Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Failure modes and effects analysis based on neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process: method and application

  • Application of soft computing
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is a commonly used method in risk evaluation. In this paper, a novel FMEA model based on neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process (NAHP) is proposed to overcome shortcomings of the risk prioritization of classical FMEA. Neutrosophic sets approach real-world decision-making problems from a three-aspect structure (i.e., truthiness, indeterminacy and falsity). Therefore, initially, AHP is merged with neutrosophic sets to assign importance weights to risk parameters in FMEA. The encountered failure modes are then prioritized with respect to the previously weighted risk parameters. Each element in AHP comparison matrices is considered as triangular neutrosophic numbers, and score functions are used to transform NAHP elements to deterministic values. The flexibility of determining the weight to each parameter of FMEA (severity, occurrence and detection) and evaluation of each failure mode against these parameters are more well-suited to the real decision-making condition. Finally, a case study in the textile industry is provided to show the applicability of the novel model. Sensitivity and comparative analysis are also performed to validate the results.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed M (2019) A novel and powerful framework based on neutrosophic sets to aid patients with cancer. Future Gener Comput Syst

  • 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(6):4055–4066

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed M, Sangaiah AK (2018a) Neutrosophic AHP-Delphi Group decision making model based on trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 9(5):1427–1443

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdel-Basset M, Manogaran G, Gamal A, Smarandache F (2018b) A hybrid approach of neutrosophic sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Des Autom Embed Syst 22:257–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdel-Basset M, Manogaran G, Mohamed M, Chilamkurti N (2018c) Three-way decisions based on neutrosophic sets and AHP-QFD framework for supplier selection problem. Futur Gener Comput Syst 89:19–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed M, Smarandache F (2018d) An extension of neutrosophic AHP–SWOT analysis for strategic planning and decision-making. Symmetry 10(4):116

    Google Scholar 

  • Akyuz E, Celik E (2018) A quantitative risk analysis by using interval type-2 fuzzy FMEA approach: the case of oil spill. Marit Policy Manag 45(8):979–994

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso JA, Lamata MT (2006) Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: a new approach. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Syst 14(04):445–459

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bakır M, Atalık Ö (2021) Application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS approach for the evaluation of e-service quality in the airline industry. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng 4(1):127–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Başhan V, Demirel H, Gul M (2020) An FMEA-based TOPSIS approach under single valued neutrosophic sets for maritime risk evaluation: the case of ship navigation safety. Soft Comput 24(24):18749–18764

    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(4):501–515

    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(8):4000–4015

    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 

  • Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95(3):649–655

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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):737–746

    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 

  • Fattahi R, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Khalilzadeh M, Shahsavari-Pour N, Soltani R (2020) A novel FMEA model based on fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making methods for risk assessment. J Enterp Inf Manag

  • Ghoushchi SJ, Yousefi S, Khazaeili M (2019) An extended FMEA approach based on the Z-MOORA and fuzzy BWM for prioritization of failures. Appl Soft Comput 81:105505

    Google Scholar 

  • Gul M (2018) A review of occupational health and safety risk assessment approaches based on multi-criteria decision-making methods and their fuzzy versions. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 24(7):1723–1760

    MathSciNet  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 

  • Gul M, Ak MF (2021) A modified failure modes and effects analysis using interval-valued spherical fuzzy extension of TOPSIS method: case study in a marble manufacturing facility. Soft Comput 1–22

  • Gul M, Guneri AF, Nasirli SM (2018) A fuzzy-based model for risk assessment of routes in oil transportation. Int J Environ Sci Technol 1–16

  • Guneri AF, Gul M, Ozgurler S (2015) A fuzzy AHP methodology for selection of risk assessment methods in occupational safety. Int J Risk Assess Manag 18(3–4):319–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo J, Lin Z, Zu L, Chen J (2018) Failure modes and effects analysis for CO 2 transmission pipelines using a hesitant fuzzy VIKOR method. Soft Comput 1–18

  • 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 1–14

  • Huang J, Li ZS, Liu HC (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(14):4779–4787

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilbahar E, Karaşan A, Cebi S, Kahraman C (2018) A novel approach to risk assessment for occupational health and safety using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy inference system. Saf Sci 103:124–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman C, Öztayşi B, Sarı İU, Turanoğlu E (2014) Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowl Syst 59:48–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Karasan A, Erdogan M (2021) Creating proactive behavior for the risk assessment by considering expert evaluation: a case of textile manufacturing plant. Complex Intell Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-020-00246-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karasan A, Ilbahar E, Cebi S, Kahraman C (2018) A new risk assessment approach: safety and critical effect analysis (SCEA) and its extension with Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Saf Sci 108:173–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalilzadeh M, Ghasemi P, Afrasiabi A, Shakeri H (2021) Hybrid fuzzy MCDM and FMEA integrating with linear programming approach for the health and safety executive risks: a case study. J Model Manag

  • 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 

  • Kutlu AC, Ekmekçioğlu M (2012) Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl 39(1):61–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu HC (2016) FMEA using uncertainty theories and MCDM methods. In: FMEA using uncertainty theories and MCDM methods. Springer, Singapore, pp 13–27

  • Liu HC, Chen YZ, You JX, Li H (2016) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy digraph and matrix approach. J Intell Manuf 27(4):805–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu HC, Liu L, Liu N (2013) Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl 40(2):828–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo HW, Liou JJ, Huang CN, Chuang YC (2019) A novel failure mode and effect analysis model for machine tool risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 183:173–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo HW, Shiue W, Liou JJ, Tzeng GH (2020) A hybrid MCDM-based FMEA model for identification of critical failure modes in manufacturing. Soft Comput 24(20):15733–15745

    Google Scholar 

  • Mete S (2018) Assessing occupational risks in pipeline construction using FMEA based AHP-MOORA integrated approach under Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1546115

  • Mutlu NG, Altuntas S (2019a) Risk analysis for occupational safety and health in the textile industry: Integration of FMEA, FTA, and BIFPET methods. Int J Ind Ergon 72:222–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutlu NG, Altuntas S (2019b) Hazard and risk analysis for ring spinning yarn production process by integrated FTA-FMEA approach. Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon 29(3):208–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega RG, Vázquez ML, Figueiredo JAS, Guijarro-Rodriguez A (2018) Sinos river basin social-environmental prospective assessment of water quality management using fuzzy cognitive maps and neutrosophic AHP-TOPSIS. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 23:160–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Oz NE, Mete S, Serin F, Gul M (2018) Risk assessment for clearing & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1495057

  • 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(4):895–924

    Google Scholar 

  • Öztaysi B, Onar SÇ, Boltürk E, Kahraman C (2015) Hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE). IEEE, pp 1–7

  • Özyazgan V (2014) Dokuma kumaş üretimi yapan bir tekstil fabrikasında HTEA analizi ve uygulaması. Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon 24(3):303–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Özyazgan V, Engin FZ (2013) FMEA analysis and applications in knitting industry. J Text Appar/Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon 23(3):228–232

    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 1–10

  • Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1996) The analytic network process: decision making with dependence and feedback. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Safari H, Faraji Z, Majidian S (2016) Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR. J Intell Manuf 27(2):475–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Smarandache F (1998) Neutrosophy. Neutrosophic probability, set, and logic. ProQuest Information & Learning, Ann Arbor, p 105

  • 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, vol 87301, pp 338–353

  • Smarandache F (2005) Neutrosophic set-a generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set. Int J Pure Appl Math 24(3):287

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Smarandache F (ed) (2003) A unifying field in logics: Neutrosophic logic. neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability: Neutrosophic logic: neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability. Infinite Study

  • Tzeng GH, Huang JJ (2011) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. CRC Press

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang Y, Sunderraman R (2010) Single valued neutrosophic sets. Infinite study

  • Wang W, Liu X, Qin Y (2018) A fuzzy Fine-Kinney-based risk evaluation approach with extended MULTIMOORA method based on Choquet integral. Comput Ind Eng 125:111–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Liao H (2014) Intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22(4):749–761

    Google Scholar 

  • Yazdi M, Nedjati A, Zarei E, Abbassi R (2020) A reliable risk analysis approach using an extension of best-worst method based on democratic-autocratic decision-making style. J Clean Prod 256:120418

    Google Scholar 

  • Yucesan M, Gul M (2019) Failure prioritization and control using the neutrosophic best and worst method. Granul Comput 1–15

  • Yucesan M, Kahraman G (2019) Risk evaluation and prevention in hydropower plant operations: a model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP. Energy Policy 126:343–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Yucesan M, Gul M, Celik E (2021) A holistic FMEA approach by fuzzy-based Bayesian network and best–worst method. Complex Intell Syst 1–18

  • Yücel Ö (2007) Konfeksiyon üretiminde hata türü ve etkileri analizi. Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon 17(2):126–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao H, You JX, Liu HC (2017) Failure mode and effect analysis using MULTIMOORA method with continuous weighted entropy under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Soft Comput 21(18):5355–5367

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Munzur University, 62000, Tunceli, Turkey

    Melih Yucesan

  2. Department of Emergency Aid and Disaster Management, Munzur University, 62000, Tunceli, Turkey

    Muhammet Gul

Authors
  1. Melih Yucesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muhammet Gul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melih Yucesan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

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

Yucesan, M., Gul, M. Failure modes and effects analysis based on neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process: method and application. Soft Comput 25, 11035–11052 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05840-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05840-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation