“Response Surface Methodology:An Overview”
Ashwin Pathak 1, Dr. Vijaya Kumar K.N 2
P.G Fellow 1, D.J Sanghvi College of Engineering, Mumbai
Professor & Head of Mechanical Department 2, D.J Sanghvi College of Engineering, Mumbai
ashwinpathak.pathak@gmail.com 1kotturvijaykumar@gmail.com 2
Abstract: This paper discusses about a review of major
developments in the response surface method (RSM), which
offer our thoughts to move towards global optimum solution,
it also provide specific recommendations for experimenters
and statisticians exploring new frontiers. Specific topics
covered are optimal design, central composite design, Box-
Behnken design, response surface design, orthogonal design,
factorial design, and expected integrated mean square error-
optimal methodology.
Keywords: Central Composite Design, Box Behnken Design,
Expected Integrated Mean Square Error
I. Introduction
Response surface methodology (RSM) is a collection of
mathematical and statistical techniques that are useful for
the modelling and analysis of problems in which a
response of interest is influenced by several variables and
the objective of analysis is to optimize the responses. RSM
model may not be able to find the overall (global) best
solution and might be trapped easily in a local minima
when a process is influenced by a large number of
variables and is highly non-linear with multiple outputs. It
exploits simple empirical models such as low-degree
polynomials to identify the relationship between response
variable and a set of input variables over a current region
of interest. [2]
II. Literature
Response surface Method’ (RSM) term was been
explained which had shown year wise consistent
development in an experimental field, therefore the
developments are as follows-
‘Response curves’ came into existence in 1930 as
explained Mead and Pike in their paper.
Yates explained about ‘factorial arrays’ in 1935 which was
used by Box and co-worker along with ‘Mitcherlich
response equation’ as a probable motivator.
Simplex designs and Plackett-Burman (1946) designs were
available as economical first order orthogonal designs.
The origin of Response Surfaces Method (RSM) was been
discussed by George E. P. Box and K. B. Wilson (1951) in
which they describe the application of RSM for chemical
processes which put an impact on industrial applications of
experimental design. The original intent was to highlight a
strategy--both experimental and analytic. They also
discussed about the notion of composite designs which
then introduced.
In 1957, Box-Hunter explained rotatability, which requires
the variance of a predicted value which remain constant at
points that are equidistant from the design center, therefore
22
rotatability became an important design property. They
also developed the general conditions that give rise to
orthogonal blocking in the second order case.
Hartley (1959), put an effort to reduce the number of runs
in the composite design from those that had earlier been
suggested. It also allowed for more flexibility in choosing
two-level fractions for the cube portion of the composite
design.
Box and Draper (1959, 1963) put an introduction of notion
of robustness of an RSM design to model misspecification,
though the word 'robustness' was not used in this regard
until later. Their work centered around the consideration of
the average mean squared error
J = (NK) / σ2 ʃ R E[ŷ(x) - g(x)]2 dx
where ŷ(x) is the fitted polynomial of order d, and g(x) is a
model of order d2 > d1, containing unknown parameters.
‘R’ region of interest in design variables, ‘K’ reciprocal of
volume of R, ‘N’ the total number of observations, and ‘σ2’
error variance.
Box–Behnken design (1960) for response surface
methodology was proposed by Box and Behnken which
play a vital role when three levels is to be used for
experiment.
Box and Cox (1964) shown the estimation of
transformation parameter (λ) with other model parameters
(overall mean and treatment effects). The controlled
parameters which affect surface finish in turning operation
are feed rate and cutting speed (Lascoe, Nelson, & Porter,
1973).
Hoke (1974) developed an economical second order
designs based on irregular fractions of the 3n factorial plan
which are based on sets of partially balanced arrays and are
compared to Box-Behnken and other competing designs.
Lucas (1974), emphasizes that in terms of generalized
variance, if an experimental region is fixed (i.e a cube or
hyper sphere), the optimum central composite design is
suitable to move experimental points at the edge of the
experimental region.
Mead and Pike (1975) explained the response surface
method from biometric viewpoint which emphasized on
biological application and put the definition of RSM in
broader manner and also provide an excellent discussion
regarding the choice of the response function to graduate
the relationship between the dependent and independent
variables.
Lucas (1977) offers alternative ideas on number of center
runs for both the family of composite designs and other
designs.
Approach to optimization of multiple responses is to use
the simultaneous optimization technique popularized by
Derringer and Suich (1980).
Freeman (1981) recommended the use of quasi-complete
Latin squares, which shows the property that every random
pair of elements occurs adjacently twice in rows and twice
in columns.
Cheng (1981) explained the optimality properties of
generalized Youden designs which holds for a less
restrictive class of designs which was called further as
"pseudo-Youden" designs and also gave suggestions to
construct them.
Constantine (1983) had shown a simple way to generate a
design which minimizes the average variance of the
treatment-control comparisons is to reinforce a balanced
incomplete block design by adding the control treatment to
each block; this also yields a balanced treatment
incomplete block design.
Ronald Hocking (1983) in regression analysis which fits
the quadratic model (i.e linear + interaction terms) within a
given points.
Steinberg and Hunter (1984) in experimental design
explained the different methods which is helpful to
optimize the process in an efficient manner.
Draper (1985) demonstrated that in some cases, Plackett-
Burman designs can be used in the factorial portion.
Mukerjee and Heda (1985) developed designs associated
with minimum variance of the estimated slope maximized
over all points in the factor space for second and third
polynomial models over a spherical region.
Del Castillo (1996) describes an approach involving
constrained confidence regions. Optimal solutions are
found that simultaneously satisfy confidence regions for
the responses.
Choudhury and El-Baradie (1997) used RSM and 23
factorial designs to estimate the surface roughness during
the turning process of high strength steel. Raymond Myers
(1999) explains the future directions in RSM which offers
a view of research needs in a particular field.
Quan (1999) described that the merchants circle equation
cannot be used for the composite materials as the yield
strength of these materials are completely different and
also the assumptions made during merchant circle
derivation restricts their application to composite materials
and it also relate the coefficient of chip deformation with
the fraction of reinforcement and the shear angle.
Voutchkov I., (2001), Central composite rotatable design
of second order was found to be the most efficient tool in
response surface methodology (RSM) to establish the
empirical relationship using the smallest possible number
of experiments without losing its accuracy.
Suresh (2002) used the RSM and genetic algorithm for
predicting the surface roughness and optimizing process
parameters.
Davim (2003) reported the influence of the cutting
parameters during turning Al/SiCp on the surface
roughness, tool wear and power requirements by
employing ANOVA and multiple linear regression
techniques.
Sahin (2003) developed a setup for manufacturing Metal
Matrix Composites (MMCs) which has a bottom tapping
facility which is placed to evaluate three methods for
23
mixing of the reinforcement and had achieved full and
homogenous distribution of the particles in the matrix alloy
but the setup doesn’t have the facility to change the
position of the impeller in the melt.
Kowalski et al. (2005) propose three methods for carrying
out the method of steepest ascent in a split-plot
experiment.
Montgomery, Peck, and Vining (2006) demonstrate the
construction of elliptical shaped region for p=2 because,
having only 2 parameters provide finding the region is
relatively simple.
Kannan (2008) studied tool wear during machining of
Al-MMC under both wet and dry machining conditions
and found that tool life was increased at higher cutting
speeds and surface quality was deteriorated.
Ozben (2008) investigated the effects of machining
parameters on tool wear of silicon carbide particulate
(SiCp) reinforced aluminum Metal Matrix Composites
(MMCs) for different volume fraction of silicon carbide. It
was observed that the increase in silicon carbide addition
produced better mechanical properties, but at the same
time there is an increase in tool wear.
Iqbal and Khan (2010) involved in developing prediction
models using this renowned response surface methodology
for their machining studies which was used to determine
the factor levels that will simultaneously satisfy a set of
desired specification and also to determine the optimum
combination of factors that yields a desired response and
describes the response near the optimum, to determine how
a specific response is affected by changes in the level of
the factors over the specified levels of interest.
Seeman (2010) developed a mathematical model for
machinability evaluation in turning of Al/SiCp composites
and also described the effects of process parameters on the
tool flank wear and surface roughness.
III. Application
1. Application of response surface methodology for
determining cutting force model in turning hardened AISI
H11 hot work tool steel [13]: To determine statistical
models of cutting forces in hard turning of AISI H11 hot
work tool steel (~50 HRC) which is free from tungsten, it
is not sensitive to temperature changes and having a high
wear resistance which is used in manufacturing of highly
stressed die-casting moulds and inserts with high tool life
expectancy, plastic moulds which are subjected to high
stress. The work piece machining is done by a mixed
ceramic tool under dry conditions. As 33 full factorial
design is selected total 27 test were carried out. Each
parameter is set at three different levels low, medium and
high. Mathematical models were deduced by software
Minitab (multiple linear regression and response surface
methodology) in order to identify the influential variable
within cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut on cutting
force material. These models helped in selection of cutting
variables for optimization of hard cutting process.
2 Application of Taguchi and Response Surface Method
for surface roughness in machining glass fiber reinforced
plastic by PCD tooling [14]: Taguchi method and response
surface method was used for reducing the surface
roughness in machining glass fibre reinforced plastics
(GFRP) with a polycrystalline diamond (PCD) tool. A
second order model had been established the cutting
parameters and surface roughness using Response surface
methodology. The predicted values and measured values
are approximately close, which indicates that the
developed model are used to predict the surface roughness
for machining of GFRP composites. The predicted values
are finalised by using validation experiments.
3 Application of response surface methodology in
describing the performance of coated carbide tools when
turning AISI 1045 steel [15]: The multilayer tungsten
carbide tool performance was described using response
surface methodology (RSM) while turning AISI 1045
steel. The operations of cutting of tool were performed
with constant depth of cut and under dry cutting
conditions. The factors which were investigated are cutting
speed, feed and the side cutting edge angle (SCEA) of the
cutting edge. The main cutting force, i.e. the tangential
force and surface roughness were the response variables
investigated. The experimental plan was based on the face
centred, central composite design (CCD). The feed is the
most important factor that influences the surface roughness
and the tangential force. In the case of surface roughness,
the SCEA and the interaction of feed and SCEA provides
these contributions whilst for tangential force, the SCEA,
the interaction of feed and SCEA; and the cutting speed
provides them.
IV. Methodology
Central composite design (CCDs) (1951): A central composite
design is an experimental design, useful in RSM, for
generating a second order (quadratic) model for
the response variable without using a complete three-
level factorial experimental design. As designed
experiment is performed, linear regression is used,
sometimes iteratively, to obtain results. Coded variables
are often used when constructing this design. Full-factorial
3-level design for the quadratic response surface is used
(i.e 3n points). In some cases affording such designs for
fairly small values of n. Central Composite Design allow
us to estimate just linear and quadratic terms and first order
interactions. Using a Central Composite Design, it is not
feasible to estimate cubic terms and higher order
interactions. For example, for n = 6, we require 36 = 729
experiments. A design which reduces the number of
experiments to close to the 2-level full factorial design is
the central composite design (CCD).
Fig. Central Composite Design for n = 2 and α = √2
24
The central composite design is composed of the 2 n points
of the full factorial two-level design, with all the variables
at their extremities, plus a number of repetitions nc of the
nominal design, plus the 2n points obtained by changing
one design variable at a time by an amount ‘α’.
Fig. Central Composite Design for n = 3 and α = √3
The above fig. shows the central composite design for n =
2 and n = 3. The value of ‘α’ chosen in the figures are such
that all the points outside the origin are of the same
distance from the origin, so that we have a spherical
design. This placement of the points is at the higher end of
the typical choice for ‘α’. A more popular choice is based
on the concept of rotatability. The property of rotatability
requires that the prediction variance be dependent only on
the distance from the origin and not on the orientation with
respect to the coordinate axes. There are many different
methods to select a useful value of α. Let F be the number
of points due to the factorial design and T = 2k + n, the
number of additional points, where n is the number of
central points in the design. Common values are as follows
(Myers, 1971):
1. Orthogonal design: α = (Q x F/4)1/4 , where Q =
(√(F + T) – √F)2;
2. Rotatable design: α = F1/4 (the design
implemented by MATLAB’s central composite
design function).
Central composite rotatable design of second order was
found to be the most efficient tool in response surface
methodology (RSM) to establish the empirical relationship
using the smallest possible number of experiments without
losing its accuracy.
Box Behnken Designs (BBDs) (1960): BBDs
are experimental designs for response surface
methodology, devised by George E. P. Box and Donald
Behnken in 1960, to achieve the goals as each factor, or
independent variable, is placed at one of three equally
spaced values, usually coded as -1, 0, +1. (i.e At least
three levels are needed for the following goal.). These are
useful in the same setting as the central composite designs
having a primary advantage of addressing the issue of
experimental boundaries It avoids all the corner points, and
the star points The design should be sufficient to fit
a quadratic model, that is, one containing squared terms
and products of two factors. The ratio of the number of
experimental points to the number of coefficients in the
quadratic model should be reasonable (in fact, their designs
kept it in the range of 1.5 to 2.6). The estimation
variance should more or less depend only on the distance
from the centre (i.e for designs with 4 and 7 factors), and
should not vary too much inside the smallest (hyper)cube
containing the experimental points. The design with 7
factors was found first while looking for a design having
the desired property concerning estimation variance, and
then similar designs were found for other numbers of
factors. Each design can be thought of as a combination of
a two-level (full or fractional) factorial design with
an incomplete block design. In each block, a certain
number of factors are put through all combinations for the
factorial design, while the other factors are kept at the
central values. A Box-Behnken (BB) design with two
factors does not exist. With three factors the Box-Behnken
design by default will have three center points and is given
in the Minitab output For instance, the Box–Behnken
design for 3 factors involves three blocks, in each of which
2 factors are varied through the 4 possible combinations of
high and low. It is necessary to include centre points as
well (in which all factors are at their central values). Box-
Behnken design is used to avoid the situation where the
corner points in the central composite design are very
extreme.
Expected Integrated Mean Squared Error Optimal (EIMSE-
Optimal) (2003): The mean integrated squared error
(MISE) is used for density estimation. The Mean
Integrated Squared Error (MISE) estimates an unknown
probability density which is given by
E ││(fn - f)││22 = E ʃ [fn(x) - fn(x)]2 dx
Where, f is the unknown density, fn is its estimate based on
a sample of n independent and identically distributed
random variables. ‘E’ denotes the expected value with
respect to that sample. The MISE is also known as L2 risk
function.
V. Advances in area
An advance response surface topics had put a light on the
effects of bias in the fitting of response surface models,
they identified the effects of errors in the design variables,
the experiments performed along with the computer
models, an alternative method to minimum-bias estimation
is the method of least squares, also the role of artificial
neural networks in RSM and how to deal with non-normal
responses through the use of generalized linear models,
and the most important is response surface designs in a
split-plot structure.
It often occurs that the minimum variance approach applies
a premium to pushing points to the edge of the region of
interest (much in a D-optimal approach), whereas a
minimum bias approach calls for more placement of points
that are at an intermediate distance from the design center.
The details depend upon (a) the model that one is fitting
and (b) the model that one chooses to protect against. The
latter model usually involves model terms that are of order
higher than that of the fitted model.
25
Conclusion
From the above literature survey, it is found that there are
immense work done on optimization of materials by
different techniques and processes followed by different
steps for achieving a respective output or a responses for
the given process parameters. As it is found that there are
very few research work done with the above methods from
local optimal to global optima except Response Surface
Methodology
References
1) Raymond H Myers, Andre I Khuri, Walter H. Carter Jr, RESPONSE
SURFACE METHODOLOGY :1966-1986
2) Tatjana Šibalija, Vidosav Majstorović; Taguchi-Based and Intelligent
Optimisation of a Multi-Response Process Using Historical Data;
Journal of Mechanical Engineering 57(2011)4, 357-365.
3) Mr. Ballal Yuvaraj P., Dr. Inamdar K.H.,Mr. Patil P.V., Application
Of Taguchi Method For Design Of Experiments In Turning Gray
Cast Iron, International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 2, Issue 3, May-Jun
2012, pp.1391-1397.
4) Kamaraj Chandrasekaran, Perumal Marimuthu, K Raja, Computer
Numerical Control Turning on AISI410 with Single and Nano
Multilayered Coated Carbide Tools under Dry Conditions, Year :
2012 , Volume : 2 , Issue : 2 , Page : 75-81.
5) M. Janardhan ,Dr. A. Gopala Krishna, Determination And
Optimization Of Cylindrical Grinding Process Parameters Using
Taguchi Method And Regression Analysis, International Journal Of
Engineering Science And Technology (Ijest),Issn : 0975-5462 Vol. 3
No. 7 July 2011 5659
6) Kamal Hassan, Anish Kumar, M.P.Garg, Experimental investigation
of Material removal rate in CNC turning using Taguchi method,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
(IJERA) ISSN:2248-9622,Vol. 2, Issue 2,Mar-Apr 2012, pp.1581-
1590.
7) Ishan B Shah, Kishore. R. Gawande, Optimization of Cutting Tool
Life on CNC Milling Machine Through Design Of Experiments-A
Suitable Approach – An overview, International Journal of
Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT),ISSN: 2249 – 8958,
Volume-1, Issue-4, April 2012.
8) H. Yanda, J.A. Ghani, M.N.A.M. Rodzi, K. Othman And C.H.C.
Haron, Optimization Of Material Removal Rate, Surface Roughness
And Tool Life On Conventional Dry Turning Of Fcd700,
International Journal Of Mechanical And Materials Engineering
(Ijmme), Vol.5 (2010), No.2, 182-190
9) M. Naga Phani Sastry and. K. Devaki Devi, Optimization of
Performance Measures in CNC Turning using Design of Experiments
(RSM), Science Insights: An International Journal 2011; 1 (1): 1-5
10) J.S.Senthil kumaar; P.Selvarani and Rm.Arunachalam, Selection Of
Machining Parameters Based On The Analysis Of Surface Roughness
And Flank Wear In Finish Turning And Facing Of Inconel 718 Using
Taguchi Technique, Emirates Journal For Engineering Research, 15
(2), 7-14 (2010).
11) Murthy B.R.N., Lewlyn L.R. Rodrigues* and Anjaiah Devineni,
Process Parameters Optimization in GFRP Drilling through
Integration of Taguchi and Response Surface Methodology Research
Journal of Recent Sciences ISSN 2277-2502,Vol. 1(6), 7-15, June
(2012) Res.J.Recent Sci.
12) Kompan Chomsamutr, Optimization Parameters of tool life Model
Using the Taguchi Approach and Response Surface Methodology,
IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 9, Issue
1, No 3, January 2012, ISSN (Online): 1694-0814,www.IJCSI.org
13) B Fnides, M A Yallese, T Mabrouki and J-F Rigal , Sadhana Vol.
36, Part 1, February 2011, pp. 109–123.©Indian Academy of
Sciences, Application of response surface methodology for
determining cutting force model in turning hardened AISI H11 hot
work tool steel.
14) K. Palani kumar, Application of Taguchi and response surface
methodologies for surface roughness in machining glass fiber
reinforced plastics by PCD tooling, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, February 2008, Volume 36,
Issue 1-2, pp 19-27.
15) M.Y. Noordin, Application of response surface methodology in
describing the performance of coated carbide tools when turning
AISI 1045 steel, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 145
(2004) 46–58
16) Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Application of response surface methodology
on investigating flank wear in machining hardened steel using PVD
TiN coated mixed ceramic insert, International Journal of Industrial
Engineering Computations 4(2013)469–478.
17) Response surface methodology and related topics by Andre khuri,
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. ISBN 981-256-458-6.
18) Mark Anderson; RSM Simplified: Optimizing Processes using
Response surface methods for Design of experiments by productivity
press,1953.
19) Jiju Antony; Design of Experiments for Engineers and Scientists:
ISBN: 0750647094, Publisher: Elsevier Science & Technology
Books,2003.
20) David M. Steinberg and William G. Hunter; Experimental Design:
Review and Comment by Techno metrics: Vol. 26, No 2, May 1984.
21) Satpal Sharma; Flank Wear Prediction Model Development by
Response Surface Methodology; Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 1, Jan-Jun 2013.
26
22) K. Palanikumar; Surface Roughness parameters optimization in
machining A356/SiC/20P Metal Matrix Composites by PCD Tool
Using Response Surface Methodology and desirability function,
Machining Science and Technology, 12:529–545, (2008) Taylor &
Francis Group, LLC, ISSN: 1091-0344.
23) S. R. Chauhan & Kali Dass; Optimization of Machining Parameters
in Turning of Titanium (Grade-5) Alloy Using Response Surface
Methodology; Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 27: 531–537,
2012, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, ISSN: 1042-6914.
24) V. Sugandhi; Optimization of Friction Surfacing Process Parameters
for AA1100 Aluminum Alloy Coating with Mild Steel Substrate
Using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) Technique, Modern
Applied Science, Vol. 6 No.2, Feb 2012.
25) M.Y. Noordin; Application of Response Surface Methodology in
describing the performance of coated carbide tools when turning
AISI 1045 steel, Journal of material processing Technology,(2004).