Failure mode and effects analysis: an integrated approach based on rough set theory and prospect theory

被引:26
作者
Fang, Hong [1 ]
Li, Jing [1 ]
Song, Wenyan [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Beihang Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Beijing 100191, Peoples R China
[2] Beihang Univ, Minist Educ, Key Lab Complex Syst Anal Management & Decis, Beijing 100191, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Failure mode and effects analysis; Bounded rationality; Variable precision rough number; Prospect theory; TOPSIS; EXTENDED MULTIMOORA; TOPSIS APPROACH; FUZZY; RISK; SYSTEM; FMECA; METHODOLOGY; DECISION; TODIM; QFD;
D O I
10.1007/s00500-019-04305-8
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), a bottom-up method, is one of risk assessment tools to eliminate or reduce failures in design and process. It has been applied to many industries due to its flexibility and effectiveness. However, the conventional FMEA considers less about the subjectivity and vagueness in the process of risk assessment and assumes that three risk factors' importance is the same. Although a lot of approaches based on fuzzy logic are proposed to deal with vague information in previous literature, they need priori assumptions leading to fixed intervals to express vagueness. In addition, most of the previous methods suppose that decision makers are totally rational without considering their psychological factors. To solve the problems, an extended technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is developed to improve FMEA approach, which combines the advantage of variable precision rough number in dealing with vague information and the strength of prospect theory (PT) in considering decision maker's bounded rationality. The proposed method consists of two stages: one is the determination of risk factors' weight function values; and the other is ranking risk priority of failure modes with the PT-based TOPSIS. Finally, a case study of a steam valve system is used to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed method.
引用
收藏
页码:6673 / 6685
页数:13
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]   Using failure mode and effects analysis to evaluate barriers to the greening of existing buildings using the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system [J].
Afshari, Hamid ;
Issa, Mohamed H. ;
Radwan, Ahmed .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2016, 127 :195-203
[2]   Fuzzy-based failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) of a hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) and gas turbine system for marine propulsion [J].
Ahn, Junkeon ;
Noh, Yeelyong ;
Park, Sung Ho ;
Choi, Byung Il ;
Chang, Daejun .
JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES, 2017, 364 :226-233
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1971, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations
[4]  
[Anonymous], RISK DECISION ANAL, DOI DOI 10.3233/RDA-2008-0001
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2003, TECHNOMETRICS
[6]   MADM method based on prospect theory and evidential reasoning approach with unknown attribute weights under intuitionistic fuzzy environment [J].
Bao, Tiantian ;
Xie, Xinlian ;
Long, Peiyin ;
Wei, Zhaokun .
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2017, 88 :305-317
[7]   Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode, effects and criticality analysis [J].
Braglia, M ;
Frosolini, M ;
Montanari, R .
QUALITY AND RELIABILITY ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL, 2003, 19 (05) :425-443
[8]   An integrated structural framework to cost-based FMECA: The priority-cost FMECA [J].
Carmignani, Gionata .
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2009, 94 (04) :861-871
[9]   A combined multi-criteria approach to support FMECA analyses: A real-world case [J].
Carpitella, Silvia ;
Certa, Antonella ;
Izquierdo, Joaquin ;
La Fata, Concetta Manuela .
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2018, 169 :394-402
[10]   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 [J].
Certa, Antonella ;
Hopps, Fabrizio ;
Inghilleri, Roberta ;
La Fata, Concetta Manuela .
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2017, 159 :69-79