See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252026994

The application of AHP in oil and gas pipeline route selection

Article in International Conference on Geoinformatics · June 2011

DOI: 10.1109/GeoInformatics.2011.5981038

CITATIONS READS

13 1,575

4 authors, including:

Zhe Zeng Shujuan Sun

China University of Petroleum - Beijing Chinese Academy of Sciences
17 PUBLICATIONS 335 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 103 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shujuan Sun on 13 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Application of AHP in Oil and Gas Pipeline
Route Selection
Jianhua Wan, Guanghui Qi*, Zhe Zeng, Shujuan Sun
College of Geo-Resources and Information
China University of Petroleum
Qingdao, China
*Corresponding author, e-mail: qiguanghui2004@126.com
Abstract—The process of oil and gas pipeline route selection
involves many complex decision-making problems which include
quantitative factors as well as a large number of qualitative
factors that cannot be quantified. These factors affect the oil and
gas pipeline alignments. How to determine the importance of
these factors is a key question worthy of considering. The
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is introduced into the
Geographic Information System (GIS) which plays an important
role in the pipeline route decision-making system. By establishing
hierarchical structure models, AHP compares different factors in
order to get the weight of each factor. This process can quantify
the importance of route selection factors and reduce the impact
of subjective factors, therefore, the pipeline alignment is more
reasonable and effective.
Keywords-AHP; GIS; pipeline route selection
I. INTRODUCTION
The projects of oil and gas pipeline route selection are
influenced by many factors, including quantificational factors
such as slope and elevation, and non-quantificational factors
such as surface features, geological conditions and climates.
These factors play different roles in effecting the line alignment,
so it is of great need to comprehensively weigh the factors to
determine their importance in a decision-making system.
Calculating the factors’ weight according to expert experience
is greatly influenced by their subjective knowledge, and some
factors that might be displayed qualitatively or even in literal
files cannot be accurately quantified.
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a systematic
method for multi-criteria and multi-object decision-making
system proposed by well-known US operational researcher
T.Lsaaty in the 1970s [1].The fundamental principle of AHP is
to decompose questions of complex decision-making system
into component factors, and these factors are stratified by
dominance relations. By comparison between these factors, the
relative importance of each factor can be achieved and help
reasonably quantify the qualitative questions and make
decisions in qualitative and quantitative questions, which is
more suitable in fields including qualitative and quantitative
indicators. Oil and gas pipeline route selection system has both
qualitative and quantitative indicators, therefore AHP provides
theoretical surpport for its establishment, and provides
important scientific foundation for oil and gas pipeline route
selection of GIS.
Supported by the Central University Special Funding of Scientific
Research (No. 10CX05007A).
978-1-61284-848-8/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
II. HIERARCHICAL ANALYZING MODEL OF OIL AND GAS
PIPELINE ROUTE SELECTION
How to improve the rationality of weight distribution and
establish a scientific decision-making system plays a direct
impact on oil and gas pipeline route selection based on GIS
technology, which puts forward higher requirements on
comprehensive, detailed and hierarchical expert knowledge and
experience. To reduce the visual diversities of expert
estimation, it is necessary to integrate estimations of experts so
as to obtain an objective result [2]. Thus the AHP is introduced
to determine the weight of factors in oil and gas pipeline
selection. According to the real elements, the steps to establish
hierarchical analyzing model of oil and gas pipeline route
selection are as follows:
A. Establishing Hierarchical Model
Through deep analysis of the system, the relevant factors
are classified into several levels according to their importance
and causality [3], and finally hierarchical analyzing model is
established. The ultimate goal of the model is oil and gas
pipeline alignment, and the corresponding criterion layer
contains factors such as slopes, geological conditions, elevation
and terrain, each including other influencing factors. Therefore,
according to the factors' causality and category, the
classification is performed, and the analytic hierarchy structure
of the gas and oil pipeline selecting model is formed.
B. Constructing Judgment Matrix
The relative importance of influencing factors on line
alignment is shown by their weights. We can calculate the
weight of each factor by constructing judgement matrix and
pairwise comparison. This is quantifying process. The
judgment matrix of relative importance reflects the impact of
expert experience on specific factors, and we usually use 1-9
and their reciprocals as the scale. The values are in TABLE
ĉ.
TABLE I. SCALE OF JUDGEMENTMATRIX AND ITSMEANING
Definition Description
Relative Importance
 Degree CI On
formula CR , in which CI ( O is the Eigen value),
RI n 1
the two factors have the
and RI is a random consistent index and its values are shown in
1 equal important same importance
TABLE II.
one factor is slightly
When the consistency ratio CR is smaller than 0.1, the
more important than the
matrix can be considered as reasonable consistency. The largest
3 slightly important other one
eigenvalue and corresponding eigenvectors can be used as
one factor is more weight vector. When CR is larger than 0.1, the judgement
important than the other matrix needs to be modified. For the first and second order
5 very important one matrix, it is always consistent, and then CR equals to 0.
one factor is obviously TABLE II. AVERAGE RANDOM CONSISTENCY INDEX RI

7 obvious important more important than the n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

other
one factor is absolutely RI 0.0 0.0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32
more important than the
9 absolutely important other III. CASE STUDY
the median of two when need to adopt a A. Establishing Hierarchical Structure
2,4,6,8 adjacent compromise
When analyzing with AHP ,the first step is to reasonably
establish levels of an issue; it decides whether the application
C. Calculating Weight Vector[4] of AHP can be successful[6].In oil and gas pipeline route
1) Firstly, normalize each column in the judgement matrix selection model AHP can be used to express factors that
influence route alignment. The final goal is to design oil and
aij
aij i, j 1, 2,˜˜˜˜˜˜ n ˄1˅
gas route under the conditions of feasible technology, low cost
n
and security. Influential factors of the pipeline, namely, the
¦ akj corresponding criterion layers consist of slopes, geological
k 1
conditions and surface features. And each includes different
2) Sum the normalized judgement matrix by rows influencing factors such as slopes, slight slopes, ramps and
n steep slopes, and geological conditions as geology erosion,
Wi ¦ aij i, j 1, 2,˜˜˜˜˜˜ n ˄2˅ sedimentary areas, floods and landslides, debris flows. Besides,
j 1 some surface features such as rivers, roads, houses, forests,
farmlands and lakes should also be considered. According to
3) Calculate the weight of W [W1 ,W2 ,W3 ] T the conditions of research area, the model could be established
as shown in Fig. 1.
Wi
Wi n
i, j 1, 2,˜˜˜˜˜˜ n ˄3˅
¦W j
j 1

The W [W1 ,W2 ,W3 ] T is the weight that we need.

4) Calculate the largest eigenvalue Omax of the judgement

matrix
n
( AW )i ˄4˅
Omax ¦
i 1 nWi

The n represents the order of matrix A , ( AW )i means the

factor at the position i of the vector AW .
D. Test of the Consistency
During the calculation of the weight vector matrix, there’s a
need for consistency test, which is decided by the complexity
and one-side understanding of things. The constructed matrix is
not necessarily consistent, when the deviation from the Figure 1. Hierarchical analyzing model of oil and gas pipeline route
selection.
consistency of comparison matrix is too large, it needs to be
adjusted until a satisfactory consistency of the matrix is B. Judgment Matrix Construction and Consistency Test
obtained [5]. Matrix consistency test usually uses According to comparison between influential factors in the
region where the oil and gas pipeline passes, we get a
judgement matrix as TABLE ċ. The consistency of layer C to layer A is also checked by the
3 3
CI
TABLE III. THE JUDGMENT MATRIX OF LAYER B TO LAYER A CR value, CR
RI
,in which CI ¦ Bi ( CI )i ˈ RI
i 1
¦ Bi ( RI )i .
i 1
A B1 B2 B3 From TABLE ď ˈ we get CI=0.0027, RI= 0.8056, and
B1 1 3 2 CR=0.0033<0.1, so the result has satisfying consistency.
TABLE VII. THE WEIGHT VALUE OF LAYER C TO LAYER A
B2 1/3 1 1
B3 1/2 1 1 B1 B2 B3
Weight of
Through calculation we get: 0.5499 0.2098 0.2402 C to A
C1 0.6483 0 0 0.3565
Omax =3.0183ˈRI=0.58ˈCI=0.0091ˈCR=0.015<0.1ˈWi =
(0.5499ˈ0.2098ˈ0.2402)T C2 0.2297 0 0 0.1263
TABLE IV. THE JUDGMENT MATRIX OF LAYER C TO LAYER B1 C3 0.1220 0 0 0.0671
B1 C1 C2 C3 C4 0 0.5235 0 0.1098
C1 1 3 5 C5 0 0.2757 0 0.0578
C2 1/3 1 2 C6 0 0.1448 0 0.0304
C3 1/5 1/2 1 C7 0 0.0560 0 0.0118
From TABLE Č, we get: C8 0 0 0.1147 0.0275
Omax =3.0037,RI=0.58,CI=0.0018,CR=0.0031<0.1, Wi = C9 0 0 0.1147 0.0275
T
˄0.6483,0.2297,0.1220˅ . C10 0 0 0.0616 0.0148
TABLE V. THE JUDGMENT MATRIX OF LAYER C TO LAYER B2 C11 0 0 0.4384 0.1053
B2 C4 C5 C6 C7 C12 0 0 0.2090 0.0500
C4 1 2 4 8 C13 0 0 0.0616 0.0148
C4 1/2 1 2 5
C. Oil and Gas Pipeline Route Selection
C6 1/4 1/2 1 3
The oil and gas pipeline route selection is implemented by
C7 1/8 1/5 1/3 1 the minimum cost distance analysis in ArcGIS. The analysis
processes the data of remote sensing and GIS with the help of
From TABLE č, we get: the GIS spatial analysis technology, and the result is regarded
Omax =34.0155,RI=0.9,CI=0.0052,CR=0.0057<0.1, Wi = as the basic geographic information for spatial analysis
modeling and data overlay [7]. ArcGIS spatial analysis
˄0.5235,0.2757,0.1448,0.056˅T. provides powerful spatial modeling and analysis capabilities,
TABLE VI. THE JUDGMENT MATRIX OF LAYER C TO LAYER B3 so users can get information such as terrain analysis, spatial
relations and the cumulative cost of route from the origin to the
B3 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 target.
C8 1 1 2 1/4 1/2 2 The oil and gas pipeline route selection obtains weights of
C9 1 1 2 1/4 1/2 2 various factors according to AHP, and calculates the weights
using the optimal path analysis by cost module in ArcGIS
C10 1/2 1/2 1 1/7 1/3 1 Spatial Analysis. Firstly, we create data sets of the starting
point, the terminal point and influential factors, then
C11 4 4 7 1 2 7
reclassify the thematic maps according to the weight (Fig. 2)
C12 2 2 3 1/2 1 3 to generate cost layer set influencing oil and gas alignments,
finally the cost-optimal path on the cost layer set is
C13 1/2 1/2 1 1/7 1/3 1 generated as shown in Fig. 3.
From TABLE Ď, we get:
Omax =36.0125,RI=1.24,CI=0.0025,CR=0.002<0.1, Wi = ˄
0.1147,0.1147,0.0616,0.4384,0.2090,0.0616˅T.
From the results above, we can see that the CR value of all
factors in the judgement matrix are smaller than 0.1, so the
judgement matrix has satisfying consistency.

Figure 2. Overlay of rasters.
Figure 3. Alignments of oil and gas pipeline route.
According to the calculation by the hierarchical analysis
model, the slight slope has the largest weight which indicates
that pipeline should pass through slight slope as far as possible;
house has the smallest weight so in the design of alignments
houses should be avoided. Compared with the generated oil
and gas pipeline routes, the result is in agreement with desired
route and successfully avoids the steep slopes and houses,
which determine the route on slight slopes. This not only
reduces the investment and is conductive to the project
construction, but also avoids areas of geological instability and
improves the security.
IV. CONCLUSION
The introduction of AHP into GIS-based oil and gas
View publication stats
pipeline route selection system successfully sets the weights of
influential factors. AHP considers the qualitative factors as
well as the quantitative ones in decision-making system,
transforms traditional qualitative analysis to comprehensive
qualitative and quantitative analysis, constructs a trade-off
between various factors, and greatly reduces subjective factors.
Thus, the AHP method could make oil and gas pipeline route
selection more effectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is supported by the Central University Special
Funding of Scientific Research. The College of Geo-Resources
and Information of China University of Petroleum is
particularly appreciated for the data they provided .We also
extend our sincere appreciation to Bin Yang, whose critical and
comprehensive comments helped significantly in improving the
quality of this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] W Liu, “The Application of GIS Multi-criteria Evaluation Method on
Disaster Prevention,” Tangshan: Hebei Polytechnic University,2007.
[2] E. Zio, “On the use of analytic hierarchy process in the aggregation of
expert judgments,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety and System
Safety, vol.53, 1996, pp. 127-138.
[3] Y. Chen, Y Wang, and Y. Chen, “The Application of Fuzzy Analysis in
Optimization of Pipeline Route,” Oil and Gas Storage and
Transportation, vol.5(28), 2009, pp. 28-31.
[4] J. Sun, Y. Cheng, and J. Shao, Quantative Methods. Nanjing: Nanjing
University Press, 2002.
[5] H. Xiong, “Route Selection Technology Based on Spatial Analysis of
GIS,” Changsha: Changsha Polytechnic University, 2005.
[6] F. Dong, B. Feng, and G. He, “Assessment of the optimized of gas
pipeline based on the stratigraphic analysis,” Pipeline Technique and
Equipment, vol.(5), 2006, pp. 2-4.
[7] S. C. Feldman, R. E. Pelletier, and E. Wakeret, “ A Prototype for
Pipeline Routing Using Remotely Sensed Data and Geographic
Information System Analysis,” ELSEVIER, vol. (53) , 1995, pp.
123-131.