________________________________________________________

Block 1

Block 2

(1)

2.92

2.76

5.68

ad

3.23

3.48

6.71

ab

3.45

3.50

6.95

ae

3.10

3.11

6.21

ac

3.65

3.50

7.15

af

3.52

3.27

6.79

bc

3.16

3.05

6.21

bd

3.29

3.22

6.51

de

3.29

3.03

6.32

be

3.06

3.20

6.26

df

3.34

3.3

6.71

bf

3.27

3.27

6.54

ef

3.28

3.23

6.51

cd

3.68

3.52

7.20

abde

3.88

3.79

7.67

ce

3.08

3.02

6.10

abdf

3.95

4.03

7.98

cf

3.29

3.10

6.39

abef

3.85

3.90

7.75

abcd

3.89

3.99

7.88

acde

4.05

4.18

8.23

abce

3.71

3.80

7.51

acdf

4.37

4.20

8.57

abcf

3.96

3.98

7.94

acef

3.77

3.80

7.57

adef

4.27

3.98

8.25

bcde

4.04

3.87

7.91

bdef

3.69

3.62

7.31

bcdf

4.00

3.76

7.76

cdef

4.29

4.09

8.38

bcef

3.63

3.46

7.09

abcdef

4.80

4.78

9.58

Total (RB)

58.63

57.43

58.13

57.43

The original set of n factors and designate all (n k) factors not included in the set of k as

dummy factors.

For our example, the t = 32 treatment combinations correspond to a complete set of 2k

factorial treatment combinations, with k = 5. For simplicity, the first five factors A, B, C, D, and

E are designated as the real factors and F as the dummy factor.

STEP 3. Arrange the t treatments in a system order based on the k real factors:

A. Treatments with fewer number of letters are listed first. For example, ab comes before

abc, and abc comes before abcde, and so on. Note that if treatment (1) is present in the

set of t treatments, it always appears as the first treatment in the sequence.

B. Among treatments with the same number of letters, those involving letters, corresponding

to factors assigned to the lower-order letters come first. For example, ab comes before ac,

ad before bc, and so on.

C. All treatment identification letters corresponding to the dummy factors are ignored in the

arrangement process. For our example, factor F is the dummy factor and, thus, af is

considered simply as a and comes before ab.

In this example, the systematic arrangement of the 32 treatments is shown in the first

column of table 4.21. Note that:

A. Designate the original data of the t treatments as the initial set or the t0values. For our

example, the systematically arranged set of 32 t0 values are listed in the second column

of table 4.21.

B. Group the t0 values into t/2 successive pairs. For our example, there are 16 successive

pairs: the first pair is 2.92 and 3.52, the second pair is 3.27 and 3.45, and the last pair is

4.04 and 4.80.

C. Add the values of the two treatments in each of the t/2 pairs constituted in task 2 to

constitute the first half of the second set or the t1 values. For our example, the first half of

the t1 values are computed as:

6.44 = 2.92 + 3.52

6.72 = 3.27 + 3.45

8.34 = 4.29 + 4.05

8.84 = 4.04 + 4.80

Table 4.21 Application of Yates method for the computation of sums of squares of a 26

Factorial Experiment Conducted in a1/2 Fractional Factorial Design, without replication,

from Rep. I data from table 4.20

_________________________________________________________________________

Factorial Effect

Identification

Treatment

_____________________

Combination t0

t1

t2

t3

t4

t5

Preliminary

Final

_________________________________________________________________________

(1)

2.92

6.44 13.16 27.22

56.97 116.76

(G)

(G)

a(f)

3.52

6.72 14.06 29.75

59.79

6.14

A

A

b(f)

3.27

6.94 13.81 27.48

3.07

2.50

B

B

ab

3.45

7.12 15.94 32.31

3.07

0.56

AB

AB

c(f)

3.29

6.57 13.29

1.94

0.97

5.98

C

C

ac

3.65

7.24 14.19

1.13

1.53

-0.08

AC

AC

bc

3.16

8.05 15.13

1.38

-0.01 -0.48

BC

BC

abc(f)

3.96

7.89 17.18

1.69

0.57 -0.50

ABC

ABC(Block)

d(f)

3.34

6.38

0.78

0.46

3.03 7.36

D

D

ad

3.23

6.91

1.16

0.51

2.95 -0.50

AD

AD

bd

3.29

6.85

0.55

1.02

0.41 -0.46

BD

BD

abd(f)

3.95

7.34

0.58

0.51

-0.4 -0.20

ABD

ABD

cd

3.68

7.56

0.61

0.02

-0.93 2.38

CD

CD

acd(f)

4.37

7.57

0.77

-0.03

0.45 -1.16

ACD

ACD

bcd(f)

4.00

8.34

1.17

0.36

-0.71 -0.20

BCD

BCD

abcd

3.89

8.84

0.52

0.21

0.21 0.94

ABCD

EF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------e(f)

3.28

0.60

0.28

0.90

2.53 2.82

E

E

ae

3.10

0.18

0.18

2.13

4.83 0.00

AE

AE

be

3.06

0.36

0.67

0.90

-0.81 0.56

BE

BE

abe(f)

3.85

0.80

-0.16

2.05

0.31 0.58

ABE

ABE

ce

3.08 -0.11

0.53

0.38

0.0

-0.08

CE

CE

ace(f)

3.77

0.66

0.49

0.03

-0.51 -0.90

ACE

ACE

bce

3.63

0.69

0.01

0.16

-0.05 1.38

BCE

BCE

abce

3.71 -0.11

0.50

-0.65

-0.15 0.92

ABCE

DF

de

3.29 -0.18

-0.42

-0.10

1.23 2.30

DE

DE

ade(f)

4.27

0.79

0.44 -0.83

1.1 1.12

ADE

ADE

bde(f)

3.69

0.69

0.77 -0.04

-0.3 -0.56

BDE

BDE

abde

3.88

0.08

-0.80

0.49

-0.81 -0.10

ABDE

CF

cde(f)

4.29

0.98

0.97

0.86

-0.73 -0.08

CDE

CDE

acde

4.05

0.19

-0.61 -1.57

0.53 -0.46

ACDE

BF

bcde

4.04

-0.24

-0.79

-1.58

-2.43 1.26

BCDE

AF

abcde(f)

4.80

0.76

1.00

1.79

3.37 5.80

ABCDE

F

__________________________________________________________________________

The result of the first 16 t1 values are shown in the top of the third column of table 4.21.

D. Subtract the first value from the second in each of the t/2 pairs constitute the bottom half of

the t1 values. For our example, the second half of the t1 values are computed as:

0.61 = 3.52 2.92

0.18 = 3.45 3.27

-0.24 = 4.05 4.29

0.76 = 4.80 4.04

The results of the last 16 t1 values are shown in the bottom half of the third column of table 4.21.

E. Reapply tasks B to D using the values t1 instead of t0 to derive the third set or the t2 values.

For our example, tasks B to D are reapplied to t1 values to arrive at the t2 values shown in the

fourth column of table 4.21.

F. Repeat task E, (k 2) times. Each time use the newly derived values of t. for our example,

task E is repeated three more times to derive t3 values, t4 values, and t5 values as shown in the

fifth, sixth, and seventh columns of table 4.21.

STEP 5. Identify the specific factorial effect that is represented by each of the values of

the last set (commonly referred to as the factorial effect totals) derived in step 4. use the

following guidelines:

A. The first value represents the grand total (G)

B. For the remaining (t 1) values assign the preliminary factorial effects according

To the letters of the corresponding treatments. With the dummy factors ignored. For our

example, the second t5 value corresponds to treatment combination a (f) and, hence, is

assigned to the 4 main effect. The fourth t5 value corresponds to treatment ab and is

assign to the A X B interaction effect, and so on. The result for all 32 treatments are

shown in the eighth column of table 4.21.

C. For treatments involving the dummy factor (or factors) adjust the preliminary factorial

effects derived in task B as follows:

Based on the conditions stated in the basic plan of appendix M identify all effects

involving the dummy factor that are estimable (i. e., that can be estimated). For our

example, the estimable effects involving the dummy factor F consist of the main effect of

F and all its two-factor interactions AF, BF, DF, and EF.

Identify the aliases of all effects listed immediately above. The alias of many effect is

defined as its generalized interaction with the defining contrast. The generalized

interaction between any two factorial effects is obtained by combining all the letters that

appear in the two effects and canceling all letters that enter twice. For our example, the

generalized interaction between ABC and AB is AABBC or C.

For our example, because the defining contrast is ABCDEF (see plan 3 or appendix M)

the aliases of the six effects involving the dummy factor F are: F = ABCDE, AF =

BCDE, BF = ACDE, CF = ABDE, DF = ABCE, and EF = ABCD.

The two factorial effects involve in each pair of aliases (one to the left and another to the

right of the equal sign) are not separable (i. e., cannot be estimated separately). For example, for

the first pair, F and ABCDE, the main effect of factor F cannot be separated from the A X B X C

X D X E interaction effect and, hence, unless one of the pair is known to be absent there is no

way to known which of the pairs is the contributor to the estimate contained.

Replace all preliminary factorial effects that are aliases of the estimable effects involving

the dummy factors by the latter. For example, because ABCDE (corresponding to the last

treatment in table 4.21) is the alias of F, it is replaced by F. in the same manner; BCDE is

replaced by AF, ACDE by BF, ABDE by CF, ABCE by DF, and ABCD by EF.

When blocking is used, identify the factorial effects that are confounded with blocks.

Such effects are stated for each plan of appendix M. for our example, ABC is confounded

with block (see plan 3 of appendix M) and the preliminary factorial effect ABC is,

therefore replaced by block effect. That means that the estimate of the ABC effect

becomes the measure of the block effect. The final results of the factorial effect

identification are shown in the last column of table 4.21.

STEP 6. For each source of variation in the analysis of variance (step 1) identify the

corresponding factorial effects. For our example there is only one factorial effect (i.e.,

ABC) corresponding to the first source or variation of block. For the second source of

variation (main effects) there are six factorial effects corresponding to the

six main effects (A, B, C, D, E, and F). And, for the third source of variation (two-factor

interactions) there are 15 factorial effects (i.e., all 15 possible two-factor interaction

effects among the six factors). All the remaining nine factorial effects correspond to the

last source of variation (error).

STEP 7. For each source of variation in the analysis of variance of step 1, compute its SS

as the sum of the squares of the factorial effect totals of the corresponding factorial

effects (identified in step 6) divided by the total number of treatments tested in the

experiment. For our example, the various SS are computed as:

Block SS = (ABC)2

32

= (-0.50)2 = 0.007812

32

Main effect SS = (A)2 + (B)2 + (C)2 + (D)2 + (E)2 + (F)2

32

= 5.483500

Two-factorial interaction SS = [(AB)2 + (AC)2 + (BC)2 + + (CF)2 + (BF)2 +

(AF)2]/32

= [(0.56)2 + (-0.08)2 + (-0.48)2 + + (-0.10)2 +

(- 0.46)2 + (1.26)2]/32

= 0.494550

Error SS = [(ABD)2 + (ACD)2 + (BCD)2 + + (ADE)2 +

(BDE)2 + (CDE)2]/32

= [(-0.20)2 + (-1.16)2 + (-0.20)2 + + (-1.12)2 +

(-0.56)2 + (-0.08)2]/32

= 0.189088

Note that the error SS can also be computed as the difference between the total SS and the sum of

all other SS, where the total SS is computed from all factorial effect total. For our example, the

total SS and the error SS are:

Total SS = (A) 2 + (B) 2 + (AB)2 + + (BF)2 + (AF)2 + (F)2

32

= [(6.14)2 + (2.50)2 + (0.56)2 + + (-0.46)2 +

+ (1.26)2 + (5.80)2]/32

= 0.189088

STEP 8. Determine the degree of freedom for each SS as the number of factorial effects

totals used in its computation. For example, the computation of the block SS involves

only one effect, namely ABC; hence, its d.f. is 1. on the other hand, there are six effect

totals involved in the computation of the main effect SS; hence, its d.f. is 6. the results are

shown in the second column of table 4.22.

STEP 9. Compute the mean square for each source of variation by dividing each SS by

its d.f:

Block MS = Block SS

1

= 0.007812

Table 4.22 Analysis of variance of data from a Fractional Factorial Design:

of a 26 Factorial Experiment without Replication

______________________________________________________________________

Source

Degree

Sum

Of

of

of

Mean

Computed Tabular F

Variation

freedom Squares

Squares

Fb

5% 1%

______________________________________________________________________

Block

1

0.007812 0.007812

<1

Main effect

6

5.483500 0.913917

43.50**

3.37 5.80

Two-factor interaction

15

0.494550 0.032970

1.57ni

3.00 4.96

Error

9

0.189088 0.021010

Total

31

6.174950

______________________________________________________________________

a Source of data: Rep. I data of table 4.20

b** = significant at 1% level, as = not significant.

Main effect MS = Main effect SS

6

= 5.483500 = 0.913917

6

Two-factor interaction MS = Two-factor interaction SS

15

= 0.494550 = 0.032970

15

Error MS = Error SS

9

= 0.189088 = 0.021010

9

STEP 10. Compute the F value for each effect by dividing its MS by the error MS:

F (Block) = Block MS

Error MS

= 0.007812 < 1

0.021010

F (main effect) = Main effect MS

Error MS

= 0.913917 = 43.50

0.021010

F (two-factor interaction) = Two-factor interaction MS

Error MS

= 0.032970 = 1.57

0.021010

STEP 11. Compare each computed F value with the corresponding tabular F values,

from appendix E, with f1 = d.f. of the numerator MS and f2 = error d.f.

The final analysis of variance is shown in table 4.22. The results indicate a highly

significant main effect but not the two-factor interaction effect

4.5.2.2 Design with Replication. We show the computations involved in the analysis of variance

of a FFD with data from both replications in table 4.20.

STEP 1. Outline the analysis of variance, following that given in plan 3 of appendix M:

Source

Degree

Sum

Of

of

of

Mean

Computed Tabular F

Variation

freedom Squares

Squares

F

5% 1%

_______________________________________________________________________

Replication

1

Block

1

Block X Replication

1

Main effect

6

Two-factor

interaction

15

Three-factor

interaction

9

Error

30

Total

63

STEP 2. Compute the replication X block totals (RB) as shown in table 4.20. Then

compute the replication total for each of the two replications (R), the block totals for each

of the two blocks (B), and the grand total (G) as:

R1 = 58.63 + 58.13 = 116.76

R2 = 57.43 + 57.43 = 114.86

B1 = 58.63 + 57.43 = 116.06

B2 = 58.13 + 57.43 = 115.56

G = 116.76 + 114.86

STEP 3. Let r denote the number of replications, p the number of blocks in each

replication, and t the total number of treatments tested. Compute the correction factor,

total SS, replication SS, block SS, and block X replication SS as:

C.F. = G2

rt

= (231.62)2 = 838.247256

(2)(32)

Total SS = X2 C.F.

= [(2.92)2 + + (4.78)2] 838.247256

= 12.419344

Replication SS = R2 C.F.

t

= (116.76)2 + (114.86)2 838.247256

32

= 0.056406

Blocks SS = B2 C.F.

t

= (116.06)2 + (115.56)2 838.247256

32

= 0.003906

Blocks X Replication SS = (RB)2 C.F. Replication SS Block SS

t/p

= (58.63)2 + (57.43)2 + (58.13)2 + (57.43)2

32/2

- 838.247256 0.056406 0.003906

= 0.003907

STEP 4. Follow steps 2 to 7 of section 4.5.2.1; with one modification, namely that the

grain yield data in the second column of table 4.21 is replaced by the yield totals over two

replications as shown in table 4.23. Then compute the various SS as follows:

Main effect SS = (A)2 + (B)2 + (C)2 + (D)2 + (E)2 + (F)2

(r)(2k)

= [(13.86)2 + (6.08)2 + (11.32)2 + (14.32)2 + (5.68)2 +

(10.62)2] /(2)(32)

= 11.051838

Two-factor interaction SS = [(AB)2 + (AC)2 + (BC)2 + + (CF)2 + (BF)2 +

(AF)2]/(r)(2k)

= [(1.48)2 + (0.92)2 + (-1.50)2 + + (-0.44)2 + (-0.52)2

+ (1.62)2]/(2)(32)

= 0.787594

Three-factor interaction SS = [(ABD)2 + (ACD)2 + (BCD)2 + + (ADE)2 +

(BDE)2 + (CDE)2]/(r)(2k)

Error SS = Totals SS (the sum of all other SS)

= 12.419344 (0.056406 + 0.003906 + 0.003907 +

11.051838 + 0.787594 + 0.238206)

= 0.277487

STEP 5. Compute the mean square for each source of variation, by dividing the SS by its

d.f. (see step 8 of section 4.5.2.1 for the determination of d.f) as:

Replication MS = Replication SS

1

= 0.056406 = 0.056406

1

Block MS = Block SS

1

= 0.003906 = 0.003906

1

Block X Replication MS = Block X Replication SS

1

= 0.003907 = 0.003907

1

Table 4.23 Application of Yates method for the computation of sums of squares of a 26

Factorial Experiment Conducted in Fractional Factorial Design, with two replications;

from data table 4.20

____________________________________________________________________

Factorial Effect

Treatment

Identification

Combination t0

t1

t2

t3

t4

t5

Preliminary Final

____________________________________________________________________

(I)

5.68 12.47 25.96 53.65 112.97 231.62

(G)

(G)

a(f)

6.79 13.49 27.69 59.32 118.65 13.86

A

A

b(f)

6.54 13.54 27.91 55.00

6.97

6.08

B

B

ab

6.95 14.15 31.41 63.65

6.89

1.48

AB

AB

c(f)

6.39 13.42 26.73 4.01

2.57 11.32

C

C

ac

7.15 14.49 28.27 2.96

3.51

0.92

AC

AC

bc

6.21 15.77 29.55 3.08

0.49

-1.50

BC

BC

abc(f)

7.94 15.64 34.10 3.81

0.99

-0.50

ABC ABC(Block)

d(f)

6.71 12.72

1.52 1.63

5.23 14.32

D

D

ad

6.71 14.01

2.49 0.94

6.09 -0.32

AD

AD

bd

6.51 13.67

1.47 2.22

0.99 -1.62

BD

BD

abd(f)

7.98 14.60

1.49 1.29

-0.07 -0.54

ABD

ABD

cd

7.20 14.57

1.19 0.27

-1.61

4.78

CD

CD

acd(f)

8.57 14.98

1.89 0.22

0.11 -2.42

ACD

ACD

bcd(f)

7.76 16.61

2.29 0.74

-1.05

0.04

BCD

BCD

abcd

7.88 17.49

1.52

0.25

0.55

1.84

ABCD

EF

e(f)

6.51 1.11

1.02

1.73

5.67

5.68

E

E

ae

6.21 0.41

0.61 3.50

8.65 -0.08

AE

AE

be

6.26 0.76

1.07 1.54

-1.05 0.94

BE

BE

abe(f)

7.75 1.73 -0.13 4.55

0.73

0.50

ABE

ABE

ce

6.10 0.00

1.29 0.97

-0.69

0.86

CE

CE

ace(f)

7.57 1.47

0.93 0.02

-0.93 -1.06

ACE

ACE

bcef(f)

7.09 1.37

0.41 0.70

-0.05

1.72

BCE

BCE

abce

7.51 0.12

0.88 -0.77

-0.49

1.60

ABCE

DF

de

6.32 -0.30 -0.70 -0.41

1.77

2.98

DE

DE

ade(f)

8.25 1.49

0.97 -1.20

3.01

1.78

ADE

ADE

bde(f)

7.31 1.47

1.47 -1.36 -0.95

0.24

BDE

BDE

abde

7.67 0.42 -1.25

0.47 -1.47

0.44

ABDE

CE

cde(f)

8.38 1.93

1.79

1.67 -0.79

1.24

CDE

CDE

acde

8.23 0.36 -1.05

-2.72

0.83

0.52

ACDE

BE

bcde

7.91 -0.15 -1.57

-2.84 -4.39

1.62

BCDE

AE

abcde(f)

9.58 1.67

1.82

3.39

6.23 10.62

ABCDE

E

_________________________________________________________________

Main effect MS = Main effect SS

6

= 11.051838 = 1.841973

6

Two-factor interaction MS = Two-factor interaction SS

15

= 0.787594 = 0.052506

15

Three-factor interaction MS = Three-factor interaction SS

9

Error MS = Error SS

30

= 0.277487 = 0.009250

30

STEP 6. Compute the F value for each effect, by dividing its MS by the error MS

F(replication) = Replication MS

Error MS

= 0.056406 = 6.10

0.009250

F(block) = Block MS

Error MS

= 0.003906 < 1

0.009250

F(block X replication) = Block X replication MS

Error MS

= 0.003907 < 1

0.009250

Error MS

= 0.052506 = 2.86

0.009250

STEP 7. Compare its computed F value with the corresponding tabular F values, from

appendix E, with f1 = d.f. of the numerator MS and f2 = error d.f. The results indicate that

the main effects, the two-factor interactions, and the three-factor interactions are all

significant.

The final analysis of variance is shown in table 4.24. there are two important points that

should be noted in the results of this analysis of variance obtained from two replications as

compared to that without replication (Table 4.22):

The effect of the three-factor interactions can be estimated only when there is replication.

Table 4.24 Analysis of variance of Grain of Grain Yield Data in table 4.20, from a

Fractional Factorial Design: of a 26 Factorial Experiment with Two Replications

_____________________________________________________________________

Source

Degree

Sum

Of

of

of

Mean

Computed Tabular F

Variation

freedom Squares

Squares

Fa

5% 1%

_____________________________________________________________________

Replication

1

0.056406 0.056406

6.10

4.17 7.56

Block

1

0.003906 0.003906

<1

Block X replication

1

0.003907 0.003907

<1

Main effect

6

11.051838 1.841973

199.13** 2.42 3.47

Two-factor interaction

15

0.787594 0.052506

5.68**

2.02 2.70

Three-factor interaction

9

0.238206 0.026467

2.86*

2.21 3.06

Error

30

0.277487 0.009250

Total

63 12.419344

__________________________________________________________________

a** = significant at 1% level, * = significant at 5% level.

- The effect of constrained processing on auditors’ judgmentsHochgeladen vonaudria_mh_110967519
- Method Validation and RobustnessHochgeladen vonBill Zng
- Factorial ExperimentsHochgeladen vonTanzed Hossain Arnab
- ExperimentosHochgeladen vonGerardo Lopez
- scimakelatex.2849.none (1)Hochgeladen vonNeto Lima
- app2Hochgeladen vonTiara Marselia
- 2016 Design of ExperimentsHochgeladen vondogunmokun9
- JISTE 16.2 2012Hochgeladen voncontact7350
- T9 FactorialHochgeladen vonmaleticj
- Parametric Optimization of Shielded Metal Arc Welding Processes by Using Factorial Design ApproachHochgeladen vonIJSRP ORG
- mel705-14.pptHochgeladen vonShyam Pandey
- Multiple Classification Analysis Using SPSSHochgeladen voncicakadut
- Friedman nonparametric testHochgeladen vonkirthika sekar
- Manual Do R_ FrF2Hochgeladen vonYohanis001
- Full FactorialHochgeladen vondaveawoods
- Evaluation Robust Design Methods Using a Model of Interactions in Complex SystemsHochgeladen vonIonut Dumistrascu
- Agrillo Et Al 2015, Front PsychHochgeladen vonChristian Agrillo
- 2005Bonardi2Hochgeladen vonPatricia Febriani Oetomo
- F1-04Hochgeladen vonAtul Gaur
- Comparison of Alternatives NotesHochgeladen vonLibyaFlower
- Biometry4 FrontHochgeladen vonMiller Humberto Castaneda Clavijo
- kpHochgeladen vonKhairah A Karim
- The Moderating Effect of Risk on the Relationship Between Planning and SuccessHochgeladen vonjohnalis22
- lecture1_intro.pdfHochgeladen vonAnonymous 8UtrXb0tb
- six sigmaHochgeladen vonKamran Musa
- Troxler CorrelationHochgeladen vonAnonymous JONRi7VVs
- Study of Surface Roughness measurement in turning of EN 18 steelHochgeladen vonAnonymous CUPykm6DZ
- Regression, PushwithaHochgeladen vonPushwitha K
- Section3 Group15 WentworthHochgeladen vonmukesh_shah1987
- Stats WorkshopHochgeladen vongura1999

- Thesis PPTHochgeladen vonsinha2512
- FIN-Nahg AlawiHochgeladen vonMichelle Phua
- Attitudes, Experience, And Anticipation of Sex AmongHochgeladen vonFrancisca
- ECONOMIC-PERFORMANCE-GOVERNMENT-SIZE.pdfHochgeladen vonJuanjo Martinez
- 5. Cefazolina Vs Naficilina oxacilina para SAMS 2017.pdfHochgeladen vonGustavo Urriago
- Computational aerodynamic Optimisation of Vertical axis Wind Turbine bladesHochgeladen vonRob Chris Ellis
- 09578230410534667Hochgeladen vonCheran Kumar
- the role of the physical work environment.pdfHochgeladen vonmarcianoos
- 05) Schoen - Personality and Attitudes in Affecting TurnoutHochgeladen vonLaviAlexa
- Optimization of Ascorbic Acid TabletsHochgeladen vonaastha212002
- Hammersley SequenceHochgeladen vonjohn
- 04 Agou Locker 2011 Psych Well Being OHrQolHochgeladen vonamalia rieska mauliddya
- Interaction terms in logit and probit modelsHochgeladen vonAziz Adam
- Stiffness modulus of Polyethylene Terephthalate modified asphalt mixture: A statistical analysis of the laboratory testing resultsHochgeladen vonmehrdad_so1981
- Factorial a NovaHochgeladen vonsearchshri
- Ou of SyllabusHochgeladen vonHIsham Ali
- zhou2014_2Hochgeladen vonalamatpalsu100
- Sense of Coherenece _and School StressHochgeladen vongreen_alien
- intodsgraphHochgeladen vonClara Monroe
- Analysis of the Foam Agent - Generated Using Surfactant SodiumHochgeladen vonHariharan
- ANOVA SAS.pdfHochgeladen vonNeni Fuad Musyarofah's
- GGT-HD 1Hochgeladen vonAnonymous plYGwX
- Seed Yield Stability and Genotype x Environment Interaction of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Lines in EthiopiaHochgeladen vonPremier Publishers
- Discrimination and Psychological Distress- Does Whiteness Matter for Arab Americans?Hochgeladen vonJohn Prince
- Optimization of Baker's Yeast Drying in Industrial Continuous Fluidized Bed DryerHochgeladen vonMohamadMostafavi
- EXPLORING LEADERSHIP ROLE IN SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS.pdfHochgeladen vonRiazDawar
- Corporate Tax Avoidance and Firm ValueHochgeladen vonvidovdan9852
- Christensen Et Al 2006Hochgeladen vonspdoifpoipoi
- Analysis of Abrasive Wear Behavior of Carbon Fabric Reinforced Epoxy Composite Using Taguchi MethodHochgeladen vonsudarshan rao
- Lower Extremity Bio Mechanics During Weightlifting.6Hochgeladen vonTommaso Finadri