A second order model is generally used to approximate the response once it is realized that the experiment is close to the

optimum response region where a first order model is no longer adequate. The second order model is usually sufficient for the optimum region, as third order and higher effects are seldom important. The second order regression model takes the following form for factors:

(5) The model contains effects ( regression parameters that include coefficients for main ), coefficients for quadratic main effects ( ) and coefficients for

two factor interaction effects ( . ). A full factorial design with all factors at three levels would provide estimation of all the required regression parameters. However, full factorial three level designs are expensive to use as the number of runs increases rapidly with the number of factors. For example, a three factor full factorial design with each factor at three levels would require runs while a design with four factors would require runs. Additionally, these designs will estimate a number of higher order effects which are usually not of much importance to the experimenter. Therefore, for the purpose of analysis of response surfaces, special designs are used that help the experimenter fit the second order model to the response with the use of a minimum number of runs. Examples of these designs are the central composite and Box-Behnken designs.

Central Composite Designs

Central composite designs are two level full factorial (2 ) or fractional factorial (2 ) designs augmented by a number of center points and other chosen runs. These designs are such that they allow the estimation of all the regression parameters required to fit a second order model to a given response. The simplest of the central composite designs can be used to fit a second order model to a response with two factors. The design consists of a 2 full factorial design augmented by a few runs at the center point (such a design is shown in Figure 9.10 (a)). A central composite design is obtained when runs at four other points - ( ), ( ), ( ) and ( ) are added to this design. These points are referred to as axial points or star points and represent runs where all but one of the factors are set at their mid-levels. The number of axial points in a central composite designs having The distance of the axial points from the center point is denoted by factors is 2 .

and is always specified in terms , while for

of coded values. For example, the central composite design in Figure 9.10 (b) has the design of Figure 9.10 (c) levels ( , , , and . It can be noted that when ) instead of the three levels of , and

, each factor is run at five . The reason for running

central composite designs with

is to have a rotatable design, which is explained next.

Earlier, we described the response surface method (RSM) objective. Under some circumstances, a

model involving only main effects and interactions may be appropriate to describe a response surface when 1. Analysis of the results revealed no evidence of "pure quadratic" curvature in the response of interest (i.e., the response at the center approxima tely equals the average of the responses at the factorial runs). 2. The design matrix originally used included the limits of the factor settings available to run the process.

Equations for quadratic and cubic models

In other circumstances, a complete description of the process behavior might require a quadratic or cubic model: Quadratic

Cubic

These are the full models, with all possible terms, rarely would all of the terms be needed in an application. Quadratic models almost always sufficient for industrial applications If the experimenter has defined factor limits appropriately and/or taken advantage of all the tools available in multiple regression analysis (transformations of responses and factors, for example), then finding an industrial process that requires a third-order model is highly unusual. Therefore, we will only focus on designs that are useful for fitting quadratic models. As we will see, these designs often provide lack of fit detection that will help determine when a higher-order model is needed. Figures 3.9 to 3.12 identify the general quadratic surface types that an investigator might encounter

General quadratic surface types

FIGURE 3.9 A Response Surface "Peak"

FIGURE 3.10 A Response Surface "Hillside"

FIGURE 3.11 A Response Surface "Rising Ridge"

FIGURE 3.12 A Response Surface "Saddle"

Factor Levels for Higher-Order Designs Possible behaviors of responses as functions of factor settings Figures 3.13 through 3.15 illustrate possible behaviors of responses as functions of factor settings. In each case, assume the value of the response increases from the bottom of the figure to the top and that the factor settings increase from left to right.

FIGURE 3.13 Linear Function A two-level experiment with center points can detect, but not fit, quadratic effects

FIGURE 3.14 Quadratic Function

FIGURE 3.15 Cubic Function

If a response behaves as in Figure 3.13, the design matrix to quantify that behavior need only contain factors with two levels -- low and high. This model is a basic assumption of simple two-level factorial and fractional factorial designs. If a response behaves as in Figure 3.14, the minimum number of levels required for a factor to quantify that behavior is three. One might logically assume that adding center points to a two-level design would satisfy that requirement, but the arrangement of the treatments in such a matrix confounds all quadratic effects with each other. While a two-level design with center points cannot estimate individual pure quadratic effects, it can detect them effectively. A solution to creating a design matrix that permits the estimation of simple curvature as shown in Figure 3.14 would be to use a threelevel factorial design. Table 3.21 explores that possibility. Finally, in more complex cases such as illustrated in Figure 3.15, the design matrix must contain at least four levels of each factor to characterize the behavior of the response adequately. TABLE 3.21 Three-level Factorial Designs

Three-level factorial design

Four-level factorial design

3-level factorial

designs can fit quadratic models but they require many runs when there are more than 4 factors

Number of Factors 2 3 4 5 6

Treatment Combinations 3k Factorial 9 27 81 243 729

Number of Coefficients Quadratic Empirical Model 6 10 15 21 28

Fractional factorial designs created to avoid such a large number of runs

Two-level factorial designs quickly become too large for practical application as the number of factors investigated increases. This problem was the motivation for creating `fractional factorial' designs. Table 3.21 shows that the number of runs required for a 3k factorial becomes unacceptable even more quickly than for 2k designs. The last column in Table 3.21 shows the number of terms present in a quadratic model for each case. With only a modest number of factors, the number of runs is very large, even an order of magnitude greater than the number of parameters to be estimated when k isn't small. For example, the absolute minimum number of runs required to estimate all the terms present in a four-factor quadratic model is 15: the intercept term, 4 main effects, 6 two-factor interactions, and 4 quadratic terms. The corresponding 3k design for k = 4 requires 81 runs.

Number of runs large even for modest number of factors

Complex alias structure and lack of rotatability for 3-level fractional factorial designs

Considering a fractional factorial at three levels is a logical step, given the success of fractional designs when applied to two-level designs. Unfortunately, the alias structure for the three-level fractional factorial designs is considerably more complex and harder to define than in the two-level case. Additionally, the three-level factorial designs suffer a major flaw in their lack of `rotatability.' Rotatability of Designs

"Rotatability" is a desirable property not present in 3level factorial designs

In a rotatable design, the variance of the predicted values of y is a function of the distance of a point from the center of the design and is not a function of the direction the point lies from the center. Before a study begins, little or no knowledge may exist about the region that contains the optimum response. Therefore, the experimental design matrix should not bias an investigation in any direction. In a rotatable design, the contours associated with the variance of the predicted values are concentric circles. Figures 3.16 and 3.17

Contours of variance of

predicted values are concentric circles

(adapted from Box and Draper, `Empirical Model Building and Response Surfaces,' page 485) illustrate a three-dimensional plot and contour plot, respectively, of the `information function' associated with a 32 design. The information function is:

Information function

with V denoting the variance (of the predicted value

).

Each figure clearly shows that the information content of the design is not only a function of the distance from the center of the design space, but also a function of direction. Graphs of the information function for a rotatable quadratic design Figures 3.18 and 3.19 are the corresponding graphs of the information function for a rotatable quadratic design. In each of these figures, the value of the information function depends only on the distance of a point from the center of the space.

FIGURE 3.16 ThreeFIGURE 3.17 Dimensional Illustration for Contour Map of the Information the Information Function of Function for a 32Design a 32 Design

FIGURE 3.18 ThreeFIGURE 3.19 Contour Map of the Dimensional Illustration of Information Function for a the Information Function Rotatable Quadratic Design for for a Rotatable Quadratic Two Factors

Design for Two Factors Classical Quadratic Designs Central composite and Box-Behnken designs Introduced during the 1950's, classical quadratic designs fall into two broad categories: Box-Wilson central composite designs and BoxBehnken designs. The next sections describe these design classes and their properties.

Optimization of Biodiesel Production by Response Surface Methodology and Genetic Algorithm Singhal, Richa CSIR-Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, Seth, Prateek CSIR-Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, Bangwal, Dinesh CSIR-Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, Kaul, Savita CSIR-Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, (Received 15 September 2011; accepted 18 April 2012) Abstract The biodiesel production from alkali-catalyzed transesterification of karanja oil was investigated. In this study, the effect of three parameters, i.e., reaction temperature, catalyst concentration, and molar ratio of methanol to oil on biodiesel yield was studied. Central composite design (CCD) along with response surface methodology (RSM) was used for designing experiments and estimating the quadratic response surface. Catalyst concentration was found to have a negative effect on biodiesel yield, whereas molar ratio showed positive effect. Temperature and molar ratio showed significant interaction effect. The reaction conditions were optimized for maximum response, i.e., biodiesel yield from RSM. The program for the RSM model, coupled with genetic algorithm (GA), was developed for predicting the optimized process parameters for maximum biodiesel yield to obtain a global optimal solution. The results were found to be similar from both of the methods.

In statistics, a central composite design is an experimental design, useful in response surface methodology, for building a second order (quadratic) model for the response variable without needing to use a complete three-level factorial experiment. After the designed experiment is performed, linear regression is used, sometimes iteratively, to obtain results. Coded variables are often used when constructing this design.
In this work, a standard RSM design called CCD was applied to study the variables for preparing the activated carbon from rice husk (RHAC). The CCD consists of three kinds of runs which are the 2n factorial runs, 2(n) axial runs

and six center runs, where n is the number of variables. The preparation variables used were activation temperature (x1), activation time (x2) and IR (x3) indicating that altogether 20 experiments for this procedure as calculated from (4): 2 2n n 2 23 6 20 4 where N is the total number of experiments required. These three variables together with their respective ranges were chosen based on literature and prelimin