| Literature DB >> 27509499 |
Fuqiang Sun1,2, Le Liu3, Xiaoyang Li4, Haitao Liao5.
Abstract
Accelerated degradation testing (ADT) is an efficient technique for evaluating the lifetime of a highly reliable product whose underlying failure process may be traced by the degradation of the product's performance parameters with time. However, most research on ADT mainly focuses on a single performance parameter. In reality, the performance of a modern product is usually characterized by multiple parameters, and the degradation paths are usually nonlinear. To address such problems, this paper develops a new s-dependent nonlinear ADT model for products with multiple performance parameters using a general Wiener process and copulas. The general Wiener process models the nonlinear ADT data, and the dependency among different degradation measures is analyzed using the copula method. An engineering case study on a tuner's ADT data is conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The results illustrate that the proposed method is quite effective in estimating the lifetime of a product with s-dependent performance parameters.Entities:
Keywords: accelerated degradation testing; copulas; general Wiener process; multiple performance parameters; nonlinearity; s-dependency
Year: 2016 PMID: 27509499 PMCID: PMC5017407 DOI: 10.3390/s16081242
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The multivariate dependence structure represented by a copula.
Summary of some multivariate copulas.
| Copulas | Parameter | |
|---|---|---|
| Gaussian Copula | ||
| Student’s | ||
| Clayton Copula | ||
| Frank Copula | ||
| Joe Copula |
1 Φ is the distribution function of a standard normal random variable, Φ is the N-variate standard normal distribution with mean vector 0 and covariance matrix ρ; 2 t is a univariate t distribution with υ degrees of freedom, t, is the multivariate Student’s t distribution with a correlation matrix ρ with υ degrees of freedom.
Figure 2The performance parameters of a tuner. (a) Power gains; (b) Noise figures.
Testing parameters of tuners’ CSADT.
| Stress Level | Temperature (°C) | Number of Monitoring | Sample Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 55 | 247 | 3 |
| S2 | 70 | 174 | 3 |
| S3 | 80 | 155 | 3 |
| S4 | 85 | 114 | 3 |
Figure 3The accelerated degradation data of all parameters under S1.
Figure 4The accelerated degradation data of all parameters under S2.
Figure 5The accelerated degradation data of all parameters under S3.
Figure 6The accelerated degradation data of all parameters under S4.
Figure 7Kendall’s rank correlations between multiple degradation measures of a specimen.
Estimations of the univariate ADT model parameters.
| Parameters | GA | GB | GC | NA | NB | NC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6713 | 1.6648 | 1.6793 | 1.6136 | 1.6470 | 1.7285 | |
| 1.0878 | 0.9815 | 1.0304 | 0.9730 | 0.9869 | 0.9861 | |
| 0.1948 | 0.2835 | 0.2272 | 0.9380 | 0.8243 | 0.7258 | |
| 9.4654 | 11.6371 | 10.4689 | 11.5335 | 9.6690 | 12.7805 | |
| −6234.05 | −6956.20 | −6599.09 | −6633.39 | −6152.89 | −7400.12 |
Estimations of the simplified univariate ADT model parameters ().
| Parameters | GA | GB | GC | NA | NB | NC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6810 | 1.6648 | 1.6805 | 1.6152 | 1.6455 | 1.7286 | |
| 0.2625 | 0.2662 | 0.2520 | 0.8559 | 0.7886 | 0.6922 | |
| 9.4667 | 11.6342 | 10.4754 | 11.5638 | 9.6730 | 12.7771 | |
| −6257.40 | −6955.08 | −6604.29 | −6647.50 | −6150.92 | −7399.13 |
Decision and p-value of the likelihood ratio test.
| Contents | GA | GB | GC | NA | NB | NC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| logL_FM | −1819.7 | −1852.3 | −1738.8 | −4255.8 | −4087.3 | −3819.0 |
| logL_SM | −1824.0 | −1852.5 | −1739.4 | −4256.1 | −4087.4 | −3819.1 |
| 0.0034 | 0.5271 | 0.2733 | 0.4386 | 0.6547 | 0.6547 | |
| statstic | 8.6 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 8Marginal reliability function for each performance parameter.
Goodness-of-Fit for the copulas.
| Copulas | Parameter Estimation | AIC | Ranking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gaussian | 21,783 | 5 | |
| Student’s | [ | −5613 | 2 |
| Clayton | 2.15193 | 2910 | 4 |
| Frank | 9.3625 | −13,141 | 1 |
| Joe | 3.165 | 1634 | 3 |
1 ; 2 .
Figure 9System reliability functions obtained using different multivariate copulas.
Figure 10Comparison of reliability functions of tuner and its performance parameters.