Part I

Comparing and Contrasting...

Weibull Statistics and
Growth Analysis in Failure
Prediction
by Ron Gaddy, Senior Consultant, Meridium
 Purpose
Over the past several decades, numerous quantitative
analytical techniques have emerged to assist reliability
and maintenance professionals in understanding and
solving unreliability issues. Reliability growth analysis
(Crow-AMSAA) and reliability distribution statistics
(Weibull analysis) are two different, but related analy-
ses used by reliability professionals to help understand
failure patterns, trend the direction of reliability
improvement efforts, and predict future unreliability.
In this two part series, we compare the features of
these two tools and their application in making failure
predictions. We use both methods to predict future
failures based on a set of actual data where failed com-
ponents are replaced and non-failed components con-
tinue to age. The techniques used to perform the
analyses are described and the forecasted failures are
then compared with the actual occurrences. Part One
of the series details Weibull analysis. Crow-AMSAA is
detailed in Part Two.
Introduction
We all know that declining asset performance can
adversely impact a manufacturing organization’s
chances of achieving its goals and mission. Reliability
may change over time for many reasons. Variations in
operating conditions, equipment modifications, and
changing maintenance practices are just a few possible
causes. Addressing equipment unreliability issues
before they become major problems can greatly reduce
risk and increase the likelihood of success.
Recognizing end-of-life conditions where failures can
increase at accelerating rates is also an important part
of successful asset management.
We also know that condition monitoring is a valuable
method for early detection of degrading conditions and
predicting loss-of-function. However, in some situa-
tions, condition monitoring may not be a viable
option. In a fleet of equipment with certain internal
parts known to be susceptible to fatigue from cyclic
loading, inspecting for cracks and their propagation
may be uneconomical. Determining the extent of
external erosion on boiler tubes may be prohibitive
where inspection access is limited. In cases like these,
analyzing actual failure data and trends may be an
effective technique in predicting future component
failures, determining nearing end-of-life service, and
planning a cost-effective replacement strategy.
Weibull and Crow-AMSAA (C-A) growth plots both
use life measures on the X-axis. The Weibull uses
2 Weibull Statistics and Growth Analysis in Failure Prediction - Part I
time-to-failure (TTF) between events and the C-A
uses cumulative time. Other life measures besides time
may be used when appropriate including distance,
operating cycles, and units produced measured in vol-
ume, weight, or number of items. Operating time is a
common life measure in industry and will be the basis
of the analyses discussed in this article.
Data requirements for a successful Weibull analysis are
more demanding than for a C-A analysis. The Crow-
AMSAA is more forgiving of data issues such as miss-
ing data, mixed failure modes, censoring issues, and
changing reliability during the analysis period – data
issues that can result in bad Weibull analyses.
Weibull statistics can be successfully used in predicting
the number of failures in a population when non-
repairable items are replaced with good-as-new and
failure rate patterns are consistent. Often, it may not
be the best tool when replacements are not good-as-
new and the failure rate changes direction during the
analysis period.
The Crow-AMSAA growth model can be used with
both non-repairable component failures as well as
repairable systems that follow a Non-Homogenous
Poisson Process (NHPP) with Weibull intensity. The
C-A growth also can be used when failure rates have
changed direction during the analysis period.
Under some scenarios, the C-A growth model may
complement the Weibull analysis providing credence
to the Weibull predictive results. In other cases, the
C-A growth analysis may predict significantly different
results. It may, for example, indicate inconsistent fail-
ure patterns which create problems in the Weibull
analysis. In these circumstances, segmenting the C-A
plot line may yield improved results. For reasons like
these, it is generally good practice to perform both
Weibull and C-A analyses, compare the results, and
determine possible causes for the differences.
Weibull Distribution
Analysis Overview
Weibull distribution analysis is a statistical tool applied
to a set of unreliability data to help determine the
probability and nature of failures. Although numerous
other statistical distributions are sometimes used for
reliability analysis, the Weibull is, by far, the most
widely employed.
The Weibull distribution has three parameters: beta,
the shape characteristic; eta, the characteristic life; and
gamma, the location parameter. Most often, only beta
 and eta are used in the distribution analysis which is
commonly known as a two-parameter Weibull.
In special cases, the gamma parameter is also used.
This is known as a three-parameter Weibull in which
the distribution is offset in time. This is an advanced
feature and should be used in the proper context and
with a good understanding of how, and when, to apply
the third parameter. The weld failure analysis, used in
this article, is an example of using the three-parameter
versus the two-parameter Weibull.
In a Weibull analysis, time-to-failure data can come
from a single item experiencing repeated failures - with
replacement after each failure. Data can also be used
from a population of items with each failed item being
replaced or removed from the population.
A Weibull distribution can yield information about life
expectancy and the failure rate pattern. Failure rate
patterns can help point to areas of failure investigation
and aid in problem solving.
When using failure data from a population of new
items, Weibull analysis can be used to predict the
number of failures in an interval of time. When a sin-
gle element is the subject of analysis, the Weibull can
be used to predict the probability of first failure in a
given interval of time.
An important feature of the Weibull distribution is
that it can model several types of other distributions
quite well, especially when dealing with a sparse
amount of data, as is often the case with failure data.
This unique aspect makes the Weibull distribution use-
ful in providing information about the time-to-failure
patterns within a set of failure data. Understanding
these patterns can help in developing appropriate
strategies for maintaining assets and addressing unrelia-
bility issues.
Four functions provided by a Weibull distribution
analysis include:
1. Probability Density Function (PDF): The failure dis-
tribution (ft) indicates how failures are distributed
over the life of an item. The PDF function is the
probability density, or probability of failure in the
unit interval around any given point in a continuous
distribution.
2. Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF): The
unreliability function (Ft) is obtained by integrating
the PDF function and represents the cumulative
probability of failure at a point in the life of an item.
3 Weibull Statistics and Growth Analysis in Failure Prediction - Part I
3. Reliability (Rt) Function: The complement of the
unreliability function and equal to 1- CDF, or 1-
(Ft).
4. Failure Rate Function: Also known as the hazard
rate, this is the frequency of failure for an item that
has survived to a given age. An increasing function
indicates a wear out pattern of failure; a decreasing
function suggests infant mortality; and a constant
hazard rate reflects random failures.
The two commonly referenced functions of the
Weibull distribution are the cumulative distribution
and the failure rate. The cumulative distribution chart
in Figure 1 plots the cumulative probability of failure
on the Y-axis versus the time-to-failure values on the
X-axis. The Y-axis’ cumulative probability of failure is
the median rank of the time-to-failure values.
Meridium software uses numerical methods to find the
median ranks.
Weibull plotting paper is constructed with the X and
Y-axes scaled so that the cumulative distribution func-
tion best-fit line through the data is straight for the
two-parameter Weibull. The Weibull’s two parameters
- beta and eta - are derived defining the best-fit line,
and a goodness-of-fit test is applied. Failure to pass a
goodness-of-fit test may result in rejecting the Weibull
as a potential distribution for the data.
Beta, the shape factor, is the slope of the straight line
on the Weibull plot and indicates the failure rate pat-
tern. A beta value of less than one indicates declining
failure rates or infant mortality, a value of one indi-
cates random failures, and values greater than one
point to increasing failure rates indicative of wear out.
For a single component eta, the characteristic life is
the value when the cumulative probability of failure
(cumulative distribution function) equals 63.2%. For a
population of components, eta is the unit of life meas-
ure when 63.2% of the population is expected to fail.
Hence, the Weibull distribution can be used to predict
the number of failures at a given life value for a popu-
lation of components.
It should be noted that if the failure data in Figure 1
came from a population of 100 items with each item:
• Starting new when the population was placed in
service
• Replaced as good-as-new after failure
• Failed only once during the study period
The analysis predicts forty failures at approximately
14,250 cycles of service.
 all welds was undertaken in late 2008.
The failure data are presented in Table 1.
The failure data include the date of each
outage as well as the number of welds
replaced. If we were interested in predict-
ing the total number of weld failures, we
would include the number of welds
replaced at each outage.
In this example, the primary focus is pre-
dicting the number of future outages.
Since a single outage may have multiple
weld failures, using the number of weld
failures in each event in the analysis would
tend to overstate the expected outages.
Hence, we will treat each outage as one
failure event.
Figure 1: Weibull CDF

Forecasting Failures
with Weibull Analysis
In this segment of our two part series, we will
use Weibull statistics with a set of actual failure
data to project failures. In Part Two of the
series, we will use Crow-AMSAA analysis, using
the same set of data, to predict failures and com-
pare results. As previously mentioned, this is
actual data from a population where failed com-
ponents are replaced and non-failed components
continue to age.
The components are dissimilar metal welds in
the superheater section of a large fossil fuel
steam boiler. The welds are located in the
superheater where there is transition from
chrome-moly to stainless steel tubing. Due to
the difference in thermal expansion between the
two materials, high stresses occur on the chrome
side of the weld joint reducing the overall life of
the tube. Failure occurs by creep cracking, adja-
cent to the weld joint interface, on the chrome-
moly side where the two materials are joined by
welding, typically with a 309 SS filler metal.
Good failure data has been maintained since the
boiler and superheater welds were placed in
service in 1973. The superheater section has 84
pendants, each with eight welds. The first fail-
ure occurred April 30, 2001. Intermittent fail-
ures continued until a complete replacement of Table 1: Dissimilar Metal Weld Failure Data

4 Weibull Statistics and Growth Analysis in Failure Prediction - Part I

 Applying the two-parameter
Weibull analysis
The result of a two-parameter Weibull analy-
sis using the 20 failure dates as input is pre-
sented in Figure 2. The analysis passes the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) goodness-of-fit
test1 at the 95% confidence level.
Even though the best-fit line (Figure 2) passes
the K-S goodness-of-fit test, two observations
can be made from the plot: Some of the data
points deviate noticeably from the line at
each end and the pattern of the data points is
curved downward to the right.

Figure 2: Two-Parameter Weibull Plot

(20 Events)

The analysis, based on the first

four events, predicts 15 failures at
the time of the seventh actual
failure. The analysis, based on
the first seven events, predicts 18
failures at the time of the
eleventh actual event. As can be
seen in Figures 3 and 4, both of
these analyses significantly over-
state the number of future versus
actual failures beyond the next
one or two events.
Figure 3: Two-Parameter Weibull Plot
(First Four Events)

The predicted number of failures at the last

failure date (35.62 years) is 26 failures
while the actual number of failures is 20.
A downward curvature of data points plot-
ted on Weibull paper suggest the possibility
that either a lognormal or three-parameter
Weibull distribution might better represent
the failure data.
But, before considering another distribu-
tion for this analysis, we will first examine
the results of a two-parameter Weibull
using only the first four time-to-failure val-
ues and then using the first seven values.
The plots are displayed in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 4: Two-Parameter Weibull Plot (First Seven Events)

5 Weibull Statistics and Growth Analysis in Failure Prediction - Part I

 Applying the
three-parameter
Weibull analysis
As previously stated, a
downward curving set of
data points plotted on
Weibull paper suggests
that either a lognormal, or
three-parameter Weibull
distribution, might be a
better distribution for the
underlying failure mecha-
nism involved. In this
example, the three-param-
eter Weibull provides the
best goodness-of-fit for the
set of 20 failure points.
A three-parameter Weibull
takes into account the pos-
sibility of nonzero time
origins in failure data.
Nonzero time origins can
be either positive or nega-
tive. The Weibull time-
zero parameter is gamma.
A positive time-zero
parameter indicates that
all items have a minimum
failure-free time of service.
Ball bearing failure distri-
butions often require a
Table 2: Two-Parameter Weibull Estimated Failures positive gamma to improve
the Weibull fit. Another
example is metal tough-
ness to fracture.
The results of performing a two-parameter analysis at
selected numbers of actual failures are presented in Negative time origins occur when part of the life of an
Table 2. The left and right columns are the actual item is lost prior to use. Physical explanations for this
number of failures. The columns between these are are limited. Items that deteriorate before use such as
the results of analyses using the available failure data dry cell batteries are one example. Organic chemicals
at the time of the last actual failure. The values high- and parts made from plastic that are improperly stored
lighted in tan are the projected values for the actual may suffer from shelf life deterioration.
failures used in the particular analysis. The values As emphasized by Dr. Bob Abernethy in The New
highlighted in light turquoise are the projected failures. Weibull Handbook2 four criteria should be met before
The predictive accuracy of the two-parameter analyses using the three-parameter Weibull:
improves with an increasing number of failures. Even 1. The data should show curvature on a Weibull plot
so, when using 17 actual failures, the analysis still sig-
2. Physical explanation of why failures cannot occur
nificantly overestimates the future number of failures
before some positive time zero; or, what life consum-
at the last failure date.
ing phenomena could cause negative time zero shifts

6 Weibull Statistics and Growth Analysis in Failure Prediction - Part I

 3. Either:
a) Large sample size (at least 21 fail-
ures) or
b) Previous information from earlier
studies that a third parameter is
appropriate, in conjunction with,
eight to ten failures for the present
analysis
4. Goodness-of-fit values (r2, Kolmogorov-
Smirnov statistic, P-value) should be better
than the values for the next best distribution
The failure data, in this example, effectively
meet the four criteria. The data show down-
ward curvature on the Weibull plot. The fail-

Figure 5: Three-Parameter Weibull Plot (20 Events)

using the three-parameter Weibull.

Overall, the three-parameter Weibull
seems likely the best distribution for
the failure data.2
For discussion and comparative purpos-
es, we will examine the results of a
three-parameter Weibull using the first
four time-to-failure values, and then
the first seven values, as done above
with the two-parameter Weibull. The
plots are displayed in Figures 6 and 7.

Figure 6: Three-Parameter Weibull Plot (First 4 Events)

ure mechanism involved demonstrates a long

minimum life before failure occurs. The 20 fail-
ures are one short of the 21 minimum criteria.
The three-parameter Weibull provides the best
goodness-of-fit values.
A three-parameter Weibull plot of the 20 failure
events is displayed in Figure 5. Using the third-
parameter gamma results in a visibly better line
fit than the two-parameter Weibull and yields a
better goodness-of-fit than the lognormal or two-
parameter Weibull. Beta is much lower and eta
is higher in the three-parameter Weibull. The
number of failure events is just one short of the
21 minimum recommended by Dr. Abernethy for
Figure 7: Three-Parameter Weibull Plot (First 7 Events)

7 Weibull Statistics and Growth Analysis in Failure Prediction - Part I

 As seen in Figure 6, when using only the first four similar metal weld failures under similar conditions.
points in the analysis, the three-parameter Weibull This could reduce the number of required failures to
does not provide a good fit through the other 16 data eight to ten in accordance with Dr. Abernethy’s crite-
points. It is noted that the lognormal is the optimum ria for using the three-parameter Weibull.
distribution using the first four data points and has a
In the second segment of this two part series, we will
slightly better goodness-of-fit than the three-parameter
investigate the effectiveness of using the Crow-
Weibull using these four points. The three-parameter
AMSAA growth analysis as a method for predicting
is a better fit when using more than four points.
failures with a sample size of less than 21, using the
The results returned when using the first seven failure same failure data set.
events in a three-parameter Weibull are shown in
Figure 7. The three-parameter Weibull provides a
much better fit and prediction of future failure than
the two-parameter using the first seven failures.
The results of performing a
three-parameter analysis at
selected numbers of actual
failures are presented in
Table 3. The predictive
accuracy of the three-
parameter Weibull over the
two-parameter Weibull is
clearly evident when com-
paring Tables 2 and 3. In
fact, the three-parameter
Weibull is effective in pre-
dicting future failures with
as few as six failure events
in this particular set of data.

Application
Considerations
The above example high-
lights the practical utility of
the three-parameter
Weibull when certain con-
ditions are met. Requiring
a minimum sample size of
21 restricts the use of the
three-parameter Weibull in
the early stages of failure
history - often when the
predictive accuracy could be
most useful for decision
making.
The findings in this study
may support the use of the
three-parameter Weibull in
future studies involving dis-
Table 3: Three-Parameter Weibull Estimated Failures

8 Weibull Statistics and Growth Analysis in Failure Prediction - Part I

References
1 See the K-S test reference and additional
URL links at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov%E2%80%
93Smirnov_test.
2 Abernethy, Dr. Robert B., The New Weibull
Handbook, 5th Edition, Published by Dr. Robert B.
Abernethy, 536 Oyster Road, North Palm Beach, FL
33408, 2000

About the author

Ron Gaddy, CMRP
Senior Consultant, Meridium Inc
Ron is a Senior Consultant for Meridium with twelve
years of reliability consulting experience - six of those
with Meridium. He is a Certified Maintenance and
Reliability Professional (CMRP) and an active mem-
ber of the Society for Maintenance and Reliability
Professionals (SMRP) Best Practices Committee.
In addition to his consulting background, Ron has
more than 25 years experience in refining, specialty
chemicals and polymers manufacturing. This includes
managing maintenance, financial, production and
engineering projects. His reliability and maintenance
consulting experience includes chemicals, plastics, oil
and gas, paper, steel, aluminum manufacturing indus-
tries and power generation. His consulting experience
includes developing and leading maintenance and reli-
ability improvement initiatives, root cause analysis
facilitation, financial modeling, reliability distribution
and growth analysis, and reliability system modeling.
Since joining Meridium, Ron has been involved in
pilot and implementation projects and workshops for
Exxon-Mobil Chemical, Xcel, Kimberly Clark and
other global industry leaders.
Ron has a B.S. Mechanical Engineering (University of Corporate Headquarters
Arkansas, USA) and an MBA (University of Houston, Roanoke, Virginia, USA +1.540.344.9205
USA). Regional Office
Houston, Texas, USA +1.281.920.9616
Europe
Walldorf, Germany +49.6227.7.33890
Middle East, Africa
Dubai, United Arab Emirates +971.4.365.4808
Asia Pacific
Perth, Australia +61.08.6465.2000

www.meridium.com
info@meridium.com