CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 346Risk and Safety AnalysisMulti-Criteria Decision MakingReliability and Maintenance Optimization

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Fuzzy Rule-Based Bayesian Reasoning Approach for Prioritization of Failures in FMEA

Zaili Yang, Bonsall, S., Jin Wang·2008·IEEE Transactions on Reliability
DOI 10.1109/tr.2008.928208
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper presents a novel, efficient fuzzy rule-based Bayesian reasoning (FuRBaR) approach for prioritizing failures in failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). The technique is specifically intended to deal with some of the drawbacks concerning the use of conventional fuzzy logic (i.e. rule-based) methods inFMEA. In the proposed approach, subjective belief degrees are assigned to the consequent part of the rules to model the incompleteness encountered in establishing the knowledge base. A Bayesian reasoning mechanism is then used to aggregate all relevant rules for assessing and prioritizing potential failure modes. A series of case studies of collision risk between a floating, production, storage, and off loading (FPSO) system and a shuttle tanker caused by technical failure during tandem off loading operation is used to illustrate the application of the proposed model. The reliability of the new approach is tested by using a benchmarking technique (with a well-established fuzzy rule-based evidential reasoning method), and a sensitivity analysis of failure priority values.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tr.2008.928208

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • FMEA is a common method for investigating the importance of potential failure modes and is widely used for safety and reliability analysis in products and processes.

    “FMEA is a common method for investigating the importance of potential failure modes and is widely used for safety and reliability analysis in products and processes (Yang et al., 2008;Wan et al., 2019a).”

    From A BN driven FMEA approach to assess maritime cybersecurity risks (2023) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2008

  • When lacking historical failure data, the three FMEA parameters are often defined by linguistic terms to better describe and model subjective assessments.

    “When lacking historical failure data, the three parameters are often defined by linguistic terms in order to better describe and model subjective assessments (Yang et al., 2008;Alyami et al., 2019).”

    From A BN driven FMEA approach to assess maritime cybersecurity risks (2023) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2008

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1108/02656710510577233 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.asoc.2005.06.002 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01004.x · DOI
  4. 10.1109/RAMS.2005.1408367 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.fss.2005.11.009 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/978-1-4757-3502-4 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.ress.2006.10.005 · DOI
  8. laurizen, 1988, local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems, Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 50, 157, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1988.tb01721.x · DOI
  9. 10.1109/RAMS.2001.902434 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.ress.2005.03.011 · DOI
  11. 10.1002/qre.668 · DOI
  12. 10.1109/TSMCA.2005.851270 · DOI
  13. 10.1109/5.364489 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00101-6 · DOI · Paper page
  15. bojadziev, 1995, Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic Theory and Application, 10.1142/9789812830692 · DOI
  16. 10.1108/02656710310468687 · DOI
  17. yang, 2007, use of hybrid multiple uncertain attribute decision making techniques in safety management, Expert System with Applications
  18. 10.1109/RAMS.2002.981630 · DOI
  19. 10.1115/OMAE2002-28103 · DOI
  20. 10.1108/03684929910300295 · DOI
  21. 10.1002/1099-1638(200007/08)16:4<313::AID-QRE434>3.0.CO;2-U · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.ress.2005.03.017 · DOI
  23. andersen, 1990, Reading in Uncertainty, 332
  24. 10.1016/j.ress.2004.05.001 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.ress.2005.09.005 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00179-5 · DOI · Paper page
  27. sii, 2002, safety assessment of fpsos the process of modelling systems safety and case studies, Report to the Project The Application of Approximate Reasoning Methodologies to Offshore Engineering Design
  28. 10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00023-0 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/0951-8320(94)00053-Q · DOI
  30. stamatis, 1995, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis FMEA from Theory to Execution

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yang, Z., Bonsall, S., & Wang, J.
Affiliations
Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Reliability
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2008-09
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
517-528
ISSN
  • 0018-9529 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-1721
DOI
10.1109/tr.2008.928208
OpenAlex
W2114079560
Cited by
346
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 18
FWCI
23.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplorehelp/downloads/license-information/IEEE.html (vor)
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Reliability (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Risk and Safety Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
Keywords
failure mode and effects analysis, failure prioritization, fuzzy logic, degrees of belief, incomplete knowledge bases, FPSO, collision risk, shuttle tanker, evidential reasoning, sensitivity 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