Optimal Routing of Gas Pipelines in Seismic Regions Using an Efficient Decision-Support Tool: A Case Study in Northern Greece
Source abstract
Abstract
High-pressure gas pipelines are significantly vulnerable to earthquake-related geohazards (tectonic faulting, slope instabilities, and/or soil liquefaction phenomena). Avoiding geohazardous areas is not always techno-economically feasible, as it would increase the length and cost of the infrastructure. Conversely, crossing these areas may adversely affect the structural performance of the pipeline, leading to unfeasible mitigation measures. Thus, selecting cost-effective, safe, and resilient routing is crucial. This study presents a GIS-based decision-support tool for optimal routing, taking into account, among other criteria, earthquake-related geohazards. The proposed tool considers not only the aforementioned but also more complex earthquake-related geohazards, such as secondary fault ruptures that are non-parallel or even perpendicular to the main fault, which might have been overlooked during the design of existing pipelines. To validate its effectiveness, the present tool is applied in a real case study in northern Greece, where the aforementioned earthquake-related geohazards coexist. Through a GIS-based multi-criteria decision method, various scenarios are examined by assigning different weights to the adopted criteria, and several cost-minimized routes are derived. This tool could be highly beneficial for the pipeline industry since it can assist operators and stakeholders in selecting the optimal pipeline route in geohazardous areas.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures · Water Systems and Optimization · Structural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, 73100 Chania, Greece
School of Rural, Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15772 Athens, Greece
Funding
Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) under the 4th Call for HFRI PhD Fellowships
References (76)
Show source-provided references
1. The Development of a Competence Framework for Environmental Education Complying with the European Qualifications Framework and the European Green Deal10.1080/00958964.2023.2259846 ↗
2. Route Optimization of Pipeline in Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow Based on Genetic Algorithm10.1155/2017/1640303 ↗
3. Cruz-Chávez, M.A., Moreno-Bernal, P., Rivera-López, R., Ávila-Melgar, E.Y., Martínez-Bahena, B., and Cruz-Rosales, M.H. (2020). GIS Spatial Optimization for Corridor Alignment Using Simulated Annealing. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10186190 ↗
4. Integrated Pipeline GIS, Finance and Work Management
5. Schwarz, L., Robl, K., Wakolbinger, W., Mühling, H., and Zaradkiewicz, P. (2015). GIS Based, Heuristic Approach for Pipeline Route Corridor Selection. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory—Volume 6: Applied Geology for Major Engineering Projects, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-09060-3_48 ↗
6. King, T., Phillips, R., and Johansen, C. (2011, January 7–9). Pipeline Routing and Burial Depth Analysis Using GIS Software. Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers—Arctic Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA.10.4043/22085-MS ↗
7. NABUCCO Pipeline Route Selection through Turkey Comparison of a GIS-Based Approach to a Traditional Route Selection Approach
8. Wan, J., Qi, G., Zeng, Z., and Sun, S. (2011, January 24–26). The Application of AHP in Oil and Gas Pipeline Route Selection. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Geoinformatics, Shanghai, China.10.1109/GeoInformatics.2011.5981038 ↗
9. Durmaz, A.İ., Ünal, E.Ö., and Aydın, C.C. (2019). Automatic Pipeline Route Design with Multi-Criteria Evaluation Based on Least-Cost Path Analysis and Line-Based Cartographic Simplification: A Case Study of the Mus Project in Turkey. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf., 8.10.3390/ijgi8040173 ↗
10. Jennings, P.C. (2024, October 15). Engineering Features of the San Fernando Earthquake of February 9, 1971. EERL 71-02 Report, California Institute of Technology, 1971. Available online: https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/d6sex-fw741/preview/7102.pdf.
11. (2024, October 15). Earthquake Engineering Research Institute EERI Special Earthquake Report—December 1999. The Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake of September 21, 1999. Available online: https://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/Taiwan_ChiChi_Insert_Dec99.pdf.
12. 8.8 Chile Earthquake of February 27, 2010
13. Performance of Infrastructure during the May 12, 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake in China10.1080/13632460903274053 ↗
14. Uckan, E., Aksel, M., Atas, O., Toprak, S., and Kaya, E.S. (2024). The Performance of Transmission Pipelines on February 6th, 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquake: A Series of Case Studies. Bull. Earthq. Eng.10.1007/s10518-024-01957-2 ↗
15. Mass Wasting Triggered by the 5 March 1987 Ecuador Earthquakes10.1016/0013-7952(95)00024-0 ↗
16. Yildirim, V., Yomralioglu, T., Nisanci, R., Erbas, Y.S., and Bediroglu, S. (2013, January 7–9). Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Route Selection Using GIS and AHP. Proceedings of the Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, Belgium.
17. Evolving a Comprehensive Geomatics Multi-Criteria Evaluation Index Model for Optimal Pipeline Route Selection10.1080/15732479.2020.1712435 ↗
18. A Spatial Multicriteria Decision-Making Method for Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Routing10.1080/15732479.2016.1173071 ↗
19. Makrakis, N., Psarropoulos, P.N., Chatzidakis, D., and Tsompanakis, Y. (2020). Route Optimization of Offshore Lifelines Taking Into Account Potential Earthquake-Related Geohazards. Front. Built. Environ., 6.10.3389/fbuil.2020.00112 ↗
20. Optimal Route Selection of Offshore Pipelines Subjected to Submarine Landslide10.2174/18741495-v16-e220922-2022-30 ↗
21. Makrakis, N., Psarropoulos, P.N., and Tsompanakis, Y. (2023). GIS-Based Optimal Route Selection of Submarine Cables Considering Potential Seismic Fault Zones. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13052995 ↗
22. Makrakis, N., Psarropoulos, P.N., and Tsompanakis, Y. (2024, January 25). GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Methodology for the Optimal Routing of Large-Scale Lifelines against Earthquake-Related Geohazards. Proceedings of the Pipeline Technology Conference 2024, Beriln, Germany.
23. Do Soft Soil Layers Reduce the Seismic Kinematic Distress of Onshore High-Pressure Gas Pipelines?10.1007/s10518-023-01668-0 ↗
24. A Critical Review on Performance of Buried Pipeline Subjected to Pipe Bursting and Earthquake Induced Permanent Ground Deformation10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108152 ↗
25. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1984). Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines. Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, American Society of Civil Engineers.
26. American Lifelines Alliance (2001). Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe, American Society of Civil Engineers.
27. (2006). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 4: Silos, Tanks and Pipelines (Standard No. EN 1998-4:2006).
28. Turner, A.K., and Shuster, R.L. (1996). Landslide Types and Processes. Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 247, Available online: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr247/sr247-003.pdf.
29. Quantitative-Mechanistic Model for Assessing Landslide Probability and Pipeline Failure Probability Due to Landslides10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.04.005 ↗
30. Failure Analysis of a Natural Gas Pipeline Subjected to Landslide10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.105009 ↗
31. Modelling and Analysing Failure Modes of Buried Pipelines Perpendicularly Crossing Landslide Boundaries10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107447 ↗
32. Geohazard Risk Management for the Onshore Pipeline Industry
33. Sweeney, M. (2005). Pipelines and Landslides in Rugged Terrain: A Database, Historic Risks and Pipeline Vulnerability. Proceedings of the International Conference On: Terrain and Geohazard Challenges Facing Onshore Oil and Gas Pipelines, Thomas Telford Limited.
34. Esford, F., Porter, M., Savigny, K.W., Muhlbauer, W.K., and Dunlop, C. (2004, January 4–8). A Risk Assessment Model for Pipelines Exposed to Geohazards. Proceedings of the Biennial International Pipeline Conference, IPC, Calgary, AB, Canada.
35. European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (EGIG) (2015). Gas Pipeline Incidents: 9th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (Period 1970–2013). Doc. Number EGIG 14.R.0403, European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (EGIG).
36. Pipeline Performances under Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction: State of the Art on Real Observations, Model Tests, and Numerical Simulations
37. Newmark, N.M., and Hall, W.J. (1975, January 18–20). Pipeline Design to Resist Large Fault Displacement. Proceedings of the US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, CA, USA.
38. A Refined Seismic Analysis and Design of Buried Pipeline for Fault Movement10.1002/eqe.4290130109 ↗
39. Introduction of the Axial Force Terms to Governing Equation for Buried Pipeline Subjected to Strike-Slip Fault Movements10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106125 ↗
40. Talebi, F., and Kiyono, J. (2021). Comparison of 3D Solid and Beam–Spring FE Modeling Approaches in the Evaluation of Buried Pipeline Behavior at a Strike-Slip Fault Crossing. Energies, 14.10.3390/en14154539 ↗
41. Structural Performance of Buried Pipeline Undergoing Strike-Slip Fault Rupture in 3D Using a Non-Linear Sand Model10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106180 ↗
42. Numerical Stress-Strain Analysis of Buried Steel Pipelines Crossing Active Strike-Slip Faults with an Emphasis on Fault Modeling Aspects10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000177 ↗
43. Centrifuge Modeling of Buried Continuous Pipelines Subjected to Reverse Faulting10.1139/t2012-022 ↗
44. Performance of Buried Gas Distribution Pipelines Subjected to Reverse Fault Movement10.1080/13632469.2016.1269694 ↗
45. Fracture Localization along Faults with Spatially Varying Friction10.1029/97JB01829 ↗
46. Mandl, G. (2000). Faulting in Brittle Rocks—An Introduction to the Mechanics of Tectonic Faults, Springer. [1st ed.].10.1007/978-3-662-04262-5 ↗
47. Effects of Internal Structure and Local Stresses on Fracture Propagation, Deflection, and Arrest in Fault Zones10.1016/j.jsg.2009.08.013 ↗
48. Interacting Faults10.1016/j.jsg.2017.02.008 ↗
49. A Worldwide and Unified Database of Surface Ruptures (SURE) for Fault Displacement Hazard Analyses10.1785/0220190144 ↗
50. Coseismic Conjugate Faulting Structures Produced by the 2016 Mw 7.1 Kumamoto Earthquake, Japan10.1016/j.jsg.2017.05.003 ↗
51. Hierarchical Interlocked Orthogonal Faulting in the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence
52. Kinematic Distress of Pipelines Subjected to Secondary Seismic Fault Rupture10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107065 ↗
53. Near-Surface Secondary Ruptures Caused by Oblique Main Faults and Distress of Intersecting Pipelines10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.108554 ↗
54. ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute) (2016). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.4, ESRI.
55. Designing and Evaluation of Three Alternatives Highway Routes Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process and the Least-Cost Path Analysis, Application in Sinai Peninsula, Egypt
56. A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 ↗
57. Bhushan, N., and Rai, K. (2004). Strategic Decision Making: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Springer Science & Business Media. [1st ed.].10.1007/b97668 ↗
58. A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with Graphs10.1007/BF01386390 ↗
59. European Space Agency (2024, June 17). Copernicus Global Digital Elevation Model. Distributed by OpenTopography, Available online: https://portal.opentopography.org/raster?opentopoID=OTSDEM.032021.4326.3&minX=16.611328124999982&minY=35.25907654252575&maxX=28.916015624999982&maxY=42.24071874922669.
60. Tavasci, L., Vecchi, E., and Gandolfi, S. (2021). Performance of Atlas GNSS Global Correction Service for High-Accuracy Positioning. J. Surv. Eng., 147.10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000372 ↗
61. Runfola, D., Anderson, A., Baier, H., Crittenden, M., Dowker, E., Fuhrig, S., Goodman, S., Grimsley, G., Layko, R., and Melville, G. (2020). GeoBoundaries: A Global Database of Political Administrative Boundaries. PLoS ONE, 15.10.1371/journal.pone.0231866 ↗
62. (2024, January 25). Information Management Systems Institute “Athena” Research Center GEODATA.Gov.Gr, Available online: http://geodata.gov.gr/dataset/.
63. The GEM Global Active Faults Database10.1177/8755293020944182 ↗
64. An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application10.1785/0120160198 ↗
65. (2024, November 10). United States Geological Survey (USGS) USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, Available online: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/.
66. (2024, June 27). Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) Greece Roads (OpenStreetMap Export). Available online: https://data.humdata.org/dataset/hotosm_grc_roads.
67. (2024, June 20). European Environmental Agency (EEA) Datahub Natura 2000 Data—The European Network of Protected Sites. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/datahub/datahubitem-view/6fc8ad2d-195d-40f4-bdec-576e7d1268e4.
68. Trans Adriatic Pipeline (2013). Routing Report. Report CAL00-PMT-000-A-TRP-0001, Trans Adriatic Pipeline.
69. Geomorphologic Changes in the Coastline of Vistonis Lake, Thrace, N. Greece10.12681/bgsg.16901 ↗
70. Neotectonic and Seismological Data Concerning Major Active Faults, and the Stress Regimes of Northern Greece10.1144/GSL.SP.2006.260.01.28 ↗
71. Chatzipetros, A., and Pavlides, S. (2004, January 14–20). The Kavala-Xanthi-Komotini Fault (KXKF): A Complicated Active Fault Zone in Eastern Macedonia-Thrace (Northern Greece). Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Eastern Mediterranean Geology, Thessaloniki, Greece.
72. Marinos, V., Stoumpos, G., and Papazachos, C. (2019). Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment for a Natural Gas Pipeline Project: The Case of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline, Albania Section. Geosciences, 9.10.3390/geosciences9020061 ↗
73. Sweeney, M. (2005). International Conference on Terrain and Geohazard Challenges Facing Onshore Oil and Gas Pipelines: Evaluation, Routing, Design, Construction, Operation, Thomas Telford Ltd.
74. Earthquake Faulting Effects on Buried Pipelines—Case History and Centrifuge Study10.1080/13632460903527955 ↗
75. Gantes, C.J., and Melissianos, V.E. (2016). Evaluation of Seismic Protection Methods for Buried Fuel Pipelines Subjected to Fault Rupture. Front. Built. Environ., 2.10.3389/fbuil.2016.00034 ↗
76. Seismic Fragility and Resilience Assessment of Shallowly Buried Large-Section Underground Civil Defense Structure in Soft Soils: Framework and Application10.1016/j.tust.2024.105640 ↗