Appropriate Number of Center Points for Response Surface Exploration Using Small Box Behnken Design
Archives of Current Research International, Volume 22, Issue 8,
Industrial exploration using the Box Behnken Design (BBD) has been faced with a serious setback due to the swift upsurge in the runs size as the number of factors increase. This, therefore, dissuades researchers and affects the application of the design. The Small Box Behnken Designs (SBBD) which achieve the research goal of BBD were proposed to overcome the setback. This paper aimed at recommending an appropriate number of center points suitable for response surface exploration and its applications in industries using the SBBD. The method adopted for assessing the center points is the prediction variance-based G-efficiency optimality criterion. The range of design factors, k, considered is 3 to 11, while comparing the designs at 0 - 5 number of center points. For each of the design factors considered, the result showed that increasing the center point, decreases the G-efficiency value. Hence, increasing the center point does not contribute significantly to the prediction variance capability of the designs considered. However, in other to test the model lack of fit and estimate pure error which are very important in experimental design analysis, this study recommends that at most two runs (center points) be replicated at the center. Since with this number, approximately 90% G-efficiency can be achieved for response surface exploration using the SBBD.
- Small box behnken design
- center point
- prediction variance
How to Cite
Zhang TF, Yang JF, Lin DKI. Small Box Behnken Design. Statistics and Probability Letter. 2011;81:1027-1033.
Lawrence CK, Bartholomew DC, Kiwu-Lawrence FC, Obite CP, Okafor IB. Evaluating Percentage Rotatability for The Small Box – Behnken Design. Journal of Mathematics and Statistics Studies. 2021;16 – 24.
Montgomery DC. Design and Analysis of Experiments.6th ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc, N.J.; 2005.
Atkinson AC, Donev AN. Optimum Experimental Designs. Oxford University Press, New York; 1992.
Oyejola BA, Nwanya JC. Selecting the Right Central Composite Design.
International Journal of Statistics and Applications. 2015;5(1):21-30.
Kiwu-Lawrence FC, Kiwu LC, Bartholomew DC, Obite CP, Akanno FC. Evaluation and Comparison of Three Classes of Central Composite Designs. Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics. 2021;13(2):31-47.
Njoroge EW, Koske J, Mutiso J. D- and G- Optimal Axial Slope Designs for Four Ingredient Mixture. Applied Mathematics and Physics. 2020;8(1):20-25.
NIST/SEMATECHHandbook of Statistical Methods; 2003.
Marcin D, Mario D, Terese L. Application of a Central Composite Design for the Study of NOx Emission Performance of a Low NOx Burner. Energies. 2015;8:3606-3627.
Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM. Response Surface. Methodology: Process and Product Optimization using designed experiments. 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New Jersey; 2009.
Kasina MM, Joseph K, John M. Application of Central Composite Design to Optimize Spawns Propagation. Open Journal of Optimization. 2020;9:47-70.
Draper NR. Center Points in Second-Order Responds Surface Designs. Technometrics. 1982;24 (2):127 - 133.
Box GEP, Behnken DW. Some New Three Level Designs for the Study of Quantitative Variables. Technometrics. 1960;2(4):455 - 475.
Nwanya JC, Dozie KCN. Optimal Prediction Variance Capabilities of Inscribed Central Composite Designs. European Journal of Statistics and Probability. 2020;8(2):41-48.
Abstract View: 140 times
PDF Download: 82 times