See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335776605

Proposed Pipe Pile Strain Limits for ASCE 61-19

Conference Paper · September 2019

DOI: 10.1061/9780784482612.041

CITATION READS
1 459

3 authors, including:

Carlos Ospina Dimitrios Pachakis

WSP USA Inc. COWI
27 PUBLICATIONS   226 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   164 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitrios Pachakis on 23 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proposed Pipe Pile Strain Limits for ASCE 61-19

Robert Harn, PE, SE, M.ASCE1; Carlos E. Ospina, PhD, PE, M.ASCE2;
and Dimitris Pachakis, PhD, PE, CEng, MICE3
1
Senior Project Manager, BergerABAM, 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300, Federal Way,
WA 98003-2600; PH 206/431-2325; Email: bob.harn@abam.com
2
Vice President, BergerABAM, 800 Gessner Road, Suite 1125, Houston, TX 77024;
PH 832/384-7820; Email: carlos.ospina@abam.com
3
Technical Director, COWI UK Limited, PH: +44 20 7940 7600, Email: DSPS@cowi.com

ABSTRACT
ASCE/COPRI 61-14 “Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves” (ASCE, 2014) is a standard
developed by a group of practicing structural and geotechnical engineers, owners, and
academics with specific expertise in marine and waterfront infrastructure, intended to reflect
the current state of practice for seismic design of pile-supported piers and wharves.
ASCE 61-14 offers no guidance to prevent local buckling of the pile shell for either hollow or
concrete-filled pipe piles. For the next edition of ASCE 61, a task group was formed to review
the available research, evaluate the existing strain limits in the code, and recommend updates, if
deemed necessary, to the provisions. This paper summarizes its findings and proposals.

BACKGROUND
Most modern piers and wharves use plumb piles acting as moment frames to resist seismic
demands by the formation of inelastic plastic hinges at the pile top and in-ground. In the United
States, seismic design of piers and wharves is carried out according to ASCE 61-14, a
displacement-based design guideline that uses material strain limits at plastic hinges as the
primary performance criteria for a given seismic hazard. The design philosophy of ASCE 61
promotes seismically strong-beam, weak-column structures so the deck is treated as a capacity-
protected element with the inelastic action focused on the supporting piles.
ASCE 61-14 divides piers and wharves into three design classifications: (i) high,
(ii) moderate, and (iii) low, depending on their economic importance. Three seismic hazard
levels are used: (i) the operating level earthquake (OLE), with a return period of 72 years,
(ii) the contingency level earthquake (CLE), with a return period of 475 years, and (iii) the
design earthquake (DE), with a return period per ASCE 7-051. Structures under all these
seismic design classifications are required to satisfy the requirements of the Life Safety (LS)
performance level for the DE. Structures of moderate importance are also required to satisfy the
requirements of controlled damage (CD) for the CLE, and structures of high importance are
required to also satisfy the requirements of minimal damage (MD) for the OLE and CD for the
CLE. Strain limits for hollow pipe piles are given in Chapter 3 of ASCE 61-14. They were
adopted from the Port of Long Beach (POLB) seismic design criteria (2012) and are shown in
1
For the 2019 edition of ASCE 61, a return period of 975 years is being considered for the design earthquake.

1
Table 1. (Note the deep in-ground hinge at 10 pile diameters is a condition unique to wharves
with rock dikes (from POLB), and should be redefined more broadly in ASCE 61-19).

Table 1. Strain Limits in Hollow Pipe Piles in ASCE 61-14

Hinge Location
Seismic Performance
Level Deep In-ground
Top of Pile In-ground
(>10 Pile Dia.)
Minimal Damage (MD) NA 0.010 0.010
Controlled Damage (CD) NA 0.025 0.035
Life Safety (LS) NA 0.035 0.050

In Chapter 31F (Table 31F-7-7) of the 2016 California Building Code, which is the
basis for the Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS), strain
limits for hollow pipe piles for MD and CD performance levels are, respectively, 0.008 and
0.0025. No distinction is given between in-ground and deep in-ground conditions in this code.
Chapter 7 of ASCE 61-14 is devoted to prescriptive detailing requirements to ensure the
structure has sufficient ductility at plastic hinge zones and the deck to achieve the material
strain limits. In addition, brittle failure mechanisms, such as concrete shear and reinforcement
bar buckling, are capacity-protected. However, there are no detailing provisions linked to
compression strain limits to prevent pipe pile wall buckling.
Harn et al. (2016) reported on research indicating that steel pipe piles, either hollow or
filled with concrete, are susceptible to inelastic buckling and fracture at compressive strains
significantly below the strain limits specified in ASCE 61-14. Of primary interest for this paper
were the cyclic tests performed by Fulmer et al. (2012) at North Carolina State University
(NCSU) (see Figure 1).

(1a) (1b)

Figure 1. Example of 20-inch (51 cm) pipe subjected to pure (cyclic) bending
(Fulmer et al. 2012)

Fulmer et al. (2012) examined the bending performance under cyclic loads of hollow steel
pipes varying from 18 to 24 inches (460 to 610 mm) in diameter with diameter-to-thickness
(D/t) ratios varying from 36 to 55. They found that the ultimate failure was sensitive to D/t and

2
the ultimate failure modes were all similar, related to very rapid local buckling associated with
significant strength loss. The NCSU test setup and a photo of a buckled pipe (D/t = 40) are
shown in Figures 1a and 1b, respectively.
Figure 2 shows, schematically, the general behavior of pile-supported piers and wharves
subject to seismic demands. In a pier (Figure 2a) with piles of similar diameter and length, all
piles have similar demands. In a marginal wharf (Figure 2b), for a given pile dimeter and soil
type, the shortest (bulkhead) piles (Figure 2c) will experience the highest seismic forces and,
therefore, the highest rotation and strain demand and, consequently, the most likely to
experience wall buckling.

Figure 2. Seismic Behavior of Pier and Wharf

The focus of this paper is to examine the performance under lateral loads of hollow pipe
piles commonly found in piers and wharves, with (D/t) ratios in the range of 20 to 60,
connected to the concrete deck via reinforced concrete (RC) plug connections. Because the
deck is a capacity-protected element, if the RC plug connection is too strong, the deck is
strengthened, and may become heavier further increasing the mass and the seismic demands.
The authors have found by experience that limiting the plastic overstrength capacity of the RC
plug connection to approximately 50 percent of the yield strength of the pipe pile generally
results in a lighter, more economical deck system and provides sufficient flexibility in the piles
to limit overall seismic demand.
The deformation capacity of a hollow pipe pile at the pile-deck connection is driven by
the RC plug’s ability to deform inelastically and without significant degradation of strength or
stiffness under seismic demands. However, under certain conditions, e.g., piles with short stick-
ups, in stiff soils, or with rock dikes, pile wall buckling and fracture may occur at the in-ground
hinge, before the RC plug connection reaches its rotational capacity. Piles founded in soft soils
are less susceptible to wall buckling as the pile curvature demand is less than that for stiff soils.
The shear force-displacement response of a hollow pipe pile that is part of a pier or a
wharf is described conceptually in Figure 3. The response corresponds to a pipe pile connected
to a concrete deck via a RC plug. Point 1 signals the formation of a plastic hinge at the RC
plug. Point 2 indicates a plastic hinge forming in-ground. The strength and the ultimate ductile
displacement of the pile, u, relies on the capacity of both the RC plug and the pipe pile

3
in-ground hinge. For tubes with very high D/t, local buckling may occur either before (curve
0’) or shortly after (curve 1’) RC plug hinging at the top of the pile. If the pipe pile is
moderately ductile, local buckling can occur shortly after the pile begins yielding in the ground
(curve 2’). Because of their seismic compactness, ductile pipe piles (low D/t) are expected to
reach point 3. The dashed response curves represent premature softening and must be avoided.

Figure 3. Idealized Force-displacement Response of a Pipe Pile in a Pier/Wharf

The possible response outcomes depicted in Figure 3 illustrate the importance of

defining adequate strain limits that account for the possibility of local buckling when hollow
pipe piles are used in pier and wharf construction, so that brittle failure modes like local
buckling can be avoided.
Figure 4 illustrates the physical behavior at the in-ground hinge of the individual pile
described in Figure 3, including soil gapping. The in-ground moment is critical for the stability
of the structure. Following hinging at the RC plug, if the pile shell were to buckle in-ground,
the moment could drop substantially, resulting in very large displacements. If the shear
resistance of the pile decays, this could have disastrous consequences for the structure.

Figure 4. Behavior of Individual Pile subject to Local Buckling

4
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH
Surprisingly and consistent with the findings by Harn et al. (2016), only a limited amount of
research performed by the marine industry on buckling of pipe piles was found by the task
group. Instead, the group discovered a large body of research on pipe shell buckling performed
by the offshore and pipeline industry starting in the early 1970s (e.g., Sherman and Glass
1974). In addition to providing an abundant experimental evidence data set, pipeline
researchers developed through the years several expressions that link the critical (local
buckling) strain of the pipe shell to the D/t ratio of the pipe. Therefore, the starting point of the
discussion is a review of results from laboratory tests on tubular members subjected to bending
gathered from research done mainly by pipeline and offshore industry researchers, and a
validation of the proposed recommendations in light of available test data.

Research on Local Buckling of Tubular Members Subjected to Bending

TU Delft and TNO Delft (Netherlands), and the University of Alberta (Canada) are perhaps the
most prolific sources of experimental evidence on the subject of local buckling of steel tubes
subjected to flexure. Their research started focusing on the response of pipeline systems (rather
than “pipe piles”), which may explain why their tests have fallen below the radar of “pipe pile”
researchers and designers. In fact, only recently has the work at TU Delft focused on marine
structure applications (combi-walls, specifically).
Unfortunately, even in the pipeline and offshore industry tests, most of the research
work has been conducted on pipe segments subjected to monotonic bending, with few
exceptions (e.g., Zayas et al. 1980 and DGRI 2016). Conservatively, pressurized pipe tests
were not considered in the evaluations as internal pressure is known to delay pipe wall
buckling. Figure 5a shows the combined (bending plus axial load) test setup used in the Alberta
tests. Despite the absence of cyclic loads however, for high axial loads it may represent the
behavior of pier/wharf pipe piles better than the traditional four-point bending test setup (see
Figure 5b, TU Delft pipe tests) in which no axial load was applied to the test specimens.
Pipeline research funded by the oil industry identified long ago the dominant effect of
the tube slenderness, D/t, on the moment-curvature response of pipe segments subjected to
monotonically increased curvature and axial deformation. The effect is described conceptually
in Figure 6 through the finite element modeling response predictions of four pipe segments
with different D/t ratios (van Es 2016). The pipe segment with lowest D/t ratio displays a long
yielding plateau. The difference in moment capacity as yield deformation progresses is
relatively small, due mainly to tube ovalization (distortion). Conversely, for pipe segments with
high D/t, local buckling defines a limit point (maximum moment) followed by softening.
Buckling implies that the deformation will localize and the load carrying capacity will drop
afterward. How the deformation localizes depends on the tube’s geometry, material properties,
loading, and boundary conditions. How compact the section is will dictate its post-yielding
response.

5
 (a) Alberta (b) TU Delft

Figure 5. Typical Loading Test Setups

Figure 6. D/t Effect on Pipe Response (van Es, 2016)

Figure 7 shows critical (buckling) compressive strains observed in hollow and filled
tubes subjected to imposed curvature as a function of D/t, from tests compiled by the authors
(relevant references are listed in the References section at the end of this paper). Empty
symbols correspond to tests of hollow tubes. Solid symbols correspond to tests of filled tubes.
Square symbols represent tests under monotonic loading whereas triangles represent tests under
cyclic loading. No axial load or internal pressure was applied on any of the tests reported in
Figure 7. For the monotonic test series, the critical strain is that observed at maximum moment

6
capacity. For the cyclic loading tests by Fulmer et al. (2012) and the concrete-filled cyclic tests
by Brown et al. (2014), the critical compressive strain is that of opposite sign to that measured
on the tension face of the pile one cycle before local buckling (assuming plane sections remain
plane). The two cyclic tests by Fleming et al. (2016) correspond to hollow pipe piles driven into
soft clay and clay improved by cement deep soil mixing (CDSM), respectively. Figure 7 also
includes the MD, CD, and LS compressive strain limits set by ASCE 61-14 for hollow pipe
piles.

0.050
ASCE/COPRI 61 TG Test Databank
Peters et al (2012) (Sand-filled)
Fulmer (2012)
Brown (2014) (Concrete-filled)
0.040
Fleming et al (2016) (Driven in soil)
BS 8010
ASCE/COPRI 61-14 LS
Pipe Pile Strain

0.030
Murphey & Langner (1985)
ASCE/COPRI 61-14 CD

Gresnigt et al (1986)
0.020

ASCE/COPRI 61-14 MD
0.010
Notes:
Squares: Monotonic
Triangles: Cyclic
Empty: Hollow tubes
Solid: Filled tubes
0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
D/t

Figure 7. D/t Effect on Critical (Buckling) Strain

The test results show that the critical (buckling) strain of both hollow and filled tubes
decreases as D/t increases, with a sharper decrease for the hollow tubes for 20 < D/t < 60. The
results also indicate that the ASCE 61-14 strain limits can only be achieved by a handful of
tubes with certain (low) D/t ratios. For instance, the MD strain limit of 0.01 may be reached
only by hollow pipe piles with D/t < 45 or by concrete-filled pipes with D/t < 85. The strain
limits of 0.025 and 0.035, associated with CD and LS performance levels, respectively, are
consistently above the critical strains observed for tubes with 25 < D/t < 60. The fact that the
ASCE 61-14 CD and LS strain limits are unreachable for pipe piles commonly used in the
marine industry warrants a careful reevaluation of the applicability of current ASCE 61 strain
limits in tubular members in the next revision cycle.

7
 Figure 7 also includes the design equations developed by pipeline researchers (Murphey
and Langner, 1985; Gresnigt, 1986) and the British Standard BS 8010 (1993), which are given
as follows.

Gresnigt (1986):
𝑡 (𝑝𝑖 −𝑝𝑒 )𝐷 2
𝜀𝑐𝑟 = 0.5 𝐷 − 0.0025 + 3000 ( ) , for D/t < 120 (Eq. 1)
2𝑡𝐸𝑠
where: pi is the internal pipe pressure and pe is the external pipe pressure (for pipe piles at
in-ground hinge, pe would have to be applied partially)

𝑡
Murphey and Langner (1985): 𝜀𝑐𝑟 = 0.50 (𝐷) (Eq. 2)

𝑡 2
BS 8010 (1993): 𝜀𝑐𝑟 = 15 (𝐷) (Eq. 3)

These design curves reasonably capture the trend of the test data. The effect of other
factors, such as pipe imperfections, weld type, tube ovalization, steel grade, internal and
external pressure, etc., on tube capacity and local buckling, is well documented by
pipeline/offshore industry researchers but, at this point, was not considered in this study. In
particular, tube imperfections contribute to the considerable scatter observed in lab test results.
Gresnigt (2014) compared several expressions for cr and found that, for Grade 50 pipe,
with D/t between 15 and 50, the Murphey and Langner formula provides the best fit, and the
Gresnigt formula the second best fit. However for D/t <120, the Gresnigt formula was the best
fit. Although this paper is limited to hollow-unfilled pipe piles, the trend for both sand-filled
pipes tested by Peters et al. (2015) and concrete-filled pipes tested by Brown et al. (2014) is
that these piles may also buckle before reaching the LS strain limits in ASCE 61-14.
While it is understood that the test setups behind the data reported in Figure 7 do not
perfectly represent the loading conditions acting on pipe piles in piers or wharves during
seismic events, the behavioral trend captures the dominant D/t effect on local buckling of
tubular members. Had compressive axial loading been included in the tests, local buckling
would have been observed at even lower compressive strain levels, suggesting that lower bound
equations may be preferred over best fit equations to predict buckling behavior.
Of all the tests reported in Figure 7, only Fleming (2016) investigated the loading
history on two identical hollow pipe piles (D/t =34) embedded in soil. Under simulated seismic
loading, both piles exhibited gapping. The pile in CDSM-improved soil fractured after ultra-
low cycle fatigue, while the pile in unimproved soft clay displayed ductile behavior with no
local buckling reported. This example demonstrates how for the same pile, the strength of the
surrounding soil can focus the damage on the pile with detrimental effects.
Full-scale load tests by Winkel (2016) on open-ended pipe piles, (D/t varying from
43 to 76) at the Port of Rotterdam indicate that the formation of a soil plug reduces the
ovalization of pipe piles thereby enhancing their buckling resistance. Key parameters that
influence the local buckling resistance include plug packing, plug level, and soil packing, in
addition to pile slenderness. Nevertheless, the beneficial effect from the soil plug was found to
be marginal. These piles still buckled locally without displaying substantial ductility.
Relying on soil confinement to increase the deformation capacity of open-ended driven
pipe piles at in-ground zones is difficult to justify because, as illustrated in Figure 4, a gap

8
forms in the soil (shown in this case on the tension face of the pile) during unloading and the
passive soil pressure acting on the compression face of the pile would contribute to (i) further
ovalizing the pile, reducing its moment capacity and (ii) further adding to the compressive
strain regime acting on this side of the unfilled pipe pile. Overall, experimental evidence from
studying the hinging of pipe piles at in-ground hinge areas is scarce. For additional tests and
theories, refer to Gresnigt (1986), Zhou and Murray (1994), and van Es (2016).

PROPOSED DESIGN METHODOLOGY

Developing an accurate equation to prevent buckling of hollow pipe piles at in-ground hinge
requires more research consisting of cyclic loading of pipe piles of varying D/t ratios actually
installed in-ground under various soil conditions. Until such research is completed, the authors
recommend an interim equation for the critical strain expressed as a function of D/t that works
as a lower-bound for the monotonic test data and a best fit for the cyclic test data. As noted by
Gresnigt (1986) and Gresnigt et al. (2014), a strain-based rather than a stress-based approach is
preferred because, for ductile piles, the stress level is almost constant while the strain increases
until failure.
In addition to the D/t effect, the concept of section class is particularly useful to define
if a pipe pile is expected to display a ductile response or not at the onset of local buckling.
Figure 8 is a zoomed-in copy of Figure 7, this time showing AASHTO’s section class
boundaries for tubes with E = 29,000 ksi and Fy = 50 ksi. Sections with D/t > 0.09 E/Fy (D/t =
54.8) are defined as essentially elastic, whereas sections with D/t < 0.044 E/Fy (D/t = 25.5) are
ductile or seismically compact (i.e., capable of reaching point 3 in the response curve of
Figure 3). For D/t values in between, the section would have limited ductility (i.e., will not
reach point 3 in the response curve of Figure 3).
If local buckling is taken as a metric to characterize the seismic performance of a
hollow pipe pile, the authors propose the following simple expression, taken as a fraction of
that presented in BS 8010, to define the LS strain limit to prevent local buckling and
subsequent fracture of the pile wall at the in-ground hinge.

𝐷 −2
Proposed LS strain limit: 𝜀𝐿𝑆 = 10 ( 𝑡 ) (Eq. 4)

The equation, shown in Figure 8, is proposed for hollow pipe piles with D/t between
20 and 60. The resulting LS strain limit using Eq. 4 at D/t = 20 is 0.025, which is the ASCE 61-
14 CD strain limit. The resulting LS strain limit at D/t = 60 is 0.0028, which provides a
1.64 factor of safety against wall buckling for Grade 50 pipe (Fy = 50 ksi) with a yield strain of
0.0017, judged acceptable by the task group. Equation 4 can be considered “interim” in nature
while additional tests are conducted to further examine the problem of local buckling in pipe
piles at in-ground hinge locations.
Because local buckling would be prevented in the DE, the proposed approach also
satisfies the MD performance in the OLE, and CD performance in the CLE for piers and
wharves under the “High” design classification in ASCE 61-14.
The D/t ratio will dictate the deformation capacity of the section to sustain the bending
loads. When selecting a pipe pile section to preclude local buckling, examination of the section
class to define whether the pile will display a ductile, moderately ductile or elastic response
prior to local buckling will enable the designer to adjust the design depending on the ductility

9
and lateral displacement requirements set forth by the project requirements. The AASHTO
section class limit for elastic (slender) tubular sections appears to be conservative based on the
available test data. For D/t = 54.8, Eq. 4 would predict a critical strain of 0.0033, which is
almost twice the yield strain of 0.0017 for Grade 50 steel. Defining a more accurate D/t value
to separate moderately ductile from elastic pipe pile response is beyond the scope of this paper.

0.050
ASCE/COPRI 61 Test Databank
Peters et al (2012) (Sand-filled)
Fulmer (2012)
Brown (2014) (Concrete-filled)
0.040 Fleming et al (2016) (Driven in soil)

0.030
Pipe Pile Strain

Note: AASHTO Class section limits

0.020 assuming E = 29,000 ksi & Fy=50 ksi

Eq. 4 (Interim)
0.010
Notes:
Squares: Monotonic
Triangles: Cyclic
Empty: Hollow tubes
Solid: Filled tubes
0.000
0 20 0.044 E 40 0.09
E 60 80
Fy D/t Fy
Ductile Moderately Ductile Elastic

Figure 8. Proposed Interim LS Strain Limit

Note that ASCE 61 currently assumes a default plastic hinge length of twice the pile
diameter for steel pipe piles regardless of soil type. Recent work by Goel (2015) suggests this
assumption may be conservative for soft soils, which could lead to longer plastic hinge lengths
because of less confinement to the pile, which permits more gradual distribution of curvature
over pile length. Indicatively, the plastic hinge length could range from 1.5D (dense sand) to
7.5D (soft clay), depending on the plastic hinge length to pile diameter ratio, Lp/D.
Accordingly, one can integrate the soil effect in the deformation capacity at the pile head by
relating geometrically the section rotation limit θLS, to the critical buckling strain limit εLS, the
pile diameter, D, and the plastic hinge length, Lp, using Eq. 5 below (assuming the neutral axis
is at the center of the section).
𝐿𝑝 𝜀𝐿𝑆
Section rotation limit: 𝜃𝐿𝑆 = (Eq. 5)
𝐷/2

Evaluation of the plastic hinge length is not straight forward because of the many and
often uncertain factors that have an influence, such as post-buckling bending strength, changing
soil resistance during loading before and after local buckling, among others. To analyze this

10
requires sophisticated software to model the nonlinear soil/pipe behavior, which is beyond the
scope of this paper.
The ultimate goal of the nonlinear soil/pile analysis is to establish the deformation
capacity at the pile head (as limited by the strain limits in-ground hinge or the pile-to-deck
connection) to compare with the DE displacement demand.

CONCLUSIONS
Experimental evidence confirms, rather conclusively, that hollow steel pipe piles in
piers and wharves could buckle locally at in-ground zones before developing the strain capacity
limits specified by ASCE 61-14 for this type of pile. A common finding in the available cyclic
tests is that cracking of the pipe usually occurs within one or two cycles after initiation of local
buckling. This highly undesirable behavior needs to be prevented by selecting more realistic
strain limits.
This paper provides a simple yet elegant procedure for seamlessly linking the LS strain
limit directly to the D/t ratio of tubes while tacitly remarking the role that section compactness
has on a tubular section’s ability to display ductile response before local buckling.

𝐷 −2
Proposed ASCE 61-19 LS strain limit: 𝜀𝐿𝑆 = 10 ( 𝑡 ) (Eq. 6)

Taking into account that, under the proposed LS strain limit formulation, local buckling
would be prevented in the DE, the approach also satisfies the MD performance in the OLE, and
CD performance in the CLE for piers and wharves under the “High” design classification in
ASCE 61.

CREDITS
This paper is the culmination of an effort by the ASCE 61 task group on pile strains to evaluate
strain limits in pipe piles under seismic loading. The authors wish to thank all those who
provided input, particularly the researchers whose work is referenced below, the ASCE 61
committee, and our coworkers and professional colleagues who patiently considered numerous
approaches to address this problem. In particular, we thank Dr. Lee Marsh, Dr. Steve
Schneider, Stuart Stringer, and especially Gayle Johnson and Dr. Nol Gresnigt for reviewing
our final draft.

REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2014, “ASCE/COPRI 61-14 Seismic Design of
Piers and Wharves,” ASCE Standards, Reston, VA.
British Standard BS 8010, 1993, “Code of Practice for Pipelines, Part 3. Pipelines Subsea:
design, construction and installation,” January 15, with amendment July 15, 1993.
Brown, N.K., M.J. Kowalsky, and J.M. Nau, 2014, “Impact of Diameter to Thickness Ratio on
the Seismic behavior of Reinforced Concrete filled Steel RTubes,” Proceedings,
10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, AK, July.
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission) (DGRI), 2016,
“Ultra low cycle fatigue of steel under cyclic high-strain loading conditions (ULCF),”
Report No. EUR 27731, Research Fund for Coal and Steel, B-1049 Brussels.

11
 Dorey, A.B., D.W. Murray, and J.J.R. Cheng, 2000, “An Experimental Evaluation of Critical
Buckling Strain Criteria,” 2000 International Pipeline Conference, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
Fleming B., S. Sritharan, G. Miller, and K. Muraleetharan, 2016, “Full-scale Testing of Piles in
Improved and Unimproved Soft Clay,” Earthquake Spectra, February 2016.
Fulmer, S.J., M.J. Kowalsky, J.M. Nau, and T. Hassan, 2012, “Reversed Cyclic Flexural
Behavior of Spiral DSAW and Single Seam ERW Steel Pipe Piles,” ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, pp. 1099-1109.
Goel, Rakesh K., 2015, "Evaluation of In-Ground Plastic-Hinge Length and Depth for Piles in
Marine Oil Terminals," Earthquake Spectra: November 2015, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 2397-
2417.
Gresnigt, A.M., 1986, “Plastic design of buried steel pipelines in settlement areas,” HERON,
31(4):113 p.
Gresnigt, A.M., 2014, “Pipelines under Imposed Deformation – Local Buckling,” Proceedings,
2nd Annual Global Forum on Pipeline Maintenance and Integrity Management,
Amsterdam.
Gresnigt, A.M., S. van Es, S.A. Karamanos, and D. Vasikilis, 2017, “New Design Rules for
Tubes in Combined Walls in EN 1993-5,” Proceedings of EUROSTEEL 2017,
September 14-15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Harn, R., L. Marsh, and J. Rygel, 2016, “ASCE/COPRI 61-14 Analysis and Detailing: Next
Steps,” ASCE Ports 2016 Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, LA.
Mohareb, M.E., A.E. Elwi, G.L. Kulak, and D.W. Murray, 1994, “Deformational Behavior of
Line Pipe,” Structural Engineering Report No. 202, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Peters, D.J., E.J. Broos, A.M. Gresnigt, and S.H.J. van Es, 2015, “Local buckling resistance of
sand-filled spirally welded tubes,” 25th OPEC Conference, Hawaii, USA.
Port of Long Beach, 2012, “Port of Long Beach Wharf Design Criteria, Version 3.0,”
February.
Sherman, D.R. and A.M. Glass, 1974, "Ultimate Bending Capacity of Circular Tubes,"
Offshore Technology Conference, 6-8 May, Houston, Texas, USA.
van Es, S.H.J., 2016, “Inelastic local buckling of tubes for combined walls and pipelines,”
PhD Thesis, TU Delft, 440 p.
Winkel, J., 2016, “Large diameter dolphin piles: The effect of the inner soil on their local
buckling resistance,” MSc Thesis, TU Delft, 155 p.
Zayas, V.A., E.P. Popov, and S.A. Mahin, 1980, "Cyclic inelastic buckling of tubular steel
braces," Report No. UCB/EERC 80/16, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Springfield, VA.
Zhou, Z. and D.W. Murray, 1993, “Numerical Structural Analysis of Buried Pipelines,”
Structural Engineering Report No. 181, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

12

View publication stats