You are on page 1of 6

Chunsheng Miao

Professor School of Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing University of Technology, Nanjing 210009, China; Jiangsu Province Special Equipment Safety Supervision Inspection Institute, Nanjing 210003, China e-mail:

Risk Analysis for the Urban Buried Gas Pipeline With Fuzzy Comprehensive Assessment Method1
Based on the statistical analysis from a great deal of failure cases, generally, the failure causes of buried pipeline can be classified into four factors, namely, third-party damage, erosion–corrosion damage, design and construction error, and incorrect operation. The factors influencing the failure of pipeline are complicated, varied and fuzzy. Especially, the influence factors of third-party damage of buried pipeline are of the character of fuzziness, which are difficult to express with the accurate mathematic models. In this paper, the failure factors of buried gas pipeline are first analyzed by fault tree analysis method. Then, the failure likelihood and failure consequence, two parts of the risk, are evaluated with fuzzy comprehensive assessment method, respectively. Finally, the in-service risk of the buried gas pipeline for a certain city is expressed by the risk matrix, which is established with the failure likelihood as vertical ordinate and the failure consequence as horizontal ordinate. It is concluded that there are two pipeline units belong to high risk category, 24 pipeline units belong to medium-high risk category, 160 pipeline units belong to medium risk category, and 392 pipeline units belong to low risk category. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4004625] Keywords: risk analysis, buried pipeline, fuzzy theory

Jianping Zhao2
Professor School of Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing University of Technology, Nanjing 210009, China e-mail:



As we know, the buried gas pipeline undertakes the task of transportation of hazardous products. Once the pipeline was damaged, potentially, the hazardous product can cause serious consequence, such as fire and explosion, losses of resident life and properties, and even the social instability. So, transportation of hazardous products by pipeline is a risk [1]. Risk is defined as the product of the probability of failure and the magnitude of the loss, as shown in Eq. (1). Risk is increased when either the probability of the event increases or when the magnitude of the loss increases [1]. In recent years, there are many research works on the risk analysis of oil and gas pipeline. Muhlbauer [1] proposed a semiquantity risk assessment, which was widely used in the oil and gas industry. However, there are some vagueness and fuzziness variables to describe the failure. Tang [2] proposed a reliability assessment method of mechanical components using fuzzy-set theory. Quin and Widera [3] proposed an uncertainty analysis method in quantitative risk assessment. Nessim [4] and Zhou [5] propose a reliability based design and assessment method for natural gas pipelines. Guo and Sun [6] propose the fuzzy assessment method to deal with the earthquake failure of urban buried pipeline. But there is a little work on the risk analysis of the urban buried pipeline with fuzzy-set Risk ¼ likelihood of failure à consequence of failure (1)

2 Principle of the Multistage Fuzzy Comprehensive Assessment
Fuzzy comprehensive assessment is based on the theory of fuzzy transform and the principle of maximal degree of membership (MDM), it is going to give the total evaluation for the alternatives or objects, which affected by many kinds of influence factors. According to the complex degree of the evaluative objects, it can be evaluated by the single factor evaluation and multistage comprehensive assessment. In a complicated system, because many factors have to be considered and the influence of each factor is different, it is difficult to compare every factor’s contribution by the single factor fuzzy evaluation, thus cannot achieve the valuable evaluated results. Therefore, multistage fuzzy comprehensive assessment usually was adopted. The main procedures are given in points (1)–(7) as follows: (1) If U is the universe of discourse, U ¼ {u1, u2,…,un}, one can express a set of factors for characterizing the major nature of the evaluated issue in which every factor has different fuzziness and every factor includes m grades. Because of the fuzziness of each factor in different conditions, it is hard to define one factor located in a specific grade. The easy way is to regard each factor as a fuzzy subset, which belong to the grading collection. Assuming the fuzzy subset P with respect to the ith factor is ~i ¼ fui1 ; ui2 ; …; uim g, and m u j¼1 uij ¼ 1. (2) The magnitude of the impact of factors can be described by the alternative set. Assumed the alternative set with respect É to the ith factors is V ¼ fv1 ; v2 ; …; vp . The representation of alternatives can be found in many ways, but the verbal model with linguistic variables may be very useful in the area of system safety. The membership functions of the risk factors are proposed as the basis for representing the alternatives. For example, we can define an alternative set as V ¼ fVeryHigh; High; Moderate; Low; VeryLowg (3) For each factor, a given entry in the rating matrix reflects the magnitude of the impact of the factor upon the corresponding APRIL 2012, Vol. 134 / 021702-1

In this paper, the likelihood and consequence of failure were analyzed for urban buried gas pipeline by multistage fuzzy comprehensive assessment method (MFCA), and the risk of pipeline is also obtained by risk matrix, the risk assessment flow is shown in Fig. 1.

This paper is first presented in ASME PVP2008. Corresponding author. Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 28, 2010; final manuscript received April 20, 2011; published online March 13, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Saeid Mokhatab.


Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

C 2012 by ASME Copyright V

Downloaded From: on 03/11/2013 Terms of Use:

. i. . it is the fuzzy relationship of mapping from U to V. In making a comparison with several different operators one can obtain a desirable result by using the following operator: Mð. However. …. Zhao [7] brought forward variable membership function of fuzzy language. which is the evaluation grade matrix of the factors set. how to determine the membership function on earth. Thus.5 0.Table 1 Membership function for the linguistic variables Grade of evaluation Linguistic variables Very high High Moderate Low Very low 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Membership function 0. R (5) The first-stage of MFCA: it is about the contribution of deciding the value to evaluation objects from the grades of each factor. To ascertain a single vector that represents the overall opinion of the criterion. 5 4. rijk is the fuzzy subjection degree for the evaluation grade. the grading matrix of evaluation is 3 2 1:0 0:5 0:25 0:125 0 6 0:5 1:0 0:5 0:25 0:125 7 7 6 ~ ¼ 6 0:25 (6) R 0 : 5 1 : 0 0 :5 0:25 7 7 6 4 0:125 0:25 0:5 1 :0 0 :5 5 0 0:125 0:25 0:5 1 :0 When we operate the normalization operation for Eq. . wn g. bi2 . w2 . . If the linguistic variables are quantified by membership function. rim1 rim2 Á Á Á rimn ~ is that when one factor at cerThe physical meaning of R tain grade. n. . . which was regarded as facfactor is u tor’s weight number. . . bim Þ ~i ¼ u ~i  R B (2) (7) The preferable resolution is determined by the principle of maximal degree of membership. It is combined with the evaluation object. 2. the failure causes of pipeline can be grouped someway. In fact. normal. a weight vector should be constructed w ¼ fw1 . good.125 0. (6). .org/ on 03/11/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme. moderate. …. wn Þ  6 C 7 6. a È b ¼ minða þ b.5 1 0.125 5th 0 0.25 0. . thereby gaining the evaluation from these factors and showing the primary and secondary relationship from ~ can express as these factors. When evaluate all factors.125 0 3 b11 b12 Á Á Á b1m 6 b21 b22 Á Á Á b2m 7 7 ~¼wB ~ ¼ ðw1 . bad. The grading fuzzy subset with respect to the ith ~i ¼ fui1 . …. . . 5 4. C2 . ÈÞ : a  b ¼ ab. 1Þ (4) Fig. If each factor’s grade sequence is arranged according to the consistency of influence tendency for the evaluation object. factor is R 3 2 ri11 ri12 Á Á Á ri1n 6 ri21 ri22 Á Á Á ri2n 7 7 ~i¼ 6 R 7 6. low. .e.5 1 0. Transactions of the ASME Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech. ~i ¼ R same grading evaluation matrix. high.asmedigitalcollection. …. see Fig. 2 bn1 bn2 Á Á Á bnm ¼ ðC1 . . …. 134. … . the evaluated factors are described by fuzzy linguistic values. each factor has the ~.5 1 0. Here. 2. APRIL 2012 3 Failure Cause Analysis Generally. namely thirdparty damage. very low” and so on. wi . actually. which was shown in Table 1. 2. in this . and the membership from the aggregated vector C corresponding grade of alternative set is Vk.125 0. … .asme. . ui2 . . Cn Þ (3) where ‘’ is the operator sign in matrix composition.25 0. If the maximum degree of ~ is Ck. and incorrect operation. and the grading set of factors should be built up for the multistage fuzzy synthetic evaluation.5 0. the quantity value of it is rijk ðk ¼ 1. . Actually.25 0. evaluation set.5 1 0.5 0. design error. there is not a completely objective criterion for evaluation for this problem.25 0. corrosion. four groups are proposed. mÞ. very bad” or “very high. it has to consider the influences of each factor during the evaluation.25 0.5 1 0. and it has won the success in some engineering application. then the final assessment result Vs can be shown as below & ' n (5) VS ¼ VK jVK ! maxðCi Þ i¼1 The alternative factors set. . . such as “very good. j ¼ 1. the following normalized grading matrix can be obtained: 3 2 0:5333 0:2667 0:1333 0:0667 0 6 0:2105 0:4211 0:2105 0:1053 0:0526 7 7 6 ~ ¼ 6 0:1 0:2 0:4 0 :2 0:1 7 R 7 (7) 6 4 0:0526 0:1053 0:2105 0:4211 0:2105 5 0 0:0667 0:1333 0:2667 0:5333 (6) The secondary stage of MFCA: it is different that the importance level of assigning the value from the evaluation rule for each factor’s influence.25 0. uim g. . …. the fuzzy general evaluation set can be achieved as follows: 021702-2 / Vol. w2 . 1 Risk assessment flow alternatives. it will attain good value for the application. Regard the fuzzy membership function of evaluation grade with respect to one factor as the lines to form a matrix.. The aggregated vector B follows: ~ ¼ ðbi1 . and n X i¼1 wi ¼ 1 (4) Assumed the grading matrix of the evaluation for the ith ~i .

and the grade of others factors u3 .org/terms . Vol.2382 0. For a certain unit. ditches. and ditches). because its grade is the second category.0198 0. 3 FTA of third-party damage Basic events and its structural importance Meaning of basic event Depth cover Vehicular traffic Underground condition Aboveground condition Integrity of management Management level Activity level Construction activity Manmade barriers Soil movement Structural importance 0. j ¼ 1.0664 0.0231 0.0234 0.u6 . management level. refers to any accidental damages done to the pipe by activities of nonpipeline personnel [1]. Fussel–Vesely algorithm was employed to get the minimal cut set T ¼ AB þ AC þ AD þ AH þ AI þ FG þ FI þ EFC þ EFH þ BJ þ HJ þ IJ Table 2 lists the basic events and its structural importance.0585 0. 3. and buried metal corrosion. The possible intruders include excavating equipment.0273 0. farming equipment.3085 0.u5 . and developing qualitative and quantitative system reliability analyses [9]. then. and inspection.u7 . 5Þ So. A 0:4211. and rocks). internal corrosion. Fault tree analysis (FTA) was used to evaluate reliability and safety of complex systems.0742 0. assumed that the grade of depth cover u1 and vehicular traffic u2 belongs to ‘II’ category. and the activity level. The two factors that must be assessed are the material type and both the internal and external environments. Then.asmedigitalcollection. and dredges [1].1 Third-Party Damage Analysis.2014 0. 2 Failure causes of buried pipeline “Third-party damage” as it is used here.0891 0. presence of pipeline markers. levees. natural barriers (trees.0297 0. the pipeline of a certain city is taken as an example. 134 / 021702-3 Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.2608 0. 0:2105. rivers. ~1 ¼ f 0:2105. pointing out the aspects of the system that are important to failure. or paving). the ease with which the buried pipe can be reached by the intruding party.asme. bi5 Þ aik rikj ði ¼ 1. 0:0526 g Table 2 Basic event A B C D E F G H I J Fig. manmade barriers (fences. Here. and soil movement. 0:1053. Corrosion is of concern because any loss of pipe wall thickness invariably means a reduction of structural integrity and hence an increase in risk of failure [8].Fig.0351 0. for the factor of u1 . vehicular traffic. single and multiple failure analyses.0627 0. rock.u4 .org/ on 03/11/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme. Table 2 indicated that the main factors of third-party damage are depth cover. barricades. and u10 belongs to ‘III’ category. In order to explain the fuzzy assessment procedure of thirdparty damage. nature of cover (earth.0561 0. 3. 2.2079 Factor u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7 u8 u9 u10 Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology APRIL 2012. the first-stage of MFCA can be expressed as ~i  R ~i ¼ ð bi1 .0495 0. The urban buried pipeline network service over 20 yr was divided into 578 assessing units. trains. concrete.2460 Weight factor 0.u8 . …. frequency and thoroughness of survey. :::. :::. ~i ¼ A B where bij ¼ 5 X k¼1 bi2 . Corrosion consists of three categories: atmospheric corrosion. which was also listed in Table 2. 10. FTA method was used to explore the causes of third-party damage based on the logic relationship between the top event and the basic event. identifying potential accidents in a system.1054 0. 2. FTA is a valuable tool for general use in multidisciplined risk assessments. The probability of third-party damage is dependent upon the nature of possible intrusions. the grade of manmade barriers u9 belongs to ‘I’ category. The weight function of the basic events can obtain from the structural importance. which was illustrated in Fig. The factors that affect the susceptibility of the buried pipe include depth of cover.

0:2105. we can get the grade of third-party damage for all pipes. For the factor of coating performance. appearance of coating. According to the onsite inspection of the pipeline. 0:1184. including soil performance. and the results were summarized in Table 4.~1 can be expressed as follows: The aggregated vector B ~1  R ~ ~1 ¼ A B 2 0:5333 6 6 0:2105 6 6 0:1 6 6 4 0:0526 0 3 0:2667 0:1333 0:0667 0 7 0:4211 0:2105 0:1053 0:0526 7 7 0:2 0:4 0 :2 0:1 7 7 7 0:1053 0:2105 0:4211 0:2105 5 0:0667 0:1333 0:2667 0:5333 ¼ ð0:2105. the detailed classification was carried out for every input factors based on the investigation data. So. 0:2014. the failure causes of pipeline can be divided into four groups. including the coating type. the grade of third-party damage is III category for the certain pipe. age of pipeline. Table 3 Factors Depth cover Vehicular traffic Underground condition Aboveground condition Integrity of management Management level Activity level Construction activity Manmade barriers Soil movement Sum Results of third-party damage I 51 423 351 16 0 0 473 560 490 550 0 II 98 54 152 63 0 0 78 16 47 0 463 III 146 47 47 181 578 578 19 0 19 0 74 IV 199 27 28 311 0 0 5 1 10 16 35 V 84 27 0 7 0 0 3 1 12 12 6 4. The corrosion rate is dependent upon the moisture content of soil. 0:2475. and the incorrect operation category. and the design error u3 belongs to II category.1 Likelihood Analysis. For the factor of soil. 0:0198. there are five subfactors. potential of oxidation/reduction. the judgment matrix is Table 4 Summary of corrosion damage Grade Subfactor Soil performance Coating performance Pipe performance Service on 03/11/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme. resistivity of soil. and the incorrect operation u4 belongs to III . pipe performance. the category of third-party damage u2 . years Evaluated category I 11 47 31 0 8 II 26 5 2 0 17 III 18 3 3 0 13 IV 0 0 14 25 17 V 0 0 5 0 0 021702-4 / Vol. in this example. 0:2901. for example. four factors were considered. coating condition.2 Corrosion Analysis. 0:0627. pH of soil. here. 0:0526Þ  ¼ ð 0:2275. 0:0231. 0:1588. If calculate for all pipes. design error. in the corrosion analysis model. the design error category. 0:2079Þ 3 2 0:2275 0:2901 0:2301 0:1588 0:0934 6 0:2275 0:2901 0:2301 0:1588 0:0934 7 7 6 7 6 6 0:1460 0:2186 0:2709 0:2186 0:1460 7 7 6 6 0:1460 0:2186 0:2709 0:2186 0:1460 7 7 6 7 6 6 0:1460 0:2186 0:2709 0:2186 0:1460 7 7 6 6 0:1460 0:2186 0:2709 0:2186 0:1460 7 7 6 7 6 6 0:1460 0:2186 0:2709 0:2186 0:1460 7 7 6 6 0:1460 0:2186 0:2709 0:2186 0:4160 7 7 6 7 6 4 0:3574 0:2882 0:1946 0:1184 0:0414 5 0:1460 0:2186 0:2709 0:2186 0:4160 ¼ ð 0:1907. For the factor of design error and incorrect operation. moisture content of soil. So. there are five subfactors. 4 Risk Analysis Based on the principle of MDM. the aggregated vectors of other factors are ~2 ¼ ð 0:2275. 0:2301. As mentioned above. coating resistivity. In order to perform the fuzzy analysis. corrosion is more important than third-party damage. 0:2901. 0:2186.asme. So. 0:2709. The grade of third-party damage results for all pipe units is presented in Table 3. and incorrect operation. including the soil type. 0:0934 Þ ~4 ¼ B ~5 ¼ B ~6 ¼ B ~7 ¼ B ~8 ~3 ¼ B B ~10 ¼ ð0:1460. In order to explain the calculation procedure. 134. 0:1201 Þ 3. the likelihood category can be assessed by the corrosion category. 0:0297. 0:1460Þ ¼B ~9 ¼ ð 0:3574. the third-party damage category. 0:0891. 0:0495. coating performance. there is a certain pipe. 0:1907. 0:0934 Þ As the same way. ~1 ¼ B B 0:1588.asmedigitalcollection. the categories of them can be gotten similar to the factor of corrosion. and service time. The loss of pipe wall due to corrosion can be relatively uniform or localized [8]. Therefore. 0:0414 Þ ~ can be achieved as follows: The fuzzy general evaluation set C ~¼wB ~ C ¼ ð0:2608. and potential of pipe/soil. Here. The weight of evaluation factors is calculated by analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Third-party damage is more important than design error. 0:1946. and material of pipe. 0:2301. 0:2186. pH of soil. 0:0561. and design error is more important than incorrect operation. 0:2512. the multistage fuzzy comprehensive assessment method was also employed. resistivity of soil. the checklist of corrosion was designed. and puncture potential of electrospark. 0:1053. product corrosivity. potential of pipe/soil. APRIL 2012 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech. we have to determine the grade of factors. its category of corrosion u1 . Compared to the factor of corrosion and third-party damage. coating thickness. B 0:2882. 0:4211. first. Figures 4–6 show the corrosion failure photograph of iron casing pipe and steel pipe.

and category of design error are also different. 7 Likelihood of pipeline ~1  R ~1 ¼ A ~ ¼ f0:146. Once the buried gas pipeline fails. 0:2074. we can get the grade of likelihood for all pipes. Certainly. using AHP method. category of third-party damage. there is no ‘V’ and ‘I’ category of likelihood. 0:2186. the grade of likelihood is III category. From Fig. 7. category of incorrect operation. 0:2901. impact on environment. 7. the supply influence of gas. If calculate for all pipes. Vol.asmedigitalcollection. 0:2633.Fig. 0:146g B ~2 ¼ B ~1 ~4 ¼ B B ~3 ¼ f0:2275. for the different pipes. it could result the serious consequences including casualties. on 03/11/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.2 Consequence Analysis. 0:2954. 4 Corrosion dent of iron casing pipe A ¼ ðaij Þ4Â4 1 6 0:833 6 ¼4 1=2 0 :4 2 1 :2 1 0:667 0 :5 2 1 :5 1 0:833 3 2:5 2 7 7 1:2 5 1 Fig. 4. The grade of likelihood results for all pipe units evaluated is presented in Fig. and 30 units belong to ‘IV’ . 8 Consequence model Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology APRIL 2012. 5 Corrosion of steel elbow Based on the principle of maximal degree of membership. the weight factor can be derived from the comparison matrix. the category of corrosion. 0:1588. 0:2320. 0:1362 Þ So. Fig. 0:2709. 0:2301.asme. 0:2954. 0:2186. 6 Corrosion of steel pipe Fig. w ¼ ð 0:3677. based on the first-stage MFCA. 0:1501Þ 3 2 0:146 0:2186 0:2709 0:2186 0:146 6 0:146 0:2186 0:2709 0:2186 0:146 7 7 6 7 6 4 0:2275 0:2901 0:2301 0:1588 0:0934 5 0:146 0:2186 0:2709 0:2186 0:146 ¼ ð 0:1612. 0:1868. 134 / 021702-5 Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech. the aggregated vector B express as follows: Fig. 0:1501 Þ ~ can So. 0:0934g B ~ can be achieved as follows: The fuzzy general evaluation set C ~¼wB ~ C ¼ ð0:3677. property loss.

0:0827. The consequence fuzzy assessment model is presented in Fig. The other three factors were related on the maintenance situation. W. Parts of risk matrix indicate a high. “Probabilistic Risk Analysis of Corrosion Associated Failures in Cast Iron Water Mains. where the numbers in Fig. “Reliability-Based Design and Assessment Standards for Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines. ~ ¼ð0:2315.. Pressure Vessel Technol. and Zhou. Balvant. So. stability of gas supply and social. [9] Rehan..” American Petroleum Institute. The likelihood is determined by the corrosion damage. and characterized by risk matrix. 1998.” ASME J. S. and Widera. The weight of consequence factors was also derived by AHP method. S. 1996). 2010. 9 Consequence category social influence. J.. Houston. design error. using the data for the pipes and the environment. 2000. J. 24 pipeline units belong to mediumhigh risk category. “Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document. K. design and construction error.. J. gas type. maintainable level. the main influence subfactors including operation pressure. [3] Quin. Vol 2. which means the consequence is very huge. 8.. medium. 131(4).asme. B. “Reliability Assessment of Mechanical Components Using Fuzzy-Set Theory. 0:1703.. “Safety Management of Urban Gas Pipelines Based on risk. and maintenance. 4. “Reliability Based Design and Assessment for Location-Specific Failure Threats With Application to Natural Gas Pipelines. and Rothwell. W. Pressure Vessel Technol. 43 units of pipeline belong to ‘4’ category consequence.” ASME J. pp.. A 0:1043. 10 with frequency on the vertical axis (listed in categories I–V with V having the highest frequency event and I having the lowest frequency event) and consequences on the horizontal axis (listed as 1-5 with 5 having the highest consequence and 1 having the lowest consequence). Based on API 581 [8]. For the consequence analysis model.asmedigitalcollection. Miao. M. 208–211. The consequence is also determined by MFCA method. T. 2006AA04Z439) and the Key Technologies R&D program (No. [6] Guo. [2] Tang. and the judgment matrix was as follows: A¼2 ðaij Þ8Â8 1 6 1 6 6 1=3 6 6 0:25 ¼6 6 0:286 6 6 0:4 6 4 2=3 0:5 3 3:5 2:5 1:5 2 2:5 1:5 1 1 :2 7 7 1 1 0:5 2=3 7 7 1 0:5 1=3 0:4 7 7 1 2=3 0:4 0:5 7 7 1:5 1 2=3 1 7 7 2:5 1:5 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 Fig. 0:0560. and the others are equal to or less than ‘3’ category. Pressure Vessel Technol. 10 Risk matrix 5 Conclusions 1 1 0:5 1=3 0:4 2=3 1 0:833 3 4 2 3 1 1 :5 2=3 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1:5 2:5 In this paper. pp. and social influence. maintenance cost. 160 pipeline units belong to medium risk category.3 Risk Results.. gas supply influence. “Uncertainty Analysis in Quantitative Risk Assessment. pp... 2009.. The results show that corrosion damage and third-party damage contribute greatest to the likelihood of failure. G.. and Yehuda. and the factor of interest include the potential loss of life and property. 131(3). 021702-6 / Vol.. J. the category of risk can be characterized by ‘so called’ risk matrix. Rothwell. Potential casualties and impact on environment can be calculated by the fire model. M. Acknowledgment The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of this research by National High-tech R&D Program of China (863 Project. 86(1). 118(1). No.... Property loss and gas supply influence were mainly influenced by the complex of network and population density. Nessim.. API 581 provides a matrix as shown in Fig. 2004. E. APRIL 2012 Transactions of the ASME Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech. [5] Zhou. 121–124. The failure causes of pipeline can be divided into four on 03/11/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme. and Sun. K.. Y. R. B. pp 270–275. [7] Zhao. and incorrect operation by MFCA method. 2006BKA02B02).” Natural Gas Ind. the weight of consequence factors can be calculated with AHP method. 2005. maintenance time. diameter of pipe. 031702. Eng. There are four units of pipeline belong to ‘5’ category consequence. References [1] Muhlbauer. Washington. 9.” ICAMS 2010—Proceedings of 2010 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Management Science.. 0:1301Þ The results of the consequence analysis are presented in Fig. 25(2). and low risk. 10 is the units of . 1–10.” ASME J. and the maintenance activity. 134. 2009. 120(3). 0:0699.C. and incorrect operation. O.. such as third-party damage. 1996. measurements should be taken to reduce the risk as low as reasonable practicable. impact on environment. and 392 pipeline units belong to low risk category. the risk of each pipeline can be evaluated by MFCA method. W. corrosion. C. Z. Zhou. and Sun. pp. D. including potential casualties. It is indicated that there are two pipeline units belong to high risk category. 152–154. medium-high. [8] API Publication 581.” Reliab. etc. “Fuzzy Integrated Evaluation of Buried inService LPG Pressure Pipeline Quality.” ASME J. leakage size. Zhou. Pipeline Risk Management Manual (Gulf Publishing Company. Figure 10 also shows the risk for all evaluating pipeline. 0:1582. There are two pipeline units belong to high risk category.. property loss. Syst.. Saf. TX. the third-party damage... multistage MFCA method was presented to assess the risk of buried gas pipeline of a certain city of China by accurately calculating the likelihood and consequence of failure. As a result.. 041701. Pressure Vessel Technol. [4] Nessim.Fig.. there are eight factors.