Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Earthquakes
Volume 2014, Article ID 818923, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/818923

Research Article
Seismic Behaviour of Buried Pipelines:
3D Finite Element Approach

Smrutirekha Sahoo, Bappaditya Manna, and K. G. Sharma

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India

Correspondence should be addressed to Smrutirekha Sahoo; s.sahoo.iitd@gmail.com

Received 13 April 2014; Revised 27 June 2014; Accepted 7 July 2014; Published 5 August 2014

Academic Editor: Vladimir Sokolov

Copyright © 2014 Smrutirekha Sahoo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

This paper presents a numerical investigation on six pipeline models to study the seismic response of single and double buried
pipelines using finite element method. Different depth and spacing of pipes are considered to investigate their prominent role
in the seismic response of buried pipelines under an earthquake loading having PGA of 0.2468 g. In case of single pipeline, the
maximum magnitude of final displacement as well as the stress at the end of the seismic sequence is found at the burial depth
equal to the pipe diameter. In case of double pipeline, the maximum magnitude of final displacement is found when the spacing
between pipes is equal to half the pipe diameter and there is an increasing tendency of developed stress with increase in spacing
between pipes. In addition to the above results, the response of the buried pipelines with a particular bend angle (artificially induced
bend/buckle) to the permanent ground deformation which is assumed to be the result of seismic wave propagation has also been
studied. Remarkable differences in these results are obtained and with these results the designers can reduce seismic risk to their
buried pipelines by taking proper precautionary measures.

1. Introduction
Earthquakes are one of the most destructive natural hazards
which can severely damage several lifeline utilities in both
urban and nonurban areas. The potential damage because
of earthquakes has been intensified with the rapid growth
of urbanisation, hence the initiation of recovery efforts is
required to restore some of the indispensable services like
lifeline utilities by identifying the most vulnerable areas to
limit the impact of structural as well as human damage and
destruction caused by intensive earthquakes. These lifeline
utilities include water supply, sewage system, and oil and gas
supply pipelines, whose failure could worsen the damages due
to earthquakes. For example, in case of gas and petroleum
transferring pipelines, other than the economic loss and
contamination of the ecosystem, leakage of gas or oil from
the damaged pipelines would cause fires in case of electricity
sparks as discussed by Scawthorn and Yanev [1]. In addition,
the destruction of water pipelines could prevent the fire
fighter’s activities to make the fire under control. The 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake [2], 1994 Northridge earthquake [3],
and 1995 Kobe earthquake [4] were the famous examples
of lifeline failures which drew more attention towards the
investigation of circumstances that cause pipeline failures.
In 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, the urban subway system of
Taipei encountered damages [5]. The seismic behaviour of
buried pipeline under earthquake conditions has been inves-
tigated by many researchers [6–9]. The response of buried
pipeline to lateral ground movements is critical for design
and risk evaluation in a variety of adverse environmental
conditions which also include earthquake induced faulting
as stated by various researchers [10–12]. The soil stresses and
deformations, which in practice are difficult to characterize,
are the main factors in finding the seismic response of
buried pipelines. Each source of ground movement (e.g.,
earthquake) can cause significant pipeline strain by means
of (1) bending and (2) increased longitudinal friction from
high lateral soil stresses. Permanent ground displacement
(PGD) is a substantial source of damage to water facilities
[13, 14]. Types of PGD include fault rupture, settlement,
subsidence/uplift, and liquefaction induced lateral spreading
or landslides deformations. Damage occurring to water and
2 Journal of Earthquakes
gas pipelines during PGD has been well documented by
several researchers in the literature [15, 16]. The damage to
pipelines caused by the San Fernando earthquake in 1971
has been evaluated and it is concluded that almost half of
the total pipeline damage occurred in specific areas where
fault rupture was observed [17]. In view of these findings and
the uncertainties, a series of numerically developed models
are analysed on six pipeline models with different burial
depth and spacing parameters. The effect of the depth and
spacing on the seismic response of the buried pipelines has
been examined and also the response of the pipelines to the
earthquake induced PGD has also been addressed.
2. Details of the Numerical Model
Three-dimensional solid numerical models are developed
for the simulation of soil consisting pipeline models with
different depth and spacing. In each model, the hollow
steel pipeline is surrounded by gravelly soil and then sandy
soil is provided around the gravelly soil. The pipelines are
modelled as two-dimensional elastic plate structures. The
outer diameter (designated as “𝐷” in Figures 1 and 2) and the
thickness of the pipelines used in FE analysis are considered
as 2.1 m and 0.015 m, respectively. The water table is assumed
to be at the ground level. The water pressure on the surface of
pipeline from inside due to the flow of water in the pipeline
is considered as 25 kN/m2 . The material parameters of soil
and pipeline adopted for the FE analysis are shown in Table 1.
The Mohr-Coulomb model is adopted for soil to simulate
the elastoplastic behaviour of soil. The interface elements
are created around the pipeline by calculating the normal
stiffness modulus, shear stiffness modulus, cohesion, internal
friction angle, and the assumed strength reduction factor
from the material properties of soil and pipe to provide the
interface between soil and pipe. In this study, the damping
constants, that is, “𝑐𝑝 ” and “𝑐𝑠 ”, required for the time-history
analysis are calculated as follows [18]:
𝜆 + 2𝐺 𝜆 + 2𝐺
𝐶𝑝 = 𝜌 ⋅ 𝐴 ⋅ √ =𝑊⋅𝐴⋅√ = 𝑐𝑝 ⋅ 𝐴
𝜌 𝑊 ⋅ 9.81
(1)
𝐺 𝐺
𝐶𝑠 = 𝜌 ⋅ 𝐴 ⋅ √ =𝑊⋅𝐴⋅√ = 𝑐𝑠 ⋅ 𝐴,
𝜌 𝑊 ⋅ 9.81
where 𝜆 = ]𝐸/((1+])(1−2])) and 𝐺 = 𝐸/(2(1+])). 𝐴 is cross-
sectional area (m2 ); 𝐸 is modulus of elasticity (kN/m2 ); 𝑊
is unit weight (kN/m3 ); 𝜆 is volumetric modulus of elasticity
(kN/m2 ); 𝐺 is shear modulus (kN/m2 ); and ] is Poisson’s ratio.
In FE analysis, the meshing for soil elements has been
done using 10-noded tetrahedron elements whereas, for
the plate elements of pipeline, 8-noded quadratic element
meshing is chosen. The boundary conditions have also been
provided as it is well known that the accuracy and stability
of any FE based computation depend on the boundary
conditions. In this paper, two types of boundary conditions
are considered: free-roller and full-fixity. The free-roller and
the full-fixity boundary condition are considered for the
side soil boundary nodes and the bottom soil boundary
nodes, respectively. At the free-roller boundary which is
usually used to represent a far field boundary condition, soil
particles are free to move in the direction which is parallel to
the wall boundary. The geometry and generated mesh with
the boundary conditions of a single and a double pipeline
model are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. All the
six models developed using the finite element method with
different depth and spacing parameters are analysed under a
seismic excitation having PGA as 0.2468 g. The time history
data having PGA as 0.2468 g adopted during the numerical
analysis are chosen from the available inbuilt earthquake
histories in the finite element software, MIDAS/GTS [18]. The
time history of the acceleration chosen for the finite element
analysis is shown in Figure 3. These data are used in finite
element analysis to provide unidirectional seismic excitation
(i.e., lateral to the orientation of pipeline and here it is along
the 𝑥-direction in Figures 1 and 2). The reason behind the
lateral directional seismic excitation is its criticality in terms
of both stress and deformation magnitudes in comparison
to longitudinal (along the axis of pipe) seismic excitation
of the buried pipelines. Hence the response of the buried
pipelines to the lateral directional seismic excitation is taken
into consideration for the present analysis.
In this research, behaviour of both single and double
buried pipelines under the effect of PGD has also been
included using finite element models idealized with shell
elements. A bend has been manually created at the centre
of the pipeline with a particular bend angle, that is, 30∘ ,
which has been assumed to be the result of permanent ground
deformation as a result of the seismic excitation [19]. The
outline of the model is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 also shows
the image of parameters where the bend angle is kept as 30∘
while all other parameters like radius of bend and the PGD
encounter angle remain fixed for all the cases.
3. Results and Discussions
The effect of depth in case of single pipeline and the effect
of spacing between pipelines in case of double pipeline
shown in Figures 5 and 6 to examine the pipe stress and the
deformation behaviour of the pipeline under an earthquake
loading having PGA of 0.2468 g are studied in detail as
follows.
3.1. Effect of Depth in Case of Single Pipeline. One of the
varying factors in this study is the burial depth of pipe. Three
analyses have been carried out on the single pipeline with
outer diameter as 2.1 m and thickness as 0.015 m at different
depths of 1.05 m, 2.1 m, and 4.2 m (i.e., 𝐷/2, 𝐷, and 2𝐷,
resp.) under the acceleration record as depicted in Figure 3
with PGA of 0.24 g. The final displacement found at the
end of the seismic sequence along the length of pipeline
is plotted in Figure 5. The maximum stress induced in the
pipeline versus the normalized burial depth is plotted in
Figure 6. It is found from Figure 5 that the magnitude of
final displacement for all the cases is higher at the middle
portion and decreases gradually towards the end portions
Journal of Earthquakes 3

Ground water table

14 18.018
Burial depth = D = 2.1 m

20 m Gravel Outer diameter of pipe = D = 2.1 m

Sand

Z
Y X
20 m
(a)
0.5 m 0.5 m
D = 2.1 m
2.793
0.5 m

D = 2.1 m
25 kN/m2

0.5 m

Gravel

Z
D = 2.1 m Y
50 m X

(b)

Figure 1: FE modelling of the single pipeline (pipe depth = 𝐷). (a) Front view of the whole model in 𝑋𝑍 plane and (b) 3-dimensional view
of the pipeline.

Table 1: Material properties of soil and pipeline.

Parameters Sand Gravel Steel pipe

Modulus of elasticity (𝐸), kN/m2 3500 18000 200000000
Poisson’s ratio (]) 0.35 0.33 0.3
Unit weight (𝛾), kN/m3 18 19.5 75
Cohesion (𝑐), kN/m2 0 0 —
Frictional angle (𝜙) 25 40 —
Model type Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Elastic

of the pipeline. The pattern of displacement curves along
the length of pipeline at each burial depth in case of single
pipeline is similar in nature. The magnitude of displacement
is maximum at the burial depth equal to the diameter of the
pipe whereas it is minimum at the burial depth equal to half
the diameter of the pipe. From Figure 6, it is quite clear that
the magnitude of stresses developed on both top and bottom
plates in case of single pipelines is maximum at the depth
equal to the diameter of the pipe and both the curves followed
a similar pattern.
Hence it is safer to avoid the installation of a pipeline
at the burial depth equal to the diameter of pipeline. Hence
4 Journal of Earthquakes

Spacing = D = 2.1 m
Ground water table

05 9.009 13.514 18.018

Burial depth = D = 2.1 m
Gravel Outer diameter of pipe = D = 2.1 m
20 m

Sand
Z
Y X
40 m
(a)
0.5 m Spacing = D = 2.1 m 0.5 m
0.5 m
Gravel
D = 2.1 m

3.1 m
25 kN/m2 25 kN/m2

0.5 m

D = 2.1 m D = 2.1 m

D = 2.1 m
ZY
X
50 m
(b)

Figure 2: FE modelling of double pipeline (pipe depth = 𝐷; pipe spacing = 𝐷). (a) Front view of the whole model in 𝑋𝑍 plane and (b)
3-dimensional view of both the pipelines.

0.3 the seismic sequence can be minimized. These results are in

good agreement with the results of Azadi and Mir Moham-
0.2 PGA = 0.2468 g mad Hosseini [20].

0.1
Acceleration (g)

3.2. Effect of Spacing between Pipelines in Case of Double

0 Pipeline. Another varying factor in this study is the spacing
between pipelines. Three analyses are carried out on the
−0.1 double pipelines with fixed burial depth of 𝐷 having outer
diameter as 2.1 m and thickness as 0.015 m at different spacing
−0.2 of 1.05 m, 2.1 m, and 4.2 m (i.e., 𝐷/2, 𝐷, and 2𝐷, resp.) under
the acceleration record as depicted in Figure 3. It is found
−0.3 from Figure 5 that the magnitude of final displacement for
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 all the cases is higher at the middle portion and decreases
Time (s) gradually towards the end portions of the pipeline. The
pattern of displacement curves along the length of pipeline
Figure 3: History of acceleration, 1940, EL, Centro Site, Vertical [18]. for each spacing variation in case of double pipeline is similar
in nature. The magnitude of displacement is maximum with
the spacing between pipes equal to half the diameter of the
the magnitude of displacement of pipeline as well as the pipe whereas it is minimum with the spacing between pipes
magnitude of stress induced in the pipeline at the end of equal to the diameter of the pipe.
Journal of Earthquakes 5

Bend angle

Bend Pipeline
radius
Z
PGD encounter Y
X
angle

(a) (b)

Figure 4: (a) Image of parameters taken to create a bend with bend angle of 30∘ in the pipeline in the 𝑦-𝑧 plane and (b) 3-dimensional FE
modelling of the single bend pipeline (pipe depth = 𝐷).

0.03 Normalized burial depth/spacing between pipes 2.5

Final displacement of pipeline (m)

0.025
2
0.02

0.015 1.5

0.01
1
0.005
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Along the length of pipeline (m)
0
Single-0.5D Double-0.5D 2.00E + 03 2.50E + 03 3.00E + 03 3.50E + 03 4.00E + 03
Single-D Double-D Maximum stress in pipe (kPa)
Single-2D Double-2D
Single top plate Double top plate
Single bottom plate Double bottom plate
Figure 5: Variation of burial depth and spacing of pipes with
the maximum displacement of pipelines at the end of the seismic Figure 6: Variation of burial depth and spacing of pipes with the
excitation. maximum stresses in pipelines at the end of the seismic excitation.

From Figure 6, it is quite clear that the magnitude of stress
on pipelines increases with increase in spacing between pipes.
It has also shown that the magnitude of stresses developed
on both top and bottom plates in case of double pipelines is
maximum with the spacing between pipes equal to double the
diameter of the pipe and both the curves followed a similar
pattern. Hence it is better to provide a spacing between pipes
equal to the diameter of the pipe in case of installation of
double pipeline with the burial depth equal to the diameter
of pipe. This can help in maintaining the magnitude of
displacement of pipelines to the minimum and in avoiding
the maximum magnitude of stress induced in the pipeline at
the end of the seismic sequence. The final deformed diagram
of all the pipeline models at the end of the seismic sequence
having PGA = 0.2468 g has been shown schematically with
the contour diagrams in Figures 7(a)–7(c) and Figures 7(d)–
7(f) for single and double pipeline, respectively. From Fig-
ures 7(a)–7(f), it can be seen that the zone of maximum
deformation along the length of the pipeline is found around
middle portion of the pipelines and decreases gradually
towards the ends. The reason behind this kind of deformities
can be the direction of seismic excitation applied to the
pipelines. Because when the direction of seismic excitation
was along the longitudinal direction of the pipelines, the
deformities were distributed all over the pipe length rather
than concentrating only on the middle portion.
3.3. Effect of PGD on Buried Pipelines and Bends. In addition
to the above results, the response of the buried pipelines
to the permanent ground deformation (PGD) has also been
6 Journal of Earthquakes

Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
3.4% +1.43003e − 002
0.511 15.767 21.023
7.7% +1.39502e − 002
13.1%+1.36001e − 002
8.4% +1.32499e − 002
7.3% +1.28998e − 002
6.2% +1.25497e − 002
5.5% +1.21995e − 002
5.5% +1.18494e − 002
5.0% +1.14992e − 002
4.9% +1.11491e − 002
4.9% +1.07990e − 002
4.9% +1.04488e − 002
5.1% +1.00987e − 002
Z 6.1% +9.74854e − 003
Y
7.9% +9.39840e − 003
X
4.2% +9.04826e − 003
DXYZ (V), time history min(2) +8.69812e − 003
(a)
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
11.5%
+1.52035e − 002
77 29.569 12.5%
+1.47433e − 002 11.084
8.0%
+1.42832e − 002
6.3%
+1.38230e − 002
5.5%
+1.33628e − 002
4.8%
+1.29026e − 002
4.8%
+1.24424e − 002
4.4%
+1.19822e − 002
4.3%
+1.15220e − 002
4.3% +1.10618e − 002
4.1% +1.06016e − 002
4.3% +1.01414e − 002
4.9% +9.68124e − 003
Z 5.3% +9.22104e − 003
Y
7.5% +8.76085e − 003
DXYZ (V), time history all(3) X
7.4% +8.30066e − 003
+7.84047e − 003 DXYZ (V), time history max(1)
(c)
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
11.2% +2.38789e − 002
1.330 16.994 22.659
8.4% +2.32368e − 002
6.4% +2.25947e − 002
5.8% +2.19526e − 002
5.3% +2.13104e − 002
5.2% +2.06683e − 002
4.8% +2.00262e − 002
4.7% +1.93841e − 002
4.7% +1.87420e − 002
4.8% +1.80998e − 002
4.7% +1.74577e − 002
5.0% +1.68156e − 002
5.5% +1.61735e − 002
Z 5.7% +1.55313e − 002
Y
7.1% +1.48892e − 002
X
10.5% +1.42471e − 002
DXYZ (V), time history min(2) +1.36050e − 002
(e)
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
13.8%+1.75370e − 002
0.557 15.836 21.115
7.3% +1.70075e − 002
6.0% +1.64779e − 002
5.5% +1.59483e − 002
4.6% +1.54188e − 002
4.9% +1.48892e − 002
3.9% +1.43597e − 002
5.1% +1.38301e − 002
3.8% +1.33005e − 002
3.8% +1.27710e − 002
5.1% +1.22414e − 002
6.4% +1.17118e − 002
5.4% +1.11823e − 002
Z 6.2% +1.06527e − 002
Y
7.0% +1.01232e − 002
X 11.1%+9.59359e − 003
DXYZ (V), time history min(2) +9.06403e − 003
(b)
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
9.2% +2.53180e − 002
16.625 22.167
7.4% +2.48048e − 002
6.0% +2.42916e − 002
4.8% +2.37784e − 002
4.6% +2.32653e − 002
4.5% +2.27521e − 002
4.0% +2.22389e − 002
4.1% +2.17257e − 002
3.7% +2.12125e − 002
4.0% +2.06993e − 002
3.7% +2.01861e − 002
3.9% +1.96729e − 002
4.1% +1.91597e − 002
Z 9.1% +1.86465e − 002
Y
11.4%+1.81333e − 002
X
15.4%+1.76201e − 002
+1.71070e − 002
(d)
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
+2.48995e − 002
11.863 17.794 23.726 6.8%
+2.44049e − 002
8.5%
+2.39103e − 002
6.0%
+2.34157e − 002
5.1%
4.6% +2.29211e − 002
4.4% +2.24264e − 002
4.2% +2.19318e − 002
4.0% +2.14372e − 002
3.7% +2.09426e − 002
3.8% +2.04480e − 002
3.8% +1.99534e − 002
3.6% +1.94588e − 002
7.3% +1.89642e − 002
Z 10.4%+1.84696e − 002
Y
10.3%+1.79750e − 002
X 13.6%+1.74804e − 002
DXYZ (V), time history all(3) +1.69858e − 002
(f)

Figure 7: Deformed diagram of single and double pipeline at the end of the seismic excitation. (a) Burial depth = 0.5𝐷, (b) burial depth = 𝐷,
(c) burial depth = 2𝐷, (d) spacing = 0.5𝐷, (e) spacing = 𝐷, and (f) spacing = 2𝐷.

studied by creating a bend in the pipeline which is assumed
to be the result of earthquake induced permanent ground
deformation. To include this issue in the present FE analysis
regarding the response of the buried pipelines to PGD, the
final deformation of the pipeline observed at the end of the
seismic excitation and a bend with a bend angle of 30∘ has
been manually applied to the pipeline models for all cases.
Nonlinear static analysis has been carried out on both
straight and bend pipelines after the seismic excitation to
observe the pipe axial strain for all the cases with different
burial depth and spacing. Hence the effect of different burial
depths and spacing of pipelines to the PGD induced bend has
been addressed in terms of displacement as well as axial strain
in Figures 8 and 9, respectively.
From Figure 8 it is found that, in case of single pipeline,
there is no variation in the magnitude of maximum dis-
placement with the burial depth of pipe for the straight pipe
case. But for the bend pipe case, a very high displacement
has been observed with the burial depth of 0.5d which is
beyond the yield limit of the pipe and then it decreases and
becomes constant with further increase in the burial depth
of bend pipe. In case of double pipe also, no variation in
the magnitude of maximum displacement with the spacing
between pipes has been found for the straight pipe case.
But for the bend pipe case, the curve clearly indicates that
there is a steady increase in the magnitude of displacement
with increase in the spacing between pipes. It has also been
observed that the magnitude of maximum displacement in
case of straight pipe is very small as compared to the bend
pipe for both cases of single and double pipelines.
In Figure 9 the exact same tendency to that of Figure 8
has been found. It means that a similar tendency of developed
strain like that of the maximum displacement has been found
for both straight and bend pipe cases in both single and
double pipes. The only thing to be observed from Figure 9
is that no development of strain has been found in case of
Journal of Earthquakes 7

2.5 Figures 10(a)–10(c) and Figures 10(d)–10(f) for single and

Normalized burial depth/spacing between pipes

double pipeline, respectively. From Figures 10(a)–10(f), it

can be seen that the zone of maximum deformation along
2
the length of the pipeline is found at the end portion of
the pipelines where the bend is maximum and decreases
1.5 gradually towards the straight ends. The reason behind this
kind of deformities can be the type of pipelines used, that
is, thin walled, and the bend in the pipeline. Since the thin
1
walled pipe and the bend portion of the pipe (behave like
hanging through the soil) have lesser moment of inertia,
0.5 so they can be easily bent and deformed to accommodate
the soil displacement without allowing any large geometric
deformation to the pipe.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Maximum displacement in pipe (m)

Single straight Single bend

Double straight Double bend
4. Conclusions
The current analyses have been performed to understand
Figure 8: Variation of burial depth and spacing of pipes with the the effect of burial depth and spacing between pipes on
maximum displacement in pipelines at the end of the nonlinear the seismic response of buried pipelines and the following
static analysis.
conclusions have been made.
The larger magnitude of displacement is found at the
middle portion of the pipeline than at the end portions for
2.5
all the cases and this can be due to the boundary conditions
Normalized burial depth/spacing between pipes

and the direction of seismic excitation provided during the FE

2 at the burial depth equal to the diameter of the single pipeline
1.5
1 of single pipeline whereas it is maximum when the spacing
0.5
0
0 5 10
Maximum strain in pipe (%)
Single straight
Double straight
Figure 9: Variation of burial depth and spacing of pipes with the
maximum strain observed in pipelines at the end of the nonlinear
static analysis.
straight pipe for both single and double pipelines. But the
maximum percentage of strain is found in single bend pipe
with burial depth of 0.5 d, that is, around 26%, whereas in
case of double bend pipe the maximum percentage of strain
is found for the spacing between pipes of 2 d, that is, around
17%.
The final deformed diagram of all the bend pipeline
models at the end of the nonlinear static analysis has
been shown schematically with the contour diagrams in
analysis. It is found that the magnitude of stress is maximum
whereas it is having an increasing tendency with increase
in spacing between pipes in case of double pipeline. The
magnitude of displacement reaches its maximum value when
the burial depth of pipe is equal to the pipe diameter in case
between pipes equals to half the pipe diameter in case of
double pipeline.
Hence it can be concluded that avoiding the burial depth
of pipe equal to the pipe diameter can be more effective from
design point of view. In case of double pipeline, the reason
15 20 25 30 behind the larger magnitude of displacement with spacing
between pipes equal to half the diameter of pipe than the
other larger spacing magnitudes is due to the overlapping
Single bend
effect of the stress zones of the individual pipelines with lesser
Double bend
spacing. It is more effective in providing the spacing between
pipes equal to the pipe diameter during the installation of
a double pipeline. Hence the results obtained on the above
mentioned parameters can be kept in mind while designing
buried pipelines to achieve both safety and economy. The
reason behind the larger magnitude of displacement with
spacing between pipes equal to half the diameter of pipe than
the other larger spacing magnitudes in case of double pipeline
is due to the overlapping effect of the stress zones of the
individual pipelines with lesser spacing.
It can also be concluded that to lessen the vulnerability of
geometric failure of pipes as a result of earthquake induced
PGD, one should avoid the shallower burial depth in case of
design of pipelines. The burial depth nearly equal to the diam-
eter of pipe can be considered as safe as well as economical
for both single and double pipes. Also providing very strong
confinement around the pipes as well as considering flexible
8 Journal of Earthquakes
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
4.8% +3.57160e + 002
21.329 28.438
6.1% +3.34873e + 002 1.420
6.8% +3.12585e + 002
6.1% +2.90297e + 002
6.6%
+2.68009e + 002
6.4%
+2.45722e + 002
6.4%
+2.23434e + 002
7.0%
+2.01146e + 002
5.7%
+1.78859e + 002
6.4%
+1.56571e + 002
5.9%
+1.34283e + 002
6.6%
+1.11995e + 002
6.6%
+8.97076e + 001
6.1%
+6.74199e + 001
Z
Y 6.4%
+4.51321e + 001
X 6.1%
+2.28444e + 001
+5.56651e − 001
(a)
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
21.6% +5.08833e + 000
1.317 28.423
18.1% +4.82079e + 000 22.239
6.7% +4.55325e + 000
5.3% +4.28572e + 000
4.8% +4.01818e + 000
4.1% +3.75064e + 000
3.6%
+3.48310e + 000
4.1%
+3.21557e + 000
4.7%
+2.94803e + 000
4.3%
+2.68049e + 000
4.3%
+2.41296e + 000
4.7%
+2.14542e + 000
+1.87788e + 000
6.7%
+1.61035e + 000
Z
Y
5.2%
+1.34281e + 000
X
1.4%
+1.07527e + 000
0.3%
+8.07737e − 001
(c)
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
8.4%
+8.20029e + 000
22.357 29.810
16.2%
+7.85786e + 000 23.736 31.647
15.6%
+7.51544e + 000
6.4%
+7.17301e + 000
5.1%
+6.83059e + 000
4.6%
+6.48816e + 000
4.3%
+6.14573e + 000
4.3%
+5.80331e + 000
4.3%
+5.46088e + 000
4.3%
+5.11846e + 000
4.3%
+4.77603e + 000
4.3%
+4.43361e + 000
4.9%
+4.09118e + 000
5.8%
+3.74876e + 000
Z
Y 5.1%
+3.40633e + 000
X 1.8%
+3.06391e + 000
+2.72148e + 000
(e)
Figure 10: Deformed diagram of single and double bend pipeline due to PGD at the end of the nonlinear static analysis. (a) Burial depth =
0.5𝐷, (b) burial depth = 𝐷, (c) burial depth = 2𝐷, (d) spacing = 0.5𝐷, (e) spacing = 𝐷, and (f) spacing = 2𝐷.
type of pipe material can also lessen the effect of earthquake [3] A. J. Schiff, Northridge Earthquake: Lifeline Performance and
induced PGD.
[4] M. Shinozuka, D. Ballantyne, R. Borcherdt, I. Buckle, T.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests
regarding the publication of this paper.
[5] H. S. Chou, C. Y. Yang, B. J. Hsieh, and S. S. Chang, “A study of
References
[1] C. Scawthorn and P. I. Yanev, “Preliminary report 17 January [6] Y. Yong, “Response of pipeline structure subjected to ground
1995, ‘Hyogo-ken Nambu , Japanese Earthquake’,” Engineering
Structures, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 146–157, 1995.
[2] T. D. O’Rourke, T. E. Gowdy, H. E. Stewart, and J. W. Pease, [7] T. K. Datta, “Seismic response of buried pipelines: a state-of-
“Lifeline and geotechnical aspects of the 1989 Loma Prieta
Earhquake,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering [8] Y. S. Karinski and D. Z. Yankelevsky, “Dynamic analysis of an
and Soil Dynamics, pp. 1601–1612, University of Missouri-Rolla,
Rolla, Mo, USA, 1991.
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
21.1%+5.55239e + 000
28.561
18.2%
+5.25946e + 000
6.7%
+4.96654e + 000
5.5%
+4.67362e + 000
4.8%
+4.38069e + 000
4.1%
+4.08777e + 000
4.3%
+3.79485e + 000
4.3%
+3.50193e + 000
4.5%
+3.20900e + 000
4.6%
+2.91608e + 000
5.0%
+2.62316e + 000
4.6%
+2.33023e + 000
6.8%
+2.03731e + 000
4.3%
+1.74439e + 000
Z
Y 1.0%
+1.45147e + 000
X 0.3%
+1.15854e + 000
+8.65620e − 001
(b)
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
10.3% +6.10222e + 000
29.651
9.4% +5.80405e + 000
13.9% +5.50587e + 000
12.2% +5.20770e + 000
5.6% +4.90953e + 000
5.0% +4.61136e + 000
4.9% +4.31319e + 000
4.9% +4.01502e + 000
4.8% +3.71685e + 000
5.0% +3.41867e + 000
5.1% +3.12050e + 000
6.4% +2.82233e + 000
6.1% +2.52416e + 000
4.7% +2.22599e + 000
Z
Y 1.5% +1.92782e + 000
X 0.2% +1.62965e + 000
+1.33148e + 000
(d)
Displacement
DXYZ
Unit (m)
3.1% +2.78746e + 001
7.9% +2.62749e + 001
6.7% +2.46753e + 001
4.6% +2.30756e + 001
3.6% +2.14760e + 001
3.0% +1.98763e + 001
2.5% +1.82767e + 001
2.4% +1.66770e + 001
2.4% +1.50774e + 001
2.7% +1.34777e + 001
2.5% +1.18781e + 001
2.7% +1.02784e + 001
2.7% +8.67878e + 000
2.9% +7.07913e + 000
Z
Y 25.0% +5.47948e + 000
X 25.6% +3.87983e + 000
+2.28018e + 000
(f)
Post-Earthquake Response, Technical Council on Lifeline Earth-
quake Engineering ASCE, 1997.
O’Rourke, and A. Schiff, “The Hanshin-Awaji earthquake of
January 17, 1995. Performance of lifeline,” Tech. Rep., NCEER,
Buffalo, NY, USA, 1995.
liquefaction related damages on shield tunnels,” Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 185–193, 2001.
motion excitation,” Engineering Structures, vol. 19, no. 8, pp.
679–684, 1997.
the-art review,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 192, no. 2,
pp. 271–284, 1999.
elastic-plastic multisegment lining buried in soil,” Engineering
Structures, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 317–328, 2007.
Journal of Earthquakes 9

[9] D. H. Lee, B. H. Kim, H. Lee, and J. S. Kong, “Seismic behavior of

a buried gas pipeline under earthquake excitations,” Engineering
Structures, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1011–1023, 2009.
[10] R. P. Kennedy, A. W. Chow, and R. A. Williamson, “Fault
movement effects on buried oil pipeline,” Journal of the Trans-
portation Engineering Division, vol. 103, no. TE5, pp. 617–633,
1977.
[11] N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall, “Pipeline design to resist
large fault displacement,” in Proceedings of the 1st U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, pp. 416–425, Ann Arbor,
Mich, USA, June 1975.
[12] T. D. O’Rourke and C. H. Tratumann, “Buried pipeline response
to permanent earthquake ground movements,” in Proceedings of
the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, San Francisco,
Calif, USA, August 1980.
[13] W. F. Heubach, “Seismic screening checklists for water and
waste water facilities,” Monograph 22, Technical Council on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, 2002.
[14] J. Eidinger and C. A. Davis, Recent Earthquakes: Implications for
U.S. Water Utilities, Water Research Foundation, 2012.
[15] T. D. O'Rourke and P. A. Lane, “Liquefaction hazards and
their effects on buried pipelines,” Tech. Rep. NCEER-89-0007,
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo,
NY, USA, 1989.
[16] T. D. O'Rourke and M. C. Palmer, “Earthquake performance of
gas transmission pipelines,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 12, no. 3,
pp. 493–527, 1996.
[17] R. T. Eguchi, “Earthquake performance of water supply com-
ponents during the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake,” Tech. Rep.
1396-2a, Wiggins JH Company, Redondo Beach, Calif, USA,
1982.
[18] MIDAS/GTS, “Modeling, integrated design analysis software
(2013)—a geotechnical and tunnel analysis system,” State-of-
the-Art Finite Element and Graphical Technology Manual GTS
(v1.1), 2013.
[19] H. Tajika, H. Horikawa, and N. Suzuki, “Analysis of buried
pipeline due to liquefaction-induced permanent ground defor-
mation,” in Proceedings of the International Gas Union Research
Conference (IGRC ’08), pp. 1–12, Paris, France, October 2008.
[20] M. Azadi and S. M. Mir Mohammad Hosseini, “The uplifting
behavior of shallow tunnels within the liquefiable soils under
cyclic loadings,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 158–167, 2010.
 International Journal of Journal of
Ecology Mining

Journal of The Scientific

Geochemistry
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Scientifica
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of
Earthquakes
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Paleontology Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of
Petroleum Engineering

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Geophysics
 International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Advances in Journal of Advances in Advances in International Journal of

Meteorology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Climatology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Geology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Oceanography
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Oceanography
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Applied & Journal of

International Journal of
Mineralogy
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Journal of
Geological Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of Environmental Computational
Atmospheric Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Soil Science
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Environmental Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014