Comparisons of Alternative Axial Distances for Cuboidal Regions of Central Composite Designs Using D and G Efficiencies
In this study, three axial distances are proposed as alternatives to the existing axial distances of the Central Composite Design (CCD) in cuboidal design regions with the aim of providing formidable alternatives to the existing axial distances of the CCD whose prediction properties are less extreme and more stable in the cuboidal design regions. The three alternative axial distances, namely the arithmetic, harmonic and geometric axial distances for cuboidal regions, were developed algebraically based on the concepts of the three Pythagorean means. The strengths and weaknesses of the alternative axial distances were validated by comparing their performances with the existing axial distances in the cuboidal regions. The D- and G-efficiencies are used for comparison. The cuboidal region shows that the three alternative axial distances are consistently better in terms of the D- and G-efficiencies
Anderson-Cook, C.M, Borr, C.M. and Montgomery, D.C. (2009), Response Surface Design Evaluation and Comparison, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, Vol. 139, 629-641. Doi: 10.1016/j.jsp2008.04.004.
Borkowski, J. J. (1995), Spherical Prediction Properties of Central Composite and Box Behnken Designs, Technometrics,Vol. 37 ( 4), 399 – 410.
Box, G. E. P. and Hunter, J. S., 1957. "Multifactor experimental designs for exploring response surfaces." Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 28, pp. 195-241.
Box, G. E. P & Wilson, K. B. (1951), On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Vol. 13, 1 – 45.
Chigbu, P. E., Ukaegbu, E. C. & Nwanya, J. C. (2009). On Comparing the Prediction Variances of Some Central Composite Designs in Spherical Region: A Review, Statistica, anno LXIX, n.4, 285-298.
Draper, N. R. (1982), Centre Points in Second-Order Response Surface Designs, Technometrics, Vol. 24 (2), 127 – 133.
Dykstra, O. Jr. (1960), Partial Duplication of Response Surface Designs, Technometrics, Vol. 2 (2), 185 – 195.
Eze, F.C. and Ngonadi, L.O (2018). “Alphabetic Optimality Criteria for 2k Central Composite Design.” Academic Journal of Applied Mathematical Sciences vol.4, issue 9. pp 107-118.
Li, J., Liang, L., Borror, C. M., Anderson-Cook, C. M. & 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.
Montgomery, D. C. (2013), Design and Analysis of Experiments, 8th Ed., John Wiley and Sons Inc. N.Y.
Onukogu, I. B. (1997), Foundations of Optimum Exploration of Response Surfaces, Ephrata Press, Nsukka.
Ukaegbu, E. C. (2017). Evaluation of Prediction Capabilities of Partially Replicated Variations of Some Central Composite Design, A PhD Thesis Submitted to the Department of Statistics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Wong, W. K. (1993), Comparing Robust Properties of A, D, E and G-optimal Designs, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 18, pp. 441-448.
Copyright (c) 2019 Francis Eze, Linus Onyishi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).