1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

SOIL RESTRAINT AGAINST LATERAL AND OBLIQUE MOTION OF PIPES BURIED

IN DENSE SAND


Kshama Sundar Roy
Graduate Student
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science
Memorial University
St. Johns, NL, Canada
Bipul Hawlader
Associate Professor
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science
Memorial University
St. Johns, NL, Canada





ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the soil restraint against lateral and
oblique motion of pipes buried in dense sand. A series of two-
and three-dimensional finite element analyses are performed for
pure lateral and combined axial-lateral relative pipeline/soil
displacement. The commercially available finite element
software package ABAQUS/Standard is used in numerical
analysis. The analyses are performed for two burial depths. The
numerical model is verified by comparing with model test
results available in the literature. The built-in Mohr-Coulomb
model in ABAQUS is used for modeling the soil. It is shown
that an advanced soil constitutive model might be required for
better modeling of pipe/soil interaction behavior.

INTRODUCTION
Buried pipelines are extensively used for transporting
water and hydrocarbons. The liquid hydrocarbon and natural
gas products are usually transported through buried pipelines,
which traverse large distances through a variety of soils.
Geohazards and the associated ground movement represent a
significant threat to pipeline integrity that may result in pipeline
damage and potential failure. In certain situations, pipelines can
be exposed to potential ground failures such as surface faulting,
liquefaction-induced soil movements, and landslide induced
permanent ground deformation (PGD). These ground
movements might cause excessive stresses in pipelines and
pipeline damage in some cases. Therefore, safe, economic and
reliable operation of pipeline transportation systems is the
primary goal of the pipeline operators and regulatory agencies.
In the current state-of-practice (e.g., Committee on Gas and
Liquid Fuel Lifelines of ASCE 1984, ALA 2002), the pipeline is
generally modeled by simplified beam, while the pipe/soil
interaction is modeled by three soil springs in the axial (or
longitudinal), transverse horizontal, and transverse vertical
directions using Winkler type model (Winkler [24]). The
properties of soil springs in three orthogonal directions are
independent which means that the deformation of soil in one
direction has no effect on pipe/soil interactions in other
directions. Theoretical and experimental studies were conducted
in the past to determine the forces on pipelines due to relative
movement of the soil in a specific direction, namely
longitudinal, transverse horizontal, or transverse vertical (e.g.
Hansen [9], Ovesen [12], Vesic [21], Audibert and Nyman [2],
Ranjan and Aurora [15], Trautmann and ORourke [18], Paulin
et al. [13], Scarpelli et al. [17], and Rizkalla et al. [16], Guo [8],
Wijewickreme et al. [23]).
The general form of the load-displacement relations
for these springs can be expressed as:

( ) ( ) ( ) z f Q y f P x f T = = = ; ; (1)

Where T, P and Q are the soil loads applied to unit length of the
pipeline and x, y and z are the relative displacements between
pipe and soil in longitudinal, lateral and vertical directions,
respectively. Several theoretical, numerical and experimental
analyses have been conducted on pipe/soil interaction and also
on load-displacement behavior of piles and anchor plates that
can be used to define the pipe/soil load-displacement behavior
for each of the three perpendicular (axial or longitudinal, lateral
horizontal and vertical) directions. These springs are usually
independent and during a 3D pipe/soil relative displacement
they cannot account for cross effects due to the shear interaction
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90100
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME
between different soil zones along the pipe. A number of studies
have been conducted in the past to investigate the pipe/soil
interaction during an oblique or three-dimensional pipe/soil
relative movement, which includes experimental [e.g. 6, 10],
theoretical [e.g. 5] and numerical [e.g. 4, 14] investigations. It is
shown [6, 14] that there is a considerable increase in the axial
soil restraint on the pipeline when a lateral relative
displacement occurs between pipe and soil. Therefore, more
investigations on complex loading conditions are needed to
enhance the numerical tools and to develop engineering
guidelines to assess the pipelines response in a 3D pipeline/soil
interaction event.
The main objective of this research program is to understand
better the complex pipeline/soil interaction and load transfer
mechanisms during combined axial/lateral relative pipeline/soil
displacements. Two- and three-dimensional continuum finite
analyses are performed using ABAQUS/Standard finite element
software. The built-in soil constitutive models in ABAQUS
cannot capture a number of important features. Implementation
of an advanced soil constitutive model in ABAQUS is currently
in progress. This paper presents some capabilities and
limitations of built-in soil model and shows why advanced soil
model is required.

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FORMULATION
The Finite Element software package ABAQUS/Standard is
used to simulate the pipeline/soil interaction both in two- and
three-dimensional conditions. The long-term objective of this
research program is to model pipe/soil interaction behavior for
oblique loading implementing an advanced soil constitutive
model in ABAQUS FE software using a user subroutine UMAT
which is currently in progress. As the development of UMAT is
fairly complex the following steps are taken to achieve this
goal. First two-dimensional analyses have been performed and
compared with previous solutions. To compare the performance
with model test results, three-dimensional finite element model
is developed. Finally, some results for oblique loading are also
presented.
Figures 1(a) and 1(b) show the finite element mesh used in
numerical analyses for two- and three-dimensional conditions,
respectively. The dimensions are similar to the large-scale
experiments conducted by Trautmann and ORourke (1983).
In order to check the effects of bottom and right boundaries,
which are relatively close to the pipe, analyses have also been
performed with a larger soil domain where the bottom and right
boundaries respectively are at 0.8 m and 1.1 m from the pipe.
Very little difference in calculated lateral resistance using these
two different soil domains indicates that the dimensions of the
soil domains shown in Fig. 1 are sufficiently large and therefore
boundary effects are not expected on predicted lateral
resistance, displacement and failure mechanisms. The bottom of
the model (Fig. 1) is restrained from any vertical movement,
while all the vertical faces are restrained from any lateral
movement using roller supports. No displacement boundary
condition is applied on top face, and the soil can move freely.
A rigid pipe is placed at the desired location. The depth of
the pipe is measured in terms of H/D ratio, where H is the depth
of the bottom of the pipe from the ground surface and D is the
diameter of the pipe. The values of H/D used in these analyses
are 2.0 and 11.5.
The interface between pipe and soil is simulated using the
contact surface approach available in ABAQUS/Standard. This
approach allows the separation and sliding of finite amplitude
and arbitrary rotation of the contact surfaces. The Coulomb
friction model is used for the frictional interface between the
outer surface of the pipe and sand. In this method, the friction
coefficient () is defined as =tan(|

), where |

is the pipe/soil
interface friction angle. The pipe/soil interface friction angle, |

depends on the interface characteristics and the degree of
relative movement between the pipe and soil. The larger value
of |

indicates the characteristics of rough uncoated pipes with

rusty or corroded surfaces and the lower values would
correspond to pipes with smooth coating. The value of |

varies
between |' and |'/2 [22]. The value of |

is assumed to be equal
to |'/2 in this analysis.


























Figure 1. Finite Element Mesh: (a) 2-D Analysis (b)
Lateral-3D and Oblique-3D Analysis

The numerical analysis is conducted in two main steps. The
first step is a geostatic stress step that accounts for the effects of
soil weight and defines the initial stress state in the soil. In the
second step, the pipe is moved in the desired direction (laterally
left, axial or in the combined axial-lateral direction) specifying
1.473m
0.3m
0.6m
2.3m
(a)
y
x
z
1.22m
2.3m
1.473m
m
0.6m
0.3m
(b)
3 Copyright 2012 by ASME
a displacement boundary condition at the reference point
(centre) of the pipe.
In the following sections the results are plotted in
dimensionless form: in the vertical axis the dimensionless force
=F/HDL and in the horizontal axis the dimensionless
displacement =/D, where L is the length of the pipe, is the
displacement of the pipe, is the unit weight of soil, H is the
distance from the ground surface to the bottom of the pipeline,
and D is the diameter of the pipe.

SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
Trautmann [19] presented a successful model test results
for lateral movement of the pipe. Several researchers later used
these test results to verify their numerical prediction and also to
develop some design guidelines. Clean, subangular,
fluvioglacial sand was used in model tests. The sand has
uniformity coefficient 2.6 and effective grain size 0.2 mm. The
minimum and maximum dry unit weights are 15.5 kN/m
3
and
18.3 kN/m
3
, respectively. The tests simulated in this study were
conducted in dry sand with unit weight of 17.7 kN/m
3
, which
gives a relative density 81%.
The Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model currently available in
ABAQUS/Standard finite element software is used to model the
soil (sand in this case). The elastic modulus can be determined
using bender elements on triaxial specimens or from unload-
reload curves with local strain measurement. A comprehensive
review of elastic properties of sand is available in Yimsiri
(2001) and Jefferies and Been (2007). Elastic modulus depends
on confining pressure, soil grain, and degree of compactness.
However, a constant value of E and Poissons ratio is assumed
in this study. The friction angle |' and dilation angle are
estimated from the direct shear test results on this sand
presented by Trautmann [19].

TWO-DIMENSIONAL LATERAL MOVEMENT OF PIPE
At first two-dimensional finite element analysis is
performed. A two-dimensional finite element model is
developed with geometry exactly similar to the experimental
setup used by Trautmann [19] as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Although the test setup is three-dimensional, the analysis
presented in this section is in two-dimensional plane strain
condition. For finite element modeling of soil, 8-node
biquadratic plane strain quadrilateral, reduced integration
element CPE8R and for pipe, 2-node two-dimensional rigid
beam element RB2D2 are used. The soil parameters used in the
analyses are: E = 3650 kPa, v = 0.3, |'=44, = 16, =0.4
and =17.7 kN/m
3
. For a given displacement, the load on the
pipe is obtained from the reaction force at the reference point of
the pipe.
The analyses are performed for one shallow (H/D=2) and
one deep (H/D=11.5) burial condition. The outer diameter of
the pipe is 102 mm. In both cases the bottom of the pipe is
approximately at 300 mm above the floor of the tank (Fig. 2).
Similar to experimental setup the pipe is placed at 600 mm left
from the right wall of the tank and is moved laterally to the left
until sufficient post-peak load-displacement response is
observed.

Figure 2. Two-dimensional view of experimental setup
(Trautmann and ORourke 1983)

Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show the comparison between the
experimental and numerical results for shallow and deep burial
conditions, respectively. As shown, the peak resistance obtained
from numerical analyses is reasonably matched with
experimental results. However, the post-peak behavior such as
the post-peak softening for H/D=11.5 could not be modeled
properly in this study. Also the force displacement curve
obtained from the numerical analysis does not match well with
experimental results for H/D=11.5. A higher value E might give
a closer FE result.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

F
o
r
c
e
,

F
/
(

D
H
L
)
Normalized Displacement,
l
/D
Trautmann 1983 [Test 22]
Present analysis-Lateral-2D
(a) H/D = 2

0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

F
o
r
c
e
,

F
/
(

D
H
L
)
Normalized Displacement,
l
/D
Trautmann, 1983 [Test 32]
Present Analysis-Lateral-2D
(b) H/D = 11.5

Figure 3. Normalized force-displacements curves:
(a) H/D=2.0 (b) H/D=11.5
Width = 1220 mm
4 Copyright 2012 by ASME

LATERAL MOVEMENT OF THE PIPE IN THREE-
DIMENSIONAL MODEL
The tests present by Trautmann [19] are in fact in three-
dimensional condition, although in previous section it is
modeled in a two-dimensional plain strain condition. In their
experiment, a model pipe of 610 mm length was moved
laterally in a 2300 mm 1220 mm 1473 mm (length width
thickness) tank filled with dry sand. In this section, the same
problem in three-dimensional condition is analyzed. The three-
dimensional finite element model shown in Fig. 1(b) is formed
with the geometry exactly similar to the experimental setup by
Trautmann [19]. For soil, 8-node linear brick, reduced
integration, hourglass control elements (C3D8R) and for pipe,
4-node three-dimensional bilinear rigid quadrilateral (R3D4)
elements are used. Again, a rigid pipe is used in the analysis and
the reference point is defined at the center of the pipe. The pipe
is moved laterally by applying a displacement boundary
condition at the reference point.
The same soil parameters listed in previous two-
dimensional analyses are used. The FE results obtained from the
three-dimensional model are compared with the two-
dimensional results presented in the previous sections and also
with the test results as shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b).
As shown, the force-displacement curves obtained from the
two-dimensional modeling is very similar to that of the three-
dimensional analysis. That means any discrepancies between
the model test and finite element results are not for the three-
dimensional effects. One of the possible reasons of
discrepancies is the use of appropriate soil model. The Mohr-
Coulomb plasticity model may not simulate the soil behavior
properly in this case. An advanced soil constitutive model might
be used for better modeling of this behavior.
Figure 5 shows the shear strain in the soil around the pipe
at post-peak displacement. Two different soil failure
mechanisms are observed: local (punching) failure for deep
burial pipe and general shear failure for shallow pipe.

OBLIQUE MOVEMENT OF THE PIPE
The soil resistance to oblique movement of pipe is
investigated in this section for H/D=11.5. The three-
dimensional finite element model, shown in Fig. 1(b), is used in
the analysis. Again the pipe is modeled as rigid body while the
soil is modeled using Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model. Similar
to previous analyses, the soil parameters used in this analysis
are: E = 3650 kPa, v = 0.3, |'=44, = 16, =0.4 and
=17.7kN/m
3
. The oblique motion of the pipe is achieved by
applying two displacement boundary conditions o
a
and o
l
in
each increment at reference point maintaining tanu=o
l
/o
a
where
u is the oblique angle and o
a
and o
l
are the displacement in the
axial and lateral direction, respectively. The definition of
oblique angle is shown in Fig. 6 where is equal to 0 for pure
axial and 90 for pure lateral movement. As shown in Fig. 1(b)
that the pipe is slightly longer than the soil domain in the x-
direction. This is to accommodate the axial movement of the

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

F
o
r
c
e
,

F
/
(

D
H
L
)
Normalized Displacement,
l
/D
Trautmann 1983 [Test 22]
Present analysis-Lateral-2D
Present Analysis Lateral-3D
(a) H/D = 2

0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

F
o
r
c
e
,

F
/
(

D
H
L
)
Normalized Displacement,
l
/D
Trautmann, 1983 [Test 32]
Present Analysis-Lateral-2D
Present Analysis Lateral-3D
(b) H/D = 11.5

Figure 4. Normalized Force-displacements curves from
Lateral-3D analysis for (a) H/D =2 (b) H/D =11.5

pipe during oblique loading. Roller supports are used for all the
vertical faces of soil domain to prevent any lateral movement of
soil. Therefore, the pipe can move in all three directions (axial,
lateral and vertical). In this analysis the displacement boundary
condition is applied in the axial-lateral direction at the reference
point at u=40 for H/D=11.5.
Normalized force-displacements curves for oblique motion
of the pipe are shown in the Fig. 7. As shown in this figure that
the peak lateral force calculated in oblique loading (=40) is
lower than the peak lateral force calculated in the pure lateral
loading (=90). Similar trend was found by Guo [8] for
cohesive soil. An opposite trend is found in axial force. The
peak axial force obtained in oblique loading (=40) is much
higher than the peak axial force calculated in the pure axial
loading (=0).

5 Copyright 2012 by ASME




















Figure 5. Shear failure pattern for
(a) H/D =2 (b) H/D = 11.5


Figure 6. Definition of Oblique Angle in Axial-Lateral
Direction

There are two sets of test data on oblique motion of
buried pipes in dense sand which could be used to compare
numerical analysis. The first one is a large scale model test [10]
and the second one is centrifuge test [6]. The centrifuge tests [6]
give higher lateral resistance than that of in pure lateral tests.
Also it gave higher resistance than large scale tests [10].
Reexamination of these results and/or more tests is required for
better understanding of this mechanism. From our analyses and
also from previous studies [7] it is found that advanced soil
model is required to compare these results especially at shallow
burial depth. Some of the limitations of Mohr-Coulomb model
could be also found in previous studies [e.g. 7]. Although some
fitting functions are used for mobilized friction angle and
dilation angle, it is clear that advanced soil constitutive model
could overcome some of the issues that could not be solved
using Mohr-Coulomb model.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
In current practice, structural analysis of the pipeline is
usually done using three independent discrete soil springs.
However, previous studies show that these three springs are not
independent and coupled effects should be considered for better
modeling. Continuum finite element modeling could be used for
better simulation of pipe/soil interaction behavior.



Figure 7. Normalized Force-displacements curves from
Oblique-3D and pure lateral, pure Axial analysis

The finite element analyses presented in this paper show
that the lateral component of soil resistance in oblique direction
is smaller than that when the pipe undergoes purely lateral
movement. However, the result is opposite for the axial
component in oblique movement i.e. axial component of the
soil resistance in oblique motion is larger than that when the
pipe undergoes purely axial movement. While the present
analyses show the similar trend as observed in model tests [6,
10], for successful quantification of the response of pipeline the
soil behavior should be modeled properly. Fortunately a large
number of researchers in geotechnical engineering are devoted
to the development of better constitutive model for sand which
can capture most of the salient features. Unfortunately, these
advanced soil constitutive models are not implemented in most
of the commercially available software such as ABAQUS.
Therefore, most of the research works on buried pipelines are
based on simple built-in model such as Mohr-Coulomb
plasticity model. The Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model has a
number of limitations including the modeling of dilation and
could be questionable at low stress level.
The implementation of an advanced soil constitutive model
in ABAQUS FE code using the user subroutine UMAT is
currently in progress. The developed finite element tool
presented above and the implement soil model will be used for
further analyses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work presented in this paper has been funded by RDC
and NSERC Discovery grants. The authors express their
sincerest thanks to them.

REFERENCES

[1] American Lifeline Alliance (ALA) (2002). Guidelines for
the design of buried pipe. (www.americanlifelinealliance.org).
(b) H/D =11.5; local shear
failure
(a) H/D =2; general shear
failure
6 Copyright 2012 by ASME

[2] Audibert, J. M. E., and Nyman, K. J. (1977). Soil restraint
against horizontal motion of pipes. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am.
Soc. Civ. Eng., 103(10), 11191142.

[3] Bolton, M. D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of
sands. Geotechnique, 36(1), 6578.

[4] Cocchetti, G., Prisco, C., Galli, A. (2009). Soilpipeline
interaction along unstable slopes: a coupled three-dimensional
approach. Part 2: Numerical analyses. Can. Geotech. J. 46:
1305-1321.

[5] Cocchetti, G., Prisco, C., Galli, A. and Nova, R. (2009).
Soil-pipeline interaction along unstable slopes: a coupled
three-dimensional approach. Part 1: Theoretical formulation.
Can. Geotech. J. 46: 1289-1304

[6] Daiyan, N., Kenny, S., Phillips, R. and Popescu, R. (2010).
Investigation of axial/lateral interaction of pipes in dense
sand. ICPMG 2010, Int. Conf. on Physical Modeling in
Geotechnics, Zurich, Switzerland.

[7] Daiyan, N., Kenny, S., Phillips, R. and Popescu, R. (2010b).
Numerical investigation of oblique pipeline/soil interaction in
sand. IPC 2010, Int. Pipeline Conf., Calgary, Canada.

[8] Guo, P. (2005). Numerical modeling of pipe-soil interaction
under oblique loading. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131(2), pp. 260- 268.

[9] Hansen, J. B. (1961). The ultimate resistance of rigid piles
against transversal forces. Bulletin No. 12, Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, 59.

[10] Hsu, T.W., Chen, Y.J. and Hung, W.Y. (2006). Soil
Restraint to Oblique Movement of Buried Pipes in Dense
Sand. Journal of transportation engineering, ASCE, 132(2):
175-181.

[11] Nyman, K.J. (1984). Soil response against oblique motion
of pipes. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 110(2), pp.
190-202.

[12] Ovesen, N. K. (1964). Anchor slabs, calculation methods
and model tests. Bulletin No. 16, The Danish Geotechnical
Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark.

[13] Paulin, M. J. (1998). An investigation into pipelines
subjected to lateral soil loading. PhD thesis, Memorial Univ. of
Newfoundland, St. Johns, Canada.

[14] Phillips, R., Nobahar, A. and Zhou, J. (2004). Combined
axial and lateral pipe-soil interaction relationships.
Proceedings of IPC2004, International pipeline Conference,
Calgary, Canada.

[15] Ranjan, G., and Aurora, V. B. (1980). Model studies on
anchors under horizontal pull in clay. Proc., 3rd Australia, New
Zealand Conf. on Geomechanics, Vol. 1, 6570.

[16] Rizkalla, M., Poorooshasb, F., and Clark, J. I. (1992).
Centrifuge modelling of lateral pipeline/soil interaction.
Proc., 11th Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Symp.

[17] Scarpelli, G., Sakellariadi, E., and Furlani, G. (1999).
Longitudinal pipeline-soil interaction: results from field full
scale and laboratory testing. Panel Contribution in the Proc. of
12th ECSMGE, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

[18] Trautmann, C. H., ORourke, T. D., and Kulhawy, F. H.
(1985). Uplift forcedisplacement response of buried pipe. J.
Geotech. Eng., 111(9), 10611076.

[19] Trautmann, C.H. (1983). Behavior of pipe in dry sand
under lateral and uplift loading. PhD thesis, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NewYork

[20] Turner, J. P., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1987). Experimental
analysis of drilled shaft foundations subjected to repeated axial
loads under drained conditions. Rep. to Electric Power
Research Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

[21] Vesic, A. S. (1971). Breakout resistance of objects
embedded in ocean bottom. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 97(9),
11831205.

[22] Yimsiri, S., Soga, K., Yoshizaki, K., Dasari, G.R. and
ORourke, T.D. (2004) Lateral and upward soil-pipeline
interactions in sand for deep embedment conditions. Journal of
geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 130(8): 830-
842.

[23] Wijewickreme, D., Karimian, H. and Honegger, D. (2009).
Response of buried steel pipelines subjected to relative axial
soil movement. Can. Geotech. J., 46: 735-752

[24] Winkler, E. (1867). Die lehre von elastizitat und festigkeit
(teaching on elasticity and stiffness). Prague, Czechoslov

[25] Mike Jeffereies and Ken Been (2006). Soil liquefaction :
a critical state approach. Taylor & Francis, London ; New
York.

[26] Yimsiri, S. (2001). Pre-failure deformation characteristics
of soils: anisotropy and soil fabric, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.