MECHANICAL METHOD TO EVALUATE SAFETY

FACTORS IN BURIED PIPES

By Youssef Georges Diab 1

(Reviewed by the Pipeline Division)

ABSTRACT: The method presented studies the real behavior of a buried pipes system
and its interaction with the surrounding soil. A mechanical system is used to apply a
nondestructive loading from the inside of the structure, allowing a parametric model of
the complex soil-pipe structural behavior to be developed. The principle of the first
inspection step is to apply a cyclic loading to the pipe and to measure produced displace-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ments. Data obtained are investigated with a finite-element theoretical model, which
provides the pipe's real behavior in its real state. The resulting model allows a theoretical
analysis. By this analysis, we refine and explain deteriorations and stress distribution in
each tested section of the network. This theoretical model can be used for installations
in trench, embankment, or tunnel. In this paper, we present different assumptions and
steps used to analyze the real structural behavior of buried pipes in operating conditions
and the method to determine the safety factor. Upon this factor, we can distinguish areas
with high risks and normal risks. This evaluation permits one to optimize investments of
buried pipe rehabilitation.

INTRODUCTION
It is generally agreed that the older parts of sewer and aqueduct networks are in poor structural
condition, and that their hydraulic performance is often inadequate. Consequently, substantial
civil engineering works are undertaken to deal with sewers that have serious structural defects
or with areas where lack of capacity is causing river or stream pollution often associated with
public health risks.
Long-term investment in maintenance and rehabilitation operations of buried pipelines (aq-
ueducts and sewers) involves the scientific knowledge of their mechanical behavior in real
operating conditions and their degree of structural reliability.
Visual inspection alone is not sufficient. The MAC system presented in this paper (Mecanique
d'Auscultation des Conduites, i.e., buried pipes mechanical inspection) has been conceived to
answer these new requirements. Based on the structural analysis of the soil-pipe composite, this
methodology allows inspection of different kinds of pipes (reinforced concrete, plain concrete,
masonry, clay) from 0.7 to 4.0 m (27-157 in.) in diameter. The principle of this method is to
analyze the real mechanical behavior of the pipe with its surrounding soil. This inspection method
generates different diagnosis steps.

1. The evaluation of in-situ measurements with the system permits the modeling of real
behavior and the prediction of the pipe materials structural condition.
2. The study of the theoretical model and the comparison of obtained results with the
behavior laws of the pipe material samples allow:

The evaluation of the structural reliability of the pipe

The risks in short, medium, and long terms
The optimization of the maintenance and the rehabilitation methods so that the structural
operating mode of the soil-pipe system is able to reestablish the safety level of the
system, even by using reinforcement with new materials if necessary, or by improving
the mechanical properties of the pipe materials and/or the surrounding soil.

THE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Loading Tests Inside Pipe
The mechanical loading system has two components, with distinctive and complementary
functions: (1) A mechanical component, allowing system motion, application of loading cycles,
and measurement of displacements; and (2) an electronic and automatic component, allowing
'Res. and Development Mgr., DUNE S.A., 36 Bataille St, 6900R Lyon, France.
Note. Discussion open until July I, 1995. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on April 5,1993. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 121, No. I,
January/February, 1995. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-947X/95/0001-0094-010l/$2.00 + $.25 per page. Paper No. 5943.

94 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING

J. Transp. Eng. 1995.121:94-101.

 analysis of measurements, visual interpretation of results and, therefore, the adaptation in real
time of the inspection according to the numerical modeling results (Fig. 1).
The system (mechanical component allowing displacements) is set on wheels to permit dis-
placement and to adapt it to different pipe diameters and profiles. The loading is made sym-
metrically and automatically in the horizontal direction with simultaneous measurements of
loads and displacements by means of LVDT (linear variable differential transducer) cells. Load-
ing steps and limits are adapted as a function of the measured displacements in real time.
Measurements and loading curves are displayed, processed and analyzed in real time with a
completely watertight and independent microcomputer. The system allows inspection of pipe
with horizontal spans from 700 to 4,000 mm at a nominal rate of 2,000 m (1.25 mi) per day.

COMPLEMENTARY NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTS

Some nondestructive tests are undertaken as a complement to the loading tests (Prin et al.
1990) to evaluate the physicomechanical properties of the pipe material and the interaction
between the inspected pipe and the surrounding soil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocities Measurements

Principle: To study the ultrasonic waves propagated from the inside of the pipe. The waves
propagated through the analyzed material are electrically generated. Their conversion into
mechanical waves is achieved by means of piezoelectrical ceramic transmitters.
These waves are affected by the material condition (homogeneity, microcracks) and the overall
condition of the inspected pipe (cracks and fractures). For example, when the pipe material is
damaged, its elastic properties are also damaged. Thus, the wave progression increases, and
therefore its velocity decreases.
Application to pipe materials: When evaluating the pipe material quality by ultrasound, two
parameters are evaluated.

1. The velocity of wave propagation, which is proportional to the material elastic modulus
(Young's modulus). The evaluation of this modulus allows the transfer of propagation
velocities into compression strengths of the material after calibration of samples.
2. The passing band relative to the stiffness of connections in the material allows one to
differentiate between microcracks and fractures.

It is therefore, possible, with this method, to distinguish areas of low strength.

Radar or Radio Inspection

The system is composed of cells acting as transmitters or as receivers able to transform
mechanical into electrical energy. A generator develops electrical pulses; a cell receives these
pulses and registers them on a magnetic tape. For pipeline inspection, and particularly for
evaluating the wall thicknesses, the use of high frequency waves with a small radar scanner gives
a poor signal transmission, and the use of low frequency waves with a large radar scanner gives
poor analytical capacity.
To solve these problems, it is necessary to develop a statistical mathematical analysis. The
use of filters makes this processing possible and allows a good analytical view of the registered
signal. A relation is then developed between the different levels of signal and the physical
properties of the soil-structure system (pipe thicknesses and presence of voids in the surrounding
soil); however, the signal resolution is not good enough to allow more than categorizing classes
or levels.

Convergence basis

CD Hydraulic jacle

CD Displacement LVDT cell

G) Compression LVDT cell

o Measurement Bridge

o Data processing

@ Loading area Load

FIG. 1. Mechanical and Electronical Components of MAC FIG. 2. Positions of Loading Points and
System Displacement Measurements

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 95

J. Transp. Eng. 1995.121:94-101.

 The results, therefore, remain qualitative and only allow the assignment of relative values
for pipe material thickness and for the pipe/soil interface quality. Nevertheless, these indications
are useful to confirm and support those given by other methods of inspection.

Laboratory Tests and Analyses on Samples

To conduct complementary tests in a laboratory, it is necessary to extract samples by means
of drilling in the pipe wall and the surrounding soil. These investigations include: (I) Tests to
identify the mechanical behavior of the materials; (2) the relation between the dynamic inspection
signals (ultrasonic or radio inspection) and some material properties (particularly, mechanical
properties and material conditions); and (3) the microscopic observations and the physicochem-
ical analysis tests (identification of components. identification of aging mechanisms).
In summary. the aim of this analysis is to evaluate the physical and mechanical behavior of
the pipe material and the surrounding soil, and to obtain parameters used in the structural
analysis.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ANALYSIS OF LOADING TEST

One of the difficulties of analyzing buried pipes is the evaluation, with an acceptable precision,
of loads supported by the pipe. A model using the finite-element method (FEM) permits con-
sideration of the mechanical behavior of the pipe material and the surrounding soil and their
interaction (Zienkiewicz 1971), and represents an acceptable approach to the problem. The
diagnosis method based on the mechanical system to evaluate the state of strain and stress is
developed in the following paragraphs.
The principle of the mechanical loading test is to apply a known load to the pipe and to
measure relative displacements. This test has the advantage of taking a direct measurement of
real soil/structure behavior as well as integrating their interaction. Fig. 2 shows the position of
load application points and the displacement measurement locations. Calculation of the global
stiffness (Kg) of the soil/structure system (i.e., relation between the applied load and the mea-
sured displacements) is demonstrated in Fig. 3.
The theoretical model makes facilities for the description of soil-structure complex behavior
law since the path from the initial state to the present damaged state is known. This procedure
allows the evaluation ofthe combined external loads able to cause the observed damages (cracks).
This external load system permits the calculation of the stress and strain maximal values in the
wall of the pipe, and makes it possible to define the structural safety factors. It is also possible
to predict the pipe's ultimate structural behavior as a function of different possible external
loads developed by: (1) The evolution of the loading system; (2) the deterioration of the ma-
terials' properties; and (3) the evolution of the soil-structure interaction.
Finally. if the factor of safety is not sufficient to ensure pipe serviceability (high risk), it is
possible to introduce into the analysis all kinds of rehabilitation techniques [e.g., stabilization
techniques for masonry sewers; lining techniques (insertion of segments into a pipe to provide
improvements in structural resistance); grouting of external voids, etc.]. Fig. 4 presents the
methodology developed by the internal loading test to diagnose buried pipes.

NUMERICAL MODELING
The analysis of buried pipes is used to determine the structural behavior of the pipe, the soil,
and the interaction between pipe and soil (Katona 1978, 1982; Duncan 1979; McVay 1982;
McGrath et al. 1988; Selig and Nash 1988; Sikora and Lamb 1990). The model is developed as
a fundamental analysis to determine the distribution of strains and stresses in a buried rigid or

KO'
F , I>g DO Ko : initial stiffness

o
Kg : global stiffness

(DI-Do)
FIG. 3. Typical Loading Test Results

96 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING

J. Transp. Eng. 1995.121:94-101.

 in situ Mechanical Laboratory and in situ tests
Loading Test

Test theoretical
modeling
(F.E.M.) Behaviour laws

Theoretical modeling
of the behaviour while
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the structure is in
service (F.E.M.)

Maximal Compression
Stress in the Pipe
Evaluation of Structure
Safety Factor

FIG. 4. MAC Methodology

flexible pipe (Fremond 1980), having a variety of embedment soils, backfill, and natural soils
around and over the pipe.
The key to this model is a soil-structure interaction analysis that is general and not limited
to any particular installation type, as are traditional methods (Alliot 1985). The program has
versatile capabilities for soil-pipe interaction analysis of buried pipe installation, and it can be
used for all kinds of pipes with uniform or variable wall thickness. It is capable of analyzing
trench, embankment, or tunnel installations.

Installation Geometry
The first step in the analysis process is to specify as input parameters the geometry of the
pipe and its wall thickness, height of backfill, and, if possible, the type of installation (em-
bankment, trench, or tunnel), trench width, wall height and slope, and depth of embedment of
soil below and above the pipe. It is important to distinguish the positions of structures in the
installation vicinity in order to take their influence on the pipe into account when the finite-
element (FE) modeling is undertaken.

Finite-Element Mesh
The second step is to relate the geometry of the pipe-soil installation to an FE mesh for the
pipe and the soil. Each element has its own number to which specific material properties are
assigned. Two kinds of finite elements can be used in the FE model: 6 nodes and 8 nodes. The
main difference between these two elements is the number of numerical integration points.

Properties of Soils and Pipe

The next step in the installation modeling process is to characterize the installation in quan-
titative mathematical terms that represent the types and stiffness properties of soils in the vicinity
of the pipe, and also to specify the properties of the pipe that define its stiffness. Each element
in the FE mesh that represents the pipe wall must be given the approximate elastic properties
of the pipe material and plastic (fracture) criteria (Diab 1992).
Similarly, each element that represents soil in the structural model must be given the ap-
proximate elastic properties of the soil (Sowers and Sowers 1970; Spangler and Handy 1973)
that is representative of the type used in the installation, as well as the available plasticity criteria
of this kind of soil, since the properties of the soil and the pipe are variable and dependent on
the state of stress.

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 97

J. Transp. Eng. 1995.121:94-101.

 The parameters that are necessary to obtain a reliable diagnosis are shown in Table 1.
Note that when the pipe is placed on bedding that does not conform to the outside shape of
the pipe, it is very likely that the backfill soil cannot be compacted in a haunch zone. The
existence of such a soft zone may increase the concentration of stress and strain in the pipe
wall.

Loads
A summary of the various loads that may cause structural effects on a buried pipe is presented.
These loads are taken into account in the structural analysis procedure. However, determination
of certain loads and the resulting active pressures are complicated by the effects of soil-structure
interaction. The typical loads considered when analyzing a buried pipe with the mechanical
system are

1. Weight of the pipe. It may (or may not) be significant relative to other loads on a buried
pipe; however, it is always included in the analysis of mechanical behavior of pipe-soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

interaction.
2. Earth load. In the FE analysis used in our modeling, earth load is taken directly into
account via the unit weight of the earth in each of the elements.
3. Water weight and pressure. The weight of water in a pipe generally produces bending
effects that are about the same magnitude as those caused by pipe weight (except for
thrust which is tensile). These effects are of little significance in small diameters but
increase in importance as pipe diameter increases. This load is analyzed when we evaluate
strain and stress in the pipe.
4. Wheel loads from highway trucks, the most commonly encountered concentrated surface
loads. Buried pipe also may pass under railroads. Evaluation of the effects of surface
concentrated loads on buried pipe requires consideration of the attenuation of the earth
pressure caused by concentrated load through the earth over the pipe. The influence of
two or more adjacent wheels is taken into account for appropriate combination of wheel
spacing, height of each cover over crown, and pipe diameter.

FIELD EXAMPLE
In this paragraph we present an example to analyze an urban storm sewer in Paris; the
mechanical system presented in the preceding paragraph was used to evaluate the stress values
and the factor of safety of 800 linear meters of pipe.
This sewer has three different sections: (1) Between metric point PM 0 and PM 130 [Fig.
5(a)]; (2) between metric point PM 130 and PM 140 [Fig. 5(b)]; and (3) between metric point
PM 140 and PM 800 [Fig. 5(c)].
The sewer was built at the beginning of the twentieth century: its construction material is
masonry (limestone) and the surrounding soil is silty. Four steps are involved in the analysis.
The first is inspection of the pipeline. Fig. 6(a) shows observations made in field. Longitudinal
and circumferential cracks are distinguished. The longitudinal cracks are principally concentrated
between PM 50 and PM 400. An elevation view of the pipe with the height of backfill is shown
also.
TABLE 1. Parameters of Pipe and Soil Used in the Modeling

Soil Pipe material

(1 ) (2)
Friction angle (<!» Compression strength (R,.)
Cohesion (e) Tension strength (R,)
Mechanical hchavior law (generally Mohr-Coulomh) Plasticity criteria
Poisson's ratio (v) Poisson's ratio (v)
Initial elastic modulus (E) Initial elastic modulus (E)

(a) 765 (b) 7 6 5 (e) 7 6 5

Section type 1 Section type 2 Section type 3
FIG. 5. Sections of Inspected Storm Sewer: (a) Section Type 1; (b) Section Type 2; (c) Section Type 3

98 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING

J. Transp. Eng. 1995.121:94-101.

 Urban storm sewer Distance : 0-800 (m)

(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~ ~...,.:-_......-..... .-.--_..,....--
(b)

,....

...
11,"·"'t •••
FIG. 6. Visit and Risk Cards

...e
--..
.....
275
2/SO
• glDbl .tlffne••
.,
-
0

CI)
225
200
175
CI)
GI
I/SO •
c
.... •
-...
12ts
.... 100
en 75
/SO •
25 •
a
a 50 100 150 200 250 400 450 ISOO 600 700 750

FIG. 7. Stiffness Card

!
. I I
I ,
b

! \-- 1-+----..
/ / / /O<si 1
/I I 77V
I I I ---I---->, )J ur
c

Ie II

FIG. 8. Finite-Element Meshes

The second step is loading tests: 40 loading tests were conducted (the average distance between
two test points was 20 m). Values of global stiffness are summarized in Fig. 7 and the results
are varied. At the start of the inspected line, values were around 1,000 MN. They were relatively
low between PM 150 and PM 400 and then, they increased at the end (1,250 MN).
The third step is structural analysis. The aim of this analysis is to determine the structural
behavior of the pipe by a numerical model based on the FEM. Three FE meshes are used to
cover the different sections of the sewer and to take into account the structure in the vicinity
of the pipe. Fig. 8(a) shows the mesh used for tests 1-6 (PM 0 to PM 130), Fig. 8(b) shows the

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 99

J. Transp. Eng. 1995.121:94-101.

 mesh used for tests 7 and 8 (PM 130 to PM 140), and Fig. 8(c) shows the mesh used for tests
9-40 (PM 140 to PM 800).
In this model, the properties of the pipe material (Diab 1987) and the surrounding soil are
introduced.

1. Pipe material:
volumic weight 22 kN/m 3
initial Young's modulus 3,000 MPa
compression strength 5 MPa
tensile strength 0.1 MPa
Poisson ratio 0.2
2. Surrounding soil:
volumic weight 19 kN/m 3
friction angle 20°
cohesion 35 kPa
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

initial Young modulus 20 MPa

Poisson ratio 0.35

Eight combinations of applied external loads are considered in the analysis.

1. Sewer empty + dead loads applied by dry soil

2. Sewer empty + dead loads applied by saturated soil
3. Sewer full (water weight) + dead loads applied by dry soil
4. Sewer full (water weight) + dead loads applied by saturated soil
5. Sewer empty + dead loads applied by dry soil + live loads applied by trucks (equivalent
to HS 20 because the inspected sewer is located under a main street in Paris)
6. Sewer empty + dead loads applied by saturated soil + live loads applied by trucks
7. Sewer full + dead loads applied by dry soil + live load applied by trucks
8. Sewer full + dead loads applied by saturated soil + live loads applied by trucks

From the eight models used, the cases 3, 4, 7, and 8 show biaxial tensile stress state (cracks)
in the inside crown; this state is also found in the outside of the springline.
The fourth step is risk evaluation. After completing step three, a calculation of maximal
compression stress values in the pipe wall is done under different loading cases by considering
both longitudinal and circumferential cracks. The values of calculated stresses are compared
with the strength of material (3 MPa for the pipe material in this example). The ratio between
the strength of the material and the calculated stress is called factor of safety (Fs).

If Fs -s 1.5, the risk is very high (PM 180-Pm 395 in our example).
If 1.5 < Fs -s 3, the risk is high but rehabilitation is not imminent; however, supervision
and inspection are necessary to evaluate the risk evolution as a function of time (PM
115-PM 180, PM 395-PM 510, PM 580-PM 640, PM 680-PM 695, and PM 730-PM
750 in our example).
If Fs > 3, the risk is normal (no risk); a structural rehabilitation is not necessary (PM
0-PM115, PM 51O-PM 580, PM 640-PM 680, and PM 695-PM 730 in our example).

The different risk lines are presented in Fig. 6.

CONCLUSION
The aim of this method is to evaluate safety factors in buried pipes. The safety factor is the
ratio between the compression strength of pipe material and the maximal equilibrium stress in
the pipe wall. This factor allows a distinction between the different areas of the pipeline.

1. Safe area: structural risks are acceptable.

2. Risk area: risks are above average and special supervision is necessary.
3. Highly risk area: high structural risks, and immediate rehabilitation is necessary.

This methodology is easily used for pipes up to 4,000 mm in diameter, and it can be expanded
for larger structures by improving the loading system. Its great efficiency permits the investigation
of 2 km per day. The method has been successfully applied and tested since 1990. More than
200 km of aqueducts and sewers have been inspected with this methodology.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Alliot, N. (1985). "Logiciel d'identification de parametres dans les modeles non lineaires avec estimation de la
precision des resultats," PhD thesis, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France (in French).

100 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING

J. Transp. Eng. 1995.121:94-101.

 Diab, Y. G. (1987). "Approche de calcul des tunnels en mal;onnerie renforcee par une coque en beton projete,"
MS thesis, Institute National des Science Appliquees de Lyon (I.N.S.A.), Lyon, France (in French).
Diab, Y. G. (1992). "Comportement mecanique des conduites rigides enterrees," PhD thesis, partial fulfillment,
University Claude Bernard, Lyon, France (in French).
Duncan, J. M. (1979). "Behavior and design of long-span metal culverts." 1. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE,
105(3), 399-418.
Fremond, M. (1980). "Methodes variationnelles en calcul des structures." Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chausees
(ENPC), Paris, France (in French).
Katona, M. G. (1978). "CANDE: Aversatile soil-structure design and analysis computer program." J. Adv. in
Engrg. Software, 1(1),3-9.
Katona, M. G. (1982). "Discussion of CANDE computer program to design reinforced concrete culverts." Proc.,
ASTM Conf, Concrete Pipe and the Soil Structure System, ASTM, Pittsburgh, Pa., 17-41.
McVay, M. C. (1982). "Evaluation of numerical modeling of buried conducts," PhD thesis, partial fulfillment,
Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.
McGrath, T., Tigue, D. B., and Heger, F. J. (1988). "Pipecar, Boxar: micro computer program for the design
of reinforced concrete pipe and box sections." Records, Transp. Res. Board, 1191,39-49.
Prin, D., Maronne, G., and Cannard, G. (1990). "Methode de diagnostic de conduits souterrains appliquee iI
des grands lineaires." Proc., Int. Conf, Underground Crossings for Europe, 223-230, Balkema edition Lille
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(in French).
Selig, E. T., and Nash, W. A. (1988). "Buried pipeline research needs." Proc., Int. Conf on Pipelines and
Infrastructures, ASCE, Boston, Mass., 463-475.
Sikora, E. J., and Lamb, E. (1990). "Designing vitrified clay pipe system with EASE." Proc., Conf, Pipelines
Design and Installation, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 597-607.
Sowers, G. B., and Sowers, G. F. (1970). "Introductory soil mechanics and foundations." 3rd Ed., the Macmillian
Co., London, England.
Spangler, M. G., and Handy, R. L. (1973). Soil engineering, 3rd Ed., Intext Educational Publishers, London,
England.
Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1971). The finite element method in engineering science. 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hili Book Co.,
London.

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 101

J. Transp. Eng. 1995.121:94-101.