Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Way of the Quality Warrior
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Fred Schenkelberg 1 Comment

Kruskal-Wallis Test

Kruskal-Wallis Test

This is a non-parametric test to compare ranked data from three or more groups or treatments. The basic idea is to compare the mean value of the rank values and test if the samples could are from the same distribution or if at least one is not.

The null hypothesis is the data from each group would receive about the same mean rank score. We are comparing rank values, not the actual values.

Assumptions

  • The data may be any distribution or an unknown distribution.
  • The data should be continuous and suitable for rank ordering.
  • The observations are mutually independent.

Analysis Steps

  1. Set up the hypothesis test

The null hypothesis, Ho: The k distributions are identical given k different sets of measurements.

The alternative hypothesis, Ha: At least one of the k distributions is different than the others.

Note: the test does not indicate which group or how many are different.

  1. Determine the Test Statistic

The test statistic is calculated with

$$ \large\displaystyle H=\frac{12}{{{n}_{T}}\left( {{n}_{T}}+1 \right)}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}{\frac{T_{i}^{2}}{{{n}_{i}}}-3\left( {{n}_{T}}+1 \right)}$$

Where ni is the number of measurements from sample i,
nT is the total sample size across of sets of measurements,
and, Ti is the sum of the ranks in sample i after assignment of ranks across the combined sample.

  1. Determine the Rejection Region

Given a confidence level, C, let α = 1 – C. Reject Ho if H exceeds the critical value of χ2 for a = α and df = k – 1

  1. Calculate corrected H, H’, if there is a large number of ties in the data, use

$$ \large\displaystyle H’=\frac{H}{1-\left[ \sum\nolimits_{j}{\frac{\left( t_{j}^{3}-{{t}_{j}} \right)}{\left( n_{T}^{3}-{{n}_{T}} \right)}} \right]}$$

where ti is the number of measurements in the nth group of tied ranks.

Sample Problem

Let’s say we are exploring the service life a specific bearing location across three machines to determine if the time to failure is the same for each machine or not.

We know the time to failure data is not normally distributed (most likely Weibull distribution yet we do not have enough data from each machine to determine the Weibull distribution parameter estimates.)

We have the following time to failure data (in months)

Machine A Machine B Machine C
12 14 9
19 20 14
26 14 11
23 16 8
20 22
29

Set up the Hypothesis Test

Ho: There is no difference in bearing time to failure across the three machines.
Ha: At least one machine bearing lifetime is different than the others.

Compute the Test Statistic

  1. Combine the data in rank order and assign ranks.
Combined Data Rank Machine
8 1 C
9 2 C
11 3 C
12 4 A
14 6 C
14 6 B
14 6 B
16 8 B
19 9 A
20 10.5 A
20 10.5 B
22 12 B
23 13 A
26 14 A
29 15 A

For ties, the rank is the average of the span of ranks the group would occupy. For example, in the data, there are three bearings that failed after 14 months. The three values would receive ranks of 5, 6, and 7, therefore, use the average of the three rank values, or 6 in this case.

  1. Now, sort the data back in the three groups and determine the average rank value for each machine. The values in parenthesis are the rank value for that measurement.
Machine A Machine B Machine C
12 (4) 14 (6) 9 (2)
19 (9) 20 (10.5) 14 (6)
26 (14) 14 (6) 11 (3)
23 (13) 16 (8) 8 (1)
20 (10.5) 22 (12)
29 (15)
65.5 42.5 12
  1. Compute H

$$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}H=\frac{12}{15\left( 15+1 \right)}\left[ \frac{{{\left( 65.5 \right)}^{2}}}{6}+\frac{{{\left( 42.5 \right)}^{2}}}{5}+\frac{{{\left( 12 \right)}^{2}}}{4} \right]-3\left( 15+1 \right)\\H=\frac{12}{240}\left( 715.04+361.25+36 \right)-48\\H=7.61\end{array}$$

Note: there are only 5 measurements in ties. In general, a use H’ when there are over half the values involved in ties.

  1. Determine the Rejection Region

The critical value of the χ2 distribution with α = 0.05 and df = k – 1 = 2. Using a χ2 table we find a critical value of 5.991.

  1. Conclusion

Since the test statistics is greater than the critical value (in the rejection region) we conclude that at least one of the machines wears out bearings at a different rate than the others.

A box plot may provide additional information and is a good way to visualize the data from the three machines.

3 machine bearing life boxplot


Related:

Moods Median Test (article)

Levene’s Test (article)

Mann-Whitney U Test (article)

 

Filed Under: Articles, CRE Preparation Notes, Probability and Statistics for Reliability Tagged With: Non-parametric statistical methods

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« The Music of Data
Talking about Reliability »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CRE Preparation Notes

Article by Fred Schenkelberg

Join Accendo

Join our members-only community for full access to exclusive eBooks, webinars, training, and more.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Get Full Site Access

Not ready to join?
Stay current on new articles, podcasts, webinars, courses and more added to the Accendo Reliability website each week.
No membership required to subscribe.

[popup type="" link_text="Get Weekly Email Updates" link_class="button" ]

[/popup]

  • CRE Preparation Notes
  • CRE Prep
  • Reliability Management
  • Probability and Statistics for Reliability
  • Reliability in Design and Development
  • Reliability Modeling and Predictions
  • Reliability Testing
  • Maintainability and Availability
  • Data Collection and Use

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy