The failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is an effective tool to analyze risks and potential effects of complex systems, and it is one of the most widely used risk analysis methods for complex systems as there often exists various factors that could affect the operation of the complex systems. Conventional FMEA methods have been limited to using crisp values to represent the assessments, which has been criticized for having many deficiencies. Marine diesel fuel injection system is an important part of marine diesel engine, and its failure could directly affect the performance of the marine diesel engine and even impact the safe operation of the ship. However, little attention has been paid to the FMEA of the marine diesel fuel injection system. To this end, this paper presents a novel FMEA method based on the best-worst method (BWM) and TOPSIS method with probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS). Firstly, the PLTS is used to represent the uncertain and linguistic judgments of experts. Then, the BWM is extended with PLTS to determine the weights of different elements for FMEA, and the TOPSIS is extended with PLTS to assess and rank different failure modes. Finally, a case study on marine diesel fuel injection is presented, and the most critical failures are identified for improvement measures. The results show that the proposed method could help managers and engineerings identify the most important failure modes for marine diesel fuel injection system.
BakshA.-A., AbbassiR., GaraniyaV. and KhanF., Marine transportation risk assessment using bayesian network: Application to arctic waters, Ocean Engineering159 (2018), 422–436.
2.
SuiC., de VosP., StapersmaD., VisserK. and DingY., Fuel consumption and emissions of ocean-going cargo ship with hybrid propulsion and different fuels over voyage, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering8(8) (2020), 588.
3.
AtadashiI., ArouaM.K. and AzizA.A., High quality biodiesel and its diesel engine application: a review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews14(7) (2010), 1999–2008.
4.
HoangA.T., Combustion behavior, performance and emission characteristics of diesel engine fuelled with biodiesel containing cerium oxide nanoparticles: A review, Fuel Processing Technology218 (2021), 106840.
5.
HuY., YangJ. and HuN., Experimental study and optimization in the layouts and the structure of the high-pressure common-rail fuel injection system for a marine diesel engine, International Journal of Engine Research22(6) (2021), 1850–1871.
6.
LanQ., BaiY., MaX., FanL. and XuJ., Stability analysis upon high-pressure common rail fuel injection system under multiple injection modes, International Journal of Automotive Technology22(2) (2021), 353–370.
7.
YuanY., YanX., WangK. and YuanC., A new remote intelligent diagnosis system for marine diesel engines based on an improved multi-kernel algorithm, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability229(6) (2015), 604–611.
8.
ZouG., BanisoleimanK. and GonzalezA., Bayesian maintenance decision optimisation based on computing the information value from condition inspections, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability235(4) (2021), 545–555.
9.
ZouG., BanisoleimanK., GonzalezA. and FaberM.H., Probabilistic investigations into the value of information: a comparison of condition-based and time-based maintenance strategies, Ocean Engineering188 (2019), 106181.
10.
BurhanuddinM., HalawaniS.M., AhmadA. and TahirZ., Failure-based maintenance decision support system using analytical hierarchical process, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science1(1) (2011), 1–9.
11.
HuJ., SunQ. and YeZ.-S., Condition-based maintenance planning for systems subject to dependent soft and hard failures, IEEE Transactions on Reliability70(4) (2020), 1468–1480.
12.
AhmadR. and KamaruddinS., An overview of time-based and condition-based maintenance in industrial application, Computers & Industrial Engineering63(1) (2012), 135–149.
13.
QuatriniE., CostantinoF., Di GravioG. and PatriarcaR., Condition-based maintenance—An extensive literature review, Machines8(2) (2020), 31.
14.
LiH., TeixeiraA.P. and SoaresC.G., A two-stage failure mode and effect analysis of offshore wind turbines, Renewable Energy162 (2020), 1438–1461.
15.
TestikO.M. and UnluE.T., Fuzzy fmea in risk assessment for test and calibration laboratories, Quality and Reliability Engineering Internationaln/a(n/a).
16.
XiaoL., HuangG. and ZhangG., An intuitionistic fuzzy cloud model-based risk assessment method of failure modes considering hybrid weight information, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems (Preprint) (2022), 1–27.
17.
BadidaP., BalasubramaniamY. and JayaprakashJ., Risk evaluation of oil and natural gas pipelines due to natural hazards using fuzzy fault tree analysis, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering66 (2019), 284–292.
18.
SingleJ.I., SchmidtJ. and DeneckeJ., State of research on the automation of hazop studies, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries62 (2019), 103952.
19.
LoH.-W., LiouJ.J., HuangC.-N. and ChuangY.-C., A novel failure mode and effect analysis model for machine tool risk analysis, Reliability Engineering & System Safety183 (2019), 173–183.
20.
BragliaM., GabbrielliR. and MarrazziniL., Risk failure deployment: A novel integrated tool to prioritize corrective actions in failure mode and effects analysis, Quality and Reliability Engineering International37(2) (2021), 433–450.
21.
HuangJ., XuD.-H., LiuH.-C. and SongM.-S., A new model for failure mode and effect analysis integrating linguistic z-numbers and projection method, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems29(3) (2019), 530–538.
22.
BiW., GaoF., ZhangA. and YangM., Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis based on the interval evidential reasoning algorithm under interval uncertainty, IEEE Access8 (2020), 222187–222198.
23.
GulM., YucesanM. and CelikE., A manufacturing failure mode and effect analysis based on fuzzy and probabilistic risk analysis, Applied Soft Computing96 (2020), 106689.
24.
TianZ.-P., WangJ.-Q. and ZhangH.-Y., An integrated approach for failure mode and effects analysis based on fuzzy best-worst, relative entropy, and vikor methods, Applied Soft Computing72 (2018), 636–646.
25.
LiuH.-C., YouJ.-X. and DuanC.-Y., An integrated approach for failure mode and effect analysis under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment, International Journal of Production Economics207 (2019), 163–172.
26.
FanJ., WangS. and WuM., An integrated fmea approach using best-worst and marcos methods based on d numbers for prioritization of failures, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems41(2) (2021), 2833–2846.
27.
BoralS., HowardI., ChaturvediS.K., McKeeK. and NaikanV.N.A., An integrated approach for fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis using fuzzy ahp and fuzzy mairca, Engineering Failure Analysis108 (2020), 104195.
28.
WuD. and TangY., An improved failure mode and effects analysis method based on uncertainty measure in the evidence theory, Quality and Reliability Engineering International36(5) (2020), 1786–1807.
29.
LiuS., GuoX. and ZhangL., An improved assessment method for fmea for a shipboard integrated electric propulsion system using fuzzy logic and dematel theory, Energies12(16) (2019), 3162.
30.
GaoF., An integrated risk analysis method for tanker cargo handling operation using the cloud model and dematel method, Ocean Engineering266 (2022), 113021.
31.
LiuH.-C., ChenX.-Q., DuanC.-Y. and WangY.-M., Failure mode and effect analysis using multi-criteria decision making methods: A systematic literature review, Computers & Industrial Engineering135 (2019), 881–897.
32.
KomatinaN., TadicD., AleksicA. and JovanovicA.D., The assessment and selection of suppliers using ahp and mabac with type-2 fuzzy numbers in automotive industry, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability0(0) (1748), 1748006X221095359.
33.
AkramM., LuqmanA. and AlcantudJ.C.R., Risk evaluation in failure modes and effects analysis: hybrid topsis and electre i solutions with pythagorean fuzzy information, Neural Computing and Applications33(11) (2021), 5675–5703.
34.
ChenY., RanY., WangZ., LiX., YangX. and ZhangG., An extended multimoora method based on owga operator and choquet integral for risk prioritization identification of failure modes, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence91 (2020), 103605.
35.
WangW., MaY. and LiuS., A z-number integrated weighted multimoora method for risk prioritization in fmea, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems41(2) (2021), 2523–2537.
36.
HuY.-P., YouX.-Y., WangL. and LiuH.-C., An integrated approach for failure mode and effect analysis based on uncertain linguistic gra– topsis method, Soft Computing23(18) (2019), 8801–8814.
37.
ZengY., DuanR., FengT., HuangS. and HeJ., A fault diagnostic system based on petri nets and gray relational analysis for train-ground wireless communication systems, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability235(6) (2021), 1102–1117.
MiX., TangM., LiaoH., ShenW. and LevB., The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what’s next?Omega87 (2019), 205–225.
40.
KheybariS., KazemiM. and RezaeiJ., Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method, Applied Energy242 (2019), 612–623.
41.
AgyekumE.B., KumarN.M., MehmoodU., PanjwaniM.K., AlhelouH.H., AdebayoT.S. and Al-HinaiA., Decarbonize russia-a best– worst method approach for assessing the renewable energy potentials, opportunities and challenges, Energy Reports7 (2021), 4498–4515.
42.
AkbariR., DabbaghR. and GhoushchiS.J., Hse risk prioritization of molybdenum operation process using extended fmea approach based on fuzzy bwm and z-waspas, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems38(4) (2020), 5157–5173.
43.
GaoF., WangW., BiC., BiW. and ZhangA., Prioritization of used aircraft acquisition criteria: A fuzzy best– worst method (bwm)-based approach, Journal of Air Transport Management107 (2023), 102359.
44.
KuoT., A modified topsis with a different ranking index, European Journal of Operational Research260(1) (2017), 152–160.
45.
PangQ., WangH. and XuZ., Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making, Information Sciences369 (2016), 128–143.
46.
BaiC., ZhangR., QianL. and WuY., Comparisons of probabilistic linguistic term sets for multi-criteria decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems119 (2017), 284–291.
47.
WuX. and LiaoH., An approach to quality function deployment based on probabilistic linguistic term sets and oreste method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision making, Information Fusion43 (2018), 13–26.
48.
GaoF., BaoS. and BiW., Assessing dependence in human reliability analysis using probabilistic linguistic term sets, Annals of Nuclear Energy175 (2022), 109261.
49.
CeylanB.O., Shipboard compressor system risk analysis by using rule-based fuzzy fmea for preventing major marine accidents, Ocean Engineering272 (2023), 113888.
50.
CeylanB.O., AkyarD.A. and CelikM.S., A novel fmea approach for risk assessment of air pollution from ships, Marine Policy150 (2023), 105536.
51.
KuzuA. Cem, AkyuzE. and ArslanO., Application of fuzzy fault tree analysis (ffta) to maritime industry: A risk analysing of ship mooring operation, Ocean Engineering179 (2019), 128–134.
52.
KuzuA.C., Risk analysis of break-in-two accident of ships using fuzzy dematel method, Ocean Engineering235 (2021), 109410.
53.
CicekK., TuranH.H., TopcuY.I. and SearslanM.N., Risk-based preventive maintenance planning using failure mode and effect analysis (fmea) for marine engine systems, 2010 Second International Conference on Engineering System Management and Applications. (2010), pp. 1–6.
54.
CicekK. and CelikM., Application of failure modes and effects analysis to main engine crankcase explosion failure on-board ship, Safety Science51(1) (2013), 6–10.
55.
DomehV., ObengF., KhanF., BoseN. and SanliE., Risk analysis of man overboard scenario in a small fishing vessel, Ocean Engineering229 (2021), 108979.
56.
BashanV., DemirelH. and GulM., An fmea-based topsis approach under single valued neutrosophic sets for maritime risk evaluation: the case of ship navigation safety, Soft Computing24(24) (2020), 18749–18764.
57.
PriharantoY.E., YaqinR.I., MarjiantoG., SiahaanJ.P. and AbroriM., Risk assessment of the fishing vessel main engine by fuzzy-fmea approach, Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, pp. 1–15.
58.
GaoF., An integrated risk analysis method for tanker cargo handling operation using the cloud model and dematel method, Ocean Engineering266 (2022), 113021.
59.
LinM., HuangC., XuZ. and ChenR., Evaluating iot platforms using integrated probabilistic linguistic mcdm method, IEEE Internet of Things Journal7(11) (2020), 11195–11208.
60.
RezaeiJ., NispelingT., SarkisJ. and TavasszyL., A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method, Journal of Cleaner Production135 (2016), 577–588.
61.
MingY., LuoL., WuX., LiaoH., LevB. and JiangL., Managing patient satisfaction in a blood-collection room by the probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method integrated with the best-worst method, Computers & Industrial Engineering145 (2020), 106547.
62.
LoH.-W., LiouJ.J., WangH.-S. and TsaiY.-S., An integrated model for solving problems in green supplier selection and order allocation, Journal of Cleaner Production190 (2018), 339–352.
