Assessment of the Effects of Pipe’s Wall Thickness on Lateral Steel Pipe-Dense Sandy Soil Interaction Subjected to Strike-Slip Faulting

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Arak Branch, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Seismic stress analysis and investigation of soil’s lateral pressure on buried pipelines are among the challenging subjects in the seismic design of lifelines. Buried pipelines are considered as long structures buried in a semi-infinite medium of soil and be modeled as beams on spring support of the soil, in a conventional technique. The specifications of the support springs were determined using the codes’ relations (such as ASCE 1984 and ALA2001 guidelines). The specifications of pipe-soil equivalent springs are presented as a function of the diameter of the pipe and soil’s mechanical properties. Numerous researches were shown that the pipe-soil interaction is highly dependent on other factors; such as the wall thickness of the pipe, material type of the pipe, and the loading condition as well. In this research, in the first step, two full-scale tests on steel continuous pipes buried in dense sandy soil were done. A computer program (BPSIOS) was developed in MATLAB and ABAQUS to generate the specifications of pipe-soil interaction springs through an optimization algorithm. BPSIOS determined the force-displacement relation for the pipe-soil equivalent springs so that the deformed shapes of the pipe were matched with its real values for any given base displacement. The experimental data were analyzed by BPSIOS to present a comparison with the code’s results. The numerical models were validated and verified using the experimental data in the second part of the study. The finite element simulations were employed to develop a numerical database. The database included twenty-four nonlinear 3D shell-solid finite element models. They were constructed and analyzed in ABAQUS. The database consisted of steel buried pipes with four diameters (in the range of 100 to 400 mm) and six-level of wall thickness (from D/t = 11 to 48). The pipes were widely used in supply lines in natural gas distribution networks. The results of the models were fed into BPSIOS software to determine the specifications of pipe-soil interaction springs. Considering the wall thickness of the pipe, a new relation was established for lateral pipe-soil interaction of dense sandy soil and steel pipes in place of a strike-slip fault. The sensitivity and 3D regression analyses were done, using MATLAB Curve-fitting Toolbox, to develop a new form of relations for pipe soil interaction. The sensitivity analyses showed that the wall thickness of the pipe had a great level of effect on the exerted lateral force on the pipe. The results of the numerical models, made by BPSIOS, show that the ASCE1984 presented results are only valid in the case of small pipes with D/t = 48. However, the ALA2001 guideline presents greater values of the interaction forces, which are closer to the results for moderate pipes. The proposed pipe-soil relation is dependent on the diameter and wall thickness of the pipe and exclusively specified for the material properties of the steel pipe, dense sandy soil, and strike-slip loading condition. It was found that the wall thickness of the pipe had a great effect on the initial and secondary stiffnesses of the pipe-soil equivalent springs. However, the yield displacements were found in the previously presented values for most of the cases.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. O’Rourke, M.J. and Liu, X. (1999) Response of Buried Pipelines Subject to Earthquake Effects. MCEER Monograph Series No.3., University of Bufallo NY, USA.
  2. Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.J. (1975) Pipeline design to resist large fault displacement. Proceedings of U.S National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, PEER/Niees EERC Library, Michigan, 416-425.
  3. Newmark, N.M. and Rosenblueth, E. (1971) Fundamental of Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall Englewood.
  4. Winkler, C. (1867) Beiträge zur kenntniss des indiums. Journal für Praktische Chemie, 102(1), 273-297.
  5. Audibert, J.M.E. and Nyman, K.J. (1977) Soil restraint against horizontal motion of pipes. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Devision, 103, 1119-1142, doi:10.1016/0148-9062(78)91731-X.
  6. Trautmann, C.H. and O’Rourke, T.D. (1985) Lateral force‐displacement response of buried pipe. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(9), 1077-1092, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985) 111:9(1077).
  1. Trautmann, C.H. (1983) Behavior of Pipe in Dry Sand under Lateral and Uplift Loading. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University.
  2. O’Rourke, T.D. and Trautmann, C.H. (1980) Analytical Modeling of Buried Pipeline Response to Permanent Earthquake Displacements. Cornell University, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ithaca, New York.
  3. ASCE (1984) Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)-Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifeline, ISBN: 978-0-87262-428-3.
  4. Mavridis, G.A. and Pitilakis, K. (1996) Axial and transverse seismic analysis of buried pipelines george. Proceedings 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, (1605), 1-
  5. American Lifelines Alliance (2001) Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe. ASCE-FEMA Joint Committee, New York, United States of America.
  6. Brinch-Hansen, J. (1961) The Ultimate Resistance of Rigid Piles against Transversal Forces. Geoteknisk Instit., Bull.
  7. O’Rourke, M., Gadicherla, V., and Abdoun, T. (2005) Centrifuge modeling of PGD response of buried pipe. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 4(1), 69-73, doi:10.1007/ s11803-005-0025-8.
  8. Ha, D. (2007) Evaluation of Ground Rupture Effect on Buried HDPE Pipelines.D. Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York.
  9. Ha, D., Abdoun, T.H., O’Rourke, M.J., Symans, M.D., O’Rourke, T.D., Palmer, M.C., and Stewart, H.E. (2008) Centrifuge modeling of earthquake effects on buried high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipelines crossing fault zones. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(10), 1501-1515, doi: 1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:10(1501).
  10. Abdoun, T.H., Ha, D., O’Rourke, M.J., Symans, M.D., O’Rourke, T.D., Palmer, M.C., and Stewart, H.E. (2009) Factors influencing the behavior of buried pipelines subjected to earthquake faulting. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29(3), 415-427, doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.04.006.
  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, 30(11), 1361-1376, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.06.011.
  12. Vazouras, P., Karamanos, S.A., and Dakoulas, P. (2012) Buried Steel Pipelines Crossing Strike-Slip Faults. Rhodes, Greece, ISBN: 978-1-880653-94-4.
  13. Xie, X., Symans, M.D., O’Rourke, M.J., Abdoun, T.H., O’Rourke, T.D., Palmer, M.C., and Stewart, H.E. (2013) Numerical modeling of buried HDPE pipelines subjected to normal faulting: A case study. Earthquake Spectra, 29(2), 609-632, doi: 10.1193/1.4000137.
  14. Hosseini, M. and Tahamouli Roudsari, M. (2014) Minimum effective length and modified criteria for damage evaluation of continuous buried straight steel pipelines subjected to seismic waves. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 6(4), 4014018, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204. 0000193.
  15. Jung, J.K., O’Rourke, T.D., and Argyrou, C. (2016) Multi-directional force–displacement response of underground pipe in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53(11), 1763-1781, doi: 10.1139/cgj-2016-0059.
  16. Monshizadeh Naeen, A. and Seyedi Hosseininia, E. (2020) Numerical investigation on the deformational behavior of continuous buried pipelines under reverse faulting. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 45(10), 8475-8490,doi: 1007/s13369-020-04766-2.
  17. Nourzadeh, D., Mortazavi, P., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Takada, S., Najma, A., and Rahimi, S. (2020) Numerical, experimental and fragility analysis of urban lifelines under seismic wave propagation: study on gas distribution pipelines in the greater tehran area. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 106(August), 103607, doi: 1193/1.4000137.
  18. Todd, D.R., Carino, N.J., Chung, R.M., Lew, H.S., Taylor, A.W., and Walton, W.D. (1994) 1994 Northridge Earthquake: Performance of Structures, Lifelines and Fire Protection Systems. US Department of Commerce (NIST).
  19. Petak, W.J. and Elahi, S. (2001) The Northridge Earthquake, USA and Its Economic and Social Impacts. EuroConference on Global Change and Catastrophe Risk Management Earthquake Risks in Europe, IIASA, July 6-9, 2000, Laxenburg, Austria, p. 28.
  20. O’Rourke, T.D. and Palmer, M.C. (1994) The Northridge and California Earthquake of January 17 1994: Performance of Gas Transmission Pipelines. Buffalo, NY, ISSN 1088-3800.
  21. Eidinger, J.M., O’Rourke, M., and Bachhuber, J. (2002) Performance of pipelines at fault crossings. Proceedings of the 7th US National Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Boston, Massachusetts, 21-25.
  22. Bruneau, M., Buckle, I., Chang, S., Flores, P., O’Rourke, T., Shinozuka, M., and Soong, T., (2000) The Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake of September 21, 1999: Reconnaissance Report. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER).
  23. Earthquake Investigation Committee of the Technical Council of Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (2013) Chile Earthquake of 2010. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA doi: 10.1061/9780784412824.
  24. O’Rourke, T.D., Jeon, S.-S., Toprak, S., Cubrinovski, M., Hughes, M., van Ballegooy, S., and Bouziou, D. (2014) Earthquake response of underground pipeline networks in christchurch, NZ. Earthquake Spectra, 30(1), 183-204.
  25. ASTM A370 (2016) ASMT A370: Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, doi: 10.1520/A0370-16.
  26. American Petrolum Institute (2004) API 5L Specification for Line Pipe. American Petroleum Institute (API), Washington, D.C, USA.
  27. ASTM D2487 (2011) ASTM D2487-11, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). West Conshohocken, PA. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/ 44/8/085201.
  28. ASTM D2419 (2014) ASTM D2419 - 14 Standard Test Method for Sand Equivalent Value of Soils and Fine Aggregate. West Conshohocken, PA, doi: 10.1520/D2419-14.
  29. ASTM D-1556-07 (2007) ASTM D 1556-07 Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by Sand-Cone Method., ASTM International, 1-7, Pennsylvania, USA, doi: 10.1520/D1556-07.2.
  30. ASTM D1557 (2012) ASTM D1557 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteris-tics of Soil Using Modified Effort. Pennsylvania, USA. doi: 10.1520/D1557-12E01.
  31. ASTM D3080 (2011) Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained. Pennsylvania, USA, doi: 10.1520/D3080_ D3080M-11.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 24 February 2020
  • Revise Date: 14 November 2020
  • Accept Date: 02 January 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics