Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245411661
CITATIONS READS
56 676
4 authors, including:
Assaf Klar
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
100 PUBLICATIONS 923 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Assaf Klar on 16 September 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Klar, A., Vorster, T. E. B., Soga, K. & Mair, R. J. (2005). Geotechnique 55, No. 6, 461466
An elastic continuum solution and a Winkler solution of Nous fournissons une solution de continuum elastique et
the problem of tunnelling effects on existing pipelines are une solution de Winkler au probleme des effets de la
given. A comparison is made between an elastic conti- construction de tunnels sur des pipelines existants. Nous
nuum solution and a closed-form Winkler solution with faisons la comparaison entre une solution de continuum
Vesic subgrade modulus. Although applying the Vesic elastique et une solution Winkler de forme fermee avec
expression results in the same moments and displace- un module de couche de forme de Vesic. Bien quappli-
ments under external loading in a Winkler system and quant les resultats de lexpression de Vesic dans les
the elastic continuum, it is found that its use is not memes moments et deplacements sous charge externe
necessarily adequate for the problem of tunnelling effects dans un systeme de Winkler et un systeme de continuum
on pipelines and may not be conservative owing to elastique, nous trouvons que son utilisation nest pas
possible underestimation of bending moments. An alter- forcement adequate pour le probleme des effets de con-
native expression for the subgrade modulus is provided, struction de tunnels sur des pipelines et peut ne pas etre
resulting in similar maximum bending moments in the conservatrice en raison dune eventuelle sous-estimation
Winkler and elastic continuum systems. du moment de flexion. Nous donnons une expression
alternative du module de couche de forme, ce qui donne
KEYWORDS: buried structures; deformation; elasticity; des moments de flexion maximum similaires dans le
numerical modelling; tunnels systeme de Winkler et le systeme de continuum elastique.
INTRODUCTION
One of the tasks facing engineers in the 21st century is the
operation and maintenance of ageing infrastructure such as
pipelines. The current paper addresses the effect of tunnel- x
Pipeline
ling on existing buried pipelines. Fig. 1 shows a schematic
diagram of the problem, in which a new tunnel is excavated Tunnel
z
under an existing pipe. The tunnel excavation generates soil
settlement around the pipe, causing it to deform. The pipe
suffers additional bending moment. The magnitude of pipe
deformation and the changes in bending moment depend on
the distribution of soil settlement due to tunnelling at the
pipeline level and the relative stiffness between the pipe and
the surrounding soil.
y x
The conventional approach for obtaining a solution for
this problem utilises Winkler-based models such as that z
proposed by Attewell et al. (1986). In such cases, an
appropriate subgrade modulus (spring coefficient) needs to
be assumed for both linear elastic and non-linear analyses.
In linear elastic analysis the subgrade modulus is usually
determined by means of the Vesic (1961) expression (sug- Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the problem
gested for the current problem by Attewell et al., 1986).
Vesics expression essentially allows a beam on a Winkler (c) The pipe does not affect the tunnel.
foundation to exhibit similar displacements and moments to (d ) The soil response to loading, at pipe level, is not aware
that of a beam on an elastic half-space when loaded with of the tunnel. (In the elastic continuum system this
the same load. relaxing assumption allows us the use of Mindlins
The aim of this paper is to discuss the validity of the (1936) Greens function for vertical load in a semi-
implementation of Vesics expression for the current problem infinite half-space.)
by comparing it with an elastic continuum solution. This aim is (e) The pipeline is continuous.
achieved by comparing a Winkler system and an elastic ( f ) The greenfield soil displacement at the pipe level is
continuum system under the same key assumptions, as follows: described by a Gaussian curve (Peck, 1969) given as
" #
(a) A pipeline line is buried in homogeneous soil. 1 x 2
(b) The pipe is always in contact with the soil. Sv x Smax exp (1)
2 i
Manuscript received 17 June 2005; revised manuscript accepted 4
April 2005. where Smax is the maximum settlement, x is the
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 February 2006, for further horizontal distance from the tunnel centreline, and i is
details see p. ii. the distance to the inflection point of the greenfield
* Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, UK. settlement trough profile.
461
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 132.68.129.39
On: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:37:47
462 KLAR, VORSTER, SOGA AND MAIR
As mentioned, if a VesicWinkler system is loaded with f u CL g i
the same load as the elastic continuum system it will exhibit f F g i f f g i (6)
G i,i
a similar bending moment to that of the elastic continuum
system. In the current problem, the tunnelling effect may be The compatibility relation of fug fuC g fuCL g fuCAP g
represented as loads on the system related to the soil green- fuCAT g is required, and by introducing this and equation
field displacements at the pipe level, Sv (x). These loads will (6) into equation (2) the following relation is obtained:
generally be different in the VesicWinkler and elastic
continuum systems; hence the use of Vesics expression for S f ug K f ug 8K f u CAP g K f u CAT g
this problem will generally result in different bending mo- h i < 1
i j (7)
ments in a Winkler system compared with those in the K G i,i
i, j :
elastic continuum system. The magnitude of the difference 0 i 6 j
is presented in this paper.
where [K*] is a local soil stiffness matrix, and is diagonal.
Equation (5) shows that f u CAP g sf f g where
s i, j f G i, j for i 6 j, 0 for i jg, and with
ELASTIC CONTINUUM SOLUTION
f f g f F g S f ug equation (7) becomes
The pipe behaviour may be represented by the following
equation: [[S] [K ] [K ][ s][S]]fug [K ]fu CAT g (8)
[S]fug fFg (2)
where [S] is the stiffness matrix of the pipe composed of which is solved numerically to obtain the elastic continuum
standard beam elements, {u} is the pipe displacements, and solution. Following assumption (c) {u CAT } is the greenfield
{F} is a force vector representing the soil loading acting on displacement.
the beam elements. The pipe is buried within the soil, and It is worth noting that omitting [K*][*s][S] in the above
additional external loads to that of the soil do not generally equation results in a Winkler-like model, where the soil
exist, although they can be added if necessary, building reaction acting on the pipe is not affected by the soil
structure loading for example. response at different locations along the pipe. The term
The soil continuum displacement, u C , can be represented [K*][*s][S] can thus be regarded as an additional term that
using a Greens function: takes account of continuum effects. This, however, does not
mean that the solution obtained by omitting this term is the
Xn
Winkler solution, because the components of [K*] are differ-
fuC gi f f g j G i, j (3) ent from those that will be constructed using the Vesic
j1
(1961) subgrade modulus.
In this study, the Mindlin (1936) solution (Greens func-
where {f} are the forces acting on the soil medium, and Gi, j
tion) for a point load is used to construct the components of
is the Greens function that defines the elastic soil continuum
equation (8). However, as Mindlins solution does not satisfy
displacement at point i due to unit loading at point j.
displacement at the point of loading, a reference displace-
The summation in equation (3) can also be written as
ment value for that point was considered to be the average
follows:
displacement around the circumference of the pipe. This is
f u CA g i identical to assuming a barrel load around the pipe. Actually
fu gi CL
f u C g i z}|{ z}|{ (4) any displacement at a point due to uniform load is equal to
X n
f f g i G i,i f f g j G i, j the average displacement, over the same area (or volume) as
j1 that of the uniform load, due to an equivalent concentrated
j6 i load at that point, as illustrated in Fig. 2. This is due to the
reciprocity property of the Greens function, which states
where {u CL } is defined herein as local displacement, which
that the response at x9 due to a delta function at x is equal
is the displacement at a point due solely to its loading, and
to the response at x due to a delta function at x9.
{u CA } is additional displacement at that point due to forces
To enable a general solution corresponding to different
acting at different points. Because of assumption (c) only
soil and pipe characteristics the results were normalised. The
degrees of freedom of the pipe need to be considered, and
proposed normalisation covers all independent parameters,
the index i can therefore be related only to the pipe. Never-
and was used to describe bending moment. Fig. 3 shows the
theless, {u CA } still involves quantities that result from the
computed normalised maximum sagging bending moments
tunnel (i.e. j index is still related to the tunnel degree of
freedom). However, as it was assumed that the pipe does not
affect the tunnel, these quantities (i.e. forces) can be de- Concentrated load system Uniform load system
coupled as follows:
ux 5 G(x; x)P p 5 P/A
f u CAP g i
f u CL g i
f u C g i z}|{ z
}|{
(5) x
X
last pipe node ux 5 eG(x; x)pdA
f f g i G i,i P
f f g j Gi, j f u CAT g i A
Sagging 2040
10
Z/r0 5 3 2020
Z/r0 5 7
08 Z/r0 5 15 000
Mi 2/ElSmax
Mi2/EISmax
020
06
040
Fig. 3. Maximum sagging moments Fig. 4. Normalised bending moment along the pipe, Z/r0 7
@4 u
occurring at the tunnel centreline in relation to a rigidity 44 u 44 Sv x (9)
factor R, defined as R EI/Es r0 i3 , where EI is the bending @x 4
p
stiffness of the pipe, Es is Youngs modulus of the soil, and where 4 K=4EI , EI is the bending stiffness of the pipe,
r0 is the radius of the pipe. The normalised bending moment K is the subgrade modulus, u is the vertical pipe displace-
is defined as Mi2 /EISmax . It should be noted that the rigidity ment, and Sv is the greenfield soil settlement (i.e the soil
factor and the normalised bending moment depend on i and settlement at the pipe level if it did not exist). An alternative
Smax . Hence any uncertainty in their determination will have mechanical system to equation (9) is shown in Fig. 5.
an impact on the estimation of the bending moment. In For an infinite Winkler beam, a concentrated load P
practice, effort should be made to estimate or minimise that creates a bending moment M of the following magnitude at
uncertainty (e.g. parametric studies and intensive field meas- a distance t from the location of the load (after Hetenyi,
urements). 1946):
The embedment depth may significantly affect the bending
moments experienced by a pipe, because the values of Smax P
M exp t cos t sin t (10)
and i are functions of depth. However, the normalised 4
bending moment for a given R is not highly affected by the
embedment depth, as seen from the comparison of different The continuous loading due to the soil trough settlement can
depth ratios in Fig. 3. Hence for later comparison with the be replaced by an infinite number of infinitesimal concen-
Winkler solution Z/r0 7 is chosen. It should also be noted trated loads dP(x), the magnitudes of which depend on the
that the results, in the range plotted, were found to be distance from the tunnel centreline, x:
practically independent of the ratio i/r0 when R was chosen dP x KSv xdx (11)
as a non-dimensional controlling parameter. Furthermore, all
elastic analysis values presented in this paper assume a The maximum bending moment in the pipe occurs above the
Poissons ratio of 0.25, which is an acceptable value for tunnel centreline, and is referred to as the maximum sagging
soil under drained conditions. Nevertheless, it was found that moment. Using equation (10), each of the mentioned con-
the response is not sensitive to the value of Poissons ratio centrated loads contributes the following amount to the
using the current normalisation with Es (e.g. difference in bending moment at x 0:
bending moments of less than 1.5% between 0.25 and
0.5, for the complete range plotted). dP(x)
dM(x) exp (jxj)[ cos (jxj) sin (jxj)] (12)
It can be shown that when R approaches zero the bending 4
moment values tend to those obtained by forcing the pipe to
follow the soil (i.e. M EI @ 2 Sv =@x 2 ). This can also be ` `
seen in Fig. 4, which provides bending moments along a
pipe for different values of R. As R increases, the normal-
ised bending moment decreases and highlights the potential
overestimation of bending moments when assuming the pipe
follows the curvature of the soil.
In the following section a closed-form solution for the
Winkler problem under the same assumptions described ear- 1 x 2
sv(x) 5 Smax exp 2
lier is obtained. This solution is later compared with the 2 i
Equal to:
above elastic continuum solution. 1 x 2
P(x) 5 KSmax exp 2
2 i
dP 5 Ksv(x)dx
u u
The two expressions are practically the same, and equation
2t dt; S(u) sin 12t 2 dt
1 2
C u cos (15)
0 0
(19) provides the physical meaning of the Vesic (1961)
equation, which is simply an analogue, essentially allowing a
where i, and C(u) and S(u) are Fresnel integrals. beam on a Winkler foundation to exhibit similar displace-
Alternatively, the following relation may be used: ments and moments to those of a beam on an elastic
"p foundation when loaded with concentrated loads.
M max i2 X 1
j 4j 2 3 42 j1 2 j! 4 Because the above analogue refers to a beam resting on
1
EISmax 2 j! 1 4 j! the surface of an infinite half-space, Attewell et al. (1986)
j0
suggested taking twice the value of the Vesic expression, as
p the pipe is buried in the soil, K 2K1 . This value of K
2
5 (16) corresponds to the case where the pipe is buried at infinite
1 2 j! depth, and is not strictly true. However, for a pipeline
The
p limit of the above relations when i tends to zero is affected by tunnelling, it results in a higher estimation of
2 3 (can easily be seen from equation (15)), which is bending moment compared with a more suitable value be-
exactly the solution obtained under the assumption of a tween K1 and 2K1 for the embedment depth in question;
single concentrated load of magnitude P KVL,p where VL hence the use of K 2K1 is considered conservative.
is the volume loss at the pipe level, equal to 2 Smax i. This The basis for creating any analogue is that it should have
means that as the pipe rigidity increases it feels the soil the same input. Vesic (1961) derived equation (17) as an
loading increasingly as a localised loading. analogue on the basis that the two systems (i.e. Winkler and
Figure 6 shows a comparison of the above solution with elastic continuum) are loaded by the same external loads.
the numerical values derived by Attewell et al. (1986) to fit However, in the case of the effect of tunnelling on existing
their suggested solution. General agreement exists between pipelines, the basis for creating an analogue should be an
the numerical values and the current closed-form solution. identical input of greenfield settlement profile. As shown in
Fig. 5, the tunnel effect may be represented by a force
distribution along the pipe that relates to the greenfield
10 Current closed-form solution settlement. Only if this force distribution in both systems
(i.e. Winkler and continuum) is equal will the use of Vesics
08 expression result in identical bending moments in the two
Mmaxi 2/ElSmax
06
relatively small, as described previously. Itpwas
found
that in
order for the functions to fit closely, i 4 3=R. Rearrange-
ment of this equation leads the subgrade modulus to be
04 i/r0 5 25
equal to
02 Winkler solution 12Es r0
K (20)
3D elastic solution i
0
The coefficient of subgrade reaction, defined as k K/B (B
01 1 10 100 1000 10000
EI/Esr 04
2r0 ), is therefore equal to k 6Es /i. Fig. 8 shows the
comparison between the Winkler solution with the subgrade
Fig. 7. Comparison between continuum solution and Winkler modulus of equation (20) and the continuum solution as
solution using Vesic analogue before. Good agreement exists between the two. Hence it is
06
i/r0 5 25
04 i/r0 5 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
02 The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the
Winkler solution British Technion Society for enabling the collaboration be-
3D elastic solution
0 tween the Technion Israel Institute of Technology and
01 1 10 100 1000 10000 Cambridge University. The authors also wish to thank the
EI/Esr 04 Cambridge MIT Institute for sponsoring the project.
Fig. 8. Comparison between continuum solution and Winkler
solution under the new analogue
NOTATION
proposed to use equation (15) or (16) with equation (20) to B width of Winkler beam
EI pipe bending stiffness
compute the maximum sagging bending moment of a pipe
Es Youngs modulus of soil
subjected to tunnelling underneath. It should, however, be {F} force vector representing soil loading on pipe
noted that the current analysis is based on an assumption {f} forces acting on the soil medium
that the soil is linear elastic. In reality soil non-linearity will Gi, j Greens function defining elastic soil continuum displacement
be involved, and this requires further investigation. Neverthe- at point i due to unit loading at point j
less, for small displacement, where elastic behaviour dom- i distance to inflection point of greenfield settlement trough
inates, the elastic continuum solution is still valid. k coefficient of subgrade reaction
K subgrade modulus
[K*] local soil stiffness matrix
CONCLUSIONS K1 Vesics subgrade modulus
M bending moment in pipe
The problem of tunnelling effects on existing pipelines Mmax maximum bending moment in pipe (sagging)
was solved using an elastic continuum method using Mind- P force acting on Winkler system
lins Greens function and a more simplistic Winkler system. R pipe soil rigidity factor
A closed-form solution for the Winkler problem was derived r0 radius of pipe
for a case where the greenfield settlement trough caused by [S] stiffness matrix of pipe
tunnelling is described by a Gaussian curve. Smax maximum settlement in greenfield
The elastic continuum solution was compared with the Sv vertical settlement in greenfield
Winkler solution with a subgrade modulus based on the u pipe displacement
Vesic equation, which was employed by Attewell et al. uC soil continuum displacement
u CA additional displacement at a point due to forces acting at
(1986). It was found that Vesics expression, which was
other places
originally derived to give the same moments and displace- u CAP additional displacement resulting from forces of soil -pipe
ments under a concentrated load in a Winkler system as in interaction
an elastic continuum, is not necessarily adequate for the u CAT additional displacement resulting from the tunnel
problem of tunnelling effects on pipelines, and may not be u CL local continuum displacement, defined as the displacement at
conservative. It should be noted that the significant differ- a point due to its own loading
ence between the two models was observed in a region Z pipe embedment depth
where both models may possibly become inadequate because Winkler model damping factor
of potential violation of the model assumptions, and that a [s] soil flexibility matrix
different approach should be considered for solving the [*s] equal to [s] [K*]1
Poissons ratio of soil
problem. In the context of the comparison between the i, relative soil pipe stiffness
proposed continuum and Winkler models it was noted that if
in practice the application of a more sophisticated approach
is not undertaken, it is always safer to use the proposed
continuum method rather than the Winkler solution, as it REFERENCES
will either be closer to the accurate solution or at least more Attewell, P. B., Yeates, J. & Selby, A. R. (1986). Soil movements
conservative than the Winkler solution. induced by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and struc-
Although the comparison was made based on a Gaussian tures. London: Blackie & Son.
soil settlement trough, the inherent problems identified with Biot, M. A. (1937). Bending of an infinite beam on an elastic
the use of Vesics expression would also be relevant for foundation. J. App. Mech. Trans. ASME 59, A1A7.
different shape functions. Vesics expression is based on the Hetenyi, M. (1946). Beams on elastic foundation. Ann Arbor, MI:
fact that the Winkler and the continuum systems are loaded University of Michigan Press.
Mindlin, R. D. (1936). Forces at a point in the interior of a semi-
by identical external loads, but in the current problem they
infinite solid. Physics 7, 195202.
are subjected to the same settlement trough, which does not Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground.
necessarily result in the same loads. Therefore the use of Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Mexico City,
Vesics spring coefficient would not generally give identical 266290.
results to that of a continuum solution for settlement-induced Vesic, A. B. (1961). Bending of beams resting on isotropic elastic
loads. solids. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE 87, 3553.