Prosiding Seminar Nasional Manajemen Teknologi XXIV

Program Studi MMT-ITS, Surabaya 23 Januari 2016

SELECTING LIQUID LIFTING TECHNOLOGY FOR XY MATURE

GAS FIELD USING FUZZY AHP AND TOPSIS
Armon1) and Udisubakti Ciptomulyono
Masters Program in Management of Technology, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
Jl. Cokroaminoto 12A, Surabaya, 60264, Indonesia
e-mail: armon.armon@gmail.com

ABSTRACTS
At end production period of mature gas well, liquid lifting has been known as a main problem
that can stop production from the well. After certain production period, reservoir pressure of a
gas well will decrease, giving a lower gas rate compared to early production period, which
create a problem to lift liquid from the well bore. The non- lifting liquid will block the gas
production from reservoirs and eventually will stop gas production from the mature wells,
which mean loss of profit for the stakeholders. TEPHE experts have reviewed several liquid
lifting technologies in order to extend production period of the XY mature gas field. Three
shortlisted liquid lifting technology alternatives are considered to be applicable which consists
of batch surfactant, capillary string and velocity string. From main and sub-criteria of
selecting liquid lifting technology defined from literatures and TEPHE experts, there are some
criteria which are conflicting. A trade-off needs to be made as a compromise for selecting the
best solution by using Multiple Criteria Decision Method (MCDM) method. In order to
determine the best liquid lifting technology to be applied at XY gas field, it is proposed to use
Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and TOPSIS as combination of the multiple
criteria decision making methodologies. FAHP technique is used to determine the
importance/weight of criteria while TOPSIS technique is used to calculate alternative ratings
and determine the ranks of the 3 alternatives. The results are to establish the main criteria to
choose best liquid lifting technology and to give recommendation of the best technologies to
be applied for XY field.
Keywords: mature gas well, liquid lifting technologies, FAHP, TOPSIS.

INTRODUCTION
With more than 20 years of production history, most of producing wells at XY field
are mature wells with depleted reservoir pressures. In this mature field context, liquid loading
of gas wells is one of its main challenges. Liquid loading is the phenomena where liquids
from wellbore cannot be lifted out to surface from the gas well. Accumulation of the un-lifted
liquid in the borehole will block gas production and increase the hydrostatic pressure in the
wellbore significantly, which is causing self-killing process starts. This phenomenon will
reduce gas production from mature gas wells and therefore reduce profits for the stakeholders
(Lea, et al., 2008). Several optimization methods have been reviewed and some pilot trials
have been performed in order to find the best methods to optimize gas production from these
mature gas wells.
There are 3 main liquid lifting technologies that have been shortlisted by TEPHE
experts, that respect TEPHE safety standard and company rule consists of batch surfactant,
capillary string and velocity string. From the main and sub-criteria for selecting liquid lifting
ISBN : 978-602-70604-3-2
A-1-1

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Manajemen Teknologi XXIV

Program Studi MMT-ITS, Surabaya 23 Januari 2016

technology, defined from literatures and TEPHE experts, there are some criteria which are
conflicting. A trade-off needs to be made as a compromise for selecting the best solution by
using Multiple Criteria Decision Method (MCDM) method.
In this paper, a decision support system for selecting liquid lifting technology for XY
gas field is proposed using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and TOPSIS. A
combination of the multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methodologies where weight
factors of criteria are calculated using FAHP and TOPSIS is used to rank the 3 available
alternatives. The following section of the paper explains FAHP and TOPSIS methodology,
presents numerical results to show applicability of the methodology and followed by
conclusion in the last section.Bagian ini meliputi studi literatur, latar belakang dan tujuan
penulisan

METHODOLOGY
Fuzzy AHP Method
Decision making process can be summarized as a process of selecting alternatives,
using certain mechanism with limited resources, in order to be able to get a best solution
(Ciptomulyono, 2010). Zadeh (1965) used fuzzy set theory to deal with vagueness and
uncertainty in decision making in order to enhance precision (Kabir, 2012). Conventional
AHP, that requires selection of arbitrary values in pair-wise comparison, may not be sufficient
and uncertainty should be considered in some or all pair-wise comparison value (Yu, 2002).
Decision-makers usually find that it is more confident to give interval judgments than fixed
value judgments because they are unable to explicit about their preferences due to the fuzzy
nature of the comparison process (Gumus, 2009). Fuzzy linguistic approach can take the
optimism/pessimism rating attitude of decision makers into account by using linguistic values,
therefore FAHP should be more appropriate and effective than conventional AHP in real
practice where an uncertain pair-wise comparison environment exists (Lee, 2008). Fuzzy
AHP resolution procedure is as follows (Ayag, 2005):
1. Define the problem and determine the desired solution.
2. Creating a hierarchical structure that begins with a general purpose, followed by the
criteria, sub-sub-criteria and alternatives eventually want the desired option.
3. Create a matrix comparison of scores in the fuzzy numbers, an indication of the relative
importance of each pair of elements in the same hierarchy.
By using fuzzy numbers through pairwise comparison, assessment matrix fuzzy A
~ (aij)
was made as follows:

Figure 1. Fuzzy comparison matrix

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
With ~
a ij =1 if i=j, dan ~
a ij = 1 ,3 ,5 ,7 ,9 atau 1 -1,3 -1,5 -1,7 -1,9

-1

jika i j

4. Make
a
comparison
matrix
-cut
fuzzy expert
assessment
results.
Figure 2.11. shows a triangular fuzzy sets are defined by the confidence level ,
ISBN : 978-602-70604-3-2
A-1-2

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Manajemen Teknologi XXIV

Program Studi MMT-ITS, Surabaya 23 Januari 2016

optimism index, and the degree of fuzziness . If = 0 and = 1, the value will be equal
to the value fuzzy crisp.
By entering a value of , triangular fuzzy values can be converted into a range of -cut.
The range is then used on fuzzy numbers to change the results of expert assessment of the
fuzzy values into fuzzy -cut. The upper limit and lower limit of fuzzy numbers based on
the value of -cut can be searched by the equation below:

(1)

5. Calculate crips value of the pairwise comparison matrix

Value -cut comparison matrix fuzzy then converted into crips values using equation (2).
In the example of data processing in this study used the optimism index value = 0.5
which indicates that the assessment given not too optimistic and too pessimistic. The
greater the value of index indicates a higher degree of optimism.
~
a
(2)

ij a iju (1 ) a ijl , [0,1]

6. Normalize the data is by dividing the value of each element in the matrix which is paired
with the total value of each column..
7. Resolution fuzzy eigenvalues
The purpose of this step is to calculate the relative importance of all elements based
element on the level above it in the hierarchy structure. Fuzzy eigenvalues is a fuzzy
number to complete the equation below:
A
~ ~x = ~ ~x
A
~ is ( n x n ) fuzzy matrix which consist of fuzzy ~
a ij.
~x is (n x 1 ) fuzzy vector which consist of fuzzy ~x ij.
Furthermore, the multiplication and addition using interval arithmetic and -cut, so that
the above equation is converted into the following equation:

i1l 1l

x , ai1u x1u ... ainl

xnl , ainu
xnu
xil , xiu

(3)

Eigenvector is calculated by correcting the value of and -cut identification of the

maximum that will produce a set of values of fuzzy numbers.
8. Determining the Consistency Index (CI). Assessment revealed a consistent 100% if CI = 0.
If CI 0.1, then the judging to be repeated.
(4)
Note:
ISBN : 978-602-70604-3-2
A-1-3

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Manajemen Teknologi XXIV

Program Studi MMT-ITS, Surabaya 23 Januari 2016

CI
maks
n

= Consistency Index
= maximum eigen value
= matrix size

9. Test the consistency hierarchy by calculating Consistecy Ratio (CR). If not met CR
<0.100 then the assessment should be repeated.
(5)
Note:
CR
= Consistency Ratio
CI
= Consistency Index
RI
= Random Index, random consistency value based on size of matrix.
Table 1. Value of RI is based on the size of the matrix

Scale
RI

1
0.00

2
0.00

3
0.52

4
0.89

5
1.11

6
1.25

7
1.35

8
1.40

9
1.45

10
1.49

TOPSIS
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution Method (TOPSIS) is
included in the category of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is the technique of
decision making using more than one criterion exists. TOPSIS ideal solution is to determine
the positive and negative ideal solution. Positive ideal solution to maximize the benefits and
minimize the criteria of cost criteria, whereas the negative ideal solution to maximize cost
criteria and minimize benefit criteria. This concept was developed by Hwang and Yoong
(1981), to assume that, in a decision problem with m and n alternative criteria, a number of
alternatives point-n can be mapped on an m-dimensional space. The optimal solution is a
solution that has the shortest distance to the positive ideal solution, and has the farthest
distance to the negative ideal solution. Steps on the calculation method TOPSIS are as
follows:
Step 1: Create a normalized decision matrix with the following equation:
,

(6)

with
.
Step 2: Create a weighting matrix normalized by the following equation:
(7)
with

for

weight crietria
Step 3: Determine the ideal solution both positive and negative ideal solution with next
formula:
Value of positive ideal solution
(8)

with
Value of positive ideal solution

ISBN : 978-602-70604-3-2
A-1-4

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Manajemen Teknologi XXIV

Program Studi MMT-ITS, Surabaya 23 Januari 2016

(9)
with
Step 4: Calculate the distance separating the value of each alternative (Ideal Positive Ideal
Negative)
Distance from positive ideal solution
(10)

with
Distance from negative ideal solution
(11)
with

Step 5: Calculate relative distance to the ideal solution (

)
(12)

with

dan

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on literature and TEPHE experts, there are 4 main criteria and 21 sub criteria
which are important for selecting liquid lifting technology for XY field. Pair wise comparison
are performed for the main and sub-criteria using fuzzy numbers, in order to determine weight
factors that will be used in TOPSIS calculation.
Table 2. Definition and membership functions of fuzzy numbers
Priority order Fuzzy number
1
1~
3
3~
5
5~
7
7~
9
9~

Membership
function
(1,1,2)
(2,3,4)
(4,5,6)
(6,7,8)
(8,9,10)

Definition
Equally important
Slightly more important
More important
Much more important
Absolutely more
important

Lower & upper limit

(1,2)
(2,3)
(4,6)
(6,7)
(8,10)

Table 3. Pair-wise Comparison of Main Criteria

Pair-wise comparison

RESPONDENT RESPONSE
2
3
4
5

1
7
5

1
7

1
5

9
9

3-1
3-1

(6,7)
(4,6)

(1,2)
(6,7)

1. Safety & Environment

2. Economic
2. Economic
3. Technical

5
7
9
7

9
7
7
5

5
5
5
5-1

9
7
7
1

5
5
5
3

(4,6)
(6,7)
(8,10)
(6,7)

(8,10)
(4,6)
(6,7)
(4,6)
(6,7)
(4,6)
(4,6) (1/6, 1/4)

4.Equipments
3.Technical
4.Equipments
4. Equipments

ISBN : 978-602-70604-3-2
A-1-5

RESPONDENT RESPONSE (membership function)

2
3
4
5

Left Side
Right Side
Pair-wise comparison for main criteria
1. Safety & Environment
2. Economic
1. Safety & Environment
3.Technical

(1,2)
(4,6)

(8,10)
(8,10)

(1/4, 1/2)
(1/4, 1/2)

(8,10)
(6,7)
(6,7)
(1,2)

(4,6)
(4,6)
(4,6)
(2,3)

RESPONDENT RESPONSE (CRISP VALU

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Manajemen Teknologi XXIV

Program Studi MMT-ITS, Surabaya 23 Januari 2016

Table 4. Sub-criteria comparison result

Table 5. Weight Factor and Ranking of Sub-Criteria

CRITERIA

WEIGHT
FACTOR

Safety & Env.

0.478

Economic

0.369

Technical

0.097

Equipments

0.056

Sub-criteria
1.1. Safety compliance
1.2. Impact on water disposal quality
1.3. Chemical pollution possibility
2.1. Equipments cost
2.2. Installation cost
2.3. Operation and maintenance cost
2.4. Payback period
2.5. Service/ life duration
2.6. Delivery Time
3.1. Enhancing labor force skills - new knowledge
3.2. Coordination of different entities
3.3. Reliability
3.4. Maturity
3.5. Additional workload for Operators
3.6. Performance prediction
3.7. Number of wells candidates
3.8. Additional workload for Engineers
4.1. Need of Special equipment, DHSV, etc
4.2. Need of additional barge support
4.3.Need of special chemical
4.4. Surface facilities modification

ISBN : 978-602-70604-3-2
A-1-6

Local
Weight
0.53
0.30
0.18
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.45
0.15
0.13
0.03
0.16
0.29
0.11
0.12
0.15
0.09
0.06
0.32
0.19
0.22
0.27

Local
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
8
2
1
5
4
3
6
7
1
4
3
2

Global
Weight
0.25
0.14
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.17
0.06
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02

Global
Rank
1
3
4
7
8
10
2
5
6
21
13
9
18
16
14
19
20
11
17
15
12

Local
CR

Global
CR

0.00

0.09

0.06
0.04

0.00

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Manajemen Teknologi XXIV

Program Studi MMT-ITS, Surabaya 23 Januari 2016

Table 6. TOPSIS calculation for Matrix

CRITERIA
Safety & Env.

Economic

Technical

Equipments

WEIGHT
Sub-criteria
FACTOR
0.478 1.1. Safety compliance
0.478 1.2. Impact on water disposal quality
0.478 1.3. Chemical pollution possibility
0.369 2.1. Equipments cost
0.369 2.2. Installation cost
0.369 2.3. Operation and maintenance cost
0.369 2.4. Payback period
0.369 2.5. Service/ life duration
0.369 2.6. Delivery Time
0.097 3.1. Enhancing labor force skills - new knowledge
0.097 3.2. Coordination of different entities
0.097 3.3. Reliability
0.097 3.4. Maturity
0.097 3.5. Additional workload for Operators
0.097 3.6. Performance prediction
0.097 3.7. Number of wells candidates
0.097 3.8. Additional workload for Engineers
0.056 4.1. Need of Special equipment, DHSV, etc
0.056 4.2. Need of additional barge support
0.056 4.3.Need of special chemical
0.056 4.4. Surface facilities modification

and
Matriks r_ij
Matriks v_ij
Local Global Matriks x_ij
Weight Weight BS CS VS
BS CS
VS BS CS
VS
0.53
0.25 3.8 3.8 4.0 6.70 0.567 0.567 0.597 0.143 0.143 0.151
0.30
0.14 2.4 2.4 4.6 5.72 0.420 0.420 0.805 0.059 0.059 0.114
0.18
0.08 2.6 2.6 4.8 6.05 0.430 0.430 0.794 0.036 0.036 0.066
0.11
0.04 3.2 2.6 2.0 4.58 0.698 0.567 0.436 0.028 0.023 0.018
0.09
0.03 3.2 2.4 1.8 4.39 0.730 0.547 0.410 0.024 0.018 0.013
0.07
0.03 3.0 2.4 3.6 5.26 0.570 0.456 0.684 0.015 0.012 0.017
0.45
0.17 2.2 3.4 3.4 5.29 0.416 0.643 0.643 0.069 0.107 0.107
0.15
0.06 1.8 3.2 3.8 5.28 0.341 0.606 0.719 0.019 0.034 0.041
0.13
0.05 4.0 3.4 2.6 5.86 0.683 0.580 0.444 0.032 0.027 0.021
0.03
0.00 3.0 3.6 3.8 6.03 0.497 0.597 0.630 0.002 0.002 0.002
0.16
0.02 3.0 3.8 3.6 6.03 0.497 0.630 0.597 0.008 0.010 0.009
0.29
0.03 3.0 3.8 3.6 6.03 0.497 0.630 0.597 0.014 0.018 0.017
0.11
0.01 2.4 3.0 3.0 4.87 0.492 0.615 0.615 0.005 0.007 0.007
0.12
0.01 2.8 2.6 3.2 4.98 0.562 0.522 0.642 0.006 0.006 0.007
0.15
0.01 1.8 2.2 3.2 4.28 0.421 0.514 0.748 0.006 0.007 0.011
0.09
0.01 2.4 2.4 2.8 4.40 0.545 0.545 0.636 0.004 0.004 0.005
0.06
0.01 2.8 2.8 2.2 4.53 0.618 0.618 0.486 0.004 0.004 0.003
0.32
0.02 3.4 2.2 2.6 4.81 0.706 0.457 0.540 0.012 0.008 0.010
0.19
0.01 3.6 2.2 2.2 4.76 0.757 0.462 0.462 0.008 0.005 0.005
0.22
0.01 2.8 2.8 3.0 4.97 0.564 0.564 0.604 0.007 0.007 0.007
0.27
0.02 3.2 2.4 3.4 5.25 0.610 0.457 0.648 0.009 0.007 0.010

Table 7. TOPSIS calculation for ideal solution and distance to ideal solution.
CRITERIA
Safety & Env.

Economic

Technical

Equipments

WEIGHT
Sub-criteria
FACTOR
0.478 1.1. Safety compliance
0.478 1.2. Impact on water disposal quality
0.478 1.3. Chemical pollution possibility
0.369 2.1. Equipments cost
0.369 2.2. Installation cost
0.369 2.3. Operation and maintenance cost
0.369 2.4. Payback period
0.369 2.5. Service/ life duration
0.369 2.6. Delivery Time
0.097 3.1. Enhancing labor force skills - new knowledge
0.097 3.2. Coordination of different entities
0.097 3.3. Reliability
0.097 3.4. Maturity
0.097 3.5. Additional workload for Operators
0.097 3.6. Performance prediction
0.097 3.7. Number of wells candidates
0.097 3.8. Additional workload for Engineers
0.056 4.1. Need of Special equipment, DHSV, etc
0.056 4.2. Need of additional barge support
0.056 4.3.Need of special chemical
0.056 4.4. Surface facilities modification

Table 8. Calculated Value of

Remark
S+
SCi+
RANK

Ideal solution
Negative
0.151
0.143
0.114
0.059
0.066
0.036
0.028
0.018
0.024
0.013
0.017
0.012
0.107
0.069
0.041
0.019
0.032
0.021
0.002
0.002
0.010
0.008
0.018
0.014
0.007
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.011
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.012
0.008
0.008
0.005
0.007
0.007
0.010
0.007

Positive

for the alternatives.

Batch Surfanctant
0.077
0.020
0.204
3

ISBN : 978-602-70604-3-2
A-1-7

Distance to Ideal solution (+)

Distance to Ideal solution (-)
BS
CS
VS
BS
CS
VS
5.70E-05 5.70E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.70E-05
2.96E-03 2.96E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.96E-03
9.26E-04 9.26E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 9.26E-04
0.00E+00 2.77E-05 1.11E-04 1.11E-04 2.77E-05 0.00E+00
0.00E+00 3.59E-05 1.10E-04 1.10E-04 2.02E-05 0.00E+00
8.42E-06 3.37E-05 0.00E+00 8.42E-06 0.00E+00 3.37E-05
1.43E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.43E-03 1.43E-03
4.63E-04 4.16E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.27E-04 4.63E-04
0.00E+00 2.27E-05 1.23E-04 1.23E-04 4.03E-05 0.00E+00
1.91E-07 1.20E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.08E-07 1.91E-07
4.08E-06 0.00E+00 2.55E-07 0.00E+00 4.08E-06 2.29E-06
1.36E-05 0.00E+00 8.52E-07 0.00E+00 1.36E-05 7.66E-06
1.69E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.69E-06 1.69E-06
8.02E-07 1.80E-06 0.00E+00 2.00E-07 0.00E+00 1.80E-06
2.20E-05 1.12E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.80E-06 2.20E-05
5.62E-07 5.62E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.62E-07
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.76E-07 6.76E-07 6.76E-07 0.00E+00
0.00E+00 1.93E-05 8.60E-06 1.93E-05 0.00E+00 2.15E-06
0.00E+00 9.90E-06 9.90E-06 9.90E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
2.48E-07 2.48E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.48E-07
3.37E-07 8.42E-06 0.00E+00 5.39E-06 0.00E+00 8.42E-06

Capillary String
0.065
0.042
0.395
2

Velocity String
0.019
0.077
0.801
1

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Manajemen Teknologi XXIV

Program Studi MMT-ITS, Surabaya 23 Januari 2016

Sensitivity analyses are performed and showed that only very significant change of
sub-criteria weight factors (>70%) can start changing the 1st rank of liquid lifting technology
alternatives from Velocity String to become Capillary String or Batch Surfactant. This result
indicates that the recommendation to select Velocity String is a robust one.Bagian ini
menjelaskan bagaimana penelitian dilakukan

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the result of all research process, this research concluded the criteria which
are considered to be important for selecting liquid lifting technology for XY gas field are
(based on weight factor rank from FAHP): Safety and Environment (48%), Economic (37%),
Technical (10%) and Equipments (5%). From TOPSIS evaluation for selecting liquid lifting
technology for XY gas field, the ranks of alternatives are as follows (from best to worst):
Velocity String ( of 0.78), Capillary String ( of 0.42), and Batch Surfactant ( of 0.23).
Some recommendations for future research: to define criteria and sub-criteria using
Delphi method, to enlarge survey respondent to executor entities on sites (Construction
department, Well Intervention department, etc.) in order to encompass operational constraint
in the criteria and sub-criteria and to use other combination of MCDM method such as fuzzy
AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS in order to have a full implementation of fuzzy method from
beginning until the end.

REFERENCES
Ayag, Z. (2005). A fuzzy AHP-based simulation approach to concept evaluation in a NPD
environment ", IIE Transactions, Vol. 37, p. 827-842.
Ciptomulyono, U. (2010). Paradigma Pengambilan Keputusan Multikriteria dalam Perspektif
Pengembangan Projek dan Industri yang Berwawasan Lingkungan, Pidato
Pengukuhan untuk Jabatan Guru Besar dalam Bidang Ilmu Pengambilan Keputusan
Multikriteria pada Jurusan Teknik Industri, Fakultas Teknolologi Industri, Institut
Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Surabaya.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Application: A State of the Art Surveys, Lectures Notes in Economics and
Mathematics System, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Lea, J.F., Nickens, H.V., Wells, M.R., (2008). Gas Well Deliquification, 2nd edition, Elsevier,
Inc., Oxford.
Lee, A. H. I., Chen, W.-C., & Chang, C.-J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for
evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34(1), p. 96107.
Yu, C. S. (2002). A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP
problems, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 29, p. 19692001.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control,Vol. 8, p. 338-353.

ISBN : 978-602-70604-3-2
A-1-8