Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An FMEA-based TOPSIS approach under single valued neutrosophic sets for maritime risk evaluation: the case of ship navigation safety

  • Methodologies and Application
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As in terrestrial facilities, safety is one of the most important issue in ships. Vessels navigating in many parts of the world face many different, tough and dangerous navigational risks. In this context, twenty-three fundamental risks which are frequently encountered in ship navigation were considered in this study and examined by an FMEA-based TOPSIS approach under single valued neutrosophic sets. Because of the lack of data in the literature, the opinions of the experts (Masters) who have many years of experience in the sector were taken. As a result of the study, extreme weather conditions, injury of crew, loss of input of sensory equipment (depth, gyro, speed etc.), struck by ropes, exposure to high speed machineries under high pressures, loss of maneuverability are very important among these risks. Considering these risks, corrective-preventive action plans and managerial implications for ship navigation have been presented. Consequently, the results of this study have an important warning and solution recommendation regarding ship navigation risks.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed M, Zhou Y, Hezam I (2017) Multi-criteria group decision making based on neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 33:4055–4066

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdel-Basset M, Manogaran G, Gamal A, Smarandache F (2018a) A hybrid approach of neutrosophic sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Des Autom Embed Sys 22:257–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10617-018-9203-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed M, Sangaiah AK (2018b) Neutrosophic AHP-Delphi Group decision making model based on trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput 9:1427–1443

    Google Scholar 

  • af Geijerstam K, Svensson H (2008) Ship collision risk-an identification and evaluation of important factors in collisions with offshore installations. LUTVDG/TVBB–5275–SE. http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1689121. Accessed 3 Jan 2020

  • Ak MF, Gul M (2019) AHP–TOPSIS integration extended with Pythagorean fuzzy sets for information security risk analysis. Complex Intell Syst 5:113–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-018-0087-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akita Y (1988) Reliability and damage of ship structures. Mar Struct 1:89–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Akyuz E (2017) Application of fuzzy FMEA to perform an extensive risk analysis in maritime transportation engineering. Int J Mar Eng 159:99–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Akyuz E, Celik E (2018) A quantitative risk analysis by using interval type-2 fuzzy FMEA approach: the case of oil spill. Maritime Policy Manag 45:979–994

    Google Scholar 

  • Ari I, Aksakalli V, Aydogˇdu V, Kum S (2013) Optimal ship navigation with safety distance and realistic turn constraints. Eur J Oper Res 229:707–717

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmat J-F, Lafont F, Maifret R, Pessel N (2009) MAritime RISk Assessment (MARISA), a fuzzy approach to define an individual ship risk factor. Ocean Eng 36:1278–1286

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmat J-F, Lafont F, Maifret R, Pessel N (2011) A decision-making system to maritime risk assessment. Ocean Eng 38:171–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Bian T, Zheng H, Yin L, Deng Y (2018) Failure mode and effects analysis based on D numbers and TOPSIS. Qual Reliab Eng Int 34:501–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas P, Pramanik S, Giri BC (2016) TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Comput Appl 27:727–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Boran F, Boran K, Menlik T (2012) The evaluation of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation in Turkey using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS. Energy Sources Part B 7:81–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozdag E, Asan U, Soyer A, Serdarasan S (2015) Risk prioritization in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis using interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Expert Syst Appl 42:4000–4015

    Google Scholar 

  • Bye RJ, Aalberg AL (2018) Maritime navigation accidents and risk indicators: An exploratory statistical analysis using AIS data and accident reports. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 176:174–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao X, Deng Y (2019) A new geometric mean FMEA method based on information quality. IEEE Access 7:95547–95554

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 169:394–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Catelani M, Ciani L, Venzi M (2018) Failure modes, mechanisms and effect analysis on temperature redundant sensor stage. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 180:425–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Celik E, Bilisik ON, Erdogan M et al (2013) An integrated novel interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM method to improve customer satisfaction in public transportation for Istanbul. Transp Res Part E Log TransRev 58:28–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Cevik Onar S, Oztaysi B, Kahraman C (2014) Strategic decision selection using hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS and interval type-2 fuzzy AHP: a case study. Int J Comput Intell Syst 7:1002–1021

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai T, Weng J, De-qi X (2017) Development of a quantitative risk assessment model for ship collisions in fairways. Saf Sci 91:71–83

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 76:13–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen S-M, Lee L-W (2010) Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 37:2790–2798

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen T-Y, Tsao C-Y (2008) The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and experimental analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 159:1410–1428

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • COLREG (2018) http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx. Accessed 7 Dec 2018

  • Dong Y, Frangopol DM (2016) Incorporation of risk and updating in inspection of fatigue-sensitive details of ship structures. Int J Fatigue 82:676–688

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Y, Lu X, Su X et al (2016) New failure mode and effects analysis: an evidential downscaling method. Qual Reliab Eng Int 32:737–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang H, Li J, Song W (2020) Failure mode and effects analysis: an integrated approach based on rough set theory and prospect theory. Soft Comput 24:6673–6685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04305-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fattahi R, Khalilzadeh M (2018) Risk evaluation using a novel hybrid method based on FMEA, extended MULTIMOORA, and AHP methods under fuzzy environment. Saf Sci 102:290–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu X, Ng AKY, Lau Y-Y (2010) The impacts of maritime piracy on global economic development: the case of Somalia. Mar Policy Manag 37:677–697

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu S, Zhang D, Montewka J et al (2018) A quantitative approach for risk assessment of a ship stuck in ice in Arctic waters. Saf Sci 107:145–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Garg H (2020) Algorithms for single-valued neutrosophic decision making based on TOPSIS and clustering methods with new distance measure. AIMS Math 5(3):2671

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gu X, Moan T (2002) Long-term fatigue damage of ship structures under nonlinear wave loads. Mar Technol 39:95–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Gul M, Ak MF (2018) A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment. J Clean Prod 196:653–664

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo J, Lin Z, Zu L, Chen J (2019) Failure modes and effects analysis for CO2 transmission pipelines using a hesitant fuzzy VIKOR method. Soft Comput 23:10321–10338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3583-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gypa I, Boulougouris E, Vassalos D (2018) Quantification of the maritime security problem onboard passenger ship. In: Transport Research Arena (TRA) 2018, AUT. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1491597

  • Hsu W-KK (2012) Ports’ service attributes for ship navigation safety. Saf Sci 50:244–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu S, Fang Q, Xia H, Xi Y (2007) Formal safety assessment based on relative risks model in ship navigation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92:369–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu Y-P, You X-Y, Wang L, Liu H-C (2019) An integrated approach for failure mode and effect analysis based on uncertain linguistic GRA–TOPSIS method. Soft Comput 23:8801–8814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3480-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Li ZS, Liu H-C (2017) New approach for failure mode and effect analysis using linguistic distribution assessments and TODIM method. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 167:302–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang Z, Jiang W, Tang Y (2018) A new method to evaluate risk in failure mode and effects analysis under fuzzy information. Soft Comput 22:4779–4787

    Google Scholar 

  • International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (2017) http://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-prevention-of-pollution-from-ships-(marpol).aspx. Accessed 6 Oct 2017

  • International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 (2018) http://www.imo.org/en/About/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-safety-of-life-at-sea-(solas),-1974.aspx. Accessed 7 Dec 2018

  • International Maritime Organization (2018) http://www.imo.org/en/Pages/Default.aspx. Accessed 4 Jan 2018

  • ISM Code (2018) http://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/humanelement/safetymanagement/pages/ismcode.aspx. Accessed 7 Dec 2018

  • Kahraman C, Oztaysi B, Cevik Onar S (2020) Single & interval-valued neutrosophic AHP methods: performance analysis of outsourcing law firms. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 38(1):749–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao S-L, Lee K-T, Chang K-Y, Ko M-D (2007) A Fuzzy Logic Method for Collision Avoidance in Vessel Traffic Service. J Navig 60:17

    Google Scholar 

  • Karahalios H (2014) The contribution of risk management in ship management: the case of ship collision. Saf Sci 63:104–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim KO, Zuo MJ (2018) General model for the risk priority number in failure mode and effects analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 169:321–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopacz Z, Morgas W, Urbanski J (2001) The maritime safety system, its main components and elements. J Navig 54(2):199–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutlu AC, Ekmekçioğlu M (2012) Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl 39:61–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Li S, Meng Q, Qu X (2012) An overview of maritime waterway quantitative risk assessment models: maritime waterway quantitative risk assessment models. Risk Anal 32:496–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Li YL, Wang R, Chin KS (2019) New failure mode and effect analysis approach considering consensus under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Soft Comput 23(22):11611–11626

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu H-C (2016) FMEA using uncertainty theories and MCDM methods. In: FMEA Using Uncertainty Theories and MCDM Methods. Springer, pp 13–27

  • Liu B, Deng Y (2019) Risk Evaluation in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Based on D Numbers Theory. Int J Comput Commun Control 14(5):437–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Frangopol DM (2018) Probabilistic risk, sustainability, and utility associated with ship grounding hazard. Ocean Eng 154:311–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu P, Wang Y (2014) Multiple attribute decision-making method based on single-valued neutrosophic normalized weighted Bonferroni mean. Neural Comput Appl 25:2001–2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu H-C, Liu L, Liu N (2013) Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl 40:828–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu H-C, Chen Y-Z, You J-X, Li H (2016) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy digraph and matrix approach. J Intell Manuf 27:805–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo H-W, Liou JJ, Huang C-N, Chuang Y-C (2019) A novel failure mode and effect analysis model for machine tool risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 183:173–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo H-W, Shiue W, Liou JJH, Tzeng G-H (2020) A hybrid MCDM-based FMEA model for identification of critical failure modes in manufacturing. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04903-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majumdar P, Samanta SK (2014) On similarity and entropy of neutrosophic sets. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 26:1245–1252

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mazaheri A, Montewka J, Kujala P (2014) Modeling the risk of ship grounding—a literature review from a risk management perspective. WMU J Mar Affairs 13:269–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazaheri A, Montewka J, Kujala P (2016) Towards an evidence-based probabilistic risk model for ship-grounding accidents. Saf Sci 86:195–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Mete S (2019) Assessing occupational risks in pipeline construction using FMEA-based AHP-MOORA integrated approach under Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 25:1645–1660. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1546115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ming FR, Zhang AM, Xue YZ, Wang SP (2016) Damage characteristics of ship structures subjected to shockwaves of underwater contact explosions. Ocean Eng 117:359–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson R, Gärling T, Lützhöft M (2009) An experimental simulation study of advanced decision support system for ship navigation. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav 12:188–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Oz NE, Mete S, Serin F, Gul M (2019) Risk assessment for clearing and grading process of a natural gas pipeline project: An extended TOPSIS model with Pythagorean fuzzy sets for prioritizing hazards. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 25:1615–1632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1495057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemir Y, Gul M, Celik E (2017) Assessment of occupational hazards and associated risks in fuzzy environment: a case study of a university chemical laboratory. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 23:895–924

    Google Scholar 

  • Park J, Park C, Ahn S (2018) Assessment of structural risks using the fuzzy weighted Euclidean FMEA and block diagram analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 99:2071–2080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1844-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen PT (1994) Ship grounding and hull-girder strength. Mar Struct 7:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera LP, Guedes Soares C (2015) Collision risk detection and quantification in ship navigation with integrated bridge systems. Ocean Eng 109:344–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietrzykowski Z (2008) Ship’s fuzzy domain—a criterion for navigational safety in narrow fairways. J Navig 61(3):499–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt S (2015) Piracy. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 104–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz ARJ, Granja FS (2009) A short-range ship navigation system based on ladar imaging and target tracking for improved safety and efficiency. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 10:186–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Safari H, Faraji Z, Majidian S (2016) Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR. J Intell Manuf 27:475–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Sato Y, Ishii H (1998) Study of a collision-avoidance system for ships. Control Eng Pract 6:1141–1149

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenping H, Cunqiang C, Quangen F (2007) Risk assessment of ship navigation using Bayesian learning. In: Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2007 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, pp 1878–1882

  • Sii HS, Wang J, Ruxton T et al (2004) Use of fuzzy logic approaches to safety assessment in maritime engineering applications. J Mar Eng Technol 3:45–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Smarandache F (2002) Neutrosophy and neutrosophic logic. In: First International Conference on Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Logic, Set, Probability, and Statistics University of New Mexico, Gallup, NM, pp 338–353

  • Soares CG, Moan T (1991) Model uncertainty in the long-term distribution of wave-induced bending moments for fatigue design of ship structures. Mar Struct 4:295–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Statheros T, Howells G, Maier KM (2008) Autonomous ship collision avoidance navigation concepts, technologies and techniques. J Navig 61(1):129–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Tam C, Bucknall R (2010) Collision risk assessment for ships. J Mar Sci Technol 15:257–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Tam C, Bucknall R, Greig A (2009) Review of collision avoidance and path planning methods for ships in close range encounters. J Navig 62:455

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdez Banda OA, Goerlandt F, Montewka J, Kujala P (2015) A risk analysis of winter navigation in Finnish sea areas. Accid Anal Prev 79:100–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdez Banda OA, Goerlandt F, Kuzmin V et al (2016) Risk management model of winter navigation operations. Mar Pollut Bull 108:242–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue Y, Deng Y (2020) Refined Expected Value decision rules under orthopair fuzzy environment. Mathematics 8(3):442

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang Z, Bonsall S, Wang J (2008) Fuzzy rule-based Bayesian reasoning approach for prioritization of failures in FMEA. IEEE Trans Reliab 57:517–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong D (2006) Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28:839–844

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo S-L (2018) Near-miss density map for safe navigation of ships. Ocean Eng 163:15–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon K, Hwang C (1981) TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution)–a multiple attribute decision making, w: Multiple attribute decision making–methods and applications, a state-of-the-at survey. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Youssef SAM, Paik JK (2018) Hazard identification and scenario selection of ship grounding accidents. Ocean Eng 153:242–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Yucesan M, Gul M (2019) Failure prioritization and control using the neutrosophic best and worst method. Granul Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-019-00206-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaman MB, Kobayashi E, Wakabayashi N et al (2014) Fuzzy FMEA model for risk evaluation of ship collisions in the Malacca Strait: based on AIS data. J Simul 8:91–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Teixeira ÂP, Guedes Soares C, Yan X (2018) Quantitative assessment of collision risk influence factors in the Tianjin port. Saf Sci 110:363–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao H, You J-X, Liu H-C (2017) Failure mode and effect analysis using MULTIMOORA method with continuous weighted entropy under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Soft Comput 21:5355–5367

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Yıldız Technical University, 34349, Istanbul, Turkey

    Veysi Başhan

  2. Department of Marine Engineering, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, 67300, Zonguldak, Turkey

    Hakan Demirel

  3. Department of Industrial Engineering, Munzur University, 62000, Tunceli, Turkey

    Muhammet Gul

Authors
  1. Veysi Başhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hakan Demirel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muhammet Gul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veysi Başhan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declares that they have not competing interest.

Additional information

Communicated by V. Loia.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Başhan, V., Demirel, H. & Gul, M. An FMEA-based TOPSIS approach under single valued neutrosophic sets for maritime risk evaluation: the case of ship navigation safety. Soft Comput 24, 18749–18764 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05108-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05108-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation