Geomechanics and Engineering

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Beam models for continuous pipelines passing through liquefiable regions

  • Adil Yigit (Istanbul Rumeli University, Civil Engineering Department)
  • Received : 2021.09.27
  • Accepted : 2024.04.06
  • Published : 2024.04.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Buried pipelines can be classified as continuous and segmented pipelines. These infrastructures can be damaged either by ground movement or by seismic wave propagation during an earthquake. Permanent ground deformations (PGD) include surface faulting, liquefaction-induced lateral spreading and landslide. Liquefaction is a major problem for both superstructures and infrastructures. Buyukcekmece lake zone, which is the studied region in this paper, is a liquefaction prone area located near the North Anatolian Fault Line. It is an active fault line in Turkey and a major earthquake with a magnitude of around 7.5 is expected in this investigated region in Istanbul. It is planned to be constructed a new 12" steel natural gas pipeline from one side of the lake to the other side. In this study, this case has been examined in terms of two different support conditions. Firstly, it has been defined as a beam in liquefied soil and has built-in supports at both ends. In the other approach, this case has been modeled as a beam in liquefied soil and has vertical elastic pinned supports at both ends. These models have been examined and some solution proposals have been produced according to the obtained results. In this study, based on this sample, it is aimed to determine the behaviors of buried continuous pipelines subject to liquefaction effects in terms of buoyancy.

Keywords

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1984), Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifeline, ASCE.
  2. Castiglia, M., Magistris, F.S., Onori, F. and Koseki, J. (2021), "Response of buried pipelines to repeated shaking in liquefiable soils through model tests", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106629.
  3. Castiglia, M., Fierro, T. and Magistris, F.S. (2020), "Pipeline performances under earthquake-induced soil liquefaction: State of the art on real observations, model tests, and numerical simulations", Shock Vib., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8874200.
  4. Castiglia, M., De Magistris, F.S. and Napolitano, A. (2018), "Stability of onshore pipelines in liquefied soils: Overview of computational methods", Geomech. Eng., 14(4), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2018.14.4.355.
  5. Chou, J. and Lin, D. (2020), "Incorporating ground motion effects into Sasaki and Tamura prediction equations of liquefaction-induced uplift of underground structures", Geomech. Eng., 22(1), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2020.22.1.025.
  6. Hou, Z., Cai, J. and Liu, X. (1990), "Response calculation of oil pipeline subjected to permanent ground movement induced by soil liquefaction", Proceedings of the China-Japan Symposium on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
  7. Indian Institute of Technology (IITK, 2007), Guidelines for Seismic Design of Buried Pipelines. Indian: Kanpur.
  8. Isik, A., Unsal, N., Gurbuz, A. and Sisman, E. (2016), "Assessment of liquefaction potential of Fethiye based on spt and shear wave velocity", J. Fac. Eng. Architect. Gazi Univ., 31(4), 1027-1037. https://doi.org/10.17341/gummfd.12917.
  9. Istanbul Buyuksehir Belediyesi (IBB), Deprem ve Zemin Inceleme Mudurlugu (2019), Istanbul Deprem Calistayi, Istanbul, Turkiye (In Turkish).
  10. Kim, H., Kim, M., Baise, L.G. and Kim, B. (2020), "Local and regional evaluation of liquefaction potential index and liquefaction severity number for liquefaction-induced sand boils in pohang, South Korea", Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng., 141(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106459
  11. Miyamoto, J., Sassa, S., Tsurugasaki, K. and Sumida, H. (2020), "Wave-Induced liquefaction and floatation of a pipeline in a drum centrifuge", J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng., 146(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000547.
  12. Molina-Gomez, F., Caicedo, B. and Viana da Fonseca, A. (2019), "Physical modelling of soil liquefaction in a novel micro shaking table", Geomech. Eng., 19(3), 229-240. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2019.19.3.229.
  13. Nourzadeh, D., Mortazavi, P., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Takada, S. and Ahmadi, M., (2019), "Performance assessment of the Greater Tehran Area buried gas distribution pipeline network under liquefaction", Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng., 124, 16-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.05.033.
  14. Ozocak, A. and Tapan, M. (2014), "The influence of pore size distribution and radial consolidation properties on the liquefaction potential of silts", J. Fac. Eng. Architect.Gazi Univ., 29(1), 35-47.
  15. Papadimitriou, A.G., Bouckovalas, G.D., Nyman, D.J. and Valsamis, A.I. (2019), "Analysis of buried steel pipelines at watercourse crossings under liquefaction-induced lateral spreading", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105772.
  16. Pisano, F., Cremonesi, M., Cecinato, F. and Vecchia, G.D. (2020), "CFD-Based framework for analysis of soil-pipeline interaction in reconsolidating liquefied sand", J. Eng. Mech., 146(10). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001846.
  17. Sonmezer, Y.B., Akyuz, A. and Kayabali, K. (2020), "Investigation of the effect of grain size on liquefaction potential of sands", Geomech. Eng., 20(3), 243-254. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2020.20.3.243.
  18. Sonmezer, B.Y. (2019a), "Energy-based evaluation of liquefaction potential of uniform sands", Geomech. Eng., 17(2), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2019.17.2.145.
  19. Sonmezer, B.Y. (2019b), "Investigation of the liquefaction potential of fiber-reinforced sand", Geomech. Eng., 18(5), 503-513. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2019.18.5.503.
  20. Sudevan, P.B., Boominathan, A. and Banerjee, S., (2020), "Mitigation of liquefaction-induced uplift of underground structures by soil replacement methods", Geomech. Eng., 23(4), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2020.23.4.365.
  21. Trautmann, C.H. and O'Rourke, T.D. (1983), "Load-displacement characteristics of a buried pipe affected by permanent earthquake ground movements", Earthquake Behavior and Safety of Oil and Gas Storage Facilities, Buried Pipelines and Equipment, PVP-77, ASME, New York, June, 254-262.
  22. Ulker, M. (2020), "Comparative study of numerical formulations developed for constitutive modeling of static and dynamic behavior of saturated sands: Proposal of a new hardening law", J. Fac. Eng. Architect. Gazi Univ., 35(3), 1353-1368. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.528145.
  23. Valleti, D., Sivaranjani, S., Shahin, C. and Mondal, S. (2018), "Design of buried flexible pipelines during liquefaction", Int. J. Eng. Technol., 7(2). https://doi.org/10.14419/iijet.v7i2.21.12263.
  24. Wu, Y., Hyodo, M. and Aramaki, N. (2018), "Undrained cyclic shear characteristics and crushing behaviour of silica sand", Geomech. Eng., 14(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2018.14.1.001.
  25. Xia, M. and Zhang, H. (2018), "Stress and deformation analysis of buried gas pipelines subjected to buoyancy in liquefaction zones", Energies, 11(9), 2334. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11092334.
  26. Yigit, A., Lav, M.A. and Gedikli, A. (2018), "Vulnerability of natural gas pipelines under earthquake effects", J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000295
  27. Yigit, A. (2015), "Buried continuous pipelines under the effects of earthquake", PhD Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, September, Istanbul, Turkey.
  28. Yigit, A. (2007), Gomulu Boru Hatlarinin Deprem Etkilerine karsi Davranisi, Yuksek Lisans Tezi, I.T.U. Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, Mayis. (In Turkish).