8 views

Uploaded by Dennis Narte

- Seismic Analysis
- earthquake powerpoint
- Earthquake Engineering Application to Design
- Akol - assessment of the statistical earthquake hazard parameters for nw turkey.pdf
- ME5720Chap7B_F07
- Full Text
- The Future Role of Oil. 2019 spe_lecture
- 00BBBd01
- Fajklewicz and Jakiel 1989_Induced Gravity Anomalies and Seismic Energy as a Basis for Prediction of Mining Tremors
- 10.1.1.702.694
- Seismic Provisions IRC-6 Draft
- Psha vs Dsha
- boore2003
- JARME-3-2-2010
- lbna26371enn.pdf
- postman_mailguardmp2.pdf
- Planet Earth
- V3I12-IJERTV3IS120726
- Compression Set Apparatus Constant Strain Plates Type 32
- 04 Strain 03 Volumetric Strain

You are on page 1of 58

Seismic Design of

Underground Structures

G. Bouckovalas

Professor N.T.U.A.

G. Kouretzis

October 2010

7.1

Preface

This lecture deals with the seismic design of

infinitely long cylindrical underground

structures i.e. tunnels, pipelines etc. The

presented methodology can be easily adapted

for the design of structures that feature a noncircular cross-section. However, this (and

other relevant) methodologies are not valid for

other types of underground structures such as

metro stations, storage facilities or shafts.

A common characteristic of the infinitely

long structures under consideration is their

high flexibility and small mass, compared to

the surrounding soil. Thus, unlike most

common above ground structures,

underground structures response to the

imposed displacements from the surrounding

soil is not dominated by inertia effects. As a

result, a static analysis (not a pseudo-static) is

sufficient for their design, given that the

surrounding soil displacements are determined

a-priori.

failure patterns attributed to transient and

permanent seismic ground displacements. Next, a

methodology for the stress analysis of flexible

underground structures due to transient

displacements is presented in detail, a problem

that can be effectively treated by analytical means.

The methodology for the stress analysis of

underground structures due to permanent ground

displacements is more cumbersome, as it requires

the implementation of non-linear numerical tools,

at least for real-world design purposes. However,

the basic principles of this numerical methodology

are outlined, with the aid of a case study: the

stress analysis of the Thessaloniki to Skopje crude

oil steel pipeline at two active fault crossings: a

normal fault crossing and a strike-slip fault

crossing.

7.2

Structures

. Seismic design against transient

displacements

C. Seismic design against permanent

displacements

... are attributed to seismic wave propagation

Rayleigh wave (R)

compression wave

(P)

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.3

peripheral cracks

Rayleigh

concrete spalling

(compression)

Rayleig

P

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.4

longitudinal cracks

Rayleigh

shear cracks

Rayleigh

7.5

10

7

f ai

0.50g

11

2

24

lur

ep

ote

n

pro tial

pag due

ati to

on

s

eff eism

ect ic w

s.. av

e

.

0.25g

1 failure sites

23 30N

121 30E

121E

120 30E

epicenter

rupture

30 km

C-C (1999) earthquake, plotted against recorded maximum ground

acceleration contours at ground surface.

Note that all tunnels that were damaged lie within the 0.25g contour

120cm/sec

10

7

8

9

11

60cm/sec

24

6

1 failure sites

23 30N

121 30E

121E

120 30E

epicenter

rupture

30 km

C-C (1999) earthquake, plotted against recorded maximum ground

velocity contours at ground surface.

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Note that all tunnels

that were damaged lie within the 60cm/sec contour

7.6

Chi-Chi 1999

Chi-Chi 1999

fa

ult

ru

pt

ur

e

include fault rupture propagation to the ground surface, landslides, steep

slope failures, and mild slope failures due to liquefaction (lateral spreading).

7.7

(Shih-Gang dam tunnel, Chi-Chi, 1999)

ground displacement due to fault rupture (Wells & Coppersmith, 1994).

The MAXIMUM anticipated displacement is about twice the mean value

7.8

Permanent

displacements

due to

SLOPE

FAILURE

and due to

liquefaction-induced

lateral spreading

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.9

(a)

(b)

sub-sea

landslides at

Eratini-Tolofonas beach

Aigio (1995) earthquake

Eratini port

()

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.10

river mouth

(b)

L=50-200m

W=50-300m

Manythousands

thousandscubic

cubicmeters

metersof

of

Many

soilare

aremobilized

mobilizedduring

duringslope

slope

soil

failures,and

andmove

movefor

fordistances

distances

failures,

ranging

from

a

few

centimeters

ranging from a few centimeters

toseveral

severalmeters...

meters...

to

(...whensoil

soilstrength

strength

(...when

deteriorates

duringshaking,

shaking,as

as

deteriorates during

forexample

exampleininthe

thecase

caseof

of

for

liquefaction).

liquefaction).

We will

will dwell

dwell more

more into

into the

the

We

estimation of

of slope

slope failurefailureestimation

induced

displacements

one

induced displacements inin one

of the

the following

following lectures.

lectures.

of

However,displacement

displacement

However,

estimates

dueto

toslope

slopefailure

failure

estimates due

arenot

notas

asstraightforward

straightforward(?)

(?)

are

asfault-induced

fault-induceddisplacements...

displacements...

as

several

seismologicalseveral seismologicalgeotechnical-topographical

geotechnical-topographical

factorsmust

mustbe

betaken

takeninto

into

factors

account.

account.

7.11

high bending and tensile

strains

longitudinal permanent

displacement

tensile strain

compressive strain

7.12

and Maa-Ling tunnel (right)

Slope failure

above the western portal of the Malakassi C Tunnel.

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.13

(E. Hoek & P. Marinos, 4th Report on Egnatia Highway Project, March 1999).

Afterword

Compared to permanent displacements, transient displacements effects are less

detrimental regarding underground structure response, since transient displacements

are not only... transient, but also related to significantly smaller magnitudes.

For example, a very strong earthquake with predominant period 0.70sec and maximum

ground acceleration amax = 0.80g, will result in transient displacements with a magnitude

in the order of few centimeters only.

Smax= amax T2/(2)2 = 10 cm only

In comparison, the permanent displacement due to the fault rupture will well exceed

1.00m

On the other hand ...

Transient displacements due to wave propagation affect the whole length of the

underground structure (possibly several km), and not only the part of the structure

located at the vicinity of the fault trace (+ 50m). Moreover, transient displacements

due to wave propagation have a considerably smaller return period (100-500 years),

compared to the return period of fault activation (10,000-100,000 years).

Both these factors highlight the importance of transient displacement effects for

the seismic design of underground structures.

7.14

Structures

. Seismic design against transient

displacements

C. Seismic design against permanent

displacements

Preface

Compared to permanent displacements, transient displacements effects are less

detrimental regarding underground structure response, since transient displacements

are not only... transient, but are also related to significantly smaller magnitudes.

For example, a very strong earthquake with predominant period 0.70sec and maximum

ground acceleration amax = 0.80g, will result in transient displacements with a magnitude

in the order of few centimeters only.

Smax= amax T2/(2)2 = 10 cm only

In comparison, the permanent displacement due to the fault rupture will well exceed

1.00m

On the other hand ...

Transient displacements due to wave propagation affect the whole length of the

underground structure (possibly several km), and not only the part of the structure

located at the vicinity of the fault trace (+ 50m). Moreover, transient displacements

due to wave propagation have a considerably smaller return period (100-500 years),

compared to the return period of fault activation (10,000-100,000 years).

Both these factors highlight the importance of transient displacement effects for

the seismic design of underground structures.

7.15

Basic Assumptions

Harmonic seismic waves

kinematic soil-structure interaction effects can be ignored

(flexibility factor F)

As a result of the last two assumptions,

underground structure displacements are equal and in phase

with the surrounding soil displacements

F=

2 Em (1 vl2 )

( 2)

D

El (1 + vm )t

> 20

l=structures Youngs modulus

m=grounds Poisson ratio

l= structures Poisson ratio

D=cross-section diameter

t=cross-section thickness

m=1GPa (Cs=400m/sec)

l=210GPa

m=0.33

l= 0.2

D=1m

t=0.01m

F850>>20

7.16

F=

2 Em (1 vl2 )

( 2)

D

El (1 + vm )t

l=structures Youngs modulus

m=grounds Poisson ratio

l= structures Poisson ratio

D=cross-section diameter

t=cross-section thickness

> 20

m=1GPa (Cs=400m/sec)

l=30GPa

m=0.33

l= 0.2

D=10m

t=0.25m

F385>>20

F=

2 Em (1 vl2 )

( 2)

D

El (1 + vm )t

> 20

l=structures Youngs modulus

m=grounds Poisson ratio

l= structures Poisson ratio

D=cross-section diameter

t=cross-section thickness

m=1GPa (Cs=400m/sec)

l=30GPa

m=0.33

l= 0.2

D=2.5m

t=0.1m

F95>>20

7.17

Basic Assumptions

Harmonic seismic waves

kinematic soil-structure interaction effects can be ignored

(flexibility factor F)

All

Allanalytical

analyticalexpressions

expressionshereinafter

hereinafterrefer

referto

tostrains

strainsrather

ratherthan

thanstresses.

stresses.

That

Thatisisdue

dueto

tothe

thefact

factthat

thatwave

wavepropagation

propagationimposes

imposestransient

transient

on

underground

structures,

and

not

inertial

deformations

forces,as

asinin

deformations on underground structures, and not inertialforces,

common

commonaboveground

abovegroundstructures.

structures.Design

Designof

ofunderground

undergroundstructures

structuresaims

aimsat

at

ensuring

that

the

structure

can

sustain

those

deformations

without

failure.

ensuring that the structure can sustain those deformations without failure.

z

y

x

1

A 3-D shell modeling the underground structure, when subjected to imposed

displacements from the surrounding soil, will develop...

axial strains

in-plane shear strains

hoop strains h

The out-of-plane normal strains, and the shear strains at the inside and the outside

face of the shell can

be customarily

ignored...

(why??)

GEORGE

BOUCKOVALAS, National

Technical University

of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.18

harmonic excitation:

2

(x Ct )

u = Amax sin

displacement (u)

Amax

time (t)

period (T)

(xy plane)

diameter

(D)

y

2

x

2

u x = Amax sin

x C pt

plane view

strain amplitude

ground strain=

structure strain:

thus

a = x =

u x 2 max

2

=

cos

x C pt

x

2 max

Vmax

C p 2011

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece,

a ,max =

maximum

seismic

velocity

7.19

(xy plane)

No-slip assumption at the soilstructure interface shear beam model

No slip suggests zero relative

displacements between crosssections, thus zero bending strains.

only bending strains develop, and that

shear strains are zero

(bending beam model)

In the real world, some slippage will always occur, especially during strong excitations

The conservative no-slip assumption is adopted for design purposes

y

x

2

(x C s t )

u y = Amax sin

plane view

ground strain=

structure strain:

u y

x

Vmax

2

(x C s t )

cos

Cs

Vmax

C SUniversity of Athes, Greece, 2011

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical

max =

7.20

(except axial strain)

do not retain a constant value along

the cross-section.

Strain distribution is a function

of the polar angle and, of course, time

max

direction

of motion

=maxcos

max

propagation axis

1.5

/|max|

t=to

cos

0.5

0

-0.5

t=to+T/2

-1

-1.5

y

0

45

90

135

180

225

270

315

360

starting from z-axis

L/2

2

u y = Amax sin

y

direction of

propagation

y C pt

section view

max=L/L

L

12

h,max=max

ground strain:

y =

u y

y

11

h = y =

structure strain at

points & :

Vmax

2

( y C p t )

cos

Cp

7.21

MX

h,max

direction

of motion

h=0

h,max

1.5

t=to

h/|h,max|

|cos|

0.5

-0.5

t=to+T/2

-1

-1.5

0

45

polar angle (degrees)

axis of propagation

& axis of strong motion

starting from z-axis

z

section view

y

direction of

2

propagation

( y C s t )

u z = Amax sin

max

ground strain:

yz =

u z

y

12

h,max=max/2

max/2

11

h,&'

structure strain:

V

2

= yz / 2 = max cos ( y Cs t )

2Cs

Vmax

2

( y C s t )

cos

2C s

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.22

h , & ' = yz / 2 =

compression

max/2

are located at a plane inclined by 45

12

(why??)

11

extension

max/2

1.5

sin2

t=to

h/|h,max |

h,max=max/2

max/2

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

t=to+T/2

-1.5

propagation axis

y

45

polar angle (degrees)

side view

direction of

propagation

z

2

(z C s t )

u x = Amax sin

ground strain=

structure strain:

u x Vmax

2

(z C s t )

=

cos

z

Cs

7.23

1.5

/|max|

t=to

0.5

sin2

-0.5

-1

t=to+T/2

-1.5

0

45

polar angle (degrees)

propagation axis

(as in the case of S-wave propagation along the axis, at xy-plane)

but with different strain distribution along the cross-section

Summarizing

Case

P-wave along the axis

(xy)

S-wave along the axis

(xy)

,max

Vmax

max

Cp

Vmax

Cs

Vmax

Vmax

Transverse S-wave (xz)

h,max

Vmax

Cp

2C s

Cs

7.24

a seismic wave will cross the axis of the structure under a

random angle , measured at the plane defined by the

structure axis and the wave propagation axis.

Orientation of this plane at the 3-D space is random (there

direction of

wave propagation

structure axis

plane of

wave motion

wave-structure

plane

7.25

plane of propagation xy) can be analyzed into 4

apparent waves:

Amax

& transverse S (xy plane)

-wavelength /sin

-propagation velocity Cs/sin

/sin

x'

Amax

Amaxcos

-Amaxsin

direction of

wave propagation

(xy plane)

-wavelength /cos

-propagation velocity Cs/cos

(the wave period is constant)

x

Amax

structure axis

/cos

generic case, we must consider:

a) superposition of strains (distribution along the cross-section)

that result from each apparent wave propagation.

b) maximization of the resulting expressions for strains, to

eliminate the unknown angles &

the plane of propagation, and is defined for S-waves only)

7.26

angle relatively to the structure axis, results in the following maximum design strains...

maximum strains

S-wave

(normalized over the

Vmax/Cs ratio)

P-wave

(normalized over the

Vmax/Cp ratio)

axial

0.50

1.00

shear

1.00

1.00

hoop h

0.50

1.00

von Misses vM

0.87/(1+ l)

1.00/(1+ l)

major principal 1

0.71

1.00

minor principal 3

-0.71

-1.00

same position along the cross-section. Thus, simply adding them to derive von

Misses and principal strains is an over-conservative approach.

Underground structures are located relatively close to the ground

surface, and are subjected to surface Rayleigh wave effects too (e.g.

A Rayleigh waves is equivalent to a

P-wave and a SV-wave, propagating

simultaneously and featuring a

phase lag equal to /2

S-component

x'

6

P-component

Rayleigh wave

structure axis

x

angle in order to find the

maximum strains, as maxima do

not occur at the same time.

7.27

a Rayleigh wave propagating at a random angle relatively

to the structure axis:

maximum strain

R-wave

(normalized over the

Vmax,V/CR ratio)

axial

0.68

shear

hoop h

0.68

von Misses vM

0.86/(1+ l)

major principal 1

0.68

minor principal 3

-0.68

Note:

Rayleigh wave propagation velocity CR0.94 Cs is estimated at a depth z=1.0R

It is worth trying to verify the above expressions for Rayleigh waves at home!

7.28

Homework

Leukada 16/8/03 earthquake

0.4

Vmax=0.317m/sec

homogeneous soil

Cs=200m/sec =1/3

V (m/s)

0.2

0

-0.2

-0.4

0

10

Time (s)

15

20

steel pipeline

concrete tunnel

- D=1.5m, t=0.015m

- allcompression=40t/d (%)<5% (EC8)

- allextension =2% for the main body

=0.5% for peripheral

butt welds

- D=10m, t=0.20m

- allcompression=0.35%

- allextension=2%

Justify the expressions that you apply for the estimation of seismic strains!

7.29

a soft soil layer, overlying the bedrock

Seismic waves propagate to the

soil-bedrock interface at a random

angle rock, refract, and continue to

the soft soil layer

soil

Csoil

cosasoil = cosarock

rock

Crock

soil

rock

Csoil

Crock

the refracted wave

is not altered, thus...

soil = rock

Csoil

Crock

structure, can be analyzed (as before) into apparent waves...

A. a horizontal apparent wave with a propagation velocity Csoil/cosasoil

trans=soil/sinsoil

soil

structure axis

(projection)

axial=soil/cossoil

soil

rock

rock/cosrock

and

soil

rock

Csoil

Crock

cosarock

Csoil

Crock

horiz =

rock

propagating alongGEORGE

the BOUCKOVALAS,

soil-bedrock

interface.

National Technical

University of Athes, Greece, 2011

cosarock

7.30

C

on the other

sinsoil = 1 cos 2 soil = 1 cos 2 rock soil

hand:

Crock

1

0.125

0.25

0.333

0.96

sinsoil

0.92

Csoil/Crock=0.5

0.88

0.84

0

10 20 30

40 50

rock

60 70 80

90

practically equal to the wave propagation velocity in soft soil Csoil

(and trans=soil=Csoil T)

An extra, unknown parameter must be considered here, compared to the

homogeneous rockmass case- the angle rock

Design strains are estimated via the superposition of strains along the crosssection, and the subsequent maximization of the resulting expressions for the

unknown angles , rock

normalized

strains

S-wave

(C=CS)

P-wave

(C=CP)

axial

0.50Csoil/Crock

0.3Csoil/Crock

shear

0.43Csoil/Crock+0.98

2.0Csoil/Crock

hoop h

0.36Csoil/Crock+0.50

0.5Csoil/Crock+1.0

von Misses vM

(0.38Csoil/Crock+0.85)/(1+l)

(0.58Csoil/Crock+1.0)/(1+l)

major principal 1

0.5Csoil/Crock+0. 5

0.63Csoil/Crock+1.0

minor principal 3

-0.5Csoil/Crock-0. 5

-0.63Csoil/Crock-1.0

Vmax

C soil

The above expressions are valid for Csoil/Crock ratio values less than 0.35. For Csoil/Crock>0.35 , results will

be over-conservative, and the use of the corresponding expressions for homogeneous rockmass conditions is

proposed.

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.31

ALA-ASCE 2001 a =

Vmax

aC

shaking

C=

conservatively (?) assumed to be equal to

2000 m/s.

a=

Strains

S-wave

(C=CS)

P-wave

(C=CP)

axial

0.50Vmax/Crock

0.3Vmax/Crock

shear

(0.98+0.43Csoil/Crock) Vmax/Csoil

2.00Vmax/Crock

hoop h

(0.50+0.36Csoil/Crock) Vmax/Csoil

(1.00+0.50Csoil/Crock) Vmax/Csoil

input data:

Csoil=200m/sec

Crock=2000m/sec (bedrock)

Cp=2Cs

Vmax=75cm/sec

Homogeneous rock

Soft soil

Strains

Rayleigh wave

S-wave

P-wave

S-wave

P-wave

axial

0.019%

0.019%

0.019%

0.005%

0.255%

shear

0.037%

0.019%

0.383%

0.037%

0.375%

hoop h

0.019%

0.019%

0.201%

0.196%

0.255%

a =

Vmax

ALA-ASCE 2001

major discrepancy...!

7.32

Homework

Repeat the previous homework assignment for the case where the

the structure is constructed near the surface of a homogeneous soft

soil layer (CS,SOIL=200m/s), overlying the marl bedrock

(CS,ROCK=700m/s).

Kobe & Chi-Chi earthquakes

10

7

120cm/sec

8

9

11

2

24

60cm/sec

6

1 failure sites

23 30N

121 30E

121E

120 30E

epicenter

rupture

30 km

7.33

Kobe & Chi-Chi earthquakes

10

8

8

24

2

4

1 failure sites

Holocene alluvium

Pleistocene deposits

Miocene deposits

Oligocene deposits

Neocene deposits

Metamorphic rocks

23 30N

121 30E

121E

120 30E

bedrock

epicenter

rupture

0

30 km

Soil classification

NEHRP (1997)

Hard rock

CS (m/sec)

This study

CS (m/sec)

CS>1500

Granite bedrock

2000

B1

760<CS<1500

Rocks

metamorphic rocks, limestone, solid

volcanic deposits)

B2

conglomerates, schists, marls)

Stiff soils

Soft soils

360< CS <760

gravels

180< CS <360

clay) and man-made deposits

850

550

250

soft soil

rocks

1200

CS<180

7.34

40

30

20

18

18

15

10

8

2

2

pl

ift

flo

or

u

cr

ac

ks

ot

he

rc

ra

ck

s

sh

ea

rc

ci

ra

rc

ck

um

s

fe

re

st e

nt

el

ia

lc

re

in

ra

fo

ck

rc

s

em

en

tb

uc

kl

in

g

lo

ng

i

tu

di

na

l

0

sp

al

lin

34

Failure criterion

development of cracks wider than w>0.2mm

crack width is related to the stress applied on the steel reinforcement bars

(Gergely and Lutz, 1968, ACI Committee 224, 1995)

w = 0.076 f s 3 dc A

for a typical tunnel... fs,lim=140MPa

failure when:

1*steel >fs,lim

stresses higher than fs,lim suggest larger crack widths, or concrete spalling

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.35

600

this study

ASCE-ALA/EC8

fs,lim for crack width=0.2mm

550

500

450

proposed: 64%

ASCE&EC8: 8%

s (Pa)

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

soil type:A

B1

14

B2

19

29

Number of failures

D

47

38

600

550

500

structures that survived

fs,lim for crack width 0.2mm

450

s (Pa)

400

350

300

proposed: 74%

ASCE&EC8: 57%

are non-conservative estimates

250

200

150

100

50

0

soil type:A

B1

34

B2

52

C

78

Technicalof

University

Number

failuresof Athes, Greece, 2011

D

92

101

7.36

Afterword

The presented analytical expressions are valid for flexible (F>20), and infinitely long

underground structures. The stress state becomes more complicated in areas of bends and

-ees. However, analytical methodologies have been proposed for such cases too, and

provide relatively accurate results. When the underground structure is constructed by

discrete, jointed pieces, the flexibility of the joints must also be taken into account in the

assessment of its response.

Generally speaking, when the in-situ conditions diverge significantly from the discussed

assumptions, more elaborate numerical analysis tools must be applied for the seismic

design of the underground structure. The structure is modeled as a beam or a shell, soilstructure interaction is simulated via elasto-plastic springs, and the seismic excitation is

applied at the base of the springs that are used to model soil response.

An extensive presentation of such numerical methodologies is beyond the scope of this

lecture. Their basic principles are however presented in the following case study,

regarding the numerical stress analysis of a crude oil steel pipeline, due to the possible

activation of a normal and a strike slip fault crossing its route (permanent ground

displacements)

7.37

Structures

. Seismic design against transient

displacements

C. Seismic design against permanent

displacements

7.38

Department of Civil Engineering

National Technical University of Athens

ANALYSIS

OF BURIED PIPELINES

AT FAULT CROSSINGS

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Contents of presentation

Failure Criteria

Downthrows at Seismic Faults

Pipeline Modeling - Fault Movement Modeling

Beam & Mixed Model Results - Influence of Internal Pressure

Conclusions

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.39

National

Technical

University

of Athens

construction techniques

At the specific locations of active faults crossings, heavy wall NPS 16 line

pipes with a wall thickness of 8.74mm will be installed, made of API5LX60 steel.

The nominal backfill cover varies from 0.60m in rocky areas to 0.90m in

cross-country areas and 1.20m under major roads.

The pipeline steel is modeled with a typical API-5LX60 tri-linear stressstrain curve based on the provisions of ASCE.

National

Technical

University

of Athens

600

600

(2,2)

(1,1)

500

400

(minimum)

Ultimate Tensile Strength

(minimum)

Yield Strength

200

stress (MPa)

STRESS (MPa)

400

300

E=210.000 KPa

0

-100

-200

200

100

-300

-400

-500

Tri-linear Idealization

Ramberg-Osgood

0

STRAIN (%)

-600

-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

strain

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.40

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Failure criteria

compressive) strains, thus it is more meaningful to talk in terms of strains

than stresses.

Considered Failure Criteria

1. Limiting compressive strain to avoid elastic or plastic buckle, associated

with local wrinkling.

D

t

For an NPS 16 in. x 8.74mm pipe the former expression yields 0.677%.

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Failure criteria

alterations induced to the heat-affected zone during the welding process.

The allowable tensile strain for butt (peripheral) welding is

conservatively taken as 5. The latter criterion is used throughout

the analysis.

Section Conclusions

Relative ground movements caused by fault rupture

are displacement-controlled

The limiting strain is taken equal to 5

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.41

Downthrows

at seismic faults

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Normal fault

Strike slip fault

The critical crossings are identified with reference to:

Anticipated ground movements

Geology at the area of crossing

Angle of intersection between fault trace and pipeline axis

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Wells & Coppersmith,

1994).

.

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.42

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Normal ffault

ault

Fault geometry

Y

Pipeline axis

Pipeline axis

Fault trace

Fault trace

Anticipated downthrow DZ = 30 cm

For =45 and = 63 DX=DY=0.36DZ

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Fault geometry

X

Y

Pipeline axis

Fault trace

Anticipated left lateral Slip S = 30 cm, =80

DX = S cos( ) = 0.17 S

DY = S sin ( ) = 0.98S

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.43

10

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Pipeline modeling

Non linear FE Analysis for material behavior and large deformations are

considered using NASTRAN.

Two models, a beam (BM) and a mixed beam-shell model (MM) are used for

the analysis.

A straight pipeline segment of length 1200m is considered for both models

and the fault rupture is applied in the middle.

The Beam Model (BM) implements 3D beam elements, having the

mechanical properties of a tube with 16 diameter and 8.74mm thickness

made of API-5LX60 steel.

The Mixed Model (MM) combines shell elements near the expected fault

to capture stress concentrations, and 3D beam elements further away

from the fault, where low stresses are expected. Coupling of shell and the

beam part of the model is done with the use of rigid elements.

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

National

Technical

University

of Athens

11

Pipeline modeling

V1

L1

C1

G14

Z

Y

X

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.44

12

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Modeling of soil

around buried pipelines

the local X-Y plane and two in the global vertical Z direction

where different upward and downward reactions occur

assuming cohesionless materials

(sands) such as the backfill soil

used along the pipeline route

ALA-ASCE (2005) guidelines for the seismic design of buried pipelines

(for sand trench backfill)

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

National

Technical

University

of Athens

13

Pipeline modeling

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.45

14

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Pipeline modeling

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

National

Technical

University

of Athens

15

Pipeline modeling

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.46

16

National

Technical

University

of Athens

per unit length of

the pipeline

+1

Tu = DH 0 tan

2

2 3 for a steel pipeline

t= 3mm (dense sand)

5mm (loose sand)

[sum of interface shear (friction) forces along the perimeter of the pipeline]

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

National

Technical

University

of Athens

17

Transverse horizontal

soil springs

These springs simulate the resistance from the surrounding soils to any

horizontal translation of the pipeline. Thus, the mechanisms of soilpipeline interaction are similar to those of vertical anchor plates or

footings moving horizontally relative to the surrounding soils and thus

mobilizing a passive type of earth pressure.

Relationship between force p per unit

length and horizontal displacement y

p=

y

A +By

A = 0.15 yu/pu

B = 0.85/pu

pu = H Nqh D

Nqh=horizontal bearing capacity factor

for loose sand

yu = 0.07 to 0.10 (H+D/2)

0.02 to 0.03 (H+D/2)

for dense sand

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.47

18

Transverse horizontal

soil springs

National

Technical

University

of Athens

force per unit length

Pu = N qh HD

horizontally moving shallow

footing]

for sand (Hanshen, 1961)

19

Transverse vertical

soil springs

National

Technical

University

of Athens

cylindrically-shaped strip footing and the ultimate soil

resistance qu is given by conventional bearing capacity

theory. For cohesionless soils the force per unit length

is:

qu = H Nq D+ 0.5 D 2 N

strip footings, vertically loaded in the downward

direction

=

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.48

20

Transverse vertical

soil springs

National

Technical

University

of Athens

cylindrically-shaped strip footing and the ultimate soil

resistance qu is given by conventional bearing capacity

theory. For cohesionless soils the force per unit length

is:

Meyerhof, 1965

qu = H Nq D+ 0.5 D 2 N

strip footings, vertically loaded in the downward

direction

=

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

21

Transverse vertical

soil springs

National

Technical

University

of Athens

pipes buried in dry uniform sand, the

relationship between the force q and the vertical

upward displacement z, has been shown to vary

according to the following hyperbolic relation

q=

A = 0.07 zu /qu

B = 0.93/qu

ultimate uplift resistance

z

A +Bz

qu = H Nqv D

Trautmann & O Rourke, 1983

The vertical uplift factor Nqv is a function of the depth to diameter ratio H/D

and the friction angle of the soil

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

7.49

22

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Load modeling

at the base of the soil springs attached on one side of the fault line

Fault

movement

Deformed shape

National

Technical

University

of Athens

23

Load modeling

For the Mixed Model the internal pressure is modeled as a uniform load

normal to the internal face of the shell elements. The nominal pressure is

10.2 MPa according to the specification of ASME.

non-linearities in the pipes response with regard to fault rapture

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.50

24

Normal ffault

ault

rresults

esults

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

National

Technical

University

of Athens

25

Normal ffault

ault

rresults

esults

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.51

26

Normal ffault

ault

rresults

esults

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

National

Technical

University

of Athens

27

Normal ffault

ault

rresults

esults

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.52

28

Normal ffault

ault

rresults

esults

National

Technical

University

of Athens

8%

Disp 0.15 m

Difference

4%

Disp 0.30 m

0%

-4%

-8%

580

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

620

29

Normal ffault

ault

rresults

esults

National

Technical

University

of Athens

No pressure

Major Stress at Bottom Plane

500

disp = 0,15 m

disp = 0,30 m

300

200

100

0

580

0.30%

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

disp = 0,15 m

0.25%

620

disp = 0,30 m

0.20%

Strain

Stress (MPa)

400

0.15%

0.10%

0.05%

0.00%

580

585

590

595

600

605

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

610

615

620

7.53

30

Normal ffault

ault

rresults

esults

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Major Stress at Bottom Plane

500

disp = 0,15 m

disp = 0,30 m

300

200

100

0

580

0.30%

disp = 0,15 m

0.25%

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

620

disp = 0,30 m

0.20%

Strain

Stress (MPa)

400

0.15%

0.10%

0.05%

0.00%

580

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

620

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

31

Normal ffault

ault

rresults

esults

National

Technical

University

of Athens

With pressure

Displacement 0.30m

With pressure

Displacement 0.15m

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.54

32

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Strike sslip

lip ffault

ault

rresults

esults

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

National

Technical

University

of Athens

33

Strike sslip

lip ffault

ault

rresults

esults

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.55

34

Strike sslip

lip ffault

ault

rresults

esults

National

Technical

University

of Athens

35

Strike sslip

lip ffault

ault

rresults

esults

National

Technical

University

of Athens

No Pressure

Mixed Model Stresses

0.40%

0.20%

disp = 0.15 m

disp = 0.30 m

0.10%

0.00%

580

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

620

0.40%

0.30%

disp = 0.15 m

Strain

Strain

0.30%

0.20%

disp = 0.30 m

0.10%

Pressure 10.2 MPa

0.00%

580

585

590

595

600

605

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

610

615

620

7.56

36

Strike sslip

lip ffault

ault

rresults

esults

National

Technical

University

of Athens

With pressure

Displacement 0.30m

With pressure

Displacement 0.15m

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

National

Technical

University

of Athens

37

Analysis conclusions

For the strike-slip fault case yielding of the pipeline at places near the

fault is anticipated.

Good agreement of the results from the two models for both studies is

observed.

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.57

38

National

Technical

University

of Athens

Construction

countermeasures

Heavy wall sections near active faultsThis measure will increase the pipeline

stiffness relative to that of the backfill and will lead to smaller curvatures and

smaller internal strains

Arrangement of loose backfill around the pipe, extending beyond the anticipated

displacement along the critical zone

Wrap the pipeline with a proper, friction reducing geotextile which will provide a

lower friction coefficient

Enclose the pipeline within a casing, so that the pipeline can move freely along the

intensely distorted length, on both sides of the fault trace

National

Technical

University

of Athens

39

Construction

countermeasures

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS

7.58

40

- Seismic AnalysisUploaded byNonoy Justiniane-Giray Jr
- earthquake powerpointUploaded byapi-325722144
- Earthquake Engineering Application to DesignUploaded byEmil Alexandru Dinu-Popa
- Akol - assessment of the statistical earthquake hazard parameters for nw turkey.pdfUploaded bydoki doki
- ME5720Chap7B_F07Uploaded byAlex Bradley
- Full TextUploaded bySonal Aggarwal
- The Future Role of Oil. 2019 spe_lectureUploaded byTh Suppachoknirun
- 00BBBd01Uploaded bygzapas
- Fajklewicz and Jakiel 1989_Induced Gravity Anomalies and Seismic Energy as a Basis for Prediction of Mining TremorsUploaded byge_barrientos96
- 10.1.1.702.694Uploaded bymilivoj
- Seismic Provisions IRC-6 DraftUploaded bySravan Muguda Viswanath
- Psha vs DshaUploaded byThomas Marks
- boore2003Uploaded byMohamed Elsayed
- JARME-3-2-2010Uploaded byletter_ashish4444
- lbna26371enn.pdfUploaded byMohinuddin Ahmed
- postman_mailguardmp2.pdfUploaded byPc Rajasekhar
- Planet EarthUploaded bymesquida1993
- V3I12-IJERTV3IS120726Uploaded bySaurabh Pednekar
- Compression Set Apparatus Constant Strain Plates Type 32Uploaded bysggdgd
- 04 Strain 03 Volumetric StrainUploaded byAkhmad Zulfikar Fauzi
- Ml 110980210Uploaded bydavid david david
- Introduction to Environmental Geology 5th Ed E Keller Pearson 2011Uploaded byAdson França
- (Course Booklet for Pg Section) Handbook of Informationv6 (1)Uploaded byPitambar Kundu
- Earthquake Situation Report #1 March 4, 2010Uploaded byapi-26768155
- Seismic Drift Consideration in soft storied RCC buildings: A Critical ReviewUploaded byIJERD
- Steel Frame ClassificationUploaded bybsitler
- Earthquakes Concept Student Worksheet With BlanksUploaded bytownsenr94
- ARMA-90-0237_A Mathematical Model for the Shear Behavior of a Dilatant Rock JointUploaded bycastille1956
- SchmertmannUploaded byWaqas Sadiq
- 2 VUMAT@ABAQUS User Subroutine Instruction (Reference Manual)Uploaded bypcncku1215

- Rumus MatematikaUploaded byRiza Arieyanda
- Rumus MatematikaUploaded byRiza Arieyanda
- 4 Seismic Behavior of Underground Structures and Site ResponseUploaded byDennis Narte
- SUZUKI.docxUploaded byDennis Narte
- Engineering-Math-V2-by-Gillesania.pdfUploaded byDennis Narte
- 9._ENGINEERING_ECONOMY.pdfUploaded byGerald Yason
- Seismic Performance of Shallow Underground Subway Stations in Soft SoilUploaded byDennis Narte
- Engineering-Math-V2-by-Gillesania.pdfUploaded byDennis Narte
- KiaUploaded byDennis Narte
- (PART 10)1001 SOLVED ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS PROBLEMS-MICHAEL LINDEBURG.pdfUploaded byDennis Narte
- Microsoft®-Windows®-Domain-Network-Configuration-GuideUploaded byparashara
- Microsoft®-Windows®-Domain-Network-Configuration-GuideUploaded byparashara
- Competitive Advantages of Windows Server Hyper v Over VMware VSphereUploaded byDennis Narte
- schedUploaded byBeverly Dulay
- Earthwork SurveyingUploaded byDennis Narte
- CEE3500_L4_Statics1Uploaded byDennis Narte
- Gege GeegeUploaded byDennis Narte
- Civl235-Slope Stake OverheadsUploaded byDennis Narte
- Maths_Catenaries, Parabolas and Suspension BridgesUploaded byAhmed Salim
- EARTHWORKS and VOLUMESUploaded byDennis Narte
- EARTHWORKS and VOLUMESUploaded byDennis Narte
- Civil Engineering LawUploaded byMANDARAW
- Cate NaryUploaded byDennis Narte

- Influence Monitoring on Reliability of Predictions of Settlements; Application Isotache ModelUploaded bymkon79
- 99_740_Medizin_FP_E.pdfUploaded byPhan An
- fatigue2Uploaded byAdemar Cardoso
- Enhanced Model for Three Dimensionale Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Two-blade Slender Bridge PiersUploaded bylucasgambi
- ASB-physics and MechanicsUploaded bysankhadip
- Engg Mechanics-3rd Sessional PaperUploaded byVivek Srivastava
- MicroMeasurement Strain Gauge RosettesUploaded bynomi
- Me Tool Design_2010Uploaded bysriharikrishn
- activity 2 3 2 tensile testing with the ssa (1)Uploaded byapi-282283753
- 2D Triangular ElementsUploaded byC V CHANDRASHEKARA
- Mechanics of Solids NotesUploaded byKrunal Gandhi
- 05. Flexural Design of Beams to EC2 (2014 10 07)Uploaded byL YO Pin
- 2014-M.johar-Strain Rate-Dependent Deformation and Failure Process of Adhesive JointsUploaded byMahzanJohar
- Solid Boyd an Shell MecahnicsUploaded byCiprian Mihai Tărboiu
- Gp 7 Business ProposalUploaded byDaniel Wong
- Diagnostic Test Ces 511 %28answer Sceme%29Uploaded bysaifulsabdin
- is.1566.1982Uploaded bySandip Jadhav
- Draft 3 RP-C208 Non-linear FE-methodsUploaded byjeovan
- Dilatometer TestsUploaded bypaulcabison
- Advance Mechanics of SolidUploaded byrjrahul25
- 58442.pdfUploaded bySäbrinä Shukrì
- Stress Strain PaperUploaded byRajni Sharma
- Behavior of Steel Under TensionUploaded byAsh
- Intersections V06 No01 02Uploaded byMichelle Rayvi J. Sumampouw
- BNQ 30503 Chapter 2 (S-1)Uploaded byDex JH
- Euler Lagrange RepresentationUploaded byPetar Jovanovic
- Section PropertiesUploaded byint8
- An Investigation of Local Site Effects Using Linear and Nonlinear Analysis (Panah, et al. 2016).pdfUploaded byJose Manuel
- Soil Structure InteractionUploaded byKRISHNANUNNI K T
- Design Construction Rev 4M June 14 Module 12Uploaded bysskiitb