2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fuzzy based risk prioritisation in an auto LPG dispensing station

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Numerous researchers have incorporated the fuzzy theory into FMEA to express the vague and uncertain information in risk evaluation accurately. [21][22][23] In practical applications, risk-evaluation information is expressed in linguistic terms of a fuzzy set (FS), 24 such as triangular fuzzy numbers, 25 trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, 26,27 intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, 28,29 and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. 30 As the extension of traditional FSs 31 and intuitionistic FSs, 32 single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic fuzzy sets (SVTNFSs) can express additional uncertain information.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerous researchers have incorporated the fuzzy theory into FMEA to express the vague and uncertain information in risk evaluation accurately. [21][22][23] In practical applications, risk-evaluation information is expressed in linguistic terms of a fuzzy set (FS), 24 such as triangular fuzzy numbers, 25 trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, 26,27 intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, 28,29 and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. 30 As the extension of traditional FSs 31 and intuitionistic FSs, 32 single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic fuzzy sets (SVTNFSs) can express additional uncertain information.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this traditional FMEA risk-evaluation approach has often been extensively criticized in extant literature for a variety of reasons [6]. The major shortcomings of the traditional RPN-based approach are as follows: (i) The relative importance among O, S, and D is not considered [7][8][9][10]; (ii) the three risk factors are difficult to precisely evaluate [4,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]; (iii) interdependencies among various failure modes and effects are not considered [1,5,18,19]; (iv) the method depends on experts' intuition and experience rather than the scientific method to estimate the three risk components [20,21]; and (v) there is no consideration of possible hierarchical relationships among failures [6,22,23].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many researchers have attempted to improve the RPN-based risk-evaluation method of FMEA. Some researchers have considered facilitating the assessment of the three risk-evaluation factors-O, S, and D-by adopting fuzzy logic-based approaches [4,5,7,10,12,19,[24][25][26] or fuzzy rule-based Bayesian reasoning approaches [27]. Other researchers [9,28] employed both grey and fuzzy theories in FMEA.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this traditional FMEA risk-evaluation approach has often been extensively criticized in extant literature for a variety of reasons [2]. Noteworthy drawbacks of the traditional RPN-based approach include (i) no consideration of relative importance among O, S, and D parameters [7][8][9][10]; (ii) difficulties involved in precise evaluation of the three risk factors [5,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]; (iii) no consideration of interdependencies among different failure-causes and the corresponding effects [6,[18][19][20]; and (iv) over-dependence on expert intuition and experience instead of scientific methods for evaluation of the three risk components [21,22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many researchers have attempted to overcome the above-mentioned drawbacks, thereby improving the FMEA risk-evaluation method in the process. Liu et al [2] reported that the most popular FMEA approach corresponds to the fuzzy rule-based system [10,[23][24][25], followed by the grey theory [9,10], cost-based model [11][12][13], AHP/ANP [7,19,26,27], and linear programming. Others included an integration-based approach [8,[15][16][17]21,22,28] and probability-based methodology [14,29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%