Topic 6.

Two-way designs: Randomized Complete Block Design

[ST&D Chapter 9 sections 9.1 to 9.7 (except 9.6) and section 15.8]

The completely randomized design

Treatments are randomly assigned to e.u. such that each treatment
occurs equally often in the experiment. 1 randomization
It is assumed that the experimental units are uniform.
It is always advocated to include as much of the native variability of the
experiment as possible within each experimental unit
Since experimental units are more variable, experimental error (MSE) is
large, F (MST/MSE) is small, and the experiment is not very sensitive.
6. 2. Randomized complete block design (RCBD)
The population of experimental units is divided into a number of
relatively homogeneous subpopulations or blocks.
Treatments are randomly assigned to experimental units such that
each treatment occurs equally often in each block. 1 randomization
per block
The variation among blocks can be partitioned out, usually reducing
the experimental error (MSE).
Blocks usually represent levels of naturally-occurring differences or sources
of variation unrelated to the treatments. The characterization of these
differences is not of interest to the researcher
6. 2. 2. Example: Three cultivars with 4 replications. N level varies from
north to south. In a CRD error terms will tend to be negative at one end of
the field and positive at the other.
Block
1

10

11

12

1
2
N

3
4

1 (B)

2 (A)

3 (C)

4 (A)

5 (B)

6 (C)

7 (A)

8 (C)

9 (B)

10 (A)

11 (C)

12 (B)

The field can be divided into four blocks of three plots each, and the soil in
each of these blocks will be uniform.
RCBD: INDEPENDENT RANDOMIZATIONS IN EACH BLOCK!
1

6. 2. 3. Statistical model
The new model is

Yij = + i + j + ij.

The sum of squares equation becomes:

r

(Y
i =1 j =1

or,

ij

i =1

j =1

Y .. ) 2 = r (Y i . Y .. ) 2 + t (Y . j Y .. ) 2 + (Yij Y i . Y . j + Y .. ) 2

TSS

SST

i =1 j =1

SSB

SSE.

Variance of means of n observations is 2/n multiplication by r and t in

the SSB and SST result in all MS being estimates of the same 2 when there
are no block or treatment effects.
Partitioning of variance: is possible because the sums of squares of blocks
and treatments are orthogonal (each block has all treatments).
6. 2. 4. ANOVA
ANOVA table for the RCBD with 1 replication per block-treatment combination
Source
Blocks
Treatments
Error
Total

Df
r1
t1
(t-1)(r-1)
rt 1

SS
SSB
SST
SS-SST-SSB
SS

MS
SSB/(r-1)
SST/(t-1)
SSE/(r-1)(t-1)

MS
SST/(t-1)
SSE/t(r-1)

F
MST/MSE

MST/MSE

If >1 rep. you

can add
Block*Trt.
to explore its
significance

ANOVA table for the CRD

Source
Treatments
Error
Total

Df
t1
t(r - 1)
rt 1

SS
SST
SS - SST
SS

The RCBD design has r - 1 fewer degrees of freedom than the CRD.

If blocks were no different, the MSE for the CRD would be smaller than
the MSE for the RCBD and the CRD would be more powerful.

If there was a substantial difference between blocks, the MSE for the
RCBD would be smaller than the MSE for the CRD and the RCBD
would be more powerful.

Obviously one should only use the RCBD when it is appropriate, but how
can this be determined? The concept of efficiency, discussed in section 6.
3., answers this.
2

Example: An experiment was

conducted to investigate the
effect of estrogen on weight
gain in sheep. The treatments
are combinations of sex of
sheep (M, F) and level of
estrogen (Est0, Est3). The
sheep are blocked by ranch,
with one replication of each
treatment level at each ranch.

Ranch
Trtmt

M Est0
M Est3
F Est0
F Est3

RCBD. Effect of estrogen on weight gains. Blocks are 4 different ranches.

Treatment I
F-S0
M-S0
F-S3
M-S3
Block Mean

II
47
50
57
54
52

Block
III
52
54
53
65
56

IV
62
67
69
74
68

51
57
57
59
56

Treatment
Total
Mean
212
53
228
57
236
59
252
63
58

Table 6.2 RCBD ANOVA

Source of Variation
Totals
Blocks
Treatments
Error

df
15
3
3
9

SS
854
576
208
70

df
15
3
12

SS
854
208
646

MS
192.00
69.33
7.78

F
24.69**
8.91**

Table 6.3 CRD ANOVA

Source of Variation
Totals
Treatments
Error

MS
69.33
53.83

F
1.29 NS

Differences among blocks do not result from treatments but from other
differences associated with the blocks.

This component of the total sum of squares can be removed and the
experimental error reduced accordingly.

Compare the SSerror in Tables 6.2 and 6.3

3

6. 3. Relative efficiency: When to block?

F=

MST
MSE

MSE =

[ST&D p. 221, Topic 1, 1.4.4.6]

SSE
df e

Fcrit = F , df trt , df e

Blocking reduces SSE, which reduces MSE.

Blocking reduces dfe, which increases MSE and increases Fcrit.
The concept of relative efficiency formalizes the comparison between two
experimental methods by quantifying this balance between loss of degrees
of freedom and reduction in experimental error.

The information per replication in a given design is:

I=

df
+1 1

MSE
+
3
df
MSE
MSE

(when MSE df<20 a correction factor is used)

df MSE1 + 1 1

I1 df MSE1 + 3 MSE1 (df MSE1 + 1)(df MSE 2 + 3) MSE2

RE1:2 =
=
I 2 df MSE 2 + 1 1
(df MSE 2 + 1)(df MSE1 + 3) MSE1

df MSE 2 + 3 MSE2

If RE is >1, design 1
provides more information
and is more efficient.

The main complication is how to estimate MSE for the alternative design.
If an experiment was conducted as an RCBD, MSECRD can be estimated by
the following formula (ST&D 222):

MSECRD

df B MSBRCBD + (dfT + df e ) MSERCBD

df B + dfT + df e

weighted average
MSB and MSE

To obtain this formula the TSS of the 2 designs are assumed equal, and then the
MS are replaced by the variance components of the expected MS (next page)

Example: Sheep experiment: MSERCBD= 7.78, and MSBRCBD= 192.0, so

MSECRD

3 * 192.0 + (3 + 9)7.78
= 44.62
3+3+9

RERCBD to CRD =

( f rcbd + 1)( f crd + 3) MSEcrd

(9 + 1)(12 + 3)44.62
= 5.51
=
( f crd + 1)( f RCBD + 3) MSERCBD
(12 + 1)(9 + 3)7.78

5.51 replications of the CRD produce the same amount of information as one replication of the RCBD.

Derivation of the expected MSECRD

To estimate MSECRD from the MS of

an RCBD:

Assume that the total SS of the

two designs is the same.

Rewrite the total SS as the

addition of its different
components

Rewrite each total SS as the product between df*MS

Replace each MS by the variance components of the EXPECTED MS

Rewrite this formula in terms of the MS. Since

o 2(RB)= MSE(RB) and 2B= (MSB - MSE(RB))/a we obtain

ft+fe

fb

fb+ft+fe

Power comparison between CRD and RCBD designs

1. Not significant differences among blocks.
distribution of the difference between
two means (RCBD and CRD).

MSERCBD=MSECRD

df MSE: CRD > RCBD

Critical F: RCBD > CRD
Rejection
threshold
CRD

/2

Rejection
threshold
RCBD

When there are no significant

differences among blocks

Power
1

power CRD > power RCBD

>0

2 Significant differences among blocks.

distribution of the difference
between two means (RCBD).

MSERCBD<MSECRD

distribution of the difference

between two means (CRD)
/2

When the reduction in

MSERCBD offsets the lost
degrees of freedom

Power
1

power RCBD > power CRD

>0

6.4. Assumptions of the model

Model for the RCBD with a single replication per block-treatment combination:

Y ij = + i + j + ij
1. The residuals ( ij ) are independent, homogeneous, and normally distributed.
2. The variance within each treatment levels is homogeneous across all
treatment levels.
3. The main effects are additive.
Recall that experimental error is defined as the variation among experimental units that
are treated alike.
Ranch
Trtmt
1
2
3
4
M Est0
M Est3
F Est0
F Est3
There is an expected value for each sheep, given by:

Expected Y ij = + i + j
Observed Y ij = + i + j + ij
With only one replication per cell, the interaction i * j cannot be included in
the model (there will be 0 df for error). Therefore, the residuals are the
combined effects of experimental error and treatment*block interactions:
ij = i * j + error ij
So when we use ij as estimate of the true experimental error, we are
assuming that i * j = 0.
This assumption of no interaction is referred to as the assumption of
additivity of the main effects. If this assumption is violated, all F-tests will
be inefficient and possibly misleading, particularly if the interaction effect is
very large.

Example: Consider the hypothetical effects of two factors (A, B) on some

response variable (assume =0):
Purely additive
Factor B
1 = 1
2 = 5

1 = 1
2
6

Factor A
2 = 2
3
7

3 = 3
4
8

Factor A
2 = 2
2
8
10

3 = 3
3
12
15

Purely multiplicative
Factor B
1 = 1
2 = 5

1 = 1
1
4
5

If multiplicative data are analyzed by a ANOVA, the interaction SS will be

large due to the non-additivity of the treatment effects.
In the case of multiplicative effects, there is a simple remedy. Simply
transform the variable using logs to restore additivity:

Restoring additivity (log of multiplicative data)

Factor B
1 = 0.00
2 = 0.70

1 = 0.00
0.00
0.7
0.70

Factor A
2 = 0.30
0.30
0.7
1.00

3 = 0.48
0.48
0.7
1.18

By transforming the variable into logs the additivity of the data is

restored.

This is a good illustration of how transformations of scale can be used

to meet the assumptions of analysis of variance.

6. 4. 1. Tukeys test for non-additivity [ST&D 395]

Under our linear model, each observation is characterized as:

y ij = + i + j + ij
Observed vs. Predicted Values (RCBD, no error)

So, if we had no error in our experiment (i.e. if

ij = 0 ), the observed data would exactly match
its predicted values and a correlation plot of the
two would yield a perfect line with slope = 1:

20

18

Observed

The predicted value of each individual is given

by:
pred ij = + i + j

16

14

12

10
10

12

14

16
Predicted

18

20

Observed vs. Predicted (RCBD, with error)

20

Now let's introduce some error: still linear!

Observed..

18

16

14

12

10
10

12

14

16

18

20

Predicted

ij = RANDOMij + B*T Interaction Effects

Observed vs. Predicted (RCBD, with error and B*T)

20

18

Observed..

But what happens when you have an interaction

(e.g. Block * Treatment) but lack the degrees of
freedom necessary to include it in the linear
model?

16

14

12

10
10

12

14

16

18

Predicted

SO, if the observed and predicted values obey a linear relationship, then the
non-random Interaction Effects buried in the error term are sufficiently small
to uphold our assumption of additivity of main effects.

20

This test is easily implemented using SAS:

Data Lambs;
Input Sex_Est $ @@;
Do Ranch = 1 to 4;
Input Gain @@;
Output;
End;
Cards;
F0
M0
F3
M3

47
50
57
54

52
54
53
65

62
67
69
74

51
57
57
59

;
Proc GLM;
Class Sex_Est Ranch;
Model Gain = Ranch Sex_Est;
Output out = LambsPR p = Pred r = Res;
Proc GLM;
* This is the Tukey 1 df test;
Class Sex_Est Ranch;
Model Gain = Ranch Sex_Est Pred*Pred;
Run;Quit;

1.- The second Proc GLM adds an additional variable that is the square of the
predicted values: Pred*Pred, which is used in the non-additivity test.
2.- If this quadratic component is significant the relationship is not linear!

3.- Pred*Pred is not in the Class statement, and is last term in the
Model.
Output from the 2nd Proc GLM (the Tukey 1 df test):
Source
Ranch
Sex_Est
Pred*Pred

DF
3
3
1

Type III SS
0.73506585
0.29808726
3.41880342

Mean Square
0.24502195
0.09936242
3.41880342

F Value
0.03
0.01
0.41

Pr > F
0.9927
0.9981
0.5395 NS

Since P= 0.5395, NS, we do not reject the null hypothesis of additive effects

This test is necessary ONLY when there is one observation per

block-treatment combination.
If there are two or more replications per block-treatment
combination, the block*treatment interaction can be tested
directly in an exploratory model:
Model Gain = Ranch Sex_Est Ranch*Sex_Est;
10

Example Table 6.5. Yield of penicillin in four treatments A, B, C, D.

Blocks are different stocks of a raw material. The numbers below each
observation (O) are the predicted (P: Grand Mean + Treatment effect +
Block effect) and residual (R) values.
Treatment

Block

Block

Block

Mean

Effect

Stock 1

O: 89
P: 90
R: -1

O: 88
P: 91
R: -3

O: 97
P: 95
R: 2

O: 94
P: 92
R: 2

92

+6

Stock 2

O: 84
P: 81
R: 3

O: 77
P: 82
R: -5

O: 92
P: 86
R: 6

O: 79
P: 83
R: -4

83

-3

Stock 3

O: 81
P: 83
R: -2

O: 87
P: 84
R: 3

O: 87
P: 88
R: -1

O: 85
P: 85
R: 0

85

-1

Stock 4

O: 87
P: 86
R: 1

O: 92
P: 87
R: 5

O: 89
P: 91
R: -2

O: 84
P: 88
R: -4

88

Stock 5

O: 79
P: 80
R: -1
84
-2

O: 81
P: 81
R: 0
85
-1

O: 80
P: 85
R: -5
89
3

O: 88
P: 82
R: 6
86
0

82

-4

Treat.
Treat.

Mean=86

In this example no particular pattern is observed in the residuals. This

observation parallels the normal distribution of the residuals, the
homogeneous variances of the residuals among treatments and a nonsignificant Tukeys test for non-additivity.

11

The SAS code for such an analysis:

Data Penicillin;
Do Block = 1 to 4;
Do Trtmt = 1 to 4;
Input Yield @@;
Output;
End;
End;
Cards;
89
88
97
94
84
77
92
79
81
87
87
85
87
92
89
84
79
81
80
88

Proc GLM Data = Penicillin;

Class Block Trtmt;
Model Yield = Block Trtmt;
Output out = PenPR p = Pred r = Res;
Proc Univariate Data = PenPR normal; * Testing for normality of residuals;
Var Res;
Proc GLM Data = Penicillin;* Testing for variance homogeneity (1 way ANOVA);
Class Trtmt;
Model Yield = Trtmt;
Means Trtmt / hovtest = Levene;
Proc Plot Data = PenPR;* Generating a plot of predicted vs. residual values;
Plot Res*Pred = Trtmt;
Proc GLM Data = PenPR;
* Testing for nonadditivity;
Class Block Trtmt;
Model Yield = Block Trtmt Pred*Pred;
Run;Quit;

This dataset meets all assumptions: normality, 2 homogeneity, and additivity:

Normality
Test
Shapiro-Wilk

--Statistic--W
0.967406

-----p Value-----Pr < W

0.6994 NS

Levene's Test for Homogeneity of Yield Variance

ANOVA of Squared Deviations from Group Means
Sum of
Mean
Source
DF
Squares
Square
F Value
Trtmt
3
922.2
307.4
0.39
Error
16
12618.8
788.7

Pr > F
0.7620 NS

Tukey's 1 df test for nonadditivity

Source

DF

Block
Trtmt
Pred*Pred

3
3
1

Type III SS
28.29215818
28.26814524
26.46875000

Mean Square
9.43071939
9.42271508
26.46875000

F Value

Pr > F

0.28
0.28
0.79

0.8365
0.8367
0.3901 NS

12

Discrepancies between the tentative model and the data can be detected by
studying residuals.
These residuals are the quantities remaining after the systematic
contributions associated with the assumed model are removed.
Sometimes the plot of the residuals versus the predicted values shows a
curvilinear relationship. This appearance suggests non-additivity between
the block and the treatment effects

Other times the plot of the residuals versus the predicted shows a funnel-like
appearance. This indicates that the variance increases as the value of the
response increases (a situation that is common when the variance is a
constant percentage of the mean).

Another useful plot to consider is the scatterplot of residuals vs. the

sequence in which the data was collected. Such a plot can reveal patterns of
systematic variation during the data collection (e.g. increasing variation with
time as the operators get tired).

13

EXAMPLE LAMBS NESTED

16 animals, 4 ranches. Randomly assign animals to the four treatments in each
ranch and make 2 measurements per animal
Animal = pot in our CRD nested example and the two measurements are like the two
plants measured in each pot.
The Animal is nested within the block*TRT combination
data lambs;
input sex_est
cards;
f0 1 1 46 f0
m0 1 2 49 m0
f3 1 3 56 f3
m3 1 4 53 m3
f0
m0
f3
m3

1
1
1
1

1
2
3
4

48
51
58
55

f0
m0
f3
m3

$ block animal gain @@;

2
2
2
2

1
2
3
4

51
53
52
64

f0
m0
f3
m3

3
3
3
3

1
2
3
4

61
66
68
73

f0
m0
f3
m3

4
4
4
4

1
2
3
4

50
56
56
58

2
2
2
2

1
2
3
4

53
55
54
66

f0
m0
f3
m3

3
3
3
3

1
2
3
4

62
68
70
75

f0
m0
f3
m3

4
4
4
4

1
2
3
4

52
58
58
60

f0

m0

f3

m3

Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
Block 4
2 measurements

proc glm data=lambs order=data;

*Without order=data, SAS reads alphabetically f0 f3 m0 m3;
*With order=data, SAS reads f0 m0 f3 m3: Contrast are different!;

class block sex_est animal;

model gain= block sex_est animal(block*sex_est);
random animal(block*sex_est);
test h=sex_est e=animal(block*sex_est);
contrast 'sex'
sex_est 1 -1 1 -1 / e=animal(block*sex_est);
contrast 'estrogen'
sex_est 1 1 -1 -1 / e=animal(block*sex_est);
contrast 'interaction' sex_est 1 -1 -1 1 / e=animal(block*sex_est);
means sex_est/tukey e=animal(block*sex_est);
*Above is Tukey test wih correct error for comparison;
*Below is Tukey test wih incorrect error for comparison;
means sex_est/tukey;
proc varcomp Method= Type1;
class block sex_est animal;
model gain= block sex_est animal(block*sex_est);
run;
quit;

Remember to average subsamples and test Levene &

Tukey non-additivity test
14

Output LAMB NESTED

ANOVA Dependent Variable: gain
Source
DF
SS
Model
15
1700.5
Error
16
30.5
Corrected Total
31
1731.0
Source
block
sex_est

DF

3
3
animal(block*sex_est) 9

MS
113.4
1.9

SS
1132.1
426.1
142.3

F Value
59.47

MS
377.4
142.0
14.8

Pr > F
<.0001

F Value
198.0
74.5
8.3

Pr > F
<.0001
<.0001
0.0002

Tests of Hypotheses Using MS for animal(block*sex_est) as Error Term

Source
sex_est

DF
3

SS
426.1

MS
142.0

F Value
8.98

Pr > F
0.0045

Contrast
sex
estrogen
interaction

DF
1
1
1

SS
132.0
294.0
0.03

MS
132.0
294.0
0.03

F Value
8.35
18.60
0.00

Pr > F
0.0179
0.0020
0.9655

Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for gain

Correct
Critical Value
4.4
Minimum Significant Diff.
6.2
Correct Grouping
A
B
A
B
A
B

Incorrect Grouping
A
B
C
D

Variance Components
Source
block
sex_est
animal(block*sex_est)
Error

Incorrect
4.0
2.0

Mean
63.000
59.000
57.000
52.875

N sex_est
8
m3
8
f3
8
m0
8
f0

Expected Mean Square

Var(Error) + 2 Var(animal(block*sex_est))+ 8 var (block)

Var(Error) + 2 Var(animal(block*sex_est))+ 8 var (sex_est)
Var(Error) + 2 Var(animal(block*sex_est)
Var(Error)

Variance Component
Estimate
Var(block)
45.3
Var(sex_est)
15.8
Var animal(block*sex_est)
7.0
Var(Error)
1.9

%
64.7
22.6
10.0
2.7

The calculation of the variance comp. is the objective of the nested design
This % contribution can be used to optimize the allocation of resources.
15

EXAMPLE LAMBS RCBD with 2 reps per cell

32 animals distributed in 4 blocks. We randomly assign 8 animals to the four
treatments in each block. When we have more than one rep per block/treatment
combination we include the interaction Block*Treatment in an exploratory model. If the
interaction is significant, transform the data and then exclude from the model.
Do not perform a Tukey's test for non-additivity.
data lambs;
input sex_est $ block gain @@;
cards;
f0
m0
f3
m3

1
1
1
1

46
49
56
53

f0
m0
f3
m3

2
2
2
2

51
53
52
64

f0
m0
f3
m3

3
3
3
3

61
66
68
73

f0
m0
f3
m3

4
4
4
4

50
56
56
58

f0
m0
f3
m3

1
1
1
1

48
51
58
55

f0
m0
f3
m3

2
2
2
2

53
55
54
66

f0
m0
f3
m3

3
3
3
3

62
68
70
75

f0
m0
f3
m3

4
4
4
4

52
58
58
60

proc glm data=lambs order=data;

f0

m0

f3

Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
Block 4
2

*Without order=data, SAS reads alphabetically f0 f3 m0 m3;

class block sex_est;

model gain= block sex_est block*sex_est; * Exploratory model
output out=check p= pred r= resi;
proc glm data=lambs order=data;
class block sex_est;
model gain= block sex_est; *final model
output out=check p= pred r= resi;
contrast 'sex'
sex_est 1 -1 1 -1;
contrast 'estrogen'
sex_est 1 1 -1 -1;
contrast 'interaction' sex_est 1 -1 -1 1;
*The Contrasts in this proc glm will use the error term of the complete model;

means sex_est/tukey;
*Example of mean comparisons in an RCBD;

proc univariate data=check normal;

var resi;
*In this artificial data the residuals are not Normal, is just presented as an example of the programming;

proc glm data=lambs;

*Homogeneity of 2 with LEVENE should be tested in one-way ANOVA;
class sex_est;
model gain= sex_est;
means sex_est/ HOVTEST = LEVENE;
run; quit;

16

Output LAMB Reps

ANOVA Dependent Variable: gain
Source
DF
SS
Model
15
1700.5
Error
16
30.5
Corrected Total 31
1731.0
Source
block
sex_est
block*sex_est

DF
3
3
9

Contrast
sex
estrogen
interaction

DF
1
1
1

SS
1132.1
426.1
142.3

SS
132.0
294.0
0.0

MS
113.4
1.9

F Value
59.47

MS
377.4
142.0
15.8

MS
132.0
294.0
0.0

F Value
198.0
74.5
8.3

Pr > F
<.0001

F Value
69.26
154.25
0.02

Pr > F
<.0001
<.0001
0.0002

Pr > F
<.0001
<.0001
0.8997

Interaction is not significant so exclude from the model and repeat ANOVA

Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for gain

Minimum Significant Diff.
1.97
Grouping
Mean
N sex_est
A
63.000
8
m3
B
59.000
8
f3
C
57.000
8
m0
D
52.875
8
f0

Tests for Normality

Test
--Statistic-------p Value-----Shapiro-Wilk
W
0.667284
Pr < W
<0.0001
Not Normal residues. A transformation is required.
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of Variance
ANOVA of Squared Deviations from Group Means
Sum of
Mean
Source
DF
Squares
Square
sex_est
3
3181.5
1060.5
Error
28
54660.5
1952.2
Homogeneity of variance not rejected

F Value
0.54

Pr > F
0.6567

17

RCBD 1 rep/cell
T1

RCBD 1 rep/cell with subsamples

T2

T1

B1

B1

B2

B2

T2

Class Block Trtmt;

Model Y = Block Trtmt;

Class Block Trtmt Pot;

Model Y = Block Trtmt
Pot(Block*Trtmt);
Random Pot(Block*Trtmt);
Test h = Trtmt e = Pot(Block*Trtmt);

Tukey Test Required

Tukey Test Required

RCBD >1 rep/cell

T1

RCBD >1 rep/cell with subsamples

T2

T1

B1

B1

B2

B2

T2

Exploratory model:

Exploratory model:

Class Block Trtmt;

Model Y = Block Trtmt Block*Trtmt;

Class Bl Trt Pot;

Model Y = Bl Trt Bl*Trt Pot(Bl*Trt);
Random Pot(Bl*Trt);
Test h = Bl*Trt e = Pot(Bl*Trt);

Tukey Test not Required

Tukey Test not Required

ANOVA:
Class Block Trtmt;
Model Y = Block Trtmt;

ANOVA:
Class Bl Trt Pot;
Model Y = Bl Trt Pot(Bl*Trt);
Random Pot(Bl*Trt);
Test h = Trt e = Pot(Bl*Trt);

18