A New Class of Second-Order Response Surface Designs

Response surface methodology (RSM) refers to experimental designs for optimizing or developing processes, initially in manufacturing. In this paper, a new method is presented and an algorithm is implemented that modifies the axial part in a central composite design to achieve a good D-value and efficiency. The new designs are suitable for sequential experimentation. In comparison with known designs in the same class, the new designs are tested and found to have better D-values on a range of factors. With this new approach, efficient orthogonal designs for response surface methodology were generated for a number of parameters that were previously impossible to construct. The new generated designs and their comparison with known designs from the literature are presented in tables for practitioners’ use.

[1]  Chun-Lu Zhang,et al.  Evaluation of elliptical finned-tube heat exchanger performance using CFD and response surface methodology , 2014 .

[2]  Davood Domiri Ganji,et al.  Optimization of finned-tube heat exchangers for diesel exhaust waste heat recovery using CFD and CCD techniques , 2014 .

[3]  Steven G Gilmour,et al.  Response Surface Designs for Experiments in Bioprocessing , 2006, Biometrics.

[4]  S. Konovalov,et al.  Modification of Structure and Surface Properties of Hypoeutectic Silumin by Intense Pulse Electron Beams , 2018, Uspehi Fiziki Metallov.

[5]  Robert W. Mee.  Optimal Three-Level Designs for Response Surfaces in Spherical Experimental Regions , 2007 .

[6]  M. Vaezi,et al.  Central composite design (CCD)-Response surface methodology (RSM) of effective electrospinning parameters on PVP-B-Hf hybrid nanofibrous composites for synthesis of HfB2-based composite nanofibers , 2019, Composites Part B: Engineering.

[7]  Dennis K. J. Lin,et al.  Small response-surface designs , 1990 .

[8]  G. Box,et al.  On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions , 1951 .

[9]  Dennis K. J. Lin,et al.  A Note on Small Composite Designs for Sequential Experimentation , 2011 .

[10]  G. Box,et al.  Some New Three Level Designs for the Study of Quantitative Variables , 1960 .

[11]  Stelios D. Georgiou,et al.  A class of composite designs for response surface methodology , 2014, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[12]  W. Näther.  Optimum experimental designs , 1994 .

[13]  S. Konovalov,et al.  Multicyclic fatigue of stainless steel treated by a high-intensity electron beam: surface layer structure , 2011 .

[14]  W. Westlake,et al.  COMPOSITE DESIGNS BASED ON IRREGULAR FRACTIONS OF FACTORIALS. , 1965, Biometrics.

[15]  Max D. Morris,et al.  A Class of Three-Level Experimental Designs for Response Surface Modeling , 2000, Technometrics.

[16]  Yong-Dao Zhou,et al.  Composite Designs Based on Orthogonal Arrays and Definitive Screening Designs , 2017 .

[17]  Jennifer Seberry,et al.  Orthogonal Designs: Quadratic Forms and Hadamard Matrices , 1979 .

[18]  Marius Prelipceanu,et al.  An Intelligent Assistive Tool Using Exergaming and Response Surface Methodology for Patients With Brain Disorders , 2019, IEEE Access.

[19]  Christos Koukouvinos,et al.  Small, balanced, efficient and near rotatable central composite designs , 2009 .

[20]  Shuhai Quan,et al.  Optimization of Thermoelectric Modules’ Number and Distribution Pattern in an Automotive Exhaust Thermoelectric Generator , 2019, IEEE Access.

[21]  Joan M. Donohue,et al.  Simulation designs for quadratic response surface models in the presence of model misspecification , 1992 .

[22]  James M. Lucas,et al.  Which Response Surface Design is Best: A Performance Comparison of Several Types of Quadratic Response Surface Designs in Symmetric Regions , 1976 .

[23]  Nripes Kumar Mandal.  On Robust Designs , 1989 .

[24]  H. O. Hartley,et al.  Smallest Composite Designs for Quadratic Response Surfaces , 1959 .