|
8. Assessing Product Reliability 8.2. Assumptions/Prerequisites 8.2.5. What models and assumptions are typically made when Bayesian methods are usedfor reliability evaluation? |
|
| The basics of Bayesian methodology were explained earlier, along with some of the advantages and disadvantages of using this approach. Here we only consider the models and assumptions that are commonplace when applying Bayesian methodology to evaluate system reliability. | |
| Bayesian assumptions for the gamma exponential system model |
1. Failure times for the system under investigation can be adequately modeled by the exponential distribution. For repairable systems, this means the HPP model applies and the system is operating in the flat portion of the bathtub curve. While Bayesian methodology can also be applied to non repairable component populations, we will restrict ourselves to the system application in this Handbook. 2. The MTBF for the system can be thought of as chosen from a prior
distribution model which is an analytic representation of our previous
information or judgments about the system's reliability. The form of this
prior model is the gamma distribution
(the conjugate
prior for the exponential model). The prior model is actually defined
for 3. Our prior knowledge is used to choose the gamma parameters
a and b for the prior distribution model for |
| Several ways to choose the prior gamma parameter values |
ii) A consensus method for determining a and b that works
well is the following: Assemble a group of engineers who know the system
and its sub components well from a reliability viewpoint.
iii) A third way of choosing prior parameters starts the same way
as the second method. Consensus is reached on an reasonable MTBF,
MTBF50.
Next, however, the group decides they want a somewhat
weak prior that will change rapidly, based on new
test information.
If the prior parameter "a" is set to 1, the gamma has a standard
deviation equal to its mean, which makes it spread out, or "weak". To
insure the 50th percentile is set at
Note: As we will see when we plan Bayesian tests, this weak prior is actually a very friendly prior in terms of saving test time Many variations are possible, based on the above three methods. For example, you might have prior data from sources that you don't completely trust. Or you might question whether the data really applies to the system under investigation. You might decide to "weight" the prior data by .5, to "weaken" it. This can be implemented by setting a = .5 x the number of fails in the prior data and b = .5 times the number of test hours. That spreads out the prior distribution more, and lets it react quicker to new test data. Consequences |
| After a new test is run, the posterior gamma parameters are easily obtained from the prior parameters by adding the new number of fails to "a" and the new test time to "b" | No matter how you arrive at values for the gamma
prior parameters a and b, the method for incorporating
new test information is the same. The new information is combined with
the prior model to produce an updated or
posterior distribution modelfor .
Under assumptions 1 and 2, when a new test is run with T system
operating hours and r failures, the posterior distribution for
In other words, add to a the number of new failures and add to b the number of new test hours to get the new parameters for the posterior distribution. Use of the posterior distribution to estimate the system MTBF (with confidence, or prediction, intervals) is described in the section on estimating reliability using the Bayesian gamma model. Using EXCEL To Obtain Gamma Parameters |
| EXCEL can easily solve for gamma prior parameters when using the "50/95" consensus method | We will describe how to obtain a and
b for the 50/95 method and indicate the minor changes needed when
any 2 other MTBF percentiles are used. The step by step procedure is
|
| An EXCEL example using the "50/95" consensus method | A group of engineers, discussing the reliability
of a new piece of equipment, decide to use the 50/95 method to convert
their knowledge into a Bayesian gamma prior. Consensus is reached on a
likely MTBF50 value of 600 hours and a low MTBF05
value of 250. RT is 600/250 = 2.4. The figure below shows the EXCEL 5.0
spreadsheet just prior to clicking "OK" in the "Goal Seek" box.
After clicking "OK", the value in A1 changes from 2 to 2.862978. This new value is the prior a parameter. (Note: if the group felt 250 was a MTBF10 value, instead of a MTBF05 value, then the only change needed would be to replace 0.95 in the B1 equation by 0.90. This would be the "50/90" method.) The figure below shows what to enter in C1 to obtain the prior "b" parameter value of 1522.46.
The gamma prior with parameters a = 2.863 and b = 1522.46
will have (approximately) a probability of 50% of l
being below 1/600 = .001667 and a probability of 95% of
and =GAMMDIST(.004,2.863,(1/1522.46), TRUE) as described when gamma EXCEl functions were introduced in Section 1. This example will be continued in Section 3, where the Bayesian test time needed to confirm a 500 hour MTBF at 80% confidence, will be derived.
|