Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-md2j5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-14T17:28:50.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2010

Ramesh C. Gupta
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5752 E-mail:
Weston Viles
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215 E-mail:


The investigation in this article was motivated by an extended generalized inverse Gaussian (EGIG) distribution, which has more than one turning point of the failure rate for certain values of the parameters. In order to study the turning points of a failure rate, we appeal to Glaser's eta function, which is much simpler to handle. We present some general results for studying the reationship among the change points of Glaser's eta function, the failure rate, and the mean residual life function (MRLF). Additionally we establish an ordering among the number of change points of Glaser's eta function, the failure rate, and the MRLF. These results are used to investigate, in detail, the monotonicity of the three functions in the case of the EGIG. The EGIG model has one additional parameter, δ, than the generalized inverse Gaussian (GIG) model's three parameters; see Jorgensen [7]. It has been observed that the EGIG model fits certain datasets better than the GIG of Jorgensen [7]. Thus, the purpose of this article is to present some general results dealing with the relationship among the change points of the three functions described earlier. The EGIG model is used as an illustration.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)


1.Al-Zamel, A., Ali, I., & Kalla, S. (2002). A unified form of gamma-type and inverse gaussian distributions. Hadronic Journal 25: 121.Google Scholar
2.Bekker, L. & Mi, J. (2003). Shape and crossing properties of mean residual life functions. Statistics and Probability Letters 64: 225234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Bryson, M.C. & Siddiqui, M.M. (1969). Some criteria for aging. Journal of the American Statistical Association 64: 14721483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Glaser, R.E. (1980). Bathtub and related failure rate characterizations. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75(371): 667672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Gupta, R.C. & Akman, H.O. (1995). Mean residual life function for certain types of non-monotonic ageing. Communications in Statistics: Stochastic Models 11: 219225.Google Scholar
6.Gupta, R.C. & Warren, R. (2001). Determination of change points of non-monotonic failure rates. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods 30(8): 19031920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Jorgensen, B. (1982). Statistical properties of the generalized inverse Gaussian distribution, Vol. 9. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Tang, L.C., Lu, Y., & Chew, E.P. (1999). Mean residual life of lifetime distributions. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 48(1): 7378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Wong, K.L. (1988). The bathtub does not hold water anymore. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 4: 279282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Wong, K.L. (1989). The roller-coaster curve is in. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 5: 2936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Wong, K.L. (1991). The physical basis for the roller-coaster hazard rate curve for electronics. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 7: 489495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar