Figure 13 presents typical variations of the maximum εmax and minimum εmin strains of a pipeline with D =

1.20m, as functions of the applied peak PGD (at a distance 5Hwc from the free face) for watercourse crossings
with Hwc = 4.5m, wall thickness t = “17.5/21.0”mm and for the 3 alternative liquefaction profiles (“thick” crust,
intermediate liquefiable layer, “thin” crust) in different subplots. The same figure also includes a shaded region
(denoted by “low-strain zone”), where the standard design normal welds strain limits are depicted. In addition,
the figure includes the strain limits for high-strain overmatched welds for comparison purposes. Observe that
the effect of the soil liquefaction profile with depth is not very significant, since all 3 profiles lead to
comparable results. However, it seems that the intermediate liquefiable layer profile provides an “average”
response between the “thick” and the “thin” non-liquefiable crust profiles. What is common for all 3 profiles
is the intensely increasing effect of the applied peak PGD on the εmax and εmin pipeline strains. In quantitative
terms, and for the allowable strains for standard design normal welds, the corresponding allowable horizontal
peak PGD values are approximately equal to 0.36-0.39m for all 3 soil liquefaction profiles with depth. Note
also that for the cases presented in this figure, these values are related to failure in compression.

Then, Figure 14a presents the εmax and εmin strains of a D = 1.20m pipeline, as a function of the applied peak
PGD for watercourse crossings with Hwc = 4.5m and “thick” non-liquefiable crust profile, and explores the
effect of thicker pipe wall thickness, i.e. for t = 21.0, 24.9 and 30.9mm in different subplots. Similarly, Figure
14b does the same for the “thin” non-liquefiable crust profile case. No such analyses were performed for the
intermediate liquefied layer, since this profile generally leads to strain results in between the results of the
other 2 liquefaction profiles. In any case, both these figures include a shaded region (denoted by “low-strain
zone”), where the standard design normal welds strain limits are depicted, as well as dashed lines for the strain
limits for high-strain overmatched welds. It may be concluded that the beneficial effect of increasing the pipe
wall thickness t is evident for both the “thick” and the “thin” non-liquefiable crust profiles. In particular, for
the standard design normal welds and the “thick” crust (Figure 14a), the allowable peak PGD increases from
0.39m (t = “17.5/21.0”mm), to 0.61m, 0.77m and 0.95m for t = 21.0, 24.9 and 30.9mm, respectively. Similarly,
for the “thin” crust (Figure 14b), the allowable peak PGD increases from 0.36m (t = “17.5/21.0”mm), to
0.55m, 0.70m and 0.90m for t = 21.0, 24.9 and 30.9mm, respectively. Interestingly, for the relatively thinner
pipes (t = “17.5/21.0”, 21.0mm) these allowable peak PGD values are related to failure in compression,
opposite to what occurs for thicker pipes (t = 24.9, 30.9mm) where the allowable PGDs are related to tensile
failure of the butt welds.

The pertinent allowable peak PGD values (at a distance 5Hwc from the crest) for S-shaped pipeline
configurations are summarized in Table 2 for all performed generic FEA, i.e. including crossings of
watercourses with Hwc = 2.5 and 6.5m not shown in any figure herein. The symbols C (for compression) and
T (for tension) have been added next to the allowable peak PGDs in order to define the associated mode of
pipeline failure. The first thing to observe is that the computed allowable peak PGD values correspond to
considerable, but common in large earthquakes, lateral spreads towards free faces. In addition, it becomes
evident that S-shaped pipeline configurations crossing watercourses prove considerably more vulnerable than
“straight” pipeline segments. Finally note that compression-induced local buckling is the prevailing failure
mode for relatively thin wall pipe sections (D/t = 59, 70), while pipes with thicker walls (D/t = 39, 49) are
susceptible to tensile failure of (standard design normal) welds.

Table 2: Allowable peak PGD values (at a distance 5Hwc from the free face) at watercourse crossings for
standard design normal welds of S-shaped configurations of pipeline with D = 1.20m
Shallow Intermediate depth Deep
Pipe wall
watercourse watercourse watercourse
thickness
(Hwc = 2.5m) (Hwc = 4.5m) (Hwc = 6.5m)
“Thick” “Thin” “Thick” “Thin”
“Thick” crust “Thin” crust
crust crust crust crust
“17.5/21.0” 0.30 (C) 0.30 (C) 0.39 (C) 0.36 (C) 0.44 (C) 0.41 (C)
21.0 0.51 (C) 0.49 (C) 0.61 (C) 0.55 (C,T) 0.72 (C) 0.62 (C,T)
24.9 0.70 (C,T) 0.72 (C,T) 0.77 (T) 0.70 (T) 0.92 (C,T) 0.76 (T)
30.9 1.09 (T) 1.75 (T) 0.95 (T) 0.90 (T) 1.12 (T) 0.96 (T)
 (a) (b)

Figure 14. Maximum and minimum longitudinal strains along pipeline (with D = 1.20m) as functions of
the applied horizontal peak PGD on S-shaped configurations which cross watercourses with Hwc = 4.5m,
and various pipe wall thicknesses (t = 21.0mm, 24.9mm and 30.9mm) for: (a) “thick” and (b) “thin” non-
liquefiable crust.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

In concluding, it is noteworthy to highlight two basic conclusions from these generic FEA, for the liquefaction-
induced lateral spreading and settlement effects on buried steel pipelines:
 Gently sloping lateral spreading along “straight” pipeline segments and liquefaction-induced settlement can
be easily resisted by buried steel pipelines. On the contrary, if the gentle sloping lateral spreading acts
transversely to the pipeline axis of “straight” segments, the allowable peak PGD is of the order of 0.65 –
1.15m depending on pipe wall thickness (for the D = 1.20m considered).
 S-shaped pipeline configurations for watercourse crossings undergoing lateral spreading due to free face
proximity prove much more vulnerable than “straight” segments. Most straining appears at the heaving
overbend and the sagbend areas, while the allowable peak PGD (at the area of the free face) may be as low
as 0.30m (for the D = 1.20m considered).

Furthermore, it should be noted that the ultimate goal of the performed generic FEA is to provide a practical
pipeline verification procedure against liquefaction induced PGDs. For this purpose, one should also perform
a detailed liquefaction hazard assessment over all potential liquefaction hazard areas (PLHAs), compute the
anticipated lateral spreading displacements and settlements and finally associate each PLHA to one of the
generic field cases examined in the parametric study in order to define the allowable displacement and
settlement limits. The pipeline is verified when the anticipated PGDs are less than the allowable PGDs of the
associated generic field case.

For this verification procedure to be complete, the overall pipeline design in the wider area of the PLHA must
be consistent with the basic assumptions of the generic FEA presented above. For instance:
(a) For gently sloping ground, the pipeline should remain more or less straight within the PLHA, avoiding
sharp turns with hot bends (i.e., R = 5D) that enforce restriction to the pipeline. In addition, the burial
depth of the pipeline should not exceed the design value (here 1.40m, as per Figure 1).
(b) The same apply to the pipeline segments approaching an S-shaped watercourse crossing. Honegger et
al. (2006) recommend that any type of bends and elbows is avoided within 100-200m from the banks.
Furthermore, the pipeline should cross the watercourse axis at more or less perpendicularly (O’Rourke
& Liu, 2012, Nyman and Bouckovalas, 2018), so that the applied PGDs remain essentially co-axial to
the pipeline axis.
(c) The pipeline geometry at S-shaped watercourse crossings should conform to the assumptions of the
generic FEA. For example, on the basis of the presented FEA, the dip angle of the inclined pipeline
segment should not exceed 30o, the burial depth of the pipeline under the waterbed should not exceed
3.00m, while a minimum (setback) distance of 10-20m should be provisioned between the banks and
the sag bend of the pipeline (see Figure 2).
(d) In cases that watercourse crossings are constructed with an open cut, the concrete coating (for ballast
and scour protection) must be constructed segmented (e.g. in lengths of approximately 1.5m (or
shorter) for a D = 1.20m pipeline), in order to allow for the coating to follow the pipeline displacements
without un-controlled cracking and related local damage to the pipeline.

If imposition of the above-listed design conditions proves to be impracticable, then site-specific FEA should
be performed in an attempt to qualify a more favorable watercourse crossing design or to at least optimize
(minimize) the number of applicable constraints. Such site-specific FEA are outside the scope of this paper
and presentation.

REFERENCES

ALA (American Lifeline Alliance) (2001). “Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe (with addenda through
February 2005).”
ALA (American Lifeline Alliance) (2005). “Seismic guidelines for water pipelines.” Washington DC.
API (American Petroleum Institute) (2005). “Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities”, API Standard 1104.
ASCE (1984). “Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems.” Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel
Pipelines, ASCE, 473p.
ANSYS (2016). “ANSYS Mechanical Premium.” User's Guide PDF Documentation for Releases 12.0, 15.0 and 17.0,
ANSYS Inc.
Ariman, T. (1983). “A review of buckling and rupture failures in pipelines due to large ground deformations.” In:
Earthquake Behavior and Safety of Oil and Gas Storage Facilities, Buried Pipelines and Equipment (Edited by T.
Ariman), PVP-Vol. 77, pp. 176-180, ASME, New York.
Ashford, S. A. and Juirnarongrit, T. (2002), “Response of single piles and pipelines in liquefaction induced lateral spreads
using controlled blasting.” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 1(2), 181-193.
Bartlett, S. F., and Youd, T. L. (1992). “Empirical Analysis of Horizontal Ground Displacement Generated by
Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreads.” Technical Report NCEER-92-0021, NCCER, Buffalo, NY.
Chian, S. C., Tokimatsu, K., and Madabhushi S. P. G. (2014). “Soil Liquefaction – Induced Uplift of Underground
Structures: Physical and Numerical Modeling.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
140(10), 04014057
Denys, R. (2008). “Interaction between material properties, inspection accuracy and defect acceptance levels in strain
based pipeline design.”, In: Pluvinage G., Elwany M.H. (eds) Safety, Reliability and Risks Associated with Water, Oil
and Gas Pipelines. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series. Springer, Dordrecht., 45-64
DNV (Det Norske Veritas) (2012). “Submarine Pipeline Systems.” Offshore Standard OS-F101, DNV AS, Norway.
Gresnigt, A. M. (1986). “Plastic Design of Buried Steel Pipelines in Settlement Areas.”, Heron, 31(4), p. 114
Hays, W. W. (1998). “Case histories of damaging earthquakes.” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 957–962 Paper No. 8.04.
Honegger, D. G., and Nyman, D. J. (2004). “Guidelines for the seismic design and assessment of natural gas and liquid
hydrocarbon pipelines.” Technical Report, PRCI Inc., Catalog No. L51927
Honegger, D. G., Nyman, D. J., and Youd, T. L. (2006). “Liquefaction hazard mitigation for oil and gas pipelines.”
Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, San Francisco CA, April
Mohr, W. (2003). “Strain-Based Design of Pipelines.” Report No. 45892GTH, U.S. Department of Interior, Mineral
Management Service & U.S. Dept. Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, October
Nyman D. J. and Bouckovalas G.D. (2019). “Assessment and Mitigation of Seismic Geohazards for Pipelines”, Chapter
11 in ASME “Pipeline Geohazards: Planning, Design, Construction and Operations”, pp. 389-448.
O’Rourke, M. J. (1989). “Approximate Analysis Procedures for Permanent Ground Deformation Effects on Buried
Pipelines”, 2nd US-Japan Workshop on Liquefaction, Large Ground Deformation and their Effects on Lifelines,
Technical Report NCEER-89-0032, pp. 336-347.
O’Rourke, M. J., and Liu, X. (2012). “Seismic Design of Buried and Offshore Pipelines.” Monograph MCEER-12-MN04
Papadimitriou, A. G, Bouckovalas, G. D., Nyman, D. J., Valsamis, A. I. (2019a). “Analysis of buried steel pipelines at
watercourse crossings under liquefaction-induced lateral spreading”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, (under review).
Papadimitriou, A. G, Bouckovalas, G. D., Nyman, D. J., Valsamis, A. I. (2019b). “Analysis of buried steel pipelines under
liquefaction-induced gently sloping lateral spreading and settlement”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
(under review).
PRCI (Pipeline Research Council International) (2004). “Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Assessment of Natural
Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines.” Pipeline Design, Construction and Operations Technical Committee of PRCI
(Eds. Honegger, D. G., and Nyman D. J.), October.
Shao G. (2011), “Numerical analysis for oil pipeline subjected to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading.”, Advanced
Materials Research (243-249), 3804-3807
Stephens, D. R., Olson, R. J., and Rosenfeld, M. J. (1991). “Pipeline Monitoring – Limit State Criteria.” Report NG-18-
188 of Battelle Memorial Laboratory submitted to American Gas Association
Vitali, L., Torselletti, E., Marchesani, F., Bruschi, R. (2005). “Strain Based Design for Land High Grade Pipelines in
Harsh Environments.” Proceedings of 1st Super-High Strength Steels Conference, Rome, Italy.
Youd, T. L., Hansen, C. M., and Bartlett, S. F. (2002). “Revised multilinear regression equations for prediction of lateral
spread displacement.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 128(12), 1007-1017.