English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The interest of most process engineers in industries is usually to optimize the yield of their processes. Not until 1951, imprecise methodologies were used in industries for this purpose. However, in 1951, G. E. P. Box and K. B. Wilson invented the technique of Response Surface Methodology (RSM) as one used for the optimization of the yield of processes. Being an initial idea, this paper has considered RSM as a foundational idea. In particular, it criticizes this foundational idea from the angle of its intuitive approach to searching for near-optimal settings of industrial processes, should such processes fail to run at optimal settings. RSM uses the tools of canonical transformation and analysis (a trial-and-error routine) for this search. Regardless, the foundational response surface methodology is acknowledged to be primarily efficient for determining the optimum response.

A Critique on the Foundational Response Surface Methodology for Exploring Optimal Regions