Rating of Geometrical Methods of Tank Calibration: F-TOPSIS Approach

IF 1 4区 工程技术 Q4 INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION
MAPAN Pub Date : 2024-04-02 DOI:10.1007/s12647-024-00748-z
O. O. Agboola, B. O. Akinnuli, B. Kareem, M. A. Akintunde, P. P. Ikubanni, A. A. Adeleke
{"title":"Rating of Geometrical Methods of Tank Calibration: F-TOPSIS Approach","authors":"O. O. Agboola,&nbsp;B. O. Akinnuli,&nbsp;B. Kareem,&nbsp;M. A. Akintunde,&nbsp;P. P. Ikubanni,&nbsp;A. A. Adeleke","doi":"10.1007/s12647-024-00748-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Every new storage tank in the oil sector is required to be calibrated before using them for oil storage and also to be re-calibrated as statutorily required. Depending on the prevailing regulatory guidelines in the country, either a wet or geometrical method of calibration is adopted. This study examines various geometrical methods of tank calibration vis–a–vis their strengths and weaknesses. Tank farm owners (operators) are always faced with the challenge of selecting the best geometrical method of tank calibration while considering some number of factors. To address this aforementioned issue, this study was embarked upon to rank the known four (4) geometrical methods of tank calibration using Fuzzy TOPSIS (F-TOPSIS) approach. Three different experts were drawn from reputable calibration companies to respond to the questionnaire based on the following criteria: Accuracy; Hazard involved; Time consumed; Drudgery involved; and Cost. The interdependencies among the criteria were considered, and a triangular fuzzy set was adopted. The results revealed that the Electro-Optical Distance Ranging (EODR) is the best alternative with a closeness coefficient of 0.974, while the Optical Reference Line Method was ranked least with a closeness coefficient of 0.197. To validate the result of rating by F-TOPSIS, another hybrid MCDM, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) was used to rank the alternatives, and EODR was also ranked as the best alternative. Sensitivity analysis was carried out for five different scenarios to validate the robustness of the decision-making tool used in this study. All the scenarios considered for the sensitivity analysis ranked EODR and OTM (Optical Triangulation Method) first and second, respectively. So, it can be concluded that EODR is the best geometrical method of tank calibration. Though the cost of using EODR might be higher than other methods, this is being compensated for by higher accuracy, less time with less exposure to hazards. It can also be confirmed that F-TOPSIS is a formidable MCDM tool that finds its usage in every facet of life for a robust decision-making process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":689,"journal":{"name":"MAPAN","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MAPAN","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12647-024-00748-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Every new storage tank in the oil sector is required to be calibrated before using them for oil storage and also to be re-calibrated as statutorily required. Depending on the prevailing regulatory guidelines in the country, either a wet or geometrical method of calibration is adopted. This study examines various geometrical methods of tank calibration vis–a–vis their strengths and weaknesses. Tank farm owners (operators) are always faced with the challenge of selecting the best geometrical method of tank calibration while considering some number of factors. To address this aforementioned issue, this study was embarked upon to rank the known four (4) geometrical methods of tank calibration using Fuzzy TOPSIS (F-TOPSIS) approach. Three different experts were drawn from reputable calibration companies to respond to the questionnaire based on the following criteria: Accuracy; Hazard involved; Time consumed; Drudgery involved; and Cost. The interdependencies among the criteria were considered, and a triangular fuzzy set was adopted. The results revealed that the Electro-Optical Distance Ranging (EODR) is the best alternative with a closeness coefficient of 0.974, while the Optical Reference Line Method was ranked least with a closeness coefficient of 0.197. To validate the result of rating by F-TOPSIS, another hybrid MCDM, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) was used to rank the alternatives, and EODR was also ranked as the best alternative. Sensitivity analysis was carried out for five different scenarios to validate the robustness of the decision-making tool used in this study. All the scenarios considered for the sensitivity analysis ranked EODR and OTM (Optical Triangulation Method) first and second, respectively. So, it can be concluded that EODR is the best geometrical method of tank calibration. Though the cost of using EODR might be higher than other methods, this is being compensated for by higher accuracy, less time with less exposure to hazards. It can also be confirmed that F-TOPSIS is a formidable MCDM tool that finds its usage in every facet of life for a robust decision-making process.

Abstract Image

罐体校准几何方法的评级:F-TOPSIS 方法
石油行业的每个新储油罐在用于储油之前都必须进行校准,并根据法定要求进行重新校准。根据国家现行的监管准则,采用湿法或几何法进行校准。本研究探讨了各种油罐校准几何方法的优缺点。油库业主(运营商)总是面临着选择最佳油罐校准几何方法的挑战,同时还要考虑一些因素。为解决上述问题,本研究采用模糊 TOPSIS(F-TOPSIS)方法对已知的四(4)种油罐校准几何方法进行排序。从著名的校准公司抽取了三位不同的专家,根据以下标准对调查问卷做出答复:准确性、危险性、耗时、繁琐程度和成本。考虑到标准之间的相互依存关系,采用了三角模糊集。结果显示,电子光学测距法(EODR)是最佳选择,其接近系数为 0.974,而光学参考线法排名最末,其接近系数为 0.197。为了验证 F-TOPSIS 的评级结果,还使用了另一种混合 MCDM--模糊分析层次法(FAHP)来对备选方案进行排序,结果 EODR 也被评为最佳备选方案。对五种不同的方案进行了敏感性分析,以验证本研究中使用的决策工具的稳健性。敏感性分析所考虑的所有方案都将 EODR 和 OTM(光学三角测量法)分别排在第一和第二位。因此,可以得出结论,EODR 是最佳的油箱校准几何方法。虽然使用 EODR 的成本可能高于其他方法,但精度更高、时间更短、危险性更小,从而弥补了这一不足。还可以确认的是,F-TOPSIS 是一种强大的 MCDM 工具,可用于生活的方方面面,以实现稳健的决策过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
MAPAN
MAPAN 工程技术-物理:应用
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: MAPAN-Journal Metrology Society of India is a quarterly publication. It is exclusively devoted to Metrology (Scientific, Industrial or Legal). It has been fulfilling an important need of Metrologists and particularly of quality practitioners by publishing exclusive articles on scientific, industrial and legal metrology. The journal publishes research communication or technical articles of current interest in measurement science; original work, tutorial or survey papers in any metrology related area; reviews and analytical studies in metrology; case studies on reliability, uncertainty in measurements; and reports and results of intercomparison and proficiency testing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信