Petroleum 9 (2023) 94e100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Petroleum
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/petlm

Risk assessment of oil and gas pipelines hot work based on AHP-FCE
San He a, Huilan Xu b, *, Jianxiong Zhang c, Peiqiang Xue d
a
Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, 610500, China
b
Sinopec Southwest Oil & Gas Company, Chengdu, 610095, China
c
PetroChina Southwest Oil and Gas Field Company Shunan Gas Mine, Luzhou, 64600, China
d
PetroChina Qinghai Oilfield Downhole Operation Company, Haixi Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, 816100, Qinghai, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A new quantitative risk assessment method for hot work is proposed based on the analytic hierarchy
Received 11 August 2021 process (AHP) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE). It can help pipeline companies realize the risk
Received in revised form management of hot work and further ensure the safe operation of oil and gas pipelines. Taking one
27 January 2022
natural gas pipeline in China as an example, this paper evaluates the risk of a single hot work in the
Accepted 14 March 2022
spring of one natural gas pipeline in a high consequence region. First of all, the risk factors are deter-
mined with reference to the job safety analysis (JSA), and then experts were invited to fill out a ques-
Keywords:
tionnaire to collect their opinions. According to the results of the questionnaire, AHP is used to calculate
Oil and gas pipelines
Hot work
the weight coefficients of the evaluation indicators, and FCE is used to evaluate the risk level of hot work.
Risk assessment After calculation, the comprehensive risk score of hot work is 40.888. It belongs to a "general risk". This
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method can not only quantitatively evaluate the risk levels of hot work, but also reasonably sort the
Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) importance of various risk factors. It is helpful for the effective management of hot work and provides
suggestions for implementing control measures.
© 2022 Southwest Petroleum University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi
Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction triphenyl tank area of a petrochemical company in Dalian, China.

In oil and gas field, the production process involves equipment
maintenance and repair, technical transformation, and project
construction. Hot work is inevitable [1]. Hot work refers to any
work that requires using open flames, applying heat or friction, or
may generate sparks or heat. Oil and gas are flammable and
explosive materials. In the construction of oil depots, oil pump
areas, and oil and gas pipelines, fire sources such as electric shock
sparks, mechanical friction, welding, torches, and open flames may
cause fires and explosions. Such dangerous accidents will lead to
irreparable economic losses and personal injury [2]. In 2013, due to
improper hot work, a miscellaneous material tank exploded in the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: 595951135@qq.com (H. Xu).
Peer review under responsibility of Southwest Petroleum University.
Production and Hosting by Elsevier on behalf of KeAi
After the spilled material caught fire, the three adjacent storage
tanks were also ignited one after another. The explosion caused
four deaths and an economic loss of 0.99 million dollars. In 2019, a
refined oil storage tank of a logistics company in Qingdao, China
accidently caught fire during the hot work for inspection and
maintenance, resulting in one death and one injury [3].
In the field of work safety, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
is widely used. It is simple and practical. Saman Aminbakhsh et al.
[4] proposed a security risk assessment framework based on AHP.
The aim is to prioritize safety risks in construction projects and
identify potential hazards. Abel Pinto et al. [5] studied the impact of
the occupational injury on safety, health, and economy. P.K. Mar-
havilas et al. [6] classified a variety of risk analysis and evaluation
methods. The results show that the usage rate of the quantitative
method is 65.63%, the usage rate of the qualitative method is
27.68%, and the usage rate of the hybrid method is only 6.70%. I.A.
Papazoglou et al. [7] established a worker occupational risk model.
It can link working conditions, worker behavior, and the possibility
of accidents. Yaşar Kasap et al. [8] analyzed the operational risks of
open-cut mining to prevent industrial accidents. The fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process (FAHP) is improved based on the traditional

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2022.03.006
2405-6561/© 2022 Southwest Petroleum University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. He, H. Xu, J. Zhang et al.
analytic hierarchy process. It improves the reliability of decision-
making and is conducive to quantifying evaluation indicators.
Metin Da deviren et al. [9] used the fuzzy analytical hierarchy
process (FAHP) to determine the risk level of wrong behavior in the
workplace. Shi-yu Li et al. [10] established a fire evaluation index
model for high-rise buildings based on FAHP and analyzed the
influencing factors of fire. Besides, the application of fuzzy
comprehensive evaluation (FCE) is also relatively wide. Its results
are clear and systematic. It can solve vague and difficult to quantify
problems. Jun Hu et al. [11] quantitatively evaluated earthquake
risk based on FCE. Weijun Li et al. [12] improved the conventional
health, safety, and environment (HSE) performance evaluation
method. The new HSE performance evaluation method combines
expert weights with FCE. The application of the above methods is
relatively mature, but all have certain limitations. It is necessary to
consider a reasonable combination of them to improve the accu-
racy of the evaluation results.
At present, there are few studies on the risk assessment of hot
work. Oil and gas companies often use job safety analysis (JSA) to
identify risk factors for hot work in advance and take control
measures to reduce operational risks [12]. However, JSA's subjec-
tive influence is large, and it can only judge the operational risk
qualitatively rather than quantitatively [13]. Based on the combined
method of AHP-FCE, a new quantitative risk assessment method for
hot work is proposed. This method can be applied to the fields of oil
and gas. It aims to evaluate the risk level of hot work of oil and gas
pipelines and to reasonably sort the importance of various risk
factors.
2. AHP-FCE-based risk assessment method
Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) is a method based on the
membership degree theory of fuzzy mathematics. It can solve
multivariate problems in complex decision-making processes [14].
In this process, it is often necessary to consider multiple related
factors to obtain vague evaluation results [15]. One of the pre-
requisites of FCE is to determine the weight of each evaluation in-
dex. It is generally specified directly by the decision-maker.
However, for complex issues, for example, there are many evalua-
tion indicators and they have an influence relationship with each
other. It is difficult to directly give the weight of each evaluation
index, and this problem is exactly what AHP is good at. The analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) is a combination of qualitative and quan-
titative decision-making methods. It can be applied to different
evaluation layers, namely the target layer, the criterion layer, and
the scheme layer [16]. In AHP, through the decomposition of the
problem, the complex problem is decomposed into multiple sub-
problems. Then, the weight of the evaluation index can be ob-
tained through the pairwise comparison of the evaluation index.
The combination of the two methods makes up for their
shortcomings.
The combined AHP-FCE can be used to evaluate the risk of hot
work. The main steps are as follows:
Step 1 Determination of risk factors.
By referring to existing evaluation standards or expert experi-
ence, analyze the target problem to determine the set of influencing
factors [17]. The factor set U can be described as:
U ¼ fu1 ; u2 ; /; um g (1)
ui ði ¼ 1; 2; /; mÞ is called the influencing factor of the evalua-
tion object.
95
Petroleum 9 (2023) 94e100
Step 2 Calculation of weight coefficient of risk factors
Based on the analysis of the research object, the paper estab-
lishes a hierarchical analysis model for risk assessment of hot work.
A certain factor in the upper layer is the evaluation criterion.
Through the pairwise comparison of the factors of this layer, the
relative weight value of each factor of this layer relative to the
factors of the previous layer can be determined. The two factors are
denoted as i and j, the relative weight value is denoted as cij , and the
judgment matrix is denoted as C ¼ ðcij Þn*n . The judgment matrix is
obtained from the questionnaire results of the evaluation team
members.
The three scale method and the nine scale method are often
used to characterize the relative importance of various factors.
However, in practical applications, when the evaluation team
members use the nine scale method, it is difficult to make a
rigorous distinction between the importance of evaluation in-
dicators. It may cause blurred judgment boundaries. The judgment
boundary of the three scale method is too simple, and the degree of
discrimination between the factors is not high [18]. Therefore, in
this paper, the five scale method is used to construct the judgment
matrix. It is simple in form and conforms to the thinking logic of the
human brain.
According to the judgment matrix, the largest eigenvalue lmax
and the corresponding eigenvector Wi are obtained (see Table 1)
[18]. After normalizing Wi , the value ðW1 ; W2 ; /; Wn Þ of the
eigenvector W0i is obtained. This is the weight coefficient of the
evaluation indicators. According to formulas CR ¼ CI=RI and CI ¼
ðlmax  nÞ =ðn  1Þ, the consistency test of the judgment matrix is
carried out to judge whether the weight distribution is reasonable
[19]. CI is the consistency index; n is the order of the judgment
matrix; RI is the average random consistency index. As shown in
Table 2. When CR < 0:1, the consistency check of the judgment
matrix passes. Otherwise, it is necessary to adjust the judgment
matrix to ensure that the value of CR is less than 0.1.
The weight coefficients of evaluation indicators can explain the
relative importance of various risk factors. Their rationality directly
affects the accuracy of risk assessment results [20]. The index
weight set A can be described as:
A ¼ fa1 ; a2 ; a3 ; /; am g (2)
Step 3 Determination of evaluation set
Evaluation set refers to various possible evaluation results. It is
usually expressed in vague language. For example, the assessment
results are divided into four categories: (1) low risk; (2) general
risk; (3) high risk; and (4) significant risk. Then the evaluation set
can be described as:
V ¼ fv1 ; v2 ; v3 ; v4 g (3)
where vi ði ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4Þ represents four possible assessment
categories.
Step 4 Determination of the evaluation matrix
Assuming that the membership degree of factor
ui ði ¼ 1; 2; /; mÞ to each evaluation result is vi ði ¼ 1; 2; /; nÞ, then
the evaluation result set of ui can be expressed as:
Ri ¼ fri1 ; ri2 ; /; rin gði ¼ 1; 2; /; mÞ (4)
rij is determined by the evaluation team members. For example,
if 40% of the total members of the evaluation team classify ui as the
S. He, H. Xu, J. Zhang et al. Petroleum 9 (2023) 94e100

Table 1
Assignment principles of the five scale method.

Scale Importance

cij ¼ 1 Indicates that factor i has the same importance as factor j

cij ¼ 3 Indicates that factor i is important compared to factor j
cij ¼ 5 Indicates that factor i is extremely important compared to factor j
cij ¼ 2; 4 The median of the above two adjacent judgments
Reciprocal Factor i and factor j are compared as cij, then factor j and factor i are compared as cji ¼ 1/cij

Table 2
Average random consistency index.

Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

RI 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.12 1.26 1.36 1.41 1.46 1.49 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58

evaluation result vi , the value of rij is 0.4. When rij has more than 4 data comes from the HSE evaluation department.
significant digits, four significant digits are reserved. After calcu- The five main steps of the above-mentioned combined AHP-FCE
lating the evaluation result set of all factors in factor set U by the are summarized into four specific application steps, including: (1)
above method, the evaluation matrix can be determined. As determine the risk factors of hot work; (2) invite experts to fill out
follows: the questionnaire; (3) AHP-based calculate the weight coefficient of
3 2
2 3 the evaluation index; and (4) FCE-based quantitatively evaluate the
R1 r11 r12 / r1k / r1n risk level.
6 R2 7 6 r21 r22 / r2k / r2n 7
6 7 6 7
6« 7 6« « 1 « 1 « 7
R¼6 7 6
6 Ri 7 ¼ 6 ri1
7 (5) 3.1. Risk factors and evaluation indicators
6 7 6 ri2 / rik / rin 7
7
4« 5 4« « 1 « 1 « 5
With reference to JSA, the process of hot work is divided into
Rm rm1 rm2 / rmk / rmn
three parts, namely, preliminary preparation, during construction,
and end of construction [21]. The various risk factors in the con-
struction process are the evaluation indicators [22]. The evaluation
indicators of hot work are listed in Table 3.
Step 5 Fuzzy composition

After the fuzzy composition of the index weight set A and
evaluation matrix R, the membership degree of the evaluation
subject can be obtained. The calculation formula is as follows:
B ¼ A + R ¼ fb1 ; b2 ; /; bi ; /; bn g
where, bi represents the degree of membership of the evaluation
object to each evaluation result, and the symbol " + " represents the
fuzzy composition method.
There are many fuzzy composition methods, including Mð∧; ∨Þ,
Mð$;∨Þ, Mð∧; 1Þ, Mð$; 1Þ, etc. “∧” and “∨” indicate the selection of
smaller value and larger value, respectively, “$” indicates multipli-
cation, and “1” indicates addition. Method Mð∧; ∨Þ belongs to the
prominent main factor type, with simple and practical character-
istics. It is suitable for the risk assessment and analysis of hot work.
The specific method is as follows:
m  
bj ¼ ∨ ai ∧rij ði ¼ 1; 2; /; m; j ¼ 1; 2; /; nÞ
i¼1
3. Case study
Take a natural gas pipeline of one oil and gas company as an
example. The pipeline has a total length of 130 km, a pipe diameter
of 1016 mm, and a design pressure of 10 MPa. There are 4 sections of
the pipeline within 100 m from the established school. They are all
high-consequence regions. Take one of the pipeline sections in the
high consequence region as an example. The total length of the
pipeline in this block is 596 meters, and its district level is a sec-
ondary district. According to the classification rules for high-
consequence regions, this section should be a level II high-
consequence region. The paper evaluated the risk of a single hot
work of the natural gas pipeline in this block in spring. The basic
3.2. Questionnaire survey process and results
To collect relevant information on hot work, we conducted a
questionnaire survey. Participants included 27 company employees
(6) and 13 university scientific researchers, a total of 40 people formed
the evaluation team. The members of the assessment team shall be
engaged in pipeline safety assessment and technical supervision for
3 years or more. Among them, the company's employees include 5
technical experts (3 doctors and 2 masters) who have been engaged
in the safety field for more than 10 years, as well as 4 safety
managers and 18 safety engineers with 5 years of work experience.
University researchers include 5 professors and 8 associate pro-
fessors. The evaluation team members need to compare each sub-
indicator of the main indicator in turn. According to their experi-
ence, the importance scale is given to obtain the judgment matrix.
In addition, they also need to evaluate the risk levels of various risk
factors in the process of hot work. Table 4 shows the evaluation
(7) results of the risk levels of various risk factors of hot work.
Suppose the risk level is set as:
V ¼ fV1 ; V2 ; V3 ; V4 g ¼ {“Low risk”, “General risk”, “High risk”,
“Significant risk”}
3.3. AHP-based index weight determination
The highest layer is the decision-making goal, the lowest layer is
the decision-making plan, and the middle layer is the decision-
making criterion [23]. The hierarchical analysis model is shown in
Fig. 1.
The judgment matrix obtained from the questionnaire is shown
in Table 5.
The value of the item W0i in Table 5 is the weight coefficient of
each evaluation index. Multiplying the sub-indicator local index
96
S. He, H. Xu, J. Zhang et al. Petroleum 9 (2023) 94e100

Table 3
Evaluation index of hot work.

Time sequence Risk factor Evaluation index

Preliminary preparation: U1 The worker has no relevant occupational operation certificate Operational document: U11
The worker has insufficient safety awareness Safety consciousness: U12
Equipment defect Equipment defect: U13
There are flammable things on and around the job site Flammable thing: U14
No combustible gas test or unqualified test Gas detection: U15
Lack of emergency response measures Response measure: U16
During construction: U2 Irregular operation by workers Standard operation: U21
Cause personal injury during construction Personal injury: U22
Poor construction environment Construction environment: U23
Medium leakage Medium leakage: U24
Fire explosion Fire explosion: U25
Environmental pollution Environmental pollution: U26
No fire extinguisher, safety warning sign, safety warning line on site Safety warning: U27
Inadequate job guardianship and insufficient on-site monitoring Guardianship and monitoring: U28
End of construction: U3 Uncleaned job site Site cleanup: U31
Not completed acceptance Completion acceptance: U32

Table 4
Evaluation results of risk levels of hot work.

Main indicator Sub-indicator Low risk General risk High risk Significant risk
v1 v2 v3 v4

Preliminary preparation: U1 Operational document: U11 3 15 22 0

Safety consciousness: U12 4 24 12 0
Equipment defect: U13 0 15 21 4
Flammable thing: U14 0 10 22 8
Gas detection: U15 0 15 19 6
Response measure: U16 5 18 15 2
During construction: U2 Standard operation: U21 8 19 13 0
Personal injury: U22 0 9 23 8
Construction environment: U23 3 18 15 4
Medium leakage: U24 0 10 25 5
Fire explosion: U25 0 0 22 18
Environmental pollution: U26 0 12 23 5
Safety warning: U27 9 26 5 0
Guardianship and monitoring: U28 1 21 6 2
End of construction: U3 Site cleanup: U31 23 14 3 0
Completion acceptance: U32 10 26 4 0

weight with the main index weight can obtain the sub-indicator
global weight, and the results are listed in Table 6. R11 ¼ ½ 0:075 0:375 0:55 0 ; R12 ¼ ½ 0:1 0:6 0:3 0
(8)

R13 ¼ ½ 0 0:375 0:525 0:1 ; R14 ¼ ½ 0 0:25 0:55 0:2 

3.4. FCE-based risk level evaluation
(9)
According to the risk level evaluation results of hot work from
R15 ¼ ½ 0 0:375 0:475 0:15 ;
Table 4, the sub-indicator evaluation results set are obtained:

Fig. 1. Hierarchical analysis model.

97
S. He, H. Xu, J. Zhang et al. Petroleum 9 (2023) 94e100

Table 5
Judgment matrix and consistency test results.

Judgment matrix C ¼ fcij g Matrix eigenvector Consistency check

Wi Wi0 lmax CR ¼ CI=RI

U U1 U2 U3 3.0858 0.0825 < 0.1

U1 1 1/4 3 0.3143 0.2255
U2 4 1 5 0.9389 0.6738
U3 1/3 1/5 1 0.1403 0.1007
U1 U11 U12 U13 U14 U15 U16 6.0867 0.0138 < 0.1
U11 12 1/3 1/4 1/3 1/2 0.1608 0.0760
U12 1/2 1 1/4 1/5 1/3 1/3 0.1104 0.0522
U13 3 4 1 1/2 1 2 0.4378 0.2070
U14 4 5 2 1 2 3 0.7256 0.3432
U15 3 31 1/2 1 2 0.4197 0.1985
U16 2 3 1/2 1/3 1/2 1 0.2602 0.1231
U2 U21 U22 U23 U24 U25 U26 U27 U28 8.3887 0.0408 < 0.1
U21 1 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/3 3 2 0.1207 0.0539
U22 4 1 2 2 1/3 2 5 5 0.4144 0.1850
U23 3 1/2 1 1 1/4 1 4 4 0.2566 0.1145
U24 3 1/2 1 1 1/4 1 4 4 0.2566 0.1145
U25 5 3 4 4 1 4 5 5 0.7746 0.3457
U26 3 1/2 1 1 1/4 1 5 4 0.2647 0.1181
U27 1/3 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/5 1/5 1 1/2 0.0679 0.0303
U28 1/2 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/5 1/4 2 1 0.0851 0.0380
U3 U31 U32 2 0 < 0.1
U31 1 3 0.3162 0.2500
U32 1/3 1 0.9487 0.7500

R16 ¼ ½ 0:125 0:45 0:375 0:05  (10) Y ¼ A+B ¼ ½ 0:0755 0:1247 0:2329 0:2329  (17)
The main index evaluation matrix is determined as follows:
2 3 3.5. Analysis of evaluation results
0:075 0:375 0:55 0
6 0:1 0:6 0:3 0 7
6 7 To quantitatively evaluate the risk of hot work, the exact score
60 0:375 0:525 0:1 7
R1 ¼ 6
60
7 (11) can be used to represent the risk level. The risk of hot work is
6 0:25 0:55 0:2 77
40 0:375 0:475 0:15 5 divided into 4 levels, and the full score is set to 100 points. “Low
0:125 0:45 0:375 0:05 risk” means a score below 25, “General risk” means a score between
25 and 50, “High risk” means a score between 50 and 75, and
2 3 “Significant risk” means a score over 75.
0:2 0:475 0:325 0 The evaluation result value set N can be expressed as:
60 0:225 0:625 0:2 7
6 7
6 0:075 0:45 0:375 0:1 7 N ¼ fN1 ; N2 ; N3 ; N4 g
6 7 (18)
60 0:25 0:625 0:125 7
R2 ¼ 6
60
7;
6 0 0:55 0:45 77
It is necessary to consider the worker's sensitivity to the risks of
60 0:3 0:575 0:125 7 hot work. If the risk level value is too high, the workload of workers
6 7
4 0:225 0:65 0:125 0 5 and managers will increase. If it is too low, the risk will not get
0:025 0:525 0:15 0:05 enough attention and dangerous accidents will easily occur.
  Therefore, the risk level value should be moderate to meet the
0:575 0:35 0:075 0
R3 ¼ (12)
0:25 0:65 0:1 0
Table 6
From Table 6 we can get the sub-index weight set A1 ¼
Weight coefficient of the evaluation index.
½ 0:0171 0:0118 0:0467 0:0774 0:0448 0:0278 .
It can be known by fuzzy composition: Main Main indicator Sub- Local weight Global weight
indicator weight indicator coefficient of sub- coefficient of sub-
coefficient indicator indicator
B1 ¼ A1 +R1 ¼ ½ 0:0278 0:0774 0:0774 0:0774  (13)
U1 0.2255 U11 0.0760 0.0171
U12 0.0522 0.0118
B2 ¼ ½ 0:075 0:1247 0:2329 0:2329  (14) U13 0.2070 0.0467
U14 0.3432 0.0774
U15 0.1985 0.0448
B3 ¼ ½ 0:0755 0:0755 0:0755 0 (15) U16 0.1231 0.0278
U2 0.6738 U21 0.0539 0.0363
and so:
U22 0.1850 0.1247
2 3 2 3 U23 0.1145 0.0771
B1 0:0278 0:0774 0:0774 0:0774 U24 0.1145 0.0771
B ¼ 4 B2 5 ¼ 4 0:075 0:1247 0:2329 0:2329 5 (16) U25 0.3457 0.2329
B3 0:0755 0:0755 0:0755 0 U26 0.1181 0.0796
U27 0.0303 0.0204
The main index weight set A ¼ ½ 0:2255 0:6738 0:1007  can U28 0.0380 0.0256
be obtained from Table 6. U3 0.1007 U31 0.2500 0.0252
U32 0.7500 0.0755
The comprehensive evaluation result is calculated:
98
S. He, H. Xu, J. Zhang et al.
actual construction conditions. The risk level value set should be set
to N ¼ ð 13 38 63 88 Þ.
After calculation, the comprehensive risk assessment score of
hot work is:
2 3
13
6 38 7
F ¼ Y  NT ¼ ½ 0:0755 0:1247 0:2329 0:2329 6 7
4 63 5
88
¼ 40:888 (19)
Therefore, the comprehensive risk assessment score of this hot
work is 40.888. It belongs to a "General risk".
4. Discussion
The steps of risk assessment for hot work of oil and gas pipelines
include identification of risk factors, questionnaire surveys and data
collection, calculation of the weight coefficient of evaluation in-
dicators based on AHP, and evaluation of risk levels based on FCE. It
can be seen from Table 6 that the weight coefficient of During
construction (U2) is the highest among the three main indicators,
followed by Preliminary preparation (U1) and End of construction
(U3). When Preliminary preparation (U1) is used as the evaluation
standard, among the sub-indicators, flammable thing (U14) has the
highest weight coefficient, and safety consciousness (U12) has the
lowest weight coefficient. Similarly, when During construction (U2)
is used as the evaluation standard, among the sub-indicators, fire
explosion (U25) has the highest weight coefficient, followed by
personal injury (U22) and environmental pollution (U26), and safety
warning (U27) has the lowest weight coefficient. Finally, when End
of construction (U3) is used as the evaluation criterion, the weight
coefficient of completion acceptance (U32) is greater than site
cleanup (U31) in the sub-indicators. During the construction pro-
cess, managers should focus on risk indicators with high weight
coefficients, and take targeted control measures to reduce the risk
of hot work. The results of the questionnaire show that the evalu-
ation team members have different judgments on the risk levels of
various risk factors. But the scope of the difference is not large and
it is acceptable. Most of the evaluation team members believe that
fire explosion (U25), personal injury (U22), and flammable thing
(U14) have high-risk levels, while site cleanup (U31) has low-risk
levels.
To reduce the overall risk level of hot work, managers should
consider properly controlling the three risk factors with the highest
weight coefficients, namely fire explosion (U25), personal injury
(U22), and environmental pollution (U26). The fire source should be
strictly controlled during the construction period. The equipment
should be placed on the upwind. At the same time, it is economical
and effective to use soil, dry powder, and water mist to isolate
flammable things. Besides, it is strictly forbidden to throw working
tools and materials during the construction process. It is necessary
to strictly abide by the operating procedures and ensure that the
electric pick and the power cord are not damaged. After the
completion of construction, all kinds of garbage in the construction
site should be recycled to protect the environment.
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a multi-objective decision
analysis method that combines qualitative and quantitative anal-
ysis. It has been widely used in resource allocation, enterprise
management, project evaluation, and planning consultation.
Through this method, the weight coefficient of the evaluation index
of the research object can be calculated so that the importance of
each index can be ranked, which is convenient for management.
99
Petroleum 9 (2023) 94e100
However, the AHP method cannot make an overall quantitative
evaluation of the research object, and it is greatly influenced by
human beings. The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method (FCE)
can better solve the fuzzy and difficult to quantify problems, reduce
the human influence, and is suitable for solving various non-
deterministic problems. In recent years, applying the FCE method
in medicine, construction industry, environmental quality super-
vision, water conservancy, and other fields has achieved initial re-
sults. But the calculation process of FCE is more complicated. The
AHP-FCE evaluation method combining the systematicness of the
AHP and the fuzzy problem-handling ability of the FCE method is
introduced to evaluate the risk of hot work. It can quantitatively
assess the risk of hot work and reasonably sort the weight co-
efficients of various risk factors. It is conducive to optimizing
resource allocation and helping to improve the level of operational
risk management.
The hot work case in the paper is representative, but different
hot work may have different risk factors. It is necessary to deter-
mine the evaluation index according to actual working conditions.
When the evaluation index changes, the weight coefficient of the
evaluation index and the comprehensive risk assessment score will
also change. The risk assessment method of hot work in the paper is
also applicable to the risk assessment of other types of work. The
use of this method requires specific analyses of specific circum-
stances. It is necessary for real-time analysis and accurate
replacement of evaluation indicators.
5. Conclusions
(1) Based on the AHP-FCE combination method, this paper es-
tablishes a risk assessment method for hot work that can be
applied to the oil and gas field. This method can quantita-
tively evaluate the risk of hot work. At the same time, it can
sort the importance of various risk factors of hot work, help
managers better understand the operation risks, and provide
appropriate management and control suggestions.
(2) This method is also applicable to other types of operational
risk assessment, and the assessment indicators need to be
replaced according to the actual situation.
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) 2330e2334.
[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 opera-
tions in the United States, Energy Res. Social Sci. 29 (2017) 36e43.
[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 pro-
jects, J. Saf. Res. 46 (2013) 99e105.
[5] A. Pinto, I.L. Nunes, R.A. Ribeiro, Occupational risk assessment in construction
industry e overview and reflection, Saf. Sci. 49 (5) (2011) 616e624.
[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 2000e2009, J. Loss Prev. Process.
Ind. 24 (5) (2011) 477e523.
[7] I.A. Papazoglou, O.N. Aneziris, L.J. Bellamy, et al., Quantitative occupational
S. He, H. Xu, J. Zhang et al.
risk model, Single Hazard 160 (2017) 162e173.
[8] Y.A. Kasap, E. Suba, Risk assessment of occupational groups working in open
pit mining, Anal. Hierarchy Process 16 (2) (2017) 38e46.
[9] M. Da Deviren, H. Yüksel, Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
model for behavior-based safety management 178 (6) (2008) 1717e1733.
[10] S. Li, G. Tao, L. Zhang, Fire risk assessment of high-rise buildings based on
gray-FAHP mathematical, Model 211 (2018) 395e402.
[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) 797e812.
[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) 95e103.
[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) 124e133.
[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) 756e763.
[15] H.S. Loh, Q. Zhou, V.V. Thai, et al., Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of port-
centric supply chain disruption threats 148 (2017) 53e62.
100
Petroleum 9 (2023) 94e100
[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)
13e21.
[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) 706e727.
[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) 74e80.
[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) 631e641.
[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) 44e53.
[23] A.E. Wolnowska, W. Konicki, Multi-criterial analysis of oversize cargo trans-
port through the city, using the AHP method, Transport. Res. Proc. 39 (2019)
614e623.