Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 361–375 | Cite as

Efficient Response Surface Designs for the Second-Order Multivariate Polynomial Model Robust to Missing Observation

  • Tanvir AhmadEmail author
  • Munir Akhtar


Standard central composite design (CCD) originally requires that its factorial portion contains a full factorial design or fractional factorial design of resolution V or higher so that all effects of vital interest could be estimated. A CCD can be an ideal choice for lower number of factors (k). For k > 5, the standard CCD becomes very large and when, with the purpose of reduction of design size, the initial fractional factorial of resolution III or IV is used, the lower order effects are confounded. Block and Mee (2001) proposed some economical designs for k > 5. The designs were named as repaired resolution central composite (RRCC) designs; these actually repaired the portion containing factorial fractions of resolution III or IV. After repairing, the words of length four or lower were de-aliased and the effects of vital importance became estimable. In this study, some new versions of RRCC designs are constructed. All classes of designs are studied for their robustness to missing data. Loss of missing different kinds of design points has been computed.


Central composite designs Repaired resolution central composite designs Missing observations Minimax loss criterion 

AMS Subject Classification



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahmad, T., and S.G. Gilmour. 2010. Robustness of subset response surface designs to missing observations. J. Stat. Plan. Inference, 140, 92–103.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akhtar, M., and P. Prescott. 1986. Response surface designs robust to missing observations. Commun Stat. Simulation Comput., 15, 345–363.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, D. F., and A. M. Herzberg. 1979. The robustness and optimality of response surface designs. J. Stat. Plan. Inference, 3, 249–257.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, R. M., and R.W. Mee. 2001. Some new second-order designs. Department of Statistics. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
  5. Box, G. E. P., and N. R. Draper. 1975. Robust designs. Biometrika, 62(2), 347–352.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Box, G. E. P., and J. S. Hunter. 1961. The 2k−p fractional factorial designs, Part I. Technometrics 3, 311–351.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Box, G. E. P., W. G. Hunter, and J. S. Hunter. 1978. Statistics for experimenters: An introduction to design, data analysis, and model building, New York, NY: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Box, G. E. P., and K. B. Wilson. 1951. On the experimental attainments of optimum conditions. J. R. Stat. Society Ser. B, 13, 1–45.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, J., D. X. Sun, and C. F. J. Wu. 1993. A catalogue of two-level and three-level fractional factorial designs with small runs. Int. Stat. Rev., 61, 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Draper, N. R., and D. K. J. Lin. 1990. Small response surface designs. Technometrics, 32, 187–194.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fries, A., and W. G. Hunter. 1980. Minimum aberration 2k−p designs. Technometrics, 22, 601–608.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Grace Scientific Publishing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of StatisticsGovernment College UniversityFaisalabadPakistan
  2. 2.COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT)WahPakistan

Personalised recommendations