0
Research Papers: Pipeline Systems

Mechanical Behavior Analysis of the Buried Steel Pipeline Crossing Landslide Area

[+] Author and Article Information
Jie Zhang

School of Mechatronic Engineering,
Southwest Petroleum University,
Chengdu 610500, Sichuan, China
e-mail: longmenshao@163.com

Zheng Liang

School of Mechatronic Engineering,
Southwest Petroleum University,
Chengdu 610500, Sichuan, China
e-mail: Liangz_2242@126.com

Chuanjun Han

School of Mechatronic Engineering,
Southwest Petroleum University,
Chengdu 610500, Sichuan, China
e-mail: hanchuanjun@126.com

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 5, 2015; final manuscript received March 5, 2016; published online April 29, 2016. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 138(5), 051702 (Apr 29, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1247; doi: 10.1115/1.4032991 History: Received November 05, 2015; Revised March 05, 2016

Landslide movement is one of the threats for the structural integrity of buried pipelines that are the main ways to transport oil and gas. In order to offer a theoretical basis for the design, safety evaluation, and maintenance of pipelines, mechanical behavior of the buried steel pipeline crossing landslide area was investigated by finite-element method, considering pipeline-soil interaction. Effects of landslide soil parameters, pipeline parameters, and landslide scale on the mechanical behavior of the buried pipeline were discussed. The results show that there are three high stress areas on the buried pipeline sections where the bending deformation are bigger. High stress area of the compression side is bigger than it on the tensile side, and the tensile strain is bigger than the compression strain in the deformation process. Buried pipeline in the landslide bed with hard soil is prone to fracture. Bigger deformations appear on the pipeline sections that the inside and outside lengths of the interface are 30 m and 10 m, respectively. The maximum displacement of the pipeline is smaller than the landslide displacement for the surrounding soil deformation. Bending deformations and tensile strain of the pipeline increase with the increase in landslide displacement. Bending deformation and the maximum tensile strain of the pipeline increase with increasing of the soil's elasticity modulus, cohesion, and pipeline's diameter–thickness ratio. Soil's Poisson's ratio has a great effect on the displacement of the middle part, but it has a little effect on other sections' displacement.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Zhang, J. , Liang, Z. , and Han, C. J. , 2015, “ Finite Element Analysis of Wrinkling of Buried Pressure Pipeline Under Strike-Slip Fault,” Mechanika, 21(3), pp. 180–186. [CrossRef]
Zhao, Z. G. , Yao, A. L. , and Zhao, X. F. , 2006, “ Types of Geologic Disasters for Long Distance Transmission Pipelines as Well as Prevention Control Measures and Prediction Techniques,” Pet. Eng. Constr., 32(1), pp. 7–12.
Wang, L. , 2008, A Preliminary Study on Gas-Transporting Pipeline Harm Caused by the Deformation of Landslide, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China.
Zhang, J. , Liang, Z. , and Han, C. J. , 2015, “ Numerical Simulation of Buckling Behavior of the Buried Steel Pipeline Under Reverse Fault Displacement,” Mech. Sci., 6(2), pp. 203–210. [CrossRef]
Zheng, J. Y. , Zhang, B. J. , Liu, P. F. , and Liu, L. L. , 2012, “ Failure Analysis and Safety Evaluation of Buried Pipeline Due to Deflection of Landslide Process,” Eng. Failure Anal., 25(4), pp. 156–168. [CrossRef]
Liang, Z. , 1991, “ Analyses of Pipeline Stress and Displacement at Landslide-Prone Areas,” Nat. Gas Ind., 11(3), pp. 55–59.
Georgiadis, M. , 1991, “ Landslides Drag Forces on Pipelines,” Soil Found., 31(1), pp. 156–161. [CrossRef]
Zhu, H. X. , and Randolph, M. F. , 2010, “ Large Deformation Finite-Element Analysis of Submarine Landslide Interaction With Embedded Pipelines,” Int. J. Geomech., 10(4), pp. 145–152. [CrossRef]
Randolph, M. F. , Seo, D. , and White, D. J. , 2010, “ Parametric Solutions for Slide Impact on Pipelines,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136(7), pp. 940–949. [CrossRef]
Yuan, F. , Wang, L. Z. , Guo, Z. , and Shi, R. W. , 2012, “ A Refined Analytical Model for Landslide or Debris Flow Impact on Pipelines—Part I: Surface Pipelines,” Appl. Ocean Res., 35(1), pp. 95–104. [CrossRef]
Yuan, F. , Wang, L. Z. , Guo, Z. , and Xie, Y. , 2012, “ A Refined Analytical Model for Landslide or Debris Flow Impact on Pipelines. Part II: Embedded Pipelines,” Appl. Ocean Res., 35(1), pp. 105–114. [CrossRef]
Zhang, J. , Liang, Z. , and Han, C. J. , 2015, “ Numerical Simulation of Mechanical Behavior of Buried Pipeline Impacted by Perilous Rock,” Mechanika, 21(4), pp. 264–271. [CrossRef]
Vazouras, P. , Karamanos, S. A. , and Dakoulas, P. , 2010, “ Finite Element Analysis of Buried Steel Pipelines Under Strike-Slip Fault Displacement,” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 30(11), pp. 1361–1376. [CrossRef]
Wang, S. F. , Yin, Y. P. , and Men, Y. M. , 2010, “ In-Situ Test and Numerical Analysis of Skid Resistance for Micropile to Loess Landslide,” Hydrogeol. Eng. Geol., 37(6), pp. 22–26.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Diagram of pipeline deformation crossing landslide area

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Stress–strain curve of X65 and FE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Stress and deformation of the buried pipeline in the landslide movement process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Axial strain of the pipeline under landslide

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Stresses of the pipeline in two conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Stress distributions of path a and path b for the pipelines

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Axial strain distribution of the bending outside in the two conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Displacement curves of buried pipeline under different landslide displacements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Axial strain distribution of the pipeline under different landslide displacements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Stress distribution of the buried pipeline under different landslide displacements: (a) path a (b) path b

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Displacement curve of the pipeline under different landslide's widths

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Axial strain distribution of the pipeline under different landslide's widths

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Stress distribution of the buried pipeline under different landslide's widths: (a) path a (b) path b

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Displacement curve of the pipeline in the soil with different elasticity modulus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Axial strain of the pipeline in the soil with different elasticity modulus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Stress distribution of the pipeline in the soil with different elasticity modulus: (a) path a (b) path b

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Displacement curve of the pipeline in the soil with different Poisson's ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Axial strain of the pipeline in the soil with different Poisson's ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Stress distribution of the pipeline in the soil with different Poisson's ratios: (a) path a (b) path b

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Displacement curve of the pipeline in the soil with different cohesions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Axial strain of the pipeline in the soil with different cohesions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Stress distribution of the pipeline in the soil with different cohesions: (a) path a and (b) path b

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Displacement curves of the pipeline with different diameter–thickness ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Axial strains of the pipeline with different diameter–thickness ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Stress distribution of the pipeline with different diameter–thickness ratios: (a) path a and (b) path b

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Displacement curves of the pipeline with different internal pressures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Axial strains of the pipeline with different internal pressures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Stress distribution of the pipeline with different internal pressures: (a) path a and (b) path b

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Comparison of the pipeline's strain calculated by the two methods

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In