ABN 57 410 620 309

MINE SUBSIDENCE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Reprint from
The Proceedings of the Sixth Triennial Conference
on

Subsidence Management Issues

Maitland
31 October to 2 November 2004

This document is available to members of the society at

www.mstsociety.org

Responsibility for the content of these papers rests with the Authors, and not the
Mine Subsidence Technological Society. Data presented and conclusions developed
by the authors are for information only and are not intended for use without
independent substantiating investigation on the part of potential users.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or
review, no part of these proceedings may be reproduced by any process without the
written permission of the Mine Subsidence Technological Society.

ISBN

0-9585779-2-7

Copyright MSTS

Buried Pipelines Subjected to Mining-induced Ground

Movements: Numerical Analysis of the Impact and
Development of Mitigation Concepts
D.K.H. Ho, Technical Manager, Advanced Analysis, Worley Pty Ltd, Sydney
P.G. Dominish, Engineering Manager, Advanced Analysis, Worley Pty Ltd, Sydney
Summary
Mining-induced ground movement impact on surface infrastructure such as buried pipelines
has long been recognised (Holla, 1991a & 1991b). In addition to the usual systematic ground
subsidence, valley closure and upsidence in creek beds has been observed recently and an
empirical predictive procedure has been developed (ACARP, 2002). This paper describes the
use of non-linear finite element analysis to investigate the impact of such ground movements
on high pressure steel pipelines in the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales. The analysis
was based on the methodology recommended by the American Lifelines Alliance (2001). It
utilised a system of bi-linear springs to model the soil-pipe interaction, a non-linear stressstrain relationship to model the steel material, and a large-deflection stiffness formulation to
capture the second-order effects on the pipe. The combined stress state of the pipe was
assessed and the critical regions were identified. A number of mitigation concepts such as
reducing soil cover, exposing the pipe, and lifting the pipe into a desirable shape were
investigated numerically. The preferred concept was further analysed and developed. This
was successfully implemented at a creek crossing such that coal extraction by the longwall
method could continue underground without disrupting the vital gas supply at the surface.
Keywords: buried pipeline, pipe stress analysis, non-linear finite element analysis, valley
closure, upsidence.

1. Introduction
The extraction of coal is essential to the
economy of the nation. The management of
its impact on the surrounding infrastructure
has been addressed by mining companies,
utility owners and government departments,
and it has been put into practice in
accordance to the appropriate State
legislation. There are many issues such as
economical, legal, environmental and
technical that must be considered during the
process. This paper focuses on one technical
aspect and that is the stress analysis of
buried pressurised steel pipelines subject to
ground deformation caused by coal mining.
Mining-induced subsidence impact on
surface infrastructure such as buried

pipelines has long been recognised (Holla,

1991a & 1991b). The Mine Subsidence
Board produces guidelines for the design of
pipelines in mining districts. However, some
existing pipelines were designed and
constructed prior to the publication of these
guidelines.
In addition to the systematic ground
subsidence associated with longwall coal
extraction, valley closure and upsidence (a
relative upward ground movement) in creek
beds has been studied recently by Mine
Subsidence
Engineering
Consultants
(MSEC). An empirical predictive procedure
has been developed by MSEC with the
intention of further refinement when more
data are available (ACARP, 2002). As a
majority of pipelines were laid closely

Proceedings of the 6th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2004

151

following the topography of the land, a

number of valleys have been crossed by the
pipelines. Hence, valley closure and
upsidence impacts on the buried pipelines at
these locations must be evaluated.
The integrity of any pipeline affected by
mining-induced ground movement must be
assessed to determine if the peak pipe stress
exceeds the code (e.g. AS2885.1, 1997) or
the pipeline owners criteria. If necessary,
mitigation measure will need to be
implemented to allow coal extraction to
continue without disrupting the gas or water
supply.
This paper describes the use of a non-linear
finite element analysis to investigate the
ground movement impact on pressurised gas
pipelines in the Southern Coalfield of New
South Wales. The analysis was based on the
methodology
recommended
by
the
American Lifelines Alliance (2001). Some
aspects of this methodology, the influence
of valley closure and upsidence were
examined by conducting validation and
sensitivity studies. Some details of the
modelling technique, results and mitigation
concept will be discussed. The preferred
concept was further analysed and developed.
This was successfully implemented at a
creek crossing.

2. Basic Pipe Behaviour

Subject to Ground Movement
Before any simple or sophisticated analysis
method is employed, it is necessary to
understand how a buried pipe behaves when
the ground around it undergoes deformation.
For a given ground movement profile, the
deformation of the pipe depends on how the
ground movement is transferred onto the
pipe via the soil or backfill around the pipe.
The axial movement of the pipe depends on
how much slippage is allowed at the soilpipe interface. The slippage is governed by
the coefficient of friction between the pipe

and the backfill, and the normal stresses of

the soil on the pipe.
The pipe vertical movement will depend on
the soil condition above and below the pipe.
If the cover is not thick enough, it is
possible for the pipe to buckle upward at
over bends when the pipe is being
compressed. Depending on the confinement
and soil condition below the pipe, it is
possible for the pipe to push down onto the
bedding material causing localised bearing
failure. However, if the pipe is laid inside a
rock trench and resting on well compacted
backfill, it is unlikely bearing failure of the
backfill or the bedrock will occur. Similarly,
lateral bearing failure of the side fill is
unlikely to occur if it is well compacted and
has sufficient cover within a rock trench.
It should be realised that a continuous
welded steel pipeline is ductile and flexible.
It will try to deform into many minimum
energy shapes under a given set of loading
and support conditions. Without the use of
numerical analysis, it will be difficult to
determine the deformed shape of the pipe
but for a very few simple cases.
2.1.

Pipe Stress

In general, a buried pipeline will experience

some of the following events that will cause
stresses to develop in the pipe.
Installation stresses at bends. These are
assumed to be relieved by hydro-testing for
pipelines designed to AS2885.1.
The thermal stress depends on the pipe
temperature during installation and the
operating fluid temperature inside the pipe.
It will result primarily in axial tension or
compression.
Stresses caused by overburden. If the depth
of cover is small and there is no heavy
traffic loads, these are typically small when
compared with the hoop and bending
stresses.

Proceedings of the 6th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2004

152

The internal pressure will induce three pipe

stress components and they are the hoop,
radial and axial stresses. For an onshore
pipeline, the hoop stress, hoop, is always in
tension and it is a function of the pipe
sectional geometry and internal pressure and
the radial stress is not normally significant.

hoop stress and assuming the initial stresses

are very small compared with the bending
stresses, the pipe can tolerate more tensile
axial stress than compressive axial stress.
The valley closure effect will put the pipe
into extra axial compression and this may
exceed the failure envelope.

The axial stress induced by the internal

pressure depends on the pipe restraint
varying from half the hoop stress in a short
pipe, which is allowed to expand, to the
Poissons ratio, , times the hoop stress for
a fully restrained pipeline.

Therefore any mitigation measure will aim

to reduce this axial compression as much as
possible. In cases where a short term
solution is required and pipeline operational
considerations allow it, the hoop stress can
be reduced by lowering the internal pressure
to accommodate this axial compression.

The axial stress due to ground movement is

caused by pushing or pulling of the pipe due
to ground compression or expansion. In
addition, the bending of the pipe caused by
valley closure and upsidence will also result
in axial tension and compression.

von Mise s failure

e nve lope
Tre sca failure e nve lope
400

Combined Stress State

The combined stress state can be presented

graphically by plotting the hoop and axial
stresses in Figure 1. Both the Tresca and
von Mises failure envelopes which are
function of the yield strength of the pipe are
shown in the figure. It should be noted that
positive stress denotes tensile stress and
negative stress denotes compressive stress.
For a fully restrained pipeline in the absence
of any bending or other stresses, the internal
pressure induced hoop and axial stresses
would move along the line, axial = hoop.
Residual installation stresses and thermal
stresses which will depend on the current
operating temperatures can be added where
appropriate.
Bending stresses have two sources, firstly
the direct ground movement variations on
the pipe, particularly the upsidence and
secondly, changes in axial force will induce
bending stresses at the existing pipe bends.
The presence of the bending stresses will
add to and subtract from the initial line. It
can be seen from the figure that for a given

Axial stress
change (+/-) due
to pure bending

200

Axial stress

2.2.

600

Axial compression
due to closure

-200

No bending stress
-400

Installation or thermal
stress (assumed small)
With bending stress
-600
0

200

400

600

Hoop stress

Figure 1. Effect of bending & closure.

3. Review of Analysis
Technique
Basically there are three types of stress
analysis technique to analyse pipeline
subject to ground movements and they are:

Proceedings of the 6th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2004

153

Simple
hand
or
rules-of-thumb
calculations
based
on
previous
experiences (e.g. Wright & Hoffman,
1985). They can normally only be used
for very simple problem.

model, solution convergence difficulty and

the computing resources.

Specialised pipe stress analysis tools or

software. They are normally used in the
analysis of pipe system not buried in the
ground. They may not be applicable to
mine subsidence situation due to
difficulties in modelling the soil-pipe
interaction and the Poissons ratio effect.

Features

General-purpose 3-D, non-linear finite

element analysis. This can be used for
almost
all
situations,
but
the
methodology may need to be developed
from 1st principles. More details will
be discussed in the following sections.

3.1.

Finite Element Analysis

The important features that must be captured

by the three-dimensional finite element
analysis to analyse buried pipeline are the:

Non-linearity
interaction.

of

the

soil-pipe

Second order effects due to any small

change in geometry.

Forces acting at pipe bends due to

internal pressure.

Poissons effect on the axial stress.

Two types of model can be used to analyse

the problem. One model is to use continuum
shell and solid elements, and the other
model is to use pipe elements with soil
springs. It has been demonstrated that
depending on the purpose of the analysis
both models will produce similar results.
The various features of the models are
shown in Table 1 for comparison purpose.
The choice of which model to use is very
much dependent on the purpose of the
analysis, quality of input data, the size of the

Table 1. Features of continuum and pipe

models.

Construction
history
Soil-pipe
interaction
Soil failure
Soil to soil
interaction
Second-order
effect
Thermal effect
Forces at bends
Poissons effect
Pipe stress
distribution

Stress at pipe
bends
Pipe yielding
Global
buckling failure
Local wrinkling
failure
Problem size

Complexity in
setting up the
model
Numerical
convergence
problems
Memory
requirement
Computation
time

Continuum
solid & shell
element model
Yes

Pipe elements
with soil
springs model
Some aspects

Contact
interface
elements
Continuum
elements with
plasticity
Yes via solid
elements
Yes

Bi-linear or
piecewise soil
springs
Ultimate load
in soil springs

Yes
Yes
Yes
Shell elements
will capture
stress all round
the pipe
Yes depends
on mesh
density
Yes
Yes

No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pipe elements
will capture
stresses at
selected
locations
Yes depends
on mesh
density
Yes
Yes

Yes depends
on mesh
density
Limited by
memory and
run time of
computer
Rather complex
& can be time
consuming
Most probably

No

High depends
on problem size
Relatively slow

Low

Can model
several km of
pipeline
Relatively
simple to setup
Relatively few

Relatively fast

Irrespective of which model is used, the

following input data, in addition to the
general pipeline properties, are essential:

Proceedings of the 6th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2004

154

Accurate pipe alignment information to

capture over bends, sag bends and
offsets.
Detailed depth of cover and backfill
information along the pipeline see later
section.
Reliable ground movement prediction
that includes magnitude and distribution.

4. Pipe Elements & Soil Springs

Model
The buried pipeline is modelled by a series
of 2-node pipe elements. It is important to
model the pipe alignment as closely as
possible because high bending stresses and
pipe buckling may occur at the bends.
The interaction between the pipe and the
surrounding soil is modelled by three bilinear 2-node soil springs at each pipe node.
One end (node) of the soil spring attaches to
a pipe node whilst the other end attaches to
the ground (soil node). The axial spring
allows the pipe to slip relative to the soil
when the friction is overcome. The vertical
soil spring allows the pipe to lift off and to
push down onto the soil to cause bearing
failure. The lateral soil springs can only fail
in bearing.
The force-deflection characteristics of these
bi-linear soil springs have been derived from
soil mechanics principles that were verified
by limited laboratory tests and numerical
analysis. The governing equations and
suggested parameters have been published
in the American Lifeline Alliances
guidelines (2001). They will not be
described in this paper because of space
limitation.
Once the model is set up, the pipe is subject
to a sequence of loads as follows:
1. Switch on gravity and apply internal
pressure in the pipe. All soil nodes are
fixed at this stage.

2. Apply thermal stress effect, if required.

3. Apply the predicted mining-induced
ground movements (along, vertical and
across the pipe) to the soil nodes.
It should be noted that the prescribed ground
movement can be due to events other than
mining-induced. In fact, this methodology
was originally developed to study the effect
of a sharp fault movement or shearing on
pipeline in seismic and frost heave regions.
A similar analysis technique was used by
SNAM, one of the ENI Group Companies,
that supplies natural gas in Italy (Pertinent,
2000), to study slope movement impact on
pipelines. Lim et al (2001) investigated the
local buckling of buried pipe due to ground
deformation by a similar modelling method.
Worley (2003) has also applied this analysis
technique to study the potential impact of
soil creep and landslip on a proposed gas
pipeline in Victoria, Australia.
4.1.

Validation

In order to have confidence level in this

modelling technique, a validation study was
conducted. After an extensive literature
search, there is no publicly available
information (more specifically, monitored
pipe stress results) on mining-induced
ground movement on pipelines.
However, theoretical behaviour of an elastic
pipe subject to ground movement has been
developed by Selvadurai (1985). This has
been applied to analyse pipeline subject to
sharp shearing ground movement either
due to thawing of frozen ground or fault
movement due to seismic activity.
In the present validation study, a 200m long
steel pipe with an outer diameter (OD) of
1.219m (48in), thickness (t) of 0.0119m
(0.469in) was subject to a fault movement of
0.762m (30in). The subgrade reaction was
9806 kN/m/m. No internal pressure,
installation and thermal stresses were
present in this study.

Proceedings of the 6th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2004

155

Three cases were investigated and they are:

Elastic springs only.

Bi-linear springs without lift off.

Bi-linear springs with lift off.

Settlement (m)

20

Theory

Bilinear springs
- no lift off
Bilinear springs
with lift off

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

-15
0
15
30
45
Distance from discontinuity (m)

Elastic springs

1.6E+07

Bilinear springs - no
lift off
Bilinear springs
with lift off

1.2E+07
8.0E+06
4.0E+06
0.0E+00
-4.0E+06
-8.0E+06
-1.2E+07
-1.6E+07
-30

4.2.

0E+00
Theory
FE analysis

-2E+07
-10
0
10
Distance from discontinuity (m)

60

Sensitivity Studies

4.2.1.

1E+07

-20

-15
0
15
30
45
Distance from discontinuity (m)

Figure 5. Influence of soil springs on

bending moment distribution.

2E+07

-1E+07

60

Figure 4. Influence of soil springs on pipe

deformation.

FE analysis

Figure 2. Pipe deformation.

Bending Moment (Nm)

0.0

-30

Distance from discontinuity (m)

-10
0
10

-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0

Elastic springs

-1.0

The theoretical solution by Selvadurai

(1985) is for elastic behaviour only. No
yielding of the soil or separation of the pipe
from the ground was allowed. The pipe
deflection and the bending moment for the
elastic spring case are shown in Figures 2
and 3. The computed results are in good
agreement with the theoretical prediction.
-20

0.2

Bending moment (Nm)

The influence of the bi-linear spring on the

pipe can be observed in Figures 4 and 5. In
Figure 4, the pipe is allowed to hang-off
the ground for some distance. As the soil
springs yielded and allowed the pipe to lift
off, the bending moment induced by the
fault movement would be lower and more
realistic than the one supported by purely
elastic springs as expected.

Settlement (m)

The finite element model consisted of 200

2-node pipe elements of 1m length each.
The pipe was supported on 201 vertical
springs with stiffness of 9806 kN/m each.
One spring node attached to the pipe node
while the other node connected to the
ground. A differential ground settlement of
0.762m was produced by moving all the
ground nodes located to one side of the fault
in the vertical direction.

20

Figure 3. Bending moment distribution.

Case 1

This involves modelling a 4km long straight

steel pipe (OD = 864mm and t = 9.2mm)
subject to the predicted systematic ground
movements due to longwall coal extraction.
It has an internal pressure of 4.5MPa but
without any thermal and installation
stresses. The backfill was assumed to be
granular, cohesionless, free of water and has

Proceedings of the 6th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2004

156

a unit weight of 20kN/m3. The soil-pipe

friction angle was given by 0.9. The
computed peak von Mises stress in the pipe
as function of the soil internal friction angle
(), depth of cover (H) and axial soil spring
stiffness (Tu/du) are summarised in Table 2.
They are also illustrated in Figures 6 to 8.
Table 2. Summary of peak stresses
Case

(deg)

H
(m)

Tu/du
(kN/m/m)

Peak von
Mises
stress
(MPa)

Normalis
ed peak
von Mises
stress

A1

25

1.5

1.53E+04

230.98

0.930

35

1.5

1.53E+04

248.30

1.000

A3

45

1.5

1.53E+04

260.55

1.049

A4

35

0.5

1.53E+04

216.64

0.872

A5

35

3.0

1.53E+04

273.21

1.100

A6

35

1.5

3.06E+04

252.47

1.017

A7

35

1.5

7.64E+03

241.72

0.973

1.1
1.0
0.9

There is a 10% stress increase when the

cover is doubled.

A 10o uncertainty in the soil internal

friction angle resulted in a 7% decrease
and 5% increase in peak stress.

There is only a marginal change (2 to

3%) in peak stress when the axial spring
stiffness is doubled or halved.

The cover has a significant influence on

the pipe stress than the selection of
friction angle and the axial spring
stiffness.

4.2.2.

This involves the previous pipeline crossing

two creeks. The predicted systematic ground
movements, valley closure and upsidence
due to longwall mining were applied to the
model as shown in Figures 9 and 10. The
results are summarised in Tables 3 and 4.

1.1

-0.4
-0.6
Ck1

-0.8
-1.0

180
170
Pipe 160
alignment
150
140

Sys. subsidence

-1.2

1.0

Ck2

190

130

-1.4

0.9

0
1.0

2.0
Cover (m)

3.0

4.0

Figure 9. Subsidence & upsidence profiles.

Figure 7. Peak stress as a function of cover.

Hor. movement (m)

1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0E+00

0.3

1E+04
2E+04
3E+04
Axial spring stiffness (kN/m/m)

4E+04

Figure 8. Peak stress as a function of axial

soil spring stiffness.

Pipe alignment

0.2

180
170

Closure

0.1

190
Closure

160

0.0
-0.1

Ck1

Sys. hor. mvt.

Ck2

-0.2

RL

0.0

120
1800

600
1200
Chainage (m)

0.8

RL

0.0
-0.2

Upsidence

50

Upsidence

25
30
35
40
45
Backfill internal friction angle (degrees)

Figure 6. Peak stress as a function of

Normalised peak
stress

Case 2

0.8
20

Normalised peak
stress

Settlement (m)

Normalised peak
stress

A2

The following observations can be made:

150
140
130

-0.3
0

600
1200
Chainage (m)

120
1800

Figure 10. Horizontal & closure profiles.

Proceedings of the 6th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2004

157

Systematic

Upsidence

Closure

Table 3. Peak stress at Ck1

Peak
von
Mises
stress
(MPa)

B1

Yes

Yes

Yes

338.24

1.505

B2

Yes

No

No

224.69

1.000

B3

Yes

Yes

No

313.69

1.396

B4

Yes

No

Yes

268.88

1.197

B5

No

Yes

No

302.46

1.346

Case

Normalised
peak stress

No
No
Yes
273.19
1.216
B6
Max. upsidence = 190.0mm, Max. closure = 121.5mm.
Closure to upsidence ratio = 0.64.

Table 4. Peak stress at Ck2

It should be noted that the computed results

in the present sensitivity studies cannot be
inferred directly to other pipelines over
other mining regions because they will have
different pipe and soil properties, pipe
alignment, soil cover, ground movement and
so on. As such, they should be analysed on a
case-by-case basis.

Systematic

Upsidence

Closure

5. Case Study

Peak
von
Mises
stress
(MPa)

C1

Yes

Yes

Yes

308.80

1.476

C2

Yes

No

No

209.15

1.000

C3

Yes

Yes

No

278.84

1.333

C4

Yes

No

Yes

293.10

1.401

C5

No

Yes

No

277.31

1.326

Case

the valley will also have a significant

influence on the peak stress. If more lengths
of ground on either side of the creek were to
push towards the centre, it is expected the
pipe in the central region will experience
higher compressive stress.

Normalised
peak stress

No
No
Yes
289.37
1.384
C6
Max. upsidence = 57.9mm, Max. closure = 147.6mm.
Closure to upsidence ratio = 2.55. Note: ground movement
profiles not shown in Figures 9 & 10 for this case.

For the present pipe alignment and predicted

ground movement profile, the following
observations can be made:

The combined closure and upsidence

caused a 50% increase in peak stress
over the systematic-only case.

The impact on peak stress due to closure

alone or upsidence alone is inconclusive
because it will depend on both their
magnitude and distribution. Based on the
present study, the peak stress increases
by about 20 to 40%.

Intuitively, a sharp upsidence spike will

cause bending of the pipe at the creek
centre. The distribution of the closure across

A series of longwalls panels to extract coal

at the Appin Colliery was proposed by the
mining company, BHP Billiton Illawara
Coal (BHPB). The ground movement
including valley closure and upsidence was
predicted by the Mine Subsidence
Engineering Consultants (MSEC). The mine
plan indicated that the longwalls would
undermine a number of gas pipelines in this
region. Therefore the integrity of these
pipelines must be assessed.
5.1.

Do-nothing Assessment

An approximately six kilometres model of

each pipeline was analysed using the pipe
elements and soil springs technique. The
appropriate pipe and soil property for each
pipeline was used in the model. The
predicted ground movement profile was
applied to the soil nodes. The analysis
computed the stress along the full length of
the pipe so that the affected regions could be
identified based on the criteria set down by
the pipeline owners.
A typical von Mises stress along the
pipeline is shown in Figure 11. It can be
seen that the peak stresses were predicted to
occur at the creek crossings because of
valley closure and upsidence. A closer
examination of the results indicated that the
closure not only caused high compression in

Proceedings of the 6th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2004

158

the pipe, but also it imparted additional

bending stresses at the pipe sag bends.
The results suggested that mitigation
measure was required at one of the creek
crossings as the peak stress exceeded the
pipeline owners criteria.
Chainage (m)
2000
4000

6000
200

Ck

400
175
350
Pipe RL

von Mises Stress (MPa)

450

150

300
250

125

Pipe top

200

Pipe base

150

Pipeline ow ner's criteria

Pipe vertical alignment

100

Figure 11. von Mises stress distribution.

5.2.

Mitigation Concepts

In order to reduce the compressive axial

stress in the pipe, slippage between the soil
and pipe must be encouraged. This can be
done by reducing the cover or exposing the
pipe over a certain length. The former
allows the pipe to slip at a lower friction and
provides some nominal cover to protect the
pipe. The latter has the advantage of almost
completely isolate the pipe from closure
movement but it requires additional
protection to the pipe.
3900

400

165

350

160

300

155

250

200

Pipe
alignm ent

Pipe RL

von Mises Stress (MPa)

3600

Chainage (m)
3700
3800

Do-nothing
150
Expose pipe over
400m
Pipeline ow ner's
145
criteria

Figure 12. Effect of mitigation at creek.

Figure 12 shows the reduction in peak stress

when a length of the pipe is exposed within
the creek crossing. The peak stress is now
within the criteria. However, the pipe may
snake sideway and buckle upward if
unsupported.
Another mitigation option is to put the pipe
into a desirable shape so that it can
accommodate the closure movement and
isolate itself from the upsidence spike at the
creek centre. This can be achieved by lifting
it on either side of the valley to put it in
tension, and excavating the material below
the pipe in the creek region. Further finite
element analysis confirmed the peak stress
did not exceed the allowable limit. The
advantage of this option is that the pipe is
supported and its deflection can be
controlled when the longwall face advances
below this area. This was selected to be the
preferred mitigation at this creek crossing.
Further analysis was performed to verify the
design solution which was done by another
engineering company, but was based on the
above concept.
5.3.

Implementation

The implementation of the mitigation work

was carried out by a project team consisted
of the pipeline owners, specialist consultants
and contractors, and the mining company.
The project was overseen by the relevant
regulatory departments.
Excavation was carried out to expose the
affected pipelines. The fill and rock at the
creek centre was removed to isolate the
pipes from any upsidence impact. Strain
gauges and survey targets were installed on
the pipes for monitoring and control
purposes. The pipes were lifted into the
predetermined position by airbags and
supported both vertical and laterally by
sandbags. Figure 13 shows one of the
exposed pipelines after the lifting operation.
To ensure the structural integrity of the
pipes when mining was taking place
underneath, monitoring of the strain gauge

Proceedings of the 6th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2004

159

data, and movement of the ground and the

pipes were carried out regularly.

Australian Coal Association Research

Program (ACARP) 2002 Management
Information
Handbook
on
the
Undermining of Cliffs, Gorges and River
Systems, prepared by MSEC.
Holla, L. 1991a Mining Under Gas
Pipelines in New South Wales Minfo 30.
Holla, L. 1991b Ground Movement due to
the Mining of Thick Coal Seams at
Shallow Depths and Its Effect on Surface
Structures Ground Movements and
Structures Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference. Pentech Press.
pp 193-208.

Figure 13. Exposed pipeline lifted in place.

6. Conclusions
The mining-induced ground movement
impact on buried gas pipelines was analysed
by the non-linear pipe elements with bilinear soil springs technique. Mitigation
concepts were developed to cope with valley
closure and upsidence. The preferred option
was successfully implemented at a creek
crossing to safeguard the pipelines while
longwall coal extraction continued below.

7. Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank BHPB, MSEC
and AGL for their permission to publish
some of the analysis results in this paper.

8. References
American
Lifelines
Alliance
2001
Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel
Pipe. ASCE.
AS2885.1 1997 Pipelines Gas and liquid
Petroleum Part 1: Design & construction.

Lim, Y.M., Kim, M.K., Kim, T.W. & Jang,

J.W. 2001 The Behaviour Analysis of
Buried Pipeline Considering Longitudinal
Permanent
Ground
Deformation
Pipelines 2001 Advances in Pipeline
Engineering & Construction, Proceedings
of The Pipeline Division Specialty
Conference.
Prestinoni, F. 2000 Analysis of Pipe/Soil
Interaction Through a Practical Example:
Evaluation of the Effects of Cumulative
Long Term Slope Movements in the
Plastic
Range
ABAQUS
Users
Conference Proceedings, May 31 June
2, Newport Rhode Island, pp 549-566.
Selvadurai, A.P.S. 1985 Soil-Pipeline
Interaction During Ground Movement
Civil Engineering in the Arctic Offshore
Proceedings of the Conference Arctic85,
pp 763-773.
Worley, 2003 Proposed SEA Gas Pipeline
on McKenzie Property at Iona Analysis
of Buried Pipeline due to Soil Movement.
Report No.251-05508-RP001.
Wright, P.L. & Hoffman, G.L. 1985
Measurement and Control of Mining
Subsidence: A Handbook for Western
Canada. The Coal Mining Research
Company, Devon, Alberta, Canada.

Proceedings of the 6th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2004

160