Dynamic response of buried pipelines in randomly structured soil

Abstract Buried pipelines in soil undergoing ground vibrations respond by simple kinematic interaction and essentially follow the motion of the surrounding ground. More specifically, the strains that develop in the soil are imparted to the outer surface of the pipeline, which is the celebrated Newmark assumption dating from the 1960's that appears in design codes for pipelines. Of course, this assumption is invalid if the pipeline has bends and other geometric discontinuities. Furthermore, there remains the basic question of modeling the surrounding soil, which is a complex, two-phase medium with an inhomogeneous and anisotropic composition. In this work, we examine the dynamic response of a continuous pipeline by employing the waveguide model from classical elastodynamics. This implies that the pipeline is a continuously supported, beam-type structural element with distributed mass undergoing both axial and flexural vibrations. In here, we retain the influence of the axial vibrations on the flexural vibrations and work with a coupled system of two partial differential equations. The end boundaries of the pipeline are assumed to be fixed at a large distance from its center. We first examine the eigenvalue problem and then focus on the transient vibrations of the pipeline to support motion. In order to account for the complex composition of the ground, the soil impedance is converted into a random variable. Assuming uniform, Gaussian and log-normal distributions, we use Monte Carlo simulations to generate sample values for the soil impedance and compute the statistics (mean, variance and skewness) for the eigenvalue problem. Once the statistics of the eigenproperties of the buried pipeline example are recovered, the validity of the assumption that the soil is a deterministic medium is discussed.

[1]  Andreas J. Kappos,et al.  Evaluation of seismic response of bridges under asynchronous excitation and comparisons with Eurocode 8-2 provisions , 2008 .

[2]  George Deodatis,et al.  Effects of random heterogeneity of soil properties on bearing capacity , 2005 .

[3]  George P. Kouretzis,et al.  An analytical method for strength verification of buried steel pipelines at normal fault crossings , 2011 .

[4]  Peijun Guo NUMERICAL MODELING OF PIPE-SOIL INTERACTION UNDER OBLIQUE LOADING , 2005 .

[5]  Ali Abolmaali,et al.  Nonlinear Finite-Element Modeling Analysis of Soil-Pipe Interaction , 2013 .

[6]  G. Manolis,et al.  Dynamic response of tunnels in stochastic soils by the boundary element method , 2002 .

[7]  Alain Denis,et al.  The effects of soil spatial variability on the reliability of rigid buried pipes , 2012 .

[8]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  TECHNICAL NOTE A FRAMEWORK FOR MULTI-SITE DISTRIBUTED SIMULATION AND APPLICATION TO COMPLEX STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS , 2005 .

[9]  N. Newmark Problems in Wave Propagation in Soil and Rock , 1975 .

[10]  Jun g Sik Kong,et al.  Seismic behavior of a buried gas pipeline under earthquake excitations , 2009 .

[11]  George P. Kouretzis,et al.  Stress analysis of buried steel pipelines at strike-slip fault crossings , 2007 .

[12]  T. O’Rourke,et al.  Lateral Force-Displacement Response of Buried Pipe , 1985 .

[13]  Thomas D. O'Rourke,et al.  Centrifuge Modeling of Earthquake Effects on Buried High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipelines Crossing Fault Zones , 2008 .

[14]  Amit Prashant,et al.  Analysis of buried pipelines subjected to reverse fault motion , 2011 .

[15]  Yu Huang,et al.  Probability density evolution method for seismic displacement-based assessment of earth retaining structures , 2018 .

[16]  Sung-Eun Cho,et al.  Effect of spatial variability of cross‐correlated soil properties on bearing capacity of strip footing , 2010 .

[17]  Spyros A. Karamanos,et al.  Mechanical behavior of buried steel pipes crossing active strike-slip faults , 2012 .

[18]  George D. Manolis,et al.  Dynamic response of unlined tunnels in soil with random properties , 2000 .

[19]  Kunyong Zhang,et al.  Finite Element Analyses of Soil-Pipe Behavior in Dry Sand under Lateral Loading , 2011 .

[20]  Djamel Nedjar,et al.  Modelling of soil–structure interaction behaviour: geometric nonlinearity of buried structures combined to spatial variability of soil , 2017 .

[21]  H. E. Stewart,et al.  Factors influencing the behavior of buried pipelines subjected to earthquake faulting , 2009 .

[22]  Kenneth J. Nyman Soil response against oblique motion of pipes , 1984 .

[23]  I. Moore,et al.  Experimental Investigation of Longitudinal Bending of Buried Steel Pipes Pulled through Dense Sand , 2014 .

[24]  Armen Der Kiureghian,et al.  Simulation of spatially varying ground motions including incoherence, wave‐passage and differential site‐response effects , 2012 .

[25]  E. Kausel Advanced Structural Dynamics , 2017 .

[26]  A. Kiureghian,et al.  Response spectrum method for multi‐support seismic excitations , 1992 .

[27]  N. Sitar,et al.  The importance of distribution types on finite element analyses of foundation settlement , 2009 .

[28]  Ernesto Salzano,et al.  Seismic vulnerability of gas and liquid buried pipelines , 2014 .

[29]  M. O'rourke,et al.  Soil Springs for Buried Pipeline Axial Motion , 1988 .

[30]  Yu Huang,et al.  Ground seismic response analysis based on the probability density evolution method , 2015 .

[31]  K. Graff Wave Motion in Elastic Solids , 1975 .

[32]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes , 1990 .

[33]  Spyros A. Karamanos,et al.  Finite element analysis of buried steel pipelines under strike-slip fault displacements , 2010 .

[34]  Jie Li,et al.  Nonlinear stochastic seismic analysis of buried pipeline systems , 2015 .

[35]  M. Novak,et al.  Earthquake response of underground pipelines , 1979 .