Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic risk assessment of buried steel gas pipelines under seismic wave propagation based on fragility analysis

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper economic seismic risk analysis of API 5L buried steel gas pipelines is carried out through incremental dynamic analysis using an ensemble of 20 ground motion records. Multiple performance limit states for buried steel pipelines are proposed. Fragility curves of 15 pipeline models of various diameter to thickness (D/t) ratios, burial depth to diameter (H/D) ratios, assumed soil conditions and steel grades are plotted for damage states corresponding to the defined limit states. Expected global economic loss of 1 km length of the pipelines for a given peak ground velocity is obtained using the fragility curves, a pipeline repair ratio as well as costs of leakage repairing and break-induced pipe replacement. The mean annual frequency of exceedance of loss for the investigated pipelines is calculated using a seismic hazard curve and the expected annual loss (EAL) is obtained. It is concluded that in case of the pipelines with the D/t ratio greater than 39.9, the probabilities of failure for a given return period increase with increasing D/t ratio. It is obtained that the probabilities of failure for a given return period increase with increasing H/D ratio and shear modulus of the soil \((G_{s} )\). The results show that the probabilities of failure decrease with increasing steel grade of the pipes. It is found that for a given return period, the global economic loss increases for an increase in the D/t, H/D and \(G_{s}\) values. The results show that EAL of the pipelines decreases with increasing steel grade of the pipes and decreasing D/t ratio, H/D ratio as well as \(G_{s}\) value. It is obtained that frequency of exceedance of a given loss value increases with an increase in D/t, H/D and \(G_{s}\) values. It is noteworthy that the obtained results are valid only for Tehran, and the pipe and soil characteristics used in the study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed AU, Aydin M, Cheng JR, Zhou J (2011) Fracture of wrinkled pipes subjected to monotonic deformation: an experimental investigation. J Pressure Vessel Technol 133:011401. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4002499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Lifelines Alliance (2001) Guidelines for the design of buried steel pipe. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • American Lifelines Alliance (2005) Seismic guidelines for water pipelines. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariman T, Muleski GE (1981) A review of the response of buried pipelines under seismic excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 9:133–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290090204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asgarian B, Sadrinezhad A, Alanjari P (2010) Seismic performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frames through incremental dynamic analysis. J Constr Steel Res 66:178–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai Y (2001) Pipelines and risers, vol 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai Q, Bai Y (2014) Subsea pipeline design, analysis, and installation. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Barenberg ME (1988) Correlation of pipeline damage with ground motions. J Geotech Eng 114:706–711. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:6(706)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BHRC (2014) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings. Standard No. 2800, 4th edn. Building and Housing Research Center

  • Bruneau M, Uang CM, Sabelli SR (2011) Ductile design of steel structures. McGraw Hill Professional, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • PEER Ground Motion Database (2016). http://peer.berkeley.edu/products/strong_ground_motion_db.html

  • Eguchi R, Philipson L, Legg M, Wiggins J, Slosson J (1981) Earthquake vulnerability of water supply systems. Technical Report No. 80–1396-3, J.H. Wiggins Company, Redondo Beach, CA

  • Eguchi R, Taylor C, Hasselman T (1983) Seismic component vulnerability models for lifeline risk analysis. Earthquake. Technical Report No. 82-1396-2c. J.H. Wiggins Company, Redondo Beach, CA

  • Elhmadi K, O’Rourke MJ (1990) Seismic damage to segmented buried pipelines. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19:529–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290190405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EN B (2002) Eurocode-Basis of structural design. British Standards Institution, Brussels, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurocode-8 (2006) Eurocode 8, part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines, vol 4. The European Union per regulation, Brussels, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselton CB et al (2008) An assessment to benchmark the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete moment-frame building. PEER Report 2007/12, University of California, Berkeley, CA

  • Hazus (2007) Hazus MR4 Technical Manual. Department of homeland security emergency preparedness and response directorate, FEMA

  • Hindy A, Novak M (1979) Earthquake response of underground pipelines. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 7:451–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290070506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honegger DG, Gailing RW, Nyman DJ (2002) Guidelines for the seismic design and assessment of natural gas and liquid hydrocarbon pipelines. In: 4th international pipeline conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 563–570

  • Honegger D, Wijewickreme D, Youd T (2014) Regional pipeline vulnerability assessment based upon probabilistic lateral spread hazard characterization. In: Proceedings, 10th national conference on earthquake engineering. EERI, Oakland

  • Jahangiri V (2016) Probabilistic performance assessment of continuous buried steel pipelines under seismic wave propagation (In persian), PhD Dissertation, Tarbiat Modares University

  • Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2003) A technical framework for probability-based demand and capacity factor (DCFD) seismic formats. PEER 2003/08, University of California, Berkeley, CA

  • Javanbarg M, Takada S, Kuwata Y (2006) Seismic damage prediction of buried pipeline by KDD method. JSEE 8:39–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayaram N, Baker JW (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:1687–1708. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JG(G)-206-03 (2004) Seismic design codes for high pressure pipelines. Japan Gas Association

  • Katayama T, Kubo K, Sato N (1975) Earthquake damage to water and gas distribution systems. In: Proceedings, US national conference on earthquake engineering, EERI, Oakland, California, pp 396–405

  • Lee L, Ariman T, Chen C (1984) Elastic-plastic buckling of buried pipelines by seismic excitation. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 3:168–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-7277(84)90032-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee DH, Kim BH, Jeong SH, Jeon JS, Lee TH (2016) Seismic fragility analysis of a buried gas pipeline based on nonlinear time-history analysis. Int J Steel Struct 16:231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-016-3017-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu A-w Hu, Y-x Zhao F-x, X-j Li, Takada S, Zhao L (2004) An equivalent-boundary method for the shell analysis of buried pipelines under fault movement. Acta Seismol Sin 17:150–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11589-004-0078-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) OpenSees command language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire R, Toro G (2008) Site-specific seismic hazard analysis. In: Proceedings, 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China, pp 12–17

  • McLaughlin P, O’Rourke M (2009) Strain in pipe elbows due to wave propagation hazards. In: Proceedings, TCLEE 2009, lifeline earthquake engineering in a multihazard environment. ASCE, Oakland, CA, pp 1–11

  • Moehle J, Bozorgnia Y (2011) Case studies of the seismic performance of tall buildings designed by alternative means, Report for the tall buildings initiative, PEER Report 5, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CSSC Report 11-02

  • Mohareb ME (1995) Deformational behaviour of line pipe, PhD Dissertation, University of Alberta

  • Mousavi M, Hesari M, Azarbakht A (2014) Seismic risk assessment of the 3rd Azerbaijan gas pipeline in Iran. Nat Hzards 74:1327–1348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1244-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nazemi N, Das S (2010) Behavior of X60 line pipe subjected to axial and lateral deformations. J Pressure Vessel Technol 132:031701. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NZS 1170–5 (2004) Structural design actions, part 5: earthquake actions–New Zealand. Standards New Zealand Wellington, Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke M (2009) Analytical fragility relation for buried segmented pipe. In: Proceedings, TCLEE 2009, lifeline earthquake engineering in a multihazard environment. ASCE, Oakland, CA, pp 771–780

  • OpenSees Wiki (2016) RambergOsgoodSteel Material. http://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/RambergOsgoodSteel_Material

  • O’Rourke MJ (1987) Earthquake and buried pipelines: Mexico City 1985 and beyond. In: Proceedings of a workshop on development of an action plan, U.S. Building Seismic Safety Council. Abatement of seismic hazards to lifelines, Earthquake Hazards Reduction Series, vol 26. Washington, US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), pp 53–67

  • O’Rourke M, Ayala G (1993) Pipeline damage due to wave propagation. J Geotech Eng 119:1490–1498. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:9(1490)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke M, Deyoe E (2004) Seismic damage to segmented buried pipe. Earthq Spectra 20:1167–1183. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1808143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke TD, Toprak S, Sano Y (1998) Factors affecting water supply damage caused by the Northridge earthquake. In: Proceedings, 6th US national conference on earthquake engineering, Seattle, pp 1–12

  • Pineda-Porras O, Ordaz M (2007) A new seismic intensity parameter to estimate damage in buried pipelines due to seismic wave propagation. J Earthq Eng 11:773–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460701242781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pluvinage G, Elwany MH (2007) Safety, reliability and risks associated with water, oil and gas pipelines. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter K (2015) A beginner’s guide to fragility, vulnerability, and risk. University of Colorado Boulder and SPA Risk LLC, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter KA, Beck JL, Shaikhutdinov R (2004) Simplified estimation of economic seismic risk for buildings. Earthq Spectra 20:1239–1263. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1809129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakib H, Jahangiri V (2016) Intensity measures for the assessment of the seismic response of buried steel pipelines. Bull Earthq Eng 14:1265–1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9863-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki N, Toyoda M (2002) Critical compressive strain of linepipes related to workhardening parameters. In: Proceedings, ASME 21st international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 217–224

  • Tesfamariam S, Goda K (2013) Handbook of seismic risk analysis and management of civil infrastructure systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uma S (2012) Achieving acceptable performance levels in the seismic design of buildings. GNS Science Report 2012/24

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong I et al (2005) Potential losses in a repeat of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquake. Earthq Spectra 21:1157–1184. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2083907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie L, Tao X, Wen R, Cui Z, Tang A (2000) A GIS based earthquake losses assessment and emergency response system for Daqing oilfield. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, paper no. 91

  • Yamin LE, Arambula S, Reyes JC, Belage S, Vega A, Gil W (2004) Earthquake loss estimation for a gas lifeline transportation system in Colombia. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, paper no. 2941

  • Yun H, Kyriakides S (1985) Model for beam-mode buckling of buried pipelines. J Eng Mech ASCE 111:235–253. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1985)111:2(235)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y (2008) Failure of X52 wrinkled pipeline subjected to monotonic bending deformation and internal pressure. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 18:50–55

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance by experts from National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran

    Vahid Jahangiri & Hamzeh Shakib

Authors
  1. Vahid Jahangiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hamzeh Shakib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamzeh Shakib.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jahangiri, V., Shakib, H. Seismic risk assessment of buried steel gas pipelines under seismic wave propagation based on fragility analysis. Bull Earthquake Eng 16, 1571–1605 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0260-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0260-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation