As high-speed electric multiple units (EMU) speeds and mileage increase, the electronic traction system has become a prominent part requiring focused attention, as even minor failures can significantly impact the system performance. Consequently, identifying the key components becomes crucial. This study presents a novel Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) approach specifically tailored for high-speed rail traction systems. It addresses limitations in conventional FMECA, notably the expert subjectivity involved in Severity (S), Occurrence (O), and Detectability (D) scores, as well as the ambiguity associated with Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs). A two-stage methodology is proposed: (1) An expert qualification process that filters and calibrates initial S, O, D assessments to mitigate individual bias. (2) A game-theoretic weighting scheme optimally integrates weights from Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and the Method based on the Removal Effects of Criteria (MEREC), objectively determining the relative importance of S, O, D while resolving RPN non-uniqueness and expert uncertainty. A case study conducted on a representative EMU traction system validates the proposed methodology, identifying the Four-Quadrant rectifier, TCU module, traction motor, ventilation system, and carbon skateboard as the key components. Comprehensive sensitivity analysis further demonstrates that the proposed approach exhibits improved robustness over individual methods (FAHP, MEREC, etc.), confirming its enhanced reliability for key component identification in complex engineering systems.
ChenCGaoGLiuB, et al. Research on the degradation characteristics of IGBT safe operation area (SOA) in traction converter. In: 2021 IEEE 16th conference on industrial electronics and applications (ICIEA), Shenzhen, China, June 2021, pp.833-836. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIEA51954.2021.9516209.
2.
SunZJLiuSYangZM, et al. On-line monitoring of instantaneous over-voltage intelligent monitoring of EMUs. In: 2nd international conference on power electronics and advanced control (PEAC) electronic network, Bristol, UK, 18–20 November 2022, 2023, vol 2434, no 1: 012005. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2434/1/012005.
3.
Erozan İ. A fuzzy decision support system for managing maintenance activities of critical components in manufacturing systems. J Manuf Syst2019; 52: 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2019.06.002
4.
LiHDiazHGuedes SoaresC. A developed failure mode and effect analysis for floating offshore wind turbine support structures. Renew Energy2021; 164: 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.033
5.
ZhuHLLiuSSQuYY, et al. A new risk assessment method based on belief rule base and fault tree analysis. Proc IMechE Part O: J Risk and Reliability2022; 236(3). 420–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X211011457
6.
NiloofarPLazarova-MolnarS. Collaborative data-driven reliability analysis of multi-state fault trees. Proc IMechE Part O: J Risk and Reliability2023; 237(5). 886–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X221076290
7.
KammouhOGardoniPCimellaroGP. Probabilistic framework to evaluate the resilience of engineering systems using Bayesian and dynamic Bayesian networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 198: 106813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.106813
8.
ShayganAand Testik ÖM. A fuzzy AHP-based methodology for project prioritization and selection. Soft Comput2019; 23: 1309–1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2851-9
9.
MathewMChakraborttyRKRyanMJ. Selection of an optimal maintenance strategy under uncertain conditions: an interval type-2 fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method. IEEE Trans Eng Manag2022; 69: 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2020.2977141
10.
ZhangHDongYXiaoJ, et al. Consensus and opinion evolution-based failure mode and effect analysis approach for reliability management in social network and uncertainty contexts. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 208: 107425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107425
11.
ZhouCXuDWangZ. Sample allocation method for maintainability test based on extended FMECA information. Proc IMechE Part O: J Risk and Reliability2025; 239(3). 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X241260997
12.
UflazESezerSITunçelAL, et al. Quantifying potential cyber-attack risks in maritime transportation under Dempster–Shafer theory FMECA and rule-based Bayesian network modelling. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2024; 243: 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2023.109825
13.
ZhangHLiuSDongY, et al. A minimum cost consensus-based failure mode and effect analysis framework considering experts’ limited compromise and tolerance behaviors. IEEE Trans Cybern2023; 53: 6612–6625. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcyb.2022.3212093
BobbioAPortinaleLMinichinoM, et al. Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2001; 71: 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0951-8320(00)00077-6
16.
García MárquezFPSegovia RamírezIMohammadi-IvatlooB, et al. Reliability dynamic analysis by fault trees and binary decision diagrams. Information2020; 11: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11060324
17.
GuYKZhangJShenYJ, et al. Fault tree analysis method based on probabilistic model checking and discrete time Markov chain. J Ind Prod Eng2019; 36: 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2019.1645050
18.
KimJHJeongHYParkJS. Development of the FMECA process and analysis methodology for railroad systems. Int J of Automot Technol2009; 10: 753–759.
19.
HuangJYouJXLiuHC, et al. Failure mode and effect analysis improvement: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 199: 106885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.106885
20.
LiuHCLiPYouJX, et al. A novel approach for FMEA: combination of interval 2-tuple linguistic variables and gray relational analysis. Qual Reliab Eng Int2015; 31: 761–772. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1633
21.
ZhuJShuaiBLiG, et al. Failure mode and effect analysis using regret theory and PROMETHEE under linguistic neutrosophic context. J Loss Prev Process Ind2020; 64: 104048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104048
22.
La FataCMGiallanzaAMicaleR, et al. Improved FMECA for effective risk management decision making by failure modes classification under uncertainty. Eng Fail Anal2022; 135: 106163.
23.
AnMQinYJiaLM, et al. Aggregation of group fuzzy risk information in the railway risk decision making process. Saf Sci2016; 82: 18–28.
24.
BragliaMFrosoliniMMontanariR. Fuzzy criticality assessment model for failure modes and effects analysis. Int J Qual Reliab Manag2003; 20: 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710310468687
25.
ZúñigaAAFernandesJFPBrancoPJC. Fuzzy-based failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis applied to cyber-power grids. Energies2023; 16: 3346. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16083346
26.
ZadehLA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control1965; 8: 338–353.
27.
KamaludinKAbdullahLShengL, et al. Utilization of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and TOPSIS-AHP for selecting the best plant maintenance strategy. Adv Mechatron Manuf Mech Eng2021; 56–67.
28.
SpanidisPMRoumposCPavloudakisF. A fuzzy-AHP methodology for planning the risk management of natural hazards in surface mining projects. Sustainability2021; 13: 2369.
29.
LiaoTW. Two interval type 2 fuzzy TOPSIS material selection methods. Mater Des2015; 88: 1088–1099.
30.
ZhangYLiuJDaiC, et al. Key components identification of EMU complex system faults with interval intuitionistic fuzzy set and multi-attribute group decision-making based on FMECA method. Proc IMechE Part O: J Risk and Reliability2025; 239: 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006x241262831
31.
HuangCWuJShanZ, et al. Reliability prediction for new prefabricated track structures based on the fuzzy failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis method. Appl Sci2024; 14(12): 5338.
32.
SuHWangDSuL. Fuzzy FMECA risk evaluation and its applications in Chinese train control systems based on cloud model. J Intell Fuzzy Syst2019; 37(1): 1299–1309.
33.
ChenZSChenJYChenYH, et al. Large-group failure mode and effects analysis for risk management of angle grinders in the construction industry. Inf Fusion2023; 97: 101803.
34.
XuZZhangX. Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on TOPSIS with incomplete weight information. Knowledge-Based Syst2013; 52: 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2013.05.011
35.
CarpitellaSCertaAIzquierdoJ, et al. A combined multi-criteria approach to support FMECA analyses: a real-world case. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2018; 169: 394–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.09.017
36.
ChangYDongS. Study on post evaluation of high-speed railway based on FAHP and MATLAB simulation calculation. Tech Vjesn2017; 24: 1749–1758.
37.
YadavAKSinghKSrivastavaPK, et al. I-MEREC-T: improved MEREC-TOPSIS scheme for optimal network selection in 5G heterogeneous network for IoT. IoT2023; 22: 100748.
38.
IvanovićBSahaAŽStević, et al. Selection of truck mixer concrete pump using novel MEREC DNMARCOS model. Arch Civil Mech Eng2022; 22: 173.
39.
Ul HaqRSSaeedMMateenN, et al. Sustainable material selection with crisp and ambiguous data using single-valued neutrosophic-MEREC-MARCOS framework. Appl Soft Comput2022; 128: 109546.
40.
LeHAHoangXTTrieuQH, et al. Determining the best dressing parameters for external cylindrical grinding using MABAC method. Appl Sci2022; 12: 8287.
41.
BiswasABaranwalGKumar TripathiA. ABAC: alternative by alternative comparison based multi-criteria decision making method. Expert Syst Appl2022; 208: 118174.
42.
BeltonVGearT. On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega1983; 11: 228–230.
43.
AyanBAbacıoğluSBasilioMP. A comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making. Information2023; 14: 285.
44.
AnjumMKraiemNMinH, et al. Optimizing sustainability: information aggregation in smart factories for energy efficiency enhancement. Sci Rep2025; 15(1): 8603.
SumritD. Unveiling the effects of big data analytic capability on improving healthcare supply chain resilience: an integrated MCDM with spherical fuzzy information approach. Res Eng2025; 25: 104499.
47.
DuanCMoYWangJ, et al. A novel FMEA approach for reliability analysis of intelligent manufacturing system combining DHHTFLTS, MEREC, and WGHHPD-FexpTODIM. Int J Fuzzy Syst2025; 1–20.
48.
DebnathKRoySK. Decision analytics for Indian culinary tourism: a holistic group approach considering correlation. Appl Soft Comput2025; 185: 113812.
49.
KumarNMahantaJ. A matrix norm-based Pythagorean fuzzy metric and its application in MEREC-SWARA-VIKOR framework for solar panel selection. Appl Soft Comput2024; 158: 111592.
50.
SeikhMRChatterjeeP. Sustainable strategies for electric vehicle adoption: a confidence level-based interval-valued spherical fuzzy MEREC-VIKOR approach. Inf Sci2025; 699: 121814.
51.
MeiLFengXCavallaroF. Evaluate and identify the competencies of the future workforce for digital technologies implementation in higher education. J Innov Knowl2023; 8(4): 100445.
52.
YanYTLuoZQLiuZY, et al. Risk assessment analysis of multiple failure modes using the fuzzy rough FMECA method: a case of FACDG. Mathematics2023; 11: 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11163459
53.
AkramMZahidSDeveciM. Enhanced CRITIC-REGIME method for decision making based on Pythagorean fuzzy rough number. Expert Syst Appl2024; 238: 122014.
54.
AiLLiuSMaL, et al. A multi-attribute decision making method based on combination of subjective and objective weighting. In: 2019 5th international conference on control, automation and robotics (ICCAR), Beijing, China, May 2019, pp.576-580. IEEE.
55.
HaoHWangMTangY, et al. Research on data fusion of multi-sensors based on fuzzy preference relations. Neural Comput Appl2019; 31(S1): 337–346.
56.
LiWDongFJiZ, et al. Evaluation of provincial power supply reliability with high penetration of renewable energy based on combination weighting of game theory-TOPSIS method. Sustain Energy Grid Netw2023; 35: 101092.
57.
WangMY. The study on fault hazard analysis and maintenance strategy of high speed multiple units traction system. Master’s Thesis, Jilin University, 2023.
58.
General Armament Department of Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Guide to failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. GJB/Z 1391-2006. 2006.
59.
LiYFHuangHZZhangH, et al. Fuzzy sets method of reliability prediction and its application to a turbocharger of diesel engines. Adv Mech Eng2013; 5: 216192. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/216192
60.
RaniPMishraARSahaA, et al. Fermatean fuzzy Heronian mean operators and MEREC-based additive ratio assessment method: an application to food waste treatment technology selection. Int J Intell Syst2022; 37: 2612–2647.
61.
YuYWuSYuJ, et al. A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework for offshore wind turbine selection: a case study in China. Appl Energy2022; 328: 120173.
62.
YangLZouHShangC, et al. Adoption of information and digital technologies for sustainable smart manufacturing systems for industry 4.0 in small, medium, and micro enterprises (SMMEs). Technol Forecast Soc Change2023; 188: 122308.
63.
ZhangYPXuZJSuHS. Risk assessment on railway signal system based on fuzzy-FMECA method. Sens Transducers2013; 156: 203.
64.
NarangMKumarADhawanR. A fuzzy extension of MEREC method using parabolic measure and its applications. J Decis Anal Intell Comput2023; 3: 33–46.
65.
Besharati FardMHamidiDEbadiM, et al. Optimum landfill site selection by a hybrid multi-criteria and multi-agent decision-making method in a temperate and humid climate: BWM-GIS-FAHP-GT. Sustain Cities Soc2022; 79: 103641.
66.
XieHHuJ. Insurance risk assessment model based on game theory-combined weighting-TOPSIS. Highlights Bus Econ Manag2024; 33: 525–531. https://doi.org/10.54097/ejhvxf72
67.
GuoBM. Research on maintenance decision method of HXD1D locomotive traction system based on fault analysis. Master’s Thesis, China Academy of Railway Sciences, 2021.
68.
YuHZhangHS. Improved FMECA for traction transmission system of EMU based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. J China Railw Soc2022; 44(9): 33–41.
69.
WangHLiYFRenJ. Machine learning for fault diagnosis of high-speed train traction systems: a review. Front Eng Manage2024; 11: 62–78.
70.
SunYZhangTLiC. Study and construction of traction control system of EMUs. In: 2017 36th Chinese control conference (CCC), Dalian, China, July 2017, pp. 9972–9976. IEEE.
71.
PeräläTVanhataloJChrysafiA. Calibrating expert assessments using hierarchical Gaussian process models. Bayesian Anal2020; 15(4): 1251–1280.
72.
HermanMWKoczkodajWW. A Monte Carlo study of pairwise comparison. Inf Process Lett1996; 57: 25–29.
73.
YaraghiNTabeshPGuanP, et al. Comparison of AHP and Monte Carlo AHP under different levels of uncertainty. IEEE Trans Eng Manag2015; 62: 122–132.
74.
NizarliNAbdullahAAwayY, et al. Multi-stakeholder priorities for modular construction adoption under uncertainty: an analytic hierarchy process and Monte Carlo analysis in Aceh, Indonesia. Sustainability2025; 17: 10487.
75.
BoralSChaturvediSKHowardI, et al. An integrated interval type-2 fuzzy sets and multiplicative half quadratic programming-based MCDM framework for calculating aggregated risk ranking results of failure modes in FMECA. Process Saf Environ Prot2021; 150: 194–222.
76.
OduGO. Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making technique. J Appl Sci Environ Manag2019; 23(8): 1449–1457.
77.
RajaSPraveenkumarV. Optimizing additive manufacturing parameters for graphene-reinforced PETG impeller production: a fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach. RINENG2024; 24: 103018.
78.
ZournatzidouGStaikourasCRagazouK, et al. Unlocking the threshold effects of ESG performance towards policy energy efficiency of the European energy sector: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach based on weight-entropy TOPSIS. Energy Econ2025; 151: 108915.
79.
CurranPA. Monte Carlo error analyses of Spearman’s rank test. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.3816. 2014.
80.
DemirGChatterjeePPamucarD. Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: a state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis. Expert Syst Appl2024; 237: 121660.
81.
EcerFPamucarD. A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: an application in developing country banking sector. Omega2022; 112: 102690.
82.
HeltonJCDavisFJ. Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2003; 81: 23–69.
83.
SaltelliAAnnoniPAzziniI, et al. Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput Phys Commun2010; 181: 259–270.
