Fourth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD 2007) 2007
DOI: 10.1109/fskd.2007.193
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing Failure of Bridge Construction Using Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Fuzzy probability X 2 (0.11,0.046,0.11) X 14 (0.049,0.069,0.049) X 3 (0.032,0.054,0.032) X 15 (0.085,0.044,0.085) X 4 (0.073,0.041,0.073) X 16 (0.096,0.059,0.096) X 5 (0.08,0.049,0.08) X 17 (0.08,0.037,0.08) X 6 (0.935,0.344,0.935) X 18 (0.085,0.044,0.085) X 7 (0.091,0.061,0.091) X 19 (0.039,0.028,0.039) X 8 (0.096,0.044,0.096) X 20 (0.071,0.055,0.071) X 9 (0.096,0.044,0.096) X 21 (0.095,0.038,0.095) X 10 (0,0.101,0) X 22 (0.151,0.084,0.151) X 11 (0.805,0.258,0.805) X 23 (0.033,0.086,0.033) X 12 (0.109,0.099,0.109) X 24 (0.24,0.126,0.24) X 13 (0.078,0.050,0.078) The calculation result is Q u = 0.02055. Through the above calculation, we can obtain the values of Q l , Q m , and Q u .…”
Section: Basic Eventmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Fuzzy probability X 2 (0.11,0.046,0.11) X 14 (0.049,0.069,0.049) X 3 (0.032,0.054,0.032) X 15 (0.085,0.044,0.085) X 4 (0.073,0.041,0.073) X 16 (0.096,0.059,0.096) X 5 (0.08,0.049,0.08) X 17 (0.08,0.037,0.08) X 6 (0.935,0.344,0.935) X 18 (0.085,0.044,0.085) X 7 (0.091,0.061,0.091) X 19 (0.039,0.028,0.039) X 8 (0.096,0.044,0.096) X 20 (0.071,0.055,0.071) X 9 (0.096,0.044,0.096) X 21 (0.095,0.038,0.095) X 10 (0,0.101,0) X 22 (0.151,0.084,0.151) X 11 (0.805,0.258,0.805) X 23 (0.033,0.086,0.033) X 12 (0.109,0.099,0.109) X 24 (0.24,0.126,0.24) X 13 (0.078,0.050,0.078) The calculation result is Q u = 0.02055. Through the above calculation, we can obtain the values of Q l , Q m , and Q u .…”
Section: Basic Eventmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tanaka et al 14 applied fuzzy theory in the FTA technique for safety assessment of a certain system. [15][16][17] Despite many publications on FTA, few studies have been devoted to the fuzzy fault tree analysis (FFTA) technique for underground coal mine methane explosion. First, in this study the fault tree of coal working face and heading face was used to analyze the influential factors and processes of coal mine gas explosion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ping et al (2007) presented a method which overcomes the drawbacks of traditional FTA by using possibilistic measures and fuzzy logic. Pan and Wang (2007) used FFTA for assessing failures of bridge construction. Purba et al (2013) applied a fuzzy reliability assessment of basic events of fault trees through qualitative data processing from nuclear power plant operating experiences and compared with the available actual failure probabilities.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fault tree analysis (FTA) is one of the best‐known methods for identifying and analyzing a system's failure scenarios and calculating its overall reliability. Because fault trees are able to model interactions between various basic events (BEs), they can be utilized in complex risk assessment environments like nuclear power plants, mechanical systems and in the construction industry . FTA employs two basic assumptions: (i) the first one is that the likelihood values of input events are known, and (ii) the second one requires independence between BEs .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%