Performance Evaluation of a Five-Variable Face-Centered Central Composite Design with Full and Fractional Factorial Points in Process Optimization

Samuel Owhorndah Nanaka; Issac Didi Essi; Iyai Davies; Nkuturum Christy

doi:10.56201/ijasmt.vol.11.no1.2025.pg117.131

📄 Download Paper

Performance Evaluation of a Five-Variable Face-Centered Central Composite Design with Full and Fractional Factorial Points in Process Optimization

Samuel Owhorndah Nanaka, Issac Didi Essi, Iyai Davies, Nkuturum Christy

Abstract

Experimental design techniques play a crucial role in optimizing processes, particularly in resource-constrained environments. The Face-Centered Central Composite Design (FCCCD) is widely used for response surface modeling, but its performance when combining full and fractional portions remains underexplored. This study evaluates the performance of a Five-Variable Face- Centered Central Composite Design (FCCCD) with full and fractional factorial points in process optimization. The objective is to compare the design efficiency, predictive accuracy, and reliability of both design types under varying experimental conditions. The study assesses design parameters, fit statistics, and optimality criteria using statistical metrics such as A-efficiency, D-efficiency, and G-efficiency. Model validation is performed to show if the model fits the data, and adequacy precision through residual versus predicted plots. The performance of FCCCD is analyzed in terms of model adequacy, predictive capability, and practical feasibility. The impact of center points on model fit is also investigated. The findings provide that the fractional factorial design demonstrates significant advantages in efficiency, achieving higher A-efficiency (25.20% versus 18.55%) and D-efficiency (32.13% versus 12.06%) compared to the full factorial design. This makes it ideal for studies constrained by time, budget, or experimental resources. Despite its efficiency, it shows mild heteroscedasticity and non-linearity at the extremes of the response range, suggesting potential for further refinement. On the other hand, the full factorial design achieves superior G-efficiency (94.66% versus 80.59%), making it better suited for applications requiring extensive exploration of variable interactions and robust predictions. The fit statistics for FCCCD indicate strong model performance. The full factorial designs with 5 center points shows a moderate coefficient of variation o

Keywords

Face-Centered Central Composite DesignProcess OptimizationFull Factorial

References

Alvarez, R., Smith, J., & Patel, K. (2009). Enhancing experimental efficiency using fractional factorial designs in response surface methodology. Journal of Applied Statistics, 36(4), 567-583. Anderson, M. J., & Whitcomb, P. J. (2016). Design of Experiment (DOE) Simplified: Practical Tools for Effective Experimentation (3rd ed.). CRC Press. Box, G. E. P., & Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. John Wiley & Sons. (USA) Box, G. E. P., & Wilson, K. B. (1951). On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 13(1), 1-45. Iwundu, M. P., & Cosmos, J. (2022). Evaluating model complexity and efficiency trade-offs in response surface methodology: A case study on BBD. International Journal of Experimental Design and Analysis, 29(3), 215-230. Khuri, A. I., & Cornell, J. A. (1987). Response Surfaces: Designs and Analyses. CRC Press. Kumar, R., Sharma, P., & Verma, S. (2018). Process optimization in a five-variable machining system using face-centered central composite design. International Journal of Manufacturing Engineering, 45(2), 123-137. Li, X., Wang, Y., & Chen, L. (2019). The effect of outliers on central composite design and robust regression techniques for optimization. Statistical Modelling, 37(2), 189-205. Li, X., Zhang, M., & Chen, L. (2020). Comparative assessment of FCCCD, BBD, and PBD in process optimization. Journal of Statistical Research, 41(1), 97-115. Montgomery, D. C. (2017). Design and Analysis of Experiments (9th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Patel, V., Rao, T., & Desai, R. (2020). A comparative study of FCCCD and CCD in response surface optimization. Industrial Statistics Review, 18(4), 456-478. Singh, R., Gupta, N., & Mehta, P. (2017). Comparing full factorial and fractional factorial designs for process optimization. Journal of Process Engineering, 25(3), 305-320. Wu, C. F. J., & Hamada, M. (2000). Experiments: Planning, Analysis, and Optimization (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Wu, C. F. J., & Hamada, M. (2009). Experiments: Planning, Analysis, and Optimization (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Performance Evaluation of a Five-Variable Face-Centered Central Composite Design with Full and Fractional Factorial Points in Process Optimization

Abstract

Keywords

References

More Articles from INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED SCIENCES AND MATHEMATICAL THEORY