Two ge neral classes of search designs for factor screening experiments with factors at three levels

Abstract

In this paper, we are presenting general classes of factor screening designs for identifying a few important factors from a list of m (≥ 3) factors each at three levels. A design is a subset of 3m possible runs. The problem of finding designs with small number of runs is considered here. A main effect plan requires at least (2m + 1) runs for estimating the general mean, linear and quadratic effects of m factors. An orthogonal main effect plan requires, in addition, the number of runs as a multiple of 9. For example, when m=5, a main effect plan requires at least 11 runs and an orthogonal main effect plan requires 18 runs. Two general factor screening designs presented here are nonorthogonal designs with (2m− 1) runs. These designs, called search designs permit us to search for and identify at most two important factors out of m factors under the search linear model introduced in Srivastava (1975). For example, when m=5, the two new plans given in this paper have 9 runs, which is a significant improvement over an orthogonal main effect plan with 18 runs in terms of the number of runs and an improvement over a main effect plan with at least 11 runs. We compare these designs, for 4≤m≤ 10, using arithmetic and geometric means of the determinants, traces, and maximum characteristic roots of certain matrices. Two designs D1 and D2 are identical for m=3 and this design is an optimal design in the class of all search designs under the six criteria discussed above. Designs D1 and D2 are also identical for m=4 under some row and column permutations. Consequently, D1 and D2 are equally good for searching and identifying one important factor out of m factors when m=4. The design D1 is marginally better than the design D2 for searching and identifying one important factor out of m factors when m=5, … , 10. The design D1 is marginally better than the D2 for searching and identifying two important factors out of m factors when m=5, 7, 9. The design D2 is somewhat better than the design D1 for m=6, 8. For m=10, D1 is marginally better than D2 w.r.t. the geometric mean and D2 is marginally better than D1 w.r.t. the arithmetic mean of the maximum characteristic roots.