Research Papers

On Estimating the Reliability of Multiple Failure Region Problems Using Approximate Metamodels

[+] Author and Article Information
Ramon C. Kuczera1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309ramon.kuczera@gkndriveline.com

Zissimos P. Mourelatos2

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309mourelat@oakland.edu


Present address: Engineering Director-Americas, GKN Driveline, Auburn Hills, MI 48326.


Corresponding author.

J. Mech. Des 131(12), 121003 (Nov 09, 2009) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000326 History: Received December 19, 2007; Revised August 10, 2009; Published November 09, 2009; Online November 09, 2009

In a complex system it is desirable to reduce the number of expensive function evaluations required for an accurate estimation of the probability of failure. An efficient reliability estimation method is presented for engineering systems with multiple failure regions and potentially multiple most probable points. The method can handle implicit nonlinear limit state functions with correlated or noncorrelated random variables, which can be described by any probabilistic distribution. It uses a combination of approximate or “accurate-on-demand,” global and local metamodels, which serve as indicators to determine the failure and safe regions. Sample points close to limit states define transition regions between safe and failure domains. A clustering technique identifies all transition regions, which can be, in general, disjoint, and local metamodels of the actual limit states are generated for each transition region. Importance sampling generates sample points only in the identified transition and failure regions, thus, allowing the method to focus on the areas near the failure region and not expend computational effort on the sample points in the safe domain. A robust maximin “space-filling” sampling technique is used to construct the metamodels. Two numerical examples highlight the accuracy and efficiency of the method.

Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Maximin with 5 sample points, (b) maximin with 20 sample points, and (c) maximin with 50 sample points

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Left tail sampling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Right tail sampling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Middle region sampling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

(a) Clustering with η=η1, (b) clustering with η2>η1, and (c) clustering with η3>η2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Tuned vibration absorber

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Plot of normalized amplitude y versus β1 and β2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Samples for vibration absorber

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Clusters with η=10%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Samples in each cluster for vibration absorber

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Clusters with η=58%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Two-bar bracket

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Clusters for two-bar bracket

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Description of terms in probability of failure calculation for the two-bar bracket example




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In