Advertisement

Response of buried uPVC pipes subjected to earthquake shake

  • Saif AlzabeebeeEmail author
Technical papers
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

The earthquake shake has a significant impact on the response of buried infrastructures; however, no study has been conducted on the behavior of buried flexible pipes subjected to earthquake shake. This paper investigates the transverse response of buried unplasticized polyvinyl chloride pipes subjected to transverse earthquake shake. A robust finite element model has been used to conduct this research. The influence of the pipes’ diameter, backfill height, peak ground acceleration, weight of the backfill, location of the rock layer, and predominant frequency of the earthquake has been investigated to provide insight into the seismic response of these buried flexible pipes. The results showed that the earthquake shake significantly increases the pipe wall thrust, pipe wall bending moment, and vertical diameter change. The results also showed that increasing the backfill height or the peak ground acceleration remarkably increases the earthquake response of the buried pipe. In addition, it was found that the weight of the backfill soil does not have a significant impact on the earthquake response of the pipe. However, the location of the earthquake shake is found to have a notable impact on the seismic response of the pipe; the closer the rock layer to the soil surface, the higher the seismic response. Finally, the results showed that increasing the predominant frequency of the earthquake shake decreases the earthquake response of the pipe. The results reported in this research are very useful to manufacturers of plastic pipes, pipeline design engineers, and researchers interested in the response of buried infrastructures.

Keywords

Earthquake Buried pipes Earthquake analysis Peak ground acceleration 

References

  1. 1.
    Abuhajar O, El Naggar H, Newson T (2015) Seismic soil–culvert interaction. Can Geotech J 52(11):1649–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abuhajar O, El Naggar H, Newson T (2015) Experimental and numerical investigations of the effect of buried box culverts on earthquake excitation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 79:130–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Defae AH, Caucis K, Knappett JA (2013) Aftershocks and the whole-life seismic performance of granular slopes. Géotechnique 63(14):1230–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Khazaali M, Vanapalli SK, Oh WT (2018) Numerical investigation of soil–pipeline system behavior nearby unsupported excavation in saturated and unsaturated glacial till. Can Geotech J 56(1):69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alzabeebee S (2019) Influence of backfill soil saturation on the structural response of buried pipes. Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-019-00094-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alzabeebee S (2019) Seismic response and design of buried concrete pipes subjected to soil loads. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 93:103084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alzabeebee S, Chapman D, Jefferson I, Faramarzi A (2017) The response of buried pipes to UK standard traffic loading. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Geotech Eng 170(1):38–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alzabeebee S, Chapman DN, Faramarzi A (2018) Innovative approach to determine the minimum wall thickness of flexible buried pipes. Geomech Eng 15(2):755–767Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alzabeebee S, Chapman DN, Faramarzi A (2018) A comparative study of the response of buried pipes under static and moving loads. Transp Geotech 15:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alzabeebee S, Chapman DN, Faramarzi A (2018) Development of a novel model to estimate bedding factors to ensure the economic and robust design of rigid pipes under soil loads. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 71:567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alzabeebee S, Chapman DN, Faramarzi A (2019) Economical design of buried concrete pipes subjected to UK standard traffic loading. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Struct Build 172(2):141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Azzam W, Ayeldeen M, El Siragy M (2018) Improving the structural stability during earthquakes using in-filled trench with EPS geofoam-numerical study. Arab J Geosci 11:395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Azzam WR (2015) Finite element analysis of skirted foundation adjacent to sand slope under earthquake loading. HBRC J 11(2):231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bakr J, Ahmad SM (2018) A finite element performance-based approach to correlate movement of a rigid retaining wall with seismic earth pressure. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 114:460–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bakr JA (2018) Displacement-based approach for seismic stability of retaining structures, Ph.D. thesis, The University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Balkaya M, Moore ID, Sağlamer A (2012) Study of non-uniform bedding due to voids under jointed PVC water distribution pipes. Geotext Geomembr 34:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balkaya M, Moore ID, Sağlamer A (2013) Study of non-uniform bedding support under continuous PVC water distribution pipes. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 35:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bird J, O’Rourke TD, Bracegirdle A, Bommer J, Tromans IA (2004) Framework for assessing earthquake hazards for major pipelines. In: International conference on: terrain and geohazard challenges facing onshore oil and gas pipelines, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brinkgreve RBJ, Engin E, Engin HK (2010) Validation of empirical formulas to derive model parameters for sands. In: Benz T, Nordal S (eds) Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering. CRC Press, Rotterdam, pp 137–142Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brinkgreve RBJ (2006) Plaxis: finite element code for soil and rock analyses—2D-version 8.5: (user’s guide). Balkema, DelftGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brinkgreve RBJ, Kappert MH, Bonnier PG (2007) Hysteretic damping in a small-strain stiffness model. In: Proceeding of numerical models in geomechanics, NUMOG X, Rhodes, pp 737–742Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    BSI (2010) BS 9295. Guide to the structural design of buried pipelines. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cabangon LT, Elia G, Rouainia M (2019) Modelling the transverse behaviour of circular tunnels in structured clayey soils during earthquakes. Acta Geotech 14(1):163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chaallal O, Arockiasamy M, Godat A (2015) Field test performance of buried flexible pipes under live truck loads. J Perform Constr Facil 29(5):04014124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chaallal O, Arockiasamy M, Godat A (2015) Numerical finite-element investigation of the parameters influencing the behavior of flexible pipes for culverts and storm sewers under truck load. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 6(2):04014015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dhar AS, Moore ID, McGrath TJ (2004) Two-dimensional analyses of thermoplastic culvert deformations and strains. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(2):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Elshimi TM, Moore ID (2013) Modeling the effects of backfilling and soil compaction beside shallow buried pipes. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 4(4):04013004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fabozzi S, Bilotta E (2016) Behaviour of a segmental tunnel lining under seismic actions. Proc Eng 158:230–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fattah MY, Hassan WH, Rasheed SE (2018) Behavior of flexible buried pipes under geocell reinforced subbase subjected to repeated loading. Int J Geotech Earthq Eng (IJGEE) 9(1):22–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fattah MY, Hassan WH, Rasheed SE (2018) Effect of geocell reinforcement above buried pipes on surface settlement. Int Rev Civ Eng.  https://doi.org/10.15866/irece.v9i2.13721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Forcellini D (2019) Numerical simulations of liquefaction on an ordinary building during Italian (20 May 2012) earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 17(9):4797–4823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kang J, Parker F, Yoo C (2007) Soil–structure interaction and imperfect trench installations for deeply buried corrugated polyvinyl chloride pipes. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2028:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kang J, Stuart SJ, Davidson JS (2014) Analytical study of minimum cover required for thermoplastic pipes used in highway construction. Struct Infrastruct Eng 10(3):316–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kang JS, Stuart SJ, Davidson JS (2013) Analytical evaluation of maximum cover limits for thermoplastic pipes used in highway construction. Struct Infrastruct Eng 9(7):667–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Katona MG (2010) Seismic design and analysis of buried culverts and structures. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 1(3):111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Katona MG (2017) Influence of soil models on structural performance of buried culverts. Int J Geomech 17(1):04016031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Knappett JA, Madden P, Caucis K (2015) Seismic structure–soil–structure interaction between pairs of adjacent building structures. Géotechnique 65(5):429–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div 95(4):859–878Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liang T, Knappett JA, Duckett N (2015) Modelling the seismic performance of rooted slopes from individual root–soil interaction to global slope behaviour. Géotechnique 65(12):995–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    O’Rourke TD, Jung JK, Argyrou C (2016) Underground pipeline response to earthquake-induced ground deformation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 91:272–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Patil M, Choudhury D, Ranjith PG, Zhao J (2018) Behavior of shallow tunnel in soft soil under seismic conditions. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 82:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Petersen DL, Nelson CR, Li G, McGrath TJ, Kitane Y (2010) NCHTP report 647: recommended design specifications for live load distribution to buried structures. Transportation Research Board, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roy N, Bharti SD, Kumar A (2019) Seismic isolation of tunnels in blocky rock mass using expanded polystyrene (EPS) Geofoam. Innov Infrastruct Solut 4(1):38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sargand S, Masada T, Tarawneh B, Gruver D (2008) Deeply buried thermoplastic pipe field performance over five years. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(8):1181–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sim WW, Towhata I, Yamada S (2012) One-g shaking-table experiments on buried pipelines crossing a strike-slip fault. Geotechnique 62(12):1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sim WW, Towhata I, Yamada S, Moinet GM (2012) Shaking table tests modelling small diameter pipes crossing a vertical fault. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 35:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tsinidis G, Pitilakis K, Madabhushi G (2016) On the dynamic response of square tunnels in sand. Eng Struct 125:419–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wong LS, Allouche EN, Dhar AS, Baumert M, Moore ID (2006) Long-term monitoring of SIDD Type IV installations. Can Geotech J 43(4):392–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Xie X, Symans MD, O’Rourke MJ, Abdoun TH, O’Rourke TD, Palmer MC, Stewart HE (2011) Numerical modeling of buried HDPE pipelines subjected to strike-slip faulting. J Earthq Eng 15(8):1273–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Xie X, Symans MD, O’Rourke MJ, Abdoun TH, O’Rourke TD, Palmer MC, Stewart HE (2013) Numerical modeling of buried HDPE pipelines subjected to normal faulting: a case study. Earthq Spectra 29(2):609–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Xu R, Fatahi B (2019) Novel application of geosynthetics to reduce residual drifts of mid-rise buildings after earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 116:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Xu Z, Du X, Xu C, Hao H, Bi K, Jiang J (2019) Numerical research on seismic response characteristics of shallow buried rectangular underground structure. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 116:242–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhang L, Liu Y (2018) Seismic responses of rectangular subway tunnels in a clayey ground. PLoS ONE 13(10):e0204672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhang L, Liu Y (2018) Numerical investigations on the seismic response of a subway tunnel embedded in spatially random clays. Undergr Space.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhong Z, Filiatrault A, Aref A (2017) Experimental performance evaluation of pipelines rehabilitated with cured-in-place pipe liner under earthquake transient ground deformations. J Infrastruct Syst 23(2):04016036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhou M, Du YJ, Wang F, Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S (2017) Earth pressures on the trenched HDPE pipes in fine-grained soils during construction phase: full-scale field trial and finite element modeling. Transp Geotech 12:56–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhou M, Du YJ, Wang F, Liu MD (2017) Performance of buried HDPE pipes-part I: peaking deflection during initial backfilling process. Geosynth Int 24(4):383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhuang H, Wang R, Shi P, Chen G (2019) Seismic response and damage analysis of underground structures considering the effect of concrete diaphragm wall. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 116:278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Roads and Transport Engineering, College of EngineeringUniversity of Al-QadisiyahAl DiwaniyahIraq

Personalised recommendations