Performance-Based Seismic Response of Continues Buried Steel Pipelines Under Near-Field Ground Motion Effects

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Civil Eng. Dept., Faculty Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch, Arak, Iran.

2 Civil Eng. Dept., Faculty Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Kangan Branch, Kangan, Iran

Abstract

 Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) attempts to improve seismic risk through assessment and design methods that are more informative than current approaches. However, little work has been performed investigating the seismic response of buried steel pipelines within a performance-based framework. In this paper the seismic response of buried steel pipelines was studied in a performance-based context. Multiple nonlinear dynamic analyses of three buried steel pipes with different diameter to thickness and burial depth to diameter ratios, steel grade and various soil characteristics carried out using an ensemble of near-field ground motion records were scaled to various intensities to capture the behavior of buried pipeline in the range of elastic response to dynamic instability. Peak axial compressive strain in critical section of the pipe was considered as engineering demand parameter (EDP) of pipelines. Several ground motion intensity measures (IMs) are considered to investigate their correlation with EDP. Using the regression analysis in logarithmic space, the efficiency and sufficiency of investigated IMs are studied. Among the models investigated in this study, it was seen that a combined IM, PGV and SMV were the most sufficient IMS. For buried steel pipelines investigated in this study, it was concluded that PGD is the most sufficient IM for near-field ground motions. It was seen that the combined IM followed by SMV were the optimal IM for buried steel pipelines under near-field ground motions based on both efficiency and sufficiency conceptions.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1]  N. Luco, P. Mai, C. Cornell, G. Beroza, Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects, (2002).
[2]  N. Shome, C.A. Cornell, P. Bazzurro, J.E. Carballo, Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses, Earthquake Spectra, 14(3) (1998) 469-500.
[3]  N. Shome, Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures, 1999.
[4]  N. Luco, C.A. Cornell, Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra, 23(2) (2007) 357-392.
[5]  D. Vamvatsikos, C.A. Cornell, Developing efficient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information, Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 34(13) (2005) 1573-1600.
[6]  P. Tothong, N. Luco, Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36(13) (2007) 1837.
[7]  S.S. Mehanny, A broad-range power-law form scalar-based seismic intensity measure, Engineering Structures, 31(7) (2009) 1354-1368.
[8]  M. Bianchini,  P.  Diotallevi,  J.  Baker,  Prediction  of inelastic  structural  response  using  an  average  of spectral accelerations, in: Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR09), Osaka, Japan, 2009, pp. 13-17.
[9]  F. Mollaioli, A. Lucchini, Y. Cheng, G. Monti, Intensity measures for the seismic response prediction of base-isolated buildings, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 11(5) (2013) 1841-1866.
[10]  M. De Biasio, S. Grange, F. Dufour, F. Allain, Petre-Lazar, A simple and efficient intensity measure to account for nonlinear structural behavior, Earthquake Spectra, 30(4) (2014) 1403-1426.
[11]  B. Mackie K. Stojadinovic, Seismic Demands for Performance-Based Design of Bridges, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
[12]  J.E.  Padgett,  R.  DesRoches,  Methodology  for   the development of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted bridges, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(8) (2008) 1157-1174.
[13]  B.A. Bradley, M. Cubrinovski, R.P. Dhakal, G.A. MacRae, Intensity measures for the seismic response of pile foundations, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29(6) (2009) 1046-1058.
[14]  H. Shakib, V. Jahangiri, Intensity measures for the assessment of the seismic response of buried steel pipelines, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 14(4) (2016) 1265-1284.
[15]  C. Davis, J. Bardet, Seismic analysis of large-diameter flexible underground pipes, Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 124(10) (1998) 1005-1015.
[16]  C.A. Cornell, F. Jalayer, R.O. Hamburger, D.A. Foutch, Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines, Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(4) (2002) 526-533.
[17]  H.-S.A. Alfredo, H. Wilson, Probability concepts in engineering planning and design, John Wily and Sons, (1975).
[18]  A.L. Alliance, Guidelines for the design of buried steel pipe, in, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2001.
[19]  A. Hindy, M. Novak, Earthquake response of underground pipelines, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 7(5) (1979) 451-476.
[20]  A.-w. Liu, Y.-x. Hu, F.-x. Zhao, X.-j. Li, S. Takada, L. Zhao, An equivalent-boundary method for the shell analysis of buried pipelines under fault movement, Acta Seismologica Sinica, 17(1) (2004) 150-156.
[21]  M. Bruneau, C.-M. Uang, S.R. Sabelli, Ductile design of steel structures, McGraw Hill Professional, 2011.
[22]  A.U.s.M.R. ANSYS, 5.5, ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, (1998).
[23]  V. Jahangiri, H. Shakib,  Seismic  risk  assessment of buried steel gas pipelines under seismic wave propagation based on fragility analysis, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(3) (2018) 1571-1605.
[24]  SigmaPlot., SigmaPlot for Windows. Ver. 10, in, Systat Software Point Richmond, CA, 2006.
Amirkabir Journal of Civil Engineering
Volume 51, Issue 4
November and December 2019
Pages 619-630

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics