IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i3p685-d316761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Spatial Statistic Based Risk Assessment Approach to Prioritize the Pipeline Inspection of the Pipeline Network

Author

Listed:
  • Peng Hou

    (School of Mechatronical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Xiaojian Yi

    (School of Mechatronical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
    Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China)

  • Haiping Dong

    (School of Mechatronical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China)

Abstract

The identification of high risk regions is an important aim of risk-based inspections (RBIs) in pipeline networks. As the most vital part of risk-based inspections, risk assessment makes a significant contribution to achieving this aim. Accurate assessment can target high risk inspected regions so that limited resources can mitigate considerable risks in the face of increased spatial distribution of a pipeline network. However, the existing approaches for risk assessment face grave challenges due to a lack of sufficient data and an assessment’s vulnerability to human biases and errors. This paper attempts to tackle those challenges through spatial statistics, which is used to estimate the uncertainty of risk based on a dataset of locations of pipeline network failure events without having to acquire additional data. The consequence of risk in each inspected region is measured by the total cost caused by the failure events that have occurred in the region, which is also calculated in the assessment. Then, the risks of the different inspected regions are obtained by integrating the uncertainty and consequences. Finally, the feasibility of our approach is validated in a case study. Our results in the case study demonstrate that uncertainty is less instructive for prioritizing pipeline inspections than the consequences of risk due to the low significant difference in risk uncertainty in different regions. Our results also have implications for understanding the correlation between the spatial location and consequences of risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Peng Hou & Xiaojian Yi & Haiping Dong, 2020. "A Spatial Statistic Based Risk Assessment Approach to Prioritize the Pipeline Inspection of the Pipeline Network," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:3:p:685-:d:316761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/3/685/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/3/685/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dall’Acqua, D. & Terenzi, A. & Leporini, M. & D’Alessandro, V. & Giacchetta, G. & Marchetti, B., 2017. "A new tool for modelling the decompression behaviour of CO2 with impurities using the Peng-Robinson equation of state," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 1432-1445.
    2. Marlow, David R. & Beale, David J. & Mashford, John S., 2012. "Risk-based prioritization and its application to inspection of valves in the water sector," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 67-74.
    3. Brito, A.J. & de Almeida, A.T., 2009. "Multi-attribute risk assessment for risk ranking of natural gas pipelines," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 187-198.
    4. Mancuso, A. & Compare, M. & Salo, A. & Zio, E. & Laakso, T., 2016. "Risk-based optimization of pipe inspections in large underground networks with imprecise information," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 228-238.
    5. 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.
    6. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    7. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    8. Peter Diggle, 1985. "A Kernel Method for Smoothing Point Process Data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 34(2), pages 138-147, June.
    9. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    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. Wan Zhang & Ruihao Shen & Ning Xu & Haoran Zhang & Yongtu Liang, 2020. "Study on Optimization of Active Control Schemes for Considering Transient Processes in the Case of Pipeline Leakage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Daniel Ogaro Atambo & Mohammad Najafi & Vinayak Kaushal, 2022. "Development and Comparison of Prediction Models for Sanitary Sewer Pipes Condition Assessment Using Multinomial Logistic Regression and Artificial Neural Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.

    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. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    2. 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.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    4. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    5. Veland, H. & Aven, T., 2013. "Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 34-40.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2012. "On the link between risk and exposure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 191-199.
    7. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Thai, Vinh V., 2021. "An Operational Risk Analysis Model for Container Shipping Systems considering Uncertainty Quantification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    8. Rogerson, Ellen C. & Lambert, James H., 2012. "Prioritizing risks via several expert perspectives with application to runway safety," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 22-34.
    9. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    10. Tang, Yang & Liu, Qingyou & Jing, Jiajia & Yang, Yan & Zou, Zhengwei, 2017. "A framework for identification of maintenance significant items in reliability centered maintenance," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1295-1303.
    11. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    12. Jedynak Piotr & Bąk Sylwia, 2020. "Understanding Uncertainty and Risk in Management," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 12-35, March.
    13. Mancuso, A. & Compare, M. & Salo, A. & Zio, E. & Laakso, T., 2016. "Risk-based optimization of pipe inspections in large underground networks with imprecise information," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 228-238.
    14. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    15. Mostafa Aliyari & Yonas Z Ayele & Abbas Barabadi & Enrique Lopez Droguett, 2019. "Risk analysis in low-voltage distribution systems," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(2), pages 118-138, April.
    16. Lindbom, Hanna & Tehler, Henrik & Eriksson, Kerstin & Aven, Terje, 2015. "The capability concept – On how to define and describe capability in relation to risk, vulnerability and resilience," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 45-54.
    17. Garcez, Thalles Vitelli & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2014. "A risk measurement tool for an underground electricity distribution system considering the consequences and uncertainties of manhole events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 68-80.
    18. Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen, 2019. "Making Sense of Risk—A Sociological Perspective on the Management of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 749-760, April.
    19. Montewka, Jakub & Goerlandt, Floris & Kujala, Pentti, 2014. "On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 77-85.
    20. Wei Wang & Francesco Di Maio & Enrico Zio, 2019. "Adversarial Risk Analysis to Allocate Optimal Defense Resources for Protecting Cyber–Physical Systems from Cyber Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2766-2785, December.

    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:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:3:p:685-:d:316761. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.