Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

TAPAJYOTI GHOSH

Problem 6.7:

a) Solution:

α = 0.05

CHBE 5779

HOMEWORK #9

First we test the model with all the possible effects. Here the factors have been taken as categorical variables because we have non numeric variables. Every factor has only two levels. Thus this is 2^k factorial design. It is used for screening factors.

From the whole model test, we find that atleast one of the factors is significant. So we go to effects test. The effects shows us which factors are significant( p < alpha) and which are not significant. (p > alpha). Now we determine how to get to am adequate model by removing the factors

which are not significant

remember that we should remove one factor at a time. And refit it everytime rather than removing all the not significant effects at once. So we start by moving the higher order effects. First removing the ternary effect of C*D*A. And redoing the analysis.

However, we should always

From the whole model test, we find that atleast one of the factors is significant. So we go to effects test. The effects shows us which factors are significant( p < alpha) and which are not significant. (p > alpha). Now we determine how to get to an adequate model by removing the factors which are not significant. So for the next analysis we remove the effect of B*C*D and redo the entire analysis.

From the whole model test, we find that atleast one of the factors is significant. So we go to effects test. The effects shows us which factors are significant( p < alpha) and which are not significant. (p > alpha). Now we determine how to get to an adequate model by removing the factors which are not significant. So for the next analysis we remove the effect of B*D and redo the entire analysis. The other two ternary effects are now significant so we keep them in our model.

From the whole model test, we find that atleast one of the factors is significant. So we go to effects test. The effects shows us which factors are significant( p < alpha) and which are not significant. (p > alpha). Now we determine how to get to an adequate model by removing the factors which are not significant. So for the next analysis we remove the effect of B*C and redo the entire analysis

From the whole model test, we find that atleast one of the factors is significant. So we go to effects test. The effects shows us which factors are significant( p < alpha) and which are not significant. (p > alpha). Now we determine how to get to an adequate model by removing the factors which are not significant. So for the next analysis we remove the effect of B*C and redo the entire analysis

From the whole model test, we find that atleast one of the factors is significant. So we go to effects test. The effects shows us which factors are significant( p < alpha) and which are not significant. (p > alpha). Now we determine how to get to an adequate model by removing the factors which are not significant. So for the next analysis we remove the effect of A*C and redo the entire analysis

From the whole model test, we find that atleast one of the factors is significant. So we go to effects test. The effects shows us which factors are significant( p < alpha) and which are not significant. (p > alpha). Now we determine how to get to an adequate model by removing the factors which are not significant. So for the next analysis we remove the effect of C*D and redo the entire analysis.

From the whole model test, we find that atleast one of the factors is significant. So we go to effects test. The effects shows us which factors are significant( p < alpha) and which are not significant. (p > alpha). Now we determine how to get to an adequate model by removing the factors which are not significant. Thus finally we get the best model which is the most adequate. I believe this model is correct and adequate fro the given data. I decide to keep the main effect of B even thought it is not significant as it is a main effect and we should include it in the model. We might have decided to remove it too.

Thus now as we have the model, we can proceed for residual analysis.

Oh No! OUTLIER. So we had an outlier in the experiment. I might have to do my entire analysis over again. But I decide not to. Why? Because the number of outliers are really less. Only one. And we have 32 runs. So probably, or model would be robust enough such that even if we remove this outlier from our analysis, out model which we have already derived will still work fine. And also, and we have two replicates for a data point. So it is difficult to say which one is the outlier. I think the number of runs is not adequate. We should have more runs to decide whether it is bad data or bad model.

Yes! My model works without the outlier data point too. So it is robust and I have probably done right. Hence, even if I had included in the process of developing the model, the model was quite robust and the presence of just a single outlier ensured that I didn’t stray towards a very wrong direction. Hence, if I had redone the entire analysis, I would have probably got the same model.

Ah! So Finally I reach residual analysis. Very nice. Normaly distributed data. Goodness of fit test is showing that is actually normally distributed. No outliers. Graph all good. Yup.Good to Go.

Plot of residuals vs predicted values shows equal variance at all levels. Hence our assumption was correct. Thus our model is adequate.

A quick power analysis of the main effect shows that the main effect of B would might have been rendered significant if we had done nearly 284 runs. TOO many runs! No need. Forget B. Power is low though. High chance of type II error hmmmm.