Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Longitudinal response of buried pipeline under non-uniform seismic

excitation from multi-point shaking table tests
Junyan Han a, b, M. Hesham El Naggar b, Mi Zhao a, Zilan Zhong a, Benwei Hou a, Xiuli DU a, *
a
Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering of Ministry of education, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
b
Geotechnical Research Centre, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western University, London, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The spatial variability of ground motion has a significant influence on the seismic response of long infrastructure
Buried pipeline and is considered the primary cause of pipeline damage during earthquakes. In this study, a series of three-
Multi-point shaking table test dimensional shaking table tests were carried out to investigate the influence of non-uniform seismic excitation
Non-uniform seismic excitation
on the pipeline response using a scaled pipeline model installed in sand. The pipeline-soil model was enclosed in
Dynamic response
a suspension continuum soil box situated on three shaking tables that can induce uniform and non-uniform
seismic excitations. Accelerometers were distributed along the soil profile, and strain gauges and accelerome­
ters were attached to the pipeline to monitor the dynamic response of the pipeline-soil system during the shaking.
The pipeline-soil model was subjected to a series of uniform and non-uniform excitations with gradually
increasing intensity. The testing results demonstrated that the pipeline experienced tensile and compressive
strains due to the longitudinal seismic excitation because the phase and waveform of the seismic waves were
almost the same at the strain measuring points around the pipeline profile. The acceleration response of the
pipeline under non-uniform seismic excitation was larger than that of the surrounding soil. The pipeline strain
response under non-uniform seismic excitation was approximately twice that under uniform seismic excitation.
The soil-pipeline interaction exhibited complex behavior; sliding may occur with the increase of loading in­
tensity, and more likely to occur under non-uniform seismic excitation. These results indicate that the dynamic
response of the pipeline-soil system is sensitive to non-uniform ground motion, which should be properly
considered in the seismic design of pipeline.

1. Introduction response of buried pipeline more complex as dictates three-dimensional

Earthquakes may cause severe damage to buried pipelines. Experi­
ence from past earthquakes has repeatedly demonstrated that buried
pipelines are vulnerable to seismic effects (e.g. Kanto 1923, Niigata
1964, San Fernando 1971, Tangshan 1976, Northridge 1994, Kobe
1995, Wenchuan 2008, etc.). Many studies underscored that the spatial
variability of ground motion has considerable effect on such long sys­
tems [1–6]. Therefore, evaluating the response of pipelines under
non-uniform earthquake excitations is important for their seismic
design.
The effect of ground motion spatial variability on lifeline response
was investigated using the stochastic properties of the input ground
motions recorded at the SMART-1 array [7–9]. The results demonstrated
that pipeline response was sensitive to the spatial variability of input
motion. In addition, non-uniform seismic excitation renders the
analysis of the soil-pipeline interaction problem. Reliable simplification
of the analysis based on thorough understanding of the problem is
essential. Many researchers have proposed different degrees of analyt­
ical simplifications to obtain reliable response characteristics of the
pipeline. Newmark et al. [10,11] proposed the simplest yet practical
analytical model of buried pipeline assuming that the pipeline follows
the deformation of the soil (i.e. neglecting soil-pipeline interaction).
Kausel [12] implemented this model for the earthquake-resistant design
of the san Francisco trans-bay tube. However, Newmark’s approach is
mostly for highly flexible pipes, whereas movement of pipelines
embedded in soft soils can deviate from that of the soil and the
soil-pipeline interaction effects are likely to influence the pipeline
response. Wang et al. [13] and Nelson et al. [14] have presented a
quasi-static analysis based on beam on Winkler foundation model
considering the soil-pipeline interaction, which simulates the soil

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: duxiuli@bjut.edu.cn (X. DU).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106440
Received 29 April 2020; Received in revised form 1 August 2020; Accepted 28 September 2020
Available online 10 October 2020
0267-7261/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Han et al.
Fig. 1. Shaking tables and directions of the three-shake table system.
resistance using elastic springs. However, the pipeline cross-section and
soil nonlinearity are not described in this model. Muleski et al. [15] and
Luco et al. [16] simulated the pipeline cross-section as shell. Subse­
quently, Lee et al. [17] have accounted for the cross-section nonlinearity
by employing inelastic fiber cross-section analysis and simulated the soil
nonlinearity utilizing nonlinear discrete soil springs. In these analyses,
the input earthquake motion is given as a function of the incidence angle
of the seismic waves idealized sinusoidal waves or as recorded time
histories of outcrop ground motions at different stations. Papadopoulos
et al. [18] employed three-dimensional finite element model to analyze
the seismic response of soil-pipeline system simulating the soil using
lumped springs, while the input ground motion time histories at the
pipeline depth were obtained from 2D site response analysis.
Several researchers [19–21] reviewed recent advances in research on
seismic response of lifelines and indicated that the seismic behavior of
buried pipelines is not yet understood fully. The current practice is rich
in empirical relations and numerical analysis, but there is limited robust
verification by experimental data. It is challenging to reliably quantify
the accuracy of the empirical and numerical methods without experi­
mental justification. Therefore, there is a need for in-depth experimental
research to calibrate, verify and advance the design practice.
Shaking table tests could provide valuable insight into the seismic
response of buried pipeline and furnish the experimental data necessary
for revealing the earthquake damage mechanism and verifying the
theoretical models of buried pipelines. Most shaking table tests for
buried structures were conducted utilizing a single shaking table
[22–28]. A few shaking table tests employed two or more shaking tables.
For example, Chen et al. [29] and Yan et al. [30] embedded buried
structures models in two laminar shear soil boxes with rectangular holes
in the sidewalls to facilitate the continuity of the buried structure model,
but the soil model was discontinuous. Yu et al. [31,32] performed a
series of multi-point shaking table tests on long tunnel model enclosed in
Fig. 2. The suspension continuum model box.
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440
twelve rigid model soil boxes connected in a series to simulate field
conditions. These test results showed that non-uniform excitation
waveform, wave peak acceleration and their direction may lead to
different dynamic response.
Therefore, this paper investigates the response of pipelines under
uniform and non-uniform seismic excitations through a testing program
involving a scaled buried pipeline model subjected to multi-point
shaking table tests. The testing program involved applying a sequence
of uniform and non-uniform shakings with gradually increasing in­
tensity along the longitudinal direction of the pipeline. Acceleration and
strain data are collected during the shaking tests and are analyzed to
elucidate the seismic response characteristics of pipelines under both
uniform and non-uniform seismic excitations.
2. Shaking table test setup
2.1. Experiment design
Shaking table tests were conducted using a suspension continuum
model box (SCMB) supported by the multi-dimension multi-point
shaking table array system of Beijing University of Technology (BJUT).
The system consists of nine 1.0 × 1.0 m shaking tables, each table has six
degrees of freedom movement. The maximum payload of each table is 5
ton, and its actuator stroke is ±75 mm with frequency range of 0.1–50.0
Hz and can produce peak acceleration of 2.0 g in (X, Y) directions, and
peak acceleration of 1.0 g in (Z) direction (where g is gravity accelera­
tion). The applied waveform can be sine wave, white noise, shock wave
or a time history of a seismic event. The experiments were performed on
an array of three shaking tables, which are referred to hereafter as table
A, table B and table C, as shown in Fig. 1.
Considering the dimensions and bearing capacity of the shaking ta­
bles, a suspension continuum model box (SCMB), was designed and
fabricated composing three rigid boxes and two suspension soft boxes
connecting the rigid boxes, with overall dimensions of 7.3 m × 1.4 m ×
1.2 m (length x width x height). Black wooden boards were used as side
walls inside the rigid box to enclose the soil. Black rubber membrane
was used as side and bottom walls inside the soft connection boxes to
enclose the soil and to withstand potentially large deformations. In order
to reduce the boundary effect, a foam board was placed around the
model box walls to absorb the energy of impacting waves and prevent
wave reflection into the soil bed. The net size of the inner space of the
soil box was 7.0 m × 1.0 m × 1.2 m (length × width × height) as
illustrated in Fig. 2. The suitability of the SCMB for shake table design
for long infrastructure was demonstrated elsewhere [33].
2.2. Similitude relationships and materials
The selection of the similitude relationships is critical to accomplish
proper simulation of shaking table test for buried structures. However, it
is difficult to consider the same similitude relationships for modeling
J. Han et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440

Table 1 Further discussion on the similitude relations are presented elsewhere

Key similitude constants of non-free field test. [35].
Materials Sl SE Sρ Sε Sf Sa Sg The test soil was retrieved from sand layer 10 m deep at Beijing
University of Technology subway station. The soil was placed into the
Soil 1/10 1/4 1 1 5 2.5 /
Pipeline 1/10 1/57 1/6.5 / 5 2.5 / SCMB in layers; each layer was 15 cm thick and was tamped using a steel
ram 20 cm in diameter. Soil samples were obtained from each layer and
its density was evaluated to ensure consistent soil density within each
both the buried structure and soil. The main challenge in this case is to layer. The average sand density was 1740 kg/m3 and its natural mois­
resolve the similitude relationships conflict between soil and buried ture content was 8.78%. Sieve analysis showed that the uniformity co­
pipeline. In the current study, several similitude relations of soil were efficient Cu = 3.24, the curvature coefficient Cc = 0.86, this sand is
established based on the Buckingham-theorem [34], and a finite classified as poorly graded sand.
element model (FEM) was established to analyze the pipe-soil interac­ The test pipeline model was 6.0 m in length and 150 mm in diameter
tion for the prototype dimensions considering different similitude re­ and was made of plexiglass with low elastic modulus to reflect the
lations. The model similitude relations suitable for the current shake deformation characteristics of buried pipeline under seismic excitation.
table testing program were determined by comparing the results of The pipeline was divided into five sections to facilitate attaching the
models considering different similitude relationships with the dynamic strain gauges on the inner wall of the pipeline. The joints of the pipe
response of the prototype structure. The similitude relations that pro­ segments were bonded together using trichloromethane and plexiglass
vided the closest agreement between the model pipeline seismic powder, then the same pipe diameter and slit with a length of 200 mm in
response and that of the prototype pipeline were selected as the simili­ the length direction were used to clamp the joints, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
tude relationships for this shaking table test. The similitude relations The material parameters for the model pipeline are shown in Table 2.
used for length l, elasticity modulus E, density ρ, strain ε, frequency f, The non-free field shaking table model is shown in Fig. 4.
acceleration a, and gravitational acceleration g are listed in Table 1.

Fig. 3. Test pipeline model in the SCMB box placed on the shake tables.

Table 2
The material parameters of model pipeline.
Materials Density (Kg/m3) Tensile modulus (MPa) Compression modulus (MPa) Burial depth (mm) Diameter (mm) Wall thickness (mm)

Pipeline 1200 2840 3570 200 150 2

3
J. Han et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440

Fig. 4. Shaking table test of the non-free field.

Fig. 5. Applied earthquake motions: a) acceleration time histories; and b) Fourier spectrum.

of the input ground motion according to the similitude relations pre­

Table 3 sented in Table 1. Similarly, the non-uniform excitation was applied by
Loading sequence of the shaking events and peak acceleration.
scaling the peak acceleration according to the similitude relations.
Loading sequence No. Input wave Peak acceleration/g However, in order to highlight the impact of non-uniform incidents, the
prototype 1:10 model input ground motion time delay of each array was set to 1s (the delay
X Y X Y
time would have been very short (0.04 s) if the same scaling factor was
used). The time history and Fourier spectrum of applied input earth­
1 WN1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
quake motion accelerations are shown in Fig. 5.
2、3、4 EL1、Kobe1、BJ1 0.1 0.1 0.25 0.25
5 WN2 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 The test model in Fig. 4 was subjected to thirty excitations consec­
6、7、8 EL2、Kobe2、BJ2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 utively as per the test sequence listed in Table 3. These events involved
9 WN3 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 two different seismic excitation modes, uniform excitation and non-
10、11、12 EL3、Kobe3、BJ3 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.0 uniform excitation, with different acceleration amplitudes varying
13 WN4 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
14、15、16 EL4、Kobe4、BJ4 0.62 0.62 1.55 1.55
from 0.25 g to 1.55 g, which represent prototype accelerations of 0.1 g to
0.62 g. The earthquake motion was inputted horizontally in the longi­
Note: EL-EL Centro seismic excitation, BJ-Beijing Artificial seismic excitation, tudinal direction, X (i.e. along the pipeline axis) or the transverse di­
WN-white noise.
rection, Y (i.e. perpendicular to the pipeline axis).

2.3. Seismic excitation input and loading scheme

2.4. Sensor arrangement
The input earthquake motions for the testing program included: The
The test model was instrumented to measure accelerations of pipe­
El-Centro earthquake seismogram (N–S component) recorded during the
line and soil, strain of pipeline and soil pressure on pipeline during the
1940 Imperial valley earthquake, the Kobe earthquake seismogram (N–S
shaking. The instrumentation scheme included sixty accelerometers, six
component) recorded during the 1995 Kobe earthquake and the syn­
micro accelerometers, eighty-eight strain gauges, three laser displace­
thetic artificial seismogram in Suzhou street Beijing, 2001. The uniform
ment gauges and sixteen membrane soil pressure gauges. Considering
excitation was applied by scaling the time interval and peak acceleration
the pipeline model was made of plexiglass, micro accelerometers and

4
J. Han et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440

Fig. 6. Sensors arrangement, a) at soil surface and profiles locations; b) longitudinal section profile A-A; and c) cross-sections at 3 profiles (mm).

Fig. 7. Arrangement of sensors along the pipe cross-sections.

membrane soil pressure gauges were selected for instrumenting the gauges, S; and laser displacement sensors, D. The sensors measured
pipeline model because of their light weight. actions in longitudinal direction (X) or transversal directions (Y). As
The sensors are denoted as follows: soil accelerometers, A; pipeline shown in Fig. 6, accelerometers and laser displacement sensors were
micro accelerometers, MA; membrane soil pressure gauges, MP; strain placed on the soil surface to measure its acceleration and displacement.

5
J. Han et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440

Table 4 instrumented with strain gauges along the pipe perimeter to measure
Natural frequency and damping ratio of pipeline-soil model under seismic axial strains as shown in Fig. 6b.
excitation in X-direction. Fig. 7 shows the distribution of the sensors along the pipeline
Uniform seismic excitation Non-uniform seismic excitation perimeter at different cross-sections. Eight membrane soil pressure
Loading Frequency/ Damping Loading Frequency/ Damping
gauges were mounted around the perimeter of pipe sections in boxes
test Hz ration/% test Hz ration/% No.3 and No.4 as shown in Fig. 7 (a). Eight strain gauges were attached
at each pipe cross-section (i.e. along the pipe perimeter) at the middle of
WN1 10.75 4.61 WN1 9.22 5.33
WN2 9.14 4.89 WN2 8.22 6.73 boxes 2, 3 and 4 at measuring points 0◦ , 90◦ , 180◦ and 270◦ as well as
WN3 8.39 6.37 WN3 7.99 7.84 measuring points of 45◦ , 135◦ , 225◦ and 315◦ as shown in Fig. 7(b). The
WN4 8.22 7.65 WN4 7.82 9.34 pipeline sections in boxes No.1 and No.4 had only four strain gauges at
measuring points 0◦ , 90◦ , 180◦ and 270◦ as shown in Fig. 7 (c). Two micro
accelerometers were mounted on top and bottom of pipeline cross-
In addition, accelerometers were installed along the vertical centerline
section as shown in Fig. 7 (d), in each of boxes No.4, No.3 and No.2,
of boxes No.3, No.4 and No.5 to measure both longitudinal (X) and
to measure the pipeline acceleration.
transverse (Y) accelerations as shown in Fig. 6b and c. Furthermore, two
accelerometers were attached to the shaking table to measure its ac­
celeration. Nine cross-sections along the pipeline axis were

Fig. 8. Acceleration response under uniform excitations in X-direction.

6
J. Han et al.
Fig. 9. Acceleration response under uniform excitations in X-direction.
3. Test results and analysis
3.1. Dynamic characteristics
The natural frequency and damping ratio of pipeline-soil model were
established from the data measured during the white noise sweep tests
(WN1, WN2, WN3 and WN4). Table 4 shows the natural frequency and
damping ratio of the pipeline-soil model under uniform and non-
uniform seismic excitations in X direction.
Inspecting the results in Table 4, it is noted that the variation trends
of the natural frequency and damping ratio were the same under uni­
form and non-uniform seismic excitations; the natural frequency
decreased, and the damping ratio increased as the shaking intensity
increased. However, it was observed that the model natural frequency
was relatively lower, and its damping ratio was relatively higher under
the non-uniform seismic excitations. This could be caused by the
7
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440
incoherent soil motion under the non-uniform seismic excitation, which
lead to stronger change in the soil structure, hence causing significant
soil nonlinearity and heterogeneity. It is also noted that the rate of
reduction in natural frequency and increase in damping ratio decreases
as the loading intensity became much higher.
3.2. Acceleration responses
The seismic responses of the pipeline and the surrounding soil were
monitored in real time during the shaking tests. In order to analyze the
influence of the existence of buried pipeline on the dynamic character­
istic of the soil-pipeline system, the acceleration time history and
Fourier spectra at the monitoring points along monitoring section 1 in
box No. 3 were analyzed. The data from the pipeline accelerometer
MAx2 and soil accelerometer Ax15 are analyzed herein.
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 show the acceleration time history and Fourier
J. Han et al.
Fig. 10. Acceleration response under non-uniform excitation in X directions.
spectra of the monitoring points under uniform seismic excitations of the
scaled El Centro and Kobe earthquakes in X directions, respectively. The
results demonstrate noticeable agreement between the soil and pipeline
responses, including the phase and waveform curves of the acceleration
time history. The spectral compositions of the accelerations Fourier
spectrum of the pipeline and soil were relatively consistent, although the
frequency content was not the same under different earthquake motions
due to their different frequency content. This indicates that under uni­
form seismic excitation, the pipeline response was governed by the
response of the surrounding soil due to the surrounding soil strong re­
straint. However, the response of the surrounding soil was slightly larger
than the response of the pipeline at 0.25 g, 1.0 g and 1.55 g intensities. It
was also noted that the response at 1.0 g intensity was almost the same
as that at 1.55 g intensity.
Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 present the acceleration time history and Fourier
spectra of the monitoring points under non-uniform seismic excitation of
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440
both El Centro and Kobe in X direction. The results demonstrate that the
response of the surrounding soil was slightly smaller than the response
of the acceleration on the pipeline even at 0.25 g loading intensity. As
the loading intensity increased, the difference in response increased
gradually, indicating that the restraint effect of the surrounding soil on
the pipeline was reduced under non-uniform excitation compared with
the uniform excitation case. The acceleration response of the pipeline
was significantly larger than that of the surrounding soil and the ac­
celeration Fourier spectrum was wider. The Fourier spectrum of pipeline
acceleration exhibited more peaks with significant amplification for the
medium-to-low frequency components under non-uniform excitation,
which may cause damage to buried pipeline. Lee et al. [17] made similar
observation from their numerical models for a gas pipeline, while Yu
et al. [32] reported the same from shaking table tests of a long tunnel.
This strong effect of non-uniform excitation on the behavior of buried
pipelines should be considered in theoretical models used for
J. Han et al.
Fig. 11. Acceleration response under non-uniform excitation in X directions.
pipeline-soil interaction analysis. In addition, inspecting the accelera­
tion time history and Fourier spectra of acceleration response under
different earthquake motions (i.e. Kobe and BJ earthquakes), it is noted
that the variation of acceleration response was almost the same.
Therefore, the acceleration responses under BJ earthquake motion are
not listed here.
3.3. Pipeline strain
In order to analyze the effect of non-uniform longitudinal seismic
excitation on pipeline deformation, the readings of strain gauges around
the pipeline perimeter at nine sections along the pipeline axis are
analyzed. Eight strain gauges were distributed uniformly on each cross-
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440
section, and are denoted as 0◦ , 45◦ to 315◦ clockwise from the top of the
pipeline.
3.3.1. Strain time history
Fig. 12 displays the strain time history at the monitoring points of
pipeline along monitoring in box No. 3 and box No. 4. The results reveal
that the phase and waveform of measured strain time history at the
measuring points 0◦ , 180◦ and 90◦ , 270◦ under uniform and non-uniform
excitations were the same. The strain values at the measuring points 0◦ ,
180◦ and 90◦ , 270◦ were almost the same at the same time. Fig. 13 shows
that the variation of the strain curve was the same under non-uniform as
uniform excitations. However, the strain of pipeline under non-uniform
excitation was larger than that under uniform excitation. This indicates
J. Han et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440

Fig. 12. Strain response under El Centro uniform seismic excitation.

Fig. 13. Strain response under El Centro non-uniform seismic excitation.

10
J. Han et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440

Fig. 14. The peak strain around the pipeline under El Centro uniform excitation.

Fig. 15. The peak strain around the pipeline under El Centro non-uniform excitation.

11
J. Han et al.
Fig. 16. The tensile strain response along the axial direction of pipeline.
that the pipeline experienced tensile and compressive strains under both
uniform and non-uniform excitation in X direction, and the pipeline
strain was greatly affected by the non-uniform seismic excitation.
3.3.2. Peak strain around the pipeline
Fig. 14 presents the peak strains at the pipeline monitoring points
along monitoring section in box No. 3 and box No. 4 under uniform
excitation. The results show that the peak values at the strain measuring
points 0◦ , 45◦ , 315◦ above horizontal axis of pipeline were relatively
higher than that below horizontal axis of pipeline at 0.25 g and 0.5 g.
The strain at measuring points 135◦ , 180◦ , 225◦ below horizontal axis of
pipeline gradually increased and became slightly larger than that above
horizontal axis of pipeline as the loading intensity increased. The
measuring point 90◦ experienced relatively larger strain than the cor­
responding measuring point 270◦ .
Fig. 15 presents the peak strain at the pipeline monitoring points
along monitoring section in box No. 3 and box No. 4 under non-uniform
excitation. The results show that the peak values of the strain the
measuring points 135◦ and 225◦ below horizontal axis of pipeline were
relatively larger than that above horizontal axis of pipeline even at 0.25
g, and the intermediate measuring points 90◦ were relatively larger than
12
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440
the corresponding intermediate measuring points 270◦ . It is also noted
that the peak value of the strain around the pipeline under non-uniform
excitation was about twice that under uniform excitation in X direction.
This indicates that non-uniform excitation had a significant impact on
the peak value of pipeline strain.
3.3.3. Peak strain along the axial pipeline
The pipeline tensile and compressive strain states are investigated
herein. The strain peak referred to here is the mean tensile and
compressive strain peaks of each cross-section along the pipeline axis.
Fig. 16 shows the tensile peak strain curves along the pipeline axis.
The results show that the strain peak curves were similar under different
loading intensity; however, the difference in the strain peak along the
pipeline gradually increased as the loading intensity increased, espe­
cially at 1.55 g loading intensity. The strain peak curve increased as the
loading intensity increases from 0.25 g to 1.55 g. However, the rate of
increase in amplitude decreased gradually. In particular, the strain peak
curves are almost the same under non-uniform excitation at 1.0 g and
1.55 g, indicating that failure occurs along the pipeline-soil contact
surface and soil slip occurs under the higher loading intensity, and the
pipeline strain reaches an upper limit due to soil slippage during
J. Han et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440

Fig. 17. The compressive strain response along the axial direction of pipeline.

Fig. 18. Development of pipeline tensile strain peaks with loading intensity.

loading. In addition, inspecting the results show that the strain peak
value of the measuring points along the axial direction of the pipeline
under non-uniform excitation is approximately twice that under uniform
excitation in X direction.
Fig. 17 presents the compressive peak strain curves along the pipe­
line axis. The results show that the variation of the compressive peak
strain curve is similar to that of the tensile peak strain curve. In addition,
comparing the pipeline response under El Centro, Kobe and BJ earth­
quakes shows that the pipeline strain response varied substantially; the
pipeline strain response under Kobe earthquake motion was largest and
was smallest under BJ earthquake motion. This indicates that the
pipeline strain response is not only affected by the intensity of input

13
J. Han et al.
Fig. 19. Development of pipeline compressive strain peaks with loading intensity.
earthquake motion, but also its frequency content. Lee et al. [17] arrived
at the same conclusion from their numerical modeling of a gas pipeline.
3.3.4. Development of pipeline strain
Fig. 18 and Fig. 19 presents development curve of pipeline tensile or
compressive strain as the loading grade increased of cross-section 3-1, 4-
2 under both of uniform and non-uniform seismic excitation, the strain
referred to here is the mean circumference tensile and compressive peak
strain of each cross-section. The results show that the observed rela­
tionship between buried pipeline stiffness and strain was almost linear
for both tensile and compressive strains under uniform seismic excita­
tion. However, the observed relationship between buried pipeline stiff­
ness and strain was non-linear, and the curves were roughly parabolic
under non-uniform seismic excitation, as the instrumented pipeline
possessed a linear stress-strain relationship around the calibrated rang of
±10000με1.This non-linear behavior is attributed to the strain-softening
soil response due to the incoherent soil motion under the non-uniform
seismic excitation, which lead to stronger change in the soil structure,
Sim [36] observed similar nonlinear pipe-soil interaction during shaking
table test on buried pipelines crossing a strike-slip fault. This also can be
illustrated by the previous analysis of dynamic characteristic and ac­
celeration, indicating that the non-uniform seismic excitation could
accelerate the nonlinear development of soil. Hence, the pipeline does
not confirm to the soil movement due to the relative movement generate
between pipeline and soil. This strong effect of non-uniform seismic
excitation on the behavior of buried pipelines should be considered
properly in theoretical models used for pipeline-soil interaction analysis.
4. Conclusions
A series of multi-point shaking table tests was performed on a model
pipeline buried in dry sand under uniform and non-uniform input
seismic excitations with four different loading intensity in longitudinal
direction. The tests data are presented and discussed in terms of the
acceleration response of the pipeline and surrounding soil as well as the
pipeline strain. Emphasis was placed on investigating the effect of the
non-uniform seismic excitation on the pipeline response. The following
conclusions were obtained:
(1) The natural frequency of the pipeline-soil model decreased, and
its damping ratio increased under uniform and non-uniform
seismic excitations as the loading intensity increased. However,
the decrease in natural frequency and increase in damping ratio
were more pronounced under the non-uniform seismic
excitations.
(2) The variation of the acceleration time history and Fourier spectra
of the monitoring points under different input earthquake mo­
tions indicate that the pipeline was strongly restrained by the
surrounding soil and its response conformed to the soil response
under uniform seismic excitation. However, the pipeline response
under non-uniform excitation did not conform to the soil
14
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440
response, was affected more by the natural vibration character­
istics of the pipeline system. Therefore, the seismic design of the
pipeline system should properly account for pipeline-soil
interaction.
(3) The variation of the pipeline axial strain time history curves was
the same under both uniform and non-uniform excitations in
different boxes, indicating that that pipeline experienced tensile
and compressive strains because the phase and waveform at
measuring points 0◦ , 180◦ and 90◦ , 270◦ were almost the same.
The peak axial strain value along the perimeter of pipeline had
the same trends under uniform and non-uniform seismic excita­
tions. However, the peak axial strain value under non-uniform
excitation was about twice that under uniform excitation.
(4) The tensile and compressive peak strain curves along the pipeline
axis had the same variation trend under different input earth­
quake motions. The peak strain increased as the loading intensity
increased. However, the rate of increase in amplitude decreased
gradually. The peak strain curves were almost the same under
non-uniform excitation at very high loading intensity (1.0 g and
1.55 g).
(5) The development curve of pipeline tensile or compressive strain
as the loading grade increased under both uniform and non-
uniform excitation indicate that buried pipeline stiffness and
strain was linear under uniform seismic excitation. However,
buried pipeline stiffness and strain was nonlinear under non-
uniform seismic excitation due to the relative movement be­
tween pipeline and soil. The overall results indicate that non-
uniform excitation had a major influence on the pipeline
seismic response, the relative movement should be considered in
theoretical models used for pipeline-soil interaction analysis.
CRediT author statement
Junyan Han: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Writing - original draft, M. Hesham El Naggar: Conceptuali­
zation, Validation, Writing - review & editing, Mi ZHAO: Data curation,
Validation, Methodology, Zilan ZHONG: Resources, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Benwei Hou: Software, Investigation, Data curation, Xiuli
Du: Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by National Youth Science Foundation of
China (No.51808018); Beijing Municipal Education Commission Sci­
ence and Technology General Project (No.KM201910005022). National
J. Han et al.
Natural Science Foundation of China (No.U1839201); National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No.51978020; No.51978023); The
financial supports are greatly appreciated.
References
[1] Ariman T, Muleski GE. A review of the response of buried pipeline under seismic
excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 1981;9(2):133–52.
[2] Datta T. Seismic response of buried pipeline: a state-of-the-art review. Nucl Eng Des
1999;192(2–3):271–84.
[3] Liang JW, Sun SP. Site effects on seismic behavior of pipeline: a review. J Pressure
Vessel Technol 2000;122(4):469–75.
[4] O’rourke MJ. Seismic behaviour of buried pipeline components: a state-of-the-art
review. In: Proc. 10th European conference on earthquake engineering; 1995.
p. 2153–62. Vienna, Austria.
[5] Hall JF. Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994: preliminary reconnaissance
report. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; 1994.
[6] Miao Y, Yao E, Ruan B, Zhuang HY, Chen GX, Long XH. Improved hilbert spectral
representation method and its application to seismic analysis of shield tunnel
subjected to spatially correlated ground motions. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;
111:119–30.
[7] Zerva A, Ang AH-S, Wen YK. Lifeline response to spatially variable ground motions.
Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 1988;16(3):361–79.
[8] Zerva A. Pipeline response to directionally and spatially correlated seismic ground
motions. J Pressure Vessel Technol 1993;115(1):53–8.
[9] Zerva A. On the spatial variation of seismic ground motions and its effects on
lifelines. Eng Struct 1994;16(7):534–46.
[10] Newmark NM. Problem in wave propagation in soil and rock. In: Proc. Int. Symp.
Wave propa. Dyn. Prop. Earth mater. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press; 1968. p. 7–26.
[11] Hall WJ, Newmark NM. Seismic design criteria for pipeline and facilities. J Tech
Counc ASCE 1978;104(1):91–107.
[12] Kuesel TR. Earthquake design criteria for subways. J. Struct. Division. 1969;95:
1213–31.
[13] Wang LRL, Cheng KM. Seismic response behavior of buried pipelines. J Pressure
Vessel Technol 1979;101:21–30.
[14] Nelson I, Weidlinger P. Dynamic seismic analysis of long segmented lifelines.
J Pressure Vessel Technol 1979;101:10–20.
[15] Muleski GE, Ariman T. A shell model for buried pipes in earthquakes. Int. J. Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1985;4(1):43–51.
[16] Luco JE, De Barros FCP. Seismic response of a cylindrical shell embedded in a
layered viscoelastic half-space. I: Formulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 1994;23
(5):553–67.
[17] Lee DH, Kim BH, Lee H, Kong JS. Seismic behavior of a buried gas pipeline under
earthquake excitations. Eng Struct 2009;31(5):1011–23.
[18] Papadopoulos S, Sextos A, Kwon O, Gerasimidis S, Deodatis G. Impact of spatial
variability of earthquake ground motion on seismic demand to natural gas
transmission pipeline. In: Proc. The 16th world conference on earthquake.
16WCEE; 2017. p. 25.
15
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 140 (2021) 106440
[19] McCabe MW. Soil parameters for assessing axial and transverse behavior of
restrained pipeline Part 1: axial behavior. Underground to the forefront of
innovation and sustainability. ASCE Task Committee on Thrust Restraint Design of
Buried Pipelines; 2014. p. 1834–48.
[20] Psyrras NK, Sextos AG. Safety of buried steel natural gas pipeline under
earthquake-induced ground shaking: a review. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;106:
254–77.
[21] Li HJ, Wang JX. Recent research advances in lifeline earthquake engineering.
Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2017;37(3):10–26.
[22] Ling HI, Mohri Y, Kawabata T, Liu H, Burke C, Sun LX. Centrifugal modeling of
seismic behavior of large-diameter pipe in liquefiable soil. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 2003;129(12):1092–101.
[23] Jafarzadeh F, Jahromi HF, Torghabeh EA. Investigating dynamic response of a
buried pipeline in sandy soil layer by 1g shaking table test. Int J Civ Eng 2010;8(2):
107–24.
[24] Chen GX, Chen S, Z X, Du XL, Qi CZ, Wang ZH. Shaking-table tests and numerical
simulations on a subway structure in soft soil. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2015;76:
13–28.
[25] Kawamata Y, Nakayama M, Towhata I, Yasuda S. Dynamic behaviors of
underground structures in E-Defense shaking experiments. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
2016;82:24–39.
[26] Chen S, Zhuang HY, Quan DZ, Yuan J, Zhao K, Ruan B. Shaking table test on the
seismic response of large-scale subway station in a loess site: a case study. Soil
Dynam Earthq Eng 2019;123:173–84.
[27] Chen S, Wang X, Zhuang HY, Xu CJ, Zhao K. Seismic response and damage of
underground subway station in a slightly sloping liquefiable site. Bull. Eartuq. Eng.
2019;17(11):5963–85.
[28] Chen S, Tang BZ, Zhao K, Li X, Zhuang HY. Seismic response of irregular
underground structures under adverse soil conditions using shaking table tests.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2020;95:1–12.
[29] Chen J, Shi XJ, Li J. Shaking table test of utility tunnel under non-uniform
earthquake wave excitation. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2010;30:1400–16.
[30] Yan KM, Zhang JJ, Wang ZJ, Liao WM, Wu ZJ. Seismic responses of deep buried
pipeline under non-uniform excitations from large scale shaking table test. Soil
Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;113:180–92.
[31] Yuan Y, Yu HT, Li C, Yan X, Yuan JY. Multi-point shaking table test for long tunnels
subjected to non-uniform seismic loadings - Part I: theory and validation. Soil
Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;108:177–86.
[32] Yu HT, Yan X, Bobet A, Yuan Y, Xu GP, Su QK. Multi-point shaking table test of a
long tunnel subjected to non-uniform seismic loadings. Bull Earthq Eng 2018;16
(2):1041–59.
[33] Han JY, El Naggar MH, Li LY, Hou BW, Xu JX, Du XL. Design and commissioning of
continuous soil box supported on shake tables array for testing long geostructures.
Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2020;132:1–13.
[34] Meymand P. Shaking table scale model tests of nonlinear soil-pile-superstructure
interaction in soft clay. PhD. dissertation. Berkeley: University of California; 1998.
[35] Du XL, Han JY, Li LY. Selection of shaking table test similarity relations for long-
distance buried pipeline. J Disast Prev Mitig Eng 2013;33(3):246–52 [in Chinese].
[36] Sim WW, Towhata I, Yamada S. One-g shaking-table experiments on buried
pipelines crossing a strike-slip fault. Geotechnique 2012;62(12):1067.