IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v236y2022i3p477-494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new LNG wharf health assessment model considering structural weak areas

Author

Listed:
  • Chaoli Zhang
  • Lihao Yang
  • Guanyu Hu
  • Shuaiwen Tang
  • Zhijie Zhou

Abstract

The structural health state of liquefied natural gas (LNG) wharf is important for the docking and operation of LNG ships. Based on the finite element modal analysis (FEMA) and evidential reasoning (ER) rule, a new health assessment model for the LNG wharf is proposed in this paper, where structural weak areas are considered. Firstly, combining the structural mechanism and FEMA, the LNG wharf is simulated and modeled. The weak areas of the wharf in common working modes are analyzed and obtained. Secondly, based on the analysis results, the sensor deployment is guided and the wharf health information is collected. Finally, based on the ER rule, the sensor monitoring information is fused to realize the health assessment of the wharf. This paper takes an LNG wharf in the Hainan Yangpu area of China as an example. The experimental results show that the proposed method can accurately and effectively assess the health state of the wharf.

Suggested Citation

  • Chaoli Zhang & Lihao Yang & Guanyu Hu & Shuaiwen Tang & Zhijie Zhou, 2022. "A new LNG wharf health assessment model considering structural weak areas," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 236(3), pages 477-494, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:236:y:2022:i:3:p:477-494
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X211027877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X211027877
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X211027877?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang, Jian-Bo, 2001. "Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 31-61, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "Modeling personalized cognition of customers in online shopping," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. J-B Yang & D-L Xu & X Xie & A K Maddulapalli, 2011. "Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritizing voices of customer," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1638-1654, September.
    3. Catrinu, M.D. & Nordgård, D.E., 2011. "Integrating risk analysis and multi-criteria decision support under uncertainty in electricity distribution system asset management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(6), pages 663-670.
    4. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2011. "An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 179-189, July.
    5. Ahmed Derbel & Younes Boujelbene, 2023. "Performance classification of Tunisian public transport operators," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 535-574, June.
    6. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    7. Hani Alyami & Paul Tae-Woo Lee & Zaili Yang & Ramin Riahi & Stephen Bonsall & Jin Wang, 2014. "An advanced risk analysis approach for container port safety evaluation," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(7), pages 634-650, December.
    8. Zhou, Zhi-Jie & Hu, Chang-Hua & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chen, Mao-Yin & Zhou, Dong-Hua, 2010. "A model for real-time failure prognosis based on hidden Markov model and belief rule base," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 269-283, November.
    9. Sureeyatanapas, Panitas & Sriwattananusart, Kawinpob & Niyamosoth, Thanawath & Sessomboon, Weerapat & Arunyanart, Sirawadee, 2018. "Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 69-79.
    10. Ha, Min-Ho & Yang, Zaili & Lam, Jasmine Siu Lee, 2019. "Port performance in container transport logistics: A multi-stakeholder perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 25-40.
    11. Xiaojiao Qiao & Dan Shi, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Emergency Based on Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-10, November.
    12. Jun Liu & Jian-Bo Yang & Da Ruan & Luis Martinez & Jin Wang, 2008. "Self-tuning of fuzzy belief rule bases for engineering system safety analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 143-168, October.
    13. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chin, Kwai-Sang, 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 35-66, November.
    14. Quan, Ji & Zhou, Yawen & Wang, Xianjia & Yang, Jian-Bo, 2020. "Information fusion based on reputation and payoff promotes cooperation in spatial public goods game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 368(C).
    15. Shiva Moslemi & Hamidreza Izadbakhsh & Marzieh Zarinbal, 2019. "A new reliable performance evaluation model: IFB-IER–DEA," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 56(1), pages 14-31, March.
    16. Wan, Chengpeng & Yan, Xinping & Zhang, Di & Yang, Zaili, 2019. "A novel policy making aid model for the development of LNG fuelled ships," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 29-44.
    17. Marjan Brelih & Uroš Rajkovič & Tomaž Ružič & Blaž Rodič & Daniel Kozelj, 2019. "Modelling decision knowledge for the evaluation of water management investment projects," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(3), pages 759-781, September.
    18. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    19. Vukašin Pajić & Milorad Kilibarda & Milan Andrejić, 2023. "A Novel Hybrid Approach for Evaluation of Resilient 4PL Provider for E-Commerce," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, January.
    20. Yang, Jian-Bo & Wong, Brandon Y.H. & Xu, Dong-Ling & Stewart, Theodor J., 2009. "Integrating DEA-oriented performance assessment and target setting using interactive MOLP methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(1), pages 205-222, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:236:y:2022:i:3:p:477-494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.