24Model-based comparative analysis of two catastrophic hazardous chemical pipeline accidents

References

• Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA). Distribution, Transmission & Gathering, LNG, and Liquid Accident and Incident Data [Internet]; [cited 2023 May 1]. Available from: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/distribution-transmission-gathering-lng-and-liquid-accidentand-incident-data
   Google Scholar
• Green K, Jackson T. Safety in the transportation of oil and gas: pipelines or rail? [Internet]. Fraser research bulletin. Fraser Institute, Canada; 2015 [cited 2023 May 1]. Available from: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportation-oil-and-gas-pipelines-or-rail
   Google Scholar
• Singleton M. What’s the safest way to transport oil? US transportation and state departments won’t say [Internet]; 2013 [cited 2023 May 1]. Available from: http://www.ibtimes.com/whats-safest-way-transport-oil-us-transportation-state-departments-wont-say-1172847
   Google Scholar
• Belvederesi C, Thompson M, Komers P. Statistical analysis of environmental consequences of hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. Heliyon. 2018;4(11):e00901. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00901
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Restrepo C, Simonoff J, Zimmerman R. Causes, cost consequences, and risk implications of accidents in US hazardous liquid pipeline infrastructure. Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot. 2009;2(1–2):38–50. doi:10.1016/j.ijcip.2008.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramírez-Camacho J, Carbone F, Pastor E, et al. Assessing the consequences of pipeline accidents to support land-use planning. Saf Sci. 2017;97:34–42. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.01.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (EGIG). 11th EGIG report [Internet]; [cited 2023 May 1]. Available from: https://www.egig.eu/reports
   Google Scholar
• Li F, Wang W, Xu J, et al. A CAST-based causal analysis of the catastrophic underground pipeline gas explosion in Taiwan. Eng Fail Anal. 2020;108:104343. doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Wang T. Statistical analysis of oil and gas pipeline accidents in China and abroad. Pipeline Protection. 2017;4:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Bubbico R. A statistical analysis of causes and consequences of the release of hazardous materials from pipelines. The influence of layout. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2018;56:458–466. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2018.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang Y, Yang F, Yin Z, et al. Accident statistics and risk analysis of oil and gas pipelines. Oil Gas Storage Transp. 2017;36(4):472–476. Chinese.
   Google Scholar
• Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA). Distribution, Transmission & Gathering, LNG, and Liquid Accident and Incident Data [Internet]; [cited 2023 May 1]. Available from: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/distribution-transmission-gathering-lng-and-liquid-accident-and-incident-data.
   Google Scholar
• Li F, Wang W, Dubljevic S, et al. Analysis on accident-causing factors of urban buried gas pipeline network by combining DEMATEL, ISM and BN methods. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2019;61:49–57. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2019.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang W, Shen K, Wang B, et al. Failure probability analysis of the urban buried gas pipelines using Bayesian networks. Process Saf Environ Protect. 2017;111:678–686. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2017.08.040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilal Z, Mohammed K, Brahim H. Bayesian network and bow tie to analyze the risk of fire and explosion of pipelines. Process Saf Prog. 2017;36(2):202–212. doi:10.1002/prs.11860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muniz M, Lima G, Caiado R, et al. Bow tie to improve risk management of natural gas pipelines. Process Saf Prog. 2018;37(2):169–175. doi:10.1002/prs.11901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Li SZ, Zhang PC. Data-driven accident consequence assessment on urban gas pipeline network based on machine learning. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2022;219:108216. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2021.108216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li F, Wang W, Xu J, et al. Comparative study on vulnerability assessment for urban buried gas pipeline network based on SVM and ANN methods. Process Saf Environ Protect. 2019;122:23–32. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2018.11.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma L, Cheng L, Li MC. Quantitative risk analysis of urban natural gas pipeline networks using geographical information systems. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2013;26:1183–1192. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2013.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halim S, Yu M, Escobar H, et al. Towards a causal model from pipeline incident data analysis. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2020;143(4):348–360. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2020.06.047
   Google Scholar
• Leveson NG. Applying systems thinking to analyze and learn from events. Saf Sci. 2011;49(1):55–64. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.12.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen J. Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci. 1997;27:183–213. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reason J. Human error. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Wiegmann DA, Shappell SA. A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: the human factors analysis and classification system. Burlington (VT): Ashgate; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Fu G, Xie XC, Jia QS, et al. The development history of accident causation models in the past 100 years: 24Model, a more modern accident causation model. Process Saf Environ. 2020;134:47–82. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2019.11.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gong Y, Li Y. STAMP-based causal analysis of China–Donghuang oil transportation pipeline leakage and explosion accident. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2018;56:402–413. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2018.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Girgin S, Krausmann E. Historical analysis of U.S. onshore hazardous liquid pipeline accidents triggered by natural hazards. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2016;40:578–590. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2016.02.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Emergency Management of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Accident investigation report of Qingdao ‘11-22’ oil leaks and explosions of Sinopec Donghuang pipelines [Internet]; [cited 2023 May 1]. Available from: http://www.chinasafety.gov.cn/gk/sgcc/tbzdsgdcbg/2013/201306/t20130626_245228.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Hubei Province Hubei Emergency Management Department. Investigation report of ‘6-13’ gas explosion accident in Yanhu Community, Zhangwan District, Shiyan City [Internet]; [cited 2023 May 1]. Chinese. Available from: http://yjt.hubei.gov.cn/yjgl/bsc/sgdc/202109/P020211002415958135749.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Fu G, Wu Z, et al. A popular systemic accident model in China: theory and applications of 24Model. Saf Sci. 2023;159:106013. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Yan M. Application of an improved model for accident analysis: a case study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahmoodi E, Mortazavi S, Ahmadi O, et al. Analysis of liquid pipelines accidents causes, consequences and contributing factors: a review study. J Fail Anal and Preven. 2021;21:348–362. doi:10.1007/s11668-020-01054-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biezmaa M, Andrésb M, Agudo D, et al. Most fatal oil & gas pipeline accidents through history: a lessons learned approach. Eng Fail Anal. 2020;110:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson JM, Shappell SA. Operator error and system deficiencies: analysis of 508 mining incidents and accidents from Queensland, Australia using HFACS. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42(4):1379–1385. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.02.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang L, Chen M, Fan W. Human factors analysis of a fatal gas explosion on June 13, 2021 in Shiyan City, China. Process Saf Prog. 2023: 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Fu G, Han M, et al. Comparison of the theoretical elements and application characteristics of STAMP, FRAM, and 24Model: a major hazardous chemical explosion accident. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2022;80:104880. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2022.104880
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu G, Lu B, Chen X. Behavior based model for organizational safety management. China Saf Sci J. 2005;15(9):21–27. Chinese.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich HW, Petersen D, Roos NR. Industrial accident prevention: a safety management approach. 5th ed New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Fu G, Chen Y, Xu S, et al. Detailed explanations of 24Model and development of its 6th version. China Saf Sci J. 2022;32(1):12–19. Chinese.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Fu G, Lyu Q, et al. Analysis of characteristics and causes of gas explosion accidents: a historical review of coal mine accidents in China. Int J Occup Saf Ergo. 2024;30(1):168–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Zhang J, Zhu K, et al. Anatomy of explosives spontaneous combustion accidents in the Chinese underground coal mine: causes and prevention. Process Saf Prog. 2016;35:221–227. doi:10.1002/prs.11816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong R, Yang Y, Ma X, et al. Risk assessment of miners’ unsafe behaviors: a case study of gas explosion accidents in coal mine, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu G, Zhou L, Wang J, et al. Analysis of an explosion accident at Dangyang power plant in Hubei, China: causes and lessons learned. Saf Sci. 2018;102:134–143. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue Y, Fu G. A modified accident analysis and investigation model for the general aviation industry: emphasizing on human and organizational factors. J Saf Res. 2018;67:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2018.09.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Zhang W, Xu P, et al. Applicability of accident analysis methods to Chinese construction accidents. J Saf Res. 2019;68:187–196. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2018.11.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Fu G, Yan M. Analysis of a catastrophic commercial coach crash based on an improved accident causation model: cause classification and lessons learned. Int J Occup Saf Ergo. 2022;28(1):659–671. doi:10.1080/10803548.2020.1759314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aliabadi MM, Aghaei H, Kalatpour O, et al. Effects of human and organizational deficiencies on workers’ safety behavior at a mining site in Iran. Epidemiol Health. 2018;40:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Namian M, Albert A, Zuluaga CM, et al. Role of safety training: impact on hazard recognition and safety risk perception. J Constr Eng Manag. 2016;142(12):1–10. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart J. Managing for world class safety. New York (NY): Wiley; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Oah S, Na R, Moon K. The influence of safety climate, safety leadership, workload, and accident experiences on risk perception: a study of Korean manufacturing workers. Saf Health Work. 2018;9(4):427–433. doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2018.01.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Fu J, Hao H, et al. Root causes of coal mine accidents: characteristics of safety culture deficiencies based on accident statistics. Process Saf Environ. 2020;136:78–91. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2020.01.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar