H. O. Soliman* and T. K. D a t t a
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, 110016, New
A response analysis of overground pipelines under multicomponent random ground motion is presented for a parametric study. The pipeline is considered .to be either extended longitudinally or to intersect and form a T shape. The ground motion is modelled as a stationary random process. Mean square responses of the pipeline are obtained by frequency domain spectral analysis. Responses are also obtained with the help of a quasistatic analysis for random ground motion, for pipelines whose natural frequencies are well beyond the dominant frequencies of excitations. Validity of the latter analysis is examined by comparing its results with those of rigorous dynamic analysis. Distribution of bending moments and axial forces along the length of the pipeline, and at the pipeline intersections are studied for a set of important parametric variations. Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.
However, there exists some differences between the two which should be duly considered in the analysis. In this paper, a frequency domain spectral analysis is presented for obtaining the response (lateral and axial) of overground pipelines to multicomponent random ground motion. The pipeline is considered to be either extended longitudinally or to intersect and form a T or L shape. The formulation is quite general in the sense that it considers an earthquake to be an incident at an angle with respect to a set of global axes, and modelled as a stationary random process. Also, presented is a quasistatic analysis of overground pipelines supported on discrete supports for random ground motion. The importance of the latter lies in the fact that for many overground pipelines, the frequencies of the supportpipe system are very high and are well beyond the range for which the power spectral density function of ground motion has significant energy content. For such cases, the dynamic analysis is not required and a quasistatic analysis may be performed, saving considerable computational time and providing an easier method for obtaining the seismic response for such pipelines. Using the proposed method of analysis, a detailed parametric study is conducted to investigate the seismic behaviour of overground pipelines.
538
Theory
Response of overground pipelines to random ground motion: H. O. Soliman and 7". K. Datta
give the desired filter characteristics and So is the spectral density of the white noise process. The crosscorrelation function of ground displacement at two stations decays with the increase in the distance (separation) as well as frequency, and is reported by Novak and Suen 7.
Structural idealizatiotl
The pipeline is supported on discrete supports at equal intervals as shown in Figure 1. The nodes are considered at the support points and a lumped mass model for the pipeline is considered. As a result, the mass of the pipe and fluid inside and the support masses are lumped at the nodes. The kinematic degrees of freedom at each node consist of four degrees of freedom (DOF), two translations (along the x and ydirection) and two rotations (about these axes), while the dynamic DOF consist of two translations only. The pipe is elastic, circular without any flexible joints. The soil medium is infinite, linearly elastic, homogeneous and isotropic. Dynamic soil resistance to the movement of support blocks is characterized by a springdashpot system whose stiffness and damping coefficients are obtained from a soil impedance function.
Rij(L,w) = exp[C(L.w/Vs)],
(2)
where w is the frequency of excitation, L is the distance between the two stations i andj measured in the direction of wave propagation, as shown in Figure 2. Vs is shear wave velocity, C is a constant depending on the distance from the epicentre, intensity of earthquake, inhomogeneity of the medium and other factors. It is a measure of how the seismic excitation is correlated between two stations. The ground motions are specified for two principal directions, Ug and Vg such that two components are uncorrelated.
Seismic excitation The earthquake is modelled as a stationary random process with the following double filter model of the power spectral density function (PSDF) of ground acceleration given by 1 + 4132(w/wg) Sag(w) = [1  (w/wg)2] 2 + 4132g(w/wg)2 (w/wf) 4
[1

(1)
Soilstructure interaction The determination of impedance functions for various shapes of foundations and soil conditions is rather a complex problem. As a result, best fit analytical results for a wide range of foundations and soil parameters are derived to give empirical formulas representing foundation impedances with an acceptable level of approximation. The forms given by Pais and Kausel 8 are used here to calculate values of soil stiffness and damping. Equations of motion Figure 3 shows the above ground pipeline model under deformation. The supports are modelled as discrete springdashpot elements (only the springs are shown in the figure); friction between pipe and support block is neglected. The equation of motion of the pipeline subjected to multiple horizontal support excitations can be written in the form as
a
Wive prop=gation
i~
I
(a)
_t
 i
Section
xx
Yx
(b)
Z
Branchb
z
Wg
Branchc
~' X
(c)
Figure I Overground pipeline: (a) schematic view, (b) straight segment of pipeline, (c) Tintersection
539
(9)
and ~bi and Pi are the complex mode shapes and eigenvalue, and the complex frequency function for Z, H~(iw) is given by
Figure3 Pipeline after deformation
Hzi( iw )  .
1
tw + p~
( lO)
(3)
in which M is a diagonal mass matrix, Cs and Cp are damping matrices for soil and pipe, Ks and Kp are stiffness matrices for soil and pipe. ~, i and x are vectors of total accelerations, velocity and displacement for the pipe nodes, 6 and u are vectors of velocities and displacements of supports given by {x} = {u}  {vg}, (4)
With the modal complex frequency response function Hzi(iw) and the PSDF matrix for {q} (i.e. [Sqq (w)]), the elements of the PSDF [S~x(W)] matrix for the displacement response x for linear system is given by standard expression
2n 2n
Sxkxl( W ) = E
(11)
i=1 j=l
where Sqiqj(w ) are the elements of [Sqq(W)]. Since dynamic DOF {x} are related to rotational DOF (which are condensed out) by
0 = e{x},
where {Vs} is the vector of ground displacements in global directions. Using equation (4), equation (3) can be written in the following form:
m m
Soo = Er SxxE ,
(12)
(5)
PSDF of any internal stress is then obtained, similar to equation (12), by using a transformation relation between the displacements and stresses.
Power spectral density function for load [Spp] The principal components of ground motion u, and vs can take any direction with an angle a with the global set of axes (Figure 2b) for the pipelines. The ground motion is assumed to be homogeneous near the entire region in question and represented by PSDFs of the two components Sugug(W), and Svgvg(W) Referring to Figure 2, the PSDFs of seismic excitations Xs and Ys in the global directions X and Y are related t o Sugug(W) and Svgvg(W) a s follows. The components of ground motion in X and Y directions are:
Xg =  u s c o s a +
M is the total mass matrix of the pipeline; __Cis the total damping matrix for the soilpipe system and K is the total stiffness matrix for the soilpipe system. If the number of support nodes is N J, the size of n is 2 NJ. The damping matrix for the pipe is assumed to be mass and stiffness proportional.
Response analysis in frequency domain Soilstructure interaction gives rise to a nonclassically damped system. In such a case, the response should be calculated either by modal analysis, using the damped mode shapes to uncouple the equations of motion, or by using the direct frequency method. The pipe damping is defined in terms of modal damping ratios, while soil damping is explicitly known. For modal analysis of such a system, a 2ndimensional state vector approach by F o s s 9 is used, where n is total degrees of freedom for the problem. In the state vector approach, equation (5) is cast into a 2ndimension firstorder equation of the following form:
vssina,
Yg =  U g s i n a  VgCOSa,
in which a is the angle between the directions of ug and vg, and axes X and Y, as shown in Figure 2. Since the ground motion components ug and vs are uncorrelated, i.e. Suwg = Svg~s = 0.0, the PSDFs Sxgxg, Sygyg, and the crossspectral density functions Sxgyg,Sygxgare given by Sxgxg(W) = Sugug(W)cos2a + Svgvg(W)sin2a Sygyg(W)= Sug,g(W) cos2a + Svgvg(W)sin2a (13a) (13b)
(6)
{y} =
{x} [o
Sxgyg(w) = Sygxg(W)= (Sugus(w)  Svws(w)) sinacosa. I (7) The load vector in equation (5) can be written as {P(t)} = [Ks] {Vg} + [Cs] {~g}, (14) (13c)
BB= M'K
Using the modal decomposition technique, each modal equation (2n uncoupled equations) is written in the form
~i + piZi = qi ,
(8)
where
where Ks, C, are soil stiffness and damping matrices. Vg in equation (14) contains the ground displacements measured in the global directions X and Y i.e. Xg, Yg etc. at all the support nodes.
540
The PSDF matrix of the load {P(t)} can be directly derived in matrix form as
where S~g~, the PSDF matrix of ground displacement vector Vg, S~g ~g, the PSDF matrix of ground velocity vector V~, S~g~g, S~g~g are the crossPSDF matrices between ground displacement and velocity. Following equation (13c), elements of the matrices S ~ g and S~g~ will be zero, since for stationary excitations Sog~g and Svg~'g are zero. Consequently equation (15) is written as
[Spp] = [Ks][S~yg][Ks] r + [Cs][S&g ~ ] [Cs] r
Seismic input The root mean square of free field ground acceleration in the two principal directions are taken as
oug = 0.609 m s 2; O+g= 0.75 Oug.
The filter parameters [equation (1)] representing soil conditions are taken as those for hard soil 4 as (16) Wg = 27r;
wf : 0.1 Wg;
~g :
j~Jf :
0.4 .
The crossterms of the matrix S ~ g obtained using equations (13) and (2).
Quasistatic formulation For the purpose of quasistatic analysis, the terms of i and in equation (5) are neglected leading to
[Kp + Ks]{X} = [C~]{Vg} + [Ks]{gg }
or
(17)
The correlation coefficient between two stations is defined by equation (2), the parameter C is taken as 0.5 as suggested by Hindy and Novak 4, or varied. When the direction of earthquake wave propagation coincides with the pipeline axis, the Vg and Ug components of ground motion act along the pipe axis and perpendicular to it, respectively. When the angle of incidence (a) of ground motion with respect to the pipeline axis is varied, it is assumed that the major component of ground motion acts in the direction of wave propagation.
[K]{x} = {P(t)},
(18)
where {P(t)} is the excitation vector in global coordinates. Equation (18) represents a system of linear algebraic equations, it can also be written in the following form: {x} = [K1] {P(t)}. (19)
If {P(t)} is a stationary random vector, then {x} will also be a uniformly modulated stationary random vector. [Sxx(w)] = [Kl][Spp(W)][K1] T , (20)
where Sxx(W) is the PSDF matrix of the response vector {Xt}, [Spp(W)] is the PSDF matrix of the load vector {P(t)}.
RMS response The variance of any response quantity qi(t) (obtained by quasistatic or dynamic analysis) can be calculated by integrating the PSDF Sqiqi(W ) o v e r the frequency range of interest. For a onesided spectrum
RMS{qi(t)} = O'qi =
Sqiqi (w)dw,
(21)
Numerical analysis
Pipe and soil data The mass density of pipe = 7800 kg m 3, modulus of elasticity = 2.1 x 108 k N m 2, radius of pipeline = 0.30 m or
Effect of end conditions, number of elements, and pipe length on the design stress The design stress for overground pipeline is the maximum stress that is developed in the pipeline along its length, excluding the stresses that occur near the pipe intersections. Joints at the intersections are especially designed for the intersection stresses. It is not practicable to analyze long lengths of pipeline including many of the discrete supports for obtaining the design stress. Therefore, effort should be made to analyze an optimum length of pipeline with certain end conditions for obtaining the desired response. This requires: (i) determination of the optimum length of pipeline for specific end conditions; (ii) effect of the end conditions on the pipeline response. For this purpose, two end conditions are considered namely: (a) hinged ends with no lateral and axial movements, and (b) hinged ends with partial restraint against lateral and axial movements (arising out of dynamic resistance of soil) with moment = 0; henceforth, this will be called the partially restrained condition. Figures 4  6 show the variations of responses along the pipeline. Both axial forces and bending moments become constant over a substantial portion in the middle part of the pipeline and the constant values are the same for both end conditions, (Figure 4a, b). Also, as the pipe length between the two boundaries is increased, the segment over which the stresses remain constant increases, as shown in Figures 5 and 6. Thus, the stresses in the long pipeline will remain constant over most of its length, except for some portions in the vicinity of the ends where the stresses depend upon the end conditions of the pipeline. Further, from Figures 5 and 6, it is clear that for achieving the constant stress over a significant portion of the pipeline, a minimum length of the pipeline between two prescribed bound
541
sooo
~ooo
3oo0
.~ zooo moo
IE 12: 0
HingedPorti,lly~ ~
E z 80(:
6oc
r,,
2
,',.
6 8 Element No.
(o)
,,,
10
,7,.
12
o l&
IE
200
I 2 I 4 I 6
I 12
I 14
16
E
E
150
Hingt~lHir~~
Hinge~l Hinged ~ J Partially" Pa"kmUY" ~ . .
A
/ 1 Z 16
500C
.E
,~ooo
"~
,
ee
,
8
Node No.
)'l
14
&
10
12
".
ii I
i\ ~..:
(b)
< IE nN~
aries, or some minimum number of support points is to be considered in the analysis for a given element length. If the total pipe length is increased beyond this length, the value of the constant stress remains unchanged There is only an increase in the length of the region over which the stresses remain constant.
10
12
14
16
Figure5
Stresses at T intersections
The overground pipeline intersections are usually of the shape of T or L. While the seismic design of the pipeline is generally governed by the stresses which remain nearly constant over the entire length of pipeline except near the ends, the stresses at the ends of the pipeline are specifically taken care of by special joints capable of withstanding the stresses. Thus, the evaluation of these stresses at these intersections is important in relation to design It is expected that these intersection stresses would be greater than the midsection stresses of the pipeline. Figure 10 shows the variation of intersection forces with number of elements for seismic wave propagating along
542
Response of overground pipelines to random ground motion: H. O. Soliman and 7. K. Datta
, . "S~" ....~S. . . . . . . ..
~",,,
" " " '
11
7
oi
~6oo
z ~
I,'1
I!11
'
'
"
I,,\: \
II i
I1'
iii
8 Node
10 No.
12
1/,
16
(a)
~ 6C Z
2~
E 20C
/ / 2 elements
50

,.to
,.
10
E .~ 1IX
I0
_
,,~,,./, /
I 200
7 o
IE e
.. r41
..,?....."
//z2,
: ..
I 1 z O O 1600
(b)
//ii 2
i 6, i, 8
Node No.
10
12
14
Figure 7 Effect of shear w a v e velocity on: (a) axial force, (b) bending m o m e n t
16 Z
3OOO ~ 250(:
o "" 115
I.
No. of elements
= l&
(b) Effect of n u m b e r of elements on bending m o m e n t : (a) for a partially restrained end condition, (b) for a hinged end condition
Figure6
~2oex
"6
branches ab (Figure 1). It is seen from the figures that axial force at the intersection in branch a converges more rapidly to a constant value than the axial force in branch c with an increase in the number of elements. Nearly the same number of elements are required for bending moments at the intersection to converge to constant values for all the three branches. Figure 11 compares the RMS bending moments at the T intersection (Figure llb) and that in the middle portion of the straight segment of the pipeline (Figure lla). The bending moment at the intersection is significantly higher than that at the middle portion of the straight segment of a pipeline.
0.01
0.1
1 Correlation
10 coeificienl
100 C
1000
(a)
E 50O
._.
o m Ig n,
i I I l'tll I I lltlll  t ilillll   li i
0.01
0.1
1 (b)
10
100
10o0
Correlation coefficient C
543
a
~
0
1
.
I
O~l
~
0
momenl
(kNm)
100
50
30 ~ 20 I[ '~
.~ '0.32
Figure 11 RMS bending moment at (a) middle of straight segment of the pipeline, (b) Tintersection Table 1 Cases of pipelines studied for quasistatic analysis Parameters Pipe radius (m) Pipe thickness (cm) Element length Support stiffness X kN m ~ Support stiffness Y kN m 1 Support damping kN S m ~ Support dimention (concrete) (b x h) in m Angle of incidence = 0.0 Case 1 Case 2
Figure 9 Effect of angle of incidence on (a) axial force, (b) bending moment
~ 25~
Z
0.305 0.125 0.5 0.3 10.0 10.0 2524.3 1164.4 2524.3 1164.4 485.9 15.6 1.475 x 1 1.475 1
Partially restrained end conditions for axial and lateral direction Filter parameters characterizing PSDF ground motion (1) 6.28 0.628 0.40 0.40 [w, wf, B, Bg in equation (1)] with RMS ground acceleration in UU direction = 0.609 m s2 RMS ground acceleration in VV direction = 0.4567 m s2 (2) 14.88 6.71 0.40 0.40 with RMS ground acceleration in UU direction = 2.84 m
S2
~0
120
(3) 25.0 10.0 0.50 0.50 with RMS ground acceleration in UU direction = 2.84 m
S2
,~,,~
/Branches o & b
Three different shapes of PSDF of ground motion having different frequency contents are used as shown in
I 1 I 2 I 3 I & I 5 I 6 7
No. o1 elements in eoch bronch (b) Figure 10 Effect of number of elements on (a) axial force at Tintersection, (b) bending moment at Tintersection
Figure 12. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3. For case 1, the responses are almost the same for dynamic and quasistatic analyses for input excitations represented by PSDFs 1, 2 and 3. For case 2, the responses for dynamic and quasistatic analyses for PSDF 1 are nearly the same. However, for PSDF 2 and PSDF 3, the responses significantly differ between the two.
544
Response of overground pipelines to random ground motion: H. O. Soliman and 7. K. Datta
The above observations indicate that validity of the quasistatic analysis depends significantly upon the dynamic characteristics of the pipeline and the frequency contents of the seismic excitation. For case 1, the natural frequencies are well beyond the range of frequencies for which seismic excitations represented by PSDFsI,2,3 have significant energy contents. As a consequence, dynamic effects produced by the seismic excitation are almost negligible. Therefore, the responses obtained by quasistatic analysis are practically the same as those obtained by dynamic analysis. For case 2, the responses for dynamic and quasistatic analyses are nearly equal for PSDF 1. This is the case because the natural frequencies of the systems fall within a range of frequency for which seismic excitations do not have much energy content. For the other two PSDFs, the responses obtained by the two methods are significantly different since natural frequencies of the systems fall within the range of significant seismic excitation.
Conclusions
A spectral method of analysis is presented for determining the seismic response of overground pipelines to multicomponent random ground motion incident at an angle with the pipe axis. Using the proposed method of analysis, a
o,, I
80.14
.o
'
O
u 0.14
0
0.10 tin
~ 0.08
~N0.06 O E 0.04 0 Z
U.
ps"
i"~
\\
"'~'.
0.0Z I "" " J 10 /'/~',,~ 20 ~\""" ~ ' ~ ' ~ ' ~ I. . . . . . . . . 30 Frequency, w ~". . . . . . . 40 =.1 50 60
Figure 12 Different shapes of the PSDF of ground motion Table 3 RMS responses at the centre of the pipe
Axial response Displacement (m) Pipe Dyn. Filt1 Filt2 Filt3 Filt1 Flit2 Filt3 0.0839 0.0239 0.0095 0.0812 0.0272 0.0124 Quasistatic 0.0834 0.0238 0.0093 0.0805 0.0207 0.0078 Dyn. 769.7 477.0 221.0 98.3 55.2 27.0 Quasistatic 751.0 469.7 213.0 97.9 48.0 20.0 Dyn. 0.1136 0.0353 0.0144 0.1147 0.0492 0.0244 Quasistatic 0.1136 0.0350 0.0142 0.1135 0.0349 0.0141 Dyn. 52 36.2 17.9 3.31 3.54 2.0 Quasistatic 51.9 35.7 17.3 3.24 2.21 1.07 Force (kN) Lateral response Displacement (m) BM (kNm)
Response of overground pipelines to random ground motion: H. O. Soliman and 7". K. Datta
parametric study is conducted to investigate the seismic behaviour of overground pipelines, including the seismic stresses at the intersection of pipelines. Also, a quasistatic probabilistic analysis for obtaining the response of overground pipelines to random seismic excitation is presented. The situations under which the latter analysis is applicable are examined with the help of a numerical study. The numerical study leads to the following conclusions: (i) The responses (bending moment and axial force) remain constant over most of the length of a straight long pipeline, except near the intersecting ends (or boundaries). (ii) These responses can be determined by analyzing an optimum length of pipeline with any arbitrary boundary condition; the optimum length depends upon the type of response and the boundary condition being used. (iii) The magnitude of the constant response in the middle part of the pipeline is significantly influenced by the length of pipeline between intermediate supports, the correlation coefficient C and the shear wave velocity Vs. (iv) The angle of incidence of earthquake has significant effect on the pipeline response. Whether axial stress or bending stress would be critical, depends upon the angle of incidence of the earthquake and the ratio of the magnitude of ground motion in two principal (horizontal) directions. (v) Stresses induced at the intersection of pipelines are significantly greater than those in the middle portion of a straight pipeline and therefore, due care must be taken for the design of intersections.
545
(vi) For earthquake incident at an angle with global axes of the system and the standard deviation of acceleration different for different components of the ground motion, the RMS response is significantly influenced by the direction of wave propagation, which in turn, governs the correlation length between two points along the pipeline. (vii) For overground pipelines, which have very high natural frequencies (compared to the predominant frequency of the ground motion), a quasistatic analysis may provide a response of sufficient accuracy, thus saving considerable effort.
References
1 Anderson, J. C. and Johnson, B. 'Seismic behaviour of aboveground oil pipelines', Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 1975, 3, 319336 2 Anderson, C. and Singh, K. 'Seismic response of pipelines on friction supports', Proc. ASCE J. Engng Mech. Div., 1976, 102, 275291 3 Powell, H. 'Seismic response analysis of aboveground pipelines', Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 1978, 6, 157165 4 Hindy, A. and Novak, M. 'Pipeline response to random ground motion', ASCE J. Engng Mech. Div., 1980, 106, 339360 5 Datta,T. K. and Mashaly, E. A. 'Pipeline response to random ground motion by discrete model', Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 1986, 14, 559572 6 Mashaly, E. A. and Datta, T. K. 'Seismic risk analysis of buried pipelines', ASCE J. Transport. Engng, 1989, 115, 232252 7 Novak, M. and Suen, E. 'Damfoundation interaction under spatially correlated random ground motion', 3rd Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 2539 8 Pais, A. and Kausel, E. 'Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffnesses of rigid foundations', J. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Engng, 1988, 7, 165181 9 Foss, A. K. 'Coordinates which uncouple the equation of motion of damped linear dynamic systems', ASME J. Appl. Mech., 1958, 25, 361364