74 citations as recorded by crossref.

1. Quantitative assessment of risk due to NaTech scenarios caused by floods G. Antonioni et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2015.05.020
2. 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
3. Understanding Compound, Interconnected, Interacting, and Cascading Risks: A Holistic Framework G. Pescaroli & D. Alexander 10.1111/risa.13128
4. Flexibility analysis methodology for pipeline networks under occasional loads U. Zahid 10.1016/j.nhres.2023.01.003
5. 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
6. Vulnerability assessment of process pipelines affected by flood events L. Rossi et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2021.108261
7. Potential loading damage to industrial storage tanks due to volcanic ash fallout M. Milazzo et al. 10.1007/s11069-012-0518-5
8. Release of hazardous substances in flood events: Damage model for horizontal cylindrical vessels G. Landucci et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2014.07.016
9. Public awareness promoting new or emerging risks: Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards (NaTech) E. Salzano et al. 10.1080/13669877.2012.729529
10. The vulnerability of industrial equipment to tsunami A. Basco & . Ernesto Salzano 10.1016/j.jlp.2016.11.009
11. 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
12. 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
13. Release of hazardous substances in flood events: Damage model for atmospheric storage tanks G. Landucci et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2012.05.010
14. 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
15. Lessons learnt from the impact of hurricane Harvey on the chemical and process industry A. Misuri et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106521
16. 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
17. System comprehensive risk assessment of urban rainstorm–induced flood-water pollution disasters S. Huang et al. 10.1007/s11356-023-26762-3
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. Using reasoned imagination to learn about cascading hazards: a pilot study A. Mignan et al. 10.1108/DPM-06-2015-0137
24. How to consider engineered nanomaterials in major accident regulations? B. Nowack et al. 10.1186/2190-4715-26-2
25. 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
26. Seismic damage to pipelines in the framework of Na-Tech risk assessment G. Lanzano et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2014.12.006
27. CLASSIFICATION OF ECONOMIC SECTORS ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE OF THEIR TECHNOGENIC DANGER S. Badina et al. 10.55959/MSU0579-9414.5.78.3.1
28. 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
29. Current and Emerging Disaster Risks Perceptions in Oceania: Key Stakeholders Recommendations for Disaster Management and Resilience Building J. Cuthbertson et al. 10.3390/ijerph16030460
30. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. Disasters as Enablers of Negotiation for Sustainability Transition: A Case from Odaka, Fukushima M. Matsuura 10.3390/su14053101
35. Three cases in Japan occurred by natural hazards and lessons for Natech disaster management M. Kumasaki & M. King 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101855
36. Natech risk reduction in the European Union E. Krausmann & D. Baranzini 10.1080/13669877.2012.666761
37. Seismic vulnerability of gas and liquid buried pipelines G. Lanzano et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.010
38. Early Warning Systems: Feasibility and End-Users' Point of View C. Oliveira et al. 10.1007/s00024-014-0999-0
39. Analysis of the impact of wildland-urban-interface fires on LPG domestic tanks G. Scarponi et al. 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104588
40. An Approach to the Quantitative Assessment of Risk Due to Natech Events V. Cozzani 10.2478/v10281-012-0008-7
41. Review of Process Industry Accidents Analysis towards Safety System Improvement and Sustainable Process Design M. Athar et al. 10.1002/ceat.201800215
42. Seismic response mitigation of chemical plant components by passive control techniques F. Paolacci et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.003
43. 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
44. 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
45. Quantitative assessment of risk due to major accidents triggered by lightning A. Necci et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2016.05.009
46. 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
47. Texas LPG fire: Domino effects triggered by natural hazards M. Naderpour & N. Khakzad 10.1016/j.psep.2018.03.008
48. 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
49. 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
50. 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
51. Insuring catastrophes and the role of governments M. Boyer & C. Nyce 10.5194/nhess-13-2053-2013
52. 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
53. 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
54. Risk analysis in Natech events: State of the art A. Mesa-Gómez et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104071
55. 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
56. Definition of a shortcut methodology for assessing flood-related Na-Tech risk E. Marzo et al. 10.5194/nhess-12-3241-2012
57. Disaster Ergonomics: a Human Factors approach to address escalating challenges from disasters C. Son 10.1007/s10111-023-00736-4
58. Performance-based earthquake evaluation of a full-scale petrochemical piping system O. Bursi et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2014.11.004
59. Problems and Perspectives in Seismic Quantitative Risk Analysis of Chemical Process Plants A. Caputo et al. 10.1115/1.4040804
60. Recognising na-tech events in Brazil: moving forward J. Xavier & W. de Sousa Junior 10.1007/s11069-016-2194-3
61. Seismic vulnerability of natural gas pipelines G. Lanzano et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.019
62. The ARGO Project: assessing NA-TECH risks on offshore oil platforms P. Capuano et al. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.148
63. Thunderstorm charge structures favouring cloud-to-ground lightning A. Salvador et al. 10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105577
64. 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
65. Explicit and implicit inclusion of time in the definitions of risk and reliability J. Selvik & E. Abrahamsen 10.1080/09617353.2020.1858243
66. Quantitative assessment of domino and NaTech scenarios in complex industrial areas V. Cozzani et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.07.009
67. Incorporating inherent safety during the conceptual process design stage: A literature review S. Park et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2019.104040
68. 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
69. Quantitative risk assessment of Natech scenarios triggered by earthquakes involving pipelines F. Amaducci et al. 10.1016/j.ress.2024.109993
70. Quantitative risk assessment of domino effect in Natech scenarios triggered by lightning A. Misuri et al. 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104095
71. 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
72. 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
73. 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
74. RAPID-N: Rapid natech risk assessment and mapping framework S. Girgin & E. Krausmann 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.10.004