Skip to Main Content
Skip Nav Destination
Pipeline Integrity Management Under Geohazard Conditions (PIMG)
By
Mamdouh M. Salama
Mamdouh M. Salama
ConocoPhillips
Search for other works by this author on:
Yong-Yi Wang
Yong-Yi Wang
CRES
Search for other works by this author on:
Don West
Don West
Golder
Search for other works by this author on:
Alexander McKenzie-Johnson
Alexander McKenzie-Johnson
Geosyntec
Search for other works by this author on:
Azam B A-Rahman
Azam B A-Rahman
Petronas
Search for other works by this author on:
Guiyi Wu
Guiyi Wu
TWI
Search for other works by this author on:
Jens Petter Tronskar
Jens Petter Tronskar
DNVGL
Search for other works by this author on:
Jim Hart
Jim Hart
SSD Inc
Search for other works by this author on:
Bernt J. Leira
Bernt J. Leira
NTNU
Search for other works by this author on:
ISBN:
9780791861998
No. of Pages:
412
Publisher:
ASME Press
Publication date:
2020

Some geohazards pose risk to buried pipelines that can be managed with pipeline operations instead of requiring design treatments. The range of geohazard management alternatives consists of 1) modifying the hazard, 2) modifying what is at risk, 3) modifying operations or procedures, 4) compensating for potential losses, and 5) avoiding the hazard. Ground subsidence and surface fault rupture are two geohazards that may have the potential to be managed with operational instead of constructed approaches. Pipelines extending across areas susceptible to ground subsidence caused by groundwater pumping or underground mining could experience strain at levels that could adversely affect pressure integrity or the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP). Geologic settings with a potential for ground subsidence can be identified, and methods are available for forecasting the rate of subsidence, the potential for earth fissures to form, and the strain capacity of the pipeline. Monitoring with aerial and ground-based surveillance is routine for pipelines, and also includes occasional inline inspections. An element in a pipeline emergency action plan triggered by a threshold amount of subsidence being reached could be to excavate the affected reach of a pipeline to relieve accumulated strain, check the corrosion protection coating, and rebury. For new projects, engineering economics could be applied to weigh the cost of an initial design treatment to the cost of future mitigation of an affected reach and the likelihood that it would be needed. If initial design treatment is selected, the emergency action plan would still include an element for monitoring and mitigation, if needed.

Treatment of surface faulting geohazards may be regulated, particularly in proximity to population or environmentally sensitive resources. In areas remote from population or high consequence areas, certain categories of faults may be suitable for an operational approach to geohazard management. Potentially active faults may pose little risk of loss of pressure integrity. A possible element in a pipeline emergency action plan triggered by the occurrence of earthquakes of magnitude 5.5 and larger would be to use online resources to determine the epicenter location and proximity to the pipeline, assuming that operations detected no loss of pressure. Certain magnitude and distance combinations would result in a ground inspection to check for ground cracks. Detection of cracks would result in an appropriate response, such as excavation of the pipe for relief of strain, inspection, repair, and reburial.

INTRODUCTION
GEOHAZARD MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
POTENTIAL GROUND SUBSIDENCE
POTENTIAL DEFORMATION ALONG FAULTS
CONCLUSIONS
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this chapter.
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal