Risk assessment of oil and gas pipelines hot work based on AHP-FCE

Abstract

A new quantitative risk assessment method for hot work is proposed based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE). It can help pipeline companies realize the risk management of hot work and further ensure the safe operation of oil and gas pipelines. Taking one natural gas pipeline in China as an example, this paper evaluates the risk of a single hot work in the spring of one natural gas pipeline in a high consequence region. First of all, the risk factors are determined with reference to the job safety analysis (JSA), and then experts were invited to fill out a questionnaire to collect their opinions. According to the results of the questionnaire, AHP is used to calculate the weight coefficients of the evaluation indicators, and FCE is used to evaluate the risk level of hot work. After calculation, the comprehensive risk score of hot work is 40.888. It belongs to a "general risk". This method can not only quantitatively evaluate the risk levels of hot work, but also reasonably sort the importance of various risk factors. It is helpful for the effective management of hot work and provides suggestions for implementing control measures.

Keywords

Oil and gas pipelines / Hot work / Risk assessment / Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) / Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE)

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest to this work.

We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the work submitted.

References

[1] Z. Yanting, X. Liyun,Research on risk management of petroleum operations, Energy Proc. 5 (2011) 2330-2334.

[2] B.D. Blair, L.M. McKenzie, W.B. Allshouse, et al., Is reporting “significant damage” transparent? Assessing fire and explosion risk at oil and gas operations in the United States, Energy Res. Social Sci. 29 (2017) 36-43.

[3] C.L. Lin, C.F. Chien, Systems thinking in a gas explosion accident e lessons learned from Taiwan, J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 62 (2019) 103987.

[4] S. Aminbakhsh, M. Gunduz, R. Sonmez, Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects, J. Saf. Res. 46 (2013) 99-105.

[5] A. Pinto, I.L. Nunes, R.A. Ribeiro, Occupational risk assessment in construction industry e overview and reflection, Saf. Sci. 49 (5) (2011) 616-624.

[6] P.K. Marhavilas, D. Koulouriotis, V. Gemeni,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, J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 24 (5) (2011) 477-523.

[7] I.A. Papazoglou, O.N. Aneziris, L.J. Bellamy, et al., Quantitative occupational risk model, Single Hazard 160 (2017) 162-173.

[8] Y.A. Kasap, E. Suba, Risk assessment of occupational groups working in open pit mining, Anal. Hierarchy Process 16 (2) (2017) 38-46.

[9] M. Da Deviren, H. Yüksel, Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management 178 (6) (2008) 1717-1733.

[10] S. Li, G. Tao, L. Zhang, Fire risk assessment of high-rise buildings based on gray-FAHP mathematical, Model 211 (2018) 395-402.

[11] J. Hu, J. Chen, G. Chen, et al., Risk assessment of seismic hazards in hydraulic fracturing areas based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and AHP method (FAHP): a case analysis of Shangluo area in Yibin City, Sichuan Province, China J. 170 (2018) 797-812.

[12] W. Li, W. Liang, L. Zhang, et al., Performance assessment system of health, safety and environment based on experts' weights and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation 35 (2015) 95-103.

[13] L. Lu, W. Liang, L. Zhang, et al., A comprehensive risk evaluation method for natural gas pipelines by combining a risk matrix with a bow-tie model, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 25 (2015) 124-133.

[14] D. Zeng, Q. He, Z. Yu, et al., Risk assessment of sustained casing pressure in gas wells based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 46 (2017) 756-763.

[15] H.S. Loh, Q. Zhou, V.V. Thai, et al., Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of portcentric supply chain disruption threats 148 (2017) 53-62.

[16] Y. Kilin, Z. Zdemir, C. Orhan, et al., Evaluation of technical performance of pipes in water distribution systems by analytic hierarchy process 42 (2018) 13-21.

[17] S. Carra, L. Monica, G. Vignali, Reduction of workers' hand-arm vibration exposure through optimal machine design: AHP methodology applied to a case study, Saf. Sci. 120 (2019) 706-727.

[18] J.E. Leal, AHP-express: a simplified version of the analytical hierarchy process method, 2019.

[19] H. Pu, K. Luo, S. Zhang, Risk assessment model for different foodstuff drying methods via AHP-FCE method: a case study of "coal-burning" fluorosis area of Yunan and Guizhou Province, China, Food Chem. 263 (2018) 74-80.

[20] X. Zhang, J. Yang, X. Zhao, Optimal study of the rural house space heating systems employing the AHP and FCE methods, Energy 150 (2018) 631-641.

[21] C. Yuan, H. Cui, S. Ma, et al., Analysis method for causal factors in emergency processes of fire accidents for oil-gas storage and transportation based on ISM and MBN, J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 62 (2019) 103964.

[22] Z. Rui, C. Li, F. Peng, et al., Development of industry performance metrics for offshore oil and gas project, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 39 (2017) 44-53.

[23] A.E. Wolnowska, W. Konicki,Multi-criterial analysis of oversize cargo transport through the city, using the AHP method, Transport. Res. Proc. 39 (2019) 614-623.