Comparison of the Three Types of Central Composite Designs Over Subsets of Reduced Models by Design Optimality Criteria
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48048/tis.2024.8193Keywords:
CCD, Design optimality criterion, Reduced models, RSM, Weak heredityAbstract
The purpose of this article is to compare the 3 important types of central composite designs (CCDs) consisting of central composite circumscribed design (CCCD), central composite inscribed design (CCID), and central composite face-centroid design (CCFD) in response surface methodology (RSM). The difference among these designs is the distance from the center design to the axial points. The comparison was performed across the full second-order response surface model and across a set of reduced models for 3, 4, and 5 design factors ( 3, 4, and 5) including 1, 3, and 5 center runs ( 1, 3, and 5). This study used D-, A-, and G- optimality criteria to evaluate the performance of CCDs by presenting the design optimality criteria comparison ranking throughout the reduced-model subsets of 43, 224, and 839 models for 3, 4, and 5 design variables, respectively. The results showed that CCCD was superior to CCID and CCFD according to A- and D- optimality criteria, while CCCD and CCID performed better than CCFD based on G- optimality criterion over a set of reduced models for 3, 4, and 5 design factors. It was observed that D-, A-, and G- optimality efficiencies were robust to changes in the linear and cross-product terms and sensitive to deviation in the square terms. The study will provide recommendations to assist the experimenters in the choice of the best design among the candidate designs for practice applications when some model effects may be insignificant.
HIGHLIGHTS
- Comparison of 3 classifications of CCD.
- Assessment by using D-, A-, and G- optimality criteria over the reduced-model subsets for the full second-order response surface model.
- Generated the reduced models by using weak heredity.
- CCCD was superior to CCID and CCFD according to A- and D- optimality criteria, while CCCD and CCID performed better than CCFD based on G- optimality criterion over a set of reduced models for 3, 4, and 5 design factors.
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
Downloads
References
GEP Box and KB Wilson. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. In: S Kotz and NL Johnson. (Eds.). Breakthroughs in Statistics. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York, 1992, p. 270-310.
DC Montgomery. Design and analysis of experiment. 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ontario, Cannada, 2008.
CM Anderson-Cook, CM Borror and DC Montgomery. Response surface design evaluation and comparison. J. Stat. Plann. Inference 2009; 139, 629-41.
RH Myers, DC Montgomery and CM Anderson-Cook. Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2016.
S Hosamane1, S Bandekar, C Patil and K Joshi. Optimization of removal of cadmium (II) using response surface methodology. Trends Sci. 2022; 19, 2997.
AC Atkinson, AN Donev and RD Tobias. Optimal experimental design with SAS. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
CU Onwuamaeze. Optimal prediction variance properties of some central composite designs in the hypercube. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 2019; 50, 1911-24.
A Verma, R Kumar, Vinayaka, K Gavhane and B Ahmed. Assessment of prediction capability of response surface designs using graphical methods. Pharma Innovation J. 2022; SP-11, 113-20.
H Alrweili, S Georgiou and S Stylianou. A new class of second-order response surface designs. IEEE Access 2020; 8, 115123-32.
Z Zhang and B Xiaofeng. Comparison about the three central composite designs with simulation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on advanced computer control, Singapore. 2009, p.163-67.
FC Kiwu-Lawrence, LC Kiwu, DC Bartholomew, CP Obite, and AF Chikereuba. Evaluation and comparison of three classes of central composite designs. Asian J. Probab. Stat. 2021; 13, 31-47.
BA Oyejola and JC Nwanya. Selecting the right central composite design. Int. J. Stat. Appl. 2015; 5, 21-30.
JC Nwanya and KCN Dozie. Optimal prediction variance capabilities of inscribed central composite designs. Asian J. Stat. Probab. 2020; 8, 1-8.
HEEA Elhag, A Ajit, and AZ Sulaiman. Optimization and kinetic modelling of total water extracts and water soluble proteins in root extracts of Eurycoma apiculata by microwave assisted extraction. Mater. Today Proc. 2020; 31, 1-8.
O Eguasa and ME Eguasa. Multi-Response optimization of metformin -hydrochloride drug via experimental design techniques applied on the adaptive local linear regression model for response surface methodology. FUDMA J. Sci. 2022; 6, 262-70.
JJ Borkowski and ES Valeroso. Comparison of design optimality criteria of reduced models for response surface designs in the hypercube. Technometrics 2001; 43, 468-77.
B Chomtee and JJ Borkowski. Comparison of response surface designs in spherical region. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematical, World academy of science, engineering and technology, Chicago. 2012, p. 545-8.
B Chomtee. Comparison of five design variables of response surface designs in a spherical region over a set of reduced models. Agr. Nat. Res. 2015; 49, 305-12.
H Chipman. Baysian variable selection with related predictors. Can. J. Stat. 1996; 24, 17-36.
GEP Box and JS Hunter. Multi-factor experimental designs for exploring response surfaces. Ann. Math. Stat. 1957; 28, 195-241.
RH Myers, AI Khuri and Jr Carter. Response surface methodology: 1966-1988. Technometrics 1989; 31, 137-57.
J Kiefer. Optimum experimental design. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 1959; 21, 272-304.
AU Chukwu and Y Yakubu. Comparison of optimality criteria of reduced models for response surface designs with restricted randomization. Prog. Appl. Math. 2012; 4, 110-26.
AU Chukwu and Y Yakubu. Sensitivity of design optimality criteria to second-order response surface model restrictions and center point replications. Stud. Math. Sci. 2012; 4, 22-9.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Walailak University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
