Thelognormal distribution is commonly used to model the lives of units whose failure modes are of a fatigue-stress nature. Since this includes most, if not all, mechanical systems, the lognormal distribution can have widespread application. Consequently, the lognormal distribution is a good companion to the Weibull distribution when attempting to model these types of units.As may be surmised by the name, the lognormal distribution has certain similarities to the normal distribution. A random variable is lognormally distributed if the logarithm of the random variable is normally distributed. Because of this, there are many mathematical similarities between the two distributions. For example, the mathematical reasoning for the construction of the probability plotting scales and the bias of parameter estimators is very similar for these two distributions.
As with the normal distribution, there is no closed-form solution for the lognormal reliability function. Solutions can be obtained via the use of standard normal tables. Since the application automatically solves for the reliability we will not discuss manual solution methods. For interested readers, full explanations can be found in the references.
As there is no closed-form solution for the lognormal reliability equation, no closed-form solution exists for the lognormal reliable life either. In order to determine this value, one must solve the following equation for :
In ReliaSoft's software, the parameters returned for the lognormal distribution are always logarithmic. That is: the parameter represents the mean of the natural logarithms of the times-to-failure, while represents the standard deviation of these data point logarithms. Specifically, the returned is the square root of the variance of the natural logarithms of the data points. Even though the application denotes these values as mean and standard deviation, the user is reminded that these are given as the parameters of the distribution, and are thus the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithms of the data. The mean value of the times-to-failure, not used as a parameter, as well as the standard deviation can be obtained through the QCP or the Function Wizard.
As described before, probability plotting involves plotting the failure times and associated unreliability estimates on specially constructed probability plotting paper. The form of this paper is based on a linearization of the cdf of the specific distribution. For the lognormal distribution, the cumulative density function can be written as:
The process for reading the parameter estimate values from the lognormal probability plot is very similar to the method employed for the normal distribution (see The Normal Distribution). However, since the lognormal distribution models the natural logarithms of the times-to-failure, the values of the parameter estimates must be read and calculated based on a logarithmic scale, as opposed to the linear time scale as it was done with the normal distribution. This parameter scale appears at the top of the lognormal probability plot.
In order to plot the points for the probability plot, the appropriate unreliability estimate values must be obtained. These will be estimated through the use of median ranks, which can be obtained from statistical tables or the Quick Statistical Reference in Weibull++. The following table shows the times-to-failure and the appropriate median rank values for this example:
Draw the best possible line through the plot points. The time values where this line intersects the 15.85% and 50% unreliability values should be projected up to the logarithmic scale, as shown in the following plot.
The natural logarithm of the time where the fitted line intersects is equivalent to . In this case, . The value for is equal to the difference between the natural logarithms of the times where the fitted line crosses and At , ln . Therefore, .
Performing a rank regression on X requires that a straight line be fitted to a set of data points such that the sum of the squares of the horizontal deviations from the points to the line is minimized.
Again, the first task is to bring our cdf function into a linear form. This step is exactly the same as in regression on Y analysis and all the equations apply in this case too. The deviation from the previous analysis begins on the least squares fit part, where in this case we treat as the dependent variable and as the independent variable. The best-fitting straight line to the data, for regression on X (see Parameter Estimation), is the straight line:
Note that the regression on Y analysis is not necessarily the same as the regression on X. The only time when the results of the two regression types are the same (i.e., will yield the same equation for a line) is when the data lie perfectly on a line.
As it was outlined in Parameter Estimation, maximum likelihood estimation works by developing a likelihood function based on the available data and finding the values of the parameter estimates that maximize the likelihood function. This can be achieved by using iterative methods to determine the parameter estimate values that maximize the likelihood function. However, this can be rather difficult and time-consuming, particularly when dealing with the three-parameter distribution. Another method of finding the parameter estimates involves taking the partial derivatives of the likelihood equation with respect to the parameters, setting the resulting equations equal to zero, and solving simultaneously to determine the values of the parameter estimates. The log-likelihood functions and associated partial derivatives used to determine maximum likelihood estimates for the lognormal distribution are covered in Appendix D.
The method used by the application in estimating the different types of confidence bounds for lognormally distributed data is presented in this section. Note that there are closed-form solutions for both the normal and lognormal reliability that can be obtained without the use of the Fisher information matrix. However, these closed-form solutions only apply to complete data. To achieve consistent application across all possible data types, Weibull++ always uses the Fisher matrix in computing confidence intervals. The complete derivations were presented in detail for a general function in Confidence Bounds. For a discussion on exact confidence bounds for the normal and lognormal, see The Normal Distribution.
where the values represent the original time-to-failure data. For a given value of , values for and can be found which represent the maximum and minimum values that satisfy likelihood ratio equation. These represent the confidence bounds for the parameters at a confidence level where for two-sided bounds and for one-sided.
Five units are put on a reliability test and experience failures at 45, 60, 75, 90, and 115 hours. Assuming a lognormal distribution, the MLE parameter estimates are calculated to be and Calculate the two-sided 75% confidence bounds on these parameters using the likelihood ratio method.
(Note that this plot is generated with degrees of freedom , as we are only determining bounds on one parameter. The contour plots generated in Weibull++ are done with degrees of freedom , for use in comparing both parameters simultaneously.) As can be determined from the table the lowest calculated value for is 4.1145, while the highest is 4.4708. These represent the two-sided 75% confidence limits on this parameter. Since solutions for the equation do not exist for values of below 0.24 or above 0.48, these can be considered the two-sided 75% confidence limits for this parameter. In order to obtain more accurate values for the confidence limits on , we can perform the same procedure as before, but finding the two values of that correspond with a given value of Using this method, we find that the 75% confidence limits on are 0.23405 and 0.48936, which are close to the initial estimates of 0.24 and 0.48.
In order to calculate the bounds on a time estimate for a given reliability, or on a reliability estimate for a given time, the likelihood function needs to be rewritten in terms of one parameter and time/reliability, so that the maximum and minimum values of the time can be observed as the parameter is varied. This can be accomplished by substituting a form of the normal reliability equation into the likelihood function. The normal reliability equation can be written as:
The unknown variable depends on what type of bounds are being determined. If one is trying to determine the bounds on time for a given reliability, then is a known constant and is the unknown variable. Conversely, if one is trying to determine the bounds on reliability for a given time, then is a known constant and is the unknown variable. Either way, the above equation can be used to solve the likelihood ratio equation for the values of interest.
In this example, we are trying to determine the two-sided 75% confidence bounds on the time estimate of 55.718. This is accomplished by substituting and into the likelihood function, and varying until the maximum and minimum values of are found. The following table gives the values of based on given values of .
As can be determined from the table, the lowest calculated value for is 43.634, while the highest is 66.085. These represent the two-sided 75% confidence limits on the time at which reliability is equal to 80%.
In this example, we are trying to determine the two-sided 75% confidence bounds on the reliability estimate of 64.261%. This is accomplished by substituting and into the likelihood function, and varying until the maximum and minimum values of are found. The following table gives the values of based on given values of .
The data points are entered into a times-to-failure data sheet. The lognormal distribution is selected under Distributions. The Bayesian confidence bounds method only applies for the MLE analysis method, therefore, Maximum Likelihood (MLE) is selected under Analysis Method and Use Bayesian is selected under the Confidence Bounds Method in the Analysis tab.
3a8082e126