Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:53:42.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of Weibull parameter with a modified weight function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

B. K. Chandrasekhar
B. K. Chandrasekhar
Affiliation:
Ceramic Technological Institute, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Bangalore-560 012, India
Get access

Abstract

The Weibull modulus is widely used for estimating the reliability of ceramic components in engineering applications. An improvement in the evaluation of the Weibull modulus is achieved by using an appropriate weight function to the data points while fitting a straight line to the Weibull plot by the least square method. The conventional weight function is a function of the probability of failure. This paper describes an alternate method of obtaining the weight function based on first principles. This modified weight function is a function of the stress at failure rather than probability of failure. Evaluation of the two-parameter Weibull modulus was estimated on simulated strength distribution data with both the weight functions. A comparative analysis indicates that the modified weight function gives a different result than the conventional weight function. The paper also highlights the effect and importance of uncertainties in the measurement of strength on the calculated Weibull modulus.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 12 , Issue 10 , October 1997 , pp. 2638 - 2642
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Creyke, W. E. C., Sainsbury, I. E. J., and Morrell, R., in Design with Non-Ductile Materials (Applied Science Publishers, London, 1982), pp. 365–386.Google Scholar
2.Weibull, W., Royal Swedish Academy of Eng. Sci. Proc. 151, 1 (1939).Google Scholar
3.Trustrum, K., Jayatilaka, A., and De, S., J. Mater. Sci. 14, 1080–1084 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Johnson, C. A., in Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics, edited by Bradt, R. C., Evans, A. G., Hasselman, D. P. H., and Lange, F. F. (Plenum Press, New York, 1983), Vol. 5, pp. 365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Baumgartner, H. R. and Richerson, D. W., in Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics, edited by Bradt, R. C., Hasselman, D. P. H., and Lange, F. F. (Plenum Press, New York, 1973), Vol. 1, pp. 378–386.Google Scholar
6.Steen, M., Sinnema, S., and Bressers, J., J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 9, 437–445 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Bergman, B., in Engineering with Ceramics 2, edited by Freer, R., British Ceram. Proceedings, No. 39, 175–185 (1987).Google Scholar
8.Bergman, B., J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 5, 611–614 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.de Smet, B. J., Bach, P. W., Scholten, H. F., Dortmans, L. J. M. G., and DeWith, G., J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 10, 101 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Bevington, P. R., in Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New YorkM, 1970).Google Scholar
11.Davidge, R. W., Mechanical Behaviour of Ceramics (Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 134.Google Scholar
12.Kamiya, N. and Kamigaito, O., J. Mater. Sci. 19, 4021 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar