Seismic damage to pipelines in the framework of Na-Tech risk assessment

Abstract The structural integrity of pipelines undergone seismic waves is crucial for industrial installation and for the distributed transportation networks of gaseous and liquid fluids. However, it is nowadays proved that the definition of seismic vulnerability based on purely, structural-derived limit states or on return-to-service or even on the purely economic repair rate indications, is not sufficient for the holistic analysis of risks. On the other hand, detailed numerical studies based on full analyses (including fluid/soil/structure interaction) are too expensive for the aims of risk assessment and simplified methodologies are still needed. In this paper, a large database of earthquake-induced damage for steel and non-steel pipelines is presented. Each case was analyzed and collected from post-earthquake reconnaissance, seismic engineering reports and technical papers. The database may be adopted for the definition of specific vulnerability function (fragility curves), which are commonly implemented in multi-hazard analyses, and more in general for the assessment of Na-Tech risks (Natural events triggering Technological disasters).

[1]  Valerio Cozzani,et al.  Extending the quantitative assessment of industrial risks to earthquake effects. , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[2]  Ernesto Salzano,et al.  Risk assessment and early warning systems for industrial facilities in seismic zones , 2009, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[3]  Bbc.  THE NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE , 1931 .

[4]  S. Mori,et al.  Seismic Performance Analysis of the Transmission Gas Pipeline in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake , 2011 .

[5]  Sonia Giovinazzi,et al.  Resilience of the Canterbury Hospital System to the 2011 Christchurch Earthquake , 2014 .

[6]  Thomas O'Rourke,et al.  Water, Gas, Electric Power, and Telecommunications Performance , 2000 .

[7]  A. J. Schiff.  The Whittier Narrows, California Earthquake of October 1, 1987—Response of Lifelines and Their Effect on Emergency Response , 1988 .

[8]  Kohji Tokimatsu,et al.  Investigation of the M6.6 Niigata-Chuetsu Oki, Japan, earthquake of July 16, 2007 , 2007 .

[9]  J. Goltz.  The Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994: General Reconnaissance Report , 1994 .

[10]  Ernesto Salzano,et al.  Seismic vulnerability of natural gas pipelines , 2013, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[11]  Sonia Giovinazzi,et al.  Performance of the L'Aquila (central Italy) gas distribution network in the 2009 (Mw 6.3) earthquake , 2013 .

[12]  Thomas D. O'Rourke,et al.  Earthquake Performance of Gas Transmission Pipelines , 1996 .

[13]  N. Newmark.  Problems in Wave Propagation in Soil and Rock , 1975 .

[14]  Sotiris Argyroudis,et al.  Earthquake risk assessment of lifelines , 2006 .

[15]  Thomas D. O'Rourke,et al.  The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire—Enduring Lessons for Fire Protection and Water Supply , 2006 .

[16]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Quantitative Risk Analysis , 1999 .

[17]  Elisabeth Krausmann,et al.  RAPID-N: Rapid natech risk assessment and mapping framework , 2013 .

[18]  S. Kramer.  Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering , 1996 .

[19]  Df D Ayala.  The Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake of 17 August 1999: a field report by EEFIT , 2003 .

[20]  Renato Rota,et al.  Definition of a short-cut methodology for assessing earthquake-related Na-Tech risk. , 2011, Journal of hazardous materials.

[21]  Valerio Cozzani,et al.  Public awareness promoting new or emerging risks: Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards (NaTech) , 2013 .

[22]  Howard H. M. Hwang,et al.  Analysis of Damage to Steel Gas Pipelines Caused by Ground Shaking Effects during the Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake , 2004 .

[23]  Ernesto Salzano,et al.  Seismic risk of atmospheric storage tanks in the framework of quantitative risk analysis , 2003 .

[24]  Mustafa Erdik,et al.  Physical and economic losses sustained by the industry in the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake , 2008 .

[25]  Edwin B. Eckel.  Effects of the earthquake of March 27, 1964, on air and water transport, communications, and utilities systems in south-central Alaska: Chapter B in The Alaska earthquake, March 27, 1964: effects on transportation, communications, and utilities , 1967 .

[26]  Misko Cubrinovski,et al.  Geotechnical reconnaissance of the 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake , 2010 .

[27]  Ernesto Salzano,et al.  Quantitative risk analysis of oil storage facilities in seismic areas. , 2005, Journal of hazardous materials.

[28]  Laura J. Steinberg,et al.  Industry Preparedness for Earthquakes and Earthquake-Triggered Hazmat Accidents in the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake , 2005 .

[29]  R M. Chung.  January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake: Performance of Structures, Lifelines, and Fire Protection Systems (NIST SP 901) , 1996 .

[30]  C. A. Davis,et al.  Seismic Performance of the Second Los Angeles Aqueduct at Terminal Hill , 1999 .

[31]  Yasuko Kuwata,et al.  Analysis of the Impact of Water-Supply Outages Due to Multiple Factors Caused by the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake , 2012 .

[32]  Tetsuya Sasaki,et al.  DAMAGE TO SEWER PIPES DURING THE 1993 KUSHIRO-OKI AND THE 1994 HOKKAIDO-TOHO-OKI EARTHQUAKES , 2000 .

[33]  Ernesto Salzano,et al.  Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards: an emerging risk issue , 2011 .

[34]  Birger Schmidt,et al.  SEISMIC DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES , 2001 .

[35]  Alex Tang,et al.  Performance of lifelines during the 1994 Northridge earthquake , 1995 .

[36]  Thomas D. O'Rourke,et al.  Earthquake Response of Underground Pipeline Networks in Christchurch, NZ , 2014 .

[37]  Ernesto Salzano,et al.  Seismic vulnerability of gas and liquid buried pipelines , 2014 .