Probabilistic Analysis of Buried Pipeline Response Subjected to Fault Crossing

Conference paper
Part of the Sustainable Civil Infrastructures book series (SUCI)


Deterministic analysis aims to demonstrate that a facility is tolerant to identified faults/hazards that are within the ‘design basis’, thereby defining the limits of safe operation. However, it cannot address the risk and uncertainty associated with it adequately, especially when the degree of uncertainty is high, like in seismic events. Deterministic analysis and design can provide an appropriate degree of safety to a set of loading parameters, whereas, a probabilistic analysis and design can provide a rational design based on acceptable risk and reliability of the system performance. In this paper, the major variables that greatly influence the performance of buried pipelines subjected to fault crossing has been identified and their coefficient of variance were selected. Monte-Carlo simulation has been implemented to find out the pipeline response in terms of maximum strain in the pipeline. Different cases were taken by keeping coefficient of variance (COV) constant while changing the subsequent parameters individually as well as combined. For various state of risk, the probabilistic distribution of pipeline strain has been obtained and finally a factor of safety (FOS) is calculated as the ratio of characteristic mean response and deterministic mean (response), for various probability of exceedance (acceptable risk).


Cross Faults Pipeline Strain Fault Displacement Burial Depth Pipeline Rupture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Vazinram, F., Rasti, R.: Seismic Hazards for lifelines. In: Proceedings of Geohazards, Engineering Conferences International, Norway (2006)Google Scholar
  2. PRCI: Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Assessment of Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines. Pipeline Research Council International Inc. (PRCI), R & D Forum, Canada (2004)Google Scholar
  3. IITK-GSDMA: IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Design of Buried Pipelines. Prepared by Dash, S.R., Jain, S.K. (eds.) Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur (IITK) and Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA), National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering (NICEE) Publication, India (2007)Google Scholar
  4. Wells, D.L., Coppersmith, K.J.: New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84(4), 974–1002 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. McGuire, R.K.: Seismic risk to lifeline systems: critical variables and sensitivities. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, vol. VII, pp. 129–134 (1988)Google Scholar
  6. Elhmadi, K., O’Rourke, M.J.: Seismic Wave Propagation Effects on Straight Jointed Buried Pipelines. Technical Report NCEER-89-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), State University of New York at Buffalo, New York, USA, p. 224 (1989)Google Scholar
  7. Mashaly, E.A., Datta, T.K.: Seismic risk analysis of buried pipelines. J. Transp. Eng. (1989).
  8. Datta, T.K.: Seismic response of buried pipelines: a state-of-the-art review. J. Nuclear Eng. Des. (2000). Scholar
  9. Youngs, R.R., Arabasz, W.J., Anderson, R.E., Ramelli, A.R., Ake, J.P., Slemmons, D.B., McCalpin, J.P., Doser, D.I., Fridrich, C.J., Swan III, F.H., Rogers, A.M., Yount, J.C., Anderson, L.W., Smith, K.D., Bruhn, R.L., Knuepfer, P.L.K., Smith, R.B., dePolo, C.M., O’Leary, D.W., Coppersmith, K.J., Pezzopane, S.K., Schwartz, D.P., Whitney, J.W., Olig, S.S., Toro, G.R.: A methodology for Probabilistic Fault Displacement Hazard Analysis (PFDHA). Earthquake Spec. (2000). Scholar
  10. Stepp, J.C., Wong, I., Whitney, J., Quittmeyer, R., Abrahamson, N., Toro, G., Youngs, R., Coppersmith, K., Savy, J., Sullivan, T., Yucca Mountain PSHA Project Members: Probabilistic seismic Hazard analyses for ground motions and fault displacement at Yucca Mountain. Earthquake Spec. (2001). Scholar
  11. Omidvar, B., Eskandari, M., Peyghaleh, E.: Seismic damage to urban areas due to failed buried fuel pipelines case study: fire following earthquake in the city of Kermanshah, Iran. Nat. Hazards (2013). Scholar
  12. Esposito, S., Lervolino, L., d’Onofrio, A., Santo, A., Cavalieri, F., Franchin, P.: Simulation-based seismic risk assessment of gas distribution networks. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. (2014). Scholar
  13. Melissianos, V.E., Vamvatsikos, D., Gantes, C.J.: Probabilistic assessment of innovative mitigating measures for buried steel pipeline – fault crossing. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, USA (2015).
  14. Cheng, Y., Akkar, S.: Probabilistic permanent fault displacement hazard via monte carlo simulation and its consideration for the probabilistic risk assessment of buried continuous steel pipelines. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. (2016). Scholar
  15. Eskandari, M., Omidvar, B., Modiri, M., Nekooie, M.A., Alesheikh, A.A.: Geospatial analysis of earthquake damage probability of water pipelines due to multi-hazard failure. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. (2017). Scholar
  16. Goda, K.: Probabilistic characterization of seismic ground deformation due to tectonic fault movements. J. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. (2017). Scholar
  17. Nicol, A., Robinson, R., Van Dissen, R.J., Harvison, A.: Variability of single event slip and recurrence intervals for large magnitude paleoearthquakes on New Zealand’s active faults. GNS Science Report 2012/41, p. 66 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. Lizarraga, H.S., Lai, C.G.: Effects of spatial variability of soil properties on the seismic response of an embankment dam. J. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. (2014). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of InfrastructureIndian Institute of Technology BhubaneswarBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations