CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91Multi-Criteria Decision MakingManagement and Optimization TechniquesRisk and Safety Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A fully data-driven FMEA framework for risk assessment on manufacturing processes using a hybrid approach

Ervural, Bilal, Ayaz, Halil Ibrahim·2023·Engineering Failure Analysis
DOI 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107525
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107525

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Conventional RPN-based prioritization has established limitations, including subjectivity in scoring and the possibility that different combinations of severity, occurrence, and detection generate identical RPN values.

    “At the same time, the study recognizes established limitations of conventional RPN-based prioritization-including subjectivity in scoring and the possibility that different combinations of severity, occurrence, and detection generate identical RPN values (Ervural & Ayaz, 2023).”

    From An FMEA-Based Framework for Operational Technology Security Risk Prioritization in Manufacturing (2026) · cites this paper as Ervural & Ayaz, 2023

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Bowles, 1995, Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 50, 203, 10.1016/0951-8320(95)00068-D · DOI · Paper page
  2. Kumari, 2023, Failure mode and effects analysis of common effluent treatment plants of humid sub-tropical regions using fuzzy based MCDM methods, Eng. Fail. Anal., 145, 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.107010 · DOI
  3. Pillay, 2003, Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 79, 69, 10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00179-5 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Wang, 2021, Primary failure mode and effects analysis with function-motion-action hierarchy structure for mechatronic systems, Eng. Fail. Anal., 130, 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105775 · DOI
  5. Price, 1997, Combining functional and structural reasoning for safety analysis of electrical designs, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 12, 271, 10.1017/S0269888997003020 · DOI
  6. Dağsuyu, 2016, Classical and fuzzy FMEA risk analysis in a sterilization unit, Comput. Ind. Eng., 101, 286, 10.1016/j.cie.2016.09.015 · DOI
  7. Liu, 2019, Improved FMEA Methods for Proactive Healthcare Risk Analysis, Improv. FMEA Methods Proactive Healthc, Risk Anal., 1
  8. H.İ. Ayaz, M.C. Testik, Automation of FMEA for computer servers using log data with grey relational analysis, in: 2nd Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Eng. UBMK 2017, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2017: pp. 616–620. doi:10.1109/UBMK.2017.8093480. · DOI
  9. Park, 2019, Fuzzy-inference-based failure mode and effects analysis of the hydrogen production process using Thermococcus onnurineus NA1, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 44, 13135, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.227 · DOI
  10. Ahn, 2017, Fuzzy-based failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) of a hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) and gas turbine system for marine propulsion, J. Power Sources, 364, 226, 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.08.028 · DOI
  11. Rajpathak, 2013, An ontology based text mining system for knowledge discovery from the diagnosis data in the automotive domain, Comput. Ind., 64, 565, 10.1016/j.compind.2013.03.001 · DOI
  12. Chang, 2013, Enhancing FMEA assessment by integrating grey relational analysis and the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach, Eng. Fail. Anal., 31, 211, 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.02.020 · DOI
  13. Liu, 2013, Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: A literature review, Expert Syst. Appl., 40, 828, 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.010 · DOI
  14. Adhikary, 2014, Multi criteria FMECA for coal-fired thermal power plants using COPRAS-G, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 31, 601, 10.1108/IJQRM-04-2013-0068 · DOI
  15. Kabak, 2017, Multiple attribute group decision making: A generic conceptual framework and a classification scheme, Knowledge-Based Syst., 123, 13, 10.1016/j.knosys.2017.02.011 · DOI
  16. Vahdani, 2014, A new FMEA method by integrating fuzzy belief structure and TOPSIS to improve risk evaluation process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 77, 357, 10.1007/s00170-014-6466-3 · DOI
  17. Peng Tian, 2018, An integrated approach for failure mode and effects analysis based on fuzzy best-worst, relative entropy, and VIKOR methods, Appl. Soft Comput. J., 72, 636, 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.03.037 · DOI
  18. Yucesan, 2021, Failure modes and effects analysis based on neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process: method and application, Soft. Comput., 25, 11035, 10.1007/s00500-021-05840-z · DOI
  19. Z. xuan Zhang, L. Yang, Y. ning Cao, Y, 2022, wei Xu, An Improved FMEA Method Based on ANP with Probabilistic Linguistic Term Sets, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst.
  20. Akram, 2022, An integrated ELECTRE-I approach for risk evaluation with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy information, Expert Syst. Appl., 200, 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116945 · DOI
  21. Liu, 2021, An improved failure mode and effect analysis method for multi-criteria group decision-making in green logistics risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 215, 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107826 · DOI
  22. Filz, 2021, Data-driven failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to enhance maintenance planning, Comput. Ind., 129, 10.1016/j.compind.2021.103451 · DOI
  23. Yang, 2013, Data mining based fault isolation with FMEA rank: A case study of APU fault identification, IEEE Conf. Progn. Heal. Manag. IEEE, 2013, 1
  24. Lai, 2022, A data-driven ensemble ranking system of production quality across manufacturers—A case study for risk assessment in the solar industry, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., 1
  25. Antomarioni, 2020, A data-driven approach to extend failure analysis: A framework development and a case study on a hydroelectric power plant, Energies, 13, 10.3390/en13236400 · DOI
  26. Biswas, 2022, ABAC: Alternative by alternative comparison based multi-criteria decision making method, Expert Syst. Appl., 208, 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118174 · DOI
  27. Xu, 2020, A data-driven approach for constructing the component-failure mode matrix for FMEA, J. Intell. Manuf., 31, 249, 10.1007/s10845-019-01466-z · DOI
  28. Boral, 2020, An integrated approach for fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MAIRCA, Eng. Fail. Anal., 108, 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104195 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Testik, 2023, Fuzzy FMEA in risk assessment for test and calibration laboratories, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., 39, 575, 10.1002/qre.3198 · DOI
  30. Boral, 2021, Failure analysis of CNC machines due to human errors: An integrated IT2F-MCDM-based FMEA approach, Eng. Fail. Anal., 130, 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105768 · DOI
  31. Sharma, 2005, Systematic failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) using fuzzy linguistic modelling, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 22, 986, 10.1108/02656710510625248 · DOI
  32. Liu, 2019, Failure mode and effect analysis using multi-criteria decision making methods: A systematic literature review, Comput. Ind. Eng., 135, 881, 10.1016/j.cie.2019.06.055 · DOI
  33. Lo, 2018, A novel multiple-criteria decision-making-based FMEA model for risk assessment, Appl. Soft Comput. J., 73, 684, 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.09.020 · DOI
  34. Wang, 2018, Failure mode and effects analysis using Dempster-Shafer theory and TOPSIS method: Application to the gas insulated metal enclosed transmission line (GIL), Appl. Soft Comput. J., 70, 633, 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.06.015 · DOI
  35. Liu, 2015, A novel approach for failure mode and effects analysis using combination weighting and fuzzy VIKOR method, Appl. Soft Comput. J., 28, 579, 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.036 · DOI
  36. Li, 2020, Advanced FMEA method based on interval 2-tuple linguistic variables and TOPSIS, Qual. Eng., 32, 653, 10.1080/08982112.2019.1677913 · DOI
  37. Nabizadeh, 2021, Developing a fuzzy goal programming model for health, safety and environment risks based on hybrid fuzzy FMEA-VIKOR method, J. Eng. Des. Technol., 19, 317
  38. Yang, 2021, Improved FMEA based on IVF and fuzzy VIKOR method: A case study of workpiece box system of CNC gear milling machine, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., 37, 2478, 10.1002/qre.2870 · DOI
  39. Kulcsár, 2020, Pairwise comparison based failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), MethodsX., 7, 10.1016/j.mex.2020.101007 · DOI
  40. Hassan, 2020, Fuzzy-analytical-hierarchy process in failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to identify process failure in the warehouse of a cement industry, J. Eng. Des. Technol., 18, 378
  41. Zandi, 2020, Agricultural risk management using fuzzy topsis analytical hierarchy process (Ahp) and failure mode and effects analysis (fmea), Agric., 10, 1
  42. Lian, 2022, An Integrated Approach for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Based on Weight of Risk Factors and Fuzzy PROMETHEE II
  43. Deveci, 2020, A modified interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy CODAS method and its application to multi-criteria selection among renewable energy alternatives in Turkey, Appl. Soft Comput. J., 96, 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106660 · DOI
  44. Almeraz-Durán, 2021, A proposed framework for developing fmea method using pythagorean fuzzy codas, Symmetry (Basel), 13
  45. S. Rahnamay Bonab, E. Osgooei, Environment risk assessment of wastewater treatment using FMEA method based on Pythagorean fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making, in: Environ. Dev. Sustain., Springer Netherlands, 2022. doi:10.1007/s10668-022-02555-5. · DOI
  46. Huang, 2022, An improved reliability model for FMEA using probabilistic linguistic term sets and TODIM method, Ann. Oper. Res., 312, 235, 10.1007/s10479-019-03447-0 · DOI
  47. Koomsap, 2018, Improving risk assessment for customer-oriented FMEA, Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell., 29, 1563, 10.1080/14783363.2016.1274229 · DOI
  48. Maniram Kumar, 2018, Fuzzy based risk prioritisation in an auto LPG dispensing station, Saf. Sci., 101, 231, 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.011 · DOI
  49. Anes, 2018, A new risk prioritization model for failure mode and effects analysis, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., 34, 516, 10.1002/qre.2269 · DOI
  50. Mirghafoori, 2018, Analysis of the barriers affecting the quality of electronic services of libraries by VIKOR, FMEA and entropy combined approach in an intuitionistic-fuzzy environment, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 34, 2441
  51. Uslu, 2022, A new multidimensional process type FMEA approach: Defense and aerospace industry application, J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ., 37, 1411
  52. Zhu, 2021, Failure mode and effect analysis: A three-way decision approach, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intel., 106, 10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104505 · DOI
  53. Yazdi, 2019, Improving failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) with consideration of uncertainty handling as an interactive approach, Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf., 13, 441, 10.1007/s12008-018-0496-2 · DOI
  54. Hajighasemi, 2018, A new approach in failure modes and effects analysis based on compromise solution by considering objective and subjective weights with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst., 15, 139
  55. Tavana, 2021, An integrated fuzzy framework for analyzing barriers to the implementation of continuous improvement in manufacturing, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 38, 116, 10.1108/IJQRM-06-2019-0196 · DOI
  56. Brun, 2018, Assessing risk through composite FMEA with pairwise matrix and Markov chains, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 35, 1709, 10.1108/IJQRM-04-2017-0080 · DOI
  57. Huang, 2018, A new method to evaluate risk in failure mode and effects analysis under fuzzy information, Soft. Comput., 22, 4779, 10.1007/s00500-017-2664-x · DOI
  58. von Ahsen, 2008, Cost-oriented failure mode and effects analysis, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 25, 466, 10.1108/02656710810873871 · DOI
  59. Srivastava, 2018, Mitigation of Risk Using Rule Based Fuzzy FMEA Approach, in, 26
  60. Qin, 2020, Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for risk assessment based on interval type-2 fuzzy evidential reasoning method, Appl. Soft Comput. J., 89, 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106134 · DOI
  61. Alizadeh, 2022, Risk assessment of physical unit operations of wastewater treatment plant using fuzzy FMEA method : a case study in the northwest of, Iran, 1
  62. Thoppil, 2020, On the Criticality Analysis of Computer Numerical Control Lathe Subsystems for Predictive Maintenance, Arab. J. Sci. Eng., 45, 5259, 10.1007/s13369-020-04397-7 · DOI
  63. Ouyang, 2020, An interval probability-based FMEA model for risk assessment: A real-world case, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., 36, 125, 10.1002/qre.2563 · DOI
  64. Zavadskas, 2016, Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., 15, 267, 10.1142/S0219622016500036 · DOI
  65. Sharkasi, 2022, A modified CRITIC with a reference point based on fuzzy logic and hamming distance, Knowledge-Based Syst., 10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109768 · DOI
  66. Diakoulaki, 1995, Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method, Comput. Oper. Res., 22, 763, 10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H · DOI
  67. Krishnan, 2021, A Modified CRITIC Method to Estimate the Objective Weights of Decision Criteria, Symmetry (Basel)., 13, 973, 10.3390/sym13060973 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ervural, B., & Ayaz, H. I.
Affiliations
Necmettin Erbakan University (TR)
ORCID
Ervural, Bilal
Venue
Engineering Failure Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-10
Volume
152
Pages
107525
ISSN
1350-6307 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107525
OpenAlex
W4385494529
Cited by
91
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4
FWCI
13.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Engineering Failure Analysis (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Management and Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Risk and Safety Analysis
Keywords
failure mode and effects analysis, data-driven risk assessment, risk prioritization, failure mode ranking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review