Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 1265–1284 | Cite as

Intensity measures for the assessment of the seismic response of buried steel pipelines

  • Hamzeh Shakib
  • Vahid Jahangiri
Original Research Paper


To estimate the demand of structures, investigating the correlation between engineering demand parameters and intensity measures (IMs) is of prime importance in performance-based earthquake engineering. In the present paper, the efficiency and sufficiency of some IMs for evaluating the seismic response of buried steel pipelines are investigated. Six buried pipe models with different diameter to thickness and burial depth to diameter ratios, and different soil properties are subjected to an ensemble of 30 far-field earthquake ground motion records. The records are scaled to several intensity levels and a number of incremental dynamic analyses are performed. The approach used in the analyses is finite element modeling. Pipes are modeled using shell elements while equivalent springs and dashpots are used for modeling the soil. Several ground motion intensity measures are used to investigate their efficiency and sufficiency in assessing the seismic demand and capacity of the buried steel pipelines in terms of engineering demand parameter measured by the peak axial compressive strain at the critical section of the pipe. Using the regression analysis, efficient and sufficient IMs are proposed for two groups of buried pipelines separately. The first one is a group of pipes buried in soils with low stiffness and the second one is those buried in soils with higher stiffness. It is concluded that for the first group of pipes, \(\sqrt {{\text{VSI}}[\upomega_{1} ({\text{PGD}} + {\text{RMS}}_{\text{d}} )]}\) followed by root mean square of displacement (RMSd) are the optimal IMs based on both efficiency and sufficiency; and for the second group, the only optimal IM is PGD2/RMSd.


Continuous buried pipeline Intensity measure Efficiency Sufficiency Performance based earthquake engineering 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Alfredo HS, Wilson H (1975) Probability concepts in engineering planning and design. Wily, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. American Lifelines Alliance (2001) Guidelines for the design of buried steel pipe. American Society of Civil EngineersGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:1193–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benito B, Herraiz M (1997) An approach to the measurement of the potential structural damage of earthquake ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley BA, Cubrinovski M, Dhakal RP, MacRae GA (2009) Intensity measures for the seismic response of pile foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:1046–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cordova PP, Deierlein GG, Mehanny SS, Cornell CA (2000) Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure and probabilistic assessment procedure. In: The Second US-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, pp 187–206, 11–13 September, Sapporo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3:1–3Google Scholar
  8. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 128:526–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elenas A (2000) Correlation between seismic acceleration parameters and overall structural damage indices of buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 20:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giovenale P, Cornell CA, Esteva L (2004) Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33:951–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hindy A, Novak M (1979) Earthquake response of underground pipelines. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 7:451–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kostinakis K, Athanatopoulou A, Morfidis K (2015) Correlation between ground motion intensity measures and seismic damage of 3D R/C buildings. Eng Struct 82:151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krawinkler H (2002) A general approach to seismic performance assessment. In: Proceedings, international conference on advances and new challenges in earthquake engineering research, Hong Kong, pp 173–180Google Scholar
  14. Liu A-w Hu, Y-x Zhao F-x, X-j Li, Takada S, Zhao L (2004) An equivalent-boundary method for the shell analysis of buried pipelines under fault movement. Acta Seismol Sin 17:150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luco N (2002) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects. In: Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23:357–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mackie K, Stojadinovic B (2003) Seismic demands for performance-based design of bridges. In: PEER Report 2003/16, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Mollaioli F, Lucchini A, Cheng Y, Monti G (2013) Intensity measures for the seismic response prediction of base-isolated buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 11:1841–1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Rourke M (1995) Seismic behavior of buried pipeline components: a state-of-the-art review. In: Proceedings, 10th European conference on earthquake engineering, Vienna, Austria, pp 2153–2162Google Scholar
  20. Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2008) Methodology for the development of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:1157–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pineda-Porras O, Najafi M (2010) Seismic damage estimation for buried pipelines: challenges after three decades of progress. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 1:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Riddell R (2007) On ground motion intensity indices. Earthq Spectra 23:147–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schiff AJ (ed) (1991) Guide to post-earthquake investigation of lifelines. American Society of Civil Engineers, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  24. Shome N, Cornell CA (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures (Report No. RMS35), Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  25. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE (1998) Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthq Spectra 14:469–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2005) Developing efficient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:1573–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yang D, Pan J, Li G (2009) Non-structure-specific intensity measure parameters and characteristic period of near-fault ground motions. Earthqu Eng Struct Dyn 38:1257–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yun H, Kyriakides S (1985) Model for beam-mode buckling of buried pipelines. J Eng Mech 111:235–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIslamic Republic of Iran

Personalised recommendations