Fig 1.
Diagram of the limit state band within a two-dimensional standard state space.
Fig 2.
Schematic diagram of harmonic drive.
Fig 3.
Iterative histories of different methods.
(a) HL-RF method, (b) CCM method, (c) MCCM method.
Table 1.
Comparison of the PoF Pf for different methods.
Table 2.
The distribution of the uncertain variables used in assessing the fatigue fracture of flexspline of the harmonic drive.
Table 3.
Comparison of the maximum probability of failure from MCS under different discretization numbers of interval variables.
Table 4.
Comparison of AK-MCS results for different convergence criterion.
Fig 4.
The variation of the maximum PoF with the safety factor Sf for different methods.
Table 5.
Comparison of the maximum PoF for different methods under different safety factors Sf.
Table 6.
Comparison of the iterations of different methods.
Table 7.
Comparison of the results of the proposed method for different control factors λ.
Table 8.
The distribution of the uncertain variables used in assessing the contact fatigue of the flexspline of the harmonic drive.
Fig 5.
The variation of the maximum PoF with the rated life
for different methods.
Table 9.
Comparison of the maximum PoF for different methods under different rated life
.
Table 10.
Comparison of the iterations of different methods.
Table 11.
Comparison of the maximum PoF for different control parameter λ.
Table 12.
The distribution of the uncertain variables used in assessing the tooth surface wear fatigue of the flexspline of the harmonic drive.
Fig 6.
The variation of the maximum PoF with the permissible specific pressure p for different methods.
Table 13.
Comparison of the maximum PoF for different permissible specific pressure p.
Table 14.
Comparison of the iterations of different methods.
Table 15.
Comparison of the maximum PoF for different control parameter λ.