Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CH 02
CH 02
Chapter 2
Section 2-1
n 15
x
i 1
i x
i 1
i
805.5
2-1. Sample average: x 53.7
n 15 15
x
i 1
i 805.5 xi 1
2
i 45206.24
2
n
xi
n
i 1 805.52
xi
2
n
45206.24
15 1950.89
s i 1
11.8
n 1 15 1 14
Dot diagram:
suspended solids
n 19
xi xi 272.82
2-2. Sample average: x i 1
i 1
14.36 min
n 19 19
19 19
x i 272.82 x 2
i 10334
i 1 i 1
2
n
x i
n
i 1 272.82 2
x 2
i
n
10334
6416.59
i 1 19
s 356.48 (min) 2 18.88 min
n 1 19 1 18
Dot diagram
. .
.:::.:. . .... .
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------- Breakdown time
0 15 30 45 60 75
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
n 10
x x i i
12883
2-3. Sample average: x i 1
i 1
1288.3 angstroms
n 10 10
x
i 1
i 12883 x
i 1
2
i 16599083
2
n
xi
n
i 1 128832
x i2 16599083
s i 1 n
10
1914.1
215.68 angstroms2 14.68 angstroms
n 1 10 1 9
Dot diagram:
Thickness
n 18
xi xi 2272
2-4. Sample average: x i 1
i 1
126.22 kN
n 18 18
i 1 i 1
2
n
xi 22722
n
xi 298392
2 i 1
i 1 n 18 11615.11
s2 683.24 (kN ) 2 26.14 kN
n 1 18 1 17
Dot Diagram:
.
: :: . :: . . : . .
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------yield
90 105 120 135 150 165
n 8
x x i i
351.8
2-5. Sample average: x i 1
i 1
43.98
n 8 8
i 1 i 1
2
n
xi 351.82
n
xi 16528.04
2 i 1
i 1 n 8 1058
s 151.143 12.29
n 1 8 1 7
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
Dot diagram:
. . .. . .. .
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------
24.0 32.0 40.0 48.0 56.0 64.0
n 11
x i x i
23.38
2-6. Sample average: x i 1
i 1
2.125 mm
n 11 11
x
i 1
i 23.38 x
i 1
2
i 54.094
2
n
xi
n
xi i 1 23.382
2
n
54.094
11 4.401
s i 1
0.4401 0.6634 mm
n 1 11 1 10
Dot Diagram:
Crack length
xi 28368
x i 1
810.514 watts / m 2
35 35
Sample variance:
35
xi 28368
i 1
35
xi2 23552500
i 1
2
n
xi
n
xi2 283682
i 1
23552500
n 35 559830.743
s 2 i 1
n 1 35 1 34
16465.61 ( watts / m 2 ) 2
xi x
n
2
s i 1
n 1
where
xi x
35
559830.743
2
i 1
Dot Diagram (rounding of the data is used to create the dot diagram)
x
. .
. : .: ... . . .: :. . .:. .:: :::
-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-x
500 600 700 800 900 1000
The sample mean is the point at which the data would balance if it were on a scale.
Sample average:
22
xi 1158.2
x i 1
52.65
22 22
Sample variance:
22
xi 1158.2
i 1
22
xi2 92270.6
i 1
2
n
xi
1158.22
xi n
n
i 1
92270.6
2
22 31296.63
s
2 i 1
n 1 22 1 21
1490.32
xi x
n
2
s i 1
n 1
where
xi x
22
31296.6
2
i 1
D o tp lo t o f H ig h D o s e
16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128
H ig h D o s e
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
Control Group:
Sample average:
22
xi 8418.7
x i 1
382.67
22 22
Sample variance:
22
xi 8418.7
i 1
22
xi2 6901280
i 1
2
n
xi
n
xi2 8418.7 2
i 1
6901280
n 22 3679711.38
s
2 i 1
n 1 22 1 21
175224.35
xi x
n
2
s i 1
n 1
where
xi x
22
3679711.59
2
i 1
D o tp lo t o f C o ntr o l
2-9. The only two data sets that may have resulted from a designed experiment is in Exercise 2-4 and 2-8.
2-10 The monthly mean pay increases by $30; the standard deviation is unchanged.
2-11 No. Suppose that the sample observations are 1, 2, 3, 8, and 10. The sample mean is 4.8, and this is not one of the sample
values.
11
11
x
i 1
i 223.7
11
x
i 1
2
i 4549.55
2
n
xi
n
xi i 1 223.7 2
2
n
4549.55
11 0.30545
s 2 i 1 0.031
n 1 11 1 10
2.13. A new salary equals the old salary times 1.05. Both the mean and the standard deviation increase by 5%.
Section 2-2
1 532 9
1 533
2 534 2
4 535 47
4 536
8 537 5678
17 538 124778888
23 539 016999
32 540 116667889
40 541 12366668
(12) 542 001122357899
38 543 1111556
31 544 001245567
22 545 233447899
13 546 23569
8 547 357
5 548 11257
2-15. a) Stem-and-leaf display for cycles: unit = 100 1|2 represents 1200
1 0T|3
1 0F|
5 0S|7777
10 0o|88899
22 1*|000000011111
33 1T|22222223333
(15) 1F|444445555555555
22 1S|66667777777
11 1o|888899
5 2*|011
2 2T|22
1 2 9
2 3 1
3 3 9
10 4 2222233
15 4 56689
24 5 012234444
(14) 5 56667777899999
32 6 11244
27 6 555667777899
15 7 022333
9 7 6777
5 8 0011
1 8 9
1 7o|8
1 8*|
7 8T|223333
21 8F|44444444555555
38 8S|66666666667777777
(11) 8o|88888999999
41 9*|00000000001111
27 9T|22233333
19 9F|444444445555
7 9S|666677
1 9o|8
5 1 24566
9 2 3456
10 3 8
(3) 4 367
9 5 28
7 6 0
6 7 29
4 8
4 9 9
3 10
3 11
3 12 46
1 13 4
Stem-and-leaf of Control N = 22
Leaf Unit = 100
11 0 00001111111
11 0 2233
7 0 4455
3 0
3 0
3 1 1
2 1 3
1 1 4
1 4 9
1 5
3 5 56
3 6
7 6 5569
10 7 003
14 7 5677
(4) 8 0023
17 8 56779
12 9 00113344
4 9 5556
2-24 If there are an odd number of observations then the median equals the central sample data value.
2.25. For the original data the sample mean and standard deviation are 22.338 and 1.95, respectively. The median is 20.07. If
the data are incorrectly recorded, the sample mean and standard deviation are now 60.6 and 95.2, respectively but the
median is still 22.07.
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
Section 2-3
2-26. a) 8 bins
30
Frequency 20
10
weld strength
100
Cumulative Frequency
50
weld strength
b) 16 bins
15
10
Frequency
100
Cumulative Frequency
50
2-27. a) 8 bins
Histogram of Cycles
18
16
14
12
Frequency
10
0
500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
Cycles
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
70
60
Cumulative Frequency 50
40
30
20
10
0
500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
Cycles
b) 16 bins
Histogram of Cycles
14
12
10
Frequency
0
200 500 800 1100 1400 1700 2000 2300
Cycles
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
70
60
Cumulative Frequency
50
40
30
20
10
0
200 500 800 1100 1400 1700 2000 2300
Cycles
2-28. a) 8 bins
15
Frequency
10
0
32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
Water Quality
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
60
50
Cumulative Frequency
40
30
20
10
0
32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
Water Quality
b) 16 bins
10
8
Frequency
0
32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
Water Quality
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
60
50
Cumulative Frequency
40
30
20
10
0
32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
Water Quality
2-29. a) 8 bins
Histogram of Yield
20
15
Frequency
10
0
78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99
Yield
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
90
80
70
Cumulative Frequency
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99
Yield
b) 16 bins
Histogram of Yield
14
12
10
Frequency
0
78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99
Yield
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
90
80
70
Cumulative Frequency
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99
Yield
6
Frequency
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
High Dose
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
20
Cumulative Frequency
15
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
High Dose
Control group
Histogram of Control
6
Frequency
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Control
20
Cumulative Frequency
15
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Control
2-31. 6 bins
12
10
Frequency
0
500 600 700 800 900 1000
EX2-7
Histogram of EX2-7
40
30
Cumulative Frequency
20
10
0
500 600 700 800 900 1000
EX2-7
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
2-32.
Roughly 65.5% of defects are described by parts out of contour and parts under trimmed.
Section 2-4
90
80
Temperatur
70
60
50
40
30
PMC 4
2-37. a) Sample mean: 83.11, sample variance = 50.55, sample standard deviation = 7.11
b) Q1 = 79.5, Q3 = 84.50
c)
d) Sample mean = 81, sample standard deviation = 3.46, Q1 = 79.25, Q3 = 83.75. The sample mean and the sample
standard deviation have decreased. The lower quartile has decreased slightly while the upper quartile has decreased.
80 90 100
count
2-38. a) Sample Mean: 48.125, Sample Median: 49
b) Sample Variance: 7.247, Sample Standard Deviation: 2.692
c) The data appear to be skewed.
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
52
51
50
49
48
p
47
46
45
44
43
0.055
diameter
0.050
0.045
0.040
9.5
8.5
rate
7.5
6.5
900
Solar intensity
800
700
600
500
1400
120
1200
100
1000
High Dose
80
Control
800
60
600
40 400
20 200
0
0
Section 2-5
2-44.
13
12
11
10
9
Times
8
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Index
2-45. a)
49
48
Viscosity Measurements
47
46
45
44
43
42
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Index
Stem-and-leaf display for Problem 2-32.Viscosity: unit = 0.1 1|2 represents 1.2
2 42o|89
12 43*|0000112223
16 43o|5566
16 44*|
16 44o|
16 45*|
16 45o|
16 46*|
16 46o|
17 47*|2
(4) 47o|5999
19 48*|000001113334
7 48o|5666689
b) The plots indicate that the process is not stable and not capable of meeting the specifications.
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
2-46 a)
3 17|558
5 18|57
11 19|004455
14 20|139
(3) 21|008
15 22|005
12 23|578
9 24|155899
3 25|158
In the time series plot there appears to be a downward trend beginning after time 33.
2-47.
18.0
17.5
Concentration
17.0
16.5
16.0
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Index
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
3 165|0
4 166|0
5 167|0
7 168|00
9 169|00
13 170|0000
18 171|00000
20 172|00
25 173|00000
25 174|0000000000000
12 175|0000
8 176|000
5 177|0
4 178|000
HI|1810
The data appear skewed.
2-48. a)
160
140
120
100
Numbers
80
60
40
20
17 0|01224445677777888
29 1|001234456667
39 2|0113344488
50 3|00145567789
50 4|011234567788
38 5|04579
33 6|0223466778
23 7|147
20 8|2356
16 9|024668
10 10|13
8 11|8
7 12|245
4 13|128
HI|154
The data appears to decrease between 1790 and 1835, and after 1839 the stem and leaf plot indicates skewed data.
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
2-49. a)
16
14
Passengers
12
10
6
1 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80
Index
b) Stem-and-leaf display for Problem 2-36. Miles: unit = 0.1 1|2 represents 1.2
1 6|7
10 7|246678889
22 8|013334677889
33 9|01223466899
(18) 10|022334456667888889
33 11|012345566
24 12|11222345779
13 13|1245678
6 14|0179
2 15|1
1 16|2
70
60
Total Imports
50
40
30
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
4 3 2334
9 3 66778
14 4 00124
(7) 4 5566779
15 5 0014
11 5 5688
7 6 013
4 6 5566
30
25
Imports from Persian Gulf
20
15
10
5
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
1 0 6
3 0 89
3 1
5 1 33
6 1 4
14 1 66667777
(6) 1 889999
16 2 000011
10 2 2233
6 2 4445
2 2 67
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
Section 2-6
2-51. a) X1 has negative correlation with Y, X2 and X3 have positive correlation with Y.
150
100
50
14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 220 225 230 235 240
Y
X3
200
150
100
50
4 6 8 10
Sx y 375.185
b) rx 1
0.883
5.875 30725.23
1
S x x S yy
1 1
Sx 2486.19
rx 0.585
2 y
591.778 30725.23
2
S x x S yy
2 2
Sx y 1415.5
rx 3
0.995
65.778 30725.23
3
S x x S yy
3 3
X1 has a strong negative correlation with Y, X3 has a strong positive correlation with Y and X2 has a moderate
positive correlation with Y. The correlation coefficients agree with the scatter plot in part (a).
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
0.060
Conduct
0.055
0.050
y versus x1
200
y
150
100
0 10 20 30 40
x1
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
y versus x2
200
150
100
30
mpg
20
10
30
mpg
20
10
170
160
150
weight
140
130
120
140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240
systolic BP
Supplemental Exercises
2-56 a) Sample Mean = 8.1838; The sample mean value is close enough to the target value to accept the solution as
conforming. There is slight difference due to inherent variability.
b) s2 = 0.000427, s = 0.02066; A major source of variability would include measurement to measurement error. A low
variance is desirable since it may indicate consistency from measurement to measurement.
2
6
6
2-57. a)
xi2 16,013
i 1
xi 95,481
i 1
n6
2
6
xi
xi2 i 1
6
n
16,013
95,481
6 19.9 2
s
2 i 1
s 19.9 2 4.46
n 1 6 1
c) s 2 19.9 2 s 4.46 ; Shifting the data from the sample by a constant amount has no effect on the
sample variance or standard deviation.
d) Yes, the rescaling is by a factor of 10. Therefore, s2 and s would be rescaled by multiplying s2 by 102 (resulting in
19902) and s by 10 (44.6).
n 1 n
xi x i x n 1 nx n x n 1 n x
2-59. a) x n 1 i 1
i 1
; x n 1 ; x n 1 x n n 1
n 1 n 1 n 1 n 1 n 1
2
n
x i x n 1
n
i 1
b) ns n21 x12 x n21
i 1 n 1
2
n n
n xi
i 1
2 xn 1 xi
x2
xi2 xn21 i 1
n 1
i 1 n 1 n 1 n 1
2
n
xi
i 1
n
n 2 n
xi
2
xn 1 2xn 1 xn
i 1 n 1 n 1 n 1
n xi
2
xi
2 n x2 2 x x
n 1 n 1
n 1 n 1 n
i 1
x 2 x 2 x 2
n
x
i i i n x2 2 x x
2
n 1
n 1 n n
i 1 i
n n n 1
x (n 1) xi n xi
2 2 2
n
n
x xn21 2 xn xn
i
2
n( n 1) n 1
i
i 1 n
x
2
n
xn21 2 xn xn
i
(n 1) sn2
n(n 1) n 1
nxn 2 n
( n 1) sn2 xn21 2 xn xn
n 1 n 1
(n 1) sn2
n
n 1
xn 1 2 xn xn xn2
n
xn 1 xn
2
(n 1) sn2
n 1
2-61. a) Sample 1: 4; Sample 2: 4 Yes, the two appear to exhibit the same variability.
b) Sample 1: 1.604, Sample 2: 1.852 No, sample 2 has a larger standard deviation.
c) The sample range is a crude estimate of the sample variability as compared to the sample standard deviation since
the standard deviation uses the information from every data point in the sample whereas the range uses the
information contained in only two data points - the minimum and maximum.
2-62. a)
17
16
15
Viscosity
14
13
12
1 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80
Index
The data appears to vary between 12.5 and 17, with no obvious pattern.
b) The plot indicates that the two processes generate similar results. This is evident since the data appear to be centered
around the same mean.
c) 1st 40 observations: Sample Mean = 14.87, Sample Variance = 0.899
2nd 40 observations: Sample Mean = 14.92, Sample Variance = 1.05
The quantities indicate the processes do yield the same mean level. The variability also appears to be about the
same, with the sample variance for the 2nd 40 observations being slightly larger than that for the 1st 40.
3 4 000
3 5
5 6 00
9 7 0000
15 8 000000
(9) 9 000000000
16 10 0000
12 11 000
9 12 0
8 13 00
6 14
6 15 0
5 16 00
3 17 00
1 18
1 19 0
c) There appears to be an increase in the average number of nonconforming springs made during the 40 days.
20
15
nonconforming
10
Index 10 20 30 40
5 0 00000
15 1 0000000000
15 2 000000
9 3 0000000
2 4 00
The time series plot indicates a slight decrease in the number of errors.
2-65. No. Consider the data that was used in answering Exercise 2.11, are 1, 2, 3, 8, and 10. The sample mean is 4.8, and half
of the observations do not fall below this value.
2.66. Yes. Suppose that the observations are 1, 2, 3, 4, and 500. The sample mean is 102.0 and the standard deviation is
222.5.
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
20.0
17.5
Drowning Rate
15.0
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Variable Range
Drowning Rate 16.100
(c). Awareness in the population of the serious nature of this problem, and a very public campaign to watch your
children around water likely contributed to the decline.
(d). If there has been a change in the population the summary statistics don’t have much meaning because they reflect
both the pre-1990 situation and the more current situation.
Montgomery, Engineering Statistics SI 5th edition January 2012
Boxplot of Velocity
1100
1000
900
Velocity
800
700
600
1 2 3 4 5
Trial
There is some difference in variability in the reported measurements between the five sets of measurements. For example,
trial 1 exhibits more variability then is observed in the other trials. Trials 2-5 may be centered at least approximately on the
same value, but trial 1 has a higher central value. None of the trials are centered at either of the “true” values. There could
have been start-up effects impacting the measurements in trial 1, and there is probably some bias in the measuring
instrument.