Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Evaluation of Environmental, Economic and Safety Impacts of Main Engine Failures of Terminal Tugboats by Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods

Yıl 2025, Erken Görünüm Makaleler, 1 - 13

Samet Gürgen

https://doi.org/10.52998/trjmms.1681535

Öz

Marine terminals have an important place in the global crude oil supply. Tugboats are one of the major components for marine terminals. Safe and trouble-free operation of tugboats is of critical importance. In this study, a risk analysis was performed by considering the safety, environmental and economic effects of main engine failures for a tugboat operating in a crude oil terminal. In this context, firstly, the importance levels of safety, environmental and economic criteria were determined with the fuzzy AHP method. Then, the risk ranking was carried out for 26 failure modes with the fuzzy TOPSIS method by considering the safety, environmental and economic effects together. The results showed that the most important risk factor for the marine terminal was safety, followed by economic and environmental factors. Then, the risk ranking of failure modes was performed with the fuzzy TOPSIS by considering the importance weights of the risk factors, and the riskiest failure was determined as fuel line leakage. This was followed by air filter blockage and back pressure in the exhaust system, respectively. This study provides a comprehensive risk assessment for tugboats operating in a crude oil terminal and is expected to be an important guide for the relevant stakeholders

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tugboat Risk analysis Main engine failure Fuzzy AHP Fuzzy TOPSIS

Etik Beyan

Author(s) declare that this study was conducted in accordance with ethics committee procedures of human or animal experiments.

Kaynakça

  • Abdel-Basset, M., Ding, W., Mohamed, R., Metawa, N. (2020). An integrated plithogenic MCDM approach for financial performance evaluation of manufacturing industries. Risk Management, 22(3): 192-218.
  • Ahmad, S., Masood, S., Khan, N. Z., Badruddin, I. A., Ahmadian, A., Khan, Z. A., Khan, A. H. (2023). Analysing the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological health of people using fuzzy MCDM methods. Operations Research Perspectives, 10: 100263.
  • Akyildiz, H., Mentes, A. (2017). An integrated risk assessment based on uncertainty analysis for cargo vessel safety. Safety Science, 92: 34-43.
  • Alarcin, F., Balin, A., Demirel, H. (2014). Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS integrated hybrid method for auxiliary systems of ship main engines. Journal Of Marine Engineering & Technology, 13(1): 3-11.
  • Arıcan, O. H., Kara, E. G. E. (2024). Selection model of chemical tanker ships for cargo types using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 103724.
  • Bhaskar, A. S., Khan, A. (2022). Comparative analysis of hybrid MCDM methods in material selection for dental applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 209: 118268.
  • Başhan, V., Demirel, H., Gul, M. (2020). A novel risk evaluation approach for frequently encountered risks in ship engine rooms. Brodogradnja: An International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering for Research and Development, 71(2): 31-54.
  • Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3): 233-247.
  • Bulut, E., Duru, O., Keçeci, T., Yoshida, S. (2012). Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for generic fuzzy-AHP modeling: A process model for shipping asset management. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(2): 1911-1923.
  • Bulut, M. S., Ordu, M., Der, O., Basar, G. (2024). Sustainable thermoplastic material selection for hybrid vehicle battery packs in the automotive industry: a comparative multi-criteria decision-making approach. Polymers, 16(19): 2768.
  • Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3): 649-655.
  • Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1): 1-9.
  • Diagkinis, I., Nikitakos, N. (2013). Application of analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methodology on ships’ maintenance strategies. Journal of Polish Safety and Reliability Association, 4(1): 21-28.
  • Elsayed, T., Marghany, K., Abdulkader, S. (2014). Risk assessment of liquefied natural gas carriers using fuzzy TOPSIS. Ships and Offshore Structures, 9(4): 355-364.
  • Emovon, I. (2016). Ship system maintenance strategy selection based on DELPHI-AHP-TOPSIS methodology. World Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(2): 252.
  • Ertuğrul, İ., Karakaşoğlu, N. (2009). Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1): 702-715.
  • Fan, S., Zhang, J., Blanco-Davis, E., Yang, Z., Yan, X. (2020). Maritime accident prevention strategy formulation from a human factor perspective using Bayesian Networks and TOPSIS. Ocean Engineering, 210: 107544.
  • Hwang, CL., Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 186, Springer, Berlin.
  • Kim, S. W., Wall, A., Wang, J., Kwon, Y. S. (2008). Application of AHP to fire safety based decision making of a passenger ship. Opsearch, 45: 249-262.
  • Koznowski, W., Łebkowski, A. (2022). Analysis of hull shape impact on energy consumption in an electric port tugboat. Energies, 15(1): 339.
  • Lebedevas, S., Norkevičius, L., Zhou, P. (2021). Investigation of effect on environmental performance of using LNG as fuel for engines in seaport tugboats. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(2): 123.
  • Li, H. B., Hao, Y. L., Yu, H. Y. (2010). A study of ship integrated navigation system risk assessment based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. In 2010 International Conference on Educational and Network Technology, June 2010, pp. 305-308, IEEE.
  • Nădăban, S., Dzitac, S., Dzitac, I. (2016). Fuzzy TOPSIS: a general view. Procedia Computer Science, 91: 823-831.
  • Nguyen, H. (2009). The application of the AHP method in ship system risk estimation. Polish Maritime Research, 78-82.
  • Ordu, M., Der, O. (2023). Polymeric materials selection for flexible pulsating heat pipe manufacturing using a comparative hybrid MCDM approach. Polymers, 15(13): 2933.
  • Ordu, M., Tekman, N. (2024). A Macroeconomic Investigation of the Organization of Turkic States by a Hybrid Decision-Making Approach. In: “Decision Making Approaches from a Macroeconomic Perspective” (Editor: M. Ordu). pp. 37-52, BIDGE Publications, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Özdemir, Ü., Altinpinar, İ., Demirel, F. B. (2018). A MCDM approach with fuzzy AHP method for occupational accidents on board. TransNav, International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 12(1): 93-98.
  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(11): 1073-1076.
  • Tonoğlu, F., Atalar, F., Başkan, İ. B., Yildiz, S., Uğurlu, Ö., Wang, J. (2022). A new hybrid approach for determining sector-specific risk factors in Turkish Straits: Fuzzy AHP-PRAT technique. Ocean Engineering, 253: 111280.
  • Türk, A., Özkök, M. (2020). Shipyard location selection based on fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 39(3): 4557-4576.
  • Türk, A., Özkök, M. (2022). A Comprehensive Risk Assessment Analysis of Accidental Falls in Shipyards Using the Gaussian Fuzzy AHP Model. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 10(4).
  • Ünver, B., Altın, İ., Gürgen, S. (2021). Risk ranking of maintenance activities in a two-stroke marine diesel engine via fuzzy AHP method. Applied Ocean Research, 111: 102648.
  • Van Laarhoven, P. J., Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3): 229-241.
  • Wan, J., Baumler, R., Dalaklis, D. (2024). Identifying key safety investments needed for arctic shipping via a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach. Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping, 8(4): 2422710.
  • Wan, Y., Chen, H., Wang, M. (2022). Risk Assessment of Petrochemical ships based on FAHP-TOPSIS. In ISCTT 2022; 7th International Conference on Information Science, Computer Technology and Transportation, May 2022, pp. 1-5, VDE.
  • Yeo, S., Jeong, B., Lee, W. J. (2023). Improved formal safety assessment methodology using fuzzy TOPSIS for LPG-fueled marine engine system. Ocean Engineering, 269: 113536.
  • Zhang, H., Peng, Y., Tian, G., Wang, D., Xie, P. (2017). Green material selection for sustainability: A hybrid MCDM approach. Plos One, 12(5): e0177578.
  • Zhao, H., Wang, Y., Guo, S. (2023). A hybrid MCDM model combining Fuzzy-Delphi, AEW, BWM, and MARCOS for digital economy development comprehensive evaluation of 31 provincial level regions in China. Plos One, 18(4): e0283655.
  • Ziquan, X., Jiaqi, Y., Naseem, M. H., Zuquan, X. (2021). Occupational health and safety risk assessment of cruise ship construction based on improved intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS decision model. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021(1): 5966711.

Terminal Römorkörlerinin Ana Makine Hatalarının Çevresel, Ekonomik ve Güvenlik Etkilerinin Bulanık AHP ve Bulanık TOPSIS yöntemi ile Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2025, Erken Görünüm Makaleler, 1 - 13

Samet Gürgen

https://doi.org/10.52998/trjmms.1681535

Öz

Deniz terminalleri küresel ham petrol tedarikinde önemli bir yer tutmaktadır. Deniz terminaller için en önemli bileşenlerden biri römorkörlerdir. Römorkörlerin güvenli ve sorunsuz çalışması, kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışmada ham petrol terminalinde görev yapan bir römorkör için ana makine hatalarının güvenlik, çevresel ve ekonomik etkileri birlikte ele alınarak risk analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu kapsamda ilk olarak bulanık AHP metoduyla güvenlik, çevresel ve ekonomik kriterlerinin önem dereceleri belirlenmiştir. Daha sonra güvenlik, çevresel ve ekonomik etkiler birlikte düşünülerek bulanık TOPSIS yöntemi ile belirlenen 26 hata modu için risk sırlaması yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, deniz terminal için en önemli risk faktörünün güvenlik olduğunu göstermiş ve bunu ekonomik ve çevresel faktörler izlemiştir. Sonra, risk faktörlerinin önem ağırlıkları dikkate alınarak bulanık TOPSIS ile hata modlarının risk sıralaması yapılmış ve en riskli hatanın yakıt hattı sızıntısı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bunu sırasıyla hava filtresi tıkanıklığı ve egzoz sisteminde geri basınç olması izlemiştir. Bu çalışma ham petrol terminalinde faaliyet gösteren römorkörler için kapsamlı bir risk değerlendirmesi sunmakta olup ilgili paydaşlar için önemli bir rehber olması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Römorkör Risk analizi Ana makine hatası Bulanık AHP Bulanık TOPSIS

Kaynakça

  • Abdel-Basset, M., Ding, W., Mohamed, R., Metawa, N. (2020). An integrated plithogenic MCDM approach for financial performance evaluation of manufacturing industries. Risk Management, 22(3): 192-218.
  • Ahmad, S., Masood, S., Khan, N. Z., Badruddin, I. A., Ahmadian, A., Khan, Z. A., Khan, A. H. (2023). Analysing the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological health of people using fuzzy MCDM methods. Operations Research Perspectives, 10: 100263.
  • Akyildiz, H., Mentes, A. (2017). An integrated risk assessment based on uncertainty analysis for cargo vessel safety. Safety Science, 92: 34-43.
  • Alarcin, F., Balin, A., Demirel, H. (2014). Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS integrated hybrid method for auxiliary systems of ship main engines. Journal Of Marine Engineering & Technology, 13(1): 3-11.
  • Arıcan, O. H., Kara, E. G. E. (2024). Selection model of chemical tanker ships for cargo types using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 103724.
  • Bhaskar, A. S., Khan, A. (2022). Comparative analysis of hybrid MCDM methods in material selection for dental applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 209: 118268.
  • Başhan, V., Demirel, H., Gul, M. (2020). A novel risk evaluation approach for frequently encountered risks in ship engine rooms. Brodogradnja: An International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering for Research and Development, 71(2): 31-54.
  • Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3): 233-247.
  • Bulut, E., Duru, O., Keçeci, T., Yoshida, S. (2012). Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for generic fuzzy-AHP modeling: A process model for shipping asset management. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(2): 1911-1923.
  • Bulut, M. S., Ordu, M., Der, O., Basar, G. (2024). Sustainable thermoplastic material selection for hybrid vehicle battery packs in the automotive industry: a comparative multi-criteria decision-making approach. Polymers, 16(19): 2768.
  • Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3): 649-655.
  • Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1): 1-9.
  • Diagkinis, I., Nikitakos, N. (2013). Application of analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methodology on ships’ maintenance strategies. Journal of Polish Safety and Reliability Association, 4(1): 21-28.
  • Elsayed, T., Marghany, K., Abdulkader, S. (2014). Risk assessment of liquefied natural gas carriers using fuzzy TOPSIS. Ships and Offshore Structures, 9(4): 355-364.
  • Emovon, I. (2016). Ship system maintenance strategy selection based on DELPHI-AHP-TOPSIS methodology. World Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(2): 252.
  • Ertuğrul, İ., Karakaşoğlu, N. (2009). Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1): 702-715.
  • Fan, S., Zhang, J., Blanco-Davis, E., Yang, Z., Yan, X. (2020). Maritime accident prevention strategy formulation from a human factor perspective using Bayesian Networks and TOPSIS. Ocean Engineering, 210: 107544.
  • Hwang, CL., Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 186, Springer, Berlin.
  • Kim, S. W., Wall, A., Wang, J., Kwon, Y. S. (2008). Application of AHP to fire safety based decision making of a passenger ship. Opsearch, 45: 249-262.
  • Koznowski, W., Łebkowski, A. (2022). Analysis of hull shape impact on energy consumption in an electric port tugboat. Energies, 15(1): 339.
  • Lebedevas, S., Norkevičius, L., Zhou, P. (2021). Investigation of effect on environmental performance of using LNG as fuel for engines in seaport tugboats. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(2): 123.
  • Li, H. B., Hao, Y. L., Yu, H. Y. (2010). A study of ship integrated navigation system risk assessment based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. In 2010 International Conference on Educational and Network Technology, June 2010, pp. 305-308, IEEE.
  • Nădăban, S., Dzitac, S., Dzitac, I. (2016). Fuzzy TOPSIS: a general view. Procedia Computer Science, 91: 823-831.
  • Nguyen, H. (2009). The application of the AHP method in ship system risk estimation. Polish Maritime Research, 78-82.
  • Ordu, M., Der, O. (2023). Polymeric materials selection for flexible pulsating heat pipe manufacturing using a comparative hybrid MCDM approach. Polymers, 15(13): 2933.
  • Ordu, M., Tekman, N. (2024). A Macroeconomic Investigation of the Organization of Turkic States by a Hybrid Decision-Making Approach. In: “Decision Making Approaches from a Macroeconomic Perspective” (Editor: M. Ordu). pp. 37-52, BIDGE Publications, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Özdemir, Ü., Altinpinar, İ., Demirel, F. B. (2018). A MCDM approach with fuzzy AHP method for occupational accidents on board. TransNav, International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 12(1): 93-98.
  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(11): 1073-1076.
  • Tonoğlu, F., Atalar, F., Başkan, İ. B., Yildiz, S., Uğurlu, Ö., Wang, J. (2022). A new hybrid approach for determining sector-specific risk factors in Turkish Straits: Fuzzy AHP-PRAT technique. Ocean Engineering, 253: 111280.
  • Türk, A., Özkök, M. (2020). Shipyard location selection based on fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 39(3): 4557-4576.
  • Türk, A., Özkök, M. (2022). A Comprehensive Risk Assessment Analysis of Accidental Falls in Shipyards Using the Gaussian Fuzzy AHP Model. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 10(4).
  • Ünver, B., Altın, İ., Gürgen, S. (2021). Risk ranking of maintenance activities in a two-stroke marine diesel engine via fuzzy AHP method. Applied Ocean Research, 111: 102648.
  • Van Laarhoven, P. J., Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3): 229-241.
  • Wan, J., Baumler, R., Dalaklis, D. (2024). Identifying key safety investments needed for arctic shipping via a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach. Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping, 8(4): 2422710.
  • Wan, Y., Chen, H., Wang, M. (2022). Risk Assessment of Petrochemical ships based on FAHP-TOPSIS. In ISCTT 2022; 7th International Conference on Information Science, Computer Technology and Transportation, May 2022, pp. 1-5, VDE.
  • Yeo, S., Jeong, B., Lee, W. J. (2023). Improved formal safety assessment methodology using fuzzy TOPSIS for LPG-fueled marine engine system. Ocean Engineering, 269: 113536.
  • Zhang, H., Peng, Y., Tian, G., Wang, D., Xie, P. (2017). Green material selection for sustainability: A hybrid MCDM approach. Plos One, 12(5): e0177578.
  • Zhao, H., Wang, Y., Guo, S. (2023). A hybrid MCDM model combining Fuzzy-Delphi, AEW, BWM, and MARCOS for digital economy development comprehensive evaluation of 31 provincial level regions in China. Plos One, 18(4): e0283655.
  • Ziquan, X., Jiaqi, Y., Naseem, M. H., Zuquan, X. (2021). Occupational health and safety risk assessment of cruise ship construction based on improved intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS decision model. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021(1): 5966711.
Toplam 39 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Gemi Ana ve Yardımcı Makineleri
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Samet Gürgen 0000-0001-7036-8829

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 16 Haziran 2025
Yayımlanma Tarihi
Gönderilme Tarihi 22 Nisan 2025
Kabul Tarihi 22 Mayıs 2025
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2025 Erken Görünüm Makaleler

Kaynak Göster

APA Gürgen, S. (2025). Evaluation of Environmental, Economic and Safety Impacts of Main Engine Failures of Terminal Tugboats by Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods. Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences1-13. https://doi.org/10.52998/trjmms.1681535

Creative Commons Lisansı

This Journal is licensed with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).