A Risk Assessment Model of Gas Pipeline Leakage Based on a Fuzzy Hybrid Analytic Hierarchy Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, a novel fuzzy hybrid analytic hierarchy process evaluation methodology was proposed, combining AHP and NAP to enhance risk factor relationships and using fuzzy evaluation to determine risk levels, validated through experimental analysis. This study holds engineering values and the conclusions are interesting. Here are some comments and suggestions:

(1) There are some typos throughout the manuscript which need careful editing.

(2) The paper structure is missing. It is suggested to add a paragraph at the end of Introduction to illustrate the main work of each section.

(3) Table 1 shows in the manuscript but is not mentioned in the main text. Please add an explanation.

(4) The measure layer in hybrid hierarchical structure model includes 48 factors. Please provide reasons for selecting these factors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor editing is needed to further improve its clarity and accuracy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) is a modern tool for dealing with complex decision-making and may help the decision maker to set priorities to make the best decision. FAHP has been developed to deal with uncertain data and the imprecision in assessing the relative importance of attributes and the performance ratings of alternatives with respect to attributes. In the framework of this comprehensive research, a novel fuzzy hybrid analytic hierarchy process evaluation algorithm has been implemented in order to evaluate the disaster risk caused by urban gas pipeline leakage. First, a hybrid hierarchical risk assessment model has been developed by combining the analytic hierarchy process and the network analytic hierarchy process. This enhances the relationships between risk factors within the hierarchical structure model. Subsequently, employing a fuzzy evaluation method, the risk level matrix is derived by using multiplication and bounded operators to ascertain the risk level state. Finally, This algorithm has been implemented on pipeline network in the central area of a certain city. In my opinion this paper is not explained well. Sensitivity analysis should be carried out in order to show the influence each of the six risks (such as: operation risk, manipulation risk etc.) on the overall disaster risk. It is recommended to reconsider this manuscript for publication, after performing the following major revisions.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) (Abstract) this section is very short. It should be extended. It should also include the more findings of this work.

2) The following important keywords should be provided: Safety, Gas ignition and explosion.

3) (Introduction section) several abbreviations (such as: BP, N-K model, AHP, NAHP) have been written inside this section. The authors should provide Abbreviation list before the reference section. They should be defined in this section.

4) (Introduction section) the following book should be cited:

[1] Emrouznejad, A., & Ho, W., Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2017, 1st edition, Chapman and Hall / CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315369884.

Chapter 2 of this book reviews works written in the State of the Art in FAHP in Risk Assessment.

5) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

6) (Section 2 – Fuzzy Hybrid Analytic Hierarchy Process) sensitivity analysis should be carried out in order to show the influence of each of the six risks (such as: operation risk, manipulation risk etc.) on the overall disaster risk (see figure 1). See for example the following paper:

[2] Koohathongsumrit, N.; Chankham, W. Risk Analysis of Underground Tunnel Construction with Tunnel Boring Machine by Using Fault Tree Analysis and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process, Safety 2024, 10, 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety10030068.

7) (Section 2 – Fuzzy Hybrid Analytic Hierarchy Process) it is recommended to present the results obtained in this research graphically.

8) (Section 4 – Conclusion) this section is very short. It should be extended. The validation of this method should be added. Future work should be discussed. In my opinion Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) can be employed to account for uncertainty in the output.

9) (Reference section) the year should be bold. The authors should provide the DOI of the cited papers (See the following reference example):

Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range, DOI.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Editors,

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I apologize for the delay in responding this review request. Generally, the paper is well written and enjoyable to read. The ideas can be extracted easily as it was presented in clear way. The introduction is also rich with information supporting the needs and ideas presented in the paper. The method and all required matrices are presented in a systematic manner.

My feedbacks are the following:

1. Please provide background information relating to the selection of the 7 parameters used in the criteria layer as well as the selection of 48 factors  This is stated in lines 79 to 87.  Currently, it is simply stated as "based on the attribute disparities among factors...."

2. Please provide citation for NAHP stated in line 88

3. Please further elaborate what it is meant by "Based on the evolution mechanism of pipeline leakage and expert opinion ..." in line 93 and 94

4. Please elaborate by providing citations and explanation on the selection of factors selected in Table 1

5. The level of details provided in "Constructing decision matrix" is well appreciated but I am not sure if this is appropriate for the audience of Sustainability who might want to focus on the outcomes, and not on the method. So, perhaps you can elaborate the links between the matrix provided in this section with the sustainability theme. 

The description in lines 178 to 181 provide a good example of relating the matrix and method to sustainability theme, so we need more of these examples. 

6.   Hence, we need to elaborate by perhaps citations etc. on sentences such as " Based on the risk assessment factor system for pipeline network leakage, comprehensive assessment element sets for leakage disaster risk are constructed ..." in lines 184 and 185. This is not clear enough.

7. Another example that needs elaboration and reasoning are all vectors presented in lines 187 to 208. These are all important for the decision matrix, but I believe the readers would like to know the background of such selection. 

8. In the "Empirical Analysis" section, I would suggest to present the survey that was forwarded to the experts, so readers can understand better on how the data are obtained. I would also suggest to provide the map of the town, highlighting the potential risks and their relationship.

9. Details about the decision matrix tables 10 to 13 are appreciated but I recommend to add meanings about the numbers in its relationship to the sustainability assessment.  

10. The presented results in Table 16 and below it should be elaborated further so that action items can be easily considered. I think currently, the outcomes are very mathematical and abstract. 

11. Lastly, the paragraph in between lines 287 and 291 is not well supported by any evidence and clear explanation. It sounds like a claim than a statement. 

12. The second conclusion does not have enough supports.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for accepting my recommendations. The heading of the References section. It should appear before the references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Editors,

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for including examples of surveys which help readers understand how the data are gathered and how the parameters are setup. The paper however was not significantly improved with description related to the data gathering and issues relevant to sustainability. So, I am actually reluctant to accept the paper. But the survey and the method are enriching and it could be useful for future risk assessment in this area.