Title: Centrifuge Modeling of PGD Response of Buried Pipe

Authors: Michael O’Rourke (Contact person)

Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
JEC 4049
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street
Troy, NY 12280-3590
Phone: (518) 276-6933
Fax: (518) 276-4833
E-Mail: orourm@rpi.edu

Vikram Gadicherla
Graduate Student, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
JEC 4049
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street
Troy, NY 12280-3590
Phone: (518) 276-8071
Fax: (518) 276-4833
E-Mail: gadicv@rpi.edu

Tarek Abdoun
Research Assistant Professor
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
JEC 4049
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street
Troy, NY 12280-3590
Phone: (518) 276-6544
Fax: (518) 276-4833
E-Mail: abdout@rpi.edu
 Centrifuge Modeling of PGD Response of Buried Pipe
Michael O’Rourke, Vikram Gadicherla and Tarek Abdoun

ABSTRACT

Fault crossing, lateral spreads and other types of permanent ground deformation (PGD)
are arguably the most severe seismic hazards for continuous buried pipelines. Current analysis
and design procedures, to a great extent, are based upon Finite Element (FE) modeling. There
are, unfortunately, relatively few full-scale case histories which could be used to benchmark or
confirm the applicability of FE assumptions. That is, full-scale field verification of the predicted
behavior of buried pipeline subject to PGD is, at best, sparse.
In the paper, a new, centrifuge based, method for determining the response of continuous
buried pipe to PGD is presented. Laboratory equipment, similitude relations as well as
centrifuge model results are presented. Specifically described are the physical characteristics of
RPI’s 100 g-ton geotechnical centrifuge and the current lifeline experiment split-box. The split-
box contains the model pipeline and surrounding soil and is manufactured such that half can be
offset, in flight, simulating PGD. Governing similitude relations which allow one to determine
the physical characteristics (diameter, wall thickness, material modulus of elasticity) of the
model pipeline are presented.
Finally, recorded strains induced in two buried pipes with prototype diameters of 0.63 m
and 0.95 m (24 and 36 inch) subject to 0.6 and 2.0 meters (2 and 6 feet) of full scale fault offsets
are presented and compared to corresponding FE results.

_________________________
Michael O’Rourke, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, JEC 4049,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12280-3590
Vikram Gadicherla, Graduate Student, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, JEC
4049, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12280-3590
Tarek Abdoun, Research Assistant Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
JEC 4049, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12280-3590
EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT

The Rensselaer Geotechnical Centrifuge facility is located at the basement level of the
Jonsson Engineering Center. The centrifuge itself is located in a belowground closed circular
roof with a diameter of roughly 6 m (18 feet). Operation of the centrifuge and data acquisition is
performed in the adjacent control room. The centrifuge is an acutronic model 665-1.
The in-flight radius of the centrifuge is 3m. The centrifuge is capable of carrying a
maximum payload of 1 metric ton at 100 g (i.e. 100 g ton). The maximum speed of the
centrifuge is 200 g. The soil model sits on the testing platform which is located at the end of the
centrifuge arm. The maximum model or payload dimensions are 100 cm x 80 cm x 80 cm. The
transfer of data is enabled by wireless DAQ system and the control signals is enabled by 64
electric slip rings; 50 for analog signals, 12 for power and two for video signals. The hydraulic
rotary joints have a total of six passages, two of which are hydraulic oil passages rated at 3000
psi and the remaining four are air/water passages rated at 300 psi.

Split Box

As noted above the split box allows simulation of fault offsets and the relative horizontal
displacement at the margins of a lateral spread. The split box has inside dimensions of 1 m x
0.354 m x 0.203 m. It consists of two halves, one is fixed while the other can move horizontally
on rollers to simulate an offset. The moving portions of the container are supported and guided
using roller bearings to provide precise movement with minimal friction. The sliding interface
between fixed and movable portions of the container utilizes low friction Teflon seals protected
by steel shields.
A hydraulic cylinder is used to displace the moveable half of the split box. The driving
shear force is provided by a 3000 psi hydraulic actuator system, which includes a flow-metering
valve, a solenoid valve for remote operation, and hoses for connecting to the centrifuge’s quick
connects. The load cell, located between the actuator and the movable portion of the split box,
measures the force applied by the actuators. The maximum relative displacement of the movable
section is 8 cm, simulating 4m offset at 50 g. The flow-metering valve controls the rate of
movement of the split box. The motion of the actuator is controlled by a servo valve and a
feedback control system, while an LVDT measured the offset

Anchor Points

The connection between the pipe model and the split box end walls consists of a steel rod
that sits in one of the metal plates attached to the split box wall. This assembly allows the pipe
to rotate freely about the vertical axis. The assembly also has space for two LVDTs, which can
measure the rotation of the pipe model at the support. This assembly is covered by a plastic
enclosure and rubber sheeting to prevent the entry of sand near the LVDTs.

Instrumentation and Data Acquisition System

Strain gauges were installed on the pipe model to measure the axial and bending strains at
various points. The strain gages were model CEA-032UW-120 from the Measurements Group
Inc. Ten strain gauges were set in a quarter bridge configuration and the remaining four strain
gauges in a half bridge configuration.
The data acquisition system is capable of recording 128 channels of data at a 10 kHz
sampling rate per channel. A Pentium 4 PC generates the digital input signal, which causes the
split box to move by the desired offset. The servo controller on the centrifuge arm receives the
signal through the slip rings. A hydraulic pump is used to pressurize the actuator in the split box
before sending the signal.

CENTRIFUGE MODELING

For problems in which soil-structure interaction forces are dominate, small-scale models
by themselves cannot replicate similar stresses at comparable points on the model and the
prototype. This is because soil loading and stiffness at a particular depth are related to the self-
weight of the soil above. For example, the vertical stress at a depth of 10 m for a soil having a
density of 10 KN/m3, would be 100 KPa. However, in a tenth scale model, the stress at the
corresponding location (i.e. 1 m depth in the model) in the same soil is only 10 KPa. As a result,
the similitude of soil-structure interaction forces is not maintained. This difficulty can be
overcome by effectively increasing the weight of soil by a factor of 10. In a centrifuge, this is
accomplished by spinning at a speed corresponding to a centrifugal acceleration of 10 times the
earth’s gravity (10 g). This is the underlying concept behind centrifuge modeling of soil and
soil- structure systems. A partial list of scaling law in terms of a centrifugal acceleration Ng is
presented in Table I.

TABLE I SELECTED SIMILITUDE RELATIONS FOR CENTRIFUGE MODELING

Parameter Model units Prototype units

Length 1/N 1
Strain 1 1
Stress 1 1
Axial rigidity 1/N2 1
Flexural rigidity 1/N4 1

This concept has been used extensively to study the effect of explosions on soil, the
response of piles subjected to earthquake effects and a number of other geotechnical problems.
The purpose of the experiments described herein, is to study the response of a continuous buried
pipeline subjected to fault movements.
When modeling the response of the buried pipe to fault movement, care must be taken to
maintain similitude. In terms of soil, soil similitude is maintained by using the same type of soil
in the model as exists for the prototype. This ensures that both the soil density and friction angle
in model and prototype match. For buried pipe, the longitudinal forces at the soil-pipe interface
are influenced by the roughness of the pipe surface. Hence, this quantity should be similar in
both model and prototype. Finally, since the soil forces acting on the pipe are linearly
proportional to the pipe diameter, the pipe diameter needs to scale as N.
 In relation to the buried pipe, the similitude of axial force effects is maintained if the
axial rigidity, EA, (the product of modulus of elasticity and cross section area) scales by a factor
of 1/N2, when the model is subjected to a centrifugal acceleration of Ng. Note, that stress has the
same dimensions or units as modulus of elasticity (psi, ksi, etc.) and hence from Table I both
have a scaling factor of 1. However, again from Table I, area (having units of length squared)
scales by a factor of N2. Hence, axial rigidity, which is the product of modulus of elasticity and
area, scales as

EpAp
= N2 (1)
EmAm

where E is the modulus of elasticity, A is the cross-sectional area while m and p refer to model
and prototype respectively. When the wall thickness to diameter ratio, t/d, is small, the area
may be approximated as A = π dt. Hence, the scaling relation to maintain similitude for EA
becomes

E p t pd p
= N2 (2)
Emt mdm

As noted above, the ratio of diameters dp/dm scales with N to ensure similitude of soil forces on
the pipe interface, hence Equation (2) becomes

Eptp
=N (3)
Emtm

which is the scaling relation for EA.

In order to maintain the similitude of bending moment in the buried pipe the flexural
rigidity, EI, needs to be scaled as

EpIp
=N4 (4)
EmIm

where I is the moment of inertia for the pipe. When the t/d ratio is small, the moment of inertia
may be approximated as I = π d3t/8. Hence, EI similitude requires

3 3
Epd p tp
3 3
= N4 (5)
Em d m t m

However as noted before, dp/dm scale as N, hence the similitude relation for EI is identical to that
for EA as given in Equation (3).

CENTRIFUGE TESTS
 Two pipelines were tested in the Rensselaer centrifuge. The diameter and wall thickness
of the steel prototype lines are listed in Table II. The diameter and d/t ratios are common for
larger gas and liquid fuel pipe in the U.S.
Commercially available small diameter pipe typically do not have such large d/t ratios.
For that reason, aluminum was chosen as the model pipe material. That is, since E m/Ep for the
aluminum model and steel prototype is about 0.30, the scale factor for wall thickness was 0.3
(50) or 15 in order that equations (3) and (5) are satisfied. The resulting diameter and wall
thickness for the models are also presented in Table II.
Figures 1 through 4 show the axial and bending strains along the pipe as measured by
strain gauges on the Pipeline #1 model. The strains in Figure 1 are for an offset of 0.4 cm while
the offsets for Figures 2 through 4 are 0.8, 1.2 and 1.6 cm respectively. The largest of these
correspond to a prototype offset of 0.8 m at 50 g.
As one would expect, the bending and axial strains are increasing functions of the offsets.
For these tests with a 90° interaction angle between the pipe axis and the fault trace, the bending
strains dominate. Also note that the fault location is a point of counter flexure (i.e. zero bending
moment) due to the asymmetric nature of the offset.

TABLE II. PIPELINE PROPERTIES

Property Pipeline #1 Pipeline #2

Prototype Model Prototype Model
Diameter 0.64 m (25 in) 1.27 cm (.5 in) 0.95 m (37 in) 1.9 cm (.75 in)
Wall thickness 1.1 cm (.43 in) 0.71 mm (.0279 in) 1.85 cm (0.73 in) 1.27 mm (0.05 in)

Strain Distribution
Pipeline #1 0.4 cm offset
2000

1500

1000
Strain (Microstrain)

500
Expected axial strain
0
Expected bending strain
0 20 40 60 80 100
-500 Observed axial strain
Observed bending strain
-1000

-1500

-2000
Position (cm)

Figure 1. Measured and Simulated Strains for Pipeline #1 Model Subject to an Offset of 0.4 cm
 Strain Distribution
Pipeline #1 0.8 cm offset

3000

2000
Strain(microstrain)

1000
Expected axial strain

0 Expected bending strain

0 20 40 60 80 100 Observed axial strain
-1000 Observed bending strain

-2000

-3000
Position (cm)

Figure 2. Measured and Simulated Strains for Pipeline #1 Model Subject to an Offset of 0.8 cm

Strain Distribution
Pipeline #1 1.2 cm offset

4000

3000

2000
Strian (Microstrain)

1000
Expected axial strain
0
Expected bending strain
0 20 40 60 80 100
-1000 Observed axial strain
-2000 Observed bending strain

-3000

-4000
Position (cm)

Figure 3. Measured and Simulated Strains for Pipeline #1 Model Subject to an Offset of 1.2 cm
 Strain Distribution
Pipeline #1 1.6 cm offset

5000
4000
3000
Strain (Microstrain)

2000
1000
Expected axial strain
0
Expected bending strain
-1000 0 20 40 60 80 100
Observed axial strain
-2000
Observed bending strain
-3000
-4000
-5000
Position (cm)

Figure 4. Measured and Simulated Strains for Pipeline #1 Model Subject to an Offset of 1.6 cm

Figures 5 through 9 present similar information for the Pipeline #2 model, specifically
axial and bending strains for model offsets of 1, 2, 3 and 4 cm respectively. For these tests at 50
gs, the largest of these offsets correspond to 2 m in prototype scale.

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

A finite element idealization of the centrifuge model was constructed. The pipe was
modeled with beam elements while the soil was modeled as elasto-plastic springs. The burial
depth for the pipeline models was 2.4 cm (little under 1 inch) which corresponds to 1.2 m
(~4 feet) in prototype scale. The corresponding maximum soil spring resistances, with units of
force per unit length of pipe and “yield” displacement were based upon the ASCE Guidelines
[1]. Since the burial depth was constant across the model, and the offset had no vertical
component, there was no need for vertical soil springs. That is, the FE model was two
dimensional in nature. The pipe model was taken to be pinned at the split box wall (i.e. end of
FE model located 40 cm (20 m in prototype scale) each side of the fault location). The offset
was simulated by displacing the base of all the soil springs located on one side of the fault as
well as the pin end on that side of the fault.
The results of the FE simulation are also shown in Figures 1 through 8. For Pipeline #1
(see Figures 1 through 4) the axial and bending strains from the FE simulation match well the
measured strains. The match is remarkably good for offsets of 1.2 and 1.6 cm (0.6 and 0.8 m in
prototype scale) while somewhat less remarkable at lower offsets. For Pipeline #2 (see Figures 5
through 8) the match between measured strains in the centrifuge experiments and corresponding
values from the FE simulation is quite good for offsets of 2 cm or less (1 m in prototype scale).
As the offset increases beyond 2 cm, the correspondence between measured and simulated
strains deteriorates. It should be mentioned in this regard that peak pipe strains were larger than
the yield strain for Pipeline #2 offsets greater than 3 cm (1.5 m prototype scale).
 Strain Distribution
Pipeline #2 1cm offset

2000

1500

1000
Strain (Microstrain)

Expected axial strain

500 Expected bending strain

0 Simulated axial strain

0 20 40 60 80 100 Simulated bending strain
-500

-1000

-1500

-2000
Position (cm)

Figure 5. Measured and Simulated Strains for Pipeline #2 Model Subject to 1 cm Offset

Strain Distribution
Pipeline #2 2 cm offset

4000

3000

2000
Strain (Microstrain)

Expected axial strain

1000 Expected bending strain
0 Observed axial strain
0 20 40 60 80 100 Observed bending strain
-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000
Position (cm)

Figure 6 Measured and Simulated Strains for Pipeline #2 Model Subject to 2 cm Offset
 Strain Distribution
Pipeline #2 3 cm offset

5000
4000
3000
Strain (Microstrain)

2000 Expected axial strain

1000 Expected bending strain

0 Observed axial strain

Observed bending strain
-1000 0 20 40 60 80 100

-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Position (cm)

Figure 7. Measured and Simulated Strains for Pipeline #2 Model Subject to 3 cm Offset

Strain Distribution
Pipeline #2 4cm offset

6000

4000
Strain (Microstrain)

2000
Expected axial strain
Expected bending strain
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 Observed axial strain
-2000 Observed bending strain

-4000

-6000
Position (cm)

Figure 8. Measured and Simulated Strains for Pipeline #2 Model Subject to 4 cm Offset

CONCLUSIONS

The paper describes the first known attempt to use centrifuge modeling to determine pipe
strains induced by PGD. The tests were successful in the sense that the experimental equipment
apparently functioned properly and strains were measured as the split box was being offset in-
flight. Furthermore, the measured pipe strains matched analytical results from a FE simulation
for offsets wherein the pipe remained in the linear elastic range.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research work described herein was sponsored by the National Science Foundation
through Award No. CMS-0085256. The original NSF program manager was Vijaya Gopu, who
was succeeded by Peter Chang. The construction of split box was sponsored by the National
Science Foundation through the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation program (NEES). This support is gratefully acknowledged. However, all statements,
results and conclusions are the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.

REFERENCES

[1] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1984, Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas
Pipeline Systems, Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines, ASCE.