Alternative Axial Distances for Spherical Regions of Central Composite Designs

  • Linus Ifeanyi Onyishi Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Federal Polytechnic, Nasarawa, Nasarawa State, Nigeria
  • F. C. Eze Department of Statistics, Nnamdi-Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria
Keywords: spherical design, optimality criteria, axial distances, central composite design, Pythagorean means


Alternatives to the existing axial distances of the Central Composite Design (CCD) in spherical design using three axial distances were studied. The aim of this study is to determine a better alternative to already existing axial distances whose prediction properties are more stable in the spherical design regions. Using the concepts of the three Pythagorean means, the arithmetic, harmonic and geometric axial distances for spherical regions were developed. The performances of the alternative axial distances were compared with the existing ones using the D and G optimality criteria. The study shows that the alternative axial distances are better using the D and G optimality criteria.


M. Anderson and P. Whitcomb, RSM Simplified: Optimizing Processes Using Response Surface Methods for Design of Experiments, Productivity Press, New York, NY, 2005.

C. M. Anderson-Cook, C. M. Borror and D. C. Montgomery, Response surface design evaluation and comparison, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 139 (2009), 629-641.

A. C. Atkinson and A. N. Donev, Optimum Experimental Designs, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992.

G. E. P. Box and K. B. Wilson, On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 13 (1951), 1-38.

B. H. Diya’uddeen, A. R. Abdul Aziz and W. M. A. W. Daud, On the limitation of Fenton oxidation operational parameters: a review, International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering 10 (2012), 1-12.

F. C. Eze and L. O Ngonadi, Alphabetic optimality criteria for 2k central composite design, Academic Journal of Applied Mathematical Sciences 4(9) (2018), 107-118.

P. Goos, Discussion of “Response surface design evaluation and comparison”, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 139 (2009), 657-659.

J. Li, L. Li, C. M. Borror, C. Anderson-Cook and D. C. Montgomery, Graphical summaries to compare prediction variance performance for variations of the central composite design for 6 to 10 factors, Quality Technology and Quantitative Management 6(4) (2009), 433-449.

A. Mahsa, B. Morteza, N. Sirous and N. A. Abdolhosein, Central composite design for the optimization of the removal of the azo-dye, methyl orange from waste water using the fenton reaction, Journal of Serbian Chemical Society 77(2) (2012), 235-246.

D. C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 8th ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc.. N.Y., 2013.

R. H. Myers, D. C. Montgomery and C. M. Anderson-Cook, Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 3rd Edition, Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., 2009.

I. B. Onukogu, Foundations of Optimum Exploration of Response Surfaces, Ephrata Press, Nsukka, 1997.

G. F. Piepel, Discussion of “Response surface design evaluation & comparison” by C. M. Anderson-Cook, C. M. Borror, and D. C. Montgomery, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 139 (2009), 653-656.

How to Cite
Onyishi, L. I., & Eze, F. C. (2020). Alternative Axial Distances for Spherical Regions of Central Composite Designs. Earthline Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 4(2), 273-285.