Seismic Design of Buried Pipeline for Fault Movement Effects

1986 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. R. Wang ◽  
Y.-H. Yeh
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Design Procedure ◽  
Strike Slip ◽  
Design Criteria ◽  
Buried Pipeline ◽  
Buried Pipelines ◽  
Fault Movement

This paper presents a design procedure for buried pipelines subjected to both strikeslip and reverse strike-slip faults after modifying some of the assumptions used previously. Based on the analysis results, this paper also discusses the design criteria for buried pipelines subjected to various fault movement effects. Parametric responses of buried pipeline for various fault movements, angles of crossing, buried depths and pipe diameters are presented.

A Study on Buried Pipeline Response to Fault Movement

1994 ◽  
Vol 116 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y.-J. Chiou ◽  
S.-Y. Chi ◽  
H.-Y. Chang
Keyword(s):  
Finite Difference ◽  
Finite Difference Method ◽  
Difference Method ◽  
Large Deflection ◽  
Strike Slip ◽  
Buried Pipeline ◽  
Fault Movement ◽  
Infinite Beam ◽  
Small Deflection ◽  
The Finite Difference Method

This study investigates the buried pipeline response to strike slip fault movement. The large deflection pipe crossing the fault zone is modeled as an elastica, while the remaining portion of small deflection pipe is modeled as a semi-infinite beam on elastic foundation. The finite difference method is applied for the numerical solution and the results agree qualitatively with the earlier works.

scholarly journals Comparison of 3D Solid and Beam–Spring FE Modeling Approaches in the Evaluation of Buried Pipeline Behavior at a Strike-Slip Fault Crossing

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (15) ◽  
pp. 4539
Author(s):  
Farzad Talebi ◽  
Junji Kiyono
Keyword(s):  
Design Guidelines ◽  
Strike Slip ◽  
Strike Slip Fault ◽  
Spring Model ◽  
Fe Modeling ◽  
Spring Stiffness ◽  
Buried Pipeline ◽  
Buried Pipelines ◽  
Modeling Approach ◽  
3D Solid

Validated 3D solid finite element (FE) models offer an accurate performance of buried pipelines at earthquake faults. However, it is common to use a beam–spring model for the design of buried pipelines, and all the design guidelines are fitted to this modeling approach. Therefore, this study has focused on (1) the improvement of modeling techniques in the beam–spring FE modeling approach for the reproduction of the realistic performance of buried pipelines, and (2) the determination of an appropriate damage criterion for buried pipelines in beam–spring FE models. For this paper, after the verification of FE models by pull-out and lateral sliding tests, buried pipeline performance was evaluated at a strike-slip fault crossing using nonlinear beam–spring FE models and nonlinear 3D solid FE models. Material nonlinearity, contact nonlinearity, and geometrical nonlinearity effects were considered in all analyses. Based on the results, pressure and shear forces caused by fault movement and pipeline deformation around the high curvature zone cause local confinement of the soil, and soil stiffness around the high curvature zone locally increases. This increases the soil–pipe interaction forces on pipelines in high curvature zones. The beam–spring models and design guidelines, because of the uniform assumption of the soil spring stiffness along the pipe, do not consider this phenomenon. Therefore, to prevent the underestimation of forces on the pipeline, it is recommended to consider local increases in soil spring stiffness around the high curvature zone in beam–spring models. Moreover, drastic increases in the strain responses of the pipeline in the beam–spring model is a good criterion for a damage evaluation of the pipeline.

Research on Pipe-Soil Displacement Transfer Coefficient for Buried Pipeline

2011 ◽  
Vol 201-203 ◽  
pp. 2891-2895
Author(s):  
Xin Zhong Zhang ◽  
Ai Hong Han ◽  
Zong Liang Wu
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Coefficient ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Reliable Method ◽  
Seismic Damage ◽  
Decisive Factor ◽  
Buried Pipeline ◽  
Buried Pipelines ◽  
Method Of Determination ◽  
Soil Displacement ◽  
Selection Of

In anti-seismic design of buried pipeline, selection of pipe-soil displacement transfer coefficient is the decisive factor for reasonable and stable analysis on seismic damage. This paper discusses calculation and selection of pipe-soil displacement transfer coefficient and related parameters, gives more definite, reasonable, simple, and reliable method of determination incorporating with existing achievements for analysis on seismic damage to buried pipelines. The results of analysis provide for anti-seismic design of buried pipelines with basis of reference.

Drift-based seismic design procedure for Buckling Restrained Braced Frames

Structures ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 62-74
Author(s):  
Seyed Amin Mousavi ◽  
Seyed Mehdi Zahrai ◽  
Ali Akhlagh Pasand
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Design Procedure ◽  
Braced Frames ◽  
Buckling Restrained Braced Frames

Comparison of Buried Pipeline Crossing Assessments Using API RP 1102, Analytical Method and Finite Element Approach

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikhil Joshi ◽  
Pritha Ghosh ◽  
Jonathan Brewer ◽  
Lawrence Matta
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Analytical Method ◽  
Rapid Assessment ◽  
Buried Pipeline ◽  
The Finite Element Method ◽  
Buried Pipelines ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
The Finite Element Analysis ◽  
Element Approach ◽  
Multiple Loading

Abstract API RP 1102 provides a method to calculate stresses in buried pipelines due to surface loads resulting from the encroachment of roads and railroads. The API RP 1102 approach is commonly used in the industry, and widely available software allows for quick and easy implementation. However, the approach has several limitations on when it can be used, one of which is that it is limited to pipelines crossing as near to 90° (perpendicular crossing) as practicable. In no case can the crossing be less than 30° . In this paper, the stresses in the buried pipeline under standard highway vehicular loading calculated using the API RP 1102 method are compared with the results of two other methods; an analytical method that accounts for longitudinal and circumferential through wall bending effects, and the finite element method. The benefit of the alternate analytical method is that it is not subject to the limitations of API RP 1102 on crossing alignment or depth. However, this method is still subject to the limitation that the pipeline is straight and at a uniform depth. The fact that it is analytical in nature allows for rapid assessment of a number of pipes and load configurations. The finite element analysis using a 3D soil box approach offers the greatest flexibility in that pipes with bends or appurtenances can be assessed. However, this approach is time consuming and difficult to apply to multiple loading scenarios. Pipeline crossings between 0° (parallel) and 90° (perpendicular) are evaluated in the assessment reported here, even though these are beyond the scope of API RP 1102. A comparison across the three methods will provide a means to evaluate the level of conservatism, if any, in the API RP 1102 calculation for crossing between 30° and 90° . It also provides a rationale to evaluate whether the API RP 1102 calculation can potentially be extended for 0° (parallel) crossings.

Lateral Force Resisting Systems Made of Cold-Formed Steel Material: Proposal of Seismic Design Criteria for 2nd Generation of Eurocode 8

2021 ◽  
Vol 885 ◽  
pp. 127-132
Author(s):  
Sarmad Shakeel ◽  
Alessia Campiche
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Shear Walls ◽  
Lateral Force ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Design Criteria ◽  
Eurocode 8 ◽  
Building Structures ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Design Strength ◽  
Cold Formed Steel

The current edition of Eurocode 8 does not cover the design of the Cold-Formed steel (CFS) building structures under the seismic design condition. As part of the revision process of Euro-code 8 to reflect the outcomes of extensive research carried out in the past decade, University of Naples “Federico II” is involved in the validation of existing seismic design criteria and development of new rules for the design of CFS systems. In particular, different types of Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS) are analyzed that can be listed in the second generation of Eurocode 8. The investigated LFRS’s include CFS strap braced walls and CFS shear walls with steel sheets, wood, or gypsum sheathing. This paper provides the background information on the research works and the reference design standards, already being used in some parts of the world, which formed the basis of design criteria for these LFRS systems. The design criteria for the LFRS-s common to CFS buildings would include rules necessary for ensuring the dissipative behavior, appropriate values of the behavior factor, guidelines to predict the design strength, geometrical and mechanical limitations.

Discussion of “California's Seismic Design Criteria for Bridges”

1977 ◽  
Vol 103 (11) ◽  
pp. 2288-2288
Author(s):  
Otto W. Steinhardt ◽  
Felix Y. Mao
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Design Criteria
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document