Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 163, Issue 1, pp 143–168

Self-tuning of fuzzy belief rule bases for engineering system safety analysis

  • Jun Liu
  • Jian-Bo Yang
  • Da Ruan
  • Luis Martinez
  • Jin Wang
Article

Abstract

A framework for modelling the safety of an engineering system using a fuzzy rule-based evidential reasoning (FURBER) approach has been recently proposed, where a fuzzy rule-base designed on the basis of a belief structure (called a belief rule base) forms a basis in the inference mechanism of FURBER. However, it is difficult to accurately determine the parameters of a fuzzy belief rule base (FBRB) entirely subjectively, in particular for complex systems. As such, there is a need to develop a supporting mechanism that can be used to train in a locally optimal way a FBRB initially built using expert knowledge. In this paper, the methods for self-tuning a FBRB for engineering system safety analysis are investigated on the basis of a previous study. The method consists of a number of single and multiple objective nonlinear optimization models. The above framework is applied to model the system safety of a marine engineering system and the case study is used to demonstrate how the methods can be implemented.

Keywords

Safety analysis Uncertainty Fuzzy logic Belief rule-base Evidential reasoning Optimization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bell, P. M., & Badiru, A. B. (1996). Fuzzy modelling and analytic hierarchy processing to quantify risk levels associated with occupational injuries—Part I: The development of fuzzy-linguistic risk levels. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 4(2), 124–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binaghi, E., & Madella, P. (1999). Fuzzy Dempster–Shafer reasoning for rule-based classifiers. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 14, 559–583. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowles, J. B., & Pelaez, C. E. (1995). Fuzzy logic prioritisation of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 50, 203–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, H., & Moan, T. (2002). Collision risk analysis of FPSO-tanker offloading operation. In 21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics & Arctic Engineering, Oslo, Norway, 23–28 June 2002. Google Scholar
  5. Coleman, T., Branch, M. A., & Grace, A. (1999). Optimization toolbox—for use with Matlab. The Mathworks Inc. Google Scholar
  6. Dempster, A. P. (1968). A generalization of Bayesian inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 30, 205–247. Google Scholar
  7. Duckstein, L. (1994). Elements of fuzzy set analysis and fuzzy risk. In H. P. Nachtnebel (Ed.), Decision support systems in water resources management (pp. 410–430). Paris: UNESCO Press. Google Scholar
  8. Liu, J., Yang, J. B., Wang, J., & Sii, H. S. (2003). Review of uncertainty reasoning approaches as guidance for maritime and offshore safety-based assessment. Journal of UK Safety and Reliability Society, 23(1), 63–80. Google Scholar
  9. Liu, J., Yang, J. B., Wang, J., Sii, H. S., & Wang, Y. M. (2004). Fuzzy rule-based evidential reasoning approach for safety analysis. International Journal of General Systems, 33(2–3), 183–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCaul, J. R. (2001). Special report—floating production systems. Oil & Gas Journal, June, 11. Google Scholar
  11. Marler, R. T., & Arora, J. S. (2004). Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct Multidisc Optim., 26, 369–395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miettinen, K. (1999). Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  13. Shafer, G. (1976). A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  14. Sii, H. S., & Wang, J. (2002). Safety assessment of FPSOs—The process of modelling system safety and case studies. Report of the project—The application of approximate reasoning methodologies to offshore engineering design (EPSRC GR/R30624 and GR/R32413), Liverpool John Moores University, UK. Google Scholar
  15. Smets, P. (1988). Belief function. In P. Smets, E. H. Mamdani, D. Dubois & H. Prade (Eds.), Non-standard logics for automated reasoning (pp. 253–277). London: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  16. Wang, J., Yang, J. B., & Sen, P. (1995). Safety analysis and synthesis using fuzzy set modelling and evidential reasoning. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 47(3), 103–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang, Y. M., Yang, J. B., & Xu, D. L. (2006). Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(3), 1885–1913. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yang, J. B. (2001). Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Research, 131, 31–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yang, J. B., & Sen, P. (1994). A general multi-level evaluation process for hybrid MADM with uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24(10), 1458–1473. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yang, J. B., & Singh, M. G. (1994). An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24(1), 1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yang, J. B., & Xu, D. L. (2002a). On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A, 32(3), 289–304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yang, J. B., & Xu, D. L. (2002b). Nonlinear information aggregation via evidential reasoning in multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 32(3), 376–393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yang, J. B., Liu, J., Wang, J., & Sii, H. S. (2006a). A generic rule-base inference methodology using the evidential reasoning approach—RIMER. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 36(2), 266–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yang, J. B., Wang, Y. M., Xu, D. L., & Chin, K. S. (2006b). The evidential reasoning approach for MCDA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(1), 309–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yang, J. B., Liu, J., Xu, D. L., Wang, J., & Wang, H. W. (2006c). Optimization models for training belief rule based systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 37(4), 569–585. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zadeh, L. A. (1975a). The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning. Part I. Information Sciences, 8, 199–249. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zadeh, L. A. (1975b). The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning. Part II. Information Sciences, 8, 301–357. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zadeh, L. A. (1975c). The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning. Part III. Information Sciences, 9, 43–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jun Liu
    • 1
  • Jian-Bo Yang
    • 2
  • Da Ruan
    • 3
  • Luis Martinez
    • 4
  • Jin Wang
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Computing and Mathematics, Faculty of Computing and EngineeringUniversity of Ulster at JordanstownNewtownabbeyUK
  2. 2.Manchester Business School (East)The University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  3. 3.Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK•CEN)MolBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of JaénJaénSpain
  5. 5.School of EngineeringLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations