Response Surface Design Comparisons

Abstract

Response surface designs are often compared by optimal design theory criteria, such as the D- and G-efficiencies. For designs over spherical regions such criteria are calculated after scaling the designs to have the same diameter. But in practice designs are applied by scaling the coded factor ranges (not the diameter) to the ranges of the experimental factors. The result of this discrepancy between theory and practice is that the mathematical efficiencies may apply to regions of varying sizes. Further, there are practical objectives, such as minimizing the number of runs or testing for lack of fit, that are ignored by optimal design theory. Two examples were given to show the limitations of optimal design theory comparisons. For many symmetric second- order designs, a table giving the following items was provided: number of noncentral design points, number of levels, number of orthogonal blocks, diameter/range ratio, and G-efficiency. Box-Behnken design, Simplicial shell design, Uniform shell design, Central composite design.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Oct 01, 1993
Accession Number
ADA274690

Entities

People

  • Ronald B. Crosier

Organizations

  • Edgewood Chemical Biological Center

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Counter WMD
  • Materials and Manufacturing Processes
  • Weapons Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Chemical Weapons
  • Coefficients
  • Composite Materials
  • Design Criteria
  • Diameters
  • Dispersions
  • Efficiency
  • Engineering
  • Equations
  • Experimental Design
  • Factorial Design
  • Mathematics
  • New York
  • Orientation (Direction)
  • Polynomials
  • Standards
  • Technical Information Centers

Readers

  • Adaptive Control and Estimation with Uncertainty in Dynamic Systems.
  • Regression Analysis.
  • Structural Dynamics.