Extending the quantitative assessment of industrial risks to earthquake effects

Risk Analysis

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 1231-1246

  Campedel, Michela ^a   Cozzani, Valerio ^a   Garcia Agreda, Anita ^b   Salzano, Ernesto ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b CNR   (Italy)

Author keywords

Equipment vulnerability models; Industrial risk; Major accident hazard; NaTech risk analysis; Quantitative risk analysis; Seismic vulnerability models

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKES; ENGINEERING GEOLOGY; FAILURE ANALYSIS; INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING; MATERIALS HANDLING; PETROLEUM REFINERIES; PLANT LAYOUT; POLLUTION; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RELIABILITY; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; SAFETY FACTOR; SEISMOLOGY; TANKS (CONTAINERS);

CASE STUDIES; CRITICAL EQUIPMENT; DAMAGE STATES; EQUIPMENT VULNERABILITY MODELS; GENERAL FRAMEWORK; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; HOLD-UP; INDUSTRIAL RISK; INDUSTRIAL RISKS; INTERNAL FAILURE; MAIN FACTORS; MAJOR ACCIDENT HAZARD; NATECH RISK ANALYSIS; OIL REFINERIES; ORDER-OF MAGNITUDES; PROCESS EQUIPMENTS; QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENTS; QUANTITATIVE METHODS; QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS; RISK VALUES; SEISMIC EVENTS; SEISMIC VULNERABILITY MODELS; SEISMIC ZONES; VULNERABILITY MODELING;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

EARTHQUAKE; INDUSTRIAL LOCATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC ZONE; VULNERABILITY;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; DANGEROUS GOODS; EARTHQUAKE; MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION METHOD; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; POLLUTION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TANK;

EARTHQUAKES; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; INDUSTRY; ITALY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 52449086934     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01092.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Antonioni, G., Cozzani, V., & Spadoni, G. (2006). A methodology for the quantitative assessment of risk increase in process plants due to seismic events. Proc. PSAM8, ASME, New York, 133, 1 9.
2. Antonioni, G., Spadoni, G., & Cozzani, V. (2007). A methodology for the quantitative risk assessment of major accidents triggered by seismic events. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 147, 48 59.
3. ASCE 1997). Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical Facilities, Task Committee on Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical Facilities of the Petrochemical Committee, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston (Virginia).
4. ATC 1985). Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, Report ATC-13, Applied Technology Council, Redwood, CA.
5. Bommer, J. J. (2002). Deterministic vs. probabilistic seismic hazard assessment: An exaggerated and obstructive dichotomy. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 6, 43 73.
6. Campedel, M., Cozzani, V., Krausmann, E., & Cruz, A. M 2008). Analysis of NaTech accidents recorded in major accident databases. Proc. PSAM, 9.
7. CCPS 1989). Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis. Center for Chemical Process Safety, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York.
8. Cornell, C. A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58, 1583 1606.
9. Cornell, C. A. (1971). Probabilistic analysis of damage to structures under seismic loads. Dynamic Waves in Civil Engineering: Proceedings of a Conference Organized by the Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics (pp. 473 493). New York : John Wiley.
10. Council Directive 96/82/EEC of 9 December 1996 on the control of the major accident hazards involving dangerous substances, Official Journal of the European Communities, 1997 (OJ No: L 10).
11. Cozzani, V., Antonioni G., & Spadoni, G. (2006). Quantitative assessment of domino scenarios by a GIS-based software tool. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industry, 19, 463 477.
12. Cozzani, V., Gubinelli, G., Antonioni, G., Spadoni, G., & Zanelli, S. (2005). The assessment of risk caused by domino effect in quantitative area risk analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 127, 14 30.
13. Cozzani, V., Salzano, E., Campedel, M., Sabatini, M., & Spadoni, G. (2007). The assessment of major accident hazards caused by external events. In Proc. 12th Int. Symp. on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, IChemE Symp. Series n.153, IChemE, Rugby (UK), pp. 331 336.
14. Cruz, A. M. (2005). NaTech disasters: A review of practices, lessons learned and future research needs, 5th Annual IIASA-DPRI Forum, 14 18 September. Beijing (China).
15. Cruz, A. M., Steinberg, L. J., Vetere-Arellano, A. L., Nordvik, J. P., & Pisano, F. (2004). State of the Art in NaTech (Natural Hazard Triggering Technological Disasters) in Europe. DG Joint Research Centre, European Commission and United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Ispra, Italy.
16. Douglas, J. (2001). A Comprehensive Worldwide Summary of Strong-Motion Attenuation Relationships for Peak Ground Acceleration and Spectral Ordinates (1969 to 2000). Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, ESEE Report No. 01-1.
17. DPC 1993). Guidelines for Planning External Emergencies for Major Accidents Installations, Dipartimento di Protezione Civile, Rome (I).
18. Egidi, D., Foraboschi, F. P., Spadoni, G., & Amendola, A. (1995). The ARIPAR project: An analysis of the major accident risks connected with industrial and transportation activities in the Ravenna area. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 49, 75.
19. Eurocode 8 1998). Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Part 4: Silos, Tanks and Pipelines, UNI ENV.
20. Fabbrocino, G., Iervolino, I., Orlando, F., & Salzano, E. (2005). Quantitative risk analysis of oil storage facilities in seismic areas. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 12, 361 369.
21. Field, E. H. (2003). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA), A Primer. Available at http://www.relm.org/tutorialmaterials.
22. Finney, D. J. (1971). Probit Analysis. Cambridge. UK : Cambridge University Press.
23. HAZUS 1997). Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology. National Institute of Building Science, Risk Management Solutions, Menlo Park, CA.
24. Lees, F. P. (1996). Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2nd ed. Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann.
25. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (1996). Identifying and managing conjoint threats: Earthquake-induced hazardous materials releases in the US. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 50, 31 46.
26. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (1997). Hazardous materials releases in the Northridge earthquake: Implications for seismic risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 17, 2.
27. MHIDAS 2001). Major Hazard Incident Data Service. AEA Technology, Major Hazards Assessment Unit, Health and Safety Executive, UK.
28. NFPA 2006). Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). NFPA 59 A, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy (MA USA.
29. Rasmussen Report 1975). Reactor Safety Study. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
30. Rijnmond Public Authority 1982). Risk Analysis of Six Potentially Hazardous Industrial Objects in the Rijnmond Area, a Pilot Study. Reidel, Dordrecht.
31. Salzano, E., Iervolino, I., & Fabbrocino, G 2003). Seismic risk of atmospheric storage tanks in the framework of quantitative risk analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 16, 403 409.
32. Spadoni, G., Egidi, D., & Contini, S. (2000). Through the ARIPAR-GIS the quantified area risk analysis supports land-use planning activities. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 71, 423.
33. Steinberg, L. J., Cruz, A. M., Vardar-Sukan, F., & Ersoz, Y. (2001). Risk management practices at industrial facilities during the Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999: Case study report. In IIASA-DPRI Meeting on Integrated Disaster Risk Management: Reducing Socio-economic Vulnerability, Luxemburg, Austria.
34. Uijt de Haag P. A. M., & Ale B. J. M 1999). Guidelines for Quantitative Risk Assessment (Purple Book), Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, The Hague (NL).