Risk Analysis of Critical Energy Infrastructure Considering Domino Effects in Petrochemical Complexes in Accordance with API 780

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Faculty of Passive Defense, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This research undertakes a comprehensive risk analysis of critical energy infrastructure within petrochemical hubs, paying special attention to the Domino Effects that result from interconnected asset dependencies. The entire framework adheres to the API 780 standard and relevant national energy guidelines.The analysis pinpoints three core, mission-critical power plant components: the turbine, the generator, and the control system. Failure in any one of these can trigger cascading failures across the facility, impacting areas like boilers, power grids, and safety protocols. Threat assessment reveals that hard threats (e.g., military action) and cyber-attacks present the highest likelihood of initiating large-scale domino sequences. Semi-hard threats, such as terrorism, pose a medium-to-high risk to primary generation and control units. While human factors and economic threats may have fewer direct physical consequences, they introduce considerable operational strain. Therefore, the recommended defense strategy centers on substantially bolstering the physical and cyber security around these three pillars. Furthermore, building redundancy into the system architecture is crucial for effective crisis management and breaking the chain of potential domino disruptions.

Keywords

References

Abtahi, S. E., Kalehr, R., & Sadeghat Shaygan, D. (1401). Risk assessment and management of oil and gas infrastructures in border provinces to reduce threat impacts. Farazdno Journal, 17(77), 70–90.
American Petroleum Institute. (2013). ANSI/API Standard 780: Security risk assessment methodology for the petroleum and petrochemical industries.
American Petroleum Institute. (2025). About API. https://www.api.org/about
American Petroleum Institute & National Petrochemical Association. (2004). Security vulnerability assessment methodology for the petroleum and petrochemical industries (2nd ed.).
Cvetković, V. M., Renner, R., & Jakovljević, V. (2024). Industrial disasters and hazards: From causes to consequences—A holistic approach to resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 6(2).
Diao, X., Jiang, J., Mebarki, A., Ni, L., Duo, Y., Chen, S., Wang, Y., & Zhang, S. (2025). Risk analysis of domino effect of leakage accident of petrochemical pipeline based on analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy fault tree analysis. Safety Science, 187.
Gao, H., Shi, H., Yang, Y., & Han, K. (2025). Vulnerability assessment of petrochemical facilities impacted by bomb fragments: A simplified methodology using machine learning. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2000.
Ghaljahi, M., Omidi, L., & Karimi, A. (2024). Evaluation of domino effects and vulnerability analysis of oil product storage tanks using graph theory and Bayesian networks in a process industry. Journal of Health and Safety at Work, 14(4), 736–755.
Gholampour, H., Alvani, S. S., & Fallah, M. (1401). Assessment and risk analysis of vital arteries with a focus on passive defense (case study: Amirabad Port). Scientific Journal of Safe City.
Kane, B. R., Webber, S., Tucker, K. H., Wallace, S., Chang, J., McCarthy, D., Murphy, D., Egel, D., & Wingfield, T. (2024). Threats to critical infrastructure: A survey.
Karami, M., Samimi, A., & Ja’fari, M. (2020). The necessity of risk management evaluations in petrochemical industries. Advanced Journal of Chemistry Section B, 151–158.
Mahmoudi, H. (1403). Comprehensive analysis of ancillary services and utilities. http://hanimahmoodi.com/blog/utilities-&-services-analysis
Marroni, G., Piemonte, A., Tamburini, F., Caroti, G., Pannocchia, G., & Landucci, G. (2022). An interdisciplinary approach towards the integrated safety security assessment of process facilities operating in the Maghreb context. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 91.
Moore, D. A. (2013). Security risk assessment methodology for the petroleum and petrochemical industries. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 26, 1685–1689.
Negin Makran Petrochemical Development. (1404). Provision of ancillary services. http://mokran.ir/tyility
Sadeghi, A., Jabbari, M., Alidoosti, A., & Rezaeian, M. (2017). Vulnerability and security risk assessment of a thermal power plant using SVA technique. Journal of Integrated Security Science.
Shariatmadari, M., & Nahavandi, N. (1399). Identification and risk assessment in petrochemical construction projects in Iran: Case study Bakhtar Petrochemical Holding. Scientific-Research Journal of Structural Engineering and Construction, 7(Special Issue 2), 101–123.
U.S. Department of Energy. (2024). Risk assessment essentials for state energy security plans.
Utilities Unit. (1404). Summary. Farajad Development Company. http://tfarjadco.com/utility-unit
Varadharajan, S., & Bajpai, S. (2023). Chronicles of security risk assessment in process industries: Past, present, and future perspectives. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 84.
Wu, J., Yang, H., & Cheng, Y. (2015). Domino effect analysis, assessment, and prevention in process industries. Journal of Systems Science and Information.
Yuan, S., Reniers, G., & Yang, M. (2025). Dynamic and integrated safety and security barrier management: A new framework to manage major event risks in chemical plants. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 96.
 
 
Interdisciplinary Journal of Civil Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
October 2025
Pages 392-411

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics