Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487

www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Behavior of marine pipelines under seismic

faults
N.Y. Kershenbauma, S.A. Mebarkiaa, H.S. Choib,*
a
McDermott Engineering Houston, Houston, TX, USA
b
Deptartment of Naval Architecture, Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea

Received 16 August 1998; accepted 21 October 1998

Abstract

A new study investigates an unburied offshore “snaked” pipeline behavior under various
types of seismic faults. The snaking of the pipeline is caused by the thermal/pressure expansion
and soil friction. The snaking takes place at a certain distance from the pipeline’s unrestrained
end and gradually increases towards the restraint. It is shown that longitudinal seismic faults
have less effect on a straight pipeline than a snaked pipeline. The new seismic analysis demon-
strates that an increase of ground displacement causes a very small change in bending and
longitudinal stresses. The new approach results in a safe, subsea pipeline construction and
operation with a significant cost reduction.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Marine pipeline; Seismic fault; Snaking; Pipeline expansion

1. Introduction

Modern subsea pipeline construction assimilates the new fields of development

which often propagates to seismic active zones. These offshore zones include south-
east and far-east Asia, west and west-north America. The new fields located in
regions with high probability of earthquakes have a potential hazard on offshore
pipeline operational stability and integrity. Pipeline seismic hazard analyses require
an assessment of the future earthquake potential, type of faulting (slip type), and an
estimate of soil displacements.

* Corresponding author.

0029-8018/00/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 9 - 8 0 1 8 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 7 9 - 1
474 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487

Nyman (1972) presented comprehensive classifications of the ground faults as

being either strike-slip, normal-slip, or reversed-slip, depending on the predominant
component of movement. Wells and Coppersmith (1994) addressed technical issues
of the empirical relationships between earthquake magnitude and soil
displacement/soil foundation rupture width and length. Dunlap et al. (1990) presented
results of the cyclic load tests and pipeline embedments in weak sediment. Behavior
of a buried pipeline under large ground slip imposed by the structure vertical dis-
placements was investigated by Zhow and Murray (1993). The local buckling, wrink-
ling and conditions of surrounding soil were found to have great influences on pipe-
line behavior. Rajani et al. (1993) studied a buried pipeline’s transverse movements
due to displacement in the ground caused by landslides similar to a seismic strike
slip-fault form of movement. The pipeline maximum bending moment versus soil
lateral displacement relationship was determined. Trigg and Rizkalla (1994) studied
buried pipeline behavior on an unstable slope. The soil movements were considered
to be in both transverse and longitudinal directions. The closed form solutions were
developed for a pipeline subjected to lateral and longitudinal displacements. How-
ever, the developed models deal with the pipe’s tensile rupture failure modes and
cannot treat the buckling failure mode. The dynamic aspect of a buried offshore
pipeline seismic stability was considered by Figarov and Kamyshev (1996). The
seabed vibrations transfer the dynamic loads through the soil surrounding the pipe-
line. Figarov and Kamyshev have shown that the maximum dynamic effect of the
pipelines is experienced with longitudinal directions of the seismic wave shock which
induces pipeline vibrations. The possibility of pipeline resonance phenomenon was
indicated. Ju and Kyriakides (1988), Hobbs (1984) and Kershenbaum et al. (1996)
have shown that both offshore and onshore pipelines have a tendency to “snake”
under operational pressure and temperature.
Extreme loading conditions (non-linear stress/strain maximum values) imposed by
different types of seabed seismic faults (strike, normal, reverse, longitudinal, and
oblique) on an unburied offshore pipeline are presented in this paper. Initial pipeline
longitudinal shapes are considered. Straight forms are represented by pipeline shut-
down conditions. Snaked forms due to operational loading imposed by Euler’s type
of instability correspond to the operational regime. The improved pipeline model
which determines snaking amplitude and wave length values versus operational tem-
perature along pipeline length is presented. The new seismic design shows that an
increase in seismic displacement of an unburied pipeline results in very small
increase in pipeline bending and total longitudinal stresses. This is caused by non-
linear relationships in pipeline stress/deflection. The purpose of this paper is to state
the main aspects of the offshore pipeline behavior under seismic faults.

2. Pipeline snaking

The purpose of the pipeline snaking analysis is to determine the unburied pipeline
shape preceding a seismic impact. As it was mentioned above, pipeline seismic
stresses will depend on the initial shape of the pipe axis. Kershenbaum et al. (1996)
 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487 475

assumed that the pipeline was initially straight laying on a horizontal bottom foun-
dation. Internal pressure and pumping product temperature would cause a linear
expansion of the pipeline. However, the frictional forces between the pipeline and
the seabed would resist this expansion. These longitudinal frictional resisting forces
could cause pipeline buckling due to Euler’s instability. The authors assumed that for
a long enough pipeline, the cumulative friction resistance to pipeline axial expansion
stipulates the sinusoidal form of lateral deflection/snaking (see Fig. 1):

冋
Z ⫽ A(x) sin n(x)␲
x
L 册 (1)

where Z is the pipeline lateral deflection in the horizontal plane, n(x) is the mode
number, x is the coordinate along the axis of the pipeline counted from the restrained
end to unrestrained end, and L is the total length of the pipeline. The pipeline total
energy balance work, W, is as follows:
W ⫽ We ⫺ Wl ⫹ Wf (2)
where We, Wl, and Wf are pipe bending strain energy, longitudinal, and friction work
in the lateral direction, respectively. Substituting into Eq. (2), the following equation
is used for the equilibrium condition:
dW
⫽0 (3)
dn(x)
The amplitude A(x) is obtained from the following expression:
2l(x)
A(x) ⫽ (4)
␲√⑀(x)
where l(x) is half a single wave length (see Fig. 1) of the pipeline at location x.
Kershenbaum et al. (1996) used a different approach to determine the amplitude
A(x) as follows:
1
A(x) ⬇ (5)
EI␲ 5
␲
⫹
16l4(x)ws f
冪A
I
2
s

Fig. 1. Pipeline lateral/snaking deflection.

476 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487

where E is the modulus of elasticity, I is the moment of inertia, ws is the pipe

submerged weight, and f is the soil friction coefficient. The unknown l(x) is determ-
ined by equating Eqs. (4) and (5). The pipe longitudinal expansion strain is given by
⌬PAi ⌬Pd␮ ␲2I
⑀(x) ⫽ ␣⌬T(x) ⫹ ⫺ ⫺ 2 (6)
AsE 2tE Asl (x)
where ␣ is the thermal expansion coefficient, ⌬T(x) is the temperature difference in
the pipeline, ⌬P is the pressure difference, Ai is the flow cross-section area, As is
the steel cross-section area, d is the outside diameter, and t is the wall thickness.
The above expressions define the pipeline lateral deviation and its sinusoidal wave
length at operation. Fig. 2 shows a subsea pipeline behavior at operation for a nomi-
nal pipe diameter of 300 mm (dn ⫽ 300 mm) at an initial temperature of 71°C (Ti
⫽ 71°C). The pipe bending strain due to Euler’s instability can be determined as fol-
lows:

⑀b(x) ⫽ max 冋 dl2(x)

2A(x)␲2 册 (7)

3. Geotechnical aspects

The median estimate of maximum total seabed displacement, D, in meters to earth-

quake moment magnitude, M, is given by the Wells and Coppersmith (1994)
expression:
D ⫽ 10a ⫹ bM (8)
The values of the coefficients a and b for each type of calculated displacement

Fig. 2. Subsea unburied pipeline behavior at operation (dn ⫽ 300 mm, L ⫽ 2000 m, ⌬P ⫽ 14 MPa, Ti
⫽ 71°C).
 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487 477

associated with earthquake magnitudes of 6 and 7 are presented as examples in Table

1. The investigation consists of the following ground motion (see Fig. 3):
앫 Strike-slip fault, associated with horizontal movement (lateral displacement) of
the seabed foundation.
앫 Normal and reverse-slip fault, associated with vertical, horizontal, and longitudi-
nal movement.
앫 Oblique-slip fault, as a combination of the above cases, associated with 3-D
seabed movement.
The normal and reverse-slip faults are assumed to have a longitudinal-to-vertical
slip (displacement) ratio of 1 (see Table 1). This represents the worst movement
combination, generating maximum bending moments in the pipeline. The pipeline
is initially considered to be laid on a seabed horizontally and restraint at one end.
The pipeline second end is free to move representing, for example, a tie-in spool
flexible connection.
The following worst cases are considered for pipeline seismic loading:
앫 Ground strike-slip fault loading of the pipeline in operation and shutdown con-
ditions to estimate pipe stresses.
앫 Ground normal and reverse-slip faults loading with longitudinal and vertical
components to estimate ground 2-D movement potential impact on the already
snaked pipeline.
앫 Ground oblique-slip fault loading with longitudinal, transverse, and vertical
components to estimate ground 3-D movements potential impact on pipeline
stresses.
These seismic motion combinations considered together with maximum oper-
ational pressure/temperature conditions induce maximum stresses on the unburied
pipeline.

Table 1
Values of a and b coefficients and ground displacement, D

Ground fault type Coefficients (a) and (b) Ground displacement, D for
M ⫽ 6/7

Strike-slip (⫺ 6.32) 0.120/0.955

(0.90)

Normal slip (⫺ 4.45) 0.214/0.912

Longitudinal component (0.63) 0.152/0.647
Vertical component 0.152/0.647

Reverse-slip (⫺ 0.74) 0.550/0.661

Longitudinal component (0.08) 0.390/0.469
Vertical component 0.390/0.469

Oblique-slip Strike and reverse-slip faults combined effect

478 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487

Fig. 3. Strike-slip, normal-slip, and reverse-slip faults.

4. Ground strike-slip fault

A ground strike-slip fault is represented by horizontal surface movement perpen-

dicular to the pipeline route direction, with some portion of pipeline remaining on
the unmoved surface. The fault location is determined by the distance Xo from pipe-
line free end. The pipeline has an initial axial tension of To as a result of the layingy
procedure. Pipeline-to-bottom foundation interaction is represented by the surface
friction force in transverse and longitudinal directions. This force is generated by
pipe submerged weight and the soil-to-pipe friction factors. The friction factors are
assumed different in transverse and longitudinal directions. As a result of the foun-
dation strike-slip, the pipeline reverse symmetrical bending shape in plan view is
generated (see Figs. 4 and 5).
Catenary and beam theory approaches were used to estimate strike-slip fault
impact on the pipeline strength. Software was developed to obtain the numerical
solutions. The catenary approach was used to find pipeline final geometrical shapes
and main forces (deflections in transverse and longitudinal directions, pipeline axis
curvatures, and axial tension values). The beam approach with non-linear stress/strain
relationships was used to calculate pipe bending, ␴bs, and equivalent longitudinal
 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487 479

Fig. 4. Oil pipeline under mid-point strike-slip fault during operation (no initial tension) (dn ⫽ 300 mm,
L ⫽ 2000 m, ⌬P ⫽ 14 MPa, M ⫽ 6).

Fig. 5. Oil pipeline under mid-point strike-slip fault during operation (no initial tension) (dn ⫽ 300 mm,
L ⫽ 2000 m, ⌬P ⫽ 14 MPa, M ⫽ 7).

stresses, ␴ls, due to bottom slab strike-slip. These analyses were performed on a
300-mm nominal-diameter subsea pipeline, of 358.6 MPa SMYS, in operational and
shutdown conditions for 6 and 7 seismic fault magnitudes. The results are presented
in Table 2. The largest compressive axial load of 628 kN due to pressure/temperature
impact during the operation is unchanged because it represents the snaked pipeline
Euler’s instability force. The data representing pipeline shutdown condition indicates
an increase in the initial axial tension. However, the strike-slip fault has a small
effect on the bending and longitudinal stresses of the pipeline. Pipeline stress ranges
due to strike-slip fault for 6 and 7 magnitudes are far from critical conditions. The
maximum bending stress is less than 30% SMYS and the total longitudinal stress
value is not more than 51% SMYS (see Table 2).
The results of the analysis demonstrate the low sensitivity of pipelines to the
480 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487

Table 2
Pipeline stress ranges due to seismic faults

Inlet ta Distance from Pipe axial tension Ground Pipe maximum Total maximum
restraint initial/after fault displacement bending stress longitudinal
due to fault stress
(°C) (m) (KN) (m/Mb) (% SMYS) (% SMYS)

Strike-slip/operational conditions
71 1000 0.0/52.0 0.120/6 7.4 31.2
71 1000 0.0/178.5 0.955/7 23.3 47.2
Strike-slip/shutdown conditions
⫺2 1000 135/172 0.120/6 7.4 31.2
⫺2 1000 135/290 0.955/7 27.0 50.9
Normal/reverse slip, vertical component/operational conditions
71 1000 ⫺ 628.0/ ⫺ 502.7 0.390/6 36.1 47.9
71 1000 ⫺ 628.0/ ⫺ 85.0 0.645/7 42.9 57.5
Normal/reverse slip, vertical component/shutdown conditions
⫺2 1000 135.0/146.8 0.390/6 35.5 44.3
⫺2 1000 135.0/155.7 0.645/7 45.2 48.2
Normal/reverse slip, longitudinal component/operational conditions
71 30 ⫺ 628.0/ ⫺ 628.0 0.390/6 84.3 84.9
71 30 ⫺ 628.0/ ⫺ 628.0 0.645/7 86.3 87.4
71 1000 ⫺ 628.0/ ⫺ 628.0 0.390/6 72.4 77.1
71 1000 ⫺ 628.0/ ⫺ 628.0 0.645/7 74.0 78.0
Normal/reverse slip, longitudinal component/operational conditions
93 30 ⫺ 524.0/ ⫺ 524.0 0.390/6 83.6 85.2
93 30 ⫺ 524.0/ ⫺ 524.0 0.645/7 86.2 87.4
Oblique-slip combined effect/operational conditions
71 30 ⫺ 628.0/ ⫺ 502.7 0.550/6 84.5 85.3
71 30 ⫺ 628.0/ ⫺ 85.0 0.912/7 89.6 89.7
71 1000 ⫺ 628.0/ ⫺ 502.7 0.550/6 78.4 80.9
71 1000 ⫺ 628.0/ ⫺ 85.7 0.912/7 81.4 81.7

a
t: temperature; bm/M: meters/Magnitude.

strike-slip fault magnitude. When the fault magnitude increased from 6 to 7, strike-
slip total displacement increased almost 8 times but pipe total longitudinal stress
increased only from 31.2% SMYS to 51% SMYS. The total longitudinal stress was
used as a criteria of an unburied pipeline under seismic loads. In respect to pipeline
occasional loads, such as an earthquake, ASME B31.4 code requires the sum of
longitudinal stress to be below 80% SMYS to resume operation.

5. Normal and reverse-slip fault

A ground normal-slip fault is represented by bottom slab vertical, horizontal, and

longitudinal movements with a certain portion of the pipeline remaining on unmoved
bottom. The maximum ground displacements and their vertical and longitudinal
components used in the analysis are listed in Table 1. The superposition principle
 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487 481

was used to estimate normal and reverse-slip fault impacts on the subsea pipeline
movements and stresses.

5.1. Vertical component

A seismic normal/reverse fault induces a vertical displacement of the bottom slab

portion. At the same time some part of the bottom foundation remains unmoved.
The bottom rupture line is the seismic fault line dividing a seabed slab in two differ-
ent leveled surfaces. The elevation difference of these surfaces is the fault vertical
component displacement (see Table 1).
The following assumptions are made for this pipeline model:
앫 The fault location takes place at some distance Xo from the pipeline free end.
앫 There is an initial bottom tension (or compression), To, on the pipeline preceding
the seismic fault.
앫 The bottom vertical displacement causes pipe axial sliding along the seabed. The
pipe new longitudinal tension (compression) Tl is at the fault location.
앫 Longitudinal force causes pipeline elongation of ⌬L. The non-linear stress/strain
relationship is used.
앫 Non-linear beam and catenary theory approaches are used to simulate pipeline
elevation shape by involving in the analysis pipeline string weight, fault displace-
ment, and pipe non-linear bending stiffness.
앫 The dynamic component of the bottom foundation reaction caused by the seismic
fault is not considered.
The fault rupture line divides the pipeline into two unequal portions l1 and l2 (Fig.
6). The pipe vertical deflection within each span is given by the Ramberg–Osgood
non-linear beam bending equation:
y⬙
(1 ⫹ y⬘2)1.5
⫽ Ky
Mx
My
⫹ KyA
Mx
My 冉 冊 B
(9a)

where Mx is current pipe bending moment within each span (Mx1, Mx2),
wsx2
Mx1 ⫽ R1x ⫺ ⫹ Ty (9b)
2

Fig. 6. The fault rupture line divides the pipeline into two unequal portions.
482 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487

wsx2
Mx2 ⫽ ⫺ M ⫹ R2bx ⫺ ⫹ Ty (9c)
2
wsl2 M Th
R2b ⫽ ⫹ ⫹ (9d)
2 l2 l2
My is the bending moment at yield, Ky is the pipe curvature, y is the pipe axis
elevation, A and B are Ramberg–Osgood coefficient and exponent, respectively, ws
is the pipe submerged weight, T is the final or current pipe tension (initial and fault
induced tension), and h is the soil vertical displacement due to the seismic fault
(Fig. 6).
The boundary conditions for each span are as follows:
first span
x ⫽ 0, y ⫽ 0, y⬘ ⫽ 0 (10a)
x ⫽ l1, y ⫽ 0 (10b)

second span
x ⫽ 0, y ⫽ 0 (11a)
x ⫽ l2, y ⫽ ⫺ h, y⬘ ⫽ 0, y⬙ ⫽ 0 (11b)

The results are presented in Table 2 for a 300-mm nominal-diameter subsea pipe-
line, of 358.6 MPa SMYS, in operational and shutdown conditions for 6 and 7 fault
magnitudes and 71°C temperature. The initial compressive axial load of 628 kN due
to pressure/temperature impact during the operation was reduced to 503 and 85 kN
in compression after 6 and 7 magnitude faults, respectively. Similar results were
obtained for pipeline shutdown conditions: pipe initial tension of 135 kN was
increased to 156 and 467 kN in tension due to the faults of 6 and 7 magnitudes,
respectively. However, the total longitudinal stresses (non-linear formulation) for
magnitudes of 6 and 7 are different by about 10 to 20%, and the maximum value
does not exceed 57% SMYS when the fault displacements increase by 65% (from
0.390 to 0.645 m) as seen in Table 2 for normal/reverse-slip vertical component data.
In other words, the pipeline has low sensitivity to vertical fault.

5.2. Longitudinal component

The pipeline expansion results (see Fig. 2) show the pipe string snaking phenom-
enon during operation. Longitudinal ground displacement produces additional
dynamic bending moments along the snaked section of the pipeline as a result of
longitudinal distributed friction load created by axial movement. Hence, the pipeline,
which is already slightly bent on the bottom under the operational expansion load
and lateral friction loads, is additionally loaded longitudinally and consequently will
be bent dynamically. The following additional assumptions and analytical back-
ground are considered:
 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487 483

앫 Prior to any fault motion, the pipeline at any location has bending moments and
forces in balance with external friction loads in the horizontal plane. This can be
represented by a sinusoidal shape function as follows:

Zo ⫽ Ao sin 冋 册
n␲ x
L
(12)

where Zo is the pipeline axis deflection in the horizontal plane, Ao is the maximum
amplitude (conservative case), n is the corresponding snaked pipeline mode number,
x is the coordinate, and L is the total length of the pipeline.
앫 Dynamic bending of the pipeline as a result of fault motion is superposed on the
normal operational snaking.
앫 Total friction force acting on a pipe is opposite to the velocity direction with
respect to the ground, consequently:
ftVl
fl ⫽ (13a)
√V2l ⫹ V2a
ftVa
fa ⫽ (13b)
√V ⫹ V2a
2
l

where fl and fa are the lateral and axial friction factors, respectively. ft is the total
friction factor assumed to be 0.7. Vl and Va are the current velocities of the lateral
and axial pipe sections, respectively.
앫 The ground maximum axial velocity is determined by the following expression
(based on the predicted longitudinal ground displacement, of ⌬X, and assumed
half-way constant acceleration/deceleration, of Jx):
Va ⫽ √⌬XJx (14)
앫 Ground fault with constant acceleration allows estimation of ground motion dur-
ation, t1, as follows:

⌬X
t1 ⫽ 2 冪J x
(15)

Dynamic lateral deviation of the pipe segment adjacent to the fault section (highest
loaded section) is described by the following equation (Timoshenko and Gere, 1961):
EId 4(Z ⫺ Zo) d2Z ws d2Z
⫽ ⫺ (Fl ⫺ Fe) ⫺ (16a)
dx4 dx2 g dt2
with the following boundary conditions:
dZ
t ⫽ 0, Z ⫽ Zo, ⫽0 (16b)
dt
where Fl is defined by Eq. (18a), Fe is Euler’s critical compressive load, g is gravity
484 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487

acceleration, and ws is the pipe’s submerged weight. The solution is assumed to have
the following form:

Z ⫽ A(t) sin 冋 册
n␲ X
L
(17)

where A(t) is the dynamic amplitude of the pipe lateral deviation. F1, l, and Fe are
given by the following:
Fl ⫽ Fe ⫹ ws f1l (18a)
L
l⫽ (18b)
n
n2␲2EI
Fe ⫽ (18c)
L2
Pipe bending stress, ␴bl, due to ground longitudinal displacement is determined by
the Hutchinson relationship:

␴bl ⫽ ␴p 冋 i⑀
⑀p
⫺i⫹1 册 1/i
(19a)

where
d
⑀⫽ (19b)
2␳
l2
␳⫽ (19c)
Amax␲2
Amax ⫽ max[A(t)], if fag ⬍ JX,

冪␲
4l⌬X
Amax ⫽ 2
⫹ A2o, if fag > JX (19d)

where i is the Hutchinson exponent, ␳ is the pipe curvature, ␴p is the proportional

limit stress, ⑀p is the proportional limit strain, and Amax is the maximum amplitude.
This closed form solution allows evaluation of the pipeline maximum lateral devi-
ation, bending, and total longitudinal stresses based on the anticipated longitudinal
ground displacement. Therefore, the analysis determines the bending stresses includ-
ing the dynamic effect of ground displacement. The pipeline is assumed to be bent
in the vertical and horizontal planes concurrently, i.e., the maximum total bending
stress, ␴bt, (for circular pipe) is calculated as follows:
␴bt ⫽ √␴2bl ⫹ ␴2bv (20)
where ␴bl and ␴bv are the pipe bending stresses due to ground longitudinal and
vertical displacement, respectively. Total longitudinal stress, ␴l, according to ASME
B31.4 Code requirements for occasional loading of the pipeline, includes total bend-
 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487 485

Fig. 7. Oil pipeline under mid-point reverse strike-slip fault during operation (dn ⫽ 300 mm, To ⫽
628 kN, ⌬P ⫽ 14 MPa, M ⫽ 6).

ing stress, ␴bt, compressive/tensile axial stress, ␴f, due to operational and fault
resulting axial force and pressure “cap” stress, ␴c, with corresponding sign (plus or
minus), hence:
␴l ⫽ max(␴bt ⫹ ␴f ⫹ ␴c) (21)

The results of the pipe stress/displacement analysis using non-linear pipe proper-
ties are presented in Table 2 (see normal/reverse slip, vertical and longitudinal
components) and also in graph form in Figs. 7 and 8. Extreme stresses are caused
by the longitudinal component of the fault displacement near the restraint and are
associated with the original snaked section of the pipeline. Only simultaneous occur-

Fig. 8. Oil pipeline under mid-point reverse strike-slip fault at shutdown (dn ⫽ 300 mm, To ⫽ 135 kN,
⌬P ⫽ 0 MPa, M ⫽ 6).
486 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487

rence of the above conditions provides over-stress but not rupture of the pipe in
service. It is necessary to remember that the case considered is an extreme emerg-
ency: seismic fault happening directly within pipeline location, near restraint, and
its front is perpendicular to the pipeline axis.

6. Ground oblique-slip fault

Ground oblique-slip fault is characterized by vertical and horizontal (longitudinal

and transverse) movement of the seabed surface. In other words, the two previously-
analyzed phenomenon (strike and normal/reverse-slip faults) are acting simul-
taneously. This combination of faults represents the worst case in terms of the
stress/strain level. Using the principle of superposition, the resulting bending compo-
nent of the total longitudinal stress is calculated as follows:
␴b ⫽ √(␴bs ⫹ ␴bl)2 ⫹ (␴bv)2 (22)

Then, the total longitudinal stress, ␴, due to operational loading and oblique-slip
fault displacements is calculated as the sum of oblique fault bending stress, ␴b, nor-
mal (reverse), ␴na, and strike, ␴sa, faults axial stresses, and also, “cap” pressure stress,
␴c, and operational stress, ␴o, due to pipeline Euler’ instability.
␴ ⫽ ␴b ⫹ ␴na ⫹ ␴sa ⫹ ␴c ⫹ ␴o (23)
All the above calculations were performed using non-linear stress–strain relationship
of the pipe material. The results presented in Table 2 demonstrate very high seismic
viability of an unburied pipeline. Hence, the pipe is not very sensitive to an earth-
quake magnitude increase: oblique-slip fault total longitudinal stress has increased
by approximately 5% when the fault magnitude was changed from 6 to 7 and bottom
displacement increased by 66%. There is a pipe over-stress situation only at the
pipeline restraint vicinity and for already snaked pipeline. This is not surprising since
it was true for normal/reverse-slip. The non-snaked pipeline is not sensitive to the
longitudinal component of the bottom displacement due to seismic fault. It is
important to point out that the fault longitudinal component of the displacement,
generates the major part of the pipeline stress magnitudes when snaked. The last
two rows of Table 2 illustrate the transition case when snaked pipe becomes straight
due to the unrestrained section proximity. The stress values reduce significantly
because of no snaking. However, in reality, there are a lot of pipeline longitudinal
axis shape imperfections that have to stipulate the snaked pipeline approach for seis-
mic stress analysis.

7. Conclusions

1. Unburied pipeline takes place at a certain distance from the pipeline unrestrained
end and gradually increases towards the pipeline restraint.
 N.Y. Kershenbaum et al. / Ocean Engineering 27 (2000) 473–487 487

2. Snaking phenomenon does not magnify the resulting longitudinal stress due to
fault compared with initially straight pipeline.
3. The normal or reverse-slip fault’s vertical component does not produce a signifi-
cant amplification of the stress.
4. The major contribution to pipeline seismic loading is generated by longitudinal
displacementof the ground. This effect occurs only for already snaked pipeline
and in proximity to the pipeline restrained section.
5. The straight pipeline is not sensitive to the longitudinal component of the fault.
However, due to imperfections imposed by pipe laying and seabed surface profile,
it is recommended to consider all pipelines as snaked.

References

Dunlap, V.A., Bhojanala, R.P., Morris, D.V., 1990. Burial of vertically loaded offshore pipelines in weak
sediments. 22nd Annual Offshore Technology Conference OTC6375, 263–270.
Figarov, N.G., Kamyshev, A.M., 1996. Seismic stability of offshore pipelines. 6th International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference 2, 477–481.
Hobbs, R.E., 1984. In-service buckling of heated pipelines. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE
110, 175–189.
Ju, G.T., Kyriakides, S., 1988. Thermal buckling of offshore pipelines. Journal of Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, ASME 110, 355–364.
Kershenbaum, N.Y., Harrison, G.E., Choi, H.S., 1996. Subsea pipeline lateral deviation due to high tem-
perature product. 6th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 2, 74–79.
Nyman, D.J., 1972. Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York.
Rajani, B.B., Robertson, P.K., Morgenstern, N.R., 1993. A simplified design method for pipelines subject
to transverse soil movements. 12th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engin-
eering 5, 157–165.
Timoshenko, S.P., Gere, J.M., 1961. Theory of Elastic Stability McGraw-Hill, New York.
Trigg, A., Rizkalla, M., 1994. Development and application of a closed form technique for the preliminary
assessment of pipeline integrity in unstable slopes. 13th International Conference on Offshore Mech-
anics and Arctic Engineering 5, 127–139.
Wells, D.L., Coppersmith, K.J., 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length,
rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
84 (4), 974–1002.
Zhow, Z., Murray, D.W., 1993. Behavior of buried pipelines subjected to imposed deformations. 12th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 5, 115–126.