Volume 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2021)                   johe 2021, 8(1): 19-25 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Shoja E, Cheraghali M H, Rezghi Rostami A, Derakhshani A. Vulnerability Assessment in Technology-Based Systems: A Case Study in Tehran Gas Supply Network. johe 2021; 8 (1) :19-25
URL: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-662-en.html
1- Department of Technology Management, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Industrial Management, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran , mhcheraghali6@gmail.com
3- Department of Industrial Management, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (1431 Views)
Background and Objective: A variety of natural, man-made, and technological hazards threaten the resilience of a system and make it vulnerable. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the vulnerability of the gas distribution network in the city of Tehran.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed in town board stations (TBSs) in one of the gas distribution areas of Tehran during 2019-2020. This study was conducted based on the approach of identifying hazard and threat centers and vulnerability assessment. The vulnerability assessment was performed using a three-dimensional matrix consisting of three factors, including the probability of occurrence, the severity of the damage, and the extent of preparedness for the threat.
Results: In total, six hazard or  threat sources were identified in the studied TBSs, including insulating joints, shut-off valves, station pipelines, sensors, regulators, and filters. The vulnerability caused by these six sources was estimated at 36, 30, 120, 112, 40, and 140, respectively. Based on the results, insulating joints, shut-off valves, and regulators presented threats of level two (medium),  and station pipelines, sensors, and filters were level three threats (severe). The vulnerability index was in the range of 101-215.
Conclusion: The results indicated that the resilience of TBSs in this area are threatened by six major sources. Furthermore, the results of the vulnerability assessment of these TBSs revealed that the resilience to these threats is relatively low. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the reduction of vulnerability in this area of the gas distribution network.
Full-Text [PDF 702 kb]   (386 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research Article | Subject: Safety

1. Haimes YY. On the definition of resilience in systems. Risk Analysis: An International Journal. 2009;29(4):498-501. [DOI]
2. Barker K, Haimes YY. Assessing uncertainty in extreme events: Applications to risk-based decision making in interdependent infrastructure sectors. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2009;94(4):819-29. [DOI]
3. 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. [DOI]
4. Knegtering B, Pasman H. Safety of the process industries in the 21st century: A changing need of process safety management for a changing industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2009;22(2):162-8. [DOI]
5. Jing Y, Jianming C, Hong Z. The Classification of Emergency in Incident Management [J]. Management Review. 2005;4:37-41. [DOI]
6. Fuchs S, Heiss K, Hübl J. Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science. 2007;7(5):495-506. [DOI]
7. Lees F. Lees' Loss prevention in the process industries: Hazard identification, assessment and control: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2012. [DOI]
8. Gholamizadeh K, Kalatpour O, Mohammadfam I. Evaluation of Health Consequences in Chemicals Road Transport Accidents Using a Fuzzy Approach. Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering. 2019;6(3):1-8. [DOI]
9. Mohammadfam I, Shokouhipour A, Zamanparvar A. A Framework for Assessment of Intentional Fires. Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering. 2014;1(1):16-25. [DOI]
10. Maddah s, nabi bidehendi g, taleizadeh aa, hoveidi h. A Framework to Evaluate Health, Safety, and Environmental Performance using Resilience Engineering Approach: A Case Study of Automobile Industry. Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering. 2020;6(4):50-8. [DOI]
11. Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez JE, Rocco CM. Resilience-based network component importance measures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2013;117:89-97. [DOI]
12. Béné C, Wood RG, Newsham A, Davies M. Resilience: new utopia or new tyranny? Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes. IDS Working Papers. 2012;2012(405):1-61. [DOI]
13. Paton D, Johnston D. Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal. 2001;10(4):270-7. [DOI]
14. Adger WN. Vulnerability. Global environmental change. 2006;16(3):268-81. [DOI]
15. Zio E. Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2016;152:137-50. [DOI]
16. Coburn A, Spence R, Pomonis A. Guide to vulnerability and risk assessment. Disaster Management Training Programme (DMTP), Cambridge Architectural Research Limited, Cambridge Google Scholar. 1994. [DOI]
17. Sarewitz D, Pielke Jr R, Keykhah M. Vulnerability and risk: some thoughts from a political and policy perspective. Risk Analysis: An International Journal. 2003;23(4):805-10. [DOI]
18. Khakzad N, Reniers G, Abbassi R, Khan F. Vulnerability analysis of process plants subject to domino effects. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2016;154:127-36. [DOI]
19. 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. [DOI]
20. Tie-min L. Recognition of disaster causes—study of the vulnerability [J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology. 2010;5. [DOI]
21. Sklet S. Safety barriers: Definition, classification, and performance. Journal of loss prevention in the process industries. 2006;19(5):494-506. [DOI]
22. 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. [DOI]
23. Rausand M. Reliability of safety-critical systems. John Wiley&Sons. 2014. [DOI]
24. Shahedi ali abadi S, 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. [DOI]
25. Patterson M, Deutsch ES. Safety-I, Safety-II and resilience engineering. Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care. 2015;45(12):382-9. [DOI]
26. Gaitanidou E, Tsami M, Bekiaris E. A review of resilience management application tools in the transport sector. Transportation Research Procedia. 2017;24:235-40. [DOI]
27. Pariès J. Complexity, emergence, resilience…. Resilience Engineering: CRC Press; 2017. p. 43-53. [DOI]
28. Hollnagel E, Nemeth CP, Dekker S. Resilience Engineering Perspectives, Volume 1: Remaining sensitive to the possibility of failure2008. [DOI]
29. Leveson N, Dulac N, Zipkin D, Cutcher-Gershenfeld J, Carroll J, Barrett B. Engineering resilience into safety-critical systems. Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. 2006:95-123. [DOI]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb