www.seipub.

org/fgeFrontierinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume3,2014

VulnerabilityAssessmentofBuriedPipelines:
ACaseStudy
RajaramChenna*1,SrikanthTerala2,AjayPratapSingh3,KapilMohan3,BalKrishnaRastogi3,Pradeep
KumarRamancharla4
Ph.DScholar,EarthquakeEngineeringResearchCentre,InternationalInstituteofInformationTechnology(IIITH),
Gachibowli,Hyderabad,India.
*1

ResearchScientist,EarthquakeEngineeringResearchCentre,InternationalInstituteofInformationTechnology
(IIITH),Gachibowli,Hyderabad,India.
2

Scientist,InstituteofSeismologicalResearch(ISR),Raisan,Gandhinagar,India.

ProfessorofCivilEngineering,EarthquakeEngineeringResearchCentre,InternationalInstituteofInformation
Technology(IIITH),Gachibowli,Hyderabad,India.
4

*1

rajaram.chenna@research.iiit.ac.in;2terala3012@gmail.com;3dgisrgad@gmail.com;4ramancharla@iiit.ac.in

Received20February2014;Accepted11March2014;PublishedJuly2014
2014ScienceandEngineeringPublishingCompany

Abstract
to considerable seismic risk. Pipelines running
through high seismic zones should be designed in
Thepipelinesystemsarecommonlyusedtotransportwater,
such a way that they remain functional even after
sewage, oil, natural gas and other materials world over.
being subjected to high intensity earthquake shaking.
These pipelines run over long distances and in some
Pipelinesaregenerallyburiedbelowgroundprimarily
instances they cross high seismic areas including fault
crossings.ManyburiedpipelinesinIndiarunthroughhigh
for aesthetic, safety, economic and environmental
seismic areas and are exposed to considerable seismic risk.
reasons.
Thesepipelinesshouldbedesignedinsuchawaythatthey
remain functional even when they are subjected to high
intensity earthquake shaking. This paper illustrates the
performanceofoneofthehighpressuregaspipelineinthe
stateofGujarat,underthefaultmovement.Analysisshows
thattheburialdepthofpipelineshouldbeminimizedinthe
fault zones in order to reduce soil restrain on the pipeline
duringfaultmovement.
Keywords
Pipelines;FaultMovement;EathquakeHazard

Introduction
Pipelineshavebeenacknowledgedasthemostreliable,
economicandefficientmeansforthetransportationof
waterandothercommercialfluidssuchasoilandgas.
Thesesystemsarecommonlyusedtotransportwater,
sewage,oil,naturalgasandothermaterials.Theyare
often referred to as lifelines since they carry
materials essential to the support of life and
maintenance of property. The earthquake safety of
buriedpipelineshasattractedagreatdealofattention
in recent years. Many buried pipelines in India run
throughhighseismicareasandthereforeareexposed

24

India is currently making huge investments in

pipelines. Considering high seismicity of India, it is
importanttoensureseismicsafetyofburiedpipelines.
Gujarat is one of the high earthquake prone states in
India. And in last few years, many state owned and
private organizations had build up their pipeline
networks across the state. Owing to these facts the
performance of buried and above ground pipeline
structures subjected to faulting and soil liquefaction
effect and other seismic hazards have become an
important subject to study. This paper illustrates the
performance of one of the high pressure gas pipeline
in the state of Gujarat, under the fault movement.
Based on the result from the study, some
recommendations are made to minimize the effect of
earthquakeontheexistingpipeline.
Past Pipeline Performances
A pipeline transmission system is susceptible to a
wide variety of seismic hazards. The major seismic
hazards which significantly affect a pipeline system
are:i)groundfailure,ii)groundmotionandiii)other

FrontierinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume3,2014www.seipub.org/fge

miscellaneous effects. While ground failure including

faulting, liquefaction and earthquake induced
landslides, tsunamis, and other factors of supporting
and surrounding structures are usually placed under
miscellaneoushazards.Rupturesorseveredistortions
ofthepipelinearemostoftenassociatedwithrelative
motion arising from fault movements, landslides,
liquefaction, loss of support, or differential motion at
abrupt interfaces between rock and soil. Notably the
mostcatastrophicdamagesaretheonesresultingfrom
faulting or ground rupture. Owing to these facts that
theperformanceofburiedandabovegroundpipeline
structures subjected to faulting and other seismic
hazardshavebecomeanimportantsubjectofstudy.

lateral spread and landslides. Eighty breaks occurred

upon the underground welded steel transmission
pipelinelocatedintheupperSanFernandoValley,the
most serious in an old oxyacetylenewelded pipeline.
Although located in an uplift zone, the failure was
causedbycompressiveforceswrinklingthepipes(Ref.
Figure1).

IndianContext
Currently,Indiahas7,000kmofpipelines.Theoiland
gas pipeline infrastructure is being accorded top
prioritybythenationsplanners.Thepipelinemarket
itself is estimated to be around US$ 9 billion over a
period of fivesix years. The National gas grid being
implemented by GAIL (India) Ltd, lay a 17,000 km
pipeline network. The proposed oil pipeline network,
on the other hand, is expected to build a pipeline
network spanning over more than 5,000 km. These
projects will give an enormous boost to the pipeline
demandinthecountry.
Notably, India has had more than five moderate
earthquakes (Richter Magnitudes ~6.07.5) since 1988.
A major part of the peninsular India has also been
visited by strong earthquakes. From the past seismic
performanceofpipelinesinvariousothercountries,it
canbenotedthattheconsequencesofpipelinefailure
due to earthquakes could be an exaggerated one,
particularly so for India, both in terms of economic
and social aspects. Thus implementing the seismic
design considerations at the current phase of Indian
pipelinescenarioisabsolutelyessential.

FIGURE1.BUCKLINGOFSTEELPIPELINEDUETO
COMPRESSIVEFORCESDURING1971SANFERNANDO
EARTHQUAKE

b) 1992 Landers and Big Bear Earthquakes: Two

earthquakes occurred in San Bernadino County,
California,amagnitude7.5anotherofmagnitude6.6.
These two events were followed by numerous
aftershocks. Horizontal fault rupture displacement
associatedwiththiseventwasfrom5to9.5feet.Most
pipelinedamagewasassociatedwiththerupturezone
(Lund,1994).Figure2showsdamageofsteeltankand
pipeconnetingtoit.

Effects of Earthquake on Pipelines

The failure of pipelines during past earthquakes is
describedbelow.
a)1971SanFernandoEarthquake:Itresultedindirect
losses to the pipeline systems by damaging a 1.24 m
diameter water pipeline at nine bend and welded
joints (Teoman Ariman, 1984). Ductile steel pipelines
wereabletowithstandgroundshakingbutcouldnot
withstand ground deformation associated with
faulting and lateral spread. Eleven transmission
pipelines were damaged by liquefaction induced

FIGURE2.BOLTEDSTEEL210,000GALTANKNEARLANDERS
WITHADAMAGEDSHELLANDRUPTUREDOUTLETLINE
(PHOTOCOURTESYOFL.LUND,TCLEE).

25

www.seipub.org/fgeFrontierinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume3,2014

c) 1994 Northridge Earthquake: This event caused

about1,400pipelinebreaksintheSanFernandoValley
area. Outside the zone of high liquefaction potential,
the dispersed pattern of breaks was attributed to old
brittlepipesdamagedbygroundmovement.IntheOn
BalboaBoulevard,a0.5588mpipesufferedtwobreaks,
one in tensile failure and the other in compressive
failure(Ref.Figure3).Thesepipefailureswerelocated
in a ground rupture zone perpendicular to the
pipeline. Leaking gas ignited at several locations.
Somebrokenwaterandgaslineswerefoundtohave
experienced 0.1524 to 0.3048 m of separation in
extension. The area experienced widespread ground
cracking and differential settlements. A 2.159 m
sewage pipe ruptured in the Jensen Filtration (Lund,
1996).

deformation in a 100Asize pipeline was V shaped,

with the pipeline being bent at three points. The
deformation of a 200Asize pipeline was Zshaped,
withthepipelinebeingbentattwopoints.Therehave
been virtually no cases of substantial deformation
comparable to this case in gas pipelines comprisedof
weldedsteelpipes(FarshadVazinrametal.,2006).

FIGURE4.FAILUREOFPIPEDURING1999KOCAELI
EARTHQUAKE

FIGURE3.TELESCOPEDBELLANDSPIGOTJOINT48INCH
WELDSTEELPIPE(L.LUND,TCLEE).

e) 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake: Substantial

water supply damage occurred in many cities (Ref:
Figure 4). For example, the entire water distribution
system in Adapazari was damaged. One of them, a
waterpipemadeofsteelwithadiameterof2.4m,was
damaged at Kullar due to rightlateral strikeslip. A
buttwelded Thames raw water steel pipeline 2.2m in
diameter crossed the Sapanca Segment of the North
Anatolianfaultandwasdamagedatthefaultcrossing.
Damagewasobservedatthreelocationswhereasmall
surface leak was observed in the pipe at a point near
the fault crossing; a significant leak occurred at yet
anotherpointandaminorleakhappenedatthebend
ofpipe(FarshadVazinrametal.,2006).
f) 1999, ChiChi Earthquake:InTaiwanmanyburied
water and gas pipelines were damaged at many sites
(Ref: Figure 5). It was reported that buried gas
pipelines underwent bending deformation due to
grounddisplacementatareversefaultneartheWushi
Bridge about 10 km south of Taichung. The bending

26

FIGURE5.FAILUREOFPIPEDURING1999CHICHI
EARTHQUAKE

Vulnerability Assessment of Buried

Pipelines
Seismicdesignofburiedpipelinehasgreatimportance
in the field of lifeline engineering. In certain
circumstances, it may be required to take the pipes
above ground but this case is relatively uncommon.
Generally the oil and gas pipelines are designed and
constructed as continuous pipelines, while water
supply pipelines are constructed as segmented
pipelines. Failures have mostly been caused by large
permanentsoildisplacements.

FrontierinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume3,2014www.seipub.org/fge

This section discusses seismic analysis method for

buried pipes subjected to a strong earthquake. This
can be used as a basis for evaluating the level of
strengthening or increased redundancy needed by
existing facilities to improve their responses during
seismicevents.Sothiscoversdesigncriteriaforwave
propagation, fault crossing and permanent ground
deformation (PGD) due to liquefaction, lateral
spreading,etc.
Analysis and design criteria require the following
engineeringinformation.
PipelineInformation
a)
b)
c)
d)

Pipegeometry(diameter,thickness);
Typeofjoint;
Stressstrainrelationshipofpipematerial;
Pipeline function and its post seismic
performancerequirement;
e) Externalpipecoatingspecification;
f) Operatingpressureinthepipe;
g) Operationalandinstallationtemperature;
h) Pipeline alignment detail (plan, profile
locationoffittings,etc);and
i) Reducedstrainlimitforexistingpipelines.

SiteInformation
a) Burialdepthofthepipeline;
b) Basic soil properties (unit weight, cohesion,
internalfrictionangleandinsitudensity).
c) Propertiesofbackfillsoilinthetrench;
d) Depthofwatertable;and
SeismicHazardInformation

andoperatingtemperatureofthepipelineare30and
65 respectively. The pipeline is buried at 1.5m of
soil cover. Poissons ratio and coefficient of thermal
expansionofthepipematerialcanbeconsideredas0.3
and12x106respectively.Thispipelineischeckedfor
fourcasestheyare
CaseI:Permanentgrounddisplacement(PGD)
CaseII:Buoyancyduetoliquefaction
CaseIII:Faultcrossing
CaseIV:Seismicwavepropagation
ForAPIX60Gradepipe:
Yieldstressofpipematerial=y=413MPa
RambergOsgoodparametersn=10andr=12.
Figure 6 shows pipeline crossing ground movement
bothinparallelandperpendiculardirections.
Pipe strain due to internal pressure is calculated as
follows:
The longitudinal stress induced in the pipe due to
internalpressurewillbe

Sp =

PD
9300000 0.762 0.3
=

2 0.0064
2t
=166.09x106N/m2=166.09MPa

UsingRambergOsgoodsstressstrainrelationshipthe
longitudinalstraininthepipewillbe
r

Sp
n Sp

(1)
p =
1+

E 1+ r y

12
166.1 106
10 166.1 106
1+
=

2 1011 1+12 413 106

=0.0008305=0.08305%(tensile)

a) Expectedamountofseismicgroundmotionat
thesite;
b) Expected amount and pattern of permanent
grounddeformationanditsspatialextent;
c) Length of pipeline exposed to permanent
grounddeformation;
d) Active fault locations; expected magnitude of
faultdisplacement,andorientationofpipeline
withrespecttodirectionoffaultmovement.

The longitudinal stress induced in the pipe due to

changeintemperaturewillbe

The seismic safety evaluation of a continuous oil

pipelineasfollows:

UsingRambergOsgoodsstressstrainrelationshipthe
longitudinalstraininthepipewillbe

Design Case Study:

The continuous buried pipeline is designed to carry
naturalgasatapressureof9.3MPa.ThepipeisofAPI
X60 grade with 30in (0.762m) diameter (D) and
0.0064mwallthickness(t).Theinstallationtemperature

PipeStrainDuetoTemperatureChange:

ST=E(T2T1)

(2)
=2x1011x12x106(6530)
=84MPa

St
n St

1+
t =

E 1+ r y

12
6
84 10
109 84 106
1+

2 1011 1+12 413 106

(3)

27

www.seipub.org/fgeFrontierinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume3,2014

=0.00042=0.042%(tensile)

WhereD=diameterofpipe=0.762m

The total strain in the continuous pipeline due to

internalpressureandtemperatureis

C=Coefficientofcohesion=30kpa

=0.08305+0.042
=0.125%.

=AdhesionFactor
=0.6080.123x0.30.27/(0.33+1)+0.695/(0.33+1)
=0.99645

Ignoring the strain in pipe due to installation

imperfection or initial bending, the above calculated
strain can be considered as the operational strain in
pipe(i.e.,oper=0.125%).

Interfaceangleoffrictionbetweensoilandpipe1=f

CaseI:PermanentGroundDisplacement(PGD)

1=f=0.7x32o=22.4o

The permanent ground deformation refers to the

unrecoverable soil displacement due to faulting,
landslide, settlement or liquefaction induced lateral
spreading.

K0=coefficientofsoilpressureatrest
=1sin32o=0.47

HerethelengthandwidthofPGDzoneare120mand
50m respectively. Soil is sandy soil with an angle of
friction()=320andeffectiveunitweightof18kN/m3.
The ground displacement (l and t) due to
liquefactioncanbetakenas2m.
Theoperationalstraininpipeline=0.125%(tensile)
Yieldstressofpipematerialy=413
RambergOsgoodparameter(n)=10
RambergOsgoodparameter(r)=12

H=soilcoverabovethecentreofthepipeline=1.5m

Heref=frictionfactor=0.7forsmoothsteelpipe

tu = x 0.762 x 30000 x 0.99645 + ( x 0.762 x 1.5 x

18000x((1+0.47)/2)tan22.4o
=91144N/m=91.144kN/m

a =

91144 120
x
2 0.762 0.0064 2 1011

12

10
91144 120

1+

6
1+12 2 0.762 0.0064 413 10
=0.002023=0.2023%

Case2:

ParallelCrossing(LongitudinalPGD)
Theexpectedamountofpermanentgroundmovement
paralleltopipeaxis=l=2m
Thedesigngroundmovement=
1.5=3m

l design

Thelength(L)ofpermanentgrounddeformationzone
is large, and the pipe strain is controlled by the
amount of ground movement (l design).The peak pipe
strainforthiscaseiscalculatedas
t L
n tu Le
a = u e 1+

2DtE 1+ r 2Dt y

= xIp=2x
l

(6)

Case1:

Where

The amount of ground movement (ldesign) is

consideredtobelargeandthepipestrainiscontrolled
bylength(L)ofpermanentgrounddeformationzone.
Thepeakpipestrainiscalculatedas

Le=Effectivelengthofpipelineoverwhichthefriction
force(tu)acts,whichcanbecalculatedbythefollowing
equation.

a =

tu L
n tu L
1+

2DtE 1+ r 2Dt y

l
design

(4)

tu=maximumaxialsoilforceperunitlengthofpipe
forsoilcondition.
Themaximumaxialsoilresistance(tu)perunitlength
ofpipecanbecalculatedas

28

1
tan

(7)

From this effective length of pipeline is calculated as

Le=100m

Where

1+ K 0
tu = Dc + DH
2

t L2 2 n tu Le
= u e 1+

DtE 2 + r 1+ r Dt y

(5)

a=0.0015095
The design strain in pipe is taken as the least value
betweenthetwocases=seismic=0.0015095
Theoperationalstraininthepipeline=oper=0.00125
The total tensile strain in the pipeline = 0.0015095 +
0.00125=0.0027595

FrontierinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume3,2014www.seipub.org/fge

b=0.065
c=11.063
d=7.119
Nch=6.752+(0.065x1.96)+(11.063/(1.96+1)2)+
(7.119/(1.96+1)3)
=5.896
Nqh=Horizontalbearingcapacityfactorforsandysoil
Nqh=a+bx+cx2+dx3+ex4

FIGURE6.PIPELINECROSSINGGROUNDMOVEMENTA)
PARALLELANDB)TRANSVERSE

Total compression strain = 0.0015095 0.00125 =

0.0002595
The limiting strain in tension for permanent ground
deformationis=0.03
The total strain in pipe due to longitudinal strain is
lessthantheallowablestrain.
TransverseCrossing:
Theexpectedamountoftransversepermanentground
deformation(t)=2m
Thedesigntransversegrounddisplacement=t design=
txIp=2x1.5=3m.
Themaximumbendingstraininthepipeiscalculated
astheleastvalueofthefollowingtwo
A.

t
Ddesign

b =

W2
=x0.762x3/502
=0.00287267
B.

PuW 2

b =

3EtD 2

(8)

Where
x=H/D=1.5/0.762=1.968503937
a=5.465
b=1.548
c=0.1118
d=5.625x103
e=1.2227x104
Hence,
Nqh=5.465+(1.548x1.96)+(0.1118x1.962)+(5.625x
103x1.963)+(1.2227x104x1.964)
=8.120
Hence
Pu=5.896x30000x0.762+(8.120x18000x1.5x0.762)
=301869N/m
=301.869kN/m
301869 502

3 2 1011 0.0064 0.7622

=0.1077
b =

Hence, the maximum strain induced in the pipeline

duetotransversePGDistakenas
seismic=0.00287267(tensile/compressive)

(9)

Theoperationalstraininthepipeline=oper=0.0013
Total longitudinal strain in the pipe in tension
0.00287267+0.0013=0.004172

Where
Pu=maximumresistanceofsoilintransversedirection.
The maximum transverse soil resistance per unit
lengthofpipeis

Pu = Nch cD+ N qh HD

(10)

Total longitudinal strainin the pipe in compression =

0.002872670.0013=0.0016
Theallowablestrainintensionforpermanentground
deformationis=3%=0.03
Theallowablestrainincompressionforsteelpipeis

Where

crc=0.175t/R=0.175x0.0064/0.381
=0.00293

Nch=Horizontalbearingcapacityfactorforclay

N ch = a +bx +

x +1

x +13

Where
x=H/D=1.5/0.762=1.968503937
a=6.752

(11)

The total strain in pipe due to transverse PGD is less

than the allowable strain for both tension and
compression.
CaseII:BuoyancyDuetoLiquefaction
The net upward force per unit length of pipeline can

29

www.seipub.org/fgeFrontierinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume3,2014

becalculatedas

CaseIII:FaultCrossing

TheextentofliquefactionLb=50m

Herethepipelinecrossesanormalslipfaultwithfault
displacement of 1.5m and a dip angle of 350. The
pipeline crosses the fault line at an angle of 400. The
sourcetositedistancecanbeconsideredas20km.

Fb =

D 2
sat content Dt pipe
4

(12)

Fb=x0.7622/4(180000)x0.762x0.0064x78560
=7005.05N/m
It is assumed that the weight of gas flowing through
pipe has negligible weight. The unit weight of steel
pipe(pipe)istakenas78560N/m3.
The bending stress in the pipeline due to uplift force
(Fb)canbecalculatedas
bf =

Fb L2b

10Z

Lb=lengthofpipeinbuoyancyzone
Z=sectionmodulusofpipecrosssection

0.762 0.7492
32
0.762
=0.0028459m4
=

Dipangleofthefaultmovement=350
Theanglebetweenpipelineandfaultline=400
Componentoffaultdisplacementintheaxialdirection
ofthepipeline

fax = fn cossin

(13)

Where

The expected normalslip fault displacement = fn =

1.5m

bf=7005.05x502/(10x0.0028459)
=615360117N/m2
Maximum strain in pipe corresponding to the above
bendingstresscalculatedas
r

bf
n bf

(14)
=
1+

E 1+ r y

10
615360117
10 615360117
1
+
=

2 1011 1+12 413 106

=0.130705674

(15)

=1.5cos35 xsin40 =0.789811m

0

Component of fault displacement in transverse

directionofpipeline:

fax = fn coscos

(16)

=1.5cos350xcos400=0.94126m
Importance factor for fault movement for pipe = Ip =
2.3
Applyingimportancefactor,
The design fault displacement in axial direction
becomes
=faxdesign=faxxIp=0.789811x2.3=1.816565707m
The design fault displacement in transverse direction
becomes
=ftrdesign=ftrxIp=0.94126x2.3=2.164898707m
Theaveragepipestrainduetofaultmovementinaxial
directioncanbecalculatedas
fax design 1 ftr design 2
= 2
+

2 2L a
2L a

The operational strain in the pipeline = oper =

0.0012505

(17)

The total longitudinal strain in the pipe in tension =

0.130705674+0.0012505=0.1319562

Where

The total longitudinal strain in the pipe in

compression=0.1307056740.0012505=0.1294551

La=effectiveunanchoredlengthofthepipelineinthe
faultzone

Theallowablestraininpipeintensionis=3%=0.03
Theallowablestraininpipeincompressionis
crc=0.175t/R=0.175x0.0064/0.381
=0.0029396
Themaximumstraininthepipelineduetobuoyancy
effect is greater than the allowable strain for steel
pipesintensionandcompression.

30

La =

Ei y Dt
tu

2 1011 0.002 0.762 0.0064

91144
=67.238m

Or
La=theactuallengthofanchorage=120m

(18)

FrontierinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume3,2014www.seipub.org/fge

Hence, the anchored length to be considered is the

lowertheabovetwovalues.SoLa=67.238m

a =

Axialstraininthepipe
2
1.8165
1 2.164
= 2
+

2 67.238 2 2 67.238

=0.02728
Theoperationalstraininthepipeline=oper=0.0013
Totalstraininpipeintension=0.0306+0.0013=0.0285
Theallowablestraininpipeintensionis3%=0.03
Thetotaltensilestraininpipeduetofaultcrossingis
lessthantheallowablestrain.

tu
91144 1000

=
4AE 4 0.0151922 2 1011
=0.00750

The calculated axial strain due to wave passage need

notbelargerthanthestraintransmittedbysoilfriction.
Theoperationalstraininthepipeline=oper=0.0013
Thetotalstraininpipeintension=0.00750+0.0013=
0.00146
Theallowablestraininpipeintensionis3%=0.03
Themaximumstraininpipeduetowavepropagation
pipeislessthantheallowablestrain.

CaseIV:SeismicWavePropagation

Parametric Studies

The expected peak ground acceleration of the site at

baserocklayer=PGAr=0.45g

Four pipelines of different diameters as 12, 18, 24

and30whichareoperatingunderthesamepressure
of7.5Mpa.Theinstallationtemperatureandoperating
temperature of the pipeline are 300 and 600C
respectively. The pipe is of API X52 grade with
differentthicknesses.Poissonsratioandcoefficientof
thermal expansion of the pipe material can be
considered as 0.3 and 12 x 106 respectively. The unit
weight of saturated soil at the site is 18 kN/m3. The
pipeline crosses a normal slip fault with fault
displacementof1.5m,2.5mandadipangleof350.The
pipeline crosses the fault line at an angle of 400. The
sourcetositedistancecanbeconsideredas20km.The
expectedpeakgroundacceleration(PGA)inthesiteis
0.45g at the base rock layer. The strain variation with
pipethicknessisshowninfigures710.

For this soil Peak ground acceleration (PGA) at

ground=0.45gxIg

=0.45gx0.9

=0.405g
Converting the soil as soft and the magnitude of
design basis earthquake (M) is equal to 6.5, and
distanceofsitefromearthquakesourceisabout20km
PGV=0.405x140=56.7cm/s
Converting the soil as soft and the magnitude of
design basis earthquake (M) is equal to 6.5, and
distanceofsitefromearthquakesourceisabout20km
PGV=0.405x140=56.7cm/s
Designpeakgroundvelocity=Vg=PGVxIp

=56.7x1.5
=85.05cm/sec
=0.85m/s
Maximumaxialstraininthepipeduetowavevelocity
canbecalculatedas

a =

Vg
C

0.85
= 0.00021
2 2000

FIGURE7.TOTALSTRAINVSPIPETHICKNESSFORPIPE
DIAMETERIS12

Maximumaxialstraininthepipeduetowavevelocity
canbecalculatedas

a =

Vg
C

Total Strain

Maximum axial strain that can be transmitted by soil

frictioncanbecalculatedas

0.85
= 0.00021
2 2000

Maximum axial strain that can be transmitted by soil

frictioncanbecalculatedas

FIGURE8.TOTALSTRAINVSPIPETHICKNESSFORPIPE
DIAMETERIS18

31

www.seipub.org/fgeFrontierinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume3,2014

in the pipeline. The optimum angle of fault

crossing will depend upon the dip plane and
theexpectedtypeofmovement.Anditshould
bewithin900.

Abrupt changes in wall thickness should be

avoidedwithinfaultzone.

In all areas of potential ground rupture,

pipelines should be laid in relatively straight
section avoiding sharp changes in direction
andelevation.

The burial depth of pipeline should be

minimized within fault zones in order to
reduce soil restrain on the pipeline during
faultmovement.

Pipelinesmaybeplacedontheaboveground
sliding supports. An increase in pipe wall
thickness will increase the pipelines capacity
forbuoyancyforceduetosoilliquefaction.

FIGURE9.TOTALSTRAINVSPIPETHICKNESSFORPIPE
DIAMETERIS24

FIGURE10.TOTALSTRAINVSPIPETHICKNESSFORPIPE
DIAMETERIS30

Modern pipelines wither onshore or offshore, are

typically buried to provide protection and support.
Buriedpipelinesarenormallydesignedonthebasisof
hoop stress limitations for internal pressure. For
pipelines subjected to large temperature differentials,
special stress analysis may be required for bend
configurations. In addition, buried pipelines may
require design for external loads, e.g., loads imparted
byheavyequipmentatgroundsurface.
During earthquake, a buried pipeline may experience
significant loading as a result of large relative
displacement of the ground along its length. Large
ground movements caused by faulting, liquefaction,
lateral spreading, landslides and slope failure. The
exposure to these hazards can be minimized through
careful selection of a pipeline route, especially in the
case of such localized conditions as slope failure.
However, faulting and liquefaction induced
movements, such as lateral spreading, often cannot
avoid on long pipeline routes through areas of high
seismicity.
Conclusions
Inthedesignofapipelineforcrossingafaultline,the
following considerations generally will improve the
capability of the pipeline to withstand differential
movement.

32

The pipelines crossing fault line should be

oriented in such a way to avoid compression

REFERENCES

Ariman Teoman., Buckling and Rupture failures of

Pipelines Due to Large Ground Deformations Proc. of
8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
California,1984.
Farshad Vazinram and Reza Rasti., Seismic Hazards for
Lifelines Proc. of International Conference on
Geohazards,Tehran,2006.
IndranilGuhaandRaulFloresBerrones.,EarthquakeEffect
Analysis of Buried Pipelines Proc. of 12th International
Conference on International Association for Computer
MethodsandandAdvancesinGeomechanics,2008.
Le Val Lund., Lifeline Utilities Performance in the 17
January 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake
BulletinofSeismologicalSocietyofAmerica,Vol.86,No.
1B,pp.S350361,1996.
LeValLund.,LifelinePerformanceintheLandersandBig
Bear(California)Earthquakesof28June1992Bulletinof
SeismologicalSocietyofAmerica,Vol.84,No.3,pp.562
572,1994.
Suresh Ranjan Dash and Sudhir K Jain., An overview of
seismic considerations of buried pipelines Journal of
StructuralEngineering,Vol.34,No.5,pp.349359,2008.
Suresh Ranjan Dash and Sudhir K Jain., Guidelines for
SeismicDesignofBuriedPipelinesIITKGSDMACodes,
2007.

FrontierinGeotechnicalEngineering(FGE)Volume3,2014www.seipub.org/fge

Rajaram. Chenna received his MS by

Research degree in Computer Aided
Structural Engineering (CASE) from
IIITH and is currently pursuing his
Ph.D under the guidance of Dr.
Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar at
Earthquake Engineering Research
Centre (EERC), International Institute of Information
Technology, Hyderabad (IIITH). He has published 11
papers in various journals and conferences. His areas of
interests are Earthquake engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Applied Element Method and Analysis and

designofRCstructures.
PradeepKRamancharlaholdshisPhD
degreefromUniversityofTokyo,Japan.
Presently, he is professor of Civil
Engineering and head of Earthquake
EngineeringResearchCentre(EERC)at
IIIT Hyderabad. His research interests
are numerical modelling of faults and
tectonic plates, collapse simulation of buildings, seismic
evaluation and strengthening of buildings and concrete
codesinIndia.PresentlyheisapanelmemberofCED2:IS
456andIS1343.

33