Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310843132
CITATION READS
1 110
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Safety of Buried Steel Pipelines Under Ground-Induced Deformations (GIPIPE) View project
Strain-Based Design of Spiral-Welded Pipes for Demanding Pipeline Applications, SBD-SPipe View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Gregory C. Sarvanis on 27 November 2016.
PVP2016-63856
ABSTRACT The paper of Newmark and Hall [1] has been a pioneering
publication in the area of pipeline stress analysis under ground-
In geohazard areas, buried pipelines are subjected to
induced actions, introducing an analytical model for assessing
permanent ground deformations, which constitute major threats
the integrity of a buried pipeline crossing a ruptured fault.
for their structural safety. Geohazards include seismic fault
Continuing the work in [1], Kennedy et al. [2] developed an
movement, liquefaction-induced lateral spreading and slope
analytical model, ignoring pipeline bending stiffness, while
instability, and the corresponding deformations induce severe
Wang and Yeh [3] improved this methodology by accounting
strains in the pipeline. Calculation of these strains is necessary
for pipeline bending stiffness. In subsequent publications
for assessing pipeline integrity. In the present paper, an
Takada et al. [4], Karamitros et al. [5] and Trifonov et al. [6]
analytical methodology is presented and compared with
[7] developed analytical and semi-analytical methodologies for
existing analytical and numerical methodologies for stress
analyzing buried pipelines crossing seismic faults. More
analysis of buried pipelines. The proposed methodology is also
recently, together with rigorous finite element models a
compared with full-scale available experimental results and
simplified analytical formulation has been proposed in a series
offers significant intuition on the behavior of buried pipelines
of publications by Vazouras et al. [8] [9] [10] for describing
subjected to permanent ground deformations. Using the
pipeline deformation under strike-slip fault action. In addition
proposed analytical methodology, one may predict the strains
to the above research publications, design provisions for the
developed in the pipeline wall quite efficiently and with good
response of buried pipelines under permanent ground-induced
accuracy.
deformations have been gradually introduced in several
standards and design recommendation.
INTRODUCTION Permanent ground actions consist of the differential motion
Buried pipelines are often constructed in geohazard areas; of two adjacent soil blocks, crossed by the pipeline. They can
they may cross active seismic faults, liquefaction areas or slope be divided in two major categories. The first concerns the cases
instability regions capable of producing large ground with the same soil resistance in the two moving parts of the
deformations. Avoiding these geohazard areas is the safer soil, referred to as symmetric cases. The second category is
design option for pipeline alignment but this may not always be associated with different soil resistance in the two moving parts
possible. In particular, in high-seismicity areas a large number of the soil and is referred to as non-symmetric cases. Strike-
of seismic faults exist, which means that a pipeline alignment in slip faults are symmetric cases because the transverse
this area will certainly cross a significant number of these (horizontal) soil resistance in both sides of the fault is
faults. Furthermore, the pipeline may cross areas prone to practically the same. Non-symmetric cases are all normal and
liquefaction or mountainous areas with slope instabilities. In oblique faults because the vertical soil resistance is different in
such cases, the pipeline must be designed taking into account the upward and downward direction. As non-symmetric cases
the additional stress and deformation induced by ground one may consider the cases of lateral spreading.
movement. In the present paper, a new simplified methodology is
proposed for the calculation of induced strains in the pipeline
due to permanent ground deformation. This methodology can
means that the soil resistance in the length L1 is larger or equal (a) MB MA (b)
than the soil resistance in length L2. The bending moment
diagram (a) of Fig. 2 is the result of the support movement, L1
qu2
which represents the permanent soil movement, while the A
d
bending moment diagram (b) is the result of distributed qu1 L2
loading, representing soil resistance. The end bending moments My Li B
of diagram (a) can be computed by Eq.(1), where d is the size
of ground movement. A B
(c)
6 EJd 6 EJd
MA MB (1)
Fig. 2:Equivalent static model for the calculation of lengths L1
( L1 L2 )2 ( L1 L2 )2
and L2 of the deformed pipeline shape.
Case 2 0.75
The second case refers to a high-pressure gas 914.4-mm-
diameter (36 in.) pipeline of 11.91 mm (0.469 in.) thickness, 0.50
(m)
1.00 Plastic The forth case with non-symmetric soil resistance refers to a
0.75
1219 mm-diameter (48 in.), X65 steel pipeline with 17.1 mm
(0.673-in.) thickness crossing a normal fault with dip-angle
0.50 Yield equal to 70o. The soil resistance according to ALA Guidelines
0.25 [11] is presented in Table 7. The results from finite element
0.00 analysis and the analytical prediction of the proposed
methodology are presented in Table 8. The characteristic
-0.25 Elastic
lengths L1, L2 of the deformed shape of the pipeline according
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 to Eq. (10), Eq. (11) and Eq. (13) are computed equal to L1 =
Distance from the fault (m) 5.08 m and L2 = 37.50 m.
Fig. 5: Distribution of axial strains along the pipe axis for
different values of displacement d for crossing angle = 30; Table 7: Soil parameters and geometric/mechanical properties
Numerical results (Case 2). (Case 4).
qu upwards 45 kN/m
Case 3
qu downwards 1100 kN/m
The third case with symmetric soil resistance concerns a
914.4 mm-diameter (36 in.), X65 steel pressurized pipeline. tu axial 35 kN/m
Pipe thickness is 11.91 mm (0.469 in.), internal pressure 50 bar, yu upwards 0.162
while the soil properties and the geometric parameters of the yu downwards 0.183
pipe are presented in Table 1.The pipeline crosses a strike-slip yu axial 0.005
fault at angle = 20, as shown Fig. 1. A comparison between
the proposed methodology and the finite element analysis (level
Table 8: Comparison between proposed methodology and
2) is offered. The results from rigorous finite element analysis
Level 1 finite element modelling (Case 4).
and the proposed analytical methodology are presented in Table
6. The length L of the curved pipe segment is computed from Max compressive
Max tensile strain %
Eq. (16) equal to 18.5 m. In Fig. 6, the deformed shape from strain %
the rigorous finite element model is presented for fault Present Present
d (m) FEM FEM
displacement equal to 2.0 m. Methodology Methodology
2 0.88 0.93 0.00 0.10
Table 6: Comparison between proposed methodology and level
2 finite element modelling for angle equal to 20o (Case 3). 2.5 1.11 1.27 0.00 0.01
Max compressive
Max tensile strain %
strain % Case 5
Present Present The final case in the present paper concerns the experiments
d (m) FEM FEM conducted by CSM in Sardinia in the course of the GIPIPE
Methodology Methodology
project and analyzed in detail elsewhere [14]. The purpose of
1 0.96 0.82 0.30 0.17 these experiments was the investigation of pipe-soil interaction
in a horizontal ground movement, normal to the pipeline axis. A
2 1.99 2.09 0.57 0.08
special-purpose landslide/fault device has been developed,
and the corresponding experimental setup is shown in Fig. 7, it
is composed by two fixed concrete boxes that remain fixed and
one sliding box between the two fixed boxes (Fig. 7). The
longitudinal strains are measured using strain gauges along the
pipe.
A level 2 finite element model has also been developed
[14], which simulates one of the landslide/fault tests, shown
in Fig. 8. The middle box slides along the x axis, while the two
outside boxes remain fixed. In Fig. 9, the deformed shape of
pipe specimen from the landslide/fault test is illustrated. The
soil properties and the geometric/mechanical parameters of the
pipe are presented in Table 9. The present methodology is also
employed to predict the strains of the pipe due to
Fig. 6: Deformed shape of pipeline, for fault displacement landslide/fault movement. The method for non-symmetric
equal to 2.0 m and for crossing angle = 20 (Case 3).
NOMENCLATURE
Fig. 8: General configuration (solid model) for the numerical
A Cross sectional area of the pipe
simulation of landslide/fault tests (Case 5).
D Outer diameter of the pipe
E Youngs Modulus
Hc Burial depth of the pipe
J Inertia moment of the pipe cross section
MA Bending moment at location (A)
MB Bending moment at location (B)
My Yield moment of the pipe cross section
Ko Lateral earth pressure coefficient
L Length of the deformed shape of the pipeline
Li Distance between the fault and the inflection point
L1 Distance of the fault and the end point with bending
moment equal to zero
L2 Distance of the fault and the end point with bending
moment equal to zero
VA Shear force
Fig. 9: Deformed shape of the finite element model simulating d Value of ground-induced displacement
landslide/fault test 1 (Case 5); sliding displacement of the dy Value of ground-induced displacement corresponding
middle box is equal to 600 mm (i.e. 2.74D). to pipeline first yielding
k Pipeline bending curvature