You are on page 1of 24

metals

Article
Local Buckling Behavior and Plastic Deformation
Capacity of High-Strength Pipe at Strike-Slip
Fault Crossing
Xiaoben Liu 1,2 ID , Hong Zhang 1, *, Baodong Wang 1 , Mengying Xia 1,2, *, Kai Wu 1 , Qian Zheng 1
and Yinshan Han 1
1 College of Mechanical and Transportation Engineering, China University of Petroleum-Beijing,
Beijing 102249, China; liuxiaoben1991@126.com (X.L.); wangbaodong58@163.com (B.W.);
wk0609@126.com (K.W.); zhengqian2981@163.com (Q.Z.); cathaya_han@163.com (Y.H.)
2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
AB T6G 2W2, Canada
* Correspondence: hzhang@cup.edu.cn (H.Z.); xiamengying322@163.com (M.X.);
Tel.: +86-010-89733274 (H.Z.); +86-010-89731239 (M.X.)

Received: 17 November 2017; Accepted: 26 December 2017; Published: 31 December 2017

Abstract: As a typical hazard threat for buried pipelines, an active fault can induce large plastic
deformation in a pipe, leading to rupture failure. The mechanical behavior of high-strength X80
pipeline subjected to strike-slip fault displacements was investigated in detail in the presented study
with parametric analysis performed by the finite element model, which simulates pipe and soil
constraints on pipe by shell and nonlinear spring elements respectively. Accuracy of the numerical
model was validated by previous full-scale experimental results. Insight of local buckling response
of high-strength pipe under compressive strike-slip fault was revealed. Effects of the pipe-fault
intersection angle, pipe operation pressure, pipe wall thickness, soil parameters and pipe buried
depth on critical section axial force in buckled area, critical fault displacement, critical compressive
strain and post buckling response were elucidated comprehensively. In addition, feasibility of
some common buckling failure criteria (i.e., the CSA Z662 model proposed by Canadian Standard
association, the UOA model proposed by University of Alberta and the CRES-GB50470 model
proposed by Center of Reliable Energy System) was discussed by comparing with numerical results.
This study can be referenced for performance-based design and assessment of buried high-strength
pipe in geo-hazard areas.

Keywords: high-strength X80 steel; buried pipeline; strike-slip fault; strain-based design; compressive
strain capacity; local buckling; finite element method

1. Introduction
Buried steel pipelines serve as the main means of transportation of both raw and processed
hydrocarbon fluids worldwide. High-strength line pipe steels are preferred by operators for their
higher profit induced by the increased throughput of the products [1]. The large expanse of pipe routine
makes crossing some geo-hazard areas inevitable, such as active seismic faults. Large ground-relative
displacements along the fault trace will cause axial compression (or tension) and lateral bending in
pipe, which may be large enough to initiate local buckling or tensile fracture failure [2]. As crucial
lifelines, the integrity of steel pipelines at tectonic fault crossings has been paid close attention to by
both academic and industrial spheres.
Newmark and Hall conducted the pioneer work for analytical strain analysis of pipe at fault
crossing [3], in which the pipe was assumed to deform like a cable. Due to its high simplicity,

Metals 2018, 8, 22; doi:10.3390/met8010022 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals


Metals 2018, 8, 22 2 of 24

the Newmark method is still widely used in industry for the primary design of a pipe subjected
to fault movement. Thereafter, a series of analytical or semi-analytical models were developed for
refined analysis of pipe strain or stress under fault displacement. Kennedy et al. [4] and Wang et al. [5]
considered pipe bending with assumptions that pipes deform as curved arcs and elastic beams. In more
recent decades, more complicated semi-analytical approaches were proposed by Karamitros et al. [6],
Trifonov et al. [7], and Zhang et al. [8], who considered the elastoplastic characteristic of pipe steel’s
constitutive model and their effects on pipe’s nonlinear stress distributions in sections of large deformed
pipe segments near fault trace. Although these analytical methods can be more easily popularized in
guidelines for engineering applications, they also have severe weaknesses. Even the latest analytical
methods are still based on the beam assumption of pipe, which is incapable of describing the local
deformation of pipes subjected to compression or combined with bending loads.
For pipes subjected to compression at strike-slip fault crossings, numerical and experimental
models were mostly utilized for pipe performance analysis. Due to the restrictions of hydraulic
loading facilities, experimental investigations were all focusing on low- to medium-strength steel
pipes or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes with similar nonlinear stress-strain response as
steels. Ha et al. [9,10] and O’Rourke et al. [11,12] conducted centrifuge and full-scale tests of buried
HDPE under compression strike-slip faults. Results show that these two methods derived similar
pipe response with the similar parameters. Jalali et al. [13–15] performed a full-scale experiment on
responses of both American Petroleum Institute (API) Grade-B steel and HDPE pipes under reverse
fault displacements. Both global and local buckling behavior were captured in his investigation.
Valuable conclusions on pipe soil interactions were also obtained in their experiments.
Based on the experimental results, a lot of calibrated numerical models were developed for
further investigations on pipe performance subjected to compression strike-slip fault movements.
Generally, numerical models can be classified by the simulation methods for pipe and soil constraint
on pipe. Pipes can be simulated by pipe (elbow) elements or shell elements. Pipe (elbow) elements
have the advantage in calculation efficiency, but they are incapable of demonstrating the pipe wall
folding phenomenon in pipe, when local buckling occurs. Soil constraints on pipe can be modeled by
discrete nonlinear soil spring elements or the surface-to-surface contact between the shell elements
simulating pipe and the continuum solid elements simulating surrounded soil [16]. Adopting the
numerical models, stress and strain behaviors of different kind buried pipes under various types
of active faults have been studied. Using finite element (FE) models with pipe (elbow) elements
and nonlinear spring elements, Xie et al. validated the numerical models by comparing them with
centrifuge experiment results [17,18]. Joshi et al. conducted parametric analysis on beam buckling
behavior of steel pipe at reverse fault crossing [19]. Uckan et al. proposed a simplified model to derive
the response of curved pipeline at strike-slip fault crossing [20]. Liu et al. developed a prediction model
on peak pipe compressive strain based on the numerical results and nonlinear regression method [21].
Melissianos et al. conducted performance assessment of buried pipe at fault crossing [22,23]. Using
Finite Element (FE) models with shell elements and nonlinear spring elements, Karamitros et al.
validated his analytical model [6]. Liu et al. proposed a semi-empirical equation for strain demand
of pipeline at oblique-reverse fault crossing [24]. Xu et al. investigated the wrinkling phenomenon
under reverse fault [25]. More recently, using FE models with shell elements and continuum solid soil
elements, Kaya et al., simulated the failure behavior of a welded steel pipe at Kullar fault crossing [26].
Zhang et al. discussed the collapse behavior of pipeline buried in rock under strike-slip fault movement
and reverse fault displacements [27,28]. Vazouras conducted series of numerical models to investigate
the failure behavior of pipeline under strike-slip fault movement in detail [29–32]. Trifonv et al. also
built a rigorous numerical model to analyze the influence of the trench on the pipeline performance at
fault crossing [7].
However, although extensive research is available, relatively little literature exists on the
topic of high-strength pipe buckling behavior specifically. Some attempts were made by Liu et al.
to investigate the effects of yield strength and strain hardening parameter on the local failure
Metals 2018, 8, 22 3 of 24

behavior of high-strength pipes subjected to reverse faulting [33]. Kainat et al. investigated the
influences of geometric imperfections on high strength pipe’s buckling behaviors [34]. Neupane et al.
captured the anisotropic characteristic of high-strength pipe steel in longitudinal and circumferential
directions, and discussed its effects on buckling response of pipe induced by frost heave in northern
areas [35,36]. However, comprehensive investigations on local buckling of high-strength pipes in
various engineering cases are urgently needed. Thus, a systematic analysis was conducted in this
paper on the local buckling behavior of high-strength of X80 steel pipeline subjected to strike-slip
fault displacements. Mechanical response of X80 pipe at onset moment when local buckling occurs
was studied. Influences of the pipe-fault intersection angle, pipe diameter, pipe wall thickness,
pipe operation pressure, soil parameters, pipe buried depth on pipe’s buckling behavior were all
investigated in detail. Based on the finite element results, applicability of some well-recognized
compressive strain criteria on local buckling failure recognition for high-strength pipe was evaluated
in a wide range of common parameters.

2. State of the Art in Buckling Failure Criteria for Line Pipes


Compressive local buckling is a limit state for pipeline under compressive load. In strain-based
design, the principle purpose is to keep the strain demand (i.e., the maximum longitudinal compressive
strain in pipe) in pipe less than the compressive strain capacity of pipe (i.e., the longitudinal pipe strain
at the onset moment of pipe buckling) [1]. Thus, to provide suitable references for pipeline designers
and operators, a series of prediction models for compressive strain capacity have been established
and adopted by different guidelines and standards. In this section, three well-recognized models for
compressive strain capacity of plain pipe are presented briefly.

2.1. CSA Z662 Model (2015)


The CSA Z662 model [37] was initially based on Gresnigt’s research in 1980s [38]. Its latest version
was released in 2015. Some modifications have been made to Gresnigt’s model to improve the model’s
accuracy for pipes with high internal pressure. This model is the one most widely used so far. A lot
of codes and standards directly adopt this model to calculate the compressive strain capacity of steel
pipes εcrit
c , such as the guideline for design of buried steel pipeline [39], and the aseismic guidelines
for pipes in India [40]. The model considers the effects of pipe diameter to wall thickness ratio D/t
and operation pressure P on pipe’s strain capacity directly. It should be noted that the CSA formula
was derived by regression of lower-bound test data. Thus, material property parameters and pipe
geometrical imperfections were also implicitly considered. The CSA formula is given by Equation (1).
 h i2
 0.5 t − 0.0025 + 3000 PD
 PD
≤ 0.4σy
D 2tE 2t
εcrit
c = h i2 (1)
0.4σ
 0.5 t − 0.0025 + 3000
 y PD
> 0.4σy
D E 2t

where D is the pipe diameter, t is pipe wall thickness, D/t ≤ 120, P is the pipe operation pressure, σy is
the yield strength of pipe steel.

2.2. UOA Model (2006)


The UOA models [41] were developed by structure group at the University of Alberta in 2006 [41].
The equations were established throughout regression analysis on a large number of finite element
models and full-scale experimental results. The considered steel grades in parametric analysis included
X52, X65 and X80. Four groups of CSA Z662 equations were finally obtained for plain pipes with yield
plateau type or round house type stress-strain curve and girth weld pipe with yield plateau type or
round house type stress-strain curve. For in the numerical analysis of presented paper, the pipe was
Metals 2018, 8, 22 4 of 24

considered as a plain pipe with roundhouse-type stress-strain curve; the equation for this kind of pipes
was listed here (Equation (2)).
 −1  0.8542 " #
h g 0.1501
 1.5921 
2.9398 PD E
εcrit
c = 100 1 − 0.8679 1.2719 − ( ) (2)
D/t 2tσy σy t

where hg is the height of the geometry imperfection which is defined as the peak-to-valley height of
the surface undulation, 50 ≤ D/t ≤ 90.

2.3. CRES-GB 50470 Model (2017)


The CRES model [42] was established by the Center for Reliable Energy Systems in 2013 under
the support of the US Department of Transportation [42]. Similar to the UOA model, it is developed
based on a large amount of finite element models. This model has been recently recommended
by the latest version of China’s national standard for seismic design and assessment of oil and gas
transmission pipelines (GB 50470) [43]. The influence factors considered in the CRES-GB 50470 model
is the most comprehensive one in reported research so far, including ratio of pipe diameter to pipe
wall thickness D/t, operation pressure, ratio of yield strength to tensile strength of pipe material σy /σu ,
geometry imperfection hg , girth weld, Lüder’s strain, and net-section stress σa . For plain pipes with
roundhouse-type stress-strain curves, the CRES equation is as follows:
!
hg 0.2
 
σy
εcrit
c = 2.7 − 2.0 1.84 − 1.6( ) FNF FDP (3)
σu t
  
−1.6
   1.6
 9.8 0.5 Dt
 + 1.9 × 10−4 PD
2tσy <1.8 × 10
−4 D
t
FDP = (4)
 9.8 1.06 PD + 0.5 D −1.6
    1.6
PD
≥ 1.8 × 10−4 D

2tσy t 2tσy t
  2
 1.2 σa + 1 σa
≥0
FNF = σy σy
σa
(5)
 1,
σy <0

where σa is the applied net-section stress in the longitudinal direction of pipe, which can be derived
from the stress demand analysis. If σa is not available, σa = 0; 20 ≤ D/t ≤ 104, 0.76 ≤ σy /σu ≤ 0.96.
Applicability of these models for high-strength steel pipe will be further evaluated by the
numerical results of the buried X80 pipeline under compression strike-slip fault in subsequent sections.
It should be noticed that some formulas focusing on compressive strain capacity of offshore pipes
with small diameter to wall thickness ratio were recommended by the API-1111-1999 [44], DNV OS
F101 [45]. For their incapable application to common onshore high-strength pipelines with large
diameter to wall thickness ratio, they are not discussed here.

3. Finite Element Model

3.1. Modelling Pipe-Soil Interaction with Discrete Nonlinear Soil Springs


For buried steel pipelines, constraints will be induced on them by the surrounding soil in the
axial, horizontal and vertical directions, if they have relative motions. The soil-applied force on
pipe or pile structures is commonly nonlinear, which can be described by the p-y curves derived by
geotechnical researchers [12]. There is a lot of available literature on this topic, among which the
design recommendations specified by the ASCE Guideline [46] and ASCE-ALA Guideline [39] is the
most widely used one for design and assessment of buried pipelines. According to the ASCE-ALA
Guideline, soil constraints on pipe can be modeled using nonlinear soil springs with elastic plastic
constitutive properties in three perpendicular directions, i.e., the axial, lateral and vertical directions
of pipe central axis as illustrated in Figure 1, where continuous lines represent the real characteristic
Metals 2018, 8, 22 5 of 25
Metals 2018, 8, 22 5 of 24

of pipe central axis as illustrated in Figure 1, where continuous lines represent the real characteristic
and dashed
dashed lines
linesrepresent
representthe theapproximation
approximationimplemented
implemented inin
thethe
model. TheThe
model. parameters
parametersPu, TPuu, ,and
Tu ,
Qu(QQ
and d) (Q
u represent
d ) the
represent peak
the soil
peak resistances
soil per
resistances unit
per length
unit lengthof pipes,
of while
pipes, while ∆p,
∆p, ∆t,
∆t, and
and ∆q
∆q u (∆q d)
u d
represent the corresponding yield displacements in three directions (i.e., lateral, axial, and vertical),
respectively. Values
respectively. Values of all
all these
these parameters
parameters can can be
be readily
readily obtained
obtained according
according to
to the
the ASCE-ALA
ASCE-ALA
Guideline with
Guideline with soil
soil property
property parameters
parameters derived
derived from
from field
field investigation.
investigation. For numerical modelling,
most commercial
most commercial finite
finite element
element software
software has
has developed
developed spring
spring elements
elements capable
capable of
of coupling
coupling aa force
force
with relative
with relative displacement
displacement nonlinearly.
nonlinearly. InIn this
this paper,
paper, the
the 3D
3D SPRING
SPRING elements
elements (SPRING2)
(SPRING2) in in general
general
FE package ABAQUS were utilized for numerical investigation
FE package ABAQUS were utilized for numerical investigation [47]. [47].

T y
z x
Tu
T P
Δt
Δt
Tu Q
P

Q Pu

Δp
Qu Δp
Δqd
Δqu Pu

Qd
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of
of nonlinear
nonlinear soil
soil springs
springs on
on pipe,
pipe, T
T for
for axial
axial springs,
springs, P
P for
for lateral
lateral springs,
springs,
and Q for vertical springs [39].
and Q for vertical springs [39].

3.2. Modelling of Pipe


3.2. Modelling of Pipe
In this study, pipe segments were all modeled by four node shell elements with reduced
In this study, pipe segments were all modeled by four node shell elements with reduced
integration (S4R) in general FE software ABAQUS (Dassault Systèmes, version 6.14, Johnston, RI,
integration (S4R) in general FE software ABAQUS (Dassault Systèmes, version 6.14, Johnston, RI, USA).
USA). The Second West-to-East Gas Pipeline in China was taken as the prototype for this study. The
The Second West-to-East Gas Pipeline in China was taken as the prototype for this study. The modeled
modeled pipe in numerical model was set to be 100 m in total, 50 m each at both sides of the fault
pipe in numerical model was set to be 100 m in total, 50 m each at both sides of the fault trace, with pipe
trace, with pipe nodes at the two axial ends connected with nonlinear springs (SPRING2) to model
nodes at the two axial ends connected with nonlinear springs (SPRING2) to model the axial constraint
the axial constraint of longitudinally adjacent pipes on the 100 m long pipe at fault trace (Figure 2).
of longitudinally adjacent pipes on the 100 m long pipe at fault trace (Figure 2). A constitutive model
A constitutive model of the equivalent spring will be described in the subsequent section (Section
of the equivalent spring will be described in the subsequent section (Section 3.3). A refined mesh was
3.3). A refined mesh was achieved by sensitivity analysis with 54 elements discretized in
achieved by sensitivity analysis with 54 elements discretized in circumferential direction. In addition,
circumferential direction. In addition, setting the longitudinal length of all the shell elements to be
setting the longitudinal length of all the shell elements to be 0.04 m was proven to be accurate for
0.04 m was proven to be accurate for simulating the wrinkling behavior of pipe induced by local
simulating the wrinkling behavior of pipe induced by local buckling [33].
buckling [33].
Metals 2018,
Metals 2018,8,8,22
22 66 of
of 25
24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 6 of 25

Nonlinear springs
Nonlinear
simulatingsprings
three
simulating
directional three
soil
Fault Trace directional
constraintssoil
Fault Trace constraints
β
β
Pipe central axis
Equal Boundary Pipe central axis
Equal Boundary Intersection point O
Intersection point O ∆Y δ
∆Y ∆X δ
∆X

Pipe
Pipe
Pipe mesh
Pipe mesh

Figure 2. Established finite element model for pipeline crossing strike slip faults.
Figure 2. Established finite element model for pipeline crossing strike slip faults.
Figure 2. Established finite element model for pipeline crossing strike slip faults.
The material stress-strain model for X80 line pipeline considered in this study is plotted in Figure
The material stress-strain model for X80 line pipeline considered in this study is plotted in Figure
3. A large-strain
The materialvonstress-strain
Mises plasticity
model model withline
for X80 isotropic
pipelinehardening
considered is used
infor thestudy
this steel in
is numerical
plotted in
3. A large-strain von Mises plasticity model with isotropic hardening is used for the steel in numerical
investigation. The curvevon
Figure 3. A large-strain can Mises
also beplasticity
expressed by the
model Ramberg-Osgood
with isotropic hardening model is (Equation
used for the (6)), with
steel in
investigation. The curve can also be expressed by the Ramberg-Osgood model (Equation (6)), with
yield strength as 550 MPa, strain hardening exponent r as 17 and the yield offset
numerical investigation. The curve can also be expressed by the Ramberg-Osgood model (Equation (6)), parameter α as 0.94
yield strength as 550 MPa, strain hardening exponent r as 17 and the yield offset parameter α as 0.94
[48].
with yield strength as 550 MPa, strain hardening exponent r as 17 and the yield offset parameter α
[48].
as 0.94 [48]. r −1
σ true σ
σ true   r −r1−1
ε true =σtrue + α  true

ε trueε = = σEtrue++ αα σEtrue  σσtrue (6)
σtrue σ true
 (6)
(6)
true EE EE  σσyy 
 y 

800
800

600
600
Stress/MPa
Stress/MPa

400
400

200
200

0
00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Strain 0.04 0.05 0.06
Strain
Figure
Figure 3.
3. True
True stress
stress strain
strain curve of X80 line pipe steel.
Figure 3. True stress strain curve of X80 line pipe steel.
The
The finite
finite element
element model
model was was calculated
calculated inin two
two nonlinear
nonlinear static
static steps.
steps. In In the
the first
first step,
step, allall soil
soil
The finite element model was calculated in two nonlinear static steps. In the first step, all soil
nodes
nodes are fixed, and operation pressure was applied in the inner surface of the entire pipe. In
are fixed, and operation pressure was applied in the inner surface of the entire pipe. In the
the
nodes are fixed, and operation pressure was applied in the inner surface of the entire pipe. In the
second step, all the soil nodes on the right of the fault trace were displaced with
second step, all the soil nodes on the right of the fault trace were displaced with fault displacements fault displacements
second step, all the soil nodes on the right of the fault trace were displaced with fault displacements
both
both longitudinally
longitudinally and and laterally
laterally in
in aa horizontal
horizontal plane,
plane, while
while allall the
the soil
soil nodes
nodes onon the
the left
left of
of the
the fault
fault
both longitudinally and laterally in a horizontal plane, while all the soil nodes on the left of the fault
trace
trace were
were allall kept
kept motionless.
motionless. As As shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 2,
2, the
the longitudinal
longitudinal displacement
displacement ∆X ∆X and
and thethe lateral
lateral
trace were all kept motionless. As shown in Figure 2, the longitudinal displacement ∆X and the lateral
displacement
displacement ∆Y ∆Y areare δcosβ
δcosβand andδsinβ,
δsinβ,respectively.
respectively. In
In order
order to to insure
insure the
the convergence
convergence of of the
the iterative
iterative
displacement ∆Y are δcosβ and δsinβ, respectively. In order to insure the convergence of the iterative
calculation
calculation of the FE model, nonlinear stabilization algorithm was utilized in the second step [49],
of the FE model, nonlinear stabilization algorithm was utilized in the second step the
calculation of the FE model, nonlinear stabilization algorithm was utilized in the second step [49], [49], the
the
initial
initial step
step size
size of
of the
the fault
fault displacement
displacement loadload step
step is
is set
set to
to bebe 0.05,
0.05, with
with the
the minimum
minimum allowable
allowable step step
initial step size −6 of the fault displacement load step is set to be 0.05, with the minimum allowable step
size
size set to be 10 −.6 If there
thereis no
nopressure
pressurein inthe
thepipe,
pipe,the
thefirst
first step
step should
should be be removed. It
It also should
size set
set to
to be
be 10
10−6. .IfIfthere isisno pressure in the pipe, the first step should be removed.
removed. It also
also should
should
be mentioned that the proposed model can be suitable for dynamic simulations by replacing the static
be mentioned that the proposed model can be suitable for dynamic simulations by replacing the static
Metals 2018, 8, 22 7 of 24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 7 of 25

be mentioned
analysis step tothat the proposed
explicit dynamicmodelstep. can
With bethe
suitable for dynamic
performed dynamicsimulations
analysis,bythe
replacing
model thecanstatic
be
analysis step to explicit dynamic step. With the performed dynamic analysis,
utilized to predict the transients associated with buckling phenomena, thus possibly allowing the model can be utilized
to predict with
integration the transients associated
the techniques withfor
adopted buckling phenomena,
leak detection thus possibly allowing integration with
[50–53].
the techniques adopted for leak detection [50–53].
3.3. Constitutive Model of Equivalent Boundary
3.3. Constitutive Model of Equivalent Boundary
When buried pipelines are subjected to fault movement, relative displacements appear between
the pipeWhen
and buried pipelines are
the surrounding soil.subjected to fault boundary
The equivalent movement, relative
model was displacements
used to reduce appear between
the element
the pipe and the surrounding soil. The equivalent boundary model was
numbers in numerical calculation by using few nonlinear springs simulating the axial constraints used to reduce the element
on
pipe induced by the adjacent pipes, as show in Figure 4. Liu et al., developed the constitutive modelon
numbers in numerical calculation by using few nonlinear springs simulating the axial constraints
ofpipe induced byboundary
the equivalent the adjacent pipes,
[54], whichas represents
show in Figure 4. Liu et al., of
the relationship developed
the axial the forceconstitutive
F and the model
pipe
of the equivalent boundary
extension at Point B ∆L (Equation (7)). [54], which represents the relationship of the axial force F and the pipe
extension at Point B ∆L (Equation (7)).
 3EAT − 1 2
  q 3EAT u
Δt 6 ΔL3 1 2 0 ≤ ΔL ≤ Δt
  2 2 u ∆t− 6 ∆L 3 0 ≤ ∆L ≤ ∆t
FF (( Δ ) =
∆L) =
L (7) (7)
 1  1 σ σy2y2AA Δt∆t
r

 
2EA 2EA
 Δ L − ∆L Δ t− 4
T ∆t Tu ∆tΔt≤≤ ∆L
ΔL ≤ ≤ ++
  4  u
2ET
2ETuu 4
4

whereE Eisisthe
where theelastic modulus,AAisisthe
elasticmodulus, thepipe
pipecross
crosssection area,TuTis
sectionarea, u is theslip
the slipfriction
frictionforce
forceononunit
unit
length of pipe, i.e., the peak axial soil resistant force of soil spring, ∆t
length of pipe, i.e., the peak axial soil resistant force of soil spring, ∆t is the in the axial direction, σyy is
is the in the axial direction, σ
is the
theyield
yieldstrength
strengthof ofpipe
pipematerial.
material.

D B O
F

Fault
Friction/

crossing
N·m-1

Elongation/m
k
∆L U0

F N1
B Tu C f(x) O
x L2 L1
Slippage Static
Friction Friction

D B

Equivalent
spring

Figure 4. Constitutive model for the equivalent boundary spring


Figure 4. Constitutive model for the equivalent boundary spring.

3.4. Validation of Proposed Model


3.4. Validation of Proposed Model
The full-scale experimental results for buried HDPE pipe subjected to strike-slip fault
The full-scale experimental results for buried HDPE pipe subjected to strike-slip fault movements
movements conducted by O’Rourke and a corresponding numerical model established by Xie et al.
conducted by O’Rourke and a corresponding numerical model established by Xie et al. were used
were used here to validate our established numerical model [11,18]. Material characteristics of HDPE
here to validate our established numerical model [11,18]. Material characteristics of HDPE material
material are similar with high-strength pipe strength, which has a roundhouse-type stress-strain
are similar with high-strength pipe strength, which has a roundhouse-type stress-strain curve but
curve but with a much smaller yield strength. The experimental pipe is a 10.56 m long pipe with 0.4
with a much smaller yield strength. The experimental pipe is a 10.56 m long pipe with 0.4 m diameter
m diameter and 0.0024 m wall thickness, and the fault trace is located at the axial center of the pipe ◦
and 0.0024 m wall thickness, and the fault trace is located at the axial center of the pipe with a 65
with a 65° intersection angle with the pipe axial axis. As the tested pipe is smaller than the steel pipes
mentioned in Section 3.2, dimensions of the pipe was revised to be the same as the experiment pipe.
The soil spring parameters in the validation model were also directly obtained from the experimental
Metals 2018, 8, 22 8 of 24

Metals 2018, 8, 22 8 of 25
intersection angle with the pipe axial axis. As the tested pipe is smaller than the steel pipes mentioned
in Section
results. 3.2, dimensions
Furthermore, as theoftest
the PE
pipe was
pipe revised
has smallerto pipe
be the same asthe
diameter, thepipe
experiment pipe. The
was re-meshed soil
into 48
spring parameters in the validation model were also directly obtained from the
elements in pipe’s circumferential direction, which is the same as Xie’s numerical model. The experimental results.
Furthermore, as the test
calculation process PEsame
is the pipe as
hasthe
smaller pipe diameter,
one described the pipe
in Section was re-meshed
3.2. Figure 5 shows into 48 elements
comparison in
results
pipe’s circumferential direction, which is the same as Xie’s numerical model. The calculation
of longitudinal and circumferential strains in the internal and external surfaces of the buckling section process is
the same
in the as the
pipe one 0.61
under described
m faultin Section 3.2. Figure
displacement. The 5results
showscontain
comparison results of numerical
the proposed longitudinal and
results
circumferential strains in the internal and external surfaces of the buckling section in
(Num-INT and Num EXT in Figure 5) and the numerical results derived by Xie et al. through a refined the pipe under
0.61 m fault
3D finite displacement.
element The results
model (Xie-INT and contain
Xie EXTthe proposed
in Figure numerical
5) [18] and theresults (Num-INT
measured and Num
results (measured
EXT in Figure
in Figure 5). 5) and the numerical results derived by Xie et al. through a refined 3D finite element
model (Xie-INT and Xie EXT in Figure 5) [18] and the measured results (measured in Figure 5).

2% 2%

0% 0%

Circumferential Strain
Longitudinal Strain

-2% -2%
Ref-INT Ref-INT
-4% Ref-EXT -4%
Ref-EXT
Num-INT Num-INT
-6% Num-EXT -6%
Num-EXT
Measured Measured
-8% -8%

-10% -10%
0° 45° 90° 135° 180° 225° 270° 315° 360° 0° 45° 90° 135° 180° 225° 270° 315° 360°
Circumferential position in buckling pipe section Circumferential position in buckling pipe section
(a) (b)
Figure5.5.Comparison
Figure Comparisonof ofstrain
straindistributions
distributionsat
atcross-section
cross-sectionwhere
wherebuckling
bucklingoccurs
occurs when
when δδ== 0.61
0.61 m.
m.
(a) Longitudinal strain distribution; (b) Circumferential strain distribution
(a) Longitudinal strain distribution; (b) Circumferential strain distribution.

It can be readily obtained that the maximum longitudinal compressive strain equals −8.5%
It can be readily obtained that the maximum longitudinal compressive strain equals −8.5%
numerically, locating at 0° position of the pipe section. While the maximum longitudinal tensile strain
numerically, locating at 0◦ position of the pipe section. While the maximum longitudinal tensile strain
is less than 1%, located at the opposite direction of the pipe. The circumferential strain values are
is less than 1%, located at the opposite direction of the pipe. The circumferential strain values are
much smaller than the longitudinal ones. This is mainly induced by the local buckling, which itself is
much smaller than the longitudinal ones. This is mainly induced by the local buckling, which itself is
induced by axial compression of pipe. Generally, it can be found that strain results of the presented
induced by axial compression of pipe. Generally, it can be found that strain results of the presented
numerical model matches quite well with measured experimental results and the numerical results
numerical model matches quite well with measured experimental results and the numerical results
derived by Xie et al. [18].
derived by Xie et al. [18].
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion

4.1.Baseline
4.1. BaselineAnalysis
Analysisfor
forthe
theLocal
LocalBuckling
BucklingFailure
FailureofofX80
X80Pipe
PipeSteel
Steel
Inthe
In thesection,
section,aabaseline
baselineanalysis
analysiswas waspresented
presentedfor forplastic
plasticbuckling
bucklingphenomenon
phenomenon of ofX80
X80pipe
pipe
subjected to a strike-slip fault with an intersection angle to be 150°.
◦ The
subjected to a strike-slip fault with an intersection angle to be 150 . The pipe diameter and wall pipe diameter and wall
thicknessare
thickness are1.219
1.219and
and0.0184
0.0184m,m,respectively.
respectively.The Theoperation
operationpressure
pressureof ofpipe
pipeisis12
12MPa.
MPa.The Thepipe
pipeisis
buried in cohesive soil with buried depth of 2 m. The internal friction angle
buried in cohesive soil with buried depth of 2 m. The internal friction angle of soil is 33 . of soil is 33°.

As one
As onelimit
limitstate
stateofofpipe,
pipe,local
localbuckling
bucklingdecreased
decreasedpipe pipebearing
bearingcapacity
capacityboth
bothlongitudinally
longitudinally
andcircumferentially.
and circumferentially.For Fornumerical
numericalinvestigation,
investigation,thethesection
sectionaxial
axialforce
forcein inthe
thebuckled
buckledareaareacan
canbebe
monitored for identification of onset of local buckling of pipe (Liu et al. [33,49]).
monitored for identification of onset of local buckling of pipe (Liu et al. [33,49]). The section axial The section axial
forceininthis
force thisstudy
studyrepresents
represents thethe local
local longitudinal
longitudinal internal
internal forceforce of pipe
of pipe segments
segments in theinbuckled
the buckled
area.
area. When its value decreases with the increasing of applied fault displacement,
When its value decreases with the increasing of applied fault displacement, the partial stiffness of pipe the partial stiffness
ofthis
in pipearea
in this
startsarea starts decreasing
decreasing representing
representing the initiating
the initiating of local buckling.
of local buckling. Relationship
Relationship of the
of the section
section
axial axial
force withforce
thewith
axialthe axial membrane
membrane stress of stress of the
the shell shell is
element element is as follows:
as follows:
SF = σ axialSSectionS 4 R (8)
SF = σaxial SSectionS4R (8)
where σaxial is the axial membrane stress of the shell element; SSectionS4R is the section area of the shell
element. As the pipe was discretized into 54 elements circumferentially, SSectionS4R = πDt/54.
Figure 6 shows the relationships of section axial force in buckled area SF and peak axial
compressive strain εaxial with fault displacement δ. If δ is relatively small, SF increases almost linearly
in the buckled area SFcrit and the relative critical fault displacement δcrit are 5500 KN and 0.465 m,
respectively. Compared with the trend of εaxial with δ, it can be found that before δ reaches δcrit, εaxial
increases gradually with the increase of δ; once δ reaches δcrit, εaxial exhibits an abrupt increase. The
critical axial compressive strain εcrit for the onset of local buckling can then be derived for the curve
Metals 2018, 8, 22
as −1.88%. 9 of 24
Figure 7 plots the contours of SF and εaxial in pipe with various fault displacements, as well as the
detail distribution of εaxial in buckled area. Results show that, distribution of SF have almost no
where σaxial is the axial membrane stress of the shell element; SSectionS4R is the section area of the shell
variations when δ increases from 0.182 m to the critical value 0.465 m. However, after that, a small
element. As the pipe was discretized into 54 elements circumferentially, SSectionS4R = πDt/54.
increase of δ (δ = 0.468 m) induces wavy distribution of SF with small amplitude in buckled area.
Figure 6 shows the relationships of section axial force in buckled area SF and peak axial
Immediately after this, an obvious bulging pattern occurs in the pipe as well as a much more severe
compressive strain εaxial with fault displacement δ. If δ is relatively small, SF increases almost linearly
wavy distribution of SF. Compared with the section axial force results, variations of axial strain in
with the δ. If δ > 0.2 m, gradient of SF decreases obviously until SF reaches its peak value, where it
the buckled area during this process are more obvious. At the critical fault displacement, an obvious
drops suddenly representing the local collapse behavior of pipe. The critical pipe section axial force
strain concentration appears in the buckled area. After that, during the post buckling stage, severe
in the buckled area SFcrit and the relative critical fault displacement δcrit are 5500 KN and 0.465 m,
wavy distribution of axial strain occurs when δ = 0.468 m, which quickly concentrates to one wave in
respectively. Compared with the trend of εaxial with δ, it can be found that before δ reaches δcrit ,
the center of the bucked area. Above all, results show that, when local buckling occurs, pipe loses its
εaxial increases gradually with the increase of δ; once δ reaches δcrit , εaxial exhibits an abrupt increase.
partial bearing capacity. The section axial force drops immediately after the onset of local buckling,
The critical axial compressive strain εcrit for the onset of local buckling can then be derived for the
with axial strain increasing abruptly induced by the large deformation.
curve as −1.88%.

-6000 -10%
SFcrit
Section axial force SF/kN

-8%
-4000

Axial strain εaxial


-6%
Section axial force
-2000 -4%
Axial strain

-2%
0 εcrit

0%

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 δcrit 0.5

Fault displacement δ/m


Figure
Figure 6.
6. Trends of section
Trends of section axial
axial force
force and
and axial
axial strain
strain in
in buckled
buckled area
area with
with fault
fault displacement.
displacement.

Figure 7 plots the contours of SF and εaxial in pipe with various fault displacements, as well as
the detail distribution of εaxial in buckled area. Results show that, distribution of SF have almost no
variations when δ increases from 0.182 m to the critical value 0.465 m. However, after that, a small
increase of δ (δ = 0.468 m) induces wavy distribution of SF with small amplitude in buckled area.
Immediately after this, an obvious bulging pattern occurs in the pipe as well as a much more severe
wavy distribution of SF. Compared with the section axial force results, variations of axial strain in
the buckled area during this process are more obvious. At the critical fault displacement, an obvious
strain concentration appears in the buckled area. After that, during the post buckling stage, severe
wavy distribution of axial strain occurs when δ = 0.468 m, which quickly concentrates to one wave in
the center of the bucked area. Above all, results show that, when local buckling occurs, pipe loses its
partial bearing capacity. The section axial force drops immediately after the onset of local buckling,
with axial strain increasing abruptly induced by the large deformation.
Metals 2018, 8, 22 10 of 24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 10 of 25

δ=0.182m

δ=0.465m

δ=0.468m

δ=0.469m

Axial strain εaxial


δ=0.182m
Section axial force SF

δ=0.465m

δ=0.468m

δ=0.469m

Figure Section
7. 7.
Figure Sectionaxial
axialforce
forceand
andaxial
axial strain
strain distribution inpipe
distribution in pipeatatvarious
variousfault
faultdisplacements.
displacements.

4.2.4.2. Effects
Effects of of Pipe-FaultIntersection
Pipe-Fault IntersectionAngle
Angle

WhenWhen pipes
pipes crossingcompression
crossing compressionstrike-slip
strike-slip faults
faults with
withpipe-fault
pipe-faultintersection
intersectionangle
anglelarger than
larger than
90°,
◦ they are subjected to combined compression and bending load induced by the
90 , they are subjected to combined compression and bending load induced by the axial and lateral axial and lateral
soil displacement components. With a large intersection angle (i.e., 175°), the pipe is subjected to
soil displacement components. With a large intersection angle (i.e., 175◦ ), the pipe is subjected to
severe axial compression and relatively small bending. While with a small intersection angle (i.e.,
severe axial compression and relatively small bending. While with a small intersection angle (i.e.,
105°), the pipe is subjected to severe bending and relatively small axial compression.
105◦ ), the pipe is subjected to severe bending and relatively small axial compression.
In this section, five typical intersection angles, i.e., 105°, 120°, 135°, 150°, 175°, are considered to
In this section, five typical intersection angles, i.e., 105◦ , 120◦ , 135◦ , 150◦ , 175◦ , are considered to
investigate their effects on critical fault displacement and critical axial compressive strain for local
investigate their effects on critical fault displacement and critical axial compressive strain for local
buckling, as shown in Figure 8. When δ is smaller than 0.45 m, trends of SF with δ are quite similar
buckling, as
for the cases shown in Figureintersection
with different 8. When δ angles.
is smaller
Whenthan 0.45 m,0.4612
δ reaches trendsm, SFfor
ofSF with are quitethat
theδcondition similar
β
for=the cases with different intersection angles. When
135° first drops, representing the local buckling of pipe. δ reaches 0.4612 m, SF for the condition that
β = 135◦ first drops, representing the local buckling of pipe.
Metals 2018, 8, 22 11 of 24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 11 of 25
Metals 2018, 8, 22 11 of 25

-6000
-6000

SF/kN
forceSF/kN
-4000
-4000

axialforce
β=175°
-2000 β=175°
-2000 β=150°

Sectionaxial
β=150°
β=135°
0 β=135°
0 β=120°
Section
β=120°
β=105°
2000 β=105°
2000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Fault displacement δ/m
Fault displacement δ/m
Figure 8. Relationship between section axial force and fault displacement at different intersection angles.
Relationshipbetween
Figure8.8.Relationship
Figure betweensection
sectionaxial
axialforce
forceand
and fault
fault displacement
displacement at
at different
different intersection
intersection angles.
angles.

Relationships between the critical fault displacements δcrit and pipe fault intersection angles β
Relationships
Relationships between
between the critical fault displacements δδcrit and pipe fault
fault intersection angles ββ
are also illustrated in Figure the 9. Itcritical
can befault displacements
derived crit and pipe
that for compression strike-slipintersection
fault, if β < angles
135° δcrit
are
are also
also illustrated
illustrated ininFigure
Figure 9.9.It Itcan
canbebederived
derived that
thatforforcompression
compression strike-slip fault,
strike-slip if βif< β135°
fault, δcrit◦
< 135
decreases with β, else δcrit increases with β. Thus, when pipe fault intersection angle equals 135°, the
decreases withwith
δcrit decreases β, else δelse
crit increases
δcrit increaseswith with
β. Thus, whenwhen
β. isThus, pipe pipe
faultfault
intersection angleangle
equals the◦
135°,135
pipe is more likely β, be
to buckled and fail. This mainly because whenintersection equals
pipe fault intersection angle,
pipe is more
the pipe likelylikely
is more to betobuckled
be effect
buckled and fail. This
fail. is mainly because when when
pipe fault
pipeintersection angle
equals 135°, the combined of and
bending This is mainly
induced because
by lateral fault intersection
fault displacement δscosβ and
equals 135°,
angle equals 135 the ◦ combined
, the bycombined effect of
effectbending induced by lateral fault displacement δ cosβ and
faultofdisplacement
bending induced δssinβbyislateral fault displacement δs cosβ and
s
compression induced the axial the severest, which makes the pipe
compression
compression induced
induced by
by the
the axial
axial fault
fault displacement
displacement δ s δ sinβ
sinβ
s is is
the the severest,
severest, which
which makesmakes
the the
pipe pipe
more
more likely to be buckled.
more
likelylikely to be buckled.
to be buckled.
0.7
/m

0.7
/m
δcrit
displacementδcrit

0.6
0.6
faultdisplacement

0.5
0.5

0.4
0.4
Criticalfault

0.3
0.3
Critical

0.2
0.290 105 120 135 150 165 180
90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Pipe fault intersection angle β/°
Pipe fault intersection angle β/°
Figure 9. Relationships of the critical fault displacement and the intersection angle.
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Relationships
Relationshipsof
ofthe
the critical
critical fault
fault displacement
displacement and
and the
the intersection
intersection angle.
angle.
The critical axial compressive strain εaxial for the five cases were captured and compared with the
The critical axial compressive strain εaxial for the five cases were captured and compared with the
The critical
commonly used axial
failurecompressive strain ε in Section
criteria introduced for the five
2. Itcases
should were captured and
be mentioned compared
that withpipe
as a perfect the
commonly used failure criteria introducedaxial in Section 2. It should be mentioned that as a perfect pipe
commonly
was used inused failure models
numerical criteria introduced in Section
in this study, the height2. Itofshould be mentioned
the geometry that as awas
imperfection perfect pipe
set to be
was used in numerical models in this study, the height of the geometry imperfection was set to be
was used
1%t, in numerical
a minimum valuemodels in this study,
recommended the height
by CRES (Liu et ofal.
the[42])
geometry imperfection
to calculate was compressive
the critical set to be 1%t,
1%t, a minimum value recommended by CRES (Liu et al. [42]) to calculate the critical compressive
a minimum
strain values.value recommended
As shown in Figureby 10,CRES (Liu et al.
the derived [42]) strain
critical to calculate
valuesthearecritical
all nearcompressive
2%, with a strain
small
strain values. As shown in Figure 10, the derived critical strain values are all near 2%, with a small
values. As shown in Figure 10, the derived critical strain values are all near 2%,
variation when the intersection angle changes. While for all the three models in Section 2 only with a small variation
variation when the intersection angle changes. While for all the three models in Section 2 only
when the effects
consider intersection
of theangle
pipechanges.
geometry While for all the
parameters andthree models pressures
operation in Section on
2 only
εaxialconsider effects of
, their calculated
consider effects of the pipe geometry parameters and operation pressures on εaxial, their calculated
the pipestrain
critical geometry
resultsparameters andsame
will keep the operation pressures
for these on εaxial
cases with , theirintersection
various calculated critical
angles.strain results
critical strain results will keep the same for these cases with various intersection angles.
will keep the same for these cases with various intersection angles.
Metals 2018, 8, 22 12 of 24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 12 of 25

-3.5%
Metals 2018, 8, 22 12 of 25
Proposed FEM
-3.0% CRES-GB 50470

εcrit
-3.5% UOA
-2.5% Proposed
CSA Z662 FEM

axial εstrain
-3.0% CRES-GB 50470

crit
UOA
-2.0%
-2.5% CSA Z662

axial strain
-1.5%
-2.0%

CriticalCritical
-1.0%
-1.5%
-0.5%
-1.0% 105 120 135 150 165 180
Pipe fault intersection angle β/°
-0.5%
Figure 10. Relationships of105 120 compressive
the critical 135 150
strain 165
and the180
intersection angles.
Figure 10. Relationships of thePipe
critical compressive
fault strain
intersection andβ/°
angle the intersection angles.

It can be further observed that for the three considered models, the CSA Z662 model results are
Figure 10. Relationships of the critical compressive strain and the intersection angles.
It can be
mostly further observed
conservative, which isthat for less
almost the than
threehalf
considered models,
of the results of thetheUOA CSA Z662
model, model results
CRES-GB 50470 are
mostly conservative,
model It can be further observed that for the three considered models, the CSA Z662 model results are50470
and FE which
model. The is
UOAalmostmodelless than
results half
are of
larger the results
than derivedof the
FE UOA
model model,
results, CRES-GB
representing
model un-conservative
mostlyFE
and model. prediction
conservative, The UOA
which of
is pipe’s
almoststrain
model capacity
results
less than are inthe
halflarger
of actual
than loading
resultsderived
of theconditions,
FE model
UOA which
model, mayrepresenting
results,
CRES-GB limit
50470its
application.
un-conservative As for
model and FEprediction the
model. Theof CRES-GB
UOA pipe’s
model50470
strain model,
capacity
results its
are larger results
in than
actual are a little
loading
derived conservative
conditions,
FE model and
results,which in good
may limit
representing
agreement with the
un-conservative FE model
prediction results.strain capacity in actual loading conditions, which may limit its
of pipe’s
its application. As for the CRES-GB 50470 model, its results are a little conservative and in good
The postAs
application. bucklingthebehaviors
for model CRES-GB of pipelines with different fault pipe intersection angle cases from
agreement with the FE results.50470 model, its results are a little conservative and in good
aagreement
lateral view are also
with the FE illustrated in
model results. Figure 11. Pipe buckles in a similar shape, with a main wrinkling
The post buckling
(elephant’s
behaviors of pipelines with different faultInpipe intersection angle of
cases from a
The post buckling behaviors offault
foot buckling) near the trace with
pipelines for alldifferent
conditions.
fault pipeaddition, with increase
intersection angle cases β,from
the
lateral view
buckled are also
position illustrated in Figure 11. Pipe buckles in a similar shape, with a main wrinkling
a lateral view are becomes a littlein
also illustrated further
Figureaway from
11. Pipe the fault
buckles in atrace. This
similar is mainly
shape, with because a smaller
a main wrinkling
(elephant’s
β inducesfoota buckling)
larger bending nearin the
pipe. fault trace for all conditions. In addition, with increase of β, the
(elephant’s foot buckling) near the fault trace for all conditions. In addition, with increase of β, the
buckled position
buckled becomes
position becomes a little further
a little furtheraway
awayfromfromthe thefault
fault trace. Thisisismainly
trace. This mainlybecause
because a smaller β
a smaller
induces a larger bending in pipe.
β induces a larger bending in pipe.
2.907m

2.599m
2.907m
2.526m
2.599m
1.703m
2.526m
1.351m
1.703m

1.351m

Figure 11. Post buckling behavior (axial strain contour) of pipeline at various intersection angles.

4.3. Effects of Pipe Operation Pressure


FigureFigure 11. Post
11. Post buckling
buckling behavior(axial
behavior (axialstrain
strain contour)
contour) of
ofpipeline
pipelineatat
various
variousintersection angles.
intersection angles.
Pipe operation pressure is a typical working parameters for oil and gas pipelines in services
4.3. Effects
[55,56]. of Pipe
Effects of Operation
operationPressure
pressure on pipe’s mechanical behaviors are investigated in this section.
4.3. Effects of Pipe Operation Pressure
Six values
Pipe operation pressure is0,a 4,typical
are considered, i.e., 6, 8, 10, 12 MPa,
working in which 12
parameters forMPa is the
oil and gasdesigned
pipelinespressure for
in services
Pipe
commonoperation pressure
high-strength is a
naturaltypical
gas working
pipelines parameters
[21]. Figure for
12 oil and
illustratesgas pipelines
trends of
[55,56]. Effects of operation pressure on pipe’s mechanical behaviors are investigated in this section.SFin services
with δ [55,56].
with
various
Effects pipe
Sixofvalues
operation operation pressures.
pressure on
are considered, pipe’s
i.e., The section
mechanical
0, 4, 6, axial forces
behaviors
8, 10, 12 MPa, for smaller operation
are12investigated
in which pressures are
in this section.
MPa is the designed larger.
pressureSixfor
values
are considered, i.e., 0, 4, 6,natural
common high-strength 8, 10, 12
gasMPa, in which
pipelines 12 MPa
[21]. Figure 12 is the designed
illustrates trends pressure
of SF withfor common
δ with
various pipe operation pressures. The section axial forces for smaller operation pressures are
high-strength natural gas pipelines [21]. Figure 12 illustrates trends of SF with δ with various pipe larger.
operation pressures. The section axial forces for smaller operation pressures are larger. This variation
Metals 2018, 8, 22 13 of 24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 13 of 25
Metals 2018, 8, 22 13 of 25
This variation
becomes becomes
more obvious more
with obvious
increase withdisplacement.
of fault increase of faultWhendisplacement. When the
the operation pressure P isoperation
12 MPa,
pressure
This
SF reaches Pits
is peak
variation 12becomes
MPa,
valueSFmore
reaches
(the itsofpeak
obvious
onset value
with
local (the onset
increase
buckling) of local
of fault
with the buckling)
displacement.
smallest with
When
fault displacementthethe
smallest
(0.472fault
operation
m).
displacement
pressure (0.472
P isgenerally,
In addition, m).
12 MPa, SF In addition,
thereaches generally,
its peak
critical fault the critical
value (the δonset
displacement fault displacement
of local buckling)
crit decreases δ decreases
with theofsmallest
with the increasecrit with the
P, exceptfault
the
increase ofthat
displacement
conditions P,(0.472
except
P = 0m). the
MPa,In conditions
addition,
as inthat
shown generally, P = 13.
Figure 0the
MPa, as shown
critical
This in Figure
fault displacement
phenomenon is induced13.δcrit
This thephenomenon
bydecreases theis
withpipe
different
induced of
increase
buckling by theexcept
P,
shape different
when the pipe buckling
conditions
considered that
pipeshape
P when
0 MPa,the asconsidered
is =unpressurized, shown pipe
in Figure
because is unpressurized,
13. Thispipe
a pressurized hasbecause
phenomenonstrongerisa
pressurized
induced by the
anti-collapse pipe has stronger
different
capacity thanpipe anti-collapse
buckling
non-pressurized shapecapacity
when
pipe than
the non-pressurized
considered
circumferentially, pipe pipe hoop
as anisinitial circumferentially,
unpressurized, stressbecause as
exists ina
an initial hoop
pressurized pipestress
pipes,has exists
stronger
which in pressurized
makes anti-collapse
the bulging pipes,
typewhich
capacity thanmakes theoccur.
bulging type
non-pressurized
of deformation pipe of deformation occur.
circumferentially, as
an initial hoop stress exists in pressurized pipes, which makes the bulging type of deformation occur.

Figure 12. Relationship


Figure betweenbetween
12. Relationship section axial forceaxial
section and fault
forcedisplacement with different with
and fault displacement operation pressure.
different
Figure 12. Relationship
operation pressure. between section axial force and fault displacement with different operation pressure.
δcritδ/m /m

0.7
crit

0.7
displacement

0.6
displacement

0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
fault

0.4
fault

0.3
Critical

0.3
Critical

0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.2
0 Pipe2 operation
4 6pressure
8 10
P/MPa12
Pipe operation pressure P/MPa
Figure 13. Relationships of the critical fault displacements with the operation pressure.
Relationships of the critical fault displacements with the operation pressure.
Figure 13. Relationships
The critical axial compressive strains with different operation pressured derived from numerical
analysis
The were also
The critical
critical compared
axial
axial compressive
compressivewithstrains
the analytical
strains with models.
with different
different A general
operation
operation increasing
pressured
pressured trendfrom
derived
derived fromnumerical
from about 1%
numerical
to 2%
analysis can
analysis were be found
were also for all the
compared with
also compared results
with the except those of CSA
analytical models.
the analytical models. AZ662 model.
A general As
general increasing concluded
increasing trend in
trend from the previous
from about
about 1%
1%
section,
to 2% canCSA
be Z662
found model
for all provides
the resultsquite
exceptconservative
those of results.
CSA Z662 In addition,
model. As both
concluded
to 2% can be found for all the results except those of CSA Z662 model. As concluded in the previous UOA inmodel
the and
previousthe
CRES
section, model
CSA predicts
Z662 model rather good
provides results
quite when operation
conservative results. pressure
In P
addition,
section, CSA Z662 model provides quite conservative results. In addition, both UOA model andis no
both more
UOA than
model 10
and MPa.
the
Comparing
CRES
the CRESmodel Figure
model 14 rather
predicts
predictswith Figure
good
rather 13,
good a valuable
results when
results when conclusion
operation
operation can
pressurebe drawn,
pressure P Pisisno although
no more
morethan the 10
than pipe has
10 MPa.
MPa.
higher compressive14strain
Comparing capacity13,with a higher conclusion
operation pressure, but it is also more like tohas
fail
Comparing FigureFigures 14withwithFigure a valuable
13, a valuable conclusion can be can be drawn,
drawn, although although
the pipe thehaspipe
higher
due to compressive
higher local buckling. strain capacity with a higher operation pressure, but it is also more like to fail
compressive strain capacity with a higher operation pressure, but it is also more like to fail due to
due
localtobuckling.
local buckling.
Metals 2018, 8, 22 14 of 24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 14 of 25

-3.0%
Metals 2018, 8, 22 14 of 25
-2.5% Proposed FEM

Critical axial strain εcrit


-3.0% CRES
-2.0% UOA
-2.5% Proposed FEM
CSA Z662

Critical axial strain εcrit


CRES
-1.5%
-2.0% UOA
CSA Z662
-1.0%
-1.5%

-0.5%
-1.0%

0.0%
-0.5%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.0% Pipe operation pressure P/MPa
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure
Figure 14.
14. Relationships
Relationships of thePipe
of the operation
critical
critical pressure
compressive
compressive P/MPa
strains
strains with
with the
the operation pressure.
operation pressure.
Figure 14. Relationships of the critical compressive strains with the operation pressure.
The post-buckling deformation as well as the axial strain distribution of pipe with different
The post-buckling deformation as well as the axial strain distribution of pipe with different
operationThepressures were deformation
post-buckling plotted in Figure
as well15. With
as the an strain
axial increase of operation
distribution pressure,
of pipe the failure
with different
operation pressures were plotted in Figure 15. With an increase of operation pressure, the failure
position is located
operation a little
pressures werenearer
plottedthe fault trace
in Figure generally.
15. With When
an increase P is larger
of operation than 6 the
pressure, MPa, the pipe
failure
position is located
position is a little
located a nearer
little the fault
nearer the trace
fault generally.
trace When
generally. WhenP isPlarger
is than
larger 6 MPa,
than 6 thethe
MPa, pipe buckles
pipe
buckles with almost a same shape of elephant’s foot buckling. When P is 4 MPa, the pipe also
withbuckles
almost a same shape of elephant’s foot buckling. When P Whenis 4 MPa, the pipethe
also performs an
performs anwith almost
elephant’s a same
foot shape but
buckling of elephant’s
with a morefoot abrupt
buckling.
local bulge.P isWhen
4 MPa, P is 0 pipe
MPa,also
the pipe
elephant’s
performsfoot
an buckling
elephant’s but
footwith a more
buckling butabrupt
with a local
more bulge.
abrupt When
local P is 0When
bulge. MPa,Ptheis 0pipe
MPa, exhibits
the pipesevere
exhibits severe inward and outward deformation, also commonly known as “diamond buckling”.
inward and severe
exhibits outward deformation,
inward and outward also commonlyalso
deformation, known as “diamond
commonly known as buckling”.
“diamond buckling”.

4.552m
4.552m

2.761m
2.761m

3.201m
3.201m

2.144m
2.144m
2.805m
2.805m
1.630m
1.630m

Figure
Figure 15. 15.
PostPost buckling
buckling behavior(axial
behavior (axial strain
strain contour)
contour)ofofpipeline with
pipeline different
with operation
different pressure.
operation pressure.

Figure
4.4. 15. of
Effects Post
Pipebuckling behavior (axial strain contour) of pipeline with different operation pressure.
Wall Thickness
4.4. Effects of Pipe Wall Thickness
Due to various safety factors used in the design of pipelines for different regions, different pipe
4.4. Effects
wall toofvarious
Pipe Wall
Duethicknesses Thickness
safety
will factors
appear for used
pipes in thethe
with design
sameof pipelines
outer for In
diameter. different regions,
this section, five different
common pipe
wall values
thicknesses
Due willsafety
toofvarious appear
X80 pipeline, i.e., for pipes
18.4,
factors 19.1, with
used22.0, the
26.4,
in the same
27.5
design ofouter
mm, were diameter.
included
pipelines toIn this regions,
section,
investigate
for different effectsfive common
of pipe
different pipe
values of
wall X80 pipeline,
thickness on thei.e.,
local18.4, 19.1,
buckling 22.0, 26.4,
behavior 27.5
for X80 mm,
pipe.were included
Figure 16 to investigate
illustrates
wall thicknesses will appear for pipes with the same outer diameter. In this section, five common trends of effects
SF with of
δ pipe
wall for pipes with
thickness on different
the local pipe wall thicknesses. As aX80
larger wallFigure
thickness induces a larger pipe stiffness,
SF with
values of X80 pipeline, i.e.,buckling
18.4, 19.1,behavior for
22.0, 26.4, pipe.
27.5 mm, 16 illustrates
were included trends
to investigate ofeffects δ for
of pipe
pipesthe pipe
with with
differenta larger
pipe wallpipe wall thickness
thicknesses. As a has
largera larger
wall section
thickness axial
induces force
a at the
larger same
pipe fault the
stiffness,
wall thickness on the local buckling behavior for X80 pipe. Figure 16 illustrates trends of SF with δ
pipe displacement.
withwith
a larger When δ reaches
pipe pipe
wall 0.47 m,has
thickness theathinnest
larger pipe (t =axial
section 18.4 force
mm) first buckled
atinduces
the same with
faultadisplacement.
smallest
for pipes different wall thicknesses. As a larger wall thickness a larger pipe stiffness,
the pipe with a larger pipe wall thickness has a larger section axial force at the same fault
displacement. When δ reaches 0.47 m, the thinnest pipe (t = 18.4 mm) first buckled with a smallest
Metals 2018, 8, 22 15 of 24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 15 of 25
Metals 2018, 8, 22 15 of 25
When
criticalδ reaches
section 0.47 axialm,force
the thinnest
SFcrit. Inpipe (t = 18.4
addition, with mm) first
the buckledofwith
increase a smallest
t, δcrit and SFcrit critical
bothsection axial
increase. A
force SF crit
detailedsection
critical . In addition,
relationship with
between
axial force the increase
SFcritδ.critInand of t,
t is plotted
addition, with δ crit and
inthe
FigureSF crit both increase.
17, showing
increase of t, δcritδand A detailed
crit almost
relationship
SFcrit increases linearly
both increase. A
between
detailed crit and tof
δincrease
with therelationship is t,
plotted
whichinisδFigure
between inand
crit good17, showing
plotted inδcrit
t isagreement of almost
the
Figure 17,increases
theory resultslinearly
showing δfor with
critical
crit almost
the increase
buckling
increases of t,
stresses
linearly
which
of axial
with is in good
thecompressed agreement
increase of t,steel of the
cylinders
which is in good theory results
as follows: for critical buckling stresses of
agreement of the theory results for critical buckling stressesaxial compressed steel
cylinders as follows:
of axial compressed steel cylinders as follows: 2Et
= K 2Et
σσcrit
c r it
= K2 EDt (9)
(9)
σ c r it = K D (9)
D
where crit is
where σσcrit is the
the critical
critical buckling
buckling stress,stress, E E is
is the
the elastic
elastic modulus,
modulus, K K is
is the
the coefficient.
coefficient.
where σcrit is the critical buckling stress, E is the elastic modulus, K is the coefficient.

Figure 16. Relationship


Figure between
16. Relationship sectionsection
between axial force and
axial faultand
force displacement with different
fault displacement withpipe wall thickness.
different pipe
wall
Figure 16.thickness.
Relationship between section axial force and fault displacement with different pipe wall thickness.
δcritδ/m /m

1.0
crit

1.0
displacement

0.8
displacement

0.8

0.6
0.6
fault

0.4
fault

0.4
Critical
Critical

0.2
18 20 22 24 26 28
0.2
18 20 22 24 26 28
Pipe wall thicknes t/mm
Pipe wall thicknes t/mm
Figure 17. Relationships of the critical fault displacements with the pipe wall thickness.
Figure 17. Relationships of the critical fault displacements with the pipe wall thickness.
Figure 17. Relationships of the critical fault displacements with the pipe wall thickness.
Results of the critical compressive strains of various pipe wall thicknesses derived by different
methods areoffurther
Results compared
the critical in Figure
compressive 18. With
strains increase
of various of t,wall
pipe critical compressive
thicknesses derived strains increase
by different
Results
methods are of
monotonically. the
CSA
further critical compressive
Z662 model
compared Figurestrains
inpredicted of various
18.results
With are alsopipe
increase of t,wall
quite thicknesses
conservative.
critical Ifderived
compressivet > 22 mm,by the
strains different
UOA
increase
methods
model are further
results has compared
better in
agreement Figure
with 18.
the With increase
proposed of t,
numerical critical compressive
results. While
monotonically. CSA Z662 model predicted results are also quite conservative. If t > 22 mm, the UOA if tstrains
≤ 19.1 increase
mm, the
monotonically.
CRES-GB
model 50470
results CSA
hasmodelZ662
betterhas model predicted
better agreement
agreement results
with thewith are also quite
the proposed
proposed numerical conservative.
numerical If
results.results.t > 22
While However, mm,
if t ≤ 19.1 mm, the UOA
it should
the
model
also be results
CRES-GB noted
50470 has
that, inbetter
model has agreement
generally,
betterboth with
the
agreementUOA the proposed
model
with and the
the proposednumerical
CRES-GB
numerical results.
50470 While
model
results. have
However, ≤ it19.1
if t rather mm,
good
should
the
also CRES-GB
prediction
be noted 50470
results
that, model
a largehas
forgenerally,
in better
range
both of agreement
thepipe
UOA wall with
thickness.
model the CRES-GB
and the proposed50470 numerical
modelresults.
have rather However,
good
it should also be noted that, in generally, both the
prediction results for a large range of pipe wall thickness. UOA model and the CRES-GB 50470 model have
rather good prediction results for a large range of pipe wall thickness.
Metals 2018, 8, 22 16 of 24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 16 of 25
Metals 2018, 8, 22 16 of 25
-4%
-4% Proposed FEM
CRES-GB
Proposed 50470
FEM

εcritεcrit
-3% UOA
CRES-GB 50470
CSA
UOAZ662

strain
-3%
CSA Z662

strain
-2%

axial
-2%

Critical axial
Critical -1%
-1%

0%
18 20 22 24 26 28
0%
18 20
Pipe 22 thickness
wall 24 26
t/mm 28
Pipe wall thickness t/mm
Figure 18. Relationships of the critical compressive strains with the pipe wall thickness.
Figure 18. Relationships of the critical compressive strains with the pipe wall thickness.
Figure 18. Relationships of the critical compressive strains with the pipe wall thickness.
Figure 19 illustrates the post buckling results for pipes with different pipe wall thickness. For
Figure 19with
Figure
the pipes illustrates the the
19 illustrates
t ≤ 22 mm, post buckling
onepost buckling
wrinkle results
near forforpipes
results
the fault pipes
trace with
withdifferent
occurs different
after pipe
pipe
strain wall thickness.
thickness.
concentration For the
For
induced
pipesbywith
thelocal
pipes≤with
t buckling.
22 mm, 22one
t ≤ For thewrinkle
mm, pipe withnear
one wrinkle the mm,
t ≥ 26.4
near fault trace
two
the fault occurs
wrinkles
trace after
will
occurs firststrain
after concentration
appear
strain in the pipe after
concentration induced
local by
induced
by local buckling.
local buckling,
buckling. and Forpipe
Forfinally
the the pipe
withwith
concentratet≥tot26.4
≥ 26.4
the mm,two
major
mm, twowrinkles
wrinkle.wrinkles will
The local first
firstappear
willfailure in the
position
appear pipepipe
inis the after
located local local
further
after
buckling,
away
buckling, fromand
and the finally
fault
finally concentrate
trace toto
with the
concentrate themajor
increase
the major wrinkle.
of pipe The
Thelocal
localfailure
wall thickness.
wrinkle. failureposition is located
position further
is located further
away from the fault trace with the increase of pipe wall
away from the fault trace with the increase of pipe wall thickness. thickness.

1.571m
1.571m
3.031m
3.031m
3.014m
3.014m
3.146m
3.146m
3.327m
3.327m

Figure 19. Post buckling behavior (axial strain contour) of pipeline with different wall thickness.
Figure 19. Post buckling behavior (axial strain contour) of pipeline with different wall thickness.
Figure
4.5. Effects19. PostParameters
of Soil buckling behavior (axial strain contour) of pipeline with different wall thickness.
4.5. Effects of Soil Parameters
Buried pipelines are surrounded with soil. Constraints of soil on a pipe are directly related to
4.5. Effects of Soil Parameters
Buried
the soil pipelines
parameters as are surrounded
internal friction with
angle,soil. Constraints
cohesion, of soil
effective unitonweight
a pipeasare directly
well as therelated to
pipe soil
Buried
friction pipelines according
the soil coefficient
parameters are surrounded
as internal with
to friction
ASCE-ALA soil.
angle, Constraints
cohesion,
Guideline of unit
effective
[39]. In this soil on afive
weight
section, pipe are as
directly
asdifferent
well ofrelated
the pipe
kinds soil to
clay
friction
the soil coefficient
parameters asaccording to ASCE-ALA
internal friction angle,Guideline
cohesion,[39]. In this section,
effective five different
unit weight as wellkinds of pipe
as the clay soil
friction coefficient according to ASCE-ALA Guideline [39]. In this section, five different kinds of clay
with various parameters listed in Table 1 were considered to investigate the effects of soil constraints.
The soil performed harder and has a larger resistance from Soil A to Soil E in sequence.
Metals 2018, 8, 22 17 of 25
Metals 2018, 8, 22 17 of 25
with various parameters listed in Table 1 were considered to investigate the effects of soil constraints.
Metals 2018, 8, 22parameters listed in Table 1 were considered to investigate the effects of soil constraints.
with various 17 of 24
The soil performed harder and has a larger resistance from Soil A to Soil E in sequence.
The soil performed harder and has a larger resistance from Soil A to Soil E in sequence.
Table 1. Soil
Table 1. parameters of different
Soil parameters types of
of different soil sites
types in numerical
of soil investigation
sites in numerical used for pipe
investigation usedsoil
forinteraction.
pipe
Table 1. Soil parameters of different types of soil sites in numerical investigation used for pipe soil interaction.
soil interaction. Internal Friction Cohesion c Effective Unit Weight Pipe-Soil Friction
Soil Sites Type Internal Friction Cohesion
Soil Sites Type Angle ψ (°) (kPa) c Effective
of SoilUnit Weight
γ (kN/m 3) Pipe-Soil Friction
Coefficient f
Internal
Angle Friction Cohesion c Effective
of SoilUnit Weight Pipe-Soil Frictionf
30ψ (°) (kPa) γ22(kN/m 3) Coefficient
Soil Sites
Soil A Type 30 0.6 f
Angle ψ (◦ ) (kPa) of Soil γ (kN/m3 ) Coefficient
Soil
SoilAB 30
30 30
40 22
22 0.6
0.6
Soil A 30 30 22 0.6
Soil
Soil B
CB 30
33 40
50 22
22 0.6
Soil 30 40 22 0.6 0.6
Soil
Soil C
DC
Soil 33
33
33 50
60
50 22
22
22 0.60.6
0.6
Soil
Soil D
ED
Soil 33
33
33 60
70
60 22
22
22 0.60.6
0.6
Soil
Soil EE 33
33 70 22
22 0.60.6
Figure 20 shows the trends of section axial force SF in the buckled area with fault displacement
Figure 20
δ in Figure
various 20 shows
soil
showstypes.the
the trends
When
trends <of0.05
δ of section
m, the
section axial
axial five force
force SFinin
curves
SF arethe
the buckled
almost
buckled the area
same.
area with
with fault
After
fault =displacement
δdisplacement
0.1 m, SF for δ
δ in
pipe
in various
buried
various soil types.
soilintypes.
Soil EWhen When δ
is the δlargest< 0.05
< 0.05 one, m,
m, the the
andfive five
it first curves
curves drops are almost
when δthe
are almost the
reaches same.
same.0.39 After
m.δ The
After δ =
m, SFm,
0.1 forSFpipe
= 0.1relationships for
of
pipe
buried buried
the critical
in SoilinESoil
fault E islargest
the the largest
isdisplacements one, one, itand
derived
and from
firstit drops
first drops
Figure 20 when
when with δ reaches
the
δ reaches soil
0.39 0.39
type m.further
m. are
The The relationships
illustrated
relationships of
of thein
the critical
Figure 21, fault
which displacements
shows that derived
a harder fromsoil Figure 20
stiffness with the
induces soil
a type are
relatively
critical fault displacements derived from Figure 20 with the soil type are further illustrated in Figure 21, further
smaller illustrated
critical in
fault
Figure
which 21, which
displacement.
shows Thus,
that a shows
harder that
pipessoil a harder
crossing active
stiffness soil
faults
induces stiffness
locatinginduces
a relatively hard
smaller a critical
soil relatively
faultsmaller
sites have higher criticalrisk
failure
displacement. fault
Thus,of
displacement.
plastic local Thus,
buckling. pipes crossing active faults locating hard soil sites
pipes crossing active faults locating hard soil sites have higher failure risk of plastic local buckling.have higher failure risk of
plastic local buckling.
-6000
-6000
SF/kN

-4000
SF/kN

-4000
force
force

-2000 Soil A
-2000 Soil AB
Soil
axial

Soil BC
Soil
axial

0 Soil C
Soil D
Section

0 Soil D
Soil E
Section

Soil E
2000
20000.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0.0 0.1 0.2
Fault 0.3 0.4 0.5
displacement δ/m 0.6 0.7
Fault displacement δ/m
Figure20.20.
Figure Relationship
Relationship between
between sectionsection axial
axial force andforce and fault displacement
fault displacement with
with different different
soil parameters.
Figure 20. Relationship
soil parameters. between section axial force and fault displacement with different soil parameters.
/m

0.7
δcritδ/m
crit

0.7
displacement

0.6
displacement

0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
fault

0.4
fault

0.3
higher soil stiffness
Critical

0.3
higher soil stiffness
Critical

0.2
0.2 Soil A Soil B Soil C Soil D Soil E
Soil A Soil B Soil C Soil D Soil E
Soil type
Soil type
Figure 21. Relationships of the critical fault displacements with different soil parameters.
Figure 21.
Figure 21. Relationships
Relationships of
of the
the critical
critical fault
fault displacements
displacements with
with different
different soil
soil parameters.
parameters.
Metals 2018, 8, 22 18 of 24

Metals 2018, 8, 22 18 of 25
The critical compressive strains derived by the presented model for different soil conditions are
Metals 2018, 8, 22 18 of 25
plotted in TheFigure 22, compressive
critical comparing with strainscommon
derived failure criteria based
by the presented model onfor
the case parameters.
different Theare
soil conditions results
of theplotted
CSAThe Z662 model,
incritical
Figure 22,UOA model
comparing
compressive and
with
strains CRES-GB
common
derived 50470
failure
by the model
criteria
presented are all
based
model foronconstants,
the casesoil
different similar to Figure
parameters.
conditions are 10,
The
results
because theofin
plotted the CSA 22,
presented
Figure Z662 model,
critical UOA
withmodel
compressive
comparing common and failure
strain CRES-GB
prediction 50470
criteria model
models
based are
onaretheall
allconstants,
based
case onsimilar
pipe’s
parameters. topure
The
Figure
bending 10,
test,
results because
of which
the the
CSAcannot
Z662presented
consider
model, critical
UOA the compressive
influences
model strain
of
and CRES-GB prediction
external models
50470 environment
model are allare all based
loads on pipe’s
encountered
constants, similar to by
pure
Figure bending
10, test,
because which
the cannot
presented consider
critical the influences
compressive of
strain external
predictionenvironment
models
actual pipes in field. In addition, similar to the conclusions derived in the previous sections, the CSA are loads
all encountered
based on pipe’s
by
pure actual pipestest,
bending in field.
which Incannot
addition, similar
consider toinfluences
the the conclusions derived
of external in the previous
environment sections, the
loadsmodel
encountered
model predicts rather conservative results. The UOA model and CRES-GB50470 both have
CSA model
by actual predicts
pipes rather
in field. conservative
In addition, results.
similar to theThe UOA model
conclusions and in
derived CRES-GB50470 model both
the previous sections, the
a good prediction, but the UOA model result is a little un-conservative. Furthermore, although εcrit
have
CSA amodel
good predicts
prediction, but the
rather UOA model
conservative resultThe
results. is a UOA
little un-conservative. Furthermore,
model and CRES-GB50470 although
model both
derived
εhave
by the
crit derived
numerical model is around 2%, it should be noted that with the increase of soil stiffness
a goodby the numerical
prediction, but the model
UOAismodel
around 2%,isitashould
result be noted that with
little un-conservative. the increase
Furthermore, of soil
although
surrounding
stiffness pipe, ε crit
surrounding has a general
pipe, ε decreasing tendency, which reflects that
εcrit derived by the numerical model is around 2%, it should be noted that with the increase ofload
crit has a general decreasing tendency, which external
reflects that load
externalconditions
soil
should also affect
conditions
stiffness some
should
surrounding ofpipe,
also pipe’s
affect strain
some
εcrit capacity.
hasofa pipe’s
generalstrain capacity.
decreasing tendency, which reflects that external load
conditions should also affect some of pipe’s strain capacity.
-4%
Proposed FEM
-4% CRES-GB 50470
εcrit εcrit

Proposed FEM
-3% UOA
CRES-GB 50470
CSA Z662
strain

-3% UOA
CSA Z662
strain

-2%
axial

-2%
axial
Critical

-1%
Critical

-1% higher soil stiffness

0% higher soil stiffness


Soil A Soil B Soil C Soil D Soil E
0%
Soil A Soil B SoilSoil
typeC Soil D Soil E
Soil type
Figure 22. Relationships of the critical compressive strains for different soil parameters.
Figure 22. Relationships of the critical compressive strains for different soil parameters.
Figure 22. Relationships of the critical compressive strains for different soil parameters.
Post buckling axial strain contours of pipes buried in these five kinds of clay are compared in
Post buckling
Figure
Post axial
23.buckling
The pipes strain
have
axial contours
almost
strain same of
contours ofpipes
plastic
pipes buried
section
buried inthese
thesefive
deformation
in five
with kinds of of
a bulge
kinds clay
are are
pattern
clay compared
induced
compared in in
by
the operation
FigureFigure
23. The pressure
23. pipes considered
havehave
The pipes almost same
almost for
same all cases.
plastic However,
section
plastic section variations
deformation
deformationwith exist between
withaabulge these
bulge pattern five cases
inducedby
pattern induced onby the
the operation
operation failure location.
pressure pressureIf the
considered soil
forisall
considered relatively
for soft However,
all cases.
cases. However,(i.e., Soil A–C), the
variations
variations local
exist
exist buckling
betweenthese
between failure
these five
fiveposition
cases
caseson is the
on
located
the
failure nearer
failure
location. thesoil
location.
If the fault
is trace
If the soil with asoft
stiffer
is relatively
relatively surrounding
soft
(i.e., (i.e.,
Soil soil.local
Soil A–C),
A–C), the However,
the local if thefailure
buckling
buckling soilfailure
isposition
hard enough,
position is
is located
harder
located than
nearerSoil C
the of the
fault cases
trace in
withthis
a study,
stiffer the local
surrounding buckling
soil. failure
However, position
if the will
soil have
is hard negligible
enough,
nearer the fault trace with a stiffer surrounding soil. However, if the soil is hard enough, harder than
variations
harder than forSoil
different
C of thesoilcases
types.
in this study, the local buckling failure position will have negligible
Soil C of the cases in this study, the local buckling failure position will have negligible variations for
variations for different soil types.
different soil types.

3.407m
3.407m
2.479m
2.479m
1.648m
1.648m
1.773m
1.773m
1.856m
1.856m

Figure 23. Post buckling behavior (axial strain contour) of pipeline with different soil parameters.
Figure
Figure 23. Post
23. Post buckling
buckling behavior
behavior (axialstrain
(axial straincontour)
contour) of
ofpipeline
pipelinewith
withdifferent soilsoil
different parameters.
parameters.
Metals 2018, 8, 22 19 of 24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 19 of 25
Metals 2018, 8, 22 19 of 25

4.6. Effects
Effects ofof Pipe
Pipe Buried
Buried Depth
4.6. Effects of Pipe Buried Depth
Pipes are commonly
commonly buried
Pipes are commonly buried inin various
various depths
depths according
according to to the
the environment
environment or or pipe
pipe safety
safety
Pipes buried in various depths according to the environment or pipe safety
concern. In In this
this section,
section, five
five buried
buried depth
depth values,
values, i.e.,
i.e., 0.5,
0.5, 1.0,
1.0, 1.5, 2.0,
2.0, 3.0 m, possibly encountered in
concern. In this section, five buried depth values, i.e., 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0 m, possibly encountered in
true engineering
engineering casescases were
were adoptedfor for parametricinvestigation.
investigation. Asillustrated
illustrated
inin Figure24,24, trends
true engineering cases wereadopted
adopted forparametric
parametric investigation.As As illustrated Figure
in Figure trends
24, trendsof
of
SF SF with
with δ δ for
for pipes
pipes buried
buried in in different
different depthdepthare are
the the same,
same, untiluntil
the the
pipepipe buried
buried in in 3.0
3.0 m m reaches
reaches its
of SF with δ for pipes buried in different depth are the same, until the pipe buried in 3.0 m reaches
its critical
critical fault
fault displacement
displacement (0.39
(0.39 m),m), where
where its its section
section axial
axial force
force first
first drops.
drops. After
After that,
that, pipe
pipe buckles
buckles in
its critical fault displacement (0.39 m), where its section axial force first drops. After that, pipe buckles
in sequence
sequence from
from the
thethe deepest
deepest buried
buried depth
depth to
to to shallowest
shallowest buried
buried depth.
depth. The The quantitative
quantitative relationship
relationship of
in sequence from deepest buried depth shallowest buried depth. The quantitative relationship
of
the the critical
critical fault
fault displacement
displacement δ δ with
critwith pipe
pipe buried
buried depth
depth HH is
is displayed
displayed in
in Figure 25, which shows
of the critical fault displacementcrit δcrit with pipe buried depth H is displayed in Figure 25, which shows
that δδcrit
critdecreases
decreases almost
almost linearly
linearly with
with H,H,from
from 0.51
0.51 toto0.39
0.39 m,
m,when
when H Hincreases
increases from
from 0.50.5 to
to 333 m.
m. Thus,
Thus,
that δcrit decreases almost linearly with H, from 0.51 to 0.39 m, when H increases from 0.5 to m. Thus,
when subjected to fault displacement, a deeper buried depth of pipe enhances soil constraint on pipe
when subjected to fault displacement, a deeper buried depth of pipe enhances soil constraint on pipe
leading to easier buckling failure in pipe.
leading to easier buckling failure in pipe.

-6000
-6000
SF/kN
forceSF/kN

-4500
-4500

-3000
axialforce

-3000
H=0.5m
H=0.5m
Sectionaxial

-1500 H=1.0m
-1500 H=1.0m
H=1.5m
H=1.5m
Section

0 H=2.0m
0 H=2.0m
H=3.0m
H=3.0m
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Fault
Fault displacement
displacement δ/m
δ/m
Figure 24.24.
Relationship
Relationshipbetween
betweensection
sectionaxial
axialforce
force and
and fault displacement with
with differentburied
buried depths.
Figure
Figure 24. Relationship between section axial force and fault displacement
displacement withdifferent
different burieddepths.
depths.
/m

0.60
displacementδδcritcrit/m

0.60

0.55
0.55
faultdisplacement

0.50
0.50

0.45
0.45

0.40
0.40
Criticalfault

0.35
0.35
Critical

0.30
0.30 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Buried
Buried depth
depth H/m
H/m
Figure 25. Relationship of critical fault displacements with buried depth.
Figure
Figure 25.
25. Relationship
Relationship of
of critical
critical fault
fault displacements
displacements with
with buried
buried depth.
depth.
Variations of the critical compressive strain in the pipe with buried depth are shown in Figure
Variations of the critical compressive strain in the pipe with buried depth are shown in Figure
Variations
26, which of the
is quite critical
similar compressive
with Figure 22.strain inmainly
This is the pipebecause
with buried
both depth areof
increase shown in Figureand
soil stiffness 26,
26, which is quite similar with Figure 22. This is mainly because both increase of soil stiffness and
which is quite similar with Figure 22. This is mainly because both increase of soil stiffness and
increase of buried depth increase the soil resistance on pipe, which causes larger axial compression increase
increase of buried depth increase the soil resistance on pipe, which causes larger axial compression
of buried
and lateraldepth increase
bending withthe
thesoil
sameresistance on pipe, which causes larger axial compression and lateral
fault displacement.
and lateral bending with the same fault displacement.
bending with the same fault displacement.
Metals 2018, 8, 22 20 of 24
Metals 2018, 8, 22 20 of 25
Metals 2018, 8, 22 20 of 25
-4%
-4% Proposed FEM
Proposed 50470
CRES-GB FEM

strainε εcrit
-3% CRES-GB 50470

crit
UOA
-3% UOA
CSA Z662

axialstrain
CSA Z662

-2%
Criticalaxial -2%

-1%
Critical

-1%

0%
0%
0.0
0.0 0.5
0.5 1.0
1.0 1.5
1.5 2.0
2.0 2.5
2.5 3.0
3.0 3.5
3.5
Buried depth
depth H/m
H/m

Figure
Figure26. Relationshipsof
26.Relationships of critical
critical compressive strainswith
compressive strains withburied
burieddepth.
depth.
depth.

Theplastic
plasticdeformation
deformationof of pipes
pipes in
in the
the post buckling
The
The plastic deformation of pipes in the post buckling stagestage
buckling withwith
stage the the
theconsidered
withconsidered
considered five
five
five buried buried
buried
depths
depths
depths areare plottedininFigure
plotted Figure27.
27.The
The same
same elephant
elephant foot
foot buckling
buckling phenomenon
phenomenon appears
appears in in
allall
cases.
cases.
are plotted in Figure 27. The same elephant foot buckling phenomenon appears in all cases. In addition,
In addition,
In addition, with
with thethe increase
increase of pipe
of pipe buried
buried depth,
depth, the local buckling
the localfailure
buckling failure position is
failureisposition located nearer
with the increase of pipe buried depth, the local buckling position located is located
nearer thenearer
fault
thethe fault
fault trace
trace asasthe
thetrends
trendsfound
foundin inFigure
Figure 23
23 for
for relatively
relatively soft
softsoil
soiltypes.
types.
trace as the trends found in Figure 23 for relatively soft soil types.

2.729m
2.729m
2.019m
2.019m
2.201m
2.201m
1.946m
1.946m
1.237m
1.237m

Figure 27.27.Post
Figure Postbuckling
bucklingbehavior
behavior(axial
(axial strain contour) of
strain contour) ofpipeline
pipelinewith
withdifferent
differentburied
buried depth.
depth.

Figure 27. Post buckling behavior (axial strain contour) of pipeline with different buried depth.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
Local
Local buckling
buckling is a is a major
major failure
failure type
type for for buried
buried steel pipelines
steel pipelines subjectedsubjected
to active to active
fault fault
movements.
movements.
BasedLocal
on refinedBased on
numerical refined numerical
modelfailure model
using finite using finite element methods, it has been found that
buckling is a major type element
for buried methods,
steel itpipelines
has been subjected
found thatto pipe subjected
active fault
pipe subjected to strike-slip fault displacements incurs local buckling when it reaches the
to strike-slip Based
movements. fault displacements incurs local
on refined numerical modelbuckling when
using finite it reaches
element the compressive
methods, it has been limit
foundstate,
that
compressive limit state, which can be identified by the sudden drop of the section axial force in the
which
pipe can be identified by the sudden drop of the section axial force in the buckled
subjected to strike-slip fault displacements incurs local buckling when it reaches the area. After buckling,
buckled area. After buckling, wavy axial strain distribution appears initially and changes into strain
wavy axial strain
compressive limit distribution
state, whichappears initially and
can be identified byofchanges
the intodrop
strainofconcentration withforce
wrinkling
concentration with wrinkling immediately. Effects thesudden
pipe-fault the section
intersection angle, axial
pipe operationin the
immediately.
buckled area. Effects
After of the pipe-fault intersection angle, pipe operation pressure, pipe wall thickness,
pressure, pipe wallbuckling,
thickness,wavy axial strainand
soil parameters distribution
pipe buried appears
depth oninitially andbuckling
the local changesbehavior
into strain
soil parameters
concentration and pipe buried depth on the local buckling behavior of high-strength
of high-strength X80 pipes were further investigated through a parametric analysis.operation
with wrinkling immediately. Effects of the pipe-fault intersection angle, X80
pipepipes
Somewere
further investigated
pressure, pipecan
conclusions wall through
drawn: a soil
bethickness, parametric analysis.
parameters Someburied
and pipe conclusions
depth can
on thebe drawn:
local buckling behavior
of high-strength X80 pipes were further investigated through a parametric analysis. Some
conclusions can be drawn:
Metals 2018, 8, 22 21 of 24

1. For compressive strike-slip fault, the critical fault displacement increases initially and decrease
afterwards with pipe fault intersection angle. When pipe fault intersection angle equals 135◦ ,
the pipe is most likely to be buckled and fail. The failure section of pipe locates further with
increase of pipe fault intersection angle.
2. Pipe operation pressure decreases pipe’s anti-buckling capacity generally, although a positive
correlation between the critical compressive strain and pipe operation pressure was also found.
In addition, operation pressure affects pipe’s plastic deformation shape in post buckling stage.
For the pipe investigated, when P is larger than 4 MPa, the pipe performs an elephant’s foot
buckling, and when P is 0 MPa, the pipe exhibits diamond buckling.
3. Pipe wall thickness has a positive relationship with both the critical fault displacement and critical
axial strain for pipe. The failure pipe section of thicker pipes locates further away from fault trace.
4. Both increasing soil stiffness and pipe buried depth increase soil constraints on pipe, which will
lead to a smaller critical fault displacement. In addition, pipe failure locations are nearer to fault
trace with stronger constraints by surrounding soil.
5. For pure pipes without considering the geometry imperfections, the CSA Z662 model predicts
too conservative results for compressive strain capacity. Generally, both the CRES-GB 50470
model and the UOA model have rather good critical compressive strain results compared with
the numerical derived results for various conditions. Among them, the CRES-GB 50470 model is
recommended for pipe failure assessment, because it is relatively conservative.
6. Numerical results show that not only the pipe parameters (i.e., geometrical parameters and
internal pressure) but also external loads (pipe fault intersection angle, soil constraints on pipe)
also have some minor effects on pipe’s critical compressive strain, which is not considered by the
commonly available buckling failure criteria.

Acknowledgments: This research has been co-financed by China National Key Research and Development Project
under (Grant No. 2016YFC0802105), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51309236).
Author Contributions: Hong Zhang conceived and designed the physical model. Xiaoben Liu established the
numerical model and wrote the paper. Baodong Wang, Kai Wu and Qian Zheng performed the numerical analysis.
Mengying Xia and Yinshan Han analyzed the data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
D the pipe diameter (m)
t the pipe wall thickness (m)
P the pipe operation pressure (MPa)
εcrit
c the compressive strain capacity of steel pipes
σy the yield strength of pipe steel (MPa)
E the initial elastic modulus (MPa)
hg the height of the geometry imperfection (mm)
σu the tensile strength of pipe material (MPa)
σa the applied net-section stress in the longitudinal direction of pipe (MPa)
Tu the axial peak resistant force per unit length of soil springs (kN/m)
Pu the lateral peak resistant force per unit length of soil springs (kN/m)
Qu the vertical uplift peak resistant force per unit length of soil springs (kN/m)
Qd the vertical bearing peak resistant force per unit length of soil springs (kN/m)
∆t the yield displacement in the axial direction (m)
∆p the yield displacement in the lateral direction (m)
∆qu the yield displacement in the vertical uplift direction (m)
∆qd the yield displacement in the vertical bearing direction (m)
σtrue the true stress (MPa)
εtrue the true strain
Metals 2018, 8, 22 22 of 24

r the strain hardening exponent


α the yield offset parameter
A the pipe cross section area (m2 )
∆L the pipe extension at Point B (m)
δ the fault displacement (m)
∆X the fault displacement in the pipe axial direction (m)
∆Y the fault displacement in the pipe perpendicular direction (m)
β the pipe fault intersection angle (◦ )
εcrit the critical compressive strain
SF the section axial force in buckled area (kN)
SFcrit the critical section axial force in buckled area (kN)
K the coefficient of theory critical axial force
εaxial the axial compressive strain
δcrit the critical fault displacements (m)
φ the internal friction angle of the soil (◦ )
c the soil cohesion representative (kPa)
γ the effective unit weight of soil (kN/m3)
f the pipe–soil friction coefficient
H the pipe buried depth (m)

References
1. Lower, M.D. Strain-Based Design Methodology of Large Diameter Grade X80 Linepipe. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2014.
2. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Wu, K.; Xia, M.Y.; Chen, Y.F.; Li, M. Buckling failure mode analysis of buried X80 steel
gas pipeline under reverse fault displacement. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2017, 77, 50–64. [CrossRef]
3. Newmark, N.M.; Hall, W.J. Pipeline design to resist large fault displacement. In Proceedings of the U.S.
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 18–20 June 1975; pp. 416–425.
4. Kennedy, R.P.; Chow, A.W.; Williamson, R.A. Fault movement effects on buried oil pipeline. Transp. Eng. J.
1977, 103, 617–633.
5. Wang, R.L.; Yeh, Y.H. A refined seismic analysis and design of buried pipeline for fault movement.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1985, 13, 75–96. [CrossRef]
6. Karamitros, D.K.; Bouckovalas, G.D.; Kouretzis, G.P. Stress analysis of buried steel pipelines at strike-slip
fault crossings. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2007, 27, 200–211. [CrossRef]
7. Trifonov, O.V.; Cherniy, V.P. A semi-analytical approach to a nonlinear stress-strain analysis of buried steel
pipelines crossing active faults. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2010, 30, 1298–1308. [CrossRef]
8. Zhang, L.; Zhao, X.; Yan, X.; Yang, X. Elastoplastic analysis of mechanical response of buried pipelines under
strike-slip faults. Int. J. Geomech. 2016, 17. [CrossRef]
9. Ha, D.; Abdoun, T.H.; O’Rourke, M.J.; Symans, M.D.; O’Rourke, T.D.; Palmer, M.C.; Steward, H.E. Buried
high-density polyethylene pipelines subjected to normal and strike-slip faulting-a centrifuge investigation.
Can. Geotech. J. 2008, 45, 1733–1742. [CrossRef]
10. Ha, D.; Abdoun, T.H.; O’Rourke, M.J.; Symans, M.D. Centrifuge modeling of earthquake effects on buried
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipelines crossing fault zones. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008, 134,
1501–1515. [CrossRef]
11. O’Rourke, T.D.; Jung, J.K.; Argyrou, C. Underground pipeline response to earthquake-induced ground
deformation. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2016, 91, 272–283. [CrossRef]
12. Jung, J.K.; O’Rourke, T.D.; Argyrou, C. Multi-directional force–displacement response of underground pipe
in sand. Can. Geotech. J. 2016, 53, 1763–1781. [CrossRef]
13. Jalali, H.H.; Rofooei, F.R.; Attari, N.K.A. Performance of Buried Gas Distribution Pipelines Subjected to
Reverse Fault Movement. J. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 10, 1–24. [CrossRef]
14. Jalali, H.H.; Rofooei, F.R.; Attari, N.K.A.; Samadian, M. Experimental and finite element study of the reverse
faulting effects on buried continuous steel gas pipelines. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2016, 86, 1–14. [CrossRef]
Metals 2018, 8, 22 23 of 24

15. Rofooei, F.R.; Jalali, H.H.; Attari, N.K.A.; Kenarangi, H.; Samadian, M. Parametric study of buried steel and
high density polyethylene gas pipelines due to oblique-reverse faulting. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 42, 178–189.
[CrossRef]
16. Trifonov, O.V. Numerical stress-strain analysis of buried steel pipelines crossing active strike-slip faults with
an emphasis on fault modeling aspects. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2015, 6. [CrossRef]
17. Xie, X.J.; Symans, M.D.; O’Rourke, M.J.; Abdoun, T.H.; O’Rourke, T.D.; Palmer, M.C.; Stewart, H.E. Numerical
modeling of buried HDPE pipelines subjected to normal faulting: A case study. Earthq. Spectra 2013, 29,
609–632. [CrossRef]
18. Xie, X.J.; Symans, M.D.; O’Rourke, M.J.; Abdoun, T.H.; O’Rourke, T.D.; Palmer, M.C.; Stewart, H.E. Numerical
modeling of buried HDPE pipelines subjected to strike-slip faulting. J. Earthq. Eng. 2011, 15, 1273–1296.
[CrossRef]
19. Joshi, S.; Prashant, A.; Deb, A.; Jain, S.K. Analysis of buried pipelines subjected to reverse fault motion.
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2011, 31, 930–940. [CrossRef]
20. Uckan, E.; Akbas, B.; Shen, J.; Rou, W.; Paolacci, W.; O’Rourke, M. A simplified analysis model for
determining the seismic response of buried steel pipes at strike-slip fault crossings. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
2015, 75, 55–65. [CrossRef]
21. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Han, Y.S.; Xia, M.Y.; Zheng, W. A semi-empirical model for peak strain prediction of
buried X80 steel pipelines under compression and bending at strike-slip fault crossings. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.
2016, 32, 465–475. [CrossRef]
22. Melissianos, V.E.; Vamvatsikos, D.; Gantes, C.J. Performance assessment of buried pipelines at fault crossings.
Earthq. Spectra 2017, 33, 201–218. [CrossRef]
23. Melissianos, V.E.; Vamvatsikos, D.; Gantes, C.J. Performance-based assessment of protection measures for
buried pipes at strike-slip fault crossings. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 101, 1–11. [CrossRef]
24. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Gu, X.T.; Chen, Y.F.; Xia, M.Y.; Wu, K. Strain demand prediction method for buried X80
steel pipelines crossing oblique-reverse faults. Earthq. Struct. 2017, 12, 321–332. [CrossRef]
25. Xu, L.; Lin, M. Analysis of buried pipelines subjected to reverse fault motion using the vector form intrinsic
finite element method. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 93, 61–83. [CrossRef]
26. Kaya, E.S.; Uckan, E.; O’Rourke, M.J.; Karamanos, S.A.; Akbas, B.; Cakir, F.; Cheng, Y. Failure analysis of a
welded steel pipe at Kullar fault crossing. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2016, 71, 43–62. [CrossRef]
27. Zhang, J.; Liang, Z.; Han, C.J. Buckling behavior analysis of buried gas pipeline under strike-slip fault
displacement. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2014, 21, 921–928. [CrossRef]
28. Zhang, J.; Liang, Z.; Han, C.J.; Zhang, H. Numerical simulation of buckling behavior of the buried steel
pipeline under reverse fault displacement. Mech. Sci. 2015, 6, 203–210. [CrossRef]
29. Vazouras, P.; Karamanos, S.A.; Dakoulas, P. Finite element analysis of buried steel pipelines under strike-slip
fault displacements. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2010, 30, 1361–1376. [CrossRef]
30. Vazouras, P.; Karamanos, S.A.; Dakoulas, P. Mechanical behavior of buried steel pipes crossing active
strike-slip faults. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 41, 164–180. [CrossRef]
31. Vazouras, P.; Dakoulas, P.; Karamanos, S.A. Pipe-soil interaction and pipeline performance under strike-slip
fault movements. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 72, 48–65. [CrossRef]
32. Vazouras, P.; Karamanos, S.A. Structural behavior of buried pipe bends and their effect on pipeline response
in fault crossing areas. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 4, 1–26. [CrossRef]
33. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Li, M.; Xia, M.Y.; Zheng, W.; Wu, K.; Han, Y.S. Effects of steel properties on the local
buckling response of high strength pipelines subjected to reverse faulting. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 33,
378–387. [CrossRef]
34. Kainat, M.; Lin, M.; Cheng, J.R.; Martens, M.; Adeeb, S. Effects of the initial geometric imperfections on
the buckling behavior of high-strength UOE manufactured steel pipes. J. Press. Vessel Technol. 2016, 138.
[CrossRef]
35. Neupane, S.; Adeeb, S.; Cheng, R.; Ferguson, J.; Martens, M. Modeling the deformation response of high
strength steel pipelines—Part I: Material characterization to model the plastic anisotropy. J. Appl. Mech. 2012,
136, 272–275. [CrossRef]
36. Neupane, S.; Adeeb, S.; Cheng, R.; Ferguson, J.; Martens, M. Modeling the deformation response of high
strength steel pipelines—Part II: Effects of material characterization on the deformation response of pipes.
J. Appl. Mech. 2012, 79, 051003. [CrossRef]
Metals 2018, 8, 22 24 of 24

37. Canadian Standard Association (CSA). Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems; CSA Standard; CSA Z662-11; Canadian
Standard Association: Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2015.
38. Gresnigt, A.M. Plastic Design of Buried Steel Pipelines in Settlement Areas; STEVIN-laboratory of the Department
of Civil Engineering, Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 1987.
39. American Lifelines Alliance. American Society of Civil Engineers, Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe
(with Addenda through February 2005); American Lifelines Alliance: Reston, VA, USA, 2005.
40. Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Design of Buried Pipelines,
Gandhinagar: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority; Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur: Kalyanpur,
India, 2007.
41. Dorey, A.B.; Murray, D.W.; Cheng, J.J.R. Critical buckling strain equations for energy pipelines—A parametric
study. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2006, 128, 248–255. [CrossRef]
42. Liu, M.; Wang, Y.Y.; Zhang, F.; Kotian, K. Realistic Strain Capacity Models for Pipeline Construction and
Maintenance; US DOT PHMSA Other Transaction Agreement #DTPH56-10-T-000016, Draft Final Report;
Center For Reliable Energy Systems: Dublin, OH, USA, 2013.
43. Codeofchina Inc. GB 50470-2008 Seismic Technical Code for Oil and Gas Transmission Pipeline Engineering;
Codeofchina Inc.: Beijing, China, 2017.
44. American Petroleum Institute (API). Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon
Pipelines (Limit State Design); API Recommended Practice, API RP 1111; American Petroleum Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 1991.
45. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Submarine Pipeline Systems; DNV Offshore Standard, DNV-OS-F101; Det Norske
Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 2010.
46. Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines of the American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council
on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems; ASCE:
Reston, VA, USA, 1984; pp. 10–12.
47. Hibbitt, D.; Karlsson, B.; Sorensen, P. ABAQUS Standard User’s and Reference Manuals; Version 6.14; Hibbitt,
Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.: Johnston, RI, USA, 2007.
48. Ramberg, W.; Osgood, W.R. Description of Stress-Strain Curves by Three Parameters; NACA Technical Note;
No. 902; National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA): Washington, DC, USA, 1943.
49. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Xia, M.Y. Buckling behavior of buried steel pipeline under compression strike-slip fault.
In Proceedings of the 2017 ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 16–20 July 2017.
50. Martini, A.; Troncossi, M.; Rivola, A. Leak Detection in Water-Filled Small-Diameter Polyethylene Pipes by
Means of Acoustic Emission Measurements. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 2. [CrossRef]
51. Juliano, T.M.; Meegoda, J.N.; Watts, D.J. Acoustic Emission Leak Detection on a Metal Pipeline Buried in
Sandy Soil. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013, 4, 149–155. [CrossRef]
52. Martini, A.; Troncossi, M.; Rivola, A. Vibroacoustic Measurements for Detecting Water Leaks in Buried
Small-Diameter Plastic Pipes. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2017, 8, 1–10. [CrossRef]
53. Yazdekhasti, S.; Piratla, K.R.; Atamturktur, S.; Khan, A. Experimental evaluation of a vibration-based leak
detection technique for water pipelines. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2017, 14, 46–55. [CrossRef]
54. Liu, A.; Hu, Y.; Zhao, F.; Li, X.; Takada, S.; Zhao, L. An equivalent-boundary method for the shell analysis of
buried pipelines under fault movement. Acta Seismol. Sin. 2004, 17, 150–156. [CrossRef]
55. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydro Carbons and Other
Liquids; ANSI/ASME2016, B31:4; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
56. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems;
ANSI/ASME2016, B31:8; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA; 2016.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

You might also like