By Topic

Discussion, with reply, on "Estimating the cumulative probability of failure data points to be plotted on Weibull and other probability paper

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

2 Author(s)

It is pointed out that the Bernard estimator is very accurate, with respect to other median or mean approximated ranks, confirming results presented by J.C. Fothergill in the above-titled paper (see ibid., vol.25, p.489-92, 1990). However, it is argued that the weighted Blom seems the most accurate estimator, among graphical ones, for normally sized samples and a reliable one for small sample sizes, although the Bernard and Filliben estimators are better than Weibull and Blom for small sample sizes. Statistical and graphical estimators are compared by plotting the percent deviations of the values of the Weibull parameters alpha and beta (scale and shape parameters, respectively) estimated by weighted Blom, Bernard, Weibull, maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), and Bain-Engelhardt (BE), with respect to the true values, as well as the estimates obtained by MLE and BE, as functions of the sample size. In replying, Fothergill states that for small sample sizes, the advantages of more sophisticated techniques do not seem warranted.<>

Published in:

Electrical Insulation, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:26 ,  Issue: 6 )