Table of Contents
Advances in Decision Sciences
Volume 2011, Article ID 456824, 17 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/456824
Research Article

Decision Analysis Framework for Risk Management of Crude Oil Pipeline System

Hydraulic Engineering Section, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands

Received 27 August 2011; Revised 11 October 2011; Accepted 26 October 2011

Academic Editor: Omer Benli

Copyright © 2011 Alex W. Dawotola et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. L. Huipeng, Hierarchical risk assessment of water supply systems, Ph.D. thesis, Lougborough University, Leicestershire, UK, 2007.
  2. B. S. Dhillon and C. Singh, Engineering Reliability, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1981. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  3. T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1980. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  4. R. M. Cooke, Experts in Uncertainty, Environmental Ethics and Science Policy Series, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1991. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  5. R. M. Cooke and L. L. H. J. Goossens, “TU Delft expert judgment data base,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 657–674, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. M. E. Quresh and S. R. Harrison, “Application of the analytical hierarchy process to Riparian Revegetation Policy options,” Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 441–458, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  7. E. Cagno, F. Caron, M. Mancini, and F. Ruggeri, “Using AHP in determining the prior distributions on gas pipeline failures in a robust Bayesian approach,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 275–284, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. P. K. Dey, “Benchmarking project management practices of Caribbean organizations using analytic hierarchy process,” Benchmarking, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 326–356, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. J. Mustajoki and R. P. Hämäläinen, “Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis,” INFOR, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 208–220, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  10. K. Cengiz, T. Ertay, and G. Buyukozkan, “A fuzzy optimization mode f or QFD planning process using analytic network approach,” European Journal of Operations Research, vol. 171, no. 2, pp. 390–411, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. D.-Y. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 649–655, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  12. P. J. M. van Laarhoven and W. Pedrycz, “A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 229–241, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  13. T. L. Saaty and L. T. Tran, “On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the analytic hierarchy process,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 46, no. 7-8, pp. 962–975, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  14. A. D. Little, Risks from Gasoline Pipelines in the UK, CRR 210, Health and Safety Executive, 1999.
  15. C. Restrepo, J. Simonoff, and R. Zimmerman, “Causes, cost consequences, and risk implications of accidents in U.S. hazardous liquid pipeline infrastructure,” International Journal of Critical Infrastructures Protection, vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 38–50, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar