Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Development of a seismic life cycle cost framework for buried pipelines

Alavi, Sayyed Hadi, Mashayekhi, Mohammadreza·2026·Reliability Engineering & System Safety
DOI 10.1016/j.ress.2025.111874
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ress.2025.111874

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 4

Research works printed but not linked: 73

  1. Woldesellasse, 2023, Consequence assessment of gas pipeline failure caused by external pitting corrosion using an integrated Bayesian belief network and GIS model: application with Alberta pipeline, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 240, 10.1016/j.ress.2023.109573 · DOI
  2. Oruji, 2022, Evaluation of land subsidence hazard on steel natural gas pipelines in California, Upstream Oil Gas Technol, 8, 10.1016/j.upstre.2021.100062 · doi:10.1016/j.upstre.2021.100062
  3. Guo, 2016, Comprehensive risk evaluation of long-distance oil and gas transportation pipelines using a fuzzy Petri net model, J Nat Gas Sci Eng, 33, 18, 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.04.052 · doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2016.04.052
  4. Huang, 2025, Dynamic quantitative assessment of service resilience for long-distance energy pipelines under corrosion, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 256, 10.1016/j.ress.2024.110792 · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2024.110792
  5. Nirandjan, 2024, Physical vulnerability database for critical infrastructure hazard risk assessments–a systematic review and data collection, Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci, 24, 4341, 10.5194/nhess-24-4341-2024 · doi:10.5194/nhess-24-4341-2024
  6. Teng, 2021, Disaster impact assessment of the underground hazardous materials pipeline, J Loss Prev Process Ind, 71, 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104486 · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104486
  7. Akram, 2020, Identification of factors influencing sustainability of buried continuous pipelines, Sustainability, 12, 960, 10.3390/su12030960 · doi:10.3390/su12030960
  8. Mousavi, 2014, Seismic risk assessment of the 3rd Azerbaijan gas pipeline in Iran, Nat hazards, 74, 1327, 10.1007/s11069-014-1244-y · doi:10.1007/s11069-014-1244-y
  9. Nair, 2018, Review of pipeline performance during earthquakes since 1906, J Perform Constr Facil, 32, 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001214 · doi:10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001214
  10. Chenna, 2014, Vulnerability assessment of buried pipelines: a case study, Front Geotech Eng, 3, 24
  11. Psyrras, 2018, Safety of buried steel natural gas pipelines under earthquake-induced ground shaking: a review, Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 106, 254, 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.12.020 · doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.12.020
  12. Farahani, 2020, Probabilistic seismic multi-hazard loss estimation of Iran gas trunklines, J Loss Prev Process Ind, 66, 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104176 · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104176
  13. Jahangiri, 2020, Reliability-based seismic evaluation of buried pipelines subjected to earthquake-induced transient ground motions, Bull Earthq Eng, 18, 3603, 10.1007/s10518-020-00852-w · doi:10.1007/s10518-020-00852-w
  14. Hu, 2023, Economic loss assessment for losses due to earthquake under an integrated building, lifeline, and transportation nexus: a spatial computable general equilibrium approach for shelby county, tn, Sustainability, 15, 8610, 10.3390/su15118610 · doi:10.3390/su15118610
  15. O'leary, 1985, Dynamics of buried pipelines, Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 4, 151
  16. Karamanos, 2017, Analysis and design of buried steel water pipelines in seismic areas, J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract, 8, 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000280 · doi:10.1061/(asce)ps.1949-1204.0000280
  17. Ha, 2010, Earthquake faulting effects on buried pipelines–case history and centrifuge study, J earthq eng, 14, 646, 10.1080/13632460903527955 · doi:10.1080/13632460903527955
  18. Akshatha, 2018, Seismic performance of buried pipelines under different soil conditions, J Inst Eng A, 99, 689
  19. Vazouras, 2015, Pipe–soil interaction and pipeline performance under strike–slip fault movements, Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 72, 48, 10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.01.014 · doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.01.014
  20. Zhang, 2022, Comprehensive numerical analyses of the seismic performance of natural gas pipelines crossing earthquake faults, Earthq Spectra, 38, 1661, 10.1177/87552930221087749 · doi:10.1177/87552930221087749
  21. Zheng, 2012, Failure analysis and safety evaluation of buried pipeline due to deflection of landslide process, Eng Fail Anal, 25, 156, 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2012.05.011 · doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2012.05.011
  22. Zhuang, 2015, Seismic responses of a large underground structure in liquefied soils by FEM numerical modelling, Bull Earthq Eng, 13, 3645, 10.1007/s10518-015-9790-6 · doi:10.1007/s10518-015-9790-6
  23. Dulger, 2024, Investigation of Earthquake-Induced Pipe Damage in Liquefiable Soils, Appl Sci, 14, 4599, 10.3390/app14114599 · doi:10.3390/app14114599
  24. Tsinidis, 2020, Seismic fragility of buried steel natural gas pipelines due to axial compression at geotechnical discontinuities, Bull Earthq Eng, 18, 837, 10.1007/s10518-019-00736-8 · doi:10.1007/s10518-019-00736-8
  25. Lanzano, 2014, Seismic vulnerability of gas and liquid buried pipelines, J Loss Prev Process Ind, 28, 72, 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.010 · DOI
  26. Iannacone, 2023, Physics-based repair rate curves for segmented pipelines subject to seismic excitations, Sustain Resilient Infrastruct, 8, 121, 10.1080/23789689.2021.2000146 · doi:10.1080/23789689.2021.2000146
  27. Lanzano, 2013, Seismic vulnerability of natural gas pipelines, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 117, 73, 10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.019 · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.019
  28. Hou, 2021, Seismic performance assessment of water distribution systems based on multi-indexed nodal importance, Water, 13, 2362, 10.3390/w13172362 · doi:10.3390/w13172362
  29. Dolce, 2021, Seismic risk assessment of residential buildings in Italy, Bull Earthq Eng, 19, 2999, 10.1007/s10518-020-01009-5 · doi:10.1007/s10518-020-01009-5
  30. Alavi, 2024, Incorporating seismic risk assessment into the determination of the optimal route for gas pipelines, Sustain Resilient Infrastruct, 9, 328, 10.1080/23789689.2024.2319503 · doi:10.1080/23789689.2024.2319503
  31. Amaducci, 2024, Quantitative risk assessment of Natech scenarios triggered by earthquakes involving pipelines, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 245, 10.1016/j.ress.2024.109993 · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2024.109993
  32. Fereshtehnejad, 2016, Multiple hazard incidents lifecycle cost assessment of structural systems considering state-dependent repair times and fragility curves, Earthq eng struct dyn, 45, 2327, 10.1002/eqe.2764 · doi:10.1002/eqe.2764
  33. Iannacone, 2022, Modeling time-varying reliability and resilience of deteriorating infrastructure, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 217, 10.1016/j.ress.2021.108074 · DOI
  34. Kere, 2024, An analytical approach to evaluate life-cycle cost of deteriorating pipelines, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 250, 10.1016/j.ress.2024.110287 · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2024.110287
  35. Li, 2023, Copula-based multivariate renewal model for life-cycle analysis of civil infrastructure considering multiple dependent deterioration processes, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 231, 10.1016/j.ress.2022.108992 · DOI
  36. Asadi, 2021, Life-cycle cost analysis of RC bridges subjected to multiple hazards, Sci Iran, 28, 629
  37. Chandra, 2018, Improving precision in earthquake loss estimation, Sustain Resilient Infrastruct, 3, 128, 10.1080/23789689.2017.1365231 · doi:10.1080/23789689.2017.1365231
  38. Nouri, 2022, Life-cycle cost analysis of seismic designed RC frames including environmental and social costs, J Earthq Eng, 26, 5958, 10.1080/13632469.2021.1911877 · DOI
  39. Torti, 2022, Life-cycle management cost analysis of transportation bridges equipped with seismic structural health monitoring systems, Struct Health Monit, 21, 100, 10.1177/1475921721996624 · doi:10.1177/1475921721996624
  40. Torti, 2022, Monitoring-informed life-cycle cost analysis of deteriorating RC bridges under repeated earthquake loading, J Struct Eng, 148, 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003449 · doi:10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0003449
  41. Vishwanath, 2023, Considering uncertainty in corrosion process to estimate life-cycle seismic vulnerability and risk of aging bridge piers, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 232, 10.1016/j.ress.2022.109050 · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2022.109050
  42. Shekhar, 2020, A metamodeling based seismic life-cycle cost assessment framework for highway bridge structures, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 195, 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106724 · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2019.106724
  43. Chaudhary, 2024, Cost-optimization based target reliabilities for design of structures exposed to fire, Resilient Cities Struct, 3, 20, 10.1016/j.rcns.2024.03.004 · doi:10.1016/j.rcns.2024.03.004
  44. Drouet, 2020, A probabilistic seismic hazard map for the metropolitan France, Bull Earthq Eng, 18, 1865, 10.1007/s10518-020-00790-7 · doi:10.1007/s10518-020-00790-7
  45. Pineda-Porras, 2010, Seismic damage estimation for buried pipelines: challenges after three decades of progress, J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract, 1, 19, 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000042 · doi:10.1061/(asce)ps.1949-1204.0000042
  46. Emamjomeh, 2020, Reliability of water distribution networks subjected to seismic hazard: application of an improved entropy function, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 197, 10.1016/j.ress.2020.106828 · DOI
  47. Liao, 1988, Regression models for evaluating liquefaction probability, J Geotech Eng, 114, 389, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:4(389) · doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9410(1988)114:4(389
  48. Sadigh, 1986, Specification of ground motion for seismic design of long period structures, Earthq notes, 57, 13
  49. Li, 2021, Influence of critical acceleration model on assessments of potential earthquake–induced landslide hazards in Shimian County, Sichuan Province, China, Landslides, 18, 1659, 10.1007/s10346-020-01578-1 · doi:10.1007/s10346-020-01578-1
  50. Sandoli, 2023, Seismic fragility matrices for large scale probabilistic structural safety assessment, Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 171, 10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107963 · doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107963
  51. Bellagamba, 2019, Development and validation of fragility functions for buried pipelines based on Canterbury earthquake sequence data, Earthq Spectra, 35, 1061, 10.1193/120917EQS253M · doi:10.1193/120917eqs253m
  52. Shojaeian, 2021, Seismic resilience assessment of Tehran's southern water transmission pipeline using gis-based analyses, Numer Methods Civ Eng, 6, 93, 10.52547/nmce.6.2.93 · doi:10.52547/nmce.6.2.93
  53. O'Rourke, 1993, Pipeline damage due to wave propagation, J Geotech Eng, 119, 1490, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:9(1490) · doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9410(1993)119:9(1490
  54. Cardoni, 2025, Seismic risk assessment of natural gas networks at the urban scale, Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105606 · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105606
  55. Wen, 2001, Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. I: methodology, J Struct Eng, 127, 330, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:3(330) · doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2001)127:3(330
  56. Farahani, 2020, Macrozonation of seismic transient and permanent ground deformation of Iran, Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci, 20, 2889, 10.5194/nhess-20-2889-2020 · doi:10.5194/nhess-20-2889-2020
  57. Alavi, 2024, Optimizing interpolation methods and point distances for accurate earthquake hazard mapping, Buildings, 14, 1823, 10.3390/buildings14061823 · DOI
  58. Tabandeh, 2022, Uncertainty propagation in risk and resilience analysis of hierarchical systems, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 219, 10.1016/j.ress.2021.108208 · DOI
  59. Ghodrati Amiri, 2008, Seismic hazard assessment of Shiraz, Iran, J Appl Sci, 8, 38, 10.3923/jas.2008.38.48 · doi:10.3923/jas.2008.38.48
  60. Berberian, 1976, Earthquakes of the southern Zagros (Iran): bushehr region, Geol Surv Iran, 39, 343
  61. Sadeghi, 2015, Evaluation of earthquake mitigation measures to reduce economic and human losses: a case study to residential property owners in the metropolitan area of Shiraz, Iran, Nat Hazards, 78, 1811, 10.1007/s11069-015-1801-z · doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1801-z
  62. Danciu, 2018, The 2014 earthquake model of the Middle East: seismogenic sources, Bull Earthq Eng, 16, 3465, 10.1007/s10518-017-0096-8 · DOI
  63. Pagani, 2014, OpenQuake engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model, Seismol Res Lett, 85, 692, 10.1785/0220130087 · doi:10.1785/0220130087
  64. Zare, 2014, Recent developments of the Middle East catalog, J Seismol, 18, 749, 10.1007/s10950-014-9444-1 · doi:10.1007/s10950-014-9444-1
  65. Bommer, 2005, On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis, Bull Seismol Soc Am, 95, 377, 10.1785/0120040073 · doi:10.1785/0120040073
  66. Akkar, 2010, Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region, and the Middle East, Seismol Res Lett, 81, 195, 10.1785/gssrl.81.2.195 · doi:10.1785/gssrl.81.2.195
  67. Akkar, 2014, Empirical ground-motion models for point-and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East, Bull Earthq Eng, 12, 359, 10.1007/s10518-013-9461-4 · doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9461-4
  68. Chiou, 2008, An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra, Earthq Spectra, 24, 173, 10.1193/1.2894832 · DOI
  69. Zhao, 2006, Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period, Bull Seismol Soc Am, 96, 898, 10.1785/0120050122 · doi:10.1785/0120050122
  70. Paolucci, 2008, Earthquake-induced transient ground strains from dense seismic networks, Earthq Spectra, 24, 453, 10.1193/1.2923923 · doi:10.1193/1.2923923
  71. De Risi, 2018, Scenario-based seismic risk assessment for buried transmission gas pipelines at regional scale, J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract, 9, 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000330 · doi:10.1061/(asce)ps.1949-1204.0000330
  72. Sarcheshmehpour, 2021, Life cycle cost optimization of earthquake-resistant steel framed tube tall buildings, Structures, 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.038 · DOI
  73. Psyrras, 2020, Physical modeling of the seismic response of gas pipelines in laterally inhomogeneous soil, J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng, 146, 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002242 · doi:10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002242

Metadata

Authors
Alavi, S. H., & Mashayekhi, M.
Venue
Reliability Engineering & System Safety
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-03
Volume
267
Pages
111874
ISSN
0951-8320
DOI
10.1016/j.ress.2025.111874
Cited by
4
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development of a seismic life cycle cost framework for buried pipelines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ress.2025.111874
The paper
Alavi, S. H., & Mashayekhi, M. (2026). Development of a seismic life cycle cost framework for buried pipelines. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2025.111874

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.