Stress–Strength Reliability Analysis with SSReliabilityClaytonMWD

Introduction

The SSReliabilityClaytonMWD package provides tools for modeling and estimating stress–strength reliability under dependent structures using the Modified Weibull Distribution (MWD) and a copula-based dependence model.

This vignette presents an end-to-end workflow for estimating reliability in dependent stress–strength models using the SSReliabilityClaytonMWD package.

Stress–strength reliability (SSR) is a fundamental concept in reliability engineering and survival analysis, defined as: $$R = P(X>Y)$$ where $X$ denotes the strength variable and $Y$ denotes the stress variable.

The vignette focuses on:

• Modeling stress and strength using the Modified Weibull Distribution (MWD)
  
• Incorporating dependence via the Clayton copula
  
• Estimating model parameters using likelihood-based and alternative methods
  
• Implementing the proposed methods in practice

Installation

Install the latest released version from CRAN:

# after released in CRAN
# install.packages("SSReliabilityClaytonMWD")

Install the latest development version from GitHub:

# install.packages("remotes")
# remotes::install_github("fatihki/SSReliabilityClaytonMWD")

Estimation Methods

Let the strength $X$ and stress $Y$ variables follow the Modified Weibull Distribution (MWD): $X \sim MWD(a_1,b_1,\lambda_1)$ and $Y \sim MWD(a_2,b_2,\lambda_2)$. Their dependence is modeled using the two-dimensional Clayton copula, see Clayton.Copula, $$C_{\theta}(u,v) = (u^{-\theta} + v^{-\theta} - 1)^{-1/\theta}.$$ Under this model, the stress–strength reliability $R$ is given by: $$R = P(X>Y) = \int_{0}^{1} t^{-(\theta +1)} \big( t^{-\theta} + G_Y(F_{X}^{-1}(t))^{-\theta} -1 \big)^ {-\left(\frac{1}{\theta}+1 \right) } \tag{1},$$ where $F_X(x) \equiv F_X(x;a_1,b_1,\lambda_1) = 1- \exp(-a_1 x^{b_1} e^{\lambda_1 x})$ and $G_Y(y) \equiv G_Y(y;a_2,b_2,\lambda_2) = 1- \exp(-a_2 y^{b_2} e^{\lambda_2 y})$. It is calculated as in Reliability_Clayton_MWD by numerical integral stats::integrate.

Further details can be found in the companion vignette Dependent Stress–Strength Reliability Model and in Kızılaslan (2026).

Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) of $R$

Based on these assumptions, suppose $n$ systems are observed, yielding dependent samples $(x_i,y_i)\; i=1,\dots, n$.

The joint log-likelihood function can be decomposed as: $$\ell(\boldsymbol{\Omega_1},\boldsymbol{\Omega_2},\theta; \mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) = \ell_1(\boldsymbol{\Omega_1}; \mathbf{x}) + \ell_2(\boldsymbol{\Omega_2}; \mathbf{y}) + \ell_3(\boldsymbol{\Omega_1},\boldsymbol{\Omega_2},\theta; \mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}),$$ where $$\ell_1(\boldsymbol{\Omega_1}; \mathbf{x}) = n \log(a_1) + \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log(b_1+\lambda_1 x_i) + (b_1-1) \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log x_i + \lambda_1 \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i - a_1 \sum_{i=1}^{n}x_i^{b_1} e^{\lambda_1 x_i},$$

$$\ell_2(\boldsymbol{\Omega_2}; \mathbf{y}) = n \log(a_2) + \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log(b_2+\lambda_2 y_i) + (b_2-1) \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log y_i + \lambda_2 \sum_{i=1}^{n} y_i - a_2 \sum_{i=1}^{n} y_i^{b_2} e^{\lambda_2 y_i},$$

$$\ell_3(\boldsymbol{\Omega_1},\boldsymbol{\Omega_2},\theta; \mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log \big( c_{\theta} \big( F_{X}(x_i; \boldsymbol \Omega_1), G_Y(y_i; \boldsymbol \Omega_2) \big) \big),$$ and $c_{\theta}$ is the joint PDF of Clayton copula.

We employ the two-step maximum likelihood approach, also known as the inference functions for margins (IFM) method. In the first step, the marginal parameters are estimated separately by maximizing their respective log-likelihood functions. In the second step, the dependence parameter $\theta$ is estimated by maximizing $\ell_3$ given the estimated marginals. This separation simplifies the estimation procedure and improves numerical stability. In both steps, optimization is carried out using stats::optim.

Finally, the the MLE of $R$, $\hat{R}$, is obtained by substituting the parameter estimates into Equation (1).

Least Squares Estimation (LSE) of $R$

The least squares (LS) estimator is obtained by minimizing the sum of squared differences between the theoretical cumulative distribution function (CDF) and the empirical CDF evaluated at the ordered sample points.

We apply the same two-step procedure as in the MLE case for both the LSE and WLSE methods.

Let $x_{(1)}<x_{(2)}< \dots < x_{(n)}$ and $y_{(1)}<y_{(2)}< \dots < y_{(n)}$ denote the ordered samples. The LS estimates of the marginal parameters $\boldsymbol{\Omega_1}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega_2}$ are obtained by minimizing:

$$Q_1(\boldsymbol{\Omega_1}) = \sum_{i=1}^n \bigg( F(x_{(i)};a_1,b_1,\lambda_1) - \frac{i-0.3}{n+0.4} \bigg)^2 \tag{2},$$ and $$Q_2(\boldsymbol{\Omega_2}) = \sum_{i=1}^n \bigg( G(y_{(i)};a_2,b_2,\lambda_2) - \frac{i-0.3}{n+0.4} \bigg)^2 \tag{3}.$$ In the second step, the LSE of the Clayton copula parameter $\theta$ is obtained by minimizing: $$Q_3(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^n \bigg( C_{\theta}(u_i,v_i;\theta) - \hat{H}_n(x_i,y_i) \bigg)^2 \tag{4},$$ where $u_i= F(x_i; \hat{a}_{1,LSE}, \hat{b}_{1,LSE}, \hat{\lambda}_{1,LSE})$, $v_i= G(y_i; \hat{a}_{2,LSE}, \hat{b}_{2,LSE}, \hat{\lambda}_{2,LSE})$ and $\hat{H}_n(x_i,y_i) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n \mathbf{I}(X_j \leq x_i, Y_j \leq y_i)$.

Finally, the LSE of $R$, $\hat{R}_{LSE}$, is obtained by substituting the parameter estimates into Equation (1).

Weighted Least Squares Estimation (WLSE) of $R$

In the weighted least squares approach, weights are introduced to improve estimation accuracy. The weights are defined as: $$w_i = \frac{(n+1)^2(n+2)}{i(n-i+1)}, \; i=1,\dots,n.$$ These weights are incorporated into Equations (2)–(4) as follows: $$Q_1^W(\boldsymbol{\Omega_1}) = \sum_{i=1}^n w_i \bigg( F(x_{(i)};a_1,b_1,\lambda_1) - \frac{i-0.3}{n+0.4} \bigg)^2,$$

$$Q_2^W(\boldsymbol{\Omega_2}) = \sum_{i=1}^n w_i \bigg( G(y_{(i)};a_2,b_2,\lambda_2) - \frac{i-0.3}{n+0.4} \bigg)^2,$$

$$Q_3^W(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^n w_i \bigg( C_{\theta}(u_i,v_i;\theta) - \hat{H}_n(x_i,y_i) \bigg)^2.$$ In the first step, the weighted objective functions $Q_1^W$ and $Q_2^W$ are minimized to obtain the marginal parameter estimates. In the second step, the dependence parameter $\theta$ is estimated by minimizing $Q_3^W$.

The WLSE of $R$, $\hat{R}_{WLSE}$, is obtained by substituting the corresponding estimates into Equation (1).

Maximum Product of Spacings (MPS) of $R$

The maximum product of spacings (MPS) method is based on maximizing the geometric mean of spacings between consecutive values of the fitted distribution functions.

Let $x_{(1)}<x_{(2)}< \dots < x_{(n)}$ and $y_{(1)}<y_{(2)}< \dots < y_{(n)}$ denote the ordered samples for strength and stress, respectively.

The spacings for the marginal distributions are defined as: $$D_{1i}(a_1,b_1,\lambda_1) = F(x_{(i)};a_1,b_1,\lambda_1) - F(x_{(i-1)};a_1,b_1,\lambda_1),$$ and $$D_{2i}(a_2,b_2,\lambda_2) = G(y_{(i)};a_2,b_2,\lambda_2) - G(y_{(i-1)};a_2,b_2,\lambda_2),$$ where $i=1,\dots, n+1$, $F(x_{(0)};a_1,b_1,\lambda_1) = G(y_{(0)};a_2,b_2,\lambda_2) =0$ and $F(x_{(n+1)};a_1,b_1,\lambda_1) = G(y_{(n+1)};a_2,b_2,\lambda_2) =1$.

In the first step, the MPS estimates of the marginal parameters $\boldsymbol{\Omega_1}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega_2}$ are obtained by maximizing: $$M_1(a_1,b_1,\lambda_1) = \sum_{i=1}^{n+1} \frac{1}{n+1} \log \big(D_{1i} (a_1,b_1,\lambda_1) \big),$$ and $$M_2(a_2,b_2,\lambda_2) = \sum_{i=1}^{n+1} \frac{1}{n+1} \log \big(D_{2i} (a_2,b_2,\lambda_2) \big).$$ In the second step, the MPS estimate of the Clayton copula parameter $\theta$ is obtained by maximizing: $$M_3(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^{n+1} \frac{1}{n+1} \log \big(D_{3i} (\theta ) \big)$$ where $D_{3i}(\theta) = C_{\theta}\big( F(x_{(i)}; \widehat{\boldsymbol \Omega}_{1,MPS}), G(y_{(i)};\widehat{\boldsymbol \Omega}_{2,MPS} ); \theta \big) - C_{\theta}\big( F(x_{(i-1)}; \widehat{\boldsymbol \Omega}_{1,MPS}), G(y_{(i-1)}; \widehat{\boldsymbol \Omega}_{2,MPS} ); \theta \big)$.

Finally, the MPS estimate of $R$, $\hat{R}_{MPS}$, is obtained by substituting the parameter estimates into Equation (1).

Bootstrap Confidence Intervals for $R$

The parametric bootstrap percentile method is employed to be able to construct bootstrap confidence intervals (BCIs) for unknown parameters and $R$ as well based on all used methods here. The following Algorithm is employed for obtaining BCIs of the interested parameters based on MLE, LSE, WLSE and MPS methods.

We construct bootstrap confidence intervals for $R$ using the following algorithm:

Bootstrap confidence interval algorithm

Step 1. Compute the estimates $\hat{a}_1, \hat{b}_1, \hat{\lambda}_1, \hat{a}_2, \hat{b}_2$ and $\hat{\lambda}_2$ using one of the estimation methods: ML, LS, WLS, or MPS, based on the observed dependent sample.

Step 2. Generate a dependent bootstrap sample using the estimated parameters.

Step 3. Compute bootstrap estimates $\hat{a}_1^{*}, \hat{b}_1^{*}, \hat{\lambda}_1^{*}, \hat{a}_2^{*}, \hat{b}_2^{*}$, and $\hat{\lambda}_2^{*}$ based on the bootstrap sample.

Step 4. Compute the bootstrap estimate of reliability $R$, denoted by $\hat{R}^{*}$.

Step 5. Repeat Steps 2–4 independently $B$ times to obtain $\{\hat{R}_1^{*},\ldots,\hat{R}_B^{*}\}$.

Step 6. The two-sided $100(1-\gamma)\%$ bootstrap confidence interval for $R$ is: $\left( \hat{R}^{*[\gamma/2]}, \hat{R}^{*[1-\gamma/2]} \right)$, where $\hat{R}^{*[p]}$ denotes the $p$-th empirical quantile of the bootstrap replications. BCIs for the parameters $a_1, b_1, \lambda_1, a_2, b_2,$ and $\lambda_2$ are obtained in the same manner.

Implementation in SSReliabilityClaytonMWD

To illustrate the performance and applicability of the proposed methods, we consider both simulated and real data examples.

1. Simulation Study

A simulation study is conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed estimators under the assumed model structure.

# Load the package
library(SSReliabilityClaytonMWD)

# set seed
set.seed(123)
n <- 50
a1 <- 0.75; b1 <- 1.5; lambda1 <- 0.6
a2 <- 1.2; b2 <- 0.5; lambda2 <- 0.9
theta <- 3

# simulate data
dat <- rMweibull_Clayton(n, a1, b1, lambda1, a2, b2, lambda2, theta)

# true stress-strength reliability value
R_true <- Reliability_Clayton_MWD(a1, b1, lambda1, a2, b2, lambda2, theta)
R_true$value
#> [1] 0.9428307

We fit a dependent stress–strength reliability model assuming that both strength and stress follow the MWD, and their dependence is modeled using a Clayton copula.

fit <- fit.SSR.ClaytonMWD(
  data = dat,
  ACI = TRUE,
  bootstrap = TRUE,
  B = 10,
  seed = 2026,
  one.step = TRUE,
  alpha = 0.05
)
#> Warning: executing %dopar% sequentially: no parallel backend registered

The function returns point estimates of all model parameters together with $95\%$ asymptotic confidence intervals and bootstrap confidence intervals for both the parameters and the reliability $R$.

print(fit)
#> 
#> Fitting Results of Stress-Strength Reliability Model with MWD Marginals via Clayton Copula 
#> 
#> 
#> Table: Parameter Estimates
#> 
#> |     |      a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|   theta|       R|
#> |:----|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|
#> |mle  | 0.91531| 1.77111| 0.33610| 1.15016| 0.51926| 1.07039| 2.98107| 0.96239|
#> |lse  | 1.26967| 1.91057| 0.00001| 0.94711| 0.44689| 1.32354| 9.72676| 0.99555|
#> |wlse | 1.10497| 1.83511| 0.14438| 0.96263| 0.45805| 1.32415| 3.01138| 0.96637|
#> |mps  | 0.94898| 1.68266| 0.27554| 1.14662| 0.48797| 0.97071| 3.28740| 0.95748|
#> 
#> 
#> Table: 95% Asymptotic Confidence Intervals (MLE)
#> 
#> |       |      a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|   theta|       R|
#> |:------|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|
#> |lower  | 0.00000| 0.67220| 0.00000| 0.39511| 0.28553| 0.32254| 1.56639| 0.91894|
#> |upper  | 2.19113| 2.87001| 1.59347| 1.90520| 0.75298| 1.81823| 4.39576| 1.00000|
#> |length | 2.19113| 2.19781| 1.59347| 1.51009| 0.46745| 1.49569| 2.82937| 0.08106|
#> 
#> 
#> Table: 95% Bootstrap CIs (MLE)
#> 
#> |       |      a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|   theta|       R|
#> |:------|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|
#> |lower  | 0.26216| 0.77866| 0.00001| 0.68765| 0.33817| 0.78146| 1.90427| 0.95857|
#> |upper  | 1.50917| 2.24596| 1.55287| 2.05227| 0.67876| 1.85251| 4.56875| 0.98110|
#> |length | 1.24701| 1.46731| 1.55286| 1.36462| 0.34059| 1.07104| 2.66448| 0.02253|
#> 
#> 
#> Table: 95% Bootstrap CIs (LSE)
#> 
#> |       |      a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|    theta|       R|
#> |:------|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|--------:|-------:|
#> |lower  | 0.25455| 0.62619| 0.00001| 0.40943| 0.19347| 0.18018|  5.72943| 0.98075|
#> |upper  | 1.63375| 2.22374| 1.59905| 2.96950| 0.89047| 2.54395| 21.17203| 0.99974|
#> |length | 1.37920| 1.59755| 1.59904| 2.56007| 0.69699| 2.36377| 15.44261| 0.01898|
#> 
#> 
#> Table: 95% Bootstrap CIs (WLSE)
#> 
#> |       |      a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|    theta|       R|
#> |:------|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|--------:|-------:|
#> |lower  | 0.26556| 0.69049| 0.00001| 0.49786| 0.26531| 0.63087|  1.61708| 0.94712|
#> |upper  | 1.59581| 2.30977| 1.50784| 2.09689| 0.72586| 2.22361| 11.47759| 0.99625|
#> |length | 1.33025| 1.61928| 1.50783| 1.59904| 0.46055| 1.59274|  9.86052| 0.04913|
#> 
#> 
#> Table: 95% Bootstrap CIs (MPS)
#> 
#> |       |      a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|   theta|       R|
#> |:------|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|
#> |lower  | 0.30178| 0.67258| 0.00001| 0.69724| 0.29324| 0.64941| 1.58618| 0.92730|
#> |upper  | 1.41056| 2.02045| 1.36527| 1.93937| 0.61315| 1.61662| 5.94632| 0.97949|
#> |length | 1.10878| 1.34787| 1.36526| 1.24213| 0.31991| 0.96721| 4.36014| 0.05219|
#> 
#> Kendall's tau estimate for theta: 3.30303

2. Real Data Application

The proposed methodology is applied to real-world data to demonstrate its practical relevance. Specifically, monthly occupancy data from two of Istanbul’s largest dams are used. The data are obtained from the open data platform of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality: https://data.ibb.gov.tr/en/.

Within the stress–strength framework, the Terkos dam is treated as the strength variable $X$, while the Omerli dam is considered as the stress variable $Y$. Under this formulation, the stress–strength reliability $R=P(X>Y)$ represents the probability that the occupancy level of the Terkos dam (European side) exceeds that of the Omerli dam (Anatolian side). This probability provides a measure of the relative water availability between the two regions. Further details can be found in Kızılaslan (2026).

# Load example data from the package
data(TerkosDam)
data(OmerliDam)

real_data <- list(X = TerkosDam, Y = OmerliDam)

We fit the dependent stress–strength reliability model assuming that both variables follow the MWD, with dependence modeled via a Clayton copula.

fit_ssr <- fit.SSR.ClaytonMWD(
  data = real_data,
  ACI = TRUE,
  bootstrap = TRUE,
  B = 10,
  seed = 2026,
  one.step = TRUE,
  alpha = 0.05
)

The fitted results for the model parameters and the reliability $R$ are presented below.

print(fit_ssr)
#> 
#> Fitting Results of Stress-Strength Reliability Model with MWD Marginals via Clayton Copula 
#> 
#> 
#> Table: Parameter Estimates
#> 
#> |     |      a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|   theta|       R|
#> |:----|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|
#> |mle  | 0.98542| 2.66095| 2.11322| 0.02428| 0.45908| 6.33059| 0.50551| 0.50428|
#> |lse  | 0.07196| 1.72091| 5.71667| 0.01166| 0.00001| 7.06623| 1.09884| 0.49349|
#> |wlse | 0.04261| 1.29079| 6.20629| 0.01154| 0.00001| 7.10656| 1.23631| 0.49824|
#> |mps  | 0.68997| 2.31111| 2.39000| 0.02043| 0.26258| 6.43699| 0.92547| 0.51110|
#> 
#> 
#> Table: 95% Asymptotic Confidence Intervals (MLE)
#> 
#> |       |      a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|   theta|       R|
#> |:------|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|
#> |lower  | 0.00000| 0.43992| 0.00000| 0.00000| 0.00000| 4.21722| 0.14734| 0.40310|
#> |upper  | 4.33682| 4.88197| 5.79639| 0.06723| 1.39756| 8.44395| 0.86369| 0.60545|
#> |length | 4.33682| 4.44205| 5.79639| 0.06723| 1.39756| 4.22673| 0.71636| 0.20235|
#> 
#> 
#> Table: 95% Bootstrap CIs (MLE)
#> 
#> |       |      a1|      b1| lambda1|     a2|      b2| lambda2|   theta|       R|
#> |:------|-------:|-------:|-------:|------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|
#> |lower  | 0.08013| 1.15190| 0.00001| 0.0127| 0.14660| 2.96074| 0.24032| 0.44208|
#> |upper  | 7.84406| 4.17488| 4.99832| 0.6515| 2.74715| 7.36907| 0.76629| 0.57280|
#> |length | 7.76393| 3.02298| 4.99831| 0.6388| 2.60056| 4.40833| 0.52597| 0.13072|
#> 
#> 
#> Table: 95% Bootstrap CIs (LSE)
#> 
#> |       |       a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|   theta|       R|
#> |:------|--------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|
#> |lower  |  0.00432| 0.00001| 0.08203| 0.00479| 0.00001| 3.38092| 0.77300| 0.40633|
#> |upper  | 14.07044| 5.07941| 8.83643| 0.46871| 2.90343| 8.70306| 1.22167| 0.54812|
#> |length | 14.06612| 5.07940| 8.75439| 0.46392| 2.90342| 5.32214| 0.44867| 0.14178|
#> 
#> 
#> Table: 95% Bootstrap CIs (WLSE)
#> 
#> |       |      a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|   theta|       R|
#> |:------|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|
#> |lower  | 0.00600| 0.08335| 2.07582| 0.00735| 0.00001| 4.57432| 1.02051| 0.40990|
#> |upper  | 1.93694| 3.81682| 8.40554| 0.14362| 2.18957| 7.75921| 2.79450| 0.55191|
#> |length | 1.93094| 3.73347| 6.32972| 0.13627| 2.18956| 3.18489| 1.77400| 0.14201|
#> 
#> 
#> Table: 95% Bootstrap CIs (MPS)
#> 
#> |       |      a1|      b1| lambda1|      a2|      b2| lambda2|   theta|       R|
#> |:------|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|-------:|
#> |lower  | 0.03681| 0.81306| 0.20976| 0.00853| 0.00001| 3.89184| 0.39588| 0.43467|
#> |upper  | 4.90435| 3.55720| 5.68968| 0.23335| 1.80479| 7.53494| 5.25280| 0.62724|
#> |length | 4.86754| 2.74414| 5.47992| 0.22482| 1.80478| 3.64310| 4.85692| 0.19257|
#> 
#> Kendall's tau estimate for theta: 1.25912

Companion vignettes

• Dependent Stress–Strength Reliability Model
  vignette("ssr-theory", package = "SSReliabilityClaytonMWD")

• Modified Weibull Distribution (MWD)
  vignette("mwd-distribution", package = "SSReliabilityClaytonMWD")

• Fitting the Modified Weibull Distribution (MWD) vignette("fitting-mwd", package = "SSReliabilityClaytonMWD")

References

Kızılaslan, Fatih. (2026). Reliability estimation in dependent stress–strength model with Clayton copula and modified Weibull margins.arXiv:2604.12130