Jointed Pipeline Response to Large Ground Deformation

Wham, Brad P.; O’Rourke, Thomas D.

doi:10.1061/(asce)ps.1949-1204.0000207

Cited by 32 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2. In Wham and O'Rourke (2015) show that the pressure boundary is independent of load path and can be used for many different conditions of evolving rotation and pullout associated with complex ground deformation patterns.…”

Section: R a F Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tensile test data for CI pipe from Johnson (1890), Schlick and Moore (1936), and Taki and O'Rourke (1984) show a range of CI modulus from 75.8 to 128 GPa (11,000 to 18,500 ksi). A secant modulus, E, of 75.8 GPa (11,000 ksi), which is strain compatible with both the allowable and the combined allowable and residual maximum tensile strain, is used in this study (Wham 2016). Figure 1 shows a profile view of a typical CI joint, which connects the spigot and bell ends of adjoining pipes.…”

Section: Cast Iron Pipelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All tests were conducted for a lead caulking depth of approximately 57 mm (2.25 in.). Detailed information about the joint pullout tests and tabulation of experimental data is provided by Wham (2016). Figure 2 shows a cumulative frequency plot of the C A data and a cumulative probability curve, developed from the mean and standard deviation of the data.…”

Section: R a F Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…joint pressure boundary to be used for all DI pipe diameters and commercially available configurations. Additional experimental testing or 3D FE analysis, as outlined by Wham and O'Rourke (2015), is needed to establish larger diameter joint response to combinations of joint pullout and rotation.…”

Section: R a F Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Jointed pipeline response to tunneling-induced ground deformation

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the effect of tunneling-induced ground deformation on the response of jointed cast iron and ductile iron pipelines that (i) cross the settlement profile perpendicular to the tunnel centerline and (ii) connect through 90° tees with a pipeline parallel to the tunnel centerline. The modeling involves two-dimensional finite element analyses that account for coupled forces both parallel and perpendicular to the pipeline, and incorporates the results of large-scale laboratory tests to characterize the joints. Pipeline response is quantified with respect to joint rotation and pullout at various leakage levels as well as the allowable tensile strain. The paper describes soil displacements induced by a 6.1 m (20 ft.) diameter tunnel in clay and sand. Joint rotations and maximum tensile strains for pipelines in sand exceed those in clay by up to three for the same geometric conditions. Cast iron pipelines crossing the tunnel centerline are most vulnerable to leakage from joint rotation; ductile iron pipelines have sufficient capacity against joint leakage in all cases studied. Cast iron pipelines that connect with 90° tees are highly vulnerable to leakage from pullout due to lateral soil movement. Guidance is provided for risk assessment, design, and utility operations.

show abstract

Section: R a F Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cast Iron Pipelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: R a F Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: R a F Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Jointed pipeline response to tunneling-induced ground deformation

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Lanzano et al (2015) compiled one of the most extensive databases of observed damage to pipelines after earthquakes, providing an excellent base for the creation of empirical fragility models. It has been emphasized that buried gas transmission pipelines are particularly vulnerable to geotechnical failures such as landslides and liquefaction phenomena, because they generate large ground deformations, creating large stress concentrations at the joints (Wham and O'Rourke 2015). Edkins et al (2016) gave a detailed description of observed damage in the aftermath of an earthquake to pipeline systems of different materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scenario-Based Seismic Risk Assessment for Buried Transmission Gas Pipelines at Regional Scale

Risi

Luca

Kwon

et al. 2018

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Buried gas pipelines in seismic-prone regions may suffer leaks or breaks as a consequence of an earthquake, especially if the pipeline is subjected to large differential displacements due to geotechnical failures (e.g., landslide or liquefaction). This paper presents a methodology to assess the risk of a gas pipeline infrastructure at a regional level in the aftermath of a seismic event. Once earthquake characteristics, such as magnitude and epicenter, are known, seismic intensity measures (IMs), such as peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV), are estimated at the location of each pipe through a simulation-based procedure. The potential updating from real-time data coming from accelerometric stations is considered. These IMs are then used to study the cascading landslide and liquefaction hazards, providing a hybrid empirical-mechanical-based estimation of permanent ground displacements (PGD). With the aid of damage and fragility functions from the literature, loss figures and damage maps are derived as decision-support tools for network managers and stakeholders. Losses provide a preliminary estimation of repair costs, whereas damage maps support the prioritization of inspections in the aftermath of the event. The risk methodology is a novel combination of cutting-edge and consolidated approaches. Firstly, different crosscorrelation models between PGA and PGV are included. Secondly, a new three-phase back-to-back geotechnical approach is provided for both landslide and liquefaction, representing (1) the susceptibility, (2) the triggering, and (3) the PGD estimation phases. The 1976 Friuli earthquake and the high-pressure gas network of northeast Italy are used as a test-bed scenario for the risk methodology aimed at emphasizing pros and cons of the different alternative options investigated.

show abstract

Seismic hazard for the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). Part 2: broadband scenarios at the Fier Compressor Station (Albania)

Moratto

Vuan

Saraò

et al. 2021

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To ensure environmental and public safety, critical facilities require rigorous seismic hazard analysis to define seismic input for their design. We consider the case of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP), which is a pipeline that transports natural gas from the Caspian Sea to southern Italy, crossing active faults and areas characterized by high seismicity levels. For this pipeline, we develop a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) for the broader area, and, for the selected critical sites, we perform deterministic seismic hazard assessment (DSHA), by calculating shaking scenarios that account for the physics of the source, propagation, and site effects. This paper presents a DSHA for a compressor station located at Fier, along the Albanian coastal region. Considering the location of the most hazardous faults in the study site, revealed by the PSHA disaggregation, we model the ground motion for two different scenarios to simulate the worst-case scenario for this compressor station. We compute broadband waveforms for receivers on soft soils by applying specific transfer functions estimated from the available geotechnical data for the Fier area. The simulations reproduce the variability observed in the ground motion recorded in the near-earthquake source. The vertical ground motion is strong for receivers placed above the rupture areas and should not be ignored in seismic designs; furthermore, our vertical simulations reproduce the displacement and the static offset of the ground motion highlighted in recent studies. This observation confirms the importance of the DSHA analysis in defining the expected pipeline damage functions and permanent soil deformations.

show abstract

Jointed Pipeline Response to Large Ground Deformation

Cited by 32 publications

References 10 publications

Jointed pipeline response to tunneling-induced ground deformation

Jointed pipeline response to tunneling-induced ground deformation

Scenario-Based Seismic Risk Assessment for Buried Transmission Gas Pipelines at Regional Scale

Seismic hazard for the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). Part 2: broadband scenarios at the Fier Compressor Station (Albania)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About