A hybrid risk-based approach for maritime applications: The case of ballast tank maintenance

References

• Abimbola M and Khan F. 2016. Development of an integrated tool for risk analysis of drilling operations. Proc Saf Environ Protect 102:421–30
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E. 2015a. Quantification of human error probability towards the gas inerting process on-board crude oil tanker ships. Saf Sci 80:77–86
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E. 2015c. A decision–making model proposal on human reliability analysis on-board ships. PhD. Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Science, Engineering and Technology, May 2015
   Google Scholar
• Akyuz E. 2017. A marine accident analysing model to evaluate potential operational causes in cargo ships. Saf Sci 92:17–25
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E and Celik M. 2015. A methodological extension to human reliability analysis for cargo tank cleaning operation on board chemical tanker ships. Saf Sci 75:146–55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E. 2015b. A hybrid accident analysis method to assess potential navigational contingencies: The case of ship grounding. Saf Sci 79:268–76
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E, Akgun I, and Celik M. 2016. A fuzzy failure mode and effects approach to analyse concentrated inspection campaigns on board ships. Maritime Policy Manage 43(7):887–908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E and Celik M. 2016. A hybrid human error probability determination approach: The case of cargo loading operation in oil/chemical tanker ship. J Loss Prevent Proc Ind 43:424–31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awasthi A and Kannan G. 2016. Green supplier development program selection using NGT and VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Comput Ind Eng 91:100–8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruzzone AG, Mosca R, Revetria R, et al. 2000. Risk analysis in harbor environments using simulation. Saf Sci 34 (1–3):75–86
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckley JJ. 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17(3):233–47
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik E, Aydin N, and Gumus AT. 2014. A multiattribute customer satisfaction evaluation approach for rail transit network: A real case study for Istanbul, Turkey. Transp Policy 36:283–93
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan HK and Wang X. 2013. Fuzzy extent analysis for food risk assessment. In: Fuzzy Hierarchical Model for Risk Assessment, pp. 89–114. Springer, London
   Google Scholar
• Chang DY. 1996. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Operat Res 95(3):649–55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen C. 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faghih-Roohi S, Xie M, and Ng KM. Accident risk assessment in marine transportation via Markov modelling and Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Ocean Eng 91:363–70
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine WT. 1971. Mathematical Evaluations for Controlling Hazards (No. NOLTR-71–31). NAVAL ORDNANCE LAB WHITE OAK MD
   Google Scholar
• Goerlandt F and Montewka J. 2015. A framework for risk analysis of maritime transportation systems: A case study for oil spill from tankers in a ship–ship collision. Saf Sci 76:42–66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M and Guneri AF. 2016. A fuzzy multi criteria risk assessment based on decision matrix technique: A case study for aluminum industry. J Loss Prevent Proc Ind 40:89–100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M, Ak MF, and Guneri AF. 2017. Occupational health and safety risk assessment in hospitals: A case study using two-stage fuzzy multi-criteria approach. Hum Ecol Risk Assessm Int J 1–16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M, Celik E, Aydin N, et al. 2016. A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications. Appl Soft Comput 46:60–89
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M, Çelik E, Güneri AF, et al. 2012. Simulation with integrated multi criteria decision making: An application of scenario selection for a hospital emergency department, Istanbul Commerce University. J Sci 11(22):1–18 (In Turkish)
   Google Scholar
• Guneri AF, Gul M, and Ozgurler S. 2015. A fuzzy AHP methodology for selection of risk assessment methods in occupational safety. Int J Risk Assessm Manage 18(3–4):319–35
   Google Scholar
• IGC. 1993. International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk. IMO
   Google Scholar
• IMO. 2002. Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for Use in the IMO Rule-Making Process. International Maritime Organisation, London
   Google Scholar
• Kaya T and Kahraman C. 2010. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy 35(6):2517–27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaya T and Kahraman C. 2011. Fuzzy multiple criteria forestry decision making based on an integrated VIKOR and AHP approach. Exp Syst Appl 38(6):7326–33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinney GF and Wiruth AD. 1976. Practical Risk Analysis for Safety Management [Final Report]
   Google Scholar
• Kobylinski L. 2008. Stability and safety of ships: Holistic and risk approach. Reliab Risk Anal Theor Appl 1:95–105
   Google Scholar
• Kokangül A, Polat U, and Dağsuyu C. 2017. A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies. Saf Sci 91:24–32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavasani SM, Ramzali N, Sabzalipour F, et al. 2015. Utilisation of Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis (FFTA) for quantified risk analysis of leakage in abandoned oil and natural-gas wells. Ocean Eng 108:729–37
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liwang H, Ringsberg JW, and Norsell M. 2013. Quantitative risk analysis – Ship security analysis for effective risk control option. Saf Sci 58:98S–112S
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi A, Khakzad N, Khan F, et al. 2013. The role of human error in risk analysis: Application to pre-and post-maintenance procedures of process facilities. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 119:251–8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi A, Khan F, MacKinnon S, et al. 2014. Determination of human error probabilities in maintenance procedures of a pump. Proc Saf Environ Protect 92:131–41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opricovic S. 1998. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Facul Civil Eng Belgrade 2(1):5–21
   Google Scholar
• Otto S, Pedersen PT, Samuelides M, et al. 2002. Elements of risk analysis for collision and grounding of a roro passenger ferry. Mar Struct 15:461–74
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soner O, Celik E, and Akyuz E. 2017. Application of AHP and VIKOR methods under interval type 2 fuzzy environment in maritime transportation. Ocean Eng 129:107–16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun ZL, Xie M, Ng KM, et al. 2012. A study of lifetime optimization of transportation system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 42(4):1013–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzeng GH and Huang JJ. 2011. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. CRC Press
   Google Scholar
• Ung ST. 2015. A weighted CREAM model for maritime human reliability analysis. Saf Sci 72:144–52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Z and Wang J. 2015. Use of fuzzy risk assessment in FMEA of offshore engineering systems. Ocean Eng 95:195–204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong D. 2006. Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28:839–44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar