BMT Fleet Technology.

Second Milestone Report Sept 2017

DTPH56-14-H-00008
"Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies"

FINAL REPORT

DTPH56-14-H-00008
"Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline
Anomalies"
SUBMITTED BY: Team Project Manager
Abdelfettah Fredj
BMT Fleet Technology
311 Legget Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K2K 1Z8 Canada
Telephone: (613) 592-2830
E-mail: [email protected]

TEAM TECHNICAL COORDINATOR: Team Technical Coordinators

Aaron Dinovitzer
BMT Fleet Technology
311 Legget Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K2K 1Z8 Canada
Telephone: (613) 592-2830
E-mail: [email protected]

TEAM PARTICIPANTS: BMT Fleet Technology Limited

Fredj, A., Dinovitzer, A. and Hassannejadasl,A.

SUBMITTED TO: U. S. Department of Transportation

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
Mr. Warren D. Osterberg
Agreement Officer
[email protected]

REPORTING PERIOD:

SUBMITTED ON: 22 Sept 2017

BMT Fleet Technology Limited accepts no liability for any errors or omissions or for any loss, damage, claim or other demand in
connection with the usage of this report, insofar as those errors and omissions, claims or other demands are due to any
incomplete or inaccurate information supplied to BMT Fleet Technology Limited for the purpose of preparing this report.
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

REVISION HISTORY RECORD

Revision No. Date of Issue Description of Change

00 16 June 2017 Initial submission.
01 28 June 2017 Minor editorial changes.
02 22 Sept 2017 Feedback from final report review and presentation.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies ii

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1  INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
1.1  Project Objective ....................................................................................................... 2 
2  MODEL & VALIDATION ................................................................................................ 3 
2.1  Task 2: Scope of Work .............................................................................................. 3 
2.2  Finite Element Model Description ............................................................................ 3 
2.2.1  Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 
2.2.2  Continuum Multi-Material ALE Model ........................................................ 3 
2.2.3  Continuum SPH Mode ................................................................................... 4 
2.2.4  Soil Material .................................................................................................. 4 
2.3  Validation of the SPH Model .................................................................................... 6 
2.3.1  Introduction .................................................................................................... 6 
2.3.2  Finite Element Model Validation – Pipeline Subjected to Axial Ground
Movement ...................................................................................................... 6 
2.4  Finite Element Model Validation – Pipeline Subjected to Surface Faulting ........... 13 
2.4.1  Finite Element Analysis of Experimental Split-Box Tests – Buried HDPE
Pipeline ........................................................................................................ 13 
2.5  Finite Element Model Validation – Pipeline Subjected to Lateral Movement........ 16 
2.5.1  Large-Scale Experimental Model ................................................................ 16 
2.5.2  Finite Element Model .................................................................................. 17 
2.5.3  Analytical and Experimental Results ........................................................... 18 
2.6  Validation of the Multi-Material-ALE Model ......................................................... 21 
2.6.1  Introduction .................................................................................................. 21 
2.7  Finite Element Model Validation – Pipeline Subjected to Lateral Ground
Movement ................................................................................................................ 21 
2.7.1  Finite Element Analysis of Experimental Tank Test – Flexible Pipe.......... 21 
2.7.2  Analytical and Experimental Results ........................................................... 25 
2.7.3  Finite Element Analysis of Experimental Tank Test – Rigid Pipe .............. 30 
2.7.4  Analytical and Experimental Results ........................................................... 32 
2.7.5  Sensitivity Analyses ..................................................................................... 36 
2.8  Finite Element Analysis of Soil-Pipe Interaction for Slope Movements ................ 41 
2.8.1  Finite Element Model Validation: PGD Effects on Buried Pipelines with
Elbows ......................................................................................................... 42 
2.9  Validation of DEM Model in LS-DYNA ................................................................ 48 
2.9.1  Soil Restraint on Pipe Buried in Road Mulch.............................................. 48 
2.9.2  Soil Restraint on NPS 16 (406 mm) Pipe Buried in Moist Sand ................. 49 
2.9.3  Soil Restraint on NPS 18 (457mm) Pipe Buried in Moist Sand .................. 51 
2.9.4  Soil Restraint on Pipe Buried in Road Mulch.............................................. 52 
2.9.5  Pipe-Soil Interaction Model Parameter Calibration..................................... 54 
2.9.6  Conclusion: Validation of DEM Model in LS-DYNA ................................ 56 
2.10  Conclusion of Model Validation Studies................................................................. 57 
3  PIPE LIMIT STATES....................................................................................................... 59 
3.1  Pipeline Compressive Strain Capacity CSA Z662 -2011 ........................................ 59 
3.2  PRCI 2004 and University of Alberta Critical Buckling Strain Formula................ 60 
3.3  Tensile Strain Limit ................................................................................................. 62 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies iii
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
4  ILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT
APPLICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 64 
4.1  Modeling of Landslide Hazard ................................................................................ 64 
4.1.1  Summary of Inputs Required and Processes Modelled ............................... 64 
4.1.2  Structural Analyses for a 30-inch Pipeline .................................................. 70 
4.1.3  Structural Analyses for the 40-inch Pipeline ............................................... 80 
4.2  Modeling of Subsidence .......................................................................................... 88 
4.2.1  Mining Subsidence Phenomena and Terminology ...................................... 88 
4.2.2  Finite Element Analyses .............................................................................. 92 
4.2.3  Application of Finite Element Model to Predict Pit Subsidence and Effects
on Pipelines ................................................................................................ 102 
5  MODELING OF PIPELINE SUBSIDENCE HAZARDS ............................................. 105 
5.1  Finite Element Model Description ........................................................................ 105 
5.1.1  DEM Model ............................................................................................... 106 
5.1.2  Loading Sequence ...................................................................................... 106 
5.1.3  Pipe Properties ........................................................................................... 106 
5.2  Structural Analyses for the 24-inch Pipeline ......................................................... 107 
5.3  Results Base Case .................................................................................................. 109 
5.3.1  Effect of the Mining Width to Depth Ratio ............................................... 112 
5.3.2  Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes ............ 118 
5.3.3  Effect of the Width of the Subsidence ....................................................... 120 
5.3.4  Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes ............ 123 
5.4  Effect of Pipe Wall Thickness and D/t .................................................................. 131 
5.4.1  Effect of the Width of Ground Movement................................................. 135 
5.4.2  Comparison with Strain Criteria and Safety Envelopes ............................ 142 
5.5  Effect of Temperature ............................................................................................ 154 
5.6  Effect of Operating Pressure.................................................................................. 156 
5.7  Structural Analyses for the 12-inch Pipeline ......................................................... 158 
5.7.1  12 Inch Pipeline Results ............................................................................ 158 
5.8  Structural Analyses for an 18-inch Pipeline .......................................................... 162 
5.8.1  Results ........................................................................................................ 163 
5.9  Pipeline Subsidence Modelling Observations ....................................................... 169 
6  MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD .................................................................... 171 
6.1  Introduction ........................................................................................................... 171 
6.2  Finite Element Model Description ........................................................................ 171 
6.3  Structural Analyses for the 24-inch Pipeline ......................................................... 172 
6.4  Results Base Case .................................................................................................. 174 
6.4.1  Effect of the Width of Ground Movement................................................. 175 
6.4.2  Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes ............ 180 
6.5  Effect of Pipe Wall Thickness and D/t .................................................................. 185 
6.5.1  Effect of the Width of Ground Movement................................................. 187 
6.5.2  Comparison with Strain Criteria and Safety Envelopes ............................ 191 
6.6  Effect of Material Grade: ....................................................................................... 195 
6.6.1  Effect of the Width of Ground Movement................................................. 197 
6.6.2  Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes ............ 200 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies iv

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
6.7  Effect of Temperature ............................................................................................ 204 
6.8  Effect of Operating Pressure.................................................................................. 206 
6.8.1  Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes ............ 210 
6.9  Effect of Ground Movement Pattern ..................................................................... 215 
6.9.1  Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes ............ 219 
6.10  Effect of Burial Depth ........................................................................................... 224 
6.11  Effect of Slope ....................................................................................................... 226 
6.11.1  Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes ............ 230 
6.12  Effect of Soil Properties ........................................................................................ 234 
6.13  Effect of Soil to Pipe Friction ................................................................................ 238 
6.14  Structural Analyses for a 12-Inch Pipeline ............................................................ 240 
6.14.1  12-Inch Pipeline Results ............................................................................ 240 
6.15  Structural Analyses for an 18-Inch Pipeline .......................................................... 243 
6.15.1  18 Inch Pipeline Results ............................................................................ 243 
6.16  Structural Analyses for a 30-Inch Pipeline ............................................................ 244 
6.16.1  30 Inch Pipeline Results ............................................................................ 245 
6.17  Pipeline Lateral Ground Movement Modelling Observations .............................. 247 
7  CONCLUDING REMARKS .......................................................................................... 250 
8  REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 253 
9  CONCLUDING REMARKS .......................................................................................... 257 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies v

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Pipe soil interaction Model Application Sample Results ............................................. 2 
Figure 2.1:  Pressure vs. Volumetric Strain ................................................................................... 5 
Figure 2.2:  UBC Experimental Sand Compartment – Karimian et al., 2006 ............................... 7 
Figure 2.3:  Illustration of the FE Model including the Pipe ......................................................... 9 
Figure 2.4:  Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results – Dense Sand ................ 10 
Figure 2.5:  Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results – Loose Sand ................. 10 
Figure 2.6:  Illustration of the FE Model including the Pipe ....................................................... 12 
Figure 2.7:  Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results – Undisturbed Soil Fill .. 13 
Figure 2.8:  Large-Scale Split-Box Test Basin at Cornell University NEES Equipment Site
(O’Rourke et al., 2007) ............................................................................................. 14 
Figure 2.9:  Illustration of the FE Model Including the Pipe ....................................................... 14 
Figure 2.10: Illustration of the FE Model including the Pipe ....................................................... 15 
Figure 2.11: Deformed Pipe in Soil – FE Results ......................................................................... 16 
Figure 2.12: Pipe Deformation: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results ........ 16 
Figure 2.13: UBC Experimental Sand Compartment – Karimian et al., 2006 [4] ........................ 18 
Figure 2.14: Illustration of the FE Model including the Pipe ....................................................... 18 
Figure 2.15: SPH-FEM Simulation – Vector Velocity ................................................................. 19 
Figure 2.16: SPH-FEM Simulation – Vertical Displacement ....................................................... 19 
Figure 2.17: SPH-FEM Simulation – Shear Failure Surface ........................................................ 20 
Figure 2.18: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results ....................................... 20 
Figure 2.19: Experimental Setup Test (GS01) – Profile View ..................................................... 21 
Figure 2.20: Plan View ................................................................................................................. 22 
Figure 2.21: Stress-Strain Curve (1010 Steel) .............................................................................. 22 
Figure 2.22: Estimated Pressure vs. Volumetric Strain – GSC Trial ............................................ 23 
Figure 2.23: Illustration of the Finite Element Model for the GSC Trials Including the Pipe ..... 25 
Figure 2.24: Comparison of Experimental and Finite Element GSC Trial Load Displacement
Results ...................................................................................................................... 26 
Figure 2.25: Deformed Pipe – Experimental Results ................................................................... 26 
Figure 2.26: Deformed Pipe – Finite Element Result ................................................................... 27 
Figure 2.27: Deformed Pipe in Soil – Finite Element Results ...................................................... 27 
Figure 2.28: Illustration of Soil Movement around the Pipe ........................................................ 28 
Figure 2.29: Bending Moment at the Plastic Hinge ...................................................................... 29 
Figure 2.30: Pipeline Node 49426 Displacement Trace (at the Plastic Hinge) ............................ 29 
Figure 2.31: Pipe Node Displacement Trace (Node 49426 at the Plastic Hinge and at the Pipe
End Node 49606) ...................................................................................................... 30 
Figure 2.32: UBC Experimental Sand Compartment – Karimian et al., 2006 [4] ........................ 31 
Figure 2.33: Illustration of the FE Model Including the Pipe ....................................................... 32 
Figure 2.34: Displacement Patten (FE Analysis) .......................................................................... 33 
Figure 2.35: FEM Simulation of the UBC Trial Results .............................................................. 33 
Figure 2.36: Comparison between Numerical Model Results and Test Results ........................... 34 
Figure 2.37: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results ....................................... 35 
Figure 2.38: Displacement Trace Illustrating Pipe and Soil Displacements................................. 35 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies vi

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 2.39: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results: Mesh Size 50 mm to 100
mm ............................................................................................................................ 36 
Figure 2.40: Effects of Pipe Self-Weight on Force-Displacement Curves ................................... 37 
Figure 2.41: Hydrostatic Compression vs. Volumetric Strain ...................................................... 38 
Figure 2.42: Effects of Saturation on Force-Displacement Curves .............................................. 39 
Figure 2.43: Effective Plastic Strain and Velocity Vectors at Pipe Displacement = 296 mm –
Drained Sand with 17% Moisture Content ............................................................... 40 
Figure 2.44: Effective Plastic Strain and Velocity Vectors at Pipe Displacement = 296 mm –
Undrained Sand with 13% Moisture Content ........................................................... 40 
Figure 2.45: Effective Plastic Strain and Velocity Vectors at Pipe Displacement = 296 mm –
Undrained Sand with 17% Moisture Content ........................................................... 41 
Figure 2.46: Permanent Ground Movement, Observed and Schematic Response of Landslide .. 41 
Figure 2.47: Experimental Concept for PGD Effect on Buried Pipelines with Elbow (O’Rourke
et al., 2004 [13]) ....................................................................................................... 42 
Figure 2.48: Plan View of the Experimental Setup (O’Rourke et al., 2004 [13]) ........................ 43 
Figure 2.49: True Stress-Strain Curves (Yoshisaki et al., 2004 [17]) ........................................... 43 
Figure 2.50: Illustration of the FE Model including the Pipe ....................................................... 44 
Figure 2.51: Overhead View of Test Compartment Before (Left) and After (Right) the
Experiment. (Yoshisaki et al., 2004 [17]) ................................................................ 45 
Figure 2.52: Deformed Experimental Pipeline (Yoshizaki et al., 2004 [17]) ............................... 45 
Figure 2.53: Deformed Pipeline – Finite Element Analysis Results ............................................ 46 
Figure 2.54: Pipeline Deformation: Comparison between the Numerical Model and Test Results
.................................................................................................................................. 46 
Figure 2.55: Strain Distribution at the Cross-section of the Connection between the Elbow and
the Straight Pipe Segment (Section A-A) – Comparison between the Numerical
Model and Test Results ............................................................................................ 47 
Figure 2.56: Strain Distribution at the Cross-Section of the Elbow (Section B-B) – Comparison
between the Numerical Model and Test Results ...................................................... 47 
Figure 2.57: Soil Deformation of Moist Sand (Experimental Results – Y=0.9 D) [41] ............... 50 
Figure 2.58: Soil Deformation of Moist Sand (FE Results – Y=0.9 D) ....................................... 50 
Figure 2.59: Comparison between Numerical Model Results and Test Results – (NPS 16 -Moist
Sand Soil) ................................................................................................................. 51 
Figure 2.60: Comparison between Numerical Model Results and Test Results – (NPS 18 -Moist
Sand Soil) ................................................................................................................. 52 
Figure 2.61: Soil Deformation of Road Mulch (Experimental Results – Y=0.75 D) [41] ........... 53 
Figure 2.62: Soil Deformation of Road Mulch (FE Results – Y=0.9 D) ...................................... 53 
Figure 2.63: Comparison between Numerical Model Results and Test Results – Road Mulch Soil
.................................................................................................................................. 54 
Figure 2.64: Pipe Movement and Soil Displacement ................................................................... 55 
Figure 2.65: Axial Soil Force – Comparison between FEA (DEM) and ASCE 1984 / ALA 2001
.................................................................................................................................. 56 
Figure 2.66: Lateral Soil Force – Comparison between FEA (DEM) and ASCE / ALA ............. 56 
Figure 2.67: Soil Deformation of Wet Clay Soil .......................................................................... 57 
Figure 4.1:  Illustration of the SPH FE Model Including the Pipe-Side View ............................ 65 
Figure 4.2:  Illustration of the SPH FE Model: Lateral Ground Movement ................................ 66 
Figure 4.3:  Illustration of the SPH FE Model: Ground Movement at Crossing Angle of 45o .. 66 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies vii
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 4.4:  True Stress-Strain Curves for X70 (483 MPa) Materials ......................................... 67 
Figure 4.5:  Photo of Carson Sink Soil (NASA 2008) ................................................................. 69 
Figure 4.6:  Volume Strain vs. Mean Stress (NASA 2008) ......................................................... 69 
Figure 4.7:  Line 1 - Pipe Deformation & Axial Strain (Blue Compressive and Red is Tensile)
For Case1: Soil Movement of 4.9 m & Width=10 m .............................................. 71 
Figure 4.8:  Line 1 - Pipe Deformation & Axial Strain (Blue Compressive and Red is Tensile)
For Case2: Soil Movement of 4.9 m & Width=20 m .............................................. 71 
Figure 4.9:  Line 1 - Pipe Deformation & Axial Strain (Blue Compressive and Red is Tensile)
For Case3: Soil Movement of 4.9 m & Width=40 m .............................................. 72 
Figure 4.10: Line 1 - Ground Movement Profiles at Different Levels of Soil Movement for
Case2: W=20 m ........................................................................................................ 72 
Figure 4.11: Line 1 - Pipe Movement Profiles at Different Levels of Soil Movement for Case2:
W=20 m .................................................................................................................... 73 
Figure 4.12: Line 1 - Axial Strain & Pipe and Ground Movement Profiles for Case1: W=10 m
Considering Soil Movement of 1.93 m .................................................................... 73 
Figure 4.13: Line 1 - Axial Strain & Pipe and Ground Movement Profiles for Case2: W=20 m
Considering Soil Movement of 1.93 m .................................................................... 74 
Figure 4.14: Line 1 - Axial Strain & Pipe and Ground Movement Profiles for Case3: W=40 m
Considering Soil Movement of 1.93 m .................................................................... 74 
Figure 4.15: Line 1 - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement Widths: [5 - 50m] .. 77 
Figure 4.16: Maximum Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement: Widths [5-50 m]
.................................................................................................................................. 78 
Figure 4.17: Line 1 - Safety Envelopes: Tensile Strain Limit ...................................................... 79 
Figure 4.18: Line 1 - Safety Envelopes: Compressive Strain Limit ............................................. 80 
Figure 4.19: Line 2 - Ground Movement Profiles at Different Levels of Soil Movement for
Case2: W=20 m ........................................................................................................ 81 
Figure 4.20: Line 2 - Pipe Movement Profiles at Different Levels of Soil Movement for Case2:
W=20 m .................................................................................................................... 82 
Figure 4.21: Line 2 - Axial Strain & Pipe and Ground Movement Profiles for Case3: W=15 m
Considering Soil Movement of 1.93 m .................................................................... 82 
Figure 4.22: Line 2 - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement Widths: [5-50 m] ... 85 
Figure 4.23: Line 2 - Maximum Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement: Widths
[5-50 m] .................................................................................................................... 85 
Figure 4.24: Line 2 - Safety Envelopes: Tensile Strain Limit ...................................................... 87 
Figure 4.25: Line 2 - Safety Envelopes: Compressive Strain Limit ............................................. 87 
Figure 4.26: Typical type of Subsidence Associated with Underground Coal Mining (Bauer and
Hunt, 1982; USGS 2008) ......................................................................................... 89 
Figure 4.27: Longwall Mining Subsidence Parameters (New South Wales Coal Association) ... 90 
Figure 4.28: Graph for Subsidence Factor (NCB-1975) ............................................................... 91 
Figure 4.30: Illustration of the FE Model: Subsidence ................................................................. 93 
Figure 4.31: Illustration of the Model Including the Pipe-Side View and Backfill Trench ......... 93 
Figure 4.31: Predicted Subsidence Profile from the Maximum Deflection Point and Longitudinal
Soil Displacement and Tensile Strain in the Soil ..................................................... 96 
Figure 4.32: Comparison of Subsidence Profiles Predicted by FE Model and Empirical Method
(NCB Method, Appalachian Method) for Subcritical Panel Extraction Width........ 96 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies viii
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 4.33: Comparison of Subsidence Profiles Predicted by FE Model and Empirical Method
(NCB Method, Appalachian Method) for Critical Panel Extraction Width ............. 97 
Figure 4.34: Comparison of Subsidence Profiles Predicted by FE Model and Empirical Method
(NCB Method), for Super-Critical Extraction Width ............................................... 97 
Figure 4.35: Surface Subsidence and Pipeline Deformation, for Case2: Subcritical Extraction
Width, W/H=0.75 ..................................................................................................... 98 
Figure 4.36: Soil Subsidence and Pipeline Deformation, for Case2: Critical Extraction Width,
W/H=1.5 ................................................................................................................... 98 
Figure 4.37: Soil Subsidence and Pipeline Deformation, for Case3: Super-Critical Extraction
Width, W/H=3 .......................................................................................................... 99 
Figure 4.38: Surface Subsidence, Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for Subcritical
Extraction Width (W/H=0.75) – Case1a (D/T= 120) ............................................... 99 
Figure 4.39: Surface Subsidence, Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for Subcritical
Extraction Width (W/H=0.75) – Case1a (D/T= 96) ............................................... 100 
Figure 4.40: Surface Subsidence, Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for Critical
Extraction Width (W/H=1.5) - Case2a (D/T=120)................................................. 100 
Figure 4.41: Surface Subsidence, Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for Critical
Extraction Width (W/H=1.5) - Case2b (D/T=96) .................................................. 101 
Figure 4.42: Surface Subsidence Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for Super
Critical Extraction Width (W/H=3) - Case3a (D/T=120)....................................... 101 
Figure 4.43: Surface Subsidence Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for Super
Critical Extraction Width (W/H=3) - Case3b (D/T=96) ........................................ 102 
Figure 4.44: Pit Subsidence – Pipe Deflection ........................................................................... 103 
Figure 4.45: Predicted Pipeline Profile and Maximum Tensile Strains in the Pipe for Pit
Subsidence of 2.05 M ............................................................................................. 103 
Figure 4.46: Peak Pipe Displacement in Relation to Pit Subsidence .......................................... 104 
Figure 4.47: Maximum Tensile Strains in the Pipe in Relation to Pit Subsidence (Left) and
Vertical Pipe Deflection (Right) ............................................................................. 104 
Figure 5.1: (a) Penalty-Based Particle-Particle Interaction in LS-DYNA and (b) Possible
Collision States for Mechanical Contact [43, 45] .................................................. 106 
Figure 5.2: True Stress-Strain Curves for X52 and X70 (359 and 483 MPa) Materials ............ 107 
Figure 5.3: Subsidence Profile Pattern, W =200 ft (61 m) - H/W = 0.5, 1.5 and 3 .................... 108 
Figure 5.4: Subsidence Profile Pattern, W = 400 ft (122 m) - H/W = 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ................. 108 
Figure 5.5: Subsidence Profile Pattern, W = 600 ft (182 m) - H/W = 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ................. 109 
Figure 5.6: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for W = 61m (200 Ft) and Ground Subsidence of
4 M (13 Ft) (Top View –Soil Above the Pipe is Hidden) ...................................... 110 
Figure 5.7: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for W = 61 m (200 Ft) and Ground Subsidence
of 4 M (13 Ft) (Top View – Soil Above the Pipe is Hidden) ................................. 111 
Figure 5.8: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H = 0.5 and Soil
Settlement of 4 m.................................................................................................... 111 
Figure 5.9: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W =61 m
(200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3........................................................................... 113 
Figure 5.10: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W =61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ....................................... 113 
Figure 5.11: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W =61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ....................................... 114 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies ix

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 5.12: Pipe Deformation and Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft (61
m), W/H = 0.5, 1.5 and 3 for Surface Settlement of 4 m ....................................... 114 
Figure 5.13: Pipe Deformation and Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft (61m),
W/h = 0.5, 1.5 and 3 for Surface Settlement of 4 m (Top View – Soil above the pipe
is hidden) ................................................................................................................ 115 
Figure 5.14: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Pipe Displacing vs. Soil Settlement of 4m .............................. 116 
Figure 5.15: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H = 0.5 and Soil
Settlement of 4 m.................................................................................................... 116 
Figure 5.16: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H = 1.5 and Soil
Settlement of 4 m.................................................................................................... 117 
Figure 5.17: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H = 3 and Soil
Settlement of 4 m.................................................................................................... 117 
Figure 5.9: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft)
for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m .......................... 119 
Figure 5.10: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W =61 m,
200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m .............. 119 
Figure 5.11: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5] ............................................................................. 120 
Figure 5.12: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5] ............................................................................. 121 
Figure 5.13: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3] ................................................................................ 121 
Figure 5.14: NPS 24 (D/t=96) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (Negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5] ......................................... 122 
Figure 5.15: NPS 24 (D/t=96) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (Negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5] ......................................... 122 
Figure 5.16: NPS 24 (D/t=96) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (Negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3] ............................................ 123 
Figure 5.17: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W = 61 m
(200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3........................................................................... 124 
Figure 5.18: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W = 122 m
(400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3........................................................................... 125 
Figure 5.19: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W = 183 m
(600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3........................................................................... 125 
Figure 5.20: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W = 61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ...................................... 126 
Figure 5.21: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W = 122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 .................................... 126 
Figure 5.22: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W = 183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 .................................... 127 
Figure 5.23: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W = 61 m, 200
ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m ..................... 128 
Figure 5.24: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W = 122 m, 400
ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m ..................... 128 
Figure 5.25: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W = 183 m, 600
ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m ..................... 129 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies x

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 5.26: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W =61 m,
200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m .............. 130 
Figure 5.27: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W = 122
m, 400 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m ......... 130 
Figure 5.28: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W = 183
m, 600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m ......... 131 
Figure 5.29: NPS 24 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence
Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h= 0.5 ..................................................................... 133 
Figure 5.30: NPS 24 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence
Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h= 1.5 ..................................................................... 133 
Figure 5.31: NPS 24 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence
Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h= 3 ........................................................................ 134 
Figure 5.32: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 at 6 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H =
0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m ............................................................................... 134 
Figure 5.33: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 at 12 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H =
0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m ............................................................................... 135 
Figure 5.34: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5] ............................................................................. 136 
Figure 5.35: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5] ............................................................................. 136 
Figure 5.36: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5] ............................................................................. 137 
Figure 5.37: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5] ............................................................................. 137 
Figure 5.38: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3] ................................................................................ 138 
Figure 5.39: NPS 24 (D/t=48) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3] ............................................. 138 
Figure 5.40: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5] .......................................... 139 
Figure 5.41: NPS 24 (D/t=48) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5] .......................................... 139 
Figure 5.42: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5] .......................................... 140 
Figure 5.43: NPS 24 (D/t=48) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5] .......................................... 140 
Figure 5.44: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3] ............................................. 141 
Figure 5.45: NPS 24 (D/t=48) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3] ............................................. 141 
Figure 5.46: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W
=61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ............................................................... 143 
Figure 5.47: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W
=61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ............................................................... 143 
Figure 5.48: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W
=122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ............................................................. 144 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies xi

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 5.49: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W
=122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ............................................................. 144 
Figure 5.50: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W
=183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ............................................................. 145 
Figure 5.51: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W
=183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ............................................................. 145 
Figure 5.52: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W =61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ....................................... 146 
Figure 5.53: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W =61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ....................................... 146 
Figure 5.54: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W =122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ..................................... 147 
Figure 5.55: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W =122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ..................................... 147 
Figure 5.56: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W =183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ..................................... 148 
Figure 5.57: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W =183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3 ..................................... 148 
Figure 5.58: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 ........................................................................................................................... 149 
Figure 5.59: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m ....................................................................................................................... 149 
Figure 5.60: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =122 m, 400 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m ....................................................................................................................... 150 
Figure 5.61: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =122 m, 400 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m ....................................................................................................................... 150 
Figure 5.62: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =183 m, 600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m ....................................................................................................................... 151 
Figure 5.63: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =183 m, 600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m ....................................................................................................................... 151 
Figure 5.64: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0,
3.5 and 4.0 m ........................................................................................................ 152 
Figure 5.65: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft) for Ground settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5
and 4.0 m ............................................................................................................. 152 
Figure 5.66: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W =122 m, 400 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0,
3.5 and 4.0 m .......................................................................................................... 153 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies xii
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 5.67: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft) for Ground settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5
and 4.0 m ............................................................................................................. 153 
Figure 5.68: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W = 183 m, 600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0,
3.5 and 4.0 m .......................................................................................................... 154 
Figure 5.69: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W =183 m, 600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0,
3.5 and 4.0 m .......................................................................................................... 154 
Figure 5.70: NPS 24 (D/t=96) – Maximum Axial Strain Versus Ground Settlement for Ground
Subsidence Width of 61 m (200 ft) –Temperature Effect ...................................... 155 
Figure 5.71: NPS 24 (D/t=96) – Sum of the Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain versus
Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence Width of 61 m (200 ft) – Pressure Effect
................................................................................................................................ 156 
Figure 5.72: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Pipe Axial Strain Due to Ground Settlement for
Ground Subsidence Width of 61 m (200 ft) – Pressure Effect ............................... 157 
Figure 5.73: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of the Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain versus
Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence Width of 61 m (200 ft) – Pressure Effect
................................................................................................................................ 157 
Figure 5.83: NPS 12 – Maximum Axial Strain Versus Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence
Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 0.5 .................................................................... 159 
Figure 5.84: NPS 12 – Maximum Axial Strain Versus Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence
Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 1.5 .................................................................... 160 
Figure 5.85: NPS 12 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground subsidence
Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 3 ....................................................................... 160 
Figure 5.86: Total Axial Strains in NPS 12 at 6 o’clock position for W = 200 ft (61m), W/H =
0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m ............................................................................... 161 
Figure 5.87: Total Axial Strains in NPS 12 at 12 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61m), W/H =
0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m ............................................................................... 161 
Figure 5.88: Total Axial Strains in NPS 12 at 12 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61m), W/H =
0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m ............................................................................... 162 
Figure 5.89: NPS 18 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence
Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 0.5 .................................................................... 164 
Figure 5.90: NPS 18 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence
Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 1.5 .................................................................... 165 
Figure 5.91: NPS 18 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence
Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 3 ....................................................................... 165 
Figure 5.92: NPS 18 – Sum of Tensile and Compressive Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement
for Ground Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 0.5.............................. 166 
Figure 5.93: NPS 18 – Sum of Tensile and Compressive Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement
for Ground Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 1.5.............................. 166 
Figure 5.94: NPS 18 – Sum of Tensile and Compressive Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement
for Ground Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 3................................. 167 
Figure 5.95: Total Axial Strains in NPS 18 at 6 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H =
0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4m ................................................................................ 167 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies xiii
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 5.96: Total Axial Strains in NPS 18 at 12 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H =
0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m ............................................................................... 168 
Figure 5.97: Total Axial Strains in NPS 18 at 12 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H =
0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m ............................................................................... 168 
Figure 6.1: Ground Movement Pattern n=2 ................................................................................ 173 
Figure 6.2: Ground Movement Pattern n=0.1 ............................................................................. 173 
Figure 6.3: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for W= 20 m and Soil Movement of 3 m (Top
View – Soil above the pipe is hidden) .................................................................... 175 
Figure 6.4: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W= 20 m and Soil Movement of 3 m . 175 
Figure 6.5: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement Widths:
[10-100 m] .............................................................................................................. 176 
Figure 6.6: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m] ............................................................................................... 177 
Figure 6.7: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m] ............................................................................................... 177 
Figure 6.8: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement ..................... 178 
Figure 6.9: NPS 24(D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain vs. Ground Movement for the Critical
Widths of 20 m (66 ft) ............................................................................................ 179 
Figure 6.10: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 1m, 2 m and 3 m
(Top View) ............................................................................................................. 180 
Figure 6.11: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of 0.5,
1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m ............................................................................................... 182 
Figure 6.12: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements .......... 182 
Figure 6.13: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil Movement of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m). ...................................................................................... 183 
Figure 6.14: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements . 184 
Figure 6.15: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W) ............................................................. 185 
Figure 6.16: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W) ................................... 185 
Figure 6.17: NPS 24 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the Critical Widths
of 20 m (66 ft)......................................................................................................... 187 
Figure 6.18: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe Versus Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m] ............................................................................................... 188 
Figure 6.19: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe versus Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m] ............................................................................. 188 
Figure 6.20: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe versus
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m] ................................................................ 189 
Figure 6.21: NPS 24 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the Critical Widths
of 20 m (33 ft)......................................................................................................... 189 
Figure 6.22: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 1 m, 2 m and 3 m
(Top View) ............................................................................................................. 190 
Figure 6.23: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement .. 191 
Figure 6.24: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of 0.5,
1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m. .............................................................................................. 192 
Figure 6.25: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements .......... 192 
Figure 6.26: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil Movement of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m) ....................................................................................... 193 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies xiv
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 6.27: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements . 194 
Figure 6.28: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W) ............................................................. 195 
Figure 6.29: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W) ................................... 195 
Figure 6.30: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) ............................................................................... 196 
Figure 6.31: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Pipe Displacement versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) ............................................................................... 197 
Figure 6.32: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X70) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m] ............................................................................................... 198 
Figure 6.33: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X70) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m] ............................................................................................... 198 
Figure 6.34: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X70) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m] ............................................................................. 199 
Figure 6.35: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X70) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement .......... 199 
Figure 6.36: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of 0.5,
1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m, Material Grade X70 ............................................................. 201 
Figure 6.37: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements Material
Grade X70 .............................................................................................................. 201 
Figure 6.38: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes (X70) versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m), Grade X70............................................. 202 
Figure 6.39: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements.
Grade X70 .............................................................................................................. 203 
Figure 6.40: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W), Grade X70 .......................................... 204 
Figure 6.41: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W), Grade X70 ............... 204 
Figure 6.42: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) –Temperature Effect ............................................. 205 
Figure 6.43: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Pipe Displacement vs. Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) –Temperature Effect, Grade X52 ......................... 206 
Figure 6.44: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) –Pressure Effect .................................................... 207 
Figure 6.45: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of the Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain versus
Ground Movement for the Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Pressure Effect........ 208 
Figure 6.46: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Pipe Displacement vs. Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Temperature Effect, Grade X52 ........................ 208 
Figure 6.47: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 2.5 m (Top View)
– 0.72 SMYS Pressure (No Wrinkle observed)...................................................... 209 
Figure 6.48: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 2.5 m (Top View)
– 0.50 SMYS Pressure (Wrinkle observed, Amplitude = 8 mm) ........................... 209 
Figure 6.49: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 2.5 m (Top View)
–0.36 SMYS Pressure (Wrinkle observed, Amplitude = 28 mm) .......................... 210 
Figure 6.50: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100m] ................................................................................................ 211 
Figure 6.51: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Local Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs.
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m] ................................................................ 212 
Figure 6.52: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs.
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m] ................................................................ 212 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies xv

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 6.53: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of 0.5,
1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m Operating Pressure 36% SMYS ........................................... 213 
Figure 6.54: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements .......... 213 
Figure 6.55: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements
of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m Operating Pressure 36% SMYS ................................ 214 
Figure 6.56: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements . 214 
Figure 6.57: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W), (Pressure is 36% SMYS) ................... 215 
Figure 6.58: Compressive Strain Demand versus Width (W), (Pressure is 36% SMYS) .......... 215 
Figure 6.59: Soil Movement Patterns, Width W=10m, and 20 m .............................................. 216 
Figure 6.60: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 2 m and W=20 m
(Top View), n=2 ..................................................................................................... 216 
Figure 6.61: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 2 m and W=20 m
(Top View), n=0.1 .................................................................................................. 217 
Figure 6.62: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain vs. Ground Movement for the Critical
Widths of 20 m (66 ft) ............................................................................................ 218 
Figure 6.63: NPS 24 (D/t=64) –Maximum Axial Strain vs. Ground Movement for the Critical
Widths of 20 m (66 ft) and 10 m (33ft) .................................................................. 218 
Figure 6.64: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m], n = 0.1 .................................................................................. 220 
Figure 6.65: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Local Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs.
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m], n = 0.1................................................... 220 
Figure 6.66: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs.
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m], n = 0.1................................................... 221 
Figure 6.67: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of 0.5,
1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m, n = 0.1 .................................................................................. 221 
Figure 6.68: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements, n = 0.1
................................................................................................................................ 222 
Figure 6.69: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements
of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m, n = 0.1....................................................................... 222 
Figure 6.70: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements, n =
0.1 ........................................................................................................................... 223 
Figure 6.71: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W), n = 0.1 ................................................ 223 
Figure 6.72: Compressive Strain Demand versus Width (W), (n = 0.1) .................................... 224 
Figure 6.73: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain vs. Ground Movement for the Critical
Widths of 20 m (66 ft) ............................................................................................ 225 
Figure 6.74: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of the Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain versus
Ground Movement for the Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) –Burial Depth Effect . 225 
Figure 6.75: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Pipe Displacement vs. Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Temperature Effect, Grade X52 ........................ 226 
Figure 6.76: Pipe and Soil Deformation for Maximum Soil Movement of 3 m ......................... 227 
Figure 6.77 Pipe and Soil Deformation for Maximum Soil Movement of 3 m Considering Slope
of 16 Deg. ............................................................................................................... 227 
Figure 6.78: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe versus Ground Movement Widths:
[10-100 m] .............................................................................................................. 228 
Figure 6.79: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe versus Ground Movement Widths:
[10-100 m] .............................................................................................................. 228 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies xvi
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
Figure 6.80: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) ............................................................................... 229 
Figure 6.81: NPS 24 (D/t=64) –Maximum Pipe Displacement versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) ............................................................................... 229 
Figure 6.82: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of 0.5,
1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m, Material Grade X70 ............................................................. 230 
Figure 6.83: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements, Grade
X52 ......................................................................................................................... 231 
Figure 6.84: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes (X70) versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m), Grade X70............................................. 232 
Figure 6.85: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements,
Grade X52 .............................................................................................................. 233 
Figure 6.86: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W), Grade X52 .......................................... 234 
Figure 6.87: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W), Grade X52 ............... 234 
Figure 6.88: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Soil 1 and 2 ........................................................ 235 
Figure 6.89: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of Maximum Axial Compressive and Tensile Strains versus
Ground Movement for the Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Soil 1 and 2 ............. 236 
Figure 6.90: Pipe Soil Deformation Left (sand), Right clay (soil displacement 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3
m) ............................................................................................................................ 237 
Figure 6.91: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Friction 0.32, 0.56 and 0.72............................... 239 
Figure 6.92: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of the Maximum Axial Tensile and Compressive Strains
versus Ground Movement for the Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Friction 0.32,
0.56 and 0.72 .......................................................................................................... 239 
Figure 6.93: NPS 12 (D/t =71, 51 and 34) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement
for the Critical Widths of 10 m (33 ft) ................................................................... 241 
Figure 6.94: NPS 12 (D/t =71, 51 and 34) – Sum of Maximum Axial Tensile and Compressive
Strain versus Ground Movement for the Critical Widths of 10 m (33 ft) .............. 242 
Figure 6.95: NPS 12 (D/t =71, 51 and 34) – Maximum Pipe Displacement versus Ground
Movement for the Critical Widths of 10 m (33 ft) ................................................. 242 
Figure 6.96: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 3 m and W=10 m
(Top View) ............................................................................................................. 244 
Figure 6.97: NPS 30 (D/t = 96) - Maximum Tensile Strains in the Pipe versus Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m] ............................................................................................... 246 
Figure 6.98: NPS 30 (D/t = 96) - Maximum Compressive Strains in the Pipe versus Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m] ............................................................................. 246 
Figure 6.99: NPS 30 (D/t = 80) - Maximum Tensile Strains in the Pipe versus Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100m] ................................................................................................ 247 
Figure 6.100: NPS 30 (D/t = 80) - Maximum Compressive Strains in the Pipe versus Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m] ............................................................................. 247 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies xvii
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1:  Summary of Axial Pullout Tests (UBC Test)............................................................. 7 
Table 2.2:  Soil Parameters (UBC Test) ....................................................................................... 8 
Table 2.3:   Summary of Axial Pullout Tests 24-inch Polyethylene Wrapped Pipe ................... 11 
Table 2.4:  Natural Soil Parameters ............................................................................................ 12 
Table 2.5:  Soil Parameters (UBC Test) ..................................................................................... 17 
Table 2.6:  Soil Parameters (UBC Test) ..................................................................................... 30 
Table 2.7:  Material Properties of “Lebanon Sand” ................................................................... 38 
Table 2.8: Summary Parameters for Pipe-Soil Test Cases [41].................................................... 49 
Table 2.9: Summary Parameters for DEM Model ........................................................................ 57 
Table 3.1:  Maximum Allowable Compressive Strain Calculated According to CSA Z662-11 60 
Table 3.2:  Compressive Strain Limits Calculated According to PRCI ..................................... 62 
Table 3.3:  Compressive Strain Limits for Plain Pipe Calculated According to PRCI .............. 62 
Table 3.4:  Tensile Strain Limits: (a=0.5, 1 and 2 mm, 2c=50 mm, CTOD=0.05 mm) ............. 63 
Table 4.1:  Input Parameters ....................................................................................................... 64 
Table 4.2:  Input Parameters Used for the Analyses .................................................................. 67 
Table 4.3:  Soil Material Model Properties Used in the Continuum Model ............................... 68 
Table 4.4:  Line 1 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Tensile Strain Capacity ............ 78 
Table 4.5:  Line 1 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Compressive Strain Capacity -
CS-Z662 ................................................................................................................... 78 
Table 4.6:  Line 1 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Compressive Strain Capacity -
PRCI -2004 ............................................................................................................... 79 
Table 4.7:  Line 2 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Tensile Strain Capacity ............ 86 
Table 4.8:  Line 2 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Compressive Strain Capacity -
CS-Z662 ................................................................................................................... 86 
Table 4.9:  Line 2 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Compressive Strain Capacity -
PRCI-2004 ................................................................................................................ 86 
Table 5.1: Maximum Allowable Tensile and Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=6.35mm,
D/t=96, Grade X52 ................................................................................................. 118 
Table 5.2: Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain [%] for NPS 24, W =200 ft (61 m) –Effect
of D/t (Settlement of 4m) ....................................................................................... 132 
Table 5.3: Maximum Allowable Tensile and Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=12.7 mm,
D/t=48, Grade X52 ................................................................................................. 142 
Table 5.4: Maximum Allowable Tensile/Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=9.52 mm, D/t=64,
Grade X52 .............................................................................................................. 142 
Table 5.5: Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain [%] for NPS 12, W =200 ft (61 m) –Effect
of D/t ....................................................................................................................... 159 
Table 5.6: Maximum Tensile/Compressive Strain [%] for NPS 18, W =200 ft (61 m) – Effect of
D/t ........................................................................................................................... 164 
Table 6.1: Maximum Allowable Tensile/Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=9.52 mm, D/t=64,
Grade X52 .............................................................................................................. 181 
Table 6.2: Maximum Allowable Tensile/Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=6.35mm, D/t=96,
Grade X52 .............................................................................................................. 191 
Table 6.3: Maximum Allowable Tensile/Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=9.52mm, D/t=64,
Grade X70 .............................................................................................................. 200 

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies xviii
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ALA American Lifelines Alliance
ARA Applied Research Associates
BMT BMT Fleet Technology
ASPIReTM Advanced Soil-Pipe Interaction Research
CEV Crew Exploration Vehicle
CSC Compressive Strain Capacity
CSCE Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes
DEM Discrete Element Method
FE Finite Element
GSC Geological Survey of Canada
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
MM-ALE Multi-material Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian
MOP Maximum Operation Pressure
NCB National Coal Board
NCS Natural Clayed Soil
NPS Nominal Pipe Size
PGD Permanent Ground Deformation
PRCI Pipeline Research Council International
RF Resistance Factor
SDE Strain Demand Envelopes
SPH Smooth Particle Hydrodynamic
TSCE Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes
UBC University of British Columbia
UofA University of Alberta
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
W/h Width to depth ratio
Y/T Yield to Tensile

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies xix
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

1 INTRODUCTION
This submission serves as the Project Final Report to DOT PHMSA for Project DTPH56-14-H-
00008, "Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies". This
report covers the completion of the project consolidating the result of the preceding tasks.

The project results were previously reported in several interim reports describing the modelling
tools, data, process and results for pipeline subsidence and soil movements across the pipeline.

The project developed engineering data or a tool for government, operators and technology
providers to consider the effects of operational and geotechnical loads on liquid and gas pipeline
systems to support decision making regarding threat severity or repair scheduling. This work
employed the BMT Fleet Technology (BMT) pipe soil interaction model that has been developed
to consider operational conditions in the presence of the loads and restraint applied to a pipeline
system by surrounding soil and geotechnical factors. The BMT LS-DYNA based 3D continuum
pipe soil interaction model was developed and validated [33] and been shown to be capable of
simulating small- and full-scale lab trials as well as operational incidents [23, 24, 25]. The
improved predictive capability of this modeling approach over traditional soil spring based
modeling has been demonstrated in the validation process [21, 24, 25]. Based upon these results,
strains developed for various ground movements, in the presence of thermal and pressure loads,
have been defined and initial work towards the development of empirical engineering tools for
geotechnical strain based design and assessment tools has commenced [34]. Figure 1.1 illustrates
an application considering the localized movement of light colored soil down the slope along the
pipe axis resulting in soil mounding and pipe deformation. As illustrated, the model can consider
a range of soil movements including a traditional rotational slip and the planar soil movement.
By simultaneously considering the soil and pipeline the BMT model can define the relationship
between interrelating parameters including pipe-to-wall-thickness ratio, D/t; operating conditions
(e.g., operating pressure and temperature); material grade; and, geotechnical loading (e.g., soil
displacements and restraint) to peak tensile and compression strains. This, in turn, is used to
identify the soil displacement associated with onset of buckling/wrinkling or girth weld fault
tensile failure. The results below and others demonstrate that the soil displacement and pipe
strain relationship is affected by pipe geometry, soil type and condition (drained, undrained),
pipe coating (friction), internal pressure (pipe stiffness), pipe burial depth, slope inclination and
the movement scenario.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 1

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 1.1: Pipe soil interaction Model Application Sample Results

These results, being generated in an ongoing project, relate the geotechnical event, soil, pipe and
pipeline operating conditions to tensile and compressive strains produced for soil movements
along the axis of the pipe. The BMT pipe-soil interaction model has been used for individual
evaluations of soil displacements lateral to the pipe and subsidence, but trends in these behaviors
have not been explored. Work by others, using large elements or soil spring representations, have
explored lateral soil movements [35] and subsidence [36]; however, their results have been
limited by their formulations to uniaxial soil response and small displacements.

1.1 Project Objective

The objective of this project was to use BMT’s previously validated pipe soil interaction model to
develop an engineering tool to define the effects of operational and geotechnical loads on liquid
and gas pipeline systems to support decision making regarding threat severity or repair
scheduling. This tool could be incorporated in strain based design and assessment to facilitate
the consideration of complex loading scenarios inducing significant flexural loads, including
pipeline subsidence and ground movements inducing lateral pipeline movements. The results of
this project will define the local nominal strain state that can be used to assess localized
anomalies / defects (e.g., corrosion, cracks, dents, weld faults, gouges, etc.) or the potential for
the formation of a wrinkle or buckle.
This project will support the development of pipeline standards and best practice guides by
helping them take a step forward in rapid assessment of the combination of geotechnical and
operational loads for a range of pipe materials and geometries. Previous work related to
geotechnical design has focused primarily on qualitative issues and assessments [37, 38], while
this approach will permit geotechnical hazard assessment to be unified with existing anomaly
assessments employed across the pipeline industry. The results generated will support pipeline
integrity and thus prevent environmental damage that can be associated with pipeline failures.
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 2

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

2 MODEL & VALIDATION

2.1 Task 2: Scope of Work
The task objective, approach and results were outlined in the project proposal, and are repeated
here for reference.

The objective of this task was to document the existing model validation to assure confidence in
the simulation tool. To this end, finite element based modeling techniques and tools, previously
developed at BMT were to be documented, including descriptions of the validations completed.
The validation cases to be presented were to include comparison with full-scale lab trials for pipe
loading in the axial and transverse directions. The validations consider the effects of pipe
geometry, coating type, soil type, moisture and compaction and loading direction relative to the
pipe, amongst other factors in the prediction of pipe displacements, loads and strains. Further,
comparative analysis results illustrating the ability of the model to simulate observed pipeline
responses to ground movements were to be presented. This task was to draw from previously
completed work to provide the Client with access to the details of the tools that will be used in
this project and their ability to simulate reality. No new validation work was planned. This task
was to focus on assembling and documenting the BMT work previously completed.

The expected result of this task was the production of a model validation report describing the
numerical model that will support this project and its capabilities as a simulation tool. This
report represents the task deliverable.

2.2 Finite Element Model Description

2.2.1 Introduction
Soil-pipe interaction numerical simulation requires large deformation analysis capability; this
requirement is difficult to meet for Lagrangian-based codes. LS-DYNA [1] offers the possibility
to use continuum Multi-material Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (MM-ALE) finite element model
and continuum Smooth Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) capabilities for modeling materials that
undergo large deformations.

In this study, the soil-pipe interaction under soil movement is investigated with particular
attention to both the soil constitutive model and the use of the LS-DYNA MM-ALE and SPH
modeling technique. The results are compared with published experimental data of large-scale
tests to verify the numerical analysis method adopted.

2.2.2 Continuum Multi-Material ALE Model

LS-DYNA 971[1] explicit, was used to produce a 3D Continuum model using the MM-ALE
method. The MM-ALE formulation is an improved formulation of the basic ALE technique,
which allows multiple materials to exist within each solid element and permits the material flow
from one element to another. The Eulerian method first performs a purely Lagrangian step
avection that must occur between adjacent elements to restore the mesh to its initial Eulerian
configuration. The Lagrangian coupling allows structural elements to be placed within the
Eulerian mesh. Interaction between the Eulerian elements (i.e. fluid, soil) and structural elements
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 3

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Lagrangian (i.e. pipe) is handled via constraint formulation referred to as “Constrained Lagrange
in Solid”, Souli, et al.,[2].

2.2.3 Continuum SPH Mode

LS-DYNA 971[1] explicit, was used to produce a 3D continuum model using the SPH method.
The SPH method utilizes a meshless Lagrangian method to represent soils. The method does not
require element meshing (mesh-less) and can handle extreme material distortion. In the SPH
method, the soil material is treated as particles that have their masses smoothed in space. The
coupling between the SPH grid points (soil) and the pipe is accomplished through a normal
Lagrangian contact definition.

2.2.4 Soil Material

Soil materials have pronounced non-linear behavior and correct numerical simulation requires
sophisticated constitutive models. In this study, a soil and foam constitutive model was used.

2.2.4.1 Soil and Foam Model

One of the classical geomaterial models is that attributed to Drucker and Prager (1952) and has
the stress invariant for:

J 2  J 1  k  3P  k

in which α and k are material constants related to friction and cohesion of the material,
respectively. J1 is the first invariant (J1 = 3P) and for triaxial loading, i.e. σ3 = σ2 and all shear
stresses are zero, then the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor is defined as:

1
J 2' 
6
 
 11   22 2   22   33 2   33   11 2   232   312   122
1
  1   3 
2

3
3 J 2'   1   3   SD

Where SD is the stress difference, 1 is the axial stress, 3 the lateral stress and i,j are the shear
stresses.

The Soil and Foam Model is the most basic of the geomaterial models available in LS-DYNA. It
is also the oldest and therefore, has had a considerable amount of user experience and feedback,
and is thus quite robust (Schewer, 2002-[3]). The shear failure criterion for the soil and foam
model has a mean stress (pressure) dependent strength, typical of geomaterials, in the form:

J 2  a 0  a1 P  a 2 P 2

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 4

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

where P is the mean stress and coefficients a0, a1 and a2 are determined by calibrating (fitting) the
model to tri-axial compression data. The relative values of the coefficients a0, a1 and a2 determine
the shape of the shear failure envelope, elliptical for a2 less than zero, parabolic for a2 equal to
zero, and hyperbolic for a2 greater than zero.

The Soil and Foam Model will be identical to the Drucker-Prager Model with the following
parameters:
a 2  9 2
a1  6k
a0  k 2

The Soil and Foam Model requires the volumetric strains to be presented in the form of a natural
log of the relative volume, as in Figure 2.1, which is negative in compression. The other input
parameters required for the Soil and Foam Model are:

 Elastic Shear Modulus (G);

 Bulk Unloading Modulus (K); and

 Pressure Cutoff for Tensile Failure-specify a minimum (negative) value for the mean
stress for which values more negative (more tensile) indicate the material has failed in
tension; all the stress components are set to zero.

In the Soil and Foam Model, the volumetric strain must be input in the form of the natural log of
the relative volumetric strain. Since the laboratory data is reported as volumetric strain, the user
must convert the volumetric strain data to the requested natural log format. Figure 2.1 illustrates
the pressure versus volumetric strain relationship used in the model and the laboratory
hydrostatic data.

800

700

600
Volume Strain Data
Pressure, kPa

500
Ln(1-εv)
400

300 LSDYNA INPUT

200

100

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Strain

Figure 2.1: Pressure vs. Volumetric Strain

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 5

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

2.3 Validation of the SPH Model

2.3.1 Introduction
The objective of this section is to demonstrate that the response of the pipeline subjected to
abrupt ground deformation (surface faulting, lateral spreading, slope failure or landslide) can be
simulated using SPH techniques within the non-linear explicit code, LS-DYNA [1]. The soil-
pipe interaction models are validated and calibrated based on available published full-scale
experimental data including pipeline subjected to:

1. Axial ground movement

2. Abrupt ground deformations similar to surface faulting
3. Lateral ground movement

2.3.2 Finite Element Model Validation – Pipeline Subjected to Axial Ground Movement
2.3.2.1 Finite Element Analysis of Experimental Axial Pullout of Pipe Buried in Dry Sand
Karimian et al. (2009-[4]) performed large-scale tank experiments to investigate pipeline
behaviors when subjected to axial soil movements. The test program consisted of four axial tests;
the pipe loading tests were performed in a large soil chamber of 3.8 to 5.0 m (length) x 2.50 m
(width) x 2.5 m (height) at the University of British Columbia. A perspective view of the soil
chamber (box) used for the axial pullout is shown in Figure 2.2. The length of the pipeline test
specimen was longer than the length of the box so that the pipe extended through both ends of
the chamber walls. This ensured a constant soil-pipe test length and also avoided soil disturbance
at the back of the soil box during pullout. The soil parameters in Table 2.1 were derived from tri-
axial testing and reported.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 6

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.2: UBC Experimental Sand Compartment – Karimian et al., 2006

The four axial pipe pullouts were performed as summarized in Table 2.1 and 2.2. Three of the
tests (AB-3, AB-4, and AB-6) were performed in dense sand, with an average density of 1600
kg/m3 and a relative density of 75%, and one test (AB-5) was performed in medium loose sand
with an average density of 1430 kg/m3 and a relative density of 20%.

The UBC pipe (Grade A524) had an outside diameter of 457 mm (18 in) and a wall thickness of
12.7 mm (0.5 in). The pipe was buried at the overburden ratio (H/D) of 2.5 for dense sand and
(H/D) of 2.7 for medium loose sand to provide nearly the same vertical effective stress at the
pipe level for all tests. The test with dense sand was performed three times; all tests were
conducted within 24 hours after filling the box; only one test (AB-6) was performed 45 days
after preparation in order to evaluate any effect of aging (compaction) of the soil on pipe
response.

In all the test configurations, the pipe was loaded in a displacement-controlled manner. The
displacement rate varied between 2 and 50 mm/s (.08 and 2 in). Test results as reported by
Karimian et al. (2009 [8]) indicated that the loading rates had no noticeable effect on the results.

Table 2.1: Summary of Axial Pullout Tests (UBC Test)

Soil Density Time of Axial
Test H/D Soil Chamber
(Relative Density Loading After Soil
No. Ratio Length (m)
Dr %) Placement
AB-3 2.5 Dense (Dr=75%) Within 24 hours 5.0
AB-4 2.5 Dense (Dr=75%) Within 24 hours 3.8
AB-5 2.7 Loose (Dr= 20%) Within 24 hours 3.8
AB-6 2.5 Dense (Dr=75%) 45 days after 3.8

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 7

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Table 2.2: Soil Parameters (UBC Test)

Soil Type Fraser River Sand
3
Average Density 1600 kg/m – dense sand “compacted”
1430 kg/m3 – loose sand
Relative Density Dr = 75% – dense sand “compacted”
Dr = 20% – loose sand
Internal Friction Angle Peak: 460 – 430 for σ3 of 10 to 50 kPa, respectively, for dense sand
Soil-Pipe Friction Angle Dense sand: Peak = 360, Constant volume friction = 310
(shear test) Loose sand: Peak = 330, Constant volume friction = 310

In the absence of soil laboratory test data appropriate for the proposed FE work, a soil and foam
model using a two-surface plasticity model with constant shear failure surface and pressure-
volume strain (compaction) independence is used. The soil shear parameters were derived from
the available critical friction (  crit = 36º for dense sand,  crit = 33º for loose sand) and constant
cohesion, c = 0 kPa. More complex material models for soil such as a Cap model were also
considered. However, the coefficients and parameters needed for the Cap model could not be
determined given the available data.

The FE mesh used for the analysis is shown in Figure 2.3, with the same geometry as the
experimental setup. The distance between the bottom boundary and the pipe is the same for both
numerical and mesh and the tank experiment. A 3D analysis using LS-DYNA Smooth Particle
Hydrodynamic (SPH) technique was performed. The model (Figure 2.3) consists of soil particles
and pipe shell elements. The soil mass in the tank is taken to be stress free and have uniform
properties in the initial state. The load is imposed in two steps. In the first step, gravitational
acceleration is applied; sufficient time is allowed to ensure that the soil stresses reach a
stationary state. In the second step, the pipe was pulled in the axial direction by imposing
displacement boundary conditions to all nodes of the end of the pipes, hence the pipe is assumed
to be rigid. The interaction between the pipeline and the surrounding soil is modeled by
Lagrangian contact, in which slip and separation is allowed. The interface friction angle (δ)
between the sand and the steel was directly available from direct shear tests conducted by
Karimian et al. (2009-[8]). The peak δ values of 33º (tan(δ) = 0.65) and 36º (tan(δ) = 0.73) were
obtained for loose and dense sand, respectively, and a large strain value of 31º (tan(δ) = 0.6) was
obtained for both loose and dense sands.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 8

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.3: Illustration of the FE Model including the Pipe

Figure 2.4 presents a comparison of numerical and experimental force resistance versus
displacement responses for tests conducted on dense sand (AB-3 and AB-4). Note that test AB-4
was conducted with pipe length of 3.8 m (12.5 ft), whereas test AB-3 was conducted with pipe
length of 5.0 m (16.5 ft), because significant trends were not noted with respect to pipe length by
Karimian et al. (2006) [4], the test results of both pipe lengths were grouped together here.

In the experimental force displacement results, the force increased with the axial displacement, a
peak resistance load of approximately 26 kN/m was achieved at an axial displacement of 7 to 10
mm (0.3 to 0.4 in). The post-peak load approached a constant value of 20 kN/m after axial
displacement of 200 mm (8 in). The results are presented in terms of the force applied to the pipe
divided by the length of the pipe in contact with the soil (e.g., force per unit length).

The numerical modeling has a lower initial stiffness than the physical experiment. As a result,
the simulated pullout peak load occurs at approximately 25 kN/m for a pipe displacement of 10
mm (0.4 in). The load resistance dropped to 21 kN/m after an axial displacement of 200 mm (8
in). With this said, the LS-DYNA model results appear to provide a quite reasonable simulation
of the trial loads and displacements for this application.

Figure 2.5 presents a comparison of numerical and experimental force resistance versus
displacement responses for tests conducted on loose sand (AB-5). A peak load of 9.7 kN/m was
reached in the experiment after a displacement of 10 mm (0.4 in) and this value dropped to a
constant value of 8.5 kN/m after an axial displacement of 150 mm (6 in). The peak and post peak

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 9

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

forces predicted by the numerical model were 8.5 kN/m and 8.1 kN/m, respectively. These
results are in good agreement with the measured forces.

As may be noted, both measured and predicted peak loads for the loose sand test are less than
half of the peak load for dense sand tests.

30

25
Force , KN/m

20

15
Physical test- AB4 Physical test- AB3
10

5 LS-DYNA 3D Continnum

0
0 50 100 150 200
Displacement , mm

Figure 2.4: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results – Dense Sand

Figure 2.5: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results – Loose Sand

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 10

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

2.3.2.2 Finite Element Analysis of Full-Scale Axial Pullout – Field Trial for Pipe Embedded in
the Clay Backfill
Scarpelli et al. (1998 & 2003-[5] & [6]) performed in situ full-scale pullout tests to investigate
the behaviors of pipeline subjected to axial soil movements. These tests were conducted at two
sites with out-of-service pipelines, located in northern and central Italy. The pipes tested were an
8-inch coal tar coated pipe and a 24-inch polyethylene wrapped pipe. A series of four tests were
performed as follows:

1. One test performed in the original consolidated backfill (mostly silty clay), not
distributed since the pipeline’s construction more than 20 years prior to the test.

2. One test performed with the same soil excavated and loosely backfilled without
compaction.

3. One test performed with the soil around the pipe replaced by artificial granulate
(frictional material with low specific weight) for about 30-50 cm (11.8-19.7 in) above
the pipe, then covered with excavated soil.

4. One test performed in granular backfill material (gravelly soil) for about 50 cm (19.7
in) around the pipe and covered by the original soil up to ground level.

The four axial pullouts performed for the 24-inch polyethylene wrapped pipe are summarized in
Table 2.3. In all of the test configurations, the pipes were loaded in a displacement-controlled
manner.

Table 2.3: Summary of Axial Pullout Tests 24-inch Polyethylene Wrapped Pipe
Test Pipe Length Axis Depth Pipe Length Coating
No. (m) (m) (m) Thickness
G1 Gravelly soil 2.05 18.2 1 mm PE
G2 Undisturbed natural soil fill 1.95 19.6 1 mm PE
G3 Loosely backfill natural soil 1.95 19.6 1 mm PE
Artificial granulate around the pipe and
G4 1.95 19.6 1 mm PE
loosely backfilled silt and clay above

In the absence of soil laboratory test data appropriate for the proposed FE work, a soil and foam
model using a two-surface plasticity model with constant shear failure surface and pressure-
volume strain (compaction) independence is used. The soil shear parameters were derived from
the available critical friction  crit = 30º and the average undrained shear strength cu = 38 kPa.

Key soil parameters are presented in Table 2.4.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 11

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Table 2.4: Natural Soil Parameters

Soil Type Natural Soil Fill
Unit Weight 19.4 kN/m3
Undrained Strength 35 - 40 kPa
Internal Friction Angle 300 - 360
Soil-Pipe (polyethylene) Friction Peak: tanδ = 0.312
Coefficient (shear box test) Ultimate: tanδ = 0.2383
Average: tanδ = 0.275

A 3D analysis using LS-DYNA Smooth Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) technique was performed.
The modeling only simulated the G2 test conducted for the 24-inch polyethylene wrapped pipe
embedded in the natural soil (undisturbed clay). The FE mesh used for the analysis is shown in
Figure 2.6; the model (Figure 2.6) consists of soil particles and pipe shell elements. The soil
mass in the tank is taken to be stress free and have uniform properties in the initial state. The
load is imposed in two steps. In the first step, gravitational acceleration is applied; sufficient time
is allowed to ensure that the soil stresses reach a stationary state. In the second step, the pipe was
pulled in the axial direction by imposing displacement boundary conditions to all nodes at the
end of the pipes, hence the pipe is assumed to be rigid. The interaction between the pipeline and
the surrounding soil is modeled by Lagrangian contact, in which slip and separation is allowed.
The interface friction angle (δ) between natural clay soil and the polyethylene coating was
directly available from direct shear tests conducted by Scarpelli et al. (2003) [6]. A peak δ value
of 18º (tan(δ) = 0.312) and a large strain value of 13.4º (tan(δ) = 0.238).

Figure 2.6: Illustration of the FE Model including the Pipe

Figure 2.7 presents a comparison of numerical and experimental force resistance versus
displacement response for tests conducted on natural clayed soil (NCS). A peak load of 30.2
kN/m was reached in the experiment after a displacement of 3.6 mm (0.1 in) and this value drops
to a constant value of 18 kN/m after the axial displacement of 100 mm (4 in). The peak and post
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 12

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

peak forces predicted by the numerical model were 31kN/m and 21 kN/m, respectively. These
results are in good agreement with the measured forces.

35

30

25
Force , KN/m

20

15

10
Test Results LS-DYNA 3D Continnum Model
5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Displacement , mm

Figure 2.7: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results – Undisturbed Soil
Fill

2.4 Finite Element Model Validation – Pipeline Subjected to Surface Faulting

2.4.1 Finite Element Analysis of Experimental Split-Box Tests – Buried HDPE Pipeline
2.4.1.1 Large Scale Experimental Model
Large full-scale permanent ground deformations (PGD) on high density polyethylene (HDPE)
pipes were conducted by Cornell University; O’Rourke, 2008 [7]. Their results are used here to
examine the capability of the current FE analysis. The pipe loading tests were performed in two
movable basins of 6.6 m (21.65 ft) long by 3.2 m (10.5 ft) wide by 2.3 m (7.5 ft) deep. The
experimental basin of a total of 90 metric tons of partially saturated sand was displaced 1.22
relative to each other at a crossing angle of 65º as illustrated in Figure 2.8. The pipe had an
outside diameter of 407 mm (16 inch) and a wall thickness of 24 mm. The pipeline was installed
at a 0.9-m depth to the top of the pipe. The soil is partially saturated sand with 4% water
content, a dry unit weight of 15.5 KN/m3 and an average friction angle of 39 to 40 degrees. The
value of the friction angle is reported in terms of total stress because suction in moist sand
(effective stress conditions) is not measured directly. The purpose of the tests was to investigate
the performance of highly ductile pipelines subjected to abrupt ground deformations similar to
surface faulting; O’Rourke[7].

2.4.1.2 Finite Element Model

An example of the FE mesh used for the analysis is shown in Figure 2.9 with the geometry
exactly similar to the experimental setup (Figure 2.8). The distance between the bottom
boundary and the pipe is the same for both numerical and mesh and the tank experiment. A 3D
analysis using LS-DYNA SPH technique was performed to simulate the laboratory setup.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 13

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The finite element model consists of soil and pipe shell elements (Figure 2.9). The soil material
is treated as particles that have their masses smoothed in space. The pipe is modeled using
Belyschko-Tasy shell elements. The soil mass in the tank is taken to be stress free and has
uniform properties in the initial state. The load is imposed in two steps. In the first step,
gravitational acceleration is applied and sufficient time is allowed to ensure that the soil stress
reaches a stationary state. In the second step, the mobile soil box movement is applied. The
interaction between the pipe and the surrounding soil is modeled by contact in which slip and
separation are allowed. The interface friction between the pipe and soil   is assumed equal to
0.6  (   tan( 0.6 ) ).

Figure 2.8: Large-Scale Split-Box Test Basin at Cornell University NEES Equipment
Site (O’Rourke et al., 2007)

Figure 2.9: Illustration of the FE Model Including the Pipe

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 14

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

2.4.1.3 Analytical and Experimental Results

Figure 2.8 and Figure 2.10 show an overhead view of the test compartment; O’Rourke et al., [7].
Typical graphical output from the model is illustrated in Figure 2.11. The figure illustrates the
response of pipeline subjected to ground movement similar to the laboratory shear box test.
Figure 2.12 compares the deformed pipeline shape of the finite element model and the full-scale
experimental pipe. Comparison between the numerical prediction and the full-scale test results
showed that the SPH model was able to closely predict the pipe deformation.

Figure 2.10: Illustration of the FE Model including the Pipe

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 15

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.11: Deformed Pipe in Soil – FE Results

1.2
1.1
1
0.9
Deformation (m)

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Experimental SPH
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Distance from Fault (m)

Figure 2.12: Pipe Deformation: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results

2.5 Finite Element Model Validation – Pipeline Subjected to Lateral Movement

2.5.1 Large-Scale Experimental Model
Karimian et al. (2006), [4] performed large-scale tank experiments to investigate pipe behaviors
when subjected to lateral soil movements. Their results are used here to examine the capability of
the current FE analysis. The pipe loading tests were performed in a large sand chamber of 2.50 m
(8.2 ft) x 3.8 m (12.5 ft) x 2.5 m (8.2 ft) at the University of British Columbia. Figure 2.13 shows
the experimental setup. The UBC pipe had an outside diameter of 457 mm (18 in) and a wall
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 16

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

thickness of 13.0 mm (0.5 in). The pipe was buried at the overburden ratio (H/D) of 1.92. The
test was performed twice. The soil parameters in Table 2.5 were derived from tri-axial testing
and reported.

Table 2.5: Soil Parameters (UBC Test)

Parameter Units Value
Internal Friction Angle Deg. 45.5 to 43.3
Constant Volume Friction crit Deg. 32 to 34

Interface Friction Deg. 36 to 30.5

Shear Modulus MPa 3 to 12

In the absence of soil laboratory test data appropriate for the proposed FE work, a soil and foam
model using a two-surface plasticity model with a constant shear failure surface and pressure-
volume strain (compaction) independence is used. The soil shear parameters were derived from
the available critical friction (  crit = 32º) and constant cohesion, c=0 kPa. More complex material
models for soil such as a Cap model were also considered. However, the coefficients and
parameters needed for the Cap model could not be determined given the available data.

2.5.2 Finite Element Model

The FE mesh used for the analysis is shown in Figure 2.14, with the same geometry as the
experimental setup. The distance between the bottom boundary and the pipe is the same for both
numerical and mesh and the tank experiment. A 3D analysis using LS-DYNA SPH technique
was performed. The soil mass in the tank is taken to be stress free and have uniform properties in
the initial state. The load is imposed in two steps. In the first step, gravitational acceleration is
applied; sufficient time is allowed to ensure that the soil stresses reach a stationary state. In the
second step, the pipe was pulled in the lateral direction by imposing displacement boundary
conditions to all nodes of the pipes, hence the pipe is assumed to be rigid. The interaction
between the pipe and the surrounding soil is modeled by constraint Lagarangian contact, in
which slip and separation are allowed.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 17

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.13: UBC Experimental Sand Compartment – Karimian et al., 2006 [4]

Figure 2.14: Illustration of the FE Model including the Pipe

2.5.3 Analytical and Experimental Results

Typical graphical output from the SPH model is illustrated in Figure 2.15, Figure 2.16 and
Figure 2.17. Figure 2.15 and Figure 2.16 illustrate the simulated displaced position of the pipe
and the soil. The figures include soil particle velocity vectors describing the trajectory and

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 18

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

relative speed of movement of soil particles. Qualitatively, the displaced soil profile and flow
history make intuitive sense and match the observed behaviors.

Figure 2.15: SPH-FEM Simulation – Vector Velocity

Figure 2.16: SPH-FEM Simulation – Vertical Displacement

Figure 2.17 shows the shear strains with rupture or slip surface through soil in the front of the
pipe and the tensile failure zone above the pipe modeled using the SPH method. The slip and
tensile failure modes were better explained by the SPH model.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 19

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.17: SPH-FEM Simulation – Shear Failure Surface

Figure 2.18 presents the comparison of experimental and numerical force-displacement curves.
For lateral pipe movement, at H/D of 1.92, the results match the experimental data well. For both
experimental and numerical force displacement using ALE and SPH methods, the failure load is
about 50 kN/m obtained at the pipe displacement of 75 mm.

60
Load pe Unit Length (kN/m)

50
40
FEM-ALE, BMT-FTL
30
FEM-SPH, BMT FTL
20
Test 18-1.92-2
10 Test 18-1.92-1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Displacement (mm)

Figure 2.18: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 20

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

2.6 Validation of the Multi-Material-ALE Model

2.6.1 Introduction
The objective of this section is to demonstrate that the response of the pipeline subjected to
abrupt ground deformation (surface faulting, lateral spreading, slope failure or landslide) can be
simulated using MM-ALE techniques within the non-linear explicit code, LS-DYNA [1]. The
soil-pipe interaction models are validated and calibrated based on available published full-scale
experimental data, including pipeline subjected to:

1. Lateral ground movement; and

2. Abrupt ground deformations similar to slope failure or landslide.

2.7 Finite Element Model Validation – Pipeline Subjected to Lateral Ground Movement
2.7.1 Finite Element Analysis of Experimental Tank Test – Flexible Pipe
2.7.1.1 Large-Scale Experimental Model
Large full-scale lateral pullout tests on steel pipe were conducted by C-CORE 1999 [9], Paulin et
al. (1998) [10]; and Popescu et al. (2002 & 2003[11], [12] for the Geological Survey of Canada
(GSC). Their results are used here to examine the capability of the current FE analysis. The pipe
loading tests were performed in a test compartment of 2.950 m (10 ft) (W) x 6.170 m (20 ft) (L)
x1.3 m (4.3 ft) (H). Figure 2.19 and Figure 2.20 show the experimental setup profile and plan
views. The GSC pipe had an outside diameter of 203.2 mm (8 in) and a wall thickness of 3.175
mm (0.125 in) and was made from 1010 steel. The yield strength of the pipe is 260 MPa, and the
ultimate strength is about 370 MPa. The measured stress-strain behavior of the pipe steel is
presented in Figure 2.21.

Figure 2.19: Experimental Setup Test (GS01) – Profile View

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 21

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.20: Plan View

400

350

300
Stress, (Mpa)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Strain

Figure 2.21: Stress-Strain Curve (1010 Steel)

The GSC01 test was carried out using 6 m long pipe buried in dense sand, loaded laterally at its
ends, approximately 0.3 m (0.98 ft) from each end. Figure 2.25 shows the observed deformed
pipe geometry, which includes localized buckling or plastic hinges. These hinge locations were
observed to be located 1.3 m (4.26 ft) from the Master and 1.2 m (3.93 ft) from the Slave ends of
the pipe. (The “Master” and “Slave” designations are used to describe the experimental apparatus
loading control system and repeated in this report to maintain consistency with the experimental
program reporting.)
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 22

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The soil depth at the pipe spring line was 932 mm (36.69 in). The sand had a unit weight of 17.3
KN/m3. Due to the large quantity of sand required to fill the tank, three different soil shipments
were obtained from local supplier (C-CORE [9] and Paulin et al., 1998[10]). An average friction
angle of 53 degrees was reported. As reported in (Popescu et al., 2003[12]), friction angles larger
than 44-45 degrees are often not trusted and can be attributed to apparent cohesion and
interlocking. Therefore, the friction angle of 44 degrees and equivalent cohesion was used for the
soil. In conclusion, the following parameters where used by (C-CORE 1999 [9] and Paulin et al.,
1998 [10]).

 Peak friction angle;  max = 44°and  residual = 35º

 Constant cohesion; c = 7.5 kPa
 Elastic modulus; 9 to 25 MPa
 Friction coefficient at soil/pipe interface;   tan( 0.6 ) = 0.5
 Soil unit weight; 17.3 KN/m3

In the absence of soil laboratory test data appropriate for FE work, a Soil and Foam Model was
employed using a two-surface plasticity models where the shear failure surface and pressure-
volume strain (compaction) surfaces are independent. The shear parameters were derived from
the available critical friction (  crit = 35º) and constant cohesion, c = 7.5 kPa. In the absence of
laboratory data, the pressure-volumetric strain for similar critical friction angle was used. The
elastic parameters are the shear modulus of 25 MPa and Poisson ratio, 0.3. The pressure versus
volumetric strain (v) relationship developed for this material, based upon these assumptions, is
presented in Figure 2.22.

1200

1000

800
Pressure, kPa

600

400

200

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
-Ln(1-εv) (%)

Figure 2.22: Estimated Pressure vs. Volumetric Strain – GSC Trial

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 23

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

More complex material models for the soil, such as a Cap model, were also considered.
However, the coefficients and parameters needed for the Cap model could not be determined
given the available data.

2.7.1.2 Finite Element Model

An example of the FE mesh used for the analysis is shown in Figure 2.23 with the geometry
exactly similar to the experimental setup (Figure 2.19 and Figure 2.20). The distance between the
bottom boundary and the pipe is the same for both numerical model and the tank experiment. A
3D analysis using LS-DYNA Multi-Material Eulerian technique was performed to simulate the
laboratory experiment.

The finite element model consists of soil and air (Figure 2.23), and the soil is modeled using an
8-node constant stress (one point integration) model formulation. In LS-DYNA, the void
elements were used to represent the air, which can accept material from other neighboring
elements. The pipe is modeled using Belyschko-Tasy shell elements. The soil mass in the tank is
taken to be stress free and have uniform properties in the initial state. The load is imposed in two
steps. In the first step, gravitational acceleration is applied and sufficient time is allowed to
ensure the soil stress reaches a stationary state. In the second step, the pipe was pulled 0.3 m (1
ft) in the lateral direction by the pipe ends. The interaction between the pipe and the surrounding
soil is modeled by constraint Lagarangian contact in which slip and separation are allowed. The
interface friction between the pipe and soil   is assumed equal to 0.6  (   tan( 0.6 ) = 0.55).

This parameter is difficult to evaluate (Yimsiri et al., 2004 [13]), as it depends on the interface
characteristic and degree of relative movement (slip) between the pipe and soil. In general, the

pipe surface friction angle  ranges from about 20º to the friction angle of the soil (Yusima and
Kishida, 1981 [14]). The surface friction angle depends on the pipe surface; a large value could
be used for rusty or corroded pipe and a lower value for pipe with a smooth coating.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 24

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.23: Illustration of the Finite Element Model for the GSC Trials Including the
Pipe

2.7.2 Analytical and Experimental Results

Figure 2.24 presents a comparison of experimental and numerical force-displacement curves. In
the experimental force displacement, a failure load (maximum load) of approximately 101 kN
was obtained at a pipe displacement of 30.6 mm (1.20 in). The numerical modeling has a lower
initial stiffness than the physical experiment; therefore, the simulated failure load occurs at
approximately 105 kN at a predicted pipe end displacement of 80 mm (3.14 in). With this said
the LS-DYNA model results appear to provide a quite reasonable simulation of the trial loads
and displacements for this application.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 25

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

140
130
120
ALE FEM Results
110
100
90
Load (KN)

80
70 Experimental Slave
60
50
40
30
20 Experimental Master
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Pipe Displacement

Figure 2.24: Comparison of Experimental and Finite Element GSC Trial Load
Displacement Results

Figure 2.25 illustrates the pipe plastic hinges observed in the experimental results. A hinge is
observed to form (1.3 m (4.26 ft) from the Master and 1.2 m (3.93 ft) from the Slave end. Figure
2.26 through Figure 2.28 show the finite element model pattern of pipe deformation; the plastic
hinge develops about 1 to 1.1 m (3-3.5 ft) from the pipe end. The small difference in results
could easily be attributed to minor disagreements between the experimental and numerical pipe
or soil properties and the results illustrate the ability of the LS-DYNA model to simulate pipe
deformations in the presence of soil restraints.

Figure 2.25: Deformed Pipe – Experimental Results

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 26

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.26: Deformed Pipe – Finite Element Result

Figure 2.27: Deformed Pipe in Soil – Finite Element Results

Figure 2.27 and Figure 2.28 provide illustrations of the simulated pipe and soil displacements.
While the pipe ends beyond the buckle/plastic hinge locations see significant displacements, the
surrounding soil accommodates this through a combination of soil compaction, flow around the
pipe, and the development of an air void in the pipe wake. Qualitatively, this behavior makes
intuitive sense and replicates the observed experimental behavior.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 27

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.28: Illustration of Soil Movement around the Pipe

Figure 2.29 shows the bending moment versus end pipe displacement at 1 m from the end pipe
location where the buckling occurred in the numerical simulation. The figure also illustrates the
deformed cross-section of the pipe at discrete stages in the loading process. This illustrates the
ability of the shell finite element model to explicitly simulate the onset and growth of pipe
buckles or wrinkles, which cannot be demonstrated explicitly using beam or pipe elements.

Figure 2.30 traces the pipe displacement at 1 m from the pipe end (node 49426, see Figure 2.27),
the location where the buckling occurred in the numerical simulation. As the pipe is pulled in the
lateral direction, since no restriction is applied on the vertical movement of the pipe, it moves
forward and upward. After a certain displacement, the lateral trajectory of the pipe reverses and
the pipe appears to reverse its direction of movement. The displacement being plotted is the
lateral displacement of a pipe surface node on the compression face of the pipe (see Figure 2.27).
The reduction in the rate of lateral displacement and eventual reversal are due to the pipe
ovalization, buckling and post buckling collapse deformation process.

Figure 2.31 traces the pipe displacement at the pipe end (node 49606, see Figure 2.27) and the
displacements simulated at the plastic hinge (pipe buckle) discussed in Figure 2.30 for
comparison. The pipe end moves forward and upwards, and the sand tends to flow downward to
fill the forming void at the back of the pipe, accompanied by mounding at the free surface,
Figure 2.28.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 28

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

40

35

30
Bending Moment (KN-m)

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2 0.225 0.25 0.275 0.3
Pipe Displacement (m)

Figure 2.29: Bending Moment at the Plastic Hinge

Pipeline Node Trace

0.025
Node 49426
Vertical Displacement, (m)

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
-0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Lateral Displacement, (m)

Figure 2.30: Pipeline Node 49426 Displacement Trace (at the Plastic Hinge)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 29

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

0.05
0.045
Vertical Displacement, (m)

0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
Node 49606
0.01
0.005 Node 49426
0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Lateral Displacement, (m)

Figure 2.31: Pipe Node Displacement Trace (Node 49426 at the Plastic Hinge and at the
Pipe End Node 49606)

2.7.3 Finite Element Analysis of Experimental Tank Test – Rigid Pipe

2.7.3.1 Large-Scale Experimental Model
Karimian et al. (2006) [4] performed large-scale tank experiments to investigate the pipeline
behaviors when subjected to lateral soil movements. Their results are used here to examine the
capability of the current FE analysis. The pipe loading tests were performed in a large sand
chamber of 2.50 m (8.2 ft) x 3.8 m (12.5 ft) x 2.5 m (8.2 ft) at the University of British
Columbia. Figure 2.32 shows the experimental setup. The UBC pipe had an outside diameter of
457 mm (18 in) and a wall thickness of 13.0 mm (0.5 in). The pipe was buried at the overburden
ratio (H/D) of 1.92. The test was performed twice. The soil parameters in Table 2.6 were derived
from tri-axial testing and reported.

Table 2.6: Soil Parameters (UBC Test)

Parameter Units Value
Internal Friction Angle Deg. 45.5 to 43.3

Constant Volume Friction

crit Deg. 32 to 34

Interface Friction Deg. 36 to 30.5

Shear Modulus MPa 3 to 12

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 30

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.32: UBC Experimental Sand Compartment – Karimian et al., 2006 [4]

In the absence of soil laboratory test data appropriate for the proposed FE work, a soil and foam
model using a two-surface plasticity model with constant shear failure surface and pressure-
volume strain (compaction) independence is used. The soil shear parameters were derived from

the available critical friction ( crit = 32º) and constant cohesion, c = 0 kPa. More complex
material models for soil such as a Cap model were also considered. However, the coefficients
and parameters needed for the Cap model could not be determined given the available data.

2.7.3.2 Finite Element Model

The FE mesh used for the analysis is shown in Figure 2.33, with the same geometry as the
experimental setup. The distance between the bottom boundary and the pipe is the same for both
numerical model and the tank experiment. A 3D analysis using LS-DYNA Multi-Material
Eulerian technique was performed. The model (Figure 2.33 consists of soil, air and pipe shell
elements. The soil is modeled using 8-noded constant stress (one point integration) elements. In
LS-DYNA the void elements were used to represent the air, which can accept material from
other neighboring elements/material volumes. The soil mass in the tank is taken to be stress free
and have uniform properties in the initial state. The load is imposed on two steps. In the first
step, gravitational acceleration is applied; sufficient time is allowed to ensure that the soil
stresses reach a stationary state. In the second step, the pipe was pulled in the lateral direction by
imposing displacement boundary conditions to all nodes of the pipes, hence the pipe is assumed
to be rigid. The interaction between the pipeline and the surrounding soil is modeled by
constraint Lagarangian contact, in which slip and separation are allowed.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 31

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.33: Illustration of the FE Model Including the Pipe

2.7.4 Analytical and Experimental Results

Figure 2.34 traces the simulated pipe displacement through the trial. At the beginning, the pipe
moves slightly downwards and the sand tends to flow downward to fill the forming void at the
back of the pipe; after certain displacement, this tendency is inverted, and the pipe moves
upwards. The pipe displacement is accompanied by large formation heaps on the free surface.
This phenomenon is observed in both the experimental and FE results (Figure 2.32 and Figure
2.35).

Figure 2.35 illustrates the simulated displaced position of the pipe and soil at the end of the trial.
The figure includes soil particle velocity vectors describing the trajectory and relative speed of
movement of soil particles. Qualitatively, the displaced soil profile and flow history make
intuitive sense and match the observed behaviors. The primary difference between the simulated
final soil profile and the experimental profile lies in the absence of the experimentally observed
surface soil cracking (see Figure 2.32). This tensile failure mode has not been explained by the
model. Perhaps the use of a more advanced (e.g., Cap) soil constitutive model would have
replicated this behavior.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 32

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

0.09
0.08
Vertical Displacement, (m)

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Lateral Displacement, (m)

Figure 2.34: Displacement Patten (FE Analysis)

Figure 2.35: FEM Simulation of the UBC Trial Results

Figure 2.36 presents the comparison of experimental and numerical force-displacement curves.
For lateral pipe movement, at H/D of 1.92, the results match the experimental data well. For both
experimental and numerical force displacement, the failure load is about 50 KN/m obtained at
the pipe displacement of 75 mm (2.9 in). Figure 2.37 presents the same results in terms of

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 33

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

dimensionless load (FL’) and dimensionless displacement (Y’) as defined in the following
equations:

F
FL' 
 .H .D.L 
Y
Y' 
D

where

F = Pullout load
 = Soil density
H = Height of soil over pipe springline
D = Pipe diameter
Y = Pipe displacement
L = Pipe length

60
Load per Unit Length (kN/m)

50

40
FEM-ALE, BMT-FTL
30
Test 18-1.92-2
20
Test 18-1.92-1
10

0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
Displacement (mm)

Figure 2.36: Comparison between Numerical Model Results and Test Results

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 34

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

9
8

7
Dimensionless Load (FL') 6
5
4
FEM-ALE, BMT-FTL
3
Test 18-1.92-1
2
Test 18-1.92-2
1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Displacement (Y')

Figure 2.37: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results

The results presented in Figure 2.38 describe the trajectory of the pipe and soil particles through
the simulated trial process. This result illustrates the stability of the soil below the pipe and the
rotation of the soil mass from the pipe bottom to the pipe surface about a point located
approximately half the burial depth above the pipe. This soil movement pattern describes the
process that forms the experimentally-observed soil surface profile.

0.8 Final Pipe Position

0.6

0.4

0.2
Depth (m)

0 Initial Pipe Position

-0.2

-0.4
Initial Particles Positions
-0.6

-0.8
Final Particles Positions
-1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Horizontal Soil Displacement (m)

Figure 2.38: Displacement Trace Illustrating Pipe and Soil Displacements

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 35

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The simulated results of the UBC trial differ from those developed in the previous section for the
GSC trials, Section 2.7.1, in that the pipe is shorter and much stiffer, being essentially rigid. The
simulation results in both cases appear to match the experimental observations.

2.7.5 Sensitivity Analyses

The finite element model of UBC experimental tank test with a rigid pipe (described in Section
2.8.1) was used to investigate the effects of the finite element model mesh size, pipe weight and
soil water content. These sensitivity studies are not explicitly supported by experimental trial
results. They are, however, presented to illustrate effects of modelling parameters on the
simulation results or the ability of the model to differentiate between differing trial conditions.

2.7.5.1 Finite Element Mesh Size Effects

The effects of the mesh size in soil-pipe interaction were investigated by considering three
different element sizes: 50, 75 and 100 mm (2 in, 3 in and 4 in). The results of the three analyses
are compared in Figure 2.39. The predicted force displacement results (Figure 2.39) show that
element size in the range of 50 to 100 mm (2 to 4 in) has little effect on the predicted force and
displacement. It is expected, however, that significantly larger soil elements will result in
simulation solution errors and/or cause model convergence problems.

60

50
Load per Unit Length (kN/m)

40

30

Test 18-1.92-2 Test 18-1.92-1

20
Esize = 75 mm Esize = 100 mm
10
Esize = 50 mm

0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
Displacement (mm)

Figure 2.39: Comparison between Numerical Model and Test Results: Mesh Size 50 mm
to 100 mm

2.7.5.2 Pipe Self-Weight Effects

The effects of the pipeline self-weight effects on the soil-pipe interaction were investigated by
considering three different cases – a first case with self-weight, second without self-weight and
the third case doubling the self-weight. The predicted force displacement results for the three
cases are compared to the experimental results in Figure 2.40. The results show good agreement
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 36

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

between predicted force displacement using pipe self-weight and the experimental results. The
weightless case under-predicts the maximum force, yet on the other hand the double self-weight
scenario over-predicts the peak force. These results illustrate the sensitivity of the pipe force
displacement behavior to pipe weight, indicating that weight (including fluid) should be
considered an important modelling parameter.

60

50
Load per Unit Length (kN/m)

40

30

20 Test 18-1.92-2 With Weight

Weightless Double Weight

10

0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
Displacement (mm)

Figure 2.40: Effects of Pipe Self-Weight on Force-Displacement Curves

2.7.5.3 Effects of Soil Water Content

The objective of this section is to analyze the effects of the soil moisture content and drainage
condition on the soil-pipe interaction forces, assuming perfectly drained and undrained
conditions.

2.7.5.4 Finite Element Model

The finite element model of the UBC experimental test with a rigid pipe in a soil box (described
in Section 2.7.1) was used to investigate the effects of the soil saturation on the soil-pipe
interaction using sandy soil, referred to as “Lebanon Sand” by Shoop et al., 2005 [15].

2.7.5.5 Material Properties

Shop et al., 2005 performed tri-axial compression tests on “Lebanon Sand”. Using the Mohr
Coulomb approach, the angle of internal friction for these tests is 36º and 17º for saturated (17%
moisture content) drained and undrained tests, respectively, and 33º for the undrained test at 13%
moisture content. The water content of the specimen at saturation was reported to range from
17.5 to 17.8%.

The drained saturated sand behavior shows essentially no cohesion as would be expected for a
sandy soil. The undrained sand tested at 13% moisture content shows a small amount of apparent
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 37

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

cohesion, as is typical in unsaturated soils because of the moisture tension, (Shoop et al.,
2005,[15]. A brief summary of the measured soil material properties is presented in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7: Material Properties of “Lebanon Sand”

“Lebanon Sand” Test Condition Cohesion, c Friction Angle,Ø
(kPa) (Deg.)
Drained, 17% mc (saturated) 0 36
Undrained, 17% mc (saturated) 4.8 17
Undrained, 13% mc 9 33

Figure 2.41 illustrates the pressure versus volumetric strain relationship used in the model, and
the laboratory hydrostatic data. In the Soil and Foam Model, the volumetric strain must be input
in the form of the natural log of the relative volumetric strain. Since the laboratory data are
reported as volumetric strain, the user must convert the volumetric strain data to the requested
natural log format required by the numerical model (LS DYNA). The diamond data points
presented in Figure 2.41 are used as input data in LS DYNA.

800

700

600
Volume Strain Data
Pressure, kPa

500
Ln(1-εv)
400

300 LSDYNA INPUT

200

100

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Strain

Figure 2.41: Hydrostatic Compression vs. Volumetric Strain

2.7.5.6 Finite Element Results

Predicted force displacement curves are shown in Figure 2.42 for the pipe movement simulation
trials for the three soil conditions being investigated. These results illustrate that the finite
element model is capable of producing simulation results that agree at least qualitatively with the
observed effects of moisture content for the sand in an undrained condition. The undrained sand
with the higher moisture content (17%) has a lower strength due to the pore water pressure
preventing intergranular friction/contact. The model also provides a sensible demonstration of
the effects of soil drainage by demonstrating the increased strength of the drained sand condition,
which maximizes intergranular friction.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 38

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The observed changes in soil forces agree with expected behaviors since both the friction
strength and apparent cohesion are affected by soil saturation. Similar results to those produced
here are predicted by Popescu et al., 2003 [12].

80
70
Load pe Unit Length (kN/m)

60
50
40
30
Undrained, Saturated , 17.8% mc
20
Undrained, 13% mc
10 Drained, Saturated, 17.8% mc
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
Displacement (mm)

Figure 2.42: Effects of Saturation on Force-Displacement Curves

Figure 2.43 to Figure 2.45 show the predicted plastic strain contours for the three cases. The
finite element analysis plots were developed for the three trial simulations at the same pipe
displacement representing the intercept of the curves in Figure 2.42 with a vertical line. These
plots also illustrate the soil particle velocity vectors describing the movement of the soil. The
plots relate the soil displacement to the pipe soil interaction loads described in Figure 2.42. It is
observed that soil load on the pipe is directly related to the volume of soil that is displaced in the
trial. The displacement vectors also illustrate the center of rotation for the soil flow around the
pipe.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 39

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.43: Effective Plastic Strain and Velocity Vectors at Pipe Displacement = 296 mm
– Drained Sand with 17% Moisture Content

Figure 2.44: Effective Plastic Strain and Velocity Vectors at Pipe Displacement = 296 mm
– Undrained Sand with 13% Moisture Content

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 40

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.45: Effective Plastic Strain and Velocity Vectors at Pipe Displacement = 296 mm
– Undrained Sand with 17% Moisture Content

2.8 Finite Element Analysis of Soil-Pipe Interaction for Slope Movements

The response of oil and gas pipelines to permanent ground movement is an important
consideration in pipeline design and route selection. Permanent ground movements may be
initiated by various forms of instabilities on sloping ground caused by heavy rain, seismic events
or other causes. Permanent ground deformations can occur as surface faulting, liquefaction,
lateral spreading due to liquefaction, or landslide. The responses of pipelines subjected to
permanent ground deformation have been studied in literature using experimental, empirical and
numerical methods.

The objective of this section is to show that the response of pipelines subjected to permanent
ground deformation can be simulated by applying the ALE method to continuum mechanics,
avoiding the limitations of some of the other numerical methods. One of the deformation
conditions of interest is illustrated in Figure 2.46, showing the pipe subjected to lateral spreading
or landslides.

Figure 2.46: Permanent Ground Movement, Observed and Schematic Response of

Landslide
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 41

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

2.8.1 Finite Element Model Validation: PGD Effects on Buried Pipelines with Elbows
2.8.1.1 Large-Scale Experimental Model:
Large full-scale permanent ground deformation (PGD) on steel pipe with elbows was conducted
by Cornell University. The work was performed for Tokyo Gas, MCEER and NFS through its
program for US-Japan Cooperative Research in Urban Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Yoshisaki
et al. (2001, 2004) [16],[17] & [18]. Their results are used here to examine the capability of the
current FE analysis. The pipe loading tests were performed in a test L-shape movable box 4.2 m
(13.7 ft) long by 6 m (19.68 ft) wide by 1.5 m (4.9 ft) deep. Figure 2.47 and Figure 2.48 show the
experimental concept setup for PGD effects on buried pipelines and plan view of the
experimental setup. The pipe had an outside diameter of 100 mm (4 in) and a wall thickness of
4.1 mm (0.16 in). The pipe had an L-shape of 5.4 m (17.7 ft) by 9.3 m (30.5 ft) welded to a 90-
degree elbow. The measured pipe and elbow material stress-strain curves used in the analysis are
presented in Figure 2.49. The pipe was installed at a 0.9 m (3 ft) burial depth to the top of the
pipe. The sand had a unit weight of 18.4 KN/m3 and an average friction angle of 50 degrees. The
pipe internal pressure during the trial was 0.1MPa (14.5 psi).

Figure 2.47: Experimental Concept for PGD Effect on Buried Pipelines with Elbow
(O’Rourke et al., 2004 [13])

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 42

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.48: Plan View of the Experimental Setup (O’Rourke et al., 2004 [13])

700
600
True Stress, (MPa)

500
400
300
Elbow
200
100 Pipe
0
0 10 20 30 40
True Strain, (%)

Figure 2.49: True Stress-Strain Curves (Yoshisaki et al., 2004 [17])

2.8.1.2 Finite Element Model:

An example of the FE mesh used for the analysis is shown in Figure 2.50 with the geometry
exactly similar to the experimental setup (Figure 2.47 and Figure 2.48). The distance between the
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 43

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

bottom boundary and the pipe is the same for both numerical model and soil box experiment. A
3D analysis using LS-DYNA Multi-Material Eulerian technique was performed to simulate the
laboratory experiment.

The finite element model consists of soil, air and pipe shell elements (Figure 2.50). The soil is
modeled using an 8-node constant stress (one point integration) model formulation. In LS-
DYNA, the void elements were used to represent the air, which can accept material from other
neighboring elements. The pipe is modeled using Belyschko-Tasy shell elements. The soil mass
in the tank is taken to be stress free and have uniform properties in the initial state. The load is
imposed in two steps. In the first step, gravitational acceleration and the pipe internal pressure
are applied and sufficient time is allowed to ensure that the soil stress reaches a stationary state.
In the second step, the mobile soil box movement is applied. The interaction between the
pipeline and the surrounding soil is modeled by constraint Lagarangian contact in which slip and
separation are allowed. The interface friction between the pipe and soil   is assumed equal to
0.6  (   tan( 0.6 ) = 0.55).

Figure 2.50: Illustration of the FE Model including the Pipe

2.8.1.3 Analytical and Experimental Results:

Figure 2.51 shows the experimental test compartment before and after the experiment; Yoshisaki
et al., 2004 [17]. Figure 2.52 shows an overhead view of the test compartment after excavation.
Typical graphical output from the model is illustrated in Figure 2.53. The figure illustrates the
response of pipeline subjected to ground movement similar to the laboratory shear box test. In
this figure, the color fringes indicate the pipe lateral displacement. Figure 2.54 compares the
deformed pipe shape of the finite element model and the full-scale experimental pipeline.
Comparison between the numerical prediction and the full-scale test results showed that the ALE
finite element model was able to closely predict the pipe deformation.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 44

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.51: Overhead View of Test Compartment Before (Left) and After (Right) the
Experiment. (Yoshisaki et al., 2004 [17])

Figure 2.52: Deformed Experimental Pipeline (Yoshizaki et al., 2004 [17])

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 45

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.53: Deformed Pipeline – Finite Element Analysis Results

Distance from the corner to East (m)

-6
-5
Experiment,Tokyo Gas and
-4 Cornell University
-3 FE Model
-2
-1
0
1
2
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Distance from the corner to south (m)

Figure 2.54: Pipeline Deformation: Comparison between the Numerical Model and Test
Results

Figure 2.55 compares the measured and simulated longitudinal and circumferential strains at the
junction of the pipe elbow and the pipeline short leg (Section A-A) at the end of the loading
process. These results illustrate the ability of the FE model to replicate the measured pipe strain,
at various points around the pipe circumference since the finite element model simulated strains
compare well with the measured strains.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 46

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

12 FEA-
10 Circumferential
8
Strain, (%) 6 FEA-
4 Longitudinal
2 Experimental-
0 Circumferential
-2
-4 Experimental-
-6 Longitudinal
0 45 90 135 180
Angle, deg

Figure 2.55: Strain Distribution at the Cross-section of the Connection between the Elbow
and the Straight Pipe Segment (Section A-A) – Comparison between the Numerical Model
and Test Results

Figure 2.56 shows the measured and predicted longitudinal and circumferential strains at the
cross-section of the elbow (Section B-B). The finite element model was able to closely predict
the circumferential strain but over-estimate the longitudinal strain. The difference in the
predicted longitudinal strain could easily be attributed to the disconnection of the strain gauges
during the experiment as reported by Yoshisaki et al., 2004 [17]. Regardless of this source of
uncertainty in the experimental results, the trend in the measured strains and those derived from
the finite element model is similar.

20 FEA-
15 Circumferential
10 FEA-
Strain, (%)

Longitudinal
5
Experimental-
0 Circumfereintial
-5 Experimental-
-10 Longitudinal
0 45 90 135 180
Angle, deg

Figure 2.56: Strain Distribution at the Cross-Section of the Elbow (Section B-B) –
Comparison between the Numerical Model and Test Results

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 47

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Overall, the comparison between the analytic prediction and full-scale experimental results show
that the ALE model was able to closely predict the pipe response and the magnitude and
distribution of the pipe strains.

2.9 Validation of DEM Model in LS-DYNA

The LS DYNA implementation of a discrete element model (DEM) to represent soils was found
to be efficient in assessing geotechnical hazards and as such further validation studies were
completed to demonstrate the abilities of this modelling technique. Pipe-soil interaction using the
DEM models within the non-linear explicit code, LS-DYNA [1], are validated and calibrated
based on available published full-scale experimental data including pipelines subjected to lateral
and axial soil movements. The models are further calibrated for nominal soil types to replicate
the pipe-soil load displacement properties outlined in ASCE guideline recommendations [39].

2.9.1 Soil Restraint on Pipe Buried in Road Mulch

Monroy [40] and Wijewickreme et al., [41] performed a series of full-scale lateral soil restraint
tests considering three types of soil: (i) sand, (ii) crushed sand and gravel (referred to as road
mulch), and crushed limestone. The steel pipes tested were NPS 16 and NPS 18. The pipe
loading tests were performed in a large soil chamber of 3.8 to 5.0 m (length) x 2.50 m (width) x
2.5 m (height) at the Advanced Soil-Pipe Interaction Research (ASPIReTM) chamber at the
University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada. As shown in Figure 5.1, one outside
wall of the chamber is fitted with a Plexiglas sheet to allow visual observation of the pipe-soil
deformation during the test. In all the test configurations, the pipe was loaded in a displacement-
controlled manner. The displacement rate varied from 2 to 50 mm/s.

1. The UBC NPS 16 (406 mm diameter) tests were in moist sand with an overburden-to-
pipe diameter ratio (H/D) of 1.6. The test was performed one time (referred to as Test No.
1).

2. The UBC NPS 18 (457 mm diameter) tests were in moist sand with an overburden-to-
pipe diameter ratio (H/D) of 1.9. The test was performed twice (referred to as Test No. 2
and Test No. 3).

3. The UBC NPS 18 (457 mm diameter) tests were in road mulch with an overburden-to-
pipe diameter ratio (H/D) of 1.9. The test was performed twice (referred to as Test No. 4
and Test No. 5).

The key parameters for the soil used in the test cases are summarized in Table 2.8. The test
results are presented in terms of normalized values of lateral soil restraint (Nqh) and normalized
pipe displacement (Y’) defined as follow:

P
N qh 
HDL
Y
Y' 
D

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 48

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Where, P is the measured load, and is the dry unit weight of the soil.

Table 2.8: Summary Parameters for Pipe-Soil Test Cases [41]

Crushed Gravel and Sand
Moist Sand
(Road Mulch)
Average density (kg/m3) 1600 1600 1800
Average moisture (%) 4 4 3 to 4
Internal peak friction angle, deg. 43 43 49
Dilation angle,  12 to 14 12 to 14 16
Pipe diameter, D (in) NPS 16 (406 mm) NPS 18 (457 mm) NPS 18 (457 mm)
Pipe length (m) 2.4 2.4 2.4

A 3D analysis was performed using the LS-DYNA DEM method to simulate the UBC full-scale
lateral soil restraint trials considering the two different types of soils (road mulch and moist
sand).

2.9.2 Soil Restraint on NPS 16 (406 mm) Pipe Buried in Moist Sand
A 3D analysis was performed to simulate UBC lateral soil restraint on NPS 16 (406 mm) buried
in moist sand with an overburden ratio H/D of 1.6 (test No. 1), test was simulated.

Figure 2.57 and 2.58 compare the observed and simulated displaced position of the pipe and soil.
The pipe moves forward and upwards, and the soil tends to flow downward to fill the void that
forms at the back of the pipe. The pipe movement results in soil mounding at the free surface.
Qualitatively, the displaced soil profile and flow history make intuitive sense and match the
observed behaviors.

Figure 2.59 presents a comparison of numerical and experimental lateral soil resistance (Nqh) to
pipe movement as a function of normalized pipe displacement (Y’) ratio. A peak soil load of 34
kN/m (for Nqh = 7.8) was reached at pipe displacements 0.25D. The peak soil load of 34 kN/m
was reached (for an Nqh value of 7.8) at pipe displacement 0.2D is in good agreement with the
measured lateral soil restraint. Minor variations in the numerical simulation response may be
attributed to the size of the discrete elements (soil particles).

This result is an illustration of the ability of the DEM simulation technique to accurately
reproduce measured forces and displacements. The validation process for a numerical simulation
process, such as the DEM, requires that the model agreement with physical trials or operational
experience be demonstrated across a variety of scenarios and this is just one element of the
validation process.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 49

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.57: Soil Deformation of Moist Sand (Experimental Results – Y=0.9 D) [41]

Figure 2.58: Soil Deformation of Moist Sand (FE Results – Y=0.9 D)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 50

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.59: Comparison between Numerical Model Results and Test Results – (NPS 16 -
Moist Sand Soil)

2.9.3 Soil Restraint on NPS 18 (457mm) Pipe Buried in Moist Sand

A 3D analysis was performed to simulate UBC lateral soil restraint on NPS 18 (457 mm) buried
in moist sand with an overburden ratio H/D of 1.9 (test No. 2 and No. 3), test was simulated.

Figure 2.60 presents a comparison of numerical and experimental lateral soil resistance (Nqh) to
pipe movement as a function of normalized pipe displacement (Y’) ratio. A peak soil load of 34
kN/m (for Nqh = 7.8) was reached at pipe displacements 0.05D for test 3 and 0.15D for Test 2.
The peak soil load of 35 kN/m was reached (for an Nqh value of 8) at pipe displacement 0.2D is
in good agreement with the measured lateral soil restraint.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 51

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.60: Comparison between Numerical Model Results and Test Results – (NPS 18 -
Moist Sand Soil)

2.9.4 Soil Restraint on Pipe Buried in Road Mulch

A 3D analysis was performed to simulate UBC lateral soil restraint on NPS 18 (457 mm) buried
in road mulch with an overburden ratio H/D of 1.9 (test No. 4 and No. 5), test was simulated.

Figure 2.61 and Figure 2.62 compare the observed and simulated displaced position of the pipe
and soil. The pipe moves forward and upwards, and the soil tends to flow downward to fill the
void that forms at the back of the pipe. The pipe movement results in soil mounding at the free
surface. Qualitatively, the displaced soil profile and flow history make intuitive sense and match
the observed behaviors.

Figure 2.63 presents a comparison of numerical and experimental lateral soil resistance (Nqh) to
pipe movement as a function of normalized pipe displacement (Y’) ratio. A peak soil load of
75.8 kN/m (for Nqh = 10.2) and 82 kN/m (for Nqh = 11) for tests 4 and 5 were reached at pipe
displacements 0.45D and 0.35D, respectively. The peak soil load of 82.75 kN/m was reached
(for an Nqh value of 11.1) at pipe displacement 0.35D is in good agreement with the measured
lateral soil restraint. This result is an illustration of the ability of the DEM simulation technique
to accurately reproduce measured forces and displacements.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 52

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.61: Soil Deformation of Road Mulch (Experimental Results – Y=0.75 D) [41]

Figure 2.62: Soil Deformation of Road Mulch (FE Results – Y=0.9 D)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 53

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.63: Comparison between Numerical Model Results and Test Results – Road
Mulch Soil

2.9.5 Pipe-Soil Interaction Model Parameter Calibration

In the absence of site-specific soil properties, the pipe-soil force-displacement responses used in
the DEM in LS-DYNA pipe-soil interaction model can be calibrated based on ASCE 1984,
which are consistent with American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) 2001 [42] soil properties. These
soil properties have been developed through experimentation and engineering judgment for
typical soil types and, in many cases, are reasonable engineering representations for this type of
geotechnical hazard assessment.

An NPS 24 (610 mm diameter) pipeline subjected to axial and lateral soil displacements were
simulated in a large soil box measuring 4.0 m long by 4.0 m wide by 2.5 m high to predict the
pipe-soil interaction forces. The simulations consisted of one axial pullout test and one lateral
displacement test. The 24-inch pipe has a wall thickness of 0.375 inch (9.52 mm). The pipe was
buried at the overburden ratio (H/D) of 2.46 in sand/clay till (ϕ’=30o and C’=5 kPa).

A 3D analysis of the experimental trial using LS-DYNA DEM was performed. The model
(Figure 2.64) consists of soil particles and pipe shell elements reproducing the geometry of the
physical trial. The soil mass in the tank is taken to be stress-free and have uniform properties in
its initial state. The simulation loading is imposed in two steps. In the first step, gravitational
acceleration is applied and sufficient time is allowed to ensure the soil stresses reach a steady
state. In the second step, the pipe is pulled in along the pipe longitudinal axis for the axial load
case and perpendicular to the pipe axis for the lateral loading case by imposing displacement
boundary conditions to all nodes at the end of the pipe. Due to the loading and the relatively
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 54

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

short length of pipe modeled, the pipe can be assumed to be rigid. The interaction between the
pipeline and the surrounding soil is modeled by Lagrangian contact in which slip and separation
are allowed. The interface friction coefficient between the soil and pipe was estimated at 0.4.

Figure 2.65 illustrates the simulated displaced position of the pipe and the soil as the trial lateral
displacement is applied to the pipe. Qualitatively, the displaced soil profile and flow history
make intuitive sense and match the observed behaviors of experimental tests. The predicted soil
restraint on a buried pipeline was compared to those estimated using the formulations presented
in ASCE 1984/ALA 2001 [39, 42]. Figure 2.66 presents the comparison of ASCE/ALA and
numerical force-displacement curves. For axial pipe movement, the results match the ASCE data
well. For both ASCE and numerical force displacement, the failure load is about 18 kN/m
obtained at the pipe displacement of about 5 mm to 7.5 mm.

Figure 2.67 presents the comparison of ASCE /ALA and numerical force-displacement curves.
For lateral pipe movement, the maximum lateral soil resistance predicted by ASCE/ALA was
118 kN/m, at a pipe displacement of 72 mm. The ALA 2001 guidelines reported that although
tests have indicated the maximum soil force on the pipeline decreases at large relative
displacements, the guideline is based on the assumption that the soil force is constant once it
reaches the maximum value. The maximum soil resistance predicted by the numerical model was
125 kN/m, at a soil displacement of 90 mm. The predicted force gradually decreases to 100 kN
for relatively large deformations of 300 mm, This behavior was observed in the experimental
results conducted by Trautmann and O’Rourke [43] and this large displacement behavior is not
captured in the ALA simplified engineering idealization.

Heave
Settlement

Pipe movement
direction

Figure 2.64: Pipe Movement and Soil Displacement

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 55

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 2.65: Axial Soil Force – Comparison between FEA (DEM) and ASCE 1984 / ALA
2001

Figure 2.66: Lateral Soil Force – Comparison between FEA (DEM) and ASCE / ALA

2.9.6 Conclusion: Validation of DEM Model in LS-DYNA

This section has described the development and validation of a Discrete Element Method (DEM)
modeling technique for assessing the performance of a pipeline subjected to large soil
displacements. This analytic process made use of the LS-DYNA DEM Modeling Capabilities
and considered a range of soil types (sand, clay, and gravel), dry and wet conditions and different
soil movement scenarios. Figure 2.67 shows the pipe movement and soil deformation of pipeline
load in wet clay soil using capillary forces. The pipe moves forward and upwards, and the soil
behind the pipe did not deform with the pipe, so a void (cave) forms. The response differs from
the example presented earlier in this report when the soil was less cohesive and as a result the
soil tends to flow downward, around the pipe, to fill the void that forms at the back of the pipe. A
summary of DEM input used in this cohesive soil example is listed in Table 2.9 for comparison
with those used in the previous examples. This result illustrates the flexibility of the model in
that it can simulate the differing soil and pipe responses, such as that exhibited in this case by the
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 56

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

soil void left in the wake of the pipe. The differing soil movement response has been shown to
correlate with differences in pipe response (strain accumulation).

Figure 2.67: Soil Deformation of Wet Clay Soil

Table 2.9: Summary Parameters for DEM Model

DEM Parameters Value
Radius (mm) 30 to 60
Friction Coefficient 0.3 to 0.5
Mass Density (kg/m3) 3000
Elastic Modulus (MPa) 200 to 300
Poison’s Ratio 0.33

The ability of pipe-soil interaction modelling techniques to simulate the behavior and responses
of numerous full-scale laboratory tests conducted at the University of British Columbia and
others has been demonstrated. Given the positive outcome of the numeric predictions and
experimental test comparisons, it has been concluded that the validated soil-structure interaction
models are well suited for predicting pipeline response to various ground movements and could
serve as an essential decision tool for geotechnical hazards.
2.10 Conclusion of Model Validation Studies
This report has described the development and validation of a 3D continuum modeling technique
for assessing the performance of a pipeline system subjected to large soil displacements. This
analytic process made use of the LS-DYNA SPH, ALE and DEM modeling capabilities and
considered a range of soil types and soil movement scenarios.

The BMT numeric modelling results and the results from numerous full-scale laboratory tests
conducted at Cornell University, the University of British Columbia and others compare very
well overall. Only in one comparison case did the numeric modeling over-estimate the pipe
longitudinal strain. This, however, is likely due to the disconnection of the strain gages during
the experiment. Given the positive outcome of the numeric predictions and experimental tests
comparisons, it can be concluded that the validated BMT soil-structure interaction model is well
suited for predicting pipeline response to various ground movements and could serve as an
essential decision tool for geotechnical hazards.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 57

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The SPH, ALE and DEM simulation processes continue to be developed by BMT. As such,
further validation and engineering applications have been completed and documented. The
model has proven useful in the design of slope remediation and maintenance activities for
pipelines. The simulated pipeline behaviors have been used to assess interactions with active
slope movement and evaluate pipeline strain demand and strain limit capacity (A, Fredj et al;
2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 capacity (A, Fredj et al; 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 [19], [21],
[22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and A. Dinovitzer et al; 2014 [20]). These engineering applications
have further demonstrated the ability and utility of the pipe soil interaction tool to predict pipe
response, support engineering decision making and contribute to geotechnical hazard mitigation.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 58

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

3 PIPE LIMIT STATES

The slope movement will result in axial strain in the pipe. These strains are generally
compressive at the toe of the slope and tensile at the top of the slope. Compressive strains may
results in local buckling/wrinkling of the pipe in the compressive zone. The tensile strains may
result in girth weld failure in the tensile strain zone.

The onset of local buckling is considered a serviceability limit state and can be evaluated using a
number of limit state equations including those found in CSA Z662 [27]. In this standard, the
limit state is considered when the load is secondary, such as displacement controlled ground
movement. Although local buckling or wrinkling does not immediately result in loss of the
integrity of the pressure boundary (leakage), the buckles/wrinkles make the pipe line segment
prone to subsequent fatigue damage.

The sections that follow provide several approaches to evaluating the compressive strain limit,
maximum allowable compressive strains. The objective of this project was to define the strain
accumulation due to geotechnical hazards, the strain demand. In practice the strain demand is
compared to the strain capacity (or resistance) of the pipeline segment as evaluated using any
one of various limit state formulations. The strain capacity (limit states) presented in this report
are used as reference points to illustrate the application of the project strain demand results.
Other pipeline strain capacity (resistance) formulations are available and may be used in
conjunction with the strain accumulation data developed in this project. To limit the scope of
pipeline strain limit definition, not all of the limit state equations are reviewed in this this project.

3.1 Pipeline Compressive Strain Capacity CSA Z662 -2011

The ultimate longitudinal compressive strains may be determined based on empirical equations
available in CSA Z662 standard [27].

 P  Pe D  Pi  Pe D
2

 ccrit  0.5
t
 0.0025  3000  i  for  0 .4 [Eq. 3.1]
D  2tE s  2tF y

P  Pe D
2
t  0 .4 F y  [Eq. 3.2]
 ccrit  0.5  0.0025  3000   for i
 0 .4
D  Es  2tF y

Where:

 ccrit = ultimate compressive strain capacity of the pipe wall

t = pipe wall thickness (mm)
D = outside diameter (mm)
Pi = maximum internal design pressure (MPa)
Pe = minimum external hydrostatic pressure (MPa)
Es = 207 000 MPa
Fy = effective specified minimum yield strength (MPa)

The critical strain is dependent on diameter-to-thickness ratio and internal pressure. The internal
pressure or hoop stress increases pipe resistance to local buckling. The hoop stress is normalized
by the elastic modulus in the proposed formulation.
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 59

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

It is recognized that it is not only the D/t ratio and internal pressure that influences wrinkling.
The shape of the stress-strain curve and weld-induced imperfections are also very important.
The CSA formulation does not consider all of these factors.

The maximum allowable compressive strains calculated according to CSA Z662-11 are shown in
Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Maximum Allowable Compressive Strain Calculated According to CSA

Z662-11
εcr (%)
OD T MOP SMYS
Line Design Pressurized Pressurised
inch inch D/t ksi ksi
# factor to to Unpressurised
(mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
MOP 0.5 MOP
30 0.31 1.02
1 96 0.58 0.39 0.27
(762) (7.92) (7.0) 70
0.7
40 0.35 0.94 (483)
2 106 0.53 0.37 0.22
(1016) (9.52) (6.5)

3.2 PRCI 2004 and University of Alberta Critical Buckling Strain Formula
Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI 2004) Guidelines [28] provides recommended
allowable compressive strains for gas and liquid hydrocarbon pipelines. The PRCI 2004
compressive strains limit empirical equations (3.3 through 3.6) were originally developed by
Researchers in the University of Alberta (U of A) (Das et al., 2000, 2006) [29] to determine the
critical buckling strain based on extensive full scale pipe laboratory tests. The PRCI or U of A
relations are provided for two types of typical pipeline stress-strain curves:

1. Exhibiting rounded shapes at yield.

2. Exhibiting yield plateau.

These empirical equations account for the yield to tensile ratio (Y/T), girth weld misalignment,
D/t ratio and the effect of internal pressure, as shown below.

The compressive strain capacity based on the PRCI formula is judged to be realistic yet
somewhat conservative.

1. For plain pipes with typical rounded material property curves

 
  0.854
t
1.59  1  E   imp 
0.15
[3.3]
 c  5.6*  *  *  *1.27   
 D   P    Fy  
  t  
 
 1 0.868  
  Py  

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 60

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

2. For girth-welded pipes with typical rounded material property curves

 
  0.7
1.72
t   1  E    offset 
0.0863
 [3.4]
 c  43.7 *   * *   * 1.09    
 D  P    Fy 


  t  

 1  0.892 

  Py 

3. For plain pipes with a distinct yield plateau

 
  0.8
t
2
 1  E   imp 
0.15
[3.5]
 c  40.4 *  * *  *1.12   
 D   P    Fy    t  
 1 0.906 P  
  y 

4. For girth-welded pipes with a distinct yield plateau

 
  0.7
 
t 2
1  E   offset  
0.09
[3.6]
 c  106*   *  *   * 1.1   
 D   P    Fy    t  
 1  0.5  
 P 
  y 
Where
c =critical buckling strain
t = nominal wall thickness
Offset = weld offset (assumed)
D = outside diameter (nominal value)
Pi = internal pressure
Py = yield pressure
E = young modulus

The PRCI equation includes girth weld factor defined as the weld offset normalized by the pipe
wall thickness. The level of weld offset was based on actual measured data during full scale pipe
laboratory tests, which had a range from 3% to 9.7% of the pipe wall thickness. Table 3.2 shows
the allowable compressive strain limits calculated for the 30 inch (Line 1) and 40 inch (Line 2)
using the PRCI 2004 equation for two offset/t ratios of 3% and 9.7% using equation 3.4. Table
3.3 shows the compressive strains limit calculated for plain pipe using equation 3.5 developed by
PRCI.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 61

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Table 3.2: Compressive Strain Limits Calculated According to PRCI

OD T P Fy PY ε (%) for
mm mm D/t (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) P/PY offset/t
(in) (in) 0.03 0.097
0 0 0.39 0.3
762
7.92 96 3.93 483 10 0.35 0.57 0.44
(30)
7.0 0.7 1.03 0.81
0 0 0.33 0.25
1016
9.52 106 3.25 483 9 0.36 0.48 0.37
(40)
6.5 0.72 0.91 0.71

Table 3.3: Compressive Strain Limits for Plain Pipe Calculated According to PRCI
ε (%) for
OD T P Fy PY
D/t P/PY Imp (%)
(in) (in) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa)
2 3
0 0 0.46 0.44
762 7.92
96 3.93 483 10 0.35 0.66 0.62
(30) (0.31)
7.86 0.7 1.16 1.1
0 0 0.39 0.37
1016 9.52
106 3.25 4.83 9 0.36 0.56 0.54
(40) (0.35)
6.5 0.7 1.03 0.98

3.3 Tensile Strain Limit

The maximum allowable tensile strains are considered to be governed by the failure stress or
strain state for a circumferential defect. This assessment was completed using a British Standard
7190 Level 2A failure assessment approach [30]. These strain limits were estimated by
considering the axial pipe wall membrane strain that would cause a reference flaw to extend.
The BS7910 failure assessment approach considering the potential for both ductile and brittle
crack extension was used to define the membrane stress/strain state that would cause crack
extension.

In developing the tensile strain limit, the following data and assumptions were considered:

 The pipe was assumed to have the minimum specified strength properties outlined in
Table 3.4;

 The welds were assumed to overmatch the base material. Conservatively, the weld metal
properties were assumed to be the same as the base material;

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 62

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 The design flaw that was adopted was 0.5 mm, 1 mm and 2 mm deep, 50 mm long semi-
elliptical surface flaw;

 The design flaw was assumed to be located at the weld toe. The stress concentrating
effects of the weld toe defined in BS 7910 were applied considering a maximum weld
width of 25 mm; and

 The pipe CTOD fracture toughness was assumed to be 0.05 mm. Based upon experience
this represents low toughness (brittle) behavior.

The FlawCheck software was used to apply the BS7910 Level 2A assessment procedure to each
pipe geometry and material combination (see Table 3.4) to define the pipe wall local membrane
stress and strain state that would result in crack extension. The results of this assessment are
listed in Table 3.4 below. The results presented below are consistent with the girth weld defect
acceptance techniques adopted by API 579 and CSA Z662, as both of these standards have
incorporated the BS 7910 procedure.

Table 3.4: Tensile Strain Limits: (a=0.5, 1 and 2 mm, 2c=50 mm, CTOD=0.05 mm)
Tensile Stress
OD t Flaw Size Tensile Strain
Grade Limit
Line mm mm D/t mm Limit
t MPa
(in) (in) (in) εt (%)
(ksi)
0.5 498 0.62
762 7.92
1 96 1 473 0.43
(30) (0.31)
2 455 0.33
X70
0.5 504 0.7
1016 9.52
2 106 1 484 0.49
(40) (0.35)
2 464 0.38

The tensile strain limit was estimated from the tensile stress limit based upon the engineering
stress-strain relationship developed for the minimum specified material properties presented in
Table 4.1.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 63

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

4 ILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT

APPLICATIONS
4.1 Modeling of Landslide Hazard
The objective of this section is to complete three (3) lateral soil movement simulations
considering three potential slope failures width to illustrate the impact of the problem parameters
on the analysis results as part of Task 3, then complete a sensitivity study to define the
relationship between problem parameters and the pipe strains developed in lateral soil
movements and identify the trends.

Analyses were completed for the 30 and 40-inch diameter pipes to assess its response to lateral
ground movement and to determine the structural integrity significance of ground movement
induced strain demands. The analyses considered a total of seven (7) potential slope failures with
a total estimated width of failure along the pipeline approximately 5 m, 10 m, 15 m, 20 m, 30 m,
40 m and 50 m.

The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain limits
defined in Sections 3 and 4 of CSA Z662, PRCI 2004 and BS 7910.

4.1.1 Summary of Inputs Required and Processes Modelled

The input parameters used in the modeling are summarized in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2.

Table 4.1: Input Parameters

Pipeline Parameters Value(s)

Outside Diameter (mm) 762, 1016 (30 and 40- inch)
Wall Thickness (mm) 7.92, 952
D/t Ratio 96, 106
Material Grade X70
Yield Strength, SMYS (MPa) 483
Ultimate Strength, SMTS (MPa) 565
Operating Pressure (0.6SMYS) (MPa) 7,6.5
Temperature Differential (0C) 30
Soil
C’ (kPa) 7.8
Ф’ (deg) for Clay Fill 28.8
Interface Friction angle (undrained/drained) 28
Soil Unit Weight (kN/m3) 19
Average depth to pipe centerline (m) 1.85 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 64

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

4.1.1.1 Landslide Hazard Finite Element Model Description

4.1.1.2 Introduction
Soil-pipe interaction numerical simulation requires large deformation analysis capability; this
requirement is difficult to meet for Lagrangian-based codes. LS-DYNA offers the possibility to
use continuum Multi-material Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (MM-ALE) finite element model
and continuum Smooth Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) capabilities for modeling materials that
undergo large deformations.

In this study, the soil-pipe interaction under soil movement is investigated with particular
attention to both the soil constitutive model and the use of the LS-DYNA SPH modeling
technique.
4.1.1.3 Continuum SPH Model
LS-DYNA 971 explicit was used to produce a 3D continuum model using the SPH method. The
SPH method utilizes a meshless Lagrangian method to represent soils. The method does not
require element meshing (mesh-less) and can handle extreme material distortion. In the SPH
method, the soil material is treated as particles that have their masses smoothed in space. The
coupling between the SPH grid points (soil) and the pipe is accomplished through a normal
Lagrangian contact definition.

The analyses use the displacement control method similar to the shear box test where the pipe is
embedded into three adjacent boxes, where the middle of the three soil boxes is displaced
relative to the others as shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show an example of
the middle box movement relative to the others at crossing angle of 90° and 45° to simulate
lateral ground movement (perpendicular to the pipeline) and ground movement at crossing angle
of 45°.

Figure 4.1: Illustration of the SPH FE Model Including the Pipe-Side View

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 65

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.2: Illustration of the SPH FE Model: Lateral Ground Movement

Figure 4.3: Illustration of the SPH FE Model: Ground Movement at

Crossing Angle of 45o

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 66

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Loading Sequence
The soil mass in the simulation is taken to be stress free prior to the simulation and the
simulation loading is imposed in three steps. In the first step, the gravitational acceleration is
applied and sufficient time is allowed to ensure that the soil stress reaches a stationary state. In
the second load step, an operating pressure equal to the MOP (see Table 4.2) and a temperature
differential of 30°C were applied. In the third load step, the moving (unstable) soil mass was
moved at a desired crossing angle.

4.1.1.4 Pipe Properties

Table 4.2 lists the material properties used. The full stress-strain curves of the pipe materials
were incorporated in the finite element modeling. Figure 4.4 shows the stress for X70 materials.
This curve was developed based upon the minimum specified material properties from API X70
material.
Table 4.2: Input Parameters Used for the Analyses
OD MOP SMYS(1) SMTS(1)
t (Y/T )
Line inch D/t ksi Grade ksi ksi
(mm) Ratio
(mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
30 0.31 1.02
1 96
(762) (7.92) (7.0) 70 81.9
X70 0.85
40 0.35 0.94 (483) (565)
1 106
(1016) (9.52) (6.5)
Note1: Tensile Requirements per minimum specified values from Grade X70

Figure 4.4: True Stress-Strain Curves for X70 (483 MPa) Materials

4.1.1.5 Soil Material Model

LS-DYNA offers the possibility to use a large range of material types that can be applied to objects
within the simulation. For the present analyses, the soil is modelled using a two surface plasticity
model, where the shear failure surface and pressure-volume strain (compaction) surface are
independent. In LS-DYNA, this constitutive model is known as material model 5, or the “soil and
foam model”. The soil and foam model is the most basic of the geo-material models available in
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 67

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

LS-DYNA. It is also the oldest and, therefore, has had a considerable amount of user experience,
and feedback. It is also considered to be quite robust. The shear failure criterion for the soil and
foam model has a mean stress (pressure) dependent strength, typical of geo-materials, of the
form:
J 2  a0  a1 P  a 2 P 2 [Eq. 4.1]

where P is the mean stress and coefficients, a0, a1 and a2, are determined by calibrating (fitting)
the model to tri-axial compression data. The relative value of the coefficients a0, a1, and a2
determine the shape of the shear failure envelope, elliptical for a2 less than zero, parabolic for a2
equal zero and hyperbolic for a2 greater than zero.

The effects of the excess pore water pressures were not considered in this modeling exercise.
The simulations were also limited to a single phase material response.

The soil material model properties used in the continuum model are summarized in Table 4.3.
This data was developed based upon soil properties obtained from soil study performed by
Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) under contract to NASA Langley Research Center’s
[44], charged with evaluating Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) terrain landing Design. The soil
types considered are CSW or Carson Sink wet clay of Nevada, classified as clay of low to
medium plasticity. The Unified Soil Classification System Symbol (USCS) is CL. The softness
of the soil is attributed to fat clay and moisture content. Figure 4.5 shows a picture of Carson
Sink soil and Figure 4.6 shows the soil volume strain versus mean stress.

Table 4.3: Soil Material Model Properties Used in the Continuum Model
Soil Property Value
C’ (kPa) 7.8 [1.16 psi]
Ф’ (deg) 28.8
Soil unit weight (kN/m3) 18
Shear Modulus (MPa) 3.58 [520 psi]
Yield surface Coefficient, a0 (kPa)2 93 [1.97 psi2]
Yield surface Coefficient, a1 (kPa) 12.8 [1.86 psi]
Yield surface Coefficient, a2 0.43
Moisture content 12%

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 68

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.5: Photo of Carson Sink Soil (NASA 2008)

Figure 4.6: Volume Strain vs. Mean Stress (NASA 2008)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 69

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

4.1.2 Structural Analyses for a 30-inch Pipeline

Analyses were completed for the 30-inch pipe (Line 1) to assess its response to lateral ground
movement and to determine the structural integrity significance of ground movement induced
strain demands. The analyses considered seven potential ground movement failures with a total
estimated width of failure perpendicular to the pipeline including:
 Case1: W=5 m
 Case2: W=10 m
 Case3: W=15 m
 Case4: W=20 m
 Case5: W=30 m
 Case6: W=40 m
 Case7: W=50 m
4.1.2.1 30-Inch Diameter Line Results
The following Figures illustrate the SPH Finite element model and snapshots of the finite
element model output.
 Figure 4.7 illustrates the response of pressurized pipeline subjected to ground
movement for Case1 (W=10 m). Figure 4.7 shows also the axial strains distribution
(blue color is compressive and red is tensile strain); in this Figure, the soil above the
pipe is hidden so the pipe deformation can be visualized.
 Figure 4.8 illustrates the response of pressurized pipeline subjected to ground
movement for Case2 (W=20 m). Figure 4.8 shows also the axial strains distribution
(blue color is compressive and red is tensile strain); in this Figure, the soil above the
pipe is hidden so the pipe deformation can be visualized.
 Figure 4.9 illustrates the response of pressurized pipeline subjected to ground
movement for Case3 (W=40 m). Figure 4.9 shows also the axial strains distribution
(blue color is compressive and red is tensile strain); in this Figure, the soil above the
pipe is hidden so the pipe deformation can be visualized
 Figure 4.10 illustrates an example of ground movement profile at different levels of
movements considering movement width of 20 m (Case2). The soil displacements
illustrated in this Figure illustrate that the soil moves uniformly up to a shear zone at
the limits of the displacement zone.
 Figure 4.11 illustrates an example of pipeline deformation profile at different levels of
ground movement considering ground movement width of 20 m (Case2). These results,
compared with those in Figure 4.10, illustrate that the pipe does not follow the same
profile since some of the soil flows around the pipe.
 Figure 4.12 shows the true axial strain at 3’oclock and 9 o’clock position along the
pipeline for Case1 (W=10 m) considering soil movement of 1.93 m
 Figure 4.13 shows the true axial strain at 3’oclock and 9 o’clock position along the
pipeline for Case2 (W=20 m) considering soil movement of 1.93 m
 Figure 4.14 shows the true axial strain at 3’oclock and 9 o’clock position along the
pipeline for Case3 (W=40 m) considering soil movement of 1.93 m
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 70

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The analysis has demonstrated that pipeline parameters and operating loading have a significant
effect on the pipeline response and integrity. For a given pipe geometry and operating conditions,
there is a critical lateral soil movement width that maximizes pipe bending moments and strains.
The critical soil movement width is about 10 m for the 30 inch pipeline.

Figure 4.7: Line 1 - Pipe Deformation & Axial Strain (Blue Compressive and Red is
Tensile) For Case1: Soil Movement of 4.9 m & Width=10 m

Figure 4.8: Line 1 - Pipe Deformation & Axial Strain (Blue Compressive and Red is
Tensile) For Case2: Soil Movement of 4.9 m & Width=20 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 71

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.9: Line 1 - Pipe Deformation & Axial Strain (Blue Compressive and Red is
Tensile) For Case3: Soil Movement of 4.9 m & Width=40 m

Figure 4.10: Line 1 - Ground Movement Profiles at Different Levels of Soil Movement for
Case2: W=20 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 72

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.11: Line 1 - Pipe Movement Profiles at Different Levels of

Soil Movement for Case2: W=20 m

Figure 4.12: Line 1 - Axial Strain & Pipe and Ground Movement Profiles for Case1:
W=10 m Considering Soil Movement of 1.93 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 73

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.13: Line 1 - Axial Strain & Pipe and Ground Movement Profiles for Case2:
W=20 m Considering Soil Movement of 1.93 m

Figure 4.14: Line 1 - Axial Strain & Pipe and Ground Movement Profiles for Case3:
W=40 m Considering Soil Movement of 1.93 m

4.1.2.2 Comparison with Strain Criteria and Safety Envelopes

The objective was to develop a simple method to define the effects of operational and
geotechnical loads on liquid and gas pipeline systems to support decision making regarding

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 74

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

threat severity or repair scheduling. This tool incorporated in strain based design and assessment
to facilitate the consideration of complex loading scenarios inducing significant flexural loads,
including pipeline subsidence or lowering, and ground movements inducing lateral pipeline
movements.

The results of the finite element analyses were interpolated, to produce an envelope defining the
combinations of ground displacement and width where the pipe was safe and not safe. Failure or
“not safe Pipe” was presumed to occur if the axial strains (tensile and/or compressive strains) at
any location exceeded strain limits defined from BS 7910, CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2004.

4.1.2.2.1 Tensile Strain Criteria and Safety Envelopes

The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain limits
defined from the guidance provided by Sections 4 and 5 of BS 7910 for tensile strain, CSA-Z662
and PRCI 2004 for compressive strain.

Figures 4.15 and 4.16 show the axial tensile and compressive strains in the 30-inch pipe as a
function of the centerline of lateral soil displacement for various lateral soil widths [5–50 m].
The results were presented in Table 4.4 through Table 4.6. It was found that:

 Case1: W=5 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.3 m to 0.44 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement ranging from 1.5 m to 1.6 m for pipeline operating at 0.5
maximum operation pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range
increases to 2 to 2.9 m when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.
 Case2: W=10 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.3 m to 0.44 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement ranging from 1.39 m to 1.5 m for pipeline operating at 0.5
maximum operation pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range
increases to 1.65 to 1.98 m when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.

 Case3: W=15 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.36 m to 0.57 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm,
respectively;

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 75

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement ranging from 2.09 m to 2.25 m for pipeline operating at 0.5
maximum operation pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range is
higher than 2.9m when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.

 Case4: W=20 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.4 m to 0.67 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement ranging from 2.09 m to 2.25 m for pipeline operating at 0.5
maximum operation pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range is
higher than 3 m when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.

 Case5: W=30 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.4 m to 0.71 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement ranging from 2.09 m to 2.25 m for pipeline operating at 0.5
maximum operation pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range is
higher than 3 m when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.

 Case6: W=40 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.46 m to 0.72 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm,
respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement ranging from 2.09 m to 2.25 m for pipeline operating at 0.5
maximum operation pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range is
higher than 3 m when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.

 Case7: W=50 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.5 m to 0.72 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement ranging from 2.09 m to 2.25 m for pipeline operating at 0.5
maximum operation pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range is
higher than 3 m when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.

The results were interpolated, to produce an envelope defining the combinations of ground
displacement and width where the pipe was safe and not safe. Failure “not safe pipe” was
presumed to occur if the tensile strain at any location exceeded strain limits.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 76

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.17 shows a set of pipe safety envelopes for BS7910 tensile strain limits, considering a
flaw size of 0.5mm, 1mm and 2mm. Figure 4.18 shows a set of pipe safety envelopes for CSA-
Z662 and PRCI compressive strain limits. The results show the importance of ground soil
movement width. It shows that the critical soil movement width that maximizes pipe bending
moments and strains are about 5 m to 10 m for the 30 inch pipe.

The results are very sensitive to the assumption made regarding the key analysis parameters. A
sensitivity analysis is being carried to define “safety envelopes” for the case where pipe is loaded
by lateral ground movement. Safety envelopes were defined with respect to the combination of
ground displacement width for various soil strengths, pipe geometry (D/t), steel grade and pipe to
soil coefficient of friction.

Figure 4.15: Line 1 - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement Widths: [5 -
50m]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 77

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.16: Maximum Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement: Widths
[5-50 m]

Table 4.4: Line 1 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Tensile Strain Capacity
Flaw Strain Limit Required Ground Displacement
Size BS7910 Ground Movement Width (m)
mm % W5 W10 W15 W20 W30 W40 W50
0.5 0.62 0.44 0.42 0.57 0.67 0.71 0.72 0.72
1 0.43 0.34 0.32 0.42 0.5 0.54 0.56 0.6
2 0.33 0.3 0.26 0.36 0.4 0.42 0.46 0.5

Table 4.5: Line 1 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Compressive Strain

Capacity - CS-Z662
Strain Limit Required Ground Displacement
Pressure
CSA-Z662 Ground Movement Width (m)
% W5 W10 W15 W20 W30 W40 W50
0.5 MOP 0.39 1.54 1.39 2.09 2.1 2.2 2.28 2.3
MOP 0.57 2 1.65 2.9 3 3.2 3.3 3.36

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 78

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Table 4.6: Line 1 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Compressive Strain

Capacity - PRCI -2004
Strain Limit Required Ground Displacement
Pressure PRCI-2004
(offset/t=0.097) Ground Movement Width (m)
% W5 W10 W15 W20 W30 W40 W50
0.5 MOP 0.44 1.6 1.5 2.25 2.25 2.34 2.42 2.5
MOP 0.81 2.9 1.98 >3.5 >3.5 >3.5 >3.5 >3.5

Figure 4.17: Line 1 - Safety Envelopes: Tensile Strain Limit

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 79

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.18: Line 1 - Safety Envelopes: Compressive Strain Limit

4.1.3 Structural Analyses for the 40-inch Pipeline

Analyses were completed for the 40-inch pipe (Line 2) to assess its response to lateral ground
movement and to determine the structural integrity significance of ground movement induced
strain demands. The analyses considered seven potential ground movement failures with a total
estimated width of failure perpendicular to the pipeline including:

 Case1: W=5 m
 Case2: W=10 m
 Case3: W=15 m
 Case4: W=20 m
 Case5: W=30 m
 Case6: W=40 m
 Case7: W=50 m

The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain limits
defined from the guidance provided in Section 3 the CSA Z662, PRCI 2014 and BS 7910 limit
states.
4.1.3.1 40-Inch Diameter Line Results
The following Figures illustrate the SPH Finite element model and snapshots of the finite
element model output.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 80

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 Figure 4.19 illustrates an example of ground movement profile at different levels of

movements considering movement width of 20 m (Case2). The soil displacements
illustrated in this Figure illustrate that the soil moves uniformly up to a shear zone at
the limits of the displacement zone.

 Figure 4.20 illustrates an example of pipeline deformation profile at different levels

of ground movement considering ground movement width of 20 m (Case2). These
results compared with those in Figure 5. 19 illustrate that the pipe does not follow the
same profile since some of the soil flows around the pipe.

 Figure 4.21 shows the true axial strain at 3’oclock and 9 o’clock position along the
pipeline for Case3 (W=15 m) considering soil movement of 1.93 m.

Figure 4.19: Line 2 - Ground Movement Profiles at Different Levels of Soil Movement for
Case2: W=20 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 81

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.20: Line 2 - Pipe Movement Profiles at Different Levels of Soil Movement for
Case2: W=20 m

Figure 4.21: Line 2 - Axial Strain & Pipe and Ground Movement Profiles for Case3:
W=15 m Considering Soil Movement of 1.93 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 82

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

4.1.3.1.1 Comparison with Strain Criteria and Safety Envelopes

The objective was to develop a simple method to define the effects of operational and
geotechnical loads on liquid and gas pipeline systems to support decision making regarding
threat severity or repair scheduling. This tool incorporated in strain based design and assessment
to facilitate the consideration of complex loading scenarios inducing significant flexural loads,
including pipeline subsidence or lowering, and ground movements inducing lateral pipeline
movements.

The results of the finite element analyses were interpolated, to produce an envelope defining the
combinations of ground displacement and width where the pipe was safe and not safe. Failure or
“not safe pipe” was presumed to occur if the axial strains (tensile and/or compressive strains) at
any location exceeded strain limits.

4.1.3.1.2 Tensile Strain Criteria and Safety Envelopes

The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain limits
defined from the guidance provided by Sections 3 and 4.

Figures 4.24 and 4.25 show the axial tensile and compressive strains in the 40-inch pipe as a
function of the centerline of lateral soil displacement for various lateral soil widths [5–50 m].
The results were presented in Tables 4.7 through 4.9. It was found that:
 Case1: W=5 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.6 m to 1.12 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement of 2.76 m for pipeline operating at 0.5 maximum operation
pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range increases to 3.6 to 4.0 m
when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.
 Case2: W=10 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.26 m to 0.62 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm,
respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement of 0.96 m for pipeline operating at 0.5 maximum operation
pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range increases to 1.22 and 1.5 m
when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.

 Case3: W=15 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.4 m to 0.62 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement to 0.96 m for pipeline operating at 0.5 maximum operation

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 83

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range increases to 1.56 m and 2.5
m when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.
 Case4: W=20 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.55 m to 0.82 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm,
respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement ranging from 2.09 m to 2.25 m for pipeline operating at 0.5
maximum operation pressure (MOP). The allowable soil displacement range is
higher than 3 m when the pipe is pressurized to MOP.
 Case5: W=30 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.76 m to 1.25 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm,
respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement higher than 3.8 m for pipeline operating at 0.5 and maximum
operation pressure (MOP).
 Case6: W=40 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.77 m to 1.3 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement ranging higher than 3.8 m for pipeline operating at 0.5 and
maximum operation pressure (MOP).
 Case7: W=50 m
 the tensile strain related failure limits were reached for ground displacement ranging
from 0.78 m to 1.3 m considering flaw size of 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively;
 CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2014 compressive strain related failure limits were reached for
ground displacement higher than 3.8 m for pipeline operating at 0.5 and maximum
operation pressure (MOP).

The results were interpolated, to produce an envelope defining the combinations of ground
displacement and width where the pipe was safe and not safe. Failure “not safe pipe” was
presumed to occur if the tensile strain at any location exceeded strain limits defined from BS
7910, CSA-Z662 and PRCI 2004.

Figure 4.17 shows a set of pipe safety envelopes for BS7910 tensile strain limits, considering a
flaw size of 0.5 mm, 1 mm and 2 mm. Figure 4.18 shows a set of pipe safety envelopes for CSA-
Z662 and PRCI compressive strain limits. The results show the importance of ground soil
movement width. It shows that the critical soil movement width that maximizes pipe bending
moments and strains are about 10 m to 15 m for the 40-inch pipe with D/t ratio of 106.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 84

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The results are very sensitive to the assumption made regarding the key analysis parameters. A
sensitivity analysis is being carried to define “safety envelopes” for the case where pipe is loaded
by lateral ground movement. Safety envelopes were defined with respect to the combination of
ground displacement width for various soil strengths, pipe geometry (D/t), steel grade and pipe to
soil coefficient of friction.

Figure 4.22: Line 2 - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement Widths: [5-50
m]

Figure 4.23: Line 2 - Maximum Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement:
Widths [5-50 m]
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 85

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Table 4.7: Line 2 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Tensile Strain Capacity
Flaw Strain Limit Required Slope Movement
Size BS7910 Ground Movement Width (m)
mm % W5 W10 W15 W20 W30 W40 W50
0.5 0.70 1.12 0.62 0.62 0.82 1.25 1.3 1.3
1 0.49 0.7 0.45 0.45 0.62 0.95 1 1
2 0.38 0.6 0.26 0.4 0.55 0.76 0.77 0.78

Table 4.8: Line 2 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Compressive Strain

Capacity - CS-Z662
Strain Limit Required Ground Displacement
Pressure
CSA-Z662 Ground Movement Width (m)
% W5 W10 W15 W20 W30 W40 W50
0.5 MOP 0.37 2.76 0.96 0.96 3.1 3.8 3.8 3.8
MOP 0.53 3.6 1.22 1.56 3.8 4 4.1 4.1

Table 4.9: Line 2 - Required Ground Displacement to Cause Compressive Strain

Capacity - PRCI-2004
Strain Limit Required Ground Displacement
Pressure PRCI-2004
(offset/t=0.097) Ground Movement Width (m)
% W5 W10 W15 W20 W30 W40 W50
0.5 MOP 0.37 2.76 0.96 0.96 3.1 3.8 3.8 3.8
MOP 0.71 >3.8 1.5 2.5 3.8 >3.8 >3.8 >3.8

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 86

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.24: Line 2 - Safety Envelopes: Tensile Strain Limit

Figure 4.25: Line 2 - Safety Envelopes: Compressive Strain Limit

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 87

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

4.2 Modeling of Subsidence

The objective of the analyses presented in this section is to simulate surface subsidence and
evaluate the effects on pipeline. The goal was to develop a simple method to define the effects of
operational and geotechnical loads on liquid and gas pipeline systems to support decision making
regarding threat severity or repair scheduling. This tool incorporated strain based design and
assessment to facilitate the consideration of complex loading scenarios inducing significant
flexural loads, including pipeline subsidence or lowering.

This section focuses on the analysis of surface subsidence associated with underground mining
and its effects on pipelines. The analyses were completed for the 30-inch pipe (D/t =96) to assess
its response to longwall mining subsidence and to determine the structural integrity significance
of ground subsidence induced strain demands. The analyses considered a total of three (3)
potential panel extraction widths that influence surface subsidence, including:

1. Sub-critical panel extraction width.

2. Critical panel extraction width.

3. Super- critical panel extraction width.

The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain limits
defined from the guidance provided in Section 3 outlining the CSA Z662, PRCI 2004 and BS
7910 limit states.

4.2.1 Mining Subsidence Phenomena and Terminology

Ground subsidence pose hazards to pipelines, the principal causes are subsurface fluid
withdrawal, drainage of organic soil, sinkholes, underground mining, hydrocompaction, thawing
permafrost, and natural consolidation (USGS-2008). This section focuses on the analyses of
subsidence associated with underground mining. Surface subsidence due to underground coal
mining is generally classified as (USGS-2008):

1. Pit subsidence: is a circular hole in the ground with a diameter ranging from 1 to 12
m, generally occurs over shallow mines, depth less than 50 m.

2. Sag/trough subsidence is a rectangular depression with large subsidence depth and

area typically occurs in conjunction with longwall mining.

These classifications are illustrated in Figure 4.26.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 88

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Pit Subsidence Sag Subsidence

Figure 4.26: Typical type of Subsidence Associated with Underground Coal Mining
(Bauer and Hunt, 1982; USGS 2008)

In general, underground mining and in particular longwall mining can cause significant surface
subsidence displacement, which is usually about 25 to 95 percent of the mined thickness of coal
(PRCI 1986).

There are three classifications of extraction area that influence the characteristic of subsidence
sag/trough.

Figure 4.27 illustrates the three panel extraction areas that influence surface subsidence. The
panel extraction areas are defined based on panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H) as follows:

 Sub-critical panel extraction width – occurs when the extraction width is narrow,
having a W/H ratio less than 1.4, and causes less than the maximum possible
subsidence at the ground surface;

 Critical panel extraction width –is slightly wider than sub-critical and is defined as an
extraction that has a W/H ratio of approximately 1.5 to 2;

 Super-critical panel extraction width- is defined as an extraction that has a W/H ratio
larger than 2.0. Super-critical extraction is large enough to potentially cause the
maximum possible subsidence at the ground surface. It causes a flat area of maximum
subsidence in the center of the flat surface.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 89

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)


Figure 4.27: Longwall Mining Subsidence Parameters (New South Wales Coal
Association)

Various empirical (e.g., National Coal Board (NCB) 1966, Appalachian method 1985) models
have been used to predict ground surface subsidence for given mining operation described above.
These empirical methods were based on large number of field measurements. The profile
functions are based on a curve fitting.

The NCB method uses different graphs and tables for different conitions to predict the
subsidence profile. For example, a graph for prediction of subsidence factor and profile are
presented in Figure 4.28 and Figure 4.29.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 90

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.28: Graph for Subsidence Factor (NCB-1975)

Figure 4.29: Graph for Prediction Subsidence Profile (NCB-1975)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 91

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

An alternative method based upon Appalachian mining experience was used to predict
subsidence profile in Appalachian coalfield in the USA. The subsidence profile for this method
can be represented by mathematical model as follows:

S0   cx  
S  x  1  tanh  
2   B 

Where:
S0 is the maximum subsidence
X is the horizontal distance from the origin point of deflection (center of the subsidence)
B is the distance from the influence point to the center of the profile
c is a site-specific coeficient

The site specific coefficient (c) is developed based upon local observations at the site of interest
or similar sites to calibrate the empirical model. As such, the ground movement mechanism is
somewhat predetermined based upon past geotechnical event historical experience.

Finite element models can be used as an alternative to estimate the subsidence profile, the
modeling approach can account for the characteristic of various rock strata, as well as the
orientation of the bedding planes. However, the FE method requires more input data and
iterations to calibrate to case history than the empirical methods.

4.2.2 Finite Element Analyses

4.2.2.1 Model Description
The following section summarizes the development of the finite element models used to assess
the effect of longwall mining subsidence on pipelines. To understand the effect of numerous
variables on the estimated pipeline behavior, two (2) 3-Dimensional pipe-soil interaction models
were developed using LS-DYNA.

The first model, using a coupled Smooth Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) and Lagragian method
was developed to explicitly estimate the ground subsidence profile, soil strain and the effects of
the of the subsidence on pipelines. The coupled model, shown in Figures 4.30 and 4.31 consist
of the pipeline, trench backfill, ground surface, overburden strata, coal seam and panel width
extraction. A sample application of the coupled finite element model is presented and discussed
in the next section.

The second model is also 3 dimensional pipe-soil interaction model, using the discrete-elements
method (DEM) where the ground subsidence was initiated using empirical method. This model
was used to complete a sensitivity study to define the problem parameters and the pipe strains
developed in ground events and identify trends. The results are presented in the sectons tht
follow. This method was found to be more computationally efficient. Both the SPH and DEM
methods were validated by demonstrating their ability to simulate full-scale lab trials. These
results were presented in previous project reports.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 92

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Overburden Strata Backfill Ground Surface

H
Coal-Seam

Extraction Width (W)

Figure 4.30: Illustration of the FE Model: Subsidence

Backfill

Ground Surface

Overburden Strata

Figure 4.31: Illustration of the Model Including the Pipe-Side View and Backfill Trench

4.2.2.2 Summary of Inputs Required and Processes Modelled

Finite element analyses using a 3D continuum model developed for this project were carried out
to predict to predict both surface subsidence due to coal-seam mining and its effects on pipelines.
The model is a coupled 3D continuum model that can consider the effects of layered soils, trench
geometries, operating conditions, and pipe materials stress-strain behavior including differences
in tensile and compressive material behaviors.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 93

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The analyses were completed for a 30 inch dimeter pipeline with 6.35 mm (D/t=120) and 7.92
mm (D/t=96) wall thickness and Grade X52, considering the subsidence resulting from a
longwall mine face length of 300 m, seam depth of 100 m, extraction height of 5 m and three
different extraction widths including:

 Case1: Sub-critical panel extraction width of W=75 m that has a W/H ratio of 0.75
 Case2: Critical panel extraction width of 150 m with a W/H ratio of 1.5
 Case3: Super-critical panel extraction width of 300 m with W/H ratio of 3

The maximum possible subsidence at the ground surface was estimated using NCB subsidence
factor presented in Figure 4.31. A subsidence factor of 0.74, 0.87 and 0.96 are assumed for super
critical, critical and subcritical panel extraction widths, respectively.

Figure 4.32 shows an example of predicted subsidence basin along the pipeline for critical
subsidence width. The mining subsidence results in ground surface subsidence, axial soil
movement and strain in the soil. This demonstrates the capability of the model to predict bot the
subsidence profile and soil strains.

The subsidence profiles predicted by finite element analyses were compared with the best known
empirical methods, NCB method and Appalachian methods. Figures 4.32, 4.33 and 4.34 compare
the subsidence profiles predicted by the FE model and best known empirical methods, NCB
Method and Appalachian method. Note, that while there is a difference in the subsidence profile
from one empirical method to the other, the FEA model prediction is closer to the NCB method.
The FE model results predicted a less abrupt curvature than the NCB method for these cases. The
results are sensitive to input parameters including soil properties which are not explicitly
considered in the NCB and Appalachian empirical models. The advantage of the FE model,
demonstrated to generally agree with the empirical subsidence predictors, is that it is coupled
analysis technique that can report the impact of the subsidence event on the response of the
pipeline. The strains experienced by the pipeline due to the subsidence event can be evaluated.

Detailed results are presented as follow:

 Figure 4.35 shows an example of predicted ground subsidence and pipe deformation
for Case1 considering subcritical extraction width (W/H=0.75). In this figure, the pipe
backfill trench continuum is hidden so that the displaced pipeline can be visualized.

 Figure 4.36 shows an example of the predicted ground subsidence and pipe
deformation for Case2 considering critical extraction width (W/H=1.5). In this figure,
the pipe backfill trench continuum is hidden so that the displaced pipeline can be
visualized.

 Figure 4.37 shows an example of the predicted ground subsidence and pipe
deformation for Case3 considering critical extraction width (W/H=3). In this figure,
the pipe backfill trench continuum is hidden so that the displaced pipeline can be
visualized.
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 94

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 Figure 4.38 and 4.39 plots the surface subsidence profile, pipeline profile and pipeline
axial strains distribution at different clock positions (3, 6 and 12 o’clock) along the
length of the pipeline for D/t of 120 and 96. The results presented in this figure are for
Case1 considering a sub-critical extraction width (W/H ratio of 0.75).

 Figure 4.40 and 4.41 plots the surface subsidence profile, pipeline profile and pipeline
axial strains distribution at different clock positions (3, 6 and 12 o’clock) along the
length of the pipeline for D/t of 120 and 96. The results presented in this figure are for
Case2 considering a critical extraction width (W/H ratio of 1.5).

 Figure 4.42 and 4.43 plots the surface subsidence profile, pipeline profile and pipeline
axial strains distribution at different clock positions (3, 6 and 12 o’clock) along the
length of the pipeline for D/t of 120 and 96. The results presented in this figure are
for Case3 considering a Super-critical extraction width (W/H ratio of 3).

Figures 4.35 to 4.43 plot the surface subsidence profile, pipeline profile and axial strains
distribution at different clock positions (6 and 12 o’clock) along the length of the pipeline. The
results presented in these figures are for the three (3) analyzed cases for D/t of 120 and 96. The
results demonstrate that the pipeline strain distribution response is significantly affected by the
panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H). Also, the super-critical panel extraction width results in
the largest tensile strain in the pipe for the six (6) analyzed cases. General observations on the
trends in pipe response to the subsidence hazard include:

 For sub-critical panel extraction width (W/h=0.5); the peak tensile of 0.4% and 0.36%
at the maximum deflection point for D/t 120 and 96, respectively.

 For critical panel extraction width; and (W/h=1.5), the peak tensile strain of 0.67%
and 0.36% for D/t of 120 and 96, respectively. The maximum strains occurred at in
the curved portion with two bending zones at 45 m and 65 meters from the deflection
point.

 For super- critical panel extraction width (W/h=3), the peak tensile strain of 0.75%
and 0.51% for D/t of 120 and 96, respectively. The maximum strains occurred at in
the curved portion with two bending zones at 130 m and 150 meters from the
deflection point.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 95

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.31: Predicted Subsidence Profile from the Maximum Deflection Point and
Longitudinal Soil Displacement and Tensile Strain in the Soil

Figure 4.32: Comparison of Subsidence Profiles Predicted by FE Model and Empirical

Method (NCB Method, Appalachian Method) for Subcritical Panel Extraction Width

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 96

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.33: Comparison of Subsidence Profiles Predicted by FE Model and Empirical

Method (NCB Method, Appalachian Method) for Critical Panel Extraction Width

Figure 4.34: Comparison of Subsidence Profiles Predicted by FE Model and Empirical

Method (NCB Method), for Super-Critical Extraction Width

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 97

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.35: Surface Subsidence and Pipeline Deformation, for Case2: Subcritical
Extraction Width, W/H=0.75

Figure 4.36: Soil Subsidence and Pipeline Deformation, for Case2: Critical Extraction
Width, W/H=1.5

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 98

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.37: Soil Subsidence and Pipeline Deformation, for Case3: Super-Critical
Extraction Width, W/H=3

Figure 4.38: Surface Subsidence, Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for
Subcritical Extraction Width (W/H=0.75) – Case1a (D/T= 120)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 99

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.39: Surface Subsidence, Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for
Subcritical Extraction Width (W/H=0.75) – Case1a (D/T= 96)

Figure 4.40: Surface Subsidence, Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for
Critical Extraction Width (W/H=1.5) - Case2a (D/T=120)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 100

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.41: Surface Subsidence, Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for
Critical Extraction Width (W/H=1.5) - Case2b (D/T=96)

Figure 4.42: Surface Subsidence Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for Super
Critical Extraction Width (W/H=3) - Case3a (D/T=120)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 101

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.43: Surface Subsidence Pipeline Profile and Axial Strains Distribution, for Super
Critical Extraction Width (W/H=3) - Case3b (D/T=96)

4.2.3 Application of Finite Element Model to Predict Pit Subsidence and Effects on Pipelines
The developed model was applied to predict pit subsidence and the effects on pipelines. The
analysis was completed for the 30-inch with D/t ratio of 96 to assess its response to pit
subsidence considering a large pit diameter of 20 m. Note that the focus of the project is sag
subsidence. This example was completed to demonstrate the significance of the pit subsidence
geotechnical hazard events.

Detailed results are presented as follows:

 Figure 4.44 shows an example of predicted pit subsidence, where the pipeline
experiences the adhesive resistance from the surrounding soil in addition to the
weight of the soil above.

 Figure 4.45 plots pipeline profile and axial strains distribution at different clock
positions (6 and 12 o’clock) along the length of the pipeline. The results indicated
that the tensile strains increase to levels higher than 2% while the peak compressive
strains were on the order of 0.5% for this analyzed case.

 Figure 4.46 and 4.47 plot the pipe vertical displacement and peak tensile in pipe in
relation to subsidence. The results clearly indicate that the pipeline response to pit
subsidence is fairly complex and cyclic. The pipe in the mid plane settles to transfer
the load from weight of the soil above and the soil resistance from the surrounding
soil. However, as the soil surrounding start to move, “fall” around the pipe, the pipe

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 102

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

starts to rebound and covers about 17% of its vertical deflection, for the analyzed
case.

These results suggest that while the response of the pipe included bending (curvature) effects, a
significant component of the pipe strains are derived from pipe axial extension.

Figure 4.44: Pit Subsidence – Pipe Deflection

Figure 4.45: Predicted Pipeline Profile and Maximum Tensile Strains in the Pipe for Pit
Subsidence of 2.05 M

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 103

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 4.46: Peak Pipe Displacement in Relation to Pit Subsidence

Figure 4.47: Maximum Tensile Strains in the Pipe in Relation to Pit Subsidence (Left) and
Vertical Pipe Deflection (Right)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 104

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

5 MODELING OF PIPELINE SUBSIDENCE HAZARDS

The objective of this section is to complete a sensitivity study to define the problem parameters
and the pipe strains developed in pipeline subsidence events and identify trends.

The analyses considered 90 ground subsidence scenarios. The scenarios included the following:

 Pipe geometry: four pipe diameter NPS 12 (324 mm OD), NPS 18 (457 mm OD),
NPS 24 (610 mm OD) and NPS 30 (762 mm OD);
 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 6.35 mm (0.25 inch), 9.52 mm (0.375)
and 12.7 mm (0.5 in); corresponding to D/t ratio of 96, 64 and 48, respectively;
 Ground displacement direction: Subsidence, vertical to the pipeline axis;
 Panel widths: three panel widths of 61 m (200 ft), 122 m (400 ft) and 183 m (600 ft)
 Mining depths: three different mining depth for each panel width
 Panel extraction areas defined based on panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H):
three W/H ratio of 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 for each panel width;
 Shape of ground displacement: three ground subsidence patterns;
 One soil conditions with soil properties consistent with sand/clay till; and
 Pipeline burial depth: One burial depth of 1.2m (4 ft) to top pipe, corresponding to 1.5
m (5 ft) depth to pipe center line.
The assumptions for the analyses included in the sensitivity study considering pipeline response
to soil displacement pattern were as follows:

 72%, 50% and 36 % SMYS internal pressure were considered;

 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C) for
the base case. Temperature differentials between construction and operation (∆T) of 0
°C and 65°C were considered for the sensitivity analysis to evaluate the effect of the
temperature differential; and
 Generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359), and X-70 (483) pipe according to
the API 5L.
5.1 Finite Element Model Description
LS-DYNA 971 was used to undertake 3D pipe-soil interaction modeling using a Discrete
Element Method (DEM). In the DEM model considered in this report the soil is represented by
discrete particles and the pipe is modeled using shell element with five (5) integration points
through the thickness. The LS-DYNA MAT24 isotropic hardening material model incorporating
a Von Mises yield response was calibrated based upon a full true stress strain curve for the pipe
material allowing the non-linear bi-axial stress state in the pipe to be considered.

The interaction between the pipeline and the surrounding soil is modeled by a robust penalty-
based contact in which slip and separation are allowed between soil particles and the pipe. The

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 105

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

DEM has been applied because it offers the ability to represent the soil as a continuous volume
that appropriately permits large displacements while respecting the soil constitutive response and
has proven to be a computationally efficient modeling technique.

5.1.1 DEM Model

The LS-DYNA discrete element method used in this report was originally developed by Cundall
et al. [45] for rock and soil applications. In the DEM, the granular material is idealized using
rigid spherical particles. Each particle may have three displacements and three rotation degrees
of freedom. The motion of each particle is computed using Newton’s law of motion. A robust
penalty-based contact is used to capture the particle-to-particle and particle-structure interaction
of dry and wet particles, as shown in Figure 5.1. Penalty-based particle contact is used to capture
the inter-particle response and its ability to capture the additional moments introduced by
spherical particles through its rolling contact parameter. The motions of the particles are
considered in LS-DYNA such that the motions and interactions of individual particles are
resolved into normal and tangential components and the total force on a particle is summed. By
defining the inter-particle response parameters the volumetric response of the soil can be
calibrated to simulate a range of soil types. More detailed information about DEM in LS-DYNA
can be found in the LS-DYNA manual and Karajan et al. [46].

Figure 5.1: (a) Penalty-Based Particle-Particle Interaction in LS-DYNA and (b) Possible
Collision States for Mechanical Contact [43, 45]

5.1.2 Loading Sequence

The soil mass in the simulation is taken to be stress free prior to the simulation and the
simulation loading is imposed in three steps. In the first step, the gravitational acceleration is
applied and sufficient time is allowed to ensure that the soil stress reaches a stationary state. In
the second load step, an operating pressure equal to the MOP (72% SMYS) and a temperature
differential of 45°C were applied. In the third load step, the surface subsidence was initiated
using Appalachian method developed based upon Appalacian mining experince in the USA.

5.1.3 Pipe Properties

The full stress-strain curves of the pipe materials were incorporated in the finite element
modeling. Figure 5.2 shows the stress for X70 and X52 materials. This curve was developed
based upon the minimum specified material properties from API X52 and X70 material.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 106

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.2: True Stress-Strain Curves for X52 and X70 (359 and 483 MPa) Materials

5.2 Structural Analyses for the 24-inch Pipeline

Analyses were completed for the NPS 24 (609 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to surface subsidence and to determine the structural integrity significance of ground
movement induced strain demands. The analyses considered 30 ground subsidence scenarios.
The scenarios included the following:

 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 6.35 mm (0.25 inch), 9.52 mm (0.375)
and 12.7 mm (0.5 in); corresponding to D/t ratio of 96, 64 and 48, respectively;
 Ground displacement direction: Subsidence, vertical to the pipeline axis;
 Panel widths: three panel widths of 61 m (200 ft), 122 m (400 ft) and 183 m (600 ft)
 Mining depths: three different mining depth for each panel width
 Panel extraction areas defined based on panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H):
three W/H ratio of 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 for each panel width;
 Shape of ground displacement: three ground subsidence patterns;
 One soil conditions with soil properties consistent with sand/clay till; and
 Pipeline burial depth: One burial depth of 1.2m (4 ft) to top pipe, corresponding to 1.5
m (5 ft) depth to pipe center line.

The surface subsidence profile was initiated using Appalachian method developed based upon
Applachian mining experience in The USA.

Figures 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 show the assumed patterns for different widths considering sub-critical,
critical and super-critical panel width extraction.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 107

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.3: Subsidence Profile Pattern, W =200 ft (61 m) - H/W = 0.5, 1.5 and 3

Figure 5.4: Subsidence Profile Pattern, W = 400 ft (122 m) - H/W = 0.5, 1.5 and 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 108

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.5: Subsidence Profile Pattern, W = 600 ft (182 m) - H/W = 0.5, 1.5 and 3

The assumptions for the analyses included in the sensitivity study considering pipeline response
to soil displacement pattern were as follows:

 72%, 50% and 36 % SMYS internal pressure were considered;

 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C) for
the base case. Temperature differentials between construction and operation (∆T) of
0°C and 65°C were considered for the sensitivity analysis to evaluate the effect of the
temperature differential;
 Generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359), and X-70 (483) pipe according to
the API 5L.
5.3 Results Base Case
The following section represents the summary results for the NPS 24 (609 mm outside diameter)
for the base case with:

 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) wall thickness (D/t =96);

 Grade 359 (X-52) pipes;
 72% SMYS internal pressure, 5.4 MPa;
 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C);
 Burial depth H=1.2 m (4 ft), corresponding to 1.5 m (5 ft) depth to pipe center line,
overburden ratio (H/D) of 2.46;
 Soil: sand/clay till with (ϕ’=30° and C’=5 kPa);

Typical graphical output from finite element model is illustrated in Figure 5.6 and 5.7. These
figures illustrate the response of the pressurized NPS 24 pipeline subjected to ground settlement
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 109

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

for mine subsidence width of W= 61 m (200 ft) considering panel width to depth ratio of 0.5.
The figures also show the axial strain distribution (blue color is compressive and red is tensile
strain). In these figures, the soil above the pipe is hidden so the pipe deformation can be
visualized.

Figure 5.8 shows the pipeline longitudinal strains at the 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions for
peak soil displacement of 3 m. The peak tensile strain is about 1.8 % and is higher than the
compressive strain which is approximately 0.79%. This differential in peak tensile and
compressive strains indicates that there is a significant uniform axial strain in the pipe due to a
large catenary effect.

Figure 5.6: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for W = 61m (200 Ft) and Ground
Subsidence of 4 M (13 Ft) (Top View –Soil Above the Pipe is Hidden)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 110

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.7: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for W = 61 m (200 Ft) and Ground
Subsidence of 4 M (13 Ft) (Top View – Soil Above the Pipe is Hidden)

Figure 5.8: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H = 0.5 and
Soil Settlement of 4 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 111

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

5.3.1 Effect of the Mining Width to Depth Ratio

Figure 5.9 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline
versus the maximum ground subsidence for panel extraction width of 61 m (200 ft) considering
three (3) potential panel depth that influence surface subsidence, including:

1) sub-critical panel extraction width (W/h=0.5);

2) critical panel extraction width; and (W/h=1.5);
3) super-critical panel extraction width (W/h=3).

Figures 5.10 and 5.11 present the maximum local and nominal compressive strains in the
longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for various ground
subsidence widths to depth ratio considered in the analyses. The nominal compressive strain is
defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge length of 2D (D is the pipe
outside diameter). This large stain gauge length is used to permit the analyses to be compared
directly to codified permissible strain formulations which are reported over this gauge length.

The results indicate that for the three (3) cases considered, the sub-critical panel extraction width
(W/h=0.5) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of
ground subsidence for analyzed cases.

Figures 5.12 and 5.13 plot the pipe deformation for panel extraction width of 61 m considering a
three (3) potential panel width to depth ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3. The results demonstrate that the pipe
deformation is significantly affected by the by the panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H).

 For W/h ratio equal to 0.5 (sub-critical) the width of pipe deformation is narrow and
results in higher bending strain. The maximum pipe displacement follows the ground
settlement up to a certain soil settlement then the pipe displacement increase more slowly
with ground settlement (Figure ).
 For W/h ratio equal to 1.5 (critical) the width of pipe deformation is slightly wider than
sub-critical strain but large enough to cause the pipe to follow the ground settlement as
shown in (Figure ).
 For W/h ratio equal to 3 (super - critical) the width of pipe deformation is large enough to
potentially cause the maximum possible pipe settlement. It causes a flat area of maximum
pipe deformation in the center of the flat surface and causes the pipe to follow the ground
settlement as shown in (Figure ).

Figures 5.16 through Figures 5.17 plot the surface subsidence profile, pipeline profile and axial
strains distribution at different clock positions (6 and 12 o’clock) along the length of the pipeline.
The results presented in these figures are for the three (3) analyzed cases. The results
demonstrate that the pipeline strain distribution response is significantly affected by the panel
width to mining depth ratio (W/H).

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 112

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

1. For sub-critical panel extraction width (W/h =0.5); the peak tensile (1.7%) and
compressive (0.8%) strains are at the maximum deflection point.

2. For critical panel extraction width; and (W/h =1.5), the peak tensile strain (0.6%)
and compressive strain (0.15%) are at the maximum deflection with 2 additional
bending zones at 15 m and 35 meters from the deflection point.

3. For super-critical panel extraction width (W/h =3), the peak tensile strain (0.91%) and
compressive strain (0.35%) are at 20 m and 35 m from the deflection point.

Figure 5.9: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W =61
m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

Figure 5.10: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W =61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 113

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.11: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W =61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

W/h=0.5

W/h = 1.5

W/h = 3
Figure 5.12: Pipe Deformation and Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft
(61 m), W/H = 0.5, 1.5 and 3 for Surface Settlement of 4 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 114

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

W/h=0.5

W/h = 1.5

W/h = 3

Figure 5.13: Pipe Deformation and Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft
(61m), W/h = 0.5, 1.5 and 3 for Surface Settlement of 4 m (Top View – Soil above the pipe is
hidden)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 115

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.14: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Pipe Displacing vs. Soil Settlement of 4m

Figure 5.15: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H = 0.5 and
Soil Settlement of 4 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 116

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.16: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H = 1.5 and
Soil Settlement of 4 m

Figure 5.17: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H = 3 and Soil
Settlement of 4 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 117

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

5.3.2 Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes

5.3.2.1 Comparison with Strain Capacity of the 24 inch pipeline (D/t = 96)
The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain
capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI 2004
for compressive strain. In the final report, other strain capacity formulations will be considered.
The strain capacities calculated in this example and described in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 are
provided in Table 5.1 and presented with dashed horizontal line in Figure 5.9 and Figure 5.10.
The compressive strain capacity (CSC) given in Table 5.1 is the value after applying a resistance
factor (RF) of 0.8 to the computed CSC directly from CSA and UOA/PRCI equations. The
tensile strain limit considers the presence of several 50-mm long surface-breaking, semi-elliptical
girth weld flaws and all of the strain limits consider the pipeline to be operating at an internal
pressure that induces a pipe wall stress of 72% of its SMYS.

Table 5.1: Maximum Allowable Tensile and Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=6.35mm,
D/t=96, Grade X52
Tensile Strain Limit (%) Compressive Strain (%) –Resistance Factor =0.8
BS 7910
CSA Z662 PRCI
Flaw Depth (mm)
0.5 1 2 (72% SMYS) (50% SMYS) (72% SMYS)
1.2 0.99 0.35 -0.34 -0.39 -0.6

5.3.2.1.1 Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes (TSCE)

Figure 5.9 presents the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the ground subsidence width (W)
to panel depth for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, 3.0, 3.0 and 4.0. In this figure,
the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any tensile strain
above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

In Figure , Figure , Figure 5.9 and Figure 5.10 the strain demands from the analysis were used to
relate the geotechnical event (subsidence), soil, pipe and pipeline operating conditions to tensile
and compressive strains produced ground settlement.

The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, panel width to depth
ratio of 0.5 can be considered critical. This result suggests that the pipeline is forced to follow
the ground subsidence pattern and more sharp subsidence profiles promotes higher curvature
along with pipe axial extension. The tensile strain-related failure limit for the critical width is
reached for ground displacement from 1.5 to 3 m considering a flaw size of 2, 1 and 0.5 mm,
respectively. Strains are minimized when the panel width to depth ratio is at a value of
approximately 1.75.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 118

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.9: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W =61 m,
200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

5.3.2.1.2 Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes (CSCE)

Figure 5.10 presents the maximum nominal compressive strain in the pipe versus the panel width
to depth ratio (W/h) for given ground settlement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0. The
nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge
length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the CSA and PRCI compressive
strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. The compressive strains are maximized for
lower panel width ratios.

Figure 5.10: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W
=61 m, 200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 119

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

5.3.3 Effect of the Width of the Subsidence

Figure 5.11 through Figure 5.13 present the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe
versus the maximum ground settlement for three (3) panel widths analyzed; 200 ft (61 m), 400 ft
(122 m) and 600 ft (183m) considering panel width to depth ratio of 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 for each
case (width). The results indicate that for the three (3) widths considered, the width of 200 ft
(61m) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of
ground settlement. Also, the panel width to depth ratio of 0.5 results in the largest tensile and
compressive strain in the pipe for the three (3) analyzed widths.

Figure 5.14 through Figure 5.16 presents the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive
(negative) strains in the pipe. The results indicated that for subsidence width of 200 ft (61 m) the
calculated compressive strains are slightly higher at ground displacement less than 0.5 m; this is
mainly due to compressive strain induced by thermal loading. At large ground displacement,
tensile strains are higher than compressive strain. This differential in peak tensile and
compressive strains indicates that there is a significant uniform axial strain in the pipe due to
larger catenary effect. Also, the results indicated that for subsidence higher that 400 ft (122 m)
the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive (negative) strains in the pipe is negligible that
indicate that the pipe is subjected to pure bending.

Figure 5.11: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the
Pipe vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 120

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.12: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the
Pipe vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5]

Figure 5.13: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the
Pipe vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 121

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.14: NPS 24 (D/t=96) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (Negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5]

Figure 5.15: NPS 24 (D/t=96) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (Negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 122

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.16: NPS 24 (D/t=96) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (Negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3]

5.3.4 Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes

5.3.4.1 Comparison with Strain Capacity of the 24 inch Pipeline (D/t=96)
The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain
capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI 2004
for compressive strain. In the final report, other strain capacity formulations will be considered.
The strain capacities calculated in this example and described in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 are
provided in Table 5.1 and presented with dash horizontal line in Figure 5.13 and Figure 5.15.
The compressive strain capacity (CSC) given in Table 5.1 is the value after applying a resistance
factor (RF) of 0.8 to the computed CSC directly from CSA and UOA/PRCI equations. The
tensile strain limit considers the presence of several 50-mm long surface-breaking, semi-elliptical
girth weld flaws and all of the strain limits consider the pipeline to be operating at an internal
pressure that induces a pipe wall stress of 72% of its SMYS.

Figure 5.17 through Figure 5.19 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal
direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground settlement for various ground subsidence
widths and width to depth ratio considered in the analyses. In this figure, the BS-7910 tensile
strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any tensile strain above the horizontal line
is strain-related failure limit. The results indicated that subsidence width of 61 m (200 ft) with
width to depth ratio of 0.5 results in the largest tensile and compressive strain

Figure 5.20 through Figure 5.22 present the maximum nominal compressive strains in the
longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for various ground
subsidence widths considered in the analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 123

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

average compressive strain measured over a gauge length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter).
This large stain gauge length is used to permit the analyses to be compared directly to codified
permissible strain formulations which are reported over this gauge length. In this figure, the
PRCI compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any compressive strain
above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

The results indicate that for the three (3) widths considered, the width of 61 m (200 ft) results in
the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground displacement.

The results indicated that subsidence width of 61 m (200 ft) with width to depth ratio of 0.5
results in the largest tensile and compressive strain. For large width of 183 m (600 ft) the strain
demand do not exceed the tensile and compressive strain limit for ground subsidence up to 4 m
(13 ft).

Figure 5.17: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W =
61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 124

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.18: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W =
122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

Figure 5.19: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W =
183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 125

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.20: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W = 61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

Figure 5.21: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W = 122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 126

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.22: NPS 24 (D/t=96) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W = 183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

5.3.4.1.1 Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes (TSCE)

Figure 5.23, Figure 5.24 and Figure 5.25 present the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the
three (3) ground subsidence widths considered for given ground subsidence of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5,
3.0, 3.0 and 4.0. In these figures, the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with a dashed
horizontal line. Any tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

In these figures, the strain demands from the analysis were used to relate the geotechnical event
(subsidence), soil, pipe and pipeline operating conditions to tensile and compressive strains
produced ground settlement.

The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, panel width to depth
ratio of 0.5 can be considered critical. The tensile strain-related failure limit for the critical width
is reached for ground displacement from 1.5 to 3 m considering a flaw size of 2, 1 and 0.5 mm,
respectively.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 127

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.23: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W = 61 m,
200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

Figure 5.24: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W = 122 m,
400 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 128

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.25: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W = 183 m,
600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

5.3.4.1.2 Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes (CSCE)

Figure 5.26, Figure 5.27 and Figure 5.28 present the maximum nominal compressive strain in the
pipe versus the panel width to depth ratio (W/h) for given ground settlement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0,
2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive
strain measured over a gauge length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the
CSA and PRCI compressive strain capacity is presented with a dashed horizontal line.

The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, panel width to depth
ratio of 0.5 can be considered critical. The tensile strain-related failure limit for the critical width
is reached for ground subsidence from 1.5 to 3.5 m considering CSA and PRCI compressive
strain limit criteria.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 129

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.26: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W
=61 m, 200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

Figure 5.27: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W =
122 m, 400 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 130

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.28: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth Ratio (W =
183 m, 600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

5.4 Effect of Pipe Wall Thickness and D/t

The structural performance of the NPS 24-inch pipeline subjected to settlement was evaluated
using a combination of three pipe wall thicknesses, for demonstration purposes.

The three wall thicknesses include the base case 9.52 mm (0.375), 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) and 12.7
mm (0.5 inch); corresponding to D/t ratios of 64, 96 and 48, respectively. The same pipe and soil
materials assumptions used for the base case are used in the sensitivity:

 72% SMYS internal pressure, corresponding to 5.4 MPa, 8 MPa and 10 MPa for D/t
ratio of 96, 64 and 48, respectively;
 Grade 359 (X-52), a generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) pipe according
to the CSA Z245.1;
 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C);
 Burial depth H=1.2 m (5ft), corresponding to 1.5 m (5ft) depth to pipe center line,
overburden ratio (H/D) of 2.46;
 Soil: sand/clay till with (ϕ’=30° and C’=5 kPa);
 Panel widths: three panel widths of 61 m (200 ft), 122 m (400 ft) and 183 m (600 ft)
 Mining depths: three different mining depth for each panel width;
 Panel extraction areas defined based on panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H):
three W/H ratio of 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 for each panel width; and
 Shape of ground displacement: three ground subsidence patterns.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 131

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

A comparison of the results of the three wall thicknesses analyzed for ground subsidence
considering ground subsidence of 61 m (200 ft) and three panel width to depth ratio (W/h 0.5,
1.5 and 3) is provided in Figure 5.29, Figure 5.30 and Figure 5.31.

Figure 5.32 and Figure 5.33 plot axial strains distribution at different clock positions 6 and 12
o’clock along the length of the pipeline. The results presented in these figures are ground
subsidence width of 200 ft (61 m) and three W/h ratios of 0.5, 1.5 and 3. These results illustrate
that for narrow subsidence events the pipe strains are maximized at the center of the ground
movement. This indicates that the pipeline is following the soil displacement relatively closely.
This trend would not necessarily be the case for lower strength soils.

The results in Figure 5.29 through Figure 5.33 and Table 5.2 indicated that pipeline with higher
D/t ratio (lower pipe wall thickness) results in higher computed tensile and compressive strains
with higher tensile strain than compressive strain. For example, for panel width to depth ratio of
0.5 the strain ranged from +1.68% and –0.79% for 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) wall thickness to
+1.37% and –0.55% for 9.53 mm (0.375 inch) wall thickness while for 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) the
corresponding strain range is +0.77% and -0.33%. The reported maximum strains in Table 6.2
are for ground settlement of 4.0 m.

Table 5.2: Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain [%] for NPS 24, W =200 ft (61 m) –
Effect of D/t (Settlement of 4m)
D/t D/t= 96 D/t=64 D/t=48
Strains Tensile Compressive Tensile Compressive Tensile Compressive
W/h = 0.5 1.68 -0.79 1.37 -0.55 0.77 -0.33
W/h = 1.5 0.6 -0.36 0.39 -0.08 0.46 -0.2
W/h = 3 0.92 -0.14 0.86 -0.2 0.75 -0.26

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 132

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.29: NPS 24 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground
Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h= 0.5

Figure 5.30: NPS 24 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground
Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h= 1.5

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 133

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.31: NPS 24 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground
Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h= 3

Figure 5.32: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 at 6 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H
= 0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 134

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.33: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 at 12 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61 m),
W/H = 0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m

5.4.1 Effect of the Width of Ground Movement

Figure 5.34 through Figure 5.39 present the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe
versus the maximum ground settlement for three (3) panel width analyzed; 200 ft (61m), 400 ft
(122 m) and 600 ft (183m) considering panel width to depth ratio of 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 for the two
wall thicknesses includes 9.52 mm (0.375) and 12.7 mm (0.5 inch); corresponding to D/t ratios
of 65 and 48, respectively. The same pipe and soil materials assumptions used for the base case
are used in the sensitivity for each case (d/t). The results indicate that for the three (3) widths
considered the width of 200 ft (61m) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the
pipe for any given value of ground settlement. Also, the panel width to depth ratio of 0.5 results
in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for the three (3) analyzed widths.

Figure 5.40 through Figure 5.45 present the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive (negative)
strains in the pipe for the two wall thicknesses includes 9.52 mm (0.375) and 12.7 mm (0.5 inch);
corresponding to D/t ratios of 64 and 48, respectively. The results indicated the sum of tensile
(positive) and compressive (negative) strains in the pipe are negligible at ground settlement less
than 1.5 m that indicate that the pipe is subjected to pure bending. At large ground displacement,
tensile strains are higher than compressive strain. This differential in peak tensile and
compressive strains indicates that there is a significant uniform axial strain in the pipe due to a
large catenary effect.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 135

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.34: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the
Pipe vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5]

Figure 5.35: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the
Pipe vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 136

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.36: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the
Pipe vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5]

Figure 5.37: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the
Pipe vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 137

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.38: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile and Local Compressive Strains in the
Pipe vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3]

Figure 5.39: NPS 24 (D/t=48) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 138

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.40: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5]

Figure 5.41: NPS 24 (D/t=48) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 0.5]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 139

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.42: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5]

Figure 5.43: NPS 24 (D/t=48) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 1.5]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 140

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.44: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3]

Figure 5.45: NPS 24 (D/t=48) – Sum of Maximum Tensile (Positive) and Local Compressive
Strains (negative) vs. Ground Settlement: [W/h= 3]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 141

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

5.4.2 Comparison with Strain Criteria and Safety Envelopes

The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain limits
defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI 2004 for
compressive strain. These strain limits are provided in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 and presented
with a dashed horizontal line in Figure 5.26 and Figure 5.27. The tensile strain limit considers
the presence of several 50-mm long surface-breaking, semi-elliptical girth weld flaws and all of
the strain limits consider the pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure that induces a pipe
wall stress of 72% of its SMYS.

Table 5.3: Maximum Allowable Tensile and Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=12.7 mm,
D/t=48, Grade X52
Tensile Strain Limit (%) Compressive Strain (%) –Resistance Factor =0.8
BS 7910
CSA Z662 PRCI
Flaw Depth (mm)

0.5 1 2 (72% SMYS) (50% SMYS) (72% SMYS)

Table 5.4: Maximum Allowable Tensile/Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=9.52 mm,
D/t=64, Grade X52
Tensile Strain Limit (%) Compressive Strain (%) – Resistance Factor =0.8
BS 7910
CSA Z662 PRCI (2 mm offset)
Flaw Depth (mm)
0.5 1 2 (72% SMYS) (50% SMYS) (72% SMYS)
1.23 1.06 0.47 -0.54 -0.91 -1.41

Figure 5.46 through Figure 5.51 present the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction
of the pipeline versus the maximum ground settlement for various ground subsidence widths and
width to depth ratio considered in the analyses. The results presented in this section are for the
two wall thicknesses includes 9.52 mm (0.375) and 12.7 mm (0.5 inch); corresponding to D/t
ratios of 96 and 48, respectively. In this figure, the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented
with dash horizontal line. Any tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure
limit. The results indicated that subsidence width of 61 m (200 ft) with width to depth ratio of 0.5
results in the largest tensile and compressive strain. Lower subsidence widths and higher pipe D/t
result in higher strain levels for a give subsidence magnitude.

Figure 5.52 through Figure 5.57 present the maximum nominal compressive strains in the
longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for various ground
subsidence widths considered in the analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the
average compressive strain measured over a gauge length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter).
This large stain gauge length is used to permit the analyses to be compared directly to codified
permissible strain formulations which are reported over this gauge length. In this figure, the
PRCI compressive strain capacity is presented with a dashed horizontal line. Any compressive

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 142

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. Lower subsidence widths and higher
pipe D/t result in higher strain levels for a give subsidence magnitude.

The results indicate that for the three (3) widths considered, the width of 61 m (200 ft) results in
the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground displacement.

The results indicated that subsidence width of 61 m (200 ft) with width to depth ratio of 0.5
results in the largest tensile and compressive strain. For large widths of 183 m (600 ft) the strain
demand do not exceed the tensile and compressive strain limit for ground subsidence up to 4 m
(13 ft).

Figure 5.46: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence
W =61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

Figure 5.47: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence
W =61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 143

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.48: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence
W =122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

Figure 5.49: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence
W =122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 144

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.50: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence
W =183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

Figure 5.51: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile Strain in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence
W =183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 145

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.52: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W =61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

Figure 5.53: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W =61 m (200 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 146

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.54: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W =122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

Figure 5.55: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W =122 m (400 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 147

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.56: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W =183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

Figure 5.57: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W =183 m (600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3

5.4.2.1.1 Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes (TSCE)

Figures 5.67 through 5.72 present the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the three (3)
ground subsidence widths considered for given ground subsidence of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, 3.0, 3.0
and 4.0. In these figures, the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with a dashed
horizontal line. Any tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

In these figures, the strain demands from the analysis were used to relate the geotechnical event
(subsidence), soil, pipe and pipeline operating conditions to tensile and compressive strains
produced ground settlement.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 148

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The results indicate that this pipe with:

 D/t equal to 64 and operating condition combination, panel width to depth ratio of
0.5. The tensile strain-related failure limit for the critical width is reached for ground
settlement from 1.5 to 3 m considering a flaw size of 2, 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively.
 D/t equal to 48 and operating condition combination, panel width to depth ratio of 0.5
to 3. The tensile strain-related failure limit not exceeds the strain limit for ground
settlement up to 4.0 m considering a flaw size of 2, 1 mm, respectively.

Figure 5.58: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0

Figure 5.59: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 149

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.60: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =122 m, 400 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

Figure 5.61: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =122 m, 400 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 150

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.62: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =183 m, 600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

Figure 5.63: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio (W =183 m, 600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m

5.4.2.1.2 Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes (CSCE)

Figures 5.73 through 5.78 present the maximum nominal compressive strain in the pipe versus
the panel width to depth ratio (W/h) for given ground settlements of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0,
3.5 and 4.0. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the CSA and
PRCI compressive strain capacity is presented with a dashed horizontal line.

The results indicate that for this pipe with low D/t ratio less than 64 and operating condition
combination, panel width to depth ratio of 0.5 to 3. The compressive strain limit does not exceed
the strain limit for ground settlement up to 4.0 m considering CSA and PRCI compressive strain
limit criteria.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 151

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.64: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m

Figure 5.65: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft) for Ground settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 152

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.66: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W =122 m, 400 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m

Figure 5.67: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W =61 m, 200 ft) for Ground settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 153

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.68: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W = 183 m, 600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m

Figure 5.69: NPS 24 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio (W =183 m, 600 ft) for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 m

5.5 Effect of Temperature

Comparison between the results of three temperature differentials from construction to operation
(0, 45 and 65°C) analyzed for subsidence width of 61 m (200 ft) (base case) is provided in Figure
5.70 and Figure 5.71. Both of these figures are for X-52 grade NPS 24 (610 mm) pipe with t
=6.35 mm (0.25 in) [D/t=96]. Reduction in the differential temperature results in reduction in the
maximum computed compressive strains. The maximum computed tensile strain is not
significantly affected by the temperature differential. The computed compressive strain for case
with the maximum temperature differential is more than twice the computed compressive strain
for case with no temperature effect.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 154

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.70 presents the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe versus the
maximum ground settlement for ground subsidence width of 61 m (200 ft) considering panel
width to depth ratio of 0.5. Figure 5.71 presents the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive
(negative) strains in the pipe. The results indicated that the calculated compressive strains are
slightly higher at ground settlement less than 1.75 m for cases with a temperature differential;
this is mainly due to compressive strain induced by thermal loading. At large ground
displacement, tensile strains are higher than compressive strain. This differential in peak tensile
and compressive strains indicates that there is a significant uniform axial strain in the pipe due to
a large catenary effect. The compressive strains induced by the temperature differential attenuate
the maximum tensile strains which are primarily promoted by uniform pipe extension.

Figure 5.70: NPS 24 (D/t=96) – Maximum Axial Strain Versus Ground Settlement for
Ground Subsidence Width of 61 m (200 ft) –Temperature Effect

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 155

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.71: NPS 24 (D/t=96) – Sum of the Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain
versus Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence Width of 61 m (200 ft) – Pressure Effect

5.6 Effect of Operating Pressure

Comparison between the results of three operating pressure of 2.7 MPa, 3.7 MPa and 5.4 MPa
considering that the pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure that includes a pipe wall
stress of 36%, 50% and 72% of its SMYS. The results of the analyses for subsidence width of 61
m (200 ft) are provided in Figures 5.81 and 5.82. These figures are for X-52 grade NPS 24 (610
mm) pipe with t =6.35 mm (0.25 in) and D/t=96. Figure 5.72 presents the maximum tensile and
compressive strains in the pipe versus the maximum ground settlement for subsidence width of
61m (200 ft) considering panel width to depth ratio of 0.5. Reduction in the operating pressure
results in an increase in the maximum computed compressive strains. The maximum computed
tensile strain is not significantly affected.

Figure 5.73 presents the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive (negative) strains in the pipe.
The results indicated that the calculated compressive strains are slightly higher at ground
settlement less than 2.0 m for cases with a lower operating pressure. At large ground
displacement, tensile strains are higher than compressive strain. This differential in peak tensile
and compressive strains indicates that there is a significant uniform axial strain in the pipe due to
larger catenary effect.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 156

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.72: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Pipe Axial Strain Due to Ground Settlement for
Ground Subsidence Width of 61 m (200 ft) – Pressure Effect

Figure 5.73: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of the Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain
versus Ground Settlement for Ground Subsidence Width of 61 m (200 ft) – Pressure Effect

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 157

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

5.7 Structural Analyses for the 12-inch Pipeline

Analyses were completed for the NPS 12 (324 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to ground subsidence and to determine the structural integrity significance of ground
movement induced strain demands. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of
D/t ratio and the width of then ground subsidence. The analyses considered 18 subsidence
scenarios. The scenarios included the following:

 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 4.57 mm (0.18 inch), 6.35 mm and 9.52
mm (0.375 in); corresponding to D/t ratio of 71 and 34 respectively;
 Ground displacement direction: Perpendicular (lateral) to the pipeline axis;
 Panel widths: three panel widths of 61 m (200 ft), 122 m (400 ft) and 183 m (600
ft);
 Mining depths: three different mining depth for each panel width;
 Panel extraction areas defined based on panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H):
three W/H ratio of 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 for each panel width;
 Shape of ground displacement: three ground subsidence patterns;
 One soil conditions with soil properties consistent with sand/clay till;
 Pipeline burial depth: One burial depth of 1.2m (4 ft) to top pipe, corresponding to 1.5
m (5 ft) depth to pipe center line.

Assumptions for the pipeline were as follows:

 72% SMYS internal pressure;

 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C); and
 A generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) pipe according to the API 5L

5.7.1 12 Inch Pipeline Results

The results presented in in Appendix B illustrate the importance of the width of the ground
subsidence and the panel width to depth ratio. The results demonstrate that the pipe deformation
and strains in the pipe are significantly affected by the by the subsidence width and the panel
width to mining depth ratio (W/H). A comparison of the results of the three wall thicknesses
analyzed for ground subsidence considering ground subsidence of 61 m (200 ft) and three panel
width to depth ratio (W/h 0.5, 1.5 and 3) is provided in Figure 5.83 through Figure 5.88.

Figure 5.83, Figure 5.84 and Figure 5.85 show the maximum tensile and compressive strains in
the NPS 12 (609 mm) pipe along the longitudinal direction as function of the centerline
(maximum) ground settlement subsidence width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h of 0.5, 1.5 and 3. The
results are for X52 grade, and D/t’s (71 and 31).

Figure 5.86, Figure 5.87 and Figure 5.88 plot axial strains distribution at different clock
positions, 6 and 12 o’clock along the length of the pipeline. The results presented in these figures
are for ground subsidence width of 200 ft (61 m) and three W/h ratios of 0.5, 1.5 and 3. The
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 158

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

results in Figure 5.86 through Figure 5.87 and Table 5.5 indicated that pipeline with higher D/t
ratio (lower pipe wall thickness) results in higher computed tensile with higher tensile strain than
compressive strain. For example, for panel width to depth ratio of 0.5 the strain ranged from
+1.0% and -0.36% for 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) wall thickness to +0.62% and –0.37% for 9.53 mm
(0.375 inch) wall. The reported maximum strains in Table 5.5 are for ground settlement of 4.0 m.

Table 5.5: Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain [%] for NPS 12, W =200 ft (61 m) –
Effect of D/t
D/t D/t= 71 D/t=34
Strains Tensile Compressive Tensile Compressive
W/h = 0.5 1.0 -0.36 0.62 -0.37
W/h = 1.5 0.32 -0.05 0.53 -0.03
W/h = 3 0.53 -0.03 0.4 -0.13

Figure 5.83: NPS 12 – Maximum Axial Strain Versus Ground Settlement for Ground
Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 0.5

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 159

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.84: NPS 12 – Maximum Axial Strain Versus Ground Settlement for Ground
Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 1.5

Figure 5.85: NPS 12 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground
subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 160

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.86: Total Axial Strains in NPS 12 at 6 o’clock position for W = 200 ft (61m), W/H
= 0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m

Figure 5.87: Total Axial Strains in NPS 12 at 12 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61m), W/H
= 0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 161

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.88: Total Axial Strains in NPS 12 at 12 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61m), W/H
= 0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m

The strain demands determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain
capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI 2004
for compressive strain. While there are many existing models for calculating the compressive
and tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was decided to develop a simple a strain-
based design methodology that can be easily adapted to any code and standards. These tensile
and compressive strain demand ‘envelopes’ for a given ground subsidence, 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 1.5 m,
2.0 m , 2.5 m, 3.0 m, 3.5 m and 4.0 m will be presented in the final report. The safe pipeline
operating goal of pipeline subjected to surface subsidence is to stay within the normal operating
strain range defined by codes and standards.

5.8 Structural Analyses for an 18-inch Pipeline

Analyses were completed for the NPS 18 (450 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to ground subsidence and to determine the structural integrity significance of ground
movement induced strain demands. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of
D/t ratio and the width of then ground subsidence. The analyses considered 18 settlement
scenarios. The scenarios included the following:

 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 4.57 mm (0.18 inch) and 9.52 mm (0.375
in); corresponding to D/t ratio of 96 and 48 respectively;
 Ground displacement direction: Perpendicular (lateral) to the pipeline axis;
 Panel widths: three panel widths of 61 m (200 ft), 122 m (400 ft) and 183 m (600 ft);
 Mining depths: three different mining depth for each panel width;

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 162

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 Panel extraction areas defined based on panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H):
three W/H ratio of 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 for each panel width;
 Shape of ground displacement: three ground subsidence patterns;
 One soil conditions with soil properties consistent with sand/clay till;
 Pipeline burial depth: One burial depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) to top pipe, corresponding to
1.5 m (5 ft) depth to pipe center line.
Assumptions for the pipeline were as follows:

 72% SMYS internal pressure;

 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C); and
 A generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) pipe according to the API 5L.

5.8.1 Results
The results presented in in Appendix C, illustrate the importance of the width of the ground
subsidence and the panel width to depth ratio. The results demonstrate that the pipe deformation
and strains in the pipe are significantly affected by the by the subsidence width and the panel
width to mining depth ratio (W/H).

A comparison of the results of the three wall thicknesses analyzed for ground subsidence
considering ground subsidence of 61 m (200 ft) and three panel width to depth ratio (W/h 0.5,
1.5 and 3) is provided in Figure 5.89 through Figure 5.94. The results demonstrate that the pipe
deformation and strains in the pipe are significantly affected by the subsidence width and the
panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H).

Figure 5.89, Figure 5.90 and Figure 5.91 show the maximum tensile and compressive strains in
the NPS 12 (609 mm) pipe along the longitudinal direction as function of the centerline
(maximum) ground settlement subsidence width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h of 0.5, 1.5 and 3. The
results are for X52 grade, and D/t’s (96, 48).

Figure 5.92 through 5.94 presents the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive (negative)
strains in the pipe. The results indicated that for subsidence width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h ratio
of 0.5, 1.5 and 3 the calculated tensile strains are higher than compressive strains for pipe with
higher D/t ratio (D/t=96). This differential in peak tensile and compressive strains indicates that
there is a significant uniform axial strain in the pipe due to larger catenary effect in the pipe with
higher D/t ratio.

Figure 5.95, Figure 5.96 and Figure 5.97 plot axial strains distribution at different clock
positions, 6 and 12 o’clock along the length of the pipeline. The results presented in these figures
are for ground subsidence width of 200 ft (61 m) and three W/h ratios of 0.5, 1.5 and 3. The
results in Figure 5.92 through Figure 5.94 and Table 5.6 indicated that pipeline with higher D/t
ratio (lower pipe wall thickness) results in higher computed tensile with higher tensile strain than
compressive strain. For example, for panel width to depth ratio of 0.5 the strain ranged from

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 163

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

+1.41% and -0.80% for 6.35mm (0.25 inch) wall thickness to +0.74% and –0.57% for 9.53mm
(0.375 inch) wall. The reported maximum strains in Table 5.6 are for ground settlement of 4.0 m

Table 5.6: Maximum Tensile/Compressive Strain [%] for NPS 18, W =200 ft (61 m) –
Effect of D/t
D/t D/t= 96 D/t= 48
Strains Tensile Compressive Tensile Compressive
W/h = 0.5 1.41 -0.80 0.74 -0.57
W/h = 1.5 0.4 -0.13 0.24 -0.12
W/h = 3 0.65 -0.15 0.62 -0.31

Figure 5.89: NPS 18 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground
Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 0.5

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 164

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.90: NPS 18 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground
Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 1.5

Figure 5.91: NPS 18 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Settlement for Ground
Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 3

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 165

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.92: NPS 18 – Sum of Tensile and Compressive Axial Strain versus Ground
Settlement for Ground Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 0.5

Figure 5.93: NPS 18 – Sum of Tensile and Compressive Axial Strain versus Ground
Settlement for Ground Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 1.5

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 166

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.94: NPS 18 – Sum of Tensile and Compressive Axial Strain versus Ground
Settlement for Ground Subsidence Width of 200 ft (61 m) and W/h = 3

Figure 5.95: Total Axial Strains in NPS 18 at 6 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61 m), W/H
= 0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 167

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 5.96: Total Axial Strains in NPS 18 at 12 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61 m),
W/H = 0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m

Figure 5.97: Total Axial Strains in NPS 18 at 12 o’clock Position for W = 200 ft (61 m),
W/H = 0.5 and Soil Settlement of 4 m

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 168

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The strain demands determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain
capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI 2004
for compressive strain. While there are many existing models for calculating the compressive
and tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was decided to develop a simple a strain-
based design methodology that can be easily adapted to any code and standards. These tensile
and compressive strain demand ‘envelopes’ for a given ground subsidence 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 1.5 m,
2.0 m, 2.5 m, 3.0 m, 3.5 m and 4.0 m will be presented in the final report. The safe pipeline
operating goal of pipeline subjected to surface subsidence is to stay within the normal operating
strain range defined by codes and standards.

5.9 Pipeline Subsidence Modelling Observations

The sample application of the DEM pipe-soil interaction geotechnical hazard assessment method
was employed to investigate the strains developed in a pipeline subjected to mine subsidence.
The primary focus was an NPS 24 (610 mm) pipe system, however, the analysis also considered
12 (305 mm) and 18 inch (457 mm) diameter pipes. The use of the simulated pipe responses to
soil movement to consider the onset of tensile and compressive limit states in a strain-based
assessment was demonstrated and the sensitivity of the pipe response to a number or
geotechnical hazard scenario factors were presented. For the pipe-soil interaction in which across
mining subsidence panel, it was shown that:

 The response of the pipeline and soil movement pattern is affected by the ground
subsidence magnitude, width and patterns;
 The vertical soil movement-induced pipe displacements will produce both pipe
bending and axial extension;
 The strains in the pipe are affected by the width of the surface subsidence and there is
a critical surface subsidence width that promotes a peak strain. The critical width is a
function of the pipe geometry, pipeline operating conditions and locked-in pipeline
axial loads (i.e. those caused by thermal differential between operating and
construction conditions) and as well as the subsidence parameters.

The use of the results presented in this report to consider subsidence at the edge of rock or
similarly undeformable shelf should be treated with care.

The effect of the parameters considered in these sensitivity studies indicate that the parameters
can be ranked based upon their impact on strain demand as follows:

Higher Importance Medium Importance Lower Importance

- Magnitude of ground subsidence - Pipe geometry (D/t) - Soil to pipe friction
- Ground subsidence pattern - Operating pressure - Material grade
- Width of ground subsidence - Temperature differential
- Burial depth - Soil stiffness

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 169

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Comparisons were made with limit state equations defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for
tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI 2004 for compressive strain to demonstrate the
application of the analysis results in an assessment process. While there are many existing
models for calculating the compressive and tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was
decided to develop a simple a strain-based design methodology that can be easily adapted to any
code and standards, which is the purpose of this section.

The tensile and compressive strain demand envelopes along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline were developed. The maximum soil settlement versus ground width subsidence as a
series of ‘envelopes’ was developed for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands.
The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to stay
within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

The strain for critical width subsidence events (strain demand or applied strain) may be used
conservatively to evaluate the response of pipeline system with similar geotechnical hazards. The
allowable strain (strain capacity or resistance) should be evaluated for each pipe geometry,
material and operating condition.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 170

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

6 MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD

6.1 Introduction
 The objective of this section is to complete a sensitivity study to define the problem
parameters and the pipe strains developed in lateral soil movement events and
identify trends. The analyses considered 90 lateral ground movement scenarios. This
work was focussed on ground movements involving deformable soils. Care should be
taken in applying these results to ground movement across a pipeline surrounded by
rock or very stiff soils that will not deform and will cause extremely localized pipe
deformations. The scenarios included the following:Pipe geometry: four pipe
diameter NPS 12 (324 mm OD) , NPS 18 (457 mm OD), NPS 24 (610 mm OD) and
NPS 30 (762 mm OD);
 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses for each pipe diameter;
 Ground displacement direction: Perpendicular (lateral) to the pipeline axis;
 Width of ground displacement (W): Six potential ground movement scenarios with a
total estimated width of movement perpendicular to the pipeline varying from 10 to
100 m (10, 20, 30, 40 50 and 100 m);
 Shape of ground displacement: two ground displacement patterns;
 Two soil conditions with soil properties consistent with sand and sand/clay till;
 Slopes: two slopes, 0 and 16 deg. The slope of 16 was considered to be the base case,
and 0 degree was only investigated as a sensitivity check; and
 Pipeline burial depth: Three burial depths of 1.2 m (4 ft), 1.5 m (5 ft) and 1.8 m (6 ft)
to top pipe. The burial depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) was considered to be the base case, and
the 1.5 m (5 ft) and 1.8 m (6 ft) were only investigated as a sensitivity check.

The assumptions for the analyses included in the sensitivity study considering pipeline response
to soil displacement pattern were as follows:

 72%, 50% and 36 % SMYS internal pressure were considered;

 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C) for
the base case. Temperature differentials between construction and operation (∆T) of 0
°C and 65°C were considered for the sensitivity analysis to evaluate the effect of the
temperature differential; and
 Generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) and X-70 (483) pipe according to
the API 5L.
6.2 Finite Element Model Description
LS-DYNA 971 was used to undertake 3D pipe-soil interaction modeling using a Discrete
Element Method (DEM). In the DEM model considered in this report the soil is represented by
discrete particles and the pipe is modeled using shell element with five (5) integration points
through the thickness. The LS-DYNA MAT24 isotropic hardening material model incorporating

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 171

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

a Von Mises yield response was calibrated based upon a full true stress strain curve for the pipe
material allowing the non-linear bi-axial stress state in the pipe to be considered.

The interaction between the pipeline and the surrounding soil is modeled by a robust penalty-
based contact in which slip and separation are allowed between soil particles and the pipe. The
DEM has been applied because it offers the ability to represent the soil as a continuous volume
that appropriately permits large displacements while respecting the soil constitutive response and
has proven to be a computationally efficient modeling technique. The background of this method
is described in Section 5.1.1.

The soil mass in the simulation is taken to be stress free prior to the simulation and the
simulation loading is imposed in three steps. In the first step, the gravitational acceleration is
applied and sufficient time is allowed to ensure that the soil stress reaches a stationary state. In
the second load step, an operating pressure equal to the MOP (72% SMYS) and a temperature
differential of 450C were applied. In the third load step, the moving (unstable) soil mass was
moved at a desired crossing angle.

The full stress-strain curves of the X70 and X52 pipe materials were incorporated in the finite
element modeling and are described in Section 5.1.3.

6.3 Structural Analyses for the 24-inch Pipeline

Analyses were completed for the NPS 24 (609 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to lateral ground movement and to determine the structural integrity significance of
ground movement induced strain demands. The analyses considered 50 lateral ground movement
scenarios. The scenarios included the following

 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 6.35 mm (0.25 inch), 9.52 mm (0.375)
and 12.7 mm (0.5 in); corresponding to D/t ratio of 96, 64 and 48, respectively;
 Ground displacement direction: Perpendicular (lateral) to the pipeline axis;
 Width of ground displacement (W): Six potential ground movement scenarios with a
total estimated width of movement perpendicular to the pipeline varying from 10 to
100 m (10, 20, 30, 40 50 and 100 m);
 Shape of ground displacement: two ground displacement patterns;
 Two soil conditions with soil properties consistent with sand and sand/clay till;
 Slopes: two slopes, 0 and 16 deg. The slope of 16 was considered to be the base case,
and 0 was only investigated as a sensitivity check;
 Pipeline burial depth: Three burial depths of 1.2 m (4 ft), 1.5 m (5 ft) and 1.8 m (6 ft)
to top pipe, corresponding to 1.5 m (5 ft), 1.8 m (6 ft) and 2.1 m (7 ft) depth to pipe
center line. The burial depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) was considered to be the base case, and
the 1.5 m (5 ft) and 1.8 m (6 ft) were only investigated as a sensitivity check; and
 The lateral ground deformation was initiated using a cosine function raised to the
power “n” similar to Suzuki et al. [48] and M. O’Rourke [47] function:

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 172

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

x 
n

y x     cos 
 W

When considering this ground deformation function, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to
evaluate the effect of patterns of ground deformation considering exponent “n” values varying
from 0.2 to 2. Sample results of ground deformation with n = 2 and 0.2 are presented in Figures
6.1 and 6.2 shows the assumed patterns for a different widths (W) with n = 2.

Figure 6.1: Ground Movement Pattern n=2

Figure 6.2: Ground Movement Pattern n=0.1

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 173

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The assumptions for the analyses included in the sensitivity study considering pipeline response
to soil displacement pattern were as follows:

 72%, 50% and 36 % SMYS internal pressure were considered;

 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C) for
the base case. Temperature differentials between construction and operation (∆T) of
0°C and 65°C were considered for the sensitivity analysis to evaluate the effect of the
temperature differential;
 Generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) and X-70 (483) pipe according to
the API 5L.
6.4 Results Base Case
The following section represents the summary results for the NPS 24 (609 mm outside diameter)
for the base case with:
 9.52 mm (0.375 inch) wall thickness (D/t =64);
 Grade 359 (X-52) pipes;
 72% SMYS internal pressure, 5.4 MPa;
 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C);
 Burial depth H=1.2 m (5 ft), corresponding to 1.5 m (5 ft) depth to pipe center line,
overburden ratio (H/D) of 2.46;
 Soil: sand/clay till with (ϕ’=300 and C’=5 kPa);
 Slope angle of 16 degrees; and
 Lateral ground deformation was simulated using cosine function (described in
section) raised to power n=2.

Typical graphical output from finite element model is illustrated in Figure 6.3. This figure
illustrates the response of the pressurized NPS 24 pipeline subjected to ground movement for
W=20 m. The figure also shows the axial strain distribution (blue color is compressive and red is
tensile strain). In this figure, the soil above the pipe is hidden so the pipe deformation can be
visualized.

Figure 6.4 shows the pipeline’s longitudinal strains at the 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions for
peak soil displacement of 3 m. The peak tensile strain is about 2.72% and is higher than the
compressive strain which is approximately 1.79%. This differential in peak tensile and
compressive strains indicates that there is a significant uniform axial strain in the pipe due to
larger catenary effect.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 174

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.3: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for W= 20 m and Soil Movement of 3 m
(Top View – Soil above the pipe is hidden)

Figure 6.4: Total Axial Strains in NPS 24 (D/t=96) for W= 20 m and Soil Movement of 3 m

6.4.1 Effect of the Width of Ground Movement

A sensitivity study has been completed to understand the effect of ground movement width on
pipe deformations or strains. Figure 6.5 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal
direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground
displacement widths considered in the analyses.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 175

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figures 6.6 and 6.8 present the maximum local and nominal compressive strains in the
longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various
ground displacement widths considered in the analyses. The nominal compressive strain is
defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge length of 2D (D is the pipe
outside diameter). This large stain gauge length is used to permit the analyses to be compared
directly to codified permissible strain formulations which are reported over this gauge length.

The results indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 20 m (66 ft) results in the
largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground displacement.

This work was focussed on ground movements involving deformable soils. Care should be taken
in applying these results to ground movement across a pipeline surrounded by rock or very stiff
soils that will not deform and will cause extremely localized pipe deformations where this
critical width concept may not apply. It would be conservative to consider the maximum strain
for all ground movement widths greater than the critical width of 20m (66 ft).

Figure 6.5: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement Widths:
[10-100 m]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 176

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.6: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure 6.7: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure 6.9 shows maximum pipe displacement versus the maximum ground displacement. The
maximum pipe displacement follows the ground displacement up to certain ground displacement,
then the pipe displacement increases more slowly with ground displacement, which results in a
lower rate of increase in pipe strains per unit soil displacement.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 177

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.8: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement

Figure 6.9 presents the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe versus the
maximum ground displacement for critical ground displacement widths of 20 m (66 ft). Also,
Figure 6.9 presents the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive (negative) strains in the pipe.
The results indicated that the calculated compressive strains are slightly higher at ground
displacement less than 0.75 m; this is mainly due to compressive strain induced by thermal
loading. At large ground displacement, tensile strains are higher than compressive strain. This
differential in peak tensile and compressive strains indicates that there is a significant uniform
axial strain in the pipe due to larger catenary effect.

As shown in Figure 6.9, the peak tensile strain is about 2.72% is higher than compressive strain
which is approximately 1.79%. The results show that the peak strains increase with the soil
displacement and remain constant beyond ground displacement of 2.0 m. This suggests the pipe
resistance to movement at this point is sufficient to force the soil to flow around the pipe. Figure
6.10 illustrates the simulated displaced position of the pipe and the soil pattern for 1m, 2m and
3m ground displacement. In this figure, the soil above the pipe centerline is hidden so the pipe
and soil deformation can be visualized. The results clearly show that at a given soil displacement
less than 2m certain amount of the soil flows around the pipe.

The results presented in this section suggested that a width of 20 m (66 ft) results in the largest
tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground displacement. Liu and
O’Rourke (1997) [47], conducted a similar analysis using Winkler beam-soil model (soil
springs). The Winkler model predicted a critical width of 30 m with a peak tensile strain less
than 1.5% and a compressive strain about 0.5%, both of which remain constant beyond a ground
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 178

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

displacement of 1.3 m. This difference, we believe, is due to the ability of the 3D modeling
approach to capture the three-dimensional behavior of the problem or condition and the more
advanced soil constitutive model to better reflect the large soil displacement behavior.

Figure 6.9: NPS 24(D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain vs. Ground Movement for the Critical
Widths of 20 m (66 ft)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 179

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.10: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 1m, 2 m and
3 m (Top View)

6.4.2 Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes

6.4.2.1 Comparison with Strain Capacity of the 24 inch pipeline(D/t=64)
The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain
capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI 2004
for compressive strain. In the final report other strain capacity formulations will be considered.
These strain capacities calculated in this example and described in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 are
provided in Table 6.1 and presented with dash horizontal line in Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.13.
The compressive strain capacity (CSC) given in Table 6.1 is the value after applying a resistance
factor (RF) of 0.8 to the computed CSC directly from CSA and PRCI equations. The tensile
strain limit considers the presence of several 50-mm long surface-breaking, semi-elliptical girth
weld flaws and all of the strain limits consider the pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure
that induces a pipe wall stress of 72% of its SMYS.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 180

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Table 6.1: Maximum Allowable Tensile/Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=9.52 mm,
D/t=64, Grade X52
Tensile Strain Limit (%) Compressive Strain (%) – Resistance Factor =0.8
BS 7910
CSA Z662 PRCI (2 mm offset)
Flaw Depth (mm)
0.5 1 2 (72% SMYS) (50% SMYS) (72% SMYS)
1.23 1.06 0.47 -0.54 -0.91 -1.41

6.4.2.1.1 Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes (TSCE)

Figure 6.10 presents the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the ground displacement width
(W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In this figure, the BS-7910
tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any tensile strain above the
horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

In Figure 6.5, Figure 6.6 and Figure 6.11 the strain demands from the analysis were used to
relate the geotechnical event (lateral soil displacement), soil, pipe and pipeline operating
conditions to tensile and compressive strains produced for soil movements along the axis of the
pipe. Another way to present the results is to develop tensile strain capacity (TSC) envelopes
based on BS 7910 guidance. These TSC envelopes are presented in Figure 6.112. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC
envelopes, which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS 7910.

The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 20 m (66 ft) can be considered critical. The tensile strain-related failure limit for the
critical width is reached for ground displacement from 0.4 to 0.81 m considering a flaw size of 2,
1 and 0.5 mm, respectively.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 181

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.11: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m

Figure 6.12: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

6.4.2.1.2 Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes (CSCE)

Figure 6.13 presents the maximum nominal compressive strain in the pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. The nominal
compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge length of
2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the CSA and PRCI compressive strain
capacity is presented with dash horizontal line.

The envelopes presented in Figure 6.13 describe the pipe compressive strain demands in the pipe
for a given ground displacement and ground width. In this figure, the CSA and PRCI
compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any compressive strain above
the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 182

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.13: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m).

Similar to the tensile strain capacity (TSC) envelopes, the results were used to generate
compressive strain capacity (CSC) envelopes based on PRCI Guidance. These envelopes can be
used by used (operator) to estimate the allowable soil movement for a given ground width at the
strain-related failure limit.

These CSC envelopes are presented in Figure 6.14. The envelopes describe the maximum soil
displacement and ground displacement width breakout the CSC envelopes, which represents the
tensile strain-related failure limit, according to CSA and PRCI Guidance.

For example, as shown in Figure 6.14 the compressive strain-related failure limit for the critical
width of 20 m (66 ft) is reached for ground displacements from 0.5 to 1.13 m considering a girth
weld misalignment (offset) of 2 mm and the pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure that
induces a pipe wall stress of 50% and 72% of its SMYS, respectively.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 183

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.14: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W)
Movements

6.4.2.1.3 Strain Demand Envelopes (SDE)

In the previous section, the strain demands determined from the analysis was compared with the
calculated strain capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662
and PRCI for compressive strain. While, there are many existing models for calculating the
compressive and tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was decided to develop a
simple a strain-based design methodology that can be easily adapted to any code and standards,
which is the purpose of this section.

The tensile and compressive strain demand envelopes along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline are presented in Figure 6.15 and Figure 6.16. Figure 6.15 shows the maximum soil
displacement versus ground width displacement as a series of ‘envelopes’ for a given pipe
tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and
2%. The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to
stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 184

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.15: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W)

Figure 6.16: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

6.5 Effect of Pipe Wall Thickness and D/t

The structural performance of the NPS 24-inch pipeline subjected to landslide was evaluated
using combination of three pipe wall thicknesses, for demonstration purpose.

The three wall thicknesses includes the base case 9.52 mm (0.375), 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) and 12.7
mm (0.5 inch); corresponding to D/t ratios of 64, 96 and 48, respectively. The same pipe and soil
materials assumptions used for the base case are used in the sensitivity:

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 185

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 72% SMYS internal pressure, 5.4, 8 MPa, corresponding to 5 MPa, 8 MPa and 10
MPa for D/t ratio of 96, 64 and 48, respectively;
 Grade 359 (X-52), a generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) pipe according
to the CSA Z245.1;
 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C);
 Burial depth H=1.2 m (5 ft), corresponding to 1.5 m (5 ft) depth to pipe center line,
overburden ratio (H/D) of 2.46;
 Soil: sand/clay till with (ϕ’=30° and C’=5 kPa);
 Slope angle of 16 degrees; and
 Six (6) width of ground displacement varying from 10 to 100 m (10, 20, 30, 40 50
and 100 m).

A comparison of the results of the three wall thicknesses analyzed for ground displacement
perpendicular to pipeline axis considering the critical ground displacement width of 20m is
provided in Figure 6.17. The results indicated that pipeline with higher D/t ratio (lower pipe wall
thickness) results in higher computed tensile and compressive strains with higher tensile strain
than compressive strain. The strain ranged from +3.25% and -2.77% for 6.35 mm (0.25 inch)
wall thickness to +2.7% and -1.72% for 9.53 mm (0.375 inch) wall thickness while for 12.7 mm
(0.5 inch) the corresponding strain range is +2.38% and -1.58%. There is very little difference
between the computed compressive strain for pipes with a D/t ratio of 64 and 48. The difference
is about 0.14%; however, the maximum difference in compressive strain is higher than 1% for
D/t equal to 64 and 96.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 186

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.17: NPS 24 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the Critical
Widths of 20 m (66 ft)

6.5.1 Effect of the Width of Ground Movement

Figure 6.18 shows the maximum axial strains in the NPS 24 (609 mm) as function of the
centerline (maximum) soil displacement for various ground displacement widths.

Figures 6.19 and 6.20 present the maximum local and nominal compressive strains in the
longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various
ground displacement widths considered in the analyses. The nominal compressive strain is
defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the
pipe outside diameter).

The results Figures 6.20 and 6.21 are for NPS 24 (609 mm) with a wall thickness of 6.35 mm
(0.25 inch) and D/t ratio of 96. The results illustrate the importance of the width of ground
movement and how the critical width is a function of pipe stiffness (D/t ratio). The critical width
is between 10 and 20 m. The width of 20 m (66 ft) results in the largest tensile strain in the pipe
for any given value of ground displacement similar to the 9.52 mm (0.375) wall (Base Case
discussed in Section 6.5). However, the width of 10 m (33 ft) results in the largest compressive
strain in the pipe for any given value of ground displacement. A comparison of the strain results
of the two wall thicknesses 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) and 9.52 (0.375 inch) is provided in Figure 6.23
for W=10 m. The pipe with 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) wall exceeds the compressive strain limit and a
buckle/wrinkle forms at 1.5% local compressive strain or 1.12% nominal compressive strain for
soil displacement of 0.7 m.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 187

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.22 shows the soil and pipe deformation (wrinkle formation) for soil displacement of 2
m. The Figure 6.22 shows also the axial strain distribution (blue color is compressive and red is
tensile strain). In Figure 6.24 the soil above the pipe is hidden so the pipe deformation can be
visualized.

Figure 6.23 shows maximum pipe displacement versus the maximum ground displacement. The
maximum pipe displacement follows the ground displacement up to certain ground displacement
then the pipe displacement increases more slowly with increasing ground displacement. This
reduction in pipe displacement rate results in a reduction rate of pipe strain increase per unit soil
displacement.

Figure 6.18: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe Versus Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure 6.19: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe versus
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m]
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 188

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.20: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe versus
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure 6.21: NPS 24 – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the Critical
Widths of 20 m (33 ft)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 189

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.22: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 1 m, 2 m and
3 m (Top View)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 190

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.23: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement

6.5.2 Comparison with Strain Criteria and Safety Envelopes

The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain limits
defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI for compressive
strain. These strain limits are provided in Table 6.2 and presented with dash horizontal line in
Figure 6.24 and Figure 6.25. The tensile strain limit considers the presence of several 50-mm
long surface-breaking, semi-elliptical girth weld flaws and all of the strain limits consider the
pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure that induces a pipe wall stress of 72% of its
SMYS.

Table 6.2: Maximum Allowable Tensile/Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=6.35mm,
D/t=96, Grade X52
Tensile Strain Limit (%) Compressive Strain (%) –Resistance Factor =0.8
BS 7910
CSA Z662 PRCI
Flaw Depth (mm)

0.5 1 2 (72% SMYS) (50% SMYS) (72% SMYS)

1.2 0.99 0.35 -0.34 -0.39 -0.6

6.5.2.1.1 Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes (TSCE)

Figures 6.24 present the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the ground displacement width
(W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In this figure, the BS-7910
tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any tensile strain above the
horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

In Figure 6.19, Figure 6.20 and Figure 6.21 the strain demands from the analysis were used to
relate the geotechnical event (lateral soil displacement), soil, pipe and pipeline operating
conditions to tensile and compressive strains produced for soil movements along the axis of the
pipe. Another way to present the results is to develop tensile strain capacity (TSC) envelopes
based on BS 7910 guidance. These TSC envelopes are presented in Figure 6.25. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC
envelopes, which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS 7910.

The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 20 m (66 ft) can be considered critical. The tensile strain-related failure limit for the
critical width is reached for ground displacement from 0.29 to 0.69 m considering a flaw size of
2, 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 191

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.24: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m.

Figure 6.25: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

6.5.2.1.2 Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes (CSCE)

Figure 6.26 presents the maximum nominal compressive strain in the pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. The nominal
compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge length of
2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the CSA and PRCI compressive strain
capacity is presented with dash horizontal line.

The envelopes presented in Figure 6.26 describe the pipe compressive strain demands in the pipe
for a given ground displacement and ground width. In this figure, the CSA and PRCI
compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any compressive strain above
the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 192

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.26: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m)

Similar to the tensile strain capacity (TSC) envelopes, the results were used to generate
compressive strain capacity (CSC) envelopes based on PRCI Guidance. These envelopes can be
used by used (operator) to estimate the allowable soil movement for a given ground width at the
strain-related failure limit.

These CSC envelopes are presented in Figure 6.27. The envelopes describe the maximum soil
displacement and ground displacement width. The CSC envelopes, which represents the
compressive strain-related failure limit, according to CSA and PRCI Guidance.

For example, as shown in Figure 6.29 the compressive strain-related failure limit for the critical
width of 10 m (33 ft) and 20 m (66 ft) is reached for ground displacement from 0.22 to 0.53 m
considering girth weld misalignment (offset) of 2 mm and the pipeline to be operating at an
internal pressure that induces a pipe wall stress of 50% and 72% of its SMYS, respectively.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 193

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.27: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W)
Movements

6.5.2.1.3 Strain Demand Envelopes (SDE)

In the previous section, the strain demands determined from the analysis was compared with the
calculated strain capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662
and PRCI 2004 for compressive strain. While there are many existing models for calculating the
compressive and tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was decided to develop a
simple a strain-based design methodology that can be easily adapted to any code and standards,
which is the purpose of this section.

The tensile and compressive strain demand envelopes along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline are presented in Figure 6.28 and Figure 6.29. These figures shows the maximum soil
displacement versus ground width displacement as a series of ‘envelopes’ for a given pipe
tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and
2%. The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to
stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 194

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.28: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W)

Figure 6.29: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

6.6 Effect of Material Grade:

In order to evaluate the effect of material grade, the analyzed base case considering a pipeline
material Grade X52 was repeated considering material grade of X70.

Figure 6.30 compares the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe versus the
maximum ground displacement for critical ground displacement widths of 20 m (66 ft) for a pipe
material X52 and X70. The results indicate that lower material grade X52 results in largest
tensile strain, and lower compressive strain for soil displacement larger than 0.75 m. Also,
Figure 6.30 presents the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive (negative) strains in the pipe.
These results indicated that the calculated compressive strains are slightly higher at ground
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 195

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

displacement less than 0.75 m and 1.25 for Material Grade X52 and X70, respectively. This is
mainly due to compressive strain induced by thermal loading. At large ground displacement,
tensile strains are higher than compressive strain for X52. This differential in peak tensile and
compressive strains indicates that there is a significant uniform axial strain in the pipe due to
larger catenary effect. While for X70, there is a little difference between the calculated
compressive and tensile strain, this suggest that the pipe deforms mainly in bending.

Figure 6.31 shows maximum pipe displacement versus the maximum ground displacement. The
maximum pipe displacement follows the ground displacement up to certain ground displacement
then the pipe displacement increase slowly with ground displacement. The reduced pipe
displacement results in a lower pipe strain increase per unit ground displacement. The results
indicated that lower grade X52 results in larger pipe displacements for the same ground
displacement. This behavior is due to the formation of a larger plastic zone which reduces the
pipe resistance to movement.

Figure 6.30: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 196

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.31: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Pipe Displacement versus Ground Movement for
the Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft)

6.6.1 Effect of the Width of Ground Movement

Figure 6.32 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline
versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths considered in
the analyses.

Figures 6.33 and 6.34 present the maximum local and nominal compressive strains in the
longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various
ground displacement widths considered in the analyses. The nominal compressive strain is
defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the
pipe outside diameter).

The results indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 20 m (66 ft) results in the
largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground displacement.

Figure 6.35 shows maximum pipe displacement versus the maximum ground displacement. The
maximum pipe displacement follows the ground displacement up to certain ground displacement
than the pipe displacement increase slowly with ground displacement, which results in slowly
increase in pipe strains.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 197

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.32: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X70) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure 6.33: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X70) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 198

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.34: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X70) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure 6.35: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X70) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 199

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

6.6.2 Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes

6.6.2.1 Comparison with Strain Capacity of the 24 inch Pipeline (D/t=64, X70)
The strain demand determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain
capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI for
compressive strain. These strain capacity are provided in Table 6.3 and presented with dash
horizontal line in Figure 6.36 and Figure 6.37. The compressive strain capacity (CSC) given in
Table 6.3 is the value after applying a resistance factor (RF) of 0.8 to the computed CSC directly
from CSA and PRCI equations. The tensile strain limit considers the presence of several 50-mm
long surface-breaking, semi-elliptical girth weld flaws and all of the strain limits consider the
pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure that induces a pipe wall stress of 72% of its
SMYS.

Table 6.3: Maximum Allowable Tensile/Compressive Strain for NPS 24, Wt=9.52mm,
D/t=64, Grade X70
Tensile Strain Limit (%) Compressive Strain (%) –Resistance Factor =0.8
BS 7910
CSA Z662 PRCI (2 mm offset)
Flaw Depth (mm)
0.5 1 2 (72% SMYS) (50% SMYS) (72% SMYS)
0.99 0.87 0.36 -0.63 -0.74 -1.15

6.6.2.1.1 Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes (TSCE)

Figure 6.36 presents the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the ground displacement width
(W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In this figure, the BS-7910
tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any tensile strain above the
horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

The TSC envelopes based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure 6.37. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC
envelopes, which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS 7910.

The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 20 m (66 ft) can be considered critical. The tensile strain-related failure limit for the
critical width is reached for ground displacement from 0.39 to 0.81 m considering a flaw size of
2, 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 200

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.36: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m, Material Grade X70

Figure 6.37: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements
Material Grade X70

6.6.2.1.2 Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes (CSCE)

Figure 6.38 presents the maximum nominal compressive strain in the pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. The nominal
compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge length of
2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the CSA and PRCI compressive strain
capacity is presented with dash horizontal line.

The envelopes presented in Figure 6.38 describe the pipe compressive strain demands in the pipe
for a given ground displacement and ground width. In this figure, the CSA and PRCI

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 201

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any compressive strain above
the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

Figure 6.38: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes (X70) versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m), Grade X70

Similar to the tensile strain capacity (TSC) envelopes, the results were used to generate
compressive strain capacity (CSC) envelopes based on PRCI Guidance. These CSC envelopes
are presented in Figure 6.39. The envelopes describe the maximum soil displacement and ground
displacement width breakout the CSC envelopes, which represents the tensile strain-related
failure limit, according to CSA and PRCI Guidance.

For example, as shown in Figure 6.39 the compressive strain-related failure limit for the critical
width of 20 m (66 ft) is reached for ground displacement from 0.53 to 1.07 m considering girth
weld misalignment (offset) of 2 mm and the pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure that
induces a pipe wall stress of 50% and 72% of its SMYS, respectively.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 202

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.39: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W)
Movements. Grade X70

6.6.2.1.3 Strain Demand Envelopes (SDE)

In the previous section, the strain demands determined from the analysis was compared with the
calculated strain capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662
and PRCI for compressive strain. While there are many existing models for calculating the
compressive and tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was decided to develop a
simple a strain-based design methodology that can be easily adapted to any code and standards,
which is the purpose of this section.

The tensile and compressive strain demand envelops along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline are presented in Figure 6.40 and Figure 6.41. These figures show the maximum soil
displacement versus ground width displacement as a series of ‘envelopes’ for a given pipe
tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and
2%. The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to
stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 203

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.40: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W), Grade X70

Figure 6.41: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W), Grade X70

6.7 Effect of Temperature

Comparison between the results of three temperature differentials (0, 45 and 65 °C) analyzed for
critical width of 20 m (base case) is provided in Figure 6.42 and Figure 6.43. Both of these
figures are for X-52 grade NPS 24 (610 mm) pipe with t =9.5 mm (3/8 in) [D/t=64]. Reduction
in the differential temperature results in reduction in the maximum computed compressive
strains. The maximum computed tensile strain is not significantly affected. The computed tensile
strain for case with no temperature is more than twice the computed compressive strain.

Figure 6.42 presents the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe versus the
maximum ground displacement for critical ground displacement widths of 20 m (66 ft). Figure
6.42 also presents the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive (negative) strains in the pipe.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 204

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The results indicated that the calculated compressive strains are slightly higher at ground
displacement less than 0.75 m for cases with a temperature differential; this is mainly due to
compressive strain induced by thermal loading. At large ground displacement, tensile strains are
higher than compressive strain. This differential in peak tensile and compressive strains indicates
that there is a significant uniform axial strain in the pipe due to larger catenary effect.

Figure 6.42: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) –Temperature Effect

Figure 6.43 shows maximum pipe displacement versus the maximum ground displacement. The
maximum pipe displacement follows the ground displacement up to certain ground displacement
than the pipe displacement increase slowly with ground displacement, which results in slowly
increase in pipe strains. The results indicated that higher operating temperature differential
results in larger pipe displacement.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 205

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.43: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Pipe Displacement vs. Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) –Temperature Effect, Grade X52

6.8 Effect of Operating Pressure

The results presented in Section 6.6.1, illustrates the importance of the width of the ground
displacement. The critical width which results in the largest axial strain in the pipe for any given
value of ground is about 20 m (66 ft) for the analyzed case. It is possible that for very stiff soils
the critical width concept does not apply because the pipe bending transition across an abrupt
slip plane promotes the highest strains regardless of slip plane width.

Comparison between the results of three operating pressure of 4 MPa, 5.6 MPa and 8.1 MPa
considering that the pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure that includes a pipe wall
stress of 36%, 50% and 72% of its SMYS. The results of the analyses for critical width of 20m
are provided in Figure 6.44 through Figure 6.45. These figures are for X-52 grade NPS 24
(610mm) pipe with t =9.5 mm (3/8 in) and D/t=64. Figure 6.44 presents the maximum tensile
and compressive strains in the pipe versus the maximum ground displacement for critical ground
displacement widths of 20 m (66 ft). Figure 6.45 also presents the sum of tensile (positive) and
compressive (negative) strains in the pipe. The results indicated that reduction in the operating
pressure results in and increase in the maximum computed compressive and tensile strains. The
results also indicate that

 Pipe operating at 72% SMYS do not exceed compressive strain limit for the applied
ground movement of 3.0 m. Figure 6.47 shows the pipe soil deformation for the
analyzed case.
 Pipe operating at 50% SMYS exceeds the compressive strain limit and
buckle/wrinkle at 0.65% compressive strain for soil displacement of 1.4 m. The

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 206

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

wrinkle amplitude grows up to 8 mm for soil movement of 2.25 m. Figure 6.48 shows
the pipe soil deformation for the analyzed case.
 Pipe operating at 36% SMYS exceeds the compressive strain limit and
buckle/wrinkle at 0.55 % compressive strain for soil displacement of 1.0 m. The
wrinkle amplitude grows up to 28 mm for soil movement of 2.25 m. Figure 6.49
shows the pipe soil deformation for the analyzed case.

Figure 6.44: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) –Pressure Effect

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 207

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.45: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of the Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain
versus Ground Movement for the Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Pressure Effect

Figure 6.46: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Pipe Displacement vs. Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Temperature Effect, Grade X52

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 208

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.47: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 2.5 m (Top
View) – 0.72 SMYS Pressure (No Wrinkle observed)

Figure 6.48: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 2.5 m (Top
View) – 0.50 SMYS Pressure (Wrinkle observed, Amplitude = 8 mm)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 209

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.49: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 2.5 m (Top
View) –0.36 SMYS Pressure (Wrinkle observed, Amplitude = 28 mm)

6.8.1 Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes

The following section represents the summary results for NPS 24 (609 mm outside diameter)
considering that the pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure of 36% of its SMYS (4 MPa).

Detailed results are presented as follow:

 Figures 6.50 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement
widths considered in the analyses. Figures 6.51 and 6.52 present the maximum local
and nominal compressive strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus
the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths
considered in the analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average
compressive strain measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the pipe outside
diameter). The results indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 20
m (66 ft) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given
value of ground displacement.
 Figure 6.53 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5.
In this figure the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The
TSC envelopes based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure 6.54. The
envelopes describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width
breakout the TSC envelopes, which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit,
according to BS 7910. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition
combination, the ground movement width of 20 m (66 ft) can be considered critical.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 210

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 Figure 6.55 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5.
In this figure the PRCI compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any compressive strain below the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.
The CSC envelopes based on PRCI guidance are presented in Figure 6.56. The
envelopes describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width
breakout the CSC envelopes, which represents the compressive strain-related failure
limit, according to PRCI. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating
condition combination, the ground movement width of 20 m (66 ft) can be considered
critical.
 Figure 6.57 and Figure 6.58 present the tensile and compressive strain demand
‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%,
0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline. The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground
displacement is to stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and
standards.

Figure 6.50: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100m]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 211

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.51: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Local Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs.
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure 6.52: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs.
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 212

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.53: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m Operating Pressure 36% SMYS

Figure 6.54: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 213

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.55: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil
Movements of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m Operating Pressure 36% SMYS

Figure 6.56: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W)
Movements

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 214

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.57: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W), (Pressure is 36% SMYS)

Figure 6.58: Compressive Strain Demand versus Width (W), (Pressure is 36% SMYS)

6.9 Effect of Ground Movement Pattern

In order to evaluate the effect soil movement pattern, the base case simulated using cosine
function raised to power 2 was repeated using cosine function raised to power 0.1. Figure 6.59
presents the alternative soil movement patterns that will be simulated.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 215

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.59: Soil Movement Patterns, Width W=10m, and 20 m

Figures 6.60 and 6.61 illustrate the simulated displaced position of the pipe and the soil patterns
for both loading scenario considering ground movement width of 20 m.

Figure 6.60: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 2 m and
W=20 m (Top View), n=2

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 216

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.61: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 2 m and
W=20 m (Top View), n=0.1

Figures 6.62 and 6.63 present the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe versus
the maximum ground displacement for ground displacement widths of W=10 m and W=20 m.
The results clearly show that the critical ground movement depends on the soil movement
function (pattern). From these results it is noted that:

 The width of 20 m (66 ft) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the
pipe for any given value of ground displacement considering soil parameter n equal to
2.
 The width of 10 m (33 ft) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the
pipe for any given value of ground displacement considering soil parameter n equal to
0.1.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 217

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.62: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain vs. Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft)

Figure 6.63: NPS 24 (D/t=64) –Maximum Axial Strain vs. Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) and 10 m (33ft)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 218

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

6.9.1 Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes

The following section represents the summary results for NPS 24 (609 mm outside diameter)
considering soil movement pattern using cosine function raised to power 0.1.

Detailed results are presented as follow:

 Figures 6.64 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement
widths considered in the analyses. Figures 6.65 and 6.66 present the maximum local
and nominal compressive strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus
the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths
considered in the analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average
compressive strain measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the pipe outside
diameter). The results indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 10
m (33 ft) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given
value of ground displacement.
 Figure 6.67 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5.
In this figure, the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The
TSC envelopes based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure 6.68. The
envelopes describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width
breakout the TSC envelopes, which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit,
according to BS 7910. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition
combination, the ground movement width of 10 m (33 ft) can be considered critical.
 Figure 6.69 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5.
In this figure, the PRCI compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any compressive strain below the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.
The CSC envelopes based on PRCI guidance are presented in Figure 6.70. The
envelopes describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width
breakout the CSC envelopes, which represents the compressive strain-related failure
limit, according to PRCI. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating
condition combination, the ground movement width of 10 m (33 ft) can be considered
critical.
 Figure 6.71 and Figure 6.72 present the tensile and compressive strain demand
‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%,
0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline. The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground
displacement is to stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and
standards.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 219

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.64: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m], n = 0.1

Figure 6.65: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Local Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs.
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m], n = 0.1

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 220

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.66: NPS 24 (D/t=64, X52) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain in the Pipe vs.
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m], n = 0.1

Figure 6.67: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m, n = 0.1

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 221

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.68: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements, n =
0.1

Figure 6.69: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil
Movements of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m, n = 0.1

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 222

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.70: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W)
Movements, n = 0.1

Figure 6.71: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W), n = 0.1

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 223

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.72: Compressive Strain Demand versus Width (W), (n = 0.1)

6.10 Effect of Burial Depth

Comparison between the results of three pipe burial depths of 1.5 m, 1.8 m and 2.1 m
considering that the pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure that includes a pipe wall
stress of 72% of its SMYS. The results of the analyses for critical width of 20 m (base case) are
provided in Figure 6.73 through Figure 6.75. These figures are for X-52 grade NPS 24 (610 mm)
pipe with t=9.5 mm (3/8 in) and D/t=64. Figure 6.73 presents the maximum tensile and
compressive strains in the pipe versus the maximum ground displacement for critical ground
displacement widths of 20 m (66 ft). Figure 6.74 presents the sum of tensile (positive) and
compressive (negative) strains in the pipe. The results indicated that increase of the burial depth
results in and increase in the maximum computed tensile strains and little effects on the
computed compressive strains. The results suggest that axial effects are important in that the
tensile strains are larger than compressive strains with burial depth increase.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 224

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.73: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain vs. Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft)

Figure 6.74: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of the Maximum Tensile and Compressive Strain
versus Ground Movement for the Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) –Burial Depth Effect

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 225

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.75: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Pipe Displacement vs. Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Temperature Effect, Grade X52

6.11 Effect of Slope

In order, to evaluate the effect of slope inclination, the analyzed base case considering a pipeline
crossing a slope with an inclination angle of 16 degrees was repeated considering a flat surface.

Figures 6.76 and 6.78 illustrate the simulated displaced position of the pipe and the soil patterns
for a pipeline embedded in a flat surface and a pipeline crossing a slope with an inclination angle
of 16 degrees, respectively. In the flat surface (Figure 6.53) simulation, the soil surface heave
and settlement can be seen on the upstream and downstream sides of the soil flow passing the
pipe, respectively. In contrast, for the sloped soil movement crossing a pipeline, the soil surface
heaving and subsiding is less pronounced. This reduction in vertical soil displacement is due to
the soil tending to move as a more coherent mass due to gravity and the applied soil
displacement in the lateral and vertical directions.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 226

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Soil Movement
Heave

Pipe Movement

Figure 6.76: Pipe and Soil Deformation for Maximum Soil Movement of 3 m

Soil Movement

Pipe Movement

Figure 6.77 Pipe and Soil Deformation for Maximum Soil Movement of 3 m Considering
Slope of 16 Deg.

Figures 6.79 and 6.80 present the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe versus
the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths considered in the
analyses. The width of 20 m (66 ft) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain for
pipeline crossing slope with an inclination angle of 16 degrees similar to pipeline embedded in
flat surface.

Figure 6.80 compares the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe versus the
maximum ground displacement for critical ground displacement widths of 20 m (66 ft) for a
pipeline embedded in a flat surface (base case) and a pipeline crossing a slope with an inclination
angle of 16 degrees. The results indicate that slope inclination of 16 degrees has almost no effect
on compressive axial strain with slightly higher tensile strain.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 227

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.81 shows maximum pipe displacement versus the maximum ground displacement. The
maximum pipe displacement follows the ground displacement up to certain ground displacement
than the pipe displacement increase slowly with ground displacement, which results in slowly
increase in pipe strains. The results indicated that higher slope inclination results in larger pipe
displacement.

Figure 6.78: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe versus Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure 6.79: NPS 24 (D/t=64) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe versus Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 228

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.80: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft)

Figure 6.81: NPS 24 (D/t=64) –Maximum Pipe Displacement versus Ground Movement for
the Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 229

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

6.11.1 Comparison with Strain Capacity and Strain Demand Envelopes

6.11.1.1 Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes (TSCE)
Figure 6.82 present the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the ground displacement width
(W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In this figure, the BS-7910
tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any tensile strain above the
horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

The TSC envelopes based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure 6.83. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC
envelopes, which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS 7910.

The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 20 m (66 ft) can be considered critical. The tensile strain-related failure limit for the
critical width is reached for ground displacement from 0.44 to 0.87 m considering a flaw size of
2, 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively.

Figure 6.82: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m, Material Grade X70

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 230

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.83: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements,
Grade X52

6.11.1.1.1 Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes (CSCE)

Figure 6.84 presents the maximum nominal compressive strain in the pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. The nominal
compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge length of
2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the CSA and PRCI compressive strain
capacity is presented with dash horizontal line.

The envelopes presented in Figure 6.84 describe the pipe compressive strain demands in the pipe
for a given ground displacement and ground width. In this figure, the CSA and PRCI
compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any compressive strain above
the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 231

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.84: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes (X70) versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m), Grade X70

Similar to the tensile strain capacity (TSC) envelopes, the results were used to generate
compressive strain capacity (CSC) envelopes based on PRCI Guidance. These CSC envelopes
are presented in Figure 6.85. The envelopes describe the maximum soil displacement and ground
displacement width breakout the CSC envelopes, which represents the tensile strain-related
failure limit, according to CSA and PRCI Guidance.

For example, as shown in Figure 6.86, the compressive strain-related failure limit for the critical
width of 20 m (66 ft) is reached for ground displacement from 0.68 to 1.16 m considering girth
weld misalignment (offset) of 2 mm and the pipeline to be operating at an internal pressure that
induces a pipe wall stress of 50% and 72% of its SMYS, respectively.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 232

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.85: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W)
Movements, Grade X52

6.11.1.1.2 Strain Demand Envelopes (SDE)

In the previous section, the strain demands determined from the analysis was compared with the
calculated strain capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662
and PRCI for compressive strain. While there are many existing models for calculating the
compressive and tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was decided to develop a
simple a strain-based design methodology that can be easily adapted to any code and standards,
which is the purpose of this section.

The tensile and compressive strain demand envelopes along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline are presented in Figure 6.86 and Figure 6.87. These figures show the maximum soil
displacement versus ground width displacement as a series of ‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile
and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2%. The
safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to stay within
the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 233

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.86: Tensile Strain Demand versus Width (W), Grade X52

Figure 6.87: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W), Grade X52

6.12 Effect of Soil Properties

In order to evaluate the effect of soil properties, the base case was simulated considering to
alternate soils as follows:

 Soil 1: Properties consistent with a Sand (ϕ’=30o and C’=5 kPa)

 Soil 2: Properties consistent with a Clay (ϕ’=20o and C’=20 kPa)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 234

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.88 presents the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe versus the
maximum ground displacement for the two alternate soil types. The results clearly show that the
strains are not significantly affected by the change in soil properties.

Figure 6.89 also presents the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive (negative) strains in the
pipe. The results suggest that axial effects are important in that the tensile strains are larger than
compressive strains with stiffer soil.

The soil displacement patterns of the two soil types are illustrated in Figure 6.90. The clay tends
to hold its shape and forms a cavity behind the pipe and this higher stiffness clay results in
greater vertical pipe movement.

Figure 6.88: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Soil 1 and 2

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 235

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.89: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of Maximum Axial Compressive and Tensile Strains
versus Ground Movement for the Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Soil 1 and 2

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 236

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.90: Pipe Soil Deformation Left (sand), Right clay (soil displacement 1.5, 2, 2.5 and
3 m)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 237

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

6.13 Effect of Soil to Pipe Friction

The pipe-soil force-displacement responses are sensitive to pipe-soil interaction and there is
much uncertainty associated with interface friction between the pipe material and soil. Ligon et
al.,[49] conducted static friction tests to determine the coefficient of friction between coal tar felt
and thin film epoxy pipe coating and eight representative backfill soil samples along pipeline.
Ligon et al., reported that the friction coefficients are significantly higher than those extrapolated
from literature. For coal tar felt coating, the coefficient varied from 0.59 to 0.91 (corresponding
to a friction angle of 30° to 42°) depending on the soil and moisture content. The thin film epoxy
coating friction coefficient varies from 0.51 to 0.71 (corresponding to friction angle of 27° to
35°) under the same conditions.

The effects of the coefficient of friction for pipe coating materials were investigated by
considering three different friction values, 0.32, 0.56 and 0.72 corresponding to friction angles of
20°, 30° and 36°.

The results of the analyses for critical width of 20 m (base case) are provided in Figure 6.91 and
Figure 6.92. These figures are for X-52 grade NPS 24 (610mm) pipe with t = 9.5 mm (3/8 in)
and D/t=64. Figure 6.91 presents the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe versus
the maximum ground displacement for critical ground displacement widths of 20 m (66 ft).
Figure 6.92 presents the sum of tensile (positive) and compressive (negative) strains in the pipe.
The results indicated that increase in the coefficient of friction for pipe coating materials results
in decrease in the maximum computed compressive strains. The results also indicate that the
tensile strains are higher than compressive strains. This differential in peak tensile strains and
compressive strains increase with increasing the friction coefficient. This suggests that a
significant uniform strain in the pipe along the longitudinal direction of the pipe due to friction
and catenary effect.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 238

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.91: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground Movement for the
Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Friction 0.32, 0.56 and 0.72

Figure 6.92: NPS 24 (D/t=64) – Sum of the Maximum Axial Tensile and Compressive
Strains versus Ground Movement for the Critical Widths of 20 m (66 ft) – Friction 0.32,
0.56 and 0.72
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 239

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

6.14 Structural Analyses for a 12-Inch Pipeline

Analyses were completed for the NPS 12 (324 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to lateral ground movement and to determine the structural integrity significance of
ground movement induced strain demands. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the
of D/t ratio and ground width displacement. The analyses considered 18 lateral ground
movement scenarios. The scenarios included the following:

 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 4.57 mm (0.18 in), 6.35 mm (0.25 in) and
9.52 mm (0.375 in); corresponding to D/t ratio of 71, 51 and 34 respectively;
 Ground displacement direction: Perpendicular (lateral) to the pipeline axis;
 Width of ground displacement (W): Six potential ground movement failures with a
total estimated width of failure perpendicular to the pipeline varying from 10 to 100m
(10, 20, 30, 40 50 and 100 m);
 Shape of ground displacement: one ground displacement pattern initiated using a
cosine function raised to the power “n=2”;
 One soil conditions sand/clay till;
 Pipe slope: one slopes, 16 deg.;
 Pipeline burial depth: one depth of 1.2m (4 ft) to top pipe, corresponding to 1.36 m
(4.5 ft), depth to pipe center line; and
 The lateral ground deformation was initiated using a cosine function raised to the
power “n” similar to Suzuki et al. (1988) and M. O’Rourke (1989) function.

Assumptions for the pipeline were as follows:

 72% SMYS internal pressure;

 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C); and
 A generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) pipe according to the API 5L

6.14.1 12-Inch Pipeline Results

The results presented in Appendix D, illustrate the importance of the width of the ground
displacement. The critical width which results in the largest tensile strain in the pipe for any
given value of ground is about 10 m (33 ft) for the three analyzed D/t’s (71, 51 and 31).

Figure 6.93 shows the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the NPS 12 (609 mm) pipe
along the longitudinal direction as function of the centerline (maximum) soil displacement for
the critical width of 10 m (33 ft). Figure 6.94 presents the sum of the tensile and compressive
strains. The results are for X52 grade, and D/t’s (71, 51 and 31).

The results indicated that pipeline with higher D/t ratio (lower pipe wall thickness) results in
higher computed tensile and compressive strains with higher compressive strain than tensile

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 240

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

strain. The strains ranged from +3.6% and -4.32% for 4.57 mm (0.18 inch) wall thickness to
+3.17% and -2.6% for 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) wall thickness while for 9.52 mm (0.375 inch) the
corresponding strain range is +2.65% and -2.50%. The pipe with 4.57 mm (0.18 inch) wall
exceeds the compressive strain limit and buckle/wrinkle at 3.5% local compressive strain or
2.12% nominal compressive strain for soil displacement of 1.1 m.

Figure 6.95 presents the maximum pipe displacement versus ground displacement. The results
show that pipeline with higher D/t ratio (lower pipe wall thickness) results in higher pipe
displacement.

Figure 6.93: NPS 12 (D/t =71, 51 and 34) – Maximum Axial Strain versus Ground
Movement for the Critical Widths of 10 m (33 ft)

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 241

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.94: NPS 12 (D/t =71, 51 and 34) – Sum of Maximum Axial Tensile and
Compressive Strain versus Ground Movement for the Critical Widths of 10 m (33 ft)

Figure 6.95: NPS 12 (D/t =71, 51 and 34) – Maximum Pipe Displacement versus Ground
Movement for the Critical Widths of 10 m (33 ft)

The strain demands determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain
capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and for
compressive strain. While there are many existing models for calculating the compressive and
tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was decided to develop a simple a strain-based
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 242

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

design methodology that can be easily adapted to any code and standards. These tensile and
compressive strain demand ‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands
of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline are presented in Appendix D. The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to
lateral ground displacement is to stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes
and standards.

6.15 Structural Analyses for an 18-Inch Pipeline

Analyses were completed for the NPS 18 (457 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to lateral ground movement and to determine the structural integrity significance of
ground movement induced strain demands. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the
of D/t ratio and ground width displacement. The analyses considered 6 lateral ground movement
scenarios. The scenarios included the following:

 Pipe wall thickness: one wall thicknesses: 6.35 mm (0.25); corresponding to D/t ratio
of 72;
 Ground displacement direction: Perpendicular (lateral) to the pipeline axis;
 Width of ground displacement (W): Six potential ground movement failures with a
total estimated width of failure perpendicular to the pipeline varying from 10 to
100 m (10, 20, 30, 40 50 and 100 m);
 Shape of ground displacement: one ground displacement pattern initiated using a
cosine function raised to the power “n=2”;
 One soil conditions sand/clay till;
 Pipe slope: one slopes, 16 deg.; and
 Pipeline burial depth: one depth of 1.2m (4 ft) to top pipe, corresponding to 1.43 m
(4.7 ft), depth to pipe center line.

Assumptions for the pipeline were as follows:

 72% SMYS internal pressure;
 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C);
 A generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) pipe according to the API 5L.

6.15.1 18 Inch Pipeline Results

The results presented in Appendix E, illustrates the importance of the width of the ground
displacement. The critical width which results in the largest tensile strain in the pipe for any
given value of ground is about 10 m (33 ft) for the analyzed case. The pipe exceeds the
compressive strain limit for the critical width of 10 m (33 ft) and buckle/wrinkle at 2.4% local
compressive strain or 1.76% nominal compressive strain for soil displacement of 0.8 m. Figure
6.96 shows the soil and pipe deformation and also shows pipe wrinkle and the axial strain
distribution (blue color is compressive and red is tensile strain); in this figure the soil above the
pipe is hidden so the pipe deformation can be visualized.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 243

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The strain demands determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain
capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and for
compressive strain. While there are many existing models for calculating the compressive and
tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was decided to develop a simple a strain-based
design methodology that can be easily adapted to any code and standards. These tensile and
compressive strain demand ‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands
of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline are presented in Appendix (E). The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to
lateral ground displacement is to stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes
and standards.

Figure 6.96: Pipe Deformation and Axial Strains for given Soil Movement of 3 m and
W=10 m (Top View)

6.16 Structural Analyses for a 30-Inch Pipeline

Analyses were completed for the NPS 30 (762 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to lateral ground movement and to determine the structural integrity significance of
ground movement induced strain demands. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the
effect of D/t ratio, burial depth and ground width displacement. The analyses considered 18
lateral ground movement scenarios. The scenarios included the following:

 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 7.92 mm (0.312 inch), 9.525 mm (0.375)
and; corresponding to D/t ratio of 96 and 80 respectively;
 Ground displacement direction: Perpendicular (lateral) to the pipeline axis;

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 244

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 Width of ground displacement (W): Six potential ground movement failures with a
total estimated width of failure perpendicular to the pipeline varying from 10 to
100 m (10, 20, 30, 40 50 and 100 m);
 Shape of ground displacement: one ground displacement pattern initiated using a
cosine function raised to the power “n=2”;
 One soil conditions sand/clay till;
 Pipe slope: one slopes, 16 deg.; and
 Pipeline burial depth: two depths of 1.2 m (4 ft) to top pipe and 1.5 m (5 ft),
corresponding to 1.6 m (5 ft) and 1.9 m (6 ft), depth to pipe center line.

Assumptions for the pipeline were as follows:

 72% SMYS internal pressure;
 45°C thermal differential (installation -20°C, max operating temperature 25°C);
 A generic stress strain curves for Grade X-70 (483) pipe according to the API 5L.

6.16.1 30 Inch Pipeline Results

Detailed results are presented in Appendix F. Figures 6.97 and 6.98 present the maximum tensile
and compressive strains in the pipe versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground
displacement widths considered in the analyses. The results are for X70, grade and wall
thickness of 7.92 mm (0.312 inch) (D/t=96). Both these figures indicate that a Width of 20 m (66
ft) and 30 m (99 ft) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain. The results also indicate
that:

 For W= 20 m, pipe with 7.92 mm (0.312 inch) [D/t=96] operating at 72% SMYS
exceeds the compressive strain limit and buckle/wrinkle at 0.9% local compressive
strain or 0.78% nominal compressive strain for soil displacement of 0.58 m.

For W= 30 m, Pipe with 7.92 mm (0.312 inch) [D/t=96] operating at 72% SMYS exceeds the
compressive strain limit and buckle/wrinkle at 1.42% local compressive strain or 1.1% nominal
compressive strain for soil displacement of 1.13 m.

Figures 6.99 and 6.100 present the maximum tensile and compressive strains in the pipe versus
the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths considered in the
analyses. The results are for X70, grade and wall thickness of 9.52 mm (0.375 inch) (D/t=80).
Both these figures indicate that a width of 20 m (66 ft) results in the largest tensile and
compressive strain. The results also indicate that for W= 20 m the pipe exceeds the compressive
strain limit and buckle/wrinkle at 1.9% local compressive strain or 1.64% nominal compressive
strain for soil displacement of 1.13 m.

The strain demands determined from the analysis was compared with the calculated strain
capacity defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI for
compressive strain. While there are many existing models for calculating the compressive and
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 245

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was decided to develop a simple a strain-based
design methodology that can be easily adapted to any code and standards. These tensile and
compressive strain demand ‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands
of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline are presented in Appendix F. The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to
lateral ground displacement is to stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes
and standards.

Figure 6.97: NPS 30 (D/t = 96) - Maximum Tensile Strains in the Pipe versus Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure 6.98: NPS 30 (D/t = 96) - Maximum Compressive Strains in the Pipe versus Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 246

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure 6.99: NPS 30 (D/t = 80) - Maximum Tensile Strains in the Pipe versus Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100m]

Figure 6.100: NPS 30 (D/t = 80) - Maximum Compressive Strains in the Pipe versus
Ground Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

6.17 Pipeline Lateral Ground Movement Modelling Observations

The sample applications of the DEM pipe-soil interaction geotechnical hazard assessment
method was employed to investigate the strains developed in pipelines subjected to lateral soil
movement. The primary focus was an NPS 24 (610 mm) pipe system, however, the analysis also
considered 12 (305 mm) and 18 inch (457 mm) diameter pipes. The use of the simulated pipe
responses to soil movement to consider the onset of tensile and compressive limit states in a
strain-based assessment was demonstrated and the sensitivity of the pipe response to a number or

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 247

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

geotechnical hazard scenario factors were presented. For the pipe-soil interaction in which the
ground movement is across the longitudinal axis of the pipe, it was shown that:

 The response of the pipeline and soil movement pattern is affected by the ground
slope. More specifically, the orientation of the ground movement is relative to
direction of the gravitation acceleration. This effect gives rise to differences in the
ground surface appearance (heave and subsidence) ahead of and after the pipe. The
pipe accumulated strains for a given ground displacement are not significantly
affected by the slope.
 The lateral soil movement-induced pipe displacements will produce both pipe
bending and axial extension.
 The strains in the pipe are affected by the width of the soil movement and there is a
critical movement width that promotes a peak strain. The critical width is a function
of the pipe geometry, pipeline operating conditions and locked-in pipeline axial loads
(i.e. those caused by thermal differential between operating and construction
conditions).

The observations made in this report are related to ground movements involving deformable
soils. Care should be taken in applying these results to ground movement across a pipeline
surrounded by rock or very stiff soils that will not deform and will cause extremely localized
pipe deformations.

The effect of the parameters considered in these sensitivity studies indicate that the parameters
can be ranked based upon their impact on strain demand as follows:

Higher Importance Medium Importance Lower Importance

- Magnitude of soil movement - Pipe geometry (D/t) - Soil to pipe friction
- Width of soil movement - Operating pressure - Material grade
- Soil stiffness - Temperature differential

Comparisons were made with limit state equations defined from the guidance; BS 7910 for
tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and PRCI for compressive strain to demonstrate the application of
the analysis results in an assessment process. While there are many existing models for
calculating the compressive and tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was decided to
develop a simple a strain-based design methodology that can be easily adapted to any code and
standards, which is the purpose of this section.

The tensile and compressive strain demand envelopes along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline were developed. The maximum soil displacement versus ground width displacement as
a series of ‘envelopes’ was developed for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands
of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2%. The safe pipeline operating goal of
pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to stay within the normal operating strain
range defined by codes and standards.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 248

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The strain for critical width lateral movement ground movement events (strain demand or
applied strain) may be used conservatively to evaluate the response of pipeline system with
similar geotechnical hazards. The allowable strain (strain capacity or resistance) should be
evaluated for each pipe geometry, material and operating condition.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 249

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

7 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The objective of this project was to develop an engineering tool to define the effects of
operational and geotechnical loads on liquid and gas pipeline systems to support decision making
regarding threat severity or repair scheduling. This tool could be incorporated in strain based
design and assessment to facilitate the consideration of complex loading scenarios inducing
significant flexural loads, including pipeline subsidence or lowering, and ground movements
inducing lateral pipeline movements. The results of this project define the local nominal strain
state that can be used to assess localized anomalies/defects (e.g., corrosion, cracks, dents, weld
faults, gouges, etc.) or the potential for the formation of a wrinkle or buckle.

The report provided examples of the numerical model validation studies that have been
completed to demonstrate the ability of the modelling tools to simulate physical trials. These
sample applications demonstrate the ability of the numerical modelling tools to reproduce the
behaviors of the pipe and soil in the full-scale experimental trials.

The observations made in this report are related to ground movements involving deformable
soils. Care should be taken in applying these results to ground movement across a pipeline
surrounded by rock or very stiff soils that will not deform and will cause extremely localized
pipe deformations.

The objective of the numerical simulation work completed in this project was to explore the
sensitivity of the pipeline strains to changes in the geotechnical hazard and pipeline parameters.
This report provided examples of the peak tensile and compressive strains generated in
subsidence and slope movements transverse to the pipe axis considering the effects of:

▪ Pipe geometry ▪ Material Grade

▪ Soil types ▪ Widths of soil movement
▪ Operating Pressure ▪ Slope
▪ Ground movement pattern ▪ Temperature (axial load)

The analysis results illustrate that not all parameters investigated had the same magnitude of
impact. The effect of the parameters considered in these sensitivity studies indicate that the
parameters can be ranked based upon their impact on strain demand as follows:

Subsidence Events
Higher Importance Medium Importance Lower Importance
- Magnitude of ground subsidence - Pipe geometry (D/t) - Soil to pipe friction
- Ground subsidence pattern - Operating pressure - Material grade
- Width of ground subsidence - Temperature differential
- Burial depth - Soil stiffness

Lateral Ground Movement Events

Higher Importance Medium Importance Lower Importance
- Magnitude of soil movement - Pipe geometry (D/t) - Soil to pipe friction
- Width of soil movement - Operating pressure - Material grade
- Soil stiffness - Temperature differential
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 250

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

The sample application of the DEM pipe-soil interaction geotechnical hazard assessment method
was employed to investigate the strains developed in a range of pipe sizes however the NPS 24
(610 mm) pipeline was used as the baseline case. Lower diameter pipelines have lower moments
of inertia and would be expected to be more flexible when subjected to lateral loading.

The results developed in this work may be used to estimate the effects of geotechnical hazards to
consider the onset of tensile and compressive limit states in a strain-based assessment. Several
limit state formulations were used to demonstrate this comparison and sample tensile and
compressive strain demand envelopes were developed.

The use of the simulated pipe responses to soil movement to evaluate train demand (applied
strains) in the pipeline for strain-based assessment was demonstrated and the sensitivity of the
pipe response to a number or geotechnical hazard scenario factors were presented. For the pipe-
soil interaction involving mining subsidence, it was shown that:

 The response of the pipeline and soil movement pattern is affected by the ground
subsidence magnitude, width and patterns;
 The vertical soil movement-induced pipe displacements will produce both pipe
bending and axial extension;
 The strains in the pipe are affected by the width of the surface subsidence and there is
a critical surface subsidence width that promotes a peak strain. The critical width is a
function of the pipe geometry, pipeline operating conditions and locked-in pipeline
axial loads (i.e. those caused by thermal differential between operating and
construction conditions) and as well as the subsidence parameters.

The use of the results presented in this report to consider subsidence at the edge of rock or
similarly undeformable shelf should be treated with care.

For the pipe-soil interaction in which the ground movement is across the longitudinal axis of the
pipe, it was shown that:

 The response of the pipeline and soil movement pattern is affected by the ground
slope. More specifically, the orientation of the ground movement is relative to
direction of the gravitation acceleration. This effect gives rise to differences in the
ground surface appearance (heave and subsidence) ahead of and after the pipe. The
pipe accumulated strains for a given ground displacement are not significantly
affected by the slope.
 The lateral soil movement-induced pipe displacements will produce both pipe
bending and axial extension.
 The strains in the pipe are affected by the width of the soil movement and there is a
critical movement width that promotes a peak strain. The critical width is a function
of the pipe geometry, pipeline operating conditions and locked-in pipeline axial loads
(i.e. those caused by thermal differential between operating and construction
conditions).

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 251

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 The strains in the pipe are affected by the operating pressure. Lower operating
pressures effectively reduce the stiffness of the pipeline permitting greater strain
accumulations.

The observations made in this report are related to lateral ground movements involving
deformable soils. Care should be taken in applying these results to ground movement across a
pipeline surrounded by rock or very stiff soils that will not deform and will cause extremely
localized pipe deformations.

The results presented in this report provide reference data that may be used as a tool to evaluate
the strain accumulation in a pipeline. It was demonstrated that a critical width can be defined for
a pipeline and applying the strain derived from this critical width may be conservatively
considered for all widths of the geotechnical hazard.

Allowable strains (strain capacity or resistance) should be evaluated for each pipe geometry,
material and operating condition. The focus of this research was to demonstrate the strain
demand and it is recommended in the application of this information the allowable strains be
defied by the user to suit their needs and incorporate a factor of safety suitable to their
requirements.

In future, it would be desirable to consider ground movement along the pipe axis or other
geotechnical hazard scenarios to provide a more complete reference data set for the geotechnical
hazard assessment. The results developed in this project could be extended to consider any
arbitrary direction of soil movement relative to the pipeline.

The subsidence modelling results could be extended to consider both vertical and lateral
movement in the soil and the response of the pipeline beyond the bounds of the subsidence and
post buckling behaviour could also be explored.

The ability of ILI tools to detect and characterize pipe displacements could be correlated with the
results presented in this report to support fitness for purpose assessment of geotechnical hazards.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 252

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

8 REFERENCES

[1] LS-DYNA “Keywords user’s Manual”, version 971, Livermore Software and
Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA, April 2007.
[2] Souli, M, A. Ouahsine, L. Lewin, “Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian Formulation for Fluid-
Structure Interaction Problems”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Volume 190, Pages 659-675, (2000).
[3] Schwer, L.E., “LS-DYNA Geomaterial Modeling Short Course Notes”, February, 2002.
[4] Karimian, H., and Wijewickreme, D. Full−Scale Laboratory Testing to Assess Methods
for Reduction of Soil Loads on Buried Pipes Subject to Transverse Ground Movement.
Proceedings of IPC2006 6th International Pipeline Conference September 25-29, 2006,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
[5] Cappelletto, A., Tagliaferri, R., Giurlani, G., Andrei, G., Furlani, G., and Scarpelli, G.
(1998). Field Full Scale Tests on Longitudinal Pipeline-Soil Interaction. Proceedings of
International Pipeline Conference 1998, Calgary, vol. 2, pp.771-778.
[6] Scarpelli,G, Sakellariadi, S and Furlani, G: Evaluation of soil-Pipeline Longitudinal
Interaction Forces Rivisata Italiana Di Geotecnica 4/2003.
[7] O’Rourke, T.D, Jezerski, J.M, Olson, N.A, Boneau, A.L, Palmer, M.C, Stewart, H.E.,
O’Rourke, M.J., Abdoun, T., 2008; Geotechnicas of Pipeline System Response to
earthquakes. Proceedings Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV,
Sacramento, Ca, May 2008.
[8] Karimian, H., and Wijewickreme, D. and Honegger D. Response of Buried Pipelines
Subjected to Relative Axial Soil Movement. Can. Geotech. J. 46: 735-752, 2009.
[9] C-Core, “Full Scale Pipe/Soil Interaction” Prepared for Minerals Management
Service.N0 99 –C12, April 1999.
[10] Paulin, M.J., Phillips, R., Clark, J.I., Trigg, A., and Konuk, I. (1998). “A Full-Scale
Investigation into Pipeline/Soil Interaction.” Proc., 1998 Int. Pipeline Conf., ASME,
Calgary, AB, Canada, Vol. 2, 779–787.
[11] Popescu, R., Phillips, R., Konuk, I., Guo, P., and Nobahar, A. (2002).“Pipe–Soil
Interaction: Large-Scale Tests and Numerical Modeling.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Physical
Modelling in Geotechnique, ICPMG’02, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 917–922.
[12] Popescu, R. and Nobahar, A., 2003, “3D Finite Element Analysis of Pipe-Soil
Interaction- Effects of Ground Water”, C-CORE Report R-02-029-076.v2.pdf.
[13] Yimsiri, S., Soga, K., Yoshisaki, K., Dasari, G.R., and O’Rouke, T.D., 2004 “ Lateral and
Upward Soil-Pipeline Interactions in Sand for Deep Embedment conditions.
[14] Yusima, Y. and Kishida, T. (1981). “A Ring Torsion Apparatus for Evaluating Friction
between Soil and Metal Surfaces.” Geotech. Test. J., ASTM, 4(4), 145-152.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 253

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

[15] Shoop, S., Affleck R., Janno, V., Haehlen, R., and Barrett, B., 2005, “Constitutive Model
for Thawing Frost-Susceptible Sand.”, ERDC/CRREL TR-05-3.
[16] Yoshisaki, K., O’Rourke, T.D. and Hamada, M., (2001). Large Deformation Behavior of
Buried Pipelines with Low-Angle Elbows Subjected to Permanent Ground Deformation.
Journal of Structural Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, JSME, No. 50, Vol. 4,
April 2001, pp. 215-228.
[17] Yoshisaki, K., O’Rourke, T.D. and Hamada, M., (2004). Study Probes Pipelines With
Elbows Subjected To Permanent Ground Deformation. Pipeline & Gas Journal/January
2004/ www.pipelineandgasjournal.com.
[18] Yoshisaki, K., O’Rourke, T.D. and Hamada, M., Large Scale Experiments of Permanent
Ground Deformation Effects on Steel Pipelines
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/resaccom/01-SP01/
rpa_pdfs/03orourke_tkyogas.pdf
[19] Fredj, A., and Dinovitzer, A., 2014, Pipeline Response to Slope Movement and
Evaluation of Pipeline Strain Demand, Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference,
Alberta, IPC2014-33611.
[20] Dinovitzer, A., Fredj, A., and Sen , M, 2014, Pipeline Stress Relief and Evaluation of
Strain Measurement Technology at a Moving Slope, Proceedings of International
Pipeline Conference, Alberta, IPC2014-33497.
[21] Fredj, A., and Dinovitzer, A., 2012, Simulation of the Response of Buried Pipelines to
Slope Movement Using 3D Continuum Modeling, Proceedings of International Pipeline
Conference, Alberta, IPC2012-90437.
[22] Fredj, A, Comfort, G, Dinovitzer, A Case Study of High Pressure/High Temperature
Pipeline for Ice Scour Design Using 3D Continuum Modeling Interaction, International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (CD), Paper No:
OMAE2008-57702, June 15 - 20 2008, Estoril, Portugal.
[23] Fredj, A., Dinovitzer, A., and Zhou, J., 2008a, A 3-Dimentional Continuum ALE Model
for soil-Pipe Interaction, Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference, Alberta,
IPC2008-64624.
[24] Fredj, A., and Dinovitzer, A., 2010a, Three-Dimensional Response of Buried Pipelines
Subjected to Large Soil Deformation Effects- Part I: 3D Continuum Modeling Using
ALE and SPH Formulations, Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference, Alberta,
IPC2010-31516.
[25] Fredj, A., and Dinovitzer, A., 2010b, Three-Dimensional Response of Buried Pipelines
Subjected to Large Soil Deformation Effects- Part II: Effects of the Soil Restraint on the
Response of Pipe/Soil Systems, Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference,
Alberta, IPC2010-31517.
[26] Fredj, A, Comfort, K, Been, The Forces Required to Produce Seabed Gouges. POAC 11-
185: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering
under Arctic Conditions. July 10-14, 2011, Montréal, Canada.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 254

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

[27] CSA-Z662-11 Standards Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, 2011.

[28] Honegger, D.G., and Nyman, D., (2004), “PRCI Guidelines for the Seismic Design and
Assessment of Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines,” Pipeline Research
Council International, published by Technical Toolboxes, Houston, Texas.
[29] Dory, A.B., Cheng, J.J.R., and Murray, D.W., (3001), “Critical Buckling Strains for
Energy Pipelines”, University of Alberta Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering. Structural Engineering Report N0.237.
[30] BS 7910:2005, Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic
structures.
[31] USGS-2008 Landslide and Land Subsidence Hazards to Pipeline. Open File Report 2008
-1164
[32] Bauer, R.A., and Hunt, S.R., 1982, Profile, Strain and Time Characteristics of Subsidence
from Coal Mining in Illinois, in Peng, S.S., and Harthill, M., eds., Proceedings,
Workshop on Surface Subsidence due to Underground Mining: West Virginia University,
Morgantown, W. Va., Nov. 1981, P.207 –219.
[33] BMT, “A 3-Dimentional Continuum ALE Model for Soil-Pipe Interaction”, PRCI ENV-3
PR-214-05403
[34] Konuk, Fredj, “FEM for Pipeline Analysis of Ice Scour – A Critical Review”, Paper
51477, OMAE 2004
[35] C.Cáceres and M. Ordoñez, “Pipeline Modeling and assessment in unstable Slopes”,
IPC20210
[36] F. Zhang, M. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Yu and L. Tong, “Strain demand in Areas of Mine
Subsidence”, IPC2012
[37] C-Core, “Guidelines for constructing Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines
Through Areas Prone to Landslide and Subsidence Hazards”, PRCI/US DOT project
2009.
[38] D.J. Varnes,”Landslide Hazard Zonation: A review of Principles and Practice”,
UNESCO, 1984.
[39] ASCE 1984: Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline System.
Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
[40] Monroy M. Soil Restraints on Steel Buried Pipelines Crossing Active Seismic Faults.
Ph.D. Thesis; Department of Civil Engineering University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada, 2013.
[41] D. Wijewickreme, M. Monroy, D. G. Honegger and D.J. Nyman: Response of Buried
Pipelines Subjected to Ground Displacement under Different Trench Backfill Conditions.
Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, 2014;
Anchorage Alaska, USA.
[42] ALA 2001, American Lifelines Alliance (ALA): Guidelines for the Design of Buried
Pipeline, July 2001.
DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 255

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

[43] C.H. Trautmann and T.D. O’Rourke Lateral Force Displacement Response of Buried
Pipe, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1985; 111 (9): 1077-1092.
[44] USGS-2008 Landslide and Land Subsidence Hazards to Pipeline. Open File Report 2008
-1164
[45] Cundall, P.A. and Strack, O.D.L.: A Discrete Element Models: Similarity Principles
Engineering Computations: International Journal for Computer-Aided Engineering and
Software 26 (2009) 599-609.
[46] Karajan, N.; Han, Z.; Ten, H. and Wang, J.: Interaction Possibilities of Bonded and Loose
Particles in LS-DYNA, Proceedings of 9th European Conference, Manchester, 2013.
[47] M.J. O’Rourke (1989), “Approximate Analysis Procedures for Permanent Ground
Deformation for Permanent Ground Deformation Effects on Buried Pipelines,”
Proceedings of the Second U.S.-Japan Workshop on Liquefaction, Large Ground
Deformation and Their Effects on Lifelines, Buffalo, New York, Technical Report
NCEER-89-0032, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
Buffalo, New York, pp. 336-347.
[48] H. Suzuki (1988), “Damage to Buried Pipes Caused by Large Ground Displacement”.
Proceedings of the First Japan-U-S. Workshop on Liquefaction, Large Ground
Deformation and Their Effects on Lifeline Facilities, Tokyo, Japan, pp.127-132.
[49] Ligon, J.B and Mayer G.R, Coefficient of friction for Pipe Coating Material, Pipe Line
Rules of Thumb Handbook , Fourth Edition,1998.

DTPH56-14-H-00008 - Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 256

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

APPENDIX A: STRAIN LIMIT CAPACITY

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies A-1

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

A.1 COMPRESSIVE STRAIN LIMIT:

The slope movement will result in axial strain in the pipe. These strains are generally
compressive at the toe of the slope and tensile at the top of the slope. Compressive strains may
result in local buckling/wrinkling of the pipe in the compressive zone. The tensile strains may
result in girth weld failure in the tensile strain zone.

The onset of local buckling is considered a serviceability limit state and can be evaluated using a
number of limit state equations including those found in CSA Z662 and PRCI 2004 or UOA. In
these standards, the limit state is considered when the load is secondary, such as displacement
controlled ground movement. Although local buckling or wrinkling does not immediately result
in loss of the integrity of the pressure boundary (leakage), the buckles/wrinkles make the pipe
line segment prone to subsequent fatigue damage.

Tables A.1 through A.11 show the allowable compressive strain limits calculated for the 12 inch,
18 inch, 24 inch and 30 inch pipes using CSA and the PRCI 2004 or University of Alberta
equation.

Tensile Strain Limit:

The maximum allowable tensile strains are considered to be governed by the failure stress or
strain state for a circumferential defect. This assessment was completed using a British Standard
7190 Level 2A failure assessment approach [4]. These strain limits were estimated by
considering the axial pipe wall membrane strain that would cause a reference flaw to extend.
The BS7910 failure assessment approach considering the potential for both ductile and brittle
crack extension was used to define the membrane stress/strain state that would cause crack
extension.

In developing the tensile strain limit, the following data and assumptions were considered:

 The pipe was assumed to have the minimum specified strength properties the welds were
assumed to overmatch the base material. Conservatively, the weld metal properties were
assumed to be the same as the base material;
 The design flaw that was adopted was 0.5 mm, 1 mm and 2 mm deep, 50 mm long semi-
elliptical surface flaw;
 The design flaw was assumed to be located at the weld toe. The stress concentrating
effects of the weld toe defined in BS 7910 were applied considering a maximum weld
width of 25 mm; and
 The pipe CTOD fracture toughness was assumed to be 0.05 mm. Based upon experience
this represents low toughness (brittle) behavior.

The FlawCheck software was used to apply the BS7910 Level 2A assessment procedure to each
pipe geometry and material combination to define the pipe wall local membrane stress and strain
state that would result in crack extension. The results of this assessment are listed in Table A.1
through A.11 below. The results presented below are consistent with the girth weld defect

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies A-2

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

acceptance techniques adopted by API 579 and CSA Z662, as both of these standards have
incorporated the BS 7910 procedure.

Table A.1: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI) Strain
Limits; X52, OD=12 in, WT=0.18 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

1.10 0.74 0.23 ‐0.48 ‐0.48 ‐0.56 ‐0.97 ‐0.87 ‐1.50

Table A.2: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI) Strain
Limits; X52, OD=12 in, WT=0.25 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

1.15 0.85 0.32 ‐0.70 ‐0.70 ‐1.15 ‐1.70 ‐1.79 ‐2.63

Table A.3: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI) Strain
Limits; X52, OD=12 in, WT=0.375 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

1.18 1.02 0.43 ‐1.09 ‐1.09 ‐2.71 ‐3.42 ‐4.20 ‐5.29

Table A.4: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI) Strain
Limits; X52, OD=24 in, WT=0.25 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

1.20 0.99 0.35 ‐0.34 ‐0.34 ‐0.39 ‐0.58 ‐0.60 ‐0.89

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies A-3

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Table A.5: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI) Strain
Limits; X52, OD=24 in, WT=0.375 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

1.23 1.06 0.47 ‐0.54 ‐0.54 ‐0.91 ‐1.15 ‐1.41 ‐1.78

Table A.6: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI) Strain
Limits; X52, OD=24 in, WT=0.5 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

1.25 1.13 0.52 ‐0.75 ‐0.75 ‐1.65 ‐1.89 ‐2.55 ‐2.93

Table A.7: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI) Strain
Limits; X70, OD=24 in, WT=0.375 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

0.99 0.87 0.36 ‐0.63 ‐0.63 ‐0.74 ‐0.94 ‐1.15 ‐1.45

Table A.8: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI) Strain
Limits; X52, OD=18 in, WT=0.25 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

1.20 0.93 0.34 ‐0.47 ‐0.47 ‐0.64 ‐0.94 ‐0.99 ‐1.46

Table A.9: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI) Strain
Limits; X70, OD=30 in, WT=0.312 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

0.99 0.89 0.33 ‐0.42 ‐0.42 ‐0.34 ‐0.46 ‐0.54 ‐0.72

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies A-4

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Table A.10: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI)
Strain Limits; X70, OD=30 in, WT=0.375 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

0.99 0.95 0.36 ‐0.51 ‐0.51 ‐0.51 ‐0.64 ‐0.78 ‐0.99

Table A.11: Tensile (2c=50 mm & CTOD=0.05 mm) and Compressive (CSA & PRCI)
Strain Limits; X70, OD=30 in, WT=0.5 in
Tensile Strain Limit Compressive Strain Limit (Resistance Factor=0.8)
BS‐7910                           PRCI
CSA‐Z662 
Flaw size= 50% SMYS 72% SMYS

0.5mm 1mm 2mm 50% SMYS 72% SMYS Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm Offset=2mm Offset/WT=0.097mm

1.01 0.97 0.40 ‐0.67 ‐0.67 ‐0.91 ‐1.05 ‐1.42 ‐1.62

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies A-5

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

APPENDIX B: MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD –SUMMARY RESULTS 12-INCH

PIPELINE

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-1

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

B.1 MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD – SUMMARY RESULTS 12-INCH

PIPELINE
Analyses were completed for the NPS 12 (323 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to ground subsidence and to determine the structural integrity significance of ground
settlement induced strain demands. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of
D/t ratio, burial depth and ground subsidence width. The analyses considered 18 ground
subsidence scenarios. The scenarios included the following:

 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 4.57 mm (0.18 inch), and 9.52 mm (0.375) ;
corresponding to D/t ratio of 71, and 34;
 Ground displacement direction: Subsidence, vertical to the pipeline axis;
 Panel widths: three panel widths of 61 m (200 ft), 122 m (400 ft) and 183 m (600 ft)
 Mining depths: three different mining depth for each panel width
 Panel extraction areas defined based on panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H): three
W/H ratio of 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 for each panel width;
 Shape of ground displacement: three ground subsidence patterns;
 One soil conditions with soil properties consistent with sand/clay till; and
 Pipeline burial depth: One burial depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) to top pipe, corresponding to 1.36
m (4.5 ft) depth to pipe center line.

The surface subsidence profile was initiated using Appalachian method developed based upon
Applachian mining experience in The USA.

Assumptions for the pipeline were as follows:

 72% SMYS internal pressure;

 450C thermal differential (installation -200C, max operating temperature 250C); and
 A generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) pipe according to the API 5L.

Detailed results for D/t=71 and burial depth of 1.2 m is presented as follows:

 Figure B1 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for panel extraction width of 61 m, 122
m and 183 m (200 ft, 400ft and 600 ft) considering three (3) potential panel depth that
influence surface subsidence, including:

 sub-critical panel extraction width (W/h =0.5);

 critical panel extraction width; and (W/h =1.5);
 super-critical panel extraction width (W/h =3).

 Figure B2 and Figure B3 present the maximum local and nominal compressive strains in
the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-2

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

various ground subsidence widths to depth ratio considered in the analyses. The nominal
compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge
length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). This large stain gauge length is used to
permit the analyses to be compared directly to codified permissible strain formulations
which are reported over this gauge length.
 The results indicate that for the three (3) cases considered, the sub-critical panel
extraction width (W/h =0.5) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the
pipe for any given value of ground subsidence for analyzed cases.
 Figure B4 presents the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the ground subsidence
width (W) to panel depth for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, 3.0, 3.0 and
4.0. In this figure, the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.
 The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, panel width to
depth ratio of 0.5 can be considered critical. This result suggests that the pipeline is
forced to follow the ground subsidence pattern and more sharp subsidence profiles
promotes higher curvature along with pipe axial extension.
 Figure B5 presents the maximum nominal compressive strain in the pipe versus the panel
width to depth ratio (W/h) for given ground settlement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5
and 4.0. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the
CSA and PRCI compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. The
compressive strains are maximized for lower panel width ratios.

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-3

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure B1: NPS 12.75 (D/t=71) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence
W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-4

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure B2: NPS 12.75 (D/t=71) - Maximum Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-5

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure B3: NPS 12.75 (D/t=71) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-6

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure B4: NPS 12.75 (D/t=71)- Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio [W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft)] for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1,
1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-7

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure B5: NPS 12.75 (D/t=71) -Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio [W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft)] for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1,
1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-8

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Detailed results for D/t=34 and burial depth of 1.2 m is presented as follows:

 Figure B6 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for panel extraction width of 61 m, 122
m and 183 m (200 ft, 400 ft and 600 ft) considering three (3) potential panel depth that
influence surface subsidence, including:

 sub-critical panel extraction width ( W/h =0.5);

 critical panel extraction width; and (W/h =1.5);
 super-critical panel extraction width (W/h =3).

 Figure B7 and Figure B8 present the maximum local and nominal compressive strains in
the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for
various ground subsidence widths to depth ratio considered in the analyses. The results
indicate that for the three (3) cases considered, the sub-critical panel extraction width
(W/h=0.5) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given
value of ground subsidence for analyzed cases.
 Figure B9 presents the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the ground subsidence
width (W) to panel depth for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, 3.0, 3.0 and
4.0. In this figure, the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.
 Figure B10 presents the maximum nominal compressive strain in the pipe versus the
panel width to depth ratio (W/h) for given ground settlement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0,
3.5 and 4.0. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the
CSA and PRCI compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. The
compressive strains are maximized for lower panel width ratios.

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-9

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure B6: NPS 12.75 (D/t=34) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence
W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-10

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure B7: NPS 12.75 (D/t=34) - Maximum Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-11

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure B8: NPS 12.75 (D/t=34) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-12

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure B9: NPS 12.75 (D/t=34) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio [W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft)] for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1,
1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-13

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure B10: NPS 12.75 (D/t=34) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width
to Depth Ratio [W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft)] for Ground Settlement of 0.5,
1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies B-14

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

APPENDIX C - MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD – SUMMARY RESULTS 18-INCH

PIPELINE

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-1

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

C.1 MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD – SUMMARY RESULTS 18-INCH

PIPELINE
Analyses were completed for the NPS 18 (456 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to ground subsidence and to determine the structural integrity significance of ground
settlement induced strain demands. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of
D/t ratio, burial depth and ground subsidence width. The analyses considered 18 ground
subsidence scenarios. The scenarios included the following:

 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 4.57 mm (0.18 inch), and 9.52 mm (0.375),
corresponding to D/t ratio of 96, and 48;
 Ground displacement direction: Subsidence, vertical to the pipeline axis;
 Panel widths: three panel widths of 61 m (200 ft), 122 m (400 ft) and 183 m (600 ft)
 Mining depths: three different mining depth for each panel width
 Panel extraction areas defined based on panel width to mining depth ratio (W/H): three
W/H ratio of 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 for each panel width;
 Shape of ground displacement: three ground subsidence patterns;
 One soil conditions with soil properties consistent with sand/clay; and
 Pipeline burial depth: One burial depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) to top pipe, corresponding to 1.42
m (4.7 ft) depth to pipe center line.

The surface subsidence profile was initiated using Appalachian method developed based upon
Applachian mining experience in The USA.

Assumptions for the pipeline were as follows:

 72% SMYS internal pressure;

 450C thermal differential (installation -200C, max operating temperature 250C); and
 A generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) pipe according to the API 5L.

Detailed results for D/t=96 and burial depth of 1.2 m is presented as follow:
 Figure C1 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for panel extraction width of 61 m, 122
m and 183 m (200 ft, 400 ft and 600 ft) considering three (3) potential panel depth that
influence surface subsidence, including:

 sub-critical panel extraction width ( W/h =0.5);

 critical panel extraction width; and (W/h =1.5);
 super-critical panel extraction width (W/h =3).
 Figure C2 and Figure C3 present the maximum local and nominal compressive strains in
the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for
various ground subsidence widths to depth ratio considered in the analyses. The nominal
compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain measured over a gauge

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-2

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). This large stain gauge length is used to
permit the analyses to be compared directly to codified permissible strain formulations
which are reported over this gauge length.
 The results indicate that for the three (3) cases considered, the sub-critical panel
extraction width (W/h=0.5) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe
for any given value of ground subsidence for analyzed cases.
 Figure C4 presents the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the ground subsidence
width (W) to panel depth for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, 3.0, 3.0 and
4.0. In this figure, the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.
 The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, panel width to
depth ratio of 0.5 can be considered critical. This result suggests that the pipeline is
forced to follow the ground subsidence pattern and more sharp subsidence profiles
promotes higher curvature along with pipe axial extension.
 Figure C5 presents the maximum nominal compressive strain in the pipe versus the panel
width to depth ratio (W/h) for given ground settlement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5
and 4.0. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the
CSA and PRCI compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. The
compressive strains are maximized for lower panel width ratios.

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-3

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure C1: NPS 18 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W=61,
122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-4

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure C2: NPS 18 (D/t=96) - Maximum Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-5

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure C3: NPS 18 (D/t=96) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-6

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

C.1.1 Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes (TSCE), TSD-2D

Figure C4 : NPS 18 (D/t=96) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio [W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft)] for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0,
2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-7

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure C5: NPS 18 (D/t=96) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio [W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft)] for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1,
1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-8

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Detailed results for D/t=48 and burial depth of 1.2 m is presented as follow:

 Figure C6 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for panel extraction width of 61 m, 122
m and 183 m (200 ft, 400ft and 600 ft) considering three (3) potential panel depth that
influence surface subsidence, including:

 sub-critical panel extraction width ( W/h =0.5);

 critical panel extraction width; and (W/h =1.5);
 super-critical panel extraction width (W/h =3).
 Figure C7 and Figure C8 present the maximum local and nominal compressive strains in
the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the maximum ground subsidence for
various ground subsidence widths to depth ratio considered in the analyses. The results
indicate that for the three (3) cases considered, the sub-critical panel extraction width
(W/h =0.5) results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given
value of ground subsidence for analyzed cases.
 Figure C9 presents the maximum tensile strains in pipe versus the ground subsidence
width (W) to panel depth for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, 3.0, 3.0 and
4.0. In this figure, the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit.
 Figure C10 presents the maximum nominal compressive strain in the pipe versus the
panel width to depth ratio (W/h) for given ground settlement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0,
3.5 and 4.0. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (D is the pipe outside diameter). In this figure, the
CSA and PRCI compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. The
compressive strains are maximized for lower panel width ratios.

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-9

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure C6: NPS 18 (D/t=48) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Subsidence W=61,
122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-10

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure C7: NPS 18 (D/t=48) - Maximum Local Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs. Ground
Subsidence W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-11

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure C8: NPS 18 (D/t=48) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strains in the Pipe vs.
Ground Subsidence W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft); W/h Ratio 0.5, 1.5 and 3
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-12

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure C9: NPS 18 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width to Depth
Ratio [W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft)] for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0,
2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-13

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

C.1.2 Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes (CSCE), CSD-2D

Figure C10 : NPS 18 (D/t=48) - Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width to
Depth Ratio [W=61, 122 and 183 m (200, 400 and 600 ft)] for Ground Settlement of 0.5, 1,
1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 m
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies C-14

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

APPENDIX D: MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD – SUMMARY RESULTS 12-INCH

PIPELINE

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-1

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

D.1 MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD – SUMMARY RESULTS 12-INCH

PIPELINE
The following section represents the summary results for the NPS 12 (324 mm outside diameter)
for the base case with:

 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 4.57 mm (0.18 in), 6.35 mm (0.25 in) and
9.52 mm (0.375 in); corresponding to D/t ratio of 71, 51 and 34 respectively;
 Ground displacement direction: Perpendicular (lateral) to the pipeline axis;
 Width of ground displacement (W): Six potential ground movement failures with a total
estimated width of failure perpendicular to the pipeline varying from 10 to 100 m (10,
20, 30, 40 50 and 100 m);
 Shape of ground displacement: one ground displacement pattern initiated using a cosine
function raised to the power “n=2”;
 One soil conditions sand/clay till;
 Pipe slope: one slopes, 16 deg.; and
 Pipeline burial depth: one depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) to top pipe, corresponding to 1.36 m (4.5
ft), depth to pipe center line.

Assumptions for the pipeline were as follows:

 72% SMYS internal pressure;

 45 0C thermal differential (installation -200C, max operating temperature 250C); and
 A generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) pipe according to the API 5L.

Detailed results for D/t=71 are presented as follow:

 Figures D.1 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement
widths considered in the analyses. Figures D.2 and D.3 present the maximum local and
nominal compressive strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the
maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths considered in the
analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the pipe outside diameter). The results
indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 10 m (33 ft) results in the
largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground
displacement.
 Figure D.5 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any
tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The TSC envelopes
based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure D.6. The envelopes describe the
maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC envelopes,
which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS 7910. The results

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-2

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 10 m (33 ft) can be considered critical.
 Figure D.7 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the PRCI (UOA) compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any compressive strain below the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The
CSC envelopes based on PRCI guidance are presented in Figure D.8. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the
CSC envelopes, which represents the compressive strain-related failure limit, according
to PRCI/UOA. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition
combination, the ground movement width of 10 m (33 ft) can be considered critical
 Figure D.9 and Figure D.10 present the tensile and compressive strain demand ‘envelops’
for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%,
1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the pipeline. The safe
pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to stay
within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

Figure D.1: NPS 12.75 (D/t=71) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-3

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.2: NPS 12.75 (D/t=71) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure D.3: NPS 12.75 (D/t=71) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-4

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.4: NPS 12.75 (D/t=71) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement

Figure D.5: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-5

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.6: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

Figure D.7: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m)

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-6

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.8: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

Figure D.9: Tensile Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-7

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.10: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-8

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Detailed results for D/t=71 are presented as follow:

 Figures D.11 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement
widths considered in the analyses. Figures D.12 and D.13 present the maximum local
and nominal compressive strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the
maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths considered in the
analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the pipe outside diameter). The results
indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 10 m (33 ft) results in the
largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground
displacement.
 Figure D.15 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any
tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The TSC envelopes
based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure D.16. The envelopes describe the
maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC envelopes,
which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS 7910. The results
indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 10 m (33 ft) can be considered critical.
 Figure D.17 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the PRCI (UOA) compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any compressive strain below the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The
CSC envelopes based on PRCI guidance are presented in Figure D.18. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the
CSC envelopes, which represents the compressive strain-related failure limit, according
to PRCI/UOA. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition
combination, the ground movement width of 10 m (33 ft) can be considered critical
 Figure D.19 and Figure D.20 present the tensile and compressive strain demand
‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%,
0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the pipeline.
The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to
stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-9

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.11: NPS 12.75 (D/t=51) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100m]

Figure D.12: NPS 12.75 (D/t=51) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100m]

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-10

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.13: NPS 12.75 (D/t=51) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100m]

Figure D.14: NPS 12.75 (D/t=51) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-11

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.15: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m

Figure D.16: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-12

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.17: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m)

Figure D.18: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W)
Movements

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-13

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.19: Tensile Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Figure D.20: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-14

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Detailed results for D/t=34 are presented as follow:

 Figures D.21 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement
widths considered in the analyses. Figures D.22 and D.23 present the maximum local
and nominal compressive strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the
maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths considered in the
analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the pipe outside diameter). The results
indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 10 m (33 ft) results in the
largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground
displacement.
 Figure D.25 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the BS7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any
tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The TSC envelopes
based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure D.26. The envelopes describe the
maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC envelopes,
which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS7910. The results
indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 10 m (33 ft) can be considered critical.
 Figure D.27 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the PRCI (UOA) compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any compressive strain below the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The
CSC envelopes based on PRCI guidance are presented in Figure D.28. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the
CSC envelopes, which represents the compressive strain-related failure limit, according
to PRCI/UOA. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition
combination, the ground movement width of 10 m (33 ft) can be considered critical
 Figure D.29 and Figure D.30 present the tensile and compressive strain demand
‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%,
0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the pipeline.
The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to
stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-15

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.21: NPS 12.75 (D/t=34) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure D.22: NPS 12.75 (D/t=34) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-16

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.23: NPS 12.75 (D/t=34) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure D.24: NPS 12.75 (D/t=34) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-17

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.25: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m

Figure D.26: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-18

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.27: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m)

Figure D.28: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W)
Movements

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-19

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure D.29: Tensile Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Figure D.30: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies D-20

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

APPENDIX E: MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD – SUMMARY RESULTS 18-INCH

PIPELINE

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies E-1

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

E.1 MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD – SUMMARY RESULTS 18-INCH

PIPELINE
Analyses were completed for the NPS 18 (457 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to lateral ground movement and to determine the structural integrity significance of
ground movement induced strain demands. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the
of D/t ratio and ground width displacement. The analyses considered 6 lateral ground movement
scenarios. The scenarios included the following

 Pipe wall thickness: one wall thicknesses: 6.35 mm (0.25); corresponding to D/t ratio of
72;
 Ground displacement direction: Perpendicular (lateral) to the pipeline axis;
 Width of ground displacement (W): Six potential ground movement failures with a total
estimated width of failure perpendicular to the pipeline varying from 10 to 100 m (10,
20, 30, 40 50 and 100 m);
 Shape of ground displacement: one ground displacement pattern initiated using a cosine
function raised to the power “n=2”;
 One soil conditions sand/clay till;
 Pipe slope: one slopes, 16 deg.; and
 Pipeline burial depth: one depth of 1.2m (4 ft) to top pipe, corresponding to 1.43 m (4.7
ft), depth to pipe center line.

Assumptions for the pipeline were as follows:

 72% SMYS internal pressure

 450C thermal differential (installation -200C, max operating temperature 250C)
 A generic stress strain curves for Grade X-52 (359) pipe according to the API 5L

Detailed results for D/t=72 are presented as follow:

 Figures E.1 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement
widths considered in the analyses. Figures E.2 and E.3 present the maximum local and
nominal compressive strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the
maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths considered in the
analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the pipe outside diameter). The results
indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 10 m (33 ft) results in the
largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground
displacement.
 Figure E.5 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any
tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The TSC envelopes
based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure E.6. The envelopes describe the
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies E-2

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC envelopes,
which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS 7910. The results
indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 10 m (33 ft) can be considered critical.
 Figure E.7 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the PRCI (UOA) compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any compressive strain below the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The
CSC envelopes based on PRCI guidance are presented in Figure E.8. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the
CSC envelopes, which represents the compressive strain-related failure limit, according
to PRCI/UOA. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition
combination, the ground movement width of 10 m (33 ft) can be considered critical
 Figure E.9 and Figure E.10 present the tensile and compressive strain demand
‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%,
0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the pipeline.
The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to
stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

Figure C.1: NPS 18 (D/t=72) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies E-3

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure E.2: NPS 18 (D/t=72) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure E.3: NPS 18 (D/t=72) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies E-4

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure E.4: NPS 18 (D/t=72) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement

Figure E.5: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies E-5

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure E.6: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

Figure E.7: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m)

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies E-6

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure E.8: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

Figure E.9: Tensile Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies E-7

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure E.10: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies E-8

The information contained herein is the copyright of and proprietary to BMT Fleet Technology Limited. Use of this
information is governed by the legend on the cover page of this document."
BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

APPENDIX F: MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD – SUMMARY RESULTS 30-INCH

PIPELINE

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-1

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

F.1 MODELING OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD – SUMMARY RESULTS 30-INCH

PIPELINE
Analyses were completed for the NPS 30 (762 mm outside diameter) pipeline to assess its
response to lateral ground movement and to determine the structural integrity significance of
ground movement induced strain demands. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the
effect of D/t ratio, burial depth and ground width displacement. The analyses considered 18
lateral ground movement scenarios. The scenarios included the following:

 Pipe wall thickness: three wall thicknesses: 7.92 mm (0.312 in), 9.525 mm (0.375 in)
and; corresponding to D/t ratio of 96 and 80 respectively;
 Ground displacement direction: Perpendicular (lateral) to the pipeline axis;
 Width of ground displacement (W): Six potential ground movement failures with a total
estimated width of failure perpendicular to the pipeline varying from 10 to 100 m (10,
20, 30, 40 50 and 100 m);
 Shape of ground displacement: one ground displacement pattern initiated using a cosine
function raised to the power “n=2”;
 One soil conditions sand/clay till;
 Pipe slope: one slopes, 16 deg.;
 Pipeline burial depth: two depth of 1.2m (4 ft) and 1.5 m (5 ft) to top pipe and 1.5 m (5
ft), corresponding to 1.6 m (5 ft) and 1.9m (6 ft), depth to pipe center line.

Assumptions for the pipeline were as follows:

 72% SMYS internal pressure;

 45 0C thermal differential (installation -20 0C, max operating temperature 25 0C); and
 A generic stress strain curves for Grade X-70 (483) pipe according to the API 5L.

Detailed results for D/t=96 and burial depth of 1.2 m are presented as follow:
 Figures F.1 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement
widths considered in the analyses. Figures F.2 and F.3 present the maximum local and
nominal compressive strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the
maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths considered in the
analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the pipe outside diameter). The results
indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 10 m (33 ft) results in the
largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground
displacement.
 Figure F.5 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any
tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The TSC envelopes
based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure F.6. The envelopes describe the
maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC envelopes,

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-2

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS 7910. The results
indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 10 m (33 ft) and 20 m (66 ft) can be considered critical.
 Figure F.7 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the PRCI (UOA) compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any compressive strain below the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The
CSC envelopes based on PRCI guidance are presented in Figure F.8. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the
CSC envelopes, which represents the compressive strain-related failure limit, according
to PRCI/UOA. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition
combination, the ground movement width of 10 m (33 ft) and 20 m (66 ft) can be
considered critical
 Figure F.9 and Figure F.10 present the tensile and compressive strain demand ‘envelopes’
for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%,
1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the pipeline. The safe
pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to stay
within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-3

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.1: NPS 30 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement Widths:
[10-100 m]

Figure F.2: NPS 30 (D/t=96) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-4

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.3: NPS 30 (D/t=96) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure F.4: NPS 30 (D/t=96) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-5

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.5: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m

Figure F.6: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-6

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.7: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m)

Figure F.8: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-7

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.9: Tensile Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Figure F.10: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-8

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Detailed results for D/t=96 and burial depth of 1.5 m are presented as follows:

 Figures F.11 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement
widths considered in the analyses. Figures F.12 and F.13 present the maximum local and
nominal compressive strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the
maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths considered in the
analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the pipe outside diameter). The results
indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 10 m (33 ft) and 20 m 966 ft)
results in the largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of
ground displacement.
 Figure F.15 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any
tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The TSC envelopes
based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure D.16. The envelopes describe the
maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC envelopes,
which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS 7910. The results
indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 10 m (33 ft) and 20 m (66 ft) can be considered critical.
 Figure F.17 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the PRCI (UOA) compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any compressive strain below the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The
CSC envelopes based on PRCI guidance are presented in Figure D.18. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the
CSC envelopes, which represents the compressive strain-related failure limit, according
to PRCI/UOA. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition
combination, the ground movement width of 10 m (33 ft) and 20 m (66 ft) can be
considered critical
 Figure F.19 and Figure F.20 present the tensile and compressive strain demand
‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%,
0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the pipeline.
The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to
stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-9

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.11: NPS 30 (D/t=96) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure F.12: NPS 30 (D/t=96) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-10

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.13: NPS 30 (D/t=96) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure F.14: NPS 30 (D/t=96) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-11

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.15: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m

Figure F.16: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-12

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.17: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m)

Figure F.18: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W)
Movements

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-13

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.19: Tensile Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Figure F.20: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Detailed results for D/t = 80m and burial depth of 1.2 m are presented as follow:

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-14

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 Figures F.21 presents the maximum tensile strains in the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline versus the maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement
widths considered in the analyses. Figures F.22 and F.23 present the maximum local and
nominal compressive strains in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline versus the
maximum ground displacement for various ground displacement widths considered in the
analyses. The nominal compressive strain is defined as the average compressive strain
measured over a gauge length of 2D (where D is the pipe outside diameter). The results
indicate that for the six (6) widths considered, the width of 20 m (33 ft) results in the
largest tensile and compressive strain in the pipe for any given value of ground
displacement.
 Figure F.25 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the BS-7910 tensile strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal line. Any
tensile strain above the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The TSC envelopes
based on BS7910 guidance are presented in Figure F.26. The envelopes describe the
maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the TSC envelopes,
which represents the tensile strain-related failure limit, according to BS 7910. The results
indicate that for this pipe and operating condition combination, the ground movement
width of 20 m (66 ft) can be considered critical.
 Figure F.27 presents the maximum compressive strains in pipe versus the ground
displacement width (W) for given ground displacement of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. In
this figure the PRCI (UOA) compressive strain capacity is presented with dash horizontal
line. Any compressive strain below the horizontal line is strain-related failure limit. The
CSC envelopes based on PRCI guidance are presented in Figure F.28. The envelopes
describe the maximum soil displacement and ground displacement width breakout the
CSC envelopes, which represents the compressive strain-related failure limit, according
to PRCI/UOA. The results indicate that for this pipe and operating condition
combination, the ground movement width of 20 m (66 ft) can be considered critical
 Figure F.29 and Figure F.30 present the tensile and compressive strain demand
‘envelopes’ for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands of 0.25%, 0.5%,
0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% along the longitudinal direction of the pipeline.
The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to
stay within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-15

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.21: NPS 30 (D/t=80) - Maximum Tensile in the Pipe vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure F.22: NPS 30 (D/t=80) - Maximum local Compressive Strain vs. Ground Movement
Widths: [10-100 m]

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-16

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.23: NPS 30 (D/t=80) - Maximum Nominal Compressive Strain vs. Ground
Movement Widths: [10-100 m]

Figure F.24: NPS 30 (D/t=80) – Pipe Displacement versus Ground Displacement

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-17

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.25: Pipe Axial Tensile Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) for Soil Movements of
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m

Figure F.26: Tensile Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W) Movements

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-18

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.27: Pipe Axial Compressive Strains Envelopes versus Width (W) (for Soil
Movement of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m)

Figure F.28: Compressive Strain Capacity Envelopes versus Ground Width (W)
Movements

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-19

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

Figure F.29: Tensile Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Figure F.30: Compressive Strain Demand Envelopes versus Width (W)

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies F-20

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

9 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The objective of the assessment of subsidence events was to develop an engineering basis to
define the effects of operational and geotechnical loads on liquid and gas pipeline systems to
support decision making regarding threat severity or repair scheduling. This tool could be
incorporated in strain based design and assessment to facilitate the consideration of complex
loading scenarios inducing significant flexural loads, including pipeline subsidence or lowering,
and ground movements inducing lateral pipeline movements. The results of this project will
define the local nominal strain state that can be used to assess localized anomalies/defects (e.g.,
corrosion, cracks, dents, weld faults, gouges, etc.) or the potential for the formation of a wrinkle
or buckle.

The objective of the numerical simulation work completed in this task was to explore the
sensitivity of the pipeline strains to changes in the geotechnical hazard and pipeline parameters.
This report provides examples of the peak tensile and compressive strains generated in a slope
movement transverse to the pipe axis considering the effects of:

▪ Pipe geometry ▪ Material Grade

▪ Soil types ▪ Subsidence Widths
▪ Operating Pressure ▪ Burial depth
▪ Ground subsidence pattern ▪ Temperature (axial load)

The analysis results illustrate that not all parameters investigated had the same magnitude of
impact. The effect of the parameters considered in these sensitivity studies indicate that the
parameters can be ranked based upon their impact on strain demand as follows:

High Importance Medium Importance Low Importance

- Magnitude of ground - Pipe geometry (D/t) - Soil to pipe friction
subsidence - Operating pressure - Material grade
- Ground subsidence pattern - Temperature differential
- Width of ground subsidence - Soil stiffness
- Burial depth

The sample application of the DEM pipe-soil interaction geotechnical hazard assessment method
was employed to investigate the strains developed in NPS 24, 18 and 12 (610, 457, 305 mm)
pipeline subjected to lateral soil movement. The use of the simulated pipe responses to soil
movement to consider the onset of tensile and compressive limit states in a strain-based
assessment was demonstrated and the sensitivity of the pipe response to a number or
geotechnical hazard scenario factors were presented. For the pipe-soil interaction in which
across mining subsidence panel, it was shown that:

 The response of the pipeline and soil movement pattern is affected by the ground
subsidence magnitude, width and patterns;
 The vertical soil movement-induced pipe displacements will produce both pipe
bending and axial extension;

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 257

BMT Fleet Technology Limited 30220.FR01(Rev02)

 The strains in the pipe are affected by the width of the surface subsidence and there is
a critical surface subsidence width that promotes a peak strain. The critical width is a
function of the pipe geometry, pipeline operating conditions and locked-in pipeline
axial loads (i.e. those caused by thermal differential between operating and
construction conditions) and as well as the subsidence parameters.

The width, magnitude and pattern of ground subsidence were shown to be primary parameters in
determining the maximum pipe compression and tension strains, followed by pipe geometry
(diameter and wall thickness), operating pressure and temperature differential, soil properties and
material grade.

Comparisons were made with limit state equations defined from the guidance; BS 7910 [4] for
tensile strain, and CSA Z662 and UOA/PRCI 2004 [3, 2] for compressive strain to demonstrate
the application of the analysis results in an assessment process. While there are many existing
models for calculating the compressive and tensile strain capacity in codes and standards, it was
decided to develop a simple a strain-based design methodology that can be easily adapted to any
code and standards, which is the purpose of this section.

The tensile and compressive strain demand envelopes along the longitudinal direction of the
pipeline were developed. The maximum soil settlement versus ground width subsidence as a
series of ‘envelopes’ was developed for a given pipe tensile and compressive strain demands.
The safe pipeline operating goal of pipeline subjected to lateral ground displacement is to stay
within the normal operating strain range defined by codes and standards.

Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline Anomalies 258