Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Interacción Suelo Estructura
Interacción Suelo Estructura
OMAE2017
June 25-30, 2017, Trondheim, Norway
OMAE2017-61539
ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION
Hydrocarbon pipelines constructed in geohazards areas, are Buried pipelines are often constructed in geohazard areas
subjected to ground-induced actions, associated with the and may cross active seismic faults, liquefaction areas or slope
development of severe strains in the pipeline and constitute instability regions capable of producing large ground
major threats for their structural integrity. In the course of deformations. In such cases the pipeline must be designed,
pipeline design, calculation of those strains is necessary for taking into account the additional stress and deformation
safeguarding pipeline integrity, and the development of reliable induced in the pipe wall due to those ground movements.
analytical/numerical design tools that account for soil-pipe Pipe-soil interaction has been examined experimentally,
interaction is required. numerically and analytically in the last forty years. From the
In the present paper, soil-pipe interaction models for buried analytical point of view, the paper of Newmark and Hall [1] has
steel pipelines subjected to severe ground-induced actions are been pioneering in this area, introducing an analytical model
presented. First, two numerical methodologies, (simplified and for assessing the integrity of a buried pipeline crossing a
rigorous) and one analytical are presented and compared, ruptured fault. Kennedy et al. [2], Wang and Yeh [3], Takada et
followed by an experimental verification; transversal soil-pipe al. [4], Karamitros et al. [5] and Trifonov et al. in [6] and [7]
interaction is examined through full-scale experimental testing, developed analytical and semi-analytical methodologies for
and comparisons of numerical simulations with rigorous finite analyzing buried pipelines crossing seismic faults. Most
element models are reported. Furthermore, the rigorous model recently, Sarvanis and Karamanos in [8] proposed a
is compared with the results from a special-purpose full-scale straightforward analytical methodology for the calculation of
“landslide/fault” experimental test in order to examine the soil- strains induced in pipelines because of ground-induced actions,
pipe interaction in a complex loading conditions. Finally, the resulting in closed-form expressions for the maximum strain in
verified rigorous model is compared with both the simplified the pipeline. This methodology is also presented briefly in this
models and the analytical methodology. 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
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
(b)
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]
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]
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]
0.6
0.5 LD 1
0.4
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]
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)
In Figure 19 the comparison of the axial strains between 6 COMPARISON BETWEEN ANALYTICAL
rigorous model and simplified models is presented for ground METHODOLOGY AND RIGOROUS FINITE
displacement equal to 0.8m, while Table 7 presents the critical ELEMENT MODEL RESULTS
ground displacement, at which failure occurred in the pipeline
for each model case under consideration. The aim of this Comparison between the analytical methodology of section
comparison is to examine whether the simplified models and 3 and the verified rigorous numerical model has been
the failure criterion according to EN 1998-4 can predict performed for a 914.4-mm-diameter (36 in.) X65 steel
max tensile strain % induced strains in pipeline and may constitute a useful tool in
the course of preliminary design of buried pipelines subjected
d (m) analytical methodology FEM
to ground-induced actions.
1 0.96 0.82
2 1.99 2.09
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
9 REFERENCES
[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),
Figure 20. Deformed shape of pipeline, for fault displacement “Fault movement effects on buried oil pipeline.”, ASCE
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 103, pp.
equal to 2.0 m ( β = 20 ).
o
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.
7 CONCLUSIONS
[4] Takada, S., Hassani, N. and Fukuda, K. (2001), “A new
proposal for simplified design of buried steel pipes crossing
In the present paper, models for simulating the mechanical active faults.”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
response of buried pipelines subjected to permanent ground Dynamics, Vol. 30, pp.1243–1257.
actions are presented. The mechanics of pipe-soil interaction, a [5] Karamitros, D. K., Bouckovalas, G. D. and Kouretzis, G. P.
key issue for pipeline behavior, has been presented, based on (2007), “Stress Analysis of Buried Steel Pipelines at Strike
experimental, numerical and analytical methodologies. Two Slip Fault Crossings.”, Soil Dynamics & Earthquake
types of numerical models (simplified and rigorous) have been Engineering, Vol. 27, pp. 200-211.
presented, together with an analytical methodology. [6] Trifonov, O. V. and Cherniy, V. P. (2010), “A semi-
analytical approach to a nonlinear stress–strain analysis of
The rigorous models that employ solid element for
buried steel pipelines crossing active faults.”, Soil Dynamics
simulating soil and shell elements for the pipe were compared and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 30, pp. 1298-1308.
with the results of large-scale transverse and landslide/fault [7] Trifonov, O. V. and Cherniy, V. P. (2012), “Elastoplastic