International Journal of Steel Structures

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1200–1209 | Cite as

Seismic Fragility of Steel Piping System Based on Pipe Size, Coupling Type, and Wall Thickness

  • Bu Seog Ju
  • Abhinav Gupta
  • Yonghee RyuEmail author


In this study, a probabilistic framework of the damage assessment of pipelines subjected to extreme hazard scenario was developed to mitigate the risk and enhance design reliability. Nonlinear 3D finite element models of T-joint systems were developed based on experimental tests with respect to leakage detection of black iron piping systems, and a damage assessment analysis of the vulnerability of their components according to nominal pipe size, coupling type, and wall thickness under seismic wave propagations was performed. The analysis results showed the 2-inch schedule 40 threaded T-joint system to be more fragile than the others with respect to the nominal pipe sizes. As for the coupling types, the data indicated that the probability of failure of the threaded T-joint coupling was significantly higher than that of the grooved type. Finally, the seismic capacity of the schedule 40 wall thickness was weaker than that of schedule 10 in the 4-inch grooved coupling, due to the difference in the prohibition of energy dissipation. Therefore, this assessment can contribute to the damage detection and financial losses due to failure of the joint piping system in a liquid pipeline, prior to the decision-making.


T-joint Threaded coupling Grooved coupling Pipeline 



This research was supported by a Grant (18CTAP-C129809-02) from infrastructure and transportation technology promotion research program funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government.


  1. Aljaroudi, A., Khan, F., Akinturk, A., Haddara, M., & Thodi, P. (2015). Risk assessment of offshore crude oil pipeline failure. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 37, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antaki, G. (2004). Seismic capacity of threaded, brazed and grooved clamped joints. In ASME PVP conference, San Diego, CA (pp. 135–145).Google Scholar
  3. ASME. (2004). Rule for construction of nuclear facility components, ASME boiler and pressure vessel code, section III, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).Google Scholar
  4. Ayers and Ezers. (1996). Northridge earthquake hospital water damage study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Ayers & Ezers Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Bachman, R., Bonowitz, D., Caldwell, P. J., Filiatrault, A., Kennedy, R. P., McGavin, G., et al. (2004). Engineering demand parameters for nonstructural components. Redwood City, CA: ATC-58 project task report-ATC.Google Scholar
  6. Clinedinst, W. O. (1965). Strength of threaded joints for steel pipe. Journal of engineering for industry ASME, 87, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dow, J. (2010). Testing and analysis of iron and plastic T-joint in sprinkler systems, NEESR-GC: Simulation of the seismic performance of nonstructural systems. Available at:
  8. FEMA 461. (2007). Interim testing protocols for determining the seismic performance characteristics of structural and nonstructural components. ATC, 201 Redwood, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Gupta, A., & Choi, B. (2005). Consideration of uncertainties in seismic analysis of coupled building piping system. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 235, 2071–2086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hwang, H. M., & Huo, J. R. (1998). Seismic fragility analysis of electric substation equipment and structures. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 13(2), 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ju, B. S., & Jung, W. Y. (2013). Seismic fragility evaluation of multi-branch piping systems installed in critical low-rise buildings. Disaster Advances, 6(4), 59–65.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Ju, B. S., Jung, W. Y., & Ryu, Y. H. (2013). Seismic fragility evaluation of piping system installed in critical structures. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, An Int’l Journal, 46(3), 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ju, B. S., Taninada, S. T., & Gupta, A. (2011). Fragility analysis of threaded T-joint connections in hospital piping systems. In Proceedings of the ASME PVP conference, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  14. Jung, W. Y., & Ju, B. S. (2015). Effect of MDOF structures’ optimal dampers on seismic fragility of piping. Earthquakes and Structures, An Int’l Journal, 9(3), 563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy, R. P., Cornell, C. A., Campbell, R. D., Kaplan, S., & Perla, H. F. (1980). Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 50, 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim, S. H., & Shinozuka, M. (2004). Development of fragility curves of bridges retrofitted by column jacketing. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 19(1–2), 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kircher, C. A. (2003). It makes dollars and sense to improve nonstructural system performance. In: Proceedings of seminar on seismic design, performance, and retrofit of nonstructural components in critical facilities, ATC-29-2, Newport beach, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Mazzoni, S, McKenna, F, Scoot, M. H., & Fenves, G. L. (2006). OpenSees command language manual. Available at:
  19. NFPA-13. (2007). Standard for the installation of sprinkler system. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).Google Scholar
  20. OpenSees. (2011). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). Available at: heep:// Scholar
  21. Parvini, M., & Gharagouzlou, E. (2015). Gas leakage consequence modeling for buried gas pipelines. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 37, 110–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Porter, K., & Bachman, R. (2006). Developing fragility functions for building components for ATC-58, ATC-58 nonstructural products team.Google Scholar
  23. Ryu, Y. H., Gupta, A., Jung, W. Y., & Ju, B. S. (2016). A reconciliation of experimental and analytical results for piping system. International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(4), 1043–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sekiazea, A., Ebihara, M., & Notake, H. (2003). Development of seismic-induced fire risk assessment method for a building. In Fire safety science-proceedings of the seventh international symposium (pp. 309–320).Google Scholar
  25. SMACNA. (2003). Seismic restraint manual guidelines for mechanical systems, sheet metal and air conditioning contractors’ national association, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Tian Y, Fuchs J, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A. 2010. NEESR Nonstructural: Progress report on tests of Tee Joint component of sprinkler piping system. Progress report, NEESR-GC: Simulation of the seismic performance of nonstructural systems.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringKyungHee UniversityGyeonggi-DoSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations