# 臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.222.69.148) 您好！臺灣時間：2024/08/10 06:35

:::

### 詳目顯示

:

• 被引用:1
• 點閱:402
• 評分:
• 下載:0
• 書目收藏:1
 風險優先數(Risk Priority Number, RPN)為一般在失效模式與效應分析(Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, FMEA)中用於評估各失效模式重要性的準則，由各失效模式於其嚴重度(S)、發生度(O)和偵測度(D)三方面給予1-10分的評比。RPN為各失效模式所得到之評分的乘積。但在傳統的RPN方法有RPN值的重複性太高、無法比較SOD間的順序權重、且沒有考慮到各項目中的失效模式與失效原因的直接與間接的關係等問題，而無法確實排出各失效原因的相對重要性排序的問題。因此本研究提出一套方法，結合理想解接近度偏好順序排序評估法 (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, TOPSIS) 與決策實驗室分析法 (Decision making trial and evaluation laboratory, DEMATEL)，用於FMEA中處理失效模式的排序問題。此方法先藉由TOPSIS找出SOD間的順序權重和減少RPN值重複性太高，再藉由DEMATEL來找出失效模式以及失效原因的直接與間接關係以確保能確實地排出失效模式的重要順序。本研究應用所提之方法分別於評估兩個實際案例，重新排定其失效風險的優先順序，並且與其他方法比較。研究結果發現本研究所提之方法確實可以有效解決傳統RPN方法中所發現的問題，亦得到更合理的風險評估結果提供決策者重要的資訊做決策參考。
 The risk priority number (RPN) method is commonly applied in the failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to assess the importance of failures. RPN is the mathematical product of the three parameters of a failure mode that is rated between 1 to 10 in terms of its severity (S), occurrence (O), and detection (D), respectively. However, the RPN method has been found with the high reduplicated RPN values, unable to consider the ordered weights of SOD and failed to consider the direct and indirect relationships between the failure modes and causes of failure. This study provides a method that combines the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and the method of decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) to prioritize failures in FMEA. TOPSIS is used to decrease the reoccurrence of the RPN values while DEMATEL is applied to explore the direction and indirection relationship in failure modes and causes of failure and rank the most important order of failure mode indeed. In numerical verification, two FMEA cases are presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Compared with the conventional RPN method and other methods, the proposed method can resolve abovementioned of RPN ranking issues and give a more appropriate risk assessment than other listed approaches to provide valuable information for the decision makers.
 摘要 iAbstract iiTable of Contents ivList of Figures viList of Tables viiChapter I Introduction 11.1 Background 11.2 Motivation 21.3 Research Objectives 51.4 Structure of Thesis 5Chapter II Literature Review 72.1 FMEA 72.1.1 History of FMEA 72.1.2 FMEA Procedure 82.1.3 RPN Methodology 142.1.4 Related Literature in RPN Ranking Issue 172.2 TOPSIS Methodology 192.3 DEMATEL Methodology 22Chapter III Proposed Methodology 253.1 Procedure of Proposed Approach 253.2 An Illustrative Example 273.3 Reasons for Using TOPSIS and DEMATEL 37Chapter IV Numerical Verification and Comparison 404.1 Application of STDRPN to the Ring Case 404.1.1 Case Background 404.1.3 TOPSIS Methodology 454.1.6 Comparisons and Discussion 574.2 Application of the STDRPN to the centrifugal pump 614.2.1 Case Background 614.2.2 Conventional RPN Methodology 614.2.3 TOPSIS Methodology 614.2.4 DEMATEL Methodology 644.2.5 Comparisons and Discussion 67Chapter V Conclusion and Further Directions 705.1 Conclusions 705.2 Contributions 705.3 Further Research 71Reference 72
 Abdelgawad, M. and Fayek, A.R. (2010). Risk Management in the Construction Industry Using Combined Fuzzy FMEA and Fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(9), 1028-1036.AIAG. (2008). Potentional Failure Mode and Effect Analysis(FMEA). Automotive Industry Action Group, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, USA.Bowles, J.B. (2003). An assessment of RPN prioritization in a failure modes effects and criticality analysis. In 2003 Proceeding Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 380-386. IEEE Press, New York.Bowles, J.B. and Peláez, C.E. (1995). Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 50(2), 203-213.Braglia, M. (2000). MAFMA: multi-attribute failure mode analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(9), 1017-1033.Braglia, M., Frosolini, M., and Montanari, R. (2003). Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 19(5), 425-443.Byun, H.S. and Lee, K.H. (2005). A decision support system for the selection of a rapid prototyping process using the modified TOPSIS method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 26(11), 1338-1347.Chang, J.R., Chang, K.H., Liao, S.H., and Cheng, C.H. (2006). The reliability of general vague fault-tree analysis on weapon systems fault diagnosis. Soft Computing-A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and Applications, 10(7), 531-542.Chang, K.H. and Cheng, C.H. (2009). Evaluating the risk of failure using the fuzzy OWA and DEMATEL method. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1-17.Chang, K.H. and Cheng, C.H. (2010). A risk assessment methodology using intuitionistic fuzzy set in FMEA. [Article]. International Journal of Systems Science, 41(12), 1457-1471. doi: 10.1080/00207720903353633Chang, K.H. and Wen, T.C. (2010). A novel efficient approach for DFMEA combining 2-tuple and the OWA operator. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 2362-2370.Chau, O.L. and Parkan, C. (1995). Selection of a manufacturing process with multiple attributes: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 12(3), 219-237.Chen, M.F. and Tzeng, G.H. (2004). Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 40(13), 1473-1490.Cheng, S., Chan, C.W., and Huang, G.H. (2002). Using multiple criteria decision analysis for supporting decisions of solid waste management. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 37(6), 975-990.Chin, K.S., Wang, Y.M., Poon, G.K.K., and Yang, J.B. (2009). Failure mode and effects analysis by data envelopment analysis. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 246-256.Chu, T.C. (2002). Facility location selection using fuzzy topsis under group decisions. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 10(6), 687-701.Deng, H., Yeh, C.H., and Willis, R.J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973.Ford Motor Company (1988). Potentional Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) Reference Manual. Ford Motor Company Press, USA.Ford Motor Company (2004). Ford FMEA Handbook (With Robustness Linkages) Version 4.1. Ford Motor Company Press, USA.Hori, S. and Shimizu, Y. (1999). Designing methods of human interface for supervisory control systems. Control Engineering Practice, 7(11), 1413-1419.Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. . (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making:Methods and Application. New York Springer-Verlag.IEC-812. (1985). Analysis Technique for System Reliability - Procedures for Failure Mode and Effect Analysis(FMEA). International Electrotechnical Commission Press, Genève.Jahanshahloo, G.R., Lotfi, F.H., and Izadikhah, M. (2006). An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data. Applied mathematics and computation, 175(2), 1375-1384.Janic, M. (2003). Multicriteria evaluation of high-speed rail, transrapid maglev and air passenger transport in Europe. Transportation Planning and Technology, 26(6), 491-512.Li, W., Chen, Y., and Fu, Y. (2008). Combination of TOPSIS and 0-1 programming for supplier selection in supply chain management. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Networking,Sensing and Control, 1531-1535. IEEE Press, New York.Liu, H.C., Liu, L., Bian, Q.H., Lin, Q.L., Dong, N., and Xu, P.C. (2010). Failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning approach and grey theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 4403-4415.MIL-STD-1629. (1974). Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis. Department of Defense, Wasington, DC.MIL-STD-1629A. (1980). Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis. Department of Defense, Wasington, DC.Milani, A.S., Shanian, A., Madoliat, R., and Nemes, J.A. (2005). The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 29(4), 312-318.NASA. (1999). Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA). Practice no. PD-AP-1307, USA.Parkan, C. and Wu, M.L. (1998). Process selection with multiple objective and subjective attributes. Production Planning & Control, 9(2), 189-200.Parkan, C. and Wu, M.L. (1999). Decision-making and performance measurement models with applications to robot selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 36(3), 503-523.Pillay, A. and Wang, J. (2003). Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 79(1), 69-85.SAEJ1739. (2002). Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. Society of Automotive Engineers, PA, USA.Sankar, N.R. and Prabhu, B.S. (2001). Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(3), 324-336.Seyed-Hosseini, S.M., Safaei, N., and Asgharpour, M.J. (2006). Reprioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis by decision making trial and evaluation laboratory technique. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91(8), 872-881.Sharma, R.K., Kumar, D., and Kumar, P. (2005). Systematic failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) using fuzzy linguistic modelling. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9), 986-1004.Srdjevic, B., Medeiros, Y.D.P., and Faria, A.S. (2004). An objective multi-criteria evaluation of water management scenarios. Water resources management, 18(1), 35-54.Stamatis, D.H. (2003). Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. American Society for Quality, New York.Tay, K.M. and Lim, C.P. (2006). Fuzzy FMEA with a guided rules reduction system for prioritization of failures. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 23(8), 1047-1066.Teng, S.H. and Ho, S.Y. (1996). Failure mode and effects analysis: an integrated approach for product design and process control. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 13(5), 8-26.Teoh, P.C. and Case, K. (2005). An evaluation of failure modes and effects analysis generation method for conceptual design. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 18(4), 279-293.Tseng, M.L. (2009a). Application of ANP and DEMATEL to evaluate the decision-making of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 156(1), 181-197.Tseng, M.L. (2009b). Using the extension of DEMATEL to integrate hotel service quality perceptions into a cause-effect model in uncertainty. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 9015-9023.Wang, J., Ruxton, T., and Labrie, C.R. (1995). Design for safety of engineering systems with multiple failure state variables. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 50(3), 271-284.Wu, W.W. (2008). Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 828-835.Xu, K., Tang, L.C., Xie, M., Ho, S.L., and Zhu, M.L. (2002). Fuzzy assessment of FMEA for engine systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 75(1), 17-29.Yang, Y.P.O., Shieh, H.M., Leu, J.D., and Tzeng, G.H. (2008). A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International Journal of Operations Research, 5(3), 160-168.Yang, Z., Bonsall, S., and Wang, J. (2008). Fuzzy rule-based Bayesian reasoning approach for prioritization of failures in FMEA. Reliability, IEEE Transactions on, 57(3), 517-528.
 國圖紙本論文
 連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供，不一定有電子全文可供下載，若連結有誤，請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能，我們會盡快修正，謝謝！
 推文當script無法執行時可按︰推文 網路書籤當script無法執行時可按︰網路書籤 推薦當script無法執行時可按︰推薦 評分當script無法執行時可按︰評分 引用網址當script無法執行時可按︰引用網址 轉寄當script無法執行時可按︰轉寄

 1 藉由加強失效模式效應分析中之風險優先順序以改善半導體製程 2 失效模式與效應分析應用於單元式帷幕牆施工風險之探討 3 以失效模式結合決策實驗室分析法應用於新產品之開發 4 FMEA結合TRIZ運用於TFT-LCDCOG製程中TRAY盤刮屑之改善 5 決定關鍵失效因素與解決問題算則之建構 6 建立製造業專案組合評估模式及專案風險管理機制之研究 7 塑膠模具開發失效風險之評估與改善－FMEA 與DEA之應用 8 使用灰關聯分析與決策實驗室分析法改善傳統失效模式與效應分析風險優先數 9 改善傳統失效模式與效應分析的風險優先數 10 運用改良後之決策實驗室分析法重排FMEA中失效模式的優先處理順序 11 運用OWA結合DEMATEL法修正傳統RPN方法失效風險的排序 12 強化晶圓廠5S管理之研究 13 FMEA風險優先排序新方法 14 創新可靠度配當方法 15 三種失效模式與效應分析之改善考量

 無相關期刊

 1 改善傳統失效模式與效應分析的風險優先數 2 FMEA風險優先排序新方法 3 以自主性演算法為基礎之變數選擇法建構兩階段風險評估模型 4 利用市場需求預測調整在需求拉動補貨策略中之存貨緩衝—於晶圓製造業之應用 5 連結貿易與勞動人權之國際規範研究 6 以破壞式創新探討富士康成本變動策略之影響 7 組織再造、領導方式、與人力資源所採取策略之關聯－以某高科技公司為個案分析 8 豐田汽車召回事件對豐田企業形象之影響 9 超薄高介電常數金屬閘極層之互補式金屬氧化物半導體元件對於隨機電報雜訊的分析 10 以複雜網路分析新聞報導中的小世界 －以ECFA相關新聞為例 11 台灣中小型服務業前進中國市場之機會與建議 12 錫2.3銀微凸塊與銅金屬的冶金反應研究 13 製程失效模式與效應分析中的風險優先排序方式對ODM 新產品導入的影響 14 智慧資本綜效之研究--以台灣電子產業為例 15 運用OWA結合DEMATEL法修正傳統RPN方法失效風險的排序

 簡易查詢 | 進階查詢 | 熱門排行 | 我的研究室