Stress Analysis Methods for Underground Pipe Lines Part 2  SoilPipe Interaction
1 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen
271 Aufrufe5 SeitenDatum des Uploads
Mar 04, 2011
Copyright
© Attribution NonCommercial (BYNC)
Verfügbare Formate
PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen
Dieses Dokument teilen
Dokument teilen oder einbetten
Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?
Copyright:
Attribution NonCommercial (BYNC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
Stress Analysis Methods for Underground Pipe Lines Part 2  SoilPipe Interaction
Copyright:
Attribution NonCommercial (BYNC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
Part 2—Soilpipe interaction
Stress analysis methods
for underground pipe lines
Analysis of soilpipe interaction
involves investigation of soil forces,
longitudinal/lateral pipe movement
LangChaun Peng, Mechanical Engineer,
AAA Technology and Specialties Co., Inc., Houston
Because the major portion of 4 pipe line is normally
buried, soilpipe interaction analysis is the most important
part of pipe line stress analysis. First, however, soil forces
that are cating on the pipe must be investigated.
‘These forces differ somewhat from those encountered
in foundation engineering problems. For instance, the
oitenreferenced lateral pile loading data are hardly ap
plicable to @ pipe line problem since a pile is driven into
the soil vertically rather than buried horizontally and
lateral pile movement is much smaller than pipe Tine
movement.
Fig, 5a) shows a pipe line buried in a ditch. Because
of the soil backAll and the pipe’s own weight, the pipe
receives a svil pressure acting at its surface as shown in
Fig, 8(b). This pressure creates a bending stresy on the
pipe wall and at the same time produces a soil friction
lorce against any axial pipe movement.
Except in highway or railroad crossings, the bending
sttess created by uneven soil pressure is negligible. If no
casings used at road crostings, bending stress due to soil
pressure can be significant and showld be evaleated using
methods described by Spangler.’ The code requires that
this bending stress be combined with pressure hoop stress,
and the combined stress should be limited to 29 more
than the specified zinimurs yield steength (SMYS}.
Axial friction foree. Friction force is the first soil force
that affecis pipe movement. This section covers friction
force that is created against the axial pipe movement.
Theoretically, friction foree is equal to the product of
the friction coefficient and the total normal force acting
Mey O78 @ PIPE NE INNIIcTey
all around the pipe, Since actual distribution of normal
force, Fig. 9(b}, 3s hard to determing for the purpose of
friction force calculation, a simplified model as shown
in Fig. 5(c) can be used.
The normal foree acting on the pipe surface can be
divided into top force, W, and bottom force, H+ Ws,
where W, is the weight of the pipe and its content, For
a pipe buried in a ditch, the top soil foree can be cal
culated by Marston's formula,? but in cases where the
soil cover depth sanges from one to daree mes the pipe
diametes, the force can be taken as the weight of the soil
surcharge over the pips. Hence, axial friction force can
be wetter as:
BCH b WF By) [12
o2yDH + Wy) 12 (a)
in which, {= Axis friction force, tbs. jin.
p = Coefficient of friction between pipe and soil
y= Density of backfill sol, bs it?
D = Outside diameter of pipe, ft.
H = Depth of soil cover to top of pipe, ft
HW, = Weight of pipe and content, bs /ft.
or
The soil density and friction coefficient are obtained
from soil tests performed along the pipe line route. In
cases when test data are not available, the following
3m
we wp!
1. Trenchéd pipe "By Sail pressure t, denized modal
Fig. 5—Soll pressure distribution.@ Upward b. Downward
Fig. Lateral soit forces,
friction coefficient can be used:®
sit 0.5 Sand 04 Gravel
‘The above coefficients are the lower bond values equivie
lent to the sliding friction. The static coefficient of fric
fon can be as mach as 70 pesceat highes.*
Por gipe Hines buried helow the water thie, buoyant
force should be subtracted from soll and pipe weight
before entering Equation 9 for calculation.
Lateral soil force. Fig. 6 shows three diflerent tateral
soii forces normally encountered in pipe line analysis,
Each lateral force can be Mealived, as in Fig. 6(€), into
two stages: Elastic stage, where resistance force is pro
portiona! Lo pipe displneement, and plastic stage, where
resistance remains constant regardless of displacement.
Though elastic constant cam be evaluated dizectly by
wat or published arethods,° they are generally very sensi
tive to the data gathered. An alternate method is to
calvulare from the more reliable ultimate resistance.
Several authors have reported that. displacement required
to reach ultimate resistance is about 15 to 2 percent of
the pipe bottom depths.
From this important finding, clastic coustant can be
calculated from ultimate resistence by taking 1.5 percent
of the total depth as yield displacement. Using 1.5 per
cont instead of 2 percent giver a more realistic secant
imodulas which will underestimate the modulus for initial
displacesnert but sumewhat overestimate the modulus at
higher displacement. For a pipe Hine, underestiznation of
uly resuainod 1 &
Baie, e 3
En force
Friction” Ye
a. Faroe distibutien

Stree
Bisplacement,,
nam
bs. Longitudinat stress alsioution
Fig. 7—Longitdinal movement.
idecllces.
‘Actual
Displacement ——
1. Sideward @. Force displacement
initial modulas is greatly compensared by the fact that
fess thant perfect backfill compaction does provide initial
softness
When a pipe moves horizontally as in Pig. 6{c), it
weates a pastive soil pressure at the font surface, aud
at the same time receives an active soll force at the back,
Because of the arch activa, a void wit be created behind
the pipe as soon az i moves a small distance and the
active soll force can therefore be disregarded.” The only
latecal force is the passive soll farce which can be written
a8:
a >
 (10)
Where ( is the ultimate soll resistance, fbt./it, and the
other symbols are as previously defined, Suielly speaking,
Equation 10 is valid only when the soil cover, H, is less
then the pipe diameter, D. It will overestimate the re
sistance for deeper soil covers. However, for a three
diameter deep caver with dense granular toil, the aver
estimation is only about 10 percent.'? This is within the
variation of other parameters involved in soil mechanics.
Taking 1.5 percent of the total depth as the yield dis
placement, the elastic constant can be written ast
vo
Dos (HE DY <1
0.2415 y (H+) tant 45942) ay
= dyin DY fan? (45
K
Where the elastic constant, K, in pounds per inch of pipe
per inch displacement, is the preduct of modulus of pas
sive resistance and pipe diameter. it shouid be noted that
instead of determining soil modulus ¢, the constant ¢7?
is determined, This is similar to the eR constant used in
the famous Iowa flexible pipe deflection formula.’
Longitudinal pipe movement. The flexibility problem
originates (rou the expansion of the pipe, Therelore, the
first step of Bexibility analysis is to determine longitudinal
movement.
Fig. 7 shows a pipe fine leaving 2 pump station, Point
A is a scraper launching barrel and ECD represents a
very Jong Iine. When the Tine is heated up, the end of
pipe B will start we move. ‘The movement produces fris
don fozce, f, while at the same time an end resistance, Q,develops because of soit passive force and pipe stiffness.
The moving portion of the pipe will extend gradually
downstreasn to a point Cl where the movement stops.
As the moving portion extends, friction force also in
ceases, and when the moving boundary reaches point Ci,
friction force plus end force developed is enongh to sup
press the expansion completely. Point C is sometimes
called virtual anchor point and the moving length, L,
the active lengzh.
Because of the unequal amount of friction force re
ceived, longitudinal stress along the active Iength varies
from point to point. Distribution of longitudinal stress is
shown in Fig. 7(b}. At the seraper barrel end, the stress
js tensile and equal to the pressure stress, The tensile
stress Js reduced gradually due to end forre and friction
force, then eventually becomes compressive if the Line is
hiot enough. Finally, az point C, the compressive stress
reaches maximum and stays the same for the entize fully
restrained portion,
The active fength of the line can be determixed by
‘equating friction force plus end force with the required
anchor force obtained from Equation 6, that
{L4Q=F
o
pet (32)
where Active lengti, in.
Anchor force or expansion foree, Ibs,
End resistance force, lbs.
Soil frietion fores, Ibs fin.
Alter the active length is determined, the end znovemment,
3 can be calculated hy multiplying’ the average expan
Sion rate with the length. The expansion me at © is
zero, and the rate at end B is equivalent to the pull of
the potential expansion force (or anchor force) minus
end foree, bene
1
[ 00+ Fe (F~ Q)
substiouting Equation 12 we have:
=e oy 5
y—sqay > @ (13)
where y is the end deflection in inches,
‘The end deflection is proportional to the square of the
net expansion force. The underground piping is therefore
nonlinear aid cannot be solved by dirvet Tinear simula
tion,
Lateral pipe movement, ‘The lateral pipe movement
is caused by longitudinal movement of a pipe connected
in the perpendicular direction,
Vig. 6{a) shows a long main fine pipe making a 90
degees tut to enter a pump station. Expansion of the
long pipe AB has caused the station pipe BC to move in
fhe lateral direction, The lateral movement at comer B
Leong pipe
b. Guided cantilever
elastic model
Fig, 8—Latarat movernent.
is y inch and decreases gradually toward point © where
displacement is vixtually zero.
Because of the large movement, the soil in region 12
is in plastic stage offering constant passive force, The so!
in region 2.8 is still in the static range that offers 2 re
sisting force proportional to local displaeoment. The es
tent of region 12 depends on the magnitude of end
movement, and is nonexistent for some Jow temperature
‘The analysis involving elasticplastic soil farce generally
requires siepwise linear computer simulations. The pip
ing, however, can be conservatively treated as a guided
cantilever elastic system which can be easily analyzed.
As shown in Fig. 8{b), the long pipe AB is considered
to be guided, allowing no rotation at the comer B. The
soil force is considered to be perfect elastin, offering xe
sistance proportional to the local displacement. This ap
proach tends to undezestimate the deflection because of
the large soil force and stiff boundary assumed.
On the contrary, the method will tend 10 overestimate
the moment because of the stiff nonrotational corner B
assumed. Since stress is determined by the moment, it
is apparent that the aproach is conservative.
To start the analysis, the system is cat into two free
bodies as shown in the figure. The long pipe AB is
exactly the same as shown in Fig. 7(a) except the ead
moment, M. Since the end moment does nat affect the
Jongindinal movement, we still ean say:
7 ear
Here we have one equation but two unknowns, y and Q.
Therefore, another equation is needed from Jeg BC be
fore the problem can be solved.
‘The situation in Jeg EC is a beam on elsstic foundation,
problem. ‘The case is not quite the same as an ordinary
pile problem where elastic modulus changes with depth
and the end, in most cases, is {ree to rotate. The pileformula, especially those that do not produce any end
moxnent, cannot be used.
Leg BC actually represents onehalf of an infinite beam
on elastic foundation that is loaded with a concentrated
force, From, literature citation (4, we cam write:
2h
g (14)
Q
Map (15)
in which, y=End displacement, in,
‘End force, lbs,
Soil elastic constant, lbs, in.
Modolus of elasticity of pipe, psi
Montent of inertia of pize, in.*
AM = End bending moment, inlbs.
[K
onal
Substituting Equation 18 in Equation 14 and rearrang
ing the form, we have:
Q=6VOF (16
where
cnr it
After the end force is determined, the end displacemeat
and moment ean be calculated from Reuations 14 and
15, respectively.
Sample calcutations. Assume the sane 20inch diameter
pipe, described in Part 1, is buried with 4 feet of soil
cover and the soil is silty sand with a density of 125
Ibs. /ft§ and an internal friction angle of 30 degrees. The
displacement and stress of the pipe shown in Fig. 7 and
‘Fig. 8 can then be calculated as follows:
1. Soil friction force, As discussed earlier, a sliding
friction factor of OF can be used for the ‘silty sand
against the pipe. Assuring the specific weight of the
crade is 0.85, the friction force from Equation 9 is:
FROA x (2X 125 x a x 44 185.7) 12 =
61.74 tbs./in,
2 Soil end force Q acting on the vertical entry leg of
ig. 7 can be calculated by adding side shears to Equa
tien 16." "Phat is,
Q=5 (H+ dy (+5 )o4
H+D)*y Ketan
Sian (45 9/2)
“T2) ¢ 125 x 6.5 tan (30)
Stan (60)
= 11,296 Ibs,
in which K,=0,5 is dhe cocBcient of later soil presswe.
3, Acdve length is calculated by Bquation 12 as:
LESS, LEO 1296 — 1 256 in, = 930 2.
Expansion force F = 706280 is calculated, jn Part 1.
4, Longitudinal movement at the scraper barrel of
Fig. 7 can be found from Equation 13:
i
2X OBL X 27.9 X TOF X OL.7E
(706280 ~ 11296) * = 6.07 in.
which is only slightly smaller than the free end (Q=0)
expansion of 6.27 inches. In ceality the movement will
be consideraby smaller due to the lateral soil Force acting
oa the station pipe as will be shown in the following.
‘The slacks it the main tine will also absorb part of the
movement.
5. Lateral soil forge and elastic constant are calculated
by Equations 10 and 11, respectively.
vad. x 123 ( + 4) tan? (45 + 15) =6020 Ibs. /ft,
K= 0.2815 X 125 (4+ FB )actta5 + 15)
= 491.4 Ibs int
6. Then for the He 8 pipe we have:
A= = [ta 4+
Vis ENS X IP KT
= 0.0079 in
cnr + BABE so6200 +
0.0079 x 23.1 x 27.9 x 10° x 61.74
ae
= 1346499 Ibs.
End foree Q
End displacement, y= =3.22in,
a ‘$14
This displacement greatly exceeds the yield displacement
of 0.015 (H+ D) = 0.085 ft. = 1.02 in, thereiore the
caicaiation is only a rough estimation. A’ more accurate
analysis will require the cousideration of the plastic soil
force. The end moment is calcnated by Equation 15:
_ 200101
xp 2x 0.0079
‘The beading sires without considering stress intensifi
cation is:
M= = 12664620 inIbs,
M _ 12664620
ZT
which is about three times the allowable of 57,440 psi.
= 114,095 psiAlthough a stepwise computer simulation znight reduce
the stress somewhat, some remedies are still required.
Part 2 conclusion. From the above discussion, it can
be concluded that:
* For a buried pipe line, the pipe will expand toward
the end or a bend, Sut the central portion of the tine
will be fully restrained by the soil friction force, Total
movement at the free end is inversely proportional to
soll friction force but is directly proportional to the
square of the temperature difference between operating
and installation conditions.
* Because of the lateral soil force, movement at a
bend is about onehalf of movement at the free end.
* For 20inch standard pipe at 120°F temperature
difference, stress developed at the bend connecting to
2 long ran is about three times the allowable stress.
Therefore proper care should be taken to reduce the
sicess. The most often used methods are:
(a) Install an anchor at about 20diameter length
away from the bend to reduce the movement.
{b) Install soft material behind the pipe of the lateral
keg.
(c) Locally use thicker wall pipe near the bend area.
(d) Adopt special backfiling procedure.
* A buried pipe bend without any particular atiention
will take only about 60°F temperature raise if it is con
nected to a long nin of pipe,
‘The techniques developed in this article are generally
sufficient to handle the routine analyses. However, there
are configurations that would xequire computerized step
wise lintat simulation.
In summary, the most difficult part ef the soll pipe
interaction analysis is to determine the soil characteris
ties. Once the soil data are available, the analysis can be
performed routinely. Unfortunately, we still lack reliable
scil correlation formulas that can be used confidently
by the analysts. Although the two soil formulas presented
in this article are simplified, they do give reasomable
numbers. The most important thing they provide is clear
physical pictures of the moving proceses, By relating
one’s thinking 10 a physical picture, it is less likely that
an extreme value will be used.
LITERATURE CHFED
Design of Metine Oxiog Fine."
Sake Bd "e Fie
‘Marston, A, "ihe Theary of Enteral Lande on Chee Cepsiy nthe
Lato Ie Eateet Lxpeciventn?” Pree atk ‘Aantal Meeting, Highwoy
Ribearch Boar, Becemoee SS
ind Mayer G H,, “ration Redetance of Rovied Fiat
Pipeline ander fournel, Fetivery 107.
*Pacife Gas, aod lorie. Report, “Longing! Movemeas of Under
‘Woond Pe Gees” Water Ger, Seprombcr 198,
Tec okton. of Confcient of Sobgrade Reaetloos." Geo
%,
cookie, Ba, SP ae
yn of seize te
Pasi,” New Cesar ae
. Pres,
i,
*Owsen, Be Ky “Desi, Methods for Vert Auger Sly in Soa”
VEST Pith DSTASGE JEL Spec Cinteenee an Peribe
nd Bact Sopperted Stren, Tene TE
Watkin, Roi, and Spangler, Mi, G., "Some Charactesiics of, tbe
‘Modulus @f Pasive Resisttize of Soil: A’ study In Siralitude,”” Highway
Reseach Based Proce S7:8m6 (1938).
sw ifimouhenko, Si Suength of Material, Part M0, 2. 4, Sra e158,
Tremahi, K,, heeestoal Soil Mechabies, 1853, .
“a8 Example Can be
eee er analy aed
earily using. SrFlex
preqem. .
Downledel a Demo version
aud
AS follows.
UNDERGROUND Pipeline
option, Cope, PELANG, TW FRU
= femPclSo
Sprped, derb, THK=S%, TET
a De 500, CSG 0.8 , MATLECS
S, Lonapipe (250), PIPE.
Yx60, RSEC= 10,
* STY, m2 (1200,0.8) BR
{Z
iS, B= & RSECE
, NCY ¢ > ay) BEX (1400, 0.8)
20, 2210, ANCH
End
TRY ARNE DATA Te Ger
A FEECING.
Dokumente ähnlich wie Stress Analysis Methods for Underground Pipe Lines Part 2  SoilPipe Interaction
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.