Advertisement

A novel method for failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning and fuzzy Petri nets

  • Hua Shi
  • Liang Wang
  • Xiao-Yang LiEmail author
  • Hu-Chen Liu
Original Research
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) has been broadly used in various industries to ensure the safety and reliability of high-risk systems. As a meritorious risk management tool, it can identify, evaluate and eliminate potential failure modes in a system for remedial actions. Nevertheless, the traditional FMEA has suffered from many deficiencies, especially in the assessment of failure modes, the weighting of risk factors, and the calculation of RPN. Therefore, this paper presents a novel FMEA method based on fuzzy evidential reasoning and fuzzy Petri nets (FPNs) to improve the classical FMEA. In this model, belief structures are used to capture the uncertainty and fuzziness of the subjective assessments given by experts and a rule-based FPN model is established to determine the risk priority of the failure modes identified in FMEA. An empirical case concerning the risk evaluation of a ship fire-safety system is provided to illustrate the practicality and effectiveness of the proposed FMEA. The results show that the new risk assessment method can produce more reliable risk ranking results of failure modes.

Keywords

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) Fuzzy evidential reasoning Fuzzy Petri net (FPN) Ship fire-safety system 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to the respected editor and the anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments, which helped to improve the overall quality of the paper. This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61773250, 71671125 and 71432007) and the Program for Shanghai Youth Top-Notch Talent.

References

  1. Ahn J, Noh Y, Park SH, Choi BI, Chang D (2017) Fuzzy-based failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) of a hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) and gas turbine system for marine propulsion. J Power Sources 364:226–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akyuz E, Akgun I, Celik M (2016) A fuzzy failure mode and effects approach to analyse concentrated inspection campaigns on board ships. Marit Policy Manag 43(7):887–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anes V, Henriques E, Freitas M, Reis L (2018) A new risk prioritization model for failure mode and effects analysis. Qual Reliab Eng Int 34(4):516–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bian T, Zheng H, Yin L, Deng Y (2018) Failure mode and effects analysis based on D numbers and TOPSIS. Qual Reliab Eng Int 34(4):501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowles JB, Peláez CE (1995) Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 50(2):203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpitella S, Certa A, Izquierdo J, La Fata CM (2018) A combined multi-criteria approach to support FMECA analyses: a real-world case. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 169:394–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Certa A, Hopps F, Inghilleri R, La Fata CM (2017) A Dempster–Shafer theory-based approach to the failure mode, effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) under epistemic uncertainty: application to the propulsion system of a fishing vessel. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 159:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chanamool N, Naenna T (2016) Fuzzy FMEA application to improve decision-making process in an emergency department. Appl Soft Comput 43:441–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen L, Deng Y (2018) A new failure mode and effects analysis model using Dempster–Shafer evidence theory and grey relational projection method. Eng Appl Artif Intell 76:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen CB, Klein CM (1997) A simple approach to ranking a group of aggregated fuzzy utilities. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 27(1):26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chin KS, Wang YM, Poon GKK, Yang JB (2009) Failure mode and effects analysis by data envelopment analysis. Decis Support Syst 48(1):246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Aguiar J, Scalice RK, Bond D (2018) Using fuzzy logic to reduce risk uncertainty in failure modes and effects analysis. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Du Y, Lu X, Su X, Hu Y, Deng Y (2016) New failure mode and effects analysis: an evidential downscaling method. Qual Reliab Eng Int 32(2):737–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faiella G, Parand A, Franklin BD, Chana P, Cesarelli M, Stanton NA, Sevdalis N (2018) Expanding healthcare failure mode and effect analysis: a composite proactive risk analysis approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 169:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franceschini F, Galetto M (2001) A new approach for evaluation of risk priorities of failure modes in FMEA. Int J Prod Res 39(13):2991–3002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gao MM, Zhou MC, Huang XG, Wu ZM (2003) Fuzzy reasoning Petri nets. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 33(3):314–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gargama H, Chaturvedi SK (2011) Criticality assessment models for failure mode effects and criticality analysis using fuzzy logic. IEEE Trans Reliab 60(1):102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geramian A, Abraham A, Ahmadi Nozari M (2018) Fuzzy logic-based FMEA robust design: a quantitative approach for robustness against groupthink in group/team decision-making. Int J Prod Res.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1471236 Google Scholar
  19. Ha MH, Li Y, Wang XF (2007) Fuzzy knowledge representation and reasoning using a generalized fuzzy Petri net and a similarity measure. Soft Comput 11(4):323–327CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamed RI (2017) A new method of fuzzy pn system to model of aircraft flights through different terrain. J Theor Appl Inf Technol 95(5):1000–1007Google Scholar
  21. Hamed RI, Ahson SI (2011) Confidence value prediction of DNA sequencing with Petri net model. J King Saud Univ Comput Inf Sci 23(2):79–89Google Scholar
  22. Han Y, Deng Y (2018a) An enhanced fuzzy evidential DEMATEL method with its application to identify critical success factors. Soft Comput 22(15):5073–5090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Han Y, Deng Y (2018b) A hybrid intelligent model for assessment of critical success factors in high-risk emergency system. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 9(6):1933–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hu YP, You XY, Wang L, Liu HC (2018) An integrated approach for failure mode and effect analysis based on uncertain linguistic GRA–TOPSIS method. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3480-7 Google Scholar
  25. Jiang W, Xie C, Wei B, Zhou D (2016) A modified method for risk evaluation in failure modes and effects analysis of aircraft turbine rotor blades. Adv Mech Eng 8(4):1–16Google Scholar
  26. Kang B, Deng Y, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2018) Generating Z-number based on OWA weights using maximum entropy. Int J Intell Syst 33:1745–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li Z, Chen L (2019) A novel evidential FMEA method by integrating fuzzy belief structure and grey relational projection method. Eng Appl Artif Intell 77:136–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li Z, Xiao F, Fei L, Mahadevan S, Deng Y (2017) An evidential failure mode and effects analysis using linguistic terms. Qual Reliab Eng Int 33(5):993–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu HC, Liu L, Bian QH, Lin QL, Dong N, Xu PC (2011) Failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning approach and grey theory. Expert Syst Appl 38(4):4403–4415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu HC, Lin QL, Mao LX, Zhang ZY (2013a) Dynamic adaptive fuzzy Petri nets for knowledge representation and reasoning. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 43(6):1399–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu HC, Liu L, Lin QL (2013b) Fuzzy failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning and belief rule-based methodology. IEEE Trans Reliab 62(1):23–36MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu HC, Liu L, Lin QL, Liu N (2013c) Knowledge acquisition and representation using fuzzy evidential reasoning and dynamic adaptive fuzzy Petri nets. IEEE Trans Cybern 43(3):1059–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu HC, You JX, Li P, Su Q (2016a) Failure mode and effect analysis under uncertainty: an integrated multiple criteria decision making approach. IEEE Trans Reliab 65(3):1380–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu HC, You JX, You XY, Su Q (2016b) Fuzzy Petri nets using intuitionistic fuzzy sets and ordered weighted averaging operators. IEEE Trans Cybern 46(8):1839–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu HC, You JX, Li ZW, Tian G (2017) Fuzzy Petri nets for knowledge representation and reasoning: a literature review. Eng Appl Artif Intell 60:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu HC, You XY, Tsung F, Ji P (2018a) An improved approach for failure mode and effect analysis involving large group of experts: an application to the healthcare field. Qual Eng 30(4):762–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu HC, Hu YP, Wang JJ, Sun MH (2018b) Failure mode and effects analysis using two-dimensional uncertain linguistic variables and alternative queuing method. IEEE Trans Reliab.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2018.2866029 Google Scholar
  38. Liu HC, Xue L, Li ZW, Wu J (2018c) Linguistic Petri nets based on cloud model theory for knowledge representation and reasoning. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 30(4):717–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu HC, Wang LE, Li Z, Hu YP (2019) Improving risk evaluation in FMEA with cloud model and hierarchical TOPSIS method. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27(1):84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lo HW, Liou JJH, Huang CN, Chuang YC (2019) A novel failure mode and effect analysis model for machine tool risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 183:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Looney CG (1988) Fuzzy Petri nets for rule-based decision-making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18(1):178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mangla SK, Luthra S, Jakhar S (2018) Benchmarking the risk assessment in green supply chain using fuzzy approach to FMEA: insights from an Indian case study. Benchmarking 25(8):2660–2687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Panchal D, Singh AK, Chatterjee P, Zavadskas EK, Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M (2019) A new fuzzy methodology-based structured framework for RAM and risk analysis. Appl Soft Comput 74:242–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pancholi N, Bhatt M (2018) FMECA-based maintenance planning through COPRAS-G and PSI. J Qual Maint Eng 24(2):224–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Renjith VR, Jose kalathil M, Kumar PH, Madhavan D (2018) Fuzzy FMECA (failure mode effect and criticality analysis) of LNG storage facility. J Loss Prev Process Ind 56:534–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stamatis DH (2003) Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, 2nd edn. ASQ Quality Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Su X, Deng Y, Mahadevan S, Bao Q (2012) An improved method for risk evaluation in failure modes and effects analysis of aircraft engine rotor blades. Eng Fail Anal 26:164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Xu ZS (2005) An overview of methods for determining OWA weights. Int J Intell Syst 20(8):843–865CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18(1):183–190MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang JB, Singh MG (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple-attribute decision making with uncertainty. Syst Man Cybern IEEE Trans 24(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang JB, Wang YM, Xu DL, Chin KS (2006) The evidential reasoning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties. Eur J Oper Res 171(1):309–343MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang JP, Huang HZ, He LP, Zhu SP, Wen DW (2011) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis of aircraft turbine rotor blades using Dempster–Shafer evidence theory under uncertainty. Eng Fail Anal 18(8):2084–2092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yeung DS, Ysang ECC (1998) A multilevel weighted fuzzy reasoning algorithm for expert systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 28(2):149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementShanghai UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.College of Economics and ManagementChina Jiliang UniversityZhejiangPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School of Economics and ManagementTongji UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations