1. TM 1 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Each Appraiser vs Standard Assessment Agreement Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent (%) 95.0% CI 1 20 8 40.0 ( 19.1, 63.9) 2 20 11 55.0 ( 31.5, 76.9) 3 20 12 60.0 ( 36.1, 80.9) # Matched: Appraiser's assessment across trials agrees with standard. Attribute Data Analysis-MSA 1 Results Within Appraiser Assessment Agreement Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent (%) 95.0% CI 1 20 11 55.0 ( 31.5, 76.9) 2 20 16 80.0 ( 56.3, 94.3) 3 20 18 90.0 ( 68.3, 98.8) # Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials. Between Appraisers Assessment Agreement # Inspected # Matched Percent (%) 95.0% CI 20 2 10.0 ( 1.2, 31.7) # Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with each other. All Appraisers vs Standard Assessment Agreement # Inspected # Matched Percent (%) 95.0% CI 20 2 10.0 ( 1.2, 31.7) # Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with standard Note: 38% were called bad that were good. 22% were called good that were bad. This potentially could yield an improvement in the Defect rate by 16% Fig. 15-9

2. TM 2 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Attribute Data Analysis-MSA 2 Results Within Appraiser Assessment Agreement Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent (%) 95.0% CI 1 20 16 80.0 ( 56.3, 94.3) 2 20 19 95.0 ( 75.1, 99.9) 3 20 20 100.0 ( 86.1, 100.0) # Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials. Each Appraiser vs Standard Assessment Agreement Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent (%) 95.0% CI 1 20 15 75.0 ( 50.9, 91.3) 2 20 19 95.0 ( 75.1, 99.9) 3 20 18 90.0 ( 68.3, 98.8) # Matched: Appraiser's assessment across trials agrees with standard. Between Appraisers Assessment Agreement # Inspected # Matched Percent (%) 95.0% CI 20 13 65.0 ( 40.8, 84.6) # Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with each other. All Appraisers vs Standard Assessment Agreement # Inspected # Matched Percent (%) 95.0% CI 20 13 65.0 ( 40.8, 84.6) # Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with standard. Conclusion: MSA is greatly improved over first. Continue Q.C. training of inspectors to bring up agreement between all appraisers and standard. Fig. 15-10

3. TM 3 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 15-12

4. TM 4 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 15-13

5. TM 5 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 16-1a

6. TM 6 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 16-1b

7. TM 7 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 16-2

8. TM 8 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-4

9. TM 9 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-6a

10. TM 10 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-6b

11. TM 11 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-6c

12. TM 12 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-6d

13. TM 13 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-6e

14. TM 14 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-8

15. TM 15 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-10

16. TM 16 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-14a

17. TM 17 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-14b

18. TM 18 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 17-14c

19. TM 19 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 18-3

20. TM 20 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 18-11

21. TM 21 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 18-12

22. TM 22 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 18-13

23. TM 23 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Blisters D.O.E.: 2 4 Factorial, Half Fractional, 8 Runs Develop method to Apply Forced Air through Flash Tunnel Fig. 18-16

24. TM 24 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Blisters D.O.E.: Interactions Plots Fig. 18-17

25. TM 25 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Blisters D.O.E.: Main Effects Plots Fig. 18-18

26. TM 26 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Blisters D.O.E.: Cube Plot Fig. 18-19

27. TM 27 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Blisters D.O.E.: Session Window Results *We want to include primer gram weight because we feel it has a significant enough effect to warrant control. * Significant Factors Ho: Factors tested have no effect on the occurrence of blisters. P is <.10, Reject Ho. Conclusion: Fig. 18-20

28. TM 28 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Blisters D.O.E.: Model Equation in Uncoded Units % Blisters = -3.408 - 5.367(PF Wind) +.167(PR Gram) +.028(Turn Temp) +.389(PF Wind*TC Gram) Lets look at fits and Residuals: FITS1RESI1 1.975-0.075 1.125-0.025 2.5250.075 0.5750.025 1.875-0.275 1.325-0.225 1.3250.275 1.8750.225 Ho: The data is Normal Ha: The data is not normal P>.05, Fail to Reject, Data is normal Fig. 18-21

29. TM 29 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Blisters D.O.E.: Everything looks Good! Fig. 18-22

30. TM 30 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 18-23

31. TM 31 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 19-1

32. TM 32 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 19-3

33. TM 33 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 19-6

34. TM 34 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 19-10

35. TM 35 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 20-3

36. TM 36 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 20-6

37. TM 37 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 20-7

38. TM 38 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 20-14

39. TM 39 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 20-18

40. TM 40 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 20-19

41. TM 41 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 20.21

42. TM 42 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Fig. 20-22