/*! 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

In an experiment to compare the quality of four different brands of magnetic recording tape, five 2400-ft reels of each brand (A鈥揇) were selected and the number of flaws in each reel was determined.

A:

10

5

12

14

8

B:

14

12

17

9

8

C:

13

18

10

15

18

D:

17

16

12

22

14

It is believed that the number of flaws has approximately a Poisson distribution for each brand. Analyse the data at level .01 to see whether the expected number of flaws per reel is the same for each brand.

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.

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 \(\alpha = 0.5.\)

In Exercise \(11\) suppose \({\overline x _{3.}} = 427.5.\) now which true average spreading rates differ significantly from one another? Be sure to use the method of underscoring to illustrate your conclusion, and write a paragraph summarizing your results.

it is common practice in many countries to destroy (shred)refrigerators at the end of their usefull lives.In this process material from insulating foam may be released into the atmosphere.The article 鈥淩elease of fluorocarbons from Insulation foam in Home Appliances During shredding鈥(J.of the Air and waste Mgmt.Assoc.,2007:1452-1460)gave the following data on foam density(g/L)For each of two refrigerators produced by four different manufactures:

\(\begin{aligned}{l}1.30.4,\,29.2\,\,\,\,\,2.27.7,27.1\\3.27.1,24.8\,\,\,\,\,\,4.25.5,28.8\end{aligned}\)

Does it appear that true average foam density is not the same for all these manufacture?carry out an appropriate test of hypotheses by obtaining as much p-value information as possible,and summarize your analysis in an ANOVA table.

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.