Special Issue Article

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/qre.1908 Published online in Wiley Online Library

Occupational Health and Safety Within the

Scope of Risk Analysis with Fuzzy Proportional
Risk Assessment Technique (Fuzzy Prat)
Aliye Ayca Supciller*† and Nilsu Abali
The increase in industrialization necessitates risk analysis with a legal obligation all over the world. Therefore, risk analysis is
very important for the safety culture of a company. Many qualitative and quantitative risk analysis methods contain
subjective elements and uncertainty. In this study, risk analysis with the fuzzy proportional risk assessment technique (PRAT)
is proposed for the first time to overcome the drawbacks of the conventional PRAT method. Three parameters, probability,
frequency, and severity, are fuzzified by using appropriate membership functions. If-then rules and fuzzy logic operations are
defined, and then, an inference is made to determine the riskiness. After defuzzification, the risk score is determined for each
defined event. The results of conventional PRAT and fuzzy PRAT are compared in a case study carried out in a textile
company that manufactures towels and bathrobes. Risk analysis based on fuzzy operations provides more precise
measurements than the conventional risk analysis method employed by PRAT. Fuzzy PRAT provides more detailed risk
analysis results, allows a direct interpretation of the risks with clusters of clear intervals, and produces a more realistic
dataset than conventional PRAT. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: risk analysis; proportional risk assessment technique; fuzzy; textile; safety

1. Introduction
isk is defined as the potential for losses due to uncertain exposure to a hazard or an uncertain event, which may be injury, death,

R damage, or destruction.1–3 Therefore, risk analysis is a crucial instrument for the safety policy of an organization. Risk analysis is a
procedure that takes steps to identify and evaluate all possible risks with many appropriate techniques for any condition.4 Risk
estimation is the most important part for the evaluation of potential dangers in the workplace, particularly in industrial and
construction workplaces that have unsteady work conditions.5 The literature on risk analysis and assessment methods has been
reviewed by Marhavilas et al.8 for the period 2000–2009. Risk analysis methods are effective tools to manage uncertainty. Many
qualitative and quantitative risk analysis methods contain subjective elements. This subjectivity can be quantified using fuzzy logic.9
In this study, a quantitative method, the proportional risk assessment technique (PRAT) developed by Fine and Kinney,6 is further
expanded to integrate fuzzy logic operations.3,5,7 PRAT is easy to apply to any workplace and gives the ability to produce numerical
results, such as the risk score, unlike the qualitative methods. Despite such advantages, the method relies heavily on the results of the
analyst’s experience and assessment as well as other subjective and qualitative metrics. As such, the use of fuzzy approaches can
potentially make the analysis more logical and consistent.10 However, according to the literature, PRAT has not been integrated with
fuzzy logic. Thus, risk analysis with fuzzy PRAT is proposed for the first time in this study.
The remainder of the study is structured as follows: Section 2 is devoted to the integrated studies of risk analysis with fuzzy logic.
Section 3 presents PRAT and the proposed method. Section 4 presents a case study in which risk analysis is performed using the
proposed fuzzy PRAT. Section 5 presents a sensitivity analysis for the defuzzification methods. Finally, the results of PRAT and fuzzy PRAT
are compared and discussed.

2. Literature
According to the recent literature, fuzzy logic is applied to many areas of research involving the field of risk, such as risk analysis, risk
management, asset liability management and insurance, option pricing, and economics. The applications include the replacement of

Industrial Engineering, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey

1137

*Correspondence to: Aliye Ayca Supciller, Pamukkale University, Industrial Engineering, Denizli, Turkey.
†
E-mail: asupciller@pau.edu.tr

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
 A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

classical sets with fuzzy sets and implementations of the fuzzy logic system or the hybrid model.48 Marhavilas et al.8 classified the
literature of the period 2000–2009 for risk analysis and assessment methods. Most of the studies in the literature have focused on
the integration of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) with the fuzzy logic approach. Wang et al.15 reviewed the literature for
the applications of fuzzy logic in FMEA and analyzed the problems.
Manufacturing plants bear risk due to the nature of the jobs involved. Braglia et al.11 integrated FMEA and fuzzy logic and compared
them in a flour milling plant. For the paper mill industry, Sharma et al.12 integrated fuzzy logic and an expert database with FMEA. They
developed a fuzzy linguistic assessment model and provided an alternate ranking to that obtained by the conventional model. Liu
et al.18 developed a risk assessment method using a fuzzy hybrid operator to improve the power of the classic FMEA for developing
a new horizontal directional drilling machine. Mure` and Demichela46 developed a model based on the fuzzy logic approach to
quantify the risk of occupational accidents for different workplace activities and determine the most effective measures to reduce risks.
They carried out an application in an industrial steel company with real accident records. Yeh and Chen20 replaced severity and
detection with linguistic fuzzy variables in the failure mode of FMEA for re-computation. They used the proposed methodology to
explain potential failure modes in semiconductor wafer manufacturing processes. Tay and Lim13 proposed a general technique to
facilitate fuzzy logic-based FMEA by decreasing the number of rules. The proposed approach was presented through three real-world
case studies relating a semiconductor manufacturing process and a demonstration of the advantages of the fuzzy logic approach.
The risk assessment of occupational hazards is also very important for the construction industry. Akyıldız et al.23 used the results of a
survey in the construction industry and identified the risks by using fuzzy logic. Gurcanli and Mungen24 developed a fuzzy rule-based
system in the construction industry and compared it with the decision matrix risk assessment technique. Gurcanli and Mungen47 proposed
a fuzzy rule-based model for risk assessment to address uncertain and insufficient data for accidents in construction sites. Liu and Tsai49
integrated three approaches, quality function deployment, fuzzy analytic network process, and fuzzy FMEA to present a systematic risk
assessment framework. They represented the relationships among construction items, hazard types, and hazard causes with two-stage
tables, identified the most important hazard types and hazard causes with the fuzzy analytic network process, and assessed the risk value
of hazard causes with fuzzy FMEA. They applied the fuzzy set theory to address the subjectivity aspect of the construction industry. Pinto
et al.50 discussed using fuzzy set approaches to handle occupational risk assessment in the construction industry.
There are many other areas involving risk such as offshore operations. Cieślak27 proposed an application of the fuzzy logic theory
to analyze the risk of failure of a drinking water technical system. They utilized membership functions as the risk parameters in the
fuzzy logic theory. Duminică et al.17 compared FMEA and fuzzy FMEA methods using an application based on water meter risks.
For environmental risks, Darbra et al.26 discussed how to address uncertainties in environmental risk assessment with fuzzy logic
methods. They mentioned membership functions and linguistic variables while utilizing the fuzzy logic approach. Zlateva et al.29
analyzed risk using fuzzy logic for natural disasters in Bulgaria. For project management, Ingle et al.28 presented a fuzzy risk
assessment model for project managers in the software industry. As an electronic commerce application, Ngai and Wat22 developed
a Web-based prototype model for risk analysis with a fuzzy set approach. Boc et al.30 presented an application of fuzzy logic for risk
management and explained the advantages of fuzzy logic in the practical application of transportation and communication systems.
Mandal and Maiti19 proposed a fuzzy numerical technique combining the use of similarity value measurements of fuzzy numbers with
the possibility theory to address the problems of crisp FMEA and fuzzy FMEA. They utilized crane operation steps to demonstrate the
proposed methodology. Zolotukhin and Gudmestad21 used the fuzzy sets theory method for qualitative and quantitative risk
assessment during some offshore tow operations.
Safety is the most important factor for nuclear power, electric, or petrochemical plants. For a nuclear engineering system risk
application, Guimaraes and Lapa14 used a fuzzy inference system and developed a ranking FMEA to analyze risk. They compared
conventional FMEA with ranking FMEA based on the fuzzy approach. The results showed that a more accurate ranking could be reached
by using the fuzzy rule base with FMEA. Rastogi and Gabbar37 proposed a five-step safety verification framework and used PRAT to
calculate the value of total risk in an application for nuclear power plants. In the study, they used fuzzy rules in the safety verification step
to evaluate the safety of the process. Wu et al.33 developed a new method based on the fuzzy set theory to analyze the risks of corrosion
failures in refining and petrochemical equipment. The proposed method was established on the fuzzy synthetic evaluation and fuzzy logic.
Most of the literature has focused on FMEA; however, few papers have addressed PRAT. Marhavilas et al.34 presented a hybrid risk
assessment procedure with a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods using the decision matrix risk assessment method
and PRAT. They applied the new approach to Greek Public Power Corporation by using occupational accidents recorded over the 12-
year period 1993–2004. Marhavilas and Koulouriotis35 proposed a combination of PRAT, time-series stochastic processes, and the
societal risk estimation method. They carried out the application on the Greek Public Electric Power Corporation by using the data
on undesirable events and accidents recorded during a period of 17 years between 1993 and 2009. Marhavilas and Koulouriotis36
classified the main risk analysis and assessment methods according to the deterministic and stochastic approaches. The authors
proposed a new method with the combination of a stochastic time at risk failure model and a deterministic PRAT. They applied
the proposed method to the Greek Public Electric Power Corporation by using a real occupational accident dataset. According to
the literature, PRAT has not yet been integrated with fuzzy logic. Thus, this approach has been carried out for the first time.
There are other risk assessment methods combined with fuzzy logic approaches. Pokorádi9 combined fuzzy logic with risk
assessment by using the weighted mean of the maximum defuzzification method. Deng et al.16 proposed a new risk analysis
technique based on fuzzy numbers with an application of the new arithmetic operations. Chen and Chen25 proposed a technique
to measure the similarity between interval-valued fuzzy numbers to address risk analysis. Shankar et al.31 developed a new method
based on ranking fuzzy numbers to address the problems of fuzzy risk analysis. They proposed a ranking method based on the
1138

orthocenter of centroids and a new method based on ranking fuzzy numbers to address fuzzy risk analysis. Abul-Haggag and
Barakat32 presented a fuzzy model to solve the uncertainties emerging at every stage of the risk assessment process.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Risk analysis and assessment methods
Risk is defined as the potential for losses due to uncertain exposure to a hazard or an uncertain event,3 which may be injury, death,
damage, or destruction. Risk is a measure of injury or loss related to human activity.43 Many workers are at risk of harm from work for a
variety of reasons. Workplace accidents increase the costs of social healthcare and insurance systems. Occupational accidents arise
from unsafe behavior and/or unsafe conditions. Most workplace accidents are preventable through safety management. Therefore,
risk analysis is very important for the safety culture of a company. Risk analysis is a method to determine potential events that
may cause danger or accidents. It is the methodical use of information to identify hazards and estimate the risk.34 The main purpose
is to remove any damage potential in the workplace.8 Figure 1 shows the relationship among risk analysis, risk assessment, and risk
management.
Marhavilas et al.8 classified the main risk analysis and assessment methods into three main groups as seen in Figure 2: qualitative,
quantitative, and hybrid techniques. The qualitative techniques use analytical estimation depending on the ability of safety experts. In
the quantitative techniques, risk is expressed as a mathematical relation. Because the hybrid techniques are very complicated, they
are not commonly used.

3.2. The proportional risk assessment technique

In this study, a quantitative risk assessment technique, PRAT, is used to analyze the risks. PRAT3, 5
7 uses an equation to compute the
risk proportionally. In this method, a specific risk score is computed as the product of three parameters as follows5:

Risk ¼ Probability ðPÞSeverity ðSÞFrequency ðF Þ (1)

Equation (1) is a logical inference based on the prioritization of hazards. There are three parameters: probability (P) is the
probability of a hazard to occur when exposed, frequency (F) is the rate of exposure to the hazard, and severity (S) is the severity
of injury linked to the hazard. In this technique, the validity of risk is clearly a function of the validity related to the values of the three
parameters. Therefore, the right information must be obtained from the workplaces by discussing the working practices of the
workers.1
The graphical representation of PRAT is given in Table I. The parameters used in this study are determined by using the values in
the scales given in Table I. The risks are first calculated by using Eq. (1), and the calculations are then rated according to the gradation
of the risk scores listed in Table II.

1139

Figure 1. A simplified relationship among risk analysis, risk assessment, and risk management43

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
 A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

Figure 2. Classification of the main risk analysis and assessment methodologies8

Table I. Graphical representation of proportional risk assessment technique

R = Probability × Frequency × Severity
P Probability of the risk F Duration of the exposure to danger S Size of the potential impact

10 Can be expected, almost surely 10 Constantly 100 Disastrous, many fatalities

6 Very possible 6 Every day, during working hours 40 Disaster, several fatalities
3 Unusual, but possible 3 Weekly or occasionally 15 Seriously, 1 fatality
1 Only possible on longer duration 2 Monthly 7 Significant, life-threatening injuries
0.5 Very unlikely 1 A few times per year 3 Important
0.2 Virtually impossible 0.5 Very rare 1 First aid needed

Table II. Gradation of the risk scores

R = Probability × Frequency × Severity

R Risk Action required

>400 Very high risk Stop work and ensure that the risk is eliminated immediately
200–400 High Immediate action required. Ensure that risk is eliminated immediately
70–200 Extensive Correction is required. Ensure that the risk is reduced. Report risk to manager immediately
20–70 Potential Risk requires attention
1140

<20 Readily No attention required.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

3.3. The proposed method: fuzzy risk analysis methodology with proportional risk assessment technique
In this study, a new method that integrates fuzzy risk analysis with PRAT is proposed. Zadeh (1965) introduced the fuzzy sets theory
with the objective of providing a mathematical tool for the treatment of imprecise information.38 In this study, three parameters,
probability, frequency, and severity, are fuzzified with the use of appropriate membership functions to determine the degree of
membership in each input class. First, the inputs are evaluated in the inference engine followed by defining the if-then rules and fuzzy
logic operations, and then an inference is made to determine the riskiness. Finally, the result is defuzzified, and the risk score is
obtained for every event. The model is developed by using the fuzzy logic toolbox in MATLAB. The general architecture of this model
with its main parts is shown in Figure 3.

3.3.1. Fuzzification. Fuzzification converts crisp inputs into a membership degree, which explains how well the input relates to the
linguistic terms.12 The membership functions are constructed with the use of the fuzzy logic toolbox in MATLAB for both inputs and
outputs. The linguistic input terms are determined according to Table I and quantified with the triangular membership functions
presented in Figure 4. For defuzzification, membership functions of output variables are given in Figure 5.

3.3.2. Fuzzy rule base. Qualified experts often have an idea about the risks for many kinds of failures. For the expression of this
knowledge, the rule base summarizes the information based on experts’ decisions and knowledge in the form of simple ‘if-then’
rules.39–41
The rule base is created based on Eq. (2)42:

number of rules ¼ ab ; (2)

where a is the number of linguistic terms (low, moderate, or high) and b is the number of input clusters (probability, severity, or
frequency). A section of the rules created in MATLAB is given in Figure 6.

Figure 3. System architecture of fuzzy linguistic model

Figure 4. Membership function for input variables (probability, severity, and frequency)
1141

Figure 5. Membership function for output variables

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
 A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

Figure 6. Format of rules framed on fuzzy inference system

3.3.3. Fuzzy inference system. The fundamental operation of fuzzy inference is the ‘compositional rule of inference’ proposed by
Zadeh.10 Using inference allows us to obtain an output fuzzy set from the set of rules and the input variables.
In this study, the ‘Mamdani max-min inference method’ is employed because it is known to be the most commonly used method
to model human expert knowledge. In this method, the min operator is for the conjunction of the rule and the fuzzy implication,
whereas the max operator is for the aggregation of the rules.12

3.3.4. Defuzzification. Defuzzification is the procedure by which a solution set is changed into a single crisp value. It is the
process of conversion from fuzzy membership functions to crisp formats.39 The fuzzy logic solution set is in the format of a
function, relating the value of the result to the degree of membership. The entire range of possible solutions may be included
in the fuzzy solution set. Defuzzification helps extract an easily understandable answer from the set. There are many different
methods of defuzzification.12,39 The centroid method (center of area or center of gravity), one of the most common methods,
chooses the value corresponding to the center of gravity for the solution set. The bisector method produces a value that will split
the area of the solution set in half. Three other methods of defuzzification focus on the maximum membership value reached by
the solution set. The maximum value of the solution set is often a range of values rather than a point value. The smallest of
maxima (SOM) method chooses the lowest value at which the highest membership value is reached. Similarly, the middle of
maxima (MOM) method chooses the middle value, and the largest of maxima (LOM) method chooses the largest value at which
the largest membership value is found.
Many other methods of defuzzification have been proposed in the literature in recent years. Basic general methods can be
extended with one or more parameters on one hand, and they are modified for speed into specific methods on the other hand.12,51
According to Fayek and Sun’s study, the defuzzification method is the most sensitive of the calculation parameters.44 The objective of
the model will have an impact on the choice of defuzzification methods.45
In this study, the centroid method is used for defuzzification and is given by:

∫y μB′ ðy Þydy
x¼ ; (3)
∫y μB′ ðy Þdy

where x is the defuzzified value, B′ is the output fuzzy set, and μB′ is the membership function.39

4. Case study
In this paper, a case study was carried out in a textile company that manufactures towels and bathrobes. After an investigation of
previous data on accidents and undesirable events with the help of an occupational safety expert and two workers, risk analysis
was applied. The steps of the case study are as follows:
Step 1: Application of risk analysis with PRAT
To determine the sources of the hazards, the company was visited several times, and the project group talked with the workers.
Based on the interviews with the expert and the workers, the most significant hazard sources, such as the loom machines pictured
in Figure 7, were identified for the company.
In total, 37 hazard sources were derived, and the probability, frequency, and severity parameters were determined by using
the metrics in Table I. The risk scores of these three parameters were calculated by using Eq. (1) and the values listed in Table I.
The required actions were then determined by using the risk scores and the gradations listed in Table II. A section of risk analysis
is presented in Table III in which each event ID belongs to the risk analysis event discussed. In this table, the department refers to
the place where the activity occurs. In the case that the activity is a general or realized activity and thus can be performed in any
department, the department is not specified. In the table, each event ID represents a different activity/hazard pair that can occur
in the workplace. For instance, in Event ID: 2, the activity is walking and the hazard is slippery floors, whereas in Event ID: 8, the
1142

activity is using a certain machine and the hazard is the noise. The damage, given in the ninth column of Table II, is any type of
injury resulting from the corresponding hazard. For instance, the damage of Event ID: 8 is loss of hearing as a result of the noise

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

Figure 7. Loom machines in the textile company

hazard. In the last column of the table, actions to be taken against the hazards are indicated. An example of such an action is to
use compulsory ear protection equipment in event ID: 8 against the hazard of noise.
Step 2: Fuzzification: Creation of the fuzzy linguistic assessment model by using the data obtained from PRAT
After the application of risk analysis, the fuzzy linguistic assessment model given in Figure 8 was constructed in the fuzzy logic
toolbox platform of MATLAB 7.8 software.
The values of the inputs of the fuzzy inference model, probability, severity, and frequency, were obtained from Table I. The value of
the input was determined by using the linguistic terms, low, moderate, and high, whereas the output obtained from the model is the
risk score.

Step 3: Definition of fuzzy rule base

The rule base was created by using Eq. (2) in the fuzzy logic toolbox. According to this model, the values of a (low, moderate, and
high) and b (probability, severity, and frequency) were both set to 3. The rule base, given in Table IV, consists of 27 (33) rules. The
output cluster consists of five triangles representing very low, low, moderate, high, and very high.
Several defined rules are given as follows:

Rule 1: If probability is low and severity is low and frequency is low, then the risk score is very low.

Rule 2: If probability is low and severity is moderate and frequency is moderate, then the risk score is low.

Step 4: Normalization
Once the fuzzy model was established, the normalization of the inputs was performed to obtain triangular and equally spaced
fuzzy sets. In this step, the probability, severity, and frequency values were all normalized. The probability values used in this step
are: 0.2, 0.5, 1, 3, 6, and 10 as listed in Table I. Because these probability values are not consecutive, they were normalized within
the range of [0, 1] by using:
x
x min
xn ¼ ; (4)
x max
x min

where xn is the normalized probability value, x is the probability value, xmin is the minimum value of probability, and xmax is the
maximum value of probability. The normalized probability values determined by Eq. (4) are as follows: 0, 0.03, 0.08, 0.29, 0.6, and 1.
The same procedure was then performed for the frequency and severity values. Eventually, fuzzy sets in the model were formed to
be within the range [0, 1].

Step 5: Defuzzification: Obtaining the fuzzy risk scores

The normalized values of probability, severity, and frequency for 37 hazard sources were entered into the ‘input’ tab as
demonstrated in Figure 9. The fuzzy risk scores were then obtained as it was explained in Section 3.3.4.

Step 6: The results and comparison of the two methods

The results obtained from conventional PRAT and fuzzy PRAT are given in Table V, and the rankings of the risk scores are given in
1143

Table VI.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
 1144

Table III. A section of risk analysis

Event Risk
ID Department Activity Hazard Probability Severity Frequency score Damage Action required

1 — Entrance-exit The overthrow 3 40 0.5 60 Injury/death Sliding entrance doors for some
of the sliding reason, such as wind or vehicle,
door to avoid tipping strike,
protection should be at the top
of the reverse L-shaped solid.
2 — Walking Slippery floors 3 40 2 240 Injury/fire/ Slippery floors cleaned
death immediately or sawdust must be

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

laid and floor must be non-slip.
3 — Sandblasting Stone explosion 3 15 2 90 Broken limb To employees training should be
come out or loss of limb given and the use of personal
flange protective equipment should be
provided.
4 Maintenance Work on Stone 3 15 2 90 Broken limb Grindstone must be attached to
Workshop grindstone explosion or loss of limb the side flaps so that the stone
can avoid explosion.
Furthermore, employees must
use protective equipment.
5 Maintenance Operation of Air tank 1 100 0.5 50 Death Periodic checks at least once a
Workshop the explosion year, and pressure test should be
compressor performed so that the explosion
should be avoided.
6 — Maintenance Fire flash 3 100 1 300 Blowout/ Oxy-acetylene tools must be
work in explosion death installed flame flashback
factory arrestors
7 Warehouse Storage of Due to the 3 100 1 300 Injury/death Pressurized gas cylinders must
oxygen tubes tipping tube be fixed to the wall with an
explosion apparatus.
8 — Using Noise 6 15 6 540 Hearing loss Use of ear protection equipment
machinery should be mandatory.
9 Thread Using Dust 6 15 3 270 Occupational Personal protective mask use for
machinery disease dust and an effective ventilation
system must be installed.
10 — Working on Due to the 3 40 1 120 Death Electric panels covered with
electrical uninsulated insulating material and all panels
panels panels workers should be placed in leakage
exposed to relay.
leakage
current
A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150

A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

Figure 8. The fuzzy linguistic assessment model

Table IV. The rule base

‘IF-THEN’ rules Frequency low Frequency moderate Frequency high
Probability low Severity low Very low Very low Low
Severity moderate Very low Low Moderate
Severity high Low Moderate High
Probability moderate Severity low Very low Low Moderate
Severity moderate Low Moderate High
Severity high Moderate High Very high
Probability high Severity low Low Moderate High
Severity moderate Moderate High Very high
Severity high High Very high Very high

Figure 9. The program interface

5. Sensitivity analysis
To further reduce the subjectivity, we used a sensitivity analysis, which allowed us to obtain different risk scores with risk analysis
based on a fuzzy inference system by different defuzzification methods. We chose the most common defuzzification methods and
obtained different results with the help of the MATLAB fuzzy logic toolbox. The sensitivity analysis was performed by iterating the
fuzzy inference procedure completely changing only one defuzzification method at a time, keeping all other variables at their
baseline values, and thus applying five different scenarios. In each scenario, the centroid method of defuzzification was replaced with
the bisector method, LOM method, SOM method, and MOM method. The results of the sensitivity analysis, including the risk scores
and sequences of each defuzzification method, are given in Table VII.
In Table VII, the most detailed sequence is obtained with the use of the centroid method, which consists of 26 rankings as seen in Figure 10.
Next, the bisector method has 20 rankings. The other defuzzification methods have been found to have a limited-range ranking, which may
be caused by some events and inputs, such as frequency, severity, and probability, having not been considered. According to the sensitivity
analysis, the centroid method produced better results than the other methods. In the case where event ID: 1 and event ID: 2 are considered,
the outputs have the same value according to MOM, LOM, and SOM, whereas their frequency values are different, such as 0 and 0.16.

6. Discussion
1145

The most important disadvantage of PRAT is that different groups of probability, severity, and frequency may generate the same risk
score even though the risk may imply completely different hazards. There are two different events in Table V. When Event ID: 10 and

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
 A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

Table V. The results of proportional risk assessment technique and fuzzy proportional risk assessment technique
PRAT Fuzzy PRAT
Event Risk Normalized Normalized Normalized Fuzzy risk
ID Probability Severity Frequency score probability severity frequency score

1 3 40 0.5 60 0.29 0.4 0.0 0.227

2 3 40 2 240 0.29 0.4 0.16 0.319
3 3 15 2 90 0.29 0.14 0.16 0.304
4 3 15 2 90 0.29 0.14 0.16 0.34
5 1 100 0.5 50 0.08 1 0.0 0.3
6 3 100 1 300 0.29 1 0.05 0.426
7 3 100 1 300 0.29 1 0.05 0.426
8 6 15 6 540 0.6 0.14 0.6 0.413
9 6 15 3 270 0.6 0.14 0.3 0.389
10 3 40 1 120 0.29 0.4 0.05 0.265
11 3 15 1 45 0.29 0.14 0.05 0.243
12 3 7 1 21 0.29 0.06 0.05 0.222
13 1 100 0.5 50 0.08 1 0.0 0.3
14 6 100 0.5 300 0.6 1 0.0 0.56
15 6 40 0.5 120 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.304
16 1 40 1 40 0.08 0.4 0.05 0.2116
17 6 40 2 480 0.6 0.4 0.16 0.404
18 6 100 2 1200 0.6 1 0.16 0.596
19 3 15 2 90 0.29 0.14 0.16 0.304
20 3 40 1 120 0.29 0.4 0.05 0.265
21 6 15 2 180 0.6 0.14 0.16 0.382
22 1 40 2 80 0.08 0.4 0.16 0.259
23 3 7 2 42 0.29 0.06 0.16 0.254
24 6 7 2 84 0.6 0.06 0.16 0.336
25 1 100 1 100 0.08 1 0.05 0.346
26 3 15 2 90 0.29 0.14 0.16 0.304
27 1 15 2 30 0.08 0.14 0.16 0.257
28 3 100 2 600 0.29 1 0.16 0.482
29 6 100 1 600 0.6 1 0.05 0.563
30 6 40 3 720 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.451
31 6 100 3 1800 0.6 1 0.3 0.652
32 3 100 2 600 0.29 1 0.16 0.482
33 1 40 1 40 0.08 0.4 0.05 0.211
34 6 40 2 480 0.6 0.4 0.16 0.404
35 3 7 2 42 0.29 0.06 0.16 0.254
36 3 7 6 126 0.29 0.06 0.6 0.348
37 3 7 3 63 0.29 0.06 0.3 0.271
PRAT, proportional risk assessment technique.

Event ID: 15 are considered, it is clear that they have values of 3, 40, 1 and 6, 40, 0.5 for probability, severity, and frequency,
respectively. Both events have risk scores of 120 even though these two events are not the same. One possible reason for such poor
quantification of PRAT in this situation is that it ignores the relative importance among probability, severity, and frequency. Ideally,
these three parameters should be represented with equal importance in the model. This can be accomplished with the help of the
fuzzy approach because probability, frequency, and severity factors are evaluated by membership functions in this new approach.
In another case, event ID: 4 and event ID: 15 have the same fuzzy risk score of 0.304. However, PRAT produces 90 for event ID: 4
and 120 for event ID: 15. This implies that event ID: 4 has a lower priority than event ID: 15, which may give a wrong impression,
especially when using uncertain information or knowledge. Furthermore, fuzzy PRAT provides a more accurate ranking compared
with conventional PRAT. According to Table VI, in PRAT, the event with the lowest risk score is ranked 24th. However, in fuzzy PRAT,
the event with the lowest risk score is ranked 26th. This is another case in which a more sensitive result is obtained with the proposed
approach.
Fuzzy PRAT allows a quantitative interpretation of the risks with clusters of clear intervals and produces data that are more realistic
1146

compared with conventional PRAT. When the two methods are compared, risk analysis based on a fuzzy approach gives more precise
measurements than conventional PRAT. For example, in event ID: 33, both probability and frequency have a value of 1 and have the

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

Table VI. Ranking methods

Event ID PRAT risk score Fuzzy PRAT risk score PRAT ranking Fuzzy PRAT ranking
1 60 0.227 18 24
2 240 0.319 9 15
3 90 0.304 14 16
4 90 0.304 14 14
5 50 0.3 19 17
6 300 0.426 7 7
7 300 0.426 7 7
8 540 0.413 5 8
9 270 0.389 8 10
10 120 0.265 12 19
11 45 0.243 20 23
12 21 0.222 24 25
13 50 0.3 19 17
14 300 0.56 7 4
15 120 0.304 12 16
16 40 0.211 22 26
17 480 0.404 6 9
18 1200 0.596 2 2
19 90 0.304 14 16
20 120 0.265 12 19
21 180 0.382 10 11
22 80 0.259 16 20
23 42 0.254 21 22
24 84 0.336 15 14
25 100 0.346 13 13
26 90 0.304 14 16
27 30 0.257 23 21
28 600 0.482 4 5
29 600 0.563 4 3
30 720 0.451 3 6
31 1800 0.652 1 1
32 600 0.482 4 5
33 40 0.211 22 26
34 480 0.404 6 9
35 42 0.254 21 22
36 126 0.348 11 12
37 63 0.271 17 18
PRAT, proportional risk assessment technique.

same degree of importance when conventional PRAT is used. However, when the same event with the proposed approach is
considered, probability and frequency have separate input functions in the fuzzy models; therefore, they have different levels of
importance.
In this study, data obtained from PRAT are subjected to defuzzification using the centroid method with the help of membership
functions, linguistic variables, and a fuzzy rule base. During defuzzification, the importance of probability, severity, and frequency
factors are provided with the linguistic terms. Membership functions and the rule base help obtain the modified results. Therefore,
the proposed approach provides a more detailed risk analysis through a more detailed evaluation of all situations.
Another advantage of the proposed approach is its flexibility. Nonnumeric linguistic terms can be combined with numeric data to
generate the fuzzy rule base, providing a common inference. Near-optimal results can usually be obtained with the proposed
approach. The fuzzy rule base considers every case by producing the maximum number of rules such that the occurrence of
contradictory rules is prevented and the near-optimal results are obtained.
Because risk assessment is fuzzy in nature, a fuzzy model is more convenient to use in order to overcome uncertain or approximate
judgments. The use of the fuzzy model helps for decisions if there are estimated values under incomplete or uncertain information.
Therefore, the linguistic terms are used to easily describe the input data realistically.
Despite the advantages, there are some shortcomings of fuzzy approaches in risk assessment. One example is that the industry
may find the fuzzy applications of risk analysis to be too complex to apply.11 Additionally, there currently is no general approach
to construct reasonable membership functions.43 However, many researchers have used the fuzzy set theory for risk analysis, and
1147

the former studies have shown that the fuzzy approaches are effective methods in risk assessment.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
 1148

Table VII. The results of the sensitivity analysis

PRAT Fuzzy Fuzzy Fuzzy Fuzzy Fuzzy
Event risk PRAT risk score Centroid risk score Bisector risk score MOM risk score LOM risk score SOM
ID score ranking (centroid) ranking (bisector) ranking (MOM) ranking (LOM) ranking (SOM) ranking

1 60 18 0.227 24 0.23 15 0.25 4 0.35 5 0.15 9

2 240 9 0.319 15 0.3 9 0.25 4 0.35 5 0.15 9
3 90 14 0.304 16 0.28 11 0.05 6 0.1 11 0.0 10
4 90 14 0.304 16 0.28 11 0.05 6 0.1 11 0.0 10
5 50 19 0.3 17 0.27 12 0.25 4 0.29 10 0.21 5
6 300 7 0.426 7 0.43 6 0.5 2 0.6 2 0.4 4
7 300 7 0.426 7 0.43 6 0.5 2 0.6 2 0.4 4

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

8 540 5 0.413 8 0.34 7 0.25 4 0.32 8 0.18 7
9 270 8 0.389 10 0.33 8 0.245 5 0.34 6 0.15 9
10 120 12 0.265 19 0.25 14 0.25 4 0.35 5 0.15 9
11 45 20 0.243 23 0.2 18 0.05 6 0.1 11 0.0 10
12 21 24 0.222 25 0.14 19 0.05 6 0.1 11 0.0 10
13 50 19 0.3 17 0.27 12 0.25 4 0.29 10 0.21 5
14 300 7 0.56 4 0.53 3 0.495 3 0.54 4 0.45 2
15 120 12 0.304 16 0.28 11 0.25 4 0.3 9 0.2 6
16 40 22 0.211 26 0.13 20 0.025 8 0.05 13 0.0 10
17 480 6 0.404 9 0.34 7 0.25 4 0.33 7 0.17 8
18 1200 2 0.596 2 0.56 2 0.5 2 0.58 3 0.42 3
19 90 14 0.304 16 0.28 11 0.05 6 0.1 11 0.0 10
20 120 12 0.265 19 0.25 14 0.25 4 0.1 11 0.0 10
21 180 10 0.382 11 0.34 7 0.04 7 0.08 12 0.0 10
22 80 16 0.259 20 0.22 16 0.04 7 0.08 12 0.0 10
23 42 21 0.254 22 0.22 16 0.05 6 0.1 11 0.0 10
24 84 15 0.336 14 0.28 11 0.04 7 0.08 12 0.0 10
25 100 13 0.346 13 0.29 10 0.25 4 0.29 10 0.21 5
26 90 14 0.304 16 0.28 11 0.05 6 0.1 11 0.0 10
27 30 23 0.257 21 0.21 17 0.04 7 0.08 12 0.0 10
28 600 4 0.482 5 0.48 4 0.5 2 0.6 2 0.4 4
29 600 4 0.563 3 0.53 3 0.495 3 0.54 4 0.45 2
30 720 3 0.451 6 0.45 5 0.5 2 0.6 2 0.4 4
31 1800 1 0.652 1 0.67 1 0.75 1 0.85 1 0.65 1
32 600 4 0.482 5 0.48 4 0.5 2 0.6 2 0.4 4
33 40 22 0.211 26 0.13 20 0.025 8 0.05 13 0.0 10
34 480 6 0.404 9 0.34 7 0.25 4 0.33 7 0.17 8
35 42 21 0.254 22 0.22 16 0.05 6 0.1 11 0.0 10
36 126 11 0.348 12 0.3 9 0.25 4 0.35 5 0.15 9
37 63 17 0.271 18 0.26 13 0.25 4 0.35 5 0.15 9
PRAT, proportional risk assessment technique; MOM, middle of maxima; LOM, largest of maxima; SOM, smallest of maxima.
A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150

A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

30

25

20 PRAT Ranking
Centroid Ranking

15 Bisector Ranking
MOM Ranking
10 LOM Ranking
SOM Ranking
5

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

Figure 10. The ranking results of the defuzzification methods

7. Conclusions
In this study, risk analysis with fuzzy PRAT is proposed for the first time to overcome the drawbacks of conventional PRAT. The
proposed method is applied through a case study in a textile manufacturing company. First, quantitative risk analysis is carried out
by using PRAT. Then, using the parameters of PRAT, a fuzzy approach based on a fuzzy inference system has been involved in the
risk analysis. The fuzzy PRAT allows the interpretation of the risks more realistically by considering the relative importance among
probability, severity, and frequency. With the use of the proposed technique, a more accurate ranking is obtained that corrects the
deficiencies of the conventional model by its fuzzy approach. This proposed method can be even further improved with the
integration of newly developed fuzzy approaches in the future. Furthermore, risk analysis can be combined with a text mining tool,
such as correspondence analysis, by using association rules with the help of available software programs, including SPSS, SAS, SIMSAT,
and R.

References
1. Reniers GLL, Dullaert W, Ale BJM, Soudan K. Developing an external domino prevention framework: Hazwim. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries 2005; 18:127–138.
2. Woodruff JM. Consequence and likelihood in risk estimation: a matter of balance in UK health and safety risk assessment practice. Safety Science
2005; 43:345–353.
3. Ayyub BM. Risk analysis in engineering and economics. Chapman & Hall/CRC 2003; ISBN 1-58488-39-2.
4. Reniers GLL, Dullaert W, Ale BJM, Soudan K. The use of current risk analysis tools evaluated towards preventing external domino accidents. Journal
of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2005; 18:119–126.
5. Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis D. A risk-estimation methodological framework using quantitative assessment techniques and real accidents’ data:
application in an aluminum extrusion industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2008; 21:596–603.
6. Fine WT, Kinney WD. Mathematical evaluation for controlling hazards. Journal of Safety Research 1971; 3:157–166.
7. Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis DE. Risk estimation in the constructions’ worksites by using a quantitative assessment technique and statistical
information of accidents. Scientific Journal of Technical Chamber of Greece 2007; 1:47–60.
8. Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis D, Gemeni V. Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: on a review, classification, and comparative
study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2011; 24:477–523.
9. Pokorádi L. Fuzzy logic-based risk assessment. Academic and Applied Research in Military Science 2002; 1:63–73.
10. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 1965; 8:338–353.
11. Braglia M, Frosolini M, Montanari R. Fuzzy criticality assessment model for failure modes and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 2003; 20:503–524.
12. Sharma RK, Kumar D, Kumar P. Systematic failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) using fuzzy linguistic modeling. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 2005; 22:986–1004.
13. Tay KM, Lim CP. Fuzzy FMEA with a guided rules reduction system for prioritization of failures. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 2006; 23:1047–1066.
14. Guimaraes ACF, Lapa CMF. Fuzzy inference to risk assessment on nuclear engineering systems. Applied Soft Computing 2007; 7:17–28.
15. Wang YM, Chin KS, Poon GK, Yang JB. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy weighted geometric mean. Expert Systems
with Applications 2009; 36:1195–1207.
16. Deng Y, Su X, Jiang W, Xu J, Xu P. Risk Analysis Method:A Fuzzy Approach. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Electronic
Commerce and Security Workshops, Guangzhou (July 29–31, 2010).
17. Duminică D, Avram M, Apostolescu TC. Fuzzy logic used in FMEA analysis. The Romanian Review Precision Mechanics, Optics & Mechatronics 2011;
1:37–40.
18. Liu HC, Liu L, Li P. Failure mode and effects analysis using intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighted Euclidean distance operator. International Journal of
Systems Science 2014; 45:2012–2030.
19. Mandal S, Maiti J. Risk analysis using FMEA: fuzzy similarity value and possibility theory based approach. Expert Systems with Applications 2014;
41:3527–3537.
1149

20. Yeh TM, Chen LY. Fuzzy-based risk priority number in FMEA for semiconductor wafer processes. International Journal of Production Research 2014;
52:539–549.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150
 A. A. SUPCILLER AND N. ABALI

21. Zolotukhin AB, Gudmestad OT. Application of fuzzy sets theory in qualitative and quantitative risk assessment. International Journal of Offshore and
Polar Engineering 2002; 12:288–296.
22. Ngai EWT, Wat FKT. Fuzzy decision support system for risk analysis in e-commerce development. Decision Support Systems 2005; 40:235–255.
th
23. Akyildiz B, Kuruoglu M, Kuruoglu Y. Fiziksel Guce Dayalı Calısan Insaat Iscilerinin İs Sagligi ve Guvenligi Kapsaminda Bulanik Mantikla Risk Analizi. 4
Construction Management Congress, Istanbul (October 30–31, 2007).
th
24. Gurcanlı GE, Mungen U. İnsaat Santiyelerine Ozgu Bir Is Guvenligi Risk Analizi Yontemi. 4 Construction Management Congress, Istanbul (October
30–31, 2007).
25. Chen SJ, Chen SM. Fuzzy risk analysis based on measures of similarity between interval valued fuzzy numbers. Computers and Mathematics with
Applications 2008; 55:1670–1685.
26. Darbra RM, Eljarrat E, Barcelo’ D. How to measure uncertainties in environmental risk assessment. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2008; 27:377–385.
27. Cieślak BT. Fuzzy failure risk analysis in drinking water technical system. Journal of RT&A 2011; 2:138–148.
28. Ingle M, Atique M, Dahad SO. Risk analysis using fuzzy logic. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology 2011; 2:96–99.
nd
29. Zlateva P, Pashova L, Stoyanov K, Velev D. Fuzzy Logic Model for Natural Risk Assessment in SW Bulgaria. 2 International Conference on Education
and Management Technology, Singapore (August 19–21, 2011).
th
30. Boc K, Vaculík J, Vidriková D. Fuzzy Approach To Risk Analysis And Its Advantages Against The Qualitative Approach. Proceedings of the 12
International Conference Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication, Riga, Latvia (October 17–20, 2012).
31. Shankar NR, Abdullah ML, Thorani YLP, Rao PB. Fuzzy risk analysis based on A new approach of ranking fuzzy numbers using orthocenter of
centroids. International Journal of Computer Applications 2012; 42:24–36.
32. Abul-Haggag OY, Barakat W. Application of fuzzy logic for risk assessment using risk matrix. International Journal of Emerging Technology and
Advanced Engineering 2013; 3:49–54.
33. Wu W, Cheng G, Hu H, Zhou Q. Risk analysis of corrosion failures of equipment in refining and petrochemical plants based on fuzzy set theory.
Engineering Failure Analysis 2013; 32:23–34.
34. Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis DE, Mitrakas C. On the development of a new hybrid risk assessment process using occupational accidents’ data:
application on the Greek Public Electric Power Provider. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2011; 24:671–687.
35. Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis DE. Combined usage of stochastic and quantitative risk assessment methods in the worksites: application on an electric
power provider. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2012; 97:36–46.
36. Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis DE. Developing a new alternative risk assessment framework in the work sites by including a stochastic and a
deterministic process: a case study for the Greek Public Electric Power Provider. Safety Science 2012; 50:448–462.
37. Rastogi A, Gabbar HA. Fuzzy-logic-based safety verification framework for nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis 2013; 33:1128–1145.
38. Chang KH, Cheng CH. A risk assessment methodology using intuitionistic fuzzy set in FMEA. International Journal of Systems Science 2010;
41:1457–1471.
39. Ross TJ. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1995.
40. Terano T, Asai K, Sugeno M. Fuzzy Systems Theory and its Application. Academic Press: San Diego: CA, 1987.
rd
41. Zimmermann H. Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications (3 edn). Kluwer Academic Publishers: London, 1996.
42. McGill WL, Ayyub BM. Multicriteria security system performance assessment using fuzzy logic. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation:
Applications, Methodology, Technology 2007; 4:356–376.
43. Liu J, Martínez L, Wang H, Rodríquez RM, Novozhilov V. Computing with words in risk assessment. International Journal of Computational Intelligence
Systems 2010; 3(4):396–419.
44. Fayek AR, Sun Z. A fuzzy expert system for design performance prediction and evaluation. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2001; 28:1–25.
45. Mahabir C, Hicks FE, Fayek AR. Application of fuzzy logic to forecast seasonal runoff. Hydrological Processes 2003; 17:3749–3762.
46. Murè S, Demichela M. Fuzzy application procedure (FAP) for the risk assessment of occupational accidents. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries 2009; 22:593–599.
47. Gurcanli GE, Mungen U. An occupational safety risk analysis method at construction sites using fuzzy sets. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 2009; 39:371–387.
48. Shang K, Hossen Z. Applying Fuzzy Logic to Risk Assessment and Decision-Making. Research paper, Canadian Institute of Actuaries 2013; 59 pages.
49. Liu HT, Tsai YL. A fuzzy risk assessment approach for occupational hazards in the construction industry. Safety Science 2012; 50:1067–1078.
50. Pinto A, Nunes IL, Ribeiro RA. Occupational risk assessment in construction industry – overview and reflection. Safety Science 2011; 49:616–624.
51. Leekwijck WV, Kerre EE. Defuzzication: criteria and classification. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1999; 108:159–178.

Authors' biographies
Aliye Ayca Supciller is an assistant professor of Industrial Engineering at Pamukkale University. She graduated with a BS degree from
Istanbul Technical University in 1998, a BA degree from Pamukkale University in 2003, and a PhD degree from Dokuz Eylul University
in Industrial Engineering in 2010. She studies line balancing in production and multi-criteria decision making.
Nilsu Abali is a master student with two majors at Pamukkale University. One of these is Management and Organization in Business,
and the other is Industrial Engineering. She is in the thesis phase in both majors. She graduated with a bachelor’s degree from
Pamukkale University in Industrial Engineering in 2013. She is interested in human resources management, quality management
systems, occupational health and safety, fuzzy logic, and staff selection and assessment.
1150

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1137–1150