Evaluation of Seismic Protection Methods for Buried Fuel Pipelines Subjected to Fault Rupture

Abstract

Buried steel fuel pipelines are critical lifelines for the society and the economy but are very vulnerable to earthquake-induced ground failure. Traversing seismic areas inevitably results in several pipe-fault crossings. Fault rupture forces a buried pipeline to undergo deformations that could be substantial and heavily endanger its integrity. Due to the grave consequences of a potential pipe failure, mitigating measures are commonly applied at pipe-fault crossings to reduce the effects of a potential fault activation. In this paper, a comparative review of several measures that are used in practice or have been proposed in the technical literature is presented. Numerical analyses are then carried out to compare the effectiveness of commonly used measures and to extract conclusions regarding their applicability. Results indicate that the most efficient among the evaluated measures are pipe placement within culverts and use of flexible joints. Trench backfilling with pumice is a moderately effective measure in terms of pipe protection, while steel grade upgrade, wall thickness increase, and pipe wrapping with geotextile are found to be insufficient protection methods.

Safety of buried steel natural gas pipelines under earthquake-induced ground shaking: A review

“…Other more drastic preventative measures include use of flexible joints and above-ground elevation or re-routing of a pipeline portion to avoid hazardous land zones, the latter rarely being an option due to right-of-way permissions. A more comprehensive list of such measures can be found, among others, in [126,171,172]. In [171], a comparative quantitative evaluation of alternative measures is also presented, and it is found that geotextile fabrics, pipe wall thickness increase and trench backfilling with loose soil provide rather low to moderate protection, while concrete culverts appear more effective.…”

“…A more comprehensive list of such measures can be found, among others, in [126,171,172]. In [171], a comparative quantitative evaluation of alternative measures is also presented, and it is found that geotextile fabrics, pipe wall thickness increase and trench backfilling with loose soil provide rather low to moderate protection, while concrete culverts appear more effective. The effectiveness of each preventative measure reflects directly on the residual functionality following a seismic event (i.e., robustness), and implicitly has effect on the recovery time.…”

Onshore Buried Steel Fuel Pipelines at Fault Crossings: A Review of Critical Analysis and Design Aspects

“…The comparison of "conventional" measures presented by Gantes and Melissianos 2016;Melissianos et al 2017c;Melissianos and Gantes 2019; yields the following results for practical consideration:…”

“…Qualitative discussions on protection measures are offered by Nyman et al (2008), O'Rourke and , and Karamanos et al (2017). Quantitative comparisons of measures are presented by Gantes and Melissianos (2016), Melissianos et al (2017c), Gantes (2019), and. In these studies, the authors have grouped the measures into three categories, based on the mechanism employed to achieve pipe strain reduction: pipe strengthening, soil friction reduction, and complex measures.…”

Seismic Response of a Water Transmission Pipeline Across a Fault Zone Adopting a Large-Scale Vibration Table Test

“…For pipelines crossing fault belts, a combination of ground treatment, structure improvement, and seismic monitoring is generally adopted to mitigate the risk (Honegger et al, 2004). One efficient seismic protection is pipeline placement within culverts or the use of flexible joints (Gantes and Melissianos, 2016). However, the seismic design of a buried pipeline across a fault is complex and governed by many factors, such as the ground and structure conditions, fault activities, and damage mechanisms.…”