AHP experts’ comments about criteria judgments, assign a relative weight to each criterion, based on how important that criterion is to the situation. This can be done in two ways: By distributing 100 points among the criteria, based on expert’s team discussion and consensus. By each member assigning weights to max 500 for all five experts , then the numbers for each criterion for a composite team weighting.
(Construction Engineers Experts, Safety Experts, maintenance operation experts, civil engineers' experts, and Social relation experts) –AHP recommended proposed that following weight for the current selected criteria.
Table.4.1. Data Of Expert’s Judgments Experts Judgments
Construction Engineer
Safety Maintenance
&operation
Civil Social Total W%
Length and
distance 15 13 16 13 10 67 13.4%
Land nature
and uses 6 5 13 7 3 34 6.8%
Risk
assessment 30 42 25 17 25 138 27.6%
Cost of
construction 37 27 31 46 49 189 37.8%
Maintenance
operation 6 6 10 10 5 37 7.4%
Geopolitical
parameter’s 6 7 5 7 8 35 7.0%
100 100 100 100 100 500 100%
AHP selection from multi-criteria with available options of petroleum from Shabwah region, 15 pairwise comparison(s).
Table.4.2. Six cretieria
Pairwise Comparison-according to length and distance (1) Pairwise Comparison-according to Land nature and uses (2) Pairwise Comparison-according to Risk assessment (3) Pairwise Comparison-according to Cost of construction (4) Pairwise Comparison-according to Maintenance operation (5) Pairwise Comparison-according to Geopolitical parameters (6)
The Application of AHP Option Selection as per below diagram
Fig.4.5. Application of AHP in Petroleum
Table.4.3. Comparison Of The Six Criteria Used With AHP Due To Priority
Criteria Priority Rank (+) (-)
1 Length and distance 13.4% 3 5.5% 5.5%
2 Land nature and uses 6.8% 6 3.1% 3.1%
3 Risk assessment 27.6% 2 11.9% 11.9%
4 Cost of construction 37.8% 1 13.2% 13.2%
4 Maintenance operation 7.4% 4 2.6% 2.6%
5 Geopolitical parameter’s 7.0% 5 1.8% 1.8%
Number of comparisons = 15, Consistency Ratio CR = 5.9%=0.059
Pairwise Comparison-according to length and distanceSix pairwise comparisons, resulting weights for the criteria based on your pairwise comparisons:
Table.4.4. Pairwise Comparison-According To Length And Distance
Criteria Priority Rank (+) (-)
1 Pipeline safer Option (1) 49.9% 3 6.3% 6.3%
2 Pipeline to Al Shihr Option (2) 28.1% 4 3.6% 3.6%
3 Pipeline to Bir Ali Option (3) 8.7% 1 19.9% 19.9%
4 Pipeline to Aden Refinery Option (4) 13.3% 2 5.5% 5.5%
Number of comparisons = 6 , Consistency Ratio CR = 9.4%=0.094
Table.4.5. Result Of Pairwise Comparison-According To Length And Distance
Category Priority due to length Rank
1 Pipeline safer Option (1) 49.9% 1
2 Pipeline to Al Shihr Option (2) 28.1% 2
3 Pipeline to Bir Ali Option (3) 8.7% 4
4 Pipeline to Aden Refinery Option (4) 13.3% 3
Number of comparisons = 6 , Consistency Ratio CR = 8.6%=0.086
Pairwise Comparison-according to Land nature and uses for six pairwise comparison(s).Resulting Priorities these are the resulting weights for the criteria based on your pairwise comparisons.
Table.4.6. Pairwise Comparison-According To Land Nature And Uses
Criteria Priority Rank (+) (-)
1 Pipeline Safer Option (1) 42.4% 1 13.3% 13.3%
2 Pipeline Al Shahr Option (2) 33.9% 2 3.8% 3.8%
3 Pipeline to Bir Ali Option (3) 19.4% 3 2.3% 2.3%
4 Pipeline Aden Refinery (4) 4.3% 4 1.1% 1.1%
Number of comparisons = 6, Consistency Ratio CR = 2.3%
Pairwise Comparison-according Land Nature And UsesThese are the resulting weights for the criteria based on pairwise comparisons with following land uses and the nature of the land, tribes located in these areas.
Table.4.7. Result Of Pairwise Comparison-According To Land Nature And Uses
Criteria Due to high uses of land Rank
1 Pipeline to Rass Isa Port Option (1) 42.4% 1
2 Pipeline Port of Al Shahr - Option (2) 33.9% 2
3 Pipeline to port (Bir Ali) Option (3) 19.4% 3
4 Pipeline to Aden Port -Option (4) 4.3% 4
Number of comparisons = 6, Consistency Ratio CR = 7.9%
Pairwise Comparison-According to Risk assessmentas per the determined danger level, explicit proposals have been included the worksheet, when required; since it is a plausibility stage, suggestions included both danger decrease measures to be executed in the task as well as additionally nitty gritty examinations to be acted in the accompanying plan stages, considered important to address in detail the potential danger level identified with some particular distinguished perils (keeping the reason from happening, identifying the reason before it forms into a risk, alleviating results and cautioning administrators so medicinal activities might be taken). Pipeline alternative no. 3 was confirmed to be the ideal selection among the four options under examination from all the specialized perspectives. ( Nataraj,2005)
The possible Option alternatives have been compared each other considering the Risk of the identified Hazards on the following aspects (criteria): People safety, Environment., Technical challenge, Impact on schedule. Risk Levels of Hazards Identified for all the Options (Option No. 3) is the base case, differences between other Alternatives Ratings The processed rank of the alternatives performed by the Project Team is shown in Table.
Table.4.8Comparison-According to High-Risk Assessment Matrix
Criteria Ranking People Safety
Environment Technical Challenge
Schedule of construction Pipeline Option
(1)
5B 4C 4C 4A
Pipeline Option (2)
3C 1B 3C 4A
Pipeline Option (3)
2B 1B 2A 1B
Pipeline Option (4)
4A 2B 3B 3B
Using the risk matrix for assessment all hazard from alternatives
Fig.4.6. Risk Matrix
Pairwise Comparison-according to Risk assessment -results Resulting Priorities Table.4.9. Result To Pairwise Comparison-According To Risk Assessment
Criteria Priority Rank (+) (-)
1 Pipeline to Option (1) 71.2% 1 32.0% 32.0%
2 Pipeline to (Option (2) 15.4% 2 6.0% 6.0%
3 Pipeline to (Option (3) 8.1% 3 2.4% 2.4%
4 Pipeline to (Option (4) 5.3% 4 1.6% 1.6%
Final decision to the risk assessment criteria
Table.4.10. Result To Pairwise Comparison-According To Risk Assessment
Criteria Priority due to Rank
1 Pipeline safer Option (1) 59.1% 1
2 Pipeline to Al Shahr Option (2) 25.8% 2
3 Pipeline to Bir Ali Option (3) 8.8% 3
4 Pipeline to Aden Refinery Option (4) 6.2% 4
Number of comparisons = 6, Consistency Ratio CR = 7.4%
Pairwise Comparison-According to cost of constructionthe development of an oil pipeline is a complex, very capital-serious task with numerous selection factors. AHP has been incorporated inside a selection emotionally supportive network, making a structure for the arranging period of pipeline development. As a reaction to the constraints of the ordinary ways to deal with venture arranging, contemplates have built up a numerical model for venture arranging as applied to an oil pipeline venture.
This model empowers venture the executives to "set up a sufficient connection between the fundamental plan boundaries and to make reference archives (time plans, cost assessment and determinations) at the early attainability conditions of the undertaking" It is in the work breakdown structure that AHP is applied in this model to quantify hazard; this worth is then Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Decision-Support System in the Petroleum Pipeline Industry. Every sector is a work bundle, which is then separated into variables and sub factors comparative with that general objective. In this exceptionally each work bundle is then distributing a high, medium, or low complete hazard.
The work breakdown structure is then joined with the association breakdown structure that has been characterized a usual framework structure, with the degree of danger allotted to each work bundle characterizing the level of control for usage. Six pairwise comparison(s). Coming about Priorities these are the subsequent loads for
the standards dependent on your pairwise correlations and decision matrix the subsequent.(Guanghua ,2011)
Table.4.11. Pairwise Comparison-According To Cost Of Construction
Criteria Priority to high
cost
Rank
1 Pipeline safer Option (1) 48.5% 1
2 Pipeline to Al Shihr Option (2) 33.6% 2
3 Pipeline to Bir Ali Option (3) 5.1% 4
4 Pipeline to Aden Refinery Option (4) 12.8% 3
Number of comparisons = 6, Consistency Ratio CR = 4.7%
Pairwise Comparison-According to maintenance operationpipeline maintenance is a significant part of the oil pipeline industry in view of the relationship be support with safe and disappointment free tasks. Truly, support approaches have been founded on understanding; however, current patterns are toward a more sorted out, proactive procedure . Pipeline administrators are using information investigation and in-house studies to target zones of the pipeline for support. This is an assignment in view of the common framework lengths. AHP gives a procedure to chance investigation, which, when applied to pipeline disappointment potential, makes a "practical, altered, adaptable, and sensible upkeep plan" The focal point of the progressive system is the likelihood of disappointment for a pipeline or pipeline section.
It is apparent that this kind of investigation that considers correlations made on a consecutively littler zone can be significant in confining regions well on the way to fall flat, making a proactive upkeep program.6 pairwise comparison(s). Coming about Priorities these are the subsequent loads for the standards dependent on your pairwise examinations. (EIA,2019).
Table.4.12. Result to Pairwise Comparison-according to maintenance operation
Criteria Priority Rank (+) (-)
1 Pipeline Safer Option (1) 48.5% 2 8.7% 8.7%
2 Pipeline to Al Shihr Option (2) 33.6% 3 4.7% 4.7%
3 Pipeline to Bir Ali Option (3) 5.1% 4 1.9% 1.9%
4 Pipeline to Aden Option(4) 12.8% 1 12.1% 12.1%
Number of comparisons = 6, Consistency Ratio CR = 3.9%
Table.4.13. Result to Pairwise Comparison-according to geopolitical parameters
Criteria Priority Rank (+) (-)
1 Pipeline Safer (1) 49.5% 4 1.4% 1.4%
2 Pipeline to Al Shihr (2) 29.1% 2 4.2% 4.2%
3 Pipeline to Bir Ali (3) 9.7% 1 10.7% 10.7%
4 Pipeline to Aden Refinery (4) 11.7% 3 3.2% 3.2%
Number of comparisons = 6, Consistency Ratio CR = 2.2%