1 / 32

Fractional Box-Behnken Designs

Fractional Box-Behnken Designs. David J. Edwards Virginia Commonwealth University Robert W. Mee The University of Tennessee Fall Technical Conference October 8-9, 2009. Response Surface Methods (RSM). Sequential RSM Strategy (Box and Wilson (1951))

jacqueline
Download Presentation

Fractional Box-Behnken Designs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fractional Box-Behnken Designs David J. Edwards Virginia Commonwealth University Robert W. Mee The University of Tennessee Fall Technical Conference October 8-9, 2009

  2. Response Surface Methods (RSM) • Sequential RSM Strategy (Box and Wilson (1951)) • 1. Initial small design to estimate linear main effects • 2. Exploration along path of steepest ascent • 3. Repeat step 1 in a new optimal location • 4. Augment to complete a 2nd-order design (add axial runs and center point runs) • 5. Optimization based on fitted second-order model

  3. One-Step RSM • Cheng and Wu (2001) (CW) introduce the idea of response surface exploration using only one 3-level design • Factor Screening from Design • Begin with 3-level regular or nonregular design in some number of factors • CW suggests a main-effects only analysis • Interactions are not considered until after screening • Assumes strong effect heredity

  4. One-Step RSM (cont.) • Projection and Optimization from same Design • Project 3-level design onto the factors identified as important when screening • Projected design must be a second-order design (termed eligible) in order to explore the response surface • That is, we want to estimate • CW and Xu, Cheng, and Wu (XCW) provides a set of optimal designs in terms of the proportion of eligible projections and D-efficiency

  5. Example 1 – PVC Insulation • Nine factors in 27-runs: 39-6 • Screening step identifies factors A, B, C, D, and G • There is no eligible projected design of four or five of these factors in the 39-6 • CW finds an eligible projection in the three most significant factors

  6. Example 2 – XCW Recommended OA • 3-level, 18-run Orthogonal Array (OA) • Response is simulated from the following ‘true’ model • Y=10xD + 9xE + 8xG + 5xDG -6xAD -6xAG + 6xD2 • Fit the following polynomial model: • Factors D, E, and G stand out as active • Project the OA onto D, E, and G (this is eligible) • Fit a second-order model in those three factors

  7. Example (cont.) Clearly, we have missed the opportunity to explore the large interactions involving factor A. True model: Y=10xD + 9xE + 8xG + 5xDG -6xAD -6xAG + 6xD2

  8. What have we learned? • Two problems with CW’s method: • Initial screening stage does not entertain the possibility of two-factor interactions – so we miss out on potentially important effects • Projection onto the factors of interest does not always yield a second-order design • Let’s consider a different initial design

  9. Box-Behnken Designs (BBDs) • Popular 3-level designs for estimating second-order models in spherical regions • Possess a simple construction method by combining two-level factorial design with incomplete block designs (IBDs) • For 5 or more factors, BBDs contain many more runs than required to fit a second-order model • Thus, it is somewhat unusual to see a BBD with more than 5 factors used in practice

  10. Box-Behnken Design Construction Each set of 8 runs forms a 23. 7*8+n0 runs

  11. Fractional Box-Behnken Designs 23-1 23-1 23-1 23-1 23-1 23-1 23-1 Each set of 8 runs forms a 23. 7*8+n0 runs Each set of 4 runs forms a 23-1 7*4 + n0 runs

  12. Fractional Box-Behnken Designs (FBBDs) • Motivated by a D-optimal design search for three-level designs with smaller run sizes than BBDs • Use Bayesian D-optimality when searching for designs with fewer runs than required to estimate a second-order model • Spherical design region –wider ranges • Constructed by combining IBDs with fractions of two-level designs composing a BBD • Can either estimate the second-order model or has a simpler aliasing structure than recommended OA’s

  13. Aliasing of 29-run FBBD (7-factors)

  14. Aliasing of XCW 27-run OA (7-factors)

  15. Proposed FBBDs

  16. One-Half Fractions of BBDs • t=5 (k=2): • Each resolution I subset is paired with another “opposite” subset (e.g. I=A with I=-A) • Estimates full second-order model • t=6,7,9 (k=3): • 23-1 resolution III subsets • Has fewer runs than a second-order model, yet possesses a simple aliasing structure to exploit for analysis; more later • t=9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (k=4): • 24-1 resolution III subsets • Each factor may appear at most 3 times among the t generators in order to estimate the second-order model (see example, next slide) • Maximum D-efficiency is achieved when each generator involves factor pairs associated with l=2 (when based on a partially balanced IBD)

  17. One-Half Fraction of BBD Example • t=10

  18. Three-Quarter Fractions of BBDs • Needed for t=4 (k=2),6,7,9 (k=3) in order to estimate second-order model • Exclude runs with defining relation of the form I=P=-Q=-PQ from full 2k • Maximum D-efficiency: • t=4: See example • t=6: See example • t=7,9: use any three-quarter fraction, differences of at most 1% among D-efficiencies

  19. Three-Quarter Fractions (cont.) • Example • t=4

  20. Three-Quarter Fractions (cont.) • Example • t=6 Note: AD, BE, and CF appear together in two blocks (i.e. l1=2)

  21. Design Comparisons • FBBDs either outperform or are comparable to the 18 and 27-run OAs as well as D-optimal designs of the same run size in terms of the number of eligible projections and D-efficiency • Simulation results indicate that FBBDs are able to better identify important factors using the main effects only analysis strategy vs. the OAs proposed by CW and XCW • Since, Box-Behnken designs are often D-optimal for second-order models in a spherical region, it makes sense that fractions of these designs perform well

  22. Analysis Strategy (when we cannot estimate the 2nd order model) • What do we assume? • Effect Hierarchy • Effect Sparsity (not necessarily factor sparsity) • Weak Effect Heredity • Structure of FBBDs allows us to obtain r=3,4 independent estimates of each factor’s linear main effect

  23. Analysis Strategy (Simulated Data) • 9-factor, 49-run FBBD, r=4 • Simulate from: • Aliasing:

  24. Analysis Graphic

  25. Analysis Example (cont.) • Estimate a PSE based on deviations from median • Compare Uj’s to critical values • Interactions aliased with B, E, and J are most likely at a=0.05 • NOTE: Using the 27-run OA of XCW, no linear or quadratic effects were detected at 10% using the CW analysis strategy • Now project onto A, B, C, E, F, G, H (which is eligible)

  26. Real Data Example • Experiment conducted to optimize a very-large-scale-integrated (VLSI) process, device, and circuit design • They use a 50-run, 6 factor Box-Behnken design • Authors identify all terms in a second-order model involving factors D and E to be important • We use only half their Box-Behnken design (FBBD with 25-runs and 6-factors)

  27. VLSI Data Graphic

  28. VLSI Data Example • Interactions partially aliased with A and D are likely • Same effects stand out in graphic • All interactions satisfy weak effect heredity

  29. VLSI Data – Second-order Model • Project onto factors A, B, D, E • R2 = 0.9977 • We identify the same effects as the authors

  30. Comments Regarding FBBDs • Provide a useful alternative to the OAs of CW and XCW • More real case studies involving Box-Behnken designs would be useful • What properties to FBBDs of smaller run sizes have? • Develop critical values for analysis based on center point replication

  31. Final Comments • Benefits of FBBDs • 1. Simple to construct • More intuitive than optimal designs • Software is not required • 2. Augmentation is straightforward • Resolving analysis ambiguity or increasing precision can be done by adding runs to one or more fractions • Or one may complete the runs required for a full Box-Behnken design

  32. Thank you! Any Questions?

More Related