Advertisement

The Use of Regression Techniques for Matching Reliability Models to the Real World

  • Harold Ascher
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 22)

Abstract

Similar models are often used in various disciplines. For example, models for time to an event or for times between successive events are needed in biometry and sociology applications, as well as in reliability. The specific circumstances of a particular discipline may suggest a particular family of distribution functions, e.g., the Weibull distribution, when modeling time to an event. Alternatively, a specific point process, e.g. the power law process (a nonhomogeneous Poisson process of specific functional form, see Ascher and Feingold (1984)) may be appropriate in a particular reliability application dealing with times between successive failures of a repairable system. In a biometry application, in which times between successive nonfatal illnesses of a patient are studied, another point process might be suggested. In practice, however, instead of considering that models are suggested by circumstances, there is far too much reliance on a priori specification of models. For example, in hardware reliability applications it is usually assumed that the exponential distribution is the appropriate model to use, regardless of the application. If this model is generalized at all, the “generalization” usually is restricted to using a Weibull distribution. In fact, one or the other of these distributions is usually invoked even when no distribution whatsoever is the appropriate model! That is, when dealing with a repairable system—and most systems are designed to be repaired rather than replaced after failure—the correct model is a sequence of distribution functions, i.e., a point process. Distribution functions and point processes are not equivalent models, even in the most special cases. A homogeneous Poisson process (HPP) can be defined as a nonterminating sequence of independent and identically exponentially distributed times between events. Ascher and Feingold (1979, 1984) show that there are important distinctions between the exponential distribution and HPP models.

Keywords

Point Process Repairable System Partial Likelihood Homogeneous Poisson Process Successive Failure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. O. Aalen (1978), “Nonparametric Inference for a Family of Counting Processes,” Annals of Statistics, 6, 701–726.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. P.D. Allison (1984), Event History Analysis: Regression for Longitudinal Event Data, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
  3. M. Anderson, A.K. Jardine, and R.T. Higgins (1982), “The Use of Concomitant Variables in Reliability Estimation,” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Pittsburgh Modeling and Simulation Conference, Instrument Society of America, pp. 73–81.Google Scholar
  4. J.E. Angus (1984), “The Application of Software Reliability Models to a Major C3I System,” Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, IEEE Cat. No. 84CH1992-7, pp. 268–274.Google Scholar
  5. H.E. Ascher (1983), “Regression Analysis of Repairable Systems Reliability,” in Electronic Systems Effectiveness and Life Cycle Costing, J.K. Skwirzynski, ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. H.E. Ascher and H. Feingold (1979), “The Aircraft Air Conditioner Data Revisited,” Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, IEEE Cat. No. 79CH1429-OR, pp. 153–159.Google Scholar
  7. H.E. Ascher and H. Feingold (1984), Repairable Systems Reliability: Modeling, Inference, Misconceptions and Their Causes, Marcel Dekker, New York and Basel.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Bendell (1984), “Proportional Hazards Modelling in Reliability Assessment,” to appear in Reliability Engineering.Google Scholar
  9. B. W. Brown, Jr., M. Hollander, and R.M. Korwar (1974), “Nonparameteric Test of Independence for Censored Data, with Application to Heart Transplant Studies,” in Reliability and Biometry, F. Proschan and R.F. Serfling, eds., Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, pp. 327–354.Google Scholar
  10. D.R. Cox (1972a), “Regression Models and Life Tables (with Discussion),” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34, 187–220.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. D.R. Cox (1972b), “The Statistical Analysis of Dependencies in Point Processes” in Stochastic Point Processes, P.A. Lewis, ed., Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp. 55–66.Google Scholar
  12. D.R. Cox (1975), “Partial Likelihood,” Biometrika, 62, 269–276.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. C. J. Dale (1983), “Application of the Proportional Hazards Model in the Reliability Field,” Proceedings of the Fourth National Reliability Conference—Reliability ′83, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  14. L. Fisher and P. Kanarek (1974), “Presenting Censored Survival Data when Censoring and Survival Times may not be Independent,” in Reliability and Biometry, F. Proschan and R.J. Serfling, eds., Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, pp. 303–326.Google Scholar
  15. A.K. Jardine and P.M. Anderson (1984), “Use of Concomitant Variables for Reliability Estimation,” Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Advances in Reliability Technology, Bradford University, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  16. A.K. Jardine and J.A. Buzacott (1985), “Equipment Reliability and Maintenance,” European Journal of Operational Research, 19, 285–296.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. G.J. Kujawski and E.A. Rypka (1978), “Effects of ’On-Off’ Cycling on Equipment Reliability,” Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, IEEE Cat. No. 77CH1308-6R, pp. 225–230.Google Scholar
  18. J.F. Lawless (1982), Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data, Wiley-Interscience, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. J.F. Lawless (1983), “Statistical Methods in Reliability (with Discussion),” Technometrics, 25, 305–335.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. B. Littlewood (1981), “Stochastic Reliability Growth: A Model for Fault Removal in Computer- Programs and Hardware-Designs,” IEEE Reliability Transactions, R-30, 313–320.Google Scholar
  21. W.Q. Meeker, Jr. (1983), Discussion of Lawless (1983), pp. 316–320.Google Scholar
  22. R.L. Prentice, B.J. Williams, and A.V. Peterson (1981), “On the Regression Analysis of Multivariate Failure Time Data,” Biometrika, 68, 373–379.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. F. Proschan and R.J. Serfling, eds. (1974), Reliability and Biometry: Statistical Analysis of Life length, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  24. R.A. Rosanoff (1969), “A Survey of Modern Nonsense as Applied to Matrix Computation,” Technical Papers for Meeting, AIAA/ASME 10th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  25. M.L. Shooman (1984), “Software Reliability: A Historical Perspective,” IEEE Reliability Transactions, R-33, 48–55.Google Scholar
  26. J. Spragins (1984), “Limitations of Current Telecommunication Network Reliability Models,” Proceedings IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, IEEE Product No. CH 2064- 4/84/0000, pp. 836–840.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harold Ascher
    • 1
  1. 1.Naval Research LaboratoryUSA

Personalised recommendations