Metal Bonding Experiment. Authors: E. Del Castillo, D. C. Montgomery and D. R. M
ID: 3327089 • Letter: M
Question
Metal Bonding Experiment.
Authors: E. Del Castillo, D. C. Montgomery and D. R. McCarville (1996), “Modified desirability functions for multiple response optimisation. Journal of Quality Technology, 28, pp. 337-345.
The experiment below is on a melting bonding process and was designed to determine the effect of the flow rate, the flow temperature and the block temperature on the maximum temperature recorded at the middle of the weld.
i
yi
xi1
xi2
xi3
1
115
40
200
250
2
117
120
200
250
3
147
40
450
250
4
199
120
450
250
5
134
40
325
150
6
134
120
325
150
7
143
40
325
350
8
152
120
325
350
9
111
80
200
150
10
176
80
450
150
11
131
80
200
350
12
192
80
450
350
13
155
80
325
250
14
161
80
325
250
15
158
80
325
250
yi = Temperature recorded in the middle of the weld.
xi1 = Flow rate.
xi2 = Flow temperature in degrees Celsius.
xi3 = Block temperature in degrees Celsius .
i = 1 to n measurements. n = 15.
Peak Height Experiment.
Authors: Panagiotis Kakleas, Triantafyllos Kaloudis and Ewan MacArthur (2008), “Speeding up chemical analysis; an example of developing fast yet reliable methods for the determination of cylindrospermopsin in water, by using HPLC and ELISA”, Proceedings of the eRA 3 Conference, TEI of Piraeus, Aegina, 19-20 September, 2008.
yi = Peak height for detecting cylindrospermopsin in water measured by high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).
xi1 = Flow rate.
xi2 = Column temperature in degrees Celsius.
xi3 = Gradient time.
i = 1 to n measurements. n = 15.
i
yi
xi1
xi2
xi3
1
2.088
1.3
40
10
2
2.084
1.3
40
10
3
1.435
2.1
30
10
4
2.835
0.5
50
10
5
1.809
1.3
30
15
6
2.637
0.5
40
15
7
1.65
2.1
40
5
8
2.296
1.3
50
5
9
2.146
1.3
40
10
10
1.626
2.1
40
15
11
2.752
0.5
40
5
12
2.626
0.5
30
10
13
2.07
1.3
30
5
14
2.218
1.3
50
15
15
1.763
2.1
50
10
i
yi
xi1
xi2
xi3
1
115
40
200
250
2
117
120
200
250
3
147
40
450
250
4
199
120
450
250
5
134
40
325
150
6
134
120
325
150
7
143
40
325
350
8
152
120
325
350
9
111
80
200
150
10
176
80
450
150
11
131
80
200
350
12
192
80
450
350
13
155
80
325
250
14
161
80
325
250
15
158
80
325
250
QUESTION 5 Produce a plot of the predicted response values from the estimated simplified response surface model (based on 90% confidence intervals for the parameters of the full second order model) against the actual response values. From this plot do you conclude that: The prediction errors made by the simplified response surface model are predominantly systematic in nature The predictions made by the simplified response surface model for conditions not included in the experiment will certainly be predominantly random in nature None of these options. The prediction errors made by the simplified response surface model are predominantly random in nature.Explanation / Answer
question 5 answer
the predection errors made by the simplified response surface model are predominatly random in nature