Classes of Split-Plot Response Surface Designs for Equivalent Estimation

When planning an experimental investigation, we are frequently faced with factors that are difficult or time consuming to manipulate, thereby making complete randomization impractical. A split-plot structure differentiates between the experimental units associated with these hard-to-change factors and others that are relatively easy-to-change and provides an efficient strategy that integrates the restrictions imposed by the experimental apparatus. Several industrial and scientific examples are presented to illustrate design considerations encountered in the restricted randomization context. In this paper, we propose classes of split-plot response designs that provide an intuitive and natural extension from the completely randomized context. For these designs, the ordinary least squares estimates of the model are equivalent to the generalized least squares estimates. This property provides best linear unbiased estimators and simplifies model estimation. The design conditions that allow for equivalent estimation are presented enabling design construction strategies to transform completely randomized Box-Behnken, equiradial, and small composite designs into a split-plot structure

Unbalanced and Minimal Point Equivalent Estimation Second-Order Split-Plot Designs

Restricting the randomization of hard-to-change factors in industrial experiments is often performed by employing a split-plot design structure. From an economic perspective, these designs minimize the experimental cost by reducing the number of resets of the hard-to- change factors. In this paper, unbalanced designs are considered for cases where the subplots are relatively expensive and the experimental apparatus accommodates an unequal number of runs per whole-plot. We provide construction methods for unbalanced second-order split- plot designs that possess the equivalence estimation optimality property, providing best linear unbiased estimates of the parameters; independent of the variance components. Unbalanced versions of the central composite and Box-Behnken designs are developed. For cases where the subplot cost approaches the whole-plot cost, minimal point designs are proposed and illustrated with a split-plot Notz design

Response Surface Splitplot Designs: A Literature Review

The fundamental principles of experiment design are factorization, replication, randomization, and local control of error. In many industrial experiments, however, departure from these principles is commonplace. Often in our experiments, complete randomization is not feasible because factor level settings are hard, impractical, or inconvenient to change, or the resources available to execute under homogeneous conditions are limited. These restrictions in randomization result in split-plot experiments. Also, we are often interested in fitting second-order models, which lead to second-order split-plot experiments. Although response surface methodology has experienced a phenomenal growth since its inception, second-order split-plot design has received only modest attention relative to other topics during the same period. Many graduate textbooks either ignore or only provide a relatively basic treatise of this subject. The peer-reviewed literature on second-order split-plot designs, especially with blocking, is scarce, limited in examples, and often provides limited or too general guidelines. This deficit of information leaves practitioners ill-prepared to face the many challenges associated with these types of designs. This article seeks to provide an overview of recent literature on response surface split-plot designs to help practitioners in dealing with these types of designs

Guidelines for physical weed control research: flame weeding, weed harrowing and intra-row cultivation

A prerequisite for good research is the use of appropriate methodology. In order to aggregate sound research methodology, this paper presents some tentative guidelines for physical weed control research in general, and flame weeding, weed harrowing and intra-row cultivation in particular. Issues include the adjustment and use of mechanical weeders and other equipment, the recording of impact factors that affect weeding performance, methods to assess effectiveness, the layout of treatment plots, and the conceptual models underlying the experimental designs (e.g. factorial comparison, dose response). First of all, the research aims need to be clearly defined, an appropriate experimental design produced and statistical methods chosen accordingly. Suggestions on how to do this are given. For assessments, quantitative measures would be ideal, but as they require more resources, visual classification may in some cases be more feasible. The timing of assessment affects the results and their interpretation. When describing the weeds and crops, one should list the crops and the most abundantly present weed species involved, giving their density and growth stages at the time of treatment. The location of the experimental field, soil type, soil moisture and amount of fertilization should be given, as well as weather conditions at the time of treatment. The researcher should describe the weed control equipment and adjustments accurately, preferably according to the prevailing practice within the discipline. Things to record are e.g. gas pressure, burner properties, burner cover dimensions and LPG consumption in flame weeding; speed, angle of tines, number of passes and direction in weed harrowing. The authors hope this paper will increase comparability among experiments, help less experienced scientists to prevent mistakes and essential omissions, and foster the advance of knowledge on non-chemical weed management

Comparison of Optimality Criteria of Reduced Models for Response Surface Designs with Restricted Randomization

In this work, $D-$, $G-$, and $A-$ efficiencies and the scaled average prediction variance, $IV$ criterion, are computed and compared for second-order split-plot central composite design. These design optimality criteria are evaluated across the set of reduced split-plot central composite design models for three design variables under various ratios of the variance components (or degrees of correlation $d$). It was observed that $D$, $A$, $G$, and $IV$ for these models strongly depend on the values of $d$; they are robust to changes in the interaction terms and vary dramatically with the number of, and changes in the squared terms

A fresh look at the basic principles of the design and analysis of experiments

RESP-594

Block designs for experiments with non-normal response

Many experiments measure a response that cannot be adequately described by a linear model withnormally distributed errors and are often run in blocks of homogeneous experimental units. Wedevelop the first methods of obtaining efficient block designs for experiments with an exponentialfamily response described by a marginal model fitted via Generalized Estimating Equations. Thismethodology is appropriate when the blocking factor is a nuisance variable as, for example, occursin industrial experiments. A D-optimality criterion is developed for finding designs robust to thevalues of the marginal model parameters and applied using three strategies: unrestricted algorithmicsearch, use of minimum-support designs, and blocking of an optimal design for the correspondingGeneralized Linear Model. Designs obtained from each strategy are critically compared and shownto be much more efficient than designs that ignore the blocking structure. The designs are comparedfor a range of values of the intra-block working correlation and for exchangeable, autoregressive andnearest neighbor structures. An analysis strategy is developed for a binomial response that allows es-timation from experiments with sparse data, and its efectiveness demonstrated. The design strategiesare motivated and demonstrated through the planning of an experiment from the aeronautics industr

ASA Study on Modular Instruction - Position Paper

28 pages, 1 article*ASA Study on Modular Instruction - Position Paper* (Wood, Constance L.) 28 page