e Pergamon

Micr()("Mr/ru", Re/iab .• Vol. 37. No.6, pp . 879-883, 1997

PIT: S0026-27 14(96)00253-3

:D 1997 ElseviCT Sci.nee Ltd
Printed in G1"<'at Britain. All rights reserved
002S-27 14j97 $17.00 + 000

BAYES IA N T ECHNIQ UES TO RED UCE THE SAMPLE SIZE

IN AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRO NICS ATTRIBUTE TESTING
ANDRE KLEYNE R,t SHRI KAR BHAGATH,t MAU RO GASPARI N Lt
JEFFREY ROBI NSON§ and MARK BENDERt
t Delco Elc.:lronics Corporation. Kokomo , IN 46904-9005. U,S.A.; t Deparlmenl of Statistics, Purdue
University. West Lafayette. IN 47907- 1399, U.s,A. , §Mathematics Department, General Mo tors Researc h
LabOratories, Wa rren. M[ 4&090-9055, U.S.A.

( Ref/'h'ed/or pllbiic(lIion 2 July 19%)

Abslract- This paper discusses the application of Bayesian techniques 10 the determination of sa mple sizes required
for an attribute lest of a product in order to demonstrate a target reliability with a spedficd confidence. The mcthod
is lxlsed on analyzing statistical data on similar prodocts and incorporating them into a Bayesian prior distribution
for the unknown reliability. A mixture prior obtained by combining a bela prior with the uniform rectangular prior
(representing the unkno"'n content of the new product design) is discussed. The suggested method can significantly
lower sample sizes for attribute It"Sts and thus reduce cost, time, and resources currently being spent on reliability
demonstration testing. A numerical example at the end uf the paper illustrates the method. to 1997 Eh;cvier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.

INT ROl) ucn ON specified mission life under standard conditions: an

In the pursuit of high quality and high reliability in
a mass production Cllvironment, the au tomotive
manufacturers require their suppliers to prove a
target reliability with an assigned confidence level on
a supplied product. This is usually done through a
reliability demonstration test by running a certain
number of samples under conditions simulating the
mission life, an experiment which is sometimes called
lest to a bogey. Most of the time the sample size is
determined only by the requi red reliability and the
confidence level. Most of the methods currently used
in the industry prcsume no prior information about
the product or its predecessors. though very often this
information is available. With the ever increasing
reliability requirements the sample size to be tested is
attribute reliability experiment is performed to learn
more about it. The experiment consists of observing
N successes out of N reliability test trials. A peculiar
feature is that most often no less than a 100% success
rate is required- failing which corrective actions are
to be taken- whereas in the usual reliability trials the
success ra te, albeit usually high, is random.
Techniques commonly utilized to calculate spmple
sizes for a reliability demonstration of a product
when a 100% success rate is required are generally
refe rred to as Success Run fo rmulae 11,21. The
likelihood function, that is the probability of
observing all successes given a certain value of the
unknown product reliability R, is
L(dataIR) = R". (1 )

growing out of proportion and economical sense,
requiring larger and larger amounts of human
resources and capital equipment. Based on the fact
that ma ny new automotive products are evolutionary
and not revolutionary, Bayes method can be onc of
the approaches to incorporate prior knowledge about
the product, thus reducing the numbe r of test samples
and the amount of resources dedicated to the test
programs.
EXISTING TEC HN IQ UES )-' OR SAMPLE SIZE
DET ER1\'II N A"J"IO N
Statistical experi ments are gencrally performed
to learn mo re about unknown parameters charac-
terizing our material of interest. In an automotive
setup, the unknown parameter is the product
reliability R, that is, the probability of surviving a
Based on this eq uation. the expression
C= I - R ~ (2)
is known as the "Success Run formula" [2] and can
be obtained from the elassical Clopper and Pearson
(3J approach to the determination of confidence
intervals for a binomial proportion. In eqn (2), RL
is the lower bound of a one-sided ex 100%
confidence interval for the unknown reliability R.
Rl is referred to from now on as the demonstrated
reliability. In the automotive indust ry C and Rl
are usually stipulated by the customer, the Success
Run formula is then used for the dete rmination of
the required sample size N.
Using a Bayesian approach instead, we use
prior distributions on the unknown parameters of
a statistical experiment to exploit useful pre-

879
880 A. Kleyner {'I 01.
experimental information, e.g. the d ata from
previous test resul ts or similar product usage. For
Success RUll ex perimen ts, the likelihood (I) has to
be combined with the prior distribution on R to
obtain a posterior dist ri bution on R. Such a poS+
(crior distribution summa rizes all availab le infor-
mation about the unknown product reliability R.
T he Bayesian version of the classical Success
R un formu la uses a uniform prio r, a lso called a
Rectangular Prior, which presumes an equa l likeli-
hood for the reliabUity value to fall anyw here
between 0 and I, and expresses the idea of " vague"'
prior mformation. In other words, since this prior
assigns the same weight to every val ue of R, we
expect it to produce results similar to the classical
Success R un formula.
Combini ng the unirorm prior and the likelihood,
using Bayes theorem, we o btain the Bayesian ve rsion
or the Success Ru n formula from the posterior
probability
' R" dR
C = p(RL< R <
J.
I) = " I - Rt'· ' (3)
1' R" dR
whe re C is t he coefficient of the cred ible interval
[Rl. I]_ Rl • the ( I - C) quantile of the posterior
distribu tion of R, is still to be referred to as the
(Bayesia n) demonstrated reliability. An interpret-
ation of eqn (3) is that, after the successful
completio n of a Success Run experiment with N
uni ts, the unknown reliabi lity R lies in the interval
[RI.. I], with C x 100% probability.
The sampk size ca lculated using eqn (2) is one
sample mOfe than what we would get using eqn (3)_
Some comlllon reliability demonstration req ui re-
ments a nd the sample sizes for the Success Run of
these demo nstrations ,n e given in Table 1. Equation
(3) has IX."'t!n used in the calculation of these sample
siles.
fRO !\1 RETA PRIORS TO MIXTU RES OF BETA
PRIORS ~'OR PRQIJ UCr RELIABILITY
A generali za tio n o f the Success Run fonnula (3)
can be obtained from priors other than the uniform.
In Bayesian statistics, it is well known that for a
Table I. Some common rf:liabitity demonstration
requirements
Sample size
Reliability to be Confidence (Success Run
demonstrated level formula)
0.95 0.9 45
0.97 0.7 40
0.99 0.5 69
0.99 0.9 229
binomial likeli hood such as eqn (I), a beta prior
distribution on R, wi th density
W ·'(l - R)' · '
/I*(R) = PeA. B) if 0 *" R *" I (4)
where
P(A B) ~ f(A )flB )
, f(A + B)
is particularly convenient; the constants A and B
(sometimes called hypcrpa rameters) have a nice
interpretation- A being tho ught, sometimes, as the
number of successes out of A + B trials in a similar
p re-experiment , real or imaginary. Morc important ly,
the beta p rior distribution is conjugate to binomial
sampling, that is, the postcrior is a beta distribution
a s well. T his allo ws for a continuous updating of the
posterior within the samc general class of d istri-
butions. T he uni form prio r is a special case of eqn (4)
for A = B = 1.
The posteri or density 'Jfl R o btained by combining
eqns (I) and (4) through Bayes theorem is
R"R'< · '( I - R)'. ')
( P(A. B)
n*(Rldata) = --.:-~~---..:.-
fS"'S' · '(I - S)8. l dS)
( P(A . B)
RHN · '(I R)-· I
(5)
{J(A + N , B)
that is, a beta density with parameters (A + N) and
B. T he usc o f bcla prio rs for binomial sampling has
a long history, starting somewhere in the prehistory
o f modern Bayesian statistics. For an acco un t of the
uses of beta d istri butions in attribute reliability tria ls,
see Martz and Waller [4, 5]. As in thc case of the
standard Success Run formu la (3), the immediate use
of posterior (5) is to establish a reliability level RL
above which there is a high Bayesia n credibility C
that the reliability R will be met. For this purpose, we
use equation
c ~ J.'
RH N· '( I _ R)'·'
(6)
{J(A + N , B) dR
"
which tells us that there is a C posterior probability
that R wi ll be grealer than R l ,
If. before Ihc experiment. we require a certai n
Bayesian credibility C based on the contract ual
specifications, for a given A and B the o nly unknown
in ex pression (6) is thc sample size N. For a given
prior (4) we have to solve eq n (6) n umerically fo r N ,
in order to know how large a sample size we have to
observe, with a 100% success rate, to satisfy the
required C and RL •
The choice of the parameters of the prior A a nd B
is a erucial one. [\ seems reasona ble, in automo ti ve
reliabili ty applica tions, to base such a choice on
 Automotive auribme testing 881

failure data, which a re easily available and contain a
lot of relevant information on past mooeh or similar
products. In the presence of information on the
success rate of n previous life tests, a possible way to
obtain A and B is based on an empirical Bayes
approach discussed in Ref. [61. See Martz and Waller
[41 whcrc empirical Bayes estimates of A and B arc
derived (Appendix).
Beta priors of the form (4) have a long history and
arc mathematicall y convenient, but for our purposes
they arc too restrictive. T he best way to understand
this is by observing that an industrial product is in
continuous evolution and, although a lot of similarity
exists between old and new Inodels, we always have
a margin of novelty which should be accounted for.
On the o ther haod, we do waot to use prior
information on similar products in our research; this
is the reason why we want to use Ba yesian methods
in the first place. The right compr()mise between these
confl icting goals seems to be 10 generalize the class of
beta priors to the larger class offinite mix tures of beta
priors. The plan is then to put wgelher a prior
distribution derived from failure data and a margin
of uncertainty intrinsic to the new model. The laller
margin of uncertainty can be e~presscd as a uniform
prio r on the reliability.
Our proposal is therefore to use a two-component
mi~ture of beta distributions, with density
Notice that the usc of a uniform prior a lone would
lead to the Bayesian version of the Success Run
formula ; the use of mi~tures therefo re represents
a reasonable compromise between Bayesian and
classical mcthods.
The idea of using mixture priors in the conte~t of
product reliability could be genenllized to the case
of heterogeneous prior information, in particula r to
thc case where failure data are available for differ-
ent past products, s()me more similar than others to
the new product. In that case, the analysis could be
generali zed to the consideration of prior densities of
the form
RA,- ' X (1 R)I. - ')
rr(R) = ~ ( p, P(A" B,) + (I - p) (8)
where P = l:, PI and the different knowledge co-
efficicnts Pi reflect d iflerent degrees of similarity
between the new and old products. Another reference
to the use of mixture priors in Bayesian reliabilit y is
Savchuk and Martz 17J.
Only mixtures with two components are con-
sidered here. Combining eqns (I) and (7) using Bayes
theorem we o btain the posterior density,

TI(R) = P
RA - '
x (I
fI(A, 0)
R)--'
n(Rldata) = ~~:!.~;'~.+~~R~·~·~·r'-~'+~X~(I~~R=)='=-:'
(I p)R
(I p)
p
P(A
P(A,O)
N, B) (9)
N+ I + p P(A,B)
+( l -p) if O ~ R ~ 1. (7)
and the corresponding e~pression
The first componenl of the mixture is a beta prior
with parameters A a nd 0 to be derived from failure
data. The second component of the mixture is a
uniform prior (a special case oflhe beta) representing
c= r' n(Rldata) dR (10)

uncertainty about the new product reliability. The

two components arc combined acco rding to weights
p a nd (1 - p), where p is a ·'knowledge factor'·
representing how similar the new product is to the o ld
one, and (I - p) is an "innovation faclor" , reflecting
the proportion of new content in the new product.
j"
where a required demonstrated reliability Rl and
credibility C can be achieved. The solution of
eqn (10) has to be found, in general, by numerical
methods.

Table 2. Calculation of eoeflicients A and B from IPTVJreliability data

IPTV Volume sold I, Reliability Rj
Model year Body style (mission life) (x 1000) 1- (iPTVfl OOO)
Product
Type I 2.94 170 0.9971
Product A 19XX
Type ][ 3.57 121 0 .9964
2 0.9976
Type III 2.45 206
3 0.9941
4 Type IV 5.32 l5
0.9976
5
6
7 19YY
Type V
Type VI
Tyoc I
2.38
8.68
1.75
38
306
" 0.9913
0.9983
Type II 1.12 1]3 0.9989
8 0.9959
9 Type III 4.06 87
Type IV 1.61 27 0.9984
10 0.9989
I] Type V 1.12 173
Type VI 4.4\ 156 0 .9956
12 K .. rl,~ I .. \.66£ - 04 rR,_ 11.96
n = 12
A ... 769.34; B = 2.53.
 882 A. Kleyner r:t al.

1
r- - - ~ - -r- - -
- Uniform
0.8 f
Lll
~o .
u
6

0 .4
-
Mixture 150 Beta/50%Unifor
- - -
)
'- - - /
0.2 II
o
Beta /
0.98 0 .9 85 0.99 0.995 1

Reliability R
Fig. I. COFs for beta. mixture and uniform d istributions with A _ 769.34 and B ", 2.53.

AN t;XAMPLE TO DEl\'1ONSTRATE A PPLICA TION fac tor p = 0.1), the sample size reduces to 54 and as
OF THE TECIINIQ Ut:
the knowledge factor increases, the sample size
The sample size determination technique descri bed docreilscs.
in previous sections of this paper has been ap plied
10 a re,11 life example in order to demonstrate a
CONCLUSION
significant reduction in sample size. Table 2 shows
failure data for an electronic vehicle control product The method prcsented in this paper ,has great
(slightly modified frOID actual data for security potential for cost reduction in reliability demon-
reasons) in terms of [pry ( Incidents Pcr Thousand stration testing in a mass production environment,
Vchicll."S). Table 2 shows breakdown by model years like a n automotive electronics industry. The fai lure
and body styles, totally const ituting 12 test sets data on similar products used to build a "prior" can
(/I := 12). The observed fililure rates R;, are calculated significantly dec rease the number of test items to a
from the IPTV data usi ng: bogey. Even in cases with a low knowledge factor
such as 0.2 or 0.3 (20-30% prior knowledge about
(1J ) the product), the method may present significant
sample size reductions.
Using equations from the Appendix, the values of A [n cases with a favorable prior, the sample size
and B for the data in Table 2 a re found (0 be 769.34 may someti mes go down to zero or even become
and 2.53, respectively. The cumulative distribution
functions (CDFs) of the uniform, beta ilnd mixture Tab[e 3. S3mp[e si~es for v3riOllS knowledge
distributions are shown in Fig. I for the crucial range faclOrs al R "" 0.99 ~nd C .. 90%
of 0.98 ~ R~ I. Knowledge factor (p) Sample size N
Using eqn (10) and solving numerically for the
sample size, N, for a demonstrated reliability of
I o
0.9 1
RL "" 0.99 with C = 90%, the sample sizes for various 08 2
knowledge faclors arc as shown in Table 3. Using the 0.7 4
classical Success Run formulil (no prior knowledge 0.6 6
about the product or k.nowledge factor p = 0), 229
0.5 9
0.4 \3
samples of the product A will have to be tested with OJ 19
no fai lures to demonstrate a 0.99 reliability with 90% 0.2 30
confidence. From Table 3 it is seen that with only a 0 .1 54
10% prior knowledge of the product (knowledge o 229
 Automotiv~ attribute testing 883

using mu ltiple ,ources of prior information; binomial

negative. The zero o r negative sample sizes would
$lImpling. IEEE Trnnsac/ions 011 Reliability. Mareh
mean that the requi red reliability has already been 1994, 43, 138- 144.
demonstrated during the previous stages of product
development and no furt her testing is needed. APPEl\O IX
In instances with an unfavorable prior the num~
Martz and Waller [4} derive empirical Bayes estimates of
ber of s;lmples to be tested may actually exceed the
A and B as foll ows:
num ber computed using the elassical method . This
means that the product's prior has already shown
that the product 's reliability is most li kely less
than the desired o utco me a nd no further tes ting (AI)
should be perfomled wi thout ap propriate design
corrections.

Acknowledgements- W e would like to gratefully acknowl- and

edge the help and support w~ rCl;:eivcd from Joc Boyle. A = (A + B)R
Thomas Torri, Jay Rosen and Ted DeGarmo at Delco
Electronics; and Joe Wolkan at the Gen~ ral MOlOrs Proving whe~e n is the n umber of life tests; Ii is the number of units
Grounds. in the i' test: R, is the r
observed failure rate

N umber of fai lu res in the r test. .

K = l:l,- I
REF ERENCES = Ij ,. ,
1. Johnson. L. G .• G MR ReI. Manual, GM R-302, and
Gencral Motors Rcsearc h L:lboratorics, Aug. 1960.
2. Benedict, A. G., Re/iabi/iIJ~confidt>ll("e combinG/ion
for small sample les/.! of aerospace ort/mlnce ilems .
NASA Technical Rcport. pp. 32- 1165. JPL. California
Institute of Tt-chnology. Pasad~na, 1967.
3. Clopper. C . J . and Pearson. E. S., The use ofconfid~nce When /I is small, a $lImpling error may cause eqn (AI) to
or fiducial limits iIlustrak'd in case of the binomial. yield negative estimates. If this occurs. Martz and Waller [4}
Bioml'lrika. 1934. 26,404--413. suggest using the following form of this equation
4. Martz, H. F. and Waller. R. A .• The basics of
Bayesian relia bilit y estimation from attribute test
data. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. Report A + B _ (" -
- n
I)("ntR}
tR;- (tRY) _ I
(tR,)l .
(A2)
UC·79p, Febru"ry 1976.
5. Martz, H. F. and Waller. R. A .• Bayesian RI'/iabilil)"
Analysis. John Wiley. 1982. These equations can be applied to processing real life
6. Copas. J . B.. Empirical Bayes methods a nd repeated use data, where" would be the number of test sets for the
of <I standard. Biome/rik". 1972. 59, 349- 360. similar products and R, would be the reliability data from
7. Savchuk, V. ilnd Martz. II ., Bayes reliability ~st imation each sct . h

View publication stats