Double Layer Fuzzy enhanced Failure Mode and
Effects Analysis Method for Automatic Train
Operation System
Ziqi Wang
School of Electronic and Information Engineering
Beijing Jiaotong University
Beijing, PR China
20125106@bjtu.edu.cn
Cong Peng
School of Electronic and Information Engineering
Beijing Jiaotong University
Beijing, PR China
19111064@bjtu.edu.cn
Abstract—Automatic Train Operation (ATO) is a vital part of the
rail traffic signal system. Failure Mode Effects and Criticality
analysis (FMECA) is the first step of Prognostic and Health
Management (PHM). In this paper, this method based on double
layer fuzzy enhanced failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is
proposed. Firstly, ATO failure analyzer is applied to classify and
score ATO failure causes. Secondly, expert scoring mechanism is
used for fuzzy aggregation of multiple scoring opinions. Finally,
Fuzzy Risk Priority Number (FRPN) is obtained by fuzzy risk
estimator which is employed for fuzzy aggregation on Severity (S),
Occurrence (O) and Detection (D) get in the second step. The result
shows that this proposed method can find out the potential failure
causes which are same Risk Priority Number (RPN) value in
traditional FMECA. The reliability of ATO system can be
guaranteed.
Keywords-component; Automatic train operation; Double layer
fuzzy; Failure mode and effects analysis；
I. INTRODUCTION
With the acceleration of urbanization, urban rail transit has
entered a period of rapid development. Up to now, a total of 45
cities in China have opened urban rail transit, with 244 operating
lines and a total length of 7,969.7 kilometers. ATO mainly
realizes the automatic control of train traction and service
braking system, as well as generating the command of the
automatic opening/closing of train door, platform screen door [1].
ATO system is composed of components with high reliability
and strong anti-interference ability through logic combination
and bus structure, and its equipment composition is shown in Fig.
1.
The ATO system operation are increasingly becoming the
focus of the public due to its high security level, complex
Corresponding authors: Wei ShangGuan (wshg@bjtu.edu.cn)
Wei ShangGuan
School of Electronic and Information Engineering
the State Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic Control
Beijing Jiaotong University
Beijing, PR China
wshg@bjtu.edu.cn
Hongyu Song
School of Electronic and Information Engineering
Beijing Jiaotong University
Beijing, PR China
Hongyusong@bjtu.edu.cn
internal hierarchy and high maintenance cost. Without affecting
the safety and efficiency of train operation, PHM is usually used
to know the health status of ATO system in real time and make
optimal maintenance strategies. And FMECA is the first step of
health management. But in the traditional FMECA method, the
ranking of failures is based on the Risk Priority Number (RPN),
which is calculated by product the three factors S, O and D [2]. It
ignores some important hidden problems. To remedy the
traditional FMECA insufficiency, significant efforts have been
made by combine the FMECA with other methods [3-5]. N. G.
Mutlu and S. Alyuntas [3] proposed an approach based on the
integration of FMEA with the FTA method and Belief in Fuzzy
Probability Estimations of Time (BIFPET) algorithm for
finishing process in the fabric dyeing department of a textile
company. C. FenChi, D.Sigmund and M.O. Astardi [4] applied
the root cause analysis, the functional block diagram, and failure
modes and effects analysis (FMEA) for passenger vehicle recalls.
N. Chanamool and T.Naenna[5] applied the Fuzzy failure mode
and effect analysis (FMEA) to assess the failures in the
emergency department. Because the subsystem structure and
working mechanism of ATO are typically characterized by
complexity, multiple targets, delay and nonlinear dynamic
system. In the context, this paper describes a fuzzy aggregation
opinion and a fuzzy risk priority number assessment for ATO
failure cause based on FMEA and fuzzy logic method. The study
is compared by the traditional method and the fuzzy ones
through the Pareto chart.
This paper is structures as follows. In Section 2, a brief
review of FMEA and Fuzzy logic approach are given. Section 3
presents the methodology of research and double layer fuzzy
enhanced FMEA frame. Section 4 is completed by a discussion
of the results and a comparison of the proposed double layer
2021 Global Reliability and Prognostics and Health Management
(PHM-Nanjing)
fuzzy enhanced FMEA with traditional FMECA. The results are TABLE II. CRITERIA DEFINED FOR OCCURRENCE SCORING IN FMEA
verified by Pareto chart. Finally, some conclusions are provided
Rating Occurrence Probability Failure probability
in Section 5.
10 Extremely high ≥ 1/2

9 Very high 1/3

8 Repeated failures 1/8

7 High 1/20

6 Moderately high 1/80

5 Moderate 1/400

4 Relatively low 1/2000

3 Low 1/15000
Figure 1. Equipment constitution of ATO system 2 Remote 1/150000

II. PRELIMINARIES 1 Nearly impossible ≤ 1/1500000

A. Failure mode and effects analysis

FMEA is a widely used engineering technology, which is
used to define, identify and eliminate known or potential faults,
problems and errors, etc. FMEA is a combination of failure
mode analysis and failure impact analysis, enabling designers or
operators to reduce or even eliminate various possibilities of
research objects based on existing data. In the 1960s, FMEA was
first put forward by NASA and applied in many projects,
including Apollo, Viking, Voyager, Magellan, Galileo and
Skylab. [6]Since then, it has been widely used as a powerful tool
for safe and reliable analysis of products and processes in a wide
range of industries, especially in aerospace, nuclear energy and
automobile industries.[7] After the analysis object is determined,
FMEA firstly identifies the failure effect, failure cause and
detectability evaluation step by step, and obtains three factors,
S(Severity), O(Occurrence) and D(Detection), which are scored
10-points scale (defined in TABLE Ⅰ-Ⅲ) depending on
criticality nature[8]. The “S” index takes into account the
criticality of the failure effect on the ATO system. The “O” index
estimates the frequency of failure while the “D” index estimates
the probability of detecting the failure cause. RPN as the
traditional FMEA approach is calculated per the Eq. (1) [9-10]:
𝑅𝑃𝑁 = 𝑆 × 𝑂 × 𝐷
TABLE I. CRITERIA DEFINED FOR SEVERITY SCORING IN FMEA
Rating Failure Effect
10 Hazardous without warning
9 Hazardous with warning
8 Hazardous without warning
7 Hazardous with warning
6 Extreme effect
5 Very high effect
4 High effect
3 Moderate effect
2 Low effect
1 Very effect
TABLE III. CRITERIA DEFINED FOR DETECTION SCORING IN FMEA
Rating Detection definition
10 Absolute uncertainty possibility
9 Very remote possibility
8 Remote possibility
7 Very low possibility
6 Low possibility
5 Moderately possibility
4 Moderately high possibility
3 High possibility
2 Very high possibility
1 Almost certain possibility
B. Fuzzy Logic Approach
Fuzzy logic refers to a description system whose model is
unknown or uncertain, which uses fuzzy sets and fuzzy rules to
reason, express transition boundaries or qualitative knowledge
() and experience, and conduct fuzzy comprehensive evaluation,
so as to solve the problem of fuzzy information of rules which is
difficult to be handled by conventional methods. Membership
function is an important concept in fuzzy logic. It is a curve with
arbitrary shape, which maps the specific input elements to an
appropriate membership degree (between zero to 1). The
membership functions used in this paper include Triangular,
Gaussian, Z-shaped and S-shaped membership functions.
Triangular fuzzy membership has the following membership
function:
𝑥−𝑎
𝑎≤𝑥≤𝑏
𝑏−𝑎
𝜇(𝑥) = { 𝑑−𝑥 𝑏≤𝑥≤𝑑 ()
𝑑−𝑏
0 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
Gaussian fuzzy membership has the following membership
function:

2021 Global Reliability and Prognostics and Health Management

(PHM-Nanjing)
 2 ⁄2𝑒 2
𝜇(𝑥, 𝑐, 𝜎) = 𝑒 −(𝑥−𝑐) (3)

where σ is the standard deviation and c is the mean of the

Gaussian function.
Z-shared fuzzy membership has the following membership
function:

1 𝑥≤𝑎
𝑥−𝑎 2 𝑎+𝑏
1− 2( ) 𝑎≤𝑥≤
𝜇(𝑥) = 𝑏−𝑎 2 (4)
𝑥−𝑏 2 𝑎+𝑏
2( ) ≤𝑥≤𝑏
𝑏−𝑎 2
{ 0 𝑥≥𝑏
S-shared fuzzy membership has the following membership
function:

0 𝑥≤𝑎
𝑥−𝑏 2 𝑎+𝑏
2( ) 𝑎≤𝑥≤
𝑏−𝑎 2
𝜇(𝑥) = (5)
𝑥−𝑎 2 𝑎+𝑏
1− 2( ) ≤𝑥≤𝑏
𝑏−𝑎 2
{ 1 𝑥≥𝑏
Fuzzy logic can deal with accurate and inaccurate
information in a consistent way. it can combine S, O and D in
more practical way. And the risk assessment function may vary
from system to system [11-13].
Figure 2. Double layer fuzzy enhanced FMEA frame
III. METHODOLOGY
In this paper, we propose the method based on double layer TABLE IV. FMEA FOR ATO SYSTEM
fuzzy enhanced FMEA. It divides the evaluation process of ATO Failure
system into ATO failure analyzer, expert scoring mechanism Function Failure modes Failure cause cause
and ATO failure fuzzy risk estimator as shown in the Fig. 2. number
Supporting an expert team is consisted of m member {TM𝑚 (m= -Damaged in the power FM1
interface
1, 2, ..., M)} which assess failure modes {FM𝑛 (n= 1, 2, ..., N)} -Inverter overload FM2
with three risk factors (S, O&D). Power failure
-Inverter temperature too
A. ATO failure analyzer FM3
high
Although ATO system used by domestic urban rail transit
operators are different in structure, the basic components of -Battery low voltage FM4
ATO are the same, which are composed of on-board equipment -Communication with HMI FM5
and trackside equipment. ATO is a subsystem responsible for Communication
failed
automatic train operation. It controls train operation according template failure
-Loss ATP signal FM6
to the speed-distant curve and ATO curve calculated by ATO
algorithm. ATO system realizes optimal control and the best -electromagnetic
ATO FM7
interference
running state of the train by simulating the driver and it follows Input interface
the closed-loop control in principle. Its specific control process failure
-Worn input interface FM8
is as follows: the speed measuring motor and radar transmit the
information of train position to ATO through ATP, the input of -Fault of tachogenerator FM9
the reference position comes from the position information of
the transponder, and ATO provides the set value data for output -Memory burned out FM10
Central
to the traction and braking system. Under this context, FMEA processing board
-corrupted in the network FM11
was used for it to carry out quantitative analysis (TABLE Ⅳ). failure
adapted plug-in
-Traction fault FM12
B. Expert scoring mechanism Output interface
In this mechanism, the method based on fuzzy rules is fault -Display crashed FM13
adopted, and a logic relationship is established, in which
multiple expert evaluations are taken as inputs and a fuzzy
numerical value is output. The inputs and the output factors are

2021 Global Reliability and Prognostics and Health Management

(PHM-Nanjing)
represented by Triangular membership function. Using the fuzzy
logic toolbox in MATLAB, according to the fuzzy rules in
TABLE Ⅴ, a two-input and one-output fuzzy logic with a
numerical range of 1-10 is established. According to the above
description, two expert evaluations can be summarized into one.
With the increase of expert team members, the number of fuzzy
set methods will also increase, and the process follows formula
(6).
1 𝑛=1
𝑁={
𝑛−1 𝑛 ≠1
where n is the number of members in the expert team and N is
the total number of fuzzy sets. For example, N will be equal to
2 when there are three members in the expert team according to
Fig. 3.
factors S, O and D, and changes the input membership degree
from zero to 1.
2) Membership functions for FRPN output
In the study, the minimum value of FRPN isFRPNmin = Smin ×
Omin × Dmin = 1. And the maximum value is FRPNmax =
Smax × Omax × Dmax = 1000 . Therefore, the value range of
FRPN is [1,1000]. This varied range of FRPN is divided into
eight levels. The fuzzy linguistic terms of these eight levels are
shown in TABLE Ⅵ. The linguistic terms of FRPN
() output:1=Low, 2=High Low, 3=Low Moderate, 4=Moderate,
5=High Moderate, 6=Low High, 7=High, 8=Very High. The
output factors are represent using Gaussian membership
function.

Figure 3. Fuzzy aggregation structure based on 3-member team of

experts

Each red dot represents the calculation of fuzzy set. As

shown in above figure, after two calculations, the fuzzy set
Figure 4. Membership function for input factors: (a) severity input
evaluation value is generated [14]. variable, (b) occurrence input variable, (c) detection input variable.

TABLE V. THE RULES OF MULTI-EXPERT EVALUATION

TABLE VI. CLASSIFICATION OF FRPN OUTPUT
Expert 1
Range Linguistic Term
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Expert 2 0<RPN<20 Low
10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
20<RPN<50 High Low
9 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5
8 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 50<RPN<100 Low Moderate

7 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 100<RPN<150 Moderate
6 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 150<RPN<250 High Moderate
5 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 3
250<RPN<350 Low High
4 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 2
3 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 350<RPN<500 High

2 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 500<RPN<1000 Very High

1 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 1
C. ATO failure fuzzy risk estimator
1) Membership functions for input factors
In double layer fuzzy enhanced FMEA, three risk factors (S,
O&D) are inputs of membership function [15]. The risk factors
ranging from 1 to 10 are divided into 4 levels, and their
corresponding linguistic terms in double layer fuzzy enhanced
FMEA are: 1=Low,4=Moderate, 7=High, 10=Very High, as
shown in Fig. 4. The inputs factors are represent using Gaussian,
Z-Shaped and S-Shaped membership function. Though the
fuzzy toolbox in MATLAB ensures the fuzzification of input
1 3) Fuzzy rules
The number of rules can be determined as “Number of
Severity linguistic terms × Number of Occurrence linguistic
terms×Number of Detection linguistic terms” [16]. In the study,
three input factors S, O and D generated 64 rules. These rules
contain four linguistic terms, which are expressed in the IF-
THEN format, for example:
• Rule 1: IF Severity is “Low”, Occurrence is “Low” and
Detection is “Low” THEN FRPN is “Low”;
• Rule 36: IF Severity is “Very High”, Occurrence is
“Low” and Detection is “Very High” THEN FRPN is
“High Low”;

2021 Global Reliability and Prognostics and Health Management

(PHM-Nanjing)
 • Rule 64: IF Severity is “Very High”, Occurrence is TABLE VIII. OCCURRENCE VALUE OF FAILURE CAUSE
“Very High” and Detection is “Very High” THEN Failure cause number TM1 TM2 TM3 Aggregated O value
FRPN is “Very High”;
FM1 4 6 4 5
The 64 rules are input into the rule editor, and the linguistic
FM2 7 5 4 5
terms of the input factors S, O and D are associated with the
linguistic terms of the output factor FRPN. Figs.5 (a), (b) and(c) FM3 8 4 5 6
show three-dimensional surface graphs of the relationship FM4 5 6 4 5
between input factors S, O and D and output FRPN [17-18]. FM5 3 4 2 2
FM6 1 4 5 3
FM7 5 5 5 6
FM8 7 5 8 7
FM9 2 6 5 5.03
FM10 4 4 3 5
FM11 2 5 1 2
FM12 3 5 4 5
FM13 5 8 6 7

TABLE IX. DETECTION VALUE OF FAILURE CAUSE

Failure cause number TM1 TM2 TM3 Aggregated D value

FM1 1 2 1 1

Figure 5. Fuzzy risk graph:(a) S and D factors changes versus FRPN FM2 5 5 6 6
output, (b) O and D factors changes versus FRPN output, (c) S and O factors FM3 8 5 4 6
changes versus FRPN output.
FM4 1 3 2 2
IV. SIMULATION EXPERIMENT AND ANALYSIS FM5 8 3 7 7
In this study, three members, who are TM1, TM2 and TM3, FM6 5 6 4 5
are experts with rich experience in ATO system maintenance. FM7 4 5 7 7
According to TABLE Ⅴ, three experts scored 13 failure causes
FM8 8 5 5 6
in three aspect (S, O&D) and calculated the fuzzy aggregated
values as shown in TABLE Ⅶ-Ⅸ. FM9 2 5 3 3
FM10 1 5 4 3
TABLE Ⅹ shows the risk priority number of each failure
causes and its ranking using traditional FMECA and double FM11 2 2 7 5
layer fuzzy enhanced FMEA. The failure FM8 has a rank of 1 FM12 5 1 2 2
with highest FRPN value of 271.5. The rank 13 was assigned to FM13 5 5 4 5
the lowest FRPN value equal to 29.85 for the failure cause FM4.
As shown in TABLE Ⅹ, the RPN value of FM2 and FM6 is
TABLE VII. SEVERITY VALUE OF FAILURE CAUSE the same, which both is 120. But their FRPN value is different,
which is 95.99 and 96.14 respectively. This proves that
Failure cause number TM1 TM2 TM3 Aggregated S value
traditional FMECA doesn’t take into account the importance
FM1 3 5 3 4.03 degree of each input factor and different value of S, O and D can
FM2 5 4 2 4
result the same RPN value. As a result, resources are wasted
while some high-risk potential failure reasons are not noticed.
FM3 3 6 8 7
Pareto chart is a kind if chart that arranges the failures
FM4 1 3 2 2
according to their important degree, which is a graphical
FM5 8 3 7 7 embodiment of “The 80/20 Rule”, that is, 80% of the problems
FM6 7 7 8 8 are caused by 20% of causes. In Pareto chart, different categories
of failures are arranged in descending order of RPN value, and
FM7 1 2 8 5 the cumulative percentage graph is drawn in the same graph. The
FM8 8 7 7 8 key reasons of most problems are mainly found through Pareto
FM9 4 4 6 6
chart. It can be seen from TABLE X that there are 12 categories
of RPN ranging from 20 to 336, and 13 categories of FRPN
FM10 1 2 6 3 ranging from 29.85 to 271.5. The cumulative RPN values “RPN-
FM11 8 7 2 5 c”, its percentage “RPN-p”, the FRPN values “FRPN-c”, as well
as its percentage “FRPN-p” are determinate as shown in TABLE
FM12 7 8 9 8
Ⅺ and TABLE Ⅻ.
FM13 5 6 7 7

2021 Global Reliability and Prognostics and Health Management

(PHM-Nanjing)
 TABLE X. RISK PRIORITY NUMBER AND ITS RANKING USING Figs.6 and Figs.7 are Pareto chart for RPN and FRPN
TRADITIONAL FMECA AND DOUBLE LAYER FUZZY ENHANCED FMEA.
respectively. It can be observed from Fig.6 that the main causes
Failure
RPN FRPN
of ATO failure are FM2, FM3, FM6, FM7, FM8 and FM13. In
cause S O D RPN FRPN Fig.7, the main causes have 7 main causes, FM3, FM6, FM7,
Ranking Ranking
number FM8, FM9, FM12 and FM13. Obviously, double layer fuzzy
FM1 4.03 5 1 20.15 11 30.78 12 enhanced FMEA can not only find out more failure causes than
FM2 4 5 6 120 5 95.99 8 tradition FMECA but also distinguish which is more important
with the same RPN value.
FM3 7 6 6 252 2 238.5 2
FM4 2 5 2 20 12 29.85 13
FM5 7 2 7 98 6 65.59 9
FM6 8 3 5 120 5 96.14 7
FM7 5 6 7 210 4 161.4 4
FM8 8 7 6 336 1 271.5 1
FM9 6 5.03 3 90.54 7 114.3 5
FM10 3 5 3 45 10 45.16 11
FM11 5 2 5 50 9 61.48 10
FM12 8 5 2 80 8 98.59 6
FM13 7 7 5 245 3 219.9 3

TABLE XI. PARETO ANALYSIS FOR RPN Figure 6. RPN for Pareto chart.

Category RPN RPN-c RPN-p

Category 1 336 336 21.44

Category 2 252 588 37.53
Category 3 245 833 53.17
Category 4 210 1043 66.57
Category 5 120 1163 74.23
Category 6 98 1261 80.49
Category 7 90.54 1351.54 86.27
Category 8 80 1431.54 91.37
Category 9 50 1481.54 94.56
Category 10 45 1526.54 97.44 Figure 7. FRPN for Pareto chart
Category 11 20.15 1546.69 95.72
V. CONCLUSIONS
Category 12 20 1566.69 100
The paper results show that the method based on double
TABLE XII. PARETO ANALYSIS FOR FRPN layer fuzzy enhanced FMEA can improve the accuracy of
Category
finding main failure causes and distinguish which is the more
FRPN FRPN-c FRPN-p important failure cause in the same RPN value. Power source,
Category 1 271.5 271.5 17.75 communication board and input/output unit are frequently faulty
equipment, which should be inspected and repaired immediately.
Category 2 238.5 510 33.35
During finding failure causes, we need pay more attention to the
Category 3 219.9 729.9 47.73 potential causes, which are fault of tachogenerator, traction fault
Category 4 161.4 891.3 58.29 and loss ATP (Automatic Train Protection) signal.
Category 5 114.3 1005.6 65.76
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Category 6 98.59 1104.19 72.20
This work was supported by the Beijing Municipal Natural
Category 7 96.14 1200.33 78.50
Science Foundation (L191013) and Fundamental Research
Category 8 95.99 1296.32 84.77 Funds for the Central Universities (2020YJS016).
Category 9 65.59 1361.91 89.26
Category 10 61.48 1423.39 93.08
Category 11 45.16 1468.55 96.04
Category 12 30.78 1499.33 98.05
Category 13 29.85 1529.18 100

2021 Global Reliability and Prognostics and Health Management

(PHM-Nanjing)
 REFERENCES
[1] Bin Xie. Research of Fault Diagnosis Expert System for ATO Based on
Fault-Tree[D]. Lanzhou Jiaotong University,2013.
[2] Yahmadi Raja and Brik Kais and ben Ammar Faouzi. Fuzzy risk priority
number assessment for solar gel battery manufacturing defects[J].
Engineering Failure Analysis, 2021, 124(prepublish): 105327-.
[3] N.G. Mutlu, S. Altuntas Risk analysis for occupational safety and health
in the textile industry: integration of FMEA, FTA, and BIFPET methods
Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 72 (2019), pp. 222-240
[4] C.-F. Chi, D. Sigmund, M.O. Astardi Classification Scheme for root cause
and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) of passenger vehicle
recalls Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 200 (2020), p. 106929,
10.1016/j.ress.2020.106929
[5] N. Chanamool, T. Naenna, Fuzzy FMEA application to improve decision-
making process in an emergency department, Appl. Soft Comput. 43
(2016) 441–453.
[6] Yu Zang. Remaining useful life prediction and health management of on-
board system equipment in high-speed railways[D]. Beijing Jiaotong
University ,2020.
[7] Stamatis, D. H. (1995). Failure mode and effect analysis—FMEA from
theory to execution. New York: ASQC Quality Press.
[8] C.T. Su, H.C. Lin, P.W. Teng, YT Improving the reliability of electronic
paper display using FMEA and Taguchi methods: a case study
Microelectron. Reliab. (2014), pp. 1369-1377
[9] A.S.T. Maria Jayaprakash Failure detection and optimization of sugar mill
boiler using FMEA and Taguchi method Eng. Fail Anal. (2013), pp. 17-
26.
[10] Power systems reliability subcommittee of the power systems engineering
committee. recommended practice for the design of reliable industrial and
commercial power systems. IEEE Ind Appl Soc IEEE Std 2007.
[11] Stamatis, D. H. (1995). Failure mode and effect analysis—FMEA from
theory to execution. New York: ASQC Quality Press.
[12] Mahmood Shafiee and Fateme Dinmohammadi. An FMEA-Based Risk
Assessment Approach for Wind Turbine Systems: A Comparative Study
of Onshore and Offshore[J]. Energies, 2014, 7(2) : 619-642.
[13] H. Ghasemian, Q. Zeeshan, D.A. Firouzi Failure Mode and Effect
Analysis of Gas Turbine Power Plant Systems (GTPPSs) Eastern
Mediterranean University (2017)
[14] Gupta Gajanand and Ghasemian Hamed and Janvekar Ayub Ahmed. A
novel failure mode effect and criticality analysis (FMECA) using fuzzy
rule-based method: A case study of industrial centrifugal pump[J].
Engineering Failure Analysis, 2021, 123
[15] Sharma R. K., Kumar D., Kumar P., (2005), Systematic failure mode
effect analysis (FMEA) using fuzzy linguistic modeling. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
[16] Cicí lia RM Leite et al (2011). A fuzzy model for processing and
monitoring vital signs in ICU patients, BioMedical Engineering OnLine.
10:68.
[17] J. Balaraju, M.G. Raj, C.S. Murthy Fuzzy-FMEA risk evaluation
approach for LHD machine-A case study J. Sustainable Mining., 18
(2019), pp. 257-268
[18] W. Song, X. Ming, Z. Wu, B. Zhu A rough TOPSIS approach for failure
mode and effects analysis in uncertain environments Qual. Reliab. Eng.
Int., 30 (4) (2014), pp. 473-486.
2021 Global Reliability and Prognostics and Health Management
(PHM-Nanjing)