Fuzzy rule-based Fine–Kinney risk assessment approach for rail transportation systems

References

• Akyuz E, Akgun I, and Celik M. 2016. A fuzzy failure mode and effects approach to analyse concentrated inspection campaigns on board ships. Marit Policy Manage 43(7):887–890. doi:10.1080/03088839.2016.1173737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akyuz E, and Celik E. 2015. A fuzzy DEMATEL method to evaluate critical operational hazards during gas freeing process in crude oil tankers. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 38:243–53. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2015.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• An M, Chen Y, and Baker CJ. 2011. A fuzzy reasoning and fuzzy-analytical hierarchy process based approach to the process of railway risk information: A railway risk management system. Inf Sci 181(18):3946–66. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2011.04.051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• An M, Huang S, and Baker CJ. 2007. Railway risk assessment-the fuzzy reasoning approach and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approaches: A case study of shunting at waterloo depot. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit 221(3):365–83
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• An M, Lin W, and Huang S. 2013. An intelligent railway safety risk assessment support system for railway operation and maintenance analysis. Open Transp J 7:27–42. doi:10.2174/1874447801307010027
   Google Scholar
• An M, Lin W, and Stirling A. 2006. Fuzzy-reasoning-based approach to qualitative railway risk assessment. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit 220(2):153–67
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• An M, Qin Y, Jia LM, and Chen Y. 2016. Aggregation of group fuzzy risk information in the railway risk decision making process. Saf Sci 82:18–28. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.08.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik E, and Akyuz E. 2016. Application of interval type-2 fuzzy sets DEMATEL methods in maritime transportation: The case of ship collision. Int J Marit Eng 158(A4):359–72
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik E, Gul M, Aydin N, Gumus AT, and Guneri AF. 2015. A comprehensive review of multi criteria decision making approaches based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowl-Based Syst 85:329–41. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2015.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chahal RK, and Singh S. 2016. Fuzzy rule-based expert system for determining trustworthiness of cloud service providers. Int J Fuzzy Syst 19(2):338–54. doi:10.1007/s40815-016-0149-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen TY, Chang CH, and Lu JFR. 2013. The extended QUALIFLEX method for multiple criteria decision analysis based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and applications to medical decision making. Eur J Oper Res 226(3):615–25. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.11.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine WT. 1971. Mathematical Evaluations for Controlling Hazards (No. NOLTR-71-31). Naval Ordnance Lab, White Oak, Maryland
   Google Scholar
• Gul M, Ak MF, and Guneri AF. 2016. Occupational health and safety risk assessment in hospitals: A case study using two-stage fuzzy multi criteria approach. Hum Ecol Risk Assess: Int J 23(2):187–202. doi:10.1080/10807039.2016.1234363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M, Celik E, and Akyuz E. 2017a. A hybrid risk-based approach for maritime applications: The case of ballast tank maintenance. Hum Ecol Risk Assess: Int J 23(6):1389–403. doi:10.1080/10807039.2017.1317204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M, Celik E, Aydin N, Gumus AT, and Guneri AF. 2016. A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications. Appl Soft Comput 46:60–89. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2016.04.040
   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 Prev Process Ind 40:89–100. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2015.11.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gul M, Guven B, and Guneri AF. 2017b. A new Fine-Kinney-based risk assessment framework using FAHP-FVIKOR incorporation. J Loss Prev Proc Ind Article, in press. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2017.08.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gumus AT, Yayla AY, Çelik E, and Yildiz A. 2013. A combined fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy-GRA methodology for hydrogen energy storage method selection in Turkey. Energies 6(6):3017–32. doi:10.3390/en6063017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guneri AF, and Gul M. 2013. Prioritization of risk evaluation methods for occupational safety with fuzzy multi criteria decision making. 26th European Conference on Operational Research, 1–4 July, Rome, Italy.
   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 Assess Manage 18(3–4):319–35. doi:10.1504/IJRAM.2015.071222
   Google Scholar
• Gurcanli GE, Bilir S, and Sevim M. 2015. Activity based risk assessment and safety cost estimation for residential building construction projects. Saf Sci 80:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health and Safety Executive (HSE). 2014. Risk assessment: A brief guide to controlling risks in the workplace, INDG163 (rev4), http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg163.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hong Z, Yang L, and China Foreign Trade Center. 2015. Application of metro project risk evaluation based on FMEA combined with FAHP and frequency analysis. J. Eng. Manage 29(1):53–8
   Google Scholar
• Jafarian E, and Rezvani MA. 2012. Application of fuzzy fault tree analysis for evaluation of railway safety risks: An evaluation of root causes for passenger train derailment. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit 226(1):14–25
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinney GF, and Wiruth AD. 1976. Practical risk analysis for safety management [Final Report]
   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. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahdevari S, Shahriar K, and Esfahanipour A. 2014. Human health and safety risks management in underground coal mines using fuzzy TOPSIS. Sci Total Environ 488:85–99. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.076
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis D, and Gemeni V. 2011. Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: On a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. J Loss Prev Process Ind 24(5):477–523. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2011.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozdemir Y, Gul M, and Celik E. 2017. Assessment of occupational hazards and associated risks in fuzzy environment: A case study of a university chemical laboratory. Hum Ecol Risk Assess: Int J 23(4):895–924. doi:10.1080/10807039.2017.1292844
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng Z, Lu Y, Miller A, Johnson C, and Zhao T. 2014. Risk assessment of railway transportation systems using timed fault trees. Qual Reliab Eng Int
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkar D. 2015. Application of fuzzy failure mode effect analysis and expected value method for project risk analysis of elevated corridor metro rail projects. Int J Decis Sci Risk Manage 6(1):34–62
   Google Scholar
• Sivanandam SN, Sumathi S, and Deepa SN. 2007. Introduction to Fuzzy Logic using MATLAB (Vol. 1). Springer, Berlin
   Google Scholar
• Tabak Ç. 2014. Demiryollarındaki kaza istatistikleri veritabanı, risk azaltma yöntemleri, alınan önlemler ve Avrupa'daki örneklerinin kıyaslanması. Ulaştırma ve Haberleşme Uzmanlığı Tezi, Ulaştırma, Denizcilik ve Haberleşme Bakanlığı, Ankara, Turkey
   Google Scholar
• Tixier J, Dusserre G, Salvi O, and Gaston D. 2002. Review of 62 risk analysis methodologies of industrial plants. J Loss Prev Process Ind 15(4):291–303. doi:10.1016/S0950-4230(02)00008-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh LA. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–53. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
   Google Scholar