Vulnerability Analysis against Natural and Technological Threats: A Comparative Assessment in Tehran Metropolis Gas Supply Network
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.
2. Atteridge A, Remling E. Is adaptation reducing vulnerability or redistributing it? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate 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. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 2019;11(4).
4. Fernández-Muñiz B, Montes-Peón JM, Vázquez-Ordás CJ. Relation between occupational safety management and firm performance. Safety science. 2009;47(7):980-91.
5. Khodabandeh S, Haghdoost A, Khosravi Y. Epidemiology of work-related Accidents in Kerman Coal Mines during 1991-2006. Iran Occupational Health. 2012;8(4).
6. Azadeh A, Yazdanparast R, Zadeh SA, Zadeh AE. Performance optimization of integrated resilience engineering and lean production principles. Expert Systems with Applications. 2017;84:155-70.
7. Dinh LT, Pasman H, Gao X, Mannan MS. Resilience engineering of industrial processes: principles and contributing factors. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2012;25(2):233-41.
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. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2019;59:54-62.
9. Kwag S, Gupta A. Probabilistic risk assessment framework for structural systems under multiple hazards using Bayesian statistics. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 2017;315:20-34.
10. Fuchs S, Birkmann J, Glade T. Vulnerability assessment in natural hazard and risk analysis: current approaches and future challenges. Natural Hazards. 2012;64(3):1969-75.
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. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 2018;10(3):151-7.
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. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 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 safety and environmental protection. 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. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2016;40:277-84.
15. Maurya A, Kumar D. Reliability of safety‐critical systems: A state‐of‐the‐art review. Quality and Reliability Engineering International. 2020;36(7):2547-68.
16. Shokouhi Y, Nassiri P, Mohammadfam I, Azam K. Predicting occupational struck-by incident probability in oil and gas industry: A Bayesian network model. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 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 Safety and Environmental Protection. 2014;92(5):430-41.
18. Lei Y, Yue Y, Zhou H, Yin W. Rethinking the relationships of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation from a disaster risk perspective. Natural hazards. 2014;70(1):609-27.
19. Ericson CA. Hazard analysis techniques for system safety: John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
20. Popović V, Vasić B. Review of hazard analysis methods and their basic characteristics. FME Transactions. 2008;36(4):181-7.
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. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2018;56:95-103.
22. Tie-min L. Recognition of disaster causes—study of the vulnerability [J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology. 2010;5.
23. Tanabe M, Miyake A. Approach enhancing inherent safety application in onshore LNG plant design. Journal of loss prevention in the process industries. 2012;25(5):809-19.
24. Assari MJ, Kalatpour O, Zarei E, Mohammadfam I. Consequence modeling of fire on Methane storage tanks in a gas refinery. Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering. 2016;3(1):51-9.
25. Das BC. Remote monitoring and intelligent controls of cathodic protection system of gas transmission pipelines. 2017.
26. Ekhtiari A, Dassios I, Liu M, Syron E. A novel approach to model a gas network. Applied Sciences. 2019;9(6):1047.
27. Puranik Y, Kilinç M, Sahinidis NV, Li T, Gopalakrishnan A, Besancon B, et al. Global optimization of an industrial gas network operation. AIChE Journal. 2016;62(9):3215-24.
|Issue||Vol 13 No 2 (2021)|
|Comparative Assessment Vulnerability Analysis Resilience Gas Supply Network Tehran Metropolis|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|