A fuzzy multi-criteria decision support system for evaluating subsea oil pipeline routing criteria in East Malaysia

Environmental Earth Sciences

Volumn 74, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 4875-4884

  Balogun, Abdul Lateef ^a   Matori, Abdul Nasir ^b   Hamid Mosaku, Adekunle Isa ^c  

^a YANBU INDUSTRIAL COLLEGE   (Saudi Arabia)

^b DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING   (Malaysia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS   (Nigeria)

Author keywords

AHP; AR; Decision support; Fuzzy logic; Offshore; Pipeline; Route selection

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; ARGON; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; FUZZY LOGIC; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONS; OFFSHORE PETROLEUM PROSPECTING; PETROLEUM PIPELINES; PETROLEUM TRANSPORTATION; PIPELINES; TRANSPORTATION ROUTES;

AHP; ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP); DECISION SUPPORTS; FUZZY MEMBERSHIP FUNCTION; MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; OFFSHORE; ROUTE SELECTION; TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FUZZY MATHEMATICS; NUMERICAL MODEL; OIL PIPELINE; ROUTING;

EAST MALAYSIA; MALAYSIA;

EID: 84940722327     PISSN: 18666280     EISSN: 18666299     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12665-015-4499-z     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Angiz LMZ, Mustafa A, Ghani NA, Kamil AA (2012) Group decision via usage of analytic hierarchy process and preference aggregation method. Sains Malays 41(3):361–366
2. Aulia B (2011) Siting suitability analysis of petrol filling station using GIS and analytical hierarchy process: a case study of surabaya metropolitan, MSc Thesis. Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia
3. Azarnivand A, Hashemi-Madani FS, Banihabib ME (2014) Extended fuzzy AHP approach in water and environmental management case study: Lake Urmia Basin. Environmental Earth Sciences, Iran. doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3391-6
4. Bailey DT (2005) Development of an optimal spatial decision-making system using approximate reasoning. Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
5. Balogun AL (2014) Optimal offshore pipeline corridor and route selection using spatial decision support system (SDSS). Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia
6. Beskese A, Demir HH, Ozcan HK, Okten HE (2014) Landfill site selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS: a case study for Istanbul. Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3635-5
7. Bozbura F, Beskese A, Kahraman C (2007) Prioritization of human capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl 32(4):1100–1112
8. Byron S (2010) Risk-based pipeline routing improves success probability. Oil Gas J 108:58–64
9. Carmo DK, Marins FA, Salomon VAP, Mello CH (2013) On the aggregation of individual priorities in incomplete hierarchies. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process
10. Chai BC, Mahmud MR (2006) The key to success in submarine pipeline routing. Dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Johor, Malaysia
11. Chen-Tung C, Kuan-Hung L (2010) A decision-making method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets for cloud service evaluation. In: 4th International Conference on New Trends in Information Science and Service Science (NISS), pp 559–564
12. Degermenci O (2001) EU study of Caspian area oil, gas pipelines compares routes, Costs. Oil Gas J 99:68–78
13. Donevska KR, Gorsevski PV, Jovanovski M, Pesevski I (2012) Regional non-hazardous landfill site selection by integrating fuzzy logic. Environmental Earth Sciences, AHP and GIS. doi:10.1007/s12665-011-1485-y
14. Dubois D, Prade H (1978) Operations on fuzzy numbers. Int J Syst Sci 9:613–626
15. Dubois D, Prade H (1979) Fuzzy real algebra: some results. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2:327–348
16. Dubois D, Prade H (1980) Fuzzy sets and systems: theory and applications. Academic Press, New York
17. Dubois D (2010). The role of fuzzy sets in decision sciences: old techniques and new directions. EUROFUSE Workshop Preference Modeling and Decision Analyis, Spain.
18. Feizlmayr AH, McKinnon C (1999) Lower costs, environmental protection drive future pipeline technologies. Oil Gas J 97:83–89
19. Forman E, Peniwati K (1998) Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 108:165–169
20. Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 186(1):211–228
21. Jones R, Barron M (2005) Site Selection of Petroleum Pipelines: A GIS approach to Minimize Environmental Impacts and Liabilities. Esri International User Conference. USA
22. Kearns TA, Breman J (2010) Bathymetry-The art and science of seafloor modelling for modern applications. In: Breman J (ed) Ocean Globe. ESRI Press, Redlands, pp 1–36
23. Khene DE (1997) Cross-border gas-line projects face daunting challenges. Oil Gas J 95(50):33–39
24. Kickert WJM (1978) Fuzzy theories on decision-making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands
25. Klir G, Yuan B (1999) Basic concepts and history of fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic. Institute of Physic publishing, London, Handbook of fuzzy computation
26. Kordi M, Brandt SA (2012) Effects of increasing fuzziness on analytic hierarchy process for spatial multi-criteria decision analysis. Comput Environ Urban Syst 36(1):43–53. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2011.07.004
27. Koul S, Verma R (2012) Dynamic vendor selection: a fuzzy AHP approach. Int J Anal Hierarchy Process IJAHP 4(2)
28. Lin HY (2006) Data warehouse system evaluation and selection decisions. Dissertation, Taiwan
29. Lin ZC, Yang CB (1996) Evaluation of machine selection by the AHP method. J Mater Process Technol 57(3–4):253–258
30. Malczewski J (2006a) GIS based multi-criteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20(7):703–726
31. Malczewski J (2006b) Integrating multi-criteria analysis and geographic information system. The ordered weighted averaging (OWA) approach. Int J Environ Technol Manag 6(1/2):7–19
32. McDaniels TL, Gregory RS, Fields D (1999) Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal 19(3):497–510
33. Mirjaberi M (2008) Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Theory Applications with Recent Developments. Springer, Springer Optimization and its Applications
34. Montemurro D, Barnett S, Gale T (1998) GIS-based process helps TransCanada select best route for expansion line. Oil Gas J 96(25):63
35. Nonis C, Varghese K, Suresh K (2007) Investigation of an AHP based Multi Criteria Weighting Scheme for GIS routing of cross country pipeline projects. T. Madras, ISARC, I.I
36. Nord Stream (2008) The new gas supply route to Europe. Nord Stream, FACTS Issue 0/2008
37. Oynes C (2004) Deepwater expansion continues in Gulf of Mexico. Pipeline Gas J 231(6):58–59
38. Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8(4):365–381
39. Ramanathan R, Ganesh LS (1994) Group preference aggregation methods employed in ahp: an evaluation and intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. Eur J Oper Res 79:249–265
40. Ribeiro RA (1996) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: a review and new preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78(2):155–181
41. Robertson S, Westwood J, Westwood D (2004) Offshore pipeline: a $54Billion market. Pipel Gas J 231(4):50–52
42. Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York
43. Singh RK, Benyoucef L (2011) A fuzzy TOPSIS based approach for e-sourcing. Eng Appl Artif Intell 24(2011):437–448
44. Smith CE (2011) Pipeline construction plans continue slide despite growth in natural gas. Oil Gas J 109:110–121
45. Smith CE (2012) Near-term pipeline plans grow, longer-term projects sag. Oil Gas J 110:98–111
46. Tam MCY, Tummala VMR (2001) An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system. Omega 29(2):171–182
47. Torfi F, Farahani RZ, Rezapour S (2010) Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Appl Soft Comput 10(2):520–528
48. Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
49. Triantaphyllou E, Shu B, Sanchez NS, Ray T (1998) Multi-criteria decision making: an operations research approach. In: Webster JG (ed) Encyclopaedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, vol 15. Wiley, New York, pp 175–186
50. Tubb R (2009) Pipeline and Gas Journal’s 2009 International Pipeline Construction Report. Pipe Gas J 23(8). http://pipelineandgasjournal.com/august-2009-vol-236-no-8. Accessed 2013
51. Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169(1):1–29
52. Wan J, Qi G, Zeng Z, Sun S (2011) The application of AHP in oil and gas pipeline route selection. In: Proceedings of 19th International Conference on Geoinformatics, IEEE
53. Wang X (2008) A study of regret and rejoicing and a new mcdm method based on them. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, USA
54. Yang CC, Chen BS (2004) Key Quality performance evaluation using fuzzy AHP. J Chin Inst Ind Eng 21(6):543–550
55. Yasser M, Jahangir K, Mohammad A (2013) Earth dam site selection using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP): a case study in the west of Iran. Arab J Geosci 6(9):3417–3426
56. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353
57. Zahedi F (1986) The analytic hierarchy process-a survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces 16(4):96–108
58. Zopounidis C, Pardalos PM (2010) Handbook of Multiciteria Analysis. Springer