Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

18 Seismic Design

Chapter Outline
1. Introduction 435
2. Seismic Hazards 436
Surface Faulting 436
Landslides 438
Liquefaction 438
3. Pipeline Seismic Design Guidelines 438
Pipeline Seismic Design 438
Pipeline Design Criteria 440
4. Seismic Design Methodology 441
Static Analysis of Fault Crossing 441
Ground Wave Analysis 442
Seismic Level of Design 443
5. Analysis Example 444
Buried Pipeline Responses for a Fault Crossing 444
Responses of Unburied Pipelines for a Ground Wave 446
6. Mitigation Methods 447
Modifying Loading and Boundary Conditions 449
Modifying Pipeline Conguration 449
Modifying Pipeline Route Selection 449
Improving Emergency Response 449
1. Introduction
When a pipeline system traverses through various seismic damage areas, many
potential damages, such as slope instability at scarp crossing, soil liquefaction, and
fault movement, may hit the pipeline system. Different kinds of seismic hazards often
impose hazardous geotechnical loads on subsea pipeline systems. In some extreme
situations, the loads due to those seismic hazards may be so large that the subsea
pipeline system yields and suffers plastic deformation. Damages and disruptions of
the subsea pipelines caused by an earthquake may have severe effects on service life,
since it may lead to signicant nancial loss due to service interruptions, res,
explosions, and environmental contamination. Examples of such catastrophes include
the 1964 Alaska Earthquake, the San Fernando Earthquake of 1971, the Guatemala
Earthquake in 1976, the 1987 Ecuador Earthquake, the Kobe Earthquake in 1995, and
Subsea Pipeline Design, Analysis, and Installation.
Copyright 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
the 2003 Algeria Earthquake. A general conclusion drawn from a review of many
earthquake events shows that, for buried steel pipelines, the direct effect of seismic
ground waves on the integrity of long, straight pipelines is generally not signicant.
Where there is permanent ground deformation due to soil failure, there may be a
severe inuence on pipeline integrity. For unburied pipelines, both seismic ground
waves and permanent ground deformation can cause severe damage, depending on
the pipeline geometry and connected structures.
Seismic ground waves produce strains in buried pipelines. However, because there
are little or no inertia effects from dynamic excitation, the strains tend to be small and
often are well within the yield rupture threshold of the pipeline material. The direct
effect of seismic waves is, therefore, generally not expected to cause rupture or
buckling failure to buried pipelines. Nonetheless, seismic waves can cause damage to
unburied pipeline systems, especially in the interfacing area, such as in the pipeline
transition section from buried to unburied and the pipeline tie-in spool to the sub-
sequent structure. In general, the seismic analyses of the permanent ground defor-
mation for buried pipes and unburied pipes and seismic ground waves for unburied
pipes are required for designing pipeline systems.
Many subsea pipelines are often buried for stability and mechanical protection in
the shallow water area; otherwise, they are laid on the seabed. This chapter
Addresses available seismic design codes, standards, and design criteria for subsea
Discusses a general design and analysis methodology for fault crossing and seismic ground
Presents design and analysis examples using a static model for buried pipe, subjected to
permanent ground deformations due to the foundation failure, and a time history dynamic
model for unburied pipelines subjected to seismic ground waves.
Summarizes the mitigation methods for subsea pipelines to avoid seismic hazards.
2. Seismic Hazards
Damage to pipeline systems during an earthquake, whether onshore or offshore, can
arise from the traveling ground waves and permanent ground deformation due to soil
failures. The primary soil failures are
Surface faulting.
Differential settlement.
Ground cracks.
Seismic wave propagation.
Surface Faulting
Surface faulting is the earth surface deformation associated with the relative
displacement of adjacent parts of the surface crust. Surface fault displacements can
436 Qiang Bai and Yong Bai
occur rapidly during an earthquake. In addition, relatively minor displacements may
accumulate gradually over many years as seismic creep.
Surface fault crossing is one of the major hazards to subsea pipelines, whether
buried or unburied. Numerous investigations have been carried out for fault crossing
with different soil movements. Surface faulting is an important consideration for
buried pipelines, because pipelines crossing fault zones must deform longitudinally
and bend to accommodate the ground surface offsets. For subsea pipelines laid on the
top of the seaoor, fault movements are generally of little, if any, consequence.
However, it is possible that subsea faulting could produce a vertical offset that would
cause a spanning pipeline to be elevated above the seaoor and may cause vortex-
induced oscillations due to water currents, then cause fatigue damages of the pipeline.
Figure 18.1 illustrates the classications of fault movements, in which the surface
faults are classied on the basis of their direction of movement with respect to the
ground surface. A strike-slip fault is one in which the predominant component of
ground movement is horizontal displacement. Normal-slip and reverse-slip faults are
those in which the overlying side moves downward and upward, respectively, in
relation to the underlying side of the fault.
The amount and type of ground surface displacement is the main factor for
designing pipelines to resist permanent ground deformation at fault crossings. Bonilla
(1982) [2] summarizes a simple equation relating the maximum displacement at
ground surface to the earthquake surface-wave magnitude as
logL 6:35 0:93M
where L is the maximum surface displacement in meters and M
is the earthquake
surface wave magnitude. The earthquake magnitude is one of the design criteria based
on historical seismicity and geological data. Displacement data from the fault of
similar earthquakes might be used in selecting a value for designing pipelines,
because of a big deviation in earthquake surface displacement data, on which the
equation is based.
The ability of a pipeline to deform in the plastic range under tension helps prevent
rupture at fault crossings. If compression of the pipeline in a fault crossing is un-
avoidable, the compressive strain should be limited to within the local buckling
Figure 18.1 Classication of surface fault movement.
Source: Honegger and Nyman [1].
Seismic Design 437
Landslides are mostly triggered by strong ground shaking during earthquakes, which
include rock falls, disrupted soil slides, rock slides, soil slumps, soil block slides, and
soil avalanches, as illustrated in Figure 18.2. The potential threat to pipeline
performance includes the following parameters:
The amount of landslide displacement.
The depth of the landslide relative to the depth of the pipeline.
The type of ground displacement associated with the landslide movement.
The direction of landslide movement relative to the pipeline.
An approximate estimate of potential landslide movement can be made based on the
existing slope and a general description of the near-surface material. Several
commercial software packages are available for the analysis. Stress-deformation
analyses have been used to estimate the permanent deformations caused by inertial
instabilities. The strain potential and stiffness reduction approaches allow the
estimation of permanent deformations from relatively simple analyses.
Liquefaction is the transformation of a saturated noncohesive soil from a solid to a
more liquid state as a result of increased pore-water pressure and concomitant loss of
shear strength. Liquefaction hazards to pipelines include pipeline otation and
sinking, which require the pipe to be located below the ground water table within a
zone of liqueable soil. Ground settlement occurs when a liqueable soil layer is
beneath a layer of competent or hard soil. If the pipeline is located in the layer of
competent soil near the surface, it is subjected to displacement associated with
subsidence of the ground. Loss of shear strength gives rise to bearing failures and
large deformations in surface structures founded on liqueed soil.
Assessing liquefaction potential is based on both peak ground acceleration and
earthquake magnitude. Estimating the peak ground acceleration at the site of interest
can be performed using probabilistic or deterministic approaches.
3. Pipeline Seismic Design Guidelines
Pipeline Seismic Design
Most loads of seismic hazards on a buried pipeline are due to the ground movements
relative to the pipeline. The pipeline is deformed to match the ground movements, and
the loads are displacement controlled. Pipelines buried with minimal soil cover or in
relatively weak soils and subjected to high axial loads due to the ground movement
may experience upheaval buckling. The current design code and guidelines for
pipeline systems under displacement-controlled loads are basically strain-based
design, in which the acceptable strain levels for the system based on limit-states
design are limited (see Chapter 4, Limit-State Based Design of this book). The
438 Qiang Bai and Yong Bai
limitation of pipeline strains associated with varying levels of performance is an
ongoing area of investigation within the pipeline industry. For buried pipelines, the
parameters of interest in the seismic design are the displacement and strain under the
imposed permanent ground deformation due to foundation failure.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE (1984) [4], collected some
published systematic papers in seismic analysis and design as a standard, giving
seismic design guidelines for oil and gas pipeline systems. These guidelines provide
valuable information on seismic design considerations for pipelines, primarily
Rock fall (disruptive)
Earth slump (coherent) Earth block slide (coherent)
Rock topple (disruptive)
Bluff line
Main scarp

Earth flow (occurs very slow to
rapid and can be coherent to
disruptive in nature)
Debris avalanche (disruptive and
occurs very rapid to extremely rapid)
Source area
Main track
Weathered bedrock
soil etc.
Figure 18.2 Various types of landslides.
Source: Barnes [3].
Seismic Design 439
onshore-buried pipelines, and force-deformation curves of the pipe-soil interactions
for pipelines buried in both clay and sand. ASCE (2001, 2002) [5], [6] also developed
seismic design guidelines for onshore piping systems and buried pipes but not for
petroleum pipelines and offshore pipelines. The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) states that the limit of calculated stresses due to occasional loads,
such as wind or earthquake, should not exceed 80% of SMYS of the pipe, but this
specication provides no guidance for the design method [7]. DNV in the code of
Submarine Pipeline Systems [8] classies the earthquake load into an accidental or
environmental load, depending on the probability of earthquake occurrence. It also
does not provide an earthquake design method for offshore pipelines [8]. However, in
the selection and specication of a pipeline for a seismic design, the pipeline system
may not be adequately addressed in a conventional stress-based design but a strain-
based design. Considerable research efforts in the pipeline industry have been
directed at understanding the behavior of pipe at high strains, with this effort
increasing over the last few years with more focus on strain based design.
Pipeline Design Criteria
Longitudinal tensile strains of 35% for assessing the ability of pipelines to maintain
pressure integrity when subjected to earthquake-generated ground displacement were
recommended in ASCE (1984) [4]. The failure strains in the strain-based design are
estimated usually by fracture mechanics approaches, advancements have been made
from the research and practices about the strain capacities of pipeline. The longitu-
dinal compression strain limit is dened as follows:

and 4% [18.2]
Test data from the available papers are plotted in Figure 18.3, with calculated strains
from Eq. [18.2].
The tests performed by Mohareb et al. (1994) [9] focused on conditions where
the axial load was constant, ve of the seven analysis cases utilized a constant
axial load. The axial force applied in the pipe tests by Mohareb et al. corresponds
to a 45

C temperature differential, a tension force equivalent to the force necessary

to counteract axial shortening from the Poisson effect of internal pressure, and a
compressive force to counteract the tension produced by the closed-end conditions
of the test specimens. Ghodsi et al. (1994) [10] repeated the tests of Mohareb et al.
but included a girth weld in the center of the test specimen to assess the impact of
a girth weld on the initiation of wrinkling. Zimmerman et al. (1995) [11] carried
out pipeline tests to examine postwrinkling behavior, including a relationship for
compression strain limits for X70 steel. The testing program carried out by Dorey
et al. (2001) [12] concentrated on the investigation of strains associated with the
initiation of wrinkling. These test data, compared with Eq. [18.2], were taken past
the point of wrinkle formation and development of maximum pipe moment
440 Qiang Bai and Yong Bai
The longitudinal tension strain limit for pressure integrity when evaluating pipe-
line response to permanent ground deformation is dened as the follows:

4% [18.3]
4. Seismic Design Methodology
Several seismic analysis approaches for pipeline design were developed to predict the
pipeline behavior in response to differential ground movements. Two main structural
response models are considered:
A static model for buried pipelines subjected to fault crossing due to soil failure.
A dynamic analysis model for unburied pipelines subjected to ground wave load.
Static Analysis of Fault Crossing
Two typical analytical methods under certain assumptions were suggested for the
fault crossing analysis, Newmark and Hall (1975) [13] and Kennedy et al. (1977) [14].
Kennedy and others extended the ideas of Newmark and Hall and incorporated some
Figure 18.3 Comparison of recommended compression strain limits with test data.
Source: Honegger and Nyman [1].
Seismic Design 441
improvements in the method for evaluation of the maximum axial strain. They
considered the effects of lateral interaction in their analyses. The inuence of large
axial strains on the pipes bending stiffness is also considered. ORourke and Liu
(1999) [15] report that the Kennedy model for strike-slip faulting, which results in
axial tension, provides the best match to ABAQUS nite element results, based on an
independent comparison of the available analytical approaches. The ASCE guidelines
give a detailed description of both the Newmark and Hall and Kennedy et al. schemes.
It must be emphasized that both schemes are valid only for pipe under tension, since
this condition may not be guaranteed under other various combined modes of fault
Due to the largely nonlinear nature of the problem, a nite element analysis (FEA)
is the most general tool for pipeline fault crossing design. Nonlinear nite element
modeling allows accurate determination of pipeline stress and strain at various
locations along the pipeline route with a wide range of parameters. The pipe-soil
interaction can be modeled as discrete springs in three dimensions. The pipeline is
represented as a sequence of nite straight beam elements supported on the bottom by
the bearing springs. The imposed fault movement is then input into the FE model as a
static displacement boundary condition. The analysis is performed to determine the
equilibrium nodal position of the pipe, bending moment, axial force, strains, and
stresses. The next section explains a detailed example of nite element analysis for
the fault crossing using the ABAQUS software.
Ground Wave Analysis
Both permanent ground deformation and seismic ground wave can cause severe
damage to unburied pipelines and connected equipment. Three basic methods are
available for analyzing the responses of a structure subjected to seismic ground wave:
Static analysis.
Response spectra analysis.
Time history analysis.
In general, a static analysis is sufcient for the long-term response of a structure to
applied loads. However, if the duration of the applied load is short, as in the case of an
earthquake, a time history dynamic analysis is required.
For the unburied pipeline, earthquake design motions are typically presented in
the form of a seismic time history ground motion or a design response spectrum,
which is based on the estimated ground waves and characteristics of the ground
Static Analysis
The pipeline is divided into individual spans or a series of segments. Static seismic
loads are considered to be in direct proportion to the weight of pipe segments. The
peak acceleration from the response spectrum is applied as a lateral force distributed
along the pipe, and bending stresses and support reactions are calculated. The seismic
static coefcients are usually obtained from the seismic zone, which corresponds to
442 Qiang Bai and Yong Bai
a level of seismic acceleration. Many design software programs can perform static
analysis, but these methods are primarily used in building seismic design.
Response Spectra Analysis
In response spectra analysis, the ground motion versus frequency method is used. The
maximum acceleration for a given frequency and damping is determined based on
seismic maps and soil characteristics. The higher the damping, the lower is its
acceleration. The responses of displacements (translations and rotations), loads
(forces and moments), and stresses at each point for each natural frequency of the
system and for each direction are obtained after analysis. The calculated loads,
displacements, and stresses of the piping system are typically calculated by taking the
square root sum of squares of the response in each of the three directions. The
response spectra method is approximate but often a useful, inexpensive method for
preliminary design studies.
Time History Analysis
This analysis method involves the actual solution of the dynamic equation of motion
throughout the duration of the applied load and subsequent system vibration,
providing a true simulation of the system response at all times. In time history
analysis, the seismic time history ground motions (displacement, velocity, or accel-
eration as a function of time) of seismic ground waves in three directions are applied
to a nite element model of a system to obtain time history excitations of the system,
including stresses, strains, and reaction forces. Time history analysis is a more
accurate, more computationally intensive method than response spectrum analysis
and is best suited to the transient loadings where the prole is known.
An example of time history analysis with a nite element model for the ground wave
movement with ABAQUS software is detailed in the next section. ABAQUS software
is the selected program to develop nite element models of ground soil, pipelines, and
the subsea manifold connection because of its capability to accurately simulate solid
objects, pipes, elbows, material and geometric nonlinearities, and interactions between
soil and pipelines. The ABAQUS software also provides analytical models to describe
the pipe-soil interaction. These models describe the elastic and perfectly plastic
behavior by dening the force exerted on the pipeline and its displacement. These
denitions are suitable for use with sands and clays and can be found in detail in the
ASCE guidelines for the seismic design of oil and gas pipeline systems.
Seismic Level of Design
Two design levels are normally adopted for the design criteria:
Contingency design earthquake (CDE).
Probable design earthquake (PDE).
CDE represents a higher-level earthquake, established on the basis of a geoseismic
evaluation with a typical return period of 200 to 1000 years for pipelines. The
Seismic Design 443
intensity of CDE is taken as the design limits, exceeding causes of pipe failure or at
least sufcient damage to cause an interruption of service. On the other hand, PDE is a
lower-level earthquake, which assumes only minor damages to the pipeline system
without interrupting the service. These events are likely to occur during the life of the
pipeline and are therefore incorporated as part of the design environmental load. PDE
is usually taken to have a return period of 50 to 100 years.
5. Analysis Example
To explore the seismic responses of offshore pipeline systems, two study examples
are presented [16]:
The static response of a 42-inch buried pipeline to permanent ground deformations, where
the pipeline is fully buried under the natural seabed.
The dynamic response of a 42-inch unburied pipeline system to seismic waves, where the
pipeline is laid on the seabed and connected to a subsea manifold.
Buried Pipeline Responses for a Fault Crossing
A buried steel pipeline with a 42-inch diameter and a 0.875-inch wall thickness,
material of API 5L Grade-X65, contains oil at a specic gravity of 0.8. The pipeline is
backlled with a 3-foot sand depth median, with a density of 120 pounds per cubic
foot and a friction angle of 35

Figure 18.4 illustrates a buried pipeline under a fault crossing due to an earth-
quake. The fault length in the plan direction is set as 1.2 [m], in the vertical direction,
set as 1.0 [m]. A static analysis of buried pipeline was analyzed using the ABAQUS
software. Here, the unanchored length varies, depending on the pipeline size and axial
pipe-soil interaction force (friction force). The 1000 [m] long pipeline, with both ends
xed, is modeled by using pipe elements in the example.
Nonlinear pipeline-soil interactions in the axial, lateral, and vertical directions are
modeled with pipe-soil interaction elements and soil characteristics in f
, f
, and
force-deformation curves. Based on the formulas suggested in the ASCE
guidelines, the maximum axial interaction force per unit length at the pipe-soil
interface, f
, of 36.6 [kN/m], and corresponding maximum deformation, x
, of 0.004
[m]. The maximum lateral interaction force per unit length f
of 175.4 [kN/m], and the
corresponding maximum deformation y
of 0.08 [m]. The maximum upward inter-
action force per unit length f
of 38.0 [kN/m] and the corresponding maximum
deformation z
of 0.044 [m]. The maximum downward interaction force per unit
length f
is 1450 [kN/m] and the corresponding maximum deformation z
is 0.13 [m].
Figure 18.5 shows the displacements of the pipeline in the y and z directions under
the fault crossing. The corresponding stress distribution at the bottom wall along the
pipeline is shown in Figure 18.6. The maximum von Miss stress exceeds 80% of
SMYS of the pipe, which does not satisfy the ASME criteria. Therefore, the designed
buried pipeline is not suitable for the seismic level that can cause inputted fault
444 Qiang Bai and Yong Bai
Anchor point
Initial pipeline position
Anchor point
Unanchored length
Unanchored length
Anchor point
Anchor point
Initial pipeline position
Initial ground position
Ground position
after earthquake
Unanchored length
Unanchored length
Figure 18.4 Buried pipeline under a fault crossing. (For color version of this gure, the reader
is referred to the online version of this book.)
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Coordinate of x direction, [m]








Displacement in y direction Displacement in z direction
Figure 18.5 Deformations of pipeline in y and z directions. (For color version of this gure,
the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)
Seismic Design 445
Sensitivity calculations of different buried depths of the pipeline also show that the
maximum stress and strain of the pipeline are proportional to the buried depth, when
other parameters are the same. To decrease the damage of the pipeline, in the possible
area of the seismic fault cross, the pipeline should not be buried.
Responses of Unburied Pipelines for a Ground Wave
A seismic dynamic analysis was performed as an example, using the ABAQUS
software, for an offshore pipeline system. This pipeline system consists of two 42
OD 0.875
wt (API X65 pipelines) and a 300 tonne subsea manifold, as shown in
Figure 18.7. The pipelines contained oil at a specic gravity of 0.8 with an internal
pressure of 600 [psi]. A settlement of 0.1 [m] for the subsea manifold due to sand
liquefaction in the earthquake is considered.
-100 -50 0 50 100
Pipeline axial direction, [m]



Axial stress Shear stress
Figure 18.6 Stress distributions at the bottom wall along the pipeline. (For color version of
this gure, the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)
Figure 18.7 Subsea pipeline system, with a subsea manifold.
446 Qiang Bai and Yong Bai
A 10-second seismic event was used in the dynamic analysis. Figure 18.8 shows
the acceleration time history in the E-W, N-S, and vertical directions. The maximum
accelerations are 0.34 g, 0.26 g, and 0.25 g for E-W, N-S, and vertical directions,
In the ABAQUS model, the subsea manifold is modeled as a solid box. The straight
and curved pipeline sections are modeled as 3D beam elements and elbow elements,
respectively. The seabed is modeled as a rigid surface with frictions in both longi-
tudinal and lateral directions. The pipeline-soil interaction is modeled by a linear
contact pressure relationship. The accelerations in three directions are applied to the
seabed. As shown in Figure 18.9, the maximum Von Mises stress of 191.9 [MPa]
(27.8 [ksi]) occurs at the spools. Figure 18.10 shows the time history of the maximum
Von Mises stress in the pipelines.
The maximum Von Mises stress in the time history always occurs in the spool
areas. The difference of natural frequencies and weights for the subsea manifold and
pipelines causes the response difference between subsea manifold and pipelines.
Therefore, the maximum stress occurs in the spool areas.
The seismic design and analysis methodology presented here was developed for
subsea pipeline design. It has been successfully applied in seismic analyses of buried
pipelines under fault crossing and unburied pipelines with a subsea manifold using a
static analysis and a dynamic time history analysis. The sensitivity analysis results
show that the buried depth of buried pipeline and the soil stiffness in the pipeline-soil
interaction are the primary factors affecting pipeline stress in an earthquake.
6. Mitigation Methods
Several mitigation methods improve postearthquake conditions if the pipeline response
is found to exceed the acceptance criteria of pipeline seismic design. The mitigation
method of a subsea pipeline under seismic load is selected based on the pipeline
location, expected failure mode, potential for collateral damage, risk acceptance
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)

(a) E-W acceleration
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)

(b) N-S acceleration
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)

(c) Vertical acceleration
Figure 18.8 Seismic ground motions: E-W, N-S and vertical accelerations. (For color
version of this gure, the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)
Seismic Design 447
philosophy, and estimated mitigation costs. According to the previous subsea pipeline
seismic analysis experiences, the following mitigation options can be selected:
Modify pipeline loading and boundary conditions.
Modify pipeline conguration.
Modify pipeline route.
Improve emergency response.
Figure 18.9 Maximum Von Mises stress in the pipelines and tie-in spools. (For color
version of this gure, the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)




4.0 6.0 8.0
Time (s)
10.0 12.0
Figure 18.10 Time history of maximum von Mises stress. (For color version of this gure,
the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)
448 Qiang Bai and Yong Bai
Modifying Loading and Boundary Conditions
The capacity of a buried pipeline to withstand ground displacements can be improved
by minimizing the soil resistance to pipe movements, in which the most common
approach is to reduce the strength of the soil surrounding the pipeline or the frictional
characteristics of the pipeline. The mitigation methods for a buried pipeline include
Place the subsea pipeline on the seabed instead of burying it to reduce the lateral soil
Use smooth, low ction coatings on the pipeline surface to reduce the axial soil friction
Bury the pipeline in a shallow trench with loose backll to release high restraints for the
buried pipeline sections. However, this has limited applicability, due to other specications
and restraints for the subsea pipeline.
For the unburied pipeline, modifying the boundary condition at the pipe end is a
suitable method to reduce the pipeline seismic stress.
Modifying Pipeline Conguration
The modications also can be made by changing the welding condition, increasing
the pipe wall thickness, using a high-strength steel grade for the pipe material,
replacing sharp bends and elbows with induction bends or gradual pipeline eld
bends, and the like to increase the ability of subsea pipeline to resist the ground
The allowable longitudinal compression strain increases with the increase of the
pipe wall thickness, as shown in Eq. [18.2]. The bending and axial strength of the
pipeline relative to the soil also is improved. Isolation valves, automatic or remotely
controlled, may be provided on each side of the zones of ground displacement to
mitigate the possible pipeline ruptures.
Modifying Pipeline Route Selection
Soil loads on buried pipelines are the result of relative movement between the pipe
and the surrounding soil. Select pipeline routing with suitable soil properties, as the
site soil properties play an important role in the seismic analysis. In most cases, the
pipeline fails due to soil instability or failure (such as land faulting, landslide,
settlement, or liquefaction). Therefore, selecting a suitable pipeline route by maxi-
mizing the distance from the ground deformation zone to avoid bad geological areas
and hazard helps prevent pipeline failure during strong earthquakes.
Improving Emergency Response
The normal emergency response procedures are typically inadequate for dealing with
postearthquake recovery, because multiple emergencies may be occurring simulta-
neously. Modifying and planning for the postearthquake response procedures to
address the consequences of pipeline damage need to be coordinated with local and
regional government authorities, as well as key customers.
Seismic Design 449
It is not sufcient to simply have an earthquake response plan. Because of the
infrequent nature of earthquakes, regular earthquake simulation exercises are necessary
to maintain personnel readiness and identify potential planning deciencies. These
exercises should be coordinated with local and regional planning exercises to identify
coordinationissues and take full advantage of current informationonearthquake hazards
and other earthquake damage that could risk a rapid response to pipeline damage.
[1] Honegger DG, Nyman DJ. Guidelines for the seismic design and assessment of natural
gas and liquid hydrocarbon pipelines. Contract PR-268-9823. Pipeline Research
Council International, Inc, Arroyo Grande, CA; 2005.
[2] Bonilla MG. Evaluation of potential surface faulting and other tectonic deformation.
Open File Report 82-732. U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA; 1982.
[3] Varnes DJ DJ. Slope movement types and processes, landslides analysis and control.
Special Report 176. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Acad-
emy of Sciences; 1978.
[4] ASCE. Guidelines for the seismic design of oil and gas pipeline systems. Washington,
DC: American Society of Civil Engineers; 1984.
[5] ASCE. Guideline for the design of buried steel pipe. Washington, DC: American
Society of Civil Engineers; 2001.
[6] ASCE. Seismic Design and retrot of piping systems. Washington, DC: American
Society of Civil Engineers; 2002.
[7] ASME. Pipeline transportation systems for liquid hydrocarbons and other liquids.
ASME 31.4. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2006.
[8] DNV. Submarine pipeline systems. DNV-OS-F101. Det Norske Veritas, Norway; 2010.
[9] Mohareb ME, Elwi AE, Kulak GL, Murray DW. Deformational behavior of line pipe.
Structural Engineering Report 202. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada; 1994.
[10] Ghodsi YN, Kulak GL, Murray DW. Behavior of girth-welded line pipe. Structural
Engineering Report 203. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Alberta; 1994.
[11] Zimmerman TJE, Stephens MJ, DeGreer DD, Chen Q. Compressive strain limits for
buried pipelines. In: Proceedings of the 1995 Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engi-
neering Conference, vol. 5. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers;
1995. pp. 36578.
[12] Dorey AB, Cheng JRR, Murray DW. Critical buckling strains for energy pipelines.
Structural Engineering Report 237. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Alberta; 2001.
[13] Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Pipeline design to resist large fault displacements. Proc. US
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Ann Arbor, MI; 1975.
[14] Kennedy RP, Chow AW, Williamson RA. Fault movement effects on buried oil pipeline.
J Transportation Engineering Division. ASCE 1977;103(TE5):61733.
[15] ORourke MJ, Liu X. Response of buried pipelines subject to earthquake effects.
Monograph No. 3. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
Buffalo, NY; 1999.
[16] Bai Q, Zeng W, Tao L. Seismic analysis of offshore pipeline systems. Offshore
450 Qiang Bai and Yong Bai