Journal of Sustainable Development; Vol. 10, No.

3; 2017
ISSN 1913-9063 E-ISSN 1913-9071
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Risk Assessment of Gas Condensates Export Pipelines by Indexing

Method (Case Study: Special Economic Energy Zone of South
Pars-Assaluyeh)
Amin Zargari Kolaei1, Mahnaz Nasrabadi1 & Saeid Givehchi2
1
Department of Environment Management (HSE), Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Zahedan Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Zahedan, Iran
2
Faculty of Environment Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Correpondence: Mahnaz Nasrabadi, Department of Environment Management (HSE), Faculty of Engineering
and Technology, Zahedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zahedan, Iran. E-mail: nilofar.nasr63@gmail.com

Received: January 1, 2017 Accepted: January 15, 2017 Online Published: May 31, 2017
doi:10.5539/jsd.v10n3p175 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v10n3p175

Abstract
Due to the sensitivity and vital and undeniable role of gas energy in the energy basket of the country, especially
in economy, evaluation of risk assessment studies on the designing and exploiting of this massive and extensive
industry including oil and gas pipelines seems to be very necessary. Generally, risk assessment is process of the
determining the risk quantity and quality by analyzing potential risks in the project which will be done by taking
into account the sensitivity or vulnerability of the surrounding environment. kent Muhlbauer’s method based on
relative scoring of parameters that are involved in risks creation deals with the risk assessment. In order to
establishment this system for risk assessment of statistical data collection, due to the failure of Iranian oil and gas
pipelines, experts and scholars’ experiences as a field project (South Pars gas condensate export pipeline) were
collected. According to the existing conditions and availability of information sources in the Iranian oil and gas
industry, finally, these data as safety risk assessment criteria of pipelines were processed in a graph and scoring
was conducted based on the relative weighting of risk starter elements in the pipeline. according to the obtained
scores and the relative risk of different areas of pipeline by considering km scale of areas, it was identified that
16% of the total pipeline had very high risk level, 34% of the total pipeline had high risk level, 34% of the total
pipeline had medium risk level and 16% of the pipeline had low risk level
Keywords: risk, pipeline, gas condensate, indexing, Kent Muhlbauer
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduce the Problem
Oil and gas from the first days of the eruption, always have been the driving force of the society towards
progress and development and Iran with more than 30,000 kilometers of oil and gas transmission pipelines, is
one of the leading countries in the operation and exploitation of this huge and valuable infrastructure. Oil and gas
pipelines have been considered as the main pillars of the transfer process and according to the expansion of these
lines in different facility or even residential regions and high potential of vulnerability, pipeline safety is of
utmost importance [8]. Environmental risk assessment is a potential qualitative and quantitative risk analysis
process and by considering sensitivity or vulnerability of its surrounding environment, it is the prediction process
of potential risk [12]. Iranian Oil Terminals Company, with respect to the development of oil and gas fields and
20-year vision of development of the oil industry and the subsequent development of gas condensates export,
since 2003 is located in the South Pars region and now export, totally, 600 thousand gas condensates barrels per
day through pipelines and the floating buoy which are produced by South Pars refineries. So traversing a
relatively long way from production to export requires a safety management system and detailed assessment at
any time and any negligence and error will cause financial losses, losses in lives and damage to the environment
[Map1, 2 and Figure 1]. Nowadays, safety knowledge as an integral part of human life has always been used in
reducing adverse events and incidents, especially in the industrial sector of each country [14]. Now in all over
the world, the pipeline risk assessment is done by methods such as FMEA / FTA/HAZOP that each has its own
advantages but the new appraisal method that is designed by Kent Muhlbauer is devoted to pipelines risk

175
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Suustainable Devellopment Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

assessmennt and now in our country, thhe need of usiing this methood for planningg and managinng is felt and some
processes have been donne on the naturral gas transmiission pipelinees [2, 5, 6]. In tthis study, it iss intended that after
a thoroughh acquaintancee with operatiional processees of the transsfer and Gas C Condensates eexport, to take e into
account thhe examining and
a evaluating process of thee pipelines riskks of by indexinng method; thaat its result lea ads to
approaches for reducinng or eliminatting risks of the current aactivities, decrreasing faults and reducing g the
environmeental impact of o gas pipelinees and the prromoting instaallations safetyy and the conntinuing the ex xport
process [11]. Therefore this research seems to be nnecessary. Gooudarzi et al ((2012), conduct a study entitled
“Pipeline risk assessment by using inndigenous Keenneth Muhlbaauer methods, case study: Q Qazvin-Delijann gas
pipeline” tthat according to the obtaineed results withh this method, it was concludded that 32% of the pipeline e had
very high rrisk level, 11%
% of the total ppipeline had hiigh risk level, 23% of the pippeline had meddium risk level and
34% of thee total had loww risk level [3]..

Map 1. Satellite mapp of the locatioon of case studdy

176
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Suustainable Devellopment Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

Map 2. Saatellite map off the pipeline rroute of case sttudy

Figure 1. The pipelinne route diagraam of case studdy

2. Method
d
In this reseearch, for colleecting data, libbrary method aand analyzing ddocumentationn of under studdy area gas pip
peline
and comparing data reccorded in the comprehensivve maintenancce system thatt it was used as software in n the
company w were done andd based on indeexing method (on the basis oof W. Kent Muuhlbauer Method) in an identtified

177
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Suustainable Devellopment Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

assessmennt system and finally,

f with reegard to rangee of scores andd history studied by experts and administrrative
connoisseuurs, risk assesssment was caarried out. [4, 9] The popullation of this study, in term ms of questionnaire
respondennts, was Nationnal Iranian Oiil Company exxperts in enginneering, impleementation andd maintenance e and
statistical sample of offiicials as responndents in the sstudy are relevvant to these piipelines. Statisstical populatio
on of
this study in terms of piipelines was A Assaluyeh expoort pipelines aand in terms oof samples seleection for pipe elines
risk assesssment was gass condensates exporting pippeline which aare produced aat gas refineriees located in South S
Pars [Figu ure 2]. Indexinng method(on tthe basis of WW. Kent Muhlbaauer Method) ccalculated pipeelines risks and the
possible thhreats in pipeeline which aare third partyy damage pippelines risks, corrosion, design and inco orrect
operation were calculateed by a relative scoring system. [10] In other words, first the mainn risk factors were
defined annd Algebraically summed in each stage andd the total riskks index for diifferent parts oof the pipeline were
obtained aand health and environmentaal risk factors ffor these perioods were calcullated and multtiplied together and
we determ mine the severiity of leakage impact index [11] and finallly levels of saafety risk factoors of each section
were dividded based on health
h and enviironmental riskk factors that tthe resulting nnumber shows relative risk of any
section of pipeline and easily
e by obserrving the risk llevel of pipelinne section, the critical pointss can be determ
mined
and we cann plan to reducce critical poinnts and eventuaally using tablees and graphs the final analyysis is done. [13]
The associiated formulas are:
Total Risk
k (Sum Indexx) =Third parrty damage Inndex+ Corrosioon Index+ Deesign Index+ IIncorrect operration
Index
Leak impact factors ind
dex = Productt hazard* leak volume * Disppersion* Recepptors
Relative rrisk Score = Tootal Risk Indexx divided by thhe Leakage im
mpact factors inndex

Figure 22. Risk assessm

ment model by indexing methhod

The first sstep in the riskk assessment off gas condensaates export pippelines is divission of pipelinne to obtain the
e risk
number. Inn this study thhe pipelines divviding was done based on ddynamic approach and the unnder study pip peline
has been ddivided into 6 sections
s [Tablle 1] that was uused as the moost appropriatee method for diivision of lines and
based on ccriteria such ass population deensity surroundding the pipeliine, pipe thicknness, pipe diammeter [Table 2] and
the equipm ment on the grround, markerrs, the area surrrounding the pipeline (withh regard to coonstruction, typ pe of
land use chhange) and nattural features tthis division w
was done.

Table 1. Piipelines divisioon of case studdy

Pipeline length Section 1 Section22 Section3 Section4 S
Section5 Secction6
11933 m 150 m 2000 m 1700 m 1631 m 33800 m 26652 m

178
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

Table 2. Pipeline characteristics of case study

Pipe Designing Operating Product
Pipe material Thickness Coverage type
Diameter Pressure pressure temperature
Carbon-Steel
Three-layer
Pipeline 30 Inches 15.9 mm Psi 300 90 Psi 20-45°C
polyethylene
API =5LX52

3. Results
In this study, according to the conducted studies, dynamic method has been used in the pipeline division. Since
the under study area contained Manifold valves stations and installations for the measurement of gas condensates
export pipelines from refineries, during the 11-kilometer of the pipeline, manifold taps, climate change, pipeline
circumstances and pipeline route change were used as dividing point. In [Table 3] the third-party damage index
variables and points are shown.

Table 3. Assessment of third-party damage index variables

Pipeline Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6

Depth of cover

Score 20 20 20 20 20 20
Description / Calculations Surface of the ground Underground Underground Underwater Underground Underwater
Activity Level
Score 8 8 8 15 8 15
Description / Calculations Medium Low Medium Low
Aboveground Facilities
Score 10 7 0 10 7 10
Description / Calculations Pipelines junction / conveyor construction and Pardis petrochemical Campus / pipeline passageway
Identification of risk location
Score 15 15 15 15 15 15
Description / Calculations Case study in site one and under the supervision of South Pars Special Economic Zone
Public education
Score 15 15 15 15 15 15
Description / Calculations Joint meetings between the oil and gas companies and local authorities
Right-of- way conditions
Score 5 2 2 3 4 3
Description / Calculations Great Medium Medium Good Good Good
Patrol Frequency and inspection
Score 15 15 12 12 15 12
Description / Calculations Limitation Limitation
Third party damage index 88 82 72 90 84 90

In [Table 4] corrosion index variables and Scores are shown:

179
 jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

Table 4. Assessment of corrosion index variable

Pipeline Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6
Atmospheric Exposures
Score 4 4 5 5 4 5
Description / Calculations Soil - air interface Soil - air interface
Atmospheric Type
Score 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Description / Calculations Extreme humidity and high Chemical and extreme humidity / marine and wetland-coastal
temperature
Atmospheric Coating
Score 5 3 3 3 3 3
Description / Calculations
Product Corrosivity
Score 7 7 7 7 7 7
Description / Calculations Gas condensates corrosion is not including and corrosive under certain conditions is possible
Corrosion prevention
Score 10 3 3 3 3 3
Description / Calculations Observations Pigging, internal laminated and inhibiting substances injections haven't taken place.
Soil corrosivity
Score 15 9.25 9.25 7 9.25 7
Description / Calculations 1000 - 15,000 ohm-cm soil resistance and corrosion average, pH=4-8 suitable, humidity 20-30% and microbially
induced corrosion (MIC) was not observed.
Mechanical Corrosion
Score 3 3 3 3 3 3
Description / Calculations Operating pressure of less than 60% of the submission (Design pressure), operating temperature less than 38 °C, above
10 years old pipeline and three-layer polyethylene coating system of pipes
Cathodic protection

Score 15 0.15 0.15 1.5 1.5 1.5

Description / Calculations cathodic protection System No cathodic protection system / The distance between test point <1.5 km
AC current interferences
Score 2 2 3 3 2 3
Description / Calculations 63Kv 20Kv The absence of power 20Kv None
transmission lines
Impact of guards
Score 1 1 1 1 1 1
Description / Calculations At the crossing point and underpass there are necessary contrivance
DC current interference
Score 7 5.5 1.5 7 6.5 7
Description / Calculations None There are 20 pipeline cross and parallel to gas condensate pipeline.
Pipe covering
Score 25 25 25 25 25 25
Description / Calculations Three layer polyethylene coverage
Total corrosion index (0-100) 95.2 63.4 61.7 66.3 66.05 66.3
Design Index variables and scores are shown in [Table 5]:

180
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

Table 5. Assessment of corrosion index variable

Pipeline Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6
Pipe safety factor
Specifications Flange, Valve, Pipeline Class300, Thickness:15.9 mm
Score 35 35 35 35 35 35
Description / Calculations 6 times operating and utilization pressure (90psi) and design pressure 300psi
Fatigue stresses
Score 9 9 9 9 9 9
Description / Calculations stress cycles 1000- 10000 since the establishment of, MAOP = 30%
surge potential
Score 5 5 5 5 5 5
Description / Calculations Depending on the type of fluid ,low pressure and low speed in pipeline the possible surge potential is low
Integrity verifications

Score 15 15 15 15 15 15
Description / Calculations Hydrostatic test of pipes has not been done for more than 10 years
Land movements
Score 15 5 10 10 10 10
Description / Calculations None Medium Low
Total corrosion index (0-100) 79 69 74 74 74 74
In [Table 6] incorrect operations index variables and scores are shown:

Table 6. Assessment of corrosion index variable

Pipeline Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6
Design Hazard identification
Score 3 3 3 3 3 3
Description / Calculations HAZID & HAZOP studies are performed at the time of design
Possibility of M.O.P Maximum design pressure
Score 5 5 5 5 5 5
Description / Calculations Unlikely (application error, Installation of pump on specific status and accidental obstruction of middle way
valves and human error)
Safety systems
Score 5 5 5 5 5 5
Description / Calculations Level 1 safety systems / remote view system / control of some control valves
Material selection
Score 2 2 2 2 2 2
Description / Calculations Evaluation and inspection of the product pipeline has been done by the national oil company.
Checks (inspection and control)
Score 2 2 2 2 2 2
Description / Calculations Ratification and Signature of the construction and executive plans are approved.
Construction Inspection in Manufacturing
Score 10 10 10 10 10 10
Description / Calculations Company supervising engineers adequately monitor the correct implementation of the pipeline.
Materials

181
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

Score 2 2 2 2 2 2
Description / Calculations According to the existing documents they were approved by supervision engineers.
Joining(Welding and fittings)
Score 2 2 2 2 2 2
Description / Calculations Inspection of froth and radiological examination was conducted by supervising engineers
Backfill
Score 2 1 2 2 2 2
Description / Calculations Seasonal heavy rainfall, picking up the side walls of pipeline
Transport and maintain
Score 2 2 2 2 2 2
Description / Calculations Pipeline transportation and maintenance has been assessed within acceptable limits
Insulation
Score 2 2 2 2 2 2
Description / Calculations Froth insulation and padding underneath the pipe embankment and channel tune up is within acceptable
limits
Operation Guidelines and Standards and procedures
Score 5 5 5 5 5 5
Description / Calculations
SCADA (Supervisory control and data acquisition) / Communication
Score 1 1 1 1 1 1
Description / Calculations In the pipeline system the SCADA system is not complete, yet 80% Of system is controlled by operator
Drug testing
Score 1 1 1 1 1 1
Description / Calculations Except from the recruitment time there is no other evidence of personnel drug testing.
Safety programs
Score 1 1 1 1 1 1
Description / Calculations Safety program is designed but it is not with a high level of participation of workers cooperation
Reviews, maps, archive
Score 5 3 3 3 3 3
Description / Calculations Surface facilities are under the control but underground facilities control review are incomplete
Training
Score 6 6 6 6 6 6
Description / Calculations Personnel’s basic understanding of the utilization of the pipeline is relatively sufficient, but personnel are not
under job related test.
Mechanical error preventers
Score 5 5 5 5 5 5
Description / Calculations There is no Block Valve along the way of pipelines
Maintenance and repairs
Score 15 13 13 13 13 13
Description / Calculations Desirable documentation and appropriate maintenance program are present and they are commensurate with
IPS
Total incorrect operations 76 71 72 72 72 72
index (0-100)
In [Table 7] leak Impact Factor Index variables and the related scores are shown.

182
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

Table 7. Assessment of corrosion index variable

Pipeline Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6

Flammability(Nf)

Score 3 3 3 3 3 3

Description / Calculations The flash point is less than 100°F

Reactivity(Nr)

Score 0 0 0 0 0 0

Description / Calculations Stable materials that even when heating stay stable and unreactive

toxicity(Nh)

Score 2 2 2 2 2 2

Description / Calculations Medical care is needed when exposed

chronic hazard (RQ)

Score 2 2 2 2 2 2

Description / Calculations Surface, underground and underwater Pipelines, RQ=5000

LC50=5000ppm,LD50=3160mg/kg skin

leak volume

Score 1 1 1 1 1 1

Description / Calculations pipeline material=API 5LX52

Dispersion

Score 1 1 1 1 1 1

Description / Calculations Soil type (sandy, gravel)

Receptors and the environment and High R=POP + ENV + HVA

valuable areas

Score 5.1 5.7 6.2 5.2 5.7 5.2

Description / Calculations P>46, DOT(Department Of Transportation) TYPE 3=5 SCORE Adjacent industries, the
industrial estate

LIF=PH*LV*D*R

leak Impact Factors Index 35.7 39.9 43.4 36.4 39.9 36.4

Finally in [Tables 8, 9] sum and averages index and in [Tables 10, 11] relative risk score and overall risk
assessment are shown:

Table 8. Sum indexes (total risk)

Pipeline Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6
Total third-party damage index 88 82 72 90 84 90
Total corrosion index 95.2 63.4 61.4 66.3 66.05 66.3
Total design index 79 69 74 74 74 74
Total incorrect operations Index 76 71 72 72 72 72
Sum indexes (0-400) 338.2 285.4 281.4 302.3 296.05 302.3

183
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

Table 9. Average of total risk (safety) indexes

Index Third-party damage index Corrosion index Design index incorrect operations Index
Section 1 88 95.2 79 76
Section 2 82 63.4 69 71
Section 3 72 61.4 74 72
Section 4 90 66.3 74 72
Section 5 84 66.05 74 72
Section 6 90 66.3 74 72
Average 84.3 69.77 74 72.5

Table 10. Average of total risk (safety) indexes

Pipeline Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6
Sum Indexes (SI) 338.2 285.4 281.4 302.3 296.05 302.3
leak Impact Factor Index (LIF) 35.7 39.9 43.4 36.4 39.9 36.4
Relative Risk score (SI/LIF) 9.47 7.15 6.48 8.3 7.4 8.3

Table 11. Risk Assessment of gas condensate export pipeline

Pipe Risk Risk assessment Percent (%)
section score
Section 3 6-7 Very high 16
Section 2 and 5 7-8 High 34
Section 4 and 6 8-9 Medium 34
Section 1 9-10 Low 16

The obtained results showed that the third-party potential damage index in all areas of the pipeline were in good
condition except the second and third sections that the most important factors of scores decreasing were,
respectively, crossing the pipe through sulfur installations and other facilities construction (NPC) on the pipeline,
lack of dedicated corridor, not specifying the service road (ROW), lack of pipeline safety privacy,
non-professional licensing for construction of conveyors and petrochemical facilities on the pipeline by higher
authorities without risk assessment and considering the lack of pipeline privacy and fencing and physical
protection of a range, that these are increasing factors of risks, so that got lower scores compared with other
places that is higher risk indicator of this areas.
The results of the evaluation of corrosion index showed that in most areas of the pipeline poor scores have been
obtained. In the first area because of its surface statue, inspection and protection against corrosion were properly
carried out and this process showed less risk marker than other areas, and second and third evaluated zones of
pipelines have raised the chance lower scores because of 14 pipelines crossover and parallel crossing and
presence of annoying and wandering currents, Atmospheric conditions change and high soil moisture in the
pipeline route, 10 years old under study pipelines, the absence of integrated cathodic protection systems and
pipeline pigging due to different diameters and lack of information about the actual condition of pipelines in this
area compared to other areas, that is evident of more risk is in these areas.
The design index results reflect that the obtained scores, although most are in the acceptable range but are not
satisfactory in the range of 2 and 3 and the most important reasons of this issue are respectively, unsafe pipeline
route selection and unprofessional authority licensing for the construction of other facilities around it, chance of
motion and movement of the earth, picking levee wall of the pipeline route and the retrofitting rocks and cover it
with just fine soil, constructing channels to collect surface water and washing slag and soil on the pipe and lack
of the pipe hydrostatic testing more than 10 years. Evaluation of design index within the second area unlike the
previous indexes from the third area has gained lower scores and this issue is due to the above reason that is a
sign of higher risk for this area.

184
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

In the assessment of incorrect operation index, it was clarified that with regard to the integrity of the pipeline and
the impact of parameters of the index for the entire route as well as its construction by reputable and experienced
foreign companies (Total & Petronas), same and acceptable scores were obtained. However, since in the past
years, the results of analysis showed that human errors are the cause of the events that have occurred in gas
condensate export pipelines, the assessment conducted is not satisfactory. Among the main reasons for this are,
respectively, level one (low level) procedural facilities safety system, lack of SCADA systems, and 80% operator
regulatory system, lack of holding occupational exams related to beneficiary employees, absence of evidence
showing drug test after hiring personnel, and lack of optimal worker participation in safety programs designed.
Total results of safety indicators indicate that in the second and third sections, achieved points were not
satisfactory and were riskier than other areas. Although the rest of the areas according the maximum safety index
score (400) that they can gain in ideal conditions, they did not have acceptable level of scores and they were in
the notification area but not paying attention to them can, in not too distant future, cause unwanted events.
So after averaging the safety indicators of the studied range, it was found that the pipelines conditions with
regard to the corrosion index and the index of operation and malfunctions are in the worse than the other indices
situation that it is necessary to perform precautionary measures related to the aforementioned indicators
variables.
The leakage impact factors index results suggest that the leakage impact with respect to the information
contained in the gas condensates SDS, NFPA704 standard and DOT 192 classification in the terms of the toxicity
and health, environmentally sensitive and economically valuable areas are not in the too acute area and if rating
each of the pipelines move toward zero, the severity of the consequences of leakage will be less and the only
reason to increase the points of the third, second and fifth areas in compare with other regions will be the
crossing of the pipeline from environmentally sensitive and economically valuable areas, and in case of leakage
that could have more deleterious effects. The results of the level relative risk index that represents relative risk
and total assessment and by dividing the total index with the index of the health risks and environmental impact
of the leakage, showed that third section of pipe had very high risk level, the second and fifth section had high
risk level, fourth and sixth sections had medium risk level and the first section had low risk level, also relative
percentages with regard to the total risk level obtained with respect to the results are as: 16% of the total pipeline
had a very high, 34% of the pipeline had a high, 34% of the total pipeline had medium and 16% of the total
pipeline had a low risk level.
4. Discussion
The highest risk of plan related to gas condensate leakage and future consequences (fire, explosion, personal
accident, environmental pollution…) therefore, it is necessary that in the early designing stages (feasibility) all
the factors should be assessed and evaluated using appropriate methods of risk assessment of the pipeline.
Moreover, all requirements and standards of implementation and risk management program of pipeline should be
considered from the beginning, and in case of making corrections and modify in the pipeline and its
environmental conditions, management of change program must be institutionalized and implemented in the
company.
Pipelines threatening factors and variables vary from state to state and appropriate preventive measures specific
to each region should be considered
References
Abdoli, M. (2009). Risk assessment oil pipelines, gas and petrochemical on the basis of W.kent Muhlbauer
Method, Abghin Rayan Pub.
Brito, A. J., & de Almeida, A.T. (2008). Multi attribute risk assessment for risk ranking of natural gas pipelines.
Reliability Engineering & System Safety. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com
DeWolf, G. B. (2005). Pipeline carrying natural gas. Journal of Hazardous Materials A123, 1-12.
Ghodarzi, H. A., & Venous, D. (2003). Risk Management. Tehran Neghah-e-Danesh Pub.
Han, Z. Y., & Weng, W. G. (2011). Comparison study on qualitative and quantitative risk assessment methods for
urban natural gas pipeline network.
IEC 608121. (2001). failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), Procedures for analysis techniques for system
reliability.
IEC 618821. (2001). Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies), Application guide.

185
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017

Keyser, C. A. (1980). Materials Science in Engineering (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E, Merrill publishing
Co, pp.75-101,131-159.
Lei, M. et al. (2013). A novel method of quantitative risk assessment based on grid difference of pipeline
sections.
Martin, D. E. (1998). Methods of Prevention, Detection and Control of Spillages in European Oil Pipelines,
Prepared for CONCAWE’s Oil Pipelines Management Group Technical Coordinator.
Morgan, B. (1995). The Importance of Realistic Representation of Design Features in the Risk Assessment of
High-pressure Gas pipeline, presented at pipeline Reliability Conference, Houston, TX.
Motamedzadeh, M., Mohammadfam, I., & Hamidi, Y. A. (2009). Health risk assessment, safety and
environmental indexing methods Case Study: Kermanshah-Sanandaj oil pipeline, Iran Occupational Health,
p, 55-63.
Muhlbauer, W. K. (2004). Pipeline risk management Manual, Gulf professional publishing, United State of
America, third Ed: pp572.
Stephenson, J. (1991). System Safety 2000. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

186