Field Data Analysis &

Statistical Warranty Forecasting

Vasiliy V. Krivtsov

Vasiliy Krivtsov, Ph.D.

Staff Technical Specialist, Ford Motor Company
Automotive Safety Office, Suite 500, Office 5071
330 Town Center Drive, Dearborn, MI 48126, USA
e-mail: vkrivtso@ford.com

Krivtsov: page 1
 SUMMARY & PURPOSE
This tutorial reviews probabilistic models and statistical methods used for the analysis of field data and
forecasting of warranty claims/costs. Included in the discussion are practical aspects of field data
collection and analysis as well as methods of extracting engineering and statistical inferences from these
data. The discussion is illustrated by case studies from the author’s corporate and consulting experience.
Also included is an overview of certain aspects related to warranty data collection and analysis, such as, for
example, data "maturation" phenomenon. The tutorial is intended for the basic-to-intermediate audience
level, although a few advanced topics will be covered as well.

Vasiliy V. Krivtsov, Ph.D.

Vasiliy Krivtsov is a practitioner and a consultant in Reliability Engineering, Risk Analysis and Applied
Statistics presently employed by Ford Motor Company as a Staff Technical Specialist. He holds M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering from Kharkov Polytechnic Institute, Ukraine and a Ph.D. in
Reliability Engineering from the University of Maryland, USA. Vasiliy is the author and co-author of over
50 professional publications, including 2 books on Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis, 9 patented
inventions and 5 Ford corporate trade secret inventions. He is an editor of the Elsveir's Reliability
Engineering and System Safety journal and is a member of the IEEE Reliability Society. Prior to Ford,
Krivtsov held the position of Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering in Ukraine, and that of
Graduate Research Scientist at the University of Maryland Center for Reliability Engineering. Further
information on Dr. Krivtsov's professional activity is available at www.krivtsov.net

Table of Contents

1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
2. Probabilistic models………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2.1. Models for non-repairable systems……………………………………………………………… 4
2.2. Models for repairable systems…………………………………………………………………… 5
2.3. Bivariate models………………………………………………………………………………… 5
2.4. Time series models…………………………………………………………………………….... 6
3. Statistical estimation…………………………………………………………………………………. 6
3.1. Models for non-repairable systems……………………………………………………………… 6
3.2. Models for repairable systems …………………………………………………………………... 8
3.3. Bivariate models ………………………………………………………………………………… 8
3.4. Time series models ……………………………………………………………………………… 9
4. Special Topics………………………………………………………………………………………... 9
4.1. Survival regression in root cause analysis of field failures ……..……………………………… 9
4.2. Life scales: time vs. usage ……………………………………………………………………. …10
4.3. Warranty data maturity issues…………………………………………………………………. .. 11
4.4. Calendarized warranty forecasting ……………………………………………………………….12
5. References…………………………………………………………………………………………..... 12

Krivtsov: page 2
 Field Data Analysis & Statistical Warranty Forecasting
Vasiliy Krivtsov, Ph.D., Ford Motor Company
Key Words: Warranty Claim Predictions, Warranty Cost, Failure Time Distribution, Stochastic Point Process.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
This tutorial reviews probabilistic models and statistical
methods used for the analysis of field data and forecasting of
warranty claims/costs. Included in the discussion are practical
aspects of field data collection and analysis as well as methods
of extracting engineering and statistical inferences from these
data. The discussion is illustrated by case studies from the
author’s corporate and consulting experience. Also included is
an overview of certain aspects related to warranty data
collection and analysis, such as, for example, data
"maturation" phenomenon. The tutorial is intended for the
basic-to-intermediate audience level, although a few advanced
topics will be covered as well.
ACRONYMS
CDF – cumulative distribution function
CIF – cumulative intensity function
CPR – cost per repair
GRP – generalized renewal process
IID – independently and identically distributed
HPP – homogeneous Poisson process
MIS – month(s) in service
NHPP – nonhomogeneous Poisson process
ORP – ordinary renewal process
PDF – probability density function
ROCOF – rate of occurrence of failures
TTFF – time-to-first-failure
1. INTRODUCTION
Field data are commonly available through warranty data
bases maintained by most manufactures. Although the main
intent of these data bases is to keep track of the warranty
claims transactions, they also contain information on failure
modes and failure time and/or usage that can be used for
subsequent engineering and statistical analysis. Less
commonly, field data come from special fleets, customer
service hotlines, real time data recorders and other sources.
The advantage of warranty data vs. other types of field
data is that the former provides comprehensive information on
all failed and non-failed (censored) units under warranty thus
enabling the survival/reliability analysis. A field data source,
such as customer hotline, on the other hand, contains
information only on the failed units, about which customers
happened to call and has no information on the failed units not
reported through the hot line, and, of course, no information
on the non-failed units. As such, most of the discussion in this
Krivtsov: page 3
paper will be devoted to the filed data analysis in the context
of warranty data.
Statistical analysis of field data makes sense at least for
the following reasons:
 failure avoidance through statistical engineering
inferences on the failure rate trends and factors (covariates)
affecting them,
 cost avoidance through early detection of field
reliability problems, and
 cash flow optimization through the prediction of the
required warranty reserve and/or the expected maintenance
costs.
Failure rate trends statistically estimated from filed data
also help direct the root cause analysis by categorizing
observed failures into design or manufacturing (assembly)
problems. Further, special statistical models can be used to
identify specific design, manufacturing, usage or
environmental factors that might be causing field failures. As
such, the problem of statistical engineering analysis of field
data can be formulated as estimating failure rate trends and
factors (covariates) affecting them.
The problem of statistical warranty forecasting is to
predict the expected cumulative number of claims and the
respective cumulative warranty cost at the warranty expiration
limits. The choice of the appropriate probabilistic model
depends on (Ref. 1): the nature of the product (repairable vs.
non-repairable), the warranty coverage scope (full vs.
limited), the replacement policy (pro-rata vs. free), and the
warranty dimension (univariate vs. bivariate1).
Warranty cost can be either modeled directly (e.g., by
using the time series techniques), or through the respective
(underlying) failure time distribution. In the latter case, the
expected cumulative warranty cost C(t) under a univariate
warranty plan expiring at tw, can be modeled as:
C(tw) = N C0 W(tw), (1)
where N is the number of products (hereafter systems) under
warranty, C0 – average cost per repair, and W(t) – the expected
cumulative number of claims per system.
Under a bivariate warranty plan with time and usage
expiration limits of tw and uw, the expected cumulative
warranty cost is
tw
 uw

C( tw ,mw )  N C0   w( t )   ( u | t ) du  dt , (2)
 
0 0 
1
A typical example of a bivariate warranty is an automotive warranty plan
that has both the time and the mileage limits of warranty expiration.
where w(t)=d/dt{W(t)}, and v(u|t) is the conditional usage force of mortality). Usually denoted as h(t), it is the
accumulation at time t. instantaneous probability of failure at a given time, conditional
upon the survival up to that time, see Figure 2. The hazard
2. PROBABILISTIC MODELS function characterizes the propensity to fail in the next small
interval from t0 to t0+t, given the survival up to t0 , with an
In this discussion, we define a system as a collection of approximate probability of h(t0)t. Probabilistically, it is the
two or more parts designed to perform one or more functions. ratio of the PDF to the reliability function, i.e., h(t)= f(t) / R(t).
A repairable system is a system, which, after a failure to
perform at least one of the functions satisfactorily, can be f(t)
restored to fully satisfactory performance by any method, other
than replacement of the entire system.
We assume that the time of the system's repair is
negligibly small compared to its time to failure2. Further, f(t 0) t
every warranty repair corresponds to a respective failure: i.e.,
data collection errors due to misdiagnosis, "trouble not R(t 0)
identified", mis-binning, etc. are neglected. Thus, we may t
treat terms failure and repair interchangeably. t=t 0
h(t)
2.1 Models for Non-repairable Systems
As we mentioned above, in the context of non-repairable
systems (parts), W(t) is modeled by the cumulative distribution
function, F(t), of the underlying failure time distribution – see
Figure 1. Thus, the expected cumulative number of repairs per
system at the end of a univariate warranty plan, tw, is given by: h(t 0)
tw

W ( tw )  F ( tw )   f ( t )dt ,
0
(3)
t=t 0 t
where f(t) is the PDF of the underlying failure time Figure 2. Hazard function and its relation
distribution. to PDF and the reliability function.

f(t) F(tw) The hazard function can take various shapes: increasing or
increasing failure rate (IFR), decreasing or decreasing failure
rate (DFR), constant or constant failure rate (CFR) and non-
monotonous (e.g., first decreasing, then constant, then
increasing). Shown in Figure 2 is an IFR case.
DFR is typical of the early life and is usually associated
tw t with assembly/manufacturing issues. A CFR is characterized
1 by random field failures, which are independent of time and/or
mileage (e.g., a shock absorber coming trough a road pot
F(tw) hole). Finally the IFR is usually an indication of wear or
degradation due fatigue, corrosion, creep, etc. The non-
monotonic hazard function may be an indication of a mixture
of populations or competing failure modes.
Probabilistic models include the following popular in
reliability analysis distributions: Exponential, Weibull,
tw t Lognormal, Normal, Loglogistic. The literature on these
Figure 1. In the non-repairable context, the expected models is exhaustive with the best references, in author's
cumulative number of failures per system is modeled by the opinion, being Nelson (Ref. 2), Lawless (Ref. 3), Meeker and
CDF, F(t), of the underlying failure time distribution. Escobar (Ref. 4).
Despite (or, arguably, because) of their parsimonious
Of special interest in reliability analysis of field data is the structure, the above mentioned distributions, however, do not
hazard function (also know as the instantaneous failure rate or always provide enough flexibility in some real world data
scenarios (Ref. 5). Models in which the hazard function (or
2 some transform of it) is a low-order polynomial may provide a
This assumption is quite realistic in many applications; for example,
consider 18 months to an automobile failure vs. 3 days (0.1 months) to its more reasonable fit to data in these situations. Notable
repair. particular cases of the polynomial hazard models include the

Krivtsov: page 4
Rayleigh distribution with the linear hazard function and the
Gompertz distribution with the log-linear hazard function.
An alternative way to achieve flexibility in modeling
hazard functions is the so-called spline functions, which are
comprised of polynomial pieces connected at special points
referred to as knots. Often, spline parameters need to be
constrained in order to keep the hazard function non-negative.
Krivtsov et. al (Ref. 5) consider a quadratic spline as a model
for the cumulative hazard function in the automotive warranty
data context. Lawless (Ref. 3) discusses applications of cubic
splines for a wide range of lifetime data.
2.2 Models for Repairable Systems
If upon a failure, a repairable system is restored to as
"good-as-new" condition and the time between system failures
can be treated as an independent and identically distributed
(IID) random variable, then the failure occurrence can be
modeled by the Ordinary Renewal Process (ORP).
If upon a failure the system is restored to the "same-as-
old" condition, then the appropriate model to describe the
failure occurrence can be the Non-Homogeneous Poisson
Process (NHPP). The time between consecutive failures, in
this case, is not an IID random variable. In a sense, the NHPP
can be viewed as a renewal process with the "same-as-old"
repair assumption.
A notable particular case of both ORP and NHPP is the
Homogeneous Poisson Process (HPP), whose underlying time-
to-failure distribution follows the exponential law.
A more general model is the Generalized Renewal
Process or GRP (Ref. 6), which treats ORP and NHPP as
special cases. The GRP is introduced using the notion of
virtual age: An = qSn , where An and Sn are the system's age
after and before the n-th repair, respectively, and q is the
restoration (or repair effectiveness) factor.
It is clear that for q=0, the age of the system after the
repair is "reset" to zero, which corresponds to the "good-as
new" repair assumption and represents the ORP. With q=1, the
system is restored to the "same-as-old" condition, which is the
case of the NHPP. The case of 0 < q < 1 corresponds to the
intermediate "better-than-old-but-worse-than-new" repair
assumption. Finally, with q > 1, the virtual age is An > qSn ,
so the repair damages the system to a higher degree than it was
just before the respective failure thus corresponding to the
"worse-than-old" repair assumption.
Alternative formulations/generalizations of models
involving a general repair were considered by Lindquist (Ref.
7), Lawless & Thiagarajah (Ref. 8), Dorado, et. al (Ref. 9).
A major characteristic of all the above point process
models, also of great relevance to this paper's subject, is the
cumulative intensity function (CIF), denoted by (t). CIF
represents the expected cumulative number of failures per
system as a function of failure time – see Figure 3. In the case
of the ORP and the GRP, the CIF is modeled by the renewal
and the g-renewal equation, respectively, and in the case of the
NHPP – by the integral of the NHPP's intensity function. The
expected cumulative number of failures per system at tw is,
Krivtsov: page 5
therefore, most generally given by a g-renewal equation (Ref.
6):

tw
 
W ( t w )  ( t w )    g(  | 0 )   h( x )g(   x | x )dx  d ,
0  0  (4)
where
f (t  qx )
g (t x )  , t , x  0,
1  F ( qx )
is defined such that g(t|0) = f(t), and F(t) and f(t) are the CDF
and PDF of the time to first failure (TTFF) distribution.
(t) repair
trajectory of a
single system
average number
of repairs per
system
t
Figure 3. In the repairable context, the expected cumulative
number of failures per system is modeled by the CIF, (t), of
the respective stochastic point process.
The problem is that the (g-)renewal equation (4) does not
have a closed form solution, unless the underlying failure
times are exponentially distributed. A number of numeric
solutions have been developed, however. For example, Baxter
et al. (Ref. 10) offered a numerical integration approach to the
ORP's renewal equation, which covers Weibull, Gamma,
lognormal, truncated normal and inverse normal distributions.
Garg and Kalagnanam (Ref. 11) proposed a Pade
approximation approach to solve the ORP's renewal equation
for the case of the inverse normal CDF. Kaminskiy and
Krivtsov (Ref. 12) obtained a numerical solution to the g-
renewal equation covering essentially any parametric or
empirical underlying distribution.
2.3 Bivariate Models
Thus far, we have been discussing univariate probability
functions keeping in mind either time, t, or usage, u, associated
with a warranty claim as a survival variable.
Under a bivariate warranty plan, the two survival
variables can be modeled simultaneously via bivariate
probabilistic functions – see Figure 4.
If t and u have joint probability density, f(t,u), then f(t|u)
is a conditional density of time under given usage, and f(u|t) is
a conditional density of usage under given time. The marginal
density of time is given by
f ( t )   f ( t | u )  f ( u )du , (5)
and the marginal density of usage is
 f ( u )   f ( u | t )  f ( t )dt (6)
Model Types
The relation between the three types of densities is given  Linear or nonlinear (typically exponential) trend
by:  With or without auto-correlated error terms
f ( t ,u )  f ( u | t )  f ( t )  f ( t | u )  f ( u ) (7)
Model Components
 Trend Component
Marginal in time failure density:  Seasonal Component

f (t)  f (m, t) dm
 Other Cyclical Components
Joint failure density:
f(m,t) Model Structures
 Additive: Cost = Trend + Season + Cycle
Margi nal in mileage
failure density:
 Multiplicative: Cost = Trend * Season * Cycle
f (m)   f (m,t) dt
Popular models include: moving average, single/double
exponential smoothing and Winter’s algorithm. A fundamental
m
t reference on time series forecasting techniques is given by
Box and Jenkins (Ref. 19). Chen, Lynn & Singpurwalla (Ref.
Figure 4. Graphical Interpretation 20) discuss an advanced time series model specifically related
of Joint and Marginal Probability Densities. to warranty claim forecasting. Reliasoft (Ref. 21) discusses an
alternative approach to modeling seasonality effect in warranty
Bivariate treatments for modeling warranty data have been data, namely, by treating seasonal stress profile as a time-
considered by Eliashberg et. al (Ref. 13), Singpurwalla & dependant covariate of the underlying life-time distribution.
Wilson (Ref. 14), Yang and Nachlas (Ref. 15), Yang &
Zaghati (Ref. 16), Jung & Bai (Ref. 17), Manna et. al (Ref. 3. STATISTICAL ESTIMATION
18).
As an example, consider a bivariate Weibull with the The discussion hereafter will be conducted in the context
following PDF: of automotive warranty data – as an illustration/application
example, but the conceptual framework is certainly applicable
f ( u ,t )   ( u t ) ( t ) to any type of reliability/survival data.
 t   1 ( t /  ) 
( t ) 
t
t e t t
(8) 3.1 Non-repairable System Models
t
Every automotive warranty repair claim is associated with
 
 ( u t )  u m  1e( u /(  t )) certain time and usage (e.g., mileage). Failure time is
u
u u

 ut estimated as the difference between the repair date and the

warranty start date, and failure mileage is estimated as the
where t, u are shape parameters, and t, u – are scale
odometer reading on the date of repair.
parameters.
We shall first consider a nonparametric estimation
The expected cumulative number of repairs for a bivariate
procedure for a univariate warranty plan. Let vi denote the
warranty plan expiring at tw, uw is then simply:
tw uw
number of vehicles whose time in service (the difference
between the observation date and the warranty start date)
W ( tw ,uw )  F ( tw ,uw )    f ( t ,u )dudt (9) belongs to the i-th time interval, i = 1, …, k. Let rij denote the
0 0 number of claims whose time in service belongs to the i-th
It is easy to see that the respective equivalent of a interval and whose failure time belongs to the j-th interval, j =
repairable system model would be the double integral of the 1, …, k, j < i. A time interval could be a week, a month, a
bivariate ROCOF over the warranty region defined by tw, uw . year, etc.; however the default time unit used in most
automotive applications is months in service (MIS).
2.4 Time Series Models Based on the above data, a nonparametric estimate of the
Time series models are typically employed to model the hazard function at the j-th failure time unit interval can be
cumulative expected cost as a function of time in service written as:
directly, i.e., without explicitly modeling the underlying failure dj
hˆ j  (10)
process (although it's understood that the latter implicitly nj
drives the former). These models may become suitable when
where
the underlying failure process exhibits some cyclical (e.g., k
seasonal) trends. d j   rpj (11)
Time series models can be described in terms of the p j
following categories:

Krivtsov: page 6
is the number of failures at failure time unit interval j, with Table 2. The summary of nonparametric estimation of the
d0=0, and CDF for the mechanical transfuser data.
k j 1
n j   ( v p   rpq ) (12) Time Risk Set Risk Set (corr) Repairs Hazard Cum Hazard Reliability CDF
t n(t) n'(t) d(t) h(t)=d(t)/n'(t) H(t)=S h(t) R(t)=e{-H(t)} F(t)=1-R(t)
p j q 1
0 110,000 110,000 0 0 0 1 0
is the risk set exposed at failure time unit interval j. 1 100,000 100,000 8 0.00008 0.00008 0.99992 0.00008
2 90,000 89,992 25 0.00028 0.00036 0.99964 0.00036

Month in Service
In the case of a bivariate warranty plan, the right-hand 3 80,000 79,971 46 0.00058 0.00093 0.99907 0.00093

side of Eq. (12) would have to be multiplied3 by the 4

5
70,000
60,000
69,936
59,887
72
90
0.00103
0.00150
0.00196
0.00347
0.99804
0.99654
0.00196
0.00346
probability of accumulated usage not exceeding the warranty 6
7
50,000
40,000
49,830
39,796
88
79
0.00177
0.00199
0.00523
0.00722
0.99478
0.99281
0.00522
0.00719
usage limit (e.g., 36,000 miles) at failure time unit interval j. 8 30,000 29,791 69 0.00232 0.00953 0.99051 0.00949
9 20,000 19,817 86 0.00434 0.01387 0.98622 0.01378
j 1

r
10 10,000 9,866 64 0.00649 0.02036 0.97985 0.02015
Term pq in Eq. (12) represents the number of failures
q 1 The estimated CDF can now be used as plotting positions
occurring in time intervals 1 to j-1 for failure time interval, p in the probability paper analysis. Shown in Figure 5 is the
(which should be excluded from the risk set). Weibull probability plot of the mechanical transfuser data
Based on the above, a nonparametric estimate of the extrapolated through the end of warranty coverage (24MIS).
cumulative hazard function and the cumulative distribution
ReliaSoft Weibull++ 7 - www.ReliaSoft.com
function can be obtained as, respectively:

6 .0
4 .0
3 .0
2 .0
1 .6
1 .4
1 .2
1 .0
0 .9
0 .8
0 .7

0 .6

0 .5

^ t 99.000

H t   ĥ j
Pro ba bility-W e ibull

(13) 90.000
CB@ 95% 2-Side d [T]

All Da ta
 W e ibull-2P
j 1 50.000 RRX SRM MED F M
F = 627/S= 99373
Da ta Po ints

F̂t  1  exp   H t 
Pro ba bility Line
^ To p CB-I
13.64 Bo tto m CB-I
(14) 10.000

  C D F: F(t )
5.000
x 64
x 86
Equation (14) is known as the Nelson-Aalen estimator of the 1.000 x 69
x 79
x 88
cumulative distribution function. An alternative estimator of 0.500 x 90
x 72
the CDF, commonly referenced in statistical literature, is the 0.100 x 46
t

 ( 1  ĥt ) , which is
0.050 x 25
Kaplan-Meier estimator, F̂  1 
t
j 1 0.010 x8
0.005
asymptotically equivalent to the Nelson-Aalen estimator. Va siliy Krivtso v
VVK
9/22/2007
In Table 1, consider, sales and repair data on a mechanical 0.001
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
4:51:35 PM

24
transfuser (a fictitious component) under a 24MIS/unlimited Time: t

usage warranty plan.
Figure 5. Weibull probability plot of the mechanical
Table 1. A typical warranty data set: transfuser data extrapolated through the end of warranty
sales and repair data on a mechanical transfuser. coverage (24MIS).
Jan'02 Feb'02 Mar'02 Apr'02 May'02 Jun'02 Jul'02 Aug'02 Sep'02 Oct'02 Nov '02
Volume Repair Month Note that, although in this case, we have employed the
Jan'02 10,000 1 3 6 9 15 17 20 22 41 64
Feb'02 10,000 0 2 5 10 12 18 19 24 45
probability paper estimation, the maximum likelihood
Mar'02 10,000 1 4 5 10 14 18 20 23 estimation is considered by many authors to be a more
Apr'02 10,000 1 2 7 11 16 17 20
technically rigorous method (Ref. 3, 4). Also note that the
Sales Month

May'02 10,000 0 1 6 12 17 18
Jun'02 10,000 1 3 4 9 16 shape parameter of 2.4 (>1) is indicative of the increasing
Jul'02 10,000 2 3 7 11
Aug'02 10,000 1 4 6
failure rate, thus suggesting a wear-out or cumulative damage
Sep'02 10,000 1 3 type of the underlying failure mechanism. Based on the above
Oct'02 10,000 0
Nov '02 10,000 Weibull analysis, the required warranty reserve can be
estimated as shown in Table 3.
The nonparametric estimation of the CDF, using equations
(10-14) is summarized in Table 2. Color coding designates Table 3. Estimation of the required warranty reserve for the
repairs that correspond to the same time in service. mechanical transfuser data.

Failure probability at 24MIS: 0.1364

Population Size: 110,000
3 Total Expected Repairs: 15,004
It must be noted that this kind of multiplicative term holds under the
assumption that the conditional (upon a given time in service) mileage Cost per repair: $30
accumulation distribution is the same as the respective conditional mileage to Total Expected Warranty Cost: $450,120
failure distribution. This to say that vehicles with higher mileage
Year-to-date Cost: $18,810
accumulation rates are supposed to be no more (less) prone to fail than the
vehicles with lower mileage accumulation rates. Required Warranty Reserve: $431,310

Krivtsov: page 7
 3.2 Repairable System Models 1.2

average number of failures per product

Actual data
The nonparametric estimation of the CIF is discussed in 1.0 GRP, q = 0.7
detail by Nelson (Ref. 22). In essence, it is procedurally NHPP
0.8 ORP
similar to the estimation of the cumulative hazard function
(Eq. 10-13), with the only difference that the number of 0.6
j 1
failures r q 1
pq that happened in time intervals 1 to j-1 for 0.4

0.2
failure time interval, p, must not be excluded from the risk set.
Estimation of the HPP is well developed – see, for 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
example, Cox and Lewis (Ref. 23). Estimation of the renewal
time in months
function of the ORP is discussed by Frees (Ref. 24) and
includes methods based on asymptotic linear approximation. Figure 7. Validation of GRP prediction against actual data.
The estimation of the NHPP for the log-linear and the
power law forms of the intensity function is discussed by Cox The estimated g-renewal function (Fig. 7) exhibits a
and Lewis (Ref. 23) and Crow (Ref. 25), respectively. In his reasonably good fit to the data, thus, validating the prediction.
recent paper, Krivtsov (Ref. 26) capitalizes on the fact that Denoted with squares and triangles on the same figure are the
NHPP's CIF is numerically equal to the cumulative hazard limiting conditions: the ordinary renewal function and the CIF
function of the TTFF distribution and uses probability papers of the NHPP, respectively, simulated for the same obtained
for the estimation of the NHPP parameters (Ref. 27). estimates of the Weibull CDF.
The estimation of GRP was offered by Kaminskiy &
Krivtsov (Ref. 12). This estimation procedure is based on 3.3 Bivariate Models
non-linear least square technique. The maximum likelihood In Table 4, consider warranty claim counts, against an
procedures were subsequently discussed by Yañez, et. al (Ref. automotive component, collected under the bivariate warranty
28) and Mettas & Zhao (Ref. 29). plan of 36 months in service or 36,000 miles – whichever
As an example, consider a set of nonparametric estimates comes first. The respective production volume is 115,500
of CIF {0, 0.03, 0.09, 0.14, 0.24, 0.38, 0.54, 0.70, 0.90, 1.17} units.
corresponding to failure times {0, 3, 6, …, 27) denoted with Table 4. Warranty claim counts
circles in Figure 6. (These are the actual data that have been under a bivariate warranty plan.
scaled for reasons of confidentiality.) A Weibull distribution
with the shape parameter, , and the scale parameter, , was Mileage in 1000 miles
MIS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
assumed as the underlying TTFF distribution and the first 7 1 30 16 9 12 3 1
2
1
9 21 15 21 11 3 5 3 2 4 1 1
data points were used as a training set. The solid line in 3
4
1 9 16 20 15 12 14 5 13 6 1 2 3 1 3 1
2 4 5 9 4 11 9 10 5 13 4 5 11 3 6 1 2 1
Figure 5 shows the least squares fit from a family of g-renewal 5
6
2 2 2 3 7 14 9 9 3 14 10 8 7 5 5 2 4 3 2
1 1 2 1 5 5 6 8 6 10 8 9 9 7 6 3 8 6 5 1 1 2
1 1 1

functions simulated in the following parameter domain: 7

8 1
2 4 4 2 4 4 8 10 8 5 8 16 11 9 11 7 7 2 2 2 2 1
1 3 4 2 2 2 3 3 9 5 10 14 4 12 8 10 6 7 4 5 2 2
1
1 1
2 1 1
1

{1 <  < 2, 10 <  < 50, 0 < q < 1} 9

10
4 3 6 3 3 5 5 3 15 15 11 11 9 10 8 5 1 4 3
2 1 1 2 1 6 5 8 4 10 7 12 11 12 7 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1

The estimated parameters are ˆ  1.8, ˆ  24, q̂  0.70 .

11 1 4 1 4 2 1 3 7 5 8 8 10 9 4 9 5 5 3 2 2 1 1 1
12 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 3 5 8 9 7 4 8 7 7 8 4 2 4 1 1
13 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 2 5 7 11 5 7 6 7 6 4 1 3 1 2 1
14 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 7 5 4 3 4 5 5 2 3 2 1 1 1
Figure 6 shows the remainder of the data through 27 months in 15 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1

service.
The data set was modeled with the bivariate Weibull as in Eq.
(8) and estimated using a maximum likelihood procedure, with
1.2
average number of failures per product

the log-likelihood of the form:

Actual data
1.0

GRP, q = 0.7 Ln( L )   rij ln( f ( ti ,u j )   ni ln( 1  F ( ti ,uw ) )

0.8 i, j i

0.6 (notation is as in Sections 2.3 and 3.1).

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time in months

Figure 6. The Estimated G-Renewal Function.

Krivtsov: page 8
 0.045
0.025
0.040

0.035 0.02
0.030
0.015

F(t)
0.025
CDF
0.020
0.01
0.015

0.010 0.005
0.005

0.000 0

35
0

30
4,000

0 50 100 150

25
8,000
12,000

20
MIS
16,000

15
20,000

24,000

Mileage 10 Time, t in MIS

28,000

5
32,000

36,000
0

0.00-0.01 0.01-0.01 0.01-0.02 0.02-0.02 0.02-0.03 0.03-0.03 0.03-0.04 0.04-0.04 0.04-0.05 Figure 10. Winter's additive model (with 95% two-sided
Figure 8. The estimated bivariate CDF prediction intervals) extrapolated to 120MIS for the
for the data in Table 5. automotive chassis component data in Figure 9.

The estimated bivariate CDF is shown in Figure 8. By It must be noted that one needs to exercise caution when
extrapolating the estimated CDF through the end of the extrapolating the CDF estimates as a time series. This is
specified warranty region, the cumulative expected number of because the trend component of the time series may not
claims is estimated as: necessarily reflect the asymptotic behavior of the CDF in
115000 F(36, 36000) = 115000  0.041 = 4715. terms of its saturation to a unity. In the case considered, there
was no problem, as the range of the CDF values over the time
period of interest was much less than a unity (< 0.025).
3.4 Time Series Models Another option is to extrapolate the time series in the
cumulative hazard domain (which is free of the mentioned
In Figure 9, consider a time series data set based on the asymptotic constraints) and then translate the result back to the
nonparametric estimate of the CDF of an automotive chassis CDF domain.
component under a univariate warranty plan. The data clearly
exhibits a seasonality effect with a period of about 12 MIS. 4. SPECIAL TOPICS

0.008 4.1 Survival Regression in Root Cause Analysis of Field

0.007 Failures
0.006
Consider a survival regression model shown in Eq. (15),
0.005 which represents the failure probability expressed as a function
F(t)

0.004 of not only the survival variable (such us time-in-service or

0.003 mileage), t, but also of the vector of explanatory variables

0.002 (a.k.a., covariates), x . The latter could include
0.001
manufacturing, usage or environmental factors potentially
affecting the failure probability in the field. The underlying
0 distribution for F(t) could be either empirical or from the
0 10 20 30 40 50 parametric family of distributions traditionally used in
Time, t in MIS reliability analysis (i.e., Weibull, lognormal, etc.). The
covariates structure can take on various forms.
Figure 9. Nonparametric estimate of the CDF of an   T  
automotive chassis component with explicit seasonal trend. F ( T | x )  1  exp    h( t | x )dt  (15)
 0 
Winter's additive model (Ref. 19) was used to approximate the Survival regression analysis is quite popular in biological and
nonparametric estimates. Figure 10 shows the estimated medical studies, but its application in engineering field data
model extrapolated to 10 years in service (120 MIS). analysis is somewhat limited. We review a few relevant papers
below.
Karim & Suzuki (Ref. 30) discuss an application of
survival regression to automotive warranty data. They use the

Krivtsov: page 9
Weibull underlying distribution and the covariates the same failure mode, and respective failure times and
representing four geographical areas, two types of automobiles mileages are depicted graphically in Figure 11.
and three types of failure modes.
Krivtsov, Tananko & Davis (Ref. 31) use the Cox mileage

Note: DFR in mileage domain

proportional hazard model in the root cause analysis of tire
failures. They use an empirical underlying distribution and
covariates characterizing various design factors including
material properties and geometrical parameters. The survival
regression analysis helped them to identify design aspects of
the tire "responsible" for the elevated failure rates in the field.
Attardi et al. (Ref. 32) discuss a mixed Weibull regression
model in the context of field data on a gearbox with the
covariates being engine types and usage conditions. Gasmi, et
al. (Ref. 33) extend the application of survival regression to time
repairable systems data analysis in the framework of the g-
renewal process. Note: DFR in time domain

4.2 Life Scales: Time vs. Usage
Depending on the failure mode, the accumulated time in
service and accumulated usage could be either a survival
variable (i.e., the one "driving" failures and representing
failure distribution) or a cumulative use variable. The question
is "Which is which?" Proper resolution of this dilemma with
subsequent data analysis helps classify the underlying failure
mode in terms of assembly-related failures, design-related
failures, etc., which, in turn, is critical to developing the
appropriate corrective actions.
Lawless et al. (Ref. 34) and later Hu et al. (Ref. 35)
considered a parametric and a nonparametric procedure,
respectively, to test whether the failure time or failure mileage
distributions depend on the vehicle's mileage accumulation
rate. The scale showing no dependence on mileage
accumulation rate is then recommended as the more relevant
one to model the failure distribution. For example, if the
mileage-based CDF shows no dependence on the mileage
Figure 11. Five nominally identical vehicles with low
variability in mileage accumulation rates.
Please note that mileage accumulation rates (the slopes of
the lines4) are approximately equal. Observing the distribution
of failures along the time and mileage axes, it is easy to see
that in both cases, we deal with a decreasing hazard rates: as
one moves from the origin towards positive infinity along the
respective axis, the number of failures per unit of time/mileage
decreases.
Displayed in Figure 12 are the failure events of another
sample of 5 nominally identical, non-repairable components
suffering from the same failure mode and installed on 5
nominally identical vehicles. Note that the mileage
accumulation rates of individual vehicles, in this case, vary
quite significantly.
mileage
Note: DFR in mileage domain

accumulation rate but the time-based CDF does, then mileage

is proposed to be a more relevant survival variable.
Kordonsky and Gerstbarkh (Ref. 36) propose to choose a
scale that provides a lower coefficient of variation of the
respective failure distribution.
A most recent publication on this subject is from Duchesne
and Lawless (Ref. 37). They propose the attributes of a
"good" scale to characterize failure distribution. These
time
include a) engineering relevance and b) a parsimonious
description of variation in failure times under varying usage, Note: IFR in time domain
environmental conditions, etc. From a formal standpoint, they
seek the scale that captures most of the variation in failure Figure 12. Five nominally identical vehicles with high
times (mileages), given a set of time (mileage) varying variability in mileage accumulation rates.
covariates.
While the above described procedures might be useful in Observing the distribution of failures along the time and
identifying a relevant survival variable, they must be used with mileage axes in Figure 12, it is clear that the mileage scale still
caution in the automotive industry, since variability in mileage exhibits the decreasing hazard rate, while the time scale shows
accumulation in a population of nominally identical vehicles the increasing rate (the number of failures per unit of time
can significantly affect the failure distribution.
Consider a sample of 5 nominally identical, non-repairable
components installed on 5 nominally identical vehicles.
Further consider that all these components have suffered from 4
assuming linearity of mileage accumulation (Ref. 15, 27)

Krivtsov: page 10
tends to increase as the time grows from zero towards positive
infinity).
Let us now assume that the failure mode in question is
strictly a function of time and is independent of mileage. If
this fact is unknown to us a priori, then it becomes rather
problematic to choose the appropriate scale, as the situation
depicted in Figure 12 leads to the contradicting inference
regarding the hazard function trend in time and mileage scales.
It is, therefore, recommended that the most important criterion
for selecting the appropriate survival variable is its
engineering relevance to the failure mode and/or the duty cycle
under which the failure mode exhibits itself.
4.3 Warranty Data Maturity Issues
A major nuisance often complicating warranty data
analysis is the so-called data maturation. This phenomenon
results in the fact that CDF estimates for a nominally
homogeneous population change as a function of the
observation time. Figure 13a shows the maturation
phenomenon in the "CDF vs. failure time" coordinates at
various observation times, and Figure 13b shows the same
phenomenon in the "CDF at a fixed time vs. observation time"
coordinates. As it follows from Fig. 13b, the maturation
phenomenon stops at a certain observation time.
There are, typically, three main reasons for the maturation
phenomenon:
 reporting delays,
 "lot rot", and
 warranty expiration "rush".
Each of these is briefly discussed below.
F(t)
May’06
Mar’06
Jan’06
t0 t
a)
F(t0)
Nov’05 Jan’06 Mar’06 May’06 July’06 Sep’06
b)
Figure 13. CDF estimates for a nominally homogeneous
population changing as a function of the observation time.
Reporting delays. One of the possible culprits of data
maturation is the fact that the number of claims processed at
each observation time gets under-reported due to the lag
between repair date and warranty system entry date. To
correct this, the risk set given in Equation (12) must be
reduced proportionally to the respective probability of the lag
time (Ref. 38) – see Figure 14.
F(t)
May’06
Mar’06
Jan’06
t0 t
Figure 14. At each observation time, risk sets are adjusted to
account for the under-reported claims.
"Lot rot". Another circumstance that may cause data
maturation is the so-called "lot rot". Due to variability in
market demand, units of the same production month may
spend varying amounts of time in the warehouse or parking lot
before they get sold. As such, they enter a given fixed time
interval, t0, at different observation times. Notably, those units
entering t0 at a later observation time would have spent longer
time on a lot and, thus, have degraded reliability compared to
those that spend little time on lot5. Such population of units,
although belonging to the same production month with the
same initial quality, is no longer nominally homogeneous. An
obvious remedy for the resulting maturation issue is to stratify
the subject population by the time-on-lot (i.e., the difference
between sale date and production date) – see Figure 15.
F(t)
Various
observation
a subpopulation of
untis with 0 to 10
times
days on lot only
May’06
Mar’06
Jan’06
t0 t
Figure 15. CDF estimates stratified by days-on-lot.
Warranty expiration "rush". According to Davis (Ref.
39), engineering failure modes can be categorized into hard
and soft. The former category includes failures associated
with the loss of function (e.g., automobile's alternator failure),
while the latter – with the degraded function (e.g., increased
level of vibration of an interior trim element). It is intuitively
clear that customers tend to report the hard failures right after
they happen, and the soft ones (because of their non-criticality)
5
While sitting on the lot, units' reliability may indeed degrade – think about a
vehicle tire developing a flat spot due to pronged parking at the dealer's lot.
Krivtsov: page 11
after a certain delay. The upper limit for such delay is the
warranty expiration date, which is why the manufacturer may
see a sharp uptake in the number of claims at the failure times
close to the warranty expiration time – see Figure 16.
May’06
F(t)
Using the mechanical transfuser example, from Section
3.1, the calendarized prediction of monthly warranty claims is
summarized in Table 5. In layman's terms, the prediction is
achieved by progressing the population of vehicles through the
"failure zone" characterized by the estimated parametric PDF.

CONCLUSIONS

Statistical analysis of field data is important for the sake

of a) failure avoidance through engineering inferences on the
Mar’06 failure rate trends and design, manufacturing and usage factors
affecting them, b) cost avoidance through early detection of
Jan’06 field reliability problems, and c) cash flow optimization
through the prediction of the required warranty reserve and/or
t0 tw t the expected maintenance costs. The choice of the appropriate
Figure 16. A sharp uptake of the CDF at the failure times probabilistic model and the respective statistical estimation
close to the warranty expiration time tw. depends on a) the nature of the product (repairable vs. non-
repairable) and b) the warranty coverage dimensions
One of the solutions in this case discussed by Rai and (univariate vs. bivariate). Survival regression is an efficient
Singh (Ref. 40) is to use historical data on similar components statistical method useful in root-cause analysis of field failures.
to empirically adjust for the warranty-expiration rush Seasonality and warranty data maturation are the two
phenomenon. commonly encountered phenomena that may need to be
additionally modeled for in order to improve the analysis and
4.4 Calendarized Warranty Forecasting forecast accuracy.

In many practical situations, there arises a need to predict

not only the expected cumulative number of warranty claims REFERENCES
as a function of time in service but also the incremental
1. W. Blischke and D. Murphy, Warranty Cost Analysis, 1994; Marcel
number of claims as function of calendar time. This may be
Dekker, Inc., New York.
useful, for example, in order to plan the respective spare part 2. W. Nelson, Applied Life Data Analysis, 1982, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
production. New York.
The expected number of repair claims in a calendar time 3. J.F.. Lawless, Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data, 2003,
interval can be estimated as Wiley, New Jersey.
4. W.Q. Meeker, L.A. Escobar, Statistical Methods for Reliability Data,

d j   nij f ( ti )( ti 1  ti ) ,
k
1998, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
(16) 5. V.V. Krivtsov, I.M. Kolmanovsky, and T.P. Davis, "A Constrained
i j Quadratic Spline as a Model for Cumulative Hazard Function", Int. J.
where nij is the sample exposed to i-th time in service interval Reliability and Safety, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2008, pp.170-178.
6. M. Kijima and N. Sumita, "A Useful Generalization of Renewal Theory:
at j-th calendar time interval and f(ti) is the PDF at the i-th time Counting Process Governed by Non-negative Markovian Increments",
in service interval. Journal of Applied Probability, # 23, 1986, pp. 71-88.
7. B.H. Lindqvist, "The trend-renewal process, a useful model for
Table 5. Calendarized prediction of monthly warranty claims repairable systems", In: Proc. Society of Reliability Engineers,
Scandinavian Chapter, Annual Conference, 1993, Malmo, Sweden.
for the mechanical transfuser example. 8. J.F. Lawless, K. Thiagarajah, "A Point-Process Model Incorporating
Renewals and Time Trends, with Application to Repairable Systems",
Population Dynamics Predicted Number of Repairs
Parametric thru in in in in thru in in in in Technometrics, Vol. 38, No. 2, 1996, p. 131-138.
Time … …
0
PDF
0
Nov'02 Dec'02 Jan'03
110000 0 0
Oct'04
0
Nov'04 Nov'02
0 0
Dec'02 Jan'03 Oct'04 Nov'04 9. C. Dorado, M. Hollander, and J. Sethuraman, "Nonparametric
1 0.0001 100000 10000 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 estimation for a general repair model", Ann. Statist. 25, 3, 1997, p.
2 0.0003 90000 10000 10000 0 0 25 3 3 0 0
3 0.0006 80000 10000 10000 0 0 46 6 6 0 0 1140–1160.
4 0.0010 70000 10000 10000 0 0 72 10 10 0 0
5 0.0014 60000 10000 10000 0 0 90 14 14 0 0
10. L.A. Baxter, E.M. Scheuer, D.J. McConalogue, W.R. Blischke, "On the
6 0.0019 50000 10000 10000 0 0 88 19 19 0 0 Tabulation of the Renewal Function", Technometrics, vol. 24, 1982, p.
7 0.0023 40000 10000 10000 0 0 79 23 23 0 0
8 0.0029 30000 10000 10000 0 0 69 29 29 0 0 151-156.
9 0.0034 20000 10000 10000 0 0 86 34 34 0 0
10 0.0039 10000 10000 10000 0 0 64 39 39 0 0
11. A. Garg and J. Kalagnanam, "Approximations for the Renewal
11 0.0045 0 10000 10000 0 0 0 45 45 0 0 Functions", IEEE Trans. Reliab., Vol. 47, # 1, 1998, p. 66-72.
12 0.0051 0 0 10000 0 0 0 0 51 0 0
13 0.0057 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. M.P. Kaminskiy and V.V. Krivtsov, "A Monte Carlo Approach to
14 0.0063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0.0069 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Repairable System Reliability Analysis". In Probabilistic Safety
16
17
0.0076
0.0082
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Assessment and Management, New York: Springer, 1998, p. 1061-
18 0.0088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1068.
19 0.0094 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0.0100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13. J. Eliashberg, N. Singpurwalla, S. Wilson, "Calculating the Reserve for
21
22
0.0106
0.0112
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Time and Usage Indexed Warranty", Management Science, 1997, Vol.
23 0.0118 0 0 0 10000 0 0 0 0 118 0 43, No. 7, pp. 966-975.
24 0.0124 0 0 0 10000 10000 0 0 0 124 124
total -> 627 223 273 … 242 124

Krivtsov: page 12
14. N. Singpurwalla and S. Wilson, "Failure Models Indexed by Two
Scales", Advances in Applied Probability, # 30, 1998, pp. 1058-1072.
15. S.C. Yang and J.A. Nachlas, "Bivariate reliability and availability
modeling", IEEE Trans Reliability, 50, 2001, pp. 26–35.
16. G. Yang, Z. Zaghati, "Two-Dimensional Reliability Modeling from
Warranty Data", 2002, Proceedings Reliability & Maintainability
Symposium, pp. 272-278.
17. M. Jung, D. Bai, "Analysis of field data under two-dimensional
warranty", Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2007, Vol 92, # 2,
pp. 135-143.
18. D. K. Manna, S. Pal, S. Sinha, "A use-rate based failure model for two-
dimensional warranty", Computers and Industrial Engineering, 2007,
v.52 n.2, p.229-240.
19. G.E.P. Box and G.M. Jenkins, Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and
Control, 1994, 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall.
20. J. Chen, N. Lynn and N. Singpurwalla, "'Forecasting Warranty Claims.",
In Product Warranty Handbook; W. R. Blishke and P. Murthy, eds.,
1996, Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, pp. 803-816.
21. Reliasoft Inc., "Accounting for Seasonal Effects in Warranty Analysis",
Reliability Edge, Vol. 8, 2007, #2, pp. 9-17.
22. W. Nelson. Recurrent Events Data Analysis for Product Repairs,
Disease Recurrences, and Other Applications, 2002, ASA-SIAM Series
on Statistics and Applied Probability #10.
23. D. R. Cox and P.A. Lewis, The Statistical Analysis of Series of Events,
1966, Methuen, London.
24. E. Frees, "Warranty Analysis and Renewal Function Estimation", Naval
Res. Logist. Quart., # 33, 1986, pp. 361-372.
25. L.H. Crow, "Reliability Analysis for Complex Repairable Systems". In:
Reliability and Biometry, F. Proschan and R.J. Serfling, eds, SIAM,
1974, p. 379-410.
26. V.V. Krivtsov, "Practical Extensions to NHPP Application in
Repairable System Reliability Analysis", Reliability Engineering &
System Safety, 2007, Vol. 92, # 5, pp. 560-562.
27. V.V. Krivtsov, "On the NHPP with Underlying Distributions of the
Location–Scale Family", Reliability Edge, Vol. 9, 2008, #1, pp. 20-21.
28. M. Yañez, F. Joglar and M. Modarres, "Generalized renewal process for
analysis of repairable systems with limited failure experience",
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2002, Vol. 77, 2, p. 167-180.
29. A. Mettas and W. Zhao, "Modeling and Analysis of Repairable Systems
with General Repair", Proc. Annual Reliability and Maintainability
Symposium, Alexandria, Virginia, 2005.
30. M.R. Karim, K. Suzuki, "Analysis of Warranty Data with Covariates",
Proc. IMechE, Vol. 221, 2007, pp. 249-255.
31. V.V. Krivtsov , D.E. Tananko and T.P. Davis, "A Regression Approach
to Tire Reliability Analysis", Reliability Engineering & System Safety,
2002,vol. 78, pp. 267-273.
32. L. Attardi, M. Guida, G. Pulcini, "A Mixed Weibull Regression Model
for Analysis of Automotive Warranty Data", Reliability Engineering &
System Safety, 2005,vol. 87, pp. 265-273.
Krivtsov: page 13
33. S. Gasmi, C.E.Love, W. Kahle, "A General Repair/Proportional Hazard
Framework to Model Complex Repairable Systems", IEEE Trans. on
Reliability, 2003, 52, pp. 26-32.
34. J.F. Lawless J. Hu and J. Cao, "Methods for the estimation of failure
distributions and rates from automobile warranty data", Lifetime Data
Analysis, Vol. 1, 1995, pp. 227-240.
35. X.J. Hu, J.F. Lawless, and K. Suzuki, "Nonparametric Estimation of a
Lifetime Distribution when Censoring Times are Missing,"
Technometrics, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1998, pp. 3-12.
36. K.B. Kordonsky and I. Gertsbakh, "Multiple Time Scales and the
Lifetime Coefficient of Variation: Engineering Applications," Lifetime
Data Analysis, 1997a, Vol. 2, pp. 139-156.
37. T. Duchesne and J. Lawless, "Alternative Time Scales and Failure Time
Models," Lifetime Data Analysis, Vol. 6, 2000, pp. 157-179.
38. J. Kalbfleisch, J. Lawless and J. Robinson, "Method for the Analysis
and Prediction of Warranty Claims", Technometrics, 1991,Vol. 33, # 1,
pp. 273-285.
39. T.P. Davis, "Science, engineering, and statistics", Applied Stochastic
Models in Business and Industry, Vol. 22, 2006, Issue 5-6, pp. 401-430.
40. B. Rai and N. Singh, "Modeling and analysis of automobile warranty
data in presence of bias due to customer-rush near warranty expiration
limit", Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2004, Vol. 86, Issue 1,
pp. 83-94.
BIOGRAPHY
Vasiliy Krivtsov, Ph.D.
Ford Motor Co.
Engineering Computer Center
MD ECC-11, Office 2BC03
20600 Rotunda Drive
Dearborn, MI 48121
e-mail: vkrivtso@ford.com
Vasiliy Krivtsov is a practitioner and a consultant in Reliability Engineering,
Risk Analysis and Applied Statistics presently employed by Ford Motor
Company as a Staff Technical Specialist. He holds M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
in Electrical Engineering from Kharkov Polytechnic Institute, Ukraine and a
Ph.D. in Reliability Engineering from the University of Maryland, USA.
Vasiliy is the author and co-author of over 50 professional publications,
including 2 books on Reliability Engineering & Risk Analysis, 9 patented
inventions and 5 Ford corporate trade secret inventions. He is an editor of the
Elsveir's Reliability Engineering & System Safety journal and is a member of
the IEEE Reliability Society. Prior to Ford, Krivtsov held the position of
Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering in Ukraine, and that of
Graduate Research Scientist at the University of Maryland Center for
Reliability Engineering. Further information on Dr. Krivtsov's professional
activity is available at www.krivtsov.net