NaTech triggered by lightning: Novel insights from past events in the process industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lightning strikes, a prominent meteorological event, pose a significant risk of triggering technological disruptions within the process industry. To better understand this phenomenon, an analysis focused on past lightning-triggered events was carried out, examining open-source industrial-accident databases to compile a new NaTech-driven dataset of 689 records. First, an overall quantitative analysis revealed that over 80 % of these events involved incidents or loss of containment. Notably, 83.3 % of them occurred during the spring and summer, indicating a seasonal pattern. Based on the frequency of functional attributes, the chemical and petrochemical macro-sector was the most vulnerable, followed by storage and warehousing. About 40 % of all classifiable events happened on storage equipment, while 21 % happened on electric and electronic devices. Given the lack of valuable information for the principal source of data (NRC), the technological scenarios triggered were characterized using a refined subset of 127 observations, obtained considering the "other sources" of data. Fire scenarios predominated at 56 %; coincidentally, roughly 70 % of all scenarios involved hazardous substances classified as physical hazards. Estimated losses for the available information underscored the adverse consequences of lightning-triggered NaTech events, highlighting their major impact on both safety and the environment. An analysis of the event tree showed the logical path from the lightning strike to the final ignition scenarios (considering a subset of 107 records). This path accounted for 36 % of the classifiable records that directly affected the structure, while more than 50 % of them did not. Bayesian network structures made it possible to get conditional probabilities from the event tree and improved the model by adding attributes for vulnerable equipment and macro-sectors. In order to deal with the uncertain data, algorithms were used to generalize the models that were obtained from smaller subsets of data with more accurate information to the whole dataset. It provides an important additional view of unclassifiable data that otherwise remained in the dark. This novel insight contributes to increase the vulnerability awareness of industrial assets against lightning strikes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".