80 citations as recorded by crossref.

1. Operational status effect on the seismic risk assessment of oil refineries V. Melissianos et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104842
2. Quantitative assessment of risk due to NaTech scenarios caused by floods G. Antonioni et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2015.05.020
3. Recent advances to address European Union Health Security from cross border chemical health threats R. Duarte-Davidson et al. 10.1016/j.envint.2014.01.003
4. Understanding Compound, Interconnected, Interacting, and Cascading Risks: A Holistic Framework G. Pescaroli & D. Alexander 10.1111/risa.13128
5. Flexibility analysis methodology for pipeline networks under occasional loads U. Zahid 10.1016/j.nhres.2023.01.003
6. Multi-hazard coupling vulnerability analysis for buckling failure of vertical storage tank: Floods and hurricanes M. Huang et al. 10.1016/j.psep.2022.03.037
7. Vulnerability assessment of process pipelines affected by flood events L. Rossi et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2021.108261
8. Potential loading damage to industrial storage tanks due to volcanic ash fallout M. Milazzo et al. 10.1007/s11069-012-0518-5
9. Release of hazardous substances in flood events: Damage model for horizontal cylindrical vessels G. Landucci et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2014.07.016
10. Public awareness promoting new or emerging risks: Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards (NaTech) E. Salzano et al. 10.1080/13669877.2012.729529
11. The vulnerability of industrial equipment to tsunami A. Basco & . Ernesto Salzano 10.1016/j.jlp.2016.11.009
12. Past, present and future of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) and the incentive it obtained from Land-Use Planning (LUP) H. Pasman & G. Reniers 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.004
13. A thorough classification and discussion of approaches for modeling and managing domino effects in the process industries C. Chen et al. 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104618
14. Release of hazardous substances in flood events: Damage model for atmospheric storage tanks G. Landucci et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2012.05.010
15. Geospatial and Temporal Patterns of Natural and Man-Made (Technological) Disasters (1900–2024): Insights from Different Socio-Economic and Demographic Perspectives V. Cvetković et al. 10.3390/app14188129
16. Current situation and needs in man-made and natech risks management using Earth Observation techniques S. Di Franco & R. Salvatori 10.1016/j.rsase.2015.06.004
17. Lessons learnt from the impact of hurricane Harvey on the chemical and process industry A. Misuri et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106521
18. Uncertainties and their treatment in the quantitative risk assessment of domino effects: Classification and review Y. Xu et al. 10.1016/j.psep.2023.02.082
19. System comprehensive risk assessment of urban rainstorm–induced flood-water pollution disasters S. Huang et al. 10.1007/s11356-023-26762-3
20. The quantification of low-probability–high-consequences events: part I. A generic multi-risk approach A. Mignan et al. 10.1007/s11069-014-1178-4
21. The Flash Environmental Assessment Tool: Worldwide first aid for chemical accidents response, pro action, prevention and preparedness L. Posthuma et al. 10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.018
22. Characterization of the expected seismic damage for a critical infrastructure: the case of the oil pipeline in Friuli Venezia Giulia (NE Italy) A. Tamaro et al. 10.1007/s10518-017-0252-1
23. Performance Evaluation of Hazardous Substances using Measurement Vehicle of Field Mode through Emergency Response of Chemical Incidents Y. Lee et al. 10.5338/KJEA.2015.34.4.36
24. Computing resilience of process plants under Na-Tech events: Methodology and application to sesmic loading scenarios A. Caputo et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106685
25. Using reasoned imagination to learn about cascading hazards: a pilot study A. Mignan et al. 10.1108/DPM-06-2015-0137
26. How to consider engineered nanomaterials in major accident regulations? B. Nowack et al. 10.1186/2190-4715-26-2
27. Historical analysis of U.S. onshore hazardous liquid pipeline accidents triggered by natural hazards S. Girgin & E. Krausmann 10.1016/j.jlp.2016.02.008
28. Seismic damage to pipelines in the framework of Na-Tech risk assessment G. Lanzano et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2014.12.006
29. CLASSIFICATION OF ECONOMIC SECTORS ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE OF THEIR TECHNOGENIC DANGER S. Badina et al. 10.55959/MSU0579-9414.5.78.3.1
30. Risk assessment: What is it worth? Shall we just do away with it, or can it do a better job? H. Pasman et al. 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.01.011
31. Current and Emerging Disaster Risks Perceptions in Oceania: Key Stakeholders Recommendations for Disaster Management and Resilience Building J. Cuthbertson et al. 10.3390/ijerph16030460
32. A risk-based multi-level stress test methodology: application to six critical non-nuclear infrastructures in Europe S. Argyroudis et al. 10.1007/s11069-019-03828-5
33. Seismic damage assessment of a crude oil hydrodesulphurisation unit. Part I: exposure and modelling C. Grajales-Ortiz et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105519
34. Risks associated with volcanic ash fallout from Mt.Etna with reference to industrial filtration systems M. Milazzo et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2013.05.008
35. Dealing with cascading multi-hazard risks in national risk assessment: The case of Natech accidents S. Girgin et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101072
36. Systematic literature review and qualitative meta-analysis of Natech research in the past four decades M. Suarez-Paba et al. 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.033
37. Disasters as Enablers of Negotiation for Sustainability Transition: A Case from Odaka, Fukushima M. Matsuura 10.3390/su14053101
38. Three cases in Japan occurred by natural hazards and lessons for Natech disaster management M. Kumasaki & M. King 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101855
39. Natech risk reduction in the European Union E. Krausmann & D. Baranzini 10.1080/13669877.2012.666761
40. Seismic vulnerability of gas and liquid buried pipelines G. Lanzano et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.010
41. Early Warning Systems: Feasibility and End-Users' Point of View C. Oliveira et al. 10.1007/s00024-014-0999-0
42. Analysis of the impact of wildland-urban-interface fires on LPG domestic tanks G. Scarponi et al. 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104588
43. An Approach to the Quantitative Assessment of Risk Due to Natech Events V. Cozzani 10.2478/v10281-012-0008-7
44. A qualitative investigation of the effect of natural hazards on industrial plants (with emphasis on oil and gas industries) and 's position in this field s. koohestani et al. 10.61186/jsaeh.10.4.183
45. Review on the need for inventories and management of reservoirs of POPs and other persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic substances (PBTs) in the face of climate change R. Weber et al. 10.1186/s12302-025-01060-6
46. Review of Process Industry Accidents Analysis towards Safety System Improvement and Sustainable Process Design M. Athar et al. 10.1002/ceat.201800215
47. Seismic response mitigation of chemical plant components by passive control techniques F. Paolacci et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.003
48. Development of generic bow-tie diagrams of accidental scenarios triggered by flooding of industrial facilities (Natech) C. El Hajj et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2015.05.003
49. The classification of physical effects from natural hazards for Natech risk assessment based on a Japanese database M. Kumasaki et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2017.08.017
50. Quantitative assessment of risk due to major accidents triggered by lightning A. Necci et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2016.05.009
51. Impact of the 11 March 2011, Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry E. Krausmann & A. Cruz 10.1007/s11069-013-0607-0
52. Texas LPG fire: Domino effects triggered by natural hazards M. Naderpour & N. Khakzad 10.1016/j.psep.2018.03.008
53. Bolted flange joints equipped with FBG sensors in industrial piping systems subjected to seismic loads F. Paolacci et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104576
54. Assessment of safety barrier performance in the mitigation of domino scenarios caused by Natech events A. Misuri et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107278
55. Risk assessment of large-scale winter sports sites in the context of a natural disaster J. Wu et al. 10.1016/j.jnlssr.2022.03.006
56. Insuring catastrophes and the role of governments M. Boyer & C. Nyce 10.5194/nhess-13-2053-2013
57. Management of risks in natural disasters: A systematic review of the literature on NATECH events K. Nascimento & M. Alencar 10.1016/j.jlp.2016.10.003
58. Implementation of best practices for emergency response and recovery at a large hospital: A fire emergency case study I. Bongiovanni et al. 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.016
59. Risk analysis in Natech events: State of the art A. Mesa-Gómez et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104071
60. Climate change and temporal-spatial variation of tropical storm-related Natechs in the United States from 1990 to 2017: Is there a link? X. Luo et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102366
61. Disaster scenes as a foundation for emergency response planning J. Owen et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104795
62. Definition of a shortcut methodology for assessing flood-related Na-Tech risk E. Marzo et al. 10.5194/nhess-12-3241-2012
63. Disaster Ergonomics: a Human Factors approach to address escalating challenges from disasters C. Son 10.1007/s10111-023-00736-4
64. Performance-based earthquake evaluation of a full-scale petrochemical piping system O. Bursi et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2014.11.004
65. Problems and Perspectives in Seismic Quantitative Risk Analysis of Chemical Process Plants A. Caputo et al. 10.1115/1.4040804
66. Recognising na-tech events in Brazil: moving forward J. Xavier & W. de Sousa Junior 10.1007/s11069-016-2194-3
67. Seismic vulnerability of natural gas pipelines G. Lanzano et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.019
68. The ARGO Project: assessing NA-TECH risks on offshore oil platforms P. Capuano et al. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.148
69. Thunderstorm charge structures favouring cloud-to-ground lightning A. Salvador et al. 10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105577
70. Definition of a short-cut methodology for assessing the vulnerability of a territory in natural–technological risk estimation E. Marzo et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2014.07.026
71. Explicit and implicit inclusion of time in the definitions of risk and reliability J. Selvik & E. Abrahamsen 10.1080/09617353.2020.1858243
72. Quantitative assessment of domino and NaTech scenarios in complex industrial areas V. Cozzani et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.07.009
73. Incorporating inherent safety during the conceptual process design stage: A literature review S. Park et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2019.104040
74. The invisible risks of the trans-Ecuadorian oil pipeline system: An analysis of social preferences in Quito A. Salazar-Baño et al. 10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105128
75. Quantitative risk assessment of Natech scenarios triggered by earthquakes involving pipelines F. Amaducci et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2024.109993
76. Quantitative risk assessment of domino effect in Natech scenarios triggered by lightning A. Misuri et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104095
77. Evaluating the structural priorities for the seismic vulnerability of civilian and industrial wastewater treatment plants A. Panico et al. 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.030
78. Risk evaluation of oil and natural gas pipelines due to natural hazards using fuzzy fault tree analysis P. Badida et al. 10.1016/j.jngse.2019.04.010
79. A peak acceleration threshold for soil liquefaction: lessons learned from the 2012 Emilia earthquake (Italy) F. Santucci de Magistris et al. 10.1007/s11069-014-1229-x
80. RAPID-N: Rapid natech risk assessment and mapping framework S. Girgin & E. Krausmann 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.10.004