Introducing FMEA plus method for comprehensive safety risk assessment in the steel industry.

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-10-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0331748
Ahmad Soltanzadeh, Esmaeil Zarei, Mohsen Mahdinia, Kiana Hosseinzadeh, Mohsen Sadeghi-Yarandi
{"title":"Introducing FMEA plus method for comprehensive safety risk assessment in the steel industry.","authors":"Ahmad Soltanzadeh, Esmaeil Zarei, Mohsen Mahdinia, Kiana Hosseinzadeh, Mohsen Sadeghi-Yarandi","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0331748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Addressing the challenge of employing a comprehensive risk analysis approach that effectively captures and quantifies all contributing factors remains a significant endeavor in both academic research and practical field applications. This study endeavors to fill this gap by introducing a practical safety risk assessment approach, named the FMEA+ method, grounded in the conventional Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. To construct a comprehensive taxonomy that encompasses the contributing factors within each dimension of risk, a three-stage Delphi study engaged 35 Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). The Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) was employed to acquire knowledge and assign weights to the factors and sub-factors. The validation and reliability assessment of the developed taxonomy included evaluating the Content Validity Ratio (CVR), Content Validity Index (CVI), and Cronbach's alpha coefficient, yielding values of 0.77, 0.91, and 0.86, respectively. Independent peer reviews and reality checks further substantiated the credibility of the proposed taxonomy. The introduced safety risk assessment algorithm, FMEA + , derived from the FMEA technique, comprises three main factors and 12 sub-factors. The final normalized weights for the three factors-occurrence, severity, and detectability-were determined to be 0.337, 0.348, and 0.315, respectively. In the three factors of occurrence, severity, and detection, the most important sub-factors identified were human reliability, human injury, and technical inspection, respectively. This proposed taxonomy serves as a foundational tool for facilitating informed decision-making and the effective implementation of risk mitigation strategies. The application of this innovative approach offers a scientific alternative to traditional FMEA methods within similar industries, addressing existing challenges in a more comprehensive and nuanced manner.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 10","pages":"e0331748"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12510507/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331748","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Addressing the challenge of employing a comprehensive risk analysis approach that effectively captures and quantifies all contributing factors remains a significant endeavor in both academic research and practical field applications. This study endeavors to fill this gap by introducing a practical safety risk assessment approach, named the FMEA+ method, grounded in the conventional Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. To construct a comprehensive taxonomy that encompasses the contributing factors within each dimension of risk, a three-stage Delphi study engaged 35 Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). The Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) was employed to acquire knowledge and assign weights to the factors and sub-factors. The validation and reliability assessment of the developed taxonomy included evaluating the Content Validity Ratio (CVR), Content Validity Index (CVI), and Cronbach's alpha coefficient, yielding values of 0.77, 0.91, and 0.86, respectively. Independent peer reviews and reality checks further substantiated the credibility of the proposed taxonomy. The introduced safety risk assessment algorithm, FMEA + , derived from the FMEA technique, comprises three main factors and 12 sub-factors. The final normalized weights for the three factors-occurrence, severity, and detectability-were determined to be 0.337, 0.348, and 0.315, respectively. In the three factors of occurrence, severity, and detection, the most important sub-factors identified were human reliability, human injury, and technical inspection, respectively. This proposed taxonomy serves as a foundational tool for facilitating informed decision-making and the effective implementation of risk mitigation strategies. The application of this innovative approach offers a scientific alternative to traditional FMEA methods within similar industries, addressing existing challenges in a more comprehensive and nuanced manner.

介绍了FMEA +方法在钢铁行业安全风险综合评价中的应用。
在学术研究和实际领域应用中,采用全面的风险分析方法,有效地捕获和量化所有影响因素,仍然是一个重要的挑战。本研究试图通过引入一种实用的安全风险评估方法,即FMEA+方法来填补这一空白,该方法基于传统的失效模式和影响分析。为了构建一个全面的分类法,包括每个风险维度中的影响因素,一项三阶段德尔菲研究聘请了35名主题专家(sme)。采用模糊层次分析法(FAHP)获取知识并赋予因子和子因子权重。对所建立的分类进行验证和信度评估,包括内容效度比(CVR)、内容效度指数(CVI)和Cronbach’s alpha系数的评估,结果分别为0.77、0.91和0.86。独立的同行评审和现实核查进一步证实了拟议分类法的可信性。本文介绍的安全风险评价算法FMEA +是由FMEA技术衍生而来的,由3个主因子和12个子因子组成。这三个因素(发生率、严重性和可检测性)的最终归一化权重分别确定为0.337、0.348和0.315。在发生、严重和检测三个因素中,最重要的子因素分别是人的可靠性、人的伤害和技术检查。这一拟议的分类法是促进知情决策和有效执行减轻风险战略的基本工具。这种创新方法的应用为类似行业的传统FMEA方法提供了一种科学的替代方法,以更全面和细致的方式解决现有的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信