Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterization of the expected seismic damage for a critical infrastructure: the case of the oil pipeline in Friuli Venezia Giulia (NE Italy)

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Seismic codes using the performance-based approach for seismic design of critical and important structures generally refer to seismic hazard which takes into account a lower exceedance probability than that used for ordinary buildings. In the present study, the seismic hazard for an oil pipeline, located in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region (NE Italy), has been calculated in terms of PGA and PGV with a 2475-year return period, and compared with estimates calculated with the standard 475-year return period used for ordinary buildings. The results, referring to three soil types (rock, stiff soil, and soft soil), have been combined through GIS technology in a single map (soil seismic hazard map) on the basis of the local lithological characterization. The major earthquakes considered in the study have been associated with the linear sources found in the database of Italian seismic sources, considering the characteristic earthquake model. The regional seismogenic zonation has been added to the linear sources in order to consider minor seismicity as described by the Gutenberg–Richter model. Quaternary faults in the broader Trieste area, long enough to justify, at least, a characteristic magnitude of 6, have been added in the source model to take into account unlikely but possible unknown sources. The Transalpine Oil Pipeline, which connects Trieste (Italy) to Ingolstadt (Germany), is the crude-oil distribution system considered in the present study. It consists of a storage tank, compressor stations, and buried pipeline. For the characterization of the expected damage to the infrastructure in case of an earthquake, we have used underground pipeline seismic vulnerability curves that relate a performance indicator, such as the reparation rate (number of ruptures per kilometre), with a representative ground motion parameter (e.g., PGA or PGV). In this study, we have considered as performance indicator the consequences of a rupture in the pipeline caused by a seismic event.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ALA (American Lifeline Alliance) (2001) Seismic fragility formulations for water system. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

  • Bindi D, Pacor F, Luzi L, Puglia R, Massa M, Ameri G, Paolucci R (2011) Ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian strong motion database. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1899–1920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogliolo MP (2012) Proposal of a reference geo-database to support safety tasks involving the land context of Seveso establishments. Chem Eng Trans 26:483–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Campedel M, Cozzani V, Garcia-Agreda A, Salzano E (2008) Extending the quantitative assessment of industrial risks to earthquake effects. Risk Anal 28:1231–1246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carulli GB (2006a) Carta geologica del Friuli Venezia Giulia, scala 1:150.000, Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia, Direzione Regionale Ambiente e Lavori Pubblici, Servizio Geologico Regionale

  • Carulli GB (2006b) Note illustrative della Carta geologica del Friuli Venezia Giulia, scala 1:150.000, Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia, Direzione Regionale.Ambiente e Lavori Pubblici, Servizio Geologico Regionale, Selca, Firenze

  • Clemente P (2013) Sicurezza sismica delle strutture industriali. Sicurezza sismica degli impianti chimici a rischio di incidente rilevante, pp 17–22

  • Coppersmith KJ, Youngs RR (1986) Capturing uncertainty in probabilistic seismic hazard assessments within intraplate environments. In: Proceedings of the third U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, August 24–28, 1986, Charleston, SC, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, El Cerrito CA, USA, vol 1, pp 301–312

  • Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seism Soc Am 58:1583–1606

    Google Scholar 

  • DISS Working Group (2010) Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), Version 3.1.1: a compilation of potential sources for earthquakes larger than M 5.5 in Italy and surrounding areas. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia

  • Eguchi RT (1983) Seismic vulnerability models for underground pipes. In: Proceedings of earthquake behavior and safety of oil and gas storage facilities, buried pipelines and equipment, ASME, PVP-77, New York, June, pp 368–373

  • Fabbrocino G, Iervolino I, Orlando F, Salzano E (2005) Quantitive risk analysis of oil storage facilities in seismic areas. J Hazard Mater 123:61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEMA (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology HAZUS-MH. Technical manual, www.fema.gov/hazus. Accessed 1/5/2012

  • Fitzko FP, Suhadolc A Aoudia, Panza GF (2005) Constraints on the location and mechanism of the 1511 Western-Slovenia earthquake from active tectonics and modeling of macroseismic data. Tectonophysics 404:77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2005.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genn S (2014) Safety goals for seismic and tsunami risk: lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Nucl Eng Des 280:449–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girgin S (2011) The nanotech events during the 17 August 1999 Koaceli earthquake: aftermath and lessons learned. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:1129–1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaz S (2012) Fenomeni near-field come effetti di sito? Un’ipotesi di lavoro che trova riscontri anche nelle osservazioni sul campo in occasione dei recenti terremoti distruttivi italiani. In: Atti del 31° Convegno Nazionale Gruppo Nazionale di Geofisica della Terra Solida, Potenza, 20-22 novembre 2012

  • Grimaz S (2014) Can earthquakes trigger serious industrial accidents in Italy? Some considerations following the experiences of 2009 L’Aquila (Italy) and 2012 Emilia (Italy) earthquakes. Boll Geof Teor Appl 55:227–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaz S, Malisan P (2014) Near field domain effects and their consideration in the international and Italian seismic codes. Boll Geof Teor Appl 55(4):717–738

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaz S, Slejko D (2014) Seismic hazard for critical facilities. Boll Geof Teor Appl 55:3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamada M (1991) Estimation of earthquake damage to lifeline system in Japan. In: Proceeding of the third Japan‐US workshop on earthquake resistant design of lifeline facilities and countermeasures for soil liquefaction, San Francisco, CA, December 17–19, 1990, Technical Report NCEER‐91‐0001, NCEER, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, pp 5–22

  • Isoyama R, Katayama T (1982) Reliability evaluation of water supply system during earthquakes. Report of the institute of Industrial science, University of Tokyo, vol 30

  • Isoyama R, Ishida E, Yne K, Shirozu T (2000) Seismic damage estimation procedure for water supply pipelines. In: Twelfth world conference on earthquake engineering, paper no. 1762, 30 January–4 February, 2000, Auckland, New Zealand

  • Katayama T, Kubo K, Sato N (1975) Earthquake damage to water and gas distribution systems. In: Proceedings of the U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, EERI, Oakland, CA, pp 396–405

  • Kijko A, Graham G (1998) Parametric-historic procedure for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Part I: estimation of maximum regional magnitude mmax. Pure Appl Geophys 152:413–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann E, Cozzani V, Salzano E, Renni E (2011) Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards: an emerging risk issue. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:921–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulkarni RB, Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ (1984) Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis. In: Proceedings of the eighth world conference on earthquake engineering, July 21–28, 1984, San Francisco CA USA, vol 1. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, pp 263–270

  • Lanzano G, Salzano E Santucci, De Magistris F, Fabbrocino G (2013a) Performance assessment of continuous buried pipelines under earthquake loadings. Chem Eng Trans 31:631–636

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanzano G, Salzano E, De Magistris FS, Fabbrocino G (2013b) Vulnerability of pipelines subjected to permanent deformation due to geotechnical co-seismic effects. Chem Eng Trans 32:415–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK, Perry RW (1997) Hazardous materials releases in the northridge earthquake: implications for seismic risk assessment. Risk Anal 17:147–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RK (1977) Seismic design spectra and mapping procedures using hazard analysis based directly on oscillator response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 5:211–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RK, Shedlock KM (1981) Statistical uncertainties in seismic hazard evaluations in the United States. Bull Seism Soc Am 71:1287–1308

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmark NM (1967) Problems in wave propagation in soil and rocks. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on wave propagation and dynamic properties of earth materials, University of New Mexico Press, pp 7–26

  • NIBS (2004) Earthquake loss estimation methodology HAZUS. National Institute of Building Sciences, FEMA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni; 2008 D.M., 14 Jan 2008

  • O’Rourke MJ, Ayala G (1993) Pipeline damage due to wave propagation. J Geotech Eng ASCE 119(9):1490–1498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke MJ, Liu X (1999) Response of buried pipelines subjected to earthquake effects. MCEER monograph no. 3, University of New York, Buffalo, USA

  • O’Rourke TD, Stewart HE, Gowdy TE, Pease JW (1991) Lifeline and geotechnical aspect of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, St. Louis, MO, pp 1601–1612

  • O’Rourke TD, Toprak S, Sano Y (1998) Factors affecting water supply damage caused by the Northridge earthquake. In: Proceedings of the sixth US national conference on earthquake engineering

  • Ordaz M, Aguilar A, Arboleda J (2015) CRISIS2015, Ver. 2.0. Program for computing seismic hazard, UNAM, México

  • Rebez A, Slejko D (2004) Introducing epistemic uncertainties into seismic hazard assessment for the broader Vittorio Veneto area (N.E. Italy). Boll Geof Teor Appl 45:305–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz DP, Coppersmith KJ (1984) Fault behaviour and characteristic earthquakes: examples from Wasatch and San Andreas faults. J Geophys Res 89:5681–5698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slejko D, Peruzza L, Rebez A (1998) Seismic hazard maps of Italy. Ann Geofis 41:183–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Slejko D, Rebez A, Santulin M (2008) Seismic hazard estimates for the Vittorio Veneto broader area (NE Italy). Boll Geof Teor Appl 49:329–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Slejko D, Carulli GB, Riuscetti M, Cucchi F, Grimaz S, Rebez A, Accaino F, Affatato A, Biolchi S, Nieto D, Puntel E, Sanò T, Santulin M, Tinivella U, Zini L (2011a) Soil characterization and seismic hazard maps for the Friuli Venezia Giulia region (NE Italy). Boll Geof Teor Appl 52:59–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Slejko D, Carulli GB, Garcia J, Santulin M (2011b) The contribution of “silent” faults to the seismic hazard of the northern Adriatic Sea. J Geodyn 51:166–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stucchi M, Meletti C, Montaldo V, Crowley H, Calvi GM, Boschi E (2011) Seismic hazard assessment (2003–2009) for the Italian building code. Bull Seism Soc Am 101:1885–1911. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toro GR, Abrahamson NA, Schneider JF (1997) Model of strong motions from earthquakes in central and eastern North America: best estimates and uncertainties. Seism Res Lett 68:41–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationship among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seism Soc Am 84:974–1002

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale – OGS, Trieste, Italy

    Alberto Tamaro & Dario Slejko

  2. Dipartimento Politecnico di Ingegneria e Architettura, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy

    Alberto Tamaro & Stefano Grimaz

  3. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione di Milano, Italy c/o OGS, Trieste, Italy

    Marco Santulin

Authors
  1. Alberto Tamaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefano Grimaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Santulin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dario Slejko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Tamaro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tamaro, A., Grimaz, S., Santulin, M. et al. Characterization of the expected seismic damage for a critical infrastructure: the case of the oil pipeline in Friuli Venezia Giulia (NE Italy). Bull Earthquake Eng 16, 1425–1445 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0252-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0252-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation