C-19

© All Rights Reserved

22 views

C-19

© All Rights Reserved

You are on page 1of 306

SchoolofCivilEngineering

GeotechnicalDivision

.

...

BuriedPipelineSubjectedtoNormal

andReverseTectonicFaultRupture

DiplomaThesis

Vasileiadis Michail

Supervisedby:

ProfessorG.Gazetas

Ast.Prof.I.Anastasopoulos

2012

,

,

.

. .

.

,

.

, , . .

,

.

,

,

.

..

.

, , .

,

.

ii

,

,.

.

, ,

.,

.

,

Winkler,

.

.

(D/t).

.

,D/t,

,

.

iii

iv

Synopsis

The present diploma thesis investigates the mechanical behavior of a buried steel

pipeline, commonly used for oil and gas transportation, subjected to DipSlip

tectonic fault rupture. The investigation is based on numerical simulation with the

finiteelementcodeABAQUS2011.Themainobjectiveofthisstudyistodevelopa

proper model that accounts for large displacements and strains, inelastic material

behaviorofthepipeandthesoil,aswellaspropercontactandfrictionatthepipe

soil interface. Different approaches are examined concerning the pipe boundaries,

finally leading to the development of a hybrid boundary capable of simulating the

naturalcontinuationofthepipe.Themodelisusedtostudythenormalandreverse

fault ruptures. The main results are presented in terms of critical fault

displacement for different performance criteria, which are monitored throughout

theanalyses,withrespecttotheD/tratio.Otherparametersthatareexaminedare

the soil layers depth, the stressstrain relation of the pipe steel, and the internal

pipepressure.

vi

TABLEOFCONTENTS

CHAPTER1

INTRODUCTIONANDSTUDYMOTIVATION.................................................................1

1.1Introduction...................................................................................................3

1.2Faults..............................................................................................................4

1.3Pipelines.........................................................................................................6

1.4LiteratureReview...........................................................................................9

1.5MotivationoftheStudy...............................................................................13

FiguresofChapter1....................................................................................................21

CHAPTER2

PROBLEMANDMODELDEFINITION...........................................................................55

2.1ProblemDefinition.......................................................................................57

2.2ModelandMethodofAnalysis....................................................................59

2.2.1FiniteElementModel..........................................................................59

2.2.2SoilConstitutiveModel........................................................................61

2.2.3PipelineProperties..............................................................................69

2.2.4ModesofPipelineFailure....................................................................71

FiguresofChapter2....................................................................................................77

vii

CHAPTER3

PIPEBOUNDARIES......................................................................................................89

3.1FreePipeEndsModel..................................................................................92

3.2FixedPipeEndsModel.................................................................................95

3.3HybridBeamModel.....................................................................................98

3.4EquivalentSingleSpringModel..................................................................106

FiguresofChapter3..................................................................................................109

CHAPTER4

REVERSEFAULTRUPTURE........................................................................................153

4.1BriefReviewoftheFixedandFreeEndsModel........................................156

4.2HybridBeamModel...................................................................................157

FiguresofChapter4..................................................................................................163

CHAPTER5

SOILLAYERDEPTHEFFECT........................................................................................185

5.1FreeFieldModel........................................................................................188

5.2NormalFaultRupture................................................................................190

5.3ReverseFaultRupture................................................................................192

FiguresofChapter5..................................................................................................197

viii

CHAPTER6

PIPESTEELWITHHARDENINGBEHAVIOR................................................................225

6.1NormalFaultRupture................................................................................227

6.2ReverseFaultRupture................................................................................228

FiguresofChapter6..................................................................................................231

CHAPTER7

INTERNALPIPEPRESSURE........................................................................................247

7.1NormalFaultRupture................................................................................250

7.2ReverseFaultRupture................................................................................251

7.3InternalPipePressurewithHardeningPipeSteelBehavior......................252

FiguresofChapter7..................................................................................................257

CHAPTER8

CONCLUSIONSANDPROPOSALSFORFURTHERRESEARCH....................................275

8.1Conclusions................................................................................................277

8.2ProposalsforfurtherResearch..................................................................279

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................281

ix

Chapter 1

Introduction and study motivation

Introductionandstudymotivation

1.1 Introduction

Buried pipelines

used to transport

telecommunications, and to transmit water, sewage, liquid and gas. Pipelines, also

mentioned as lifelines, often cross tectonically active areas and may cross active

faultscapableofproducinglargeearthquakesandlargegrounddeformations.There

arevariousexamplesofearthquakesthatseverelydamagedburiedpipelinessuchas

the earthquakes of San Fernando 1971, Managua 1972, Haicheng 1975, Tangshan

1976,MiyagikenOki1978,Northridge1994,Kobe1995,ChiChi1999,Kocaeli1999

and the more recent ones, those of Chile 2010, Christchurch 20102011 and Japan

2011. Based on the observed damage mechanisms of buried pipelines, seismic

effectscanbeeithercausedbytransientstrainandcurvatureinthegrounddueto

traveling wave effects,or caused by permanent ground deformations such as fault

deformation,landslide,andliquefactioninducedsoilmovements.Amongthem,the

groundmovementsofactivefaults,eventhoughrelativelylimitedtosmallregions,

canhavethemostsevereeffectsonburiedpipelines.Therearefewcasesinwhich

pipelines were damaged only by wave propagation (Mexico City 1985Michoacan

earthquake).Faultmovement,though,isappliedonthepipelinequasistaticallyand

mightcausesignificantdamagetothepiperegardlesstheseismicintensity.

Introductionandstudymotivation

1.2 Faults

Althoughthisstudyfocusesonfaultsthatpropagatethroughtheuppersoillayers,it

isconsideredreasonabletopresentabrieftheoreticalbackgroundconcerningfaults

andtheirassociationwiththegenesismechanismofearthquakes.Anactivefaultisa

discontinuity between two portions of the earth crust along which relative

movements can occur. The theory that is currently considered to be the most

accurate for the description of this mechanism is the Elastic Rebound Theory.

Because of friction andthe rigidityof the rock, the rocks cannot glide or flow past

eachother.Rather,stressbuildsupinrocksandwhenitreachesalevelthatexceeds

the rocks strength, the accumulatedpotential energyis dissipated by the release

ofstrain, which is focused into a plane along which relative motion is

accommodated,thefault.Strainisbothaccumulativeandinstantaneousdepending

on therheologyof the rock. The ductile lower crust and mantle accumulates

deformation gradually viashearing, whereas the brittle upper crust reacts by

fracture instantaneous stress release to cause motion along the fault. A fault in

ductilerockscanalsoreleaseinstantaneouslywhenthestrainrateistoogreat.The

energyreleasedbyinstantaneousstrainreleasecausesearthquakes.Therearetwo

ways to simulate the faults surface: the Asperities model, a model of

inhomogeneousmacroscopicroughnessandtheBarriersmodel,wherethesurface

isconsidereddiscontinuouswithareasofvariableshearstrength.

Basic types of faults

the hanging wall occurs above the fault plane and the footwall occurs below the

fault.Faultsaredistinguishedonthebasisofthemovementofthefootwallrelative

tothehangingwall.

Introductionandstudymotivation

Strikesliparethefaultsthatprimarilyexhibithorizontalmovement(Figure1.2.1).

Thefaultsurfaceisusuallynearverticalandthefootwallmoveseitherleftorrightor

laterallywithverylittlevertical motion.

Dipslip faults

Dip slip faultsare those in which vertical displacement primarily occurs. They are

divided in to 2 categories: normal and reverse faults. Normal (Figure1.2.2) are the

faults in which the hanging wallmoves downrelative to the foot wall due to

tensionalstress.Thetermnormaldoesnothavethesenseofcommonandwhat

isnormalaboutthemisthattheirmovementtendstofollowthegravitationalpull

onthefaultblocksinvolved.Areversefault(Figure1.2.3)isoneinwhichthehanging

wallmoves uprelative to the foot wall due to compression. If the hanging wall is

pushedupandthenoverthefootwallatalowangleitiscalledathrustfault.

Obliqueslip faults

Afaultwhichhasacomponentofdipslipandacomponentofstrikeslipistermed

anobliqueslip fault (Figure1.2.4). Nearly all faults have some component of both

dipslip and strikeslip, so defining a fault as oblique requires both dip and strike

componentstobemeasurableandsignificant.Finally,ithastobeclarifiedthatnot

all of the faults reach the surface. Whether the rupture will propagate up to the

surface depends on various parameters such as the magnitude of bedrock

movement, the depth of the soil layer, the faults angle and the soil properties.

Introductionandstudymotivation

1.3 Pipelines

Overview

Oil and gas pipelines are usually made fromsteelof various strength and

characteristics(Table1.1)orfromplastic(HDPE),withinnerdiametertypicallyfrom

4to48inches(100to1200mm).Anothermaterialthathasbeenusedistheglass

reinforced plastic (GRP) a composite material made of plastic reinforced by glass

fibers.Mostpipelinesaretypicallyburiedatadepthofabout0.9to2.5m.Theoilis

keptinmotionbypumpstationsalongthepipelinesitedattheoriginatedstationof

thelineandat30to160kilometerintervalsalongthelengthofthepipelinewhile

the gas is kept in motion by compression stations sited at 70 to 500 kilometer

intervals,dependingonpipelinedesign,topographyandcapacityrequirements.The

usualflowspeedisofabout1to6meterspersecondfortheoiland20to60m/sfor

thegas.

Asarulepipelinesforallusesarelaidinmostcasesunderground.Howeverinsome

cases it is necessary to cross a valley or a river on apipeline bridge. Pipelines for

petroleum running through permafrost areas often run overhead in order to avoid

melting the frozen ground by hot petroleum which would result in sinking the

pipeline in the ground. Laying the pipeline on the ground is also preferred

sometimesincaseswherethepipelinecrossesafaultofimportantoffsetpotential

suchastheTransAlaskaoilpipeline(Figure1.3.1).

Abriefcomparisonofburiedtosurfacepipelinesleadstothefollowingobservations:

Buriedpipelines

phenomena in general, as well as against accidents like crashes and

terroristattacks.

Haveasmallimpacttothesurroundingenvironment.

Introductionandstudymotivation

causingproblemstootherinfrastructuresystemssuchasroads.

pipelines,sincetheexcavationcostiscounterbalancedifnotexceeded

bythecostofthespecialfootingsneededforthesurfacepipelines.

Surfacepipelines

Canbeeasilyinspected

Canaccommodate,generally,biggerfaultoffsets

Pipelinescanbecategorizedas:

Gatheringpipelines

Group of smaller interconnected pipelines forming complex networks with the

purposeofbringingcrudeoilornaturalgasfromseveralnearbywellstoatreatment

plantorprocessingfacility.

Distributionpipelines

Composed of several interconnected pipelines with small diameters, used to take

theproductstothefinalconsumer.

Transportationortransmissionpipelines

Mainlylongpipeswithlargediameters,movingproducts(oil,gas,refinedproducts)

betweencities,countriesandevencontinents.Transmissionpipelinesarethemain

arteriesoftheoilandgasbusiness.

Introductionandstudymotivation

Construction Sequence

Before any other step of the construction, the construction corridor has to be

clearedofbrush,trees,largerocksandanyotherobstructions.Then,thetrenchin

whichthepipewillbelaidisexcavated(Figure1.3.2).Machineexcavatorsareused

for the excavation along with any necessary hand digging and general field labor

activities. The pipeline parts are placed alongside the trench. Next step is the

bendingofthepipes.Since,therouteofthetrenchisnotaconstantlinethepipeline

shouldgetbendedatcertainpoints,inordertoconformtothetrench.Afterwards,

thejointsofthedifferentpartsareweldedintobiggerpipeparts.Althoughthepipe

would arrive at the rightofway with a corrosionresistant coating, crews apply

additionalcoatingtotheweldedareasandrepairanydamagetothefactoryapplied

coating to prevent corrosion. The pipe coating is a special material that prevents

waterfromcontactingthesteelofthepipeandcausingcorrosion.Whenthewelding

and coating are complete, the pipe is suspended over the ditch by sideboom

tractors, which are crawler tractors with a special hoisting frame attached to one

side(Figures1.3.4,1.3.5).Then,thepipelineisgraduallyloweredtothebottomof

theditch.Inrockysoilorsolidrock,itissometimesnecessarytoputabedoffinesoil

inthebottomoftheditchbeforeloweringthepipeline.Thefinefillmaterialprotects

thepipecoatingfromdamage. Thefinalcutsonthepipearemadetoconnectthe

entire pipeline and coat the final tiein welds (Figure 1.3.6). The pipeline is then

testedtoproveitsstructuralsoundnessandabilitytofulfillitsdesignfunction.The

line is filled with water and then pressurized to check for leaks. Finally, the trench

getscoveredbythebackfillandthesurfacegetscleanedupandrestoredifpossible

toitspreviousstate.

Introductionandstudymotivation

Theproblemofpipelinescrossingactivefaultshasbeenapproachedusinganalytical,

numerical,aswellasexperimentalmethods.Theinitiatorsoftheanalyticalstudies

wereNewmarkandHall(1975)(Figure1.4.1).Intheirpioneerworktheystudiedthe

abilityofacontinuouspipetoresistlargedisplacementscausedbystrikeslipfaults

Focusing upon cases where the fault rupture provokes severe elongation of the

pipeline,soastensionistheprevailingmodeofdeformation.Intheirmodelthepipe

isassumedtobefirmlyattachedtothesurroundingsoilattwoanchorpointslocated

at distance L from fault trace. These anchor points correspond to elbows, thrust

blocks,tieinsandotherfeatures,whichcandevelopsubstantialresistancetoaxial

movement. The authors neglected the bending stiffness of the pipe as well as the

lateral interactions at the pipesoil interface. They discovered that the bearing

capacityofaburiedpipelinetofaultmovementdependsonthesoilconditions,pipe

andfaultcharacteristicsandthatminimizingthelongitudinalresistanceofthesoilto

the pipe motion maximizes the pipe resistance. They have also suggested that the

pipe should be placed in a trench with shallow sloping sides so that it can

accommodateitselftothetransverseaswellasthelongitudinalcomponentsofthe

fault movement. Subsequently, Kennedy et al (1977) (Figure 1.4.2) extended

Newmark and Halls procedure to determine the pipe capacity to resist fault

movement by taking uniform passive soil pressure and the large deflection theory

intoconsideration.Itisassumedthatthepipelineisaflexiblecabledeformedintoa

single constant curve approaching asymptotically to the undistorted portion of the

pipeline.Inthismodel,onlytheaxialtensileforceatthepointofinflectionisused

forequilibrium,noflexuralresistancewasconsidered.Thereforewiththeomission

oftheflexuralrigidityofthepipe,thismodelcannotsatisfytheequilibriumcondition

for a pipeline crossing a strikeslip fault or obliqueslip fault that will cause

compressioninthepipeline.VougioukasandCarydis(1979)(Figure1.4.3)proposed

a model applicable both for strikeslip and for dipslip faults, either normal or

reverse, and calculated the ductility demands for the pipelines to resist large fault

displacements. Wang and Yeh (1985) (Figure 1.4.4) proposed a localized large

Introductionandstudymotivation

deflection beam model to analyze pipeline behavior crossing the strikeslip fault.

They modeled a large deflection pipe as a constant curvature curved segment and

the remaining small deflection pipe as a semiinfinite beam on elastic foundation.

This model includes the bending rigidity of the pipe, a shear force at the point of

inflectionofthecurvepipecrossingthefaultzone,andaboundaryconditionrelated

to semiinfinite beam on elastic foundation at some distance away from the fault

zone.Theirmethodologyrefersonlytostrikeslipfaultsandreliesonpartitioningof

thepipelineintofourdistinctsegmentstwointhehighcurvaturezoneonbothsides

of the fault trace, and another two outside this zone. This model yielded more

realistic results provided that the appropriate parameters are chosen. Chiou et al.

(1994)cametotheconclusionthatthecurvatureofthedeformedpipeisunknown

and can hardly be predicted in advance. Moreover, the constant curvature model

overestimatesthestiffnessoftheburiedpipeandconsequentlyunderestimatesits

strain. Karamitros et al. (2006) (Figure 1.4.5), trying to improve the models of

KennedyandWang,proposedamoresophisticatedanalyticalmethodforstrikeslip

faults, which they later extended to be applicable for normal faults as well (2011).

They presented an analytical methodology, refining existing methodologies using a

combination of beamonelasticfoundation and beam theory, and computed axial

force, bending moment and maximum strain on the pipeline. They also compared

their analytical predictions with results from a threedimensional finite element

model, which employed a relatively coarse shell element mesh for describing the

pipeandnonlinearspringstosimulatethesoil.Asinalltheaforementionedstudies,

theiranalyticalmodeldoesnottakeintoaccountsecondordereffectssuchaslocal

bucklingandsectionaldeformationandappliesonlyundercertainstrainlimitsand

onlywhenthefaultresultsinelongationofthepipe,thus,whentensionandbending

aretheprevailingmodesofdeformation.

There is also a number of researchers that studied the problem using numerical

models. The majority of them used the Finite Element Method and studied mostly

thestrikeslipcase.Takadaetal.(2001)studiedelastoplasticshellmodebucklingof

a pipe subjected to normal and reverse fault movement using shell finite element

10

Introductionandstudymotivation

simplified method for the maximum axial strain in steel pipes considering the

deformation of the pipe crosssection (Figure 1.4.6). O'Rourke and Liu (1997)

developed a numerical model to analyze pipe response to fault offsets and

comparedtheirnumericalresultswiththeresultsfromotheranalyticalapproaches.

They concluded that Kennedy's analytical solution is the best available for pipe

responsetostrikeslipfaultsprimarilyintension.Theseismicanalysisofburiedand

unburied pipelines, under both transient and permanent ground movements have

been examined by Arifin et al. (2010), using beam finite elements for the pipeline

and nonlinear springs to model the effects of the surrounding soil. Odina and Tan

(2009)investigatedburiedpipelineresponseunderseismicfaultdisplacement,using

abeamtypefiniteelementmodelwithelasticplasticspringsforthesoileffects.Ina

subsequentpublication,OdinaandConder(2010),extendedtheworkbyexamining

the effects of Lders plateau of the stressstrain material curve on the pipeline

responsecrossingactivefaults.

ItisworthmentioningtheworkofVazourasetal.(2010,2012)onwhichwebased

our approach. They simulated a buried pipeline crossing a strikeslip fault using

ABAQUS(Figures1.4.7,1.4.8).Theyconductedvariousparametricstudiesregarding

the type of soil, the fault angle and the diameter to thickness ratio of the pipe

(Figure 1.4.9). They also examined the effect of internal pipe pressure (Figure

1.4.10).Althoughtheirmodelislimitedtotheupper5mofthegroundanddoesnot

take into consideration the actual fault propagation, it has the advantage that the

soil is simulated by continuum brick elements and not by unconnected soil springs

which have been the most common option by the other researchers. That has

certainsignificantadvantagesasitwillbedescribedinthefollowingchapter.

Significant experimental research has been conducted, under the NEESR project

(Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation) by Cornell University and

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute supervised by Professor T.D.ORourke (2008). The

research,elaboratedattheCornell(CU)andRensselaer(RPI)NEESequipmentsite,

11

Introductionandstudymotivation

utilizestheequipmentforlargescalesoilstructureinteractionandcentrifugescale

split box testing. The equipment at Cornell consists of largedisplacement servo

hydraulicactuatorsandancillaryhydraulicsystems,soilstoragefacilitiesandframe

support system for largescale lifeline soilstructure interaction, a variety of

instrumentation,anddataacquisitionsystems(Figure1.4.11).TheRPIfacilitiesuse

advanced splitboxcentrifuge containers for simulation of lifeline systems. These

containers are used in the upgraded RPI 150 gton centrifuge (Figure 1.4.14). It is

worth noticing that the largescale ground rupture experiments involve the largest

laboratory tests ever performed on pipeline response to ground deformation. The

test not only demonstrates the ability of such pipelines to accommodate severe

movement, but provides important data about strain concentrations, changes in

shape, and soilstructure interaction Combined testing at CU and RPI provides

informationessentialfordesignandconstructioninresponsetoearthquakes,floods,

landslides, large deformation induced by tunneling and deep excavations, and

subsidencecausedbyseveredewateringorwithdrawalofmineralsandfluidsduring

miningandoilproduction.ThesamelargescaleequipmentatCornellhasbeenused

to test the behavior of a different construction method according to which the

pipeline is placed in a segmental, reinforced concrete vault with special joints that

canaccommodatelateraloffsetandcompressivedeformationduringfaultrupture,

therebyallowingforrotationandcompressionofthepipelineinsidethevaultatball

andslipjoints,respectively(Figure1.4.16).Finally,Simetal.(2011)(ImperialCollege

of London and University of Tokyo) performed a series of shaking table tests

modelingsmalldiameterpipescrossingaverticalfault(Figure1.4.18).Theirresults

indicated that the magnitude of bending moment is directly affected by the

magnitudeoffaultdisplacementirrespectiveofanyotherfactors.Inparticular,the

intensity of shaking does not play a significant role in the magnitude of bending

moment caused by fault action. In their experiments they also used tyre derived

aggregate (TDA) backfill and proved that it is capable of reducing the bending

moments incurred due to simultaneous faulting and shaking for maximum

accelerations less than or equal to 0.5 g and vertical fault displacements less than

thepipediameterbyupto74%.

12

Introductionandstudymotivation

Energyisoneofthemostimportantissuesofmodernworld.Forthetimebeingand

probably for lots of future decades, energy production will be based primarily on

hydrocarbons. The transportation of energy is quite as vital as its very production

andtoday,themostcommonwayoftransportforoilornaturalgasarethepipeline

networks.Everyhourtheworldconsumesmillionsofcubicmetersofgasandoiland

almostallofitmovesthroughapipeline.

ThefirstrecordeduseofapipetotransportahydrocarbonwasinChinaabout2,500

years ago. The Chinese used bamboo pipe to transmit natural gas from shallow

wells:theyburneditunderpanstoboilseawatertoseparatethesalt,andmakethe

waterdrinkable.LaterrecordsindicatethattheChineseusedbamboopipe,wrapped

inwax,tolighttheircapital,Peking,asearlyas400BC(Britannica).Todaysoiland

gaspipelineindustryhasitsoriginsintheoilbusiness.OilhadbeendrilledinBaku,

Azerbaijan in 1848, and Poland in 1854, but the first major exploitation and

commercialization started in 1859 in the USA. In the early 1860s, the oil was

transported in wooden barrels on rivers by horsedrawn barges. Later, it was the

railwaythattooktheprimaryroleinoiltransportation.In1865a152mmdiameter

gravity oil line was built in Pennsylvania, USA, transporting 7000 barrels/day.

However,therealchangeinpipelineengineeringwasthebuildingoflongdistance,

largediameterpipelines:thesewerepioneeredintheUSAinthe1940sduetothe

energydemandsoftheSecondWorldWar.

13

Introductionandstudymotivation

Today,oilandgasprovidesmostoftheworldwithitsenergy.Thefuelsprovidingthe

worldwithitsprimaryenergyneedsare:

Oil=34%

Coal=24%

Gas=21%

Nuclear=7%

Hydro=2%

Other=12%

The oil and gas business is big, and it is going to become bigger. The US Energy

Information Administrations World Energy Outlook has predicted that fossil fuels

willremaintheprimarysourcesofenergy,meetingmorethan90%oftheincreasein

futureenergydemand.Thisexpanding,secureindustryisalsohighlyprofitable.Big

oil companies have announced annual profits even of $US36 billion, the largest

company profit ever accomplished. These profits are expected to continue in the

foreseeable future, as the price of fuels continues to rise. The same augmenting

trend is observed in pipeline construction market. The market size for oil and gas

pipelineconstructionexperiencedtremendousgrowthandgrewfrom$23billionsin

2006 to over $45billions today. To support the growth in energy demand, pipeline

infrastructure has grown by a factor of 100 in approximately 50 years. It has been

estimatedthatworldpipelineexpansioncouldbeupto7%peryearoverthenext15

years.Internationally,32,000kmofnewonshorepipelinesareconstructedeachyear

corresponding to a $US28billion business. The total length of high pressure

transmission pipelines around the world has been estimated at 3.500.000km

(Figures1.5.21.5.6).

14

Introductionandstudymotivation

Ofthose:

64%carrynaturalgas

19%carrypetroleumproducts

17%carrycrudeoil

Pipelines are a very safe form of transporting energy, both for human and the

environment.Relativereportsdemonstratedthatpipelinesare40timessaferthan

railtanks,and100timessaferthanroadtanksfortransportingenergy.Accordingto

theUSAAssociationofOilPipelines,oilpipelinespillsamounttoabout1gallonper

millionbarrelmiles.Thisislessthanoneteaspoonofoilspilledperthousandbarrel

miles.Pipelinesare,ingeneral,themosteconomicalwayforgasandoildistribution.

Itisalongterminvestmentandprobablythemostenergyefficientsolutionmeaning

that they consume less energy than the other options having at the same time

highercapacity.

Pipeline systems are critical transportation infrastructures in most nations and

essentialtobothstandardsoflivingandeconomies.Thefutureforpipelinesisboth

bright and challenging. They will continue to carry the bulk of our primary energy

sourcesandisuptoengineerstoensuretheyperformbothsafelyandefficiently.

The vulnerability of buried pipelines to seismic hazards has been demonstrated by

theextensivedamageobservedduringpreviousearthquakes(Figures1.5.71.5.10).

Examplesofdocumentedpipelinedamage,regardlessitsuseandmaterial,include:

the 1905 San Francisco, 1933 Long Beach, 1952 Kern Country, 1964 Alaska,1964

Niigata,1971SanFernando,1979ImperialValley,1987Ecuador,1989 LomaPrieta,

1990ManjilEarthquake,1991CostaRica,1994Northridge,1995Kobe,1999ChiChi,

1999Kocaeli, 2010 Chile, 20102011 Christchurch and 2011 Japan. Three

15

Introductionandstudymotivation

characteristic cases are those of Alaska, San Fernando and Ecuador. In 1964, the

Anchorage, Alaska earthquake caused over 200 breaks in gas pipelines and 100

breaksinwaterdistributionpipelinesatAnchorage.Gaslineswithinfaultzoneswere

ruptured.Mostofthepipelinedamagewasduetolandslidesandgroundcracking.

The 1971 San Fernando earthquake resulted in 1,400 breaks in various piping

systems. The city of San Fernando temporally lost water, gas and sewage services.

Mostofthedamagewascausedduetoliquefactioninducedlateralspreading.The

1987 Ecuador earthquake destroyed the transEcuadorian pipeline, which

representedthelargestsinglepipelinelossinhistory.Itcostover$850millioninlost

salesandreconstruction.

Currently, in Greece, the major pipeline networks operating are the 300km

ThessalonikiAthensgaspipelineandtheITG(InterconnectorTurkeyGreece)(Figure

1.5.11). However, Greece is about to play a significant role for Europes energy

supply. There are 4 proposed plans for transporting gas from the Caspian and

Middle East areas to Europe: TAP (TransAdriatic Pipeline), ITGI(Interconnector

TurkeyGreeceItaly),NabuccoandSEEP(SouthEastEuropePipeline).Inthefirsttwo

ofthosescenariosGreecewillplaytheroleoftheenergyhubforEurope.TAPwould

run800kmfromKomotinithroughGreeceandAlbania,toendnearSanFoca,Italy

via a 110km offshore part. ITGI includes 600km onshore pipeline running all along

the northern part of Greece and 200km offshore pipeline across the Ionian Sea. It

also includes the connection of Bulgaria with Greece via the 170km

IBG(Interconnector GreeceBulgaria) pipeline (Figure 1.5.13). It is obvious how

important this is for Greece especially if we consider that, according to Energy

InformationAdministrationEIA,Officeofoilandgas2008 Report,thecostperKm

for the construction of a pipeline varies from 0.8 to over 3 million euros, with the

partofthemanagementandengineeringcorrespondingtothe2025%ofthetotal

cost.LookingatthetectonicmapofGreece(Figure1.5.12)itiseasytoobservethat

16

Introductionandstudymotivation

itisalmostinevitableforthepipelinenottocrossanyfaultzonealongitsway.Itis

quite interesting, as well, that the type of the great majority of faults of northern

Greeceisdipslip,somethingthatmakestheinvestigationofthisproblemevenmore

importantandontime.

As already mentioned, little analytical work has been done for a pipe crossing a

normalorreversefault.Forapipesubjecttoanormalfault,thepipesoilsystemis

nolongersymmetric,andthetransverseinteractionforceatthepipesoilinterface

for downward movement of the pipeline is much larger than that for upward

movement.Similarly,forapipesubjecttoareversefault,itappearsthatnoclosed

formsimplifiedanalyticalapproachiscurrentlyavailable.Thebehaviorinsuchcases

is difficult to generalize, in part because there are two angles of intersection in

addition to the aforementioned asymmetric nature of the soil resistance in the

verticalplane.Theinternationalregulationsforthiskindofproblemarethuslimited.

Apartfromtherelativelyinadequateanalyticalresearchtherearealsofewnumerical

modelssimulatingdipslipfaultrupture.naddition,mostofthemsubstitutethesoil

with soilsprings attached to the pipe having as a result to neglect the interaction

betweenthesprings(asitwouldhappenintherealsoil)aswellastheoriginalfault

propagation. Finally, none of the previous researchers has given a documented

answertotheproblemofboundaryconditionsattheedgesofthepiperatherthan

assuming fixed conditions at the edges of the pipe. What is pioneering about our

work is the model we used to simulate the problem, which is probably the most

realistic model ever used for this kind of problems. We tried to overcome the

aforementioned problems using a hybridbeam model, in order to take into

considerationtheverylargedimensionsandaffectedareaoftherealproblem.We

also adopted and incorporated in the finiteelement code, an elastoplastic Mohr

coulomb constitutive model with isotropic strain softening that has been proved

capable of capturing the predominant mode of deformation caused by faults

17

Introductionandstudymotivation

comparedwithlaboratoryexperimentresults(Anastasopoulos2007).Apartfromthe

significance that pipeline networks are going to have for Greece and the various

problems of the previous models that we want to solve, it has been a great

motivationforourstudythefactthattheverysameproblemwillbeexaminedinour

laboratory. Using a splitbox device the behavior of pipes under dipslip faults is

goingtobeexamined,having,thus,theopportunitytoinvestigatecloselytheactual

mechanismsthatoccurandtocompareanalyticalwithexperimentalresults.

Tosumup,throughourresearchweaimto:

Proposeofapropermodelfortheproblem

Investigate the mechanical behavior of the pipe and the effect of various

parameters

18

19

20

Figures of Chapter 1

21

22

BasicTypesofFaults

Figure1.2.1.StrikeSlipFault.

Figure1.2.2.NormalFault.

Figure1.2.3.ReverseFault.

Figure1.2.4.ObliqueFault.

23

Figure1.2.5.TheSanAndreasFault,arightlateralstrikeslipfault,thatcausedthe

massive1906SanFranciscoearthquake(www.SanAndreasFault.org).

Figure1.2.6.TheDenaliFault,Alaska(www.arcticgas.gov).

24

Figure1.2.7NormalfaultatTuckiMountain,DeathValley,California(www.geotripper.org).

Figure1.2.8.ReversefaultatColorado(USGSgallery).

25

Table1.1.Gradesofsteelpipesandtheirminimumstrength.(AmericanPetroleumInstitute)

Figure1.3.1.ThetransAlaskaoilpipelinewhereitcrossestheDenaliFault.Thespecial

footingsallowthepipetomove6mlaterallyand1.5mvertically(AlaskaNaturalGas

TransportationProjects).

26

Figure1.3.2.Excavationofthetrench(www.constructionphotography.com).

Figure1.3.3.Excavatingpipetrenchusingtrenchingmachine(Lincolnshiregaspipeline

works,UnitedKingdom).

27

Figure1.3.4.LayingdownthegaspipelinethatrunsfromEdmontontoVancouver,Canada

(CanadianEnergypipelineAssociation).

Figure1.3.5.Pipelayingprocessofthe370kmFujairahoilpipelineintheUnitedArab

Emirates(www.pipelinesinternational.com).

28

Figure1.3.6.Weldingprocess.SouthWalesgaspipeline. UKs largest high-pressure gas

pipeline (317 km) (www.nationalgrid.com).

29

LiteratureReview

Figure1.4.1.NewmarkandHallmodel(1975).

30

Pipedeformationnearthefault,afterKennedyetal.

Figure1.4.2.Kennedysmodel(1977).

31

Modelofpipelinesubjectedtoverticalfaultmovement(sideview).

Detailoflargedeformationareaofthemodel.

Figure1.4.3.VougioukasandCarydismodel(1979).

32

Figure1.4.4.PipelineanalysismodelproposedbyWangandYeh(1985).

Figure1.4.5.Partitioningofthepipelineintofoursegments.WangandYehmethodon

whichKaramitrosapproachwasbased.

33

Figure1.4.6.FlowofthesimplifiedmethodproposedbyTakadaetal(2001).

34

Figure1.4.7.TheFEmodelusedbyVazourasetal.(2011):(a)soilformationwithhorizontaltectonicfault,(b)

crosssectionand(c)steelpipeline.

35

Figure1.4.8.ResultsfromVazourasetal.model(2011).(a)Planviewofdeformedshapeofapipelineforfault

offsetd=14mand(b)distributionoflongitudinalnormalstrainforseismicfaultdisplacementequalto1and

4m(X65pipe,D/t=72).

36

Figure1.4.9.Normalizedultimatefaultdisplacementforvariousperformancelimitsat

differentanglesof(65pipe,Clay,D/t=72,zeropressure),Vazourasetal.

Figure1.4.10.Effectofinternalpressureontheevolutionofcrosssectionaldeformationin

pressurizedpipelinesforthesamefaultdisplacementd=1m(X65,Clay,D/t=96,=35),

Vazourasetal(2011).

37

Table1.2.TheCornellandRPItestparameters.

Table1.3.Thewholeofthefullscale,centrifugeandnumericalNEEStests.

38

Figure1.4.11.Cornellsplitboxtestbasin.

Figure1.4.12.PlanViewofFullScalePipelineTest.

39

Figure1.4.13.MeasuredAxialandBendingStrainforallfullscaletests(NEESRFinalReport

2008).

Figure1.4.14.RPI150gTonCentrifuge.

40

Figure1.4.15.DistributionofnormalPressureMeasuredbyTactileForceSensors(NEESR

FinalReport2008).

41

Figure1.4.16.TestBasinatCornellforthepipelineembeddedinconcreteblockstest

(NEESRFinalReport2008).

42

Figure1.4.17.Photoanddrawingofthebasinat2moffaultdisplacement

(NEESRFinalReport2008).

43

Figure 1.4.18. The shaking table of the University of Tokyo, capable of simulating at the

sameexperimenttheseismicvibrationaswellasthefaultrupture(Simetal.2012).

44

Figure1.4.19.Bendingmomentdistributionforapipecrossingthefaultat90subjectedto

noshakingandAmax=0.2g,10Hzatdifferentfaultdisplacements(Simetal.2012).

Figure 1.4.20. Comparison of pure sand and TDA trench backfills through normalized

bendingmomentdistributionwithdistancealongthepipeaxisfromtheversesubjectedto

Amax=0.5g,10Hzat4differentfaultdisplacements(Simetal.2012).

45

Figure1.5.1.Pennsylvania,USA,1872.Oneofthefirstgaspipelinesrunning5kilometers

fromNewtonWellstoTitusville.(AmericanOilandGasHistoricalSociety,aoghs.org)

Figure1.5.2.ThegaspipelinenetworkattheUSA(API).

46

Figure1.5.3.TheoilpipelinenetworkofUSA(API).

Figure1.5.4.MajorlifelinesatCentralAsia(USCC.gov).

47

Figure1.5.5.PipelinenetworkofCentralandWesternEurope(InternationalGasUnion).

Figure1.5.6.MajorgaspipelinesofRussiaandEasternEurope(InternationalGasUnion).

48

Figure1.5.7.FaultinduceddamageofembeddedpipelineduringtheManjilearthquake

1990,Iran(Simetal.2012).

Figure1.5.8.Largedeformationofsteelpipesectioncrossinganactivefault

(1999ChiChiearthquake, Takadaetal.2001).

49

Figure1.5.9.Failureofsteelpipescrossingfaults.(a)1999Kocaeliearthquake,Turkeu,

(b)1999ChiChiearthquake,Taiwan.(Takadaetal.2001)

Figure1.5.10.Wrinkledpipelinefailedincompression(Takadaetal.2001).

50

Figure1.5.11.ThemaingaspipelinesinGreece

(..).

Figure1.5.12.MajortectonicfaultsandlocationmapofGreece(Papazachos,1997).

51

Figure1.5.13.TheSoutherngascorridor.Thedifferentproposedplansandtheirroutes

(EuropeanCommissionProject,2009).

52

53

54

Chapter 2

Problem and model definition

55

56

Problemandmodeldefinition

regarding the behavior of a pipeline crossing a dipslip type of fault. The analytical

approachesextendtoacertainlimit,havingtroubletodescribetheproblemusing

formulas because of its complexity. In the strikeslip rupture the soils passive

resistance can be assumed the same along the pipeline. However, in dipslip cases

thisisnotrealisticfortheupwardmovementofthepipefoundslessresistancethan

the downward movement since the soil above the pipeline is of significantly less

height (thus less weight, easier to get lifted up by the pipe) and less strength

comparedtotheinfinitesoillayerunderthepipe.Furthermore,anotherdifficulty

that occurs when we examine a pipeline subjected to dipslip fault rupture is an

extra added parameter. Unlike, strikeslip fault where there is only one angle of

intersection to be examined in dipslip faults there are two: the angle in plan

betweenthefaultandthepipeline,aswellasthedipangleofthefault.Inaddition,

analytical studies have difficulties in including the nonlinearity aspects of the

problem(eithergeometricalormaterialnonlinearity)aswellassecondordereffects

such as local buckling and ovalization of the pipe that are crucial modes of failure

andcannotbeneglected.Thus,arigoroussolutionoftheproblemshouldinvolvean

advancednumericalanalysiswhichcanaccountconsistentlyforthenonlinearstress

strain response of the pipeline steel, the possible forming of gap between the

pipelineandthesoil,thelongitudinalandtransversesoilresistanceaswellassecond

order effects induced by relatively large displacements. Since such analyses are

definitely possible with the available commercial computer codes, many of the

researchers approached the problem using numerical methods. The great majority

ofthemusedthefiniteelementmethodsimulatingthepipewithshellelementsand

thesoilwithsoilsprings.Thesubstitutionofsoilwithsoilspringshastheadvantage

of limiting the size of the model and as a result reducing significantly the

computationaleffortandtimeneededfortheanalysis.However,soilspringsmodel,

in general, does not take into account either the interaction between the soil

57

Problemandmodeldefinition

elements or the real propagation of the fault. This is probably the reason why

severalresearcherspreferredtouseintheirmodelscontinuumbrickelementsfor

thesoil.Similarly,themodelthatweusedinthisstudyisafullmodelthatconsistsof

the pipe and the soil represented by shell and continuum brick elements

respectively.

Another significant drawback of lots of studies is the boundary conditions of the

modelandspecificallythesupportsofthepipeatthe2edgesofthemodel.Itisa

fact that the deformation caused by the fault rupture to the pipe, as well as the

bending stress and strain that occur to the pipe, are concentrated to a relative

narrowarea(dependingonthemagnitudeofthefaultsoffsetandthepipeandsoil

properties).Howevertheaxialstressesthatdevelopaffectasubstantiallybiggerpart

of the pipe that cannot be fully modeled for computational reasons. Thus, the

problemoftheboundaryconditionsarises,whichisthesubjectofChapter3.

Investigating the problem of pipe boundaries we try different models and

approaches. However, all of those models simulated a normal fault rupture. In

Chapter 4 we design a reverse fault model to examine the behavior of the pipe

comparedtothenormalfaultcase.

In Chapter 5 we focus on the aforementioned problem of faults propagation. In

most of the relative studies where a full model is used, despite the fact that

continuum soil elements can depicture the faults propagation, researchers could

designandusealimitedmodelthatconsistedofthepipeandonlyasmalllayerof

soil.Thelimitedcomputationalpowerandthetimelimitsforthecompletionofthe

study, commonly, do not allow the use of a bigger and more realistic model that

would include a soil layer of 20, 40 meters or more. To overpass this problem we

extractresultsfroma2Dfreefieldmodel,wherefaultspropagatefromthebedrock

tothesurfacethroughasoillayerofrealisticwidth,andthenweintegratetheminto

thehybridfull3Dmodel.Thismethodcombinedthe3Daccuracywiththerealistic

fault propagation of the fault without the highcomputational force and time a big

3Dmodelwouldneed.

58

Problemandmodeldefinition

InChapter6,weexaminetheeffectofanelasticplasticwithhardeningstressstrain

relation for the pipe steel, whereas in Chapter 7, we investigate the effect of the

internal pipe pressure both for elasticperfectly plastic and for hardening steel

behavior.

Finally, in Chapter 8, we gather the most significant conclusions of our study and

propose additional factors and parameters that could be examined in a future

research.

Asalreadystated,inordertoconcludetoafinalmodelwetestedseveraldifferent

approaches.Thefollowingparagraphsincludethegeneralpropertiesandconditions

thatarecommonforallthemodelsweused(unlessstatedotherwise).

The analyses for the investigation of the problem were conducted in three

dimensionalspaceusingthefiniteelementcodeABAQUSv.6.11.

Thedimensionsofourbasicmodelare60x10x5m.Thepipelineisplacedatthe

center of our model and its diameter is 0.9144m (3feet). In all of our tests, we

maintained the same angle of intersection between the fault and the pipeline

investigating only the effect of the dip angle of the fault. For the model definition

proceduretheangleofthefaultwasselectedequalto60.Thefaultmovementwas

integrated in the model by moving a part of the base and the corresponding side

(Figure 2.2.1), according to the wanted fault angle, while the rest of the base

59

Problemandmodeldefinition

depicted in Figure 2.2.2. Concerning the conditions at the pipe edges we tried

variousapproacheswhichwillbediscussedinthenextchapter.

SOIL

Itisnecessarytomakeclearthatthevaluesmentionedinthisparagraphwereused

in order to find a proper model for the problem. More realistic values, as well as

parametricanalysesareissuesthatweexamineinthenextchapters.

Thesoilbodywasmodeledusing8nodehexahedralcontinuumelementsC3D8,with

acorrespondingconstitutivemodel,asdescribedinparagraph2.2.3.Themeshingof

thesoilbodyisdividedinthreeareas:a20mareaofrelativelydensediscretization,

inthemiddleofthemodelwhereweexpectthefaulttocrossthepipeline,thusthe

main soil (and pipe) deformations to occur and two other areas of 20m of coarser

meshing(Figure2.2.2).

Thesoilweusedwasdensedrysandwiththefollowingproperties.

ElasticModulus

Poisson'sRatio

E

v

25MPa

0.3

AngleofInternalFriction

40o

DilationAngle

10o

Density

2.1kg/m3

SpecificWeight

20.6kN/m3

Ko

0.29

NeutralEarthPressureCoefficient

For computational reasons we also implemented to our sand soil model a small

cohesionparameterc=2Kpa.

60

Problemandmodeldefinition

Severalexperimentalandnumericalstudieshaveshownthatpostpeaksoilbehavior

is a decisive factor in fault rupture propagation and its possible emergence on the

groundsurface.ScottandSchoustra(1974)utilizingtheFEmethodandanelastic

perfectly plastic constitutive soil model with MohrCoulomb failure criterion,

produced results contradicting both reality and experiments. Walters and Thomas

(1982) employed a more elaborate nonlinear incremental constitutive model with

DruckerPrager failure criterion, nonassociated flow rule, and strain softening to

simulate reverse fault rupture propagation through cohesionless soil. Comparing

their analysis results with benchmark smallscale tests, they proved that laborator

reality could only be reproduced with a nonassociated flow rule and strain

softening. Bray (1990) and Bray et al. (1994), utilizing a FE code with a hyperbolic

nonlinear elastic constitutive law, also achieved satisfactory agreement with

experiments. Also successful were the analyses performed by Roth et al. (1982),

Whiteetal.(1994),Nakaietal.(1995),Loukidis(1999),andEricksonetal.(2001),all

of which made use of the finitedifference (FD) method with an elastoplastic

constitutive model, MohrCoulomb failure criterion, and strain softening. Similar

constitutive models have been employed successfully to model the failure of

embankment dams and the delayed collapse of cut slopes in stiff clay (Potts et al.

1997). Following a thorough review of the literature (Anastasopoulos 2005,

Anastasopoulos et al. 2007) we adopted a similar elastoplastic MohrCoulomb

constitutivemodelwithisotropicstrainsoftening.

61

Problemandmodeldefinition

Elastic behavior

The elasticity form that we implemented in our model is linear isotropic elasticity

wherethestressstrainrelationshipisgivenby:

TheelasticpropertiesarecompletelydefinedbygivingtheYoung'smodulus,E,and

thePoisson'sratio, .(Theshearmodulus,G,canbeexpressedintermsofEand as

MohrCoulomb

TheMohrCoulombcriterionassumesthatyieldoccurswhentheshearstressonany

pointinamaterialreachesavaluethatdependslinearlyonthenormalstressinthe

sameplane.TheMohrCoulombmodelisbasedonplottingMohr'scircleforstates

ofstressatyieldintheplaneofthemaximumandminimumprincipalstresses.The

yieldlineisthebeststraightlinethattouchestheseMohr'scircles.

62

Problemandmodeldefinition

Therefore,theMohrCoulombmodelisdefinedby

tan c

whereisnegativeincompression.FromMohr'scircle,

s cos

s sin

m

Substituting forand, multiplying both sides bycos, and reducing, the Mohr

Coulombmodelcanbewrittenas

s m sin c cos 0

where

1

s ( 1 3)

2

ishalfofthedifferencebetweenthemaximumprincipalstress,1,andtheminimum

principalstress,3(andis,therefore,themaximumshearstress),

1

2

m ( 1 3)

istheaverageofthemaximumandminimumprincipalstresses,andisthefriction

angle.

63

Problemandmodeldefinition

Forgeneralstatesofstressthemodelismoreconvenientlywrittenintermsofthree

stressinvariantsas

F Rmcq p tan c 0

where

Rmc (, )

1

1

3 3

3

cos

istheslopeoftheMohrCoulombyieldsurfaceinthep

frictionangleofthematerial

Cisthecohesionofthematerial;and

isthedeviatoricpolarangledefinedas

r

cos 3

q

1

p trace istheequivalentpressurestress,

3

64

stressplane,the

Problemandmodeldefinition

3

S : S istheMisesequivalentstress,

2

S

:

S

S pI

1

3

isthethirdinvariantofdeviatoricstress,and

isthedeviatoricstress.

Thefrictionangle,,controlstheshapeoftheyieldsurfaceinthedeviatoricplane

asshowninFigure2.2.4.Thetensioncutoffsurfaceisshownforameridionalangle

of=0.Thefrictionanglerangeis090.Inthecaseof=0theMohrCoulomb

modelreducestothepressureindependentTrescamodelwithaperfectlyhexagonal

deviatoric section. In the case of=90 the MohrCoulomb model reduces to the

tensioncutoffRankinemodelwithatriangulardeviatoricsectionand

R mc

describedhere).

Isotropic cohesion hardening is assumed for the hardening behavior of the Mohr

Coulombyieldsurface.Thehardeningcurvedescribesthecohesionyieldstressasa

functionofplasticstrain.

Theflowpotential,G,fortheMohrCoulombyieldsurfaceischosenasahyperbolic

functioninthemeridionalstressplaneandthesmoothellipticfunctionproposedby

MentreyandWillam(1995)inthedeviatoricstressplane:

c |

2

65

Problemandmodeldefinition

where

Rmw(, e)

4 1 e 2 cos 2 2e 1

2 1 e 2 cos 2e 1

Rmc ,

3

4 1 e 2 cos 2 5e 2 4e

and

3 sin

Rmc ,

3 6 cos

isthedilationanglemeasuredinthepRmwqplaneathighconfiningpressureand

candependontemperatureandpredefinedfieldvariables.

c|0istheinitialcohesionyieldstress.

isthedeviatoricpolarangledefinedpreviously.

isaparameter,referredtoasthemeridionaleccentricity,thatdefinestherateat

which the hyperbolic function approaches the asymptote (the flow potential tends

toastraightlineinthemeridionalstressplaneasthemeridionaleccentricitytends

tozero);and

eisaparameter,referredtoasthedeviatoriceccentricity,thatdescribestheout

ofroundedness of the deviatoric section in terms of the ratio between the shear

stress along the extension meridian ( 0 ) and the shear stress along the

compressionmeridian(

Adefaultvalueof

).

isprovidedforthemeridionaleccentricity,.

Bydefault,thedeviatoriceccentricity,e,iscalculatedas

66

Problemandmodeldefinition

3 sin

3 sin

matching the flow potential to the yield surface in both triaxial tension and

compression in the deviatoric plane. This flow potential, which is continuous and

smooth,ensuresthattheflowdirectionisalwaysuniquelydefined.Inourmodelswe

used nonassociated flow rule. A family of hyperbolic potentials in the meridional

stressplaneandtheflowpotentialinthedeviatoricstressplaneareshowninFigure

2.2.5.

Strain Softening

the mobilized friction angle mob and the mobilized dilation angle mob with the

increase of octahedral plastic shear strain where p and res=ultimate mobilized

frictionangleanditsresidual(orcriticalstate)value;p=ultimatedilationangle;and

fp =plastic octahedral shear strain at which softening has been completed. The

model is incorporated in the finiteelement code ABAQUS 2011 through a user

subroutine.

p res p

oct

p

p

f

mob

res

p

fp

for 0 oct

p

fp

for oct

67

Problemandmodeldefinition

p

p 1 octp

mob f

res

p

p

for 0 oct f

p

p

for oct f

Figure 2.2.6 shows a typical variation of the stress ratio, /v, and volume change

(expressed through vertical displacement y of the top platen) with respect to the

imposed horizontal displacement x in a direct shear test of dense Toyoura sand

[based on data of Shibuya et al. (1997)]. Soil response can be divided in four

characteristicphases.

1.Quasielasticbehavior(OA):UptoPointAthesoildeformsquasielastically(Jewell

andRoth1987).Somenonlinearityisclearlyobserved,butwithoutanydilation.xy

isdefinedasthehorizontaldisplacementforwhichy/x>0.

2.Plasticbehavior(AB):FromPointAtoBthesoilyields,enterstheplasticregion,

anddilates.PeakconditionsarereachedatPointB.xp=horizontaldisplacementfor

which /v=max.

3. Softening behavior (BC): From Point B to C the soil experiences softening. Right

after the peak, a single horizontal shear band develops at mid height of the

specimen(JewellandRoth1987;Gerolymosetal.2007).Softeningiscompletedat

PointC,andxf=horizontaldisplacementforwhichy/x0.

4.Residualbehavior(CD):Shearingisaccumulatedalongthedevelopedshearband.

68

Problemandmodeldefinition

The pipeline was modeled using shell elements S4R, a robust, generalpurpose

quadrilateral element that is suitable for a wide range of applications (Figure

2.2.7). Theseelementsprovideaccuratesolutionsinallloadingconditionsforthin

andthickshellproblems.Thicknesschangeasafunctionofinplanedeformationis

allowedintheirformulation.Theydonotsufferfromtransverseshearlocking,nor

do they have any unconstrained hourglass modes. These elements consider finite

membrane strains. In geometrically nonlinear analyses in Abaqus/Standard the

crosssection thickness of finitestrain shell elements changes as a function of the

membranestrainbasedonauserdefinedeffectivesectionPoisson'sratio, .The

thickness change based on the effective section Poisson's ratio is calculated as

follows.

Inplanestress33=0;linearelasticitygives

33

( 11 22)

Treatingtheseaslogarithmicstrains,

t

ln

1

t0

l1

l2

A

ln

ln 0 ln 0

1 A0

l2

l1

whereAistheareaontheshell'sreferencesurface.Thisnonlinearanalogywith

linearelasticityleadstothethicknesschangerelationship:

t A

t 0 A0

For = 0.5the material is incompressible; for = 0the section thickness does not

change.

Likebefore,themiddlepartofthepipelinehasamorerefinedmeshwithasizeof

shellelements3.2cmx9cminsteadof20cmx9cmwhichistheelementsizeforthe

restofthepipe(Figure2.2.7).

69

Problemandmodeldefinition

Although the diameter of the pipe D remained the same in all of our tests, the

thicknessofthepipetrangesbetween0.00635mand0.0127mgiving4differentD/t

ratios.

Diameter

0.9144m/36''

Thikness

0.00635m/0.25''

0.00762m/0.3''

0.009525m/0.375''

0.0127m/0.5''

D/t

144

120

96

72

ThepipeweusedisanAPI5LX65steelpipe,whichiswidelyusedintheoilandgas

industry.

Yield Strength

Tensile Strength

API 5L

Grade

min.

min.

Yield to Tensile

Ratio

max.

ksi / Mpa

X65

ksi / Mpa

65 / 450

77 / 530

0.93

18

Elongation

min.

Elasticmodulus

Poisson'sRatio

Es

v

210Gpa

0.3

Density

7.8kg/m3

Asafirstapproachweassumedelasticperfectlyplasticbaviourofthesteelwhereas

in a later chapter we integrated the original hardening behavior of the material as

givenbytheAmericanPetroleumInstitute.

Thefrictioncoefficientofthepipesoilinterfacewaschosenequalto0.42.

70

Problemandmodeldefinition

Themainconcernofthepipelinedesignistoensurethattherewouldbenolossof

containment.Itisalsocrucialtomaintainthepipelinefunctional.Inordertoquantify

the amount of damage a buried pipeline can endure it is necessary to adopt

appropriate criteria which will pose certain limits and make clear whether the

pipeline is safe and operational or not. Traditionally, the pipeline design has been

basedonthecriteriaoftheallowablestress.However,steelisaductilematerial

capable of sustaining significant amount of inelastic deformation. Thus, under the

severe deformations caused by the fault rupture the pipeline exhibits important

inelasticdeformation.Consideringthat,itisreasonabletodeterminethelimitstates

accordingtothestrainanddeformationlevelsratherthantostressvalues.Basedon

the paper of Vazouras et.al(2012) we categorize the performance limit states as

follows(Figure2.2.9):

a) tensile strain in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline that causes pipe wall

rupture

b) localbuckling

c) excessivedistortionofthepipelinecrosssection(ovalization)

Determination of tensile strain capacity of a pipeline is of primary importance

for establishing an efficient strainbased pipeline design procedure. In the

absence of serious defects and damage of the pipeline, the tensile capacity is

controlled mainly by the strength of the girth welds, which are usually the

weakest locations due to weld defects and stress/strain concentrations. Tensile

strain limits are experimentally determined through appropriate tension tests on

strip specimens and in wide plates. For design purposes, a simple and

straightforward approach for determining tensile strain limit of girth welds in

71

Problemandmodeldefinition

pipeline is provided by the Canadian CSA Z662 pipeline design standard, through

the following equation that considers surfacebreaking defects:

where:

u:theultimatetensilestraincapacityin%

: the CrackTip Opening Displacement. CTOD is a measurement of the stretching

across the crack tip just before rapid growth starts at the crack and is used as a

standardmeasurementoftoughnessoftheweld.(0.11)

:theyieldtotensilestrenghtratio.(0.70.95)

:theratioofdefectlengthoverthepipewallthicknessequalto(2c/t).(110)

:theratioofdefectheightoverthepipewallthickness(/t).(0.5)

Considering a slightly defected pipe with =0.3, =0.85, =1 and =0.1 the critical

tensilestrainisequaltou=3.5%.

ThisisveryclosetothevalueproposedbyEurocode8,EN19984andbyASCEMOP

119wheretheproposedtensilestrainlimitis3%forsteelweldedpipes.

Aplanarsurfacebreakingdefectinthepipewall.

72

Problemandmodeldefinition

CSAZ662pipelinedesignstandardalsoprovidesanequationforburieddefects:

Aplanarburieddefectinthepipewall.

where:

,,,:aspreviouslydefined

:ratioofdefectdepthtopipewallthickness(d/t).

Using the previous values and assuming =0.1 for a 12.7mm thickness pipe one

obtains tcrit=4.5%. Although we do not take into consideration effects of

temperature, strain rate, prior strain history and strain aging these equations give

quite conservative values as stated in the CSA regulations. Based on the above

equationsandontheproposedvaluesoftheinternationalregulationsweinvestigate

theproblemusingtwovaluesofcriticaltensilestrain3%and5%.

73

Problemandmodeldefinition

B) Local Buckling

Undergroundinducedactions,togetherwiththedevelopmentoftensilestrainson

the pipeline wall, compressive strains due to pipe bending deformation may also

occur. When compressive strains exceed a certain limit, pipeline wall exhibits

structural instability in the form of local buckling. In the presence of buckling the

pipelinemaystillfulfillitstransportationfunction,providedthatthesteelmaterialis

adequately ductile. However, the buckled area is associated with significant strain

concentrationsand,inthecaseofrepeatedloading(e.g.duetovariationsofinternal

pressureortemperature),fatiguecracksmaydevelop,imposingaseriousthreatfor

thestructuralintegrityofthepipeline.Therefore,theformationofalocalbuckleor

wrinklecanbeconsideredasalimitstate.Extensiveresearchonaxialcompression

andbendingofsteelpipesegmentshasdemonstratedthatcompressivestrainlimits

for steel pipes depend on the diametertothickness ratio (D/t), the yield stress of

steelmaterialy,thepresenceofinternalorexternalpressure,aswellastheinitial

imperfections and the residual stresses.(karamanos et al). The local buckling strain

Cucanbeestimatedusingthefollowingdesignequation,adoptedbytheCSAZ662

specification:

with

Wherehisthehoopstressandpistheinternalpipepressure.

74

Problemandmodeldefinition

Significant distortions of the pipeline crosssection even though may not harm the

integrityofthepipeshouldbeexaminedasamodeoffailuresinceaboveacertain

limit the pipeline is no longer functional. A simple and efficient measure of cross

sectiondistortionisovalizationwhichwequantifieusingtheflatteningparameterf

andconsiderasalimitvaluef=0.15asalsoadoptedbytheDutchspecificationNEN

3650.

Do D '

f=

Do

Do:theinitialdiameterofthepipe

D:theminimumdiameterofthefinaldistortedcrosssection

75

76

Figures of Chapter 2

77

78

(a)

(b)

60

60

(c)

z

x

y

Figure2.2.1.(a)Thebasicmodelofourstudy.(b)Thefaultwasinducedbymovingapartof

thebaseandthe correspondingsideattheleftedgeofthemodel.(c)Thedistortedshape

ofthepipe.

79

5m

0.5m

2m

0.625m

5m

60m

10m

y

x

0.625m

25Mpa

5m

Figure2.2.2.Thesoilpartofthemodel,itsvariouscrosssectionswiththeirproperties,

dimensionsandboundaryconditions.

80

(a)

(b)

Figure2.2.3.(a)ViewofMohrCoulombfailuresurfacein3Dspaceofprincipalstresses.(b)

TraceoftheMohrCoulombyieldsurfaceinthe 12 plane.

81

(a)

(b)

planes..

82

(a)

(b)

inthedeviatoric stressplane.

83

Figure2.2.6.Atypicalvariationofthestressratio,/v,andvolumechange(expressed

throughverticaldisplacementyofthetopplaten)withrespecttotheimposedhorizontal

displacementxinadirectsheartestofdenseToyoura sand[basedondataofShibuyaetal.

(1997)].

84

(a)

0.02m

0.032m

0.07m

(b)

0.9144m

500

450

400

350

300

Stress(Mpa) 250

200

150

100

50

0

0%

5%

10%

Strain(%)

Figure2.2.7.(a)Thepipeasdesignedinourmodel.dividedinthreeparts,accordingtothe

neededdensity ofmeshing,(b)Thepipecrosssectionandthediagramthatdescribedthe

stressstrainrelationofthepipesteel.

85

(a)

(b)

Figure2.2.8.(a)Theelementsusedinourbasicmodel.Shellelementsforthepipeand

continuumbrickelementsforthesoil.(b)Comparisonofshelltocontinuumelements

(Abaqus Documentation).

86

Modesofpipelinefailure

(a)

(b)

(c)

h=0

h=0,2m

h=0,5m

h=1m

h=1,45m

Figure2.2.9.(a)Excessivetensilestrain,(b)Localbuckling,(c)Thedevelopmentofthe

ovalization ofthepipecrosssectionwithrespecttotheverticalfaultdisplacementh.The

criticalstatebeyondwhichthepipeisconsideredasnonoperationalcorresponds,forthis

exampletoh=1m,[D/t=144,steelwithhardeningbehavior,HybridBeamModel(Chapter6)].

87

88

Chapter 3

Pipe boundaries

89

90

Pipeboundaries

Introduction

Asalreadymentioned,theboundaryconditionsofthiskindofproblemsisyettobe

answered. A very large model would be needed if we wanted to capture the real

pipesoil interaction and pipe behavior. Such a big model would be, at least, time

consuming, hence, all of the researchers had made an assumption about the

boundaryconditionsthattheyshouldapplytothemodel.Usually,thepipeedgesare

consideredasfixedtothemarginalsidesofthemodel.Nonetheless,wedecidednot

totakethatassumptionasgrantedandtoexaminedifferentboundaryconditionsfor

the pipe edges. Apart from the free and fixed conditions that we examined, we

designedahybridmodelthataddressestotheboundaryproblembycombiningthe

previousfullmodelwithbeamelementsthatrepresentthecontinuationofthepipe

and extend for a kilometer, starting from the edges of the pipe, and soil springs

attachedtothosebeamsasthesurroundingsoil.Inthefollowingparagraphsofthe

chapter,wepresentallthestepsandallthedifferentmodelswetried,beforeending

upwiththemostrealisticandreliablesimulation.

We examine four different cases, testing a normal fault and a pipeline of variable

thickness.

91

Pipeboundaries

Intheseanalyses,wereleaseallthedegreesoffreedomofthepipeedges.Initially,

duringthefirstfewcentimetersoffaultmovement,thepipeisundertensilestress

thatiscausedprimarilybythefrictionbetweenthepipeandthesoilbecauseoftheir

trend for relative movement. Very soon, the bending mechanism starts to prevail.

Thedeformedshapeofthepipeindicatestwoinflectionpoints(Figure3.1.1)thatis

inabsoluteaccordancewiththeanalysisstressandstrainresults(Figure3.1.3).In

those two bending areas, tensile and mostly compressive strains start to

concentrate, until the point where the compression causes local buckling to occur,

firstlyinthefootwallandlaterinthehangingwall(Figure3.1.2).

At this point, it is important to describe the way we define and observe the

commencement of the local buckling phenomenon which is our failure criterion

apartfromthevisualobservationofconcentratedwrinklingofthepipe.Wecanspot

the start of buckling both at the strainposition diagram, which demonstrates the

strain distribution along the pipe for various fault offsets (Figure 3.1.4) and at the

strainfaultoffsetdiagramatthepointofthepipewherethebucklingoccurs(Figure

3.1.5). Concerning the first diagram, as the fault offset augments the compressive

axial strains increase as well, having a substantially bigger ratio of increase at the

area where buckling will occur, forming a bell shaped strain distribution. When

buckling begins, additional fault movement causes not only a general increase of

compressivestrainsbutalsoadecreaseofaxialstrainsatcertainpointsofthatarea

which in later steps can even turn to tensile strains. The start of buckling can be

definedevenmoresimply,bythelaterdiagramwementioned,justbypointingout

themoment(point)whentheincreaseratioofcompressivestrainsaugmentsgreatly

andstrainsbegintoincreasealmostverticallycomparedtotheirpreviousmildtrend

ofincrease.

TheresultsobtainedarepresentedinFigures3.1.43.1.8.

92

Pipeboundaries

As we can observe in Figure 3.1.6, smaller D/t ratio pipes (thicker pipes since we

maintainthesamediameter)canendurebiggerfaultoffsetsandbiggercompressive

strainsbeforetheappearanceofbuckling.Itisalsodemonstratedthat,eventhough

bucklingdidnothavetheexactsameforminallD/tcases,itoccursinsidearelatively

short area of 1m very close to the pipe fault intersection point. This indicates that

hypothetically if we knew the faults plane we could presume the buckling area

despite D/t ratio (about 12 diameters length from the faultpipe intersection).

However,bedrockat5mdepthisnotveryrealistic,sotheaboveconclusioncouldbe

notofgreatinterestandwillbereviewedinChapter5.

Even though, our approach, as defined in Chapter 2, concentrates on strain based

criteriaweexamined,aswell,theaxialforce(N)andmoment(My)distributionalong

the pipe. Since the pipeline is simulated using shell elements, different values of

forcesandmomentscanbeexpected,notonlyalongthepipeslengthbutalongthe

crosssections of the pipe as well. For this reason, we examined and edited the

output data for different points of the pipes crosssection. The axial forces and

moments along the top and bottom pipe fibers are demonstrated in Figures 3.1.7

and3.1.8respectively.

Concerning the axial forces diagram, the distribution of forces is in absolute

agreementwiththepreviousdiagramsofaxialstrains,makingthetwobendingareas

easy to observe. Apart from that, the axial force at the pipe edges (and at the

adjacent area) is practically zero, something we clearly expected since we had

designedthepipeedgestobefree.Anotherinterestingobservationwecanmakeby

lookingthesegraphsisthatasthefaultdisplacementincreasessodothevaluesof

the axial force. At some characteristic areas, after a certain value the axial forces

remainstableandtheseareasstarttoexpand.Theseareascorrespondtothepipe

parts where sliding between the pipe and the soil has occurred and the

aforementioned maximum value that the axial forces can obtain is the marginal

friction force. The exact value of this maximum force is not easy to be calculated,

since,itdependsnotonlyonthefrictioncoefficientofthepipesoilinterfaceandthe

vertical(tothepipe)soilpressurebutontheexactsurface(thustheexactlength)of

93

Pipeboundaries

thepipethatisactivatedandtendstomoverelativelytothesurroundingsoil.Aswe

alsoexpected,themaximumfrictionvalueforthelowerpartofthepipeisslightly

biggerbecauseofthebiggerdepthandtheaddedweightofthepipe.Finally,wecan

noticethat,afterbucklingappears,theaxialforcesofthatareaaredestabilizedand

decreased.Thisdecreaseiscausedbythewrinklingthatoccursduringbucklingand

causesatsomepointsthecompressiontoincreaseandatotherpointstodecrease

(eventoturnintotension).

Regardingthemomentdiagramstherearefewpointstobemade.Unliketheaxial

forcedistribution,momentispracticallythesamealonganypipecrosssection.That

doesnotapply,obviously,tothephasewhenbucklingoccurs,whichhasasaresult

verydifferentvaluesofmomentbetweenthetopandbottomfiber,butagain,only

atthelimitedareaofbuckling.

Finally,weexaminedthedistributionofsoilpressuresalongthepipeanditscross

sections.UsingthedataoutputfromABAQUSandanalgorithmwritteninMATLAB

we obtained the graphs of external pressure distribution along the pipe cross

section.Figure3.1.9presentsthepressuredistributionforthreecrosssections,A,B

andC,locatedatthehangingwall,atthemiddleofthemodelandatthefootwall

respectively. As it is demonstrated, at the area where the fault intersects the

pipeline(B),gapingoccursattheveryfirststepsoffaultdisplacement(indicatedby

thezerosoilpressuresatthelowerpartofthepipecrosssection)whereas,atthe

areasAandCittakessignificantlymorefaultmovementforpipesoilcontactlossto

occur. Specifically, during the first steps of small fault movement, the pressures

around these areas are almost geostatic. Further movement causes the loss of

contactfirstlyinthehangingwallandafterwardsinthefootwallpart.

94

Pipeboundaries

Apart from integrating all the aforementioned properties and geometries in our

model,werestrained,inaddition,allthedegreesoffreedomofthepipeendcross

sections.Thiswouldbeindeedavalidapproachifwecouldprovethatthestressesof

thepipehavealreadybeennullified,beforereachingthelimitsofourmodel,thus,

that there would be not significant changes between our model and a bigger one

thatwouldincludealongerpipeline.Itisafactthatwedidntexpectthistohappen

ina60mmodelmainlybecauseoftheaxialstressesthatoccurandhave,ingeneral,

awideareaofaction.However,wefoundreasonabletoruntheseanalyses,bothto

besureaboutourspeculationandforfurthercomparisonwiththeothermodelslet

alonethatthisisthemostcommonoptionbetweentheresearchers.Theresultsthat

cameoutofthismodelaredemonstratedinFigures3.2.13.2.9.

The pipe behavior is defined as follows. The pipe, at first, experiences almost only

axialtensilestress.Thetensilestressesandstrainsareinitiallymoreintenseattwo

pipeareas,rightandleftfromthepointwherethefaultplanecrossesthepipeline.

Loss of contact between the pipe and the surrounding soil occurs by the time the

fault reaches the pipeline. During almost all of the fault evolution, because of the

bending mechanism that occurs, the fibers with the greatest tensile strain are

located anti diametrically to those with the smaller tensile strain. In the free ends

scenario,thoselatterareasexperiencecompressivestressandarethosewherelocal

buckling occurs. Afterwards, the tensile strains continue to increase and reach the

marginoftheelasticstrain.Atthatarea,(thetopfibersofthepipenearthefault,in

the footwall part) the concentration and the rate of increase of plastic strains

augmentsleadingfinallytoexcessivetensilestrainsbeyond3%and5%thatwehave

setaslimits.Fromthere,eventhoughitisbeyondtheinterestofthisstudysincewe

considerthatthepipehasalreadyoperationallyfailed,thetensilestrainscontinueto

increase and a change of loading mechanism is spotted. This specific feature, the

transitionfromprevailingbendingtoprevailingtension,isdiscussedinthefollowing

caseofHybridBeammodel.

95

Pipeboundaries

AswenoticeinFigure3.2.1,regardlessthepipethickness,allofthepipesreachthe

failurecriteriaof3%and5%attheexactsamefaultoffsetandfailureoccursalmost

atthesamepointofthepipe.Theexplanationoftheabovecoincidenceliesinthe

modeldesign.Thesideofthehangingwall,wheretheoneendofthepipeisfixed,

movestheexactsameway(direction,valueandrateofdisplacement)asthebaseof

thehangingwallthatwemoveinordertosimulatethefault.Thedisplacementsof

thesidewerethesameforalltheanalysesofsamefaultangle.Hence,sincethepipe

isfixedbothtothemovablesideofthehangingwallandtotheimmovablesideof

the footwall we subject it to elongation, causing mainly (at the first steps at least)

thesameaxialdeformation(valuesandrate)despitethethicknessofthepipe.Soit

isnormalthatthestrainlimitsarereachedforalloftheD/tratiosatthesamefault

offset. This happens of course because, as shown by the analyses of this case, the

loading mode is very close to pure axial loading. It is possible that under different

faultangleswewouldnothavethisbehaviorsincethedeformationwouldbeeven

more concentrated and would cause more severe bending and shearing near the

faultplane.Asaconclusion,incaseswheresomeonewouldexpectsignificantaxial

loadingitwouldbeclearlywrongtousethefixedendsmodel.

It is evident, that under an ideal axial stress or strain loading the behavior of the

pipe, keeping the elastic modulus E and the length L the same, would be

independentofthethicknessofthepipeandthegeometricareaAingeneral.

F K x

E A

L

E A

x

L

96

Pipeboundaries

E A

L

F

x

(Fr

F A

E

x

L

y )

Comparing fixed to free edges scenario, in the latter case the pipe at the hanging

wall follows only a percentage of the movement magnitude of the adjacent soil

whereas the pipe on the footwall is dragged towards the direction of the hanging

wall,incontrasttothesurroundingsoilofthefootwallthatremainsrelativelystable.

Hence,nowthatwedesignedthepipeendstobefirmlyattachedtothesurrounding

soil we provoke axial tensile stress to the pipe having as a result bigger tensile

stressesandmoretensilebehavioringeneral.Thisisthereasonwhyinthefreeends

case the bending mechanism prevails leading to local buckling failure while in the

fixedendsscenariothetensilestressdoesnotallowthecompressivestrainsandasa

consequence the buckling to occur, leading to excessive tensile strain failure.

However,wecannotbesurewhichofthosetwoassumptionsisclosesttothereality

just by comparing them. For this reason we designed a more sophisticated model

thataddressestothisproblemasdescribedinthefollowingparagraph.

Regarding the axial forces (Figures 3.2.53.2.7.) and moment (Figure 3.2.8),

schematically, things do not differ a lot from the previous case of free edges.

However,asmentionedbefore,fixededgescausetensilebehaviorhavingasaresult

large values of tensile axial force at the pipe ends (instead of zero in the previous

case) and along the pipe in general, which remain tensile during all of the fault

movementsteps.Soilpresses,aswell,arenotpracticallyaffectedbytheboundary

conditionsofthepipe(Figure3.2.9.)Theonlydifferencespottedisthatgapingisless

intense,comparedtothefreeendsscenario,somethingthatisattributedprobably

tothefixedconditionsofthepipeendthatobligethepipe,atthatpoint,tofollow

the exact same movement of the soil, hence the loss of contact is slightly more

limited.

97

Pipeboundaries

General geometry

Apartfromtheprevioustwoextremecases,wetriedtoapproachtherealbehavior

of the soilpipe system by making the least simplifications possible. In order to

achievethatweneitherfixedthepipeedgesnorletthemfree.Instead,wekeptthe

same 60m model and then we expanded it by 1 kilometer from each side (Figure

3.3.1). The key point is that, for the expansion parts, we now use beam elements

PIPE31forthepipeandnonlinearspringelementsSPIRNG2forthesurroundingsoil,

elements that are commented in the following paragraphs. Specifically, we added

beamelementsof1mwhosenodeswereconjoinedwithfive,nonlinear,1msprings

alongthevertical,horizontalandaxialdirectionrespectively(Figure3.3.1).

reduced to one dimension mathematically: the primary solution variables are

functions of position along the beam axis only. For such assumptions to be

reasonable,itisintuitivelyclearthatabeammustbeacontinuuminwhichwecan

define an axis such that the shortest distance from the axis to any point in the

continuum is small compared to typical lengths along the axis. The simplest

approach to beam theory is the classical EulerBernoulli assumption, that plane

crosssectionsinitiallynormaltothebeam'saxisremainplane,normaltothebeam

axis,andundistorted.Thisapproximationcanalsobeusedtoformulatebeamsfor

largeaxialstrainsaswellaslargerotations.ThebeamelementsPIPE31arebasedon

such a formulation, with the addition that these elements also allow transverse

shear strain; that is, the crosssection may not necessarily remain normal to the

beamaxis.ThisextensionleadstoTimoshenkobeamtheory(Timoshenko,1956)and

98

Pipeboundaries

is generally considered useful for thicker beams, whose shear flexibility may be

important.Weassumethat,throughoutthemotion,theradiusofcurvatureofthe

beamislargecomparedtodistancesinthecrosssection:thebeamcannotfoldinto

a tight hinge. A further assumption is that thestrain in the beam's crosssection is

thesameinanydirectioninthecrosssectionandthroughoutthesection.

In some piping applications thinwalled, circular, relatively straight pipes are

subjectedtorelativelylargemagnitudesofinternalpressure(weexaminetheeffect

ofinternalpressureinChapter6).Thishastheeffectofcreatinghighlevelsofhoop

stressaroundthewallofthepipesectionsothat,ifthesectionyieldsplastically,the

axial yield stress will be different in tension and compression because of the

interactionwiththishoopstress.ThePIPEelementsallowforthiseffectbyproviding

uniform radial expansion of the crosssection caused by internal pressure. Since

consideration of planar deformation only provides considerable simplification in

formulatingbeamelements,beamelementsonlymoveinthe(X,Y)plane.

two nodes, acting in a fixed direction. The relative displacement across a SPRING2

elementisthedifferencebetweentheithcomponentofdisplacementofthespring's

firstnodeandthejthcomponentofdisplacementofthespring'ssecondnode:

99

Pipeboundaries

Springs Calibration

designed a 3D F.E. model that included the pipeline and the soil of the

aforementioned characteristics and we subjected the buried pipeline to vertical,

horizontal and axial displacement. Based on the computed reaction forces and

displacements that came out of those pushover analyses, we obtained the spring

properties for the hybridbeam model. The spring forcedisplacement relation

diagramsareshowninFigures3.3.2and3.3.3.Asweobserve,theaxialspring(KA)is

activatedbothfornegativeandpositiveaxialdisplacement,whereas,theotherfour

springs are activated only for one direction of displacement and develop no force

during displacement towards the opposite one. The horizontal spring (KH) is the

sameforbothsides,sincethereisnodifferenceneitherregardingthesoilproperties

norregardingtheavailablesoillengthateachside,thus,thepassivereactionofthe

soil at the sides is the exact same. On the contrary, the vertical springs differ

significantly. The spring that is activated during downward displacement (KVdown)

developsmuchbiggerforcesthantheupperspring(KVup)forthepassivesoilreaction

that the limited surface soil layer can develop is significantly smaller than the

resistancethatisdemonstratedbytheinfinitesoillayerunderthepipe.

TheresultsoftheanalysesconductedwiththebeammodelareillustratedinFigures

3.3.43.3.17. As it is depicted, this more realistic approach gives substantially

differentresultscomparedtotheprevioustwomethods.

100

Pipeboundaries

Firstofall,itisnowprovedthatthemodeoffailureforthiskindoffaultruptureis

the excessive tensile strain. This is in absolute disagreement with the results that

were taken from the free ends analysis. Free ends model does not take into any

considerationtheeffectoftherealeffectivelengthofthepipeandofitssurrounding

soil,whichexceedsbyfarthedimensionsofthebasicmodel.Thus,itisclarifiedthat

tochoosefreeboundaryconditionsforthepipe(atleastforthiskindofproblem)is

notinaccordancewithreality.

Compared to the fixed ends scenario, once again great differences are observed.

Apart from the mode of failure and the area where failure occurred, that are

practicallythesameinbothcasesandapartfromthegeneralshapeofdistributionof

axialstrainsattheareaoffailurethatissimilar,alltheotheraspectsofthesetwo

models differ substantially. Now that the axial forces and deformations have

adequate length to be developed and are not limited by the boundaries of the

model,thepipecanendurealotmorefaultdisplacement.Significantlyforthecase

ofD/t=72thepipecanendurealmost6timesbiggerfaultmovement(Figure3.3.3.).

The pipe now demonstrated bigger resistance, with respect to the fault

displacement,simplybecauseitisnolongersubjectedtosuchhightensilestressand

strainslikethosethatwerecausedbythefixedpipeboundaries.Comparingtheaxial

forcesthatdevelopinthismodelandinthefixedone,wenowobservesignificantly

smallertensileforces(Figure3.3.9.).Furthermore,unlikethefixedendsresults,the

3%and5%strainlimitarenowreachedfordifferentvaluesoffaultoffset,unlikethe

fixed ends case where the critical fault displacement was almost the same for 3%

and5%axialstrain(Figure3.3.3.).Theonlyexceptionconcerningthis,isthecaseof

D/t=72wherewenoticeoncemoreaverysmalldistancebetweenthecriticalfault

movementforthe3%axialstrainandthecriticalfaultmovementfor5%axialstrain.

101

Pipeboundaries

Apossiblereasonfortheaboveobservationisthataboveacertainlimitofrelative

displacementbetweenthefootwallandthehangingwallthedeformationsbecome

moreintenseandaccumulatealongthefaultsplanehavingasaresultthechangeof

thecriticalmodeofloadingfrombendingtoshearingthatresemblestodirectshear

loading. However, in the fixed ends case, the 3% and 5% limits are reached for

almostthesamehandforverysmallvaluesofit.Thus,thischangeofmechanismis

spotted even for limited relative displacement between the hanging wall and the

footwall.Inaddition,asalreadymentioned,fixedendscaseresultsinanalmostideal

axialtensiledeformation,somethingthatsuggeststhatthechangeofmechanismis

actually a transition from prevailing bending to prevailing tension. This mechanism

provokes a rapid development of strains which has as a result that one or two

additional centimeters of vertical fault displacement are enough for the strains to

increasefrom3%to5%.Themechanismcanbeidentifiedfirstlybythefactthatthe

criticalareamovestothepointofpipefaultintersection,whichisatthemiddleof

themodeledpipewherethereis,practically,nobendingdeformationandsecondly

by the strain distribution that change form and shape. Specifically, as long as the

bending prevails and causes the main tensile strain accumulation, the strains are

distributedoverarelativelylargeareaattheupperpartofthepipe,whereas,when

theprevailingfailuremechanismistension,strainsaccumulatealonganarrowarea.

Additionally,tensioncausestensilestrainallalongthecriticalpipecrosssectionsin

contrastto thebendingmechanismthattendstocompress(oratleastreducethe

tension) half of the pipe crosssection. All of the aforementioned observations are

depictedin(Figures3.3.6).Becauseofthischangeofloadingmechanismweobserve

twocriticalpoints:theonewhere3%strainisreachedbecauseofbendingandthe

otherwhere5%strainlimitisreachedbecauseofshearing(Figure3.3.8).

102

Pipeboundaries

Veryinterestingresultscameupfromthismodelconcerningtheaffectedareaofthe

pipe.Thisisreallyimportanttobeexamined,sinceitisofgreatinteresthowmany

meters away from the pipefault intersection the effect of the rupture stops,

somethingthatwouldgiveapictureofhowlongaF.E.simulationshouldbeorinan

actual field case, something that could help make a speculation about how long

would be the affected length of the pipe from a potential fault rupture. For these

reasons westudied theeffective (or affected) length of the pipe Leff related to the

verticalfaultoffsetFIGUREandtotheD/tratio.Weconsideraseffectivelengththe

length of the pipe that expands from the pipefault intersection point to the point

where the axial force N is practically zero. Another way to calculate the effective

lengthisbyusingthepointwheretheaxialstrainsarealmostzero.Thismakesno

difference since at that area the pipe behaves totally elastically, hence, stresses

(forces) and strains are absolutely proportional. We also calculated the effective

lengthbothforthehangingwallpartandthefootwallpartandobservednegligible

difference (Figure 3.3.11). As we notice in Figure 3.3.12 at the very first steps of

fault movement the Leff is augmented almost vertically. After that it follows a

parabolictrenduntilitisfinallystabilized.Thisstabilizationoccursbecause,aftera

certainfaultdisplacement,thedeformationiscentralizedtothepointoffaultpipe

intersection and continues to augment in that failure area, until probably the

breakingofthepipe,causingnofurthereffecttothepipeawayfromthatarea.The

faultdisplacement,atwhichtheaxialstrainsstarttoincreasealmostverticallyatthe

pointoffailure,istheonebeyondwhichtheeffectivepipelengthremainspractically

unchanged.Figure3.3.12alsodemonstratesthatLeff isbiggerforsmallerD/tratios

thusforthickerpipes.Thickerpipeshavebiggermomentofinertia,hence,justlikein

the case of beam on elastic foundation, bigger inertia moment means, logically,

largerLeff.

103

Pipeboundaries

Detachment

It is demonstrated that the boundaries of the pipe do not affect that much the

gaping between the soil and pipe, since, once again, the contact between them is

lost from the first steps of fault displacement. The occurrence of gaping is

demonstrated in Figures 3.3.13 and 3.3.14. The best way to locate the loss of

contactistospottheareaswherethesoilpressuresarezero.Thisisthemethodwe

used in Figure 3.3.14 which shows that detachment occurs and expands mainly in

thehangingwallpartandthataboveacertainfaultdisplacementthelengthofthe

area of gaping remains stable. The only advantage of Figure 3.3.13, where we

demonstrategapingbyplottingthedifferentverticaldisplacementsofthepipeand

the soil, is that it gives us the exact height of the gaping. However, this is not

something of interest since it does not affect the pipe and it is only the area of

detachmentandthetimewhenitoccursthataffectthepipesbehavior.Lookingat

thecrosssectionalsoilpressuredistributionofFigure3.3.15wenoticethatgaping

mayoccurnotonlyatthelowerpartofthepipebutalsoattheupperpartofit.It

wouldbereasonablenottoexpectgapingtooccuratthatarea,sincenormally,sand

abovethepipe,justbecauseofthegravity,shouldfollowpipesmovementandfill

anygapthatisabouttooccur.However,asalreadymentionedinChapter2,because

ofcomputationalreasons,weintegratedasmallcohesioncoefficient(c=2kPa)toour

sandwhich,incombinationwithpossiblesoilarchingeffect,restrainthesoilabove

thepipefromcollapsingandallowsthegapingtooccur.

Regardingtheeffecttothepipetothefaultpropagationandthesurroundingsoilin

general,wedonotexpectsignificantdifferencescomparedtofreefieldfaultrupture

case. As demonstrated in Figures 3.3.16 and 3.3.17, the faults surface outcrop is

slightlyaffectedbytheintersectionwiththepipe.Themajoreffectofthepipeisthe

plastification that induces at the surrounding soil because of its resistance to the

104

Pipeboundaries

downwardmovementofthehangingwallandthebulgingthatoccursbecausethe

piperestrainsthesoilabovefromfollowingthedisplacementsoftherestofthesoil

ofthehangingwall.

Theeffectofthefaultangleisalsoexaminedbyrunningtheanalysisfora45fault

angle.Thecomparisonbetweenthe60and45faultanglecasesisshowninFigures

3.3.18 and 3.3.19. Now that we change the fault angle we cannot make pipe

resistance comparisons just in terms of vertical fault displacement. For this reason

wecomparetheaxialstraindevelopmentatthecriticalpointforbothcasesinterms

of vertical and horizontal fault displacement and in terms of total magnitude of

displacement.Asitdemonstrated,forthenormalfaultcase,failureoccursearlierfor

the45angleintermsofverticalandtotaldisplacementbutforbothanglesfailure

occurs almost at the same value of horizontal displacement. This observation

signifies that the horizontal component of the fault, thus the horizontal

displacement of the pipe is the critical one for the failure to occur. This is quite

logical,ifweconsiderthatthemodeofpipefailure,subjectedtonormalfaulting,is

theexcessivetensileaxialstrain.

105

Pipeboundaries

Basedonthepreviousmodel,wesubstitutedthebeampartsandsoilspringswith

justtwosprings,oneateverypipeend(Figures3.4.1.).Thespringcalibrationwas

basedontheHybridBeammodel.Specifically,theaxialreactionforcesattheedges

ofthepipewererecorded,throughoutthefaultmovement,withrespecttotheaxial

displacements.ThesedatawaslaterintegratedintotheForceDisplacementrelation

diagramoftheseaxialsprings,implying,thisway,theeffectsofanonlimitedmodel

withoutthelongbeampartsofthepreviousmodelthatcostintimeand

computationalpower.

AsdepicturedinFigures3.4.2and3.4.3.,thereisnotanysubstantialdifference

comparedtothehybridbeammodel,neitherregardingthecriticalfault

displacementwithrespecttotheD/tratio,norregardingthestraindevelopment

anddistribution.

Thisensuresthatthespringedgemodelis,indeed,abletocapturethebehaviorof

thesoilpipesystem,yieldingreliableresults.However,wedecidedtoproceedour

researchusingthehybridbeammodel,insteadofthelatterone,partlybecauseof

thesmall(howevernegligible)differencesthatoccurredandmainly,becauseby

usingspringedgeswewouldnothadbeenabletocomputeusefulandimportant

parameterssuchastheeffectivepipelength.

106

Pipeboundaries

Themorerealisticapproach,achievedwiththehybridbeammodel,provesthehigh

importance of the proper choice of the pipe boundaries. Comparing fixed to free

endscase,fixedmodeldoescapturetheactualmodeoffailurebut,nonetheless,the

resultsdiffersubstantiallyfromthoseobtainedfromthehybridbeammodel,which

weconsiderandproposeasthemostreliablemodelandtheonethatistheclosest

to the real conditions. Hence, a model, such as the proposed one, that combines

reducedtimeconsumptionwithrealismandreliability,isconsideredasacorrectand

practicalchoiceofboundariesinordertosimulatepipefaultsystemsusingafinite

elementprogram.

Pipes of smaller D/t ratios (thicker pipes of the same diameter) are able to

withstandlargerfaultmovements.

According to the results of the hybrid beam model a change of the prevailing

loadingmechanismoccurs.Asthefaultdisplacementincreases,sodoestherelative

movement between the hanging wall and the footwall, which leads to transition

fromprevailingbendingtoprevailingshearinglikeloadingmechanism.

Useful results came up by the examination of the effective length of the pipe.

Firstly, the effective length of the pipe increases with the increase of fault

displacement.Howeverthetrendofincreasereducesasthefaultdisplacementgoes

on,until,finally,intenseplastificationandfailureoccuratthemiddlepartofthepipe

hence the effective length is no longer affected. It is also demonstrated that Leff

dependsontheD/tratioandaugmentsasthepipethicknessincreases.

The critical displacement component for the normal fault case, that defines the

pointwhenthepipefails,isthehorizontalone.

107

108

Figures of Chapter 3

109

110

(a)

Freepipeends

(b)

Hoggingdeformation

Shaggingdeformation

Figure 3.1.1. (a) The deformed model shape . The deformed pipeline is highlighted in red.

The pipeline edges are free and the pipe is pulled towards the fault. (b) An example of

deformed pipeline and axial strain distribution. The correspondence of the two inflection

points of the deformed pipe shape with the strain distribution is depicted.

111

h=0.30m

h=0.90m

h=1.20m

Figure 3.1.2. Axial strain distribution for three vertical fault displacement h. Buckling occurs

at two areas making its first appearance in the footwall pipe part (D/t=96, Free ends).

112

h=0.30m

0.25%

0.20%

0.15%

0.10%

0.05%

x 0.00%

0.05% 20

25

30

35

40

35

40

35

40

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

X(m)

h=0.90m

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

x

20

25

30

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

X(m)

10.00%

h=1.20m

5.00%

0.00%

20

25

30

x 5.00%

10.00%

Topfiber

15.00%

20.00%

Bottomfiber

X(m)

Figure 3.1.3. The axial strain diagrams for the top and bottom pipe fiber along the critical

area, that correspond to the deformed shapes of the previous figure.

113

(a)

X(m)

33.2

33.4

33.6

33.8

34

34.2

34.4

34.6

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.36m

0.37m

0.38m

0.25%

0.39m

0.40m

0.30%

0.41m

0.42m

0.35%

(b)

32

32.5

33

X(m)

33.5

34

34.5

35

0.10%

0.30%

0.50%

0.70%

D/t=144,h=0.42m

x 0.90%

D/t=120,h=0.48m

D/t=96,h=0.60m

1.10%

D/t=72,h=0.83m

1.30%

1.50%

1.70%

Figure 3.1.4. (a) The evolution of axial compressive strain at the buckling area, as the vertical

fault displacement increases.. h=0.42m corresponds to buckling initiation . (D/t=144). (b)

Comparison of the axial strains when buckling occurs for four different D/t ratios. (Free Ends)

114

h/D

(a)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.0%

0.5%

X=33.93m

x 1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

(b)

h/D

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.0%

D/t=144

1.0%

D/t=120

D/t=96

2.0%

D/t=72

x 3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

Figure 3.1.5. (a) Axial strain development at the point where buckling occurs (D/t=144). The

red circle indicates the start of buckling. (b) Comparison of axial strain developments at the

buckling areas for four D/t ratios.(Free ends model)

115

(a)

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

hcr/D 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

96

120

144

D/t

(b)

1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

xcritical 0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%

0

24

48

72

D/t

Figure 3.1.6. (a) Vertical critical displacement to pipe diameter hcr/D related to the pipe

diameter to thickness ratio for the free ends case. (b) The axial, compressive strain x when

buckling occurs for different D/t ratios for the free ends case.

116

(a)

Topfiber

8000

6000

4000

h=0.05m

2000

h=0.20m

N(kN)

h=0.50m

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000

h=0.80m

h=1.0m

4000

6000

8000

X(m)

(b)

Bottomfiber

8000

6000

N(kN)

4000

h=0.05m

2000

h=0.20m

h=0.50m

0

2000

10

20

30

40

50

60

h=0.80m

h=1.0m

4000

6000

8000

X(m)

Figure3.1.7.Axialforcedistributionanddevelopmentforfiveverticalfaultdisplacementsfor

(a)thetopand(b)thebottompipefiber. (D/t=72,Freeends)

117

Topfiber

(a)

2

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2

h=0.05m

M(kNm) 4

h=0.50m

h=0.85m

10

(b)

X(m)

Bottomfiber

4

2

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

M(kNm) 2

h=0.05m

4

h=0.50m

h=0.85m

6

8

10

X(m)

Figure3.1.8.Momentdistributionanddevelopmentforthreeverticalfaultdisplacementsfor

(a)thetopand(b)thebottompipefiber.(D/t=72,Freeends)

118

h =0.05m

h=0.50m

h=1.00m

Figure 3.1.9. The soil pressures along three pipe crosssections (X=20, 40 and 60 m for A,B and

C respectively) for three different vertical fault displacements h. (D/t=72)

119

Fixedpipeends

(a)

(b)

0.40

0.30

hcr/D

3%

0.20

5%

0.10

0.00

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 3.2.1. (a) The undeformed and deformed shape of the Fixed ends model for a normal

fault of a vertical movement up to 2m. For this fault offset the pipe is deformed way above the

operational strain limits. (b) Critical fault displacement to pipe diameter hcr /D ratio versus the

diameter to thickness ratio D/t for D/t=72114.

120

(a)

h=0.10m

h=0.20m

h=0.30m

h=0.50m

(b)

Figure 3.2.2. (a) The deformation of the pipe for four vertical fault. (b) Axial strain at h=0.3m

exceeding the upper limit of 5%.(D/t=72, Fixed Ends)

121

(a)

6%

0.2m

5%

0.22m

4%

0.24m

x 3%

0.26m

2%

0.28m

1%

0.29m

0.30m

0%

31.9

32.1

32.3

32.5

32.7

32.9

33.1

X(m)

(b)

7%

6%

5%

4%

x

3%

2%

1%

0%

31.9

32.1

32.3

32.5

32.7

32.9

33.1

X(m)

Figure 3.2.3. (a) The evolution of axial tensile strain for vertical fault displacement up to 0.30m

with 0.28m and 0.30m corresponding to hcr for 3% and 5% respectively. (D/t=144). (b) Comparison

of the axial strains between four different D/t ratios for the critical state of strain values above 5%.

(Fixed Ends)

122

(a)

6%

5%

4%

3%

X=32.38m

2%

1%

0%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

h/D

(b)

6%

5%

4%

D/t=72

D/t=144

x 3%

D/t=120

2%

D/t=96

1%

0%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

h/D

Figure 3.2.4. (a) The axial strain of the most deformed element of the pipe at position X=32.38

versus the h/D ratio. (b) Comparison of the axial strain of the most deformed point of the pipe

between four different D/t ratios (Free Ends)

123

h=0.05m

h=0.30m

h=0.50m

Figure3.2.5.Thedistributionoftheaxialforcealongthepipelineforthreedifferentvaluesof

verticalfaultmovementh.(D/t=72,Fixedends)

124

Bottomfiber

6000

5000

4000

h=0.05m

h=0.10m

3000

N(kN)

h=0.15m

2000

h=0.20m

h=0.30m

1000

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

X(m)

Topfiber

6000

5000

4000

h=0.05m

3000

h=0.10m

N(kN)

h=0.15m

h=0.20m

2000

h=0.30m

1000

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

X(m)

Figure 3.2.6. The distribution of the axial force along the pipeline for five different values of

vertical fault movement h. (D/t=72, Fixed ends)

125

Topfiber

6000

5000

4000

N(kN)

3000

h=0.30m

h=0.40m

2000

h=0.50m

1000

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

X(m)

7000

Bottomfiber

6000

5000

N(kN)

4000

3000

h=0.30m

2000

h=0.40m

h=0.50m

1000

0

0

10

20

30

X(m)

40

50

60

Figure 3.2.7. The distribution of the axial force along the pipeline for three different values of

vertical fault movement h. The h=0.30m is the critical displacement above which we observe a

general decrease and distortion of the axial force distribution. (D/t=72, Fixed ends)

126

(a)

h=0.05m

h=0.30m

h=0.50m

(b)

2

h=0.05m

M(kNm) 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

h=0.15m

h=0.30m

X(m)

Figure 3.2.8. (a) Schematic distribution of moment along the pipeline and (b) diagrammatic

distribution of moment along the middle pipe fiber., for three fault displacements.

(D/t=72, Fixed ends)

127

h=0.00m

h=0.05m

A

h=0.25m

A

h=0.50m

C

A

Figure 3.2.9. The distribution of soil pressures along the pipeline and along the pipe cross

section a three points A,B and C (X=20, 40 and 60m respectively) for four vertical fault

displacements h. (Dense sand, D/t=72, Fixed ends)

128

HybridBeammodel

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.3.1. (a) The hybridbeam model, initial and deformed shape . (b) Detail of the beam

and spring elements connected to the pipe end.

129

KVup

KH

KA

KH

KVdown

F (kN)

KA

40

30

20

10

0

0.006

0.004

0.002

10

0.002

0.004

0.1

0.2

0.006

Ux (m)

20

30

40

KH

F(kN)

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.3

Uy (m)

Figure 3.3.2. Spring force with respect to the axial displacement (KA) and to the horizontal

displacement (KH).

130

KVup

KH

KA

KH

KVdown

F(kN)

160

140

120

100

KVup

80

60

40

20

0

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

Uz (m)

F(kN) 600

500

400

300

KVdown

200

100

0

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.4

Uz (m)

Figure 3.3.3.. Spring force with respect to the vertical displacement Uz for the two vertical

springs that are activated by upward (KVup)and downward (KVdown) movement respectively.

The forces of the downward spring are greater because of the bigger passive soil resistance

that develops against downward movement in comparison with the smaller soil resistance

that the limited surface soil layer activates against the upward movement of the pipe.

131

(a)

HybridBeamModel

2

3%

1.8

5%

1.6

1.4

1.2

hcr/D

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

(b)

ComparisonwithFixedModel

2

1.8

3%FixedModel

1.6

5%FixedModel

1.4

3%HybridBeamModel

5%hybridBeamModel

1.2

hcr/D

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 3.3.4. (a) Vertical critical displacement to pipe diameter hcr/D related to the pipe

diameter to thickness ratio for the Hybrid Beam model. (b) Comparison of the previous

diagram with the relative one of Fixed ends model.

132

(a)

4.0%

3.5%

3.0%

2.5%

FixedEnds

x 2.0%

HybridBeamModel

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%

31

32

33

X(m)

34

35

(b)

7%

6%

5%

4%

FixedEnds

3%

HybridBeamModel

2%

1%

0%

31.9

32.1

32.3

32.5

32.7

32.9

33.1

X(m)

Figure 3.3.5. Comparison of the axial strain distribution between the Fixed ends model and

the Hybrid Beam model, at the two critical states of (a) 3% tensile strain and (b) 5% tensile

strain. (D/t=96)

133

Figure 3.3.6. Bending mechanism prevails from the beginning of fault displacement until the

point where the big relative displacement of the hanging wall and the footwall causes the

change of the loading mechanism.

134

(a)

7%

6%

0.50m

0.57m

5%

0.65m

4%

0.70m

3%

0.75m

0.80m

2%

0.85m

1%

0.93m

0%

0.90m

31.5

32

32.5

33

33.5

34

34.5

X(m)

(b)

3.5%

3.0%

2.5%

2.0%

D/t=144

1.5%

D/t=120

1.0%

D/t=96

0.5%

D/t=72

0.0%

32

32.5

33

33.5

34

34.5

35

35.5

X(m)

7%

(c)

6%

5%

4%

D/t=144

3%

D/t=120

2%

D/t=96

1%

D/t=72

0%

31.5

32

32.5

33

33.5

34

X(m)

Figure 3.3.7. (a) Axial tensile strain distribution and development along the critical area

(D/t=144). Comparison of axial tensile strain distribution between the four different D/t

ratios for the limit states of (b) 3% tensile strain and (c) 5% tensile strain.

135

10%

9%

(a)

8%

7%

6%

x 5%

X=33.78m

4%

X=32.34m

3%

2%

1%

0%

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

h/D

5%

(b)

4%

3%

D/t=72,X=33.78m

D/t=96,X=34.10m

2%

D/t=120,X=34.38m

D/t=144,X=34.83m

1%

0%

0

(c)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

h/D

6%

5%

4%

D/t=72,X=32.59m

x 3%

D/t=144,X=32.34m

2%

D/t=120,X=32.35m

D/t=96,X=32.34m

1%

0%

0

0.5

1.5

h/D

Figure 3.3.8. (a) Axial tensile strain development with respect to the vertical fault

displacement to diameter ratio at two points X=33.78 and X=32.34m where the limits of 3%

and 5% tensile strain are reached , caused by bending and shearing respectively (D/t=144).

(b) The axial strain development at the points where the 3% tensile strain is reached for four

D/t ratios. (c) The axial strain development at the points where the 5% tensile strain limit is

reached for four D/t ratios.

136

(a)

Bottomfiber

7000

6000

5000

4000

N(kN)

3000

0.10m

2000

0.50m

1000

1.00m

1.70m

0

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000

3000

4000

(b)

X(m)

7000

Topfiber

6000

5000

4000

3000

0.10m

N(kN)

0.50m

2000

1.00m

1000

1.70m

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1000

2000

X(m)

Figure 3.3.9. Axial forces along (a) the top and (b) the bottom pipe fiber, for four values of

vertical fault displacement.

137

(a)

6

2

h=0.10m

0

0

10

20

30

M(kNm)

40

50

60

h=0.50m

h=1.00m

h=1.75m

X(m)

(b)

h=0.10m

h=0.50m

h=1.00m

h=1.75m

Figure 3.3.10. (a) Diagrammatic distribution of moment along the top pipe fiber and (b)

schematic display of moment values along the pipe.(D/t=72)

138

(a)

(b)

Leff

16000

14000

12000

Footwall

10000

N(kN) 8000

Hangingwall

6000

4000

2000

0

30

230

430

630

830

1030

|X|(m)

X=30

X=0

X=30

Figure 3.3.11. (a) The axial force distribution along our model. We consider as Leff the length

of the segment that extends from the faultpipe intersection point (practically at the middle

of the model) to the point where the axial force is almost 0. (b) Comparison of the axial

forces along the two beam parts of the model at the hanging wall and at the footwall

respectively., no significant difference is observed.

139

(a)

(b)

700

0.25

600

0.20

500

400

Leff/D

300

0.15

0.10

200

0.05

100

0

0

0.5

1.5

0.00

0.5

h/D

(c)

1.5

h/D

16000

14000

12000

10000

h=0.10m

N(kN) 8000

h=0.50m

h=1.00m

6000

h=1.50m

4000

h=1.75m

2000

0

30

(d)

230

430

630

830

1030

X/D

600

500

0.25m

400

0.5m

Leff/D 300

0.75m

0.9m

200

1m

100

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 3.3.12. (a) The effective length (hanging wall side) with respect to the vertical fault

displacement . (b) The axial tensile strain at the point of failure. (c) The axial forces along the

beam elements of the hanging wall for five values of h. The increase rate of Leff remains

stable for a few centimeters of fault displacement and then decreases as the fault

displacement augments. When the tensile strain starts to increase rapidly (point of failure

because of shear mechanism) the Leff practically stops increasing. (D/t=72) (d) The effective

length Leff with respect to the diameter to thickness ratio D/t.

140

h=0.02m

0.005

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.005

Soil

Uz(m) 0.01

Pipe

0.015

0.02

0.025

X(m)

h=1.0m

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

0.2

0.4

Soil

Uz(m) 0.6

Pipe

0.8

1

1.2

X(m)

Figure 3.3.13. Detachment of the pipe from the surrounding soil depicted for two values of

vertical fault displacement h, by comparing the vertical displacement of the bottom pipe

fiber with the vertical displacement of the soil beneath. Gaping occurs almost instantly

within the very first centimeters of fault displacement. (D/t=72)

141

h=0.01m

h=0.01m

h=0.10m

h=0.10m

h=1.00m

h=1.00m

h=1.75m

h=1.75m

Figure 3.3.14. Pipe detachment from the surrounding soil can be clearly depicted based on

the soil pressure on the pipe. When the soil pressure becomes zero (blue areas) ,the loss of

contact between soil and pipe is indicated. The gaping is formed from the very beginning of

fault displacement, its length increases as the fault displacement augments until a maximum

point above which further fault displacement does not affect the length of the gaping area.

142

h=0.00m

h=0.05m

h=0.50m

h=1.00m

h=1.75m

Figure 3.3.15. Soil pressure along three pipe crosssections A,B and C (X=20,30 and 40m

respectively) for several vertical fault displacement h. (D/t=72)

143

Figure 3.3.16. Magnitude of plastic strains for h=1.75 . Planes of various distances from

the pipe are depicted. (y=0 corresponds to the vertical plane of the central pipe axis)

(D/t=72).

144

Figure3.3.17.Verticaldisplacementdistributionforverticalfaultdisplacementh=1.75m.

Planesofvariousdistancesfromthepipe.(y=0correspondstotheverticalplaneofthe

centralpipeaxis)(D/t=72).

145

(a)

(b)

0.1

0.1

0.09

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.07

0.07

0.06

0.06

x 0.05

x 0.05

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0

0

0.5

1.5

0.5

1.5

l(m)

h(m)

0.1

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

60

x 0.05

45

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

(m)

Figure 3.3.18. (a) The deformed soil and pipe for a normal fault of 45. (b) Comparison

between the 60 and 45 normal fault in terms of axial deformation with respect to the

vertical fault displacement h, the horizontal fault displacement l and the total magnitude of

displacement , (D/t = 72).

146

(a)

700

600

500

400

Leff/D

300

200

100

0

0

0.5

1.5

h(m)

(b)

16000

14000

45

12000

60

10000

N(kN) 8000

6000

4000

2000

0

30

130

230

330

430

X(m)

Figure 3.3.19. Comparison of a) the effective pipe length and b) the beam force

distribution between the 45 and 60 analyses , for normal faulting (D/t = 72).

147

SpringEdgeModel

(a)

KA

(b)

20000

F (kN)

15000

10000

5000

0

0.6

0.4

0.2

5000

0.2

0.4

0.6

Ux (m)

10000

15000

20000

Figure 3.4.1. (a) The Spring edge model where we substituted the beams and soil springs of

the Hybrid Beam model with a single axial spring at the edge of the pipe.(b) The axial spring

force F with respect to the axial displacement Ux.

148

Springedgemodel

(a)

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

hcr/D

3%

0.8

5%

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

ComparisonSpringEnd Hybridbeam

(b)

HybridBeammodel

2

1.8

Springendsmodel

1.6

1.4

1.2

hcr/D

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

24

48

72

D/t

96

120

144

168

Figure 3.4.2. (a) Critical fault displacement to pipe diameter hcr /D ratio versus the

diameter to thickness ratio D/t for D/t=72114. (b) Comparison of the spring edge model to

the hybrid beam model with respect to the critical vertical fault displacement for D/t=72

114.

149

(a)

9%

8%

7%

Springedgesmodel

6%

HybridBeammodel

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

31.5

32

32.5

33

33.5

34

34.5

35

35.5

X(m)

(b)

10%

9%

8%

7%

6%

HybridBeammodel

x 5%

Springedgemodel

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

0

0.5

1.5

h/D

Figure 3.4.3. (a) Comparison of axial tensile strain distribution for vertical fault movement

h=1.63 and 1.65m and (b) comparison of the axial tensile strain with respect to the

vertical fault movement, between the Spring edges and Hybrid Beam model . (D/t=72)

150

151

152

Chapter 4

Reverse fault rupture

153

154

Reversefaultrupture

Introduction

In this chapter, we design and examine the behavior of a pipe when subjected to

reverse fault rupture. For our analysis we use the hybrid beam model whose

reliability has been discussed and proven in the previous chapter. However, we

conductabriefcomparisonbetweentheresultsofthismodelandtheresultsofthe

modelswithfreeandfixedpipeends,togetaclearviewabouthowclosetoreality

thelattermodelsare.

Model Properties

ThemodelsweuseinthischapterarepracticallythesamewiththoseofChapter2:

geometry, elements, constitutive model, and pipe and soil properties are kept the

same as in Paragraph 2.2. Two are the major differences implemented in these

analyses.

The first is the obvious change of applied movement. Instead of a downward we

applyanupwardmovementkeeping,however,thesameangleof60,inordertobe

abletodirectlycomparethetwocases,normalandreverse.

Secondly,weadjustedtheneutralearthpressurecoefficient(Ko)changingitsvalue

from0.29to1.0.Thereasonforthischangeisthat,normallyinthecaseofreverse

fault, before the occurrence of rupture, horizontal stresses have already increased

becauseofthecompressivenatureofreversefault.Hence,inordertocapturethis

initial state we increase the value of Ko to be closer to the passive earth pressure

coefficient Kp. Respectively, the normal fault case is of tensile nature thus, the

horizontalstresseshavealreadybeendecreasedbeforetheruptureandthevalueof

KoischosentobeclosertotheactiveearthpressurecoefficientKa.

155

Reversefaultrupture

Ends Model

Wepresenttheresults(Figures4.1.24.1.4)onlyforacertainpipethickness(D/t=

72).Sincewehavealreadyconcludedthatthehybridbeammodelisthemost

reliable,wesimplywanttobrieflydemonstratethedivergenceofthetwomodels.

AsdepictedinFigure4.1.2thepipelinefailsbecauseoftheoccurrenceofbucklingat

verticalfaultoffseth=0.49m(h/D=0.54).Figure4.1.3demonstratestheaxialstrain

distributionalongthecriticalareaofthepipe.Weobservethatthemajorityofthe

pipeissubjectedtocompressionwiththeexceptionofthetwoinflectionareas

wheretensilestressesandstrainsappearandwhereatlaterhvalueslocalbuckling

occurs.First,bucklingappearsinthehangingwallside(wherehoggingdeformation

appears)andthisiswhenweconsiderthefailureofthepipe.Asthefaultmovement

continuesasecondlocalbucklingoccursatthepipepartinthefootwall(where

shaggingdeformationhasbeenformed).Therelativeaxialstraindiagrams,fortop

andbottomfiber,areshowninFigure4.1.4.

Fixed ends model

Onceagain,wepresenttheresultsonlyforapipethicknesst=0.0127m(D/t=72).

Bucklingisthemodeoffailureinthiscase,aswell.Bucklingappearsfirstlyinthe

hangingwallandtheninthefootwall,likeinthepreviouscase.AsshowninFigure

4.1.5,thecriticalverticalfaultdisplacementismerely0.07m(h/D=0.08).Thehuge

differencebetweenfreeendsandfixedendssolutionsisexplainedbythefactthat

reversefaultsubjectsthepipemainlytocompressionandsincetheboundariesare

fixed,thepipeisunabletomoveandthusthestressesincreasemorerapidly.

156

Reversefaultrupture

Incontrastwiththepreviousextremeandunrealisticcasesoffreeandfixedends,

thisapproachaddressestotheproblemofboundariesinrationally.Withouteven

examiningtheresultsoftheanalysis,wecouldpredictthatthefailurewilloccur

somewherebetweenthepreviousextremeapproaches.Asmentionedbefore,

fixededgesrestrainthepipefrommoving,thus,compressivestressesincreaseand

bucklingoccursearly,whilefreeedgesallowthepipetoaxiallymovealmostfreely

(affectedonlybythefrictionforce).Sinceinbothcasesfailurewasduetobuckling,

weexpectbucklingtobethefailuremodeinthiscaseaswell.Sincethehybridbeam

modeltakesintoaccountthecontinuationofthepipe,weexpectbuckling(forD/t

=72)tooccurforaverticalfaultmovementbetween0.07m(fixedends)and0.49m

(freeends).

Indeed,asshowninFigures4.2.1and4.2.3localbuckling(forD/t=72)occursat

0.25mofverticalfaultdisplacementh.Similartothenormalfaultcase,thickerpipes

canendurebiggerfaultdisplacements(Figure4.2.1)andlargeraxialstrains(Figure

4.2.4)beforetheoccurrenceofbuckling.Again,bucklingoccursalonganarrowarea

ofabout0.2mlengthforeveryD/tratio.

WedefineLeffasinParagraph3basedonthepointwhereaxialforcesinthebeam

partsbecomezero.InFigure4.2.6.a,acomparisonofbeamaxialforcesinthe

hangingwallandthefootwalldoesnotindicategreatdifferencesbutmakesclear

thatinthefootwallthepipeismorestressedcomparedthaninthehangingwall.The

effectivelengthincreasesrapidlyduringthefirststepsofverticaldisplacement(until

h/D=0.06)andthentherateofincreasediminishesuntiltheLeffremainspractically

stable(h/D=0.38)(Figure4.2.6).Inthesamefigure,theeffectofD/tratiois

demonstrated,showingthatgreaterlengthofpipeisactivatedforthethickerpipes.

157

Reversefaultrupture

Furthermore,wecomparethemagnitudeandareaofeffectoftheaxialbeamforces

inthefootwallandasitisdepictedinFigure4.2.6.b,thereversefaultactivates

greaterlengthofpipeforthesamevalueofdislocation.

ThedetachmentofthepipefromthesoilisdemonstratedinFigures4.2.8and4.2.9

intermsofrelativepipeandsoilverticaldisplacementsandsoilpressures,

respectively.Inthefirstcase,weusetheverticaldisplacementsofthelowerpartof

thepipeandofthesoilsurfacebeneaththepipeandinthesecondfigure,lossof

contactisdepicturedbytheareaswheresoilpressureiszero.Thelatterwayof

displayismoreefficientsinceitcandemonstratethedetachmentareasalongthe

entirepipesurfaceandnotonlythelowerpipepart.Unlikethenormalfaultcase,

reverserupturecausesdetachmenttooccurmainlyatthefootwallpartofthepipe.

Detachmentcanalsobedemonstratedbyplottingthesoilpressurearounddifferent

pipecrosssections(Figure4.2.10).

Finally,regardingthegeneraleffectofthepipetothesoil,weobserveinFigure

4.2.11,thatthepipehindersthefaultfrompropagatinguptothesurfaceandin

Figure4.2.12,wenoticethatcomparedtothefreefieldrupture(y=5m)thepipe

provokesadditionaldisplacementtothesoilsinceitpushesitupwardsand

rightwards,accordingtothefaultmovementandthepipedeformation.

158

Reversefaultrupture

Theeffectofthefaultangleisalsoexaminedbyrunningtheanalysisfora45fault

angle.Thecomparisonbetweenthe60and45faultanglecasesisshowninFigures

4.2.13and4.2.14.SimilarlytotherelativeparagraphofChapter3,weexaminethe

pipe resistance in terms of vertical, horizontal and total fault displacement. We

observe that, unlike the normal fault case, the critical parameter now is the total

fault displacement since in both fault angle cases the pipe fails for the same total

fault displacement. This is also quite logical, since the mode of pipe failure when

subjected to reverse faulting, is the local buckling. For local buckling to occur it is

importanttheincreaseofcompressiveaxialstrains(causedmainlybythehorizontal

movementcomponent)aswellastheoccurrenceofbending(causedbythevertical

movementcomponent).

159

Reversefaultrupture

Onceagain,thelimitedmodelsoffixedandfreepipeendsareproveninadequate

tocaptureanddescribecorrectlythebehaviorofthesoilpipesysteminthecaseof

reversefaultrupture.

Themodeoffailureforthiskindoffaultislocalbuckling,duetothecompressive

natureofreverserupture.

Subjected to reverse fault rupture, pipe can endure significantly less fault

movementbeforetheoccurrenceoffailure,comparedtonormalfaultrupture.

Comparedtothenormalfaultcase,reversefaultactivatesalongerpartofthepipe.

Ascriticalfaultmovementcomponent,itappearsthatthecriticalparameteristhe

totalfaultdisplacement.

160

161

162

Figures of Chapter 4

163

164

FreePipeEnds

60

60

z

x

y

Figure 4.1.1. Simulation of reverse fault rupture, using the basic model of Chapter 3 with free

pipe ends.

165

(a)

x

(b)

28

28.2

28.4

28.6

28.8

29

29.2

29.4

29.6

29.8

30

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

h=0.40m

x 4.00%

h=0.45m

h=0.49m

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

X(m)

Figure 4.1.2. (a) The deformed pipeline shape is highlighted in red. The relative movement

between the pipe and the soil indicates that , if not for the free boundaries of the pipe, a

compression would have occurred, caused by the continuation of the pipe , which is not taken

into consideration in the free edges model. (b) Axial strain distribution in the critical area.

Buckling appears at 0.49 m of vertical fault displacement.

166

h=0.10m

h=0.30m

h=0.50m

h=0.90m

x

Figure 4.1.3. Axial strain distribution along the pipe for four vertical fault displacements.

(D/t = 72,Free ends)

167

h=0.10m

0.10%

0.05%

0.00%

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

34

36

38

40

34

36

38

40

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

h=0.30m

0.20%

0.10%

0.00%

0.10%

22

24

26

28

30

32

0.20%

0.30%

0.40%

h=0.50m

1.00%

0.00%

1.00%

22

24

26

28

30

32

2.00%

3.00%

Topfiber

4.00%

5.00%

Bottomfiber

6.00%

10.00%

h=0.90m

5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

x 10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

X(m)

Figure 4.1.4. Diagrammatic axial strain distribution along the critical area for four vertical

fault displacements. (D/t = 72,Free ends)

168

FixedEnds

(a)

h=0.02m

h=0.07m

h=0.10m

(b)

28.8

28.9

29

29.1

29.2

29.3

29.4

29.5

29.6

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

h=0.06m

x 4.00%

h=0.07m

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

X(m)

Figure 4.1.5. (a) Axial strain distribution along the critical area. The pipe is under compression

from the very beginning of fault movement. (b) Axial strain distribution along the critical area

(bottom fiber) when first buckling occurs. (D/t = 72, Fixed ends)

169

Reverse HybridBeammodel

(a)

(b)

0.3

0.25

0.2

hcr/D 0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 4.2.1. (a) The aforementioned HybridBeam model used for the simulation of reverse

fault motion. (b) The summarized dimensionless results of the analysis in terms of critical

vertical fault displacement with respect to the diameter to thickness ratio D/t.

170

h=0.10m

h=0.20m

h=0.25m

buckling

h=0.40m

1st

2nd

Z

X

Figure 4.2.2. The axial strain distribution along the critical pipe area (X=2540 m) for four

vertical fault displacements h. (D/t = 72). First buckling occurs in the hanging wall side.

171

(a)

28

28.2

28.4

28.6

28.8

29

29.2

29.4

29.6

29.8

30

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

h=0.10m

x3.00%

h=0.20m

h=0.25m

4.00%

5.00%

X(m)

6.00%

(b)

29

29.1

29.2

29.3

29.4

29.5

29.6

0.00%

0.50%

D/t=144

1.00%

D/t=120

D/t=96

x 1.50%

D/t=72

2.00%

2.50%

X(m)

3.00%

Figure 4.2.3. (a) Axial stain development for three vertical fault displacements, for D/t = 72.

(b) Axial strain distribution at the moment of buckling initiation for four D/t ratios..

172

(a)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

D/t=144

D/t=120

x 1.50%

D/t=96

D/t=72

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

h/D

(b)

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

0

0.005

0.01

xcritical

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

D/t

Figure 4.2.4. (a) Axial strain development at the point where buckling occurs for four D/t

ratios. (b) The critical axial strain at which buckling occurs , for four D/t ratios.

173

h=0.30m

h=0.10m

3000

2000

2000

1000

N(kN)

1000

0

0

20

40

60

N(kN)

1000

1000

20

40

60

2000

2000

3000

4000

3000

5000

4000

6000

5000

3000

3000

h=0.35m

1000

1000

0

1000 0

h=0.40m

2000

2000

N(kN)

X(m)

7000

X(m)

20

40

60

N(kN)

0

0

20

40

1000

2000

2000

3000

4000

3000

5000

4000

6000

7000

X(m)

X(m)

Topfiber

Bottomfiber

Figure 4.2.5. Axial forces of the upper and lower fiber, for four vertical fault displacements.

The selected steps indicate the initial condition, the initiation of the first buckling , the

initiation of the second buckling and the axial forces distribution several steps after both of

buckling failures have occurred. (D/t = 72)

174

60

EffectivepipelengthLeff

(a)

30

80

130

180

230

280

330

0

1000

2000

Hangingwall

3000

N(kN)

Footwall

4000

5000

6000

|X|(m)

7000

(b)

8000

6000

Normal

4000

Reverse

2000

N(kN)

0

30

230

430

630

830

1030

2000

4000

6000

8000

|X|(m)

X=30

X=0

X=30

Figure 4.2.6. (a) Comparison of axial forces along the beam in the hanging wall and the

footwall. The differences are not large but demonstrate that footwall is more stressed

compared to hanging wall. (b) Comparison between normal and reverse cases regarding the

effective pipe length . Reverse activates a longer part of the pipe for the same fault

displacement.

175

400

(a)

350

300

250

Leff/D

200

150

100

50

0

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

h/D

0

(b)

30

230

430

630

830

1030

1000

2000

h=0.05

3000

h=0.10m

N(kN)

h=0.20m

4000

h=0.30m

5000

h=0.40m

6000

7000

(c)

X(m)

300

250

200

Leff/D

h=0.05m

h=0.10m

h=0.13m

150

100

50

0

0

24

48

72

D/t 96

120

144

168

Figure 4.2.7. (a) Effective pipe length as fault displacement increases. Just like with normal

fault case, during the first steps the increase is large while, subsequently, the rate of increase

diminishes until the Leff gets a maximum value. (b) The development of axial forces, as the fault

movement increases ,indicates the value of Leff (D/t = 72). (c) The axial forces along the beam

elements in the footwall for three values of h.

176

h=0.03m

0.035

0.03

Soil

0.025

0.02

Pipe

Uz (m) 0.015

0.01

0.005

0

0.005

10

20

30

40

50

60

40

50

60

40

50

60

X(m)

h=0.20m

0.25

0.2

0.15

Uz (m)

0.1

0.05

0

0

10

20

30

0.05

X(m)

h=0.40m

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

Uz(m) 0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.05 0

10

20

30

X(m)

Figure 4.2.8. Detachment of the pipe from the soil beneath it , depicted by plotting and

comparing the vertical displacements off pipe and soil (D/t = 72).

177

h=0.03m

h=0.10m

h=0.25m

h=0.40m

Figure 4.2.9. Detachment of the pipe, indicated by the pipe areas where the soil pressure is

zero (blue areas).

178

h=0.10m

h=0.20m

h=0.40m

Figure 4.2.10. Soil pressure around the pipe crosssection in three positions A,B and C of

X=20,30 and 40m respectively. (D/t = 72)

179

Figure 4.2.11. Magnitude of plastic strains for h = 0.40 m . Planes of various distances from

the pipe are depicted. (y=0 corresponds to the vertical plane of the central pipe axis).

No significant lateral effects are spotted.(D/t = 72)

180

Figure 4.2.12. Vertical displacement distribution for vertical fault displacement h=0.40 m.

Planes of various distances from the pipe. (y = 0 corresponds to the vertical plane of the

central pipe axis) (D/t=72).

181

(a)

45

(b)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

x 0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

h(m)

0

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

x 0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.1

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

x 0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.2

l(m)

0.3

0.4

60

45

(m)

Figure 4.2.13. (a) The deformed soil and pipe for a reverse fault of 45. (b) Comparison

between the 60 and 45 reverse fault in terms of axial deformation with respect to the

vertical fault displacement h, the horizontal fault displacement l and the total magnitude of

displacement , (D/t = 72).

182

0.3

(a)

400

350

300

250

Leff/D 200

150

100

50

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

h/D

(b)

30

130

230

330

430

0

1000

2000

3000

N(kN) 4000

5000

6000

45

7000

60

8000

X(m)

Figure 4.2.14. Comparison of a) the effective pipe length and b) the beam force

distribution between the 45 and 60 analyses , for reverse faulting (D/t = 72).

183

184

Chapter 5

Soil layer depth effect

185

186

Thesoillayerdeptheffect

Introduction

Havingtestedandinvestigatedseveralmodelsforthesimulationoftheproblemwe

came to the conclusion that the most realistic and reliableone is the hybridbeam

model. The reason is that it does not need any arbitrary assumption about the

boundaryconditionsofthepipe,sinceitispracticallynotlimited(inthelongitudinal

direction)anddepicturesaccuratelyboththeaffectedareaandtheactualbehavior

ofthepipe.Nonetheless,therearestillsomeaspectsofthismodelthatarenotin

accordancewiththecommon,realconditions.Theseremaininginaccuracieshaveto

do once again with the size of the model and specifically with the depth of the

simulatedsoillayer.Imposingthebedrockmovementjust2.5metersbelowthepipe

doesnotallowthefaultpropagationtoevolvenaturally.Onthecontrary,thisway

the soil and the pipe are subjected to a more centralized and steep deformation

comparedtothenaturalone.Inaddition,a5metersurfacesoillayerwithanelastic

modulus of 25Mpa cannot be considered realistic. In order to overcome these

inaccuracies,toexaminetheeffectofthesoillayerdepthandatthesametimeto

limit the needed time for the analysis, we designed a two dimensional free field

model, subjected to normal and reverse fault rupture and then implemented its

resultstothe3Dbeammodel.

187

Thesoillayerdeptheffect

continuumCPE4elementsthatsubstitutethesoil.Onceagain,thehangingwallside

and one part of the base were moved to simulate a 60 fault rupture (normal and

reverse). The purpose of these analyses was to obtain the vertical and horizontal

nodedisplacementsat5mdepthandthentoimposethemtothebaseofthe3D,

5mdeephybridbeammodel(Figure5.1.2).

Regardingthesoilproperties,inthischapter,everythingbuttheYoungsmodulusE

distribution,remainedthesameasinthepreviouschapters.Fortheelasticmodulus

distribution along the depth, it was decided to examine various proposed

distribution models and compare them with a linear distribution model which has

been proved trustworthy by various researches conducted in our department.

Specifically, we compared the distributions of the linear model and of the sand

models of Yu and Richart (1984), Iwasaki et al. (1978), Zhou and Chen(2005) and

Hardin (1978). As depicted in Figure 5.1.3, the parabolic model that approaches

betterthelineardistributionisthatofYuandRichart.

Hence, the comparison was focused on these two models, in order to examine

whetherornottheparabolic(andmorerealistic)distributionyieldssimilarresultsto

thelinearone,whichhasalreadybeenprovedreliable.

The linear distribution is, approximately, a simple relation between the depth and

theelasticmodulus:

4

188

Thesoillayerdeptheffect

TheYuandRichartmodelforpuresandisbasedonthefollowingrelation:

where

AG 7000

nG 0.5

dependingonthesoiltype

'1 z

'0

and

2.17 e

F (e)

1 e

Whereeistheporeindexequalto

s

1 0.286

It must be clarified that the Yu and Richart model was proposed for dynamic

problems, thus, the values we get from the above equations are very large to be

implied into our quasistatic problem. Hence, we derived the Gmax values with an

integer in order to obtain smaller values and to achieve relatively similar values to

those of the hybridbeam model of the previous chapters, in order to be able to

makevalidcomparisons.

189

Thesoillayerdeptheffect

The results of the comparison, both for normal and reverse fault rupture are

presented in Figures 5.1.4 5.1.7, in terms of surface displacements and surface

angulardistortion,foranimposedbedrockmovementupto3m.Itisquiteobvious

that the two different soil profiles yielded quite similar results. The final surface

displacementsarealmostidentical,whereasthesurfaceshearstrainslightlydiffers

betweenthetwoprofiles.Themaindifferenceisthattheparabolicprofileseemsto

resulttoquickerfaultpropagationtothesurfaceandtoaslightlymorecentralized

deformation.

However,thecomparisonsarecloseenoughtoallowtheuseoftheparabolicprofile

inour3Dmodel,withoutexpectinganypracticaldifferencescomparedtothelinear

one.

The 3D hybrid model is used to examine the pipe behavior, when subjected to a

fault rupture that initiates 40m below the surface. The results we obtained are

demonstrated in Figures 5.2.1 5.2.8. It must be clarified, that 40 m model

correspondstothe3DHybridbeammodelof5mdepthwhichtakesintoaccounta

fault that initiates from the bedrock layer, 40 m below the surface, whereas 5 m

modelcorrespondstothepreviouslydescribedHybridbeammodelofChapter3.In

addition, we may refer to vertical fault displacement meaning the vertical

componentofthebedrockmovement.

Despitethedifferencesofthe40mandthe5mmodels,theresultsarequitesimilar.

Theaxialstraindevelopmentanddistributionisverymuchalikeandtheupperlimit

of 5% axial tensile strain is reached for the exact same values of bedrock vertical

displacement. As described in Chapter 3, a transition from prevailing bending to

prevailingtensionisagainspotted(Figure5.2.2).Thecritical,failureareasofthe

190

Thesoillayerdeptheffect

40mmodelareslightlydifferentandlocatedabout3maway,comparedtothe5m

model.Asexpectedfromtheaforementionedsimilarities,substantialdifferencesare

notspottedeitherintermsofaxialforces(Figure5.2.4).

Regardingtheeffectivepipelength,itappearsthatthelengthoftheactivatedpipeis

the same towards the hanging wall and the footwall side. Compared to the 5 m

modelofChapter3,theLeffispracticallythesameanddiffersonlyduringthefirst0.2

m of vertical bedrock movement, where the 40 m model demonstrates a much

smootherincreaseoftheLeff(Figure5.2.5).

Pipedetachmentfromthesoilwasalsoexaminedandispresentedbothintermsof

areasofcontactlossandintermsofrelativesoilpipeverticaldisplacement(Figure

5.2.6).Itisclearthat,detachmentoccurslaterinthecaseof40mmodel,butagain,

ittakesonlyasmallbedrockmovement(h=0.08m)fordetachmenttooccur.For

completenesssake,soilpressuresaroundthreepipecrosssectionsarepresentedin

Figure5.2.7.

Regardingthesubstantialdifferencesthatoccurasaresultofthesoillayersdepth

effect, the different soil displacement distribution is one of the most important

factors. As demonstrated in Figure 5.2.8, unlike the 5 m model, where the

displacements (thus the deformations) are concentrated along a relatively narrow

area,inthecaseof40mmodel,notonlythevaluesofdisplacementarelowerfor

thesamebedrockmovement,butalsothedistributionissignificantlylesssteep.This

is also depictured by the displacement diagrams of the same figure, where the

displacementsofthesoilrightbeneaththepipearecompared.

However,themostimportantdifference,fromapracticalpointofview,isthatthe

twomodelsreachthelimitof3%axialstrainfortotallydissimilarvaluesofvertical

bedrock movement h, with the exception of the case of D/t=72. The 40 m model

provokesalessintensebendingloading,thus,theincreaseofaxialstrainsbecauseof

bendingislessrapid.Hence,inthe5mmodel,the3%strainlimit,whichiscausedby

bending, is reached quicker, before the transition to prevailing tension. On the

contrary, in the 40m model, the axial strains caused by bending demonstrate a

191

Thesoillayerdeptheffect

prevailingtensionappearsbeforethe3%strainlimitisreached.Afterthechangeof

loadingmechanismthereisarapidincreaseoftheaxialstrains,reachingthe3%and

5%limit,practicallyforthesameh.

This relatively limited difference, in terms of critical bedrock movement, has to do

with the nature of normal fault propagation. Because of its tensile nature, (thus

active conditions) the rupture propagates relatively rapidly up till the surface.

Anastasopoulosetal.(2007)haveshownthatfornormalfault,propagatingthrough

dense sand, it takes about (0.75% Z) of vertical bedrock movement for fault

outcropping,whereZ=thesoillayerdepth.Onthecontrary,ittakes3timesbigger

bedrock movement for a reverse fault to outcrop (2.5% Z). Indeed we observe

limited differences for the normal fault case whereas for the reverse fault, the

differencesaremuchgreaterasshowninthefollowingparagraph.

The effect of soil layers depth was also examined for the case of reverse fault

rupture.Thedifferencescomparedtothe5mmodelareobviousineveryaspectof

theobtainedresults.

Eventhoughlocalbucklingisonceagainthefailuremode,thestraindistributionand

developmentarequitedifferentinthiscase.InFigure5.3.2thestraindistribution,as

the fault movement increases, is demonstrated and it is obvious that the two

inflectionpointswehadinthe5mmodeldonotappearasquicklyandasclearly.

Furthermore,thesequenceoftheoccurrenceoflocalbucklingisoppositetothatof

5mmodelandnowthefirstbucklingappearsinthefootwallandthesecondonein

the hanging wall. This is due to the different displacement distribution the pipe is

subjectedtoasshowninFigure5.3.3.

192

Thesoillayerdeptheffect

Themostsignificantalterationthatoccurredconcernsthecriticalfaultdisplacement.

AsdemonstratedinFigure5.3.11,pipecanendureupto5times(dependingonthe

D/t ratio) bigger vertical fault movement. The critical axial compressive strains are

alsogreatlylarger(Figure5.3.5).Theaboveobservation,aswellasalltheobserved

differences, is the result of the totally different distribution of displacements, as

demonstrated in Figure 5.3.10, and of the passive conditions that occur during a

reverse fault, which cause slower rupture propagation. In simple words, since the

fault movement needed for fault outcropping is about 2.5% of Z (instead of only

0.75% as in normal fault) a deeper soil layer affects much more intensively the

results of the reverse fault case. The fault rupture needs a lot more of bedrock

displacementinordertoreachthepipeandingeneral,inordertoreachthesame

deformationstatewiththe5mmodel.

Concerningthepipedetachment,contrarytoallthepreviouscases,lossofcontact

between the pipe and the soil appears only after 0.60 m of vertical fault

displacement(Figure5.3.7).Again,forthesakeofcompleteness,theLeffandthesoil

pressures along certain pipe crosssection are demonstrated in Figures 5.3.6 and

5.3.8respectively.

193

Thesoillayerdeptheffect

simulation. We concluded that the Yu and Richart distribution is the best among

thoseweexamined,sinceityieldsonlynegligibledifferencescomparedtothelinear

distribution,whichhasbeenusedvarioustimesfromourdepartmentandhasbeen

testedforitsreliability.

Asexpected,thegreatestalteration,betweenthismodelandthemodelofChapter

3, is the distribution of soil displacement. This is the cause of every observed

difference.

Thelowerdisplacementvaluesandthemoresmoothsoildisplacementdistribution

at the level of the pipe lead to larger pipe endurance in terms of vertical bedrock

displacement.

194

195

196

Figures of Chapter 5

197

198

5m

40m

Sand

Bedrock

Figure 5.1.1. Two normal fault ruptures, propagating through a surface soil layer of 5 m and

40 m respectively. In Chapter 5, the differences of those two models regarding the pipe

behavior are examined, both for normal and reverse faults.

199

(a)

40m

160m

1m

(b)

CPE4

Continuumplainstrain4nodeelement

1m

5m

(c)

Figure 5.1.2. (a) The 2D model consisted of square finite elements 1m x 1m.b) The deformed

2D free field model, used for obtaining the displacements during the development of the fault,

at level 5m below the surface. Those values where applied to the base of the 3D model (c).

200

E(MPa)

0

50

100

150

0

5

10

Linear

YuandRichart

15

Iwasakietal.

Z(m) 20

ZhouandChen

Hardin

25

30

35

40

YuandRichart

20

40

80

100

120

10

10

15

15

20

Z(m)

Z(m)

E(MPa)

60

Linear

20

40

E(MPa)

60

80 100

120

140

160

20

25

25

30

30

35

35

40

40

Figure 5.1.3. The distribution of Youngs modulus along the depth of our model, according to

various proposed models. Yu and Richarts relation was selected to be compared with the

linear distribution.

201

Normalfault

Linear

YuandRichart

Z

X

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

h=0.40m

0.5

h=0.80m

1

h=1.50m

Linear

h=2.00m

YuandRichart

Uz (m) 1.5

2

2.5

h=3.00m

3

X(m)

Figure 5.1.4. The deformed models are almost identical for Linear and Yu and Richart

distribution. This is also depicted by the comparison of the vertical displacements of the

surface of the two models (h = 3 m).

202

160

YuandRichart

(a)

70%

60%

50%

0.5m

40%

1.0m

30%

1.5m

20%

2.0m

10%

2.5m

0%

3.0m

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

(m)

Linear

70%

60%

50%

0.5m

40%

1.0m

30%

1.5m

20%

2.0m

10%

2.5m

0%

60

65

70

75

80

85

3.0m

90

X(m)

(b)

60%

50%

40%

YuandRichart

30%

Linear

20%

10%

0%

65

70

75

80

85

90

X(m)

Figure 5.1.5. (a) The development of angular distortion along the surface area where the

fault outcrop appears, for linear and Yu and Richart E distribution. (b) Comparison of the

angular distortion for vertical fault displacement h = 2 m.

203

Reversefault

Linear

YuandRichart

3.5

h=3.00m

3

2.5

2

Uz (m)

1.5

h=2.00m

Linear

h=1.50m

YuandRichart

1 h=0.80m

0.5 h=0.40m

0

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

X(m)

Figure 5.1.6. The deformed models of reverse fault for h = 3 m. The vertical displacements

demonstrate no significant differences between linear and parabolic distribution model.

204

Linear

(a)

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

h=0.50m

20.00%

h=1.00m

15.00%

h=1.50m

10.00%

h=2.00m

5.00%

h=2.50m

0.00%

h=3.00m

60

70

80

90

100

X(m)

YuandRichart

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

h=0.50m

20.00%

h=1.00m

15.00%

h=1.50m

10.00%

h=2.00m

5.00%

h=2.50m

0.00%

h=3.00m

60

70

80

90

100

X(m)

(b)

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

Linear

10.00%

YuandRichart

5.00%

0.00%

60

70

80

90

100

X(m)

Figure 5.1.7. a) The development of angular distortion along the surface area where the fault

outcrop appears ,for linear and Yu and Richart E distribution. b) Comparison of the angular

distortion for vertical fault displacement h = 2 m.

205

Normalfaultrupture

(a)

(b)

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

hcr/D

3%

0.8

5%

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 5.2.1.. (a) The deformed soil and pipe. (b) The critical vertical fault displacement to

diameter ratio (hcr/D) with respect to the diameter to thickness ratio (D/t).

206

h=0.50m

h=1.00m

h=1.50m

h=1.65m

h=1.67m

X

Figure 5.2.2. The axial strain distribution along the critical pipe area (X=2737 m) for five fault

displacements h. (D/t = 72)

207

(a)

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%

h=0.50m

4.00%

h=1.00m

h=1.50m

3.00%

h=1.65m

h=1.67m

2.00%

1.00%

0.00%

27

(b)

29

31

33

35

37

X(m)

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%

D/t=72

4.00%

D/t=144

3.00%

D/t=120

2.00%

D/t=96

1.00%

0.00%

(c)

27

29

31

6.00%

X(m)

33

35

5.00%

4.00%

D/t=144

x 3.00%

D/t=120

D/t=96

2.00%

D/t=72

1.00%

0.00%

0

0.5

h/D

1.5

Figure 5.2.3. (a) The axial strain distribution along the critical area for D/t = 72. (b)

Comparison of axial strain distribution, when critical state is reached (x=5%), for four D/t

ratios. (c) Comparison of axial strain development at the points where the limit strain is

exceeded, with respect to the vertical fault offset for D/t=72,96,120 and 144.

208

(a)

Topfiber

7000

6000

5000

h=0.10m

4000

h=0.25m

h=0.50m

N(kN) 3000

h=1.00m

2000

h=1.50m

h=1.75m

1000

0

0

10

20

1000

(b)

30

40

50

60

X(m)

Bottomfiber

7000

6000

5000

h=0.10m

4000

h=0.25m

3000

h=0.50m

N(kN)

2000

h=1.00m

1000

h=1.50m

h=1.75m

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1000

2000

X(m)

Figure 5.2.4. Axial force distribution and development for six vertical fault displacements for

(a) the top pipe fiber (b) the bottom fiber (D/t = 72)

209

16000

(a)

14000

12000

10000

Footwall

N(kN) 8000

Hangingwall

6000

4000

2000

0

30

130

230

330

430

530

630

730

830

930

1030

|X|(m)

(b)

350

300

250

200

Leff/D

150

40mmodel

100

5mmodel

50

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

h/D

Figure 5.2.5. (a) Axial beam force in the hanging wall and the footwall. No significant

difference is spotted. In this diagram, X=0 is considered at the middle of the model, where the

fault crosses the pipe, approximately. (b) The activated pipe length with respect to the vertical

fault offset (D/t = 144).

210

0.02

0

0.02

20

40

60

Uz (m) 0.04

h=0.10m

0.06

0.08

0.1

X(m)

0.1

0

0.1

20

40

60

0.2

Uz (m)

h=0.50m

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

X(m)

0.2

0

0.2

Uz (m)

20

40

60

0.4

h=1.00m

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

X(m)

Figure 5.2.6. Pipe detachment areas from the surrounding soil are defined by the blue colored

areas. The detachment of the pipe bottom from the soil beneath it, is demonstrated by the

diagrams of vertical displacements of the pipe bottom and the soil for three values of vertical

bedrock displacement.(D/t = 72)

211

C

h=0.10m

C

h=0.50m

A

h=1.00m

A

Figure 5.2.7. Soil pressures along the pipeline and soil pressures around three pipe cross

sections A,B and C (X=20,30 and 40 m respectively) for three vertical fault offsets h.

212

(a)

5mmodel

40mmodel

(b)

h=0.10m

0.02

0

0.02

Uz(m)

0

0

20

40

60

0.2

0.04

20

40

60

0.4

Uz(m)

0.06

0.08

0.6

0.8

0.1

0.12

h=1.00m

0.2

X(m)

40mmodel

1.2

X(m)

5mmodel

Figure 5.2.8. (a) Displacement distribution for the limited 5 m depth model and the model that

takes into account a soil layer of 40 m depth. (b) Comparison of soil vertical displacements

beneath the pipe bottom between the 5 m and 40 m model.

213

Reversefaultrupture

(a)

(b)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

hcr/D

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 5.3.1. (a) Plastic strain distribution along the deformed soil and pipe for the reverse

fault case. (b) The critical vertical fault displacement to diameter ratio (hcr/D) with respect to

the diameter to thickness ratio (D/t).

214

h=0.72m

h=0.60m

h=0.50m

h=0.90m

2nd

1st

Z

X

Figure 5.3.2. The axial strain distribution along the critical pipe area (X=1340 m) for four fault

displacements h. (D/t = 72). First buckling occurs in the footwall .

215

(a)

30

31

32

33

34

35

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

h=0.50m

0.60%

h=0.60m

0.80%

h=0.68m

1.00%

h=0.72m

1.20%

1.40%

1.60%

1.80%

X(m)

(b)

21

21.5

22

22.5

23

23.5

24

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

h=0.70m

1.50%

h=0.75m

x 2.00%

h=0.80m

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

X(m)

Figure 5.3.3. The distribution of axial strains until (a) the 1st appearance (h = 0.72 m) and (b)

the 2nd appearance of buckling (h = 0.80 m). (D/t = 72)

216

(a)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.00%

0.10%

0.20%

D/t=144

0.30%

D/t=120

D/t=96

0.40%

D/t=72

0.50%

0.60%

0.70%

0.80%

h/D

(b)

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

0.00%

0.10%

0.20%

0.30%

xcritical

0.40%

0.50%

0.60%

0.70%

0.80%

0.90%

D/t

Figure 5.3.4. (a) Axial strain development at the buckling points with respect to the h/D ratio,

for D/t=72144. (b) The critical axial strain values , beyond which buckling occurs., for all the

four values of D/t.

217

Topfiber

1000

500

1000

N(kN)

20

40

500 0

60

20

40

60

1000

2000

1500

3000

N(kN) 2000

2500

4000

h=0.05m

5000

h=0.20m

6000

h=0.50m

7000

h=0.60m

X(m)

1st buckling

3000

3500

4000

h=0.75m

4500

h=0.85m

X(m)

h=0.70m

Bottomfiber

1000

1000

0

0

20

40

60

1000

1000

20

2nd

40

60

buckling

2000

2000

N(kN) 3000

N(kN)

3000

4000

h=0.05m

4000

h=0.20m

5000

h=0.50m

h=0.60m

6000

X(m)

h=0.70m

h=0.75m

5000

h=0.85m

6000

7000

X(m)

Figure 5.3.5. The axial stain along the bottom and top pipe fiber before and after the

occurrence of buckling.

218

(a)

30

130

230

330

430

530

630

730

830

930

1030

0

1000

2000

h=0.05m

3000

h=0.10m

h=0.40m

N(kN) 4000

h=0.50m

h=0.75m

5000

h=0.85m

6000

7000

X(m)

8000

(b)

400

350

300

250

Leff/D 200

150

100

50

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

h/D

Figure 5.3.6. (a) The axial beam forces in the footwall, demonstrating the activated pipe

length with respect to the vertical bedrock displacement. (b) The effective pipe length to

diameter ratio with respect to the h/D ratio (D/t = 72).

219

0.12

0.1

0.08

Uz (m)

h=0.60m

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

29

31

33

X(m)

Uz (m)

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

h=0.80m

20

25

30

35

X(m)

0.6

0.5

Soil

0.4

Uz (m)

Pipebottom

h=0.90m

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

20

25

X(m)

30

Figure5.3.7.Detachmentareasaredefinedbythebluecoloredareas.Thedetachmentofthe

pipebottomfromthesoilbeneathit,isdemonstratedbythediagramsofvertical

displacementsofthepipebottomandthesoilforthreevaluesofverticalbedrock

displacement.(D/t=72)

220

h=0.60m

h=0.80m

h=0.90m

Figure 5.3.8. Soil pressures along the pipeline and soil pressures around three pipe cross

sections A,B and C (X=20,30 and 40 m respectively) for three vertical fault offsets h.

221

(a)

5mmodel

40mmodel

(b)

h=0.10m

0.12

h=0.40m

0.1

0.08

0.06

Uz (m)

0.04

0.02

0

0

0.02

20

40

X(m)

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

Uz (m) 0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

60

0.05 0

40mmodel

20

40

60

X(m)

5mmodel

Figure 5.3.9. (a) Displacement distribution for the limited 5 m depth model and the model that

takes into account a soil layer of 40 m depth. (b) Comparison of soil vertical displacements

beneath the pipe bottom between the 5 m and 40 m model.

222

(a)

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

3%5mmodel

1.2

5%5mmodel

hcr/D

3%40mmodel

0.8

5%40mmodel

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

(b)

24

48

72

h/D

96

120

144

168

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

hcr/D

40mmodel

0.4

5mmodel

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 5.3.10. (a) Comparison of the failure points in terms of hcr/D between the 5 m and 40 m

model, for the normal fault case. (b) Comparison of the failure points in terms of hcr/D

between the 5 m and 40 m model, for the reverse fault case.

223

224

Chapter 6

Pipe steel with hardening behavior

225

226

Pipesteelwithhardeningbehavior

Introduction

In all the previous chapters, the models we examined were based on an elastic

perfectly plastic behavior of the steel pipe material, as described in Chapter 2.

However,theoriginalstressstrainbehavior,asofficiallygivenbymanufacturersand

institutes (e.g. API), is consisted of a limited elastic brunch, followed by a short

plateauwhichissucceededbyanascendingpart,untiltheultimatestressof550MPa

is reached, corresponding to approximately 20% of axial strain (Figure 6.1.1). This

chapteraimsattheinvestigationoftheeffectthattheaforementionedchangecould

have,concerningthepipeenduranceandbehavior.

The model we use is the HybridBeam model, keeping the same properties as of those

describedinChapters2and3,withtheexceptionofthehardeningpipebehavior.

The results of the normal fault rupture model can be summarized by the graph given in

Figure6.1.1.Asitisdemonstrated,applyinghardeningbehaviortothepipematerialleads

to a quite different outcome. As we would have expected, hardening grants the pipe the

capability of developing bigger stresses, caused by the strain increase, leading to bigger

capacityintermsofcriticalfaultdisplacement.

Whatisevenmoreinterestingisthat,aswecannoticeatthesamefigure,another,different

modeoffailureappearsbetweenthestrainlimitstatesof3%and5%ofaxialtensilestrain.

This operational failure occurs due to excessive crosssectional distortion, also known as

crosssectionflatteningorovalization, asdescribed inChapter2.Figure6.1.3presents the

imageofsuchafailureandthedevelopmentofthecrosssectionalflattening.

Hardeningresultsinadifferentredistributionofstressesandstrains,aspresentedinFigures

6.1.2and6.1.4,andthisisthecauseforallthenoticeddifferences.Similarlytotheprevious

model of Chapter 3, above a certain fault displacement, the prevailing loading mode

switchesfrombendingtoamoreshearlikeloading,accompaniedbyasmalltranspositionof

thecriticalarea.However,theformoftheaxialstraindistributionissignificantlydifferent.

227

Pipesteelwithhardeningbehavior

Regardingthelengthofthepipethatgetsactivated,resultsdonotdemonstrateanygreat

differences. Figure 6.1.6 proves the aforementioned observation since, the applied

hardeningbehaviorhasonlyaslighteffect,causingsmallerLeff.

Once again, the HybridBeam model of Chapter 3 is used, applying the hardening stress

strainrelationofthesteel.

As depictured in Figure 6.2.1 not only the mode of failure remains the same but also the

criticalfaultdisplacementisidenticaltothatofthecaseofelasticperfectlyplasticmaterial.

Thisisquitelogical,sincelocalbucklingisrelatedtothestabilityandcapacityofawiderarea

andnotonlytothestrengthofacriticalcrosssection.

Thesequenceofbucklingappearancesisnotalteredsinceitisonlyaffectedbythewaywe

impose the soil displacements. The shape of strain distribution is also slightly altered,

especially as regards the 2nd buckling area (Figure 6.2.3) where the strain distribution is

morewrinkled,declaringthedifferentstressandstrainredistributionmode.

Regarding the Leff, hardening does not seem to affect the activated pipe length at all.

Similarly to Chapter 4, the footwall beam part of the model gets more stressed and is the

one on which we are based in order to compute the Leff. Figure 6.2.5 shows that the

evolutionoftheLeffforthereversefaultruptureisalmostidenticaltothatofChapter4.

228

Pipesteelwithhardeningbehavior

Conclusions of Chapter 6

Probably the most important conclusion made in this chapter is that the

application of the original hardening behavior of the pipe material is necessary in

ordertocapturethecrosssectionalfailuremodeofovalization.Ovalizationappears

onlyinthenormalfaultcasewheretensilestressprevails.

It has been proved that in the case of normal fault rupture, hardening results in

bigger capacity in terms of fault displacement and thus we can claim that is more

conservative to ignore it and to apply an elasticperfectly plastic stressstrain

relation.However,theaxialstrainlimitsof3%and5%arealreadyconservativeand

taking also in consideration that the elasticplastic model fails to capture the

ovalizationfailuremode,weproposethathardeningshouldbeintegratedinmodel.

Concerning the affected pipe length the importance of hardening is not of great

importanceespeciallyinthereversefaultcase.

Hardening, obviously, does not impose any direct alteration to the pipesoil

interactionapartfromthelimitedchangesinsoilpressuresanddetachmentthatare

causedbythedifferentdeformedshapeofthepipe.

Inthecaseofreversefaultrupture,wherelocalbucklingisthemodeoffailure,no

actual differences are spotted and the critical fault displacements are identical to

thoseoftheelasticperfectlyplasticcase.

229

230

Figures of Chapter 6

231

232

NormalFaultRupture

(a)

600

550

500

450

400

350

Stress

300

(MPa)_

250

200

150

100

50

0

600

550

500

450

400

350

Stress

300

(MPa)

250

200

150

100

50

0

0%

5%

0%

10%

5%

Strain

(b)

10%

Strain

15%

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

hcr/D

3%

0.8

5%

0.6

Ovalization

0.4

0.2

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 6.1.1. (a) The deformed model due to normal fault rupture. In this chapter, instead of

ElasticPerfectly Plastic stressstrain relation, we applied the original ElasticHardening Plastic

behavior of the pipe steel. (b) The summarized dimensionless results demonstrate the critical

vertical fault displacement with respect to the D/t ratio, for the axial strain limits of 3% and

5%, as well as, for the failure due to ovalization.

233

20%

h=0.10m

h=0.50m

h=1.10m

h=1.40m

Figure 6.1.2. The axial strain distribution along the critical pipe area (X=2040 m) for four

vertical fault displacements h. (D/t = 72).

234

(a)

z

x

(b)

h=0

h=0.2m

h=0.5m

f=

h=1m

h=1.45m

Do D '

0.15

Do

Figure 6.1.3. (a) Excessive crosssectional pipe distortion (ovalization, flattening). b) The

evolution of the ovalization with respect to the vertical fault displacement. (D/t = 120)

235

(a)

6%

5%

h=0.25m

4%

h=0.50m

x 3%

h=1.00m

2%

h=1.10m

h=1.20m

1%

h=1.40m

0%

31.2

(b)

32.2

X1

6%

33.2

X (m)

X234.2

35.2

5%

4%

x 3%

X2

2%

X1

1%

0%

0

(c)

0.5

1.5

h/D

3.5%

3.0%

2.5%

D/t=72

2.0%

D/t=96

1.5%

D/t=120

1.0%

D/t=144

0.5%

0.0%

31.2

32.2

33.2

34.2

35.2

X (m)

Figure 6.1.4. (a) The axial strain distribution along the critical area. We observe that the point

of critical strain is transposed from the X1 position to the X2 (D/t = 120). (b) The axial strain

development at points X1 and X2. (c) The axial strain distribution at the point when the 3%

strain limit is reached, for four D/t ratios.

236

Topfiber

4000

3000

2000

h=0.10m

h=0.50m

N(kN) 1000

h=1.00m

h=1.40m

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1000

2000

X(m)

Bottomfiber

4000

3000

h=0.10m

2000

h=0.50m

h=1.00m

N(kN) 1000

h=1.40m

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1000

2000

X(m)

Figure 6.1.5. The axial force distribution along the top and bottom fiber of the pipe.

(D/t = 120)

237

16000

(a)

14000

12000

10000

h=0.10m

8000

h=0.50m

6000

h=1.00m

4000

h=1.50m

2000

h=1.95m

N(kN)

0

30

230

630

830

1030

|X|(m)

700

(b)

430

600

500

400

Leff/D

Hardening

300

Elasticplastic

200

100

0

(c)

0.5

600

1.5

h/D

500

400

h=0.25m

Leff/D 300

h=0.50m

h=1.00m

200

h=1.40m

100

0

0

50

100

150

200

D/t

Figure 6.1.6. (a) The axial beam force development in the footwall. (D/t = 72). (b) The effective

length of the pipe with respect to the h/D ratio, compared to the ElasticPerfectly Plastic case.

(c) The effective length to diameter ratio with respect to the D/t ratio for four vertical fault

displacements.

238

ReverseFaultRupture

(a)

(b)

0.3

0.25

0.2

hcr/D 0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 6.2.1. (a) The deformed model due to reverse fault rupture, with hardening pipe steel.

(b) The summarized dimensionless results that demonstrate the critical vertical fault

displacement, at which buckling occurs, with respect to the D/t ratio.

239

h =0.10m

h =0.20m

h =0.30m

1st

2nd

h =0.50m

Figure 6.2.2. The axial strains along the critical area for several fault displacement values. The

buckling occurs firstly in the hanging wall and afterwards in the footwall.(D/t = 72)

240

(a)

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

h=0.10m

x 1.50%

h=0.20m

h=0.24m

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

(b)

X(m)

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

h=0.10m

h=0.20m

x 0.80%

h=0.30m

1.00%

h=0.34m

1.20%

1.40%

1.60%

X(m)

Figure 6.2.3. The axial strains until the occurrence of (a) the first buckling, that occurs at the

bottom pipe fiber, in the hanging wall and (b) the second buckling at the top pipe fiber,

located in the footwall, (D/t = 72).

241

(a)

0.00%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.05%

0.10%

D/t=72

D/t=96

x 0.15%

D/t=120

D/t=144

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

(b)

h(m)

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

xcritical 0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%

1.60%

D/t

Figure 6.2.4. (a) The axial strain development at the critical pipe where buckling initiates, with

respect to the vertical fault displacement for four D/t ratios. (b) The critical axial strain right

before the occurrence of buckling with respect to the D/t ratio.

242

(a)

30

130

230

330

430

0

1000

2000

3000

Hangingwall

N(kN)

4000

Footwall

5000

6000

7000

(b)

|X|(m)

400

350

300

250

Hardening

Leff/D 200

Elasticplastic

150

100

50

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

h/D

Figure 6.2.5. (a) The axial strain development at the critical pipe where buckling initiates, with

respect to the vertical fault displacement for the four D/t ratios. (b) The critical axial strain

right before the occurrence of buckling with respect to the D/t ratio.

243

Summary

NormalFault

(a)

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

3%HardeningModel

1.2

hcr/D

5%Hardeningmodel

OvalizationHardeningModel

0.8

3%ElasticPlasticModel

0.6

5%elasticPlasticModel

0.4

0.2

0

0

24

48

72

(b)

96

120

144

168

D/t

ReverseFault

0.3

0.25

0.2

ElasticPlasticModel

HardeningModel

hcr/D 0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 6.2.6. a) Comparison of the critical fault displacements between the ElasticPerfectly

Plastic model of the previous chapters and the Hardening model of this chapter, concerning

the normal fault rupture. Significant differences are spotted, both in terms of hcr and in terms

of failure mode. b) The same comparison for the reverse fault case. As demonstrated, the

effect of the hardening behavior of the pipe material has no significant effects.

244

245

246

Chapter 7

Internal pipe pressure

247

248

Internalpipepressure

Introduction

mentionedinthefirstchapters,thepipelinesweexaminearecommonlyusedinoil

andgastransportation.Obviously,gasandoilhavetobeunderpressureinorderto

move along vast distances and variable topographies. This means that the pipe,

duringitsoperationalperiod,issubjectedtoacontinuousinternalpressure.Theaim

ofthischapteristoinvestigatewhataretheeffectscausedbytheinternalpressure

applicationandespecially,toclarify,whetherornot,theinternalpressureincreases

thepipecapacity(intermsoffaultdisplacementmagnitude)andasresult,whether

or not, it should be taken into consideration when studying the pipe resistance to

dipslipfaultruptures.

Internal Pressure

The maximum internal pressure value is given by the following equation, which,

considering a factor of safety equal to 0.72, as proposed by the ASME code for

pressurepiping,isgivenas:

p max 0.72 2 y

D

However,similarlytothecommon,realoperationalpressurevalues,weappliedonly

a percentage of the maximum pressure allowed, equal to approximately 40% Pmax.

Since,themaximumpressuredependsontheD/tratiothepressureappliedforeach

oneoftheD/tcasesisgivenbythefollowingtable:

D/t

144

120

96

72

Papplied(kPa)

1700

2040

2550

3400

249

Internalpipepressure

Once again, we make use of the HybridBeam model. The material of the pipe is,

initially, chosen to be elasticperfectly plastic, whereas in one of the following

paragraphs,thecombinationofinternalpressureandhardeningmaterialbehavioris

examined.

Theresultsobtainedarequitedifferentcomparedtothecaseofabsenceofinternal

pressure. Figure 7.1.1 demonstrates the pipe capacity in terms of critical fault

displacement and indicates that the presence of internal pressure has an adverse

effectconcerningthepiperesistancetofaultmovement.Specifically,forthe5%axial

tensile strain limit, the pipe resistance is reduced approximately by 35% (Figure

7.2.6). This can be simply explained by the fact that the internal pressure causes

radial hoop dilation which then provokes additional axial tensile stress and strain,

thus,thetensilestrainlimitisreachedearlier.

In Figure 7.1.2, the axial strain distribution along the critical area is displayed for

severalfault movementmagnitudes.Combiningthisimagewiththeinformationof

Figure 7.1.3, we observe that the concentration of axial tensile strains is now

spotted in several points along the critical area. Especially as the pipe thickness

increases,hencethepipeissubjectedtobiggerfaultmovementbeforefailure,the

critical point is displaced to another, adjacentcrosssection. However, dissimilar to

the model of Chapter 3, we do not observe the aforementioned transition from

prevailingbendingtoprevailingshearingloadingmode.

Regarding the effective pipe length, similarly to the previous chapters, we firstly

examinewhichsideismoreintensivelystressed,theoneinthefootwalloreinthe

hanging wall. Once again, no significant difference is observed, as shown in Figure

7.1.5. In the same figure, the effect of D/t ratio is also demonstrated and proves,

thathighermomentofinertiasignifieslongeractivepipelength.Finally,itisproved

thattheevolutionofLeffisabsolutelysimilartothecasewithoutinternalpressure,

with the exception that now the Leff does not seem to reach a maximum value. In

250

Internalpipepressure

general,mostoftheanalysesstopaftertheoccurrenceoffailure,duetoexcessive

distortion and inability of numerical convergence. Thus, it is logical for the model

withinternalpressuretostopearlier.However,wewouldexpectthatsincefailureis

reached,theLeffshouldstabilizeafterafewadditionalstepsoffault displacement.

Thereasonthatthisdoesnothappenistheaforementioneddifference,that,now,

bending remains the prevailing loading mechanism and there is not such a great

strain concentration and strain increase according to a shearlike mode of

deformation,asinthecaseofChapter3.

Theeffectofinternalpressureisalsoinvestigatedforareversefaultrupture.

The differences are not as significant as in the normal fault case. The summarized

outcomeoftheanalysisisdemonstratedinFigure7.2.6,wherethepiperesistance

tofaultmovementisdepictedintermsofcriticalfaultdisplacementwithrespectto

the D/t ratio, both with and without the internal pressure application. It is proven

that internal pipe pressure leads to an earlier failure, even though the capacity

decrease is only about 17%. This is attributed to the development of additional

stressesandstrainsinthepipelinewallthatcauseearlyyieldingandprematurelocal

buckling formation. Figures 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 describe the axial strain development

and distribution and show no significant alterations with the case of absence of

pressure.

Finally, concerning the Leff, things are almost identical. The pipe in the footwall is,

again, more stressed than in the hanging wall and compared to the case without

pipepressure,nothingbutaslightincreaseofLeffisdepicted(Figure7.2.5).

251

Internalpipepressure

Hardening Pipe Steel Behavior

application of internal pressure with elastichardening plastic stressstrain relation

forthepipematerial.

The results are presented in Figures 7.3.1 and 7.3.2. As demonstrated, the use of

hardening plasticity intensifies the strain distribution behavior that was observed

withtheapplicationofinternalpressure.Thisstraindistributionbehaviorisdefined,

in the previous paragraphs, as the redistribution of stress and strains in several

adjacentcrosssectionsandthus,thedecreaseofexcessivestrainconcentrationata

singlepoint.ItisclearlydemonstratedinFigure7.3.2that,asthefaultdisplacement

augments and the strains increase, strains concentrate in several positions and

hinderthemaximumstrainvaluefromreachingbiggermagnitudes.

In the same figure, the (b) diagram compares the axial strain development at the

criticalpoints,forallthefourexaminedcombinations:

1) ElasticPerfectlyPlastic/AbsenceofInternalPipePressure

2) ElasticHardeningPlasticity/AbsenceofInternalPipePressure

3) ElasticPerfectlyPlasticwithInternalPipePressure

4) ElasticHardeningPlasticitywithInternalPipePressure

Ingeneraltheeffectsofhardeningappear,logically,aftertheoccurrenceofcertain

axial strain. Hardening prevents the almost vertical increase of axial strains that is

observedinthecasesofelasticperfectlyplasticmaterialaftertheplastification.

252

Internalpipepressure

The effect of internal pressure is clearly amplified when combined with hardening

material and leads to a constant redistribution of strains that retain the maximum

strainmagnitudetorelativelowvalues.

The results are demonstrated in Figures 7.3.3 and 7.3.4. The differences between

the four cases are not great. However, it is clear that, in general, the presence of

internal pressure reduces the pipe strength, whereas the effect of hardening is

slightly beneficial but can be practically spotted only when combined with the

applicationofinternalpressure.

253

Internalpipepressure

Conclusions of Chapter 7

Theapplicationofinternalpressurehasasignificanteffect,inthecaseofaburied

steel pipeline subjected to normal fault rupture, since it causes premature failure

(about 35% less capacity in terms of fault movement when 0.40% Pmax is applied)

compared to the case without pipe pressure. The strain distribution is also altered

andisdescribedbystrainredistributionsandstrainconcentrationsinseveralpoints.

For the reverse fault rupture case, the presence of pipe pressure reduces once

againthepipecapacity,althoughbyasmallerpercentageofapproximately17%.The

straindistributionisnotsignificantlychanged.

TheLeff doesnotseemtobepracticallyaffectedbytheactionofinternalpressure

bothinthenormalandinthereversecase.

The combination of hardening with internal pressure has as a result the

intensificationofinternalpressureeffects,concerningtheaxialstraindistributionin

thecaseofnormalrupture,whereas,inthereversecase,theapplicationofinternal

pipepressureisnecessaryfortheeffectofhardeningtoappear.

Basedontheaboveconclusions,amodelthattakesintoconsiderationtheinternal

pipepressureisproposed.

254

255

256

Figures of Chapter 7

257

258

(a)

p=0.4pMAX

(b)

1.2

0.8

h/D 0.6

3%

5%

0.4

0.2

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

D/t

Figure 7.1.1. (a) Internal pipe pressure was applied equal to 40% of the value of pmax. Pmax is

different for every D/t ratio. (b) The capacity of the pipes for the normal fault case, in terms of

maximum fault displacement, with respect to the D/t ratio.

259

h =0.10m

h =0.40m

h =0.80m

h =1.10m

Figure 7.1.2. The axial strain distribution along the critical area (X=1638 m) for different fault

displacements.(D/t = 72)

260

8.00%

(a)

7.00%

6.00%

h=0.10m

5.00%

h=0.40m

x 4.00%

h=0.80m

3.00%

h=1.03m

h=1.10m

2.00%

1.00%

0.00%

(b)

8.00% 33

34

35

X(m)

36

37

38

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%

D/t=72

x 4.00%

D/t=96

D/t=120

3.00%

D/t=144

2.00%

1.00%

0.00%

33

(c)

34

35

X(m)

36

37

38

20%

18%

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

D/t=72

D/t=96

D/t=120

D/t=144

0.5

1.5

h/D

Figure 7.1.3. (a) The distribution development of the axial strains along the critical area,

(D/t = 72). (b) The shape of axial strains distribution, at the point where the 5% limit is

reached, for four D/t ratios. (c) The evolution of axial strain at the critical pipe points with

respect to the vertical fault displacement to diameter ratio, for four D/r ratios.

261

Topfiber

7000

6000

5000

4000

h=0.10m

3000

N(kN)

h=0.40m

2000

h=0.80m

1000

h=1.10m

0

1000

10

20

2000

30

40

50

60

X(m)

Bottomfiber

8000

6000

4000

h=0.10m

h=0.40m

N(kN) 2000

h=0.80m

0

h=1.10m

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000

4000

X(m)

Figure 7.1.4. The axial force distribution along the top and bottom pipe fiber, for different

vertical fault displacements.(D/t = 72)

262

14000

(a)

12000

10000

8000

Footwall

6000

Hangingwall

N(kN)

4000

2000

0

700

(b)

30

230

430

630

830

1030

|X|(m)

600

500

400

300

WithoutInternal

Pressure

200

WithInternal

Pressure

Leff/D

100

0

0

(c)

0.5

1.5

2.5

h/D

450

400

350

300

Leff/D

250

h=0.10m

200

h=0.20m

150

h=0.60m

100

50

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 7.1.5. (a) Comparison of the axial forces, for three fault displacements, along the beam

parts of the model, in the footwall and the hanging wall. (b) Comparison of the Leff between

the case without internal pressure and the case where internal pipe pressure is applied. (D/t =

72) (c) Leff to Diameter ratio with respect to the D/t ratio for three fault displacements.

263

ReverseFaultRupture

(a)

p=0.4pMAX

(b)

0.3

0.25

0.2

hcr/D 0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 7.2.1. (a) The internal pipe pressure effect was examined for the reverse fault case as

well. (b) The capacity of pipes of different thicknesses (D=1m) in terms of critical fault

displacement.

264

h =0.10m

h =0.20m

h =0.30m

1st

2nd

h =0.40m

Figure 7.2.2. The axial strain distribution along the critical area (X=2342 m) for different fault

displacements. The buckling areas and the sequence of buckling appearance. (D/t = 72)

265

(a)

28

28.5

29

29.5

30

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

h=0.17m

h=0.21m

1.50%

h=0.22m

h=0.23m

2.00%

h=0.24m

2.50%

3.00%

X(m)

3.50%

(b)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

D/t=72

1.50%

D/t=96

x 2.00%

D/t=120

2.50%

D/t=144

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

h(m)

Figure 7.2.3. (a) The distribution of axial compressive strains along the critical buckling area

until the appearance of buckling.(D/t = 72). (b) The evolution of axial strains at the critical

buckling points for the four D/t ratios.

266

BottomFiber

(a)

3000

2000

1000

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1000

h=0m

h=0.10m

N(kN)

h=0.20m

2000

h=0.30m

3000

h=0.40m

4000

5000

6000

X(m)

TopFiber

(b)

3000

2000

1000

0

0

10

20

30

1000

40

50

60

h=0m

h=0.10m

N(kN)

h=0.20m

2000

h=0.30m

3000

h=0.40m

4000

5000

6000

X(m)

Figure 7.2.4. The axial force distribution along (a) the bottom pipe fiber and (b) the top pipe

fiber. Before the initiation of fault movement (h = 0m), the application of internal pressure

subjects the pipe to tensile stress.

267

(a)

30

230

430

630

830

1030

0

1000

2000

Footwall

N(kN) 3000

Hangingwall

4000

5000

6000

(b)

|X|(m)

400

350

300

250

Leff/D 200

WithoutInternallPressure

WthInternalPressure

150

100

50

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

h/D

Figure 7.2.5. (a) Comparison of the axial beam forces, for two fault displacements, in the

footwall and in the hanging wall . (b) Comparison of the Leff with respect to the fault

displacement for the case with and without internal pipe pressure.

268

(a)

Normalfaultrupture

2

1.8

WithInternalPressure

1.6

WithoutInternalPressure

1.4

1.2

hcr/D 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Reversefaultrupture

(b)

0.3

WithInternalPressure

0.25

WithoutInternalPressure

0.2

hcr/D 0.15

0.1

0.05

0

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 7.2.6. (a) Comparison of the pipe capacity, in terms of critical fault displacement, with

respect to the Diameter to thickness ratio, between the case with and without internal pipe

pressure, for normal fault rupture. (b) Comparison of the pipe capacity, in terms of critical

fault displacement, with respect to the Diameter to thickness ratio, between the case with and

without internal pipe pressure, for reverse fault rupture.

269

HardeningwithInternalPressure NormalFault

h =0.50m

h =1.00m

h =1.36m

h =1.80m

Figure 7.3.1. The axial strain distribution along the central model area (X=1040 m) for

different fault displacements.(D/t = 72)

270

(a)

3.50%

3.00%

2.50%

h=0.50m

2.00%

h=0.75m

h=1.00m

1.50%

h=1.50m

1.00%

h=1.80m

0.50%

0.00%

31

33

35

37

39

X(m)

(b)

5%

4%

ElasticPlastic+Internal

Pressure

3%

Hardening+InternalPressure

x

2%

ElasticPlastic

Hardening

1%

0%

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

h(m)

Figure 7.3.2. (a) The distribution of axial compressive strains along the critical buckling area,

until the 3% limit of tensile strain is reached.(D/t = 72). (b) The evolution of axial strains at the

critical points for the 4 models.(D/t = 72)

271

HardeningwithInternalPressure ReverseFault

h =0.10m

h =0.15m

h =0.30m

h =0.50m

Figure 7.3.3. The axial strain distribution along the central model area (X=2045 m) for

different fault displacements.(D/t = 72)

272

28

(a)

28.5

29

29.5

30

30.5

31

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

h=0.15m

h=0.20m

x 1.50%

h=0.24m

2.00%

2.50%

(m)

3.00%

0.3

(b)

0.25

ElasticPlastic

Hardening

0.2

HardeningwithInternal

pressure

hcr/D 0.15

ElasticPlasticwithInternal

Pressure

0.1

0.05

0

48

72

96

120

144

168

D/t

Figure 7.3.4. (a) The distribution of axial compressive strains along the critical buckling area

until the appearance of buckling.(D/t = 72). (b) Comparison of the pipe capacity, in terms of

critical fault displacement, with respect to to the D/r ratio, between the four models.

273

274

Chapter 8

for further research

275

276

ConclusionsandProposalsforfurtherresearch

8.1 Conclusions

The studys purpose was, mainly, to propose a finite element model that properly

addressestotheproblemofapipecrossinganactiveDipSlipfaultandbyusingthis

model,toexaminetheeffectofvariousparameterssuchasthetypeoffault(Normal

or Reverse), the diameter to thickness pipe ratio, the depth of the soil layer, the

stressstrainrelationofthepipematerialandtheinternalpipepressure.

Themodelweusedisa3DF.E.modelthatsimulatesthepipewithshellelements

andthesurroundingsoilwithcontinuumbrickelements.Inordertoconfrontthe

problemthatarisesfromthecontradictionofthecontinuityofthepipelineandthe

limiteddimensionsofthemodel,weexpandedthepipebyonekilometerfromeach

pipe end using linear beam elements. The soil around the expansion parts was

substitutedbyaxial,verticalandhorizontalsoilsprings,whosepropertieshadbeen

takenbytheresultsofanumericalpushoveranalysis.Theuseofthebeamelements

and soil springs allows the increase of our models dimensions without significant

increaseofcomputationaleffortandtime.Comparingtheresultsofthismodelwith

models of free and fixed pipe ends, both for normal and reverse fault case, we

concludethatthebehaviorofthepipeisheavilyaffectedbythepipeboundariesand

we recommend the proposed model as the most reliable and realistic one. Its

expanded dimensions also allow the computation of the effective pipe length that

denotesthelengthofthepipethatisaffectedbytherupture.

Theexaminationofbothnormalandreversefaultruptureprovedthat,becauseof

theirtensileandcompressivenaturerespectively,themodeoffailureforthenormal

caseistheexcessivetensilestrainwhereasforthereversecaseisthelocalbuckling.

Inallofthecasesexaminedinthisessay,itisdemonstratedthatthedecreaseofD/t

ratio (or the increase of pipe thickness, since we keep the diameter unchanged)

increasesthepipeenduranceintermsoffaultdisplacement.

277

ConclusionsandProposalsforfurtherresearch

The investigation of the soil layers depth effect concludes that the pipe can resist

significantlymorebedrockdisplacementbeforeitreachesthefailurestate,because

ofthewiderdistributionofsoildisplacements.

All the aforementioned investigations were initially conducted for elasticperfectly

plastic pipe steel and were repeated for an elastichardening plastic pipe material.

Theresultsoftheanalysesindicatethatforthenormalfaultcase,hardeningplaysa

significantrolesincefirstly,itaugmentsthepiperesistancetofaultmovementand

secondlyitisprovennecessaryforthemodeltobeabletocaptureanothermodeof

failure knows as ovalization or flattening, related to excessive crosssectional

distortion and operational failure. However, the role of hardening is not that

significantforthereversefaultcasewherelocalbucklingisthefailuremode.

Regardingtheinternalpipepressure,ithasbeenproventhatithasanegativeresult

to the pipe resistance since it causes additional stresses and strains, leading to

prematureyieldingandfailure.Finally,itprovokesadifferentstraindistributionwith

multiple critical areas in the case of normal fault and is proven necessary for the

beneficialeffectsofthehardeningtoappearinthereversefaultcase.

278

ConclusionsandProposalsforfurtherresearch

ThisessayisapreliminaryinvestigationofthebehaviorofapipesubjectedtoDip

Slipfaultrupture.Apartfromtheaspectsthatweexaminedtherearelotsofother

parametersthatcouldbeinvestigatedinafutureresearchsuchas:

The type of soil. We have conducted analyses for different types of soil

(Dense/LooseSandandClay).However,wefocusedonlyintheDenseSandcasein

ordertobeabletocomparetheeffectsoftheotherparameters.Furthermore,itis

proved that the behavior of the system depends on the relative stiffness of the

system,inotherwords,ontheratioofsoilstiffness topipestiffness,whichwedo

changebyadjustingthethicknessofthepipe.

Thepresenceofaquiferofalevelclosetothesurface.

Thebackfillmaterial.Wehavemadetheassumptionthatthebackfillmaterialhas

thesamepropertiesastherestofthesoil,somethingthatisincontrasttothereality

since the soil that is used to cover the pipe is of less density because of the

excavation procedure. An interesting idea would be to examine different backfill

materials,apartfromtheexcavatedsoil.

The type of fault. Apart from our study, which concentrates on DipSlip fault

rupturesandapartfromtheStrikeSliprupture,whichiswidelyexaminedbyvarious

researchers, the case of an Oblique fault rupture could be investigated. Different

pipe behavior is expected in that case, because both of the Dip and Strike

components of the fault are measurable and significant. The oblique effect can be

alsoexaminedbychangingthepipefaultplaneintersectionangle.

279

280

References

281

282

References

ABAQUS(2011):UsersManual,Simulia,Providence,RI,USA.

AbdounT.H.,Ha,D.,ORourke,M.J.,Symans,M.D.,ORourke,T.D.,Palmer,M.C.,

and Stewart, H. E. (2009), Factors influencing the behavior of buried

pipelines subjected to earthquake faulting., Soil Dynamics and Earthquake

Engineering,Vol.29,pp.415427.

American Society of Civil Engineers (2009). Buried flexible steel pipe; design and

structuralanalysis.In:WhiddenWR,editor.ASCEManualofPractice,MOP.p.

119.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2006), Pipeline Transportation Systems

forLiquidHydrocarbonsandOtherLiquids,ANSI/ASMEB31.4.

AmericanSocietyofMechanicalEngineers(2007),GasTransmissionandDistribution

PipingSystems,ANSI/ASMEB31.8.

AnastasopoulosI.,GazetasG.,M.ASCE,BransbyM.F.,DaviesM.C.R.,NahasA.El,

(2007), Fault Rupture Propagation through Sand: FiniteElement Analysis

andVaidationthroughCentrifugeExperiments,JournalofGeotechnicaland

GeoenvironmentalEngineering,ASCE,p.943958

Anastasopoulos I., Callerio A., Bransby M. F., Davies M. C., Nahas A. El, Faccioli E.,

GazetasG.,MasellaA.,PaolucciR.,PeckerA.,RossigniolE.(2008),Numerical

analysesoffaultfoundationinteraction.,BulletinofEarthquakeEngineering,

Sprin\ger,6(4),645675.

ArifinR.B.,ShafrizalW.M.,WanB.,YusofM.,ZhaoP.,andBaiY.(2010),Seismic

analysisforthesubseapipelinesystem.,ProceedingsoftheASME201029th

International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering,

OMAE201020671,Shanghai,China.

ANSI/API Spec 5L, Specification for Line Pipe, 44th edition, American Petroleum

Institute,October2007.

Bray,J.D.(1990).Theeffectsoftectonicmovementsonstressesanddeformations

in earth embankments. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California at Berkeley,

Berkeley,Calif.

Bray,J.D.,Seed,R.B.,Cluff,L.S.,andSeed,H.B.(1994a).Earthquakefaultrupture

propagationthroughsoil.J.Geotech.Engrg.,120(3),543561.

283

References

Canadian Standard Association (2007), Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, CSAZ662,

Mississauga,Ontario,Canada.

Chiou YJ, Chi SY, Chang HY. A study on buried pipeline response to fault

movement.PressureVesselTechnology,ASME1994;Vol:116,3641.

Comit Europen de Normalisation (2006), Eurocode 8, Part 4: Silos, tanks and

pipelines,CENEN19984,Brussels,Belgium.

Dama E., Karamanos, S. A., and Gresnigt, A. M. (2007), "Failure of Locally Buckled

Pipelines.",JournalofPressureVesselTechnology,ASME,Vol.129,No.2,pp.

272279.

DouglasG.Honeggeretal.(2004),TransAlaskaPipelineSystemPerformanceinthe

2002DenaliFault,Alaska,Earthquake.,EarthquakeSpectra,Volume20,No.

3,pages707738,August2004.

Erickson, S. G., Staryer, L. M., and Suppe, J. (2001). Initiation and reactivation of

faults during movement over a thrustfault ramp: Numerical mechanical

models.J.Struct.Geol.,23,1123.

Gazetas. G., Anastasopoulos I. and Apostolou. M. (2007), Shallow and deep

foundation under fault rapture or strong seismic shaking., K. Pitilakis (ed.),

EarthquakeGeotechnicalEngineering,Springer,185215.

ICFInternational,InterstateNaturalgasAssociationofAmericaReport:Naturalgas

pipelineandstorageinfrastructure,Projectionsthrough2030,October2009

Karamitros D.K., Bouckovalas G.D., Kouretzis G.P., (2006),Stress analysis of buried

steel pipelines at strikeslip fault corssings, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake

Engineering27(2007),p.200211.

KaramitrosD.K.,BouckovalasG.D.,KouretzisG.P.,GkesouliV.,Ananalyticalmethod

for strength verification of buried steel pipeline at normal fault crossings,

SoilDynamicsandEarthquakeEngineering31(2011),p.14521464.

Kennedy,R.P.,Chow,A.W.andWilliamson,R.A.(1977),Faultmovementeffectson

buried oil pipeline, Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 103,

pp.617633.

Kennedy R. P., Kincaid R. H. (1983). Fault crossing design for buried gas oil

pipelines.ASME,PVPconference;77:19.

284

References

transversePGD.EarthquakeEngng.Struct.Dyn.,26:9891003.

Loukidis, D. (1999). Active fault propagation through soil. Thesis, School of Civil

Engineering,NationalTechnicalUniv.,Athens,Greece.

MaCaffrey MA, ORourke TD (1983). Buried pipeline response to reverse faulting

during the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. ASME, PVP conference 1983;

77:151159.

Nakai, T., Muir Wood, D., and Stone, K. J. L. (1995). Numerical calculations of soil

responseoveradisplacingbasement.SoilsFound.,35(2),2535.

NEESRSG Final Report, Cornell University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, The

SciencenterDiscoveryCenter,June25,2008.

Newmark,N.M.,HallW.J.(1975),Pipelinedesigntoresistlargefaultdisplacement.

Proceedings of U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 416

425.

Odina,L.andTan,R.(2009),SeismicFaultDisplacementofBuriedPipelinesUsing

Continuum Finite Element Methods., Proceedings of the ASME 2009 28th

International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering,

OMAE200979739,Honolulu,Hawaii.

Odina,L.andConder,R.J.(2010),SignificanceofLder'sPlateauonPipelineFault

Crossing Assessment, Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International

Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE201020715,

Shanghai,China.

ORourkeT.D.,Geohazardsandlarge,geographicallydistributedsystems.,(2010),

Geptechnique60,No.7,507543

Papazachos B., Papaioannou Ch., Papazachos C., Savvaidis A., (1997), Atlas of

Isoseismal Maps for Strong Shallow Earthquakes in Greece and Surrounding

Area(426BC1995).ZitiPublicationCo,Thessaloniki(1997).

PeterJ.Haeussleretal.,(2004),SurfaceRuptureofthe2002DenaliFault,Alaska,

Earthquake and Comparison with other StrikeSlip Ruptures., Earthquake

Spectra,Volume20,No.3,pages565578,August2004.

285

References

Potts, D. M., Kovacevic, N., and Vaughan, P. R. (1997). Delayed collapse of cut

slopesinstiffclay.Geotechnique,47(5),953982.

Roth,W.H.,Sweet,J.,andGoodman,R.E.(1982).Numericalandphysicalmodeling

of flexural slip phenomena and potential for fault movement. Rock Mech.,

12,2746.

Scott, R. F., and Schoustra, J. J. (1974). Nuclear power plant sitting on deep

alluvium.J.Geotech.Engrg.Div.,100(4),449459.

Sim W.W., Towhata I., Yamada S., Moinet G.J.M., (2012), Shaking table tests

modeling small diameter pipes crossing a vertical fault., Soil Dynamics and

EarthquakeEngineering,Volume35,p.5971,April2012,Elsevier.

Takada,S.,Hassani,N.andFukuda,K.(2001),Anewproposalforsimplifieddesign

of buried steel pipes crossing active faults, Earthquake Engineering and

StructuralDynamics,2001;Vol.30:pp.12431257.

Trifonov,O.V.andCherniy,V.P.(2010),Asemianalyticalapproachtoanonlinear

stressstrain analysis of buried steel pipelines crossing active faults., Soil

Dynamics&EarthquakeEngineering,Vol.30,pp.12981308.

Trifonov,O.V.andCherniy,V.P.(2012),Elastoplasticstressstrainanalysisofburied

steel pipelines subjected to fault displacements with account for service

loads.,SoilDynamics&EarthquakeEngineering,Vol.33,No.1,pp.5462.

U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration,OfficeofOilandGas,Report:Naturalgas

compressorstationsontheInterstatepipelinenetwork:Developmentssince

1996,November2007

Vougioukas E. A., Theodossis, C., Carydis P. G. (1979), Seismic analysis of buried

pipelines subjected to vertical fault movement., Journal of Technical

Councils,ASCE,Vol.105(TCI),pp.432441.

VazourasP.,KaramanosS.A.,DakoulasP.,(2010),Finiteelementanalysisofburied

steel pipelines under strikeslip fault displacements., Soil Dynamics and

EarthquakeEngineering(2010),doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.06.011

Vazouras P., Karamanos S. A., Dakoulas P., (2012), Mechanical behavior of buried

steel pipes crossing active strikeslip faults, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake

Engineering,Volume41,October2012,Pages164180

286

References

materials.Proc.,4thInt.Conf.onNumericalMethodsinGeomechanics,Vol.

I,Edmonton,Canada,263274.

Wang,L.R.L.andYeh,Y.A.(1985),Arefinedseismicanalysisanddesignofburied

pipelineforfaultmovement,EarthquakeEngineering&StructuralDynamics,

Vol.13,pp.7596.

Wang,Y.Y.,Horsley,D.andLiu,M.,(2007),StrainBasedDesignofPipelines.,16th

JointTechnicalMeeting,AustralianPipelineAssociation,Canberra,Australia.

White, R. J., Stone, K. J. L., and Jewel, R. J. (1994). Effect of particle size on

localization development in model tests on sand. Proc., Inst. Centrifuge

Conf., C. F. Leung, F. H. Lee, and T. S. Tan, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The

Netherlands,817822.

YoshizakiK.,ORourkeT.D.,HamadaM.,(2003),Largescaleexperimentsofburied

steel pipelines with elbows subjected to permanent ground deformation,

StructuralEng/EarthquakeEng.,JSCE,Vol.20,No.1,111.

.K.,,

287

References

InternetReferences

AmericanOilandGasHistoricalSociety,www.aoghs.com

AmericanPetroleumInstitute,www.api.org

UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey,www.USGS.org

..,www.desfa.gr

InternationalGasUnion,www.inu.org

InterconnectorTurkeyGreeceItalyPipeline,

www.edison.it/en/company/gasinfrastractures/itgi.shtml

TransAdriaticPipeline,www.transadriaticpipeline.com

288

- εισαγωγη στην τοπογραφιαUploaded bySPIROS
- KarakostasUploaded byzulfiomair
- zakkakr_srwUploaded byVivian
- Tefxos No 21 April 2009Uploaded byAnonymous D5s00DdU
- 3PEN170549-14J-tcm478-241685Uploaded byjoko riyanto
- Correction TD Gmat2Uploaded byjaber ghazouani
- Mjøstårnet, Norway: The tallest all-timber building in the worldUploaded byacetoppos