Cited by 122Optimal Experimental Design MethodsAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsSimulation Techniques and Applications

Response Surface Designs within a Split-Plot Structure

Vining, G. Geoffrey, Kowalski, Scott M., Montgomery, Douglas C.·2005·Journal of Quality Technology

Abstract

In many industrial experiments, time and/or cost constraints often force certain factors in a designed experiment to be much harder to change than others. An appropriate approach to such an experiment restricts the randomization, which leads to a split-plot structure. This paper first establishes how one can modify the common central-composite design to efficiently accommodate a split-plot structure. The proposed designs allow pure-error estimates of the two variance components. We next discuss the conditions on the design that make ordinary least squares and weighted least squares estimates equivalent. These conditions are easy to obtain in practice. An important consequence is that people can use standard experimental design software to analyze second-order response surfaces. We give examples of central composite and Box-Behnken designs that meet the conditions. We conclude with an example.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00224065.2005.11980310

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Those split-plot designs replicate a few treatments many times, mainly center and/or axial points, with much replication inside whole plots.

    “These designs involve many replicates of a limited number of treatments (namely, the treatments corresponding to center points and/or axial points).Much of the replication in these designs is within the whole plots.”
  • The new-criterion designs differ fundamentally from the split-plot designs of Vining et al. (2005), Parker et al. (2006), Kowalski et al. (2002), and Kowalski et al. (2006).

    “Consequently, the designs produced by the new criterion are fundamentally dierent from the split-plot designs proposed by Vining et al. (2005), Parker et al. (2006), Kowalski et al. (2002) and Kowalski et al. (2006).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vining, G. G., Kowalski, S. M., & Montgomery, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • Minitab Inc., State College, PA 16801
  • Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Quality Technology
Published
2005-04
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
115-129
ISSN
  • 0022-4065 (ISSN-L)
  • 2575-6230
OpenAlex
W1541037932
Cited by
122
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 11
FWCI
15.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Quality Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Simulation Techniques and Applications
Keywords
split-plot design, response surface methodology, central composite design, Box-Behnken design, variance components, weighted least squares, second-order response surface, industrial experiments

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review