Timothy J. Robinson
University of Wyoming
William A. Brenneman and William R. Myers
The Proctor & Gamble Company
Journal of Statistics Education Volume 17, Number 1 (2009), ww2.amstat.org/publications/jse/v17n1/robinson.html
Copyright © 2009 by Timothy J. Robinson, William A. Brenneman and William R. Myers, all rights reserved. This text may be freely shared among individuals, but it may not be republished in any medium without express written consent from the authors and advance notification of the editor.
Key Words: Hard to change factors; Restricted randomization; Wholeplot Factors; Subplot Factors.
While splitplot designs have received considerable attention in the literature over the past decade, there seems to be a general lack of intuitive understanding of the error structure of these designs and the resulting statistical analysis. Typically, students learn the proper error terms for testing factors of a splitplot design via expected mean squares. This does not provide any true insight as far as why a particular error term is appropriate for a given factor effect. We provide a way to intuitively understand the error structure and resulting statistical analysis in splitplot designs through building on concepts found in simple designs, such as completely randomized and randomized complete block designs, and then provide a way for students to "see" the error structure graphically. The discussion is couched around an example from paper manufacturing.
Many industrial and agricultural experiments involve two types of factors, some with levels hard or costly to change and others with levels that are relatively easy to change. Examples of hardtochange factors include mechanical setups, environmental factors, and many others. When hardtochange factors exist, it is in the practitioner’s best interest to minimize the number of times the levels of these factors are changed. A common strategy is to run all combinations of the easytochange factors for a given setting of the hardtochange factors. This restricted randomization of the experimental run order results in a splitplot design (SPD).
Although great technical strides have been made in terms of the design and analysis of SPDs, there seems to be a general lack of intuitive understanding of the error terms and the resulting statistical analysis. Typically, students learn the proper error terms for testing factors of a splitplot design via expected mean squares. While this context is certainly important, we have found in our own consulting and teaching experience that the expected mean square framework does not provide any true insight as far as why a particular error term is appropriate for a given factor effect. In this manuscript, we hope to improve the fundamental understanding of SPDs by taking a firstprinciples approach to describing the error structure through building on concepts already familiar to students in simple designs and provide a way for students to "see" the SPD error structure graphically. The examples provided here are all of the industrial variety and while they may be more interesting to those who teach and consult with engineers, the discussion is valid within any context of a splitplot design.
Since SPDs are essentially two or more error control experimental designs superimposed on top of one another, we follow the notation of Hinkelmann and Kempthorne (1994) by denoting a given splitplot design as SPD(D_{w},D_{s}) where D_{w} and D_{s} refer to the designs in the wholeplot and subplot factors, respectively. An extensive, but not exhaustive list of references on the design and analysis of SPDs includes Letsinger, Myers, and Lentner (1996); Christensen (1996); Huang, Chen and Voelkel (1998); Rao (1998); Bingham and Sitter (2001); Webb, Lucas and Borkowski (2004); Federer and King (2007); Smith and Johnson (2007); and Kowalski, Parker and Vining (2007).
Two common SPDs are designs in which the wholeplot factor levels are assigned via a completely randomized design (CRD) and the subplot factors are assigned via a randomized complete block design (RCBD) [i.e. SPD(CRD,RCBD)] and designs in which both the wholeplot factor levels and subplot factor levels are randomly assigned within a RCBD [i.e. SPD(RCBD, RCBD)]. We begin in Section 2 with a review of the CRD and then move along to the RCBD in Section 3. In Section 4 we extend our discussion to splitplot designs. Throughout we show how the error structure dictated by the experimental design can be explored through graphical methods. A common example from paper manufacturing will be discussed in all settings in order to unify the presentation.
The most commonly assigned design structure for experiments is the CRD. The CRD assumes the availability of a set of homogenous experimental units (EUs). Experimental units are the physical entities to which a factor level combination is applied. The experimental unit, upon exposure to a factor level combination is considered a replicate of the treatment combination. Replication or replicated design refers to the occurrence of two or more replicates for a given treatment combination. To illustrate terminology, we refer to a modified version of the tensile strength example from Montgomery (2001). In this example, a paper manufacturer is interested in determining the effect of three different preparation (henceforth referred to as prep) methods (Z) on the tensile strength of paper. For simplicity, we will refer to the levels of Z as 1, 2, and 3. We will assume that there are enough resources to produce nine batches of pulp (three batches for each level of Z). Since the levels of Z are randomly assigned to the batches, the batches are the experimental units. Consider the replicated 3level design provided in Table 1. The notion of a CRD is that the order in which the prep methods are utilized to produce batches of material is randomized.
Table 1. A replicated 3level design for paper manufacturing example

Replicate 


1 
1 
2 
1 
3 
2 
2 
3 
3 

Prep 
2 
3 
2 
1 
2 
1 
3 
3 
1 

Tensile Strength 
38.75 
31 
37.25 
34.5 
39.5 
35.25 
37.5 
33.25 
37.25 

A possible model for the 3level CRD is
y_{ij} = μ + τ_{i} + ε_{ij}, i = 1,2,3; j = 1,2,3,  (1) 
where y_{ij} is the ijth observation, μ is the overall mean, τ_{i}, is the ith treatment effect and ε_{ij} is the experimental error component. Experimental error describes the variation among identically and
independently treated experimental units. For the CRD, it is typically assumed that that the ε_{ij} are
i.i.d. N(0, σ^{2}). The experimental error variance, σ^{2}, describes the variance of
observations on experimental units, for which the differences among the observations can only be attributed to experimental error. The magnitude of σ^{2} is a function of a variety of sources, including 1. natural variation among EUs; 2. observation/measurement error; 3. inability to reproduce the treatment combinations exactly from one replicate to another; 4. interaction of treatments and replicates; and 5. other unaccounted for sources of variation.
In the CRD, the experimental error variance will be determined by the differences associated with the replicates nested within treatment. Specifically, one would look at the three prep method i replicates (y_{i1}, y_{i2}, y_{i3}) and see how their tensile strength values differ from their group mean . These estimated differences are then pooled together to get one estimate of the experimental error variance,
.  (2) 
The error degrees of freedom (df error in (2) above) for the CRD arise from the fact that there are generally n replicates for each treatment level and one degree of freedom is used for estimation of the treatment mean. Thus, for each of the t treatment levels there are n1 degrees of freedom and pooling we have
(3) 
error degrees of freedom. For the CRD in Table 1 with three replicates and three treatment levels we have 3*(31) = 6 df for the experimental error.
Figure 1a provides a graphical representation of the experimental error upon noting the dispersion among the three prep method replicates, y_{i1}, y_{i2}, y_{i3}, within the i^{th} prep method, averaged across the prep methods. One can gain intuition regarding the treatment effect by visualizing the dispersion among the (between groups variance) to the average dispersion among the replicates within each of the prep methods. Technically speaking, one compares the dispersion among the , multiplied by the square root of the number of replicates within each treatment (and represented by the square root of the mean sum of squares for treatments), with the dispersion among the replicates within each prep (and represented by the square root of the mean sum of squares for error). In this example it is apparent that the between groups variance is only slightly greater than the experimental error variance and this is further verified by the nonsignificant prep method pvalue (0.1038) found in Table 2.
Figure 1. Experimental error representation CRD (a). Experimental error representation for SPD[CRD,RCBD] (b).
Table 2. Analysis of Variance for the CRD in Table 1.
Source 
DF 
SS 
MS 
F 
Prob>F 
Prep Method 
2 
32.097 
16.048 
3.384 
0.1038 
Error 
6 
28.458 
4.743 


C.Total 
8 
60.555 



Suppose for the paper manufacturing example, only three batches can be produced in a given day and environmental conditions from day to day are thought to influence tensile strength. Instead of treating the design as a CRD, it is probably more efficient (lower experimental error variance) to utilize a RCBD where the day is the block. Table 3 provides the setup of a RCBD for the modified paper manufacturing example. Note that randomization of treatment levels occurs independently within each day.
Table 3. RCBD for the 3level Paper Manufacturing Example

Day 


1 
2 
3 


Prep 
1 
3 
2 
2 
3 
1 
1 
2 
3 

Tensile Strength 
34.5 
31 
38.75 
37.25 
33.25 
35.25 
37.25 
39.5 
37.5 

An appropriate model for the RCBD in Table 3 is
y_{ij} = μ + τ_{i} + β_{j} + ε_{ij}, i = 1,2,3; j = 1,2,3,  (4) 
where y_{ij}, μ, τ_{i} are as defined in (1), β_{j} denotes the jth random day effect, and ε_{ij} denotes the experimental error. Note for the RCBD that every prep method occurs in every day and replication of treatments occurs across days. If the day effect is ignored in the analysis then the experimental error would include β_{j} + ε_{ij}. By including the day effect in the analysis, the day effect is in essence extracted from the experimental error.
The day by treatment interaction and the experimental error are confounded in the RCBD. The intuition behind this statement can be seen through our example where we note that during a single day, the three prep methods are randomized and the resulting tensile strengths are recorded. With just a single day, no replication exists and there would not be any way to test for the prep method effect since the experimental error is confounded with any observed difference in prep methods. However, when three days worth of experiments are performed in this manner, there will be replicates of the 3level experiment, one replicate for each day. In order to make sure we account for the fact that different days may result in different tensile strength results, the correct experimental error term would be one that gets at the change in the observed differences between the 3level prep variable from day to day. But this is exactly the definition of an interaction between prep method and days. Consequently, the day by prep method interaction and the experimental error are confounded. For this reason one must assume that any differences in prep method across the days is not the result of an actual interaction effect but instead the result of experimental error. Thus, the degrees of freedom for the expected error term for the RCBD are degrees of freedom for the day by prep method interaction [(31) × (31)]. In general, the degrees of freedom are
[(b − 1) x (t − 1)]  (5) 
where b is the number of blocks and t is the number of treatments.
Figure 2a provides a graphical representation of the experimental error for the RCBD in Table 3 under the assumption of no prep by day interaction. The comparison of prep method 2 to prep method 1 is denoted by Δ_{1} for day 1, Δ_{2} in day 2, and Δ_{3} in day 3. A different set of deltas would exist upon comparing prep methods 1 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 3. The experimental error is obtained as follows. Look at the variation in the deltas for comparing prep methods 2 and 1. Also look at the variation in the deltas for comparing prep methods 3 and 1, and the variation in the deltas for comparing prep methods 3 and 2. These three sets of variations in the deltas are pooled for an estimate of the experimental error variance. Notice that the variation in the deltas corresponds to a lack of parallelism in the lines in Figure 2a. No variation corresponds to parallel lines and thus, negligible experimental error. Large variation results in lines that are not parallel and thus larger experimenteral error. In a twofactor analysis of variance, a lack of parallelism is an indication of the existence of an interaction between the factors. In the RCBD, experimental error and block by treatment interactions are confounded. Thus, variation in the deltas (used to estimate experimental error) and lack of parallelism (an indication of an interaction) provide the same information about experimental error, assuming no interactions actually exist. The experimental error is quantified by the square root of the mean squared error.
Figure 2a also provides the overall means for each of the prep methods and one can get a general idea of the treatment effect by the magnitude of the differences in the treatment means relative to the experimental error (deviation from parallel lines). In general, if the profiles are relatively parallel and widely separated then there is a significant treatment effect. The lack of parallelism is quantified by the mean squared error in Table 4 (2.267) while the separation among the prep methods is quantified by the mean square for prep method (16.048) in Table 4. Similar to what was observed in the CRD, when making the actual assessment of a treatment effect, the variation in the overall means for each prep method must be inflated by a factor of the square root of the number of replicates (here replicates are blocks) and is represented by the mean sum of squares for treatments. Here, the dispersion among the prep method means is substantially larger than the experimental error variance, thus suggesting a significant prep method effect, a fact evidenced by the small pvalue (0.0485) for prep method in Table 4. Note the reduction in the error sum of squares from the CRD (SSE = 28.458 in Table 2) to the RCBD (SSE = 9.069 in Table 4). In summary, the experimental error in a CRD is represented by (the average of) the dispersions among the replicates within each treatment and the experimental error in a RCBD by the variation in treatment differences from block to block.
Table 4. Analysis of Variance Table for RCBD Analysis of Data in Table 3.
Source 
DF 
SS 
MS 
F 
Prob>F 
Prep Method 
2 
32.097 
16.048 
7.078 
0.0485 
Day 
2 
19.389 
9.694 


Error 
4 
9.069 
2.267 


C.Total 
8 
60.555 



Figure 2. Experimental error representation for RCBD (a). Wholeplot experimental error and wholeplot treatment effect representation for SPD[RCBD,RCBD] (b).
In the next section we demonstrate how the intuition of the experimental error in the CRD and RCBD can be extended to the splitplot design setting.
Suppose there is interest in investigating the effect of a second factor, cooking temperature on tensile strength. In this experiment, once a batch is constructed with a particular prep method, the batch is split into subunits for cooking. Here, the batches are the wholeplot units with prep method as the wholeplot factor and the subunits are cooking portions with cooking temperature (henceforth referred to as temp) as the subplot factor. Prep method can be considered as the hard to change factor whereas temp is an easy to change factor since its levels are easily randomized once the batch is constructed with a given prep method. For the SPD there are two separate randomizations and thus two separate experimental errors, one for the wholeplot factor levels and another for the subplot factor levels. In this section, we will discuss a scenario in which the wholeplot factor levels are fully randomized and a second scenario in which the wholeplot factor levels are randomized within a block, resulting in a RCBD for the wholeplot factor. Note that the subplot randomization is always restricted in the sense that randomization takes place separately within each wholeplot, making each wholeplot a block for the subplot factor levels.
Let’s assume that all nine batches of pulp can be made on the same day and that no blocking is necessary. In this case, the three prep methods would be randomized to the nine batches, much like a single variable experiment at three levels would be randomized with three replicates, i.e., a CRD. Table 5 presents a possible randomization structure at the wholeplot level.
Table 5: Randomization of the WholePlot Factor Prep Method Replicated Three Times.

Replication 


1 
1 
2 
1 
3 
2 
3 
2 
3 
Prep Method 
2 
1 
1 
3 
1 
2 
2 
3 
3 
Next, for a given prep method, the four levels of temp are randomly applied to the batch subunits (the subplot units). The second level of randomization and order in which the experimental runs would be performed is provided in Table 6.
Table 6: Randomization of the SPD[CRD,RCBD] in Prep Method and Temp

Replication 


1 
1 
2 
1 
3 
2 
3 
2 
3 
Prep Method 
2 
1 
1 
3 
1 
2 
2 
3 
3 
Temp 
275 
200 
275 
200 
275 
275 
200 
200 
225 
250 
225 
250 
225 
250 
200 
250 
250 
250 

225 
275 
225 
250 
200 
225 
225 
275 
200 

200 
250 
200 
275 
225 
250 
275 
225 
275 
In this situation the wholeplot factor, prep method, at three levels with three replicates is randomized and then the subplot factor, temp, is randomized at the subplot level. Since the levels of prep method are randomly assigned at the batch level, the batch effect must be assessed by comparison to a batch experimental error term which reflects the natural spread across batches. Similarly, since the levels of temp are randomly assigned at the subunit level, the temp effect must be assessed by comparison to a subunit experimental error term reflecting natural dispersion across subunits. Contrast this to a CRD setting involving prep method and temp in which one would need 12 batches (one for each combination of prep method and temp) for a single replicate and 36 batches for three replicates. A CRD would only have one experimental error term which would reflect batch dispersion. The SPD offers cost efficiency for the hard to change factor prep method as three replicates of the SPD would only require nine changes of prep method versus the 36 required for the CRD.
An appropriate model for the SPD[CRD,RCBD] described above is
y_{ijk} = μ + τ_{i} + δ_{j(i)} + γ_{k} + (τγ)_{ik} + ε_{ijk}, i = 1,2,3; j = 1,2,3; k = 1,2,3,4,  (6) 
where y_{ijk} is the response on the j^{th} day for prep method i at temp k. The parameter μ is the overall mean, τ_{i} is the fixed effect due to the ith wholeplot treatment (prep method), γ_{j(i)} is the wholeplot error, γ_{k} is the fixed effect due to the kth subplot treatment (temp), (τγ)_{ik} is the wholeplot by subplot interaction and ε_{ijk} is the subplot error. It is typically assumed that the δ_{j(i)} are i.i.d. N(0,σ^{2}_{δ}) with σ^{2}_{δ} denoting the experimental error variance of the wholeplot units. The ε_{ijk} are assumed i.i.d. N(0,σ^{2}_{ε}) with σ^{2}_{ε} denoting the experimental error variance of the subplot units. Finally, it is assumed that the δ_{j(i)} and ε_{ijk} are independent of one another.
In providing intuition for the two experimental error components of the SPD[CRD,RCBD], we first begin with CRD at the wholeplot level. For the wholeplot experiment, we replicated the 3level prep methods three times and completely randomized the run order. In other words, we took the 9 runs of the prep method (1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3) and fully randomized them. Recall from our discussion in Section 2, the experimental error variance for a CRD is determined by the differences associated with the replicates nested within each prep method. For the SPD, the contribution of the ith wholeplot level for the jth replicate is summarized by taking the mean response across the subplot levels, In our example, is the average response on the j^{th} day for the i^{th} prep method averaged across the observed cooking temps .
Since the wholeplot design is a CRD, the whole plot experimental error variance will be determined by the differences associated with the whole plot replicates nested within the whole plot treatment. Specifically, one would look at the three prep method i replicates and see how these average tensile strength values differ from their group mean . These estimated squared differences are then pooled together to get one estimate of the whole plot experimental error variance,
,  (7) 
where denotes the estimate of wholeplot error variance. Note the direct parallel between the expression in (7) with that given in (2).
The degrees of freedom associated with the wholeplot error are calculated just as they were in (3) from Section 2. Due to the presence of both wholeplots and subplots now, we will modify the notation and use
t_{w}(n_{w} − 1)  (8) 
to denote the degrees of freedom error. Here, t_{w} denotes the number of wholeplot treatment combinations and n_{w} denotes the number of wholeplot replicates nested within each wholeplot treatment combination.
The whole plot experimental error variance is easily visualized in Figure 1b by noting the dispersion among the three prep method replicates, , within the i^{th} prep method. Figure 1b is equivalent to Figure 1a but with the y_{ij} (from Figure 1a) = (from Figure 1b). Therefore, the interpretation of the wholeplot treatment effects is analogous to the discussion of the treatment effect of the CRD in Section 2. More specifically, one can get a general idea of the wholeplot treatment effects by comparing the dispersion in the treatment means (here, the dispersion among ) with respect to the whole plot experimental error variance. Note that the Fstatistic for prep method in Table 7 is identical to that in the CRD analysis found in Table 2. The equivalent results are due to the fact that when the data are balanced, taking the mean across the levels of the subplot factor within a wholeplot and then performing a CRD analysis of the means is analogous to the splitplot analysis for the wholeplot factor. Note also that the wholeplot treatment and wholeplot error sums of squares are four times that of the CRD, due to the four subplots within each wholeplot, therefore the Fratio for the wholeplot treatment is unaffected.
Table 7: Analysis of variance for SPD[CRD,RCBD]
Source 
DF 
SS 
MS 
F 
Prob>F 
Prep Method 
2 
128.39 
64.19 
3.38 
0.1038 
Reps
(Prep Method) 
6 
113.83 
18.97 
. 
. 
Temp 
3 
434.08 
144.69 
36.43 
< 0.0001 
Prep Method x Temp 
6 
75.17 
12.53 
3.15 
0.0271 
Subplot Error 
18 
71.50 
3.97 
. 
. 
When there is a blocking factor, the wholeplot factor levels are randomized within the blocks. Consider again the scenario from Section 3 where it is only possible to make three batches of pulp in a given day and environmental conditions from day to day are thought to influence tensile strength. Here, we have two blocking factors: one at the wholeplot level (prep methods randomly assigned within a day) and the other at the subplot level (subplot levels randomly assigned within a wholeplot level). As in Section 4.1, the subplot factor is temp and the randomization of the levels of temp takes place within each wholeplot, making the wholeplots blocks for the subplot factor. The randomization and run order for both the wholeplots and subplots is provided in Table 8. Contrast the randomization for the SPD to a RCBD with two factors. In the RCBD, each day would require 12 batches, one for each of the 12 combinations of prep method and temp. A single randomization would take place, namely the order in which the 12 batches are run within a day. This design would not be feasible here since it was stated that only three batches can be run on a given day. The SPD overcomes the necessity for so many batches to be run in a given day by incorporating two levels of randomization.
First the order of the three prep methods (wholeplot levels) would be randomized for a given day, and then, separately, the levels of temp (subplot levels) are randomized to the cooking portions within each batch. Thus, for a given day the SPD would require only three batches of material to be produced.
Table 8: Randomization of the SPD[RCBD,RCBD] in Prep Method and Temp

Day 1 
Day 2 
Day 3 

Prep Method 
2 
3 
1 
1 
3 
2 
3 
1 
2 
Temp 
275 
200 
275 
200 
275 
275 
200 
200 
225 
250 
225 
250 
225 
250 
200 
250 
250 
250 

225 
275 
225 
250 
200 
225 
225 
275 
200 

200 
250 
200 
275 
225 
250 
275 
225 
275 
An appropriate model for the SPD described above is
y_{ijk} = μ + τ_{i} + β_{j} + δ_{ij} + γ_{k} + (τγ)_{ik} + ε_{ijk}, i = 1,2,3; j = 1,2,3; k = 1,2,3,4,  (9) 
where μ, τ_{i}, β_{j}, γ_{k}, and (τγ)_{ik} are as defined in (4) and (6), δ_{ij} denotes the wholeplot error, and ε_{ijk} is the subplot error. The same distributional assumptions made with the SPD[CRD,RCBD] for the error terms are made here. Similar to the discussion in Section 4.1, in considering the design at the wholeplot level, it is helpful to view the responses as the 's, where is the average strength of the four cooking portions for prep method i on day j. Since the wholeplot treatments (prep methods) are randomized according to a RCBD, the block (day) by treatment interaction and the wholeplot experimental error are confounded (see the discussion in Section 3). For this reason one must assume that any differences in prep method across the days are not the result of an actual interaction effect but instead the result of whole plot experimental error. Thus, the degrees of freedom for the whole plot error term are the degrees of freedom for the day by prep method interaction [(31) × (31)]. In general, the wholeplot error df are given by
(t_{w} − 1)*(n_{w} − 1)  (10) 
where t_{w} is the number of wholeplot levels and n_{w} is the number of wholeplot blocks. Note that the degrees of freedom for the denominator of the prep method Fstatistic in the SPD[RCBD,RCBD] has four degrees of freedom instead of six in the SPD[CRD, RCBD] case.
Figure 2b provides a graphical representation of the experimental error for the wholeplot factor and is identical to Figure 2a but with . Here the magnitude of the wholeplot experimental error variance is reflected in the degree of differences among the deltas (lack of parallelism in Figure 2b) for all possible treatment comparisons. The wholeplot experimental error variance is estimated by averaging the variation in the deltas when comparing prep methods 2 and 1, the variation in the deltas when comparing prep methods 3 and 1, and the variation in the deltas when comparing prep methods 3 and 2. Figure 2b also provides the overall mean for each of the prep methods and one can get a general idea of the wholeplot treatment effects by the magnitude of the differences in the means with respect to the experimental error (i.e. , deviation from parallel lines). As with the RCBD, when making the actual assessment of a treatment effect, the variation in the overall means for each prep method must be inflated by a factor of the square root of the number of replicates (here replicates are blocks) and is represented by the mean sum of squares for prep method (128.39) in Table 9. If the profiles in the block by wholeplot treatment interaction plot, (Figure 2b for our example), are relatively parallel and widely separated then there is a significant wholeplot effect. Thus, the visualization of a significant whole plot effect via Figure 2b is identical to the visualization of a treatment effect in the RCBD using Figure 2a. This is further evidenced by the fact that the pvalue for prep method in Table 9 is precisely the same as that given in Table 4. Unlike the standard RCBD where only one type of experimental unit exists, the presence of wholeplot and subplot units in the SPD implies that one needs to be careful in the interpretation of the wholeplot effect in the case of a possible interaction between the wholeplot and subplot effects. More will be discussed regarding whole plot treatment interactions with subplot interactions in Section 4.3.
Table 9: Analysis of variance for the SPD[RCBD,RCBD] case
Source 
DF 
SS 
MS 
F 
Prob>F 
Day 
2 
77.56 
38.78 
. 
. 
Prep Method 
2 
128.39 
64.19 
7.08 
0.0485 
Day
x Prep Method 
4 
36.28 
9.07 
. 
. 
Temp 
3 
434.08 
144.69 
36.43 
< 0.0001 
Prep Method x Temp 
6 
75.17 
12.53 
3.15 
0.0271 
Subplot Error 
18 
71.50 
3.97 
. 
. 
As mentioned earlier, although there are different randomization schemes possible for the wholeplot factor levels, any randomization scheme for the subplot factors will be restricted since subplot factor levels are always randomized within wholeplots. To conceptualize the subplot experimental design, it is helpful to focus upon a single level of the wholeplot factor. In our example, imagine formulating three batches (i.e. three wholeplot replicates) of pulp using a single prep method and then splitting each of these batches into four equal cooking portions (i.e. 12 total cooking portions). For each batch separately, the levels of temp are randomly assigned to the four cooking portions. Table 10 presents an example of this randomization structure. Note that the subplot design is simply an RCBD where the blocks are the replicates of the specific wholeplot level (prep method). Thus, to understand the subplot error term, all one needs to do is to identify the variable(s) in the data set which uniquely define(s) the wholeplot replicates (batches). In the SPD[CRD,RCBD] case, batches of pulp uniquely define the wholeplot replicate variable while in the SPD[RCBD,RCBD] case, the day variable uniquely defines the replicates. For both types of SPDs, the subplot experimental error variance within a given prep method is estimated via the wholeplot replicate variable by subplot variable (temp) interaction. The error degrees of freedom would be given by
(n_{w} − 1)*(t_{s} − 1)  (11) 
where n_{w} is the number of wholeplot replicates within a given wholeplot level and t_{s} is the number of subplot treatment levels.
Table 10: SubPlot Structure for one Prep Method

Batch Number Nested within Prep Method (Blocking variable at the SubPlot Level) 


1 
2 
3 

Temp 
200 
225 
250 
275 
200 
225 
250 
275 
200 
225 
250 
275 
The subplot error structure for prep method 1 is visualized in Figure 3a where the wholeplot replicate variable by temp interaction is plotted for prep method 1. The individual points in Figure 3a are the tensile strengths for prep method 1 across each of the j whole plot replicates and k cooking temperatures (i.e. the y_{1jk}'s). Recall for RCBDs the block by treatment interaction is confounded with experimental error and any difference in treatment effects observed across blocks is assume to be experimental error variance. Note that Δ_{11}, Δ_{12} and Δ_{13} represent the observed tensile strength differences at a temp of 225 and a temp of 200 across the three whole plot replicates for prep method 1. A different set of deltas would be observed for each of the other temp level pairwise comparisons. If the Δ's differ from one replicate to the next, i.e. , lack of parallelism, this suggests a replicate (block) by temp interaction. Since the design structure is an RCBD, the differences in the Δ's represent the subplot error variance. This is identical to the discussions and illustrations for the RCBD in Sections 3 and 4.2 regarding Figure 2a and Figure 2b.
Since there are a total of three prep methods, the overall estimate of subplot error variance would be one in which the subplot error variances are pooled across all of the levels of the wholeplot variable (prep method). One would have to look at all three plots (Figures 3a, Figure 3b and Figure 3c) to get a sense for the overall subplot error variance. The magnitude of the subplot error variance would be reflected by the overall lack of parallelism across Figures 3a, 3b and 3c. The overall degrees of freedom for the subplot experimental error would then be
t_{w}(n_{w} − 1)*(t_{s} − 1)  (12) 
where the expression in (12) is simply that of (11) multiplied by the number of wholeplot levels t_{w}. Note that the expression for the subplot error degrees of freedom in (12) does not depend on the type of design at the wholeplot level since the wholeplot replicates (whether true replicates or replicates across blocks) form the blocks for the subplot design. This fact is illustrated in Table 7 [SPD(CRD,RCBD)] and Table 9 [SPD(RCBD,RCBD)] where we use the interaction effect of replication (day) by temp [(31)*(41)] nested within the three prep methods to estimate the subplot error for a total of (31)*(41)*3 = 18 degrees of freedom.
To visualize the subplot effect Figures 3a, 3b and 3c provide the group means for each of the levels of temp. Let us first focus on Figure 3a where one can get a general idea of the subplot treatment effect by the magnitude of the differences in the overall subplot (temp) means relative to the lack of parallelism. In observing the differences among the four temp means versus the mild lack of parallelism, one would anticipate a possible temp effect for prep method 1. A similar evaluation would be done for prep method 2 and prep method 3 by looking at Figures 3b and 3c. Overall, if the profiles are relatively parallel and widely separated for each of the wholeplot levels (prep method) then that would indicate a potentially significant subplot effect.
At this point, it is important to remember that any observed subplot effect should not be interpreted until one has evaluated whether or not there is a significant interaction between the wholeplot and subplot effects. Observing Figures 3a, 3b and 3c one can also assess a potential wholeplot by subplot interaction. For example, in prep method 1 (Figure 3a), the means for 275 and 250 are much closer to each other than they are in prep method 3 (Figure 3c). This indicates a possible wholeplot by subplot interaction. Note for this example, the wholeplot by subplot interaction is indeed significant (pvalue = 0.0271 in Tables 7 and 9. The subplot error variance is used to assess the wholeplot by subplot interaction.
Figure 3. Replication(Block) by Temp interaction for Prep Method 1 (3a). Replication(Block) by Temp interaction for Prep Method 2 (3b). Replication(Block) by Temp interaction for Prep Method 3 (3c).
Providing the intuition behind the analysis of SPDs is not an easy task. In this paper we show that the wholeplot and subplot error structure can be broken down into easy to understand CRD or RCBD designs. The wholeplot error is estimated by the effect of the replication variable nested within the wholeplot factor for a CRD at the wholeplot level while the wholeplot error is estimated by the block by wholeplot factor interaction effect for a RCBD at the wholeplot level. We also showed that at the subplot level, the error is estimated by pooling the replicate (block) by subplot factor interaction effects over the wholeplot levels. All of these concepts were illustrated in an intuitive graphical approach, thus allowing students to "see" the error structure and gain intuition of the statistical analysis by associating each source of variation in the SPD ANOVA table with a corresponding plot.
Bingham, D. and Sitter, R. S. (2001). "Design Issues for Fractional Factorial Experiments," Journal of Quality Technology, 33, 215.
Box, G.E.P. and Jones, S. (1992). "SplitPlot Designs for Robust Product Experimentation," Journal of Applied Statistics, 19, 326.
Christensen, R. (1996). Analysis of Variance, Design and Regression, New York: Chapman & Hall.
Federer, W.T. and King, F. (2007). Variations on Split Plot and Split Block Experiment Designs, New Jersey: Wiley.
Hinkelmann, K.H. and Kempthorne, O. (1994). Design and Analysis of Experiments, Vol. 1, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Huang, P., Chen, D., and Voelkel, J. O. (1998). "MinimumAberration TwoLevel SplitPlot Designs," Technometrics, 40, 314326.
Kowalski, S.M., Parker, P.A. and Vining, G.G. (2007). "Tutorial: Industrial Splitplot Experiments," Quality Engineering, 19, 116.
Letsinger, J. D., Myers, R. H., and Lentner, M. (1996). "Response Surface Methods for BiRandomization Structure," Journal of Quality Technology, 28, 381397.
Montgomery, D.C. (2001). Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5^{th} edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rao, P. V. (1998). Statistical Research Methods in Life Sciences, New York: Duxbury Press.
Smith, C. and Johnson, D. (2007). "Comparing analyses of unbalanced splitplot Experiments," Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 77, 119129.
Webb, D., Lucas, J. M. and Borkowski, J. J. (2004). "Factorial Experiments when Factor Levels Are Not Necessarily Reset," Journal of Quality Technology, 36, 111.
Yates, F. (1935). "Complex Experiments," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Supplement 2, 181247.
Yates, F. (1937). "The Design and Analysis of Factorial Experiments," Commonwealth Bureau of Soil Science, Tech. Comm., No. 35.
Timothy J. Robinson
Associate Professor of Statistics
University of Wyoming
Laramie,WY 82071
tjrobin@uwyo.edu
William A. Brenneman
Principle Statistician
Department of Statistics
The Procter & Gamble Company
Brenneman.wa.@pg.com
William R. Myers
Section Head
Department of Statistics
The Procter & Gamble
Myers.wr@pg.com
Volume 17 (2009)  Archive  Index  Data Archive  Resources  Editorial Board  Guidelines for Authors  Guidelines for Data Contributors  Home Page  Contact JSE  ASA Publications