2 tayangan

Diunggah oleh behdad736

no description

- PICE Paper Kasilag, Tan Tian, Buenaventura - 10.20.2011
- 157 - 164
- St. Venant's Principle
- Calculating Excavator Structural Stress
- Zhang 2015
- Dynamic Thermoviscoelasticity in a Thermal Shock Problem,Kartashov
- Old Homeworks PartF2 and PartG
- IS-1893-PART-1-2016- REVIEWS
- IRJET-COMPARISON OF SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR REINFORCED GEOSTRUCTURES
- SANS10160-1
- 04-Nonlinear Shell Finite Elements Winkler
- ContinuumMechanics V2
- Beam
- Theory of Plates Part 2
- GTS 2D Tutorial 38.pdf
- 115321977 Syabas Guidelines Draft Final 080620071
- INDOROCK2016
- Analisis_SlopeReport
- ENG464 Semester 2 2016 UnitOverview
- 1-s2.0-S2212670814000566-main.pdf

Anda di halaman 1dari 10

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310843132

Design in Geohazard

DOI: 10.1115/PVP2016-63856

CITATION READS

1 110

2 authors:

University of Thessaly The University of Edinburgh

11 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 171 PUBLICATIONS 1,152 CITATIONS

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Safety of Buried Steel Pipelines Under Ground-Induced Deformations (GIPIPE) View project

Strain-Based Design of Spiral-Welded Pipes for Demanding Pipeline Applications, SBD-SPipe View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregory C. Sarvanis on 27 November 2016.

Proceedings of the ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PVP2016

July 17-21, 2016, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

PVP2016-63856

AREAS

PhD Student Professor

Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece

email: gsarv@hotmail.com email: skara@mie.uth.gr

ABSTRACT The paper of Newmark and Hall [1] has been a pioneering

publication in the area of pipeline stress analysis under ground-

In geohazard areas, buried pipelines are subjected to

induced actions, introducing an analytical model for assessing

permanent ground deformations, which constitute major threats

the integrity of a buried pipeline crossing a ruptured fault.

for their structural safety. Geohazards include seismic fault

Continuing the work in [1], Kennedy et al. [2] developed an

movement, liquefaction-induced lateral spreading and slope

analytical model, ignoring pipeline bending stiffness, while

instability, and the corresponding deformations induce severe

Wang and Yeh [3] improved this methodology by accounting

strains in the pipeline. Calculation of these strains is necessary

for pipeline bending stiffness. In subsequent publications

for assessing pipeline integrity. In the present paper, an

Takada et al. [4], Karamitros et al. [5] and Trifonov et al. [6]

analytical methodology is presented and compared with

[7] developed analytical and semi-analytical methodologies for

existing analytical and numerical methodologies for stress

analyzing buried pipelines crossing seismic faults. More

analysis of buried pipelines. The proposed methodology is also

recently, together with rigorous finite element models a

compared with full-scale available experimental results and

simplified analytical formulation has been proposed in a series

offers significant intuition on the behavior of buried pipelines

of publications by Vazouras et al. [8] [9] [10] for describing

subjected to permanent ground deformations. Using the

pipeline deformation under strike-slip fault action. In addition

proposed analytical methodology, one may predict the strains

to the above research publications, design provisions for the

developed in the pipeline wall quite efficiently and with good

response of buried pipelines under permanent ground-induced

accuracy.

deformations have been gradually introduced in several

standards and design recommendation.

INTRODUCTION Permanent ground actions consist of the differential motion

Buried pipelines are often constructed in geohazard areas; of two adjacent soil blocks, crossed by the pipeline. They can

they may cross active seismic faults, liquefaction areas or slope be divided in two major categories. The first concerns the cases

instability regions capable of producing large ground with the same soil resistance in the two moving parts of the

deformations. Avoiding these geohazard areas is the safer soil, referred to as symmetric cases. The second category is

design option for pipeline alignment but this may not always be associated with different soil resistance in the two moving parts

possible. In particular, in high-seismicity areas a large number of the soil and is referred to as non-symmetric cases. Strike-

of seismic faults exist, which means that a pipeline alignment in slip faults are symmetric cases because the transverse

this area will certainly cross a significant number of these (horizontal) soil resistance in both sides of the fault is

faults. Furthermore, the pipeline may cross areas prone to practically the same. Non-symmetric cases are all normal and

liquefaction or mountainous areas with slope instabilities. In oblique faults because the vertical soil resistance is different in

such cases, the pipeline must be designed taking into account the upward and downward direction. As non-symmetric cases

the additional stress and deformation induced by ground one may consider the cases of lateral spreading.

movement. In the present paper, a new simplified methodology is

proposed for the calculation of induced strains in the pipeline

due to permanent ground deformation. This methodology can

be employed for preliminary design of buried pipelines In the above equations, E is the Youngs Modulus, J is the

subjected to ground-induced actions and offers an efficient tool inertia of moment of the pipe cross section. The reaction

for understanding the mechanical behavior. The work is part of moments M and MB of diagram (b) in Fig. 2 can be computed

European research project GIPIPE sponsored by the European from Eq.(2) to Eq.(3), as follows,

commission, aimed at examining the effects of permanent 1

ground deformations on buried steel pipeline safety. An M A [r1 l2 2l1 2r2 ] (2)

3

equivalent static model is assumed for the calculation of the

1

length L of the deformed shape of the pipeline as shown in Fig. M B [r2 l1 2l2 2r1 ] (3)

1. This model is based on an assumed-shape function with 3

length L that follows pipeline deformation. The length L is In the above equations, expressions, for r1, r2, l1 and l2 are given

calculated combining the permanent soil movement and the soil by Eq.(4) to Eq.(8), where the distributed loads qu1 and qu2 are

resistance so that zero bending moment exists at the supports. the soil resistances per unit length on the first part (length L1)

The assumed-shape function for pipeline is proposed for and on the second part (length L2) of the pipe on either side of

symmetric and no symmetric soil resistance. This analytical the fault. The values of qu1 and qu2 can be obtained from

methodology is compared with both simplified and rigorous relevant standards and design recommendations ([11], [12] and

finite element models. The results are also compared with [13]).

experimental results from full-scale landslide/fault tests as well 1

as with the analytical method proposed by Karamitros et al.[5]. l1 qu1 L12 1 (1 0.75 1 ) (4)

3

fault

y plane d sin 1

l2 qu 2 L2 2 2 (1 0.75 2 ) (5)

deformed d cos d 3

pipeline

axis qu2 1

A x r1 qu1 L12 (1.5 2 1 0.75 12 ) (6)

3

d

1

B r2 qu 2 L2 2 (1.5 2 2 0.75 2 2 ) (7)

qu1 3

L1 L2 L1 L2

1 2 (8)

L L1 L2 L1 L2

Fig. 1: Schematic representation of ground-induced The shear force VA at end (A) of diagram (c) can be computed

deformation of pipeline axis. by Eq.(9) using equilibrium. Combination of soil movement (a)

and soil resistance (b) results in a moment distribution along

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY the pipe in the form of diagram (c) of Fig. 2. For every value of

d there is a unique combination of lengths L1 and L2 which

Length of deformed pipeline

corresponds to this diagram (c).

An important parameter for the analysis of a pipe subjected

to permanent ground deformation is the value of lengths L1 and 1 L1 L2 2

L2 of the S-shape of the pipeline, shown in Fig. 1. These lengths VA M B M A qu1 L1 ( L2 ) qu 2 (9)

L 2 2

(L1 and L2) correspond to the distance from the fault at which

the bending moment is equal to zero on each side, while length L1

Li in Fig. 2c is the distance between the fault and the inflection L1 L2 qu2

A A B

point. Simple calculations show that the values of strains are d

quite sensitive to the values L1 and L2. In Fig. 2 an equivalent qu1 L2

static model for the calculation of the total length L = L1 + L2 of B

MA MB

deformed S-shape of the pipeline for non-symmetric cases is

shown. In this model, it is assumed that the L2 L1, which A B A B

means that the soil resistance in the length L1 is larger or equal (a) MB MA (b)

than the soil resistance in length L2. The bending moment

diagram (a) of Fig. 2 is the result of the support movement, L1

qu2

which represents the permanent soil movement, while the A

d

bending moment diagram (b) is the result of distributed qu1 L2

loading, representing soil resistance. The end bending moments My Li B

of diagram (a) can be computed by Eq.(1), where d is the size

of ground movement. A B

(c)

6 EJd 6 EJd

MA MB (1)

Fig. 2:Equivalent static model for the calculation of lengths L1

( L1 L2 )2 ( L1 L2 )2

and L2 of the deformed pipeline shape.

Elastic beam theory is employed to calculate the values of L4 pu 64M y L2 192EJd cos 0 (15)

lengths L1, L2 of the deformed pipeline shape. In particular, the

two loading conditions of Fig. 2 are combined in order to 32M y

simulate the loading conditions of the pipe due to fault L (16)

pu

movement. Eq.(10) expresses the condition of zero bending

moment in support (A) of diagram (c) in Fig. 2, while Eq.(11) L4 pu

expresses the condition of zero bending moment in support (B) dy (17)

192 EJd cos

of the same diagram. Furthermore, Eq.(13), gives the maximum

bending moment of diagram (c) in Fig. 2.

The solution of the system of Eq. (10), Eq. (11) and Eq. (13) Strain and curvature of the deformed pipeline

provides the values of lengths L1 and L2 at which the loading The concept of the present analytical formulation has been

combination of (a) and (b) in Fig. 2 gives zero bending moment presented in an early form in a series of publications by

at the supports and the corresponding value of the fault Vazouras et al. [8] [9] [10]. In those publications, the model

movement d. When the pipe is in the elastic region, the length L described pipeline deformation under symmetric soil resistance,

increases as the soil relative displacement d increases. When a using an assumed-shape cosine function for the deformed

pipe cross section transitions in the plastic region, after the pipeline. Herein, this methodology is enhanced to account for

creation of plastic hinges, the length L does not change non-symmetric soil resistance cases considering a change of the

dramatically. Assuming that the value of Mmax is equal to the initial assumed shape of the deformed pipe. The assumed shape

yield moment My of the pipe cross-section, one may readily function for the transverse displacement u ( x) of the pipeline

obtain the corresponding value of d. proposed herein is valid for both symmetric and non-symmetric

A simplified method to solve this system is to combine Eq. cases, satisfies the compatibility conditions at the interface of

(10) and Eq.(11) and obtain Eq.(12). Then Eq.(10) and Eq.(12) the relative soil movement and is expressed through Eq. (18)

can be solved for L1, L2 in terms of d and then finally Eq.(13) is below:

solved in terms of d. The latter is the value of ground-induced

displacement dy corresponding to pipeline first yielding. It is 1 x x

assumed that lengths L1, L2 remain constant upon yielding of d '( L1 Li ) cos 1 sin

the pipeline. The accuracy of this assumption is investigated

4 L1 Li L1 Li

u ( x)

later in the paper in the case studies. 1 ( x L1 Li ) x

d '( L2 Li ) cos 1 sin

M A M A 0

4 L2 Li L2 Li

27.8L14 qu1 111L13 L2 qu1 L12 L2 2 (167qu 2 333qu1 ) (10) (18)

111L1 L23 qu 2 27.8L2 4 qu 2 6000dEJ

where x = 0 and x = L = L1 + L2 are the two ends of the S-

M B M B 0 shape pipe segment and Li is the distance of the inflection point

from the point of relative soil movement, as shown in Fig. 2.

27.8L14 qu1 111L13 L2 qu1 L12 L2 2 (167qu1 333qu1 ) (11)

The first branch of Eq.(18) is valid for 0 x L1 + Li, while the

111L1 L2 qu 2 27.8L2 qu 2 6000dEJ

3 4

second branch is valid for L1 + Li x L. In the case of

symmetric soil resistance L1 = L2 = L/2 and Li = 0, which means

1 24dEJ that the inflection point is in the middle location. In addition,

L1 (12)

L2 qu 2 qu1 the axial displacement v( x) of the pipeline due to longitudinal

stretching within this segment, is assumed to be linearly

VA2 6 EJd VA distributed along the pipeline, described by Eq. (19) below:

M max M A (13)

2qu1 L2 L1 qu1

d sin

v( x) x, 0 x L (19)

In the case of symmetric soil resistance, the above equations L

obtain a simpler form. Solution of the system of Eq. (14) and

Eq. (15) gives the length L = L1 + L2 corresponding to zero In Eq. (18) and Eq.(19), d = d/(L1+L2), where d is the soil

moment in the supports and yield moment of the pipe cross displacement, while and L are the crossing angle and the

section in the intermediate points of the deformed length of the length of S-shape, shown in Fig. 1. Using Eq.(18), the bending

pipe due to the combination of loading in Fig. 2. According to curvature k can be readily computed by differentiation as

this procedure, the length L is given by Eq.(16) below, where follows:

My is the yield moment of the pipe cross section and pu is the 2 d 'cos x

maximum soil resistance per unit length of the pipe. sin

d u ( x)

2 4( L L ) ( L1 Li )

k (20)

1 i

M A M A 0 L4 pu 192EJd cos 0 (14) 2

dx 2 d 'cos ( x L2 L1 2 Li )

4( L L ) sin ( L2 Li )

2 i

The first branch of Eq.(20) is valid for 0 x L1 + Li, while the VALIDATION OF THE PRESENT METHODOLOGY

second branch is valid for L1 + Li x L. Upon calculation of AGAINST ANALYTICAL, NUMERICAL AND

the bending curvature k, due to the imposed soil displacement EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

d, and neglecting cross sectional distortion, the maximum

bending strain b of the pipe can be readily obtained by Eq.(21). Several cases are considered with the proposed

methodology and compared with other available analytical

2D

d 'cos , 0 x L1 Li methodologies, finite element analyses and available

D 8( L1 Li ) experimental results. The numerical models have been

b k (21)

D d 'cos , presented in previous publications ([8], [9] and [10]) and are

2

2

L1 Li x L

8( L L ) outlined in Annex A. Cases with symmetric soil resistance

2 i

(strike-slip faults) are examined for different pipes and soil

The total elongation of length L (L = L1 + L2) of this pipe condition and compared with results from level 1 and level 2

segment can be expressed as follows: models (Annex A), comparison is also conducted with the

methodology proposed by Karamitros et. al. [5]. Moreover,

L cases with non-symmetric soil resistance (normal and oblique

1 u '2 dx L d sin (22)

0 faults) are analyzed and compared with results from level 1

models. Finally, comparison between the proposed

The first term in the parenthesis refers to the elongation methodology, level 2 modelling numerical results and

(stretching) due to bending, the next term refers to the increase experimental results is conducted for a non-symmetric case.

of the length due to the oblique direction of soil movement,

while the last term accounts for the axial flexibility of the Symmetric soil resistance

adjacent parts of the pipeline due to the fact that the pipe is not

fixed at the two ends of length L. Case 1

Considering compatibility at the two pipe ends of length L The first case concerns a 1066-mm-diameter (42 in.), X60

results the following equation that relates the total elongation steel pipeline with 14.27 mm (0.562 in.) thickness, crossing a

with the flexibility displacement . strike-slip fault, with cohesionless soil conditions. A

comparison between the proposed methodology and the finite

EA KtL

Kt (23) element analysis of level 1 is conducted. Soil properties of the

L 2 2 EA cohesionless (sand) soil and geometric parameters of the pipe

are presented in Table 1. The strike-slip fault is considered at

where parameter K t is given in Eq. (24) and expresses the

two different fault crossing angles , namely 0 and 10o

stiffness of the straight part outside the length L as proposed in

degrees, according to Fig. 1. The analysis is performed for

[10].

fault displacement equal to 1 and 2 meters for each angle . The

K t EAks (24) results from the finite element analysis and from the proposed

analytical methodology are presented in Table 2 and Table 3

In the above equations, A is the cross sectional area of the pipe for the two values of crossing angle (0o and 10o). The length L

and ks is the stiffness of soil resistance per pipe unit length in of the curved pipe segment is computed from Eq. (16) equal to

the pipe axial direction. The value of ks can be obtained by 27.6 m and the comparison with the deformed shape of the pipe

relevant standards and design recommendation. from FE analysis is depicted to Fig. 3 for crossing angle =

The axial membrane strain m, assumed uniform with the 10. The comparison of maximum axial strain and the value of

pipe segment under consideration can be calculated as follows: length L between FE analysis and the present equations

indicates a good agreement. According to FE analysis the pipe

1 d sin

L

cross section reaches first yielding at fault displacement equal

L L 0

m 1 u '2 dx 1

L L to 0.6 m, while the prediction of Eq. (17) is 0.46 m.

(25)

Table 1: Soil parameters and geometric properties.

Using a series expansion in order to linearize the integral term, Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

and using Eq. (22) and Eq.(23), Eq. (25) becomes:

34O 36O 32O

(32 2 )d 2 cos 2 d sin 0.5 0.5 0.5

m (26)

64( L 1 L 2 ) 2

( L1 L2 ) 1 (kg/m3) 1760 1800 1830

c (m) 0.9 1.3 2.5

The total strain is the sum of membrane strain m in Eq.(26)

D (in) 42 36 36

with the bending strain b in Eq.(21).

t (in) 0.562 0.469 0.5

Table 2: Comparison between proposed methodology and FEM According to the FE analysis, the pipe cross section enters the

results for angle equal to 0o (Case 1). plastic zone at fault displacement equal to 0.47 m, while the

Max compressive corresponding prediction of Eq. (17) is 0.36 m. The accuracy of

Max tensile strain % strain % the assumption that the lengths L1, L2 do not change

significantly after pipe cross section yielding, is investigated in

Present Present this case. In Fig. 5 the distribution of axial strains along the

d (m) FEM FEM

Methodology Methodology pipe axis is shown for different fault displacements d before

1 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.27 and after yielding of pipe cross section. Prior to yielding the

2 0.70 0.87 0.70 0.75 position of maximum strain is not fixed, which means that

length L is not constant. Beyond pipe yielding, the position of

maximum strain remains practically fixed for increasing

Table 3: Comparison between proposed methodology and FEM ground-induced displacement, which means that length L can

results for angle equal to 10o (Case 1). be considered constant.

Max compressive strain

Max tensile strain % % Table 4: Comparison between proposed methodology, finite

element modelling and Karamitros et. al. [5] results for angle

Present Present equal to 30o (Case 2).

d (m) FEM FEM

Methodology Methodology Max tensile strain %

1 0.51 0.47 0.16 0.18

Present

2 1.03 0.94 0.32 0.29 d (m) Karamitros et FEM

Methodology

al.[5]

0.914 (1D) 1.20 1.25 1.46

1.25

Transverse Pipe Displ. (m)

1.00

L = 27.6 m

0.75 Table 5: Comparison between proposed methodology, finite

FEM element modelling and Karamitros et. al [5] results for angle

0.50 equal to 60o (Case 2).

0.25 Max tensile strain %

Present

Methodology Eq. Present

0.00

18 d (m) Karamitros et FEM

Methodology

-0.25 al.[5]

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Distance from the fault (m) 0.914 (1D) 1.49 1.52 1.57

Fig. 3: Deformed shape of pipeline, comparison between 1.371 (1.5D) 2.25 2.50 2.25

prediction of present methodology and FEM for fault

displacement d = 1 m and for crossing angle = 10 (Case 1).

1.00

L = 18.95 m

Transverse Pipe Displ.

Case 2 0.75

The second case refers to a high-pressure gas 914.4-mm-

diameter (36 in.) pipeline of 11.91 mm (0.469 in.) thickness, 0.50

(m)

0.25

soil conditions. The soil properties, the geometric parameters

and the material of the pipe are tabulated in Table 1. A 0.00

Present

comparison of the proposed methodology, with finite element Methodology

analysis (level 1) and the analytical methodology of Karamitros Eq. 18

-0.25

et. al. [5] is conducted for two different angles , namely 30o -12.5 -10 -7.5 -5 -2.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5

and 60o, in Fig. 1. The results from the finite element analysis, Distance from the fault (m)

the proposed analytical methodology and the methodology in Fig. 4: Deformed shape of pipeline, comparison between

[5] are presented in Table 4 and Table 5 for the two values of prediction of present methodology and FEM for fault

crossing angle (30o and 60o). The length L of the curved pipe displacement d = 0.914 m (1.0D) and for crossing angle = 30

segment is computed from Eq. (16) equal to 18.95 m and the (Case 2).

comparison with the deformed shape of the pipe from FE

analysis is depicted to Fig. 4 for crossing angle = 30.

1.50 Non-Symmetric soil resistance

L = 18.95 m

1.25 Case 4

Axial strain (%)

1.00 Plastic The forth case with non-symmetric soil resistance refers to a

0.75

1219 mm-diameter (48 in.), X65 steel pipeline with 17.1 mm

(0.673-in.) thickness crossing a normal fault with dip-angle

0.50 Yield equal to 70o. The soil resistance according to ALA Guidelines

0.25 [11] is presented in Table 7. The results from finite element

0.00 analysis and the analytical prediction of the proposed

methodology are presented in Table 8. The characteristic

-0.25 Elastic

lengths L1, L2 of the deformed shape of the pipeline according

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 to Eq. (10), Eq. (11) and Eq. (13) are computed equal to L1 =

Distance from the fault (m) 5.08 m and L2 = 37.50 m.

Fig. 5: Distribution of axial strains along the pipe axis for

different values of displacement d for crossing angle = 30; Table 7: Soil parameters and geometric/mechanical properties

Numerical results (Case 2). (Case 4).

qu upwards 45 kN/m

Case 3

qu downwards 1100 kN/m

The third case with symmetric soil resistance concerns a

914.4 mm-diameter (36 in.), X65 steel pressurized pipeline. tu axial 35 kN/m

Pipe thickness is 11.91 mm (0.469 in.), internal pressure 50 bar, yu upwards 0.162

while the soil properties and the geometric parameters of the yu downwards 0.183

pipe are presented in Table 1.The pipeline crosses a strike-slip yu axial 0.005

fault at angle = 20, as shown Fig. 1. A comparison between

the proposed methodology and the finite element analysis (level

Table 8: Comparison between proposed methodology and

2) is offered. The results from rigorous finite element analysis

Level 1 finite element modelling (Case 4).

and the proposed analytical methodology are presented in Table

6. The length L of the curved pipe segment is computed from Max compressive

Max tensile strain %

Eq. (16) equal to 18.5 m. In Fig. 6, the deformed shape from strain %

the rigorous finite element model is presented for fault Present Present

d (m) FEM FEM

displacement equal to 2.0 m. Methodology Methodology

2 0.88 0.93 0.00 0.10

Table 6: Comparison between proposed methodology and level

2 finite element modelling for angle equal to 20o (Case 3). 2.5 1.11 1.27 0.00 0.01

Max compressive

Max tensile strain %

strain % Case 5

Present Present The final case in the present paper concerns the experiments

d (m) FEM FEM conducted by CSM in Sardinia in the course of the GIPIPE

Methodology Methodology

project and analyzed in detail elsewhere [14]. The purpose of

1 0.96 0.82 0.30 0.17 these experiments was the investigation of pipe-soil interaction

in a horizontal ground movement, normal to the pipeline axis. A

2 1.99 2.09 0.57 0.08

special-purpose landslide/fault device has been developed,

and the corresponding experimental setup is shown in Fig. 7, it

is composed by two fixed concrete boxes that remain fixed and

one sliding box between the two fixed boxes (Fig. 7). The

longitudinal strains are measured using strain gauges along the

pipe.

A level 2 finite element model has also been developed

[14], which simulates one of the landslide/fault tests, shown

in Fig. 8. The middle box slides along the x axis, while the two

outside boxes remain fixed. In Fig. 9, the deformed shape of

pipe specimen from the landslide/fault test is illustrated. The

soil properties and the geometric/mechanical parameters of the

pipe are presented in Table 9. The present methodology is also

employed to predict the strains of the pipe due to

Fig. 6: Deformed shape of pipeline, for fault displacement landslide/fault movement. The method for non-symmetric

equal to 2.0 m and for crossing angle = 20 (Case 3).

soil resistance used with the condition that the L2 is known and Table 9: Soil parameters and geometric properties (Case 5).

equal to the half of the width of the moving box and the qu1 41O

equal to qu2 due to the pipeline moving in the horizontal 0.5

direction. The length L1 is calculated equal to 4.1 m, and the (kg/m3) 1600

prediction of maximum strain is presented, and compared with c (mm) 685

the experimental results in Table 10 for two values of ground

D (mm) 219.2

displacement.

t (mm) 5.6

Material X60

experimental results for the landslide/fault test (Case 5).

Max compressive strain %

Max tensile strain %

Present Present

d FEM Test FEM Test

Method Method

(m)

0.4 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.31 0.20 0.23

0.6 0.55 0.45 0.47 0.46 0.24 0.28

Fig. 7: Schematic representation of experimental setup of tests

in a landslide/fault device [14]. CONCLUSIONS

An analytical methodology for pipeline design subjected to

ground-induced actions in geohazard areas is proposed and

compared with the results from other available methodologies

(numerical and analytical) and with experimental results. This

methodology can predict quite satisfactorily (a) the maximum

induced strains in the pipeline wall due to permanent ground

deformation and (b) the length of the deformed shape of the

pipeline under symmetric and non-symmetric soil resistance.

The proposed methodology introduces a novel, simple and

efficient tool for pipeline analysis and preliminary design

towards assessing geohazard actions on buried steel pipelines.

NOMENCLATURE

Fig. 8: General configuration (solid model) for the numerical

A Cross sectional area of the pipe

simulation of landslide/fault tests (Case 5).

D Outer diameter of the pipe

E Youngs Modulus

Hc Burial depth of the pipe

J Inertia moment of the pipe cross section

MA Bending moment at location (A)

MB Bending moment at location (B)

My Yield moment of the pipe cross section

Ko Lateral earth pressure coefficient

L Length of the deformed shape of the pipeline

Li Distance between the fault and the inflection point

L1 Distance of the fault and the end point with bending

moment equal to zero

L2 Distance of the fault and the end point with bending

moment equal to zero

VA Shear force

Fig. 9: Deformed shape of the finite element model simulating d Value of ground-induced displacement

landslide/fault test 1 (Case 5); sliding displacement of the dy Value of ground-induced displacement corresponding

middle box is equal to 600 mm (i.e. 2.74D). to pipeline first yielding

k Pipeline bending curvature

ks Stiffness of soil resistance per pipe unit length in the [7] Trifonov, O. V. and Cherniy, V. P. (2012), Elastoplastic

pipe axial direction stress-strain analysis of buried steel pipelines subjected

pu Soil resistance per unit length in horizondal direction to fault displacements with account for service loads.,

qu1 Soil resistance per unit length in vertical direction Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 1,

corresponding to length L1 pp. 54-62.

qu2 Soil resistances per unit length in vertical direction

[8] Vazouras, P., Karamanos, S. A., and Dakoulas, P.

corresponding to length L2

(2010),Finite Element Analysis of Buried Steel Pipelines

t Pipe thickness

Under Strike-Slip Fault Displacements, Soil Dynamics

tu Soil resistance per unit length in axial direction

and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 11, pp. 1361

yu Soil displacement corresponding to maximum soil

resistance 1376.

Total elongation (stretching) of pipe segment [9] Vazouras, P., Karamanos, S. A., and Dakoulas, P. (2012),

Fault crossing angle Mechanical behavior of buried steel pipes crossing active

Flexibility displacement at pipe ends strikeslip faults, Soil Dynamics and Earthq.

b Maximum bending strain Engineering, 41:164180.

m Axial membrane strain [10] Vazouras, P., Dakoulas, P., and Karamanos, S. A. (2015),

Internal angle of soil friction Pipe-Soil Interaction and Pipeline Performance Under

Strike-Slip Fault Movements, Soil Dynamics &

Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 72, pp. 48-65.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

[11] American Lifelines Alliance, (2001), Guidelines for the

Part of the research work was carried out with a financial Design of Buried Steel Pipe.

grant of the European Commission through the Research Fund [12] Nederlands NormalisatieInstituut (2006), Requirements

for Coal and Steel, (RFCS) Contract N. RFSR-CT-20011- for Pipeline Systems, NEN 3650, Part1: General, and

00027, Safety of Buried Steel Pipelines Under Ground- Part2: Steel Pipelines.

Induced Deformations, project acronym GIPIPE. [13] ASCE. 1984, Guidelines for seismic design of oil and gas

pipeline systems. Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel

REFERENCES Lifelines, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake

[1] Newmark N. M. and Hall W. J. (1975), Pipeline design Engineering, America Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,

to resist large fault displacement. Proceedings of U.S. Va.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 416 [14] Sarvanis, G. C, Ferino, J., Karamanos, S. A., Vazouras, P.,

425. Dakoulas, P., Mecozzi, E. (2016) Numerical

Investigation and Experimental Verification of Pipe-Soil

[2] Kennedy, R. P., Chow, A. W. and Williamson, R. A.

Interaction for Buried Pipelines Crossing Geohazard

(1977), Fault movement effects on buried oil pipeline,

Areas, ISOPE 2016 Rhodes.

ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 103,

pp. 617633. [15] Karamanos, S. A., Keil, B. and Card, R. J. (2014),

Seismic design of buried steel water pipelines., ASCE

[3] Wang, L. R. L. and Yeh, Y. A. (1985), A refined seismic

Pipelines 2014 Conference, Portland, Oregon.

analysis and design of buried pipeline for fault

movement, Earthquake Engineering & Structural

Dynamics, Vol. 13, pp. 7596. ANNEX A

[4] Takada, S., Hassani, N. and Fukuda, K. (2001), A new

proposal for simplified design of buried steel pipes OUTLINE OF FINITE ELEMENTS MODELS USED FOR

crossing active faults, Earthquake Engineering and PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS

Structural Dynamics, 2001; Vol. 30: pp.12431257.

The finite element method can also be used to model the

[5] Karamitros, D. K., Bouckovalas, G. D., and Kouretzis, G.

effects of ground-induced actions on buried pipelines ([8], [9],

P. (2007), Stress Analysis of Buried Steel Pipelines at

[10] and [15]). There exists two levels of finite element

StrikeSlip Fault Crossings., Soil Dynamics &

modeling. The first level (Level 1) is widely used in pipeline

Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 27, pp. 200-211.

design practice against geohazards. The second level (Level 2),

[6] Trifonov, O. V. and Cherniy, V. P. (2010), A semi- which employs a 3D continuum approach for the surrounding

analytical approach to a nonlinear stressstrain analysis of soil, is used only in special cases, where increased accuracy is

buried steel pipelines crossing active faults., Soil necessary. In the following, a short description of these

Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 30, pp. 1298- numerical approaches is offered.

1308.

Level 1 Modeling data. In case 2 the pipe material have been modeled with a

bilinear curve similar to the curve used by Karamitros et. al.

In this level of analysis, the pipe is modeled with beam-type [5].

finite elements referred to as pipe elements or elbow

elements. This numerical methodology has been employed for

simulating permanent ground-induced actions on pipelines, Level 2 Modeling

such as faults, landslides and lateral spreading at several design

projects. The finite element mesh near discontinuities (e.g. fault The second level of analysis offers the capability of rigorous

plane) should be fine enough, so that gradients of stress and calculations. Four-node reduced integration shell elements are

strains are accurately simulated. employed for modelling the cylindrical pipeline segment and

The use of regular beam elements for the pipeline model is eight-node reduced-integration brick elements are employed

not recommended, given the fact that they cannot account for to simulate the surrounding soil. The mechanical behavior of

pressure loading. Instead, pipe elements are preferable, which soil material is described through a Mohr-Coulomb model. In

account for the presence of hoop stress and strain due to Fig. 10 a typical model is shown for a 36-in-diameter pipe for

pressure. Furthermore, the use of special-purpose elements with the case of pipeline crossing the fault plane at angle = 20.

the capability of describing cross-sectional ovalization, The total length of the model is equal to 65D. More details on

sometimes referred to as elbow elements, can further improve this approach are offered in [8] and [9]. The pipe material in

the accuracy of the finite element model, especially at pipe Cases 4 and 5 have been modeled as elastic-plastic using

bends. available experimental data from the pipe steel material.

The pipe material should be modeled as elastic-plastic,

considering also strain hardening effects. Furthermore, the

ground surrounding the pipeline should be modeled with

appropriate springs, attached on the pipe nodes and directed in

the transverse directions. The law of the soil springs in all

directions should represent the load-deformation behavior of 65D

the soil, including possible slip of the pipe through the soil, = 20

axial and transverse springs are offered in ALA Guidelines [11],

fault plane

based on soil type. Alternative equations for those springs are

offered in NEN 3650 [12] standard. In any case, the design

engineer may modify the proposed equations for the springs, if

more detailed information on the actual field conditions is

available from test data, or based on engineering judgment.

In this paper the special-purpose linear elements (2 - nodes

elements) with the capability of describing cross-sectional

ovalization, elbow elements have been used in all cases

where the level 1 of modeling has been adopted. The models in Fig. 10: Finite element model for level 2 simulation of soil-pipe

all cases have a length of 1000 m in order to take account the interaction.

appropriate boundary. The pipe material in cases 1 and 3 have

been modeled as elastic-plastic using available experimental

- PICE Paper Kasilag, Tan Tian, Buenaventura - 10.20.2011Diunggah olehJon Kasilag
- 157 - 164Diunggah olehvhgaitan
- St. Venant's PrincipleDiunggah olehRegina Miller
- Calculating Excavator Structural StressDiunggah olehrbachalli
- Zhang 2015Diunggah olehAnjerick Topacio
- Dynamic Thermoviscoelasticity in a Thermal Shock Problem,KartashovDiunggah olehIoannisPerseusAntypas
- Old Homeworks PartF2 and PartGDiunggah olehAli Cem Buzlu
- IS-1893-PART-1-2016- REVIEWSDiunggah olehmohitjindal01
- IRJET-COMPARISON OF SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR REINFORCED GEOSTRUCTURESDiunggah olehIRJET Journal
- SANS10160-1Diunggah olehroosterbrood123
- 04-Nonlinear Shell Finite Elements WinklerDiunggah olehMarcin Świątek
- ContinuumMechanics V2Diunggah olehBouba Rabeb
- BeamDiunggah olehquastard
- Theory of Plates Part 2Diunggah olehRaúl Rodríguez Sánchez
- GTS 2D Tutorial 38.pdfDiunggah olehRazvan
- 115321977 Syabas Guidelines Draft Final 080620071Diunggah olehSeh Yong
- INDOROCK2016Diunggah olehNirmalendu Kumar
- Analisis_SlopeReportDiunggah olehArhim Shorinji Kempo
- ENG464 Semester 2 2016 UnitOverviewDiunggah olehchicks123
- 1-s2.0-S2212670814000566-main.pdfDiunggah olehMirza
- Link ClickDiunggah olehmcfonty
- Computational MechanicsDiunggah olehNh Nguyen
- Natural Characteristics Research of MW Wind Turbine TowerDiunggah olehSEP-Publisher
- AcantiladosDiunggah olehJonathan Fernando Benavides
- slopePaper161.pdfDiunggah olehronan2000
- Raj 2015 - Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Slope- A ReviewDiunggah olehMunnaz
- Muretes en CorteDiunggah olehIván Dario Bustos Arias
- 9780415889544_previewDiunggah olehElmejri Hatem
- Pre-lab #5 - Thin Walled Pressure VesselDiunggah olehAvraham Feldman
- CrackVibDiunggah olehIshu Vohra

- A Fingertip Detection and Tracking System as a Virtual MouseDiunggah olehBala Murugan
- Installation Utility Release NotesDiunggah olehAnandhAlagarasan
- Beginners_Guide_to_WinDBG_Part-1.pdfDiunggah olehAbhi Rockzz
- EconomicsDiunggah olehBradSiefker
- Iumi Presentation Gerry WilliamsDiunggah olehcaptkc
- Mbs DrawingDiunggah olehRamsey Rasmey
- airtox1b BENZENE.pdfDiunggah olehwafin
- Appendix 8Diunggah olehBoey He
- Eviews 6 Install PDFDiunggah olehErin
- Bi-O-Kleen Citrus Soy SolventDiunggah olehadowns88
- TM 10-4930-238-12PDiunggah olehAdvocate
- DOCS CreateaHelloWorldPluginProject 180517 2339 7166Diunggah olehSerafin
- traffic light classifier paperDiunggah olehapi-353052231
- Effect of Steel Fiber and Glass Fiber on Mechanical Properties of ConcreteDiunggah olehIJSTE
- Broadcasting Part 1 - EST - PinoybixDiunggah olehMairi Lavinia Garcia
- Router ConfigurationDiunggah olehoreichalcos
- SRM6210EDiunggah olehjuan_34fierro
- AS 3600-09 RC-SL-001Diunggah olehBunkun15
- 621_mx_sagDiunggah olehSpirt Alex
- Ohio-Edison-Co-Energy-Efficiency-RebatesDiunggah olehGenability
- RBX3-Manual1nopassDiunggah olehBunso A. Loresto
- HP Velotechnik Scorpion Brochure en EUR (1)Diunggah olehantonioulbra
- Design Calculations for Pressure VesselsDiunggah olehMichael Lageman
- Slump and YieldDiunggah olehMr. Garghtside
- Java Server Prog Java EE6Diunggah olehDreamtech Press
- Masonry-Designer-s-Guide-pdf.pdfDiunggah olehdrfkamalodeen
- ATOM 3.0 Dive Computer Operating ManualDiunggah olehHorace P
- High Impedance Differential Protection_SchneiderDiunggah olehpradeep0211
- Barracuda 7200.10 PATADiunggah olehPioneer Motard
- mdot_HMA_ProductionManual_79005_7Diunggah olehcivilo