IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijidsc/v8y2016i2p93-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of risk levels in static mechanical equipment: a fuzzy expert system approach

Author

Listed:
  • A.M.N.D.B. Seneviratne
  • R.M. Chandima Ratnayake

Abstract

It is necessary to evaluate the risk levels in piping components of offshore production and process facilities (OP%PFs) to investigate potential failures. In an OP%PF, piping plays a vital role within the static mechanical equipment. Inspection planners make recommendations on the thickness measurement locations (TMLs) to be monitored based on: historical data, risk-based inspection (RBI) analysis results, plant inspection strategy guidance, etc. The inspection plans made by inexperienced inspection planners are of poor quality compared to an inspection plan made by an experienced inspection planner. Hence, to mitigate the problem, it is vital to develop expert systems to support inexperienced inspection planners and minimise suboptimal decisions. This manuscript illustrates the use of a fuzzy inference system (FIS) as an expert system for making optimal in-service inspection recommendations based on the current status and trends of TMLs. The proposed FIS enables the expertise of experienced inspection planners to be incorporated via membership functions (MFs) and a rule base, which will maintain the quality of an inspection programme at the intended level.

Suggested Citation

  • A.M.N.D.B. Seneviratne & R.M. Chandima Ratnayake, 2016. "Evaluation of risk levels in static mechanical equipment: a fuzzy expert system approach," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(2), pages 93-108.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijidsc:v:8:y:2016:i:2:p:93-108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=76514
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:ids:ijidsc:v:8:y:2016:i:2:p:93-108. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=306 .

    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.