Crow-AMSAA Parameter Estimation Example: Difference between revisions
Chris Kahn (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lisa Hacker (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Banner RGA Examples}} | <noinclude>{{Banner RGA Examples}} | ||
''This example appears in the [ | ''This example appears in the [https://help.reliasoft.com/reference/reliability_growth_and_repairable_system_analysis Reliability growth reference]''. | ||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
The next figure shows the plot of the failure rate. If no further changes are made, the estimated MTBF is <math>\tfrac{1}{0.0217906}\,\!</math> or 46 hours. | The next figure shows the plot of the failure rate. If no further changes are made, the estimated MTBF is <math>\tfrac{1}{0.0217906}\,\!</math> or 46 hours. | ||
[[Image:FIvsTimeExample1.png|center| | [[Image:FIvsTimeExample1.png|center|450px]] |
Latest revision as of 21:21, 18 September 2023
New format available! This reference is now available in a new format that offers faster page load, improved display for calculations and images and more targeted search.
As of January 2024, this Reliawiki page will not continue to be updated. Please update all links and bookmarks to the latest references at RGA examples and RGA reference examples.
This example appears in the Reliability growth reference.
A prototype of a system was tested with design changes incorporated during the test. The following table presents the data collected over the entire test. Find the Crow-AMSAA parameters and the intensity function using maximum likelihood estimators.
Row | Time to Event (hr) | [math]\displaystyle{ ln{(T)}\,\! }[/math] |
---|---|---|
1 | 2.7 | 0.99325 |
2 | 10.3 | 2.33214 |
3 | 12.5 | 2.52573 |
4 | 30.6 | 3.42100 |
5 | 57.0 | 4.04305 |
6 | 61.3 | 4.11578 |
7 | 80.0 | 4.38203 |
8 | 109.5 | 4.69592 |
9 | 125.0 | 4.82831 |
10 | 128.6 | 4.85671 |
11 | 143.8 | 4.96842 |
12 | 167.9 | 5.12337 |
13 | 229.2 | 5.43459 |
14 | 296.7 | 5.69272 |
15 | 320.6 | 5.77019 |
16 | 328.2 | 5.79362 |
17 | 366.2 | 5.90318 |
18 | 396.7 | 5.98318 |
19 | 421.1 | 6.04287 |
20 | 438.2 | 6.08268 |
21 | 501.2 | 6.21701 |
22 | 620.0 | 6.42972 |
Solution
For the failure terminated test, [math]\displaystyle{ {\beta}\,\! }[/math] is:
- [math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} \widehat{\beta }&=\frac{n}{n\ln {{T}^{*}}-\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{\mathop{\sum }}}\,\ln {{T}_{i}}} \\ &=\frac{22}{22\ln 620-\underset{i=1}{\overset{22}{\mathop{\sum }}}\,\ln {{T}_{i}}} \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]
where:
- [math]\displaystyle{ \underset{i=1}{\overset{22}{\mathop \sum }}\,\ln {{T}_{i}}=105.6355\,\! }[/math]
Then:
- [math]\displaystyle{ \widehat{\beta }=\frac{22}{22\ln 620-105.6355}=0.6142\,\! }[/math]
And for [math]\displaystyle{ {\lambda}\,\! }[/math] :
- [math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} \widehat{\lambda }&=\frac{n}{{{T}^{*\beta }}} \\ & =\frac{22}{{{620}^{0.6142}}}=0.4239 \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]
Therefore, [math]\displaystyle{ {{\lambda }_{i}}(T)\,\! }[/math] becomes:
- [math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} {{\widehat{\lambda }}_{i}}(T)= & 0.4239\cdot 0.6142\cdot {{620}^{-0.3858}} \\ = & 0.0217906\frac{\text{failures}}{\text{hr}} \end{align}\,\! }[/math]
The next figure shows the plot of the failure rate. If no further changes are made, the estimated MTBF is [math]\displaystyle{ \tfrac{1}{0.0217906}\,\! }[/math] or 46 hours.