Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

An elastoplastic semi-analytical method to analyze the plastic

mechanical behavior of buried pipelines under landslides considering
operating loads
Lisong Zhang, Yun Xie, Xiangzhen Yan*, Xiujuan Yang
College of Pipeline and Civil Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao 266580, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 1 June 2015
Received in revised form
16 November 2015
Accepted 20 November 2015
Available online 2 December 2015

An elastoplastic semi-analytical method is proposed to deal with the plastic mechanical behavior of
buried pipelines subjecting to landslides based on the plane stress condition, considering the inner
pressure and the temperature variation. According to the incremental theory of plasticity, the longitudinal, radial and hoop plastic strains are expressed as the corresponding equations that contain the
longitudinal and hoop stresses. Considering the effect of the inner pressure and the temperature variation, the longitudinal stress is derived based on the elastoplastic-beam theory, and then the axial force
can be determined based on the relation of the internal force and the stress. Combining the differential
equation and the boundary condition, the transverse horizontal displacement, the bending strain, axial
strain can be obtained. To verify the proposed model, the comparison of the obtained results from the
proposed method and the nite element method is performed, with minor deviations of within 5.4%.
Additionally, the effects of the inner pressure and the temperature variation on the strain and
displacement of pipelines are investigated through parametric studies. The results show that the plastic
deformation and strain are much larger when neglecting operating loads; the pipeline develops mainly
the longitudinal and radial plastic deformations instead of the hoop plastic deformation.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Buried steel pipelines
Landslides
Elastoplastic model
Stressestrain analysis

1. Introduction
At present, the safety evaluation of buried steel pipelines subjecting to the horizontal landslide has been one of the most
important design problems (O'Rourke et al., 1995; O'Rourke and Liu,
1999; Manolis and Beskos, 1997). In China, many accidents of the
pipeline occur at landslide zone, causing the rupture and wrinkling
of the pipeline.
Currently, two kinds of approaches were proposed to analyze
the pipeline behavior subjecting to landslides, mainly including the
nite element method (FEM) and the analytical method. Bruschi
and coworkers analyzed the mechanical behavior of pipelines under the landslide movement by the FEM (Bruschi et al., 2006). Zhu
and Randolph (2010) established a numerical approach to simulate
the stress and displacement of pipelines under the landslide. Liu
et al. (2010) developed a 3D nite element model to analyze the
pipeline response under the deection load, considering the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yanxzh@163.com (X. Yan).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.11.040
1875-5100/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

interaction of the pipeline-soil. Cheong et al. (2011) conducted a

series of nite element analyses of elbow-pipe-soil to estimate the
response of the elbow-pipe under the lateral load. Zheng et al.
(2012) established a nite element model to evaluate the mechanical behavior of buried steel pipelines, considering the
nonlinear interaction of the pipeline-soil. Yuan et al. (2014) used
vector-form intrinsic FEM to predict the behavior of pipeline when
encountering landslide movements. Additionally, Kinash and Naja
(2012) analyzed the mechanical behavior of the pipeline subjecting
to the landslide load by an engineering approach. Note that, some
researchers put an emphasis on the impact force induced by the
landslide (Zakeri, 2009; Cathie et al., 2005; Bruton et al., 2006;
Sahdi et al., 2014). Although the FEM gives a rigorous solution,
the analysis progress is rather demanding and time consuming due
to the non-linear behaviors of the pipeline steel and the pipe-soil
interaction. The analysis above indicates that an analytical
approach still has some potentials from the method view-point,
especially as a basis to promote the development of more
advanced FEM.
Typical analytical models were proposed to deal with the mechanical behavior of the pipeline under landslides. Parker et al.

122

L. Zhang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

(2008) predicted the mechanical behavior of pipelines subjecting to

landslides using an analytical method, assuming the shape of
pipelines as the parabolic. Randolph et al. (2010) established a
simple analytical model to evaluate the deformation response of
pipelines when encountering the landslide. Yuan et al. (2012a,
2012b) proposed an analytical model to estimate the failure of
surface and buried steel pipelines under the landslide, assuming
the axial force of pipelines as a constant. Using these analytical
models, the pipeline behavior under landslides can be evaluated
(Gilbert et al., 2007). However, some shortcomings are still
mentioned:
(1) Under the landslide and the operating load, the stressestrain
analysis of the pipeline satises the plane stress state.
However, the plane stress condition is not taken into account
in the existing analytical models.
(2) The pipeline models developed are based on the assumption
of elastic beam, neglecting the plastic displacement, which
may result in the transverse horizontal displacement of the
pipeline that differs with the true shape of the pipeline under
large landslide movements. In such case, bend strains of the
pipeline obtained may be incorrect.
(3) The effects of the internal pressure and the temperature
difference on the strain and displacement of pipelines can
not be investigated by the current analytical models.
In this paper, an elastoplastic method of stressestrain analysis of
buried steel pipelines under landslides is proposed to overcome the
shortcomings above. Additionally, in order to verify the proposed
method, the results from the proposed model are compared with
the results of FEM.

se

p
3J2

r

3 2
s s2q
2 x

r r

4 0
2 P P
dJ
dx dx dPq dPq
3 2
3

de

(3)

(4)

where dJ20 is the second invariant of the deviatoric strain increment

tensor.
Using Eqs. (2)e(4), dl can be expressed as:

dl

3de
2se

(5)

Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (2), dPx can be calculated (Xing,
2007):

dPx

3de
3dse
3dse
sx
s
sx
dse x
2se
2s
e HP
2se d

(6)

where HP is a hardening coefcient, and can be determined based

on Eq. (7).

HP

dse ds1
3
E

de
d1 21 n P

(7)

where EP is the plastic Young's modulus.

Then, Eq. (6) can be simplied as:

dPx

1 ndse
sx
EP se

(8)

According to the condition of dPx dx
dex , Eq. (8) can be

further given as:
2. Incremental theory of plasticity
Under the landslide and the operating load, the stressestrain
analysis of the pipeline satises the plane stress state, when
neglecting the radical stress. In such case, the stress and strain of
pipelines can be analyzed analytically, considering the service loads
(including the inner pressure and the temperature variation). For
the plane stress state, Mises criterion is introduced to evaluate the
elastoplastic behavior of the pipeline, and can be expressed as:

s2
J2
s 0
3

(1)

where ss is the yield stress, J2 is the second invariant of the

deviatoric stress tensor, and equals to 13 s2x s2q
sx sq , sx is the
longitudinal stress, sq is the hoop stress and equal to pD
2d
2d , p is the
inner pressure, D is the external diameter of pipelines, d is the wall
thickness of pipelines.
In the plastic range, the longitudinal and hoop plastic strain
increments of the pipeline can be expressed as Eq. (2):

8
vJ2
>
P
>
>
< dx dl vs dlsx
x
>
vJ
>
>
: dPq dl 2 dlsq
vsq

(2)

where dPx is the longitudinal plastic strain increment, dPq is the

hoop plastic strain increment, dl is the plastic multiplier, sx and sq
are the deviatoric stresses and equal to 2sx3
sq and 2sq3
sx ,
respectively.
The equivalent stress se and equivalent strain increment de can
be given by the equation (Xing, 2007):

dx
dex

1 ndse
sx
EP se

(9)

where dex is the longitudinal strain increment and equals to

1 ds
nds .
x
q
E
Considering that the hoop stress, sq, is a constant, dex is equal to
dsx
E . Then, Eq. (9) can be further expressed as Eq. (10):

!
1 1 n 4s2x
4sx sq s2q

dsx dx
E
6EP s2x
sx sq s2q

(10)

By integrating the equation above, a linear function than contains sx and x can be generated:

p


1 21 n
2sx
sq
31 nsq

sx

arctan p
E
3EP
3EP
3sq
p
1
21 n 0
2s0
sq
31 nsq
sin
sx

arctan px
x
x
E
3EP
3EP
3sq
(11)
where sin
x represents the initial stress induced by operating loads,
and equals to nsq
EaDT, a is the thermal expansion coefcient, DT
is the temperature difference, s0x represents the longitudinal stress
at the yield surface, and can be solved based on the condition of
q
sess, i.e. s01;2 s2q s2s
34s2q .
Then, the yield strain 01;2 can be expressed as (Trifonov and
Cherniy, 2012):

.

E aDT
01;2 s01;2
nsq

(12)

L. Zhang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

Combining Eqs. (11) and (12), the stressestrain relation can be

established as:

8
>
< ax b1
sx Ex sin
x
>
:
ax b2

x > 01
02  x  01
x < 02

(13)
"

where a
1 21n
3Ep
E

1

1 21n
3Ep
E

1

!, b1;2
1

3s2
q
4s2
s

3s2
q
4s2
s

21n
3EP

1 in
s
E x

!#
s01;2

3s2
q
4s2
s

According to Eq. (13), the longitudinal plastic strain, px , can be

solved:
p

!

3s2 
21 n
1
q2 sx
s0x
3Ep
4ss

can be

!
3s2
21 n
1
q2 dsx
3Ep
4ss

(15)
p

2sq
sx p
d
2sx
sq x
dpq

can be further expressed

2sq
sx
dsx
2sx
sq

(17)

Substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (16),

3s2
21 n
1
q2
3Ep
4ss

The hoop plastic strain, pq , can be given by integrating Eq. (17):

p
q

3s2
21 n

1
q2
3Ep
4ss

!

s0x
sx 3sq 2sx
sq

ln 0
2
4
2sx
sq

3s2
21 n
1
q2
3Ep
4ss

"

2 2

2 #
Me
Me
d y
Mx

3

2
EI
dx2

(20)

!

s0x
sx 3sq 2sx
sq


ln 0
2
4
2sx
sq

where E is the elastic Young's modulus, I is the moment of inertia,

Me is the elastic limit of bending moments.
Substituting Eq. (20) into the equilibrium equation to yield the
differential equation of the transverse horizontal displacement of
the plastic part:

Me3
EI2

"

3
3
2 2

4 #
d4 y1 d2 y1
d y1
d y1
d2 y1


3
T
4
2
3
2
dx
dx
dx
dx
dx2

q wt
pu

Then, the radical plastic strain,

can be expressed as Eq. (19)
based on the condition that the plastic volume variation (Trifonov
and Cherniy, 2012) is equal to zero.
p

Due to the large impact of the landslide on the segment OA, the
high curvature occurs at this segment, which maybe leads to the
plastic deformation. In such case, the segment OA should be treated
as an elastoplatic beam. When the pipeline enters into the plastic
range, the bending moment can be written:

(21)

(18)

pr ,

Combining the previous researches (Yuan et al., 2012a, 2012b),

the pipeline can be partitioned into three segments, as shown in
Fig. 1, where q is the drag force applied on the pipeline, perpendicular to the pipeline, wt is the component of the pipeline weight
w along the direction of landslide movements, fL(x) and p(x) are the
soil reactions per unit length in the axial and transverse horizontal
directions, having the maximum values of fs and pu, respectively.
Additionally, it is assumed that fs and pu are applied uniformly on
the segment OB.

(16)

as:

dq

3. Pipeline models

3.1. Segment OA analysis

dpx ,

According to Eq. (2), the hoop plastic strain increment, dq , can

be expressed as:

dq

determined.

(14)

Then, the longitudinal plastic strain increment,

expressed as:

dpx

123

(19)

Using Eqs. (13), (14), (18) and (19), sx, px , pq and pr can be

where 0 x 1 a1, a1 is the coordinate value at critical point where

M(x) just reaches Me, y1 is the transverse horizontal displacement
of the plastic part.

3.2. Segment AB analysis

Similar to Eq. (21), the differential equations can be expressed as
Eq. (22) when segment AB enters into the plastic range.

Fig. 1. Partitioning of buried pipelines under landslides.

124

L. Zhang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

"

Me3
EI2

Eq. (28)).

3
3
2 2

4 #
d4 y4 d2 y4
d y4
d y4
d2 y4

3
T
dx4
dx2
dx3
dx2
dx2

wt
pu

(22)

where y4 is the transverse horizontal displacement of the plastic

part.
Additionally, in the elastic parts of segments OA and AB, the
differential equations of the transverse horizontal displacement are
respectively expressed as y2 and y3, which are identical to the
equations of Yuan et al. (2012a).
3.3. Segment BC analysis

00 00

(23)

where y5 is the transverse horizontal displacement of segment BC, k

is a constant of soil springs and can be solved based on ALA-ASCE
guidelines (2001), Hansen (1961), Trautmann and O'Rourke (1983).
Combining the boundary conditions (i.e. y5 0 for x 0 and
y5 / 0 for x / ) and the relation of MB
EIy005 , Eq. (23) can be
solved:

y5

MB
2

2EIl

e
lx sin lx

y002 y002 ;

000
y000
1 y2

y2 y3 ;

y02 y03 ;

y002 y003 ;

000
y000
2 y3

y3 y5 0;

y03 y05 ;

y003 y005 ;

000
y000
3 y5

(28)
yi
1
2yi yi1
h2

Substituting yi
1, yi and yi1 into

to calcu
2 
, the bending moment Mi at the
late the second derivative ddxy2 
node i can be obtained based on Eq. (20). In this way, the maximum
transverse displacement ymax, the bending moment MB at point B
and the maximum moment Mmax occurred at point O can be
determined. After obtaining MB, the transverse horizontal
displacement of segment BC can be determined by substituting MB
into Eq. (24).
MB can also be expressed as Eq. (29) based on the static equilibrium condition, neglecting the effect of the axial soil resistance.
Using Eq. (29), the unknown length LC of segment AB can be
obtained.

MB Mmax Tymax

p
Ls 2 q wt Ls
Ls
LC
LC


2
2
2
4

To describe the calculation more clearly, a ow chart was

depicted in Fig. 2.

Combining the methods developed (Randolph et al., 2010; Yuan

et al., 2012a, 2012b), the axial force at the point O is derived based
on the condition of that the elongation DLreqDLphy.

(25)

n

1 q

X
yi1
yi 2 h2
i1

Ls

LC
2

(30)

ZL

Th2
2Th2
Th2
yi
1 6

yi
4

y
yi
2
4

yi2
E1 I
E1 I
E1 I i1
h4
q
pu
E1 I
(26)
"

2
1


2E1 I2 yi
1
2yi yi1 2 yi
2yi1 yi2 2
#
1



Tyi
1
2yi yi1
yi
2yi1 yi2 2

q pu h2

y01 y02 ;

d2 y
dx2 
xxi

DLreq

Using Eqs. (20) and (25), the nite difference expressions for
Eqs. (21) and (22) were respectively established, assuming that the
segments of OA and AB are discretized into n
1 parts with n nodes
Ls 2LC
and the step length is equal to h 2n
1
.

Me3 h4

y1 y2 ;

5. Axial force analysis considering operating loads

To calculate the transversal horizontal displacement of pipelines, the second-order central difference method was introduced,
as shown in Eq. (25).

y000
1 0

(29)
(24)

4. Solution algorithm

8 2
d M Mi
1
2Mi Mi1
>
>
>
< 2
dx
h2
>
2
>
>
: d y yi
1
2yi yi1
h2
dx2

y01 0;

xxi

According
to
the
beam-on-elastic-foundation
theory
(Karamitros et al., 2007), the differential equilibrium equation of
segment BC is:

EIy5 ky5 0

8
x 0;
>
>
>
>
>
>
x a1 ;
>
>
<
Ls
x ;
>
>
2
>
>
>
>
>
L
>
:x s L ;
C
2

(27)

Then, the transverse displacements yi at the different nodes

(i 1,2,/,n) can be solved, combining the boundary conditions (see

DLphy

xdx

(31)

where DLreq is the geometric elongation induced by the landslide,

DLphy is the elongation induced by the tensile strain, (x) is the
tensile strain, L is the unanchored length where slippage occurs.
To consider the interaction between the pipeline and the soil, L
is decomposed into two parts, L0 and L
L0, where L0 is the length
where axial soil springs keep elastic, L
L0 is the length where axial
soil springs entered into plastic range. Additionally, DL0 u0, where
DL0 is the elongation of L0, u0 is the yielding displacement of soil
springs (Wang et al., 2011).
The tensile strains were expressed as Eqs. (32) and (33) in
0 <x  L0 and L0 <x  L.

fs x2
sin
x
2AEL0
E

(32)

2fs x
fs L0 sin
x
2AE
E

(33)

where A is the area of cross-sections.

L. Zhang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

125

Fig. 2. A ow chart of procedures of calculations.

Substituting Eq. (33) into Eq. (31) to calculate the elongation of

segment L 0<x  L. Then, sO can be determined based on
DLreqDLphy:

2s01 A
fs L0
4AE

Pn
1

i1
!

C1

where

L0

2s01 A
fs L0
2fs

q
yi1
yi 2 h2

L2s
LC

0
sin
x 2s1 A
fs L0

2Efs

A , B
, A1 2af
1

u0

s1 sin
x A

Efs

v
"
#
u
q

u
2

2
Ls
t8AEfs Pn
1
2
yi1
yi h
2
LC
u0 fs 2sin
x A
i1
sO

sin
x

2A

(34)

Then, the axial force TO can be solved by Eq. (38):

It is correct for Eq. (34) when the pipeline keeps elastic. After the
pipeline enters into the plastic stage, the unanchored pipeline is
divided into three parts, L0, L1
L0 and L
L1, where the length L1 can
be determined based on s(L1)s1.
The tensile strain (x) can be expressed Eq. (35) in L1 <x  L:



fs 2L1
L0 2x
L1
sin
x

a
2A
E
E

sO

B1

q
B21
4A1 C1
2A1

After obtaining TO, the rened analysis of the axial force of

segment OB can be performed by the model of Gao and Feng (1997),
considering the effects of the axial and lateral soil resistances. Then,
the axial force Tj on arbitrary cross-section of segment OB can be
determined.

6. Analysis of the strain and stress

(36)

6.1. Bending strain analysis

According to the relation of
can be obtained:

As DLreqDLphy, sO can be determined by Eq. (37):

s01

(38)

(35)

The corresponding elongation DL2 can be expressed as:


2 sin As
s0 
s A
A 
O
1
sO
s01 x
DL2 1 sO
s01
Efs
2afs
Efs

TO sO A

(37)

b jxxi Kjxxi


D d2 y
D
2
2 dx xxi 2

where K is the curvature.

d2 y
dx2

K, the bending strain b jxxi

(39)

126

L. Zhang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

6.2. Axial strain analysis

7. Validation of the proposed method

According to Eq. (39) and the research of Karamitros et al.

(2007), the longitudinal strain can be expressed as Eq. (40):

7.1. Validation of the proposed method

x jxxi a jxxi

2r
b jxxi cos a
D

(40)

where x is the longitudinal strain, a is the axial strain, a is the polar

angle, r is the polar radius with a range of 2d  r  D2 .
Using Eqs. (15) and (40), the longitudinal stress can be expressed
as:

8
< ax b1
sx Ex sin
x
:
ax b2

0  a < f1
f1  a < p
f2
p
f2  a < p

(41)

where 41, 42 are dened in Karamitros et al. (2007), and are

calculated by Eq. (42):

f1;2

8
>
>
p
>
>
>
>
>
>
 1
>
0
>
>
<
1 Ha jxxi D
A
arccos@
>
2rb jxxi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:0

1 Ha jxxi
<
1
b jxxi

1 
1

1 Ha jxxi
1
b jxxi

1 Ha jxxi
b jxxi
(42)

According to Eq. (42), the axial force at the node j can be

calculated by the relation of the internal force and the stress:

n
Tj Dm d Ep
E
af1 f2 a jxxj sin
x p
f1
f2
o
b1 f1 b2 f2
E
asin f1
sin f2 b jxxj
(43)
where Dm Dd
2 .
Because Tj is a known value that can be obtained through the
Section 5, the axial strain a jxxj can be determined exactly.

6.3. Axial total strain analysis

Substituting a jxxj and b jxxj into Eq. (40), the longitudinal
strain distribution, x jxxj , on the cross-section of x xj is determined,
 and the maximum longitudinal strain on this cross-section,

x;max xx , can be obtained. Then, substituting x;max xx into Eqs.
j
j
(13), (14), (18) and (19), the longitudinal stress, the plastic strains in
longitudinal, hoop and radial directions can be determined.

To validate the proposed method, the calculation results were

compared to ANSYS results. For the purpose, a gas pipeline of X70
steel was used with the parameters of D  d 0.813 m  0.014 m, a
buried depth of 1.5 m, an inner pressure of 8 MPa and a temperature difference of 30  C. Additionally, a transverse landslide was
considered with the width of L 360 m and the drag force of
q 81.5 kN/m. Clay were considered with the properties as follow:
the friction angle of 4 25 , the cohesion of c 15 KPa, the unit
weight of g 18 kN/m3.
In ANSYS analysis, it is important to determine soil springs
properties. Table 1 listed the soil spring properties calculated by
ALA-ASCE (2001) guidelines and Wang et al. (2011). Additionally,
the bilinear stressestrain relation was used to deal with the plastic
deformation of X70 pipelines, and the corresponding mechanical
parameters were listed in Table 2.
Using the proposed method, the intermediate parameters were
calculated, including the bending moment MO at the point O, the
bending moment MB at the point B, the maximum transversal
horizontal displacement ymax at the point O, the axial force TO at the
point of O, the length LC of segment AB and the step length h. The
results were listed as follow: MO 5.54 MN/m, MB
5.06 MN/m,
ymax 2.82 m, TO 17.41 MN, LC 301.5 m, h 1.88 m.
The results of the proposed method and the FEM are compared
in Figs. 3e4, mainly focusing on the transverse horizontal
displacement and the maximum bending, axial and longitudinal
strains.
Fig. 3 shows the transversal horizontal displacement of pipelines by both the proposed method and ANSYS. The results of the
proposed method are consistent with the ANSYS results. The peak
displacement of the proposed method is slightly smaller than that
by ANSYS, and the difference is within 5.0%. Additionally, small
negative displacements appear at a range of 361.5 me531.5 m,
which is consistent with the eld experiment results from Liu.
(2012).
Fig. 4 shows the comparisons of bending, axial and longitudinal
strains of the proposed method and ANSYS. It is obviously that the
results of the proposed method coincide well with ANSYS results.
The difference between the peak longitudinal strains is within the
5.4%, with the longitudinal strain of 1.05% predicted by the proposed model and that of 1.11% by ANSYS.
After obtaining the longitudinal strain (Fig. 4), the longitudinal
plastic strain can be calculated by Eqs. (13) and (14). Then, the hoop
and radial plastic strains can be determined by Eqs. (18) and (19),
respectively. The results of hoop, radial and longitudinal plastic
strains of the proposed method are shown in Fig. 5 below, and
compared to those of the nite element method.
As shown in Fig. 5, regardless of hoop, radial and longitudinal
plastic strains, the results of the proposed method coincide well
with FEM results. Because longitudinal plastic strains are higher

Table 1
Soil spring properties considered in the numerical analysis.
Directions
Axial direction
Transverse horizontal direction
Transverse vertical direction (upward
movement)
Transverse vertical direction (downward
movement)

Forces of pipe-soil per unit length/ Yielding forces of soil

(N/m)
springs/N

Yielding displacements of soil

springs/m

Soil spring stiffness/

(N/m)

4656.58
44,571.61
9037.04

58.20
557.08
112.97

5.00  10
3
4.96  10
2
2.08  10
2

11641.44
11,232.77
5430.91

148,660.95

1858.26

4.00  10
2

46,456.55

L. Zhang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

127

Table 2
API5L-X70 steel mechanical parameters considered in the numerical analysis.
Mechanical properties

Yield stress (s1)

Failure stress (s2)

Yield strain (1)

Failure strain (2)

Elastic Young's modulus (E1)

Plastic Young's modulus (E2)

Parameter values

485 MPa

550 MPa

0.25%

3.0%

210.00 GPa

2363.64 MPa

Fig. 3. Comparison of transversal horizontal displacements of the proposed method

and the FEM.
Fig. 5. Comparison of hoop, radial and longitudinal plastic strains of the proposed
method and the FEM.

Additionally, comparing Fig. 6 (a) with Fig. 6 (c), it is found that the
plastic deformation is much larger if operating loads are not
considered in the analysis, which means that operating loads play a
positive role for preventing the plastic deformation of pipelines. In
other words, pipeline designs are prone to more safe and conservative when neglecting operating loads.
7.2. Parametric investigation
Parametric investigation is performed to estimate the effects of
the inner pressure and the temperature difference on the
displacement and strain of pipelines. In the parametric study, only
one parameter changes while the other parameter keeps a
constant.

Fig. 4. Comparison of bending, axial and longitudinal strains of the proposed method
and the FEM.

than 0, hoop and radial plastic strains are both less than 0 based on
the condition that the plastic volume variation is equal to zero.
More specially, the rate of radial plastic strains to hoop plastic
strains is approximately approaching to 10:1, which means that the
radial plastic strain is very close to the longitudinal plastic strain in
absolute values. Consequently, an approximate symmetric relation
between longitudinal and radial plastic strains with respect to the
dashed line is observed in Fig. 5. According to the analysis above,
the pipeline develops mainly the radial plastic deformation instead
of the hoop plastic deformation on the cross-section of the pipeline,
which is also consistent with FEM results (see Fig. 6).
Fig. 6 (a)-(d) represent the front and lateral views of the plastic
deformation of cross-sections when considering and not considering operating loads described above, respectively. The radial
plastic deformation can be clearly observed on the cross-section of
pipelines, regardless of considering or neglecting operating loads.

7.2.1. Effect of the inner pressure

To investigate the effect of the inner pressure on the displacement and strain, ve different inner pressures are used: p 0 MPa,
2 MPa, 4 MPa, 6 MPa and 8 MPa.
As shown in Fig. 7, the higher inner pressure leads to the lower
transverse horizontal displacement, the lower length of segment
OC and the lower negative displacement, which agrees well with
the conclusion by Zhang et al. (2014). At p 8 MPa, the maximum
transversal horizontal displacement and the length of segment OC
are equal to 2.83 m and 531.5 m, while reach 3.57 m and 693.5 m at
p 0 MPa, respectively. Also, the maximum negative displacement
decreases from 0.069 m to 0.044 m with the increasing of inner
pressures from 0 MPa to 8 MPa.
As shown in Fig. 8, the maximum bending strain occurs at
segment two at p 0 MPa, 2 MPa and 4 MPa, while moves to the
midpoint of slide zone at p 6 MPa and 8 MPa. The maximum
bending strain decreases from 0.49% to 0.33% with the increasing of
inner pressures from 0 MPa to 8 MPa, mainly because that the inner
pressure strengthens the bending stiffness of the pipeline. Moreover, with x increasing, the bending strain decreases quickly and
approaches a minimum peak at the neighborhood of x 0.5L, and

128

L. Zhang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

Fig. 6. Plastic deformations on the cross-section of pipelines.

then increases and reaches a larger value at the neighborhood of

x L. This is mainly because the negative displacement occurred at
the neighborhood of points B and B0 changes the distribution of the
bending strain.
As shown in Fig. 9, the inner pressure has a less important effect
on the axial strain, mainly because although the tensile strain can
be generated by the inner pressure, it is very small compared to the
tensile strain induced by landslides. In such case, the maximum
axial strain only varies from 0.70% to 0.74%, corresponding to the
inner pressure variation from 0 MPa to 8 MPa. Therefore, the axial
strain almost equals for different inner pressures. Also, the axial
strain presents the similar decreasing trend because the axial soil
resistance remains approximately a constant.
After obtaining the bending and axial strains (see Figs. 10 and
11), the longitudinal strain can be calculated by Eq. (40), and then
longitudinal, radial and hoop plastic strains can be determined by

Eqs. (13), (14), (18) and (19). The detailed results are shown in
Fig. 10 (a), (b) and (c).
As shown in Fig. 10 (a), with the increasing of the inner pressure,
the longitudinal plastic strain shows a decreasing trend. This is
mainly because the decreasing of bending strains is larger than the
increasing of axial strains as the inner pressure increasing according to Figs. 8 and 9. From this point of view, the bending strain
dominates the variation trend of the longitudinal plastic strain.
Additionally, the maximum longitudinal plastic strain occurs at
segment two instead of segment one for p 0 MPa, 2 MPa and
4 MPa. Overall, a relative higher inner pressure can decrease longitudinal, radial and hoop plastic strains and is benecial for the
pipeline safety. Moreover, comparing the radial plastic strain with
the hoop plastic strain (see Fig. 10 (b) with Fig. 10 (c)), hoop plastic
strains are only approximately equal to 1/10 of radial plastic strains.
Due to the similarity of variation trends of longitudinal, hoop and

L. Zhang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

129

Fig. 7. Transversal horizontal displacements for different inner pressures.

Fig. 8. Bending strain distributions for different inner pressures.

Fig. 10. Longitudinal, radial and hoop plastic strains for different inner pressures.
Fig. 9. Axial strain distributions for different inner pressures.

radial plastic strains (see Fig. 10 (a), (b), (c)), it is not necessary to
describe the variation trends of hoop and radial plastic strains again.

7.2.2. Effect of the temperature difference

To investigate the effect of the temperature difference on the
displacement and strain, ve different temperature differences are
used: DT 0  C, 15  C, 30  C, 45  C and 60  C.

130

L. Zhang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

Fig. 11. Transversal horizontal displacements for different temperature differences.

Fig. 12. Bending strain distributions for different temperature differences.

2.43 m at DT 60  C. It means that the axial compressive force of

pipelines induced by the temperature difference plays a key role to
prevent the transverse displacement of the pipeline.
As seen from Fig. 12, the maximum bending strain occurs at the
midpoint of slide zone, and increases from 0.34% to 0.31% as the
temperature difference increasing. Along x-axis, bending strain
decreases quickly and approaches a minimum peak at the neighborhood of x 0.5L. For a given temperature difference varying
from 15  C to 60  C, the bending strains are close to each other at
segment two. Fig. 12 also reveals that the effect of the temperature
difference on bending strains of segment one is lower than that on
bending strains of segment two.
As shown in Fig. 13, with the increasing of the temperature
difference, the maximum axial strain decreases quickly, mainly
because that the compressive strain generated by the temperature
difference counteracts a part of the tensile strain induced by the
landslide. The maximum axial strain occurs at the neighborhood of
x 0.2L, mainly because the maximum axial force appears at the
location. According to the rened analysis method of the axial force
by Gao and Feng (1997), the axial force at the slide zone can be
calculated accurately considering the friction force, the lateral
resistance and the curvature of pipelines. The results show that the
axial force reaches a maximum value at x 0.2L. Additionally, larger
temperature difference leads to larger length of pipelines exposed
to lateral passive resistance.
Similar to the analysis above in Section 7.2.1, the results of
longitudinal, radial and hoop plastic strains are shown in Fig. 14 (a),
(b) and (c).
As seen from Figs. 12 and 13, both the bending strain and the
axial strain decrease with the increasing of temperature differences, therefore, the longitudinal plastic strain certainly decreases
(see Fig. 14 (a)). From this point of view, a combination of the
bending strain and the axial dominates the variation trend of the
longitudinal plastic strain. Additionally, the maximum longitudinal
plastic strain always remains at segment one regardless of the
variation of temperature difference. Overall, a relative higher
temperature difference can decrease longitudinal, radial and hoop
plastic strains and is helpful for the pipeline safety.
Considering that the similarity of variation trends of longitudinal, hoop and radial plastic strains between Figs. 10 and 14, it is not
necessary to describe the variation trends of Fig. 14 again.
8. Conclusions

Fig. 13. Axial strain distributions for different temperature differences.

As shown in Fig. 11, the temperature difference has an important

effect on the maximum displacement. At DT 0  C, the maximum
transversal horizontal displacement is 3.16 m, while decreases to

(1) Considering the effect of operating loads, a two-dimensional

elastoplastic model was proposed for the stressestrain
analysis of buried steel pipelines under landslides based on
the incremental theory of plasticity. In order to investigate
the plastic deformation developing on pipelines, the
elastoplastic-beam theory is introduced to analyze the
transverse horizontal displacement of the pipeline.
(2) The results from the proposed method are in good agreement with those from the nite element analysis, with minor
deviations which do not exceed about 5.4%. According to the
analysis results, the pipeline develops mainly the longitudinal and radial plastic deformations instead of the hoop
plastic deformation.
(3) Pipeline safety is closely related to the inner pressure and the
temperature difference. 1) A relative higher inner pressure
can lead to lower transverse displacement, longitudinal and
radial plastic strains. 2) A relative higher temperature difference is benecial to the pipeline safety, because of
decreasing transverse displacement, longitudinal and radial
plastic strains. 3) The plastic deformation and strain are
much larger if operating loads are not considered, which

L. Zhang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28 (2016) 121e131

131

Acknowledgment
The authors are very much indebted to the Project Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51204201) for
the nancial support.

References

Fig. 14. Longitudinal, radial and hoop plastic strains for different temperature
differences.

means that operating loads play a positive role for preventing

the plastic deformation of pipelines.
(4) Note that, in its present form, the proposed method is not
fully analytical solution, because the transverse horizontal
displacement is solved by the nite difference method.
Furthermore, the proposed model does not account for the
effect of local buckling.

American Lifelines Alliance, 2001. Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe.
American Society of Civil Engineers.
, M., Torselletti, E., Vitali, L., 2006. Impact of debris
Bruschi, R., Bughi, S., Spinazze
ows and turbidity currents on seaoor structures. Nor. J. Geol. 86, 317e336.
Bruton, D.A.S., White, D.J., Cheuk, C.Y., et al., 2006. Pipe-soil interaction behavior
during lateral buckling, including large amplitude cyclic displacement tests by
the safebuck JIP. In: Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference. Houston,
America, 5e1e5-6.
Cathie, D.N., Jaeck, C., Ballard, J.C., et al., 2005. Pipeline geotechnics: state of the art.
In: International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG).
Taylor & Francis, London, France.
Cheong, T., Soga, K., Robert, D., 2011. 3D FE analyses of buried pipeline with elbows
subjected to lateral loading. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (10), 939e948.
Gao, H.Y., Feng, Q.M., 1997. Response analysis for buried pipelines through settlement zone. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 19, 68e74.
Gilbert, R.B., Nodine, M., Wright, S.G., et al., 2007. Impact of hurricane-induced
mudslides on pipelines. In: Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston.
Hansen, J.B., 1961. The Ultimate Resistance of Rigid Piles against Transversal Forces.
Bulletin 12. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Karamitros, D.K., Bouckovalas, G.D., Kouretzis, G.P., 2007. Stress analysis of buried
steel pipelines at strike-slip fault crossings. Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 27, 200e211.
Kinash, O., Naja, M., 2012. Large-diameter pipe subjected to landslide loads.
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 3 (1), 1e7.
Liu, J.T., 2012. The Large Scale Model Test of the Interaction of Pipeline across
Landslide. Chengdu University of Technology, Cheng Du.
Liu, P.F., Zheng, J.Y., Zhang, B.J., Shi, P., 2010. Failure analysis of natural gas buried
X65 steel pipeline under deection load using nite element method. Mater.
Des. 31, 1384e1391.
Manolis, G.D., Beskos, D.E., 1997. Underground and lifeline structures. In:
Beskos, D.E., Anagnostopoulos, S.A. (Eds.), Computer Analysis and Design of
Earthquake Resistant Structures: a Handbook. CMP, Southampton, pp. 775e837.
O'Rourke, M., Liu, X., Flores-Berrones, R., 1995. Steel pipe wrinkling due to longitudinal permanent ground deformation. J. Transp. Eng. 121 (5), 443e451.
O'Rourke, M.J., Liu, X., 1999. Response of Buried Pipelines Subject to Earth Quake
Effects. MCEER, NewYork.
Parker, E.J., Traverso, C., Moore, R., Evans, T., Usher, N., 2008. Evaluation of landslide
impact on deepwater submarine pipelines. In: Offshore Technology Conference.
Houston, Texas, America.
Randolph, M.F., Seo, D., White, D.J., 2010. Parametric solutions for slide impact on
pipelines. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 94, 940e949.
Sahdi, F., Gaudin, C., White, D.J., et al., 2014. Centrifuge modelling of active slideepipeline loading in soft clay. Geotechnique 64, 16e27.
Trautmann, C.H., O'Rourke, T.D., 1983. Behavior of Pipe in Dry Sand under Lateral
and Uplift Loading. Geotechnical Engineering Report 83-6. Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.
Trifonov, O.V., Cherniy, V.P., 2012. Elastoplastic stressestrain analysis of buried steel
pipelines subjected to fault displacements with account for service loads. Soil.
Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 33, 54e62.
Wang, B., Li, X., Zhou, J., 2011. Strain analysis of buried steel pipelines across strikeslip faults. J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. 18, 1654e1661.
Xing, Y.H., 2007. Research on Several Problems of Elastodplastic Constitutive
Theory. Harbin Engineering University, Harbin.
Yuan, F., Wang, L., Guo, Z., et al., 2012a. A rened analytical model for landslide or
debris ow impact on pipelines. Part I: surface pipelines. Appl. Ocean. Res. 35,
95e104.
Yuan, F., Wang, L., Guo, Z., et al., 2012b. A rened analytical model for landslide or
debris ow impact on pipelines. Part II: embedded pipelines. Appl. Ocean. Res.
35, 105e114.
Yuan, F., Li, L., Guo, Z., Wang, L., 2014. Landslide impact on submarine pipelines:
analytical and numerical analysis. J. Eng. Mech. 140, 040141091e;04014109e04014110.
Zakeri, A., 2009. Review of state-of-the-art: drag forces on submarine pipelines and
piles caused by landslide or debris ow impact. J. Offshore. Mech. Arct. Eng. 131,
0140001.
Zhang, J., Liang, Z., Han, C.J., 2014. Buckling behavior analysis of buried gas pipeline
under strike-slip fault displacement. J. Nat. Gas. Sci. Eng. 21, 921e928.
Zheng, J.Y., Zhang, B.J., Liu, P.F., Wu, L.L., 2012. Failure analysis and safety evaluation
of buried pipeline due to deection of landslide process. Eng. Fail. Anal. 25,
156e168.
Zhu, H.X., Randolph, M.F., 2010. Large deformation nite-element analysis of submarine landslide interaction with embedded pipelines. Int. J. Geomech. 10,
145e152.