ISSN 1831-9424 (PDF)

ISSN 1018-5593 (Printed)

Safety of buried steel pipelines

under ground-induced
deformations
(GIPIPE)

Research and
Innovation EUR 27616 EN
Interested in European research?
RTD info is our quarterly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results,
programmes, events, etc.). It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy or
free subscription can be obtained from:

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

Information and Communication Unit
European Commission
1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
BELGIQUE/BELGIË
Fax +32 229-58220
E-mail: research@ec.europa.eu
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo.html

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate D — Key Enabling Technologies
Unit D.4 — Coal and Steel

E-mail: rtd-steel-coal@ec.europa.eu
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu

Contact: RFCS Publications

European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
 European Commission

Research Fund for Coal and Steel

Safety of buried steel pipelines
under ground-induced deformations
(GIPIPE)
P. Vazouras, G. Sarvanis, S. A. Karamanos, P. Dakoulas
University of Thessaly
Argonafton & Filellinon, 38221 Volos, Greece

J. Ferino, G. Demofonti,
Centro Sviluppo Materiali S.p.A.
Via di Castel Romano, 100/102, 00128, Italy

A. M. Gresnigt, S. H. J. Van Es
Delft University of Technology
Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands

A. Tsatsis, I. Anastasopoulos, G. Gazetas

National Technical University of Athens
Heroon Polytechneiou 9, 15780, Athens, Greece

I. Gourousis, N. Voudouris
Corinth Pipeworks S.A
Messogion 2-4, Tower of Athens, Building B, 501 office 11527, Athens, Greece

W. Huinen, G. J. Dijkstra
Tebodin Netherlands B.V.
Laan van Nieuw Oost Indië 25, 2500 BA, The Hague, The Netherlands

Grant Agreement RFSR-CT-2011-00027

1 July 2011 to 30 June 2014

Final report
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

2015 EUR 27616 EN

LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is
responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*)  Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015

Print ISBN 978-92-79-54041-7 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2777/85110 KI-NA-27-616-EN-C

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-54040-0 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2777/9147 KI-NA-27-616-EN-N

© European Union, 2015

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Printed on white chlorine-free paper

Table of contents

I. Final summary ............................................................................................................................... 5

I.1. WP1: Critical evaluation of strain-based pipeline design procedures and relevant research
works. Evaluation of pipeline damages under ground-induced deformations. ..................................... 6
I.2. WP2: Development of numerical techniques for determining ground-induced actions on
buried steel pipelines. ............................................................................................................................ 7
I.3. WP3: Preparation, supply and mechanical characterization of steel pipes; design of
experimental set-ups. ............................................................................................................................. 9
I.4. WP4: Experimental investigation of soil-pipeline interaction. ............................................... 10
I.5. WP5: Numerical parametric study of buried pipeline behaviour under various types of
ground-induced deformations.............................................................................................................. 12
I.6. WP6: Development of guidelines and background documents for pipeline design under
ground-induced actions; dissemination of results. .............................................................................. 13
I.7. WP7: Project coordination. ..................................................................................................... 14
I.8. Conclusions and main results .................................................................................................. 14
II. Scientific description of the results ............................................................................................. 16
Objectives of the project...................................................................................................................... 16
Comparison of initially planned activities and work accomplished .................................................... 16
II.1. Work package 1 – Critical evaluation of strain-based pipeline design procedures and relevant
research works. Evaluation of pipeline damages under ground-induced deformations ...................... 16
II.1.1. Task 1.1: Critical assessment of current strain-based approaches for buried pipeline
design 16
II.1.2. Task 1.2: Evaluation of available experimental data for failure of steel pipes under
compressive and tensile stresses ....................................................................................................... 17
II.1.3. Evaluation of analytical-numerical models to simulate buried pipe behaviour and
collection of relevant experimental data........................................................................................... 21
II.1.4. Task 1.4: Evaluation and classification of pipeline damage subjected to ground-induced
actions 24
II.2. Work package 2 – Development of numerical techniques for determining ground-induced
actions on buried steel pipelines .......................................................................................................... 26
II.2.1. Task 2.1: Determination of type of soils and range of soil properties of interest ............. 26
II.2.2. Task 2.2: Constitutive models to describe the monotonic inelastic material behavior of
soil and steel ..................................................................................................................................... 27
II.2.3. Task 2.3: Numerical simulation of permanent ground-induced actions on pipelines ...... 28
II.3. Work package 3 – Preparation, supply and mechanical characterization of steel pipes; design
of experimental set-ups. ...................................................................................................................... 35
II.3.1. Task 3.1: Selection of pipe specimen geometry/material and design of experimental set-
up 35
II.3.2. Task 3.2: Manufacturing and supply of pipe specimens .................................................. 39
II.3.3. Task 3.3: Basic material testing of pipeline material and butt-welded joints (base metal,
HAZ and weld metal) ....................................................................................................................... 41
II.4. Work package 4 – Experimental investigation of soil-pipeline interaction ............................ 49
II.4.1. Task 4.1 Small-scale experiments on pipes under settlements and normal or reverse fault
movement ......................................................................................................................................... 49
3
 II.4.2. Task 4.2: Large-scale tests, simulating soil-pipeline ........................................................ 58
II.4.3. Task 4.3: Deformation-imposed large-scale tests on pipeline segments, simulating the
deformation pattern of a pipeline segment subjected to severe shearing-type deformation ............. 68
II.5. Work package 5 – Numerical parametric study of buried pipeline behaviour under various
types of ground-induced deformations ................................................................................................ 80
II.5.1. Task 5.1 Simulation of experimental testing conducted in the previous workpackage .... 80
II.5.2. Task 5.2: Buried pipeline behavior under permanent ground deformation ...................... 93
II.5.3. Task 5.3: Behaviour of special pipeline components under ground-induced actions .... 103
II.5.4. Task 5.4: Evaluation of numerical results to determine failure modes under various soil
parameters, and identify most critical situations ............................................................................ 107
II.6. Work package 6 – Development of guidelines and background documents for pipeline design
under ground-induced actions; dissemination of results ................................................................... 113
II.6.1. Task 6.1: Simplified model for buried steel pipeline analysis and design ..................... 113
II.6.2. Task 6.2: Organization of a dedicated workshop ........................................................... 121
II.6.3. Task 6.3: Development of design guidelines, design examples and background
documents....................................................................................................................................... 123
II.7. Work package 7 – Coordination of the project...................................................................... 124
II.7.1. Task 7.1 Establishment of an efficient management process and definition of standard
protocols 124
II.7.2. Task 7.2 Monitoring of project activities and evaluation of progress ............................ 125
II.7.3. Task 7.3 Progress reports and final reports .................................................................... 126
II.8. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 127
II.9. Exploitation and impact of the research results ..................................................................... 128
III. List of acronyms and abbreviations ........................................................................................... 128
IV. List of figures ............................................................................................................................ 130
V. List of tables .............................................................................................................................. 134
VI. References ................................................................................................................................. 135

4
I. Final summary
The GIPIPE research project investigates the mechanical behaviour and structural integrity of buried
steel pipelines, subjected to severe ground-induced permanent action – including tectonic (quasi-static)
effects, slope movements, and liquefaction-induced displacements – using advanced experimental
techniques and high-performance numerical simulations. GIPIPE, through a multi-disciplinary
partnership, combines geotechnical engineering expertise with pipeline engineering practice,
considering the particularities of buried steel pipelines, with emphasis on soil-pipeline interaction
effects. A substantial part of the work within GIPIPE is related to seismic effects; however, GIPIPE
work and results are applicable to all types of ground-induced actions, not necessarily associated with
earthquake actions.
The final objective of GIPIPE is the development of a complete set of design guidelines and
operational recommendations for buried steel pipelines, in areas where ground-induced actions are
likely to occur. These novel guidelines will aim at:
 Including state-of-the-art experimental and numerical research that accounts for all the
particularities of buried pipeline behaviour under various soil conditions in a rigorous manner,
with particular emphasis on soil-pipeline interaction.
 Covering a wide range of transmission/distribution pipeline applications (oil, gas, water)
 Constituting a basis for the amendment of existing pipeline design standards or guidelines for
pipeline design in the case of ground-induced actions,within a strain-based design framework.
To achieve these objectives the following intermediate goals are targeted within GIPIPE project:
 Large-scale experiments, supported by small-scale tests, to determine pipeline behaviour under
various ground conditions and examine the interaction between the soil and the steel pipe.
 Development of rigorous models for describing soil (cohesive and non-cohesive) behaviour and
soil-pipe interaction under various conditions, within a finite element environment, consistent with
the experimental results, capable of examining the effects of a wide range of pipe and soil
parameters.
 Development of a well-calibrated analysis methodology for the simple and efficient stress analysis
of buried pipelines, to be used for design purposes, including the definition of failure criteria for
buried pipelines for different limit states.
The main novelty of GIPIPE is the explicit consideration of the soil-pipeline interaction in buried pipeline
behaviour, which is the key parameter to determine accurately pipeline behaviour subjected to geohazards.
In this perspective, GIPIPE constitutes a significant contribution within the RFCS program.
The GIPIPE project has been completed in three (3) major phases.
 Phase I consists of introductory work in WP1 (comparison between existing design methodologies;
evaluation of available case studies), development of accurate models for soil material behaviour and
soil-pipeline interaction under permanent ground-induced actions (WP2) and pipe specimen supply
and characterization (WP3).
 Phase II comprises the experimental investigation of soil-pipeline interaction using small-scale and
large-scale tests (WP4), as well as extensive nonlinear finite element simulations to investigate the
effects of numerous ground and pipeline parameters (WP5).
 Finally, Phase III focuses on the main objective of the GIPIPE project: the development of an
efficient design methodology in the form of guidelines, including design examples (WP6), which
would incorporate all the experimental and numerical results from the previous WPs, and the
dissemination of the results through a dedicated workshop.
The results of the above investigations are summarised below, demonstrating the achievements of
GIPIPE project objectives, work package per work package.

5
I.1. WP1: Critical evaluation of strain-based pipeline design procedures and
relevant research works. Evaluation of pipeline damages under ground-induced
deformations.
The objectives of this work package (WP1) consist of (a) critical assessment of existing know-how for
strain-design of buried steel pipelines against geotechnical hazards, through consideration of
appropriate pipeline design examples (b) compilation (data base development) of existing data / field
experiences from geotechnical hazards and their evaluation based on the consequences of the structural
performance of pipelines; identification of critical modes of failure (c) evaluation of
analytical/numerical models simulating mechanical behaviour of soil-pipeline systems under ground-
induced permanent actions.
A critical assessment of current strain-based approaches for buried pipeline design is conducted in
task 1.1,considering American standards and recommendations: ASME B31.8 (gas pipelines), ASME
B31.4 (oil pipelines) and AWWA M11 (steel water pipes), ALA guidelines 2001 and 2005 (buried steel
pipes); as well as European standards EN 1594 (gas supply systems), NEN 3650 (Dutch code for
pipelines), , EN805 (water supply systems), EN14161 (oil & gas pipelines), EN1993-4-3 (structural
design of pipelines), EN 1998-4 (seismic design of pipelines),DNV-OS-F101 (submarine pipelines). All
those specifications are widely used in pipeline design.
The evaluation of the above standards/recommendations concluded that there is general need for
developing provisions for pipeline design against geohazards. In several of the above pipeline standards
the benefits of strain-based design are acknowledged, but little quantitative information is provided for
design purposes. In a few standards, such as NEN 3650 and EN1993-4-3, limited provisions exist for
the design against ground-induced deformations mainly due to settlements, whereas EN 1998-4
standard (Chapter 6 and Annex B) refers to seismic effects and contains little information on structural
analysis of pipelines subjected to seismic wave shaking and for the case of fault crossing. In the ALA
recommendations (2001, 2005) non-normative information is provided for buried pipelines, reflecting
the research conducted in the USA up to late 90’s, as an enhancement of the old ASCE 1984
recommendations.
Evaluation of available experimental data for failure of steel pipes under compressive and tensile
stresses has been performed in task 1.2, identifying the main parameters affecting two major limit states
of pipelines, namely (a) pipe wall due to excessive tensile strain and (b) pipe wall wrinkling due to
excessive compressive strain. In the past, there has been extensive experimental investigation of both
failure modes, often supported by numerical simulations. Tensile failure tests have been conducted
mainly on strip specimens while compression failure mechanisms require full scale bending tests. A
significant part of the available test data on tensile and compressive strength of pipes have been
performed by CSM and Delft University of Technology.
A discussion of the influence of the following main parameters on tensile behaviour has been
presented in this Task:
 The influence of specimen type on tensile test results
 The influence of specimen orientation on tensile test results
 The influence of yield-to-tensile (Y/T) ratio on strain capacity of the material
 The effects of girth weld metal, and its characterization
The main loading parameter in buried pipelines under ground-induced actions is bending, which
induces significant compressive strains. The failure mode of buried pipelines under compressive
stresses is local buckling or wrinkling; this constitutes a major failure mode, and it is discussed
extensively in this Task. Such a failure mode does not necessarily result in loss of containment, but this
may occur due to excessive pipe wall folding at the buckled area, or at the tension side in the case of
pressurized pipelines. Furthermore, a local buckle is associated with significant strain concentrations,
which may lead to fatigue loading under repeated operating loads.
In the course of efficient pipeline design it is important to prevent local buckling, and the stage
where local buckling occurs, quite often after the point of maximum moment (limit point), is considered
the limit state for bending, and the corresponding curvature is called “critical curvature” and constitutes
an important aspect for strain-based design. Tools to describe post critical behaviour can be important
6
in the course of for strain-based design to determine possible pipe wall rupture due to the development
of excessive tensile strain. The critical curvature is influenced by the following parameters:
 Diameter - wall thickness ratio (D/t).
 Level of internal pressure.
 Strain hardening properties of steel material (Y/T ratio), and the Bauschinger effect.
 Residual stresses and initial imperfections (wrinkling or ovality) due to manufacturing process.
 Possible dimples and local wall distortions, possibly due to local transverse loads.
 Wall thickness variations around the cross-section and along the pipeline.
 In buried pipes, soil loads causing ovalisation and additional stresses can be important.
A major effort of the partners has concentrated in task 1.3, focusing on the evaluation of analytical-
numerical models to simulate buried pipe behaviour. The work in task 1.3 has been very important for
the successful advancement of the GIPIPE project, in order to identify the “pros and cons” of each level
of modelling. There exist several levels of buried pipeline modelling:
 Analytical calculations based on very simplified models that consider the pipeline as a beam or
cable (neglecting bending resistance) on elastic or elastic-plastic foundation constitute the first
level of modelling. This can be useful for preliminary design purposes.
 Numerical simulations with finite elements has been possible, because of the wide spread of the
finite element method. The use of beam-type elements, referred to as “pipe elements” with elastic-
plastic soil springs offer a useful analysis tool for design purposes. Geotechnical investigation is
necessary to define the springs.
 The use of soil springs with special-purpose “elbow” elements or shell elements constitutes a more
advanced modelling level that represent pipeline behaviour more accurately.
 Finally, the use of solid elements that model the soil as an elastic-plastic continuum and shell
elements for the steel pipeline offers a rigorous, yet computationally demanding numerical tool for
the simulation of the deformation of the soil-pipe system under severe ground-induced actions.
This task also provides a short overview of the commercially available soil-pipeline interaction
programmes, which are wide used in pipeline design, namely (a) PLE4Win; (b) Caesar II; (c) Plaxis 2D
/ 3D, including their advantages and disadvantages.
Finally, in task 1.4, a study has been performed concerning the share of ground movement induced
damage to pipelines in the incident frequency, providing examples of pipeline incident data (PID) and
ground movement induced damage to buried pipelines. Based on collected data, ground movement
induced damage attributes approximately 7% to the total amount of incidents. However, ground
movement is considered as the second leading cause for rupture of the pipeline, after third party
damage. Geohazards are more pronounced where pipelines are constructed in demanding areas
characterized by ground-induced actions. So far, extensive data exist from South America, which
indicates that ground movement may be responsible for as many as 50% of the incidents in pipelines,
leading to an average failure frequency exceeding 2.5 per 1,000 km/yr. Similar findings have been
reported for pipelines operating in British Columbia. This frequency is about two orders of magnitude
greater than that experienced in Western Europe. The importance of geohazards and pipelines is
becoming very important for the construction.

I.2. WP2: Development of numerical techniques for determining ground-induced

actions on buried steel pipelines.
The work is WP2 has addressed the issue of soil-pipeline effects in a rigorous manner, with the target of
developing rigorous three-dimensional models for simulating the actions on a buried pipeline in a
geohazard area (fault crossing, landslide or lateral spreading). The main objectives of this workpackage
are(a) the development of appropriate soil material models, to be incorporated in finite element
simulations, and (b) the establishment of numerical techniques that model accurately soil-pipeline
interaction in the case of typical ground-induced permanent deformation event, to determine actions on
the pipeline.

7
All the above work has been accomplished successfully. In particular, in Task2.1, the type of soils and
range of soil properties of interest have been determined, using the expertise of the partners. This has
been a crucial step towards conducting an efficient parametric study. A challenge on the choice of soil
properties has been attributed to (1) the actual large variation of soil types, (2) the complex behaviour of
soil as a granular material, and (3) any local bias that may exist in some soil properties. Following
extensive investigation and discussion, the main parameters necessary to describe soil material
behaviour have been defined for cohesive (clay) and non-cohesive (sand) soil. Specific soil properties
have been assigned to the soil types under consideration. More specifically, two cohesive soils (clays)
have been defined, namely a soft-to-firm clay and a stiff clay, as well as two non-cohesive soils (sands)
namely a loose sand and a dense sand.
Using appropriate constitutive models to describe the inelastic material behavior of soil and steel has
been the purpose of the work within Task 2.2 and is quite important for the successful modelling of the
deformation of the soil-pipeline system. The constitutive models need to account for the specific
features of the soil and the pipe subjected to large deformations. In particular:
 A plasticity model based on classical von Mises plasticity has been adopted for the steel pipe
material. Due to the monotonic nature of the loading pattern to be applied in the pipeline under
permanent ground-induced actions, isotropic hardening of the steel material is assumed, which
has been used in pipeline mechanics problems in the past very successfully.
 Two constitutive models are considered for the description of the mechanical behavior of soil
materials:
(a) The first model is the classic elastic–perfectly–plastic–Mohr-Coulomb model, which
accounts for the frictional resistance, the cohesive resistance and the dilatancy exhibited by
soils. It is a model that corresponds to an idealized soil behavior and is already incorporated
in ABAQUS (built-in model); and
(b) the second is a more sophisticated (and more realistic) model for simulation of the softening
soil behavior. It is basically an elasto-plastic Mohr–Coulomb constitutive model, but
accounts for isotropic strain softening, introducing a reduction of the mobilized friction
angle ψmob and the mobilized dilation angle φmob with respect to the increase of octahedral
plastic shear strain. The model is incorporated in ABAQUS through a user subroutine.
The major task in this work package (WP2) has been the development of the rigorous three-
dimensional numerical models, performed in the course of Task 2.3. Those models simulate the
mechanical behaviour of a deforming soil-pipeline system in a rigorous manner, accounting for pipe –
soil interaction during the application of permanent ground-induced action, caused by fault movements,
liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides or differential settlements. The models developed refer to the
following ground-induced actions:
 Strike slip faults
 Normal faults
 Landslides
 Differential settlements
 Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading
All the above finite element models are developed within the general-purpose finite element
program ABAQUS is employed. In each model, the pipeline is embedded in an elongated soil prism, of
length equal to about 60 or 70 pipe diameters. Appropriate conditions are applied at the soil-pipe
interface, as well as at the two ends of the pipeline segment accounting for the continuity of the pipeline
outside this prism. Four-node reduced-integration shell elements (type S4R) are employed for
modelling the pipeline segment, and eight-node reduced-integration “brick” elements (C3D8R) are used
to simulate the surrounding soil. The top surface of the soil prism represents the soil surface, and the
burial depth is chosen equal to several pipe diameters. The prism dimensions in the two transverse
directions are chosen equal to several pipe diameters (5 to 10 diameters), so that the physical problem
of a pipeline embedded in a large-scale soil continuum is efficiently represented. Furthermore, the soil-
pipe interface is simulated with a contact algorithm, which allows separation of the pipe and the
surrounding soil, and accounts for interface friction, through an appropriate friction coefficient. The

8
analysis of the pipeline is conducted in two steps as follows; gravity and pressure loading is applied first
and, in the second step, ground movement is imposed, using a displacement-controlled scheme.
The completion of the above tasks has allowed the preparation of rigorous numerical finite element
tools to be employed in the following work packages, for the numerical simulation of experiments and
the numerical parametric study.

I.3. WP3: Preparation, supply and mechanical characterization of steel pipes;

design of experimental set-ups.
The work conducted in the course of WP3 is of preparatory nature, aiming at manufacturing the steel
pipe specimens to be employed in the testing program of the next work package, as well as determining
the mechanical properties of the pipes and their welded connections. The determined properties are used
as input for the numerical finite element models to follow, towards simulating experimental testing and
in the parametric study. The work in WP3 has been directed towards the following specific objectives:
 Preparation of specifications for producing the pipes needed for experimental testing.
 Manufacturing and supply of pipes for testing.
 Development of pipe girth welding specifications and qualification.
 Design of experimental set-up for small-scale and (mainly) large-scale testing and required
improvement of existing facilities.
 Testing for material characterization of pipe material (base material and girth welds) to be used
in the experiments
The selection of pipe specimens for the experimental work has been the target in task 3.1. The pipe
specimens have been chosen on the basis of being both representative and within the relevant laboratory
capabilities. The pipes have been provided by Corinth Pipe Works (CPW) based on their production
schedule and availability.
The following pipe specimens have been selected:
 In the small-scale experiments of NTUA, small-diameter steel/aluminium pipes have been used.
The pipe diameter ranges from 10 to 50 mm, so that the corresponding D/t ratio ranges between
10 and 50.
 For the large-scale CSM experiments (pull-out, transverse loading, testing in the “fault-land-
slide” devise), 8.625-inch-diameter pipes (D=219mm) with thickness 5.60mm, corresponding
to a diameter-to-thickness ratio D/t equal to 39, have been selected. The pipes are made of X65
steel grade.
 Two types of specimens are employed in the TUDelft experiments. The first type of specimens
is8.625-inch-diameter pipes (D=219mm) with thickness 5.60mm and D/t equal to 39, similar to
the ones used in the CSM (X65 steel grade). The second type of specimens refers to 16-inch-
diameter X60 steel grade pipes with thickness of 7.4mm, corresponding to a diameter-to-
thickness ratio equal to 56.
In addition, the design of experimental set-up has been performed in task 3.1. Numerical calculations
for optimizing the experimental set-ups at NTUA, CSM and TU Delft have been performed,
considering the capabilities of the testing equipment, as well as the size, stiffness and ultimate capacity
of the specimens. An important parameter of the calculations has also been the stiffness of the soil
employed, given the fact that the stiffer the soil the larger the required forces to deform the soil-pipe
system. The calculations have been performed with simplified models, which accounted for the nominal
properties of the soil and pipe material. Therefore, due to the uncertainty of the material properties with
respect to the actual conditions during the tests, a sensitivity analysis has also been conducted.
The manufacturing and supply of pipe specimens to the laboratories has been the objective of task
3.2. The pipe specimens for the NTUA tests have been manufactured mainly in Athens and supplied to
NTUA. In additional to the originally planned specimens, a series of thin-walled pipes (35mm-diameter
and ½-mm thickness) made of stainless steel material 1.4521 have been also purchased from De Jong
Gorredijk B.V., in an attempt to test pipes with higher diameter-to-thickness ratio, as more
representative for buried pipelines employed for hydrocarbon transmission. Furthermore, the pipe
9
specimens for the CSM and TUDelft experiments (8 5 8 ''× 5.59 mm X65 pipes, and 16''× 7.30mm X60
pipes) have been produced by Corinth Pipe Works and supplied to the laboratories in Sardinia and in
Delft. Furthermore, welding procedure specifications have been produced for the girth welds of the pipe
specimens in order to assembly the test samples for full scale tests activity. The WPS have specified
SMAW welding technology and have been developed on the basis of the actual mechanical properties
reported in the pipe certificates provided by pipe producer (Corinth Pipe Works). The same WPS are
applied to both steel grades (X65 and X60).
Finally, in Task 3.3, basic material testing for the pipeline material and for the butt-welded joints has
been conducted for the two types of pipe under consideration (8 5 8 ''× 5.59 mm X65 pipe, and 16''×
7.30mm X60 pipe). A material characterization program for the steel pipe material has been performed,
extracting strip specimens in the longitudinal direction, whereas in the transversal direction, due to the
reduced thickness of the selected pipes, small-scale round bars have been extracted (it has not been
possible to extract full thickness strip specimens in those pipes due to rather small thickness). The
material characterization tests for the base material included tensile testing in the axial and transverse
pipe directions, and impact testing (Charpy V-notched specimens). In addition to parent steel material,
qualification of pipeline girth welds have been examined for the WPS developed in Task 3.2, according
to ISO 13847, using tensile testing (round bars according to DNV-OS-F101, all-weld metal round bars
and full-thickness strips with welds at mid-length), impact testing (Charpy V-notched specimens),
macro-examination of welds and hardness survey, as well as face and root bending tests in strip
specimens.

I.4. WP4: Experimental investigation of soil-pipeline interaction.

In WP4 a series of small-scale and large-scale tests have been performed on various geometries of
pipelines, using special-purpose experimental set-up configurations in NTU Athens (task 4.1), CSM
Sardinia (task 4.2) and TU Delft (task 4.3). The main objective of this WP4 has been to conduct key
experimental work for the validation of the models developed in the WP2, and acquire confidence in the
numerical tools, so that the extensive parametric study of WP5 is conducted. The experiments focus on
ground-pipeline interaction, and refer to permanent-ground deformations, with the purpose of
measuring of strains and deformations at different levels of imposed action.
In task 4.1, a series of small-scale experiments have been performed by the Soil Mechanics
Laboratory, NTUA at the Fault Rupture Box (2.65 m × 0.9 m × 0.9 m),to simulate fault rupture
propagation and fault rupture soil – pipe interaction, utilizing the Fault-Rupture Box of the NTUA
Laboratory of Soil Mechanics. This is a custom-made apparatus, designed to simulate quasi-static fault
rupture propagation and fault rupture soil-structure interaction, consisting of a stationary and a movable
part at 45o, using a servo-mechanical actuator. The soil material has been dry long-stone sand,
characterized through a series of laboratory tests, and two values of relative density were selected Dr =
90 % and Dr = 60 %.The dimensions of the pipe specimens ranged from 10mm to 50 mm in diameter
and from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm in thickness, and material was both aluminum and stainless steel. A special
order was made for thin-walled stainless steel tubes with D/t=70(D = 35 mm, t = 0.5 mm), which
arevery representative for onshore oil and gas pipelines. Strains along the pipe were measured using 12
strain gauges, placed at characteristic locations along the pipe at the most stressed generators, and the
residual pipe deformation after each experiment has been scanned with laser displacement transducers.
The pipes were not restrained axially, due to the small strength of the plastic box. Initially, rupture
propagation through free field was studied, without the presence of pipe, to acquire the necessary data
to calibrate and validate the constitutive models describing the soil response. Subsequently, 15
preliminary tests were performed, and in the final stage, 8 fully-instrumented pipe specimens were
conducted, under normal and reverse faulting conditions. The small-scale tests have been very useful to
obtain the necessary data for the validation of the finite element models developed in WP2, despite the
fact that they did not represent the scale of a prototype problem.
The work in Task 4.2 consisted of a series of large-scale experiments, conducted at the outdoor
facilities of CSM in Sardinia. A total of 10 tests have been conducted: three (3) pull-out tests, three (3)
transverse tests and four (4) “landslide/fault” tests. In all those tests, the 8-inch-diameter pipe
specimens, supplied by Corinth Pipe Works, were employed. The specimens have been embedded in

10
soil boxes (sand soil) and special laboratory tests have been performed to determine the mechanical
properties of the sand soil. The CSM tests can be summarized as follows:
(a) The pull-out tests have been conducted with the purpose of determining the interaction between the
pipe and soil in the axial direction (contact friction). Two tests referred to non-coated pipes,
whereas the third specimen was coated. The results have been reported in terms of axial pull-out
force versus the corresponding displacement and indicated that, for the soil conditions under
consideration the force reaches a maximum value at a small value of pull-out displacement,
followed by a gradual decrease of the interface friction. This decay is more pronounced for the
case of the uncoated pipe and is not predicted by the existing design provisions in ALA (2001) for
the axial soil-pipe interaction spring.
(b) Very valuable information has been obtained from the transverse tests. The pipes were embedded
in a soil box and the pipe was pulled in the transverse direction. To exclude any effects from pipe
cross-sectional deformation, the pipe was internally stiffened. In addition, the pipe was
instrumented with special sensors that were capable of measuring the contact pressure normal to
the pipe surface, due to soil-pipe interaction. Integration of the pressure measurements resulted in
the total transverse force, indicating a quasi-elastic-perfectly-plastic behavior. This force has been
used to compare with the numerical results and the non-linear spring specified by the ALA (2001)
provisions.
(c) Finally, the “landslide/fault” tests include all the previous effects and constitute the state-of-the-art
of soil-pipe interaction experiments, representing the case of a buried pipeline subjected to lateral
ground-induced deformation. The 8-inch pipe specimens were 25-meter-long, and were embedded
in three 8-meter-wide soil boxes. The two outer boxes did not move, whereas the middle box has
been pulled on rails using two hydraulic cylinders. The motion of the middle soil box simulated the
conditions of a landslide or strike-slip fault, resulting in severe pipe bending in the horizontal
(transverse) direction. The pipe specimens have been instrumented with pressure sensors and strain
gages, so that both the soil-pipe interface pressure and the strain variation along the pipe are
measured.
The tests in the course of task 4.3 (TU Delft), were performed at Stevin laboratory (indoor
conditions), with the purpose of applying mechanical load that simulates the surrounding soil
conditions. A total of ten (10) tests have been performed, and two types of pipe are employed, namely
219×5.6 and 406×7.4, both provided by Corinth Pipe Works. These experiments simulate the S-
shape of the pipeline under lateral ground-induced action (shear-type loading). This is achieved by the
use of collapsible tubes, in a special arrangement; the collapse of a tube has a quasi-bilinear response,
similar to the lateral load-displacement curves observed in previous buried pipe tests. The
characteristics of the tubes, referred to as “ringsprings”, have been chosen in a way that the desired soil
behavior is represented (cohesive or non-cohesive), conducting a series of preliminary numerical
simulations. Internal pressure was included in 4 of the tests, at pressure levels resulting in hoop stresses
of 25% and 50% of the specified minimum yield strength of the steel material, whereas the
experimental set-up allows for the application of axial force in the pipe specimen. In these experiments,
the simulated ground movement consists of a horizontal shear motion approximately perpendicular to
the pipeline axis. Small angles of ground motion with respect to the pipeline have also been investigated
by changing the axial force applied to the pipeline. The test parameters (properties of “ringsprings” and
level of axial force) have been determined using preliminary analyses, so that the pipe specimen reaches
a specific limit state, in terms of either longitudinal strain or local buckling. Prior to testing, the
specimens have been instrumented to measure both strains at various locations along the pipe and
ovalization at critical pipe cross-sections. Several specimens of the TU Delft tests failed due to local
buckling, whereas in one pressurized specimen, fracture occurred at the tensile side of the buckled
cross-section, indicating that the formation of a buckle can be a threat for structural integrity. It was also
concluded that the axial force in the pipe has a very large influence on the bending strains in the pipe, so
that very small variations in the fault angle may be quite significant for the structural performance of
the pipe. Finally, in the presence of a girth weld in the highly-strained area of the pipeline, yield
strength differences between the adjacent pipes may result in premature pipe failure.

11
I.5. WP5: Numerical parametric study of buried pipeline behaviour under various
types of ground-induced deformations.
This workpackage (WP5) has been entirely dedicated to numerical analysis, aimed at investigating
the behaviour of buried steel pipelines under various loading conditions from ground-imposed
permanent actions considering a wide range of geometric and material parameters for the soil and the
steel pipe. The objectives of WP5 are (a) simulation of permanent ground deformation experimental
results conducted in WP4 and calibration of numerical tools, developed in WP2; (b) performance of an
extensive parametric study on the PGD effects on pipelines, using the calibrated finite element tools; (c)
evaluation of the numerical results for the purpose of determining all possible failure modes of the
buried steel pipeline under ground-induced permanent deformations.
In Task 5.1 the rigorous numerical tools developed in the course of WP2, been employed to
simulate of experimental testing conducted in WP4. Both small-scale and large-scale tests have been
simulated, considering the particularities of each test, in terms of soil and pipeline conditions. Special
emphasis has been given to 6 tests conducted by CSM, on the axial “pull-out” behaviour of buried
pipelines (3 tests) and on the transverse response of buried pipelines (3 tests). In the axial tests, the
mechanics of axial soil-pipe interaction has been investigated, and the decay in the interface friction has
been explained and modelled. In addition, the comparison between numerical results and experiments
for the transverse response indicated a quasi-elastic-perfectly-plastic behaviour, and the numerical
results have been in close agreement with the experimental soil-pressure measurements. Finally, the
simulation of small-scale and large-scale tests representing fault/landslide action on buried pipelines has
been very successful, and the numerical results have been in close agreement with the experimental
findings.
An extensive parametric analysis for the mechanical behaviour of buried pipelines under permanent
ground deformation has been performed in Task 5.2. The study extended over a wide range of soil and
pipeline parameters. To conduct these massive analyses, the rigorous models developed in WP2 and
validated in Task 5.1 have been employed. The models have shown to be capable of describing in detail
the gradual increase of pipeline deformation and the formation local buckles in the course of a
geohazard event. All cases of permanent ground-induced action are considered in this parametric study,
namely:
 Strike-slip (horizontal) faults
 Normal/reverse faults
 Landslide due to slope instability
 Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading
 Soil settlement
and numerical results have been obtained. The results are presented in terms of longitudinal and hoop
strains along the deformed pipeline, soil pressure at the soil-pipe interface, as well as typical pipeline
deformed shapes, which depict the formation of local buckles and cross-sectional distortion. The
following parameters have been examined: (a) soil parameters for cohesive soils (soft and stiff) and
non-cohesive soils (loose and dense); (b) level of internal pressure; (c) pipeline diameter-to-thickness
ratio; (d) pipe material (X65 versus X80). For the case of strike-slip faults, the crucial issue of fault
crossing angle is also considered in detail.
The behaviour of special pipeline components during a severe ground-induced permanent
deformation has always been a concern for the pipeline designers, but no results have been reported so
far. In particular, the presence of elbows (pipe bends) is very common in a pipeline routing, but such
elbows may have a unique mechanical response that should be taken into account. Based on previous
experience on stand-alone bends, without the influence of the surrounding soil, those pipeline
components appear to be significantly more flexible than straight pipeline segments, but the
corresponding stresses and strains are higher than the ones developed in straight pipeline parts. In
addition, because of their flexibility, the use of pipeline bends in pipeline crossings, near the fault
location, may modify the mechanical behaviour of the pipeline quite considerably. The work described
in Task 5.3 constitutes the first attempt to model pipeline bend behaviour under soil confinement using
rigorous numerical tools, so that their effect on fault-crossing situation is assessed. The tools developed
within GIPIPE and employed in Task 5.2 are also used herein. In the first part of the work, several
12
geometries bend have been considered (30, 60 and 90 degree elbows) in soft and stiff soil, and the axial
response of those bends has been calculated and compared with the corresponding behaviour of a
straight pipe, showing significant flexibility. In second part of the work, using the results from the axial
response of pipe bends, the effect of the presence of pipe bends on the mechanical behaviour of the
pipeline in fault crossing situations is examined. The results indicate a significant effect, and are quite
promising towards the use of bends as “mitigation devices” in fault crossings areas.
Finally, in Task 5.4, the evaluation of numerical results obtained in Task 5.4 has been conducted to
determine failure modes under various soil and pipeline parameters, and identify the most critical mode.
In particular, the case of fault crossings has been analyzed in detail. The numerical results are presented
in design diagrams of “critical displacement”, i.e. the ground displacement that corresponds to the first
failure mode reached by the pipeline, versus the fault crossing angle. The developed graphs, and the
conclusions from the evaluation of the results for all types of geohazard actions can be quite important
for understanding buried pipeline response subjected to permanent ground deformations, towards their
safe design.

I.6. WP6: Development of guidelines and background documents for pipeline

design under ground-induced actions; dissemination of results.
The main deliverable of WP6 is the development of design guidelines and recommendations for
buried steel pipelines in geohazard areas where significant ground-induced deformations are expected.
This constitutes the principal target of the present project. Towards this purpose, the objectives of this
work package have been (a) the development of simplified methodologies for an efficient stress
analysis in buried pipelines, compatible with the GIPIPE results; (b) the development of design
guidelines and the background documents; (c) the organization of a dedicated dissemination workshop
to disseminate the GIPIPE in the engineering community and receive the necessary feedback.
A comparison between simplified methodologies and finite element models for buried steel pipeline
analysis and design under severe ground-induced actions has been conducted in Task 6.1. The
analytical methodologies included those proposed by ALA guidelines (2001), the early formulation of
Kennedy et al. (1977) for pipelines crossing faults, as well as the simplified methodology developed
within GIPIPE by Vazouras et al. (2015). Those methodologies have been compared with numerical
results from “pipe element” or “elbow element” models, as well as with numerical results from rigorous
finite element models that employ continuum elements to simulate the soil and shell elements for the
pipeline. The comparison indicates that the analytical methodologies can be used for preliminary design
purposes, whereas the “pipe element” or “elbow element” finite element models can be used for the
stress analysis of buried pipelines subjected to excessive permanent ground-induced actions up to the
stage where local buckling occurs.
The results of the present project have been disseminated in a dedicated workshop entitled
“Geohazards and Pipelines”, organized by the GIPIPE consortium in Delft, The Netherlands, June 23-
24, 2014 (Task 6.2). This workshop aimed at disseminating the main results of the project to the
pipeline engineering community, and interacting with invited worldwide experts on this topic. The
workshop included presentations from the experts and the members of the GIPIPE consortium. The
invited experts were selected from top-level companies and institutions, such as GDF Suez, EPRG,
Snam, Shell, Intecsea, Saipem, the Rensselear Polytechnic Institute, and their presentations were made
by included a wide range of topics, such as “SNAM experiences on Geo-hazards and Pipelines”,
“Arctic pipelines-Ice gauging”, “Οn-and Offshore Detection of Geo-hazards”, “Pipeline design in harsh
environments – Geohazards: Strain based design at local features across arctic regions”. More than 200
people have registered and participated in the workshop, and the proceedings of the workshop are
available in a restricted area in the workshop website (www.gipipe.eu).
Finally, the work of Task 6.3 has been dedicated to the development of design guidelines and the
background documents, which is the major GIPIPE deliverable. The guidelines, apply to the design of
new buried steel pipelines in areas where large ground-induced actions and deformations may occur,
due to seismic action or landslides. They refer to permanent ground deformation, but also contain some
guidance for seismic effects (which are not particularly important). The content is based on the results
of GIPIPE project, taken into account existing standards and literature on the structural design of
13
buried pipelines. The guidelines focus mainly on hydrocarbon pipeline applications (gas and oil
pipelines), and secondarily in pipelines for water transmission. The guidelines are compatible with the
strain-based design framework, and contain important information on different methodologies to
calculate pipeline strain demand under ground-induced actions (faults, liquefaction-induced lateral
spreading). The issue of strain capacity of pipelines is also discussed in terms of the main failure modes.
The described methodologies are simplified and rigorous, depending on the required accuracy of
predictions (analytical expressions, beam-type finite element models or three-dimensional continuum-
type finite element models). Guidance for modelling specific cases (e.g. faults or landslides) is also
offered. Furthermore, a summary of the main results in the course of GIPIPE project are also
presented, with emphasis on the novel experimental results for soil-pipe interaction.

I.7. WP7: Project coordination.

This is a workpackage that extended over the entire duration of the project, aiming at the continuous
progress and on-time completion of the work. The main objectives of WP7 have been the establishment
of an efficient management process; the definition of standard protocols; the performance of SWOT
analysis; and the continuous monitoring of the project. All coordination meetings were regularly carried
out, the FTP server directory was created by UThessaly and continuous exchanges of information
favoured objectives and relevant project outcomes. Regarding testing of pipe segments in WP4, special
attention has been devoted in testing protocols for assuring both the quality and the usefulness of test
results. In addition, the range of geometric, material and loading parameters to be used in the numerical
studies in WP5 have been determined. Furthermore, the evaluation of the project in terms of Strength,
Weakness, Opportunity and Threat allowed a global evaluation of the research project both in terms of
activity coordination and work effectiveness of each partner. Intermediate meetings, annual reports and
deliverables enabled internal and external monitoring of the project advances, and of the degree of
fulfilment of objectives set for various phases.

I.8. Conclusions and main results

The GIPIPE project has been a pioneering project within the RFCS research program in the area of
steel pipeline safety for transportation of energy resources. This area has been a priority of RFCS
program for the last few years. It combined experimental, numerical and analytical tools to conduct
high-level research in the inter-disciplinary area of buried pipelines under severe ground-induced
actions. Extensive experimental and numerical work has been conducted, with main purpose to
investigate the interaction between the pipe and the soil; this is the key issue for determining actions on
the steel pipeline in a reliable manner.
Three major points should be underlined:
1. Most of the research work on pipelines within RFCS has been directed in pipeline resistance, mainly
failure against fracture. The present work is the first project that focuses on pipeline demand, which
is a major issue towards reliable and safe pipeline design.
2. The present work refers to extreme loading conditions for the steel pipeline, associated with large
deformation and strains well into the inelastic range of the steel material. Therefore, the results of
the GIPIPE project should be considered within a strain-based design framework. Furthermore,
traditional analytical tools for pipeline stress analysis, based on the concept of allowable stress
design (developed mainly for pressure containment), are not applicable in geohazard design.
3. The particularities of buried pipeline performance should be taken into account. In particular,
 Loss of containment is the major limit state, and refers to a severe local damage situation. This
is in contrast with building structures, where local damage may not be catastrophic due to the
possibility of redistribution of internal stresses.
 For the particular case of seismic action in welded steel pipelines, due to soil embedment,
transient (wave shaking) phenomena are much less important than permanent ground-induced
actions.

14
The main results can be summarized as follows:
 There is a need for developing provisions in current design standards (European and American)
for pipeline design in geohazard areas.
 Extensive experimental work has been conducted, supported by numerical perdictions. A good
comparison has been achieved between test results and numerical predictions.
 Experimental results offered a substantial contribution towards understanding soil-pipe
interaction (axial and transverse direction). Distribution of pipeline pressure on the surrounding
soil is measured.
 Test results have also indicated that the formation of local buckling in pressurized pipelines
may result in early pipe fracture and loss of containment.
 Important results have been obtained for pipeline components (elbows); their increased
flexibility may allow their use as mitigation devices, but require a detailed stress analysis to
avoid failure.
 Simplified methodologies, that employ “pipe” finite elements have been employed and
compared successfully with more rigorous finite element models. Analytical methodologies,
which can be used for preliminary design, have also been proposed.
 The results of the project have been communicated with the pipeline industry in a very
successful dedicated workshop.
 Finally, design guidelines/recommendations, have been developed to be used by Code Drafting
Committees, for the amendment of existing design standards (e.g. EN 1998-4 for pipeline
seismic design).

The results and deliverables of GIPIPE are both novel and unique, leading to
 the construction and adoption of innovative state-of-the-art devices for experimental simulation
of buried pipeline behaviour.
 the development and validation of rigorous and simplified models, capable at describing large
permanent deformations of buried pipelines
 better understanding of soil-pipe interaction under severe ground-induced actions
 significant improvement of pipeline design state-of-the-art in geohazard areas

The GIPIPE work, as reported in the final report, the corresponding deliverables and the relevant
publications in international scientific journals and conferences, offers the necessary scientific
background for Code Drafting Committees, towards safer and more reliable pipeline design against
geohazards. As an example, based on the GIPIPEresults, the EN 1998-4 provisions in Chapter 6 and in
Annex B can be revised in an efficient manner.

15
II. Scientific description of the results
Objectives of the project
The scientific objectives of GIPIPE can be summarized in the following list, showing the corresponding
workpackages.
 Critical evaluation of strain-based pipeline design procedures and relevant research works.
Also evaluation of pipeline damages under ground-induced deformations (WP1).
 Development of numerical techniques for determining ground-induced actions on buried steel
pipelines (WP2).
 Mechanical characterization of steel pipe specimens and design of experimental set-ups
(WP3).
 Experimental investigation of soil-pipeline interaction, conducted in large and small scale
(WP4)
 Performance of extensive numerical studies of buried pipelines, based on rigorous FE
simulations, covering a wide range of geometric, material and types of ground-induced
deformations(WP5).
 Development of design guidelines/recommendations, for pipeline design under ground-
induced actions(WP6).

Comparison of initially planned activities and work accomplished

All the above objectives, stated in the Technical Annex, have been successfully accomplished in the
course of the relevant work packages of GIPIPE project and are extensively reported in the
corresponding Deliverables.

II.1. Work package 1 – Critical evaluation of strain-based pipeline design

procedures and relevant research works. Evaluation of pipeline damages under
ground-induced deformations
The objectives of WP1 are summarized as follows:
 Critical assessment of existing know-how for strain-design of buried steel pipelines against
geotechnical hazards, through consideration of appropriate pipeline design examples.
 Compilation (data base development) of existing data from geotechnical hazards and their
evaluation based on the consequences of the structural performance of pipelines; identification
of critical modes of failure
 Evaluation of analytical/numerical models simulating mechanical behavior of soil-pipeline
systems under ground-induced permanent actions.
 Evaluation and classification of pipeline damage subjected to ground-induced actions

II.1.1. Task 1.1: Critical assessment of current strain-based approaches for buried
pipeline design

An overview of strain-based design procedures in buried steel pipeline design is offered in this task.
Those principles have been introduced in research in the early 80’s in the Netherlands, where pipelines
were subjected to significant ground settlements. Strain-based design is a reliable design method for
ground-induced actions, where loading is controlled by deformation such as in geohazard areas. It is
used complimentary to more traditional stress based design. Those principles have been introduced in
several standards for buried pipelines, such as EN 1993-4, whereas several other standards, such as EN
1594 are more inclined to stress design. On the other hand, significant application of strain-based design
can be found in the design of offshore pipelines, a topic which is accompanied by extensive research
work (numerical and experimental).

16
A description of the following guidelines is offered in this task and described more extensively in
Deliverable D1.1:
 EN 1594 Gas supply systems – Pipelines for maximum operating pressure over 16 bar –
Functional requirements
 NEN 3650 Requirements for pipelines systems (Dutch pipeline specification)
 ASME B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems
 ASME B31.4 Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids
 AWWA M11 Steel Water Pipe: A Guide for Design and Installation
 ALA 2005 Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe
 EN805 Water supply – Requirements for systems and components outside buildings
 EN13480 Metallic industrial piping – Part 3: Design and calculation
 EN14161 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Pipeline transportation systems
 EN1993-4-3 Design of steel structures – Part 4-3: Pipelines
 EN1998-4 Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines
 DNV-OS-F101 Offshore Standard OS-F101, Submarine Pipeline Systems

In recent decades, much research has been performed on strain-based design. In recent years, research
has also been concentrated on offshore applications following the search for hydrocarbons in deeper
water. Many reports have become available in journal publications and also in conferences e.g. OMAE,
ISOPE, PVP and other conferences. An extensive list of publications on this matter is also presented,
offering an overview of current research activities. More information is offered in deliverable D1.1

II.1.2. Task 1.2: Evaluation of available experimental data for failure of steel pipes
under compressive and tensile stresses
In this task, two major limit states, related to the structural integrity of buried pipelines subjected to
ground-induced actions are presented, in terms of available experimental data, namely local buckling
and tensile failure due to rapture. The work in this task is aimed at presenting the relevant experimental
data available in literature, concerning the failure mechanisms of pipes under tensile and compressive
stresses, which are associated to local buckling and rupture of the pipe wall respectively. Tensile and
compressive stresses are both present during the bending process of a pipeline and they can lead to
tearing of the pipe fibers under tension or local buckling of pipe wall under compression stresses.
Tensile failure mechanism has been studied by analyzing tensile tests results on strip specimens while
compression failure mechanisms, more complex in terms of geometry, need to be investigated with full
scale bending tests. Some of the reported data refer to pipes or specimens without girth weld while
other include the girth weld area which is a critical area.
In particular the evaluation work in the present task is divided in two parts including:
1. pipe steel properties that affect tensile strength of pipes, based on experimental data from
tensile tests;
2. compressive strength based on experimental data of bending tests extracted from literature
In both evaluation works emphasis is given on tests performed by CSM and Delft University of
Technology, which have a significant experience.

Tensile failure
An extensive presentation of tensile failure mechanism is offered in the first part of this task, together
with a presentation of the main factors that affect tensile strength as described in Deliverable D1.2.
Following a thorough presentation of the standard tensile test, a discussion of the influence of the
following main parameters is offered:
 The influence of specimen type on tensile test results
Standards such ISO 3183 or API 5L allows the pipe manufacturer, at his option, to use flattened
full thickness rectangular specimen as well as round bar specimen. In the case of flattened full

17
 thickness rectangular specimen, the material is subjected to an additional cold deformation due
to the flattening procedure which can modify the stress-strain behavior of the material. The
round specimen is extracted from the thickness of pipe without a flattening process. It has to be
noticed that the flattening operation on rectangular specimen leads to Bauschinger effect. The
presence of Bauschinger effect may influence the values obtained in a rectangular specimen
tensile test depending on the plastic deformation history of the material, which differs for each
pipe manufacturing technologies. Using the round bar specimen, in which the material does not
undergo to plastic deformations, only a part of pipe wall thickness is sampled. Differences
between the two specimen characteristics can lead to different measured tensile properties of
the materials as reported and discussed exhaustively by G. Knauf et Al. Figure II.1.2-1

Figure II.1.2-1-Tensile test results: Comparison between Rt0.5 values obtained with flattened
rectangular specimen and round bar specimen, in transverse direction

 The influence of specimen orientation on tensile test results

In Figure II.1.2-2(CSM data) a comparison between Rt0.5 values obtained with tensile tests in
transverse and longitudinal direction is presented. Data points regarding seamless pipes are
invariably located across the 1:1 line, which confirms their excellent isotropy in tensile
properties; a similar trend is confirmed also in the case of HFI pipes. This fact suggests the
possibility to measure the tensile properties of seamless pipe only in longitudinal direction (if
extraction of full thickness specimens in transversal direction is difficult due to geometrical
limitations) and to extend the obtained results to also to transverse orientation (in particular for
grade ≤ APIX70). On the other hand, as a consequence of the expansion process, UOE pipes
exhibit larger yielding strength in transverse direction than in longitudinal direction
 The influence of yield-to-tensile (Y/T) ratio on strain capacity of the material
Increasing material grades, thus higher Y/T ratio, present a lower ultimate maximum strain to
fracture shown in Figure II.1.2-3 from CSM database. This means that in the case of strain
controlled failure phenomena (for instance landslide, fault), the probability for failure increases
with increasing Y/T ratio values.

18
 Figure II.1.2-2-Tensile test results: Comparison between yield strength values obtained in
transverse and longitudinal directions, round bar specimen (CSM database)

Figure II.1.2-3-Tensile tests results: strain to fracture vs Y/T ratio for different materials grades,
CSM database

 The effects of girth weld metal, and its characterization

In general, tensile testing can be conducted to evaluate the true stress – true strain curve of the
weld metal in the pipe hoop direction (welding passes direction) on round bar specimens
extracted from the weld. Nevertheless, due to the micro-structural changes in the weld, the
tensile properties are not homogenous and could be influenced by the radial position of
specimen extraction, especially for very thick pipes. As a consequence, the tensile properties
(true stress-strain curve) of the girth weld can be investigated also by the so-called transverse
19
 all-weld specimens, extracted in transversal direction to the girth weld (longitudinal pipe
direction), as suggested by DNV-OS-F101-2013 App. B Clause 312.

The above issues are discussed in terms of available tests from small-scale coupon specimens and from
full-thickness specimens. Most of the tests are part of the extensive database of CSM on tensile testing
specimens.

Local buckling
Possible failure modes of buried pipelines under compressive stresses are:
• Global buckling as a beam column, depending on the slenderness and support conditions; it is
a failure mode that can be presented by adequate support provided by the surrounding ground.
• Local buckling or wrinkling; this constitutes a major failure mode, and it is discussed
extensively.
• Excessive ovalisation or collapse depending on the pipe and soil properties due to excessive
bending, or local loads.
• Leakage due to rupture of the pipe wall: this may happen at local buckles due to large bending
strains at the edges of local buckles in combination of insufficient ductility (e.g. in the weld
area); also, in the case of repeated loading due to low cycle fatigue.

The occurrence of local buckling is the major failure mode in the present study. It may lead to more
severe damage and finally to rupture. Therefore it is important to have good guidance on the design to
prevent local buckling, and to develop tools to describe post-critical behaviour. Strain-based design
focuses on ultimate compressive strains, determining critical curvatures instead of critical stresses.
The development of the buckling is governed by the loading condition that can be either load or
displacement controlled or a combination of such two modes. For the range of diameter-to-thickness
ratio of interest, pipelines under bending exhibit a plastic plateau on the moment-curvature curve, and
therefore, the point corresponding to the peak bending moment, called Limit Point may not be a reliable
measure of compressive capacity. Displacement control bending process allows the pipeline to go
further this point to some extent without collapsing. When load control is applied, once the limit point is
reached, the collapse process occurs very rapidly, because the pipeline it is not able to sustain further
increase of load (bending moment). This is normally true for most oil and gas pipelines which are
typically in the range of D/t < 70. The point where local buckling occurs, quite often after the limit
point, is considered as the limit state of the pipe, and the corresponding curvature is called “critical
curvature”.
The critical curvature is influenced by:
• The diameter - wall thickness ratio (D/t).
• The level of internal pressure. Internal pressure increases the critical buckling strain. For
onshore pipelines the internal pressure is a major parameter,
• The stress-strain behaviour of the steel, in particular the strain hardening properties (the yield
to ultimate ratio).
• The Bauschinger effect, which causes different stress strain behaviour in compression than in
tension.
• Variations in wall thickness and in mechanical properties along the pipeline.
• Soil loads that cause ovalisation and additional stresses and thereby influence the critical
buckling strain and the bending moment capacity.
• Possible concentration loads and load introduction points give local deformations and stresses
and thereby decrease the critical buckling strain.
• Initial imperfections such as ovality, dimples and wavy patterns due to fabrication influence
the critical buckling strain and the bending moment capacity.

Those factors are extensively discussed in the course of the present study and presented in Deliverable
D1.2. A presentation of available formulae for predicting the critical curvature of a bent pipeline are
presented and discussed. Finally, some typical results from real tests conducted in the laboratories of
CSM and TU Delft are presented (see also Figure II.1.2-4-7), indicating the failure modes for different
values of the D/t ratio and different levels of pressure.
20
Figure II.1.2-4: Local buckling of a thin-walled pipe (D/t=100) and thick walled pipe (D/t=30) [test at
TNO/TUDelft]

Figure II.1.2-5: Local buckling and post-buckling behaviour of an X80 pressurized pipeline in the form of a
local bulge. Rupture occurred at the tensile part of the buckle. [test at CSM]

II.1.3. Evaluation of analytical-numerical models to simulate buried pipe behaviour

and collection of relevant experimental data
An evaluation of analytical/numerical models simulating mechanical behavior of soil-pipeline systems
under ground-induced permanent actions is conducted. In addition, a summary of experimental works
related to ground-induced actions on pipelines is also offered. Finally, the capabilities of three
commercial programs are also evaluated. There are several levels of buried pipelines analysis under
ground-induced actions
 Analytical calculations based on simplified models
Analytical methodologies for the stress analysis of buried pipelines subjected to ground-induced
actions have been presented since the mid-70’s. Simplified analytical models have been presented
first Newmark et al (1975), considering the pipe as a long cable with small displacements, relating
the soil-slip friction on the pipe directly to the earth static pressure. Extensions of this model
considered non-uniform friction interface between the pipe and the soil Kennedy, et al (1977), and
for pipeline bending stiffness Wang and Yeh (1985), (Figure II.1.3-1) analysing buried pipes as
elastic beams. Consideration of the pipeline as a beam on elastic foundation has also been
proposed by several researchers, whereas simplified methods for evaluating the critical strain of
the fault crossing steel pipes using the relation between pipe longitudinal deformation and cross-
sectional deformation have also been presented Takada et al (2001).

21
Figure II.1.3-1: Pipeline analysis model proposed by Wang and Yeh (1985)

 Numerical simulations with beam-type elements, referred to as “pipe elements” and

elastic-plastic soil springs.
The increasing capabilities for numerical simulation with the development of the finite element
method enabled significant progress on this topic during the recent years. It has been recognized
that, apart from the geometric and the mechanical properties of the steel pipeline, site conditions
(i.e. the properties of the surrounding soil) may have a strong influence on pipeline response, and
that soil-pipe interaction should be taken into account. The use of beam-type elements, referred to
as “pipe elements” with elastic-plastic soil springs offered a useful analysis tool for design
purposes Figure II.1.3-2. Several works have been proposed, Odina, et al (2009), Gu, X. and
Zhang, H. (2009)with an attempt to employ beam finite elements for the pipe and model the soil
with nonlinear springs.

kax pipeline

kax
kH
kH
kV
kV
Figure II.1.3-2:Beam model with spring support system.

 The use of soil springs with special-purpose “elbow” elements or shell elements.
Some publications reported three-dimensional finite element models, which employed a relatively
coarse shell element mesh (instead of beam elements) for describing the pipe and nonlinear springs
to simulate the soil (Figure II.1.3-3). The use of special purpose "elbow" elements is also a
possibility offering better accuracy than "pipe" elements. In most of the recent works, inelastic
material behaviour of the steel pipeline has been taken into account, whereas a few new studies
take into account the behaviour of the surrounding soil as a continuum.
22
 Figure II.1.3-3: Shell elements and beam elements used for analyses with Finite Element simulation for
the pipe and nonlinear springs for the soil. Karamitros et al (2007)

 The use of a rigorous model with solid elements that model the soil as an elastic-plastic
continuum and shell elements for the steel pipeline.

The final level of modelling refers to an integrated approach for buried steel pipelines through a
finite element modelling of the soil-pipeline system. The model is capable to account for
rigorously for the inelastic behaviour of the surrounding soil, the interaction and the contact
between the soil and the pipe (including frictional contact and the development of gap), the
development of large inelastic strains in the steel pipeline, the distortion of the pipeline cross-
section, the presence of internal pressure and the possibility of local buckling (Figure II.1.3-4).

In addition to the above numerical modelling capabilities described in the relevant publications, notable
experimental works have been published. Those works have been mainly reported by the research group
of Cornell University (Professor O’Rourke and his group) and refer mainly on the effects of strike-slip
faults on buried high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipelines, whereas the behaviour of steel buried
pipelines has received less attention. The set-up employed in those experiments is shown in Figure
II.1.3-5 for simulating ground-induced actions on buried pipes.

In the course of this task, an extensive list of reference on analytical/numerical and experimental
investigation of this issue is offered.

Following the above literature study, this task has provided a short overview of the commercially
available soil-pipeline interaction programmes. A description of three different programmes widely
used in practical pipeline engineering design applications is given, namely

 PLE4Win
 Caesar II
 Plaxis 2D / 3D

including their advantages and disadvantages.

23
Figure II.1.3-4: Finite element model of the (a) soil prism with tectonic strike-slip fault, (b) finite element
mesh of soil prism cross-section and (c) finite element mesh of steel pipeline. Vazouras et al (2012)

Figure II.1.3-5: Experimental concept for PGD effects on buries pipelines.O’Rourke et al (2009)

II.1.4. Task 1.4: Evaluation and classification of pipeline damage subjected to ground-
induced actions
An extensive study has been performed concerning the share of ground movement induced damage to
pipelines in the incident frequency, providing examples of pipeline incident data (PID) and ground
movement induced damage to buried pipelines.

24
The following figures provide an overview of the share of ground movement induced damage to
pipelines in different parts of the world. Figure II.1.4-1shows the EGIG (Western Europe) incidents by
cause and size of leak. Ground movement induced damage attributes approximately 7% to the total
amount of incidents. However, ground movement is the second leading cause for rupture of the
pipeline, after third party damage.

Figure II.1.4-1: EGIG Pipeline Incident Data

Analysing the information recorded with respect to the failure causes, it is possible to highlight some
important issues. Figure II.1.4-2 shows the distribution of the sub-causes in the category ground
movement.

Figure II.1.4-2: Distribution of the sub-causes of ground movement in Western Europe

The significance of geohazards in pipeline integrity, with respect to other factors, is more pronounced
where pipelines are constructed in difficult terrain, without a full appreciation for potential geohazards.
Data for a typical Bolivian pipeline indicates that ground movement may be responsible for as many as
50% of the incidents in the South American Andes, leading to an average failure frequency exceeding
2.5 per 1,000 km∙yr, see Figure II.1.4-3. This frequency is about two orders of magnitude greater than
that experienced in Western Europe. Similar findings have been reported for pipelines operating in
British Columbia an area of high seismicity. However information and data for European pipelines and
geohazards are rather limited. In Western Europe, geohazards areas are rather limited, whereas in
South-Eastern Europe, the major pipelines are rather new, so that a little amount of data is available.

25
 Figure II.1.4-3: Incident Data for a Typical Andean Pipeline.

II.2. Work package 2 – Development of numerical techniques for determining

ground-induced actions on buried steel pipelines
The objectives of this WP are summarized as follows:
 Determine type and range of soil properties of interest
 Develop appropriate soil material models, to be incorporated in finite element simulations.
 Establish numerical techniques that model accurately soil-pipeline interaction in the case of
typical ground-induced permanent deformation event, to determine actions on the pipeline.

II.2.1. Task 2.1: Determination of type of soils and range of soil properties of interest
In this task, soil parameters to be used in the numerical analyses of the subsequent tasks and
workpackages have been decided. A difficulty on the choice of soil properties has been atributed to (a)
the actual large variation of soil types, (b) the complex behavior of soil, and (c) any local bias that may
exist in some properties. Following extensive investigation and discussion on the soil properties to be
used, the following Tables summarize the definitions of the main parameters necessary to describe soil
behavior in our analyses.
For a soil element at vertical stress σv = 50 kPa, the properties for non cohesive soils are shown in
TableII.2.1-1.For a soil element at vertical stress σv = 50 kPathe properties for cohesive soils are shown
in Table II.2.1-2.

Properties Loose Dense

 32° 40°
E 8 MPa 25 Mpa
v 0.3 0.3
 18 kN/m3 21 kN/m3
K0 0.47 0.29
Interface
 16° 22.5°
Table II.2.1-1:Soil properties for SAND.

26
 Properties Soft to firm Stiff
Su  cu 50 kPa 100 kPa

u 0° 0°

Eu A 5 MPa 10 MPa
B 10 MPa 20 MPa
vu 0.5 0.5
 17 kN/m3 19 kN/m3
K0  (1  sin  ) OCR0.4 1.06 1.5

OCR   vmax /  v0 6.6 15.8

PI 30% 30%
S 100% 100%
Interface: two options
A. A thin, loose sand layer assumed around 16° 16°
pipe with friction angle  
B. Clay interface adhesion ca 0.35 50=17.5 kPa 0.35 100=35 kPa

Table II.2.1-2:CLAY parameters for total stress analysis (undrained conditions)

II.2.2. Task 2.2: Constitutive models to describe the monotonic inelastic material
behavior of soil and steel
The inelastic behavior of the steel pipe material can be described efficiently by von Mises type
plasticity models. For monotonic loading conditions, an isotropic hardening model will be used, where
the exact stress-strain curve obtained by a standard tensile test will be employed for material model
calibration; such a stress-strain curve will be obtained in Task 3.1 by appropriate testing. The model is
incorporated in ABAQUS (built-in model).
Following an extensive investigation by the geotechnical experts of the partners, it has been decided
that two types of constitutive models will be considered for the analysis of soils
 The first corresponding to an idealized soil behavior
 The second is a more sophisticated (and more realistic) model for simulation of the softening
soil behavior.
These two types of models are: (a) the classic elastic–perfectly–plastic–Mohr-Coulomb model, which
accounts for the frictional resistance, the cohesive resistance and the dilatancy exhibited by soils
[already incorporated in ABAQUS (built-in model)]; and (b) the model that was described above (has
been incorporated as a user-subroutine in the finite-element code ABAQUS).
In particular, the second (more sophisticated) model is basically an elasto-plastic Mohr–Coulomb
constitutive model with isotropic strain softening. Strain softening is introduced by reducing the
mobilized friction angle ψmob and the mobilized dilation angle φmob with the increase of octahedral
plastic shear strain. The model is incorporated in ABAQUS through a user subroutine. Constitutive
model parameters are calibrated through the results of direct shear tests. Soil response can be divided in
four characteristic phases:
(a) Quasi-elastic behavior: The soil deforms quasi-elastically, up to a horizontal displacement δxy.
(b) Plastic behavior: The soil enters the plastic region and dilates, reaching peak conditions at
horizontal displacement δxp.
(c) Softening behavior: Right after the peak, a single horizontal shear band develops.

27
 (d) Residual behavior: Softening is completed at horizontal displacement δxf (δy/δx ≈ 0). Then,
deformation is accumulated along the developed shear band.

II.2.3. Task 2.3: Numerical simulation of permanent ground-induced actions on

pipelines
A series of advanced 3D finite element models that simulate the mechanical behavior of pipeline – soil
systems has been developed to describe in a rigorous manner the pipeline – soil interaction during
permanent ground deformation. These numerical models are used to investigate the effect of the
permanent ground deformation caused by fault movements, liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides or
differential settlements on the pipeline integrity. In all models, the general-purpose finite element
program ABAQUS is employed. In each model the pipeline is embedded in an elongated soil prism
Four-node reduced-integration shell elements (type S4R) are employed for modelling the pipeline
segment, and eight-node reduced-integration “brick” elements (C3D8R) are used to simulate the
surrounding soil. The soil-pipe interface is simulated with a contact algorithm, which allows separation
of the pipe and the surrounding soil, and accounts for interface friction, through an appropriate friction
coefficient. The steel pipe material is described with a large-strain von Mises plasticity model with
isotropic hardening, and its calibration is performed through an appropriate uniaxial stress-strain curve
from a tensile test on a coupon specimen. The mechanical behavior of soil material is described through
an elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model, characterized by the soil cohesiveness c ,
the friction angle  , the elastic modulus E , and Poisson’s ratio v . In the following, the models
developed for specific types of ground –induced actions are further described, presenting their
particularities.

Strike slip faults/ Normal faults

The top surface of the soil prism represents the soil surface, and the burial depth is chosen equal to
several pipe diameters. The prism length in the x direction is equal to at least 65 pipe diameters,
whereas dimensions in directions y, z equal to 11 and 5 times the pipe diameter respectively. To
account for pipeline continuity a nonlinear spring (Vazouras et al 2015) is attached to the pipe at both
ends, simulating the infinite length of the pipe (pipe continuity) and the soil that cannot be modelled
due to computational cost reasons. The central part around the fault has a fine mesh for both soil and
pipeline. The fault plane divides the soil in two blocks of equal size (Figure II.2.3-1a) for strike slip or
normal faults (Figure II.2.3-2) and the finite element mesh for the soil is more refined in the region near
the fault. The analysis is conducted in two steps as follows; gravity loading together with internal
pressure is applied first and, in the second step, ground movement is imposed (at one part), using a
displacement-controlled scheme, while the other part remains fixed.
When fault rapture propagation from bedrock is considered, a free-field 2D model is used to compute
the displacement profile at the depth corresponding to the base of the detailed 3D model described
above. Figure II.2.3-3 presents a 2D model assuming that the bedrock lies at depth z = - 40 m. The free-
field 2D model is used to analyze fault rupture propagation at depth z = -5 m, imposing a displacement
to the hanging wall at bedrock level. The computed displacements (which are a function of imposed
bedrock offset) are being imposed at the hanging wall boundary of the detailed 3D soil–pipeline model.

28
Landslides

First from a simplified 2D analysis the geometry of the sliding plane is determined. Then a model is
used to simulate the landslide, ignoring the presence of the pipeline (global model) Figure II.2.3-4.
Taking advantage of the symmetry of the problem geometry, half of the slope is examined. The middle
section, where the largest volume of material is mobilized, is the surface of symmetry. The sliding mass
is assumed to consist of a loose material. The stable soil surrounding the sliding mass comprises dense
sand, while at depth z> 5 m rock material is encountered, assumed to behave elastically. The sliding
plane is simulated with a row of elements of reduced stiffness and strength between the sliding mass
and the stable soil. The landslide is triggered by progressively reducing the strength of these elements
with time. It is noted, that this is an arbitrary time, not necessarily corresponding to the evolution of the
phenomenon. It is simple used to trigger the landslide. All of the above form a global model.
The global model is used to compute the displacement time histories for a soil strip in the vicinity of the
pipe (for a given position). After that, the computed displacement time histories are applied to the
boundaries of the local, more detailed model (i.e., having a much finer mesh), comprising the pipeline
and the surrounding soil, Figure II.2.3-5. The proposed decouple analysis methodology tactically
assumes that the presence of the pipeline does not affect the evolution of the landslide at the global
level, and it bridges the colossal difference between the dimensions of the entire landslide and that of a
pipe, taking into account the fine mesh needed to simulate pipeline instability issues.

Settlements

The model used for the settlements also considers an elongated soil prism. The prism length in the
longitudinal direction and the boundary conditions are chosen so that the physical problem is accurately
represented. The analysis is conducted in two steps as follows; gravity loading is applied first and, in
the second step, pressure is imposed, using a load-controlled scheme, which increases gradually the
pressure at a top surface. The analysis ends when the value of the applied pressure reaches a defined
value. This pressure derives from the structures that lay on the ground surface and can have different
distributions according to the type of the structure and of course different magnitude. Symmetry
conditions are used as boundary conditions at the one end of the model (y-z plane) for both the soil and
the pipe. A nonlinear spring is employed at the opposite side of the model, as previously described to
strike-slip fault model.

Lateral spreading

The finite element model used to simulate lateral spreading, is divided to two blocks (similarly to the
fault models).The liquefied and the non-liquefied part (Figure II.2.3-7).The analysis is conducted in
three steps. First buoyancy force is applied before liquefaction together with gravity loading. After that
the extra buoyancy force on pipeline due to liquefaction is considered to the liquefied part and finally a
horizontal body force is applied on the liquefied soil block to account for the lateral movement because
of liquefaction. The vertical boundary nodes of the non-liquefied block remain fixed in the horizontal
direction. A nonlinear spring is used also at the non-liquefied part to account for the infinite boundary
conditions, as described above. Symmetry conditions are used as boundary conditions at the other end
of the model (y-z plane) for both the soil and the pipe.

29
Figure II.2.3-1: Strike slip faults: Finite element model of the (a) soil prism with strike-slip fault, (b) finite
element mesh of soil prism cross-section and (c) finite element mesh of steel pipeline.

30
Figure II.2.3-2:Normal faults: Main attributes and geometric parameters of the developed finite element
model: (a) 3D view of the entire model; (b) cross section; and (c) view of the extremely refined mesh of the
pipeline (having removed the soil elements).

Figure II.2.3-3:2D model used for fault rapture propagation.

31
Figure II.2.3-4: Finite element model used in the parametric study. The loose material block will slide on a
prescribed surface that is realized through a row of elements with time dependant strength.
stable side

5m

(a) 50 m
plane of symmetry

10 m

16o

Dext = 0.92 m
5m
d fe = 3.2 cm

(b) (c)

nonlinear spring simulating the axial

response of the pipe beyond the
boundaries of the model

(d)

Figure II.2.3-5:Landslides:The finite element model that focuses on the soil–pipeline interaction: (a) 3D
view and dimensions of the model. (b) Cross section indicating the pipe location. (c) A more detailed view of
the pipe. (d) The pipeline axial response beyond the boundaries of model is taken into account through a
nonlinear spring appropriately calibrated.

32
Figure II.2.3-6: Differential settlements: Finite element model of the soil prism for settlements.

33
Figure II.2.3-7 Lateral spreading: Finite element model of the soil prism.

34
II.3. Work package 3 – Preparation, supply and mechanical characterization of
steel pipes; design of experimental set-ups.
The objectives of this WP are summarized as follows:
 Preparation of specifications for producing the pipes needed for experimental testing.
 Manufacturing and supply of pipes for testing.
 Development of pipe girth welding specifications and qualification.
 Design of experimental set-up for small-scale and (mainly) large-scale testing and required
improvement of existing facilities.
 Testing for material characterization of pipe material (base material and girth welds) to be used
in the experiments

II.3.1. Task 3.1: Selection of pipe specimen geometry/material and design of

experimental set-up
The selection of pipe specimens for the experimental work (to be performed in the next work package)
is the main issue in this work task. The pipes to be tested are as representative as possible, and within
the testing capabilities of the partners that will conduct the experiments. The relevant testing
configurations are schematically shown in Figure II.3.1-1Figure II.3.1-2 and Figure II.3.1-3. They will
be presented in much more detail in the presentation of the work in WP4.
Due to the significant length of pipe specimens to be tested in CSM and TUDelft, an optimization of the
line pipe diameter and thickness has been made. Furthermore, the availability of pipes from Corinth
Pipe Works (CPW) has been taken into account.
The following pipe specimens have been selected:
 For the NTUA experiments small-diameter steel/aluminum pipes were used. The diameter of
the pipes will range from D = 10 to 50 mm, while the corresponding D/t ratio will range
between 10 and 50 (for t =1 mm). Furthermore, stainless steel specimens have been purchased
from NTUA. The stainless steel pipes have a diameter of 35mm and thickness 0.5mm.
 For the CSM experiments, six (6) specimens of 8.625-inch-diameter pipes (D=219mm) with
thickness 5.60mm, corresponding to a diameter-to-thickness ratio D/t equal to 39, were used
for the “landslide/fault” test of Figure II.3.1-2. In addition, four (4) specimens of 8.625-inch-
diameter pipes (D=219mm) with thickness 5.60mm, corresponding to a diameter-to-thickness
ratio D/t equal to 39 were used for the pull-out (axial pulling) and soil bearing capacity
(transverse pulling) tests. X65 steel grade was used for all the experiments conducted in CSM
 Two types of specimens will be used for the TUDelft experiments (Figure II.3.1-3). Three (3)
specimens were 8.625-inch-diameter pipes (D=219mm) with thickness 5.60mm, corresponding
to a diameter-to-thickness ratio D/t equal to 39, similar to the ones to be tested by CSM (X65
steel grade) and seven (7) specimens were 16-inch-diameter pipes with thickness of 7.4mm,
corresponding to a diameter-to-thickness ratio equal to 56. X60 steel grade specimens will be
used for these experiments

Figure II.3.1-1: Schematic configuration of test facility (rupture box simulator) at NTUA Soil Mechanics
laboratory.

35
 4m Fixed box Sliding box Fixed box

8m 10m 8m

30m

Figure II.3.1-2Schematic configuration of test facility at CSM facilities (Sardinia), for simulating the effects
of horizontal faults and landslides on pipelines.

d (fault
movement)

Soil springs Fax

Fax

Figure II.3.1-3Schematic configuration of test facility at TUDelft facilities.

Numerical calculations for the optimum experimental set-up at NTUA

Given the capabilities of the experimental equipment, the sand density has to be maximized in order to
impose substantial flexural distortion on the pipe. The stiffer the soil gets the more compliant the pipe is
to the imposed deformation. The pipe model has to be small enough, in order to achieve adequate fixity
within the soil at both ends. The reduction of pipe diameter leads to a reduction of its flexural
resistance, allowing the pipe to follow the imposed tectonic deformation more realistically. Moreover,
the smaller the pipe diameter is the larger relative length the pipe has for an effective fixity within
hanging wall to take place. Finally, as the pipe is getting smaller, the imposed deformation constitutes a
larger portion of its diameter.

36
The results of the physical model tests are expected to be more meaningful when the pipe is more
flexible. Since the pipe thickness cannot be reduced beneath a certain point (i.e., 1 mm), alternative
“softer” materials such as aluminum have been considered. Aluminum is a material with behavior
similar to steel, but having a Young’s modulus about one third compared to that of steel. Hence, it is of
interest to test pipes made of aluminium material.

Numerical calculations for the optimum experimental set-up at CSM

The design phase of CSM full scale test equipment has been performed with the support of numerical
simulations based on FEA. This choice was suggested by the particular complexity of the phenomena
involved in the pipeline-soil interaction and the required equipments.
Loads, displacements, strains and buckling probability occurrence involved in the Landslide/Fault
testing have been evaluated in cooperation with the partner Tebodin, by means of the dedicated
software PLE4Win widely employed in pipeline design. Based on the results provided realistic load
values have been employed by CSM to perform subsequent detailed FE analyses of the steel sliding box
structure.
Furthermore by performing dedicated finite element analysis runs, the optimal number and position of
displacement and deformation instrumentation to evaluate global pipeline deformation was established.
Numerical calculations for the optimum experimental set-up at TUDelft
Analyses with PLE4WIN, performed by Tebodin, of a pipeline under severe shear type deformation
have been used to gain insight in the desired behaviour of a test setup. For this, a very long pipe has
been modelled under a horizontal fault movement for different values of the fault movement. The
analyses have been performed with a perfect elastic-plastic soil model and have been limited to two soil
types. This resulted in four test configurations. In all cases, the angle of the pipeline with the fault is 90
degrees.
Since pipe and soil will interact, the soil behaviour is different for each setup configuration. The soil
models that have been used in the analysis by Tebodin are shown in the graph below.

Figure II.3.1-4: Soil models for the different test configurations

The analyses provide the axial force in the pipeline Figure II.3.1-5, the lateral soil pressure against the
pipeline, Figure II.3.1-6 and the transversal pipe displacements, Figure II.3.1-7.

37
Figure II.3.1-5: Axial soil reaction per millimetre pipe length for different values of fault movement for the
16” clay configuration (note the different scale on the horizontal axis with respect to other figures)

Figure II.3.1-6: Lateral soil reaction per millimetre pipe length for different values of fault movement for
the 16” clay configuration

Figure II.3.1-7: Lateral displacement of pipe for different values of fault movement for the 16” clay
configuration.

Figure II.3.1-5 to Figure II.3.1-7show that for a realistic representation of the soil-pipe interaction, a
constant force or displacement distribution along the pipe specimen cannot be used. Both distributions
are not only scaled in magnitude as a result of increasing fault movement, but change in shape due to
the plasticity of the soil. For a more accurate representation of the soil, this elastic-plastic behaviour has
been simulated in the test setup.

The lateral soil behaviour has been represented by springs. For this, the soil is discretised leading to a
close approximation of the real behaviour. The axial soil behaviour is simulated by applying a axial

38
force at the pipe ends. This results in a constant axial force rather than a axial force which varies over
the pipe length. For accurate representation of reality, the value of the constant force is equal to the
value the realistic value at the expected failure location.

To simulate the perfect elastic plastic soil behaviour, it has been decided to use a collapsible steel ring,
which shows a very similar behaviour as a pure elastic-plastic spring. The spring behaviour can be
controlled by adjusting ring diameter, wall thickness, length and yield strength. In this way a chosen
soil parameter can be approximated. To provide each plastic spring with sufficient stroke, ring
diameters near the fault need to be rather large. Based on preliminary analyses it is likely that ring
diameters should vary between 800 and 1200 mm with wall thicknesses up to 20 mm. Further away
from the fault springs can be smaller. If a spring only deforms elastically, it can be reused, in other
cases the rings need to be discarded after a test and replaced by new ones.

Figure II.3.1-8: Comparison of an available test result on a collapsing ring with a linear elastic model. Pipe
segment: 159x3, length=100 mm, fy=373 N/mm2

II.3.2. Task 3.2: Manufacturing and supply of pipe specimens

The pipe specimens for the NTUA tests have been manufactured in Athens and supplied to NTUA.
The pipe specimens for the CSM and TUDelft experiments have been produced and supplied by CPW
to the laboratories in Sardinia and in Delft.
The pipes reported in the following TableVIII.3.2-1 and TableVIII.3.2-2 have been delivered by
Corinth Pipe Works to CSM. In particular:
 8 5/8” x 5,59mm X65 pipes will be employed by CSM to perform full scale tests and
mechanical characterization;
 16” x 7,30mm X60 pipe will be employed by CSM for mechanical characterization of full scale
specimens employed by TU Delft.
In accordance with the definition in API 5L EW (Electric Welded) pipe is a tubular product having one
longitudinal seam produced by low or high frequency electric welding. In accordance with API 5L
definition HFW (High Frequency Welded) pipe is a EW pipe produced with a welding current
frequency equal to or greater than 70 kHz. In this process, the strip is continuously formed into cylinder
shape, and the strip edges are heated to welding temperature and pressed together by rollers without any
filler metals to give a pipe with homogeneous longitudinal weld. Pipe weld seam and heat affected zone
(HAZ) is on-line post heat treated in order to ensure optimum toughness, tensile and hardness
properties. Each pipe is being non-destructively inspected, utilizing ultrasonic testing (UT), in order to
guarantee that no defects exist in the weld seam, in the pipe body and in the pipe ends. Non-destructive
examination considers the acceptance criteria of the stringent International Standards (API 5L, DNV-
OS-F101, ISO 3183, EN 10208-2). Pipe final acceptance is being performed upon compliance with the
defined chemical composition requirements, mechanical testing properties and dimensional tolerances.
A picture of the delivered pipes inside the CSM yards is reported in Figure II.3.2-1. Based on the
geometrical data of delivered pipes, TableVIII.3.2-1, the composition of specimens for full scale testing

39
has been defined as reported in Figure II.3.2-2. The specimens have been manufactured by manual
welding according to WPS provided by CSM.
WEIGHT
S/N PIPE NO HEAT NUMBER LENGTH M KG
1 214-7/99 730222022 7,09 210
2 510-16/31 730222029 7,71 229
3 1158-37/99 730213637 7,72 228
4 1575-50/99 – 7,32 218
5 1647-53/99 – 7,62 226
6 1915-61/99 730222027 7,2 212
7 2227-71/99 730213690 6,99 207
8 2319-73/32 730213690 6,99 208
9 2891-92/1 730213690 7,65 227
10 3235-102/28 730213690 7,61 225
11 3536-112/99 730213621 7,59 224
12 3663-116/99 730213642 7,58 223
13 3709-118/1 730222028 6,65 196
14 3940-125/99 730222028 6,17 181
15 5841-186/99 730222030 7,13 211
16 4215-133/30 730213623 6,86 203
17 4812-152/99 730222027 6,49 188
18 4885-154/29 730213623 7,05 208
19 4895-155/5 730213623 7,57 222
20 4989-175/99 730213659 8,01 237
21 5585-177/99 730213338 8,07 240
22 5761-183/15 730213642 6,51 192
23 5836-185/28 730213638 8,64 255
24 5841-186/99 730214689 8,12 241
25 5915-188/99 730213646 7,37 218
26 6020-191/99 730222220 6,57 194
27 6020-191/28 730222030 6,17 182
Total material 196,45 m 5805 kg

Table II.3.2-1: 8 5/8” x 5,59mm X65 pipes delivered to CSM

PIPE NO LENGTH WEIGHT

S/N HEAT NUMBER (real)
(real) M KG
1 2821-96/28 730828534 6,65 496

Table II.3.2-2: 16” x 7.3mm X60 pipes delivered to CSM

40
Figure II.3.2-1: Pipes delivered to CSM

SN 1 - 214-7/99 SN 2 - 510-16/31 SN 14 - 3940-125/99 SN 4 - 1575-50/99 SN 5 - 1647-53/99 #1

SN 6- 1915-61/99 SN 7 - 2227-71/99 SN 8 - 2319-73/32 SN 9 - 2891-92/1 SN 10 - 3235-102/28 #2

SN 11 - 3536-112/99 SN 12 - 3663-116/99 SN 13 - 3709-118/1 SN 3 - 1158-37/99 SN 15 - 5841-186/99 #3

SN 16 - 4215-133/30 SN 17 - 4812-152/99 SN 17 - 4885-154/29 SN 18 - 4895-155/5 SN 19 - 4989-175/99 #4

Figure II.3.2-2: Composition of full scale specimens for landslide/fault testing

II.3.3. Task 3.3: Basic material testing of pipeline material and butt-welded joints
(base metal, HAZ and weld metal)
In the present task material characterization of base metal and weld metal of the pipe employed in full
scale activity has been performed .Two pipe geometries/grade have been selected:

OD = 8.625”, WT = 5.56 mm, X65 grade, seamless;

OD = 16”, WT = 7.3 mm, material X60, seamless.

41
All pipes have been delivered to CSM, and specimen for mechanical characterization has been
conducted.

Characterization of pipeline material

The small scale material characterization program for pipes employs in the full scale tests is reported in
Table II.3.3-1. and both pipe types are characterized. In transversal direction, due to the reduced
thickness of the selected pipes, it is not possible to extract full thickness strip specimen unless
performing a subsequent flattening by applying plastic straining. This operation can result in alteration
of material properties, therefore it was decided to employ round bar specimens. By performing tensile
testing, true-stress true-strain curves are obtained up to failure, for longitudinal and transversal
directions

Number
Test type Specimen type Orientation Notch pos Scope
of tests

strip full-
pipe axial direction N/A 2
thickness spec. Base metal stress-strain curve
Tensile test
evaluation
pipe transverse
round bar spec. N/A 2
direction

Through
Longitudinal 3
thickness

Charpy V-
Impact test Base metal resistance to impact
notched

Through
Transversal 3
thickness

(*) Charpy V tests will be performed on reduced thickness specimen.

Table II.3.3-1: Base metal characterization test plan

In Figure II.3.3-1 the pipe samples used for specimen extraction cut from 8” and 16” pipes delivered to
CSM are shown. On the same samples welds according to the designed WPS and weld metal
mechanical characterization has been performed. In Figure II.3.3-2, Figure II.3.3-3 and Figure II.3.3-4
are shown the extraction schemes for base metal characterization, while Figure II.3.3-5 shows the
extracted longitudinal specimens. Specimen dimensions and type are according to ASTM E8/E8M
standard for tension testing of metallic materials. Figure II.3.3-6and Figure II.3.3-7 report the
engineering stress and strain curves for X65 and X60 steel pipes. For both materials transversal
direction properties are higher with respect to longitudinal ones.

42
Figure II.3.3-1: Pipe samples employed for X60 and X65 base material characterization

Pipe longitudinal direction

Figure II.3.3-2: Longitudinal specimen extraction scheme for 8”–X65 and 16”–X60 pipes.

Figure II.3.3-3: Transversal small size round specimen extraction scheme for 8”–X65 pipe

43
Figure II.3.3-4: Transversal direction full size round specimen extraction scheme for 16”–X60 pipe

Figure II.3.3-5: Longitudinal full thickness strip specimens extracted from 8” and 16” pipes

44
 700

600

500
Eng stress [MPa]

400

300

8"-X65-1 Transv.
200
8"-X65-2 Transv.
8"-X65-1 Long.
100 8"-X65-2 Long.

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Eng- strain [-]

Figure II.3.3-6 X65 Longitudinal and transversal engineering stress-strain curves

700

600

500
Eng stress [MPa]

400

300

16"-X60-1 Transv.
200
16"-X60-2 Transv.
16"-X60-1 Long.
100 16"-X60-2 Long.

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Eng- strain [-]

Figure II.3.3-7 X60 Longitudinal and transversal engineering stress-strain curves

Results for Charpy V-notch impact testing are reported in TableVIII3.3-2andTableVIII3.3-3 for the X65
pipe. Testing have been performed at T = 0°C. In all cases incomplete fracture of specimens, which
passed through the anvil supports, has been reported. The behavior of steel is ductile, as 100% of the
shear area has always been reported. Since sub-size specimens with reduced width were adopted, the
average of the measured energy reported in the tables, shall be multiplied for the ratio of the specified
width of the sub-size test piece to the specified width of the full-size test piece. The energy values found
are well above the required minimum values of ISO 3183 for both steel grades.

45
 Sample ID Absorbed Energy Shear Area Remarks
8-CV-L1 32 J 100% incomplete fracture
8-CV-L2 33 J 100% incomplete fracture
8-CV-L3 32 J 100% incomplete fracture
8-CV-L4 31 J 100% incomplete fracture
Average
32 J 100%

Table II.3.3-2:Testing results for Charpy V-notch specimens extracted from 8”-X65 pipe in longitudinal
direction

Sample ID Absorbed Enegy Shear Area Remarks

8-CV-T1 25 J 100% incomplete fracture
8-CV-T2 29 J 100% incomplete fracture
8-CV-T3 30 J 100% incomplete fracture
8-CV-T4 28.5 J 100% incomplete fracture
Average
28 J 100%

Table II.3.3-3:Testing results for Charpy V-notch specimens extracted from 8”-X65 pipe in transversal
direction

Mechanical characterization of the girth welded joints

On the base of the geometry of pipe (in particular the thickness ≤ 10mm) selected for the full scale tests
program, and in agreement with the general aim of the project (focused on the quantify the interaction
between pipeline and soil) SMAW welding technology will be used for the girth welded joints in order
to assembly the test samples for full scale tests activity. The WPS have been developed on the basis of
the actual mechanical properties reported in the pipe certificates provided by pipe producer (Corinth
Pipe Works). The same WPS are applicable to both steel grades, since the mechanical properties (X65
and X60) and the pipe thickness are very similar. WPS are reported in Task 3.2. The mechanical
characterization of girth welded joints have been performed for each WPS developed. In particular the
laboratory test program is reported in the following TableVIII.3.3-4. All tests have been carried out
according to ISO 13847: “Petroleum and natural gas industries-Pipeline transportations systems –
Welding of pipelines” . As far as the toughness tests are concerned, only the Charpy V tests are
conducted to obtain the fracture toughness of material, in agreement with the “Offshore Standard DNV-
OS-F101, 2007”.
Number of
Test type Specimen type Orientation Notch pox Temp. Scope
tests
Round bar Cross weld
(DNV-OS-F101 (pipe axial N/A RT 2
style) direction) Weld metal
stress-strain
Tensile test
Welding pass curve
all-weld-metal direction (pipe evaluation
round bar transverse
N/A RT 2
direction)

46
 Check of Weld-
Full-thk strip Cross weld to-Base metal
with weld at (pipe axial N/A RT Over Matching 2
mid-length direction) (by failure
location)

notch WM 3
Minimum
Cross weld notch in FL 3
Charpy V- design Resistance to
Impact test (pipe axial
notched notch FL + 2mm temperature (- impact 3
direction)
5°C)
notch FL + 5mm 3
1
(3 profiles
Macro Coupon Cross girth
Hardness including
examination + including weld (pipe axial NA RT
profile WM-HAZ-
hardness survey WM+HAZ+BM direction)
BM: max 60
indentations)
Cross weld Ductility and
Strip specimen
(pipe axial NA RT integrity of the 2
(outer surface)
Face/Root direction) weldment
bending test Strip specimen Cross weld Ductility and
(internal (pipe axial NA RT integrity of the 2
surface) direction) weldment

Table II.3.3-4: Weld metal characterization test plan

Figure II.3.3-8 and Figure II.3.3-9 report the engineering stress-strain curves for all weld round bar
specimens extracted from both pipe types. Transverse side bend tests were carried out according to the
standards ASTM A370. All specimens passed a face/root bending on a 25 mm and 32mm diameter
mandrel for specimen extracted from OD 8” x WT5.6mm and OD 16” x WT7.3mm specimens.
Hardness survey was carried out in accordance DNV OS F101 using the Vickers method with a test
force of 98.07 N (HV10) on transversal sections taken across the joint. Hardness was recorded in rows
across the weld metal (WM), the heat affected zone (HAZ) and the parent metal (BM).A summary of
the HV10 average hardness measured in BM, HAZ and WM is reported in Table II.3.3-5 for the 8"
pipe. Finally profiles across the weld are shown in Figure II.3.3-10. The effect of the overmatching
behaviour is pronounced for the passes above the root. Some HAZ softening is also evident. The rest of
the girth welds test results are included in Deliverable D3.

Base Metal (BM) 218 Vickers

Weld Metal (WM) 234 Vickers
Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) 181 Vickers

Table II.3.3-5: Average HV10 hardness measured along paths in BM, WM and HAZ, on specimen
extracted from 8” pipe welded joint

47
 800

700

600

500
Eng stress [MPa]

400

300

8" All Weld Round Bar -1

200

8" All Weld Round Bar -2

100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Eng- strain [-]

Figure II.3.3-8Engineering stress-strain curves for all weld metal round bar specimens form 8” pipe butt
welded joints

800

700

600

500
Eng stress [MPa]

400

300
16" All Weld Round Bar -1
200
16" All Weld Round Bar -2
100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Eng- strain [-]

Figure II.3.3-9 Engineering stress-strain curves for all weld metal round bar specimens form 16” pipe butt
welded joints

48
 300
250

Vickers Hardness
200
150
100
50
0
BM
BM
BM

BM
BM

BM
BM

BM
HAZ
HAZ
HAZ

HAZ
HAZ
HAZ
WM
WM
WM
WM
ROOT CAP
Figure II.3.3-10 Hardness measured along paths in BM, WM and HAZ, on specimen extracted from 8”
pipe welded joint

II.4. Work package 4 – Experimental investigation of soil-pipeline interaction

The objective of WP4 is the performance of:
 Small-scale tests, simulating soil-pipeline interaction under differential settlement, as well as
normal or reverse fault movement.
 Large-scale tests, simulating soil-pipeline interaction under horizontal (strike-slip) fault
movement.
 Large-scale tests on pipeline segments, simulating the ground-induced action on the pipeline
with a shearing-type imposed deformation

II.4.1. Task 4.1 Small-scale experiments on pipes under settlements and normal or
reverse fault movement

Introduction

Over the past 30 years, researchers have tried to understand the complex behavior of buried pipelines
subjected to permanent ground displacement most often via numerical simulation. Yet, the use of such
numerical simulation methods requires extensive calibration and verification against well recorded
case-histories or, even better, against laboratory tests. In order to offer a pool of data to validate the
numerical tools developed in the framework of the GIPIPE project, in WP4 a series of experimental
tests were performed by the Soil Mechanics Laboratory, NTUA to simulate Fault Rupture propagation
and Fault Rupture – Soil – Pipe interaction.

Experimental setup and instrumentation

The present experimental series has been conducted utilizing the Fault-Rupture Box of the NTUA
Laboratory of Soil Mechanics (Figure II.4.1-1a). This custom-built apparatus has been designed to
simulate quasi-static fault rupture propagation and Fault Rupture – Soil – Structure Interaction. It
comprises a stationary and a movable part, which can move downwards or upwards to simulate normal
49
or reverse fault conditions. The movable part is connected to a servo-mechanical screw-jack actuator,
which can generate a maximum stroke of 20 mm in both directions. For this experimental seriesthe dip
angle αwas maintained equal to 45o, which is a reasonable value for both normal and reverse faults. The
internal longitudinal dimension of the Fault Rupture Box is 2.65 m, its depth is 0.9 m, while the out-of-
plane dimension is 0.9 m.
Dry Longstone sand, an industrially produced fine and uniform quartz sand with d50 = 0.15 mm and
uniformity coefficient Cu = d60/d10 = 1.42, was used in the experiments. The void ratios at the loosest
and densest state have been measured as emax = 0.995 and emin = 0.614, and the specific weight of the
solids as Gs = 2.64. Material and strength characteristics of the sand, as derived through a series of
laboratory tests, have been documented by Anastasopoulos et al., (2010). The soil samples are placed
within the Fault Rupture Box by dry pluviation with an electronically controlled sand raining system
designed to produce soil samples of controllable relative density Dr (Figure II.4.1-1b). Two relative
densities were selected: Dr = 90 % and Dr = 60 %.

0.9 m

0.9 m
2.65 m

movable stable
section section

Figure II.4.1-1(a) The fault rupture box of the Laboratory of Soil Mechanics, NTUA and its dimensions.
(b)The soil specimen is prepared through dry pluviation using an automated sand raining system.

The pipe models have been selected from a range of commercially available pipes. The geometrical
characteristics of the pipe models vary from the larger 50x1.5 mm to the smaller 10x1 mm (diameter x
thickness). Commercially available small diameter pipes typically do not have large D/t ratios, a
limitation that eliminates the possibility of cross-sectional local instability (local buckling due to
excessive compressive strains or ovalization due to large tensile stresses). In order to overcome this
obstacle, a special order was made of tubes with diameter of D = 35 mm and thickness t = 0.5 mm in
order to reach a D/t ratio of 70. Two tests were performed on these pipes. As for the material of the pipe
models stainless steel and aluminum were considered. Aluminum was selected to achieve a more
flexible pipe model compared to the surrounding soil. Samples of the pipes that were used in the
framework of this experimental series were subjected to uniaxial tensile test in order to accurately
obtain the stress – strain relation. In summary three material are considered: (a) AISI Type 304 stainless
steel (according to the supplier) for commercially thick available pipes, (b) Aluminum 6036 (according
to the supplier) for commercially available aluminum pipes and (c) EN 1.4521 / AISI Type 444stainless
steel for the specially-ordered thin-walled pipes.

50
 (a) (b)

Figure II.4.1-2(a) Close photo of one of the strain gauges used in this experimental series to measure strains
along the pipe. (b) In order to measure the displacement profile along the surface during the rupture
propagation, five laser displacement transducers placed in line were used to scan the surface.

In order to record the pipe response within the soil, strains along the pipe were measured using 12 strain
gauges. The strain gauges were 10 mm long, with resistance of 120 Ω and were temperature
compensated (Figure II.4.1-2a).In all but one experiments they were placed at characteristic locations
along the crown of the pipe; in the remaining one experiment, they were placed at pairs, one at the
crown and the other at the pipe invert. Each strain gauge was coated with scotch tape to protect the
gauges from being dragged along by the moving soil around the pipe. The residual deformation of the
pipe after the end of each experiment has been scanned with laser displacement transducers. Laser
displacement transducers were also used to measure the displacement distribution along the surface of
the soil (Figure II.4.1-2b). Finally, visual data were obtained using high definition cameras.

Experimental Results

The numerical methodology introduced in the framework of the GIPIPE research project aims to
realistically simulate the entire phenomenon of a pipeline being subjected to permanent ground
displacement. This means that the numerical models should be able to simultaneously simulate the
complex behavior of the soil and the rupture propagation through it, the pipeline response, as well as the
interaction between them. To this end, this experimental series was conducted in three stages. In the
first stage, the rupture propagation was studied without the presence of the pipe, while in the second
stage the pipe – soil interaction problem was investigated parametrically. A number of pipes of varying
diameter and thickness were subjected to normal and reverse fault movement in order to conclude with
the setup that is most representable of the pipe – soil interaction of a real pipeline problem. Finally, in
the third stage, the experiments with the most effective setups were repeated in order to record in detail
the response of the pipe using strain gauges. Table II.4.1-1 summarizes the list of the experiments
conducted.
During this experimental series, no attempt was made to restrain the pipes axially. Note that fixing the
pipes at the footwall and hanging wall boundaries would unacceptably affect the pipe behavior, while
adding an axial restrain such as a spring at both ends would add to complexity of the numerical analyses
(regarding the restrain force, the connection between the spring and the pipe etc.).

51
 exp Dxt z
Fault type Dr Pipe material
# (mm x mm) (mm)
free field rupture propagation tests
1 normal 90 % - - -
2 reverse 90 % - - -
3 reverse 60 % - - -
preliminary tests
4 normal 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 50 x 1.5 -100
5 normal 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 30 x 1 -100
6 normal 90 % Aluminum 6036 50 x 1.5 -100
7 normal 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 50 x 1.5 -550
8 normal 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 30 x 1 -550
9 normal 90 % Aluminum 6036 50 x 1.5 -550
10 normal 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 20 x 1 -300
11 normal 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 20 x 1 -550
12 normal 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 10 x 1 -550
13 normal 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 10 x 1 -300
14 normal 90 % Aluminum 6036 22 x 1 -300
15 normal 90 % Aluminum 6036 22 x 1 -550
16 normal 90 % Aluminum 6036 10 x 1 -550
17 normal 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 10 x 1 -550
18 normal 90 % Aluminum 6036 10 x 1 -550
fully instrumented tests
19 normal 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 10 x 1 -550
20 reverse 90 % AISI Type 304 stainless steel 10 x 1 -550
21 normal 90 % Aluminum 6036 10 x 1 -550
22 reverse 90 % Aluminum 6036 10 x 1 -550
23 normal 60 % Aluminum 6036 10 x 1 -550
24 reverse 60 % Aluminum 6036 10 x 1 -550
25 normal 90 % AISI Type 444 stainless steel 35 x 0.5 -550
26 reverse 90 % AISI Type 444 stainless steel 35 x 0.5 -550

Table II.4.1-1. List of the experiments.

Free field rupture propagation

Initially, the rupture propagation through free field was studied in order to acquire the necessary data to
calibrate and verify the constitutive models describing the soil response. For the purposes of this
experimental series the Fault Rupture box was filled with Longstone sand in two different relative
densities. Firstly, a Dr = 90% was selected which would provide the worst-case pipe-loading scenario.
In order then to examine the effect of the soil compliance on the response of the pipe, one test was
52
duplicated, only the second time the soil within the box was of relative density Dr = 60 %. In order to
monitor the rupture propagation, visual data were obtained while the surface was scanned by laser
transducers to measure the surface displacements.
Figure II.4.1-3 shows a collection of snapshots taken at characteristic instants during the experiment 1
(normal rupture propagation through free field, for the case of dense sand Dr = 90%). Figure
II.4.1-4shows representative snapshots of the same soil deposit (Dr = 90%) subjected to reverse faulting
(experiment 2).

h = 0 mm h = 12 mm

h = 16 mm h = 21 mm

h = 26 mm h = 30 mm

x:m
0 0.5 1

Figure II.4.1-3 Snapshots at characteristic moments of the normal fault rupture propagation through
dense sand (Dr = 90%).

53
 h = 0 mm h = 9 mm

h = 19 mm h = 25 mm

h = 30 mm h = 40 mm

x:m
0 0.5 1

Figure II.4.1-4 Snapshots at characteristic moments of the reverse fault rupture propagation through
dense sand (Dr = 90%).

Preliminary tests
As already stated, the goal of this experimental series was not to imitate an original problem, but to
provide data for the calibration and verification of the numerical models. Of course, it is understood that
for the calibration of the numerical models, behavior qualitatively similar to that of a real pipeline is
needed. This means that the pipe follows completely the imposed displacement at the boundaries of the
hanging wall, while it remains stationary at the boundaries of the footwall, it does not rotate and it
exhibits a double-curvature deformation. The response of the pipe was not being recorded during these
experiment but its residual deformation after the end of the test was scanned using laser displacement
transducers. The residual deformation of the pipe was used to draw conclusions whether the
combination of the dimensions of the pipe, the dimensions of the fault rupture box and the soil
54
pressures gives results that are qualitatively similar to that of a real case problem.. In order to achieve
this qualitative similitude, we concluded that the smaller the pipe was the better fixity conditions were
offered by the available dimensions of the rupture box; as the pipe dimensions increased, the length of
the pipe that was effectively fixed within the hanging wall decreased leading to insufficient anchorage
of the pipe. Moreover, we concluded that in order to have better scaling of a realistic prototype
problem, we should consider practically equal embedment depths between the prototype problem and
the model. Since we did not scaled down the stiffness and strength of the pipe (by using steel pipe
models) we should do the same for the surrounding soil. Therefore, in order to achieve the same
properties for soil (that are stress-dependent) we should place the pipe model at depth equal to the depth
of the prototype.

Fully instrumented tests

A number of experiments from the parametric investigation presented above were repeated in order to
record in detail the response of the pipe. A number of new setups were also tested considering different
soil stiffness and a thinner pipe. Apart from the measurement of strain distribution along the pipe, the
surface of the soil deposit was scanned regularly to monitor the response of the soil. As already
mentioned, no attempt was made to model the kinematic restrains at the pipe ends in view of simplicity.
In the ensuing two representative cases are presented. In the ensuing, two representative cases are
presented. The aluminum thick-walled pipe subjected to normal fault induced displacements and the
stainless steel thin-walled pipe subjected to reverse fault induced displacements.
Thick-walled aluminum pipe subjected to normal faulting
In experiment 21 the aluminum small diameter pipe was placed at z = - 550 mm and it was subjected to
normal faulting. Figure II.4.1-5presents the residual deformation of the aluminum pipe (plastic
deformation) following the end of the test, where 150 mm of vertical offset were imposed. Figure
II.4.1-6 presents the evolution of strains distribution along the pipe for various magnitudes of fault
vertical offset up to ten times the pipe diameter. A vertical downward movement of the hanging wall of
magnitude 15 mm leads the pipe to first yielding (εyield = 0.0018).

Figure II.4.1-5 Residual deformation of the aluminum pipe subjected to normal fault of maximum vertical
offset h = 150 mm.

55
 z = 700 mm
4 fault offsets (mm)
5 : 30 : 5
3
strain 2
(x1/1000)
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

10 fault offsets (mm)

8 30 : 100 : 10
strain 6
(x1/1000) 4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

x : mm

Figure II.4.1-6 Strain distribution along the crown of the thick-walled aluminum pipe subjected to normal
faulting for various magnitudes of vertical fault offset.

Thin-walled steel pipe subjected to reverse faulting

In experiment 26 a steel thin-walled pipe was subjected to reverse faulting. Figure II.4.1-7 presents the
residual deformation of the pipe subjected to reverse fault of maximum vertical offset h = 150 mm after
its removal from the fault rupture box. In this case the pipe buckled due to excessive compression at the
compressive sides of both the hanging wall and footwall maximum curvature points. Pictures of the
buckled areas are also presented. Figure II.4.1-8 presents the evolution of axial strains along the crown
of the pipe with the increase of the base dislocation. Accumulation of strains at hanging wall and at the
footwall is practically symmetrical indicating that the pipe is effectively fixed (regarding the vertical
movement) within both the footwall and hanging wall. Unfortunately, we cannot state with confidence
when buckling occurs at the bottom side of the maximum curvature point located within the hanging
wall since strains are recorded only at the crown of the pipe. However, it is interesting to observe that
for h = 100 mm the strain near the maximum curvature point within the hanging wall records a
significant decrease in the tensile strain despite the increase in base dislocation. This indicates the
formation of a wrinkle at the compressive side of this area (local buckling) and the subsequent
concentration of strain at this area relieving the respective tensile side. As for the initiation of buckling
at the compressive side of the curvature point within the footwall, it is estimated at approximately h =
90 mm where the gauge closer to the buckled cross section captures an abrupt increase in compressive
strains.
Summary and conclusions

In the framework of the WP4 of the GIPIPE research project, the Laboratory of Soil Mechanics, NTUA
conducted a series of small-scale experiments of pipes under normal and reverse fault movement. The
main objective of this experimental series was to conduct key experimental work in order to obtain all
the necessary data to validate the models developed in WP2. From this perspective, these experiments
were not conducted in order to match and simulate a prototype problem. Rather, they were designed as
original problems themselves that will later be simulated as they are with our numerical methods.

56
Figure II.4.1-7Residual deformation of the thin-walled steel pipe subjected to reverse fault of maximum
vertical offset h = 150 mm.

4
fault offsets (mm)
3
10 : 50 : 10
strain 2
(x1/1000) 1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

8
6 fault offsets (mm)
50 : 100 : 10
strain 4
(x1/1000) 2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

x (mm)

Figure II.4.1-8. Strain distribution along the crown of the thin-walled steel pipe subjected to reverse
faulting for various magnitudes of vertical fault offset .

57
II.4.2. Task 4.2: Large-scale tests, simulating soil-pipeline
The current section reports a summary of the results of the large-scale investigation program undertaken
by CSM aimed at investigating the pipe to soil interaction aspects of buried pipes under subjected to
large soil displacements. A more detailed description of this activity is reported in the deliverable D4.2.
Various type of interaction aspects have been investigated:
• Axial pipe pulling trough soil, to investigate the longitudinal interaction mechanism;
• Transversal pipe pulling trough soil, to investigate the lateral interaction mechanism;
• Landslide/fault testing, to realistically investigate the complex interaction mechanisms
between a pipeline and the in case of relevant seismic/geological phenomena and the
deformations induced on the pipe.
The effect of the sand compaction, the pipe surface condition, and the pipeline internal pressure is also
investigated through the above testing. The large-scale test matrix consisting in a total of 10 tests,
reported in Table II.4.2-1. Medium washed sand was used adopting two different levels of compaction,
which has been obtained by mechanical tamping. The soil properties have been measured by NTUA by
the direct shear test at different levels of compaction as the one adopted in large-scale testing.
Pipe surface condition have been investigated considering coated and uncoated pipe samples. The
coating paint applied is the ApsacoatTM a solvent free epoxy amine cured, of common adoption for
pipeline systems.
Test N. of Steel
Pipe type and condition Soil Pressure
Configuration tests grade
8.625"ODx5.6mmWT,(Uncoated) Sand, (Dr=35%)
“Axial 8.625"ODx5.6mmWT,(Uncoated) API 5L Sand, (Dr=23%)
3 P=0
Pipe Pulling” 8.625"ODx5.6mmWT, (With X65
Sand, (Dr=30%)
Coating)
8.625"ODx5.6mmWT,(Uncoated) Sand, (Dr=22%)
“Transversal 8.625"ODx5.6mmWT,(Uncoated) API 5L Sand, (Dr=35%)
3 P=0
Pipe Pulling” 8.625"ODx5.6mmWT, (With X65
Sand, (Dr=35%)
Coating)
Sand, (Dr=40%) P=0
API 5L Sand, (Dr=29%) 11.7MPa
“Landslide/Fault” 4 8.625"ODx5.6mmWT,(Uncoated)
X65 Sand, (Dr=21%) P=0
Sand, (Dr=36%) 11.7MPa
Table II.4.2-1: CSM large-scale test program

Axial pulling tests

The aim of this test is to investigate the longitudinal pipe-soil interaction, which is essentially frictional
(for non-cohesive soils such as the sand adopted in the current test program), as a consequence of a
longitudinal differential displacement between the pipe and the surrounding soil. The pipe to soil
interface friction is function of the type of soil and its compaction level (measured by the relative
density Dr%) and the pipe surface condition (smooth/rough, hard/soft, etc.).
A schematic of the test setup is reported in Figure II.4.2-1, the pipe is contained within a steel box and
buried in sand soil with a specific compaction level at a specified depth. The pipe is then pulled
longitudinally to pipe axis at constant speed (slow to avoid dynamic effects) through openings in the
soil box where no vertical displacement can take place and low friction is present. The selected amount
pipe displacement does not cause the external pipe ends to get into the soil box, so that always the same
pipe length is exposed to the soil action throughout the whole test. The test instrumentation included a
load cell to measure the pulling force while the stroke is measured by the hydraulic actuator
displacement sensor.

58
 Sand

Box

Pipe

Figure II.4.2-1: Schematic of the axial pulling test configuration and main dimension (left) experimental
setup (right)

Axial pulling test results comparison and discussion

A summary of the test results obtained in axial pull-out testing is summarized in Table II.4.2-2while a
comparison of load vs. stroke diagrams id reported in Figure II.4.2-2. In general it can be observed that
a peak load is observed, followed by a decay of loads toward an asymptotic residual value. In this sense
test results show similarities with the results of a direct shear tests performed on sand samples to
evaluate the soil friction angle. This confirms the basic frictional nature of the axial pipe-soil interaction
mechanism.

Test Soil Peak Displacement at Load at Load at 1D ALA

Pipe
ID condition load peak 0.5D displ. displ. (2001)
Sand, OD 219.1 mm,
Test 1 11.8 kN 19 mm 9.1 kN 8.2 kN 3.5 kN
(Dr=35%) Un-coated
Sand, OD 219.1 mm,
Test 2 8 kN 12 mm 5.3 kN 4.7 kN 3.4 kN
(Dr=23%) Un-coated
Sand, OD 219.1 mm,
Test 3 11 kN 39 mm 10.5 kN 9.3 kN 3.5 kN
(Dr=30%) Coated
Table II.4.2-2:Summary of test axial pull-out test results

59
The observed post peak load decrease can be explained by friction degradation phenomenon (reduction
of friction) due to soil particles re-arrangement as a consequence of wear and tear of grain asperities
Weerasekara (2008).

12 Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
10 ALA (2001) Test 1
ALA (2001) Test 2
ALA (2001) Test 3
Load [kN/m] 8

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Stroke [mm]

Figure II.4.2-2: comparison of the longitudinal friction forces measured during the pullout tests

The presence of coating (see Test 3 where a solvent free epoxy amine cured product was applied on
pipe surface) resulted in a lower value of peak fiction force, a smoother peak shape and a larger stroke
at peak, compared to results on un-coated pipe at the same soil compaction (Test1). Moreover, in the
post-peak behavior a slower decrease of load is observed for the coated pipe case, so that above 50mm
of stroke the load for coated pipe case is higher. For a smother pipe case (coated) lower friction
degradation (due to soil particles re-arrangement as a consequence of wear and tear of grain asperities)
could be assumed.
The comparison of the measured friction pull-out resistance forces for all preformed tests with the
formulation provided in ALA 2001, show that that formulation can largely underestimate the actual
longitudinal friction loads, especially in the peak region. This was observed also by Paulin (1998)
Wijewickreme et al. (2009) and Karimian (2006).
One of the reasons explaining the difference of experimental behavior could be found in the increase in
normal pressure on pipe surface as a result of the shear induced-soil dilation in the region around the
pipe that is counteracted by the undisturbed surrounding soil mass. As shown by laboratory testing
performed on sand sampled by NTUA, the soil adopted in the current testing campaign is dilative (see
D4.2).
Some evidence of this behaviour where observed and experimentally measured (e.g., Lehane 1992) on
piles and in pull-out tests on rigid steel pipes (e.g., Wijewickreme et al. 2009).
The friction on the pipe surface can be described by function of the normal pressure around the pipe
exerted by the soil and the pipe-soil interface condition:

  F / A  tan  * p (4.1)

where:
• p is the pressure acting on pipe surface in the normal direction due to soil action;
• and δ=Φ*f = is pipe-soil friction angle interface;
• f= coating dependent factor relating the internal friction angle of the soil to the
• friction angle at the soil-pipe interface;
• Φ is soil internal friction angle.
The pipe-soil friction coefficient has been largely investigated with quite simple experiments, and
values provided in ALA 2001 of f=0.8 for rough steel and 0.7 for coated pipes can be assumed.Hence,

60
with the above parameters, in order to match the high friction resistance (τ or F) measured in axial
pullout tests a higher normal pressure at peak should be considered, in particular:
• p= 29kPa, for Test 1;
• p= 19kPa, for Test 2;
• p= 31.2kPa, for Test 3.

ALA 2001 formulation for the calculation springs representing the axial pips-soil interaction forces,
bases the pressure estimation around the pipe simply on K0 (coefficient of soil pressure at rest) which
does not changes throughout the pipe displacement according to the following equation:

(1  K 0 )
p  H (4.2)
2
Where:
• H = depth to pipe centreline, 0.75m;
• γ = unit weight of the soil, 15840N/m3;
• Φ =internal soil friction angle, 38.5°;
• K0 =1-sin Φ =coefficient of pressure at rest, 0.37.

a pressure p = 8kPa is found, much lower than actual measured values as observed by Karimian (2006)
and lower with respect to the values needed to match with experimental results of this project.
As a result for dilative sands (as the one adopted in the present large-scale investigations) the
coefficient of pressure at rest K0 adopted in axial soil spring definition equations (ALA 2001) could be
inadequate (too small) and adoption of higher values based on specific testing could be required, as
suggested by Weerasekara and Wijewickreme (2008) and in PRCI guidelines (2009).

Transversal pulling tests

The aim of this test is to investigate the transversal interaction, between the buried pipe and the soil, as
a consequence of a displacement of the pipe in a direction normal to the longitudinal pipe axis.The
resulting exchanged force (for non-cohesive soils, as in this case ) is composed by a term resulting from
the load acting in the normal direction to pipe surface and a frictional term resulting from the action of
the soil “flowing” around the pipe, tangentially to the pipe surface. Both terms contribute to originate
the resistance on the pipe to motion within the soil and they are influenced by the soil type, soil
compaction level (loose, medium or dense) and the pipe surface condition (rough or smooth). A
schematic of the test setup is reported Figure II.4.2-3, the pipe is contained within a steel box and buried
by sand with a specific compaction level at a specified depth. The pipe is then pulled transversally to
pipe axis at constant speed (slow to avoid dynamic effects) by means of two pulling bars that cross the
box wall through small openings. The pipe vertical displacement is prevented by the presence of two
guide rails at the end of the specimen, which also support the sample weight. To avoid possible bending
or buckling as a result of the forces exerted by the soil, the pipe was filled with concrete.

61
Figure II.4.2-3: Schematic of the transversal pulling test configuration and main dimension (left)
experimental setup (right)

The test instrumentation includes a load cell to measure the pulling force while the stroke is measured
by the hydraulic actuator’s displacement sensor. A portion of the pipe surface is instrumented, with a
flexible contact pressure sensor, Figure II.4.2-4, wrapped around the pipe for an extension of about
180° and a width of 440mm. The sensor consist in a matrix of sensing elements which allow to measure
the contact pressures (a resultant forces) applied by soil upon pipe displacement.

Figure II.4.2-4: Pressure sensor wrapped around the pipe (right) and typical pressure distribution
measured during pipe motion (left)
The stresses applied to the pipe surface by the soil upon pipe displacements Figure II.4.2-5(a), can be
divided in two components: normal stresses Figure II.4.2-5(b) and tangential stresses Figure II.4.2-5(c).
The normal stresses are the only measured by the contact pressure sensor, while the tangential stresses
arise from the friction between the pipe and the soil and can be evaluated from (4.2).
With reference to Figure II.4.2-5, the resultant force acting on the pipe along the displacement direction
can be computed with the following relationship:
n n
R  R H  TH   p mi  A i  cosi   tan  p mi  A i  seni (4.3)
i 1 i 1

where:
• i, denotes the ith row of sensor elements around the circumference;
• pmi, is the average pressure of the sensors located at an angle θi ;
• Ai ,is the total area of the ith row of sensor element around the circumference.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure II.4.2-5:Forces and stresses acting on pipe surface due to soil action during pipe displacement: (a)
normal and tangential stress, (b) normal stress and resultant in horizontal direction, (c) tangential stress
originated by friction and resultant in horizontal direction

62
Transversal pulling test results comparison and discussion
A comparison of the test results is shown in Table II.4.2-3 and Figure II.4.2-6in terms of horizontal
forces applied by the hydraulic pulling system.

Test ID Soil condition Pipe condition Load at 0.5D displ. Load at 1D displ. ALA (2001)
Test 1 Sand, (Dr=22%) Un-coated 39 kN 47.9 kN 41 kN
Test 2 Sand, (Dr=35%) Un-coated 44 kN 54.5 kN 42 kN
Test 3 Sand, (Dr=35%) Coated 45.2 kN 51.9 kN 42 kN

Table II.4.2-3:Summary of test transversal pullout test results

As a general results no peak followed by loads decrease is present as also observed in test performed by
Trautmann and O’Rourke (1984) and Yimsiri (2004) for loose to medium sands. Although the
difference in compaction are quite low (Dr≈22 for Test 1 and Dr≈ 35% for Tests 2 and 3) the result
reflect somehow this difference especially for the initial small displacements. On the contrary, low load
variations is to be attributed to the effect of the pipe surface condition upon transversal pipe
displacement. Evidently the shear stresses of the soil around the pipe surface due to friction, play a
secondary role in the total force exchange if compared to internal friction, activated by the pipe motion,
in the compacted soil. The large increase of load observed for large strokes can be attributed a boundary
effect caused by the progressive reduction of the free space between the advancing pipe and the box
wall, which causes compaction of the sand in this area. In Figure II.4.2-7 comparison of transversal
interaction forces measured by load cell of the pulling system and the ones measured by contact
pressure sensor wrapped on the pipe surface is shown. Comparable results for strokes up to 200mm are
observed, while for larger strokes those values diverge. From the same Figure II.4.2-7 a comparison
with forces calculated by ALA 2001 formulation for definition of lateral soil springs is provided: even
if some differences are present the comparison of experimental results and values provided by the
formula can be considered overall satisfactory for strokes up to 1 pipe OD. On the same Figure II.4.2-7
(right) the pressure distribution around the pipe is seen to progressively increase on the lower part of the
pipe during pipe motion, originating a vertical upward directed resultant force.
100
Load Cell, Test 1
90
Load Cell, Test 2
80
Load Cell, Test 3
70

60
Load [kN/m]

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Stroke [mm]

Figure II.4.2-6:Comparison of the transversal pullout tests in terms of force vs. stroke applied by the
pulling system

63
 60
Average pressure around pipe, Test N1 - kPa
0° stroke 2mm
50 300
stroke 10mm
250
stroke 20mm
200
40 stroke 30mm
150
stroke 40mm
Load [kN/m]

100
50 stroke 50mm
30 0 stroke 100mm
Load Cell, Test 1
-50 stroke 200mm
Contact pressure Sensor, Test 1 90°
-100 stroke 300mm
20 Load Cell, Test 2 270°
stroke 400mm
Contact pressure Sensor, Test 2
Load Cell, Test 3 stroke 500mm
10 Contact pressure Sensor, Test 3 stroke 580mm
ALA (2001) Test1 stroke 610mm
ALA (2001) Test2&3 stroke 830mm
0 stroke 1030mm
0 50 100 150 200
180°
Stroke [mm]

Figure II.4.2-7: Comparison of the transversal pullouttests : force measured by load cells and pressure
sensors and ALA 2001 formulation (left) and typical distribution of pressures on front of pipe surface at
various strokes (right).

Landslide/fault tests
The aim of these test is to investigate a complex pipe to soil interaction mechanism representative, as
far as possible, of a pipeline crossing a landslide. This configuration is also a first approximation of a
pipeline crossing two tectonic faults (with very close fault lines). Pipe plastic deformation takes place as
a result of pipe motion, thus providing indications on the effect of soil motion towards pipeline limit
states. A schematic of the test configuration with overall dimensions reported in Figure II.4.2-8, Figure
II.4.2-9, where a picture of the real setup ready for testing is also shown. It consists of a system
composed by three communicating soil boxes in which the sample is buried. Starting form this
configuration the central soil box is then pulled by two hydraulic actuators transversally to pipe axis
directions. The pipe is axially free to translate at its ends, while rotations, vertical and transversal
displacements are prevented. The resulting force exchanged by the pipe and the soil is composed by a
term resulting from the load acting in the normal direction to pipe surface and a frictional term resulting
from the friction of the “flowing” soil around the pipe in tangential direction with respect to the pipe
surface. In addition, a longitudinal frictional stress is developed and both terms contribute to originate
the resistance on the pipe to motion within the soil.

Figure II.4.2-8: Schematic of test setup and dimensions

64
Figure II.4.2-9: Landslide/fault experimental setup
Test specimens are composed by 5 pipes welded by manual SMAW welding adopting the WPS
specifically developed for the project and reported in D3.2. Test instrumentation adopted (see
deliverable D4.2 for more details) test was mainly based on strain gauges to measure the local strains on
pipe and to evaluate global pipe deflections by integrating strain measure over the pipe length and laser
LVDT to measure the pipe ends displacement. In addition the force applied by the hydraulic pulling
system has also been measured.

Landslide/fault tests results comparison and discussion

In the following section, the results of the experimental activity is summarized together with a
discussion on the main outcomes. Table II.4.2-4 contains a review the main test parameters and
outcomes, while detailed results are reported in D4.2.

Pipe deflection
Max strains
Soilrelative Internal Applied soil
Pipe type and Measured (tens./compress Max ovality
Test ID Steel grade density press. Test Result displ. Calculated Pipe end displ. [mm]
condition after soil .) after test [%]
[%] [MPa] [mm] during test
removal [%]
[mm]

8.625"ODx5.6mmWT, 128 (Left) 1.4%

1 API X65 40 0 Plastic def. 3650 1810 1486 2.10%
(Uncoated) 162 (Right) (mid section)

8.625"ODx5.6mmWT, 240 (Left) 0.9%

2 API X65 29 11.7 Plastic def. 3200 1297 800 1.10%
(Uncoated) 36 (Right) (mid section)

8.625"ODx5.6mmWT, 106 (Left) 0.7%

3 API X65 21 0 Plastic def. 3287 1223 800 0.81
(Uncoated) 30 (Right) (mid section)

8.625"ODx5.6mmWT, 101 (Left) 0.9%

4 API X65 20 11.7 Plastic def. 3220 923 667 0.52%
(Uncoated) 55 (Right) (mid section)

Table II.4.2-4:CSM large-scale test program main outcomes

The soil box setup taken during and after the experiment is shown in Figure II.4.2-10. No buckling or
tearing rupture were observed on the pipe while inelastic deflection and cross section ovalization of the
pipe have been reported after the tests.
As general result of the experiments, in case of tests with higher compaction level, due to the applied
displacement the specimen underwent significant deflection causing plastic deformation mainly in
longitudinal direction. Strains values up to +/- 1.4% have been observed. With the looser compaction
level due to the lower forces applied on pipe from the soil, the pipe underwent a smaller deflection and
strains<1%.Those strains have been compared with the local buckling critical strain prediction formulae
provided by the DNV-OS- F101, API RP 1111 and Gresnigt (1986), for the unpressurized case, which
are commonly adopted in design:

65
  WT  α gw
DNV: ε c  0.78    0.01  1.5 ε c  1.1% (4.4)
 OD  α
  h

WT
API: ε c  0.5  ε c  1.3% (4.5)
OD

WT
Gresnigt: ε c  0.5   0.0025 ε c  1.0% (4.6)
OD

Despite the predictions provided by the above equation, no local buckling developed in the
experiments, It is worth noting that the above equations are design equations, so that they incorporate a
certain degree of conservatism. In all tests the critical area in terms of maximum strain is represented by
the mid-length section (an area extending for 2m on each side across symmetry section), while very
little strain is present close to the “fault” location. A secondary strain spot have always been observed at
a certain distance from the fault lines toward the pipe ends. A map of the strains distribution along the
pipe in longitudinal direction in the bending plane is depicted in Figure II.4.2-11 for the test #1, similar
distribution were obtained for all preformed tests. Strain distribution is symmetrical with reference to
the extrados resulting in very small axial straining. This was an expected result as axial loads resulting
from friction are deemed very low, due to the short buried pipe length.
From the strain plots (as in Figure II.4.2-11) it was possible to calculate the pipe deflection during the
test, which is prohibitive adopting other measuring devices. As described in D4.2 from the strain in
longitudinal directions, the curvatures radii have been estimated allowing to reconstruct the pipe shape
by an succession of arcs. This procedure proved to be sufficiently reliable as shown in Figure II.4.2-12
in which the deformed pipe configuration is shown during the test (calculated) and after the test
(calculated vs measured).
In addition to the transversal displacement a vertical (uplift) displacement of the specimen at mid-
length, is observed in all tests, causing the pipe to reach the pipe to almost reach the soil surface. This
result is consistent with the outcomes of the transversal pulling tests for which an uplift resultant force
(in addition to the transversal one) have been measured.
In all tests it was observed that the pipe deflection is smaller if compared to the applied box
displacement. Referring to the plot of Figure II.4.2-13 which reports the displacement of the calculated
pipe mid length section vs the box applied displacement, it is possible to observe that after an initial
phase, upon reaching a certain displacement the mid section deflection growth rate reduces. Under these
conditions it is assumed that a generalized soil flow take place around the pipe, a condition in which
lower forces are transmitted to the pipe, resulting in lower applied strains a displacements.
The pipe ovalization measured along the pipe is plotted in Figure II.4.2-14 for the test 1, from which it
can be observed that it is possible to associate high ovalization areas with higher strained areas (see
Figure II.4.2-11). In the tests were lower strains were involved lower ovalization have been measured.

66
Figure II.4.2-10: Typical soil surface condition after interaction experiment (left) and final pipe
deflection after soil excavation (right).

1.5%
Extrados
Intrados strain

Longitudinal Strain- %
1.0%
Axial strain
0.5%

0.0%

-0.5%

-1.0%

-1.5%
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1

10
11
12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-12
-11
-10

Longitudinal position - mm

Figure II.4.2-11: Typical distribution of strains along pipe for the maximum applied box displacement.

2.00 Calculated during test @ box

disp =3.65m
1.80 Calculated after test (spring
Pipe deflection (mid length) - [m]

1.60 back)
Mesured after test
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Longitudinal position - [m]

Figure II.4.2-12:Pipe axis deformed shape during the test (calculate) and after the test (calcularted vs
measured).

2.0
Pipe deflection (mid length) - [m]

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Sliding box displacement - [m]

Figure II.4.2-13: Calculated pipe middle section point displacement vs. lateral box displacement

2.5%
Ovality after test
2.0%
Pipe Ovality - [%]

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%
-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-0.5%
Longitudinal position - [mm]

Figure II.4.2-14:Ovalization measured on pipe after test #1

67
II.4.3. Task 4.3: Deformation-imposed large-scale tests on pipeline segments,
simulating the deformation pattern of a pipeline segment subjected to severe
shearing-type deformation
At Delft Technical University of Technology, ten large-scale tests have been performed, simulating the
deformation to which a pipeline is subjected in the event of a permanent ground induced displacement
involving a shear plane of soil (see Figure II.4.3-1). Such a deformation pattern can occur when a
buried pipeline crosses e.g. a moving fault or landslide. The case of a horizontal fault movement is
studied, but the results are considered to be applicable in many comparable situations. In the test
program, no actual soil is used. Instead, soil is simulated, leaving the pipe bare so that extensive
measurement can be performed to accurately determine the deformation behaviour of the pipe.

Fault
displacement

Figure II.4.3-1: Overview of the situation that is to be modelled in the TU Delft experiments.

Selection of test parameters

The tests are complex and are influenced by many parameters. For this reason, the parameters which are
to be included in the testing programme need to be selected carefully.
For the soil surrounding the pipe, two soil types have been selected: soft-to-firm clay and loose sand,
which are defined in GIPIPE deliverable D2.1. In this report, these two soils will simply be referred to
as simply ˋclayˊ and ˋsandˊ. By including these two soil types, both a relatively weak and a relatively
strong soil is included in the program.
The soil behaviour that is relevant for the tests, is the horizontal soil reaction against a pipeline that is
moving through soil horizontally. This soil behaviour is determined according to NEN3650, which uses
the theory by Brinch Hansen. This formulation predicts a bilinear lateral soil reaction (see Figure
II.4.3-2).

Figure II.4.3-2: Lateral soil reaction according to NEN3650.

68
Both available pipe types (219x5.6 and 406x7.4 mm2) have been used in the tests. Internal pressure was
included in 4 out of 10 tests, at pressure levels resulting in hoop stresses of 25% and 50% of the
specified minimum yield strength.
The ground movement that is considered, consists of a horizontal shear motion that is approximately
perpendicular to the pipeline. A movement under an angle (β)changes lateral soil pressures on the
pipeline and the axial force that is generated due to longitudinal constraint of the pipe. In the test setup
the movement is always exactly perpendicular to the pipeline and the simulated soil pressures are also
simulated accordingly. However, small angles can be investigated by only changing the axial force that
is applied to the pipeline. The influence of the axial force is considered to be the dominant parameter
for such small angles.
For the final assembly of a test program, three failure modes have been recognized:
 Medium strain. Strains reach 1%.
 High strain. Strains reach 3%.
 Local buckling.
An actual crack was not anticipated beforehand, but did occur during one of the tests. However, high
strains that fall outside practical engineering usage are also considered a ‘failure’. In the nine tests that
did not show a crack, the measured strains of more than 1% or 3% far surpass common strain based
design guidelines and suffice to understand the mechanisms at work and to validate models.
Furthermore, many specimens that failed in local buckling first exceeded the 1% strain limit and many
passed the 3% strain limit after local buckling. Therefore, many experiments are aimed at local buckling
failure, since this combines multiple failure modes. An overview of the assembled test matrix is
presented in Table II.4.3-1
Simulated Girth weld Internal pressure
Test I.D. Pipe dim. Angle β Expected result
Soil atcritical location (% SMYS)
T1 219x5.6 Sand 0° No 0 High strain
T2 406x7.4 Sand 0° No 0 Local buckling
T3 219x5.6 Clay -3.25° Yes (left) 0 Local buckling
T4 219x5.6 Sand -1.50° No 0 Local buckling
T5 219x5.6 Sand -2.25° Yes (left) 25% Local buckling
T6 219x5.6 Sand 0° No 50% High strain
T7 406x7.4 Clay 0° Yes (left) 50% Medium strain
T8 406x7.4 Sand 0° Yes (left) 0 Local buckling
T9 406x7.4 Clay -2° No 0 Local buckling
T10 406x7.4 Sand -2° No 25% Local buckling
Table II.4.3-1: Overview of performed tests

Design of test setup and individual tests.

To mechanically simulate the interaction between pipe and soil, steel rings, called ring springs, have
been used. When flattened, the force-deformation response of such rings closely resembles the bilinear
diagram that is assumed for the lateral soil reactions (see Figure II.4.3-2). Each ring represents a certain
section of soil. Depending on the soil and pipe parameters, different rings are used at different locations
along the pipeline.
To facilitate the accommodation of all different tests, a flexible test setup has been designed, which can
cope with continuously variable adjustment of the ring spring locations between tests. The test setup
consists of two steel frames, representing two soil bodies, one of which is movable by 1500 mm (see
Figure II.4.3-3). The ring springs connect the pipeline to the frames. On either end of the 20 m long
pipeline specimen, actuators are present to apply an axial force to the specimen.

69
Figure II.4.3-3: Top view of test setup with fixed steel frame left and movable steel frame right from the
fault. Ringsprings not drawn.

By preliminary analyses, the specimen length was proven to be sufficient to assume no lateral pipe
movement with respect to the surrounding soil at each end of the specimen. Therefore, such boundary
conditions are enforced at each end of the specimen. On the left side of the specimen, the lateral
movement of the pipe is restricted to 0 mm, while axial movement via sliding through the boundary
condition is possible (see Figure II.4.3-4, left). On the right, the lateral movement of the pipe is equal to
the fault movement. Since the applied end force to the pipe has a normal component at this end of the
specimen due to the stationary location of the actuators, a much heavier roller support is used here (see
Figure II.4.3-4, right)

Figure II.4.3-4: Boundary conditions at end of pipeline specimen. Left: lateral movement restricted; axial
movement possible by sliding of pipe trough wooden block. Right: lateral movement equal to fault
movement; axial movement possible by roller support; normal component of applied axial force is directly
supported by frame.
All other contact of the pipe with the environment is through the ringsprings that model the lateral soil
reaction against the pipeline. These ringsprings, while being flattened in compression, are placed in a
tensile construction in the test setup to guarantee stability. Loads are introduced in the pipe through two
flexible steel straps for each ring. In this way, loads are transferred to the pipe as smoothly as possible.
An overview of the test setup, ringsprings and load application is presented in Figure II.4.3-5.

70
Figure II.4.3-5 Left: overview of test setup after final deformation of test T9. Top right: load application
through flexible steel straps. Bottom right: ringsprings after final deformation of the test.

To obtain the correct dimensions and positions of the ringsprings, an Abaqus FEA model was used. The
model features a pipeline modelled by shell elements and pipe-soil interaction by means of elastic-
plastic springs according to the Brinch-Hansen model. By using a very large amount of springs, the
‘ideal’ response of the pipe to a continuous soil is determined (see Figure II.4.3-6). Subsequently, the
test setup using twelve ringsprings is modelled and the pipe response to this discrete soil is compared
with the ideal response. On the basis of this comparison, the ringspring configuration is adjusted or
accepted.

71
Figure II.4.3-6: Overview of model used for test design. This particular model features a near continuous
soil reaction which is compared with discrete soil reactions that would occur in a test with ringsprings.
The axial force that is applied to the pipeline is considered to consist of three elements. In all cases,
longitudinal restraint of the pipeline by its surrounding soil is assumed. Firstly, there is the axial force
due to the S-shape deformation of the pipeline. This S-shape has a longer arc length than the original
straight pipeline, resulting in axial withdrawal of the ends of the deformed section. Since the pipeline is
assumed to be infinitely long and straight, this withdrawal is restrained by the buried pipe itself.

N N
N N

Straight pipeline pull-out test

Straight pipeline pull-out test

Figure II.4.3-7: Axial force due to S-shape deformation of the pipeline.

Secondly, the angle between the pipeline and the fault movement may lead to additional axial forces in
the pipeline. For negative fault angles, and additional compressive axial force acts on the pipeline,
while positive fault angles lead to extra tension on the pipeline (see Figure II.4.3-8).
β<0 β=0 β >0

N N
N N

Figure II.4.3-8: Axial force due to fault angle.

The third considered axial force results from internal pressure inside the pipeline. Due to expansion of
the pipe in hoop direction, longitudinal contraction occurs. Since the pipe is assumed to be restrained in
longitudinal direction, a tensile force arises in the pipeline.

72
The target axial forces during the test are determined on the basis of preliminary work with FEA
analyses performed by TU Delft and Tebodin. As an example, the influence of a fault angle on the axial
force in a small diameter pipeline in clayey soil (test T3) is presented in Figure II.4.3-9. The figure
shows that already for relatively small angles, large variations in axial force occur. Compressive forces
may also occur in practice, but cannot be simulated in the test setup. Instead, in such situations the axial
force is kept at 0 kN, until for larger fault movements tensile force is once again required. The tests are
designed such, that failure occurs only in the latter, realistic, part of the test.

Figure II.4.3-9: Variation of axial force for various fault angles for test T3.

During the test, the forces applied to the pipe by all actuators and ringsprings are continuously
monitored. Ovalisation of the pipe is measured at several locations in the most critical area of the
pipeline specimen. A total of 66 strain gauges is applied in longitudinal and, if the specimen contains
internal pressure, circumferential direction. The fault is moved in a deformation controlled way. The
axial force that is applied to the pipe is determined beforehand and its control is coupled to the fault
movement.
Additional tensile testing
Although the initial proposal does not require tensile testing of all pipe material, the research partners
decided that this information is invaluable for later analysis of the tests. Therefore, of all 17 base
material pipes available, tensile test coupons have been taken. Two coupons were taken in longitudinal
direction and two in circumferential direction. The latter were flattened to perform the tensile tests. All
test specimens lack a clear yield strength and most were characterised by a relatively high strength with
regard to their steel grade and a relatively low amount of strain hardening. A typical example of the
stress-strain behaviour exhibited by the pipe material is presented in Figure II.4.3-10.

73
Figure II.4.3-10: Typical stress strain behaviour of pipeline material used in TU Delft tests. Pipeline
H60410114, 406x7.4mm2, grade X60. Left: Stress-strain graphs up to 3% strain. Right: full stress-strain
diagrams.

The average anisotropy of the pipes (defined as f0.2%;hoop/f0.2%;axial) was found to be 0.92 for the large
diameters pipes and 0.90 for the smaller diameters pipes. Anisotropy with regard to tensile strength was
not found. Considering the large strain demand of the application of these pipelines, the yield strength
to tensile strength ratio (Y/T ratio) is worth mentioning. On average, this ratio was 0.88 for the large
diameter pipes and 0.89 for the small diameters pipes. However, considering the anisotropy with regard
to yield strength and the lack thereof with regard to tensile strength, the ratios in axial direction are
higher than in hoop direction. Ratios up to 0.95 have been measured several times, which is considered
to be relatively high. Steel with high Y/T ratios should be avoided because of its susceptibility to strain
concentration and subsequent possible fracture of the pipe wall.
Test results
The ringsprings generally perform very well, and, if designed correctly, provide a flattening-force
relation that is very close to the target soil behaviour. An example of this comparison for the twelve
rings used in test T1 is shown in Figure II.4.3-11. The figure shows that most rings perform very well
and that identical rings on the left and right side of the fault show very similar characteristics.

74
Figure II.4.3-11: Comparison between target soil behaviour and used ringsprings for test T1. UR is the
flattening of the ring, FR is the force in the ring.
Symmetry of the test is further illustrated by comparing the forces in the rings on the left and right side
of the fault with regard to the fault movement. Furthermore, summating the forces applied by the rings
theoretically leads to equal forces on each side of the fault and compares well with the applied force by
the actuators. In Figure II.4.3-12 an example of these comparisons for test T10 is presented. The test
specimen indeed responds symmetrical to the fault movement until local buckling occurs at a fault
movement of 640 mm.

Figure II.4.3-12: Left: comparison of eight rings closest to the fault on the left and right side of the fault.
Right: comparison of sum of ringforces with applied actuator force. Both diagrams refer to test T10.
Typical strain gauge measurement results are presented in Figure II.4.3-13 and Figure II.4.3-14.
Depending on the stiffness ratio between pipe and soil and the presence of a local buckle, the strain
image is very gradual such as in test T9, or can by very sharp such as in T10.

75
Figure II.4.3-13: Measured longitudinal strains on front side of specimen T9. Test specimen failed due to
local buckling at a fault movement of 1100 mm.

Figure II.4.3-14: Measured longitudinal strains on front side of specimen T10. Test specimen failed due to
local buckling at a fault movement of 650 mm.

The ovalisation of the specimens due to bending is measured at several locations along the pipeline
axis. All specimens show ovalisation to some extent. The presence of internal pressure limits the
amount of ovalisation that occurs, depending on the pressure level. For an example, see Figure II.4.3-15
and Figure II.4.3-16, where the ovalisation measurements of test T1 and T6 are presented. The most
important difference between these two tests is the presence of an internal pressure of 120 bar in test
T6. Both tests did not show a local buckle. The figures evidently show a much smaller vertical
ovalisation in the pressurized test. Both tests show peaks in ovalisation at the points of maximum
bending of the specimen. In other tests, after local buckling occurred, these peaks could be very high at
the location of the local buckle.

76
Figure II.4.3-15Ovalisation due to bending of specimen T1: 219x5.6 mm2, sandy soil, P=0 bar, no local
buckling.

Figure II.4.3-16Ovalisation due to bending of specimen T6: 219x5.6 mm2, sandy soil, P=120 bar, no local
buckling. Note the different scale for the ovalisation in both figures.

Exceedance of the failure criterions ‘medium strain’ and ‘high strain’ are cannot be directly observed by
the naked eye. This is in contrast with the local buckling failure mode, which can be observed with ease
during the test. Various shapes of local buckles have been observed during the tests depending on the
slenderness (D/t) of the pipe specimen and the presence of internal pressure (see Figure II.4.3-17 and
Figure II.4.3-18).

77
Figure II.4.3-17: Local buckles in small diameter pipe. Left: local buckle at a girth weld in atmospheric test
T3, consisting of one main buckle and two secondary buckles. Right: local buckle in plain pipe in
pressurized test T5, consisting of one outward bulge.

Figure II.4.3-18: Local buckles in large diameter pipe. Left: local buckle in plain pipe material it
atmospheric test T9, consisting of two main buckles. Right: local buckle in plain pipe in test T9, consisting
of one main buckle and two secondary buckles.

Figure II.4.3-19: Local buckles in large diameter pipe. Left: local buckle in large diameter pipe with
internal pressure, consisting of one outward bulge. Right: local buckle at a girth weld in atmospheric test
T8, consisting of one main buckle on one side of the girth weld with two secondary buckles on the other side
of the girth weld.

In one specimen, a crack occurred opposite to a local buckle. The specimen was pressurized, leading to
an outward buckle. Furthermore, this buckle occurred at a girth weld. Opposite to this buckle, high
tensile strains concentrated close to the weld, leading to a crack at this location (see Figure II.4.3-20).
Post-test analysis of this specimen concluded that the crack occurred due to the following causes:
 Overmatched weld material forced strains to localize in adjacent plate material.
 High Y/T ratios of the used pipe (0.91 and 0.95) allowed extreme strain localisation to occur.
 A possible influence of welding heat input of material behaviour of pipe.

78
Figure II.4.3-20: Formation of a crack in test specimen T5. Left: local buckle and rupture. Right: close-up
of crack showing ductile behaviour and crack close to the weld.
Internal pressure in the specimens led to lower ovalisation (see Figure II.4.3-16) and prevented or
delayed the formation of a local buckle. Therefore, to avoid local buckling, an internal pressure inside
the pipeline has a positive effect. However, it could lead to such high strains at the tensile side of the
pipe that rupture of the pipe wall becomes an issue.
Since so many parameters vary between the tests, none of the tests can be summarized in a single
number or failure criterion. A global overview of the results of the tests is presented in Table II.4.3-2. In
all tests, the 1% tensile strain boundary has been passed, while also in many tests a high strain of 3% is
measured. In 7 out of 10 tests a local buckle occurred, in most cases at about halfway the total fault
movement or later. In one specimen a crack occurred, as has been discussed before.
Max. tensile Local buckling
Test I.D. Pipe dim. Soil Remarks
strain at Ufault=
T1 219x5.6 Sand 2.88% -
T2 406x7.4 Sand 2.82% 840 mm
T3 219x5.6 Clay 2.26% 810 mm Buckle at girth weld
T4 219x5.6 Sand >3.29% 690 mm Strain gauge clipped at 3.29%
T5 219x5.6 Sand 4.50% 455 mm Buckle at girth weld and crack
T6 219x5.6 Sand 2.86% -
T7 406x7.4 Clay 1.94% -
T8 406x7.4 Sand 2.78% 700 mm Buckle at girth weld
T9 406x7.4 Clay 1.35% 1030 mm
T10 406x7.4 Sand 5.28% 640 mm
Table II.4.3-2: Global summary of test results. Due to the many parameters involved, the contents of this
table should not be used to compare tests.
Summary of findings
The main findings of the experimental program performed at TU Delft are:
 The ratio between pipe and soil stiffness influences the strain distribution to a large extent.
Even after the formation of a local buckle, less stiff soils lead to lower strains with the
exception of the folds of the buckle itself. (All tests)
 The location of the most critical cross section changes during the event. For larger fault
movements, the critical cross section moves further away from the fault (All tests, especially
test T3, T6, T7).
 If the pipeline fails (e.g. by local buckling) on one side of the fault, failure on the other side of
the fault may be accelerated (Test T3).
 The axial normal force in the pipeline has a very large influence on the bending strains in the
pipe. High normal forces lead to less strain in the pipe due to a snare effect. Since very small
fault angles lead to large differences in normal force, the outcome of such events is strongly
dependent on the angle between the fault and the buried pipe. (All tests)
 If local buckling takes place while internal pressure is present in the pipeline, very high strains
are to be expected on the opposite side of the buckle. These strains are much higher than for
local buckles under atmospheric pressure. (Tests: T2, T4, T5, T10)
79
  If a girth weld is present in the highly strained portion of the pipeline, yield strength differences
between the adjacent pipe sections and the overmatched nature of the weld material itself may
lead to concentrations of high strain on the tensile side of the pipe with the lowest yield
strength. (Test T5)
 The presence of a girth weld in the highly strained portion of the pipeline makes the section
prone to buckling earlier than plain pipe material. This is attributed to strain concentration,
geometrical imperfections and residual welding stresses. (Test T3, T5, T8)
 Due to the high strain demands of the pipeline, sufficiently ductile material behaviour is
necessary. An important parameter is the yield to tensile strength ratio (Y/T ratio). (Test T5)
 If the pipeline loses its resistance against the soil movement (e.g. by local buckling), the load
only temporarily decreases (see Figure II.4.3-12). Due to the increasing normal force with
increasing fault movement, the pipe will be reloaded. This means that straining or local
buckling of the pipeline is not always a measure of load relief, which may be counterintuitive
for a designer. (All tests)
Validation of the theoretical models
Due to the complex nature of the problem, many parameters could not be studied individually. For
example, the difference between tests T1 and T6 is not only the internal pressure, but also a difference
in normal force. Studies of the influence of individual parameters should therefore take place on the
basis of validated models. The test results are thus a valuable database for validation of the various
design models and software.

II.5. Work package 5 – Numerical parametric study of buried pipeline behaviour

under various types of ground-induced deformations
The present workpackage WP5 is entirely dedicated to numerical analysis, and it is aimed at
investigating the behavior of buried steel pipelines under various loading conditions from ground-
imposed permanent actions considering a wide range of geometric and material parameters for the soil
and the steel pipe. More specifically, the objectives of WP5 are
 Simulation of experimental results conducted in WP4 (PGD) and calibration of numerical tools,
developed in WP2
 Performance of an extensive parametric study on the PGD effects on pipelines, using the
calibrated finite element tools
 Evaluation of the numerical results for the purpose of determining the all possible failure modes
of the buried steel pipeline under ground-induced deformations of permanent type

II.5.1. Task 5.1 Simulation of experimental testing conducted in the previous

workpackage

In the framework of Task 4.2 of the GIPIPE project, a series of tests had been performed by CSM with
the aim at examining experimentally soil-pipeline interaction under ground-induced actions. These
experiments were simulated with finite element models. In these models four-node reduced integration
shell elements (type S4R) are employed for modelling the cylindrical pipeline segment and eight-node
reduced-integration “brick” elements (C3D8R) are employed to simulate the surrounding soil. The
mechanical behavior of soil material is described through a modified Mohr-Coulomb model
(Anastasopoulos et. al. 2007) in order to account for the softening behavior of the sand.

80
Axial Pipe-Soil interaction
 Soil without dilatancy

Karimianet. al. (2006) performed several pull out tests, one test was with sand without dilatancy. The
comparison between experiment, the provisions of ASCE guidelines (1984) and the finite element
analysis is presented in Figure II.5.1-1. In that figure, the axial soil resistance is shown in terms of pipe
displacement. The 𝐹′𝐴 is the normalized value of axial force, with respect to the vertical effective stress
from soil overburden at the centerline of the pipe as calculated from equation (1).The pipeline is pulled
outwards at the near end, whereas the far end of the pipe remains free. The prediction of axial soil
resistance for both ASCE guidelines and the finite element analysis is very satisfactory.
𝐹
𝐹′𝐴 = ′ 𝒆𝒒. (𝟓. 𝟏)
𝛾 𝐻𝜋𝐷𝐿

Figure II.5.1-1: Comparison between the experimental data, the ASCE guidelines (1984) and the results
from the finite element analysis.

 Soil with dilatancy

In the case of a sand with dilatancy, ASCE guidelines (1984) cannot predict satisfactory the pipe-soil
interaction in axial direction. It is obvious from Figure II.5.1-2and from other experiments available in
the literature as reported by Scarpelli et al. (2003) and by Karimian (2006)) that the friction in the
interface of pipe and sand cannot be descripted adequately by a Coulomb friction. In Figure II.5.1-2 a
comparison between Axial Test 1 conducted by CSM and the provision of ASCE (1984) is depicted for
sand with dilatancy. The prediction of ASCE guidelines is significantly lower than experimental results.

Figure II.5.1-2: Comparison of axial soil resistance between the experimental results of Axial Test 1
conducted by CSM and the provision of ASCE guidelines (1984).

81
As plastic shear deformation develops in the sand around the pipe, an extra stress Δσ also develops at
the pipe-soil interface. This stress Δσ is caused by the fact that the sand under confined shear conditions
cannot expand freely. Equations (5.2) describe a modified law for pipe-soil interaction in the axial
direction. An exponential decay law has been introduced to describe the friction coefficient as
decreasing function of the relative displacement d between the soil and the pipe μ(d), as well as the
extra stress due to sand dilatancy Δσ(d).

Internal Fric on angle φ

50

φpeak
45
40

φres35
30
25
σv
20
τ 15
10
δy 5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Ver cal displacement δy

7
δx 6
5
τ 4

σv 3
2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-1
-2
δxy δxpeak δxres

Horizontal displacement δx

Figure II.5.1-3: Typical variation of internal friction angle φ and vertical displacement δy with respect to
horizontal displacement δx in a direct shear test.

(𝜎𝑣 + 𝜎ℎ )
𝜋𝐷 [ + 𝛥𝜎𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 ] tan 𝛿𝜑𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑑 ≤ 𝑑𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡
2
𝑡𝑢 (𝑑) = 𝒆𝒒. (𝟓. 𝟐)
(𝜎𝑣 + 𝜎ℎ )
𝜋𝐷 [ + 𝛥𝜎(𝑑′ )] 𝜇(𝑑′ ) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑑 > 𝑑𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡
{ 2
In equation (5.2) Δσ(d) and μ(d) are given by equations (5.3) and (5.4), where dcrit is the maximum
displacement at which maximum soil resistance occurs. According to ALA guidelines (2001) d crit is
equal to 0.1 – 0.2 inch for dense to loose sand and 𝑑′ is the difference between d and dcrit, (𝑑′ = 𝑑 −
𝑑𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 ).
𝛥𝜎(𝑑′) = (𝛥𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 − (𝛥𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑠 − 𝛥𝜎𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 )𝑒 −𝑎𝑑′ ) 𝒆𝒒. (𝟓. 𝟑)
𝜇(𝑑′) = (tan 𝛿𝜑𝑟𝑒𝑠 − (tan 𝛿𝜑𝑟𝑒𝑠 − tan 𝛿𝜑𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 )𝑒 −𝑎𝑑′ ) 𝒆𝒒. (𝟓. 𝟒)
In equation (5.4), φpeak and φres are the peak and constant volume internal angle of friction of the sand,
respectively (Figure II.5.1-3) and constant α is given by the empirical equation (5.5). The value of α
controls the decay law of the friction coefficient.
1 𝜑 − 𝜑𝑟𝑒𝑠
𝑎= ln 𝒆𝒒. (𝟓. 𝟓)
𝑓 ∗ ( 𝛿𝑥 − 𝛿𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 ) 𝜑𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 − 𝜑𝑟𝑒𝑠
In equation (5.5), φ is a random value of internal friction between φpeak and φres and δx the
corresponding horizontal displacement. Equation (5.6) describes the rate of decay of internal friction
with respect to the horizontal displacement at the direct shear test divided by a factor f, due to the
difference of the shear zone width between the direct shear test and the actual problem. Factor f is taken
equal to 100 or more for a small diameter pipe while can be equal to 1 for very large diameters.
In order to compute the extra stress Δσ, a restriction in the vertical movement of the one element model
must be applied. From this procedure, the value of Δσpeak and the value of Δσres can be obtained. This
methodology was applied for axial tests conducted by CSM. The values of Δσ peak and Δσres have been
calculated equal to 12.5 kPa and 8.12 kPa for axial test 1 and 4.5 kPa and 0 kPa for axial test 2,
respectively. A comparison between experimental results and the value of maximum soil resistance in
the axial direction from equation (5.2) is illustrated in Figure II.5.1-4and Figure II.5.1-5for axial test 1
and axial test 2, respectively. The prediction of pipe-soil interaction using equation (5.2) provides very
satisfactory results.
82
Figure II.5.1-4: Comparison between Axial Test 1 conducted by CSM and the value of t u by equation (5.3).

Figure II.5.1-5: Comparison between Axial Test 2 conducted by CSM and the value of tu by equation (5.3).
The finite element model that simulates the axial test (pull-out test) conducted by CSM is shown in
Figure II.5.1-6. The pipeline is pulled outwards at the near end, whereas the far end remains free. A
contact algorithm has been developed in order to describe the pipe soil interaction using the user
subroutine FRIC. The friction law described by equation (5.2) has been implemented in the FRIC
subroutine in order to account for dilatancy of the sand.

Figure II.5.1-6: Finite Element model of pull out test contacted by CSM.

A comparison between experimental results and those from the finite element model described above is
shown in Figure II.5.1-7and Figure II.5.1-8for axial test 1 and 2, respectively. The prediction of pipe-
soil interaction as obtained from the finite element model is very good. The conditions for axial test 3
are quite similar to those for test 1 except for the coating of the pipe. The decay law from axial test 3 is
different than the one in test 1 but the peak and residual values are quite similar. According to the above
methodology the peak and the residual value can be predicted for axial test 3 with good accuracy but
the decay rate cannot be predicted accurately.

83
Figure II.5.1-7: Comparison between the results of axial test 1 and the finite element predictions.

Figure II.5.1-8: Comparison between the results of axial test 2 and the finite element predictions.

Transversal Pipe-Soil interaction

Pipe-soil interaction in the transverse direction of a buried pipeline is a significant parameter for the
deformation of the pipe in the case of permanent ground deformations. Several transverse tests have
been performed e.g. (O’Rourke et. al. (1985) and Karimian (2006)) in order to understand and quantify
the transverse pipe-soil interaction mechanism. Three new transverse tests have been conducted by
CSM in the course of the GIPIPE project. A finite element model has been developed, which simulates
the transverse tests. The model is shown in Figure II.5.1-9. In order to reduce the computational effort
only a slice of width 0.1m is modelled; this width corresponds to 1 element. The analysis proceeds
moving the pipeline in the direction of x axis, as shown in Figure II.5.1-9, while the displacements in
direction of z axis are restricted. A comparison between experimental results and the finite element
model described above as shown in Figure II.5.1-10, Figure II.5.1-11 for transverse tests 1, 2 and 3,
respectively. The predictions of pipe-soil interaction obtained from the finite element model seems to be
quite satisfactory.

84
Figure II.5.1-9: Deformed shape of the finite element model of transverse test corresponding to a value of
pipe displacement equal to 250 mm (1.14 pipe diameters).

Figure II.5.1-10: Comparison between Transverse Test 1 results and the results of finite element model.
80
Contact pressure Sensor, Test 2

70 Contact pressure Sensor, Test 3

FEM
60 ALA (2001)

50
Load [kN/m]

40

30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Stroke [mm]

Figure II.5.1-11: Comparison between Transverse Test 2 and 3 results and the results of the finite element
model.

Simulation of landslide/fault test

Landslide tests have been performed by CSM in order to investigate the complex behavior of pipe-soil
interaction in a special “landslide/fault” device. The setup is composed by two fixed concrete boxes and
one sliding box in-between. The two ends of the pipe are free to move in the longitudinal direction
during the test. The longitudinal strains measured by strain gauges for various displacement values of
the middle box. A finite element model has been developed, which simulates the “landslide/fault” tests.
The model is shown in Figure II.5.1-12. The middle box slides along the x axis as shown in Figure
85
II.5.1-12 while the two far boxes remain fixed. The comparison between the experimental results and
the finite element analysis results is shown in Figure II.5.1-13, Figure II.5.1-14and Figure II.5.1-15for
box displacement equal to 200, 400 and 600 mm, which is equal to 0.91, 1.82 and 2.74 pipe diameters,
respectively. In Figure II.5.1-13, Figure II.5.1-14and Figure II.5.1-15, the longitudinal strains at the
extrados with respect to the pipe axis are shown along the half specimen. The comparison between
analysis and test results is quite satisfactory.

Figure II.5.1-12: General configuration (solid model) of the simulation of CSM landslide/fault test.

Figure II.5.1-13: Comparison between landslide/fault test 1 results and finite element analysis in terms of
the longitudinal strains along the pipe axis, for box displacement equal to 200 mm (equal to 0.91 pipe
diameters).

Figure II.5.1-14: Comparison between landslide\fault test 1 results and finite element analysis in terms of
the longitudinal strains along the pipe axis, for box displacement equal to 400 mm (equal to 1.82 pipe
diameters).

86
Figure II.5.1-15: Comparison between landslide\fault test 1 results and finite element analysis in terms of
the longitudinal strains along the pipe axis, for box displacement equal to 600 mm (equal to 2.74 pipe
diameters).

The “landslide/fault” tests 2, 3 and 4 has been also simulated. The test 2 considers a soil with relative
density (Dr) equal to 40% and internal pressure of pipe equal to 50% of py, which is equal to 11.4 MPa.
The experimental setup of these tests are the same with test 1. In Figure II.5.1-16 the deformed shape of
test 2 is illustrated for box displacement equal to 600 mm (equal to 2.74 pipe diameters).

Figure II.5.1-16: Deformed shape of finite element model of “landslide/fault” test 2, for box displacement
equal to 600 mm (equal to 2.74 pipe diameters).
The “landslide/fault” tests 3 and 4 consider a soil with relative density (Dr) equal to 20%. The test 3 is
without internal pressure while the test 4 considers internal pressure equal to 11.4 MPa (50% of py). The
deformed shape of pipe and middle box is illustrated in Figure II.5.1-17 for box displacement equal to
800mm (equal to 3.64 pipe diameters). As far as test 4 is concerned, the deformed shape of pipe and
middle box is illustrated in Figure II.5.1-18 for box displacement equal to 400 mm.

Figure II.5.1-17: Deformed shape of finite element model of “landslide/fault” test 3, for box displacement
equal to 800 mm (equal to 3.64 pipe diameters).

87
Figure II.5.1-18: Deformed shape of finite element model of “landslide/fault” test 4, for box displacement
equal to 400 mm (equal to 1.82 pipe diameters).

Simulation of TU Delft tests

In the course of task 4.3 of GIPIPE project, tests under “virtual” soil conditions have been performed by
TU Delft at laboratory conditions. The “virtual” soil conditions achieved through the ring springs. More
details about the experiments are referred in deliverable “D4.3 Report on the shearing-type imposed
deformation on the pipeline segments”. The geometric parameters of pipe in this test are D = 219 mm
and t = 5.5 mm, the internal pressure of the pipe is equal to 6.6 MPa, which is 25% of the yield
pressure, and the steel grade is X70.A 3D finite element model has developed in order to simulate these
tests. The model consists by two main parts, the pipe which is modelled with shell elements (S4R), and
the ring-springs modelled with nonlinear springs as shown in Figure II.5.1-19. A distributing coupling
has been employed in order to connect the pipe with the nonlinear springs as shown in Figure II.5.1-20.
The local buckling of the pipe wall is shown in Figure II.5.1-21. The local buckling occurs in the same
position with experiment as shown in Figure II.5.1-21and Figure II.5.1-22.

Figure II.5.1-19: Finite element model simulating the test in “virtual” soil conditions.

88
Coupling area

Figure II.5.1-20: Distributing coupling in the finite element model for the connection between pipe and
springs.

Local buckling

Coupling area

Figure II.5.1-21: Local buckling formation in the finite element model for “ground” displacement equal to
319 mm.

Figure II.5.1-22:Local buckling configuration in test T5.

89
Simulation of small–scale experiments at NTUA
In the framework of the WP4 of the GIPIPE research project, the Laboratory of Soil Mechanics, NTUA
conducted a series of small-scale experiments of pipes under normal and reverse fault movement. In
WP5 the experimental data obtained in WP4 are simulated using the numerical methodology developed
in WP2. The numerical simulation aims at predicting accurately (a) the soil behavior and the rupture
propagation through the soil deposit, (b) the pipe response subjected to soil displacements due to
rupture and (c) the pipe – soil interaction. No correlation was made with a full scale prototype
conceptual problem and the experiments were simulated at laboratory scale.
The pipeline behavior is expected to be affected by the rupture propagation related phenomena.
Therefore, we must be able to accurately predict factors such as the relation between the imposed
dislocation at bedrock and the magnitude of the respective offset at pipeline depth, the distribution of
displacements at the vicinity of the pipe, whether they are concentrated on a narrow zone or they follow
a smooth distribution etc. In order to gain confidence in our models and their capability to accurately
predict the soil behavior, the rupture propagation phenomenon was first examined considering free field
conditions. Taking advantage of the plain strain nature of the free field problem the analysis is
conducted in 2D. An appropriate constitutive model was employed to model the shearing behavior of
soil and the localization of shear strains with a subsequent formation of shear band. The parameters of
the constitutive model were calibrated against direct shear tests. Both normal and reverse fault rupture
propagation were successfully simulated. The numerical model proved capable of predicting the rupture
path through the soil deposit, the base dislocation for which the rupture reaches the surface and the
displacement profile of the surface. Figure II.5.1-23a presents the comparison between the results of the
numerical model and the experimental results for normal fault in terms of rupture propagation for
vertical base dislocation h = 30 mm. The deformed mesh of the model is presented with superimposed
plastic strain contours to demonstrate the occurrence of rupture (grey colour). Figure II.5.1-23b presents
the comparison the case of reverse fault rupture propagation for the same magnitude of vertical fault
offset.

h = 30 mm
(a)

h = 30 mm

(b)

Figure II.5.1-23: Comparison between the results of the numerical model and the experiment for the case of
(a) normal fault and (b) reverse fault rupture propagation.
The pipe – soil interaction problem is modelled in 3D. The pipe is modelled using reduced integration
shell elements (s4r), while the soil is modelled using 8-noded fully integrated continuum elements
(c3d8). The soil is modelled only in a limited zone at the vicinity of the pipe to avoid excessive
computational cost, yet this zone is adequately large to ensure free field conditions. The entire depth of
the soil deposit is modelled from the base of the box to the surface. ). The soil elements within this
prism have the same properties with the respective elements at the free field analysis. Yet, there is one
significant difference: the 3D elements are selected to be stiffer than those of the free field analysis in

90
terms of Young’s modulus. For the case of normal fault the Young’s modulus is selected 1.5 times
larger than the respective free field analysis, while for the case of reverse fault it is 3 times larger
accounting for the simultaneous increase in stresses due to compression that also leads to an increase in
soil stiffness. The constitutive model adopted to describe the rupture propagation is based on the yield
point in order to define the elastic stiffness of the soil. Therefore, the computed shear modulus is a
secant one that corresponds to relatively large strain (yield strain). In contrast, the pipe – soil interaction
does not lead the surrounding soil to that large shear strains, (apart from the soil elements in the vicinity
of the intersection between the pipe and the rupturing fault). In fact, the loading of the soil around the
pipe is better described by compression of the soil elements around the pipe. Therefore, in order to
simulate more realistically the behavior of the soil regarding the soil – pipe interaction, a secant shear
modulus is needed that corresponds to smaller strains than yield strain.
From the variety of the experiments that were successfully simulated two examples are demonstrated:
the thick-walled steel pipe (diameter D = 10 mm and thickness t = 1 mm) subjected to normal and
reverse fault. Figure II.5.1-24 presents the deformed mesh of the numerical model for the case of
normal fault for vertical base dislocation h = 40 mm. The deformed mesh of the soil prism is presented
with plastic strain contours (again grey color signifies rupture) and the deformed mesh of the pipe is
presented with superimposed stress contours.

plastic strain
0 0.1

stresses, Mises
(kPa)
21 350000

Figure II.5.1-24: The deformed mesh of the numerical model employed to simulate the response of the
thick-walled steel pipe subjected to normal fault. Plastic strains within the soil and stresses on the pipe for
vertical fault offset h = 40 mm.
0.0015 h = 10 mm 0.0015 h = 20 mm
0.001 0.001
εx 0.0005 0.0005
0 0
-0.0005 -0.0005
-0.001 -0.001
-0.0015 -0.0015
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.0025 0.0025

0.0015 h = 30 mm 0.0015 h = 40 mm
εx 0.0005 0.0005

-0.0005 -0.0005

-0.0015 -0.0015

-0.0025 -0.0025
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

x (m) x (m)

Figure II.5.1-25: Thick-walled steel pipe subjected to normal fault. Comparison between the numerical
prediction and the experimental results in terms of strain distribution along the pipe crown for various
vertical fault offsets
Figure II.5.1-25 presents the comparison between the numerically predicted strains along the crown of
the pipe and the respective measured strains during the experiment for various level of fault vertical
offset. The agreement between the numerical and experimental results is evident. Figure II.5.1-26
presents the deformed mesh of the numerical model for the case of reverse fault for vertical base
91
dislocation h = 40 mm. Again, the model succeeds in capturing the fault propagation, while the steel
pipe appears to deform due to the imposed dislocation, with the developed stresses presented in
contours on the deformed mesh. Figure II.5.1-27 presents the comparison between the numerically
predicted strains along the crown of the pipe and the respective measured strains during the experiment
for various level of fault vertical offset. The numerical methodology is able to recreate the response of
the pipe subjected to reverse faulting accurately.

plastic strain
0 0.1

stresses, Mises
(kPa)
21 350000

Figure II.5.1-26: The deformed mesh of the numerical model employed to simulate the response of the
thick-walled steel pipe subjected to reverse fault. Plastic strains within the soil and stresses on the pipe for
vertical fault offset h = 40 mm.
0.0015 0.0015
0.001
h = 10 mm0.001 h = 20 mm
0.0005 0.0005

εx 0 0
-0.0005 -0.0005
-0.001 -0.001
-0.0015 -0.0015
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0.0025 0.0025

0.0015
h = 30 mm0.0015 h = 40 mm

εx 0.0005 0.0005

-0.0005 -0.0005

-0.0015 -0.0015

-0.0025 -0.0025
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

x (m) x (m)

Figure II.5.1-27: Thick-walled steel pipe subjected to reverse fault. Comparison between the numerical
prediction and the experimental results in terms of strain distribution along the pipe crown for various
vertical fault offsets

Conclusions

The experiments conducted in the framework of WP4 were used as benchmark to validate the numerical
models developed during WP2. The numerical methodology can successfully describe the soil response
and the fault rupture propagation, the pipe response and the interaction between the pipe and the
surrounding soil. Three axial tests (pull-out), conducted at CSM, were simulated and studied. The
results show that the dilatancy of the sand can cause significant increasing of pull-out force.
Furthermore three transverse tests, also conducted at CSM, were successfully simulated in order to
verify the model’s prediction of transverse pipe-soil interaction. The “landslide/fault” experiments
conducted by CSM and TU Delft were also simulated in order to study the pipe deformation in complex
loading conditions. In addition, the small-scale NTUA experiments have also been modelled, where
fault rupture propagation problem was first examined in free field conditions, and subsequently, both
normal and reverse fault were successfully simulated. In the ensuing the pipe – soil interaction
phenomenon was studied. The results of the numerical models compare very well with the experimental
results for all examined cases, validating the numerical models. The agreement between the numerical
92
and the experimental results give confidence to the numerical tools, therefore, the numerical tools can
be used for the subsequent parametric analysis.

II.5.2. Task 5.2: Buried pipeline behavior under permanent ground deformation
In task 5.2 a parametric study has been performed to explore the effect of some of the most
influential factors affecting the response of buried steel pipelines subjected to strike slip faults, normal
faults, reverse faults, landslides, settlements and lateral spreading actions. The pipe in all cases
examined was of diameter D = 36in.Forpredicting failure due to fracture in the present parametric
study, the following strain criteria were employed: Maximum tensile strain of 3%, local buckling
formation rigorously described from finite element model, and cross-sectional distortion of the pipe.
Four soil types were used to be representative of granular and cohesive soils, as defined in WP2.
Strike-slip faults
For the case of strike slip faults, a 3/8-inch-thick pressurized X65 pipeline with an internal pressure
equal to 56% of pmax was examined in various fault angles and types of soils (soft and dense) (Figure
II.5.2-1). The results indicated that as the fault angle increased from negative values (pipeline in
compression) to positive angles (pipeline in tension)the ultimate fault displacement increased. For
values of angle β greater than a specific value of fault angle, which was dependent on soil conditions,
the value of critical displacement decreases. The ultimate fault displacement considered when a limit
state was reached. Generally the negative, zero values and some small positive values of fault angle
(depending on the soil type, thickness, internal pressure) exhibited local buckling whereas the positive
values failed in tensile strain. Pressurized pipelines did not exhibit cross-sectional distortion and for the
non-pressurized pipes the cross-sectional distortion limit state was not reached first.Soil conditions with
high stiffness and strength resulted in smaller values of ultimate fault displacement. Moreover non-
pressurized pipelines where examined in order to investigate the effect of internal pressure. The
ultimate fault displacement that these pipelines exhibit was larger compared to the pressurized
pipelines. For pipelines with an intermediate value of internal pressure equal to 28% of p maxlarger fault
displacements were required to reach a limit state, from the 56% of internal pressure pipeline, but
smaller displacement from the non-pressurized pipelines. The buckled shape, is also different between
pressurized and non-pressurized pipelines. Figure II.5.2-2 shows buckled shapes of pipes with different
level of internal pressure.

Figure II.5.2-1: soil–pipeline model after a strike slip fault movement (β=20°)

93
 No pressure 0.28% pmax 0.56% pmax
Figure II.5.2-2: Buckled shapes of pipes with different level of internal pressure.

Three more values for the pipe wall thickness have also been considered for the 36-inch pipe under
consideration only in cohesive soil conditions, namely 6.35 mm (1/4 in.), 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) and 15.88
mm (5/8 in.), corresponding to D/t values equal to 144, 72 and 57.6 respectively, These thicknesses are
analyzed for values of fault angle equal to 0° and 20°.
Figure II.5.2-3 plots the fault critical displacement, dcr, normalized by the pipe diameter D, in terms
of the diameter-to-thickness ratio, D/t . The results show a substantial decrease of dcr with increasing
value of the D/t ratio, which means that thin-walled pipelines are more prone to buckling and fail at
relatively small values of fault displacement, for a crossing angles equal to 0°.Figure II.5.2-4 plots the
critical axial strain, εcr, versus the diameter-to-thickness ratio, D/t , for internal pressure equal to 56% of
pmax. These results are also compared with the recommendation by the EN 1998 provisions and the
formula proposed by Gresnigt (1986). The provisions appear to be more conservative leading to smaller
values of axial strain.
1.5
X65 steel
Normalized Ultimate Fault displacement (du/D)

Pressure =0.56p max

Clay II
Fault angle= 0°
1

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Diameter-to-thickness ratio, (D/t)

Figure II.5.2-3: Critical fault movement versus the diameter-to-thickness ratio D/t (ClayII, p = 0.56pmax,
fault angle=0°)

94
 14

Clay I, pr=0.56pmax
12 EN 1998-4
Gresnigt, 1986

10

Critical axial strain, (10-3)

8

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Diameter-to-thickness ratio, (D/t)

Figure II.5.2-4: Critical axial strain versus the diameter-to-thickness ratio D/t and buckling predictions
from EN 1998-4 and Gresnigt (1986) (ClayII, p = 0.56pmax, fault angle=0°).
For pipelines that cross the fault at an angle  equal to 20°, local buckling does not occur due to
pipeline stretching (Vazouras et al 2012). The 3% of axial strain is the limit state at that case, which
occurs at a fault displacement equal to 252cm (ClayII, D/t=96). Figure II.5.2-5 plots the fault critical
displacement, dcr, normalized by the pipe diameter D, in terms of the diameter-to-thickness ratio, D/t for
a fault angle 20°. Due to the orientation of the fault with respect to the pipeline, no local buckling
occurs. The critical displacement corresponds to the stage where the 3% of tensile strain is reached. The
results show a decrease of dcr with increasing value of the D/t ratio. For the case of D/t equal to 44 no
tensile failure is reached up to 4m of fault displacement.
4
Normalized Ultimate Fault displacement (du/D)

1 X65 steel
Pressure =0.56p max
Clay II
Fault angle= 20°
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Diameter-to-thickness ratio, (D/t)

Figure II.5.2-5: Critical fault movement versus the diameter-to-thickness ratio D/t (ClayII, p = 0.56pmax,
fault angle=20°), failure mode is 3% of axial strain.

95
 Finally, the structural response of high-strength steel pipelines (API 5L X80 steel material) is
examined, for fault values equal to 0° and 20°.Numerical results are obtained for 36-inch-diameter X80
steel pipelines with thickness equal to 3 8 -inch, corresponding to D t values equal to 96, embedded in
soft-to-firm cohesive soils (Clay II). The numerical results for internal pressure equal to 56% of p max
indicate that for zero value of angle β local buckling is reached at a fault displacement equal to 98cm. A
comparison of this results with the ones for the X65 pipelines indicate that buckling occurs at higher
values of fault displacements. The behavior of pressurized X80 steel pipelines when crossing a fault at
10°, 20° and 45° shows no failure up to a fault displacement equal to 4m. At those positive values of the
angle  , the cross-sectional shape of the pipeline remains quasi-circular mainly due to the presence of
pressure, the flattening criterion is never reached, and the 3% longitudinal tensile strain is the governing
limit state. Moreover for 10° and 20° fault angle, the 3% of tensile strain criterion is not reached up to
fault displacement equal to 4m (end of analysis). For the 45° of fault angle the ultimate fault
displacement is 279cm.

Normal and reverse faults

For the cases of normal and reverse faults, the effect of the soil properties was also investigated. The
pipe in all cases examined was of diameter D = 36 in, thickness t = 12.7 mm and made of steel grade
X65. It showed that the increase in the soil stiffness and strength results in a more compliant with the
imposed dislocation pipe decreasing significantly the safety margins (Figure II.5.2-6).
0.035
(a)
0.03

0.025 h
εx 0.02 1.12 m
0.015 1.15 m

0.01

0.005

0
24 24.5 25 25.5 26

x (m)
(b) 0.035

0.03

0.025 h
εx 0.02 0.54 m
0.015 0.55 m
0.01 0.56 m
0.57 m
0.005

0
23.2 23.4 23.6 23.8 24 24.2

x (m)

Figure II.5.2-6: Strain distribution at the tensile side of the critical area for various levels of vertical fault
offset for the case of the pipeline being embedded in (a) loose sand (Sand II) (b) dense sand (Sand I)and it is
subjected to normal fault of dip angle a = 60o.

On the other hand, considering substituting a stiff soil with a looser material at the vicinity of the
pipe may act as a mitigation measure significantly increasing safety margins, especially for normal
96
faults. The decrease of the dip angle of the fault also leads to decreased safety margins. As the dip angle
decreases, the horizontal component of the soil movement becomes dominant leading to earlier pipeline
failure. Finally, the intersection of a pipeline with a reverse fault at normal angle should be avoided
since for dip angle of 30o(Figure II.5.2-7) the pipeline fails due to local buckling for minor offsets (from
10 to 20 cm) regardless the stiffness of the soil. (Figure II.5.2-8)
0 0.45

displacement (m)

-0.2919 0.0312

axial strains

Figure II.5.2-7: Pipeline response subjected to reverse fault of dip angle a = 30o when it is embedded in soft
clay (soil type Clay II). Deformed mesh of the soil with superimposed displacement contours and deformed
mesh of the pipe with superimposed stress contours (a) for vertical fault offset h = 0.3 m

h = 16 cm

-0.0032 0

h = 20 cm axial strains

-0.0227 0.0002

h = 22 cm axial strains

-0.1651 0.0069

axial strains

Figure II.5.2-8: The pipeline is embedded in soft clay (Clay II) and subjected to reverse fault of dip angle a
= 30o. Deformed mesh of the pipe with superimposed axial strain contours for three characteristic vertical
fault offsets.

97
Pipelines under slope instability action
For the case of a pipeline crossing a slope prone to instability, the angle of the pipeline axis with
respect to the direction of the soil movement was investigated. The pipe in all cases examined was of
diameter D = 36 in, thickness t = 12.7 mm and made of steel grade X65. Two extreme cases were
considered, one where the pipeline axis is parallel to the soil movement and one where the pipeline axis
is perpendicular to the soil movement. In the first case the axial component of the soil movement is
dominant, while in the second the pipe bends due to the differential movement of its ends and stretched
due to the increase in its length.

Figure II.5.2-9: The effect of the angle between the soil movement and the pipeline axis was investigated for
two extreme cases: (a) the pipe parallel to the soil movement and (b) perpendicular to soil movement.

For the most common case where the pipeline transverses a slope (and therefore the soil movement
occurs parallel to its axis) the two bends prove to be the most sensitive components, and ultimately fail
due to stretching (the top bend) or compression (the bottom bend). Since in this case the axial
component of the soil movement prevails, the effect of the friction between the pipe and soil was
explored, assuming that as a mitigation measure, the pipe was lined with a material that drastically
reduced the friction between the pipe and the soil (from μ = 0.5 to μ = 0.05). The decrease of the friction
coefficient proved to be beneficial for the survival of the pipeline increasing the safety margins by a
factor of 2.

98
 Uref
0.04 (a) 0.04 (b)
Uref
0.035 0.43 m 0.035

0.03 0.46 m 0.03 0.92 m

0.025 0.59 m 0.025 0.96 m

εx
0.02 0.51 m 0.02 0.99 m

0.015 0.015 1.03 m

0.01 0.01

0.005 0.005

0 0
98.5 99.5 100.5 101.5 102.5 98.5 99 99.5 100 100.5 101 101.5

x (m) x (m)

Figure II.5.2-10: Increase in axial strains at the tensile side of the critical area of the top bend with the
evolution of the landslide for the initial pipe (μ = 0.5) and the pipe of reduced friction coefficient (μ = 0.05).

Moreover, the effect of the internal pressure was explored, analyzing the same pipeline with the
absence of pressure. The results indicate that the presence of internal pressure results in a decrease of
the safety margins. This decrease is attributed to the development of additional stresses and strains in
the pipeline wall that cause premature failure.
Finally, the effect of the geometry of the bends was investigated assuming bends of larger curvature
(with radius R = 5xD for hot bends instead of R = 40xD for cold bends). It was shown that the increase
in the bend curvature significantly reduces their ability to accommodate the displacement at their ends
and fail prematurely.
axial strains axial strains

0.0274 - 0.2914 0.0532 - 0.0053

(a) (b)

Figure II.5.2-11: Deformed meshes of (a) the bottom and (b) the top bend with superimposed axial strain
contours for the case of the hot bends (R = 5xD).

Pipelines in settlement areas

For the case of pipelines crossing settlement areas numerical results are obtained for X65 steel
pipelines with outer diameter D of the pipe equal to 914.4 mm (36 in.), embedded in soft-to-firm
cohesive soils (Clay II). Two values for the pipe wall thickness are considered, namely 9.53 mm (3/8
in.) and 12,7mm (1/2in), having a D/t value equal to 96 and 72 respectively. The pipeline is considered
both non-pressurized and pressurized with an internal pressure equal to 56% of pmax. The effect of load
distribution is examined first between a trapezoidal and a orthogonal distribution. The ultimate
displacement is smaller in a orthogonal distribution for all the cases examined. A smoother transition
from the stable to the settled part of vertical soil displacements (Figure II.5.2-12) does not lead to
buckling formation in the pipe up to a settlement of 1.4m when a trapezoidal distribution is considered.
Figure II.5.2-13 show the shape of settled area when a orthogonal distribution is applied. The presence
of internal pressure makes the pipeline to withstand smaller amount of settlement namely 0.70m and
99
1.05m for the 3/8 inch and 1/2 inch pressurized pipelines respectively. The increase of pipe thickness
helps the pipe to undergo larger amount of settlement from 1.06m to 1.35m. Local buckle is the failure
mode for the cases analyzed, with or without internal pressure when orthogonal load distribution is
applied (Figure II.5.2-14).

Figure II.5.2-12: Finite element mesh of soil prism with vertical displacement for a trapezoidal distribution.

Figure II.5.2-13: Finite element mesh of soil prism with vertical displacement for a orthogonal distribution.

Figure II.5.2-14:Skew symmetric local buckle occurs in the settled area.

Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading

For the case of lateral spreading numerical results are obtained for X65 steel pipelines, embedded in
loose sand (Sand II) Figure II.5.2-15. Two values of pipe wall thickness are considered, namely3/8 inch
and 1/2 inch. The pipeline is considered both non-pressurized and pressurized with an internal pressure
equal to 56% of pmax. The soil–pipeline model consist of a non liquefied and a liquefied part. The
pipeline passes through the liquefied part. When a 3/8 inch pipe is considered buckling is observed first
in the non- liquefied part, leading to a non symmetric pattern of buckle (Figure II.5.2-16). As the lateral
spreading continues to develop, for a value of displacement equal to 0.9m (Figure II.5.2-17), buckle
appears at both parts. Buckle occurs at a lateral displacement equal to 0.70m at the non-liquefied part of
the model. When a 1/2 inch pipeline is considered, buckle occurs at 0.97m of lateral spreading at both
parts of the model resulting in a skew-symmetric pattern. Finally the presence of internal pressure
100
makes the pipeline to withstand smaller amount of lateral displacement for both pipe thickness
considered herein.

Figure II.5.2-15: Soil–pipeline system after a lateral induced movement.

(b)
(a)

Figure II.5.2-16: Corresponding cross sectional deformation. (a) Buckle occurs first at the non liquefied
part (b) no buckle is present at the liquefied part. Lateral spreading equal to 80cm.

101
 (b)
(a)

Figure II.5.2-17: Corresponding cross sectional deformation. (a) Buckle occurs first at the non liquefied
part (b) buckle is also present at the liquefied part. Lateral spreading equal to 90cm.

Conclusions

In WP5,an parametric study was performed to explore the effect of some important factors on the
response of pipelines subjected to strike-slip faults, normal and reverse faults, landslide action, lateral
spreading and ground settlement.
The effect of the soil properties was investigated extensively for the case of fault crossing. It was
shown that the increase in the soil stiffness and strength results in a significant increase of pipe
deformation, decreasing significantly the safety margins. The decrease of the dip angle of a
normal/reverse fault or an increase of a strike slip fault angle also leads to decreased safety margins, as
the horizontal component of the soil movement becomes dominant leading to earlier pipeline failure.
The effect of pipe thickness was also considered. Pipes with larger wall thickness are capable of
sustaining greater imposed deformations.
For a pipeline crossing a slope prone to landsliding, two extreme cases were considered, one where
the pipeline axis is parallel to the soil movement and one where the pipeline axis is perpendicular to the
soil movement. In the first case the axial component of the soil movement is dominant whereas the two
bends (are the most sensitive components) and fail due to stretching (the top bend) or compression (the
bottom bend).In the second case the pipe bends due to the differential movement of its ends are
stretched due to the increase in its length. For the most common case where the pipeline is aligned
along a slope a slope (and therefore the soil movement occurs parallel to its axis) the effect of the
friction between the pipe and soil was explored. As a mitigation measure, the pipe was assumed to be
lined with a material that drastically reduced the friction between the pipe and the soil (from μ = 0.5 to
μ= 0.05). The decrease of the friction coefficient has shown to be beneficial for the survival of the
pipeline increasing the safety margins by a factor of 2.
Moreover, the effect of bend geometry was investigated assuming bends of larger curvature (with
radius R = 5D for hot bends instead of R = 40xDfor cold bends). It was shown that the increase in the
bend curvature significantly reduces their ability to accommodate the imposed displacement at their
ends and fail prematurely.

102
 Finally, the effect of the internal pressure was explored, analyzing the same pipeline with the
absence of pressure. The results indicate that the presence of internal pressure results in a decrease of
the safety margins. This decrease is attributed to the development of additional stresses and strains in
the pipeline wall that cause premature failure.

II.5.3. Task 5.3: Behaviour of special pipeline components under ground-induced

actions
Special pipeline components such as pipe elbows or bends, are used to change the direction in the
pipeline alignment. Those components are very sensitive to imposed deformations and their structural
behavior is associated with significant stress and strain intensity, which may lead to failure. On the
other hand, the possibility of reducing the stresses induced in the pipeline by using flexible elbow
components in the vicinity of an area subjected to permanent ground motion may be an option and is
investigated

Numerical modelling
The structural response of steel elbow pipes subjected to apull-out force at one end is examined
numerically, using the general-purpose finite element program ABAQUS with models similar presented
to WP2 (Figure II.5.3-1) and calibrated at WP4. The nonlinear material behavior of the steel pipe and
the surrounding soil, the interaction between the soil and the pipe, as well as the distortion of the
pipeline cross-section and the significant deformation of the surrounding soil are modelled in a rigorous
manner, so that the pipeline performance criteria are evaluated with a high-level of accuracy. By
applying a force at one side of the pipe, the behavior of the elbow component is investigated with the
presence of the surrounding soil. At the other side of the pipe, a non-linear spring is attached to account
for the continuity of the pipe following the methodology described in Vazouras et al. (2015). The
analysis is conducted in two steps: first, gravity loading together with internal pressure are applied and
subsequently, pull-out displacement of the pipe component is imposed using a displacement-controlled
scheme, which increases gradually the pull-out displacement.

pull out direction

Nonlinear spring

Figure II.5.3-1: 3D model of the pull out configuration with a deflection angle α equal to 90 degrees.
Three elbow (deflection) angles "a", are taken into account, equal to 90, 60 and 30 degrees. The ratio of
radius over diameter is taken equal to 5 degrees referring to a ‘hot’ pipeline bend commonly used in
103
large diameter pipeline applications. The pipeline is an X65 steel pipe with a yield stress σy and ultimate
stress συ equal to 450 MPa (65 ksi) and 560 MPa respectively. The pipeline thickness is equal to 3/8
inch and the diameter is 36 inch resulting to a D/t equal to 96. The pipe is embedded in clayey soil. Two
soils are considered. A soft to firm soil, referred to as Clay II, is used first, with cohesion c = 50 kPa,
friction angle φ=0, Young’s modulus E = 25 MPa and Poisson’s ratio v = 0.5. A stiffer clay referred to
as Clay I is also used, with cohesion c = 200 kPa, friction angle φ=0, Young’s modulus E = 100 MPa
and Poisson’s ratio v = 0.5. Both pressurized and non-pressurized pipes are simulated, having an
internal pressure of 3.78MPa. (37.8bar, 56% of the nominal yield pressure).
From these analyses useful force-displacement relationships derive. These results are used later as input
boundary conditions (through a non-linear spring at the ends of the pipe) in a rigorous finite element
model where the pipeline crosses a strike slip fault (developed in WP2), in order to evaluate the
presence of elbow bends in the route of a pipeline at the area of fault crossing.

Effect of elbow angle α in pressurized elbows

Figure II.5.3-2shows the effect of angle 'α'of a pressurized elbow which is embedded in Clay II soil
conditions. The results indicate the increase of flexibility of the elbow bend as the angle α increases. In
Figure II.5.3-2results are also given for a straight pipe (having an angle αequal to zero). It is clear that
the difference in axial force can reach an order of magnitude between the straight pipe and the elbow
with angle equal to 90 degrees. Also for angles α greater or equal to 60-degrees, a plateau is reached on
the load-displacement curve early enough in terms of axial force, whereas for values of zero and 30-
degrees angles 'α' an increase of the axial force with respect to pipe displacement is observed.

24000

α=0 degrees [straight pipe]

20000 X65 steel
α=90 degrees D/t=96
16000
α=60 degrees Pressure =0.56p max
Axial Force, KN

α=30 degrees Clay I

12000

8000

4000

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u, m

Figure II.5.3-2: Axial force vs "pull-out" displacement for various bend angles of pressurized pipes
embedded in ClayII.

104
Effect of soil conditions in pressurized elbows
When different soil conditions are considered, the axial force needed to pull out the pipe is much larger
compared to Figure II.5.3-2. Once again, the axial force decreases as the elbow angle α increases but
the scatter in the values of axial force is much smaller compared to the Clay II soil conditions,
indicating that the presence of a stiff soil can alleviate the 'beneficial' effect of elbow flexibility
associated with the increase of the elbow angle α.

Effect of internal pressure

When no internal pressure is considered the values of axial force computed for the same displacement
value is smaller compared to the axial forces of pressurized elbows. Similar trends to the pressurized
elbows for the force-displacement curves are also obtained when non-pressurized elbows are consider.

As far as the failure mechanism of the elbow is concerned, different limit states can occur for
pressurized and non-pressurized elbows. Figure II.5.3-3 shows the failure mode of a 90 degree non-
pressurized elbow which is embedded in Clay II soil conditions. Local buckling occurs at a
displacement equal to 86cm in locationA (Figure II.5.3-3). Comparing the same elbow with the same
material and geometric properties but in the presence of internal pressure, the critical limit state of the
pipe elbow is tensile failure at strain equal to 3% at the middle of the elbow curve.

location A
(where local buckle
occurs)

Figure II.5.3-3: Local buckle formation at position A for a non-pressurized elbow (α=90°) embedded in
Clay II.

The strain value of 3% is reached at a displacement equal to 85cm. For the 60-degree elbow similar
conclusions have been derived for the failure mechanism. The non-pressurized elbow exhibits local
buckling at a displacement equal to 60 cm whereas the pressurized bend reaches the 3% of tensile strain
criterion at a displacement of 45cm. Finally, the 30-degree elbows, both pressurized and non-
pressurized, fail due to extensive tension. The 3% value of tensile stain is reached at 24cm and 25cm
respectively. Table II.5.3-1 and Table II.5.3-2summarizes the applied displacements at which the first
failure mode occurred for both pressurized and non pressurized elbows.

Displacement at which limit

Elbow angle α Limit state reached first
state occur
90 3% tensile failure 0.80m
60 3% tensile failure 0.45m
30 3% tensile failure 0.24m
Table II.5.3-1: Displacements at which limit states occur for pressurized elbows Clay II, p=56% pmax

105
 Displacement at which limit
Elbow angle α Limit state
state occur
90 Local buckling 0.86m
60 Local buckling 0.60m
30 3% tensile failure 0.20m
Table II.5.3-2: Displacements at which limit states occur for non-pressurized elbows, Clay II.

Effect of elbows in fault crossing areas

The presence of90-degreepressurized elbows in fault crossings areas may affect pipeline behavior. A
pair of elbows with the aforementioned characteristics, which are embedded in Clay II soil conditions,
are employed to investigate their effect on the behavior of the pipeline crossing a strike-slip fault.
Having obtained the axial force/displacement curves from the previous analysis the behavior of the
elbow is imported to the strike fault element model as boundary condition at both ends of the model
(Figure II.5.3-4), through an appropriate nonlinear spring. Two fault angles with respect to the pipeline
are used equal to 10 and 15 degrees where the pipeline is in "tension" configuration. The findings from
the present analysis are also compared with the results obtained where no elbows exist. In all cases, the
same soil conditions apply (Clay II).The pipe has a thickness equal to 3/8 inch and a diameter equal to
36 inch. The numerical results indicate that the use of 90-degree elbow bends for the conditions under
consideration leads to local buckling for a pipe with strike slip fault crossing angle equal to 15 and 20
degrees. Local buckling occurs at 0.47mand 0.48m of fault displacement for fault angle equal to 15 and
20 degrees respectively.

Figure II.5.3-4: 3D strike slip fault model using as boundaries nonlinear springs, derived from elbow
analysis

Conclusions
The use of elbows decreases the axial force needed to pull out a pipeline in comparison with straight
pipes. When stiffer soil conditions exist the axial force becomes larger compared to softer soil. Pipes
with elbow bends that cross strike slip faults exhibit significantly different behavior from pipelines that
continue straight. For the characteristics of soil and elbow considered, local buckling is dominant in a
strike-slip fault situation when 90-degree elbows are used at a short distance on either side of the fault,
whereas tensile failure occurs for pipelines without elbows. The numerical results show that the
presence of elbows may have a significant effect on pipeline response and may be used for improving
pipeline performance.
106
II.5.4. Task 5.4: Evaluation of numerical results to determine failure modes under
various soil parameters, and identify most critical situations
Introduction
Evaluating the results from the parametric analysis conducted in Task 5.2 and presenting them
appropriate diagrams, important conclusion can be derived, concerning the failure modes and this may
allow efficient decisions on the design of buried pipelines in fault crossing areas, and the application of
appropriate mitigation measures.

Failure modes of pipelines subjected to ground-induced actions

The results of the previous parametric study are considered, so that so that main failure modes are
identified for various soil and pipeline conditions, in an attempt to develop some basic rules that may
optimize pipeline design in geohazard areas. The discussion refers mainly to the case of faults (strike-
slip, normal and reverse). Nevertheless, the conclusions from this work can be applicable for the case of
other geohazards (e.g. landslide, liquefaction lateral spreading or settlement), but in such case, due to
their particularity, those cases may not be well-defined and require a specific-case modeling and
analysis.
Strike-slip faults
When analyzing pressurized pipelines under strike-slip faults (with internal pressure greater than 5%
of the maximum design pressure pmax) with any value of the crossing angle, the pipes exhibit small
cross-sectional distortion and the limit state is either local buckling or tensile failure. Tensile failure
generally occurs for positive fault angles and local buckling for negative, zero and sometimes small
positive fault angles, depending on a combination of parameters, such as soil material stiffness, pipe
thickness, or pipe internal pressure. It is reminded that negative angle means that the pipeline is in
compression, and positive that the pipeline is in global tension.
For the material and geometric characteristics used in the parametric study, local buckling may
occur even for 15° of fault angle, for an X65 steel embedded in Sand I soil conditions (Figure II.5.4-3).
More specifically, when a pipeline is embedded in Sand II soil conditions with a D/t equal to 96
local buckling occurs from -5 degrees to 10 degrees (Figure II.5.4-1). The fault displacement at which
local buckling occurs increases with the increase of fault angleβup to 10° and local buckling is the
dominant failure mode. Tensile failure is the principal failure mode from 15 degrees to 45 degrees with
a decreasing fault displacement as the angle βincreases. This means that a crossing angle of about 10°
or 20° constitutes an optimum angle for crossing strike-slip faults.
Similar trends occur for a pressurized pipeline with D/t equal to 72 embedded in the same soil
conditions Sand II as shown in Figure II.5.4-2, but the fault angle in which transition from local buckle
to tensile failure is made is different. Local buckling is the dominant failure criterion up to 5degress.For
10 degree angle no limit state reached up to 4m of fault displacement. This is attributed to the fact that
stretching tension is small, and counteracts with the compressive induced deformation, indicating that
this angle can be an optimum for the case under consideration. Tensile failure occurred for fault angles
greater to 15 degrees. Also the ultimate fault displacements are larger compared to a pipe with D/t equal
to 96.
The mechanical behavior of the pipeline buried into the cohesionless soil SandII, as far as the limit
states are concerned, is quite similar to the response within the cohesive soil Clay II for D/t equal to
both 96 and 72, as shown in Figure II.5.4-4 and Figure II.5.4-5. At denser soil conditions (e.g. Figure
II.5.4-3, Sand I), the fault displacement that lead a pipeline to failure is smaller compared to a softer soil
(Figure II.5.4-1). This difference is depicted also when comparing the results from the two cohesive
soils with different soil properties ClayII and ClayI, as shown in Figure II.5.4-4 and Figure II.5.4-6
respectively.

107
Normal-reverse faults
Figure II.5.4-7 and Figure II.5.4-8 plot the critical vertical fault displacement h that leads the pipe to
failure for all cases of soil types, when various normal and reverse fault dip angles a are considered
respectively. The numerical results demonstrate that, similar to the case of strike-slip faults, the
dependence of the pipe behavior on the stiffness of the surrounding soil: stiffer soil material leads to
reduction of the safety margins. Furthermore, the decrease of the axial component of the fault as the dip
angle increases leads to larger safety margins for the deformation of the pipeline.

4
Normalized Ultimate Fault displacement (du/D)

X65 steel
D/t=96
3
Pressure =0.56p max
Sand II

local 3% tensile strain

buckling
1

0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Fault angle β, degrees

Figure II.5.4-1: Normalized critical fault displacement for various performance limits at different angles
of β (X65 steel, Sand I, D/t=96, p=0.56pmax)

108
 3

Normalized Ultimate Fault displacement (du/D)

3% tensile strain

local
buckling

1 X65 steel
D/t=72
Pressure =0.56p max
Sand II

0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Fault angle β, degrees

Figure II.5.4-2: Normalized critical fault displacement for various performance limits at different angles
of β (X65 steel, Sand I, D/t=72, p=0.56pmax)

2
Normalized Ultimate Fault displacement (du/D)

3% tensile strain

local
buckling X65 steel
D/t=96
Pressure =0.56p max
Sand I

0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Fault angle β, degrees

Figure II.5.4-3: Normalized critical fault displacement for various performance limits at different angles
of β (X65 steel, Sand II, D/t=96, p=0.56pmax)

109
 4

Normalized Ultimate Fault displacement (du/D)

X65 steel
D/t=96
3
Pressure =0.56p max
Clay II

2
3% tensile strain

local
buckling
1

0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Fault angle β, degrees

Figure II.5.4-4: Normalized critical fault displacement for various performance limits at different angles
of β (X65 steel, Clay I, D/t=96, p=0.56pmax)

5
Normalized Ultimate Fault displacement (du/D)

X65 steel
D/t=72
4
Pressure =0.56p max
Clay II

3% tensile strain
2 local
buckling

0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Fault angle β, degrees

Figure II.5.4-5: Normalized critical fault displacement for various performance limits at different angles
of β (X65 steel, Clay I, D/t=72, p=0.56pmax)

110
 2

Normalized Ultimate Fault displacement (du/D)

1
local 3% tensile strain
buckling

X65 steel
D/t=96
Pressure =0.56p max
Clay I
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Fault angle β, degrees

Figure II.5.4-6: Normalized critical fault displacement for various performance limits at different angles
of β (X65 steel, Clay II, D/t=96, p=0.56pmax)

1.2 Sand II

0.8 Clay II
hcrit
(m) 0.6 Sand I

0.4
Clay I

0.2

0
20 30 40 50 60 70

a (deg)
Figure II.5.4-7: Critical vertical fault displacement h that leads the pipe to tensile failure for all cases of soil
types and normal fault dip angles a considered.

111
 0.45 Sand II
0.4
0.35
0.3 Clay II
hcrit
0.25
(m) Sand I
0.2
0.15
Clay I
0.1
0.05
0
20 30 40 50 60 70

a (deg)
Figure II.5.4-8: Critical vertical fault displacement h that leads the pipe to compressive failure (local
buckle) for all cases of soil types and reverse fault dip angles a considered.

Some important conclusions from the results of the parametric study and possible mitigation
measures(mainly for fault crossing cases) can be summarized as follows:
1. In the majority of cases of pipelines analyzed in strike-slip fault crossings, using the refined
numerical formulation, local buckling is the governing mode of failure when the induced action is
perpendicular or nearly perpendicular to the pipe due to excessive pipeline compression. Local
buckling failure can also occur for small positive values of crossing angle degree when the induced
action causes small global tension to the pipeline. In such a case, the small tension cannot alleviate
compression due to bending, so that local buckling occurs. This threshold value of crossing angle
depends on material and geometric characteristic of the pipe. Whenever the induced action causes
tension to the pipe, local buckling may not occur due to pipeline stretching that reduces the
compressive stresses caused by bending.

2. In soft clays and loose sands the pipeline can accommodate larger deformations, as opposed to stiff
clays and dense sands, which reach the performance criteria at smaller critical fault displacement
values.

3. In almost all cases analyzed, the numerical results indicate a strong dependence of the critical
performance criteria on the pipeline diameter-to-thickness ratio D/t. For small values of D/t(thick-
walled pipelines), local buckling may not occur, but failure may occur in the form of pipe-wall
fracture due to the development of excessive tensile strains at relatively large values of permanent
ground deformations.

4. Internal pressure results in a decrease of deformation capacity and a different buckling shape for
pipelines subjected to compression. For pipelines subjected to global tension, the presence of
internal pressure prevents cross-sectional flattening and the failure criteria are reached at slightly
greater values of fault displacement compared to those obtained for zero internal pressure.

112
5. The ultimate displacement reached when the pipeline is in tension is larger compared to that
obtained from in compression. As tension in the pipeline increases, the critical displacement
corresponding to the tensile strain limit (3% or another specified percentage of tensile strain limit)
that is complied with the welding specifications, decrease.

6. The use of high-strength steel material, such as X80, results in larger deformation capacity and
superior structural behavior with respect to that of X65 pipelines.

7. The numerical results (herein reported for the case of landslide action) indicate that the decrease of
the friction coefficient is beneficial for the survival of the pipeline, increasing the corresponding
safety margins

8. Finally, for the case of landslide action parallel to the pipeline, it was shown that the increase of
bend curvature (on the top and the bottom of the slope) reduces significantly the pipeline ability to
accommodate the induced displacement resulting in premature failure of the pipeline.

Thus, the following issues should be taken into account in pipeline design under severe round-induced
actions.

 If practically feasible, it is important to align the pipeline so that it is in small global tension, so
that (a) local buckling is prevented and (b) tensile strains remain quite low, below the tensile
strain limit. This would improve pipeline performance, allowing larger critical fault
displacements for the flattening or tensile strain criteria.

 At fault crossing location, considering substituting a stiff soil with a looser material at the
vicinity of the pipe, with a larger trench, and a smaller burial depth, may also act as a mitigation
measure significantly, allowing the pipe to accommodate easier the imposed displacement,
increasing safety margins or coat the pipe with a material that provides low values of friction to
the pipe.

 The use of a thicker pipe or a high-strength line pipe can result in larger deformation capacity
of the pipe.

II.6. Work package 6 – Development of guidelines and background documents for

pipeline design under ground-induced actions; dissemination of results
The work in this WP is aimed at
 Developing a simplified methodology for an efficient stress analysis in buried pipelines, that
would take into consideration all the experimental and rigorous-numerical results obtained in
the previous WPs.
 Summarizing the main experimental and numerical results in a concise document, to be used as
a background document, together with design examples.
 Discussing the draft of the developed guidelines in a dedicated dissemination workshop
organized by the coordinator and the industrial partners.
 Completing the final text of the design guidelines / operational recommendations.

II.6.1. Task 6.1: Simplified model for buried steel pipeline analysis and design
Analytical design methodologies
113
Simplified analytical equations and methodologies are presented for describing buried pipeline
deformation under severe permanent ground-induced actions. In their original form they are based on
elastic beam or cable theory and are capable at estimating the stresses and strains that develop in the
pipeline as well as the deformation state of the pipeline. The design approach that uses analytical
equations/methodologies is basically employed for a preliminary design stage. In any case, a more
rigorous approach with Finite Elements (either with beam-type element and soil springs, or in very
specific cases, with three dimensional shell and solid elements) should be adopted for the detailed stress
analysis and design of the pipeline. Design equations for Longitudinal and Transverse PGD caused by
liquefaction and landslides, as well as design equations, for fault crossing are presented below.
Fault crossings
Fault crossing is a major cause of failure in buried pipelines. In those cases a differential soil movement
occurs in the area of the fault, causes deformation in the pipeline as shown in. There are several
methods reported in the literature for the analysis of fault crossing pipelines. A method proposed by
Vazouras et al. (2012) developed in the course of the present study and analyzed below.
fault d sin 
y deformed plane 
pipeline
axis
D′ B′

A d cos  d d
C D B x
d
L
LT
Figure II.6.1-1: Schematic representation of fault-induced deformation of pipeline axis.
A simplified analytical formulation has been proposed by Vazouras et al. (2012) for describing pipeline
deformation under strike-slip fault action using an assumed-shape function for the deformed shape of
the pipeline. The methodology is based on an assumed shape for the transverse pipeline deformation in
a cosine form. In this methodology, a major parameter that needs to be determined is the length L of the
S-shape deformed pipeline, as shown in Figure II.6.1-1. Using elastic beam theory, as described in
Sarvanis (2015), the distance L from Figure II.6.1-1can be estimated from equation 6.1, as follows

29 𝑀𝑦
𝐿= √ (6.1)
5 𝑝𝑢

In the above equation, My is equal to yield moment of the pipe cross section and the pu is the maximum
soil resistance to the pipe transverse (horizontal) direction per unit length of the pipe. Having estimated
the value of L from equation (6.1), the bending stain εb is
𝜋 2 𝑑 cos 𝛽 𝐷
𝜀𝑏 = ( )( ) (6.2)
4 𝐿 𝐿
while the axial membrane strain εm can be computed from equation (6.3), where the first term is due to
axial stretching due to bending and the second term is due to elongation due to the fault displacement
component in the direction of pipeline axis.
𝑑2 𝜋 2 cos 2 𝛽 𝑑 sin 𝛽 𝜔
𝜀𝑚 = ( 2
+ )( ) (6.3)
16𝐿 𝐿 𝜔+1
̅𝑡 are given from equations (6.4).
where the parameters ω, λ and𝛫

114
 ̅𝑡 𝐿
𝛫 𝜋𝐷𝑘𝑠
𝜔= 𝜆=√ 𝛫̅ = 𝜆𝐸𝑠 𝛢 (6.4)
2𝐸𝑠 𝐴 𝐸𝑠 𝐴 𝑡

In the above equations, Es is the Young’s modulus of steel pipe material and A is the cross sectional
area of the pipe. Furthermore, parameter ksis given from equation (6.5) where the tu is the maximum
soil resistance per pipe unit length in the pipe axial direction.
𝑡𝑢
𝑘𝑠 = (6.5)
𝜋𝐷
In the case of normal faults, this formulation can also be employed for preliminary design purposes. In
that case, the maximum soil resistance in the horizontal direction pu used in equation (6.1) must be
replaced with the maximum soil resistance in the vertical downward direction qu, while the angle β must
be replaced with the dip angle of the normal fault.

Liquefaction or Landslides
 Buried Pipe Response to Longitudinal PGD
There are cases where the PGD, caused by a liquefaction or landslide, occurs in the longitudinal
direction of the pipeline as shown in Figure II.6.1-2. In those cases, a soil mass of length Ls is moving
and applies axial force to the pipe as it moves in the longitudinal direction.

Figure II.6.1-2: Pipe Response to Longitudinal PGD (ALA 2001).

For continuous buried pipes subjected to longitudinal permanent ground deformation, the axial forces
F1 and F2 should be computed, representing upper-bound estimates of the axial force transmitted in the
pipe by the moving soil. In particular F1 is the force computed assuming that the pipe is elastic and fully
compliant with the soil and F2 is the ultimate force that the soil can transfer to the pipe due to the
strength of the soil/pipe interface frictional.
𝐹1 = √𝐴𝐸𝑡𝑢 𝛿 (6.6)
𝑡𝑢 𝐿𝑠
𝐹2 = (6.7)
2
where, tu is the maximum soil resistance to the pipe axial direction per unit length of pipe and δ is the
expected value of the PGD under consideration. The force for designing the buried pipe should be
taken as the smaller of F1 and F2.

115
  Buried Pipe Response to Transverse PGD
Permanent ground deformation due to landslide or liquefaction can also occur in the transverse
(horizontal) direction. In this case, a soil mass of length W moves in the transverse direction of the
pipeline as shown in Figure II.6.1-3.

Figure II.6.1-3: Pipe response to transverse PGD (ALA 2001)

Estimates of the ground-induced bending strains in the case of a buried pipeline subjected to transverse
PGD (due to landslide or lateral spreading) can be obtained using a formulation similar to the one
employed for the strike-slip faults, to be discussed in the next paragraph, with angle β equal to zero.
This methodology is valid for the case where the size of moving soil mass W, illustrated in Figure
II.6.1-3, is large enough so that it exceeds the length L calculated from equation (6.1). In the case where
the size W of the moving soil mass is comparable to the value of length L, an estimate of bending strain
can be obtained with equation (6.8).
𝜋𝐷𝛿
𝜀𝑏 = ± (6.8)
𝑊2
Simplified finite element models
As a more rigorous alternative to design analytical equations, it is possible to employ the finite element
method to model the effects of ground-induced actions on a buried pipeline. This analysis requires some
computational effort and expertise, but offers an advanced tool for determining stresses and strains
within the pipeline wall with significantly increased accuracy with respect to the analytical formulae
described above. There exist two levels of finite element modelling. The first level is adequate for
regular design purposes, whereas the second level, which employs a 3D continuum approach, is used
only in special cases, where increased accuracy is necessary. In the following, a short description of the
first level approach is offered. The second level has been the subject of WP2 of GIPIPE project.

Finite element analysis using beam-type elements

In this type of analysis, the pipe is modelled with beam-type one-dimensional finite elements. Both
transient and permanent actions on a buried pipeline can be modelled through finite element analysis.
Nevertheless, this numerical methodology has been mainly employed for simulating permanent ground-
induced actions on pipelines, such as faults, landslides and lateral spreading. The finite element mesh
near discontinuities (e.g. fault plane) should be fine enough, so that gradients of stress and strains are
accurately simulated.

Type of finite elements: The use of regular beam elements for the pipeline model is not recommended,
given the fact that they cannot account for pressure loading. Instead, “pipe elements” are preferable,
which account for the presence of hoop stress and strain due to pressure. Furthermore, the use of “pipe
elements” with the capability of describing cross-sectional ovalization, sometimes referred to as “elbow
elements”, can further improve the accuracy of the finite element model, especially at pipe bends.
Instead, if the pipe elements assume a circular cross-section throughout the analysis, ovalization effects

116
at pipe bends can be taken into account through appropriate flexibility factors, and stress intensity
factors.

Pipe and soil modelling: The finite element model should take into account both material and geometric
nonlinearities. The pipe material should be modelled as elastic-plastic, considering also strain hardening
effects. Furthermore, the ground surrounding the pipeline should be modelled by appropriate springs,
attached on the pipe nodes and directed in the transverse directions (denoted as kv and kh for the vertical
and lateral direction respectively) and the axial direction (kax). The nonlinear “law” of the soil springs in
all directions should represent the nonlinear load-deformation of the soil, including possible slip of the
pipe through the soil. Thus, the load-deflection curves of the soil spring should be nonlinear.
Expressions for the axial and the transverse springs are offered in ALA (2001) Guidelines, based on the
type of soil. Alternative equations for those springs are offered in NEN 3650 standard. In any case, the
design engineer may modify the proposed equations for the springs, if more detailed information on the
actual field conditions is available, either from test data, or his engineering judgment.
Analysis procedure and output: To conduct pipeline analysis subjected to permanent ground
deformation, appropriate displacements should be applied to the ends of the soil springs. The analysis
should be conducted in three consecutive steps: (a) gravity loading, (b) operational loading (pressure
and temperature) and (c) application of PGD. The analysis output consists of stress resultants in
pipeline cross-sections, as well as the stresses and strains in the longitudinal direction. The user should
be cautioned that if the finite elements are not capable of describing accurately cross-sectional
distortion these stresses and strains may be quite different than the real stresses and strains in the
pipeline wall. These differences are very significant when the pipe wall begins to wrinkle due to local
buckling. Consideration of local stresses due to pipe wall wrinkling locations requires a more detailed
analysis, with the use of shell elements for modelling the pipe.

Design examples
Case Study 1
A 42-inch-diameter, X60 steel pipeline with 0.562-inch thickness is considered in a geohazard area,
with cohesionless soil conditions. A comparison between design equations and finite element analysis
with beam-type pipe elements is offered in the present paragraph. Soil properties of the cohesionless
(sand) soil, geometric parameters and the material of the pipe are presented in Table II.6.1-1. The
loading patterns under consideration are (a) longitudinal PGD due to liquefaction and (b) strike-slip
fault crossing.

Table II.6.1-1: Soil parameters and geometric/mechanical properties.

Soil friction angle: φ 34O

Soil coefficient of neutral lateral pressure: ΚΟ 0.5

Total unit weight: γ (kg/m3) 1760

Cover depth: Ηc(m) 0.9

Diameter: D (in) 42

Thickness: t (in) 0.562

Pipe Material X60

117
(a)Longitudinal PGD due to liquefaction
In this case, the length of liquefied zone Ls is assumed 100 m (from geotechnical investigation) and the
displacement of moving soil mass δ is taken equal to 3 m. For the finite element analysis, pipe elements
are adopted and the corresponding results indicate a value for the maximum axial stress equal to 24.7
MPa. The computed maximum stress based on the analytical design equations (6.8) is 24.1 MPa. The
results obtained from the finite element analysis and the analytical design equations are in very good
agreement.
(b)Fault crossing analysis
In this case a strike-slip fault has been considered with two different fault crossing angles β, namely 0 ο
and 10o degrees. The analysis is performed for fault displacement equal to 1, 2 and 3 meters for each
angle β. The results from the finite element analysis and the results from the analytical design equations
of the methodology presented by Vazouras et al. (2015) are presented in Table II.6.1-2 and Table
VIII.6.1-3 for the two values of crossing angle β, 0o and 10o degrees, respectively. The length L of the
curved pipe segment is computed from equation (6.1) equal to 28.3 m and the comparison with the
deformed shape of the pipe from FE analysis is depicted to Figure II.6.1-4. The comparison of
maximum axial strains and length L between FE analysis and design equations indicates a fairly good
agreement.
3.50
L
3.00
Pipe Displacement (m)

2.50

2.00

1.50
FEM solution
1.00

0.50

0.00
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-0.50
Distance from the fault (m)

Figure II.6.1-4: Comparison between length L from equation 6.1 with the deformed shape of pipeline from
FE analysis with pipe elements.

Table II.6.1-2: Comparison between Design Equation and FEM results for angle β equal to 0o.
Max tensile strain % Max compressive strain %

δ (m) Design Eq. FEM Design Eq. FEM

1 0.35 0.34 0.31 0.26

2 0.73 0.94 0.59 0.67

3 1.15 1.24 0.83 0.73

118
Table II.6.1-3: Comparison between Design Equation and FEM results for angle β equal to 10 o.
Max tensile strain % Max compressive strain %
δ (m) Design Eq. FEM Design Eq. FEM
1 0.48 0.44 0.16 0.18
2 1.00 1.01 0.29 0.26
3 1.56 1.31 0.39 0.24

Case Study 2
The second case study refers to a 36-inch-diameter, X65 steel pipeline with 0.5 inch thickness and
internal pressure of 50 bar, located in a geohazard area crossing a strike-slip fault, with soil conditions
presented in Table VIII.6.1-4. A comparison between finite element analysis of simplified and rigorous
model is offered in the present paragraph. The nonlinear springs for simplified model were calculated
according to NEN 3650 and ASCE 1984. In this case a strike-slip fault has been considered with two
different crossing angles β, namely 0ο and 25o degrees. The rigorous FE model is presented in Figure
II.6.1-5.

Table II.6.1-4: Soil parameters and geometric/mechanical properties

Undrained residual shear strength Su = cu 50 kPa

Soil coefficient of neutral lateral pressure: ΚΟ 1.06

Total unit weight: γ (kN/m )

3
17
Poisson's ratio for soil: v 0.5

Soil Young Modulus: E (MPa) 5

Soil friction angle: φ 0ο

Over consolidation ratio: OCR 6.6

Figure II.6.1-5: (a) Representation of mesh of rigorous FE model for angle β=0 ο, (b) cross section of the
model, (c) mesh of the pipe.

A comparison between the simplified finite element model with elbow elements and the rigorous model
is illustrated in Figure II.6.1-6 for fault displacements equal to 0.61 m and fault angle β =0ο. For the
119
simplified model the provision of ASCE (1984) and NEN 3650 have been employed in order to
compute the soil springs. According to rigorous model the critical fault displacement at which local
buckling occurs at the pipeline wall is equal to 0.61 m. The comparison of distribution of axial strains
with respect to the pipeline axis is quite satisfactory except from the compression area of the pipe, in
this area the rigorous model computes larger compressive strains than the simplified models. The
displacements at which local buckling failure occurs are presented in Table II.6.1-5.

Figure II.6.1-6: Comparison between axial strains along the pipeline from simplified FE model with elbow
elements, and from the rigorous model for fault displacement equal to 0.61 m and crossing angle β=0 ο on set
of local buckling according to rigorous model (D=36in, t=0.5in, X65 pipe).

Table II.6.1-5: Displacements at which local buckling failure occurs for each type of modelling; The springs
for the simplified model are according to NEN 3650.
Model Displacement at which buckle occurs (m)

Elbow elements (Simplified model) 0.85

Pipe elements (Simplified model) 0.95
Rigorous (Shell elements) 0.61

Similar comparison has been performed for the case of crossing angle β=25ο. The maximum axial
strains the pipeline are illustrated in Figure II.6.1-7for fault displacements equal to 1 m. For the
simplified finite element model the provision of ASCE (1984) and NEN 3650 have been employed for
the soil spring constants. Furthermore in this case elbow and pipe elements have been used in the
simplified model. The maximum axial strain is predicted practically in the same position of the pipe
axis for all cases but the value of the axial strain has some differences for each type of analysis. The
displacements at which tensile failure occurs are presented in Table II.6.1-6.

Table II.6.1-6: Displacements at which tensile failure occurs for each type of modelling; The springs for the
simplified model are according to NEN 3650.
Model Displacement of tensile failure (m)

Elbow elements (Simplified model) 3.46

Pipe elements (Simplified model) 3.11
Rigorous (Shell elements) 3.41

120
 0.015
elbow NEN 1m disp

pipe NEN 1m disp

0.01 rigorous 1m disp

elbow ASCE 1m disp

Axial Strain
0.005

-0.005
-30 -27 -24 -21 -18 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Pipe Length (m)

Figure II.6.1-7: Comparison between axial strains along the pipe from the simplified FE model with elbow
and pipe elements and from the rigorous model for fault displacement equal to 1.0 m and crossing angle
β=25ο(D=36in, t=0.5in, X65 pipe).

Conclusions
The analytical design methodologies are capable of predicting quite satisfactory the maximum
strains induced in the pipeline due to PGD, with respect to more detailed finite element models. Those
methodologies can be used in a preliminary stage of pipeline design and they can provide quite realistic
prediction in very short time indicating the effects of various parameters in an efficient manner.
The simplified finite element model (first level of modelling) with pipe or elbow elements can
predict the position of maximum stains in the pipeline quite satisfactory, with respect to rigorous
models that consider the soil as a continuum and require a significant expertise. However, the predicted
values have some differences. Especially in the cases of local buckling failure, the computed
compressive strains from simplified model are smaller than the rigorous model and this is the reason
why the failure according to rigorous model occurs in a smaller fault displacement as shown in Table
VIII.6.1-6. On the other hand in the cases of tensile failure the predicted displacement at which the
failure occurs is in good agreement between the rigorous and the simplified finite element models.

II.6.2. Task 6.2: Organization of a dedicated workshop

In order to disseminate the main results of the project to the pipeline engineering community, and
interact with the invited international experts on this topic, the results of the present project have been
disseminated in a dedicated workshop entitled “Geohazards and Pipelines”, organized by the GIPIPE
consortium (mainly by TUDelft, Tebodin, UThessaly) in cooperation with
BuisleidingIndustrieGilde(BIG) http://www.bigleidingen.org/ and The Pipeliner. The workshop took
place in Delft, The Netherlands, June 23-24, 2014 (Task 6.2). The workshop included presentations
from the experts and the members of the GIPIPE consortium. The invited experts were selected from
top-level companies and institutions. The workshop offered a diversity of topics, related to the state-of-
the-art in Geohazards and Pipelines, and was an excellent forum to discuss the findings of the GIPIPE
project. It has been addressed to (a) Pipeline engineers (design and construction); (b) Pipeline owners
and operators; (c) Researchers in geotechnical engineering and pipeline mechanics. More than 200
people have registered and participated in the workshop, and the proceedings of the workshop are
available in a restricted area in the workshop website (www.gipipe.eu). The program of the workshop,
showing the speakers and the

121
Monday, June 23, 2014
09.00 – 09.30 Registration and Coffee
09.30 – 09.45 Opening and welcome - TU Delft - BIG - Pipeliner
09.45 – 10.00 Brief introduction to the Workshop
Spyros Karamanos, UThessaly
10.00 – 10.30 Pipeline response to large ground deformations
TarekAbdoun, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
10.30 – 11.00 Coffee break
11.00 – 11.30 Pipeline resistance to earthquakes (EPRG report)
Charles Fernandez, GDF Suez
11.30 – 12.00 SNAM experiences on Geo-hazards and Pipelines
Luca Bacchi, SNAM Rete Gas
12.00 – 12.40 Seismic activity induced by gas-exploration in the Netherlands
Hildo van der Heden & Wouter Huinen, Tebodin /
Ton Vrouwenvelder, TU Delft
12.40 – 13.45 Lunch
13.45 – 14.00 Brief presentation of GIPIPE- Spyros Karamanos, UThessaly
14.00 – 14.30 GIPIPE: Large Scale Experimental Investigation of Pipeline-Soil Interaction
Jan Ferino, CSM
14.30 – 15.00 GIPIPE: Small-scale experiments and numerical simulations
George Gazetas, NTUA
15.00 – 15.30 GIPIPE: Experiments at TU Delft
Nol Gresnigt & Sjors van Es, TU Delft
15.30 – 16.00 Coffee break
16.00 – 16.30 GIPIPE: FEM models for severe ground-induced deformations
Panos Dakoulas and Spyros Karamanos, UThessaly
16.30 – 17.00 GIPIPE: Design Guidelines for severe ground-induced deformations
Gert Dijkstra, Tebodin / Nol Gresnigt, TU Delft
17.00 – 17.15 GIPIPE: Conclusion and next steps
Spyros Karamanos, UThessaly

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

08.30 – 09.00 Registration and coffee
09.00 – 09.30 Arctic pipelines-Ice gauging
Ralf Peek, Shell Global Solutions
09.30 – 10.00 Pipeline design in harsh environments – Geohazards: Strain based design
Luigino Vitali, Saipem
10.00 – 10.30 Coffee break
10.30 – 11.00 Marine Geo-hazards across continental slopes.
Roberto Bruschi, Saipem
11.00 – 11.30 The Importance of Data Integration in Marine GeohazardAssessment
122
 Doug Mc Lean, Intecsea
11.30 – 12.00 Οn-and Offshore Detection of Geo-hazards
Lucien Halleux, G-Tec
12.00 – 12.45 Resume and Panel discussion
12.45 – 13.00 Walk to Stevin Laboratory
13.00 – 15.00 Lunch at Stevin Lab / Visit to test site TU Delft

II.6.3. Task 6.3: Development of design guidelines, design examples and background
documents
The guidelines, apply to the design of new buried steel pipelines in areas where large ground-
induced actions and deformations may occur, due to seismic action or landslides. They refer to
permanent ground deformation, but also contain some guidance for seismic effects (which are not
particularly important). The content is based on the results of GIPIPE project, taken into account
existing standards and literature on the structural design of buried pipelines. The guidelines focus
mainly on hydrocarbon pipeline applications (gas and oil pipelines), and secondarily in welded
(continuous) pipelines for water transmission.

1. Scope, backgrounds and objectives;

2. Review of relevant standards;
3. Terms and definitions;
4. List of Symbols and Abbreviations;
5. Design procedures (General requirements, Design procedure, Risk assessment (general
method), Risk evaluation and reliability level for seismic events: Importance factor;
6. Pipelines under large, ground induced deformations (landslides, seismic effects and faults,
lateral spreading);
7. Route study, geotechnical and geological investigation;
8. Calculation models for pipelines under large ground-induced deformations (Introduction,
Beam-spring analyses, Modelling of pipe –soil interaction, three dimensional finite element
analyses);
9. Modes of failure: Limit states & limit values (Selection of relevant limit states, Limit values
for tensile strain, local buckling and ovalization);
10. Short description of the GIPIPE program;
11. Simplified calculation models for pipeline deformation analyses due to permanent ground
deformation (analytical expressions), Landslides and liquefaction, Simplified finite element
models, Case Study, References);
12. Design graphs for cross-faulting: effects of crossing angle, pipeline length, pipe wall
thickness, soil stiffness, internal pressure);
13. References;
Appendix A: Overview of ground movement induced damage to pipelines;
Appendix B: Example of numerical (FEM) modelling and calculation of a pipeline under landslide
action.
Appendix C: Calculation example using the BNWF model;
Appendix D: Overview of GIPIPE experimental testing.

The guidelines are motivated by the fact that, in geohazard areas, in addition to possible pipeline
displacement from thermal and/or pressure expansion, buried pipes can be subject to large bending,
tensile and/or compression loads, caused by large permanent ground deformation (PGD). Those
permanent ground deformations are referring to the unrecoverable soil displacements due to seismic
fault movement, landslides due to slope instability, soil settlement due to soil consolidation or mining
123
subsidence, or liquefaction-induced lateral spreading, landslide displacement. Issues related to arctic
pipelines, such as frost heave or thaw settlement, are other sources of permanent ground deformation,
but are not treated in the present guidelines.
Soil failure due to landslides and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading are normally associated with
more gradual permanent ground deformation, whereas faulting has been characterized by abrupt
permanent ground deformation during an earthquake action.
The present GIPIPE guidelines discuss the various sources of ground displacement in more detail,
with emphasis on presenting reliable methodologies for the calculations of strain demand and, in
particular, for the accurate representation of soil-pipeline interaction. The issue of strain capacity is also
briefly discussed, with reference to the main failure modes: (a) pipe wall rupture due to excessive
tension and (b) pipe wall wrinkling (local buckling) due to excessive compression.
More specifically, the methodologies for the analysis of buried pipelines subjected to permanent
ground-induced actions can be categorized in three (3) levels:
 Analytical methodologies that consider the pipeline as a cable (if bending resistance is
neglected) or a beam (if bending resistance is considered); there have been several analytical
methodologies proposed during the last years. Those methodologies can be used for preliminary
design purposes.
 Numerical simulations that employ beam-type elements for the simulation of the buried
pipeline: “pipe elements” or “elbow elements” should be used that accounts for the effects of
pressure and those from cross-sectional distortion. In addition, the soil is simulated through the
use of nonlinear springs; spring constants are determined from geotechnical conditions. This
level of simulation is mainly used for design purposes.
 Rigorous numerical simulations with (a) shell elements to simulate the steel pipe and (b) solid
(continuum) elements to represent the soil. This is an advanced level of simulation, which
required significant modeling and analysis expertise, but – if employed correctly – can
constitute a powerful tool for pipeline analysis under permanent ground-induced actions.

The GIPIPE guidelines constitute a document that can be used as basis for Code Drafting
Committees, towards safer and more reliable pipeline design against geohazards. As an example, the
EN 1998-4 provisions in Chapter 6 and in Appendix B can be revised in an efficient manner.

II.7. Work package 7 – Coordination of the project

The main objectives of WP7, as described in Tasks 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 were to establish an efficient
management process, to define standard protocols, to carry out both a SWOT evaluation and the
monitoring of activities of the project, towards successful completion.

II.7.1. Task 7.1 Establishment of an efficient management process and definition of

standard protocols
GIPIPE project comprises several partners and specific objectives. The co-ordinator (University of
Thessaly) has been responsible to manage the project activities to complete successfully on time. In
order to manage the project work certain necessary steps were taken.
(i) The representatives of each partner meet once in approximately every six month for work-
progress, discussing the technical issues of the project, and planning the next activities. The
meetings provided an opportunity for formal discussion in detail among partners. Seven meetings
were held among partners of the project during the period of concern, i.e. 01 July 2011-30 June
2014.
(ii) An FTP server directory has been created by the University of Thessaly for the purposes of the
project. Each partner could access this directory and it could download and upload necessary
information and documents related to the project. The documents related to the project work, i.e.

124
 research papers, thesis report etc., the agenda and minutes of the meeting, experimental as well as
simulation data and reports were uploaded on the server. This provided an efficient distribution
of the urgent and necessary information helpful to the progress of the project.
(iii) A website of the GIPIPE project (www.mie.uth.gr/gipipe) was created by the University of
Thessaly, to disseminate the results of the project.
(iv) The co-ordinator and all the partners have been in regular contact via e-mail. The necessary
issues were also discussed by phone or Skype. E-mail was the communications medium that was
used at the large and preliminary scale. If more than two partners were involved in discussion,
teleconferencing was used.
Partners who were conducting similar activities, for example UThessaly and NTUA in the course of
WP2 and WP5 for the numerical analyses, discussed together technical and administration issues
several times by teleconference. This helped for the smooth progress of the work. For very critical and
urgent issues two partners for example UThessaly and NTUA, met together in Volos and in Athens in
order to discuss the development of numerical models and the simulation of experiments. TUDelft and
Tebodin have also met several times in Delft or in The Hague.
A protocol is a document that describes the objective(s), design, methodology, statistical considerations
and organization of a trial. In the course of GIPIPE project, the coordinator, together with partners, set
standard protocols for the tests regarding specimen order/manufacturing and test performance. GIPIPE
project involved several types and number of laboratory tests to be performed by the different partners.
It is necessary, in this situation to follow a common set of procedures to prepare the tests and for
obtaining the results. This reduces the discrepancy in the test results as well as increases the efficiency.
The following steps have been taken in this respect:
In particular,
 Pipe specimens for large-scale testing (tests in CSM and TU Delft) have been provided by the
same pipe manufacturer (Corinth Pipe Works).
 Several analyses have been performed in order to examine the ultimate states of the specimens
and compare with the testing capabilities of each partner.
 The welding procedure specifications (WPS) were chosen for the entire set of specimens
following the same criteria.
 The test protocols regarding performance of tests were made and the information in detail about
the types of tests, loadings were described in WP3.

II.7.2. Task 7.2 Monitoring of project activities and evaluation of progress

The monitoring of activities was regularly performed through the co-ordination meetings in about every
six month period. Seven meetings were held among partners of the project during the period of concern
(01 July 2011 – 30June 2014).
In the kick-off meeting held in Athens, Greece, on 09-10 September 2011, the objectives of the project
was recalled together with the distribution and content of the work in different WPs related to the
concerned period. The general framework of numerical and experimental activities has been discussed.
In the second meeting held in Rome, Italy, on 05-06 March 2012, some preliminary numerical results
were presented and discussed, and simulations of the experimental procedure have also been conducted.
In the third meeting held in Volos, Greece, on 03-04September 2012, the specimen geometry and the
testing set-up were finalized. In addition, numerical results on various geohazards have been presented
and discussed. In the fourth project meeting, held in Delft, The Netherlands, on 07-08 February 2013,
the first experimental results were conducted, and the results from WP1 and WP2 were summarized, for
the development of the corresponding deliverables D1 and D2 to be submitted to the European
Commission. In the fifth project meeting, held in Sardinia, Italy, on 05-06 November 2013, the progress
of the experimental and numerical results has been discussed and a first discussion on the design
guidelines has been made, and deliverable D3 was finalized. A short sixth meeting has also been held
on 24 July, 2014, in Delft, The Netherlands, just after the GIPIPE workshop, where the feedback from
the Workshop has been discussed. Finally, a final (seventh) “wrap-up” meeting was held in Athens,
Greece, on 03-04 November 2014, after the completion of the project, to prepare all documents for the
125
final submission to the European Commission (Final Report, Deliverables D4, D5 and D6, including the
Design Guidelines).
A SWOT analysis has also been conducted for evaluating the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
and Threats involved in the GIPIPE project. It involves specifying the objective of the project and
identifying the internal and external factors that are favourable and unfavourable for achieving the
prescribed objectives. The SWOT analysis of the GIPIPE project can be outlined as follows:
Strengths
(i) A good partnership between universities, research centres and industrial partners,
(ii) A multi-discipline expertise from geotechnical, structural, mechanical and material
engineering,
(iii) Earlier experience of most of the partners on similar (European) projects,
(iv) Very good facilities for experimental testing,
(v) Participation of a pipe manufacturer with world-wide experience (Corinth Pipe Works),
(vi) Design Guidelines drafted by Tebodin and TU Delft, which have significant experience on
this subject.

Weaknesses
(i) The coordinator had to manage a consortium with different specializations, expertise and
background.
(ii) European specifications for industrial facilities (tanks, pressure vessels and piping) have
several limitations, and have not been used in everyday design practice
(iii) The size of specimens due to limitations on the experimental set-up.
(iv) It was difficult to purchase metal pipes with appropriate D/t ratio for the small-scale
experiments of NTUA.
Opportunities
(i) GIPIPE is a pioneering project of its kind, offering excellent opportunity for state-if-the-art
scientific work.
(ii) GIPIPE has offered a great opportunity to develop novel and unique design guidelines, very
helpful for current design practice of buried pipelines in geohazard areas, .
Threats
(i) Due to a delay of several experiments has caused the performance of numerical work and, by
consequence, it delayed the preparation of the guidelines.
(ii) The rigorous finite element modelling and analysis have been both very demanding in terms
of finite element expertise and time-consuming.

II.7.3. Task 7.3 Progress reports and final reports

The following reports have been prepared and uploaded to CIRCABC:
 1st annual report – March 2012.
 2nd Mid-Term report – March 2013.
 3rd annual report – March 2014.
 4th Final report – March 2015.
The deliverables of the project have also been uploaded to CIRCABC (see list of deliverables below).
In addition, minutes of each meeting have been held, and are available upon request.

126
II.8. Conclusions
GIPIPE has been a pioneering project within RFCS, in the area of steel pipeline safety for
transportation of energy resources, a priority of RFCS program for the last few years. It combined
experimental, numerical and analytical tools towards high-level research in the inter-disciplinary area of
buried pipelines under severe ground-induced actions, with main purpose to investigate the interaction
between the pipe and the soil; this is the key issue for determining actions on the steel pipeline in a
reliable manner.

The main results can be summarized as follows:

 There is a need for developing provisions in current design standards (European and American)
for pipeline design in geohazard areas.
 Extensive experimental work has been conducted, supported by numerical predictions. A good
comparison has been achieved between test results and numerical predictions.
 Experimental results offered a substantial contribution towards understanding soil-pipe
interaction (axial and transverse direction). Distribution of pipeline pressure on the surrounding
soil is measured.
 Test results have also indicated that the formation of local buckling in pressurized pipelines
may soon result in pipe fracture and loss of containment.
 Important results have been obtained for pipeline components (elbows); their increased
flexibility may allow their use as mitigation devices, but require a detailed stress analysis to
avoid failure.
 Simplified methodologies, that employ “pipe” finite elements have been employed and
compared successfully with more rigorous finite element models. Analytical methodologies,
which can be used for preliminary design, have also been proposed.
 The results of the project have been communicated with the pipeline industry in a very
successful dedicated workshop.
 Finally, design guidelines/recommendations, have been developed to be used by Code Drafting
Committees, for the amendment of existing design standards (e.g. EN 1998-4 for pipeline
seismic design).

The results and deliverables of GIPIPE are both novel and unique, leading to
 The construction of innovative state-of-the-art devices for experimental simulation of buried
pipeline behaviour.
 The development and validation of rigorous and simplified models, capable at describing large
permanent deformations of buried pipelines
 Better understanding of soil-pipe interaction under severe ground-induced actions
 Significant improvement of pipeline design state-of-the-art in geohazard areas

GIPIPE results, as reported in the final report, the corresponding deliverables and the relevant
publications in international scientific journals and conferences, offer the necessary scientific
background for Code Drafting Committees, towards safer and more reliable pipeline design against
geohazards.

127
II.9. Exploitation and impact of the research results
The main outcome of GIPIPE has been the development of design guidelines that include
methodologies for simulating soil-pipe interaction in the course of a severe permanent ground-induced
pipeline deformation. Those guidelines have been drafted by our end-user partner Tebodin, with the
major contribution of TU Delft, which both have significant experience in drafting pipeline
specifications in national and international level. The guidelines improve the design provisions for
buried pipelines that exist within the EN framework, and are expected to contribute significantly in their
more reliable against geohazards.
Furthermore, the scientific research in this topic, associated with state-of-the-art experimental and
numerical work in the research laboratories of the partners, has improved significantly the know-how at
an international level. The high-quality of the research within GIPIPE is reflected in the numerous
scientific publications of the research group in scientific journals and conferences, and the special
sessions organized in COMPDYN 2015conference (http://2015.compdyn.org/).
As a result, it is believed that all the research work conducted in GIPIPE has been novel and
innovative, and has made a significant impact in both the scientific and the professional pipeline
community.

III. List of acronyms and abbreviations

A : instantaneous cross sectional area;
A% : plastic elongation of the gauge length after fracture
A0 : original cross sectional area;
Ag% : plastic longitudinal deformation at maximum force
ALA : American Lifeline Alliance
c : soil cohesion
ca : Adhesion at the pipe-soil interface
CPW : Corinth Pipeworks S.A
CSM : Centro Sviluppo Materiali
D/t : Outer diameter to thickness ratio of a pipe
E : Young modulus
e : engineering strain
FL : fusion line of the weld
HAZ : Heat-affected zone (area adjacent to a weld affected by the
weld’s heat)
HFW : High Frequency Welded pipes process where the pipe is
longitudinally welded by electric current with high frequencies
HRS : Hot Rolled Seamless, pipe production process by hot
working steel without a weld seam
HV : Vickers hardness
ID : Internal pipe diameter
K : Pipe curvature

128
K0 : Coefficient of neutral lateral pressure
M : Applied bending moment during a bending test or FE simulation
NTUA : National Technical University of Athens
OCR : Over-consolidation ratio
OD or D : outer pipe diameter
P : frame load
PGD : Permanent Ground Deformations
s : engineering stress
SMAW : Shielded Metal Arc Welding, manual welding process.
SMTS : Specified Minimum Tensile Strength (in accordance with
code API5L – ISO3183)
SMYS : Specified Minimum Yield Strength (in accordance with code
API5L – ISO3183)
Su : Undrained residual shear strength
SWP : Spiral Welded Pipe, pipe production process where a plate is
helical wound and welded to form a pipe
σy or Y, Rt0.5 : Yield strength
t : thickness
tu : maximum soil resistance per pipe unit length
Tebodin : Tebodin Netherlands B.V.
TUDelft : Delft University of Technology
UF : usage factor of a pipeline (hoop stress and SMYS ratio)
UOE : pipe production process from a plate which is rounded into a
U shape, then an O shape and the expanded to the correct diameter
UTHESSALY : University of Thessaly
UTS : Ultimate tensile Strength
WM : weld metal
WP : Work Package
WT ore t : pipe thickness
Y/T : yield strength σy to tensile strength σR ratio.
γ' : effective unit weight of soil
γ : total unit weight of soil
ε : true strain
εb : bending strain
εc : critical buckling strain measured at maximum bending moment
σ : true stress
φ : soil internal friction angle

129
IV. List of figures
FIGURE II.1.2-1-TENSILE TEST RESULTS: COMPARISON BETWEEN RT0.5 VALUES OBTAINED WITH FLATTENED RECTANGULAR SPECIMEN
AND ROUND BAR SPECIMEN, IN TRANSVERSE DIRECTION..............................................................................................18
FIGURE II.1.2-2-TENSILE TEST RESULTS: COMPARISON BETWEEN YIELD STRENGTH VALUES OBTAINED IN TRANSVERSE AND
LONGITUDINAL DIRECTIONS, ROUND BAR SPECIMEN (CSM DATABASE) ..........................................................................19
FIGURE II.1.2-3-TENSILE TESTS RESULTS: STRAIN TO FRACTURE VS Y/T RATIO FOR DIFFERENT MATERIALS GRADES, CSM DATABASE 19
FIGURE II.1.2-4: LOCAL BUCKLING OF A THIN-WALLED PIPE (D/T=100) AND THICK WALLED PIPE (D/T=30) [TEST AT TNO/TUDELFT]
.........................................................................................................................................................................21
FIGURE II.1.2-5: LOCAL BUCKLING AND POST-BUCKLING BEHAVIOUR OF AN X80 PRESSURIZED PIPELINE IN THE FORM OF A LOCAL
BULGE. RUPTURE OCCURRED AT THE TENSILE PART OF THE BUCKLE. [TEST AT CSM] .........................................................21
FIGURE II.1.3-1: PIPELINE ANALYSIS MODEL PROPOSED BY WANG AND YEH (1985) .....................................................22
FIGURE II.1.3-2:BEAM MODEL WITH SPRING SUPPORT SYSTEM. ...........................................................................................22
FIGURE II.1.3-3: SHELL ELEMENTS AND BEAM ELEMENTS USED FOR ANALYSES WITH FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATION FOR THE PIPE AND
NONLINEAR SPRINGS FOR THE SOIL. KARAMITROS ET AL (2007) ...................................................................................23
FIGURE II.1.3-4: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF THE (A) SOIL PRISM WITH TECTONIC STRIKE-SLIP FAULT, (B) FINITE ELEMENT MESH OF
SOIL PRISM CROSS-SECTION AND (C) FINITE ELEMENT MESH OF STEEL PIPELINE. VAZOURAS ET AL (2012) ............................24
FIGURE II.1.3-5: EXPERIMENTAL CONCEPT FOR PGD EFFECTS ON BURIES PIPELINES.O’ROURKE ET AL (2009) ..............................24
FIGURE II.1.4-1: EGIG PIPELINE INCIDENT DATA ..............................................................................................................25
FIGURE II.1.4-2: DISTRIBUTION OF THE SUB-CAUSES OF GROUND MOVEMENT IN WESTERN EUROPE ..........................................25
FIGURE II.1.4-3: INCIDENT DATA FOR A TYPICAL ANDEAN PIPELINE. .....................................................................................26
FIGURE II.2.3-1: STRIKE SLIP FAULTS: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF THE (A) SOIL PRISM WITH STRIKE-SLIP FAULT, (B) FINITE ELEMENT
MESH OF SOIL PRISM CROSS-SECTION AND (C) FINITE ELEMENT MESH OF STEEL PIPELINE....................................................30
FIGURE II.2.3-2:NORMAL FAULTS: MAIN ATTRIBUTES AND GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS OF THE DEVELOPED FINITE ELEMENT MODEL: (A)
3D VIEW OF THE ENTIRE MODEL; (B) CROSS SECTION; AND (C) VIEW OF THE EXTREMELY REFINED MESH OF THE PIPELINE (HAVING
REMOVED THE SOIL ELEMENTS). ..............................................................................................................................31
FIGURE II.2.3-3:2D MODEL USED FOR FAULT RAPTURE PROPAGATION. .................................................................................31
FIGURE II.2.3-4: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL USED IN THE PARAMETRIC STUDY. THE LOOSE MATERIAL BLOCK WILL SLIDE ON A PRESCRIBED
SURFACE THAT IS REALIZED THROUGH A ROW OF ELEMENTS WITH TIME DEPENDANT STRENGTH. .........................................32
FIGURE II.2.3-5:LANDSLIDES:THE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL THAT FOCUSES ON THE SOIL–PIPELINE INTERACTION: (A) 3D VIEW AND
DIMENSIONS OF THE MODEL. (B) CROSS SECTION INDICATING THE PIPE LOCATION. (C) A MORE DETAILED VIEW OF THE PIPE. (D)
THE PIPELINE AXIAL RESPONSE BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF MODEL IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THROUGH A NONLINEAR SPRING
APPROPRIATELY CALIBRATED. .................................................................................................................................32
FIGURE II.2.3-6: DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENTS: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF THE SOIL PRISM FOR SETTLEMENTS. ............................33
FIGURE II.2.3-7 LATERAL SPREADING: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF THE SOIL PRISM. .................................................................34
FIGURE II.3.1-1: SCHEMATIC CONFIGURATION OF TEST FACILITY (RUPTURE BOX SIMULATOR) AT NTUA SOIL MECHANICS
LABORATORY. ......................................................................................................................................................35
FIGURE II.3.1-2SCHEMATIC CONFIGURATION OF TEST FACILITY AT CSM FACILITIES (SARDINIA), FOR SIMULATING THE EFFECTS OF
HORIZONTAL FAULTS AND LANDSLIDES ON PIPELINES. .................................................................................................36
FIGURE II.3.1-3SCHEMATIC CONFIGURATION OF TEST FACILITY AT TUDELFT FACILITIES. ...........................................................36
FIGURE II.3.1-4: SOIL MODELS FOR THE DIFFERENT TEST CONFIGURATIONS ............................................................................37
FIGURE II.3.1-5: AXIAL SOIL REACTION PER MILLIMETRE PIPE LENGTH FOR DIFFERENT VALUES OF FAULT MOVEMENT FOR THE 16” CLAY
CONFIGURATION (NOTE THE DIFFERENT SCALE ON THE HORIZONTAL AXIS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER FIGURES) ........................38
FIGURE II.3.1-6: LATERAL SOIL REACTION PER MILLIMETRE PIPE LENGTH FOR DIFFERENT VALUES OF FAULT MOVEMENT FOR THE 16”
CLAY CONFIGURATION ...........................................................................................................................................38
FIGURE II.3.1-7: LATERAL DISPLACEMENT OF PIPE FOR DIFFERENT VALUES OF FAULT MOVEMENT FOR THE 16” CLAY CONFIGURATION.
.........................................................................................................................................................................38
FIGURE II.3.1-8: COMPARISON OF AN AVAILABLE TEST RESULT ON A COLLAPSING RING WITH A LINEAR ELASTIC MODEL. PIPE
2
SEGMENT: 159X3, LENGTH=100 MM, FY=373 N/MM .............................................................................................39
FIGURE II.3.2-1: PIPES DELIVERED TO CSM ......................................................................................................................41
FIGURE II.3.2-2: COMPOSITION OF FULL SCALE SPECIMENS FOR LANDSLIDE/FAULT TESTING ......................................................41
FIGURE II.3.3-1: PIPE SAMPLES EMPLOYED FOR X60 AND X65 BASE MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION...........................................43
FIGURE II.3.3-2: LONGITUDINAL SPECIMEN EXTRACTION SCHEME FOR 8”–X65 AND 16”–X60 PIPES. ........................................43
FIGURE II.3.3-3: TRANSVERSAL SMALL SIZE ROUND SPECIMEN EXTRACTION SCHEME FOR 8”–X65 PIPE.......................................43
FIGURE II.3.3-4: TRANSVERSAL DIRECTION FULL SIZE ROUND SPECIMEN EXTRACTION SCHEME FOR 16”–X60 PIPE ........................44
FIGURE II.3.3-5: LONGITUDINAL FULL THICKNESS STRIP SPECIMENS EXTRACTED FROM 8” AND 16” PIPES ....................................44
FIGURE II.3.3-6 X65 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSAL ENGINEERING STRESS-STRAIN CURVES .................................................45
FIGURE II.3.3-7 X60 LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSAL ENGINEERING STRESS-STRAIN CURVES .................................................45

130
FIGURE II.3.3-8ENGINEERING STRESS-STRAIN CURVES FOR ALL WELD METAL ROUND BAR SPECIMENS FORM 8” PIPE BUTT WELDED
JOINTS................................................................................................................................................................48
FIGURE II.3.3-9 ENGINEERING STRESS-STRAIN CURVES FOR ALL WELD METAL ROUND BAR SPECIMENS FORM 16” PIPE BUTT WELDED
JOINTS................................................................................................................................................................48
FIGURE II.3.3-10 HARDNESS MEASURED ALONG PATHS IN BM, WM AND HAZ, ON SPECIMEN EXTRACTED FROM 8” PIPE WELDED
JOINT .................................................................................................................................................................49
FIGURE II.4.1-1(A) THE FAULT RUPTURE BOX OF THE LABORATORY OF SOIL MECHANICS, NTUA AND ITS DIMENSIONS. (B)THE SOIL
SPECIMEN IS PREPARED THROUGH DRY PLUVIATION USING AN AUTOMATED SAND RAINING SYSTEM....................................50
FIGURE II.4.1-2(A) CLOSE PHOTO OF ONE OF THE STRAIN GAUGES USED IN THIS EXPERIMENTAL SERIES TO MEASURE STRAINS ALONG
THE PIPE. (B) IN ORDER TO MEASURE THE DISPLACEMENT PROFILE ALONG THE SURFACE DURING THE RUPTURE PROPAGATION,
FIVE LASER DISPLACEMENT TRANSDUCERS PLACED IN LINE WERE USED TO SCAN THE SURFACE. ...........................................51
FIGURE II.4.1-3 SNAPSHOTS AT CHARACTERISTIC MOMENTS OF THE NORMAL FAULT RUPTURE PROPAGATION THROUGH DENSE SAND
(DR = 90%). .......................................................................................................................................................53
FIGURE II.4.1-4 SNAPSHOTS AT CHARACTERISTIC MOMENTS OF THE REVERSE FAULT RUPTURE PROPAGATION THROUGH DENSE SAND
(DR = 90%). .......................................................................................................................................................54
FIGURE II.4.1-5 RESIDUAL DEFORMATION OF THE ALUMINUM PIPE SUBJECTED TO NORMAL FAULT OF MAXIMUM VERTICAL OFFSET H =
150 MM. ...........................................................................................................................................................55
FIGURE II.4.1-6 STRAIN DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE CROWN OF THE THICK-WALLED ALUMINUM PIPE SUBJECTED TO NORMAL FAULTING
FOR VARIOUS MAGNITUDES OF VERTICAL FAULT OFFSET. .............................................................................................56
FIGURE II.4.1-7RESIDUAL DEFORMATION OF THE THIN-WALLED STEEL PIPE SUBJECTED TO REVERSE FAULT OF MAXIMUM VERTICAL
OFFSET H = 150 MM.............................................................................................................................................57
FIGURE II.4.1-8. STRAIN DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE CROWN OF THE THIN-WALLED STEEL PIPE SUBJECTED TO REVERSE FAULTING FOR
VARIOUS MAGNITUDES OF VERTICAL FAULT OFFSET. ...................................................................................................57
FIGURE II.4.2-1: SCHEMATIC OF THE AXIAL PULLING TEST CONFIGURATION AND MAIN DIMENSION (LEFT) EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
(RIGHT) ..............................................................................................................................................................59
FIGURE II.4.2-2: COMPARISON OF THE LONGITUDINAL FRICTION FORCES MEASURED DURING THE PULLOUT TESTS .........................60
FIGURE II.4.2-3: SCHEMATIC OF THE TRANSVERSAL PULLING TEST CONFIGURATION AND MAIN DIMENSION (LEFT) EXPERIMENTAL
SETUP (RIGHT) .....................................................................................................................................................62
FIGURE II.4.2-4: PRESSURE SENSOR WRAPPED AROUND THE PIPE (RIGHT) AND TYPICAL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION MEASURED DURING
PIPE MOTION (LEFT)..............................................................................................................................................62
FIGURE II.4.2-5:FORCES AND STRESSES ACTING ON PIPE SURFACE DUE TO SOIL ACTION DURING PIPE DISPLACEMENT: (A) NORMAL AND
TANGENTIAL STRESS, (B) NORMAL STRESS AND RESULTANT IN HORIZONTAL DIRECTION, (C) TANGENTIAL STRESS ORIGINATED BY
FRICTION AND RESULTANT IN HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.................................................................................................62
FIGURE II.4.2-6:COMPARISON OF THE TRANSVERSAL PULLOUT TESTS IN TERMS OF FORCE VS. STROKE APPLIED BY THE PULLING SYSTEM
.........................................................................................................................................................................63
FIGURE II.4.2-7: COMPARISON OF THE TRANSVERSAL PULLOUTTESTS : FORCE MEASURED BY LOAD CELLS AND PRESSURE SENSORS AND
ALA 2001 FORMULATION (LEFT) AND TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRESSURES ON FRONT OF PIPE SURFACE AT VARIOUS STROKES
(RIGHT). .............................................................................................................................................................64
FIGURE II.4.2-8: SCHEMATIC OF TEST SETUP AND DIMENSIONS ............................................................................................64
FIGURE II.4.2-9: LANDSLIDE/FAULT EXPERIMENTAL SETUP ..................................................................................................65
FIGURE II.4.2-10: TYPICAL SOIL SURFACE CONDITION AFTER INTERACTION EXPERIMENT (LEFT) AND FINAL PIPE DEFLECTION AFTER SOIL
EXCAVATION (RIGHT). ...........................................................................................................................................67
FIGURE II.4.2-11: TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION OF STRAINS ALONG PIPE FOR THE MAXIMUM APPLIED BOX DISPLACEMENT. ...................67
FIGURE II.4.2-12:PIPE AXIS DEFORMED SHAPE DURING THE TEST (CALCULATE) AND AFTER THE TEST (CALCULARTED VS MEASURED).67
FIGURE II.4.2-13: CALCULATED PIPE MIDDLE SECTION POINT DISPLACEMENT VS. LATERAL BOX DISPLACEMENT .............................67
FIGURE II.4.2-14:OVALIZATION MEASURED ON PIPE AFTER TEST #1 .....................................................................................67
FIGURE II.4.3-1: OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION THAT IS TO BE MODELLED IN THE TU DELFT EXPERIMENTS. ..................................68
FIGURE II.4.3-2: LATERAL SOIL REACTION ACCORDING TO NEN3650. ..................................................................................68
FIGURE II.4.3-3: TOP VIEW OF TEST SETUP WITH FIXED STEEL FRAME LEFT AND MOVABLE STEEL FRAME RIGHT FROM THE FAULT.
RINGSPRINGS NOT DRAWN. ...................................................................................................................................70
FIGURE II.4.3-4: BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AT END OF PIPELINE SPECIMEN. LEFT: LATERAL MOVEMENT RESTRICTED; AXIAL MOVEMENT
POSSIBLE BY SLIDING OF PIPE TROUGH WOODEN BLOCK. RIGHT: LATERAL MOVEMENT EQUAL TO FAULT MOVEMENT; AXIAL
MOVEMENT POSSIBLE BY ROLLER SUPPORT; NORMAL COMPONENT OF APPLIED AXIAL FORCE IS DIRECTLY SUPPORTED BY FRAME.
.........................................................................................................................................................................70
FIGURE II.4.3-5 LEFT: OVERVIEW OF TEST SETUP AFTER FINAL DEFORMATION OF TEST T9. TOP RIGHT: LOAD APPLICATION THROUGH
FLEXIBLE STEEL STRAPS. BOTTOM RIGHT: RINGSPRINGS AFTER FINAL DEFORMATION OF THE TEST........................................71
FIGURE II.4.3-6: OVERVIEW OF MODEL USED FOR TEST DESIGN. THIS PARTICULAR MODEL FEATURES A NEAR CONTINUOUS SOIL
REACTION WHICH IS COMPARED WITH DISCRETE SOIL REACTIONS THAT WOULD OCCUR IN A TEST WITH RINGSPRINGS. ............72
FIGURE II.4.3-7: AXIAL FORCE DUE TO S-SHAPE DEFORMATION OF THE PIPELINE. ....................................................................72
131
FIGURE II.4.3-8: AXIAL FORCE DUE TO FAULT ANGLE. .........................................................................................................72
FIGURE II.4.3-9: VARIATION OF AXIAL FORCE FOR VARIOUS FAULT ANGLES FOR TEST T3. ..........................................................73
FIGURE II.4.3-10: TYPICAL STRESS STRAIN BEHAVIOUR OF PIPELINE MATERIAL USED IN TU DELFT TESTS. PIPELINE H60410114,
2
406X7.4MM , GRADE X60. LEFT: STRESS-STRAIN GRAPHS UP TO 3% STRAIN. RIGHT: FULL STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS. ........74
FIGURE II.4.3-11: COMPARISON BETWEEN TARGET SOIL BEHAVIOUR AND USED RINGSPRINGS FOR TEST T1. UR IS THE FLATTENING OF
THE RING, FR IS THE FORCE IN THE RING. ..................................................................................................................75
FIGURE II.4.3-12: LEFT: COMPARISON OF EIGHT RINGS CLOSEST TO THE FAULT ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE OF THE FAULT. RIGHT:
COMPARISON OF SUM OF RINGFORCES WITH APPLIED ACTUATOR FORCE. BOTH DIAGRAMS REFER TO TEST T10. ...................75
FIGURE II.4.3-13: MEASURED LONGITUDINAL STRAINS ON FRONT SIDE OF SPECIMEN T9. TEST SPECIMEN FAILED DUE TO LOCAL
BUCKLING AT A FAULT MOVEMENT OF 1100 MM. ......................................................................................................76
FIGURE II.4.3-14: MEASURED LONGITUDINAL STRAINS ON FRONT SIDE OF SPECIMEN T10. TEST SPECIMEN FAILED DUE TO LOCAL
BUCKLING AT A FAULT MOVEMENT OF 650 MM. ........................................................................................................76
2
FIGURE II.4.3-15OVALISATION DUE TO BENDING OF SPECIMEN T1: 219X5.6 MM , SANDY SOIL, P=0 BAR, NO LOCAL BUCKLING. ...77
2
FIGURE II.4.3-16OVALISATION DUE TO BENDING OF SPECIMEN T6: 219X5.6 MM , SANDY SOIL, P=120 BAR, NO LOCAL BUCKLING.
NOTE THE DIFFERENT SCALE FOR THE OVALISATION IN BOTH FIGURES.............................................................................77
FIGURE II.4.3-17: LOCAL BUCKLES IN SMALL DIAMETER PIPE. LEFT: LOCAL BUCKLE AT A GIRTH WELD IN ATMOSPHERIC TEST T3,
CONSISTING OF ONE MAIN BUCKLE AND TWO SECONDARY BUCKLES. RIGHT: LOCAL BUCKLE IN PLAIN PIPE IN PRESSURIZED TEST
T5, CONSISTING OF ONE OUTWARD BULGE. ..............................................................................................................78
FIGURE II.4.3-18: LOCAL BUCKLES IN LARGE DIAMETER PIPE. LEFT: LOCAL BUCKLE IN PLAIN PIPE MATERIAL IT ATMOSPHERIC TEST T9,
CONSISTING OF TWO MAIN BUCKLES. RIGHT: LOCAL BUCKLE IN PLAIN PIPE IN TEST T9, CONSISTING OF ONE MAIN BUCKLE AND
TWO SECONDARY BUCKLES. ....................................................................................................................................78
FIGURE II.4.3-19: LOCAL BUCKLES IN LARGE DIAMETER PIPE. LEFT: LOCAL BUCKLE IN LARGE DIAMETER PIPE WITH INTERNAL PRESSURE,
CONSISTING OF ONE OUTWARD BULGE. RIGHT: LOCAL BUCKLE AT A GIRTH WELD IN ATMOSPHERIC TEST T8, CONSISTING OF ONE
MAIN BUCKLE ON ONE SIDE OF THE GIRTH WELD WITH TWO SECONDARY BUCKLES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GIRTH WELD. ....78
FIGURE II.4.3-20: FORMATION OF A CRACK IN TEST SPECIMEN T5. LEFT: LOCAL BUCKLE AND RUPTURE. RIGHT: CLOSE-UP OF CRACK
SHOWING DUCTILE BEHAVIOUR AND CRACK CLOSE TO THE WELD. ..................................................................................79
FIGURE II.5.1-1: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA, THE ASCE GUIDELINES (1984) AND THE RESULTS FROM THE
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS. .....................................................................................................................................81
FIGURE II.5.1-2: COMPARISON OF AXIAL SOIL RESISTANCE BETWEEN THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF AXIAL TEST 1 CONDUCTED BY
CSM AND THE PROVISION OF ASCE GUIDELINES (1984). ...........................................................................................81
FIGURE II.5.1-3: TYPICAL VARIATION OF INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE Φ AND VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT ΔY WITH RESPECT TO
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT ΔX IN A DIRECT SHEAR TEST. ............................................................................................82
FIGURE II.5.1-4: COMPARISON BETWEEN AXIAL TEST 1 CONDUCTED BY CSM AND THE VALUE OF TU BY EQUATION (5.3). .............83
FIGURE II.5.1-5: COMPARISON BETWEEN AXIAL TEST 2 CONDUCTED BY CSM AND THE VALUE OF TU BY EQUATION (5.3). .............83
FIGURE II.5.1-6: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF PULL OUT TEST CONTACTED BY CSM. .................................................................83
FIGURE II.5.1-7: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE RESULTS OF AXIAL TEST 1 AND THE FINITE ELEMENT PREDICTIONS. ..........................84
FIGURE II.5.1-8: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE RESULTS OF AXIAL TEST 2 AND THE FINITE ELEMENT PREDICTIONS. ..........................84
FIGURE II.5.1-9: DEFORMED SHAPE OF THE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF TRANSVERSE TEST CORRESPONDING TO A VALUE OF PIPE
DISPLACEMENT EQUAL TO 250 MM (1.14 PIPE DIAMETERS). .......................................................................................85
FIGURE II.5.1-10: COMPARISON BETWEEN TRANSVERSE TEST 1 RESULTS AND THE RESULTS OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL.................85
FIGURE II.5.1-11: COMPARISON BETWEEN TRANSVERSE TEST 2 AND 3 RESULTS AND THE RESULTS OF THE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL. 85
FIGURE II.5.1-12: GENERAL CONFIGURATION (SOLID MODEL) OF THE SIMULATION OF CSM LANDSLIDE/FAULT TEST. ....................86
FIGURE II.5.1-13: COMPARISON BETWEEN LANDSLIDE/FAULT TEST 1 RESULTS AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF THE
LONGITUDINAL STRAINS ALONG THE PIPE AXIS, FOR BOX DISPLACEMENT EQUAL TO 200 MM (EQUAL TO 0.91 PIPE DIAMETERS).
.........................................................................................................................................................................86
FIGURE II.5.1-14: COMPARISON BETWEEN LANDSLIDE\FAULT TEST 1 RESULTS AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF THE
LONGITUDINAL STRAINS ALONG THE PIPE AXIS, FOR BOX DISPLACEMENT EQUAL TO 400 MM (EQUAL TO 1.82 PIPE DIAMETERS).
.........................................................................................................................................................................86
FIGURE II.5.1-15: COMPARISON BETWEEN LANDSLIDE\FAULT TEST 1 RESULTS AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF THE
LONGITUDINAL STRAINS ALONG THE PIPE AXIS, FOR BOX DISPLACEMENT EQUAL TO 600 MM (EQUAL TO 2.74 PIPE DIAMETERS).
.........................................................................................................................................................................87
FIGURE II.5.1-16: DEFORMED SHAPE OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF “LANDSLIDE/FAULT” TEST 2, FOR BOX DISPLACEMENT EQUAL TO
600 MM (EQUAL TO 2.74 PIPE DIAMETERS). ............................................................................................................87
FIGURE II.5.1-17: DEFORMED SHAPE OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF “LANDSLIDE/FAULT” TEST 3, FOR BOX DISPLACEMENT EQUAL TO
800 MM (EQUAL TO 3.64 PIPE DIAMETERS). ............................................................................................................87
FIGURE II.5.1-18: DEFORMED SHAPE OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF “LANDSLIDE/FAULT” TEST 4, FOR BOX DISPLACEMENT EQUAL TO
400 MM (EQUAL TO 1.82 PIPE DIAMETERS). ............................................................................................................88
FIGURE II.5.1-19: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL SIMULATING THE TEST IN “VIRTUAL” SOIL CONDITIONS. ............................................88
FIGURE II.5.1-20: DISTRIBUTING COUPLING IN THE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PIPE AND SPRINGS. ....89
132
FIGURE II.5.1-21: LOCAL BUCKLING FORMATION IN THE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR “GROUND” DISPLACEMENT EQUAL TO 319 MM.
.........................................................................................................................................................................89
FIGURE II.5.1-22:LOCAL BUCKLING CONFIGURATION IN TEST T5. .........................................................................................89
FIGURE II.5.1-23: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE RESULTS OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL AND THE EXPERIMENT FOR THE CASE OF (A)
NORMAL FAULT AND (B) REVERSE FAULT RUPTURE PROPAGATION. ................................................................................90
FIGURE II.5.1-24: THE DEFORMED MESH OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL EMPLOYED TO SIMULATE THE RESPONSE OF THE THICK-WALLED
STEEL PIPE SUBJECTED TO NORMAL FAULT. PLASTIC STRAINS WITHIN THE SOIL AND STRESSES ON THE PIPE FOR VERTICAL FAULT
OFFSET H = 40 MM...............................................................................................................................................91
FIGURE II.5.1-25: THICK-WALLED STEEL PIPE SUBJECTED TO NORMAL FAULT. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE NUMERICAL PREDICTION
AND THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS IN TERMS OF STRAIN DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE PIPE CROWN FOR VARIOUS VERTICAL FAULT
OFFSETS..............................................................................................................................................................91
FIGURE II.5.1-26: THE DEFORMED MESH OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL EMPLOYED TO SIMULATE THE RESPONSE OF THE THICK-WALLED
STEEL PIPE SUBJECTED TO REVERSE FAULT. PLASTIC STRAINS WITHIN THE SOIL AND STRESSES ON THE PIPE FOR VERTICAL FAULT
OFFSET H = 40 MM...............................................................................................................................................92
FIGURE II.5.1-27: THICK-WALLED STEEL PIPE SUBJECTED TO REVERSE FAULT. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE NUMERICAL PREDICTION
AND THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS IN TERMS OF STRAIN DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE PIPE CROWN FOR VARIOUS VERTICAL FAULT
OFFSETS..............................................................................................................................................................92
FIGURE II.5.2-1: SOIL–PIPELINE MODEL AFTER A STRIKE SLIP FAULT MOVEMENT (Β=20°) .........................................................93
FIGURE II.5.2-2: BUCKLED SHAPES OF PIPES WITH DIFFERENT LEVEL OF INTERNAL PRESSURE. .....................................................94
FIGURE II.5.2-3: CRITICAL FAULT MOVEMENT VERSUS THE DIAMETER-TO-THICKNESS RATIO D/T (CLAYII, P = 0.56PMAX, FAULT
ANGLE=0°) .........................................................................................................................................................94
FIGURE II.5.2-4: CRITICAL AXIAL STRAIN VERSUS THE DIAMETER-TO-THICKNESS RATIO D/T AND BUCKLING PREDICTIONS FROM EN
1998-4 AND GRESNIGT (1986) (CLAYII, P = 0.56PMAX, FAULT ANGLE=0°). ...................................................................95
FIGURE II.5.2-5: CRITICAL FAULT MOVEMENT VERSUS THE DIAMETER-TO-THICKNESS RATIO D/T (CLAYII, P = 0.56PMAX, FAULT
ANGLE=20°), FAILURE MODE IS 3% OF AXIAL STRAIN. ................................................................................................95
FIGURE II.5.2-6: STRAIN DISTRIBUTION AT THE TENSILE SIDE OF THE CRITICAL AREA FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF VERTICAL FAULT OFFSET
FOR THE CASE OF THE PIPELINE BEING EMBEDDED IN (A) LOOSE SAND (SAND II) (B) DENSE SAND (SAND I)AND IT IS SUBJECTED
O
TO NORMAL FAULT OF DIP ANGLE A = 60 .................................................................................................................96
O
FIGURE II.5.2-7: PIPELINE RESPONSE SUBJECTED TO REVERSE FAULT OF DIP ANGLE A = 30 WHEN IT IS EMBEDDED IN SOFT CLAY (SOIL
TYPE CLAY II). DEFORMED MESH OF THE SOIL WITH SUPERIMPOSED DISPLACEMENT CONTOURS AND DEFORMED MESH OF THE
PIPE WITH SUPERIMPOSED STRESS CONTOURS (A) FOR VERTICAL FAULT OFFSET H = 0.3 M .................................................97
O
FIGURE VIII.5.2-8: THE PIPELINE IS EMBEDDED IN SOFT CLAY (CLAY II) AND SUBJECTED TO REVERSE FAULT OF DIP ANGLE A = 30 .
DEFORMED MESH OF THE PIPE WITH SUPERIMPOSED AXIAL STRAIN CONTOURS FOR THREE CHARACTERISTIC VERTICAL FAULT
OFFSETS..............................................................................................................................................................97
FIGURE II.5.2-9: THE EFFECT OF THE ANGLE BETWEEN THE SOIL MOVEMENT AND THE PIPELINE AXIS WAS INVESTIGATED FOR TWO
EXTREME CASES: (A) THE PIPE PARALLEL TO THE SOIL MOVEMENT AND (B) PERPENDICULAR TO SOIL MOVEMENT. ..................98
FIGURE II.5.2-10: INCREASE IN AXIAL STRAINS AT THE TENSILE SIDE OF THE CRITICAL AREA OF THE TOP BEND WITH THE EVOLUTION OF
THE LANDSLIDE FOR THE INITIAL PIPE (Μ = 0.5) AND THE PIPE OF REDUCED FRICTION COEFFICIENT (Μ = 0.05). ....................99
FIGURE II.5.2-11: DEFORMED MESHES OF (A) THE BOTTOM AND (B) THE TOP BEND WITH SUPERIMPOSED AXIAL STRAIN CONTOURS
FOR THE CASE OF THE HOT BENDS (R = 5XD). ............................................................................................................99
FIGURE II.5.2-12: FINITE ELEMENT MESH OF SOIL PRISM WITH VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT FOR A TRAPEZOIDAL DISTRIBUTION........ 100
FIGURE II.5.2-13: FINITE ELEMENT MESH OF SOIL PRISM WITH VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT FOR A ORTHOGONAL DISTRIBUTION. ...... 100
FIGURE II.5.2-14:SKEW SYMMETRIC LOCAL BUCKLE OCCURS IN THE SETTLED AREA. .............................................................. 100
FIGURE II.5.2-15: SOIL–PIPELINE SYSTEM AFTER A LATERAL INDUCED MOVEMENT. .............................................................. 101
FIGURE II.5.2-16: CORRESPONDING CROSS SECTIONAL DEFORMATION. (A) BUCKLE OCCURS FIRST AT THE NON LIQUEFIED PART (B) NO
BUCKLE IS PRESENT AT THE LIQUEFIED PART. LATERAL SPREADING EQUAL TO 80CM. ...................................................... 101
FIGURE II.5.2-17: CORRESPONDING CROSS SECTIONAL DEFORMATION. (A) BUCKLE OCCURS FIRST AT THE NON LIQUEFIED PART (B)
BUCKLE IS ALSO PRESENT AT THE LIQUEFIED PART. LATERAL SPREADING EQUAL TO 90CM. .............................................. 102
FIGURE II.5.3-1: 3D MODEL OF THE PULL OUT CONFIGURATION WITH A DEFLECTION ANGLE Α EQUAL TO 90 DEGREES................. 103
FIGURE II.5.3-2: AXIAL FORCE VS "PULL-OUT" DISPLACEMENT FOR VARIOUS BEND ANGLESOF PRESSURIZED PIPES EMBEDDED IN
CLAYII............................................................................................................................................................. 104
FIGURE II.5.3-3: LOCAL BUCKLE FORMATION AT POSITION A FOR A NON-PRESSURIZED ELBOW (Α=90°) EMBEDDED IN CLAY II. ... 105
FIGURE II.5.3-4: 3D STRIKE SLIP FAULT MODEL USING AS BOUNDARIES NONLINEAR SPRINGS, DERIVED FROM ELBOW ANALYSIS .... 106
FIGURE II.5.4-1: NORMALIZED CRITICAL FAULT DISPLACEMENT FOR VARIOUS PERFORMANCE LIMITS AT DIFFERENT ANGLES OF Β (X65
STEEL, SAND I, D/T=96, P=0.56PMAX) .................................................................................................................. 108
FIGURE II.5.4-2: NORMALIZED CRITICAL FAULT DISPLACEMENT FOR VARIOUS PERFORMANCE LIMITS AT DIFFERENT ANGLES OF Β (X65
STEEL, SAND I, D/T=72, P=0.56PMAX) .................................................................................................................. 109
FIGURE II.5.4-3: NORMALIZED CRITICAL FAULT DISPLACEMENT FOR VARIOUS PERFORMANCE LIMITS AT DIFFERENT ANGLES OF Β (X65
STEEL, SAND II, D/T=96, P=0.56PMAX) ................................................................................................................. 109
133
FIGURE II.5.4-4: NORMALIZED CRITICAL FAULT DISPLACEMENT FOR VARIOUS PERFORMANCE LIMITS AT DIFFERENT ANGLES OF Β (X65
STEEL, CLAY I, D/T=96, P=0.56PMAX) ................................................................................................................... 110
FIGURE II.5.4-5: NORMALIZED CRITICAL FAULT DISPLACEMENT FOR VARIOUS PERFORMANCE LIMITS AT DIFFERENT ANGLES OF Β (X65
STEEL, CLAY I, D/T=72, P=0.56PMAX) ................................................................................................................... 110
FIGURE II.5.4-6: NORMALIZED CRITICAL FAULT DISPLACEMENT FOR VARIOUS PERFORMANCE LIMITS AT DIFFERENT ANGLES OF Β (X65
STEEL, CLAY II, D/T=96, P=0.56PMAX) .................................................................................................................. 111
FIGURE II.5.4-7: CRITICAL VERTICAL FAULT DISPLACEMENT H THAT LEADS THE PIPE TO TENSILE FAILURE FOR ALL CASES OF SOIL TYPES
AND NORMAL FAULT DIP ANGLES A CONSIDERED. .................................................................................................... 111
FIGURE II.5.4-8: CRITICAL VERTICAL FAULT DISPLACEMENT H THAT LEADS THE PIPE TO COMPRESSIVE FAILURE (LOCAL BUCKLE) FOR ALL
CASES OF SOIL TYPES AND REVERSE FAULT DIP ANGLES A CONSIDERED. ........................................................................ 112
FIGURE II.6.1-1: SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF FAULT-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF PIPELINE AXIS. ...................................... 114
FIGURE II.6.1-2: PIPE RESPONSE TO LONGITUDINAL PGD (ALA 2001). ............................................................................ 115
FIGURE II.6.1-3: PIPE RESPONSE TO TRANSVERSE PGD (ALA 2001) ................................................................................. 116
FIGURE II.6.1-4: COMPARISON BETWEEN LENGTH L FROM EQUATION 6.1 WITH THE DEFORMED SHAPE OF PIPELINE FROM FE
ANALYSIS WITH PIPE ELEMENTS. ........................................................................................................................... 118
Ο
FIGURE II.6.1-5: (A) REPRESENTATION OF MESH OF RIGOROUS FE MODEL FOR ANGLE Β=0 , (B) CROSS SECTION OF THE MODEL, (C)
MESH OF THE PIPE. ............................................................................................................................................ 119
FIGURE II.6.1-6: COMPARISON BETWEEN AXIAL STRAINS ALONG THE PIPELINE FROM SIMPLIFIED FE MODEL WITH ELBOW ELEMENTS,
Ο
AND FROM THE RIGOROUS MODEL FOR FAULT DISPLACEMENT EQUAL TO 0.61 M AND CROSSING ANGLE Β=0 ON SET OF LOCAL
BUCKLING ACCORDING TO RIGOROUS MODEL (D=36IN, T=0.5IN, X65 PIPE). .............................................................. 120
FIGURE II.6.1-7: COMPARISON BETWEEN AXIAL STRAINS ALONG THE PIPE FROM THE SIMPLIFIED FE MODEL WITH ELBOW AND PIPE
ELEMENTS AND FROM THE RIGOROUS MODEL FOR FAULT DISPLACEMENT EQUAL TO 1.0 M AND CROSSING ANGLE
Ο
Β=25 (D=36IN, T=0.5IN, X65 PIPE). .................................................................................................................. 121

V. List of tables
TABLE II.2.1-1:SOIL PROPERTIES FOR SAND. ...................................................................................................................26
TABLE II.2.1-2:CLAY PARAMETERS FOR TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS (UNDRAINED CONDITIONS) ....................................................27
TABLE II.3.2-1: 8 5/8” X 5,59MM X65 PIPES DELIVERED TO CSM ......................................................................................40
TABLE II.3.2-2: 16” X 7.3MM X60 PIPES DELIVERED TO CSM.............................................................................................40
TABLE II.3.3-1: BASE METAL CHARACTERIZATION TEST PLAN................................................................................................42
TABLE II.3.3-2:TESTING RESULTS FOR CHARPY V-NOTCH SPECIMENS EXTRACTED FROM 8”-X65 PIPE IN LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION .46
TABLE II.3.3-3:TESTING RESULTS FOR CHARPY V-NOTCH SPECIMENS EXTRACTED FROM 8”-X65 PIPE IN TRANSVERSAL DIRECTION...46
TABLE II.3.3-4: WELD METAL CHARACTERIZATION TEST PLAN ..............................................................................................47
TABLE II.3.3-5: AVERAGE HV10 HARDNESS MEASURED ALONG PATHS IN BM, WM AND HAZ, ON SPECIMEN EXTRACTED FROM 8”
PIPE WELDED JOINT...............................................................................................................................................47
TABLE II.4.1-1. LIST OF THE EXPERIMENTS. .......................................................................................................................52
TABLE II.4.2-1: CSM LARGE-SCALE TEST PROGRAM ...........................................................................................................58
TABLE II.4.2-2:SUMMARY OF TEST AXIAL PULL-OUT TEST RESULTS ........................................................................................59
TABLE II.4.2-3:SUMMARY OF TEST TRANSVERSAL PULLOUT TEST RESULTS ..............................................................................63
TABLE II.4.2-4:CSM LARGE-SCALE TEST PROGRAM MAIN OUTCOMES ...................................................................................65
TABLE II.4.3-1: OVERVIEW OF PERFORMED TESTS ..............................................................................................................69
TABLE II.4.3-2: GLOBAL SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS. DUE TO THE MANY PARAMETERS INVOLVED, THE CONTENTS OF THIS TABLE
SHOULD NOT BE USED TO COMPARE TESTS. ...............................................................................................................79
TABLE II.5.3-1: DISPLACEMENTS AT WHICH LIMIT STATES OCCUR FOR PRESSURIZED ELBOWS CLAY II, P=56% PMAX ..................... 105
TABLE II.5.3-2: DISPLACEMENTS AT WHICH LIMIT STATES OCCUR FOR NON-PRESSURIZED ELBOWS, CLAY II. .............................. 106
TABLE II.6.1-1: SOIL PARAMETERS AND GEOMETRIC/MECHANICAL PROPERTIES. .................................................................. 117
O
TABLE II.6.1-2: COMPARISON BETWEEN DESIGN EQUATION AND FEM RESULTS FOR ANGLE Β EQUAL TO 0 . ............................ 118
O
TABLE II.6.1-3: COMPARISON BETWEEN DESIGN EQUATION AND FEM RESULTS FOR ANGLE Β EQUAL TO 10 . .......................... 119
TABLE II.6.1-4: SOIL PARAMETERS AND GEOMETRIC/MECHANICAL PROPERTIES ................................................................... 119
TABLE II.6.1-5: DISPLACEMENTS AT WHICH LOCAL BUCKLING FAILURE OCCURS FOR EACH TYPE OF MODELLING; THE SPRINGS FOR THE
SIMPLIFIED MODEL ARE ACCORDING TO NEN 3650. ............................................................................................... 120
TABLE II.6.1-6: DISPLACEMENTS AT WHICH TENSILE FAILURE OCCURS FOR EACH TYPE OF MODELLING; THE SPRINGS FOR THE
SIMPLIFIED MODEL ARE ACCORDING TO NEN 3650. ............................................................................................... 120

134
VI. References
[1] Newmark N. M., Hall W. J. (1975), “Pipeline design to resist large fault displacement”.
Proceedings of U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 416–425.
[2] Kennedy, R. P., Chow, A. W. and Williamson, R. A. (1977), “Fault movement effects on buried
oil pipeline”, ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 103, pp. 617-633.
[3] Kennedy R. P., Kincaid R. H. (1983). “Fault crossing design for buried gas oil pipelines”. ASME,
PVP conference; 77:1–9
[4] Wang, L. R. L. and Yeh, Y. A. (1985), “A refined seismic analysis and design of buried pipeline
for fault movement”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 13, pp. 75-96.
[5] Wang L. L. R., Wang L. J. (1995), Parametric study of buried pipelines due to large fault
movement. ASCE, TCLEE 1995; (6):152–159.
[6] Takada, S., Hassani, N.and Fukuda, K. (2001), “A new proposal for simplified design of buried
steel pipes crossing active faults”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2001; Vol.
30: pp.1243–1257.
[7] Karamitros, D. K., Bouckovalas, G. D., and Kouretzis, G. P. (2007), “Stress Analysis of Buried
Steel Pipelines at Strike-Slip Fault Crossings.”, Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
27, pp. 200-211
[8] Liu, M., Wang, Y.-Y., and Yu, Z., (2008), “Response of pipelines under fault
crossing.”,Proceedings, International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Vancouver,
BC, Canada.
[9] Odina, L. and Tan, R. (2009), “Seismic Fault Displacement of Buried Pipelines Using Continuum
Finite Element Methods.”,Proceedings of the ASME 2009 28th International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2009-79739, Honolulu, Hawaii.
[10] Odina, L. and Conder, R. J. (2010), “Significance of Lüder's Plateau on Pipeline Fault Crossing
Assessment”, Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2010-20715, Shanghai, China.
[11] Gu, X. and Zhang, H. (2009), “Research on Aseismatic Measures of Gas Pipeline Crossing a
Fault for Strain-Based Design.”,Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping
Division Conference, PVP2009-77987.
[12] Ha, D., Abdoun T. H., O’Rourke, M. J., Symans, M. D., O’Rourke, T. D., Palmer, M. C., and
Stewart, H. E. (2008), “Buried high-density polyethylene pipelines subjected to normal and
strike-slip faulting – a centrifuge investigation.”,Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 45, pp.
1733-1742.
[13] Ha, D., Abdoun T. H., O’Rourke, M. J., Symans, M. D., O’Rourke, T. D., Palmer, M. C., and
Stewart, H. E. (2008), “Centrifuge Modelling of Earthquake Effects on Buried High-Density
Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipelines Crossing Fault Zones.”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 10, pp. 1501-1515.
[14] Abdoun T. H., Ha, D., O’Rourke, M. J., Symans, M. D., O’Rourke, T. D., Palmer, M. C., and
Stewart, H. E. (2009), “Factors influencing the behavior of buried pipelines subjected to
earthquake faulting.”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 29, pp. 415– 427.
[15] Yoshizaki K, O’Rourke T, Bond T, Mason J, Hamada M, “Large Scale Experiments of
Permanent Ground Deformation Effects on Steel Pipelines”
[16] O’Rourke T. D., Stewart H.E., Palmer M.C., Bond T.K., Jezerski J.M., O’Rourke M.J., Symans
M.D., Abdoun T., Ha D., (2008), “Evaluation of Ground Rupture Effects on Critical Lifelines”,
NSF Program Solicitation 03-589, NEESR-SG.
[17] O’Rourke T. D., Palmer M.C., Stewart H.E., Olson N, (2009), “Large-Scale Testing of Fault
Rupture Effects” SFPUC Final Report.
[18] PLE4Win, “Short introduction to Ple4, a pipeline stress, strain and stability analysis computer
program”,Expert Design Systems, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
[19] Gresnigt, A. (1986). Plastic design of buried steel pipelines in settlement area's. Delft: Heron -
Volume 31 - no. 4.
[20] Wang, X., Kibey, S., Tang, H., Cheng, W., Minnaar, K., Macia, M. L., Kan, W. C., Ford, S. J.,
Newbury B. (2010), “Strain-based Design – Advances in Prediction Methods of Tensile Strain
Capacity, Twentieth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, , ISOPE 2010,
Beijing, China.

135
[21] Canadian Standard Association (2007), Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, CSA-Z662, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada.
[22] Wang, Y. Y., Horsley, D. and Liu, M., (2007), “Strain Based Design of Pipelines.”,16th Joint
Technical Meeting, Australian Pipeline Association, Canberra, Australia.
[23] G. Holh, G. Knauf, F. M. Knoop; “The effect of specimen type on tensile test results and its
implications for linepipe testing”; 3R international 10-11/2001
[24] EGIG. (2011). Gas Pipeline Incidents. EGIG 11.R.0402.
[25] Gresnigt, A. M. and Karamanos, S. A. (2009), “Local Buckling Strength and Deformation
Capacity of Pipes.”,19th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka, Japan,
pp. 212-223.
[26] ABAQUS (2012): Users’ Manual, Simulia, Providence, RI, USA.
[27] American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2006), Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid
Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids, ANSI/ASME B31.4.
[28] American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2007), Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping
Systems, ANSI/ASME B31.8, New York, NY.
[29] Brinch Hansen, J. (1986). A revvised and extended formula for bearing capacity. Japan.
[30] American Lifelines Alliance, (2005), Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe.
[31] API. (1993). "Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms - Load and Resistance Factor Design RP 2A-LRFD", American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, USA.
[32] API. (2002). "Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms - Working Stress Design API recommended practice RP 2A-WSD, December 2000,
with errata and supplement 1 December 2002", American Petroleum Institute, Washington, USA.
[33] CSA-S16-09 (2009). "Design of steel structures", Canadian Standards Association, Toronto,
Canada.
[34] CSA-Z662-96 (1996). "Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems", Canadian Standards Association,
Toronto, Canada.
[35] DNV-OS-F101 (2007). "Offshore Standard OS-F101, Submarine Pipeline Systems". Det Norske
Veritas, Høvik, Norway.
[36] EN 1594 (2000). "Gas supply systems: Pipelines - Maximum Operating Pressure over 16 bar",
CEN, Brussels.
[37] EN 1993-1-6 (2007). "Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-6: Strength and stability of
shell structures", CEN, Brussels.
[38] EN 1993-4-3 (2007). "Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 4-3: Pipelines", CEN,
Brussels.
[39] Comité Européen de Normalisation (2006), Eurocode 8, Part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines, CEN
EN1998-4, Brussels, Belgium.
[40] Vazouras, P., Karamanos, S. A., and Dakoulas, P. (2010), “Finite Element Analysis of Buried
Steel Pipelines Under Strike-Slip Fault Displacements”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 11, pp. 1361–1376.
[41] Vazouras, P., Dakoulas, P., and Karamanos, S. A., “Pipe-Soil Interaction and Pipeline
Performance Under Strike-Slip Fault Movements.”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 72, pp. 48–65, May 2015
[42] American Petroleum Institute API Specification. 5L, “Specification for Line Pipe”, 2004.
[43] American Welding Society, A5.5-96, Specifications For Low-Alloy steel Electrodes for Shield
Metal Arc Welding
[44] International Standard, ISO 4063:2009, “Welding and allied processes -- Nomenclature of
processes and reference numbers”.
[45] ASTM, E8/E8M:2009 Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials.
[46] ASTM, A370:2011 Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel
Products.
[47] International Standard, ISO 3183, “Petroleum and natural gas industries – Steel pipe for pipelines
transportation systems”, 2012.
[48] Offshore Standard DNV-OS-F101, Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det Norske Veritas (DNV),
2012.

136
[49] Weerasekara, L. and Wijewickreme, D. (2008) Mobilization of soil loads on polyethylene natural
gas pipelines subject to relative axial ground displacements, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45
(9):1237-1249.
[50] American Lifeline Alliance. “Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe”, 2001
[51] Paulin, M. J., Phillips, R., Clark, J. I., Trigg, A. and Konuk, I. (1998) A full-scale investigation
into pipeline/soil interaction, Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference, ASME, Calgary,
AB., pp. 779-788.
[52] Wijewickreme, D., Karimian, H. and Honegger, D. (2009) Response of buried steel pipelines
subject to relative axial soil movement, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,46 (7): 735-752.
[53] Karimian, A.H. 2006. Response of buried steel pipelines subjected to longitudinal and transverse
ground movement. Ph.D. Thesis, Department. of Civil Engineering, University of British
Columbia (Canada).
[54] Lehane, B.M 1992. Experimental investigation of pile behavior using instrumented piles. PhD
thesis, University of London (Imperial College).
[55] PRCI-Pipeline Research Council International “Guidelines For Constructing Natural Gas And
Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines Through Areas Prone To Landslide And Subsidence Hazards”
2009
[56] Trautmann CH, O’Rourke TD. 1985. Lateral force–displacement response of buried pipe. J
GeotechEng ASCE;111(9):1068–84.
[57] Yimsiri S, Soga K, Yoshizaki K, Dasari G, O’Rourke TD. 2004. Lateral and upward soil–
pipeline interactions in sand for deep embedment conditions. J Geotech.Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE
2004;130(8):830–42.
[58] Anastasopoulos Ι., Georgarakos T., Georgiannou V., Drosos V., Kourkoulis R. (2010), “Seismic
Performance of Bar-Mat Reinforced-Soil Retaining Wall: Shaking Table Testing versus
Numerical Analysis with Modified Kinematic Hardening Constitutive Model”, Soil Dynamics &
Earthquake Engineering, 30(10): 1089–1105.
[59] American Lifelines Alliance, (2001), Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe.
[60] ASCE. 1984, Guidelines for seismic design of oil and gas pipeline systems. Committee on Gas
and Liquid Fuel Lifelines, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, America
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
[61] Karimian, H. 2006. Response of buried steel pipelines subjected to longitudinal and transverse
ground movement. Ph.D. thesis, De- partment of Civil Engineering, The University of British
Colum- bia, Vancouver, B.C.
[62] Trautmann, C.H., and O’Rourke, T.D. 1983. Behaviour of pipe in dry sand under lateral and
uplift loading. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Geotechnical Engineering Report 83–7.
[63] Scarpelli, G., Sakellariadi, E., Furlani, G., Evaluation of soil-pipeline longitudinal interaction
forces, RivistaItaliana di Geotecnica 4/2003
[64] Anastasopoulos I., Gazetas G., Bransby M.F., Davies M.C.R., El Nahas A. (2007), “Fault rupture
propagation through sand: finite element analysis and validation through centrifuge
experiments”, Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEnineering, ASCE, 133(8): 943–
958.
[65] Anastasopoulos Ι., Georgarakos T., Georgiannou V., Drosos V., Kourkoulis R. (2010), “Seismic
Performance of Bar-Mat Reinforced-Soil Retaining Wall: Shaking Table Testing versus
Numerical Analysis with Modified Kinematic Hardening Constitutive Model”, Soil Dynamics &
Earthquake Engineering, 30(10): 1089–1105.
[66] Bray J. D., Seed R. B., Cluff L. S., and Seed H. B. (1994). “Earthquake fault rupture
propagation through soil.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120(3), 543–561.
[67] Gerolymos N., Vardoulakis I., and Gazetas G. 2007. “A thermo-porovisco-plastic shear band
model for seismic triggering and evolution of catastrophic landslides.” Soils and Foundations,
47(1), 11–26.
[68] GudehusG., and Nübel K. (2004). “Evolution of shear bands in sand.” Geotechnique, 54(3), 187–
201.
[69] Jewell, R. A., and Roth, C. P. (1987). “Direct shear tests on reinforced sand.” Geotechnique,
37(1), 53–68.
[70] Vardoulakis I., and Graf B. (1985). “Calibration of constitutive models for granular materials
using data from biaxial experiments.” Geotechnique, 35(3), 299–317.

137
[71] Vazouras, P., Karamanos, S. A., and Dakoulas, P. (2012), “Mechanical behavior of buried steel
pipes crossing active strike‐slip faults”, SoilDynamics and Earthq. Engineering, 41:164–180.
[72] NederlandsNormalisatie –Instituut (2006), Requirements for Pipeline Systems, NEN 3650, Part-
1: General, and Part-2: Steel Pipelines.

138
 HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:
• one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps:
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
 KI-NA-27-616-EN-N
GIPIPE combines geotechnical engineering concepts with mechanical
and pipeline engineering practice, towards developing design guidelines/
recommendations for safeguarding the structural integrity of buried welded
steel pipelines under severe ground-induced actions. Permanent ground-
induced actions are considered (fault motion, landslides, liquefaction-induced
lateral spreading). The guidelines improve and extend current design practice,
considering steel pipeline particularities and emphasizing on soil-pipe
interaction. The following intermediate targets have been achieved:

• C
 ritical evaluation of current design practice and pipeline incidents, towards
identifying specific needs for developing pipeline novel design methodologies
against geohazards (WP1).

• D
 evelopment of rigorous three-dimensional models for analysing buried
pipelines under permanent ground actions (faults, landslides, liquefaction)
with emphasis on soil material modelling (WP2).

• P
 reparation of experimental set-up, acquisition of pipe specimens, material
testing (WP3).

• P
 erformance of large-scale and small-scale experiments, with the purpose of
examining soil-pipe interaction (WP4).

• E
 xtensive parametric analyses of buried pipelines under ground-induced
actions (fault action, landslides, lateral spreading, settlements) (WP5).

• P
 roposal of calibrated methodologies for simple and efficient stress analysis
of buried pipelines for design purposes (WP6).

• P
 resentation of guidelines for buried pipeline design against permanent
ground-induced actions, summarizing existing knowledge and incorporating all
results (WP6).

• Dissemination of the results through a dedicated workshop (WP6).

The GIPIPE results and deliverables are both novel and unique, resulting in

• d
 evelopment and validation of rigorous and simplified models, capable at
describing large permanent deformations of buried pipelines,

• b
 etter understanding of soil-pipe interaction under severe ground-induced
actions,

• significant improvement of pipeline design state-of-the-art in geohazard

areas.

Studies and reports

ISBN 978-92-79-54040-0
doi:10.2777/9147