The 12

th
International Conference of
International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)
1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India


3D Numerical Analyses of the Soil Variability Impact on
Longitudinal Behaviour of Buried Pipes
J . Buco
INSA-Lyon, LGCIE, F-69621 Villeurbanne France, now University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina

F. Emeriault, R. Kastner
INSA-Lyon, LGCIE, F-69621 Villeurbanne, France
Keywords: pipes, longitudinal behaviour, pipe-soil interaction, variability, heterogeneity, 3D model
ABSTRACT: The longitudinal bending of buried pipes is responsible for a significant amount of the pipe failures
observed during CCTV inspections. However, compared to the circumferential pipe behaviour, little work is done
to investigate this aspect of the pipe-soil interaction. The longitudinal bending is closely related to heterogeneities
of the trench backfill especially uneven compaction of the soil surrounding the pipe.

This paper presents some results from extensive numerical analyses of the pipe-soil interaction in heterogeneous
backfill. A numerical 3D model is developed representing the concrete pipe sections as thin elastic shells. Trench
backfill and native soil are modelled using 8-noded volume elements that follow Mohr-Coulomb constitutive
model. J oints between pipe sections and interface between pipe and soil elements are introduced into the 3D
model.

Three different types of backfill heterogeneity are considered: heterogeneity of the bedding, heterogeneity of the
haunch backfill and heterogeneity of the trench bottom. For each heterogeneity several configurations are
investigated varying the geometry and the position of the heterogeneity with respect to the pipe joints or the
surface load. Results are given in term of backfill vertical stress and pipe vertical displacement. They underline a
particular role of the joints in the longitudinal pipe behaviour.
1 Introduction
Current design standards of rigid sewer pipes are mainly based on Marston theory (Marston 1930) considering
only the behaviour of the pipe in the cross-sectional direction. This approach has been widely investigated in
literature both analytically and using numerical finite element models in order to take into account all aspects of
soil-structure interaction. It assumes that loading and bedding conditions are uniform along pipes. The resulting
ring behaviour of pipe cross section implies that failure occurs by transversal deflection characterised by cracks
on the crown along the pipe. Therefore, recommendations are given for installation conditions in terms of
compaction, backfill material properties or installation procedures. It is commonly assumed that all possible
effects of variable longitudinal support conditions are recovered thank to additional flexibility brought by joints.

During the past ten years, scheduled CCTV inspections have been carried out on 1800 km long sewer network in
Lyon, France (Buco et al. 2006). The range of the observed diameters goes from 250 to 1000mm. Statistical
analyses of 40 km long concrete pipe sample shows that far most often observed failures are circumferential. The
ring behaviour characterized by longitudinal cracks seems to be inherent only to large pipe diameters. Hence,
forces and bending moments induced in the longitudinal direction by variable support conditions cannot be
neglected.

In literature the longitudinal behaviour of pipes is generally dealt with two dimensional studies (Scarino 1981,
J eyapalan and Abdel-Magid, 1987, Benmansour et al. 1997, Elachachi et al. 2004) modelling buried pipes as a
beam connected to axial independent springs (Winklers model). This representation of the pipe-soil interaction is
much simpler than those usually implemented for the circumferential pipe behaviour. When the soil heterogeneity
is considered, it is taken into account through a variation of the springs stiffness. In general, authors underline the
crucial role of the pipe joints, but its stiffness being unknown, the results are given for the two extreme cases:
rigid joints (stiffness equal to that of the pipe) or flexible joints (joint stiffness equal to zero).
3827

2 Presentation of the computed cases
In this paper, 3 types of soil heterogeneities have been considered corresponding to those frequently identified or
observed in field. They are mentioned in the current French Standards (Fascicule 70) as consequences of an
improper installation practice.

- Heterogeneity of the bedding occurs either when the bedding material is left loose in order to facilitate
the pipe slope requirement or when the compaction is difficult because of little room between the pipe
and the trench wall.

- Heterogeneity of the trench bottom native soil occurs when, due to the excavation, the uplift water
pressure is no longer balanced by the soil weight.

- Heterogeneity of the haunch backfill results from a compaction of the soil layers thicker than the
recommended values. Some field measurements (Thpot, 2004) show that in those cases, even with
important compaction energy, the haunch backfill remains several times looser than the upper trench
backfill.



Figure 1. Heterogeneity of the bedding


Figure 2. Heterogeneity of the trench bottom


Figure 3. Heterogeneity of the haunch backfill



Figure 4. Position of loads and loose zones

Figure 5. Finite difference mesh
for one pipe-soil numerical
model

For the sake of simplicity, heterogeneities are modelled as loose zones with lower mechanical properties in a
uniform backfill (Figures 1 to 3). These loose zones are given various lengths (Table 1), a constant width, and are
placed at two different positions with respect to the load and pipe joints (Figure 4).
Load in A position Load in B position
L
A position
L
B position
h =0.1m
Cover =0.92 m
D =0.5m
Bedding =0.1m
Haunch
backfill
h =0.24m
Loose zone
at trench
bottom
Surface patch load
Loose
zone in
bedding
Bedding
0.1m
Backfill Native
soil
D=0.5m
Cover
1.05m
B =1.5 m
3828

The trench geometry has been defined using French Standard for an average 500mm diameter pipe. The pipeline
is composed of 5 individual 3.7m long pipe sections and 4 joints. This number of sections is sufficient to avoid
numerical boundary effects. Lengths of the loose zones are chosen with respect to the pipe section length: 1.8m
corresponds to a half pipe length, 3.4m to the length of one pipe barrel, 5.6m to one section and a half etc. The
0.2m length corresponds to a very small heterogeneity with respect to one pipe section.

Table 1. Example of the table

Configuration A Configuration B
L =0.2 m L =0.2 m
L =1.0 m
L =1.8 m L =1.9 m
L =3.4 m L =3.5 m
Length of the loose
zone in bedding
L =5.6 m L =5.5 m
L =0.2 m L =0.2 m
L =1.8 m L =1.9 m
L =3.4 m
L =5.6 m L =5.5 m
Length of the loose
zone in the trench
bottom native soil
L =14.0 m
L =0.2 m L =0.2 m
L =1.0 m
L =1.8 m L =1.9 m
L =3.4 m L =3.5 m
Length of the loose
zone in the haunch
backfill
L =5.6 m L =5.5 m
3 3D modelling of buried pipes
The numerical 3D model is developed using finite difference code FLAC
3D
. Pipe sections are modelled as thin
elastic shells using structural DKT-CST 3-node elements (Cook at al. 1989). Soil is represented with 8-noded
volume elements having elastic perfectly plastic behaviour (Mohr-Coulomb model). Between pipe and soil
elements an interface with Coulomb frictional properties is introduced. The pipe-soil model is composed of about
100.000 nodes for volume elements and 12.500 structural elements.

Concrete pipe sections are connected to each other through joints. Practically, joints are modelled as 3D volume
rings placed between two adjacent shells. The mechanical properties of these rings have been determined via full
scale laboratory tests on clamped pipes (Buco 2007).

The numerical values of the pipe parameters are given in Table 2. They correspond to the widely used concrete
sewage pipes of an average diameter. As far as the soil parameters are concerned, there is more discussion
about numerical values of parameters for a compacted backfill especially the Young modulus. We have chosen
Boscardin et al. (1990) experimental data obtained for a cohesionless backfill compacted to 95% of standard
maximum dry unit weight (Table 3). These values have been used by many authors, in particular with the Mohr-
Coulomb model (for example Kitane and McGrath, 2006). They are considered to be relevant for large strain
analyses. The modulus of the native soil is set to be equal to that of the compacted backfill, which is accordingly
to French Standards the most conservative scenario. Values of parameters for less compacted backfill areas
(loose zones) correspond to 60-80 % of standard maximum dry unit weight.

Table 2. Characteristics of the pipe
Young
modulus
Poissons ratio Unit weight Interface
frictional angle
Pipe inner
diameter
Pipe thickness
40 GPa 0.2 25 kN/m
3
40 0.5 m 0.053 m

Table 3. Mecanical parameters for soil modelling
E
(MPa)
C
(kPa)

()

()

( kN/m
3
)
K0
Native soil 50 0.3 5 35 15 20 0.5
Backfill 50 0.3 0 48 10 20 0.5
Loose zone in the bedding 3 0.3 0 29 10 14 0.5
Loose zone at the trench bottom 3 0.3 0 29 10 14 0.5
Loose zone in the hauch backfill 7 0.3 0 29 10 14 0.5

The pipeline loading is performed by applying a 100kN patch load on the 20x30 cm
2
surface in order to simulate a
wheel load on the top of the backfill. While the cross-sectional pipe deflexion is a result of a simultaneous action
of vertical and horizontal stresses, it is assumed that the longitudinal pipe bending is only related to the vertical
stresses. Therefore, the vertical stress distribution in the backfill is computed along the pipe at its invert and its
3829

crown. The obtained results from heterogeneous backfills are then compared to that with a uniform trench backfill.
The later is supposed to represent a configuration corresponding to the current standards; therefore in this paper
it is called the reference case.
4 Results from A load position analyses
4.1 Reference case
Before analyses of configurations with heterogeneous backfill, it is interesting to understand how the stress is
distributed along pipe in the reference case. Thanks to the Boussinesq theory, the stress distribution within
backfill without pipe is well known. But being much stiffer than the surrounding soil, the presence of the pipe
modifies the stress envelope.

Figure 6 shows the vertical stress distribution along the pipe at its crown (a) and its invert (b). The pipe-soil
interaction has little influence on the stress distribution above pipe, but it modifies both the stress intensity and the
stress distribution beneath pipe. Indeed, the vertical stress is distributed further from the application point but its
intensity is reduced (by about 20%) what was expected given the stiffness ratio between pipe and soil. It is worth
noting that the difference in the invert stress between cases with and without pipe, computed far from the load
position, is due to the weight difference between an empty pipe and the equivalent volume of backfill material.

Figure 6 shows also that joints may have an influence on the stress distribution. Pipe with flexible joints is
submitted to the higher invert stress than pipe with a constant stiffness (called without joint on Figures 6 and 7).
The influence of the surface load on the pipe can be neglected 2m away from its application point. However, this
distance beneath pipe is 60% higher than that at the pipe crown.

-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
-8 -4 0 4 8
Longitudinal position (m)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
P
a
)
Without pipe
Pipe with joint
Pipe without joint

(a) Crown
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-8 -4 0 4 8
Longitudinal position (m)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
P
a
)
Without pipe
Pipe with joint
Pipe without joint

(b) Invert
Figure 6. Vertical stress distribution along pipe

Figure 7 shows the vertical pipe displacement computed at the pipe invert. Because of the pipe barrel stiffness,
the displacement at the pipe crown is roughly equal to that in Figure 7 and thus it is not represented here.
However, the movement of the pipe with flexible joints does not come down to a deformation of the structure
(observed for the pipe without joints). There is also a global sinking of the central section i.e. an equal
displacement downwards which is due to the joint action. Indeed, the ring of volume elements representing the
pipe joint undergoes simultaneously, at the pipe invert, a deflexion (allowing an angular movement of the pipe)
and a compression or squeezing (extension at the pipe crown). This compression allows pipe to move
downwards as a rigid body without deformation of the structure. A zoom on the joint area in Figure 7 is shown on
Figure 8. The difference in vertical displacement between two adjacent shells (representing pipe sections)
corresponds to the compression of the joint ring.

3830

-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
-8 -4 0 4 8
Longitudinal position (m)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Pipe with joint
Pipe without joint

Figure 7. Vertical pipe displacement
-0.25
-0.21
-0.17
-0.13
-0.09
-0.05
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Longitudinal position (m)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
J oint squeezing

Figure 8. J oint action in pipe bending

The deformation of the joints brings the bending moment at the joints close to zero, what reduces the longitudinal
bending of the pipe. However, the action of the joints and thus the behaviour of the pipe are restrained by the
resistance of a well compacted and uniform backfill. That resistance will be considerably altered by less
compacted or looser zones within backfill.
4.2 Heterogeneities in the bedding
Figure 9 shows the vertical stress at the pipe invert for different lengths of bedding heterogeneities. It appears
that the introduction of a loose zone modifies the stress distribution. The stress is smaller within the loose zone
but a peak in vertical stress is observed around that zone for all configurations except L=3.4m. The peak in this
particular case is absorbed by joints. After the peak, the stress distribution is identical to the reference case. Also,
when a loose zone within a uniform bedding is found, the vertical stress by-passes that zone taking higher values
outside and lower values inside the loose zone.

The vertical stress distribution at the pipe crown is identical to that from the reference case and thus is not
represented here.

Vertical pipe displacement shows the same general aspect as in the reference case, but depending on the length
of the loose zone, the maximum displacement value changes. Figure 12 represents the increase in vertical
displacement in the computed configurations with respect to the reference case. It can be observed that for this
type of heterogeneity, the vertical displacement increases with the loose zone length. However, for a pipe with
joints, higher vertical displacement does not necessarily imply higher bending moment within the pipe. Indeed, as
seen previously, the joint deformation allows a reduction of the bending moment. Figure 13 shows the joint
compression for each computed configuration. For the loose zone lengths ranging up to one half of one pipe
section, the joint compression is similar to the reference case. Therefore, the increase in pipe displacement is
due to the deformation of the pipe structure. When the length of the loose zone is close to the length of one pipe
section, the joint compression increases and the pipe moves downwards without deformation.

-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-8 -4 0 4 8
Longitudinal position (m)
I
n
v
e
r
t

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s


(
k
P
a
)
L=5.6m
L=3.4m
L=0.0m
L=1.8m
L=1.0m
L=0.2m

Figure 9. Heterogeneity of the bedding
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-10 -6 -2 2 6 10
Longitudinal position (m)
I
n
v
e
r
t

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s


(
k
P
a
)
L=14m
L=3.4m
L=0.0m
L=1.8m
L=0.2m
L=5.6m

Figure 10. Heterogeneity of the trench bottom


3831

-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-8 -4 0 4 8
Longitudinal position (m)
I
n
v
e
r
t

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s


(
k
P
a
)
L=5.6m L=3.4m
L=0.0m
L=1.8m
L=0.2m
L=1.0m

Figure 11. Heterogeneity of the haunch backfill
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
0 2 4 6 8
Length of the loose zone (m)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

c
a
s
e

(
%
)
Bedding
Haunch
backfill
Trench
bottom
Figure 12. Vertical pipe displacement

10%
20%
30%
40%
0 2 4 6
Length of the loose zone (m)
J
o
i
n
t

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

(
%
)
Bedding
Haunch
backfill
Trench
bottom
Figure 13. J oint deformation in heterogeneous backfill
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
-2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5
Longitudinal position (m)
C
r
o
w
n

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s


(
k
P
a
)
L=0.0m
L=1.0m
L=1.8m
L=5.6m
L=3.4m
L=0.2m
Figure 14. Heterogeneity of the haunch backfill
4.3 Heterogeneities in the trench bottom
As for heterogeneities in the bedding, the vertical stress at the pipe crown in configurations with heterogeneities
of the trench bottom is identical to that of the reference case. Figure 10 shows the invert stress distributions along
pipe for the considered cases. It appears that the stress distribution is almost equal to the reference case as long
as the length of the loose zone is smaller than the length of one pipe section. Yet, when the loose zone is longer
than one section, the effect of the surface load propagates further compared to the reference, but the maximum
stress value is still equal to that of the reference.

The pipe displacement, shown at Figure 12 is almost identical to that of the reference if the loose zone is shorter
than one pipe section. In that case, joints do not suffer any compression (Figure 13). If the loose zone is longer
than one pipe section, joints are slightly compressed what results in lower internal stresses and lower pipe
displacement.
4.4 Heterogeneities in the haunch backfill
Unlike the two others types of the soil heterogeneity, the vertical stress at the pipe crown for heterogeneities in
the haunch backfill is different from the reference case. As shown at Figure 14, the vertical stress at the pipe
crown is higher than the reference within the loose zone, except for the case L=0.2m. The crown stress increases
with the length of the loose zone until it reaches the length of one pipe section. Further increase of the loose zone
length does not modify the crown stress. It also can be observed that the variation of the crown stress from the
reference distribution is rapidly dissipated over the central pipe section.

The increase of the crown stress is a consequence of the pipe-soil interaction. If a loose zone is introduced in a
uniform soil (without pipe), the stress due to the surface load is lower within that zone than in the surrounding soil
(Hookes law). The introduction of the pipe has a little impact on the crown stress in the homogenous soil (see
Figure 6a) but increases significantly the crown stress in a heterogeneous soil (90% increase when L=1.8m). The
stress is attracted to the zone where the pipe deformation is easier.

Moreover, the stress distribution under the surface load concerns 2.4m width at the pipe crown. The maximum
crown stress is obtained when the length of the loose zone is equal to that width. Further increase of the loose
zone length has no effect on the crown stress distribution. The particular case of a very localised loose zone
(L=0.2m) seems to produce no influence on the stress distribution.

3832

Figure 11 shows the invert stress distribution along pipe. Globally, the invert stress increases over the central
pipe section which is related to the crown stress distribution (the higher load is received at the pipe crown, the
higher stress is transmitted at the pipe invert). When the length of the loose zone is longer than one section, it
appears that the invert stress is transferred from the adjacent elements to the central section. This results in the
joint compression (see Figure 13) and an increase of the pipe displacement (Figure 12). Hence, if the loose zone
is close to joints, there is a possibility to ease the pipe bending by joint compression.
5 Results from B load position analyses
All results previously presented underline the crucial role of the joints in the pipe-soil interaction especially their
relative position with respect to heterogeneities. It is then interesting to understand how the typical pipe behaviour
is modified when soil heterogeneities are present around joints. To achieve this study, almost identical
geometrical and mechanical configurations are considered as previously, but the centre of the loose zone and the
surface load are aligned with one of the joints (Figure 4).

It appears that the stress distribution in B-configuration is very similar to that from A-configuration; also it is not
represented here. Still, the modification of the stress field by a loose zone (shown previously in the A-
configuration) disappears more rapidly in the longitudinal pipe direction. Nevertheless, the pipe displacement in
B-configuration is quite different from what was observed previously. Figure 15, representing the reference case,
shows very small deformation of the pipe structure, the major component of the vertical displacement is a
rotational movement of the adjacent pipe sections. This results in the maximum pipe displacement 30% higher
than the reference case in the A-configuration. The rotational movement of the adjacent sections is allowed by
the joint rotation and can be characterized by the angle drawn on Figure 16.

-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
-10 -6 -2 2 6 10
Longitudinal position (m)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l


d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Position A
Position B
Figure 15. Pipe displacement in the reference case
1 1.5 2 2.5
Longitudinal position (m)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Rotation angle
Figure 16. Rotation of the joint in the reference
case

0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Length of the loose zone (m)
M
a
x
i
m
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Haunch
backfill
Bedding
Trench
bottom
Figure 17. Vertical pipe displacement
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Length of the loose zone (m)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
g
l
e

(
0
.
0
0
1

d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
Bedding
Haunch
backfill
Trench
bottom

Figure 18. J oint rotation in heterogeneous backfill

The maximum pipe displacements obtained for the computed cases are summarized on the Figure 17. The
maximum displacement increases with the loose zone length, but it seems constant when the loose zone is
longer than one pipe section. This evolution of the pipe displacement can be explained by Figure 18 where the
evolution of the joint rotation angle with the length of the loose zone is plotted. Indeed, if the length of the loose
zone approaches the length of one pipe section, the maximum of the joint rotation is obtained. Further increase of
the loose zone length has no influence on the joint behaviour and thus on the pipe displacement. It is clear that
this pipe behaviour significantly reduces its bending moment but leaves the possibility for a joint opening.
3833

6 Conclusions
The numerical analyses presented in this paper intend to improve the general understanding of the pipe-soil
interaction in a heterogeneous backfill. To achieve this, three types of the soil heterogeneities (introduction of a
loose zone in a uniform soil) have been considered and their influence compared to the uniform backfill case. The
obtained results show that the pipe-soil interaction is mainly governed by the following parameters: type of
heterogeneity, length of the loose zone and its position, position of the surface load with respect to the joint.

The vertical stress distribution along the pipe is modified by the presence of a loose zone within backfill but its
shape is function of the type of heterogeneity: maximum vertical stress may increase (haunch backfill) or
decrease (bedding) within the loose zone following the heterogeneity type and the loose zone length.

The pipe maximum displacement globally increases with the length of the loose zone but it is not necessarily
associated with the increase of the structural deformation of the pipe. Depending on the case, the joint
deformation allows some pipe sections to move downwards as perfectly rigid elements without additional increase
of the internal stresses.

According to the position of the surface load, the joint deformation might result in a pipe vertical displacement
(load above the centre of a pipe section) or a rotation of the adjacent pipe sections (load above a joint). When the
load is placed above the joint, that joint deformation globally increases with the length of the loose zone and
reaches its maximum when the loose zone length is equal to one pipe section. When the load is applied above
the centre of the pipe, the joint deformation occurs only if the length of the loose zone is longer than one half of
the pipe section.

It could be interesting to complete this work with a study of the effects on the pipe-soil behaviour of the
rheological soil variability, considering a range of the heterogeneities with various mechanical properties.
7 References
Benmansour A., Abdallah A., Masrouri F., Auvinet G. 1997. Fiability analyses of axial behaviour of sewer pipes, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, vol. 34, p 329-343.
Boscardin M. D., Selig E.T., Lin R., Yang G. 1990. Hyperbolic parameters for compacted soils, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, vol. 116 n1, p 88-104.
Buco J ., Emeriault F., Le Gauffre P., Kastner R., 2006. Statistical and 3D numerical identification of pipe and bedding
characteristics responsible for longitudinal behaviour of buried pipes, ASCE Conference Pipelines 2006, Chicago, USA..
Buco J . 2007. Analyse et modlisation du comportement mcanique des conduites enterres, PhD Thesis, INSA Lyon, France,
282 p.
Cook R. D., Malkus D. S., Plesha M. E. 1989. Concept and applications of finite element analysis, Thierd Edition, New
York:J hon Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Elachachi S. M., Breysse D., Houy L., 2004. Longitudinal variability of soils and structural response of sewer networks,
Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 31, p 625-641.
Fascicule 70. 2004. French Standards. Ouvrages dassainissement. In Arrt du 17 septembre 2003 approuvant le CCTG
applicables aux marchs de travaux et approuvant ou modifiant divers fascicules J O du 27/09/2003.
J eyapalan J . K., Abdel-Magid B. M. 1987. Longitudinal stresses and strains in design of RPM pipes, Journal of Transportation
Engineering, vol. 113, p 315-331.
Kitane Y., McGrath T. 2006. Three-dimensional modelling of live loads on culverts, ASCE Conference Pipelines 2006, Chicago,
USA..
Marston 1930. The theory of external loads on closed conduits in the light of the latest experiments, Bulletin 96, Iowa Eng.
Experiment Station, Iowa, USA.
Scarino J . H. 1981. Buried pipelines: Settlement modification and load transfer, Transportation Engineering Journal, vol. 107,
nTE4, p 469-487.
Thepot O. 2004. Prise en compte des caractristiques en petites dformations des sols dans ltude du comportement des
collecteurs enterrs, PhD Thesis, Paris ENPC, France, 261 p.




3834