Advanced Theory for Poisson Shock Models

  • Maxim Finkelstein
  • Ji Hwan Cha
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)


In this chapter, we extend and generalize approaches and results of the previous chapter to various reliability related settings of a more complex nature. We relax some assumptions of the traditional models except the one that defines the underlying shock process as the nonhomogeneous Poisson process (NHPP). Only in the last section, we suggest an alternative to the Poisson process to be called the geometric point process. It is remarkable that although the members of the class of geometric processes do not possess the property of independent increments, some shock models can be effectively described without specifying the corresponding dependence structure. Most of the contents of this chapter is based on our recent work [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] and covers various settings that, we believe, are meaningful both from the theoretical and the practical points of view. The chapter is rather technical in nature; however, general descriptions of results are reasonably simple and illustrated by meaningful examples. As the assumption of the NHPP of shocks is adopted, many of the proofs follow the same pattern by using the time-transformation of the NHPP to the HPP (see the derivation of Eq. ( 2.31)). This technique will be used often in this chapter. Sometimes the corresponding derivations will be reasonably abridged, whereas other proofs will be presented at full length.


  1. 1.
    Aalen OO, Borgan O, Gjessing HK (2008) Survival and event history analysis. A process point of view. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson PK, Borgan O, Gill RD, Keiding N (1993) Statistical models based on counting processes. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beichelt FE, Fischer K (1980) General failure model applied to preventive maintenance policies. IEEE Trans Reliab 29:39–41MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Block HW, Borges WS, Savits TH (1985) Age-dependent minimal repair. J Appl Probab 22:370–386MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cha JH, Finkelstein M (2009) On a terminating shock process with independent wear increments. J Appl Probab 46:353–362MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cha JH, Finkelstein M (2011) On new classes of extreme shock models and some generalizations. J Appl Probab 48:258–270MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cha JH, Finkelstein M (2012a) Stochastic survival models with events triggered by external shocks. Probab Eng Inf Sci 26:183–195MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cha JH, Finkelstein M (2012b) Information-based thinning of point processes and its application to shock models. J Stat Plan Inference 142:2345–2350MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cha JH, Finkelstein M (2012c) A note on the curable shock processes. J Stat Plan Inference 142:3146–3151MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cha JH, Finkelstein M (2013a) A note on the class of geometric point processes. Proba Eng Inf Sci 27:177–186Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cha JH, Finkelstein M (2013b) On generalized shock models for deteriorating systems. Appl Stoch Models Bus Ind 29. doi: 10.1002/asmb.1933
  12. 12.
    Cha JH, Finkelstein M, Marais F (2013). Survival of systems with protection subject to two types of external attacks. Ann Oper Res. doi: 10.1007/s10479-013-1315-6
  13. 13.
    Cha JH, Mi J (2011) On a stochastic survival model for a system under randomly variable environment. Methodol Comput Appl Probab 13:549–561 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cinlar E (1975) Introduction to stochastic processes. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cox DR, Isham V (1980) Point processes. University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finkelstein M (2007) On statistical and information-based virtual age of degrading systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92:676–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Finkelstein M (2008) Failure rate modelling for reliability and risk. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Finkelstein M (1999) Wearing-out components in variable environment. Reliab Eng Sys Saf 66:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Finkelstein M, Marais F (2010) On terminating Poisson processes in some shock models. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:874–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Finkelstein M, Zarudnij VI (2002) Laplace transform methods and fast repair approximations for multiple availability and its generalizations. IEEE Trans Reliab 51:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fleming TR, Harrington DP (1991) Counting processes and survival analysis. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kebir Y (1991) On hazard rate processes. Nav Res Logist 38:865–877MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lemoine AJ, Wenocur ML (1985) On failure modeling. Nav Res Logist 32:497–508MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lemoine AJ, Wenocur ML (1986) A note on shot-noise and reliability modeling. Oper Res 1986(34):320–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nachlas JA (2005) Reliability engineering: probabilistic models and maintenance methods. Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rice J (1977) On generalized shot noise. Adv Appl Probab 9:553–565MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ross SM (1996) Stochastic processes, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ushakov IA, Harrison RA (1994) Handbook of reliability engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical StatisticsUniversity of the Free StateBloemfonteinSouth Africa
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchRostockGermany
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsEwha Womans UniversitySeoulKorea, Republic of South Korea

Personalised recommendations