statind Rev01

7/30/2019 statind Rev01

1/22

Effects of Factors On The Time

of Battery Capacity Reduction

Andreas Aristides 1106069506

Bintang Praharani 1106008416

Chintya Widyaning P.U 1106069544

M. Haekal D. 1106069462

Nadira Winaputri 1106003402Raihan Yamang Padere 1106004916


2/22

Contents

Background

Methodology

Data and Data Processing

Results

Conclusion and Suggestion


3/22

Background

For most engineers, designing process are aided by CAD

(Computer Aided Design) Software. In the recent time, manyengineers doing this designing process on their laptops. Due

to the lack of durability of laptops batteries, the designing time

on laptops may not be sufficient.


4/22

Methodology

To overcome this problem we tried to bulid an experiment to

approach this problem by using 2^k Factorial Design with

Three factors

Two levels are provided on each factors:

1. Software : AutoCAD and Autodesk Inventor Fusion

2. Battery Mode : LivePower and High Performance3. Brightness : Lowest and Highest


5/22

Methodology (contd)

The model used for the Software used are

depicted on the left. This model choosen

by the factor of the complexity of 3D

image rendering difficulty. This model are

used in both softwares


6/22

Methodology (contd)

We used Minitab 14 to generate

randomized full factorial design with 3

factors and 2 levels on each factors


7/22

Data

Processed data, the data are normally

distributed

210-1-2

99

90

50

10

1

Residual

Percent

40353025

2

1

0

-1

-2

Fitted Value

Residual

210-1-2

12

9

6

3

0

Residual

Fr

equency

3230282624222018161412108642

2

1

0

-1

-2

Observation Order

R

esidual

Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits

Histogram Versus Order

Residual Plots for Time to Half Capacity (min)


8/22

Results

Factorial Fit: Time to Half Capacity (min) versus App; Mode; BrightnessEstimated Effects and Coefficients for Time to Half Capacity (min) (coded units)Term Effect Coef SE Coef T PConstant 32,887 0,1593 206,41 0,000App 0,992 0,496 0,1593 3,11 0,005Mode -7,606 -3,803 0,1593 -23,87 0,000Brightness 5,808 2,904 0,1593 18,23 0,000App*Mode 0,322 0,161 0,1593 1,01 0,323App*Brightness 0,310 0,155 0,1593 0,97 0,340Mode*Brightness 0,891 0,445 0,1593 2,80 0,010App*Mode*Brightness 3,810 1,905 0,1593 11,96 0,000

S = 0,901272 PRESS = 34,6578R-Sq = 97,79% R-Sq(pred) = 96,08% R-Sq(adj) = 97,15%


9/22

Results (contd)

Analysis of Variance for Time to Half Capacity (min) (coded units) Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F PMain Effects 3 740,504 740,504 246,835 303,87 0,000App 1 7,879 7,879 7,879 9,70 0,005Mode 1 462,799 462,799 462,799 569,75 0,000Brightness 1 269,826 269,826 269,826 332,18 0,0002-Way Interactions 3 7,947 7,947 2,649 3,26 0,039App*Mode 1 0,827 0,827 0,827 1,02 0,323App*Brightness 1 0,769 0,769 0,769 0,95 0,340Mode*Brightness 1 6,351 6,351 6,351 7,82 0,0103-Way Interactions 1 116,133 116,133 116,133 142,97 0,000App*Mode*Brightness 1 116,133 116,133 116,133 142,97 0,000Residual Error 24 19,495 19,495 0,812Pure Error 24 19,495 19,495 0,812Total 31 884,079


10/22

Results: Main Factor (Application Used)

H0: ij= 0 for all i, j

H1: at least one ij 0

Based on data obtained F0 = 9,70 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 =4,260

Thus F0 > F

Therefore, H0 Rejected and H1 Accepted

The F test shows that theres significant difference in thekind of applications to the time of half battery capacity.


11/22

Results: Main Factor (Battery Mode)




Thus F0 > F


The F test shows that theres significant difference in thekind of battery mode to the time of half battery capacity.


12/22

Results: Main Factor (Brightness)




Thus F0 > F


The F test shows that theres significant difference in theBrightness level to the time of half battery capacity.


13/22

Results: 2-way Interactions (Application*Battery Mode)

H0 : = 0 for all i, j

H1 : at least one 0

Based on data obtained F0 = 1,02 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 = 4,260Thus F0 < F

Therefore, H0 Accepted and H1 Rejected

The F test shows that theres no significant difference in

interaction between Application and Battery Mode


14/22

Results: 2-way Interactions (Application*Brightness)


H1 : at least one 0

Based on data obtained F0 = 0,95 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 = 4,260Thus F0 < F

Therefore, H0 Accepted and H1 Rejected

The F test shows that theres no significant difference in

interaction between Application and Brightness Level


15/22

Results: 2-way Interactions (Battery Mode*Brightness)


H1 : at least one 0

Based on data obtained F0 = 7,82 Meanwhile F1,24,0,05 = 4,260Thus F0 > F


The F test shows that theres significant difference in

interaction between Battery Mode and Brightness Level


16/22

Results: 3-way Interactions


H1 : at least one 0


Thus F0 > F


The F test shows that theres significant difference ininteraction between Battery Mode and Brightness Level


17/22

Results (contd)


18/22

Results (contd)


19/22

Conclusion and Suggestion

Conclusion on each factors:

1. Software : AutoCAD uses more power than Inventor2. Battery Mode : High Performance mode consumes more

power

3. Brightness : Highest brightness settings uses more

power


20/22

Conclusion and Suggestion: Interaction

From the interaction plot of each factor we might see that:

- The first graph shows no significant interaction between the

applications and battery mode.- The second graph indicates that the applications and

brightness are almost have an interaction but not significant

enough.

- On the last graph, there is a big gap between battery mode

and brightness, but this graph has the biggest line gradien itmeans theres an interaction between two factors.


21/22

References

- Design and Analysis of Experiment, Douglas C. Montgomery

8th Edition

- http://www.2.imm.dtu.dk/courses/02411/engnote.pdf


22/22

Thank You

Documents

statind Rev01