Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 109–117 | Cite as

A Note on Small Composite Designs for Sequential Experimentation

  • Nam-Ky NguyenEmail author
  • Dennis K. J. Lin


The recommended approach to experiments using the response surface methodology is sequential, i.e., experiments should be conducted iteratively. At the first stage, a first-order design, usually an orthogonal two-level design (with a few center points) is used to find out whether the current region is appropriate and to allow the estimation of main effects (and possibly some interactions). The design at the first stage is then augmented with more runs in the second stage. The combined design allows the estimation of the remaining interaction and quadratic effects. Some well-known classes of designs which allow such a sequential experimentation are the central composite designs, the small composite designs and the augmented-pair designs. This paper reviews these designs and introduces a new algorithm which is able to augment any first order design with additional design points to form a good design for a second-order model.


Augmented-pair design Box-Behnken design Composite design Orthogonal quadratic effect property Response surface design Two-level design 

AMS Subject Classification



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Angelopoulos, P., Evangelaras, H., Koukouvinos, C., 2009. Small, balanced, efficient and near-rotatable central composite designs. J. of Statist. Planning and Inference, 139, 2010–2013.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Box, G.E.P., Behnken, D.W., 1960. Some new three level designs for the study of quantitative variables. Technometrics, 2, 455–477.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Box, G.E.P., Wilson, K.B., 1951. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B, 13, 1–45.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Draper, N.R., Lin, D.K.J., 1990. Small response surface designs. Technometrics, 32, 187–194.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Draper, N.R., Lin, D.K.J., 1996. Response Surface Designs. In Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 13, Ghosh, S. and Rao, C.R., (Editors), Elsevier Science, 343–375.Google Scholar
  6. Draper, N.R., Pukelsheim, F., 1990. Another look at rotatability. Technometrics, 32, 195–202.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. John, P.M.W., 1971. Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments. McMillan.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Morris, M.D., 2000. A class of three-level experimental designs for response surface. Technometrics, 42, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Myers, R.H., Montgomery D.C., Anderson-Cook C.M., 2009. Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 3rd ed. Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Nguyen, N-K., Borkowski, J.J., 2008. New three-level response surface designs constructed from incomplete block designs. J. of Statist. Planning and Inference, 138, 294–305.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Park, S.H., 1987. A class of multifactor designs for estimating the slope of response surfaces. Technometrics, 29, 449–453.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Parker, A.P., Kowalski, S.M., Vining, G.G., 2006. Classes of split-plot response surface designs for equivalent estimation. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 22, 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Plackett, R.L., Burman, J.P., 1946. The designs of optimum multi-factorial experiments. Biometrika, 33, 305–325.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Grace Scientific Publishing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International School & Centre for High Performance ComputingVietnam National UniversityHanoiVietnam
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsPennsylvania State University, University ParkUSA
  3. 3.School of StatisticsRenmin University of ChinaBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations