CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Reliability and Maintenance OptimizationManagement and Optimization TechniquesRisk and Safety Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Risk prioritization using a modified FMEA analysis in industry 4.0

Open access
Salah, Bashir, Alnahhal, Mohammed, Ali, Mujahid·2023·Journal of Engineering Research
DOI 10.1016/j.jer.2023.07.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To assess the reliability of production systems, a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is usually performed to determine how reliable a system is in its entirety. In order to ensure smooth production operations and timely delivery of orders, it is necessary to ensure continuity of operations without failure and interruption. Industry 4.0 (I4.0) can provide so many benefits, but it also introduces new challenges because of its technical components such as sensors and actuators. In this paper, we propose an FMEA model and structure quantitative risk assessment metrics for a yogurt-filling system in an I4.0 environment. We use the risk priority number (RPN), which is usually a product of three factors: severity (S), occurrence (O), and detection (D) ratings. In this study, we use also a fourth factor, namely, dependency (D2). We compare RPN scores for traditional components and I4.0 components. The application method of the FMEA model was presented in detail, and its practicality was verified and demonstrated. To get valid results, a team of experts was utilized. Then Pareto method was used together with the FEMA approach to prioritize the risks that need more attention. After that, risk prevention steps were introduced. Results showed that four components are the most important ones. Results also showed that some of the components of I4.0, such as proximity sensors and color detection sensors were found with the largest priority. A better performance was achieved following…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jer.2023.07.001

Cites

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Alamri, 2022, Failure mode structured preventive maintenance scheduling with changing failure rates in industry 4.0 environment, Front. Manuf. Technol., 2
  2. Alrifaey, 2019, Identification and prioritization of risk factors in an electrical generator based on the hybrid FMEA framework, Energy, 12, 649
  3. Alruqi, 2022, The challenge of deploying failure modes and effects analysis in complex system applications—quantification and analysis, Sustainability, 14, 1397, 10.3390/su14031397 · DOI
  4. Alsaidalani, 2022, Quality risk management in pharmaceutical manufacturing operations: case study for sterile product filling and final product handling stage, Sustainability, 14, 9618, 10.3390/su14159618 · DOI
  5. de Andrade, J.M.M., de M. Leite, A.F.C.S., Canciglieri, M.B., Szejka, A.L., Loures, E. de F.R., Canciglieri Junior, O.., 2020. A Multi-Criteria Approach for FMEA in Product Development in Industry 4.0, in: Transdisciplinary Engineering for Complex Socio-Technical Systems – Real-Life Applications. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/ATDE200090. · DOI
  6. Boral, 2020, A novel hybrid multi-criteria group decision making approach for failure mode and effect analysis: an essential requirement for sustainable manufacturing, Sustain Prod. Consum, 21, 14, 10.1016/j.spc.2019.10.005 · DOI
  7. Boral, 2020, A novel hybrid multi-criteria group decision making approach for failure mode and effect analysis: an essential requirement for sustainable manufacturing, Sustain Prod. Consum, 21, 14, 10.1016/j.spc.2019.10.005 · DOI
  8. Chang, 2019, A novel FMEA model based on rough BWM and rough TOPSIS-AL for risk assessment, Mathematics, 7, 874, 10.3390/math7100874 · DOI
  9. Fabis-Domagala, 2021, A concept of risk prioritization in FMEA analysis for fluid power systems, Energy, 14, 6482
  10. Fattahi, 2021, Risk assessment by a new FMEA Model based on an extended AHP method under a fuzzy environment, Environ. Energy Econ. Res., 5, 1
  11. Huang, 2020, Failure mode and effect analysis improvement: a systematic literature review and future research agenda, Reliab Eng. Syst. Saf., 199, 10.1016/j.ress.2020.106885 · DOI
  12. Ivančan, 2021, New FMEA risks ranking approach utilizing four fuzzy logic systems, Machines, 9, 292, 10.3390/machines9110292 · DOI
  13. Jamwal, 2021, Industry 4.0 technologies for manufacturing sustainability: a systematic review and future research directions, Appl. Sci., 11, 5725, 10.3390/app11125725 · DOI
  14. Kadena, 2022, FMEA in smartphones: a fuzzy approach, Mathematics, 10, 513, 10.3390/math10030513 · DOI
  15. Kosztyán, 2020, Total risk evaluation framework, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 37, 575, 10.1108/IJQRM-05-2019-0167 · DOI
  16. Liou, 2022, A hybrid model integrating FMEA and HFACS to assess the risk of inter-city bus accidents, Complex Intell. Syst., 8, 2451, 10.1007/s40747-022-00657-1 · DOI
  17. Lo, 2021, An ITARA-TOPSIS based integrated assessment model to identify potential product and system risks, Mathematics, 9, 239, 10.3390/math9030239 · DOI
  18. Lv, 2020, Quality control of the continuous hot pressing process of medium density fiberboard using fuzzy failure mode and effects analysis, Appl. Sci., 10, 4627, 10.3390/app10134627 · DOI
  19. Maheswaran, 2013, A novel approach for prioritization of failure modes in FMEA using MCDM, Int J. Eng. Res Appl., 3, 733
  20. Nguyen, 2016, Extended FMEA for sustainable manufacturing: an empirical study in the non-woven fabrics industry, Sustainability, 8, 939, 10.3390/su8090939 · DOI
  21. Oliveira, 2020, Failure mode and effect analysis for cyber-physical systems, Future Internet, 12, 205, 10.3390/fi12110205 · DOI
  22. Ramezani, 2020, Quality 4.0 in action: smart hybrid fault diagnosis system in plaster production, Processes, 8, 634, 10.3390/pr8060634 · DOI
  23. Razouk, 2022, Improving the consistency of the failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) documents in semiconductor manufacturing, Appl. Sci., 12, 1840, 10.3390/app12041840 · DOI
  24. Salah, B., Alkahtani, M., Ziout, A., 2017. Using FMEA analysis for assessing air conditioners remanufacturing processes, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. IEOM Society, Morocco, pp. 2431–2437.
  25. Salah, 2015, Improving the performance of a new storage and retrieval machine based on a parallel manipulator using FMEA analysis, IFAC-Pap., 48, 1658
  26. Salah, 2021, Designing and developing a smart yogurt filling machine in the industry 4.0 era, Machines, 9, 300, 10.3390/machines9110300 · DOI
  27. Shafiee, 2014, An FMEA-based risk assessment approach for wind turbine systems: a comparative study of onshore and offshore, Energy, 7, 619
  28. Soltanali, 2020, An improved fuzzy inference system-based risk analysis approach with application to automotive production line, Neural Comput. Appl., 32, 10573, 10.1007/s00521-019-04593-z · DOI
  29. Soltanali, 2022, Sustainable food production: an intelligent fault diagnosis framework for analyzing the risk of critical processes, Sustainability, 14, 1083, 10.3390/su14031083 · DOI
  30. Svingerova, M., Melichar, M., 2017. Evaluation of Process Risks in Industry 4.0 Environment, in: Proceedings of the Annals of DAAAM and the International DAAAM Symposium. Zadar, Croatia, pp. 1021–1029. https://doi.org/10.2507/28th.daaam.proceedings.142. · DOI
  31. Vrchota, 2020, Sustain. Outcomes Green. Process. Relat. Ind. 4. 0 Manuf.: Syst. Rev. Sustain., 12, 5968
  32. Wan, 2019, Risk assessment in intelligent manufacturing process: a case study of an optical cable automatic arranging robot, IEEE Access, 7, 105892, 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2932756 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 65

Metadata

Authors
Salah, B., Alnahhal, M., & Ali, M.
Affiliations
  • King Saud University (SA)
  • American University of Ras Al Khaimah (AE)
  • Silesian University of Technology (PL)
Corresponding author
Alnahhal, Mohammed
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Engineering Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-12
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
460-468
ISSN
2307-1877 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jer.2023.07.001
OpenAlex
W4384470924
Cited by
65
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 2
FWCI
10.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Engineering Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
King Saud University (RSP2023R145)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
  • 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, risk prioritization, risk priority number, Industry 4.0, production system reliability, proximity sensors, risk prevention, Pareto analysis

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