Two ge neral classes of search designs for factor screening experiments with factors at three levels

In this paper, we are presenting general classes of factor screening designs for identifying a few important factors from a list of m (≥ 3) factors each at three levels. A design is a subset of 3^m possible runs. The problem of finding designs with small number of runs is considered here. A main effect plan requires at least (2m + 1) runs for estimating the general mean, linear and quadratic effects of m factors. An orthogonal main effect plan requires, in addition, the number of runs as a multiple of 9. For example, when m=5, a main effect plan requires at least 11 runs and an orthogonal main effect plan requires 18 runs. Two general factor screening designs presented here are nonorthogonal designs with (2m− 1) runs. These designs, called search designs permit us to search for and identify at most two important factors out of m factors under the search linear model introduced in Srivastava (1975). For example, when m=5, the two new plans given in this paper have 9 runs, which is a significant improvement over an orthogonal main effect plan with 18 runs in terms of the number of runs and an improvement over a main effect plan with at least 11 runs. We compare these designs, for 4≤m≤ 10, using arithmetic and geometric means of the determinants, traces, and maximum characteristic roots of certain matrices. Two designs D1 and D2 are identical for m=3 and this design is an optimal design in the class of all search designs under the six criteria discussed above. Designs D1 and D2 are also identical for m=4 under some row and column permutations. Consequently, D1 and D2 are equally good for searching and identifying one important factor out of m factors when m=4. The design D1 is marginally better than the design D2 for searching and identifying one important factor out of m factors when m=5, … , 10. The design D1 is marginally better than the D2 for searching and identifying two important factors out of m factors when m=5, 7, 9. The design D2 is somewhat better than the design D1 for m=6, 8. For m=10, D1 is marginally better than D2 w.r.t. the geometric mean and D2 is marginally better than D1 w.r.t. the arithmetic mean of the maximum characteristic roots.