Using Interpretive Structural Modelling, Fuzzy Analytical Network Process, and Evidential Reasoning to Estimate Fire Risk Onboard Ships

doi:10.23940/ijpe.20.09.p1.13211331

Abstract

Abstract: Fires onboard ships cause danger to property, persons, and the surrounding environment. Within a ship, there is a large amount of liquid fuel, lubricating material, electrical equipment, and other auxiliary machineries. During navigation, an occurrence of a fire on a ship can create a high-risk situation that may cause harm or even deaths to passengers and considerable damage to the ship, its structure, and equipment. In this research, an integrated model is constructed to assess the fire risk onboard ships. Interpretive structural modelling (ISM), fuzzy analytical network process (FANP), and the evidential reasoning (ER) approach are incorporated in the model. This study lists representative factors and examined the interrelationships among them. Experts from the marine field are requested to provide their expertise and assess the importance of the factors and various features of the risk assessment. An illustrative example of fire risk analysis onboard a ship is shown using the proposed approach.

Key words: interpretive structural modelling, fuzzy analytical network process, evidential reasoning, fire risk

Sunay P. Pai and Rajesh S. Prabhu Gaonkar. Using Interpretive Structural Modelling, Fuzzy Analytical Network Process, and Evidential Reasoning to Estimate Fire Risk Onboard Ships [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2020, 16(9): 1321-1331.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

References

1. M. Bevilacqua and F. Ciarapica, “Human Factor Risk Management in the Process Industry: A Case Study,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 169, pp. 149-159, January 2018
2. O. Amundrud and T. Aven, “On How to Understand and Acknowledge Risk,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 142, pp. 42-47, October 2015
3. C. Berner and R. Flage, “Strengthening Quantitative Risk Assessments by Systematic Treatment of Uncertain Assumptions,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 151, pp. 46-59, July 2016
4. P. Chemweno, L. Pintelon, P. N. Muchiri,A. V. Horenbeek, “Risk Assessment Methodologies in Maintenance Decision Making: A Review of Dependability Modelling Approaches,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 173, pp. 64-77, May 2018
5. P. Sharma, G. Thakar,R. C. Gupta, “Interpretive Structural Modelling of Functional Objectives (Criteria's) of Assembly Line Balancing Problem,” International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol. 83, No. 13, pp. 13-22, December 2013
6. R. Watson, “Interpretive Structural Modelling- A Useful Tool for Worth Assessment?”Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 11, pp. 165-185, 1978
7. A. Masaleno, Md. M. Hasan, N. T. Fauzi, and M. Muslihudin, “Fuzzy Logic Combined with Dempster-Shafer Theory for African Trypanosomiasis Spreading Prediction,” Middle-East Journal of scientific Research, Vol. 23, No. 9, pp. 2307-2317, 2015
8. J. Warfield, “Developing Interconnected Matrices in Structural Modelling,” IEEE Transcript on Systems, Men and Cybernetics, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 51-81, January 1974
9. J. Warfield, “Towards Interpretation of Complex Structural Modelling,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 405-417, 1974
10. H. Y. Kang, M. C. Hung, W. L. Pearn, A. H. I.Lee, and M. S. Kang, “An Integrate Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for Evaluating Wind Farm Performance,” Energies, Vol. 4, pp. 2002-2026, November 2011
11. R. W. Saaty,“The Analytic Hierarchy Process - What it is and How it is Used,” Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 9, No. 3-5, pp. 161-176, December 1987
12. T. L. Saaty, “Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” International Journal of Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 83-98, 2008
13. T. L. Saaty, “Fundamentals of the Analytic Network Process,” ISAHP, August 1999
14. T. L. Saaty, “The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Measurement Processes: Applications to Decisions under Risk,” European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 122-196, 2008
15. A. K.Taslicali and S. Ercan, “The Analytic Hierarchy and the Analytic Network processes in MultiCriteria Decision Making: A Comparative Study,” Journal of Aeronautics and Space Technologies, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 55-65, July 2006
16. S. Hu, Q. Fang, H. Xia,Y. Xi, “Formal Safety Assessment based on Relative Risks Model in Ship Navigation,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 369-377, March 2007
17. M. Sadeghi, M. A. Rashidzadeh,M. A. Soukhakian, “Using Analytic Network Process in a Group Decision-Making for Supplier Selection,” Informatica, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 621-643, April 2012
18. T. Partani, S. V. Marashi,M. H. Alishahi, “Using Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (FANP) in a SWOT Analysis,” Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology Interdisciplinary, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2013
19. H. E.Kyburg Jr and C. M. Teng, “The Logic of Risky Knowledge, Reprised,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 274-285, April 2012
20. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy Sets and their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes,” Academic Press, Macon, GA, 1975
21. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy Sets as a Basis for a Theory of Possibility,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3-28, 1978
22. A. Celikyilmaz and I. B. Turksen, “Decision Making with Imprecise Parameters,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 51, No. 8, pp. 869-882, October 2010
23. J. Wang, J. B. Yang,P. Sen, “Safety Analysis and Synthesis using Fuzzy Sets and Evidential Reasoning,” Reliability-Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 103-118, 1995
24. J. Sanz, A. Fernandez, H. Bustince,F. Herrera, “A Genetic Tuning to Improve the Performance of Fuzzy Rule-based Classification Systems with Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets: Degree of Ignorance and Lateral Position,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 751-766, September 2011
25. H. S. Sii, T. Ruxton,J. Wang, “A Fuzzy-Logic-based Approach to Qualitative Safety Modelling for Marine Systems,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 19-34, July 2001
26. P. H. Giang, “Decision with Dempster-Shafer Belief Functions: Decision under Ignorance and Sequential Consistency,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 38-53, January 2012
27. A. Certa, F. Hopps, R. Inghilleri,C. M. L.Fata, “A Dempster-Shafer Theory-based Approach to the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) under Epistemic Uncertainty: Application to the Propulsion System of a Fishing Vessel,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 159, pp. 69-79, March 2017
28. J. Liu, J. B. Yang, J. Wang,How-Sing Sii, “Engineering System Safety Analysis and Synthesis using the Fuzzy Rule-based Evidential Reasoning Approach,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 387-411, January 2005
29. J. B.Yang and M. G. Singh, “An Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multi Attribute Decision Making with Uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1994
30. J. B. Yang, “Rule and Utility based Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multiattribute Decision Analysis under Uncertainties,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp. 31-61, May 2001
31. T. L.Saaty and M. S. Ozdemir, “Why the Magic Number Seven Plus or Minus Two,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 38, No. 3-4, pp. 233-244, August 2003
32. J. B. Yang, Y. M. Wang, D. L. Xu,K. S. Chin, “The Evidential Reasoning Approach for MADA under Both Probabilistic and Fuzzy Uncertainties,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 171, No. 1, pp. 309-343, May 2006