Cited by 581Risk and Safety AnalysisReliability and Maintenance OptimizationMulti-Criteria Decision Making

Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning

Pillay, Anand, Wang, Jin·2003·Reliability Engineering & System Safety

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0951-8320(02)00179-5

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pillay, A., & Wang, J.
Affiliations
Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
Corresponding author
Pillay, Anand
Venue
Reliability Engineering & System Safety
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-01
Volume
79
Issue
1
Pages
69-85
ISSN
0951-8320 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087745828
Cited by
581
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 28
FWCI
10.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Reliability Engineering & System Safety (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Risk and Safety Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Keywords
failure mode and effects analysis, risk analysis, marine systems, risk priority number, fuzzy rules, grey relational analysis, approximate reasoning, failure probability, severity, detectability

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