Comparison of the central composite design with augmented alternative designs for response surface exploration

The cardinal objective of response surface methodology is reliability and quality improvement through well designed experiments. The choice of response surface design that satisfies this objective has been the subject of many studies on response surface explorations. The standard central composite design (CCD) remains popular choice among practitioners but offers high number of experimental runs with increase in number of factors. In this study, we propose augmented Minimum-run resolution V CCDs (MinResV CCD) as useful alternatives to the standard CCD in response surface exploration. The standard CCD and the augmented MinResV CCD are evaluated and compared with some alphabetic and graphical criteria in spherical and cuboidal design regions. Some augmented versions of the MinResV CCDs displayed better potentials for quality improvement and with smaller design runs in most cases than the standard CCD.  

1. Atkinson, A. C. and Donev, A. N. (1992). Optimum Experimental Designs. Oxford University Press, New York. Anderson-Cook, C. M., Borror, C. M. and Montgomery, D. C. (2009). Response Surface Design Evaluation and Comparison. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, Vol. 139, 629 – 641. Borkowski, J. J and Valeroso, E. S. (2001). Comparison of Design Optimality Criteria of Reduced Models for Response Surface Designs in the Hypercube. Technometrics, 43 (4), pp. 468 – 477. Box, G. E. P. and Wilson, K. B. (1951). On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Vol. 13, pp. 1 – 45. Draper, N. R. (1982). Center Points in Second-Order Response Surface Designs. Technometrics, Vol. 24 (2), pp. 127 – 133. 

2. Hader, R. J. and Park, S. H. (1978). Slope-Rotatable Central Composite Designs. Technometrics, Vol. 20 (4), 413 – 417. 

3. Hartley, H. O. (1959). Small Composite Designs for Quadratic Response Surfaces. Biometrics, Vol. 15 (4), 611 – 624. 

   Li, J., Liang, L., Borror, C. M., Anderson-Cook, C. M. and Montgomery, D. C. (2009). Graphical Summaries to Compare Prediction Variance Performance for Variations of the Central Composite Design for 6 to 10 Factors. Quality Technology and Quantitative Management, Vol. 6 (4), 433 – 449. Li, W. and Wu, C. J. (1997). Columnwise-Pairwise Algorithms with Applications to the Construction of Supersaturated Designs. Technometrics, Vol. 39, 171-179. Montgomery, D. C. (2013). Design and Analysis of Experiments, 8th Ed., John Wiley and Sons Inc. N.Y. 

4. Oehlert, G. W. and Whitcomb, P. J. (2002). Small, Efficient, Equireplicated Resolution V Fractions of 2k Designs and Their Application to the Central Composite Designs. Technical Report, 46th Annual Fall Technical Conference of the ASQ and ASA. 

5. Ozol-Godfrey, A., Anderson-Cook, C. M. and Montgomery, D. C. (2005). Fraction of Design Space Plots for Examining Model Robustness. Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 37, 223 – 235. Ukaegbu, E. C. and Chigbu, P. E. (2015). Graphical evaluation of the prediction capabilities of partially replicated orthogonal central composite design. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 31, 707 – 717. 

6. Zahran, A., Anderson-Cook, C. M.  and Myers, R. H.(2003). Fraction of Design Space to Assess the Prediction Capability of Response Surface Designs. Journal of Quality Technology, 35, pp. 377 – 386