A comparison of traditional and maximum likelihood approaches to estimating thermal indices for polymeric materials
A comparison of traditional and maximum likelihood approaches to estimating thermal indices for polymeric materials
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/00224065.2018.1406770
复制
发表时间：
2018-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Caleb King;Yimeng Xie;Yili Hong;J. Van Mullekom;Stephanie P. Dehart;P. Defeo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Caleb King;Yimeng Xie;Yili Hong;J. Van Mullekom;Stephanie P. Dehart;P. Defeo
加速破坏性降解试验（ADDT）是一种广泛应用的材料长期性能评价技术。一个应用领域是测定包括热塑性、热固性和弹性体材料的聚合物材料的热指数（TI）。有两种方法来估计一个TI的基础上收集的数据从ADDT：传统的和最大似然（ML）的程序。传统的方法在现行的工业标准中有规定，并广泛用于工业应用。ML过程经常在统计文献中使用，但在工业ADDT应用中很少见到。目前，ML程序在现行标准中没有规定。在这篇文章中，我们比较两种方法与两个激励数据集的文献和模拟研究。我们表明，ML过程中有许多优势，在传统的过程中的估计性能，不确定性量化，材料的比较，和预测。本文的比较和讨论可为今后行业标准的统计方法设计提供参考。
ABSTRACT Accelerated destructive degradation testing (ADDT) is a widely used technique for long-term material property evaluation. One area of application is in determining the thermal index (TI) of polymeric materials including thermoplastic, thermosetting, and elastomeric materials. There are two approaches to estimating a TI based on data collected from ADDT: the traditional and maximum likelihood (ML) procedures. The traditional procedure is specified in current industrial standards and is widely used in industrial applications. The ML procedure is frequently used in the statistical literature but rarely seen in industrial ADDT applications. At present, the ML procedure is not specified in the current standards. In this article, we compare both approaches with two motivating data sets from the literature and simulation studies. We show that the ML procedure has many advantages over the traditional procedure in terms of estimation performance, uncertainty quantification, material comparisons, and predictions. The comparisons and discussion in this article can be useful in designation of statistical methods for future industrial standards.