Prioritizing the risks of Oil Platforms Construction Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Decision-Making Method: A Case Study, oil platform P4

Subject Areas : Environmental Risk Analysis

Armin Mianji ¹ (PH. D Student Department of Environmental Management, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran .)
Farhad Khamchin Moghaddam ² (Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Management, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran .*(Corresponding Author))
Seyyed Nasser Bashi Azghadi ³ (Professor of Environmental Engineering, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.)

Received: 2020-04-17 Accepted : 2020-10-03 Published : 2022-09-23

Keywords: Fuzzy TOPSIS, Multi-criteria decision-making, risk management,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: Marine Structures projects, especially the construction of oil platforms, are faced with numerous risks in different stages of design, construction and exploitation, due to factors such as the extent of resources and Uncertainties. Identification and assessment of these risks as one of the most important measures in the risk management process, will have a significant role in better planning of these projects by managers. Method: In this study, in order to manage the risk of oil platforms project, first, all possible risks in the fields of engineering, executive, environment and passive defense were identified in a library form, and among them,  according to experts’ opinions, 26 risks Were identified as important and effective risks on the project. Finally, to assess and prioritize the risks, multi-criteria decision-making models were used in the fuzzy mathematics environment. Findings: In this regard, after setting the questionnaire to test the hypotheses of the research, relying on experts’ opinions, identified risks were ranked by TOPSIS model in fuzzy environment. Discussion and Conclusions: Survey of the resulting rankings shows that the option of incorrect design due to defect in geotechnical studies in the field of engineering,  the option of stopping executive operations due to lack of supply of providing necessary materials and equipment due to the sanctions in the Executive field, the option of arson and explosion in the field of passive defense and the option of sea water pollution in the field of environment as the most important risks affecting in each of the four areas of the project are studied.

References:

• Olfat, L., Khosravi, F., Jalali, R. (2009). Identification and Prioritization of Project Risk Based on the PMBOK Standard with Fuzzy Approach (Case Study: Non-level Intersection Construction Projects in Bushehr Province), Industrial Management, No. 19.


• Williams, T., (1995). A Classified Bibliography of Recent Research Relating to Project Risk Management. European Journal of Operation Research, 85, 18-38.


• Project Management Institute, (2008). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Project Management Institute Publications, 4^rd Ed, PMI.


• Awadkhah, H., Mohebi, A.H., (1389). Project Risk Management, First Edition, Kian Rayaneh Sabz Publications.


• Mohammadi, A., Jafari, S., (2008). Risk Management in the Implementation of Marine Projects (Based‏ on PMBOK Standard). International Conference on Coastal, Ports and Marine Structures, Vol. 8.


• Touran, A., (2006). Owner Risk Reduction Techniques Using a CM. Construction Management Association of America, CMAA.


• Lee, Y.W., Dahab, M.F., Bogardi, I., (1994). A rule based fuzzy set approach to risk analysis of nitrate contaminated groundwater. Water Science and Technology, 30, 45-52.


• Malczewski, J., (2006). Ordered weighted averaging with fuzzy quantifiers: GIS-based multicriteria use suitability analysis. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 8, 270-277.


• Simonovic, S.P., Verma, R., (2008). A new methodology for water resources multi-criteria decision uncertainty. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 33, 322-329.


• Andric, J.M., Lu, D.G., (2016). Risk assessment of bridges under multiple hazards in operation period. Journal of Safety science, 83,80-92.


• Kafle, M.R., Sheyka, N.M., (2018). Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Flood Risk and Sediment Management in Koshi Alluvial Fan, Nepal. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 10, 596-619.


• Aven, T., Vinnem, J.E., (2005). On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the Offshore Oil

 

and Gas Industry. Journal of Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 90, 15-24.

• Dismukes, D.E., (2011). Diversifying Energy Industry Risk in the Gulf of Mexico: Post-2004 Changes in Offshore Oil and Gas Insurance Markets. Washington, DC: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.


• Hosseini, H., Al-Sadat, D., Toraj, Arjamandi, R., Shirbanpour, I., (2011). Occupational Health and Safety Risk Management in the Construction Phase of Oil Platforms and Providing Management Solutions for Improvement (A Case Study of the Construction Phase of Reshadat Oil Field Platforms), Human and Environment, No. 22.


• Mirdrikund, H., Nasiri, P., Mansouri, N., (2010). Evaluation and Comparison of the Performance of the Work Permit System in an Offshore Oil Platform, Human and Environment, No. 19.


• Pejman Sani, Q., Givechi, S., Jafari, H.R., (2013). Environmental Risk Management of Oil Platform Production Operations (Case Study of Abuzar AB Exploitation Platform of Abuzar marine complex), the First International Conference on HSE in Construction, Mining, Oil and Gas Projects.


• Asgari, M.M., Sadeghi Shahabi, M., Siflo, S., (2015). Identifying and Prioritizing the Risks of Upstream Oil and Gas Projects in Iran using the Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS) Format and the TOPSIS technique, Journal of Economic Research and Policies, No. 78.


• Nouri, H., Chiraghi, M., Islami Baladeh, A.A., (2018). Evaluation and Prioritization of Environmental Risks Based on the Fuzzy Approach and Multi-indicator Decision-Making: A Case Study in an Oil and Gas Exploitation Area, Occupational Health and Safety, No. 3.


• ‏Buckly, J.J., (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 233-247.


• Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T., Huang, S.F., (2006). A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 102, 289-301.


• Chen, C.T., (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114, 1-9.


• Cochran, W.G., (1997). Sampling techniques. 3^rd Edition, John Wiley and sons, New York.


• Tsaur, S.H., Chang, T.Y., Yen, C.H., (2002). The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management, 23, 107-115.


• Badalpur, M., Hafezalkotob, A., (2015). Methodology based on MCDM for risk management in EPC projects: A Case Study of LPG Storage Tanks Construction. Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 8(3), 1-23.


• Nouri, J., Omidvari M., Tehrani, S., (2010). Risk Assessment and Crisis Management in Gas Stations. International Journal of Environmental Research, 4(1), 143-152.