Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic fragility of buried steel natural gas pipelines due to axial compression at geotechnical discontinuities

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an extended set of numerical fragility functions for the structural assessment of buried steel natural gas (NG) pipelines subjected to axial compression caused by transient seismic ground deformations. The study focuses on NG pipelines crossing sites with a vertical geotechnical discontinuity, where high compression straining of a buried pipeline is expected to occur under seismic transient ground deformations. A de-coupled numerical framework is developed for this purpose, which includes a 3D finite element model of the pipe–trench system employed to evaluate rigorously the soil–pipe interaction effects on the pipeline axial response in a quasi-static manner. One-dimensional soil response analyses are used to determine critical ground deformation patterns at the vicinity of the geotechnical discontinuity, caused by the ground shaking. A comprehensive parametric analysis is performed by implementing the proposed analytical framework for an ensemble of 40 recorded earthquake ground motions. Crucial parameters that affect the seismic response and therefore the seismic vulnerability of buried steel NG pipelines namely, the diameter, wall thickness, burial depth and internal pressure of the pipeline, the backfill compaction level, the pipe–soil interface friction characteristics, the soil deposits characteristics, as well as initial geometric imperfections of the walls of the pipeline, are systematically considered. The analytical fragility functions are developed in terms of peak ground velocity at the ground surface, for four performance limit states, considering all the associated uncertainties. The study contributes towards a reliable quantitative risk assessment of buried steel NG pipelines, crossing similar sites, subjected to seismically-induced transient ground deformations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABAQUS (2012) ABAQUS: theory and analysis user’s manual version 6.12. Dassault Systemes Simulia, Providence

    Google Scholar 

  • American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) (2001) Seismic fragility formulations for water systems. Part 1—guidelines. ASCE-FEMA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed AU, Aydin M, Cheng JR, Zhou J (2011) Fracture of wrinkled pipes subjected to monotonic deformation: an experimental investigation. J Press Vessel Technol 133:011401

    Google Scholar 

  • ArcelorMittal (2018) High yield SAW welded Pipe API 5L grade X65 PSL 2. 65:5–6. https://ds.arcelormittal.com/repository/Technical%20Data%20Sheets/Seamless%20Pipes%20-%20API%205L%20grade%20X65%20PSL%202.pdf. Accessed 13 Oct 2019

  • Argyroudis S, Pitilakis K (2012) Seismic fragility curves of shallow tunnels in alluvial deposits. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyroudis S, Tsinidis G, Gatti F, Pitilakis K (2017) Effects of SSI and lining corrosion on the seismic vulnerability of shallow circular tunnels. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 98:244–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai Y (2001) Pipelines and risers, vol 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai Q, Bai Y (2014) Subsea pipeline design, analysis, and installation. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Barenberg ME (1988) Correlation of pipeline damage with ground motions. J Geotech Eng ASCE 114(6):706–711

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen WW, Shih BJ, Wu CW, Chen YC (2000) Natural gas pipeline system damages in the Ji–Ji earthquake (The City of Nantou). In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on seismic zonation, USA

  • Chen W, Shih B-J, Chen Y-C, Hung J-H, Hwang H (2002). Seismic response of natural gas and water pipelines in the Ji-Ji earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:1209–1214

    Google Scholar 

  • Darendeli M (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, USA

  • Demirci HE, Bhattacharya S, Karamitros D, Alexander N (2018) Experimental and numerical modelling of buried pipelines crossing reverse faults. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 114:198–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Eidinger J (1998) Water distribution system. In: Schiff AJ (ed) The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1998—Lifelines. USGS Professional Paper 1552‐A, US Government Printing Office, Washington

  • Eidinger J, Maison B, Lee D, Lau B (1995) East Bay municipal district water distribution damage in 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 4th US conference on lifeline earthquake engineering, ASCE, TCLEE, Monograph No. 6, 240–247

  • El Hmadi K, O’Rourke M (1988) Soil springs for buried pipeline axial motion. J Geotech Eng 114(11):1335–1339

    Google Scholar 

  • Elnashai AS, Di Sarno L (2015) Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. From source to fragility. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • EQE Summary Report (1995) The January 17. 1995 Kobe earthquake. EQE International, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2004) EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2006) EN 1998-4: 2006. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 4: silos, tanks and pipelines. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K (2015) Predictive relationships for seismically induced slope displacements using numerical analysis results. Bull Earthq Eng 13(11):3207–3238

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehl P, Desramaut N, Reveillere A, Modaressi H (2014) Fragility functions of gas and oil networks. SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk. Geotech Geol Earthq Eng 27:187–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Giardini et al. (2013) Seismic hazard harmonization in Europe (SHARE): online data resource. https://doi.org/10.12686/sed-00000001-share. Accessed 26 Jan 2019

  • Hashash YMA, Park D (2002) Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion propagation in non-linear site response analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(7):611–624

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2016) DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual. USA

  • Honegger DG, Wijewickreme D (2013) Seismic risk assessment for oil and gas pipelines. In: Tesfamariam S, Goda K (eds) Handbook of seismic risk analysis and management of civil infrastructure systems. Series in civil and structural engineering. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, Cambridge, pp 682–715

    Google Scholar 

  • Honegger DG, Gailing RW, Nyman DJ (2002) Guidelines for the seismic design and assessment of natural gas and liquid hydrocarbon pipelines. In: The 4th International pipeline conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 563–570

  • Housner GW, Jenningst PC (1972) The San Fernando California earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1:5–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahangiri V, Shakib H (2018) Seismic risk assessment of buried steel gas pipelines under seismic wave propagation based on fragility analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 16(3):1571–1605

    Google Scholar 

  • Japan Gas Association (JGA) (2004) Seismic design for gas pipelines, JG(G)-206-03, pp 91–100. https://iisee.kenken.go.jp/worldlist/29_Japan/29_Japan_6_GasPipeline_Code_2004.pdf. Accessed 13 Oct 2019

  • Jeon SS, O’Rourke TD (2005) Northridge earthquake effects on pipelines and residential buildings. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:294–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Karamitros DK, Bouckovalas GD, Kouretzis GP (2007) Stress analysis of buried steel pipelines at strike-slip fault crossings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:200–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Karamitros D, Zoupantis C, Bouckovalas GD (2016) Buried pipelines with bends: analytical verification against permanent ground displacements. Can Geotech J 53(11):1782–1793

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakides S, Corona E (2007) Plastic buckling and collapse under axial compression. In: Mechanical offshore pipelines buckling collapse, vol I. Elsevier Science, New York, pp 280–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanzano G, Salzano E, Santucci de Magistris F, Fabbrocino G (2013) Seismic vulnerability of natural gas pipelines. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 117:73–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanzano G, Salzano E, Santucci de Magistris F, Fabbrocino G (2014) Seismic vulnerability of gas and liquid buried pipelines. J Loss Prev Process Ind 28:72–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanzano G, Salzano E, Santucci de Magistris F, Fabbrocino G (2015) Seismic damage to pipelines in the framework of Na-Tech risk assessment. J Loss Prev Process Ind 33:159–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee D-H, Kim BH, Lee H, Kong JS (2009) Seismic behavior of a buried gas pipeline under earthquake excitations. Eng Struct 31:1011–1023

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee DH, Kim BH, Jeong SH, Jeon JS, Lee TH (2016) Seismic fragility analysis of a buried gas pipeline based on nonlinear time-history analysis. Int J Steel Struct 16(1):231–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Melissianos V, Vamvatsikos D, Gantes C (2017a) Performance-based assessment of protection measures for buried pipes at strike-slip fault crossings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 101:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Melissianos V, Lignos X, Bachas KK, Gantes C (2017b) Experimental investigation of pipes with flexible joints under fault rupture. J Constr Steel Res 128:633–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Melissianos V, Vamvatsikos D, Gantes C (2017c) Performance assessment of buried pipelines at fault crossings. Earthq Spectra 33(1):201–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohareb ME (1995) Deformational behaviour of line pipe. PhD Dissertation, University of Alberta, USA

  • NASA (1968) Bucking of thin walled circular cylinders. NASA SP-8007. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19690013955. Accessed 13 Oct 2019

  • National Institute of Building Science (NIBS) (2004) Earthquake loss estimation methodology. HAZUS technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazemi N, Das S (2010) Behavior of X60 line pipe subjected to axial and lateral deformations. J Pressure Vessel Technol 132:031701

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke MJ (2009) Wave propagation damage to continuous pipe. Technical Council Lifeline Earthquake Engineering Conference (TCLEE), Oakland, CA, June 28–July 1, Reston, VA, American Society of Civil Engineers, USA

  • O’Rourke MJ, Ayala G (1993) Pipeline damage due to wave propagation. J Geotech Eng 119(9):1490–1498

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke MJ, Deyoe E (2004) Seismic damage to segment buried pipe. Earthq Spectra 20(4):1167–1183

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke MJ, Hmadi K (1988) Analysis of continuous buried pipelines for seismic wave effects. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 16:917–929

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke MJ, Liu X (1999) Response of buried pipelines subjected to earthquake effects. University of Buffalo, Buffalo

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke TD, Palmer MC (1994) The Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994: Performance of gas transmission pipelines. Technical Report NCEER-94-0011. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. State University of New York at Buffalo, USA

  • Paolucci R, Pitilakis K (2007) Seismic risk assessment of underground structures under transient ground deformations. In: Pitilakis K (ed) Earthquake geotechnical engineering. Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 433–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Paquette JA, Kyriakides S (2006) Plastic buckling of tubes under axial compression and internal pressure. Int J Mech Sci 48:855–867

    Google Scholar 

  • Pineda-Porras O, Ordaz M (2003) Seismic vulnerability function for high diameter buried pipelines: Mexico City’s primary water system case. In: Proceedings of the international conference on pipeline engineering constructions, vol 2, pp 1145–1154

  • Psyrras N, Sextos A (2018) Safety of buried steel natural gas pipelines under earthquake-induced ground shaking. A review. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 106:254–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Psyrras N, Kwon O, Gerasimidis S, Sextos A (2019) Can a buried gas pipeline experience local buckling during earthquake ground shaking? Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 116:511–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarvanis GC, Karamanos SA, Vazouras P, Mecozzi E, Lucci A, Dakoulas P (2018a) Permanent earthquake-induced actions in buried pipelines: numerical modelling and experimental verification. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2017:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarvanis GC, Karamanos SA, Vazouras P, Mecozzi E, Lucci A, Dakoulas P (2018b) Permanent earthquake-induced actions in buried pipelines: numerical modeling and experimental verification. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(4):966–987

    Google Scholar 

  • Scawthorn C, Yanev PI (1995) Preliminary report 17 January 1995, Hyogo-ken Nambu, Japan earthquake. Eng Struct 17(3):146–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California

  • Timoshenko SP, Gere JM (1961) Theory of elastic stability. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsatsis A, Gelagoti F, Gazetas G (2018) Performance of a buried pipeline along the dip of a slope experiencing accidental sliding. Géotechnique 68(11):968–988

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsinidis G, Di Sarno L, Sextos A, Psyrras N, Furtner P (2018) On the numerical simulation of the response of gas pipelines under compression. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on advances in steel structures, ICASS’2018, 5–7 Dec 2018, Hong Kong, China

  • Tsinidis G, Di Sarno L, Sextos A, Furtner P (2019a) A critical review on the vulnerability assessment of natural gas pipelines subjected to seismic wave propagation. Part 1: fragility relations and implemented seismic intensity measures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 86:279–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsinidis G, Di Sarno L, Sextos A, Furtner P (2019b) A critical review on the vulnerability assessment of natural gas pipelines subjected to seismic wave propagation. Part 2: pipe analysis aspects. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 92:103056

    Google Scholar 

  • Vazouras P, Karamanos SA (2017) Structural behavior of buried pipe bends and their effect on pipeline response in fault crossing areas. Bull Earthq Eng 15(11):4999–5024

    Google Scholar 

  • Vazouras P, Karamanos SA, Dakoulas P (2010) Finite element analysis of buried steel pipelines under strike-slip fault displacements. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1361–1376

    Google Scholar 

  • Vazouras P, Karamanos SA, Dakoulas P (2012) Mechanical behavior of buried steel pipes crossing active strike-slip faults. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 41:164–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Vazouras P, Dakoulas P, Karamanos SA (2015) Pipe–soil interaction and pipeline performance under strike-slip fault movements. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 72:48–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Yun H, Kyriakides S (1990) On the beam and shell modes of buckling of buried pipelines. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 9:179–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y (2008) Failure of X52 wrinkled pipeline subjected to monotonic bending deformation and internal pressure. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 18:50–55

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Horizon 2020 Programme of the European Commission under the MSCA-RISE-2015-691213-EXCHANGE-Risk Grant (Experimental and Computational Hybrid Assessment of NG Pipelines Exposed to Seismic Hazard, www.exchange-risk.eu). This support is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vienna Consulting Engineers ZT GmbH, Untere Viaduktgasse 2, 1030, Vienna, Austria

    Grigorios Tsinidis & Peter Furtner

  2. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Luigi Di Sarno

  3. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Anastasios Sextos

  4. School of Engineering, University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy

    Grigorios Tsinidis & Luigi Di Sarno

Authors
  1. Grigorios Tsinidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luigi Di Sarno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anastasios Sextos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Furtner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grigorios Tsinidis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

A series of tables, summarizing the parameters required for the definition of the fragility curves developed in the framework of this study, i.e. the median peak ground velocities corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i and total lognormal standard deviation βtot, are summarized in this Appendix (Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26).

Table 9 Median peak ground velocities corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 406.4 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 30 m
Full size table
Table 10 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i and total lognormal standard deviation βtot for 406.4 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 60 m
Full size table
Table 11 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 406.4 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 120 m
Full size table
Table 12 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 508.0 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 30 m
Full size table
Table 13 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 508.0 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 60 m
Full size table
Table 14 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 508.0 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 120 m
Full size table
Table 15 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 762.0 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 30 m
Full size table
Table 16 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 762.0 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 60 m
Full size table
Table 17 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 762.0 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 120 m
Full size table
Table 18 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 914.4 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 30 m
Full size table
Table 19 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 914.4 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 60 m
Full size table
Table 20 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 914.4 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 120 m
Full size table
Table 21 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 1066.4 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 30 m
Full size table
Table 22 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 1066.4 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 60 m
Full size table
Table 23 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 1066.4 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 120 m
Full size table
Table 24 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 1219.2 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 30 m
Full size table
Table 25 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 1219.2 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 60 m
Full size table
Table 26 Median peak ground velocity corresponding to the limit states, PGVm,i, and total lognormal standard deviation, βtot, for 1219.2 mm pipelines embedded in soil deposit of depth H = 120 m
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsinidis, G., Di Sarno, L., Sextos, A. et al. Seismic fragility of buried steel natural gas pipelines due to axial compression at geotechnical discontinuities. Bull Earthquake Eng 18, 837–906 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00736-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00736-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation