Design of Experiments

Lecture 2

Rajiv Gupta
BITS Pilani
Lecture 13
 Agenda
• Module 1
– Recap of Lecture 12
• Module 2
– Design of Experiments with Two Factors
• Module 3
– Example of a Two Factor Design
• Module 4
– Summary

2
 Session 13
• Begin Module 1
– Recap of Lecture 12

3
 Recap of Lecture 12
• Lecture 12 was the first lecture on the design of
experiments
• In that lecture we discussed that unlike SPC charts,
where we wait for a change to occur in the system, in
design of experiments, we proactively test the effect of
changes to the system
• The approach to the design of experiments covered in
lecture 12 did not follow the method in the text book.
However, it is based on the teachings of Deming

4
 Recap of Lecture 12
• The approach takes a PDSA approach to the design of
experiments where at each successive iteration our
degree of belief in the effect of a change is further
increased, or not
• The main reason for the departure of the Deming
approach from traditional DOE approaches is that most
studies are analytical rather than enumerative. In
analytical studies, we do not know the behavior of the
system and the population ahead of time. In enumerative
studies the entire population is known and we are
sampling to draw inferences on the entire poupation

5
 Lecture 13
• End of Module 1

6
 Lecture 13
• Begin Module 2
– Design of Experiments with Two Factors

7
 Two Factors
• Often we might suspect that more than one
variable/factor has an effect on the output or
response variable.
• For example, temperature of baking and
length of baking time could affect the way that
cookies turn out, i.e., crispiness, etc.
• So how do we test the effect of multiple
factors, starting with 2 factors

8
 Two Factors
• One way to do this is to first hold one of the variables
constant, i.e., temperature, and do a single factor
experiment by varying the baking time
• Then we could hold the baking time constant and do
a single factor experiment by varying the
temperature
• This approach is generally not recommended for two
reasons
– Interactions among factors
– Inefficiency of experimentation
9
 Two Factors
• Interaction among factors
– Sometimes the effect of varying one of the factors, or both
of them, depends on the value of the other factor that has
been kept constant. When we do one factor at a time
study, these interactions among the factors cannot be
evaluated
• Inefficiency of experimentation
– As each factor is varied, in turn, the data has to be
collected completely afresh. This takes more time and
effort

10
 No Interaction Between Factors
Factor 2 Value 1

Factor 2 Value 2
Response

Factor 1

11
 Moderate Interaction Between
Factors
Factor 2 Value 1

Factor 2 Value 2
Response

Factor 1

12
Strong Interaction Between Factors

Factor 2 Value 2
Response

Factor 2 Value 1

Factor 1

13
 Factorial Design
• In a factorial design, the values of both (or more)
variables is varied in combination to permit us to study
interactions among the variables
• So for example, if there are 2 variables each at 2 levels,
i.e., F11, F12 and F21 and F22, then we would conduct 4
experiments with the conditions as follows,
– F11, F21
– F11, F22
– F12, F21
– F12, F22

14
 Factorial Design
• If the number of factors was 4 and each was to be studied at 2
different levels, then each of the possible factor levels would
have to be combined with each of the other factor levels to
give 2x2x2x2 = 16 experimental units
• Quite obviously as the number of factors and/or the number
of levels increases, the number of experimental units also
increases
• So for 4 factors, where the first 2 factors are at 2 levels and
the third factor is at 3 levels and the fourth factor is at 5
levels, the number of experimental units = 2x2x3x5 = 60

15
 Factorial Design
• Often it suffices to have factors at two levels, which
we can choose as high and low
• In this case, for k factors, the size of the experiment
will be given by 2k
• Using 2k designs, we can easily analyze the data
graphically
• If we need to have factors at more than 2 levels,
some fractional factorial design may be needed

16
Design Matrix

Factor
1 2
Test
1 Low Low
2 Low High
3 High Low
4 High High

2 Factors, each at 2 levels

17
Design Matrix
Factor
1 2 3
Test
1 Low Low Low
2 High Low Low
3 Low High Low
4 Low Low High
5 Low High High
6 High Low High
7 High High Low
8 High High High

3 Factors, each at 2 levels

18
Tabular Display

Factor 2
Factor 1 Low High
Low
High

2 Factors, each at 2 levels

19
 Tabular Display

Factor 3
Low High
Factor 2 Factor 2
Factor 1 Low High Low High
Low
High

3 Factors, each at 2 levels

20
 Geometric Display

High

Factor 2

Low
Low Factor 1 High
21
 Geometric Display

High

Factor 2

High
Low
Low High Low Factor 3
Factor 1
22
 Lecture 13
• End of Module 2

23
 Lecture 13
• Begin Module 3
– Example of a Two Factor Design

24
 Example
• A chemical manufacturer wants to obtain a particular
viscosity of a product he makes. The viscosity
required that the reaction time be between 7 to 9
hours. Because of a problem, the reaction time for
the process had speeded up with the result that the
viscosity was unacceptable. The manager wanted to
test whether, by varying a key ingredient, and the
reaction temperature, he could slow down the
process to obtain the correct viscosity.

25
 Example
• Objective: Find a combination of the amount of
ingredient and the reaction temperature to bring th
reaction time to between 7 and 9 hours
• Response variable: Reaction time to reach desired
viscosity
• Factors:
– Percentage of ingredient 2 levels 42% and 48%
– Temperature (deg C) 2 levels 175 and 195
• Replicaions: 2 at each factor level, each with a
different batch of the ingredient
26
 Design Matrix
Factor
% Temperatur
Test Ingredient e
1 42% 195
2 42% 175
3 48% 175
Blend 1 4 48% 195
5 42% 195
6 48% 195
7 42% 175
Blend 2 8 48% 175

Each set of 4 tests will be done with 2 different blends of the

Ingredient. The order of the factor levels is randomized for the 2 blends
27
 Data
Reaction
Test Blend % Ingredient Temperature Time
1 1 42% 195 5.5
2 1 42% 175 9
3 1 48% 175 9
4 1 48% 195 1.5

5 2 42% 195 6.5

6 2 48% 195 1
7 2 42% 175 9.5
8 2 48% 175 8

28
 Data
9.0, 8.0 1.5,1.0
48%

% Ingredient 5.5, 6.5

42%
9.0, 9.5 5.5,6.5
175 Temperature 195
29
 Analysis for the First Blend
• First, we subtract the reaction time for the low temperature
from the reaction time for the high temperature with the %
ingredient held constant at 48%
1.5 – 9.0 = -7.5
• Next we do the same for % at 42%
5.5 – 9.0 = -3.5
• Holding temperature constant at 175, the difference between
% ingredient at 48 and 42 is
9.0 – 9.0 = 0
• Holding temperature at 195, the difference is
1.5 – 5.5 = -4.0
30
 Analysis for the Second Blend
• First, we subtract the reaction time for the low temperature
from the reaction time for the high temperature with the %
ingredient held constant at 48%
1.0 – 8.0 = -7.0
• Next we do the same for % at 42%
6.5 – 9.5 = -3.0
• Holding temperature constant at 175, the difference between
% ingredient at 48 and 42 is
8.0 – 9.5 = -1.5
• Holding temperature at 195, the difference is
1.0 – 6.5 = -5.5
31
 Analysis
• The first thing to note is that the change in the reaction time
to changes in temperature and % of the ingredient were
similar for the two blends. So there is no effect seen of the
two blends
• The effect of the temperatures at 48% ingredient
concentration produced a larger difference in reaction time as
compared to that at 42%. This suggests an interaction
between temperature and the concentration of the ingredient
• In 3 of the 4 comparisons of the effect of increasing the %
concentration of the ingredient showed an increase in the
reaction time. In one case there was no effect

32
Average for the 4 Conditions

Temperature
% Ingredient 175 195
42 9.25 6
48 8.5 1.25

33
 Analysis

10

42%

5
48%

175 195
Temperature
34
 Analysis

10
T = 175

5
T = 195

42 48
Concentration
35
 Conclusion
• From the data and the graphs plotted, it would appear that
the temperature and the concentration of the ingredient have
an effect on the reaction time
• Depending on the degree of belief of the people familiar with
the process if the results are conclusive enough to take to the
shop floor, or further testing is required
• This is a particular conclusion of Deming with regard to
analytical studies, i.e., the end result is not a purely statistical
one. The conclusion cannot be drawn by a statistician. Only a
person with domain knowledge can interpret the results
accurately.

36
• End of Module 3

37
• Begin Module 4
– Summary

38
 Summary of Lecture 13
• In this lecture we considered the design of
experiments with more than one factor
• One of considerations in multi-factor
experimental design is the number of tests to
be conducted as this involves time and money
• The more common way to consider multi-
factor design of design of experiments is to
consider a 2k design, i.e., each factor at 2
levels
39
 Summary of Lecture 13
• There are several ways to display the design of a
multi-factor design including the design matrix,
tabular display and the geometric display
• We saw an example of a 2 factor design in which
each factor was varied at 2 levels. The results
showed a good correlation between the factors
and the response variable. Also, moderate
interaction between the factors was seen

40
• End of Module 4

41