Seismic Fragility Formulations for Segmented Buried Pipeline Systems Including the Impact of Differential Ground Subsidence
Publication: Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 1, Issue 4
Abstract
Though differential ground subsidence (DGS) impacts the seismic response of segmented buried pipelines and increases their vulnerability, there are no fragility formulations that estimate repair rates under such conditions found in the literature. Although physical models that estimate pipeline seismic damage considering other cases of permanent ground subsidence (e.g., faulting, tectonic uplift, liquefaction, and landslides) have been extensively reported, this is not the case for DGS. The refinement of the study of two important phenomena in Mexico City—the 1985 Michoacan earthquake and the sinking of the city due to ground subsidence—has contributed to the analysis of the interrelation of pipeline damage, ground motion intensity, and DGS. From the analysis of the 122 cm (48 in.) diameter pipeline network of the Mexico City water system, fragility formulations for segmented buried pipeline systems for two DGS levels are proposed. The novel parameter (composite parameter in terms of peak ground velocity (PGV) and peak ground acceleration has been used as a seismic parameter in these formulations because in previous studies it has shown better correlation to pipeline damage than PGV alone. By comparing the proposed fragility formulations, it is concluded that a change in the DGS level (from low-medium to high) could increase the pipeline repair rates (number of repairs per kilometer) by factors ranging from 1.3 to 2.0, with a higher seismic intensity corresponding to a lower factor.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted at the Institute of Engineering of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) during the Ph.D. studies of the first writer. The support by the Dirección General de Estudios de Posgrado at UNAM is greatly appreciated. We thank Professors Gustavo Ayala and Michael O’Rourke for their comments on the results of this study. The writers want to thank D-4 Research Group (Energy and Infrastructure Analysis) of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for partially sponsoring this study.
References
Ayala, G., and O’Rourke, M. (1989). “Effects of the 1985 Michoacan Earthquake on water systems and other buried lifelines in Mexico.” Tech. Rep. No. NCEER-89-0009, Multi-Disciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, N.Y.
Cisneros-Iturbe, L., and Dominguez-Mora, R. (2005). “Strategy to allow the inspection of the deep drainage system of Mexico City.” Publication of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 293, 212–220.
Dirección General de Construcción y Operación Hidráulica (DGCOH). (1997). “Plan maestro de agua potable del distrito federal 1997–2010.” Dirección General de Construcción y Obras Hidráulicas, Mexico City, México.
Edmunds, W. M., Carrillo-Rivera, J. J., and Cardona, A. (2002). “Geochemical evolution of groundwater beneath Mexico City.” J. Hydrol., 258(1-4), 1–24.
Illades, L., Manuel, J., and Cortes, M. (1998). “El hundimiento del terreno en la ciudad de Mexico y sus implicaciones en el sistema de drenaje.” Ingenieria Hidraulica en Mexico, 13(3), 13–18.
Pineda, O. (2006). “Estimación de daño sísmico en tuberías enterradas.” Ph.D. thesis, National Autonomous Univ. of Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City, México.
Pineda, O., and Najafi, M. (2010). “Seismic damage estimation for buried pipelines: Challenges after three decades of progress.” J. Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 1(1), 19–24.
Pineda, O., and Ordaz, M. (2003). “Seismic vulnerability function for high-diameter buried pipelines: Mexico City’s primary water system case.” New pipeline technologies, security, and safety, Vol. 2, ASCE, Reston, Va., 1145–1154.
Pineda, O., and Ordaz, M. (2007). “A new seismic intensity parameter to estimate damage in buried pipelines due to seismic wave propagation.” J. Earthquake Eng., 11, 773–786.
Rivera, A., Ledoux, E., and de Marsily, G. (1991). “Nonlinear modeling of groundwater flow and total subsidence of the Mexico City aquifer-aquitard system.” Publication of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 200, 45–58.
Singh, S. K., et al. (1988). “A study of amplification of seismic waves in the Valley of Mexico with respect to a hill zone site (CU).” Earthquake Spectra, 4, 653–673.
Singh, S. K., and Ordaz, M. G. (1993). “Strong motion seismology in Mexico.” Tectonophysics, 218, 43–57.
Vera, A. V., Gonzalez, G. M., Gonzalez, L. B., Gomez, A. S., and Vara J. M. (1995). “Twenty-five years of subway construction in Mexico City.” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol., 10(1), 65–77.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 1 • Issue 4 • November 2010
Pages: 141 - 146
Copyright
© 2010 ASCE.
History
Received: Oct 6, 2009
Accepted: May 6, 2010
Published online: Oct 15, 2010
Published in print: Nov 2010
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.