Download - EX C H A N G E Risk
EXperimental & Computational Hybrid Assessment of Natural
Gas Pipelines Exposed to Seismic Risk
Project Meeting
Friday September 1st, 2017
Project Meeting agenda Wednesday 12th April, University of Toronto, Canada (Local Time) – Teleconference with remote partners
ChallengeImportance Objectives WorkshopProject
WP01 State-of-the-art on the performance of seismically excited NG pipelines
• Investigate the literature and interact with the partners of the project from the Oil & Gas industry to form a comprehensive state-of-the-art on natural gas pipeline systems and networks as well as their performance under seismic loading.
• Populate the state-of-the-art with existing measurements from onsite pipeline monitoring and on site inspection methods obtained through the participating SMEs.
ChallengeImportance Objectives WorkshopProject
Hybrid experimentation on principle failure modes of the soil-pipeline system
WP02
ChallengeImportance Objectives WorkshopProject
3D numerical simulation of soil-pipeline interaction
WP03
• 2D/3D Finite Element models for soil-pipeline interaction• Develop the numerical modules required for the main
Hybrid Test prescribed in WP02 and new macro-elements for soil-pipeline interaction after experimental validation (WP02)
ChallengeImportance Objectives WorkshopProject
Analytical & numerical prediction of spatially variable permanent ground displacements of long NG pipelines
WP04
• A comprehensive analytical and numerical methodology to reliably predict the spatial and temporal variation of seismically induced strains and deformations along a pipeline segment, considering spatial variability of earthquake ground motion and soil-structure interaction.
• Extrapolation from Bridges to Natural Gas Pipelines
ChallengeImportance Objectives WorkshopProject
Multi-damage seismic risk assessment of soil-NG pipeline networks
WP05
• Fragility relationships for pipelines considering the experimentally defined limit stage for multiple damage modes (WP02), soil-pipe interface compliance (WP03), spatial variation of earthquake ground motion along the pipeline (WP04) and different angles of seismic wave incidence (WP04).
• Multi-damage fragility of a single pipeline segment (from connection to connection)
• Seismic Risk of NG pipelines at a Network level based on the performance indicators identified in WP01 simultaneously considering multiple failure modes of the pipes.
ChallengeImportance Objectives WorkshopProject
NG Pipeline inspection and health monitoring for maintenance and rehabilitation
WP06
• Cost-effective monitoring technologies to detect and localize damage for assessing the safety of accessible and non-accessible NG pipelines rapidly after a major earthquake event at specific locations of the Network identified probabilistically (WP07).
ChallengeImportance Objectives WorkshopProject
Rapid stochastic assessment of post-earthquake health of NG pipelines
WP07
• Develop the DEcision Support System for RApid Pipeline Recovery (DESSRAP), i.e., a comprehensive methodology, softwareand operational recommendations for rapid stochastic assessment of post-earthquake health condition of buried steel pipelines in areas of potentially significant ground-induced deformations.
• Integrate the DESSRAP methodology in a Shake Map –based GIS Software development for Seismic Resilience of NG Networks
Financial Issues
Financial issues
• 65% pre-financing already paid = 545,400€ (909,000€*0,65-45,450 € guarantee fund)
• 50% of the CA to to EU academic partners (through them)
Financial issues
Compensation to industrial partners
Naples -> VCE completed
Naples -> NGI (in progress, from Naples)
Kiel -> VCE (through UoB)
Weimar -> VCE (through UoB)
UoB -> Hochtief (UoB)
AUTh -> NGI (through UoB)
Secondments for 2017, templates and rules
Prescribed secondments
Visits for 2016-19, templates and rules
• Minimum visit: 1 calendar month (not necessarily one-off, may be broken down in smaller visits provided that the person, host and sending institution remain the same)
• Maximum visit: 12 months • For 1<visits<12months: payment is computed based on a 30day month definition
Visits for 2016-19, templates and rules
• This can be slightly revisited (already modified slightly) as long as it does not change the budget and the scope and is approved by the PO.
Visits for 2016-early 2017
Secondments so far (accomplished only) = 25.7% Secondments so far (accomplished + initiated) = 37.6 % (75/202)Month 20/48 = 41.6%
Advisory Committee / Visit to Canada
• Spyros Karamanos, Professor & Chair, University of Edinburgh, UK & University of Thessaly, Greece
• Solomon Tesfamariam, Assoc. Professor, University of British Columbia, Canada
• Ad Shadat, Vice President, VP Operations of PICA, RussellTech, Canada
• Qishi Chen, Director, Pipelines & Structures, C-FER Technologies, Canada
Meeting with PO
• Anytime/Anywhere: end of October – early November
• Re-distribute man-months and funding (new Consortium Agreement may need to be re-signed)
• University of Massachusetts, Amherst as additional partner in the US
16ECEE, Thessaloniki, 2018 (next meeting / Special Session)
INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCE OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINE NETWORKS
International Workshop and Project Meeting Hochtief Engineering GmbH, Lyoner Strasse 25
D-60528 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Thursday 31 August –Friday 1 September 2017
PROGRAMME OUTLINE
Horizon 2020Call: H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015 Topic: MSCA-RISE-2015
Action: MSCA-RISE Proposal Number: 691213
Proposal Acronym: EXCHANGE-Risk Time Frame: 1-1-2016 to 31-12-2019, 48 months
Person Months: 202 Budget: € 950,000 Work Packages: 9
WP0: Management
WP1: State-of-the-art on the performance of seismically excited NG pipelines WP2: Hybrid experimentation on principle failure modes of soil-pipeline system WP3:3D numerical simulation of soil-pipeline-interaction WP4: Analytical and numerical prediction of spatially variable permanent ground displacements of long NG pipelines WP5:Multi-damage, multi-angle vulnerability of soil-NG pipeline networks WP6: NG pipeline inspection and health monitoring for maintenance and rehab WP7: Rapid stochastic assessment of post-earthquake health of NG pipelines WP8: Dissemination
PARTNER AUTH ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI (AUTH)
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
DIVISION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
I. LABORATORY OF STRENGTH OF MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES & EARTHQUAKE SIMULATOR FACILITY II. LABORATORY OF APPLIED STATICS & DYNAMICS OF STRUCTURES Principal Investigator for AUTH: Professor George D. Manolis, Director Email: [email protected] Site Information: http://strength.civil.auth.gr, http://static.civil.auth.gr, http://statdyn.civil.auth.gr http://hcouper.weebly.com
PAST AUTH PROJECT ON PIPELINES
Title: Seismic Behaviour and Vulnerability of Buried Lifelines Funded by: EC EPOCH Programme
Budget: Ecu 300,000 Time Period: 9/1991 to 12/1993
Researchers: Dr. Oswald Klingmuller, Coordinator for a Consortium of five Organizations including the AUTH group of D.G Talaslidis, G.D. Manolis & K. Pitilakis Sample Publications: O. Klingmuller, K. Makropoulos, D. Diamantidis, G.M. Manfredini, F. Zuccarelli, D. Talaslidis, K. Pitilakis, G.D. Manolis, I. Constantopoulos and I. Pasgianos, Seismic Hazard to Buried Lifelines, Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, Austria, Aug. 28 - Sept. 2, 1994, TU Wien Publication, 1994.
O. Klingmuller, D. Diamantidis, G.M. Manfredini, F. Zuccarelli, I. Constantopoulos, J. Nuyens, G.D. Manolis, I. Pasgianos, K. Pitilakis, D. Talaslidis and K. Makropoulos, Aseismic Design of Buried Lifelines, pp. 1121-1128, Vol. 2, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Earthquake Resistant Construction and Design, Edited by S. A. Savidis, Berlin, Germany, July 15-17, 1994, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1994. Klingmuller, D. Diamantidis, G.M. Manfredini, F. Zuccarelli, I. Constantopoulos, J. Nuyens, G.D. Manolis, I. Pasgianos, K. Pitilakis, D. Talaslidis and K. Makropoulos, Seismic Behaviour and Vulnerability of Buried Lifelines, Workshop on Collaborative European Research Activities for Seismic Risk Prevention and Reduction, ISMES S.p.A.-Seriate, Bergamo, Italy, November 9-11, 1994, EC Directorate General XII, Brussels, Belgium, 1994. G.D. Manolis, P.I. Tetepoulidis, D.G. Talaslidis and G. Apostolidis, Seismic Analysis of Buried Pipeline in a 3D Soil Continuum, Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, Vol. 15, 371-394, 1995.
PART I: OVERVIEW OF PAST WORK
The basic philosophy on design and performance of NG pipelines remains the same as in the past. What has changed since the 1970’s-1980’s, when basic research was done on soil-structure-interaction phenomena, is that we have much information on soil impedance functions and nonlinear soil behavior. What has changed since the 1980’s-1990’s, when basic research was done on numerical methods such as FEM and BEM, is that we have powerful and versatile FEM programs that can handle very large-scale problems involving thousands or even millions DOF. There is now much more emphasis than in the past on stochastic concepts comprising risk analysis, the introduction of fragility curves, and on the reliability of pipeline performance to environmentally-induced loads.
There is much more filtering of research work in contemporary design codes than in the past. This means design code updating is more frequent and practicing engineers need to upgrade their skills. The down side is design code complexity, which may cause over-conservative design. For instance, the current Greek code on building rehabilitation is so strict that it is impossible to find structures built before the 1990’s that can satisfy contemporary seismic performance issues.
PART II: DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR NG PIPELINES Material and Thickness Determination for Strength and Rapture Route and Layout Internal Pressure External Pressure Thermal Loads Ground Failure Phenomena: Liquefaction, Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Gross Settlement Transient Loads: Earthquake-induced Motions, Hydrodynamic Effects Earthquake Fault Breakage Connections and Bends
PART III: LIST OF CONTEMPORARY DESIGN CODES AND STANDARDS
ASME B31.1, ASME Codes for Pressure Piping, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2001. ASME B31.3, Process Piping, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2002. ASMEB31.4, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbon and other Liquids, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2006. ASME B31.8, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2007. CEN 234WG3-103, Pipelines for Gas Transmission, European Committee for Standardization, 1993.
CRF 192, Transportation of Natural and other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, Code of Federal Regulations, 2005. CRF 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline, Code of Federal Regulations, 2005. CSA-Z662-03, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Canadian Standard Association, 2003. ISO 13623, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries: Pipeline Transportation Systems, International Standards Organization, 2000. NEN 3650, Requirements for Steel Pipeline Systems, Canadian Standard Association, 2003. NPD, Guidelines to Regulations relating to Pipeline Systems in the Petroleum Activities, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 1990.
PART IV: HIERARCHY OF ANALYSIS METHODS
Mathematical Models 1D Generalized Beam Model:
Continuously-supported Beam Beam on Elastic Foundation Beam on Poroelastic Foundation
2D Plane Strain/Stress Discs: Hollow Ring with Internal/External Pressure
Plate and Shell Elements 3D Continuum
Numerical Methods of Analysis The Finite Element Method (FEM): General 1D, 2D, 3D Models for the Pipeline under any Type of Loading Conditions: Stress Analysis, Thermal Analysis, Buckling Load Computation, Eigenvalue Extraction, Transient Analysis The Boundary Element Method (BEM): Computation of Soil Impedances, Modeling of Semi-Infinite Media, Computation of Hydrodynamic Loads Hybrid Methods: FEM + BEM + FDM for Soil-Structure-Interaction Modeling and for Fluid-Structure-Interaction
PART V: LIMIT STATE BASED STRENGTH DESIGN Four limit states for pipeline design are identified: [1] Ultimate limit state (ULS), associated with single load application or overload situation: Bursting, local buckling and collapse. [2] Serviceability limit state (SLS), associated with possible failure but reduces the operational capability or utility of a pipeline. [3] Fatigue limit state (FLS), which is a ULS condition accounting for accumulated cyclic load effects: Ratcheting, global buckling and walking. [4] Accidental limit state (ALS) is a condition that, if exceeded, implies loss of structural integrity caused by accidental load: Accumulated plastic strain, strain concentration, accidental loads.
PART VI: SOIL-PIPELINE INTERACTION [1] Pipeline Penetration in Cohesive Soil [2] Pipeline Penetration in Non-cohesive Soil [3] Axial Load-Displacement Response of Pipelines [4] Lateral Load-Displacement Response of Pipelines [5] Seabed soil-pipe interaction affects:
On-bottom lateral stability of pipelines under hydrodynamic forces. Thermal expansion of pipelines and global buckling. Pipeline laying, bottom towing and pulling-in methods of installation. The touchdown point of the SCR design Pipeline spanning
PART VII: SEISMIC ANALYSIS & DESIGN ISSUES FOR PIPELINES
Buried pipelines conform to the motions of the surrounding soil so that the seismically-induced dynamic strains can be directly imposed of the continuous beam element modeling the pipeline. This is Newmark’s assumption dating 1959, and is basically a quasi-static approach as it ignores inertia effects.
Above-ground pipelines experience seismic motion at their support elements with the ground. Due to the large extent of the pipeline, seismic motion is not the same at all supports, which is the case of non-uniform ground motion.
This phenomenon may also due to the material inhomogeneity, namely spatially variable material properties (density and shear modulus), the presence of non-parallel layers, the presence of discontinuities such as geological cracks, cavities, solid inclusions, etc.
The possibility for the soil to exhibit non-linear behavior in the presence of strong ground motions must be considered. Interface phenomena between soil and outer pipeline surface may lead to separation effects in the axial and transverse directions. Global and local pipeline instability effects may be manifested, especially for soft or liquefiable soil. The change of direction of the pipeline leads to stress concentration phenomena at the bends. The same phenomenon may be manifested as the pipeline crosses geological fault lines. The presence of weak links in the segmented pipeline which are inevitable because of the presence of welded connections.
PART VIII: SEISMIC BASE ISOLATION ISSUES FOR PIPELINES Seismic isolation is a technology for reducing the effects of earthquake shaking on buildings, bridges and infrastructure (power plants, etc) in general. In general, the seismic isolation of pipelines is usually achieved with flexible piping joints made from high damping rubber, see figure below. The installation of seismic isolation devices on tanks can accomodate relative movements between the pipe-to-tank connections and pipe-to-ground anchors that are typically larger than the movements of the non-isolated systems. These movements usually exceed the natural flexibility of the pipeline and often causes local failure. The flexible joint systems can also be utilized to compensate for those movements to avoid overstressing of the pipe.
Figure 1: Pipeline with connections and bends (full scale)
PART IX: SECONDMENTS
1. A.A. Markou, post-doc associate at AUTH, March 2017-February 2018, NGI, supervised by Dr. A. Kaynia. Development and calibration of non-linear mechanical models for interface elements between pipeline and soil. Based on previous work for base isolation elements. These mechanical models can be re-structured for constructing interface elements for piles in soil. 2. A. Athanasiou, PhD candidate at AUTH, September2018-August 2019, possibly at Hochtief (?). Large scale FEM eigenvalue and transient analysis of pipeline crossing a 3D half-space. Based on previous SSI studies for nuclear power plants. The effect of pipeline bends, soil inhomogeneity and friction effects at the pipeline to soil interface will be studied. 3. S. Papadopoulos, PhD candidate at AUTH, 2019-2020 (?), non-uniform ground motion.
Non-linear interface elements for cyclic loading: (1) Bilinear mechanical model, two versions. (2) Trilinear mechanical model, two versions Analytical transient solutions, Newmark-beta numerical algorithms, energy methods. Shear behavior in 1D, effect of axial force. Calibration of the models is necessary from soil-pipeline experiments. Possible problems if experiments are not full-scale: scaling factors will require a much denser soil material, boundary conditions at the ends, energy radiation effects. Alternatively, one may use actual measurement data form operational pipelines, provided ground shaking takes place. The influence of the surrounding soil plays paramount importance in the presence of ground shaking, hence the need for detailed 3D soil-pipeline FEM models.
X. CLOSURE
What we propose is to develop general numerical models for the transient analysis of pipelines due to seismic load, focusing on relative motion between pipeline and soil, between pipeline segments and introducing high damping rubber bearing (HDRB) joints at select joints of the pipeline so as to ameliorate differential motion and overstressing effects. Our numerical results will be of interest in the development of an experiment testing on the stress development at a full-scale pipeline joint due to displacement-controlled input. The possibility of field measurements should also be considered. There is much uncertainty in the performance of these buried lifelines, both epistemic and aleatory. Hence the need to introduce probabilistic measures, as is done for instance in the life insurance business.
There has been much work on buried lifelines under naturally-induced hazards, but we are still a long way from comprehending and accounting for all possible problem parameters (if it is indeed possible). Most buried NG pipelines date from the 1940’s. In the US alone, there are more than 40,000 km of pipelines, much of it ageing and difficult even to for rudimentary SHM applications. As all infrastructure, so do NG networks have a useful life expectancy, and there must be provisions for replacement, much as is in the case for buildings. Design codes must remain relatively simple and minimalistic, and in the form of guidelines. It is impossible to codify all possible variations in a engineering problem as complex as buried lifelines. More advanced material can always be added in commentaries to the design codes. Resilience of NG pipeline networks is foremost a question of resources, namely how much effort and money is spent on the post-earthquake
recovery by the central and local governments. Managerial tools based on research are but one aspect of this effort. Partner AUTH will also be responsible for organizing an International Workshop within the framework of the 16th European Conference in Earthquake Engineering (16 ECEE) that will be held in Thessaloniki, Greece from 18-23 June 2018 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the June 20, 1978 earthquake.
AUTH SECONDMENT FOR 2018
ALEXANDROS ATHANASIOU, PHD STUDENT (?)
NONLINEAR SOIL-STRUCTURE-INTERACTION (SSI): 3D FEM MODELS FOR NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
UNDER SEISMIC LOADS
I. THE TAP (TRANS-ADRIATIC PIPELINE) BENCHMARK PROJECT:MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SOIL AND PIPELINE
Two distinct types of soils are considered for the Lake Volvi region in N. GreeceUsing the Strata software, the properties of soil are determined after a 1Dequivalent linear analysis on the soil column to include soil non-linearitiesThe equivalent shear modulus G’ and damping factor D’ are computed as
Material properties of the steel pipeline from TAP data at https://www.tap-ag.grOverall dimensions: D = 1m, t=15mmD/t=66.65γ=78.5 kN/m3
Eeq=210,000,000 kPa
ν=0.2
For a transient analysis, it is necessary to consider Rayleigh damping as [C]=α [M] + β [Κ], built by matching the values of α and β from modal damping
SandG’=0.5GE’=234000kPaD’=9.5%
ClayG’=0.65GE’=1521000kPaD’=7.5%
The element size L of the FEM mesh from wave propagation considerations according to the expected frequency content of the seismic excitations is fmax = 2Hz, Vsmin = 200m/s --- Lmax = 10mThe max FE dimension chosen for this mesh is L max=5m
II. FEM MODEL MESH DIMENSIONING
Element typesModal Analysis (quadratic finite elements):Shell -> S8R, 3D Stress ->C3D20R (more integration points – nodes between)Transient Analyses (linear finite elements):Shell -> S4R, 3D Stress ->C3D8R Boundary ConditionsGravity step: Bottom fixed node displacements (Ux,y,z=0), gravity stepAcceleration step: Imposed acceleration on bottom nodes parallel to the pipeline, Ax=amplitude, Uy=0 and Uz=0Side nodes pinned (master, slave), pure shear between vertical soil FE levelsInterface between pipeline and soil: “welded” in modal and linear analysis, use of contact property in transient nonlinear (NL) analysisOnly in NL analysis: Rollers at the end nodes of the pipeline
III. FEM MODEL AND MESHING
Gravity step: Imposed gravity acceleration on all finite elementsPressure step: Imposed pressure on pipeline according to TAP (2015)Pressure Value -> 9500kPa or 9.5 mPa, a high pressure NG pipeline
Acceleration Step: Ricker-type wavelets
IV. LOADS
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 1 2 3 4 5
Acce
lera
tion
(m/s
2 )
Time (Sec)
Ricker Wavelet (Mexican Hat)
Frequency range: 0.5Hz to 4Hz at 0.5 step incrementsTotal -> 8 excitationsSeismic load multiplier: Thessaloniki, Greece -> Zone II (0.24g=2.354 m/sec2), according to Eurocode 8
Soil deposit only Soil deposit with pipeline
1st and 2nd translational mode eigenfrequencies: f1,2=2.22 Hz
1st and 2nd translational mode eigenfrequencies: f1,2=2.21 Hz
Simple shear wave propagation calculation (without reduction):f=Vsi mean / 4Hi = 2.81 Hz
V. MODAL ANALYSIS
• TIE constraint between pipeline and soil that corresponds to welded continuity
Gravity step: Static -> self weight Pressure step: Static -> inner pressure in pipelineAcceleration step: Excitation applied at bottom nodes in the X horizontal direction with Δt=0.05 sec, output every 0.05 secBoundary conditions: Weld contact connection along the pipeline length. Essentially, pipeline conforms to the soil deformation (Newmark’s assumption)
VI. LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
Contact properties:“Penalty” tangential motion, “Hard” normal motion (no separation) This results in what is essentially a sliding connection
Threshold value to avoid sliding is controlled by the interface friction coefficients (static and dynamic values) -> μ
VII. GEOMETRICALLY NON-LINEAR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
VIII. GEOMETRICALLY NON-LINEAR BC VALUES
Friction factor between soil and pipeline: American Lifeline Alliances (ALA, 2001) - ASCE
We used f=0.8 (rough steel coating)and φ=33ο for SM,SM-SC,ML(from Raptakis et al., 2006)
δ=26.4ο
μ=tan(δ)=0.5
Input: Acceleration imposed at base, direction parallel to X axis
Number of analyses: 8 linear and 8 non-linear in the frequency range 0.5 – 4.0 Hz in increments of 0.5
Computed data: Hoop stresses σθθ -> Critical for design (ALA, 2001) derived from Abaqus Stress = S22 component for shell elements
Plot: Dimensionless result as ratio of hoop stress to EC8 Limit Design Stress
Limit strain ε=1%Modulus of elasticity E=210 GPaσ EC8 = Ε * ε = 2100 MPa
IX. GEOMETRICALLY NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Time(sec)
Stre
ss R
atio
σ22
/ σ E
C8
Stress Ratio vs Time of Node 8
Non LinearLinear
X. RESULTS (AT A SINGLE NODE)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Time(sec)
Stre
ss σ
22 L
inea
r - S
tress
σ22
Non
Lin
ear (
kPa)
Stress (L-NL) vs Time of Node 8
X. RESULTS (SINGLE NODE)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-0.002
-0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
Time(sec)Stre
ss σ
22 L
inea
r - S
tress
σ22
Non
Lin
ear /
σE
C8 Stress (L-NL) vs Time of Node 8
X. RESULTS (SINGLE NODE)
0.5cm max sliding for 0.5Hz at node 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-0.002
-0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
Time(sec)
Rel
ativ
e D
ispl
acem
ent S
oil -
Pip
e (m
)
Relative Displacement - 0.5Hz
X. RESULTS (SINGLE NODE)
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.5 1 1.5 22.5 3
3.5 4
σ/σ E
C8
Frequency (Hz)
Non Linear
Linear
Stress mitigation for frequency range 0.5-4Hz
Comment: About a 1% reduction at every frequency
X. FINAL RESULTS
REFERENCES
ABAQUS (2003), Analysis User’s Manual, Version 6.4, Pawtucket, Rhode Island, USAANSYS (2008), Structural Mechanics Finite Element Software, Version 10.0, Canonsburg,Pennsylvania, USAQ. Bai and Y. Bai, Subsea Pipeline Design, Analysis and Installation, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 2014P.S. Bulson, Buried Structures: Static and Dynamic Strength, Chapman and Hall, London, 1985S. K. Chakrabarti, Dynamics of Floating Offshore Structures, World Scientific Publishing, Oxon,UK, 2014J.J. Johnson, Soil-Structure-Interaction: The Status of Current Analysis Methods and Research,Nuclear Regulatory Commission Research Report NUREG CR-1780, Washington D.C., 1981Y.C. Kim, Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering, World Scientific Publishing, Oxon, UK,2009B. M. Sumer, Liquefaction around Marine Structures, World Scientific Publishing, Oxon, UK,2014
AUTH SECONDMENT FOR 2017
ATHANASIOS A. MARKOU NORWEGIAN GEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTE (NGI)
OSLO N-0855, NORWAY
NONLINEAR INTERFACE MECHANICAL MODELS FOR NATURAL GAS PIPELINES UNDER SEISMIC LOADS
OUTLINE
High damping rubber bearing isolators are used for the seismic isolation of structures worldwide for well over thirty years. We present the adaptation of mechanical models currently available for the simulation of the compressive/shear response of these isolators for constructing interface elements between an NG pipeline and the surrounding soil as well as connection elements in the presence of ground motions induced by seismic events. Given the complex and possibly nonlinear behavior of the pipeline-soil interface, no model is able of capturing every single aspect of this dynamic response. Some issues and uncertainties involved in the characterization of this behavior are (1) Coupled bidirectional horizontal ground motion (2) Coupling of vertical and horizontal motions (3) Strength and stiffness degradation during loading cycles (4) Variation in the ground motion along the length of the pipeline (4) Variation in the critical buckling load capacity of the pipeline due to lateral displacements.
Fig. 1. LNG pipeline and aboveground connections
INTERFACE ISOLATION SYSTEM MODELLING ISSUES The best-known model for simulating the hysteretic behavior of structural components is the bilinear hysteretic model (BHM). There are two possible mechanical formulations that correspond to the same bilinear model from a mathematical viewpoint. The first one (BHM1) consists of a linear elastic spring connected inseries with a parallel system comprising a plastic slider and a linear elastic spring, while the second one (BHM2) comprises a linear elastic spring connected in parallel with an elastic-perfectly plastic system. However, the bilinear hysteretic model is unable to describe either softening or hardening effects, and has therefore been extended to a trilinear model. There are two trilinear hysteretic models (THM) that exhibit a total of three plastic phases. More specifically, the first model (THM1) exhibits one elastic phase, while the second (THM2) one exhibits two elastic phases according to the strain amplitude level that develops during loading. Additionally, the change of slope between the plastic phases in unloading does not occur at the same displacement level in the two models.
Furthermore, in THM1 the dissipated energy per cycle, decreases in the case of hardening and increases in the case of softening, while in the THM2 the dissipated energy per cycle remains unchanged, as is the case with the bilinear models. All hysteretic models are solved analytically and calibrated against free vibration test results. Based on the THM1, a numerical time-stepping method is developed based on the original Newmark’s method for constant accelerations combined with Newton-Raphson iterations. This is a necessary step, because more generalized hysteretic models cannot in general be solved analytically. Finally, this numerical solution capability will allow for extension of the THM to bi-directional horizontal motion and to time-varying vertical loads, where only numerical solutions will be possible.
Fig. 2. Single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) representation of the hysteretic interface
Fig. 3. The (a) BHM1 and (b) BHM2 mechanical representations
Fig. 4. The (a) THM1 and (b) THM2 mechanical representations
REFERENCES ASME B31.4, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbon and other
Liquids, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2006. A.A. Markou, G.D. Manolis, Mechanical formulations for bilinear and trilinear hysteretic
models used in base isolators. Bull. Earthquake Engng 14, 3591-3611, 2016. A.A. Markou, G. Oliveto, A. Athanasiou, Response simulation of hybrid base isolation
systems under earthquake excitation, Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering Vol. 84,120-133, 2016.
A. A. Markou, G. Oliveto, A. Mossucca and F.C. Ponzo, Laboratory experimental tests on elastomeric bearing from the Solarino project. Progetto di Ricerca DPC–RELUIS, Linea di Ricerca 6: Isolamento e Dissipazione, Coordinatori: Ponzo FC and Serino G, University of Basilicata, Italy, 2014.
T. Ray, A.A. Sarlis, A.M. Reinhorn, M.C. Constantinou, Hysteretic models for sliding bearings with varying frictional force, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, Vol. 42, 2341-2360, 2013.
MECHANICAL MODELS FOR HDRB
Table 1: THM1 Formulation and Mechanical Parameters
MECHANICAL MODEL VALIDATION
The 3rd cycle of a set of cyclic shear tests on a commercial HDRB isolator saved from the Solarino building project (2006) were conducted at the University of Basilicata in Italy (2016) 10 years later and were used for the parameter identification of the BHM and THM. The geometrical characteristics of the tested HDRB isolator are given in Table 2. The cyclic shear tests were conducted under a compressive stress of 6 MPa and at a frequency of 0.5 Hz, for 10 different shear strain amplitudes varying from γ=0.05 - 2.00. In parallel, cyclic tests at different strain amplitudes (γ=1.20 and γ=2.00) and at variable frequencies (from 0.006 Hz to 0.83 Hz) were implemented to investigate the effect of rate-dependence of the bearings. The tests showed that the HRDB isolator can be assumed rate-independent in this frequency range.
The total number of parameters for the THM1 system is 33 and the identification error is rather small at e2=2.5%. The total number of parameters of the THM2 system is 30, and the identification error is e2=5.0%, twice that of the THM1 system.
Fig. 5. THM1 computed response compared with experimental data
Fig. 6. THM2 computed response compared with experimental data
Fig. 7. Details of strain softening – hardening response for all models
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEWMARK ALGORITHM FOR HYSTERETIC MEDIA It is concluded that the well-known BHM are replaced by the more accurate THM models for describing the response of hysteretic material interfaces under cyclic loading. Next, a Newmark’ time-stepping method with the Newton-Raphson iterative technique is developed for the numerical solution of the more accurate THM1 model.
Newmark’s Method for an SDOF System representing a HDRB
(1) The stiffness that is used to guess the force for the candidate displacement will always be the largest stiffness in the system, namely the elastic stiffness (k0). Once the force is calculated with the use of the elastic stiffness, there is a need to check if this force is correct. (2) In order to check the force that develops, we need to define two limit (or bound) curves
Fig. 8. Upper and lower bound curves for the THM1
COMPARISON STUDIES
Table 2: The Solarino HDRB isolator: Testing and identification from free vibration tests
The equation of motion for the SDOF system representing a HDRB isolator is derived from the THM1 model. It is solved both analytically in closed form and numerically by the modified Newmark method. The equation of motion is
𝑚𝑚��𝑢(𝑡𝑡) + 𝑐𝑐��𝑢(𝑡𝑡) + 𝑓𝑓𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 𝑓𝑓𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇 = 𝑝𝑝(𝑡𝑡) and the ground excitation is a simple sinusoidal motion in the form
𝑝𝑝(𝑡𝑡) = −0.25𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ sin (2𝜋𝜋𝑓𝑓) where m is the mass, g=9.81 m/sec and the is f=0.41 Hz is vibration frequency The result agreement is extremely good. For instance, the maximum displacements registered for the base isolated structural system during the steady-state part of the response, which would be a design value, is 237 mm and 237.2 mm for the analytical and numerical solutions, respectively.
Fig. 9. (a) Force-displacement plot of the THM and displacement-time history of the SDOF model
Fig. 10. Force-displacement plot of the LCFM component and velocity-time
history of the SDOF model
Fig. 11. Force-displacement plot of the LVD component and acceleration-time
history of the SDOF model
EXCHANGE-RISKProgress at UoP
Prof. Stathis Bousias
Secondments• WP3: ESR6 - K. Tryfonos, PhD candidate, 12 months to
UoT. Starting date: Sept. 5, 2017”Experimental testing of burried pipelines”
• WP7: ESR24 – C. Thanopoulos, PhD candidate, 12 months to VCE. Starting date: July 2, 2017“Study the state-of-the-art on procedures for post-hazard rating of pipelines and investigate their implementation into a Decision Support System for Rapid Pipeline Recovery”.
• WP7: ESR23 – P. Katsimpini, PhD candidate, 6 months to Hochtief. Starting date: Sept. 2018.a
• “Investigation of alternative means for monitoring & inspecting pipes from energy storage facilities”
• Box: Height 1.15 m, Length: 1.20 m, Thickness: 0.20 m• Pipe (steel with flexible “sheeting”-coating: rubber band),
outside diam: D ~ 0.11 m• Uniaxial (X + Y) – Biaxial – Cyclic• Similitude: add vertical load
via airbags (?)• Rubber “sleeve” between the pipe
and the box (tyre-type tube)• External box-stiffeners
Research of ESR6 - UoT
Lateral (Pu) Vertical Bearing (Qd) Vertical Uplift (Qu)
Force Demand 3.90 KN 11.84 KN 0.97 KN
Force Capacity 30 KN 45 KN 45 KN
Displacement Demand 17.1 mm 11.4 mm 8.25 mm
Actuator Stroke 38.1 mm 25.4 mm 25.4 mm
Actual Stroke 20 mm 20 mm 20 mm
5D
5D
Φ120
8.5D-16D
Vertical fixity
Horizontal Load
φ=30, 33 & 36οΕ=3 & 5 ΜPa
σv=25, 50 & 100 kPa
Subsidence 35% of Ux, maxUplift 17% of Ux, max (8.5D)
Ux, max
Vertical Reaction = 25% of horizontal load
Shear Strains
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1718
20
22
24
26
28
With Vertical Fixity
10%
7%
11%
Ε=3MPa, φ=36ο
P 10mm (kN)
Distance to Boundary (Diametre)
σv=25 kPa σv=50 kPa σv=100 kPa
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17100
102
104
106
108
110
112With Vertical Fixity
Ε=3MPa, φ=36ο
P 10mm / P 1
0mm, 16D (%
)
Distance to Boundary (Diametre)
σv=25 kPa σv=50 kPa σv=100 kPa Average
Future research• Tests for indicative failure modes:– Not replicating past tests– Represent the :• parameters involved, e.g. actual D/t ratio, internal
pressure, etc., at as large scale as possible• basic failure mechanism expected during the
distributed HS– Consultation with Prof. S. Karamanos
(member of the Scientific Advisory Board)
Hybrid Simulation ….• Under discussion …
Soil-pile interaction phenomenaExchange-Risk WorkshopFrankfurt, September 1, 2017
Amir M. KayniaDiscipline Lead, Vibration and Earthquake Eng., NGI
Athanasios A. MarkouPostDoctoral Researcher, NGI
Outline
Lab experiments on soil-pipe interaction in University of Bristol by Rebecca C. Stubbs
Constitutive modelling for soil material
Studying soil-pipe interaction phenomena
Lab experiments of pipeline in loose sand
Force - displacement curve for loose sand (a) force-horizontal displacement (b) vertical displacement-force at different depths
Lab experiments of pipeline in dense sand
Force - displacement curve for dense sand: force-horizontal displacement (left) vertical displacement-force at different depths (right)
Mechanical models for soil-structure interaction
Trilinear Hysteretic Model (THM) consists of 3 elements:1. Linear elastic spring2. Plastic slider3. Trilinear elastic spring
Accounts for:1. Lower energy dissipation while hardening2. Higher energy dissipation while softening
Mechanical model #1 for HDRBs
Combination of Trilinear Hysteretic Model (THM) with Trilinear Elastic Model (TEM) allows for:1. Control of energy dissipation2. Keeping constant loading curve
Calibration of mechanical models to lab data
-40 -20 0 20 40-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Typical generalized model proposed by Iwan 1967 that accounts for high equivalent viscous damping ~60%
Calibration of mechanical models to lab data
-40 -20 0 20 40-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Generalized model composed by THM that allows for control over viscous damping and shape of loops
Calibration of mechanical models to lab data
Modeling soil strain softening
-40 -20 0 20 40-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Calibration of mechanical models to lab data
Modeling soil strain softeningUnder development
-40 -20 0 20 40-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Effective stiffness and equivalent viscous damping ratio
10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 20
20
40
60
Control over damping under the same effective stiffness
Thermal expansion of pipelines─ Lateral buckling for unburied pipelines (main focus of offshore division)─ Upheaval buckling for buried pipelines
Initial pipe-lay─ Vertical penetration due to static (catenary) forces─ Additional embedment from cyclic action─ Axial and lateral resistance (e.g. for curves)
Seismic response(this presentation)
Typical geotechnical pipeline issues
Pipeline temperature changes during lifetime, resulting in expansion and contraction.
Due to axial soil-pipe restraint, pipeline may buckle laterallyTesting recommended to investigate soil-pipe resistance in both axial (lengthways) and lateral (sideways) directionsResults used to design countermeasures
Axial restraintLateral buckle
Thermal expansion of unburied pipelines
Lateral buckling – overview
• Use consistent set of acceleration time histories at all points along pipeline.
Dynamic approach (Example: hopefully Shah Deniz)
0 10 20 30 40-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Dynamic time [s]
Horizontal displacement, Ux [m]
Displ.
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Point 6
Point 7
Point 8
Point 9
Point 10
0 10 20 30 40-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
Dynamic time [s]
Vertical displacement, Uy [m]
Displ.
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Point 6
Point 7
Point 8
Point 9
Point 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5
τ (k
Pa)
Strain (%)
Traditional Soil springs
Strain-softening Soil springs
Lateral buckling – typical response
Capturing of hardening effects of soil-pipe phenomena
-100 -50 0 50 100-5
0
5
Capturing of hardening effects of soil-pipe phenomena
-100 -50 0 50 100-5
0
5
Thank you for your attention
19
Report about activities of the team fromBauhaus-Universitat Weimar
Institute of Structural MechanicsBauhaus-Universitat Weimar
Dr.-Ing. Volkmar ZabelProf. Dr.-Ing. habil. Carsten Konke
Abinet HabtemariamMarcelo Bianco
1st September 2017
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Previous secondments
Secondment from 19th Sept. to 19th Oct. 2016 at VCE in Vienna
State-of-the-art report: Inspection and monitoring for life-cyclemanagement of natural gas pipelines extending previous work by N.Psyrras
Description of damage modes to be detectedTechnologies for inspection and monitoring of pipeline systemsPipeline monitoring for operation support and risk management
Review paper for Journal submission still in internal revision
2 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Considerations on numerical models of pipelines
Failure mechanism of continuous buried steel pipelines
Local bucklingTensile fractureUpheaval bucklingCross-section distortion
Numerical simulation of pipelines
Beam (limitation with respect to failure description)Shell (numerical description of failure much better, but very largemodel dimensions → computationally expensive)GBT (extends beam theory and allows for description of cross-sectionaldeformations → computational efficient)
3 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Generalized Beam Theory (GBT)
The steps involved in the application of either first or second order GBTanalysis are twofold, 1
1 A cross-section analysis: identifies the cross-section deformationmodes and determines the corresponding modal properties. Itsperformance does not involve the member length, support conditionsor applied loads.
2 A member analysis: is concerned with the assembly and solution ofthe member differential equilibrium equations and boundaryconditions, from knowledge of;
1 The cross-section geometrical properties.2 The member material properties.3 Its length and support conditions.4 The applied load.
1Silvestre, Nuno, and Dinar Camotim. GBT buckling analysis of pultruded FRPlipped channel members. Computers and structures 81.18 (2003): 1889-1904..aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 4 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Deformation ModesWarping functions (Einheitsverwolbungen)
Cross sectional deformation mode can be defined with two orthogonalwarping function;
ku =
{r cos mϑ if m = (k − 1)/2 for k = 1, 3, 5....r sin mϑ if m = k/2 for k = 2, 4, 6....
kv = −ku/r kw = ku/r (1)
Figure: Local and global Coordinate system for thinwall cylinder section.
5 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Implementation of GBT Linear case
Figure: Flow chart for programing the GBT linear case.
6 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Implementation of GBT Linear case
Figure: Flow chart for programing the GBT linear case.
7 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Example GBT Linear Case
Figure: Bending deformation of a simply supported pipe beam.
8 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Example GBT Linear Case
Figure: Bending deformation of a fix supported pipe beam.
9 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Shell Model Vs GBT
Comparison
Shell model800 Elements816 NodesMatrix size 4896
GBT model20 Elements21 Nodes4 Mode shapesMatrix size 84
10 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Non-linear GBT Analysis
In order to consider geometrical non-linearity it is necessary todetermine the total stiffness matrix which is the sum of elastic, initialdeformation and initial stress stiffness matrix.
K = Ke + Ku + Kσ (2)
Where:Ke is the global stiffness matrix that defines the stiffness of thestructure.Ku is the initial displacement matrix that accounts for the change instiffness that comes from the displacements.Kσ is the initial stress stiffness matrix that accounts for themembrane forces effect on the stiffness.
11 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Combination of Different Modes
Figure: X kij matrix, which shows the initial stress in mode k will link thedisplacement in mode i with the force in mode j as well as,
displacement in mode j with the forces in mode i .
12 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Outlook
Development of geometrically and physically nonlinear analysis
Implementation of explicit dynamic analysis
13 / 14
Research stays Research report Perspective secondments
Perspective secondments
Contribution to WP3: 3D numerical simulation of soil-pipelineinteraction
Late autumn 2017, winter 2017/18:
Abinet Habtemariam (for 3 months) and Marcelo Bianco (for 3months) visit VCE to
Exchange experience about numerical modelling of pipe structures andsimulationContinuation of development of geometrically and physically nonlinearanalysisImplementation of explicit dynamic analysisVerification and validation with a suitable case study
14 / 14
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 1
INTERACTION EFFECTS BETWEEN BUILDINGS
AND UNDERGROUND LIFELINE STRUCTURES
UNDER SEISMIC EXCITATION
XENIA KARATZIA
ROBERT BORSUTZKY
HOCHTIEF Engineering Consult IKS
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 2
Effect of massive rigid structures on relatively soft
underground structures (pipelines / channels) under seismic
excitation
The construction of a new building
may cause differential shifts along the lifeline due to local
“disturbance„
imposes its dynamic behavior to the surrounding soil and
the lifeline embedded in it
causes complex interaction involving the soil and the two
structures during seismic excitation
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 3
Luco & Contese (1973) Structure-Soil-Structure-Interaction
(SSSI) or Dynamic Cross Interaction (DCI) (based on publications
about Nuclear Power Plant), analytical solution
Jiang & Yan (1998) Interaction between two adjacent buildings
Olliff et al (2001) Soil-Structure-Pipe-Interaction, ground
movement induced failures
Calvetti et al (2004) Soil-pipe interaction, Distinct Element
Method
Borsutzky et al (2011) SSSI-Interaction, seismic behavior of
neighboring buildings, Thin-layer Method coupled with FE
Lou et al (2011) SSSI: Literature review, inspection of the
commonly used numerical methods & computer codes
LITERATURE REVIEW
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 4
Wang et al (2013, 2017) Interaction between underground &
ground structure
Abate & Massimino (2016) Tunnel–Soil–Structure Interaction
(full-coupled system)
Trautmann & O` Rourke, Trautmann et al (1985) Lateral & uplift
force-displacement response of buried pipes, experiments
Marshall et al (2010) Tunneling beneath buried pipelines
(centrifuge tests)
Robert et al (2016) Lateral load-displacement behavior of
pipes, Full-scale tests
Aldaikh et al (2016) SSSI: Shake table testing
Dashti et al (2016) Centrifuge models of underground
structures near tall buildings
LITERATURE REVIEW
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 5
LITERATURE REVIEW
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
Methods of analysis:
Analytical or Semi-analytical (solid or beam
element, strip foundation, cylindrical shells)
Numerical (FE, BEM, FE-BEM, FDM, DEM, Thin-
layer Method)
Experimental (shake table, centrifuge & full scale
tests)
Soil-Pipe interaction
Analytical or Semi-analytical (Poulos 1974, Moore 1987,
Rajani & Morgenstern 1993, Kouretzis et al 2015, Guha et al 2016,
Karamitros et al 2016)
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 6
s
h
structure
pipeline d
H
Control points
b
y
PROBLEM DEFINITION
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
Case 1 Case 2
s
h
b
structure II
pipeline
structure I
d
H
Control
points
y
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 7
PROBLEM DEFINITION
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
s
c
b
pipeline
structure I L
L >> c
s
c
b
channel
L
L c
structure II structure I
structure II
EI
EI
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 8
PROBLEM DEFINITION
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
The seismic behavior of each system will be investigated in
terms of :
Acceleration time-histories (control points)
Fourier amplitude spectra (control points)
Response spectra (control points)
Amplification ratios
Maximum pipe deflections &
Bending moments
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 9
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
Thin-layer Method (implemented in code
BAUBOW) coupled with Finite Element Method
BAUBOW
Kinematic interaction:
Determination of
Foundation Input Motion
Determination of
impedance (stiffness &
damping) functions
SAPC
Dynamic analysis (in
frequency domain) considering
soil-structure-interaction (FIM &
impedance functions)
Determination of transfer
functions
Response
spectra
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 10
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
Finite Element Method (PLAXIS 3D)
Settlement and bearing capacity analysis for onshore infrastructure
like petrochemical plants or liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage tanks
Application in onshore and offshore pipeline movement and stability
under various applied loading conditions
Advanced material models accounting for different loading conditions
of the soil encountered in excavation and foundation works (Mohr-
Coulomb, Hardening soil, soft soil, soft soil creep model)
Staged construction
Dynamic soil structure interaction
Dynamic loading by importing real earthquake signals
Various model boundary conditions (viscous, free-field and compliant
base boundaries)
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 11
WORK PLAN
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
1. HOCHTIEF-research report
2. Journal paper (SDEE)
14/8/2017 13/4/2018
DELIVERABLES
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 12
REFERENCES
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
1. Luco, Juan & Contesse, Luis. (1973). Dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America. 63. 1289-1303.
2. L Olliff, J & J Rolfe, S & Wijeyesekera, Devapriya & T Reginold, J. (2001). Soil-Structure-Pipe Interaction with Particular
Reference to Ground Movement Induced Failures. Proc. of Plastic Pipes XI, 3-6 September, Munich, German
3. Calvetti, F & di Prisco, C & Nova, R. (2004). Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Soil–Pipe Interaction. J of Geotech and
Geoenv Eng. 130. 1292-1299. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:12(1292).
4. Marshall, A & Klar, A & J. Mair, R. (2010). Tunneling beneath Buried Pipes - A View of Soil Strain and Its Effect on Pipeline
Behavior. J of Geotech & Geoenv Eng. 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000390.
5. Borsutzky R, Sadegh-Azar H. & Hartmann H.-G. (2011). Influence of neighboring buildings on the seismic oscillation
behavior. 12 D-A-CH Tagung – Erdbeben & Baudynamik, C. Koenke (Hrsg.), 15-16 September, Hannover, Germany (in
German)
6. Lou, Menglin & Wang, Huaifeng & Chen, Xi & Zhai, Yongmei. (2011). Structure–soil–structure interaction: Literature review.
Soil Dyn & Earthq Eng. 31. 1724-1731. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.07.008.
7. Wang, H & Lou, M & Chen, X & Zhai, Y. (2013). Structure–soil–structure interaction between underground structure and
ground structure. Soil Dyn & Earthq Eng. 54. 31–38. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.07.015.
8. Wang, H & Lou, M & Zhang, R. (2017). Influence of presence of adjacent surface structure on seismic response of
underground structure. Soil Dyn & Earthq Eng. 100. 131-143. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.05.031.
9. Abate, G & Massimino, M. (2017). Numerical modelling of the seismic response of a tunnel–soil–aboveground building
system in Catania (Italy):. Bulletin of Earthq Eng. 15. 469-491. 10.1007/s10518-016-9973-9.
10. Trautmann, C & D. O'Rourfce, T & H. Kulhawy, F. (1985). Uplift Force-Displacement Response of Buried Pipe. J of Geotech
Eng. 111. . 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:9(1061).
11. Trautmann, C & D. O'Rourke, T. (1985). Lateral Force-Displacement Response of Buried Pipe. J of Geotech Eng. 111. .
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:9(1077).
Xenia Karatzia, Robert Borsutzky 1. September 2017 13
EXCHANGE-RISK WORKSHOP 2017
12. Robert, D.J. & Soga, K & O’Rourke, T.D. & Sakanoue, T. (2016). Lateral Load-Displacement Behavior of Pipelines in
Unsaturated Sands. J of Geotech and Geoenv Eng. 142. . 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001504.
13. Aldaikh, H & Alexander, N & Ibraim, E & Knappett, J. (2016). Shake table testing of the dynamic interaction between two and
three adjacent buildings (SSSI). Soil Dyn & Earthq Eng. 89. 219–232. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.08.012.
14. Dashti, S & Hashash, Y & Gillis, K & Musgrove, M & Walker, M. (2016). Development of Dynamic Centrifuge Models of
Underground Structures near Tall Buildings. Soil Dyn & Earthq Eng. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.04.014.
15. Poulos, H. G. (1974). Analysis of longitudinal behavior of buried pipes. Proc., Conf. on Analysis and Design in Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Austin, Tex., 189–223.
16. D. Moore, Ian. (1987). Response of Buried Cylinders to Surface Loads. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 113.
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:7(758).
17. B. Rajani, B & R. Morgenstern, N. (1995). Pipelines and laterally loaded piles in an elastoplastic medium. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering. 121. .
18. Kouretzis, George & Karamitros, Dimitris & Sloan, Scott. (2015). Analysis of buried pipelines subjected to ground surface
settlement and heave. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 52. 1058-1071. 10.1139/cgj-2014-0332.
19. Karamitros, D & Zoupantis, C & Bouckovalas, G. (2016). Buried pipelines with bends: Analytical verification against
permanent ground displacements. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 53. . 10.1139/cgj-2016-0060.
20. Guha, I & Randolph, M & White, D. (2016). Evaluation of Elastic Stiffness Parameters for Pipeline–Soil Interaction. J of
Geotech & Geoenv Eng. 142. 04016009. 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001466.
21. Buckingham, E. (1914). “On Physically Similar Systems; Illustrations of the Use of Dimensional Analysis”, Physical Review,
4, 345-376.
22. Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation and design, Wiley, New York.
LITERATURE