ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE OF
BLENDER
Final Report
Team Members
Neelakandan Nagarajan
Lakshminarayanan Subramanian
Srinivas Krishnan
Table of Contents
1.Objective
2. Procedure
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.4.1.Table of responses
2.4.3.Analysis Of Variance
10
11
18
1
4.0 References
19
1.Objective
To estimate and analyze the performance of the blender and consequently build a
Prediction model for the same.
To come out with a clear recommendation regarding the most favorable settings
that will result in minimum residue of the grain after grinding.
2.Procedure
2.1 PRE-EXPERIMENTAL PLANNING
2..1.1 Recognition and statement of the problem
Blenders are used in day today life to grind and blend flour for the purpose of cooking.
We use the different control variables like speed, number of blades, etc provided in the
blender to make the flour. The selections of these controls are arbitrary based on previous
experience. The outcome of the above procedure is not assured to be optimal and the user
has to repeat the grinding with different set of control variables to get better results. This
results in waste of time and resources of the user. The blender can be used for a variety of
purposes like chopping, blending, grinding, etc. Out of these different processes we have
taken up the process of grinding for our study. The objective of this study is to establish a
set of control variables that reduces the residue (remnants after straining the grounded
flour) of the grinding operation.
Factors
Low level
High level
1
2.
3
4
100
Low
4
2
200
High
6
4
Quantitative factors:
Mass of the grain.
Number of blade fins.
3
2.3.2.Experimental Procedure
* The different treatment combinations are run in accordance to the random sequence
generated by the Design Expert (randomization).
4
* The experiment is done in randomized order in order to average out the effect of
extraneous factors that may be present and statistical methods require observations (all
errors) be independently distributed random variable.
Run
order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Blocks
Mass
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
Block 2
1
-1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
1
-1
1
Speed
B1
B1
B2
B1
B2
B1
B2
B2
B2
B1
B1
B2
B2
B2
B1
B1
Size
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
1
-1
-1
1
1
1
-1
1
-1
-1
Number Residue
of
(gms)
blades
-1
65
1
3.5
1
51
1
49
-1
62
-1
68
1
2.5
-1
5
1
5
1
4.5
-1
65
-1
5
-1
69
1
52
-1
7
1
55
Number of runs 16
Blocks 2
Center points: 0
Design Model 3FI
5
Response
units
runs
minimum
maximum Trans
Residue
grams
16
2.5
69
None
2.4.3.Analysis Of Variance
The Half Normal Plot of the effects is as below
DE SI GN - EXP ERT P l ot
re si du e
A: m a ss
B: s p pe d
C: n o o f b la d es
D: s ize
H a lf N o rm a l p lo t
99
H a lf N o rm a l % p ro b a b ility
97
95
90
85
80
AC
70
60
40
20
0
0 .0 0
6 .5 9
1 3 .1 9
1 9 .7 8
2 6 .3 7
|E ffe c t|
Fig 1
Observation:From fig 1. We can see that effects A,C and interaction AC are the
significant ones.
Inference: The Mass of the grain,Number of Blades and their interaction have
significant effect on the grinding process
The ANOVA report of Design Expert is as below
Factor
A
B
C
D
Name
Mass
Speed
Size of Blades
No of Blade Fins
Units
Grams
Centimeters
Categorical
Type
Numeric
Categorical
Numeric
Numeric
Low
-1
-1
-1
-1
High
1
1
1
1
6
Response:
Residue
Sum of Squares
1.56
4331.19
2782.56
1008.06
540.56
48.19
4380.94
DF
1
3
1
1
1
11
15
Mean Square
1.56
1443.73
2782.56
1008.06
540.56
4.38
F Value
Prob >F
329.57
635.19
230.12
123.40
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
Observation
1 .R-Squared
98.9%
2. Adj R-Squared
98.6%
3. Pred R-Squared
97.67%
4. Adeq Precision
36.644
5. PRESS
101.95
24.06
7. C.V.
8.70
8. Std. Dev.
2.09
Inferences: 1. The "Pred R-Squared" of 0.9767 is in reasonable agreement with the "Adj
R-Squared" of 0.9860.
2. "Adeq Precision" measures the signal to noise ratio.
desirable. Our ratio of 36.644 indicates an adequate signal. This model can be used to
navigate the design space.
3. PRESS Value is less compared to the SSTotal and hence the model is likely to be a
good predicator.
7
Factor
Coefficient
Estimate
Intercept
Block 1
Block 2
A-mass
C-No of blades
AC
24.06
0.31
-0.31
13.19
-7.94
-5.81
DF
Error
Low
High
VIF
1
1
0.52
22.91
25.21
1
1
1
0.52
0.52
-6.96
12.04
-9.09
-4.66
14.34
-6.79
1.00
1
1
1
Predicted
Order
Value
Value
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14.00
55.00
12.00
50.00
11.00
24.00
9.00
26.00
13.00
50.00
13.00
12.69
51.31
13.31
50.69
9.06
23.19
8.44
23.81
13.31
50.69
12.69
Cooks
Residual
1.31
3.69
-1.31
-0.69
1.94
0.81
0.56
2.19
-0.31
-0.69
0.31
Leverage Distanse
0.3130
0.3132
0.313
0.313
0.3131
0.3130
0.3130
0.3131
0.313
0.313
0.3130
0.756
0.125
-0.756
-0.396
0.116
0.468
0.324
0.260
-0.180
0.396
- 0.180
Student
Residual
0.052
0.410
0.052
0.014
0.113
0.020
0.010
0.144
0.003
0.014
0.003
Out
lier t
0.741
2.639
-0.741
-0.380
1.130
0.451
0.311
1.299
-0.172
-0.380
0.172
8
12
13
14
15
16
49.00
9.00
23.00
6.00
21.00
51.31
8.44
23.81
9.06
23.19
-2.31
0.56
-0.81
-3.06
-2.19
0.313
0.3130
0.313
0.3130.313
1.333
0.324
-0.468
1.765
-1.260
0.161
0.010
0.020
0.283
0.144
-1.387
0.311
-0.451
-1.987
-1.299
O utlie r T
3 .5 0
O u tli e r T
1 .7 5
0 .0 0
-1 .7 5
-3 .5 0
1
10
13
16
R un N um ber
Fig 2
Observation
All the outlier values are within the acceptable limit of +3.5 to 3.5.The most negatve
value is 1.987 and the highest positive value is 2.64.
Inference
The model is good representative of the system.
N o rm a l p lo t o f re s id ua ls
99
N o r m a l % p r o b a b ility
95
90
80
70
50
30
20
10
5
1
-3 .0 6 2 5
-1 .3 7 5
0 .3 1 2 5
3 .6 8 7 5
R e s id u a l
Fig 3
Observation
The normal plot clearly passes the flat pencil test.
Inference
The analysis of variance satisfies normality assusmption Errors are distributed normally
with mean 0 and variance 2 ie NID(0, 2 ).
10
R e s id ua ls vs . P re d ic te d
3 .6 8 7 5
R e s id u a l s
0 .3 1 2 5
2
-1 .3 7 5
-3 . 0 6 2 5
8 .4 4
1 9 .1 6
2 9 .8 8
4 0 .5 9
5 1 .3 1
P r e d i c te d
Figure 4
Observation
The plot of residual vs predicted / fitted values is structureless.
Inference
The assumption of constant variance holds good.
11
R e s id ua ls vs . R un
3 .6 8 7 5
R e s id u a ls
0 .3 1 2 5
-1 . 3 7 5
-3 . 0 6 2 5
1
10
13
16
R un N um ber
Fig 5
Observation
The residual vs runs plot does not reveal any obvious pattern.
Inference
The independence of variance check holds good.
12
R e s id ua ls vs . m a s s
3 .6 8 7 5
R e s id u a ls
0 .3 1 2 5
2
-1 . 3 7 5
-3 . 0 6 2 5
-1
m ass
Fig 6
DE SIGN -EXPERT P l o t
re si d u e
R e s id ua ls vs . s p p e d
3 .6 8 7 5
R e s id u a ls
0 .3 1 2 5
-1 . 3 7 5
-3 . 0 6 2 5
1
spped
Fig 7
13
DES IG N -EXPE RT Pl o t
re si d u e
R e s id ua ls vs . no o f b la d e s
3 .6 8 7 5
R e s id u a ls
0 .3 1 2 5
2
-1 . 3 7 5
-3 . 0 6 2 5
-1
n o o f b la d e s
Fig 8
DE SIGN -EXPE RT Pl o t
re si d u e
R e s id ua ls vs . s ize
3 .6 8 7 5
R e s id u a ls
0 .3 1 2 5
-1 . 3 7 5
-3 . 0 6 2 5
-1
s i ze
Fig 9
Observation
14
O ne F a c to r P lo t
55
W a rn i n g ! F a c to r i n v o l v e d i n a n i n te ra c ti o n .
re s id u e
4 2 .7 5
3 0 .5
1 8 .2 5
6
-1 . 0 0
-0 . 5 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 0
1 .0 0
A: m a s s
Fig 10
15
DES IGN-EXPE RT Pl o t
re s
idue
X = C: n o of b l ad e s
Actu a l Fa c to rs
A: m a ss = 0.0 0
B: sp p e d = B1
D: si z e = 0 .00
O ne F a c to r P lo t
55
W a rn i n g ! F a c to r i n v o l v e d i n a n i n te ra c ti o n .
re s id u e
4 2 .7 5
3 0 .5
1 8 .2 5
6
-1 . 0 0
-0 . 5 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 0
1 .0 0
C : n o o f b la d e s
Fig 11
Observation
The main effects of A and C are plotted in the above figures . From the Fig 10 and 11,
we see that the effect of A is positive whereas the effect of C is negative .If we consider
only the main effects we would run the experiment at low level of A and high level. Since
16
Inte ra c tio n G ra p h
C : n o o f b la d e s
55
re s id u e
4 2 .7 5
3 0 .5
1 8 .2 5
6
-1 . 0 0
-0 . 5 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 0
1 .0 0
A: m a s s
17
51
4 0 .4 3 7 5
re s id u e
2 9 .8 7 5
1 9 .3 1 2 5
8 .7 5
1 .0 0
1 .0 0
0 .5 0
0 .5 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
C : n o o f b la d e- s0 .5 0
- 1 .0 0
- 0 .5 0
- 1 .0 0
A: m a s s
re s id u e
1 .0 0
C : n o o f b la d e s
0 .5 0
2 2 .8 3 3 3
1 5 .7 9 1 7
0 .0 0
2 9 .8 7 5
3 6 .9 1 6 7
-0 . 5 0
4 3 .9 5 8 3
-1 . 0 0
-1 . 0 0
-0 . 5 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 0
1 .0 0
A: m a s s
Fig 12
18
By examining the contour plot we see that Residue decreases as the mass decreases and
the number of fins in the blade increases.
4.0 .References
1.Design and Analysis of Experiments Dr.Douglas C. Montgomery,
Fith Edition,John Wiley & Sons,Inc.
2.Design Expert Software Package Version 6.0.1
19
20