Dynamic Behaviour of Pressure Pipelines: Joint Research Centre of The European Commission, Ispra, Italy, 6-8 October 2004

Workshop: Vulnerabilities and Integrated Diagnostic Systems
for Trunk Pipelines: Regional Aspects

Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy,
6-8 October 2004
DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF
PRESSURE PIPELINES
Dimitar S. Kisliakov
Assoc. Prof., PhD, Dept. of Hydraulic Engineering,

University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy (UACEG),
1 Chr. Smirnenski Blvd., 1046 Sofia, BULGARIA
e-mail: kiss_fhe@uacg.bg
1
Contents 1
A. Multiple-supported pipelines
Introduction
Models and methods of analysis
Stochastic approach
Deterministic approach
Problem statement and structural model
Pipeline on stiff supports
Pipeline on support columns
Analysis procedure
Computation of the axial response
Computation of the vertical response
Computation of the horizontal response
Numerical studies and conclusions
References 2
Contents 2
B. Buried pipelines
Introduction
The effect of ground movement on pipelines
The effect of frictional interaction
Seismic Analysis and Modelling of Buried Pipelines
Analytical procedures
Models of straight pipelines
The effect of permanent ground / fault movement
Continuous pipeline
Segmented pipeline
The effect of traffic loading
The effect of soil liquefaction
References
3
Introduction
The seismic safety of lifelines is a problem of great importance for
their reliable operation. Multiple-supported pressure pipelines on
frictional stiff supports or support columns are a special type of
lifelines often implemented as part of hydropower systems or large
industrial facilities, respectively.
Models and methods of analysis

Two general approaches exist for the analysis of multiple-supported
pressure pipelines under kinematic support excitation:
Stochastic approach
The ground motion at the different supports is modelled as a
random process with a given power spectral density (PSD), and the
spatial variation is described by a correlation function, usually an
exponentially decaying function [1].
Various structural configurations of pipelines already investigated [1-
5].
4
The spatial variability of ground motions between the supports

may be attributed to:
 the loss of coherence (resulting from the spatial variability of

the rupture process, the wave transmission way from the
source to the site and the interaction between the different
types of seismic waves on the earth surface);
 the propagation (phase difference) of the seismic motions
along the structure [5].
5
Some results obtained so far:

 the spatially varying ground motions lead to different responses
than the fully correlated ones [4,5].
 additional propagation (phase difference) effects may be
neglected when the site motions are incoherent; however, when
they are coherent, phase differences may lead to higher or
lower response than the one induced by fully correlated
motions, depending on the type of dominant modes (symmetric
or anti-symmetric) at the location along the beam and on the
response quantity [5].
 for large diameter pipelines, both the transversal and the axial
responses should be investigated.
The importance of a specified random process model for the

seismic ground motion has lead to the development of various
techniques for ground motion random input generation. The
most common used ones are based on the Kanai-Tajimi
spectrum and its Clough-Penzien extension [6,7,8].
6
Deterministic approach
A ground motion time history record at one earth surface point is

further used as input motion, and the differential motion
between two supports is estimated by considering the delay
in the arrival of the propagating excitation at the different
supports.
Some features:
 the spatial variability of the ground motion between different
supports cannot be taken into account, unless all they are
specified explicitly as time histories.
 in general allows performance of a non-linear dynamic
analysis when necessary, as well as the investigation of some
special effects, such as the dynamic interaction between the
pipe and the flowing liquid inside it during support excitation.
(To our knowledge, the latter problem has not been treated
yet by means of a stochastic analysis procedure)
7
Illustration: a series of works by the author on the dynamic

response analysis of a multiple-supported pressure pipeline
subjected to a kinematic support excitation including
modelling the interaction between the pipe and flowing liquid
(water) inside it.
This method is based on a special kinematic analysis of the
structural pipeline system involving two-stage application of
the Coriolis' theorem. The analysis was based on the prove
that only one pipeline span may be considered in the case of
transversal excitation without substantial lack of accuracy
[9,10].
As a result, a method has been developed and implemented in

the computer program DREAMSuP (Dynamic Response
Analysis of Multiple-Supported Pressure Pipelines) for 3D
dynamic analysis of such pipeline subjected to the
simultaneous excitation of all three spatial ground motion
components [11].
8
Problem statement and structural model

9
10
Model of the analysed pipeline part on stiff supports
11
Special research activity was also dedicated later to the problem of the
dynamic response of such pipeline in the case of support columns
instead of stiff supports [12,13,14].
Quite recently, after non-linear finite element analysis (FEA) of the axial
response, a complete analysis procedure and a ready-to-use
computer program were developed for 3D structural response
analysis of the pipeline to the simultaneous excitation by all three
seismic motion components also for the case of support columns
with different height [15].
12
Structural model of the pipeline on support columns

a. Pipeline layout
 g (t)
u x
v i-2 i-1 i i i+1 i+1 i+2 i+3
u x v
Ci-2 Ci-1
w Ci
Ci+1
Ci+2
Ci+2 Ci+3
L L L L L
w
b. Vertical longitudinal section of the pipeline c. Cross section of the pipeline
13
Structural model of the compensator
Hc
Lc L L L L
1 2 x
K
BLL 1 2 BLR
14
Analysis procedure
In both cases:
response computation of the considered pipeline span to the
seismic excitation in terms of displacements
calculation of the internal forces and pipe stresses for a selected
pipe section X in the considered span.
1) Axial response analysis - load components:

static loads;
seismic excitation - axial component of the ground motion;
seismic excitation - contribution of the horizontal transversal
excitation;
seismic excitation - contribution of the vertical transversal
excitation;
inertial force of the pipe due to its axial motion;
force due to the fluid flow in the pipe.
15
2) Dynamic response analysis for both transversal (vertical and

horizontal) excitation components (separately computed
since the corresponding governing equations are not
coupled).
Results: the bending moments and stresses in the selected pipe

cross-section of the arbitrary pipeline span (i).
Here, vertical and horizontal transversal responses are

considered although this is correct only in the case of a
horizontal pipe axis. Of course, the connection to the three
spatial excitation components in a general pipeline layout and
inclination would be a matter of simple coordinate
transformation.
The total final displacement of the pipe support devices is

assumed to be 0, i.e. the residual displacements of the stiff
supports (column tops) after the earthquake has finished is
0.
16
Computation of the axial response
The axial pipeline response in both cases of stiff supports or

deformable support columns is computed with the important
assumption of stiff supports in the axial direction.
This essential simplification of the model [14] is justified by the
results of the performed non-linear FE study of the axial
response in both cases [15].
Differences in the compensator model accounted for in both
cases of supporting structures.
The internal axial force (respectively, the total axial loading) N
for a selected section of the span (i) can be presented as a
sum of static and dynamic components in the form:
i i
N(t )  Nst  N dyn  Nst  N dyn,in   N v
dyn, j   N h dyn, j  N dyn,comp  N dyn,Fl
j2 j2
(1)
17
The static component consists of the following parts:
 axial component of the self weight of the pipe between the

compensator and the selected cross-section x (only in the
case of inclined pipeline on stiff supports);
 force due to the internal pressure at the compensator;
 friction forces at the pipe support devices due to thermal
expansion or shrinkage of the pipe;
 force at the compensator due to thermal expansion or
shrinkage of the pipe.
18
The time-dependant component consists of:
 inertial force according to the principle of d'Alembert Ndyn,in;

 dynamic friction forces at the pipe support devices above the
selected pipe cross-section x: ij=2Nv dyn,j . These forces are
computed with the total vertical support reactions and the
axial pipe motion (the Coulomb dry friction model is
assumed).
 dynamic friction forces at the pipe support devices above the
pipe cross-section x – contribution of the horizontal
transversal excitation:
 dynamic force at the compensator: Ndyn,comp;
 dynamic friction force due to the fluid flow and axial pipe
motion Ndyn,Fl (its contribution is small).
19
Computation of the vertical response

The governing equation of motion of the earthquake-induced
vibrations of an arbitrary pipeline span (i) with flowing fluid
inside in terms of the unknown dynamic transversal
component w(x,t) (after [6]) was derived in the form [16] -
for both types of supporting structures:
4w 5w 2w 2w (2)
EI cs I  m  2m L u 
x 4
x t
4
t xt
2
 w w
mL u  N(t )  r  LHi 1  A0 x  x 2  2A0 x c t  qeff
2
2 2 w
20
where qeff is the so called (after [6]) "effective" load:
(3)
  2 N( t )  r  L H i1 t  

1.584 1.584  2 x 
1  A 0 t  
2
q eff
L L  L
 
 m  x t  x t  
1 2 
21
An approximate solution of Eq.(2) is assumed in the form:
w* = fk(t)(1 − cos2πkx/L) ; k = 1,2 (4)
The following set of ordinary differential equations is obtained

for the unknown functions fk(t), k=1,2:
 (5)
f1 
 
 f2 
a 1 ... a 6    a 7v  a 8v  
b
a2

... b 6   1  b 7v 
f v

    ( t )    ( t )  ( t  ) 
 1 b2  8
b
...
 
f 2 
22
Computation of the horizontal response
The same form of the left-hand side of the governing equation as

Eq.(2) with the “effective” load [17]:
q eff 
1.584
N(t )  r  LHi1 t   1  A0t  
2 1.584  2x 
L L  L
 
m  1 x t 2 x t    (6)
In this case, only the right-hand coefficients ak and bk, k = 7,8;

are different, Eq.(5).
23
The “effective” load here [13] is:
1.04 
 r  L Hi  N( t ) 2 S( t )  2 i ( t )  i1 ( t  ) 
2 2
q eff
 L L 
4r L u 2  0.52 2x 2x 2 x 
  (  1)S( t )  
2 i
( t )  (1  )  i 1 ( t  )  
C1  L L
2
L L L 
3
 m  i j ( t  j)i j ( x )
j 2 (7)
where: S(t) = i-1(t+) + i+2(t-2) .
24
The set of ordinary differential equations for the unknown

functions fk(t), k=1,2 has the form:
f1 
  1 
 f2   1 
 a1 a 2 ... a 6    r1 r2
 
r3    s1 s 2 s3    
b b   2     2 
... b6   1  r1 r2  
f
 1 r3     t1 t 2 t 3    
 3   3 
2
...
 
f 2  (8)
The left-hand side coefficients are the same as in Eq.(5).
25
In Eq.(8), the following notations hold as well:
1  i1 ( t  )  i 2 ( t  2) ;

 2  i ( t )  i1 ( t  ) ; 3  i ( t )  i1 ( t  ) ;
1  i2 ( t  2)  i3 ( t  3) ;

 2  i1 ( t  )  i 2 ( t  2) ; 
  3  i ( t )  i1 ( t  ) ;
26
Numerical studies and conclusions
A large number of numerical examples with real structural data

sets have been solved for both cases of pipelines on stiff
supports and on support columns of different height.
For these examples, the ground motion records of some real

earthquakes have been used, such as:
 Loma Prieta Earthquake; 17.10.1989;
 Landers Earthquake; 28.06.1992;
 Northridge Earthquake; 17.01.1994.
27
Main conclusions from the performed analyses and the solved

numerical examples:
 As already mentioned in previous works, the greatest

influence on the structural response has the seismic
input. This emphasises the importance of the site
investigations for determination of the proper
characteristics of an expected earthquake.
 The strongly simplifying assumption of stiff support

columns in axial direction is on the safety side in the
engineering sense of considering greater loading than
realised in fact.
28
 It has been already proved [13] that the influence of each

two adjacent spans in both directions on the horizontal
response of the one considered has to be accounted for in the
case of support columns of different height. However, the stiff
supports model may be regarded as more conservative but
the general validity of this statement needs to be proved.
 It was observed that the functions f1(t) and f2(t) of the

horizontal response in the case of support columns do not
follow the time history of the excitation. However, the
numerical experiments have shown that the developed model
adequately corresponds to the real structural conditions and
their changes.
29
 The friction force due to the water flow may be neglected.
 In general, the participation of the displacement time histories

δ(t) in the model may not be neglected, either. This is of
particular importance when the transversal horizontal
response in the case of support columns is considered.
30
A. Multiple-supported pipelines: pipeline on stiff supports
Acceleration N/S
horizontal Acceleration U/D
vertical
[m/(s*s)] [m/(s*s)]
Time [s]
Displacement [m] Displacements [m] Time [s]
QRDYNH [N] Time [s]

QRDYNV [N] Time [s]
Vertical support reaction at support No.7
Horizontal support reaction at support No.7
Time [s]
RDYNSUPH [N]
Time [s]
Total contribution of the horizontal supporting to the axial force RDYNSUPV [N] Total contribution of the vertical supporting to the axial force
3.0E-3 Time [s]

Function F1 [m]
2.0E-3 3.0E-3 Function F1 [m] Time [s]
1.0E-3 2.0E-3
0.0E+0 1.0E-3
-1.0E-3 0.0E+0
-2.0E-3 -1.0E-3
-3.0E-3
-2.0E-3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -3.0E-3
3.0E-4
Time [s]
Function F2 [m]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
2.0E-4 3.0E-4 Time [s]
Function F2 [m]
1.0E-4 2.0E-4
0.0E+0 1.0E-4
-1.0E-4 0.0E+0
-2.0E-4 -1.0E-4
-3.0E-4 -2.0E-4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -3.0E-4
Time [s]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time [s] 31
A. Multiple-supported pipelines: pipeline on stiff supports
axial moments & stresses

Acceleration E/W
[m/(s*s)] RMOMV [Nm]
2.0E+7
Vertical bending moment
1.0E+7
0.0E+0
-1.0E+7
Time [s]
Velocity [m/s] -2.0E+7
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Time [s]
RMOMH [Nm]
2.0E+7 Horizontal bending moment
Displacement [m] Time [s] 1.0E+7
0.0E+0
-1.0E+7
-2.0E+7
RDYNC [N] Time [s] 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Dynamic friction force at the compensator
Time [s]
RMOMT [Nm]
4.0E+7
Total bending moment (absolute value)
Time [s] 2.0E+7

RDYNSUP [N] Dynamic friction force at the supports
0.0E+0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Time [s]
Time [s] Sigma1 [Pa]
DALEMF [N] 1.0E+9
Inertial force Maximum normal edge stress
5.0E+8
Time [s] 0.0E+0

FF4 [N]
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Friction force due to the fluid flow
Time [s]
Sigma2 [Pa] Minimum normal edge stress
0.0E+0
RNDYN [N] Time [s]

Total axial force in the considered cross section
-5.0E+8
-1.0E+9
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Time [s]
Time [s]
32
A. Multiple-supported pipelines: pipeline on support columns
horizontal vertical
10.00 Acceleration [m/(s*s)] 3.00 Acceleration [m/(s*s)]
S/N component, top of support No.5 2.00 U/D component
5.00 (left span end)
1.00
0.00 0.00
-1.00
-5.00
-2.00
-10.00 -3.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time [s]
0.06 Displacement [m]
0.30 Displacement [m] Time [s]
U/D component
0.20 S/N component, top of support No.5 0.03
0.10 (left span end)
0.00
0.00
-0.10 -0.03
-0.20
-0.06
-0.30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time [s]
8.0E+004 Support reaction at the left span end [N]
6.00E+004 Horizontal support reaction at the left span end [N] Time [s]
4.00E+004 6.0E+004
2.00E+004
4.0E+004
0.00E+000
-2.00E+004 2.0E+004
-4.00E+004 0.0E+000
-6.00E+004 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time [s]
6.0E+004 Contribution of the vertical excitation to the total
6.00E+004 Contribution of the horizontal excitation to the total Time [s] 4.0E+004 axial friction force at the supports [N]
4.00E+004 axial friction force at the supports [N] 2.0E+004
2.00E+004 0.0E+000
0.00E+000 -2.0E+004
-2.00E+004 -4.0E+004
-4.00E+004 -6.0E+004
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-6.00E+004 Time [s]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2.0E-002
Function F1V [m]
1.00E-002 Time [s]
Function F1H [m] 1.0E-002
5.00E-003
0.0E+000
0.00E+000 -1.0E-002
-5.00E-003 -2.0E-002
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-1.00E-002 Time [s]
1.0E-003 Function F2V [m]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1.00E-003 Time [s] 5.0E-004
Function F2H [m]
5.00E-004 0.0E+000
0.00E+000 -5.0E-004
-5.00E-004 -1.0E-003
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time [s]
-1.00E-003
0 10 20 30 40 50 Time [s] 60 33
A. Multiple-supported pipelines: pipeline on support columns
axial moments & stresses

6.00 Acceleration [m/(s*s)]
E/W component
4.00
2.00 RMOMV [Nm]
0.00 2.0E+006
Vertical bending moment
-2.00
1.0E+006
-4.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.0E+000
Time [s]
-1.0E+006
Velocity [m/s]
0.40 E/W component
-2.0E+006
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
0.00
Time [s]
-0.40
RMOMH [Nm]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 3.0E+006 Horizontal bending moment
Time [s] 2.0E+006
0.08
Displacement [m]
1.0E+006
0.04 E/W component
0.0E+000
0.00
-1.0E+006
-0.04
-2.0E+006
-0.08
-3.0E+006
-0.12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Time [s] Time [s]
1.20E+005 Axial force at the compensator [N]
8.00E+004 RMOMT [Nm]
3.0E+006
4.00E+004
0.00E+000 Total bending moment (absolute value)
-4.00E+004 2.0E+006
-8.00E+004
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1.0E+006
Time [s]
Total dynamic axial force at the supports [N] 0.0E+000
4.00E+004 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Time [s]
0.00E+000
Sigma1 [Pa]
-4.00E+004 6.0E+008
Maximal normal edge stress
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 4.0E+008
Time [s] 2.0E+008
4.00E+004 Inertial axial force due to the
axial ground acceleration [N] 0.0E+000
2.00E+004
0.00E+000 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
-2.00E+004
Time [s]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Sigma2 [Pa] Minimal normal edge stress
Time [s] 0.0E+000
8.80E+003 Axial force due to fluid flow [N]
8.00E+003 -2.0E+008
7.20E+003 -4.0E+008
6.40E+003 -6.0E+008
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
0.00E+000 Total axial force [N] Time [s]
Time [s]
-1.00E+005
-2.00E+005
-3.00E+005
-4.00E+005
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time [s] 34
Some tasks for future research:
 A comprehensive parameter study with large variety of the

ground motion parameters representing different geological
and seismological site conditions.
 Verification of the results with benchmark case studies and

especially with experimental measurements.
35
REFERENCES
1. Zerva A., A.H.-S. Ang, Y.K. Wen , Lifeline Response to

Spacially Variable Ground Motions, Earthquake Engineering 11. Kisliakov, D., Dreidimensionale Untersuchung einer oberirdisch
and Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Vol.16, 361-379, verlegten Druckrohrleitung bei Erdbebeneinwirkung,
1988. Internationales Symposium "Moderne Methoden und Konzepte
im Wasserbau", VAW ETHZ und SWV, Zьrich, 7. - 9. Oktober
2. Debchandhury A., G. Gazis , Response of MDOF System to
2002
Multiple Support Seismic Excitation, J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE,
114, 583-603, 1988. 12. Kisliakov D., Modelling the Earthquake-Induced Motion of a
High-Pressure Pipeline on Tall Frictional Supports, Proc. 15th
3. Harichandran R., W. Wang , Response of Simple Beam to
IMACS World Congress on Scientific Computation, Modelling
Spatially Varying Earthquake Excitation, J. Eng. Mech. Div.,
and Applied Mathematics, Berlin, 24-29 Aug.1997
ASCE, 114, 1526-1541, 1988.
13. Kisliakov D., Earthquake-Induced Motion of a High-Pressure
4. Zerva A., Response of Multi-Span Beams to Spatially Incoherent
Pipeline on Tall Frictional Supports, Proc. of the 8th National
Seismic Ground Motions, Earthquake Engineering and
Congress on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Sept. 08-11.
Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Vol.19, 819-832,
1997, Sofia, Bulgaria, J.of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics,
1990.
Bulg. Academy of Sc., pp.41-50, No.4, 1998
5. Zerva A., Effect of Spatial Variability and Propagation of Seismic
14. Kisliakov, D., Axial Earthquake-Induced Vibrations of a
Ground Motions on the Response of Multiply Supported
Pressure Pipeline on Frictional Support Columns, Anniversary
Structures, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, Part 2, Vol.6,
Scientific Conference "50 Years Faculty of Hydrotechnics at
Nos 3 and 4, 1991.
UACEG", Sofia, Bulgaria, Oct.6.-8.1999
6. Clough R. W. , J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures, McGraw
15. Kisliakov, D. Coupled 3-D Analysis of the Axial and Transversal
Hill, Inc., New York, 1975.
Earthquake-Induced Vibrations of a Pressure Pipeline on
7. Zerva A., Seismic Ground Motion Simulations From a Class of Frictional Support Columns, J.of Theoretical and Applied
Spatial Variability Models, Earthquake Engineering and Mechanics, Bulg. Academy of Sc., Vol.32, No.4, 2002
Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Vol.21, 351-361,
16. Kisliakov, D. On the response of multiple - supported pressure
1992.
pipeline to vertical seismic excitation, Annual Report of the
8. Zerva A., Seismic Loads Predicted by Spatial Variability Models, University of Arch., Civil Engineering and Geodesy (UACEG),
Structural Safety, 11, 227-243, 1992. UACEG, Sofia, 1998
9. Kisliakov D., Investigation of the Dynamic Interaction Between 17. Kisliakov, D. Improved Response Analysis of a Multiple-
a High-Pressure Pipeline and the Moving Liquid Inside Under Supported Pipeline Under Seismic Excitation, Proc. 3d Japan-
Seismic Loading, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Turkey Workshop on Earthquake Engineering, Vol.1, ITU,
Dynamics, Vol.19, No.8, 1990 Istanbul, Turkey, 21-25 Febr., 2000
10. Kisliakov, D. On the behaviour of open high-pressure pipelines
under seismic loading, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics,
Bulg. Ac. Sc., No.3, Sofia, 1990
36
B. Buried pipelines
Introduction
37
B. Buried pipelines
Different response from that of vertical structures as buildings:

 out-of-phase-input instead of (one-point) in-phase input
 slip at the interface, complicated interaction
 dependence on the nonlinear restoring characteristics
 kinematic rather than inertial impact
 energy losses / damping effects due to: wave dissipation,
friction, deterioration of soils
Under seismic excitation, the response of buried pipelines is

controlled by the ground displacements / strains,
predominantly in the axial direction, with dynamic effects
being negligible.
38
B. Buried pipelines
The effect of ground movement on pipelines
39
B. Buried pipelines
Interactional soil-structure (pipe) problem in connection with

transmitting waves in a semi-half space.
Solution in closed form possible only if:

 single-type uniform ground
 infinite uniform circular pipe
For evaluations of seismic responses under various conditions,

discrete modeling of the soil-pipe system is required (FEM,
BEM).
40
B. Buried pipelines
In general, there are four cases of seismic hazard to buried

pipelines:
 soil straining induced by seismic ground shaking (wave
propagation effect – Mexico City (1985) and Whittier Narrows
(1987)
 large differential ground movement / rupture along fault
zones
 soil liquefaction, lateral soil spreading or landslides induced by
ground shaking
 internal hydrodynamic surge pressure induced by seismic
shaking – Whittier Narrows (1987) and Loma Prieta (1989)
41
B. Buried pipelines
Investigations of the damages to buried pipelines after

earthquakes reveal that heavy damages or destruction
happen especially on irregularly bounded areas in surface soil
layers.
Waves in such complicated fields are analysed numerically.
Overall, the most frequent failure modes have been observed to

occur at regions where the soil and/or geological conditions
change and at joints and junctions. These are:
 pulling out of the joints
 crushing of pipe bodies in longitudinal direction
 shear and /or bending failure in transverse direction
42
B. Buried pipelines
The effect of frictional interaction
static experiments (very slow motion)  Coulomb friction
43
B. Buried pipelines
dynamic excitation  Coulomb friction + elastic reaction
44
B. Buried pipelines
Seismic Analysis and Modelling of Buried Pipelines
Analytical procedures
Example: Equivalent linearization method [1]
Slip displacement u:
u=w–v (1)
w – axial displacement of the soil
v – axial displacement of the pipe
45
B. Buried pipelines
For the Coulomb friction mechanism, the equation of motion is:
u 2
w 2
EA 2  F  2 (2)
x x
F - the circumferential frictional force along the pipe axis per unit
length, which is function of the relative slip velocity:
46
B. Buried pipelines
u  w
  v (3)
(4)
After some assumptions for the representation of the input

displacement wave w and the slip displacement u, and some
mathematics, the axial displacement and strain of the pipe
can be determined. However, the complex functions used are
compatible with the random process theory [1].
47
B. Buried pipelines
The dynamic response of buried fluid-filled orthotropic thick and

thin cylindrical shells due to incident waves has been
extensively studied in a large series of papers by a research
group at the Banaras Hindu University in Varanasi, India
(P.C.Upadhyay, B.K.Mishra, V.P.Singh, J.P.Dwivedi).
In the works [2] and [3], a specially developed procedure for the
dynamic analysis of buried pipelines is presented together
with an extensive review of the existing methods in this field.
48
B. Buried pipelines
Models of straight pipelines
Two main groups of straight pipeline models are used:

 continuous pipes (simplified: perfectly bounded pipe, upper
bound of pipe axial strain and curvature is the upper bound of
the ground strain and curvature – functions of Cp, Cs)
 jointed (segmented) pipes (additionally: maximum relative
joint displacements and maximum joint rotations – also
functions of Cp, Cs, + segment length; further assumed:
seismic wave length is >> pipe segment length)
Most commonly used: soil-spring pipe models, equivalent to
“beam on elastic foundation”  soil-pipe interactions are not
considered (the soil springs are usually not frequency-
dependant). The calibration of these springs is of crucial
importance for the reliability of the results.
49
B. Buried pipelines
50
B. Buried pipelines
51
B. Buried pipelines
The effect of permanent ground / fault movement
Continuous pipeline
The Newmark/Hall/Kennedy model:
52
B. Buried pipelines
Pattern of circular arcs, with each circular segment spanning the

fault centerline and the location of an anchor point.
The plastic definition of a ductile pipe with a bilinear stress-strain

curve is used to accommodate the large ground / fault
movement. If the plastic strain of the material does not
exceed its limit, the pipeline is considered safe. Otherwise, it
will fail.
53
B. Buried pipelines
Generalization of the formulation for a buried pipeline across a

strike-slip fault – the Wang and Yeh model:
54
B. Buried pipelines
Segmented pipeline
It can be assumed that the pipe segments are rigid, and only
joint displacements and joint rotations are used to take up the
fault movement. A simplified analysis method can be
developed based on this assumption [7].
55
B. Buried pipelines
The effect of traffic loading on buried pipes [4]
 The structural response of a buried pipe to traffic loading mainly depends on the
pipe’s cross section deformability as a ring ad the stiffness of the backfill material
around it.
 A thick-walled pipe acts as a rigid ring and generates high soil pressures (normal to
the pipe-soil interface) at the crown and the invert.
 A thin-walled pipe acts as a flexible ring and ovalise horizontally. Two beneficial
effects:
* the outward movement at the sides causes passive pressures in the backfill;
* the inward movement at the crown reduces the pressure in that area.
 more uniform distributions of soil pressures around a flexible pipe
 different design criteria:
* rigid pipes  limit stress criteria;
* flexible pipes  limit deformations criteria
We should refer to the modern German [5] and Austrian [6] codes for design of buried
pipelines, where both rigid and flexible pipes are analysed according to the state-of-
the-art of this problem.
56
B. Buried pipelines
The effect of soil liquefaction
Until recently, still no unified approach is available to deal with a

buried pipeline in a liquefied soil environment. Only few
experimental and numerical studies have been performed so
far. Some of them are referred to in [7] as well as presented
in the proceedings of the subsequent World and European
conferences on Earthquake Engineering in the last decade.
57
B. Buried pipelines
REFERENCES
1. T. Akiyoshi, “The Effect of Ground Movement on Pipelines”, in “Soil-Structure

Interaction: Numerical Analysis and Modelling”, John W. Bull (Ed.), E&FN Spon, 1994
2. J.E.Luco, F.C.P.de Barros, "Seismic Response of a Cylindrical Shell Embedded in a
Layered Viscoelastic Half-Space. I: Formulation", Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Vol.23, 1994
3. F.C.P.de Barros, J.E.Luco, "Seismic Response of a Cylindrical Shell Embedded in a
Layered Viscoelastic Half-Space. I: Validation and Numerical Results", Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Vol.23, 1994
4. P.Nath, „The Effect of Traffic Loading on Buried Pipes“, in “Soil-Structure Interaction:
Numerical Analysis and Modelling”, John W. Bull (Ed.), E&FN Spon, 1994
5. Arbeitsblatt ATV-DVWK-A 127, “Statische Berechnung von Abwasserkanдlen und –
leitungen“, 3 Auflage, 2000
6. ЦNORM B5012, „Statische Berechnung erdverlegter Rohrleitungen im Siedlungs- und
Industriewasserbau“, 1996
7. L.R.-L. Wang, “Numerical Seismic Analysis and Modelling of Buried Pipelines”, in “Soil-
Structure Interaction: Numerical Analysis and Modelling”, John W. Bull (Ed.), E&FN
Spon, 1994
58
Workshop: Vulnerabilities and Integrated Diagnostic Systems
for Trunk Pipelines: Regional Aspects
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy,
6-8 October 2004
THANK YOU!
DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF PRESSURE PIPELINES
Dimitar S. Kisliakov
59

Dynamic Behaviour of Pressure Pipelines: Joint Research Centre of The European Commission, Ispra, Italy, 6-8 October 2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamic Behaviour of Pressure Pipelines: Joint Research Centre of The European Commission, Ispra, Italy, 6-8 October 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Workshop: Vulnerabilities and Integrated Diagnostic Systems

for Trunk Pipelines: Regional Aspects

Assoc. Prof., PhD, Dept. of Hydraulic Engineering,

Models and methods of analysis

The spatial variability of ground motions between the supports

 the loss of coherence (resulting from the spatial variability of

Some results obtained so far:

The importance of a specified random process model for the

A ground motion time history record at one earth surface point is

Illustration: a series of works by the author on the dynamic

As a result, a method has been developed and implemented in

Problem statement and structural model

Pipeline on support columns

Structural model of the pipeline on support columns

v i-2 i-1 i i i+1 i+1 i+2 i+3

Structural model of the compensator

1) Axial response analysis - load components:

2) Dynamic response analysis for both transversal (vertical and

Results: the bending moments and stresses in the selected pipe

Here, vertical and horizontal transversal responses are

The total final displacement of the pipe support devices is

Computation of the axial response

The axial pipeline response in both cases of stiff supports or

The static component consists of the following parts:

 axial component of the self weight of the pipe between the

The time-dependant component consists of:

 inertial force according to the principle of d'Alembert Ndyn,in;

Computation of the vertical response

where qeff is the so called (after [6]) "effective" load:

  2 N( t )  r  L H i1 t  

An approximate solution of Eq.(2) is assumed in the form:

w* = fk(t)(1 − cos2πkx/L) ; k = 1,2 (4)

The following set of ordinary differential equations is obtained

Computation of the horizontal response

Pipeline on stiff supports

The same form of the left-hand side of the governing equation as

In this case, only the right-hand coefficients ak and bk, k = 7,8;

Pipeline on support columns

The “effective” load here [13] is:

where: S(t) = i-1(t+) + i+2(t-2) .

The set of ordinary differential equations for the unknown

The left-hand side coefficients are the same as in Eq.(5).

In Eq.(8), the following notations hold as well:

1  i1 ( t  )  i 2 ( t  2) ;

Numerical studies and conclusions

A large number of numerical examples with real structural data

For these examples, the ground motion records of some real

Main conclusions from the performed analyses and the solved

 As already mentioned in previous works, the greatest

 The strongly simplifying assumption of stiff support

 It has been already proved [13] that the influence of each

 It was observed that the functions f1(t) and f2(t) of the

 The friction force due to the water flow may be neglected.

 In general, the participation of the displacement time histories

QRDYNH [N] Time [s]

3.0E-3 Time [s]

axial moments & stresses

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Time [s] 2.0E+7

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Time [s] 0.0E+0

RNDYN [N] Time [s]