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

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

Volumn 159, Issue , 2017, Pages 69-79

  Certa, Antonella ^a   Hopps, Fabrizio ^a   Inghilleri, Roberta ^a   La Fata, Concetta Manuela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PALERMO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Dempster Shafer Theory; Epistemic uncertainty; Failure modes prioritization; FMECA; Propulsion system

Indexed keywords

CRITICALITY (NUCLEAR FISSION); FISHERIES; FISHING VESSELS; FORMAL LOGIC; PROBABILISTIC LOGICS; PROPULSION; RELIABILITY ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

DEMPSTER-SHAFER THEORY; EPISTEMIC UNCERTAINTIES; FMECA; PRIORITIZATION; PROPULSION SYSTEM;

FAILURE MODES;

EID: 84995550250     PISSN: 09518320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.10.018     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. [1] IEC 60812. Analysis techniques for system reliability – procedure for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). International Electrotechnical Commission, Switzerland; 2006.
2. [2] Rausand, M., Høyland, A., System reliability theory: models, statistical methods, and applications. 2nd edition, 2004, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.
3. [3] Scipioni, A., Saccarola, G., Centazzo, A., Arena, F., FMEA methodology design, implementation and integration with HACCP system in a food company. Food Control 13 (2002), 495–501.
4. [4] Arvanitoyannis, I.S., Savelides, S.C., Application of failure mode and effect analysis and cause and effect analysis and Pareto diagram in conjunction with HACCP to a chocolate-producing industry: a case study of tentative GMO detection at pilot plant scale. Int J Food Sci Technol 42 (2007), 1265–1289.
5. [5] Arvanitoyannis, I.S., Varzakas, T.H., Application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), cause and effect analysis and Pareto diagram in conjunction with HACCP to a potato chips manufacturing plant. Int J Food Sci Technol 42 (2007), 1424–1442.
6. [6] Cicek, K., Celik, M., Application of failure modes and effects analysis to main engine crankcase explosion failure on-board ship. Saf Sci 51 (2013), 6–10.
7. [7] Wang, Y.M., Chin, K.S., Poon, G.K.K., Yang, J.B., Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy weighted geometric mean. Expert Syst Appl 36 (2009), 1195–1207.
8. [8] Yang, Z.L., Bonsall, S., Wang, J., Fuzzy rule-based bayesian reasoning approach for prioritization of failures in FMEA. IEEE Trans Reliab 57:3 (2008), 517–528.
9. [9] Seyed-Hosseini, S.M., Safaei, N., Asgharpour, M.J., Reprioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis by decision making trial and evaluation laboratory technique. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91 (2006), 872–881.
10. [10] Ferson, S., Ginzburg, L.R., Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 54 (1996), 133–144.
11. [11] Francese M, Galante GM, La Fata CM, Passannanti G. Handling epistemic uncertainty in the Fault Tree Analysis using interval-valued expert information. Safety and reliability: methodology and applications. In: Proceedings of the european safety and reliability conference-ESREL. Wroclaw; 2014. p. 1683–90.
12. [12] Helton, J.C., Johnson, J.D., Oberkampf, W.L., An exploration of alternative approaches to the representation of uncertainty in model predictions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 85 (2004), 39–71.
13. [13] Helton, J.C., Quantification of margins and uncertainties: conceptual and computational basis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:9 (2011), 976–1013.
14. [14] Selonen K. A study on evidence theory: a general representation of uncertainty. Systems Analysis Laboratory Bachelor's thesis Espoo; 2015.
15. [15] Dempster, A.P., Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann Math Stat 38:2 (1967), 325–339.
16. [16] Shafer, G., A mathematical theory of evidence, 1976, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
17. [17] Curcurù, G., Galante, G.M., La Fata, C.M., Epistemic uncertainty in fault tree analysis approached by the evidence theory. J Loss Prev Process Ind 25 (2012), 667–676.
18. [18] Curcurù G, Galante GM, La Fata CM. A bottom-up procedure to calculate the top event probability in presence of epistemic uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 11th international probabilistic safety assessment and management conference and the annual european safety and reliability conference 2012, PSAM11 ESREL, Helsinki; 2012.
19. [19] Curcurù, G., Galante, G.M., La Fata, C.M., An imprecise Fault Tree Analysis for the estimation of the Rate of OCcurrence Of Failure (ROCOF). J Loss Prev Process Ind 26 (2013), 1285–1292.
20. [20] Ayyub, B.M., Klir, G.J., Uncertainty modeling and analysis in engineering and the sciences. 2006, CRC Press.
21. [21] Liu, H.-C., Liu, L., Liu, N., Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl 40 (2013), 828–838.
22. [22] Bevilacqua, M., Braglia, M., Gabbrielli, R., Monte Carlo simulation approach for a modified FMECA in a power plant. Qual Reliab Eng Int 16:14 (2000), 313–324.
23. [23] Puente, J., Pino, R., Priore, P., Fuente, D., A decision support system for applying failure mode and effects analysis. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 19:2 (2001), 137–150.
24. [24] Sankar, N.R., Prabhu, B.S., Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 18:3 (2001), 324–335.
25. [25] Braglia, M., MAFMA: multi-attribute failure mode analysis. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 17 (2000), 1017–1033.
26. [26] Saaty, T.L., The analytic hierarchy process. 1994, McGraw Hill Company, New York.
27. [27] Bowles, J.B., Peláez, C.E., Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 50:2 (1995), 203–213.
28. [28] Cayrac, D., Dubois, D., Prade, H., Handling uncertainty with possibility theory and fuzzy sets in a satellite fault diagnosis application. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 4:3 (1996), 251–269.
29. [29] Xu, K., Tang, L.C., Xie, M., Ho, S.L., Zhu, M.L., Fuzzy assessment of FMEA for engine systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 75:1 (2002), 17–29.
30. [30] Lupo, T., Fuzzy ServPerf model combined with ELECTRE III to comparatively evaluate service quality of international airports in Sicily. J Air Transp Manag 42 (2015), 249–259.
31. [31] Lupo, T., A fuzzy framework to evaluate service quality in the healthcare industry: an empirical case of public hospital service evaluation in Sicily. Appl Soft Comput 40 (2016), 468–478.
32. [32] Tay, K.M., Lim, C.P., Enhancing the failure mode and effect analysis methodology with fuzzy inference techniques. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 21 (2010), 135–146.
33. [33] Braglia, M., Bevilacqua, M., Fuzzy modelling and analytical hierarchy processing as a means of quantifying risk levels associated with failure modes in production systems. Technol Law Insur 5 (2000), 125–134.
34. [34] Braglia, M., Frosolini, M., Montanari, R., Fuzzy criticality assessment model for failure modes and effects analysis. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 20:4 (2003), 503–524.
35. [35] Zhang, Z., Chu, X., Risk prioritization in failure mode and effects analysis under uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl 38 (2011), 206–214.
36. [36] Zammori, F., Gabbrielli, R., ANP/RPN: a multi criteria evaluation of the risk priority number. Qual Reliab Eng Int 28 (2011), 85–104.
37. [37] Saaty, T.L., Ozdemir, M.S., The encyclicon: a dictionary of decisions with dependence and feedback based on Analytic Network Process. 2005, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (USA).
38. [38] Braglia, M., Frosolini, M., Montanari, R., Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Qual Reliab Eng Int 19 (2003), 425–443.
39. [39] Kutlu, A.C., Ekmekçioğlu, M., Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using Fuzzy TOPSIS-based Fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl 39 (2012), 61–67.
40. [40] Carpitella S, Certa A, Galante G, Izquierdo J, La Fata CM. The FTOPSIS method to support FMECA analyses. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ISSAT international conference on reliability and quality in design. Los Angeles, California, USA; 2016. p. 398–402.
41. [41] Chin, K.-S., Wang, Y.-M., Poon, G.K.K., Yang, J.-B., Failure mode and effects analysis using a group-based evidential reasoning approach. Comput Oper Res 36 (2009), 1768–1779.
42. [42] Liu, H.C., Liu, L., Bian, Q.H., Lin, Q.L., Dong, N., Xu, P.C., Failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning approach and grey theory. Expert Syst Appl 38 (2011), 4403–4415.
43. [43] Yang, J., Huang, H.-Z., He, L.-P., Zhu, S.-P., Wen, D., Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis of aircraft turbine rotor blades using Dempster–Shafer evidence theory under uncertainty. Eng Fail Anal 18 (2011), 2084–2092.
44. [44] Su, X., Deng, Y., Mahadevan, S., Bao, Q., An improved method for risk evaluation in failure modes and effects analysis of aircraft engine rotor blades. Eng Fail Anal 26 (2012), 164–174.
45. [45] Bae, H.-R., Grandhi, R.V., Uncertainty quantification of structural response using Evidence Theory. AIAA J 41:10 (2003), 2062–2068.
46. [46] Voorbraak, F., On the justification of Dempster's rule of combinations. Artif Intell 48 (1991), 171–197.
47. [47] Klawonn, F., Schwecke, E., On the axiomatic justification of Dempster's rule combination. Int J Intell Syst 7 (1992), 469–478.
48. [48] Dubois, D., Prade, H., On the unicity of dempster rule of combination. Int J Intell Syst 1 (1986), 133–142.
49. [49] Zadeh, L., Book review: a mathematical theory of evidence. Al Mag 5:3 (1984), 81–83.
50. [50] Yager, R.R., On the dempster–shafer framework and new combination rules. Inf Sci 41 (1987), 93–137.
51. [51] Sentz K, Ferson S. Combination of Evidence in Dempster-Shafer Theory. Sandia Reports. vol. 4015; 2002.
52. [52] Certa, A., Enea, M., Galante, G.M., La Fata, C.M., A Multistep methodology for the evaluation of human resources using the evidence theory. Int J Intell Syst 28:11 (2013), 1072–1088.
53. [53] Baraldi, P., Compare, M., Zio, E., Maintenance policy performance assessment in presence of imprecision based on Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence. Inf Sci 245 (2013), 112–131.