Risk and consequence analysis of fire and explosion accidents in gasoline storage tanks with emphasis on domino effects in an oil facility in Tehran Province
Journal of Behdasht dar Arseh (i.e., Health in the Field),
Vol. 14 No. 1 (1405),
24 October 2026
,
Page 56-67
https://doi.org/10.22037/jhf.v14i1.51468
Abstract
Background and Aims: Gasoline storage tanks are among the major potential sources of fire and explosion incidents in oil facilities. This study aimed to assess the risks and consequences of fire and explosion incidents involving gasoline storage tanks and to analyze the associated domino effects at an oil facility in Tehran Province, Iran.
Materials and Methods: Leakage scenarios involving 20-mm and 150-mm openings, as well as catastrophic tank rupture, were defined. Consequence modeling was performed using PHAST software, while quantitative individual and societal risk assessments were conducted using SAFETI software. Probit model was used to analyze domino effects. All ethical requirements were observed, and the necessary approvals were obtained.
Results: PHAST modeling showed that, under the catastrophic rupture scenario, thermal radiation intensity reached 37.5 kW/m2 and explosion overpressure reached 17 bar at a distance of 23 m from the explosion center. This overpressure represented the maximum value at the nearest evaluated distance and decreased rapidly with increasing distance, reaching 2 bar and 0.07 bar at 34 m and 120 m, respectively. The thermal radiation impact radius extended to 487 m, while the explosion overpressure extended to 363 m. The safe distances for the 20-mm leak, 150-mm leak, and catastrophic rupture scenarios were estimated at 72, 384, and 487 m, respectively. Societal risk analysis indicated that the risk was within the acceptable region for 1–6 fatalities and within the tolerable region for 7–10 fatalities. Domino-effect calculations indicated a 100% probability of failure for tanks located closest to the accident source when exposed to thermal radiation of 37.5 kW/m2 for 2.5 min and an explosion overpressure of 17 bar at a distance of 23 m.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that effective risk management of gasoline storage tanks requires leakage prevention and control, limitation of fire propagation, and implementation of emergency response scenarios.
- Domino effect
- Risk assessment
- Oil facilities
- Consequence modeling
- Fuel storage tank
How to Cite
References
1- Ramezani Khoshnameh MK, Mirza Ebrahim Tehrani M, Babayi Mesdaraghi Y. Risk assessment of releasing flammable material from liquefied petroleum gas tanks by Bowtie method and vulnerability zoning by PHAST software. Occupational Hygiene and Health Promotion 2019; 3(1):36–50 (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.18502/ohhp.v3i1.963
2- Zaroushani V, Mirzakhani H, Khajehnasiri F. Investigating effective parameters in hazardous areas of city gas station (CGS), through modeling using PHAST software. Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering (IJChE) 2022; 19(4):38–51. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijche.2023.369154.1463
3- Pouyakian M, Ashouri M, Eidani S, Madvari RF, Laal F. A systematic review of consequence modeling studies of the process accidents in Iran from 2006 to 2022. Heliyon 2023; 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13550
4-Pandya N, Gabas N, Marsden E. Sensitivity analysis of Phast’s atmospheric dispersion model for three toxic materials (nitric oxide, ammonia, chlorine). Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2012; 25(1):20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.06.015
5- Novak-Pintarič Z. Assessment of the consequences of accident scenarios involving dangerous substances. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2007; 85(1):23–38. https://doi.org/10.1205/psep06014
6- Witlox HW, Fernández M, Harper M, Oke A, Stene J, Xu Y. Verification and validation of Phast consequence models for accidental releases of toxic or flammable chemicals to the atmosphere. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2018; 55:457–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.07.014
7- Bahmani R, Pouyakyan M, Khodakarim S, Bidel H, Salehi-Sahlabadi A, Jafari MJ. Risk assessment and consequence analysis of fire and explosion in a vinyl chloride monomer tank by PHAST. Journal of Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention 2021; 8(4):208–18 (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22037/meipm.v8i4.30783
8- Mousavi J, Parvini M. Analyzing effective factors on leakage-induced hydrogen fires. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2016; 40:29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.12.002
9- Khodadadi-Mousiri A, Yaghoot-Nezhada A, Sadeghi-Yarandi M, Soltanzadeh A. Consequence modeling and root cause analysis (RCA) of the real explosion of a methane pressure vessel in a gas refinery. Heliyon 2023; 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14628
10- He Z, Weng W. Synergic effects in the assessment of multi-hazard coupling disasters: Fires, explosions, and toxicant leaks. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2020; 388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121813
11- Abbasi Kharajou B, Ahmadi H, Rafiei M, Moradi Hanifi S. Quantitative risk estimation of CNG station by using fuzzy bayesian networks and consequence modeling. Scientific Reports 2024; 14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54842-y
12- Taheri A, Beryani AA, Motavassel M, Nassab EA. Integrated quantitative explosion risk assessment and safety zone delineation applied in a pressure vessel adopting PHAST numerical simulation approach: An Iranian case analysis. Results in Engineering 2025; 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.105581
13- Wang S, Wang G, Liu D, Liu C. Application of the improved vapor cloud explosion model to leakage explosion evaluation of high-pressure natural gas pipelines. Petroleum Science and Technology 2023; 41(2):214–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2022.2042016
14- Kim WJ, Park Y, Park DJ. Quantitative risk assessments of hydrogen blending into transmission pipeline of natural gas. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2024; 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2024.105412
15- Mirzakhani H, Zarvanshani V, Ahmadi S. The influence of climate change on the modeling of fire and explosion risk consequences in a City Gas Station (CGS). Journal of Health in the Field 2020; 8(2):44–56 (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22037/jhf.v8i2.30676
16- Pourbabaki R, Karimi A, Yazdanirad S. Modeling the consequences and analyzing the dangers of carbon disulfide emissions using ALOHA software in an oil refinery. Journal of Health in the Field 2018; 6(3):1–9 (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22037/jhf.v6i3.22012
17- Gholamnia R, Amirsalari Fard F, Khaloo Sh, Saeedi R. Identifying and prioritizing the main factors and components affecting health, safety and environment (HSE) motivation in the construction industry using fuzzy Delphi and network analysis process (ANP) methods. Journal of Health in the Field. 2022; 10(2):20–29 (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22037/jhf.v10i2.39513
18- Reniers G, Cozzani V, editors. Domino effects in the process industries: Modelling, prevention and managing. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2011-0-00004-2
19- Sadeghi Yarandi M, Mahdinia M, Barazadeh J, Soltanzadeh A. The modeling of toxic consequence of ammonia release in industrial refrigerators. Journal of Health in the Field 2020; 8(3):18–31 (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22037/jhf.v8i3.32508
- Abstract Viewed: 18 times