2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105723
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Failure mode analysis of X80 buried steel pipeline under oblique-reverse fault

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, it was concluded that cohesive soils, softer ground conditions, smaller diameter to thickness ratio, smaller pipe internal pressure and X80 steel material (compared with X65) result in a better deformation capacity of the buried pipeline. Similar FE models have been proposed and employed to describe mechanical behavior of steel pipelines crossing strike-slip faults taking boundary conditions into consideration [ 7 ], and mechanical behavior of steel pipelines crossing reverse faults [ 8 , 9 , 10 ] and oblique reverse faults [ 11 ]. In addition to the M-C model, the Drucker–Prager (D-P) model was, also, used to analyze mechanical response of steel pipe subjected to strike-slip fault movement with emphasis on the effects of fault modelling [ 12 ] and mechanical behavior of steel pipe under reverse fault displacement [ 13 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, it was concluded that cohesive soils, softer ground conditions, smaller diameter to thickness ratio, smaller pipe internal pressure and X80 steel material (compared with X65) result in a better deformation capacity of the buried pipeline. Similar FE models have been proposed and employed to describe mechanical behavior of steel pipelines crossing strike-slip faults taking boundary conditions into consideration [ 7 ], and mechanical behavior of steel pipelines crossing reverse faults [ 8 , 9 , 10 ] and oblique reverse faults [ 11 ]. In addition to the M-C model, the Drucker–Prager (D-P) model was, also, used to analyze mechanical response of steel pipe subjected to strike-slip fault movement with emphasis on the effects of fault modelling [ 12 ] and mechanical behavior of steel pipe under reverse fault displacement [ 13 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Buried pipeline usually covers a wide range of regions, and the vicinity along the pipeline will inevitably suffer from various geological hazards. Such as fault displacement induced by earthquakes poses a great threat to the safe operation of buried pipelines, especially for the oblique-reverse fault (composed fault) [1][2][3]. Line D of Central Asia Natural Gas Pipeline (Line D) is the typical project where the pipeline crosses the oblique-reverse fault [4].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Melissianos et al [18] carried out an extensive parametric study on the pipeline crossing reverse fault and offered the first comprehensive attempt to quantify the qualitative criterion that deeply buried pipes with high D/t ratio tend to buckle locally, while shallowly buried pipes with low D/t ratio tend to buckle globally. Based on the shell element-nonlinear contact coupling model and design criteria, Cheng et al [2,19] gave the prediction formula of the maximum tensile and compressive strain of buried X80 steel pipe under the oblique-reverse fault displacement and proposed the FE model of X80 steel pipe crossing oblique-reverse fault. Then, the strain evolution of the pipeline under three failure modes (local buckling, tensile rupture, and section ovalization) was obtained, and the failure mode sequence was discussed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using a contact algorithm that takes into account surface friction, the outer surface of the pipe and the surrounding soil are adopted in a tangential behavior and a suitable friction coefficient is defined as 0.3. Since the contact surfaces about soil to soil are continuously changing when the soil blocks move, according to Cheng, so in this study, the friction coefficient of soil‐soil is defined as 0.5.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vazouras also obtained a similar conclusion. So, Cheng set it as 0.6 for pipe‐soil behavior and Vazouras, Zhang, and Banushi assumed it equal to 0.3. Consequently, the friction coefficient is 0.3 in this model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%