Plant Systems and Equipment Maintenance: Use of Fuzzy Logic for Criticality
Assessment in NORSOK Standard Z-008
R.M. Chandima Ratnayake
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering and Materials Science, University of Stavanger, Norway
(chandima.ratnayake@uis.no)
Abstract - The NORSOK standard Z-008 suggests a
criticality matrix for use in consequence classification,
maintenance planning, inspection planning and for
prioritizing work orders. When the criticality assessments
are carried out using a criticality matrix, suboptimal
classification tends to occur as there are no means to
incorporate actual circumstances at the boundary of the
input ranges or at the levels of linguistic data and criticality
categories. This manuscript suggests a fuzzy inference
system (FIS) to overcome the aforementioned. Membership
functions and the rule base development have been carried
out in alignment with the Z-008 standard recommended
guidelines. A rule view and a calculation result have been
demonstrated to illustrate the methodology.
Keywords – criticality matrix, maintenance,
consequence classification, fuzzy inference system
I. INTRODUCTION
The safety regulations pertaining to petroleum
activities [i.e. oil and gas (O&G)] on the Norwegian
Continental Shelf suggest that facilities' systems and
equipment are classified in relation the health, safety and
environmental (HSE) consequences due to potential
functional failures [1]. Basically, the operator companies
perform criticality assessments with the help of external
engineering service providing (i.e. engineering contractor
companies) experts [2]. They identify the various fault
modes with associated failure causes and failure
mechanisms, and predict the probability of failure for the
individual fault mode. Based on the failure frequency (FF)
and consequence of failure, the criticality classification of
facilities' systems and equipment is performed. In the
aforementioned context, the NORSOK standard Z-008
provides requirements and guidelines for criticality-based
maintenance and consequence classification of
maintenance activities for plant systems and equipment in
the Norwegian petroleum industry [3].
It is suggested that the criticality-based maintenance
activities (or tasks) are carried out against defined criteria
and that the criteria are in accordance with the selected
overall company policy for the minimization of health,
safety & environmental (HSE), production and cost
related challenges [1]. The current practice in carrying out
criticality assessments is to use a criticality matrix (i.e.
aligned with NORSOK standard Z-008 guidelines) along
with possible ranges or linguistic terms [3]. As there is no
means to study the boundary of each range or level of
linguistic term (LT), engineering practice reveals that
final criticality assessments are suboptimal. Hence, this
978-1-4799-0986-5/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
manuscript illustrates the use of a fuzzy logic based
consistent approach for making criticality assessment
aligned with NORSOK standard Z-008 guidelines. Such
analyses greatly support maintenance engineers in
establishing or updating preventive maintenance
programs.
II. METHODOLOGY
Fuzzy logic system
A ‘pure fuzzy logic system’ consists of a fuzzy rule
base. The rule base consists of a collection of fuzzy IF–
THEN rules. These fuzzy IF–THEN rules are utilized by
the fuzzy inference engine to determine a mapping from
fuzzy sets in the input universe of discourse U ⊂ Rn to
fuzzy sets in the output universe of discourse V ⊂ R based
on fuzzy logic principles. The fuzzy IF–THEN rules
follow the form as below:
R(1) : IF x1 is and … xn is THEN y is G1 (1)
where and Gj are fuzzy sets, x = (x1,x2,…, xn)T ϵ U
and y ϵ V are input and output linguistic variables which
belong to the input and output universes, respectively, and
j=1, 2,…, m. The practical experience reveals that these
fuzzy IF-THEN rules provide a convenient framework to
incorporate human expert knowledge. In Eq. (1), each
fuzzy IF–THEN rule defines fuzzy set , … => Gj
for i = 1, 2,…,n; in the product space U × V. Expert
opinions and data/information retrieved from different
sources are taken into the mathematical model using the
aforementioned rules. The main focus is to enhance the
discerning power in the criticality analysis process, whilst
associating the uncertainties related to the linguistic
variables to the degree of criticality at the boundaries such
as high to medium, medium to low, and so on. The rules
also allow the integration of quantitative (e.g. mean time
between failure (MTBF), amount of oil release, etc.),
qualitative and judgmental data (e.g. personnel safety) in
a uniform manner [4].
In order to use the ‘pure fuzzy logic system’ in
engineering systems, add a fuzzifier to the input and a
defuzzifier to the output of the pure fuzzy logic system.
The fuzzifier maps crisp points in U to fuzzy sets in U,
and the defuzzifier maps fuzzy sets in V to crisp points in
V. The fuzzy rule base and fuzzy inference engine are the
same as those in the pure fuzzy logic system. The ‘fuzzy
logic system’ has also been referred to as the ‘fuzzy logic
controller’ due to its usage as a controller [5]. In 1975,
1468
 Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE IEEM
Mamdani built one of the first fuzzy systems which used a
set of fuzzy rules supplied by experienced human
operators to control a steam engine and boiler
Fuzzy criticality assessment system
Experts’ knowlege from the experienced maintenance personnel
Generation of
Crisp inputs input
membership
functions
Fuzzy inference system
Rank of MTBF Fuzzy MTBF
Rank of ED Fuzzification
Rank of of input
downtime cost crisp
Fuzzy overall
Rank of variables
level of
personnel consequence
safety
Run time calculations
Fuzzy
inputs
Fig. 1. Fuzzy criticality ranking system.
combination [6]. To date, Mamdani’s approach has been
successfully applied to a variety of industrial processes
and consumer products [7]. Fig. 1 illustrates the overall
view of the proposed fuzzy criticality assessment system.
Personal safety, environmental degradation (ED),
downtime costs and MTBF have been selected as the
input variables and criticality as the output variable. They
consist of quantitative, qualitative and judgmental (i.e.
linguistic) data. For each of the aforementioned variables,
there is an associated membership function, which is
established with the help of data, information and expert
opinion [6]. The fuzzification process aids fuzzifiying the
inputs by determining the value of the membership
functions corresponding to the different inputs.
Furthermore, instead of restricting the user to a single,
crisp, input value, this process allows an interval of values
to be given, where, values near the center of the interval
are assumed to be 'more certain' than those near the edges,
and the width of the interval indicates the amount of
uncertainty present in the different input variables. The
aforementioned has been achieved by associating
appropriate membership functions (MF) for the input
variables. Using an appropriate MF, the user has ‘more
confidence’ that the input parameter lies in the center of
the interval than at the edges. In this study the author has
incorporated Gaussian membership functions [7] which
are defined by Eq. (2):
Where, c and σ are the center and width of the
membership function respectively.
The fuzzy inference system (FIS) parameters were
selected as follows: ‘And’ method with ‘minimum’, ‘Or’
method with ‘maximum’, ‘Implication’ with ‘minimum’,
‘Aggregation’ with ‘maximum’ and ‘Defuzzification’
with ‘centroid’ algorithm. Fuzzy rule bases were
developed using the table-look-up approach (see Table II)
to align with guidelines provided in the NORSOK
standard Z-008. The toolbox simulator of the MATLAB
(R2011a) tool has been utilized for implementing a fuzzy
Generation of
Crisp
Generation of output
output
rule base membership
functions
Defuzzification
Evalution Fuzzy Criticality
to crisp output
of rules conclusions rank
variables
Fuzzy
outputs
criticality ranking system [8].
III. DATA COLLECTION, MODELING, ANALYSIS
AND RESULTS
A. Membership function selection
The consequence and MTBF (i.e. FF) of a functional
failure have been selected as input to the FIS. The
criticality of a functional failure has been assigned as the
output. There are three factors under each functional
failure consequence rank. However, the highest value
(among the factors) of the consequence due to the failure
of a particular failure mode is selected for assessing the
gravity of the consequence of a functional failure. When
two factors have an equal level of consequence, then the
priorities are given as follows: 1). Personnel safety (PS);
2). Production loss (i.e. downtime cost (DTC)); 3).
Environmental degradation (ED) (release of containment).
Basically, the following questions are addressed during
the consequence classification process: Has the
consequence a direct effect on safety? Has the
consequence a direct effect on environmental
degradation? Has the consequence a direct effect on
production? Has the consequence a direct effect on
production costs? The last two questions were merged and
addressed in terms of the downtime costs.
The intervals, corresponding membership values and
(2) finally membership functions (i.e. for Gaussian
membership functions ‘c and σ’) were established based
on expert opinion, literature and the author’s own
experience.
B. Case study
To illustrate the approach, a case study was carried
out in collaboration with an engineering contractor
company which is providing criticality assessments to an
1469
 Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE IEEM

operator company. Firstly, Table I was established based sub-systems, items, etc. The MTBF is the expected
on the views of personnel who have extensive experience failure rate if no preventive maintenance activities were
in criticality assessments for establishing or updating performed.
preventive maintenance programs. In the modeling process, the established ranges and
Table I illustrates ranks, linguistic terms and/or ranks (see Table I) of input and output variables were
ranges assigned for the possible consequence of a utilized as the basis for crisp input and output variables. A
functional failure and MTBFs. These were tailor-made rule base was developed based on expert opinion as well
TABLE I
RANGES, RANKS AND LINGUISTIC TERMS FOR CONSEQUENCES AND MTBF

Consequences

Factors Levels of consequence due to a functional failure

Input variable_2

Rank 1 2 3 4 5

LT Very high High Moderate Low Very low

PS Fatality Permanent injury Serious personnel injury Medical treatment First aid

ED > 200 m³ (20-200) m³ (2 - 20) m³ (0.2 - 2) m³ < 200 litres

DTC > 20 million (4 – 20) million (0.4 – 4) million (0.1 – 0.4) million < 0.1 million

Failure frequency
Input variable_1

Rank 1 2 3 4 5

LT Very high High Moderate Low Very low

MTBF Less than 1 1 month to 1 year (12 1 year (12 months) to 5 5 years (60 months) to 30 years More than 30 years
month months) years (60 years) (360 months) (360 months)

values particular to an operator company aligned with as historical data and information retrieved from possible
NORSOK standard Z-008. They were estimated by functional failures of O&G production/process
considering the possible functional failure of systems, equipment. Table II illustrates a tailor-made rule base (i.e.

TABLE II
TAILOR MADE RULE BASE FOR CRITICALITY ANALYSIS AND RBM DECISIONS

Consequences

PS Fatality Permanent Serious personnel Medical treatment First aid

Input membership injury injury
functions
ED > 200 m³ (20-200) m³ (2-20) m³ (0.2-2) m³ < 200 litres
Failure frequency

DTC > 20 million (4-20) million (0.4-4) million (0.125-0.4) million < 0.125 million

MTBF Rank 1 2 3 4 5

Less than 1 month 1 VH VH VH VH VH

1 month to 1 year 2 VH VH H M-H M-H

1 year to 5 years 3 VH H M-H M-L L

5 years to 30 years 4 H M-H M-L L VL

More than 30 years 5 M-H M-L L VL VL

TABLE III
3 GAUSSIAN MF PARAMETERS FOR INPUT AND OUTPUT VARIABLES

Gaussian MF parameters (σ, c)

VH H M L VL
Input MTBF (0.5, 1) (0.3, 2) (0.3, 3) (0.4, 4) (0.2, 4.85)
variables ED (0.5, 1) (0.4, 2) (0.4, 3) (0.4, 3.75) (0.3, 4.75)
VH H M-H M-L L VL
Output Criticality (0.3, 0.15) (0.3, 1) (0.3, 2) (0.3, 3) (0.3, 3.75) (0.3, 4.75)
variable

1470
 Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE IEEM

aligned with NORSOK standard Z-008), which has been

developed for an operator company for performing
consequence classification for rotating mechanical
Membership
equipment (e.g. pumps, turbines, etc.) and instruments
[e.g. Pressure shut down valve (PSV), emergency shut
down valve (ESV), etc.].
To illustrate the methodology, only the input
variables MTBF and possible ED due to the release of
containment were utilized. Table III illustrates the Criticality (output variable)
parameters for each Gaussian membership function for Fig. 4. MF plots of criticality.
the input variables and output variable.
The introduction of fuzziness is vital in facilitating
the analysis of the inputs (i.e. ranges of estimated MTBF, IV. RESULTS
environmental degradation measures, etc.) at the
boundaries in the process of criticality assessment and Fig. 5 illustrates a rule view and an example
risk based maintenance (RBM)-related decision making. calculation of criticality rank for a tag. The calculation
Also, at the boundary of different criticality ranges VH-H, has been carried out for the MTBF rank = 2.6 and
H-M, etc. (see Table II), it is important to meet optimal environmental degradation rank = 1.7. The criticality rank
criticality analysis results. Hence, to introduce the estimated by the fuzzy criticality ranking system is 0.818.
fuzziness, the possible ranges of each input/output and The corresponding linguistic value is H (using the MFs in
corresponding membership values (i.e. called MF plots) Fig. 4). This linguistic value would be recorded in the
have been introduced. For establishing MF plots experts’ final criticality assessment report.
opinions [i.e. how do they perceive and experience the
influence of different machinery (Note: rotating
equipment and different instruments connected to a
certain function and how they contribute to a potential
failure of that function have been taken into
consideration) on a functional failure] as well as data and
information from different sources have been utilized.
Fig. 2 illustrates MF plots of MTBF.

Membership

MTBF (input variable 1)

Fig. 2. MF plots for rank of MTBF. MTBF = 2.6 ED = 1.7 Criticality = 0.818

Fig. 3 illustrates MF plots of environmental Fig. 5. A rule view and calculation [criticality rank is 0.818 for MTBF =
2.6 and ED = 1.7].
degradation.
Similar assessments would be carried out for each tag
(which has been connected to a functional hierarchy),
focusing on possible functional failures and related
Membership consequences. The possible functional failures are
recognized by means of a functional hierarchy which is
developed by taking functions performed by a system,
sub-system or item into consideration [3]. Basically, a
technical hierarchy (also called a technical tag hierarchy)
ED (input variable 2) is available in the production and/or process facility
Fig. 3. MF plots for rank of ED.
owner’s computer maintenance management system
(CMMS). Following the guidelines of NORSOK standard
Fig. 4 illustrates MFs for possible criticality scenarios Z-008, functional hierarchy is developed. After carrying
and corresponding ranks. out all the criticality assessments of the machinery, the
results would be recorded in a particular operator
company’s CMMS and used for updating maintenance

1471
 Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE IEEM
activities such as frequency of inspection, man-hours,
work description, etc. The assessment results also provide
the basis for making decisions about whether to go for a
corrective or preventive maintenance program.
V. DISCUSSION
The consistency of the rule base used for the
criticality assessment is verified (see Fig. 6) by examining
a plot of the criticalities’ surface over the possible
combinations of the input variables. Fig. 6 reveals that
there are no inconsistencies, as there are no evident abrupt
changes in criticality for a small change in the
consequence or MTBF ranks. The 3D graphical
representation of MTBF, consequence, and criticality (see
Fig. 6) reveals that there is a possibility of giving decimal
ranks (i.e. corresponding to real input values) instead of
being strictly confined to the defined consequence ranges
and corresponding integer ranks.
Fig. 6. Graphical representation of consistency.
The suggested criticality analysis approach has been
demonstrated using one of the input consequence
(possible ED due to a functional failure) factors and FF
(i.e. MTBF). It is also possible to model the other
consequence factors (i.e. PS and DTC) in a similar
manner. The analysis can be carried out by the use of
triangular MFs [9]. However, if all of the input variables
have been taken simultaneously then the number of rules
required for the assessment shall be increased
significantly.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the manuscript, a rule base development and
analysis has been carried out to align with NOSOK
standard Z-008 for performing criticality assessment of
the possible functional failure that can result from the
failures of O&G production/process equipment. Expert
knowledge has been utilized to develop the MFs and rule
base.
The suggested fuzzy criticality ranking system provides
the means to incorporate the actual tag (i.e. equipment)
related input variables to assess the criticality of a
1472
functional failure. Basically, it provides an opportunity for
incorporating expert knowledge in a consistent manner.
Apart from that, the suggested approach can be linked to
currently existing structured information management
system (SIMS) (e.g. Applysorco AS in Norway, which is
an engineering contractor company, has its own SIMS) or
CMMS.
Further research should be carried out to establish
more refined membership functions and corresponding
intervals to represent the real behavior of the input and
output variables.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors convey their special thanks to Jawad
Raza and personnel in the department of asset integrity
management, Applysorco and Sukhvir Panesar Singh,
ConocoPhillips, for the support extended in
accomplishing this research work.
REFERENCES
[1] Ptil, “Regulations relating to conducting petroleum
activities (the activities regulations)”, 2011.
http://www.ptil.no/ activities/ category399.html#_
Toc345662825 (accessed on 18.03.2013).
[2] R. M. C. Ratnayake, “A decision model for executing
plant strategy: Maintaining the technical integrity of
petroleum flowlines”, International Journal of Decision
Sciences, Risk and Management, vol.4, no.1/2, pp.1-24,
2012.
[3] Z008, “Z-008 Risk based maintenance and consequence
classification (Rev. 3, June 2011), 2011.
http://www.standard.no/no/Fagomrader/Petroleum/NORSO
K-Standard-Categories/Z-Regularity--Criticality/Z-0082/
(accessed on 08.03.2013).
[4] J. B. Bowles, and C. E. Pelaez, “Fuzzy logic prioritization
of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality
analysis”, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 203–
213, 1995.
[5] C. M. F. Lapa, and A. C. F. Guimaraes, “Effect analysis
fuzzy inference system in nuclear problems using
approximate reasoning”, Ann. Nucl. Energy, vol. 31, no.
107, 2004.
[6] E. H. Mamdani, and S. Assilian, “An experiment in
linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller” Int. J.
Man Mach. Stud., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 1975.
[7] L. X. Wang, Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control—Design
and Stability Analysis, University of California at Berkeley,
PTR Prentice Hall, 1993.
[8] MATLAB, MATLAB 7.12.0 (R2011a): Fuzzy logic toolbox,
1984-2011 The MathWorks, Inc., 2011.
[9] Z. H. Klim, Preliminary hazard analysis for the design
alternatives based on fuzzy methodology, Fuzzy
Information, Processing NAFIPS '04, ISBN: 0-7803-8376-
1, vol. 1, pp. 46-50, 2004.