MODELING OF THE MECHANICAL

PROPERTIES VARIATIONS OF P/M STEELS

Joseph W. Newkirk and Sanjay N. Thakur
Department of Metallurgical Eng.
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla Mo 65409

ABSTRACT
The final mechanical properties of P/M parts are In statistics, when working with reliability or life-
strongly affected by the processing parameters. Process- time prediction data, the standard frequency distribu-
ing controls porosity, composition, and microstructure. tion used to describe the data is a Weibull distribution
Variations within the processing sequence lead to sig- [1]. While the Weibull distribution is often used to
nificant property variations. Variations in strength val- describe the mechanical properties of ceramic materi-
ues are often accounted for by the publication of typical als, it is rarely used to describe metallic materials. One
values and minimum values. Other mechanical proper- exception is its occasional use to describe high cycle
ties important for critical applications, such as tough- fatigue data of alloys. Most often, mechanical proper-
ness, are even more sensitive to processing. This paper ties data for metals and alloys is fitted to a normal or
discusses the use of Weibull statistics to analyze the prop- Gaussian distribution, and subsequently represented
erties of P/M parts and suggest new ways to determine by the mean and standard deviation. Weibull statisti-
property variability for design application. Examples of cal theory is applicable to tensile strength data. The
different properties and materials are used to illustrate Weibull model assumes that there is a local strength
the variation. The effects of processing parameters in associated with each small element of volume or sur-
controlling the variability are discussed. Weibull param- face in a body [2]. For the description of the mechani-
eters are suggested as being more suitable for designers cal behavior, the most frequently used approach is the
than the current system. Weibull theory. The Weibull statistics naturally arise
if the number of the defects shows an inverse power
INTRODUCTION law with respect to their size[3].
As P/M continues to increase in acceptance as a The treatment of mechanical properties of P/M ma-
method for fabricating complex near-net shaped parts, terials is no exception to the practice of using normal
the importance of understanding the complex interac- statistics to describe their distribution. German points
tion of processing parameters and mechanical proper- out that the transverse rupture strengths of P/M mate-
ties increases. Currently, greater use of P/M parts in rials typically show scatter that are assumed to be
aerospace, automotive and other transportation areas caused by flaws and a Weibull distribution can be used
leads to greater need for design friendly mechanical to model the variation[4]. Dieter makes a stronger
properties, in other words, mechanical properties that statement and says[5], While the Gaussian or nor-
can be relied on in critical areas. Over-designing a part mal frequency distribution is often taken as the ac-
to insure no failure occurs is contrary to maintaining cepted statistical distribution for failure strengths,
the lowest possible weight to meet the application and there is no theoretical or experimental justification for
certainly affects cost. this situation. In fact, since the normal frequency dis-
Currently, there is a great deal of discussion about the tribution has long tails on each side of the mean it can
use of higher quality standards. The Six-Sigma parameter be argued that this is unrealistic and does not repre-
is becoming more widely used and customers are asking sent the observed facts. Therefore, the most generally
suppliers to demonstrate their adherence to this practice. applicable frequency distribution in fracture problems
The Six-Sigma criterion is useful as a measure of variabil- is the Weibull distribution. If the Weibull is the only
ity in the products requiring specifications and also creates distribution that should be applied to fracture proper-
the need to produce narrower distributions. However, this ties, the question must be raised as to why the normal
criterion assumes that the data set is normally distributed. If distribution is so widely used instead? The best an-
the data set does not follow the normal distribution, then swer available seems to be that it is simply easier to
the Six-Sigma criterion will have a reduced, or perhaps, use the normal distribution, although it may not be
even, no significance. accurate to do so.

P/M Science & Technology Briefs, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp. 13-21 13
 Modeling of the Mechanical Properties Variations of P/M Steels
The 3-parameter Weibull distribution is represented The value of f(x) decreases and goes through the point of
in the following equation for the cumulative probability. inflection, and assumes a value of f(x) = 0 at x = + .
The mean life, , is the threshold (location param-
x x m (1) eter) of the normal pdf, as it locates the pdf along the
P( x) = 1 exp 0

x 0 abscissa. Larger the value of , larger is the life of the
components, equipments or the system. As the value of
mean increases it shifts the curve towards right and as
In this equation, x is the mechanical property of in- the mean value decreases it shifts the curve towards left.
terest, is the scale parameter, m is the shape param- The second parameter is the standard deviation, ,
eter, also called the Weibull modulus, and x0 is the mini- which is the scale parameter of the normal pdf. As the
mum allowable value of x, or the threshold value of x. value of standard deviation increases the pdf spreads out
For flaw limited materials, such as ceramics, the thresh- away from the mean, or it becomes broader and shal-
old value, x0 , is zero and the Weibull can be described by lower. As the value of standard deviation decreases the
just two parameters. Metals typically have a threshold pdf gets pushed toward the mean of the pdf, or it be-
value for most mechanical properties due to the ability comes narrower and taller. Unlike the Weibull pdf the
of metals to plastically deform. Many P/M materials are normal pdf has no shape parameter, this means that the
low in ductility and can behave either way. normal pdf has only one and the same shape, the bell
If there is no threshold value, then x0 = 0, and the shape, and this shape does not change.
distribution simplifies to the 2-parameter Weibull distri- Charpy impact toughness values of metal injection
bution: molded (MIM) alloys like MIM 17-4PH (AISI 630), MIM
x m 8620 (AISI 8620), and MPIF FN-0208 have been reported. 6
P( x) = 1 exp (2) The data were analyzed with a 2-parameter Weibull distri-
bution and used to compare the variation in toughness as a
function of the processing parameters. A comparison to
A material whose properties fit this simpler distribu- wrought AISI 4140 showed that the Weibull distributions
tion would have a finite probability of failing at any prop- were comparable and the variability could be similar under
erty level, although it may be small. Materials that have the correct processing conditions.
a threshold value are more suited to critical applications This paper looks at the statistical variability of prop-
where unexpected failures cannot be tolerated. erties using an example from a round-robin testing pro-
The normal distribution is the most widely used known gram where the reproducibility of testing laboratories was
distribution and the cumulative distribution function of validated. The two alloys were MPIF FL-4605-120HT
normal distribution; P(x) is given by with 0.60%C and MPIF FN-0208-80HT with 2%Ni and
1 x
x 2

exp
1 0.5%Cu. From here on the first alloy will be referred to
P ( x) =
2 2
(3) as FL-4605 and the latter as FN-0208. First the data set is
handled according to current applicable standards, and
then it is analyzed using the statistics outlined above.
The normal probability density function (pdf) is given
by
INTERLABORATORY STUDY
1 x
2

exp
1
f (x) = (4) Factors like operator, equipment used, calibration of
2 2 the equipment and the environment (humidity and tem-
perature) contributes to the variability in application of a
In this equation, x is the mechanical property of in- test method. Thirty-two different laboratories conducted
terest, is the mean life (also called as mean life before the tests as per the ASTM E 691.7. Each laboratory took
failure, MTBF) and is the standard deviation. The nor- 3 readings for transverse rupture strength. The consis-
mal pdf is bell shaped and symmetrical about its mean. tency of the data in an interlaboratory study can be as-
The point of inflection is defined as that point of the pdf sessed using two statistics namely: the k-value, used to
where the slope changes its value from a decreasing to examine the consistency of the within-laboratory preci-
an increasing one, or where the second derivative of the sion from laboratory to laboratory, and the h-value, used
pdf has a value of zero. to examine the consistency of the test results from labo-
The curve begins at a value of x = - where f(x) = 0 ratory to laboratory. Critical values for h depends on
thereafter it increases and goes through its point of in- the number of laboratories participating in the
flection, and f(x) reaches its maximum value at x = . interlaboratory study and the critical values of k de-
P/M Science & Technology Briefs, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp. 13-21 14
 Joseph W. Newkirk and Sanjay N. Thakur
pends both on the number of laboratories and also on the
number of replicate test results. The h and k graphs give
a picture of the overall character of the variability of the
test method as well as singling out particular laborato-
ries or cells that should be investigated.
When looking at h-values, one cause for concern is
when one laboratory is totally opposite in sign than most
of the other laboratories. Another cause for concern is if
one laboratory has an h-value that approaches or exceeds
the critical value, either positive or negative. Figure 1a
shows the h-values calculated for the FL-4605 materials
alone for clarity. Both materials are shown in Figure 1c.
Only laboratory 28 and 34 stand out with large values for
material FL-4605 and FN-0208 respectively as shown in
figures 1a and 1c. The critical value obtained for h is
2.64. The h-value plot for material FL-4605 singles out
laboratory 28, with a h-value of 2.5405, whereas the
material FN-0208 singles out laboratory 34, with a h-
value of -2.5432.
For k-values, the primary concern is if one labora-
tory has large k-values, which approach or exceed the
critical value, or alternately has very small k-values
for all or most of the materials. High k-values repre-
sent within-laboratory imprecision. Very small k-val-
ues may indicate a very insensitive measurement scale
or other measurement problem. Figure 1b and 1d point
to laboratory 3 and 28 showing large values of k for
FN-0208 and FL-4605 respectively. The critical value
obtained for k is 2.24. The highest k-values are 2.6632
for FL-4605 at laboratory 28 and 2.4678 for FN-0208
at laboratory 3.
When h-values and k-values are examined together,
they point to a real problem with the data from labo-
ratory 28 on FL-4605, since it fails both tests. Ac-
cording to the ASTM standard, since there are enough
other laboratories contributing, this data could be
thrown out. Laboratories 3 and 34 would be consid-
ered valid, since they only failed one of the two tests.
In addition to the high values of k, laboratory 33
has a very low k-value for both the materials. This
could indicate a problem with the data from that labo-
ratory, but since less than three materials were tested
and only three repeats were used, it cannot be con-
cluded that this data set is flawed.
The result of this procedure is a set of data that
would allow the calculation of a mean and standard
deviation, based on the assumption of a normal distri-
bution. The results can be used to predict the me-
chanical property values of the materials included in
the study. In designing components on the basis of
these results, the probability of a given failure can be
determined and factored into the design.
P/M Science & Technology Briefs, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp. 13-21
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The majority of the data analysis was performed with
Microsoft Excel using the regression tool and the results
were analyzed with the help of correlation factor (R 2 ), shape
parameter (m) and scale parameter (Q) at 95% confidence
level. The correlation theory determines how well a linear
or (higher order) equation describes the relationship between
variables. If all the values of a variable fit the equation de-
scribing them exactly, then we say the variables are per-
fectly correlated. When only two variables are considered
the equation describing the data are obtained through simple
regression and the fit is described by simple correlation.
First the input property values and a threshold value are fed
into an Excel worksheet to calculate ln (property) and ln (ln
(1/(1-P (X)))). The threshold value option allows for either
a 2-parameter (threshold=0) or a 3-parameter Weibull fit.
The values were plotted using the regression tool. The
graphs, R2 (correlation factor), shape factor (given by the
slope) and the scale factor were obtained from the re-
gression output. Thereafter, the data were fitted to a
Gaussian and Weibull (both 2 and 3-parameter) function.
Both the curves were superimposed on a histogram of
the given data. Whether the data belonged to a single
population or more were determined using goodness of
fit. Furthermore, the data were analyzed for multiple
populations using the same procedure.
When the Weibull plot indicates data that does not
fall satisfactorily on a straight line and it is detected that
the points fall on a curve, then a location parameter, x0,
might exist which may straighten out these points. The
procedure given below can be pursued to determine the
existence of a threshold. If the curve for the data obtained
is concave, then there exists a threshold value between
zero and the smallest value of property that will straighten
out the points for a good straight line fit. If the curve for
the data obtained is convex, then there exists a negative
threshold value that should be subtracted from the prop-
erty value to straighten out the points and obtain a straight
line fit.
The methodology is to first assess the data for the
normal distribution. If it doesnt work well, the Weibull
function is tried. The 2-parameter Weibull function is first
used to describe the entire data set. The appearance of
cusps indicates the probability of multiple failure modes
and therefore the data set is fit with two or more 2-pa-
rameter distributions. If the two (or more) populations fit
with a curve instead of a line, a 3-parameter fit is done
using a threshold value. The 3-parameter usually clearly
defines and indicates the presence or absence of multiple
populations. As a final check on the proper analysis, the
data and the chosen distribution were superimposed on a
histogram and the fit visually verified.
15
 Modeling of the Mechanical Properties Variations of P/M Steels

Between laboratory consistency statistic Within laboratory consistency statistic

bar graph for FL-4605 bar graph for FL-4605
2.5 3

1.5 2.5
Laboratory 28
h - Consistency Statistic

k - Consistency Statistic
2
0.5

1.5
-0.5

-1
1

-1.5

-2
0.5

-2.5
Laboratory 28

-3 0

Laboratory number Laboratory number

Fig 1a Fig 1b

Between laboratory consistency statistic Within laboratory consistency statistic

bar graph for FL-4605 and FN-0208 bar graph for FL-4605 and FN-0208
3 3

FL-4605 FL-4605
FN-0208 FN-0208
2 2.5

Laboratory 3
h - Consistency Statistic

k - Consistency Statistic

1 2

0 1.5

-1 1

-2 0.5

-3 0

Laboratory number Laboratory number

Fig 1c Laboratory 34 Fig 1d Laboratory 33

Figure 1. Plots for checking consistency within and between laboratories. The laboratory num-
bers are from 1 to 39 with laboratories 7, 8, 10, 22, 24, 30 and 32 having no data. 1a) h-
consistency statistic for FL-4605 alloy. 1b) k-consistency statistic for FL-4605 alloy. 1c) h-
consistency statistic for FN-0208 alloy added to FL-4605. 1d) k-consistency statistic for FN-
0208 alloy added to FL-4605. The plots show that laboratory 28 fails both the consistency tests
for FL-4605 and requires further investigation.

P/M Science & Technology Briefs, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp. 13-21 16
 Joseph W. Newkirk and Sanjay N. Thakur
ANALYSIS OF BIMODAL DISTRIBUTIONS
AND MODELING OF DATA
Bimodality when encountered should be handled with
caution. The first step is to analyze the data and separate
the data according to flaw origin and then analyzing each
of these two-censored data sets. Weibull theory assumes
the failures are due to flaws, and there is a distinct flaw
for each distribution. Samples that fail due to type 1 flaws
contain type 2 defects of higher strength and vice versa.
To accurately analyze the data samples that fail from type
2, flaws must be included as censored data in the ranking
of strength of type 1 flaws and vice versa. The censored
data method calculates a new increment in ranking and
this increment is added to previous ranking. By treating
the data as censored, the Weibull parameters associated
with the entire population of each type of flaw can be
determined. 8
The transverse rupture strength alloy, FL-4605, was
analyzed in a manner similar to the procedure described
above. Sets of 96 identical samples for FL-4605 alloy
were assessed. Each set was fabricated by the same parts
manufacturer and was used in a round robin testing pro-
gram. The raw data were supplied and analyzed using
the techniques described above. The analysis of the dif-
ferent laboratories showed that all values could be used,
except for one laboratory on one alloy. All of the data
were used without bias to see what effect it has on the
Weibull results.
Each set of data was analyzed to determine if the data
were distributed normally. The test for the normal distri-
bution failed for the FL-4605 alloy. The data points did
not fall on a straight line, and some of the data fell out-
side the 95% confidence interval. Better results were
obtained for the FL-4605 alloy on using the Weibull analy-
sis, although the FL-4605 also had data points fall out-
side the 95% confidence interval.
Looking at just the FL-4605 alloy, the Weibull plot
showed that the data had at least two cusps. Figure 2a
shows the poor correlation and it can be seen that the
first point appears to fall on a separate line from the rest
of the data. This datum was set aside and the remaining
data were plotted in Figure 2b. With the lowest failure
removed, the data set shows two cusps with curvature
associated with each one. Taking these two cusps sepa-
rately and fitting them to a 3-parameter Weibull distribu-
tion gives an excellent match to the data. These results
are shown in Figure 2c and 2d.
In order to further evaluate the best distribution to
use, the data were analyzed in stages and shown against
the histogram from the actual data. This is shown for the
FL-4605 data in Figure 3. First the data were analyzed
for the normal and 2-parameter Weibull distributions. As
P/M Science & Technology Briefs, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp. 13-21
seen in Figures 3a and 3b, the two distributions do not
accurately describe the histogram. The frequency of the
peak is too low in each case, and the early failures are
not represented. The Weibull probably models the peak
in the distribution slightly better than the normal, but is
still inadequate.
The data were further analyzed using the 2-parameter
Weibull by breaking the entire data set into two main
populations, which improved the correlation factor. These
two populations were recombined and are shown in Fig-
ure 3c. This significantly improves the fit to the data,
but still does not adequately represent the peaks of the
data. Finally the data were fit with two 3-parameter dis-
tributions, which provided a very close match to the his-
togram, assuring that this was the proper way to analyze
the data.
It may appear that fitting the histogram to a combina-
tion of normal distributions would also lead to a good
agreement. However, after analyzing the data in this
manner the results did not support this. Figure 3e shows
the normal distribution, which does not model the data
as well as Weibull, does. It is important to note, that the
normal distribution does not lend itself to this type of
analysis, while the Weibull does. It seems obvious that
the more flexible Weibull provides a better model for the
data in all of the cases examined.
The different populations that are evident with the
Weibull analysis are related to differences in the failure
mechanisms of the samples. Recognizing that more than
one failure mode is operating points out that the fabrica-
tion of the samples needs to be further studied to deter-
mine where the two populations originate. Such an analy-
sis is likely to lead to the elimination of the lower popu-
lation and an improvement in the reliability of the mate-
rial and a higher minimum value for designers to work with.
The existence of an early failure mode in the FL-4605
samples with a low threshold and low Weibull shape factor
points out a potentially critical problem. The source of this
early failure should be identified and eliminated. Table I
shows the results for the FL-4605 alloy. In addition to the
two main distributions, there is the early failure data point
that was set aside. This represents only 1% of the total
samples, but still raises the question as to whether a thresh-
old can be used which ignores a data point with a low value.
This could lead to a significant number of samples failing
at much lower than expected value and destroying the re-
liability of the material. Elimination of the causes of this
early failure would dramatically improve the materials reli-
ability, thus making it more suitable for use in critical appli-
cations. Further development of the processing could lead
to the elimination of the 1st main population and a further
increase in the alloys reliability.
17
 Modeling of the Mechanical Properties Variations of P/M Steels

Weibull analysis for entire population. Weibull Analysis without early failure.

3 3

2 2
1
1
0
Ln(Ln(1/(1-P(x))))

Ln(Ln(1/(1-P(x))))
0
11.8 11.9 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4
-1 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
-4 y = 20.098x - 245.86
y = 17.481x - 213.86
-5 R2 = 0.9566 -4 R2 = 0.9579

-6 -5

-7 -6
Ln (TRS) Ln (TRS)
psi psi
Fig 2a Fig 2b

3-parameter, distribution 1. 3-parameter, distribution 2.

2 2

1 1

0 0
Ln(Ln(1/(1-P(x))))
Ln(Ln(1/(1-P(x))))

10 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11 4 6 8 10 12

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
y = 6.7815x - 72.759 y = 1.0904x - 9.9101
R2 = 0.9731 R2 = 0.9612
-4 -4

-5 -5
Ln (TRS) Ln (TRS)
psi psi
Fig 2c Fig 2d

Figure 2. Plots of FL-4605 showing the breakdown analysis of the entire data. 2a) The
Weibull plot for the entire data set. 2b) Weibull distribution with the early failures removed.
2c) 3-parameter Weibull analysis for distribution 1. 2d) 3-parameter Weibull analysis for dis-
tribution 2. The good correlation for the two distributions support the breakdown.

P/M Science & Technology Briefs, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp. 13-21 18
 Joseph W. Newkirk and Sanjay N. Thakur

Normal distribution Weibull distribution

25 25 25 25

20 20 20 20

15 15
Frequency

15 15

Frequency
10 10 10 10

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0
12 0

13 0
15 0
16 0

18 0
19 0
21 0

22 0
24 0
00

12 00
13 00
15 00
16 00
18 00
19 00
21 00
22 00
24 00
00
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
50
00

50
00
50

00
50
00

50
00

50
00
50
00
50
00
50
00
50
00
10

10

psi psi
Fig 3a Fig 3b

Bimodal 2-parameter Weibull

Bimodal 3-parameter Weibull
distribution
distribution
25 25 25 25

20 20 20 20
Frequency

Frequency

15 15 15 15

10 10 10 10

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0
12 00
13 0
15 00
16 0
18 00
19 0
21 00
22 0
24 00
00
0

12 00
13 00
15 00
16 00
18 00
19 00
21 00
22 00
24 00
00
50
00
50
00
50
00
50
00
50
00

50
00
50
00
50
00
50
00
50
00
10

10

psi psi
Fig 3c Fig 3d

Figure 3. Comparison of different statistical models to the actual TRS data for the FL-4605 al-
loy. 3a) Normal distribution. 3b) 2-parameter Weibull distribution. 3c) Bimodal 2-parameter
Weibull distributions. 3d) Bimodal 3-parameter Weibull distributions.

P/M Science & Technology Briefs, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp. 13-21 19
 Joseph W. Newkirk and Sanjay N. Thakur
parameters; however, for a bimodal strength distribution
Bimodal Normal Distribution
25 25
at least 30 samples in each of the two distributions would
be necessary. With smaller sample sizes, not only does
20 20 the uncertainty increase quite markedly but statistical bias
is also encountered. Unless a much larger sample popu-
Frequency

15 15
lation is used, the attribution of this single test point to
10 10
testing or to a material flaw cannot be made.

5 5 GOODNESS-OF-FIT
The goodness-of-fit was performed for evaluation of
0 0 both the 2-parameter and 3-parameter Weibull distribu-
tion. The Shapiro-Wilk-Type correlation statistic was used
12 00

13 00

15 00

16 0

18 00

19 0

21 00

22 00

24 00
00
0

0
50

00

50

00

50

00

50

00

50

00
10

to perform the goodness-of-fit for the two distributions.

psi
Figure 3e This was used because of its greater power against alter-
A closer look at the early failure data point shows native distributions.9 The goodness-of-fit was calculated
that it was contributed by laboratory 28, which was iden- on the ln (property) scale. This extreme value scale was
tified early in the validity test as suspect data. If the data used since the extreme value distributions are defined by
points from this laboratory were ignored, then this early location and scale parameters; the critical values of the
failure would not be present. It is interesting to note that correlation statistic are not dependent on the true shape
the other two data points from this lab fit the expected parameter. The statistic R2 we is the squared correlation
distribution. This may indicate that the problem with the coefficient for the Shapiro-Wilk-Type correlation statis-
data from laboratory 28 was this single datum, and there- tic when the extreme value scale is used for the correla-
fore was caused by a non-systematic error during the test. tion model. Comparing the R2 we calculated values using
However, the possibility that the sample had a flaw in it ln (property) to the critical values obtained from critical
cannot be ruled out. This points out one of the problems value approximations, the hypothesis that the Weibull fits
with this type of analysis, that a significant number of the data was rejected if R2 we was less than the critical
tests must be performed to assure that the distribution is value. The calculation of the squared correlation coeffi-
fully characterized and can be used for critical lifetime cient required the estimate of Weibull shape parameter,
considerations. which was obtained through maximum likelihood esti-
For unimodal distributions at least 30 samples are mate (MLE)10. The calculation of the critical value was
needed to minimize statistical uncertainty in the Weibull done at a significance level of 0.05 (95% confidence).
Table I - Results of Statistical Analysis of FL-4605 Samples

Number of Threshold Correlation Shape Scale parameter

Distributions
Samples (psi) factor parameter (psi)
Distribution
42 146500 0.97 6.8 45660
1
Distribution
53 200500 0.96 1.1 8860
2
Table II - Results of Goodness-of-Fit of FL-4605 Samples for 2-Parameter Weibull
2
Shape parameter by R we Critical value Hypothesis
Distribution
MLE Actual
Distribution 1 with
5.5 0.44 0.95 Rejected
early failure
Distribution 1
without 7.5 0.98 0.94 Not rejected
early failure
Distribution 2 1.2 0.96 0.95 Not rejected

P/M Science & Technology Briefs, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp. 13-21 20
 Modeling of the Mechanical Properties Variations of P/M Steels

Table III - Results of Goodness-of-fit of FL-4605 Samples for 3-parameter Weibull

2
Shape parameter by R we Critical value
Distribution Hypothesis
MLE Actual
Distribution 1 with
5.5 0.44 0.95 Rejected
early failure
Distribution 1
without 7.5 0.98 0.94 Not rejected
early failure
Distribution 2 1.2 0.96 0.95 Not rejected

The whole data can be modeled by a Weibull distri- more testing will be required before the threshold can
bution as shown in Table II. The R2 we statistic value is be used with complete confidence. For transverse rup-
greater than the critical value; hence the hypothesis that ture strength the ranking of the threshold and Six-Sigma
Weibull fits the data cannot be rejected. The R2 we statis- values depended on the material analyzed.
tic is greater for all the 2-parameter Weibull distributions All of the data analyzed showed that the samples
and hence it models the data well. fell into different statistical populations. These popula-
For the 3-parameter Weibull distribution, only the dis- tions should be related to different failure mechanism
tribution with early failure was rejected. This is the same during testing and could be used to develop improved
point, which belongs to laboratory 28, which was earlier processing schemes for greater part reliability.
detected during the interlaboratory testing. Table III shows
that if this point was removed the 3-parameter Weibull ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
also fits the data. Performing the goodness-of-fit confirms The help of the Hoeganaes Corporation, H. Sanderow
that Weibull fits the data and the data can be modeled and PMPA Standards Committee in supplying parts for
using Weibull. this study as well as performing the testing is gratefully
acknowledged. Alicia Adams also contributed to this
CONCLUSIONS work.
A data set of a press and sintered alloy has been ana-
lyzed and it was shown that Weibull statistics produced a References
better fit than normal statistics when describing the re- 1. W. Weibull, J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 18, pp. 293-297, 1951.
2. Herwig Peterlik, Journal of the Ceramic Society of Japan,
sults of mechanical properties testing. Transverse rup- 109(Aug), 2001.
ture strength has been shown to have a non-normal dis- 3. George D. Quinn and Roger Morrell, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 74
tribution. The Weibull distribution more accurately mod- [9] p.2037-66 (1991).
4. R.M. German, Powder Metallurgy Science, 2 nd Ed., p. 378,
els the actual distributions. Normal distributions have tails Metal Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ. 1994.
that reach to infinite values, inconsistent with the behav- 5. G.E. Dieter, Mechanical Metallurgy, 3 rd Ed., p. 370, McGraw-
ior of most metals. The three-parameter Weibull distri- Hill, 1986.
6. J.A. Sago and J.W. Newkirk, Advances in Powder Metallurgy
bution allows for the use of a threshold value, consistent & Particulate Materials-2001, Part 4, MPIF, 2001.
with mechanical properties of metals. The threshold value 7. ASTM E 691-99 Standard Practice for Conducting an
could be used to provide a minimum property for the Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test
Method.
design of parts where a reliable performance in required. 8. K. Jakurs, J.E. Ritter, Jr., T. Service, and D. Sonderman, J.
Threshold could be used to replace Six-Sigma for me- Am. Cer. Soc. 64, C174-C175, 1981.
chanical property values. 9. Two- and Three- Parameter Weibull Goodness-of-Fit Tests,
While the greater accuracy of the Weibull fit to the 10. J.W. Evans, R.A. Johnson, D.W.Green, 1989.
M.J. Crowder, A.C. Kimber, R.L. Smith, and T.J. Sweeting,
data would support the threshold over the Six-Sigma, Statistical Analysis of Reliability Data, Chapman and Hall,
1991.

P/M Science & Technology Briefs, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp. 13-21 21