Abstract
Due to the epistemic uncertainty, it is difficult for the experts to give precise parameter values in Risk Priority Number (RPN) evaluations. To overcome this drawback, a hybrid method is proposed by integrating the concepts of fuzzy set theory, weight analysis and similarity value measure of fuzzy numbers. The analysis process is divided into two phases to identify the hazard source. The first phase uses fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), then the main potential failure modes can be determined. The importance analysis of basic events can be calculated using fuzzy set theory and weight analysis. In the second phase, the multiple failure modes and component correlations are modelled using the Fuzzy Risk Priority Number (FRPN) evaluation and the Similarity Measure Value Method (SMVM). The proposed method has been applied to the risk analysis of a satellite propulsion system to show the effectiveness and applicability.
Funding statement: This research was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under contract number ZYGX2014Z010.
References
1. Gargama H, Chaturvedi SK. Criticality assessment models forfailure mode effects and criticality analysis using fuzzy logic. IEEE Trans Reliability. 2011;60(1):102–10.10.1109/TR.2010.2103672Search in Google Scholar
2. Chang DS. Applying DEA to enhance assessment capabilityof FMEA. Int J Qual Reliability Manag. 2009;26:629–43.10.1108/02656710910966165Search in Google Scholar
3. Liu HC, Liu L, Bian QH, Lin QL, Dong N. Failure mode andeffects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning approach and grey theory. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38:4403–15.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.110Search in Google Scholar
4. Xiao NC, Huang HZ, Li YF, He LP, Jin TD. Multiple failure modes analysis and weighted risk priority numberevaluation in FMEA. Eng Fail Anal. 2011;18:1162–70.10.1016/j.engfailanal.2011.02.004Search in Google Scholar
5. Pickard K, Müller P, Bertsche B Multiple failure mode andeffects analysis – an approach to risk assessment of multiplefailures with FMEA. Proceedings of Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 2005: 457–62.Search in Google Scholar
6. Asan U, Soyer A. Failure mode and effects analysis under uncertainty: a literature review and tutorial. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 2016.10.1007/978-3-319-24499-0_10Search in Google Scholar
7. Yang ZL, Bonsall S, Wang J. Fuzzy rule-based Bayesianreasoning approach for prioritization of failures in FMEA. IEEE Trans Reliability. 2008;57(3):517–28.10.1109/TR.2008.928208Search in Google Scholar
8. Chen Z, Wu XN, Qin JG. Risk assessment of an oxygen-enhanced combustor using a structuralmodel based on the FMEA and fuzzy fault tree. J Loss Prev Industries. 2014;32:349–57.10.1016/j.jlp.2014.10.004Search in Google Scholar
9. Gan L, Li YF, Zhu SP, Yang YJ, Huang HZ. Weighted fuzzy risk priority number evaluation of compressor vane and turbine blade considering failure mode correlations. Int J Turbo Jet Engines. 2014;31(2):119–30.10.1515/tjj-2013-0038Search in Google Scholar
10. Chen SJ, Chen SM. Fuzzy risk analysis based on similarity measures of generalized fuzzy numbers. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. 2003;11(1):45–56.10.1109/TFUZZ.2005.859335Search in Google Scholar
11. Volkanovski A, Cepin M, Mavko B. Application of the fault tree analysis forassessment of power system reliability. Reliability Eng Syst Saf. 2009;94(6):1116–27.10.1016/j.ress.2009.01.004Search in Google Scholar
12. Li YF, Huang HZ, Liu Y, Xiao NC, Li HQ. A new fault tree analysis method: fuzzy dynamic fault tree analysis. Eksploatacja I Niezawodnosc –Maintenance Reliability. 2012;14(3):208–14.Search in Google Scholar
13. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 1965;8:338–53.10.21236/AD0608981Search in Google Scholar
14. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy set as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1978;1(1):3–28.10.1016/0165-0114(78)90029-5Search in Google Scholar
15. Kumar M, Yadav SP. The weakest t-norm based intuitionistic fuzzy faulttreeanalysis to evaluate system reliability. ISA Trans. 2012;51(4):531–38.10.1016/j.isatra.2012.01.004Search in Google Scholar
16. Saaty TL. Exploring the interface between hierarchies, multiple objectives and fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets & Syst. 1978;1(1):57–68.10.1016/0165-0114(78)90032-5Search in Google Scholar
17. Lin XG Structural techniques in the design and process control systems. PhD thesis, The University of Queensland, 1991.Search in Google Scholar
18. Duan Y, Zhao J, Chen J, Bai G. A risk matrix analysis method based on potential risk influence: A case study on cryogenic liquid hydrogen filling system. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2016;102:277–87.10.1016/j.psep.2016.03.022Search in Google Scholar
19. Mandal Saptarshi MJ. Risk analysis using FMEA: fuzzy similarity value and possibility theory based approach. Expert Syst Appl. 2014;41:3527–37.10.1016/j.eswa.2013.10.058Search in Google Scholar
20. Li J, Zeng W. Fuzzy risk analysis based on the similarity measure of generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2017;32(3):1673–83.10.3233/JIFS-141907Search in Google Scholar
21. Wang YM, Chin KS, Poon G, Yang JB. Risk evaluation infailure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy weighted geometric mean. Expert Syst Appl. 2009;36:1195–207.10.1016/j.eswa.2007.11.028Search in Google Scholar
22. Hirota P, Subasic K. Similarity rules and gradual rules for analogical and interpolative reasoning with imprecise data. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1998;96(1):53–75.10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00288-6Search in Google Scholar
23. Thivel PX, Bultel Y, Delpech F. Risk analysis of a biomass combustionprocess using MOSAR and FMEA methods. J Hazard Mater. 2008;151(1):221–31.10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.05.072Search in Google Scholar PubMed
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
