Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / Degradation Hypothesis

by Fred Schenkelberg 1 Comment

Degradation Hypothesis

Degradation Hypothesis

This week I received a question from the ASQ Librarian concerning a person’s question about one of the CRE Question bank questions. It was a nice two-part question concerning a hypothesis test of a sample means value and degradation.

Here’s the question as sent over for consideration.

Five samples of a product are tested for power after a reliability testing to assess any degradation. The products measured 10, 10.1, 10.5, 9.8, and 10.7 watts. If the average wattage is greater than or equal to 10 watts at 95% confidence level, we can conclude that the degradation has occurred. Calculate the appropriate statistics and conclude

A.

1.329, No degradation

B.

2.132, No degradation

C.

1.329, Degradation has occurred

D.

2. 132, Degradation has occurred

From the question, it is clear that we want to compare the sample mean value to the given 10 watts average and determine if the sample shows evidence that degradation has occurred. The problem says that degradation is indicated with higher values of wattage, over 10 watts.

Degradation is commonly thought to only reduce values like brake pad wear will show a decrease in pad thickness over time as it wears. Depending on the measure and system degradation may result in an increasing value over time. For example it may take more current, A,  to start a fan motor to overcome initial friction as the fan bearings wear and/or the bearing lubrication deteriorate. We can measure motor current without taking apart the fan compared to bearing dimension or lubrication quality with require the deconstruction of the fan.

The person asking the question about this question felt that degradation is smaller is worse which is the reverse needed in for this situation.

Back to the question and how to solve it. First, set up the hypothesis test, we are interested in detecting if there is evidence of degradation and values higher than 10 watts on average. Thus the null hypothesis is if there is no degradation and the alternative hypothesis is higher than 10 watts.

$$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{{H}_{0}}:\mu < 10\text{ watts}\\{{H}_{1}}:\mu \ge 10\text{ watts}\end{array}$$

We will need the degrees of freedom to enter the t-table to find the critical value at 95% confidence. With n = 5 samples, DF = (n-1) = (5-1) = 4. We also know we are interested in the right tail of the t distribution as we are seeking a greater than the mean value, one-sided, situation.

The critical value of the t – table at 0.95 right tail is 2.132. Thus, if the test statistic is greater than this value, we conclude the alternative hypothesis is true. If it is less, we do not have convincing evidence of degradation.

The next step is to calculate the test statistic.

$$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}t=\frac{\bar{X}-\mu }{{}^{s}\!\!\diagup\!\!{}_{\sqrt{n}}\;}\\=\frac{10.22-10}{{}^{0.37}\!\!\diagup\!\!{}_{\sqrt{5}}\;}\\=\frac{0.22}{0.165469}\\=1.329\end{array}$$

Finally we compare the test statistic with the critical value, 1.329 is less then the critical value of 2.132, thus we stay with the null hypothesis that there is no evidence of degradation.

For the questions answer the statistic is 1.329 and No degradation, thus select response A.

How would you approach this problem? Anyone have a better example of degradation revealed with an increasing measure?


Related:

Paired-Comparison Hypothesis Tests (article)

Hypothesis Tests for Proportion (article)

Mann Reverse Arrangement Test (article)

 

Filed Under: Articles, CRE Preparation Notes, Probability and Statistics for Reliability Tagged With: Hypothesis testing

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« Binomial Cumulative Density Function
Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics »

Comments

  1. Ernest Paul Jones says

    February 25, 2018 at 8:18 AM

    I am a confirm believer of your illustration because it has a sound analysis as well as explanation. But, I was actually going to assume the same answer by eye balled inspection of the data. I saw that only one element of data showed to be below 10. by assuming that all of the readings were related to degeneration it is accurate to conclude that degeneration occurs above the stated mean.

    But, I still wanted to see the valid proof.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CRE Preparation Notes

Article by Fred Schenkelberg

Join Accendo

Join our members-only community for full access to exclusive eBooks, webinars, training, and more.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Get Full Site Access

Not ready to join?
Stay current on new articles, podcasts, webinars, courses and more added to the Accendo Reliability website each week.
No membership required to subscribe.

[popup type="" link_text="Get Weekly Email Updates" link_class="button" ][display_form id=266][/popup]

  • CRE Preparation Notes
  • CRE Prep
  • Reliability Management
  • Probability and Statistics for Reliability
  • Reliability in Design and Development
  • Reliability Modeling and Predictions
  • Reliability Testing
  • Maintainability and Availability
  • Data Collection and Use

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy