Seismic Response of Parallel Double Pipelines to Longitudinal Ground Motions
Publication: Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 13, Issue 1
Abstract
The failure of one pipeline may compromise the integrity of adjacent pipelines, especially for closely spaced parallel pipelines. This paper presents a series of multipoint shaking table tests of parallel double pipelines, which were installed in sand beds with three different spacing values to assess the effect of spacing on the seismic response of parallel pipelines. The acceleration and strain data were collected during the shaking tests. The results demonstrated that the acceleration response of soil between the two pipelines under uniform and nonuniform excitation was relatively lower than that of the pipelines due to the influence of the adjacent double pipelines, especially for the nonuniform excitation case. The maximum peak strain values of both pipelines gradually increased as the spacing between them increased under uniform excitation at lower loading intensity. However, for nonuniform excitations and uniform excitation of higher loading intensity, the maximum peak strain of pipelines with spacing of 150 mm was smaller than that with spacing of 100 and 200 mm. These results indicate that the combination of different pipeline spacings and nonuniform excitation could make the pipeline dynamic response more complicated, which should be properly considered in the seismic design of parallel double pipelines.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the National Youth Science Foundation of China (No. 51808018), Beijing Municipal Education Commission Science and Technology General Project (No. KM201910005022), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1839201). The financial supports are greatly appreciated.
References
Datta, T. K. 1999. “Seismic response of buried pipelines: A state-of-the-art review.” Nucl. Eng. 192 (2–3): 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-5493(99)00113-2.
De Barros, F., and J. Luco. 1994. “Seismic response of a cylindrical shell embedded in a layered viscoelastic half-space. II: Validation and numerical results.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 23 (5): 569–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290230508.
Hall, J. F., W. Holmes, and P. Somers. 1994. The Northridge, California earthquake of January 17, 1994: General reconnaissance report. Rep. No. NCEER-94-0005. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Han, J., M. H. El Naggar, L. Li, B. Hou, J. Xu, and X. Du. 2020. “Design and commissioning of continuous soil box supported on shake tables array for testing long geostructures.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 132 (May): 106107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106107.
Han, J., M. H. El Naggar, M. Zhao, Z. Zhong, B. Hou, and D. Xiuli. 2021. “Longitudinal response of buried pipeline under non-uniform seismic excitation from multi-point shaking table tests.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 140 (Jan): 106440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106440.
Hindy, A., and M. Novak. 1979. “Earthquake response of underground pipelines.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 7 (5): 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290070506.
Jafarzadeh, F., H. F. Jahromi, and E. A. Torghabeh. 2010. “Investigating dynamic response of a buried pipeline in sandy soil layer by 1g shaking table test.” Int. J. Civ. Eng. 8 (2): 107–124.
Kawabata, T., Y. Sonoda, Y. Mohri, M. Ariyoshi, and Y. Iwasaki. 2012. “Dynamic behavior of buried flexible pipes of varying thickness using the shaking table test.” In Proc., Pipelines 2012. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Lee, D. H., B. H. Kim, H. Lee, and J. S. Kong. 2009. “Seismic behavior of a buried gas pipeline under earthquake excitations.” Eng. Struct. 31 (5): 1011–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.12.012.
Liang, J., and S. Sun. 2000. “Site effects on seismic behavior of pipelines: A review.” J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 122 (4): 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1285974.
Meng, H. 2008. “Buried pipeline and soil dynamic interaction of non-uniform excitation shaking table model test research.” Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering College, Tongji Univ.
Meng, H., J. Chen, J. Li, G.-W. Tang, and G. Zheng. 2008. “Shaking table test of soil-pipe dynamic interaction under non-uniform earthquake wave excitation.” Chin. J. Underground Space Eng. 27 (5): 852–859.
Meymand, P. J. 1998. “Shaking table scale model tests of nonlinear soil-pile-superstructure interaction in soft clay.” Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering College, Univ. of California.
Newmark, N. M. 1968. “Problem in wave propagation in soil and rock.” In Proc., Int. Symp. Wave Propagation and Dynamic Properties of Earth Materials, 7–26. Albuquerque, NM: University New Mexico Press.
O’rourke, M. 1995. “Seismic behavior of buried pipeline components: A state-of-the-art review.” In Proc., 10th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 2153–2162. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Otsubo, M., I. Towhata, T. Hayashida, M. Shimura, T. Uchimura, B. Liu, D. Taeseri, B. Cauvin, and H. Rattez. 2016. “Shaking table tests on mitigation of liquefaction vulnerability for existing embedded lifelines.” Soils Found. 56 (3): 348–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.04.003.
Papadopoulos, S., A. Sextos, O. Kwon, S. Gerasimidis, and G. Deodatis. 2017. “Impact of spatial variability of earthquake ground motion on seismic demand to natural gas transmission pipelines.” In Proc., 16th World Conf. on Earthquake, 16WCEE, 25. Santiago, Chile: Association on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering.
Psyrras, N., A. Sextos, A. Crewe, M. Dietz, and G. Mylonakis. 2020. “Physical modeling of the seismic response of gas pipelines in laterally inhomogeneous soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 146 (5): 04020031. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002242.
Psyrras, N. K., and A. G. Sextos. 2018. “Safety of buried steel natural gas pipelines under earthquake-induced ground shaking: A review.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 106 (Mar): 254–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.12.020.
Sim, W., I. Towhata, and S. Yamada. 2012. “One-g shaking-table experiments on buried pipelines crossing a strike-slip fault.” Géotechnique 62 (12): 1067–1079. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.10.P.142.
Tsinidis, G., L. Di Sarno, A. Sextos, and P. Furtner. 2019. “A critical review on the vulnerability assessment of natural gas pipelines subjected to seismic wave propagation. Part 1: Fragility relations and implemented seismic intensity measures.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 86 (Apr): 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.01.025.
Wang, L. R.-L., and K.-M. Cheng. 1979. “Seismic response behavior of buried pipelines.” J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 101 (1): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3454594.
Yan, K. M., J. Zhang, Z. Wang, W. Liao, and Z. Wu. 2018. “Seismic responses of deep buried pipeline under non-uniform excitations from large scale shaking table test.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 113 (Oct): 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.036.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 13 • Issue 1 • February 2022
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 26, 2021
Accepted: Sep 8, 2021
Published online: Oct 18, 2021
Published in print: Feb 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Mar 18, 2022
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Bin Zhu, Nan Jiang, Chuanbo Zhou, Xuedong Luo, Haibo Li, Xiong Chang, Yuqing Xia, Dynamic interaction of the pipe-soil subject to underground blasting excavation vibration in an urban soil-rock stratum, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 10.1016/j.tust.2022.104700, 129, (104700), (2022).