Applying the Disaggregation-Aggregation Paradigm for Crude Oil Pipeline Risk Management

  • Stelios Antoniades
  • Nikolaos Christodoulakis
  • Pavlos DeliasEmail author
  • Nikolaos Matsatsinis
Part of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making book series (MCDM)


Pipelines is the most efficient (and hence popular) mean to transport crude oil and natural gas. However, there exist several reasons that could trigger a failure of pipelines and the following consequences to people’s properties, human health, and the environment. To this end, pipeline risk management is a primary concern for Oil and Gas companies. Since multiple factors contribute to the risk level of a pipeline, in this work we apply the aggregation-disaggregation paradigm of MCDA to assess the risk of every part of a crude oil pipeline. The presented method considers multiple dimensions (criteria), it is able to deal with the uncertainties in the criteria measurements, and it aggregates the preferences of multiple experts. We focus on a crude oil pipeline owned by the Nigerian Petroleum Development Company, and we used experts’ opinion to get the evaluations of the alternatives on the criteria set. To deal with the inherent uncertainty, we applied stochastic UTA, a method that allows a probabilistic distribution to get used for alternatives evaluations. We were able to estimate the significance weight for every criterion, its marginal utility function, a final ranking of the segments, and valuable insights about how those ranks are achieved. In particular, it became apparent that for the specific location of the pipeline, the external interference criterion has greater importance than in other regions. In fact, it becomes a criterion of primary importance (in tandem with the corrosion criterion).


  1. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (Ed.) (2001). Layer of protection analysis: Simplified process risk assessment. New York: Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.Google Scholar
  2. Anifowose, B., Lawler, D. M., van der Horst, D., & Chapman, L. (2012). Attacks on oil transport pipelines in Nigeria: A quantitative exploration and possible explanation of observed patterns. Applied Geography, 32, 636–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bisdorff, R., Meyer, P., & Veneziano, T. (2009). XMCDA: A standard XML encoding of MCDA data (p. 53). EURO XXIII: European conference on Operational Research.Google Scholar
  4. Bolzon, G., & NATO (Eds.) (2011). Integrity of pipelines transporting hydrocarbons: Corrosion, mechanisms, control, and management. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Corrosion Protection of Pipelines Transporting Hydrocarbons, Biskra, Algeria, April 26–28, 2010. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Cagno, E., Caron, F., Mancini, M., & Ruggeri, F. (2000). Using AHP in determining the prior distributions on gas pipeline failures in a robust Bayesian approach. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 67, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castiglia, F., & Giardina, M. (2013). Analysis of operator human errors in hydrogen refuelling stations: Comparison between human rate assessment techniques. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 38, 1166–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christodoulakis, N. (2015). Analytical methods and multicriteria decision support systems under uncertainty: The Talos system. Retrieved from
  8. Cobanoglu, M. M. (2014). Statistical modeling of corrosion failures in natural gas transmission pipelines. Retrieved from
  9. Dawotola, A. W., van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., & Vrijling, J. K. (2011). Decision analysis framework for risk management of crude oil pipeline system. Advances in Decision Sciences, 2011, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delias, P., & Matsatsinis, N. F. (2007). The multiple criteria paradigm as a background for agent methodologies (pp. 227–237). 8th Annual International Workshop “Engineering Societies in the Agents World”, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  11. Dey, P. K. (2002). An integrated assessment model for cross-country pipelines. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 703–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gomes, W. J. S., Beck, A. T., & Haukaas, T. (2013). Optimal inspection planning for onshore pipelines subject to external corrosion. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 118, 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greco, S., Mousseau, V., & Słowiński, R. (2008). Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 191, 416–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grigoroudis, E., & Siskos, Y. (2002). Preference disaggregation for measuring and analysing customer satisfaction: The MUSA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 143, 148–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Han, Z. Y., & Weng, W. G. (2011). Comparison study on qualitative and quantitative risk assessment methods for urban natural gas pipeline network. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 189, 509–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacquet-Lagreze, E., & Siskos, J. (1982). Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 10, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kadziński, M., Greco, S., & SŁowiński, R. (2012). Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression. Omega, 40, 488–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiefner, J. F. (2007). Evaluating the stability of manufacturing and construction defects in natural gas pipelines. Worthington, OH: U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety.Google Scholar
  19. Kishawy, H. A., & Gabbar, H. A. (2010). Review of pipeline integrity management practices. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 87, 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lahdelma, R., Hokkanen, J., & Salminen, P. (1998). SMAA – Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 106, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liang, W., Hu, J., Zhang, L., Guo, C., & Lin, W. (2012). Assessing and classifying risk of pipeline third-party interference based on fault tree and SOM. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25, 594–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Markowski, A. S., & Mannan, M. S. (2009). Fuzzy logic for piping risk assessment (pfLOPA). Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 921–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matsatsinis, N. F., & Delias, P. (2003). AgentAllocator: An agent-based multi-criteria decision support system for task allocation. In Holonic and multi-agent systems for manufacturing (pp. 225–235). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mohitpour, M., Murray, A., McManus, M., & Colquhoun, I. (2010). Pipeline integrity assurance. New York: ASME.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muhlbauer, W. K. (2004). Pipeline risk management manual: Ideas, techniques, and resources. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Onuoha, F. C. (2008). Oil pipeline sabotage in Nigeria: Dimensions, actors and implications for national security. African Security Review, 17, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Petrova, E. (2011). Critical infrastructure in Russia: Geographical analysis of accidents triggered by natural hazards. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 10, 53–58.Google Scholar
  28. Popoola, L., Grema, A., Latinwo, G., Gutti, B., & Balogun, A. (2013). Corrosion problems during oil and gas production and its mitigation. International Journal of Industrial Chemistry, 4, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding, Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Siskos, Y. (1983). Analyse de systèmes de décision multicritère en univers aléatoire. Foundations of Control Engineering, 10, 193–212.Google Scholar
  31. Siskos, J., & Assimakopoulos, N. (1989). Multicriteria highway planning: A case study. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 12, 1401–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Siskos, Y., & Grigoroudis, E. (2010). New trends in aggregation-disaggregation approaches. In C. Zopounidis & P. M. Pardalos (Eds.), Handbook of multicriteria analysis (pp. 189–214). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Siskos, Y., Grigoroudis, E., & Matsatsinis, N. (2005). UTA methods. In Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 297–344). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siskos, Y., Spyridakos, A., & Yannacopoulos, D. (1993). MINORA: A multicriteria decision aiding system for discrete alternatives. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 2, 136–149.Google Scholar
  35. Siskos, Y., & Yannacopoulos, D. (1985). UTASTAR: An ordinal regression method for building additive value functions. Investigação Operacional, 5, 39–53.Google Scholar
  36. Skogdalen, J. E., & Vinnem, J. E. (2011). Quantitative risk analysis offshore—Human and organizational factors. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 96, 468–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yuhua, D., & Datao, Y. (2005). Estimation of failure probability of oil and gas transmission pipelines by fuzzy fault tree analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 18, 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stelios Antoniades
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Christodoulakis
    • 3
  • Pavlos Delias
    • 2
    Email author
  • Nikolaos Matsatsinis
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Petroleum & Natural Gas TechnologyEastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of TechnologyKavalaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Accounting and FinanceEastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of TechnologyKavalaGreece
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity of PiraeusPiraeusGreece
  4. 4.Decision Support Systems LaboratoryTechnical University of CreteChaniaGreece

Personalised recommendations