ACCURACY OF SURFACE RUPTURE PARAMETERS

DETERMINATION: HOW GEOLOGISTS CAN SATISFY DESIGNERS'

REQUIREMENTS

Alexander STROM1, Mikhail TEMIS2

ABSTRACT

Comprehensive design of lifelines, trunk pipelines in particular, that cross active faults capable for surface
ruptures requires determination of several input parameters: location of the expected rupture, fault kinematics
and single-event displacement value, both net and component-wise, namely vertical, across and along pipeline
route, slip velocity (for permanently creeping faults).

Each of the abovementioned parameters can be determined with some accuracy. Reduction of possible errors and
uncertainties requires significant efforts and can increase exploration time and cost. On the other hand, active
fault parameters' values have great influence on the complexity of pipeline design solution and on construction
cost. So at survey and design stage the golden mean for accuracy of fault parameters determination should be
found out taking into account both survey time and cost and influence of the resultant values on the design and
construction.

That is why it is critically important to analyse structures' sensitivity to the input parameters variability.
Influence of the critical design fault parameters (displacement, fault location and kinematics) on the design
solutions and constructability is evaluated. It allows focusing field study of active fault(s) that cross the pipeline
route to get more grounded and reliable estimates of those parameters that have maximal influence on the
construction solutions of the pipeline/fault crossing.

Keywords: Pipeline; Active fault; Displacement; Kinematics; Uncertainty

1. INTRODUCTION

Trunk pipelines and other lifelines constructed in tectonically and seismically active regions often
have to cross active (causative) faults capable not only for strong motions producing intensive elastic
vibrations but also for surface ruptures, sometimes with multimeter offsets that can destroy or damage
almost any structure crossed by such fault. Unlike point-type objects (buildings) that can be shifted to
another site to avoid their placement on the fault trace, lifelines linking points A and B, often can not
be traced without such crossings that require elaboration of technically feasible and economically
efficient protection measures. Reliability of such measures was proved by the Trans-Alaska pipeline
that withstood 6-m offset along the Denali fault during the 2002 M8 Denali fault earthquake
(Haeussler et al, 2004). Nevertheless, choice of surface ruptures' basic parameters (locality,
displacement amount and kinematics) design values faces significant difficulties due to variability of
the phenomenon in question and its probabilistic nature.

Each of the abovementioned parameters can be determined with some accuracy. Reduction of possible
errors and uncertainties requires significant efforts during site (route) investigations that can increase

1
Chief expert, Geodynamics Research Center – branch of JSC "Hydroproject Institute", Moscow, Russia,
strom.alexandr@yandex.ru
2
Director, "P2T Engineering" LLC, Moscow, Russia, mikhail.temis@p2te.ru
exploration time and cost. Moreover, in some cases reliability of estimates cannot be guaranteed
despite amount of work performed. At the same time active faults parameters have great influence on
pipeline design solution complexity and, finally, on the construction cost, especially if the most
conservative design displacement values are recommended. Thus, the analysis of structures' sensitivity
to the input parameters variability should be performed at survey and design stage to find the golden
mean for accuracy of fault parameters determination taking into account both site investigations time
and cost and fault parameters' influence on the design and construction solutions, on their cost and,
finally on the ownership cost including structures' insurance. Results of such analysis for trunk
pipelines that can withstand multimeter surface faulting, if proper measures implemented, are
presented.

2. CHATRACTERISTIC FEATURES OF SURFACE RUPTURES

Surface rupture parameters that are directly used as input data for the pipeline/fault crossings design
are:
 Position of the possible fault line (axis of the fault zone) at pipeline route;
 Displacement value (net and its three components – vertical and two horizontal, i.e. across and
along fault strike). Horizontal components determined along and across fault strike can be
recalculated along and across pipeline route considering its crossing angle with fault in question.
 Fault kinematics that corresponds to the relationships between component-wise displacement
values.

Such parameters as age of rupturing events and/or their recurrence that predetermine probability of
such event occurrence during structures' lifetime are not used in the design directly. If such probability
is low enough (lower than some threshold value) fault is considered as inactive and no special
measures are required. But if fault is classified as active (Strom, 2017), special design of pipeline/fault
crossing is required to ensure structures' operating capability and/or safety.

As any measurable parameters, position of surface rupture along pipeline route, their relative
orientation and displacement values can be determined with some accuracy. The latter is
predetermined by characteristic features typical of seismic surface faulting. Practically all known
surface ruptures of the historical earthquakes are characterized by variability of displacement along
fault strike (Wells, Coppersmith, 1994; Strom, Nikonov, 2000). Besides, fault planes of the subsequent
rupturing episodes not always follow planes of the previous events that increase their localization
uncertainty. At the same time most of recent surface ruptures inherit style of motion (kinematics and
order of the displacements magnitude) that have been revealed for the previous events during
paleoseismological studies. It allows basing our estimates of future hazard on the results of such
investigations.

Uncertainty of ruptures localization can be exemplified by results of trenching at numerous sites where
the most recent fault planes do not inherit previous planes directly but deviates from them within some
zone ranging from few meters to several tens of meters wide (rarely wider). It does not allow
geologists to confirm that during next rupturing event the pipeline route will be crossed by fault plane
exactly at the same point as before. Instead, we have to define some uncertainty zone within which the
fault plane with design offset might be located (Figure 1).

Usually its width varies from ±3-5 meters to ±10-15 m, rarely up to ±25 m. If there are direct evidence
that previous surface faulting had affected wider zones it should be taken onto consideration and width
of the uncertainty zone can be increased. It is assumed that future surface faulting might occur at any
fault plain within the uncertainty zone and that the probability of its occurrence is considered as equal
over the entire zone width.

2
 Figure 1. General scheme of fault/pipeline crossing

The most uncertain is the assessment of the design displacement value. Study of numerous surface
ruptures of the historical earthquakes demonstrate significant – up to one-two orders of magnitude –
variability of both net displacement along the fault strike and of the ratio between the vertical (normal
or reverse) and strike-slip components of motion during particular historical events (Strom, Nikonov,
2000). Moreover, while such variability can be studies in details for surface ruptures of recent
earthquakes that can be mapped and measured along their entire distance, it is much more difficult for
past events that can be studied by trenching at an inevitably limited number of sections along fault
trace. One more source of the uncertainty is the variation of slip amount at any particular point during
the successive rupturing events that can be revealed by trenching too. Farther in the past we want to
get to obtain more representative data, deeper and larger the trench should be (McCalpin, 2009) that
requires much more time and efforts.

Fault kinematics uncertainty is predetermined by irregularities of the rupture surface that often
changes its dip angle and strike, and by variability of the relationships between displacement
components – same surface rupture might be characterized by the predominantly strike-slip motion at
one section and by predominantly vertical (normal or reverse) motion at other section.

Use of the most conservative estimates of the design rupture parameters provides highest safety of
pipeline/fault crossing but can be inappropriate both from technical and economical points of view –
construction based on such parameters can be too complex and expensive. Lower design values, on the
other hand, may not guarantee required level of safety. Possible solution of this dilemma requires
analysis of the sensitivity of the designed structure to variable input parameters. It will help focusing
site investigations on determining just those parameters that affect the design solutions at most.

3. DESIGN SOLUTIONS AT THE PIPELINE/ACTIVE FAULT CROSSINGS

Design solution for pipeline/active fault crossings is based on the capability of steel pipelines to
compensate relative displacement of fault sides by pipeline displacements in widened trapezoid-shape
trench with specially selected backfill material. Required measures include use of special seismic class
pipes as well as excavation of trenches of special shape and dimensions in case of subsurface
pipelining. Plastic strains that do not lead to pipe leakage are allowed. We should consider that in
practice variability of the design solutions is rather limited and is performed step-wise.
Pipes of seismic class are made of steels that allow high level of plastic deformations prior to pipe
breakage along with high ultimate strength and may have thicker walls. Pipeline strains decrease is
achieved by creation of conditions of its relatively free motion in a widened trapezoid-shape trench
(Figure 2) backfilled by dry, loose material not disposed to self-packing during pipeline operation and
allowed to its free motion under the action of he tectonic forces (Temis, 2017).

3
These special measures are undertaken within the entire uncertainty zone and at route sections 100-
150 m long on either side of this zone (see Figure 1). Both technical solutions are much more
expensive than "normal" pipeline laying: seismic class pipes are significantly more costly than
standard pipes as well as excavation of widened trench with special backfill, drainage, etc. is more
expensive than that of the "standard" rectangular-shaped trench. Their total cost depends directly on
the uncertainty zone width determined during geological investigations. Its localization up to reliable
and well grounded value can reduce required budget significantly without decreasing of safety level.
On the other hand, since length of route sections outside of the uncertainty zone where similar
technical solutions are used is significant (100-150 m at either side – see Figures 1 and 2), ca. 10-20 m
width of the uncertainty zone is quite appropriate. Its further localization is not necessary since it will
not increase pipeline safety substantially and, thus, there is no need to spend time and resources to
specify it during site investigations.

Figure2. Construction of the 48" gas pipeline at its crossing with thrust fault (its position is marked by red arrow)
in Central Sakhalin. Photo courtesy O. Golubtsova

Strain level in the pipeline is predetermined by the fault displacement value, by the orientation of net
slip vector in space and relative to pipeline orientation and by relationships between displacement
components. Pipeline should be aligned at active fault zone crossing in such way that longitudinal
tension and bending stresses would prevail in pipe stress-strain state. This allows decreasing
compression stress because limit level of pipeline compression bearing capacity (local buckling or
longitudinal stability loss) is usually characterized by lower values in comparison with tension stress.
It is evident that each component of displacement relative to pipeline orientation affects pipeline strain
in different ways. Enormous variability of pipeline/fault crossing conditions (fault kinematics, dip
angles, displacement values per event ranging from centimeters to ca. 10 m) makes it impossible to
analyse all possible combinations within the frames of a short paper. Thus, to illustrate the above
statements we present an example of a trunk pipeline in Far East of Russia.

4. PIPELINE SENSITIVITY TO ACTIVE FAULT DISPLACEMENT PARAMETERS

Four types of active faults with different combinations of crossing angle, component-wise
displacement values and fault kinematics were analyzed (Table 1). Fault 1 is characterized by
relatively large vertical and lateral (strike-skip) displacements, fault 2 – by small vertical component
only, fault 3 – by small vertical and lateral displacements along with small extension component, and
fault 4 – by small vertical displacement combined with transverse compression. These faults were
selected to illustrate how critical determination of such fault parameters as its orientation against
pipeline, displacement components and their ratios – fault kinematics could be (Figure 3).

Data presented were obtained by finite element modeling of pipeline subjected to surface faulting
corresponding to the ductile level earthquake (DLE) and based on the numerical model described in
(Temis, 2017).

4
 Table 1. Components of active fault displacements

Displacement components (m)

Net DLE
Orienta- Dip transverse: vertical:
Fault No displacement Along
tion angle + extension + up
(m) strike
- compression - down
Fault 1 310о-320о 90о 2.5 2 - +1.5
Fault 2 340о-350о 90о 0.5 - - +0.5
70о-
Fault 3 60о 0.291 0.2 +0.068 -0.2
80о
45о-
Fault 4 10о-15о 0.5 - -0.35 +0.35
50о

Figure 3. Schematic relationships of active fault movements relative to pipeline orientation (β – pipeline/fault
crossing angle)

4.1 Fault 1

Diagrammatic modeling results for the case study when pipeline crosses active fault at a right angle
are presented on Figure 4. Figure 5a illustrates stepwise change of maximal longitudinal tension and
compression strain of pipeline when net displacement increases from zero up to maximal DLE value
for crossing angles of 80°, 90° и 127°. Figure 5b illustrates maximal longitudinal tension and
compression strain for different crossing angles. The simulation results demonstrate that if pipeline
crosses active fault not at a right angle the compression strain exceeds the benchmark value even when
crossing angle is 80°. At the same time, the tension strain increases not so intensively and does not
exceed 1.5% though when lateral fault displacement cause pipeline tension such strain could be
significant. At crossing angle 127° no compression stress arises. Modeling results confirm that zone of

5
maximal deformations of the pipeline in case of such fault displacement is quite limited and, thus,
localization of the uncertainty zone with accuracy of, ca. ±10 m is suitable and will neither decrease
pipeline safety nor increase cost of pipeline/fault crossing construction.

Figure 5 shows that pipeline should cross active fault in such way to minimize the compression
component being projected along the pipeline axis (see Figure 3). Presence of the compression
component increases pipeline strain significantly. Thus, accuracy of the displacement vector
determination in space is critical in case of longitudinal compression along the pipeline (angles' range
70-90 on Fig. 5b) and practically has no effect on strain in case of pipeline longitudinal tension
(angles' range 90-130). Similarly, accuracy of the design fault displacement value is critical if
pipeline undergoes compression – the compression strain increases significantly at crossing angle 80
(Figure 5a). However, if there is longitudinal tension, strain level change for 2.0 m and 2.5 m is
negligible.

a) maximal longitudinal axial compression strain

b) maximal longitudinal extension strain

c) maximal longitudinal compression strain d) maximal longitudinal extension strain

Figure 4. Strain distribution in the pipeline that crosses Fault 1 at a right angle

4.2 Fault 2

This fault is characterized by vertical displacement only and the pipeline stress-strain state does not
depend on crossing angle (Figure 6). Figure 7 illustrates stepwise change of maximal longitudinal
tension and compression strain of pipeline when net displacement increases from zero up to maximal
DLE value. As far as displacement at this fault is small, strains are relatively small too, so that their
level within the fault crossing zone is comparable with general pipeline strain level and remains within
the elastic range (see Figure 6).

6
 a) depending on net displacement value applied b) depending on crossing angle at maximal fault
stepwise at different crossing angles displacement. (-4) – critical strain level

Figure 5. Maximal pipeline longitudinal strains at Fault 1 crossing with parameters listed in Table 1

а) maximal longitudinal compression strain

b) maximal longitudinal extension strain

Figure 6. Strain distribution in the pipeline that crosses Fault 2

Figure 7. Change of maximal longitudinal pipeline strains at its crossing with Fault 2 depending on stepwise
change of net displacement

7
When crossing faults with so small displacements it seems reasonable, first, to raise a question on the
practicability of special protection measures implementation, since strain level in the pipeline does not
exceed values allowable for standard pipeline laying. Second, such fault displacement values can be
provided conservatively without strict requirements to their determination accuracy, which will allow
significant reduction of engineering investigations time and cost.

4.3 Fault 3

Diagrammatic modeling results for the case study of the pipeline that crosses active fault No 3 at an
angle of 60° are shown on Figure 8. Figure 9a illustrates stepwise change of maximal longitudinal
tension and compression strain in the pipeline when net displacement increases from zero up to
maximal DLE value at crossing angles of 60° and 120°. Maximal pipeline tension and compression
strains depending on crossing angles are shown on Figure 9b. Since displacement components for this
fault are small, strain values calculated for different models and different crossing angles are relatively
low. Such level allows conclusion that this fault can be crossed by pipeline at any angle that will be
preferable for pipeline tracing. Thus, accuracy requirements for kinematics determination for active
faults with such displacement values can be reduced significantly considering strain level at different
crossing angles shown on Figure 9b. Demands for displacement determination accuracy can be bate as
well, similar to the Fault 2 case study.

а) maximal longitudinal axial compression strain

b) maximal longitudinal extension strain

Figure 8. Strain distribution in the pipeline that crosses Fault 3 at crossing angle of 60°

a) depending on net displacement value applied b) depending on crossing angle at maximal

stepwise and considering different temperature drop displacement (see Table 1)

Figure 9. Maximal pipeline longitudinal strain at Fault 3 crossing

8
4.4 Fault 4

Diagrammatic modeling results for the case study of the pipeline that crosses active fault No 4 at an
angle of 60° are shown on Figure 10. Figure 11a illustrates stepwise change of maximal longitudinal
tension and compression strain of pipeline when net displacement increases from zero up to maximal
DLE value. Figure 11b illustrates maximal strains for different crossing angles. Fault displacement is
symmetrical to the line, which is perpendicular to the fault strike and, thus, calculations were
performed for crossing angles less than 90° and results were inverted for similar angles exceeding the
right one. For crossing angles ranging from 75° to 105° pipeline lost its lengthwise stability (vertical
snapping takes place) that is illustrated by strain variation log on Figure 11а.

If fault motion results in some compression along pipeline axis determination of this displacement
component during site investigations should be performed with maximal possible accuracy, since we
cannot avoid axial compression at any pipeline tracing. It causes significant increase of the pipeline
strain values even when the compression component and other displacement components are rather
small. When displacement reaches some critical level pipeline strains increase drastically (see Figure
11а) and reach ultimate values. Some decrease of strain values can be achieved by pipeline tracing
minimizing axial compression. But in such case width of the uncertainty zone increases and
requirements to fault localization could be strengthen aimed to shorten pipeline section where special
protection measures are required as much as possible.

a) maximal longitudinal compression strain

b) maximal longitudinal extension strain

c) maximal longitudinal compression strain d) maximal longitudinal extension strain

Figure 10. Strain distribution in the pipeline that crosses Fault 4 at crossing angle of 78°

9
 а) depending on net displacement value applied b) depending on crossing angle at maximal displacement
stepwise and considering different temperature drop (see Table 1)

Figure 11. Maximal pipeline longitudinal strain at Fault 4 crossing

5. CONCLUSIONS

Few examples presented above demonstrate significant variability of pipeline stress-strain state
depending on active faults kinematics, its orientation relative to the pipeline and displacement values
both net and component-wise. Depending on combination of these parameters its sensitivity to each of
parameters vary as well, which must be considered for site investigations planning.

Despite active faults characterized by relatively small displacements were analyzed herein, that
sometimes do not require design of special protection measures or need simplified technical solutions
as for case studies exemplified by Faults 2 and 3, in some cases even such parameters might result in
inappropriate pipeline deformations as at Fault 4 case. It is evident that similar analysis must be
performed for trunk pipelines that cross active faults with large, multimeter offsets that require
technically complicated and expensive protection measures (Mattiozzi, Strom, 2008).

The golden mean for pipeline/active fault crossing construction cost on one hand and for time and cost
of site investigations on the other hand can be achieved by close cooperation of the designers and
geologist who must work together from the beginning of the project. After preliminary rough estimate
of active fault(s) parameters made by geologist, designer have to model the pipeline stress-strain state
and determine the necessity of the input data clarification and, if it is necessary, to provide the
requirement for geologist for further, more detailed and inevitably more laborious and expensive site
investigations.

Such coordination will lead to most efficient performance of the entire chain: site investigations –
design – construction – exploitation, and will help constructing safe and economically efficient
pipelines and other lifelines in tectonically and seismically active regions.

7. REFERENCES

Haeussler PJ, Schwartz DP, Dawson TE, Stenner HD, Lienkaemper JJ, Sherrod B, Cinti FR, Montone P, Craw
PA, Crone AJ, Personius SF (2004). Surface rupture and slip distribution of the Denali and Totschunda faults in
the 3 November 2002 M 7.9 Earthquake, Alaska, BSSA, 94 (6B): 23-52.
Mattiozzi P, Strom A (2008). Crossing active faults on the Sakhalin II onshore pipeline route: pipeline design
and risk analysis. Proceedings of Seismic Engineering Conference Commemorating the 1908 Messina and
Reggio Calabria Earthquake, edited by: Santini, A. and Moraci, N., American Institute of Physics, 1004–1013.
McCalpin JP (2009). Paleoseismology (second edition). International Geophysics Series. Vol. 95, Elsevier Inc.

10
Strom A (2017). Active faults at structure's foundations: definition and its influence on hazard assessment,
Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago Chile, January 9 th to 13th 2017,
Paper N° 544.
Strom AL, Nikonov AA (2000). The distribution of slip along seismogenic faults and incorporation of
nonuniform slip in paleoseismological research, Volcanology and seismology. 21: 705-722.
Temis M (2017). Influence of backfill compaction in time on buried trunk pipeline behavior under active fault
displacement, Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago Chile, January
9th to 13th 2017, Paper N° 4909.
Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture
width, rupture area, and surface displacement", BSSA, 84: 974-1002.

11