Suitable Intensity Measures for Evaluation of Continues Buried Steel Pipelines in Performance-Based Context

Authors
H. sh 1
V. Jahangiri 2
1 1
2 PhD Candidate in Earthquake Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Eng., Tarbiat Modares University
Abstract
Investigation of the correlation between engineering demand parameter (EDP) and intensity measures (IMs) has received substantial attention in performance-based earthquake engineering for prediction of seismic demand of structures.In this study the seismic demands of buried steel pipelines are investigated in a performance-based context. Several nonlinear dynamic analyses of two buried steel pipe models with different D/t, H/D ratios and different soil properties and different pressures, performed under a suite of far-field earthquake ground motion records were scaled to several intensity levels to investigate the behavior of buried pipeline from elastic response to failure. Several scalar ground motion intensity measures (IMs) are used to investigate their correlation with engineering demand parameter (EDP) which is measured in terms of peak axial compressive strain in critical section. Using the regression analysis the efficiency and sufficiency of candidates IMs is investigated. To investigate the effects of different material and geometrical properties, two buried pipeline of API 5L Grade X65 models with different pipe and soil properties are considered. To simulate soil effects on pipe in axial, transverse and vertical directions bilinear force displacement curves (elastic-perfectly plastic) representation of soil are employed based on suggestions of the American Lifeline Alliance. The FEM was used in the analyses. The buried pipeline and the surrounding soil are modeled using shell, spring and damper elements. Each node of the model was connected to three spring-dashpots. Before deciding which ground motion IMs correlate well with seismic demand on buried pipes the first question to be answered is: how is the seismic demand measured? Usual failure modes of continuous buried pipelines are tensile ruptures or buckling because of compressive strains. Compressive straines that result in bukcling are smaller than strains induce tensile failure. Therefore, the peak axial compression strain at the critical section would seem the obvious candidate to use for EDP of buried pipe. It is necessary to examine a wide range of potential IMs for determining the best IM for evaluating the buried pipe response. Therefore a total of 16 different IMs are considered. Using an efficient IM results in smaller variability in the structural response for any given IM. Chosing an efficient IM causes the number of analyses and earthquake records needed to evaluate the probability of exceedance of each value of EDP given the value of IM to be reduced. In this paper, a one-parameter log-log linear regression of peak axial compressive strain on IM is utilized in evaluating the efficiency of each alternative IM. A sufficient IM results in EDP conditionally independent, for a given IM, of earthquake magnitude M and the source to site distance R. Using a sufficient IM, yields ignoring the effects of magnitude and distance in accurately predicting of EDP. Quantifying the sufficiency of IM is done by using the one-parameter regression of peak axial compressive strain on M or R for a given IM. Among the models investigated in this study it was seen that RMSd is the optimal IM for buried steel pipelines based on efficincy and sufficiency conceptions.

Keywords

[1] Moehle J, Deierlein GG. A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering.  Proceedings of the 13th World conference on earthquake engineering2004. p. 3812-4.
[2] Baker JW, Allin Cornell C. A vector‐valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 2005;34:1193-217.
[3] Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-sourceeffects, Ph.D. Thesis. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Eng., Stanford University, California2002.
[4] Shome N, Cornell C.A. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures.  Reliability of Marine Structures Program Report No RMS-35. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, California1999.
[5] Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra. 2007;23:357-92.
[6] Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra. 1998;14:469-500.
[7] Mackie K.  Stojadinovic B. Seismic Demands for Performance-Based Design of Bridges.  PEER Report 2003/16 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
[8] Mackie K.  Stojadinovic B. Fragility Basis for California Highway Overpass Bridge Seismic Decision Making.  PEER Report 2005/12 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
[9] Giovenale P, Cornell CA, Esteva L. Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics. 2004;33:951-79.
[10] Tothong P, Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2007;36:1837.
[11] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Developing efficient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics. 2005;34:1573-600.
[12] Bradley BA, Cubrinovski M, Dhakal RP, MacRae GA. Intensity measures for the seismic response of pile foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2009;29:1046-58.
[13] Yang D, Pan J, Li G. Non‐structure‐specific intensity measure parameters and characteristic period of near‐fault ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 2009;38:1257-80.
 
[14] Kostinakis K, Athanatopoulou A, Morfidis K. Correlation between ground motion intensity measures and seismic damage of 3D R/C buildings. Engineering Structures. 2015;82:151-67.
[15] Alliance AL. Guidelines for the design of buried steel pipe. American Society of Civil Engineers; 2001.
[16] Hindy A, Novak M. Earthquake response of underground pipelines. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 1979;7:451-76.
[17] Liu A-w, Hu Y-x, Zhao F-x, Li X-j, Takada S, Zhao L. An equivalent-boundary method for the shell analysis of buried pipelines under fault movement. Acta Seismologica Sinica. 2004;17:150-6.
[18] Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2002;128:526-33.
[19] Alfredo H-SA, Wilson H. Probability concepts in engineering planning and design. John Wily and Sons. 1975.
[20] Pineda-Porras O, Najafi M. Seismic damage estimation for buried pipelines: Challenges after three decades of progress. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice. 2010;1:19-24.
[21] Riddell R. On ground motion intensity indices. Earthquake Spectra. 2007;23:147-73.
[22] Yun H, Kyriakides S. Model for beam-mode buckling of buried pipelines. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 1985;111:235-53.
[23] ANSYS AUsMR. 5.5, ANSYS. Inc, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. 1998.
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 16, Issue 2
May and June 2016
Pages 147-159