Copyright © 200 IEEE.

Reprinted from "200 PROCEEDINGS

Annual RELIABILITY and MAINTAINABILITY Symposium,"

 , USA, January 2-2, 200.

This material is posted here with permission of the IEEE. Such

permission of the IEEE does not in any way imply IEEE
endorsement of any of ReliaSoft Corporation's products or
services. Internal or personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to reprint/republish this material for
advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective
works for resale or redistribution must be obtained from the IEEE
by writing to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.

By choosing to view this document, you agree to all provisions of

the copyright laws protecting it.
 Warranty Prediction for Products with Random Stresses and Usages
Huairui Guo, PhD, ReliaSoft Corporation
Arai Monteforte, ReliaSoft Corporation
Adamantios Mettas, ReliaSoft Corporation
Doug Ogden, ReliaSoft Corporation
Key Words: warranty prediction, random stresses, random usages, stress-strength model, Monte Carlo simulation
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS the effect of the random stresses on the product life can be
quantitatively estimated.
Making accurate warranty predictions is challenging. It
In the following sections, the theory of life-stress
becomes even more challenging when products are operated
relationships in accelerated testing is discussed first. Then
under random stresses and random usages. Traditional method
methods for predicting warranty returns for two different
only uses the average values of these random variables for
situations are provided. In the first situation, the probability of
warranty prediction. The randomness of the variables is
failure during the warranty period is affected only by random
ignored, which may result in inaccurate results. This paper
stresses. In the second situation, the failure is a function of
presents methods to solve this issue. Solutions for two
both random stresses and random customer usages.
different situations are discussed. In the first situation, only
random stresses are the major concern. In the second situation, 2 THEORY ON ACCELERATED TESTING AND LIFE-
both random stresses and random customer usages are STRESS RELATIONSHIPS
considered. Two analytical solutions, the exact and the
The life-stress relationship function explains how stresses
approximated solution, are provided for each case. The
affect product life. In this function, life is represented by a
comparison shows that, although they are simple to use,
approximated solutions can be very different from the exact percentile of the failure distribution, t p . In general, the
results. In this paper, not only the mean value of the warranty function can be written in a log-linear form:
prediction, but also the variances and intervals of the tp eD 0 D1S1 D1S2 ... (1)
prediction are calculated. This is much better because interval
estimate provides more information than a simple point S i is the stress or a transformation of the stress. If we assume
estimate. The proposed methods can be applied to many there is only one stress, based on different transformations, the
industries such as electronic, automobile and home appliance life stress relationship in equation (1) can be [2]:
companies. ­ B

°°t p Ae S Arrhenius (2)

1 INTRODUCTION ® 1
°t p Inverse Power Law
Warranty prediction is one of the most important issues in ¯° K ˜Sn
reliability engineering. In the prediction of warranty returns, The percentile is selected according to the life characteristic of
operating stresses and customer usage data must be accounted different life time distributions. Some typical life
for [1]. Usually, nominal or average values of the operating characteristics are presented in Table 1.
stresses are used. However, stresses are often not constant.
Instead, they are random and can be described using pdf (Probability Density Life
distributions. For example, not every user accumulates 12,000 Distribution
Function) Characteristic
miles per year on a vehicle, nor does every user print the same E 1 §t ·
E
Scale
number of pages per week on a printer. Therefore, using a E §t· ¨¨ ¸¸
©K ¹
Weibull ¨¨ ¸¸ e Parameter
single constant value for a random variable in the calculation K ©K ¹ (K )
is not appropriate. The randomness of the stresses and usage Mean Life
must be considered. By considering the randomness, a Exponential O e  Ot (1/ O )
confidence interval rather than a single value of the warranty 1 § ln( t )  P ·
2

1  ¨ ¸
return can be calculated. In this paper, methods for obtaining Lognormal e 2© V ¹ Median ( e P )
the confidence interval will be provided. tV 2S
To accurately predict the warranty returns, the life-stress
Table 1 – Typical Life Characteristics
relationship needs to be established first, mainly through
accelerated tests. Once the life-stress relationship is obtained, The life-stress relationship can be integrated into a lifetime

1-4244-2509-9/09/$20.00 ©2009 IEEE

distribution. For example, assume there are two independent Equation (5) is an approximation of equation (6). This is from
stresses. The life-stress relationship for one stress is Arrhenius the Taylor series expansion. According to the Taylor series
and for the other stress it is the inverse power law. The expansion, the value of probability of failure can be
combined life-stress relationship is: approximated by:
B B
1 F (t0 , S1 , S2 ) F (t0 , S1 , S 2 )
S1 S1
tp Ae Ce / S 2n (3) (8)
KS 2n 2
w ( n ) F (t0 , S1 , S 2 ) S S1
¦ ( S  S ) n 1
 ...
n! w ( n ) Si
i i
The above equation can be integrated into a life distribution, i 1 S1 S2
such as the Weibull distribution. For a Weibull distribution, If we assume the terms with order of 2 or higher can be
t p K . The Weibull model is: ignored, the expected value of the probability of failure at t 0
E
§ B ·
E 1 ¨ n  S1 ¸
§ n · 
B

B
 ¨ tS 2 e ¸ is:
E>F (t0 , S1 , S2 )@
¨ ¸
¨ tS e ¸
E S 2n e S1 S1
¨
C
¸ F (t0 , S1 , S2 ) (9)
f (t , S 1 , S 2 ) ¨ 2
¸ e (4) © ¹
C ¨¨ C ¸¸ If all the stresses are independent, the variance of the
© ¹ probability of failure at t 0 can be approximated by:
In the above equations (1-4), stress S can be either a constant 2
ª wF (t0 , S1 , S2 ) º
2
or a random variable. Var>F (t0 , S1 , S2 )@
¦ « » Var ( Si )
(10)
In order to estimate the parameters in equation (4), failure i 1¬ wSi ¼
data are needed, so accelerated life tests are conducted to where Var( S i ) is the variance of the ith stress.
obtain failure data first. Then, an estimation method such as If we assume only the terms with order of 3 or higher can
the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) method is utilized be ignored, the expected value of the probability of failure at
for estimating the model parameters [3]. t 0 is:
In the following sections, we assume that the model 2
parameters have been correctly estimated. We will use the § w ( 2 ) F (t0 , S1 , S 2 ) ·
2
F (t0 , S1, S2 ) F (t0 , S1 , S 2 )  ¦ ¨¨ ¸¸ Var ( Si ) (11)
model to predict the probability of failures for a warranty i 1 © 2! w ( 2 ) Si ¹
period when the stresses are random. and the variance is:
2
3 WARRANTY PREDICTION BASED ON RANDOM 2
§ wF (t0 , S1 , S 2 ) ·
OPERATING STRESSES Var >F (t0 , S1 , S 2 )@ ¦ ¨¨ ¸¸ Var ( Si )
i 1 © wSi ¹ (12)
3.1 Theory on Functions of Random Variables 2
§ w ( 2 ) F (t0 , S1 , S2 ) ·
 
2

Consider a product with two random stresses: temperature  ¦ ¨¨ ¸¸ Var ( Si  Si ) 2

i 1 © 2! w ( 2 ) Si ¹
and voltage. Its failure time distribution is given in equation
All the derivatives in the above equations are calculated at the
(4). In the traditional method for warranty prediction, the
mean values of the stresses. In this paper, approximations in
average stress values are used in the calculation. Then, the
equation (9) and (10) are used. The first order derivatives for
predicted probability of failure by the end of the warranty
S1 and S2 are:
period of t 0 is: E
B§ t · E
ª § B E
· º wF ECB  S ¨¨© K ¸¸¹ §t· ;
¨

¸ e 1
¨¨ ¸¸
F (t0, S1 , S 2 ) 1  exp« tS2 e / C »
n S (5)
1
wS1 KS 2n S12 ©K ¹
« ¨ ¸ »
¬« © ¹ ¼» B§t ·
E
E
Instead of using the mean value of each stress, we can use wF EnC  S ¨¨ ¸¸
1 ©K ¹
§t·
e ¨¨ ¸¸
their distributions to obtain the expected probability of failure. wS2 KS2n 1 ©K ¹
Assume the distribution for S i is g i ( s i ) and all the stresses
3.2 Example
are independent. The expected probability of failure is:
E >F (t0 , S1 , S 2 )@ Consider a component under two stresses: temperature
(6) and voltage. The temperature-nonthermal life-stress
­ ª § B
· º ½°
E
f f ° ¨

¸ relationship of equation (3) is used. Accelerated tests are
³ ³ ®1  exp  ¨ tS 2 e / C ¸ » ¾g1 ( S1 ) g 2 ( S 2 )dS1dS 2
« n S1
0 0
°̄ « » conducted and a portion of the data is given in Table 2.
¬ © ¹ ¼ °¿
The life distribution is the Weibull distribution. The
The variance of the probability of failure is: estimated parameters using MLE are:
> @
Var>F (t0 , S1, S2 )@ E F (t0 , S1 , S2 )2  E>F (t0 , S1 , S2 )@
2
 =1.434; B =1986.038; C=125.962; n = 1.8763
2
­ ª § B
· º ½°
E The Weibull probability plot at the test stresses is given in
f f ° ¨

¸ (7)
³ ³ ®1  exp  ¨ tS2 e / C ¸ » ¾ g1 ( S1 ) g 2 ( S2 )dS1dS2
« Figure 1.
n S1
0 0
°̄ « »
¬ © ¹ ¼ °¿ From the design specifications, it is known that the operating
temperature and voltage are random variables following
 E>F (t0 , S1 , S2 )@
2
normal distributions. They are assumed to be independent
from each another. The distribution parameters are given in F F (t0, S1 , S2 ) . The upper and lower 90% two-sided bounds
Table 3. for this example are [0.030, 0. 289].
To validate whether the approximation results are
Time Failed (hrs) Temperature (K) Voltage (V) accurate enough, the exact analytical solutions of the expected
108 348 10 probability of failure and its variance are also calculated using
116 348 10 the integrals in equation (6) and (7). They are:
27 348 15 E>F (t0 , S1 , S2 )@ 0.115 ; Var>F (t0 , S1 , S2 )@ 0.006
48 348 15 As expected, they are slightly larger than the approximated
51 378 10 solutions because the high order terms are ignored in equation
85 378 10 (9) and (10). The exact analytical solution for the confidence
138 378 15 bounds of the probability of failure is [0.036, 0.312]. For this
example, the approximated and exact analytical solutions are
148 378 15
very close.
… … …
In the above analysis, the uncertainty (randomness) of the
Table 2 – Failure Data for the Two Stresses Example operating stresses is considered in the calculation. The
ReliaSoft ALTA 7 - www.ReliaSoft.com uncertainly of the model parameters is not considered. The
Probability - Weibull
model parameters are estimated from the available failure
6 .0
4 .0
3 .0

2 .0
1 .6
1 .4
1 .2

1 .0
0 .9

0 .8

0 .7

0 .6

0 .5

E
99.000
Probability data. Their uncertainty can be greatly reduced if there is a
90.000 Data 1
Temperature-NonThermal large enough sample size or enough history information.
Weibull

T
348|10
F=20 | S=0
However, the uncertainty caused by the random stresses
Stress Level Points
50.000 Stress Level Line
348|15
cannot be reduced. It is embedded in the product operation. If
F=20 | S=0
Stress Level Points one wants to integrate the uncertainty of model parameters in
Stress Level Line
Unr eliability

378|10
F=20 | S=0
the calculation, equation (8) can be expanded by treating
Stress Level Points
Stress Level Line
378|15
model parameters as random variables. For details, please
10.000
F=20 | S=0
Stress Level Points refer to [4, 5].
Stress Level Line
5.000
3.3 Simulation Results

6/25/2008
In section 3.2, the exact and approximated analytical
9:53:06 AM
1.000
5.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000 solutions are provided for the example. Both solutions require
Time
Beta=1.434; B=1986.038; C=125.962; n=1.876 intensive computation. In this section, simulation solutions are
given. Using Monte Carlo simulation to solve problems with
Figure 1 – Weibull Probability Plot of the Test Stresses
random stresses is easy and straight forward. The simulation
Stress Distribution Parameters procedure is:
Temperature Normal N ( P 300, V 10) x Generate n set of random number for (S1, S2).
Voltage Normal N ( P 8,V 2) x Calculate F (t0 , S1 , S 2 ) for each set of (S1, S2).
Table 3 – Distribution for the Two Random Stresses x Get the mean and variance for the n F (t0 , S1 , S 2 ) .
Fortunately, it is not necessary to write new simulation
Assume the warranty time is 400 hours. The expected
code. Simulation software packages such as ReliaSoft’s
probability of failure and its variance can be obtained using
RENO can be used. For this example, 10,000 simulation runs
equation (9) and (10). The expected value is:
were conducted in RENO, taking about 1 minute to complete
E>F (t0 , S1 , S2 )@ F (t0 , S1 , S2 )
the simulation. The mean and variance for the probability of
0.101 failure at warranty time of 400 are 0.114 and 0.006. These
and the variance is: values are very close to the exact analytical solutions and are
2
2
ª wF (t0 , S1 , S 2 ) º more accurate than the approximated solutions.
Var>F (t 0 , S1 , S 2 )@ ¦ « » Var ( S1 )
i 1 ¬ wSi ¼ 4 WARRANTY PREDICTION BASED ON RANDOM STRESS
(0.003) u100  (0.032) u 4
2 2
AND USAGE PROFILE
0.005 In section 3, we discussed how to make accurate warranty
Once the mean and variance of the probability of failure are prediction by considering the randomness of random stresses
obtained, its confidence bounds can be easily calculated by in the calculation. In some applications, such as washing
assuming that the logarithm of F ( t 0 , S 1 , S 2 ) is normally machines, the warranty return is not only related to a random
distributed [5]: stress such as load, but is also affected by random customer
F F (13) usage. In this section, a stress-strength based method will be
[ , ]
F  (1  F ) w F  (1  F ) / w proposed to solve this complicated problem.
where F F (t 0, S1 , S 2 ) , w exp{z1D / 2 Var ( F ) /[ F (1  F )]} and
4.1 Theory on Stress-Strength Model the usage profile of its customers. The average loads and
average hours of using the machine were recorded for each
The stress-strength model is widely used in structural
user. Since this usage information was available, the company
reliability calculation [6-8]. Assume the strength distribution
wanted to use it to make more realistic estimates of the
is F1(X) and stress distribution is F2(X). The expected
failures of the motors used in the washing machine for a 5
probability of failure is defined as:
year warranty period.
E >F1 ( X 2 )@ P( X 1  X 2 )
f
³
0
P( X 1  x) f 2 ( x)dx
(14) First, accelerated testing was conducted to establish the
f life-stress (load) relationship. Failures were recorded in hours.
³ 0
F1 ( x) f 2 ( x)dx A Weibull-IPL (inverse power law) model was used and the
where Fi (x ) is the CDF (cumulative distribution function) and parameters were estimated from the failure data. They are:
1 =2.350; K=1.692E-5; n = 1.520
pdf (probability density function). Figure 2 compares a stress
The pdf of this failure time distribution is denoted as f(t).
distribution and a strength distribution.
From the survey data, the analyst found the average load
ReliaSoft Weibull++ 7 - www.ReliaSoft.com is 7.162 lbs and the average usage duration per week is 2.9
Probability Density Function
0.400
Pdf hours. Given a 5 year warranty, the total average operating
Strength\Data 1 time is 754 hours. Applying these two average numbers to the
Weibull-2P
warranty prediction, the predicted probability of failure is:
> @
MLE SRM MED FM
F=0/S=0

p ( x  754 | S 7.162) 1  exp  tKS n  1

0.320
Pdf Line E
Stress\Data 1 (15)
1  exp> (754 u 1.692 E  5 u 7.162 ) @ 0.039
Weibull-2P
MLE SRM MED FM 1.52 2.35
0.240 F=0/S=0
Pdf Line

However, because more information is available in the

f(t)

0.160
customer usage data, instead of simply using the average
values, the distribution of the load and the operating hour can
be used. The analyst calculated the load distribution from the
0.080
survey data using a Weibull distribution. The parameters are:
ReliaSoft Corporation
6/25/2008
2=5; 2 = 7.8
0.000
0.000 4.000 8.000 12.000 16.000 20.000
1:46:47 PM
The pdf of the load distribution is denoted as l(s).
Strength\Data 1: E K 
Time, (t)
It was found that the average hours and average loads are
E K 
Stress\Data 1:
correlated. For the customers with larger average loads, longer
Figure 2 –Comparison of Stress and Strength Distributions operating hours are expected. In order to utilize this
information, the analyst applied a Weibull distribution to the
The larger the overlap area in Figure 2 is, the greater the operating hours and treated the scale parameter  as a function
probability of failure. of load. A general log-linear function was used for the -load
The stress-strength method is also traditionally used in the relation, which is:
automobile industry for warranty prediction [9]. For example,
K 3 e D 0 D 1 S
the usage distribution in a 3 year warranty period can be
thought of as stress and the strength is the failure distribution where S is the load. The parameters in the model for the 5 year
in terms of miles. The predicted probability of failure in the operating hour are:
warranty period is calculated using equation (14). For the 3 =2; 0=6.094; 1= 0.0896
automobile industry, a typical warranty policy is 3 years and This pdf operating hour distribution is denoted as g(x).
36,000 miles. So equation (14) can be modified to consider So far, three distributions (the life distribution of the
only vehicles with mileage less than 36,000. The modified motor, the load distribution and the usage hour distribution of
equation is: customers) are available for the warranty return calculation.
36 , 000 The expected probability of failure by the end of the 5th year
P( X 1  X 2 | X 2  36,000) ³ 0
P( X 1  x) f 2 ( x)dx
can be calculated using the stress-strength model with the
36 , 000 three distributions.
³ 0
F1 ( x) f 2 ( x)dx
First, for a given load s, the expected probability of failure
where Fi (x ) is the probability of failure at mileage of x and is:
f 2 ( x) is the pdf of the usage mileage distribution at x. E >F ( X | s)@ p (T  X | s)
For the automobiles, only the random usage is considered f

in the calculation. For washing machines, the warranty returns ³

0
p(T  x | s) g ( x | s)dx (16)

are affected not only by the random usage but also by the f

random load. In section 4.2, a method of solving problems like ³

0
F ( x | s) g ( x | s)dx
the washing machine example will be provided. Then, treating load as a random variable, the overall
probability of failure is:
4.2 Example
A washing machine manufacturer conducted a survey on
 E F ( X , S )  E E >F ( X | s)@ 4.3 Simulation Results
f (17)
³0
p (T  X | s )l ( s)ds The simulation procedure is:
f f
x Generate a random number for stress S
³ ³
0 0
F ( x | s) g ( x | s)l ( s )dxds x Use this S to generate a random number of usage X
The variance of the probability of failure is: x Use S and X to calculate F ( X , S ) .
>
Var>F ( X , S )@ E F ( X , S )2  E>F ( X , S )@
2
@ (18)
x Repeat above steps for n times and get n F ( X , S )
f f x Get the mean and variance for the n F ( X , S ) .
³0 ³0 >F ( x | s)@ g ( x | s)l (s)dxds  E>F ( X , S )@
2 2

For this example, 10,000 simulation runs were conducted

where: in RENO, taking about 1.5 minutes to complete the
E1
§ x ·
¨¨ ¸¸ simulation. The mean and variance for the probability of
© K1 ¹
F ( x | s) 1  e ; failure at a warranty time of 5 years are 0.075 and 0.014.
E 3 1 § x ·
E3 These results are very close to the exact analytical solutions
E3 § x ·  ¨¨
© K3
¸
¸ and much better than the approximation results.
g ( x | s) ¨¨ ¸¸ e ¹ ;
K3 ©K3 ¹ 5 CONCLUSION
E2
E 2 1 § s ·
E2 § s ·  ¨¨
© K2
¸¸ In this paper, methods for warranty prediction of products
l (s) ¨ ¸ e ¹ ;
K 2 ¨© K 2 ¸¹ with random operating stresses and random customer usages
are discussed. Analytical solutions are provided for the case
1 studies. Because of the complexity of the procedure for
K1 ;
1.692E  5 u s 1.52 obtaining the analytical solutions, the use of simulation to
obtain the solutions is also illustrated. Unlike the traditional
K3 e 6.094  0.0896 s
method which can only calculate the mean value of the
Equation (17) and (18) can be solved numerically. warranty failures and ignores the randomness of the stresses
Commercial software packages such as Mathcad can be used. and usages, the proposed methods can calculate both mean
For this example, the result for the mean value in equation and variance by integrating the randomness of stresses and
(17) and the variance from equation (18) are: usage into the calculation. This is much better because interval
E>F ( X , S )@ 0.076 ; Var>F ( X , S )@ 0.014 estimate provides more information than a simple point
Using these two values, the 90% confidence interval for the estimate. Comparisons show that simulation results are very
probability of failure is [0.005, 0.568]. accurate. Consequently, it should be preferred by engineers,
Equation (17) can be shown to be similar to equation (6). given the complexity of obtaining the analytical solutions.
Therefore, the approximation methods for the mean and
REFERENCES
variance in section 3 can be extended to use here. However,
because of the complexity of the problem, the approximation 1. A. Mettas, “Reliability Predictions Based on Customer
results are not close to the exact analytical solutions anymore. Usage Stress Profiles,” Proc. Ann. Reliability &
To use the mean value of the load and usage to calculate the Maintainability Symp., (Jan.), 2005.
probability of failure, we first need to obtain these two mean 2. ReliaSoft, Accelerated Life Testing Reference, ReliaSoft
values. They are: Publication, 2007.
f f
3. W. Nelson, Accelerated Testing: Statistical Models, Test
E ( x) ³ ³
0 0
xg ( x, s)l ( s)dxds 754
Plans, and Data Analyses, New York, John Wiley &
and Sons, 1990.
f
E (s) ³0
sl ( s) 7.162 4. ReliaSoft, Life Data Analysis Reference, ReliaSoft
Publication, 2007.
Using these two values, the predicted probability of failure is
5. W. Q. Meeker and L. A. Escobar, Statistical Methods for
0.039, as given in equation (15). This value is very different
Reliability Data, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
from the exact analytical solution of 0.076 obtained by
6. J. Tang and J. Zhao, “A Practical Approach For
equation (17). Therefore, the approximated analytical solution
Predicting Fatigue Reliability Under Random Cyclic
from the Taylor series expansion is not accurate for this
Loading,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol.
example.
50, 1995, 7-15.
From the above calculation procedure, it can be seen that
7. O. Gaudoin and J. L. Soler, “Failure Rate Behavior of
obtaining an analytical solution for the probability of failure
Components Subjected to Random Stresses,” Reliability
becomes very challenging when multiple random variables are
Engineering and System Safety, vol. 58, 1997, 19-30.
involved. It becomes even more complicated when these
8. H. Chang and Y. Shi, “A Practical Reliability Analysis
variables are correlated. Therefore, simulation becomes an
Method for Engineers,” Reliability Engineering and
attractive option. In section 4.3, the simulation solutions for
System Safety, vol. 47, 1995, 93-95.
the above example are provided.
9. M. W. Lu and R. J. Rudy, “Reliability Test Target
 Development,” Proc. Ann. Reliability & Maintainability University of Arizona. Her areas of research and interest
Symp., (Jan.), 2000. include stochastic event simulation and system reliability and
maintainability analysis.
BIOGRAPHIES
Adamantios Mettas
Huairui Guo, PhD
Vice President, Product Development
Director, Theoretical Development
ReliaSoft Corporation
ReliaSoft Corporation
1450 S. Eastside LP
1450 S. Eastside LP
Tucson, Arizona 85710, USA
Tucson, Arizona 85710, USA
e-mail: Adamantios.Mettas@ReliaSoft.com
e-mail: Harry.Guo@ReliaSoft.com
Mr. Mettas is the Vice President of product development at
Dr. Huairui Guo is the Director of Theoretical Development at
ReliaSoft Corporation. He fills a critical role in the
ReliaSoft Corporation. He received his PhD in Systems and
advancement of ReliaSoft's theoretical research efforts and
Industrial Engineering from the University of Arizona. His
formulations in the subjects of life data analysis, accelerated
dissertation focuses on process modeling, diagnosis and
life testing, and system reliability and maintainability. He has
control for complex manufacturing processes. He has
played a key role in the development of ReliaSoft's software
published papers in the areas of quality engineering including
including Weibull++, ALTA and BlockSim, and has published
SPC, ANOVA and DOE and reliability engineering. His
numerous papers on various reliability methods. Mr. Mettas
current research interests include repairable system modeling,
holds a B.S degree in Mechanical Engineering and an M.S.
accelerated life/degradation testing, warranty data analysis and
degree in Reliability Engineering from the University of
robust optimization. Dr. Guo is a member of SRE, IIE and
Arizona.
IEEE.
Doug Ogden
Arai Monteforte
Vice President
Manager, Simulation Group
ReliaSoft Corporation
ReliaSoft Corporation
1450 S. Eastside LP
1450 S. Eastside Loop
Tucson, Arizona 85710, USA
Tucson, Arizona 85710-6703 USA
e-mail: Doug.Odgen@Reliasoft.com
e-mail: Arai,Monteforte@ReliaSoft.com
Mr Ogden joined ReliaSoft in 1997 and has served in a variety
Ms. Arai Monteforte is the Manager of the Simulation Group
of executive management roles. In these capacities he has
at ReliaSoft Corporation. Over the years, she has played a key
been instrumental in the growth and evolution of the sales
role in the design and development of ReliaSoft's software,
organization through the creation of sales plans, pipeline
including extensive involvement in the BlockSim and RENO
development, sales segmentation and growth strategies. Mr
product families. Ms. Monteforte holds an M.S. degree in
Ogden attended the University of Minnesota and is a member
Reliability and Quality Engineering, a B.S. in Chemical
of the Society of Reliability Engineers.
Engineering and a B.S. in Computer Science, all from the