PROMISE: Our kitties will never sit on top of content. Please turn off your ad blocker for our site.
puuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrr
Fred Schenkelberg
Published: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - 12:02 A conversation the other day involved how or why someone would use the mean of a set of data described by a Weibull distribution. The Weibull distribution is great at describing a dataset that has a decreasing or increasing hazard rate over time. Using the distribution we also do not need to determine the mean time between failures (MTBF)—which is not all that useful, of course. Walking up the stairs today, I wondered if the arithmetic mean of the time-to-failure data, commonly used to estimate MTBF, is the same as the mean of the Weibull distribution. Doesn’t everyone think about such things? So, I thought, I’d check. Set up some data with an increasing failure rate, and calculate the arithmetic mean and the Weibull distribution mean. I opened R and using the random number-generating function, rweibull, created 50 data points from a Weibull distribution with a shape (β) of 7 and scale (η) of 1,000. Here’s a histogram of the data. Let’s say the randomly generated data are complete. No censoring, no replacements, etc. All 50 items ran for some amount of time and then failed. We could calculate the MTBF by tallying up all the time-to-failure data and dividing by the number of failures. This is the arithmetic mean, that one we use commonly for all sorts of data summarization work. Doing so we find the mean is 951.1. Now, is the mean of the Weibull distribution the same or not? According to Reliawiki’s discussion of the Weibull distribution, the formula for the mean of a Weibull distribution is: OK, let’s calculate the Weibull mean, given the distribution has a β of 7 and η of 1,000. We find the Weibull mean is 935.4. Since 935.4 ≠ 951.1, I will conclude the two ways to calculate the mean is not the same. Hm, wait a minute. A set of random values from a distribution does not mean the data are best described by the generating distribution, especially for a small dataset. So, let’s check something. If I generate 50,000 data points from the same distribution as above, the data should be very close to the distribution used to create the data. With 50,000 data points, the arithmetic mean is 935.0, which is very close to the Weibull mean, 935.4, based on the β and η of the random-generating function. I have to now conclude the mean calculated both ways is the same. Both determine the first moment of the dataset, the center of mass, etc. My initial error was not determining the distribution parameters based on the data. Question answered: Calculating MTBF or the mean from the data, or calculating it based on the distribution parameters, is the same. That leaves the question of why anyone would want to calculate the mean of a set of time-to-failure data in the first place. I’ve been trying to convince you and everyone else not to bother doing so. If you have a good reason to calculate the mean of a dataset with a clear increasing hazard rate, leave a comment below. I need to check my assumption that the Weibull mean is not all that useful and not worth the effort to calculate, using any method. Quality Digest does not charge readers for its content. We believe that industry news is important for you to do your job, and Quality Digest supports businesses of all types. However, someone has to pay for this content. And that’s where advertising comes in. Most people consider ads a nuisance, but they do serve a useful function besides allowing media companies to stay afloat. They keep you aware of new products and services relevant to your industry. All ads in Quality Digest apply directly to products and services that most of our readers need. You won’t see automobile or health supplement ads. So please consider turning off your ad blocker for our site. Thanks, Fred Schenkelberg is an experienced reliability engineering and management consultant with his firm FMS Reliability. His passion is working with teams to create cost-effective reliability programs that solve problems, create durable and reliable products, increase customer satisfaction, and reduce warranty costs. Schenkelberg is developing the site Accendo Reliability, which provides you access to materials that focus on improving your ability to be an effective and influential reliability professional.MTBF and Mean of Wearout Data
MTBF is just the mean, right?
The data set
Image: Histogram of 50 randomly generated time-to-failure data pointsCalculating the mean two ways
$latex \displaystyle&s=4 \bar{T}=\eta \centerdot \Gamma \left( \frac{1}{\beta }+1 \right)$Comparison and an aha! moment
Summary
Our PROMISE: Quality Digest only displays static ads that never overlay or cover up content. They never get in your way. They are there for you to read, or not.
Quality Digest Discuss
About The Author
Fred Schenkelberg
© 2022 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute, Inc.
Comments
Your MTBF article
Choosing beta = 7 makes the distribution look more gaussian. Suppose you were gathering failure data on operations to compare with what vendors claim. In the case of servers, the vendor might claim to use an exponential distribution with a given MTBF. There is a difference between their number and what you see in the operational environment. Next suppose that your operaional environment has 2000 servers. How do you propose determining the MTBF?
Using a Weibull distribution seems to make sense to me, and I expect the result to be significantly different from the arithmetic mean for a couple of reasons. My sample size is less than the 50,000 that you experimented with, and my beta is significantly lower than 7.
OK, so what is the value of the article beyond provoking comments?