Factorial Experiments when Factor Levels Are Not Necessarily Reset

Journal of Quality Technology

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-11

  Webb, Derek F ^a,d   Lucas, James M ^b   Borkowski, John J ^c,d  

^a BEMIDJI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b J M Lucas and Associates   (United Kingdom)

^c MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Department of Mathematics ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Design of Experiments; Prediction Variance; Randomization; Split Plot Designs

Indexed keywords

COSTS; ERROR ANALYSIS; LEAST SQUARES APPROXIMATIONS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; NUMERICAL ANALYSIS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RANDOM PROCESSES;

DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS; PREDICTION VARIANCE; RANDOMIZATION; SPLIT-PLOT DESIGNS;

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING;

EID: 0442295416     PISSN: 00224065     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2004.11980248     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. ANBARI, F. T. (1993). "Experimental Designs for Quality Improvement when there are Hard-to-change and Easy-to-change Factors". Ph.D. Dissertation, Drexel University.
2. ATKJNSON, A. C. and DONEV, A. N. (1992). Optimum Experimental Designa. Oxford Science Publications, New York, NY.
3. BINGHAM, D. R. and SITTER, R. R. (2001). "Design Issues in Fractional Factorial Split-Plot Experiments". The Journal of Quality Technology 33, pp. 1-15.
4. GANJU, J. and LUCAS, J. M. (1997). "Bias in Test Statistics when Restrictions on Randomization are Caused by Factors". Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 26, pp. 47-63.
5. GANJU, J. and LUCAS, J. M. (1999). ''Detecting Randomization Restrictions Caused by Factors". Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 81. pp. 129-140.
6. GANJU, J. and LUCAS. J. M. (2000). "Analysis of Unbalanced Data from an Experiment with Random Block Effects and Unequally Spaced Factor Levels". The American Statistician 54, 1, pp. 5-11.
7. Goos, P. and VANDEBROEK, M. (2001). "Optimal Split-Plot Designs". Journal of Quality Technology 33, 436-450.
8. k Factorial Experiments with Hard-To-Change and Easy-To-Change factors". The Journal of Quality Technology, 34, pp. 411-421.
9. KIEFER, J. and WOLFOWITZ J. (1960). "The Equivalence of Two Extremum Problems". Canadian Journal of Mathematics 12, pp. 363-366.
10. KIEFER, J. (1974), "General Equivalence Theory for Optimum Designs (Approximate Theory)". Annals of Mathematical Statistics 2.
11. LITTELL, R. C.; MILLIKEN, G. A.; STROUP, W. W.; and WOLFINGER, R. D. (1996). SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
12. LUCAS, J. M. (1999). "Comparing Randomization and A Random Run Order in Experimental Design". AQC Annual Quality Congress Transactions, pp. 29-35.
13. MOOD, A. M. (1940). "The Distribution Theory of Runs". Annals of Mathematical Statistics 11. pp. 367-392.
14. SAS INSTITUTE (1997). SAS/3TAT Software: Changes and Enhancement through Release 6.12. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, pp. 571-701.
15. SEARLE, S. R. (1982). Matrix Algebra Useful for Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
16. SEARLE, S. R.; CASELLA, G.; and MCCULLOCH, C. E. (1992). Variance Components. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
17. TRINCA, L. and GILMOUR, S. (2001). "Multistream Response Surface Designs". Technometrics 43, pp. 25-34.
18. WEBB, D. (1999). "Randomization Restrictions and the Inadvertent Split Plot in Industrial Experimentation". Ph.D. Dissertation, Montana State University.