cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Check out the JMP® Marketplace featured Capability Explorer add-in
Choose Language Hide Translation Bar
albiruni81
Level II

Difference between Response Surface and 3 level full factorial

Hi All,

 

Anyone have any link that is able to explain the difference between the two DOE methods above?

 

Rgrds

 

Irfan

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Re: Difference between Response Surface and 3 level full factorial

Both of these design methods produce runs with three levels for each factor. The full factorial, of course, produces all combinations of factor levels. The response surface methods (e.g., Box-Behnken or Box-Wilson) do not. The Box-Behken is more economical for the typical optimization situation involving only a few factors (after screening) but does not share any runs with the two-level screening designs. The Box-Wilson designs are also called the central composite designs because they are composed of a two-level factorial design, axial points, and center points.

You can probably do better (smaller prediction standard errors from fewer runs) with a custom design for I-optimality than either of the older response surface methods.

I recommend:

  • that you read the JMP guide by selecting Help > Books > Design of Experiments
  • that you read "Optimal Design of Experiments," by Goos and Jones.

View solution in original post

1 REPLY 1

Re: Difference between Response Surface and 3 level full factorial

Both of these design methods produce runs with three levels for each factor. The full factorial, of course, produces all combinations of factor levels. The response surface methods (e.g., Box-Behnken or Box-Wilson) do not. The Box-Behken is more economical for the typical optimization situation involving only a few factors (after screening) but does not share any runs with the two-level screening designs. The Box-Wilson designs are also called the central composite designs because they are composed of a two-level factorial design, axial points, and center points.

You can probably do better (smaller prediction standard errors from fewer runs) with a custom design for I-optimality than either of the older response surface methods.

I recommend:

  • that you read the JMP guide by selecting Help > Books > Design of Experiments
  • that you read "Optimal Design of Experiments," by Goos and Jones.