Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Approved by the
Examining Committee:
Ricardo DOBRYpWember
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TA B LE S..................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF F IG U R E S ................................................................................................................viii
ACKNOW LEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................xi
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... xii
NOTATION ............................................................................................................................xiv
1.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives..................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 F o rm a t.......................................................................................................................... 5
2.
4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5.
6.
.................................................................................... 103
........................................................................................................................137
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
53
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Pipe Segment Geometric Properties for Ductile Iron Pipes ..................... 159
Table 7.5
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
Table 7.8
Table 7.9
Mean Values of the Characteristics of the Axial and Lateral Force per
Unit Length/Displacement Relationships for the Soil SpringSliders . . 161
Table 7.10
Table 7.11
Table 7.12
Results for Uniform Cast Iron System with Mean Properties under
Tensile Ground Strain ..................................................................................164
Table 7.13
Results for Uniform Ductile Iron System with Mean Properties under
Tensile Ground Strain .................................................................................. 165
Table 7.14
Table 7.15
Table 7.16
Table 7.17
Table 7.18
Results for Uniform Cast Iron System with Mean Properties under
Compressive Ground Strain ........................................................................ 170
Table 7.19
Results for Uniform Ductile Iron System with Mean Properties under
Compressive Ground Strain ........................................................................ 171
Table 7.20
Table 7.21
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7.22
Table 7.23
Table 7.24
Results for Uniform Cast Iron System with Mean Properties under
c = 0.0 and 0 = 7.0X10s rad ............................................................. 176
g
g
Table 7.25
Results for Uniform Ductile Iron System with Mean Properties under
e = 0.0 and 6 = 7.0X10*3 rad ............................................................. 176
g
g
Response Param eters Statistics for Cast Iron System under Tensile
Ground Strain (Dn = 40.64 c m ) .................................................................177
Table 7.26
Table 7.27
Response Param eters Statistics for Cast Iron System under Tensile
Ground Strain (Dn = 76.20 c m ) ................................................................. 178
Table 7.28
Response Param eters Statistics for Cast Iron System under Tensile
Ground Strain (Dn = 121.92 c m ) ...............................................................179
Table 7.29
Response Param eters Statistics for Ductile Iron System under Tensile
Ground Strain (Dn = 40.64 c m ) .................................................................180
Table 7.30
Response Param eters Statistics for Ductile Iron System under Tensile
Ground Strain (Dn = 76.20 c m ) .................................................................181
Table 7.31
Response Param eters Statistics for Ductile Iron System under Tensile
Ground Strain (Dn = 121.92 c m ) .............................................................. 182
Table 7.32
Table 7.33
Table 7.34
Table 7.35
Table 7.36
Table 7.37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1
Figure 2.1
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.11
Rubber Gasketed Joint before and after In sta lla tio n ............................... 67
Figure 4.12
Figure 4.13
Figure 4.14
Figure 4.15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
...............68
Figure 4.16
Figure 4.17
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.4
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.6
Figure 5.7
89
Figure 6.1
Plan View of Model for Straight Jointed Buried P ip e lin e s.................... 130
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Pipe Segment Element with Nodal Forces and D isplacem ents............. 133
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.6
Pipeline Model with Numbered Pipe Segments, Joints and Nodes . . . 134
Figure 6.7
Figure 7.1
Joint Axial Displacement, u., for a 40.64 cm Diameter Cast Iron Pipe
with Lead Caulked Joint versus Tensile Ground Strain, e , for
s
Various Exceedence Probabilities...............................................................
189
Figure 7.2
Joint Axial Displacement, u., for a 76.20 cm Diameter Cast Iron Pipe
with Lead Caulked Joint versus the Tensile Ground Strain, e , for
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 7.3
Figure 7.4
Figure 7.5
Figure 7.6
Figure 7.7
Joint Axial Force, F., for a 40.64 cm Diameter Cast Iron Pipe with
Lead Caulked Joint versus Compressive Ground Strain, e , for
Various Exceedence Probabilities.......................................... f ..................195
Figure 7.8
Joint Axial Force, F., for a 76.20 cm Diameter Cast Iron Pipe with
Lead Caulked Joint versus Compressive Ground Strain, e , for
Various Exceedence Probabilities.......................................... f ..................196
Figure 7.9
Joint Axial Force, F., for a 121.92 cm Diameter Cast Iron Pipe with
Lead Caulked Joint versus Compressive Ground Strain, e , for
Various Exceedence Probabilities.......................................... f ................. 197
Figure 7.10
Joint Axial Force, F., for a 40.64 cm Diameter Ductile Iron Pipe with
Rubber Gasketed Joint versus Compressive Ground Strain, e , for
Various Exceedence Probabilities.............................................. g. ............198
Figure 7.11
Joint Axial Force, F., for a 76.20 cm Diameter Ductile Iron Pipe with
Rubber Gasketed Jom t versus Compressive Ground Strain, e , for
Various Exceedence Probabilities.............................................. g. ........... 199
Figure 7.12
Joint Axial Force, F., for a 121.9 cm Diameter Ductile Iron Pipe with
Rubber Gasketed Jom t versus Compressive Ground Strain, e , for
Various Exceedence Probabilities.............................................. g. ........... 200
Figure 7.13
Figure A .l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my deep gratitude to Professor Michael J. ORourke for the
constant guidance, comprehensive help and encouragement received throughout the
course of my Ph.D. studies. His patience, knowledge and insight will be a source of
inspiration.
It is also my wish to thank the committee members: Professor Ricardo Dobry,
Professor Apostolos Papageorgiou and Professor Erastus H. Lee, for theif constructive
comments. I am appreciative for the help offered by the Civil Engineering Department,
the Folsom Library, the Voorhees Computing Center and the Writing Center dvuing this
study. To be thanked are many of my teachers, friends and colleagues, all of whom
have contributed in some way to the completion of this manuscript.
The financial support from my country, Tunisia, and from the U.S. Agency of
International Development, is gratefully acknowledged. I am also thankful for the
support during the last year and a half from the National Science Foundations National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research a t SUNYBuffalo.
Most of all, though, I thank God for the strength and patience He gave me, and
also my parents for their support, love and sacrifices.
xi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The behavior of straight jointed buried pipelines subjected to seismic wave
propagation is investigated in this study. Presently available information on the seismic
environment, the mechanical properties of pipe segments and joints, and the soil
resistance to pipeline movements are combined to establish a realistic model. A
formulation which takes into account the nonlinearity as well as the variability of the
system characteristics is developed and used to analyze this type of pipeline.
First, the seismic environment is quantified in terms of the seismic ground
strain and ground rotation. Second, the axial and flexural behavior of pipelines is
presented. The pipeline systems considered herein are Cast Iron Pipes with Lead
Caulked Joints and Ductile Iron Pipes with Rubber Gasketed Joints. In the first part,
well established stress/strain relationships for the pipe segment materials are presented.
The second part involves the quantification of the mechanical properties of the joints,
which show nonlinear behavior and pronounced variability. Third, the soil resistance to
axial and lateral movements of the pipeline is studied. After review of the existing
literature and synthesis of the available test data, it is shown th at the soil/pipeline
interaction can be modeled by axial and lateral springsliders distributed along the
pipeline.
After definition of the seismic input and the system characteristics, an analytical
model is constructed to evaluate the response of straight jointed buried pipelines. For
this purpose, a nonlinear static formulation is used. The variability of the system
characteristics is accounted for by a simplified Monte Carlo simulation technique. The
model consists of a number of straight pipe segments surrounded by axial and lateral
soil springsliders and jointed by axial and rotational nonlinear springs. Truss and beam
elements represent the pipe segment elements.
xii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Using the analytical model constructed, results for the response of straight
jointed buried pipelines to seismic wave propagation are obtained. These results indicate
th a t the variability of system characteristics can have a significant influence upon the
response parameters. This influence is stronger for stiff systems such as cast iron with
lead caulked joints than for flexible systems such as ductile iron with rubber gasketed
joints. This partially explains why lead caulked joints tend to experience more seismic
damage than rubber gasketed joints. Vulnerability graphs giving the probability of
exceedence for selected response parameters as a function of the ground strain are
established for tensile as well as compressive ground strain. Of particular interest are
the joint displacement and force since damage occurs more frequently at the joints. The
effects of ground rotation are found to be negligible. It is felt th at the vulnerability
graphs proposed are a first step in developing analytical models capable of predicting
seismic wave propagation damage.
xiii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this report:
a
c^
K)
{^ }
K)
dj
dp
= depth of joint;
ep
= frequency;
fn
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
kz
lx
12
mg
n dof
, _
ng
n.
JC
= number of nodes;
ng
n sun
.
p.
Pq
rn
= random number;
tj
u^
ug
ug
u?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ur
AK.
Bg
Cg
Cph
Cg
C
Jtl
CL
DK j
= diagonal matrix;
= dimension of the rubber gasket before installation;
Dn
Ep
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Er
ELIND
Fo
{f H
{fJ
F
Gj
Gr
Gs
He
= depth of embedment;
^ ID j
 i d ia 
= vector giving the position of the diagonal terms of the global stiffness
matrix in the array ^S k  ;
 is k l J
= vector giving the row number of the first nonzero entry in each column of
the global stiffness matrix;
IT
KJ
K
Kgy
xvu
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ko
K2
LK j
Lpm
Lg
= separation distance;
NOD
N^h
N(a)
N(b)
RK.
w
w
Uj
= coefficient;
as
= coefficient;
/J
= coefficient;
7.
segments;
xviii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
eg
Og
8^
= wavelength;
 coefficient of variation;
ht
yg
vr
ag
Aw
fg
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Buried pipeline systems are commonly used to transport water, sewage, oil,
natural gas and other chemicals. They are referred to as "Lifelines" as they carry
materials essential to the support of life and maintenance of property. These systems
are categorized by usage, material, configuration, type of joints and soil conditions.
Figure 1.1 summarizes the different characteristics of buried pipelines.
Records of damage during previous earthquakes have established th at buried
pipelines are seismically very vulnerable. This vulnerability, coupled with the vital role
that these systems play, often causes very serious problems after earthquakes. During
the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, w ater mains were severely damaged. Lack of
water resulted in the destruction of much of the city after the earthquake (Lawson
1908; Youd and Hoose 1976). Similarly, 35% of the city of Tokyo was ravaged by fire
after the 1923 Kanto earthquake (Katayama et al. 1975). Buried pipelines suffered
extensive damage during other earthquakes such as the 1971 San Fernando (Housner
and Jennings 1972), the 1978 MiyagiOki (Kubo 1979) and more recently during the
1985 Mexico City (Ayala and ORourke 1988).
In spite of its considerable importance, "Lifeline Earthquake Engineering" did
not receive the attention of researchers and designers until about fifteen years ago.
Available reports on the performance of buried pipelines during past earthquakes were
the first tool at hand to understand the problem. Later, these reports provided
statistical data on the damage and the ability to benchmark developed analytical
models.
The seismic response of buried pipelines is substantially different from most
above ground structures. First of all, they are part of long and complex networks
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
composed of a variety of components which include joints, junctions (tees and elbows),
hard points (thrust blocks, manholes and terminal structures) and others. In addition,
they extend over large areas and are, therefore, subjected to outofphase ground motion
along their length. Effects of this ground motion on buried pipelines are classified into
two groups:
Permanent ground movements
Wave propagation effects
Permanent ground movements include fault movements, soil liquefaction and
landsliding. They all can occur during and after earthquakes, and their effects are
usually limited to recognizable areas. Their potential for damage, however, is very high
since they subject pipelines to large displacements. Major pipeline breaks during the
1906 San Francisco earthquake occurred in areas of lateral spreading, and 25 to 50% of
the pipeline damage during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake was attributed to fault
movements (ORourke et al. 1985a). Areas where there is a high risk of these
permanent ground movements are avoided whenever possible.
On the other hand, wave propagation effects occur during the earthquake itself
and can affect a large area around the epicenter. Damage which occurred to pipelines
dining the 1985 Mexico City earthquake was attributed exclusively to wave propagation
effects. This earthquake caused severe damage to the w ater supply system of Mexico
city. Nearly two weeks after the principal earthquake shock, about 3.5 million
inhabitants were without running w ater (Trautmann et al. 1986; Ayala and ORourke
1988).
The state of the a rt in buried pipeline seismic design has been advanced during
the last decade. Newmark and Hall(1975) developed an approximate method to estimate
the response of continuous steel buried pipelines to fault movements. The same method
was later improved by Kennedy et al.(1977). ORourke and Trautmann(1981) proposed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a simplified analytical method for the design of jointed buried pipelines to fault
movements. For the design of buried pipelines for wave propagation effects, various
methods have also been proposed. The simplest methods assume that the maximum
axial strain and curvature in continuous buried pipelines is approximately equal to the
maximum ground strain and ground curvature (Newmark 1967; Sakurai and Takahashi
1969). Shah and Chu(1974) developed approximate analytical expressions for the
response of tees and elbows in continuous systems under seismic wave propagation.
W ang et al.(1979) studied the behavior of jointed buried pipelines and proposed design
procedures for wave propagation effects. Other studies were performed to investigate
the problem for perm anent ground movements (Lee et al. 1980; Yun and Kyriakides
1984; Tawfik and ORourke 1986), or for wave propagation effects (Weidlinger and
Nelson 1978; Shinozuka and Koike 1979; Goodling 1983; ORourke et al. 1984).
This study concentrates on the problem of analysis of straight jointed buried
pipelines for seismic wave propagation effects. Information on the performance of this
specific type of pipeline during previous earthquakes indicates that damage most often
occurs a t the pipeline joints (Housner and Jennings 1972; Stratta et al. 1977; Egushi
et al. 1983; Ayala and ORourke 1988). In particular, extension in the longitudinal
direction is a major mode of failure. Other modes of failure such as crushing of the pipe
bells, or opening of the joints after a combination of extension and rotation, have also
been observed.
Currently, two types of procedures are used for the analysis of straight jointed
buried pipelines. The first is based on a static solution which gives upper bounds for the
axial strain in the pipe segments and axial displacements and rotations in the joints
(Wang et al. 1979). In the second procedure, an analytical model is developed. The pipe
segments are represented by linearly elastic axial elements while the joints and soil are
modeled by elastoplastic springs. Inertia and damping terms are neglected. The seismic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1.2 Objectives
The objective of this research is the development of new information which will
facilitate the design of straight^ jointed buried pipelines for seismic wave propagation
effects. Specifically, procedures to determine the system response as a function of the
seismic input intensity will be given. Emphasis is placed on the joint behavior since
damage occurs more frequently at the joints.
In the past, results were obtained from computer models in which the system
properties are fixed along the pipeline. Experimental results however, show a
pronounced variability for the joint properties. Also, the soil properties are expected to
vary along the pipeline.
In the present research, two principal objectives are identified. These objectives
are:
1). Development of an analytical model which takes into account the variability
as well as the nonlinearity of the system properties. This involves the review, synthesis
and integration of available information on the seismic environment, the pipeline
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MATERIALS:
Steel
Ductile Iron
Cast Iron
eConcraH
Aabeuos Cement
PVC
Copper
USAGE:
Water
Natural Gas
Oil
Sewer
CONTINUOUS PIPELINES:
Welded Joint*
Threaded Joint*
BURIED
1 PIPELINES
SOIL CONDITIONS:
Homogenuous
Local Variation
Major Geological Variation
Figure 1.1.
JOINTED PIPELINES:
Rubber Gaskatad Joint*
Lead Caulked Joinu
Mechanical Joint*
NETWORK CONFIGURATION:
Straight
Junctions
Hard Point*
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
PROBLEM DEFINITION
2.1 Introduction
Seismic wave propagation has caused damage to jointed buried pipelines in the
past. The most severe damage usually occurs a t the joints, tees and elbows. In order to
assess the seismic vulnerability of a buried pipeline system, one needs to analyse first
of all, the different components for wave propagation effects. Among these components
are straight segments of pipelines, tee junctions and elbow junctions. Based on the
performance of each of the components, the response of the whole system can then be
evaluated.
In this study, the problem of straight jointed buried pipelines subjected to seismic
wave propagation effects is investigated. One of the main applications of this problem
would be a large diameter water main which conveys w ater over a distance of several
city blocks before branching at elbows and tees. A schematic of a straight jointed buried
pipeline with its details is shown in Figure 2.1.
2.2 Assum ptions and Limitations
The main assumptions of the present study are:
1). A static formulation is appropriate to evaluate the pipeline response
2). The pipeline is initially strain free in the longitudinal direction
3). There are no permanent displacements of the soil surrounding the pipeline
such as faulting, liquefaction or landsliding
The justifications for the above stated assumptions are outlined below.
1).
Static formulation:
Results of several studies show that inertia effects can be neglected (Tamura
1976; Shinozuka and Koike 1979; Okamoto et al. 1973). This is due to the presence of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
high radiation damping of the surrounding soil and to the fact th at the mass of a fluid
filled pipe is smaller than the mass of the insitu soil it replaces. Thus, the problem is
usually reduced to solving the static equations a t different times since the seismic input
is a function of time. In this study, it is assumed th at a static displacement approach in
which the static equations are solved only once, under maximum seismic ground strain
and ground rotation, yields good estimates of the response parameters. This is true if
the seismicv input, that is the ground strain and ground rotation, is not high enough to
take the response parameters into the nonlinear range. In this case, the pipeline and
soil deformations remain elastic and the seismic cycling does not produce any residual
deformations. The static formulation is also a good approximation when the seismic
input reaches high values and the system goes into the nonlinear range. A known
feature of seismic excitation, is that the ground displacement varies significantly with
time. Thus, a cycle of maximum ground strain and ground rotation are often followed in
time by a cycle with smaller values of ground strain and ground rotation. This latter
cycle m ay not greatly affect the value of the response parameters. Other reasons for
using this static displacement approach are that, first of all, experimental results for
cycling of the joints are not available, secondly, a simplified Monte Carlo simulation
technique to account for the variability of the system parameters can be easily
incorporated into the model and lastly, it is much cheaper in terms of computer money
than the true time history approach .
2). Zero initial strain in the longitudinal direction;
Buried pipelines are normally designed to withstand internal pressure, earth
loads, and live loads. Because of axisymmetry, the first two loads mainly affect the
hoop strain. On the other hand, live loads affect both the axial and hoop strain. Only
the hoop strain, however, is considered in the design process since the support provided
by the soil prevents the pipeline from deforming appreciably in the longitudinal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
direction.
3). Effects of permanent ground displacements not included:
It is assumed th at the pipeline is located in areas not subjected to faulting,
liquefaction or landsliding. That is, this study is limited to wave propagation effects.
Although it is recognized th at faulting, liquefaction and landsliding are potential causes
of damage to pipelines, there are certain cases such as the 1985 Mexico City
earthquake where damage was exclusively due to wave propagation effects.
More specific assumptions will be made in this study, when applicable.
Based on observations of damage during past earthquakes, three failure modes
are identified. These failure modes are the following:
1). Pullout of the joints
2 ).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
2.3 Tasks
The specific goal of this research is to develop analytical procedures for straight
jointed buried pipelines subjected to seismic waves. Available information on the
mechanical properties of pipe segments and joints as well as information on the soil
resistance to pipe movements are combined to establish a realistic model. The
formulation will incorporate the nonlinear behavior as well as the variability of the
system characteristics. The inclusion of variability is considered important first of all,
because it allows more accurate modelling of actual conditions and secondly, because
neglecting variability would likely result in an unconservative estimate of damage. If all
the joints were essentially the same, a fairly uniform distribution of joint displacements
would result. For this case, leakage or damage would occur a t all joints almost
simultaneously a t a relatively high level of ground strain. If on the other hand, the
characteristics are different from one joint to another, one would also expect th at the
displacements a t the joints would also be different. For this second case, damage would
first occur only a t the weakest joints, at an overall level of ground strain less than that
causing damage to the "uniform" system.
For this purpose, a simplified Monte Carlo simulation technique will be used.
First, the system characteristics, such as the stiffness for each joint, is determined by
random selection from established histograms. The system is then analyzed for seismic
waves. These two steps are repeated several times, and results serve to develop
histograms of the response parameters. These response parameters include the joint
axial displacements and rotations, pipe segment axial strains, and axial and lateral
relative displacements between the soil and the pipeline.
In order to accomplish the goal stated above, five tasks are identified. These five
tasks are:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
r
//? ' \ ^ r ; 7
AA
/ \ \ \
Pipe Segment
Spigot End
Bell End
Joint
k D H
y //K \
K
Cohesionless backfill
*
L
Figure 2 . 1.
CHAPTER 3
SEISM IC ENVIRONMENT
3.1 In troduction
In order to evaluate seismic wave propagation effects on buried pipelines, one
begins by quantifying the seismic ground strain and ground rotation. The ground strain
is assumed to act alorig the pipeline axis, x. Under this assumption, the pipeline is
expected to experience the most severe differential axial movements. The ground
rotation, on the other hand, is assumed to be in the horizontal plane (x,z). It produces
bending strain in the pipeline. For simplicity, rotation in the vertical plane (x,y) is not
considered.
Simplified models are proposed to estimate the maximum ground strain, eg, and
the maximum ground rotation, 9 . A range of realistic values is proposed for the two
param eters,
eg and
displacement, ug(x), and the lateral ground displacement, wg(x)3.2 G round S train
If one models the seismic excitation as a single plane traveling wave,
Newmark(1967) has shown th a t the maximum ground strain,
in the direction
^max
S
(o
where uax is the maximum particle velocity parallel to the direction of the wave travel
and C is the apparent propagation velocity of the seismic wave with respect to the
ground surface.
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
If a site specific seismic hazard analysis is available, both the peak ground
acceleration, u8*, and the peak ground velocity, u ax, for a particular return period
would likely be available. However, for less critical facilities the seismic hazard may be
characterized only by u8* for the generad region in question. In these cases, u ^ ax may
be estimated through the use of available values for the ratio uax/^jmax as proposed by
Newmark(1973), Seed et al.(1975) or Ayala and Rascon(1981). These umax/iimax ratios
s
s
are presented in Table 3.1. They are functions of the local soil conditions. The high
value for Mexico City clay is due to the predominate 2 second period for ground motions
in the Valley of Mexico. The Newmark and Seed et al. values do not take into
consideration the distance from the causative fault to the site. As pointed out by
Idriss(1978), the ratio uax/u ax increases with increasing epicentral distance due to
differences in the attenuation of high frequency (acceleration) and moderate frequency
(velocity) ground motions.
For a soil site subjected to body waves only (P, SV and SH waves), the apparent
propagation velocity with respect to the ground surface, C, is many times larger than
the shear wave velocity of the near surface material. Seismic energy
o rig in a t i n g
at
depth passes through increasing softer materials and refraction causes a concave travel
path. The net result being body waves which arrive at the gound surface with a small
angle of incidence with respect to the vertical. If the angle of incidence at the ground
surface is
7.
and the shear wave velocity of the top layer is Cg, then as shown in
Figure 3.1, the apparent propagation velocity of SV or SH waves with respect to the
ground surface is:
C
C =
sin7i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(3.2)
15
7.
= 0), as is assumed in
onedimensional soil amplification studies, the propagation velocity with respect to the
ground surface would be infinite. That is, the motion at the ground surface would be
inphase.
ORourke et al.(1982) studied the apparent horizontal propagation velocity and
calculated values of 2.1 Km/sec and 3.8 Km/sec for the 1971 San Fernando earthquake
and the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake, respectively. These fall in the general range
of values for earthquakes in Japan as calculated by Tamura et al.(1977) and Tsuchida
and Kurata(1976). Table 3.2 presents a summary of information on the apparent
propagation velocity of body waves.
In summary, for a site subjected to body wave propagation only, the maximum
ground strain, eg, may be evaluated using Eqn.(3.1) in which the apparent propagation
velocity with respect to the ground surface is somewhere in the range of 2 to 5 Km/sec.
Using this procedure with a peak ground acceleration, uax =
0 .6 O
g, and a ratio
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
along such a line and produce bending in a straight pipeline connecting these two points.
On the other hand, the horizontal component of particle motion due to the Rwave would
produce axial strain between the two points. It can be shown th a t the axial strain due
to seismic wave propagation is generally more important for the design of straight
buried pipelines than the bending strain due to wave propagation. Hence, considerations
of surface waves will be restricted herein to Rwaves.
For the idealized case of a uniform halfspace, the propagation velocity of an
Rwave along the ground surface is slightly smaller than the shear wave velocity of the
medium. For the more typical case of a soil profile in which material stiffness increases
with depth, the Rwave prpagation velocity is a function of frequency or wave length.
That is, the wave is dispersive with long wavelength (low frequency) Rwave traveling
faster than short wavelength (high frequency) Rwave. The wavelength, X, frequency, f,
and phase velocity, Cph, are interrelated by:
Cph = X f
(3.3)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
0.6
X = 4 Ls
(3.4)
Eqn.(3.1) in conjunction with the approximate dispersion curve in Figure 3.2 and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
Eqn.(3.3). This method yields a range of values for eg. Note th at the value of eg
obtained when only body waves are assumed to be present, is usually much smaller
than the range of values obtained when only Rwave are assumed to be present. For a
moderately strong earthquake, the Rwave ground strain could reach values on the
order of 1.5 X10 ' 3 (ORourke and Elhmadi 1988).
The seismic exitation for the pipeline model proposed in this study, is given in
terms of the axial and lateral ground displacements. The axial ground displacement
along the pipeline model, u^(x), is assumed to be a linear function of x. This assumption
is justified by the fact th at the value of the seismic wavelength, X, is typically much
larger than the pipeline model length, Lpm. The pipeline model length is chosen equal to
Lpm = 200 feet (60 m), while values of the seismic wavelength, X, are expected to be
substantially larger. Thus, ug(x) can be expressed as:
L
u (x) = c (x  HHL)
g
g
2
(3 . 5 )
The (+) sign corresponds to a tensile ground strain and the () sign corresponds to a
compressive ground strain. In this study, values of eg are taken in the range:
1. 0 X10 ' 4
<
ranged
between 0.6X10 ' 4 and 6.4 X10 "4 (ORourke et al. 1984) and th at during the 1985
Mexico City earthquake,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
ground about a vertical axis, 9^, due to a single plane traveling wave, is given by:
9 = ^
(3.6)
where w ax is the maximum particle velocity in the lateral direction, z, and C is the
apparent propagation velocity of the seismic wave with respect to the ground surface.
The expression for 9g [i.e. Eqn.(3.6)] is similar to th a t for eg [i.e. Eqn.(3.1)], except
th at u ax is replaced by w ax. During earthquakes, values of uax and w ax are of
the same order of magnitude. Hence, values of 9 can be taken as roughly equal to
those of e .
s
As with the axial case, the ground rotation is assumed to be uniform over the
dw(x)
extent of the pipeline model. Knowing that: 9 =  one can obtain the lateral
g
dx
ground displacement, wg(x)> from the following equation:
L
w (x) = 9 (2 2   x)
s
s
2
The range
1.0X10 ' 4 <
<
of values
7 .OX 10"3
(3.7)
as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
ground displacement, ug(x), given by Eqn.(3.5) with the () sign. As with the first
failure mode,
combination of axial and bending rotation, the corresponding loading is made up of the
axial ground displacement, u (x), and the lateral ground displacement, w (x), given
&
s
respectively by Eqn.(3.5) with the (+) sign and Eqn.(3.7).
The range of values used of the parameter eg, for the three failure modes, is
given by:
1.0X10'4 ^ 6 7.0X10"3
g
(3.8)
and the range of values used for the param eter 0^, for the third failure mode, is given
by:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Table 3.1
^ m a r / m ax R ^ g
u m a x /u m a x
Material
inch/sec ^cm/sec^
g
g
Rock
Newmark(1973)
Seed et al.(1975)
24 (61)
26 (66 )
Stiff Soil
45 (114)
Deep Cohesionless
55 (140)
Alluvium
Mexico City Clay
Ayala and
Rascon(1981)
48 (122)
119 (304)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
Table 3.2
Apparent Horizontal Propagation Velocity o f Body Waves
Event
Site
Conditions
Focal
Depth
Epicentral
Distance
Reference
(Km)
Apparent
Propagation
Velocity
(Km/sec)
(Km)
Jap an
1/23/68
60 m soft
alluvium
80
54
2.9
Tamura
et al.(1977)
Japan
7/1/68
60 m soft
alluvium
50
30
2.6
Tamura
et al.(1977)
San
Fernando
2/9/71
Variable
13
29 to 44
2.1
ORourke
et al.(1982)
Jap an
5/9/74
70 m of silty
clay, sand
and
silty sand
10
140
5.3
Tsuchida and
Kurata(1976)
Japan
8/4/74
70 m of silty
clay, sand
and
silty sand
50
54
4.4
Tsuchida and
Kurata(1976)
Imperial
Valley
10/15/79
less than
300 m of
alluvium
Shallow
to 57
3.8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ORourke
et al.(1982)
23
c
c = siny.
AJ
Figure 3. 1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
in
o
o
>
o
c
<D
3
IT
fa
CO
*o
8
*3
CM
s
14
o
Z
sc
in
h
00
o
qd
0 *10013A S S B q j
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 3.2.
CO
CHAPTER 4
PIPELINE PROPERTIES
4.1 Introduction
Straight jointed buried pipelines are composed of two types of elements, namely
the pipe segments and the joints. Information about the axial and flexural behavior of
these elements is necessary to establish analytical models for such pipelines.
As mentioned previously, two types of pipeline systems are considered in this
research. They are:
Cast Iron Pipes with Lead Caulked Joints
Ductile Iron Pipes with Rubber Gasketed Joints
The first type is very common in older water supply systems. It composes
approximately 85% of the w ater distribution network in the United States (ORourke
et al. 1985b). The second type, on the other hand, is common in newer w ater supply
systems and as replacements of the first type. Both types are mainly used in w ater
distribution lines [defined to have roughly a diameter comprised between 4 and
20 inches (10.16 and 50.8 cm)], and to a lesser extent in water transmission lines
[defined to have roughly a diameter larger than 20 inches (50.8 cm)]. Note th at these
two types were also used in gas distribution systems.
The pipeline properties for each of these two systems, are determined after
review, synthesis and integration of the existing literature. Emphasis is placed on the
properties of pipelines with diameter larger than 12 inches (30.48 cm). These larger
diameter pipelines are somewhat more important because if they are damaged by
earthquakes, more users would be affected. First, the mechanical behavior of the pipe
segment material is characterized by established stress/strain relationships. It should be
mentioned th at stresses in pipe segments under wave propagation effects are expected
to be in the elastic range since damage occurs usually a t the joints. In addition to the
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
stress/strain relationship, one needs the dimensions of the crosssection as well as the
pipe segment length, L. The dimensions of the crosssection include mainly the outside
diameter, D, and the wall thickness, t. These two parameters are function of the depth
of cover, c, laying conditions, internal pressure and traffic loads. Their values along
with that of the pipe segment length can be obtained from manufacturers or standard
tables. Second, a description of each of the two types of joints is presented. The
mechanical properties of the joints are described in terms of the axial force/displacement
and bending moment/rotation relationships. The joint behavior is characterized by a
wide scatter in test results for both pipeline systems. For this reason, the parameters
defining the axial force/displacement and bending moment/rotation relationships are
assumed to be random variables. Based on available experimental results, analytical
and empirical expressions for the mean values of these parameters and estimates of
their variability are presented. Note that, because of lack of experimental results, it is
assumed th a t there is no interaction between the axial force/displacement and bending
moment/rotation relationships.
The last section of this chapter includes a procedure to select the pipeline
properties for each of the two pipeline systems considered.
4.2 Cast Iron Pipes with Lead Caulked Joints
4.2.1 Pipe Segment Properties
The use of cast iron pipes in the United States began in the early 1800s.
During the hundred and fifty years that followed, cast iron emerged as the only
affordable piping material with reliable strength and durability. Cast iron pipes were
used especially in water supply systems and to a lesser extent, in gas distribution
systems. Approximately 85% of the water distribution network in the United States is
composed of cast iron pipes. Cast iron pipes installed before 1920 were manufactured
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
by pit casting methods. They are referred to as pit cast iron pipes. In 1920, centrifugal
casting method was introduced and has become, since then, the main manufacturing
process. Pipes manufactured by this latter method have better mechanical and physical
characteristics. Since centrifugal casting was adopted on a large scale by the pipe
industry after 1930, only cast iron pipes centrifugally cast, are considered in this study.
Note th a t manufacturing of cast iron pipes has almost ceased. It has been replaced by
ductile iron pipes.
Cast iron exhibits nonlinear behavior even a t low levels of strain. In addition, it
has different characteristics in tension and in compression. Compressive strength is
substantially larger than tension strength. Figure 4.1 shows in solid line a typical
stress/strain curve for cast iron (Coffin 1950). Mechanical properties of standard cast
iron are classified in term s of their tensile strength by ASTM (ASM 1978). ASTM
Class
20,
however, was often used in cast iron pipes. This class has an initial tangent
modulus (Youngs modulus), Ep, equal to 14X106 psi (1.0X10 6 Kgf/cm2), a tensile
strength, ou, of 22X 10 3 psi (1.5 X10 3 Kgf/cm2) and a compressive strength, o, of
83X 103 psi (5.80X103 Kgf/cmJ). The actual relationship between the stress, a, and the
strain, e, in ASTM Class 20 cast iron is approximated by a bilinear model as shown by
the dashed line in Figure 4.1. Taki and ORourke (1984) noticed that the slope of the
stress/strain curve in tension starts decreasing rapidly at strains larger than 0.1%. In
compression, this slope decreases a t a considerably slow rate. With this in mind, a
bilinear model was chosen to approximate the (a,e) relationship. The approximation has
a constant slope equal to Ep for strains between 0.3% and 0.1%. For strains outside
this range, a constant modulus in tension, E, and a constant modulus in compression
E^3), are used. The failure point in tension corresponds to a stress equal to:
ou = 22X 10 3 psi (1.50X103 Kgf/cm2) and a strain equal to: eu = 0.5%, while the
failure point in compression corresponds to a stress equal to:
oc = 83X103 psi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
(5.80X103 Kgf/cm2) and a strain equal to ec = 4% (Salvadori and Singhal 1977). That
is, the stress/strain relationship for Class 20 cast iron is approximated by the following
equations:
a =
E e
ay + E(2) (  10'3)
P
(4.1)
c > 103
(6
m).
Values of D and t are given in tables for different values of working pressure, depth of
cover and different laying conditions. The depth of cover, c, is a factor in choosing the
value of t as a function of D and will be discussed in section 5.2.1 of this dissertation.
4.2.2 Joint Properties
Lead caulked joints are relatively rigid connections. They exist mainly in old cast
iron pipeline systems. A typical crosssection of this joint is shown in Figure 4.2. During
construction of the joint, the spigot end of each pipe segment is brought to a uniform
contact all around the bell end of the adjoining pipe segment. Oakum, which is a hemp
yarn, is then packed into the annular space between the spigot and the bell. Following,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
molten lead is poured on the oakum. The last phase involves the ramming and tamping
of the lead, after it has cooled, with a caulking tool. Note that the spigot end has a bead
which prevents the oakum packing from sliding past the spigot. The oakum packing
serves as a first shield against leakage and also prevents the lead from coming into
contact with the material transported by the pipeline. The lead, on the other hand, gives
some flexibility to the joint and makes the joint tight against leakage by sealing. Note
that, since the oakum packing is made of a coarse loose hemp fiber, it is expected that
its contribution to the overall stiffness of the joint be negligible compared to th at of the
lead.
The behavior of lead caulked joints is complicated by the fact th at lead is a
highly nonlinear material. Moreover, lead is strain dependent and exhibits large amount
of creep a t ordinary temperatures. Salvadori and Singhal(1977) presented some of the
mechanical properties of lead. Of interest in this study is the shear modulus,
Gj = 78.0X104 psi (5.50X104 Kgf/cm2).
Prior(1935) performed pullout (tension) and bending tests on lead caulked joints
in cast iron pipes, while Harris and 0 Rourke(1983) carried out bending tests on the
same type of joint. Results from these tests are used herein, to characterize the axial
force/displacement and bending moment/rotation relationships for lead caulked joints in
cast iron pipes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Figure 4.3 shows a typical graph obtained by Prior. This graph plots the axial
force at the joint, F., and the corresponding axial displacement, u., as a function of time.
Results from Priors tests indicate th at the relationship between F and u. is initially
very rigid. It is believed th at axial forces a t the joint are initially resisted by elastic
shear forces in the lead. The abrupt drop in stiffness corresponds to the point where
these shear forces reach the adhesive strength a t the pipe/lead interface. After that,
axial forces at the joint are resisted by friction a t the pipe/lead interface. Failure is
reached when the lead is forced far enough out of the joint.
The axial force/displacement relationship of a lead caulked joint is represented
herein by a bilinear model. A sketch of this model is given in Figure 4.4. Note th at the
pushin (compression) behavior of the joint is assumed to be similar to the pullout
behavior up to the point where the two adjacent pipe segments come into contact with
each other, after which the joint becomes very rigid and behaves as if it was not
present and the pipe was continuous.
In order to fully define the bilinear model proposed for the (F.,u.) relationship,
one needs to evaluate the initial axial stiffness, AX., the axial force at slippage, F, the
ultimate pullout force, F , the axial tensile displacement a t failure, u, the axial
compressive displacement when contact between the two adjacent pipe segments occurs,
Uy (see Figure 4.2), the axial stiffness after contact, AKj3), and the ultimate
compressive force, F?.
Under the assumption that axial forces a t the joint are initially resisted by
elastic shear forces in the lead, the initial axial stiffness can be evaluated by:
AK. = G, irD d.
t,
(4.2)
where Gj is as defined before, the shear modulus of lead [Gj ~ 78.0X104 psi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
(5.50X104 Kgf/cm2)], jrD represents the outer circumference of the pipe, and tj and dj
are respectively the thickness and the depth of the caulked lead as shown in Figure 4.2.
It is easy to see th at AK. as given by Eqn.(4.2), represents the axial force causing a
J
1
unit displacement of the joint since the product (G, ) is the resulting shear stress in
1 i
the caulked lead and the product (jrD dp is the sheared area. Values of AK. given by
Eqn.(4.2) are very high and thus, consistent with the observed initial stiff behavior.
However, verification of these values with Priors test results is not possible because the
axial diplacement of the joint before or at slippage are very small and could not be
measured by Prior(1935).
The thickness of caulked lead, tj, can be obtained from manufacturers or
standard tables. The American W ater Work Association(AWWA) gives the following
standard values (DIPRA 1984):
tl =
As of the depth of caulked lead, dj, Prior(1935) reported that it is typically equal
to 2.25 inches (5.72 cm).
For the axial force at slippage, F, ORourke and Trautmann(1980) proposed the
following relationship:
Fs = C jrD d,
J
(4.4)
where C is the adhesive strength a t the pipe/lead interface. After analysis of Priors
pullout test results, ORourke and Trautmann(1980) backcalculated the value of Ca . It
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
was found th at this value is quite variable and appears to be independent of the pipe
diameter. The analysis yielded a mean value C& = 252 psi (17.70 Kgf/cmJ) and a
coefficient of variation jit
= 32%.
a
In order to quantify the ultimate pullout force, F u, and the axial tensile
displacement a t failure, u, Priors results are synthezised. It is found th a t the ratio
FjVF has a mean value equal to 2.0 and a coefficient of variation equal to 34%. Values
of u have a poor correlation with the outside diameter of the pipe, D (correlation
coefficient = 0.02). These values are related herein, to the param eter dp which
represents the depth of the joint (see Figure 4.2). The ratio ujVd^ ranges between 0.25
to 0.75 with a mean value equal to 0.50. Hence, it is proposed that the mean value of
F be given by:
(4.5)
uu = 0.5 d
J
(4.6)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
The slope of the (F.,u.) curve after slippage, AKf2), is a function of AK., F s, Fu
j
(4.8)
and
inch (10.16,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
however, can be used to study the relationship between the bending moment, M., and
the corresponding rotation of the joint, 8y The diagram of the first two tests is shown
in Figure 4.5(a), while that of the third test is shown in Figure 4.5(b). Prior measured
the deflection of the joint, v , as a function of the applied load, Q. Graphs of Q versus v
were presented for the three tests. Using statics and geometry, one can deduce the
graphs of M. versus
0 ..
The bending moment for the first two tests [see Figure 4.5(a)]
is given by:
Q a + W 1i + l2
M. =
J
(4.9)
of application of the
Q/2, W is the total weight oftwopipesegments, and 1 is the distance between the
12
For the third test [see Figure 4.5(b)], the bending moment is equal to:
M. = Q
b h + W ! 1+ l2
!i +
8
(4.10)
in which b is the distance between the right support and the point of application of the
load Q.
If one assumes that the flexural rigidity of the pipe segments is very large compared to
th at of the joint, it is easy to relate v. to
0 ..
0. = v. ( + )
J
J
1
L
Figure 4.6 shows the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(4.11)
35
H arris
and
0 Rourke(1983),
on
the
other
hand,
presented
bending
moment/rotation curves for 4, 6 and 8 inch (10.16, 15.24 and 20.32 cm) diameter cast
iron gas pipes. They proposed a range of values for the initial rotational stiffness, RK.,
of each of the pipe diameters considered.
Based on the available test results (Prior 1935; H arris and ORourke 1983), the
relationship between the bending moment, M , and the corresponding rotation of the
joint, 0 , is approximated by a bilinear model. As shown in Figure 4.7, the bilinear
model is characterized by an initial stiffness, RK., a rotation a t slippage, 0, a second
stiffness, RKf2), and an ultimate rotation, 0. Table 4.1 presents the mean values and
the coefficients of variation of the approximate bilinear model characteristics obtained
from the test results.
Attempts to develop an analytical expression for the mean value of RK. as a
function of pipe diameter were unsuccessful. For this reason, a regression analysis on
the available test results is performed. The resulting equation estimates RK. as a
function of the outside diameter, D. That is:
RK. =
in
(4.12)
diameter (correlation coefficient = 0.08). The mean value of 0 for each pipe
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
diameter
36
varies between 3.50X10"3 and 11.70X10'3 rad. It is proposed, herein, that the mean
value of 0? be approximated by the global mean value calculated for all pipe diameters.
This global mean value is equal to: Of = 5.50X 10'3 rad.
The ratio RK./RK.j2) has a global mean value equal to 6.60. It is poorly
correlated with the outside diameter, D (correlation coefficient = 0.06). In this study,
the param eter RKj2) is estimated by:
RK.
RKf2) =
L
>
6.60
(4.13)
(4.14)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
The stress/strain relationship of ductile iron has a well defined yield point. The
value of Youngs modulus, E^, is equal to 24X10 psi (1.7X10 Kgf/cm2). Ductile iron
is graded by minimum mechanical properties. Grade 604210 is the grade most
commonly used in the manufacturing of pipes. It has a minimum tensile strength of
60X 103 psi (4.2X10 Kgf/cm2), a minimum tensile yield strength of 42X10 psi
(3.0X10 Kgf/cm2) and a minimum ultimate elongation of 10%. In compression, the
behavior of ductile iron is slightly different. Grade 604210 has a compressive yield
strength equal to 52X10 psi (3.7X10 Kgf/cm2) (ASM 1978).
In this study, a bilinear model is adopted for the relationship between the stress,
a, and the strain, 6, in ductile iron material. This model is shown in dashed line in
Figure 4.9. The solid line, on the same figure, represents the actual (o,e) curve
(ASM 1961). The bilinear model is characterized by Youngs modulus, Ep, the tensile
yield strength, ay, the tensile strength,
eu and the
compressive yield strength, oyc. Values of these characteristics are given in Table 4.3.
Note that the slope of the (o,e) curve for compression stresses higher in magnitude than
ayc is assumed to be equal to the slope for tensile stresses larger than ay. The ratio
between the value of this slope, termed E^2), and the Youngs modulus Ep is
approximately equal to 7.6X10' [or E^2) = 1.83X105 psi (0.13X105 Kgf/cm2)]. Hence,
the stress/strain relationship for Grade 604210 ductile iron is approximated by the
following equations:
E e
ay + E(2) (6  1.75X10')
P
> 1.75X10'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(4.15)
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
of 0.5. The stress/strain relationship for the main body of the gasket
on
force/displacement
Singhals
and
test
bending
results,
the
moment/rotation
characteristics
relationships
of
are
the
axial
determined.
Analytical or empirical expressions are developed for the mean value of each of these
characteristics. In addition, estimates of their variability about these mean values are
given.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
the pipe. Results from Singhals tests on the pullout behavior of rubber gasketed joints
indicate th at the force/displacement is linear up to an ultimate pullout force, F . At
that point, the pipe segments begin to separate under a constant applied force. That is,
the behavior in tension can be modeled as elastoplastic. No test results on the pushin
(compression) behavior of the joint are available. However, this pushin behavior is
likely to be similar to the pullout behavior except that, when contact between the two
adjacent pipe segments occurs, the joint becomes very rigid and behaves as if it was not
present and the pipe was continuous. Figure 4.12 illustrates the model adopted for the
axial force/displacement for the rubber gasketed joint. The axial force a t the joint is
denoted by F., while the corresponding axial displacement is denoted by u.. If one
assumes th a t the joint does not reach failure, only four parameters are needed to define
this model. They are the ultimate pullout force, F, the initial axial stiffness, AK., the
axial compressive displacement when contact between the two adjacent pipe segments
occurs, u?, and the axial stiffness after contact, AK3). The failure param eters which
include the ultimate axial tensile displacement, u?, and the ultimate compressive axial
force, F? are not presently well defined.
Singhal performed a number of tests for each pipe diameter. He found th a t the
ultimate pullout force, F , as well as the axial stiffness, A K, varied substantially from
test to test. Mean values as well as coefficients of variation for F and AK., as obtained
j
by Singhal and Benavides(1983) and Singhal(1984), are presented in Table 4.6. Note
that, both F and AK. increase with increasing pipe diameter as one might expect
intuitively. However, for any particular diameter, there is a poor correlation between F
and AK. This suggests th at for a particular diameter, F and A K are statistically
independent.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
.5(e  D)
p
 D
(4.16)
where uT is the coefficient of friction between the rubber gasket and the pipe taken
equal to 0.1, Ef is Youngs modulus of rubber taken equal to 370 psi (26.0 Kgf/cm2),
is the initial diameter of the gaskets main body which varies with pipe diameter as
shown in Table 4.4, D is the outside pipe diameter as given in Table 4.4 and (ep D)
quantifies the space occupied by the main body of the rubber gasket after installation.
As will be shown in more details later, Eqn.(4.16) matches reasonably well the
mean of laboratory test values for 4 and 6 inch (10.16 and 15.26 cm) diameter pipes.
However, for 8 and 10
inch (20.32
pipes, Eqn.(4.16)
underestimate the mean value of F from laboratory tests. Hence, the applicability of
Singhals relationship for F to pipes of interest, that is, pipes with diameter larger
than 12 inches (30.48 cm), is questionable.
If one knows the pressure p. (force per unit length) between the rubber gasket
and the male end of the pipe, the ultimate pullout force is given by:
FJ = ur p.
jrD
M
(4.17)
of the
circumference of the doughnut shaped gasket from moving. When the male end is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
inserted, the inner circumference of the doughnut is forced to expand. This imposed
deformation results in hoop tension in a ring whose diameter is approximately D, as
well as compression across the diameter of the circular main body whose original
diameter is Ag. That is, insertion of the male end results in a normal pressure, p. (force
per unit length), between the gasket and the male pipe end. This pressure is balanced
by hoop tension as well as a normal pressure, pQ (force per unit length), between the
gasket and the female pipe end. In other words, p. acts a t the inner circumference of
the gasket, while po acts at the outer circumference of the gasket.
Determination of the normal pressure p. and hence, the ultimate pullout force
by Eqn.(4.17), is complicated by the fact th at the force deformation relationship for
compression is nonlinear. That is, some of the imposed deformation is due to Poissons
ratio in conjunction with hoop tension, while the remaining imposed deformation results
from compression across the diameter
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
u outer = o
r
u inner = x
r
where
= A g
e  D
o
 2 
(4 .1 8 )
represents the displacement of the ring along the line of action of the
= 4 W p
2 L
o
(4.19)
The ratio p./pQ is presented in Table 4.7 for 4, 6, 8 and 10 inch (10.16, 15.24, 20.32
and 25.40 cm) rubber gasketed ductile iron pipes. Note that the ratios are slightly
larger than unity and that they approach unity as the diameter increases. This suggests
th at the imposed deformation is mainly due to compression across the original diameter
Ag, and as a first approximation the hoop tension may be neglected.
Hence, it is proposed herein that the pressure p. (force per unit length) be taken
as that required to cause a compression deformation X = [A (e D)/2], across a
S
solid cylinder with original diameter Ag. Note that values of the rubber gasket relative
deformation, X/Ag, for the 4, 6, 8 and 10 inch range between 30 and 35%. The solution
for p. is available in Lindley(1966). It is given by:
(4.20)
Hence, it is proposed herein that the ultimate pullout force, F, for rubber
gasketed ductile iron joints be calculated using Eqns.(4.17) and (4.20). Results obtained
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
using the proposed method are compared to laboratory test data in Table 4.8.
Note th at the percent error between the predicted value [i.e. Eqns.(4.17) and (4.20)] and
the mean experimental value decreases with increasing diameter. This is likely due to
the fact th at the hoop tension, which is neglected in the proposed relationship, becomes
less important as the nominal pipe diameter increases.
As mentioned previously, for any particular nominal pipe diameter, there was a
significant amount of scatter in measured values for F . Figures 4.14, 4.15, 4.16 and
4.17 are histograms for measured F values. Also shown in these figures are, Singhals
empirical relationship [i.e. Eqn.(4.16)] as well as the proposed analytical relationship
[Le. Eqns.(4.17) and (4.20)].
Note that for the 4 and 6 inch (10.16 and 15.24 cm) nominal diameters,
Singhals relationship [i.e. Eqn.(4.16)] predicts F values which are reasonably accurate
while the proposed relationship [i.e. Eqns.(4.17) and (4.20)] yield high values. However,
for the 8 and 10 inch (20.32 and 25.40 cm) nominal diameters, the proposed method is
reasonably close to the mean of the measured values. For these larger diameters,
Singhals relationship yields low values. Since the proposed method neglects the hoop
tension and the hoop tension becomes less important for larger diameters (see
Table 4.7), it is expected th at this method [i.e. Eqns.(4.17) and (4.20)] will provide
reasonable estimates of the ultimate pullout force for large diameter pipes (12 inch
(30.48 cm) nominal diameter and above).
Singhals test results are also used herein to estimate the initial axial stiffness,
AK.. As with lead caulked joints, it was first assumed that axial forces are initially
resisted by elastic shear forces in the rubber gasket. Values of AK. obtained by this
model were much larger than the experimental values. This is due in p art to the fact
that the shear stiffness of rubber drops significantly under compression. In the
literature, this is referred to as "shape" effects. Because of this difficulty, a regression
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
A K = 22.4 ( D )x88
(4.21)
to metal contact takes place between adjacent pipe segments during axial
compression. The mean value of uf will be taken equal to 0.3 in (0.76 cm) as suggested
by Singhal(1984). Singhal reported also that u is of the order of 1.2 inches (3.05 cm).
However, it is expected that values of u be higher for large diameter pipes.
As with lead caulked joints, no data is presently available on the axial stiffness
after contact, AKj3\ or on the ultimate compressive force, Ff. After contact between the
adjacent pipe segments occurs, the joint becomes very rigid. Hence, during the analysis
of pipelines under compressive strain, a very high value is assumed for the parameter,
AK.j3\ The obtained compressive forces a t the joints can be converted into stresses at
the bell and compared to the compressive strength of ductile iron.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
and the ratio between the initial and the second rotational stiffnesses, RK./RKf2), as
j
obtained by Singhal and Benavides(1983) and Singhal(1984). The value of the ultimate
joint rotation, d, was found to be approximately equal to 7X10'2 rad, for the different
diameters considered.
Singhal and Cheng(1984) presented an analytical expression for the initial
rotational stiffnesss, RK. In developing this expression, it is assumed th at the applied
bending moment is balanced by shear forces in the rubber gasket main body, and that
no slippage occurs between the rubber gasket and the pipe. This expression is given by:
jr2 G
D3 A2
(4.22)
in which Gf is the shear modulus of rubber. In Table 4.11, the experimental mean
values of RK and those predicted by Eqn.(4.22) are compared. Note th at the percent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
error between these two values ranges between 2 and 38%. Eqn.(4.22) is used herein to
estimate the mean value of RK..
j
Analysis of the values obtained by Singhal for the joint rotation a t slippage, 9f,
shows that this param eter is poorly correlated with the pipe diameter (correlation
coefficient = 0.36). The average of all values obtained for the different pipe diameters,
is equal to 5.IX 1 0 '3 rad and the coefficient of variation is equal to 37%.
Values of the ratio RK/RKj2) are poorly correlated with the pipe diameter
(coefficient of correlation = 0.05). The mean value of this ratio for each pipe diameters
ranges between 4.90 and 7.80 with a global mean value equal to 6.30. It is proposed
herein th at RK*2) be evaluated as a function of RK. by:
J
RK.
RKf2) =
iJ
6.30
(4.23)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
The crosssectional area, A, and the transverse moment of inertia, I, are needed
to estimate the axial and bending stiffnesses of the pipe segments. They can be
determined from the following equations:
it [D2  (D 2 t)2]
A = 4
(4.24)
jr [D4  (D 2 t)4]
I = 64
(4.25)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
* Step 2:
Characterize the joint axial force/displacement relationship for the pipeline system
considered. The param eters chosen to represent this relationship include the axial force
a t slippage, F s, the axial displacement a t slippage, uf, the axial compressive
displacement when contact between the two adjacent pipe segments occurs, u?, the axial
stiffness after contact, AK3), and the axial tensile displacement a t failure, u (see
Figures 4.4 and 4.12). Note th at for rubber gasketed joints in ductile iron pipes, the
param eter F? is equal to the ultimate pullout force F . First, assign a very high value
to the param eter AKj3). This value is assumed to be deterministic since AKf3) depends
mainly on the strength of the pipe material. Second, evaluate the mean values of the
other param eters as follows:
* F? is evaluated for lead caulked joints by Eqn.(4.4) and for rubber gasketed joints by
Eqns.(4.17) and (4.20).
* us is evaluated using the relationship: us = FS/AK.. The value of AK. is obtained
j
form Eqn.(4.2) for lead caulked joints and from Eqn.(4.21) for rubber gasketed joints.
* Estimate uf for the system considered from the range of values given in
section 4.2.2.1 or in section 4.3.2.1.
* u can be obtained by Eqn.(4.6) for lead caulked joints. For rubber gasketed joints, it
is estimated based on the information presented in section 4.3.2.1.
After evaluation of these mean values, assign a coefficient of variation to each of the
parameters. Based on the experimental results presented, the coefficients of variation of
these param eters range between 20 and 50%.
For lead caulked joints, one needs to evaluate the second axial stiffness, AKj25. This is
done using Eqn.(4.8).
* Step 3:
In a similar way to Step 2, characterize the bending moment/rotation relationship for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
the pipeline system considered. The param eters chosen to represent this relationship are
the same for both types of joints. They include the bending moment at slippage, Mf, the
rotation a t slippage,
given by
Eqn.(4.12) fo lead caulked joints and by Eqn.(4.22) for rubber gasketed joints.
* 0 is given by Eqn.(4.14) for lead caulked joints. For rubber gasketed joints,
0" = 7.0 X 102 rad.
j
* The param eter RK./RKf2) is equal to 6.60 for lead caulked joints and to 6.30 for
rubber gasketed joints.
Each of the parameters defining the bending moment/rotation relationship is
assigned a coefficient of variation. Based on the experimental results presented, values
of these coefficients of variation range between 20 and 50%.
* Step 4:
The Rayleigh density function is proposed to approximate the probability density
function of each of the param eters representing the axial force/displacement and
bending moment/rotation relationships. For simplicily, the eight parameters defining
these two relationships are assumed to be independent. Appendix A presents the
Rayleigh probability density function and show how it can be used in conjunction with a
random number generator. A set of eight random numbers is generated for each joint
along the pipeline model. Each random number is then used to backcalculate one of the
param eters defining the (F.,u.) and the (M.,0.) relationships.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
The procedure outlined above also can be used in the case where the joint
properties are assumed to be deterministic but vary along the pipeline model. First, the
joint dimensions are evaluated for each joint along the pipeline. Following, the axial
force/displacement and the bending moment/rotation relationships are characterized also
for each joint along the pipeline model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Table 4.1
Experimental Values of the Bending Moment/Rotation Curve Characteristics for
Lead Caulked Joints
D
RK.
j
0?
J
inch(cm)
inch(cm)
lb.inch/rad
(kgf.cm/rad)
Mean
Value
rad
4 (10.16)
4.80 (12.19)
1.463X107
(1.685 X107)
62
4.40 X10'3
46
6 (15.24)
6.86 (17.42)
2.650X107
(3.053X107)
40
3.50X10'3
75
8 (20.32)
8.90 (22.61)
I.700X 107
(1.958X107)
31
11.70X10r3
30
20 (50.80)
22.10 (56.13)
II.5 4 0 X 1 0 7
(13.300X107)
32
4.90 X103
53
Mean Value
Coef. Var.
RK./EK<2)
J
Mean Value
inch(cm)
Coef. Var.
%
eu
j
Coef. Var.
%
Mean
Value
rad
Coef. Var.
%
4 (10.16)
4.40
62
15.00 X10'3
20
6 (15.24)
9.70
146
22.80X 10'3
61
8 (20.32)
5.40
54
39.30 X 103
25
20 (50.80)
7.20
66
69.70X 103
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
Table 4.2
Comparision of Mean Initial Rotational Stiffness of Lead Caulked Joints RK.
and Value Given by Eqn.(4.12)
D
n
inch(cm)
Mean
Measured RK
lb.inch/rad
(Kgf.cm/rad)
RK. by
Eqn.^4.12)
lb.inch/rad
(Kgf.cm/rad)
Percent Error
4 (10.16)
1.463 X107
(1.685 X107)
1.205 X107
(1.388X107)
18
6 (15.24)
2.650X107
(3.053 X107)
1.965X107
(2.263 X107)
26
8 (20.32)
1.700X 107
(1.958 X107)
2.808X107
(3.236 X107)
36
11.540X 107
9.761X107
(13.300 X107) (11.245 X107)
15
20 (50.80)
Table 4.3
Stress/Strain Curve Characteristics o f Ductile Iron
Characteristic
Value
E
P
psi (Kgf/cm2)
24X1G6 (1.7X106)
ay
psi (Kgf/cm2)
42X103 (3.0X103)
ou
psi (Kgf/cm2)
60X103 (4.2X103)
Cu
10
oyc
psi (Kgf/cm2)
52X103 (3.7X103)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Table 4.4
C rossSectional G eom etry o f R u b b er G asket
D
n
inch(cm)
A
g
inch(cm)
B
g
inch(cm)
C
g
inch(cm)
D
g
inch(cm)
E
g
inch(cm)
4 (10.16)
0.60 (1.52)
0.71 (1.80)
0.35 (0.89)
0.20 (0.51)
0.13 (0.33)
6 (15.24)
0.60 (1.52)
0.71 (1.80)
0.35 (0.89)
0.20 (0.51)
0.13 (0.33)
8 (20.32)
0.72 (1.83)
0.79 (2.00)
0.39 (1.00)
0.26 (0.66)
0.17 (0.43)
10 (25.40)
0.72 (1.83)
0.98 (2.45)
0.39 (1.00)
0.26 (0.66)
0.17 (0.43)
Table 4.5
C rossSectional G eom etry of R u b b er G asketed J o in t
Dn
inch(cm)
D
inch(cm)
cp
inch(cm)
dp
inch(cm)
ep
inch(cm)
fp
inch(cm)
4 (10.16)
4.80 (12.20)
4.91 (12.47)
3.15 (8.00)
5.64 (14.33)
1.36 (3.45)
6 (15.24)
6.90 (17.53)
7.10 (17.80)
3.38 (8.58)
7.74 (19.66)
1.36 (3.45)
8 (20.32)
9.05 (23.00)
9.17 (23.30)
3.69 (9.37)
9.98 (25.35)
1.76 (4.47)
10 (25.40)
3.75 (9.52)
12.03 (30.56)
1.96 (4.98)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Table 4.6
Experimental Values of the Axial Force/Displacement Curve Characteristics for
Rubber Gasketed Joints
D
AK.
inch(cm)
Mean Value
lb(Kgf)
Coef. Var.
%
Mean Value
lb/inch(Kgf/cm)
Coef. Var.
%
4 (10.16)
34 (15.40)
71
515 (92.20)
38
6 (15.24)
69 (31.30)
22
782 (139.70)
50
8 (20.32)
333 (151.20)
19
1558 (278.30)
16
10 (25.40)
386 (175.10)
24
2370 (423.10)
46
Table 4.7
Ratio o f Pressures at Inner and Outer Circumference
Dn
inch(cm)
p./p
1 0
4 (10.16)
1.15
6 (15.24)
1.10
8 (20.32)
1.09
10 (25.40)
1.07
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Table 4.8
Comparision of Mean Ultimate PullOut Force for Rubber Gasketed Joints F}1
and Value Given by Eqns (4.17) & (4.20)
D
n
inch(cm)
Mean
F!1 by
Measured F!1 Eqns.^4.17) &
J
(4.20)
Ib(Kgf)
lb(Kgf)
4 (10.16)
34 (15.20)
81 (36.75)
6 (15.24)
69 (31.30)
118 (53.50)
8 (20.32)
333 (151.20)
274 (124.30)
10 (25.40)
386 (175.10)
336(152.40)
Table 4.9
Comparision of Mean Initial Axial Stiffness AK. and Value Given by Eqn.(4.21)
D
n
inch(cm)
Mean
AK. by
Percent Error
Measured AK. Eqn.(?4.21)
lb/inch(Kgf/cm) lb/inch(Kgf/cm)
%
4 (10.16)
515 (92.20)
427 (76.25)
17
6 (15.24)
782 (139.70)
846 (151.05)
8 (20.32)
10
10 (25.40)
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Table 4.10
Experimental Values of the Bending Moment/Rotation Curve Characteristics for
Rubber Gasketed Joints
D
RK.
RK/RK<2)
06
J
Mean Value
Coef. Var.
inch(cm)
Ib.inch/rad
(kgf.cm/rad)
4 ( 1 0 .1 6 )
Coef. Var.
Mean
Value
Coef. Var.
Mean
Value
rad
0 .1 3 4 X 1 0 5
( 0 .1 5 4 X 1 0 5)
25
4 .9 0 X 1 0 '3
19
4 .9 0
42
6 (1 5 .2 4 )
0 .3 0 5 X 1 0 5
(0 .3 5 1 X 1 0 5)
40
4 .7 0 X 1 0 3
22
7 .8 0
64
8 (2 0 .3 2 )
1 .0 8 1 X 1 0 5
(1 .2 4 5 X 1 0 5)
31
3 .7 0 X 1 0 '3
7 .0
35
10 (2 5 .4 0 )
1 .2 2 3 X 1 0 5
(1 .4 0 9 X 1 0 5)
32
7 .6 0 X 10*3
32
5 .4 0
41
Table 4.11
Comparision of Mean Initial Rotational Stiffness RK. and Value Given by
Eqn.(4.22)
Dn
inch(cm)
Mean
RK. by
Measured RK.J Eqn.^4.22)
Ib.inch/rad
Ib.inch/rad
(Kgf.cm/rad) (Kgf.cm/rad)
Percent Error
%
4 (10.16)
0.134 X105
(0.154X105)
0.086X105
(0.093 X105)
36
6 (15.24)
0.305 X105
(0.351 X105)
0.254X 105
(0.293 X105)
16
(20.32)
1.081X105
(1.245 X105)
0.674X105
(0.776X105)
38
10 (25.40)
1.223 X105
(1.409X105)
1.244X105
(1.433 X105)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
i(2)
yc
yc
(3)
Figure 4.1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Oakum Packing
Lead
D
1
Figure 4.2.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
Axial Force
Slippage
Axial Displacement,
Time
Figure 4.3.
Axial Force and Axial Displacement of Lead Caulked Joint versus Time
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
u :
uf
AK.
ur
AK(2) 1 7 _ .  f s
Figure 4.4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Q/2
Q/2
777
(b)
7t v v ; /
Figure 4.5.
"r~
>s /
>/
ys rrs /
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
T est # 2
Test #3
Test #1
15
35
70
105
140
Figure 4.6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
MU1
RK.
Symmetric
Figure 4.7.
Gasketed Joints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T3
cj
u
so
15/
U)
cn
0)
CO
sC
10  
*c3
'
3
c
o
'3
&
/
/
5
4>
d
T3
0)
(A
d
0>
Figure 4.8.
5
10
15
Value Predicted by Eqn.(4.12) (107 Ib.inch/rad)
66
r.
yc
yc
Figure 4.9.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Figure 4.10.
1 I k
2525
Figure 4.11.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 4.12.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
Pi
Figure 4.13.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
37.5
Mean qn.(4.16)
J J
25.0
o
c
0)
3
cr
0)
12.5
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 4.14.
Eqn.(4.16)
Mean
\;
46.2
o
C
<u
3
cr
vu
U
30
Eqns (4.17) & (4.20)
15.4
20
40
60
80
100
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Mean
37.5
> 2 5
C
<u
3
o*
a)
u 12.5
U*
Eqn.(4.16)
100
200
300
400
500
60
Eqn.(4.16)
Mean
40
100
200
300
400
500
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5
SOIL PROPERTIES
5.1 Introduction
The response of a buried pipeline to seismic waves is controlled by differential
movements along its length. Since the pipeline is totally surrounded by soil, soil/pipeline
interaction is an important factor in determining the pipeline response to these seismic
waves. The soil properties of interest in this study are those related to the resistance
provided by the soil to axial as well as lateral movements of the pipeline.
The soil/pipeline interaction is usually represented by nonlinear springs
distributed along the pipeline, as shown in Figure 5.1. Figure 5.2(a) shows the axial
force per unit length versus the relative axial displacement, while Figure 5.2(b) shows
the lateral force per unit length versus the relative lateral displacement. The axial and
lateral forces per unit length transmitted between the soil and pipeline are denoted
respectively by f and
and Aw.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Committee on Gas and Liquid
Fuel Lifelines(1984) suggests the use of elastoplastic or hyperbolic models for the
(f^, Au) and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
(5.1)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is the unit
74
weight of the soil, H is the depth to the pipe centerline, Kq is the coefficient of lateral
earthpressure and D is the outside diameter of the pipe.
Experimental studies have shown th at the coefficient of friction between the soil
and the pipeline, yg, depends mainly on the nature of the pipe surface, the angularity
of the soil grains and the relative roughness of the pipe surface with respect to the soil
grains. Results obtained by Kulhawy and Peterson(1979) show th at for rough concrete
pipe surfaces, slippage occurs in the soil near the interface and that the coefficient of
friction,
s tan#, where # is the angle of shearing resistance of the soil. For the case
of concrete pipes with smooth surfaces, slippage occurs a t the interface with u /tan #
s
ranging from
0.8
to 1.0, with a mean value of 0.9 (yg ss 0.9 tan#). Colton et al.(1981)
noticed that for pipes wrapped with plastic covering, slippage happens in the soil near
the pipe rather than, a t the interface. The reason is th at the soil grains become
partially embedded in the plastic cover a t the interface. Brumund and Leonards(1973)
also observed that tan# is an upper bound for yg, regardless of the rate at which
slippage is initiated. Two types of surfaces were studied: Mortar/Sand and Polished
Steel/Sand. The results for the first surface were similar to Kulhawy and Petersons
results for concrete surfaces. For the Polished Steel surface, the mean value of n is
s
0.9 tan#
0.5 tan#
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(5.2)
75
The value of y, for cohesionless soils, ranges between about 110 and 140 pcf
(1.75 X 1 0 '3 to 2.25 X10 ' 3 Kgf/cm3). It is mainly a function of the level of compactness,
particle size distribution and moisture content of the soil (Lambe and Whitman 1979).
The depth to the pipe centerline, H, is equal to the sum of the depth of earth
cover, c, and half the outside diameter of the pipe, that is: H = c + D/2. The earth
cover serves as a cushion to absorb shocks due to live loads. It is, however, limited by
the capacity of the pipe to support the earth load. It is recommended that the value of c
range between 4 and 5 feet (1.22 and 1.53 m) for large diameter ductile iron pipes
[Dn ^ 30 inches (76.20 cm)], and between 2.5 and 4 feet (0.76 and 1.22 m) for smaller
diameter pipes. The value of c is much larger in. areas of severe frost conditions. In the
northern states, it is of the order of
1. 0 ,
as a conservative
estimate under most conditions of pipeline burial. It is proposed herein, that Kq ranges
between 0.5 to 1.5.
5.2.2 Initial Axial Stiffness
The technical literature contains a number of relations for the initial axial
stiffness, k^. For the plane strain case, Novak et al.(1978) presented the initial axial
stiffness as a function of frequency with values ranging from about 1.50 to 2.75 times
the soil shear modulus, Gg (1.50 Gg < k^ ^ 2.75 Gg). OLeary and Datta(1985)
calculated k^ a t low frequency to be about two times Gg. In their comparision of the
observed behavior of a tunnel with a multiple massspring model, Shibata et al.(1987)
have used k^ = Gg. In a Japanese design procedure for buried pipelines, Kuboto
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
ratio, e = 0.60.
Figure 5.4 shows the axial force/displacement curve obtained for the small
displacement test. Note that the response of the soil/pipe system is nearly linear with
system stiffness, K sy (the ratio of the force at the pipe end to the corresponding pipe
displacement) equaling about 630 X10 3 lb/inch (135 X 10s Kgf/cm). The pipe inertia force
per unit length for the test considered was more than two orders of magnitude lower
than the soil restoring force per unit length. HenCe, the pseudostatic model shown in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
Figure 5.5 is appropriate for backcalculating the soil stiffness per unit length, k^. For
the noslip condition, the governing differential equation for the pipe axial displacement,
u(x), is:
d2u(x)
dx
/J2 u(x)
= 0
(5.3)
where 0Z = kx/(Ep A), Ep is Youngs modulus [Ep = 30X106 psi (2.1X10 6 Kgf/cm2)]
and A is the crosssectional area of the pipe.
The boundary conditions for the test are:
du(0 )
dx
du(L)
dx
(5.4)
E A
p
(5.5)
and the system stiffness (ratio of end force to end displacement) is:
P
=  = 0 . E A tanh( 0L)
sy
u(L)
p
(5.6)
Knowing the system stiffness, Kgy, (i.e. Kgy ~ 630 X10 3 lb/inch), the axial soil
stiffness per unit length of pipe, kx, can be obtained after backcalculation of the
coefficient 0. This procedure yields: k^ = 3980 psi (280 Kgf/cm2).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
In order to estimate the ratio, a = kx/G s, a value for the soil shear modulus,
Gs, is needed. Seed and Idriss (1970) propose the following empirical relationship for Gs:
(5.7)
7,
To determine the soil shear strain, Tg, a pipe buried in an infinite elastic
medium is considered. If one assumes longitudinal soil displacements which decrease
exponentially with distance from the pipe, Wang et al.(1979) has shown th at the soil
shear strain a t the soil/pipeline interface is:
Au(x)
r S (x) =
(5.8)
D/2
rs
r S (0) + r S (L)
= 5.25X 102%
(5.9)
For Colton et al.s test, the relative density of the backfill, D r is about 55%, and Ko is
expected to be in the range of 0.7 to 0.9 since the backfill was compacted. Using these
values in conjunction with the shear strain, Tg = 5.25X102%, and H = 33.40 inches,
Eqn (5.7) yields a shear modulus Gg ranging from about 2350 to 2540 psi (165 to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
179 Kgf/cmJ). Hence, the ratio a for the tests by Colton et al. ranges from 1.57 to 1.70
(1.57 a ^ 1.70). This result falls in the general range of values for kx, which have
previously appeared in
the importance of
accounting for the level of shear strain when evaluating Gg. Hence, it appears th at the
relationship: kx = a.G g, is appropriate, with values of a ranging between 1.0 and 3.0
(1.0 ^ a ^ 3.0). In this study, the coefficient a is taken equal to 2.0, th at is:
kX s 2.0 G s
(5.10)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
f
z
Aw
 P
0.15 Awu + 0.85 Aw z
(5.11)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
(0.07 to 0.10) H
Awu = < (0.03 to 0.05) He
(0.02 to 0.03) Hg
,.(5.12)
f"z = 7H
D N q .h
'
(5.13)
0,
between 30 and
45. Figure 5.7 is applicable to dry or saturated sands and gravels, and to partially
saturated gravels and coarse sands. For partially saturated medium to fine sands,
Tawfic and 0 Rourke(1986) recommends th at the value of N qh, be taken higher than
that given in Figure 5.7, by a factor of 1.5 to 2.0. The reason is th at short term loading
increases the shear strength of such sands. The line of 30 is dashed in Figure 5.7 to
indicate the need of caution in estimating the coefficient N q h, for loose sands. This is due
to the fact that loose sands usually compact under lateral loading, resulting in a lateral
restraint equivalent to th at of a sand initially dense.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
and
Figure 5.7.
The choice of the initial lateral stiffness, k , is, however, dictated by the
magnitude of lateral displacements to which the soil springs are subjected. For an
elastoplastic model intersecting the hyperbolic (fz, Aw) curve a t a lateral force per unit
length f = a g
1  (0.85) a
f
k = s ( 5)
z
0.15
Awu
(5.14)
by
Thomas(1978)
for pipeline
analyses
involving large
lateral
soil
0 .0 ),
k = 6.667 (  )
z
Awu
(5.15)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
7,
0,
2:
Based on the range of values given in section 5.2.2, estimate the param eter Au [i.e.
relative axial displacement a t which the slope of the (fx, Au) curve starts decreasing
appreciably]. Also, obtain the mean value for the ultimate relative lateral displacement,
Awu using Eqn.(5.12).
Step 3:
Evaluate the mean value of the coefficient of friction a t or near the soil/pipeline
interface, uB, by Eqn.(5.2) and estimate the mean value of the coefficient of lateral
earthpressure, Ko. Obtain the shear modulus coefficient, K2, from Figure 5.6 and the
horizontal bearing capacity coefficient, Nqh, from Figure 5.7.
Step 4:
Depending on the actual site conditions, assign a coefficient of variation to each of the
five parameters:
7,
for these parameters, range between 20 to 40%. Note that these five param eters are
strongly correlated between one another. A linear correlation between one another is
assumed herein. After that, choose an approximate probability density function to model
the variability of each of these five parameters. In this study, a Rayleigh density
function is chosen. This density can be easily used in conjunction with a random number
generator as shown in Apendix A.
Step 5:
Using a random number generator in conjunction with the approximate probability
density function, generate values of the param eters
7,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
pipe segment along the pipeline model. Since values of these five parameters are
assumed to be linearly correlated, the same random number is used to generate their
values. The characteristics of the (fx,Au) and (fz, Aw) curves for each pipe segment are
subsequently computed. This involves computing the value of Pj by Eqn.(5.1), the value
of
Eqn.(5.15).
The procedure outlined above can also be used in the case where the soil
properties are assumed to be deterministic but vary from one pipe segment to another.
In Step
1,
values of y, <j>and
and 3 will
not change. There is no need, however, for Step 4 since the problem is deterministic.
Finally, Step 5 will consist only of computing the values of Pj, k^, Pj and kz
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Figure 5.1.
Au*
Symmetric
Aw*
Awu
Aw
Symmetric,
(a )
Figure 5.2.
Force per Unit Length/Displacement Curve for the (a)Axial and (b)Lateral
Soil Springs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
Backfilled Sand _
_.
\
Test Pipe
Hydraulic
EndPipe Actuator
m m m m
Figure 5.3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
6000
4000
sy
2000
0)
g 2000
fa
4000
6000
 0.04
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
Figure 5.4.
i* u(x)
f
,
r
k
Figure 5.5.
/
T77T
/ 
tt
a L
U ~ X
7777
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a
h
co
o>
JS
CO
CM
51 watotjjaoQ
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 5.6.
88
89
24
22
20
e
o>
o
a>
45
18
16
u
OS
a.
aj
u
bo
a
'5
a>
03
3a
14
12
10
8
=
30
6
4
0
0
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 6
ANALYTICAL MODEL
6.1 Introduction
The pipeline properties established in Chapter 4 and the soil restraint properties
established in Chapter 5 are used to construct an analytical model for the analysis of
straight jointed buried pipelines. The model takes into account the variability as well as
the nonlinearity of the system characteristics. In this chapter, the proposed model and
the formulation of the problem are introduced. Finally, the algorithm and numerical
procedures used to solve the problem, are presented.
6.2 Model Description
The proposed model is shown in Figure 6.1. It consists of a number of pipe
segments surrounded by axial and lateral soil springsliders. It should be mentioned th at
these springsliders are treated as continuous rather than discrete. The number of pipe
segments in the model is denoted by ng. Each pipe segment is discretized into a number,
n^, of truss and beam elements, as shown in Figure 6.2. Each of these elements has
two nodes, one a t each end. The length of each element is indicated by 1 (i.e. 1 = L/ne,
with L being the pipe segment length). Joints exist between the pipe segments and are
represented by axial and rotational nonlinear springs. These nonlinear springs are
assumed to have a negligible length. Hence, the total length of the model is equal to:
Lpm = ng L . The strength characteristics of the pipe segments, the joint springs and
the soil springsliders are denoted as in Chapters 4 and 5. The axial and lateral
directions are respectively indicated by x and z. The ground nodes of the soil
springsliders as well as the two end supports of the model follow specified axial and
lateral displacement functions, as defined in Chapter 3, thus providing the input
excitation for the system. The axial and lateral displacements of the pipeline are
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
denoted respectively by u and w, while the axial and lateral displacements of the
ground are denoted by ug and wg. Hence, the axial and lateral deformations of the soil
springsliders along the pipeline, Au and Aw, are respectively given by:
(6.1)
(6.2)
the
method
of
weighted
residuals
with
"Galerkin"
criterion
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
axial
displacements, u(x) and w(x), in the elastic range, are respectively given by:
d2u(x)
E A  k [u(x) u (x)] = 0
P
dx2
x
s
(6.3)
d4w(x)
E I  + k [w(x)  w (x)] = 0
P
dx 4
2
g
(6.4)
(6.5)
(see Figure
6 . 1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
E A
2 o
()2
d2u^ )
 k [u()  u (*)] = 0
(6 . 6 )
2
d 4w({)
E I ()
+ k [w({)  w (*)] = 0
(6.7)
Each pipeline node i has three degrees of freedom associated with it. They are
the axial displacement, u. , the lateral displacement, w.
Jn
*n
Thus, the pipe segment element displacements may be listed in the following vector:
{A*} = [Ul> Wl
U2 W2 *2]
(68)
The shape functions associated with the axial degrees of freedom u x and ug are
respectively equal to:
N f({) = i . ( l 
N 2a>({) = T
(1
t)
+ &
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(610)
94
Thus, the axial pipeline displacement, u(), a t any point within the element can be
approximated by:
(6.11)
For the bending degrees of freedom w 1, 01, wZ and 0A, the associated shape
functions are respectively:
N(ib)(^ = T (?3 ~ 31 + 2)
N(3b)() =  \
(3  3  2)
N^b)() =  g (2 ~ 1) ( + 1) 1
(6.12)
and the lateral pipeline displacement w() at any point within the element is
approximated by:
and lateral
(6.13)
ground
&
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(6.14)
95
w (*) = N(b)(*) w
6
1
6
where u
, w
and
6l"
^
6"
(6.15)
the axial displacement, lateral displacement and rotation of the ground a t node 2.
Eqn.(6.14) is a linear interpolation of the axial ground displacement along the pipe
segment element and hence, is equivalent to Eqn.(3.5). On the other hand, Eqn.(6.15)
gives the lateral ground dislacement as a function of four param eters (i.e. w
w
St^
, 8
are assigned to
{ A0
= K l WS.l V
l * WE.2' * J
<616)
(617>
i
f
2
d2u({)
) 1
f N<a)(*) < E A (y )2
 k [u(J)  u (*)] } (  ) dl = 0
1
I P
d2
i = 1,2
(6.18)
/
.1
f
2 , d4w()
j j
N b)({) { E I (y )
+ k [w({)  w (*)] W _ ) . d{ = 0
I p
d$
) z
i = 1,2,3,4
(6.19)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
[E
2
du({) ]1
i
i
A () Na)( { )  + J k N a)($) u (*) (  ) d
P
*i
l
i= l,2
g
(6 . 20 )
!
2 a d2N<b>($) d2w($)
/ E I (  ) 3 1l
"
1
d f2
d f2
x
j
d* + ; k N b)({) w(*) (T ) d* =
l 2
1
2
E I ()3 N fh ^ t)
L p
^
1
d f 3 *i
E  I  ( )3  L p
*
d
d2
li
+ J 1 k Nfb) ) w () 1 d{
1
i= 1,2,3,4
(6 . 21 )
Knowing th at the axial force, F , the lateral shear force, Fz, and the bending moment
in the pipe segment, M, are respectively given by:
2 du()
E A (,) = F ,
P
'1
di
(6.22)
2 , d w({)
E . 1 ( f )3 .
= F ,
p
1
d f3
z
(6.23)
2 ,, d2w({)
EnP 1 <T>
= M
1
d J 2S
(024)
and
it is easy to show th at the boundary terms of Eqns.(6.20) and (6.21) yield the pipe
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
sign convention which gives positive values to a tensile force, F , a downward shear
force, Fz, on the right hand side of an element, and a bending moment, M, causing
tensile stresses in the negative fibers (i.e. fibers with z < 0).
From Eqns.(6.11) and (6.13), one can write:
du()
dN(a)($)
d$
d2w($)
d{2
d$
dN ^({)
u + 1
d{
2
d2N(b)(J)
d2N(b)($)
= 1 w +
d*2
1
d i2
(6.25)
d2N(b)({)
d2N(b)({)
w_ +
d{2
en
d?2
(6.26)
Note th a t the axial strain in the outer fibers of the pipe segment crosssection, c(), can
be determined from Eqns.(6.25) and (6.26) using:
du($)
2
D d2w(S)
e ( { ) (T ) T
dj
1
2 d i2
2 ,
(T )2
1
(6.27)
while the
second represents the maximum bending strain due to lateral deformations. The
(+) sign between these two terms gives e(() a t z = D/2 and the () sign gives e(i)
at z = D/2. In the remainder of this dissertation, e(() will denote the higher value of
the two pipe segment strains given by Eqn.(6.27) a t a crosssection.
Replacing
element vector,substituting
Eqns.(6.11) and (6.25) into Eqn.(6.20), and substituting Eqns.(6.13) and (6.26) into
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
( K
where K
and
+ [ K: ] ) H
 H
+ [ * ] {* }
(6.28)
characterized by the distributed springs. The sum of these two matrices is equal to the
element stiffness of the pipe segment and soil system, Ke j . That is:
[ K' l
= [ k ] + [ k*]
(6.29)
K J
the first integral expression in the left hand side of each of Eqns.(6.20) and (6.21). That
is:
l
2
K*(ll) = J E A (T )
p
l p
1
ld{
E A
d{ =  >
1
i
2
dNf(f)
K(1,4) = J E A (;) ip
i p
1 d{
d{
E A
d{ =   E 1
l
2
rdNla) h 2
E 'A
(4,4) = J E A (y )  d{ = p
l p
1
Id*
>
1
l
2 , fd 'N fW U
E I
K(2,2) = / E I () di = 12 E 
p
l p
1
ld2
J
l3
K(2,3)
p
i
2
d2N(b>(*) d2N(b)(f)
E I
= / E I () i
2 d  =  6
l p
1 d2
d{
I2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
< * , /*
i
. 1 . A o . d^ >
d i2
*?<>
d i2
i3
E I
2
d2N(b)($) d2N(b)()
^ s3  11
4
Ke(2,6) = / E I (1)3
d{
=  6 E l
r
d{2
E I
2.o rd2N'b)( r i
K(3,3) = ; e i (  ) d I =
i p
1
Id*2
i
2 o d2N(b)({)
Ke(3,5) = J E I ()3 r
d f2
Ke(3,6) =
d2N (b)({)
E I
d  = 6  2 
dr
K*p(5,5> = /
K(5,6) = /
df = 4
E I
2 o d X o)() d2N<b)(*)
E I
1d* = 6 S  E_ I ()3 1
d2
dr
E I
K"(6,6) = I E I () 11 d* = 4 Epp
l p
1
Id*2
>
1
and
(6.30)
with Ke(i,k) denoting the term in the ith row and kth column of  Ke 1. A similar
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
The terms of K
are determined from the second integral expression in the left hand
side of each of Eqns.(6.20) and (6.21). These terms are equal to:
K(1,1) = J 1 kx [n ^ ( { ) ] 2 (1 ) d{ =
K(l,4) =
X
/ kx N ^C i) N^a)(i) .
1
K'<4,4) = /
( 1i)
kX 1
k 1
d i =  5 
kx (n W (!)2 ( ) d{ = i 
K(2,3) =
/ k2 N[>WN<b>() (> d{ = ^
K*(2,6> =
KJ(2,6) =
K*(3,3> =
k2 I2
k2 1
k2 l2
k2 (N <>())2 ( i ) d S =j i y k2 I3
k2 l2
KJ(3,6) =
k2 I3
k2 N b>) N f ( J ) <) d{ =  ^
IP (5,6) = ; * k2 ( n 3 ( ) ) 2 . (1.) d =
k2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
k;<5,6) = ;
K JIM ) = /
99
ka N () N>() (T ) d{ = m
kz . (nJ< ))2 . () . d f = ^
k2 1^
k2 12
and
K e ( l ,2 ) = K e( l , 3 ) = K e ( l ,5 ) = K e( l , 6 ) =
s
s
s
s
Ke(2,4)
= Ke(3,4)
= K(4,5)
=Ke(4,6)
s
s
s
s
The product K j
in Eqn.(6.28), represents
= 0
(6.31)
(632
Substitution of Eqns.(6.29) and (6.32) into (6.28) gives the stiffness equations
for a pipe segment and soil element. That is:
[ Ke ] {A6} = F e} +
(6.33)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
there is no relative lateral displacement between the two end nodes (i.e. w x = w2). The
joint element displacement vector,
can be
defined as:
{ a'} = [u,,
>
U2,
l '
(6.34)
2]
Referring to Figure 6.5, the joint elongation, u., and the joint rotation,
8., are
u.  u2  u x
(6.36)
0j = e2 ~ 6l
(63?)
The joint element force vector is related to the displacement vector by:
[ kj ] { 4 = { 4
<638)
where K j is a (4X4) symmetric matrix representing the joint element stiffness. The
diagonal and upperdiagonal terms of this matrix are given by:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(6.39)
103
in which AK. is the initial axial joint stiffness and RK. is the initial rotational joint
stiffness.
6.3.3 Global Formulation
The force/displacement relationships established for each element of the pipeline
model, are assembled to form the global algebraic equations. A direct stiffness method is
used for this purpose. This method consists of combining the pipe segment element and
the joint element force/displacement relationships [i.e. Eqns.(6.33) and (6.38)] in a
manner dictated by the requirements of node equilibrium and displacement continuity.
First, the nodes in the model are numbered. The total number of nodes,
including the two end supports, n^, is equal to:
n n = n s (ne + 1) + 2
(6.40)
where ng is, as mentioned before, the number of pipe segments in the model and ng is
the number of elements per pipe segment.
Second the degrees of freedom associated with these nodes are numbered. Since
the joint element has a negligible length and the lateral direction is a rigid body mode,
the two lateral displacements, one a t each end of the joint element, are treated just as
one lateral degree of freedom. Thus, five degrees of freedom are associated with each
interior joint (i.e. joints connecting two pipe segments). Except for the interior joint
nodes and the two end supports, each of the other nodes in the model has an axial, a
lateral and a rotation degrees of freedom. As mentioned before, the axial, lateral and
rotational movements of the middle of the two end joints are assumed to follow the
ground movements (i.e. ug, w^ and 0g), and are ,therefore, not counted as degrees of
freedom. The total number of degrees of freedom of the model is hence, equal to:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
(6.41)
Figure 6.6 shows the model with the pipe segments, joints and nodes numbered, as well
as the degrees of freedom associated with each node.
Third, the boundary conditions used for the model, are specified. These boundary
conditions are chosen such that they duplicate the model, to a certain degree, beyond
the length considered. Consider an infinitely long pipeline model. Let us truncate this
model right in the middle of two different joints and assume th a t the portion between
the two truncation points constitutes the proposed model. The infinitely long model and
the truncated model are shown in Figure 6.7. In the case where the pipe segment, joint
and soil properties are constant along the infinitely long model, one would expect that,
under a uniform axial ground strain and a linearly varying ground rotation, the joint
displacements as well as the joint rotations be constant a t any joint. Under the same
type of conditions (i.e. constant properties and similar loading), these results are
duplicated in the truncated model if the axial and rotational initial stiffnesses of the two
end joints are taken equal to twice their respective actual values. That is, the axial and
rotational initial joint stiffnesses at both ends of the truncated model are respectively
taken equal to: 2(AK.) and 2(RK.), where AK. and RK. are respectively the actual axial
and rotational initial joint stiffnesses of the other joints. Note th at in order to evaluate
the end joint displacements and rotations from the proposed model (i.e. truncated
model), one should take into account th at these joints have been cut in the middle.
Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate the joint axial displacement and rotation
at the left end, u. 1 and 6. 1, and the joint axial displacement and rotation a t the right
end, u.
, , and 9.
Jng +
J.ns+1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
U '
= 2 (u 
(6.42)
= 2 (e 
(6.43)
J.1
J>ns +1
j,n s + i
= 2 (u
u
g.n_
nn ~ 1
= 2 (9
g.nP 
(6.44)
(6.45)
nn 
where u and 0 are respectively the axial displacement and rotation of node 2, while
, and 9
, are respectively the axial displacement and rotation of node n 1.
nn
nn
n
On the other hand, u
and 9
represent respectively the ground axial displacement
u
and 9
g,nn
and rotation of node n^ (see Figure 6.6). Hence, the initial stiffnesses of the two end
joints, for the proposed model, are doubled to account for the presence of the actual
system beyond the length of the model considered. That is, if joint 1 (i.e. left end joint)
has an axial and a rotational initial stiffnesses equal to AK.
(i.e. right end joint) has an axial and rotational initial stiffnesses equal to AK.
, , and
J ,n s + i
RK.
J.n s + 1
, the corresponding values used in the model formulation are respectively equal
J,i
J>n s
x ,)and2(RK.
J >n s + 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
of freedom and similarly, the index k being the global number of the kth local degree of
freedom. The same procedure is applied for the term s in each joint element stiffness,
Ke(i,k), with the difference being: (1,1) < (i,k) :< (4,4). Each time a term is placed in a
location where a value has been already been placed, it is added to the latter. The
process is repeated for all pipe segment and joint elements. The global load vector is
assembled in the same way. That is, for each pipe segment, the ith term in
ranging between 1 and 6, is placed in the position i of
with i
number of the ith local degree of freedom. The process of constructing ^ F ^  includes
only the pipe segment elements. The resulting global stiffness equations are given by:
[k H
* W
+ (f H
(646>
where ^A^ is the global displacement vector, and  f ^ c j ' represents a boundary load
vector resulting from the contribution of the element stiffness matrices of joint 1 and
joint ng+ 1 to the global stiffness matrix.
The global stiffness matrix, K j can be written as:
(6.47,
[ k ] = [ K p] + [ k ] + [ k . ]
where Kp
K. J
Ke
s
for all pipe segment elements. Similarly, K. j can be constructed by assembling the
matrices ^ K j for all joints.
The global displacement vector,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
W*h
w 2
02 U3
W3
03> "
Un + 2 Wiu + 2
0no+2 Un n + 3
0n A+ 3
m*
Um Wm
u m + l
6m+ V
Win >
nn  l ]
(6.48)
where u. , w.
1n
*n
and 6
1n
and rotation of node in. Note th at an interior joint, i has five degrees of freedom which
are: u m . wm . 8m,
m um
m +, .l,7 Lm +. 1. . The index m denoting
the number of the left node of
joint i, is equal to: m = (i1) (ne+ l ) + 1.
From Eqn.(6.32), it is easy to see that
is equal to:
W = [K ] {
where
(649>
is the global ground displacement vector. This vector lists the ground
joints. The axial force and moment a t node 2, due to joint 1 deformations, Fx 2 and M2,
are respectively given by:
F *,2 
(6 50)
M2 =
(6.51/
and the axial force and moment a t node n n 1, due to joint n s + 1 deformations, F x,nn  1,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
and
= 2 AK.
x 'nn  1
J>ns + 1
= 2 RK.
nn
 2 AK.
nn  1
J>ns + 1
u
J>ns + 1
2 RK.
nn
0
Jns + 1
(6.52)
'nn
nn
(6.53)
Znn
and 8
nn
) in Eqns.(6.50),
(6.51), (6.52) and (6.53), are included in the right hand side of Eqn.(6.46). This is done
when the element stiffnesses of joint 1 and joint ng+ 1 are added to the global stiffness.
On the other hand, the terms containing ground axial displacement or rotation (i.e. u
8 ,, u
g .i
g,nn
and 8
g,nn
(6.51), (6.52) and (6.53), the components of <Fb c  can be derived. These components
are given by:
Fbx(1) = 2 AK.
g
j. i
u ,
g .i
Fbx(2) = 0
8 .
Fbx(3) = 2 RK.
g
j.i
g ,l
Fbx(i) = 0
g
for: 4 i < n ,
3
dof
Fbx,(n
g
dof 2 ) = 2 AK.J , n s + 1 u g , n n
Fbx(n
1 ) = 0
g
dot
Fbx(n
g
) = 2 RK.
dof
. 8
J>n_+1
g,n
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(6.54)
109
The sum of
(4
and
T hat is:
{pJ = W
<665)
]  W  W
<656)
Note that substitution of Eqns.(6.49) and (6.54) into Eqn.(6.55), and arranging
term s, yield the following relation:
r. ]  W
where
Kg J
Kg J
(657)
Kg(i,k) = Kg(i,k)
ndo?
n J = K (n
dor dor
,n J + 2 RK.
dof dof
J<nc + 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(6.58)
110
Eqn.(6.56) represents the global algebraic equations for the pipeline model when
the pipe segment axial strain along the model, e(x), the axial and lateral relative
displacements between the soil and the pipeline, Au(x) and Aw(x), as well as the axial
displacement and rotation at any joint i, u .. and 0.., are within the elastic limits
established in Chapters 4 and 5. These conditions can be summarized in the following
inequalities:
.1
<
6?
0 x L pm
pm
0 x L pm
1 i ns + 1
1 i ns + 1
(6.59)
Values for the response parameters e(x), Au(x), Aw(x), u . . and 6.. cam be obtained
from the global displacement vector,  a^, and the corresponding applied global ground
displacement vector, ^Ag^. Note th at it is more convenient to evaluate the pipe segment
axial strain, the relative axial displacement between the soil and the pipeline, and the
relative lateral displacement between the soil and the pipeline, along each pipe segment
element first. That is, determine e(), Au() and Aw(), separately for each pipe
segment element along the pipeline model. Using Eqn.(6.5), it is possible to convert the
three response parameters,
coordinate x, e(x), Au(x) and Aw(x). The value of e() is determined from Eqn.(6.27).
The parameters Au() and Aw() are foimd using respectively Eqns.(6.1) and (6.2),
with u(), w({), ug({) and wg({) given respectively by Eqns.(6.11), (6.13), (6.14) and
(6.15). The axial displacement and rotation at an internal joint i, u . . and 9. are
j .i
j ,i
evaluated respectively by Eqns.(6.36) and (6.37). For the two end joints (i.e. joints 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
and ng+ l), the axial displacement and rotation, are evaluated by Eqns.(6.42), (6.43),
(6.44) and (6.45). On the other hand, values of eyc, ey, u? and 0? for the two pipeline
systems considered can be obtained from Chapter 5, while those of Aus and Aws can be
determined from Chapter 4. As mentioned previously, the parameters u? and 0 can
vary from joint to joint, while the parameters Aus and Aws can vary from pipe segment
to pipe segment, along the model.
In the case where any of the response parameters, e(x), u . ., 0.., Au(x) or
Aw(x), enters the plastic range [i.e. one of the conditions in Eqn.(6.59) is not satisfied),
the governing algebraic equations [i.e. Eqn.(6.56)] need to be solved incrementally. The
new form for the governing algebraic equations is then:
[ k >] dA^ = jd F gj
where
(6.60)
k ]
[ r . ]  K }
<66i)
where Kg j represents the modified tangent global stiffness of the soil restraint and
dAg is an increment of the global ground displacement vector.
The initial condition of Eqn.(6.60) or Eqn.(6.61), is:
W=0
;for M=
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(6.62)
112
J 1
6... On the other hand, the increment of the total global load vector, <dF^> depends
only on Au(x) and Aw(x) along the model, and on the joint displacements and joint
rotations of the two end joints, u. ,, 6. ,, u.
J ,1
J ,1
J ,n g + 1
and d F g depend on all or few of the conditions in Eqn.(6.59). Since all the response
param eters can be obtained from  a j and  a ^ , K
and { d j .
The formulation of the tangent global stiffness, K j , and the increment of the
total global load vector, ^ d F ^ is done in the same way as th at of the global stiffness,
K J , and the total global load vector,
J K J
These stiffnesses relate increments of the element force vectors to the corresponding
increments of the element displacement vectors. For the pipe segment and soil elements,
the relation is given by:
([ ] + [ Kr ]) M  M + [
K v
(663)
where ^dAe , d F ej' and ^dA^ are respectively increment of the element displacement
vector, increment of the element force vector and increment of the element ground
displacement vector, for the pipe segment and soil system. As mentioned previously,
three loading cases are considered in this study. Preliminary results show that the pipe
segment strain,
e(x), for the first and third loading cases, which correspond
respectively, pullout of the joints, and opening of the joints by a combination of axial
extension and bending rotation, is always in the elastic range (i.e. eyc 5 e(x) < eyc).
Hence, for these two loading cases, the tangent element stiffness of the pipe segment is
equal to the element stiffness of the pipe segment itself. That is:
K? J = K J .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
However, for the second loading case which corresponds to crushing of the bell, the pipe
segment axial strain, e(x), is expected to reach the compressive yield strain, eyc. In
this case, the terms of K
constant Youngs modulus, Ep, replaced by a variable tangent modulus, Ep(), which is
given by:
Ep
;  eyc <=() ey
Ep(i) =<
(6.64)
l
2
('dN(a)()'2
K(1,1) = J Ep() A (y )
 j d
(6.65)
are
evaluated with the integrals in Eqn.(6.31) with the initial axial soil stiffness, k^,
replaced by a tangent axial stiffness, k () which is given by:
kx
kx() <
(6.66)
Values of the relative lateral displacement, Aw(x), are as expected much smaller in
magnitude than the corresponding slippage value, Aws, even under high values of
ground rotation. However, for completness, the initial lateral soil stiffness, k Z , is
replaced by a tangent lateral soil stiffness, kz(), in the formulation of K j . The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
k <*) =
kz
; Aw(J) Aws
(6.67)
For example, the term s in positions (1,1) and (2,2) of K J can be obtained from the
following equations:
(6.68)
(6.69)
Similar changes are made to the integrals in Eqn.(6.31) in order to obtain the rest of
the term s of K j .
The relation between the increment of the joint element displacement vector,
^dAj>, and the corresponding increment of the joint element force vector, <dF^,
however, is given by:
[ K ] jdA} = jdF}
where
and
(6.70)
and increment of the element force vector for the joint element. The terms of K j
are evaluated by replacing the initial axial and rotational stiffneses of any joint, AK.
and R K , respectively by tangent axial and rotational stiffnesses, A K and RK., given
by:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
' AK<3)
; u. < u?
AK.
; u. <; u?
AK<2)
; u. > u?
AK.
J
1 j1
j
and
u? < u < u?
j
(6.71)
RK.
! Ijl j
RK?2)
s ljl > ;
RK. =
J
(6.72)
and
(6.73)
Note that the tangent axial and rotational stiffnesses of the two end joints are doubled
as in the elastic case.
Next, the increment of the element load vector,
is defined. In incremental
(6.74)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
j , K J
and Ke
j,
J,
joints) in the model. Similarly, the increment of the global load vector, ^ d F ^ , is
assembled from the element load increment vector, ^dF^, for all the pipe segments. In
order to get the increment of the total load vector,
increment of the boundary load vector,
by:
dFbx(l) = 2 AK. du ,
g
j,i
g,i
dFbx(2) = 0
g
dFbx(3) = 2 RK. d0 ,
g
j.i
g.i
for: 4 & i < n dof
, 3
d F b,c(i) = 0
dFb,c(n,  2 ) = 2 AK.
g
dof
j'ns +1
du
e>nn
 0
dFbx(n J = 2 RK.
g
dof
J . n E+ 1
d0
(6.75)
g .n r
Note that the modified tangent global stiffness of the soil restraint,
can
be obtained from the tangent global stiffness of the soil restraint, Kg , m a way
similar to that used to obtain
Kg j
Kg
difference being that the ends joint initial stiffnesses are replaced by the corresponding
tangent stiffnesses given in Eqns.(6.71) and (6.72).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
Eqn.(6.61) with the initial condition given by Eqn.(6.62), represent the governing
algebraic equations used to study the response of the proposed pipeline model. The
solution to those equations is obtained in a stepwise maimer. That is:
[ K' ] ( ( m + 1)} 
{ i } )  [ KXD ] ( (4 ,0 + 1 )} 
{4 , } )
I = 0 ,1 ,...,N 1
(6.76)
or:
{Ag  )
I = 0 ,1 ,...,N 1
(6.77)
in which
K(I)
J,
a ( I ) ,
stiffness, the global displacement vector, the modified tangent global stiffness of the soil
restraint and the global ground displacement vector a t the Ith increment, and N is the
total number of increments used to get the solution (i.e. ^Ag(N)
The initial condition of Eqn.(6.62) corresponds to:
[ K(0) ] = [ K ]
[ k (0 )] 
[r ]
 a (0 ) = 0
A g(0 ) = 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(6.78)
118
In the next section, the algorithm and numerical procedures used to get the
response parameters, are presented.
6.4 Algorithm and Numerical Procedures
A computer program is written to represent the above described formulation.
This computer program includes the case where the system characteristics are
deterministic as well as the case where they are random. The following algorithm
corresponds to the random case which uses the simplified Monte Carlo simultion
technique described in Appendix A. It has nine steps which are:
Step 1:
Supply the input parameters to the program. These param eters include:
* An indicator, IT> which defines the type of pipeline system, as follows:
1
IT =
(6.79)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
* Step 2;
The following arrays are constructed to describe the finite element setup of the model:
* NOD j is a (2Xnn~ 1) matrix relating node numbers to corresponding elements.
For each pipe segment element or joint element, the first row gives the left node
number, while the second row gives the right node number. Note that nR1 represents
the sum of pipe segment elements and joint elements in the model.
* ID
node. It should be mentioned th at the columns corresponding to the two end nodes have
zero entries since they are not counted as degrees of freedom .
* LM
and ID
J.
Each row gives the six degrees of freedom corresponding to a pipe segment element or
joint element. For the interior joints, the degree of freedom corresponding to the vertical
direction is repeated twice.
*  i s k l  and ^LDIAj' are two onedimensional arrays (i.e. vectors) each having ndof
entries. A method referred to as "the skyline method" is used to store more efficiently
the global stiffness,
stiffness which is delimited by the first nonzero term in each column and the diagonal
terms, is stored in a onedimensional array,  s k J . This region will be referred to as the
nonzero region. The two arrays, ^ISKL^ and lD IA ^, serve to establish a mapping
betwwen the entries of K j and those of sK ^ . The ith entry of i S K l  gives the
row number of the first nonzero term in the ith column of K J . On the other hand,
the ith entry of ^ I D I a  gives the position of the diagonal term K(i,i) in the
onedimensional array s K ^ . The terms of the nonzero region of K J are entered into
{ s k J , by columns, th at is, entries in column 1, then entries of column 2 and so on.
Accordingly, a term K(i,k) in the global stiffness is entered into
a t the position
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
given by:
IDIA(k)k + i
; if k i
IDIA(i)i+ k
;ifk < i
(6.80)
The number of entries in <^SK^ is determined after constructing the array ^IDIa  . It is
i
equal to IDIA(ndof).
Step 3:
First, calculate the axial coordinate, x, of each node along the model. Following, the
components of the global ground displacement vector
Eqns.(3.5) and (3.7). Note th at the array
ID
according to the
KJ
solve for the elastic global displacement vector denoted by ^A*, from the global
algebraic equations [i.e. Eqn.(6.56)]. The numerical procedure used to solve Eqn.(6.56),
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
where
LK
is a (
n d ofX n dop
(6.81)
is identical to that of LK j .
Also, since the diagonal terms of LK j are equal to unity, there is no need to store
 s k ,
a onedimensional array H 
DK
are stored in
KJ
was stored in
LK J
[ LK ] [ DK ] [ LK j
{ a *} =
(6.82)
The new equation [i.e. Eqn.(6.82)] can be solved in three steps which are:
* Use "Forward Substitution" to solve for ^A ^, from:
' M
* Then solve for the vector ^A ^, from the uncoupled algebraic equations:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
<e83>
122
[dk]M M
* Finally, use "Backward Substitution" to solve for
<684)
from:
[ ] ' W W
Using
<685>
ft
=  0.861136
{2 =  0.339981
t 3 = + 0.339981
{ = + 0.861136
(6.86)
Note that the "Gaussian" four points will also be used to integrate the tangent stiffness
terms in the case where the response param eters exceed the elastic limits.
For each joint, the axial displacement, u , and rotation, 0 ., are computed from the
corresponding element displacement vector,
Step 6:
Check if the response parameters are within the elastic limits or not [i.e. Eqn.(6.59)].
For this purpose, the following procedure is used:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
Aws
and
Au(.)
; for i= l,2 ,3 ,4
Aw(f )
* The following ratio is computed only when the model is subjected to compressive
ground strain (i.e. second loading case):
eyc
; for i= 1, 2 ,3,4
I I
u.
and
ef
ej.
I I
* Find the minimum value of all these ratios. This minimum value is denoted by:
ELIND. T hat is:
(
ELIND = Minimum
cr y
v e(.)
AAu
,is
Aw
Aw
1. 1 I ' l
Au(i.)
11s
0s
8
J ' l I "I TT I I
Aw(J.)
8}
'
(687)
* The coefficient ELIND represents the fraction of total ground displacements which
will take the model response into the plastic range. Therefore:
 If : ELIND > 1
global displacement vector is equal to the elastic global displacement vector (i.e.
to
8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
 If : ELIND < 1
Step 7:
The fraction of the total global ground displacement vector a t which the model response
starts being plastic, is chosen to be equal to the global ground displacement vector at
the first increment. In accordance with Eqn.(6.76), this vector is denoted by ^Ag(l)^.
From Step 7, the global ground displacement vector a t the first increment is equal to:
{ m d } = ELIND { a J
(6 . 88 )
Since the model response is elastic up to this first increment, the corresponding global
displacement vector, ^A(l)^, is equal to:
 a (1)} = ELIND { a *}
(6.89)
0 .)
is
I= 1 ,2 ,...,N 1
(6.90)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
[ K(D ]
( a CT+1)} = [ K'O) ]
{**}
+ ( 1 a^
) [ R W ] {aJ
I = 1,2,...,N1
(6.91)
with
[ kto] = [ k ]
[ * . < ]
[ K s ]
( 6 9 2 >
The second term in Eqn.(6.91) represents the Ith increment of the total global load
vector. That is:
R} ( ~i^?)[R.] W
(69
I =
1, 2 ,...,N 1
(6.94)
When the response parameters exceed the elastic limits, the integrals giving the terms
of the tangent element stiffnesses of the pipe segments and the soil restraints, K(i,k)
and K(i,k), are evaluated numerically using a four point "Gaussian" quadrature
method. In this method, the integral of a function fn() over the interval [1, 1] is
approximated by:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
J1
1
fx&() 
where . with
Z
i =
fn(.) c.
1
(6.95)
and c. are the corresponding coefficients. Values of these coefficients are given by:
C1
= 0.347855
C2
= 0.652145
C3 = 0.652145
C4 = 0.347855
(6.96)
Note that the four point "Gaussian" quadrature method gives an exact value for the
integral of polynomials with order less or equal to 7.
The algorithm used to evaluate ^A^ has four stages which are:
1).
2 ).
Eqn.(6.94) is the same as that used to solve Eqn.(6.56) (i.e. the elastic problem in
Step 5).
3). Compute the response parameters corresponding to ^A(I+ 1)^. As mentioned
previously (i.e. Step 5), these response parameters include values of e(), Au() and
Aw() at the four "Gaussian" points of each pipe segment element, as well as values of
u and 8. at each joint along the model.
4). If these response parameters exceeded the elastic limits a t the new position,
then update the tangent global stiffness, K(I)
load vector ^dFg(I). After that, solve Eqn.(6.94) again with the updated K(I) j and
d fy ( I)  [i.e. redo stage (2)].
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
If however, there is no new position along the model where the response
parameters exceed the elastic limits, then set:
(6.97)
1,
th at is: I = 1+1.
Step 8 :
Compute the final results which inclued:
* The average axial strain, e, and the corresponding axial stress, a, for each pipe
segement element.
The value of e is obtained from:
e = Z
i= l
(6.98)
where e(.) is the axiai strain at the ith "Gaussian" point of the pipe segment element
of interest.
The value of o can be evaluated from the (a,e) relationships established in Chapter 4.
* The average axial and lateral relative displacements between the soil and the pipeline,
Au and Aw, as well as the corresponding axial and lateral forces per unit length, f and
f , for each pipe segment element.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
Au =
Au( )
Z 1
i= 1 4
Aw =
Z
i= l
<
Aw({.)
4
(6.99)
where Au(.) and Aw(.) are respectively the axial and lateral relative displacements
between the soil and the pipeline at the local "Gaussian" coordinate
Values of the corresponding f and f for each pipe segment element, are obtained from
the (f^, Au) and (f^, Aw) relationships established in Chapter 5.
* The axial joint displacement and force, u and F , as well as the joint rotation and
bending moment,
Values of u. and
0.
0^
and M..
were already computed in Step 7.
The axial force and bending moment a t the joint, F and M , are deduced using the
(F.,u.) and (M^,#.) relationships established in Chapter 4.
Step 4 through Step
is repeated n sim
. times. That is, results are obtained for n sim
.
simulated models.
Step 9:
In this Step, a statistical analysis of all the results is performed. For each of the
response param eters, the corresponding mean value and coefficient of variation can be
obtained. It is also possible to get the histogram corresponding to those response
param eters.
In order to be applied to the deterministic case, the above described algorithm
needs to be modified. In Step 1, the deterministic values of the pipeline and soil
properties are supplied with the other input parameters. Steps
and Step 5 through Step
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
however, since the input and response param eters are assumed to be deterministic.
Appendix B presents a listing of the computer program corresponding to the
deterministic case.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
c
u
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6 . 1.
Figure
130
Figure 6.2.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
*o
t"'
XA
T
*x"
*3
N
3
<
Figure 6.3.
Elastic Equilibrium
X
o
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
{  0
I
f * 1
z,2
2,1
(  1
' F x,2 u 2
1
(D
Figure 6.4.
2 , 0 2
Fx,i  V
m, ,
Figure 6.5.
,2
U2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
i M
"
i S
v K v
Figure
6 . 6.
l n
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 6.7.
135
_ 5 j Es
<
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
CHAPTER 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7.1 Introduction
Using the analytical model constructed in Chapter
6,
straight jointed buried pipelines to seismic waves are obtained. The cases considered
include three types of ground excitation (i.e. loading cases), two pipeline systems and
three pipe sizes. The first type of ground excitation corresponds to a tensile ground
strain, the second is a compressive ground strain and the the third is a combination of
tensile ground strain and ground rotation (see section 3.4) . The pipeline systems, on
the other hand, are cast iron pipe with lead caulked joint and ductile iron pipe with
rubber gasketed joint. Finally, the pipe sizes are 16, 30 and 48 inch (40.64, 76.20 and
121.92 cm) nominal diameter.
First, the data describing the pipeline model for these cases are given. Second,
results from a sensitivity analysis which quantifies the effects of joint and soil
variability on the response param eters such as the displacement a t joints, are
presented. Finally, a simplified Monte Carlo simulation technique is used to generate
vulnerability graphs giving the probability of exceedence for various values of the
response parameters as a function of ground excitation. Emphasis is placed on joint
displacement and force since damage usually occurs at the joints. Results for the pipe
segment axial strain, and the axial and lateral relative displacements between the soil
and the pipeline are also obtained.
It should be mentioned that the data and results are given only in SI units.
Conversion to the U.S. customary units can be done using the factors presented in
Appendix C.
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
7.2 Data
The data needed to get results for the different cases considered herein, include
values of the mechanical properties of the pipeline and soil restraint as well as values of
certain modelling characteristics such as number of elements used to discretize a pipe
segment. The mechanical properties of the pipeline are evaluated according to the
procedure presented in section 4.4, while those of the soil restraint are evaluated
according to the procedure presented in section 5.4. On the other hand, the modelling
characteristics are selected in a manner such that they yield consistent results.
7.2.1 Pipeline Properties
m.
Tables 7.2 and 7.3 gives respectively the mean values of the characteristics of
the force/displacement relationship and those of the bending moment/rotation
relationship for lead caulked joints. Based on the test results presented in section 4.2.2,
the coefficient of variation of each of those characteristics is taken as 30%. The joint
axial stiffness after contact in compression,
value of 1. 0 X 109 Kgf/cm. Numerical testing shows that a value of this order simulates
the locking behavior of the joint after contact between the two adjoining pipe segments.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
m.
Table 7.5 presents values of the diameter of the "main body" of the rubber
gasket before installation, Ag, for pipe sizes considered herein. The corresponding mean
values of the characteristics of the axial force/displacement relationship and those of the
bending moment/rotation relationship for rubber gasketed joints are given respectively
in Tables 7.6 and 7.7. As with the cast iron with lead caulked joint system, the
coefficient of variation of each of those characteristics is taken as 30%. For this system,
the joint axial stiffness after contact, AKj3^ is taken equal to 1.7X10 9 Kgf/cm. Note
that since AK53) is a function of the pipe material stiffness, the ratio between the joint
axial stiffnesses after contact for both systems is equal to the ratio between the
corresponding Youngs moduli of the materials.
7.2.2 Soil Properties
The mean values of the unit weight, y, angle of shearing resistance, </>, relative
density, D r, and coefficient of lateral earthpressure, Ko, for the soil surrounding the
model are equal to:
y = 1.90 X 1O' 3 Kgf/cm 5 (119 pcf)
0
= 34 (0.59 rad)
Dr = 50%
Ko = 0.85
Using Eqn.(5.2), the mean value of the coefficient of friction at or near the
soil/pipeline interface, *tg = 0.9 tan(34) = 0.6. In order to evaluate the shear modulus
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
coefficient, K A , one needs a value for the relative axial displacement a t which the slope
of the (fx>Au) curve starts decreasing appreciably, Au. Based on the results presented in
sectio 5.2.2, it is taken equal to 0.05 cm (i.e. Au = 0.05 cm). Table 7.8 gives the mean
values of the shear modulus coefficient, K A , ultimate relative lateral displacement
between the soil and the pipeline, Awu, and horizontal bearing capacity coefficient, Nqh,
for each of the pipe sizes considered. A constant coefficient of variation is chosen for the
five parameters:
7,
ms> Kq> Kg and N^h. It is equal to 30%. Table 7.9 gives values for
the axial and lateral force per unit length/displacement characteristics for the soil
springsliders, corresponding to the mean values of
7,
sun
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
5.0X 10'3 (i.e. e = 5.0 X10"3 and 8 = 0), for different values of n and N. It should
e
S
e
be mentioned that for a ground strain of this magnitude, the system enters the plastic
range. The param eter IT denotes the type of pipeline system as given by Eqn.(6.79).
The terms u., max and Aumax represent respectively the joint axial displacement,
maximum pipe segment axial strain and maximum relative axial displacement between
the soil and the pipeline. Notice th at values of u., emax and Aumax do not change
significantly when ng 19 and N > 101 for the cast iron pipe with lead caulked joint
system. The same conclusion applies to the ductile iron pipe with rubber gasketed joint
system when n^ S 5 and N 21. Hence, under a tensile ground strain, the
param eters n and N are selected as follows:
(ne , N) =<
(19,101)
(5,21)
(7.1)
Table 7.11, on the other hand, gives the response parameters when the model is
subjected to a uniform compressive ground strain with magnitude,
= 5.0X10"3.
Under such ground strain, contact between adjacent pipe segments occurs. The resulting
locking behavior of the joints can be characterized with high values of ng and N. Based
on the results shown in Table 7.11, the parameters n and N in this case (i.e. uniform
e
(ne , N) =
(31,201)
(11,101)
(7.2)
For the third type of ground excitation which is a combination of tensile ground
strain and ground rotation, similar results show th at the parameters ne and N can be
selected according to Eqn.(7.1). Notice th at for all three types of ground excitation, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
values of ng and N selected for the cast iron system with lead caulked joint are much
larger than those selected for the ductile iron system with rubber gasketed joint. Lead
caulked joints are much stifFer than rubber gasketed joints and therefore require larger
number of elements and larger number of load increments to achieve convergence.
Finally, the param eter ng.m is taken equal to 100. Since the number of joints in
the model is equal to 11, the population for each of the joint response param eters
contains 1100 values. The response param eters of the pipe segments and soil
springsliders used in the statistical analysis are limited to the maximum values along
each pipe segment. Hence, the population for each of the pipe segment or soil
springsliders response parameters has 1000 values.
7.3 Sensitivity A nalysis
In order to have a good understanding of pipeline response to seismic waves, a
sensitivity analysis is performed. In this analysis, the system characteristics (i.e. pipe
segment, joint and soil properties) are assumed to be deterministic. For each of the
cases considered, results are first obtained for systems in which the joint and soil
properties are uniform along the model. This enables one to study the effects of
different properties on the response parameters. Second, systems with nonuniform joint
and soil properties are analysed. Results obtained highlight the effect of variable system
characteristics upon pipeline response.
7.3.1 Tensile Ground Strain
In this section, the two pipeline systems are subjected to a range of tensile
ground strain, 1.0X10'4 < eg ^ 7.0X10"3 . That is, the pipeline model is subjected to
the axial ground displacement given by Eqn.(3.5) with the (+) sign. For a straight
jointed buried pipeline subjected to seismic wave propagation, axial ground strain is
accomodated by a combination of pipe segment axial strain and joint axial displacement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
For a uniform system (i.e. same pipe segment, joint and soil properties along the
model), the axial ground strain,
e L = u. + eave L
s
J
(7.3)
where eave is the average axial strain along a pipe segment and L is the length of each
pipe segment. Observations of actual behavior of pipelines during the 1978 MyiagiOki
earthquake, support Eqn.(7.3) (Iwamoto et al. 1988). For a system with non uniform
properties, Eqn.(7.3) becomes:
11
10
c L
=
Z u1 + Z
6ave>1 L
e
pm
i = ! J
i = !
(7.4)
where uj is the axial displacement of joint i and eave1 is the average axial strain along
pipe segment i.
First, the joint and soil properties are assumed to be uniform along the model
and equal to
Table 7.12 for cast iron pipe with lead caulked joint and in Table
are summarized in
7.13 for ductile iron
pipe with rubber gasketed joint. As one might expect, the joint axial displacement, u., is
constant for all joints along the model. The pipe segment axial strain, e, varies along
each pipe segment, with the maximum value occuring in the middle. The relative axial
displacement between the soil and the pipeline, Au, follows w hat appears to be a linear
function along each pipe segment. The maximum value of Au occurs near the joints (i.e.
a t both ends of the pipe segments). From Tables 7.12 and 7.13, it can be seen that
except for low values of ground strain, u is practically independant of the pipe size for
both systems studied. The same conclusion applies to Aumax. Values of u. obtained for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
the cast iron system are slightly smaller than those obtained for the ductile iron system.
Conversely, values of Aumax corresponding to the cast iron sytem are slightly larger
than those corresponding to the ductile iron system. Figures 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and
7.6 plot in doted line u. versus eg for the uniform systems with mean properties.
Observe th at u. is almost a linear function of e , for the ductile iron system. For the
J
cast iron system, the nonlinearity of u. versus eg is somewhat more pronounced. Since
in both cases the joint behavior becomes nonlinear, this suggests th at the joint axial
stiffness plays a more important role for the cast iron system than for the ductile iron
system. I t should be mentioned also th at a t c = 5.0X1 O'3, u. reaches values which
g
are of the same order of magnitude as the ultimate joint axial displacement, uj1, for both
systems.
The maximum pipe segment axial strain, 6max, remains in the elastic range for
both systems (i.e. emax < y). However, values of max are much larger for the cast
iron system than for the ductile iron system. This is due to the fact th at rubber
gasketed joints are more flexible than lead caulked joints. Note in Tables 7.2 and 7.6
th at the initial axial stiffness of lead caulked joint, Ff/uf, is roughly 4 orders of
magnitude larger than the value for the same diameter rubber gasketed joint.
Notice also, th at 6max is a decreasing function of the pipe diameter. The value
of 6max is related to the joint axial force, F.,
and the axial soil retraint, fx . However, F.J
j
and f
themselves do not vary significantly after slippage of both the joint and soil
springslider occurs. Consequently, the rate of increase of emax is much smaller than
th a t of e
eg ^ 7.0X 10'4, the joint axial force for the cast iron system, F , is roughly two times
the axial soil restraint force over a half pipe segment. On the other hand, for the same
range of axial ground strain (i.e. eg ^ 7.0X10"4), the joint axial force for the ductile
iron system, F , represents roughly 5% of the axial soil restraint over a half pipe
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
segment.
Second, effects of joint and soil properties on uniform systems are considered.
Results corresponding to the two systems for four different cases of a 76.20 cm
diameter pipeline, are presented in Tables 7.14 and 7.15. In case I, the soil properties
are equal to the mean values while the joint properties are taken as follows:
 For cast iron system:
F? = 34.00X103 Kgf
u? = 0.27X 10'3 cm
J
These joint properties yield an initial joint axial stiffness, A K , which is towards the
high end of the range of available tests. The resulting initial joint axial stiffness for
each of the two systems is equal to 1.84 times the mean initial joint axial stiffness.
In case n , the soil properties are also equal to the mean values while the joint
properties are taken as follows:
 For cast iron system:
F? = 18.00X103 Kgf
us = 0.50X 10'3 cm
j
 For ductile iron system:
F = 455.00 Kgf
u? = 0.31 cm
J
These joint properties yield an initial joint axial stiffness, A K , which is towards the low
end of the range of available tests. The resulting joint stiffness for each of the two
systems is equal to 0.54 times the mean initial joint axial stiffness.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
Cases IH and IV are uniform systems with mean joint properties, and soil
properties corresponding respectively to high and low ends of available tests. In case UE,
the soil properties are given by:
fj = 80.30 Kgf/cm
kx = 600.00 Kgf/cm2
while in case IV, they are equal to:
f = 38.20 Kgf/cm
kx = 170.00 Kgf/cm2
Results obtained for these four cases are compared with those obtained in the
case where the joint and soil properties are all equal to their mean values. As shown in
Tables 7.14 and 7.15, the joint axial displacement, u., and the maximum relative axial
displacement between the soil and pipeline, Aumax, are not affected by the uniform
variation of the joint or soil properties. On the other hand, the pipe segment axial
strain, emax, changes slightly. The value of cmax is an increasing function of the initial
joint axial stiffness, AK., and is also an increasing function of the initial axial soil
spring stiffness, kx. Notice, however, th at emax for cast iron system is more influenced
by variation in joint stiffness (cases I and II), while 6max for ductile iron system is
more sensitive to variation in soil stiffness (cases III and IV). It is clear from the above
that for tensile ground strain, the most important response param eter, u., is not
significantly affected by the magnitude of the joint or soil properties as long as these
pi'operties are uniform over the model.
All the results obtained for uniform systems (i.e. Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 and
7.15), satisfy Eqn.(7.3). Note that, Wang et al.(1979) and Wang(1986) studied the
effect of joint stiffness on the response of uniform systems. The conclusions of these two
studies [i.e. Wang et al.(1979) and Wang(1986)] are consistent with results of the
present study. That is, Wang et al.(1979) and Wang(1986) found th at the pipe segment
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
axial strain is an increasing function of the joint stiffness. Also, their results show that
the joint axial displacement is not sensitive to variation in the joint stiffness, for the
range of joint stiffnesses considered in this study. In addition, Wang et al.(1982)
proposed analytical relationships for the joint axial displacement, u., and the maximum
pipe segment axial strain, emax, as a function of the axial ground strain, eg, in the
case where the pipe segment material, axial soil restraint and the joint axial stiffnesses
are linearly elastic. As one would expect, values of u and emax obtained in the present
study satisfies Wang et al.s relationships only for values of axial ground strain
producing linear pipeline response.
Tables 7.16 and 7.17 present the results for four nonuniform cases of a
76.20 cm diameter pipeline, respectively for the cast iron and ductile iron systems.
Case V is identical to the uniform system with mean properties except th at the middle
joint is assigned a high stiffness. The properties of this middle joint are equal to those of
case I (i.e. an initial joint axial stiffness which is towards the high end of available
tests). For case VI, the middle joint is assigned a low stiffness. The properties of the
middle joint in this case are equal to those of case II (i.e. an initial axial joint stiffness
which is towards the low end of available tests). For the cast iron system, values of
umax in bQth cases y and VI, are larger than those of the uniform case with mean
properties. For example, under a ground strain eg = 1.0 X I 03, u. is equal to 0.56 cm
a t all joints for the uniform case with mean properties (see Table 7.12). In case V,
u.max = 0.62 cm (see Table 7.16) and occurs a t the two joints adjacent to the middle
joint. In case VI, u.max = 0.72 cm (see Table 7.16) and occurs at the middle joint.
Values of emax are slightly larger in case V than in case VI, but in both cases cmax
remains in the elastic range.
For the ductile iron system, values of uax obtained for cases V and VI are
approximately equal to values of u obtained for the uniform case with mean properties.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
m.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
value of F as a function of eg, for the uniform systems with mean properties. In these
figures, one can identify three different regions. The first region corresponds to
compressive ground strains smaller than the "contact" ground strain. That is,
c ^ 5.OX 10'4 for the cast iron system, and e 1.0X 10'3 for the ductile iron
s
s
system. The second region, which starts after contact occurs, is characterized by an
abrupte increase in the rate of increase of F. with respect to eg. Finally, the third
region initiates when the pipe segment material starts yielding. This yielding occurs at
values of e between 2.0X10"3 and 5.0X 10'3 for both the cast iron and ductile iron
e
systems. The maximum pipe segment axial strain, emax, as well as the maximum
relative axial displacement between the soil and the pipeline, Aumax, are nearly
independent of the pipe diameter. Also, one can check th a t the axial stress at the pipe
segment bell or spigot ends (i.e. close to the joint) given by:
a = F./A, is also
independent of the pipe diameter. Values of a are almost equal to the axial stress
corresponding to emax.
Tables 7.20 and 7.21 present results corresponding to the cases identified in
section 7.3.1 as case I, case II, case DI and case IV (i.e. all initial joint axial stiffnesses
with high values, etc), respectively for the cast iron and the ductile iron systems.
Values of F. and Aumax obtained for these four cases are no different from the values
j
obtained for the uniform system with mean joint and soil properties.
Cases V, VI, VII and VIL1 defined in section 7.3.1 (i.e. middle joint with high
initial axial stiffness, etc), are also subjected to compressive ground strain. The results
are shown in Table 7.22 for the cast iron system and in Table 7.23 for the ductile iron
system. Thes results are almost equal to those obtained in the case of uniform system
with mean properties.
Results obtained for compressive ground strain satisfy Eqns.(7.3) and (7.4)
respectively for uniform and nonuniform sytems. These results suggest th at after
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
contact between adjacent pipe segments, variations in joint or soil properties do not lead
to appreciable variation in response param eters such as the maximum joint axial force,
F , the pipe segment axial strain, e, or the relative axial displacement between the soil
and the pipeline, Au. This is due to the fact that, after contact occurs, the governing
factor is the stiffness of the pipe material which is constant. In a subsequent section, it
will be shown that the number of joints in contact is a function of e .
superimposed. Tables 7.24 and 7.25 present the joint rotation, 0., the maximum pipe
segment axial strain, emax, and the maximum relative lateral displacement between
the soil and the pipeline, Avmax under e
&
for uniform cast iron systems with lead caulked joints and uniform ductile iron systems
with rubber gasketed joints. Note th at for this loading, u = 0.0 and Au = 0.0.
Under eg and 0^, the maximum joint opening (displacement), U j, occurs at the
outer fibers of the joint
following equation:
u ,  Uj + s.
(7.5)
The first term in Eqn.(7.5) represents the joint axial displacement due to eg, while the
second represents the joint axial displacement at the outer fibers due to 9 . Observe
s
that values obtained for 0., emax and Avmax are almost null (see Tables 7.24 and
j
7.25). Compared to the value of u., the product (0. 5) is negligible (i.e.
J
U r = u.).
w
Hence, the effects of ground rotation on straight jointed buried pipelines are very small
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
The mean values and coefficient of variations, p, corresponding to u., e and Au,
for the 40.64, 76.20 and 121.92 cm diameter ductile iron pipe with rubber gasketed
joint systems, are respectively shown in Tables 7.29, 7.30 and 7.31. As with the cast
iron system with lead caulked joint, the mean value of each of the response parameters
for the ductile iron system with rubber gasketed joint, is equal to the value of that
response param eter obtained for uniform systems with mean joint and soil properties.
That is, Eqn.(7.3) holds fo the mean values of the response parameters. The coefficients
of variation of u. and Au, are very small (u < 3%). On the other hand, the coefficient
of variation of e is much larger. It ranges between 50 and 76%. The maximum values
of e in this case are also much smaller than the ductile iron yielding strain, e y.
Hence, the variability of the system chracteristics has a stronger influence on
the joint axial displacement for cast iron pipes with lead caulked joints, while it has a
stronger influence on the pipe segment axial strain for ductile iron pipes with rubber
gasketed joints.
Under tensile ground strain, the response parameter of interest is the joint axial
displacement, u , which is related to the possibility of joint pullout. The pipe segment
axial strain, e, is much smaller than the yielding material strain, ey. Histograms for u
a t different levels of tensile ground strain, e, were obtained. Figure 7.13 shows a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
histogram of u. for the 76.20 cm diameter cast iron pipe with lead caulked joint system
under eg = 1.0X10"3. The same histogram for the ductile iron system with rubber
gasketed joint gives a mean joint axial dislacement, u. = 0.59 cm and a coefficient of
variation, u = 2%. For the cast iron system, these histograms are used to generate the
probability of exceedence of u. as a function of eg. Figures 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 plot u.
versus eg for probability of exceedence equal to 0.1%, 0.2%, 1% or 2%, respectively for
40.64, 76.20 and 121.92 cm pipe diameter. In addition, these figures show in doted line
the average value of u. as a function of eg, obtained from the uniform systems with
mean properties. The graphs in Figures 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 can be used to assess the
vulnerability of straight cast iron pipelines with lead caulked joints under seismic
waves. If one has some information about the joint axial displacement a t which leakage
starts, then it is possible to estimate the probability of exceedence of this displacement
for the level of seismic ground strain expected. The value of the probability of
exceedence represents also an estimate of the ratio of joints that would leak. For the
ductile iron system, Figures 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 plot in solid line the maximum values of u.
and in doted line the average value of u obtained from the uniform systems with mean
properties, as a function of eg. These figures show that the joint axial displacement is
not sensitive to the system characteristics variability. Hence, Figures 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6
can be used directly for the analysis of straight ductile iron pipelines with rubber
gasketed joints under the tensile ground strain loading case.
Illustrative Example:
As an illustrative example, consider a 30 in (76.20 cm) nominal diameter
straight cast iron pipeline with lead caulked joints. The joint axial displacement at which
leakage starts is assumed to range between 2.0 cm and 3.0 cm, while the design tensile
ground strain is taken equal to 1.0 X10"3. From Figure 7.2, the probability of exceeding
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
a joint axial displacement of 2.0 cm for eg = 1.0X 10'3, is equal to 0.3%. Similarly, the
probability of exceedence of a joint axial displacement of 3.0 cm for the same level of
tensile ground strain, is approximately equal to 0.07%. Hence, the ratio of joints that
would leak is between 0.07% and 0.3%. Since the pipe segment length is equal to
6.0 m, this corresponds to a damage ratio between 0.12 and 0.48 leaks/Km.
7.4.2 Compressive Ground Strain
As in the previous section, statistics of the response param eters resulting from
the simplified Monte Carlo simulation are obtained when the system is subjected to
compressive ground strain, eg. The response param eter of interest in this case is the
joint axial force, F., which is related to the possibility of crushing of the pipe segment
bell. One would also be interested in knowing the number of joints with contact, n.c, as
a function of eg. Tables 7.32, 7.33 and 7.34 give the mean value and coefficient of
variation,
JC
121.92 cm diameter cast iron pipe with lead caulked joint systems. Observe that more
than 80% of the joints (i.e. n. > 80%) are in contact for = 5.0X 10'4. At this level
jc
of ground strain, the coefficient of variation, u, of F. has the highest value. For
compressive ground strain with magnitude higher than this level, all the joints become
in contact (i.e. n. = 100%) and the variability of F. drops sharpely. Similarly,
JC
Tables 7.35, 7.36 and 7.37 give the mean value and coefficient of variation, u,
corresponding to F. and n
ductile iron pipe with rubber gasketed joint systems. At a compressive ground strain,
6^ = 1.0X10'3, about 30% of the joints are in contact (i.e. n.^ = 30%), and the
coefficient of variation of u corresponding to F., has the highest value (m =: 210%). For
higher levels of compressive ground strain, all the joints become in contact (i.e.
n. = 100%) and the the coefficient of variation, u, of F. becomes very small. It should
jc
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
be mentioned th a t when contact starts occuring, the variability of F is higher for the
ductile iron system. This
variability of F becomes negligible for both cast iron and ductile iron systems.
Results of the simplified Monte Carlo simulation are also used to generate
graphs giving values of F with 0.1%, 0.2%, 1% and 2% probability of exceedence as a
function of the compressive ground strain, eg. Figures 7.7, 7.8 an 7.9 give these graphs
for the 40.64, 76.20 and 121.92 cm diameter cast iron pipe with lead caulked joint
systems, while Figures 7.10, 7.11 and 7.12 give these graphs for the 40.64, 76.20 and
121.92 cm diameter ductile iron pipe with rubber gasketed joint systems. As mentioned
before, the doted lines in these figures represent the value of F versus eg for the
uniform systems with mean properties. Observe th at the system characteristics
variability has a stronger
levels of
eg corresponding to to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
Table 7.1
Pipe Segment Geometric Properties for Cast Iron Pipes
(See Figure 2.1 for Nomenclature)
Dn
cm
cm
cm
cm
cm 2
cm4
40.64
44.20
1.27
105.00
174.00
39.50X103
76.20
81.30
2.16
152.00
537.00
42.03 X104
121.92
129.00
3.12
152.00
1251.00
24.50 X105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
Table 7.2
Mean Values of the Axial Force/Displacement Relationship Characteristics for
Lead Caulked Joints
(See Figure 4.4 for Nomenclature)
Dn
pS
cm
u8
u?
uu
Kgf
cm
cm
cm
40.64
14.00X103
0.38 X 10'3
0.25
5.10
76.20
26.00X103
0.38 X10"3
0.25
5.70
121.92
41.00X103
0.38 X 10'3
0.25
6.30
Table 7.3
Mean V alues of the Bending Moment/Rotation Relationship Characteristics for
Lead Caulked Joints
(See Figure 4.7 for Nomenclature)
M?
j
8s
j
8?
j
cm
Kgf.cm
rad
rad
40.64
44.60 X104
5.50X10'3
5.72X 10'2
76.20
10.30X105
5.50X10'3
1.08X 10'1
121.92
19.40X105
5.50X103
1.75X 10'1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
Table 7.4
Pipe Segment Geometric Properties for Ductile Iron Pipes
(See Figure 2.1 for Nomenclature)
Dn
cm
cm
cm
cm
cm2
cm4
40.64
44.20
0.86
105.00
119.00
27.60X 103
76.20
81.30
1.20
152.00
300.30
24.10X104
121.92
129.00
1.83
152.00
730.80
14.80X105
Table 7.5
Values o f the Diameter o f the "Main Body" of the Rubber Gasket before
Installation
(See Figure 4.10 for Nomenclature)
Dn
A
e
cm
cm
40.64
2.30
76.20
2.80
121.92
3.30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
Table 7.6
Mean V alues o f the Axial Force/Displacement Relationship Characteristics for
Rubber Gasketed Joints
(See Figure 4.12 for Nomenclature)
Dn
ps()
j
us
J
u?
j
u?
j
cm
Kgf
cm
cm
cm
40.64
290.00
0.34
0.76
3.05
76.20
650.00
0.24
0.76
3.80
121.92
1220.00
0.20
0.76
4.60
(* ) p s
p u
Table 7.7
Mean Values of the Bending Moment/Rotation Relationship Characteristics for
Rubber Gasketed Joints
(See Figure 4.7 for Nomenclature)
Dn
Ms
ejs
cm
Kgf.cm
rad
rad
40.64
27.80X102
5.10X 10'3
7.00 X10'2
76.20
17.30X103
5.10X 10'3
7.00X10'2
121.92
69.20X 103
5.10X 10'3
7.00X 102
ejn
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
Table 7.8
Mean Values of the Shear Modulus Coefficient, K2 , the Ultimate Lateral Relative
Displacement, Awu, and Horizontal Bearing Capacity Coefficient,
Dn
cm
K2
Awu
cm
N q .h
40.64
7.00
6.10
6.80
76.20
11.30
9.40
6.00
121.92
15.70
11.20
5.50
Table 7.9
Mean Values o f the Characteristics o f the A xial and Lateral Force per Unit
Length/Displacement Relationships for the Soil SpringSliders
(See Figure 5.2 for Nomenclature)
Dn
f 1
X
kX
f 1
z
kZ
cm
Kgf/cm
Kgf/cm2
Kgf/cm
kgf/cm2
40.64
19.00
150.00
75.00
80.00
76.20
51.20
280.00
180.00
130.00
121.92
94.00
420.00
300.00
180.00
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
Table 7.10
Influence o f
emax
Aumax
cm
cm
10
2.95
0.93 X10"2
0.98
20
2.95
0.95 XIO"2
1.18
11
100
2.95
1.00 X102
1.34
19
100
2.95
1.00 XIO*2
1.40
31
200
2.95
1.00 XIO"2
1.43
10
2.99
0.19 XIO'2
0.99
20
2.99
0.25 XIO2
1.20
11
100
2.99
0.28X 10"2
1.36
19
100
2.99
0.29 XIO'2
1.41
31
200
2.99
0.29 XIO'2
1.45
(*)
iH
n
1 = 2
T
=>
=>
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
Table 7.11
Influence o f n e and N on the Response Parameters under a Compressive Ground
Strain, e = 5.0 X 108 (D = 76.20 cm)
e
n
IT
6max
Aumax
cm
cm
10
0.38X103
0.55
1.40
20
0.15
0.48
0.10
11
100
0.23
0.46
0.13
19
100
0.23
0.46
0.15
31
200
0.25
0.45
0.17
10
0.24
0.46
0.08
20
0.65
0.39
0.26
11
100
0.73
0.53
0.35
19
100
0.73
0.59
0.40
31
200
0.74
0.52
0.34
(*)
II
to
""1
1T = 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
Table 7.12
Results for Uniform Cast Iron System with Mean Properties under Tensile
Ground Strain
D
u.
max
Aumax
cm
cm
cm
40.64
1.0 XIO'2
0.01
0.81 XIO'2
0.54X 10'2
40.64
7.0 XIO'2
0.36
1.07 XIO2
0.17
40.64
1.0X 10'1
0.54
1.13 XIO*2
0.25
40.64
7.0X 10'1
4.10
1.75 XIO2
1.94
76.20
1.0 XIO'2
0.03
0.50 XIO'2
0.01
76.20
7.0 XIO"2
0.38
0.66 XIO*2
0.18
76.20
1.0X 10'1
0.56
0.72 XIO'2
0.26
76.20
7.0X101
4.14
l.io x io * 2
1.96
121.92
1.0 XIO*2
0.04
0.34 XIO'2
0.02
121.92
7.0 XIO'2
0.39
0.45 XIO'2
0.19
121.92
1.0X 10'1
0.57
0.50 XIO2
0.27
121.92
7.0X 10'1
4.16
0.75 XIO'2
1.97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
Table 7.13
Results for Uniform Ductile Iron System with Mean Properties under Tensile
Ground Strain
D
6
g
u.
j
6max
Aumax
cm
cm
cm
40.64
1.0 XIO2
0.058
0.33 XIO'3
0.02
40.64
7.0 XIO2
0.41
0.20 XIO'2
0.16
40.64
1.0 X 10'1
0.59
0.23 XIO'2
0.24
40.64
7.0X 10'1
4.20
0.21X 10'2(*^
1.70
76.20
1.0 XIO'2
0.058
0.26X 10'3
0.02
76.20
7.0X 10'2
0.41
0.17X10'2
0.16
76.20
1.0X 10'1
0.59
0.21 XIO'2
0.24
76.20
7.0X 10'1
4.19
0.23 XIO'2
1.70
121.92
1.0 XIO'2
0.059
0.17 XIO'3
0.02
121.92
7.0 XIO'2
0.41
0.11 XIO'2
0.16
121.92
1.0X 10'1
0.59
0.15 XIO'2
0.24
121.92
7.0 X 10'1
4.19
o . i s x i o '2^ 5
1.70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
Table 7.14
Efffects of Joint and Soil Stiffnesses on Uniform Cast Iron System under Tensile
Ground Strain (Dn = 76.20 cm)
Case
u.
cmax
Aumax
cm
cm
1.0 XIO'2
0.02
0.64 X103
0.01
ISystem with
7.0 XIO'2
0.37
0.82 XIO*2
0.18
1.0X 10'1
0.55
0.88 XIO2
0.26
7.0X 10'1
4.12
1.36 XIO2
1.90
1.0 XIO*2
0.04
0.35 XIO3
0.02
11System with
7.0 XIO'2
0.39
0.51 XIO'2
0.18
1.0 X 10'1
0.57
0.56 XIO2
0.27
7.0 X 10'1
4.16
0.84 XIO'2
2.00
HlSystem with
1.0 XIO2
0.03
0.51 XIO*3
0.01
7.0 XIO'2
0.38
0.80X 10'2
0.18
SpringSliders
1.0X101
0.55
0.87 XIO2
0.26
7.0X 10'1
4.13
1.12 XIO2
2.00
IVSystem with
1.0X102
0.03
0.50 XIO3
0.01
7.0X 10'2
0.38
0.61 XIO'2
0.18
SpringSliders
l.O X lO '1
0.56
0.66 XIO2
0.27
7.0 XIO1
4.14
1.03 XIO'2
2.00
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
Table 7.15
Effects of J o in t an d Soil Stiffnesses on U niform D uctile Iro n System u n d e r
T ensile G round S train (D n = 76.20 cm)
Case
u.
cmax
Aumax
cm
cm
1.0 XIO'2
0.058
0.29 XIO'3
0.02
I~System with
7.0 XIO'2
0.41
0.18 XIO'2
0.16
1.0X 10'1
0.59
0.21 XIO'2
0.24
7.0X 10'1
4.19
0.21 XIO'2
1.70
1.0 XIO'2
0.059
0.25 XIO'3
0.02
IISystem with
7.0 XIO"2
0.41
0.17X10'2
0.16
1.0X 10'1
0.59
0.20 XIO'2
0.24
7.0X 10'1
4.19
0.21 XIO'2
1.70
IHSystem with
1.0 XIO2
0.058
0.52 XIO'3
0.02
7.0 XIO'2
0.41
0.31 XIO'2
0.16
SpringSliders
1.0X 10'1
0.59
0.36X 10'2
0.23
7.0X 10'1
4.19
0.32 XIO'2
1.70
IVSytem with
1.0 XIO'2
0.059
0.17 XIO'3
0.02
7.0 XIO'2
0.41
0.11 XIO'2
0.17
SpringSliders
1.0X 10'1
0.59
0.15 XIO'2
0.24
7.OX 10'1
4.19
0.16 XIO'2
1.70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
Table 7.16
Results for NonUniform Cast Iron System under Tensile Ground Strain
(Dn = 76.20 cm)
Case
umax
emax
Aumax
cm
cm
VMiddle Joint
1.0 XIO'2
0.04
0.53 XIO2
0.03
with High
7.0 XIO'2
0.43
0.73 XIO2
0.23
Stiffness
1.0X101
0.62
0.78 XIO2
0.33
7.0X10*1
4.30
1.11 XIO2
2.15
VIMiddle Joint
1.0X102
0.04
0.50 XIO2
0.06
with Low
7.0X102
0.49
0.65 XIO2
0.23
Stiffness
1.0X101
0.71
0.71 XIO2
0.34
7.0 XIO'1
4.64
0.94 XIO2
2.21
VHMiddle Soil
1.0 X102
0.03
0.51 XIO2
0.01
SpringSliders
7.0 X102
0.38
0.80 XIO2
0.18
with High
1.0 XIO1
0.56
0.87 XIO2
0.26
Stiffness
7.0 XIO1
4.14
1.24 XIO2
1.96
VmMiddle Soil
1.0 XIO2
0.03
0.50 XIO2
0.01
SpringSliders
7.0 XIO2
0.38
0.66 XIO'2
0.18
with Low
1.0X101
0.56
0.72 XIO2
0.27
Stiffness
7.OX 101
4.14
1.10 XIO2
1.96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
Table 7.17
Results for NonUniform Ductile Iron System under Tensile Ground Strain
(Dn = 76.20 cm)
Case
umax
cm
VMiddle Joint
1.0 XIO"2
0.06
0.27 XIO'3
0.02
with High
7.0 XIO'2
0.41
0.18 XIO'2
0.16
Stiffness
1.0X 10'1
0.59
0.21 XIO'2
0.24
7.0 X IO '1
4.19
0.21 XIO'2
1.70
VTMiddle Joint
1.0 XIO'2
0.06
0.26 XIO'3
0.02
with Low
7.0 XIO'2
0.41
0.17 XIO'2
0.17
Stiffness
1.0X 10'1
0.59
0.21 XIO'2
0.24
7.0 XIO'1
4.19
0.23 XIO'2
1.70
VHMiddle Soil
1.0 XIO'2
0.058
0.51 XIO'3
0.02
SpringSliders
7.0 XIO'2
0.41
0.31 XIO'2
0.16
with High
1.0 XIO'1
0.59
0.36 XIO'2
0.24
Stiffness
7.0 XIO'1
4.19
0.32 XIO'2
1.70
VmMiddle SoU
1.0 XIO'2
0.059
0.26X 10'3
0.02
SpringSliders
7.0 XIO'2
0.41
0.17 XIO'2
0.16
with Low
1.0X 10'1
0.59
0.21 XIO'2
0.24
Stiffness
7.0X 10'1
4.19
0.23 XIO'2
1.70
cmax
%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Aumax
cm
170
Table 7.18
Results for Uniform Cast Iron System with Mean Properties under Compressive
Ground Strain
Bn
Fj
emax
Aumax
cm
Kgf
cm
40.64
5.OX 10'2
1.47 X104
1.00 XIO"2
0.12
40.64
7.0 XIO2
4.75 XIO4
2.90 XIO"2
0.12
40.64
1.0X10*1
1.00X105
5.90 X I O'2
0.12
40.64
7.0X 10'1
5.61X105
0.69
0.18
76.20
5.0 XIO"2
4.17 XIO4
0.87 XIO'2
0.12
76.20
7.0 XIO2
1.50X105
2.90 XIO*2
0.12
76.20
1.0X10'1
3.10 XIO5
5.80 XIO'2
0.12
76.20
7.0X 10'1
1.73 XIO6
0.68
0.20
121.92
5.0 XIO2
1.00 XIO5
0.81 XIO2
0.12
121.92
7.0 XIO*2
3.50X105
2.86X 10'2
0.12
121.92
l.OXlO1
7.25 XIO5
5.90 XIO'2
0.12
121.92
7.0 XIO'1
4.03 XIO6
0.66
0.21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
Table 7.19
Results for Uniform Ductile Iron System with Mean Properties under
Compressive Ground Strain
Dn
cg
Fj
emax
Aumax
cm
Kgf
cm
40.64
2.0X 10'1
1.50X105
7.50 XIO'2
0.34
40.64
5.0 X10"1
4.37X105
0.41
0.30<*>
40.64
7.0X 10'1
4.45 XIO5
0.58
0.34
76.20
2.0 XIO'1
3.74X105
7.50 XIO'2
0.34
76.20
5.OX 10"1
1.09 XIO6
0.53
0.30r )
76.20
7.0X101
1.10 XIO6
0.58
0.34
121.92
2.0X101
9.18X105
7.50 XIO'2
0.34
121.92
5.0X 10'1
2.69X106
0.38
0.34
121.92
7.0X 10'1
2.69X106
0.58
0.34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
Table 7.20
Efffects of Joint and Soil Stiffnesses on Uniform Cast Iron System under
Compressive Ground Strain (Dr = 76.20 cm)
Case
F.
Aumax
Kgf
cm
5.0 XIO'2
4.25 XIO4
0.12
ISystem with
7.0X 10'2
1.50X105
0.12
1.0X101
3.12 XIO5
0.12
7.0 XIO*1
1.74X106
0.20
5.OX 10*2
4.25 XIO4
0.12
IISystem with
7.0 XIO2
1.49 XIO5
0.12
1.0X101
3.12 XIO5
0.12
7.0 XIO1
1.73 XIO6
0.15
IQSystem with
5.0 XIO*2
3.80 XIO4
0.12
7.0 XIO'2
1.46X105
0.12
SpringSliders
l.O X lO '1
3.08X105
0.12
7.OX 10'1
1.73 XIO6
0.14
IVSystem with
5.0 XIO2
4.40 XIO4
0.12
7.0X 10'2
1.51X105
0.12
SpringSliders
1.0X 10'1
3.13 XIO5
0.12
7.0X 10'1
1.74X106
0.20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
Table 7.21
Effects of Joint and Soil Stiffnesses on Uniform Ductile Iron System under
Compressive Ground Strain (Dr = 76.20 cm)
Case
F.
Aumax
Kgf
cm
ISystem with
2.0X 10'1
3.76X 105
0.34
5.0X 10'1
1.09X106
0.31
7.0X10*1
1.11X106
0.33
11System with
2.0X101
3.69X 105
0.34
5.0X 10'1
1.10 XIO6
0.33
7.0X 10'1
1.10X106
0.33
m System with
2.0X101
3.64X 105
0.34
5.0X 10'1
1.09X106
0.30
SpringSliders
7.0 XIO'1
1.09 XIO6
0.34
IVSystem with
2.OX 10'1
3.75 XIO5
0.34
5.0X 10'1
1.10X106
0.33
SpringSliders
7.0 XIO*1
1.10X106
0.32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
Table 7.22
Results for NonUniform Cast Iron System under Compressive Ground Strain
(Dn = 76.20 cm)
Case
F.
Aumax
Kgf
cm
VMiddle Joint
5.0 XIO'2
4.27X104
0.12
with High
7.0 XIO2
1.51 XIO5
0.12
Stiff
1.0X 10'1
3.14X105
0.12
7.0 XIO'1
1.74 XIO6
0.24
VIMiddle Joint
5.0 XIO'2
4.22 XIO4
0.12
with Low
7.0 XIO'2
1.51 XIO5
0.12
Stiffness
1.0X 10'1
3.13 XIO5
0.12
7.OX 10'1
1.74 XIO6
0.20
VHMiddle Soil
5.0 XIO'2
4.17 XIO4
0.12
SpringSliders
7.0 XIO'2
1.50X105
0.12
with High
1.0 XIO'1
3.11X105
0.12
Stiffness
7.0 XIO'1
1.74 XIO6
0.25
VmMiddle Soil
5.0 XIO'2
4.29X104
0.12
SpringSliders
7.0 XIO'2
1.50X105
0.12
with Low
1.0X 10'1
3.11X105
0.12
Stiffness
7.0X 10'1
1.74X106
0.25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
Table 7.23
Results for NonUniform Ductile Iron System under Compressive Ground Strain
(Dn = 76.20 cm)
Case
F.
Aumax
Kgf
cm
VMiddle Joint
2.0 X IO '1
3.74 XIO5
0.34
with High
5.0 XIO'1
1.09 XIO6
0.30
Stiffness
7.0 X IO '1
1.11X106
0.33
VTMiddle Joint
2.0 XIO'1
3.74X 105
0.34
with Low
5.0 X 10'1
1.09X106
0.34
Stiffness
7.0 X 10'1
1.09X106
0.34
VHMiddle Soil
2.0X 10'1
3.74X 105
0.36
SpringSliders with
5.0 X 10'1
1.09X106
0.34
High Stiffness
7.0 X 10'1
1.09X106
0.34
VmMiddle Soil
2.OX 10'1
3.74X105
0.34
SpringSliders with
5.0X 10'1
1.10X106
0.34
Low Stiffness
7.0X 10'1
1.10X106
0.34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
Table 7.24
Results for Uniform Cast Iron System with Mean Properties under
6
eg
= 0.0 and
m ax
^ym ax
cm
rad
cm
40.64
0.70X 10'14
107
10*11
76.20
0.20X 10'13
0.7X10'
0.14X10'9
121.92
0.55X 10'12
.4X10*
0.80X10'9
Table 7.25
Results for Uniform Ductile Iron System with Mean Properties under
and
= 0.0
jj
m a x
^ v m ax
cm
rad
cm
40.64
0.20X1014
0.3X 10'16
0.15X1012
76.20
0.20X1015
0.6X10*17
0.31X 10'12
121.92
0.13X 10'13
0.2 X 10"15
0.53X 10'11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
177
Table 7.26
Response Parameters Statistics for Cast Iron System under Tensile Ground
Strain (Dn = 40.64 cm)
e
u.
6max
Aumax
104
Mean
cm
u
%
Mean
104
u
%
Mean
cm
u
%
1.0
0.02
150
0.67
15
0.02
85
2.0
0.07
98
0.79
18
0.04
76
5.0
0.25
72
0.94
20
0.13
65
7.0
0.36
67
1.00
23
0.20
62
10.0
0.54
64
1.10
25
0.29
60
20.0
1.14
56
1.20
28
0.58
56
50.0
2.92
39
1.33
25
1.42
45
70.0
4.12
26
1.45
23
2.00
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
Table 7.27
Response Parameters Statistics for Cast Iron System under Tensile Ground
Strain (Dn = 76.20 cm)
6
U.
&
m aX
A u mSX
104
Mean
cm
u
%
Mean
104
u
%
Mean
cm
u
%
1.0
0.03
123
0.43
18
0.02
78
2.0
0.09
89
0.49
19
0.05
72
5.0
0.27
61
0.59
21
0.14
58
7.0
0.39
56
0.64
23
0.20
54
10.0
0.56
54
0.70
26
0.29
53
20.0
1.16
49
0.75
33
0.58
50
50.0
2.95
24
0.84
31
1.40
29
70.0
4.15
19
0.93
29
2.00
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
Table 7.28
Response Parameters Statistics for Cast Iron System under Tensile Ground
Strain (Dn = 121.92 cm)
e
u.
6max
Aumax
10'4
Mean
cm
u
%
Mean
10'4
n
%
Mean
cm
u
%
1.0
0.04
114
0.30
18
0.03
77
2.0
0.10
87
0.34
19
0.06
71
5.0
0.28
59
0.40
20
0.14
57
7.0
0.39
54
0.43
23
0.20
53
10.0
0.58
52
0.46
27
0.29
51
20.0
1.17
43
0.50
35
0.58
45
50.0
2.97
14
0.59
34
1.40
19
70.0
4.16
16
0.64
32
2.00
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
Table 7.29
Response Parameters Statistics for Ductile Iron System under Tensile Ground
Strain (Dn = 40.64 cm)
e
g
u
j
emax
Aumax
10'4
Mean
cm
u
%
Mean
IQ4
u
%
Mean
cm
u
%
1.0
0.06
0.04
51
0.02
2.0
0.12
0.07
50
0.05
5.0
0.29
0.17
52
0.12
7.0
0.41
0.22
59
0.16
10.0
0.59
0.26
65
0.24
20.0
1.19
0.27
74
0.47
50.0
3.00
0.27
74
1.20
70.0
4.19
0.27
74
1.70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
Table 7.30
R esponse Parameters Statistics for Ductile Iron System under Tensile Ground
Strain (Dn = 76.20 cm)
e
u.
6m ax
A u m ax
10'4
Mean
cm
u
%
Mean
10'4
n
%
Mean
cm
u
%
1.0
0.06
0.03
50
0.02
2.0
0.12
0.06
48
0.05
5.0
0.29
0.14
50
0.12
7.0
0.41
0.19
50
0.16
10.0
0.59
0.24
62
0.23
20.0
1.19
0.29
72
0.47
50.0
3.00
0.29
76
1.20
70.0
4.19
0.29
76
1.70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
Table 7.31
R esponse Parameters Statistics for Ductile Iron System under Tensile Ground
Strain (Dn = 121.92 cm)
6
emax
U
J
Aumax
IQ"4
Mean
cm
u
%
Mean
104
u
%
Mean
cm
n
%
1.0
0.06
0.02
50
0.02
2.0
0.12
0.04
47
0.05
5.0
0.29
0.09
50
0.12
7.0
0.41
0.12
50
0.16
10.0
0.59
0.16
56
0.24
20.0
1.19
0.21
67
0.47
50.0
3.00
0.22
77
1.20
70.0
4.19
0.22
76
1.70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
Table 7.32
Response Parameters Statistics for Cast Iron System under Compressive
Ground Strain (Dn = 40.64 cm)
F.
n.
JC
10'4
Mean
Kgf
p
%
Mean
%
p
%
1.0
1.15 X104
18
0.003
567
2.0
1.31 X104
22
0.072
111
5.0
2.01 X104
28
73
21
7.0
4.90X 104
19
95
10.0
1.02X105
100
20.0
2.78X 105
100
50.0
5.38X105
100
70.0
5.61X105
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
Table 7.33
Response Parameters Statistics for Cast Iron System under Compressive
Ground Strain (Dn = 76.20 cm)
F.
n.
jc
104
Mean
Kgf
u
%
Mean
%
M
%
1.0
2.27X104
22
0.01
286
2.0
2.55X104
24
10
91
5.0
5.41X104
41
82
19
7.0
1.51X105
18
100
10.0
3.15X105
100
20.0
8.58 X105
100
50.0
1.66 X106
0.6
100
70.0
1.73X106
0.8
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
Table 7.34
Response Parameters Statistics for Cast Iron System under Compressive
Ground Strain (Dn = 121.92 cm)
6
F.
n.
JC
10'4
Mean
Kgf
u
%
Mean
%
u
%
1.0
3.64X104
22
0.02
263
2.0
4.08X104
24
12
80
5.0
1.11X105
47
91
14
7.0
3.57X105
17
100
10.0
7.37X105
100
20.0
2.00X106
100
.0
50.0
3.86X106
0.5
100
70.0
4.02 X106
0.6
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186
Table 7.35
R esponse Parameters Statistics for D uctile Iron System under Compressive
Ground Strain (Dn = 40.64 cm)
6
F.
n.
jc
104
Mean
Kgf
u
%
Mean
%
1.0
5.47X 101
42
2.0
1.09X102
41
5.0
3.22 X102
129
3.70
161
7.0
3.45 X102
200
100
10.0
1.83 X103
211
29
71
20.0
1.50X105
18
100
50.0
4.40 X105
100
70.0
4.43 X106
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
Table 7.36
Response Parameters Statistics for Ductile Iron System under Compressive
Ground Strain (Dn = 76.20 cm)
e
F.
n.
jc
10'4
Mean
Kgf
fi
%
Mean
%
u
%
1.0
1.74X102
41
2.0
3.49X 102
41
5.0
8.32 X102
140
3.73
161
7.0
1.36X103
214
100
10.0
4.95X103
214
29
72
20.0
3.76X 105
18
100
50.0
1.10X105
100
70.0
1.10X106
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
Table 7.37
Response Parameters Statistics for Ductile Iron System under Compressive
Ground Strain (Dn = 121.92 cm)
IQ'4
Mean
Kgf
u
%
Mean
%
u
%
1.0
4.15X102
40
2.0
8.25 X102
40
0.3
567
5.0
1.56X103
133
162
7.0
2.51X103
208
100
10.0
1.06X104
221
31
71
20.0
9.22X105
18
100
50.0
2.68X105
100
70.0
2.69X106
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
189
CO
0.1%
0.2%
1%
2%
Average
/
I>I0'4
In I Q ' 3
I* I Q '2
Figure 7.1.
Joint Axial Displacement, u., for a 40.64 cm Diameter Cast Iron Pipe
with Lead Caulked Joint versus Tensile Ground Strain, e , for Various Exceedence
e
Probabilities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
S
o
C
Q)
a>
'a.
cn
0. 1%
0.2%
1%
2%
Average
Figure 7.2.
with Lead Caulked Joint versus the Tensile Ground Strain, e , for Various Exceedence
e
Probabilities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
o.
0.1%
0.2%
1%
2%
Average
M S'
Figure 7.3.
Joint Axial Displacement, u., for a 121.92 cm Diameter Cast Iron Pipe
with Lead Caulked Joint versus Tensile Ground Strain, e , for Various Exceedence
S
Probabilities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192
Figure 7.4.
Diameter Ductile Iron Pipe with Rubber Gasketed Joint versus Tensile Ground Strain,
e
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
6
O
0C)
s0>
u
G,
C/3
Maximum
Average
Figure 7.5.
Diameter Ductile Iron Pipe with Rubber Gasketed Joint versus Tensile Ground Strain,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
9
4
q.
Maximum
'Average
Figure 7.6.
Diameter Ductile Iron Pipe with Rubber Gasketed Joint versus Tensile Ground Strain,
e
g
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
G
to
ouo>
o
t=4
0>>
0 . 1%
0. 2%
*53
03
a>
cl
1%
2%
Average
s
aJS
"
i
I
I
lalC"
S 6 M S
2
lalfl 3
<
S 6 7 9 '
lil0"2
Figure 7.7.
Joint Axial Force, F , for a 40.64 cm Diameter Cast Iron Pipe with Lead
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
2r
0 . 1%
0 . 2%
a.
1%
2%
Average
2
Ijtfl'4
S 5 7 3 '
s 5 7 83 1
l>IO"3
Figure 7.8.
Joint Axial Force, F , for a 76.20 cm Diameter Cast Iron Pipe with Lead
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
0.1%
0 .2%
1%
2%
o.
Average
m
a
t
i
Ulfl"
S ' 8 5
ina"
4 5 6 7 8 9
Figure 7.9.
Joint Axial Force, F , for a 121.92 cm Diameter Cast Iron Pipe with Lead
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
198
p.
0.1%
0.2%
1%
2%
Average
Figure 7.10.
Joint Axial Force, F., for a 40.64 cm Diameter Ductile Iron Pipe with
Rubber Gasketed Joint versus Compressive Ground Strain, e , for Various Exceedence
s
Probabilities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* 5 6 7 8 1
u io " 3
1*10*
Figure 7.11.
Joint Axial Force, F , for a 76.20 cm Diameter Ductile Iron Pipe with
Rubber Gasketed Joint versus Compressive Ground Strain, e , for Various Exceedence
g
Probabilities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 7.12.
Joint Axial Force, F , for a 121.9 cm Diameter Ductile Iron Pipe with
Rubber Gasketed Joint versus Compressive Ground Strain, e , for Various Exceedence
s
Probabilities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
201
Population 1100
250
Mean 0.56
Coef. of Var. u 54%
Frequency
200
150
100
Figure 7.13.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this research is the development of new information which will
facilitate the design of straight jointed buried pipelines for seismic wave propagation
effects. An analytical model which incorporates the nonlinear behavior as well as the
variability of the system characteristics is constructed and used to evaluate the system
response. The inclusion of variability is considered a first step towards developing
realistic models capable of estimating damage consistent with actual observations.
The results obtained are based upon three assumptions. It is assumed th at a
static formulation is appropriate for evaluating the pipeline response. Several studies
have shown that inertia effects can be neglected. This is primarily due to the fact th at
the m ass of a fluid filled pipe is typically smaller than the mass of the insitu soil it
replaces. The second assumption states th a t the pipeline is initially strain free in the
longitudinal direction. The support provided by the soil prevents the pipeline from
deforming appreciably in the longitudinal direction. The last assumption limits this
study to wave propagation effects. Although it is recognized th at faulting, liquefaction
and landsliding are potential causes of damage to pipelines, there are certain cases such
as Mexico City in 1985 where damage was exclusively due to wave propagation effects.
Note th at two pipeline systems are considered in this study. They are Cast Iron Pipes
with Lead Caulked Joints and Ductile Iron Pipes with Rubber Gasketed Joints.
In order to establish the analytical model, presently available information on the
seismic environment, the mechanical behavior of pipe segments and joints, and the soil
resistance to pipeline movements is reviewed and synthesized. The seismic environment
due to the propagation of both body and surface waves is studied first. Simplified
models are used to estimate the ground strain and ground rotation. Note th at only the
ground rotation in the horizontal plane (i.e. lateral direction) is considered. A range of
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203
realistic values is considered and serves to construct axial and lateral ground
displacements.
After review, synthesis and integration of the existing literature, the pipeline
properties for each of the two systems considered are determined. First, the mechanical
behavior of the pipe segment material is characterized by established stress/strain
relationships. Second, the joint behavior is studied. This behavior is characterized by a
wide scatter in test results for both systems considered. The mechanical properties of
the joint are described in terms of the axial force/displacement and bending
moment/rotation relationships. Based on available test data, analytical and empirical
expressions for mean values of the parameters defining these relationships are obtained.
The test data are also used to estimate the variability of these parameters about their
mean values. The probability density function for each of these parameters is
approximated by a Rayleigh density function. A step by step procedure to select the
pipeline properties for each of the pipeline systems considered is also presented.
The resistance provided by the soil to axial and lateral movements of the
pipeline is then quantified. Based on test data, it is shown that the soil/pipeline
interaction can be modeled by axial and lateral springsliders distributed along the
pipeline. Analytical and empirical relationships for the characteristics of these
springsliders are given. The soil properties involved in the definition of the
springsliders characteristics are assumed to be random variables. This is done to model
their inherent variability and recognize the fact th a t they vary somewhat along the
pipeline. A Rayleigh density function is used to approximate the variability of each of
the soil properties. As with pipeline properties, a step by step procedure to select the
soil properties is presented.
The proposed analytical model is based on a nonlinear static formulation. The
model consists of a number of pipe segments surrounded by axial and lateral soil
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204
springsliders. Each pipe segment is discretized into a number of truss and beam
elements. Joints exist between the pipe segments and are represented by axial and
rotational nonlinear springs. The ground nodes of the soil springsliders as well as the
two end supports of the model follow specified axial and lateral displacement functions,
thus providing the input excitation. A finite element formulation is used to develop the
governing algebraic equations. The variability of the system characteristics is accounted
for by a simplified Monte Carlo simulation technique. Using random number generators
in conjunction with the approximate probability functions (i.e. Rayleigh density
functions), the joint and soil properties along the pipeline are selected. Subsequently, the
model is subjected to axial and lateral ground displacements. The analysis is repeated
several times and the results serve to develop histograms for the response parameters
such as the joint axial displacement. A detailed algorithm and computer program
representing the proposed model are given.
Results are obtained for the two pipeline systems considered, under three types
of ground excitation. The first type corresponds to a tensile ground strain, the second is
a compressive ground strain and the third is a combination of tensile ground strain and
ground rotation. The pipe sizes studied are 16, 30 and 48 inch (40.64, 76.20 and
121.92 cm) nominal diameter. A sensitivity analysis which highlights the effect of
variable system characteristics upon the pipeline response is performed first. In this
analysis, the system characteristics are assumed to be deterministic.
Under tensile ground strain, it is shown th at variations in joint properties along
the model result in variations in the maximum joint axial displacement of cast iron
systems with lead caulked joints. The variation in joint axial displacement for ductile
iron systems with rubber gasketed joints is much less. This is due to the relatively low
mean value of the initial joint axial stiffness for rubber gasketed joints. Results show
also that the joint axial displacement is not significantly affected by variations in soil
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205
proeprties for both systems considered. This suggests th at the joint param eter
variability is more important than the soil param eter variability for cast iron pipe with
lead caulked joint systems. For ductile iron pipe with rubber gasketed joint systems,
both the variability of joint properties and that of the soil properties have a small
influence on the results. It should be mentioned that values of the joint axial
displacement and of the axial relative displacement between the soil and the pipeline are
practically independent of the pipe diameter, for both systems studied. In addition, the
axial strain in the pipe segment remains in the elastic range even under high values of
tensile ground strain.
For the compressive ground strain loading case, results indicate th at contact
between pipe segments can happen. The "contact" ground strain ranges between
5.0X10"4 and 7.0X 10'4 for cast iron systems with lead caulked joints. For ductile iron
systems with rubber gasketed joints, the corresponding range is 1.0X10'3 to 2.0X10"3.
The range of "contact" ground strain is much lower for the cast iron system than for
the ductile iron system because the clearance distance between adjacent pipe segments
is smaller for the first system. After contact between adjacent pipe segments, variations
in joint or soil properties do not lead to appreciable variations in response parameters
such as the maximum joint axial force or pipe segment axial strain. This is due to the
fact that, after contact occurs, the governing factor is the stiffness of the pipe material
which is taken as a constant. Results indicate also that after contact, the maximum
pipe segment axial strain as well as the maximum axial relative displacement between
the soil and the pipeline, are nearly independent of the pipe diameter.
It is found th at the results obtained under ground rotation are very small when
compared with the results of the tensile ground strain loading case. This suggests that,
for straight jointed buried pipelines, rotation effects can be neglected.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
206
Finally, the simplified Monte Carlo simulation is applied to the two pipeline
systems considered. Since ground rotation effects are found negligible, results are
obtained only for tensile ground strain or compressive ground strain loading cases. For
each of these two loading cases, statistics of the response param eters of interest are
given. Histograms for these response parameters can also be obtained.
The response param eter of interest in the case of tensile ground strain excitation
is the joint axial displacement, which is related to the possibility of pullout. Results
indicate in this case that the influence of the variability of the system characteristics on
the joint axial displacement is much greater for the cast iron system with lead caulked
joints than for the ductile iron system with rubber gasketed joints. This partially
explains why caulked joints tend to experience more seismic damage than rubber
gasketed joints. Note th at values of the maximum axial pipe segment strain for each of
the two systems are much smaller than the corresponding yielding strain. Results for
the cast iron system are used to generate graphs giving the joint axial displacement as
a function of the tensile ground strain for probability of exceedence equal to 0.1%, 0.2%,
1% or 2%. These graphs can be used to assess the vulnerability of straight cast iron
pipelines with lead caulked joints under seismic waves. For example, if one has some
information about the joint axial displacement a t which leakage starts, then it is
possible to estimate the probability of exceedence for that displacement for the level of
seismic ground strain expected. The value of the probability of exceedence represents an
estimate of the ratio of joints that would leak and hence describes the seismic damage.
For the ductile iron system, the joint axial displacement is not sensitive to the system
characteristics variability. Figures giving the joint axial displacement as a function of
the ground strain are presented.
For the compressive ground strain loading case, statistics of the joint axial force
and of the number of joints at contact are given. Note th at the axial joint force is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
207
related to the possibility of crushing of the pipe segment bell. Variability of the joint
axial force and that of the number of joints a t contact are high when contact starts
occurring. The two variabilities are smaller for the cast iron system than for the ductile
iron system. This is due to the fact th at ductile iron is more rigid than cast iron. At
high magnitudes of ground strain, contact between pipe segments occurs at all joints of
the model, and the variability of the joint axial force becomes negligible, for both
systems. Results of the simplified Monte Carlo simulation are used to generate graphs
giving values of the joint axial force as a function of the compressive ground strain.
This research highlights the importance of including system characteristics
variability when studying the response of straight jointed buried pipelines. The results
obtained can be used to assess the seismic vulnerability of this type of pipeline.
However, one needs more information on joint behavior. Specifically, tension and
compression tests are required to determine respectively the joint tensile displacement
a t leakage and the joint compressive force a t failure, for different joints. These tests
would serve also to check the relationships proposed for the mechanical properties of the
joints. Using the model proposed, results can be obtained for other pipeline systems
such as concrete pipes with rubber gasketed joints. This model can also be extended to
study the response of pipeline junctions (i.e. elbows and tees) under seismic wave
propagation effects.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
American Society for Metals (ASM) (1978), Metals Handbook, Vol. 1, Properties and
Selection: Iron and Steel, Nineth Edition, Metals Park, Ohio.
American Water Works Association (AWWA) (1972), American National Standard for
Thickness Design of Cast Iron Pipes, AWWA CIO 172, July.
American Water Works Association (AWWA) (1976), American National Standard for
Thickness Design of Ductile Iron Pipes, AWWA C15076, August.
Audibert, J.M.E. and Nyman, K.J. (1977), Soil Restraint against Horizontal Motion of
Pipes, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103,
No. GT10, October, pp. 11191142.
Ayala, G. and Rascon, O. (1981), Seismic Evaluation of the Aqueduct Damage during the
March 19, 1979 Earthquake, (in Spanish), Ingenieria Sismica, No. 21,
pp. 1732.
Ayala, G. and ORourke, M.J. (1988), Effects o f the 1985 Michoacan Earthquake on
Water Systems and other Buried Lifelines in Mexico, Technical Report
NCEER88, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, June.
Boresi, A.P., Sidebottom, O.M. and Smith, J.O. (1978), Advanced Mechanics of
Materials, Third Edition, John Wiley and Sons, 696 pp.
Brumund, W.F. and Leonard, G.A. (1973), Experimental Study of Static and Dynamic
Friction between Sand and Typical Construction Materials, Journal of Testing
and Evaluation, Vol. 1, No. 2, March, pp. 162165.
Coffin, L.F.Jr. (1950), Flow and Fracture o f a Brittle Material, Journal of Applied
Mechanics, pp. 233248.
Colton, J.D., Chang, P.H.P., Lindberg, H.E and Abrahamson, G.R.(1981), Measurement
o f Dynamic SoilPipe Axial Interaction for FullScale Buried Pipelines under
Field Conditions, Project PYU1434, SRI International, Menlo Park,
California, November.
Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines (1984), Guidelines for the Seismic Design of
Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake
Engineering, ASCE, 473 pp.
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) (1982), A Guide for the Installation of
208
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
209
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
1
0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
211
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213
Pipelines,
Journal
of
Singhal, A.C. and Benavides, J.C. (1983), PullOut and Bending Experiments in Buried
Pipes, Proceedings of the Fourth National Congress on Pressure Vessels and
Piping Technology, ASME, PVPVol. 77, pp. 294303.
Singhal, A.C. and Cheng, M. (1984), Bending Mechanism for Rubber Gasketed Pipe
Joints, Fifth ASCE Engineering Mechanics Division Specialty Conference,
Engineering Mechanics in Civil Engineering, Edited by A.P. Boresi and
K.P. Chong, 13 August.
SPSSX
Stratta,
J.L., Canon, T.J., Duke, C.M. and Sehia, L.G. (1977), Reconnaissance
ReportMindonao Philipines Earthquake, August 17, 1976, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley University, California.
Taki, H. and ORourke, T.D. (1984), Factors Affecting the Performance of Cast Iron Pipe,
Report No. 841, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Tamura,
Tamura, C., Nogushi, T. and Kato, K. (1977), Earthquake Observations along Measuring
Lines on the Surface of Alluvial Soft Ground, Proceedings of the Sixth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, pp. 263 to 268.
Tawfic, M.S. and ORourke, T.D. (1986), Analysis o f Pipelines under Large Soil
Deformations, Report No. 861, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental
Engineering, Cornell University, Itahca, New York, March.
Thomas, H.O. (1978), Discussion of, Soil Restraint against Horizontal Motion o f Pipes,
(by J.M.E. Audibert and K.J. Nyman, Journal o f the Geotechnical Engineering
Division) , Vol. 10, No. GT9, September, pp. 12141216.
Trautmann, C.H. and ORourke, T.D. (1985), Lateral ForceDisplacement Response of
Buried Pipes, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. I l l , No. 9,
September, pp. 10771092.
Trautmann, C.H., ORourke, T.D., Grigoriu, M.D. and Khater, M.M. (1986), System
Model for Water Supply Following Earthquakes, Lifeline Seismic Risk
AnalysisCase Studies, Proceedings of the Session sponsored by the Technical
Council of Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, ASCE, Seattle, Washington,
April, Edited by R.T. Egushi.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(A.1)
where s is the independent variable and sQ is a param eter of the density function. The
function U(s) is the heavyside step function, given by:
;s < 0
;s > 0
U(s) =
(A.2)
Figure A.1 shows in solid line the Rayleigh density function, fS(s). The mean value
corresponding to this density function, m s , is related to the param eter s u by:
On the other hand, the corresponding coefficient of variation, u, defined as the ratio of
the mean value, ms, to the standard deviation, a , is constant and equal to 52.27% (i.e.
m
u =  = 52.27%).
as
In this study, a shifted. Rayleigh density function is used to approximate the
probability density function of each of the input random variables (pipeline or soil
215
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
216
(s  s )2
L . exp [  i _ ] . U(s  s )
( s 0>
2 .(s /
(A. 4)
where s 1 represents the shift. The function fg(s) is plotted in dashed line in Figure A.1.
The two parameters defining the shifted Rayleigh function, sQ and
can be written as
functions of the corresponding mean value, mg, and coefficient of variation, jit. That is:
u m
s =
7T7f
u m
Sl = * . " J
<A5)
<A*6>
ir
Note that the condition of positiveness of s J (i.e. s 1 > 0.0) implies th at the coefficient of
variation u be less than or equal to 52.27%.
Integration of Eqn.(A.4) yields the cumulative probability function, Fg(s),
corresponding to the shifted Rayleigh density, fg(s). That is:
s r s
F (s) = /

(r  s )2
ex p [ L. ] U (r  s ) d r
(V
2  < B0>
(A. 7)
(A.8)
Monte Carlo simulation is a technique which uses random numbers for the
solution of a model. Using a random number generator, a sample of values for the input
variables is first selected. Note that the sampling can be done in a "straight way or by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
217
r n (I) = F s (s(D)
(A.9)
Substituting Eqn.(A.9) into Eqn.(A.8) and expressing s (I) in terms of rn(I) yields:
s (I) =
b.
I = l,2,...,n sim
.
(A. 10)
The sequence of values s (I ) generated by Eqn.(A.10) for each random input variable
has a Rayleigh distribution fg(s).
At each step I, the simulated values s (I) corresponding to the input random
variables are entered into the computer program described in section 6.4. The output
variables consisting of the response parameters, are then solved for. This is repeated for
nsim ^ mes
results, is performed. For this purpose, SPSSX(1988) is used. For each of the response
parameters, the corresponding histogram, as well as other statistics measures, can be
obtained.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
218
0.6
7(s)
fo )
so
Figure A. 1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
c .****
c*
c*
c*
c*
c*
c*
c*
c
*
*
*
C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C * * * * SYMBOLS ( 1 )
C
I T Y P E _ SYSTEM TYPE (CAST IRON P I P E L I N E WITH LEAD
C
CAULKED J O I N T S OR DUCTILE IRON WITH RUBBER
JOINTS)
 NUMBER OF P I P E SEGMENTS
NSEG
 NUMBER OF ELEMENTS PER P I P E SEGMENT
NELT
 TOTAL NUMBER OF ELEMENTS
NSEL
 TOTAL NUMBER OF P I P E ELEMENTS
NPE
 NUMBER OF J O I N T S
NJNT
 NUMBER OF NODES
NNOD
 NUMBER OF DEGREES OF FREEDOM
NDOF
 NUMBER OF TERMS I N THE S T I F F N E S S MATRIX
NTA
 NODAL COORDINATES VECTOR
CRD
 NODE# / ELEMENT# MATRIX
NODE
 BOUNDARY CONDITION MATRIX
ID
 NODE CONNECTIVITY MATRIX
LM
 SKYLI NE VECTOR
I SKL
IDIA
 DIAGONAL TERMS I N THE S T I F F N E S S MATRIX
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
cr>
W
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
cn
c
c
c
c
c
DIMTR
SLENG
AREA
TIN
E
SIG
SI GC
EP
P I P E L I N E DIAMETER
P I P E SEGMENT LENGTH
P I P E L I N E C R O S S  S E C T I O N AREA
TRANSVERSE I N E R T I A MOMENT
P I P E SEGMENT MATERIAL YOUNG' S MODULUS
P I P E SEGMENT S TRESS VECTOR
COMPRESSIVE YI ELDI N G S TRESS
P I P E SEGMENT S TRAI N VECTOR
AXSOILi
AZSOI Ll*
FSX/Z DELX/ Z
A X I AL S O I L S T I F F N E S S
LATERAL S O I L S T I F F N E S S
S O I L SPRI NG REACTION VECTOR
RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT BETWEEN THE S O I L AND THE P I P E
VECTOR
AXJN
STR1
ATHJN
STR2
FJN
UJN
UJNC
BMJN
THJN
AXI AL J O I N T S T I F F N E S S
RATIO OF SECOND AXI AL J O I N T S T I F F N E S S TO AXJN
ROTATIONAL J O I N T S T I F F N E S S
RATIO OF SECOND ROTATIONAL J O I N T S T I F F N E S S TO ATHJN
J O I N T FORCE VECTOR
J O I N T DISPLACEMENT VECTOR
J O I N T DISPLACEMENT AT CONTACT
J O I N T MOMENT VECTOR
J O I N T ROTATION VECTOR
STRN
PAR 2
XG
INC
GROUND
GROUND
GROUND
NUMBER
S TRAI N
CURVATURE ( I G R = 1 ) ; GROUND ROTATI ON( I GR= 2 )
DISPLACEMENT VECTOR
OF GROUND DISPLACEMENT INCREMENTS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
2
1
C
C
C
C
AK
X
P
SYSTEM S T I F F N E S S MATRIX
NODAL DISPLACEMENT VECTOR
NODAL FORCE VECTOR
VARIABLE DECLARATION
C
C
(2)
. . CONTROL DATA
DOUBLE P R E C I S I O N CRD( 4 2 2 )
. . MATERIAL PROPERTIES
DOUBLE P R E C I S I O N DIMTR, SLENG, ELNG, AREA, T I N , E , S I G C ,
1
COFO ( 4 0 0 ) , A X S O I L U O ) , F S X Y ( 2 0 ) , C O F 1 ( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , A 2 S O I L ( 2 0 ) ,
2
FSZY( 2 0 ) , COF2( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , A X J N ( 2 1 ) , ST R 1( 2 1 ) , F J N Y ( 2 1 ) ,
3
UJNC( 2 1 ) , COF3( 2 1 ) , A T H J N (2 1 ), S T R 2 ( 2 1 ) , B M J N Y (2 1 ),
4
C O F 4 ( 2 1 ) , UJNY
..LOADING
(GROUND EXCITATION)
DOUBLE P RE C I S I O N P I , STRN, P A R 2 , X G U 2 2 1 ) , D X G U 2 2 1 ) , P ( 1 2 2 1 ) ,
1
E L P (6)
..STIFFNESS
DOUBLE P R E C I S I O N A K ( 9 0 0 0 ) , A F L ( 9 0 0 Q ) , E L K ( 6 , 6 )
SYSTEM RESPONSE
DOUBLE P R E C I S I O N X ( 1 2 2 1 ) , D X ( 1 2 2 1 ) , S V X U 2 2 1 ) , S I G ( 4 0 0 ) , E P ( 4 0 0 )
1
DSIG( 4 0 0 ) , SVSIG( 4 0 0 ) , F S X ( 4 0 0 ,4 ) , D E L X (400), DFSX (400,4)
2
SVFSX( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , F S Z ( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , D E L Z ( 4 0 0 ) , D F S Z ( 4 0 0 , 4 ) ,
3
SVFSZ( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , F J N ( 2 1 ) , U J N ( 2 1 ) , D F J N ( 2 1 ) , S V F J N ( 2 1 ) ,
4
BMJ N( 2 1 ) , T H J N ( 2 1 ) , D B M J N ( 2 1 ) , S V B M J N ( 2 1 ) , E L I N D , RATIO
INTEGER I T Y P E , I G R , INC
COMMON / CONTRO/ NSEG, NELT, NBEL, N P E , NJ N T , NNOD, NDOF, NTA,
1
NODE ( 2 , 4 2 1 ) , I D ( 3 , 4 2 2 ) , L M ( 6 , 4 2 1 ) , I S K L U 2 2 1 ) , I D I A ( 1 2 2 1 )
COMMON / P R O P / DI MTR, SLENG, ELNG, AREA, T I N , E , COFO, A X S O I L ,
1
C O F 1 , A Z S O I L , C O F 2 , AXJN, C O F 3 , ATHJN, COF4
COMMON / A A / AK
DATA P I / 3 . 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 D 0 O /
C
C
C
x Np u T
C
C
10
20
30
40
C
50
60
(3)
. . READ DATA
READ ( 5 , 1 0 ) I T Y P E , NSEG,
NELT
NBEL = NSEG * ( NELT
+ 1) + 1
NJNT = NSEG + 1
NNOD = NBEL + 1
NPE = NSEG * NELT
READ ( 5 , 2 0 )
( A X S O I L ( I ) , F S X Y ( I ) , A Z S O I L ( I ) , F S Z Y ( I ) , 1 = 1 , NSEG)
READ ( 5 , 3 0 ) DIMTR, SLENG, AREA, T I N , E , SIGC
READ ( 5 , 3 0 )
( A X J N ( I ) , S T R 1 ( I) , FJ NY ( I ) , UJNC( I ) , ATHJN( I) , S T R 2 ( I ) ,
1 B M J N Y ( I ) , 1 = 1 , NJNT)
READ ( 5 , 4 0 ) I G R , I N C , STRN, PAR2
FORMAT ( 3 ( 1 4 , 2 X ) )
FORMAT ( 4 D 1 0 . 4 )
FORMAT ( 7 D 1 0 . 4 )
FORMAT ( 2 ( 1 4 , 2 X ) , 2 ( D 1 0 . 4 ) )
. . WRITE DATA
I F ( I TY P E . N E . 1) GO TO 50
WRITE ( 6 , 7 0 )
GO TO 6 0
WRITE ( 6 , 8 0 )
WRITE ( 6 , 9 0 ) NSEG, NELT
WRITE ( 6 , 1 0 0 )
WRITE ( 6 , 1 1 0 )
( I , A X S O I L ( I ) , F S X Y ( I ) , A Z S O I L ( I ) , F S Z Y ( I ) , 1 = 1 , NSEG)
WRITE ( 6 , 1 4 0 ) DI MTR, SLENG, AREA, T I N , E , SIGC
WRITE ( 6 , 1 5 0 )
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
nnnn
WRITE ( 6 , 1 3 0 )
( I , A X J N ( I ) , S T R 1 ( I ) , F J N Y ( I ) , U J N C ( I ) , 1 * 1 / NJNT)
WRITE ( 6 , 1 6 0 )
WRITE ( 6 , 1 2 0 )
( I ,A T H J N ( I ) ,S T R 2 ( I ) , BM JNY(I),I1,NJNT)
7 0 FORMAT C l , / / 1 8 X , ' * * C A S T IRON WITH LEAD CAULKED J O I N T S * * ' )
8 0 FORMAT ( ' 1 ' , / / 1 8 X , ' * * D U C T I L E IRON WITH RUBBER J O I N T S * * ' )
9 0 FORMAT ( / / / 3 0 X , ' * * D A T A * * ' / / / 4 X , ' * SYSTEM P A R A M E T E R S ' / / 8 X ,
1
' NSEG * ' , 1 4 , ' ; / 8 X , ' NELT * ' ,
14)
1 0 0 FORMAT < / / 4 X , ' * S O I L P R O P E R T I E S ' / / 1 0 X , ' I ' , 6 X , ' A X S O I L ' , 8 X ,
1
' F S X Y ', 10X, 'A Z SO IL ', 9X, 'F S Z Y ' /)
1 1 0 FORMAT ( ( 8 X , 1 3 , 4 ( 2 X , D 1 2 . 4 ) ) )
1 2 0 FORMAT ( ( 8 X , I 3 , 3 ( 2 X , D 1 2 . 4 ) ) )
1 3 0 FORMAT ( < 8 X , 1 3 , 4 ( 2 X , D 1 2 . 4 ) ) )
1 4 0 FORMAT ( / / 4 X , ' * P I P E SEGMENT P R O P E R T I E S / / 8 X , ' DIMTR
* ' , D12.4
1
7 X , 'LENG ' , D 1 2 . 4 , ; ' / 8 X , ' AREA
* ', D 12.4,
2
7X, 'T IN
* ' , D 1 2 . 4 , ' ; ' / 8 X , 'E
* ', D 12.4,
7X
3
'SIGC = ' , D 1 2 . 4 )
1 5 0 FORMAT ( / / 4 X , ' * J O I NT P R O P E R T I E S ' / / 7 X ,  A X I A L : / 1 0 X , ' I ' , 6 X ,
1
'A X J N ', 10X, ' STR 1 , 10X, 'F J N Y ',
10X,'U JN C '/)
1 6 0 FORMAT ( / / 7 X , '  R O T A T I O N : ' / 1 0 X , ' I ' , 6 X , ' A T H J N ' , 1 0 X ,
' STR2',
1
1 0 X , ' BMJNY' / )
C * * * * CONTROL PARAMETERS ( 4 )
C
ELNG = SLENG / DFLOAT( NELT)
C
. .NODE COORDINATES
CR D( 1 ) = 0 . 0 D 0 0
DO 1 7 0 I = 1 , NSEG
KNOD = ( I  1) * NELT + 1 + 1
CRD(KNOD) = ( I  1 ) * SLENG
DO 1 7 0 J = 1 , NELTINOD = ( I  1) * NELT + I + J + 1
1 7 0 CRD( INOD) = CRD( I NOD  1) + ELNG
CRD(NNOD) = DFLOAT( NSEG) * SLENG
C
. .BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
AXJN(1) = 2 . 0 D 0 0 * AXJN(1)
ATHJN(1) = 2 . 0 D 0 0 * ATHJN(1)
AXJ N( NJ NT) = 2 . 0 D 0 0 * AXJ N( NJ NT)
ATHJ N( NJ NT) = 2 . 0 D 0 0 * ATHJ N( NJ NT)
* ELAS TI C PROBLEM
(5)
. . I N I T I A L I Z E S T I F F N E S S COE F FI CI ENTS
DO 1 8 0 I = 1 , NPE
CO F O ( I ) = 1 . 0 D 0 0
DO 1 8 0 J = 1 , 4
COF1( I , J) = 1 . 0 D 0 0
1 8 0 C O F 2 ( I , J ) = l . ODOO
DO ISO I = 1 , NJNT
C O F 3 ( I ) = l . ODOO
1 9 0 COF4 ( 1 ) = l . ODOO
C
. . CONSTRUCT I N I T I A L S T I F F N E S S MATRIX
CALL SETUP
DO 2 0 0 1 = 1 ,
NSEG
I ELT = ( I  1) * (NELT + 1) + 1
CALL 3 E A M E L ( I E L T , I , 0)
DO 2 0 0 J = 1 , NELT
IELT = ( I  1) * (NELT + 1 )
+ J + 1
CALL B E A M E L d E L T , I , J)
2 0 0 CONTINUE
CALL BEAMEL( NBEL, N J N T , 0)
C
. . CONSTRUCT A P P L I E D LOAD VECTOR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
o o o o
(6)
. . EL AS TI C INCREMENT
ELIND = ELIND * ( 1 . 0 0 D 0 0  1 , 0 D  0 7 )
DO 2 6 0 1 = 1 ,
NDOF
D X G ( I ) = X G ( I ) * ELIND
X ( I ) = X ( I ) * ELIND
SVX(I) = X ( I )
2 6 0 CONTINUE
DO 2 7 0 KE = 1 , NPE
S I G ( K E ) = S I G ( K E ) * ELIND
SVSI G( KE) = SI G( KE)
DO 2 7 0 IGP = 1 , 4
F S X ( K E , I G P ) = F S X ( K E , I G P ) * ELIND
SVFSX(KE,IGP) = FSX(KE,IGP)
F S Z ( K E , I G P ) = F S Z ( K E , I G P ) * ELIND
SVFSZ(KE,IGP) = FSZ(KE,IGP)
2 7 0 CONTINUE
DO 2 8 0 J = 1 , NJNT
F J N ( J ) = F J N ( J ) * ELIND
SV FJN(J) = F J N ( J)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
224
B M J N ( J ) = B M J N ( J ) * ELI ND
S V BMJ N ( J ) = B M J N ( J )
2 8 0 CONTINUE
C
. . INCREMENTAL PROCEDURE
DO 2 9 0 1 * 1 ,
NDOF
D X G ( I ) * ( X G ( I )  D X G ( I ) ) / DF L OAT ( INC)
P ( I )  P ( I ) * ( 1 . ODOO ELIND) / DF LOAT( I NC)
2 9 0 CONTINUE
C
. . I N I T I A L I Z E INCREMENT COUNTER
T fP P O
ft
. . SOLVE AK DX * DP
3 0 0 CALL S O L VE ( A F L , P , DX, I D I A , I S K L , NDOF, NTA)
C
. . COMPUTE FORCE / STR ES S INCREMENTS I N THE SYSTEM
CALL F R C E S ( D X , DXG, D S I G , DF S X , D F S Z , D F J N , DBMJN)
C
. .NEW DISPLACEMENTS AND FORCES
DO 3 1 0 1 * 1 ,
NDOF
X ( I ) * X ( I ) + DX( I)
3 1 0 CONTINUE
DO 3 2 0 KE * 1 , NPE
SIG(KE ) * SI G(K E) + DSIG(KE)
DO 3 2 0 I GP * 1 , 4
F SX(K E,IG P) * F SX(K E ,IG P) + DFSX(KE,IGP)
F SZ (K E,IG P ) * F SZ (K E ,IG P ) + DFSZ(K E,IG P)
3 2 0 CONTINUE
DO 3 3 0 J = 1 , NJNT
FJN (J ) = FJN ( J ) + DFJN (J )
B M J N( J ) = BMJ N( J ) + DBMJN( J )
3 3 0 CONTINUE
C
. . C H E C K P I P E SEGMENT, S O I L AND J O I N T S T I F F N E S S E S
IFLAG1 * 0
I F L AG2 = 0
DO 3 7 0 1 = 1 ,
NSEG
DO 3 7 0 J = 1 , NELT
KE * ( I  1) * NELT + J
I F ( STRN . G E . O.ODOO) GO TO 3 5 0
I F ( D A B S ( S I G ( K E ) ) . L T . D A B S ( S I G C ) ) GO TO 3 5 0
I F ( I T Y P E . N E . 1) GO TO 3 4 0
I F ( COFO( KE) . N E . l . OODOO) GO TO 3 5 0
IFLAG1 = 1
COFO(KE) = 0 . 0 7 D 0 0
GO TO 3 5 0
340
I F ( COFO( KE) . N E . l . OODOO) GO TO 3 5 0
IFLAG1 = 1
COFO(KE) * 7 . 6 0 D  0 3
350
CONTINUE
DO 3 7 0 I G P * 1 , 4
I F ( D A B S ( F S X ( K E , I G P ) ) . L T . F S X Y ( I ) ) GO TO 3 6 0
C O F 1 ( K E , I G P ) = O.ODOO
I FLAG1 = 1
I FLAG2 = 1
360
I F ( D A B S ( F S Z ( K E , I G P ) ) . L T . F S Z Y ( I ) ) GO TO 3 7 0
C O F 2 ( K E , I G P ) = O.ODOO
IFLAG1 = 1
IFLAG2 = 1
3 7 0 CONTINUE
DO 4 5 0 J = 1 , NJNT
I F ( STRN . G E . O.ODOO) GO TO 4 2 0
I F ( J . E Q . 1) U J N ( J ) = 2 . ODOO * ( X ( L M ( 4 , 1 ) )  X C ( LM( 4 , 1 ) ) * ELIND
1
 DXG( LM( 4 , 1 ) ) * D F L O A T ( I T E R + 1 ) )
I F ( J . E Q . NJNT) U J N ( J ) = 2 . ODOO * ( XG ( LM( 1 , N B E L ) ) *ELI ND + DXG(
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
C
460
470
C
480
L M ( 1 , N B E L ) ) * DF L O AT ( I T E R + 1)  X ( L M ( 1 , N B E L ) ) )
I F ( J . E Q . 1 . O R . J . E Q . NJNT) GO TO 3 8 0
I ELT ( J  1) *
(NELT + 1) + 1
UJ N ( J ) * X ( L M ( 4 , I E L T ) )  X ( L M U , IELT) )
UJNY * F J N Y ( J ) / A X J N ( J )
I F ( UJNY . G E . D A B S ( U J N C ( J ) ) ) GO TO 4 1 0
I F ( D A B S ( U J N ( J ) ) . L E . UJNY) GO TO 4 5 0
I F ( D A B S ( U J N ( J ) ) . G T . D A B S ( U J N C ( J ) ) ) GO TO 4 0 0
IF
( IT Y P E . E Q .
1 .AND. CO F 3( J)
.EQ. 1 . 0 D 0 9 )
GO
IF
(ITYPE .EQ.
2 .AND. COF 3( J)
.EQ. 1 . 7 D 0 9 )
GO
I F ( I T Y P E . N E . 1 ) GO TO 3 9 0
I F ( C O F 3 ( J ) . E Q . S T R l ( J ) ) GO TO 4 5 0
IFLAG1 = 1
COF3 ( J ) = S T R K J )
GO TO 4 4 0
I F ( C O F 3 ( J ) . E Q . S T R 1 ( J ) ) GO TO 4 5 0
IFLAG1 = 1
COF3 ( J ) = S T R K J )
GO TO 4 4 0
IF
( IT Y P E . E Q .
1 .AND. C O F 3 (J)
.EQ. 1 . 0 D 0 9 )
GO
IF
(ITYPE .EQ.
2 .AND. COF 3( J)
.EQ. 1 . 7 D 0 9 )
GO
IFLAG1 = 1
IF
(ITYPE .E Q.
1) C O F 3 ( J ) = 1 . 0 D 0 9
IF
( ITYPE . E Q .
2) COF3(J) = 1 . 7 D 0 9
GO TO 4 4 0
I F ( D A B S ( U J N ( J ) ) . L T . D A B S ( U J N C ( J ) ) ) GO TO 4 5 0
I F ( C O F 3 ( J ) . N E . l . OODOO) GO TO 4 5 0
IFLAG1 = 1
IF
(ITYPE EQ.
1) COF3(J) = 1 . 0 D 0 9
IF
( ITYPE . E Q .
2) CO F 3( J) = 1 . 7 D 0 9
GO TO 4 4 0
CONTINUE
I F ( D A B S ( F J N ( J ) ) . L T . F J N Y ( J ) ) GO TO 4 3 0
I F ( C O F 3 ( J ) . N E . l . O D O O ) GO TO 4 3 0
COF3 ( J ) = S T R K J )
IFLAG1 = 1
IF ( J .EQ. 1
.OR. J
. E Q . NJNT)
I F LAG2 = 1
I F ( D A B S ( BMJ N( J ) ) . L T . BMJNY( J ) ) GO TO 4 5 0
I F ( C O F 4 ( J ) . N E . l . O D O O ) GO TO 4 5 0
COF 4 ( J ) = S T R 2 ( J )
IFLAG1 = 1
IF ( J .EQ. 1
.OR. J
. E Q . NJNT)
I F L AG 2 = 1
CONTINUE
I F ( I F L A G 1 . E Q . 0 . A N D . IFLAG2 . E Q . 0) GO TO 5 4 0
. . RECONSTRUCT S T I F F N E S S MATRIX
DO 4 6 0 1 = 1 ,
NTA
A K ( I ) = O.ODOO
DO 4 7 0 I
= 1 , NSEG
IELT = ( I  1) * (NELT
+ 1) * 1
CALL 3 E A M E H I E L T , I , 0)
DO 4 7 0
J = 1 , NELT
I E LT = ( I  1) * (NELT
+1)
+ J + 1
CALL BEAMEL ( I EL T , I , J)
CONTINUE
CALL BEAMEL(NBEL, NJ N T , 0)
. . RECONSTRUCT A P P L I E D LOAD VECTOR
I F ( IFLAG2 . E Q . 0 ) GO TO 5 0 0
DO 4 8 0 1 = 1 ,
NDOF
P ( I ) = O.ODOO
DO 4 9 0 I = 1 , NSEG
TO 4 5 0
TO 4 5 0
TO 4 5 0
TO 4 5 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
226
490
C
500
510
520
530
C
540
550
560
non
570
DO 4 9 0 J = 1 , NELT
I E LT * ( I  1) * (NELT + 1 )
CALL L O A D ( I E L T , I , J , DXG,
CONTINUE
. . S A V E PREVI OUS DISPLACEMENTS
DO 5 1 0 I  1 , NDOF
X (I ) = SVX(I)
DO 5 2 0 KE  1 , NPE
S I G( K E ) = S V S I G ( I )
DO 5 2 0 I G P * 1 , 4
FSX(KE,IGP) = SVFSX(KE,IGP)
FSZ(KE,IGP) = SVFSZ(KE,IGP)
CONTINUE
DO 5 3 0 J = 1 , NJNT
F J N (J) = SVFJN(J)
B MJ N( J ) * SVBMJ N( J )
CONTINUE
CALL FACT( AK, A F L , I D I A , I S K L ,
GO TO 3 0 0
. . S A V E PREVI OUS DISPLACEMENTS
DO 5 5 0 1 = 1 ,
NDOF
SVX(I) = X ( I )
DO 5 6 0 KE 1 , NPE
S V S I G( KE ) = S I G ( I )
DO 5 6 0 I G P = 1 , 4
SVFSX(KE,IGP)  FSX(KE,IGP)
SVFSZ(KE,IGP) = FSZ(KE,IGP)
CONTINUE
DO 5 7 0 J = 1 , NJNT
SV FJ N (J) = FJN (J)
S VBMJ N( J) = B M J N ( J )
CONTINUE
I TER = I TER + 1
I F ( I T E R  I NC) 3 0 0 , 5 8 0 , 5 8 0
*****
580
590
600
610
620
630
RESULTS
+ J + 1
P)
AND FORCES
NDOF,
NTA)
AND FORCES
(7)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
'I',
227
640
650
FORMAT
FORMAT
1
660
onnn
670
FORMAT
STOP
END
**
10
C
20
30
40
C
50
60
70
80
C
90
C
FORMAT
SUBROUTINE SETUP
DOUBLE P R E C I S I O N A K ( 9 0 0 0 )
COMMON / CONTRO/ NS EG, NELT, NBEL, N P E , N J N T , NNOD, NDOF, NTA,
1
NODE( 2 , 4 2 1 ) , I D ( 3 , 4 2 2 ) , L M ( 6 , 4 2 1 ) , I S K H 1 2 2 1 ) , I D I A U 2 2 1 )
COMMON / A A / AK
. .CONS TRUCT NODE MATRIX
DO 1 0 I 3 1 , NBEL
NODE( 1 , 1 ) = I
NODE ( 2 , I ) = 1 + 1
. . I N I T I A L I Z E I D MATRIX
DO 2 0 I = 1 , 3
DO 2 0 J = 1 , NNOD
ID ( I , J) = 0
DO 3 0 I = 1 , 3
I D ( I ,1) = 1
ID(I,NNOD) = 1
DO 4 0 K = 2 , NSEG
K J = NELT * (K  1) + K + 1
ID (2,K J) = 1
. .CONSTRUCT I D MATRIX AND NUMBER DEGREES OF FREEDOM
NDOF = 0
DO 7 0 I = 1 , NNOD
DO 6 0 J = 1 , 3
IF ( I D (J , I )
. E Q . 0) GO TO 5 0
I D (J , I ) = 0
GO TO 6 0
NDOF = NDOF + 1
I D (J , I )
= NDOF
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
DO 8 0 K = 2 , NSEG
KJ = NELT * (K  1) + K + 1
I D ( 2 , K J ) = I D ( 1 , KJ)  2
. . I N I T I A L I Z E I S K L VECTOR
DO 9 0 I = 1 , NDOF
I S K L ( I ) = NDOF
. . CONS TRUCT LM MATRIX AND UPDATE ISKL
DO 1 3 0 IELT = 1 , NBEL
ILM = 0
NMIN = NDOF
DO 1 1 0 I = 1 , 2
INOD = N O D E ( I , I E L T )
DO 1 0 0 J = 1 , 3
ILM = ILM + 1
I I = ID(J,INOD)
LM( I L M , I E L T ) = I I
I F ( I I . E Q . 0 ) GO TO 1 0 0
I F ( I I . L T . NMIN) NMIN = I I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
228
100
110
120
130
C
140
C
onoo
150
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
DO 1 2 0 I < 1 , I LK
I I = LM(I,IELT)
I F ( I I . E Q . 0 ) GO TO 1 2 0
I F ( I S K L ( I I ) . G T . NMIN) I S K L ( I I ) NMIN
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
. . CONSTRUCT I D I A VECTOR
ID IA (l) = 1
DO 1 4 0 1 * 2 ,
NDOF
I D I A ( I ) = I D I A ( I  1) I  I S K L ( I ) + 1
CONTINUE
NTA = I D I A ( N D O F )
. . I N I T I A L I Z E S T I F F N E S S MATRIX
DO 1 5 0 1 = 1 ,
NTA
AK(I) 0 .0 D 0 0
RETURN
END
ELEMENT S T I F F N E S S MATRIX
SUBROUTINE B E A M E L ( I E L T , I S E G , I P E )
INTEGER I E L T , I S E G , I P E
DOUBLE P RE C I S I O N DIMTR, SLENG, ELNG, AREA, T I N , E , C O F 0 ( 4 0 0 ) ,
1
AXSOIL( 2 0 ) , COF1( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , A Z S O I L ( 2 0 ) , C O F 2 ( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , A X J N ( 2 1 ) ,
2
C O F 3 ( 2 1 ) , ATHJN( 2 1 ) , C O F 4 ( 2 1 )
DOUBLE P RE C I S I O N D J , WW, G G ( 6 ) , G P ( 6 ) , E L K ( 6 , 6 ) , A K ( 9 0 0 0 )
COMMON / CONTRO/ NS EG, NELT, NBEL, N P E , N J N T , NNOD, NDOF, NTA,
1
NODE ( 2 , 4 2 1 ) , I D ( 3 , 4 2 2 ) , L M ( 6 , 4 2 1 ) , I S K L U 2 2 1 ) , I D I A U 2 2 1 )
COMMON / P R O P / DIMTR, SLENG, ELNG, AREA, T I N , E , COFO, A X S O I L ,
1
C O F 1 , A Z S O I L , C O F 2 , AXJ N, C O F 3 , ATHJN, COF4
COMMON / A A / AK
. . I N I T I A L I Z E ELEMENT S T I F F N E S S
DO 1 0 I = 1 , 6
DO 1 0 J = 1 , 6
EL K ( I , J ) = 0 . 0 D 0 O
1 0 CONTINUE
I F ( I P E . E Q . 0 ) GO TO 3 0
KE = ( I S E G  1) * NELT + I P E
. . P I P E SEGMENT S T I F F N E S S
ELK( 1 , 1 )
= COFO(KE) * E * AREA / ELNG
EL K ( 1 , 4 )
=ELK( 1 ,1 )
ELK( 4 , 4 )
= E LK ( 1 , 1 )
ELK( 2 , 2 )
= 1 2 . 0 D 0 0 * COFO(KE) *E * T I N /
ELNG * * 3
ELK( 2 , 3 )
=  6 . 0 D 0 0 * COFO(KE) *E * T I N
/ ELNG * * 2
ELK( 2 , 5 )
=ELK( 2 , 2 )
ELK ( 2 , 6)
= ELK (?.. 3)
ELK( 3 , 3 )
= 4 . 0 D 0 0 * COFO(KE) * E * T I N / ELNG
ELK( 3 , 5 )
=ELK( 2 ,3 )
E L K O , 6)
= 2.0DCIO * COFO (KE) * E * T I N / ELNG
ELK( 5 , 5 )
= ELK ( 2 , 2 )
ELK( 5 , 6 )
=ELK( 2 ,3 )
EL K ( 6 , 6 )
= ELK( 3 , 3 )
. . S O I L S T I F F N E S S (LOOP OVER GAUSSI AN POI NTS)
DJ = ELNG / 2 . 0 D 0 0
DO 2 0 I GP = 1 , 4
. . C A L L SHAPE FUNCTIONS
CALL SHF ( I G P , ELNG, WW, GG, GP)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229
(GG(1) * * 2 )
20
C
30
C
40
o o o o
50
60
**
* GG(1)
* GG (
(GG(4) * * 2 )
<GG<2) * * 2 )
* GG ( 2 )
* GG (
* GG ( 2 )
* GG (
* GG ( 2 )
* GG (
(GG (3) * * 2 )
* GG(3)
* GG(3>
* GG (
GG(
( GG( 5 ) * 2 )
* GG (5)
( G G (6)
SHAPE FUNCTIONS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* GG (
**2) *
0 .6 5 2 1 4 5 1 5 4 8 62546D00, 0 . 347854845137454D00/
RR * G PO ( I G P )
WW  WGT( IGP)
C
. . L I N E A R SHAPE FUNCTIONS ( AXI AL )
GG(1)  0 . 5 D 0 0 * ( 1 .0 D 0 0  R R )
G G ( 4 )  0 . 5 0 0 0 * ( l . O D O O+ R R )
G P (1) * 0 .5 D 0 C
GP(4)  0 .5 D 0 0
C
. . HERMITIAN SHAPE FUNCTIONS ( BENDING )
GG(2 ) * 0 . 2 5 0 0 0 * (RR **3  3.'0D00*RR + 2 . 0 D 0 O )
G G ( 3 )   0 . 1 2 5 D 0 0 * ELNG * ( R R * * 2  l . O D O O ) * (RR  l . O D O O )
G G ( 5 ) =  0 . 2 5 D 0 0 * ( R R * * 3  3 . 0 D O O * R R  2 . 0 D 0 0 )
GG ( 6 ) =*  0 . 1 2 5 0 0 0 * ELNG * <RR* * 2  l . O D O O ) * (RR + l . O D O O )
G P ( 2 ) 1 . 5 0 D 0 0 * RR
GP ( 3 ) *  0 . 1 2 5 D 0 0 * ELNG * ( 6 . 0 D 0 0 * R R  2 . 0 D 0 0 )
G P ( 5 ) =  1 . 5 0 D 0 0 * RR
G P ( 6 ) =  0 . 1 2 5 D 0 0 * ELNG * ( 6 . 0 D O 0 * R R * 2 . 0 D 0 0 )
RETURN
END
CC
GROUND DISPLACEMENTS AND ROTATIONS
C
SUBROUTINE G R O X ( IG R , I N C , STRN, P AR2 , NNOD, CRD, I D , XG)
I NTEGER I G R , I N C , NNOD, I D ( 3 , 4 2 2 )
DOUBLE P R E C I S I O N STRN, P AR2 , C R D < 4 2 2 ) , X G ( 1 2 2 1 ) , ARG
I F ( I G R . N E . 1) GO TO 3 0
WRITE ( 6 , 1 0 ) STRN, P A R 2 , INC
1 0 FORMAT ( / / 4 X , ' 'GROUND DI SPLACEMENTS / / 8 X , 'GROUND STRAIN
1 ' , D 1 2 . 4 / 8 X , 'GROUND CURVATURE
 ', D 12.4/8X ,
2
'NUMBER OF INCREMENTS = , 1 4 )
DO 2 0 I = i , NNOD
DO 2 0 J = 1 , 3
I I = I D (J , I )
I F ( I I . E Q . 0 ) GO TO 2 0
ARG = C R D ( I )  0 . 5 D 0 0 * CRD(NNOD)
I F ( J . E Q . 1) X G ( I I )
=
STRN * ARG
IF (J .EQ. 2) X G ( I I )
* 0 . 5 D 0 0 * PAR2 * ARG
** 2
I F ( J .EQ. 3) X G ( I I )
  l . O D O O * PAR2 * ARG
2 0 CONTINUE
GO TO 6 0
3 0 WRITE ( 6 , 4 0 ) STRN, P A R 2 , INC
4 0 FORMAT ( / / 4 X , ' 'GROUND DI SPLACEMENTS' / / 8 X , 'GROUND STRAIN
1
D 1 2 . 4 / 8 X , 'GROUND ROTATION
= ', D 12.4/8X ,
2
'NUMBER OF INCREMENTS = ' , 1 4 )
DO 5 0 I = 1 , NNOD
DO 5 0 J * 1 , 3
I I = I D (J , I )
I F ( I I . E Q . 0) GO TO 5 0
ARG = C R D ( I )  0 . 5 D 0 0 * CRD(NNOD)
I F ( J . E Q . 1)
X G ( I I ) = STRN ARG
I F ( J .EQ. 2)
X G ( I I ) = PAR2 * ARG
I F ( J .EQ. 3)
X G ( I I ) = PAR2
5 0 CONTINUE
6 0 RETURN
END
CC
C * * " * ELEMENT LOAD VECTOR
C
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
231
nnnn
SUBROUTINE L O A D ( I E L T , I S E G , I P E , XG, P)
INTEGER I E L T , I S E G , I P E
DOUBLE P R E C I S I O N DIMTR, SLENG, ELNG, AREA, T I N , E , COFO( 4 0 0 ) ,
1
AXSOIL( 2 0 ) , COF1( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , A Z S O IL <20), C O F 2 ( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , A X J N ( 2 1 ) ,
2
CO F 3( 2 1 ) , ATHJN( 2 1 ) , C O F 4( 21 )
DOUBLE P R E C I S I O N D J , WW, G G ( 6 ) , G P ( 6 ) , E L P ( 6 ) , F C 1 , F C 2 , X G ( 1 2 2 1 > ,
1
P (1221)
COMMON / CONTRO/ NS EG, NEL T, NBEL, NP E , NJ N T, NNOD, NDOF, NTA,
1
NODE( 2 , 4 2 1 ) , I D ( 3 , 4 2 2 ) , L M ( 6 , 4 2 1 ) , I S K L ( 1 2 2 1 ) , I D I A ( 1 2 2 1 )
COMMON / P R O P / DIMTR, SLENG, ELNG, AREA, T I N , E , COFO, A X S O I L ,
1
C O F 1 , A Z S O I L , C O F 2 , A X J N, COF 3 , ATHJN, COF4
. . I N I T I A L I Z E ELEMENT LOAD VECTOR
DO 1 0 I 1 , 6
10 EL P (I) = 0.0DO0
. . CONS TRUCT ELEMENT LOAD VECTOR (LOOP OVER G AUS SI AN P OI NTS)
KE = ( I S E G  1) * NELT + I P E
DJ => ELNG / 2 . 0 D 0 0
DO 2 0 I G P = 1 , 4
. . CALL SHAPE FUNCTIONS
CALL S H F ( I G P , ELNG, WW, GG, GP)
FC1 => (GG ( 1 ) * X G ( LM ( 1 , I EL T ) ) + GG( 4 ) * XG( LM( 4 , I E L T ) ) ) * WW * D J *
1
COF1(KE,IGP) * AXSOIL(ISEG)
ELP(l)
= E L P ( l ) + GG( 1 )
* FC1
ELP(4)
=EL P (4) + GG(4)
* FC1
FC2 = (GG ( 2 ) *XG (LM ( 2 , I E L T ) ) + GG ( 3 ) *XG (LM ( 3 , I E L T ) ) + G G ( 5 ) * X G (
1
L M ( 5 , I E L T ) ) + G G ( 6 ) * X G ( LM( 6 , I E L T ) ) ) * WW * D J * C O F 2 ( K E , I G P ) *
2
AZSOIL(ISEG)
ELP ( 2 )
= ELP ( 2 ) + GG ( 2 )
* FC2
ELP ( 3 )
= ELP ( 3 ) + GG ( 3 )
* FC2
ELP (5)
= ELP (5) + GG (5)
* FC2
ELP(6)
= E L P ( 6 ) + GG( 6 )
* FC2
2 0 CONTINUE
I F ( I E L T . N E . 2 ) GO TO 3 0
ELP(1)
=ELP(1)
+ C O F 3 ( l ) * A X J N ( l ) * XG( LM( 1 , I E L T ) )
ELP(3)
=ELP(3)
+ C O F 4 ( 1 ) * A T H J N( 1 ) * XG( LM( 3 , I E L T ) )
3 0 NB = NBEL  1
I F ( I E L T . N E . NB) GO TO 4 0
E LP (4)
=ELP(4)
+ C O F 3 ( N J N T ) * AXJ N( NJ NT) * XG( LM( 4 , I E L T ) )
ELP(6)
=ELP(6)
+ C O F 4 ( N J NT ) * ATHJ N( NJNT) * X G ( L M ( 6 , I E L T ) )
. . A S S E M B L E T H I S ELEMENT I N GLOBAL LOAD VECTOR
4 0 DO 5 0 I = 1 , 6
I I = LM( I , IELT)
50 P ( I I ) = P ( I I ) + E LP (I)
RETURN
END
* S T I F F N E S S MATRIX FACTORIZATION
: AK = L . D . L T
AMIN,
ZERO,
C
10
C
DO 1 0 I = 1 , NTA
AFL(I) = AK(I)
. . DET ERMI NE MIN & MAX
TR = D A B S ( A F L ( 1 ) )
AMIN = TR
AMAX = TR
IMIN = 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AG,
AL
IMAX = 0
DO 3 0 I L * 1 , NDOF
TR = D A B S ( A F L ( I D I A ( I L ) ) )
I F (TR . G T . AMIN) GO TO 2 0
AMIN * TR
IMIN * IL
20
I F ( TR . L T . AMAX) GO TO 3 0
AMAX * TR
IMAX * I L
3 0 CONTINUE
ZERO =* 1 . 0 D  2 0
C
Z ERO*( AMAX+AMI N) * 1 . 0 D  I 2
C
. . L O O P OVER COLUMN
DO 9 0 I C = 1 , NDOF
MIC * I S K L ( I C )
IC1 = IC  1
MIC1 = MIC + 1
IN 2 * I D I A ( IC)  IC
I F ( ( M I C . L T . 1 ) . O R . (MIC . G T . I C ) ) GO TO 1 1 0
C
. . CALCULATE GS
I F ( MIC1 . G T . I C 1 ) GO TO 6 0
DO 5 0 I L = M I C 1 / I C 1
MIL * I S K L ( I L )
IL1 * IL  1
MIM = M A X0 ( MI L , MI C)
INI = ID IA (IL )  IL
TR = 0 . 0
I F (MIM . G T . I L 1 ) GO TO 5 0
DO 4 0 K MIM, I L 1
TR = TR + A F L ( I N I + K) * A F L ( I N 2 + K)
40
CONTINUE
IN = IN2 + IL
A F L ( I N ) = A F L ( I N )  TR
50
CONTINUE
C
. . CALCULATE L&D
60
TR = 0 . 0
I F (MIC . G T . I C 1 ) GO TO 8 0
DO 7 0 I L = M I C , I C1
AG = A F L ( I N 2 + I L)
AL = AG / A F L ( I D I A ( I L ) )
A F L ( I N 2 + I L ) = AL
TR = TR + AL * AG
70
CONTINUE
C
80
IN = I D I A ( I C )
A F L ( I N ) = A F L ( I N )  TR
I F ( A F L ( I N ) . L T . ZERO) GO TO 1 0 0
C
9 0 CONTINUE
RETURN
1 0 0 WRITE ( 6 , 1 4 0 ) I M I N , AMIN, IMAX, AMAX
WRITE ( 6 , 1 2 0 ) I C , AFL ( I N )
STOP
1 1 0 WRITE ( 6 , 1 3 0 )
STOP
1 2 0 FORMAT (
* * * STOP NEGATIVE OR ZERO DIAGONAL TERM NO' , 1 5 ,
1
' AFL=' , 1P E 12.5)
1 3 0 FORMAT ( '
* * * STOP ERROR I N I D I A VECTOR )
1 4 0 FORMAT ( 5 X , ' CONDI TI ONI NG OF THE S T I F F N E S S M A T R I X ' /
1
' MIN DI AG TERM I S AT COLUMN , 1 3 ,
' VALUE = ' ,
1PE10.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
233
'
13,
'
VALUE
E10.3)
oooo
END
****
: AK.X P
SUBROUTINE S O L V E ( A F L , P , X , I D I A , I S K L , NDOF,
INTEGER NDOF, NTA, I D I A ( 9 0 0 0 ) , I S K L ( 9 0 0 0 )
DOUBLE P R E C I S I O N A F L ( 9 0 0 0 ) , X ( 1 2 2 1 ) , P ( 1 2 2 1 ) ,
NTA)
TR
DO 1 0 I = 1 , NDOF
10 X (I ) = P (I)
C
. . BACKSUBSTITUTE
DO 3 0 I C = 2 , NDOF
TR 0 . 0
IC1 = IC  1
I N I = I D I A ( IC)  IC
I K  I S KL ( I C )
I F ( I K . G T . I C 1 ) GO TO 3 0
DO 2 0 K = I K , I C 1
TR * TR + A F L ( I N I + K) * X( K)
20
CONTINUE
X ( I C ) = X ( I C )  TR
3 0 CONTINUE
C
. . SOLVE DU=U
DO 4 0 I C = 1 , NDOF
X (IC) = X(IC) / AFL( I D I A ( I C ) )
4 0 CONTINUE
C
. . BACKSUBSTITUTE
I I C = NDOF
DO 7 0 I C = 2 , NDOF
TR = X ( I I C )
IC1 = I I C  1
IK = I S K L ( I I C )
INI = ID IA (IIC )  IIC
I F ( I K . G T . I C 1 ) GO TO 6 0
DO 5 0 K = I K , I C 1
X( K) = X ( K )  A F L ( I N I + K) * TR
50
CONTINUE
60
IIC = IIC  1
7 0 CONTINUE
C
RETURN
END
CC
C * * * * FORCES / S T R E S S E S I N THE SYSTEM
C
SUBROUTINE F R C E S ( X , XG, S I G , F S X , F S Z , F J N , BMJN)
DOUBLE P RE C I S I O N DIMTR, SLENG, ELNG, AREA, T I N , E , COFO( 4 0 0 ) ,
1
AXSOIL( 2 0 ) , COF1( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , A Z S O I L ( 2 0 ) , C O F 2 ( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , A X J N (2 1 ),
2
CO F 3( 2 1 ) , ATHJN( 2 1 ) , C O F 4 (2 1 )
DOUBLE P R E C I S I O N X < 1 2 2 1 ) , X G ( 1 2 2 1 ) , S I G ( 4 0 0 ) , F S X ( 4 0 0 , 4 ) ,
1
F S Z ( 4 0 0 , 4 ) , F J N ( 2 1 ) , B M J N ( 2 1 ) , D J , WW, G G < 6 ) , G P ( 6 ) , E P 1 ,
2
E P 2 , DEL, DJN
COMMON / CONTRO/ NS E G, NE LT, NBE L, NPE, NJ NT, NNOD, NDOF, NTA,
1
NODE ( 2 , 4 2 1 ) , ID < 3 , 4 2 2 ) , L M ( 6 , 4 2 1 ) , I S K L U 2 2 1 ) , I D I A U 2 2 1 )
COMMON / P R O P / DIMTR, SLENG, ELNG, AREA, T I N , E, COFO, AXSOI L,
1
C O F 1 , A Z S O I L , C O F 2 , AXJN, C 0 F 3 , ATHJN, COF4
C
. . S TR ES S ES I N P I P E SEGMENTS AND FORCES I N S O I L SPRI NGS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
234
D J * ELNG / 2 . Q D 0 0
DO 2 0 I 1 , NSEG
DO 2 0 J  1 , NELT
I ELT ( I  1)
* (NELT
+ 1) + J + 1
KE  ( I  1 ) * NELT + J
S I G ( K E )  O.ODOO
DO 1 0 I G P * 1 , 4
CALL S H F ( I G P , ELNG, WW, GG, GP)
EP1 * ( G P U ) * X ( L M ( 1 , I E L T ) )
+ GP ( 4 ) * X ( L M ( 4 , I E L T ) ) ) / D J
EP2 * ( G P ( 2 ) * X ( L M ( 2 , I E L T ) )
+ G P ( 3 ) * X ( L M ( 3 , I E L T ) ) +G P ( 5 ) * X (
1
LM( 5 , I E L T ) ) + G P ( 6 ) * X ( L M ( 6 , I E L T ) ) ) * 0 . 5 D 0 0 * DIMTR / D J * *
S I G ( K E ) * S I G ( K E ) + COFO(KE) * E * ( D A B S ( E P l ) + D A B S ( E P 2 ) ) /
4.0DOO
DEL G G( 1 )
* ( X ( L M ( 1 , I E L T ) )  XG(LM( 1 , I E L T ) ) )
G G ( 4 ) * <X(
1
LM (4,IE LT))
 XG (LM (4,IELT)))
FSX(KE,IGP) * CQF1(KE,IGP)
* A X S O I L ( I ) * DEL
DEL * G G( 2 )
* ( X ( L M ( 2 , I E L T ) )  X G ( L M ( 2 , I E L T ) ) ) + G G ( 3 ) * (X<
1
LM (3,IELT))
 X G ( LM( 3 , I E L T ) ) ) + G G ( 5 ) * ( X ( L M ( 5 , I E L T ) )
 XG(
2
L M ( 5 , I E L T ) ) ) + GG(6) * (X(LM( 6 , I E L T ) )  X G ( L M ( 6 , I E L T ) ) )
FSZ(KE,IGP) * COF2(KE,IGP)
* A Z S O I L ( I ) * DEL
10
CONTINUE
2 0 CONTINUE
C
. . FORCES AND MOMENTS I N J O I N T S
DO 3 0 I = 2 , NSEG
I E LT = ( I  1 ) * (NELT + 1) + 1
DJN * X ( L M ( 4 , I E L T ) )  X ( L M ( 1 , I E L T ) )
F J N ( I ) COF3 ( I ) * A X J N ( I ) * DJN
DJN * X ( L M ( 6 , I ELT) )  X ( LM( 3 , IELT) )
B M J N ( I ) C O F 4 ( I ) * A T H J N ( I ) * DJN
3 0 CONTINUE
DJN = X (LM ( 4 , 1 ) )  XG ( LM( 4 , 1 ) )
F J N ( 1 ) = C O F 3 ( 1 ) * A X J N ( 1 ) * DJN
DJN * X ( L M ( 6 , 1 ) )  X G ( L M ( 6 , 1 ) )
B M J N ( l ) = C O F 4 ( 1 ) * A T H J N ( 1 ) * DJN
DJ N = XG( LM( 1 , N B E L ) )  X ( L M ( 1 , N B E L ) )
F J N ( N J N T ) = C O F 3 ( N J N T ) * AX J N( NJ N T ) * DJ N
DJ N = X G ( L M ( 3 , N B E L ) )  X ( L M ( 3 , N B E L ) )
BMJN( NJNT) = COF4 ( NJ NT) * ATHJ N( NJ NT) * DJN
RETURN
END
oo
oooo
**
DISPLACEMENTS
STRAI NS
I N THE SYSTEM
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
235
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Length
1 cm
1m
1 Km
=
=
=
0.394
3.281
0.615
inch
ft
mile
Area
1 cm2
0.155
inch2
Moment of inertia
1cm4
2.403
Force
1 Kgf
2.204
lb
1 Kgf/cm
5.599
lb/inch
1 Kgf/cm2
14.223
psi
Unit weight
1 Kgf/cm3
6.243 X104
pcf
Moment
1 Kgf.cm
0.868
lb.inch
X10'2
inch4
236
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.