The Extreme Value Distribution and Application of Decarburization of Piston Rod

Article Preview

Abstract:

Gumbel extreme value distribution is used to predict the maximum depth of decarburization of piston rod. The results show that: 1) The prediction maximum depth of decarburization of piston rod should include four steps: data collection, parameter estimation, distribution test and maximum value prediction. 2) The maximum depth of decarburization of piston rod consistent with Gumbel minimum distribution. 3) When the return period is 1000, the predicted maximum depth of decarburization is (0.12 ± 0.01) mm, (k = 2).

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Pages:

125-133

Citation:

Online since:

April 2021

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2021 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

[1] ISO 3887:2017 Steels — Determination of the depth of decarburization[S].

Google Scholar

[2] ISO 4967:2013 Steel — Determination of content of non-metallic inclusions — Micrographic method using standard diagrams[S].

Google Scholar

[3] ASTM E930-99(2007) Standard Test Methods for Estimating the Largest Grain Observed in a Metallographic Section (ALA Grain Size)[S].

DOI: 10.1520/e0930-99

Google Scholar

[4] ASTM E2375-16 Standard Practice for Ultrasonic Testing of Wrought Products[S].

Google Scholar

[5] ISO 148-1:2016 Metallic materials — Charpy pendulum impact test — Part 1: Test method[S].

Google Scholar

[6] ISO 6892-1:2019 Metallic materials — Tensile testing — Part 1: Method of test at room temperature[S].

Google Scholar

[7] Shi daoji. Practical statistical method of extreme value[M]. Tianjin: Tianjin Science and Technology Press, (2006).

Google Scholar

[8] LIU Wen-qing. The Methods of MLE Numerical Calculate Using Excel Sof tware[J]. Application of Statistics and Management, 2006, 25(5): 544-548.

Google Scholar

[9] ISO/IEC GUIDE 98-3:2008/SUPPL 2:2011Uncertainty of measurement — Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995) — Supplement 2: Extension to any number of output quantities[S].

Google Scholar

[10] GB 50199-2013 Unified standard for reliability design of hydraulic engineering structures [S].

Google Scholar

[11] GB 5009-2012 Load code for the design of building structures[S].

Google Scholar

[12] Melchers R E. Extreme value statistics and long-term marine pitting corrosion of steel[J]. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 2008, 23(4): 482−488.

DOI: 10.1016/j.probengmech.2007.09.003

Google Scholar

[13] Zhou Guoqiang, Wang Xueqing, Liu Rui. A modified generalized extreme value distribution methodology to predict the maximum corrosion depth of nuclear pipes[J]. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), 2013, 44(5): 1926-1931.

Google Scholar

[14] LI Jan-hui, ZHAN Ke-qiang, DENG Zong-cai. Distribution Regularity of Flexural Impact Resistance of Synthetic Macro-fiber Reinforced Concrete[J].Journal of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2007, 24(4): 54-59.

Google Scholar

[15] ZHOU Ze-ren, SHU Yin-biao, DONG Cun, etc. Statistical Analysis of Wind Energy Distribution Based on Mixture Weibull Distribution Model[J]. Journal of Applied Statistics and Management,.

Google Scholar

[16] JIANG Ping, XING Yun-yan, WANG Bo, etc. Storage Reliability Prediction Method for Missiles Undergoing Periodic Maintenance[J]. Missiles and Space Vehicles, 2020, 373(2): 99-104,110.

Google Scholar

[17] ASTM E2283-08(2019)Standard Practice for Extreme Value Analysis of Nonmetallic Inclusions in Steel and Other Microstructural Features[S].

DOI: 10.1520/jai100418

Google Scholar

[18] Hou Shu-min, LI You-rong, LIU Guang-lin. Application of K-S Test and Wavelet Analysis in Rolling Bearing Fault Diagnosis[J]. Coal Mine Machinery, 2005, (1): P129-130.

Google Scholar

[19] Nan Bo. Statistical analysis of snow load based on K-S inspection method[J]. Journal of Lanzhou University of technology. 2012, 38(1): P115-119.

Google Scholar

[20] LIU Zhi-fei, YAN Pei-jun, XU Ren-ping, etc. Effect of Strain Age on Impact Toughness of ADB610 Steel[J]. Development and Application of Materials. 2013, 28(3): 36-39.

Google Scholar

[21] DIAO Hongquan, LIN Jiahui, Yao Huiming. Statistical parameter estimation method and application of Gumbel distribution[J], Science and Technology Innovation Herald, 2019 , (08): 130-132.

Google Scholar

[22] ZHANG Xinsheng, CAO Naining, LI Yayun. Residual Life Prediction of Buried Oil and Gas Pipelines Based on Gumbel Extreme Value Type I Distribution[J]. Journal of Chinese Society for Corrosion and Protection, 2016, 36(4): 370-374.

Google Scholar

[23] DONG Shuanglin. Statistical analysis of parameter estimation methods for Gumbel distribution[J]. SHUI LI XUE BAO, 1987,(11):35-42.

Google Scholar

[24] HU De, GUO Gangzheng. Application Comparison of least square method, moment method and maximum likelihood method[J]. Statistics & Decision, 2015, (9): 20-24.

Google Scholar

[25] LI Shun-jing. Maximum Likelihood Estimator Method Based on Incomplete Data - EM Algorithm[J]. J Chongqing Technol Business Univ. ( Nat Sci Ed), 2014, 31(5): 29-33.

Google Scholar

[26] CHEN Wenqing. The Basic Thought about Maximum Likelihood Method and Application [J]. Journal of Shaoguan University (Natural Sience), 1996, 17(4):24-27.

Google Scholar

[27] FEI Shao-ji. An Approach to Maximum Likelihood Estimation[J]. Sichuan University of Arts and Science Journal (Natural Science Edition), 2008,18(5):1-3.

Google Scholar

[28] Shi yimin, Xu Wei, Qin chaoying, etc. Mathematical Statistics[M]. Beijing: Beijing Science Press, (2015).

Google Scholar

[29] Sheng zou, Xie shiqian, Pan chengyi. Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, (2008).

Google Scholar

[30] YUN Wenzai. Comparison of statistical methods for testing distribution [J]. Inner Mongolia Statistics, 2008, (1):39-40.

Google Scholar

[31] DING Yongmei, LIU Lijun, LEI Qing. Discussion on Parameter Estimation Methods of Gumbel Distribution[J]. Journal of Xuzhou Institute of technology (Natural Sciences Edition), 2018, 33(3): 61-67.

Google Scholar