NAME: AISHWARYA.

REG.NO:12E01

41 cars equipped with standard carburettors were for gas usage and
yielded an average of 8.1 km/litre with a standard deviation of 1.2 km/litre.21 of
these cars were then chosen randomly, fitted with special carburettors and
tested, yielding an average of 8.8km/litre with a standard deviation of 0.9
km/litre . At the 5% level of significance , does the new carburettor decrease
gas usage?

DATA GIVEN:
n = 41
n = 21
x = 8.1 km/litre
x =8.8 km/litre
=1.2 km/litre
= 0.9 km/litre
=5%
SOLUTION:

H : x = x

( no change )

H : x > x

( new carburettor decreases gas usage )

Thus , from H , it is a right tailed test.

Since = 5% , Z = 1.645
z=

( xx xx )

2 2
+
)
n n

( 8.18.8)

1.22 0.92
+
)
41 21
0.7

= 0.035+ 0.038
= - 9.5
Now,

Z > Z at 5 % significance level.

Thus H is rejected and H is accepted .

Thus, the new carburettors decrease gas usage.

Name

K. Bala murugan.

Reg No

12E15.

Question:
Difference of Mean:
1.
Two companies produce resistors with a nominal resistance of 4000
ohms. Resistors from company A give a sample of size 9 with sample mean
4025 ohms and estimated standard deviation 42.6 ohms. A shipment from
company B gives a sample of size l3 with sample mean 3980 ohms and
estimated standard deviation 30.6 ohms. Resistances are approximately
normally distributed.
At 5% level of significance, is there a difference in the mean values of the
resistors produced by the two companies? (12E15)
Given:
= 4000

; X1 = 4025

n1 = 9

; X2 = 3980

n2 = 13

; S1 = 42.6
; S2 = 30.6

Soln:
n1 < 30

n2 < 30

So this is test for small sample and normally distributed. So, t-test
difference mean.
H0 :

X1 > X2 ( There is no difference in mean )

H1 :

X1 > X2 ( There is difference in mean )

for

( One tail , Right tail test)

LOS:

= 5% = 0.05

t =( X1 X2) / (( (n1s12+ n2s22) / (n1+n2))((1/n1)+(1/n2) ) )1/2

t= (4025 - 3980) / ((9x(42.6)2 + 13x(30.6)2 )((1/9) + (1/13) ) )1/2
t = 2.883
Table value:
= n1 + n2 -2
One tail,

so

= 20
t(2,) = t0.1,20 = 1.73

Since t > t2, so rejected.

NAME:S.AISWARYA
REG.NO:12E02
1.An investigation of 2 kinds of photocopying machine showed that 80 failures
of 1st kind of machine took average of 75.2 mins to repair with S.D of 20 mins
when 80 failures of 2nd machine took average of 82.8 mins to repair with S.D of
22 mins.Test the null hypothesis
GIVEN:
xx 1= 75.2
s 1 =20

1=2

against

1 2

at 5% L.O.S.

n1= 80
xx

=82.8

s 2 =22
n2 =80

SOLN:
1)

H 0 : xx 1 =xx

2)

H 1 : xx 1 xx

[There is no difference between two means]

[two tail test]

3)Level of significance 5%
xx 1xx

4)Test statistics (

zc

)=

s 1 s2

n1 n 2

75.282.8

202 222

80 80

7.6
= 56.05
z c

=7.4

5)Table value:

=1.96

CONCLUSION:
since

z c z

reject

H0

Therefore, the difference between

xx

and

xx

is significant at 5%L.O.S

12E03

T.Angulakshmi

1.To test the claim that resistance of electric wire can be reduced by alloying.
32 numbers of standard wire yielded a reduction of mean resistance of
0.136ohm with standard deviation =0.004ohm and another 32 numbers of
alloyed wire yielded a reduction of mean resistance of 0.0083ohm with standard
deviation =0.005ohm. At 5% LOS does this support claim

Given:
x 1

=0.136ohm

x 2

=0.0083ohm s1=0.004 s2=0.005 n1=32 n2=32

H0: Set up null hypothesis

H1:

x 1> x2

x 1= x1

(RTT)

LOS =5%
Z c=

x 1x 2

s1 s 2
+
n 1 n2

Zc = x1- x2/v(s1'/n1)+(s2/n2)
=0.136-0.0083/v(0.004/32)+(0.005/32)
=0.0180
Z0.05=1.96
Z0.05>Zc
Accept Null Hypothesis

NAME:ANUPAMA.K
1.A manufacture of light bulbs claims that on the average 2% of the bulbs
manufactured by him are defective.A random sample of 400 bulbs contained 13

defectives.on the basis of this sample can you support the manufacturers claim
at 5% LOS.
Solution:
H0:P=0.02 i.e .2% of the products are defective
H1:p>P.
One tailed test(right tailed) test is to be used.
Let LOS be 5%.therefore ,Z=1.645
Z=(p-P)/((PQ)/n),where p= x/n=13/400=0.0325
P=0.02, Q=1-P=0.98
Z=(0.0325-0.02)/(0.02*0.98)/400
Z=0.0125/0.007
Z=1.785
Z=1.79(approx)
Z>Z
Therefore H0 is rejected
therefore the claim cannot be supported.
NAME:M.APARNA
A foundry produces steel forgings used in automobile manufacturing. We wish
to test the hypothesis that the fraction conforming or fallout from this process is
10%. In a random samples of 250 forgings, 41 were found to be nonconforming.
What are your conclusions using =0.05?
Solution:
H0:P=0.1 i.e.10%of the products are conforming.
H1:pP.
Two tailed test is to be used.

Let LOS be 5% .Therefore, Z=1.96

Z=(p-P)/(PQ)/n
Where p=x/n=41/250=0.164
P=0.1, Q=1-P=1-0.1=0.9
Z=(0.164-0.1)/(0.1*0.9)/250
Z=3.37
|Z|=3.37
|Z|>|Z|
H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted.
Thus the foundry produces steel forgings were found to be nonconforming.

P.V. Aravind
12E06
Question:
A new rocket launching is considered for deployment of small and
short range rockets. The existing system has 80% successful launches. A sample
of 40 experimental launches is made with new system and 34 are successful.
Would you claim that the new system is better?

Given:
n=40,

x=34,

P=80%

Soln:
n>30 .So, this is Test for Large Samples and Test for Single proportion.
80
4
P= 100 = 5 =0.8

4
1
Q=1-P =1- 5 = 5
x

=0.2

34

80

p= n = 40 = 100 = 0.8

1) Null Hypothesis (Ho) :

There is no difference between proportions.
p=P

2) Alternate Hypothesis (H1):

There is difference between proportions.
p>P
This is Single Right tail test.

3) Level of Significance(LOS):
=5% =0.05 (Assuming)
4) Test Statistic (Zc):
pP
Zc= PQ
n

0.850.80

Zc=

Zc=

0.8 0.2
40

0.05
0.16
40

0.05

Zc= 0.0632455532

Zc=0.791
5) Conclusion:
Z=Z0.05=1.645
If =1%
Z=2.33

Zc < Z
So, Accept Null Hypothesis (Ho).
There is no difference in Both System.

NAME : Aravind.S.
REG.NO : 12E07
1.A study shows that 16 out of 200 submersible pumps produced on one
assembly line required extensive adjustments before they could be
shipped,while the same was true for 14 of 400 pumps produced on another
assembly line.At 0.01 LOS,does this support the claim that the second
production line does superior work?
Solution:
16 fails out of 200
P1=

14 fails out of 400

184
200

P1=0.92
P2=

P2=0.965

386
400

H0:P1=P2
H1:P1<P2 One tailed (left tailed) test is to be used. Let LOS be 0.01.i.e Z=2.33,
P=

X 1+ X 2
N 1+ N 2

P=

184+386
600

P=

570
600

P=0.95
Q=0.05

Formula:
Z=

Z=

Z=

P1P 2

PQ

( N11 + N12 )
0.920.965

( 2001 + 4001 )

( 0.950.05 )

0.045

600
( 80000
)

0.0475

Z=

0.045283
5.33

Z =2.3893

Now |Z|>|Z|
The difference between P1 and P2 is significant.

i.e.H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted.

i.e., this does not support the claim that the second production line.

NAME : Aravindhan.R.
REG.NO : 12E08.
1.A study shows that 16 out of 200 capacitors produced on one assembly line
required extensive adjustments before they could be shipped ,while the same
was true for 14 of 400 capacitors produced on another assembly line.At 0.01
LOS, does this support the claim that the second production line does superior
work?
Solution:
16 fails out of 200
P1=

14 fails out of 400

184
200

P1=0.92
P2=

386
400

P2=0.965
H0:P1=P2
H1:P1<P2 One tailed (left tailed) test is to be used. Let LOS be 0.01.i.e Z=2.33,
P=

X 1+ X 2
N 1+ N 2

P=

184+386
600

P=

570
600

P=0.95
Q=0.05

Formula:
Z=

Z=

Z=

P1P 2

PQ

( N11 + N12 )
0.920.965

( 2001 + 4001 )

( 0.950.05 )

0.045

600
( 80000
)

0.0475

Z=

0.045283
5.33

Z =2.3893

Now |Z|>|Z|
The difference between P1 and P2 is significant.
i.e.H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted.
i.e., this does not support the claim that the second production line.

NAME

:R.ARCHANA

REG NO :12E09

1.57 out of 150 patients suffering with certain disease are cured by Allopathy
medicine and 33 out of 100 patients with same disease are cured by
Homeopathy medicine, is there reason to believe that Allopathy is better than
Homeopathy at 5% LOS. (12E09)

SOLUTION:
P1

denotes probability of success in allopathy medicine.

P2

denotes probability of success in homeopathy medicine.

X denotes number of successors in n trails.

H0

P1

H1

P1

X1

P2

<

P2

(one tail LTT)

X2

=150-57 =93,
n1

P1

=100-33=67
n2

=150
=

X1

=100

n1

P2

=93/150=0.62
P=

n1

P1

n2

P2

n1

=93+67/250
=0.64
P1

P2

/ PQ ((1/n1)+(1/n2 ))

=0.62-0.67/ ( 0.64 ) (0.36)((1/150)+(1/100))

=0.806
Z 0.05 =-1.645

Z 0.05 < Z

X2

=67/100=0.67
+

=(150)(0.62)+(100)(0.67)/150+100

Z=

n2

n2

H0

Reject null hypothesis,

CONCLUSION:
Homeopathy

NAME

is

better

:R.ARCHANA

than

allopathy.

REG NO :12E09

1.57 out of 150 patients suffering with certain disease are cured by Allopathy
medicine and 33 out of 100 patients with same disease are cured by
Homeopathy medicine, is there reason to believe that Allopathy is better than
Homeopathy at 5% LOS. (12E09)
SOLUTION:
P_1 denotes probability of success in allopathy medicine.
P_2 denotes probability of success in homeopathy medicine.
X denotes number of successors in n trails.
H_0:

P_1= P_2

H_1: P_1

< P_2(one tail LTT)

X_1 =150-57 =93,

n_1=150
P_1 = X_1/ n_1
=93/150=0.62

X_2=100-33=67
n_2=100
P_2 = X_2/ n_2
=67/100=0.67

P= ( n_1)( P_1)+ (n_2)(P_2)/(n_1 + n_2)

=(150)(0.62)+(100)(0.67)/150+100
=93+67/250
=0.64
Z = P_1 - P_2/{(PQ)(1/n_1+1/n_2)}1/2
=0.62-0.67/{(0.64)(0.36)(1/150+1/100)}1/2
=0.806
Z_0.05=-1.645

Z_0.05< Z
Reject null hypothesis,H_0

CONCLUSION:
Homeopathy

is

better

than

allopathy.

(On Test of Hypothesis on Small samples for Single Mean)

ArunKumar.S.J

Reg.No:12E10

Qn. High sulphur content in steel is very undesirable, giving corrosion problems
among other disadvantages. If the sulphur content becomes too high, steps have
to be taken. Five successive independent specimens in a steel-making process
give values of % sulphur of 0.0307, 0.0324, 0.0314, 0.0311, and 0.0307. Do the
data give evidence at 5% los that the true mean % sulphur is above 0.0300?
Soln.
=0.0300

Null Hypothesis H0: =0.0300

Alternative Hypothesis H1: 0.0300
Calculation of sample mean and standard deviation:
x
0.0307
0.0324
0.0314
0.0311
0.0307
=0.1563

x-
-0.00056
+0.00114
-0.00014
-0.00016
-0.00056
=-2.8*10-4

(x-)2
3.136*10-7
1.2996*10-6
1.96*10-8
2.56*10-8
3.136*10-7
=19.72*10-7

Formula: t= (-) (S/n)

=0.03126; n=5; =0.0300
S2=19.72*10-7/4 = 49.3* 10-8
t= (0.03126-0.0300)(49.3*10-8/5)
t= 4.03
t>t0.05=2.31
Conclusion: Hence, the Null Hypothesis is rejected. The mean of data differ
from true mean % sulphur of 0.0300

Reg. No. 12E11

T. ARUN RAJ

Question:
Two chemical processes for manufacturing the same product are being
compared under the same conditions. Yield from Process A gives an average
value of 96.2 from six runs, and the estimated standard deviation of yield is
2.75. Yield from Process B gives an average value of 93.3 from seven runs, and
the estimated standard deviation is 3.35. Yields follow a normal distribution. Is
the difference between the mean yields statistically significant? Use the 5%
level of significance, and show rejection regions for the difference of mean
yields on a sketch. (12E11)

Solution:
Here x1 96.2 , s1 2.75, n1 6, n2 7, x2 93.3 , s 2 3.35.

H 0 : x1 x2

H 1 : x1 x2

and

Two tail test to be used. LOS = 5%.

t

x1 x2
n1 s12 n2 s2 2

n n 2
2
1

1
1

n1 n2

96.2 93.3
(6 (2.75) 2 ) (7 (3.35) 2 ) 1 1

672

6 7

2 .9
45.375 78.558

0.309
11

2.9
1.865

t = 1.55
Also

n1 n2 2 6 7 2 11

11 0.05

From

the

t-table,

t , t 0.05,11 2.20

t t ( 0.05,11)

So H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected.

That is two sample means are do not differ significantly at 5% LOS.

Graph:

(Reject)-2.2

(Accept)

2.2

(Reject)

ROLL NO: 12E12

SMALL SAMPLE- SINGLE MEAN :
The average daily amount of scrap from a particular manufacturing process is
25.5 kg with a standard deviation of 1.6 kg .A modification of the process is
tried in an attempt to reduce this amount .During a 10 day trial period ,the kg of
scrap produced each day were 25,21.9,23.5,25.2,22,23,24.5,25,26.1,22.8. From
the nature of the modification no change in day to day variability of the amount
of scrap will result .The normal distribution will apply .A first glance at the
figures suggest that the modification is effective in reducing he scrap level
.Does a significant test confirm this at the 1% level.
SOLUTION:
=25.5 kg
s=1.6 kg
n=10
The mean of the sample is given by,
X=

x
239
=
n
10 =23.9

H0: X=
H1: X
Two tail test is to be used .Let LOS be 1%.
X

t= s / n1 =

23.925.5
1.6/ 9

1.6
t= 0.533 =-3.00

t0.01=3.25
=n-1=9; |t|<t 0.01
3<3.25
H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected at 1% level.

NAME: M.AYSHA FARHAN

REG NO: 12E13

The standard deviation of a particular dimension on a machine part is known to

be 0.0053 inches. Four parts coming off the production line are measured giving
readings of 2.747, 2.740, 2.750, and 2.749 inches. The population mean is
supposed to be 2.740 inches. The normal distribution applies. Is the sample
mean significantly larger than 2.740 inches at the 1% level of significance?
GIVEN:
Standard deviation s= 0.0053 inches
n=4
population mean = 2.740 inches
SOLUTION:
1

xx = n x i

1
= 4 ( 2.747+2.740+2.750+2.749)

= 2.7465 inches

H 0 : X =

There is no difference between sample & population mean

H 1 : X

One tail (Right tail) test is to be used. Let LOS be 1%.

xx
s
n1

t=

(2.74652.740)
0.0053
(41)

0.0065
0.00306

2.214

|t| =2.214

= n-1
= 4-1
=3
Let L.O.S be 1%
For =3

t 0.01

= 5.841 ( from t-table)

We see that |t|<t 0.01 (=3)

Therefore ,

H0

is accepted.

CONCLUSION:
There is no difference between sample and population mean .

V. Bala Murali

12E14

5.
A manufacturer of fluorescent lamps claims that his lamps have an
average luminous flux of 3,600 lm at rated voltage and frequency and that 90%
of all lamps produced by an automatic process have a luminous flux higher than
3,300 lm. The luminous flux of the lamps follows a normal distribution. What
standard deviation is implied by the manufacturers claim? Assume that this
standard deviation does not change. A random sample of l0 lamps is tested and
gives a sample mean of 3,470 lm. At the 5% level of significance can we
conclude that the mean luminous flux is significantly less than what the
manufacturer claims? State your null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis.
(12E14)
Solution
Let X be a random Variable, corresponding to the lumens of the bulb
Population Mean =3600
P ( X >3300 )=0.9
P (3300< X < )=0.9

This follows Normal distribution

Convert this to Standard Normal Distribution
Z=

Thus
P

< Z< )=0.9

( 33003600

P 0< Z <

300
=0.4

From table
300
=1.28

=234.375

The small sample test follows t distribution

Assume H0: There is no difference in the population and sample mean
Assume H1: The Population mean is greater than the sample mean (Right tail
Test)
Assume LOS: LOS=0.05 at DOF=10-1=9
Test statistic:
t c =(-x)/

36003470
23.4375

26.853

This value is greater than the table value t0.05,9=2.626

Thus Reject H0.
We accept alternate hypothesis. And the claim of the company is false.

Name: P.Bharathi

Reg. no: 12E16

Difference of Means
2. A new composition for car tires has been developed and is being compared
with an older composition. Ten tires are manufactured from the new
composition, and ten are manufactured from the old composition. One tire of
the new composition and one of the old compositions are placed on the front
wheels of each of ten cars. Which composition goes on the left-hand or righthand wheel is determined randomly. The wheels are properly aligned. Each car
is driven 60,000 km under a variety of driving conditions. Then the wear on
each tire is measured. The results are:
car no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
wear
2.4 1.3
4.2
3.8
2.8
4.7
3.2
4.8
3.8
2.9
new
comp.
Wear of 2.7 1.9
4.3
4.2
3.0
4.8
3.8
5.3
3.7
3.1
old
comp.
Do the results show at the 1% level of significance that the new composition
gives significantly less wear than the old composition?

Let X1 be the wear of the new composition and X2 be the wear of old
composition
Null hypothesis H0: X1=X2
Alternate hypothesis H1: X1<X2 (left tail test)
N=10
X1= (1/10) *33.9
=3.39
S1= [1/10*(125.59)]-(11.4921)
=12.5-11.49
=1.0669
X2= (1/10)*36.8

=3.68
S2=[1/10*(144.9)-(3.68)]
=14.49-3.68
=0.9476
t= (X1-X2)/{[(S1-S2)/n-1]}
=(3.39-3.68)/{[(1.0669+0.9476)/9]}
= -0.6130
|t|=0.6130
V=2n-2
=(2*10)-2
=18
Since it is one tail test ,
Los =0.01*2=0.02
t(0.02)(v=18)=2.55
t<t(0.02)
we accept H0.
The new composition gives significantly not less wear than the old composition.

Name

K. Bala murugan

Reg No

12E15.

Question:
Difference of Mean:
1.
Two companies produce resistors with a nominal resistance of 4000
ohms. Resistors from company A give a sample of size 9 with sample mean
4025 ohms and estimated standard deviation 42.6 ohms. A shipment from

company B gives a sample of size l3 with sample mean 3980 ohms and
estimated standard deviation 30.6 ohms. Resistances are approximately
normally distributed.
At 5% level of significance, is there a difference in the mean values of the
resistors produced by the two companies? (12E15)
Given:
= 4000

; X1 = 4025

n1 = 9

; X2 = 3980

n2 = 13

; S1 = 42.6
; S2 = 30.6

Soln:
n1 < 30

n2 < 30

So this is test for small sample and normally distributed. So, t-test
difference mean.
H0 :

X1 > X2 ( There is no difference in mean )

H1 :

X1 > X2 ( There is difference in mean )

( One tail , Right tail test)

LOS:

= 5% = 0.05

t =( X1 X2) / (( (n1s12+ n2s22) / (n1+n2))((1/n1)+(1/n2) ) )1/2

t= (4025 - 3980) / ((9x(42.6)2 + 13x(30.6)2 )((1/9) + (1/13) ) )1/2
t = 2.883
Table value:
= n1 + n2 -2
One tail,

so

= 20
t(2,) = t0.1,20 = 1.73

Since t > t2, so rejected.

Maths Assignment

for

Name: P.Bharathi

Reg. no: 12E16

Difference of Means
2. A new composition for car tires has been developed and is being compared
with an older composition. Ten tires are manufactured from the new
composition, and ten are manufactured from the old composition. One tire of
the new composition and one of the old compositions are placed on the front
wheels of each of ten cars. Which composition goes on the left-hand or righthand wheel is determined randomly. The wheels are properly aligned. Each car
is driven 60,000 km under a variety of driving conditions. Then the wear on
each tire is measured. The results are:
car no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
wear
2.4 1.3
4.2
3.8
2.8
4.7
3.2
4.8
3.8
2.9
new
comp.
Wear of 2.7 1.9
4.3
4.2
3.0
4.8
3.8
5.3
3.7
3.1
old
comp.
Do the results show at the 1% level of significance that the new composition
gives significantly less wear than the old composition?

Let X1 be the wear of the new composition and X2 be the wear of old
composition
Null hypothesis H0: X1=X2
Alternate hypothesis H1: X1<X2 (left tail test)
N=10
X1= (1/10) *33.9
=3.39
S1= [1/10*(125.59)]-(11.4921)
=12.5-11.49
=1.0669

X2= (1/10)*36.8
=3.68
S2=[1/10*(144.9)-(3.68)]
=14.49-3.68
=0.9476
t= (X1-X2)/{[(S1-S2)/n-1]}
=(3.39-3.68)/{[(1.0669+0.9476)/9]}
= -0.6130
|t|=0.6130
V=2n-2
=(2*10)-2
=18
Since it is one tail test ,
Los =0.01*2=0.02
t(0.02)(v=18)=2.55
t<t(0.02)
we accept H0.
The new composition gives significantly not less wear than the old composition.

V. Harish

12E33

Question:
Car manufacturers are interested in whether there is a relationship between the
size of car an individual drives and the number of people in the drivers family
(that is, whether car size and family size are independent). To test this, suppose
that 800 car owners were randomly surveyed with the following results.
Conduct a test for independence.

Soln:

Ho:
All Numbers are independent.
H1:
All Numbers are not independent.
LOS:
=5%= 0.05
Test Statistic:
^2=(Oi-Ei)^2/Ei

Interval
0-25
25-50
50-75
75-100
Total

Oi
4
6
3
3
16

Ei
4
4
4
4
16

^2=1.50
Conclusion:
^2

= ^2

=0.117

Oi-Ei
0
2
-1
-1

(Oi-Ei)^2/Ei
0
1
0.25
0.25
1.50

0.05,3

=4-1=3

^2> ^2
0.05,3
Reject Ho
All Numbers are not independent.

R.BHUVANESHWARI

12E17

1.Nine specimens of unalloyed steel were taken and each was halved.One half
being sent for analysis to a lab at Delhi and other half to a lab at
Bangalore.The determination of percentage carbon content were as follows
Specimen `1
2
3
4
5
6
no
Delhi lab 0.22
0.11
0.46
0.32
0.27
0.19
Bangalore 0.20
0.10
0.39
0.34
0.23
0.14
lab
Is there any significant difference in mean carbon content tested by two labs at
1% L.O.S
Solution:
The given data relate to the results in two lab tests by the same carbon
sample.Hence the results in the two test can be regarded as correlated and so
the t-test paired values should be used.
Let d=

x1

x2

where

x1

and

x2

denote the results in the two tests.

Thus the values of d are 0.02,0.01,0.07,-0.02,0.04,0.05

2
d=0.17 and d =0.0289

1
0. 17
d =
n d=
6

=0.0283

1
2
s2 = sd =
d 2 -( d 2 )
n
1

= 6 (0.0289)-(

0 . 0283
2

=0.00481-0.0008
=0.00401
s=0.0633

H0

: d =0

H1

: d <0 ( x 1 < x 2 )

Two tailed test is to be used.Let L.O.S be 1%.

d
s
t=
n1
0 . 0283
= 0 . 0633
61

=1.00445
V=n-1=6-1=5
t 0. 01 ,(v=5)=4.03

|t| < t 0. 01 (v=5)

Therefore null hypothesis is accepted.

So there is no significant difference between the two set of results

NAME;BHUVANESWARI.M

REG NO;12E18

Two flow meters, A and B, are used to measure the flow rate of brine in a potash
processing plant. The two meters are identical in design and calibration and are
mounted on two adjacent pipes, A on pipe 1 and B on pipe 2. On a certain day,
the following flow rates (in m3/sec) were observed at 10-minute intervals from
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Meter A

Meter B

1:00 p.m.

1.7

2.0

1:10 p.m.

1.6

1.8

1:20 p.m.

1.5

1.6

1:30 p.m.

1.4

1.3

1:40 p.m.

1.5

1.6

1:50 p.m.

1.6

1.7

2:00 p.m,

1.7

1.9

Is the flow in pipe 2 significantly different from the flow in pipe 1 at the 5%
level of significance?
SOLUTION:
H0: X1 =X2
H1: X1 X2
X1=1.7+1.6+1.5+1.4+1.5+1.6+1.7/7
=1.57
X2=2.0+1.8+1.6+1.3+1.6+1.7+1.9 / 7
= 1.7

t = x1 - x2 /((n1 s1 ^2+n2 s2 ^2/ n1+n2-2)(1/n1 +1/n2))^1/2

s1^2 = x1^2/n (x1/n)^2
=2.48 -2.46
= 0.02
S2^2 =x2^2/n-(x2/n)^2
= 2.93 -2.89
=0.04
t = 1.57 -1.7/( (7*0.02 + 7*0.04)/12 (1/7 +1/7))^1/2
= -1.3
t_0.05,12 =2.17
t_0.05,12> t
Therefore accept H0.

NAME:P.BHUVANESWARI

DIFFERENCE OF MEANS:
5.Sample of size =15
Standard deviation=4.7
Average %=31
Mean %=33.5
LOS=1%
Ho:there is no difference
H1:x<
T=(X-)/s/(n-1)

REGISTER NUMBER:12E19

=(31-33.5)/4.7/(14)
=-1.990
Table value t, t 0.01,14=2.997
T<T
So accept Ho (null hypothesis)

NAME

: N.Carol Jeneth

ROLL.NO :12E20

1) Two Different lightening techniques are compared by measuring the

intensity of light at selected locations in areas lighted by the two
methods .If 15 measurements in the first area had a SD of 2.7 footcandles and 21 measurements in the second area had a SD of 4.2 footcandles,can it be concluded that the lighting in the second area is less
uniform ? Use 5% LOS.

Given:
Conduct F-test
n 1 =15

n 2 = 21

s 1 =2.7

s 2 = 4.2

= 0.05
v1 = (n1-1)=14

v2= (n2-1)=20

H0 : 1 = 2 ( i.e. the two areas have same variance)

H1: 1

 1 = ( n1 * s1 ) ( n1 1)

= (15 * (2.7 )) (15 1)

= 7.81

2 = (n2 * s2 ) (n2 -1)

= (21 * (4.2)) (21 1)

=18.52

2 > 1

F = 2 / 1
=18.52 / 7.81
F = 2.37

::::

FFF0.05(v2=20,v1=14)=2.39
Since F<F0.05,
H0 is accepted. H1 is rejected.

Conclusion:
Thus lighting in second area is less uniform.

Submitted by,

M.CHANDHIY

12E21

1.Two different lighting techniques are compared by measuring the intensity of

light at selected locations in areas lighted by the two methods.If 15
measurement in the first area ad a S.D of 2.7 foot candles and 21 measurement
in the second area had a S.D of 4.2 foot candles can it be concluded that the
lighting in the second area is less uniform?Use 5% l.o.s.

Solution:
Given:
S1

=2.7 foot candles

S2

=4.2 foot candles

n1

=15

n2

=21

=5%
First we set up a null hypothesis
H0

21 = 22

H1 :

1 2

n1
21 =
n11
15

= 151
15
= 14

= 1.07
n2
22 =
n21
21

= 211
21
= 20

=1.05
21 > 22
21
F= 22
1 . 07

= 1 . 05
=1.01
F=1.01
F( 0 .05 , ( 14 ,20))

=2.28

F<

Accept Null Hypothesis

Yes.It can be concluded that the lighting in the second is less uniform.

T.DHANALAKSHMI

12E22 A Sec

1.
The following are the Brinell hardness values obtained for samples of two
magnesium alloys before testing.
Alloy 1:

66.3 63.5 64.9 61.8 64.3 64.7 65.1 64.5 68.4 63.2

Alloy 2:

71.3 60.4 62.6 63.9 68.8 70.1 64.8 68.9 65.8 66.2

Test whether the two samples came from same normal population.
Solution:
Mean X1 xi1 n 1

646.7
10

64.67

X2 i2 n 2

662.8
10

66.28

s 12=

x 12 ( x 12 /n 1)
n1

15.80

(12E22)

2
x2

s2 =
( x 22 /n 2)
2

n2

10.93
12 =

n1

2
( s 1 n1 1

10(15.8)/9

17.56
2
2
2 =n 2 ( s 2 n2 1

=10(10. 93 9
12.14

F 1 2
17.56 12.14
1.44

H0

1= 2

H1 1 2
.f5%(9,9) 1.58
Accept Ho

s1
2
t ( 2s 2 )/ n1
(x 1 x 2)
1 . 71

17.56-12.14/ 9

 2.20
, 2 n2
)

.t

. t5%(18) 2. 101
Reject Ho
They are not from same population
NAME:E.ELAKIYA

ROLL NO:12E23

The coefficients of thermal expansion of two alloys, A and B, are compared. Six
random measurements are made for each alloy. For alloy A, the coefficients
(106) are 12.95, 14.05, 12.75, 12.10, 13.50 and 13.00. Coefficients (106) for
alloy B are 14.05, 15.35, 14.35, 15.15, 13 85 and 14.25. Assume the values for
each alloy are normally distributed. Is the variance of coefficients for alloy A
significantly different from the variance of coefficients for alloy B? Use the
10% level of significance.
SOLUTION:Coefficient ( 106)
ALLOY

A
B
GIVEN:

12.95
14.05

14.05
15.35

n1=6 ; n2=6 ;
2

H 0 : S 1=S 2
H 0 : S 21 S 22

FORMULA:
s 21= x 21

n1

x 22
s=
x
n2 ( 2 / n )
2
2

( x 1/ n )
1

12.75
14.35

12.10
15.15

13.50
13.85

13.00
14.25

SOL:
s 21 =1025.32/6 13.052
s 21 =170.8 170.3
2

s 1 = 0.5
S 22=

1263 .3
6

14.52

210.55 210 . 25

= 0.3
2
2
F = S1 / S2

F =0.5/ 0.3
= 1.67
=1

F0 . 01,(5 ,5 )

=10.97

F0 . 01, (5 ,5 )> F

Accept

H0

Therefore there is no difference in variance of coefficient for alloy A and alloy

B.
5. The standard way of measuring water suction in soil is by a tensiometer. A
new instrument for measuring this parameter is an electrical resistivity probe. A
purchaser is interested in the variability of the readings given by the new
instrument. The purchaser put both instruments into a large tank of soil at ten
different locations , both instruments side by side at each location and obtained
the following results.
Suction (in cm)

Measured by

Tensiometer

Electrical resistivity probe

355

365

305

300

360

375

330

360

345

340

315

320

375

385

350

380

330

330

350

390

Choose an appropriate level of significance and test for a significant difference

in the variance of the two instruments. (12E24)

F Test:
2
2
H0: There is no significant difference in variance of two instruments( s 1 = s 2 )
2
2
H1: There is significant difference in variance of two instruments( s 1 s2 )

n1

2
1

=10, n2 =10

x 12
n1

x1

( )
n1

 x 21

n1

( 126025+ 93025+129600+108900+119025+99225+ 140625+ 122500+ 108900+ 122500 )

10

x1

( )

n1

355+305+360+330+345+ 315+375+350+330+350

2
( 10)

s 1 =117032.5 -116622.25

=410.25

2
2

x 22
n2

x 22
n2

x2

( )

n2

( (133225+90000+140625+129600+ 115600+102400+148225+144400+108900+152100)
)
10
x2

( ) =(
n2

365+300+375+360+340+320+ 385+ 380+330+390

10

s 22 =126507.5-125670.25

=837.25
s 22 >s 21
s 22
837 .25
F= s 21 = 410 .25

At 0.05 LOS,

=2.040

n 1 n 1
Degrees of freedom= ( 1 )( 2 )

From f table,
F( 0 .05 ,9 , 9)

=3.18

F( 0 .05 ,9 , 9)

F<

Accept HO
Hence , there is no significant difference in variance of the two instruments.

REG NO:12E26
1. A general contractor is considering purchasing lumber from 1 of 2
different suppliers a sample of 12 boards is obtained from each supplier
and the length of each board is measured. The estimated standard
deviation from the samples are s1=.13inch, s2=.17inch.assume the
lengths follow normal distribution. Does this data indicate the lengths of
1 supplier are subject to less variability than those from other supplier.
Test using level of significance equal to .02?
GIVEN: s1=.13 inch , s2=.17 INCH.
n1=12, n2=12;
SIR i didnt have a table for 2% LOS so i changed it to 1%.
H0: NO difference between 2 samples;
H1: difference between 2 samples s1<s2
Formula:
S1

S2

n1
= (n 11)

2=

n2
(n 21)

.s12

.s22

S12 =12 * .132 /11

=.018
2

S2

=12*.172

/11

=.0315
F= S22 / S1 2
F=.315/.018
= 1.75
= .01
F 1, 2 = F 11, 11
F0.01

= 9.17

F .01 > F
ACCEPT H0
F-TEST
7)Wire of a certain type is supplied to an electrical retailer by each of
the manufacturers A&B. users of the wire suggest that there is more
variability(from specimen to specimen) in the resistance of the wire
supplied by company A. then in that supplied by company B. random
samples of wire from spools of the wire supplied by the two companies
were taken the resistances were measured with the following results.
company

number of samples 13

B
21

sum of resistances 96.8 201.4

sum of squares of
resistance

732.30

1936.90

assume the resistance were normally distributed use the results of these
samples to determine at the 5% level of significance whether or not there
is evidence to support the suggestion of the user (12E27)
Soln:

Number of samples=2
N1=13,N2=21
Sum of resistances:

x1=96.8,x2=201.4

Sum of squares of resistance:

( xi x )2=732 . 30

N1(s1)^2=732.30
S1^2=732.30/13=56.330
(yi-y)^2 =1936.90
N2(s2)^2 =1936.90
S2^2=1936.90/21=92.233
F=1^2/2^2
1^2=n1(s1)^2/n1-1
=732.30/12
=61.025
2^2=n2(s2)^2/n2-1
=1936.90/20
=96.845
1^2 < 2^2

, since F= 2^2/ 1^2

H0= 1^2= 2^2 , Accept H0

H1= 1^2 2^2

and

, Reject H0

LOS=5%
F=96.845/61.025
=1.586
F 5%(12,20)

=2.28

(from f table)

Since ,
(I,e)

F < F

H0 is Accepted

the two samples could have two normal

Population.
Assume the resistances were normally distributed
samples to ACCEPT H0.
THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
USER

use the result of there

THE SUGGESTION OF THE

P.S.Gowthaman

12E28
shop I

Shop II

Shop III

Total

Repaired
78
Repair
with 15
Minor
adjustment

56
30

54
31

188
76

Without repair

14

15

36

Total

100

100

100

300

H0-There is no significance difference between the shop and repair

H1- There is significance difference between shop and repair
OI

EI

OI-EI

(OI-EI) /EI

78

(188*100)/300=62.6

15.4

3.780

56

(188*100)/300=62.6

6.6

0.695

54

(188*100)/300=62.6

8.6

1.180

51

(76*100)/300=25.3

10.3

4.193

30

(76*100)/300=25.3

4.7

0.873

31

(76*100)/300=25.3

5.7

1.284

(36*100)/300=12

2.083

14

(36*100)/300=12

0.333

15

(36*100)/300=12

0.750

15.171

At 5% l.o.s. from table value, with d.o.f. (u=8) = 15.507

Calculated value =15.171
Calculated value< table value
sH0 is accepted.
There is no significance difference between the shops and repair..
Solution:
H0: Accidents occur uniformly over the week.
Total number of accidents=84
Based on H0 the expected number of accidents on any day=847=12
Oi
Ei

14
12

16
12

8
12

12
12

11
12

9
12

14
12

(OiEi)
Ei

=1/12(4+16+16+0+1+9+4)
=4.166
Since Ei= Oi,
V=7-1=6.
2
2
From the table, 0 .05 (variance=6)=12.592.

Since

2 < 0 .05 ,H0 is accepted .That is accidents may be regarded to occur

uniformly over the week.

NAME:C.GURURAM,

REG.NO:12E30,

QUESTION: The following table shows the opinions of voters before and after
a Prime Minister election.
Before

After

Total

79

91

170

For Opposition 84
Party

66

150

Undecided

37

43

80

Total

200

200

400

For Ruling Party

Test at 5% LOS whether there has been any change of opinion of voters.
(12E30)
SOLUTION:
H0:NULL HYPOTHESIS:OPINION OF VOTERS ARE INDEPENDENT
DEGRESS OF FREEDOM: =(2-1)(3-1)=(1)(2)=2
20.05 (=2)=5.991

79
91
84
66
37
43

170*200/400
170*200/400
150*200/400
150*200/400
80*200/400
80*200/400

ROUNDE
DE
85
85
75
75
40
40

(O-E)2/E
(-6)2/85=0.42
62/85=0.42
92/75=1.08
(-9)2/75=1.08
(-3)2/40=0.25
32//40=0.25
2=6.5

Since 2>20.05, H0 is rejected. That is, there has been change in the opinion of
voters.

Harigovindh.K

12E31

1. To determine whether there really is a relationship between an

employees performance in the companys training program and their
ultimate success in the job, the company takes a sample of 400 cases
from its extensive files and obtain the following results.
Performance
Success
in
job
(Employer Poor
s raring)
Average

Below
Average

Average

Above
Average

23

60

29

28

79

60

49

63

Very Good 9

Use 1% l.o.s to test the hypothesis that is there any relation between
performance in the training and the success in the jobs.

Sol:
Setup null hypothesis:
Ho: There is no relation between performance in the training and the
success
in
the
jobs.
H1: There is a relation between performance in the training and the
success in the jobs.

Below
Averag
e
Poor
23
Averag 28
e
Very
9
Good
Total
60

Averag Above Total

e
Averag
e
60
29
112
79
60
167
49

63

121

188

152

400

rounde
dE

O-E

(OE)^2

23

17

36

60

53

49

29

43

-14

196

28

25

79

78

60

63

-3

18

-9

81

49

57

-8

64

63

46

17

289

Formula used:
2 =(O-E)2/E

2 Table:

2 =

(OE)^2/E
2.1176
5
0.9245
3
4.5581
4
0.36
0.0128
2
0.1428
6
4.5
1.1228
1
6.2826
1
20.021
4

Calculated value for 2= 20.0214

Table value for 2 (0.05,4)=9.488
Calculated value is greater than the table value.
Therefore, there is a relation between performance in the training and the
success in the jobs.

________________________________________________________________
______________
Harish Sreenivas

12E33

Given
The distribution of car sizes vs. driver family sizes is given below
1
2
3-4
5+
CT

A
20
20
20
20
80

B
35
50
50
30
165

C
40
70
100
70
280

D
35
80
90
70
275
( O ( i )E ( i ) )2

O(i)
20
20
20
20
35
50
50
30
40
70
100
70

E(i)
13
22
26
19
27
45
54
39
45
77
91
66

O(i)E(i)
7
-2
-6
1
8
5
-4
-9
-5
-7
9
4

E ( i)

3.769231
0.181818
1.384615
0.052632
2.37037
0.555556
0.296296
2.076923
0.555556
0.636364
0.89011
0.242424

RT
130
220
260
190
800

35
80
90
70

46
76
89
65

Tota
l

-11
4
1
5

800

2.630435
0.210526
0.011236
0.384615
16.24871

Assume H0: The two attributes are independent

Assume H1: The attributes are dependent
2
Assume LOS:

0.05,9

Test statistic:
2

( O ( i )E ( i ) )2
E ( i)

2=16 . 24871

From Table
2

0.05,9

= 3.325

Thus test statistic is greater than table value. Hence reject H0. Accept alternate
hypothesis. Car size is dependent on family size.

NAME:MAHI LIFNA

REG. NO.:12E49

1)Thirty five successive samples of 100 castings each, taken from a production
line
contained
respectively
3,3,5,3,5,0,3,2,3,5,6,5,9,2,1,4,5,2,0,10,3,6,3,2,5,6,3,3,2,5,1,0,7,4,3 defectives.
Construct appropriate control chart and state whether the standard has mean
met.
Soln:
This is np chart control chart.
m=35, n=100
np=np/m

= 129/35
=3.69
p=np/(m n)=0.037
CL=np=3.69
LCL=np-3 np ( 1 p )

=-1.965

UCL=np+3 np ( 1 p )

=10.16

x- axis sample no
y- axis no of defectives
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

10

15

CONCLUSION:
The graph is between LCL and UCL.
RESULT:
It is under control.

20

25

30

35

40

S.A. Jaya Surya

12E35

2. A study of depression and exercise was conducted. Three groups were used:
those in a designed exercise program; a group that is sedentary; and a group of
runners. A depression rating was given to members in each group. Small
random samples from each groups provided the following data:
Exercise Group:

63 58 61 60

62 59

Sedentary Group:

71 64 68 65

67 67

Runners:

49 52 47

51 48

Does the data provide sufficient evidence to indicate a difference among the
population means at 1% l.o.s?
(Solution)
k=3
Setup null hypothesis
Case 1:
H0: 1= 2 = 3
Population mean are equal
Case 2:
H1: 12 3
Population mean are not equal
= 1%
= 0.01
T1 = 63+58+61+60+62+59 = 363
T2 = 71+64+68+65+67+67 = 402
T3 = 49+52+47+51+48
T = T1 + T2 + T3
T = 363 + 402 + 247

= 247

T = 1012 = Total of all observations

n = 17 = total number of data
T2
n

Correction factor =

1012 1012
17

= 60243.765

SSB

363
6

402
6

Ti 2
T2
n
- n )

T 12
n1

T 22
n2

247
5

T 32
n3

T2
n

60243.765

= 853.535
SST
2

=
2

63 +58 +61 +60 +62 + 59 + 71 +64 +68 +65 +67 + 49 + 52 + 47 +51 +48

(
)

60243.765
= 6116262 - 60243.765
= 918.235
SSW

= SST SSB
= 918.235 - 853.535
= 64.7

ANOVA TABLE:
Source
variation
Between
sample

of Sum
of Degree
Squares
Freedom
SSB 853.535 k-1 = 2

of Mean
Square
MSB
426.767

F rated
F

=
MSB
MSW

100.156
Within sample
Total

SSW 64.7
n-k = 14
SST 918.235 n-1 = 16

MSW 4.621

F (2, 14) > F 0.01, (2, 14)

F > F , (k-1, n-k)
Reject H0
H1: 12 3;Population mean are not equal
Therefore the data provides sufficient evidence to indicate a difference among
the population means at 1% l.o.s

REGISTER NO: 12E36

JEYAPRAKASH,C

QUESTION :
The following data give lifetimes, in hours, of three types of three types of
battery.
Type I:

50.1 49.9 49.8 49.7 50.0

Type II: 51.0

50.8 50.9 50.9 50.6

Type III: 49.5

50.1 50.2 49.8 49.3

Analyze these data for a difference between lifetimes. ( Use 5% significance

level)
ANSWER:
Origin is shifted to 50
Ti

X2

TYPE 1
TYPE 2
TYPE 3
Total

0.1
1
-0.5

-0.1
0.8
0.1

-0.2
0.9
0.2

-0.3
0.9
-0.2

0
0.6
-0.7

HYPOTHESIS:
H0 = There is no difference between lifetimes.
H1 = There is significant difference between lifetimes.
LOS = 5 %
Correction Factor = T2 / n
= 2.6 2 / 15
= 0.45
Total sum of Squares:
SST = X2- Correction Factor
= 4.6 0.45 = 4.15

Sum of squares between samples:

SSB = 1/n Ti2 - Correction Factor
= 1/15 (19.1) 0.45
= 1.27 0.45
= 0.82

Sum of squares within samples:

SSW = SST SSB
= 4.15 0.82
= 3.33

-0.5
4.2
-1.1
2.6

0.15
3.62
0.83
4.6

ANOVA TABLE :
Source of
variation
Between
samples
Within
samples
Total

Sum
squares
0.82

of Degrees
freedom
2

of Mean square

Fratio

0.41
1.46

3.33

12

4.15

14

0.28

From table:
F0.05,2,12 = 3.89>Fratio
Accept null hypothesis
CONCLUSION:
At 5 % LOS we can conclude that there is no significant difference between
lifetimes.

REGISTER NO: 12E36

NAME:JEYAPRAKASH,C
QUESTION :
The following data give lifetimes, in hours, of three types of three types of
battery.
Type I:

50.1 49.9 49.8 49.7 50.0

Type II: 51.0

50.8 50.9 50.9 50.6

Type III: 49.5

50.1 50.2 49.8 49.3

Analyze these data for a difference between lifetimes. ( Use 5% significance

level)
(12E36)
ANSWER:
Origin is shifted to 50

TYPE 1
TYPE 2
TYPE 3
Total

0.1
1
-0.5

-0.1
0.8
0.1

-0.2
0.9
0.2

-0.3
0.9
-0.2

0
0.6
-0.7

HYPOTHESIS:
H0 = There is no difference between lifetimes.
H1 = There is significant difference between lifetimes.
LOS = 5 %
Correction Factor = T2 n
= 2.6 2 15
= 0.45
Total sum of Squares:
SST = X2 - Correction Factor
= 4.6 0.45
= 4.15

Sum of squares between samples:

SSB = (1/n) Ti2 - Correction Factor
= (1/15) (19.1) 0.45
= 1.27 0.45
= 0.82

Sum of squares within samples:

SSW = SST SSB

Ti
-0.5
4.2
-1.1
2.6

X2
0.15
3.62
0.83
4.6

= 4.15 0.82
= 3.33
ANOVA TABLE :
Source of
variation
Between
samples
Within
samples
Total

Sum
squares
0.82

of Degrees
freedom
2

of Mean square

Fratio

0.41
1.46

3.33

12

4.15

14

0.28

From table:
F0.05,2,12 = 3.89 > Fratio
Accept null hypothesis
CONCLUSION:
At 5 % LOS we can conclude that there is no significant difference between
lifetimes.

4 ) Three special ovens in a metal working shop are used to heat metal
specimens. All the ovens are supposed to operate at the same temperature. It is
known that the temperature of an oven varies, and it is suspected that there is
significant mean temperature difference between ovens. The table below shows
the temperature, in degrees centigrade, of each of three ovens on a random
sample of heating.
Temperature O C
Oven
1

494

497

481

496

489

494

479

478

489

483

487

472

487

472

477

Test for difference between mean oven temperatures at 5%

l.o.s.

Solution:
Assume null hypothesis

H 0 1 2 3 4

Assume alternative hypothesis H1=difference between mean oven temperatures

n=Total no data=15
Correction Factor C.F=T2/n =0
Origin=485

OVEN

TEMPERATURE

1
2
3

9
4

Ti

12
9
-2

-4
2

11
-7
-13

of

DOF

-6

2
0
-13

0
0
-8

30
0
-30

xij2 = 974
SST=xij2- T2/n
=974
SSB= Ti 2/ni -T2/n
= 330
SSW = SST - SSB
=974 330
=644

ANOVA TABLE
Square
variation

of

Sum
Squares

Mean square

Fratio

Between Sample SSB = 330

Within Sample
SSW = 644
Total
SST = 974

2
12
14

MSB = 165
MSW= 53.67
MST = 69.57

3.07
_
_

MSB =SSB/3
=330/2
=165
MSW = SSW/12
=644/12
=53.67
F(2,12) =3.88 at 5% LOS
F(2,12)> Fratio
So Accept null Hypothesis
CONCLUSION:
Yes,There is no difference in means

5) A manufacturer of television sets is interested in the effect on tube

conductivity of four different types of coating for color picture tubes. The
following conductivity data are obtained.
Coating Type

Conductivity

143

141

150

146

152

149

137

143

134

136

132

127

129

127

132

129

H 0 1 2 3 4

Test the null hypothesis that

least two of the means differ. Use = 0.05

, against the alternative that at

Solution:

Coating Type

Conductivity

143

141

150

146

152

149

137

143

134

136

132

127

129

127

132

129

H 0 1 2 3 4

Assume null hypothesis

Assume alternative hypothesis H1=At least two of means differ

n=Total no data=16
Correction Factor C.F=T2/n =68.06
Origin=140

Coating
Type

Conductivity

Ti

10

20

12

-3

21

-6

-4

-8

-13

-31

-11 -13

-8

-11

-43

Tj

-2

-15

-33

SST = xij2- T2/n

=1149-68.06
=1080.94
SSB = Ti 2/ni -T2/n

-7

-9

= 912.75-68.06
= 844.69
SSW = SST - SSB
=1080.94 844.69
=236.25

ANOVA TABLE
Square
of
Sum of
variation
Squares
Between Sample SSB = 844.69
Within Sample
Total

SSW = 236.25
SST = 1080.94

DOF
3
12
15

Mean square

Fratio

MSB =
281.56
MSW = 19.69
MST = 72.06

14.30
_
_

MSB =SSB/3
=844.69/3
=281.56
MSW = SSW/12
=236.25/12
=19.69
F(3,12) =3.49 at 5% LOS
Fratio > F(3,12)
So Reject null Hypothesis
CONCLUSION:
Yes,There is difference in means

An experiment was designed to study the performance of four different

detergents for cleaning injectors. The following cleanliness readings were
obtained with specially designed equipment for 12 tanks of gas distributed over
three different models of engines.

Engine 1

Engine 2

Engine 3

Detergent
A

45

43

51

Detergent
B

47

46

52

Detergent
C

48

50

55

Detergent
D

42

37

49

Obtain appropriate ANOVA table and test at 1% LOS whether there are
differences in the detergents on in the engines.

SOLUTION:
Between detergents:
H0 : There are no differences in the performance of detergents
H1 : There are differences in the performance of detergents
Between engines:
H0 : There are no differences in the performance of engines
H1 : There are differences in the performance of engines
Engine 1
Detergent
A
Detergent
B
Detergent
C
Detergent
D

Engine 2 Engines
3

Ti

T 2i
C

x 2ij

45-40 =5 3

11

19

120.33

155

12

25

208.33

229

10

15

33

363

389

-3

21.33

94

Tj

22
2
j

16

121

T
R

47

64

T 2i
C 713

T=85

552.25

2
j

T
=737 .
R

25

2
ij

142

154

x 2ij

571
7

No of rows , r=4
No of columns c=3
= 1%

x 2ij
T=

=867

T i=85
2

Ti
= 713
C

2
j

T
=737 . 25 ;
R

Correction Factor

SST =

x 2ij

2
T 2 ( 85 )
=
=602 . 08
RC 43

T2
RC

= 867-602.08
=264.92
2

SSR=

2
Ti
T

=713602 . 8
C
RC

= 110.98

=86

x 2ij
867

SSC =

T 2j
T2

=737 . 25602. 8
R
RC

=135.17
SSE=SST SSR - SSc
=264.92-110.92-135.17
= 18.83
R-1 = 4-1 =3
C-1 = 3-1 =2
(R-1) (C-1) =3*2=6
RC-1= 12-1 =11
MSR =

SS R
R1

110 .92
=36 . 97
3
SS c

MSC = C1
=

135 . 17
2

MSE =

= 67.59

SS E
( R1 ) (C1 )

18 . 83
6

ANOVA TABLE
Source of Sum
variation Squares

of Degrees
freedom

of Mean
square

F ratio

R-1 = 3

MSR=36.97

MS R
=11 . 77
MS E

SSC=135.17 C-1 = 2

MSC=67.59

MS C
=21 .53
MS E

Between SSR=110.92
detergents
Between
engines
Error
Total
(i)

SSE=18.33
(R-1)(C-1)=6
SST=264.92 RC-1 = 11
F,(R-1),(R-1)(C-1)=F0.01,3,6=4.76

MSE = 3.14

F> F,(R-1),(R-1)(C-1)
Reject H0
There are significant differences in the performance of detergents
(ii)

F,(C-1),(R-1)(C-1)=F0.01,2,6=5.14

F> F,(C-1),(R-1)(C-1)
Reject H0
There are significant differences in the performance of the engines.
CONCLUSION:
There are significant differences in the performance of both detergents and
the engines
NAME:T.KALAIVANI(12E39)
Q:
An industrial engineer tests four different shop-floor layouts by having
each of six work crews construct a sub assembly and measuring the
construction (minutes) as follows.
Layout 1
Layout 2
Layout 3
Layout 4
Crew A
48.2
53.1
51.2
58.6
Crew B
49.5
52.9
50.0
60.1
Crew C
50.7
56.8
49.9
62.4
Crew D
48.6
50.6
47.5
57.5
Crew E
47.1
51.8
49.1
55.3
Crew F
52.4
57.2
53.5
61.7
Test at 1% LOS whether the four layouts produce different assembly times and
whether some of the work crews are consistently faster in constructing this
assembly than the others.
A:Take =1%

Shift the origin to 50.

Layout1 Layout2
crewA
CrewB
crewC
crewD
crewE
crewF
Tj
2

Tj
r

2
x ij

SS T

Layout3

Layout4

Ti

-1.8
-0.5
0.7
-1.4
-2.9
2.4
-3.5

3.1
2.9
6.8
0.6
1.8
7.2
22.4

1.2
0
-0.1
-2.5
-0.9
3.5
1.2

8.6
10.1
12.4
7.5
5.3
11.7
55.6

11.1
12.5
19.8
4.2
3.3
24.8
75.7

2.04

83.63

0.24

515.23

601.14

20.11

119.7

20.76

550.96

T 2i
c

2
x ij

30.80
39.06
98.01
4.41
2.72
153.76
328.76

88.25
110.67
64.82
40.55
206.74

711.53

T
2
= x ij - rc

= 711.53-238.77
= 472.76.
SS R
=328.76-238.77
=89.99.
SS C
=601.14-238.77
=362.37.
SS E
SS T
SS R
SS C
=
=472.76 -89.99 -362.37
=20.4.
Source
of Sum
of Degrees
variation
squares
freedom
Between row 89.99
5

of Mean squares
17.99

F ratio
17 . 99

F= 1. 36 =13.
23

Between
column

362.37

120.79

F=
8.82

Error
Total

20.4
472.76

15
18

1.36

120 . 79
1 . 36 =8

F0 . 01, 5 ,15 =4.56

F0 . 01, 3 ,15 =5.42
F

Both the value>

Result:
Reject null hypothesis.
REGISTER NO: 12E40

NAME: V.U.Kalpana

QUESTION:
An industrial engineer is conducting an experiment on eye focus time. He is
interested in the effect of the distance of the object from the eye on the focus
time. Four different distances are of interest. He has five subjects available for
the experiment. Because there may be differences among individuals, he
decides to conduct the experiment in a randomized block design. The data
obtained follow.
Subject
Distance (ft)
1
2
3
4
5
4
10
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
1
6
8
5
3
3
2
5
Can we say distance affects the eye focus time at 5% l.o.s? (12E40)
ANSWER:
SUBJECTS
Distanc
e
4
6
8
Tj
Tj2/R
Xij

Ti

Ti2/C

Xij2

10
7
5
22
161.3
174

6
6
3
15
75
81

6
6
3
15
75
81

6
1
2
9
27
41

6
6
5
17
96.3
97

34
26
18
78
434.6

231.2
135.2
64.8
431.2

244
158
72

CORRECTION FACTOR = T2 / (R*C)

= 782 / ( 3 * 5 )

474

= 405.6
Total sum of Squares: SST = Xij2 - T2 / (R*C)
= 474 405.6= 68.4
BETWEEN ROWS :
SSB = Tj2/R - T2 / (R*C)
= 434.6 405.6
= 29
BETWEEN COLUMNS :
SSC = Ti2/C - T2 / (R*C)
= 431.2 405.6
= 25.6
ERROR:
SSE = SST SSC SSB
= 68.4 29 25.6
=13.8
HYPOTHESIS :
Between rows :
H0 = Distance doesnt affect the Eye focus.
H1 = Distance affects the Eye focus.
Between column :
H0 = There is no significant difference between the subjects.
H1 = There is significant difference between the subjects.
ANOVA TABLE :
Source of
Variation
Between
Rows
Between

Sum
squares
29
25.6

of Degrees
freedom
2
4

of Mean square

Fratio

14.6

8.44

6.4

3.70

columns
Error
Total

13.8
68.4

8
12

1.73

From table :
F0.05,2,8 = 19.37 >Fratio Accept H0
F005,4,8= 6.04 >FratioAccept H0
Conclusion:
At 5 % LOS we can conclude that Distance doesnt affect eye Focus.

NAME: KAMALI.S

REG.NO:12E41

9. Prior to submitting a quotation for a construction project, companies

prepare a detailed analysis of the estimated labour and materials costs
required to complete the project. A company which employs three project
cost assessors, wished to compare the mean values of these assessors' cost
estimates. This was done by requiring each assessor to estimate
independently the costs of the same four construction projects. These costs,
in 0000s, are shown in the next column. (12E41)

SOLUTION:
PROJECT
1
PROJECT

A
-8

B
-5

C
-10

Ti
-23

Ti/C
63

Xij
189

22

56.67

170

2
PROJECT
3
PROJECT
4
Tj
Tj/R
Xij

-4

-4

16

12

14

35

140.33

421

8
72

18
75.5

4
51.5

Ti/C=134.67 =796

288

302

206

30
Tj/R=563.
5
=796

T/RC=75
SST=ij Xij-(T/RC)
=796-75
=721
SSR=i(Ti/C)-T/RC
=134.67-75
=59.67
SSC=i(Tj/R)-T/RC
=563.5-75
=488.8
SSE=SST-(SSC+SSR)
=172.83
Source
of Sum
variation
Squares
b/w rows
59.67
b/w column
488.8
Error
172.83
Total
721

Of Degree
Freedom
3
2
6
11

From the F Table, F5%(v1=6,v2=3)=8.94

F5%(v1=6,v2=2)= 19.37

of Mean square
19.89
244.4
28.8
-

Fraction ratio
12.29
1.45

With respect to rows, F0>F5%

(F0 is rejected)

With respect to columns, F0<F5% (F0 is accepted)

Since F0 >F5% for the rows, There is a difference in the mean cost estimates
And since F0<F5% for the columns, There in no difference in the mean cost
estimates.

M.KANDASAMY

REG NO:12E42

10. Information about the current state of a complex industrial process is

displayed on a control panel which is monitored by a technician. In order to
find the best display for the instruments on the control panel, three different
arrangements were tested by simulating an emergency and observing the
reaction times of five different technicians. The results, in seconds, are given
below.
Carry out an analysis of variance and test for differences between technicians
and between arrangemets at the 5% significance level. Currently arrangement C
is used and it is suggested that this be replaced by arrangement A. Comment,
briefly, on this suggestion and on what further information you would find
useful before coming to a definite decision

Solution:
xij2

ARRANGEME
NT
A

Ti

2.4

3.3

1.9

3.6

2.7

13.9

38.64

3.7

3.2

2.7

3.9

4.4

17.9

64.08

40.5
1
65.7

4.2

4.6

Tj
Tj2/r

10.3
35.6

11.1 8.5
11.3
41.07 24.08 42.56

xij2

37.09 42.29 26.11 42.61

SSR=((Ti2/c)-(T2/rc))
T2/rc=(52.8)2/(3)(5)
=185.85
SSR=190.92-185.85
=5.07
SSC=((Tj2/r)-(T2/rc))
=187.92-185.85
=2.07
SST= ((xij2)-(T2/rc))
=195-185.85
=9.15
SSE=SST-SSR-SSC
=9.15-5.07-2.07
=2.01
MSR=SSR/r-1
=5.07/2
=2.53
MSC=SSC/c-1
=2.07/4

3.9

3.8

4.5

21

88.2

9
88.7

11.6
44.85

52.8
187.9
2
195

190.92

195

46.9

=0.51
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
B/W ROWS
B/W
COLUMNS
ERROR
TOTAL

SUM OF DOF
SQUARES
5.07
2
2.07
4

MEAN
SQUARES
2.53
0.51

2.01
9.15

0.25

8
12

TEST STATISTICS:
FR=MSR/MSE
=2.53/0.25
=10.12
FC=MSC/MSE
=0.51/0.25
=2.04
Ho:no effect due to row factor.
H1:an effect due to row factor.
FR>F(r-1),(r-1)(c-1)
FR>F0.05(2,8)
FR=10.12
F0.05(2,8)=4.46
So reject H0.
H0=No effect due to column factor
H1=An effect due to column factor
FC>F(c-1),(r-1)(c-1)
Fc=2.04

F ratio
10.12
2.04

F0.05(4,8)=3.87
So accept Ho.
CONCLUSION:
There is difference between arrangement A&C .so it is not a good option to
replace arrangement C with A.
A varietal trial was conducted on wheat with 4 varities A,B,C,D in a latin square
design.
The plan of experiment and the plot yield are given below:
C25 B23 A20 D20
A19 D19 C21 B18
B19 A14 D17 C20
D17 C20 B21 A15 analyse data and interpret the result.use 5%LOS.
Solution: we subtract 20 from the given values and work out with the new
values of x ij
i/j
1
2
3
4
Tj

1
C5
A-1
B-1
D-3
0

2
B3
D-1
A-6
C0
-4

3
A0
C1
D-3
B1
-1

4
D0
B-2
C0
A-5
-7

Ti
8
-3
-10
-7
-12

T^2 i /n
16
2.25
25
12.25
T
i^2/n=55.
5

T^2 j/n 0

.25

12.25

i x^2 36
ij

46

11

29

T
j^2/n=16.
5
122

x^2 ij
34
7
46
35
122

Rearraning the data according to the letters,we have

Letter
A

-1

Xk
-6

-5

Tk
-12

T k^2/n
36

B
C
D

3
5
0

-2
1
-1

-1
1
0
0
-3
-3
TOTAL
Q=X ij^2-T^2/N=122-12^2/16=113

1
6
-7
-12

0.25
9
12.25
57.5

Q1=1/nT i^2-T^2/N=55.5-9=46.5
Q2=1/nT j^2-T^2/N=-16.5-9=7.5
Q3=1/nT k^2-T^2/N=57.5-9=48.5
Q4=Q-Q1-Q2-Q3=113-(46.5+7.5+48.5)
=10.5

ANOVA TABLE:
S.V
S.S.
d.f.
Between
Q1=46.5
n-1=3
rows
Between
Q2=7.5
n-1=3
columns
Between
Q3=48.5
n-1=3
letters
Residual
Q4=10.5
(n-1)(n-2)=6
Total
Q=113
n^2-1=15
From the F-tables,F 5%(v1=3,v2=6)=4.76

M.S.
15.5

F0

2.5
16.16

16.16/1.75=9.
2
_

1.75
_

_
_

Since F0(=9.2)>F 5%(=4.76) with respect to the letters,the difference between

the methods of cultivation is significant.
Submitted by,
K.KARTHICK(12E43),
11.

A varietal trial was conducted on wheat with 4varieties A, B,C D. in a

Latin square design.The plan of experiment and the plot yield are given
below.

C25

B23 A20 D20

A19

D19 C21 B18

B19

A14 D17 C20

D17

C20 B21 A15

Analyze the data and interpret the result. Use 5 % LOS.

(12E43)

SOLUTION:
A
B

19
19

14
23

20
21

15
18

C
D

25
17

20
19

21
17

20
20

Ti
68
81

Ti
4624
6561

ni
4
4

Ti/n
1156
1640.2
5
86
7396
4
1849
73
5329
4
1332.2
5
Ti=308 Ti=23910 n=16 Ti/n=
5977.5

Xij
(361+196+400+225)+(361+529+441+324)+(625+400+441+400)+(289+361+28
9+400)
=6042
Correction Factor=T/n=(308)/16
=5929
SST=Xij-CF
=6042-5929
=113
SSB =Ti/n-CF
=5977.5-5929
=48.5
SSW=SST-SSB

=64.5
ANOVA TABLE:
Source
of
Variation
B/w varieties
Within
varieties
Total

Sum
Squares
48.5
64.5

of Degree
Freedom
3
12

113

15

of Mean Square

Fraction Ratio

16.16
5.38

3.0
-

From the F table F5% (v1=3,v2=12)=3.49 (F0<F5%)

Hence the null hypothesis is accepted.

Analyse the in the following latin square of yields of paddy where A,B,C
denote the different method of cultivation
D122 A121 C123 B122
B124 C123 A122 D125
A120 B119 D120 C122
C122 D123 B121 A122
Examine whether different method of cultivation have given significantly
different yields
Solution: we subtract 120 from the given values and work out with the new
values of x ij

i/j
1
2
3

1
D2
B4
A0

2
A1
C3
B-1

3
C3
A2
D0

4
B2
D5
C1

Ti
8
14
0

T^2 i /n
16
49
0

x^2 ij
18
54
2

4
Tj

C2
8

D3
6

B1
6

A2
10

8
T=30

T^2 j/n

16

25

20

14

34

T^2
j/n=59
92

i x^2 24
ij

16
T
i^2/n=8
1

18
92

Rearraning the data according to the letters,we have

Letter
A
B
C
D

Xk
1
2
0
2
2
4
1
1
3
3
1
2
2
5
0
3
TOTAL
Q=X ij^2-T^2/N=92-30^2/16=35.75

Tk
5
6
9
10
30

T k^2/n
6.25
9.00
20.25
25.00
60.50

Q1=1/nT i^2-T^2/N=81-56.25=24.75
Q2=1/nT j^2-T^2/N=59-56.25=2.75
Q3=1/nT k^2-T^2/N=60.50-56.25=4.25
Q4=Q-Q1-Q2-Q3=35.75-(24.75+2.75+4.25)
=4.0

ANOVA TABLE:
S.V
Between
rows
Between
columns
Between
letters
Residual
Total

S.S.
Q1=24.75

d.f.
n-1=3

M.S.
8.25

F0

Q2=2.75

n-1=3

0.92

Q3=4.25

n-1=3

1.42

1.42/0.67=2.1
2
_

Q4=4.0
Q=35.75

(n-1)(n-2)=6
n^2-1=15

0.67
_

_
_

From the F-tables,F 5%(v1=3,v2=6)=4.76

Since F0(=2.12)<F 5%(=4.76) with respect to the letters,the difference between
the methods of cultivation is not significant.
Submitted by,
T.KARTHIKA(12E44),

Given: n=3
N= nn= 25

1
2
3

0
0
-1

1
5
-4

4
-1
-3

i
T

5
4
-8

T 2ix /n

x 2ij

8.3
11.3
21.3

17
26
26

T j

-1
T 2 j /

0.33

Total=69

i 2
T /n=1

1.33

34.9

.66

2
ij

-1

42

26

69

According to letters,
Tk

B1
B2
B2

0
1
4

-1
0
5

2
x ij -

V =

T2
n

69

( 1 . 66 )2
9

69 -

2 . 7556
9

69- 0.3061

68.89

VR

1
n

i2
T

T T
- n n

-4
-3
-1

-5
-2
8
1

T 2k /n

5.66
3.33
14
22.9

1
35 - 9

= 34.89
VC

1
n

T T

2
T j - n n

= 59-56.25
=2.75
1
2
Tk

L=
V

T T

- n n

=60.50-56.25
=4.25

VE

VR

Vc

VL

+V

35.75-(24.75+2.75+4.25)

4.0

ANOVA table
S.V
Between rows

S.S
V R =34.89

D.O.F
n-1=2

F0

M.S

17 . 445
0 .775 =22.5

17.445
1

Between
columns
Between letters

V C =1.56

n-1=2

0.780

0. 780
0. 775 =1.01

V L =30.89

n-1=2

15.445

15 . 445
0 .775 =1.99

3
Residuals
Total

V E =1.55

V=68.89

(-1)(n-2)
2

-1=8

0.775

Conclusion:
From F table,
F0

Since

F5

(2,2)=19.00

(=19.93)>

F5

=19.00 for the burners, reject

H0.

.There is

significant difference between the burners.

E.K.MADHUMITHA.,

NAME: MAGUIPUINMAEI

12E45,

DONGUIBUI THANGAL 12E46

Problem 14:
Car Model
Driver

Ti

Ti2/n

x2ij

II

III

IV

15.5

33.9

13.2

29.1

91.7

2102.22

2410.51

16.3

26.2

19.4 22.8

85.1

1810.50

1869.45

10.8

31.1

17.1

30.3 89.3

1993.6

2294.35

14.7

34.0

19.7

21.6 90

2025

2226.74

Tj

57.3

125.6 69.4 103.8 Tij

Ti2/n

x2ij

=356.1 =7931.34 =8801.05

Ti2

820.82 3943.84 1204.09 2693.61

Tj2/n = 8662.36

x2ij

838.67 3979.98 1231.1

x2ij = 8801.25

2751.3

Let us assume: H0 = Efficiency of four different blends of gasoline is equal, and

Least significant value = 0.05

Now arranging the given data with respect to the drivers, we have;
Car Model

Driver

II

III

IV

Tk

TK2/n

29.1

19.4

31.1

14.7

94.3

2223.12

33.9

16.3

30.3

19.7

100.2

2510.01

Since
3

13.2

26.6

10.8

21.6

72.2

1303.21

15.5

22.8

17.1

34.0

89.4

1998.09
Tk2=8034.43

SST = xij2 (T2/rxc)

SST = 8801.05 (356.12/4x4)
SST =8801.01 7925.45
SST = 875.6

SSR = Ti2 - T2/rxc

SSR = 7931.34 7925.45
SSR = 5.89

SSC = Tj 2/n T2/rxc

SSC = 8662.36 7925.45
SSC = 736.91

SSE = SST SSR - SSE

= 875.6 5.89 736.91
= 132.8
SSTK = (TK2/n) T2/n = 0
ANOVA Table:
source of variance

Sum of squares

Degree

of Mean squares

F ratio

freedom
Between rows

SSR = 5.89

n-1 = 3

MSR = SSR/n-1
= 1.96

Between columns

SSC = 736.91

n-1 = 3

MSC = SSC/n-1

FR = 0.088

= 245.63
Treatment

SSTK = O

n-1 = 3

MSTK = SSTK/n-1
=0

FC = 11.09

Error

SSE = 132.8

(n-1)(n-2)

MSE = SSE/(n-1)(n-2)

=6
Total

SST = 875.6

= 22.13

(n2-1)
= 15

From F tables, F5%(3,6) = 4.76. Since F0(=0.088) < F5%(=4.76) for the
gasoline, there is significant difference between the gasoline.
Incidentally, since F0<F5% for rows, the difference between the efficiency of
fuels is not significant.
And F0>F5% for columns, the difference between the efficiency of the fuels is
significant.

Solution:

P(4)
O(2)
M(5)
L(1)
O(1)
M(8)
N(12)
P(7)
L(5)
N(1)
REARRANGING THE ORDER

N(5)
O(6)
L(1)
M(7)
P(3)

L(1)
N(5)
P(5)
O(10)
M(6)

M(3)
P(3)
N(1)
L(5)
O(9)

FTK = 0

L
L
1
M
5
N
1
O
10
P
3
Tcj
20
2
(Tcj) /R 80
x2ij
136

M
3
5
1
7
5
21
88.2
109

N
5
6
5
5
6
27
145.8
147

O
2
3
1
7
1
14
39.2
64

P
4
1
8
12
9
34
231.4
306

Tri
15
20
16
41
24

(Tri)2/C
45
80
51.2
336.2
115.2
627.6

x2ij
55
96
92
367
152

584.4
762

SSR=(TRI2/C)-T2/n
=627.6-152.4=475.6
SSC=(TCJ2/R)-T2/n
=584.4-152.4=432
SST=x2ij- T2/n
=762-152.4=609.6
SSE=SST-SSR-SSC
=609.6-475.6-432=-298
SSTK=152.4-152.4=0
Source
Variable

Sum
Of Degrees
Squares
Of
Freedom
SSR=475. (n-1)=4
6
SSC=432 (n-1)=4

Between
ROW
Between
COLUMN
Treatment SSTK=0

Error

SSE=-298

Total

SST=609.
6

(n-1)=4

(n-1)(n2)=12
(n2-1)=24

Mean Square

F Ratio

MSR=SSR/DOF
=118.8
MSC=SSC/DOF
=99.1
MSTK=SSTK/D
OF
=0
MSE=SSE/DOF
=-21.83
MST=SST/DOF
=25.4

MSR/MSE
=-5.94
MSC/MSE
=-4.53
MSTK/MS
E
=0

(Tk2/n)
11
19.2
18.4
73.4
30.4
152.4

ROLL NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
DEFECTI 2 4 3 1 4 3 7 3 2 5
VES

1
1
2

1
2
7

1
3
6

1
4
4

1
5
5

1
6
2

1
7
6

1
8
3

1
9
8

2
0
6

C=C/N
C=83\20=4.15
CL=C=4.15
LCL=C-3 C=4.15-3 4.15=4.15-3(2.037)=4.15-6.111=-1.961
UCL=C+3 C=4.15+3 4.15=4.15+3(2.037)=4.15+6.111=10.261

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

CONCLUTION: THE

NAME:MAHI LIFNA

GIVEN PROCESS IS UNTERCONTROLLED

REG. NO.:12E49

1)Thirty five successive samples of 100 castings each, taken from a production
line
contained
respectively

3,3,5,3,5,0,3,2,3,5,6,5,9,2,1,4,5,2,0,10,3,6,3,2,5,6,3,3,2,5,1,0,7,4,3 defectives.
Construct appropriate control chart and state whether the standard has mean
met.
Soln:
This is np chart control chart.
m=35, n=100
np=np/m
= 129/35
=3.69
p=np/(m n)=0.037
CL=np=3.69
LCL=np-3 np ( 1 p )

=-1.965

UCL=np+3 np ( 1 p )

=10.16

x- axis sample no
y- axis no of defectives

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

CONCLUSION:
The graph is between LCL and UCL.
RESULT:
It is under control.
Soundara Pandi

13LE24

Question:
45 standard reinforcing bars were tested in tension and found to have mean
yield strength of 31,500 psi with a sample variance of 25 x 10 4 psi2. Another
sample of 35 bars composed of a new alloy gave a mean and coefficient of
variation of 32,000 psi and 23 x 104 psi2 respectively. Yield strengths follow
a normal distribution. At the 1% level of significance, does the new alloy
give increased yield strength?

Given:
2
n1=45, xx1=31500, s 1 =250000, n2=35, x2=32000

Soln:

s 22 = 230000, =1%

n1 > 30 and n2 > 30. So, This is test for Large Samples and Difference in
means.
Ho:
x1=x2 (There is no difference in two means).
H1:
x1< x2 (There is difference in two means).
So, Left Tail test.
LOS:
=0.01
Test Statistic:
x 1x 2

Zc=

Zc=

s 12 s 22
+
n1 n 2

3150032000
250000 230000
+
45
35
500

Zc= 5555 . 56+6571 . 43

500

500

Zc= 12126 . 99 = 110 .12 =-4.540

Zc = -4.54

Conclusion:
=1%=0.01
Z= Z0.01=-2.33

Zc<Z
So, Accept Ho
There is no difference in means. New alloy does not give the increased yield
strength.

Question:
A company claims that its light bulbs are superior to those its main
competitor. If a study showed that a sample of n 1 = 40 of its bulbs has a
mean lifetime of 1647 hours of continuous use with a standard deviation
of 27 hours, while a sample of n 2 = 40 bulbs made by its main competitor
had a mean lifetime of 1638 hours, does this substantiate the claim at 0.05
LOS.
Given:
n1=40,

n2=40,

x1= 1647,

x2=1638,

=27,

Soln:
n1>30, n2>30.
So, This is test for Large Samples and difference in two means.
Ho:
x1=x2. There is no difference in two means.
H1:
x1>x2. There is difference in two means.
Right Tail Test.

LOS:
=0.05

=0.05

Test Statistic:
x 1x 2
Zc= 1 + 1
n1 n2

16471638

Zc= 27 1 + 1

40 40

Zc= 27 2

40

Zc= 3 0 . 05 = 3 0 .22361 = 0. 67083 =1.491

Zc=1.491
Conclusion:
Right Tail Test.
Z=Z0.05=1.645
Zc<Z
So, Accept Ho.
There is no difference in two means.

NAME: A.MANIKANDAN

REG NO: 12E50

3.
Construct appropriate control for the number of defects from the
following data which represent the number of imperfections in 20 pieces of
cloth in a certain production of a mill. Is the process under control?
No. of imperfections : 3,3,4,10,10,3,3,3,6,5,6,10,4,7,4,7,4,8,4,7

SOLU:
P chart
P= xi/ni
=111/400
=0.27
= p(1- p)
= 0.27(1-0.27)
=0.44
LCL= p-3/-0.25
VCL= P+3/n
=0.27+3*0.44/2
= 0.5651
0.15 0.15 0.26 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.15
0.3 0.25
0.3 0.5 0.26 0.5 0.35 0.35 0.5
0.35

0.15 0.15
0.4

0.5

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.15
0.27
-0.025

0.2
0.1
0
2

-0.1

NAME: M.MANIMARAN
5.

REG NO: 12E52

Construct a control chart for defectives for the following data.

Sample
No.

10

No.
of 90 65 85
Inspected

70 80 80 70 95 90 75

No
of 9
defectives

Solution:
p = xi/ ni
xi = Sum of no of defectives
=9+7+3+2+9+5+3+9+6+7

xi =60
ni= Sum of the no of inspected
= 90+65+85+70+80+80+70+95+90+75
=800
p = xi/ ni
=60/800
p=0.075
q= 1- p
=1-0.075
q= 0.925
CL= p = 0.075
UCL= p + (3 Pq/n)
LCL= p-(3 Pq/n)
Samples

n= no of
inspected
1
90
2
65
3
85
4
70
5
80
6
80
7
70
8
95
9
90
10
75
Calculation:

x= no of
defectives
9
7
3
2
9
5
3
9
6
7

pi=x/n
0.1
0.1076
0.03252
0.02857
0.1125
0.0625
0.04285
0.09473
0.0667
0.09333

Sample no: 1
UCL= p + (3 p q/n)
=0.075+ (3 (0.075 0 . 925 /90

UCL
0.1582
0.173
0.160
0.1694
0.1633
0.1633
0.1694
0.1560
0.1582
0.1662

LCL
-0.00829
-0.02
-0.0107
-0.01944
-0.01334
-0.01334
-0.01944
-0.00607
-0.00829
-0.0162

UCL=0.1582
LCL= p-(3 p

q/n)

=0.075-(3 (0.075 0 . 925 /90

LCL=-0.00829
P Chart for no of defectives:
GRAPH:
0.2
0.15
pi=xi/ni

0.1

UCL
LCL

0.05

CL

0
1

10

-0.05

CONCULATION:
All sample points are lie between the two control limit.
It is under control because UCL value is value is greater than the pi value
M.MANOJ
12E53
EEE-A sec
6. A process for the manufacture of panel boards has performed in the past with
an average of 2.7 imperfections per 100 panels. Construct a chart to be used in
the inspection of the panels and discuss the control if 25 successive 100 panel
board lots contained respectively, 4, 1, 0, 3, 5, 3, 5, 4, 1, 4, 0, 1, 2, 4, 3, , 4, 2, 1,
3, 0, 2, 6, 1, 3. (12E53)
Given:

n p =2 . 7
n=100

F r action Defective= p =

2 .7
=0 . 027
100

q =1 p =0 . 973

Solution:
CL= p =0.027

p q
0 .027 0 . 973
UCL= p + n = 0.027+3
=0.075
100

p q
LCL= p n

=0.027- 3

0 . 027 0 .973
100

= -0.021

Take LCL=0 since it is negative.

S.No

d
p= 100

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

4
1
0
3
5
3
5
4
1
4
0

0.04
0.01
0
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.04
0

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

1
2
4
3
4
2
1
3
0
2
6
1
3

0.01
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.03
0
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.03

P Chart
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

LCL

UCL

CL

Conclusion: The process is under control.

NAME:M.MARI SELVAN
Question no:7
Sol:
Ci-no of defectives in one unit,
n=sample size,
c =ci n,

REG NO:12E54

Lower control limit=c3

c ,

Upper control limit=c +3 c

n=26,
c=ci/n=(21+24+16+12+15+5+28+20+31+25+20+24+16+19+10+17+13+22+18+39+30+24+16+19+17+15)
divided by 26,
=516/26
c =19.84.

Lower control limit=c 3

c =19.84 (3* 19 . 84
=6.48

Upper control limit=c +3 c =19.84+(3* 19 . 84

=33.20
c chart:45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Conclution:If there are two sample points are without lie between lower control unit and
upper control unit. So this process is out of control.

1.
A new machine has just been installed to cut and rough-shape large slugs.
The slugs are then transferred to a precision grinder. One of the critical
measurements is the outside diameter. The quality control inspector randomly
selected five slugs each hour, measured the outside diameter, and recorded the
results. The measurements (in millimetres) for the period 8:00 A.M. to 10:30
A.M. follow. (12E55)

(a) Determine the control limits for the mean and the range.
(b) Plot the control limits for the mean outside diameter and the range.
(c) Are there any points on the mean or the range chart that are out of control?
Comment on the chart.
Solution:
1
Mean
Range

87.1
2

2
87.58
2.3

x=xi/n
=(87.1+87.58+87.35+87.35+87.43)/5
x=87.362
R=Ri/n
=2+2.3+1+0.6+1.2
R=1.42
FROM THE TABLE

3
87.35
1

4
87.35
0.6

5
87.43
1.2

CONTROL LIMITS FOR MEAN:

N=5 A2=0.577 D3=0 D4=2.115
LOWER CONTROL LIMIT LCL X=x-A2R
=87.362-0.577*1.42=86.6
lcl=86.54
UPPER
ucl=88.18

CONTROL

LIMIT

UCL

X=x+A2R

=87.362+0.577*1.42=88.19
CONTROL LIMITS FOR RANGE:
LCL=D3R =0*1.32=0
UCL=D4R=2.115*1.42=3.00
Range chart:
X axis-outside diameter y axis-range
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
1

Red colour line indicates ucl for range

RANGE IS UNDER CONTROL

Control chart for mean:

Ucl=88.18
Lcl=86.54 MEAN IS UNDER CONTROL

87.7

87.6

87.5

87.4

87.3

87.2

87.1

87

86.9

86.8
1

CONCLUSION:
CONTROL LIMITS FOR MEAN UCL=88.19 LCL=86.5
CONTROL LIMITS FOR RANGE UCL=3

LCL=0

MEAN AND RANGE ARE UNDER CONTROL

NAME:MICHI YAMA

REG NO:12E56

1. The Early Morning Delivery Service guarantees delivery of small packages

by10:30 A.M. Of course, some of the packages are not delivered by 10:30
A.M.For a sample of 200 packages delivered each of the last 15 working days,
thefollowing number of packages were delivered after the deadline: 9, 14, 2,
13,9, 5, 9, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 8, and 4.
(a) Determine the mean proportion of packages delivered after 10:30 A.M.
(b) Determine the control limits for the proportion of packages deliveredafter
10:30 A.M. Were any of the sampled days out of control? (12E56)

Sample no:

1 2
9 14

3 4
2 13

P=x_i/m*n
=93/15*200
=0.031
CL=np
=200*0.031
=6.2
LCL=np-3(np(1-p))1/2
=6.2-3(6.2(1-0.031))1/2
=-1.153
UCL=np+3(np(1-p))1/2
=6.2+3(6.2(1-0.031))1/2
=13.553

5 6 7 8 9 10
9 5 9 3 4 3

11
4

12
3

13
3

14
8

15
4

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

10

12

14

16

Conclusion:
Here CL=6.2,UCL=13.553 and LCL=-1.153.The graph exceeds the UCL value.
Yes. The sample days are out of control.
B.MUTHU KUMAR,

12E57,

10. An automatic machine produces 5.0 mm bolts at a high rate of speed. A

quality control program has been started to control the number of defectives.
The quality control inspector selects 50 bolts at random and determines how
many are defective. The number of defectives in the first 10 samples is 3, 5, 0,
4, 1, 2, 6, 5, 7, and 7.
(a) Design a percent defective chart. Insert the mean percent defective, UCL,
and LCL.
(b) Plot the percent defective for the first 10 samples on the chart.
(c) Interpret the chart. +
SOLUTION:

Given:
m=10,n=50,
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Xi
3
5
0
4
1
2
6
5
a.Percent defective chart denotes proportion chart.(p-chart)

9
7

10
7

9
0.14

10
0.14

xi=40
p=xi /(m)*(n)
p=40/(10)*(50)
p=0.08
= p(1-p) =0.2713
LCL=p-(3* )/ni
LCL=0.08-(3*0.2713)/50
LCL=0.08-0.115=-0.035
UCL=p+(3*)/50
UCL=0.08+(3*0.2713)/50
UCL=0.08+0.115=0.195
pi=xi/n
i
pi

1
0.06

2
0.10

3
0

b.Quality control chart

4
0.08

5
0.02

6
0.04

7
0.12

8
0.10

c.INTERPRETATION:
No point is above the upper control limit .so the process is under control.
NAME:MUTHUBRINDHA M

REG.NO:12E58

PROBLEM:
The Intel global moving and storage company is setting up a control chart
to monitor the proportion of residential moves that result in written complaints
due
to late delivery,lost items or damaged items.A sample of 50 moves is selected
for each of the last 12 months.The number of written complaints in each sample
is 8,7,4,8,2,7,11,6,7,6,8 and 12.
a)Design a percentage defective chart.Insert the mean percent defective
UCL,LCL.
b)Plot the proportion of written complaints in the last 12 months.

SOLUTION:
GIVEN:
n=50,m=12
a) Calculation for Np chart:
1
2
3
4

8
7
4
8

5
2
6
7
7
11
8
6
9
7
10
6
11
8
12
12
P=xi/mn
=86/(12*50)
=0.143
Np=xi/m
=86/12
=7.16
LCL=np-3np(1-p)
=7.16-37.16(1-0.143)
=7.16-7.43
=-0.27
UCL= np+3np(1-p)
=7.16+37.16(1-0.143)
=7.16+7.43
=14.59

Np-chart:

14
12
10

CL

8
6
4
2
0

CONCLUSION: The system is under control.

b)calculation for p-chart:

1
8
2
7
3
4
4
8
5
2
6
7
7
11
8
6
9
7
10
6
11
8
12
12
P=xi/mn
=86/(12*50)

0.16
0.14
0.08
0.16
0.04
0.14
0.22
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.16
0.24

10 11 12

=0.143
=p(1-p)
=0.143(1-0.143)
=0.35
LCL=p-(3/ni)
=0.143-(3*0.35/50)
=0.143-0.148
=-0.005
UCL=p+(3/ni)
=0.143+(3*0.35/50)
=0.143+0.148
=0.291
P-CHART:

UCL

0.30
0.25
0.20

CL

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

CONCLUSION: The system is under control.

10 11 12

NAME: K.MUTHU VENKATES

REG NO:12E60

Question no:3 STEPS IN A SIMULATION :-

Problem
formulation

Setting of
objectives and
overall project plan
Data
collection

Model
conceptualiza

Model
translati
on
Verified?
implementation
Validated?
More
runs? runs
Production
Experiment
Documentation
and
analysis
al design

No

yes
No

No

PROBLEM FORMULATION

Every study should begin with a statement of the problem .if the
statement is provided by the policy makers ,or those that have the problem,
The analyst must ensure that the problem begin described is clearly understood.
In many instances,policy makers and analyst are aware that there is a problem
long before the nature
of the problem is known.

SETTING OF OBJECTIVE S AND OVERALL PROJECT PLAN

The objectives indicate the questions to be answered by simulation.

At this point a determination should be made concerning whether simulation is

the appropriate methodology for the problem as formulated and objectives as
stated.
Assuming it is decided that simulation is appropriate systems to be
considered,and a method for evaluating the effectiveness of these alternatives.

MODEL CONCEPTUALIZATION

The art of a modeling is enhanced by an ability to abstract the essential

features of a problem , to select and modify basic assumptions that
characterize the system , and then enrich and elaborate the model and build
toward greater complexity. However , the model complexity need not exceed
that required to accomplish the purposes model building expences, it is not
necessary to have a one to-one mapping between the model and the real
system.

DATA COLLECTION

There is a constant interplay between the construction of the model and

the collection of the needed input data .As the complexity of the model
changes , the required data elements may also change also,
Since data collection takes such a large portion of the total time required to
perform a simulation, it is necessary to begin it as early as possible, usually
together with the early stages of model building

MODEL TRANSLATION
Real-world systems result in models that require a great deal of
information storage and computation. It can be programmed by using
simulation languages or special purpose simulation software. Simulation

languages are powerful and flexible. Simulation software models development

time can be reduced.
VERIFIED
It pertains to the computer program and checking the performance. If the input
parameters and logical structure and correctly represented, verification is
completed.
VALIDATED
It is the determination that a model is an accurate representation of the real
system. Achieved through calibration of the model, an iterative process of
comparing the model to actual system behaviour and the discrepancies between
the two.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The alternatives that are to be simulated must be determined. Which alternatives
to simulate may be a function of runs. For each system design, decisions need to
be made concerning
1.Length of the initialization period
2.Length of simulation runs
3.Number of replication to be made of each run
PRODUCTION RUNS ANALYSIS
They are used to estimate measures of performance for the system designs that
are being simulated.
MORE RUNS
Based on the analysis of runs that have been completed. The analyst determines
if additional runs are needed and what design those additional experiments
should follow.
DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING
Two types of documentation.
1.Program documentation

2.Process documentation
Program documentation
Can be used again by the same or different analysts to understand how the
program operates. Further modification will be easier. Model users can change
the input parameters for better performance.
Process documentation
Gives the history of a simulation project. The result of all analysis should be
reported clearly and concisely in a final report. This enable to review the final
formulation and alternatives, results of the experiments and the recommended
solution to the problem. The final report provides a vehicle of certification.
IMPLEMENTATION
Success depends on the previous steps. If the model user has been thoroughly
involved and understands the nature of the model and its outputs, likelihood of a
vigorous implementation is enhanced.

Soundara Pandi

13LE24

Question:
45 standard reinforcing bars were tested in tension and found to have mean
yield strength of 31,500 psi with a sample variance of 25 x 10 4 psi2. Another
sample of 35 bars composed of a new alloy gave a mean and coefficient of
variation of 32,000 psi and 23 x 104 psi2 respectively. Yield strengths follow
a normal distribution. At the 1% level of significance, does the new alloy
give increased yield strength?

Given:
2
n1=45, x1=31500, s 1 =250000, n2=35, x2=32000

s 22 = 230000, =1%

Soln:
n1 > 30 and n2 > 30. So, This is test for Large Samples and Difference in
means.

Ho:
x1=x2 (There is no difference in two means).
H1:
x1< x2 (There is difference in two means).
So, Left Tail test.
LOS:
=0.01
Test Statistic:
x 1x 2

Zc=

Zc=

s 12 s 22
+
n1 n 2

3150032000
250000 230000
+
45
35
500

Zc= 5555 . 56+6571 . 43

500

500

Zc= 12126 . 99 = 110 .12 =-4.540

Zc = -4.54

Conclusion:
=1%=0.01
Z= Z0.01=-2.33
Zc<Z
So, Accept Ho

There is no difference in means. New alloy does not give the increased yield
strength.
Question:
A company claims that its light bulbs are superior to those its main
competitor. If a study showed that a sample of n 1 = 40 of its bulbs has a
mean lifetime of 1647 hours of continuous use with a standard deviation
of 27 hours, while a sample of n 2 = 40 bulbs made by its main competitor
had a mean lifetime of 1638 hours, does this substantiate the claim at 0.05
LOS.
Given:
n1=40,

n2=40,

x1= 1647,

x2=1638,

=27,

Soln:
n1>30, n2>30.
So, This is test for Large Samples and difference in two means.
Ho:
x1=x2. There is no difference in two means.
H1:
x1>x2. There is difference in two means.
Right Tail Test.

LOS:
=0.05
Test Statistic:
x 1x 2

Zc=

1
1
+
n1 n2

=0.05

16471638
Zc= 27 1 + 1
40 40

Zc= 27 2

40

1
1
1
Zc= 3 0 . 05 = 3 0 .22361 = 0. 67083 =1.491

Zc=1.491
Conclusion:
Right Tail Test.
Z=Z0.05=1.645
Zc<Z
So, Accept Ho.
There is no difference in two means.

C.NAGANARTHANA

1. MENTION SOME ADVANTAGES

SIMULATION:The advantages are:

12E61,

AND DISADVANTAGES OF

1. New policies, operating procedures, decision rules, information flows,

organizational
procedures, and so on can be explored without disrupting ongoing operations of
the real system.
2. New hardware designs, physical layouts, transportation systems, and so
on, can be tested without committing resources for their acquisition.
3. Hypotheses about how or why certain phenomena occur can be tested
for feasibility.
4. Time can be compressed or expanded allowing for a speedup or
slowdown
of the phenomena under investigation.
5. Insight can be obtained about the interaction of variable
6. Insight can be obtained about the importance of variables to the
performance
of the system.
7. Bottleneck analysis can be performed indicating where work-in-process,
information, materials, and so on are being excessively delayed.
8. A simulation study can help in understanding how the system operates
rather than how individuals think the system operates.
9. .What-if. questions can be answered. This is particularly useful in the
design of new systems.

The disadvantages are:

1. Model building requires special training. It is an art that is learned over
time and through experience. Furthermore, if two models are constructed
by two competent individuals, they may have similarities, but it is highly
unlikely that they will be the same.

2. Simulation results may be difficult to interpret. Since most simulation

outputs are essentially random variables (they are usually based on random inputs), it may be hard to determine whether an observation is a
result of system interrelationships or randomness.
3. Simulation modeling and analysis can be time consuming and expensive.
Skimping on resources for modeling and analysis may result in a simulation model or analysis that is not sufficient for the task.
4. Simulation is used in some cases when an analytical solution is possible,
or even preferable.This might be particularly true in the simulation of some
waiting lines
where closed-form queueing models are available.
5. Vendors of simulation software have been actively developing packages
that contain models that need only input data for their operation. Such
models have the generic tag .simulators. or .templates..
6. Many simulation software vendors have developed output analysis capabilities within their packages for performing very thorough analysis.
7. Simulation can be performed faster today than yesterday, and even faster
tomorrow. This is attributable to the advances in hardware that permit
rapid running of scenarios. I
8. Closed-form models are not able to analyze most of the complex systems
that are encountered in practice.

2.USING MULTIPLICATIVE CONGRUENTIAL METHOD, FIND THE

PERIOD OF GENERATOR
FOR a=13, m=64,and Xo=1,2

Period determination using various seeds:

Xi+1= (a Xi +c) mod m
For Xo=1,i=0,c=0
X1=(aXo +c)mod m =(131)mod 64
=13 mod 64=13
X2=(aX1 +c)mod m =(1313)mod 64
=169 mod 64=41
X3=(aX2 +c)mod m =(1341)mod 64
=533mod 64=21
X4=(aX3+c)mod m =(1321)mod 64
=273mod 64=17
X5=(aX4 +c)mod m =(1317)mod 64
=221 mod 64=29
X6=(aX5 +c)mod m =(1329)mod 64
=377mod 64=57
X7=(aX6 +c)mod m =(1357)mod 64
=741mod 64=37
X8=(aX7 +c)mod m =(1337)mod 64
=481 mod 64=33
X9=(aX8 +c)mod m =(1333)mod 64
=429mod 64=45
X10=(aX9+c)mod m =(1345)mod 64
=585 mod 64=9
Cont.

X11=(aX10 +c)mod m =(139)mod 64

=117mod 64=53
X12=(aX11 +c)mod m =(1353)mod 64
=689 mod 64=49
X13=(aX12+c)mod m =(1349)mod 64
=637 mod 64=61
X14=(aX13 +c)mod m =(1361)mod 64
=793 mod 64=25
X15=(aX14 +c)mod m =(1325)mod 64
=325 mod 64=5
X16=(aX15+c)mod m =(135)mod 64
=65mod 64=1
For Xo=2,i=0,c=0
X1=(aXo+c)mod m =(132)mod 64
=26 mod 64=26
X2=(aX1+c)mod m =(1326)mod 64
=338 mod 64=18
X3=(aX2+c)mod m =(1318)mod 64
=234 mod 64=42
X4=(aX3 +c)mod m =(1342)mod 64
=546 mod 64=34

X5=(aX4+c)mod m =(1334)mod 64
=442 mod 64=58
X6=(aX5 +c)mod m =(1358)mod 64
=754 mod 64=50
X7=(aX6 +c)mod m =(1350)mod 64
=650 mod 64=10
X8=(aX7+c)mod m =(1310)mod 64
=130 mod 64=2

i
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

X
i
1
13
41
21
17
29
57
37
33
45
9
53
49
61
25
5
1

X
i
2
26
18
42
34
58
50
10
2

REG NO: 12E62

Question: How will you generate exponentially distributed random variate using
inverse transform technique?
Solution:
Random variate generation using inverse transform technique:
Exponential distribution:
The probability density function of exponential distribution is given by
f(x)={ e^x x0
1
x<0
The cumulative distribution function
F(x)= x
x
f(t)dt=
e^-tdt

x
=[e^-t/-]
= [e^-x/-]
-
=0
x
x
+ e^-tdt =[e^t]
-
0
0
= -[e^-x 1]
F(x)=1-e^-x

STEPS:
1)Compute cumulative distribution function of the random variate x
F(x)=1-e^-x

x0

2) Set F(x)=R on the range of x

3) Solve the equation F(x)=R for x in terms of R
1-e^-x=R
e^-x=R-1
-x=log(1-R)

X=-(1/ )log(1-R)
4) Generate uniform random numbers R1,R2,R3 and compute the desired
random variate by
Xi=F1(Ri)
F1(Ri)=(-1/)log(1-R)
Xi=(-1/)log(1-Ri)

2 ) . Simulation enables the study of, and experiment with, the internal
interations of a complex, dynamic system, or a subsystem
E.g. when setting up a telephone sales department (such as the 1998 World Cup
Soccer Game), how many operators are enough to handle the calls? Many
factors can play a role here: the number of tickets left, estimated number of
people who want the ticket, capacity of the phone lines, how long would it take
to service one call, etc.

 Informational, organizational, and environmental changes can be simulated

and the effect of these alterations on the model's behavior can be observed.
E.g. to study the behavior of a web server, we can simulate the client traffic and
see how it responds.
The knowledge gained in designing a simulation model may be of great
value toward suggesting improvement in the system under the investigation.
E.g. before actually building a cache system, one can simulation the various
configuration of the cache, study its behavior and find out the optimum solution.
By changing simulation inputs and observing the resulting outputs, valuable
insight may be obtained into which variables are most important and how
variabls interact.
E.g. in studying the performance of a computer network, a number of
parameters affect the outcome, cable length, transmission speed, packet size,
arrival rate, number of stations, etc. which one is the most important on the
delay? It's the ratio of arrival rate and service rate.
Simulation can be used as pedagogical device to reinforce analytic solution
methodologies
Simulation can be used to experiment with new designs or policies prior to
implmentation, so as to prepare for what may happen.
Simulation can be used to verify analytic solutions

-12E64 -Nivedha.s

1. Define critical region & acceptance region?

The difference between a sample statistic and the
corresponding parameter is significant when the

sample statistic lies in a certain region or interval,

then that region is called the critical region or
region of rejection.
The region complementary to the critical region is
called the region of acceptance.
Critical values:
Nature of test

LOS= 1% (0.01)

Two-Tailed

LOS=5% (0.05)

| = 2.58

| = 1.96

Right-Tailed

= 2.33

= 1.645

Left-Tailed

= -2.33

= -1.645

2.Mention the steps in the process of testing of hypothesis ?

Step 1 : Null hypothesis

H0

is defined.

Step 2 : Alternative hypothesis

H1

is also defined after a careful study of the

problem and also the

nature of the test ( whether one-tailed or two-tailed ) is decided.
Step 3 : LOS

is fixed or taken from the problem if specified and Z

is

noted.
t E (t)

Step 4 :The test-statistic z= SE(t)

is computed.

Step 5 : comparison is made between|z| and

H1

zc

.If |z|

zc H 0

is accepted or

is rejected, i.e.it

isconcluded that the difference between t and E(t) is not significant at

LOS.

 On the other hand , if |z|

, H1

is rejected or H1 is

accepted, i.e. it is concluded that the difference between t

and E(t) is significant at % LOS.

3.Discuss the properties of chi-square distribution ?

2
If r = 1 x reduces to exponential distribution.

If r > 1 the curve is tangential to x-axis at origin.

The probability

the value of

x2

from a random

2
o

sample will exceed x is given by P=

y dx
x
o

And it is tabulated for various value of P and r=1,2,

..30.
2
For r > 30, x were approximately become normal curve.

 The mean of distribution is mean = r and variance = 2r

X

=r

= 2r

Test statics =

(OiEi)2
=
Ei

(n-1) d.o.f

Oi = Observe Frequency
Ei= Excepted Frequency
Submitted by,
S.ARIVUSELVI

13LE01

QUESTION NO:10
NAME; N.ENAMUL HASAN

REG.NO; 13LE07

Discuss randomized block design briefly:

Let us consider an agricultural experiment using which we wish to test the
effect of k fertilizing treatments on the yield of a crop. We assume that we
know some information about the soil fertility of the plots. Then we divide the
plots into h blocks, according to the soil fertility, each block containing k
plots. Thus the plots in each block will be of homogeneous fertility as far as
possible.
Within each block, the k treatments are given to the k plots in a
perfectly random manner, such that each treatment occurs only in any block.
But the same k treatments are repeated from block to block. This design is
called randomized block design.
Analysis of variance for two factors of classification:
Let the N variance values {xij} (representing the yield of paddy) be
classified according to two factors. Let there be h rows (blocks) representing
one factor of classification (soil fertility) and k columns representing the other
factor (treatment),so that N=hk.

We wish to test the null hypothesis that the rows and columns are homogeneous
viz.., there is no difference in the yields of paddy between the various rows and
between the various columns.
Let xij be the variate value in the row and jth column.
Let x be the general mean of all the N values ,xi* be the of the k values i th row
and x*j be the mean of the h values in the jth column
Now

XIJ = (XIJ - I*- *J+ )+( I*- )+( *J )

( XIJ- ) =( XIJ- I*- *J+ )2+ ( I*- )2

+( *J-X)2+2( XIJ-I*-*J +)(I*-)
+2( XIJ-I*-*J+)(*J-)
+2(I*-)(*J-)
Now ,the fourth member in the R.H.S of(1)
=2 (X I*- ) ( IJ- I*- *J+ )
=2 ( I*- ) (k IJ- k I*- k *J+k )
=0
Similarly, the last two members in the R.H.S of (1) also become zero each
Also ( *J- )2 = k ( *J- )2 =Q1 Say
( *J- )2 = h ( *J- )2 = Q2 Say
Let Q= ( X*J- )2 and
Q3 =2( XIJ-I*-*J+)2
Using all there in (1), we get
Q=Q1+Q2+Q3 where
Q= Total variation
Q1=Sum of the squares due to the variations in the rows
Q2= that in the columns

Q3= that due to the residual variations.

proceeding as in one factor of classification, we can prove that Q 1/h-1,Q2/k-1
Q3/(h-1)(k-1) and Q/hk-1
are unbiased normal, all these estimates of the population variance with degrees
of freedom h-1,k-1,(h-1) (k-1) respectively. If the sampled population is
assumed normal, all these estimates are independent.
(Q1/h-1)/( Q3/(h-1)(k-1)) follows a F-distribution with [h-1,(h-1) (k-1)]
degrees of freedom and (Q2/k-1)/ (Q3/(h-1)(k-1)) follows a F- distribution with
[k-1,(h-1),(k-1) degrees of freedom. Then the F-tests are applied as usual and
the significance of difference between rows and between columns is analysed.
TABLE; The ANOVA table for the two factors of classifications
S.V
Between
rows

S.S
Q1

d.f
h-1

M.S
Q1/(h-1)

Between
columns

Q2

k-1

Q2/(k-1)

Residual

Q3

(h-1)(k-1)

Total

hk-1
QUESTION NO:10

Given;
n=150

X=49

solu;
p=49/150

=0.327

P=40/100

=0.4

H0; No difference in proportion

P=0.4

Q3/(h-1)
(k-1)
--

F
(Q1/h-1)/
( Q3/(h-1)
(k-1))
(Q2/k-1)/
(Q3/(h-1)(k1))
---

H1; P0.4
=5%
Z=p-P/

PQ
n

=(0.327-0.4)/

(0 . 4 2 .5)/150

Z= -0.894
Zc 0 . 894

Z0.05= 1.96
|Zc|< Z0.05

Accept H0

QUESTION NO:11
Given;
N=20
Sample size (n)=4
FORMULAS;
= 1/N i
=1/N i
UCL= +A2
LCL= -A2

Soundara Pandi

13LE24

Question:
45 standard reinforcing bars were tested in tension and found to have mean
yield strength of 31,500 psi with a sample variance of 25 x 10 4 psi2. Another
sample of 35 bars composed of a new alloy gave a mean and coefficient of
variation of 32,000 psi and 23 x 104 psi2 respectively. Yield strengths follow
a normal distribution. At the 1% level of significance, does the new alloy
give increased yield strength?

Given:
2
n1=45, x1=31500, s 1 =250000, n2=35, x2=32000

s 22 = 230000, =1%

Soln:
n1 > 30 and n2 > 30. So, This is test for Large Samples and Difference in
means.
Ho:
x1=x2 (There is no difference in two means).
H1:
x1< x2 (There is difference in two means).
So, Left Tail test.
LOS:
=0.01
Test Statistic:
x 1x 2

Zc=

s 12 s 22
+
n1 n 2

Zc=

3150032000
25 0000 230000
+
45
35

500
Zc= 5555 . 56+6571 . 43

500
500
Zc= 12126 . 99 = 110 .12

=-4.540

Zc = -4.54

Conclusion:
=1%=0.01
Z= Z0.01=-2.33
Zc<Z
So, Accept Ho
There is no difference in means. New alloy does not give the increased yield
strength.
Question:
A company claims that its light bulbs are superior to those its main
competitor. If a study showed that a sample of n 1 = 40 of its bulbs has a
mean lifetime of 1647 hours of continuous use with a standard deviation
of 27 hours, while a sample of n 2 = 40 bulbs made by its main competitor
had a mean lifetime of 1638 hours, does this substantiate the claim at 0.05
LOS.
Given:
n1=40,

n2=40,

x1= 1647,

x2=1638,

=27,

=0.05

Soln:
n1>30, n2>30.
So, This is test for Large Samples and difference in two means.
Ho:
x1=x2. There is no difference in two means.
H1:
x1>x2. There is difference in two means.
Right Tail Test.

LOS:
=0.05
Test Statistic:
x 1x 2
Zc= 1 + 1
n1 n2

16471638

Zc= 27 1 + 1

40 40

Zc= 27 2

40

1
1
1
Zc= 3 0 . 05 = 3 0 .22361 = 0. 67083 =1.491

Zc=1.491

Conclusion:
Right Tail Test.
Z=Z0.05=1.645
Zc<Z
So, Accept Ho.
There is no difference in two means.

NAME

: P.MUTHULAKSHMI

REG NO 13LE14

(19)WHAT ARE THE STEPS IN CONSTRUCTING X CHART?

FORDRAWING x CHART& R CHART

( 1) HERE THE SAMPLE VAILUES IN EACH OF THE N SAMPLES OF

SIZE n WILL BE GIVEN
X1 , X 2 ,.. X n

Rn

BE MEANS OF N SAMPLES AND R1 , R2 ,

BE RANGES OF N SAMPLES (BY RANGE WE MEAN THE MAX

SAMPLE VALUE THE MINIMUM SAMPLE VALUE IN THAT SAMPLE )

(2) COMPUTE

1
^
X
X =
N ( 1

+ X 2 ..+ X n )

R
R
R
R
= N ( 1 + 2 ++ N )

(3)THE VALUES OF

A 2 , D3 , D 4

FOR THE GIVEN SAMPLE SIZE n ARE

TAKEN FROM THE CONTROL CHART CONSTANT TABLE

^

(4)COMPUTE X A 2 R

AND CONTROL LIMITS D3 R AND D4 R

(5)REPRESENT THE SAMPLE NUMBER ON X-AXIS AND SAMPLE

MEAN ON Y-AXIS FOR (MEAN CHART) AND SAMPLE RANGES ON YAXIS FOR (RANGE CHART)
(6)FOR DRAWING MEAN CHART DRAW THE LINES
^
A
Y= X - 2 R
^
A
Y= X + 2 R

LOWER CONTROL LIMIT

+ UPPER CONTROL LIMIT

^
X

CENTRE LINE

WHICH REPRESENT CENTRE LINE,LCL AND UCL.ALSO PLOT (1,

x1 ) (2, x2 )N, Xn

SEGMENTS.THIS GRAPH IS
(7)FOR DRAWING
D 3 R

AT JOIN ADJANT POINTS BY LINE

X -CHART

RANGE CHART DRAW THE LINE Y= R , Y=

, Y= D4 R

WHICH REPRESENT (CL,LCL,&UCL).PLOT (1,

(1,

RN

R1

) (1,

R2

(8)IF ALL THE SAMPLE POINTS LIVE WITH IN LCL&UCL THE

PROCESS IS UNDER CONTROL OTERWISE IT IS OUT OF CONTROL.

(20)WRITE THE WORKING PROCEDURE FOR THE ONE-WAY

CLASSIFICATION?
WORKING METHOD:
STEP-1:

SET UP NULL HYPOTHESIS

H0

= 1 = 2

(POPULATION MEANS ARE EQUAL)

STEP-2:

1= 1 2

SET UP ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS

. K
H1 H

IT IS POPULATION MEAN ARE NOT EQUAL.

STEP-3: TAKE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE LOS IS EQUAL TO
STEP-4 : FIND TOTAL NO OF OBSERVATION n
STEP-5 : CALCULATE T AND TOTAL NO OF ALL OBSERVATION.
STEP-6: CALCULATE SUM OF SQUARES.
SST, SSB, SSW
STEP-7:

PREPARE ANOVA TABLE TO CALCULATE F RATIO.

STEP-8 : CONCLUSION. IF CALCULATE F GREATER THEN

[f>

] FOR

H0

,(k-1,n-k) REJECT

IF CALCULATED f<

FOR f (k-1,n-k) ACCEPT

H0

(18)SUPPOSE THAT THE FIVE MEMBERS 0.44,0.81,0.14,0.05,0.93 WERE

GENERATED.PERFORM
A
TEST
FOR
UNIFORMITY
USING
KOLMOGORO-SMIRNOV TEST WITH 5% LOS.
SOLUTION:
H0 :
H1

R(i)
i
N

THE

NUMBERS

ARE

UNIFORMLY

: NOT UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED

0.05
0.2

0.14
0.4

=5

0.44
0.6

DISTRIBUTED

%
0.81
0.8

0.93
1.0

i
R(i)
N

R(i) (i

0.15

0.26

0.16

0.07

0.05

0.04

0.21

0.13

1)/N

+
D ={0.26}
+

D ={0.21}

D=max{ D , D }=0.26

NAME:S.DINESHKUMAR

D 0.05 ,5

=0.565 ACCEPT

H0

NO: 13LE06

1.Distinguish between level of significance and degrees of freedom?

LEVEL OF

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SIGNIFICANCE
1. The propability level
1.In mathematics degrees of
below which we reject the hypothesis freedom is any of the number of
is called level of significance.And it independent quantities necessary to express
is denoted by .
the value of all the variable properties of a
system

2.Mention the properties of F distribution

1.The probability curve of the F-distribution is roughly sketched in fig

2.The square of the t-variate with with n degrees of freedom follows a Fdistribution
with 1and n degree of freedom
3.The mean of the F-distribution is
v2
(v >2)
v 22 2

( )

4.The variance of the F-distribution is

2 ( v 22 ) ( v 1 + v2 2 )
v 1 ( v 22 )2 ( v 2 4 )

( v 2> 4 )

3.In a sample of 600 parts manufactured by a factory, the number of defective

parts was found to be 45. The company claims that only 5% of their products is
defective. Is the claim tenable at 5% LOS.?
Sol:
n=600

p=

x
n

x=45

45
600

p=0 . 075

P=

1
20

P=0 . 05 ;

Q=1P

10 . 05

Q=0 . 95

1.

H 0 : p=P ;

No difference in propotion

2.

H 1 : p> P ;

Right tailed

One-tailed (right-tailed) test is to be used.Let LOS be 5%. Ie

Z =1 . 645

0 . 0750. 05
0 .05 0 . 95
( 600 )

Z =2. 809

Z > Z

The difference betweet p and P is significant. i.e..,

H1

is accepted

is

H0

rejected and

3.In a sample of 600 parts manufactured by a factory, the number of defective

parts was found to be 45. The company claims that only 5% of their products is
defective. Is the claim tenable at 5% LOS.?
Sol:
n=600

p=

x=45

x
n

45
600

p=0 . 075

P=

1
20

P=0 . 05 ;

Q=1P

10 . 05

Q=0 . 95

1.

H 0 : p=P ;

No difference in propotion

2.

H 1 : p> P ;

Right tailed

One-tailed (right-tailed) test is to be used.Let LOS be 5%. Ie

0.0750.05
0.05 0.95
( 600 )

Z =1.645

Z =2.809

Z > Z

The difference betweet p and P is significant. i.e..,

H1

is

H0

rejected and

is accepted

M.GOTHAI

REG.NO.13LE09

1.Discuss latin square design.

Solution:
Three Way Classification:
A
B
C
D

B
C
D
A

C
D
A
B

D
A
B
C

Rows=n
Columns=n
Treatment=n
Sum of k observations of treatments Tk = xij
k
Between sum of squares, SSTk =((Tk*Tk)/n (T*T)/n)
Error sum of residuals SSE=SSE=SSR SSC SSTk

ANOVA TABLE:
Sources
of
Variation
Between
Rows
Columns

Sum of
Squares

Treatment
Error
Total

Degrees Mean
of
Square
Freedom
n-1
MSR

SSR
SSC

n-1

SSTk
SSE
SST

n-1
(n-1)(n-2)
((n*n)1)

F-Ratio
F.R

MSC

F.C

MSTk

Ftk

MSE

Discuss the ANOVA table for

1)
One way classification
2)
Two way classification
3)
Three table
Solution:
One way classification:
Completely randomized design in which treatments are randomly
assigned to the experiment units or in which independent random samples
of
Experimental units or selected for each treatment.This test procedure
compares the variation in observations between samples to the variation
within samples.
Here all the observations are classified into one factor.
This is exhibited column wise if you denote jth observations in
the ith samples by xij. The general scheme for level scheme for one way
classification
is as follows.
Sample 1
x11

sample 2

sample i

x21

xi

sample k
xk1

`
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

x1n

x2n

xin

xkn

Notations:
T= Sum of all observations
No of samples(or levels) =k
No of observations in the sample=ni,i=1,2,.k.
Total no of observations = n =ni
i=1
observations j in the ith sample = xij j=1ni
sum of ni observations in the ith sample Ti=xij
computational formulae:
T=Ti=xij
i j
Total sum of squares,SST=((xij*xij) (T*T) / n)
i j
Between samples sum of squares,SSB=((Ti*Ti)/ni (T*T)/N)
i
Within samples sum of squares,SSW=SST SSB
Total mean square,MST=SST/n-1
Within sample square,MSW=SSW/n-k
No of degrees of freedom=(k-1)+(n-k)=n-1
ANOVA TABLE:
Source
variation

of Sum
squares

of Degrees
freedom

Between
samples

SSB

k-1

of Mean square
MSB

F ratio
F=MSB/MSW

Within
samples
Total

SSW

n-k

SST

n-1

MSW

2.Two way classification:

Two way ANOVA is an analysis method for study with quantity
outcome and two variables and this design is called randomized block design.
Assumptions:
The population at each factor level combination is approximately
normally distributed these population have a common variance

3. The effect of one factor is same at all the levels of the other factor
Notations :
No.of levels of row factor = r
No.of levels of column factor = c
Total no.of observation= r*c
Observations in ijth cell xij
ith level of row factor= i =1,2.r
jth level of column factor=j=1,2.c
sum of cobservation in ith row=TRi
=xij
j
j = 1,2.c
Sum of r observations in jth column = Tcj
= xij

i
i=1,2.r
Sum of all r*c observations = T = xij
ij
= TRi
= Tcj
There are the notations used in computational formulae
SST = xij*xij - T*T/rc
ij
Between rows sum of squares,
SSR = ((TRi*TRi)/c)-(T*T/rc)
i
Between columns sum of squares,
SSC= ((TRj*TRj)/c)-(T*T/rc)
i
Error sum of squares,
SSC = SST SSR - SSC

ANOVA TABLE:

SOURCE OF SUM
OF DEGREES
VARIATION SQUARES OF
FREEDOM
Between
SSR
R-1
rows

MEAN
SQUARE

F RATIO

MSR

MSR/MSE

Between
columns

SSC

C-1

MSC

MSC/MSE

Error

SSC

r-1*c-1

MSC

Total

SST

r*c-1

1.Explain the steps in random variate generation Inverse Transform Technique :

The inverse transform technique can be used to sample from:1.exponential distribution,
2.uniform distribution,
3.Weibull distribution,
4.triangular distribution and
5.empirical distri-Jbutions
EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION :
The exponential distribution, discussed as before has probability density
function (pdf)
given by
f(X)= {e-x , x 0
0,
x < 0}
and cumulative distribution function (cdf) given by
f(X)= - x f(t) dt
= 1 e x, x 0
0, x < 0
Steps:Step 1:Compute the cdf of the desired random variable X. For the exponential
distribution, the cdf is
F(x) = 1 e , x > 0.
Step 2:Set F(X) = R on the range of X.
Step 3:Solve the equation F(X) = R for range of X.
1 e-X = R on the range x >=0.
e-x = 1 R
-X = log(1 - R)
x=-1/ log(1 R)

Step 4:Generate (as needed) uniform random numbers R1, R2, R3,... and
compute the desired random variates by
Xi = F-1 (Ri)
F (R) = (-1/)log(1- R)
Xi = -1/ log ( 1 Ri)
for i = 1,2,3,.... One simplification that is usually employed is to
replace 1 Ri by Ri
2.Mention three areas in which simulation is applied.
Areas of Applications:1.Manufacturing Applications
2.Military Applications
3.Logistics, Transportation and Distribution Applications
1.Manufacturing Applications
1. Analysis of electronics assembly operations
2. Design and evaluation of a selective assembly station for highprecision
scroll compressor shells.
3. Comparison of dispatching rules for semiconductor manufacturing
using large facility models.
4. Evaluation of cluster tool throughput for thin-film head production.
5. Determining optimal lot size for a semiconductor backend factory.
6. Optimization of cycle time and utilization in semiconductor test
manufacturing.
7. Analysis of storage and retrieval strategies in a warehouse.
8. Investigation of dynamics in a service oriented supply chain.
9. Model for an Army chemical munitions disposal facility.
Semiconductor Manufacturing
1. Comparison of dispatching rules using large-facility models.
2. The corrupting influence of variability.
3. A new lot-release rule for wafer fabs.
4. Assessment of potential gains in productivity due to proactive
retied management.
5. Comparison of a 200 mm and 300 mm X-ray lithography cell.
6. Capacity planning with time constraints between operations.
7. 300 mm logistic system risk reduction.
Construction Engineering
1. Construction of a dam embankment.
2. Trench less renewal of underground urban infrastructures.

3. Activity scheduling in a dynamic, multiproject setting.

4. Investigation of the structural steel erection process.
5. Special purpose template for utility tunnel construction.
2.Military Applications
1. Modeling leadership effects and recruit type in a Army recruiting
station.
2. Design and test of an intelligent controller for autonomous
underwater vehicles.
3. Modeling military requirements for nonwarfighting operations.
4. Multitrajectory performance for varying scenario sizes.
5. Using adaptive agents in U.S. Air Force retention.
3.Logistics, Transportation and Distribution Applications
1. Evaluating the potential benefits of a rail-traffic planning
algorithm.
2. Evaluating strategies to improve railroad performance.
3. Parametric Modeling in rail-capacity planning.
4. Analysis of passenger flows in an airport terminal.
5. Proactive flight-schedule evaluation.
6. Logistic issues in autonomous food production systems for
extended duration space exploration.
7. Sizing industrial rail-car fleets.
8. Production distribution in newspaper industry.
9. Design of a toll plaza
10.Choosing between rental-car locations.
11.Quick response replenishment.
Business Process Simulation
1. Impact of connection bank redesign on
airport gate assignment.
2. Product development program planning.
3. Reconciliation of business and system modeling.
4. Personal forecasting and strategic workforce planning.
Human Systems
1. Modeling human performance in complex systems.
2. Studying the human element in out traffic control.

3.Mention various components of rapid rail system.

System:- Rapid rail
Components:- 1. Entities:- Riders
2. Attributes:- Origination; destination
3. Activities:- Travelling
4. Events:- Arrival at station; arrival at destination
5.state variables:- Numbers of riders waiting at each
station;
numbers of Riders in transit.
M.Muthuselvi

13 LE 15

Explain briefly the different types of models.

Solution:
Models can be classified as being mathematical of physical. A
mathematical model uses symbolic notation and mathematical equations to
Represent a system. A simulation model is a particular type of mathematical
model of a system.
Simulation models may be further classified as being static or dynamic,
deterministic or stochastic, and discrete or continuous. A static simulation
model, sometimes called a Monte Carlo simulation, represents a system at a
particular point in time. Dynamic simulation models represent systems as they
change over time. The simulation of a bank from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. is an
example of a dynamic simulation.
Simulation models that contain no random variables are classified as
deterministic. Deterministic models have a known set of inputs which will result
in a unique set of outputs. Deterministic arrivals would occur at a dentists
office. In the case of the factory system, for example, the factors controlling the
arrival of orders may be considered to be outside the influence of the factory
and therefore part of the environment. However, if the effect of supply on
demand is to be considered, there will be a relationship between factory output
and arrival of orders, and this relationship must be considered an activity of the
system. Similarly, in the case of a bank system, there may be a limit on the
maximum interest rate that can be paid. For the study of a single bank, this
would be regarded as a constraint imposed by the environment. In a study of the
effects of monetary laws on the banking industry, however, the setting of the
limit would be an activity of the system.

How will you perform Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for uniformity of random

numbers.
Solution:
Steps:
Step1:
Rearrange the data from smallest to largest. Let R(i) denote the I th
smallest observation. So that R(1)<R(2)<..<R(N).
Step2:
Compute D+ = max {i/N-R(i)}
i<j<N
D- = max {R(i)-(i-1)/N}
i<j<N
Step3:
Compute D= max {D+,D-}.
Step4:
Determine the critical value D alpha, from Kolmogorov table for the
specified alpha and the given sample size N.
Step5:
If D>D alpha, the null hypothesis for sample are from uniform test is
rejected.
If D<D alpha, no difference has been detected between the true test of
{R1,R2,.R subs N) & uniformly distributed.
(The Kolmogorov smirnov test critical values are given by the table.)

List the various components of banking system.

Solution:
System
Entities
Attributes
Activities
Banking

Customers

Rapid rail

Riders

Production

Machines

Events

State
Variables

Checking
account
balance
Origination;
Destination

Making
Deposits

Arrival;
Departure

No. of busy
Tellers:

Traveling

Arrival at
Station;

Speed;
Capacity:

Welding,
Stamping

Breakdown

No.
of
riders
in
transmit
Status
of
machines

Communication

Messages

Length;
Destination

Transmitting

Arrival at
Destination

Inventory

Warehouse

Capacity

Withdrawing

Demand

NAME: C.PRABHA

Number
waiting to
be transmit
Levels of
inventory

REG NO: 13LE18

30) WRITE THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH COMPLETELY RANDOMIZED

DESIGN IS USED...

The CRD is best suited for experiments with a small number of

treatments.

A completely randomized (CR) design, which is the simplest type

of the basic designs, may be defined as a design in which the
treatments are assigned to experimental units completely at
random, that is the randomization is done without any restrictions.
The design is completely flexible, i.e., any number of treatments
and any number of units per treatment may be used. Moreover, the
number of units per treatment need not be equal.
A completely randomized design is considered to be most useful in
situations where
(i) Thee experimental units are homogeneous,
(ii)The experiments are small such as laboratory experiments, and

(iii) Some experimental units are likely to be destroyed or to tail to

respond.

TESTING OF HYPOTHESES
LARGE SAMPLE
SINGLE MEAN
PROBLEM
1) The diameter of a mechanical component is normally distributed with
a mean of approximately 28cm.A standard deviation is found from the samples
to be 0.25cm. A sample of 30 components gave mean 27.02. Test the hypotheses
for mean = 27.02 against mean 27.02.
SOLUTION
H0: = 27.02 [There is no difference between sample and population
mean]
H1: 27.02 [TTT] Two Tail Test

Assume Level Of Significance

= 5%

= 1%

Test of statistics
ZC =

x -

(/n)
Given
= 28, n = 30, x = 27.02 and = 0.25
ZC = 27.02 28
0.25 30

ZC = -21.47
Conclusion
|ZC| = 21.47
= 5%
Z= Z0.05= 1.96 [TTT]
|ZC| > 1.96
Reject H0
= 1%
Z= Z0.01 = 2.58 [TTT]
|ZC| > 2.58
Reject H0

H0 is rejected in both cases.

The difference between x and is significant.

M. Senthil

13LE22

Question:
1) A trucking firm is suspicious of the claim that the average lifetime of
certain tires is atleast 28,000 miles. To check this claim, the firm puts 40 of
these tires on its truck and gets mean lifetime of 27,463 mils with a standard
deviation of 1,348 miles. What can it conclude if the probability a Type I error
is to be at most 0.01%?
Soln:
Ho:

 =x(there is no difference in population mean and sample mean)

H1:
>x(There is difference in population mean and sample mean)

Left Tail Test.

LOS:
=0.01
Test Statistic:
Zc= (x- )/ /.n
Zc= (27463-28000)/ 1348/40

Zc=-537/213.138
Zc=-2.519
Conclusion:
Z=-1.645
Zc< Z
Accept Ho
Question:
2) Benzene in the air workers breathe can cause cancer. It is very important for
the benzene content of air in a particular plant to be not more than 1.00 ppm.
Samples are taken to check the benzene content of the air. 35 specimens of air
from one location in the plant gave a mean content of 0.760 ppm, and the
standard deviation of benzene content was estimated on the basis of the sample
to be 0.45 ppm. Benzene contents in this case are found to be normally
distributed.
Is there evidence at the 1% level of significance that the true mean be e content
is less than or equal to 1.00 ppm?
Soln:
Ho:
benzene content is less then or equal to 1.00
H1:

benzene content is not less then or equal to 1.00

Left Tail Test.
= 1.00
n = 35
x = 0.76
= 0.45
x<
Zc = (x- ) / /n
= 0.76 -1 / 0.45 / 35
= - 0.24/0.076
= - 3.15
Z 0.01 = -2.33
Zc < Z 0.01
Accept Ho

R.SIVAKUMAR

13LE23

Question:
1) The diameter of a mechanical component is normally distributed with a mean
of approximately 28 cm. A standard deviation is found from the samples to be
0.25 cm. A sample of 30 components gave mean 27.02. Test the hypothesis for
mean = 27.02 against mean 27.02.
Soln:

 =28, x=27.02,

s=0.25,

n=30

Ho:
=x(there is no difference in population mean and sample mean)
H1:
>x(There is difference in population mean and sample mean)
Left Tail Test.
LOS:
=0.05
Test Statistic:
Zc= (x - )/ s/n-1
Zc= (27.02-28.00)/0.25/29
Zc=-0.98/(0.25/5.385)
Zc=-0.98/0.046
Zc=-21.3
Conclusion:
Z=-1.645
Zc< Z
Accept Ho
Question:
2) 45 standard reinforcing bars were tested in tension and found to have a mean
yield strength of 31,500 psi with a sample variance of 25 x 104 psi2 . Another
sample of 15 bars composed of a new alloy gave a mean and coefficient of
variation of 32,000 psi and 2.0% respectively. Yield strengths follow a normal
distribution. At the 1% level of significance, does the new alloy give increased
yield strength?
Soln:
=31500,

=0.02,

x=32000,

n=15,

=0.01

Ho:
x =. (There is no difference in Sample mean and Population mean).

H1:
x > . (There is difference in Sample mean and Population mean).
Right Tail Test.
LOS:
=0.01
Test Statistic:
Zc= (x - )/ /n
Zc=(32000-31500)/(0.02/15)
Zc=500/(0.02/3.873)
Zc=500/0.0052
Zc=96153.85
Conclusion:
Z=Z0.01=2.33
Zc> Z
Reject Ho

13LE05

N.BHUVANENDRAN

1. Errors in testing of hypotheses

The loss is fixed the investigator and as such it may be fixed at a higher level by
his wrong judgement. Because of this, the region of rejection becomes larger
and the probability of rejection a null hypothesis , when it is true ,become
greater . the error committed in rejecting
, when it is really true , is
called type I error. this similar to a good product being rejected by the consumer
and hence the type I error is also known as producers risk. The error
committed in accepting
, when it is false, is called type II error. As

this error is similar to that of accepting a product of inferior quality, it is also

known as consumers risk.
The probability of committing type I and II errors are denoted by and
respective is to be noted that the probability of committing type I error is the
LOS.
2. Properties of t- distribution:
The probability curve of the t-distribution is similar to the
standard normal curve, and is symmetric about t=0, bellshaped and asymptotic to the t-axis.
For sufficiently large value of v, the t-distribution tends to the
standard normal distribution.
The mean of the t-distribution is zero.
The variance of the t-distribution is v/v-2, if v > 2 and is
greater than 1, but it tends to 1 as v .

3. Properties of normal distribution curve:

Normal Distribution Curves are symmetrical bell-shaped
curves possessed of distinct characteristics. For example,
the area under any given normal curve has the same
proportional distribution to its total area; that is to say, the
area from negative infinity to one S away from the mean is
always the same: 84.13 percent (0.8413). The total area
under a normal curve is always equal to one. Additionally,
the curves never quite reach Y=0; curve extends to
infinity and negative infinity.
The first Illustration shows a few normal curves with equal
means, but unequal standard deviations.

The tall and

skinny graph has a lesser S value than the others, and a

greater frequency of values closer to the Mean.

 The second Illustration depicts curves with equivalent

means and standard deviations, but unequal population
sizes.
As you can see, the shape that a Normal Curve takes is
dependent upon its mean and standard deviation, and
though it always has the properties listed above, the
possibilities as to the shape that the curve may take are
infinite.
One particularly important Normal Curve is the Standard
Normal Distribution.