RSM Part1 Intro

Intro to Response Surface Methods
Part 1 Central Composite Designs

*Presentation is posted at www.statease.com/webinar.html
Please use the raise hand feature on GotoWebinar, which I will watch
for during my presentation. To avoid disrupting the Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) system, I will mute all. If I do not get to you, please accept
my apology in advance. Then Id appreciate you sending me an email after
the talk so we can discuss your issue(s) off-line. -- Shari
By Shari Kraber, MS, Applied Stats.

Stat-Ease, Inc., Minneapolis, MN
Shari@statease.com 1
Introduction to Response Surface Methods
1. Response Surface Methodology

Response surface designs
Central composite designs
Whey protein case study
2. Multiple Response Optimization
Agenda Transition
Response Surface Methodology:
Screening
Known
Factors
Unknown
Factors


(design and analysis)
Trivial
many
Screening
Vital few
Characterization
Factor effects
and interactions
no
Curvature?
yes
Optimization
Response
Surface
Methods
Verification
Confirm?
Celebrate!
no
Backup
yes
Response Surface Methodology

Subject Matter
Knowledge
Factors
Design of Experiments
Process
Region of Operability
Region of Interest
Responses
Empirical Models
(polynomials)
ANOVA
Contour Plots
Optimization
4
Region of Interest
versus Region of Operability
Use factorial design to
get close to the peak.
Then RSM to climb it.
Region of Interest
Region of Operability
5
Polynomial Approximations
A decent approximation of any mathematical function can be made via an
infinite series of powers of X, such as that proposed by Taylor. For RSM,
this takes the form:
y 0 1x1 2 x 2 12 x1x 2 11x12 22 x 22
112 x12 x 2 122 x1x 22 111x13 222 x 23 ...

1. The higher the degree of the polynomial, the more closely the Taylor
series can approximate the truth.
2. The smaller the region of interest, the better the approximation. It
often suffices to go only to quadratic level (x to the power of 2).
3. If you need higher than quadratic, think about:
A transformation
Restricting the region of interest
Looking for an outlier(s)
Using a higher order polynomial
Simple Maximum (or Minimum)
Maximum
4.00
95
2.00
75
B
M a x im u m
85
0.00
85
65
80
75
70
65
-2.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
-2.00
-2.00
-4.00 -4.00
-4.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
y 83.57 9.39A 7.12B 7.44A 2 3.71B2 5.80AB

7
Rising Ridge
Rising Ridge
4.00
95
85
2.00
85
75
80
B
R is in g R id g e
90
65
65
0.00
65
75
-2.00
4.00
70
4.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
-2.00
-2.00
-4.00 -4.00
-4.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
y 77.57 8.80A 8.19B 6.95A 2 2.07B2 7.59AB

8
Stationary Ridge
Stationary Ridge
4.00
85
2.00
75
B
S t a t io n a r y R id g e
95
65 75 80 85
70
0.00
65
70
80 75
85
65
-2.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
-2.00
-2.00
-4.00 -4.00
-4.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
y 83.93 10.23A 5.59B 6.95A 2 2.07B2 7.59AB

9
Saddle, or MiniMax
Saddle
4.00
115
155
105
140
95
125
85
95
65
75
75
65
80
S a d d le
2.00
110
85
0.00
65
95
105
-2.00
115
4.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
125
2.00
135
145
0.00
-2.00
-2.00
-4.00 -4.00
-4.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
y 84.29 11.06A 4.05B 6.46A 2 0.43B2 9.38AB

10

Considerations
Requires a quantitative response affected by continuous
factors.
Works best with only a handful of critical factors, those that
survive the screening phases of the experimental program.
Produces an empirical polynomial model which gives an

approximation of the true response surface over a factor
region.
Seeks the optimal settings for process factors so you can
maximize, minimize, or stabilize the responses of interest.
By overlaying contour maps from multiple responses, RSM
can be used to find the ideal "window" of operability.
11

Types of Designs
Central Composite Design

Classic 5-level design
Great statistical properties
Box Behnken Design
3-level design
Also great statistical properties
Optimal (Custom) Design
Customizable for nearly any situation
Categoric factors, constrained design space
12
Agenda Transition
Screening
Known
Factors
Unknown
Factors


Trivial
many
Screening
Vital few
Characterization
Factor effects
and interactions
no
Curvature?
yes
Optimization
Response
Surface
Methods
Verification
Confirm?
Celebrate!
no
Backup
yes
13

14

Elements
Two-level full/fractional factorial (Res V or higher).
Estimate first-order and two factor interactions.
Center points
Estimate pure error and tie blocks together.

Star (or axial) points
Estimate pure quadratic effects.
CCDs are good designs for fitting

second order (quadratic) polynomials
15

Template for 3 Factors
Factorial
points:
Axial (star)
points:
Center
points:
16
Structuring a CCD
Region of Interest
Keep axial
(star) runs
within the
circle.
This is the
region of
operability.
Stay within the

box* when you
use your model
for making
predictions!
*region of
interest
17
Agenda Transition
Screening
Known
Factors
Unknown
Factors


Trivial
many
Screening
Vital few
Characterization
Factor effects
and interactions
no
Curvature?
yes
Optimization
Response
Surface
Methods
Verification
Confirm?
Celebrate!
no
Backup
yes
18
Whey Protein Concentrates

Case Study (design and analysis)
Richert et. al.* (1974) used a central composite design to study the effects of five
factors on whey protein concentrates. The factors, with ranges noted in terms of
alpha (star levels), are:
A. Heating temperature, C/30 min.
B. pH level
C. Redox potential, volts
65
85
-0.025
0.375
D. Sodium oxalate, molar
0.05
E. Sodium lauryl sulfate, % of solids
0.2
The experimenters chose a CCD based on a one-half fraction for the cube portion
(25-1). This rotatable design (with = 2) has six center points.
19

Instructions (1 of 4)
1. The experimenters chose a CCD based on a fraction for the
cube portion (25-1): choose the Fraction.
(Be sure to choose the half fraction before clicking on Enter
factor ranges in terms of alpha.)
2. Then choose Enter factor ranges in terms of alpha.
2
1
Rsm section 3
20

3. The experimenters used a rotatable design ( = 2) and six
center points.
Rsm section 3
21

4. Enter the factor ranges as the alpha values:
5. Enter the one response we will investigate, undenatured

protein, in abbreviated form such as Unde Pro. The units of
measure are percent (%).
Rsm section 3
22
Whey Protein Case Study

Data Factorial portion of CCD
Std
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Factor
Run
A:Heat
C / 30 min
9
25
3
19
4
29
22
18
11
31
2
23
13
30
7
12
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
70.0
80.0
Factor
B:pH
Factor
C:Redox
volt
Factor
D:Na ox
Molar
Factor
E:Na lau
% of soli
Response
Unde Pro
%
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.275
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.15
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.05
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.15
0.05
0.05
0.15
80.6
67.9
83.1
38.1
79.7
74.7
71.2
36.8
81.7
66.8
73.0
40.5
74.9
74.2
63.5
42.8
23

Data Star and center points
Std
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Factor
Run
A:Heat
C / 30 min
8
27
16
24
10
17
15
28
32
21
20
5
6
26
1
14
65.0
85.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
Factor
B:pH
Factor
C:Redox
volt
Factor
D:Na ox
Molar
Factor
E:Na lau
% of soli
Response
Unde Pro
%
6.0
6.0
4.0
8.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
-0.025
0.375
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0000
0.0500
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
80.9
42.4
73.4
45.0
66.0
71.7
77.5
76.3
67.4
86.5
77.4
74.6
79.8
78.3
74.8
80.9
24
Case Study

There were nine responses, lets look at three key ones:
Y1 Undenatured protein, %.
Y2 Whipping time, min.
Y3 Time at first drop, min.
25

Sequential Model Sum of Squares
Sequential Model Sum of Squares
Sum of
Mean
Source
Squares
DF
Square
Mean 1.516E+005
1 1.516E+005
Linear
4323.77
5
864.75
2FI
883.30
10
88.33
Quadratic
1179.84
5
235.97
Cubic
202.04
5
40.41
Residual
36.51
6
6.09
Total 1.582E+005
32
4943.93
F
Value
Prob > F
9.77
1.00
10.88
6.64
< 0.0001
0.4848
0.0006
0.0196
Suggested
Aliased
"Sequential Model Sum of Squares": Select the highest order polynomial where the
additional terms are significant.
26

Lack of Fit Tests
Lack of Fit Tests
Source
Linear
2FI
Quadratic
Cubic
Pure Error
Sum of
Squares
2268.60
1385.30
205.46
3.42
33.09
DF
21
11
6
1
5
Mean
Square
108.03
125.94
34.24
3.42
6.62
F
Value
16.32
19.03
5.17
0.52
Prob > F
0.0029
0.0022
0.0459
0.5044
Suggested
Aliased
"Lack of Fit Tests": Want the selected model to have insignificant lack-of-fit.
Do you want significant lack of fit?
27

Model Summary Statistics
Model Summary Statistics
Std.
Adjusted Predicted
Source
Dev. R-Squared R-Squared R-Squared
PRESS
Linear
9.41
0.6526
0.5858
0.4673 3529.61
2FI
9.42
0.7859
0.5852
-1.1703 14379.16
Quadratic
4.66
0.9640
0.8985
0.1632 5544.20
Cubic
2.47
0.9945
0.9715
0.4325 3759.87
Suggested
Aliased
"Model Summary Statistics": Focus on the model minimizing the "PRESS", or

equivalently maximizing the "PRED R-SQR".
Whats wrong with these statistics?
28

Significance (?) of Quadratic Terms
Lets try reducing this model to only significant terms.
Source
SS
A
2458.35
B
1807.87
C
0.26
D
12.18
E
45.10
2
A
506.85
B2
667.23
2
C
162.93
2
D
3.48
2
E
3.23
AB
616.28
AC
122.66
AD
50.06
AE
7.98
BC
45.23
BD
1.05
BE
3.71
CD
0.031
CE
36.30
DE
0.016
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MS
2458.35
1807.87
0.26
12.18
45.10
506.85
667.23
162.93
3.48
3.23
616.28
122.66
50.06
7.98
45.23
1.05
3.71
0.031
36.30
0.016
F
113.36
83.36
0.012
0.56
2.08
23.37
30.77
7.51
0.16
0.15
28.42
5.66
2.31
0.37
2.09
0.048
0.17
1.412E-003
1.67
7.205E-004
Prob > F
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.9147
0.4693
0.1771
0.0005
0.0002
0.0192
0.6965
0.7069
0.0002
0.0366
0.1569
0.5564
0.1766
0.8298
0.6873
0.9707
0.2222
0.9791
29
Algorithmic Model Reduction
Backward Selection
1. Begin with the full model.
2. Remove from the model the factor with the smallest F value.
3. Stop when the p-value of the next factor out satisfies the
specified alpha value criterion.
We put this first on the list because it gives every term a

chance to get into the model.
30

Model Reduction (Instructor-led)
1. Return to model selection by
pressing the Model button
2. Reduce the model by changing the
Selection method from Manual to
Backward.
3. Choose ANOVA for this reduced
model.
31
Hierarchical Models*
Y E S!
32
Full vs Reduced Quadratic Model (1 of 2)

ANOVA for Response Surface Quadratic Model (Full)
Sum of
Mean
F
Source
Squares
DF
Square
Value
Model
6386.91
20
319.35
14.73
Residual
238.55
11
21.69
Lack of Fit 205.46
6
34.24
5.17
Pure Error
33.09
5
6.62
Cor. Total
6625.46
31
ANOVA for Response Surface Reduced Quadratic Model

Sum of
Mean
F
Source
Squares
DF
Square
Value
Model
6331.63
12
527.64
34.12
Residual
293.83
19
15.46
Lack of Fit 260.73
14
18.62
2.81
Pure Error
33.09
5
6.62
Cor. Total
6625.46
31
Prob > F
< 0.0001
0.0459
Prob > F
< 0.0001
0.1297
33
Full vs Reduced Quadratic Model (2 of 2)

Full Quadratic Model
Std. Dev.
4.66
Dep Mean
68.83
C.V.
6.77
PRESS 5544.20
R-Squared
Adj R-Squared
Pred R-Squared
Adeq. Precision
0.9640
0.8985
0.1632
11.789
R-Squared
Adj R-Squared
Pred R-Squared
Adeq Precision
0.9557
0.9276
0.8589
17.589
Reduced Quadratic Model

Std. Dev.
3.93
Mean 68.83
C.V. %
5.71
PRESS 934.73
Benefits are clear for using the reduced model for this response.
34
Case Study

35

Y2 Whipping time
Response: Whip time
Transform: Base 10 log
Constant: 0.000
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Sum of
Mean
F
Source
Squares
DF
Square
Value
Prob > F
Model
0.47
7
0.067
15.43
< 0.0001
A
0.23
1
0.23
53.78
< 0.0001
B
5.528E-004
1
5.528E-004
0.13
0.7241
C
0.037
1
0.037
8.53
0.0075
D
4.136E-003
1
4.136E-003
0.95
0.3384
A2
0.100
1
0.100
23.03
< 0.0001
AB
0.069
1
0.069
16.02
0.0005
BD
0.024
1
0.024
5.56
0.0269
Residual
0.10
24
4.333E-003
Lack of Fit
0.093
19
4.905E-003
2.27
0.1854
Pure Error
0.011
5
2.161E-003
Cor Total
0.57
31
36

Y2 Whipping time
Response: Whip time
Std. Dev.
Mean
C.V.
PRESS
Constant: 0.000
0.066
0.64
10.28
R-Squared
Adj R-Squared
Pred R-Squared
0.20
Adeq Precision
0.8182
0.7652
0.6544
18.865
37
Case Study

38

Y3 Time at first drop
Response: Time at first drop
Constant: 0.000
ANOVA for Response Surface Reduced 2FI Model
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares]
Sum of
Mean
F
Source
Squares
DFSquare
Value
Prob > F
Model
0.85
7
0.12
8.01
< 0.0001
A
0.019
1
0.019
1.26
0.2735
B
0.53
1
0.53
35.41
< 0.0001
C
0.089
1
0.089
5.89
0.0231
D
2.095E-004
1
2.095E-004
0.014
0.9072
E
0.025
1
0.025
1.68
0.2075
AD
0.11
1
0.11
7.55
0.0112
AE
0.064
1
0.064
4.24
0.0504
Residual
0.36
24
0.015
Lack of Fit
0.35
19
0.019
11.72
0.0063
Pure Error
7.950E-003
5
1.590E-003
Cor Total
1.21
31
39

Std. Dev.
Mean
C.V.
0.12
1.00
12.34
R-Squared
Adj R-Squared
Pred R-Squared
PRESS
0.73
Adeq Precision
Constant: 0.000
0.7001
0.6127
0.3933
12.609
40

Optimization
Next Step:
Use the three response models we just fit to find the best
tradeoff in properties to give the optimum operating
conditions.
41
Introduction to Design of Experiments
1. Response Surface Methodology

2. Multiple Response Optimization

42
Agenda Transition
Multiple Response Optimization:
(optimization)
Screening
Known
Factors
Unknown
Factors
Trivial
many
Screening
Vital few
Characterization
Factor effects
and interactions
no
Curvature?
yes
Optimization
Response
Surface
Methods
Verification
Confirm?
Celebrate!
no
Backup
yes
43
Simultaneous Optimization
of Multiple Responses
1. Analyze each response separately and establish an appropriate
transformation and model for each.
2. Optimize using the models to search the independent factor
space for a region that simultaneously satisfies the
requirements placed on the responses.
Useful models are essential!
Design of experiments is critical!
44
First Step: Develop Good Models

Dont Over Interpret the Statistics!
Be sure the fitted surface adequately represents your process
before you use it for optimization. Check for:
1. A significant model: Large F-value with p<0.05.
2. Insignificant lack-of-fit: F-value with p>0.10.
3. Adequate precision >4.
4. Well behaved residuals: Check diagnostic plots!
45

Y1 Undenatured protein
Response: Undenatured Protein

Square
Mean
Value
F
Prob > F
12
527.64
34.12
< 0.0001
293.83
19
15.46
Lack of Fit
260.73
14
18.62
2.81
0.1297
Pure Error
33.09
6.62
6625.46
31
Source
Model
Residual
Cor. Total
Std. Dev.
Squares
Sum of
DF
6331.63
3.93
R-Squared
0.9557
68.83
Adj R-Squared
0.9276
C.V. %
5.71
Pred R-Squared
0.8589
PRESS
934.73
Adeq Precision
17.589
Mean
46

Y2 Whipping time
Response: Whip time
Constant: 0.000

Squares
0.47
Sum of
DF
7
Square
0.067
0.10
24
4.333E-003
Lack of Fit
0.093
19
4.905E-003
Pure Error
0.011
2.161E-003
Cor Total 0.57
31
Source
Model
Residual
Std. Dev.
Mean
Value
15.43
F
Prob > F
< 0.0001
2.27
0.1854
0.066
R-Squared
0.8182
Mean
0.64
Adj R-Squared
0.7652
C.V.
10.28
Pred R-Squared
0.6544
0.20
Adeq Precision
18.865
PRESS
47

Constant: 0.000

Squares
0.85
Sum of
DF
7
Square
0.12
0.36
24
0.015
0.35
19
0.019
Pure Error 0.00795
1.590E-003
Source
Model
Residual
Lack of Fit
Cor Total
1.21
Mean
Value
8.01
F
Prob > F
< 0.0001
11.72
0.0063
31
Std. Dev.
0.12
R-Squared
0.7001
Mean
1.00
Adj R-Squared
0.6127
C.V.
12.34
Pred R-Squared
0.3933
0.73
Adeq Precision
12.609
PRESS
48
Response Surface Numeric Optimization
Desirability as an Objective Function (1/2)

To determine a best combination of responses, we use an
objective function, D(X), that involves the use of a geometric
mean:
D d1 d2 ... dn
1
n
di
i 1
n
1
n
The di, which range from 0 to 1 (least to most desirable

respectively), represents the desirability of each individual
(i) response.
n is the number of responses being optimized.
49
Response Surface Numeric Optimization
Desirability as an Objective Function (2/2)

Now you can search for the greatest overall desirability (D) for
responses and/or factors (for example, if time is a factor, you may
want to keep it to a minimum):
D = 1 indicates that all the goals are satisfied.
(If this happens, youre probably not asking
for enough!)
D = 0 when one or more responses fall outside acceptable
limits. (Hopefully this will not happen, but if so, try relaxing
some of your criteria!)
50
Desirability as an Objective Function
Assigning Optimization Parameters (1/2)

The crucial phase of numerical optimization is assignment of
various parameters that define the application of individual
desirabilities (dis). The most important are:
Goal (none, maximum, minimum, target or range)
Limits (lower and upper).
In this case:
Want to maximize undenatured protein.
Want to minimize whip time.
Want to maximize time at first drop.
51
Desirability as an Objective Function
Assigning Optimization Parameters (2/2)

Of lesser importance are the parameters:
Weight (0.1 to 10) (Well leave them all = 1)
Importance (5-point scale displayed + to +++++)
In this case:
Undenatured protein is most important, + + + + +.
Whip time is least important, + +.
Time at first drop, this is of intermediate importance, + + +.
52

Optimization
Want to maximize
undenatured protein,
this is the most important
response:
+++++
53

Optimization
Want to minimize whip
time, this is the least
important response:
++
54

Optimization
Want to maximize time at
first drop, this is of
intermediate importance:
+++
55

Numeric Optimization
Solutions
#
Y2
Y3
0.15
82.948 3.3895
12.7
0.217
0.04
0.15
82.917 3.3842
12.7
0.217
0.14
0.04
0.15
82.924 3.3902
12.6
0.214
6.15
0.17
0.04
0.15
82.852 3.3890
12.7
0.214
6.17
0.16
0.04
0.14
82.921 3.3925
12.5
0.212
1 70.00
6.23
0.15
0.04
2 70.00
6.24
0.15
3 70.00
6.26
4 70.00
5 70.00
Factor
A
B
C
D
E
Name
Heating
pH
Redox pot
Na oxalate
Na lauryl
Y1
Response
Y1
Y2
Y3
Name
Undenatured Protein
Whip time
Time at first drop
56

Numeric Optimization
57
Summary Response Surface Methods

Goal Optimization of process
Tools
Central Composite design
(when it fits the problem)
Optimal (Custom) design if needed
(Watch for webinar - Part 2!)
Numerical Optimization
58
Practical Paperbacks on DOE*

by Mark Anderson and Pat Whitcomb
User Review of DOE Simplified:

As an engineer (just beginning self study on the topic of DOE) I found this book
very useful. The authors provide practical insight that I was unable to find in other
DOE or statistics books. This is not a book for advanced statisticians, however, it is
a great book for someone trying to understand and apply the principles of DOE.
* Published by Productivity Press, New York.
59
Statistics Made Easy

For all the new features in v8 of Design-Expert software, see
www.statease.com/dx8descr.html
Best of luck for your

experimenting!
Thanks for listening!
-- Shari
Shari Kraber, MS, Applied Stats
Stat-Ease, Inc.
Shari@statease.com
*Pdf of this Powerpoint presentation posted at www.statease.com/webinar.html.
For future webinars, subscribe to DOE FAQ Alert at www.statease.com/doealert.html.
60
How to get help

Search publications posted at www.statease.com.
In Stat-Ease software press for Screen Tips, view
reports in annotated mode, look for context-sensitive Help
(right-click) or search the main Help system.
Explore Experiment Design Forum http://forum.statease.com
and post your question (if not previously answered).
E-mail stathelp@statease.com for answers from Stat-Eases
staff of statistical consultants.
Call 612.378.9449 and ask for statistical help.
61

RSM Part1 Intro

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RSM Part1 Intro

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Intro to Response Surface Methods

Part 1 Central Composite Designs

By Shari Kraber, MS, Applied Stats.

Introduction to Response Surface Methods

1. Response Surface Methodology

Response surface designs

Whey protein case study

Response Surface Methodology

y 0 1x1 2 x 2 12 x1x 2 11x12 22 x 22

112 x12 x 2 122 x1x 22 111x13 222 x 23 ...

Simple Maximum (or Minimum)

y 83.57 9.39A 7.12B 7.44A 2 3.71B2 5.80AB

y 77.57 8.80A 8.19B 6.95A 2 2.07B2 7.59AB

y 83.93 10.23A 5.59B 6.95A 2 2.07B2 7.59AB

y 84.29 11.06A 4.05B 6.46A 2 0.43B2 9.38AB

Response Surface Methodology

Produces an empirical polynomial model which gives an

Response Surface Methodology

Central Composite Design

Response surface designs

Whey protein case study

Response Surface Methodology

Central Composite Design

Estimate pure error and tie blocks together.

CCDs are good designs for fitting

Central Composite Design

Stay within the

Response surface designs

Whey protein case study

Whey Protein Concentrates

D. Sodium oxalate, molar

E. Sodium lauryl sulfate, % of solids

Whey Protein Concentrates

Whey Protein Concentrates

Whey Protein Concentrates

5. Enter the one response we will investigate, undenatured

Whey Protein Case Study

Whey Protein Case Study

Whey Protein Concentrates

Y3 Time at first drop, min.

Whey Protein Case Study

Whey Protein Case Study

Do you want significant lack of fit?

Whey Protein Case Study

"Model Summary Statistics": Focus on the model minimizing the "PRESS", or

Whats wrong with these statistics?

Whey Protein Case Study

Algorithmic Model Reduction

We put this first on the list because it gives every term a

Whey Protein Case Study

Whey Protein Case Study

Full vs Reduced Quadratic Model (1 of 2)

ANOVA for Response Surface Reduced Quadratic Model

Whey Protein Case Study

Full vs Reduced Quadratic Model (2 of 2)

Reduced Quadratic Model

Whey Protein Concentrates

Y3 Time at first drop, min.

Whey Protein Concentrates

Whey Protein Concentrates

Transform: Base 10 log

Whey Protein Concentrates

Y3 Time at first drop, min.