journal article·2026-05-20Open access

Unidirectional CFRP Reinforcement in Buried Pipelines: Performance Limits at Strike‐Slip Fault Crossings

Ercan Serif Kaya, Volkan Acar, Ferit Cakir, Ertugrul Taciroglu

Polymer Composites· Volume 47· Issue 10

Abstract

ABSTRACT The mechanical behavior and seismic performance of buried pipelines have been extensively investigated in recent years. However, to the best of the author's knowledge, research studies on the performance limits of these pipelines, particularly wrapped with unidirectional carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) remain limited. This study examines the performance limits of buried steel pipelines reinforced with unidirectional CFRP as they cross strike‐slip fault lines. The investigation focuses on the influence of fault angles and evaluates the effectiveness of CFRP reinforcement under these conditions. CFRP material properties were experimentally characterized by standardized tensile and three‐point bending tests. A three‐dimensional finite element model was developed using ABAQUS to simulate soil‐pipe interaction across fault crossing scenarios with angles ranging from 0° to 40°. The study also considers various CFRP configurations, including single‐layer ( t = 1.5 mm) and four‐layer ( t = 6.0 mm) wrappings, with fiber orientations of 0° and 90°. Damage mechanisms such as local buckling, ovalization, and composite rupture were analyzed to assess performance limits under different fault angles. The results demonstrate that even a single layer of CFRP wrapping significantly enhances the displacement capacity of the pipeline compared to conventional steel pipelines. Reinforced configurations showed reduced stress concentrations and more ductile behavior under both tensile and compressive loading. These findings offer valuable insights into optimizing CFRP retrofitting strategies and enhancing the resilience and safety of buried pipeline infrastructure in seismically active regions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures · Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete · Structural Integrity and Reliability Analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Civil Engineering Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University Antalya Turkey

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California Los Angeles California USA

Department of Architecture Tokyo University of Science Tokyo Japan

Department of Mechanical Engineering Ataturk University Erzurum Turkey

Department of Civil Engineering Gebze Technical University Kocaeli Turkey

References (42)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/s10518-024-01957-210.1007/s10518-024-01957-2 ↗
2. Seismic Performance of Cylindrical Liquid Storage Tanks in the 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquakes: A Case Study of a Self‐Supported Oil Storage Tank
3. 10.1177/8755293024129357110.1177/87552930241293571 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2024.10768110.1016/j.enggeo.2024.107681 ↗
5. 10.1193/030413EQS062M10.1193/030413EQS062M ↗
6. Water Supply Damage Caused by the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake
7. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.10.00410.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.10.004 ↗
8. Eidinger J. M. · 2002 · 21
9. Design Issues of Buried Pipelines at Permanent Ground Deformation Zones
10. Determination of Performance Criteria of Steel Pipes Subjected to Axial Compressive Load and Bending Moment
11. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.10984510.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109845 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2019.10403810.1016/j.ijpvp.2019.104038 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.10628010.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106280 ↗
14. Innovative Solution to Large Ground Displacement Using Steel Pipe for Crossing Fault
15. B. P.Wham T. D.O'Rourke H. E.Stewart T. K.Bond C.Pariya‐Ekkasut andH.Hall “Large‐Scale Testing of JFE Steel Pipe Crossing Faults: Testing of SPF Wave Feature to Resist Fault Rupture ”2016(Final Report Submitted to: JFE Engineering Corporation Connell University 2016).
16. 10.3390/coatings1103030110.3390/coatings11030301 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.tws.2019.03.02310.1016/j.tws.2019.03.023 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.11140210.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111402 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2024.10532210.1016/j.ijpvp.2024.105322 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.tust.2023.10537010.1016/j.tust.2023.105370 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.02.01410.1016/j.soildyn.2015.02.014 ↗
22. 10.3390/coatings1205065410.3390/coatings12050654 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.11.01310.1016/j.compstruct.2011.11.013 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2025.10562210.1016/j.ijpvp.2025.105622 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2025.10566910.1016/j.ijpvp.2025.105669 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.istruc.2023.06.00110.1016/j.istruc.2023.06.001 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.11766910.1016/j.engstruct.2024.117669 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e2723810.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27238 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.10619510.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106195 ↗
30. ALA · 2005
31. PRCI · 2004
32. 10.1193/1.189827310.1193/1.1898273 ↗
33. Plastic Design of Buried Steel Pipelines in Settlement Areas
34. Kratos “Kratos C‐Plate Technical Datasheet Kordsa Composite Technologies Center of Excellence Turkey ”https://kratosreinforcement.com/wp‐content/uploads/2023/05/Kratos_Structural‐Reinforcement‐TDS_TR_CPLATE.pdf.
35. ASTM D3039/D3039M‐08 · 2008
36. ASTM D790‐17 · 1997
37. ASTM D‐792 · 1991
38. 10.1016/B978-008044475-8/50003-210.1016/B978-008044475-8/50003-2 ↗
39. 10.1177/00219983000340130210.1177/002199830003401302 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.06.01110.1016/j.soildyn.2010.06.011 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.05.01210.1016/j.soildyn.2012.05.012 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.03.00110.1016/j.soildyn.2015.03.001 ↗