Research Article  Open Access
Reliability Analysis to a SatelliteEquipped Harmonic Gear Drive Subjected to Multisource Data and Imbalanced Information
Abstract
We propose a Bayesianbased reliability framework for a satelliteequipped harmonic gear drive (HGD) mainly addressing two unsettled issues in existing research works, that is, an efficient aggregation method for multilevel system with imbalanced information and the multisource data fusion in a hierarchical structure. The proposed approach improves the estimation result for the whole system by utilizing all available information throughout the system. In particular, the heterogeneous data sets are classified into three types of collections of statistical data, timecorrelated data, and performance test data based on their mathematical characteristics, respectively. Novel features include the comprehensive information aggregation approach taking into account multilevel information and a unique informationbased fusion strategy. A real HGD device is demonstrated as the case study for benefit illustration and validation purpose.
1. Introduction and Motivation
Possessing the advantages of scalability, tractability, and modularity [1], the multilevel hierarchical structure is widely adopted in the design of complex engineering systems. Such systems are deployed to meet highly sophisticated and advanced requirements on functionalities and performance for their applications in missioncritical industries, for example, infrastructure, manufacturing aviation, and highlevel national security. Their failure in use would result in devastating consequences. A multilevel hierarchical engineering system may consist of multiple subsystems that are composed of multiple lowerlevel subsystems or components. In this article, a component, a subsystem, or the whole system is referred to as an “element.” These elements are interconnected and interact with each other, jointly contributing to the functionality of the whole system.
Recent years witness the development of effective approaches (e.g., stochastic process approach and universal generating function approach) in the multilevel system reliability modeling, as summarized in [2]. For a multilevel hierarchical system, one critical issue is to accurately model and analyze the reliability for the whole system under an information imbalance scenario. To illustrate, the available information of a hierarchical system is taken into consideration. The bottomlevel elements mostly are standard components with high volume of production and deployment, which yield either readily accessible or easily obtainable reliability information. However, since the experiments for a system as a whole are often costly and timeconsuming, accumulated knowledge at the system level is limited and reliability information is often scarce or even absent for toplevel elements. Usually, the information of bottomlevel components is more easily obtained than that of the top systemlevel components, which produces the socalled information imbalance scenario [3]. Under such circumstance, it is desirable to aggregate the lowerlevel information to compensate higherlevel information inadequacy for a better reliability estimation at the system level. Frequentist approaches are mathematically cumbersome in information aggregation [3]. Alternatively, Bayesian approaches provide satisfactory and flexible ways to aggregate the available multilevel reliability information [4]. For example, Johnson et al. [5] present a “fullBayesian approach” for integrating all the reliability information related to a system. This approach resolves the upward and downward propagation problem by simultaneously modeling the complete set of system parameters. Hamada et al. [6] generalize their procedure to the fault tree quantification. Li et al. [7] propose a semiparametric modeling approach for hierarchical systems with multilevel information aggregation. Benefiting from the successful application of the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods in Bayesian inference, the choice of prior distribution is not limited within conjugate distributions and the modelling to multitype data has been significantly extended. Recent works include Li et al. [8], Pan and Yontay [9], Guo et al. [10] are well summarized in [11–18].
Another critical issue in reliability modeling and assessment field for the multilevel complex system is the difficulty in dealing with heterogeneous data sets. Subjected to costly and timeconsuming reliability tests, the available datasets of many higherlevel elements of the multilevel system are often restricted to attribute data (e.g., pass/fail data). By contrast, the collected information or data is abundant for lowerlevel components and exhibits as more informative forms (e.g., the failure time data or degradation data). Methods for system reliability analysis with lifetime or degradation data have been put forward by Huang et al. [19], Wang et al. [20], and Ye et al. [21]. But most of the aforementioned studies are focused on one type of data, while little attention has been paid on a scenario of mixed multisource data, and limited exceptions are the work proposed by [22–25]. The reliability assessment of a multilevel system addressing both reliability test data and performance test data has not been sufficiently addressed yet. In fact, for a product in a design stage or in a developing stage, few experiments would have been specially conducted for pure reliability purpose, while more experiments are conducted to test certain performance or verify if the design scheme satisfies the engineering demand. It is the performance test data that occupies the main domain of all available test data compared with the reliability test data. Similar scenario exists in the true measurement field where the data is collected from products during the service life span. On this occasion, a comprehensive reliability approach taking into account multilevel structure and multisource data makes significant importance [26]. Figure 1 provides a graphical description of the two crucial issues existing in a multilevel hierarchical system. To fill the research gap and establish a more generic reliability information aggregation framework, this article proposes a Bayesianbased approach to model and analyze the reliability of a system with multisource data and imbalanced information (MSDII).
This article is organized as follows: In Section 2, the two critical issues of the MSDII system mentioned above are illustrated through a real harmonic gear drive (HGD) device and the rationale of the proposed information aggregation approach is introduced. And then, the Bayesianbased information aggregation process is discussed from both singleelement and interelement aspects at full length in Section 3. Following that, in Section 4, a case study is demonstrated for validation, while the benefits and effectiveness of the proposal are also illustrated through a series of computations and comparisons. Finally, some concluding remarks are drawn in Section 5.
2. Problem Description of the MSDII System
The HGD device is the core part of the doubleaxis driving mechanism (DADM) which is used for erecting the antenna. In this paper, the HGD device is cited for instance to illustrate the two critical problems in the MSDII system. Its physical model is shown in Figure 2, and the system structure is represented by a hierarchical model in Figure 3. The whole device can be mainly divided into two subsystems, a spline system and harmonic wave generator. The spline system consists of a flexspline and a circular spline. The harmonic wave generator can be further decomposed into three components, that is, a wave generator producing basic torsion, a convex gear transmitting force and moment, and a direct current motor providing power.
Figure 4 intuitively presents the scenario of multisource data and imbalanced information in the developing and manufacturing phases of the HGD. For basic components in the bottom level, we have abundant test data and sufficient prior knowledge. This prior information (e.g., judgment of experts, historical records of prototypes, and past experience of similar products) produces an informative and accurate prior probability distribution in the Bayesian inference. However, since the experiment for the system as a whole is both costly and timeconsuming, test data is limited for higherlevel elements. In addition, the prior knowledge is usually insufficient to construct an accurate and informative prior distribution; thus, the noninformative prior or diffuse prior is assigned on account of the scarce or even absent prior knowledge. Figure 4 gives a graphical description of the available information in the MSDII system, and Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the three types of data (i.e., the statistical data, the timecorrelated data, and the performance test data).

To balance the inadequacy of the available data, the Bayesian approach can be applied to explicitly incorporate prior knowledge into statistical modeling [4, 5]. The rationale of this framework is that based on the functional relationships of system elements, the lowerlevel reliability information can be explicitly aggregated to the system level and elicited as an attached probability index for the system reliability combination to compensate its information inadequacy. The detailed information aggregation procedure will be illustrated in the next section.
3. BayesianBased Multilevel and Multisource Data Fusion
This section presents the details of the proposed Bayesianbased information aggregation method, which is developed to resolve the reliability of a multilevel system with multisource data in an information imbalance scenario.
3.1. SingleElement Information Aggregation
3.1.1. BICBased Model Selection
In this section, a Bayesian information criterion (BIC) based model selection strategy is developed for singleelement information aggregation. The HGD system shown in Figure 3 is considered here without loss of generality, in which the Bayesian network (BN) is constructed and shown in Figure 5. (i)For the statistical data () that only have the survival or failure records (e.g., pass/fail data and count data), the binomial distribution can be used to model the pass/fail data and the Poisson distribution can be adopted to model the count data set, as stated in [5, 23].(ii)For the timecorrelated data () and performance test data (), there is usually a number of candidate models (e.g., exponential, Weibull, and lognormal). In practical engineering, the model selection is a casebased procedure and the mathematical convenience should be taken into consideration. In this paper, the BIC is employed to help select an appropriate probability model among several candidates. The BIC (also named SBC and SBIC) is a criterion for model selection among finite sets of models, which is proposed by Schwarz [27] and further developed by Diciccio et al. [28].
The BIC has the following basic form: where represents the observed data, denotes the sample size, refers to the number of free parameters, is the likelihood function, and denotes the estimation values that maximize the likelihood function. For a series of fixed test data, the smaller the BIC value is, the more acceptable the model is.
3.1.2. Likelihood Derivation for Heterogeneous Data Set
To build a comprehensive model for a multilevel system, heterogeneous data sets need to be incorporated. In this section, the likelihood contributions of the three types of data to the joint likelihood are derived.
(1) The Statistical Data Set. The statistical data set is defined as a data collection that only contains the dimensionless “number” information of the test unit or the element of interest. That is, the data set only records the number of units that survived or failed in an experiment or during a period of reality service time (e.g., the pass/fail data). Its mathematical form can be represented as a specification of . From an information perspective, this type of data can only provide number information and is thought to be less informative compared with other types of data. Suppose that units are subject to independent sampling tests, where . The number of passing units in each test is . Let be the random variable following a binomial distribution. The probability that a unit passes the test is determined by its parameter . The model for is described as
The likelihood for a single observation can be described as
And the likelihood for the whole statistical data set is where all parameters in the statistical data set are involved in the parameter vector .
(2) The TimeCorrelated Data Set. The timecorrelated data set is defined as a type of data collection that contains both quantity and time information of a specific unit. For example, the failure time data gives exact records of failure time while the censored time data only provides partial information about failure time due to the limited test condition. Its mathematical form can be represented as the specification of a pair , and it is thought that the timecorrelated data is more informative than the simple statistical data. Eventually, the information obtained from a collection of timecorrelated data is limited not only in the number of failures for a batch of tested units but also in the time point that a unit fails.
Various probability distributions can be used to model the timecorrelated data set: exponential, Weibull and lognormal distribution have been employed in different research works [22, 23]. If the likelihood contribution of the exact failure time is denoted as , the likelihood contribution of the leftcensored time can be expressed as the cumulative distribution function (CDF) while the likelihood contribution of the rightcensored time is derived similarly as . The likelihood function of the whole failure time data set could be obtained by multiplying the three individual contributions as where , , and denote the exact time, leftcensored time, and rightcensored time of the failure, respectively, and , , and denote the number of data points, respectively. All related parameters are involved in the parameter vector .
(3) The Performance Test Data Set. The performance test data set is defined as a type of data collection that records one kind of physical quantities which can reflect the performance of a product, for example, the starting acceleration of a motion mechanism and the output voltage of an electronic product. Its mathematical form can be represented as the specification of a triple . Generally, the reliability refers to the capacity of a component or a system to perform its required functions under stated operating conditions during a specified period of time [29]. Failure occurs when the performance exceeds a predefined threshold as
For a practical engineering problem, the reliability of one product is always related to multiple performance parameters and the reliability of this product is usually described as
Equation (7) can be intuitively explained as follows: the reliability of one product is determined by the “worst” aspect in its performance.
From an information view, it is evident that the performance test data is much informative than the previous two types of data. This is because the performance test data provides not only the “outcome” information at the failure point but also the detailed “procedure” information. The most challenge in modeling this type of data is the difficulty in handling multisource data with different units (i.e., velocity and acceleration collected from a sensor and realtime monitoring voltage). To model all the performance test data in a coherent way, we transform all performance test data with nondimensional operation as where is the initial performance value which serves as the nondimensional operator. Based on (8), the performance function would begin with 100 percentile. Given the data measurement error , the likelihood function for an individual data point at the time point is where is the probability density function (PDF) of the standard normal distribution. The denotes the value of a casebased performance function at the time point . Taking the multiparameters at a series of time points into consideration, the likelihood of the whole performance test data set is derived as where all parameters of the performance test data set are included in the parameter vector .
3.1.3. The Bayesian Model and Derivation of the Basic Probability Index
According to the Bayesian theorem, oneparameter posterior distribution is proportional to the multiplication of the likelihood function and the prior distribution. The joint likelihood function can be obtained by multiplying together the respective likelihood contributions of all available data sets. Let , , and denote the sets of elements with statistical data, timecorrelated data, and performance test data, respectively; then, the joint likelihood function is derived as where all parameters are involved in the parameter vector . Given the prior distribution of the model parameter vector , the Bayesian model is obtained as where is the joint prior distributions for the system model parameters and is the joint posterior distribution of the model parameter vector .
There is usually no analytic solution to (12); however, the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling techniques could be applied to get numerical solution (e.g., the Metropolis algorithms or the Gibbs samplers). The Metropolis random walk algorithm (MRWA) [30] is employed here to draw samples. Since the parameter vector has been estimated, other reliability indexes could be evaluated by generating enough samples from the posteriors of parameters based on (13) and (14).
It should be noted that the information used to obtain the parameter posterior distribution from (12) and the reliability indexes from (13) and (14) is singleelement based; namely, no additional information from interelements (e.g., other model outputs and system structural formation) is incorporated. Since the elements of a multilevel system are interconnected, it is desirable to aggregate all potential valuable information for reliability analysis and evaluation. On this occasion, we first estimate the parameters based on the two different data bases (i.e., the native information and induced information) and then integrate them into a comprehensive one. The probability indexes derived from (13) and (14) are defined as basic probability indexes, and the attached probability indexes on the basis of the interelement information will be discussed in the next section.
3.2. Interelement Information Aggregation
In this section, we discuss the derivation of attached probability indexes and the combination method in information aggregation.
3.2.1. The Structural Model of the MSDII System and Derivation of Attached Reliability Indexes
To illustrate the concept of attached probability indexes, let denote the element of interest. For a coherent system (commonly encountered examples of coherent systems include series systems, parallel systems and out systems), a probability index of the element can be calculated based on the induced information (such as other model outputs and system structural formulation) as (15) and the PDF is described as (16). where is the structure function determined by the direct predecessors of the element , is a set of indexes of the element direct predecessors, and and denote the attached probability index and the basic probability index (reliability), respectively. To specify the structure function , all relevant conditional probability tables (CPTs) in the BN will be used. For demonstration purpose, the simple series structure and parallel structure are employed. Thus, (15) has a specific form for series structure as
whereas that for parallel structure is
It is emphasized that no native information is used in the computation of the attached reliability indexes. Thus, the accuracy and the precision of results fully depend on the validity and adequacy of the induced information. Theoretically, if all basic probability indexes are accurately derived and the system structure is well investigated, the attached probability indexes derived are in correspondence with the basic probability indexes. However, due to the limited knowledge about a complex system, the given prior distribution may be inaccurate and the system function structure may be biased. Thus, the attached probability index is only an ideal inference value that can be used to revise the basic probability index.
To better estimate the reliability of the whole system, all potential valuable information (both native and induced information) are encouraged to be taken into consideration. A comprehensive combination method is required in the information aggregation as well as in the reliability analysis.
3.2.2. Probability Index Combination
Combining the attached probability index with the basic probability index yields a new combined probability index, which provides a comprehensive way for reliability estimation taking into account all related information. For the proposed MSDII system, the linear opinion pool method is used to combine these two types of probabilistic indexes. It is one of the most widely used formal approaches for combining probability distribution in the field of expert judgments [31, 32]. The combined probabilistic index is formulated as where , , and correspond to the combined probability index, the induced probability index, and the native probability index of the element in level , respectively. A weighting coefficient w is assigned to balance the contribution of the basic probability and attached probability . To deal with the information imbalance scenario in the MSDII system, the parameter w is determined by the ratio of the information content of available data sets between adjacent elements as where , , and denote the information content of the statistical data set, timecorrelated data set, and performance test data set of element , respectively. is a set of indexes of the element direct predecessors.
Based on the information theory founded by Shannon [33] and the research work extended by [34, 35], by definition, the amount of selfinformation contained in a probabilistic event depends on the probability of occurrence for that event. It is given as
The calculation to the selfinformation for the three types of data is discussed as follows. (1)Selfinformation of the statistical data set: Let denote the statistical data set, which contains independent data records, and the vector can be specified as , where and denote the number of total units tested and the number of survived units, respectively. For one data point , its selfinformation amount could be calculated as where the estimated value of parameter is obtained as (23) based on the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). Thus, the selfinformation of the statistical data set is derived as (2)Selfinformation of the timecorrelated data set: Let denote the timecorrelated data set, which consists of lots of components. For an individual component , its selfinformation could be expressed as where the estimated value of parameter is obtained as (26) based on the MLE. Thus, the selfinformation of the timerelated data set is derived as (3)Selfinformation of the performance test data set: Given the performance test data set , there are L measurements observed at each observation time point and lots of observation time points in total. Since the measurements can be modeled by a Gaussian distribution as (9), the probability of one component observed is obtained as where is the CDF of the standard normal distribution, is estimated as , and is estimated as based on the MLE. For an individual component , its selfinformation amount could be calculated as The selfinformation of the whole degradation data sets is derived as The idea of this combination way is that by setting an information aggregation weighting coefficient , quantified measurements can be taken to balance the contribution of the basic probability index and the attached probability index based on the information content calculation result. Sufficient test data produce a higher value of which will assign a larger weight in the combination procedure. As a consequence, the combined probability index inherits the major belief from the probability index with higher . The probability index combination provides a comprehensive method to incorporate the native information and the induced information in the reliability analysis of a multilevel system.
3.2.3. Reliability Analysis and Parameter Estimation
The combined probability obtained from (19) contains the prior knowledge and test data of both native information and aggregated structural information. It resolves the information inadequacy problem for elements at level and improves the reliability estimation for the element of interest. To meet the engineering demands, it is beneficial to analytically derive some probability indexes. In this section, the probability indexes for both reliability analysis and physical parameters are studied from a Bayesian perspective.
(1) Reliability Probability Indexes. Based on the combined probability index given in (19), the reliability of the system as a function of mission time can be obtained as where denotes the available test data in the MSDII system and is the joint posterior distribution of the parameters derived in (12). The failure rate of the system at the present time can be computed as
Additionally, the mean time to failure (MTTF) can be also calculated as
(2) Physical Parameter Probability Distribution. In other scenarios, people are more interested in certain physical parameter probability distribution other than the reliability indexes, especially for a product in the design and developing phase. We denote the parameter that is explicitly expressed in the reliability calculation (i.e., the parameter has been set as a threshold value for reliability calculation) as and the implicitly expressed parameters as . Based on (13), (15), and (31), we have
The deterministic physical model can be expressed as
Equation (35) can be rewritten in a vector form as , where and . By employing the transformations of random variables ([36], p.59), the joint posterior distribution of other remaining parameters is given as where denotes the probability distribution of the physical model response corresponding to the relationship function of the remaining parameter, is the physical model response, and is the associated Jacobian of the transformation. Similar to the joint posterior distribution in (9), most of these probability indexes cannot be analytically specified. The calculations are based on the posterior samples of model parameters using simulationbased integration.
3.3. Summary of the MSDII System Information Aggregation Framework
Several key steps of the proposed approach for the MSDII system are summarized as follows:
Step 1. Select the appropriate model based on the BIC calculation result.
Step 2. Derive the likelihood for elements with multisource data.
Step 3. Compute the basic probability indexes based on the native information.
Step 4. Calculate the attached probability indexes based on the induced information.
Step 5. Construct the combined probability indexes based on the information content of all available data sets.
Step 6. Estimate the probability indexes for reliability analysis or physical performance.
The flow diagram of the proposed approach is presented in Figure 6.
4. Numerical Case Study
4.1. Problem Description and Predefined Settings
A numerical case study is conducted to illustrate the proposed information aggregation procedure and demonstrate its effectiveness in reliability estimation. The hierarchical HGD system is again investigated here. Figure 7 shows the HGD system structure considered in this section.
The traditional information aggregation methodology encounters an obstacle in reliability modeling and the analysis of the HGD system due to the existence of imbalanced information and multisource data. To illustrate, the available information of bottomlevel components is well accumulated, which produces accurate prior knowledge. Nevertheless, the subsystemlevel information is not always accessible due to the unaffordable cost of the entire system experiment; thus, the available information is strictly limited.
Case study settings are assumed on the basis of a real HGD system, but they are adjusted due to the confidentiality. Table 2 gives the predetermined probability indexes of bottom elements, and the detailed settings of all relevant CPTs are given in Table 3. Based on these, probability indexes of the remaining elements can be calculated, as shown in Table 4, where denotes the normal state and corresponds to the failure state. They will serve as the ground truth in the case study. To imitate an information imbalance scenario, the performance test data set with a sample size of 100, the timecorrelated data set with a sample size of 50, and the statistical data set with a sample size of 10 (see details in Table 5) are randomly generated for components, subsystems, and the systemlevel elements, respectively, based on the ground truth. Additionally, accurate native priors are assigned to the components since the accumulated knowledge about them is abundant. For the subsystemlevel elements, diffuse native priors are assigned considering the fact that only bounds of certain parameters can be determined. Because the prior knowledge is almost absent at the top system level, noninformative native priors are adopted.




This case study is demonstrated to show how the proposed method improves the reliability evaluation result by using the imperfect information (i.e., inaccurate prior distribution and limited available data). The reliability framework for the case study is shown in Figure 8.
4.2. BayesianBased Information Aggregation Method and Reliability Estimation
4.2.1. SingleElement Information Aggregation
The multilevel information aggregation procedure starts with the model selection step. Since the available test data set for the systemlevel element is the nondimensional statistic data with a binary state, we use the binominal distribution to model the data set. For other elements, appropriate models are selected based on the computation of the BIC value among candidate distributions, and the calculated results are shown in Table 6.

Based on the likelihood constructed above, the basic probabilities (i.e., the reliability calculated using native information) are obtained from (13). These results are presented in Table 7. It is observed that the estimation results of componentlevel elements (~) are capable of high precision, whereas those of subsystemlevel elements ( and ) are of less accuracy. For systemlevel element (), the result is significantly biased. Actually, the calculation of the basic probability using only native information has no essential difference compared with the traditional Bayesianbased approach. The traditional ones can get a satisfactory reliability analysis outcome in the ideal circumstance. However, the result would be biased if the prior is inaccurate or some data is misleading. Under the information imbalance scenario, it is desirable to use the components’ information to compensate the system information inadequacy for an improved reliability estimation. Thus, the interelement information aggregation is in demand.

4.2.2. Interelement Information Aggregation
Since the system structural function is presented by the CPT given in Table 3, the attached probabilities for higherlevel elements of , , and can be calculated based on (15) as follows:
Based on the derivations of selfinformation for heterogeneous data sets in (22), (23), (24), (25), (26), (27), (28), (29), and (30), the information content for elements with multisource data is obtained as
Thus, the information aggregation factor is calculated as
For the combined probability, we have
It should be noted that , , and in (22) are random variables with probability distribution. A direct way to calculate (40) is to apply the parameter combination by estimating an explicit form of the probability distribution first. However, it will bring more errors in the parameter estimation procedure. In this paper, we adopt a samplebased method by mixing samples generated from and to obtain enough random samples of . In this way, no more deviation is introduced and an accurate combined probability is derived.
4.2.3. Result Analysis and Discussion
Figure 9 shows comparison results of the three posterior probability distributions (i.e., the basic probability, attached probability, and combined probability). For higherlevel elements (, , and ), it appears that neither the basic probability nor the pure attached probability fits the ground truth well. By contrast, the combined probability shows a satisfactory result, indicating a successful proposal in reliability analysis of a multilevel system. Further, to validate the efficiency of our approach in uncertainty reduction, three subcases with different model specifications are presented; that is, only systemlevel information is utilized (less information aggregated with only statistical data), both systemlevel information and subsystemlevel information are utilized (more information aggregated with statistical data and timecorrelated data), and all available test data are employed (all information aggregated with three types of data). The comparison results of the three scenarios are shown in Figure 10, which suggests that as more information is aggregated, the estimation result is improved and the uncertainty is significantly reduced. Table 8 shows the 95% credible intervals and posterior mean and median of the reliabilities for , , and . It can be seen that the 95% credible intervals fully cover the predetermined true value. The prior and posterior distributions of the failure rates and are calculated based on the (31) and (32) and listed in Table 9. The uncertainty reduction is calculated as , where l_{G} and l_{P} are the 95% credible interval lengths of the probability distribution of parameters derived by the general Bayesian method and the proposed approach, respectively.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)


Note that we have made some assumptions in this case study. They are acceptable in this numerical case for validation purpose, but it may require some additional considerations in practical engineering. For example, we do not consider the model uncertainty; that is to say, we assume that the established model (system configuration) is in complete accordance with the ground truth; for a practical engineering problem, the simulation model should be validated by the physical model before the approach is implemented. In addition, we assume that the used data is accurately obtained; thus, the measurement error is omitted; likewise, the collected data should be carefully calibrated before it is aggregated in the Bayesian model since it can significantly affect the estimation result. For relevant research works, please refer to [14–16].
5. Conclusion
This article proposes a multilevel information aggregation approach to evaluate the reliability of an MSDII system accurately, addressing two crucial issues in engineering reliability evaluation, that is, the imbalanced information and multisource data fusion. Based on system structural function, the reliability information of componentlevel elements has been aggregated to compensate the information inadequacy of the system level, yielding a better effect on the reliability analysis of the whole system. A real HGD system is demonstrated to confirm the validity and effectiveness of the proposal. The improved system reliability modeling will benefit system prognosis, warranty policy making, and the maintenance service planning, providing a more reliable assessment of the system’s health status with more accurate prediction of the remaining useful life. Furthermore, some better predictive maintenance policies can be established with less uncertainty.
It should be noted that our approach is developed for a coherent system; namely, this approach is feasible for series systems, parallel systems, out systems, and so on, but some complex systems do not fall within the scope of application. Since the structure function of some complex systems is not in analytical form or cannot be explicitly expressed, (15) and (16) are not applicable. It is also noted that many inherent uncertain factors in practical engineering such as model uncertainty, measurement error, and the cascading failure dependency have not been taken into consideration. A full Bayesian approach dealing with both aleatory uncertainties and epistemic uncertainties with cascading failure dependency would be under the consideration of the future work. It will be interesting to compare the frequencybased and full Bayesian approaches in the future from different aspects such as computational complexity, modeling accuracy and precision, and data availability and quality.
Nomenclature
MSDII:  Multisource data and imbalanced information 
MCMC:  Markov chain Monte Carlo 
PDF:  Probability density function 
CDF:  Cumulative distribution function 
BN:  Bayesian network 
CPT:  Conditional probability table 
BIC:  Bayesian information criterion 
HGD:  Harmonic gear drive 
DADM:  Doubleaxis driving mechanism 
:  Statistical data set 
:  Timecorrelated data set 
:  Performance test data set 
:  Element with statistical data 
:  Element with timecorrelated data 
:  Element with performance test data 
:  Set of elements with statistical data 
:  Set of elements with timecorrelated data 
:  Set of elements with performance test data 
:  The element at level in the Bayesian network 
:  The set of indices of the element direct predecessors 
:  Structural function 
:  Prior distribution 
:  Posterior distribution 
:  Information aggregation weighting coefficient 
:  Information content of the statistical data set 
:  Information content of the timecorrelated data set 
:  Information content of the performance test data set 
:  Basic probability 
:  Attached probability 
:  Combined probability. 
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The work of Lechang Yang was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China under Grant FRFTP17056A1 and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation under Grant 2018M630073. The work of Yanhua Du was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61473035.
References
 A. M. Ross, D. H. Rhodes, and D. E. Hastings, “Defining changeability: reconciling flexibility, adaptability, scalability, modifiability, and robustness for maintaining system lifecycle value,” Systems Engineering, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 246–262, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Lisnianski and G. Levitin, MultiState System Reliability: Assessment, Optimization and Applications, World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., 2003. View at: Publisher Site
 J. G. Ibrahim, M. H. Chen, and D. Sinha, Bayesian Survival Analysis, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2001. View at: Publisher Site
 M. S. Hamada, A. G. Wilson, C. S. Reese, and H. F. Martz, Bayesian Reliability, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2008. View at: Publisher Site
 V. E. Johnson, T. L. Graves, M. S. Hamada, and C. S. Reese, “A hierarchical model for estimating the reliability of complex systems,” Bayesian Statistics, vol. 7, pp. 199–213, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
 M. Hamada, H. F. Martz, C. S. Reese, T. Graves, V. Johnson, and A. G. Wilson, “A fully Bayesian approach for combining multilevel failure information in fault tree quantification and optimal followon resource allocation,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 297–305, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Li, Q. Hu, and J. Liu, “Proportional hazard modeling for hierarchical systems with multilevel information aggregation,” IIE Transactions, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 149–163, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. Li, Y. Deng, and C. Mastrangelo, “Model selection for degradationbased Bayesian reliability analysis,” Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 72–82, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Pan and P. Yontay, “Reliability assessment of hierarchical systems with incomplete mixed data,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1036–1047, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Guo, Z. Li, and J. Jin, “System reliability assessment with multilevel information using the Bayesian melding method,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 170, pp. 146–158, 2018. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H.Z. Huang and Z.W. An, “A discrete stressstrength interference model with stress dependent strength,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 118–122, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. G. Wilson and K. M. Fronczyk, “Bayesian reliability: combining information,” Quality Engineering, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 119–129, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. C. Yang, J. G. Zhang, Y. Guo, and P. D. Wang, “A Bayesianbased reliability estimation approach for corrosion fatigue crack growth utilizing the random walk,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 2519–2535, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Sankararaman and S. Mahadevan, “Model validation under epistemic uncertainty,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 96, no. 9, pp. 1232–1241, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Sankararaman and S. Mahadevan, “Integration of model verification, validation, and calibration for uncertainty quantification in engineering systems,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 138, pp. 194–209, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Guan, R. Jha, and Y. Liu, “Model selection, updating, and averaging for probabilistic fatigue damage prognosis,” Structural Safety, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 242–249, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Pan and P. Yontay, “Discussion of “Bayesian reliability: combining information”,” Quality Engineering, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 136–140, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Li, J. Liu, J. Li, and B. Uk Kim, “Bayesian modeling of multistate hierarchical systems with multilevel information aggregation,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 124, pp. 158–164, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. Z. Huang, M. J. Zuo, and Z. Q. Sun, “Bayesian reliability analysis for fuzzy lifetime data,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 157, no. 12, pp. 1674–1686, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. Wang, H. Z. Huang, Y. F. Li, and N. C. Xiao, “An approach to reliability assessment under degradation and shock process,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 852–863, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. S. Ye, L. C. Tang, and H. Y. Xu, “A distributionbased systems reliability model under extreme shocks and natural degradation,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 246–256, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Guo and A. G. Wilson, “Bayesian methods for estimating system reliability using heterogeneous multilevel information,” Technometrics, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 461–472, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 W. Peng, H.Z. Huang, M. Xie, Y. Yang, and Y. Liu, “A Bayesian approach for system reliability analysis with multilevel passfail, lifetime and degradation data sets,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 689–699, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai, W. Zhang, B. Li, C. Li, and G. Bai, “Application of probabilistic and nonprobabilistic hybrid reliability analysis based on dynamic substructural extremum response surface decoupling method for a blisk of the aeroengine,” International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 2017, Article ID 5839620, 11 pages, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Gao, Y. Wang, H. Sun et al. et al., “A hierarchical reliability control method for a space manipulator based on the strategy of autonomous decisionmaking,” International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 2016, Article ID 9613562, 12 pages, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Yang, J. Zhang, Y. Guo, and Q. Wang, “Bayesianbased information extraction and aggregation approach for multilevel systems with multisource data,” Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 385–400, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. Schwarz, “Estimating the dimension of a model,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 461–464, 1978. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. J. Diciccio, R. E. Kass, A. Raftery, and L. Wasserman, “Computing Bayes factors by combining simulation and asymptotic approximations,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 92, no. 439, pp. 903–915, 1997. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Kang, Q. Y. Zhang, Z. G. Zeng, E. Zio, and X. Li, “Measuring reliability under epistemic uncertainty: review on nonprobabilistic reliability metrics,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 571–579, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 I. Ntzoufras, Bayesian Modeling Using WinBUGS, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2009. View at: Publisher Site
 R. T. Clemen and R. L. Winkler, “Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis,” Risk Analysis, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 187–203, 1999. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. T. Clemen, “Comment on Cooke’s classical method,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 760–765, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 623–656, 1948. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1991.
 M. Meilă, “Comparing clusterings—an information based distance,” Journal of Multivariate Analysis, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 873–895, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. M. Ross, Introduction to Probability Models, Academic Press, Burlington, NJ, USA, 10th edition, 2009.
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Lechang Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.