- 567 -

Evaluating the Effects of Liquefaction on

Buried Gas Pipelines

Seyed Mojtaba Alavi
1
, Khosrow Bargi
2

1
Head of Research and Technology affairs, Tehran Province Gas Company,
Tehran, Iran
2
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, University college of Engineering,
University of Tehran
spinglog@ tzc.edu.cnn
ABSTRACT
Gas pipelines are important lifelines in a city. Earthquake induced liquefactions and seismic wave
propagation are one of the dangers threatening gas pipelines. Intensive damages of pipelines may
cause gas leakage and the probable explosion. In this paper, the effects of liquefactions and
seismic wave propagation on the buried gas pipelines are analyzed by finite element simulation.
KEYWORDS: gas pipelines, seismic wave propagation, liquefaction, permanent ground
movement, numerical analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Liquefaction is the loss of shear strength, and corresponding reduction in effective stress, in
saturated or nearly saturated soils due to shaking induced pore water pressure increases. It is the
effects of liquefaction that pose a hazard to pipelines, rather than the actual liquefaction
phenomena. Pore water pressure increases can impose buoyancy on buried pipelines, which if not
properly accounted for may lead to pipe floatation and possible damage.
The loss of soil shear strength can lead to large permanent ground strains. Permanent ground
movements are manifested through lateral spreading, flow failure, and settlement. Lateral
spreading is the down slope movement occurring when cyclic inertial loads exceed the reduced
effective soil strength and is generally associated with shallow surface ground slopes (as low as a
fraction of a percent slope). Flow failure is a slope instability problem resulting when the static
shear stresses in sloping ground exceed the liquefied soil residual strength. Liquefaction induced
settlements are generally larger than non-liquefaction settlements. Reductions in soil bearing
strength may also cause problems for above ground pipes.
Permanent ground movements pose the greatest hazard for pipelines, even though they are
more localized and involve less exposure to pipelines than transient movements. The significance
of this hazard is related to the large ground strains resulting from permanent movements. Strains
induced by permanent ground deformation will be the largest at the movement boundaries. For
liquefaction, this occurs at the interface between liquefied and non-liquefied materials; for
faulting it occurs at the primary trace of surface rupture; for landslides it occurs at slide
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. E 568

- 568 -
boundaries; for settlement the greatest hazard results at locations of greatest differential
settlement.
Surface faulting may occur on earthquake-generating faults or as sympathetic movement on
nearby faults. Fault rupture generally occurs over a zone with largest movements resulting on a
main trace and other fractures with movements of concern occurring at distances away from the
main trace. The total magnitude of surface rupture and width of rupture zone is a function of
earthquake magnitude, with larger movements generally occurring with larger magnitudes, and
with the zone of deformation usually dependent on the local nature of the fault.
Slopes stable under static conditions may be destabilized under seismic shaking as a result of
induced inertial forces. The steeper the slope and weaker the resisting planes, the more
susceptible to movement the slope becomes. The presence of groundwater increases the slope
movement potential through increased pore water pressure and reduced effective stress.
Landslides generally refer to a broad category of failures including earth slides, rock falls,
slumps, and debris flows. Earth slides may result in movements from a few millimeters to several
tens to hundreds of meters. Smaller deformations are generally referred to as slope movements
and larger movements as slope failures or just landslides. Rock falls are rarely a problem for
buried pipes.
Settlement results from the densification of relatively loose, partially saturated or dry granular
soils. Settlement increases with decreasing relative density and fines content.
Settlement also occurs as a consequence of liquefaction in saturated granular soil, and will
again increase with decreasing relative density and fines content (Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1995;
Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987). Settlement resulting from densification is the surface manifestation
of volumetric strain, which is directly related to the total thickness of loose and/or liquefiable soil
layers. The hazard to pipelines occurs where the greatest differential settlement results.
Settlement may also occur as a result of subsurface erosion and ejection of soil at sand boils,
fissures, and cracks in the ground overlying soil subjected to liquefaction. This type of settlement
is related to the localized loss of material through ejection and venting of particles carried by
water at elevated pressure. It may be accompanied by large differential settlement in the form of
surface depressions and sink-hole-like manifestations of surface movement. Such deformation
generally occurs in soil deposits subjected to prolonged and severe liquefaction. It involves larger
levels of settlement than those associated with densification, as described above. Sometimes,
movement of this sort is accompanied by large lateral displacements, which represent a more
severe condition of deformation for underground pipelines. Under these conditions then, it will
generally be appropriate to concentrate on the effects of large lateral soil movement.
Soil deformations due to soil failure (including weak clay deformations in peat, bay mud and
similar situations) may also occur.
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
0 shows the typical form of the FEM. The pipe is modeled with pressurized pipe line
elements. Near the fault offset, the length of the pipe elements should not be longer than the pipe
diameter. The model should accommodate both material and geometry (large deformation)
nonlinearities. The soil is modeled by lateral and axial springs having the ability to mimic the
nonlinear soil force-deformation behaviors. The loading, usually PGD, is modeled by
displacements applied to the ends of the soil springs to simulate the soil-pipe interaction.
For cases where there are imposed PGDs on the pipeline (such as at fault crossings, landslide
transition points, etc.), it would be expected that the pipe will slip through the soil. Thus, the soil
load-deflection curves will need to be nonlinear. The following outlines the usual formulation for
soil springs.
Vol
Effe
surface
direction
the struc
and norm
type of l
surface w
loadings
Thre
they wer
and 0.4 o
Then
each ear
Dam
delay of
points a
which is
velocity
division
l. 17 [2012
ect of the pro
and shear
ns, with angl
cture in the f
mal to the pi
loading is th
wave and do
s is 2/3 times
Fig
ee records of
re scaled, ac
of accelerati
n, by integra
rthquake is o
maging effec
f received wa
and consequ
s considered
and wave le
of pipe leng
2], Bund.
EA
opagation of
waves. Eart
les of 0 and 4
form of 0, w
ipe in horizo
he effect of t
oesnt have a
s of maximum
gure 1: Ap
f earthquake
ccording to s
on of gravity
ating two tim
btained and
t of wave pr
ave in differ
ently the str
d, is equal to
ength are con
gth to differen
Figu
E
ARTHQ
seismic wav
thquake reco
45 degrees. F
which the am
ontal plane a
the wave par
any lateral co
m horizontal
pplication o
s of Kobe (1
eismicity ma
y.
mes from thes
applied to th
ropagation o
rent points of
rain. Accord
o 100 m. Fo
nsidered. Acc
nt areas with
ure 2: contin
- 569 -
UAKE L
ves on buried
ord meets t
First wave w
mplitudes of
re 2/2 time
rallel to axis
omponent. V
l acceleration
f 45-degree
1995), North
aps of Tehra
se records, ti
he end of soil
on long pipe
f the pipe, ca
ding to Japa
or the 45-de
cordingly, w
h the phase d
nues on the
LOADIN
d pipes is con
the pipes by
with the 45 de
its compone
es of the max
of the pipe.
Vertical comp
n.
e wave on th
ridge (1994)
an, by max a
ime history o
l springs.
lines is for d
ausing the re
anese gas co
egree wave,
wave load on
difference of
next page
NG
nsidered as a
y the comp
egree angle to
ents in the di
ximum accel
. This simula
ponent of ea

he pipeline
) and Tabas w
accelerations
of displacem
difference in
elative displa
ode, minimu
the projectio
the pipe is c
1 second.

combination
ponents in t
o the pipe, m
irections of a
leration. Ano
ates the effec
arthquake in
was selected
of 0.65, 0.6
ment of groun
n phase and
acement of t
um wave len
ons of the w
considered by

569

ns of
three
meets
axial
other
ct of
both
d and
, 0.5
nd in
time
these
ngth,
wave
y the
Vol
For
units of
resistanc



where D
effective
at rest,
surface o
the rang
hard epo
For
transver
displace
equation


For
pipe tran
transver
followin


l. 17 [2012

Figure 2:
elem
axial spring
f force per u
ce is develop
D = pipe oute
e unit weight
= angle of
of the pipe a
ge of about 0
oxy coated st
transverse (
se (horizonta
ement at wh
ns:
transverse (v
nsverse (vert
se displacem
ng equations:
2], Bund.
actual cond
ment model
(t-x curve),
unit length
ped are obtain
t
u
= _
x
u
= _
u.
er diameter,
t, H = soil de
soil shear re
and the surrou
0.6 to 0.7 for
teel pipe in c
(Horizontal)
al) direction
hich maxim
P
u
y
u
=
`
1
1
u
u
vertical dow
tical downwa
ment at wh
:
q
u
= _
z
u
= u.
E
dition of bu
l of pipe, c)
tu = maxim
of pipe and
ned by follow
_
noS
n
2
y E(1 +
.1 to u.2 inc
u.2 to u.4 i
= adhesio
epth to cente
esistance, k i
unding soil (
r concrete co
compacted sa
spring (p-y
having units
mum soil re
P
u
= _
S
u
N
ch
y EN
u.u7 to u.1
u.uS to u.uS
u.u2 to u.u
.uS to u.uS(
wnwards) spr
ards) directio
hich maximu
_
S
u
N
c
y EN
q
+
.1B to u.1S
- 570 -
uried pile wi
force-displ
mum soil resi
d xu = axial
wing equatio
S
u

+ K
0
)tonk
ches foi ue
inches foi s
on factor, Su
rline of pipe
is a factor to
(if that is the
oated steel p
and.
y curve), Pu
s of force pe
sistance is
h

N
qh
o
1(B + B2)
(B +B2) f
uS(B + B2)
(B + B2) fo
ring (q-z curv
on having un
um soil res
o
12y
2
N
y
B foi both
ith soil arou
acement cu
istance to the
l displaceme
ons.
or cloy
or so
nse to loos
stiff to soft
u = soil undr
, K o = coeff
o represent th
e failure plan
pipe in comp
u= maximum
er unit length
developed
or cloy
or sonJ
_
foi loose sa
foi meuium
) foi uense s
oi stiff to so
ve), qu= ma
nits of force
istance is d
or cloy
y
or son
h sanu anu c

und it, b) sim
urves of soil
e pipe axial
ent at which
onJ
_
se sanu
clay
_
rained shear
fficient of late
he friction b
ne), such that
pacted sand;
m soil resista
h of pipe and
are obtaine

anu
sanu
sanu
oft clay1
1
1
aximum soil
per unit leng
developed, a
nJ
_
clay
mplified fin
springs
direction ha
h maximum

strength, =
eral soil pres
etween the o
t ( tan k )
or 0.4 to 0.5
ance to the
d yu = transv
ed by follow

resistance to
gth of pipe,
are obtained
(5
(6
570

nite
aving
soil
(1)
(2)
= soil
ssure
outer
is in
5 for
pipe
verse
wing
(3)
(4)
o the
zu =
d by
5)
6)
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. E 571

- 571 -
CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED PIPES FOR THE
ANALYSIS
For each of three categories of gas pipelines, i.e. low pressure steel pipelines, high pressure
steel pipelines, and polyethylene pipelines, four pipes of different dimensions are selected for the
analysis. Some of the characteristics of these pipelines are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Characteristics of gas pipelines which are analyzed
Main supply pipelines Distribution pipelines
Internal pressure 250 psi 60 psi
Material Steel, API 5L-GrB, Fy=3500
psi
Steel, API 5L-X42, Fy=4200
psi
Steel, API 5L-GrB, Fy=3500
psi
Polyethylene, PE 100, PE 80,
Fy=4200 psi
Diameter
of pipes
2 to 48 inches 2 to 12 inches for steel pipes
63 to 160 mm for polyethylene
pipes
Thickness of
pipes
According to Table.2 According to Table.2
Buried depth of
pipes
Generally 1 to 1.20 m Generally 1 to 1.20 m
Insulating cover Kinds of tar or three-ply
polyethylene
Kinds of tar or three-ply
polyethylene

Vol
Steel pi
Nom
consider
strain of

l. 17 [2012
Table 2:

ipes
minal stress
red correspo
f %5.
e
2], Bund.
: Conventio
vs. nominal
nding to the
Ta
Characteristic
external diamet
E
onal dimensi
l strain curv
e strain of %
able 3: Stee
c
ter
Character
wall thick
- 572 -
ions of stee
ve for steel
%0.5 and ulti
el assumed
ristic
kness
Weigh
leng
Calcu
el pipes acco
pipes is ass
imate tensile
properties



GrB steel



X42 steel
ht per
gth
Accesso
ulated weight
ording to AP
sumed as 0
e strength co

y
(MP


241


290
Charac
internal d
ories
Pl 5L

. Yield stres
orresponds to
Pa)

t
(MP



414


414
cteristic
diameter
572

ss is
o the
Pa)
4
4
Vol
Acc
buckling
displace
assessm
judgmen
Polyeth
The
strain of
%7.8 to
diameter
assumed
and it is
pipe are

Fi
Materia
Physica
properti
Mechan
properti

Sinc
continuo
l. 17 [2012
ording to th
g condition
ement angle
ents of critic
nt.
hylene pipe
selected pip
f pipe materi
o %11, poin
r of 75mm
d equal to the
s compared t
presented in
igure 3: Str
Table
al properties
al
ies
nical
ies
ce there we
ous pipes. Ac
2], Bund.
he ultimate
depends o
of the gro
cal displacem
es
pelines are m
ial is assume
t that the n
is equal to
e start point
to experimen
n 0.
ress-strain c
4: Physical
s
density
stiffness
Tensile yiel
strength
Elongation
caused by
tensile fract
Tensile mo
of elasticity
Poisson rati
ere rigid an
ccording to s
----Exp

____A
E
limit state,
on the facto
ound, defor
ment of pipe
made of polye
ed %8. Acco
ecking begin
%10 and in
of yielding.
ntal data. Phy
curve of poly
l and mecha
Tes
JI
AS
lding JI
ture
JI
dule
y
AS
io
nd welded c
seismic guid
perimental data
Analysis results
- 573 -
critical stra
ors such as
rmation mod
e shows that
ethylene wit
ording to exp
ns is %15,
n diameter o
In 0, the stre
ysical and m
yethylene a
anical prope
ting method
ISK-7112
STM-D2240
ISK-6774
ISK-6774
STM-D638

connections
delines such a
ain is consid
s: stiffness
de (bending
considering
h a high den
perimental d
point of ext
of 150mm is
ess-strain cur
mechanical pr
and compari
erties of poly
d un
Ton
0 -
kgf/m
%
kgf/m
between pi
as IITK-GSD
dered equal
of ground
g or tension
the strain o
nsity, HPPE/
data, tension
tension yield
s %10. The
rve of polyet
roperties of p
ison to expe
yethylene p
nit
e/m
3

-
mm
2

%
mm
2


ipes, they a
DMA (2008)
to %30. L
and pipe p
n). Though,
of %30 is a g
/PE100. Ultim
yielding poi
ding in nom
critical strai
thylene is sh
polyethylene
erimental da
pipe
quantity
0.94
63
215
890
6100
0.43
are modeled
) and ALA 2
573

Local
path,
the
good
mate
int is
minal
in is
hown
e gas

ata
y
d by
2001,
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. E 574

- 574 -
and also researches such as Lee, et al (2008), the effects of bends, connections and other
accessories are negligible and are not considered in the models.
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics of the soil which is considered for the analysis are presented in 0.
Table 5: Characteristics of the soil in the analysis
Dense sand (DS) Loose sand (LS) Soft clay (SC)
=35, C=0 =25, C=0 =0, C=0.0168 MPa

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
The numerical analyses of mentioned buried pipes for the considered earthquakes were done
by ABAQUS. In these analyses, pipelines of 700 to 1400 meters long were meshed by 10-meter
meshes, and soil springs were attached in three directions to the nodes of each mesh. The effects
of soil pressure and internal pressure of pipes were neglected in the analyses, according to the
research of Lee et al (2008). End conditions of pipes were considered fixed-fixed (ff), pinned-
pinned (pp) and fixed-pinned (fp).
Acceptance criteria for the pipeline for seismic wave propagation, according to ALA2005,
are presented in 0.

Table 6: acceptance criteria of pipeline for seismic wave propagation (ALA2005)
Seismic load component Fracture mode unit criterion


Wave effects

Direct pipe,
connection and
T bend
Fracture due to
low cycle fatigue
or buckling


strain
0.175 t/R
tension Steel %3
Polyethylene %20

Some parts of results of the analyses are presented in 0.


Vol
In t
pipeline
connecti
diameter
in pipes

1. ALA
New
2. ALA
NewY
3. High
KHK
4. IITK
5. Japa
pipel
6. Lee D
Engin
7. Calif
in Ca
l. 17 [2012
this paper, th
s are analyz
ions is negl
rs are less th
of larger dia
A (American
York, ASCE
A (American
York, ASCE
h pressure ga
K E 012-3-20
K-GSDMA, (
an Gas Asso
line, JGA-20
DH, et al, (2
neering Stru
fornia geolog
alifornia, Cal
2], Bund.
he effects of
zed by finite
ligible. For
han small one
ameter, with
Lifelines Al
E.
n Lifelines
E.
as institute o
000.
(2008), Guid
ociation (JGA
06-03.
008), Seismi
ctures Journ
gical survey,
lifornia, USA
E
Table 7: R
CON
f liquefaction
e element sim
the pipes o
es, whereas f
similar lengt
REFE
liances), (20
Alliances),
of Japan (KH
delines for Se
A 2000), 20
ic behavior o
al, Elsevier.
, (2008), Gui
A.
- 575 -
Results of an
CLUSIO
ns and seism
mulation. So
f similar len
for horizonta
ths, are large
ERENCE
001), Guideli
(2005), Sei
HK 2000), "H
eismic Desig
000, Seismic
of a buried g
idelines for e
nalysis
ON
mic wave pr
oil is modele
ngths, vertic
al displaceme
er than for sm
ES
ines for the D
ismic Guide
High pressur
gn of Buried
design guid
gas pipeline u
evaluating an
ropagation on
ed by spring
cal displacem
ent the revers
mall ones.
Design of Bu
elines for W
re gas seism
Pipelines, In
deline for hi
under earthqu
nd mitigating
n the buried
gs. The effec
ments for la
se is true. Str
uried Steel Pi
Water Pipeli
mic design co
ndia.
igh pressure
uake excitati
g seismic ha
575


d gas
ct of
arger
rains
ipes,
ines,
ode",
e gas
ions,
azard
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. E 576

- 576 -
8. Tsai, J.S., Jou, L.D., Lin, S.H., (2000), Damage to buried water supply pipelines in the
Chichi(Taiwan)earthquake and a preliminary evaluation of seismic resistance of pipe joints,
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers.
9. JENG, D.S., LIN, Y.S., (1999), Wave-induced pore pressure around a buried pipeline in
Gibson soil :finite element analysis, International Journal for Numerical Methods and
Geomechanics.
10. Kouretzis, (2006), 3-D shell analysis of cylindrical underground structures under seismic
shear (S) wave action, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Journal.
11. Liu, (1991), Three dimensional dynamics of pipelines buried in backfilled trenches due to
oblique incidence of body waves, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
Journal.
12. Tores vera, M.A., Canas, J.A., (2003), A lifeline vulnerability study in Barcelona, Spain,
Reliability Engineering and System Safety Journal.
13. Ja, Y.Da, Crawl, D.A., (2008), Individual risk analysis of high pressure natural gas pipelines,
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process industries.
2012 ejge