Classes of split-plot response surface designs for equivalent estimation

Quality and Reliability Engineering International

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 291-305

  Parker, Peter A ^a,d,e   Kowalski, Scott M ^b,d,e,f   Vining, G Geoffrey ^c,d,e  

^a NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b Minitab Inc   (United States)

^c VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION   (United States)

^e American Society for Quality   (India)

^f American Society for Quality ^*

Author keywords

Box Behnken design; Equiradial design; Equivalent estimation; Restricted randomization; Small composite design; Split plot designs

Indexed keywords

BOX-BEHNKEN DESIGN; EQUIRADIAL DESIGN; EQUIVALENT ESTIMATION; RESTRICTED RANDOMIZATION; SMALL COMPOSITE DESIGN; SPLIT-PLOT DESIGNS;

DESIGN FOR TESTABILITY; ESTIMATION; STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

VALUE ENGINEERING;

EID: 33646369140     PISSN: 07488017     EISSN: 10991638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/qre.771     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Box GEP, Wilson KB. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 1951; 13:195-241.
2. Montgomery DC. Design and Analysis of Experiments (6th edn). Wiley: New York, 2004.
3. Myers RH, Montgomery DC. Response Surface Methodology (2nd edn). Wiley: New York, 2002.
4. Vining GG, Kowalski SM, Montgomery DC. Response surface designs within a split-plot structure. Journal of Quality Technology 2005; 37:115-129.
5. Letsinger JD, Myers RH, Lentner M. Response surface methods for bi-randomization structures. Journal of Quality Technology 1996; 28:381-397.
6. Simpson JR, Kowalski SM, Landman D. Experimentation with randomization restrictions: Targeting practical implementation. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 2004; 20:481-495.
7. Micol JR. Langley research center's unitary plan wind tunnel: Testing capabilities and recent moderization activities. Proceedings of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, 2001. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Washington, DC, 2001; paper AIAA-2001-0456.
8. Draper NR, John JA. Response surface designs where levels of some factors are difficult to change. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics 1998; 40:487-495.
9. Trinca LA, Gilmour SG. Multistratum response surface designs. Technometrics 2001; 43:25-33.
10. Goos P, Vandebroek M. Optimal split-plot designs. Journal of Quality Technology 2001; 33:436-450.
11. Goos P, Vandebroek M. D-optimal split-plot designs with given numbers and sizes of whole plots. Technometrics 2003; 45:235-245.
12. Goos P. The Optimal Design of Blocked and Split-plot Experiments. Springer-Verlag: New York, 2002.
13. Parker PA, Kowalski SM, Vining GG. Construction of Balanced Equivalent Estimation Second-order Split-plot Designs, 2006; (submitted).
14. Box GEP, Behnken DW. Some new three-level designs for the study of quantitative variables. Technometrics 1960; 2:455-475.
15. McElroy FW. A necessary and sufficient condition that ordinary least squares estimators be best linear unbiased. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1967; 62:1302-1304.
16. Graybill FA. Theory and Application of the Linear Model. Duxbury: North Scituate, MA, 1976.
17. q-r split plot experiments. Journal of Quality Technology 2000; 32:39-56.
18. Taguchi G. System of Experimental Design, vol. 1. Kraus International: White Plains, NY, 1987.
19. Hartley HO. Small composite design for quadratic response surfaces. Biometrika 1959; 15:611-624.
20. Draper NR. Small composite designs. Technometrics 1985; 27:173-180.
21. Draper NR, Lin DKJ. Small response surface designs. Technometrics 1990; 32:187-194.