Geot Earthquake Eng Ch7 UGRND ADERS 10

7.
Seismic Design of
Underground Structures
G. Bouckovalas
Professor N.T.U.A.
G. Kouretzis
Civil Engineer, Ph.D. N.T.U.A.
October 2010
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011
7.1
Preface
This lecture deals with the seismic design of
infinitely long cylindrical underground
structures i.e. tunnels, pipelines etc. The
presented methodology can be easily adapted
for the design of structures that feature a noncircular cross-section. However, this (and
other relevant) methodologies are not valid for
other types of underground structures such as
metro stations, storage facilities or shafts.
A common characteristic of the infinitely
long structures under consideration is their
high flexibility and small mass, compared to
the surrounding soil. Thus, unlike most
common above ground structures,
underground structures response to the
imposed displacements from the surrounding
soil is not dominated by inertia effects. As a
result, a static analysis (not a pseudo-static) is
sufficient for their design, given that the
surrounding soil displacements are determined
a-priori.
The following presentation focuses initially on the

failure patterns attributed to transient and
permanent seismic ground displacements. Next, a
methodology for the stress analysis of flexible
underground structures due to transient
displacements is presented in detail, a problem
that can be effectively treated by analytical means.
The methodology for the stress analysis of
underground structures due to permanent ground
displacements is more cumbersome, as it requires
the implementation of non-linear numerical tools,
at least for real-world design purposes. However,
the basic principles of this numerical methodology
are outlined, with the aid of a case study: the
stress analysis of the Thessaloniki to Skopje crude
oil steel pipeline at two active fault crossings: a
normal fault crossing and a strike-slip fault
crossing.
7.2
. Earthquakes and Underground

Structures
. Seismic design against transient
displacements
C. Seismic design against permanent
displacements
earthquake-induced transient ground displacements...

... are attributed to seismic wave propagation
Love wave (R)

Rayleigh wave (R)
compression wave
(P)
shear wave (S)

7.3
peripheral cracks
Rayleigh
concrete spalling
(compression)
Rayleig
P
7.4
longitudinal cracks
Rayleigh
shear cracks
Rayleigh
7.5
10
7
f ai
0.50g
11
2
24
lur
ep
ote
n
pro tial
pag due
ati to
on
s
eff eism
ect ic w
s.. av
e
.
0.25g
1 failure sites
23 30N
121 30E
121E
120 30E
epicenter
rupture
30 km
Locations of underground structures (concrete tunnels) that failed during the

C-C (1999) earthquake, plotted against recorded maximum ground
acceleration contours at ground surface.
Note that all tunnels that were damaged lie within the 0.25g contour
120cm/sec
10
7
8
9
11
60cm/sec
24
6
1 failure sites
23 30N
121 30E
121E
120 30E
epicenter
rupture
30 km
Locations of underground structures (concrete tunnels) that failed during the

C-C (1999) earthquake, plotted against recorded maximum ground
velocity contours at ground surface.
Note that all tunnels
that were damaged lie within the 60cm/sec contour
7.6
Chi-Chi 1999
Chi-Chi 1999
Correlation of strong motion levels with underground structure failures
earthquake-induced permanent ground displacements...
fa
ult
ru
pt
ur
e
...are due to ground failure attributed to seismic effects. Typical examples

include fault rupture propagation to the ground surface, landslides, steep
slope failures, and mild slope failures due to liquefaction (lateral spreading).
7.7
Tunnel collapse due to fault rupture propagation

(Shih-Gang dam tunnel, Chi-Chi, 1999)
Empirical relations for the determination of the MEAN anticipated

ground displacement due to fault rupture (Wells & Coppersmith, 1994).
The MAXIMUM anticipated displacement is about twice the mean value
7.8
Permanent
displacements
due to
SLOPE
FAILURE
and due to
liquefaction-induced
lateral spreading
7.9
(a)
(b)
sub-sea
landslides at
Eratini-Tolofonas beach
Aigio (1995) earthquake
Eratini port
()
7.10
river mouth
(b)
L=50-200m
W=50-300m
Manythousands
thousandscubic
cubicmeters
metersof
of
Many
soilare
aremobilized
mobilizedduring
duringslope
slope
soil
failures,and
andmove
movefor
fordistances
distances
failures,
ranging
from
a
few
centimeters
ranging from a few centimeters
toseveral
severalmeters...
meters...
to
(...whensoil
soilstrength
strength
(...when
deteriorates
duringshaking,
shaking,as
as
deteriorates during
forexample
exampleininthe
thecase
caseof
of
for
liquefaction).
liquefaction).
We will
will dwell
dwell more
more into
into the
the
We
estimation of
of slope
slope failurefailureestimation
induced
displacements
one
induced displacements inin one
of the
the following
following lectures.
lectures.
of
However,displacement
displacement
However,
estimates
dueto
toslope
slopefailure
failure
estimates due
arenot
notas
asstraightforward
straightforward(?)
(?)
are
asfault-induced
fault-induceddisplacements...
displacements...
as
several
seismologicalseveral seismologicalgeotechnical-topographical
geotechnical-topographical
factorsmust
mustbe
betaken
takeninto
into
factors
account.
account.
7.11
transverse permanent displacement

high bending and tensile
strains
longitudinal permanent
displacement
tensile strain
compressive strain
Ching-Shue tunnel before and after Chi-Chi earthquake
7.12
Failures at the portals of Ling-Leng tunnel (left)

and Maa-Ling tunnel (right)
Slope failure
above the western portal of the Malakassi C Tunnel.
7.13
(E. Hoek & P. Marinos, 4th Report on Egnatia Highway Project, March 1999).
Afterword
Compared to permanent displacements, transient displacements effects are less
detrimental regarding underground structure response, since transient displacements
are not only... transient, but also related to significantly smaller magnitudes.
For example, a very strong earthquake with predominant period 0.70sec and maximum
ground acceleration amax = 0.80g, will result in transient displacements with a magnitude
in the order of few centimeters only.
Smax= amax T2/(2)2 = 10 cm only
In comparison, the permanent displacement due to the fault rupture will well exceed
1.00m
On the other hand ...
Transient displacements due to wave propagation affect the whole length of the
underground structure (possibly several km), and not only the part of the structure
located at the vicinity of the fault trace (+ 50m). Moreover, transient displacements
due to wave propagation have a considerably smaller return period (100-500 years),
compared to the return period of fault activation (10,000-100,000 years).
Both these factors highlight the importance of transient displacement effects for
the seismic design of underground structures.
7.14

Structures
displacements
displacements
Preface
Compared to permanent displacements, transient displacements effects are less
detrimental regarding underground structure response, since transient displacements
are not only... transient, but are also related to significantly smaller magnitudes.
For example, a very strong earthquake with predominant period 0.70sec and maximum
ground acceleration amax = 0.80g, will result in transient displacements with a magnitude
in the order of few centimeters only.
Smax= amax T2/(2)2 = 10 cm only
In comparison, the permanent displacement due to the fault rupture will well exceed
1.00m
On the other hand ...
Transient displacements due to wave propagation affect the whole length of the
underground structure (possibly several km), and not only the part of the structure
located at the vicinity of the fault trace (+ 50m). Moreover, transient displacements
due to wave propagation have a considerably smaller return period (100-500 years),
compared to the return period of fault activation (10,000-100,000 years).
Both these factors highlight the importance of transient displacement effects for
the seismic design of underground structures.
7.15
Basic Assumptions
Harmonic seismic waves
No sliding at the soil-structure interface

kinematic soil-structure interaction effects can be ignored
(flexibility factor F)
As a result of the last two assumptions,
underground structure displacements are equal and in phase
with the surrounding soil displacements
the 3rd assumption is valid when
F=
2 Em (1 vl2 )
( 2)
D
El (1 + vm )t
> 20
m=grounds Youngs modulus

l=structures Youngs modulus
m=grounds Poisson ratio
l= structures Poisson ratio
D=cross-section diameter
t=cross-section thickness
Example: steel pipeline (e.g. natural gas pipeline)

m=1GPa (Cs=400m/sec)
l=210GPa
m=0.33
l= 0.2
D=1m
t=0.01m
F850>>20
7.16
F=
2 Em (1 vl2 )
( 2)
D
El (1 + vm )t

> 20
Example: concrete tunnel (e.g. Metro tunnel)

l=30GPa
m=0.33
l= 0.2
D=10m
t=0.25m
F385>>20
F=
2 Em (1 vl2 )
( 2)
D
El (1 + vm )t
> 20

Example: concrete sewage pipeline

l=30GPa
m=0.33
l= 0.2
D=2.5m
t=0.1m
F95>>20
7.17
Basic Assumptions
Harmonic seismic waves
No sliding at the soil-structure interface

kinematic soil-structure interaction effects can be ignored
(flexibility factor F)
All
Allanalytical
analyticalexpressions
expressionshereinafter
hereinafterrefer
referto
tostrains
strainsrather
ratherthan
thanstresses.
stresses.
That
Thatisisdue
dueto
tothe
thefact
factthat
thatwave
wavepropagation
propagationimposes
imposestransient
transient
on
underground
structures,
and
not
inertial
deformations
forces,as
asinin
deformations on underground structures, and not inertialforces,
common
commonaboveground
abovegroundstructures.
structures.Design
Designof
ofunderground
undergroundstructures
structuresaims
aimsat
at
ensuring
that
the
structure
can
sustain
those
deformations
without
failure.
ensuring that the structure can sustain those deformations without failure.
Strain state of thin-walled underground structures

z
y
x
1
A 3-D shell modeling the underground structure, when subjected to imposed
displacements from the surrounding soil, will develop...
axial strains
in-plane shear strains
hoop strains h
The out-of-plane normal strains, and the shear strains at the inside and the outside
face of the shell can
be customarily
ignored...
(why??)
GEORGE
BOUCKOVALAS, National
Technical University
of Athes, Greece, 2011
7.18
harmonic excitation:
2
(x Ct )
u = Amax sin

displacement (u)
Amax
time (t)
period (T)
=wavelength C=propagation velocity t=time
P-wave propagating along the axis

(xy plane)
diameter
(D)
y
2
x
2
u x = Amax sin
x C pt

plane view
strain amplitude
ground strain=
structure strain:
thus
a = x =
u x 2 max
2
=
cos
x C pt
x
2 max
Vmax
C p 2011
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece,
a ,max =
maximum
seismic
velocity
7.19
S-wave propagating along the axis

(xy plane)
No-slip assumption at the soilstructure interface shear beam model
No slip suggests zero relative
displacements between crosssections, thus zero bending strains.
A full-slip assumption at the soilstructure interface would suggest that

only bending strains develop, and that
shear strains are zero
(bending beam model)
In the real world, some slippage will always occur, especially during strong excitations
The conservative no-slip assumption is adopted for design purposes
adopting the shear beam model
y
x
2
(x C s t )
u y = Amax sin

plane view
ground strain=
structure strain:
u y
x
Vmax
2
(x C s t )
cos
Cs

Vmax
C SUniversity of Athes, Greece, 2011
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical
max =
7.20
strain distribution along the cross-section
strains on a 3-D shell

(except axial strain)
do not retain a constant value along
the cross-section.
Strain distribution is a function
of the polar angle and, of course, time
max
direction
of motion
=maxcos
max
propagation axis
1.5
/|max|
t=to
cos
0.5
0
-0.5
t=to+T/2
-1
-1.5
strong motion axis
y
0
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
360
polar angle (degrees)
angle is measured clockwise,

starting from z-axis
Transverse P-wave (yz plane)

L/2
2
u y = Amax sin

y
direction of
propagation
y C pt
section view
max=L/L
L
12
h,max=max
ground strain:
y =
u y
y
11
h = y =
structure strain at
points & :
Vmax
2
( y C p t )
cos
Cp

7.21

MX
h,max
direction
of motion
h=0
h,max
1.5
t=to
h/|h,max|
|cos|
0.5
-0.5
t=to+T/2
-1
-1.5
0
45
90 135 180 225 270 315 360

axis of propagation
& axis of strong motion
angle is measured clockwise,

starting from z-axis
Transverse S-wave (yz-plane)

z
section view
y
direction of
2
propagation
( y C s t )
u z = Amax sin

max
ground strain:
yz =
u z
y
12
h,max=max/2
max/2
11
h,&'
structure strain:
V
2
= yz / 2 = max cos ( y Cs t )
2Cs
Vmax
2
( y C s t )
cos
2C s

7.22
h , & ' = yz / 2 =

compression
max/2
Principal strains (tensile and compressive)

are located at a plane inclined by 45
12
(why??)
11
extension
max/2
strong motion axis
1.5
sin2
t=to
h/|h,max |
h,max=max/2
max/2
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
t=to+T/2
-1.5
propagation axis
y
45
90 135 180 225 270 315 360

Transverse S-wave (z-plane)
side view
direction of
propagation
z
2
(z C s t )
u x = Amax sin

ground strain=
structure strain:
u x Vmax
2
(z C s t )
=
cos
z
Cs

7.23
strong motion axis
1.5
/|max|
t=to
0.5
sin2
-0.5
-1
t=to+T/2
-1.5
0
45
90 135 180 225 270 315 360

propagation axis
Transverse S-wave propagation results in shear structure strains

(as in the case of S-wave propagation along the axis, at xy-plane)
but with different strain distribution along the cross-section
Summarizing
Case
P-wave along the axis
(xy)
S-wave along the axis
(xy)
,max
Vmax
max
Cp
Vmax
Cs
Vmax
Transverse P-wave (yz)
Vmax
Transverse S-wave (yz)

Transverse S-wave (xz)
h,max
Vmax
Cp
2C s
Cs
7.24
However, in the real world

a seismic wave will cross the axis of the structure under a
random angle , measured at the plane defined by the
structure axis and the wave propagation axis.
Orientation of this plane at the 3-D space is random (there
is no practical way to predict it or define it)
direction of
wave propagation
structure axis
plane of
wave motion
wave-structure
plane
7.25
A SV-wave (the direction of motion coincides with the

plane of propagation xy) can be analyzed into 4
apparent waves:
Amax
transverse P (xy plane)

& transverse S (xy plane)
-wavelength /sin
-propagation velocity Cs/sin
/sin
x'
Amax
Amaxcos
-Amaxsin
direction of
wave propagation
P, S along the axis

(xy plane)
-wavelength /cos
-propagation velocity Cs/cos
(the wave period is constant)
x
Amax
structure axis
/cos
In order to estimate maximum design strains for this

generic case, we must consider:
a) superposition of strains (distribution along the cross-section)
that result from each apparent wave propagation.
b) maximization of the resulting expressions for strains, to
eliminate the unknown angles &
(angle is the angle formed by the plane of strong motion and

the plane of propagation, and is defined for S-waves only)
7.26
Implementing this procedure for S- and P-waves propagating at a random

angle relatively to the structure axis, results in the following maximum design strains...
maximum strains
S-wave
(normalized over the
Vmax/Cs ratio)
P-wave
Vmax/Cp ratio)
axial
0.50
1.00
shear
1.00
1.00
hoop h
0.50
1.00
von Misses vM
0.87/(1+ l)
1.00/(1+ l)
major principal 1
0.71
1.00
minor principal 3
-0.71
-1.00
ATTENTION: Strain components do not attain these maximum values at the

same position along the cross-section. Thus, simply adding them to derive von
Misses and principal strains is an over-conservative approach.

Underground structures are located relatively close to the ground
surface, and are subjected to surface Rayleigh wave effects too (e.g.
at valleys, near slopes, at large distances from rupture)

A Rayleigh waves is equivalent to a
P-wave and a SV-wave, propagating
simultaneously and featuring a
phase lag equal to /2
S-component
x'
ATTENTION: We should not just...
6
P-component
Rayleigh wave
structure axis
x
add strains for a P-wave and a SVwave propagating at the same

angle in order to find the
maximum strains, as maxima do
not occur at the same time.
7.27
Maximum (after proper superposition) design strains for

a Rayleigh wave propagating at a random angle relatively
to the structure axis:
maximum strain
R-wave
Vmax,V/CR ratio)
axial
0.68
shear
hoop h
0.68
von Misses vM
0.86/(1+ l)
major principal 1
0.68
minor principal 3
-0.68
Note:
Rayleigh wave propagation velocity CR0.94 Cs is estimated at a depth z=1.0R
It is worth trying to verify the above expressions for Rayleigh waves at home!
7.28
Homework
Leukada 16/8/03 earthquake
0.4
Vmax=0.317m/sec
homogeneous soil
Cs=200m/sec =1/3
V (m/s)
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0
10
Time (s)
15
20
Verify the structural integrity of the following structures:

steel pipeline
concrete tunnel
- D=1.5m, t=0.015m
- allcompression=40t/d (%)<5% (EC8)
- allextension =2% for the main body
=0.5% for peripheral
butt welds
- D=10m, t=0.20m
- allcompression=0.35%
- allextension=2%
Justify the expressions that you apply for the estimation of seismic strains!
7.29
Consider the case of an underground structure located in

a soft soil layer, overlying the bedrock
Seismic waves propagate to the
soil-bedrock interface at a random
angle rock, refract, and continue to
the soft soil layer
soil
Csoil
according to Snells law:

cosasoil = cosarock
rock
Crock
soil
rock
Csoil
Crock
the predominant period of

the refracted wave
is not altered, thus...
soil = rock
Csoil
Crock
The refracted wave, propagating at an angle soil relatively to the

structure, can be analyzed (as before) into apparent waves...
A. a horizontal apparent wave with a propagation velocity Csoil/cosasoil
trans=soil/sinsoil
soil
structure axis
(projection)
axial=soil/cossoil
soil
rock
rock/cosrock
and
wavelength: horiz = soil cosa
soil
rock
Csoil
Crock
cosarock
Csoil
Crock
horiz =
rock
The horizontal apparent wave is equivalent to the apparent wave

propagating alongGEORGE
the BOUCKOVALAS,
soil-bedrock
interface.
National Technical
University of Athes, Greece, 2011
cosarock
7.30
B. a vertical apparent wave with a propagation velocity Csoil/sinasoil

C
on the other
sinsoil = 1 cos 2 soil = 1 cos 2 rock soil
hand:
Crock
1
0.125
0.25
0.333
0.96
sinsoil
0.92
Csoil/Crock=0.5
0.88
0.84
0
10 20 30
40 50
rock
60 70 80
90
So, the apparent propagation velocity of the vertical apparent wave is

practically equal to the wave propagation velocity in soft soil Csoil
(and trans=soil=Csoil T)
An extra, unknown parameter must be considered here, compared to the
homogeneous rockmass case- the angle rock
Design strains are estimated via the superposition of strains along the crosssection, and the subsequent maximization of the resulting expressions for the
unknown angles , rock
normalized
strains
S-wave
(C=CS)
P-wave
(C=CP)
axial
0.50Csoil/Crock
0.3Csoil/Crock
shear
0.43Csoil/Crock+0.98
2.0Csoil/Crock
hoop h
0.36Csoil/Crock+0.50
0.5Csoil/Crock+1.0
von Misses vM
(0.38Csoil/Crock+0.85)/(1+l)
(0.58Csoil/Crock+1.0)/(1+l)
major principal 1
0.5Csoil/Crock+0. 5
0.63Csoil/Crock+1.0
minor principal 3
-0.5Csoil/Crock-0. 5
-0.63Csoil/Crock-1.0
Vmax
C soil
The above expressions are valid for Csoil/Crock ratio values less than 0.35. For Csoil/Crock>0.35 , results will
be over-conservative, and the use of the corresponding expressions for homogeneous rockmass conditions is
proposed.
7.31
Comparison to ALA-ASCE (2001) recommendations

ALA-ASCE 2001 a =
Vmax
aC
Vmax= peak ground velocity generated by ground

shaking
C=
apparent propagation velocity for seismic waves,

conservatively (?) assumed to be equal to
2000 m/s.
a=
1 for P and R waves, 2 for S waves

Strains
S-wave
(C=CS)
P-wave
(C=CP)
axial
0.50Vmax/Crock
0.3Vmax/Crock
shear
(0.98+0.43Csoil/Crock) Vmax/Csoil
2.00Vmax/Crock
hoop h
Comparison to ALA-ASCE (2001) recommendations

input data:
Csoil=200m/sec
Crock=2000m/sec (bedrock)
Cp=2Cs
Vmax=75cm/sec
Homogeneous rock
Soft soil
Strains
Rayleigh wave
S-wave
P-wave
S-wave
P-wave
axial
0.019%
0.019%
0.019%
0.005%
0.255%
shear
0.037%
0.019%
0.383%
0.037%
0.375%
hoop h
0.019%
0.019%
0.201%
0.196%
0.255%
a =
Vmax
ALA-ASCE 2001
aC =0.037% (conservatively a=1)
major discrepancy...!
7.32
Homework
Repeat the previous homework assignment for the case where the
the structure is constructed near the surface of a homogeneous soft
soil layer (CS,SOIL=200m/s), overlying the marl bedrock
(CS,ROCK=700m/s).
Case studies of underground structures failures during

Kobe & Chi-Chi earthquakes
10
7
120cm/sec
8
9
11
2
24
60cm/sec
6
1 failure sites
23 30N
121 30E
121E
120 30E
epicenter
rupture
30 km
7.33
Case studies of underground structures failures during

Kobe & Chi-Chi earthquakes
10
8
8
24
2
4
1 failure sites
Holocene alluvium
Pleistocene deposits
Miocene deposits
Oligocene deposits
Neocene deposits
Metamorphic rocks
23 30N
121 30E
121E
120 30E
bedrock
epicenter
rupture
0
30 km
Soil classification
NEHRP (1997)
Hard rock
CS (m/sec)
This study
CS (m/sec)
CS>1500
Granite bedrock
2000
B1
760<CS<1500
Rocks
Cretaceous rocks (igneous and

metamorphic rocks, limestone, solid
volcanic deposits)
B2
Stiff soils and soft rocks (PleioPleistocence sandstones,

conglomerates, schists, marls)
Stiff soils
Soft soils
360< CS <760
Pleistocene clayey deposits, sands and

gravels
180< CS <360
Holocence alluvium (sand, gravels,

clay) and man-made deposits
850
550
250
soft soil
Very stiff soils/soft

rocks
1200
CS<180
7.34
Frequency of failure types

40
30
20
18
18
15
10
8
2
2
pl
ift
flo
or
u
cr
ac
ks
ot
he
rc
ra
ck
s
sh
ea
rc
ci
ra
rc
ck
um
s
fe
re
st e
nt
el
ia
lc
re
in
ra
fo
ck
rc
s
em
en
tb
uc
kl
in
g
lo
ng
i
tu
di
na
l
0
sp
al
lin
number of recorded failures
34
Failure criterion
development of cracks wider than w>0.2mm
crack width is related to the stress applied on the steel reinforcement bars
(Gergely and Lutz, 1968, ACI Committee 224, 1995)
w = 0.076 f s 3 dc A
for a typical tunnel... fs,lim=140MPa
failure when:
1*steel >fs,lim
stresses higher than fs,lim suggest larger crack widths, or concrete spalling
7.35
a-posteriori failure prediction

600
this study
ASCE-ALA/EC8
fs,lim for crack width=0.2mm
550
500
450
proposed: 64%
ASCE&EC8: 8%
s (Pa)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
soil type:A
B1
14
B2
19
29
Number of failures
D
47
38
Prediction of actual structure response

600
550
500
structures that failed

structures that survived
fs,lim for crack width 0.2mm
450
s (Pa)
400
350
300
proposed: 74%
ASCE&EC8: 57%
+ all non-successful predictions of ASCE & C8

are non-conservative estimates
250
200
150
100
50
0
soil type:A
B1
34
B2
52
C
78
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National

Technicalof
University
Number
failuresof Athes, Greece, 2011
D
92
101
7.36
Afterword
The presented analytical expressions are valid for flexible (F>20), and infinitely long
underground structures. The stress state becomes more complicated in areas of bends and
-ees. However, analytical methodologies have been proposed for such cases too, and
provide relatively accurate results. When the underground structure is constructed by
discrete, jointed pieces, the flexibility of the joints must also be taken into account in the
assessment of its response.
Generally speaking, when the in-situ conditions diverge significantly from the discussed
assumptions, more elaborate numerical analysis tools must be applied for the seismic
design of the underground structure. The structure is modeled as a beam or a shell, soilstructure interaction is simulated via elasto-plastic springs, and the seismic excitation is
applied at the base of the springs that are used to model soil response.
An extensive presentation of such numerical methodologies is beyond the scope of this
lecture. Their basic principles are however presented in the following case study,
regarding the numerical stress analysis of a crude oil steel pipeline, due to the possible
activation of a normal and a strike slip fault crossing its route (permanent ground
displacements)
7.37

Structures
displacements
displacements
7.38
C.J. Gantes, G.D. Boukovalas

Department of Civil Engineering
National Technical University of Athens
ANALYSIS
OF BURIED PIPELINES
AT FAULT CROSSINGS
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Contents of presentation
Pipeline Geometry, Material Properties & Construction Techniques

Failure Criteria
Downthrows at Seismic Faults
Pipeline Modeling - Fault Movement Modeling
Beam & Mixed Model Results - Influence of Internal Pressure
Conclusions

Gantes & Bouckovalas ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES AT FAULT CROSSINGS
7.39
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Geometry, material properties and

construction techniques
At the specific locations of active faults crossings, heavy wall NPS 16 line
pipes with a wall thickness of 8.74mm will be installed, made of API5LX60 steel.
The nominal backfill cover varies from 0.60m in rocky areas to 0.90m in
cross-country areas and 1.20m under major roads.
The pipeline steel is modeled with a typical API-5LX60 tri-linear stressstrain curve based on the provisions of ASCE.
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Pipeline material properties
600
600
(2,2)
(1,1)
500
400
(minimum)
Ultimate Tensile Strength
(minimum)
Yield Strength
200
stress (MPa)
STRESS (MPa)
400
300
E=210.000 KPa
0
-100
-200
200
100
-300
-400
-500
Tri-linear Idealization
Ramberg-Osgood
0
STRAIN (%)
-600
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
strain

7.40
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Failure criteria
Pipelines resist the imposed displacements mainly through axial (tensile or

compressive) strains, thus it is more meaningful to talk in terms of strains
than stresses.
Considered Failure Criteria
1. Limiting compressive strain to avoid elastic or plastic buckle, associated
with local wrinkling.
e*c = 0.84 0.0035
D
t
For an NPS 16 in. x 8.74mm pipe the former expression yields 0.677%.
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Failure criteria
2. Limiting the tensile strain for girth welds due to metallurgical

alterations induced to the heat-affected zone during the welding process.
The allowable tensile strain for butt (peripheral) welding is
conservatively taken as 5. The latter criterion is used throughout
the analysis.
Section Conclusions
Relative ground movements caused by fault rupture
are displacement-controlled
The limiting strain is taken equal to 5
7.41
Downthrows
at seismic faults
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Two fault types are considered:

Normal fault
Strike slip fault
The critical crossings are identified with reference to:
Anticipated ground movements
Geology at the area of crossing
Angle of intersection between fault trace and pipeline axis
National
Technical
University
of Athens

Wells & Coppersmith,
1994).
.

7.42
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Normal ffault
ault
Fault geometry
Y
Pipeline axis
Pipeline axis
Fault trace
Fault trace
Anticipated downthrow DZ = 30 cm
DX = DZ cot( ) cos( ) DY = DZ cot( ) sin( )

For =45 and = 63 DX=DY=0.36DZ
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Strike slip fault

Fault geometry
X
Y
Pipeline axis
Fault trace
Anticipated left lateral Slip S = 30 cm, =80
DX = S cos( ) = 0.17 S
DY = S sin ( ) = 0.98S

7.43
10
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Pipeline modeling
Non linear FE Analysis for material behavior and large deformations are
considered using NASTRAN.
Two models, a beam (BM) and a mixed beam-shell model (MM) are used for
the analysis.
A straight pipeline segment of length 1200m is considered for both models
and the fault rupture is applied in the middle.
The Beam Model (BM) implements 3D beam elements, having the
mechanical properties of a tube with 16 diameter and 8.74mm thickness
made of API-5LX60 steel.
The Mixed Model (MM) combines shell elements near the expected fault
to capture stress concentrations, and 3D beam elements further away
from the fault, where low stresses are expected. Coupling of shell and the
beam part of the model is done with the use of rigid elements.
National
Technical
University
of Athens
11
Pipeline modeling
V1
L1
C1
G14
Z
Y
X
Coupling of shell and beam elements

7.44
12
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Modeling of soil
around buried pipelines
The soil is modeled with four sets of inelastic springs, two in

the local X-Y plane and two in the global vertical Z direction
where different upward and downward reactions occur
The soil springs are computed

assuming cohesionless materials
(sands) such as the backfill soil
used along the pipeline route
Properties of the springs are calculated according to

ALA-ASCE (2005) guidelines for the seismic design of buried pipelines
(for sand trench backfill)
National
Technical
University
of Athens
13
Pipeline modeling
Transverse soil springs in the beam part of the model

7.45
14
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Pipeline modeling
Transverse soil springs in the shell part of the model

National
Technical
University
of Athens
15
Pipeline modeling
Transverse soil springs in the shell part of the model

7.46
16
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Axial soil springs
Maximum axial soil force

per unit length of
the pipeline
+1
Tu = DH 0 tan
2
2 3 for a steel pipeline
t= 3mm (dense sand)
5mm (loose sand)
[sum of interface shear (friction) forces along the perimeter of the pipeline]
National
Technical
University
of Athens
17
Transverse horizontal
soil springs
These springs simulate the resistance from the surrounding soils to any
horizontal translation of the pipeline. Thus, the mechanisms of soilpipeline interaction are similar to those of vertical anchor plates or
footings moving horizontally relative to the surrounding soils and thus
mobilizing a passive type of earth pressure.
Relationship between force p per unit
length and horizontal displacement y
p=
y
A +By
A = 0.15 yu/pu
B = 0.85/pu
pu = H Nqh D
Nqh=horizontal bearing capacity factor
for loose sand
yu = 0.07 to 0.10 (H+D/2)
0.02 to 0.03 (H+D/2)
for dense sand
7.47
18
Transverse horizontal
soil springs
National
Technical
University
of Athens
maximum lateral soil

force per unit length
Pu = N qh HD
[passive earth pressure on a

horizontally moving shallow
footing]
bearing capacity factor

for sand (Hanshen, 1961)
19
Transverse vertical
soil springs
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Downward Motions: the pipeline is assumed to act as a

cylindrically-shaped strip footing and the ultimate soil
resistance qu is given by conventional bearing capacity
theory. For cohesionless soils the force per unit length
is:
qu = H Nq D+ 0.5 D 2 N
Nq, N = bearing capacity factors for horizontal

strip footings, vertically loaded in the downward
direction
=
effective unit weight of soil

7.48
20
Transverse vertical
soil springs
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Downward Motions: the pipeline is assumed to act as a

cylindrically-shaped strip footing and the ultimate soil
resistance qu is given by conventional bearing capacity
theory. For cohesionless soils the force per unit length
is:
Meyerhof, 1965
qu = H Nq D+ 0.5 D 2 N
Nq, N = bearing capacity factors for horizontal

strip footings, vertically loaded in the downward
direction
=
effective unit weight of soil

21
Transverse vertical
soil springs
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Upward motions: Based on tests performed with

pipes buried in dry uniform sand, the
relationship between the force q and the vertical
upward displacement z, has been shown to vary
according to the following hyperbolic relation
q=
A = 0.07 zu /qu
B = 0.93/qu
ultimate uplift resistance
z
A +Bz
qu = H Nqv D
Trautmann & O Rourke, 1983
The vertical uplift factor Nqv is a function of the depth to diameter ratio H/D
and the friction angle of the soil
7.49
22
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Load modeling
Fault activation is modeled as an imposed displacement

at the base of the soil springs attached on one side of the fault line
Fault
movement
Deformed shape
National
Technical
University
of Athens
23
Load modeling
For the Mixed Model the internal pressure is modeled as a uniform load
normal to the internal face of the shell elements. The nominal pressure is
10.2 MPa according to the specification of ASME.
The displacement field is imposed in a number of steps to capture eventual

non-linearities in the pipes response with regard to fault rapture
7.50
24
Normal ffault
ault
rresults
esults
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Beam Model Deflected shape

National
Technical
University
of Athens
25
Normal ffault
ault
rresults
esults
Beam Model Axial spring stresses

7.51
26
Normal ffault
ault
rresults
esults
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Beam Model Stresses
Beam Model Strains

National
Technical
University
of Athens
27
Normal ffault
ault
rresults
esults
Mixed Model Deflected shape

7.52
28
Normal ffault
ault
rresults
esults
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Percentage Difference of Total Translation

8%
Disp 0.15 m
Difference
4%
Disp 0.30 m
0%
-4%
-8%
580
585
590
595
600
605
610
615
620
Pipe Length (m)
Mixed Model % difference of total translation due to internal pressure

29
Normal ffault
ault
rresults
esults
National
Technical
University
of Athens
No pressure
Major Stress at Bottom Plane
500
Mixed Model Stresses
disp = 0,15 m
disp = 0,30 m
300
200
Major Strain at Bottom Plane
100
0
580
0.30%
585
590
595
600
605
610
615
disp = 0,15 m
0.25%
620
Pipeline length (m)
disp = 0,30 m
0.20%
Strain
Stress (MPa)
400
0.15%
0.10%
Mixed Model Strains
0.05%
0.00%
580
585
590
595
600
605
Pipeline length (m)

610
615
620
7.53
30
Normal ffault
ault
rresults
esults
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Pressure 10.2 MPa

Major Stress at Bottom Plane
500
disp = 0,15 m
disp = 0,30 m
300
200

100
0
580
0.30%
disp = 0,15 m
0.25%
585
590
595
600
605
610
615
620
disp = 0,30 m
0.20%
Pipeline length (m)

Strain
Stress (MPa)
400
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
Mixed Model Strains
0.00%
580
585
590
595
600
605
610
615
620
Pipeline length (m)

31
Normal ffault
ault
rresults
esults
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Mixed Model Strains

With pressure
Displacement 0.30m
Mixed Model Strains

With pressure
Displacement 0.15m

7.54
32
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Strike sslip
lip ffault
ault
rresults
esults
Beam Model Deflected shape

National
Technical
University
of Athens
33
Strike sslip
lip ffault
ault
rresults
esults
Beam Model Axial spring stresses

7.55
34
Strike sslip
lip ffault
ault
rresults
esults
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Beam Model Stresses
Beam Model Strains

35
Strike sslip
lip ffault
ault
rresults
esults
National
Technical
University
of Athens
No Pressure
0.40%
0.20%
disp = 0.15 m
disp = 0.30 m
0.10%
0.00%
580
585
590
595
600
605
610
615
620
Pipeline length (m)
0.40%
0.30%
disp = 0.15 m
Strain
Strain
0.30%
0.20%
disp = 0.30 m
0.10%
Mixed Model Strains

Pressure 10.2 MPa
0.00%
580
585
590
595
600
605
Pipeline length (m)

610
615
620
7.56
36
Strike sslip
lip ffault
ault
rresults
esults
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Mixed Model Strains

With pressure
Displacement 0.30m
Mixed Model Strains

With pressure
Displacement 0.15m
National
Technical
University
of Athens
37
Analysis conclusions
No failure of the pipeline at zones of active faults is expected.

For the strike-slip fault case yielding of the pipeline at places near the
fault is anticipated.
Good agreement of the results from the two models for both studies is
observed.

7.57
38
National
Technical
University
of Athens
Construction
countermeasures
Heavy wall sections near active faultsThis measure will increase the pipeline
stiffness relative to that of the backfill and will lead to smaller curvatures and
smaller internal strains
Arrangement of loose backfill around the pipe, extending beyond the anticipated
displacement along the critical zone
Wrap the pipeline with a proper, friction reducing geotextile which will provide a
lower friction coefficient
Enclose the pipeline within a casing, so that the pipeline can move freely along the
intensely distorted length, on both sides of the fault trace
National
Technical
University
of Athens
39
Construction
countermeasures

7.58
40

Geot Earthquake Eng Ch7 UGRND ADERS 10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geot Earthquake Eng Ch7 UGRND ADERS 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7.

Civil Engineer, Ph.D. N.T.U.A.

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

The following presentation focuses initially on the

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

. Earthquakes and Underground

earthquake-induced transient ground displacements...

Love wave (R)

shear wave (S)

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Locations of underground structures (concrete tunnels) that failed during the

Locations of underground structures (concrete tunnels) that failed during the

Correlation of strong motion levels with underground structure failures

earthquake-induced permanent ground displacements...

...are due to ground failure attributed to seismic effects. Typical examples

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Tunnel collapse due to fault rupture propagation

Empirical relations for the determination of the MEAN anticipated

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

transverse permanent displacement

Ching-Shue tunnel before and after Chi-Chi earthquake

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Failures at the portals of Ling-Leng tunnel (left)

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

. Earthquakes and Underground

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

No sliding at the soil-structure interface

the 3rd assumption is valid when

m=grounds Youngs modulus

Example: steel pipeline (e.g. natural gas pipeline)

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

the 3rd assumption is valid when

m=grounds Youngs modulus

Example: concrete tunnel (e.g. Metro tunnel)

the 3rd assumption is valid when

m=grounds Youngs modulus

Example: concrete sewage pipeline

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

No sliding at the soil-structure interface

Strain state of thin-walled underground structures

=wavelength C=propagation velocity t=time

P-wave propagating along the axis

S-wave propagating along the axis

A full-slip assumption at the soilstructure interface would suggest that

adopting the shear beam model

strain distribution along the cross-section

strains on a 3-D shell

strong motion axis

polar angle (degrees)

angle is measured clockwise,

Transverse P-wave (yz plane)

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

strain distribution along the cross-section

90 135 180 225 270 315 360

angle is measured clockwise,

Transverse S-wave (yz-plane)

strain distribution along the cross-section

Principal strains (tensile and compressive)

strong motion axis

90 135 180 225 270 315 360

Transverse S-wave (z-plane)

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011