Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2017
June 25-30, 2017, Trondheim, Norway

OMAE2017-61539

SOIL-PIPE INTERACTION MODELS FOR THE SIMULATION OF BURIED STEEL

PIPELINE BEHAVIOUR AGAINST GEOHAZARDS
Gregory C. Sarvanis Spyros A. Karamanos Polynikis Vazouras
Department of Mechanical Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
Engineering University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece University of Thessaly, Volos,
University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece Greece
School of Engineering
email: gsarvan@uth.gr
The University of Edinburgh, Scotland,
UK

Panos Dakoulas Elisabetta Mecozzi Antonio Lucci

Department of Civil Engineering Centro Sviluppo Materiali S.p.A. Centro Sviluppo Materiali S.p.A.
University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece Rome, Italy Rome, Italy

ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION

Hydrocarbon pipelines constructed in geohazards areas, are
subjected to ground-induced actions, associated with the
development of severe strains in the pipeline and constitute
major threats for their structural integrity. In the course of
pipeline design, calculation of those strains is necessary for
safeguarding pipeline integrity, and the development of reliable
analytical/numerical design tools that account for soil-pipe
interaction is required.
In the present paper, soil-pipe interaction models for buried
steel pipelines subjected to severe ground-induced actions are
presented. First, two numerical methodologies, (simplified and
rigorous) and one analytical are presented and compared,
followed by an experimental verification; transversal soil-pipe
interaction is examined through full-scale experimental testing,
and comparisons of numerical simulations with rigorous finite
element models are reported. Furthermore, the rigorous model
is compared with the results from a special-purpose full-scale
“landslide/fault” experimental test in order to examine the soil-
pipe interaction in a complex loading conditions. Finally, the
verified rigorous model is compared with both the simplified
models and the analytical methodology.
Buried pipelines are often constructed in geohazard areas
and may cross active seismic faults, liquefaction areas or slope
instability regions capable of producing large ground
deformations. In such cases the pipeline must be designed,
taking into account the additional stress and deformation
induced in the pipe wall due to those ground movements.
Pipe-soil interaction has been examined experimentally,
numerically and analytically in the last forty years. From the
analytical point of view, the paper of Newmark and Hall [1] has
been pioneering in this area, introducing an analytical model
for assessing the integrity of a buried pipeline crossing a
ruptured fault. Kennedy et al. [2], Wang and Yeh [3], Takada et
al. [4], Karamitros et al. [5] and Trifonov et al. in [6] and [7]
developed analytical and semi-analytical methodologies for
analyzing buried pipelines crossing seismic faults. Most
recently, Sarvanis and Karamanos in [8] proposed a
straightforward analytical methodology for the calculation of
strains induced in pipelines because of ground-induced actions,
resulting in closed-form expressions for the maximum strain in
the pipeline. This methodology is also presented briefly in this
paper.
There exist two types of finite elements models, used for the
simulation of the buried steel pipelines under permanent ground
deformation. The first type referred to as “simplified model”
considers beam-type elements for the modeling of pipe, and
non-linear springs for the simulation of soil. This type of
modelling has been proposed by several design guidelines and

1 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 recommendations such as the ASCE [9] or the ALA [10]
guidelines. The second type of model has been initially
introduced in a series of papers by Vazouras et al. in [11] [12]
and [13], tackling the problem through a rigorous three-
dimensional numerical model which employ four-node reduced
integration shell elements for modeling the pipeline and eight-
node reduced-integration solid elements for the simulation of
the surrounding soil. That type of model, referred to as
“rigorous model”, has also been adopted by Trifonov [7]. As an
alternative to this rigorous model, Karamitros et al. [5]
proposed a hybrid model, using shell elements for the pipe and
non-linear springs for the soil.
There exists a limited number of publications reporting
experimental tests on pipe-soil interaction. In the work of
Trautmann and O’Rourke ([14], [15]) the effects of pipe depth,
soil density, pipe diameter and pipe roughness on the lateral
force-displacement response of buried pipelines has been
examined. Also Paulin et al. [16], Scarpelli et al. [17] and
Anderson [18] performed pullout tests to investigate axial pipe-
soil interaction, while Karimian [19] reported experimental
tests for both axial and transverse response of buried pipelines.
Quite recently, in the framework of European research
project, GIPIPE, soil-pipeline interaction under ground -
induced actions has been investigated numerically and
experimentally. Three axial pull-out and three transversal tests
were conducted mainly with the purpose of understanding soil-
pipe interaction mechanism in those two directions. Moreover
four large-scale tests referred to as “landslide/fault tests” have
been performed in order to investigate pipe-soil interaction in a
more realistic scenario Details about those tests can be found
also in Sarvanis et al. ([20], [21]).
In the present paper, pipe-soil interaction models are
presented and discussed. In the first part of the paper the two
numerical models, the “simplified” and the “rigorous”, and one
analytical methodology are presented and discussed.
Subsequently the rigorous model is verified through the
simulation of experimental testing, conducted in the framework
of GIPIPE project. Finally the simplified numerical model and
the analytical methodology are compared against the verified
rigorous numerical model.
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE NUMERICAL MODELS
2.1 SIMPLIFIED NUMERICAL MODELS
This type of analysis employs beam-type one-dimensional
finite elements for the simulation of the pipe. These “pipe
elements” account for hoop stress and strain due to pressure. In
the present case, the use of “pipe elements” with the capability
of describing cross-sectional ovalization, sometimes referred to
as “elbow elements”, further improves the accuracy of the finite
element model, especially at pipe bends. The mesh is chosen
discontinuities (e.g. fault plane), so that gradients of stress and
strains are accurately simulated.
2 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Pipe material is modelled as elastic-plastic, considering
strain-hardening. The surrounding soil is modelled by nonlinear
springs, attached on the pipe nodes and directed in the
transverse directions see Figure 1. The springs account for
possible slip between the pipe and the soil and expressions for
their stiffness are offered in ALA [10], based on the type of
soil. Alternative equations for soil spring stiffness are reported
in NEN 3650 [22] standard. More details on this type of
modelling can be found in Karamanos et al. [23].
Figure 1. Simplified numerical model; pipe (beam-type) finite
elements and soil springs attached to pipeline nodes in the three
principal directions.
2.2 RIGOROUS NUMERICAL MODELS
The use of three-dimensional finite elements offers a
rigorous numerical tool to simulate buried pipeline behavior
under permanent ground deformations, but requires
computational expertise. Such a model is capable of describing
the nonlinear geometry of the deforming soil-pipe system
(including distortions of the pipeline cross-section), the
inelastic material behavior for the pipe and the soil, as well as
soil-pipe interaction.
The basic concept in this model is the consideration of an
elongated prismatic model where the steel pipeline is embedded
in the soil, as shown in Figure 2b for the case of a strike-slip
fault. Shell elements are employed for modeling the pipeline
cylinder, whereas three-dimensional “brick” elements are used
to simulate the surrounding soil. The discontinuity plane (e.g.
fault plane, edge of landslide or edge of lateral spreading)
divides the soil block in two parts. The ground-induced
movement is imposed keeping one soil block fixed, and
imposing a displacement pattern in the external nodes of the
second block. A fine mesh should be employed at the part of
the pipeline where maximum stresses and strains are expected.
Similarly, the finite element mesh for the soil should be more
refined in the region near fault and coarser in the region away
from the fault.
The mechanical behavior of soil material is described
through a modified Mohr-Coulomb model proposed by
Anastasopoulos et al. [24] in order to account for the softening
behavior of the sand. According to this method, the plastic
shear strain γpeak corresponds to φpeak and the γres corresponds to
φres can be computed by Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 respectively.
δ x peak − δ x y
γ peak = (1)
D
 In the above equations, D is the initial depth of the soil ⎛ (32 + π 2 ) ˆ 2 ⎞⎛ ω ⎞
sample and dFE the height of the soil elements in the model, εm = ⎜ d cos2 β + dˆ sin β ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (4)
while the δxpeak and δxres are the corresponding horizontal ⎝ 64 ⎠ ⎝ ω +1⎠
displacements of φpeak and φres, respectively. The horizondal
displacement associated with yielding is referred to as δxy. KtL
ω= (5)
δ x res − δ x peak 2 EA
γ res = γ peak + (2)
d FE
K t = EAks (6)

(c)
In the above equations, A is the cross sectional area of the pipe,
E is Young’s modulus of the steel pipe material and K t
(a)
expresses the axial stiffness of the straight part of the pipeline
outside the S-shaped length L, where ks is the stiffness of soil
resistance per pipe unit length in the pipe axial direction and
can be estimated using the provisions of relevant standards and
(b) design recommendations (ASCE [9], ALA [10], NEN 3650
[22]).
fault d sin β
z plane
deformed
pipeline axis Li

A C E B d

d cos β x
Figure 2. Rigorous finite element model; shell elements and
solid elements (right) [Vazouras et al., [11]]
β

d
L1 L2 (a)
3 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY fault plane
z qu 2
deformed
pipeline axis
The concept of the present analytical formulation has been
A E B d cos β
proposed by Sarvanis and Karamanos [8] and will be presented C
d cos β x
here briefly. The model is able to describe the pipeline
deformation under both symmetric and non-symmetric soil Li

resistance, using an assumed-shape trigonometrical function for L1 L2

the deformed pipeline. The assumed shape function for the
transverse displacement of the pipeline is valid for both
symmetric and non-symmetric cases, and satisfies the
compatibility conditions at the interface of the relative soil
movement.
In addition, the axial displacement of the pipeline due to
longitudinal stretching within this segment, is assumed to be
linearly distributed along the pipeline.
The maximum bending k max can be calculated the second
derivative of the transverse displacement and the maximum
bending strain εb of the deformed pipe can be obtained as
follows:
D π 2D ˆ
εb = kmax = d cos β
2 8( L1 + Li )
While using the axial displacement and according to
methodology proposed in a series of publications by Vazouras
et al. ([11], [12], [13]) and also adopted by Sarvanis and
Karamanos [8] the axial membrane strain is given by the
following equations.
d cos β
qu1 (b)
Figure 3. (a) Schematic representation of ground-induced
deformation of pipeline. (b) Deformation of pipeline
considering only the transverse component of ground-induced
deformation.
An important parameter for the analysis of a pipe subjected
to permanent ground deformation is the value of lengths L1 and
L2 of the S-shape of the pipeline, shown in Figure 3. These
lengths (L1 and L2) correspond to the distance from the fault at
which the bending moment is equal to zero on each side, while
length Li in Figure 3 is the distance between the fault and the
(3) inflection point. Simple calculations show that the values of
strains are quite sensitive to the values L1 and L2. An equivalent
static model for the calculation of lengths L1 and L2 has been
presented by Sarvanis and Karamanos [8]. The model employs
elastic beam theory and the assumption that upon yielding of
the first pipeline section, the length L does not change
significantly. The accuracy of this assumption is investigated
and discussed in detail by Sarvanis and Karamanos [8].

3 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The above analytical methodology is summarized below. Given
the geometric and material properties of the pipe ( D, t, E, σ y ) ,
the maximum soil resistances of the surrounding soil
(qu1 , qu 2 , tu ) , the imposed ground displacement d, and the
angle β at which the pipeline crosses the discontinuity plane:
(1) Calculate the soil resistance ratio b = qu1 qu 2 .
(2) Calculate the length ratio α = L1 L2 from Figure 5
using the soil resistance ratio b = qu1 qu 2 .
(3) Find parameter F (b) from Figure 4 using the soil
resistance ratio b = qu1 qu 2 .
(4) Calculate the ground displacement dy corresponding to
first yielding of the pipe cross section.
dy ⎛ σ y ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞ ⎛ Dσ y ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ F (b )
D ⎝ E ⎠ ⎝ D ⎠ ⎝ qu 2 ⎠
(5) Compute the characteristic lengths of the deformed S-
shape of the pipeline L1, L2 and Li:
1/ 4
⎛ 24d y EJ ⎞
L1 = α ⎜ ⎟
⎝ qu1 + qu 2 ⎠ Figure 4. Graphical representation of function F ( b ) , with
L1 respect to soil resistance ratio b = qu1 qu 2 .
L2 =
α
The distance Li between the fault and the inflection point
can be simply by the following quadratic equation with respect
to Li:
⎡ qu 2 ⎤ 2 ⎡ 12 EJd ⎤ ⎡ L12 ⎤
⎢ L + V
⎥ i ⎢ A − − (α + 1)q L L
u2 1 ⎥ i + ⎢ qu 2 (1 + α ) ⎥ = 0
⎣ 2 ⎦ ⎢⎣ 2
3
⎣ L ⎦ ⎥⎦
(6) Calculate the maximum bending strain εb and the
membrane strain εm.
π 2D
εb = dˆ cos β
8( L1 + Li )
⎛ (32 + π 2 ) ⎞⎛ ω ⎞
ε m = ⎜⎜ dˆ 2 cos2 β + dˆ sin β ⎟ ⎜
64 ⎟ ⎝ ω + 1 ⎟⎠
⎝ ⎠
where d̂ = d ( L1 + L2 ) and ω is calculated from Eq.5.
(7) Calculate the maximum tensile strain εT and the
maximum compressive strain εC; compare with the
corresponding strain limits:
εT = ε b + ε m ≤ εTu
ε C = ε b − ε m ≤ ε Cu
Using this methodology, one may predict simply and with
good accuracy the configuration of the deformed shape of the Figure 5. Ratio of lengths L1 and L2 (α = L1 L2 ) with respect
pipeline subjected to permanent soil deformations and the
ensuing strains of the pipe wall. More details about axial soil resistance ratio b = qu1 qu 2 .
membrane strain can be found in the papers by Vazouras et al.
([11], [12], [13]) and Sarvanis and Karamanos [20].

4 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 4 EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF RIGOROUS
MODELS

To define the material parameters for the soil surrounding

the pipeline, direct shear tests have been performed in samples
of the two different sands used in the experiments, described
below. The material properties of the two sands are tabulated in
Table 1. In all cases, the examined pipe was the same and the
geometric and material properties are shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Material properties of the two sands.

φpeak φres δχpeak δχres δχy
Sand 1 45o 37o 1.2 mm 3.5 mm 0.8 mm
Sand 2 48.2o 41.7o 1.4 mm 3.3 mm 0.7 mm
Figure 7. Deformed shape of the free soil surface at the end of
transverse test.
Table 2: Geometric and material properties of the steel pipe.
D (mm) t (mm) Steel grade A finite element model has also been developed to simulate
Sand 1 219.6 5.56 API 5L X65 the transverse pipe-soil interaction tests. The model is shown in
Figure 8. To reduce the computational effort, without loss of
accuracy only a slice of width 1m is modeled. The analysis
4.1 Tests on transverse pipe-soil interaction proceeds with a displacement controlled scheme of the pipeline
in the horizontal transverse direction, as shown in Figure 4,
Pipe-soil interaction in the transverse horizontal direction of while pipe displacements in the vertical direction is restricted
a buried pipeline plays a significant role for pipe deformation exactly as performed experimentally.
subjected to permanent ground deformations. Three transverse
pipe-soil tests have been performed in the course of the present
research effort. The experimental setup is shown in Figure 6
while in Figure 7 the deformed shape of the free soil surface at
the end of the test is shown. The value of force is calculated
from the measurements of a contact pressure sensor, wrapped
around the pipe. (a)

(b)

Figure 6. Experimental setup of transverse pipe-soil interaction

tests. Figure 8. Finite element model of transverse test; (a)
undeformed shape of the model; (b) distribution of Mises
stresses.

5 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 175

150

125

Load [kN]
100

(a) 75
TR 2

50
FEM

25
ASCE
(1984)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Transverse Displacement [mm]

Figure 11. Comparison between experimental results of test

TR2 (Sand 1, non-coated) and the results of finite element
model.
175

150
(b)
125

Load [kN]
100
Figure 9. Finite element model of transverse test; (a) equivalent
plastic strain; (b) distribution of displacement. 75
TR 3
50
A comparison between experimental and finite element FEM

25
results is shown in Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 for the tests ASCE
(1984)
TR1, TR2 and TR3, respectively. More details of the transverse 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
experimental testing are presented in Table 3. The comparison Transverse Displacement [mm]

shows that the predictions of pipe-soil interaction obtained

from the finite element model are quite satisfactory. Also the Figure 12. Comparison between experimental results of test
predictions according to ASCE [9] provisions is quite good TR3 (Sand 1, coated) and the results of finite element model.
with respect to the experimental results.

Table 3: Details on transverse experimental testing. 4.2 Simulation of landslide/fault tests

Test TR1 TR2 TR3
Large-scale tests have also been performed in order to
Soil Sand 2 Sand 1 Sand 1 investigate pipe-soil interaction when the pipe is subjected to a
horizontal ground movement normal to the pipeline axis using a
Coating Non-coated Non-coated Coated special “landslide/fault” device. The experimental setup is
shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14. The setup is composed by
175 two fixed concrete boxes that remain constant throughout the
150
test and one sliding box between the two constant boxes as
shown in Figure 13. The two ends of the pipe are free to move
125 in the longitudinal direction of the pipe during the test. The
longitudinal strains are measured using strain gauges along the
Load [kN]

100
pipe at several values of displacement of the middle sliding
75
TR 1
box. A finite element model has been developed, which
50 simulates the “landslide/fault” tests. The model is shown in
FEM
Figure 15a. The middle box slides along the x axis as shown in
25
ASCE
(1984)
Figure 15a, while the two far boxes remain fixed. In Figure 15b
0 the deformed shape of pipe specimen from test LD1 is shown.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Transverse Displacement [mm]

Figure 10. Comparison between experimental results of test

TR1 (Sand 2, non-coated) and the results of finite element
model.

6 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 13. Schematic representation of experimental setup of
tests in a landslide/fault device conducted by CSM (Centro
Sviluppo Materiali S.p.A.).
Figure 16. Deformed shape of the finite element model
simulating test LD1; sliding displacement of 600 mm (2.74 D).

0.6

0.5 LD 1

0.4

Longitudinal strain [%]

FEM
0.3

0.2

0.1
Figure 14. Experimental setup of “landslide/fault” tests. 0

-0.1
The comparison between experimental results and the finite -0.2
element analysis results is shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18 for -0.3
the tests LD1 and LD2, respectively. More details of the -0.4
experimental testing are presented in Table 4. Those Figures 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Longitudinal position [m]
depict the variation of the longitudinal strain at the front side of
the pipe for half the specimen due to symmetry and for box Figure 17. Comparison of the longitudinal strains between test
displacement equal to 600 mm (2.73 D). The comparison and finite element results along the pipe, for box displacement
between the experimental and numerical results in this case is equal to 600 mm (2.73 D).
also very satisfactory, indicating that this type of numerical 0.6
model is capable to predict accurately the strains of a buried 0.5 LD 2
pipe in the case of permanent ground deformation. 0.4
Longitudinal strain [%]

FEM
0.3

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Longitudinal position [m]

Figure 18. Comparison of the longitudinal strains between test

and finite element results along the pipe, for box displacement
Figure 15. General configuration of the numerical model. equal to 600 mm (2.73 D).

Table 4: Details on landslide experimental testing.

Test LD1 LD2 5 COMPARISON OF SIMPLIFIED WITH RIGOROUS
FINITE ELEMENT MODELS
Soil Sand 2 Sand 1
A comparison between the simplified models and the rigorous
In. pressure 0 MPa 11.4 MPa numerical models (verified in the previous section) has been

7 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 performed for a 914.4 mm-diameter (36 in.), X65 steel
pressurized pipeline. Pipe thickness is 0.5 in., internal pressure
is 50 bar, and the soil properties are presented in Table 5. The
pipeline crosses a strike-slip fault at angle β = 0 . Three
o ASCE (1984) provisions can predict quite satisfactory the
different cases have been considered for the simplified models.
The first one considers “pipe elements” for the pipeline and
non-linear springs for the soil according to ASCE (1984) and is
referred to as “pipe ASCE”. The second considers “pipe
elements” for the pipeline and non-linear springs for the soil
according to NEN 3650, and is referred to as “pipe NEN”,
while the third one considers “elbow elements” for the pipeline
and non-linear springs for the soil according to NEN 3650 and
is referred to as “elbow NEN”. The non-linear spring properties
for both ASCE (1984) case and NEN 3650 case are presented
in Table 2.
satisfactory the critical ground displacement. The results of this
comparison indicate that the simplified model uses “pipe
elements” for the pipeline and non-linear springs according to
critical ground displacement, at which failure at pipeline
occurred. In terms of axial strains all the simplified models
predict a larger maximum tensile strain than the rigorous
model. As far as the maximum compressive axial strain, the
simplified model uses “pipe elements” for the pipeline and non-
linear springs according to ASCE (1984) provisions predicts a
similar value with the rigorous model while the other two
model cases predict a larger value with respect to rigorous
model. Moreover it is essential to notice that after the folding of
the pipe wall, due to local buckling, the simplified models
cannot predict accurately the induced strains.
0.015

Table 5: Material properties for the sand. pipe ASCE 0.8m disp
0.01
Properties Loose Sand pipe NEN3650 0.8m disp
elbow NEN3650 0.8m disp
ο
φ 32 0.005 rigorous 0.8m

Axial Strain
Ε 8 MPa 0

ν 0.3
-0.005

γ 18 kN/m
-0.01
Κ 0.47
-0.015
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Pipe Length (m)

Table 6: Non-linear spring properties for the simplified model

according to NEN 3650 and to ALA (2001). Figure 19. Comparison of axial strains between rigorous model
Loose sand and simplified models for ground displacement equal to 0.8m
which corresponds to the critical ground displacement
Spring values NEN ALA according to rigorous model.
3650 (2001)
Axial force (friction), KN/m 27.2 27.2 Table 7: Critical ground displacement, at which failure (local
buckling) occurred in the pipeline is presented for each case
Axial displacement, m 0.006 0.005
under consideration.
Ultimate horizontal bearing capacity, 376 386 Type of element Displacement at which buckle occurs
KN/m
Horizontal displacement, m 0.025 0.118 pipe elements (NEN) 0.67 m (according to EN 1998-4)
(simplified model)
(y30) (ymax)
Ultimate vertical bearing capacity, 1212 1150 pipe elements (ASCE) 0.76 m (according to EN 1998-4)
downwards, KN/m (simplified model)
Vertical downward displacement, m 0.23 0.09 elbow elements (NEN) 0.68 m (according to EN 1998-4)
(simplified model)
Ultimate vertical bearing capacity, 57.2 81.22 Shell elements 0.80 m (directly from FE analysis)
upwards, KN/m (rigorous model)
Vertical upward displacement, m 0.044 0.03

In Figure 19 the comparison of the axial strains between
rigorous model and simplified models is presented for ground
displacement equal to 0.8m, while Table 7 presents the critical
ground displacement, at which failure occurred in the pipeline
for each model case under consideration. The aim of this
comparison is to examine whether the simplified models and
the failure criterion according to EN 1998-4 can predict
6 COMPARISON BETWEEN ANALYTICAL
METHODOLOGY AND RIGOROUS FINITE
ELEMENT MODEL RESULTS
Comparison between the analytical methodology of section
3 and the verified rigorous numerical model has been
performed for a 914.4-mm-diameter (36 in.) X65 steel

8 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 pressurized pipeline. Pipe thickness is 11.91 mm (0.469 in.) and
internal pressure is 50 bar, while the soil properties of the pipe
are presented in Table 5. The pipeline crosses a strike-slip fault
at angle β = 20 . The length L of the curved pipe segment is
o deformations.
computed according to analytical methodology of section 3
equal to 18.5 m, while the lengths L and L are equal to the
1 2
half of the total length L , L1 = L2 = 9.25 m and the length Li is
equal to zero. The results from the rigorous finite element
analysis and the proposed analytical methodology are presented
and compared in Table 7. The comparison indicates a very
good agreement between analytical and numerical results as in
the previous cases. In Figure 20, the deformed shape from the
rigorous finite element model is presented for fault
displacement equal to 2.0 m.
Table 8: Comparison between proposed methodology and
rigorous finite element modelling ( β = 20 ).
o
tests, and good agreement has been found, showing that the
rigorous numerical models are capable of describing accurately
the response of buried pipelines under permanent ground
A comparison of the rigorous model and the simplified
numerical models has been performed in order to examine if
the simplified models and the failure criterion according to EN
1998-4 can predict satisfactory the critical ground
displacement. The comparison indicates that the simplified
model with “pipe elements” for the pipeline and non-linear
springs from ASCE (1984) provisions can predict the critical
(failure) ground displacement quite satisfactory. However,
these beam-type elements are not capable at describing local
buckling and post-buckling response. For such cases, a rigorous
model should be used.
Finally the comparison between rigorous numerical model
and the proposed analytical methodology indicates that the
proposed closed-form expressions – despite their simplicity –
are capable of predicting reliable values for the maximum

max tensile strain %
d (m) analytical methodology
1 0.96
2 1.99
induced strains in pipeline and may constitute a useful tool in
the course of preliminary design of buried pipelines subjected
FEM
to ground-induced actions.
0.82
2.09
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research work was supported by a financial grant

from the European Commission through the Research Fund for
Coal and Steel Programme, Contract No. RFCS-CT-2011-
00027, “Safety of Buried Steel Pipelines Under Ground-
Induced Deformations”, project acronym GIPIPE. The pipe
specimens for testing have been provided by Corinth
PipeWorks S.A., Greece.

9 REFERENCES
Figure 20. Deformed shape of pipeline, for fault displacement
equal to 2.0 m ( β = 20 ).
o
7 CONCLUSIONS
In the present paper, models for simulating the mechanical
response of buried pipelines subjected to permanent ground
actions are presented. The mechanics of pipe-soil interaction, a
key issue for pipeline behavior, has been presented, based on
experimental, numerical and analytical methodologies. Two
types of numerical models (simplified and rigorous) have been
presented, together with an analytical methodology.
The rigorous models that employ solid element for
simulating soil and shell elements for the pipe were compared
with the results of large-scale transverse and landslide/fault
[1] Newmark N. M., Hall W. J. (1975), “Pipeline design to resist
large fault displacement.”, Proceedings of U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering; pp. 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.
617-633.
[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, 13: 75-96.
[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, Vol. 30, pp.1243–1257.
[5] Karamitros, D. K., Bouckovalas, G. D. and Kouretzis, G. P.
(2007), “Stress Analysis of Buried Steel Pipelines at Strike
Slip 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 stress–strain analysis of
buried steel pipelines crossing active faults.”, Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 30, pp. 1298-1308.
[7] Trifonov, O. V. and Cherniy, V. P. (2012), “Elastoplastic

9 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 stress strain analysis of buried steel pipelines subjected to
fault displacements with account for service loads.”, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.
54-62.
[8] Sarvanis, G. C, and Karamanos, S. A. (2016), “Analytical
Methodologies for Buried Pipeline Design in Geohazard
Areas.”, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference,
Vancouver, Canada.
[9] 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.
[10] American Lifelines Alliance, (2001), Guidelines for the
Design of Buried Steel Pipe.
[11] 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.
[12] Vazouras, P., Karamanos, S. A., and Dakoulas, P. (2012),
“Mechanical behavior of buried steel pipes crossing active
strike-slip faults”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 41, pp. 164–180.
[13] Vazouras, P., Dakoulas, P., and Karamanos, S. A. (2015),
“Pipe-Soil Interaction and Pipeline Performance Under
Strike-Slip Fault Movements”, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 72, pp. 48-65.
[14] Trautmann, C.H., and O’Rourke, T.D. 1983. Behavior of
pipe in dry sand under lateral and uplift loading. Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y. Geotechnical Engineering Report
83–7.
[15] Trautmann, C.H. and O’Rourke, T.D, (1985), “Lateral Force
Displacement Response of Buried Pipe,” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.111, No.9, pp.1077-
1092.
[16] Paulin, M. J., Phillips, R., Clark, J. I., Trigg, A. and Konuk,
I. (1998), “A full-scale investigation into pipeline/soil
.
10
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
interaction.”, Proceedings of International Pipeline
Conference, ASME, Calgary, AB., 779-788.
[17] Scarpelli, G., Sakellariadi, E., Furlani, G. (2003),
“Evaluation of soil-pipeline longitudinal interaction forces”,
Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica Vol. 4/2003.
[18] Anderson, C. (2004), Soil–pipeline interaction of
polyethylene natural gas pipelines in sand, M.Sc thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
[19] Karimian, H. (2006), Response of buried steel pipelines
subjected to longitudinal and transverse ground movement.
Ph.D. thesis, De- partment of Civil Engineering, The
University of British Colum- bia, Vancouver, B.C.
[20] Sarvanis, G. C., Ferino, J., Karamanos, S. A., Vazouras, P.,
Dakoulas, P., Mecozzi, E., and Demofonti, G. (2016). “Soil-
Pipe Interaction Models for Simulating the Mechanical
Response of Buried Steel Pipelines Crossing Active Faults.”,
International Conference of Offshore and Polar
Engineering, ISOPE, Rhodes, Greece.
[21] Sarvanis, G. C., Karamanos, S. A., Vazouras, P., Mecozzi,
E.,Lucci, A., and Dakoulas, P. (2017). “Permanent Ground-
Induced Actions in Buried Pipelines: Numerical Modeling
and Experimental Verification”, Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics., under preparation to be submitted.
[22] Nederlands Normalisatie –Instituut (2006), Requirements for
Pipeline Systems, NEN 3650, Part-1: General, and Part-2:
Steel Pipelines.
[23] Karamanos, S. A., Keil, B., Card, R., “Seismic Design of
Buried Steel Water Pipelines”, Pipelines 2014: pp. 1005-
1019, Portland.
[24] Anastasopoulos I., Gazetas G., Bransby M.F., Davies
M.C.R., El Nahas A. (2007), “Fault rupture propagation
through sand: finite element analysis and validation through
centrifuge experiments.”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 8, pp.
943–958.
Copyright © 2017 ASME