• Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas
• /
• v.14 no.6
• /
• pp.1-6
• /
• 2010

River crossing pipelines have been being operated with buried depth of 1.2~4m underneath river bottom to prevent buoyance and external impact. River crossing pipelines have to show resistance to soil load and hydrostatic pressure. In this study, structural integrity of the river crossing pipeline subjected to soil load and hydrostatic pressure was evaluated by using FE analyses. Hoop stress increased with increasing buried depth under identical water height in case of without concrete encasement, however, hoop stress decreased with increasing water height under identical buried depth.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.1756-1763
• /
• 2014

A water pipeline buried under the riverbed could be exposed by bed erosion, therefore safe crossing sections should be analyzed for preventing damages due to the exposure of pipelines. In this study, flow and bed changes have been simulated using a two-dimensional numerical model for selecting the optimized section of pipeline crossing in the Geum River. As a result of simulation with the 20-year recurrence flood, sediment deposition has been distributed overall in the channel and bed erosion over 2 m has occurred near bridge piers. For the extreme flood simulation, the channel bed near the bridge piers has been eroded down to the buried depth. Therefore, within 140 m upstream of the bridge piers, bed erosion affects a buried pipeline in safety due to bridge pier effects and the crossing section over 150 m upstream of bridge piers is selected as a safe zone of a water pipeline.

• 한국가스학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2005.10a
• /
• pp.233-238
• /
• 2005

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.22-28
• /
• 2020

In this study, quantitative risk assessment was carried out for city gas high-pressure pipelines crossing through urban rivers. The risk assessment was performed based on actual city gas properties, traffic volume and population and weather data in the worst case scenario conditions. The results confirmed that the social and individual risks were located in conditionally acceptable areas. This can be judged to be safer considering that the risk mitigation effect of protecting the pipes or installing them in the protective structure at the time of the construction of the river buried pipe is not reflected in the result of the risk assessment. Also, SAFETI v8.22 was used to analyze the effects of wind speed and pasquil stability on the accident damage and dispersion distances caused by radiation. As a result of the risk assessment, the safety of the pipelines has been secured to date, but suggests ways to improve safety by preventing unexpected accidents including river bed changes through periodic inspections and monitoring.