Currently, a three-staged, risk-based approach given in the Energy Institute (EI) guidelines is employed to identify fatigue critical locations on topside piping. EI guidelines provide guidance for various stages of the risk assessment. However, authors feel that the qualitative methodology employed during stage 1 for identifying fatigue critical system is cumbersome. The paper thus proposes an alternative methodology to prioritize inspection of Potential Fatigue Critical Locations (PFCLs) on topside piping based on the Composite Priority Weights (CPWs) obtained from Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). An illustrative case study is performed, within which the hierarchy tree structure is developed. Thereafter, the CPWs of piping locations in different units are obtained. Thereby, the locations with high CPWs are prioritized for the quantitative assessment during the stage 2 of the risk assessment.
[1]
R. M. Chandima Ratnayake,et al.
A decision model for executing plant strategy: maintaining the technical integrity of petroleum flowlines
,
2012
.
[2]
Y. Z. Ayele,et al.
Risk based inspection of offshore topsides static mechanical equipment in Arctic conditions
,
2016,
2016 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM).
[3]
Thomas L. Saaty,et al.
Priority setting in complex problems
,
1983,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
[4]
George Antaki,et al.
Piping and Pipeline Engineering: Design, Construction, Maintenance, Integrity, and Repair
,
2003
.