BARANGAN, CHARL ADRIAN L.
CAMAYO, ANTHONY CARL C.
PATTUNG, JOHN ROY G.
ENGINEERING DATA ANALYSIS
Instruction: Form a group with 3-4 members. Answer the following problems with
complete solution. You may use Minitab and Microsoft Excel for your tabular/
graphical solutions. Practice the techniques of effective visualization. Submit your
answers in pdf format to my email: [email protected] after Prelims exam.
1. Lead is a major pollutant in both air and water, but it is not part of the AQI. Table
below shows lead emission estimates and source categories for the years 1990,
1995, and 2000 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards).
Table 1. Lead Emission estimates and Source Categories in Different Years.
Source Category 1990 1995 2000
Fuel Combustion 0.5 0.5 0.5
Industrial Processes 3.3 2.9 3.2
Transportation 1.2 0.6 0.6
Total 5 3.9 4.2
Figure 1. Bar Chart of Lead Emission in 1990.
BARANGAN, CHARL ADRIAN L.
CAMAYO, ANTHONY CARL C.
PATTUNG, JOHN ROY G.
ENGINEERING DATA ANALYSIS
Figure 2. Bar Chart of Lead Emission in 1995.
Figure 3. Bar Chart of Lead Emission in 2000.
a. Sketch a Pareto chart of source categories for the years 1990, 1995, and
2000. How do these compare?
Lead emissions are mostly caused by industrial processes, with
transportation being the second largest contributor in 1990. In 1995, there
was a notable decrease in lead emissions from transportation, although
industrial processes remained the primary cause. The largest source of
BARANGAN, CHARL ADRIAN L.
CAMAYO, ANTHONY CARL C.
PATTUNG, JOHN ROY G.
ENGINEERING DATA ANALYSIS
emissions in 2000 were still industrial processes; overall emissions have
decreased from 1990 levels, despite a small increase from 1995.
b. Has the quality of our environment improved in recent years regarding
lead?
Yes, according to the data, total lead emissions decreased significantly
between 1990 and 2000 (from 5.0 to 4.2), with the transportation sector
showing the greatest reduction. This reflects improvements in environmental
quality, which were most likely caused by stricter regulations on leaded
gasoline and industrial emissions during that time.
2. Fanny, Weise, and Henderson (2003) studied the impact of photovoltaic system
installed on the rooftop of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Building on the conservation of electricity usage. The energy savings were
recorded monthly from November 2001 until October 2002.
Table 2. Monthly Energy, Max Peak Demand, and Total Savings from Photovoltaic
System.
Month Energy Max Peak Savings Total
Savings Demand Savings
Savings
Nov-01 71.49 1.77 5.09 7 8.35
Dec-01 61.43 37.39 9.57 108.38
Jan-02 54.47 50.1 8.52 113.09
Feb-02 94.84 56.71 8.47 160.01
Mar-02 104.19 75.28 6.56 186.03
Apr-02 132.77 63.33 3.17 199.27
May-02 166.18 79.92 1.66 247.75
Jun-02 164.24 38.4 0.6 279.19
Jul-02 154.17 81.12 0.87 433.12
Aug-02 148.62 56.71 0.81 343.81
Sep-02 140.58 56.97 0.16 336.02
Oct-02 67.35 31.09 4.35 192.92
Total 1,360.32 628.76 49.83 2,677.94
BARANGAN, CHARL ADRIAN L.
CAMAYO, ANTHONY CARL C.
PATTUNG, JOHN ROY G.
ENGINEERING DATA ANALYSIS
a. Make a bar chart that shows the savings in the three categories over
time.
Monthly Energy, Max Peak Demand, and Total Savings from
Photovoltaic System
180
160
140
120
100
SAVINGS
80
60
40
20
0
-0
1
-0
1 02 02 02 02 02 02 l-02 02 02 02
ov ec an- eb- ar- p r-
ay-
u n- J u u g- ep- c t-
N D J F M A M J A S O
Month
Energy Savings Max Peak Demand Savings
Savings
Figure 4. Bar Chart of Monthly Energy, Max Peak Demand, and
Total Savings from Photovoltaic System.
b. Describe the patterns observed in the chart.
c. Compute the mean and standard deviation of the total savings over the
one-year period.
Computing for Mean:
Mean=
∑ of the values
number of values
2,677.94
Mean= =223.162
12
Computing for Standard Deviation:
σ=
√ ∑ (X i −μ)2
n−1
σ=
√ 128,232.62
12−1
=107.97
BARANGAN, CHARL ADRIAN L.
CAMAYO, ANTHONY CARL C.
PATTUNG, JOHN ROY G.
ENGINEERING DATA ANALYSIS
d. Construct a boxplot for the total savings. Identify outliers if any.
Figure 5. Boxplot of Total Monthly Savings.
3. The article “Hydrogeochemical Characteristics of Groundwater in a Mid-Western
Coastal Aquifer System” (S. Jeen, J. Kim, et al., Geosciences Journal, 2001:339–
348) presents measurements of various properties of shallow groundwater in a
certain aquifer system in Korea. Following are measurements of electrical
conductivity (in micro siemens per centimeter) for 23 water samples.
Table 3. Electrical Conductivity Measurements.
200 215 257 260 375 384 424
461 486 488 500 513 522 528
557 789 810 1018 1265 1350 1499
2030 2099
BARANGAN, CHARL ADRIAN L.
CAMAYO, ANTHONY CARL C.
PATTUNG, JOHN ROY G.
ENGINEERING DATA ANALYSIS
a. Construct a dot plot. What can you observe?
Figure 6. Dot plot of Electrical Conductivity Measurements.
b. Find the 10% trimmed mean.
Table 4. 10% Trimmed Electrical Conductivity Measurements
257 260 375 384 424 461 486
488 500 513 522 528 557 789
810 1018 1265 1350 1499
number of samples ¿ be trimmed =number of samples × trim percentage
number of samples ¿ be trimmed =23× 0.10=2.3∨2
Trimmed Mean=
∑ of the remaining values
number of values
12,486
Trimmed mean= =657.16
19
c. Find the third quartile.
rank of the data=quartile percentage× ( number of samples +1 )
rank of the data=75 % × 100 ( 23+1 )=18th
Table 5. Data Set for Calculating the Third Quartile (Q3).
200 215 257 260 375 384 424
461 486 488 500 513 522 528
557 789 810 1018 1265 1350 1499
2030 2099
Therefore, the third quartile is 1,018.
BARANGAN, CHARL ADRIAN L.
CAMAYO, ANTHONY CARL C.
PATTUNG, JOHN ROY G.
ENGINEERING DATA ANALYSIS
d. Construct a boxplot. Are there any outliers?
Figure 7. Boxplot of Electrical Conductivity Measurements.
e.
Construct a histogram. Would it be skewed to the left, skewed to the right,
or approximately symmetric?
Figure 8. Histogram of Electrical Conductivity Measurements.
BARANGAN, CHARL ADRIAN L.
CAMAYO, ANTHONY CARL C.
PATTUNG, JOHN ROY G.
ENGINEERING DATA ANALYSIS
4. On April 20, 2010, the United States experienced a major environmental disaster
when a Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. The
number of personnel and equipment used in the Gulf oil spill cleanup, beginning
May 2, 2010 (Day 13) through June 9, 2010 (Day 51) is given in the following
table.
Table 6. Personnel and Equipment Used in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Cleanup
(Day 13 to Day 51).
Day 13 Day 26 Day 39 Day 51
Number of personnel (1000s) 3 17.5 20 24
Federal Gulf fishing areas 3% 8% 25% 32%
closed
Booms laid (miles) 46 315 644 909
Dispersants used (1000 156 500 870 1143
gallons)
Vessels deployed (100s) 1 6 14 35
a. What graphical methods could you use to display these data?
b. Before you draw your graphs, what trends do you see in each of the
variables displayed?
c. Use a line chart to display the number of personnel deployed over this
51-day period.
Number of Personnel Deployed Over Time
30
25
Personnel (Thousands)
20
15
10
0
Day 13 Day 26 Day 39 Day 51
Days Since Explosion
Figure 9. Line Chart of Number of Personnel Deployed Over Time.
BARANGAN, CHARL ADRIAN L.
CAMAYO, ANTHONY CARL C.
PATTUNG, JOHN ROY G.
ENGINEERING DATA ANALYSIS
d. Use a bar graph to display the percentage of federal Gulf fishing areas
closed.
Percentage of Federal Gulf Fishing Areas Closed
35%
30%
Percentage of Area Closed
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Day 13 Day 26 Day 39 Day 51
Days Since Explosion
Figure 10. Bar Chart of Percentage of Federal Gulf Fishing Areas
Closed.
e. Use a line chart to display the amounts of dispersants used.
Is there any underlying straight-line relationship over time?
Amount of Dispersants Used Over Time (1000 gallons)
Dispersants Used (1000 Gallons)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Day 13 Day 26 Day 39 Day 51
Days Since Explosion
Figure 11. Line Chart of Amount of Dispersants Used Over Time.
