Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Push-on Joints for Ductile Iron Pipelines Undergoing Strike-slip Fault

NAVIGATE

Table of Contents

STATISTICS

Viewed16

Downloads21

Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Push-on Joints for Ductile Iron Pipelines Undergoing Strike-slip Fault

[HTML] PDF下载 (21)

[1]ZHAO Ning,SHA Song,LI Heng,et al.Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Push-on Joints for Ductile Iron Pipelines Undergoing Strike-slip Fault[J].Journal of Zhengzhou University (Engineering Science),2026,47(5):119-126.[doi:10.13705/j.issn.1671-6833.2026.05.003]

Copy

Journal of Zhengzhou University (Engineering Science)[ISSN 1671-6833/CN 41-1339/T] Volume: 47 Number of periods: 2026 Issue 5 Page number: 119-126 Column: Public date: 2026-09-09

Title:: Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Push-on Joints for Ductile Iron Pipelines Undergoing Strike-slip Fault

Author(s):: ZHAO Ning^1,2, SHA Song², LI Heng², TANG Bing², ZHOU Xing², FANG Hongyuan¹; 1. Yellow River Laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Water Resources Engineering and Management, Wuhan 430010, China

Keywords:: strike-slip fault; probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis; push-on joints of ductile iron pipelines; Monte Carlo simulation; failure probability

CLC:: TV672

DOI:: 10.13705/j.issn.1671-6833.2026.05.003

Abstract:: It was found that buried segmented pipelines crossing active faults are prone to leak at joints with surface fault rupture displacements. However, no quantitative assessment study was conducted on joint failure risk that considered uncertainties such as surface rupture location and the magnitude of surface rupture displacement. In this study, an assessment framework for joint failure risk combining Probabilistic Fault Displacement Hazard Analysis and Monte Carlo simulation was proposed to quantify the surface rupture hazard in the pipeline crossing area and the annual failure probability of joints. A ductile iron pipeline with a nominal diameter of 1 400 mm and a segment length of 6 m crossing the Qujiang Fault in Yunnan was analyzed as a case study. The surface rupture displacements in the pipeline crossing area for recurrence periods of 475 years, 975 years, and 2 475 years were determined to be 0.70 m, 1.49 m, and 3.08 m, respectively. When the fault‑pipeline intersection angle was set to 70°, the annual failure probability of the joint was found to reach its minimum value of approximately 3.43×10⁻³ with the failure mode identified as rotational failure. It was revealed that the joint failure mode gradually transitioned from tensile failure to rotational failure as the fault‑pipeline intersection angle and pipe diameter increased. It was recommended that the most conservative surface displacement distribution model should be selected based on specific parameters such as the fault‑pipe intersection angle and pipe diameter to assess joint failure risk in practical engineering.

References:: [1] Folkman S. Water main break rates in the USA and Canada:a comprehensive study[M]. Logan: Utah State University,2018.
[2] Nair G S, Dash S R, Mondal G. Review of pipeline performance during earthquakes since 1906[J]. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2018, 32(6): 04018083.
[3] Toprak S, Nacaroglu E, Van Ballegooy S, et al. Segmented pipeline damage predictions using liquefaction vulnerability parameters[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 125: 105758.
[4] Wen Haijia, Liu Lei, Zhang Jialan, et al. A hybrid machine learning model for landslide‑oriented risk assessment of long‑distance pipelines[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 342: 118177.
[5] Li Bin, Fang Hongyuan, Wang Fuming. Analysis of the mechanical characteristics of disengaging drainage pipe before and after polymer repairing[J]. Journal of Zhengzhou University (Engineering Science), 2019, 40(1): 62‑66.
[6] Wang Fuming, He Hang, Fang Hongyuan, et al. Study on mechanical response of the bell‑and‑spigot joints of pipeline under the coupling of traffic and running load[J]. Journal of Zhengzhou University (Engineering Science), 2020, 41(4): 1‑6.
[7] Qin Xiaogang, Ni Pengpeng. Kinematics of bell‑spigot joints in vitrified clay pipelines under differential ground movement[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 91: 103005.
[8] O’Rourke M J, Liu X. Seismic design of buried and offshore pipelines[M]. New York:University at Buffalo, 2012.
[9] Argyrou C, O’Rourke T D, Stewart H E, et al. Large‑scale fault rupture tests on pipelines reinforced with cured‑in‑place linings[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2019, 145(3): 04019004.
[10] Qin Xiaogang, Wang Yu, Fu Cuiwei. Joint kinematics and sealing capacity assessment of ductile iron pipes under abrupt transverse ground movements[J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2022, 59(3): 342‑358.
[11] Chen Qingshu, Ni Pengpeng. Three‑dimensional modeling of joint kinematic of ductile iron pipelines subjected to normal faulting[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2023, 132: 104863.
[12] Liu Wei, Huang Chunjie, Zhang Shaofeng, et al. Centrifuge test of large‑diameter segmented ductile iron pipes crossing strike‑slip faults [ J ]. Structures, 2023, 57: 105218.
[13] Youngs R R, Arabasz W J, Anderson R E, et al. A methodology for probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis (PFDHA)[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2003, 19(1): 191‑219.
[14] Cornell C A. Engineering seismic risk analysis[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1968, 58(5): 1583‑1606.
[15] Petersen M D, Dawson T E, Chen R, et al. Fault displacement hazard for strike‑slip faults[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2011, 101 (2): 805‑825.
[16] Moss R E S, Ross Z E. Probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis for reverse faults[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2011, 101 ( 4 ): 1542‑1553.
[17] Cheng Yin, Akkar S. Probabilistic permanent fault displacement hazard via Monte Carlo simulation and its consideration for the probabilistic risk assessment of buried continuous steel pipelines[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2017, 46(4): 605‑620.
[18] Wham B P, O’Rourke T D. Jointed pipeline response to large ground deformation[J]. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 2016, 7: 04015009.
[19] Li Xiaoxiao, Zhong Zilan, Hou Benwei, et al. Study on mechanical behaviors of push‑on joints of large‑diameter ductile iron pipelines[J]. Special Structures, 2020, 37(4): 47‑55.
[20] Liu Wei, Cui Wanli. Study on fatigue testing of ductile iron pipe socket joints under traffic loads[J]. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering, 2025, 45(4): 838‑848.
[21] GB/T 13295‑2008 水及燃气管道用球墨铸铁管、管件和附件[S].
[22] Wu Guo, Ran Hongliu, Zhou Qing. Probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation[J]. Earth Science, 2022, 47(3): 844‑855.
[23] Gutenberg B, Richter C F. Frequency of earthquakes in California[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1944, 34(4): 185‑188.
[24] Wells D L, Coppersmith K J. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement[J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1994, 84(4): 974‑1002.
[25] Wang Yang, Zhang Bo, Hou Jianjun, et al. Late quaternary activity of the Qujiang fault and analysis of the slip rate[J]. Seismology and Geology, 2015, 37(4): 1177‑1192.
[26] Frankel A. Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern United States[J]. Seismological Research Letters, 1995, 66(4): 8‑21.
[27] Mei Wei, Gu Shixiang, Tong Baolin, et al. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis considering site effect: a case study of Yuxi City[J]. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering, 2022, 42(3): 516‑522.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 2026-09-07