/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Q8E A study of the properties of men... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

A study of the properties of mental plate 鈥揷onnected trusses used for roof support (鈥淢odeling joints made with Light-Gauge metal connector plates,鈥 Forest products J., 1979:39-44) yielded the following observations on axial-stiffness index(kips/in.) for plate lengths \(4,6,8.10,12\)in:

\(\begin{aligned}{l}4:309.2\\6:402.1\\8:392.4\\10:346.7\\12:407.4\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}409.5\\347.2\\366.2\\452.9\\441.8\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}311.0\\361.0\\351.0\\461.4\\419.9\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}326.5\\404.5\\357.1\\433.1\\410.7\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}316.8\\331.0\\409.9\\410.6\\473.4\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}349.8\\348.9\\367.3\\384.2\\441.2\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}309.7\\381.7\\382.0\\362.6\\465.8\end{aligned}\)

Does variation in plate length have any effect on true average axial stiffness? state and test the relevant hypotheses using analysis of variance with Display your results in an ANOVA table.(Hint : \({\sum x ^2}_{ij.} = 5,241,420.79.)\)

Short Answer

Expert verified

\(I = 5\)Column-treatments

And

\(J = 7\)Row,

which indicates to reject null hypothesis

Reject null hypothesis at any reasonable significance level.

Step by step solution

01

definition of hypotheses

Hypotheses are typically written in the form of if/then statements, such as if someone consumes a lot of sugar, they will develop cavities in their teeth.

Given,

The data given the table

Sample No.

\(4\,kips/in.\)

\(6\,kips/in.\)

\(8\,kips/in.\)

\(10\,kips/in.\)

\(12\,kips/in.\)

\(1\)

\(309.20\)

\(402.10\)

\(392.40\)

\(346.70\)

\(407.40\)

\(2\,\)

\(409.50\)

\(347.20\)

\(366.20\)

\(452.90\)

\(441.80\)

\(3\)

\(311.00\)

\(361.00\)

\(351.00\)

\(461.40\)

\(419.90\)

\(4\,\)

\(326.50\)

\(404.50\)

\(357.10\)

\(433.10\)

\(410.70\)

\(5\)

\(316.80\)

\(331.00\)

\(409.90\)

\(410.60\)

\(473.40\)

\(6\)

\(349.80\)

\(348.90\)

\(367.30\)

\(384.20\)

\(441.20\)

7

\(309.70\)

\(381.70\)

\(382.00\)

\(362.60\)

\(465.80\)

\({x_{i.}}\)

\(2332.50\)

\(2576.40\)

\(2265.90\)

\(2851.50\)

\(3060.20\)

\(\overline {{x_{i.}}} \)

\(333.21\)

\(368.06\)

\(375.13\)

\(407.6\)

\(437.17\)

\(\overline {{x_{..}}} \)=\(384.19\) \({x_{..}} = 13,446.50\)

This table summarizes everything needed to carry out F teat. Here is explanation How to obtain those values.

\(I = 5\)Column-treatments

And

\(J = 7\)Row,

The following table needs to be filled with corresponding values:

Source of variation

Df

Sum of squares

Mean sqaure

F

Treatments

\(I - 1\)

\(SSTr\)

MSTr

MSTr/MSE

Error

\(I.\left( {J - 1} \right)\)

\(SSE\)

MSE

Total

\(I\,\,.\,J - 1\)

\(SST\)

The degrees of freedom are

\(\begin{aligned}{l}I - 1 = 5 - 1 = 4\\I.\left( {J - 1} \right)5.\left( {7.1} \right) = 36\\I\,\,.\,J - 1 = 5.7 - 1 = 34\end{aligned}\)

Denote with

\(\begin{aligned}{l}{x_{i.}}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{x_{ij.}}} \\{x_{..}}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^J {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{x_{ij.}}} } \end{aligned}\)

The total sum of squares

\(\left( {SST} \right),\)

And treatment sum of squares

\(\left( {SSTr} \right)\),

And Error sum of squares

\({\rm{ }}\left( {SSE} \right)\)are given by

\(SST = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{{\left( {{x_{ij}} - \overline x ..} \right)}^2}} = } \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{x^2}_{ij} - \frac{1}{{I\,\,.\,J}}} {x^2}_{..;}} \)

\(SSTr = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{{\left( {\overline {{x_{i.}}} - \overline x ..} \right)}^2}} = \frac{1}{J}.} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{x^2}_{i.} - \frac{1}{{I\,\,.\,J}}{x^2}_{..;}} \)

\(SSE = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {{{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {\left( {{x_{ij}} - \overline {{x_{i.}}} } \right)} }^2}} .\)

The mean squares are

\(\begin{aligned}{l}MSTr = \frac{1}{{I - 1}}.SSTr;\\MSE = \frac{1}{{I.\left( {J - 1} \right)}}.SSE.\end{aligned}\)

F is ratio of the two mean

\(F = \frac{{MSTr}}{{MSE}}.\)

Compute all value:

\(\begin{aligned}{l}{X_{1.}} = 309.20 + 409.50 + ... + 309.70 = 2332.50;\\{X_{2.}} = 402.10 + 347.20 + ... + 381.70 = 2576.40;\\{X_{3.}} = 392.40 + 366.20 + ... + 382.00 = 2625.90;\\{X_{4.}} = 346.70 + 452.90 + ... + 362.60 = 2851.50;\\{X_{5.}} = 407.40 + 441.80 + ... + 465.80 = 3060.20;\end{aligned}\)

Values of

\(\overline {{x_{i.}}} = \frac{1}{J}.{x_{i.}}\)

Are given by

\(\begin{aligned}{l}\overline {{x_{1.}}} = \frac{1}{7}.2332.50 = 333.21\\\overline {{x_{2.}}} = \frac{1}{7}.2576.40 = 368.06\\\overline {{x_{3.}}} = \frac{1}{7}.2625.90 = 375.13\\\overline {{x_{4.}}} = \frac{1}{7}.2851.50 = 407.36\\\overline {{x_{5.}}} = \frac{1}{7}.3060.20 = 437.17\end{aligned}\)

The grand mean is

\(\begin{aligned}{l}\overline {x..} = \frac{1}{{I\,\,.\,\,J}}.x.. = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{x_{ij}}} = \frac{1}{{5.7}}.\left( {309.20 + 409.50 + ... + 441.20 + 465.80} \right)} \\ = 384.19\end{aligned}\)

And

\(\begin{aligned}{l}x.. = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{x_{ij}} = } \left( {309.20 + 409.50 + ... + 441.20 + 465.80} \right)\\ = 13,446.50\end{aligned}\)

Total sum square

\(SST = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{{\left( {\overline {{x_{ij}}} . - \overline {x..} } \right)}^2}} = } \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{x^2}_{ij}} } - \frac{1}{{I\,\,.\,J}}{x^2}..\)

\(\begin{aligned}{l} = \left( {{{309.20}^2} + {{409.50}^2} + ... + {{441.20}^2} + {{465.80}^2}} \right) - \frac{1}{{5\,.\,7}}.13,{446.50^2}\\ = 5,241,420.79 - 5,165,953.21\\ = 75,467.58.\end{aligned}\)

02

The treatment sum of square

The treatment sum of square is

\(SSTr = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^J {{{\left( {\overline {{x_i}} . - \overline {x..} } \right)}^2}} = \frac{1}{J}.} {\rm{ }}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^I {{x_{i.}}^2 - \frac{1}{{I - J}}{x^2}..} \)

\(\begin{aligned}{l} = \frac{1}{7}.\left( {{{2332.50}^2} + {{2576.40}^2} + {{2625.90}^2} + {{2851.50}^2} + {{3060.20}^2}} \right) - \frac{1}{{5\,.\,7}}.13,44\\ = 5,209,759 - 5,165,953.21\\ = 43,992.549.\end{aligned}\)

Fundamental Identify

SST = SSTr + SSE.

Error sum of squares is

\(SSE = SST - SSTr = 1072.256 - 509.122 = 563.134\)

The mean computed

\(\begin{aligned}{l}MSTr = \frac{1}{{I - 1}}.SSTr = \frac{1}{7}.43,992.549 = 10,998.134\\MSE = \frac{1}{{I\,.\left( {J - 1} \right)}}.SSE = \frac{1}{{5.\left( {7 - 1} \right)}}.31,475.03 = 1049.168.\end{aligned}\)

The value of F statistic is

\(f = \frac{{MSTr}}{{MSE}} = \frac{{10.998.134}}{{1049.168}} = 10.483.\)

ANOVA table now

Source of variation

Df

Sum of squares

Mean sqaure

F

Treatments

\(4\)

\(43,992.596\)

\(10,998.134\)

\(10.483\)

Error

\(30\)

\(31,475.03\)

\(1049.168\)

Total

\(34\)

\(75,467.58\)

As for usual tests, you can either make conclusion about the hypotheses look at the F critical value or a p value. Remember that the hypotheses of interest are

\({H_0}\,:\,{\mu _i} = {\mu _j},i \ne j\,\)

versus alternative hypothesis

\({H_a}:\)at least two of the are different

The p value is the area to the right of f value under the F curve where F has Fisher's distribution with degrees of freedom \(4\) and \(30\) ; thus

\(P = P\left( {F > f} \right) = P\left( {F > 10.483} \right) = 0\)

\(exact:0.00001962\)

which was computed using software

\({\rm{P = 0 < }}\alpha \)

Reject null hypothesis

at given significance level. There is no statistically significance difference in true averages among the four types of iron formation.

Using the table, you could use e.g. \({F_{0,1,2,3,36}}\,\,is\,0.1\)value for which the area under the curve to the right of. The value is

\({F_{0,1,2,3,36}} = 2.142 < 10.483 = f\)

which indicates to reject null hypothesis

Reject null hypothesis at any reasonable significance level.

Hence,

Source of variation

df

Sum of squares

Mean sqaure

F

Treatments

\(4\)

\(43,992.596\)

\(10,998.134\)

\(10.483\)

Error

\(30\)

\(31,475.03\)

\(1049.168\)

Total

\(34\)

\(75,467.58\)

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91影视!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Suppose the compression strength observation on the fourth type of box in Example \(10.1\)had been \(655.1,\,748.7,\,662.4,\,679.0,\,706.9,\,and\,640.0\) and (obtained by adding \(120\) to each previous \({x_{4j}}\)). Assuming no change in the remaining observations, carry out an F test with \(\alpha = 0.5.\)

Apply the modified Tukey鈥檚 method to the data in Exercise 22 to identify significant differences among the\({\mu _i}\)鈥檚.

Reconsider the axial stiffness data given in Exercise ANOVA output from Minitab follows:

Analysis of variance for stiffness

Source DF SS MS F p

Length \(4\) \(43993\) \(10998\) \(10.48\) \(0.000\)

Error \(30\) \(31475\) \(1049\)

Total \(34\) \(75468\)

Level \(N\) Mean St Dev

\(4\) \(7\) \(333.21\) \(36.59\)

\(6\) \(7\) \(368.06\) \(28.57\)

\(8\) \(7\) \(375.13\) \(20.83\)

\(10\) \(7\) \(407.36\) \(44.51\)

\(12\) \(7\) \(437.17\) \(26.00\)

Pooled st Dev \( = 32.39\)

Tukey鈥檚 pairwise comaparisons

Family error rate \( = 0.0500\)

Individual error rate\( = 0.00693\)

Critical value\( = 4.10\)

Intervals for (column level mean)-(row level mean)

\(4\) \(6\) \(8\) \(10\)

\(6\) \(\begin{aligned}{l} - 85.0\\15.4\end{aligned}\)

\(8\) \(\begin{aligned}{l} - 92.1\\\,\,\,\,8.3\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l} - 57.3\\43.1\end{aligned}\)

\(10\) \(\begin{aligned}{l} - 124.3\\\, - 23.9\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l} - 89.5\\10.9\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l} - 82.4\\18.0\end{aligned}\)

\(12\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}\, - 15.2\\\, - 53.8\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l} - 119.3\\ - 18.9\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l} - 112.2\\ - 11.8\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l} - 80.0\\20.4\end{aligned}\)

  1. Is it plausible that the variances of the five axial stiffness index distributions are identical?Explain

b. Use the output(without references to our F table)to test the relevant hypotheses.

c.Use the Tukey intervals given in the output to determine which means differ,and construct the corresponding underscoring pattern.

consider the accompanying data on plant growth after the application of five different types of growth hormone.

\(\begin{aligned}{l}1:\\2:\\3:\\4:\\5:\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}13\\21\\18\\7\\6\,\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}17\\13\\15\\11\\11\,\,\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}7\\20\\20\\18\\15\,\,\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}14\\17\\17\\10\\8\end{aligned}\)

  1. Perform an F at level \(\alpha = .05\)
  2. What happens when Tukey鈥檚 procedure is applied?

An experiment to compare the spreading rates of five brands of yellow interior latex paint available in a particular area used \(4\)gallons \(\left( {J = 4} \right)\)of each paint. The sample average spreading rates \(\left( {f{t^2}/gal} \right)\) for the five brands were \(\,{\overline x _{1.}} = 462.3,\,{\overline x _{2.}} = 512.8,\,{\overline x _{3.}} = 437.5,\,{\overline x _{4.}} = 469.3\,and\,\,{\overline x _{5.}} = 532.1\,\) the computed value of F was found to be significant at level \(\alpha = .05.\) with MSE= \(272.8\)use Tukey鈥檚 procedure to investigate significant differences in the true average spreading rates between brands.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.