Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 76–84 | Cite as

An exploratory study for predicting component reliability with new load conditions

  • Zhengwei Hu
  • Xiaoping DuEmail author
Research Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Innovative Design and Intelligent Design


Reliability is important to design innovation. A new product should be not only innovative, but also reliable. For many existing components used in the new product, their reliability will change because the applied loads are different from the ones for which the components are originally designed and manufactured. Then the new reliability must be re-evaluated. The system designers of the new product, however, may not have enough information to perform this task. With a beam problem as a case study, this study explores a feasible way to reevaluate the component reliability with new loads given the following information: The original reliability of the component with respect to the component loads and the distributions of the new component loads. Physics-based methods are employed to build the equivalent component limit-state function that can predict the component failure under the new loads. Since the information is limited, the re-evaluated component reliability is given by its maximum and minimum values. The case study shows that good accuracy can be obtained even though the new reliability is provided with the aforementioned interval.


reliability component failure mode prediction random variable 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This study is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. CMMI 1562593) and Intelligent Systems Center at Missouri University of Science and Technology.


  1. 1.
    Johnson D G, Genco N, Saunders M N, et al. An experimental investigation of the effectiveness of empathic experience design for innovative concept generation. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2014, 136(5): 051009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saunders M N, Seepersad C C, Hölttä-Otto K. The characteristics of innovative, mechanical products. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2011, 133(2): 021009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan J, Fu K, Schunn C, et al. On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2011, 133(8): 081004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kleinschmidt E J, Cooper R G. The impact of product innovativeness on performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1991, 8(4): 240–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cruse T A. Reliability-Based Mechanical Design. Volume 108. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1997Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lawless J. Statistical methods in reliability. Technometrics, 1983, 25 (4): 305–316MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nikolaidis E, Ghiocel D M, Singhal S. Engineering Design Reliability Handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2004Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi S K, Grandhi R V, Canfield R A. Reliability-Based Structural Design. New York: Springer, 2006zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chiralaksanakul A, Mahadevan S. First-order approximation methods in reliability-based design optimization. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2005, 127(5): 851–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Du X, Sudjianto A. First order saddlepoint approximation for reliability analysis. AIAA Journal, 2004, 42(6): 1199–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao Y G, Ono T. A general procedure for first/second-order reliability method (FORM/SORM). Structural Safety, 1999, 21(2): 95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahadevan S. Monte Carlo Simulation. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1997, 123–146Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng Y, Du X. System reliability analysis with dependent component failures during early design stage—A feasibility study. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2016, 138(5): 051405MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu Z, Du X. System reliability prediction with shared load and unknown component design details. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 2017, 31(3): 223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu Z, Du X. A physics-based reliability method for components adopted in new series systems. In: Proceedings of 2016 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS). Tucson: IEEE, 2016, 1–7Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Resende L C, Manso L A, Dutra WD, et al. Support vector machine application in composite reliability assessment. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent System Application to Power Systems (ISAP). IEEE, 2015, 1–6Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. Overview of Supervised Learning. New York: Springer, 2009, 9–41Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schölkopf B. Statistical Learning and Kernel Methods. New York: Springer, 2001, 3–24zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hu Z, Du X. System reliability analysis with in-house and outsourced components. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS). IEEE, 2017, 146–150Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hu Z, Du X. Integration of statistics- and physics-based methods—A feasibility study on accurate system reliability prediction. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2018, 140(7): 074501–074507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lipson C, Sheth N J, Disney R L. Reliability Prediction-Mechanical Stress/Strength Interference. DTIC Document, 1967Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang J, Ma X, Zhao Y. A stress-strength time-varying correlation interference model for structural reliability analysis using copulas. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 2017, 66(2): 351–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang X, Yang J, Thomas R. Mechanization outsourcing clusters and division of labor in Chinese agriculture. China Economic Review, 2017, 43: 184–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang C J, Jiang J C. Research of smartphone industry outsourcing decision model. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, 2018, 39(3): 725–737MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eggert A, Böhm E, Cramer C. Business service outsourcing in manufacturing firms: An event study. Journal of Service Management, 2017, 28(3): 476–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whitcomb P J, Anderson M J. RSM Simplified: Optimizing Processes Using Response Surface Methods for Design of Experiments. Boca Raton: CRC press, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations