1058

ARTICLE
Analysis of buried pipelines subjected to ground surface
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19

settlement and heave

George P. Kouretzis, Dimitrios K. Karamitros, and Scott W. Sloan

Abstract: This paper presents an analytical methodology for the calculation of internal forces and strains developing in
continuous buried pipelines that cross geotechnically problematic areas and are susceptible to permanent ground surface
settlement or heave. Material nonlinearity effects are introduced in the solution via an iterative procedure, while taking into
account the effect of pipeline elongation on its response. The use of a versatile bilinear expression to describe the stress–strain
response of the pipeline material renders the method appropriate for steel, high-density polyethylene (HDPE), concrete, and cast
iron pipelines alike. Comparison of the analytical results against those from benchmark finite element analyses highlights the
effectiveness of the simplified analysis. The method is a potential alternative to elaborate three-dimensional nonlinear numer-
ical analyses that are often used in pipeline design practice, and offers ease-of-use with no expense in accuracy, at least for
problems involving simple pipeline geometries.

Key words: buried pipelines, settlement, heave, reactive soils, ground subsidence.

Résumé : Cet article présente une méthode analytique de calcul des forces et contraintes présentes à l’intérieur des pipelines
continus enfouis qui traversent des zones géologiques problématiques et peuvent subir les effets des tassements et soulèvements
permanents de la surface du sol. Les effets matériels de non-linéarité sont incorporés à la solution par l’intermédiaire d’une
procédure itérative et tiennent compte de l’effet de l’élongation du pipeline sur la réponse de ce dernier. L’utilisation d’une
For personal use only.

expression bilinéaire polyvalente pour décrire la réponse contrainte–déformation du matériau constituant le pipeline rend la
méthode appropriée dans le cas des pipelines en acier, en polyéthylène haute densité (PEHD), en béton en fonte. La comparaison
des résultats analytiques avec ceux obtenus par la méthode de référence des éléments finis montre l’efficacité de l’analyse
simplifiée. La méthode est une alternative possible pour élaborer des analyses numériques non linéaires tridimensionnelles, qui
sont souvent mises en pratique lors de la conception des pipelines, et offre une simplicité d’utilisation et une grande précision,
du moins dans le cas des problématiques liées aux pipelines à géométrie simple. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : pipelines enfouis, tassement, soulèvement, sols réactifs, subsidence du sol.

Introduction
Rapid growth of buried pipeline networks inevitably leads to
routes that cross geotechnically problematic areas. In these cases,
permanent ground settlement or heave, which is not related to
pipeline construction activities, may result in the development of
excessive pipeline strains and failure in the forms of cracking or
buckling. Such problematic areas include, but are not limited to
• Reactive soil deposits that undergo significant volume changes
due to environmental effects such as wetting–drying and freezing–
thawing cycles (Chan et al. 2007; Gould et al. 2009; Rajeev and
Kodikara 2011).
• Irrigated lands, where longer drought periods due to climate
change may lead to aquifer overpumping; which in turn may
result in nonuniform consolidation settlements (Budhu and
Adiyaman 2013; Wols and van Thienen 2014).
• Areas susceptible to mine subsidence (Ho et al. 2007; ASCE-ALA
2005; AS 2885.1 2012 (Standards Australia 2012)).
• Areas where ground surface subsidence is induced by near-
surface tunnelling works (e.g., Wang et al. 2011).
• Loose sand deposits that are susceptible to dynamic densifica-
tion (Tokimatsu and Seed 1987).
A link between pipeline failures and the geotechnical risks re-
lated to permanent ground surface deformation has been identi-
fied in the recent literature. Gould et al. (2009) analysed data from
39 687 failures documented by Australian water authorities over a
10 year period. Field crews responsible for pipeline repairs veri-
fied that a significant number of these incidents were a result of
ground movement. Chan et al. (2007) identified a “clear relation-
ship” between City West Water Ltd. (Melbourne, Australia) pipe-
line network failure rates and seasonal variation of soil moisture
content. Pratt et al. (2011) analysed a database of 8100 failures in
cast iron and reinforced concrete water pipelines that occurred
over a 10 year period in Western Australia, and reached similar
conclusions. In the USA, 10 143 serious incidents affecting on-
shore pipeline systems transporting hazardous liquid and gas
were reported between 1993 and 2004, and were included in the
US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration data-
base. Seven hundred ten (7%) of these cases are explicitly attrib-
uted to pipeline exposure to natural hazards, and resulted in
14 fatalities, 78 injuries, and property damage of 1.8 billion USD
(source: PHMSA 2015 database). It must be stressed that, apart from
their economic and social impact, pipeline failures may pose a
significant environmental threat, as they may result in leakage of

Received 13 August 2014. Accepted 27 November 2014.

G.P. Kouretzis and S.W. Sloan. ARC Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
D.K. Karamitros. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Corresponding author: George P. Kouretzis (e-mail: Georgios.Kouretzis@newcastle.edu.au).

Can. Geotech. J. 52: 1058–1071 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0332 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 5 December 2014.
 Kouretzis et al.
hazardous materials or chemicals and consequent contamination
of the soil or the aquifer.
A number of studies in the recent literature deal with the stress
analysis of buried pipelines subjected to permanent ground set-
tlement. The bulk of these studies focus on ground subsidence
due to tunnelling where the axis of the tunnel crosses the pipeline
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19
route transversely. Analytical approaches (e.g., Klar et al. 2005,
2007; Vorster et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2011) consider the pipeline as
a beam on an elastic foundation or are based on a more rigorous
elastic continuum formulation. The effect of soil nonlinearity is
introduced either by limiting the axial soil–pipeline friction in the
elastic continuum solution (Klar et al. 2007) or by an equivalent
linear approach, where the stiffness of the soil springs is a func-
tion of the average deviatoric strain developing in the pipeline
(Vorster et al. 2005). Numerical parametric analyses have also
been employed for the statistical derivation of expressions for
estimating the maximum bending strain developing in the pipe-
line, based on the interpretation of finite element analyses results
(Wang et al. 2011). These studies have been benchmarked against
relevant centrifuge tests presented by Vorster et al. (2005),
Marshall et al. (2010), and others. Recently, Wols and van Thienen
(2014) extended this concept to compute the pipeline stresses due
to differential ground settlement along the pipeline route, using
a Winkler-type model to simulate soil–pipeline interaction and
assuming elastic behaviour of the pipeline material.
Two simplifying assumptions are adopted in the abovemen-
tioned studies, although their effect on the computed pipeline
stresses can be prominent in certain cases of practical interest.
The first is that the nonlinear pipeline material response is not
For personal use only.
introduced in the analytical solutions, even though it could be
important for the rational design of steel and high-density poly-
ethylene (HDPE) pipelines in areas of considerable ground surface
deformations, where yield of the pipeline material could be ac-
ceptable as long as it does not lead to rupture or local buckling.
The second is that the pipeline elongation due to the vertical
ground surface offset is assumed to be negligible, in spite of the
fact that it can lead to the development of considerable axial
strains, especially when the pipeline material reaches yield due to
bending.
To tackle these shortcomings, a new analytical method is pre-
sented for the estimation of internal forces and strains that develop
in buried pipelines subjected to ground surface settlement along
their route. This analysis is extended to also cover the scenario of
ground surface heave due to the pipeline route crossing reactive soil
deposits. The core of the method is based on the work of Karamitros
et al. (2007) and Karamitros et al. (2011) for the stress analysis of
buried steel pipelines that cross strike–slip as well as normal and
oblique faults, respectively. Nonlinearity of the soil and pipeline ma-
terial is accounted for via a simple iterative procedure, which can be
programmed easily in a spreadsheet. The results are compared against
those from benchmark nonlinear finite element analyses with a
beam–spring model, similar to the one described in the American
Lifelines Alliance guidelines (ASCE-ALA 2005) for the design of buried
steel pipes. To conclude, some practical implications and limitations
of the method are discussed, in view of its potential use in the prac-
tical design of pipelines.
Problem description
Consider a straight continuous pipeline whose route crosses an
area of finite width where differential settlement or heave of the
ground surface may develop. It is assumed that no pipe bends or
anchoring points exist within the unanchored length of the pipe-
line, which is defined as the length where the relative axial soil–
pipeline displacement will take place due to the vertical offset of
the ground surface. This “free-to-slip” assumption does not apply
to the restraining effect on the relative axial movement between
the soil and pipeline that is caused by a zone of differential
1059
ground displacements of limited width, which will be addressed
later in this paper. A step-like pattern for the differential ground
surface offset (Fig. 1) is also considered. In reality, the shape of the
deformed ground surface will be more complex, and vertical
movements will develop progressively along a zone of finite
width. Nevertheless, this “guillotine” type vertical offset is cer-
tainly conservative with respect to the calculated pipeline inter-
nal forces and strains. As per common practice in the design of
buried pipelines (e.g., ASCE–ALA 2005), stress analysis of the pipe-
line is performed via a beam–spring model and the soil–pipeline
interaction is quantified by replacing the soil surrounding the
pipeline with elastoplastic springs (Fig. 1). Three sets of springs are
used to account for the different mechanisms governing the axial,
upwards, and downwards relative movement of the soil–pipeline.
The yield displacement and ultimate force of each set of springs
both depend on the geometry of the pipeline and properties of the
soil. The out-of-plane horizontal relative displacement is taken as
zero, so that transverse springs can be omitted from the analysis.
The in-plane vertical displacement is applied at the fixed end of
the springs, resulting in the deformed pipeline axis shown in
Fig. 1a for a pipeline subjected to differential ground surface set-
tlement, and in Fig. 1b for a pipeline subjected to differential
ground heave. The soil springs depicted in red (grey in the print
version of this paper) in Figs. 1a and 1b are under compression (and
thus apply a distributed pressure on the pipeline), while the
springs depicted in black are inactive, and correspond to sections
where no reaction load is applied on the pipeline.
Figure 1 illustrates that when a simplified step-like pattern is
considered, the heave is actually the “mirror” problem of settle-
ment, and vice versa. In both cases the pipeline reacts to the
imposed displacements predominantly via bending, and both
deformation patterns intuitively should result in essentially the
same maximum internal forces and strains on the pipeline (for
the same relative offset magnitude). The difference is the location
of the maximum strains along the pipeline length, which should
be upstream of the point of application of the step-like displace-
ment for the settlement case, and downstream for the heave case.
This is due to the fact that the downwards springs sustain a higher
yield force compared to the upwards springs, as given by the soil
failure surface that each deformation mode mobilizes (ASCE-ALA
2005, Kouretzis et al. 2014). Nevertheless, the exact location of the
maximum strains is irrelevant to pipeline design.
Keeping the above in mind, an analytical solution will be for-
mulated to estimate the internal forces and strains in the pipe-
line, based on the same general concept of the finite element
nonlinear beam–spring model that is used in everyday design
practice. The solution could be considered as a variation of the
method of Karamitros et al. (2011) for normal faults, assuming
that the deformation pattern imposed by the ground settlement is
equivalent to that imposed by the rupture of a normal fault with
a dip angle 90° whose trace is perpendicular to the pipeline route.
However, elongation of the pipeline due to the upwards or down-
wards displacement is taken into account here, and thus the cor-
responding axial pipeline force as a function of the width of the
settlement or heave zone is estimated. Albeit this elongation may
not be sufficient to mobilize the full friction resistance at the
soil–pipeline interface, as assumed in all published methodolo-
gies for the stress analysis of pipelines crossing active faults
(Newmark and Hall 1975; Kennedy et al. 1977; Wang and Yeh 1985;
Karamitros et al. 2007, 2011; Trifonov and Cherniy 2010), it will be
proven here that the axial tensile strains that are developed
should not be neglected — at least for cases where the ground
surface offset is considerable compared to the diameter of the
pipeline. In addition, the formulation for the heave problem will
be provided, to prove the postulation that step-like settlement
and heave of equal magnitude will result in the same maximum
internal forces and strains on the pipeline. Certain parts of the
analysis have already been presented in Karamitros et al. (2011),
Published by NRC Research Press
 1060 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 1. Pipeline subjected to step-like differential (a) settlement and (b) heave along its route. The corresponding idealized beam–spring
models are also shown, where the springs loaded by upwards and downwards movements are under compression and are depicted in red
(grey in the print version of this article) (the axial springs have been omitted for clarity).
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19

Fig. 2. Segmentation of the pipeline into three beams A=A, ABC, and CC=: (a) settlement scenario: (b) heave scenario.
For personal use only.

but are repeated here using the same nomenclature, where pos-
sible, as they are essential to describe the analytical method
completely.
Methodology
A step-like vertical offset ⌬z of the natural ground surface will
result in the deflection of a straight continuous buried pipeline
crossing the settling or heaving zone, following the pattern illus-
trated in Fig. 2. Any soil movement in the horizontal plane is
disregarded in the following analysis, which suggests that it is not
valid for cases of vertical offset developing as a result of certain types
of deformation — e.g., a rotational slope failure. Following the work
of Wang and Yeh (1985) and Karamitros et al. (2007, 2011), the analysis
of the pipeline will be based on beam theory, while uncoupling the
bending action from the axial elongation. To facilitate the analysis,
the pipeline is segmented into three characteristic parts: A=A, ABC,

Published by NRC Research Press

 Kouretzis et al. 1061

and CC= (Fig. 2). Points A and C along the pipeline route define the Fig. 3. Positive sign convention for displacement, rotation, and
part ABC where it is presupposed that the maximum pipeline strains internal forces.
will develop. Its ends are the nearest points to the edge of the settle-
ment or heave zone where the relative vertical displacement be-
tween the soil and pipeline becomes zero. Point B is accordingly
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19

defined as the projection of the edge of the settlement or heave zone

on the pipeline axis. Computation of the maximum values of the
pipeline internal forces and strains is performed in a five-step itera-
tive algorithm, which is described in the following.

Step 1
The case of the ground settlement profile illustrated in Fig. 2a is
examined first. Beams A=A (from –∞ to A=) and CC= (from C= to +∞)
are analysed by employing beam-on-elastic-foundation theory to
obtain the relation between the reaction force, V; bending mo-
ment, M; and rotation of the elastic line, ␸ , at points A and C. This
implies that parts A=A and CC= will behave elastically for the range
of the vertical ground surface displacements considered, and the
vertical beam deflection, w, will be limited so that geometric non-
The sign convention for the internal forces, displacements, and
linearity effects can be assumed to be negligible. In this case, the rotation follows Fig. 3, whereas in Fig. 2 the actual directions of
differential equation providing the elastic line of the beams is the internal forces and beam deformation are plotted.
given by One can easily visualize that the solution would be exactly the
same in the “mirror” problem of step-like ground surface heave
(1) E1Iw ⫹ Kw ⫽ 0 (Fig. 2b), if the order of parts A=A and CC= were reversed. Yet, to
maintain consistency throughout the presentation, the beam lo-
cated upstream of the edge of the heave zone will still be identi-
where E1 is the initial (elastic) Young’s modulus of the pipeline fied as part A=A, and the beam located downstream of the edge of
material, I is the area moment of inertia of the pipeline cross- the heave zone as part CC=. In the latter case, the signs of eqs. (4)
For personal use only.

section, and K is the vertical spring constant. The latter is differ- and (5) are reversed.
ent for upwards and downwards movement (see, for example
Trautmann et al. 1985 and Kouretzis et al. 2014), but a mean value Step 2
will be assumed for these particular segments, for the sake of Segment ABC will be analysed as an elastic beam supported by
simplicity. The boundary conditions for eq. (1) are w = 0 for x = 0, as two rotational springs at its ends A and B. The constant of both
well as w = 0 for x ¡ –∞ or x ¡ +∞ for the beams A=A and CC=, these springs results from eqs. (4a) and (4b) as
respectively (Fig. 2). Under the above conditions eq. (1) yields
(6) Cr ⫽ M/ ␸ ⫽ 2␭E1 I
␭x 
(2a) w ⫽ Ce sin␭x for beam A A
A prescribed displacement of magnitude ±⌬z is applied at the
(2b) w ⫽ Ce⫺␭x sin␭x for beam CC  beam support C (Fig. 2), equal to the vertical soil settlement or
heave. A positive sign for ⌬z corresponds to settlement while a
negative sign designates heave, according to the convention
where shown in Fig. 3. Beam ABC of length L is accordingly partitioned
into two subsegments with lengths LAB and LBC, upstream and
(3) ␭⫽ 兹
4 K/(4E I)
1 downstream of the projection of the edge of the settlement or
heave zone on the pipeline axis, B. Lengths LAB and LBC are un-
known, and will result from the following analysis. Downwards
Differentiation of eqs. (2a) and (2b) results in the bending mo- vertical movement of support C will result in a negative ground
ment and reaction force at points A and C as reaction load, qAB, distributed along subsegment AB, and a posi-
tive ground reaction load, qBC, along subsegment BC. The direc-
(4a) MA ⫽ ⫺(2␭E1 I)␸〈 tion of the ground reaction distributed load, which follows the
convention of Fig. 3, is reversed in the case of upwards-vertical
(4b) MC ⫽ (2␭E1 I)␸C movement of support C (Fig. 2b).
For the analysis of beam ABC it is assumed that the positive
(5a) VA ⫽ ␭MA reaction loads are uniform, and of a magnitude equal to the ulti-
mate value of the resistance force developed during pipeline up-
(5b) VC ⫽ ⫺ ␭MC lift (ASCE-ALA 2005; Trautmann et al. 1985). This is due to the fact
that this ultimate force develops for relatively low relative move-
ments between the soil and pipeline, of the order of 0.01H to 0.02H
where ␸A ⫽ wA and ␸C ⫽ wC is the rotation of the elastic line of the
for pipelines buried in sand-backfilled trenches, with H being the
beam. These constitute the boundary conditions for the analysis
embedment depth of the pipeline measured from the its center-
of beam ABC during the next step of the algorithm. In order for line (ASCE-ALA 2005). Negative reaction loads, however, reach
these boundary conditions to apply, one should ensure the exis- their ultimate value, equal to the maximum resistance force
tence of an adequate attenuation length x = La on each side of the developed during relative movement of the pipeline vertically
beam ABC. The quantification of this length is of special interest downwards, for much higher relative displacement values of the
in cases where the settling or heaving zone has a limited width, order of 0.1D, with D being the pipeline diameter (ASCE-ALA 2005).
and will be discussed in the following paragraphs. Therefore it is expected that the negative ground reaction will

Published by NRC Research Press

 1062 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 4. Estimation of ⌬zB in the case of differential ground (a) settlement and (b) heave.
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19

follow a triangular load distribution, reaching a peak value at
point B of the beam equal to Kdown⌬z〉 in the case of ground
settlement, and to Kdown(⌬z – ⌬z〉) in the case of ground heave.
Here Kdown is the stiffness of the springs in the downward direc-
tion (Fig. 1) and ⌬z〉 (in the case of settlement) or ⌬z – ⌬z〉 (in the
case of heave) is the relative vertical displacement of the soil–
pipeline at point B. To facilitate the analysis, instead of using a
triangular load distribution an equivalent uniform distribution
(which has the same resultant) is considered for the negative
ground reaction. This has the magnitude
Equations (9a) and (9b) allow ⌬z〉 to be estimated directly from
the input parameters of the problem. Thus the analysis can pro-
ceed for elastic beam ABC, whose rotation is constrained by rota-
tional springs at A and C, which is subjected to uniform loads qAB
and qBC and to a prescribed displacement of ⌬z at its support C.
Starting with the settlement cases, bending moments MA and MC
at points A and C are estimated from eqs. (10a) and (10b)
EI EI EI
(10a) MA ⫽ 4 ␸A ⫹ 2 ␸C ⫺ 6 2 ⌬z
L L L

冉 冊
For personal use only.

qAB ⫽ (Kdown⌬zB)/2 for differential settlement,

冉 冊
(7a) 2 2 3
qABLAB LAB LAB qBCLBC LBC
along subsegment AB ⫹ 6⫺8 ⫹3 2 ⫺ 4⫺3
12 L L 12L L
(7b) qBC ⫽ [Kdown(⌬z ⫺ ⌬zB)]/2 for differential heave,
EI EI EI
along subsegment BC (10b) MC ⫽ ⫺2 ␸A ⫺ 4 ␸C ⫹ 6 2 ⌬z
L L L

To estimate the displacement ⌬z〉 it is assumed that the elastic

line of subsegments AB and BC deforms as a circular arc (Fig. 4).
⫺
12
冉
2
qBCLBC
6⫺8
LBC
L
2
LBC
⫹3 2 ⫹
L 12L
3

冊
qABLAB
4⫺3
LAB
L
冉 冊
This implies that segment ABC behaves as a cable of zero bending
stiffness, as in the work of Kennedy et al. (1977). Nonetheless, this Combining eqs. (10a) and (10b) with eqs. (4a) and (4b) for bending
zero bending stiffness assumption is employed only for the esti- moments at A and C, resulting from the analysis of the beams A=A
mation of displacement ⌬z〉, and not for the subsequent struc-
and CC= in step 1, yields
tural analysis of the beam, as this would overestimate the pipeline
strains for low relative offset values. Given the above, the radii of
curvature of subsegments AB and BC can be calculated while con- [2 ⫹ (CrL/2EI)]MA␸⫽0 ⫹ MC␸⫽0
(11a) MA ⫽
sidering each circular arc to be part of the cross section of a 4 ⫹ (6EI/Cr L) ⫹ (Cr L/2EI)
“hollow cylinder”, with a radius equal to the radius of curvature of
the corresponding subsegment, subjected to uniform internal MA␸⫽0 ⫹ [2 ⫹ (Cr L/2EI)]MC␸⫽0
pressure qAB or qBC. Application of internal pressure to a hollow (11b) MC ⫽
4 ⫹ (6EI/Cr L) ⫹ (CrL/2EI)
cylinder will result in the development of a tensile hoop force, Fa,
translated as axial force for beam ABC, and
where
(8a) RAB ⫽ Fa /qAB

(8b) RBC ⫽ Fa /qBC (12a)

EI
MA␸⫽0 ⫽ ⫺6 2 ⌬z ⫹
L 12
2
qABLAB
6⫺8 冉
LAB
L
2
LAB
⫹3 2
L
冊
冉 冊
3
Accordingly, from the deformed shape illustrated in Figs. 4a qBCLBC LBC
⫺ 4⫺3
and 4b ⌬z〉 can be calculated from similar triangles as 12L L

(9a) ⌬zB ⫽
⫺qBC ⫹ 兹qBC(qBC ⫹ 2Kdown⌬z)
Kdown
(12b)
EI
MC␸⫽0 ⫽ 6 2 ⌬z ⫺
L 12
2
qBCLBC
冉
6⫺8
LBC
L
2
LBC
⫹3 2
L
冊
冉 冊
3
for differential settlement, Fig. 4a qABLAB LAB
⫹ 4⫺3
12L L

(9b) ⌬zB ⫽
⫺qAB ⫹ Kdown⌬z ⫺ 兹(qAB ⫹ Kdown⌬z) 2
⫺ (Kdown⌬z) 2

Kdown Reaction forces at A and C are also computed from equilibrium

for differential heave, Fig. 4b considerations as

Published by NRC Research Press

 Kouretzis et al. 1063

(13a) VA ⫽
1
L
冋 冉
⫺MA ⫹ MC ⫺ qABLAB L ⫺
LAB
2
⫹ 冊 2
2
qBCLBC
册 about 60°–70°). This assumption, however, is not valid for the
settlement or heave problem, and might provide an explanation
for the discrepancies noted by Karamitros et al. (2011) between the

(13b) VC ⫽
1
L
冋 冉
⫺MA ⫹ MC ⫺ qBCLBC L ⫺
LBC
2
⫹ 冊 2
2
qABLAB
册 numerical and analytical results for locations near vertical fault
planes and large fault offsets. Here elongation of the pipeline due
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19

to the vertical offset is estimated as (Fig. 4)

The locations of points A and C are not known a priori. Still, the L
(18) ⌬x ⫽ ⫺L
关 共 ⌬zL兲兴
length of each subsegment LAB and LBC and the total length of
beam ABC, L, can be computed iteratively, from the boundary cos arctan
conditions described in eqs. (5a) and (5b). For that an initial value
is assigned to lengths LAB = (5 to 10)D and LBC = (10 to 20)D, estimat-
Equation (18) is valid for both the settlement and heave scenar-
ing the internal forces at A and C from eqs. (11), (12), and (13), and
updating LAB and LBC during each iteration as ios. The maximum axial force that will develop on the pipeline
can be found based on the demand for compatibility between the

冉 冊
qBCLBC ⫹ VC ⫺ ␭MA geometrically required elongation ⌬Lreq = ⌬x (eq. (18)) and the

(14a) LAB ⫽␣ ⫹ (1 ⫺ ␣)LAB available pipeline elongation ⌬Lavail, a concept originally intro-
qAB
duced by Newmark and Hall (1975). The latter is defined as the

冉 冊
integral of the axial strains along the pipeline’s unanchored

qABLAB ⫹ VA ⫹ ␭MC
(14b) LBC ⫽␣ ⫹ (1 ⫺ ␣)LBC length Lanch, i.e., the length along both sides of the projection
qBC of the edge of the settlement or heave zone on the pipeline axis
(point B) where some relative horizontal displacement occurs be-
where ␣ is an iteration coefficient. tween the pipeline and its surrounding soil
The above procedure converges if a value of ␣ between 0.2 and

冕
Lanch
0.5 is selected. The maximum bending moment, which in the
differential settlement scenario will develop upstream of the edge (19) ⌬Lavail ⫽ 2 ␧(L) dL
of the settling zone, is then calculated as
0

2
xmax VA
For personal use only.

(15) Mmax ⫽ MA ⫹ VAxmax ⫹ qAB where xmax ⫽ ⫺
2 qAB
The procedure is essentially the same for the heave case, but the
signs of the reaction moments and forces in eqs. (10) to (13) are
now reversed. Lengths LAB and LBC are also reversed, so their initial
values to be entered into the iterative procedure should now be
LAB = (10 to 20)D and LBC = (5 to 10)D. Moreover, the maximum
bending moment will now develop downstream of the edge of the
heaving zone, and is calculated as
2
xmax VC
(16) Mmax ⫽ MC ⫹ VCxmax ⫹ qBC where xmax ⫽ ⫺
2 qBC
To this end, the maximum bending strain using elastic beam
theory can be computed as
Mmax D
(17) ␧b ⫽
2E1I
Equation (17) implies that the pipeline response is linear elastic,
and as the pipeline material undergoes yield it will ovepredict the
bending strains. However, the required magnitude of settlement
or heave to result in yielding of a significant portion of the pipe-
line section (and consequently geometric nonlinearity effects be-
coming prominent) is unrealistic. As discussed in the following
step, the predominant mode of failure will be in bending, coupled
with a low tensile force. Thus calculating the bending strains via
eq. (17) is a realistic approximation.
Step 3
Vertical offset of the ground surface will result in some elonga-
tion of the pipeline, ⌬x, and in the development of axial strains.
Karamitros et al. (2011) ignored the elongation due to vertical fault
displacement, as it can be considered to be insignificant com-
pared to the elongation imposed by the horizontal displacement
component of a normal fault with a realistic dip angle (typically
where ␧(L) is axial strain distribution along the pipeline.
All analytical methodologies for similar imposed-displacement
problems (Newmark and Hall 1975; Kennedy et al. 1977; Wang and
Yeh 1985; Karamitros et al. 2007, 2011; Trifonov and Cherniy 2010)
assume, for simplicity, that the ultimate friction force between
the pipeline and surrounding soil is fully mobilized when calcu-
lating ␧(L). This assumption, however, is not accurate for the
problem examined herein. As discussed above, the geometrically
required elongation due to settlement or heave, ⌬x, is consider-
ably smaller than the elongation induced by the rupture of a
major seismic fault, for which the abovementioned methodolo-
gies were developed. Overlooking the elastic component of the
axial springs may result in a significant overestimation of the
axial pipeline strain and, therefore, a refinement in the calcula-
tion of the axial pipeline force is introduced in this study.
Starting with the case where the relative soil–pipeline displace-
ment is not sufficient to mobilize the ultimate axial friction force,
tu, the axial response of the pipeline is described by the following
differential equation
dF(x) tu
(20) ⫽ t(x) ⫽ u(x)
dx xu
where axis x coincides with the pipeline axis (Fig. 5a), F(x) is the
axial force along the pipeline, u(x) is the axial displacement of the
pipeline relative to the surrounding soil, t(x) is the mobilized axial
friction force, and xu is the relative displacement required for the
development of the ultimate friction force tu. Given the small
magnitude of the required elongation, ⌬Lreq, it can be assumed
that the relationship between axial stresses and strains along the
pipeline remains elastic, thus
du(x)
(21) F(x) ⫽ E1 As␧(x) ⫽ E1As
dx
where As is the area of the pipeline cross section. Combining
eqs. (20) and (21) yields

Published by NRC Research Press

 1064 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 5. Distribution of axial and friction forces along the pipeline for (a) ⌬Lreq < 2xu and (b) ⌬Lreq > 2xu.
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19
For personal use only.

d2u(x) tu In this case, the distribution of the axial forces along Lu is

(22a) ⫽ u(x) ⇒ u(x) ⫽ C1e␬x ⫹ C2e⫺␬x given as
dx2 E1 Asxu

(25) F(x) ⫽ Fo ⫺ tux

where

冑
and the total elongation of the pipeline along length Lu will be
tu
(22b) ␬⫽

冕
E1 Asxu Lu
FoLu tuLu2
F(x)
(26) ⌬Lu ⫽ dx ⫽ ⫺
x⫽0 E1 As E1 As 2E1 As
Measuring x from the edge of the settlement or heave zone
(Fig. 5a), as x ¡ +∞ the displacement u(x) ¡ 0, and thus C1 = 0
and C2 = uo with uo being the relative displacement at the edge Further away from the edge, the pipeline behaviour may still be
described by eq. (22), after substituting x with x − Lu. To ensure
(point B of the pipeline). Furthermore, uo = ⌬Lreq/2 satisfies
compatibility between the two pipeline segments, where the ulti-
displacement compatibility, taking into account that the re-
mate friction force is or is not mobilized, the following force
quired elongation is distributed symmetrically along both sides
equilibrium equation needs to be considered:
of the settlement or heave zone edge. The corresponding axial

冑
force Fo at point B may be then calculated from force equilib-
rium considerations, as the integral of the friction forces along E1 Astu
(27) F(Lu) ⫽ Fo ⫺ tuLu ⫽ u(Lu)
the pipeline xu

(23) Fo ⫽ 冕
x⫽0
∞
t(x) dx ⫽ 冕 ∞
tuuo ⫺␬x
x⫽0 xu
e dx ⫽ 冑 E1Astu
xu o
u
Finally, to satisfy displacement compatibility

冑
(28) ⌬Lreq ⫽ 2(⌬Lu ⫹ xu)
E1Astu ⌬Lreq
⫽
xu 2
Combining eqs. (24) to (28) yields the maximum axial force
developed in the pipeline, at the edge of the settlement or heave
Figure 5a presents the resulting distribution of the axial pipe- zone
line force and soil–pipeline friction force, as calculated from
eqs. (20) to (22). Clearly eq. (23) is valid only when ⌬Lreq < 2xu. As (29) Fo ⫽ 兹E1 Astu(⌬Lreq ⫺ xu)
the required elongation ⌬Lreq = ⌬x increases, the ultimate soil
friction force will be eventually mobilized along a length Lu at
both sides of the edge, as shown in Fig. 5b. Length Lu can be As expected, when ⌬Lreq = 2xu, eqs. (23) and (29) yield the same
defined via the yield criterion for the axial soil springs force at B, Fo. Furthermore, if xu = 0, eq. (29) reduces to the corre-
sponding formula proposed by Karamitros et al. (2007), who did
not take into account the elastic component of the axial soil
(24) u(Lu) ⫽ xu springs.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Kouretzis et al. 1065

Fig. 6. Distribution of axial and friction forces along the pipeline, in the case of settlement or heave zone of limited width, Ls.
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19
For personal use only.

The above analysis essentially implies that the required elonga-
tion is accommodated along an infinite length of the pipeline. If
the pipeline’s unanchored length where the relative axial dis-
placement between the soil and the pipeline should not be re-
strained to avoid an increase in axial strain needs to estimated,
the following expression can be used:
(30) Lanch ⫽ Fo /tu
Considering the friction force distribution shown in Fig. 6, the
ultimate friction force will be mobilized along a length Lu outside
the settlement or heave zone edges, where the pipeline behaviour
is described by eqs. (25) and (26). Further away from this length,
the axial soil springs will behave elastically and the pipeline be-
haviour is described by eq. (22). Finally, within the settlement or
heave zone, where the ultimate friction is also mobilized, the
axial force distribution will be as follows:

One common case where this unanchored length might not be (31) F(x ) ⫽ Fo ⫺ tux 
available is when the anticipated settlement or heave occurs
within a limited zone of width Ls < 2Lanch, as shown in Fig. 6. A
rigorous analysis of the effect of this restraint on the pipeline where the axis x= has its origin at the edge of the zone, and its
strains would require distinguishing the following three cases: direction is opposite to that of the axis x (Fig. 6). The elongation of
the pipeline along each half of Ls (Fig. 6) is calculated as
1. The ultimate friction force is not mobilized along the pipeline

冕
length.
⌬Ls F(x ) 
Ls/2
FoLs tuLs2
2. The ultimate friction force is mobilized only outside the (32) ⫽ dx ⫽ ⫺
settlement or heave zone. 2 x ⫽0 E1 As 2E1 As 8E1 As
3. The ultimate friction force is mobilized both inside and out-
side the settlement or heave zone.
Finally, to satisfy displacement compatibility
Among these cases, only the third one is examined herein, as
the other two will have a negligible effect on axial pipeline (33) 2⌬Lreq ⫽ 2(⌬Lu ⫹ xu) ⫹ ⌬Ls
strains. Of course, due to symmetry, relative soil–pipeline dis-
placement becomes zero in the middle point of the settlement or
Combining the above equations yields
heave zone. This means that there must exist a region around this

冑
point where the relative soil–pipeline displacement is very small
and remains below xu, so that the ultimate friction force is not tu2Ls2 tuLs
mobilized. Nevertheless, in cases where the restriction of axial (34) Fo ⫽ E1 Astu(2⌬Lreq ⫺ xu) ⫹ ⫺
2 2
displacement is expected to become critical for pipeline design,
i.e., in cases of increased elongation and limited settlement or
heave zone width, the extent of this region is expected to have a For small values of Ls, eq. (34) predicts that the force Fo increases
trivial effect on the maximum pipeline strains that will develop for decreasing Ls values, as expected. Nevertheless, there is a crit-
near the edges of the permanent ground deformation zone. It ical Ls,cr value, above which this trend is reversed. Ls,cr is actually
therefore may be ignored, and the simplified distribution of the the maximum width of the settlement or heave zone that will
axial and friction forces along the pipeline is assumed as de- induce restraint on the axial force developed in the pipeline.
picted in Fig. 6. Therefore, the critical width Ls,cr can be determined as

Published by NRC Research Press

 1066 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

(35)
dFo(Ls)
dLs
⫽ 0 ⇒ Ls,cr ⫽ 冑 2E1As(2⌬Lreq ⫺ xu)
tu
Fig. 7. Pipeline material bilinear stress–strain response.

If the settlement or heave zone is wider than the above critical

value Ls > Ls,cr, then the axial force should be calculated using
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19

eqs. (23) or (29), depending on the magnitude of the required

elongation ⌬Lreq = ⌬x compared to xu (Fig. 5). For narrower zones
where Ls < Ls,cr, eq. (34) should be employed, provided that ⌬Lreq =
⌬x > xu/2. When ⌬Lreq = ⌬x < xu/2 eq. (35) is not valid, as the
required elongation would be too small to mobilize the ultimate
friction force. In this case, the restraint effect of the settlement or
heave zone width on the axial forces is minimal, and need not be
taken into account during pipeline design. The axial force devel-
oped can be estimated directly from eq. (23).
The above formulation for considering the width of the settlement
or heave zone in the analysis is valid only when the half-width of
this zone is long enough to accommodate not only part BC of the
pipeline, but also an additional attenuation length La, thus ensur-
ing that the boundary conditions used in the analysis of part CC=
(eq. (1)) are satisfied. In other words, the half-width of the soil
deformation zone Ls/2 must be larger than Ls/2 > LBC + La. The

再
length LBC is calculated in step 2, while the attenuation length La
␴1 ⫹ E2(␧ ⫺ ␧1) 0 ≤ ␪ ≤ ␸1
defined in step 1 can be estimated by considering the equivalent
problem of a laterally loaded single pile in elastic homogenous (39) ␴⫽ E1␧ ␸1 ≤ ␪ ≤ ␲ ⫺ ␸2
soil. The active length La, beyond which the behaviour of a later- ⫺ ␴1 ⫹ E2(␧ ⫹ ␧1) ␲ ⫺ ␸2 ≤ ␪ ≤ ␲
ally loaded pile becomes independent of its length, was estimated
by Karatzia and Mylonakis (2012) as where ␧␣ is the axial strain; ␴1 and ␧1 are the yield stress and strain
(Fig. 7), respectively; and ␸1 defines the portion of the cross section

冉冊
For personal use only.

La Ep undergoing yield in Fig. 8, depicted in red (i.e., the portions above

再
0.25
(36) ≈ (0.1 ⫺ 0.7 logn) the ␧1 line and below the –␧1 line)
Dp ES

where Dp is the pile’s diameter, n is a tolerance parameter, and Ep

␲ 冉␧1 ⫿ ␧␣
␧b
⬍ ⫺1冊
and Es are the stiffnesses of the pile and soil, respectively. Modi-
fying the above relationship to account for the hollow cylindrical (40) ␸1,2 ⫽ arccos 冉 ␧1 ⫿ ␧␣
␧b 冊 ⫺1 ≤ 冉
␧1 ⫿ ␧␣
␧b
≤1 冊
section of the pipeline yields
0 1⬍ 冉
␧1 ⫿ ␧␣
␧b 冊
(37)
La
D
≈ (0.17 ⫺ 1.18 logn) 冉 冊
E1 t
KD
0.25

The axial force is accordingly calculated by summing the longi-

tudinal stresses over the cross section, as
where t is the thickness of the pipeline cross section.

冕
␲
Considering a reasonable tolerance of 10% (n = 0.1), most buried
pipelines would have an attenuation length of the order La = (41) F⫽2 ␴Rmt d␪ ⫽ 2Rmt关E1␲␧␣ ⫺ (E1 ⫺ E2)(␸1 ⫹ ␸2)␧␣
(5 to 15)D. Nevertheless, even beyond the strict limits imposed by 0
the above derivation, the proposed methodology also provides ⫹ (E1 ⫺ E2)(␸1 ⫺ ␸2)␧1 ⫺ (E1 ⫺ E2)(sin␸1 ⫺ sin␸2)␧b兴
sufficiently accurate results for the intermediate case where LBC +
La > Ls/2 > LBC. The validity of this hypothesis is investigated via
where Rm = (D – t)/2 is the pipeline’s average radius. The axial
comparison with benchmark numerical analyses, and is discussed
strain, ␧␣, results from the requirement for compatibility of axial
in detail in the section titled “Comparison of the results against
forces calculated from eq. (41) and step 3. The solution is obtained
benchmark numerical analyses”.
iteratively, by employing a Newton–Raphson procedure. Starting
Step 4 with an initial value ␧␣ = 0, the axial strain is calculated in each
The maximum pipeline strain is now calculated from the re- successive iteration, k, as
quirement for stress equilibrium over the pipeline cross section, F共␧␣k 兲 ⫺ Fo
considering a bilinear stress–strain relationship for the pipeline (42) ␧␣k⫹1 ⫽ ␧␣k ⫺
material (Fig. 7). Section deformation effects are ignored, as they 具dF/d␧␣典␧␣⫽␧␣k
are not expected to be significant for the range of ground move-
ments considered. Referring to the point where the maximum where

冋
bending moment develops, the longitudinal stress distribution
over the cross section can be drawn as shown in Fig. 8, assuming dF
(43) ⫽ 2Rmt E1␲ ⫺ (E1 ⫺ E2)(␸1 ⫹ ␸2)
an internal force combination Fo, Mmax that results in a certain d␧␣k
portion of the pipeline cross section undergoing yield.
The longitudinal strain, ␧, and stress, ␴, distribution can be
described via the polar angle of the cross section, ␪, as
⫺ (E1 ⫺ E2)
d␸1
d␧␣冉⫹
d␸2
d␧␣ ␣ 冊
␧ ⫹ (E1 ⫺ E2)
d␸1
d␧␣
⫺
d␸2
␧
d␧␣ 1 冉 冊
(38) ␧ ⫽ ␧␣ ⫹ ␧b cos␪
⫺ (E1 ⫺ E2)
d␸1
d␧␣
cos␸1 ⫺ 冉
d␸2
d␧␣
cos␸2 ␧b 冊册
Published by NRC Research Press
 Kouretzis et al. 1067

Fig. 8. Strain and stress distribution over the pipeline cross section. The part of the cross section undergoing yield is depicted in red (i.e., the
portions above the ␧1 line and below the –␧1 line) and the part of the cross section remaining elastic is depicted in blue (i.e., the portions
between the ␧1 and –␧1 lines).
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19

再
and Fig. 9. Ramberg–Osgood stress–strain relation for API.5L-X65 steel
considered in the numerical analyses, plotted against the bilinear fit
1 employed in the analytical solution.
± ␧b sin␸1,2 ≤ ⫺0.01
␧b sin␸1,2
d␸1,2 ⫺100 ⫺0.01 ⬍ ␧b sin␸1,2 ≤ 0
(44) ⫽
d␧␣ ±100 0 ⬍ ␧b sin␸1,2 ≤ 0.01
1
± 0.01 ⬍ ␧b sin␸1,2
␧b sin␸1,2
For personal use only.

The bending strain, ␧b, in eq. (44) is input as a percentage.

Having calcutated both the axial strains from eqs. (42)–(44) and
bending strains from eq. (17), the maximum, ␧max, and mini-
mum, ␧min, longitudinal strains are derived from eq. (38), for
␪ = 0 and ␪ = ␲, respectively.

Step 5
The nonlinear behaviour of the pipeline material can now be
introduced into the solution by computing a secant Young’s mod-

ulus, Esec , compatible with the stress and strain distribution over
the pipeline cross section. This is calculated as



Mmax D
(45) Esec ⫽
2I␧b


where the bending moment Mmax results from the stress distribu- Table 1. Summary of elastoplastic soil spring properties.
tion over the cross section as
Yield Yield
force displacement

冕
␲

(46) 
Mmax ⫽2 ␴RmtRm cos␪ d␪ ⫽ 2Rm
2
t 冋E ␲2␧
1 b Spring
Axial (friction)
(kN/m)
18.60
(mm)
3.0
0 Vertical (upwards displacement) 31.91 2.3
⫺ (E1 ⫺ E2)(sin␸1 ⫺ sin␸2)␧␣ ⫹ (E1 ⫺ E2)(sin␸1 ⫹ sin␸2)␧1 Vertical (downwards displacement) 576.18 63.0
␧b
⫺ (E1 ⫺ E2)(␸1 ⫹ ␸2) ⫺ (E1 ⫺ E2)(sin2␸1 ⫺ sin2␸2)
2
␧b
4
册
linear large-deformation beam–spring numerical analyses, which
is the current state of practice for the design of buried pipelines
Steps 2–5 of the algorithm are repeated by updating the value of subjected to permanent ground deformations (ASCE-ALA 2005).
the Young’s modulus, until convergence is achieved. Via this pro- To investigate to what extent this objective has been met, the
cedure the nonlinear response of the pipeline material is taken maximum, minimum and axial pipeline strains calculated analyt-
into account (albeit approximately), while still using the mathe- ically are comapared against those predicted from the results of
matically convenient elastic theory for the analysis of beam ABC. three-dimensional finite element analyses with the commercial
code ANSYS.
Comparison of results against benchmark
To this end a typical straight, continuous 20 in. (1 in. = 25.4 mm)
numerical analyses natural gas pipeline, made of high-strength API.5L-X65 steel is
As stated earlier, the proposed analysis aims to provide results considered. The external diameter of the pipeline is D = 0.508 m
that match as closely as possible the results obtained from non- and its thickness t = 0.0079 m. The total length of the simulated

Published by NRC Research Press

 1068 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 10. Detailed results from the numerical analysis for differential heave offset ⌬z = 1.2D, focused on the area of interest where the
maximum strains develop. The sign of the vertical reaction forces follows the convention of Fig. 3.
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19
For personal use only.

Fig. 11. Comparison of axial, maximum, and minimum pipeline strains calculated with the proposed method against numerically computed
strains for relative settlement and heave. This set of results corresponds to the analysis for a settling or heaving zone of width Ls = 40 m.

pipeline is 2000 m, evenly divided along both sides of the settling
or heaving zone. The total length of the model was proven ade-
quate to avoid any end effects on the results in the area of interest.
Straight plastic beam elements (PIPE20) are used to discretize the
pipeline, each of which is 0.5 m long. A Ramberg–Osgood curve is
used to simulate the stress–strain response of the steel, as per
common practice
(47) ␧⫽
␴
Ei冋 共
1⫹
b ␴
r ⫹ 1 ␴e 兲冉 冊 册
r
where for X65 steel Ei = 210 GPa, ␴e = 490 MPa, b = 38.32, and r =
31.5 (Fig. 8). In this way, the effect of considering a simple bilinear
stress–stress relationship in the analytical solution on the accu-
racy of its results can be assessed. In doing this, the bilinear
relationship of Fig. 7 is fitted to the Ramberg–Osgood curve, as
depicted in Fig. 9.
The soil–pipeline interaction in the vertical and axial direc-
tions is quantified via elastic–perfectly plastic spring elements
(COMBIN39), connected to each node of the pipeline elements
(two sets of spring elements per running metre). The properties of
the springs were derived according to the ASCE-ALA (2005) guide-
lines, assuming the pipeline is installed inside a trench of suffi-
cient dimensions and backfilled with medium-dense sand up to a
level of 1.20 m, measured from the pipeline crown (Table 1).
The sand unit weight is taken as ␥ = 18 kN/m3, its friction angle
as ␸  = 36°, and the soil–pipeline interface friction angle as ␦ = 24°.
It is further assumed that the earth pressure coefficient at-rest of

Published by NRC Research Press

 Kouretzis et al.
Fig. 12. Comparison of axial, maximum, and minimum pipeline strains calculated with the proposed method against numerically computed
strains, for varying widths of the soil heave zone.
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19
For personal use only.
the backfill material is Ko = 1.0, to account for any accidental
compaction of the sand — although compaction of the backfill in
areas where relative ground surface deformations are expected
should be avoided, as a denser backfill will introduce higher reac-
tion forces on the pipeline. Note that the uplift yield displacement
in Table 1 is derived by fitting a bilinear force–displacement curve
to the hyperbolic equation proposed by Trautmann et al. (1985).
The free end of the spring elements is fixed, and a step-like
prescribed displacement (Fig. 10) is applied to the fixed nodes
located along the width of the settling or heaving zone. Analyses
for both ground settlement and heave are performed, with the
absolute offset value ranging from 0.1016 to 1.016 m, which corre-
sponds to normalized offset values ⌬z/D = 0.2 to 2.0. This range is
expected to cover realistic ground surface offsets due to settlement or
heave.
First a pipeline crossing a settling or heaving zone of width Ls =
40 m (approximately 80D) is simulated, to check whether it is
1069
sufficiently wide to avert any interaction between the curved
parts of the pipeline located at the edges of the zone (Ls/2 > LBC + La
from step 3). Detailed results of the analysis for ground heave with
an offset ⌬z/D = 1.2 are presented in Fig. 10, to assess pipeline
response in light of the simplifications introduced in the analyti-
cal solution. The first focus is on the pipeline deformed shape and
the reactions applied to the pipeline from the backfill in the axial
and vertical directions in the vicinity of the edge of the heave
zone. It can be argued that the deformed shape of the pipeline is
compatible with the deformation mode of the pipeline segments
depicted in Fig. 2b, while the vertical reaction forces along parts
AB and BC of the pipeline are in agreement with the shape and
magnitude assumed for loads qAB and qBC. It is also clear that the
assumption of a uniform friction resistance developing along the
full unanchored length of the pipeline is, as discussed earlier, not
totally accurate, as the friction forces diminish to zero at the
middle of the heave zone.
Published by NRC Research Press
 1070
Fig. 13. Variation of axial, maximum, and minimum pipeline strains developing for vertical ground heave ⌬z/D = 1.0, with the half-width of
the heave zone Ls/2.
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19
Notice also that the location of maximum axial strains and
bending strains coincides, as implied in step 4 of the methodol-
ogy. At this point the axial strains need to increase locally, so that
the integral of the longitudinal strains remains equal to the axial
force. A more detailed discussion of this effect is provided by
Karamitros et al. (2011), as well as by O’Rourke and Liu (2012).
Given this agreement in capturing the elements of the pipeline
response, it is no surprise that the proposed analytical method is
able to provide accurate estimates of the pipeline strains, com-
pared to those from the benchmark nonlinear finite element
model. This comparison is illustrated in Fig. 11. Further to that,
Fig. 11 provides additional evidence that both the settlement and
heave cases essentially result in the same maximum pipeline
strains, though in different locations along the pipeline route.
To support the hypothesis that the proposed methodology
For personal use only.
will provide accurate results when the half-width of the settling or
heaving zone Ls/2 is larger than the length of the beam BC plus the
attenuation length La, Ls/2 > LBC + La, parametric analysis was
performed where the half-width of the heave zone was decreased
gradually from Ls/2 = 20 m (≈40D) to Ls/2 = 1 m (≈2D). The results of
this parametric analysis are presented in Fig. 12, using the same
format as in Fig. 11. The analytically calculated strains match the
results of the finite element analyses, except for the case of the
narrowest heave zone width Ls/2≈2D. This can be explained by
means of Fig. 13. When the half-width of the ground offset zone
becomes less than the length of the beam BC LBC, the high-
curvature areas formed at the two edges of the heave zone (Fig. 10)
overlap. This effect, which results in a substantial increase in
bending strain, is not taken into consideration by the proposed
methodology and the corresponding analytical predictions be-
come nonconservative. On the other hand, it is worth noting that
the analytical results match the numerical values fairly well in the
intermediate cases where LBC + La > Ls/2 > LBC, even though the
theoretical boundary conditions considered for the analysis of
segment CC= in step 1 are violated.
Summary and practical considerations
The method presented provides an attractive alternative to
more rigorous (and complex) numerical analyses of pipelines that
are subjected to permanent ground settlement and heave, offer-
ing ease-of-use and a quick estimation of pipeline internal forces
and strains. The simplifications introduced have a negligible
effect on the accuracy of the solution, at least for the realistic
vertical ground surface offsets examined here. Although the com-
parison with the benchmark analyses was limited to a pipeline
made of high-strength steel, the methodology is applicable to
HPDE, cast iron or concrete pipelines, as it provides versatility in
terms of the material model and direct estimates of both the
strains and internal forces. Nevertheless, appropriate fitting of
the bilinear constitutive relation to the actual pipeline material
stress–strain behaviour is required to obtain realistic results.
Note, however, that it is not necessary for the bilinear fit to cap-
ture the whole extent of the pipeline material’s stress–strain re-
lationship: as the proposed methodology is intended for practical
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
design purposes, a bilinear fit that adequately reproduces the
material’s behaviour within the region of the acceptable design
limits is deemed sufficient.
It must be stated, however, that the approach does not account
for the possibility of local buckling, due to excessive compressive
strains, which may cause early failure of the pipeline. For that
aspect, the pipeline designer must compute a limiting compres-
sive strain that the pipeline section can sustain, which is a func-
tion of the pipeline geometry (see, e.g., EN 1998-4 (CEN 2006)).
Furthermore, longitudinal strains due to internal pressure and
thermal effects were omitted from the analysis, as customarily
they are expected to be an order of magnitude lower than the
strains induced by permanent ground deformation. The meth-
odology is applicable to straight, continuous pipelines, and to
settlement or heave zones that are wider than the curved length
of the pipeline, where bending strains develop. Unanchored
length estimates may be used to decide whether a more detailed
analysis is required to take into account the restraint on the pipe-
line axial deformation that is imposed by the existence of pipe
bends in the vicinity of the settlement or heave zone (these will
lead to development of additional strains near the bends).
References
ALA. 2005. Guidelines for the design of buried steel pipes. American Lifelines
Alliance, ASCE, New York.
Budhu, M., and Adiyaman, I. 2013. The influence of clay zones on land subsi-
dence from groundwater pumping. Ground Water, 51(1): 51–57. doi:10.1111/j.
1745-6584.2012.00943.x.
CEN. 2006. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 4:
Silos, tanks and pipelines. Standard EN 1998-4. European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
Chan, D., Kodikara, J.K., Gould, S., Ranjith, P.G., Choi, X.S.K., and Davis, P. 2007.
Data analysis and laboratory investigation of the behaviour of pipes buried in
reactive clay. In Proceedings of the 10th Australia New Zealand Conference on
Geomechanics – Common Ground, Queensland, Australia.
Gould, S., Boulaire, F., Marlow, D., and Kodikara, J. 2009. Understanding how the
Australian climate can affect pipe failure. In Proceedings of OzWater 09,
Melbourne, March.
Ho, D.K.H., Dominish, P.G., and Tan, D.W. 2007. Rapid stress assessment of
buried pipelines in mine subsidence region. In Proceedings of the Seventh
Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, Mine Subsidence 2007, Sydney,
New South Wales.
Karamitros, D.K., Bouckovalas, G.D., and Kouretzis, G.P. 2007. Stress analysis of
buried steel pipelines at strike-slip fault crossings. Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering, 27(3): 200–211. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.08.001.
Karamitros, D.K., Bouckovalas, G.D., Kouretzis, G.P., and Gkesouli, V. 2011. An
analytical method for strength verification of buried steel pipelines at nor-
mal fault crossings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(11): 1452–
1464. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.05.012.
Karatzia, X., and Mylonakis, G. 2012. Horizontal response of piles in inhomoge-
neous soil: Simple analysis. In Proceedings of the Second International Con-
ference on Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, Taormina, Italy. Paper No. 1117.
Kennedy, R.P., Chow, A.M., and Williamson, R.A. 1977. Fault movement effects
on buried oil pipeline. Transportation Engineering Journal, 103(5): 617–633.
Klar, A., Voster, T.E.B., Soga, K., and Mair, R.J. 2005. Soil-pipe interaction due to
tunnelling: comparison between Winkler and elastic continuum solutions.
Géotechnique, 55(6): 461–466. doi:10.1680/geot.2005.55.6.461.
Klar, A., Vorster, T.E.B., Soga, K., and Mair, R.J. 2007. Elastoplastic solution for
soil-pipe-tunnel interaction. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 133(7): 782–792. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:7(782).
Published by NRC Research Press
 Kouretzis et al.
Kouretzis, G.P., Krabbenhøft, K., Sheng, D., and Sloan, S.W. 2014. Soil-buried
pipeline interaction for vertical downwards relative offset. Canadian Geo-
technical Journal, 51(10): 1087–1094. doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0029.
Marshall, A.M., Klar, A., and Mair, R.J. 2010. Tunneling beneath buried pipes:
view of soil strain and its effect on pipeline behavior. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(12): 1664–1672. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.
1943-5606.0000390.
Can. Geotech. J. Editors' Choice Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/02/19
Newmark, M.N., and Hall, W.J. 1975. Pipeline design to resist large fault displace-
ment. In Proceedings of the U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
O’Rourke, M.J., and Liu, X. 2012. Seismic design of buried and offshore pipelines.
MCEER Monograph MCEER-12-MN04.
PHMSA. 2015. Database of all reported pipeline incidents. Pipeline and Hazard-
ous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). U.S. Department of Transpor-
tation. Available from http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/library/data-stats/
incidents.
Pratt, C., Yang, H., Hodkiewicz, M., and Oldham, S. 2011. Factors influencing pipe
failures in the WA environment. In Co-operative Education for Enterprise
Development CEED Seminar Proceedings, The University of Western Australia.
Rajeev, P., and Kodikara, J. 2011. Numerical analysis of an experimental pipe
buried in swelling soil. Computers and Geotechnics, 38(7): 897–904. doi:10.
1016/j.compgeo.2011.06.005.
Standards Australia. 2012. Pipelines — gas and liquid petroleum. Part 1: Design
and construction. Australian standard AS 2885.1-2012. Standards Australia.
For personal use only.
1071
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B. 1987. Evaluation of settlements in sands due to
earthquake shaking. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(8): 861–878.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:8(861).
Trautmann, C.H., O’Rourke, T.D., and Kulhawy, F.D. 1985. Uplift force-displacement
response of buried pipe. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(9): 1061–
1076. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:9(1061).
Trifonov, O.V., and Cherniy, V.P. 2010. A semi-analytical approach to a nonlinear
stress-strain analysis of buried steel pipelines crossing active faults. Soil Dy-
namics and Earthquake Engineering, 30(11): 1298–1308. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.
2010.06.002.
Vorster, T.E.B., Klar, A., Soga, K., and Mair, R.J. 2005. Estimating the effects of
tunneling on existing pipelines. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, 131(11): 1399–1410. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)
131:11(1399).
Wang, L.R.L., and Yeh, Y.A. 1985. A refined seismic analysis and design of buried
pipeline for fault movement. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy-
namics, 13(1): 75–96. doi:10.1002/eqe.4290130109.
Wang, Y., Shi, J., and Ng, C.W.W. 2011. Numerical modeling of tunneling effect
on buried pipelines. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48(7): 1125–1137. doi:10.
1139/t11-024.
Wols, B.A., and van Thienen, P. 2014. Modelling the effect of climate change
induced soil settling on drinking water distribution pipes. Computers and
Geotechnics, 55: 240–247. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.09.003.
Published by NRC Research Press