Microelectronics Reliability 55 (2015) 123–128

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Microelectronics Reliability
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/microrel

A cloud model-based method for the analysis of accelerated life test data
Wenjin Zhang a, Shunli Liu b, Bo Sun a,⇑, Yue Liu a, Michael Pecht c
a
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
b
Avic Aviation Motor Control System Institute, Wuxi 214000, China
c
Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering (CALCE), University of Maryland, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Various curve fitting models, including the Arrhenius stress model, inverse power law model, and Eyring
Received 13 November 2012 model have been used to model the load (stress) – life relationship to aid in planning accelerated life
Received in revised form 5 September 2014 tests; that is, the relationship between the mean of the sample lifetimes and the testing stress level.
Accepted 9 October 2014
The load-life relationship is a one-to-one relationship: one mean of the sample lifetimes corresponds
Available online 8 November 2014
to one testing stress level. However, due to the random uncertainties existing in the testing stress, the
relationship should be a many-to-many relationship rather than one testing stress corresponding one
Keywords:
mean lifetime of the tested product. Based on the one-to-one relationship of the mean of the sample
Accelerated life test
Uncertainty
lifetimes to the testing stress level, a many-to-many relationship can be derived using the reasoning
Cloud model method presented in this paper. The reasoning method is constructed as ‘If X, then Y.’ X is termed the rule
Stress cloud antecedent, and Y is called the rule consequent. They are constructed with the stress values and the
Life cloud sample lifetimes, respectively, based on the cloud model, which represents random uncertainty and fuzzy
Multi-rule-based cloud reasoner uncertainty. The reasoning method presented is called the multi-rule-based cloud reasoner, which can
refine the one-to-one relationship established by models such as the Arrhenius stress model to a
many-to-many relationship. In the case study, the multi-rule-based cloud reasoner was applied to a
thermal stress accelerated life test of ammunition fuses. The results from the multi-rule-based cloud rea-
soner were compared with the estimation results from a normal cloud generator under a stress level of
20 °C. The results showed that the many-to-many relationship between the uncertain stress level and the
means of the sample lifetimes was derived by the multi-rule-based cloud reasoner.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The resulting ALT data are often characterized by a probability

Accelerated life testing (ALT) is a process for uncovering the
potential failure modes of a product in a short amount of time by
testing the product under conditions (e.g., stress, strain, and
temperature) in excess of its normal operational conditions [1].
The data obtained from the tests are then utilized to construct a
reliability model for assessing the reliability of the product under
normal operating conditions through a statistical and/or physics
based inference procedure. The accuracy of the inference proce-
dure has a profound effect on the reliability estimates [2]. Elsayed
classifies the existing ALT models into three categories: statistics-
based models, physics-statistics based models, and physics-
experimental-based models [3]. In particular, the statistics-based
models are generally used when the relationship between the
applied stresses and the failure time of the product is difficult to
determine based on physics or chemistry principles.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sunbo@buaa.edu.cn (B. Sun).
distribution, such as Weibull, Lognormal, Gamma distribution,
along with a life-stress relationship. However, the selected inap-
propriate distribution would mislead the reliability prediction
result. Liao et al. presented a generic method using Erlang-Coxian
(EC) distributions for approximate the underlying failure time dis-
tributions arbitrarily closely [4]. Furthermore, many models and
methods are used to describe the life-stress relationship. These
methods include the maximum likelihood method [5,6], least
squares method [7], Bayesian method [8]. Some special problems,
such as time-varying-stress, step-stress are also handled by above
methods or improved methods [6,9]. Besides, the analyses of resid-
uals are used to assess ALT models fitted to field data on units each
subjected to a different varying stress profile over time [10].
In ALT, the sample lifetimes vary due to fluctuations in the test
stress levels and unit-to-unit variations. Due to the uncertainties
existing in the testing stress, the relationship between the mean
of the sample lifetimes and the testing stress level is a many-to-
many relationship: many means of the sample lifetimes corre-
spond to one testing stress level. The relationship between stress

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2014.10.006
0026-2714/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
124 W. Zhang et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 55 (2015) 123–128
and lifetimes may be inaccurate if the variability in testing stress
levels is ignored.
Uncertainty in the testing equipment will introduce some
amount of uncertainty in the estimates resulting from the ALT.
Specifically, the control accuracy of the testing equipment affects
the magnitude of the uncertainty in the testing stress levels, where
higher control accuracy results in a lower uncertainty in the testing
stress level. Generally, newly developed testing equipment has a
high precision controller to keep the uncertainty of the testing
stress level under 0.1 °C. However, obsolete testing equipment is
still used due to financial constraints, policies, or other factors.
The uncertainty within the testing stress level should not be
ignored when the stress level is processed. In order to continue
to use the older testing equipment and get accurate results, the
effects of the uncertainty of the stress in ALT should be qualified.
One feasible solution is to qualify and process the uncertainty
using a cloud model. A cloud model represents random uncertainty
and fuzzy uncertainty using probability theory and fuzzy mathe-
matics [11]. It transforms qualitative concepts to quantitative
values, or quantitative values to qualitative concepts, using a
forward cloud generator, a backward cloud generator, or the
approximate index method [12,13]. These are described in detail
in Section 2 of this paper.
In this work, the uncertain stress data and random sample life-
time data in the constant stress ALT are processed based on the
cloud model. The relationship between the uncertain stress level
and the testing sample lifetime is also refined based on a reasoning
method. The reasoning method is called a multi-rule-based cloud
reasoner in this paper. It is constructed based on the cloud model
methodology. Once the relationship is refined, any number of the
random means of the sample lifetimes can be derived from the
multi-rule-based cloud reasoner.
This paper is organized into six sections. In Section 2, cloud the-
ory is presented. Based on cloud theory, the stress cloud and life
cloud are described. In Section 3, three assumptions about the
uncertain stress level, the sample lifetimes, and their relationships
are given. These assumptions are the preconditions to ALT data
processing based on the cloud model. In order to refine the rela-
tionship between the uncertain stress level and the sample life-
times, Section 4 presents a multi-rule-based cloud reasoner,
which is constructed with several stress clouds and their corre-
sponding life clouds. In Section 5, the procedure is applied in a case
study on ammunition fuse storage life assessment. In Section 6,
conclusions about multi-rule-based cloud reasoner construction
and its function are presented, and directions for future research
are presented as well.
2. Stress cloud and life cloud of ALT
Probability theory is the main mathematical tool used to deal
with randomness. The normal distribution is widely used to
approximate a large number of random phenomena. Fuzzy sets
theory is the main method used to deal with fuzziness. The normal
membership function is widely used to qualify the fuzzy concept.
By integrating the uncertainty processing advantages of the normal
distribution and normal membership function, Li [14] developed
cloud theory in 1996. The cloud model measures the deviation of
a random phenomenon from a normal distribution when the ran-
dom phenomenon does not satisfy a normal distribution.
2.1. Cloud and cloud drop
A qualitative concept, C, such as fuzzy testing stress, is defined
over the universe of discourse, U. If the quantitative value x belongs
to U, and x is the random realization of concept C, then the
certainty grade u(x) of x belonging to C is a random variable with
a stable tendency [15]:
l : U ! ½0; 1 8x 2 U; x ! uðxÞ ð1Þ
Then, the distribution of x in the domain of discourse U is called
a cloud, and each x is called a cloud drop, which is a random instan-
tiation in probability theory, where the certainty degree is the
membership degree in fuzzy set theory.
The cloud model consists of three feature parameters: Ex, En,
and He. Together they express an uncertainty concept [11]. Ex is
the expectancy of the cloud model, denoting the distribution
expectation of the cloud drop in the domain distribution, and also
representing the most typical sample of this quantification con-
cept. En is the entropy of the cloud model, denoting the uncertainty
measure of the qualification concept, which is the stochastic mea-
sure of the qualification concept. He is the hyper-entropy of the
cloud model, which is the uncertainty measure of entropy deter-
mined by both the randomness and the fuzziness of the entropy
[11]. Due to He, the cloud model has a heavy-tailed property, which
keeps the quantitative values from obeying a normal distribution.
The distribution of the cloud drops can be transformed from a nor-
mal distribution to a heavy-tailed distribution or from a heavy-
tailed distribution to a normal distribution by changing the value
of He [16], which expands the scope of the cloud model.
In ALT, the stress data and the lifetime data do not obey a normal
distribution. Therefore, they are processed based on a cloud model
in this paper. Stress data were used to establish a model called the
stress cloud. The sample lifetime data were used to establish a
model called the life cloud. The process of establishing the stress
cloud and life cloud is described in the following sections.
2.2. Stress cloud
The stress cloud is recorded as Cs = (Exs, Ens, Hes), where Exs is
the testing stress value set in the accelerated equipment, Ens
indicates the fluctuation range of the stress level, and Hes measures
the deviation of the stress data from the normal distribution due to
the combined influence of the uncertain testing environment and
the test behavior. The fluctuation range of the testing stress is pro-
vided by the manufacturer of the accelerated testing equipment.
Taking a thermostat as an example, the fluctuation range of the
testing temperature is often given in the form of t ± e. Then, the
feature parameters of the stress cloud are calculated by the
approximate indicator method. The computational formulas are
as follows [13]:
Exs ¼ Ext ¼ t ð2Þ
Ens ¼ Ent ¼ e=n ð3Þ
Hes ¼ Het ¼ k ð4Þ
where n reflects the frequency of the temperature exceeding the
range of t ± e. The greater the value of n is, the lower the frequency
is. Usually, n is made to equal 3 or 6; this is commonly referred to as
the 3-sigma or 6-sigma principle. The k in (4) is an empirical con-
stant estimated considering the uncertainty of the accelerated
stress provided by the thermostat.
If the fluctuation range of the testing stress is unknown, the
stress cloud Cs = (Exs, Ens, Hes) can be established by a backward
cloud generator with the sampling discrete testing stress levels
S = {s1, s2, . . .. . ., sn}. The algorithm of the backward cloud generator
is as follows [17]:
1X N
Exs ¼ si ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . ; NÞ ð5Þ
N i¼1
 W. Zhang et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 55 (2015) 123–128 125

Assumption 1. The accelerated stress levels provided by testing

equipment obey an approximate normal distribution. They can be
represented with the cloud model.
For example, in a thermostat, when the testing temperature is
set at 95 °C, the actual temperature in the thermostat cannot be
kept constant at 95 °C due to thermal hysteresis. The actual tem-
perature fluctuates around 95 °C. The probability distribution func-
tion (PDF) of the testing temperature fluctuation is not certain, and
the PDF may also be asymmetric, as seen in Fig. 1. The maximum
asymmetry is illustrated with either color line. Due to the random
uncertainty, the PDF curve is also uncertain, or the smooth curve
does not exist. Even if the PDF curve exists, we only know that it
lies in the scope between the two color lines. More specific infor-
mation is not available due to random uncertainty. However, con-
sidering the definition of the cloud model, we can see that the
graph of the cloud model is consistent with Fig. 1. Thus, it is proper
to sample the testing stress discretely to establish a stress cloud
Fig. 1. PDF of the testing temperature. with the cloud model. Each dot in Fig. 1 is a cloud drop of the stress
cloud and represents a realization of the temperature value. As
seen in Fig. 1, the distribution of the cloud drops is consistent with
the probability of the temperature value.

Assumption 2. The testing sample lifetimes obey an approximate

normal distribution. They can also be modeled based on the cloud
model.
Generally, the testing sample lifetimes are assumed to obey the
Weibull distribution or lognormal distribution [18]. However,
when the uncertainty of the testing stress cannot be ignored, this
would lead to the sample lifetimes distribution being difficult to
represent with a mathematical function. The sample lifetimes obey
an approximate normal distribution, which can be modeled with
the cloud model. The cloud model measures the deviation of a ran-
dom phenomenon from a normal distribution when the random
phenomenon does not satisfy a normal distribution.

Assumption 3. The uncertain accelerated stress, S, has an uncer-

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of uncertainty mapping.
tain mapping relationship with the mean of the sample lifetimes, T.
The sample lifetimes are uncertain values due to the differences
rffiffiffiffi
p 1X N between the samples themselves and the uncertainty of the testing
Ens ¼  jsi  Exs j ð6Þ stress. Therefore, a range of random values, instead of a fixed mean
2 N i¼1
value, corresponds to each testing stress level. Fig. 2 is a schematic
diagram of the uncertainty mapping relationship. Any stress value
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi in Fig. 2 corresponds to a range of values of sample lifetimes.
1 XN
Hes ¼ i¼1 i
ðs  Exs Þ2  ðEns Þ2 ð7Þ
N1
4. ALT data processing based on a cloud reasoner
where N is the total number of testing samples.
In ALT, the feature parameters of the life clouds monotonically
change with the testing stress values, as seen in Fig. 3.
2.3. Life cloud

The life cloud is recorded as C sT ¼ ðExsT ; EnsT ; HesT Þ. The superscript

s in the life cloud refers to the corresponding testing stress. The
three parameters of the life cloud can be calculated with the sam-
ple lifetime data under the stress level, s, based on the backward
cloud generator. The life cloud quantifies the uncertainty of the
sample lifetimes.

3. Basic assumptions about the uncertain stress, the sample

lifetimes, and their relationship

In order to qualify and process the uncertainty in ALT with the

cloud model, three assumptions about the uncertainty of stress
levels, sample lifetimes, and their relationships are given according
to engineering experience. Fig. 3. Life cloud expectations and entropies changing with stress levels.
126 W. Zhang et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 55 (2015) 123–128

The life cloud of the testing samples under normal working con-
ditions can be determined by extrapolating the life clouds of the
samples under the accelerated stresses by an accelerator model
for different stress types and levels. For the single test stress, the
Arrhenius model, inverse power law model can be used. For multi-
ple test stress, the Eyring model can be used. The life cloud
obtained based on extrapolation has great uncertainty, and the
sample lifetimes belonging to the life cloud can be estimated by
the forward cloud generator. The algorithm of the forward cloud
generator is described below [13].
(5) Repeat steps (1)–(4) until i = P.
The one-rule-based cloud reasoner represents the nearly linear
uncertainty mapping between testing stresses and sample life-
times. While the uncertainty mapping is strongly nonlinear, the
one-rule-based cloud reasoner brings calculation errors which can-
not be ignored. In order to improve the accuracy of the uncertainty
mapping representation, the multi-rule-based cloud reasoner con-
structed by the one-rule-based cloud reasoner [19,20] can be
applied. For example, N reasoning rules exist as follows.

Input: three parameters of the cloud model (Ex, En, He) and the If s 2 C t1 ; then T 2 C t1
T
number of cloud drops, N. 
Output: N cloud drops and their certainty degree. If s 2 C tN ; then T 2 C tN
T

Steps: Considering that a stress value s may activate different rules,

each activation will output different certainty degrees l and T.
(1) Generate a normally distributed random number En0 with Averaging all the outputs T(T > 0) with l, which is the weight, will
expectation En and standard deviation He. result in obtaining a sample lifetime, T, corresponding to the
(2) Generate a normally distributed random number xi with inputs.
0
expectation Exi and
h standard i deviation En . The structure of the multi-rule-based cloud reasoner is shown
2
(3) Calculate yi ¼ exp  ðxi ExÞ
0 2
where yi is the certainty degree in Fig. 5 [19].
2ðEn Þ
of xi belonging to the concept represented by the cloud The algorithm of the multi-rule-based cloud reasoner is as
model. follows:
(4) Repeat steps (1)–(3) until N cloud drops are generated.
Input: antecedent stress cloud C si ðExsi ; Ensi ; Hesi Þ; consequence
The mapping relationship of the stress cloud under normal life cloud C sTi ðExsTi ; EnsTi ; HesTi Þ; a specific stress, s, in the stress
conditions to its corresponding life cloud is shown in Fig. 2. The cloud (i = 1, 2, . . .. . ., n); and the required number, N, of output
relationship indicates that a certain specific stress value sample lifetimes.
corresponds to several sample lifetimes. Such a relationship can Output: weighted average of drops, Tr.
be represented by a one-rule-based cloud reasoner.
A one-rule-based cloud reasoner is an uncertain reasoning Steps:
method established based on the common reasoning method: ‘‘If
X, then Y,’’ in which X is the rule antecedent and Y is the rule con- (1) Set r = 1.
sequent. In the one-rule-based cloud reasoner, X and Y are the (2) Set i = 1, j = 1, k = 1.
stress cloud and life cloud, respectively. The structure of the one- (3) Complete steps (1)–(4) of the one-rule-based cloud reasoner.
rule-based cloud reasoner is shown in Fig. 4, in which CG stands (4) i = i + 1.
for cloud generator. (5) When i = n, go to step (6); or else return to step (3).
P P Pl Pn Pm
The algorithm of the one-rule-based cloud reasoner is as (6) Calculate Tr: T r ¼ ni¼1 m
j¼1 k¼1 ðT ijk  lij Þ= i¼1 j¼1 lij .
follows: (7) r = r + 1.
(8) Repeat steps (2)–(7) until r = N;
Input: antecedent stress cloud Cs = (Exs, Ens, Hes), consequence
life cloud C sT ¼ ðExsT ; EnsT ; HesT Þ, a specific stress value s in the where lij represents the response certainty of the stress, s, at the
stress cloud, and the required number P of the output sample jth time input to the ith antecedent stress cloud; Tijk is the kth sam-
lifetimes. ple lifetime of lij as the input to the ith consequence life cloud; Tr is
Output: the cloud drop Ti (sample lifetime) of life cloud the weighted sample lifetime as the stress, s, at the rth time input
C sT ¼ ðExsT ; EnsT ; HesT Þ. to the multi-rule-based cloud reasoner; n is the number of the

Steps:

(1) Generate a random En0s with Ens as the expectancy and Hes as
the standard deviation.
(2) Calculate the certainty of the stress, s, belonging to the
antecedent stress cloud li ¼ expfðs  Exs Þ2 =ð2En0s Þg.
0
(3) Generate a normal random EnsT with ExsT as the expectancy
s
and EnT as the standard deviation.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(4) If s < Exs, then T i ¼ ExsT þ 2 lnðli ÞEnsT .

Fig. 4. Structure of one-rule-based cloud reasoner. Fig. 5. Structure of multi-rule-based cloud reasoner [19].
 W. Zhang et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 55 (2015) 123–128 127

reason rules; m is the time of the stress, s, input to any antecedent Table 2
stress cloud each cycle; and l is the time of lij as the input to the ith Life cloud parameters of the samples under different accelerated stress clouds/h.

consequence stress cloud each cycle. Stress level ExT EnT HeT
When a stress value, si, is input in the multi-rule-based cloud C65°C (65 1.5 0.2) 1.480 ⁄ 103
2.512 ⁄ 102
30.25
reasoner, an uncertain value, which is a random mean value of C75°C (75 1.5 0.2) 0.437 ⁄ 103 0.779 ⁄ 102 10.88
the sample lifetime, will be the output. Inputting the stress, si, mul- C85°C (85 1.5 0.2) 0.236 ⁄ 103 33.924 4.54
tiple times will output a range of uncertain numbers. The mapping
relationship between inputs and outputs can be seen in Fig. 2. This
relationship can be achieved using a stress-life cloud reasoner.

5. Case study

An ammunition fuse is a critical device which controls the

explosion of ammunition. Ammunition security departments study
the storage life assessment of ammunition fuses.
In this case study, in order to identify the storage lifetimes of a
specific kind of ammunition fuse, ALT was performed. Sixty fuses
were collected and equally divided into three groups. Each group
had twenty ammunition fuse samples. The accelerated stress con-
ditions imposed on each group were t1 = 65 °C, t2 = 75 °C, and
t3 = 85 °C. The acceleration equipment controller was a thermostat,
which provided a temperature of t ± 4.5 °C, and the entropies of the
Fig. 6. Response chart of multi-rule-based cloud reasoned.
stress clouds were about 0.4 °C based on historical measured data
of the acceleration equipment. We made n in formula (3) equal 3.
Therefore, the stress clouds C65°C (65,1.5,0.4), C75°C (75,1.5,0.4), and
Table 3
C85°C (85,1.5,0.4) can be established by the approximate indicator Fifteen lifetimes of the fuses under 20 °C derived from the cloud reasoner/105 h
method. Part of the sample lifetimes under the three ranges of (Id = Index; Lt = Lifetime).
stress clouds are shown in Table 1.
Id Lt Id Lt Id Lt
The lifetime data in Table 1 were processed with the backward
1 2.370 6 2.400 11 2.393
cloud generator, and the calculated life cloud parameters are
2 2.278 7 2.398 12 2.378
shown in Table 2. 3 2.416 8 2.376 13 2.412
The stress in this ALT is temperature. Thus, the life cloud under 4 2.428 9 2.365 14 2.407
normal working conditions can be extrapolated by a variant for- 5 2.377 10 2.413 15 2.443
mula of the Arrhenius model [21]. The variant formula is:
  According to the algorithm of the multi-rule-based cloud rea-
1
log Time ¼ a þ b  ð8Þ soner given in Section 4, we constructed a multi-rule-based cloud
Stress t
reasoner with the stress clouds of 17 °C, 20 °C, 23 °C, and 26 °C as
where Stress_t is the temperature stress, Time is the lifetime of the the antecedent clouds and the corresponding life clouds as the con-
testing sample working under Stress_t, and a, b are the undeter- sequence clouds. When a range of temperatures from 17 °C to
mined parameters. 26 °C with 0.01 °C as the step size was input into the multi-rule-
The feature parameters of the life clouds under 17 °C, 20 °C, based cloud reasoner, the response shown in Fig. 6 was the output.
23 °C, and 26 °C can be extrapolated by formula (8) with the infor- The response curve ribbon in the left of Fig. 6 is the result of
mation in Table 2. The extrapolated life clouds are as follows: uncertainty mapping from the four stress clouds to their corre-
 sponding life clouds. This ribbon lies on the ExtT curve line and
C 17
T
C
ð3:1676  105 ; 0:4997  105 ; 0:6320  104 Þ
between the upper limit line and lower limit line of the sample life-
 times. The width of the ribbon is much smaller than the interval
C T20 C ð2:1375  105 ; 0:3372  105 ; 0:4265  104 Þ between the upper limit line and lower limit line, and is distributed

closely on both sides of the estimated sample lifetime data means.
C 23
T
C
ð1:4540  105 ; 0:2294  105 ; 0:2901  104 Þ; The range of the stresses that are effective as inputs for the
cloud reasoner is determined by the number and uncertainty range

C 26
T
C
ð9:9670  104 ; 1:5724  104 ; 0:1989  104 Þ: of the stress clouds constructing the reasoner. In this paper, the
range of the stresses as inputs was from 17 °C to 26 °C.
Therefore, when 20 °C was input into the cloud reasoner, any
number of corresponding sample lifetimes could have been derived.
Table 1 Fifteen derived lifetimes of the testing fuses are shown in Table 3.
Sample lifetimes under the three ranges of stress clouds/103 h. As seen in Table 3, the lifetimes derived from the multi-rule-
based cloud reasoners are the random values of the means of the
Index C65°C (65,1.5,0.4) C75°C (75,1.5,0.4) C85°C (85,1.5,0.4)
sample lifetimes.
1 1.0604 0.3478 0.2466
2 1.2165 0.4524 0.2068
3 1.7123 0.5028 0.2155
4 1.4662 0.4342 0.2551
6. Conclusions
5 1.6294 0.5247 0.2053
6 1.5122 0.4687 0.2224 A multi-rule-based cloud reasoner was developed to represent
7 1.4510 0.4120 0.2512 the relationship between the lifetime of samples and the testing
8 1.4721 0.4421 0.2391
stress levels. The multi-rule-based cloud reasoner was constructed
. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .
based on the cloud model, which can integrate randomness and
128 W. Zhang et al. / Microelectronics Reliability 55 (2015) 123–128

Table A.1 The authors would like to thank CALCE and the more than 150
Sample lifetimes under the three ranges of stress clouds/103 h. sponsors of CALCE at the University of Maryland for their valuable
Index C65°C (65,1.5,0.4) C75°C (75,1.5,0.4) C85°C (85,1.5,0.4) support.
1 1.0604 0.3478 0.2466
2 1.2165 0.4524 0.2068 Appendix A.
3 1.7123 0.5028 0.2155
4 1.4662 0.4342 0.2551
(see Table A.1).
5 1.6294 0.5247 0.2053
6 1.5122 0.4687 0.2224
7 1.4510 0.4120 0.2512 References
8 1.4721 0.4421 0.2391
9 1.3600 0.4791 0.2271 [1] Viertl Reinhard. Statistical methods in accelerated life
10 1.1109 0.3299 0.2763 testing. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht; 1998.
11 1.2860 0.3362 0.2687 [2] Elsayed EA. Overview of reliability testing. IEEE Trans Reliab
12 1.5835 0.4017 0.2508 2012;61(2):282–91.
13 1.7331 0.4018 0.2338 [3] Elsayed EA. Reliability engineering. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2012.
14 1.5834 0.4830 0.2395 [4] Haitao Liao, Huairui Guo. A generic method for modeling accelerated life
15 1.6348 0.3502 0.2685 testing data. In: Proceedings of the 59th annual reliability and maintainability
symposium (RAMS); 2013, p. 1–6.
16 1.7480 0.5208 0.1801
[5] Whitman Charles S. Accelerated life test calculations using the method of
17 1.6963 0.4234 0.2001
maximum likelihood: an improvement over least squares. Microelectron
18 2.0038 0.43422 0.2788 Reliab 2003;2003(43):859–64.
19 1.6074 0.4914 0.1871 [6] Hong Yili, Ma Haiming, Meeker William Q. A tool for evaluating time-varying-
20 1.1199 0.5129 0.2397 stress accelerated life test Plans with log-location-scale distributions. IEEE
Trans Reliab 2010;59(4):620–7.
[7] Teng Siew-Leng, Yeo Kwee-Poo. A least-squares approach to analyzing life-
stress relationship in step-stress accelerated life tests. IEEE Trans Reliab
fuzziness. Although the relationship between the lifetime of sam- 2002;52(2):177–82.
ples and the testing stress levels established based on the general [8] Tao Yuan, Xi Liu. Bayesian planning of optimal step-stress accelerated life test.
acceleration model is deterministic, due to the realistic uncertain- In: Proceedings of the 57th annual reliability and maintainability symposium
(RAMS); 2011, p. 1–6.
ties existing in the ALT process, the relationship between the life- [9] Ancha Xu, Basu Sanjib, Tang Yincai. A full bayesian approach for masked data
time and the stress should be a many-to-many relationship. The in step-stress accelerated life testing. IEEE Trans Reliab 2014;63(3):798–806.
cloud model and cloud reasoner presented in this paper provide [10] Nelson Wayne B. Residuals and their analyses for accelerated life tests with
step and varying stress. IEEE Trans Reliab 2008;57(2):360–8.
new ways to address this problem. When the load (stress) – life [11] Li Deyi, Liu Changyu, Gan Wenyan. A new cognitive model: cloud model. Int J
relationship established is refined with a multi-rule-based cloud Intell Syst 2009;24(3):357–75.
reasoner, the uncertainty can be quantified and assessed in ALT [12] Guoyin Wang, Changlin Xu, Deyi Li. Generic normal cloud model. Inform Sci
2014;280(2014):1–15.
data processing and analysis. Then, the inaccurate test results [13] Song YJ, Li DY, Yang XZ, et al. Reliability evaluation of electronic samples based
induced by uncertainty can be avoided and controlled. on cloud models. Acta Electronica Sinica 2000;28(12):74–6.
Modeling ALT uncertainty is beneficial for test equipment [14] Li Deyi, Meng Haijun, Shi Xuemei. Membership clouds and membership cloud
generators. J Comput Res Develop 1995;32(6):15–30.
requirement reducing, test cost reducing and test time reducing.
[15] Xiangyi Meng, Guangwei Zhang, Jianchu Kang, et al. A new subjective trust
The older and low-end testing equipment with lower control accu- model based on cloud model. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE international
racy can still be used since the testing stress level bias can be conference on networking, sensing and control; 2008, p. 1125–30.
assessed. The calibrations of test equipment generally spend a lot [16] Li Deyi, Liu Changyu, Gan Wenyan. Proof of the heavy-tailed property of
normal cloud model. Eng Sci 2011;13(4):20–3.
of time and cost. Since the effects of accuracy of test equipment [17] Liu Changyu, Feng Mang, Dai Xiaojun, et al. A new algorithm of backward
on test stress level can be assessed, so do not need spent too much cloud. J Syst Simulat 2004;16(11):2417–20.
time on test equipment calibration or too many cost on expensive [18] Pascual FG, Montepiedra G. Lognormal and Weibull accelerated life test plans
under distribution misspecification. IEEE Trans Reliab 2005;54(1):43–52.
high-precision test equipment. [19] Gao Jian, Li Zhong. Study on design and application of one-dimension cloud
model mapping processor. J Syst Simulat 2006;18(7):1861–5.
Acknowledgements [20] Li D, Cheung D, Shi Xuemei, et al. Uncertainty reasoning based on cloud models
in controllers. J Comput Sci Mathemat Appl 1998;35(3):99–123.
[21] Nelson Wayne. Analysis of accelerated life testing data – Part I: the arrhenius
This work is partially supported by the Fundamental Research model and graphical methods. IEEE Trans Electric Insulat 1971;EI-
Funds for the Central Universities of China (No. YWF-12-LSJC-001). 6(4):165–81.