energies

Article
Stress and Deformation Analysis of Buried Gas
Pipelines Subjected to Buoyancy in Liquefaction Zones
Mengying Xia 1,2 and Hong Zhang 1,2, *
1 College of Mechanical and Transportation Engineering, China University of Petroleum-Beijing,
Beijing 102249, China; 2013314028@student.cup.edu.cn
2 National Engineering Laboratory for Pipeline Safety, Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Oil and Gas
Distribution Technology, China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Beijing 102249, China
* Correspondence: hzhang@cup.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-010-89731239




Received: 8 August 2018; Accepted: 4 September 2018; Published: 4 September 2018


Abstract: Buried pipelines are the main means of long distance transportation of natural gas.
These pipelines are in high risk crossing liquefaction areas due to large deformations and stresses
that may exist in pipe induced by the buoyancy load. In this study, a systematic analytical and
numerical analysis were performed to investigate the mechanical behavior of a buried gas pipeline
subjected to buoyancy in liquefaction areas. Soil constraints on pipe were considered accurately
in the proposed models through soil spring assumptions. Effects of axial forces on pipe’s bending
deformation were also considered via the governing equations for beam under bending and tension.
Deformation compatibility condition was utilized to derive the axial forces in pipe. The accuracy
of the proposed analytical model was validated by comparing its results with those derived by an
established rigorous finite element model. In addition, parametric analysis was finally performed
using the analytical model to study the influences of pipe diameter, pipe wall thickness, soil spring
stiffness and width of liquefaction zone on pipe’s mechanical responses. This study can be referenced
in the strength analysis and performance based safety evaluation of buried gas pipelines crossing
liquefaction areas.

Keywords: gas pipeline; stress; buoyancy load; liquefaction area; analytical method; finite
element method

1. Introduction
As a clean hydrocarbon energy, natural gas’s proportion in the energy consumption in China
is growing rapidly in recent years. In 2017, the natural gas production in China is 1480.3 × 108 m3 ,
while the natural gas consumption is 2352 × 108 m3 . Due to pipelines play a main role in the
transportation of natural gas resources, a large number of pipelines are needed to ensure the continuous
supply of natural gas in China [1,2]. These pipelines can be thousands of kilometers long, inevitably
crossing some strong seismic areas where liquefaction zones may exist [3]. In liquefaction zones, buried
gas pipelines will be subjected to the buoyancy load induced by the liquefied soil, in the potential of
leading to larger deformation in the vertical plane and high stresses on the pipe.
A lot of literature is available for buried pipelines subjected to this kind of geo-hazard type
environmental load. Wang et al. [4] performed numerical and analytical analysis of floating pipe under
distributed line loads induced by floods. In his analytical model pipelines were assumed as cables
with no bending stiffness. Li et al. [5] established a refined nonlinear finite element model of pipelines
with corrosion defects in a flood. He found that corrosion defects significantly influence a pipe’s
structural integrity. Xia et al. [6] proposed a semi-analytical model for buried steel pipelines crossing
subsidence areas considering the elastoplasticity of the pipe material and the nonlinear pipe-soil

Energies 2018, 11, 2334; doi:10.3390/en11092334 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 2334 2 of 20

interaction forces. Liu et al. [7–11] studied the strain response of high strength steel pipelines crossing
active faults systematically through series of finite element method-based numerical models. In his
models, soil constraints on pipe were modeled by nonlinear soil spring elements and pipes were
simulated by pipe or shell elements. Semi-empirical models were proposed for pipelines crossing both
strike-slip and reverse faults in his studies. Buckling behaviors of pipelines at fault crossings were
also elucidated in detail. Uckan et al. [12] and Kaya et al. [13] employed rigorous numerical models
to investigate the failure behaviors of steel pipeline exposed to fault displacements. The wrinkling
responses of the pipeline in the accident were successfully simulated through their numerical models.
Kainat et al. [14] first investigated the local wrinkling behavior of buckling pipeline under compressive
stress induced by environmental loads, considering the geometric imperfection of pipeline induced by
pipe manufacturing process. Jalali et al. [15,16] studied the mechanical responses of pipes made of
different material under fault displacement type go-hazard load. Lu et al. [17] utilized commercial
software widely used in pipeline industry, i.e., CAESARII, to analyze the stress results of outlet pipes
of LNG storage tanks under external environmental loads. Neupane et al. [18,19] investigated the
effects of pipe materials’ plastic anisotropy on the local deformation responses of high strength steel
pipelines under environmental bending loads via series of finite element models. Liu et al. [20]
studied the stress and deformation response of pipelines with casing under distributed water loads
using nonlinear finite element models. Lin et al. [21] investigated the uplift behavior of pipelines
crossing liquefaction areas through finite element analysis. Effects of the width of the liquefaction
zone on a pipe’s displacement and strain results were discussed. Similar numerical models were
established by Ai et al. [22], which focused on investigating the effects of the nonlinear behavior of
soils on pipes’ responses. Shang et al. [23] established an analytical stress analysis model on pipelines
crossing liquefaction zones without considering the axial force’s influence on a pipe’s bending behavior.
Kong et al. [24] performed a parametric analysis on the influences of pipe diameter, pipe burial depth
and soil properties on a pipe’s uplift behaviors in liquefaction areas.
The aforementioned studies have illustrated the stress and strain response of pipes under various
geo-hazard loads. However, to the best knowledge of the authors, few proposed analytical models are
available to analyze the mechanical behavior of pipes subjected to liquefaction induced buoyancy load
considering the pipe soil interaction and effects of axial forces on the pipe’s bending deformations.
Thus in this presented study, focus was placed on a refined analytical method for pipelines crossing
liquefaction areas. Based on the established model, parametric analyses were conducted to study the
influences of common engineering parameters on gas pipelines’ mechanical behavior.

2. Performance Based Criteria for Pipelines under Buoyant Forces due to Liquefaction

2.1. Buoyant Forces Induce by Liquefaction

Figure 1 shows how the buoyant forces act on pipes. The upward force per unit length of buried
pipeline induced by buoyancy in liquefaction area can be calculated as [25]:

Fb = Ws − [Wp + Wc + ( Pv − γw hw ) D ] (1)

where Ws is total weight of soil displaced by pipe per unit length; Wp is weight of pipe per unit length;
Wc is weight of pipe content per unit length; Pv is vertical earth pressure; D is outside diameter of pipe;
γw is unit weight of water; hw is the height of water above the pipeline:

Pv = γw hw + Rw γd C (2)

where, Rw is a factor for water buoyancy, Rw = 1 − 0.33(hw /C); C is height of soil fill over pipeline; γd
is dry unit weight of backfill; hw is height of water over pipeline.
 Energies 2018, 11, 2334 3 of 20
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Buoyancy load acting on the pipeline [26] (a) Cross section of the pipeline showing the forces
Figure 1. Buoyancy load acting on the pipeline [26] (a) Cross section of the pipeline showing the forces
acting on it due to buoyancy; (b) Longitudinal section of the pipeline showing the forces acting on it
acting on it due to buoyancy; (b) Longitudinal section of the pipeline showing the forces acting on it
due to buoyancy.
due to buoyancy.

2.2. Strength Based Criteria

2.2. Strength Based Criteria
For buried steel pipelines, a stress-based failure criterion is generally used for pipes subjected to
For buried steel pipelines, a stress-based failure criterion is generally used for pipes subjected to
buoyancy load [27]. Under this circumstance, pipes only undergo elastic deformations. The pipes can
buoyancy load [27]. Under this circumstance, pipes only undergo elastic deformations. The pipes can
be considered to suffer a yield failure when the max von Mises stress in the pipe σMisesMax is equal to
be considered to suffer a yield failure when the max von Mises stress in the pipe σMisesMax is equal to
the pipe steel’s minimum strength requirement:
the pipe steel’s minimum strength requirement:
 MisesMax     Fstresss y (3)
σMisesMax ≤ [σ ] = Fstresss σy (3)
where Fstress is the resistance factor, Fstress = 0.9; σy is the minimum yield strength of the pipe material.
where Fstresspipelines,
For buried is the resistance
the principal Fstress = 0.9;
factor, stresses are theσy isaxial
the stress
minimum yield stress
σax, radial strength of the
σra and pipestress
hoop material.
For buried
σho, respectively. Thepipelines, theisprincipal
radial stress stresses are
always negligible duethe axial
to the stress
fact ax , radial
pipesσare all thinstress
walled and hoop
σravessels
stress , respectively. The radial stress
[20], the vonhoMises stress in a pipe can be obtained as:
σ is always negligible due to the fact pipes are all thin walled
vessels [20], the von Mises stress in a pipe can be obtained as:
1
r   ax    ho   ax 
2 2 2
 Mises  (4)
2  1 hoh i
2
σMises = (σho − σax ) + σho 2 + σax 2 (4)
where σax is the axial stress in pipe; σho is the hoop 2 stress in pipe, σho = pD/2t.
According to IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Design of Buried Pipelines [26], the compressive
where σax is the axial stress in pipe; σho is the hoop stress in pipe, σho = pD/2t.
axial bending stress for a relatively short section of continuous pipeline subjected to buoyancy can be
According to IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Design of Buried Pipelines [26], the compressive
calculated as:
axial bending stress for a relatively short section of continuous pipeline subjected to buoyancy can be
calculated as: F L2
 bf   b b F L2 (5)
σb f = Z b b
10 − (5)
10Z
where Lb is length of pipe in buoyancy zone; Z is section modulus of pipe cross section, Z = Iz/(D/2) =
where Lb is length of pipe in buoyancy zone; Z is section modulus of pipe cross section, Z = Iz /(D/2) =
πD3(1−(d/D) 4)/32; Fb is buoyant force per unit length on pipeline.
πD3 (1−(d/D)4 )/32; Fb is buoyant force per unit length on pipeline.
The bending stress derived by Equation (5) is based on the theoretical results of clamped Euler–
The bending stress derived by Equation (5) is based on the theoretical results of clamped
Bernoulli beam under uniformly distributed load, which ignoring pipe’s large defections and the
Euler–Bernoulli beam under uniformly distributed load, which ignoring pipe’s large defections and
effects of soil constraints on the pipe. For longer sections of pipeline subjected to buoyancy forces, the
the effects of soil constraints on the pipe. For longer sections of pipeline subjected to buoyancy forces,
pipe can exhibit both cable and beam action to resist the upward force. China National Standard
the pipe can exhibit both cable and beam action to resist the upward force. China National Standard
GB50470-2017 Seismic Technical Code for Oil & Gas Transmission Pipeline Engineering suggests an
GB50470-2017 Seismic Technical Code for Oil & Gas Transmission Pipeline Engineering suggests an
empirical equation for the maximum tensile axial stress in pipe induced by buoyancy in liquefaction
empirical equation for the maximum tensile axial stress in pipe induced by buoyancy in liquefaction
areas as [27]:
areas as [27]:
Lmax
L
 E max
L
 E h1422.7  7835.5Lb / (0.167 Lb2  8.36 Lb  282.4)  1465D  6.16 L   106 i (6)−6
σmax = Eε Lmax = E −1422.7 + 7835.5L b / ( 0.167L b
2
− 8.36Lb + 282.4) + 1465D + 6.16σL × 10 (6)
where  max is the maximum stress induced by liquefaction buoyancy in pipe; E is Young’s modulus,
L

E = 210,000 MPa;  max is the maximum axial strain induced by liquefaction buoyancy in pipe; Lb is
L

length of pipe in liquefaction zone, m; σL is the initial axial stress in pipe induced by service load.
Energies 2018, 11, 2334 4 of 20

Energies L 11,
where 2018,
σmax is xthe
FORmaximum stress
PEER REVIEW induced by liquefaction buoyancy in pipe; E is Young’s modulus, 4 of 19
E = 210,000 MPa; ε Lmax is the maximum axial strain induced by liquefaction buoyancy in pipe; Lb is
The
length ofinitial
pipe inaxial stress σL is
liquefaction induced
zone, m; σLby
is internal pressure
the initial and in
axial stress thermal load in pipe,
pipe induced whichload.
by service can be
readily
Thederived through
initial axial Equation
stress (7):
σL is induced by internal pressure and thermal load in pipe, which can be
readily derived through Equation (7):
 L   h  E T2  T1  (7)
σL = µσh − Eα( T2 − T1 ) (7)
where σL is the initial axial stress, MPa; μ is the Possion’s ratio; α is the thermal expansion
coefficient, °C−1; T1 and T2 are the ambient temperature at the time of restraint and the maximum
where σL is the initial axial stress, MPa; µ is the Possion’s ratio; α is the thermal expansion coefficient,
operating temperature, °C.
◦ C−1 ; T and
1 T2 are the ambient temperature at the time of restraint and the maximum operating
Finally, the
◦ pipe stresses in pipe shall be limited by the following strength requirements:
temperature, C.

Finally, the pipe stresses 2 in pipe shall be limited by the following strength requirements:
   
2
  ho   bf   L   ho  bf   L IITK  GSDMA Guidelines
 r
Fy y   MisesMax
 σ 2 + σ + σ
 or  2   (8)
  ho 2 L 2 − σho σb f + σL I ITK − GSDMA Guidelines

 bf
Fy σy ≥ σMisesMax =  L
  L

  ho   max   L   ho  max   L China National Standard GB50470-2017 (8)

 q
or

L 2 L
σho 2 + (σmax + σL ) − σho (σmax + σL ) China National Standard GB50470 − 2017


2.3. Uplift Displacement Based Criteria

2.3. Uplift Displacement Based Criteria
In pipeline engineering, the uplift of buried pipelines above the ground is also has a high risk
In pipeline engineering, the uplift of buried pipelines above the ground is also has a high
potential for leading to third-party damage. Thus the maximum uplift displacement of buried
risk potential for leading to third-party damage. Thus the maximum uplift displacement of buried
pipeline in liquefaction zone Δ should be less than the height of soil fill over pipeline C. Based on this,
pipeline in liquefaction zone ∆ should be less than the height of soil fill over pipeline C. Based on this,
GB50470-2017 recommends that the pipe length in liquefaction area should be no larger than 180 m
GB50470-2017 recommends that the pipe length in liquefaction area should be no larger than 180 m in
in order to prevent pipe uplifted above the ground surface [27]. The IITK-GSDMA guideline proposes
order to prevent pipe uplifted above the ground surface [27]. The IITK-GSDMA guideline proposes a
a length of 150 m between anchors to prevent uplifting [26].
length of 150 m between anchors to prevent uplifting [26].
3. Basic Theory and Analytical Analysis Method
3. Basic Theory and Analytical Analysis Method

3.1.
3.1. Mechanical
Mechanical Model
Model
As shown
As shown in
in Figure
Figure 2,2, for
for buried
buried pipelines
pipelines crossing
crossing liquefaction
liquefaction areas,
areas, pipe
pipe segments
segments in
in
liquefaction zone will bend due to the buoyancy load.
liquefaction zone will bend due to the buoyancy load.

-Pipe in non-liquefaction zone

-Pipe in liquefaction zone

Buoyancy Non-liquefaction Zone

Non-liquefaction Zone
Liquefaction
Zone

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of buried pipeline crossing liquefaction area.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of buried pipeline crossing liquefaction area.

While the pipe segments in non-liquefaction zones will be restrained by the surrounding soils,
While the pipe segments in non-liquefaction zones will be restrained by the surrounding soils,
which are commonly considered as discrete elastic soil springs. Under this load condition, the pipe
which are commonly considered as discrete elastic soil springs. Under this load condition, the pipe
should be extended due to the bending deformation, which further induces friction forces exist
should be extended due to the bending deformation, which further induces friction forces exist between
between pipes and the soils in non-liquefaction zone. In order to the make the analytical solutions of
pipes and the soils in non-liquefaction zone. In order to the make the analytical solutions of pipe stress
pipe stress and displacement tractable, the following assumptions are introduced:
and displacement tractable, the following assumptions are introduced:
(1)
(1) The
Thepipe
pipeisisconsidered
consideredas
asaabeam
beamstructure,
structure,without
withoutconsidering
consideringthe
theradial
radialand
andshear
shearstress
stressin
init.
it.
(2) The pipe material is assumed to be uniform and purely elastic.
(3) The soil constraints on pipe in non-liquefaction zone is elastic, described with discrete soil
springs.
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

(4) Only
Energies 2018, the pipe
deformation in vertical plane is considered here, and the potential lateral5 pipe
11, 2334 of 20
deformation induced by lateral spreading is not included.

(2)
3.1.1.The pipe material
Governing is assumed
Equations for PipetoSegment
be uniform and purely elastic.Areas
in Non-Liquefaction
(3) The soil constraints on pipe in non-liquefaction zone is elastic, described with discrete soil springs.
The mechanical
(4) Only model of pipes
the pipe deformation in non-liquefaction
in vertical zone ishere,
plane is considered shownandinthe
Figure 3. Thelateral
potential governing
pipe
equation can be derived by the equilibrium of pipe elements:
deformation induced by lateral spreading is not included.
d4 w1
3.1.1. Governing Equations for Pipe Segment EI in Non-Liquefaction
 kw1  0 Areas (9)
dx4
The mechanical model of pipes in non-liquefaction zone is shown in Figure 3. The governing
where
equation w1can
is the
be pipe
derived configuration in non-liquefaction
by the equilibrium zone; E is pipe’s initial elastic modulus; I is the
of pipe elements:
inertia moment; k is the stiffness of the elastic soil spring.
4w
Thus the general solution of the pipe’sddeflection 1 curve can be obtained as:
EI 4
+ kw1 = 0 (9)
dx
w1  e  C1 cos  x  C2 sin  x   e  C3 cos  x  C4 sin  x 
x x
(10)
where w1 is the pipe configuration in non-liquefaction zone; E is pipe’s initial elastic modulus; I is the
inertia λ= 4 k / 4EIk ,isCthe
where moment; 1~C4stiffness of the elastic
are the unknown soil spring.
coefficients.

Figure 3. Mechanical model for pipe segment (BC) in non-liquefaction zone.

Figure 3. Mechanical model for pipe segment (BC) in non-liquefaction zone.

Based on the elastic foundation beam theory, the deflection curve equation can be readily further
Thusas:
obtained the general solution of the pipe’s deflection curve can be obtained as:

x
w1 = eλx (C1 cos2
λxe+ C2 sin λx ) + e−λx (C3 cos λx + C4 sin λx ) (10)
w1  x    MB  cos  x  sin  x   PB cos  x (11)
√ k
where λ = 4 k/4EI, C1 ~C4 are the unknown coefficients.
where MB and
Based PB elastic
on the are thefoundation
unknown moment and shear
beam theory, force at point
the deflection curveB.
equation can be readily further
obtained as:
3.1.2. Governing Equations for Pipe −λx
2λeSegment in Liquefaction Areas
w1 ( x ) = [ MB λ(cos λx − sin λx ) − PB cos λx ] (11)
k the governing equation also can be obtained by considering
For the pipes in liquefaction zone,
where MB and PBofare
the equilibrium thesegments
pipe unknown(Figure
moment 4):and shear force at point B.

d 4 w 2in Liquefaction
3.1.2. Governing Equations for Pipe Segment d2w2 Areas
EI 2
F q  0 (12)
For the pipes in liquefaction zone, the dx 2equation also can be obtained by considering
dxgoverning
the equilibrium
where w2 is the of pipe
pipe segments (Figure
configuration 4):
in liquefaction area, F is the axial force in pipe, q is the buoyancy
load per unit pipe length.
d 4 w2 d 2 w2
The general solution of the deflection
EI −
curve Ffor − qsegment
pipe =0 AB can be obtained as: (12)
dx2 dx2
q 2 C5  x C6  x
where w2 is the pipe configurationw2 
inliquefaction
x  2 e area,  2F eis the
 C 7axial
x  Cforce
8 (13)
in pipe, q is the buoyancy
2F  
load per unit pipe length.
The
where α=general
F / EIsolution of the
, C5~C8 are thedeflection
unknowncurve for pipe segment AB can be obtained as:
coefficients.
C5 αx(P0),Cmoment
Taking the pipe rotation angle (0),q shear force 6 αx
(M0), and pipe deflection (w0) at point
2
w = −
A as the boundary condition, the pipe x + e + e + C x+ C8 form as function of P0(13)
2Fcurve can α2 be determined
2 7in another , M0
α2
and w0: √
where α = F/EI, C5 ~C8 are the unknown coefficients.
Energies 2018, 11, 2334 6 of 20

Taking the pipe rotation angle (0), shear force (P0 ), moment (M0 ), and pipe deflection (w0 ) at point
Energies
A as the 2018, 11, x FOR condition,
boundary PEER REVIEWpipe curve can be determined in another form as function of P60 ,ofM
the 19
0
and w0 :
2 2 F M − EIq
qxqx EIq − F0 M0 αx
0 M0  EIq EIq
F F0 M −αx
 


x) =
w 2 (w x w0 −
  0 2F20 F
w  +  0 0
2 + 2
0
e  xe
 e +
 xe (14)
(14)
2 FF0 2 2 F2F
2
0
0 0 0

w MP
P+dP
F F
F0 w0 M+dM
q
P0 A
PB
q MB FB
B x
Figure
Figure 4.
4. Mechanical
Mechanical model
model for
for pipe
pipe segment
segment (AB)
(AB) in
in liquefaction
liquefaction zone.
zone.

3.2. Solution Algorithm

3.2. Solution Algorithm
Based on the continuous conditions at Point B ( w 1 ( B )  w 2 ( B ); w 1 '( B )  w 2 '( B ) ), two
Based on the continuous conditions at Point B (w1 ( B) = w2 ( B); w1 0( B) = w2 0( B)), two equations
equations can be derived:
can be derived:
  0 − EIq  EIq M0 )0  α W W −αW
−FF00 M  2MB λ2B−2P2 Bλ 2 PB 
2 W
q− WF20q M+0 F0 MEIq 2 2 = 2M
 
W w + ( EIq
e + e 
 0     
2 2
w 0 8F0 F 2 2
2F20 e  e k
F0 − F0 M0 ) Fα02W 0 −α W  2 F (15)
  8(EIq √ e 2 − e 2 − 2F0 = B k B
Wq
0 2P  λ 2 −4M λ3
 k
 (15)
  EIq  F0 M 0   e  2  e   2   Wq  2 PB   4 M B 
F0 EIF0 W W 2 3

 F moment  
The bending
 0
EIF0 in  Beam AB can  be2 derived
F0 by the k elastic beam theory:
2
v0 Bthe elastic
    
q W in Beam
The bending moment AB canW be derivedFBby W F
beam theory:
M ( x ) = − MB − − x − PB −x − q −x + q B [w( x ) − v B ] (16)
2 2 2 2 1 + v 02 2 1 + v 02
q W   W  F v  B  W  F B
M x  M B    x   PB   x B B
  x B
 w  x   v B  (16)
2 2   2  1  v B 2  2  1  v B 2
Thus, the bending moment at Point A and Point B can also be readily obtained:
Thus, thebending moment at Point A and Point B can also be  readily obtained: 
2 3
 M0 = − M − PB W − qW 2 − F0 W ( PB λ −2MB λ ) + F0 w0 − 2MB λ2 −2PB λ

M
B
PB W qWqW
2
2
2 
0 
8F W P  2 k2 M  3
B
2MB λ2 −2PB λ

B  k
2 M B  2  2 PB   (17)
0 −M M 
B M0 −
=  + F  w −  F 
0 
w  

 B 0 0 0
2 8 8 kk  k 
 (17)

The physical elongation qW ∆
2
and 2 M
geometrical  2
 2 P  
elongation ∆ in pipe can be obtained as:
  M B  M 0  8 phy  F0  w 0  B B
 geo
  k 
 R F /f fx F0 W
 ∆ phy = 0 0 EA dx + 2EA
The physical elongation Δ phyq and geometrical elongation
R +∞ Δq
 geo in pipe can be obtained as:
(18)
 ∆ geo = 0W/2 1 + w2 0( x )2 dx − W 1 + w1 0( x )2 − 1 dx
R
2 + 0
 F f fx FW
  phy  0
0
dx  0
EA 2 EA
According to the  ALA Guidelines (2001), the peak axial soil resistance per unit length of a(18) pipe
 
W /2 W 
 
 geo 0 2 1+
2 2
1  w 2  
' x dx   1  w1  
' x  1 dx
f is:
0
K0 
f = πDk0 cs + πDHγ0 tan θ0 (19)
2
According to the ALA Guidelines (2001), the peak axial soil resistance per unit length of a pipe
fwhere
is: cs is the soil cohesion representative, k0 is the adhesion factor, H is the depth of the soil from the
ground surface to the centerline of pipe, γ0 is the effective unit weight of the soil, K0 is the coefficient
of the lateral soil pressure at rest, θ 0f is 1  Kangle
 the
Dkinternal
c   DH
0 s
friction
0
 0
tan of the soil.
0
(19)
2
where cs is the soil cohesion representative, k0 is the adhesion factor, H is the depth of the soil from
the ground surface to the centerline of pipe, γ0 is the effective unit weight of the soil, K0 is the
coefficient of the lateral soil pressure at rest, θ0 is the internal friction angle of the soil.
According to the deformation compatibility equation between pipeline physical elongation and
pipeline geometrical elongation, another equation can be formed:
Energies 2018, 11, 2334 7 of 20

According to the deformation compatibility equation between pipeline physical elongation and
pipeline geometrical elongation, another equation can be formed:
Z W/2 q Z +∞ q  Z F0 / f
2W 2 fx F0 W
1 + w2 0( x ) dx − + 1 + w1 0( x ) − 1 dx = dx + (20)
0 2 0 0 EA 2EA

Thus based on Equations (15), (18) and (20), F0 , M0 , PB , MB and w0 can be solve iteratively. In this
study, the commercial numerical analysis software MATLAB was utilized to ensure the convergence of
the iteration.

3.3. Total Additional Longitudinal Stresses in Pipe

With the calculated variables in Section 3.2, the axial and bending stresses in pipe can be obtained
readily. The axial stress in pipe can be derived as:
(
F0 /A For Pipe Segement AB
σaxis = (21)
f ( L − x )/A For Pipe Segement BC

The bending stress can be obtained by the radius of curvature:

ED/2w00 ( x )
σbend = ED/(2ρ) = 3/2
≈ ED/2w00 ( x ) (22)
(1 + w 0 ( x )2 )

Substitute the Equations (11) and (14) into Equation (22):

   q q 
F0 F0
q EIq− F0 M0
 ED
2 F0 + 2F0 EI e EI x + e− EI x For Pipe Segement AB
σbend = (23)
2Eλ3 De−λx
[ MB λ(cos λx + sin λx ) − PB sin λx ] For Pipe Segement BC

k

The longitudinal stress in pipe can be further derived:

σlong = σaxial + σbend cos θ (24)

where θ is central angle to the vertical plane crossing pipe axis.

4. Model Validation and Comparison

4.1. Finite Element Numerical Model for Validation

Nonlinear finite element method has been widely applied in the stress analysis of buried pipeline
subjected to environmental loads due to its accuracy. Thus, a rigorous finite element model was also
established by the general code package ABAQUS in this study to validate the established analytical
model, as shown in Figure 5. Three dimensional pipe elements (PIPE31) were utilized to model the
pipeline. A fine mesh with element size of 0.1 m was set for pipelines near and in the liquefaction
zone, as large pipe stress appears in these pipe segments [20]. A coarse mesh with element size of 1 m
was set for pipelines far away from the liquefaction zone. The pipe-soil interaction elements (PSI34)
developed by ABAQUS were employed to simulated the soil constraints on pipe in non-liquefaction
zone. The entire pipe length is nine times of the length of pipe in liquefaction zone in order to eliminate
boundary effects on the stress results.
 Energies 2018, 11, 2334 8 of 20
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

PSI elements
PSI elements
PIPE elements
Coarse PIPE elements
Transition Fine
mesh
Coarse Transition meshFine
area
mesh area mesh

Fixed pipe end Fixed Soil Distributed buoyancy load Fixed Soil Fixed pipe end
Fixed pipe end Fixed Soil Distributed buoyancy load Fixed Soil Fixed pipe end
Figure
Figure5.5.Sketch
Sketchofofthe
thefinite
finiteelement
elementmodel
modelfor
forburied
buriedpipeline
pipelinesubjected
subjectedtotobuoyancy
buoyancyload.
load.
Figure 5. Sketch of the finite element model for buried pipeline subjected to buoyancy load.
4.2.
4.2.Comparison Results for FE Model and the Proposed Method
4.2.Comparison
ComparisonResults
ResultsforforFEFEModel
Modeland
andthetheProposed
Proposed Method
Method
Three
Three cases
cases with
with various
various engineering
engineering parameters
parameters were
were used
used here
here toto validate
validate the
the proposed
proposed
analyticalThree
model.cases
An with
API various
Grade engineering
X70 steel pipe parameters
was selected were
as a used
prototype.here to
The validate
peak soilthe proposed
resistance
analytical
analytical model.
model. AnAnAPI APIGrade
Grade X70X70
steel pipepipe
steel waswasselected as a prototype.
selected as a The peak
prototype. The soil resistance
peak soil and
resistance
and
the the corresponding
corresponding yieldyield displacement
displacement for forvertical
the the vertical
upliftuplift
soil soil spring
spring considered
considered here here
are are kN/m
126.9 126.9
and and
kN/m the corresponding
0.18 m, which yield
makes displacement
the forstiffness
soil stiffness
spring the vertical uplift
equals 700soil spring considered here are for
126.9
and 0.18 m, which makes the soil spring equals 700 kN/m 2 . kN/m 2. Detailed
Detailed parametersparameters
for the cases
thekN/m
cases and
are 0.18 m,
listed in which
Table 1.makes the soil spring stiffness equals 700 kN/m . Detailed parameters for
2
are
thelisted inare
Table 1.
Figure 6 illustrates Table
cases listed in 1.
the comparison results for pipe uplift displacements between the proposed
Figure 6 illustrates the
method (PM) and the finite element method
Table 1.comparison
Engineering results
(FEM).forThe
parameters pipe
for uplift
relative
the displacements
errors for
three different case between
cases. 1, case 2 the
andproposed
case 3
aremethod (PM) and
8.99%, 4.95% andthe finiterespectively.
6.40%, element method Thus,(FEM). The relative
it is obvious that the errors for case
proposed 1, casecan
method 2 and case 3
predict
are
pipe’s 8.99%, 4.95% and
Yield
vertical responses 6.40%,
Strength ofrespectively. Thus, it
quite accurately.
Pipe Diameter
is
Pipe obvious
Wall that the
Pipe Buried
proposed method can
Pipe Length in
predict
Case Number Pipe Material Thickness
pipe’s vertical responses quite accurately.
(mm) Depth (m) Liquefaction Zone (m)
(MPa) (mm)
Case 1 Table
483 1. Engineering
914parameters for the three different
13.1 1.8 cases. 30
Case 2 Table 1. Engineering
483 914 parameters13.1
for the three different
1.8 cases. 50
Case 3 Yield Strength
483 of Pipe
914 Pipe 17.5
Wall 1.8 50
Case Yield Strength of DiameterPipe Pipe Wall Pipe Buried Pipe Length in
Case Pipe Material Thickness Pipe (m)
Buried Liquefaction
Pipe Length in
Number Pipe Material Diameter Thickness Depth Zone (m)
Number (MPa) (mm) (mm) Depth (m) Liquefaction Zone (m)
Figure 6 illustrates
Case 1
the comparison
(MPa)
483
results for 13.1
(mm)
914
pipe
(mm)uplift displacements
1.8
between30the proposed
method
Case
Case 2 (PM)
1 and the
483finite
483 element method
914914 (FEM). The relative
13.1
13.1 errors
1.8 for
1.8 case 1, case 250
and
30 case 3 are
Case
8.99%,
Case 3 2
4.95% and 6.40%,
483 483respectively.914914
Thus, it is 13.1
obvious
17.5 that the 1.8
proposed
1.8 method can50 50
predict pipe’s
Case 3 483
vertical responses quite accurately. 914 17.5 1.8 50

0.6 Case 1 PM
0.6 Case 1 PM
Case 1 FEM
0.4 Case 1 FEM
Case 2 PM
pipe uplift (m)
The pipe uplift

0.4 Case 2 PM
displacement (m)

Case 2 FEM
displacement

0.2 Case 3 PMFEM

Case 2
0.2 Case
Case 3 PM
3 FEM
Case 3 FEM
The

0.0
0.0
-60 -30 0 30 60
-60 -30 0
Axial distance to the pipe center (m) 30 60
Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
Figure 6. Pipe vertical deformation results for the considered cases.
Figure
Figure 6.6.Pipe
Pipevertical
verticaldeformation
deformationresults
results for
for the
the considered
considered cases.
cases.
Longitudinal stress results for Case 2 were also elucidated here to show the accuracy of the
proposed Longitudinal stress results
analyticalstress
model. for
Figurefor Case 2 were
7 shows also elucidated here to show the accuracy of the
Longitudinal results Case 2the longitudinal
were stresses
also elucidated at pipe
here crown
to show theand pipe invert.
accuracy of the
Theproposed analytical
relativeanalytical model.
errors formodel. Figure
the maximum 7 shows the longitudinal stresses at pipe crown and pipe invert.
proposed Figure strain
7 showsat pipe crown and pipe
the longitudinal invert
stresses at are 9.92%
pipe andand
crown 10.84%
pipe
The relative
respectively, errors
which canforalso
theprove
maximumthat strain
the at pipemethod
proposed crown can
andaccurate
pipe invert are 9.92%
calculate the andstress
pipe 10.84%
invert. The relative errors for the maximum strain at pipe crown and pipe invert are 9.92% and
respectively, which can also prove that the proposed method can accurate calculate the pipe stress
results.
10.84% respectively, which can also prove that the proposed method can accurate calculate the pipe
results.
stress results.
Energies 2018,11,
Energies2018, 11,2334
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99ofof20
19

270PEER REVIEW
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR Pipe crown FEM 9 of 19

Longitudinal stress in Pipe (MPa)

Pipe invert FEM
180 Pipe crown PM
270 Pipe crown
Pipe FEM
invert PM
Longitudinal stress in Pipe (MPa) 90 Pipe invert FEM
180 Pipe crown PM
Pipe invert PM
0
90

-90
0

-180
-90
-60 -30 0 30 60
Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
-180
-60
Figure 7. Comparative -30 of longitudinal
results 0 stresses in pipe
30 for Case 2 listed
60 in Table 1.
Figure 7. Comparative results of longitudinal
Axial distance to thestresses in pipe
pipe center (m) for Case 2 listed in Table 1.

The following
Figure 7. reasons
Comparative can results
induce of the relativestresses
longitudinal error of in our
pipe analytical model
for Case 2 listed results
in Table 1. and the FE
modelTheresults:
following (i) Inreasons
the FE modelcan induce the relative
established error of our
by ABAQUS, analytical nonlinearity
the geometric model results is and the FE
considered,
model
whichresults:
The
makes (i) In
following
the the
stress FE
reasons model
components established
can induce by given
the relative
derived are ABAQUS,
error of the
in local geometric
ourdirections
analyticalthat nonlinearity
model results
rotate withisandconsidered,
the the FE
material.
which
model makes the
results: stress
(i) In thecomponents
FE model derived
established are
by given
ABAQUS, in local
thedirections
geometric
While this is not considered in the proposed analytical model; (ii) the axial and vertical soil springs that rotate
nonlinearity with
is the material.
considered,
While
which
used this
in the isfinite
makes nottheconsidered
element in the
stress components
model areproposed
derived are
elastoplasticanalytical
given inmodel; (ii) the
local directions
soil springs. While axial and vertical
thatproposed
in the rotate with thesoil
model, springs
material.
the elastic
used in
While the finite
this is element
not consideredmodel in are
the elastoplastic
proposed soil
analyticalsprings.
model; While
(ii) in
the
deformation of axial soil spring is ignored, a constant value of peak axial resistance is used to model the
axialproposed
and model,
vertical soil the elastic
springs
used
deformation
the axialin soil
the of
finite
axialelement
constraint; model
soil (iii)
spring onlyisare elastoplastic
ignored,
the upliftasoil soil springs.
constant valueisof
resistance While
peak
used inaxial
in the proposed
the resistance
analytical model,
is used
model. thetoelastic
model
thedeformation of axial soil
axial soil constraint; spring
(iii) only is theignored, a constant
uplift soil resistancevalue of peak
is used in axial resistancemodel.
the analytical is used to model
theDiscussion
4.3. axial soil constraint;
of Soil Spring (iii)Properties
only the uplift soil Mechanical
on Pipe’s resistance isBehaviors
used in the analytical model.
4.3. Discussion of Soil Spring Properties on Pipe’s Mechanical Behaviors
4.3.As mentioned
Discussion in Spring
of Soil Section 3.1, in this
Properties studyMechanical
on Pipe’s soil constraints
Behaviors are described by elastic soil springs,
As mentioned in Section 3.1, in this study soil constraints are described by elastic soil springs,
while commonly soil constraints on pipe are more likely elastoplastic soil springs. Thus, in this
As mentioned
while commonly in Section 3.1,
soil constraints in this
on pipe arestudy
moresoil constraints
likely are described
elastoplastic soil springs.by elastic
Thus, soil springs,
in this section,
section, acommonly
detailed investigation is conducted to more
determine whether elastic soil springsThus,
can effectively
a detailed investigation is conducted to determine whether elastic soil springs can effectively in
while soil constraints on pipe are likely elastoplastic soil springs. this
simulate
simulate the mechanical behaviors of pipes subjected to buoyancy induced by liquefied soil.
thesection,
mechanical a detailed investigation
behaviors of pipesissubjected
conductedtotobuoyancy
determineinducedwhetherby elastic soil springs
liquefied soil. can effectively
In the the
simulate analysis, for elastoplatic
mechanical behaviors soil
of springs,
pipes the axial
subjected to peak soil induced
buoyancy resistance by and corresponding
liquefied soil. yield
In the analysis, for elastoplatic soil springs, the axial peak soil resistance and corresponding
displacement are
In the analysis, selected as
forselected 32.32
elastoplatic kN/m and
soil springs, 8 mm. The vertical uplift peak soil resistance yieldand
yield displacement are as 32.32 kN/mthe andaxial
8 mm.peak The
soil resistance and corresponding
vertical uplift peak soil resistance
corresponding
displacement are yield displacement
selected as 32.32 are kN/m 126.82
and kN/m
8 mm. and The 180 mm.uplift
vertical The peak
verticalsoilbearing
resistance peakandsoil
and corresponding yield displacement are 126.82 kN/m and 180 mm. The vertical bearing peak soil
resistance
corresponding and corresponding
yield displacement yield displacement
are 126.82 kN/m are 687
and kN/m
180 mm. andThe 142 vertical
mm. Forbearingelastic soil
peaksprings,
soil
resistance and corresponding yield displacement are 687 kN/m and 142 mm. For elastic soil springs,
soil spring stiffness are determined by the elastic stage of the elastoplastic
resistance and corresponding yield displacement are 687 kN/m and 142 mm. For elastic soil springs, soil springs. Totally, three
soil spring stiffness are determined by the elastic stage of the elastoplastic soil springs. Totally, three
models
soil springwithstiffness
variousare liquefaction
determinedzone by the length,
elastici.e.,
stage30ofm, the80 m and 120soil
elastoplastic m,springs.
were considered.
Totally, three Pipe
models with various liquefaction zone length, i.e., 30 m, 80 m and 120 m, were considered. Pipe vertical
modelsdisplacements,
vertical with various liquefaction
longitudinalzone length,
stresses i.e., crown
at pipe 30 m, 80 andminvert
and 120 for m, were
these considered.
cases with bothPipe elastic
displacements,
vertical
longitudinal
displacements,
stresses stresses
longitudinal
at pipe at crown
pipe
and invert
crown
for these
and invert
cases with both elastic and
for these cases with both elastic
and elastoplastic soil springs were derived, as shown in Figures 8–10.
elastoplastic soil springs were derived, as shown
and elastoplastic soil springs were derived, as shown in Figures 8–10. in Figures 8–10.
120 Elastoplastic soil spring
Elastoplastic soil spring 80
Longitudinal stress at pipe invert (MPa)
Longitudinal stress at pipe crown (MPa)

120 Elastic soilsoil

Elastoplastic spring
spring
Elastic soil spring
Elastoplastic soil spring 80
Longitudinal stress at pipe invert (MPa)

80
Longitudinal stress at pipe crown (MPa)

Elastic soil spring

Elastic soil spring
80 40
40 40
40 0
0
0
0 -40
-40
-40
-40 -80
-80
-80
-80 -120
-120 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Axial distance to the pipe center (m) Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
Axial distance to the pipe center (m) Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

(a)(a)Longitudinal
Longitudinalstresses
stresses at
at pipe
pipe crown
crown (b)Longitudinal
(b) Longitudinalstresses
stresses
at at pipe
pipe invert
invert
Figure8.8.Cont.
Figure Cont.
Figure 8. Cont.
 The pipe uplift displace
0.08

0.04

0.00

2018, 11,
Energies 2018, 11, 2334
x FOR PEER REVIEW 19
10 of 20
-0.04
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

0.20
(c)Elastoplastic
Verticalsoildeformations
spring
0.16 Elastic soil spring

The pipe uplift displacement(m)

Figure 8. Results for a liquefaction zone length equal to 30 m.
0.12

It can be derived that, for0.08the cases with liquefaction zone length equals 30 m and 80 m.
Displacements and stress results0.04of models with various soil spring properties are visibly same. This
is because for these two cases the soils are almost elastic. For the case with liquefaction zone length
0.00
equals 120 m, the results derived by FE model with elastic soil springs predicts smaller results. This
is because the maximum pipe soil -0.04relative displacement is 0.32 m, which is much larger than the yield
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120
displacement of the soil (0.18 m). However, it is also worthy
Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
to mention that, in the last mentioned
case, the maximum pipe uplift displacement has become about 3.2 m, which is much larger than the
(c) Vertical deformations
pipe’s buried depth, indicating that this case cannot be actually allowed in pipe design. Thus, for
engineering design Figure purposes, using
8. Results forelastic soil spring
a liquefaction modelequal
zone length can toeffectively
30 m. simulate the pipe’s
Figure 8. Results for a liquefaction zone length equal to 30 m.
mechanical responses.
It can be derived that, for the cases with liquefaction zone length equals 30 m and 80 m.
500
Displacements
400 and stress
Elastoplastic soilresults
spring of models with various soil spring properties
Elastoplastic are visibly same. This
soil spring

Longitudinal stress at pipe invert (MPa)

Longitudinal stress at pipe crown (MPa)

Elastic soil spring

is because300for these two cases the soils are almost elastic. For the case with liquefaction zone length
Elastic soil spring 400

equals 120 200 m, the results derived by FE model with elastic300 soil springs predicts smaller results. This
is because100the maximum pipe soil relative displacement is 0.32 200 m, which is much larger than the yield

displacement 0
of the soil (0.18 m). However, it is also worthy 100 to mention that, in the last mentioned
case, the maximum pipe uplift displacement has become about 0
3.2 m, which is much larger than the
-100
pipe’s buried depth, indicating that this case cannot be actually allowed in pipe design. Thus, for
-200 -100
engineering design purposes, using elastic soil spring model can effectively simulate the pipe’s
-300 -200
mechanical responses.
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Axial distance to the pipe center (m) Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
400 500
Elastoplastic soil spring Elastoplastic soil spring
Longitudinal stress at pipe invert (MPa)
Longitudinal stress at pipe crown (MPa)

(a)
300 Longitudinal stresses
Elastic soil spring at pipe crown 400(b) Longitudinal
Elastic soil springstresses at pipe invert
200 300
2.0
Elastoplastic soil spring 200
100
Elastic soil spring
1.6
The pipe uplift displacement(m)

0 100

-100 1.2 0

-200 -100
0.8

-300 -200
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
0.4 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Axial distance to the pipe center (m) Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
0.0

(a) Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown

-150 -100 -50 0 (b)50 Longitudinal
100 150 stresses at pipe invert
Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
2.0
Elastoplastic soil spring
(c)soil
Elastic Vertical
spring deformations
1.6
The pipe uplift displacement(m)

Figure
Figure 9. Results
9. Results forfor a liquefaction
a liquefaction zone
zone length
length equal
equal to m.
to 80 80 m.
1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

(c) Vertical deformations

Figure 9. Results for a liquefaction zone length equal to 80 m.

Energies 2018,
Energies 11, 11,
2018, 2334x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 11
of 20
of 19

400 600
Elastoplastic soil spring Elastoplastic soil spring
Longitudinal stress at pipe crown (MPa)

Longitudinal stress at pipe invert (MPa)

300 Elastic soil spring 500 Elastic soil spring

400
200
300
100
200
0
100
-100
0
-200 -100

-300 -200
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Axial distance to the pipe center (m) Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
(a) Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown (b) Longitudinal stresses at pipe invert

3.5
Elastoplastic soil spring
3.0 Elastic soil spring
The pipe uplift displacement(m)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

(c) Vertical deformations

Figure Results
10.10.
Figure forfor
Results a liquefaction zone
a liquefaction length
zone equal
length to to
equal 120120
m.m.

5. Parametric Analysisthat, for the cases with liquefaction zone length equals 30 m and 80 m.
It can be derived
Displacements and
In this section,stress results ofanalysis
parametric models waswithconducted
various soilbyspring properties
the proposed are visibly
analytical same.to
method
This is because
investigate for theseof
influences two cases the
common soils are almost
engineering elastic.i.e.,
parameters, For the diameter,
pipe case with pipe
liquefaction zone
wall thickness,
length equals 120 m, the results derived by FE model with elastic soil springs predicts
soil spring stiffness and width of liquefaction zone, on the mechanical response of buried pipeline insmaller results.
This is because the
a liquefaction maximum
area. An APIpipe soilX70
Grade relative displacement
gas pipe is 0.32equals
with diameter m, which is much
914.4 mm and larger
pipethanwall
thethickness
yield displacement of the soil (0.18 m). However, it is also worthy to mention that,
equals 13.1 mm was selected as a prototype. According to ALA-2001 [25], the soil properties in the last
mentioned case, the
representative maximum
of the backfillpipe uplift
should displacement
be used to computehas the
become
axial about 3.2 m,forces.
soil spring whichOtheris muchsoillarger
spring
than the pipe’s buried depth, indicating that this case cannot be actually allowed in
forces should generally be based on the native soil properties. In geohazard areas, soft sands arepipe design. Thus,
forcommonly
engineering design
used purposes,
as backfill soilsusing elastic soil
for pipelines. spring
Based on model can effectively
the following backfill simulate the pipe’s
soil parameters: unit
mechanical responses.
weight: 22 kN/m , friction angle: 37°, friction reduction factor: 0.6, the axial peak soil resistance on
3

pipe is derived as 32.21 kN/m with yield displacement equals 8 mm. Based on the following native
5. Parametric Analysis
soil parameters: soil cohesion representative: 24 kPa, unit weight: 22 kN/m3, friction angle: 25°,
In this
friction section,factor:
reduction parametric
0.6, theanalysis was conducted
vertical uplift by the proposed
peak soil resistance on pipe isanalytical
derived asmethod to
126.82 kN/m
investigate influences of common
with yield displacement equals 0.18 m.engineering parameters, i.e., pipe diameter, pipe wall thickness,
soil spring stiffness and width of liquefaction zone, on the mechanical response of buried pipeline
in 5.1.
a liquefaction area.
Effects of Pipe An API Grade X70 gas pipe with diameter equals 914.4 mm and pipe wall
Diameter
thickness equals 13.1 mm was selected as a prototype. According to ALA-2001 [25], the soil properties
Pipelines with larger diameters can increase the gas throughput but also increase the
representative of the backfill should be used to compute the axial soil spring forces. Other soil spring
construction cost. Thus pipelines with various pipe diameters are in service. In this section, four most
forces should generally be based on the native soil properties. In geohazard areas, soft sands are
common pipe diameters for X70 steel pipe were chosen to discuss its effects on pipe’s mechanical
commonly used as backfill soils for pipelines. Based on the following backfill soil parameters: unit
behaviors under buoyancy load in liquefaction areas. The design factor used for these pipes are all
weight: 22 kN/m3 , friction angle: 37◦ , friction reduction factor: 0.6, the axial peak soil resistance on
set to be 0.72, which ensures that the ratios of pipe diameter to pipe wall thickness are same. Thus all
pipe is derived as 32.21 kN/m with yield displacement equals 8 mm. Based on the following native soil
the four pipes has a hoop stress equals 0.72σy.
parameters: soil cohesion representative: 24 kPa, unit weight: 22 kN/m3 , friction angle: 25◦ , friction
Figure 11 shows the distribution results of vertical pipeline displacements, which indicates that
a smaller pipe diameter can lead to larger uplift displacement. As the buried depth considered here
is 1.8 m, the pipes considered here are still under ground.
Energies 2018, 11, 2334 12 of 20

reduction factor: 0.6, the vertical uplift peak soil resistance on pipe is derived as 126.82 kN/m with
yield displacement equals 0.18 m.

5.1. Effects of Pipe Diameter

Pipelines with larger diameters can increase the gas throughput but also increase the construction
cost. Thus pipelines with various pipe diameters are in service. In this section, four most common
pipe diameters
Energies for PEER
2018, 11, x FOR X70 steel
REVIEWpipe were chosen to discuss its effects on pipe’s mechanical behaviors 12 of 19
under buoyancy load in liquefaction areas. The design factor used for these pipes are all set to be 0.72,
whichFigures
ensures 12 that
and the
13 illustrate the longitudinal
ratios of pipe diameter to stresses
pipe wallinthickness
pipe crownareand pipe
same. invert,
Thus respectively.
all the four pipes
For
hasthe considered
a hoop cases here,
stress equals 0.72σthe
y . tensile stress is much larger than the compressive stress, indicating
that the pipes
Figure 11exist
showslarge
thetension deformation
distribution results ofunder thepipeline
vertical buoyancy load. It is also
displacements, worthy
which to mention
indicates that a
that, large
smaller tensile
pipe stresses
diameter canappear
lead to in various
larger areas
uplift along the pipe.
displacement. For
As the pipe depth
buried crown,considered
the large tensile
here is
stress
1.8 m,appears
the pipes inconsidered
the pipe segment
here are atstill
the under
center ground.
of liquefaction zone.
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

0.8
Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the longitudinal stresses in pipe crown and pipe invert, respectively.
D=1.106m
For the considered cases here, the tensile stress is much larger than the compressive stress, indicating
D=0.914m
pipe uplift displacement (m)

0.6 D=0.813m
that the pipes exist large tension deformation under the buoyancy load. It is also worthy to mention
D=0.711m
that, large tensile stresses appear in various areas along the pipe. For pipe crown, the large tensile
stress appears in the pipe segment
0.4 at the center of liquefaction zone.

0.8
0.2 D=1.106m
D=0.914m
The(m)

0.6 D=0.813m
0.0
The pipe uplift displacement

D=0.711m

0.4 -100 -50 0 50 100

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

0.2
Figure
Figure11.
11.Vertical
Verticaldeformations
deformationsfor
forpipes
pipeswith
withvarious
variousdiameters.
diameters.

400
0.0
Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the longitudinal stresses in pipe D=1.106m crown and pipe invert, respectively.
crown (MPa)stress at pipe crown (MPa)

For the considered cases here,300 the tensile stress is much larger than the compressive stress, indicating
D=0.914m
-100 -50 0 50 100
that the pipes exist large tension deformation under the buoyancy D=0.813m
load. It is also worthy to mention
D=0.711m
Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
that, large tensile stresses appear
200 in various areas along the pipe. For pipe crown, the large tensile
stress appears in theFigure
pipe segment at the
11. Vertical center of for
deformations liquefaction
pipes withzone.
various diameters.
100
400
D=1.106m
0
Longitudinal stress at pipeLongitudinal

D=0.914m
300
D=0.813m
-100 D=0.711m
200
-100 -50 0 50 100
100 Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

Figure 12. Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown for pipes with various diameters
0
400
-100 D=1.106m
invert (MPa)stress at pipe invert (MPa)

D=0.914m
300
-100 -50 0 50 D=0.813m
100
D=0.711m
Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
200
Figure 12. Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown for pipes with various diameters
Figure 12. Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown for pipes with various diameters
100
400
D=1.106m
0
eLongitudinal

D=0.914m
300
D=0.813m
-100 D=0.711m
200
 Longitudi
-100

-100 -50 0 50 100

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
Energies 2018, 11, 2334 13 of 20
Figure 12. Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown for pipes with various diameters

400
D=1.106m

Longitudinal stress at pipe invert (MPa)

D=0.914m
300
D=0.813m
D=0.711m
200

100

-100

-100 -50 0 50 100

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

Figure 13. Longitudinal stresses at pipe invert for pipes with various diameters.
Energies 2018, 11, xFigure 13. Longitudinal
FOR PEER REVIEW stresses at pipe invert for pipes with various diameters. 13 of 19

For pipe
For pipe invert,
invert, the large stress
the large stress appears
appears in
in the
the pipe
pipe segments
segments near
near the
the edge
edge of
of the
the liquefaction
liquefaction
zone. Generally,
zone. with the
Generally, with the increase
increase of
of pipe
pipe diameter,
diameter, the
the longitudinal
longitudinal stresses
stresses at
at both
both pipe
pipe invert
invert and
and
crown decrease. Because pipelines with larger pipe diameter have higher axial and bending stiffness.
crown decrease. Because pipelines with larger pipe diameter have higher axial and bending stiffness.

5.2. Effects of Pipe Wall Thickness

In pipeline engineering, various
various design
design factors
factors are are used
used for
for regions
regions with
with different
different risk
risk levels,
levels,
According to
According toASME
ASMEB31.8,
B31.8,four
fourdesign
design factors
factors i.e.,i.e., 0.72,
0.72, 0.6,0.6,
0.5 0.5
andand 0.4 used
0.4 are are used
[28].[28].
Thus,Thus, forsteel
for X70 X70
steel pipe with diameter equals 0.914 m, four pipe wall thicknesses are designed,
pipe with diameter equals 0.914 m, four pipe wall thicknesses are designed, i.e., 13.1 mm, 15.7 mm, i.e., 13.1 mm, 15.7
mm,mm
18.8 18.8and
mm23.6andmm,
23.6 respectively.
mm, respectively.
In this
In this section,
section, the
the effects of the
effects of the pipe
pipe wall
wall thickness
thickness on on pipe’s
pipe’s mechanical
mechanical behaviors
behaviors are
are
investigated in detail. Figure 14 plots the vertical uplift displacements of X70 pipes
investigated in detail. Figure 14 plots the vertical uplift displacements of X70 pipes with various with various wall
thicknesses.
wall Obviously,
thicknesses. the the
Obviously, maximum
maximum uplift
uplift displacement
displacement decreases
decreases with
withthe
theincrease
increase of wall
of wall
thickness, since
thickness, since increasing
increasing pipe
pipe wall
wall thickness
thickness increases
increases pipe’s
pipe’s bending
bending stiffness
stiffness and
and gravity
gravity load.
load.

0.8
t=13.1mm
t=15.7mm
The pipe uplift displacement (m)

0.6 t=18.8mm
t=23.6mm

0.4

0.2

0.0

-100 -50 0 50 100

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

Figure 14. Vertical deformations for pipes with various wall thicknesses.
Figure 14. Vertical deformations for pipes with various wall thicknesses.

As shown in Figures 15 and 16, both the longitudinal stresses at pipe crown and pipe invert decrease
As as
linearly shown in Figures
the increase 15 and
of pipe wall16,thickness.
both theVariation
longitudinal stresses
of tensile at pipe
stresses crownby
induced and pipe
wall invert
thickness
decrease
changing linearly
is more as the increase
obvious of pipe
comparing wall
with thickness.
that Variation
of compressive of tensile
stresses. For stresses induced
pipe with by wall
wall thickness
thickness changing is more obvious comparing with that of compressive stresses. For pipe with
equals 13.1 mm, small tensile stresses occurs at pipe crown in pipe segments near the edge of liquefaction wall
thickness equals
zone. While, 13.1 mm,
for pipes withsmall
largertensile stresses occurs
wall thicknesses at pipe
negligible crown
tensile in pipe
stresses segments
appear nearareas.
in these the edge of

400
t=13.1mm
e crown (MPa)

t=15.7mm
300
t=18.8mm
t=23.6mm
200
 Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

Figure 14. Vertical deformations for pipes with various wall thicknesses.

As shown in Figures 15 and 16, both the longitudinal stresses at pipe crown and pipe invert decrease
Energies 2018,
linearly 11, 2334
as the increase of pipe wall thickness. Variation of tensile stresses induced by wall thickness 14 of 20

changing is more obvious comparing with that of compressive stresses. For pipe with wall thickness
equals 13.1 mm,
liquefaction small
zone. tensile
While, forstresses occurslarger
pipes with at pipe crown
wall in pipe segments
thicknesses negligiblenear the edge
tensile of liquefaction
stresses appear in
zone. While,
these areas. for pipes with larger wall thicknesses negligible tensile stresses appear in these areas.

400
t=13.1mm

Longitudinal stress at pipe crown (MPa)

t=15.7mm
300
t=18.8mm
t=23.6mm
200

100

-100

-100 -50 0 50 100

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

Figure 15. Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown for pipes with various wall thicknesses.
Figure
Energies 2018, 11, Longitudinal
15.PEER
x FOR REVIEW stresses at pipe crown for pipes with various wall thicknesses. 14 of 19

Figure 16. Longitudinal stresses at pipe invert for pipes with various wall thicknesses.
Figure 16. Longitudinal stresses at pipe invert for pipes with various wall thicknesses.

5.3. Effects of Soil Spring Stiffness

5.3. Effects of Soil Spring Stiffness
The burial depth of pipe and the soil properties can directly influence the soil constraints on
The burial depth of pipe and the soil properties can directly influence the soil constraints on
pipe [29,30]. In this section, four soil spring stiffness were chosen for soils in non-liquefaction areas
pipe [29,30]. In this section, four soil spring stiffness were chosen for soils in non-liquefaction areas to
to investigate their effects on pipe’s structural response under buoyancy load. The soil spring stiffness
investigate their effects on pipe’s structural response under buoyancy load. The soil spring stiffness
values selected are 700, 1400, 2100 and 2800 kN/m22.
values selected are 700, 1400, 2100 and 2800 kN/m .
Figure 17 illustrates the vertical deformation curves of pipes buried in soils with different soil
Figure 17 illustrates the vertical deformation curves of pipes buried in soils with different soil
spring stiffness. The maximum uplift displacements remains the same with the variation of soil
spring stiffness. The maximum uplift displacements remains the same with the variation of soil spring
spring stiffness. Only the pipe segments near the edge of liquefaction zones have small difference
stiffness. Only the pipe segments near the edge of liquefaction zones have small difference when the
when the soil spring stiffness changes, i.e., with a smaller soil spring stiffness, a relatively larger
soil spring stiffness changes, i.e., with a smaller soil spring stiffness, a relatively larger deformation
deformation occurs in this region. This is because soils with smaller soil spring stiffness has smaller
occurs in this region. This is because soils with smaller soil spring stiffness has smaller reaction forces
reaction forces on pipes when relative movement exist between buried pipe and soil.
on pipes when relative movement exist between buried pipe and soil.
0.8
k=700KN/m2
k=1400KN/m2
The pipe uplift displacement (m)

0.6 0.20 k=2100KN/m2

0.15

0.10
k=2800KN/m2
0.05
0.4 0.00

-0.05

-0.10
-75 -50 -25

0.2

0.0
 Figure 17 illustrates the vertical deformation curves of pipes buried in soils with different soil
spring stiffness. The maximum uplift displacements remains the same with the variation of soil
spring stiffness. Only the pipe segments near the edge of liquefaction zones have small difference
when the soil spring stiffness changes, i.e., with a smaller soil spring stiffness, a relatively larger
deformation
Energies 2018, 11,occurs
2334 in this region. This is because soils with smaller soil spring stiffness has smaller
15 of 20
reaction forces on pipes when relative movement exist between buried pipe and soil.

0.8
k=700KN/m2
k=1400KN/m2

The pipe uplift displacement (m)

0.6 0.20 k=2100KN/m2
0.15

0.10
k=2800KN/m2
0.05
0.4 0.00

-0.05

-0.10
-75 -50 -25

0.2

0.0

-100 -50 0 50 100

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

Figure 17. Vertical deformations for pipes buried in soils with various soil spring stiffness.
Figure 17. Vertical deformations for pipes buried in soils with various soil spring stiffness.

Figures 18 and 19 illustrate the longitudinal stresses in pipe crown and pipe invert with various
Figuresstiffnesses,
soil spring 18 and 19 illustrate the longitudinal
respectively. stresses
Similar to Figure 14,inthe
pipe crown and pipe
longitudinal invert
stresses in with
pipesvarious
in the
soil spring stiffnesses,
liquefaction zone almostrespectively.
remain the sameSimilar
whento the
Figure
soil 14, the stiffness
spring longitudinal stresses
changes. in pipes
Pipelines in the
buried in
liquefaction zone almost remain the same when the soil spring stiffness changes. Pipelines
soils with smaller soil spring stiffness have a relatively larger longitudinal stresses than pipes near buried in
soilsedge
the withofsmaller soil spring
a liquefaction stiffness have a relatively larger longitudinal stresses than pipes near the
zone.
edge of a2018,
Energies liquefaction zone.
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19
400
400 k=700KN/m2
(MPa)

k=700KN/m2 2
k=1400KN/m
(MPa)

300
k=1400KN/m22
k=2100KN/m
300
crown

k=2100KN/m22
k=2800KN/m
crown

200 k=2800KN/m2
at pipe

200
at pipe

100
stress

100
stress

0
Longitudinal

0
Longitudinal

-100
-100
-100 -50 0 50 100
-100Axial distance
-50 0 pipe center
to the 50 (m) 100
Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
Figure 18. Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown for pipes with various wall thicknesses.
Figure 18.18.Longitudinal
Figure Longitudinalstresses
stresses at
at pipe
pipe crown for pipes
crown for pipeswith
withvarious
variouswall
wallthicknesses.
thicknesses.
400
400 k=700KN/m2
(MPa)

k=700KN/m2 2
k=1400KN/m
(MPa)

300
k=1400KN/m22
k=2100KN/m
300
invert

k=2100KN/m22
k=2800KN/m
invert

200 k=2800KN/m2
at pipe

200
at pipe

100
stress

100
stress

0
Longitudinal

0
Longitudinal

-100
-100
-100 -50 0 50 100
-100Axial distance
-50 0 pipe center
to the 50 (m) 100
Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
Figure 19. Longitudinal stresses at pipe invert for pipes with various wall thicknesses.
Figure 19. Longitudinal stresses at pipe invert for pipes with various wall thicknesses.
Figure 19. Longitudinal stresses at pipe invert for pipes with various wall thicknesses.
5.4. Effects Width of Liquefaction Zone
5.4. Effects Width of Liquefaction Zone
In this section, the effects of the width of liquefaction zone on a pipe’s mechanical responses
wereIn this section,
elucidated. Thethe effects
width of the
values width of here
considered liquefaction zone50on
range from matopipe’s
90 m.mechanical responses
Figure 20 shows that
were elucidated. The width values considered here range from 50 m to 90 m. Figure 20 shows
with the increase of width of the liquefaction zone, the pipe uplift displacement increases obviously. that
with the increase of width of the liquefaction zone, the pipe uplift displacement increases obviously.
For the case where the width of liquefaction zone equals 90 m, the pipe uplift displacement is larger
For the case where the width of liquefaction zone equals 90 m, the pipe uplift displacement is larger
 Longitudi
-100

-100 -50 0 50 100

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
Energies 2018, 11, 2334 16 of 20
Figure 19. Longitudinal stresses at pipe invert for pipes with various wall thicknesses.

5.4. Effects Width of Liquefaction Zone

In this section, the effects of the width of liquefaction zone on a pipe’s
pipe’s mechanical
mechanical responses
were elucidated. The width values considered
considered here range from 50 m to 90 m. Figure 20 shows that
with the increase of width of the liquefaction
liquefaction zone,
zone, the
the pipe
pipe uplift
uplift displacement
displacementincreases
increasesobviously.
obviously.
For the case where the width of liquefaction zone equals 90 m, the pipe uplift displacement is larger
than the buried depth of pipe, which indicates that the pipe has been uplifted above the ground in
this condition.

2.0
W=50m
W=60m
The pipe uplift displacement (m)

1.5 W=70m
W=80m
1.0 W=90m

0.5

0.0

-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

Figure 20. Vertical deformations for pipes buried in soils with various soil spring stiffnesses.
Figure
Energies 2018, FORVertical
11, x20. deformations for pipes buried in soils with various soil spring stiffnesses.
PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

Correspondingly,the
Correspondingly, theinfluences
influencesofof width
width of of liquefaction
liquefaction zonezone on longitudinal
on the the longitudinal stresses
stresses in
in pipe
pipe were
were also investigated
also investigated systematically
systematically here, here, as shown
as shown in Figures
in Figures 21 and 2122.
andIt22.
canItbe
can be obtained
obtained that,
that, the
with with the increase
increase of width
of width of liquefaction
of liquefaction zone,
zone, the the tensile
tensile stressesstresses
at bothatpipe
bothcrown
pipe crown
and pipeandinvert
pipe
invert increase significantly. This is in good agreement with the deformation analysis
increase significantly. This is in good agreement with the deformation analysis results derived by results derived
by Figure
Figure 20. 20.
That That is with
is with a larger
a larger widthwidth of liquefaction
of liquefaction zone,
zone, much much larger
larger deformation
deformation appears
appears in
in the
the pipe,
pipe, which
which induces
induces larger
larger tensile
tensile axial
axial stress
stress in in
thethe pipeleading
pipe leadingtotothe
thelarger
largertensile
tensile longitudinal
longitudinal
stresses shown
stresses shown in in Figures
Figures 21
21 and
and 22.
22.

800
W=50m
Longitudinal stress at pipe crown (MPa)

W=60m
600 W=70m
W=80m
W=90m
400

200

-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

Figure 21. Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown for pipes with various wall thicknesses.
Figure 21. Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown for pipes with various wall thicknesses.

800
W=50m
nal stress at pipe invert (MPa)

W=60m
600 W=70m
W=80m
W=90m
400

200
 Longitudi
0

-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)
Energies 2018, 11, 2334 17 of 20
Figure 21. Longitudinal stresses at pipe crown for pipes with various wall thicknesses.

800
W=50m

Longitudinal stress at pipe invert (MPa)

W=60m
600 W=70m
W=80m
W=90m
400

200

-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

Axial distance to the pipe center (m)

Figure 22. Longitudinal stresses at pipe invert for pipes with various wall thicknesses.
Figure 22. Longitudinal stresses at pipe invert for pipes with various wall thicknesses.

6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
A systematica analytical and numerical analysis of buried gas steel pipeline under buoyancy
A systematica analytical and numerical analysis of buried gas steel pipeline under buoyancy
loads due to liquefied soil was performed in this study. A linear elastic model was chosen for the
loads due to liquefied soil was performed in this study. A linear elastic model was chosen for the
pipe steel, which makes this method mainly suitable for design purposes. Based on the governing
pipe steel, which makes this method mainly suitable for design purposes. Based on the governing
equations of beams in bending and tension and beams on an elastic foundation, equations solving
equations of beams in bending and tension and beams on an elastic foundation, equations solving
pipe deflection values, pipe internal moments and forces were derived. Deformation compatibility
pipe deflection values, pipe internal moments and forces were derived. Deformation compatibility
equations between pipeline physical elongation and pipeline geometrical elongation was also utilized
equations between pipeline physical elongation and pipeline geometrical elongation was also utilized
to obtain the axial force on the pipe. By comparing the derived results of the proposed model with
to obtain the axial force on the pipe. By comparing the derived results of the proposed model with
finite element model results for cases with various engineering parameters, the proposed analytical
finite element model results for cases with various engineering parameters, the proposed analytical
method has proven to be capable of accurately calculating pipe uplift displacements and stresses.
method has proven to be capable of accurately calculating pipe uplift displacements and stresses.
Based on the established analytical model, parametric analyses were also conducted to derive how
Based on the established analytical model, parametric analyses were also conducted to derive how
the common engineering parameters influences a pipe’s mechanical behaviors. Results show that
the common engineering parameters influences a pipe’s mechanical behaviors. Results show that
smaller pipe diameter can lead to larger uplift displacement and result in larger longitudinal stresses
smaller pipe diameter can lead to larger uplift displacement and result in larger longitudinal stresses
in pipe, especially the large tensile stresses at the center and edge of pipe segment in liquefaction
in pipe, especially the large tensile stresses at the center and edge of pipe segment in liquefaction zones.
Larger pipe wall thicknesses can efficiently decrease a pipe’s uplift displacement. The effects of pipe
wall thickness on the tensile stresses in pipe are more obvious than the effects of pipe wall thickness
on compressive stresses in pipes. The stiffness of soils in non-liquefaction zones have a negligible
influence on the displacement and stress results of pipe segment in the center of liquefaction zone,
while pipelines in liquefaction zones with large widths are extremely dangerous, because pipe uplift
risks and pipe tensile stresses in pipe both significantly increase with the increase of the width of the
liquefaction zone.

Author Contributions: H.Z. conceived and designed the analysis. M.X. deduced the analytical model, established
the numerical model, performed the parametric analysis and wrote the paper.
Acknowledgments: This research has been co-financed by China National Key Research and Development Project
(Grant No. 2016YFC0802105), China Scholarship Council (Grant No. 201706440094).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2018, 11, 2334 18 of 20

Nomenclature
α the thermal expansion coefficient
C height of soil fill over pipeline (m)
C1 ~C8 the unknown coefficients
D outside diameter of pipe (m)
E pipe’s initial elastic modulus (MPa)
F the axial force in pipe (N)
Fb buoyant force per unit length on pipeline (N/m)
Fstress the resistance factor
γd dry unit weight of backfill (N/m3 )
γw unit weight of water (N/m3 )
hw height of water above pipeline (m)
σy minimum yield strength of the pipe material (MPa)
σax the axial stress in pipe (MPa)
σho the hoop stress in pipe (MPa)
σL initial axial stress in pipe induced by service load (MPa)
L
σmax maximum stress induced by liquefaction buoyancy in pipe (MPa)
I the inertia moment (m4 )
k stiffness of the elastic soil spring (N/m)
Lb length of pipe in buoyancy zone (m)
MB the moment at point B (N·M)
PB the shear force at point B (N)
Pv vertical earth pressure (Pa)
q the buoyancy load per unit pipe length (N/m)
Rw a factor for water buoyancy
T1 the ambient temperature at time of restraint (◦ C)
T2 the maximum operating temperature (◦ C)
µ Possion’s ratio
w1 the pipe configuration in non-liquefaction zone (m)
w2 the pipe configuration in liquefaction area (m)
Wp weight of pipe per unit length (N/m)
Wc weight of pipe content per unit length (N/m)
ε Lmax maximum axial strain induced by liquefaction buoyancy in pipe
Z section modulus of pipe cross section (m3 )

References
1. Wen, K.; Xia, Z.; Yu, W.; Gong, J. A New Lumped Parameter Model for Natural Gas Pipelines in State Space.
Energies 2018, 11, 1971. [CrossRef]
2. Wen, K.; He, L.; Yu, W.; Gong, J. A Reliability Assessment of the Hydrostatic Test of Pipeline with 0.8 Design
Factor in the West–East China Natural Gas Pipeline III. Energies 2018, 11, 1197. [CrossRef]
3. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Wu, K.; Xia, M.Y.; Chen, Y.F.; Li, M. Buckling failure mode analysis of buried X80 steel
gas pipeline under reverse fault displacement. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2017, 77, 50–64. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, X.; Wang, Z.Y.; Han, B. Mechanical Response Analysis of Pipeline under the Action of Floods.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Pipelines and Trenchless Technology, Xi’an, China,
16–18 October 2013.
5. Li, S.J.; Duan, Q.Q.; Zhang, H.; Wang, J. Failure analysis of the floating pipeline with defect under flooding
load. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2017, 77, 65–75. [CrossRef]
6. Xia, M.; Zhang, H. An Analytical Approach for Strain Analysis of Buried Steel Pipeline in Mining
Subsidence Areas. In Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Waikoloa, HI,
USA, 16–20 July 2017.
Energies 2018, 11, 2334 19 of 20

7. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Han, Y.S.; Xia, M.Y.; Zheng, W. A semi-empirical model for peak strain prediction of
buried X80 steel pipelines under compression and bending at strike-slip fault crossings. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.
2016, 32, 465–475. [CrossRef]
8. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Gu, X.T.; Chen, Y.F.; Xia, M.Y.; Wu, K. Strain demand prediction method for buried X80
steel pipelines crossing oblique-reverse faults. Earthq. Struct. 2017, 12, 321–332. [CrossRef]
9. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Li, M.; Xia, M.Y.; Zheng, W.; Wu, K.; Han, Y.S. Effects of steel properties on the local
buckling response of high strength pipelines subjected to reverse faulting. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016,
33, 378–387. [CrossRef]
10. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Xia, M.Y. Buckling behavior of buried steel pipeline under compression strike-slip fault.
In Proceedings of the 2017 ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 16–20 July 2017.
11. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Onyekachi, N.; Xia, M.Y.; Cheng, J.J.; Li, Y.; Adeeb, S. Effects of Stress–Strain
Characteristics on Local Buckling of X80 Pipe Subjected to Strike-Slip Fault Movement. J. Press. Vessel Technol.
2018, 140. [CrossRef]
12. Uckan, E.; Akbas, B.; Shen, J.; Rou, W.; Paolacci, W.; O’Rourke, M. A simplified analysis model for
determining the seismic response of buried steel pipes at strike-slip fault crossings. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
2015, 75, 55–65. [CrossRef]
13. Kaya, E.S.; Uckan, E.; O’Rourke, M.J.; Karamanos, S.A.; Akbas, B.; Cakir, F.; Cheng, Y. Failure analysis of a
welded steel pipe at Kullar fault crossing. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2016, 71, 43–62. [CrossRef]
14. Kainat, M.; Lin, M.; Cheng, J.R.; Martens, M.; Adeeb, S. Effects of the initial geometric imperfections on
the buckling behavior of high-strength UOE manufactured steel pipes. J. Press. Vessel Technol. 2016, 138.
[CrossRef]
15. Hojat Jalali, H.; Rofooei, F.R.; Attari, N.K.A. Performance of Buried Gas Distribution Pipelines Subjected to
Reverse Fault Movement. J. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 10, 1–24. [CrossRef]
16. Hojat, J.H.; Rofooei, F.R.; Attari, N.K.A.; Samadian, M. Experimental and finite element study of the reverse
faulting effects on buried continuous steel gas pipelines. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2016, 86, 1–14. [CrossRef]
17. Lu, H.; Ma, G.; Li, X.; Wu, S. Stress Analysis of LNG Storage Tank Outlet Pipes and Flanges. Energies 2018,
11, 877. [CrossRef]
18. Neupane, S.; Adeeb, S.; Cheng, R.; Ferguson, J.; Martens, M. Modeling the deformation response of high
strength steel pipelines—Part I: Material characterization to model the plastic anisotropy. J. Appl. Mech. 2012,
136, 272–275. [CrossRef]
19. Neupane, S.; Adeeb, S.; Cheng, R.; Ferguson, J.; Martens, M. Modeling the deformation response of high
strength steel pipelines—Part II: Effects of material characterization on the deformation response of pipes.
J. Appl. Mech. 2012, 79. [CrossRef]
20. Liu, X.B.; Zhang, H.; Xia, M.; Chen, Y.F.; Wu, K.; Wang, B.D. Numerical Analysis and Strength Evaluation of
an Exposed River Crossing Pipeline with Casing Under Flood Load. Available online: https://doi.org/10.
3311/PPci.11605 (accessed on 1 June 2018).
21. Lin, J.Q.; Xiong, J.G. Analysis for floating response of buried pipeline in liquefied soil. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib.
2000, 20, 97–100.
22. Ai, X.Q.; Li, J. Analysis of Seismic Response of Underground Pipelines in Terms of Effective Stress. J. Disaster
Prev. Mitig. Eng. 2005, 25, 1–7.
23. Shang, E.J. Safety Assessment of Pipeline in Region of Stratum Collapse and Soil Liquefaction for
Sichuan-East Gas Transportation Project. Master’s Thesis, China University of Petroleum (EastChina),
Qingdao, China, 2009.
24. Kong, X.J.; Zou, D.G. Study on uplift behavior of pipelines based on post-liquefaction deformation method.
Chin. J. Geol. Eng. 2007, 29, 1199–1204.
25. American Society of Civil Engineers, Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe; American Lifelines Alliance:
Reston, VA, USA, 2005.
26. Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Design of Buried Pipelines,
Gandhinagar: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority; Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur: Kalyanpur,
India, 2007.
27. Codeofchina Inc. GB 50470-2008 Seismic Technical Code for Oil and Gas Transmission Pipeline Engineering;
Codeofchina Inc.: Beijing, China, 2017.
Energies 2018, 11, 2334 20 of 20

28. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems; ANSI/ASME2016,
B31:8; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
29. Canadian Standard Association (CSA). Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems; CSA Standard; CSA Z662-11; Canadian
Standard Association: Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2015.
30. Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines of the American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council
on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems; ASCE:
Reston, VA, USA, 1984; pp. 10–12.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).