2836-7863ISSN (Online)
Volume 2 , Issue 1 , PP: 59-68, 2023 | Cite this article as | XML | Html | PDF | Full Length Article
Hadeer Mahmoud 1 * , Ahmed Abdelhafeez 2
Doi: https://doi.org/10.54216/NIF.020105
It is possible for a natural catastrophe to cause harm to numerous industrial facilities in the same region simultaneously. The natural catastrophe's Natech events may then affect the industrial facilities that are located nearby, so creating a coupling risk. The evaluation of the danger of Natech events coupling is conducted using the technique of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodology in this investigation. Additionally, the concept of spherical fuzzy is presented as a means of resolving the issue of ambiguity associated with the Natech coupling risk. The Natech Coupling Hazard Index is designed to include both tangible and operational resources in its calculations. The idea of an equal population is being floated as a means of contrasting the dangers presented by physical facilities with those posed by functional amenities. The spherical fuzzy set is an effective method for coping with ambiguity since it presents a broader decision-making region and identifies reluctance. under this paper, a fuzzy MDCM technique using spherical fuzzy AHP is proposed as a solution to the challenge of managing the selection of process mining methods under settings that are unclear and vague. The AHP method is used to compute the weights of criteria and shows the rank and order of alternatives. The application is performed in steps of the spherical fuzzy AHP method.
Spherical Fuzzy , AHP , MCDM , Natech , Risk Assessment , Climate Change , ,
[1] S. Girgin and E. Krausmann, “RAPID-N: Rapid natech risk assessment and mapping framework,” J. loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 949–960, 2013.
[2] M. Naderpour, H. M. Rizeei, N. Khakzad, and B. Pradhan, “Forest fire induced Natech risk assessment: A survey of geospatial technologies,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 191, p. 106558, 2019.
[3] S. Girgin, A. Necci, and E. Krausmann, “Dealing with cascading multi-hazard risks in national risk assessment: The case of Natech accidents,” Int. J. disaster risk Reduct., vol. 35, p. 101072, 2019.
[4] A. M. Cruz and N. Okada, “Methodology for preliminary assessment of Natech risk in urban areas,” Nat. Hazards, vol. 46, pp. 199–220, 2008.
[5] L. J. Steinberg, H. Sengul, and A. M. Cruz, “Natech risk and management: an assessment of the state of the art,” Nat. Hazards, vol. 46, pp. 143–152, 2008.
[6] E. Krausmann and D. Baranzini, “Natech risk reduction in the European Union,” J. Risk Res., vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1027–1047, 2012.
[7] Y. Gao, G. Cao, L. Hu, J. Bi, and Z. Ma, “Spatially resolved risk assessment of Natech in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China,” Process Saf. Environ. Prot., vol. 159, pp. 1039–1052, 2022.
[8] V. Caratozzolo, A. Misuri, and V. Cozzani, “A generalized equipment vulnerability model for the quantitative risk assessment of horizontal vessels involved in Natech scenarios triggered by floods,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 223, p. 108504, 2022.
[9] M. Kumasaki, T. Hara, N. Nakajima, Y. Wada, and R. Makino, “The classification of physical effects from natural hazards for Natech risk assessment based on a Japanese database,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 50, pp. 308–316, 2017.
[10] S. Girgin and E. Krausmann, “Rapid Natech Risk assessment and mapping tool for earthquakes: Rapid-N,” Chem. Eng., vol. 26, 2012.
[11] A. Misuri, G. Antonioni, and V. Cozzani, “Quantitative risk assessment of domino effect in Natech scenarios triggered by lightning,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 64, p. 104095, 2020.
[12] G. Kabir, H. Suda, A. M. Cruz, F. M. Giraldo, and S. Tesfamariam, “Earthquake-related Natech risk assessment using a Bayesian belief network model,” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 725–739, 2019.
[13] A. M. Cruz and M. C. Suarez-Paba, “Advances in Natech research: An overview,” Prog. Disaster Sci., vol. 1, p. 100013, 2019.
[14] F. Kutlu Gündoğdu and C. Kahraman, “Spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and its application to industrial robot selection,” in Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making: Proceedings of the INFUS 2019 Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, July 23-25, 2019, Springer, 2020, pp. 988–996.
[15] I. M. Sharaf, “Global supplier selection with spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,” Decis. Mak. with Spherical Fuzzy Sets Theory Appl., pp. 323–348, 2021.
[16] O. Dogan, “Process mining technology selection with spherical fuzzy AHP and sensitivity analysis,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 178, p. 114999, 2021.
[17] M. Mathew, R. K. Chakrabortty, and M. J. Ryan, “A novel approach integrating AHP and TOPSIS under spherical fuzzy sets for advanced manufacturing system selection,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 96, p. 103988, 2020.
[18] P. T. Kieu, V. T. Nguyen, V. T. Nguyen, and T. P. Ho, “A spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (SF-AHP) and combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) algorithm in distribution center location selection: A case study in agricultural supply chain,” Axioms, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 53, 2021.
[19] E. Ayyildiz and A. Taskin Gumus, “A novel spherical fuzzy AHP-integrated spherical WASPAS methodology for petrol station location selection problem: a real case study for İstanbul,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 27, no. 29, pp. 36109–36120, 2020.
[20] E. Ayyildiz and A. Taskin, “A novel spherical fuzzy AHP-VIKOR methodology to determine serving petrol station selection during COVID-19 lockdown: A pilot study for İstanbul,” Socioecon. Plann. Sci., vol. 83, p. 101345, 2022.
[21] P.-H. Nguyen, J.-F. Tsai, M.-H. Lin, and Y.-C. Hu, “A hybrid model with spherical fuzzy-ahp, pls-sem and ann to predict vaccination intention against COVID-19,” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 23, p. 3075, 2021.
[22] B. Oztaysi, S. C. Onar, and C. Kahraman, “A dynamic pricing model for location based systems by using spherical fuzzy AHP scoring,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 6293–6302, 2020.
[23] B. Buran and M. Erçek, “Public transportation business model evaluation with Spherical and Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP and sensitivity analysis,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 204, p. 117519, 2022.
[24] M. Jaller and I. Otay, “Evaluating sustainable vehicle technologies for freight transportation using spherical fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS,” in Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques: Smart and Innovative Solutions: Proceedings of the INFUS 2020 Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, July 21-23, 2020, Springer, 2021, pp. 118–126.
[25] J. Wang and W. Weng, “Methodology for Natech coupling risk assessment using correlative multi-criteria decision-making method,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., p. 105060, 2023.
[26] J. Wang and W. Weng, “A simplified methodology for rapid Natech risk assessment of flood-wind-hail multi-hazard scenario,” Nat. Hazards, pp. 1–23, 2023.
[27] F. Kutlu Gündoğdu and C. Kahraman, “A novel spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its renewable energy application,” Soft Comput., vol. 24, pp. 4607–4621, 2020.
