Pitfalls of using a single criterion for selecting experimental designs

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering

Volumn 75, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 127-155

  Goel, Tushar ^a,d   Haftka, Raphael T ^a   Shyy, Wei ^b   Watson, Layne T ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

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

^d LIVERMORE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias errors; Design of experiments (DOE); Experimental designs; LHS D optimal designs; Polynomial response surface approximation; Surrogate models

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS; LEAD; STATISTICS; TIME SERIES ANALYSIS;

BIAS ERROR (BE); D OPTIMAL DESIGNS; D-OPTIMALITY; DESIGN SPACES; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (ED); LARGE REGIONS; LATIN HYPERCUBE SAMPLING (LHS); MODEL BASED (OPC); MULTIPLE CRITERIA;

EMERGENCY ROOMS;

EID: 48249123469     PISSN: 00295981     EISSN: 10970207     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nme.2242     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Simpson TW, Lin DKJ, Chen W. Sampling strategies for computer experiments: design and analysis. International Journal of Reliability and Applications 2001; 2(3):209-240.
2. Giunta AA, Wojtkiewicz SF, Eldred MS. Overview of modern design of experiments methods for computational simulations. Forty-first AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, 6-9 January 2003; AIAA-2003-0649.
3. Simpson TW, Booker AJ, Ghosh D, Giunta AA, Koch PN, Yang R-J. Approximation methods in multidisciplinary analysis and optimization: a panel discussion. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 2004; 27(5):302-313.
4. Queipo NV, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Goel T, Vaidyanathan R, Tucker PK. Surrogate based analysis and optimization. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 2005; 41(1):1-28.
5. Myers RH, Montgomery DC. Response Surface Methodology - Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. Wiley: New York, 1995; 208-279.
6. Khuri AI, Cornell JA. Response Surfaces: Designs and Analyses (2nd edn). Marcel Dekker: New York, 1996; 207-247.
7. Venter G, Haftka RT. Minimum-bias based experimental design for constructing response surfaces in structural optimization. Thirty-eight AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, Materials Conference, Kissimmee, FL, 1997; 1225-1238, AIAA-1997-1053.
8. Qu X, Venter G, Haftka RT. New formulation of a minimum-bias experimental design based on Gauss quadrature. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 2004; 28(4):231-242.
9. Box GEP, Draper NR. The choice of a second order rotatable design. Biometrika 1963; 50(3):335-352.
10. Draper NR, Lawrence WE. Designs which minimize model inadequacies: cuboidal regions of interest. Biometrika 1965; 52(1-2):111-118.
11. Kupper LL, Meydrech EF. A new approach to mean squared error estimation of response surfaces. Biometrika 1973; 60(3):573-579.
12. Welch WJ. A mean squared error criterion for the design of experiments. Biometrika 1983; 70(1):205-213.
13. Montepiedra G, Fedorov VV. Minimum bias designs with constraints. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 1997; 63:97-111.
14. Fedorov VV, Montepiedra G, Nachtsheim CJ. Design of experiments for locally weighted regression. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 1999; 81:363-383.
15. Papila M, Haftka RT. Uncertainty response surface approximations. Forty-second AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Material Conference, Seattle, WA, 2001; AIAA-01-1680.
16. Papila M, Haftka RT, Watson LT. Pointwise bias error bounds and min-max bias design for response surface approximations. AIAA Journal 2005; 43(8):1797-1807.
17. Goel T, Papila M, Haftka RT, Shyy W. Generalized pointwise bias error bounds for response surface approximation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2006; 65(11):2035-2059.
18. Goel T, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Watson LT. Pointwise RMS bias error estimates for design of experiments. Forty-fourth AIAA Annual Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 2006; AIAA-2006-0724.
19. Tang B. Orthogonal array-based Latin hypercubes. Journal of American Statistical Society 1993; 88:1392-1397.
20. Ye K. Orthogonal column Latin hypercubes and their application in computer experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1998; 93:1430-1439.
21. Palmer K, Tsui KL. A minimum bias Latin hypercube design. Institute of Industrial Engineers Transactions 2001; 33(8):793-808.
22. Leary S, Bhaskar A, Keane A. Optimal orthogonal-array-based Latin hypercubes. Journal of Applied Statistics 2003; 30(5):585-598.
23. Goel T, Zhao J, Thakur SS, Haftka RT, Shyy W. Surrogate model-based strategy for cryogenic cavitation model validation and sensitivity evaluation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, submitted (an earlier version appeared in Proceedings of 42nd AIAA/ ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Sacramento, CA, July 2006; AIAA-2006-5047).
24. Jaynes ET. Information theory and statistical mechanics. In Statistical Physics, Ford K (ed.). Benjamin: New York, 1963; 181.
25. JMP®, The Statistical Discovery Software™. Version 5. 1989-2003. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. U.S.A., 1989-2003.
26. MATLAB®. The Language of Technical Computing, Version 6.5, Release 13, 1984-2002. The MathWorks Inc., 1984-2002.
27. Goel T, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Watson LT. Combining bias and variance based criteria for selecting experimental designs. 2006 NSF Design, Manufacturing, and Innovation Grantees and Research Conference, St. Louis, MO, July 2006.