Advertisement

A new method in failure mode and effects analysis based on evidential reasoning

  • Yuxian Du
  • Hongming Mo
  • Xinyang Deng
  • Rehan Sadiq
  • Yong DengEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The traditional failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is determined by risk priority number (RPN), which is the product of three risk factors occurrence (O), severity (S), and detection (D). One of the open issues is how to precisely determine and aggregate the risk factors. However, the traditional FMEA has been extensively criticized for various reasons. In this paper, a new method in fuzzy FMEA is proposed using evidential reasoning (ER) and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The ER approach is used to express the experts’ assessment information which may be imprecise and uncertain. Considering the experts’ weights, we construct the group assessment. Weighted average method is then utilized to transform the group assessment value into crisp value. TOPSIS is applied to aggregate the risk factors which are taken to account as the multi-attribute, and used to rank the risk priority. By making full use of attribute information, TOPSIS provides a cardinal ranking of alternatives, and does not require the attribute preferences are independent. A numerical example shows that the proposed method is efficient to its applications.

Keywords

Failure mode and effects analysis Risk priority number Evidential reasoning TOPSIS 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Project supported by Chongqing Natural Science Foundation (for Distinguished Young Scholars), Grant No. CSCT, 2010BA2003, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 61174022, National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program; No. 2013AA013801), Doctor Funding of Southwest University Grant No. SWU110021, National Key Technology R&D Program (2012BAH07B01). We greatly appreciate the editor’s encouragement and the anonymous reviewer’s valuable comments and suggestions to improve this work.

References

  1. Abdelgawad M, Fayek AR (2010) Risk management in the construction industry using combined fuzzy FEMA and fuzzy AHP. J Constr Eng Manag 136(9):1028–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevilacqua M, Braglia M, Gabbrielli R (2000) Monte Carlo simulation approach for a modified FMECA in a power plant. Qual Reliab Eng Int 16(4):313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bluvband Z, Grabov P (2009) Failure analysis of FMEA. In: Reliability and maintainability symposium 2009, RAMS 2009 annual, pp 344–-347Google Scholar
  4. Braglia M, Frosolini M, Montanari R (2003) Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Qual Reliab Eng Int 19(5):425–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cassanelli G, Mura G, Fantini F, Vanzi M, Plano B (2006) Failure analysis-assisted FMEA. Microelectron Reliab 46(9):1795–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang KH, Cheng CH (2011) Evaluating the risk of failure using the fuzzy OWA and DEMATEL method. J Intell Manuf 22(2):113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen LH, Ko WC (2009) Fuzzy linear programming models for new product design using QFD with FMEA. Appl Math Model 33(2):633–647CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen SJJ, Hwang CL, Beckmann MJ, Krelle W (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Chin KS, Chan A, Yang JB (2008) Development of a fuzzy FMEA based product design system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 36(7):633–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chin KS, Wang YM, Poon GKK, Yang JB (2009a) Failure mode and effects analysis using a group-based evidential reasoning approach. Comput Oper Res 36(6):1768–1779CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Chin KS, Wang YM, Poon GKK, Yang JB (2009b) Failure mode and effects analysis by data envelopment analysis. Decis Support Syst 48(1):246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbett CJ, Pan JN (2002) Evaluating environmental performance using statistical process control techniques. Eur J Oper Res 139(1):68–83CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Fan ZP, Feng B (2009) A multiple attributes decision making method using individual and collaborative attribute data in a fuzzy environment. Inf Sci 179(20):3603–3618CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Gao C, Wei D, Hu Y, Mahadevan S, Deng Y (2013) A modified evidential methodology of identifying influential nodes in weighted networks. Physica A 392(21):5490–5500CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Garcia PAA, Schirru R, Frutuoso PF (2005) A fuzzy data envelopment analysis approach for FMEA. Prog Nucl Energy 46(3):359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guimarães ACF, Franklin CM (2004) Effects analysis fuzzy inference system in nuclear problems using approximate reasoning. Ann Nucl Energy 31(1):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guimarães ACF, Lapa CMF, Moreira MDL (2011) Fuzzy methodology applied to probabilistic safety assessment for digital system in nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des 241(9):3967–3976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hwang CL, Yoon KP (1981) Multiple attribute decision making. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahraman C, Engin O, Kabak Ö, Kaya İ (2009) Information systems outsourcing decisions using a group decision-making approach. Eng Appl Artif Intell 22(6):832–\841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kang BY, Deng Y, Sadiq R, Mahadevan S (2012) Evidential cognitive maps. Knowl Syst 35:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karanki DR, Jadhav PA, Chandrakar A, Srividya A, Verma AK (2010) Uncertainty analysis in PSA with correlated input parameters. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 1(1):66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kutlu AC, Ekmekçioğlu M (2012) Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl 39(1):61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu HC, Liu L, Liu N, Mao LX (2012a) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 39(17):12926–12934CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu J, Chan FTS, Li Y, Zhang YJ, Deng Y (2012b) A new optimal consensus method with minimum cost in fuzzy group decision. Knowl Syst 35:357–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu HC, Liu L, Liu N (2013a) Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl 40(2):828–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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):23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Narayanagounder S, Gurusami K (2009) A new approach for prioritization of failure modes in design FMEA using ANOVA. Proc World Acad Sci Eng Technol 37:524–531Google Scholar
  28. Sadiq R, Najjaran H, Kleiner Y (2006) Investigating evidential reasoning for the interpretation of microbial water quality in a distribution network. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21(1):63–73CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Sadiq R, Kleiner Y, Rajani B (2007) Water quality failures in distribution networks risk analysis using fuzzy logic and evidential reasoning. Risk Anal 27(5):1381–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sharma RK, Sharma P (2010) System failure behavior and maintenance decision making using RCA, FMEA and FM. J Qual Maint Eng 16(1):64–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharma RK, Kumar D, Kumar P (2005) Systematic failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) using fuzzy linguistic modeling. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 22(9):986–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shih HS (2008) Incremental analysis for MCDM with an application to group TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 186(2):720–734CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Soderholm P, Karim R (2010) An enterprise risk management framework for evaluation of eMaintenance. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 1(3):219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Su XY, Deng Y, Mahadevan S, Bao QL (2012) An improved method for risk evaluation in failure modes and effects analysis of aircraft engine rotor blades. Eng Fail Anal 26(17):164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tay KM, Lim CP (2006) Fuzzy FMEA with a guided rules reduction system for prioritization of failures. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 23(8):1047–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teng SG, Ho SM (1996) Failure mode and effects analysis: an integrated approach for product design and process control. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 13(5):8–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wallnerström CJ, Bertling L, Tuan LA (2010) Risk and reliability assessment for electrical distribution systems and impacts of regulations with examples from Sweden. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 1(2):87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang YM, Yang JB, Xu DL (2006) Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach. Eur J Oper Res 174(3):1885–1913CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang YM, Chin KS, Poon GKK, Yang JB (2009) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy weighted geometric mean. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):1195–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wei D, Deng X, Zhang X, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2013) Identifying influential nodes in weighted networks based on evidence theory. Physica A 392(10):2564–2575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xu K, Tang LC, Xie M, Ho SL, Zhu ML (2002) Fuzzy assessment of FMEA for engine systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 75(1):17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang JB, Xu DL (2002) On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A 32(3):289–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang JB, Liu J, Wang J, Sii HS, Wang HW (2006a) Belief rule-base inference methodology using the evidential reasoning approach-RIMER. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A 36(2):266–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang JB, Wang YM, Xu DL, Chin KS (2006b) The evidential reasoning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties. Eur J Oper Res 171(1):309–343CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Yoon KP, Hwang CL (1995) Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction, no. 07-104. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  47. Zafiropoulos EP, Dialynas EN (2005) Reliability prediction and failure mode effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) of electronic devices using fuzzy logic. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 22(2):183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang ZF, Chu XN (2011) Risk prioritization in failure mode and effects analysis under uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang XG, Deng Y, Chan FTS, Xu PD, Mahadevan S, Hu Y (2013a) IFSJSP: a novel methodology for the Job-Shop Scheduling Problem based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Prod Res 51(17):5100–5119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang HX, Deng Y, Chan FTS, Zhang XG (2013b) A modified multi-criterion optimization genetic algorithm for order distribution in collaborative supply chain. Appl Math Model 37(14):7855–7864CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuxian Du
    • 1
  • Hongming Mo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xinyang Deng
    • 1
  • Rehan Sadiq
    • 3
  • Yong Deng
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Computer and Information ScienceSouthwest UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.Department of the Tibetan LanguageSichuan University of NationalitiesSichuanChina
  3. 3.School of EngineeringUniversity of British Columbia OkanaganKelownaCanada
  4. 4.School of EngineeringVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations