:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:三種失效模式與效應分析之改善考量
作者:陳日光
作者(外文):Jih-Kuang Chen
校院名稱:中華大學
系所名稱:科技管理學系(所)
指導教授:李友錚
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2008
主題關鍵詞:風險優先數失效模式與效應分析階層明示法網路分析法決策實驗室法RPNFMEAISMANPDEMATEL
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:28
傳統上失效模式與效應分析之改善優先順序是依風險優先數之大小來做決策,但已有許多學者提出以風險優先數為決策考量之一些缺點,並提出一些新的方法來改善其缺失。但這些方法仍是從風險之角度來衡量,而並未將改善對策之效果度納入衡量。本研究提出三個失效模式與效應分析之改善方法,首先以階層明示法將改善對策之階層關係架構求出,再以網路分析法得到各改善對策之權重,然後進一步結合改善對策之效果度,以效用優先數來做為改善優先順序之決策。經實例之驗證,此方法確實具可行性與有效性。其次,提出以模糊階層明示法來納入模糊語意之考量以更貼近人類之思維方式,然後比較此方法所得到之改善對策優先順序與先前方法之差異性。最後,提出以決策實驗室法納入改善對策之因果關係與影響強度為考量,並進一步結合網路分析法以得到較完整考量之權重。最後並比較新方法與先前方法所得結果之差異性,以驗證其有效性。
Traditionally, the decision of improvement is based on Risk Priority Number (RPN) in FMEA, but many scholars questioned the RPN method, and proposed some new methods to improve. However, these methods are only measuring from the risks viewpoint while ignoring the utility of corrective actions. This study propose three improvements on FMEA, firstly aims to evaluate the structure of hierarchy and interdependence of corrective action by Interpretive Structural Model (ISM), then to calculate the weight of corrective action through the Analytic Network Process (ANP), furthermore, combine the utility of corrective actions, to made decision on improvement priority order of FMEA by Utility Priority Number (UPN). It verifies the feasibility and effectiveness of this method by case study. Secondly then propose a Fuzzy ISM method to taking account the Fuzzy linguistic consideration to fit in with real complicated situation, and then compare difference of the order of corrective action obtained; The last adopt a new method to analyze the causal relationship and influence strength of corrective actions with Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL), then to effectively integrate ANP to get a more complete weight of corrective action considering influence strength. Finally compare the hierarchical structure between hierarchical relation consideration and causal relationship consideration to verify its’ efficient.
AIAG. (1995). Potential failure mode and effects analysis. Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation.
Barsky, L., & Dutta, S. P. (1997). Cost assessment for ergonomic risk (CAFER). International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20, 307-315.
Ben-Daya, M., & Raouf, A. (1993). A revised failure mode and effects analysis model. International Journal of Quality Reliability Management, 13, 43-47.
Bowes, J. B. (1998). The new SAE FMECA standard. Proceeding Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, USA, 48-53.
Bowles, J. B. (2003). An assessment of RPN prioritization in a failure modes effects and criticality analysis. Proceeding Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, USA, 380-386.
Chang, C. L., Liu, P.H., & Wei, C. C. (2001). Failure mode and effect analysis and grey theory. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12, 211-216.
Chiu, Y. J., Chen, H. C., Tzeng. G. H. & Shyu, J. Z. (2006). Marketing strategy based on customer behaviour for the LCD-TV. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 7(2), 143-165.
Dhillon, B. S. (1992). Failure modes and effects analysis - bibliography. Microelectronics Reliability, 32(5), 719-731.
Franceschini, F., & Galetto, M. (2001). A new approach for evaluation of risk priorities of failure modes in FMEA. International Journal of Production Research, 39(13), 2991-3002.
Fontela, E., & Gabus, A. (1974). DEMATEL, innovative methods- Structural analysis of the world problematique (methods). Switzerland: Battelle Geneva Research Institute.
Fontela, E., & Gabus, A. (1976). The DEMATEL observer. Switzerland: Geneva, Battelle Geneva Research Center.
Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1973). Perceptions of the world problematique: Communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility. Switzerland: Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva.
Gilchrist, W. (1993). Modeling failure modes and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality Reliability Management, 10(5), 16-23.
Hori, S., & Shimizu, Y. (1999). Designing methods of human interface for supervisory control systems. Control Engineering Practice, 7, 1413-1419.
Hsieh, C. H., & Chen, S. H. (1998). Graded mean integration representation distance of generalized fuzzy number. Proceeding of 6th Conference on Fuzzy Theory and Its Applications, Taiwan, 50-66.
Hung, G. Q., Nie, M., & Mark, K. L. (1999). Web-based failure mode and effect analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 37, 177-180.
Jordan, W. E. (1972). Failure model effects and criticality analysis. Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, USA, 30-37.
Kara-Zaitri, C., & Fleming, P. V. (1997). Applications of fizzy inference methods to failure modes effects and criticality analysis IFMECA. International Conference on Safety and Reliability, UK, 2403-2414.
KEMA. (1996). International standard of ISO 13488. German: KEMA Co.
Linton, J. D. (2003). Facing the challenges of service automation: An enabler for E-commerce and productivity gain in traditional services. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(4), 478-484.
Loch, L. (1998). Information system supporting FMEA method. Information Systems Architecture and Maintainability Symposium, USA, 30-37.
Onodera, K. (1997). Effective techniques of FMEA at each life-cycle stage. Proceeding Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, USA, 50-56.
Puente, J., Pino, R., Priore, P., & De la Fuente. (2002). A decision support system for applying failure mode and effects analysis. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(2/3), 137-150.
Reifer, D. J. (1979). Software failure modes and effects analysis. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 28(3), 247-249.
Reiling, J. G.., Knutzen, B. L., & Stoecklein, M. (2003). FMEA - the cure for medical errors. Quality Progress, 36(8), 67-71.
Reliey, T. T. (2002). FMEA in preventing medical accidents. ASQ Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, USA, 657-664.
Russomano, D. J., Bonnell, R. D., & Bowles, J. B. (1994). Viewing computer-aided failure modes and effects analysis from an artificial intelligence perspective. Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering, 1(3), 209-228.new window
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchical process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS.
Sankar, N. R., & Prabhu, B. S. (2001). Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(3), 324-335.
Sawhney, R., Padiyar, A. & Li, Y. (2004). FMEA based approach for supplier development. IIE Annual Conference and Exhibition, USA, 7-16.
Shahin, A. (2005). Integration of FMEA and the Kano model: An exploratory examination. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21(6/7), 731-746.
Stamatis, D. H. (1995). Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
Tamura, H., Akazawa, K., & Nagata, H. (2000). Structural modeling of uneasy factors for creating safe, secure and reliable society. SICE System Integration Division Annual Conference, Japan, 330-340.
Tamura H., Nagata H., & Akazawa K. (2005). Structural DEMATEL for a structure modeling of a complex problematique for realizing safe, secure and reliable society. Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, 4, 139-146.
Vandenbrande, W. (2003). The FMEA method in environment management systems. Standartyi Kachestvo, 2, 98-101.
Warfield, J. N. (1973). On arranging elements of a hierarchy in graphic form. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2, 121-132.
Zadeh L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information Control, 8, 338-353.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE