Markov Chain Simulation for Estimating
Accelerated Life Model Parameters
Mohammadreza Azarkhail, University of Maryland
Mohammad Modarres, PhD, University of Maryland
Key Words: Accelerated Life Test, Bayesian Inference, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Simulation
SUMMARY
In this research, Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
method was used to derive posterior knowledge of accelerated
life model parameters in a Bayesian inference framework. The
concept is discussed through a case study considering the
fatigue life of a mechanical component. In the first step a
comprehensive model including the relationship among
parameters, design variables, material properties and available
prior information is constructed. The accelerated life test data
are then linked to this representation using a proper likelihood
function. At the final stage evolution of model parameters
during the Bayesian sequential updating are studied and the
convergence of whole process is verified. For further
validation, the approach is illustrated with examples using
traditional MLE approach.
1 INTRODUCTION
The Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE) uses
likelihood function of the available data directly for the model
parameters estimation. These methods provide no means to
incorporate prior knowledge available for the model
parameters. The possible sources for prior knowledge on
parameters can be data from previous generation of product,
engineering judgments such as upper/lower limits driven from
conservative assumptions in design or even the best estimate
resulted from MLE or other regression approaches on an old
set of data. There is, however, another important drawback for
MLE method. This method mathematically collapse when no
complete failure data is available. This is almost always the
case with highly reliable components. Highly reliable
components are very hard to break, and even if some failures
become available it is usually hard to associate them to the
failure mechanism of interest. Such components don’t break
unless at a stress condition, way beyond the normal level.
Such conditions make the diagnostic root cause analysis
highly challenging. Additionally, when using MLE approach
the mean effect of data is often masked due to over reliance on
the mode of the likelihood function. Further, the uncertainty
bounds provided by the local Fisher information matrix are not
useful, when dealing with small sample sizes.
In this research, in order to incorporate prior knowledge,
and have a fair coverage of uncertainties, Bayesian inference
technique was used. One of the limiting factors for using
Bayesian inference methods is the mathematical complexity of
214
0-7803-9766-5/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE
the problem. Multidimensional joint distributions are generally
hard to deal with. The integrals necessary for Bayesian
computation require analytical or numerical approximations.
Among all the techniques available for this type of
calculations the standard Monte Carlo methods are more
popular. But the direct sampling from an arbitrary
multidimensional joint distribution is limited to very simple
applications and is generally impractical. However, there are
approaches in which samples can be generated indirectly and
by suitably modifying samples drawn from some other
appropriately chosen distributions.
In the first section, brief introductions on accelerated life
modeling and life-stress models are presented and the
likelihood of data in conjunction with the case study is
constructed. In the next section the basis of Bayesian inference
methodology and their connections with MLE equations are
reviewed. Among available methods to fit Bayesian statistical
models for model parameter of interest, the focus of this work
is on MCMC simulation methods. In order to apply this
method, the WinBUGS modeling platform will be briefly
introduced and used. In the case study section, our collections
of methods are implemented to estimate the fatigue life-stress
distribution of a mechanical component under accelerated life
test conditions. In this section evolution of model parameters
during the Bayesian sequential updating are studied and the
convergence of whole process is verified. To address the
differences and highlight the Bayesian inference advantages,
the approach is illustrated with examples using traditional
MLE approach.
2 ACCELERATED LIFE MODELING
In accelerated life testing, the life of the product is
shortened to quickly obtain failure data and estimate the
reliability of the product [1, 2]. Accelerated life models help
the modeler to extrapolate the life at use level of stress using
the test data collected at high stress conditions. The choice of
model depends on the nature of dominant failure mechanisms.
In the following section the inverse power law (IPL) in
conjunction with lognormal life distribution is briefly
explained. These models will be used later in the case study
section, when the likelihood function of accelerated life test
data is constructed.
2.1 Inverse Power Law (IPL)
 Applications of IPL model in fatigue life of simple
metals, due to mechanical loading [3, 4] and due to thermal
cycling [5, 6] are well established. Using the IPL model, the
component life t (for example time or cycle to failure) is
assumed to be linearly proportional to the inverse power of the
applied stress. In terms of an equation, the fatigue life will be
equated to the product of the inverse power of stress and a
because this is the probability that the component remains
reliable at the censored time. Therefore, the likelihood of M
independent right censored observations will be the product of
the reliability functions and can be combined with equation 4
to build the likelihood function for the entire population as
shown in equation 5.
N

proportionality constant (i.e. 1/K). L(t1 , t2 ,..., t N | θ ) ∝ ∏ f (ti | θ ) (4)

i =1
The accelerated life model suggests a one to one mapping N M
between life distributions at different stress levels, meaning L(t1 , t2 ,..., t N , T1 , T2 ,....TM | θ ) ∝ ∏ f (ti | θ )∏ R(T j | θ ) (5)
that the same stress-life relationship holds for any percentile of i =1 j =1
life distributions. For example in case of lognormal where,
distribution, the scale factor (µ) which is simply the logarithm θ = the vector of model parameters, (θ1, θ2, …, θn)
of median life is replaced by a function of stress driven from N = the number of complete failure observations
the IPL relationship. The life-stress multivariate distribution M = the number of right censored observations
shown in equation 1 is the mathematical realization of this Tj = right censored observations
approach. The cumulative density function can be respectively ti = complete failure observations
estimated by integrating the probability density function f (t) f (t) = probability density function
as illustrated in equation 2. The reliability at a given time t, is R (t) = reliability function
now defined as the compliment event of the failure probability The likelihood function is used differently in the Bayesian
(equation 3). The reliability function will be used later when and MLE frameworks. In the Bayesian method the prior
the likelihood function of the right censored data is knowledge available for the model parameters is updated
constructed. using Equations 5 as conditional likelihood of data. In the
 1  log(t ) + log( K ) + n log( S )  2  MLE approach instead, the most probable set of values of the
exp  −    parameter vector θ, are found by maximizing this likelihood as
 2 σ  
f (t | S , K , n, σ ) =  (1) a standalone function.
σ t 2π
t 3 BAYESIAN INFERENCE BASICS
F (t | S , K , n, σ ) = ∫ f ( x | S , K , n, σ )dx (2)
0 In the Bayesian inference approach, the state of
R (t ) = 1 − F (t ) (3) (3) knowledge about a random variable is reconstructed
where, considering new available data [9]. In reliability applications
f (t) = the probability density function we are interested in time-to-failure (TTF) distribution as basis
F (t) = the cumulative probability function for the statistical definition of reliability. Nevertheless, this is
R(t) = the reliability function the joint distribution of parameters which is often updated in
t = time to failure the Bayesian analysis, because it is easier to build the
S = stress level likelihood of test results given the model parameters. Having
K = proportionality constant the posterior distribution of model parameters, the updated
n = the power parameter of IPL model distribution of TTF can be obtained by the expression
presented in equation 6.
σ = the variance or shape factor of lognormal distribution
g (t | data ) = ∫ h(t | θ ) f (θ | data)dθ (6)
θ
2.2 Likelihood of Data
where,
Fisher [7] based his maximum likelihood measure on an g (t/Data) = the posterior time-to-failure distribution
implied Bayesian uniform prior for the parameters, and he h (t/θ) = the TTF distribution given the model parameters
names the method as leading to “the most probable set of f(θ/Data) = the posterior distribution of model parameters
values” for the parameters [8]. Fisher suggested that the ratio θ = the vector of model parameters, (θ1, θ2, …, θn)
of the likelihood function and its maximum may be used to
find confidence intervals for the model parameters and derived Model
it in case of normal sampling curves. for
Let [f (t) × dt], be the chance of a failure observation Failure
Likelihood
Data
falling within the range dt. Fisher [7] introduces the method of L( Failure Data | θ )
Failure
maximum likelihood by claiming that the factor dt is Data
independent of the theoretical curve, and the probability is
Prior Posterior
proportional to f (t) [8]. Therefore, the likelihood of N Bayesian
f0 (θ) Inference f (θ) = L( θ | Failure Data)
independent time-to-failure observations will be proportional
to the product of the probability distribution function at the Figure 1- Bayesian Inference Outline
time of failures, as shown in equation 4. For right censored
observations, the likelihood will be the reliability function, Figure 1 depicts the outline of the Bayesian inference

215
approach. The available information about the model
parameter vector θ. in the form of prior distribution f0 (θ), is
transformed to a new state of knowledge, represented by
posterior distribution f (θ). The likelihood function represents
data in the Bayesian framework, and determines how much
the data may influence the prior knowledge.
The mathematical description of Bayesian transformation
is defined by equation 7. The normalization factor appeared in
the denominator, is inevitable when dealing with conditional
probability calculations.
L( DATA | θ ) f 0 (θ )
f (θ ) = f (θ | DATA) = (7)
∫ L( DATA | θ ) f0 (θ )dθ
θ Figure 2- Chain of Iterations for Parameters Vector
where,
θ = the vector of model parameters, (θ1, θ2, …, θn)
f (θ) = the posterior joint distribution of parameters
f0(θ) = the prior joint distribution of parameters
L(data | θ) = the likelihood of data given the model parameters
In practice we are usually interested in features of this
distribution including the updated marginal and conditional
distribution of each parameter given the provided information.
The marginal distribution of a single parameter is defined by
equation 8. The marginal distribution is estimated by
integrating the posterior joint distribution f (θ) over the rage of
other parameters as shown in equation 8. The other important
outcome of the posterior joint distribution is the conditional
distribution of each parameter, when other elements of vector
θ are given. The conditional distribution is constructed by
substituting the known parameters in the joint distribution f
(θ). Here again the function needs to be scaled by a
normalization factor as demonstrated in equation 9 in order to
be consistent with the basic characteristics of the distribution
functions.
f (θ j , θˆ− j )
g j (θ j , θˆ− j ) = (8)
f (θ , θˆ )dθ
∫θ j −j j
j
f j (θ j ) = ∫ (θ1 , θ2 ,..., θ j ,...., θ n )dθ− j
θ− j
where,
θ = (θ1, … , θj-1, θj+1, … , θn)
 −j
θ i = is the given value for θi
The integrals necessary for Bayesian computation require
analytic or numerical approximations. Among all the
techniques available for this type of calculations the standard
Bayes Monte Carlo methods are more popular [10]
4 MARKOV CHAIN MONTE CARLO SIMULATION
Consider f (θ), the posterior joint distribution of the
model parameters as defined by equation 7. In Monte Carlo
based simulations, the ultimate goal is generating some
samples of the distribution, just enough to estimate its
features. Theoretically any target distribution can be
duplicated by drawing infinite samples. In practice, however,
when dealing with real applications, an acceptable range of
accuracy is usually reached by a practical number of samples.
But the direct sampling from an arbitrary multidimensional
joint distribution is limited to very simple applications and is
generally impractical. The MCMC method provides an
alternative in which samples can be generated indirectly and
by suitably modifying samples drawn from some other
appropriate distributions [11].
A Markov Chain is a sequence of random variables θt (i.e.
the model parameter vector at trial t) for which, for any trial t,
the distribution of θt given all previous θ’s depends only on
the recent value, θt-1. Figure 2 is a pictorial representation of
this concept.
θ1 θ2 θ3 … θt-1 θt
MCMC process starts with an initial guess for the
parameter vector θ and calculates the new set of parameters
utilizing the features of the target posterior distribution. Like
other Markov processes, the procedure is only allowed to use
the latest values, when calculating the next trial. In common
Markov chain practices there are three main elements
including initial state, transition distribution (i.e. transition
matrix in the discrete case) and final state. The initial state and
transition distribution are usually known, and the main goal is
to identify the form of the limiting state (i.e. the invariant
stationary distribution of the process). MCMC method is an
attempt to solve the inverse of this problem in which the
stationary distribution (i.e. the posterior distribution) and the
initial state are given and it is the transition distribution that
needs to be identified [11].
In practice there may be many transition distributions to
choose from, the Gibbs transition kernel is one of them. In this
method the parameter vector is decomposed to its elements. At
each step the most updated elements are used to make the
conditional distributions of each parameter given the others
(defined by equation 9), and new samples are drawn using this
distribution. The Gibbs transitions are fairly straightforward
and converge to the target distribution after limited trials
(9) depends on the dimension of the parameter vector θ. More
discussions on Gibbs sampling, related MCMC methods,
convergence criteria and alternative methods can be found in
Gelfand [12] and Smith [13].
5 WINBUGS: A TOOL FOR BAYESIAN INFERENCE
WinBUGS is the Windows version of BUGS (Bayesian
Inference Using Gibbs Sampling) software. It is originally
developed by the Medical Research Council (MRC),
Biostatistics Unit at Cambridge, UK [14], to make practical
MCMC methods available for applied statisticians. Ongoing
development of WinBUGS is conducted by the MRC
Biostatistics Unit and the Imperial College School of
Medicine at St Mary’s, London. An educational version of this
software is available, and can be used unrestricted, after free
online registration. For more information about the
background, applications and brief introduction to modeling in
WinBUGS see Cowles [16].
WinBUGS has been widely used for the Bayesian
inference in medical applications, but it has been seldom
exercised in reliability engineering for accelerated life test
216
data analysis. In this research, WinBUGS platform is used to
run the necessary MCMC sampling for Bayesian inference of
accelerated life test data. In the following case study, the
updated joint distribution of parameters is finally compared
with classical MLE best estimate and confidence intervals, to
highlight the issues and verify the procedure.
6 CASE STUDY
Consider a component that experiences a cyclic load as a
part of a mechanical system operation. The applied alternating
stress makes fatigue, the dominant failure mechanism for this
component. Further study of failures available from prototype
testing confirms the fatigue crack growth as the dominant
failure mechanism as well. Different models of this
mechanical system use different sizes of the very same
component in terms of thickness and other dimensions to meet
the model design goals including capacity and other
performance characteristics. Due to this design commonality,
the same design happens to experience different stresses when
it is used in different models even at the same test conditions.
Sophisticated finite element (FE) analysis reveals the
minimum and maximum applied stress on the component for a
given model of this mechanical unit, operating in particular
test condition.
6.1 Available Data
The accelerated life test data available for different types
of this mechanical system indicates no complete failures. In
the other words, all accelerated life tests are treated as right
censored data regarding this component as shown with
triangles in Figure 3. Dealing with highly reliable component,
testing in stress close to the use stress level or running short
tests, just not enough to experience any failure, are different
causes that may limit the number of failures in accelerated life
tests. The maximum allowed stress is one of crucial limiting
factors especially when the component is tested within the
system as a final product. In most applications there are many
control, safety and self activation mechanisms that limit the
applied stress on internal components. Nevertheless, even
censored data are valuable since they show up in likelihood
functions and influence the calculated parameters anyway. But
the MLE equations resulting from log-likelihood function,
lead to trivial answers when no complete failure data is
available.
Despite the unfortunate accelerated life test results, some
generic data became available from standard fatigue tests. This
set of data are scattered at high stress region as shown with
stars in Figure 3. The standard fatigue tests can be performed
in high stresses, because the test samples are tested externally
and without influence of limiting control and safety devices.
In addition to standard data available in the literature,
specific external tests were performed on fatigue samples
made of the same material. The purpose of these tests was to
create some data in the middle range stresses where the
generic data are hard to find. In these tests, fatigue samples
made of material mold, are machined as close as possible to
the final product in terms of dimension, surface finish and
other characteristics of stress concentration sensitive areas.
217
These data covers the middle range stress as shown with
rectangles in Figure 3.
Stress-Life Chart
Entire Available Data
Material Handbook Data Material Lab Data Accelerated Life Tes t Data
100.0
Run out
Stress (ksi)
10.0
1.0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Life (hrs)
Figure 3- Stress-Life Chart for the Entire Available Data
6.2 Estimation of Model Parameters
Having the stress and complete time-to-failure or right
censored data, the Bayesian inference procedure can be
applied. Different set of data as introduced in previous section
will be used to update the joint distribution of model
parameters in a sequential manner. In this research, the life
distribution and its corresponding accelerated life test model is
assumed to fit a lognormal-IPL likelihood function as
explained in previous sections.
In the first step a non-informative (uniform) prior
distribution can be assigned to the model parameters. The
generic data available in material handbooks, the material lab
test results and available accelerated life test data can be then
used sequentially to improve the state of knowledge about the
parameters. The evolution of model parameters through the
Bayesian updating process is illustrated in Figure 4. Since the
parameter K is too small, the natural logarithm of this
parameter is shown.
Having the entire available data as either complete failure
or censored times, one may take the MLE approach and
calculate the best estimate and corresponding confidence
bounds of model parameters at each step.
The MLE results are calculated using the commercial
software ALTA [17]. The symmetric normal distribution for
parameters as demonstrated in Table 1 is simply resulted from
normal distribution assumption made by Fisher. Having the
Bayesian inference results plotted in Figure 4, the parameters
n and σ seem almost normally distributed. The symmetric
normal type distribution for natural logarithm of K however,
suggests a lognormal distribution for parameter K.
Evaluating the model parameters the universal life-stress
model of the component is now accomplished, meaning that
the life model of the component at any given stress level can
be estimated. Note that even little changes in model
parameters may result in a very big difference in the
 component life or other related variables. result in significant changes in reliability related calculations
Ln(K)
such as acceleration factors.
Ln(K) Ln(K) Ln(K)
Ln(K)
0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3 Acceleration Factor - Test1 Acceleration Factor - Test2 Acceleration Factor - Test3
0.2
0.2 0.2
0.2
0.2 0.15 0.3 00.4
.4
0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
.3
0.1 0.1 0.2
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
00.2
.2
0.0 0.05 0.1 00.1
.1
-40.0
-40.0 -30.0
-30.0 -20.0
-20.0 -40.0
-40.0 -30.0
-30.0 -20.0
-20.0
-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 0.0 0.0 00.0
.0
n n
n n
n 20 .0 40 .0 0 .0 20.0
20.0 40.0
40 .0
0.8 0 .0 0 .0 20 .0 40 .0
0.8 0.8 1.0
1.0
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4
0.4 0.5 mean 2.50% 5.00% 10.00% 25.00% 50.00% 75.00% 90.00% 95.00% 97.50%
0.4 0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2 0.2
0.0 AF-T1 22.89 17.07 17.77 18.6 20.09 22.16 24.81 28.13 30.57 33.11
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
5.0 10.0 15.0
15.0
5.0
5.0 10.0
10.0 15.0
15.0 5.0
5.0 10.0
10.0 15.0
15.0
AF-T2 15.5 12 12.43 12.94 13.84 15.09 16.66 18.59 20 21.45
σ σ
σ σ
σ AF-T3 10.34 8.327 8.58 8.879 9.405 10.12 11.01 12.09 12.87 13.66
3.0 3 .0
3 .0 3.0
3.0 3.0
2.0
.0 2.0
Figure 5- Acceleration Factor for Three Different Tests
2.0
2.0 2 2.0
1.0
1 .0 1.0
1.0 1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0 .0 11.0
.0 22.0
.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 2.0
Using Bayesian Inference Results
0.0
0.0 1.0
1.0 2.0
2.0 0.0 1.0
1.0 2.0
Mean 2.50% 50% 97.50% Mean 2.50%
Mean 2.50% 50% 97.50%
50% 97.50% Mean 2.50%
2.50% 50%
50% 97.50%
97.50%
Mean
Ln(K) -25.97
-25.97 -29.38
-29.38 -25.93
-25.93 -22.86
-22.86
-23.73 -28.22
Ln(K) -23.73 -28.22 -23.61
-23.61 -19.77
-19.77 Ln(K) Ln(K) -26.84
Ln(K) -26.84 -30.38
-30.38 -26.69
-26.69 -24.22
-24.22 mean 2.5% 5.0% 10.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 90.0% 95.0% 97.5%
n 9.36 7.987 9.321
9.321 10.92 n
n 10.12 8.995
10.12 8.995 10.1
10.1 11.33
11.33 n
n 10.42 9.462 10.37 11.68
9.36 7.987 10.92 10.42 9.462 10.37 11.68
σ 0.8565 0.6043 0.8301 1.258
σ
σ 0.9559 0.7051
0.9559 0.7051 0.936
0.936 1.327
1.327 σ
σ 0.9489 0.7012
0.9489 0.7012 0.9274
0.9274 1.32
1.32 AF-T1 21.61 16.36 17.11 18.01 19.63 21.61 23.77 25.92 27.29 28.54
AF-T2 14.76 11.56 12.03 12.58 13.57 14.76 16.05 17.30 18.10 18.83
Generic Data from Handbooks Generic Data
Generic Data from
from Handbooks
Handbooks Generic Data from Handbooks
+Fatigue Test
Test of
of Material
Material Samples
Samples+Fatigue
+Fatigue Test
Test of
of Material
Material Samples
Samples AF-T3 9.93 8.07 8.34 8.67 9.25 9.93 10.67 11.38 11.82 12.23
+Fatigue
+ ALT Data
Table 2-Best Estimate and Confidence Intervals of
Figure 4- Evolution of Model Parameters Using Bayesian Acceleration Factors Using MLE
Inference Approach
7 CONCLUSIONS
In order to highlight the difference between the two
methods here the acceleration factors for three given tests are The success in MLE approach strongly depends on
estimated. Consider test number 1, 2 and 3 with stress levels presence of complete failure data to get MLE equations
5.76, 5.55 and 5.34 ksi respectively. Further assume 4.27 ksi mathematically meaningful. In real applications, it is often
for the component stress level at the normal operational impossible to mix different types of data similar to our case
conditions. The acceleration factor is defined as the ratio study. In those applications MLE approach fails to provide
between life at use level of stress and the life at the accelerated any answer.
test condition as shown in equation 10. Nevertheless, the Bayesian inference approach, allow
different type of data to be considered, step by step and in a
Mean 2.50% 50% 97.50% sequential manner as shown in this paper. For example,
Generic Data From Handbooks
Ln(K) -23.46 -26.77 -23.46 -20.15 consider the case in which instead of generic data there was
n 9.27 8.12 9.27 10.42
σ 0.7447 0.539 0.7447 1.029
some expert judgment available about the parameters of the
Mean 2.50% 50% 97.50% life model. The censored accelerated life test data would not
Generic Data from Handbooks +
Fatigue Test of Material
Ln(K) -25.87 -28.81 -25.87 -22.93 be useful by any means if one took the MLE approach.
Samples
n 10.08 9.03 10.08 11.14
Because there is no formal way to mix information about
σ 0.861 0.644 0.861 1.149
Mean 2.50% 50% 97.50%
model parameters with failure or censored data in the MLE
Generic Data from Handbooks +
Ln(K) -26.40 -28.97 -26.40 -23.82 procedure.
Fatigue Test of Material
Samples + ALT Data
n 10.27 9.34 10.27 11.20 Finally, MCMC simulation was employed as a powerful
σ 0.854 0.641 0.854 1.139
method for the Bayesian related calculations and WinBUGS
Table 1- Best Estimate and Confidence Intervals of Model which is a useful tool for Bayesian inference, shows an
Parameters Using MLE excellent potential for applications to reliability engineering.

Lifeuse  Suse 
n REFERENCES
Af = =  (10)
Lifetest  Stest  1. Nelson, W. B., 1982, Applied Life Data Analysis, John
where: Wiley & Sons, NY.
Af = Test acceleration factor 2. Nelson, W. B., Accelerated Testing: Statistical Models,
Stest = Test stress level Test Plans, and Data Analysis, Wiley Series in
Suse = Use stress level Probability and Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, NY.
n = Power parameter of inverse power law 3. Port, E. M., 1948, “Fatigue Testing under Progressive
Having final posterior marginal distribution of parameter Loading; A New Technique for Testing Materials,” Revue
n as shown in Figure 4, the distribution of acceleration factor de Metallurgies XLV, No. 12, pp. 481-489 (in French),
for given tests can be easily estimated. These distributions as Translation in WADC TR 52-148 (Sep. 1952).
well as quantitative estimates of their percentiles are 4. Weibull, W., 1961, Fatigue Testing and Analysis of
illustrated in Figure 5. Results, Pergamon Press, NY.
The best estimate of acceleration factors and 5. Manson, S. S., 1966, Thermal Stress and Low Cycle
corresponding confidence intervals, calculated from MLE Fatigue, McGraw-Hill, NY.
results are also listed in Table 2 for comparison. As compared 6. Coffin, Jr., L. F., 1974, “Fatigue at High Temperature -
in these results, slightly different model parameters could Prediction and Interpretation”, James Clayton Memorial
Lecture, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. (London), 188, pp. 109-

218
 127.
7. Fisher, R. A., 1912, “On an Absolute Criterion for Fitting
Frequency Curves”, Messenger of Mathematics, Vol. 41,
pp. 155-160. [Reprinted in Statistical Science, Vol. 12,
(1997) pp. 39-41.]
8. Hald, A., 1999, “On the Maximum Likelihood in Relation
to Inverse Probability and Least Squares.” Statistical
Science, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 214-222.
9. Congdon, P., 2003, Applied Bayesian Modeling, Wiley
Series in Probability and Statistics, John Wiley & Sons,
NY.
10. Smith, A. F. M., 1991, “Bayesian Computational
Methods,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 337, pp. 369-386.
11. Brooks, S. P., 1998, “Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method
and its Application,” The Statistician, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.
69-100, Royal Statistical Society.
12. Gelfand, A. E. and Smith, A. F. M., 1990, “Sampling-
Based Approaches to Calculate Marginal Densities”,
Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85,
No. 410, pp 398-409.
13. Smith, A. F. M., and Roberts, G. O., 1993, “Bayesian
Computation via the Gibbs Sampler and Related Markov
Chain Monte Carlo Methods”, Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), Vol. 55,
No. 1, pp. 3-23.
14. MRC Biostatistics Unit, “The WinBugs Project,”
Cambridge, UK.
15. Spiegelhalter, D., Thomas, A., Best, N., and Lunn, D.,
2003, WinBugs 1.4 Manual.
16. Cowles, M. K., 2004, “Review of WinBUGS 1.4”, The
American Statistician, Vol. 58, 4, ABI/INFORM Global,
pp. 330-336.
17. ReliaSoft Corporation, “The Accelerated Testing Life
Data Analysis Software,” Tucson, Arizona 85710, USA.
BIOGRAPHIES
Mohammadreza Azarkhail, PhD Candidate
Reliability Engineering Program
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Maryland
219
Room 0151, Glenn L. Martin Hall,
College Park, MD 20742, USA
e-mail: mazar@umd.edu
Mohammadreza Azarkhail is a graduate research assistant and
PhD candidate at Reliability Engineering Program in the
University of Maryland. His research areas are physics of
failure and accelerated life modeling of mechanical
components and systems, Direct Simulation for risk and
reliability assessment of complex systems, Bayesian Inference
using MCMC simulation and importance measures of system
risk and reliability. He currently holds a Masters degree in
Reliability Engineering from University of Maryland and
Bachelor and Master’s degrees in Mechanical Engineering
from Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad Modarres, PhD
Reliability Engineering Program
Mechanical Engineering Department
University of Maryland
Room 0151, Glenn L. Martin Hall,
College Park, MD 20742, USA
e-mail: modarres@umd.edu
Mohammad Modarres is a Professor of Reliability
Engineering at University of Maryland, College Park. His
research areas are probabilistic risk assessment, uncertainty
analysis, and Physics of Failure Modeling. In the past 23 years
that he has been with the University of Maryland, he has
served as a consultant to several governmental agencies,
private organizations and national laboratories in areas related
to risk analysis. Professor Modarres has over 200 papers in
archival journals and proceedings of conferences and three
books in various areas of risk and reliability engineering. He is
a University of Maryland Distinguished Scholar-Teacher. Dr.
Modarres received his Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1980 and his M.S. in
Mechanical Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in 1977.