Skip to main content

Risk Assessment Using Evidential Reasoning in Plithogenic Environment

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Current Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering ((LNME))

  • 1074 Accesses

Abstract

Risk assessment and decision-making problems in engineering applications attract researchers as the loss incurred due to accidents in these areas is massive. It becomes difficult to quantify the loss when human life is at risk. This invited more detailed studies and attempts to provide reliable and workable risk control options. Evaluation and assessment of risk are difficult because of complex structure and high amount of uncertainty in complex engineering environment. Plithogenic sets have gained popularity in recent years which can capture this uncertainty with ease. To use plithogenic sets in combination with evidential reasoning for decision-making, we need to design a method to suitably convert plithogenic numbers into their corresponding basic belief assignments. This paper proposes a novel method to convert any of the plithogenic number to its corresponding basic belief assignments. A decision-making model using Dempster–Shafer evidential reasoning in plithogenic environment is then developed for assessing risk and ranking of the criteria in a complex system. An example of a typical system on board ship is given to illustrate the proposed model and its application in maritime transportation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Berner C, Flage R (2016) Strengthening quantitative risk assessments by systematic treatment of uncertain assumptions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 151:46–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zadeh LA (1975) Fuzzy sets and their applications to cognitive and decision processes. Academic Press, Macon, GA

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zadeh LA (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Set Syst 1(1):3–28

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Grattan-Guinness I (1976) Fuzzy membership mapped onto interval and many-valued quantities. Z Math Logik Grundladen Math 22:149–160

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Set Syst 20(1):87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Atanassov KT, Gargov G (1989) Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Set Syst 31(3):343–349

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Wu J, Huang H, Cao QW (2013) Research on AHP with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application in multi-criteria decision making problems. Appl Math 37:9898–9906

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Ju Y, Wang A (2013) Extension of VIKOR method for multi-criteria group decision making problem with linguistic information. Appl Math 37:3112–3125

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Vahdani B, Mousavi SM, Moghaddam RT, Hashemi H (2013) A new design of the elimination and choice translating reality method for multi-criteria group decision-making in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Appl Math 37:1781–1799

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Smarandache F (1999) A unifying field in logics. In: Neutrosophy: neutrosophic probability, set and logic. American Research Press, Rehoboth

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang YQ, Sunderraman R (2005) Interval valued neutrosophic sets and logic: theory and applications in computing. Hexis, Phoenix, AZ

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang YQ, Sunderraman R (2010) Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace Multistructure 4:410–413

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Broumi S, Smarandache F (2015) Single valued neutrosophic soft expert sets and their application in decision making. J New Theory 3:67–88

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ye J (2014) Single valued neutrosophic cross-entropy for multicriteria decision making problems. Appl Math 38:1170–1175

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Chakraborty A, Banik B, Mondal SP, Alam S (2020) Arithmetic and geometric operators of pentagonal neutrospohic number and its application in mobile communication service based MCGDM problem. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 32:61–79

    Google Scholar 

  16. Edalatpanah SA (2020) A direct model for triangular neutrosophic linear programming. Int J Neutrosophic Sci 1(1):19–28

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pal S, Chakraborty A (2020) Triangular neutrosophic-based EOQ model for non-instantaneous deteriorating item under shortages. Am J Bus Oper Res 1(1):28–35

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chakraborty A, Broumi S, Singh PK (2019) Some properties of pentagonal neutrosophic numbers and its applications in transportation problem environment. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 28:200–215

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tahan MAA (2020) Some results on single valued neutrosophic (weak polygroups). Int J Neutrosophic Sci 2(1):38–46

    Google Scholar 

  20. Smarandache F (2018) Plithogenic set, an extension of crisp, fuzzy, intuitionistic fuzzy, and neutrosophic sets—revisited. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 21:153–166

    Google Scholar 

  21. Smarandache F (2017) Plithogeny, plithogenic set, logic, probability and statistics. Pons Publishing House, Brussels, Belgium, p 141

    Google Scholar 

  22. Basset MA, Mohamed R (2020) A novel plithogenic TOPSIS-CRITIC model for sustainable supply chain risk management. J Clean Prod 247:119586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Basset MA, El-hoseny M, Gamal A, Smarandache F (2019) A novel model for evaluation Hospital medical care systems based on plithogenic sets. Artif Intell Med 100:101710

    Google Scholar 

  24. Basset MA, Mohamed R, Zaied AEH, Smarandache F (2019) A hybrid plithogenic decision-making approach with quality function deployment for selecting supply chain sustainability metrics. Symmetry 11:903. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11070903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sotiralis P, Venticos NP, Hamann R, Golyshev P, Teixeira AP (2016) Incorporation of human factors into ship collision risk models focussing on human centred design aspects. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 156:210–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hanninen M (2014) Bayesian networks for maritime traffic accident prevention: benefits and challenges. Accid Anal Prev 73:305–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Soares CG, Teixeira AP (2001) Risk assessment in maritime transportation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 74:299–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Christian R, Kang HG (2017) Probabilistic risk assessment on maritime spent nuclear fuel transportation-part I: transport cask damage probability. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 164:124–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Christian R, Kang HG (2017) Probabilistic risk assessment on maritime spent nuclear fuel transportation (part II: ship collision probability). Reliab Eng Syst Saf 164:136–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yang ZL, Wang J, Bonsall S, Fang QG (2009) Use of fuzzy evidential reasoning in maritime security assessment. Risk Anal 29:95–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ye X, Chen B, Lee K, Storesund R, Zhang B (2020) An integrated offshore oil spill response decision making approach by human factor analysis and fuzzy preference evaluation. Environ Pollut 262:114294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ahmed S, Gu XC (2020) Accident-based FMECA study of marine boiler for risk prioritization using fuzzy expert system. Results Eng 6:100123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Liu J, Yang JB, Wang J, Sii HS, Wang YM (2004) Fuzzy rule based evidential reasoning approach for safety analysis. Int J Gen Syst 33(2–3):183–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Guo M, Yang JB, Chin KS, Wang H (2007) Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 182:1294–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multi-valued mapping. Ann Math Stat 38:325–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jousselme AL, Liu C, Grenier D, Bosse E (2006) Measuring ambiguity in the evidence theory. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 36(5):890–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ye J (2013) Multicriteria decision-making method using the correlation coefficient under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Int J Gen Syst 42:386–394

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Ziang W (2017) A correlation coefficient of belief functions. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05497. Last accessed 2017/02/02

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunay P. Pai .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Pai, S.P., Prabhu Gaonkar, R.S. (2021). Risk Assessment Using Evidential Reasoning in Plithogenic Environment. In: Acharya, S.K., Mishra, D.P. (eds) Current Advances in Mechanical Engineering . Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4795-3_88

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4795-3_88

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-33-4794-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-33-4795-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics