Seismic Fragility Formulations for Segmented Buried Pipeline Systems Including the Impact of Differential Ground Subsidence

Pineda-Porras, Omar; Ordaz, Mario

doi:10.1061/(asce)ps.1949-1204.0000061

Cited by 20 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As PGD values in the area are also absent from USGS or other sources, these values are estimated using the relationship described in Theodulidis and Papazachos (1992): where MMI is the modified Mercalli intensity that captures local seismic demands, S is set to 0 for alluvial soils, and P is set to 0 to indicate the 50th percentile level of the PGD value. Other methods of estimating PGD or repair rates include those described by Corchete (2010), Pineda-Porraz and Ordaz (2010), Margaris et al (2002), and Skarlatoudis et al (2003).…”

Section: Infrastructure System Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calibration and Validation of a Seismic Damage Propagation Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Systems

Dueñas‐Osorio

2013

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Barring a few exceptions, most theoretical and computational models of lifeline system fragility and interdependent response to extreme events still lack calibration and validation relative to real events. This paper expands on this area by evaluating and calibrating a recently proposed Interdependence Fragility Algorithm ( IFA) against field data observed after the 2010 Mw 8.8 offshore Maule, Chile, earthquake. This evaluation incorporates available and simulated properties of the Concepción and Talcahuano water and power networks to try to replicate their topology and seismic response, considering both direct damage and interdependent effects. The calibrated IFA predicts that the probabilities of exceeding the observed high connectivity losses of 0.70 (power) and 0.82 (water), if taken as limit states, are 97% and 72%, respectively. These predictions capture complex interdependent lifeline system responses reasonably well and reveal influential factors for IFA model accuracy and uncertainty reduction, enabling reliable planning, design, expansion, and maintenance of infrastructure systems in practice.

show abstract

Section: Infrastructure System Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calibration and Validation of a Seismic Damage Propagation Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Systems

Dueñas‐Osorio

2013

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Observed permanent ground deformations due to liquefaction effects have been used by several authors [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] to derive RR functions using damage data from historical earthquakes (see Table 1). In the CES events, pre-and post-event high-resolution Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data were available; highresolution measurements of the angular distortion (β) and lateral ground strains (εHP) after the 22 February 2011 and 13 June 2011 earthquakes were used by [10,21] to derive RR models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of LSN-based pipe repair rate models utilising data from the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes

Moratalla

Sadashiva

2022

BNZSEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) adversely impacted built, economic and social environments. This included widespread physical damage to the water supply pipe network in Christchurch, resulting in long service disruptions. The transient and permanent ground deformations generated by the earthquakes in the CES caused a range of pipe damage, particularly in the MW 6.2 22 February 2011 and the relatively less damaging MW 6.0 13 June 2011 event. Damage to the pipes in both events was largely attributed to liquefaction and lateral spreading effects. Pipes made of ductile material (e.g. PVC, HDPE) sustained lesser damage (and therefore lower repair rates) compared to the pipes made of non-ductile material (e.g. AC, CI). In all cases, the repair rates (number of repairs per kilometre) typically increased with increasing liquefaction severity. Utilising the pipe repair dataset and Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) maps generated from extensive geotechnical investigation following the CES events, new repair rate prediction models for water pipes subjected to liquefaction effects have been derived and are presented in this paper. Repair data from both earthquakes has been analysed independently and in combination, providing two sets of repair rate functions and different levels of uncertainty. Repair rate functions were first derived from pipes grouped by combination of diameter (i.e. ϕ < 75 mm or ϕ ≥ 75 mm) and material type (i.e. ductile or non-ductile). The models were then refined by adding correction factors for those material types and diameters with sufficient sample length. Correction factors were derived for AC, CI, PVC pipes of diameter ≥75 mm and for MDPE and HDPE80 pipes of diameter <75 mm. Galvanised Iron (GI) pipes performed poorly during the earthquakes, resulting in very high repair rates compared to the other non-ductile pipes of diameter <75 mm damaged in the network; this warranted a separate repair rate model to be developed for this pipe type. The proposed models can be used in risk assessment of water pipe networks; i.e. to estimate the number of pipe repairs from potential liquefaction damage from future earthquakes.

show abstract

Seismic performance of buried electrical cables: evidence-based repair rates and fragility functions

Kongar

Giovinazzi

Rossetto

2016

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fragility of buried electrical cables is often neglected in earthquakes but significant damage to cables was observed during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand. This study estimates Poisson repair rates, similar to those in existence for pipelines, using damage data retrieved from part of the electric power distribution network in the city of Christchurch. The functions have been developed separately for four seismic hazard zones: no liquefaction, all liquefaction effects, liquefactioninduced settlement only, and liquefaction-induced lateral spread. In each zone six different intensity measures (IMs) are tested, including peak ground velocity as a measure of ground shaking and five metrics of permanent ground deformation: vertical differential, horizontal, maximum, vector mean and geometric mean. The analysis confirms that the vulnerability of buried cables is influenced more by liquefaction than by ground shaking, and that lateral spread causes more damage than settlement alone. In areas where lateral spreading is observed, the geometric mean permanent ground deformation is identified as the best performing IM across all zones when considering both variance explained and uncertainty. In areas where only settlement is observed, there is only a moderate correlation between repair rate and vertical differential permanent ground deformation but the estimated model error is relatively small and so the model may be acceptable. In general, repair rates in the zone where no liquefaction occurred are very low and it is possible that repairs present in this area result from misclassification of hazard observations, either in the raw data or due -016-0077-3 to the approximations of the geospatial analysis. Along with hazard intensity, insulation material is identified as a critical factor influencing cable fragility, with paper-insulated lead covered armoured cables experiencing considerably higher repair rates than crosslinked polyethylene cables. The analysis shows no trend between cable age and repair rates and the differences in repair rates between conducting materials is shown not to be significant. In addition to repair rate functions, an example of a fragility curve suite for cables is presented, which may be more useful for analysis of network connectivity where cable functionality is of more interest than the number of repairs. These functions are one of the first to be produced for the prediction of damage to buried cables.123 Bull Earthquake Eng (2017) 15:3151-3181 DOI 10.1007/s10518

show abstract

Seismic Fragility Formulations for Segmented Buried Pipeline Systems Including the Impact of Differential Ground Subsidence

Cited by 20 publications

References 12 publications

Calibration and Validation of a Seismic Damage Propagation Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Systems

Calibration and Validation of a Seismic Damage Propagation Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Systems

Development of LSN-based pipe repair rate models utilising data from the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes

Seismic performance of buried electrical cables: evidence-based repair rates and fragility functions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About