XIAOBIN LE

Synthesis Lectures on Series ISSN: 2573-3168

Mechanical Engineering
Reliability-Based Mechanical Design, Volume 1
Component under Static Load Reliability-Based
Mechanical Design,
Xiaobin Le, Wentworth Institute of Technology

RELIABILITY-BASED MECHANICAL DESIGN, VOL. 1

A component will not be reliable unless it is designed with required reliability. Reliability-Based
Mechanical Design uses the reliability to link all design parameters of a component together to form

Volume 1
a limit state function for mechanical design. This design methodology uses the reliability to replace
the factor of safety as a measure of the safe status of a component. The goal of this methodology
is to design a mechanical component with required reliability and at the same time, quantitatively
indicates the failure percentage of the component. Reliability-Based Mechanical Design consists of
two separate books: Volume 1: Component under Static Load, and Volume 2: Component under Cyclic
Load and Dimension Design with Required Reliability.
This book begins with a brief discussion on the engineering design process and the fundamental
Component under
Static Load
reliability mathematics. Then, the book presents several computational methods for calculating the
reliability of a component under loads when its limit state function is established. Finally, the book
presents how to establish the limit state functions of a component under static load and furthermore
how to calculate the reliability of typical components under simple typical static load and combined
static loads. Now, we do know the reliability of a component under static load and can quantitively
specify the failure percentage of a component under static load.
The book presents many examples for each topic and provides a wide selection of exercise problems
at the end of each chapter. This book is written as a textbook for junior mechanical engineering
students after they study the course of Mechanics of Materials. This book is also a good reference book
for design engineers and presents design check methods in such sufficient detail that those methods
are readily used in the design check of a component under static load.

ABOUT SYNTHESIS
Xiaobin Le
This volume is a printed version of a work that appears in the Synthesis
Digital Library of Engineering and Computer Science. Synthesis lectures
provide concise original presentations of important research and
development topics, published quickly in digital and print formats. For

MORGAN & CLAYPOOL

more information, visit our website: http://store.morganclaypool.com

Synthesis Lectures on
store.morganclaypool.com
Mechanical Engineering
Reliability-Based
Mechanical Design
Volume 1
Component under Static Load
 Synthesis Lectures on
Mechanical Engineering
Synthesis Lectures on Mechanical Engineering series publishes 60–150 page publications
pertaining to this diverse discipline of mechanical engineering. The series presents Lectures
written for an audience of researchers, industry engineers, undergraduate and graduate
students.
Additional Synthesis series will be developed covering key areas within mechanical
engineering.
Reliability-Based Mechanical Design, Volume 1: Component under Static Load
Xiaobin Le
2019

Solving Practical Engineering Mechanics Problems: Advanced Kinetics

Sayavur I. Bakhtiyarov
2019

Natural Corrosion Inhibitors

Shima Ghanavati Nasab, Mehdi Javaheran Yazd, Abolfazl Semnani, Homa Kahkesh, Navid
Rabiee, Mohammad Rabiee, Mojtaba Bagherzadeh
2019

Fractional Calculus with its Applications in Engineering and Technology

Yi Yang and Haiyan Henry Zhang
2019

Essential Engineering Thermodynamics: A Student’s Guide

Yumin Zhang
2018

Engineering Dynamics
Cho W.S. To
2018

Solving Practical Engineering Problems in Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics

Sayavur I. Bakhtiyarov
2018
 iii
Solving Practical Engineering Mechanics Problems: Kinematics
Sayavur I. Bakhtiyarov
2018

C Programming and Numerical Analysis: An Introduction

Seiichi Nomura
2018

Mathematical Magnetohydrodynamics
Nikolas Xiros
2018

Design Engineering Journey

Ramana M. Pidaparti
2018

Introduction to Kinematics and Dynamics of Machinery

Cho W. S. To
2017

Microcontroller Education: Do it Yourself, Reinvent the Wheel, Code to Learn

Dimosthenis E. Bolanakis
2017

Solving Practical Engineering Mechanics Problems: Statics

Sayavur I. Bakhtiyarov
2017

Unmanned Aircraft Design: A Review of Fundamentals

Mohammad Sadraey
2017

Introduction to Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Systems: Theory and Applications

Allan Kirkpatrick
2017

Resistance Spot Welding: Fundamentals and Applications for the Automotive Industry
Menachem Kimchi and David H. Phillips
2017

MEMS Barometers Toward Vertical Position Detecton: Background Theory, System

Prototyping, and Measurement Analysis
Dimosthenis E. Bolanakis
2017

Engineering Finite Element Analysis

Ramana M. Pidaparti
2017
Copyright © 2020 by Morgan & Claypool

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other except for brief quotations
in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Reliability-Based Mechanical Design, Volume 1: Component under Static Load

Xiaobin Le
www.morganclaypool.com

ISBN: 9781681736594 paperback

ISBN: 9781681736600 ebook
ISBN: 9781681736617 hardcover

DOI 10.2200/S00949ED1V01Y201908MEC020

A Publication in the Morgan & Claypool Publishers series

SYNTHESIS LECTURES ON MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Lecture #20
Series ISSN
Print 2573-3168 Electronic 2573-3176
Reliability-Based
Mechanical Design
Volume 1
Component under Static Load

Xiaobin Le
Wentworth Institute of Technology

SYNTHESIS LECTURES ON MECHANICAL ENGINEERING #20

M
&C Morgan & cLaypool publishers
ABSTRACT
A component will not be reliable unless it is designed with required reliability. Reliability-Based
Mechanical Design uses the reliability to link all design parameters of a component together to
form a limit state function for mechanical design. This design methodology uses the reliability
to replace the factor of safety as a measure of the safe status of a component. The goal of this
methodology is to design a mechanical component with required reliability and at the same time,
quantitatively indicates the failure percentage of the component. Reliability-Based Mechanical
Design consists of two separate books: Volume 1: Component under Static Load, and Volume 2:
Component under Cyclic Load and Dimension Design with Required Reliability.
This book is Reliability-Based Mechanical Design, Volume 1: Component under Static Load.
It begins with a brief discussion on the engineering design process and the fundamental relia-
bility mathematics. Then, the book presents several computational methods for calculating the
reliability of a component under loads when its limit state function is established. Finally, the
book presents how to establish the limit state functions of a component under static load and
furthermore how to calculate the reliability of typical components under simple typical static
load and combined static loads. Now, we do know the reliability of a component under static
load and can quantitively specify the failure percentage of a component under static load.
The book presents many examples for each topic and provides a wide selection of exercise
problems at the end of each chapter. This book is written as a textbook for junior mechanical
engineering students after they study the course of Mechanics of Materials. This book is also a
good reference book for design engineers and presents design check methods in such sufficient
detail that those methods are readily used in the design check of a component under static load.

KEYWORDS
reliability, reliability-based design, mechanical component, mechanical design,
computational method, numerical simulation, static load, limit state function, fail-
ure, safety, probability
 vii

To my lovely wife, Suyan Zou,

and to my wonderful sons, Zelong and Linglong
 ix

Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

1 Introduction to Reliability in Mechanical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Engineering Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Phase One: Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 Phase Two: Design Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.3 Phase Three: Conceptual Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.4 Phase Four: Detailed Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.5 Phase Five: Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Failures in Engineering Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Uncertainty in Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Definition of Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5 Importance of Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.6 Reliability History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.7 Reliability vs. Factor of Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.10 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2 Fundamental Reliability Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2 Experiment, Outcome, Sample Space, and Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 Set Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4 Definition of Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.4.1 Relative Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.4.2 Axiomatic Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.5 Some Basic Operations of Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.5.1 Probability of Mutually Exclusive Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.5.2 Probability of an Event in a Finite Sample Space  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.5.3 Probability of Union and Intersection of Two Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.5.4 Probability of a Complementary Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
x
2.5.5 Probability of Statistically Independent Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.5.6 Conditional Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.5.7 Total Probability Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.5.8 Bayes’ Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.6 Random Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.7 Mean, Standard Deviation, and Coefficient of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.8 Histogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.8.1 Definition of a Histogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.8.2 Histogram by Excel and MATLAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.9 Probability Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.9.1 Probability Functions of a Continuous Random Variable . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.9.2 Probability Functions of a Discrete Random Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.10 Mean of a Random Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.11 Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.12 Some Typical Probability Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.12.1 Binomial Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.12.2 Poisson Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.12.3 Uniform Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.12.4 Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.12.5 Log-Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.12.6 Weibull Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2.12.7 Exponential Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.13 Goodness-of-Fit Test: 2 Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.13.2 The Chi-Square Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
2.13.3 The Chi-Square (2 ) Goodness-of-Fit Test by the Matlab Program . 94
2.14 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2.15 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

3 Computational Methods for the Reliability of a Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.2 Limit State Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.3 Reliability of a Component with Two Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.3.1 Interference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.3.2 Computation of Reliability When Both are Normal Distributions . 118
3.3.3 Computation of Reliability When Both are Log-normal
Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
 xi
3.3.4
Computation of Reliability When Both are Exponential
Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.4 Reliability Index ˇ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
3.5 The First-Order Second-Moment (FOSM) Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.5.1 The FOSM Method for a Linear Limit State Function . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.5.2 The FOSM Method for a Nonlinear State Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.6 The Hasofer–Lind (H-L) Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.7 The Rackwitz and Fiessler (R-F) method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
3.8 The Monte Carlo Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
3.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
3.11 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

4 Reliability of a Component under Static Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
4.2 Geometric Dimension as a Random Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
4.3 Static Loading as a Random Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
4.4 Mechanical Properties of Materials as Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.5 Estimation of Some Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.6 Reliability of a Rod under Axial Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
4.6.1 Reliability of a Rod under Axial Loading for a Strength Issue . . . . . 178
4.6.2 Reliability of a Rod under Axial Loading for a Deformation Issue . 186
4.7 Reliability of a Component under Direct Shearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
4.8 Reliability of a Shaft under Torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
4.8.1 Reliability of a Shaft under Torsion for a Strength Issue . . . . . . . . . 198
4.8.2 Reliability of a Shaft under Torsion for a Deformation Issue . . . . . . 203
4.9 Reliability of a Beam under Bending Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
4.9.1 Reliability of a Beam under Bending for a Strength Issue . . . . . . . . . 205
4.9.2 Reliability of a Beam under Bending for a Deflection Issue . . . . . . . 212
4.10 Reliability of a Component under Combined Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
4.10.1 Reliability of a Component of Ductile Material under Combined
Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
4.10.2 Reliability of a Component of Brittle Material under Combined
Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
4.11 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
4.12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
4.13 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
xii

A Samples of MATLAB® Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

A.1 The H-L Method for Example 3.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
A.2 The R-F Method for Example 3.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
A.3 The Monte Carlo Method for Example 3.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Author’s Biography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

 xiii

Preface
Reliability-Based Mechanical Design consists of two separate books: Volume 1: Component under
Static Load, and Volume 2: Component under Cyclic Load and Dimension Design with Required
Reliability.
Volume 1 consists of four chapters and Appendix A. They are:
• Chapter 1: Introduction to Reliability in Mechanical Design;
• Chapter 2: Fundamental Reliability Mathematics;
• Chapter 3: Computational Methods for the Reliability of a Component;
• Chapter 4: Reliability of a Component under Static Load, and,
• Appendix A: Samples of MATLAB Programs.
Volume 2 consists of three chapters and two appendixes. They are:
• Chapter 1: Introduction and Cyclic Loading Spectrum;
• Chapter 2: Reliability of a Component under Cyclic Load;
• Chapter 3: The Dimension of a Component with Required Reliability;
• Appendix A: Three Computational Methods for the Reliability of a Component; and,
• Appendix B: Samples of MATLAB Programs.
The first book discusses fundamental concepts for implementing reliability in mechanical
design and the reliability of a component under static load. The second book presents more
advanced topics, including the reliability of a component under cyclic load and the dimension
design with required reliability.
Why does a component fail even the factor of safety of a component is more than the
required factor of safety, for example, 2.5? If a component will fail, what is its possible percent-
age of the failure? This book presents how to determine the reliability, and quantitively predict
the percentage of the failures of a component under static load. Therefore, we can provide the
reliability and also indicate a possible percentage of failure of a component under static load.
This book is written as a textbook and is based on a series of lecture notes of an elective
course for junior mechanical students. Every topic is discussed in sufficient detail and demon-
strated by many examples so students or design engineers can readily use them in mechanical
xiv PREFACE
design check. At the end of each chapter, there is a wide selection of exercises. This book can
also be used as a reference book for design engineers.
This book consists of four chapters and Appendix A. A concise summary of each chapter
are as follows.
• Chapter 1: Introduction to Reliability in Mechanical Design
This chapter serves as an introduction and will discuss the engineering design process,
failures, and uncertainty in engineering design, reliability definition, and history.
• Chapter 2: Fundamental Reliability Mathematics
This chapter discusses the fundamental concepts and definitions of probabilistic theory
for the preparation of their implementation for mechanical design. This chapter enables
a person without any knowledge of probability theory to use this book to conduct the
reliability-based mechanical design.
• Chapter 3: Computational Methods of the Reliability of a Component
This chapter discusses several computational methods of the reliability of a component
when the limit state function of a component under load is established. Those methods
include the interference method, the First-Order Second-Moment (FOSM) method, the
Hasoder-Lind (H-L) method, the Rachwitz-Fiessler (R-F) method, and the Monte Carlo
method.
• Chapter 4: Reliability of a Component under Static Load
This chapter presents typical limit state functions of a component under each typical static
load and combined load, and further demonstrate how to calculate the reliability of compo-
nents under any type of static loads. Five typical component cases presented in this chapter
include a bar under axial static load, a pin under direct shear static load, a shaft under static
torsion, a beam under static bending moment, and a component under combined static
loads.
• Appendix A: Samples of three MATLAB Programs
Appendix A provides three MATLAB programs as references for calculating the reliability
of a component under static load. These three samples of MATLAB programs include one
for the Hasoder-Lind (H-L) method, one for the Rachwitz-Fiessler (R-F) method, and
one for the Monte Carlo method.
This book could not have been completed and published without lots of encouragement
and help. First, I sincerely thank Mechanical Department Chairman and Professor Mickael
Jackson at the Wentworth Institute of Technology, whose encouragement motivated me to open
two technical elective courses about the reliability in mechanical engineering. Second, I sincerely
thank Professors Anthony William Duva and Richard L. Roberts for reviewing some of the
 PREFACE xv
manuscripts. Third, I sincerely thank Morgan & Claypool Publishers and Executive Editor Paul
Petralia for helping with this publication. Finally, I sincerely thank my lovely wife, Suyan Zou.
Without her support, I could not have completed this book.

Xiaobin Le
October 2019
 1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction to Reliability in
Mechanical Design
1.1 ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS
Mechanical engineering is one of the oldest branches of science. Mechanical design is one of
the primary purposes of mechanical engineering. It has created a lot of fantastic design projects
which greatly benefit human society such as the steam engine, elevator, bridge crane, automobile,
train, ship, and airplane. Unfortunately, some failures of mechanical design projects also caused
disasters to human society such as the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster on January 28, 1986,
which was mainly due to the failure in mechanical component design and resulted in the death
of all seven crew members including five NASA astronauts and two payload specialists. Because
of the complexity of modern mechanical design, mechanical design theory has been constantly
developed and updated. This book contributes to mechanical design theory by presenting how
to conduct reliability-based mechanical design.
The first key topic of mechanical design theory is the description of the engineering de-
sign or engineering design process, which is a summary of past success and failure of design
experience. This section will briefly describe the definition of engineering design and concisely
explain the engineering design process.
There are many definitions of engineering design. The Accreditation Board for Engineer-
ing and Technology (ABET) definition of engineering design is: “Engineering design is the process
of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often
iterative), in which the basic science and mathematics and engineering sciences are applied to convert
resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of the design process are
the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation.”
This definition explains the four key aspects of the engineering design.
• Engineering design is a process.
• Engineering design utilizes many different skills with an iterative, decision-making, and
systematic approach.
• Engineering design will build an object, including a system, component, or process under
some constraints.
• The purpose of the engineering design is to meet the project’s required needs.
2 1. INTRODUCTION TO RELIABILITY IN MECHANICAL DESIGN
The most important aspect of engineering design is that engineering design is a process.
Why is it a process? Engineering design is a process not because it consists of several steps and
might take a long time to complete it, but mainly because the final approval of the design is
not by theoretical calculations or numerical simulations, but by the actual testing on the pro-
totype. For example, when we do a complicated math problem, which might need a few hours
or a few days, we know the obtained solution is right or not after we finish it because we can
plug them in the equations to check the solution. For an engineering design project, even the
accurate theoretical calculation and complicated numerical simulation results suggest that the
design should be safe and could satisfy the design requirements, the design product cannot be
released to mass-production and customers. Engineering design experience has approved that
design product without throughout testing on the prototypes might cause significant problems
for customers and company.
According to the last few hundred years of engineering successful and unsuccessful experi-
ence, lots of different theory about the design process have been proposed for guiding engineers
to conduct the engineering design. The five-phase engineering design process proposed by Ger-
ard Voland is one of these good theories. The five-phase engineering design process includes:
(1) Phase One: Needs Assessment; (2) Phase Two: Design Specifications; (3) Phase Three: Con-
ceptual Designs; (4) Phase Four: Detailed Design; and (5) Phase Five: Implementation. The
detailed information about the five-phase design theory can be found in the book Engineering
by Design, authored by Gerard Voland [1]. We will provide brief descriptions of the five-phase
engineering design process as follows [2].

1.1.1 PHASE ONE: NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The main task in Phase One is to check whether needs are real and feasible or not. The “needs”
is a current problem or current unsatisfactory status. The needs can come from personal expe-
rience, customers, or society. However, some claiming demands might not be a real need and
might fade quickly. Some needs might not be feasible for the project team because it might not
be technically feasible or financially viable. For example, many people wish that they could have
a device which could directly import the knowledge of books into their brains. This device might
be feasible in the future. However, it is certainly not technically feasible now. For another ex-
ample, constructing a more advanced airplane is always a real need, but it will not be financially
viable for a small company because it has limited human resources and funding.
The outcomes of Phase One are as follows. (1) The need is not a real need. No further
action is needed. (2) The need is a real need, but it is not technically nor financially feasible
for the project team. The need might be stored for future use. No immediate action is needed.
(3) The need is a real and feasible need for the project team. Only if the need assessment passes
Phase One, will it proceed to Phase Two: Design Specifications. However, the design project
or the project team is not still officially established or formed.
 1.1. ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS 3
1.1.2 PHASE TWO: DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
The main tasks in Phase Two are: (1) true understanding of the needs; (2) search existing related
solutions for the needs; and (3) determine design specifications for the needs. The needs in Phase
One, which might come from the sale department, or customers, or society, are generally de-
scribed by general language. These needs are required to be rephrased by engineering language.
Before this, the first step is to have a true understanding of the needs, and then some primary
criteria are set up. Before we start to search existing solutions or possible solutions, we must
fully and truly understand the need, or the real meanings of the need, or the real requirements
from the customers. For example, if customers require us to design transportation for them. If
we provide the transportation which is driven by gasoline or diesel engine or electrical engine,
we make a big mistake when the power source in that region for the customers is natural gas.
The second step is to search existing or possible solutions for the need by using the primary cri-
teria established in the first step. Do not reinvent the wheel. So, the design project for the needs
should use up-to-date techniques. After lots of background investigation has been done, and
lots of related up-to-date technical information has been collected, the third step is to establish
design specifications for the needs. There are several common or general design goals that are
usually associated with design projects such as safety, environmental protection, public accep-
tance, reliability, performance, durability, ease of operation, use of standard parts, minimum
cost, minimum maintenance and ease of maintenance, and manufacturability. The design spec-
ifications do not mean these common or general goals, which are certainly considered in detail.
The design specifications properly established in the third step are: (1) any special statement for
the design project and (2) any numerical value related to the design project. Two examples of
design specification are: “The device must work properly in a very moist environment” and “the
factor of safety is 3.5.”
The outcomes of Phase Two are as follows. (1) The needs could be satisfied by an existing
product, or profitable product could not be constructed due to the highly competing market.
So, no further action is required. The design project will not be set up. (2) Proper design speci-
fications have been established and will be satisfied by design. The design project will be set up,
and the project team will be formally formed.
Only after the design specifications are established will the design project and project team
be formally assembled. Now the design project will move to Phase Three: Conceptual Design.

1.1.3 PHASE THREE: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

The main task in Phase Three is to develop a pool of all possible alternative solutions for the
design project, and then to generate several best alternative solutions for the design project from
the pool of all possible alternative solutions.
Modern design projects are typically complicated with several functions or subsystems.
The following four steps can be used to conduct the conceptual design.
4 1. INTRODUCTION TO RELIABILITY IN MECHANICAL DESIGN
Step 1: Decompose a design project into several subsystems or subunits according to their
functions. Any design project normally consists of several subsystems/subunits or several
different functions. It is very complicated to generate solutions for a unit with several
functions. However, it will be relatively easy to generate solutions for a subunit with only
one function. So, in this step, the design project will be decomposed into a lot of subsys-
tems/subunits, which have only one key function or performance.

Step 2: Develop a lot of possible options for each subsystem/subunit. A subsystem/subunit

with single function or performance can be abstracted into a general catalog, which will be
backed up by the whole engineering technique and knowledge. Then, the project team can
generate many solutions for each subsystem/subunit. In this step, full information research
should be conducted. The good quality of these solutions will determine the quality of the
final design solution because the final design solution of the design project will be formed
from these solutions.

Step 3: Form a pool of alternatives for the design project. The combination of one option
from each subsystem/subunit will form one alternative for the design project. This combi-
nation will typically be a large quantity of possible alternative designs for the project. For
example, if there are six subsystems, and each subsystem has three solutions, the possible
alternatives for a design project will be equal to 36 D 729.

Step 4: Use personal experiences, judgment, or group discussion to choose several best
prospective alternatives for the design project. The project team does not have enough
time and money to build and test each possible alternative. It is also not necessary. So,
the project team will use personal experience, judgment, and group discussion to pick up
several best alternatives for further investigations in the next stage.

The outcome of Phase Three: Conceptual Design offers several best alternatives for the
design project, from which the final design solution will be selected.

1.1.4 PHASE FOUR: DETAILED DESIGN

The main tasks in Phase Four are: (1) create a virtual product and run the virtual experiments
on the virtual product; (2) choose the final design option for the design project; and (3) test and
modify the prototype and finalize the final design option for the design project.
In modern engineering society, lots of modern advanced tools are available for engineer-
ing design. For example, computer-aided design (CAD) software can be used to build a virtual
component (VC), virtual assembly (VA), and virtual product (VP). A VC has the same dimen-
sions, the same material, and the same behaviors of a real component. So, it looks like the real
component and behaves like the real component but is stored in a digital form. A VA is a digital
form of a real assembly. The VP is a digital form of a real product. Lots of engineering simula-
tion software such as Solidworks Simulation and ANSYS, which are commercial finite element
 1.1. ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS 5
analysis software, can be used to test the functions and stress/strain of a virtual component,
or assembly, or product under different loading conditions. A lot of different computer-aided
manufacturing (CAM) can be used to animate the manufacturing process of a VC to check the
feasibility of manufacturing.
The first task in Phase Four is to construct VCs, VAs, and VPs, and then use available
computer software to conduct the numerical simulation to check the performances and func-
tions of different design options. Only some key components or key sub-assemblies might be
manufactured and experimented on the prototypes of components or sub-assemblies for check-
ing the performance of functions. The contents of this book will be an engineering design theory
to determine the dimension of a component with required reliability, that is, VC.
The second main task is to determine the best design option after performance and func-
tions of several design options under consideration have been evaluated through virtual tests,
that is, numerical simulation on VCs, VAs, and VPs. Since design project has several design
specifications and functions, systematic evaluation methods such as Decision Matrix, which is
fully explained in the book Engineering by Design [1], could be implemented to choose the best
option.
The last main task is to build the prototype of the final design option and then thor-
oughly test and modify it until all required design specifications, performance, and functions are
properly satisfied by the final design option.
The outcome of Phase Four is a tested and approved final design option, which is ready
to be released for production.

1.1.5 PHASE FIVE: IMPLEMENTATION

The last phase in the engineering design process is the implementation, which mainly means
transforming a design into reality. The main task in Phase Five is to prepare a complete set
of engineering documentation, such as drawing, part list, operation and maintenance manual,
quality control procedures, manufacturing procedures, and manufacturing tool and fixture de-
sign. The complete set of engineering documentation is the technical information by which the
final design option can be manufactured or duplicated. The outcome of Phase Five is a complete
set of engineering documentation.
An iterative-interactive five-phase engineering design process shown in Figure 1.1 in-
cludes six items. The center is the project team. The project team is the core of any engineering
design process. The iterative-interactive process and all other design activities are carried out by
and through the project team. The other five elements are needs assessment (Phase One), de-
sign specification (Phase Two), conceptual design (Phase Three), detailed design (Phase Four),
and implementation (Phase Five). An engineering design project has its own life—it starts at
Phase One: Needs Assessment and ends at Phase Five: Implementation. The flow chart of the
engineering design process is naturally from Phase One, to Phase Two, to Phase Three, then
to Phase Four, and finally to Phase Five. During this design process, interactive activities could
6 1. INTRODUCTION TO RELIABILITY IN MECHANICAL DESIGN

Nth Generation Design

Phase Five: Phase One:

Implementation Needs Assessment

Project
Team

Phase Four: Phase Two:

Detailed Design Design Specifications

Phase Three:
Conceptual Design

Figure 1.1: The iterative-interactive five-phase design process.

happen between any phase. For example, during Phase Four the project team could modify final
design option based on virtual numerical simulation and the physical testing on the prototype.
For another example, during Phase Three, the project team could back to work on Phase Two
to make some modifications. Description and procedure of the engineering design process such
as the five-phase engineering design process is the summary of past successful and unsuccessful
design experience. It is a piece of important and critical knowledge and skill. The project team
should follow it. It does not mean that following the five-phase design process will guarantee
to have a successful design result for a design project. It only suggests that there will be a very
high possibility that design project will end with a failure or high cost or long period of time if
the procedure of engineering design process does not follow.

1.2 FAILURES IN ENGINEERING DESIGN

Mechanical components are designed to execute required performances/functions under the
specified working environment and loading conditions (design specifications) within the spec-
ified life of service. However, due to the practical and economic limitations, a perfect design
does not exist. So, some of the mechanical components will certainly fail. Failure is defined as
a phenomenon that mechanical components cannot satisfy the design specifications or not pro-
 1.2. FAILURES IN ENGINEERING DESIGN 7
vide the required performance. For example, if a bar under the rated loading fractures, the bar
is said to be a failure. If a shaft under the specified working environment and loading condition
has excessive deflection, which might affect the proper gear engagement on the shaft, the design
of the shaft is said a failure. For another example, if a camera can take a photo, but the image
of the photo is not clear, the camera is said to be a failure.
The well-known failure-rate curve [3], known as the bathtub curve, is widely utilized to
describe and explain the failure of electronic, mechanical, and electro-mechanic components.
The schematic of a typical bathtub cure of the failure rate vs. time is shown in Figure 1.2. The
horizontal axis is the time of the component in service. The vertical axis is the failure rate, which
is defined as the frequency failures per unit of time. For example, if a design component with
20,000 units in service for 5,000 hr have 254 failures, the failure rate of this design component
will be: (254/20000)/(5000), that is, 2:54  10 6 failure per hour or 2:54 failure per million hour.
The typical bathtub curve consists of three different stages. The first stage is the early stage of
the product life known as the infant mortality stage, where there is a rapidly decreasing failure
rate. The failures in the first stage are mainly due to manufacturing defects and poor-quality
control procedures. These failures can be prevented and eliminated if the careful manufacturing
and proper quality controls are applied during the production. As these defective components are
replaced/repaired, the failure rate decreases as time progresses in the first stage. The second stage
has an almost constant failure rate, which is known as the useful life stage. The constant failure
rate of the product indicates that there is no dominant failure mechanism to induce a failure;
that is, the failure is mainly due to random causes. For example, a mechanical component failed
due to accidental overload when the material strength of this component was in the lower end of
such material’s normal strength range. Products’ life should be designed to be in the second stage.
The failure rate of some mechanical products in the second stage are listed in Table 1.1 [3, 4].
The failure rates listed in the table represent the current industrial product design level with both
practical and economic considerations. The third stage is known as the wear-out stage, where
there is a rapidly increasing failure rate. The dominant failure mechanism of the products in this
stage is “wear-out,” such as the cumulative irreversible fatigue damage due to continuous cyclic
Failure Rate

Infant Mortality Wearout

Useful Life

Time

Figure 1.2: The bathtub curve.

8 1. INTRODUCTION TO RELIABILITY IN MECHANICAL DESIGN
Table 1.1: Failure rate of some mechanical products [3, 4]

Mechanical Failures Per Million Mechanical Failures Per Million

Component Hours Component Hours
Accelerometer 35.1 Gear 0.17
Actuator 50.5 Gear shaft 6.7
Air compressor 6.0 Gyroscope 513.9
Air pressure gauge 2.6 Heat exchanger 1.1
Ball-bearing 1.1 Hydraulic valve 9.3
Boiler feed pump 0.42 O-ring 2.4
Brake 4.3 Roller bearing 0.28
Clutch 0.6 Shock absorber 0.81
Differential 15.0 Spring 5.0
Fan 2.8 Storage tank 1.6
Gasket and seal 1.3 thermostat 17.4

loads. It is strongly recommended that the designed products’ life would not be extended into
the wear-out stage because the failure rate would be very high.
Mechanical components have many different failure modes such as static failure, fatigue
failure, creep failure, corrosion failure, wear failure, instability failure, and excessive deflection
failure [5–7]. However, static failure, and excessive deflection failure, and fatigue failure will be
focused on in this book.
• The static failure. When a component’s maximum stress due to working load exceeds ma-
terial strengths such as yield strength and ultimate strength, the component is defined as
a static failure. For example, a component of brittle material will fracture when the com-
ponent’s maximum stress exceeds the material’s ultimate strength. For another example, a
component of ductile material will have excessive deflection and lose the capability of car-
rying out working load when the component’s stress exceeds the material’s yield strength.
• Excessive deflection failure. Mechanical systems typically have at least one moving com-
ponent. When the excessive deflection of a component causes the mechanical system to
fail to satisfy the required performance and design specifications, this is defined as an ex-
cessive deflection failure. For example, excessive deflection of a shaft might cause big noise
during the gear engagement, which might exceed the permissible sound level.
• The fatigue failure. When a component is subjected to cyclic load, the component will be
gradually degraded due to fatigue damage. The fatigue damage is irreversible and is accu-
mulated during the service. After the accumulated fatigue damage reaches a critical value,
 1.3. UNCERTAINTY IN ENGINEERING 9
the component will fail by fracture, even the magnitude of the nominal maximum cyclic
stress is far below the material’s yield strength. This failure is defined as fatigue failure. In
reality, all mechanical components are subjected to cyclic load due to the continuously re-
peated performance or moving components, or mechanical vibrations. So, it is well known
that more than 90% of mechanical metal components fail due to fatigue failure. For exam-
ple, ball bearings or spur gears will undoubtedly fail when the service time is big enough.

1.3 UNCERTAINTY IN ENGINEERING

Uncertainty is the lack of certainty, a situation that is impossible to describe and predict exactly by
one outcome or one numerical value. Uncertainty exists in most phenomena and events observed
worldwide. In practice, the various forms of uncertainty can be classified into two categories:
physical uncertainty and cognitive uncertainty [3, 8, 9].

• Physical uncertainty results from the fact that a system can behave in random ways and is
associated with the state of nature. This type of uncertainty is the inherent randomness that
exists in all physical parameters, so it is an irreducible uncertainty. Physical uncertainty will
be the focus of this book. Uncertainties of the design parameters in the mechanical design
are physical uncertainty. For example, material mechanical properties of the same brand
material such as yield strength, ultimate strength, and Young’s modulus will inevitably vary
due to small variations in chemical composition, the temperature in heat treatment, and
non-homogeneous temperature field during solidification. So, the material mechanical
properties are physical uncertainty. The geometric dimensions of components are physical
uncertainty because no two components can be made identical due to tool wear, errors
in measurement, machine tool vibrations, or the resistance of the shaft materials to cut-
ting. For another example, external load or operation patterns in the mechanical design
are physical uncertainty because the actual external load of the mechanical system in real
service are unpredicted and varies from one working condition to another condition, from
one service to another. The approach in mechanical design to deal with these physical un-
certainties will be reliability-based mechanical design, which is the main topic of this book
and will be discussed and explored in detail later.

• Cognitive uncertainty results from the lack of knowledge about a system and is associated
with our interpretation of the physical world. Cognitive uncertainty describes the inher-
ent vagueness of the system and its parameters. For example, the outcome of the quality
of machined mechanical components by machine operators whose skill and experience in
machining are unknown is cognitive uncertainty. When machine operators’ skills and ex-
perience are fully known, the outcome of the quality of machined mechanical components
by those operators will be a physical uncertainty.
10 1. INTRODUCTION TO RELIABILITY IN MECHANICAL DESIGN
1.4 DEFINITION OF RELIABILITY
When uncertainties of main design variables are taken into consideration during mechanical
design, reliability will be a relative measure of the performance of a product. Although there is a
consensus that reliability is an important attribute of a product, there is no universally accepted
definition of reliability. This book will use the following definition of reliability.

Reliability, denoted by R, is defined as the probability of a component, a device, or a system

performing its intended functions without failure over a specified service life and under specified
operation environments and loading conditions.
Phase Two of the engineering design process, as discussed in Section 1.1, is to determine
and specify the design specifications of the product. The design specifications include the in-
tended functions, service life, operational environments, loading conditions, and the required
reliability. There are lots of different possible failure, as discussed in Section 1.2. This book will
only focus on three typical mechanical components’ failures: static failure, excessive deflection
failure, and fatigue failure. Therefore, the reliability of a component can be expressed by the
following equation:
R D P .S  Q/; (1.1)

where S is a component material strength index, which could be material strength such as yield
strength, ultimate strength, fatigue strength, or allowable deflection. Q is a component loading
index, which could be maximum stress, accumulated fatigue damage, or maximum deflection of
a component.
P .S  Q/ means the probability of the status that component can perform its intended
functions without failure. R is the reliability and is equal to this probability. The physical mean-
ing of reliability is the percentage of components working properly out of the total of the same
components in service. For example, if 10,000 of the mechanical shafts with the designed relia-
bility 0.99 for the service life of one year are in service, the reliability 0.99 of these shafts indicate
that 0:99  10000 D 9900 of these mechanical shafts are expected to work properly at the end
of one-year service. One hundred of these mechanical shafts might fail at the end of one-year
service.
Reliability is an important attribute of a component and a relative measure of the compo-
nent status through the comparison of materials strength index with component loading index
within the service life. In other words, the reliability of a component is a function of materials
properties, loading conditions, component geometric dimensions, and service life. Since relia-
bility R is expressed by probability, reliability is not an attribute of a specific component, but an
attribute of the batch of same designed components. For example, a company has designed and
sold 10,000 unit of the designed component with a reliability 0.99. Supposed we purchased one
of the components. We cannot claim that the component has a reliability of 0.99 because the
reliability 0.99 is the attribute of the batch of 10,000 units of the same designed components.
 1.4. DEFINITION OF RELIABILITY 11
After the definition of reliability is defined, it is easy to define the probability of failure of a
component.

Probability of failure, denoted by F , is defined as the probability of a component, a device, or

a system failing to perform its intended functions over a specified service life and under specified
operation environments and loading conditions.
The probability of failure, F , can be expressed by the following equation:

F D P .S < Q/: (1.2)

The sum of the reliability and the probability of failure should be equal to 1, that is,

F C R D 1: (1.3)

Example 1.1
It is assumed that a company has designed and sold 10,000 units of the designed component
which has a reliability of 0.99 with a service life of 5 years. The record of the service information
of these 10,000 units during 5 years in the service is shown in Table 1.2. Estimate the reliability
of the components at the end of each service year and actual reliability of the components with
the service life of five years.

Table 1.2: The record of the service information of the designed components

Service Years First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year Fifth Year
Number of Failures 11 15 13 17 27

Solution:
From Table 1.2, at the end of the first-year service, 11 of the components fails, and 10;000
11 D 9;989 of components still work properly. According to the definition of the reliability and
the probability of failure, we can estimate the reliability R1 and the probability of failure F1 of
the components when they are in service of one year:

9;989 11
R1 D D 0:9989; F1 D D 0:0011:
10;000 10;000

The reliability and the probability of failure of the components at the end of each service year
can be calculated accordingly and is listed in Table 1.3.
From Table 1.3, the actual reliability of the components with a service life of 5 years is
0.9917, which is larger than the required reliability 0.99. This result indicates that the compo-
nents have been designed properly. 
12 1. INTRODUCTION TO RELIABILITY IN MECHANICAL DESIGN
Table 1.3: Estimation of the reliability and the probability of failure of the components

Service Years One Year Two Years Three Years Four Years Five Years
Number of Working
9989 9974 9961 9944 9917
Components
Reliability 0.9989 0.9974 0.9961 0.9944 0.9917
Cumulative
11 26 39 56 83
Number of Failures
Probability of
0.0011 0.0026 0.0039 0.0056 0.0083
Failure

Example 1.2
It is assumed that a company designs and manufacture a mechanical unit with a reliability 0.95
for a service life of 2 years. Estimate how many of the mechanical units will fail at the end of
two years if 50,000 of the mechanical unit are in service.
Solution:
The reliability of the mechanical unit is 0.95. So, the probability of failure of the mechanical
unit will be:
F D 1 R D 1 0:95 D 0:05:
According to the definition of the probability of failure, the estimation of the numbers of failures
of the mechanical units at the end of 2 years in service will be:

n D F  50;000 D 0:005  50;000 D 2;500:

1.5 IMPORTANCE OF RELIABILITY

A component, device, or system is designed per specifications to properly and safely perform
its intended functions. However, throughout the history of engineering design some of them
failed to perform the intended functions. For instance, some caused disasters such as the Space
Shuttle Challenger Disaster, which happened on January 28, 1986, causing a financial loss of
around $3.2 billion as well as the tragic human loss of seven astronauts. The factor of safety,
is defined as the ratio of component material strength index, such ultimate strength, to the
component actual stress index such as component maximum stress. However, the intention of
the factor of safety is never used to predict or estimate the likelihood of component failure.
The reliability-based mechanical component can address this issue. It is commonly agreed that
 1.6. RELIABILITY HISTORY 13
reliability in engineering design was initiated and established by the AGREE report [10] in
1957. The method of reliability in engineering has become extremely important. The importance
of reliability in engineering design can be expressed and explained through the following four
aspects.
• Reliability in engineering design is a more scientific and advanced relative measure of the
status of a component, device, or system. In reality, all design parameters such as ma-
terial strength, working load, and component geometric dimensions have some inherent
uncertainty. Per the definition of reliability, reliability considers all these uncertainties of
design parameters in engineering design and systematically links them together through a
probability theory to conduct engineering design.
• Reliability in engineering design is a more practical measure of the status of a component,
device, or system because it admits that any designed component could fail no matter how
we design it. The reliability R is designed into the components per design specification, is
an attribute of the component, and can be used to predict the percentage of failure of the
designed component. The percentage of failure of the component will be equal to .1 R/.
• Reliability is directly and tightly related to the reputation of a company and a product. In
today’s competitive market, every device and system is expected to perform satisfactorily
throughout its expected life span. Usually, the value of reliability is proportional to the
price of the product. The higher reliability the product has, the higher the cost needed to
manufacture it. Product with higher reliability might affect company markets. However,
the lower the reliability of the product indicates a higher percentage of failure. Although
the manufacturer gives a warranty to cover the failures of the product during its early stages
of life, too many failures during the warranty period not only cause inconvenience to the
customer and high cost of repair to the manufacturer but also mean a loss of reputation
and market share.
• Reliability in engineering design is a systematic tool for designing a complicated product
or system with the required reliability. Generally, no device or system will perform reliably
unless it is designed specifically for reliability. The complicated system typically includes
many subsystems, and each subsystem can have thousands of components. Reliability in
engineering design intends to design the reliability into each component or to predict the
percentage failure of each component. The proper arrangement or allocation of reliability
into each component can design each subsystem with the required reliability.

1.6 RELIABILITY HISTORY

Reliability in engineering design is an application of probability theory. Ancient mathematicians
such as Italian mathematician Gerolamo Cardano in the 16th century, and French mathemati-
cians Pierre de Fermat and Blaise Pascal in the 17th century, studied and researched probability
14 1. INTRODUCTION TO RELIABILITY IN MECHANICAL DESIGN
theory, which was mainly about gambling. However, the reliability in engineering emerged as
a separate discipline in the 1950s due to the extensive research and study on military electronic
equipment.
During World War II, Germans applied basic reliability concepts to improve the reliabil-
ity of their V1 and V2 rockets [3]. The following are some unbelievable facts about electronic
equipment during World War II [3].

• During 1941–1945, 60–75% of vacuum tubes in communication equipment failed.

• During 1941–1945, nearly 60% of the airborne equipment shipped to the Far East was
damaged on arrival.

• During 1941–1945, nearly 50% of the spare parts and equipment in storage became un-
serviceable before they were ever used.

• In 1947, nearly 70% of the electronic equipment possessed by the Navy was not operating
properly.

Such extremely high percentages of electronic equipment failures, in reality, resulted in

great attention and extensive research activities in the United States. In 1950, the Air Force
formed the ad hoc Group on Reliability of Electronic Equipment to study the situation and
recommend measures that could increase the reliability of equipment. In 1951, the Navy began
an extensive and lengthy study on vacuum tubes. In 1951, the Army started a similar investi-
gation. Due to such an extensive study, in 1952, the Department of Defense established the
Advisory Group on Reliability of Electronic Equipment (AGREE) to coordinate the research
activities of the Air Force, Navy, and Army. In June 1957, AGREE published its first report:
“Reliability of Military Electronic Equipment” [10]. Two of their many conclusions and rec-
ommendations in the AGREE report were: (1) reliability testing must be made an integral part
in the development of a new system and (2) procuring agencies should accept the equipment
only after getting the reliability demonstrated by a manufacturer. It is widely accepted that this
AGREE first report in 1957 is the foundation of the reliability in engineering design.
The extensive research on the reliability of electronic equipment in the 1950s formed the
first set of reliability-related standards. Some examples of these military standards are listed in
the following.

• In 1952, the AGREE established a military standard MIL-STD-781 “Reliability Quali-

fication and Production Approval Test,” which was revised as MIL-STD-781b in 1967.

• In 1955, the AGREE established military standards MIL-STD-441 “Reliability of Mil-

itary Electronic Equipment.”

• In 1961, MIL-STD-756 for reporting prediction of weapons’ system reliability.

 1.7. RELIABILITY VS. FACTOR OF SAFETY 15
• In 1965, the DOD (Department of Defense) military standard MIL-STD-785 “Reliabil-
ity Program for Systems and Equipment,” which was revised in 2008.
Reliability in mechanical engineering design is founded based on similar concepts and
principles which were established through the extensive research on military electronic equip-
ment. The following are several notable events for reliability in mechanical engineering design.
• In 1951, Weibull, W. of the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology published a statistical
distribution for material strength [11]. This distribution is called Weibull distribution and
has played an important role in the development of reliability in mechanical engineering.
• In 1968, Professor Edward B. Haugen published the book Probability Approach to De-
sign [12], which was directedly focused on mechanical design with reliability.
• In 1972, Professor A. D. S. Carter published a book Mechanical Reliability [13].
• In 1977, Dr. D. Kececioglu published a paper “Probabilistic design methods for reliabil-
ity and their data and research requirements” to present the approach for dealing with
reliability in fatigue failure [14].
Nowadays, reliability in engineering design has become an important concept and tool
for mechanical engineering design.

1.7 RELIABILITY VS. FACTOR OF SAFETY

The differences between reliability and factor of safety will be very clear after Chapter 4 has been
read. Before that, we will use some simple examples to explain their differences.
In the traditional mechanical design approach, the factor of safety is typically defined as
the ratio of component’ strength to the maximum component stress induced by the operational
load. For example, if the failure mode of the component is a static failure, the factor of safety is:
S
nD > 1; (1.4)
Q
where S is the average of the component’s strength index such as tensile yield strength or ul-
timate tensile strength for static failure design. Q is the average of the component’s maximum
stress, which can be determined by the component’s geometrical dimensions and operational
loading. n is the factor of safety, which links together component’s material strength, compo-
nent geometrical dimensions, and operational loading for component design.
Reliability of a component is defined as the probability of a component, a device or a
system performing its intended functions without failure over a specified service life and under
specified operation environments and loading conditions. The mathematical equation for the
reliability is shown in Equation (1.1) and is repeated here:
R D P .S  Q/; (1.1)
16 1. INTRODUCTION TO RELIABILITY IN MECHANICAL DESIGN
where S is the component’s strength index such as tensile yield strength or ultimate tensile
strength for static failure design. Q is the component’s maximum stress, which can be deter-
mined by the component’s geometrical dimensions and operational loading. R is reliability.
Both the reliability and the factor of safety serve the same purpose and are a measure for
creating the design equations. However, the key differences between them are:
• the factor of safety is a deterministic approach in which all design parameters are treated
as deterministic values. The factor of safety intends partially to consider the uncertainty of
the design parameters; and
• the reliability is a probabilistic approach in which all design parameters are treated as ran-
dom values. The uncertainties of the design parameters are assessed by reliability.
The following example can explain in detail the similarities and differences between the
reliability and the factor of safety.
Example 1.3
In the traditional design approach with a factor of safety, the design parameters for three design
cases with different materials and different operation loading are treated as deterministic values
and are listed in Table 1.4. When the uncertainties of the strengths and stresses of the three
design cases are considered, the strengths and stresses of the components of the same design
cases are treated as normal distribution random variables (note: the normal distribution will
be discussed in Section 2.12.4). The corresponding distribution parameters are also listed in
Table 1.2:
1. conduct the design check, that is, calculate the factor of safety and the reliability of com-
ponents; and
2. discuss the results.

Table 1.4: The design parameters of three design cases

The Probabilistic Approach with a Reliability

Traditional Approach
Strength S Stress Q
with a Factor of Safety
(normal distribution) (normal distribution)
Standard Standard
Case # Strength Stress Mean μS Mean μQ
Deviation σS Deviation σQ
1 100 (ksi) 80 (ksi) 100 (ksi) 5 (ksi) 80 (ksi) 5 (ksi)
2 100 (ksi) 80 (ksi) 100 (ksi) 5 (ksi) 80 (ksi) 20 (ksi)
3 100 (ksi) 50 (ksi) 100 (ksi) 30 (ksi) 50 (ksi) 30 (ksi)
 1.7. RELIABILITY VS. FACTOR OF SAFETY 17
Solution:

1. The factor of safety and the reliability.

The factor of safety of three design cases can be calculated per Equation (1.3) and are
listed in Table 1.5. The reliability can be calculated according to Equation (1.1), which will
be discussed in detail in Section 2.12.4. The random event .S  Q/ is the same random
event .S Q  0/. Let us use Z to represent the new random variable S Q, that is,
Z D S Q. Equation (1.1) can be rearranged as:

R D P .S  Q/ D P .S Q  0/ D P .Z  0/:

Since both strength S and stress Q are normal distributions, the random variable Z will
also be a normal distribution. The mean Z and standard deviation Z of Z can be calcu-
lated by the means and the standard deviations of S and Q. They are:
q

2
Z D S Q I Z D .S /2 C Q :

After the mean and standard deviation of the normally distributed random variable Z are
determined, the reliability can be directly calculated based on R D P .Z  0/ and are listed
in Table 1.5. (Note: The calculation procedure will be discussed in detail in Section 2.12.4.)

Table 1.5: The factor of safety and the reliability of three design cases

The Factor of Safety Approach The Reliability Approach

Case # Factor of Standard
Strength Stress Mean μZ Reliability
Safety Deviation σZ
1 100 (ksi) 80 (ksi) 1.25 20 (ksi) 7.1 (ksi) 0.9977
2 100 (ksi) 80 (ksi) 1.25 20 (ksi) 20.6 (ksi) 0.8340
3 100 (ksi) 50 (ksi) 2 50 (ksi) 42.4 (ksi) 0.8807

2. Discuss the results.

• Both the factor of safety and the reliability are the measure of the status of safety
of the components. However, the reliability R not only predicts the status of safety
of the component but also indicates failure probability F , which is equal to 1 R.
For example, from Table 1.5, the reliability of components in Case #1 is 0.9977, and
the failure probability of a component is 1 0:9977 D 0:0023 D 0:23%. The factor of
safety cannot provide any information about the possible failure of a component.
18 1. INTRODUCTION TO RELIABILITY IN MECHANICAL DESIGN
• From Table 1.5, both Cases #1 and #2 have the same factor of safety: 1.25. The same
value of the factor of safety implies that both Case #1 and Case #2 will have the
same measure of the status of safety. However, when the reliability approach is used
to check the status of safety of Case #1 and Case #2, the reliabilities of these two
designs are quite different, as shown in Table 1.5. Case #1 has a reliability 0.9977,
and Case #2 has a reliability 0.8340 only. The cause for this inconsistent result is
due to the uncertainty of design parameters. The traditional design approach with
the factor of safety cannot quantitively consider the effect of uncertainty. The design
approach with reliability does consider the effects of uncertainty.
• From Table 1.5, the factor of safety in the design Case #3 is 2 and is larger than the
factor of safety 1.25 of the design Case #1 from the table. According to the meaning of
factor of safety, this indicates that the components from the design Case #3 should be
relatively safer than the components from the design Case #1. However, the reliability
of the components for the design Case #3 is much less than the reliability of the
component for the design Case #1 from Table 1.5. The cause for these contradictory
conclusions is mainly due to the uncertainty of design parameters. So, a higher factor
of safety does not guarantee a much safer component. However, higher reliability will
certainly guarantee just that.
• From Table 1.4, the simple information about the design parameters, that is, deter-
ministic values, are required when the design approach with a factor of safety is used
for component design. However, when the design approach with reliability is used
for component design, a large amount of information about design parameters are
needed because the type of distributions and corresponding distribution parameters
are required. 

In summary, both the factor of safety and the reliability are the measure of the status of
safety of a component. Both are successfully used for mechanical component design. The ad-
vantages of the factor of safety are simple and do not require much information about design
parameters. The disadvantages are: (1) it cannot be used to explain possible component failure;
(2) the higher the factor of safety of components does not guarantee that it will be much safer;
and (3) it cannot include the effects of uncertainty of the design parameters. The advantages
of reliability are: (1) it not only indicates the probability of safe components, but also indicates
the probability of component failure; (2) the higher reliability of a component certainly guar-
antees that it is much safer; and (3) the approach with reliability can fully consider the effects
of uncertainties of design parameters. The main disadvantage of the design approach with reli-
ability is that much more information or a large amount of data about uncertainties of design
parameters are required. Without reliable descriptions of uncertainties of design parameters, the
implementation of the design approach with reliability is meaningless.
 1.8. SUMMARY 19
1.8 SUMMARY
Engineering design is a process in which a design idea is checked for its feasibility, rephrased by
engineering technical language, designed, and then manufactured into a product that will serve
the society. The engineering design is a process not only because it takes a period of times to be
completed, but also because the prototype of design must be built and fully tested before it can
be released to the society. One description of the engineering design process is the five-phase
engineering design process—Phase One: Needs Assessment; Phase Two: Design Specifications;
Phase Three: Conceptual Designs, Phase Four: Detailed Design; and Phase Five: Implementa-
tion. The contents of this book are the key techniques required to design components in Phase
Four: Detailed Design.
Reliability R is defined as the probability of a component, a device or a system performing
its intended functions without failure over a specified service life and under specified operation
environments and loading conditions. The reliability-based mechanical design is the main topic
of this book. It uses the reliability to replace the factor of safety to form a design governing
equation for linking all design parameters together. One dilemma for the traditional design
theory with the factor of safety in mechanical component design is that it cannot provide any
tool to assess the component failure, which is a reality in industries. The reliability-based me-
chanical design is an advanced design theory and can provide a tool to solve this dilemma. A
few highlights about the reliability-based mechanical design are follows.
• All main design parameters such as materials strengths, component dimensions, external
loadings, and the loading-induced component stresses are treated as random variables for
considering their uncertainties.
• The component is designed with required reliability. Its physical meaning is the percent-
age of components working properly under specified operation environments and loading
conditions over a specified service life.
• Probability of failure F of the component will be .1 R/ and indicates the percentage
of components which cannot work properly under specified operation environments and
loading conditions over a specified service life.
• The higher the reliability a component has, the safer it will be. However, the higher relia-
bility of a component also implies a higher cost of the component.

1.9 REFERENCES
[1] Voland, G., Engineering by Design, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. 2, 5
[2] Le, Xiaobin, Anthony, D., Roberts, R., and Moazed, A., Instructional methodology
for capstone senior mechanical design, ASEE International Conference, Vancouver, BC,
Canada, June 26–29, 2011. 2
20 1. INTRODUCTION TO RELIABILITY IN MECHANICAL DESIGN
[3] Rao, S. S., Reliability Engineering, Pearson, 2015. 7, 8, 9, 14

[4] Reliability analysis center, non-electronic parts reliability data, NPRD-1, Reliability
Analysis Center, Rome Development Center, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York, 1978.
7, 8

[5] Cater, A. D. S., Mechanical Reliability and Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1997. 8

[6] Modarres, M., Kaminskiy, M., and Krivtson, V., Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis:
A Practical Guide, 2nd ed., CRC Press, 2010. DOI: 10.1201/9781420008944.

[7] Dasgupta, A. and Pecht, M., Materials failure mechanisms and damage models, IEEE
Transactions on Reliability, 40(5), 531–536, 1991. DOI: 10.1109/24.106769. 8

[8] Choi, S.-K., Grandhi, R. V., and Canfield, R. A., Reliability-based structural design.
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84628-445-8. 9

[9] Vinogradov, O., Introduction to Mechanical Reliability, a Designer’s Approach, Hemisphere

Publishing Corporation, 1991. 9

[10] AGREE Report, Advisory Group on Reliability of Electronic Equipment (AGREE),

Reliability of Military Electronic Equipment, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Research and Engineering), Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 1957. 13, 14

[11] Weibull, W., A statistical distribution function of wide applicability, Journal of Application
Mechanics Transactions on ASME, 18(3): 293–297, 1951. 15

[12] Haugen, E. B., Probability Approach to Design, New York, Wiley, 1968. 15

[13] Carter, A. D. S., Mechanical Reliability, New York, Wiley, 1972. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-
349-18478-1. 15

[14] Kececioglu, D., Probabilistic design methods for reliability and their data and research
requirements, Failure Prevention and Reliability, ASME, pp. 285–305, 1977. 15

1.10 EXERCISES
1.1. List at least two different definitions of engineering design and discuss their similarities
and differences.
1.2. Use your statement to explain what engineering design is.
1.3. What is the five-phase engineering design? What are the main tasks of each phase?
 1.10. EXERCISES 21
1.4. Use one of your design projects to check whether you used all five phases. If not, why
or what happened?
1.5. Why is the engineering design a process?
1.6. List at least two possible needs for engineering design and then run the needs assess-
ment.
1.7. Use one of your design examples to describe how you conduct a conceptual design.
1.8. List four examples of failures that you know. What are the types of failures? What causes
failures?
1.9. Describe and explain your understanding of a typical bathtub curve of the failure rate.
1.10. What is a static strength failure?
1.11. What is fatigue failure? Explain the differences between static failure and fatigue failure.
1.12. List one example of excessive deflection failure and provide some possible solutions to
deal with the issue.
1.13. What is uncertainty in engineering? List and explain at least three examples of typical
design parameters.
1.14. What causes the uncertainty of the ultimate tensile strength of a material?
1.15. Explain the uncertainty related to geometrical dimensions of components.
1.16. Use one example to describe and explain uncertainty related to component failures.
1.17. What is the factor of safety? What is the physical meaning of the factor of safety? Can
you use the factor of safety to predict the component failure? Why?
1.18. List and explain the definition of reliability in engineering design.
1.19. What are the similarities and differences between the factor of safety and reliability?
1.20. What is the reliability-based mechanical design? What are the key differences between
the traditional mechanical design theory and reliability-based mechanical design?
1.21. Does a component with a higher factor of safety imply that the component will have
higher reliability? If not, can you explain it?
1.22. Describe and explain the importance of reliability in engineering design.
1.23. Briefly describe the reliability history. What do you learn from this history?