Advertisement

Axial Load-Displacement Behavior of Energy Pipeline Systems in Sand

  • Sai K. VanapalliEmail author
  • Mohammed Al-Khazaali
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Geotechnical Engineering book series (DGE)

Abstract

An experimental investigation program was undertaken to study the behavior of a prototype steel pipeline of 114.3 mm outer diameter and 1.35 m length in a sand subjected to a parallel soil mass movement in the longitudinal direction under saturated and unsaturated conditions. The experimental program included several axial load-displacement tests that were performed by varying the water table level. These tests were performed in a specially designed soil container that has provision of water/supply drainage system which facilities achieving different soil-matric suction profiles. The results of the experimental study suggest that matric suction has significant influence on the mechanical behavior of pipeline systems. The axial load that was transferred from unsaturated sand onto the pipe was determined to be 2–2.5-folds greater in comparison to saturated condition. Such an external axial force increment that is not anticipated from conventional design calculations may jeopardize the integrity of energy pipeline systems. For this reason, careful reevaluation is required of the existing design models and code provisions that are presently based on conventional soil mechanics. The study summarized in this paper suggests that the rational interpretation of the pipeline systems is possible by extending the principles of unsaturated soil mechanics.

Keywords

Load-displacement Pipeline system Matric suction Unsaturated soils Permanent ground deformation (PGD) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge their appreciation to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, which funded the second author for his Ph.D. research program. Funding received from NSERC, Canada by the first author supported the experimental studies of the research summarized in this article.

References

  1. 1.
    International Energy Agency (IEA): World energy outlook. International Energy Agency and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas: Government of India (MPNGGI). Annual report 2016–2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chow, E., Hendrix, L.E., Herberg, M.E.: Pipeline politics in Asia: the intersection of demand, energy markets, and supply routes. The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR), Report 23 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Energy Information Administration (EIA): Annual energy outlook 2007 with projections to 2030. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Obadina, T.: Harnessing abundant gas reserves: Nigeria alone could provide the power needs of all West Africa. Africa Recovery 13(1), 16 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    African Development Bank and African Union: Oil and Gas in Africa. Joint study by the African Development Bank and African Union. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahmood, A., Javaid, N., Zafar, A., Ali Riaz, R., Ahmed, S., Razzaq, S.: Pakistan`s overall energy potential assessment, comparison of LNG, TAPI and IPI gas projects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Elsevier 31(2014), 182–193 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bjørnmose, J., Roca, F., Turgot, T., Hansen, D.S.: An Assessment of the Gas and Oil Pipelines in Europe. European Parliament, Brussels (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeMicco, P.: Changing Pipelines, Shifting Strategies: Gas in South-Eastern Europe, and the Implications for Ukraine. European Parliament, Brussels (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benoit, L.: Current and Future State of Oil and Gas Pipeline and Refining Capacity in Canada. Repot of the Standing Committee on the Natural Resources, Parliament of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA): The Importance of Timely Construction of New Pipeline Infrastructure to Canada and Canadians (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fullenbaum, R., Fallon, J., and Flanagan, B.: Oil & natural gas transportation & storage infrastructure: status, trends & economic benefits. IHS Global Inc. and American Petroleum Institute (API), Report (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gerard, J.N.: The State of American Energy: America’s Energy. America’s Choice, American Petroleum Institute (API), Report (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC): OPEC Annual Statistical bulletin, 50th edn. Austria, Vienna (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mills, R.: Risky Routes: Energy Transit in the Middle East. Brookings Institution, Washington DC, USA (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    BSI: BS EN 14161:2003. Petroleum and natural gas industries-pipeline transportation systems. BSI, London, UK (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ALA: Seismic guidelines for water pipelines. American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ASCE: Guidelines for the seismic design of oil and gas pipeline systems. American Society for Civil Engineering (ASCE), New York, Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines (1984)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    IITK-GSDMA: Guidelines for seismic design of buried pipelines. Indian Institution of Technology Kanpur—Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (IITK-GSDMA), National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering, Kanpur, India (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI): Guidelines for constructing natural gas and liquid hydrocarbon pipelines through areas prone to landslide and subsidence hazards. In: Report Prepared for the Design, Material, and Construction Committee of Pipeline Research Council International, Inc (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    BSI: BS EN 1997-1:2004. Geotechnical design—part 1: general rules. BSI, London, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Achten, W.M.J., Trabucco, A., Maes, W.H., Verchot, L.V., Aerts, R., Mathijs, E., Vantomme, P., Singh, V.P., Muys, B.: Global greenhouse gas implications of land conversion to biofuel crop cultivation in arid and semi—arid lands—lessons learned from Jatropha. J. Arid Environ. 89, 135–145 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.06.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Al-Khazaali, M., Vanapalli, S.K., Oh, W.T.: Estimation of deformations in soil-pipeline systems nearby unsupported trenches excavated in unsaturated soils. In: Proceeding of the 69th Canadian. Geotechnical. Conference, Vancouver, BC (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jung J.K., O’Rourke T.D., Olson, N.A.: Lateral soil-pipe interaction in dry and partially saturated sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 139(12): 2028–2036 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Olson, N.A.: Soil performance for large-scale soil-pipeline tests. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University (2009), NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Rourke, T.D.: Geohazards and large, geographically distributed systems. Géotechnique 60(7), 505–543 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2010.60.7.505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Rourke, T.D., Jezerski, J.M., Olson, N.A., Bonneau, A.L., Palmer, M.C., Stewart, H.E., O’Rourke, M.J., Abdoun, T.: Geotechnics of pipeline system response to earthquakes. In: Proceedings of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV (GEESD), ASCE, Sacramento, CA, pp. 1–38 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robert, D.J., Soga, K., O`Rourke, T.D.: Pipelines subjected to fault movement in dry and unsaturated soil. Int. J. Geomech. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0000548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saadeldin, R., Hu, Y., Henni, A.: Numerical analysis of buried pipes under field geo-environmental conditions. Int. J. Geo-Eng. 6(1) (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40703-015-0005-4
  30. 30.
    Burland, J.B.: Shaft friction of piles in clay-a simple fundamental approach. Ground Eng. 6–3, 30–42 (1973)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Skempton, A.W.: Cast-in-situ bored piles in London clay. Géotechnique 9, 153–173 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    ALA: Guidelines for the design of buried steel pipe. American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bishop, A.W.: The principle of effective stress. Technisk Ukeblad 106(39), 859–863 (1959)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R., Widger, R.A.: The Shear Strength of unsaturated Soils. Can. Geotech. J. 15(3), 313–321 (1978).  https://doi.org/10.1139/t78-029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., Pufahl, D.E., Clifton, A.W.: Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction. Can. Geotech. J. 33, 379–392 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ravichandran, N., Krishnapillai, S.H., Machmer, B.: A novel procedure for physical modeling of unsaturated soil-pile system using geotechnical centrifuge. J. Earth Sci. Geotech. Eng. 3(1), 119–134 (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yoshimi, Y., Kishida, T.: A ring torsion apparatus for evaluating friction between soil and metal surfaces. Geotech. Test. J. ASTM. 4(4), 145–152 (1981).  https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10783JCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kishida, H., Uesugi, M.: Tests of the interface between sand and steel in the simple shear apparatus. Géotechnique 37(1), 45–52 (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1987.37.1.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Haines, W.B.: The hysteresis effect in capillary properties and the modes of moisture distribution associated there with. J. Agric. Sci. 20, 96–105 (1930)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    ASTM: D 6836-02: Standard Test Methods for Determination of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve for Desorption Using Hanging Column, Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror Hygrometer, or Centrifuge. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A.: Equations for the soil-water characteristic curve. Can. Geotech. J. 31(4), 521–532 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1139/t94-061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Han, Z., Vanapalli, S.K., Kutlu, Z.N.: Modelling the behavior of a friction pile in compacted glacial till. J. Geomech. ASCE, Int (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hossain, M., Yin, J.: Dilatancy and strength of an unsaturated soil-cement interface in direct shear tests. Int. J. Geomech. ASCE (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0000428,04014081

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Building and Construction Engineering DepartmentUniversity of TechnologyBaghdadIraq

Personalised recommendations