Abstract
Many shipping companies have started using scrubbers in their fleet to eliminate sulfur emissions from ships, per IMO (International Maritime Organization) rules. Before and during the scrubbers’ selection, the scrubbers’ operational failures have also started to appear and cause serious concerns. In this study, classified scrubber types are explained and open type, closed type, and hybrid scrubber systems are evaluated. To contribute to this gap in the literature, scrubber failures were identified, five experts with different perspectives were consulted, and the most common and critical malfunctions were evaluated with the fuzzy best–worst method (F-BWM) and fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (F-TOPSIS). F-BWM was used to determine the importance weights of the risk parameters used in evaluating failures since it provides fewer comparisons among pairwise comparison–based decision-making methods and a more consistent judgment in the evaluation. F-TOPSIS, on the other hand, was used to determine the final priority scores of the scrubber failures, taking into account the risk parameter weights obtained in the first stage. It has been preferred due to its easy to useness and based on its closeness to the ideal solution and applicability to risk and failure analysis problems. Considering all different systems in general, important issues such as collection efficiency, sulfur emission problem, abrasion, leakages, pump failures, heat exchanger failures, air fan sealing failures, sensors and failures in monitoring the whole system have been investigated. Results show that too high axial velocity for separator and flooded separator, too high solids concentration in recirculation liquid (SF2), piping leakages (SF5), poor quality or inappropriate consumables and chemicals (SF11), and feed circulation pump problems (SF6) are found to be the most important problems among thirteen failures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Abu Dabous, S., Ibrahim, F., Feroz, S., & Alsyouf, I. (2021). Integration of failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis with multi-criteria decision-making in engineering applications: Part I - Manufacturing industry. Engineering Failure Analysis, 122, 105264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105264
Acciaro, M. (2014). Real option analysis for environmental compliance: LNG and emission control areas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.007
Awasthi, A., & Kannan, G. (2016). Green supplier development program selection using NGT and VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 91, 100–108.
Bari, A. B. M. M., Siraj, M. T., Paul, S. K., & Khan, S. A. (2022). A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for analysing operational hazards in heavy fuel oil-based power plants. Decision Analytics Journal, 3, 100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100069
Başhan, V., & Demirel, H. (2018). Evaluation of critical operational faults of marine diesel generator engines by using DEMATEL method. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 6(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.5505/jems.2018.24865
Başhan, V., & Demirel, H. (2019). Application of fuzzy dematel technique to assess most common critical operational faults of marine boilers. Politeknik Dergisi, 22(3), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.426644
Başhan, V., Demirel, H., & Celik, E. (2022). Evaluation of critical problems of heavy fuel oil separators on ships by best-worst method. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment. https://doi.org/10.1177/14750902221097268
Başhan, V., & Ust, Y. (2019). Application of fuzzy dematel method to analyse s-CO2 Brayton power systems. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 37(6), 8483–8498. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-191133
Başhan, V., Ust, Y., Balkanli, E., & Eren Figen, H. (2020). A mixed algorithm for investigation the effects of the preparation processes during the catalyst synthesis with sol–gel method and coating. Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology, 96(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10971-020-05371-3
Brynolf, S., Magnusson, M., Fridell, E., & Andersson, K. (2014). Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.001
Chen, C. -T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1
Corbett, J. J., Winebrake, J. J., Green, E. H., Kasibhatla, P., Eyring, V., & Lauer, A. (2007). Mortality from ship emissions: A global assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(24), 8512–8518. https://doi.org/10.1021/es071686z
Deveci, M., Özcan, E., John, R., Pamucar, D., & Karaman, H. (2021). Offshore wind farm site selection using interval rough numbers based Best-Worst Method and MARCOS. Applied Soft Computing, 109, 107532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107532
Eyring, V., Isaksen, I. S. A., Berntsen, T., Collins, W. J., Corbett, J. J., Endresen, O., et al. (2010). Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping. Atmospheric Environment, 44(37), 4735–4771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.059
Gu, Y., & Wallace, S. W. (2017). Scrubber: A potentially overestimated compliance method for the emission control areas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 55, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.024
Gul, M. (2021). A quantitative occupational risk assessment methodology based on TOPSIS-Sort with its application in aluminum extrusion industry. International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 7(1), 163–172.
Gul, M., & Ak, M. F. (2020). Assessment of occupational risks from human health and environmental perspectives: A new integrated approach and its application using fuzzy BWM and fuzzy MAIRCA. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 34(8), 1231–1262.
Gul, M., & Ak, M. F. (2021). A modified failure modes and effects analysis using interval-valued spherical fuzzy extension of TOPSIS method: Case study in a marble manufacturing facility. Soft Computing, 25(8), 6157–6178.
Gul, M., Yucesan, M., & Celik, E. (2020). A manufacturing failure mode and effect analysis based on fuzzy and probabilistic risk analysis. Applied Soft Computing, 96, 106689.
Guo, S., & Zhao, H. (2017). Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 121, 23–31.
Hwang, C. -L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Multiple attribute decision making (pp. 58–191). Springer.
International Maritime Organization. (2015). 2015 guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems. London, UK (IMO Resolution MEPC.259(68)). Accessed June 28, 2022. https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MEPCDocuments/MEPC.259(68).pdf
Jiang, L., Kronbak, J., & Christensen, L. P. (2014). The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: Sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.005
Jianxing, Y., Shibo, W., Haicheng, C., Yang, Y., Haizhao, F., & Jiahao, L. (2021). Risk assessment of submarine pipelines using modified FMEA approach based on cloud model and extended VIKOR method. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 155, 555–574.
Kabassi, K., Karydis, C., & Botonis, A. (2020). Ahp, fuzzy saw, and fuzzy wpm for the evaluation of cultural websites. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(1), 5.
Kaya, A., Başhan, V., & Ust, Y. (2021). Selection of marine type air compressor by using fuzzy VIKOR methodology. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment. https://doi.org/10.1177/14750902211028791
Kutlu, A. C., & Ekmekçioğlu, M. (2012). Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.044
Lack, D. A., & Corbett, J. J. (2012). Black carbon from ships: A review of the effects of ship speed, fuel quality and exhaust gas scrubbing. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 12(9), 3985–4000. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-3985-2012
Lindstad, H. E., Rehn, C. F., & Eskeland, G. S. (2017). Sulphur abatement globally in maritime shipping. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 57, 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.028
Lindstad, H., Sandaas, I., & Strømman, A. H. (2015). Assessment of cost as a function of abatement options in maritime emission control areas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 38, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.04.018
Liu, K., Zhang, J., Yan, X., Liu, Y., Zhang, D., & Hu, W. (2016). Safety assessment for inland waterway transportation with an extended fuzzy TOPSIS. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 230(3), 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X16631869
Marine Insight. (2021). A Guide To Scrubber System On Ship. Accessed December 4, 2021, from https://www.marineinsight.com/tech/scrubber-system-on-ship/
Memari, A., Dargi, A., Jokar, M. R. A., Ahmad, R., & Rahim, A. R. A. (2019). Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50, 9–24.
Merien-Paul, R. H., Enshaei, H., & Jayasinghe, S. G. (2019). Effects of fuel-specific energy and operational demands on cost/emission estimates: A case study on heavy fuel-oil vs liquefied natural gas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 69, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.01.031
Mi, X., Tang, M., Liao, H., Shen, W., & Lev, B. (2019). The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what’s next? Omega, 87, 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.01.009
Mollaoglu, M., Bucak, U., Demirel, H., & Balin, A. (2022). Evaluation of various fuel alternatives in terms of sustainability for the ship investment decision using single valued neutrosophic numbers with TOPSIS methods. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment. https://doi.org/10.1177/14750902221103433
Moloudi, A., Khaloo, S. S., Gholamnia, R., & Saeedi, R. (2021). Prioritizing health, safety and environmental hazards by integrating risk assessment and analytic hierarchy process techniques in solid waste management facilities. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 1–12.
Moslem, S., Gul, M., Farooq, D., Celik, E., Ghorbanzadeh, O., & Blaschke, T. (2020). An integrated approach of best-worst method (bwm) and triangular fuzzy sets for evaluating driver behavior factors related to road safety. Mathematics, 8(3), 414.
Munim, Z. H., Sornn-Friese, H., & Dushenko, M. (2020). Identifying the appropriate governance model for green port management: Applying Analytic Network Process and Best-Worst methods to ports in the Indian Ocean Rim. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268, 122156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122156
Nikopoulou, Z. (2017). Incremental costs for reduction of air pollution from ships: A case study on North European emission control area. Maritime Policy & Management, 44(8), 1056–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2017.1342878
Panasiuk, I., Lebedevas, S., & Čerka, J. (2016). The assessment algorithm of technological feasibility of SOx scrubber installation. Transport, 33(1), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2016.1152298
Panasiuk, I., & Turkina, L. (2015). The evaluation of investments efficiency of SO scrubber installation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 40, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.08.004
Ren, J., & Liang, H. (2017). Measuring the sustainability of marine fuels: A fuzzy group multi-criteria decision making approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 54, 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.05.004
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130.
Rezaei, J. (2020). A concentration ratio for nonlinear best worst method. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 19(3), 891–907.
Sahin, B., Yip, T. L., Tseng, P. -H., Kabak, M., & Soylu, A. (2020). An application of a fuzzy TOPSIS multi-criteria decision analysis algorithm for dry bulk carrier selection. Information, 11(5), 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11050251
Schinas, O., & Stefanakos, Ch. N. (2014). Selecting technologies towards compliance with MARPOL Annex VI: The perspective of operators. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.006
Soner, O., Celik, E., & Akyuz, E. (2022). A fuzzy best–worst method (BWM) to assess the potential environmental impacts of the process of ship recycling. Maritime Policy & Management, 49(3), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1889066
Tan, Y., Shen, L., Langston, C., & Liu, Y. (2010). Construction project selection using fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Journal of Modelling in Management, 5(3), 302–315.
Ünver, B., Gürgen, S., Sahin, B., & Altın, İ. (2019). Crankcase explosion for two-stroke marine diesel engine by using fault tree analysis method in fuzzy environment. Engineering Failure Analysis, 97, 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.01.007
Ushakov, S., Stenersen, D., Einang, P. M., & Ask, T. Ø. (2020). Meeting future emission regulation at sea by combining low-pressure EGR and seawater scrubbing. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 25(2), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-019-00655-y
Yang, J., Tang, T., Jiang, Y., Karavalakis, G., Durbin, T. D., Wayne Miller, J., et al. (2021). Controlling emissions from an ocean-going container vessel with a wet scrubber system. Fuel, 304, 121323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121323
Yucesan, M., Başhan, V., Demirel, H., & Gul, M. (2022). An interval type-2 fuzzy enhanced best–worst method for the evaluation of ship diesel generator failures. Engineering Failure Analysis, 138, 106428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106428
Zadeh, L. A. (1996). Fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy systems: Selected papers by Lotfi A Zadeh (pp. 394–432). World Scientific.
Zavitsas, K., Zis, T., & Bell, M. G. H. (2018). The impact of flexible environmental policy on maritime supply chain resilience. Transport Policy, 72, 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.020
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Başhan, V., Yucesan, M., Demirel, H. et al. Health, safety, and environmental failure evaluation by hybridizing fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making methods for maritime scrubber systems. Environ Monit Assess 194, 641 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10284-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10284-5