Training | Resources

arrow_back_ios

Main Menu

arrow_back_ios

Main Menu

See All Acoustic End-of-Line Test Systems See All DAQ and instruments See All Electroacoustics See All Software See All Transducers See All Vibration Testing Equipment See All Academy See All Resource Center See All Applications See All Industries See All Insights See All Services See All Support See All Our Business See All Our History See All Our Sustainability Commitment See All Global Presence
arrow_back_ios

Main Menu

See All Actuators See All Combustion Engines See All Durability See All eDrive See All Production Testing Sensors See All Transmission & Gearboxes See All Turbo Charger See All DAQ Systems See All High Precision and Calibration Systems See All Industrial electronics See All Power Analyser See All S&V Hand-held devices See All S&V Signal conditioner See All Test Solutions See All DAQ Software See All Drivers & API See All nCode - Durability and Fatigue Analysis See All ReliaSoft - Reliability Analysis and Management See All Test Data Management See All Utility See All Vibration Control See All Acoustic See All Current / voltage See All Displacement See All Load Cells See All Pressure See All Strain Gauges See All Torque See All Vibration See All LDS Shaker Systems See All Power Amplifiers See All Vibration Controllers See All Accessories for Vibration Testing Equipment See All Training Courses See All Whitepapers See All Acoustics See All Asset & Process Monitoring See All Custom Sensors See All Data Acquisition & Analysis See All Durability & Fatigue See All Electric Power Testing See All NVH See All Reliability See All Smart Sensors See All Vibration See All Weighing See All Automotive & Ground Transportation See All Calibration See All Installation, Maintenance & Repair See All Support Brüel & Kjær See All Release Notes See All Compliance See All Our People
arrow_back_ios

Main Menu

See All CANHEAD See All GenHS See All LAN-XI See All MGCplus See All Optical Interrogators See All QuantumX See All SomatXR See All Accessories See All Accessories See All BK Connect / Pulse See All API See All Microphone Sets See All Microphone Cartridges See All Acoustic Calibrators See All Special Microphones See All Microphone Pre-amplifiers See All Sound Sources See All Accessories for acoustic transducers See All Experimental testing See All Transducer Manufacturing (OEM) See All Accessories See All Non-rotating (calibration) See All Rotating See All CCLD (IEPE) accelerometers See All Charge Accelerometers See All Impulse hammers / impedance heads See All Cables See All Accessories See All Electroacoustics See All Noise Source Identification See All Environmental Noise See All Sound Power and Sound Pressure See All Noise Certification See All Industrial Process Control See All Structural Health Monitoring See All Electrical Devices Testing See All Electrical Systems Testing See All Grid Testing See All High-Voltage Testing See All Vibration Testing with Electrodynamic Shakers See All Structural Dynamics See All Machine Analysis and Diagnostics See All Calibration Services for Transducers See All Calibration Services for Handheld Instruments See All Calibration Services for Instruments & DAQ See All On-Site Calibration See All Resources See All Software License Management

The Change of Slope Methodology in Reliability Growth Analysis

[Please note that the following article — while it has been updated from our newsletter archives — may not reflect the latest software interface and plot graphics, but the original methodology and analysis steps remain applicable.]

 

When performing reliability growth analysis during the in-house developmental testing of a product, it is common practice to use non-homogeneous Poisson process (NHPP) models (such as the Crow-AMSAA) to model failure data. The assumption of these models is that the failure intensity is monotonically increasing, decreasing or remaining constant over time. However, there might be cases in which the system design or the operational environment experiences major changes during the observation period and a single model will not be appropriate to describe the failure behavior for the entire timeline.

In this article, we will present a methodology that can be applied to scenarios in which a major change occurs during a reliability growth test. We will show how the test data can be broken into two segments with a separate Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) model applied to each segment. We will also provide an example that shows how this methodology can be applied using ReliaSoft RGA software. First, we will give a brief overview of the Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) model.

 

Crow-AMSAA (NHPP)

 

The Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) is one of the most popular models used for modeling time-to-failure data obtained during developmental testing. Under this model, failures occur according to a non-homogeneous Poisson process with a Weibull intensity function. The failure intensity function is:

 

 

where:

 

  • λ is the scale parameter.
  • β is the shape parameter.
  • T is the duration of the test.

The cumulative number of failures under the Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) model is given by:

 

 

By taking the logarithmic transformation of both sides, the above equation can be linearized as:

 

 

Therefore, in the Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) model, the cumulative number of failures versus the cumulative test time is linear on logarithmic scales.

The parameters of the model, β and λ, are calculated using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) methods. The ML estimators for the two parameters are:

 

 

where:

 

  • T is the duration of the test.
  • n is the number of failures observed up to time T.
  • Xi is the time at which each corresponding failure was observed.

 

Change of Slope Methodology

 

Consider the data in Figure 1 that were obtained during a reliability growth test. As discussed above, the cumulative number of failures vs. the cumulative time should be linear on logarithmic scales.

 

Figure 1: Cumulative number of failures from reliability growth test

 

Figure 2 shows the data plotted on logarithmic scales. One can easily recognize that the failure behavior is not constant throughout the duration of the test. Just by observing the data, it can be asserted that a major change occurred at around 140 hours that resulted in a change in the rate of failures. Therefore, using a single model to analyze this data set may not be appropriate.

 

Figure 2: Cumulative number of failures plotted on logarithmic axes

 

The "Change of Slope" methodology proposes to split the data into two segments and apply a Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) model to each segment. The time that will be used to split the data into the two segments (it will be referred to as T1) could be estimated just by observing the data but will most likely be dictated by engineering knowledge of the specific change to the system design or operating conditions. It is important to note that although two separate models will be applied to the segments, the information collected in the first segment (i.e., data up to T1) will be considered when creating the model for the second segment (i.e., data after T1). The models presented next can be applied to the reliability growth analysis of a single system or multiple systems. [1]

 

Model for the First Segment (Data up to T1)

 

The data up to the point of the change that occurs at T1 will be analyzed using the Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) model. The ML estimators of the model are:

 

 

where:

 

  • N1 is the number of failures observed up to time T1.
  • T1 is the time when the change occurs.
  • Xi is the time at which each corresponding failure was observed.

 

Model for the Second Segment (Data after T1)

 

The Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) model will be used again to analyze the data after T1. However, the information collected during the first segment will be used when creating the model for the second segment. Given that, the ML estimators of the model parameters in the second segment are:

 

 

 

where:

 

  • N2 is the number of failures that were observed after T1.
  • N = N1 + N2 is the total number of failure observed throughout the test.
  • T2 is the end time of the test. The test can either be failure terminated or time terminated.
  • Xi is the time at which each corresponding failure was observed.

 

Application

 

Table 1 gives the failure times obtained from a reliability growth test of a newly designed system.

 

Table 1: Failure times from a reliability growth test

 

　

 

The test has a duration of 660 hours and Figure 3 shows the plot of the cumulative number of failures over time on logarithmic scales.

 

Figure 3: Cumulative number of failures over time on logarithmic scales for data in Table 1

 

First, let us try to apply a single model to all of the data. The Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) model is chosen for that purpose. Figure 4 shows the expected failures obtained from the model (the line) along with the observed failures (the points). As it can be seen from the plot, the model does not seem to accurately track the data. That is confirmed by performing the Cramér-von Mises goodness-of-fit test, which checks the hypothesis that the data follows a non-homogeneous Poisson process with a power law failure intensity. (For more details, see [2].) The model fails the goodness-of-fit test because the test statistic (0.3309) is higher than the critical value (0.1729) at the 0.1 significance level. Figure 4 also shows a customized report that displays both the calculated parameters and the statistical test results.

 

Figure 4: Analysis of the entire data set with a single Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) model

 

Through further investigation, the analysts discover that a significant design change occurred at 400 hours of test time and they suspect this modification is responsible for the change in the failure behavior. They decide to apply the "Change of Slope" methodology and break the data into two segments. The first segment is set from 0 to 400 hours and the second segment is from 401 to 660 hours (which is the end time of the test). The Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) parameters for the first segment (0-400 hours) are:

 

 

The Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) parameters for the second segment (401-660 hours) are:

 

 

Figure 5 shows a plot of the two-segment analysis along with the observed data. It is obvious that the "Change of Slope" method tracks the data more accurately. This can also be verified by performing a goodness-of-fit test. In this case, a Chi-Squared test will be applied because it is appropriate for grouped data and the "Change of Slope" method uses grouped data analysis for the second segment. (For more details, see [2]). The Chi-Squared statistic for this analysis is 1.2956, which is lower than the critical value of 12.017 at the 0.1 significance level; therefore, the analysis passes the test. Figure 5 also shows a customized report that displays both the calculated parameters and the statistical test results.

 

Figure 5: Analysis based on the "Change of Slope" methodology with two Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) models

 

Now that we have a model that fits the data, we can use it to make accurate predictions and calculations. We can calculate metrics such as the demonstrated MTBF at the end of the test or the expected number of failures at later times. For example, Figure 6 shows the demonstrated MTBF (i.e., the instantaneous MTBF at the end of the test) and the plot of MTBF vs. Time. The parameters of the first segment were used to calculate the MTBF for times up to 400 hours; while the parameters of the second segment were used for times after 400 hours.

 

Figure 6: Demonstrated MTBF at the end of the test (660 hours) and plot of the MTBF vs. Time

 

Conclusions

 

In this article, we have presented the "Change of Slope" methodology that can be used for analyzing reliability growth data when a major change has occurred during the test that affects the failure behavior. We have shown that applying a single model in such situations is not appropriate for accurate predictions. Instead, the "Change of Slope" methodology splits the data into two segments and applies a Crow-AMSAA (NHPP) model to each segment, where the information collected during the first segment is considered when modeling the second segment. As a result, the overall data set is modeled more accurately and better predictions and metric calculations can be obtained.

 

References

 

[1] Guo, H., Mettas, A., Sarakakis, G. and Niu P., "Piecewise NHPP Models with Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Repairable Systems," Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 2010.

[2] ReliaSoft, Reliability Growth & Repairable Systems Data Analysis Reference, ReliaSoft Publishing, 2009.

Modern Slavery Statement     Imprint    Cookie Policy    Privacy Policy    Sitemap    Ethical Business

 

 

© 2024 Hottinger Brüel & Kjær

 

 

close
nCode logo
Graphics Brand

We have moved ${referer} to www.hbkworld.com

 

This will bring together HBM, Brüel & Kjær, nCode, ReliaSoft, and Discom brands, helping you innovate faster for a cleaner, healthier, and more productive world.

close
ReliaSoft-Logo-webp
Graphics Brand

We have moved ${referer} to www.hbkworld.com

 

This will bring together HBM, Brüel & Kjær, nCode, ReliaSoft, and Discom brands, helping you innovate faster for a cleaner, healthier, and more productive world.

close
Prenscia HBM-Logo rgb
Graphics Brand

We have moved ${referer} to www.hbkworld.com

 

This will bring together HBM, Brüel & Kjær, nCode, ReliaSoft, and Discom brands, helping you innovate faster for a cleaner, healthier, and more productive world.

close
HBM-Logo blue rgb
Graphics Brand

We have moved ${referer} to www.hbkworld.com

 

This will bring together HBM, Brüel & Kjær, nCode, ReliaSoft, and Discom brands, helping you innovate faster for a cleaner, healthier, and more productive world.

close
logo of Brüel & Kjær (BKSV), experts of sound and vibration measurements from HBK
Graphics Brand

We have moved ${referer} to www.hbkworld.com

 

This will bring together HBM, Brüel & Kjær, nCode, ReliaSoft, and Discom brands, helping you innovate faster for a cleaner, healthier, and more productive world.