See

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

Analytical Methodologies for Buried Pipelines

Design in Geohazard

Conference Paper July 2016

DOI: 10.1115/PVP2016-63856

CITATION READS

1 110

2 authors:

Gregory C. Sarvanis Spyros A. Karamanos

University of Thessaly The University of Edinburgh
11 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 171 PUBLICATIONS 1,152 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 17-21, 2016, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGIES FOR BURIED PIPELINE DESIGN IN GEOHAZARD
AREAS
Gregory C. Sarvanis
PhD Student
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece
email: gsarv@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT
In geohazard areas, buried pipelines are subjected to
permanent ground deformations, which constitute major threats
for their structural safety. Geohazards include seismic fault
movement, liquefaction-induced lateral spreading and slope
instability, and the corresponding deformations induce severe
strains in the pipeline. Calculation of these strains is necessary
for assessing pipeline integrity. In the present paper, an
analytical methodology is presented and compared with
existing analytical and numerical methodologies for stress
analysis of buried pipelines. The proposed methodology is also
compared with full-scale available experimental results and
offers significant intuition on the behavior of buried pipelines
subjected to permanent ground deformations. Using the
proposed analytical methodology, one may predict the strains
developed in the pipeline wall quite efficiently and with good
accuracy.
INTRODUCTION
Buried pipelines are often constructed in geohazard areas;
they may cross active seismic faults, liquefaction areas or slope
instability regions capable of producing large ground
deformations. Avoiding these geohazard areas is the safer
design option for pipeline alignment but this may not always be
possible. In particular, in high-seismicity areas a large number
of seismic faults exist, which means that a pipeline alignment in
this area will certainly cross a significant number of these
faults. Furthermore, the pipeline may cross areas prone to
liquefaction or mountainous areas with slope instabilities. In
such cases, the pipeline must be designed taking into account
the additional stress and deformation induced by ground
movement.
1 Copyright 2016 by ASME
PVP2016
PVP2016-63856
Spyros A. Karamanos
Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece
email: skara@mie.uth.gr
The paper of Newmark and Hall [1] has been a pioneering
publication in the area of pipeline stress analysis under ground-
induced actions, introducing an analytical model for assessing
the integrity of a buried pipeline crossing a ruptured fault.
Continuing the work in [1], Kennedy et al. [2] developed an
analytical model, ignoring pipeline bending stiffness, while
Wang and Yeh [3] improved this methodology by accounting
for pipeline bending stiffness. In subsequent publications
Takada et al. [4], Karamitros et al. [5] and Trifonov et al. [6]
[7] developed analytical and semi-analytical methodologies for
analyzing buried pipelines crossing seismic faults. More
recently, together with rigorous finite element models a
simplified analytical formulation has been proposed in a series
of publications by Vazouras et al. [8] [9] [10] for describing
pipeline deformation under strike-slip fault action. In addition
to the above research publications, design provisions for the
response of buried pipelines under permanent ground-induced
deformations have been gradually introduced in several
standards and design recommendation.
Permanent ground actions consist of the differential motion
of two adjacent soil blocks, crossed by the pipeline. They can
be divided in two major categories. The first concerns the cases
with the same soil resistance in the two moving parts of the
soil, referred to as symmetric cases. The second category is
associated with different soil resistance in the two moving parts
of the soil and is referred to as non-symmetric cases. Strike-
slip faults are symmetric cases because the transverse
(horizontal) soil resistance in both sides of the fault is
practically the same. Non-symmetric cases are all normal and
oblique faults because the vertical soil resistance is different in
the upward and downward direction. As non-symmetric cases
one may consider the cases of lateral spreading.
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.

2 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 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

3 Copyright 2016 by ASME

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

4 Copyright 2016 by ASME

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)

1.371 (1.5D) 1.83 1.70 1.85

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)

made of X65 steel, crossing a strike-slip fault with cohesionless FEM

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.

5 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 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).

6 Copyright 2016 by ASME

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

Table 10: Comparison between proposed methodology and

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

7 Copyright 2016 by ASME

ks Stiffness of soil resistance per pipe unit length in the
pipe axial direction
pu Soil resistance per unit length in horizondal direction
qu1 Soil resistance per unit length in vertical direction
corresponding to length L1
qu2 Soil resistances per unit length in vertical direction
corresponding to length L2
t Pipe thickness
tu Soil resistance per unit length in axial direction
yu Soil displacement corresponding to maximum soil
resistance
Total elongation (stretching) of pipe segment
Fault crossing angle
Flexibility displacement at pipe ends
b Maximum bending strain
m Axial membrane strain
Internal angle of soil friction
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Part of the research work was carried out with a financial
grant of the European Commission through the Research Fund
for Coal and Steel, (RFCS) Contract N. RFSR-CT-20011-
00027, Safety of Buried Steel Pipelines Under Ground-
Induced Deformations, project acronym GIPIPE.
REFERENCES
[1] Newmark N. M. and Hall W. J. (1975), Pipeline design
to resist large fault displacement. Proceedings of U.S.
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 416
425.
[2] Kennedy, R. P., Chow, A. W. and Williamson, R. A.
(1977), Fault movement effects on buried oil pipeline,
ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 103,
pp. 617633.
[3] Wang, L. R. L. and Yeh, Y. A. (1985), A refined seismic
analysis and design of buried pipeline for fault
movement, Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 13, pp. 7596.
[4] Takada, S., Hassani, N. and Fukuda, K. (2001), A new
proposal for simplified design of buried steel pipes
crossing active faults, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 2001; Vol. 30: pp.12431257.
[5] Karamitros, D. K., Bouckovalas, G. D., and Kouretzis, G.
P. (2007), Stress Analysis of Buried Steel Pipelines at
StrikeSlip Fault Crossings., Soil Dynamics &
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 27, pp. 200-211.
[6] Trifonov, O. V. and Cherniy, V. P. (2010), A semi-
analytical approach to a nonlinear stressstrain analysis of
buried steel pipelines crossing active faults., Soil
Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 30, pp. 1298-
1308.
8 Copyright 2016 by ASME
[7] Trifonov, O. V. and Cherniy, V. P. (2012), Elastoplastic
stress-strain analysis of buried steel pipelines subjected
to fault displacements with account for service loads.,
Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 1,
pp. 54-62.
[8] Vazouras, P., Karamanos, S. A., and Dakoulas, P.
(2010),Finite Element Analysis of Buried Steel Pipelines
Under Strike-Slip Fault Displacements, Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 11, pp. 1361
1376.
[9] Vazouras, P., Karamanos, S. A., and Dakoulas, P. (2012),
Mechanical behavior of buried steel pipes crossing active
strikeslip faults, Soil Dynamics and Earthq.
Engineering, 41:164180.
[10] Vazouras, P., Dakoulas, P., and Karamanos, S. A. (2015),
Pipe-Soil Interaction and Pipeline Performance Under
Strike-Slip Fault Movements, Soil Dynamics &
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 72, pp. 48-65.
[11] American Lifelines Alliance, (2001), Guidelines for the
Design of Buried Steel Pipe.
[12] Nederlands NormalisatieInstituut (2006), Requirements
for Pipeline Systems, NEN 3650, Part1: General, and
Part2: Steel Pipelines.
[13] ASCE. 1984, Guidelines for seismic design of oil and gas
pipeline systems. Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel
Lifelines, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake
Engineering, America Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
Va.
[14] Sarvanis, G. C, Ferino, J., Karamanos, S. A., Vazouras, P.,
Dakoulas, P., Mecozzi, E. (2016) Numerical
Investigation and Experimental Verification of Pipe-Soil
Interaction for Buried Pipelines Crossing Geohazard
Areas, ISOPE 2016 Rhodes.
[15] Karamanos, S. A., Keil, B. and Card, R. J. (2014),
Seismic design of buried steel water pipelines., ASCE
Pipelines 2014 Conference, Portland, Oregon.
ANNEX A
OUTLINE OF FINITE ELEMENTS MODELS USED FOR
PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS
The finite element method can also be used to model the
effects of ground-induced actions on buried pipelines ([8], [9],
[10] and [15]). There exists two levels of finite element
modeling. The first level (Level 1) is widely used in pipeline
design practice against geohazards. The second level (Level 2),
which employs a 3D continuum approach for the surrounding
soil, is used only in special cases, where increased accuracy is
necessary. In the following, a short description of these
numerical approaches is offered.
Level 1 Modeling
In this level of analysis, the pipe is modeled with beam-type
finite elements referred to as pipe elements or elbow
elements. This numerical methodology has been employed for
simulating permanent ground-induced actions on pipelines,
such as faults, landslides and lateral spreading at several design
projects. The finite element mesh near discontinuities (e.g. fault
plane) should be fine enough, so that gradients of stress and
strains are accurately simulated.
The use of regular beam elements for the pipeline model is
not recommended, given the fact that they cannot account for
pressure loading. Instead, pipe elements are preferable, which
account for the presence of hoop stress and strain due to
pressure. Furthermore, the use of special-purpose elements with
the capability of describing cross-sectional ovalization,
sometimes referred to as elbow elements, can further improve
the accuracy of the finite element model, especially at pipe
bends.
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
the soil, including possible slip of the pipe through the soil,
data. In case 2 the pipe material have been modeled with a
bilinear curve similar to the curve used by Karamitros et. al.
[5].
Level 2 Modeling
The second level of analysis offers the capability of rigorous
calculations. Four-node reduced integration shell elements are
employed for modelling the cylindrical pipeline segment and
eight-node reduced-integration brick elements are employed
to simulate the surrounding soil. The mechanical behavior of
soil material is described through a Mohr-Coulomb model. In
Fig. 10 a typical model is shown for a 36-in-diameter pipe for
the case of pipeline crossing the fault plane at angle = 20.
The total length of the model is equal to 65D. More details on
this approach are offered in [8] and [9]. The pipe material in
Cases 4 and 5 have been modeled as elastic-plastic using
available experimental data from the pipe steel material.
65D
= 20

resulting in nonlinear load-deflection curves. Expressions for

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

9 Copyright 2016 by ASME

View publication stats