The Effect of Location Class Category and Pipe Wall Thickness on Risk Level Onshore Pipeline Oil
Abstract
Pipelines are essential infrastructure for efficient oil and gas production operation, necessitating their continuous and reliable functionality in all locations and circumstances. Nevertheless, the pipeline can fail during operation due to multiple detrimental variables. This study evaluated the impact of the location classification category and pipe wall thickness on the risk level of onshore pipelines. The risk assessment method employed was a semiquantitative approach derived from the reference "Pipeline Risk Management Manual" by W. Kent Muhlbauer. The distributing crude oil pipeline, which spans a distance of 18 kilometers and has a diameter of 6 inches, was evaluated. The evaluation yielded a pipeline relative risk score of 0.91, classifying the pipeline as belonging to risk category 1B. Following this, the assessment findings were analyzed for all 36 pipeline segments, classifying 26 segments in the 1B category and the remaining 10 segments in the 2B category. From the analysis results, the difference between the two risk categories was produced by differences in location class categories, where the pipeline segment in location class 1 creates a 1B risk category; meanwhile, class 3 produces a 2B risk category. Furthermore, a pipeline with a wall thickness of 5.156 inches is associated with a risk score of 0.81, but a wall thickness of 4.1 inches yields a score of 1.41. These results indicate that the location class category and pipe wall thickness significantly impact the risk of onshore pipelines.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
R. Dutu, “Challenges and policies in Indonesia’s energy sector,†Energy Policy, vol. 98, pp. 513–519, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.009.
A. Rahman, P. Dargusch, and D. Wadley, “The political economy of oil supply in Indonesia and the implications for renewable energy development,†Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 144, p. 111027, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111027.
H. Lu, L. Guo, M. Azimi, and K. Huang, “Oil and Gas 4.0 era: A systematic review and outlook,†Comput. Ind., vol. 111, pp. 68–90, 2019.
M. Simanjuntak and U. S. Putro, “Hydrocarbon Pipeline Third Party Damage Risk Assessment using Multi Criteria Decision Making,†in Proceedings of the International Conference of Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management. doi, 2019, vol. 10, no. 0009959405790586.
S. B. da Cunha, “A review of quantitative risk assessment of onshore pipelines,†J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 44, pp. 282–298, 2016.
M. Muin, A. B. Muslim, and T. A. Puspitasari, “The Effect of Non-Linear Wave on Oil Spill Dispersion,†in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2022, vol. 1065, no. 1, p. 12006.
J. Koto and M. Putrawidjaja, “Subsea Pipeline Damaged in Balikpapan Bay Caused by Anchor Load,†J. Subsea Offshore-science Eng., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 6–12, 2018.
F. Aguilera, J. Méndez, E. Pásaro, and B. Laffon, “Review on the effects of exposure to spilled oils on human health,†J. Appl. Toxicol. An Int. J., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 291–301, 2010.
J. R. Z. Carranza, S. Kovshov, and E. Lyubin, “Assessment of anthropogenic factor of accident risk on the main oil pipeline Pascuales–Cuenca in Ecuador,†J. Appl. Eng. Sci., vol. 16, no. 3, 2018.
L. Ma, Y. Li, L. Liang, M. Li, and L. Cheng, “A novel method of quantitative risk assessment based on grid difference of pipeline sections,†Saf. Sci., vol. 59, pp. 219–226, 2013.
Y.-D. Jo and B. J. Ahn, “A method of quantitative risk assessment for transmission pipeline carrying natural gas,†J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 123, no. 1–3, pp. 1–12, 2005.
P. Zhang, G. Qin, and Y. Wang, “Risk assessment system for oil and gas pipelines laid in one ditch based on quantitative risk analysis,†Energies, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 981, 2019.
Z. Y. Han and W. G. Weng, “Comparison study on qualitative and quantitative risk assessment methods for urban natural gas pipeline network,†J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 189, no. 1–2, pp. 509–518, 2011.
L. Lu, W. Liang, L. Zhang, H. Zhang, Z. Lu, and J. Shan, “A comprehensive risk evaluation method for natural gas pipelines by combining a risk matrix with a bow-tie model,†J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 25, pp. 124–133, 2015.
G. R. Akbarinia, N. Gilani, S. Mohhamadzadeh, and S. S. Alizadeh, “Application of Kent Muhlbauer method to risk assessment of urban gas pipelines,†J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 5021011, 2022.
M. Eskandarzade, R. Shahrivar, R. M. C. Ratnayake, and U. N. Bukhari, “An Optimal Approach for Semiquantitative Risk-Based Inspection of Pipelines,†J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., vol. 13, no. 3, p. 4022017, 2022.
S. C. Gyarino, D. W. Handani, E. Pratiwi, F. I. Prastyasari, and I. M. Ariana, “Risk Assessment of Balikpapan-Samarinda Oil Distribution Pipeline Using Kent Muhlbauer Method,†in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2022, vol. 972, no. 1, p. 12080.
W. K. Muhlbauer, Pipeline risk management manual: ideas, techniques, and resources. Elsevier, 2004.
M. Kwestarz, “The application of W. Kent Muhlbauer’s model for the risk assessment of District Heating Networks,†IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng., vol. 14, no. 3 Ver. VII, 2017.
API., API 581: risk-based inspection methodology. American Petroleum Institute, 2016.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30811/jpl.v22i1.4082
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional .
Alamat Surat :
Politeknik Negeri LhokseumaweJl. Banda Aceh-Medan Km 280
Buketrata, Lhokseumawe, 24301, Aceh, Indonesia
























