Operational failure prevention methodology for offshore systems using multiple criteria decision-making process

• Autorzy: Dagkinis I. , Lilas T. , Nikitakos N.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

A framework for decision analysis, which has been applied on an operational offshore system and is based on a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) process, is presented in this paper. This provides a generic methodology for the evaluation of alternatives and implementation of operational and design improvements based on the experience gained from past failures. The Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method is modified and used as a significant criterion together with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in order to enhance the decision making process. The mathematical model of AHP identifies and combines the weight of changes, as well as the results of modified FMEA. This combination takes into account possible interactions among the causes of failure by integrating several elements, enhancing the FMEA method. Next, the paper describes a decision model that incorporates also decision maker’s subjective assessments and is suitably applied to an autonomously operating floating structure. This decision making technique, enables the manipulation of both qualitative assessments and quantitative metrics in order to improve final judgments and, in general, advance the operation of the complex floating system.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

AHP; modiefied FMEA; offshore operational reliability

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Bezpieczeństwa i Niezawodności
• Czasopismo: Journal of Polish Safety and Reliability Association
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: Vol. 3, No. 1
• Strony: 15--22
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 21 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Dagkinis I.

• University of the Aegean, Dept. of Shipping Trade and Transport, Korai 2a, Chios, Greece

autor

Lilas T.

• University of the Aegean, Dept. of Shipping Trade and Transport, Korai 2a, Chios, Greece

autor

Nikitakos N.

• University of the Aegean, Dept. of Shipping Trade and Transport, Korai 2a, Chios, Greece

Bibliografia

• [1] Almannai, B., Greenough, R.M. & Kay, J.M. (2008). A decision support tool based on QFD and FMEA for the selection of manufacturing automation technologies. Robotics and ComputerIntegrated Manufacturing. Published online, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 501-507.
• [2] Dagkinis, I., Lilas, T. & Nikitakos, N. (2011). Apply FMEA modeling to a Floating Ecological Desalination Unit. Summer Safety and Reliability Seminars, July 03-09.
• [3] Davidson, G.G. & Libib, A.W. (2003). Learning from failures: design improvements using a multiple criteria decision-making process. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs,. 217 Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 207-216.
• [4] Fad, B.E. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach to Size Estimation. PRICE Systems L.L.C.
• [5] Farquharson, J., McDuffee, J., Seah, A.K. & Matsumoto, T. (2002). FMEA of marine systems: moving from prescriptive to risk-based design and classification. Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium Proceedings, 165-172.
• [6] Forman, E. & Selly, M.A. (2001). Decision By Objectives How to convince others that you are right. World Scientific Publishing Co PTE Ltd.
• [7] Forman, E.H. (1983). The Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Decision Support System. Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society.
• [8] Geoff Coyle. (2004). THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP). Practical Strategy. Open Access Material. AHP, Pearson Education Limited.
• [9] Jih-Kuang Ch. & Yu-Cheng L. (2007). Risk Priority Evaluated by ANP in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. RoC, Going for Gold Quality Tools and Techniques.
• [10] Lilas, T. & Nikitakos, N. (2007). Floating, Autonomous, Environmentally Friendly Desalination. Middle East Forum, Issue 6, 73-85.
• [11] MIL-STD-1629A – Military Standard Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis, 24th November, 1980. United States Department of Defense.
• [12] Milena Krasich. Can Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Assure a Reliable Product? Bose Corporation.
• [13] Pillay, A. & Wang, J. (2003). Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 79 (1), 69-85.
• [14] Popović, V., Vasić, B. & Petrović, M. (2010). The Possibility for FMEA Method Improvement and its Implementation into Bus Life Cycle. Journal of Mechanical Engineering.
• [15] Saaty, T.L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15 (1), 57-68.
• [16] Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill International.
• [17] Saaty, T.L. (1994). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the AHP. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS.
• [18] Saaty, T.L. (2008). Relative Measurement and Its Generalization in Decision Making Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. Rev. R. Acad. Cien. Serie A. Mat. Vol. 102 (2), pp. 251-318.
• [19] Stamatis, D.H. (1995). Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. American Society of Quality Control.
• [20] Tavner, P.J., Higgins, A., Arabian, H., Long, H. & Feng, Y. (EWEC 2010). Using an FMEA method to compare prospective wind turbine design reliabilities. European Wind Energy Conference.
• [21] Zammoria, F. & Gabbriellib, R. (2011). ANP/RPN: A Multi Criteria Evaluation of the Risk Priority Number. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2012. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.