Please wait a minute...
浙江大学学报(工学版)
浙江大学学报(工学版)  2025, Vol. 59 Issue (10): 2067-2077    DOI: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-973X.2025.10.007
机械工程     
面向复杂产品研制过程风险评估的两阶段语言型FMEA方法
阮芙蓉1(),冯南平1,*(),黄挺1,2,杨善林1,2
1. 合肥工业大学 管理学院，安徽 合肥 230009
2. 过程优化与智能决策教育部重点实验室，安徽 合肥 230009
Two-stage linguistic FMEA method for risk evaluation within complex product development process
Furong RUAN1(),Nanping FENG1,*(),Ting HUANG1,2,Shanlin YANG1,2
1. School of Management, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China
2. Key Laboratory of Process Optimization and Intelligent Decision Making of Ministry of Education, Hefei 230009, China
 全文: PDF(742 KB)   HTML
摘要：

失效模式与影响分析（FMEA）方法在语言信息表达、语言建模、因子赋权上无法完全适应复杂情境下的风险评估活动，为此提出基于个性化语义的语言型FMEA风险评估方法. 一组专家采用分布式语言偏好关系对风险因子和评价专家的重要性进行评价，另一组专家采用分布式语言偏好关系对风险模式进行评价，利用数值刻度模型将语言评价结果转化为相应的数值偏好关系. 构建第一阶段的个性化语义模型，得到风险因素和评价专家的权重值，基于权重值构建第二阶段的个性化语义模型，算出失效模式的最终得分并完成优先级排序. 选取某型航空发动机研制过程中的风险评估问题，验证所提语言型FMEA方法的可行性与有效性. 实验结果表明，相比均匀分布方法，所提方法得到的个性化语义在获得高一致性水平风险评估结果方面具有优越性，有助于提升复杂实践背景中风险评估结果的可靠性与准确性.
关键词： 风险评估;  失效模式与影响分析;  分布式语言偏好关系;  个性化语义;  复杂产品开发    
Abstract:

A linguistic failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) method for risk evaluation based on personalized individual semantics was proposed, as the existing FMEA method has deficiencies in linguistic information expression, linguistic modeling, and factor assignment when assessing risk problems in complex situations. A group of evaluation experts used a distributed linguistic preference relation to evaluate failure patterns for each risk factor, while another group also used the distributed linguistic preference relation to evaluate the relative importance of evaluation experts and risk factors. The obtained linguistic preference relation was converted into a corresponding numerical preference relationship through the numerical scale model. A first-stage personalized individual semantic model was constructed to obtain the weight values of risk factors and evaluation experts, and a second-stage personalized individual semantic model was further constructed. Based on the solution results of the two-stage personalized individual semantic model, the final score of the failure mode was calculated, and the prioritization was completed. The risk assessment problems in the development process of a certain aero engine were selected for verification, and the results showed the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed linguistic FMEA method. Experimental comparison with the uniformly distributed method shows that the personalized individual semantics obtained by the proposed method yield highly consistent risk-assessment outcomes, supporting reliability and accuracy in complex product development.
Key words: risk assessment    failure mode and effect analysis    distributed linguistic preference relation    personalized individual semantics    complex product development
收稿日期: 2024-09-10 出版日期: 2025-10-27
CLC:  C 931  
基金资助: 国家社会科学基金资助项目（22BGL034）.
通讯作者: 冯南平     E-mail: lotus087@163.com;fengnp@hfut.edu.cn
作者简介: 阮芙蓉（1994—），女，博士生，从事风险管理研究. orcid.org/0000-0002-7016-3900. E-mail：lotus087@163.com
服务　　
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
作者相关文章　　
阮芙蓉
冯南平
黄挺
杨善林

引用本文:

阮芙蓉,冯南平,黄挺,杨善林. 面向复杂产品研制过程风险评估的两阶段语言型FMEA方法[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版), 2025, 59(10): 2067-2077.

Furong RUAN,Nanping FENG,Ting HUANG,Shanlin YANG. Two-stage linguistic FMEA method for risk evaluation within complex product development process. Journal of ZheJiang University (Engineering Science), 2025, 59(10): 2067-2077.

链接本文:

https://www.zjujournals.com/eng/CN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-973X.2025.10.007    或    https://www.zjujournals.com/eng/CN/Y2025/V59/I10/2067

图 1  基于个性化语义的语言型FMEA风险评估方法的模型框架
piL1L2L3
p1非常低非常轻微非常不可以
p2低轻微不可以
p3较低较轻微较不可以
p4中等中等中等
p5较高较高较可以
p6高高可以
p7非常高非常高非常可以
表 1  失效模式语言评价术语集
piLeLr
p1非常不重要非常不重要
p2不重要不重要
p3中等较不重要
p4重要中等
p5非常重要较重要
p6—重要
p7—非常重要
表 2  专家与风险因子重要性语言评价术语集
RFiEX1EX2EX3EX4
RF10.81910.84540.90060.8622
RF20.85900.87730.80670.8307
RF30.84370.84400.85740.7917
加权一致性：0.8434
表 3  领域专家对风险类型语言评价的最优一致性
RFipiEX1EX2EX3EX4
RF1p1
p2
p3
p4
p5
p6
p7		0.0000
0.3631
0.3928
0.4999
0.6072
0.6370
0.9999		0.0000
0.3596
0.4573
0.5001
0.5428
0.6405
0.9999		0.0000
0.3725
0.4811
0.4999
0.5188
0.6275
0.9999		0.0000
0.3741
0.4684
0.5000
0.5317
0.6259
0.9999
RF2p1
p2
p3
p4
p5
p6
p7		0.0000
0.3277
0.4191
0.5000
0.5809
0.6724
0.9999		0.0000
0.3217
0.3735
0.5000
0.6265
0.6784
0.9999		0.0000
0.3675
0.4631
0.4999
0.5369
0.6326
0.9999		0.0000
0.3687
0.4644
0.5001
0.5357
0.6313
0.9999
RF3p1
p2
p3
p4
p5
p6
p7		0.0000
0.3736
0.4619
0.5001
0.5381
0.6264
0.9999		0.0000
0.2980
0.4483
0.4999
0.5517
0.7021
0.9999		0.0000
0.3738
0.4702
0.4999
0.5298
0.6262
0.9999		0.0000
0.2475
0.4073
0.5001
0.5928
0.7525
0.9999
表 4  一致性最优个性化语义解
RFiEX1EX2EX3EX4
RF10.76890.79780.76780.8022
RF20.81560.82000.76890.7722
RF30.75780.80220.79670.7622
加权一致性：0.7853
表 5  均匀分布下的风险类型语言评价一致性水平
图 2  某型航空发动机研制过程风险类型得分
方法信息表达形式信息处理方法权重的确定方法
直接评价间接评价直接量化考虑语义主观赋权客观赋权综合赋权
Liu等[13]区间二型模糊集—√————
王睿等[15]直觉乘法偏好关系—√———专家评估+理想解模型法(风险因子)
Wang等[40]三角模糊数—√————
Huang等[41]—比例犹豫模糊语言集√—最好最坏法(风险因子)——
Zhang等[20]—分布式语言偏好信息—√———
Huang等[42]语言Z数—√——最小方差法(FMEA成员)；优劣解距离法(风险因子)—
赵翼翔等[43]直觉模糊数—√———层次分析法+数据本身(风险因子)
王济干等[44]语言分布评价—√——熵权法(风险因子)—
Salah等[45]绝对数值评价—√————
Song等[46]双向编码器表征法模型+向量空间模型—√——熵权法(风险因子)—
Liu等[47]模糊语言集—√——专家间关系+风险评估信息(FMEA成员)—
本研究—分布式语言偏好信息—√——专家评估+一致性最优个性化语义模型(FMEA成员+风险因子)
表 6  语言型FMEA风险评估方法比较
1 HOBDAY M The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems?[J]. Research Policy, 2000, 29 (7/8): 871- 893
2 杨善林, 等. 复杂产品开发工程管理理论与方法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2012.
3 PENG H, FENG Q, COIT D W Reliability and maintenance modeling for systems subject to multiple dependent competing failure processes[J]. IIE Transactions, 2010, 43 (1): 12- 22
doi: 10.1080/0740817X.2010.491502
4 FORGHANI-ELAHABAD M, KAGAN N Reliability evaluation of a stochastic-flow network in terms of minimal paths with budget constraint[J]. IISE Transactions, 2019, 51 (5): 547- 558
doi: 10.1080/24725854.2018.1504358
5 GUERRERO H H, BRADLEY J R Failure modes and effects analysis: an evaluation of group versus individual performance[J]. Production and Operations Management, 2013, 22 (6): 1524- 1539
doi: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2012.01363.x
6 PARI G, KUMAR S, SHARMA V Reliability improvement of electronics standby display system of modern aircraft[J]. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 2008, 25 (9): 955- 967
7 ZHANG Y, ZHU H, GREENWOOD S, et al. Quality modelling for web-based information systems [C]// Proceedings Eighth IEEE Workshop on Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems. Bologna: IEEE, 2001: 41–47.
8 SARDAIN P, MAISONNIER D, DI PACE L, et al The European power plant conceptual study: helium-cooled lithium–lead reactor concept[J]. Fusion Engineering and Design, 2006, 81 (23/24): 2673- 2678
9 APKON M, LEONARD J, PROBST L, et al Design of a safer approach to intravenous drug infusions: failure mode effects analysis[J]. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 2004, 13 (4): 265- 271
doi: 10.1136/qshc.2003.007443
10 SUN L, LI Y F, ZIO E Comparison of the HAZOP, FMEA, FRAM, and STPA methods for the hazard analysis of automatic emergency brake systems[J]. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part B: Mechanical Engineering, 2022, 8 (3): 031104
doi: 10.1115/1.4051940
11 SHARMA R K, KUMAR D, KUMAR P Systematic failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) using fuzzy linguistic modelling[J]. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 2005, 22 (9): 986- 1004
doi: 10.1108/02656710510625248
12 ZHAO H, YOU J X, LIU H C Failure mode and effect analysis using MULTIMOORA method with continuous weighted entropy under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment[J]. Soft Computing, 2017, 21 (18): 5355- 5367
doi: 10.1007/s00500-016-2118-x
13 LIU H C, YOU J X, CHEN S, et al An integrated failure mode and effect analysis approach for accurate risk assessment under uncertainty[J]. IIE Transactions, 2016, 48 (11): 1027- 1042
doi: 10.1080/0740817X.2016.1172742
14 NIE R X, TIAN Z P, WANG X K, et al Risk evaluation by FMEA of supercritical water gasification system using multi-granular linguistic distribution assessment[J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2018, 162: 185- 201
doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2018.05.030
15 王睿, 李延来, 朱江洪, 等 考虑专家共识的改进FMEA风险评估方法[J]. 浙江大学学报: 工学版, 2018, 52 (6): 1058- 1067
WANG Rui, LI Yanlai, ZHU Jianghong, et al Improved FMEA method for risk evaluation considering expert consensus[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University: Engineering Science, 2018, 52 (6): 1058- 1067
16 CARPITELLA S, CERTA A, IZQUIERDO J, et al A combined multi-criteria approach to support FMECA analyses: a real-world case[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2018, 169: 394- 402
doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.09.017
17 TANG X, ZHANG Q, PENG Z, et al Distribution linguistic preference relations with incomplete symbolic proportions for group decision making[J]. Applied Soft Computing, 2020, 88: 106005
doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.106005
18 MENDEL J M, ZADEH L A, TRILLAS E, et al What computing with words means to me [discussion forum][J]. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 2010, 5 (1): 20- 26
doi: 10.1109/MCI.2009.934561
19 LI C C, DONG Y, HERRERA F A consensus model for large-scale linguistic group decision making with a feedback recommendation based on clustered personalized individual semantics and opposing consensus groups[J]. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2019, 27 (2): 221- 233
doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2857720
20 ZHANG H, DONG Y, XIAO J, et al Personalized individual semantics-based approach for linguistic failure modes and effects analysis with incomplete preference information[J]. IISE Transactions, 2020, 52 (11): 1275- 1296
doi: 10.1080/24725854.2020.1731774
21 LO H W, LIOU J J H, HUANG C N, et al A novel failure mode and effect analysis model for machine tool risk analysis[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2019, 183: 173- 183
doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.11.018
22 尹儇鹏, 徐选华, 陈晓红 基于多主体仿真的大群体应急决策风险致因分析[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28 (2): 208- 219
YIN Xuanpeng, XU Xuanhua, CHEN Xiaohong Risk-causing analysis of large group emergency decision-making based on multi-agent simulation[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2020, 28 (2): 208- 219
23 HUANG J, YOU J X, LIU H C, et al Failure mode and effect analysis improvement: a systematic literature review and future research agenda[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2020, 199: 106885
doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.106885
24 ZHANG Q, HUANG T, TANG X, et al A linguistic information granulation model and its penalty function-based co-evolutionary PSO solution approach for supporting GDM with distributed linguistic preference relations[J]. Information Fusion, 2022, 77: 118- 132
doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2021.07.017
25 HUANG T, TANG X, ZHAO S, et al Linguistic information-based granular computing based on a tournament selection operator-guided PSO for supporting multi-attribute group decision-making with distributed linguistic preference relations[J]. Information Sciences, 2022, 610: 488- 507
doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2022.07.050
26 ORLOVSKY S Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1978, 1 (3): 155- 167
doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(78)90001-5
27 HERRERA-VIEDMA E, CHICLANA F, HERRERA F, et al Group decision-making model with incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency[J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 2007, 37 (1): 176- 189
doi: 10.1109/TSMCB.2006.875872
28 WU Y, ZHANG Z, KOU G, et al Distributed linguistic representations in decision making: taxonomy, key elements and applications, and challenges in data science and explainable artificial intelligence[J]. Information Fusion, 2021, 65: 165- 178
doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2020.08.018
29 ZHANG G, DONG Y, XU Y Consistency and consensus measures for linguistic preference relations based on distribution assessments[J]. Information Fusion, 2014, 17: 46- 55
doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2012.01.006
30 DONG Y, XU Y, YU S Computing the numerical scale of the linguistic term set for the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model[J]. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2009, 17 (6): 1366- 1378
doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2009.2032172
31 ZHOU Y, XIA J, ZHONG Y, et al An improved FMEA method based on the linguistic weighted geometric operator and fuzzy priority[J]. Quality Engineering, 2016, 28 (4): 491- 498
doi: 10.1080/08982112.2015.1132320
32 金伟 世界航空发动机发展趋势及经验[J]. 中国工业评论, 2016, (11): 38- 44
JIN Wei Development trends and experience of world aero engines[J]. China Industry Review, 2016, (11): 38- 44
33 刘大响, 陈光, 等. 航空发动机——飞机的心脏(第二版)[M]. 北京: 航空工业出版社, 2015.
34 KIAMEHR M, HOBDAY M, HAMEDI M Latecomer firm strategies in complex product systems (CoPS): the case of Iran’s thermal electricity generation systems[J]. Research Policy, 2015, 44 (6): 1240- 1251
doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.005
35 杨乃定, 王京北, 张延禄, 等 考虑自适应行为的研发网络风险传播模型构建及仿真[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28 (3): 182- 190
YANG Naiding, WANG Jingbei, ZHANG Yanlu, et al Risk propagation modeling and simulation in R&D network when considering the adaptive behaviors[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2020, 28 (3): 182- 190
36 LIU H C, YOU J X, LU C, et al Application of interval 2-tuple linguistic MULTIMOORA method for health-care waste treatment technology evaluation and selection[J]. Waste Management, 2014, 34 (11): 2355- 2364
doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.016
37 SCHNEIDER H Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution[J]. Technometrics, 1996, 38 (1): 80
38 ANG K M, LIM W H, ISA N A M, et al A constrained multi-swarm particle swarm optimization without velocity for constrained optimization problems[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2020, 140: 112882
doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112882
39 LI C C, RODRÍGUEZ R M, MARTÍNEZ L, et al Personalized individual semantics based on consistency in hesitant linguistic group decision making with comparative linguistic expressions[J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2018, 145: 156- 165
doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2018.01.011
40 WANG W, LIU X, QIN Y, et al A risk evaluation and prioritization method for FMEA with prospect theory and Choquet integral[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 110: 152- 163
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.08.009
41 HUANG J, YOU X Y, LIU H C, et al New approach for quality function deployment based on proportional hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and prospect theory[J]. International Journal of Production Research, 2019, 57 (5): 1283- 1299
doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1470343
42 HUANG J, XU D H, LIU H C, et al A new model for failure mode and effect analysis integrating linguistic Z-numbers and projection method[J]. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2021, 29 (3): 530- 538
doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2955916
43 赵翼翔, 廖飞飞, 王晗 一种综合赋权的改进FMEA风险评估方法[J]. 工业工程, 2021, 24 (3): 83- 88
ZHAO Yixiang, LIAO Feifei, WANG Han An improved FMEA risk assessment method based on comprehensive empowerment[J]. Industrial Engineering Journal, 2021, 24 (3): 83- 88
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-7375.2021.03.011
44 王济干, 和梦思 基于共识模型和前景理论的输水工程运行安全风险评价[J]. 水利经济, 2022, 40 (1): 71- 78
WANG Jigan, HE Mengsi Risk assessment of operation safety of water conveyance projects based on consensus model and prospect theory[J]. Journal of Economics of Water Resources, 2022, 40 (1): 71- 78
doi: 10.3880/j.issn.1003-9511.2022.01.012
45 SALAH B, ALNAHHAL M, ALI M Risk prioritization using a modified FMEA analysis in industry 4.0[J]. Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 11 (4): 460- 468
doi: 10.1016/j.jer.2023.07.001
46 SONG W, ZHENG J A new approach to risk assessment in failure mode and effect analysis based on engineering textual data[J]. Quality Engineering, 2024, 36 (4): 805- 823
doi: 10.1080/08982112.2024.2304815
[1] 王楚鑫,王迎超,杨继光,樊夏敏,张政. 基于犹豫模糊语言模型的高铁地面沉降风险区划[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版), 2024, 58(8): 1691-1703.
[2] 曾煌尧,李丹丹,马严,丛群. 园区网风险账号评估方法[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版), 2020, 54(9): 1761-1767.
[3] 王睿, 李延来, 朱江洪, 杨艺. 考虑专家共识的改进FMEA风险评估方法[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版), 2018, 52(6): 1058-1067.
[4] 贾驰千, 冯冬芹. 基于模糊层次分析法的工控系统安全评估[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版), 2016, 50(4): 759-765.
[5] 梁耀,冯冬芹. 基于攻击增益的工业控制系统物理层安全风险评估[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版), 2016, 50(3): 589-.
[6] 卢颖,郭良杰,侯云玥,赵云胜,陈连进. 多灾种耦合综合风险评估方法在城市用地规划中的应用[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版), 2015, 49(3): 538-546.
[7] 张兴友, 王守相. 配电系统与通信相关的风险评估[J]. 浙江大学学报(工学版), 2014, 48(4): 568-574.
[8] 王晓暾，熊伟. 基于DLOWG算子的FMEA风险评估方法[J]. J4, 2012, 46(1): 182-188.
[9] 刘森森 陈为化 江全元. 基于并行计算的电力系统风险评估[J]. J4, 2009, 43(3): 589-595.
[10] 陈为化 江全元 曹一家. 基于模糊神经网络的电力系统连锁故障风险评估[J]. J4, 2007, 41(6): 973-979.