A comprehensive risk evaluation method for natural gas pipelines by combining a risk matrix with a bow-tie model

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

Volumn 25, Issue , 2015, Pages 124-133

  Lu, Linlin ^a   Liang, Wei ^a   Zhang, Laibin ^a   Zhang, Hong ^a   Lu, Zhong ^b   Shan, Jinzhi ^b  

^a CHINA UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM   (China)

^b PetroChina Beijing Gas Pipeline CoLtd   (China)

Author keywords

Bow tie model; Fuzzy method; Natural gas pipeline; Risk matrix

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENTS; GASES; LOSSES; NATURAL GAS; PIPELINES; RISKS;

BOW TIE; COMPREHENSIVE RISKS; ENVIRONMENTAL DISRUPTION; FAILURE PROBABILITY; FUZZY METHODS; PROBABILITY RANKINGS; RANKING CRITERION; RISK MATRIX;

NATURAL GAS PIPELINES;

EID: 84928776240     PISSN: 18755100     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2015.04.029     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. BEVI Reference Manual version 3.2. Bilthoven: RVIM.
2. Chen S.J.J., Hwang C.L., Beckmann M.J., et al. Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications 1992, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
3. Chen Shanhuo Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing set and minimizing set. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1985, 17(2):113-129.
4. Chevreau F.R., Wybo J.L., Cauchois D. Organizing learning processes on risks by using the bow-tie representation. J.Hazard. Mater. 2006, 130(3):276-283.
5. Clemen R.T., Winkler R.L. Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Anal. 1999, 19(2):187-203.
6. Deacon T., Amyotte P.R., Khan F.I., et al. Aframework for human error analysis of offshore evacuations. Saf. Sci. 2013, 51(1):319-327.
7. Deacon T., Amyotte P.R., Khan F.I. Human error risk analysis in offshore emergencies. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48(6):803-818.
8. Ferdous R., Khan F., Sadiq R., et al. Analyzing system safety and risks under uncertainty using a bow-tie diagram: an innovative approach. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2013, 91(1):1-18.
9. Han Z.Y., Weng W.G. An integrated quantitative risk analysis method for natural gas pipeline network. J.Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2010, 23(3):428-436.
10. Hong Liu, Tang Yuxia, Cheng Yuhe Study on the classification of dangerous Hazard evaluation based on risk management method. China Saf. Sci. J. 2007, 17(6):145-150.
11. Ishikawa A., Amagasa M., Shiga T., et al. The Max-Min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1993, 55(3):241-253.
12. Jamshidi A., Yazdani-Chamzini A., Yakhchali S.H., et al. Developing a new fuzzy inference system for pipeline risk assessment. J.Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2013, 26(1):197-208.
13. Jin Chaoguang, Lin Yan, Ji Zhuoshang Application of event tree analysis based on fuzzy sets in risk analysis. J.Dalian Univ. Technol. 2003, 43(1):97-100.
14. Jo Young-Do, Ahn Bum Jong Amethod of quantitative risk assessment for transmission pipeline carrying natural gas. J.Hazard. Mater. 2005, 123(1):1-12.
15. Khakzad N., Khan F., Amyotte P. Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2012, 104:36-44.
16. Khakzad N., Khan F., Amyotte P. Quantitative risk analysis of offshore drilling operations: a Bayesian approach. Saf. Sci. 2013, 57:108-117.
17. Lin C.T., Wang M.J.J. Hybrid fault tree analysis using fuzzy sets. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1997, 58(3):205-213.
18. Lins P.H.C., de Almeida A.T. Multidimensional risk analysis of hydrogen pipelines. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2012, 37(18):13545-13554.
19. Ma L., Cheng L., Li M. Quantitative risk analysis of urban natural gas pipeline networks using geographical information systems. J.Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2013, 26(6):1183-1192.
20. Ma L., Li Y., Liang L., et al. Anovel method of quantitative risk assessment based on grid difference of pipeline sections. Saf. Sci. 2013, 59:219-226.
21. Muhlbauer W.K. Pipeline Risk Management Manual: Ideas, Techniques and Resources 2004, Access Online, Elsevier.
22. Onisawa T. An application of fuzzy concepts to modelling of reliability analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1990, 37(3):267-286.
23. Onisawa T. An approach to human reliability in man-machine systems using error possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1988, 27(2):87-103.
24. Shahriar A., Sadiq R., Tesfamariam S. Risk analysis for oil & gas pipelines: a sustainability assessment approach using fuzzy based bow-tie analysis. J.Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2012, 25(3):505-523.
25. Sklavounos S., Rigas F. Estimation of safety distances in the vicinity of fuel gas pipelines. J.Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2006, 19(1):24-31.
26. Vílchez J.A., Espejo V., Casal J. Generic event trees and probabilities for the release of different types of hazardous materials. J.Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2011, 24(3):281-287.
27. Yongji W. Quantitative risk assessment for failure of oil and gas pipelines. Acta Pet. Sin. 2004, 25(5):108-112.
28. Yuhua Dong, Datao Yu Estimation of failure probability of oil and gas transmission pipelines by fuzzy fault tree analysis. J.Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2005, 18(2):83-88.
29. Zamalieva D., Yilmaz A., Aldemir T. Aprobabilistic model for online scenario labeling in dynamic event tree generation. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2013, 120:18-26.