Exponential Dstribution for Grouped Data

20 units were reliability tested with the following results:

Number of Units in Group	Time-to-Failure
Table - Life Test Data
7	100
5	200
3	300
2	400
1	500
2	600

1. Assuming a 2-parameter exponential distribution, estimate the parameters by hand using the MLE analysis method.

2. Repeat the above using Weibull++. (Enter the data as grouped data to duplicate the results.)

3. Show the Probability plot for the analysis results.

4. Show the Reliability vs. Time plot for the results.

5. Show the pdf plot for the results.

6. Show the Failure Rate vs. Time plot for the results.

7. Estimate the parameters using the rank regression on Y (RRY) analysis method (and using grouped ranks).

Solution

1. For the 2-parameter exponential distribution and for [math]\displaystyle{ \hat{\gamma }=100\,\! }[/math] hours (first failure), the partial of the log-likelihood function, [math]\displaystyle{ \lambda\,\! }[/math], becomes:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} \frac{\partial \Lambda }{\partial \lambda }= &\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{\mathop \sum }}\,{N_i} \left[ \frac{1}{\lambda }-\left( {{T}_{i}}-100 \right) \right]=0\\ \Rightarrow & 7[\frac{1}{\lambda }-(100-100)]+5[\frac{1}{\lambda}-(200-100)] + \ldots +2[\frac{1}{\lambda}-(600-100)]\\ = & 0\\ \Rightarrow & \hat{\lambda}=\frac{20}{3100}=0.0065 \text{fr/hr} \end{align} \,\! }[/math]

2. Enter the data in a Weibull++ standard folio and calculate it as shown next.

3. On the Plot page of the folio, the exponential Probability plot will appear as shown next.

4. View the Reliability vs. Time plot.

5. View the pdf plot.

6. View the Failure Rate vs. Time plot.

Note that, as described at the beginning of this chapter, the failure rate for the exponential distribution is constant. Also note that the Failure Rate vs. Time plot does show values for times before the location parameter, [math]\displaystyle{ \gamma \,\! }[/math], at 100 hours.

7. In the case of grouped data, one must be cautious when estimating the parameters using a rank regression method. This is because the median rank values are determined from the total number of failures observed by time [math]\displaystyle{ {{T}_{i}}\,\! }[/math] where [math]\displaystyle{ i\,\! }[/math] indicates the group number. In this example, the total number of groups is [math]\displaystyle{ N=6\,\! }[/math] and the total number of units is [math]\displaystyle{ {{N}_{T}}=20\,\! }[/math]. Thus, the median rank values will be estimated for 20 units and for the total failed units ([math]\displaystyle{ {{N}_{{{F}_{i}}}}\,\! }[/math]) up to the [math]\displaystyle{ {{i}^{th}}\,\! }[/math] group, for the [math]\displaystyle{ {{i}^{th}}\,\! }[/math] rank value. The median ranks values can be found from rank tables or they can be estimated using ReliaSoft's Quick Statistical Reference tool.

For example, the median rank value of the fourth group will be the [math]\displaystyle{ {{17}^{th}}\,\! }[/math] rank out of a sample size of twenty units (or 81.945%).

The following table is then constructed.

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{matrix} N & {{N}_{F}} & {{N}_{{{F}_{i}}}} & {{T}_{i}} & F({{T}_{i}}) & {{y}_{i}} & T_{i}^{2} & y_{i}^{2} & {{T}_{i}}{{y}_{i}} \\ \text{1} & \text{7} & \text{7} & \text{100} & \text{0}\text{.32795} & \text{-0}\text{.3974} & \text{10000} & \text{0}\text{.1579} & \text{-39}\text{.7426} \\ \text{2} & \text{5} & \text{12} & \text{200} & \text{0}\text{.57374} & \text{-0}\text{.8527} & \text{40000} & \text{0}\text{.7271} & \text{-170}\text{.5402} \\ \text{3} & \text{3} & \text{15} & \text{300} & \text{0}\text{.72120} & \text{-1}\text{.2772} & \text{90000} & \text{1}\text{.6313} & \text{-383}\text{.1728} \\ \text{4} & \text{2} & \text{17} & \text{400} & \text{0}\text{.81945} & \text{-1}\text{.7117} & \text{160000} & \text{2}\text{.9301} & \text{-684}\text{.6990} \\ \text{5} & \text{1} & \text{18} & \text{500} & \text{0}\text{.86853} & \text{-2}\text{.0289} & \text{250000} & \text{4}\text{.1166} & \text{-1014}\text{.4731} \\ \text{6} & \text{2} & \text{20} & \text{600} & \text{0}\text{.96594} & \text{-3}\text{.3795} & \text{360000} & \text{11}\text{.4211} & \text{-2027}\text{.7085} \\ \sum_{}^{} & {} & {} & \text{2100} & {} & \text{-9}\text{.6476} & \text{910000} & \text{20}\text{.9842} & \text{-4320}\text{.3362} \\ \end{matrix}\,\! }[/math]

Given the values in the table above, calculate [math]\displaystyle{ \hat{a}\,\! }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ \hat{b}\,\! }[/math]:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \hat{b}= & \frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{\mathop{\sum }}}\,{{t}_{i}}{{y}_{i}}-(\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{\mathop{\sum }}}\,{{t}_{i}})(\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{\mathop{\sum }}}\,{{y}_{i}})/6}{\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{\mathop{\sum }}}\,t_{i}^{2}-{{(\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{\mathop{\sum }}}\,{{t}_{i}})}^{2}}/6} \\ & & \\ & \hat{b}= & \frac{-4320.3362-(2100)(-9.6476)/6}{910,000-{{(2100)}^{2}}/6} \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

or:

[math]\displaystyle{ \hat{b}=-0.005392\,\! }[/math]

and:

[math]\displaystyle{ \hat{a}=\overline{y}-\hat{b}\overline{t}=\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathop{\sum }}}\,{{y}_{i}}}{N}-\hat{b}\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathop{\sum }}}\,{{t}_{i}}}{N}\,\! }[/math]

or:

[math]\displaystyle{ \hat{a}=\frac{-9.6476}{6}-(-0.005392)\frac{2100}{6}=0.2793\,\! }[/math]

Therefore:

[math]\displaystyle{ \hat{\lambda }=-\hat{b}=-(-0.005392)=0.05392\text{ failures/hour}\,\! }[/math]

and:

[math]\displaystyle{ \hat{\gamma }=\frac{\hat{a}}{\hat{\lambda }}=\frac{0.2793}{0.005392}\,\! }[/math]

or:

[math]\displaystyle{ \hat{\gamma }\simeq 51.8\text{ hours}\,\! }[/math]

Then:

[math]\displaystyle{ f(T)=(0.005392){{e}^{-0.005392(T-51.8)}}\,\! }[/math]

Using Weibull++, the estimated parameters are:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} \hat{\lambda }= & 0.0054\text{ failures/hour} \\ \hat{\gamma }= & 51.82\text{ hours} \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

The small difference in the values from Weibull++ is due to rounding. In the application, the calculations and the rank values are carried out up to the [math]\displaystyle{ 15^{th}\,\! }[/math] decimal point.

Exponential Distribution Auto Batch Run Example

A number of leukemia patients were treated with either drug 6MP or a placebo, and the times in weeks until cancer symptoms returned were recorded. Analyze each treatment separately [21, p.175].

Time (weeks)	Number of Patients	Treament	Comments
Table - Leukemia Treatment Results
1	2	placebo
2	2	placebo
3	1	placebo
4	2	placebo
5	2	placebo
6	4	6MP	3 patients completed
7	1	6MP
8	4	placebo
9	1	6MP	Not completed
10	2	6MP	1 patient completed
11	2	placebo
11	1	6MP	Not completed
12	2	placebo
13	1	6MP
15	1	placebo
16	1	6MP
17	1	placebo
17	1	6MP	Not completed
19	1	6MP	Not completed
20	1	6MP	Not completed
22	1	placebo
22	1	6MP
23	1	placebo
23	1	6MP
25	1	6MP	Not completed
32	2	6MP	Not completed
34	1	6MP	Not completed
35	1	6MP	Not completed

Create a new Weibull++ standard folio that's configured for grouped times-to-failure data with suspensions. In the first column, enter the number of patients. Whenever there are uncompleted tests, enter the number of patients who completed the test separately from the number of patients who did not (e.g., if 4 patients had symptoms return after 6 weeks and only 3 of them completed the test, then enter 1 in one row and 3 in another). In the second column enter F if the patients completed the test and S if they didn't. In the third column enter the time, and in the fourth column (Subset ID) specify whether the 6MP drug or a placebo was used.

Next, open the Batch Auto Run utility and select to separate the 6MP drug from the placebo, as shown next.

The software will create two data sheets, one for each subset ID, as shown next.

Calculate both data sheets using the 2-parameter exponential distribution and the MLE analysis method, then insert an additional plot and select to show the analysis results for both data sheets on that plot, which will appear as shown next.

Weibull Distribution Examples

Three-parameter Weibull distribution example

Median Rank Plot Example

In this example, we will determine the median rank value used for plotting the 6th failure from a sample size of 10. This example will use Weibull++'s Quick Statistical Reference (QSR) tool to show how the points in the plot of the following example are calculated.

First, open the Quick Statistical Reference tool and select the Inverse F-Distribution Values option.

In this example, n1 = 10, j = 6, m = 2(10 - 6 + 1) = 10, and n2 = 2 x 6 = 12.

Thus, from the F-distribution rank equation:

[math]\displaystyle{ MR=\frac{1}{1+\left( \frac{10-6+1}{6} \right){{F}_{0.5;10;12}}}\,\! }[/math]

Use the QSR to calculate the value of F_0.5;10;12 = 0.9886, as shown next:

Consequently:

[math]\displaystyle{ MR=\frac{1}{1+\left( \frac{5}{6} \right)\times 0.9886}=0.5483=54.83%\,\! }[/math]

Another method is to use the Median Ranks option directly, which yields MR(%) = 54.8305%, as shown next:

Complete Data Example

Assume that 10 identical units (N = 10) are being reliability tested at the same application and operation stress levels. 6 of these units fail during this test after operating the following numbers of hours, [math]\displaystyle{ {T}_{j}\,\! }[/math]: 150, 105, 83, 123, 64 and 46. The test is stopped at the 6th failure. Find the parameters of the Weibull pdf that represents these data.

Solution

Create a new Weibull++ standard folio that is configured for grouped times-to-failure data with suspensions.

Enter the data in the appropriate columns. Note that there are 4 suspensions, as only 6 of the 10 units were tested to failure (the next figure shows the data as entered). Use the 3-parameter Weibull and MLE for the calculations.

Plot the data.

Note that the original data points, on the curved line, were adjusted by subtracting 30.92 hours to yield a straight line as shown above.

Suspension Data Example

ACME company manufactures widgets, and it is currently engaged in reliability testing a new widget design. 19 units are being reliability tested, but due to the tremendous demand for widgets, units are removed from the test whenever the production cannot cover the demand. The test is terminated at the 67th day when the last widget is removed from the test. The following table contains the collected data.

**Widget Test Data**
Data Point Index	State (F/S)	Time to Failure
1	F	2
2	S	3
3	F	5
4	S	7
5	F	11
6	S	13
7	S	17
8	S	19
9	F	23
10	F	29
11	S	31
12	F	37
13	S	41
14	F	43
15	S	47
16	S	53
17	F	59
18	S	61
19	S	67

Solution

In this example, we see that the number of failures is less than the number of suspensions. This is a very common situation, since reliability tests are often terminated before all units fail due to financial or time constraints. Furthermore, some suspensions will be recorded when a failure occurs that is not due to a legitimate failure mode, such as operator error. In cases such as this, a suspension is recorded, since the unit under test cannot be said to have had a legitimate failure.

Enter the data into a Weibull++ standard folio that is configured for times-to-failure data with suspensions. The folio will appear as shown next:

We will use the 2-parameter Weibull to solve this problem. The parameters using maximum likelihood are:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \hat{\beta }=1.145 \\ & \hat{\eta }=65.97 \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Using RRX:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \hat{\beta }=0.914\\ & \hat{\eta }=79.38 \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Using RRY:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \hat{\beta }=0.895\\ & \hat{\eta }=82.02 \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Interval Data Example

Suppose we have run an experiment with 8 units tested and the following is a table of their last inspection times and failure times:

Data Point Index	Last Inspection	Failure Time
1	30	32
2	32	35
3	35	37
4	37	40
5	42	42
6	45	45
7	50	50
8	55	55

Analyze the data using several different parameter estimation techniques and compare the results.

Solution

Enter the data into a Weibull++ standard folio that is configured for interval data. The data is entered as follows:

The computed parameters using maximum likelihood are:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \hat{\beta }=5.76 \\ & \hat{\eta }=44.68 \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Using RRX or rank regression on X:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \hat{\beta }=5.70 \\ & \hat{\eta }=44.54 \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Using RRY or rank regression on Y:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \hat{\beta }=5.41 \\ & \hat{\eta }=44.76 \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

The plot of the MLE solution with the two-sided 90% confidence bounds is:

Mixed Data Types Example

From Dimitri Kececioglu, Reliability & Life Testing Handbook, Page 406. [20].

Estimate the parameters for the 3-parameter Weibull, for a sample of 10 units that are all tested to failure. The recorded failure times are 200; 370; 500; 620; 730; 840; 950; 1,050; 1,160 and 1,400 hours.

Published Results:

Published results (using probability plotting):

[math]\displaystyle{ {\widehat{\beta}} = 3.0\,\! }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ {\widehat{\eta}} = 1,220\,\! }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ {\widehat{\gamma}} = -300\,\! }[/math]

Computed Results in Weibull++

Weibull++ computed parameters for rank regression on X are:

[math]\displaystyle{ {\widehat{\beta}} = 2.9013\,\! }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ {\widehat{\eta}} = 1195.5009\,\! }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ {\widehat{\gamma}} = -279.000\,\! }[/math]

The small difference between the published results and the ones obtained from Weibull++ are due to the difference in the estimation method. In the publication the parameters were estimated using probability plotting (i.e., the fitted line was "eye-balled"). In Weibull++, the parameters were estimated using non-linear regression (a more accurate, mathematically fitted line). Note that γ in this example is negative. This means that the unadjusted for γ line is concave up, as shown next.

Weibull Distribution RRX Example

Assume that 6 identical units are being tested. The failure times are: 93, 34, 16, 120, 53 and 75 hours.

1. What is the unreliability of the units for a mission duration of 30 hours, starting the mission at age zero?

2. What is the reliability for a mission duration of 10 hours, starting the new mission at the age of T = 30 hours?

3. What is the longest mission that this product should undertake for a reliability of 90%?

Solution

1. First, we use Weibull++ to obtain the parameters using RRX.

Then, we investigate several methods of solution for this problem. The first, and more laborious, method is to extract the information directly from the plot. You may do this with either the screen plot in RS Draw or the printed copy of the plot. (When extracting information from the screen plot in RS Draw, note that the translated axis position of your mouse is always shown on the bottom right corner.)

Using this first method, enter either the screen plot or the printed plot with T = 30 hours, go up vertically to the straight line fitted to the data, then go horizontally to the ordinate, and read off the result. A good estimate of the unreliability is 23%. (Also, the reliability estimate is 1.0 - 0.23 = 0.77 or 77%.)

The second method involves the use of the Quick Calculation Pad (QCP).

Select the Prob. of Failure calculation option and enter 30 hours in the Mission End Time field.

Note that the results in QCP vary according to the parameter estimation method used. The above results are obtained using RRX.

2. The conditional reliability is given by:

[math]\displaystyle{ R(t|T)=\frac{R(T+t)}{R(T)}\,\! }[/math]

or:

[math]\displaystyle{ \hat{R}(10hr|30hr)=\frac{\hat{R}(10+30)}{\hat{R}(30)}=\frac{\hat{R}(40)}{\hat{R}(30)}\,\! }[/math]

Again, the QCP can provide this result directly and more accurately than the plot.

3. To use the QCP to solve for the longest mission that this product should undertake for a reliability of 90%, choose Reliable Life and enter 0.9 for the required reliability. The result is 15.9933 hours.

Benchmark with Published Examples

The following examples compare published results to computed results obtained with Weibull++.

Complete Data RRY Example

From Dimitri Kececioglu, Reliability & Life Testing Handbook, Page 418 [20].

Sample of 10 units, all tested to failure. The failures were recorded at 16, 34, 53, 75, 93, 120, 150, 191, 240 and 339 hours.

Published Results

Published Results (using Rank Regression on Y):

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=1.20 \\ & \widehat{\eta} = 146.2 \\ & \hat{\rho }=0.998703\\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Computed Results in Weibull++

This same data set can be entered into a Weibull++ standard data sheet. Use RRY for the estimation method.

Weibull++ computed parameters for RRY are:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=1.1973 \\ & \widehat{\eta} = 146.2545 \\ & \hat{\rho }=0.9999\\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

The small difference between the published results and the ones obtained from Weibull++ is due to the difference in the median rank values between the two (in the publication, median ranks are obtained from tables to 3 decimal places, whereas in Weibull++ they are calculated and carried out up to the 15th decimal point).

You will also notice that in the examples that follow, a small difference may exist between the published results and the ones obtained from Weibull++. This can be attributed to the difference between the computer numerical precision employed by Weibull++ and the lower number of significant digits used by the original authors. In most of these publications, no information was given as to the numerical precision used.

Suspension Data MLE Example

From Wayne Nelson, Fan Example, Applied Life Data Analysis, page 317 [30].

70 diesel engine fans accumulated 344,440 hours in service and 12 of them failed. A table of their life data is shown next (+ denotes non-failed units or suspensions, using Dr. Nelson's nomenclature). Evaluate the parameters with their two-sided 95% confidence bounds, using MLE for the 2-parameter Weibull distribution.

Published Results:

Weibull parameters (2P-Weibull, MLE):

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=1.0584 \\ & \widehat{\eta} = 26,296 \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Published 95% FM confidence limits on the parameters:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=\lbrace 0.6441, \text{ }1.7394\rbrace \\ & \widehat{\eta} = \lbrace 10,522, \text{ }65,532\rbrace \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Published variance/covariance matrix:

Note that Nelson expresses the results as multiples of 1,000 (or = 26.297, etc.). The published results were adjusted by this factor to correlate with Weibull++ results.

Computed Results in Weibull++

This same data set can be entered into a Weibull++ standard folio, using 2-parameter Weibull and MLE to calculate the parameter estimates.

You can also enter the data as given in table without grouping them by opening a data sheet configured for suspension data. Then click the Group Data icon and chose Group exactly identical values.

Weibull Distribution Example 18 Group Data.png

The data will be automatically grouped and put into a new grouped data sheet.

Weibull++ computed parameters for maximum likelihood are:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=1.0584 \\ & \widehat{\eta} = 26,297 \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Weibull++ computed 95% FM confidence limits on the parameters:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=\lbrace 0.6441, \text{ }1.7394\rbrace \\ & \widehat{\eta} = \lbrace 10,522, \text{ }65,532\rbrace \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Weibull++ computed/variance covariance matrix:

The two-sided 95% bounds on the parameters can be determined from the QCP. Calculate and then click Report to see the results.

Weibull Distribution Example 18 QCP Parameter Bounds.png

Interval Data MLE Example

From Wayne Nelson, Applied Life Data Analysis, Page 415 [30]. 167 identical parts were inspected for cracks. The following is a table of their last inspection times and times-to-failure:

Published Results:

Published results (using MLE):

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=1.486 \\ & \widehat{\eta} = 71.687\\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Published 95% FM confidence limits on the parameters:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=\lbrace 1.224, \text{ }1.802\rbrace \\ & \widehat{\eta} = \lbrace 61.962, \text{ }82.938\rbrace \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Published variance/covariance matrix:

Computed Results in Weibull++

This same data set can be entered into a Weibull++ standard folio that's configured for grouped times-to-failure data with suspensions and interval data.

Weibull++ computed parameters for maximum likelihood are:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=1.485 \\ & \widehat{\eta} = 71.690\\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Weibull++ computed 95% FM confidence limits on the parameters:

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=\lbrace 1.224, \text{ }1.802\rbrace \\ & \widehat{\eta} = \lbrace 61.961, \text{ }82.947\rbrace \\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Weibull++ computed/variance covariance matrix:

Grouped Suspension MLE Example

From Dallas R. Wingo, IEEE Transactions on Reliability Vol. R-22, No 2, June 1973, Pages 96-100.

Wingo uses the following times-to-failure: 37, 55, 64, 72, 74, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 102, 105, 105, 107, 113, 117, 120, 120, 120, 122, 124, 126, 130, 135, 138, 182. In addition, the following suspensions are used: 4 at 70, 5 at 80, 4 at 99, 3 at 121 and 1 at 150.

Published Results (using MLE)

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=3.7596935\\ & \widehat{\eta} = 106.49758 \\ & \hat{\gamma }=14.451684\\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Computed Results in Weibull++

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{align} & \widehat{\beta }=3.7596935\\ & \widehat{\eta} = 106.49758 \\ & \hat{\gamma }=14.451684\\ \end{align}\,\! }[/math]

Note that you must select the Use True 3-P MLEoption in the Weibull++ Application Setup to replicate these results.

3-P Probability Plot Example

Suppose we want to model a left censored, right censored, interval, and complete data set, consisting of 274 units under test of which 185 units fail. The following table contains the data.

**The Test Data**
Data Point Index	Number in State	Last Inspection	State (S or F)	State End Time
1	2	5	F	5
2	23	5	S	5
3	28	0	F	7
4	4	10	F	10
5	7	15	F	15
6	8	20	F	20
7	29	20	S	20
8	32	0	F	22
9	6	25	F	25
10	4	27	F	30
11	8	30	F	35
12	5	30	F	40
13	9	27	F	45
14	7	25	F	50
15	5	20	F	55
16	3	15	F	60
17	6	10	F	65
18	3	5	F	70
19	37	100	S	100
20	48	0	F	102

Solution

Since standard ranking methods for dealing with these different data types are inadequate, we will want to use the ReliaSoft ranking method. This option is the default in Weibull++ when dealing with interval data. The filled-out standard folio is shown next:

The computed parameters using MLE are:

[math]\displaystyle{ \hat{\beta }=0.748;\text{ }\hat{\eta }=44.38\,\! }[/math]

Using RRX:

[math]\displaystyle{ \hat{\beta }=1.057;\text{ }\hat{\eta }=36.29\,\! }[/math]

Using RRY:

[math]\displaystyle{ \hat{\beta }=0.998;\text{ }\hat{\eta }=37.16\,\! }[/math]

The plot with the two-sided 90% confidence bounds for the rank regression on X solution is:

Weibull-Bayesian with Lognormal Prior Example

A manufacturer has tested prototypes of a modified product. The test was terminated at 2,000 hours, with only 2 failures observed from a sample size of 18. The following table shows the data.

Number of State	State of F or S	State End Time
1	F	1180
1	F	1842
16	S	2000

Because of the lack of failure data in the prototype testing, the manufacturer decided to use information gathered from prior tests on this product to increase the confidence in the results of the prototype testing. This decision was made because failure analysis indicated that the failure mode of the two failures is the same as the one that was observed in previous tests. In other words, it is expected that the shape of the distribution (beta) hasn't changed, but hopefully the scale (eta) has, indicating longer life. The 2-parameter Weibull distribution was used to model all prior tests results. The estimated beta ([math]\displaystyle{ \beta\,\! }[/math]) parameters of the prior test results are as follows:

Betas Obtained for Similar Mode
1.7
2.1
2.4
3.1
3.5

Solution

First, in order to fit the data to a Bayesian-Weibull model, a prior distribution for beta needs to be determined. Based on the beta values in the prior tests, the prior distribution for beta is found to be a lognormal distribution with [math]\displaystyle{ \mu = 0.9064\,\! }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma = 0.3325\,\! }[/math]. (The values of the parameters can be obtained by entering the beta values into a Weibull++ standard folio and analyzing it using the lognormal distribution and the RRX analysis method.)

Next, enter the data from the prototype testing into a standard folio. On the control panel, choose the Bayesian-Weibull > B-W Lognormal Prior distribution. Click Calculate and enter the parameters of the lognormal distribution, as shown next.

Click OK. The result is Beta (Median) = 2.361219 and Eta (Median) = 5321.631912 (by default Weibull++ returns the median values of the posterior distribution). Suppose that the reliability at 3,000 hours is the metric of interest in this example. Using the QCP, the reliability is calculated to be 76.97% at 3,000 hours. The following picture depicts the posterior pdf plot of the reliability at 3,000, with the corresponding median value as well as the 10th percentile value. The 10th percentile constitutes the 90% lower 1-sided bound on the reliability at 3,000 hours, which is calculated to be 50.77%.

The pdf of the times-to-failure data can be plotted in Weibull++, as shown next: