Original Article

Vulnerability Analysis against Natural and Technological Threats: A Comparative Assessment in Tehran Metropolis Gas Supply Network

Abstract

Resilience as a counterpoint to vulnerability can reduce the vulnerability of various natural, man-made, and technological threats in complex technical systems. The present study was designed and conducted with the aim of comparative assessment of the vulnerability of a gas supply network to natural and technological threats. This descriptive-analytical and cross-sectional study was carried out in Tehran metropolis gas supply network including town board stations, gas supply, and distribution networks in 2019-2020. The study was based on the vulnerability analysis method including three factors of likelihood, severity of consequences, and the degree of preparedness for threats. Comparative vulnerability assessment in these three sections of the gas supply network was performed using IBM SPSS software v. 23.0. Out of eleven identified hazardous elements, the vulnerability index for three hazardous elements was estimated as a weak level threat; four hazardous elements as a medium level threat and the vulnerability index for four hazards were evaluated as a severe threat. The results of comparative vulnerability assessment based on three parts of gas supply network showed that the highest vulnerabilities related to the gas distribution network (133.66±24.63), gas supply network (115.0±35.35), and town board stations (79.49±68.51. In addition, the results of Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the vulnerability difference in these three sections was not significant (p>0.05). The findings of the comparative assessment of vulnerability between   different parts of the gas supply network including town board stations (TBS), gas supply and distribution network indicated that the resilience of these parts is relatively low and requires special attention in order to reduce vulnerability in Tehran metropolis gas supply network.

1. Skondras NA, Tsesmelis DE, Vasilakou CG, Karavitis CA. Resilience–Vulnerability Analysis: A Decision-Making Framework for Systems Assessment. Sustainability. 2020;12(22):9306.
2. Atteridge A, Remling E. Is adaptation reducing vulnerability or redistributing it?. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Clim Change. 2018;9(1):e500.
3. Salimi M, Salesi M, Akbari H, Bagheri H. Risk Assessment from a Passive Defense Perspective-a Case Study at Shams Abad Industrial Estate, Iran. Int J Occup Hyg. 2019;11(4).
4. Fernández-Muñiz B, Montes-Peón JM, Vázquez-Ordás CJ. Relation between occupational safety management and firm performance. Saf Sci. 2009;47(7):980-991.
5. Khodabandeh S, Haghdoost A, Khosravi Y. Epidemiology of work-related Accidents in Kerman Coal Mines during 1991-2006. Iran Occup Health. 2012;8(4).[In Persian].
6. Azadeh A, Yazdanparast R, Zadeh SA, Zadeh AE. Performance optimization of integrated resilience engineering and lean production principles. Expert Syst Appl.2017;84:155-170.
7. Dinh LT, Pasman H, Gao X, Mannan MS. Resilience engineering of industrial processes: principles and contributing factors. J Loss Prev Process Indust. 2012;25(2):233-241.
8. Li W, Sun Y, Cao Q, He M, Cui Y. A proactive process risk assessment approach based on job hazard analysis and resilient engineering. J Loss Prev Process Indust. 2019;59:54-62.
9. Kwag S, Gupta A. Probabilistic risk assessment framework for structural systems under multiple hazards using Bayesian statistics. Nucl Eng Des. 2017;315:20-34.
10. Fuchs S, Birkmann J, Glade T. Vulnerability assessment in natural hazard and risk analysis: current approaches and future challenges. Nat Hazards. 2012;64(3):1969-1975.
11. Eskandari T, Aliabadi MM, Mohammadfam I. Dynamic Analysis of the Consequences of Gas Release in Process Industries Using Event Tree Technique and Bayesian Network. Int J Occup Hyg. 2018;10(3):151-157.





12. Shirali GA, Mohammadfam I, Ebrahimipour V. A new method for quantitative assessment of resilience engineering by PCA and NT approach: A case study in a process industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2013;119:88-94.
13. Shirali G, Motamedzade M, Mohammadfam I, Ebrahimipour V, Moghimbeigi A. Challenges in building resilience engineering (RE) and adaptive capacity: A field study in a chemical plant. Process Saf Environ Protect. 2012;90(2):83-90.
14. Shirali GA, Shekari M, Angali K. Quantitative assessment of resilience safety culture using principal components analysis and numerical taxonomy: A case study in a petrochemical plant. J Loss Prev Process Indust. 2016;40:277-284.
15. Maurya A, Kumar D. Reliability of safety‐critical systems: A state‐of‐the‐art review. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2020;36(7):2547-2568.
16. Shokouhi Y, Nassiri P, Mohammadfam I, Azam K. Predicting occupational struck-by incident probability in oil and gas industry: A Bayesian network model. Int J Occup Hyg. 2019;11(1).
17. Dan S, Lee CJ, Park J, Shin D, Yoon ES. Quantitative risk analysis of fire and explosion on the top-side LNG-liquefaction process of LNG-FPSO. Process Saf Environ Protect .2014;92(5):430-441.
18. Lei Y, Yue Y, Zhou H, Yin W. Rethinking the relationships of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation from a disaster risk perspective. Nat Hazards. 2014;70(1):609-627.
19. Ericson CA. Hazard analysis techniques for system safety. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2015.
20. Popović V, Vasić B. Review of hazard analysis methods and their basic characteristics. FME Trans. 2008;36(4):181-187.
21. Zhao R, Liu S, Liu Y, Zhang L, Li Y. A safety vulnerability assessment for chemical enterprises: a hybrid of a data envelopment analysis and fuzzy decision-making. J Loss Prev Process Indust .2018;56:95-103.
22. Tie-min L. Recognition of disaster causes—study of the vulnerability [J]. J Saf Sci Tech. 2010;5.
23. Tanabe M, Miyake A. Approach enhancing inherent safety application in onshore LNG plant design. J Loss Prev Process Indust .2012;25(5):809-819.
24. Assari MJ, Kalatpour O, Zarei E, Mohammadfam I. Consequence modeling of fire on Methane storage tanks in a gas refinery. J Occup Hyg Eng. 2016;3(1):51-59.
25. Das BC. Remote monitoring and intelligent controls of cathodic protection system of gas transmission pipelines. Environ Sci. 2017.
26. Ekhtiari A, Dassios I, Liu M, Syron E. A novel approach to model a gas network. Appl Sci. 2019;9(6):1047.
27. Puranik Y, Kilinç M, Sahinidis NV, Li T, Gopalakrishnan A, Besancon B. 385301 Global optimization of real time operation of an industrial gas network operation. 14 AIChE Annual Meeting. 2014;62(9):3215-3224.
Files
IssueVol 13 No 2 (2021) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
Published2021-06-30
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/ijoh.v13i2.8368
Keywords
Comparative Assessment Vulnerability Analysis Resilience Gas Supply Network Tehran Metropolis
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Shoja E, Cheraghali MH, Rezghi Rostami A, Derakhshani A. Vulnerability Analysis against Natural and Technological Threats: A Comparative Assessment in Tehran Metropolis Gas Supply Network. Int J Occup Hyg. 2021;13(2):140-149.