Design of Experiments (DOE)

The design in which the levels of one factor can be applied to large experimental units and the levels of other factors to the sub-units are known as “split plot design“.

A split plot experiment is a blocked experiment in which blocks serve as experimental units. After blocking the levels of other factors are randomly applied to large units within blocks, often called whole plots or main plots.

The split plot design are specifically suited for two factors designs that have more treatment to be accommodated by a complete block designs. In split plot design all the factors are not of equal importance. For example, in an experiment of varieties and fertilizers, the variety is less important and the fertilizer is more important.

In these design, the experimental units are divided into two parts, (i) Main plot and (ii) sub-plot. The levels of one factor are assigned at random to large experimental units (main plot) and the levels of the other (second) factor are applied at random the the sub-units (sub-plot) within the large experimental units. The sub-units are obtained by dividing the large experimental units.

Note that the assignment of a particular factor to either the main plot or to the subplot is extremely important, it is because the plot size and precision of measurement of the effects are not the same for both factors.

The sub-plot treatments are the combination of the levels of different factors.

The split plot design involves assigning the levels of one factor to main plots which may be arranged in a “CRD”, “RCBD” or “LSD”. The levels of the other factor are assigned to subplots within each main plot.

Split Plot Design Layout Example

If there are 3 varieties and 3 fertilizers and we want more precision for fertilizers then with the RCBD with 3 replication, the varieties are assigned randomly to the main plots within 3 blocks using a separate randomization for each. Then the levels of the fertilizers are randomly assigned to the subplots within the main plots using a separate randomization in each main plot. The layout is

Another Split Plot Design Example

Suppose we want to study the effects of two irrigation methods (factor 1) and two different fertilizer types (factor 2) on four different fields (“whole plots”). While a field can easily be split into two for the two different fertilizers, the field cannot easily be split into two for irrigation: One irrigation system normally covers a whole field and the systems are expensive to replace.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Split Plot Design

Advantages of Split Plot Design

• More Practical
  Randomizing hard-to-change factors in groups, rather, than randomizing every run, is much less labor and time intensive.
• Pliable
  Factors that naturally have large experimental units can be easily combined with factors having smaller experimental units.
• More powerful
  Tests for the subplot effects from the easy-to-change factors generally have higher power due to partitioning the variance sources.
• Adaptable
  New treatments can be introduced to experiments that are already in progress.
• Cheaper to Run
  In case of a CRD, implementing a new irrigation method for each subplot would be extremely expensive.
• More Efficient
  Changing the hard-to-change factors causes more error (increased variance) than changing the easy-to-change factors a split-plot design is more precise (than a completely randomized run order) for the subplot factors, subplot by subplot interactions and subplot by whole-plot interactions.
• Efficient
  More efficient statistically, with increased precision. It permits efficient application of factors that would be difficult to apply to small plots.
• Reduced Cost
  They can reduce the cost and complexity of manipulating factors that are difficult or expensive to change.
• Precision
  The overall precision of split-plot design relative to the randomized complete block design may be increased by designing the main plot treatment in a Latin square design or in an incomplete Latin square design.

Disadvantages of Split Plot Design

• Less powerful
  Tests for the hard-to-change factors are less powerful, having a larger variance to test against and fewer changes to help overcome the larger error.
• Unfamiliar
  Analysis requires specialized methods to cope with partitioned variance sources.
• Different
  Hard-to-change (whole-plot) and easy-to-change (subplot) factor effects are tested against different estimated noise. This can result in large whole-plot effects not being statistically significant, whereas small subplot effects are significant even though they may not be practically important.
• Precision
  Differential in the estimation of interaction and the main effects.
• Statistical Analysis
  Complicated statistical analysis.
• Sources of Variation
  They involve different sources of variation ad error for each factor.
• Missing Data
  When missing data occurs, the analysis is more complex than for a randomized complete block design.
• Different treatment comparisons have different basic error variances which make the analysis more complex than with the randomized complete block design, especially if some unusual type of comparison is being made.

https://rfaqs.com

https://gmstat.com

The layout of a factorial design is typically organized in a table format. Each row of the table represents an experimental run, while each column represents a factor or the response variable. The levels of factors are indicated by symbols such as + and – for high and low levels, respectively. The response variable values corresponding to each experimental condition are recorded in the form of a sign table.

Consider a simple example layout for a two-factor factorial design with factors $A$ and $B$.

Run	Factor A	Factor B	Response
1	–	–	$Y_1$
2	+	–	$Y_2$
3	–	+	$Y_3$
4	+	+	$Y_4$

Layout of the Factorial Design: Two Factor in $n$ Replicates

Consider there are two factors and each factor has two levels in $n$ replicates. The layout of the factorial design will be as described below for $n$ replicates.

$y_{111}$ is the response from the first factor at the low level, the second factor at the low level, and the first replicate of the trial. Similarly, $y_{112}$ represents the second replicate of the same trial, and up to $n$th observation is $n$th trial at the same level of $A$ and $B$.

Geometrical Structure of Two-Factor Factorial Design

The geometrical structure of two factors (Factor $A$ and $B$), each factor has two levels, low ($-$) and high (+). Response 1 is at the low level of $A$ and a low level of $B$, similarly, response 2 is produced at a high level of $A$ and a low level of $B$. The third response is at a low level of $A$ and a high level of $B$, similarly, the 4th response is at a high level of $A$ and a high level of $B$.

Real Life Example

The concentration of reactant vs the amount of the catalyst produces some response, the experiment has three replicates.

Geometrical Structure of the Example

Factor Effects

\begin{align} A &=\frac{(a+ab)-((I) +b)}{2} = \frac{100+90-80-60}{2} = 25\\
B &= \frac{(b+ab) – ((I) +a) }{2} = \frac{60+90-80-100}{2} = -15\\
AB&=\frac{((I)+ab)-(a+b)}{2} = \frac{80+90-100-60}{2}=5
\end{align}

Minus 15 ($-15$) is the effect of $B$, which shows the change in factor level from low to high bringing on the average $-15$ decrease in the response.

Reference

Montgomery, D. C. (2017). Design and Analysis of Experiments. 9th ed, John Wiley & Sons.

R and Data Analysis

Test Preparation MCQs