IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v177y2018icp50-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk assessment of the maintenance process for onshore oil and gas transmission pipelines under uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Yu, Xuchao
  • Liang, Wei
  • Zhang, Laibin
  • Reniers, Genserik
  • Lu, Linlin

Abstract

Research on risk assessment of the maintenance process for onshore oil and gas transmission pipelines has been attracting ever more attention from the academic community. Due to the existence of uncertainties, risk propagation can hardly be precisely and/or robustly assessed. Therefore, in this paper, considering that decision-makers prefer uncertainty-informed risk information rather than unreliable “precise†risk values, a new insight is provided to deal with risk assessment of the onshore pipeline maintenance process under uncertainty. The risk assessment model is built on the framework of quantitative risk assessment based on AHP and expert knowledge. Meanwhile, to represent and quantify uncertainty, interval analysis is utilized to extend the whole model into an interval environment. As a result, an interval quantified risk assessment model is established for the onshore pipeline maintenance process. The study shows that interval analysis can effectively internalize, represent, quantify and propagate the uncertainty in the risk assessment model. In the specific case of emergency maintenance for the Gangqing dual pipeline, the interval scores to respectively characterize the occurrence likelihood and consequence severity are computed. As a result, the uncertainty-informed overall risk of the emergency maintenance process is determined and intuitively pinpointed in an interval risk matrix. The risk rating of the case is estimated as Level 2, indicating that operations with respect to emergency maintenance are well organized and the possibility of accident occurrence is low. Thus, maintenance can be carried out well under supervision. Even if a secondary accident would occur, the accident scope will be quite small and emergency measures are adequate enough to control the development of the accident and reduce accident losses. Moreover, the sensitivity sorting of sub-indexes of occurrence likelihood is obtained as I11 > I23 > I13 > I22 > I34 > I12 > I33 > I21 > I31 > I32, indicating that improvement in the management capacity (I11), normal operations (I13) and completeness of protection (I22) will effectively reduce the occurrence of accidents and improve operational safety. Furthermore, risk estimation under the condition of missing data is tackled by using Monte Carlo simulations and provides a reasonable option when crucial information is lacking.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu, Xuchao & Liang, Wei & Zhang, Laibin & Reniers, Genserik & Lu, Linlin, 2018. "Risk assessment of the maintenance process for onshore oil and gas transmission pipelines under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 50-67.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:177:y:2018:i:c:p:50-67
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.05.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832017305586
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2018.05.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dubois, Didier, 2006. "Possibility theory and statistical reasoning," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 47-69, November.
    2. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    3. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    4. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    5. Qunli Wu & Chenyang Peng, 2016. "Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation of the Power Distribution Network Planning Project Based on Improved IAHP and Multi-Level Extension Assessment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, August.
    6. Terje Aven, 2010. "On the Need for Restricting the Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessments to Variability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 354-360, March.
    7. Helton, J.C. & Johnson, J.D. & Sallaberry, C.J. & Storlie, C.B., 2006. "Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(10), pages 1175-1209.
    8. Terje Aven, 2010. "Reply to Discussants on “The Need for Restricting the Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessments to Variability”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 381-384, March.
    9. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Zhengbing & Feng, Huixia & Liang, Yongtu & Xu, Ning & Nie, Siming & Zhang, Haoran, 2019. "A leakage risk assessment method for hazardous liquid pipeline based on Markov chain Monte Carlo," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 27(C).
    2. Chen, Yinuo & Xie, Shuyi & Tian, Zhigang, 2022. "Risk assessment of buried gas pipelines based on improved cloud-variable weight theory," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    3. Gonçalves, Ana & Marques, Margarida Correia & Loureiro, Sílvia & Nieto, Raquel & Liberato, Margarida L.R., 2023. "Disruption risk analysis of the overhead power lines in Portugal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PA).
    4. Wang, Zifeng & Li, Suzhen, 2020. "Data-driven risk assessment on urban pipeline network based on a cluster model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Georgios K. Koulinas & Alexandros S. Xanthopoulos & Konstantinos A. Sidas & Dimitrios E. Koulouriotis, 2021. "Risks Ranking in a Desalination Plant Construction Project with a Hybrid AHP, Risk Matrix, and Simulation-Based Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(10), pages 3221-3233, August.
    6. Yin, Yuanbo & Yang, Hao & Duan, Pengfei & Li, Luling & Zio, Enrico & Liu, Cuiwei & Li, Yuxing, 2022. "Improved quantitative risk assessment of a natural gas pipeline considering high-consequence areas," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    7. Liu, Zhichen & Li, Ying & Zhang, Zhaoyi & Yu, Wenbo, 2022. "A new evacuation accessibility analysis approach based on spatial information," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    8. Yifan Chen & Genbao Zhang & Yan Ran, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Coupling Fault Propagation Based on Meta-Action for Computerized Numerical Control (CNC) Machine Tool," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-11, July.
    9. Chen, Qian & Zuo, Lili & Wu, Changchun & Cao, Yankai & Bu, Yaran & Chen, Feng & Sadiq, Rehan, 2021. "Supply reliability assessment of a gas pipeline network under stochastic demands," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    10. Medeiros, Cristina Pereira & da Silva, Lucas Borges Leal & Alencar, Marcelo Hazin & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2021. "A new method for managing multidimensional risks in Natural Gas Pipelines based on non-Expected Utility," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    2. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    3. Sarat Sivaprasad & Cameron A. MacKenzie, 2018. "The Hurwicz Decision Rule’s Relationship to Decision Making with the Triangle and Beta Distributions and Exponential Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 139-153, September.
    4. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    5. Li, Yanfu & Zio, Enrico, 2012. "Uncertainty analysis of the adequacy assessment model of a distributed generation system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 235-244.
    6. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    7. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    8. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    9. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    10. J Aznar & J Ferrís-Oñate & F Guijarro, 2010. "An ANP framework for property pricing combining quantitative and qualitative attributes," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(5), pages 740-755, May.
    11. Garyfallos Arabatzis & Georgios Kolkos & Anastasia Stergiadou & Apostolos Kantartzis & Stergios Tampekis, 2024. "Optimal Allocation of Water Reservoirs for Sustainable Wildfire Prevention Planning via AHP-TOPSIS and Forest Road Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-27, January.
    12. William A. Huber, 2010. "Ignorance Is Not Probability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 371-376, March.
    13. Ripamonti, G. & Lonati, G. & Baraldi, P. & Cadini, F. & Zio, E., 2013. "Uncertainty propagation in a model for the estimation of the ground level concentration of dioxin/furans emitted from a waste gasification plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 98-105.
    14. Chen, Jeng-Chung & Lin, Shu-Chiang & Yu, Vincent F., 2017. "Structuring an effective human error intervention strategy selection model for commercial aviation," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 65-75.
    15. Rahul S. Mor & Arvind Bhardwaj & Sarbjit Singh, 2019. "Integration of SWOT-AHP Approach for Measuring the Critical Factors of Dairy Supply Chain," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-14, February.
    16. Chen, Shuo-Pei & Wu, Wann-Yih, 2010. "A systematic procedure to evaluate an automobile manufacturer-distributor partnership," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 687-698, September.
    17. repec:jle:journl:132 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio, 2013. "Uncertainty Analysis in Fault Tree Models with Dependent Basic Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1146-1173, June.
    19. Briliantie Irma & Imam Baihaqi, 2018. "The integration of AHP and QFD for contractors selection," Journal of Advances in Technology and Engineering Research, A/Professor Akbar A. Khatibi, vol. 4(3), pages 118-129.
    20. Didier Dubois, 2010. "Representation, Propagation, and Decision Issues in Risk Analysis Under Incomplete Probabilistic Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 361-368, March.
    21. Seyed Saeed Hosseinian & Hamidreza Navidi & Abas Hajfathaliha, 2012. "A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation and Group Decision Making in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 233-254, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:177:y:2018:i:c:p:50-67. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.