, - 2009 29-31 2009 29-31 OCTOBER 2009 International Conference UACEG2009: Science & Practice UNIVERSITY OF ARCHITECTURE, CIVIL

CIVIL ENGINEERING AND GEODESY

EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED BEHAVIOUR OF BURIED PRESSURE PIPELINES: STATE-OF-THE-ART II. COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURES FOR PRACTICAL USE S. Petkova1, D. Kisliakov2
Keywords: Buried Pipelines, Seismic Excitation, Computational procedures, Design practice Field of research: Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Buried Pipelines ABSTRACT This work represents the second part of a systematic review of the main groups of computational models for buried pipelines under seismic excitation. The aim of the review carried out in the present work is to analyse the computational procedures and models used in available codes, recommendations and guidelines used in the common engineering design practice. It is well known that various quite complicated physical interaction phenomena appear during the earthquake-induced vibrations of a buried pressure pipeline. On the other hand, the design of this type of lifelines is more or less a matter of common engineering practice. After the systematic analysis of the theoretical models performed in the first part of this review, here the available and established in the design practice computational procedures are discussed in terms of used models, methods and describing parameters. The basic assumptions, limitations and scope of validity of these procedures are analysed, and some conclusions are finally drawn in connection with the possibility for their direct application.

1. Introduction
Seismic design of buried pipeline has great importance in the field of Lifeline Engineering. The pipelines are usually buried below the ground surface for economic, aesthetic, safety and environmental reasons. In certain circumstances, it may be required to place those pipes above ground over some length in order to bridge a particular hindrance.
Silvia Petkova; MSc CEng; Doctoral student at the Department of Hydraulic Engineering, UACEG, 1 Hristo Smirnenski Blvd., 1046 Sofia, BULGARIA, e-mail: silvia_petkova@mail.bg Dimitar Kisliakov, Assoc. Prof. Dr., Department of Hydraulic Engineering, UACEG, 1 Hristo Smirnenski Blvd., 1046 Sofia, BULGARIA, e-mail: kiss_fhe@uacg.bg
2 1

However, such special structures are not subject of the present review. Generally, the buried pipelines are designed and constructed as continuous or as segmented ones. Modern pipeline structures manufactured by ductile steel with full penetration butt welds at joints possess good ductility. It has been observed that the overall performance of steel welded pipeline systems in past earthquakes has been relatively good. Important feature of buried pipelines is that they generally cover large areas and are subject to a variety of geotectonic hazards. Another characteristic, which distinguishes them from aboveground structures and facilities, is that the relative movement of the pipes with respect to the surrounding soil is generally small and the inertia forces due to the weight of the pipelines and its contents are relatively unimportant. However, catastrophic failures did occur in many cases, particularly in areas of unstable soils. Buried pipelines can be damaged during earthquakes either by permanent ground deformations or by transient seismic wave propagation. Continuous pipelines may rupture in tension or buckle in compression. Observed seismic failure of segmented pipelines is mainly due to distress at the pipeline joints, including axial pull-out of the joints in tension, crushing of bell and spigot in compression, or circumferential flexural failures (round cracks), which have been noticed in areas of ground curvature. In the first part of this state-of-the-art report, a systematic review has been performed of the developed theoretical models and analysis methods for the most important physical phenomena involved in the seismic response of a buried pipeline. In this part of the report, the currently available computational procedures for earthquake-resistant design of buried pipelines are presented as recommended in codes and guidelines for practical use.

2. Standards
In the Technical Codes and Rules [1], the additional tension stresses due to seismic wave propagation in a buried pipeline can be estimated as:

t = m1.n1.k1.g .

T E . , 2 V1

(1)

where m1 is a constraint coefficient, which takes into account the burial depth of the pipe; n1 is a coefficient of damping; the seismic coefficient, k1, depends on the seismic zone classification of the country; g is the acceleration of gravity; T is the natural period of seismic oscillation, E is the modulus of elasticity of the pipe material, V1 is the wave propagation velocity. The buried pipeline is assumed to be flexible and there is no relative movement at the pipe soil interface (i.e. the pipe strain equals the ground strain). The surrounding soil is assumed to be a homogeneous, isotropic and linearly elastic infinite half-space with certain modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio. Expression (1) and some additional explanations are given in the Guidance [7] for computation of the pipe stresses induced by seismic wave propagation. In Construction Codes and Rules [3], the additional axial stresses in a buried pipeline or in a pipeline laid in an embankment subjected to seismic waves, propagating along its axis can be estimated by the following equation:

.N =

0,04m0 k0 k a E0T0 , c

(2)

where m0 is a constraint coefficient, which takes into account the burial depth of the pipe; k0 is an importance factor; k is a coefficient which depends on the return period of the earthquake; is the seismic acceleration, determined by seismic intensity zone classification; 0 is the modulus of elasticity of the pipe material; T0 is the natural period of seismic oscillation; is the wave propagation velocity. Regulations [2, 4, 11] define fundamental requirements for earthquakeresistant design of buildings and facilities. Here, reinforced concrete buried pipes used in transportation structural facilities are discussed. The main dynamic loads on such culverts are due to the traffic. Earthquake resistant requirements are specified regarding to the cross section and the joints between the pipe and other structural elements, depending on the seismic intensity zone coefficient. The Eurocode standards provide common structural design rules for everyday use for the design of whole structures and component products of both traditional and innovative nature. EN 1998 applies to the design and construction of buildings and civil engineering facilities in seismic regions. Its purpose is to ensure that in the case of an earthquake, human lives will be protected, damages will be limited, and structures important for civil protection will remain operational. Eurocode 8, Part 4 [9] specifies principles and application rules for the seismic design of the structural aspects of facilities composed of above-ground and buried pipeline systems, silos and storage tanks of different types and uses. This standard includes the additional criteria and rules required for the seismic design of these structures without restrictions on their size, structural types and other functional characteristics. Two-limit-states format is retained, according to the general framework of the Eurocodes, with a suitably adjusted definition ultimate limit state and damage limitation state. Buried pipelines shall be designed and constructed in such a way as to maintain their integrity or some of their supplying capacity after the seismic events relevant to the damage limitation state, even with considerable local damage. The main safety hazard directly associated with the pipeline rupture during a seismic event is explosion and fire, particularly with regard to gas pipelines. The remoteness of the location and the exposure of the population to the impact of rupture shall be taken into account in establishing the level of the seismic action relevant to the ultimate limit state. For pipeline systems in environmentally sensitive areas, the damage to the environment due to pipeline ruptures shall also be taken into account in the definition of the acceptable risk. The informative Annex B of EC 1998-4:2006 [9] provides methods for the calculation of strains and curvatures in the pipeline as a result of seismic wave propagation, under certain simplifying assumptions. The selection of the waves to be taken into account and of the corresponding wave propagation velocities should be based on geophysical considerations. Since the various types of seismic waves have different propagation velocities and different motion patterns of the particles, geophysical and seismological studies are generally unable to predict the actual wave pattern, so that conservative assumptions have to be made. The pipeline is assumed to be flexible enough to follow without slippage the deformation of the soil. The soil motion is represented by a single sinusoidal wave which propagates along the pipeline axis. The soil-pipeline interaction problem is reduced to a static one, where the pipeline is deformed by the passage of a displacement wave, without consideration of dynamic effects. The equation of this sinusoidal wave is:

x u ( x, t ) = d sin (t ), c

(3)

where d is the total displacement amplitude, c is the apparent wave speed, is the eigenfrequency of the surrounding soil. The longitudinal particle movement produces strains in the soil and in the pipeline given by the expression:

=
whose maximum value is max =

u d x = cos (t ), x c c

(4)

, = d c

is the peak soil velocity

(5)

The transverse particle movement produces a curvature in the soil and in the pipe, respectively, given by the expression:

=
whose maximum value is max =

a , a = 2d is the peak soil acceleration (7) c2 The average shear stress between the pipe and the surrounding soil for the condition of perfectly bonded pipe is:

2u 2 d x = 2 sin (t ), 2 x c c

(6)

aver

2d = sE 2 , c

(8)

where E is a modulus of elasticity of the pipe and s is the pipe thickness. The above described procedure could not be directly applied since the eigenfrequency of the surrounding soil, , is not specified. A well elaborated computational procedure [10] has been developed for earthquakeresistant design of high-, medium- and low-pressure gas pipelines in Japan. Two levels of input seismic motion are assumed to ensure the earthquake-resistant performance of the structures, facilities, etc. Seismic motions of Level 1 are assumed to be such ones with a probability of occurrence once or twice during the service life of the gas pipeline. The earthquake- resistant performance required for seismic motion of Level 1 is such that the pipelines operation can be resumed immediately without any repair. Seismic motions of Level 2 are assumed to be very strong seismic motions with a low probability of occurrence during the service life of the gas pipeline. The earthquake- resistant performance is such that the pipeline should not leak. For the estimation of the pipelines earthquake-resistance, it is considered that the seismic loads are of short-term and periodically displacement-controlled type since the strains caused in the ground by seismic motions are repetitively applied to the pipeline. The recommended practices [10] contain earthquake-resistant design computational procedures for the different specified levels of seismic motions as well as for the structures of straight pipe branches, bends and tees in cases of various pressures. The aim of the computing procedures is to obtain the ground displacements and strains during a seismic excitation. The ground displacements of the surface layer are obtained by an expression

which takes into account the seismic zone coefficient. The seismic zone coefficient has three values and is defined according to a national zone classification map given in [10]. The estimated ground strains are applied to the pipeline through a strain transfer coefficient which considers the interaction between the pipe and the surrounding soil. Further, analysis concerning the seismic structural performance of the pipe is carried out. The main difficulty for any direct application of this Japanese design code consists mainly in the formulation of the national seismic zonation. The Japanese development is based on a different approach than the intensity-based (according to the MM, MSK or EMS scales) zonation accepted in many European countries. The final result is expressed in terms of a single coefficient [10], but any industrial implementation would require reliable justification of this issue. It should also be noted that although quite sophisticated, the mentioned set of design procedures [10] does not take into account any fluid-structure interaction effects due to the seismic excitation.

3. Guidelines
The Guidelines [5] are aimed at providing seismic design procedures for continuous and segmented buried pipelines. They cover design criteria for buried iron and steel pipelines for various seismic hazards such as wave propagation, fault crossing, and permanent ground deformation (PGD) due to liquefaction, lateral spreading, etc. A buried pipeline shall be designed and constructed in such a way as to be able to maintain the supplying capability as much as possible, even under considerable local damage due to high intensity of earthquakes. The safety requirements have been incorporated in the analysis and design by considering an importance factor defined in the Guidelines [5]. The analysis and design criteria specified in [5] require engineering information as pipe geometry and alignment detail, stress-strain relationship of pipe material, operating pressure, basic soil properties, burial depth, specification of backfill soil, seismic hazard information, etc. Some of the general seismic design considerations which are taken into account while designing the buried pipeline are that the pipeline axis coincides with the direction of wave propagation (compression and shear waves are considered). Reasonable assumptions, based on available data and experience, should be made further as follows: proper model for the seismic hazard has to be defined; the fittings of the segmented steel pipelines should be ductile; for segmented pipes, the displacement absorption capacity of the joint should be more than the expected joint movement due to the design seismic action; in all areas of expected ground rupture, pipelines should be provided with automatic shutdown valves. In general, it is advisable to take the advantage of post-elastic behavior of pipelines. However, critical components of pipeline, which can cause extensive loss of life or major impact on the environment, should be designed to remain elastic. The stresses or strains obtained from the seismic analysis should be combined linearly with the stresses or strains in the pipeline during operation. Simplified analytical expressions given in the Guidelines [5] may be used for determining the strain in the pipeline during variable seismic hazards. In case of PGD and fault crossing, the seismic effects are in terms of ground displacements. Peak friction force per unit length of pipe at the soil-pipe interface is taken into account in certain conditions. Different pipes models, including continuous and

segmented pipeline, are examined with respect to longitudinal and transverse permanent ground deformations, to different fault types (classified per direction motion as normal slip, strike slip, or reverse slip faults). When liquefaction of the soil around the pipeline occurs, buoyant forces are exerted upon the pipeline and must be resisted by anchors and the drag forces imposed by the liquefied soil as the pipeline begins to elevate. The bending strain in the pipeline due to uplift force may be approximately estimated using the given expressions [5]. Some recommendations have been proposed to enhance the pipeline performance against PGD and fault crossing as well as to minimize the buoyancy effect upon the pipeline due to liquefaction. When the seismic excitation is modeled by seismic wave propagation, the response of the pipeline due to these effects is generally described in terms of longitudinal axial strains. Flexural strains due to ground curvature are neglected since these are relatively small. There is an expression for computing the pipes longitudinal axial strain, in which the apparent wave propagation velocity is directly used, while the type of the seismic wave and the angle of incidence are accounted for by a coefficient. The design peak ground velocity at the site is determined by the peak ground velocity and the importance factor of the structure. The maximum strain induced in the pipeline by friction at the soil-pipe interface can be calculated, too. Where detailed and refined analysis is required, finite element analysis may be performed by modeling the pipeline and the surrounding soil. The Finite element method for modeling the earthquake-induced behavior of the pipeline allows explicit consideration of the non-linear behavior of pipe-soil interaction and non-linear material properties of both soil and pipe. The Guidelines [5] give also some recommendations for finite element modeling of the pipeline and explanatory examples. However, fluid-structure interaction effects due to the seismic excitation are not discussed there. The Guidelines for design of buried steel pipes [6] have been developed with emphasis on a fundamental design equation suitable for hand calculations and guidance for finite element analyses. The purposes of this guide it to develop design provisions for evaluation of the integrity of such pipes for a range of applied loads, including seismic ones. Potential earthquake hazards to buried pipelines include transitory strains caused by differential ground displacement arising from ground shaking and permanent ground displacement from surface faulting, lateral spread displacement, triggered landslide displacement, and settlement from compaction or liquefaction. Wave propagation strains can be calculated by the following computational procedure, where wave propagation data is presented in terms of longitudinal axial strain. The axial strain, a, induced in a buried pipe can be approximated using the following equation:

a =

Vg aCs

(9)

where Vg is a peak ground velocity generated by ground shaking, usually associated with shear waves, particularly for locations close to the earthquake source; C s is an apparent propagation velocity; a is a coefficient, associated with the wave type. The axial strains can be assumed to be transferred to the pipe, but need not to be taken larger than the axial strain induced by friction at the soil pipe interface:

Tu 4 AE

(10)

where Tu is the peak friction force per unit length and can be evaluated by a given expression, is an apparent wavelength of seismic wave at ground surface, A is the pipe cross-sectional area, E is the steel modulus of elasticity. Determination of the types of seismic waves to be associated with estimates of peak ground velocity requires a site-specific seismological assessment. A reasonable approach to assess the importance of wave propagation effects on buried pipe is to assume that ground strains will be generated by surface waves. This assumption will always lead to a larger ground strain than might be expected from a shear wave. The effects of permanent ground displacement (PGD) produced by an earthquake are best evaluated using finite element analysis techniques described in [6]. Hand calculations of the response of buried pipe to PGD is applicable only for simple, idealized conditions.

4. Other studies dedicated to design applications

The practical reference book [12] is aimed for the design of buried steel pipelines. Computational procedures and expressions are given for the estimation of the behaviour of such pipelines in various conditions, including during earthquake. Basic principles are pointed out for the investigation of the complex dynamic interactions between the pipe and surrounding soil due to seismic excitation. These treatments are based on many available modern codes and guidelines, however, without exact citation of the corresponding particular source which would affect the possible application of the presented procedures. In [13], Todorov presents a model of buried pipeline, which describes the interaction between the pipe and the surrounding soil and has four degrees of freedom. These degrees of freedom are related to an axial, transversal and vertical direction and they have different mathematical description for various soil types. An analytical procedure is given for estimating of the pipe strains and stresses under the propagation of a simple wave with a constant wave shape. For convenience and to illustrate the procedure, a numerical example has been solved. The purpose of the study [14] is to define the slippage factor in order to estimate the decrease in pipe strain resulting from the slippage effect, to propose a simplified method to evaluate the plastic deformation of the pipeline for severe earthquakes and to derive a practical design formula for the structural strains of bent pipes. A long straight pipeline embedded in an infinite and homogeneous medium is considered excited by a travelling seismic wave with a certain incident angle to the pipe axis. The following expressions are given for assessment of the free field displacements and the maximum ground strain, under the assumption that a one-dimensional sinusoidal wave motion propagates in the horizontal direction. For convenience and to illustrate the procedure, a computational example is carried out.

Uh =

where Uh is the free field displacement, SV is the response (velocity) spectrum of the incident earthquake, TG is the typical period of the surface ground, H is the thickness of the surface ground, z is a soil depth to the pipe center, G is the free field ground strain, L is the wave length. The equation for equilibrium of force in the direction longitudinal to the pipe axis is given by:

2 SvTG cos 2 2H

z ,

G =

2 Uh, L

(11)

in which u is the pipe displacement in the longitudinal components; uG is the apparent free field displacement in the longitudinal component; and E are mass density and Young's modulus of the pipe material; A is the cross-sectional area of the pipe section; K1 is the equivalent spring modulus to reflect the soil pipe interaction in the longitudinal direction. After some simplifying assumptions, the analytical result gives the pipe strain, p, with the conversion factor, 0, as the ratio of the pipe displacement to free field displacement in the same direction: p = 0 G (13) When the earthquake intensity is severe enough so that slippage along the soil-pipe interface can take place, then the shear stress produced at the interface reaches the critical value. An expression for the maximum shear stress acting on the pipe surface is obtained and an equation for equilibrium in the slippage mode is given. When the pipe stress exceeds the yielding strength of the material, plastic strain can occur in the pipe. Since the pipe deformation is restricted by the surrounding ground motion, the possible maximum pipe strain cannot exceed the ground strain. So the pipe strain in the plastic region can be given by: p = G (14) Analysis of buried bends as a part of buried piping structures has been made in [14]. Plastic hinge model which is introduced to evaluate the structural strains of bent pipes suffered by a sever earthquake, shows good accuracy with comparative FEM calculations. A comprehensive analytical formula and a simplified design formula for estimation of the maximum strains of buried bent pipes are developed for different levels of seismic ground motions.

2u 2u EA 2 = K1 (uG u ), t 2 x

(12)

5. Conclusions
The carried out review in the first part of this state-of-the-art report shows that quite complex physical phenomena and interactions appear during the earthquake-induced vibrations of a buried pressure pipeline. On the other hand, the design of a buried pipeline is more or less a matter of common engineering practice, and for this reason there are codes, recommendations and guidelines in the Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. However, they examine the earthquake induced behavior of buried pipeline under numerous simplifications and idealized conditions regarding both the computational pipe-fluid-soil model and the physical phenomena involved. This enables the establishment of clearly applicable computational procedures and expressions in the codes and guidelines for everyday use covering the most common cases of pipeline structures and seismic hazards. However, some problems concerning the use of the available calculation procedures in such documents for the design practice can be summarized as follows: In many cases, the design of a buried pipeline for seismic excitation consists only in applying a single formula. The actual conditions of the pipeline and its physical behaviour are accounted for by means of some simple coefficients. Hence, no information can be obtained about the dynamic character of the structural response or about interaction effects in the particular case.

The application of the codes and / or guidelines is not always directly possible due to the necessity of some additional input information regarding important required parameters of the surrounding soil and seismic excitation. Thus, additional investigations would be needed for example for assessment of the natural period of seismic oscillation [1, 3, 7] or the eigenfrequency of the soil [9]. However, the cited sources do not specify (or refer to) procedures for obtaining these parameters. In some cases, there are differences in some of the basic formulations underlying the codes. For example, the seismic zone classification accepted in Japanese recommendations [10] is based on different approach than the intensity-based zonation accepted in European countries.

 1.- I,II III, , , ,, 1975 2. II-7-81*, , , , 2000 3. 2.05.06-85*, , , 4. 2 , . 68, 2007 5. Dash S., S. Jain, Guidelines for Seismic Design of Buried Pipelines Draft Report, IITK-GSDMA, Department f Civil Engineering, Indian Institute f Technology, India 6. American Lifelines Alliance, Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe, ASCE, FEMA, 2001 7. ., , , , , 1964 8. ., . , , , , 1988 9. EN 1998-4, Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines, 2006 10. Japan Gas Association, Recommended Practices for Earthquake Resistant Design of Gas Pipelines Draft, Earthquake Resistant Design Codes in Japan, 2000 11. , , 1987 12. K., , ABC , , 2004 13. M., , , XXXIX, 1997 1998 14. Ogawa Y., T. Koike, Structural design of buried pipelines for severe earthquakes, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2001

 . . II.

. 3, . 4
: , , , : e, . , , . , . , . - . , , , . , .

; . . ; , , . . 1, 1046, , e-mail: silvia_petkova@mail.bg , . -. .; , , . . 1, 1046, , e-mail: kiss_fhe@uacg.bg

4