A Case Study to Select an Optimal Split-Plot Design for a Mixture-Process Experiment Based on Multiple Objectives

REFERENCES

• Anbari, F. T., Lucas, J. M. (1994). Super-efficient designs: How to run your experiment for higher efficiency and lower cost. ASQC Technical Conference Transactions, 852–863.
   Google Scholar
• Arnouts, H., Goos, P. (2010). Update formulas for split-plot and block-designs. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 54: 3381–3391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bingham, D., Sitter, R. R. (1999). Minimum-aberration two-level fractional factorial split-plot designs. Technometrics, 41: 62–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bingham, D., Sitter, R. R. (2001). Design issues for fractional factorial experiments. Journal of Quality Technology, 33: 2–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisgaard, S. (2000). The design and analysis of 2k-p × 2q-r split-plot experiments. Journal of Quality Technology, 32: 39–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Box, G. E. P., Draper, N. R. (1975). A Basics for the selection of a response surface design. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54: 622–654.
   Google Scholar
• Cornell, J. (2002). Experiments with Mixtures: Design, Models, and the Analysis of Mixture Data, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Derringer, G., Suich, R. (1980). Simultaneous optimization of several response variable. Journal of Quality Technology, 12: 214–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goos, P. (2002). The Optimal Design of Blocked and Split-Plot Experiments. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Goos, P., Vandebroek, M. (2001). Optimal split-plot designs. Journal of Quality Technology, 33(4): 436–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goos, P., Vandebroek, M. (2003). D-optimal split-plot designs with given numbers and sizes of whole plots. Technometrics, 45: 235–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goos, P., Vandebroek, M. (2004). Outperforming completely randomized designs. Journal of Quality Technology, 36(1): 12–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gronwald, W., Hohm, T., Hoffmann, D. (2008). Evolutionary Pareto-optimization of stably folding peptides. BMC-Bioinformatics, 9: 109–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, P., Chen, D., Voelkel, J. O. (1998). Minimum-aberration two-level split-plot designs. Technometrics, 40: 314–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B., Goos, P. (2007). A candidate-set-free algorithm for generating D-optimal split-plot designs. Applied Statistics, 56: 347–364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasprzak, E. M., Lewis, K. E. (2001). Pareto analysis in multiobjective optimization using the collinearity theorem and scaling method. Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization, 22: 208–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, L., Anderson-Cook, C. M., Robinson, T. J. (2006). Fraction of design space plots for split-plot designs. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 22: 275–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, L., Anderson-Cook, C. M., Robinson, T. J. (2007). Cost-penalized estimation and prediction evaluation for split-plot designs. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 23: 577–596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, L., Anderson-Cook, C. M., Robinson, T. J., Myers, R. H. (2006). Three-dimensional variance dispersion graphs for split-plot designs. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15: 757–778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2012). Rethinking the optimal response surface design for a first-order model with two-factor interactions, when protecting against curvature. Quality Engineering, 24: 404–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2013). Adapting the hypervolume quality indicator to quantify trade-offs and search efficiency for multiple criteria decision-making using Pareto fronts. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 29: 1117–1133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2014). Balancing multiple criteria with a Pareto front for optimal split-plot designs. Quality & Reliability Engineering International, 30: 37–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., Anderson-Cook, C. M., Robinson, T. J. (2011). Optimization of designed experiments based on multiple criteria utilizing Pareto frontier. Technometrics, 53: 353–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., Anderson-Cook, C. M., Robinson, T. J. (2012). A Case study to demonstrate Pareto frontiers for selecting a best response surface design while simultaneously optimizing multiple criteria. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 28: 206–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, R. H., Montgomery, D. C., Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2009). Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Park, Y. J. (2009). Multi-optimal designs for second-order response surface models. Communications of the Korean Statistical Society, 16: 195–208.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, P. A., Anderson-Cook, C. M., Robinson, T. J., Liang, L. (2008). Robust split-plot designs. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 24: 107–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, P. A., Kowalski, S. M., Vining, G. G. (2006). Classes of split-plot response surface designs for equivalent estimation. Quality & Reliability Engineering International, 22: 291–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, T. J., Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2011). A closer look at D-optimality for screening designs. Quality Engineering, 23: 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, S. R., Casella, G., McCulloch, C. E. (1992). Variance Components. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Smucker, B. J., del Castillo, E., Rosenberger, J. L. (2011). Model-robust designs for split-plot experiments, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 56: 4111–4121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trinca, L. A., Gilmour, S. G. (2001). Multi-stratum response surface designs, Technometrics, 43: 25–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar