Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 240–247

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Modelling the effect of climate change induced soil settling on drinking

water distribution pipes.
B.A. Wols a,b,⇑, P. van Thienen b
a
KWR Watercycle Research Institute, Groningenhaven 7, 3430 BB Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
b
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the future, the more frequent occurrence of severe heat waves and long dry periods due to climate
Received 5 June 2013 change can cause lowering of the ground water level and therefore consolidation of the soil. Conse-
Received in revised form 31 July 2013 quently, increased differential settlements are expected that may damage underground water infrastruc-
Accepted 8 September 2013
ture. Models were developed to assess the impact of differential settlements on pipe failure. The main
Available online 10 October 2013
concept of these models is that the pipe-soil system is schematized as a beam on an elastic foundation
using Winkler type springs. For climate change induced settling, a parametric function of the soil settle-
Keywords:
ment is proposed. A Monte-Carlo analysis has been applied to predict pipe failure probabilities.
Climate change
Soil settlement
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Consolidation
Pipe-soil interaction
Pipe failure
Drinking water distribution systems

1. Introduction Problems with differential soil settlements that cause damage

The soft soils in the Netherlands make the water distribution
networks vulnerable to soil settlements. In addition, climate
change is expected to cause more extreme weather events in the
future, such as more severe heat waves and longer periods of
drought [1], that may result in increased soil settlements [2]. These
settlements, in particular differential soil settlements, associated
with soil (property) transitions, cause additional loadings and
stresses in the drinking water distribution pipes, increasing the
probability of pipe failure.
Little research is conducted to the influence of climate (change)
on the structural integrity of drinking water distribution pipes:
pipe failure seems to be affected by temperature and soil moisture
[3], and an increased pipe breakage rate is often observed in dry
(summer) periods due to soil shrinkage and settlements [4,3,5,6].
Stronger effects were observed in more expansive soils [5,6]. More-
over, there is a lack of models that predict the deterioration of
water distribution assets induced by climate change [7]. The cur-
rent research therefore focuses on developing models for drinking
water distribution pipes that are affected by climate change
induced soil settlements.
⇑ Corresponding author at: KWR Watercycle Research Institute, Groningenhaven
7, 3430 BB Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 (0)30 60 69 604; fax: +31 (0)30
60 61 165.
E-mail address: bas.wols@kwrwater.nl (B.A. Wols).
to (buried) infrastructure have been most widely analyzed for [8]:
 Building of underground tunnels (tunnelling) causing local soil
displacements [9].
 Excavation of building pits causing a deformation of the retain-
ing wall of the building pit and corresponding ground deforma-
tions [8].
 Ground water lowering due to excavation works (artificial low-
ering of ground water levels) or ground water extraction [10].
For these types of soil settlements, expressions of the settle-
ment profiles are available. Such an expression is a prerequisite
for a proper analysis of the problem. However, for settling induced
by ground water lowering due to climate effects, no (differential)
soil settlement profile is available.
The effect of tunnelling-induced ground movements on under-
ground infrastructure has attracted growing research attention
recently [9,11–17]. In these studies, models have been developed
that predict bending moments in the pipe induced by tunnel build-
ing. The main concept of these models is that the pipe-soil system
is schematized as a beam on an elastic foundation. So, the interac-
tion between pipeline and soil is handled using an elastic subgrade
reaction foundation model incorporating Winkler type springs [9],
referred to as subgrade modulus. Within this modelling frame-
work, various topics were evaluated. The subgrade modulus repre-
senting the pipe-soil system is originally determined by means of a

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.09.003
 B.A. Wols, P. van Thienen / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 240–247
Vesic expression [9]. However, Klar et al. [12] incorporated a more
rigorous elastic continuum solution and proposed a modified
subgrade modulus of the soil that is more in-line with the more
accurate elastic continuum solution. Wang et al. [16] used different
subgrade moduli for pipe uplift and downward movements of
pipes. The effect of local yielding of the soil (plastic deformations)
has been assessed by Klar et al. [18], where the local yielding can
be incorporated in a calculation as a (small) correction to the
elastic bending moments. The difference between jointed and con-
tinuous pipelines has been evaluated by Klar et al. [13], showing
that a jointed pipeline generally experiences lower bending
moments. The assumption of treating the pipe as a beam rather
than a shell has been evaluated by Klar and Marshall [14], which
is allowed if the pipe to soil stiffness is large. Zhang et al. [19]
extend the problem to multi-layered soils of both continuous and
jointed pipelines, showing that in layered soils with substantial
differences in elasticity, treating the soil as homogeneous can
result in significant errors. Concerning the soil displacement profile
by the tunnel building, in [11], a modified Gaussian settlement
profile is proposed that better fits experimental results. Validation
has been performed in several studies by means of experiments
[11,15,19,20] or by means of FEM models [14,16].
Wang et al. [16] developed an empirical estimation for the max-
imum bending strain in a pipe induced by a ground settlement.
Pipe stresses can then directly be estimated when settlements,
pipe dimensions, soil and material properties and burial depth
are known.
In this paper a method is developed for predicting pipe stresses
resulting from differential soil settlements, e.g. induced by climate
change. This method is based upon the tunnelling method. A para-
metric function of the soil settlement profile is proposed. More-
over, analogous to Wang et al. [16], an empirical expression is
derived for the climate change induced settlements. This approach
is further extended towards a Monte Carlo analysis allowing the
prediction of failure probabilities of a pipe subject to differential
settlements.
2. Methods
2.1. Mechanical model
The following assumptions were made:
1. Pipe is schematized by a beam.
2. Pipe remains in contact with the soil.
3. Elastic behaviour of pipe material.
4. No internal or external loading on the pipe (q = 0).
5. No joints.
The schematization of the pipeline behaviour as a beam on elas-
tic grounds is given by (assuming Euler beam theory):
! which describes a smooth transition of differential settlement Smax
2 2
d d uðxÞ
2
EI 2
þ K  ðuðxÞ  Sv ðxÞÞ ¼ qðxÞ;
dx dx
where q(x) represents an external load on the pipe [N/m], which can
be traffic loads and ground loads or internal loads. Sv(x) represents
the soil displacement profile and u(x) the pipe displacement [m].
The parameter EI represents the bending stiffness of the pipe
[N m2]. The spring constant of the soil K [N/m2], referred to as sub-
grade modulus, may be a function of x, accounting for transitions in
soil composition. The external load is set to zero, because an infinite
long pipe supported by an elastic soil without settlements that is
loaded equally will induce no bending moments. In other types of
problems, where erosion causes loss of support, loadings need to
be imposed on the beam [21,22].
241
The boundary conditions at both ends of the beam are the soil
displacement and zero rotation. The mechanical model shown in
Eq. (1) in combination with a settlement profile Sv(x) is solved
numerically by means of Matlab scripts, using the built-in function
bvp4c.m to solve boundary value problems for ordinary differential
equations.
2.2. Settlement profile
In tunnelling problems, often the soil displacement is schema-
tized by a Gaussian displacement curve [12], which is however
not applicable for climate change induced settling. The climate
change induced settling is mainly caused by lowering of the
ground water level, which results in higher grain stresses and
therefore a settlement (consolidation). In peat layers, lowering of
the ground water may also result in oxidation of the peat. The
latter will mainly occur at the top layer above the buried water
infrastructure and is therefore not considered here. The settling
caused by higher grain stresses can be estimated by consolidation
theory, for example the formula of Koppejan [23]. More recently,
the a–b–c-isotache model has been developed to calculate soil set-
tlement [24]. This formula calculates the soil strain (in 1D over the
depth) over time (creep) induced by additional stresses in the soil.
However, these formulae do not provide analytical expressions for
the lateral distribution of settlements, which are required to ana-
lyze the effect of differential settlements along the axial direction
of the pipe. Differential settlements (i.e. laterally varying) as a re-
sult of consolidation may be caused by:
 Lateral variations in ground water levels.
 Lateral variations in permeability resulting in different time
scales of consolidation.
 Lateral variations in soil stiffness.
Since the soil may consist of many different layers with possibly
different soil properties, specific software is required to obtain
realistic settlement profiles. Such software (e.g., Plaxis, D-Settle-
ment, etc.) uses a 2D or 3D soil profile known from maps (com-
posed of different soil layers with different stiffnesses, etc.) and a
ground water profile. Such a profile for a specific situation can be
used as an input for Eq. (1). However, we are also interested in
an analytical expression of the soil displacement profile to perform
parametric studies. Since we did not find any representative
analytical expression in the literature, a simplified displacement
profile is proposed that assumes a certain transition length
between soil layers of different stiffness, permeability or ground
water level:
  
x
Sv ðxÞ ¼ 0:5Smax 1 þ erf pffiffiffi ; ð2Þ
i 2
over a transition length i. The value of these two parameters may
ð1Þ differ depending on soil composition. By choosing the appropriate
values any curvature and transition width of the profile can be
obtained. The profile is shown in Fig. 1. We also applied another
settlement profile (based on a hyperbolic tangent function), for
which similar type of results were obtained (results not shown
here). In this work, values of i were chosen in the range of
0.5–15 m, which corresponds to a total transition length of
2–60 m. Larger values of i will not induce any significant bending
moments in the pipe. The small values of i may typically occur at
a transition between soil layers or shallow zones of different soil
types (for example shallow clay lenses in a sandy soil). An arbitrary
soil displacement can also be constructed by adding the individual
soil displacement profiles of Eq. (2):
242 B.A. Wols, P. van Thienen / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 240–247

0
Displacement (m)

−0.02
−0.04 i
−0.06
−0.08
−0.1
−10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10
x (m)

Fig. 1. Soil displacement profiles used for the suggested settlement profile
(i = 2.5 m, Smax=0.1 m).

N 
X   
ðx  x0;n Þ
Stot ¼ 0:5Smax;n 1 þ erf pffiffiffi : ð3Þ
n¼1 in 2
Fig. 2. Behaviour of soil. Stresses versus strain of pipe material.
where x0,n is the position where the transition occurs. The parame-
ters Smax,n, x0,n and in can be varied to obtain an arbitrary profile.

2.3. Soil and pipe material properties

For the proposed settlement profile (Eq. (2)) this results in (using
the bending moments obtained in Eq. (11) and (12)):
The properties of soils and pipe materials are shown in the Sup-  
porting information. In this work, soils are classified into sand, clay exp  1 Smax D
rp;max ¼ EMnorm pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 2
; ð7Þ
and peat, which is a rough classification based upon the grain size. 8p i
Pipe materials AC and PVC are considered here, which together
where Mnorm (normalized to the maximum bending moment for a
represent roughly 80% of the Dutch drinking water distribution
situation where the pipe follows the ground displacement exactly)
network. The pipe material is modelled as elastic, which is a safe
may vary between 0 and 1 depending on the pipe-soil (interaction)
approach for materials that may also undergo plastic deformation,
stiffness. A structural reliability function is defined by:
such as PVC. Calculation of the thickness of the pipes is also pro-
vided in the Supporting information. Z ¼ rf  rp;max : ð8Þ
where rf represents the yield stress of the pipe material. If Z < 0 fail-
2.4. Subgrade modulus
ure occurs (pipe material starts yielding).
The spring coefficient K representing the pipe-soil interaction is
called subgrade modulus, and is a property of the pipe-soil system. 3. Results
The subgrade modulus is determined by the method described in
Wang et al. [16]. It is a function of burial depth, pipe diameter, soil 3.1. Bending moments with similar pipe and soil displacement
type and properties (see Supporting information). An upward
spring is defined to account for pipe uplift and a downward spring If the soil is very stiff compared to the pipe, the pipe follows the
is determined from the bearing capacity equations for strip foun- ground displacement exactly. The bending moments can be di-
dations. The forces of the pipe acting on the ground may result rectly determined from those displacements:
in collapsing of the ground, as given by the plastic deformation 2
d Sv ðxÞ
part in Fig. 2. Values of subgrade moduli for four different pipe MðxÞ ¼ EI 2
; ð9Þ
diameters are shown in the Supporting information. Softer soils re- dx
sult in lower subgrade moduli. There is a small influence of pipe where Sv represents the soil displacement profile. This will be an
diameter: larger pipe diameter result in larger subgrade moduli. upper bound for the bending moments in the pipe, because in real-
ity the pipe-soil interaction will reduce the pipe curvature. Analyt-
2.5. Failure mechanisms ical expressions of bending moments can be obtained by solving Eq.
(9) for a given soil displacements profile.
The pipe material starts yielding when the maximum stress in For the displacement profile induced by consolidation (Eq. (2)),
the pipe exceeds the yield stress. This is regarded as failure. The the bending moments with equal pipe and soil displacement
stresses in the pipe are calculated in the following manner: First, become:
the curvature (j) can be calculated from the bending moment in  
Mg ðxÞ Smax x x2
the pipe: ¼ 3 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  2 ; ð10Þ
EI i 2p 2i
Mp
jp ¼ : ð4Þ which will be largest at x/i = ±1:
EI
 
The maximum strain in a cross-section occurs at the outer diameter Mg;max Smax 1
¼  2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  : ð11Þ
of the pipe and can be calculated from the curvature: EI i 2p 2
ep ¼ jp D=2: ð5Þ
3.2. Bending moments with pipe-soil interaction
The largest (flexural) stresses occur at the position of the maximum
bending moment. Assuming a linear stress–strain relation (Hooke’s
In all relevant cases, the pipe has some non-zero stiffness, so
law), the maximum stress can now be written as:
that the pipe displacement will only partly follow the ground dis-
M p;max D placement. The pipe-soil interaction will therefore reduce the
rp;max ¼ E : ð6Þ
EI 2 bending moments in the pipe. The calculated bending moments
 B.A. Wols, P. van Thienen / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 240–247
in the pipe are normalized with the bending moments when the
pipe exactly follows the soil displacement:
M p ðxÞ
M norm ðxÞ ¼ ; ð12Þ
Mg;max
where the subscript g represents the ground induced pipe displace-
ment only and p the pipe displacement with pipe-soil interaction.
The bending moments can be computed from the displacements
2
calculated in the numerical model using MðxÞ ¼ EI d dxuðxÞ
2 .
Settlement profiles of the soil and pipe are shown in Fig. 3. The
soil settlement profile exhibits point symmetry around the origin.
Due to the pipe-soil interaction, the pipe displacement has a smal-
ler curvature than the soil settlement. The pipe displacement is
asymmetric, since the soil subgrade modulus is smaller in upward
direction. The bending moments (Fig. 3, lower panel) are zero near
the ends and in the middle. The maximum bending moments in
the pipe occur at the positions of maximum curvature where the
pipe moves in downward direction (relative to the soil). Since
the pipe displacement is more gradual than the soil displacement,
the maximum bending moments are lower and occur further away
from the origin than for the case in which the pipe would follow
the soil displacement exactly.
Analogous to the tunnelling settlement approach [16], a rigidity
parameter is introduced that is representative of the relative pipe-
soil stiffness:
EI
R3 ¼ 4
; ð13Þ
Ki
where i is the characteristic length of the differential settlement. For
K the average value of upward and downward subgrade modulus is
taken. A clear relation between R3 and the normalized bending mo-
ment can be found that includes the relevant physical parameters:
pipe diameter, burial depth, soil subgrade modulus, pipe elasticity
and maximum displacement of the soil. In Fig. 4, the model has
been calculated 10 000 times while changing these parameters.
For each calculation, each of the five parameters was given a value
drawn from a log normal probability density function with mean
and standard deviation given in Table 1. A good relation was found
between R3 and the maximum normalized bending moment, which
is fitted by the following empirical expression (analogous to Wang
et al. [16]):
1 þ a1 Rb31
M norm ¼ ; ð14Þ
1 þ a2 Rb32
where a1, a2, b1 and b2 are fit parameters. Since the ratio of the up-
ward subgrade modulus and downward subgrade modulus as well
as the yielding point vary as a function of soil type (see Supporting
information), separate curve fits were made for sand, clay and peat
Displacement (m)
0
−0.02
−0.04
−0.06
−0.08
−0.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
Mnorm
0.1
0
−0.1
−0.2
−0.3
−15 −10 −5 0 5 10
x (m)
Fig. 3. Settlement profiles and bending moments with pipe-soil interaction. Sand,
AC pipe, D = 0.5 m, i = 1.5 m, Smax = 0.1 m, Kd = 6.35 MN/m2, Ku = 1.80 MN/m2.
243
(Fig. 4). The bending moment can now be estimated directly from
the rigidity without the need for a numerical model, and can there-
fore be used in situations where large numbers of pipe calculations
are required, for example to apply a probabilistic approach or to as-
sess a large water distribution network.
3.3. Probabilistic approach
A probabilistic approach has been followed for a pipe without
joints using the empirical expression given by Eq. (14). In the prob-
abilistic approach, the uncertainty in all the parameters that define
the reliability function (Eq. (8)) is taken into account, so that the
probability of failure can be calculated:
Pf ¼ PrðZ < 0Þ: ð15Þ
A Monte Carlo method is employed to calculate the probability of
failure. In this method, the values of each relevant parameter are
drawn from a probability density function. The reliability function
Z is calculated many times. The probability of failure is then calcu-
lated from the number of results with Z < 0 divided by the total
number of repetitions. The probability density functions, coefficient
of variation and mean for the relevant parameters are listed in
Table 2. The mean value and coefficient of variation may differ
per situation and information availability. When no information
on soil settlement is available, the values in Table 2 in combination
with known pipe material, soil type and pipe dimensions can be
used. The variation in pipe parameters may vary upon pipe mate-
rial, pipe diameter and pipe age. The values shown in Table 2 are
obtained from common engineering practices for steel pipes
(elasticity and yield stress for steel were taken from ([25])). Since
the soil parameters are often unknown or difficult to obtain, a large
variance is chosen for these parameters. A normal distribution is
used for the pipe parameters, whereas a lognormal distribution is
used for the soil parameters to account for the large variability in
soil parameters.
As an example, a Monte Carlo analysis is conducted for an AC
pipe in sand with a diameter of 0.5 m. The random values of each
parameter drawn from probability density function are shown in
Fig. 5. The resulting distribution of the structural reliability func-
tion is shown in Fig. 6. The probability of failure is 0.046. Note that
this is only due to bending moments from differential settlements,
no other external or internal loadings on the pipe are considered.
A point of attention in a Monte Carlo analysis is the number of
repetitions. Especially for low failure probabilities, a sufficiently
large number of repetitions need to be chosen that cover the failure
space of Z. As a rule of thumb, the number of repetitions n should
be [26]:
 
1
n > 400 1 : ð16Þ
Pf
An example of convergence is shown in the supporting information.
4. Discussion
pipe
soil 4.1. Scenario study
A scenario study for typical pipes that are encountered in Dutch
soils is performed using the numerical model given by Eq. (1). Val-
ues of normalized bending moments and normalized pipe stresses
(normalized with the yield stress of the pipe material) are shown
pipe
in Table 3 for (1) different soil types, (2) different pipe materials
15
and (3) different pipe diameters. The pipes are buried at a depth
of 1 m. The pipe stresses also increase with pipe diameter, but
reach a maximum after which they decrease. The more flexible
PVC pipes have higher normalized bending moments than AC
244 B.A. Wols, P. van Thienen / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 240–247

Fig. 4. Normalized maximum bending moments as a function of rigidity R3 while varying pipe diameter, settlement length, burial depth, pipe elasticity and soil displacement.

Table 1 trends as the pipe stresses calculated by the deterministic

Variation of pipe and soil parameters. approach (compare for example the maximum stresses and the
Parameter Symbol Distribution cV l probability of failure for pipes in peat). An explanation is that the
+
mean value of the structural reliability calculated from all the
Diameter D Log normal 0.2 0.4 m Monte Carlo repetitions differs from the value of the structural reli-
Elasticity pipe material E Log normal 0.5 1.05  1011 Pa ability function where all the mean values of each parameter are
Burial depth H Log normal 0.2 1.0 m applied (which is basically the deterministic approach). The prob-
Transition length i Log normal 0.5 5m
ability of failure that is solely induced by differential settlements is
Maximum differential Smax Log normal 0.1 0.25 m
settlement between 0.003% for PVC in the softest soil up to 52% for AC in the
stiffest soil.
+
Coefficient of variation (cV ¼ rl with standard deviation r and mean l).

4.2. Sensitivity study

The sensitivity of the model to soil settlement parameters and

Table 2
pipe diameter has been investigated using the empirical fitted
Parameters used in Monte Carlo analysis.
model (expression (14)). The pipe stresses are linearly related to
Parameter Symbol Distribution cV+ l the differential settlement (Smax), since Smax has no influence on
Diameter D Normal 0.004 Var Mnorm, and Mg,max is linearly dependent on Smax (Eq. (11)). Other
Thickness wall t Normal 0.04 Var parameters do change Mnorm: the effect of pipe diameter and set-
Elasticity pipe material E Normal 0.04 See SI
tlement transition length is shown for various pipe materials and
Yield stress pipe material rf Normal 0.08 See SI
Soil subgrade modulus K Log normal 0.5 see SI soil types in Fig. 8. Increasing the diameter makes the pipe stiffer.
Transition length i Log normal 0.5 5m As a result, the maximum bending moment as the pipe would
Maximum differential settlement Smax Log normal 0.25 0.1 m follow exactly the ground displacement increases (Fig. 8a), since
Emperical fit parameters a, b Normal see Fig. 4 the stiffer pipe requires a larger force to follow the displacement
+
Coefficient of variation (cV ¼ rl with standard deviation r and mean l). of the soil. However, the pipe will also become stiffer in relation
to the soil stiffness (increase of rigidity), so that the pipe is less
affected by the soil movement resulting in lower normalized bend-
pipes, because the soil displacement is more easily followed. ing moments (Fig. 8b). The net result is shown in the maximum
However, the normalized stresses are lower than for AC due to stresses in the pipe that depend on both the normalized bending
the lower elasticity of PVC. Also, for the softer soils the bending moment and pipe diameter (Fig. 8c). When increasing the pipe
moments and stresses are lower, because the pipe curvature is diameter, stresses first increase, then reach a maximum, after
smaller. Note that the imposed displacement is the same for all soil which they decrease. The position of this maximum depend on soil
types, whereas in reality the softer soils are more likely to settle. type and material type.
For these typical drinking water distribution pipes buried in the Increasing the transition length of the soil displacement results
soil, stresses caused by a differential settlement of 10 cm over a in lower maximum bending moments for a situation when the pipe
length of 10 m may increase by 5–135% of the material’s yield would follow exactly the soil displacement (Fig. 8d), since the dis-
stress. placements are more gradual. However, since the pipe can follow a
In Fig. 7, the normalized bending moments are plotted as a lower soil curvature more easily, the normalized bending moments
function of rigidity R3 for the different soil types, pipe materials will increase (Fig. 8e). The largest pipe stresses will occur at the
and pipe diameters. The fitted relation between bending moment lowest values of i (Fig. 8f). This maximum also depends on pipe
and rigidity (Eq. (14)) is also shown, confirming that the empirical material and soil type.
fit works for different pipe materials and soil types. Therefore, the
empirical function has been used in the Monte Carlo analysis to 4.3. Arbitrary soil displacement
calculate the failure probability (Table 3). The Monte Carlo analy-
ses use the probability density functions as presented in Table 2, Instead of Eq. (3), any soil displacement profile can be used, for
where the mean and coefficient of variation for i is changed to example a displacement profile obtained from field studies, or
2.5 m and 0.1 for this specific scenario. The failure probabilities cal- advanced soil deformation models. In Fig. 9, an example of an
culated by the Monte Carlo analysis do not always follow the same arbitrary soil displacement profile is shown, which has been
 B.A. Wols, P. van Thienen / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 240–247 245

−7
x 10

2
150
300
1.5

100
200
φ

φ
1

100 50
0.5

0 0 0
1 2 3 4 7
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
x 10
σf (Pa) t (m) D (m)

−10 −7
x 10 x 10

4 30

6
3
20
4
φ

φ
2

10
1 2

0 0 0
1 2 3 4 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
10
x 10 6
E (Pa) K (Pa) x 10 Smax (m)

0.6

0.4
φ

0.2

0
5 10 15
i (m)

Fig. 5. Probability density functions of parameters used in Monte Carlo analysis, number of repetitions: 1  108. Sand, AC pipe.

x 10
−8 4.4. Validation
8
The Winkler type of model that has been used for tunnelling
7 problems is extensively validated by measurements [11,15,19,20]
and FEM calculations [14,16]. Therefore, it is expected that the
6
method proposed in this paper, which is also a Winkler type of
5 model, will be accurate. The main assumption is the differential
settlement profile, which has not been validated by measured data.
φ

4 Despite the lack of validation, the settlement profile is chosen

parametrically, resulting in a generic profile that can be adjusted
3
with parameters Smax and i. Moreover, the probabilistic approach
2 also accounts for the uncertainty associated with this problem by
introducing probability density functions. Wider distributions can
1
be chosen for parameters that are uncertain, such as settlements
0
and/or soil parameters. When there is a large degree of uncertainty
−2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 in the parameters, the method is able to provide a first rough esti-
7
Z (Pa) x 10 mation of the stresses in a buried pipeline. For more accurate pre-
dictions, detailed information on site specific parameters, such as
Fig. 6. Probability density function of structural reliability function Z, number of
soil composition and expected settlements, is required.
repetitions: 1  108. Sand, AC pipe.

5. Conclusions
obtained from 50 random individual displacement profiles. The
parameters were drawn from uniform probability density In the future, the more frequent occurrence of severe heat
functions. waves and long dry periods due to climate change can cause
246 B.A. Wols, P. van Thienen / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 240–247

Table 3
Bending moments, stresses and probability of failure for a buried pipe. Maximum differential settlement is 0.1 m over a characteristic distance i of 2.5 m.

Soil Pipe Max. Mnorm Max. norm. stresses Probability of failure

D (m) D (m) D (m)
0.10 0.20 0.50 1.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 1.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 1.00
Sand PVC 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.93 0.05 0.12 0.23 0.43 4.0E5 9.9E4 2.0E2 7.6E2
Sand AC 1.00 0.99 0.91 0.70 0.19 0.48 0.88 1.35 1.7E2 9.8E2 3.6E1 5.2E1
Clay PVC 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.72 0.05 0.12 0.22 0.33 3.0E5 5.4E4 6.1E3 1.6E2
Clay AC 1.00 0.92 0.68 0.40 0.19 0.45 0.66 0.78 1.3E2 6.1E2 1.6E1 2.0E1
Peat PVC 1.00 0.95 0.73 0.45 0.05 0.11 0.17 0.21 1.2E5 1.0E4 5.5E4 7.8E4
Peat AC 0.97 0.70 0.42 0.21 0.19 0.34 0.40 0.40 5.4E3 1.6E2 2.4E2 1.9E2

Sand Clay Peat

1.2
PVC
AC
1
fit

0.8
M norm

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
R3 R3 R3

Fig. 7. Normalized maximum bending moments as a function of rigidity R3 for different soil types, pipe materials and pipe diameters.

(a) (b) 1.2 (c) 1.2

1 1

105 0.8 0.8

Mmax (Nm)

Mnorm

σnorm

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
0
10 0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
D (m) D (m) D (m)

(d) (e) (f) AC, sand

1 1 PVC, sand
AC, clay
0.8 0.8 PVC, clay
105
Mmax (Nm)

AC, peat
Mnorm

σnorm

PVC, peat
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

100 0.2 0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
i (m) i (m) i (m)

Fig. 8. Normalized bending moments and pipe stresses as a function of pipe diameter (D) and transition length (i). Sand, Smax = 0.1 m, i = 2.5 m when D is varied and D = 0.5 m
when i is varied.

lowering of the ground water level and therefore consolidation of of the complexity of the system was developed, but also analytical
the soil. Consequently, increased differential settlements are models for more simplified systems. The most simple analytical
expected that may damage underground water infrastructure. model is obtained when the pipe follows the same displacement
Several models were developed to assess the impact of differential as the soil. However, this assumption is not realistic for most bur-
settlements on pipe failure. A numerical model that contains most ied pipelines and pipe-soil interaction needs to be incorporated.
 B.A. Wols, P. van Thienen / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 240–247
Displacement (m)
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
−0.01
−0.02
0.05
0.02
M norm
−0.01
−0.04
−0.07
−25 −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10
x (m)
Fig. 9. Effect of arbitrary soil displacement. Sand, D = 0.5 m, Kd = 6.35 MN/m2,
Ku = 1.80 MN/m2.
For a continuous pipeline in a homogeneous soil, the bending
moments in the pipe can be accurately determined by a fitted func-
tion, so that the pipe stresses induced by a soil settlement can be
calculated via an analytical model. Using this analytical model, a
probabilistic approach can be followed to obtain a probability of
pipe failure, while accounting for the uncertainty in the relevant
soil and pipe parameters. For more complex situations, when the
soil deformation becomes plastic; when a lateral transition
between soils occur; or when an arbitrary soil displacement is
imposed, the numerical model needs to be used.
Jointed pipelines were not considered in this work, however
joints can be easily added to the numerical model by locally reduc-
ing the bending stiffness of the pipe, as suggested by [19]. Using an
analytical (fitted) model and probabilistic approach for jointed
pipelines will be a topic of future research. Pipe failure predictions
may also improve when more representative soil displacement
profiles are found (e.g. from soil mechanical models) and applied.
Such a displacement function can be easily implemented in the
current modelling framework.
A sensitivity study shows that there is a typical pipe diameter
for which the pipe stresses are maximal, depending on pipe mate-
rial and soil type. A similar observation has been found for the
distance over which the differential settlements occur.
For a displacement of 0.10 m over a length of 10 m, pipe stresses
ranging from 5% to 135% of the yield stress may occur for AC and
PVC pipes that are placed in typically Dutch soils, resulting in a
probability of failure ranging from 0.003% to 52%.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out in the framework of both of the
Dutch national research program Knowledge for Climate (http://
knowledgeforclimate.climateresearchnetherlands.nl/) and the
joint research program of the Dutch Water Utility sector (http://
www.kwrwater.nl/BTO/). The authors would also like to thank
Henk Kruse for fruitful discussions.
247
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,
in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.
pipe 2013.09.003.
soil
References
[1] van den Hurk B, Tank AK, Lenderink G, van Ulden A, van Oldenborgh GJ,
Katsman C, et al. Knmi climate change scenarios 2006 for the netherlands. Tech
rep WR 2006-01; KNMI; 2006.
pipe
[2] Arnold G, Bos H, Doef R, Goud R, Kielen N, Luijn Fv. Water management in the
15 20 25 netherlands. Tech rep WD0111VV007B; Ministry of Infrastructure and
Environment; 2011.
[3] Kleiner Y, Rajani B. Forecasting variations and trends in water-main breaks. J
Infrastruct Syst 2002;8(4):122–31.
[4] Newport R. Factors influencing the occurrence of bursts in iron water mains.
Water Supply Manage 1981;3:274–8.
[5] Hu Y, Hubble DW. Factors contributing to the failure of asbestos cement water
mains. Can J Civil Eng 2007;34(5):608–21.
[6] Gould SJF, Boulaire FA, Burn S, Zhao XL, Kodikara JK. Seasonal factors
influencing the failure of buried water reticulation pipes. Water Sci Technol
2011;63(11):2692–9.
[7] UKWIR. Impact of climate change on asset management planning. Tech rep 12/
CL/01/16; UKWIR; 2012.
[8] Netzel H. Building response due to ground movements. PhD thesis; Delft
University of Technology; Delft; 2009.
[9] Attewell P, Yeates J, Selby A. Soil movements induced by tunnelling and their
effects on pipelines and structures. Glasglow (UK): Blackie and Son Ltd.; 1986.
[10] Preene M. Assessment of settlements caused by groundwater control. Proc Inst
Civil Eng: Geotech Eng 2000;143(4):177–90.
[11] Vorster TEB, Klar A, Soga K, Mair RJ. Estimating the effects of tunneling on
existing pipelines. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005;131(11):1399–410.
[12] Klar A, Vorster TEB, Soga K, Mair RJ. Soil-pipe interaction due to tunnelling:
comparison between Winkler and elastic continuum solutions. Geotechnique
2005;55(6):461–6.
[13] Klar A, Marshall AM, Soga K, Mair RJ. Tunneling effects on jointed pipelines.
Can Geotech J 2008;45(1):131–9.
[14] Klar A, Marshall AM. Shell versus beam representation of pipes in the
evaluation of tunneling effects on pipelines. Tunnel Underground Space
Technol 2008;23(4):431–7.
[15] Marshall AM, Klar A, Mair RJ. Tunneling beneath buried pipes: view of soil
strain and its effect on pipeline behavior. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2010;136(12):1664–72.
[16] Wang Y, Shi J, Ng CWW. Numerical modeling of tunneling effect on buried
pipelines. Can Geotech J 2011;48(7):1125–37.
[17] Wang Y, Wang Q, Zhang KY. An analytical model for pipe-soil-tunneling
interaction. Proc Eng 2011;14:3127–35.
[18] Klar A, Vorster TEB, Soga K, Mair RJ. Elastoplastic solution for soil-pipe-tunnel
interaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;133(7):782–92.
[19] Zhang C, Yu J, Huang M. Effects of tunnelling on existing pipelines in layered
soils. Comput Geotech 2012;43(2):12–25.
[20] Shi J, Wang Y, Ng CWW. Buried pipeline responses to ground displacements
induced by adjacent static pipe bursting. Can Geotech J 2013;50(5):481–92.
[21] Rajani B, Zhan C, Kuraoka S. Pipe-soil interaction analysis of jointed water
mains. Can Geotech J 1996;33(3):393–404.
[22] Rajani B, Tesfamariam S. Uncoupled axial, flexural, and circumferential pipe-
soil interaction analyses of partially supported jointed water mains. Can
Geotech J 2004;41(6):997–1010.
[23] Koppejan A. A formula combining the Terzaghi load compression relationship
and the Buisman secular time effect. In: 2nd International conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering; 1948. p. 32–7.
[24] Den Haan E. Vertical compression of soils. PhD thesis; Delft University of
Technology; Delft, The Netherlands; 1994.
[25] Vrouwenvelder ACWM, Siemes AJM. Probabilistic calibration procedure for the
derivation of partial safety factors for the Netherlands building codes. Heron
1987;32(4):9–29.
[26] CUR. Kansen in de civiele techniek, deel 1: probabilistisch ontwerpen in
theorie. Tech rep CUR report 190; Stichting CUR; 1997.