Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comprehensive Failure Analysis in Tehran Refinery Fire Accident: Application of Accimap Methodology and Quantitative Domino Effect Analysis

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Major domino fire accidents in the process industry require careful investigation using proper tools due to their potent effects on the chemical supply chain. Domino accidents in a chemical process systems refer to accident in which fire and explosions escalate from one initiating system to multiple systems. This study investigated the dimensions and causes of the Tehran Oil Refinery accident using the AcciMap method and quantitative domino effect analysis. This accident happened on June 2, 2021, in which a catastrophic leak in one of the slop storage tanks in the refinery caused a severe fire that eventually led to the complete burning of six tanks of a common dike wall. In this study, the influencing causes of the accident were extracted. The present study proposed control strategies based on Accimap method to prevent similar accidents. Furthermore, a new, safer design for tank layout is presented using a quantitative domino effect analysis. The findings showed that corrosion in the main tank rings was the primary reason for slop leakage. In addition, (a) weakness in the incident command system (ICS), (b) failure to implement thr process safety management (PSM) standards, and (c) deficiency in monitoring the implementation of safety regulations at governmental and legislative levels were contributing factors for the fire spread. In addition, (A) the unsafe arrangement of tanks, (B) failure to consider probable consequences, and (C) lack of a dedicated dike wall for each reservoir escalated fire from the main tank to other tanks. This study provided control solutions in management and supervision at all layers by applying the Accimap method and domino effect analysis and proposing a safer layout for re-designing the tanks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amin MT, Khan F, Amyotte P (2019) A bibliometric review of process safety and risk analysis. Process Saf Environ Prot 126:366–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mohammadfam I, Kalatpour O, Gholamizadeh K (2020) Quantitative assessment of safety and health risks in HAZMAT road transport using a hybrid approach: a case study in Tehran. ACS Chem Health Saf 27(4):240–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mohammadfam I, Zarei E, Yazdi M, Gholamizadeh K (2022) Quantitative risk analysis on rail transportation of hazardous materials. Math Probl Eng

  4. Gholamizadeh K, Kalatpour O, Mohammadfam I (2019) Evaluation of health consequences in chemicals road transport accidents using a fuzzy approach. J Occup Hyg Eng 6(3):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Shanini A, Ahmad A, Khan F (2014) Accident modelling and analysis in process industries. J Loss Prev Process Ind 32:319–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aliabadi MM, Gholamizadeh K (2021) Locating urban CNG stations using quantitative risk assessment: using the Bayesian network. Saf Reliab 40(1):48–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fabiano B, Vianello C, Reverberi A, Lunghi E, Maschio G (2017) A perspective on Seveso accident based on cause-consequences analysis by three different methods. J Loss Prev Process Ind 49:18–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhu C, Zhu J, Wang L, Mannan MS (2017) Lessons learned from analyzing a VCE accident at a chemical plant. J Loss Prev Process Ind 50:397–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mohammadfam I, Gholamizadeh K (2021) Developing a comprehensive technique for investigating hazmat transport accidents. J Fail Anal Prev 21(3):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mohammadfam I, Gholamizadeh K (2021) Assessment of security risks by FEMA and fuzzy FEMA methods, a case study: combined cycle power plant. J Occup Hyg Eng 8(2):15–23

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gholamizadeh K, Zarei E, Omidvar M, Yazdi M (2022) Fuzzy sets theory and human reliability: review, applications, and contributions. In: Yazdi M (ed) Linguistic methods under fuzzy information in system safety and reliability analysis. Springer, Cham, pp 91–137

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Hamim OF, Hoque MS, McIlroy RC, Plant KL, Stanton NA (2020) A sociotechnical approach to accident analysis in a low-income setting: using Accimaps to guide road safety recommendations in Bangladesh. Saf Sci 124:104589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hulme A, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Waterson P, Salmon PM (2020) Complexity theory in accident causation: using AcciMap to identify the systems thinking tenets in 11 catastrophes. Ergonomics, pp 1–45

  14. Mohammadfam I, Gholamizadeh K (2020) Investigation of causes of plasco building accident in Iran using timed MTO and ACCIMAP methods. J Fail Anal Prev 20(6):2087–2096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stemn E, Hassall ME, Bofinger C (2020) Systemic constraints to effective learning from incidents in the Ghanaian mining industry: a correspondence analysis and AcciMap approach. Saf Sci 123:104565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tabibzadeh M, Stavros S, Ashtekar MS, Meshkati N (2017) A systematic framework for root-cause analysis of the aliso canyon gas leak using the AcciMap methodology. Paper presented at the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics

  17. Thoroman MB, Salmon P (2020) An integrated approach to near miss analysis combining AcciMap and Network Analysis. Saf Sci 130:104859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goncalves Filho AP, Jun GT, Waterson P (2019) Four studies, two methods, one accident—an examination of the reliability and validity of Accimap and STAMP for accident analysis. Saf Sci 113:310–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sztukowski DM, Yarranton HW (2005) Oilfield solids and water-in-oil emulsion stability. J Colloid Interface Sci 285(2):821–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Amiri A, Ameri RA, Ashkriz M (June 13, 2021) Unspoken facts about the Tehran refinery fire/What do experts say? (7778302, https://www.yjc.news/fa/news/7778302). Retrieved from Tehran, Iran: https://www.yjc.news/fa/news/7778302

  21. Google (Cartographer) (2021) https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5408347,51.4265945,210m

  22. Cozzani V, Salzano E (2004) The quantitative assessment of domino effects caused by overpressure: Part I. Probit models. J Hazard Mater 107(3):67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2003.09.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gadiri M (June 14, 2021) Untold causes of fire in Tehran refinery/Ignorance of which international standards caused the accident? (14000324000655 www.farsnews.ir/news/14000324000655). Retrieved from Tehran, Iran

  24. AHSEE. (June 13, 2021) Discussion about the dimensions of the Tehran refinery accident/Interviewer: AHSEE. (Vol 7778302), Young Journalist Club, Tehran, Iran

  25. Rasmussen J (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci 27(2–3):183–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Waterson P, Jenkins DP, Salmon PM, Underwood P (2017) ‘Remixing Rasmussen’: the evolution of Accimaps within systemic accident analysis. Appl Ergon 59:483–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Salmon PM, Cornelissen M, Trotter MJ (2012) Systems-based accident analysis methods: a comparison of Accimap, HFACS, and STAMP. Saf Sci 50(4):1158–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cozzani V, Gubinelli G, Antonioni G, Spadoni G, Zanelli S (2005) The assessment of risk caused by domino effect in quantitative area risk analysis. J Hazard Mater 127(1–3):14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zarei E, Gholamizadeh K, Khan F, Khakzad N (2022) A dynamic domino effect risk analysis model for rail transport of hazardous material. J Loss Prev Process Ind 74:104666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cozzani V, Tugnoli A, Salzano E (2007) Prevention of domino effect: From active and passive strategies to inherently safer design. J Hazard Mater 139(2):209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.06.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P, Cozzani V (2013) Domino effect analysis using Bayesian networks. Risk Anal: Int J 33(2):292–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wu D, Chen Z (2016) Quantitative risk assessment of fire accidents of large-scale oil tanks triggered by lightning. Eng Fail Anal 63:172–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Assael MJ, Kakosimos KE (2010) Fires, explosions, and toxic gas dispersions: effects calculation and risk analysis. 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 United States of America: CRC Press

  34. Yang Y, Chen G, Chen P (2018) The probability prediction method of domino effect triggered by lightning in chemical tank farm. Process Saf Environ Prot 116:106–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cozzani V, Antonioni G, Spadoni G (2006) Quantitative assessment of domino scenarios by a GIS-based software tool. J Loss Prev Process Ind 19(5):463–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cozzani V, Gubinelli G, Salzano E (2006) Escalation thresholds in the assessment of domino accidental events. J Hazard Mater 129(1–3):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.08.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Alileche N, Olivier D, Estel L, Cozzani V (2017) Analysis of domino effect in the process industry using the event tree method. Saf Sci 97:10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Finney DJ (1952) Probit analysis: a statistical treatment of the sigmoid response curve. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Bamber C, Sharp J, Hides M (2002) The role of the maintenance organisation in an integrated management system. Manag Audit J

  40. NFPA (2020) Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. In 1710. Quincy, Massachusetts, U.S: National Fire Protection Association

  41. Career, T. C. o. F. a. E. S. O. a. D. (May, 2004) NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. In. Quincy, Massachusetts, United States: National Fire Protection Association

  42. Laskar S (2017) Implementing an effective management of change MOC system for upstream oil and gas industry. Paper presented at the SPE Health, Safety, Security, Environment, & Social Responsibility Conference-North America

  43. API (2012) API 650, welded tanks for oil storage. In: Washington, D.C. United States: The Executive Director Office of The Federal Register-American Petrolume Institute

  44. Gholamizadeh K, Ghasemi F, Pashootan Z, Kalatpour O (2022) Quantitative analysis on time delay factors influencing firefighters’ response time in the process industries using fuzzy sets theory. Int J Occup Hyg 14(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gholamizadeh K, Zarei E, Poursiahbidi S, Kalatpour O (2022) A hybrid framework to analyze crisis management system maturity in sociotechnical systems. JSSR 3(4):302–320

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their sincere thanks to the Assembly of HSE Experts and reputable news agencies for providing accurate information about the accident. This study was carried out at Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (UMSHA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Excellence for Occupational Health and Research, Center of Health Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

    Kamran Gholamizadeh & Mostafa Mirzaie Aliabadi

  2. Centre for Risk, Integrity, and Safety Engineering (C-RISE), Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada

    Mohammad Alauddin

  3. Department of Occupational Health & Safety Engineering, Faculty of Health, Research Center for Environmental Pollutants, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran

    Ahmad Soltanzade

  4. Department of Ergonomics, Health in Emergency and Disaster Research Center, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Science, Tehran, Iran

    Iraj Mohammadfam

Authors
  1. Kamran Gholamizadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Alauddin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mostafa Mirzaie Aliabadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmad Soltanzade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Iraj Mohammadfam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iraj Mohammadfam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. This study does not challenge the performance of firefighters and only seeks to improve the quality of their performance by proposing control solutions.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gholamizadeh, K., Alauddin, M., Aliabadi, M.M. et al. Comprehensive Failure Analysis in Tehran Refinery Fire Accident: Application of Accimap Methodology and Quantitative Domino Effect Analysis. Fire Technol 59, 453–472 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-022-01348-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-022-01348-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation