Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Analysis of buried pipelines subjected to reverse fault motion

Shantanu Joshi a, Amit Prashant a, Arghya Deb b, Sudhir K. Jain c,n
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, UP 208016, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, WB 721 302, India
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad 382424, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Presently available simplified analytical methods and semi-empirical methods for the analysis of buried
Received 5 July 2010 pipelines subjected to fault motion are suitable only for the strike-slip and the normal-slip type fault
Received in revised form motions, and cannot be used for the reverse fault crossing case. A simple finite element model, which
7 February 2011
uses beam elements for the pipeline and discrete nonlinear springs for the soil, has been proposed to
Accepted 8 February 2011
analyse buried pipeline subjected to reverse fault motion. The material nonlinearities associated with
Available online 24 March 2011
pipe-material and soil, and geometric nonlinearity associated with large deformations were incorpo-
Keywords: rated in the analysis. Complex reverse fault motion was simulated using suitable constraints between
Buried pipeline pipe-nodes and ground ends of the soil spring. Results of the parametric study suggest that the
Finite element analysis
pipeline’s capacity to accommodate reverse fault offset can be increased significantly by choosing a
Nonlinear quasi-static analysis
near-parallel orientation in plan with respect to the fault line. Further improvement in the response of
Structural design of pipelines
Oil and gas pipelines the pipeline is possible by adopting loose backfill, smooth and hard surface coating, and shallow burial
Earthquake induced ground movements depth in the fault crossing region. For normal or near normal orientations, pipeline is expected to fail
Pipe–soil interaction due to beam buckling at very small fault offsets.
Pipeline buckling & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reverse fault motion

1. Introduction
Buried steel pipelines with continuous joints are commonly
used for transporting oil, gas and water over long distances. Such a
pipeline crossing an active fault zone may be subjected to large,
abrupt differential ground movement due to the fault rupture.
Several major pipeline systems have been identified with the
pipelines passing through active fault regions [1]. Reverse faults
result from compressional plate tectonic environment and are
abundantly present throughout the world. In India, major active
faults are of reverse or thrust type and mainly distributed in
Kachchh (Western India) and Himalayan frontal (North-western
India) regions [2,3]. Some of these reverse faults can potentially
produce large fault offset, as high as several metres. Many cases of
pipeline damage due to fault rupture have been recorded during
recent major earthquakes [4–6]. For example, a case of severe
pipeline damage was reported due to the rupture of Chelungpu
fault during 1999, Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake [4]. The fault was
steep reverse type (total length of about 105 km), and fault offsets
of 4–10 m were observed along its length during the earthquake.
The damaged portion of this pipeline went through local buckling
n Kennedy et al. [8] revised the Newmark–Hall method by incor-
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 79 2397 2574; fax: + 91 792397 2586.
E-mail addresses: amit_prashant@yahoo.com (A. Prashant),
skjain@iitk.ac.in (S.K. Jain).
and large section deformations near the fault crossing point. Hence,
it is necessary to design the pipeline which can safely accommo-
date large fault offsets without being ruptured or buckled.
Faults are most commonly classified based on the direction of
relative slip. Portion of the ground, which remains stationary
during the slip is referred to as foot wall, and the other portion
that slips over the foot wall is referred to as hanging wall. The
hanging wall in normal-slip faults moves downward and in
reverse-slip faults upward with respect to the foot wall. A low
dip angle (less than 451) reverse fault is called a thrust fault. In
strike-slip fault, the slip takes place in the horizontal direction.
Response of buried pipeline is significantly influenced by the type
of fault motion and orientation of the pipeline with respect to the
fault line [7]. In general, a steel pipeline strained in direct tension
due to fault rupture can safely accommodate a larger fault offset
value compared to when it is strained in direct compression [8,9].
Pioneering work in the analysis of pipeline subjected to fault
motion was done by Newmark and Hall [10]. They developed a
simplified method for analysis of pipeline subjected to fault
motion. This method assumed the pipeline to be subjected to
direct tension due to the fault motion and ignored lateral
resistance of the soil. Hence, the analysis of the pipeline was
performed by assuming it to be a cable deforming in straight line.
porating bending of the pipeline near the fault crossing point and
considering the soil lateral forces. However, the formulae for

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.02.003
 S. Joshi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940
radius of curvature proposed in this method were suitable only
case of pipeline being in tension. Based on the Kennedy’s Method,
Wang and Yeh [11] developed a simplified analysis method,
which could analyse the case of pipeline subjected to direct
tension as well as direct compression. The analysis procedure
was based on the assumption of uni-axial bending of pipeline, and
it was only applicable to the pipeline subjected to strike-slip fault
motion. Recently proposed semi-empirical method by Takada
et al. [12] and simplified analytical method by Karamitros
et al. [13] are also based on the assumption of uni-axial bending
of pipeline and are only applicable to the case of strike-slip fault.
Similarly, the semi-analytical method proposed by Trifonov
et al. [14] is also suitable for only the cases of strike-slip fault
and normal-slip fault crossings.
Literature review suggests that previous research in the analysis of
pipeline subjected to fault motion has been mainly focused on the
case of strike-slip fault [8,11–16]. The simplified methods for deter-
mination of total strain in a pipeline subjected to strike-slip fault
motion are based on the assumption that the fault motion would
cause uni-axial bending of the pipeline near the fault crossing point
accompanied by either axial elongation or axial shortening [11,13].
The possibility of axial elongation or shortening depends on the
orientation of the pipeline with respect to the fault line in plan. The
assumption of uni-axial pipeline bending in the case of strike-slip
fault motion is justified by the fact that the problem involves a single
crossing angle (b) between the fault-line and the pipeline. On the
Anchor ψ
point
Δz Δ of pipeline
Δ Cos (ψ)
L1, or
Lo, if L1 is too large
Anchor
point
Δy
Δx
Fig. 1. Deformation of buried pipeline subjected to reverse fault motion: (a) section and (b) plan.
931
other hand, for the case of buried pipeline crossing a reverse fault,
two different crossing angles, the fault dip angle (c) and the pipeline
crossing angle (b) are involved (Fig. 1). The fault motion in this case
depends on both the crossing angles, b and c, which are present in
the horizontal and the vertical plane, respectively. Hence, the analysis
would require simultaneous application of fault offset components in
all three major pipeline-directions. Consequently, the pipeline may be
subjected to bi-axial bending. In other words, the pipeline bending in
this case cannot be assumed to take place in a predetermined plane
as can be assumed for the case of strike-slip fault. Besides, due to
hanging wall moving towards the foot wall during reverse fault
movement, one can expect a significant amount of axial shortening in
the pipeline. Compressive stresses may cause buckling of the buried
pipeline either in the beam mode or in the shell mode. Thus, the
various simplified methods mentioned earlier prove to be inadequate
for the analysis of pipeline crossing a reverse fault, as none of those
methods can analyse a pipeline subjected to bi-axial bending along
with axial compression or predict its subsequent buckling. Hence, the
present research is focused on analysing the response of buried
pipelines subjected reverse fault motion with due considerations to
the three dimensional nature of reverse fault motion, bi-axial pipeline
bending and probable pipe buckling.
In this study, an attempt was made to analyse the response of
buried pipelines subjected to reverse fault motion by developing a
simple finite element model using 3-D beam elements. Soil
surrounding the pipeline was modelled using nonlinear springs,
Δ Ground surface
Deformed profile Z
Original profile X’
of pipeline Anchor
point
X
L2, or
Lo, if L2 is too large
β Y
Anchor
point
Fault crossing point
Fault line
932 S. Joshi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940

which support the pipeline at discrete points. Complex 3-D
reverse fault motion was simulated by applying non-zero dis-
placements to the soil spring ends through suitable constraints
between pipe-nodes and corresponding soil spring ends. The
major features incorporated in the model were pipe-material
nonlinearity, nonlinear Winkler spring model of the soil, geo-
metric nonlinearity associated with large deformations, and post-
buckling behaviour of pipeline (in case of beam buckling). Using
this FEM model, buried steel pipelines were analysed for reverse
fault motion to study the influence of design parameters viz.
crossing angle, backfill properties, burial depth, pipe surface
property, pipe material and cross-section properties on maximum
compressive strain, and buckling of the pipeline.
2. Pipeline–soil interaction
Fig. 1 shows a typical deformation profile of buried pipeline, in
section and in plan, when subjected to reverse fault motion. b and
c are the angles of intersection of the pipeline with the fault, in
plan and in section, respectively. X, Y, and Z axes represent
longitudinal, transverse horizontal, and transverse vertical direc-
tions of the pipeline, respectively. The fault offset (D) along the
fault plane can be resolved in components along three pipeline
directions as follows [17]:
Dx ¼ DcosðcÞsinðbÞ ð1Þ
Dy ¼ DcosðcÞcosðbÞ ð2Þ
Dz ¼ D sinðcÞ ð3Þ
Movement of the soil mass along the fault plane results in
pipeline–soil interaction in all the three pipeline directions. Dx is
resisted by frictional force developed at the pipeline–soil interface
over the unanchored length of the pipeline. For a reverse fault, Dx
results in axial shortening of the pipeline. If the anchor point L1 or
L2 (Fig. 1) is sufficiently away from the fault crossing point, then
the pipeline can develop the effective unanchored length through
unrestrained sliding in the soil. At the endpoint of this effective

Transverse spring

Axial spring

Fault crossing
point

Z
Vertical
X
spring

10 m

570 m

1m

Δy

30 m

Δx
30 m
Δz

570 m

Fig. 2. Geometry of proposed FEM model for buried pipeline.

 S. Joshi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940
unanchored length (say at L0 from the crossing point), the
maximum axial force developed in the pipeline near the fault
crossing point is completely removed by soil frictional force.
Hence, the pipeline can be considered to be effectively anchored
to the ground at distance L0 from the crossing point as shown
in Fig. 1b. For the case where L1 or L2 is smaller than L0, pipeline’s
movement will be restrained at the location of physical anchor
point itself. In this study, the anchor points were assumed to be
sufficiently away from the fault crossing point on either side of it,
which allowed for development of the effective unanchored
length. Dy induces lateral soil pressure on the pipeline in the
horizontal direction and results in bending of the pipeline in X–Y
plane. Similarly, Dz results in bending of the pipeline in X–Z plane.
However due to shallow burial depth of the pipeline, the limiting
uplift resistance of the soil is generally much smaller than the
ultimate bearing resistance. In this study, the above described
pipeline–soil interaction components in three directions were
equivalently represented by discrete nonlinear springs [18–20],
which supported the pipeline in the three directions.
3. Proposed finite element model
3.1. Model details
FEM model for the buried pipeline was developed using the
commercial finite element software ABAQUS (Version 6.7). Fig. 2
shows the geometry adopted for the proposed finite element
model. A 1200 m long straight pipeline segment was considered
for the analysis. The length of the pipeline was selected based on
the model lengths proposed by previous researchers [12,13]. The
long length of the model justified the assumption that the anchor
points were sufficiently away from the fault crossing point. The
fault was assumed to cross the pipeline segment at the centre of
its length. The pipeline segment was modelled using 2-noded
linear beam elements (B31 in ABAQUS) in space. The finite
element formulation for this element is based on Timoshenko’s
beam theory and takes into account transverse shear deforma-
tions [21]. This formulation can be considered appropriate for
thin pipe-sections with large diameters, commonly used for steel
oil and gas pipelines. The entire 1200 m length of the model was
divided into three regions for the meshing. Element size was kept
uniform within each region. Region-1, closest to the fault crossing
point had a total length of 30 m (15 m on either side of the fault
crossing point). The smallest element size of 0.25 m was adopted
in Region-1 since the maximum strain in the pipeline is likely to
occur in this region. The element size was increased to 0.5 m in
Region-2, which began at the ends of Region-1 on both sides and
extended up to 30 m. Region-3 represented the rest of the length
of the model on both sides and it had elements of size of 5 m.
Convergence studies were performed on the model to arrive at
the above described mesh configuration [22]. For a pipeline
subjected to large reverse fault offset (of the order of several
metres), a certain length of the pipeline on either side of the fault
crossing point is expected to undergo material yielding due to
development of large bending moments (in X–Y and X–Z planes)
and axial compressive force. This expected material nonlinearity
was considered in the model by modelling the pipeline as an
elasto-plastic material with a bi-linear strain-hardening curve of
the type shown in Fig. 3. The von-Mises isotropic hardening
model available in ABAQUS was used for the pipeline material.
The bending and axial compressive deformations of this near-
fault pipe section are often of the same order of magnitude as the
pipe itself. Hence, geometric nonlinearity was incorporated in the
analysis.
933
Stress
E2
σy
E1
εy
Strain
Fig. 3. Pipeline material stress–strain curve.
Soil surrounding the pipeline was modelled using discrete
nonlinear springs. Similar nonlinear winkler foundation models to
represent the soil-structure interaction have been proposed by
many researchers for buried pipes [11–13] and for piles [23,24]. A
pipe node was supported by a set of three mutually perpendicular
soil springs viz. Axial, Transverse Horizontal, and Transverse
Vertical. These springs simulated the components of pipe–soil
interaction in the respective pipeline directions. The soil-springs
were modelled using connector elements (CONN3D2 in ABAQUS)
between the pipe-nodes and the corresponding ground nodes [21].
All the connector elements were associated with axial connector
sections, which generate spring forces only in the local axial
direction of the element. For each soil spring, an elastic-perfectly
plastic force–deformation relationship was assumed and expres-
sions for the same were adopted from ALA-ASCE guidelines [18].
These expressions are based on field and laboratory experimental
investigations on pipeline response, as well as general geotechni-
cal approaches for related structures such as piles, anchor plates.
Schematic representation of the force–deformation relationship
as adopted in this study for three springs is presented in Fig. 4.
Force–deformation relationship for transverse horizontal springs
of buried pipe (Fig. 4(b)) is similar to that adopted for lateral pile
springs [23,24]. The force–deformation relationship of soil springs
for pile is considered the same in two lateral directions. However,
for a shallow buried pipeline the uplift resistance Pu provided by a
limited depth of top soil cover (backfill) is generally much smaller
than the bearing resistance Pb of soil below. This makes the
vertical spring force–deformation relationship unsymmetrical for
the pipeline, as shown in Fig. 4(c). For the section of the pipe near
the fault, the pipe–soil interaction could be more complex due to
large deformations of the pipeline, which required a smaller
spacing between the soil-spring sets in this section. In the
proposed model, length of this region was assumed to be 30 m
on either side from the fault crossing point and spring sets were
provided at a uniform spacing of 1 m. For the remaining length of
the model (570 m on either side) where the pipeline was
expected to remain elastic, the soil-spring sets were spaced at
10 m.
3.2. Simulation of fault motion
A nonlinear quasi-static solution is desirable for the problem
of a pipeline crossing an active fault, which assumes that the fault
934 S. Joshi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940
Force
Tu
Xu Disp.
Xu
Tu
Fig. 4. Force–deformation relationships for the soil-springs: (a) for axial spring, (b) for transverse horizontal spring, and (c) for transverse vertical spring.
displacement components are applied at a sufficiently slow rate
so as to ensure that the dynamic effects are negligibly small. The
velocity of movement on one side of the fault with respect to the
opposite side is generally sufficiently low. Hence, the effects of
fault rupture on the pipeline can be considered similar to those
for statically applied relative movement [8]. In this study, an
explicit dynamic analysis was performed using ABAQUS/Explicit.
The ABAQUS/Explicit solver was chosen for the nonlinear analysis
due to its capabilities of analysing post-buckling behaviour more
efficiently and to avoid the convergence problems typically
encountered by implicit solvers in the post-buckling domain [21].
ABAQUS/Explicit, being an explicit dynamic finite element code,
performs dynamic analysis on the model and requires an analysis
time to be associated with non-zero displacement boundary
conditions. Hence a nonlinear static solution was achieved for
this problem by converting dynamic analysis into a quasi-static
mode. Quasi-static conditions were simulated in the analysis by
applying fault offset components to soil-spring ends through a
smooth loading function of time (Smooth Step Function in ABAQUS)
which avoids any sudden load changes, and by keeping a
sufficiently long loading duration for the fault offset components.
A small duration of loading would generate significant dynamic
effects in the simulation. Choosing a sufficiently long duration of
loading ensures that these dynamic effects are negligibly small.
However, an excessively large loading duration increases the
computational time substantially. Hence, numerical experiments
involving several trial runs were performed on the model to arrive
at an optimum loading duration that satisfies quasi-static condi-
tions [22]. A constant magnitude reverse fault motion was
applied, and the satisfaction of the quasi-static condition was
checked by comparing time histories of the kinetic energy (KE)
and internal energy (IE) of the model for each trial run. The
simulation was assumed to have run quasi-statically if the kinetic
energy of the model was found to be negligibly small compared to
the internal energy throughout the analysis. Based on these
studies, a loading duration of 20 s was chosen for the analysis.
To simulate reverse fault motion, the fault offset components
Dx, Dy, and Dz (Eq. (1)–(3)) were assigned simultaneously to
ground ends of the axial, transverse, and vertical springs, respec-
tively, over half length of the pipeline segment. This simultaneous
application of fault offset components resulted in rotation of
springs if the ground ends of these springs were restrained in the
other two directions. This has been explained in Fig. 5(a), which
shows a portion of the pipeline segment in the X–Z plane
subjected to fault offset components Dx and Dz. Node 1 (ground
end of vertical soil-spring) is subjected to Dz and restrained in X
and Y directions to avoid any free body motions during the
analysis. Similarly, Node 2 (ground end of axial soil-spring) is
subjected to Dx and restrained in Y and Z directions. These
restraints would lead to rotation of the springs due to
Force Force
Pl
Pu
Yu Disp. Zb Disp.
Yu Zu
Pl Pb
simultaneous application of Dx and Dz. Spring forces would act
at Node-3 in the directions V0 and A0 , as shown in the figure, and
solver will have to achieve an equilibrated state in the deformed
configuration. Fig. 5(a) also suggests that the magnitude of the
rotation of any spring will change if the original length of the
spring is changed, even if the magnitude of fault offset component
applied to this spring remains the same. This in turn will affect
the results of the analysis. Since the rotation of these springs can
be significant during simulation of large fault offsets of the order
of several metres, the dependence of the rotations on the original
length of the spring (which may exhibit considerable variation)
will introduce a measure of arbitrariness in the results.
To avoid this problem the springs were prevented from
rotating by constraining the ground node and pipe node of each
spring to move identically in the directions in which the fault-
offset components of the spring were zero, as shown in Fig. 5(b).
Table 1 shows the boundary conditions assigned to ground ends
of the soil-springs to simulate the reverse fault motion. For the
sake of convenience, the ground ends of the soil-springs on the
left side of the fault crossing point associated with axial, trans-
verse, and vertical springs are referred to as axial loading points,
transverse loading points, and vertical loading points, respec-
tively. Similarly, the ground ends of soil-springs on the right side
of the fault crossing point are referred to as axial stationary
points, transverse stationary points, and vertical stationary points,
respectively. Each ground end was constrained to move with
its pipe node in two directions and it was either assigned a
fault offset component or a restraint in the third direction.
Fig. 5(b) shows the same portion of the pipeline segment as
represented by Fig. 5(a) in X–Z plane, subjected to fault offset
components Dx and Dz. For the vertical spring (V) in the figure,
Node 1 is now constrained to have the same displacements
as Node 3 (pipe node) in X and Y directions. Similarly, Node 2
(axial soil spring ground end) and the Node 3 are constrained in
Y and Z directions. Springs in this case maintain their original
orientation after the application of fault offset components with-
out any rotation about their respective ground node. Similar
constraints were assigned between pipe nodes and corresponding
ground ends of the transverse springs to avoid rotation. Because
of these constraints between the pipe nodes and the soil ground
nodes, the results of the analysis for a given fault motion were
observed to be independent of the assumed length of the soil
springs.
4. Response of buried pipeline to reverse fault motion
The factors influencing response of buried pipeline at reverse
fault crossing include the fault offset (D), pipeline crossing angle
(b), fault dip angle (c), native and backfill soil type, burial depth
 S. Joshi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940 935

Node 3
A’

Node 2
Δx A

Pipeline

V V’

Δz V = Vertical spring in original orientation

V’ = Vertical spring after applying displacement
Node 1
A = Axial spring in original orientation
A’ = Axial spring after applying displacement

Δx
Node 3

A’
Node 2
A
Pipeline
V’
V
Z

Δz X
Node 1

Fig. 5. Schematic representation of portion of FEM model in X–Z plane: (a) rotation of soil-springs due to restrained spring ends and (b) Rotation avoided by assigning
suitable constraints between pipe-node and spring ground ends.

Table 1
Boundary conditions to soil spring ends with suitable constraints.

Soil reference point type Boundary conditions

X-direction Y-direction Z-direction

Axial loading points Dx Constrained to pipe node Constrained to pipe node

Transverse loading points Constrained to pipe node Dy Constrained to pipe node
Vertical loading points Constrained to pipe node Constrained to pipe node Dz
Axial stationary points Restrained Constrained to pipe node Constrained to pipe node
Transverse stationary points Constrained to pipe node Restrained Constrained to pipe node
Vertical stationary points Constrained to pipe node Constrained to pipe node Restrained

(H), pipe diameter (c) and thickness (t), pipe material, and pipe
surface characteristics (f) [25]. Out of the above listed factors, D,
c, and the type of native soil depend on geological and geotech-
nical characteristics of the site and their values, as obtained from
the site investigations, need to be considered in the analysis.
However, the designer has the choice to vary the factors b, the
backfill soil type, H, d, t, pipe material, and f so as to improve the
pipeline’s performance and optimise the design. Influence of
these design parameters on the response of the buried steel pipe
to reverse fault motion was studied using the FEM model
described above. These analyses were performed with a view to
enable selection of design parameters that would enhance the
pipeline’s capacity to accommodate the reverse fault offset.
4.1. Influence of crossing angle
A reverse fault motion was generated by choosing a particular
combination of the magnitudes of D, b, and c. Pipe cross-section
with outer diameter (D) 0.91 m and wall thickness (t) 12 mm was
chosen for the analysis. Pipe material was assumed to be API5L-
X65 grade steel [26] with a bi-linear stress–strain curve (Fig. 3).
936 S. Joshi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940

The top of the pipeline was assumed to be buried under 1.30 m of
medium density sand with friction angle, F ¼351 and unit weight,
g ¼18 kN/m3. Coefficient of friction of 0.8 was adopted for the
interaction between the pipe surface and soil. The corresponding
spring yield forces and mobilising displacements were derived as
per ALA-ASCE guidelines [18] and are listed in Table 2. The native
soil and the backfill were assumed to have the same mechanical
properties. For each b–c combination, the pipeline was subjected
to the maximum fault offset of 4 m in increments of 0.5 m.
The results of the analyses have been summarised in
Fig. 6(a) and (b), which shows variation of the maximum total
compressive strain (ecmax) in the pipeline with the fault offset
magnitude (D), for different pipeline crossing angles (b), for dip
angles c ¼ 401 and 701. The total strain includes axial strain and
bending strains at a pipe section. For each b of the pipeline, ecmax
can be seen to increase as the value of D gradually increased up to
4 m. Figure shows that, when the results are compared at a
Table 2
Soil-spring properties used in the study to evaluate effect of crossing angle.
Spring type Yield force (kN/m)
Axial 40
Transverse 318
Vertical uplift 52
Vertical bearing 1360
constant magnitude of D for various b angles, ecmax increases
consistently as the crossing angle increased from 10–901. At each
value of D, the smallest value of ecmax was observed at b ¼101, and
the largest at b ¼901. This significant strain reduction due to
change in the pipeline’s crossing angle was observed to be true for
both the dip angles investigated during this study. For example,
for the case of c ¼ 401 (Fig. 6a), ecmax at D ¼2 m was observed to
reduce from 21% to 5% when b was changed from 901 to 101. In
general, a consistent rise in ecmax was observed for a constant
value of D, as b was successively increased. Results of this study
suggest that the pipeline compressive strain can be significantly
reduced at reverse fault crossing by choosing a near-parallel
orientation of the pipeline with the fault line in plan. Such an
orientation would reduce the direct axial shortening of the pipe-
line and cause the horizontal component of fault offset (D Cos c)
to be predominantly accommodated by transverse horizontal
bending of the pipeline. On the other hand, for normal or near-
normal orientation, component D Cos c would need to be pre-
dominantly accommodated by axial shortening of the
pipeline. Fig. 6 also shows that for constant values of D and b,
ecmax is considerably reduced when the fault dip angle is increased
from 401 to 701. This was found to be true for all the crossing
Yield displacement (mm) angles (b) studied here. This suggested that the pipeline’s capacity
to safely accommodate reverse fault offset magnitudes would
3 reduce considerably at shallow dip angles.
11
2.3
100 4.2. Influence of backfill type

Fig. 7 shows the effect of backfill type on maximum total

compressive strain in the pipeline at various reverse fault offset
magnitudes. The same pipeline segment (with the same burial
0.30
depth and pipe surface properties), as adopted in the previous
β = 10° ψ = 40º section, was studied for three granular backfills: loose (F ¼301),
β = 30°
Maximum total compressive

0.25 medium dense (F ¼ 351), and dense (F ¼401). The native soil (soil
β = 45°
surrounding the trench) was assumed to be firm cohesive soil
0.20 β = 60°
having a cohesion value of c¼50 kPa. Fault motion parameters b
strain, εcmax

β = 90°
and c were chosen to be 301 and 401, respectively, and the
0.15 pipeline was subjected to maximum fault offset of 2 m in
increments of 0.5 m. For a constant magnitude of D, ecmax value
0.10 increased as the compactness of granular backfill increased. This
was true for all the considered values of D. Such increase in the
0.05

0.00 0.12
0 1 2 3 4 D = 0.9144m, Firm Native Soil, β = 30°, ψ = 40°
Fault displacement , Δ (m)
Maximum total compressive strain, εcmax

0.10

0.30
0.08
ψ = 70º
Maximum total compressive

0.25 β = 10°
β = 30° Loose Backfill
0.20 β = 45° 0.06 Medium Dense Backfill
strain, εcmax

β = 60° Dense Backfill

β = 90°
0.15 0.04

0.10
0.02
0.05

0.00 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Fault displacement , Δ (m) Fault displacement, Δ (m)

Fig. 6. Effect of the crossing angle (b) on the pipeline performance: (a) for the dip Fig. 7. Effect of the type of backfill on the maximum total compressive strain in
angle c ¼ 401 and (b) for the dip angle c ¼701. the pipeline.
 S. Joshi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940 937

ecmax was expected due to the fact that increase in F of the backfill 0.14
would increase limiting frictional force (Tu) as well as limiting
uplift force (Pu) of the soil. Results of this study suggested that the D = 0.9144m, β = 30°, ψ = 40º, Loose backfill
maximum compressive strain in the pipeline could be reduced by 0.12

Maximum total compressive strain, εcmax

a fair amount by placing a very loose backfill in the fault crossing
region and by avoiding its unnecessary over-compaction. To
0.10
confirm the consistency of these results, the same pipeline was
analysed again for the three backfill types, for soft and stiff
cohesive native soils having c¼20 and 100 KPa, respectively [22]. H/D = 1.92
0.08
These analyses were then repeated for three other b–c combina- H/D = 3.78
tions; (b ¼301, c ¼151), (b ¼901, c ¼151), and (b ¼901, c ¼401). In
all these cases, ecmax values were the smallest for the loose backfill 0.06
(F ¼301), suggesting that the pipeline can be expected to perform
best under those conditions.
0.04

4.3. Influence of pipe surface characteristics

0.02
Further analyses were performed on the same pipeline section
to evaluate influence of soil–pipe interface friction on pipeline’s
0.00
performance. For this study the native soil was assumed to be
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
firm cohesive soil (c ¼50 kPa) and the backfill to be loose granular
(F ¼301). Fig. 8 shows response of the pipeline to given reverse Fault displacement , Δ (m)
fault motion for two different surface characteristics. Steel pipe- Fig. 9. Effect of burial depth on the maximum total compressive strain.
line with a smooth and hard surface coating was assumed to have
the coefficient of friction f to be 0.5, and pipeline without any 4.4. Influence of burial depth
special coating was assumed to have this coefficient to be 0.8 [19].
Considerable reduction in the value of ecmax can be seen here due
The same pipeline section, as above, was analysed for two
to use of smooth and hard surface coating in the fault crossing
burial depths. Fig. 9 shows plots of ecmax against the applied D for
zone. At D ¼2 m, the pipeline compressive strain can be seen to
two burial depths. ecmax was observed to increase as the soil cover
reduce from 12% for f¼0.8 to 0.9% for f¼0.5. The consistency of
(h) increased from 1.3 to 3 m. Similar effect of the burial depth
these results was also confirmed for medium dense (F ¼351) and
was observed when the same pipeline section was analysed for
dense (F ¼401) backfills; these results are available else-
medium dense and dense backfills. Results of the parametric
where [22]. Smooth surface coating reduces the value of coeffi-
study showed that the increase in burial depth increased the
cient of friction between pipe and the soil, and leads to reduction
values of limiting uplift soil force and limiting pipe–soil friction
in the value of limiting soil frictional force (Tu) acting over unit
force acting on unit length of the pipeline, and consequently led
length of the pipe. Consequently, for a constant magnitude of D,
to higher maximum compressive strain for a constant magnitude
the value of maximum axial force developed in the pipeline near
of D. Thus, burial depth as shallow as possible is preferable in the
the fault crossing would reduce and this force will be dissipated
fault crossing zone. For a granular backfill, minimum cover of D/6
over larger length of the pipeline. However, due consideration
(up to the top of pipe) is adequate, considering only the dead load
should be given to the effect of aging on properties of the surface
of soil [27]. However, the live loads and environmental factors
coating, which generally leads to increase in the friction
may also have an influence on the minimum soil cover.
coefficient.

4.5. Influence of pipe cross-section and material properties

0.10
A study was carried out to see effect of the pipe outer diameter
D = 0.9144m, β = 30°, ψ = 40°, Loose backfill
Maximum total compressive strain, εcmax

on the performance of pipeline. Two pipelines having outer

diameters of 0.91 and 1.3 m, respectively, but with the same wall
0.08
thickness of 12 mm were analysed for the case b ¼301 and
c ¼451, for a fault offset of 2 m. The maximum total compressive
f = 0.5
strain in the pipeline reduced from 7.35% to 5.80% when the outer
0.06
f = 0.8 diameter was increased from 0.91 to 1.3 m. One may also
consider replacing the pipeline section in the fault crossing zone
with the one having larger wall thickness and the same internal
0.04
diameter in order to reduce the maximum compressive strain in
the pipeline. The use of high yield strength material for the
pipeline could be more suitable in the fault crossing zone. For a
0.02
given pipe cross-section, pipe material with higher yield strength
can reduce the compressive strain in the pipeline compared to a
lower yield strength material.
0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
4.6. Buckling of pipeline
Fault displacement , Δ (m)

Fig. 8. Effect of pipe surface characteristics on the maximum total compressive Buried pipeline subjected to large compressive force generally
strain. buckles either in the shell mode (local buckling) or in the beam
938 S. Joshi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940

Deformed profile
of soil

Anchor
point Deformed profile
of pipeline
Anchor
Δz wmax
point

Anchor
point Pipeline profile
before deformation

Deformed profile
of pipeline
Anchor
point
wmax Anchor
Δz point

Anchor
point Deformed profile
Pipeline profile
before deformation of soil

Fig. 10. Deformed profile of the pipeline near the fault crossing point in X–Z plane (a) for the case b ¼ 901, c ¼151, and D ¼ 0.5 m; and (b) for the case b ¼901, c ¼ 151, and
D ¼1 m.

mode [28,29]. In the FEM model, as the entire pipeline segment

was modelled using beam elements, section deformations due to
local buckling could not be captured directly. Hence, local buck-
ling in the model was predicted based on the value of maximum
compressive strain in the pipeline, while the beam mode of
buckling was captured in the analysis. Theoretical wrinkling
strain (onset of wrinkling) for steel pipeline as given by ASCE-
TCLEE Guidelines [19] is given by the following expression:

ec ¼ 0:6t=R ð4Þ

where t is the pipeline wall thickness and R the pipeline radius.

Results of the experimental studies carried out on steel pipes
suggest that the pipes would normally begin to wrinkle at strains
of ½ to ¼ of the theoretical value [19]. IITK-GSDMA Guide-
lines [17] suggest suitable value for the allowable wrinkling
strain to be the mean of these experimental wrinkling strain Fig. 11. Time variation of internal energy (IE) and kinetic energy (KE) of the model
for the case b ¼901, c ¼151.
values. The corresponding expression for the wrinkling strain is

ec ¼ 0:175t=R ð5Þ

This expression for the allowable wrinkling strain was adopted
in the present research. It was assumed that local buckling would
initiate if the maximum compressive strain occurring in the
pipeline at any location exceeds this allowable value. However,
designers may choose the value for the allowable wrinkling strain
as they consider appropriate based on experience.
The model could successfully capture the beam mode of
buckling. A certain length of pipeline on either side of the fault
crossing point showed abrupt and very large displacement in the
vertical direction. This displacement was several times higher
than the actual fault offset component applied to the model.
Fig. 10(a) shows schematic representation of the original
deformed profile (as observed in ABAQUS Postprocessor) of the
pipeline near fault crossing point for the case b ¼901 and c ¼151
at D ¼0.5 m. At this fault offset value, the maximum vertical
displacement of the pipeline (wmax) was nearly the same as Dz
(0.13 m). This suggested that the pipeline displaced with the soil
in the vertical direction when D ¼0.5 m was applied to the model.
Deformation profile of the pipeline suggests no loss of contact of
the pipeline with the adjacent soil near the fault crossing
point. Fig. 10(b) shows the schematic representation of deforma-
tion profile of the same pipeline for the same b–c combination at
D ¼1 m. Here, a distinct change in the deformed shape was
observed. wmax (2.395 m) was observed to be about 10 times
higher than the applied Dz (0.25 m). Displacement profile sug-
gested that the pipeline had undergone large lateral deformations
over a small stretch in the vicinity of the fault crossing point
consequent to beam buckling. A sharp rise observed in ecmax from
1% at D ¼0.5 m to 21% at D ¼1 m appeared to confirm this result.
Further confirmation of the occurrence of beam buckling is
provided by the time histories of the kinetic energy (KE) and
the internal energy (IE) of the model during the analysis. Fig. 11
shows these plots for the case discussed above. A sharp rise in KE
can be seen at the instance corresponding to the application of a
fault-offset of D ¼ 1 m. This rise confirmed the generation of large
velocities in the pipeline, resulting from the sudden movement of
a certain portion of the pipeline from one configuration to
the other.
 S. Joshi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940
Displacement profiles of the pipeline for all the cases shown
in Fig. 6 were similarly studied to cheque for the occurrence of
beam buckling. For the cases having c ¼701, no beam buckling
was observed up to the maximum fault offset of 4 m for all
crossing angles. For c ¼401, the pipeline buckled in the beam-
mode well before reaching the 4 m fault offset for the crossing
angles 451, 601, 751, and 901. However, for the same pipeline,
beam buckling was not observed at c ¼401 for the crossing angles
101 and 301 up to the maximum applied fault offset. The pipeline
with b ¼101 and 301 was further analysed for different conditions
of backfill, burial depth and pipe-surface properties. However, no
beam buckling was observed in any of the cases. On the other
hand, the pipeline with b ¼901 showed beam buckling in all the
cases, for all combinations of backfill soil, burial depths and pipe-
surface properties. Thus, for the pipeline segment analysed in this
study, it was observed that beam buckling of the pipeline would
be primarily influenced by the pipeline’s crossing angle (b) and
the fault dip angle (c). While no beam bucking occurred when
crossing angle was 301 or lower, it is possible that the pipeline
might fail due to local buckling in these cases. This local buckling
would occur at a pipe-section where ecmax exceeded the allowable
value of the wrinkling strain. Occurrence of beam buckling at
normal or near normal orientation of the pipeline with the fault
line lead to failure of the pipeline at small fault offset magnitudes.
On the other hand, better performance of the pipeline was
observed for the near-parallel orientations of the pipeline. For
these orientations pipelines can be protected against local buck-
ling by limiting the maximum compressive strains in the pipe
walls. This reduction can be achieved by suitably changing the
backfill type, pipe-surface characteristics, burial depth, pipe sec-
tion dimensions and pipe material properties.
4.7. Comparison of design parameters
To study the relative influence of the above described design
parameters on the response of pipeline, the results were com-
pared at D ¼2 m. Pipeline crossing angle (b) was found to be the
most influencing design parameter. At D ¼2 m, the maximum
compressive strain was reduced by 76% when b was changed
from 901 to 101 (Fig. 6(a)). Influence of change in burial depth
from 3 to 1.3 m on the strain reduction was nearly the same as
influence of change in friction coefficient (f) from 0.8 to 0.5 at
D ¼2 m. In both the cases, the maximum compressive strain was
reduced by about 20% (Figs. 8 and 9). However, at smaller fault
offsets the influence of change in friction coefficient (f) was
relatively insignificant in comparison to the influence of change
in the burial depth. The influence of backfill type was found to be
relatively insignificant in comparison to the other design para-
meters. At D ¼2 m, the maximum compressive strain reduced by
about 7% when the dense backfill was replaced with loose backfill
(Fig. 7). A reduction of 21% in the maximum compressive strain
was observed when the pipeline’s outer diameter was increased
from 0.91 to 1.3 m without changing the thickness. In another
parametric study the internal diameter of the pipeline was kept
constant and the wall thickness was increased by 2 mm. As a
result, about 16% reduction in the strain was observed [22].
5. Summary and conclusions
Buried steel pipeline subjected to reverse fault motion was
analysed using a simple FEM model which used 3D beam
elements to model the entire pipeline segment. Pipe material
nonlinearity was considered in the analysis by associating a bi-
linear stress–strain curve to the beam elements. Pipeline–soil
interaction was modelled by connecting each pipe-node to a set
939
of three mutually perpendicular nonlinear springs. Soil material
nonlinearity was simulated using an elastic-perfectly plastic
force–deformation curve for each type of spring. Complex 3-D
reverse fault motion was simulated by applying the fault offset
components to the respective free ends of soil-springs over the
half length of the model. These displacements were applied quasi-
statically. Suitable constraints were assigned between pipe-nodes
and corresponding ground ends of soil springs to avoid rotations
of the springs during application of the fault motion. Explicit
solver in ABAQUS was used for the nonlinear analysis due to its
capabilities of analysing post-buckling behaviour more efficiently
and to avoid the convergence problems, typically encountered by
implicit solver in the post-buckling domain. Geometric nonlinear-
ity associated with the large deformations was incorporated in
this analysis. Local buckling of the pipeline was predicted based
on the value of maximum compressive strain in the pipeline,
while the beam buckling mode was successfully captured in the
simulation.
The following conclusions could be drawn based on the
studied response of pipeline subjected to reverse fault motion
using the FEM model.
(a) For the steel pipeline subjected to reverse fault motion,
maximum total compressive strain was always found to be
more critical than the maximum total tensile strain.
(b) The capacity of buried pipeline to accommodate the reverse
fault offset could be increased substantially by adopting a
near-parallel orientation in plan with respect to the fault line,
thereby accommodating the horizontal component (Dx) of the
fault offset primarily by bending of the pipeline in the
horizontal plane (X–Y) plane. Out of all the investigated
design parameters, the pipeline crossing angle (b) was found
to be the most influencing factor on the response of the
buried pipeline in terms of maximum compressive strain and
its buckling.
(c) For low crossing angles, it was inferred that the buried
pipeline buckled locally due to wall wrinkling.
(d) Pipeline crossing the fault line in normal or near-normal
orientation generally buckled in the beam mode at very small
fault offset magnitudes, consequently leading to its early
failure.
(e) For a constant magnitude of D, the pipeline experienced
larger maximum compressive strain for a shallower dip angle.
Hence, the capacity of a pipeline to safely accommodate fault
offset magnitude may be considerably smaller at a thrust fault
than at a steeper reverse fault.
(f) The capacity of the pipeline to safely accommodate the
reverse fault offset can be further increased by choosing a
loose granular backfill, adopting a shallower burial depth,
using a smooth and hard surface coating, increasing pipe-wall
thickness or by using higher yield strength material.
The present study ignored the effect of internal pipe pressure
as the pipeline was modelled using beam elements. Also, precise
simulation of the local buckling and large section deformations
were ignored due the use of beam elements.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from Poonam and Prabhu Goel Foundation at
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur to carry out this research is
gratefully acknowledged. Authors would like to express their
deep gratitude to Dr. Debasis Roy of Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur for his personal help during the research.
940 S. Joshi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 930–940
References
[1] Johansson J, Konagai K. Fault movement related damage examples and fault
provisioned design case histories. In: Bhattacharya S, editor. Design of
Foundations in Seismic Areas: Principles and Applications. Kanpur (India):
NICEE, IIT; 2007.
[2] Malik JN, Nakata T. Active faults and related late quaternary deformation
along the Northwestern Himalayan Frontal Zone, India. Annals of Geophysics
2003;46(5):917–36.
[3] McCalpin JP, Thakkar MG. Bhuj–Kachchh earthquake: surface faulting and its
relation with neotectonics and regional structures, Gujarat, Western India.
Annals of Geophysics 2003 2001;46(5):937–56.
[4] Tsai JS, Jou LD, Lin SH. Damage to buried water supply pipelines in the Chi-
Chi (Taiwan) earthquake and a preliminary evaluation of seismic resistance
of pipe joints. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 2000;23(4):
395–408.
[5] Liang J, Sun S. Site effects on seismic behavior of pipelines: a review. Journal
of Pressure Vessel Technology 2000;122:469–75.
[6] McCaffrey MA, O’Rourke TD. Buried pipeline response to reverse faulting
during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. PVP, ASME 1983;77:151–9.
[7] Choo YW, Abdoun TH, O’ Rourke MJ, Ha D. Remediation for buried pipeline
systems under permanent ground deformation. Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering 2007;27(12):1043–55.
[8] Kennedy RP, Williamson RA, Chow AM. Fault movement effects on buried oil
pipeline. Transportation Engineering Journal, ASCE 1977;103(5):617–33.
[9] Kennedy RP, Kincaid RH. Fault crossing design for buried gas and oil
pipelines. PVP, ASME 1985;98-4:3–10.
[10] Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Pipeline design to resist large fault displacement. In:
Proceedings of the US national conference on earthquake engineering. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan; 1975. p. 416–25.
[11] Wang LRL, Yeh YA. A refined seismic analysis and design of buried pipeline
for fault movement. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1985;13(1):75–96.
[12] Takada S, Hassani N, Fukuda K. A new proposal for simplified design of buried
steel pipes crossing active faults. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2001;30(8):1243–57.
[13] Karamitros DK, Bouckovalas GD, Kouretzis GP. Stress analysis of buried steel
pipelines at strike-slip fault crossings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engi-
neering 2007;27(3):200–11.
[14] Trifonov OV, Cherniy VP. A semi-analytical approach to a nonlinear stress–
strain analysis of buried steel pipelines crossing active faults. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 2010;30(11):1298–308.
[15] Vazouras P, Karamanos SA, Dakoulas P. Finite element analysis of buried steel
pipelines under strike-slip fault crossings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 2010;30(11):1361–76.
[16] Ariman T, Lee BJ. Tension/bending behavior of buried pipelines subjected to
fault movements in earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 10th world conference
on earthquake engineering. Madrid; 1992. p. 5423–26.
[17] IITK-GSDMA. Guidelines for seismic design of buried pipelines. National
Information Center of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur (India), 2008.
[18] American Lifelines Alliance-ASCE. Guidelines for the design of buried steel
pipe, July 2001 [with addenda through February 2005].
[19] ASCE Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. Differential
ground movement effects on buried pipelines. guidelines for the seismic
design of oil and gas pipeline systems; 1984. p. 150–228.
[20] MCEER. Response of buried pipelines subject to earthquake effects. MCEER
Monograph no. 3; 1999.
[21] ABAQUS. ABAQUS user’s manual version 6.7. Simulia; 2007.
[22] Joshi S.S. Analysis of buried pipelines subjected to reverse fault motion.
Mtech thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, India; 2009.
[23] Dash SR, Bhattacharya S, Blakeborough A. Bending–buckling interaction as a
failure mechanism of piles in liquefiable soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 2010;30(1–2):32–9.
[24] Dash SR, Govindaraju L, Bhattacharya S. A case study of damages of the
Kandla Port and customs office tower supported on a mat–pile foundation in
liquefied soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering 2009;29(2):333–46.
[25] Abdoun TH, Ha D, O’Rourke MJ, Symans MD, O’Rourke TD, Palmer MC, et al.
Factors influencing the behavior of buried pipelines subjected to earthquake
faulting. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2009;29(3):415–27.
[26] American Petroleum Institute. API specification 5L. Specification for Line
Pipe; 1990.
[27] Moser AP. Buried pipe design. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001.
[28] Heedo Y, Kyriakides S. On the beam and shell modes of buckling of buried
pipelines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1990;9(4):179–93.
[29] Ariman T. Buckling and rupture failures of pipelines due to large ground
deformations. In: Proceedings of the 8th world conference on earthquake
engineering. San Francisco; 1984. p. 271–8.