Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Statistics and DOE Latest
Statistics and DOE Latest
Mayank
Applied Statistics
es of central tendency ( central position of data )
Mean Median Mode
Population :
Sample:
Sample: Sample:
s2 s
Measures of dispersion
Variance : Standard deviation :
x
44 50 38 49 42 47 40 39 46 50
(x x)
-0.5 5.5 -6.5 4.5 -2.5 2.5 -4.5 -5.5 1.5 5.5
( x x )2
0.3 30 . 3 42 . 3 20 . 3 6.3 6.3 20 . 3 30 . 3 2.3 30 . 3
(x x)
i =1 i
188.5
SS
SS /( n - 1 )
20 . 9
MS
MS
4.57
sd
44 . 5
Measures of dispersion
Coefficient of Variance
CV = S / * 100%
Measures of dispersion
Normal Distribution Example: IQ Score
Low Borderline low 130-144 Below Lower Higher Above Gifted Genius average 145 Grade average Score <55 55-69 70-84 85-99 100-114 115-129
Measures of dispersion
Normal Distribution IQ Score
Cou nt
Score
<55
55
70
85
100
115
130 145
145<
Measures of dispersion
Normal Distribution
34 . 13 %
34 . 13 %
Probabili ty
Score
13 . 59 %
13 . 59 %
0 . 000028 %
0 . 0031 %
0 . 13 %
2 . 14 %
2 . 14 %
0 . 13 %
0 . 0031 %
0 . 000028 %
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
- 1
Sd from
Measures of dispersion
Normal Distribution 0.000000198 0.00198 DPHO DPMO Six Sigma
LSL
USL
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
- 1
Sd from
99 . 999999802 %
Measures of dispersion
Normal Distribution
LSL
LSL
USL
USL
Measures of dispersion
Normal Distribution
1.5
LSL
USL 3 . 4 DMPO
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
2 3 4
5 6
Measures of dispersion
Normal Distribution Process capability LSL b c d Cp = a/b Cpk = (c or d)/0.5b a USL
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
2 3 4
5 6
Measures of dispersion
Non Normal Distribution Measurements:
Skewness
Kurtosis
-ve
+ve
+ ve z : values are above the mean, - ve z : values are below the mean
Sample
Populati on
1 point compared to population Group compared to population
xx z= s
xi zi =
x z= n
= 26 . 20 ( s) = 6 . 57
What is the probability that of a person having BMI 19 . 2 sd below the mean 19 . 2 sd above the mean
xx z= s
Probabili ty
Sd
< 19 . 6
16 %
> 19 . 6
84 %
- 1
-1
Probabili ty
Score
Mean
24
Hypothesis testing
Null hypothesis
H0 :
= 24
H1 :
x <
Probab ility
Sco re
Mean
24
Z v a
Critical -value 2 . 33
Rejection region
- 2 . 33
x =
18 . 2 s = 7.7 = 24 n = 30
x z= s n
Z = 4 . 13
Rejection region
- 4 . 13
- 2 . 33
So is test value is significantly different (lower) than the mean Yes: There are significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis
H0 : H1 :
24 Rejected
t =
Signal Noise =
x1 x 2 t= s x1 x2
s x1 x2 =
s1 s2 + n1 n2
test
29.7 20.4
70.20 19 + 89.59 19
= 3.2 t
critical
level
with 36 df at 0.05 significance df = 2n-2 = 2.02 ttest > tcritical is significantly different 2 x from
So
x1
H 0:
x
s2
29 . 7
20 . 4
x1 =x 2 x1 x 2
Rejected
70 . 20
89 . 59
H 1:
Case 2
Fertiliz w/o er Fertilizer
0.5 26 28 6 17 0 46 36 24 7 0.5 16 16 26 29 33 14 26 37
test
1 =.8
So
x1 is
H 0: H 1:
x
s2
29 . 7 303
20 . 4 181
x1 =x 2 x1 x 2
The F hypothesis test is defined as: H0: = Rejected Ha: < > If Ftest > Fcritical (at significant level)
One way :
Effect of one factor ( variable )
Two way :
Strate gy :
Group 1
Group 2
Group 1
Group 2
Between groups
F =
MS bg MS wg
Within groups
Factor ( Independent Variable ):( Mon , Wed , Sat ) Day Effect ( Dependent Variable ): Number of attendees
here any effect of presentation day on number of attendees ? Null hypothesis ( H 0 ) Alternate hypothesis ( H 1 ) : : No effect ( 1 = 2 = 3 )
There is an effect
( 1 2 3
Wed
75 65 80 75 67 68 77 83 67 56 65 83 71.75
Sat
67 53 65 49 54 61 65 72 63 64 54 65 61
M
77 14 163 2 68 2 77 68 18 14 127 11 11 46 68 11 23 14 28 127 23 248 46 127 768
S
36 64 16 144 49 0 16 121 4 9 49 16 524
( x x )2
63.75
SS
638
= /3
SS M
+ SS W
+ SS S
( x x) 2
n ( x
SS bg MS bg
3.06
39.06
20.25
= 748 . 4
+ + ( df = 3 - 1 = 2)
= SS wg
1930
= SS wg /df = ( df = ( 12x3 )- 3 = 33 )
) = SS bg /df
MS wg
= 374 . 25
58 . 5
Numerator degrees of freedom : 2 Denominator degrees of freedom : 33 At significance level ( ) : 0 . 05 Ftest > Fcritical So there are enough evidence to reject null hypothesis H0: All means are same (no effect of Day) At 95% confidence level we can say: That the variation between means is not just by chance Day of presentation matters significantly
4 . 17
Rejected
Man
Woman Outdoor
elative impact of gender or type of sprot? ny interaction between gender and type of sport? Null hypothesis ( H 0a ) : No effect of gender Null hypothesis ( H 0b ) : No effect of type of sport Null hypothesis ( H 0c ) : No interaction Alternate hypothesis ( H 1 ) : There is an effect
Man
Woman
Indoor Outdoor
60, 70, 80 5, 10, 15 SS SSG SSs SSGx s SSwithin SS 9075 1875 21675 650 MS MSG MSs MSGx MSwithi s
n
F MSG MS /Ms /Msswithin within MSGx s /MSwithin F 111.69 23.07 266.77 Fcritical 11.3 (=0.01) 11.3 11.3
Null hypothesis ( H 0c )
No interaction
Ind Otd
Indoor
Outdoor
35 7
30oC
35o C
y = ax +b
One independent variable
= ax + b
slope intercept
A and b values are calculated that minimize Sum of Squares (SS) of residuals = (y )2 : minimum
Total
Error
(yi y)2
r2
SSError = 1 SSTotal
It can be negative SSError /(n-p-1) representative ofalso 2 True relationship Adjusted r = 1 SSTotal /(n-1) n= total observation
p= Number of predictor
str
MSbg F = MSwg
Group 1
Group 2
Group 1
Group 2
MSModel F = MSError
Model Error
Design of experiment
Traditional method One factor at time ( OFAT ) Multiple factor at time ( MFAT )
Traditional method
Design of experiment
Design of experiment
How to select a design?
Number of factors 2-4 5 or more Screening Full or fractional factorial factorial or Fraction Plackett Burman Optimization Robustness Central composite Taguchi or Box-Behnken Taguchi Screen first to reduce factors
(middle)
+1
(higher)
Main effect / s
Effect Interaction effect / s/s due to interaction of multiple factors Confounding/Aliasing When two or more effects can not be distinguished eg. Main effect is confounded with interaction effects Main effects and interaction effects are aliased
Design of experiment
Resolution of a design Power of a design
Resoluti Order of interaction effects on type confounded with main effect III 2 (eg. A with A.B or A.C or B.C etc) with ABC) IV 3 (eg. A V 4 (eg A with ABCD)
Design of experiment
Factorial design Factor
Full factorial :
Level
Lf
Design type 22 23 32 33 Number of experiments 2x2=4 2x2x2=8 3x3=9 3x3x3=27
No. of Levels 2 2 3 3
No. of Factors 2 3 2 3
Design of experiment
Factorial design
22
b a 4 experiments
Design of experiment
Factorial design
23
b a
8 experiments
Design of experiment
Factorial design
32
b a 9 experiments
Design of experiment
Factorial design
33
27 experiments
Design of experiment
Fractional Factorial design
23
231
8 experiments
4 experiments
Design of experiment
Response surface methodology
Design of experiment
Geometry of some important response surface designs
Box Behnken
12 experiments
Design of experiment
Geometry of some important response surface designs
Design of experiment
Geometry of some important response surface designs
Sign Media, pH, feed rate al Outer array: Uncontrollable variables during production Nois Temp, DO, e