Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NOTE / NOTE
Abstract: The problem of tunneling effects on existing jointed pipelines is studied using the boundary integral method.
Normalized solutions to evaluate the maximum bending moments and rotations are presented. They depend on tunnelinduced ground settlements at pipeline level, relative soilpipe stiffness, relative pipe-joint stiffness, and the location
of the joints in relation to the tunnel centerline. A jointed pipeline generally experiences smaller bending moments
than a continuous one owing to the joint rotation. The solutions indicate that there are certain cases where hinged
systems result in greater bending moments than continuous ones. However, these cases rarely occur in reality.
Key words: pipelines, tunneling, soilstructure interaction, continuum solute.
Resume : Au moyen de la methode integrale des frontie`res, on traite du proble`me des effets du creusage de tunnels sur
des pipelines avec joints. On presente les solutions normalizees pour evaluer les moments flechissants et les rotations
maximum. Ils dependent des tassements du sol induits par le tunnel au niveau du pipeline, de la rigidite relative sol
tuyau, de la rigidite tuyau-joint, et de la localization des joints par rapport a` laxe central du tunnel. Un pipeline avec
joints va en general subir de plus petits moments flechissants quun pipeline continu a` cause de la rotation dans les joints.
Les solutions indiquent quil y a certains cas ou` des syste`mes avec charnie`res donnent des moments flechissants plus
grands que des syste`mes continus. Cependant, ces cas se produisent rarement en realite.
Mots-cles : pipelines, creusage de tunnel, interaction sol structure, solution continue.
[Traduit par la Redaction]
Introduction
Construction of a tunnel may cause damage to buried
structures, such as pipelines. As a tunnel is excavated, it induces deformation in the soil above. These displacements
will cause additional loading on a pipeline positioned above
the tunnel, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The behavior of the pipeline depends on the stiffness of the pipeline sections, the position and behavior of the pipe joints, and the nature of the
ground deformations. Solutions to this problem are presented in this note so that potential risk of pipeline damage
can be evaluated.
The general problem of tunneling effects on pipelines was
covered extensively by the excellent monograph of Attewell
et al. (1986). They provided solutions for continuous and
jointed pipelines using a Winkler ground model and ground
movements derived using a Gaussian curve. Klar et al. (2005)
obtained an exact closed form solution for the Attewell et al.
(1986) Winkler problem and provided a more rigorous soluReceived 4 September 2006. Accepted 23 July 2007. Published
on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on
21 February 2008.
A. Klar.1 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Israel Institute of
Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel.
A.M. Marshall, K. Soga, and R.J. Mair. University of
Cambridge, Department of Engineering, Trumpington Street,
Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK.
1Corresponding
doi:10.1139/T07-068
132
Table 1. Values of the parameters for bilinear joint model (modified from Attewell et al. 1986).
Pipe diameter
(cm)
Small rotation
angle, s (rad)
1 (kNm/rad)
2 (kNm/rad)
375
900
900
50
80
165
320
480
660
1.5
3.5
12
14
0.3
0.5
1.75
2.6
Klar et al.
133
Fig. 3. Representation of a pipeline as beam elements (right bottom) and joint elements (left bottom).
1
Formulation
The formulation essentially follows that presented by Klar
et al. (2005) with modifications to include the effects of
joints. The formulation is based on the following assumptions: (1) the tunnel is not affected by the presence of the
pipeline; (2) the pipeline is buried in an elastic homogeneous soil; (3) the soil response to loading, at the level of the
pipe, is unaware of the tunnel (this relaxing assumption allows the use of Mindlins (1936) Greens function for loading in a semi-infinite half space to construct barrel loads that
are used in the analysis); and (4) the pipe remains in contact
with the soil.
Using these assumptions, Klar et al. (2005) derived the
following equation, which can be solved to obtain the pipe
behavior:
for i j; 0
for i 6 j; 0
for i 6 j
for i j
134
Klar et al.
135
136
Klar et al.
137
138
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC) and the Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMI) for their
financial support.
#
Klar et al.
References
Attewell, P.B., Yeates, J., and Selby, A.R. 1986. Soil movements
induced by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and structures. Blackie & Son Ltd., London, UK.
BS EN 545. 2002. Ductile iron pipes, fittings, accessories and their
joints for water pipelines requirements and test methods. British Standard Institute.
BS EN 14161. 2003. Petroleum and natural gas industries pipeline transportation systems. British Standard Institute.
Klar, A., Vorster, T.E.B., Soga, K., and Mair, R.J. 2005. Soilpipe
interaction due to tunnelling: comparison between Winkler and
elastic continuum solutions. Geotechnique, 55: 461466.
Mindlin, R.D. 1936. Forces at a point in the interior of a semiinfinite soild. Physics, 7: 195202. doi:10.1063/1.1745385.
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico.
pp. 266290.
Vorster, T.E.B. 2005. The effect of tunnelling on buried pipes.
Ph.D. thesis, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK.
Vorster, T.E.B., Klar, A., Soga, K., and Mair, R.J. 2005. Estimating
the effects of tunneling on existing pipelines. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131: 13991410.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:11(1399).
Weaver, W., and Gere, J.M. 1990 Matrix analysis of framed structures. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
139
List of symbols
EI
Es
F
Gi,j
i
[KB]
[KJ]
kjM
kjS
Lj
Le
M
Mmax
R
r0
[S]
Smax
Sp
Sv
T
{u}
{uCAT}
x
Z
1, 2
max
s