Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90053

ANALYSIS AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION ON DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF BURIED PIPELINE CAUSED BY ROCK FALL IMPACTION
Hongyuan Jing PetroChina Pipeline R&D Center Langfang, Hebei, China Jianbin Hao PetroChina Pipeline R&D Center Langfang, Hebei, China Qinglu Deng China University of Geosciences Wuhan, Hubei, China Liangliang Li PetroChina Pipeline R&D Center Langfang, Hebei, China

Bing Han PetroChina Pipeline R&D Center Langfang, Hebei, China

ABSTRACT Theoretical analysis methods are discussed to estimate additional stresses of shallow buried oil and gas pipeline caused by rock fall impaction. The process of impaction is simulated using finite elements software, in the model a 1 m3 square shape falling hard rock impacts soil ground upright of pipe with a vertical velocity, and dynamic response of pipeline is analyzed. The impact force, soil additional stresses, pipe displacement and additional stresses in the impaction process are studied. The effect of pipeline buried depth and rock velocity to the impaction also discussed. Results show that the impaction process is very short and the duration is about 103 ~10-2s. The maximum impact force has approximately direct ratio with the velocity of rock. The additional vertical stress in soil caused by impaction load has a stress concentration region near the surface of pipe, and its distribution has the similar pattern with that in static load, but has a faster attenuation from the impaction center to sidewall. The most dangerous pipe cross-section appears in the underside of impaction center, and the maximum additional equivalent stress appears in the top of the cross-section, and has an approximately direct ratio with the velocity of rock if other impaction conditions are confirmed. The buried depth of pipeline has major influence to impaction. Large thickness of soil cover has marked effect on improve the protection of pipeline. According the study, shallow buried pipeline has weak defense to rock fall. The additional internal force and stress of pipeline caused by impaction of rock fall can be approximately estimated using theoretical methods or numerical simulation. INTRODUCTION Rock fall is one of the most serious geological hazards for shallow buried oil and gas pipeline in mountain areas. In China some accidents have happened. In April 2005 in Chongqing

city, A 35 m3 of rock fell from a height of 10m vertically impacted the ROW of a gas pipeline which is 711mm in diameter, 7.9mm in wall thickness and buried 2m underground. 150mm of reinforced concrete cover on the ground was penetrated and a dent which is 330mm in diameter and 44mm in depth was caused to the pipeline. In July 2005 in Gansu province, another 40 m3 of rock fell from a height of 20m vertically impacted the ROW of an oil product pipeline which is 508mm in diameter, 9.5mm in wall thickness and buried 1.8m underground. A dent which is 70mm in diameter and 40mm in depth was caused to the pipeline (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Pipeline dent caused by rock fall impaction

In China, most oil and gas pipelines are buried underground with a depth of 0.8m~2m. The pipeline has limited resistance capability to impactions (Figure 2). The Risk of rock fall related with many factors, such as the size, shape and impending height of rock, the buried depth of pipeline. It is significant to study the dynamic response of pipeline under the impaction of rock fall and assess the risk, for it has important

Copyright 2012 by ASME

guidance significance to the dangerous rock risk control plan and mitigation measure design.
Rock Falling

Pipeline Rock fall impact pipeline

Figure 2

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF PIPELINE UNDER ROCK FALL IMPACTION This paper studies a typical situation of impaction. In this situation, the flexible thin-wall steel tube buried in semi-infinite soil and falling rock vertically impact ground surface right above the pipeline (Figure 3). Not considering the influence of internal pressure and other loads, study the additional stress of pipeline caused by rock fall impaction. According the cases that had happened; the pipelines resistance capability to impactions is limited. The volume of falling rock is chosen as about 1m3. It must be pointed out that the shape of falling rock has great influence on impaction. The results of the analytical approaches discussed in this paper must be modified if they are used for other shapes. The influence of the internal pressure and other load can be considered by linear superposition principle.
Falling Rock

includes impaction load analysis, the dynamic response of pipeline under impaction load, and the protection technology of pipeline. These issues have been studied less. But there are some researches on rock fall impacting the soil[5-7], concrete structures[8], flexible safety net, tree [9] which can offer some reference for pipeline industry. This paper discusses the theoretical method of impact force calculation, impact load transmission, pipeline internal force and additional stress analysis. Rock fall impact force calculation Since the stiffness of soil is much lower than rock, usually the falling rock will penetrate into the soil partly and the velocity of rock will rapidly decreased to zero, and slightly rebound may happen. The impact process is finished in a very short time about 10-2~10-3s and tremendous impact is generated as a single pulse[10] (Figure 4). The process is the same with that of heavy-tamping method which is used in foundation improvement.
F(t) F max

t O tr T

Figure 4

Impact force history curve

Pipeline

Figure 3

Rochfall impact pipeline

The unstable rock fails and falls to the ground, and impacts the ground surface at a velocity and direction. During the impaction, tremendous impact is generated and transmits through the underground soil to the pipeline as a dynamic load. Internal force and additional stress will be caused to the pipe material. The research of rock fall risk assessment can be divided into two parts: research on rock fall and research on the safety of pipeline under rock fall impaction. The research on rock fall includes stability analysis of unstable rock [1, 2], kinematic analysis of falling rock [3, 4], impaction process analysis and impact force calculation, and control technology research of unstable rock. For these issues, other industries such as railway and highway have systematically studied, and relatively mature technologies have been developed. The research on the safety of pipeline under rock fall impaction

The emphasis of the rock fall impact force analysis is the calculation of maximum force Fmax. There are several methods can be used including the methods based on Hertzs contact theory, energy conservation theory [11-13], non-complete elastic collision theory[14] and some experimental formula[5-7]. All the methods do not consider the influence of rock shape. The result of the method based on non-complete elastic collision theory is lower than that of energy conservation theory but larger than that of Hertzs contact theory, and is proved stand closer to the measure data of dynamic consolidation [14]. The method based on non-complete elastic collision theory is recommended, and detailed calculation is introduced in References14. In this theory, the impact force is approximately proportional to the landing velocity of falling rock. Impact load transmission analysis The impact force generated in the contact surface of rock and soil can be deemed as an instantaneous load applied to the ground surface. Impact load transmission analysis is to get the impact load that applied to pipeline. The impact load last for a very short time. In fact, it is a stress wave. The transmission process should be analyzed with fluctuating theory. For simplifying the calculation, the issue is treated in static theory. The formula solved by J.Boussinesq based on elastic mechanics theory [15] is used to analysis the impact load transmission in the soil. According to the size of contact surface and the spatial location relationship between pipeline

Copyright 2012 by ASME

and landing points of rock, the impact load can be deemed as point force or distributed load. Assume that a 1m1m1m cubic falling rock impact the right above of the pipeline ROW, the impact pressure can be deemed as an rectangular shaped distribution load which intensity is p. The vertical superimposed stress in the soil layer which is the same depth with the upper surface of pipeline is deemed as the impact load applied to pipeline. During the Impact load transmission analysis, the soil is considered as homogeneous elastic medium, and the influence of insert (uniform soil is inserted by pipeline) effect to the redistribution of soil stress around the pipeline is ignored. The intensity of vertical impact load applied to pipeline in the situations that pipeline buried depth z is 1m and 2m (the insertion depth of the falling rock penetrate into the soil is very small, and is not considered in the analysis) is showed in Figure 5. When the buried depth is 1m, the intensity of the load applied to pipeline in the site o where right below the impact center is 0.36p, and rapidly decreases to 0.03p (about 8% of that in the site o)in the site 1.5m away. When the buried depth turned to 2m, the value is 0.108p, 0.04p and 37%.
p

pipeline cross-section mechanical analysis, the sectional deformation of the pipe cross-section where right below the impaction center is the main concern. The cross- section is treated as a closed curved beam that placed inside the elastic medium, and also the bending moment, axial tension and additional stress of the beam caused by impact load are calculated. Finally the total stress of pipeline caused by impact load is analyzed by linear superposition principle. The sites at the 12 O'clock, 3 O'clock and 9 O'clock positions of pipeline are the stress concentrating points (Figure 6). The sites 1, 3, 5 are at the outer wall of pipe, and the sites 2, 4, 6 are at the inner wall of pipe. The additional stress of these points will be calculated and used to judge whether the stress state of pipeline is accord with the safety regulation.
1 3 4

2
o

4 3 6
5

Figure 6

Stress concentrating points in pipeline

Ground surface
0.36p z=1m 0.040p z=2.0m 0.095p 0.108p 0.067p o 0.24p 0.09p 0.03p

Pipeline longitudinal mechanical analysis Considering the landing point of the falling rock is right above the pipeline. The lateral earth pressure and circumferential friction force applied to pipeline are axisymmetric and have no effect to the internal force of the beam. The only load that necessary to consider in the calculation is vertical impact load.
p

Ground surface Pipeline

F

0.5m 1.0m 1.5m

O

Figure 5

Vertical impact load applied to pipeline

1.5m

Pipeline

Pipeline additional internal force and stress analysis The dynamic response of underground pipeline under the impaction of falling rock is a dynamics problem, and its analytic process is very complex. For simplifying the calculation, the issue is also treated in static theory. The impact load applied to the pipeline is deemed as static load, and the additional internal force and stress of pipeline are analyzed in static analytical method. The analysis is decomposed into pipeline longitudinal mechanical analysis and pipeline crosssection mechanical analysis. During the pipeline longitudinal mechanical analysis, pipeline is treated as an infinite elasticity foundation beam, and sectional deformation is not considered. The bending moment (The shear force and axial tensions contribute to additional stress is small compared to that of bending moments, and are not considered) and additional stress of the beam caused by impact load are calculated. During the

Sphere of action of impact load

Figure 7

Longitudinal distribution of impact load applied to pipeline

The impact load is deemed as a point force F that applied to the infinite beam. According to the analysis in the last section, the intensity of the load applied on pipeline declines rapidly form impact center to outward. For simplifying the calculation, assume that all the impact force is taken by the area which center at o and of radius R. The value of R is related with the area of impaction and the buried depth of pipeline. For the situation in this article, the size of subface of the rock is 1m 1m and the buried depth of pipeline is less than 2m, the value of R could be 1.5m(Figure 7). This assumption will simplifying

Copyright 2012 by ASME

the calculation and will also bring large error that makes a larger result. For the cross-section right below the impact center, the proportion (k) of the impact force acts on the pipeline to the total impact force is equal to the proportion of shaded part to the total area of envelope curve (Figure 8). Assuming that the proportion for the other cross-section that parallel to this section is the same, the value of point force F is equal to that of the total impact force multiply k.
F

Not considering any other factors that may generate stresses in pipeline. The relation between the velocity of falling rock and Von Mises stress of pipeline is studied.
Table1 Parameter Mechanical parameters of the materials Sorts Pipe Soil Rock 7.85103 0.3 2.07108 1.9103 0.24 5.0104 3.0104 2.5103 0.22 2.25107 -

Density(Kg/m3) Poissons Ratio(static value) Elastic modulus (static value , KPa) Elastic foundation coefficient (KPa)

Pipeline

3.0m

Assume that the intensity of impact pressure is p (The unit is MPa). The additional stresses of pipeline caused by impaction are listed in Table 2.
Additional stresses of pipeline under impaction Buried depth is 1m Buried depth is 2m Points Stress Total Total Von Mises stress Von Mises stress stress stress -158p -87p n 217p 82p 1 -249p -61p -10p -42p n 252p 102p 2 247p 74p 60p 18p n 177p 53p 3 200p 60p -61p -18p n 182p 55p 4 -205p -61p 37p 51p n 179p 85p 5 -158p -47p 131p 79p n 146p 69p 6 158p 47p Table2

Figure 8

Lateral distribution of impact load applied to pipeline

The bending moment of the beam is analyzed by the subgrade coefficient method [16]. Pipeline cross-section mechanical analysis Under the action of load that caused by the gravity of covered soil and other static vertical pressure, the cross-section has several assumptions of acting force analysis, such as .. mode [17], M.G.Spangler mode [18]. For the impact load is a transient load and will rapidly increase to the maximum and then dissipate quickly. The acting force analysis under this load is different with normal load, and is assumed to be the mode presented in Figure 9. The load intensity q approximately equals to the average of the shaded part presented in Figure 8.
q

1 3 o 5 3

Figure 9

Acting force analysis of pipeline cross-section

The issue is treated as a plane-stress problem, and the .. method [19-20] can be used to analysis the bending moment and axial tension of the ring. Pipeline additional stress analysis Based on the additional internal force, the additional stress of the pipeline caused by impaction can be calculated. Calculation example In this example, the size of falling rock is 1m1m1m. The diameter of pipeline is 711mm, and the wall thickness is 7.9mm. The pipe material grade is X65, which yielding strength is 448Mpa. The buried depth has two situations: 1m and 2m. The mechanical parameters of the geotechnical material and pipe are listed in Table1.

Certain generalization can be derived from the data in Table 2. If other parameters are constant, the additional Von Mises stress of pipeline caused by impaction is linearly proportional to the intensity of impact pressure. References 21 studied the mechanical behaviors of buried pipeline under traffic loads using the numerical simulation method, and got the same conclusion. According the non-complete elastic collision theory, the impact force is approximately proportional to the landing velocity of falling rock. So, the additional Von Mises stress of pipeline caused by impaction is approximately proportional to the landing velocity of falling rock. As presented in table 2, the maximum Von Mises stress appears in the outer wall of pipe at the 12 Oclock position (site 1). When the buried depth is 1m, the maximum Von Mises stress is 252p, and when the depth is 2m, the value is 102p. The ultimate bearing capacity of pipeline under rock fall impaction is presented in table 3. The impending height in the table is the height for a free falling rock to attain the velocity. According to table 3, with the increase of buried depth, the ultimate bearing capacity of pipeline resisting impact improves dramatically. In this situation, the increase of buried depth is an effective measure to protect the pipeline.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 3

Buried depth(m) 1 2

Impaction parameters corresponding to pipeline ultimate bearing capacity Stress attains to the yielding strength(448MPa) Equivalent Impact Impact landing impending energy(KJ) force(KN) velocity(m/s) height(m) 1780 5.4 1.5 36 4380 13.2 8.7 218

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF ROCK FALL IMPACTION

In theoretical analysis, many simplifies and assumes are made, and the accuracy of the results are affected. To verify the results of theoretical analysis, numerical simulation of rock fall impaction is finished using finite element method. Finite element model The prototype is presented in Figure 1. The buried depth has two situations: 1m and 2m. The mechanical parameters of the geotechnical material and pipe are the same with Table1. Considering the symmetries of the prototype, a quarter prototype is modeled in the numerical simulation. Two finite element models are formed corresponding to two kinds of buried depth (Figure 11).
Pipeline, diameter is 711mm Falling rock (cube, side length is 1m)
12 m

Results and Analysis of Numerical Simulation Different landing velocities are applied to falling rock in the two finite models, and total 15 simulations have been performed (Table 4). Considering the impact force is much big than the static gravitational force, the gravity acceleration is not applied to the falling rock during the simulation. In the initial state, an initial velocity (landing velocity) is applied to the rock which is 1 centimeter above the ground. The impact force, soil stress and pipe stress are analyzed. The following will take the situation that the landing velocity is 13m/s and the buried depth is 1m as an example to introduce the result.
Landing velocitys applied to falling rock Equivalent Buried depth(m) landing impending velocity(m/s) height(m) 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2.5 3.3 4.1 5.1 6.2 7.4 8.6 10 11.5 13.1 14.7 Table 4

z x

Soil

6m

Figure 10

Prototype of impaction

104m/s2

Drucker-Prager caving pressure model [22] and PlasticKinematic caving pressure model are adopted to simulate the soil material and the steel pipe material respectively. Rock is considered to be rigid in consideration of its stiffness is much larger than that of soil.

Impact forces The acceleration-time curve of the falling rock during the impaction is present in Figure 12. The impact force is the product of mass and acceleration, and the mass of rock is a constant value. So the impact force-time curve has the same shape with acceleration-time curve. From the information presented in Figure 12, some generalizations can be derived. The action process of impact force is as a single pulse, and the action time is about 20ms. Pressure rising time is much shorter than the decompression time. The maximum impact force is about 202 times the static gravitational force.

4m

Figure 12 Figure 11 Finite model of impaction(Buried depth is 1m)

Acceleration-time curve of falling rock during impaction

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 13 shows the maximum acceleration-landing velocity curve of the falling rock. The acceleration is approximately proportional to the landing velocity. This means the impact force has the same relationship with the landing velocity. This conclusion is the same with the result derived from the non-complete elastic collision theory.
300 250 200

5 4. 4 3. 3 2. 2 1. 1 0. -200 -150 -100

Vertical stress (MPa)

Acceleration (g)

150 100 50 0 0 2

0 10 -50 5 0 Distance from the impact center (cm)

150

200

Figure 15

Vertical stress distribution of soil along the pipe axes at the upper surface of pipeline at 7ms
5 Vertical stress (MPa) 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 Distance from the impact center (cm) 15 25 5 -5 0

Landing speed (m/s) m/s 2m Buried1m is 1m depth Buried depth is 2m

10

12

14

16

18

Figure 13

Max acceleration-landing velocity curve of falling rock

Additional stress of soil Figure 14 shows the maximum vertical stress-depth curve of soil under the impact center (The maximum stresses of soil in different soil layer depth do not appear at the same time but delay versus the depth). The curve reflects the attenuation of stress wave during the transmission. The attenuation rate is smaller than that of Boussinesq method in static theory. The stress increases suddenly in the soil layer near the top of pipeline. This suggests that a stress concentration region appears in the pipe-soil contact surface.
0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100 0. 1 1.5 2 2. 3 3. 4 4.5 5

-35

-25

-15

35

Figure 16 Vertical stress distribution of soil along the vertical direction of pipe axes at the upper surface of pipeline at 7ms

Vertical stress (MPa)

Depth (cm) Maximum vertical stress-depth curve of soil under the impact center

The vertical stress contour maps of soil in the crosssection under the impact center at 4ms and 7ms are presented in Figure 17 and Figure 18 respectively. At 4ms (Figure 17), the vertical stress has not extended to pipeline, and the stress distribution of soil is the same with that of heavy-tamping [22]. At 7ms (Figure 18), the vertical stress extends to pipeline. The stress distribution changes because of the existence of pipeline, and stress concentration region appears. The falling rock attains the maximum penetrate depth (Its about 52mm, as presented in Figure 19) at 8ms, and then the rock begins to rebound. While the impact pressure continuous to transmit downward in the soil. The displacement nephogram which is presented in Figure 20 reveals the differential settlement occurring in the surrounding soil. The displacement of pipeline is much smaller than that of surrounding soil.

Figure 14

Figure 15 shows the vertical stress distribution of soil along the pipe axes at the upper surface of pipeline at 7ms, and the Figure 16 shows the vertical stress distribution of soil along the vertical direction of pipe axes at the upper surface of pipeline at 7ms. Both the distributions are similar with the forms that derived from Boussinesq method but attenuate more quickly from the center to the sidewall. One possible reason is that, the crest of wave has not arrived.
Figure 17 Vertical stress contour map of soil at 4ms

10 MPa

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Von Mises stress reaches to 488MPa, and pipeline material begins to yield.
500 450 400 350
10 MPa
5

Von MisesMPa stress (MPa)

300 250 200 150 100 50

Figure 18

Vertical stress contour map of soil at 7ms

6 180

Position (O'clock)

-135

9 -90

-45

0 12 0

45

90

135

6 18

Figure 21

Von Mises stress distribution curve of pipeline in the cross-section at 14ms

cm

Figure 19

Displacement nephogram of soil at 8ms

cm

The pipeline is composed of only one layer of meshes in the finite element model and the distinction of stresses between in the inner and outer wall of pipeline cant be made. Three sites at the cross-section right below the impact center are chosen to show the deformation of the cross-section. Site A, B and C are at 12 O'clock, 3 O'clock and 6 O'clock positions of pipeline respectively. The axial stress-time curves of the three sites are presented in Figure 23, and the vertical displacement-time curves are presented in Figure 24. During the impaction, the pipeline has a downward displacement. The maximum displacement is 16.6mm. Deformation happens to the pipe cross-section, and pipe is flatted. The height of the crosssection is reduced at most by 7mm. The deformation of the upper semicircle is bigger than that of the lower semicircle. The shape of the cross-section becomes as an irregular ellipse. At the later stage, dramatic rebound happens to the cross-section. The long axis direction of the ellipse changes from horizontal to vertical. The extent of the rebound seems too much in the Figure 24.
105MPa

Figure 20

Displacement nephogram of soil at 14ms

Additional stress of pipeline The Von Mises stress distribution of pipeline in the crosssection at 14ms is presented in Figure 21. The maximum Von Mises stress appears at the 12O'clock position of pipeline, and the minimum Von Mises stress appears in the sidewalls at the 3 O'clock and 9 O'clock positions. There is another extremum appears at 6 O'clock position, but the value is smaller than that of 12O'clock position. The same conclusion has been concluded in theoretical analysis method. The Von Mises stress-time curve of the element at 12O'clock position is presented in Figure 22. The maximum

10-6s

Figure 22

Von Mises stress-time curve of the pipeline element at 12O'clock position

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The relationships between maximum Von Mises stress of pipeline with the landing velocity of falling rock for different buried depth are presented in Figure 26. As can be seen from the Figure, the Von Mises stress of pipeline caused by impaction is approximately proportional to the landing velocity of falling rock. It is the same as the result derived from theoretical analysis. In Figure 26, for 2 m burial depth, the relation of Von Mises stress and landing speed of falling rock is linear but seems does not pass through the origin. The possible reason is that larger buried depth makes the pipeline insensitive to the smaller impaction.
450

105MPa

The max Von Mises stress (MPa)

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

10 s

-6

Figure 23

Axial stress-time curves of site A, B and C

Landing speed of falling rock (m/s)

cm

Buried depth of pipeline is 1m Buried depth of pipeline is 2m

Figure 26

Max Von Mises stress-landing velocity curves of different buried depths

The ultimate bearing capacity of pipeline under the impaction of 1m3 falling rock is presented in table 5. Comparing with Table 3, it can be found that the result of theoretical analysis in static theory is more conservative than the result of numerical simulation
Table5
10-6s

Figure 24

Vertical displacement-time curves of site A, B and C

The plastic strain contour map of pipeline at 15ms is presented in Figure 25. Plastic strain appears in the top of the pipeline.

Impaction parameters corresponding to pipeline ultimate bearing capacity The stress attains to the yielding strength(448MPa) Equivalent Impact Buried Buried Impact impending force(KN) depth(m) depth(m) force(KN) height (m) 5050 13 8.6 210 1 6425 17 14.7 360 2

CONCLUSIONS

Figure 25

Plastic strain contour map of pipeline at 15ms

1)The impact force of falling rock can be calculated in non-complete elastic collision theory. The force is usually hundreds of times of gravity. If the shape of rock and the mechanical properties of the soil are constant, the maximum impact force is approximately proportional to the landing velocity of falling rock. 2) The additional vertical stress in soil caused by impaction load has a stress concentration region near the surface of pipe, and its distribution has the similar pattern with that derived from Boussinesq method, but has a faster attenuation from the impaction center to sidewall. 3) The most dangerous pipe cross-section appears in the underside of impaction center. In the theoretical analysis, both pipeline longitudinal mechanical analysis and pipeline crosssection mechanical analysis are needed. During the pipeline

Copyright 2012 by ASME

longitudinal mechanical analysis, pipeline is treated as an infinite elasticity foundation beam, and the impact load is deemed as a point force. During the pipeline cross-section mechanical analysis, the cross- section is treated as a closed curved beam that placed inside the elastic medium, and the impact load is deemed as a uniform loads applied in the upper surface of pipeline. 4) During the impaction, the pipeline has a downward displacement. And deformation happens to the pipe crosssection, and pipe is flatted. The maximum Von Mises stress appears at the 12O'clock position of pipeline. If other impaction conditions are constant, the maximum Von Mises stress is approximately proportional to the landing velocity of falling rock. 5) Shallow buried pipeline has weak defense to rock fall. The buried depth of pipeline has major influence to impaction. Large thickness of soil cover has marked effect on improve the protection of pipeline. REFERENCES [1] Zhang H.Z. (2007). Hazard Assessment and Risk Analysis of Rock fall on Slope. SUBGRADE ENGINEERING. 2007(1):158-160 [2] Chen H.K., Wang R., Tang H.M.(2003). Review on current situation to study and trend of dangerous rock mass. JOURNALOF CHONGQING JIAOTONG UNIVERSITY. Vol.22(3):1822 [3] A. Azzoni (1995) Analysis and Prediction of Rock falls Using a Mathematical Model. Elsevier Science. Vol.32(7)709-724 [4] Markus Stoffel (2006). Assessing the protective effect of mountain forests against rock fall using a 3D simulation model. Forest Ecology and Management. 2006(225): 113122 [5] Yang Q.X., Guan B.S. (1996) Test and research on calculation method of falling stone impulsive force. JOURNAL OF THE CHINA RAILWAY SOCIETY. Vol.18 1101106 [6] B. Pichler, Ch. Hellmich, H. AMang (2005). Impact of rocks onto gravel Design and evaluation of experiments. International Journal of Impact Engineering. 2005(31): 559-578 [7] S. Kawahara, T. Muro (2006). Effects of dry density and thickness of sandy soil on impact response due to rock fall. Journal of Terramechanics. 2006(43): 329-340 [8] Luuk. K. A, Dorren. Mechanisms(2005), effects and management implications of rock fall in forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 2005(215): 183195 [9] Yang Y.K., Fang X.C.(1999)The SNS Flexible system for holding rock fall. The Communication Science and Technology in Yunnan. Vol.15(5): 21-25 [10] Yang G.T.(2000). Soil Dynamics China Building Materials Press, Beijing. [11] Zeng L.(1990). Collapse and prevention. Southwest Jiaotong University Press, Chengdu

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Luo A.M., Lin D.N., Pan G.B. (2002) Calculating methods of impulsive force of collapse building shocking surficial soil. JOURNAL OF XIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. Vol.22(3): 268271 P. Ruta, A. Szydlo (2005). Drop-weight test based identification of elastic half-space model parametersJournal of Sound and Vibration2005 (282): 411-427 Shui W. H., Gao G.Y., Wu Y.Y. (2003). Non-perfect elastic collision and impact stress analysis during dynamic compaction on collapsible loess, Journal of building structures JOURNAL OF BUILDING STRUCTURE. Vol.24(5): 92-97 Chen Z.Y., Zhou J.X., Wang H.J.(2002). soil mechanics. TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY PRESS, BeiJing Yang J.T. (2006).Research on longitudinal mechanical characteristics of pipelines buried in soft soil under vertical loads. Zhejiang University, Hangzhou CECS142-2002Specification for structural design of buried cast-iron pipeline of water supply and sewerage engineering. Moser,A.P. (2003). Buried pipe design. CHINA MACHINE PRESS, Beijing Tian G.W., Liu X.Y., Sun Z.Y. (2001).Mechanical analysis for the large diameter water-supplying steel pipe. ENGINEERING MECHANICS. 2001: 463-467 Zhe X.S. (1993) deformation calculation of flexible tubing under the backfill soil load SPECIAL STRUCTURES. 1993(3) Wang Z.M. (2006). Study on mechanical behaviors of buried pipelines under traffic loads. Zhejiang University, Hangzhou Niu Z.R. (2003). Studies on the problems of dynamic compaction of soil and engineering applications. Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan

Copyright 2012 by ASME