Effects of Factors On The Time of Battery Capacity Reduction

Andreas Aristides Bintang Praharani Chintya Widyaning P.U M. Haekal D. Nadira Winaputri Raihan Yamang Padere

1106069506 1106008416 1106069544 1106069462 1106003402 1106004916

Contents Background Methodology Data and Data Processing Results Conclusion and Suggestion

Background

For most engineers, designing process are aided by CAD (Computer Aided Design) Software. In the recent time, many engineers doing this designing process on their laptops. Due to the lack of durability of laptops batteries, the designing time on laptops may not be sufficient.

Methodology
To overcome this problem we tried to bulid an experiment to approach this problem by using 2^k Factorial Design with Three factors
Two levels are provided on each factors: 1. Software : AutoCAD and Autodesk Inventor Fusion 2. Battery Mode : LivePower and High Performance 3. Brightness : Lowest and Highest

Methodology (contd)

The model used for the Software used are depicted on the left. This model choosen by the factor of the complexity of 3D image rendering difficulty. This model are used in both softwares

Methodology (contd)

We used Minitab 14 to generate randomized full factorial design with 3 factors and 2 levels on each factors

Data
Residual Plots for Time to Half Capacity (min)
Normal Probability Plot
99 90
Residual Percent

Versus Fits
2 1 0 -1 -2

50 10 1 -2 -1 0 Residual 1 2

25

30 35 Fitted Value

40

Histogram
12
Frequency Residual

Versus Order
2 1 0 -1 -2

9 6 3 0 -2 -1 0 Residual 1 2

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Observation Order

Processed data, the data are normally distributed

Results
Factorial Fit: Time to Half Capacity (min) versus App; Mode; Brightness
Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Time to Half Capacity (min) (coded units) Term Constant App Mode Brightness App*Mode App*Brightness Mode*Brightness App*Mode*Brightness Effect 0,992 -7,606 5,808 0,322 0,310 0,891 3,810 Coef 32,887 0,496 -3,803 2,904 0,161 0,155 0,445 1,905 SE Coef 0,1593 0,1593 0,1593 0,1593 0,1593 0,1593 0,1593 0,1593 T 206,41 3,11 -23,87 18,23 1,01 0,97 2,80 11,96 P 0,000 0,005 0,000 0,000 0,323 0,340 0,010 0,000

S = 0,901272 R-Sq = 97,79%

PRESS = 34,6578 R-Sq(pred) = 96,08%

R-Sq(adj) = 97,15%

Results (contd)
Analysis of Variance for Time to Half Capacity (min) (coded units) Source Main Effects App Mode Brightness 2-Way Interactions App*Mode App*Brightness Mode*Brightness 3-Way Interactions App*Mode*Brightness Residual Error Pure Error Total Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P 740,504 740,504 246,835 303,87 0,000 1 7,879 7,879 7,879 9,70 0,005 1 462,799 462,799 462,799 569,75 0,000 1 269,826 269,826 269,826 332,18 0,000 3 7,947 7,947 2,649 3,26 0,039 1 0,827 0,827 0,827 1,02 0,323 1 0,769 0,769 0,769 0,95 0,340 1 6,351 6,351 6,351 7,82 0,010 1 116,133 116,133 116,133 142,97 0,000 1 116,133 116,133 116,133 142,97 0,000 24 19,495 19,495 0,812 24 19,495 19,495 0,812 31 884,079 DF 3

Results: Main Factor (Application Used)

H0 : ij= 0 for all i, j H1 : at least one ij 0 Based on data obtained F0 = 9,70 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 = 4,260 Thus F0 > F Therefore, H0 Rejected and H1 Accepted The F test shows that theres significant difference in the kind of applications to the time of half battery capacity.

Results: Main Factor (Battery Mode)

H0 : ij= 0 for all i, j H1 : at least one ij 0 Based on data obtained F0 = 569,75 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 = 4,260 Thus F0 > F Therefore, H0 Rejected and H1 Accepted The F test shows that theres significant difference in the kind of battery mode to the time of half battery capacity.

Results: Main Factor (Brightness)

H0 : ij= 0 for all i, j H1 : at least one ij 0 Based on data obtained F0 = 332,18 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 = 4,260 Thus F0 > F Therefore, H0 Rejected and H1 Accepted The F test shows that theres significant difference in the Brightness level to the time of half battery capacity.

Results: 2-way Interactions (Application*Battery Mode)

H0 : = 0 for all i, j H1 : at least one 0 Based on data obtained F0 = 1,02 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 = 4,260 Thus F0 < F Therefore, H0 Accepted and H1 Rejected The F test shows that theres no significant difference in interaction between Application and Battery Mode

Results: 2-way Interactions (Application*Brightness)

H0 : = 0 for all i, j H1 : at least one 0 Based on data obtained F0 = 0,95 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 = 4,260 Thus F0 < F Therefore, H0 Accepted and H1 Rejected The F test shows that theres no significant difference in interaction between Application and Brightness Level

Results: 2-way Interactions (Battery Mode*Brightness)

H0 : = 0 for all i, j H1 : at least one 0 Based on data obtained F0 = 7,82 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 = 4,260 Thus F0 > F Therefore, H0 Rejected and H1 Accepted The F test shows that theres significant difference in interaction between Battery Mode and Brightness Level

Results: 3-way Interactions

H0 : = 0 for all i, j H1 : at least one 0 Based on data obtained F0 = 142,97 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 = 4,260 Thus F0 > F Therefore, H0 Rejected and H1 Accepted The F test shows that theres significant difference in interaction between Battery Mode and Brightness Level

Results (contd)

Results (contd)

Conclusion and Suggestion

Conclusion on each factors: 1. Software : AutoCAD uses more power than Inventor 2. Battery Mode : High Performance mode consumes more power 3. Brightness : Highest brightness settings uses more power

Conclusion and Suggestion: Interaction

From the interaction plot of each factor we might see that: - The first graph shows no significant interaction between the applications and battery mode. - The second graph indicates that the applications and brightness are almost have an interaction but not significant enough. - On the last graph, there is a big gap between battery mode and brightness, but this graph has the biggest line gradien it means theres an interaction between two factors.

References

- Design and Analysis of Experiment, Douglas C. Montgomery 8th Edition - http://www.2.imm.dtu.dk/courses/02411/engnote.pdf

Thank You