4.7 Article

Monte Carlo-based quantitative risk assessment of parking areas for vehicles carrying hazardous chemicals

Journal

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY
Volume 231, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2022.109010

Keywords

Road transportation of hazardous chemicals; Risk analysis; Domino effects; Monte Carlo simulation; Quantitative risk assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During the road transportation of hazardous chemicals, both random and centralized parking strategies have severe consequences. This study proposes a novel zone parking strategy that separates vehicles based on their cargo, significantly reducing the risk associated with hazardous chemicals.
During the road transportation of hazardous chemicals, vehicles are often parked in constrained areas. Two main parking strategies have been employed: random and centralized parking. Random parking is difficult to control and may lead to serious casualties, whereas centralized parking increases the likelihood of domino scenarios. Both strategies may have severe consequences. To quantitatively study the risks associated with these parking strategies, a method is proposed here that applies the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) to quantitative risk assessment (QRA). Numerical simulations yielded the risk distributions for the two parking methods, and analysis was performed. The results show that the average risk for centralized parking is lower than that for random parking; however, high-risk scenarios remain unacceptable. Thus, a novel parking strategy, called zone parking, is proposed. It separates vehicles carrying toxic substances from those carrying flammable and explosive chemicals. The estimated risk for this strategy is significantly lower than for the other two parking strategies. Risk reduction using this zone-parking strategy was validated for detailed case studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available