Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5
Part 2—Soil-pipe interaction Stress analysis methods for underground pipe lines Analysis of soil-pipe interaction involves investigation of soil forces, longitudinal/lateral pipe movement Lang-Chaun Peng, Mechanical Engineer, AAA Technology and Specialties Co., Inc., Houston Because the major portion of 4 pipe line is normally buried, soil-pipe 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 4594-2) 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 1-2 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 1-2 depends on the magnitude of end movement, and is nonexistent for some Jow temperature ‘The analysis involving elastic-plastic soil farce generally requires siep-wise 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 pile formula, especially those that do not produce any end moxnent, cannot be used. Leg BC actually represents one-half 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=6-VO-F (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 20-inch 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 in-Ibs, M _ 12664620 ZT which is about three times the allowable of 57,440 psi. = 114,095 psi Although a step-wise 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 one-half of movement at the free end. * For 20-inch 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 20-diameter 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.