Wind power is a typical clean and renewable energy, which has been widely regarded as one of the replaceable energies in many countries. Wind turbine is the key equipment to generate wind power. It is necessary to evaluate the risks of each stage of the wind turbine with regard to occupational health and safety. In this study, the stage of production of life cycle of wind turbine is considered. The aim of this study is to propose a new method to identify and evaluate the risk factors based on strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT) analysis and D number theory, named D-SWOT method. A wind turbine firm is used to demonstrate the detailed steps of the proposed method. SWOT is conducted to identify the risk factors of production stage of the wind turbine company. Experts are invited to perform the risk assessment, and D number theory is carried out to do the processes of information representation and integration. After that, some suggestions are provided to the company to lower the risks. The D-SWOT method obtains the same results as the previous method of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set (HFLTS). Compared with HFLTS method, D-SWOT method simplifies the process of information processing, and D-SWOT method is more intuitional and concise. Besides, a property of pignistic probability transformation of D number theory (DPPT) is proposed in the manuscript, which extends D number theory and has been used in the process of decision making of D-SWOT.
CooklinA., JossN., HusserE. and OldenburgB., Integrated approaches to occupational health and safety: A systematic review, American Journal of Health Promotion31 (2017), 401–412.
6.
ShafieeM. and DinmohammadiF., An FMEA-based risk assessment approach for wind turbine systems: a comparative study of onshore and offshore, Energies7 (2014), 619–642.
7.
BeskeseA., CamciA., TemurG. T. and ErturkE., Wind turbine evaluation using the hesitant fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method with a case in Turkey, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems38 (2020), 997–1011.
8.
AnicicO., PetkovićD. and CvetkovicS., Evaluation of wind turbine noise by soft computing methodologies: A comparative study, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews56 (2016), 1122–1128.
9.
JinX., QiaoW., PengY., ChengF. and QuL., Quantitative evaluation of wind turbine faults under variable operational conditions, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications52 (2016), 2061–2069.
10.
AdemA., DağdevirenM., ÇolakA. and KabakM., Fuzzy prioritization approach for risks of wind turbine life cycle, Procedia Computer Science102 (2016), 406–413.
11.
WeiG., LuJ., WeiC. and WuJ., Probabilistic linguistic GRA method for multiple attribute group decision making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems38 (2020), 4721–4732.
12.
DongY. and HeY., The reliability analysis of rating systems in decision making: When scale meets multi-attribute additive value model, Decision Support Systems138 (2020), 113384.
13.
ZhangH., ZhaoS., KouG., LiC.-C., DongY. and HerreraF., An overview on feedback mechanisms with minimum adjustment or cost in consensus reaching in group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges, Information Fusion60 (2020), 65–79.
14.
DzitacI., FilipF.G. and ManolescuM.-J., Fuzzy logic is not fuzzy: World-renowned computer scientist Lotfi A. Zadeh, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control12 (2017), 748–789.
15.
GargH. and KaurG., A robust correlation coefficient for probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy sets and its applications, Neural Computing and Applications32 (2020), 8847–8866.
16.
GargH. and RaniD., Novel aggregation operators and ranking method for complex intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications to decision-making process, Artificial Intelligence Review53 (2020), 3595–3620.
17.
GargH. and ChenS.-M., Multiattribute group decision making based on neutrality aggregation operators of q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets, Information Sciences517 (2020), 427–447.
18.
VermaR., On aggregation operators for linguistic trapezoidal fuzzy intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems38 (2020), 2907–2950.
19.
FeiL. and DengY., Multi-criteria decision making in Pythagorean fuzzy environment, Applied Intelligence50 (2020), 537–561.
20.
ZhangK., ZhanJ., WuW.-Z., Onmulti-criteria decision-making method based on a fuzzy rough set model with fuzzy α-neighborhoods, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (2020), 10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3001670.
21.
JiangH., ZhanJ., SunB. and AlcantudJ.C.R., An MADM approach to covering-based variable precision fuzzy rough sets: an application to medical diagnosis, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics11 (2020), 2181–2207.
22.
ZhanJ., JiangH. and YaoY., Covering-based variable precision fuzzy rough sets with promethee-edas methods, Information Sciences538 (2020), 314–336.
23.
ZhangK., ZhanJ. and WangX., TOPSIS-WAA method based on a covering-based fuzzy rough set: An application to rating problem, Information Sciences539 (2020), 397–421.
24.
ZhanJ. and XuW., Two types of coverings based multigranulation rough fuzzy sets and applications to decision making, Artificial Intelligence Review53 (2020), 167–198.
25.
ZhangK., ZhanJ. and WuW.-Z., Novel fuzzy rough set models and corresponding applications to multi-criteria decision-making, Fuzzy Sets and Systems383 (2020), 92–126.
26.
LiY. and DengY., Intuitionistic evidence sets, IEEE Access7 (2019), 106417–106426.
27.
LiuY. and JiangW., A new distance measure of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application in decision making, Soft Computing24 (2020), 6987–7003.
28.
XiaoF., A distance measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application to pattern classification problems, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems (2019), 10.1109/TSMC.2019.2958635.
29.
XueY. and DengY., Entailment for Intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on generalized belief structures, International Journal of Intelligent Systems35 (2020), 10.1002/int.22232.
30.
KangB. and DengY., The maximum Deng entropy, IEEE Access7 (2019), 120758–120765.
31.
WangJ., GaoD. and WeiD., A new belief entropy based on Deng entropy, Entropy21 (2019), doi:10.3390/e21100987.
32.
GaoX. and DengY., The Pseudo-Pascal triangle of maximum Deng entropy, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control15 (2020), 1006.
33.
LiM., XuH. and DengY., Evidential decision tree based on belief entropy, Entropy21 (2019), 10.3390/e21090897..
34.
JiangW., CaoY. and DengX., A novel Z-network model based on Bayesian network and Z-number, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems28 (2019), 1585–1599.
35.
SeitiH., FathiM., HafezalkotobA., Herrera-ViedmaE., HameedI.A., Developing the modified R-numbers for risk-based fuzzy information fusion and its application to failure modes, effects, and system resilience analysis (FMESRA), ISA Transactions (2020), 10.1016/j.isatra.2020.01.015.
36.
GargH., Novel neutrality aggregation operator-based multiattribute group decision-making method for single-valued neutrosophic numbers, Soft Computing24 (2020), 10327–10349.
37.
LiuY., ZhangH., WuY. and DongY., Ranking range based approach to MADM under incomplete context and its application in venture investment evaluation, Technological and Economic Development of Economy25 (2019), 877–899.
38.
DongY., LiuY., LiangH., ChiclanaF. and Herrera-ViedmaE., Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making, Omega75 (2018), 154–164.
39.
WuS., WuM., DongY., LiangH. and ZhaoS., The 2-rank additive model with axiomatic design in multiple attribute decision making, European Journal of Operational Research287 (2020), 536–545.
40.
ZhanJ., JiangH., YaoY., Three-way multi-attribute decision-making based on outranking relations, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (2020), 10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3007423.
41.
YeJ., ZhanJ. and XuZ., A novel decision-making approach based on three-way decisions in fuzzy information systems, Information Sciences541 (2020), 362–390.
42.
ZhanJ., SunB. and ZhangX., PF-TOPSIS method based on CPFRS models: An application to unconventional emergency events, Computers & Industrial Engineering517 (2020), 315–339.
43.
XuW., ChenX., DongY. and ChiclanaF., Impact of decision rules and non-cooperative behaviors on minimum consensus cost in group decision making, Group Decision and Negotiation2020 (2020), Doi:10.1007/s10726–020–09653–7.
44.
DingR.-X., PalomaresI., WangX., YangG.-R., LiuB., DongY., Herrera-ViedmaE. and HerreraF., Large-Scale decision-making: Characterization, taxonomy, challenges and future directions from an Artificial Intelligence and applications perspective, Information Fusion59 (2020), 84–102.
45.
LiC.-C., GaoY., DongY., Managing ignorance elements and personalized individual semantics under incomplete linguistic distribution context in group decision making, Group Decision and Negotiation (2020), Doi:10.1007/s10726–020–09708–9.
46.
GulM., GuneriA. and BaskanM., An occupational risk assessment approach for construction and operation period of wind turbines, Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management4 (2018), 281–298.
47.
HillT. and WestbrookR., SWOT analysis: it’s time for a product recall, Long range planning30 (1997), 46–52.
48.
LiaoH., XuZ., Herrera-ViedmaE. and HerreraF., Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application in decision making: a state-of-the-art survey, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems20 (2018), 2084–2110.
49.
AdemA., ÇolakA. and DağdevirenM., An integrated model using SWOT analysis and hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set for evaluation occupational safety risks in life cycle of wind turbine, Safety Science106 (2018), 184–190.
50.
BabaesmailliM., ArbabshiraniB. and GolmahV., Integrating analytical network process and fuzzy logic to prioritize the strategies–a case study for tile manufacturing firm, Expert Systems with Applications39 (2012), 925–935.
51.
ZadehL.A. (1996) Fuzzy sets, in: Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, And Fuzzy Systems: Selected Papers by Lotfi A Zadeh, World Scientific, 1996, pp. 394–432.
52.
DempsterA.P., Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping, The annals of mathematical statistics (1967), 325–339.
53.
ShaferG., A mathematical theory of evidence, volume 42, Princeton university press, 1976.
54.
WeihrichH., The tows matrix—a tool for situational analysis, Long range planning15 (1982), 54–66.
55.
PicktonD. W. and WrightS., What’s SWOT in strategic analysis?Strategic change7 (1998), 101–109.
56.
XiaoF., EFMCDM: Evidential fuzzy multicriteria decision making based on belief entropy,a), IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems28 (2020), 1477–1491.
57.
XiaoF., Generalized belief function in complex evidence theory, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems38 (2020), 3665–3673.
58.
ZhengX. and DengY., Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis based on evidence credibility decay model and IOWA operator, Annals of Nuclear Energy112 (2018), 673–684.
59.
GaoX. and DengY., Quantum model of mass function, International Journal of Intelligent Systems35 (2020), 267–282.
60.
XiaoF., Multi-sensor data fusion based on the belief divergence measure of evidences and the belief entropy, Information Fusion46 (2019), 23–32.
61.
GaoS. and DengY., An evidential evaluation of nuclear safeguards, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks15 (2019), 10.1177/1550147719894550.
62.
SabahiF., A novel generalized belief structure comprising unprecisiated uncertainty applied to aphasia diagnosis, Journal of biomedical informatics62 (2016), 66–77.
63.
WangH., DengX., ZhangZ. and JiangW., A new failure mode and effects analysis method based on Dempster-Shafer theory by integrating evidential network, IEEE Access7 (2019), 79579–79591.
64.
JiangW., ZhangZ. and DengX., A novel failure mode and effects analysis method based on fuzzy evidential reasoning rules, IEEE Access7 (2019), 113605–113615.
65.
LiZ. and ChenL., A novel evidential FMEA method by integrating fuzzy belief structure and grey relational projection method, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence77 (2019), 136–147.
66.
FeiL., DengY. and HuY., DS-VIKOR: A new multi-criteria decision-making method for supplier selection, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems21 (2019), 157–175.
67.
SmetsP., Decision making in the TBM: the necessity of the pignistic transformation, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning38 (2005), 133–147.
68.
DengY., D numbers: Theory and Applications, Journal of Information & Computational Science9 (2012), 2421–2428.
69.
XiaoF., A new divergence measure for belief functions in D-S evidence theory for multisensor data fusion, Information Sciences514 (2020), 462–483.
70.
ShankarR., ChoudharyD. and JharkhariaS., An integrated risk assessment model: A case of sustainable freight transportation systems, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment63 (2018), 662–676.
71.
ZhaoJ. and DengY., Performer selection in human reliability analysis: D numbers approach, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control14 (2019), 437–452.
72.
ZhangJ., ZhongD., ZhaoM., YuJ. and LvF., An optimization model for construction stage and zone plans of rockfill dams based on the enhanced whale optimization algorithm, Energies12 (2019), 466.
73.
SeitiH., HafezalkotobA., NajafiS. E. and KhalajM., Developing a novel risk-based MCDM approach based on D numbers and fuzzy information axiom and its applications in preventive maintenance planning, Applied Soft Computing82 (2019), DOI:10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105559.
74.
GuanX., LiuH., YiX. and ZhaoJ., The improved combination rule of D numbers and its application in radiation source identification, Mathematical Problems in Engineering2018 (2018), 10.1155/2018/6025680.
75.
WangN. and WeiD., A modified D numbers methodology for environmental impact assessment, Technological and Economic Development of Economy24 (2018), 653–669.
76.
WangN., LiuX. and WeiD., A modified D numbers’ integration for multiple attributes decision making, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems20 (2018), 104–115.
77.
DengX. and JiangW., Evaluating green supply chain management practices under fuzzy environment: a novel method based on D number theory, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems21 (2019), 1389–1402.
78.
DengX. and JiangW., A total uncertainty measure for D numbers based on belief intervals, International Journal of Intelligent Systems34 (2019), 3302–3316.
79.
ZhouL. and XiaoF., DCM: D Number Extended Cognitive Map. Application on Location Selection in SCM, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control14 (2019), 753–771.
80.
XiaoF., A novel multi-criteria decision making method for assessing health-care waste treatment technologies based on D numbers, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence71 (2018), 216–225.
81.
LiuP. and ZhangX., A multicriteria decision-making approach with linguistic D numbers based on the Choquet integral, Cognitive Computation11 (2019), 560–575.
82.
LiX. and ChenX., D-intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy sets and their application in multiple attribute decision making, Cognitive Computation10 (2018), 496–505.
83.
LinS., LiC., XuF., LiuD. and LiuJ., Risk identification and analysis for new energy power system in China based on D numbers and decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL), Journal of Cleaner Production180 (2018), 81–96.
84.
MaoS., HanY., DengY. and PelusiD., A hybrid DEMATEL-FRACTAL method of handling dependent evidences, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence91 (2020), 103543.
85.
DengX. and JiangW., D number theory based game-theoretic framework in adversarial decision making under a fuzzy environment, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning106 (2019), 194–213.
86.
liuB. and DengY., Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis based on D numbers theory, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control14 (2019), 672–691.
87.
RodriguezR.M., MartinezL. and HerreraF., Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems20 (2012), 109–119.
