Prioritisation of operations during emergency shutdown of a crude distillation unit by interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

Abstract

A very reliable control system for offering a safety layer in emergency scenarios is an emergency shutdown system, or ESD system. It aids in preventing crises from having disastrous effects on the economy, the environment or business operations. In any plant, emergency shutdown systems reduce the risk of harm to the working population, the environment or equipment damage by guarding against leaks, hydrocarbon escapes, fire outbreaks and explosions. The ESD system halts process activity in an emergency, ensures that the hazard is isolated and does not worsen. It is essential that there is a clearly defined emergency procedure in place when a facility needs to be shut down in an emergency. When preparing an emergency procedure for use in an emergency, it is crucial to prioritise the operations. The factory uses an Interval-valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (IVIFAHP) to prioritise activities in emergency situations. It is possible to design emergency shutdown systems using the aforementioned order of operations. It is possible to properly set up safety measures using the multi-criteria decision-making approach (MCDM). The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) compares variables without taking measurement scales or units into consideration, which is a distinct benefit. The AHP’s handling of ambiguity, uncertainty and imprecise data is improved by the IVIFAHP.

Keywords

Crude distillation unit plant emergencies shut down IVIFAHP MCDM safety instrumentation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sharma

Gurjar

Singhal

, et al. Automation of emergency response for petroleum oil storage terminals. Saf Sci 2015:72:262–273.

Goyal

Al-Ansari

. Impact of emergency shutdown devices on relief system sizing and design. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2009; 22(1): 35–44.

Goel

Datta

Mannan

. Industrial alarm systems: challenges and opportunities. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2017; 50: 23–36.

Mishra

Wehrstedt

Krebs

. Amuay refinery disaster: the aftermaths and challenges ahead. Fuel Process Technol 2014; 119: 198–203.

Lundteigen

Rausand

. Partial stroke testing of process shutdown valves: how to determine the test coverage. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2008; 21(6): 579–588.

Kowalski

. A human component to consider in your emergency management plans: the critical incident stress factor. Saf Sci 1995; 20(1): 115–123.

Sikora

Jones

. Emergency shutdown system. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 1991; 27(2): 254–256.

Sano

Koshiba

Ohtani

. Emergency shutdown of fluidized bed reaction systems. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2020; 68: 104277.

Suresh

Renjth

Bhasi

. Prioritisation of Safety Factors in a Refinery by Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. In: Siddiqui

Yadav

Tauseef

Garg

Devendra Gill

(eds) Advances in Construction Safety. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4001-9_7

10.

Zhu

Liyanage

Panesar

, et al. Review of workflows of emergency shutdown systems in the Norwegian oil and gas industry. Saf Sci 2020; 121: 594–602.

11.

Dragffy

. The design of a highly reliable safety critical emergency shutdown system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 1998; 61(3): 215–227.

12.

Lundteigen

Rausand

. Common cause failures in safety instrumented systems on oil and gas installations: implementing defense measures through function testing. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2007; 20(3): 218–229.

13.

Zhu

Liyanage

Jeeves

. Data-driven failure analysis of emergency shutdown systems in oil and gas industry: evaluation of detectability from failure progression perspective. J Qual Maint Eng 2020; 26(1): 1–18.

14.

Wickman

. Rhetorical framing in corporate press releases: The case of British Petroleum and the Gulf oil spill. Environmental Communication, 2014; 8(1): 3–20.

15.

Meshkati

. Safety and human factors considerations in control rooms of oil and gas pipeline systems: conceptual issues and practical observations. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2006; 12(1): 79–93.

16.

Ozbas

. Safety risk analysis of maritime transportation: review of the literature. Transp Res Rec 2013; 2326(1): 32–38.

17.

Weidema

Wesnæs

. Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 1996; 4(3–4): 167–174.

18.

Dekker

Cilliers

Hofmeyr

. The complexity of failure: implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Saf Sci 2011; 49(6): 939–945.

19.

Vaidya

Kumar

. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. European J Oper Res 2006; 169(1): 1–29.

20.

Darko

Chan

, et al. Evaluation and ranking of risk factors in transnational public–private partnerships projects: case study based on the intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. J Infrastruct Syst 2018; 24(4): 04018028.

21.

Abdullah

Najib

. Sustainable energy planning decision using the intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: choosing energy technology in Malaysia. Int J Sustain Energy 2016; 35(4): 360–377.

22.

Sadiq

Tesfamariam

. Environmental decision-making under uncertainty using intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (IF-AHP). Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 2009; 23(1): 75–91.

23.

Cebi

Ilbahar

. Warehouse risk assessment using interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP. Int J Anal Hierarchy Process 2018; 10(2).

24.

Huang

Cao

. Research on AHP with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application in multi-criteria decision making problems. Appl Math Model 2013; 37(24): 9898–9906.

25.

Fahmi

Derakhshan

Kahraman

. Human resources management using interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. In 2015 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE), Istanbul, Turkey, 2–5 August 2015, pp.1–5. New York: IEEE.

26.

Liao

. Intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Trans fuzzy Syst 2013; 22(4): 749–761.

27.

Bellman

Zadeh

. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manage Sci 1970; 17(4): B-141.

28.

Atanassov

. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. In Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 1999; Vol. 35. Physica, Heidelberg, Bulgaria. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1870-3_1

29.

Saaty

. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math Model 1987; 9(3–5): 161–176.

30.

Saaty

. The analytical hierarchy process, planning, priority setting, resource allocation. RWS Publications, Pennsylvania, 1980.

31.

Saaty

. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manage Sci 1986; 32(7): 841–855.

32.

Mikhailov

. Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2003; 134(3): 365–385.

33.

Ford

Schmidt

. Emergency response training: strategies for enhancing real-world performance. J Hazard Mater 2000; 75(2–3): 195–215.

34.

Simran. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient: definition meaning. https://www.embibe.com/exams/spearmans-rank-correlation-coefficient/ (accessed 20 December 2022).