OpenSRANE, a Flexible and Extensible Platform for Quantitative Risk Assessment of NaTech Events

Document Type : Regular Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technical and Engineering, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquakes Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technical and Engineering, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Chemical Technologies, Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology (IROST), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The effects of natural hazards triggering technological disaster (NaTech) on a society, economy and the environment is a multi-disciplinary research topic. The novelty of the issue and the lack of a standard procedure for risk assessment of this category of incidents show the need for more research in this area. This article introduces OpenSRANE as an open-source, extensible, flexible and object-oriented software for calculating the quantitative risk of NaTech events in process plants. Implementing the software in the Python programming environment provides high flexibility for the modeling and evaluations desired by users. The possibility of implementing the modifications and developments to the existing software as needed by users allows them to add their desired algorithms, elements and models to it, if needed. The software is based on the Monte Carlo method, but it is possible to implement other algorithms and approaches to it. Object-oriented programming and separation of the different parts of the software can increase the readability of the program, allowing researchers in different disciplines to focus easily on studying or developing the desired part with minimal interference from other parts. The applicability of the software has been demonstrated in a case study as well as the ability of the software to calculate results such as the individual risk, scenarios that consider domino effects and physical effects.

Graphical Abstract

OpenSRANE, a Flexible and Extensible Platform for Quantitative Risk Assessment of NaTech Events

Highlights

  • This research introduces a new platform for risk assessment of NaTech events.
  • The platform is flexible and allows users to use various techniques to create their model and interact with other types of software and libraries.
  • The proposed platform is extensible, which allows researchers to develop or modify existing internal codes of platform and add new algorithms to the it.
  • The structure of the platform and its Subpackages are described in this article.

Keywords

References

[1]     Krausmann E, Necci A. Thinking the unthinkable: A perspective on Natech risks and Black Swans. Saf Sci 2021;139:105255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105255.
[2]     Santella N, Steinberg LJ, Aguirra GA. Empirical Estimation of the Conditional Probability of Natech Events Within the United States. Risk Anal 2011;31:951–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1539-6924.2010.01561.X.
[3]     Krausmann E, Cruz AM. Impact of the 11 March 2011, Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry. Nat Hazards 2013;67:811–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0607-0.
[4]     Cruz AM, Steinberg LJ. Industry preparedness for earthquakes and earthquake-triggered hazmat accidents in the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. Earthq Spectra 2005;21:285–303. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1889442.
[5]     Madabhushi SPG, Haigh SK, Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (Great Britain), Institution of Structural Engineers (Great Britain). The Bhuj, India, earthquake of 26th January 2001 : a field report by EEFIT 2005.
[6]     Nascimento KRDS, Alencar MH. Management of risks in natural disasters: A systematic review of the literature on NATECH events. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2016;44:347–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.10.003.
[7]     Krausmann E, Cruz AM, Salzano E. Natech Risk Assessment and Management: Reducing the Risk of Natural-Hazard Impact on Hazardous Installations. 2016.
[8]     Damle S, Mani SK, Balamurugan G. Natech guide words: A new approach to assess and manage natech risk to ensure business continuity. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2021;72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104564.
[9]     Cruz AM. Natech disasters: a review of practices, lessons learned and future research needs. 5th Annu IIASA-DPRI Forum 2005:14–8.
[10]   Cruz AM, Suarez-Paba MC. Advances in Natech research: An overview. Prog Disaster Sci 2019;1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100013.
[11]   European Union. DIRECTIVE 2012/18/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC. Off.J. Eur. Union, L197, 1–37. 2012.
[12]   H.A.Seligson, R.T.Eguchi, K.J.Tierney, K.Richmond. Chemical Hazards, Mitigation and Preparedness in Areas of High Seismic Risk: A Methodology for Estimating the Risk of Post-EQ Hazardous Materials Rel. - MCEER: Earthquake Engineering to Extreme Events - University at Buffalo. NCEER-96-0013 1996.
[13]   Salzano E, Iervolino I, Fabbrocino G. Seismic risk of atmospheric storage tanks in the framework of quantitative risk analysis. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2003;16:403–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-4230(03)00052-4.
[14]   Cozzani V, Antonioni G, Landucci G, Tugnoli A, Bonvicini S, Spadoni G. Quantitative assessment of domino and NaTech scenarios in complex industrial areas. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2014;28:10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.07.009.
[15]   Alessandri S, Caputo AC, Corritore D, Giannini R, Paolacci F, Phan HN. Probabilistic risk analysis of process plants under seismic loading based on Monte Carlo simulations. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2018;53:136–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2017.12.013.
[16]   Fabbrocino G, Iervolino I, Orlando F, Salzano E. Quantitative risk analysis of oil storage facilities in seismic areas. J Hazard Mater 2005;123:61–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.04.015.
[17]   Antonioni G, Spadoni G, Cozzani V. A methodology for the quantitative risk assessment of major accidents triggered by seismic events. J Hazard Mater 2007;147:48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.12.043.
[18]   Caputo AC, Giannini R, Paolacci F. Quantitative Seismic Risk Assessment of Process Plants: State of the Art Review and Directions for Future Research. Vol. 8 Seism. Eng., vol. 8, American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2015-45374.
[19]   Antonioni G, Bonvicini S, Spadoni G, Cozzani V. Development of a framework for the risk assessment of Na-Tech accidental events. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2009;94:1442–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2009.02.026.
[20]   Sayyafzadeh B, Omidi A, Rasoolan I. Mesoscopic Generation of Random Concrete Structure Using Equivalent Space Method. J Soft Comput Civ Eng 2019;3:82–94. https://doi.org/10.22115/scce.2020.171191.1096.
[21]   Rezvani N, Bolduc DL. Monte Carlo Analysis. Encycl Toxicol Third Ed 2014:393–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386454-3.00631-X.
[22]   Shahsavani H, Vafaei S, Mikaeil R. Site Selection for Limestone Paper Plant Using AHP-Monte Carlo Approach. J Soft Comput Civ Eng 2019;3:36–46. https://doi.org/10.22115/scce.2018.130134.1063.
[23]   Abdolhamidzadeh B, Abbasi T, Rashtchian D, Abbasi SA. A new method for assessing domino effect in chemical process industry. J Hazard Mater 2010;182:416–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.06.049.
[24]   Girgin S, Krausmann E. RAPID-N: Rapid natech risk assessment and mapping framework. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2013;26:949–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.10.004.
[25]   Antonioni G, Landucci G, Necci A, Gheorghiu D, Cozzani V. Quantitative assessment of risk due to NaTech scenarios caused by floods. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2015;142:334–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.05.020.
[26]   Necci A, Antonioni G, Bonvicini S, Cozzani V. Quantitative assessment of risk due to major accidents triggered by lightning. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016;154:60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.05.009.
[27]   Misuri A, Antonioni G, Cozzani V. Quantitative risk assessment of domino effect in Natech scenarios triggered by lightning. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2020;64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104095.
[28]   Misuri A, Landucci G, Cozzani V. Assessment of risk modification due to safety barrier performance degradation in Natech events. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107634.
[29]   Misuri A, Ricci F, Sorichetti R, Cozzani V. The Effect of Safety Barrier Degradation on the Severity of Primary Natech Scenarios. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2023;235:109272. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2023.109272.
[30]   Misuri A, Cozzani V. A paradigm shift in the assessment of Natech scenarios in chemical and process facilities. Process Saf Environ Prot 2021;152:338–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2021.06.018.
[31]   Cozzani V, Gubinelli G, Antonioni G, Spadoni G, Zanelli S. The assessment of risk caused by domino effect in quantitative area risk analysis. J Hazard Mater 2005;127:14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.003.
[32]   Tugnoli A, Scarponi GE, Antonioni G, Cozzani V. Quantitative assessment of domino effect and escalation scenarios caused by fragment projection. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2022;217:108059. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2021.108059.
[33]   Sorichetti R, Misuri A, Di Padova A, Miglionico R, Tallone F, Cozzani V. Multi-risk Approach to the Qra of Natech Scenarios in the Chemical and Process Industry. Chem Eng Trans 2022;91:493–8. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2291083.
[34]   Huang K, Chen G, Khan F. Vulnerability assessment method for domino effects analysis in chemical clusters. Process Saf Environ Prot 2022;164:539–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2022.06.021.
[35]   Wang J, Weng W. A simplified methodology for rapid Natech risk assessment of flood-wind-hail multi-hazard scenario. Nat Hazards 2023:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11069-022-05770-5/METRICS.
[36]   Xu Y, Reniers G, Yang M, Yuan S, Chen C. Uncertainties and their treatment in the quantitative risk assessment of domino effects: Classification and review. Process Saf Environ Prot 2023;172:971–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2023.02.082.
[37]   Mesa-Gómez A, Casal J, Sánchez-Silva M, Muñoz F. Advances and gaps in natech quantitative risk analysis. Processes 2021;9:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9010040.
[38]   Caputo AC, Paolacci F, Bursi OS, Giannini R. Problems and Perspectives in Seismic Quantitative Risk Analysis of Chemical Process Plants. J Press Vessel Technol Trans ASME 2019;141. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040804.
[39]   Zhu M, McKenna F, Scott MH. OpenSeesPy: Python library for the OpenSees finite element framework. SoftwareX 2018;7:6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2017.10.009.
[40]   Mckenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Nonlinear Finite-Element Analysis Software Architecture Using Object Composition 2010. https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCECP.1943-5487.0000002.
[41]   Jiang J, Usmani A. Modeling of steel frame structures in fire using OpenSees. Comput Struct 2013;118:90–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.07.013.
[42]   Zhu M, Scott MH. Modeling fluid-structure interaction by the particle finite element method in OpenSees. Comput Struct 2014;132:12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2013.11.002.
[43]   McKenna F. Object-oriented finite-element programming:Frameworks for analysis, algorithms, and parallel computing. Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1997.
[44]   Scott MH, Fenves GL, Mckenna ; Frank, Filippou FC. Software Patterns for Nonlinear Beam-Column Models 2008. https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE0733-94452008134:4562.
[45]   Scott MH, Asce AM, Haukaas T. Software Framework for Parameter Updating and Finite-Element Response Sensitivity Analysis 2008. https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE0887-3801200822:5281.
[46]   Hosseini Gelekolai SM, Kenarangi H. Application of Opensees Software in Structural Modeling and Analysis. Tehran, Iran: Azadeh Publications.(In Persian); 2013.
[47]   Nasrazadani H, Mahsuli M. Probabilistic Framework for Evaluating Community Resilience: Integration of Risk Models and Agent-Based Simulation. J Struct Eng 2020;146:04020250. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002810.
[48]   http://www.dnv.com. PHAST n.d.
[49]   Egidi D, Foraboschi FP, Spadoni G, Amendola A. The ARIPAR project: analysis of the major accident risks connected with industrial and transportation activities in the Ravenna area. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 1995;49:75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00026-X.
[50]   Spadoni G, Egidi D, Contini S. Through ARIPAR-GIS the quantified area risk analysis supports land-use planning activities. J Hazard Mater 2000;71:423–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(99)00091-6.
[51]   Caputo AC, Vigna A. Numerical Simulation of Seismic Risk and Loss Propagation Effects in Process Plants: An Oil Refinery Case Study. Am Soc Mech Eng Press Vessel Pip Div PVP 2017;8. https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2017-65465.
[52]   Caputo AC, Kalemi B, Paolacci F, Corritore D. Computing resilience of process plants under Na-Tech events: Methodology and application to sesmic loading scenarios. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2020;195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106685.
[53]   C.J.H. van den Bosch RAPMWNJDEABWPMMAC van den BWFJMEJCAM van DRMM van W. Methods for the calculation of Physical Effects Due to releases of hazardous materials (liquids and gases). 2005.
[54]   Joaquim Casal. Evaluation of the Effects and Consequences of Major Accidents in Industrial Plants. Elsevier; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-00740-4.
[55]   Wattanakriengkrai S, Chinthanet B, Hata H, Kula RG, Treude C, Guo J, et al. GitHub repositories with links to academic papers: Public access, traceability, and evolution. J Syst Softw 2022;183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.111117.
[56]   Escamilla E, Klein M, Cooper T, Rampin V, Weigle MC, Nelson ML. The Rise of GitHub in Scholarly Publications 2022.
[57]   Boostan E, Tahernia N, Shafiee A. Fuzzy—probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, case study: Tehran region, Iran. Nat Hazards 2015;77:525–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1537-1.
[58]   Razzaghi MS, Eshghi S. Probabilistic Seismic Safety Evaluation of Precode Cylindrical Oil Tanks. J Perform Constr Facil 2015;29. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000669.
[59]   Necci A, Antonioni G, Krausmann E, Argenti F, Landucci G, Cozzani V. Accident Scenarios Caused by Lightning Impact on Atmospheric Storage Tanks. vol. 32, 2013.
[60]   Ibrahim HA, Syed HS. Hazard Analysis of Crude Oil Storage Tank Farm. Int J ChemTech Res 2018;11:300–8. https://doi.org/10.20902/ijctr.2018.111132.
[61]   Alessandri S, Caputo AC, Corritore D, Renato G, Paolacci F, Phan HN. On the Use of Proper Fragility Models for Quantitative Seismic Risk Assessment of Process Plants in Seismic Prone Areas. Vol. 8 Seism. Eng., vol. 8, American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2017-65137.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 19 July 2023
  • Revise Date: 29 September 2023
  • Accept Date: 20 November 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics