nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Degradation Data Analysis, Ea<0, is there a problem?

Rily_Maya

..JMP\JMPPRO\18\Samples\Data\Reliability\Device B.jmp, Degradation Data Analysis, Ea<0, is there a problem?

Device B.jmp

Accepted answers

All comments

jthi

Have you read JMP documentation about this, Reliability and Survival Methods > Degradation > Model Specification > Nonlinear Path?

Ben_BarrIngh

Hi @Rily_Maya ,

In the approach you're doing, it isn't appropriate to try to fit the model per system ID - there is not sufficient information or variation around the parameters to correctly define the activation energy (Ea) for each system, because each system hasn't had a number of temperatures tested against them - instead the intent is to apply the model to the whole data set to find a suitably fitting model to the data (see below) that can generalise against the variation. The data isn't perfect (I suspect intentionally), so in real world settings you would maybe consider applying a different formula, or refining the data that is available. Another option would be to take the formula into the Non-linear platform to add more restrictions and perform things like SSE grid searches to better refine the parameters.

Thanks,
Ben

Rily_Maya

I have read it, but I still don't understand the above questions.

Rily_Maya

If using Device B.jmp as an example in "Reliability and Survival Methods > Degradation > Model Specification > Nonlinear Path" is misleading, then the corresponding example is inappropriate.

Ben_BarrIngh

Hi @Rily_Maya,

The Device B set is intended to show a modelling approach that separates the reaction rate model per temperature, allowing for estimation of an average parameter estimate for the Ea and other parameters - in this context the goal isn't to look at each device as they aren't tested that way - the approach is appropriate and includes noise and other variations that you would expect in the real world. What's the goal for going through the analysis? For education or for practice?

Thanks,

Ben

Rily_Maya

Set the lower specification limit to -0.5 to calculate the pseudo-failure time of each path after 130,000 hours under the operating condition of 80°C, and this is also for learning and research purposes.