Ground deformation effects on subsurface pipelines and infrastructure

PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE
Tom O’Rourke
Thomas R. Briggs
Professor
of Engineering
Cornell University
GROUND DEFORMATION EFFECTS
ON SUBSURFACE PIPELINES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Harry Stewart
Chalermpat
Pariya-Ekkasut
Jai JungChristina ArgyrouJoe Chipalowsky
Brad Wham Dimitra Bouziou Tim Bond

TOPICS
• Underground Assets
• Soil/Pipe Interface
• Soil/Pipeline Interaction
• 2D and 3D Behavior
• (Tunneling Effects on Pipelines)
• Next Generation Pipelines
• Pipeline System Performance
• Impact on Communities

TOPIC
• Underground Assets

U.S. PIPELINE INVENTORY
•489,000 km Gas & Liquid Fuel Transmission
Lines
•2,035,000 km Gas Distribution Lines
•67 Million Gas Service Lines
•1,900,000 km Water Distribution Lines
•$2.4 Trillion Water Pipeline Replace Value
•1 km Pipeline Every 9 Minutes in US
•1 km Pipeline Every 1-2 Minutes Worldwide

DEP (NYC)
US PIPELINE INVENTORY
90-95%
≤ 600 mm
99% of Gas
Distribution
Pipelines
≤ 600 mm
(PHMSA,
2015)
(Water)

UNDERGROUND
INFRASTRUCTURE

KOREAN PIPELINE NEWS CAST

EXTREME SOIL-PIPELINE INTERACTION
•Earthquakes
•Hurricanes and Floods
•Landslides: Aerial and Submarine
•Tunneling and Deep Excavations
•Subsidence

EXTREME SOIL-PIPELINE INTERACTION
Soil Material & Geometric
Nonlinearities
Pipeline Material &
Geometric Nonlinearities

TOPIC
• Soil/Pipe Interface

TACTILE PRESSURE
SENSORS
50 X 40 cm plan dimensions
~ 2000 sensels

PLANE STRAIN EXPERIMENTS

θ
θ
θ
p(θ)
p(θ)tanδsinθ
p(θ)cosθ
b) Normal Stress
Distribution
c) Expanded
View
N


O
R

Expanded
View
O


FH
a) Shear Stress
Orientation
ds = Rd

pmax
b) Normal Stress Distribution
τ
a) Shear Stress Orientation
θ
Expanded
View
O
θ
O
R=D/2
p(θ)
τ(θ)
dS=Rd
c) Expanded View
Note:Not in scale
dθ
pH

0 100 200
Normal Stress, kPa
 = 10 mm
0 100 200
Normal Stress, kPa
 = 30 mm
0 100 200
Normal Stress, kPa
 = 120 mm
0 100 200
Normal Stress, kPa
 = 10 mm
0 100 200
Normal Stress, kPa
 = 30 mm
0 100 200
Normal Stress, kPa
 = 120 mm
b) Centerline Sensor
a) Side Sensor

SOIL PRESSURE DISTRIBTION

θ
θ
θ
p(θ)
p(θ)tanδsinθ
p(θ)cosθ
fT = pNtanδ and fA = pHtanδ
Plot fT/fA vs tanδ

fT/fA VS tanδ

fT
𝑓𝐴
=
1.531
1.273 + 0.672 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛿

COUPLED TRANSVERSE & LONGITUDINAL SOIL FORCES
Gap Element:
Links Forces
Normal with
Forces Parallel
to Pipe By
Coulomb
Friction Law
tanT Nf p 

LESSONS: SOIL-PIPE INTERFACE
•Relationship Between Soil Force Normal to Pipe
Surface vs Force Normal to Pipe Longitudinal
Axis Is Key for Modeling Coupled Soil-Pipe
Interaction
•Evaluation of Friction Along Pipe from Soil
Force Normal to Longitudinal Axis.

TOPIC
• Soil/Pipeline Interaction

SOIL-PIPELINE INTERACTION
P
y
• Nonlinear Interaction
Relationships
Calibrated by Full-
Scale Experiments
• Can Replicate
Complex Interactions
in Pipe & Soil
• 3-D Continuum
Modeling Evolving;
Still Challenges

SOIL-PIPELINE INTERACTION MODELS
Continuum (Robert et al 2016)
Continuum (Vazouras et al, 2012)
Shell & Discrete Soil Reactions
(Xie et al 2013)
Continuum (Xie et al 2013)

Pole for
planes
(’yy, ’yx)
(’xx, ’xy)
’ds
’ps 
’
’
(0, dxy/2)
(dyy, dyx/2)
Pole for
directions
d
d/2
CO

Mohr’s circle for incremental strain
(’ff, ’ff)
Mohr’s circle for stress
(After Lings and Dietz, 2004)
Pole for
planes
(’yy, ’yx)
(’xx, ’xy)
’ds
’ps 
’
’
(0, dxy/2)
(dyy, dyx/2)
Pole for
directions
d
d/2
CO

(’ff, ’ff)
ψψ ψψ
Pole for
planes
(’yy, ’yx)
(’xx, ’xy)
’ds
’ps 
’
’
(0, dxy/2)
(dyy, dyx/2)
Pole for
directions
d
d/2
CO

(’ff, ’ff)
Pole for
planes
(’yy, ’yx)
(’xx, ’xy)
’ds
’ps 
’
’
(0, dxy/2)
(dyy, dyx/2)
Pole for
directions
d
d/2
CO

(’ff, ’ff)
ψψ ψψψψ ψψ
Direct Shear
Plane Strain
PLANE STRAIN & DIRECT SHEAR STRENGTH

GLACIAL FLUVIAL SAND
Density
d
(kN/m3)
ds-p
(degrees)
ps-p
(degrees)
ψp
(degrees)
Medium 15.5 ~ 16.5 35 ~ 37 41 ~ 44 3 ~ 6
Dense 16.5 ~ 17.5 38 ~ 40 45 ~ 47 7 ~ 10
Very Dense 17.5 ~ 18.0 41 ~ 43 48 ~ 49 11 ~ 17
300 mm

LARGE-SCALE 2-D TESTS
2.4 m
2.4
m
1.8 m
Direction of
pipe movement
North
Buried
pipe

Analytical Model:
 MC Yield Surface
 Strain Compatible Modulus
 Strain Softening from Peak
Shear

Void
VertDist,mm
Horizontal Distance, mm

SIMULATION VS FULL-SCALE TEST RESULTS

MAXIMUM DIMENSIONLESS SOIL REACTION FORCE
Lateral Force Uplift Force

SOIL-PIPE INTERACTION FOR DIFFERENT
MOVEMENT DIRECTIONS
Vertical
Downward
Oblique

MAX VERTICAL BEARING FORCE
Bearing Force
is ½ to 1/3
Conventional
Bearing Capacity

OBLIQUE SOIL-PIPE INTERACTION
45° Downward 45° Upward

MULTI-DIRECTIONAL SOIL-PIPE INTERACTION
qVUUqOU NiN 
qVDDqOD NiN 


















 1
75.090
25.0
1
qVU
qH
up
up
U
N
N
i

















 1
75.090
25.0
1
qVD
qH
down
down
D
N
N
i


qim qim cF N H DL 
Fqim

MULTI-DIRECTIONAL SOIL-PIPE INTERACTION

SOIL-PIPE FORCE VS DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIPS

SUCTION IN PARTIALLY SATURATED SOILS
Transpiration
Precipitation
Evaporation
Unsaturated Flow
Infiltration
Pipeline
Water table
Pores filled with
water
Meniscus formed
between particles
(After Robert et al, 2016)

SUCTION EFFECTS IN PARTIALLY SATURATED SOILS
(After Robert et al, 2016)

DESIGN PROCEDURE

EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION

HDPE SIMULATION VS MEASURED RESPONSE
Strike Slip
Fault
Displacement:
250-mm Pipe

STRIKE SLIP: AXIAL/BENDING STRAINS
250-mm Pipe 400-mm Pipe

LESSONS: SOIL-PIPELINE INTERACTION
• Integrated Methodology for Soil-Pipe
Interaction for All Pipe Movement Directions
and Depths: Hc/D ≥ 2
• Simulations Show Vertical Downward Soil/Pipe
Reaction Force ~ ½ to 1/3 Conventional
Bearing Capacity Force
• Suction-Enhanced Soil-Pipe Force

TOPIC
• 2D AND 3D BEHAVIOR

3D SOIL-PIPELINE INTERACTION
• Steel, HDPE and Cast
Iron
• Frequently Used D/t s
• D/L = 10
L
D
Apply Max Lateral Soil-Pipe Pressure to Simply Supported 3D Pipe (Shell) as
Proxy to Detect Transverse Distortion
D/t = 96
D = 900 mm

600mm
600mm
HDPE
400mm
Steel
& HDPE
Cast
Iron

• 1.7-m-diameter
Pipeline
• X-36 Steel
• 25 mm Wall
Thickness to
Resist Ovaling
• Polyethylene
Wrapped Around
Fusion Bonded
Epoxy
SFPUC Alameda Siphon No. 4
Calaveras Fault Crossing
Nisar et al. (2015)

TOPIC
• Next Generation Hazard
Resilient Pipelines

NEXT GENERATION HAZARD-RESILIENT PIPELINES
Wall Street
Journal Photo

NEXT GENERATION HAZARD-RESILIENT PIPELINES
8.6º
6 in.

LARGE-SCALE TESTING: NEXT GENERATION INFASTRUCTURE

PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE 57
ORIENTED POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVCO) JOINTS
Spigot Compressed into Bell

ORIENTED POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVCO) JOINTS

CONTROLLED
BUCKLING

CONTROLLED BUCKLING

LESSONS: NEXT GENERATION (HAZARD-
RESILIENT) PIPELINES
•Paradigm Shift in Pipeline Technology
•Market-Driven Research Funded by
Industry
•Can’t Have Resilience Unless You Have a
Market
•Next Generation Hazard-Resilient Pipeline
Simulation Models

ADVANCED SENSORS
• Collaboration Among University of Cambridge,
Cornell, and UC Berkeley
• Demonstrate Proof of Concept
• Distributed Fiber Optics
• Joint Movement
• Pipeline Bending Strains & Displacement
• Time Domain Reflectometry
• Leakage
• Underground Wireless
• Data Transmission Without Wires

LESSONS: NEXT GENERATION (HAZARD-
RESILIENT) PIPELINES
•Paradigm Shift in Pipeline Technology
•Market-Driven Research Funded by
Industry
•Can’t Have Resilience Unless You Have a
Intelligence
•Next Generation Hazard-Resilient Pipeline
Simulation Models

TOPIC
• Pipeline System Performance

CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE
• ~ 185 Deaths
• CBD Destroyed
– ~ 1800 CBD Bldgs.
Demolished
– ~ 55,000 Residences
Damaged
• > $30(US) B Direct
Losses ≈ 20 % GDP
• Massive Liquefaction&
Infrastructure Damage
Christchurch
Christchurch

CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE
MW = 7.1
4 Sept 10
MW = 6.0
13 June 11
MW = 6.2
22 Feb 11
MW = 5.9
23 Dec 11
MW = 5.7
14 Feb 16

CHRISTCHURCH LIQUEFACTION
52 km2
96 km2
91 km2

San Francisco borderline
Liquefied
Area
CHRISTCHURCH
LIQUEFACTION IN
SAN FRANCISCO

LIGHT DETECTION & RANGING (LiDAR)
• High Resolution
LiDAR
Measurements
• Settlement on 5-m
• Lateral
Movement
on 4 & 56-m

GROUND DEFORMATION METRICS
• From Boscardin & Cording (1989) for Building Damage:

EARTHQUAKE PIPELINE DAMAGE
Cast Iron (CI)
Polyvinyl
Chloride
(PVC)
Asbestos
Cement (AC)
Concrete (CONC)

PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE720 1 2 3 40.5

SCREENING CRITERIA
• Repair Locations Checked by GIS
• Discount Landslides/Rockfall Areas
• Assume Poisson Distribution for Repairs
( ) (1p RR x p   
Poisson distribution: μ = (RR)x, and σ = [(RR)x]½
Sampled repairs follow normal distr. (central limit theorem)
1
1 2 2
c
c
p
x RR


       
    

MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL LATERAL STRAIN
• Create Bilinear
Quadrilateral
Finite Element
from Lateral
Displacements
at Grid Corners
to Determine
Principal Strain
y, v
x, u
1 2
34
u1 u2
u4 u3
v2v1
v4 v3

REPAIR RATE VS ANGULAR DISTORTION AND LATERAL STRAIN
r2 = 0.86
r2 = 0.79
r2 = 0.88
Angular
Distortion
on 5-m
Spacing
Lateral
Strain
From
4 m x 4m
Cells

REPAIR RATE FOR COMBINED ANGULAR DISTORTION
AND LATERAL STRAINAsbestos Cement (AC) Pipelines
Cast Iron (CI) Pipelines

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF
TENSILE LATERAL GROUND STRAINS
Exceedance
Levels
Ground Strain
Accommodation
6 in.
8.6º

THERMALLY WELDED PE VS CONVENTIONAL JOINTED
PIPELINE SYSTEMS
Water Distribution System

LESSONS FROM CHRISTCHURCH
• Extraordinary dataset: multiple EQs, dense ground
motion array, massive liquefaction, high density
LiDAR, geocoded repairs for thousands of km of
different pipelines
• First time comprehensive assessment of
underground lifeline response to liquefaction-
induced differential vertical movement and lateral
strain
• Unified methodology for building & lifeline damage
vs differential vertical & lateral ground movements

TOPIC

200 km
N
San
Francisco
5 km
120 km2

EARTHQUAKE SAFETY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE BOND

SAN FRANCISCO AUXILLIARY WATER SUPPLY
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
•7.8 Mw
Deterministic EQ
•Water Demands in
Fire Response
Areas
•Monte Carlo AWSS
Network
Simulations

SUMMARY
• Coupled Soil-Pipe Forces for Soil-Pipeline Analysis
• Link Between Lateral Soil-Pipe Force and Pipe
Surface Frictional Resistance
• Methodology for Soil-Pipe Interaction in Granular Soil
for Any Pipe Movement Direction and Depth
• Vertical Downward Pipe Force Significantly Less Than
Conventional Bearing Capacity
• Soil Suction Effects

SUMMARY
• Guidance on Beam vs Shell Analysis for Soil-Pipe
Interaction. Transverse Distortion Important for
Diameters > 600 mm (Steel and Cast Iron)
• Next Generation Hazard Resilient Pipelines
• Canterbury EQ Sequence As Large-Scale Lab for
Characterizing Liquefaction Ground Deformation
• Unified Methodology for Pipeline and Building
Response to Soil Settlement and Lat’l. Displacement

Ground deformation effects on subsurface pipelines and infrastructure

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Ground deformation effects on subsurface pipelines and infrastructure

Semelhante a Ground deformation effects on subsurface pipelines and infrastructure (20)

Mais de Academia de Ingeniería de México

Mais de Academia de Ingeniería de México (20)

Último

Último (20)

Ground deformation effects on subsurface pipelines and infrastructure