Modeling of the Uplift Response of Buried

Pipelines

A. Janalizadeh Choobbasti
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Babol University of Technology, Babol,
Mazandaran, Iran

S. Firouzian, M. J. Vahdatirad*, A. Barari and D. Rezaei

Department of Civil Engineering, Babol University of Technology,
Babol, Mazandaran, Iran
* j_vahdati@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Over the years, researchers have tried to understand the complex behavior of buried pipelines
subjected to ground ruptures due to landslides, earthquakes, faults and uplift forces in shallow
trenches. In an attempt to understand this complex behavior, an experimental investigation program
has been carried out on uplift resistance of buried pipes. In this research, a new laboratory model is
developed. Several tests have been performed by utilizing this laboratory model. Uplift forces due to
raising water table causes the initiation of failure. Based on the data obtained two mechanisms are
presented. Mechanism of type one in which a sliding block with angled planes occurs in small
displacements and in dense soil, and a mechanism of type two, circulation mechanism associated to
soil flow under the pipe occurs in large displacement for dense soil and by continuing of loading and
the soil around the pipe flows circularly. Even though the load-applying system is completely different
than earlier studies, evidences found by this research are consistent with the previous research.
KEYWORDS: Laboratory model, Uplift, Buried pipeline, Sliding block mechanism,
Circulation mechanism.

INTRODUCTION
Safety energy systems, water and sewage, transportation and information infrastructure are the most
important aspects of development in a country. Over the past few decades, development of these systems
and more dependence of civil life to them, special in industrial countries change these systems as lifelines.
Using life word for above systems considers two aspects: firstly, life durability of society special in
critical situation and after that depends to keep operation of these systems, and secondly damaging of
these systems can cause worsen situation and addition damages, specifically more disturbance in
assistance and salvage.
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 2

Seismic ground faulting is a severe hazard for continuous buried pipeline; gas and sewage pipes like
other shallow facilities are susceptible to damage in uplift situations. Pipelines are often trenched, filled
with sand and covered to avoid damage to the pipes from anchors or for thermal insulation [1]. Since at
Mazandaran estate the underground water level is high and the pit fill by sand, so the conditions to
occurrence of uplift are prepare. Therefore, study of these phenomena is very important and availability
of an accurate model of uplift resistance is critical to the safe and economic design of pipelines. Excessive
upward movement may cause the pipe to bulge from the soil and lead to uplift. Pipe weight and soil uplift
resistance mobilization can be endured this phenomenon. Therefore, occurrence or nonoccurrence of
failure depends on such resistance of soil against uplift. Over the past 30 years, researchers have tried to
understand the complex behavior of buried pipelines subjected to ground ruptures most often via
numerical simulation and some laboratory tests, either full-scale or small-scale centrifuge tests, which are
needed to validate and confirm numerical simulation assumption and results. A number of different
formulations to determine uplift resistance for buried objects have been developed [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
Marston (1930) developed the first rational treatment of loading on buried conduits [9]. Marston’s
equation for positive projecting conduits (buried in fill), which is a vertical slip surface model, is used by
the American Water Work Association for designing pipelines supported by piles or piers [10]. Meyerhof
an Adams (1968) analyzed strip footing, assuming a planar failure surface and passive soil stresses [3].
Das and Seely (1975) reported uplift data for rectangular plates having a length-to-width ratio of five with
H/D ranging from 1-8 [11]. The tests were conducted in dry sand, which has 31o friction angle. Also,
reported data from drained uplift of pipes – albeit in sand rather than clay backfill – indicates that the
depth at which peak uplift becomes governed by a flow-round mechanism (rather than heave) is typically
H/D≥4 for loose backfill [12, 13, 14].

Rowe and Davis (1982) tested plate anchors having length-to-width rations ranging from 1-8.75 in
dry sand with a friction angle of 32o [5]. Matyas and Davis performed tests on 48-mm diameter rigid
pipes in loose sand with friction angles from 30-36o. The length-to-width ratio was 7.9, and H/D ranged
from 1.67-8.75 [2]. Wang et al. (2009) present the results from 10 minidrum centrifuge tests conducted at
the Schofield Centre, All these tests were designed to measure the uplift resistance of a pipeline installed
into stiff clay by trenching and backfilling [15].

A model has been presented by Troutmann et al. (1986) is used in this paper, which involved test box,
sand raining-device, Supporting Frame and loading system, measurement and data recording instruments
[16]. An electronic load cell and an extensometer measured uplift force and displacement of pipe with
accuracy of 1 mm, respectively and microcomputer recorded data. Another model that failure planes are
curve imperfect pyramid, suggested by Meyerhof & Adams (1968) is used [3].

This paper aims to explore the mechanisms of failure by a laboratory model that includes four parts,
which are Test box, filter, Measurement instruments, and loading System (water supply). Finally, two
mechanisms of failure were done by utilizing laboratory model and several tests. During the first stage of
uplift, a sliding block mechanism along angled shear planes can be identified. This mechanism occurs
during mobilization of peak uplift. After further displacement, a ‘circulation’ mechanism around the pipe
periphery is evident. The cavity that forms beneath the pipe during initial uplift is filled by slumping of
the surrounding soil [1]. By this, the present experiment results are compared with that of previous pipe–
soil interaction experiments and have agreement with them.
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 3

E
EXPERIM
MENTAL
L SET-UP
To deecrease the bo
oundary condiition effects, the
t model sellected as a recctangle cube. Dimensions of the
model also consider acccording to Trrautmann sugggestion and analyze
a with finite elemennt method by Rowe
R
& Davis, which model height and wide
w is 5 timess and its length 9 times of pipe diameter [5].

T
Test Box
x
Test box
b was mad de up of 10 mm
m shatterprooof glass. Acccording to maximum
m appplied pipe diaameter
that is 11 cm, wide, heeight and lenggth of box coonsidered 69 cm, 69 cm, and
a 177 cm, respectively.
r Body
glass wateertight and montage
m with aquarium strrong glue andd for preserviing from opening crack boolt an
angle in thhe middle of box
b height inn the corners (Fig.
( 1).

A meetal frame of (40×40×40

( m angle waas made to suustain the testt box. The boox was sustainned at
mm)
height by 20 cm brackkets for incom
ming and outggoing water (F
Fig. 2). The space
s between the rib andd glass
box filledd by gypsum so
s the entire box
b was rigid..

Figure
F 1: Seection x-x annd profile froom above thee test box

Filter
To ennsure that waater level wass raised unifo
formly (a neccessary assum mption of expperiment) a 10 1 cm
course aggregate was used
u at the boottom of the box
b to prevennt water from entering in a localized maanner.
Accordingg to Terzaghii & Peck critteria, two prinncipal requireements for a satisfactory filter, stabilitty and
wash out, were consideered in the soil properties [17].
[ The rockk fill can be observed
o in Fiig. 3.

Figure 2: The way

y of putting box into thee metal frame Figure 3: Applied bed
b in test box
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 4

Loading system (water supply)

In this laboratory test model, loading is induced by leakage force of entrance water to the box and
Archimedes force generation to floating pipe (uplift). Water enters from a tank with constant level and
discharges to the box. Figs. 4 and 5 show exit and entrance system for water. As shown in Fig. 5, the
control valve is regulated to let entrance water volume to be 50 cm3 per second, which was kept constant
in all tests.

Figure 4: Water exit and entrance system Figure 5: A schematic of exit and entrance system

Measurement equipment
Measuring tools involves extensometer, piezometer and water surface evaluation pipe. Figs. 6 and 7
indicate these measurement tools.

Figure 6: Extensometer with accuracy of Figure 7: Installing the load cell

0.01 mm and related equipment on the test frame
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 5

PREPARING TEST APPARATUS AND REGULATING

MEASURING TOOLS
10 cm compacted bed was constructed on the bottom of coarse bed, primarily. This bed prevents
more pipe settlement during the test. Furthermore, Piezometer reaches to their actual level. Density of the
bed was obtained by compaction and submerging (Fig. 8).To ensure uniform density in two states of
loose & dense sand samples, and according to the buried pipe depth, defined final surface of the soil on
the body of test box (Fig. 9). Based on dimensions of test box and dry density in loose & dense modes,
the volume of filling and weight of the sample can be calculated easily for each test.

Figure 8: The manner of compacting of Figure 9: Prepared bed and sign line of
buried pipe bed by submerging backfill

Preparing sample in loose state

After determining the sample's weight, pipe was laid in the middle of the bed straightly, in which
every side was limited by Unlit and aquarium glue and completely have done level (Fig. 10). Two plates
that their width are more than pipe's diameter with thickness of 75 mm are installed at the two ends of
pipelines separately (Fig. 11) to create a distance between the top of the pipe and body of the box. Hence,
the friction will be eliminated and the failure mechanism can be observed clearly.

Figure 10: The way of putting pipe and Figure 11: The location of separator
leveling with laboratory accuracy planes on two side of pipes
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 6

After filling the box by sand, sample surface was made smooth with laboratory accuracy to reach a
constant height of soil in all points on the pipe, then extensometer was installed in the middle of the pipe
and separator planes were exited. Fig. 12 indicates the prepared sample for beginning test.

Preparing sample in dense state

For preparing sample in dense mode all steps that explained in last section were carried out except
burial depth. It was divided to four layers. Each layer compacted by a 2 kg compactor to obtain the
desirable dense that is shown in Fig 13. To control the specific weight of sample in each case, sandy cone
method (in-situ density) was used according to ASTM D 1556-82.

Figure 13: The way of compaction and the

Figure 12: Prepared sample
instrument

Piezometer monitoring
When water discharged to the test box constantly, height of Piezometer and water level in scaled pipe
have been recorded in beginning the vertical displacement of pipe in a range of 1 cm. By 1 cm increasing
water increase in the first Piezometer, the water level in second load cell located in the scaled pipe (the
pipe for determining water level) and displacement in extensometer were recorded. The test continued
until the pipe displacement of 5 cm or the displacements were halted. At the end of each test, the water of
set-up was discharging by the hose such as Fig. 5 to prepare the box for the next test and remove the
sample.

Testing soil materials

The test-utilized material was selected from Babolsar shore. Laboratory tests according to ASTM
standard was performed to determine the type of soil, specific gravity of solid particles G, permeability,
maximum and minimum dense and internal friction angle. Grading curve is presented in Fig. 14 and the
soil type is recognized SP (or poor graded sand). According to Terzaghi & Peck criteria [17], grading
limits of filter using grading curve indicated in Fig. 14. The soil density obtained by ASTM D 854-87
[18] and the mean value was 2.66 in three tests. By performing three permeability tests, the mean value of
permeability coefficient was obtained 0.00225 cm/sec.
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 7

Figure 14: soil and filter grading curve of sand

The magnitudes of maximum and minimum of dry density (γ d ) were equal to 1.78 gr/cm3 and 1.38
gr/cm3, respectively. Several direct shear tests were performed to determine the shear strength parameters
of soil, in two modes of loose (γ = 1.45 gr / cm 3 ) and dense (γ = 1.78 gr / cm3 ) with wet sample by 25, 50
and 100 kg overburdens, which internal angle friction for the samples were obtained 32.9o and 37.6o,
respectively. This test has done according to ASTM D 3083-90 [19].

OBSERVED FAILURE MECHANISM

The sand density was 1.78 gr/cm3 and the testing pipe was composed of P.V.C , with diameter of 11
cm and burial depth of 11 cm. Fig. 15 indicates the cross section of the backfill before the test.

Figure 15: Cross section of backfill with

H/D=1

Two failure mechanisms were observed during the tests. A sliding blocks mechanism along angled
planes in dense samples that was shown in Fig. 16a and after that a ‘circulation’ mechanism around the
pip (Fig. 16b) [1].
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 8

Figure 16: Diagram of force-displacement in failure mechanism of soil over

the pipe through uplift force

The uplift resistance decreases abrupt when the maximum strength occurred, as shown in Fig. 16d
and soil failure occurs above the pipe such as Fig. 16a and beyond peak uplift, resistance drops by over
40%. After further displacement, a ‘circulation’ mechanism around the pipe occurs (Fig 16b, 16d) [1]. In
this case, the magnitude of force to exit the pipe decreases about 40 % and huge displacement induced by
such small amount of force, also two pits create beneath the pipe. Fig. 18a shows that the failure planes
are inclined at 20o &17o to the vertical.

CALCULATION THE UPLIFT FORCE

To achieve the relationship between resistance and uplift force according to observed failure
mechanism, the variations of normal stress on shear planes should be considered. At the initial condition,
the vertical and horizontal stress in the element at depth of z can give by equations 1, 2:
σ v′0 = γ ' z (1)
σ h′ 0 = K γ ' z (2)

When uplift occurs, vertical stress increases to the maximum strength, then the over pipe soil fails.
Whereas, No interlock aggregate resistance will remain in shear planes of slide block, buried pipe will be
float over the soil. Therefore, Mohr’s cycle changes from initial stress conditions and will be tangent on
failure envelope with angle φ max [1]. Mohr’s cycle is shown in Fig. 18, In the maximum uplift resistance,
the vertical stress can be computed as the following:
σ ′ = (1 + K 0 )γ ′z / 2 − (1 − K 0 )(γ ′z cos 2 β ) / 2 (3)
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 9

According to Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria for in cohesion soils, equation 4 is expressing the shear
strength of soil:
τ = σ ′. tan φmax (4)

When Eq. (3) substitute into the Eq. (4), the shear stress in shear plane is obtained by equation 5 [1]:
τ = γ ′z tan φ max (1 + K 0 ) / 2 − (1 − K 0 )(cos 2 β ) / 2 (5)

Based upon Fig. 19, shear force and vertical force on shear plane can be computed as the following
relationships:

T = τ ⋅ dt (6)

N =  σ ′.d t (7)

Figure 18: Mohr’s circle of soil element on sliding plane

The corresponding magnitude of T and N according to the failure, obtain by the equations 8, 9.
dZ
τ = γ ' H 2 tan φ max [(1 + K 0 ) / 2 − (1 − K 0 ) cos 2β / 2] 2 cos β
H
T = 0 (8)
cos β
dZ
= γ ' H 2 tan φ max [(1 + K 0 ) / 2 − (1 − K 0 ) cos 2 β / 2] 2 cos β
H
N =  σ'. (9)
0 cos β
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 10

By considering the vertical equilibrium of the sliding block, uplift force in length of pipe is obtained
by the following relationship:

Fuplift = γ ' HD + 2γ ' H .H tan β / 2 + 2T cos β − 2 N sin β (10)

Figure 19: Observed failure mechanism

By substitute Eq. (8 and 9) in Eq. (10) the uplift force in length of pipe is equal to equation 11 [1]:

Fuplift = γ ' HD + γ ' H 2 tan θ + γ ' H 2 (tan φ max − tan θ )[(1 + K 0 ) 2 − (1 − K 0 ) cos 2θ / 2 ] (11)

The tests illustrate that failure mechanism with angled planes to the vertical, occurs in dense coarse
grain soils in initial stages and in large displacements, this mechanism changes to ‘circulation
mechanism’, but for loose soils this mechanism is circulation from the primary stage.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To further investigate the effects of pipe burial depth and soil density, several tests were conducted
using special weights of γ = 1.45 gr / cm 3 and γ = 1.78 gr / cm 3 , with burial ratios of H/D=0.7, 1, 1.3
and 1.6. The force per unit length versus vertical displacement is plotted in Fig. (20-22). It is plotted for
different burial depths in loose and compact sand. For compact sand, uplift resistance increases in small
displacement limitation, and in displacement, lower 1 mm reaches to the maximum value, as shown in
Fig. 20, then the soil above the pipe failures and uplift resistance drops considerably. When this force
reaches to 60 % of maximum resistance, will be permanent within the soil as a residual force. Observed
failure mechanism in small displacement domain is type of sliding block mechanism with angled planes.
By continue the loading, uplift resistance decreases more and more to reach the residual amount in large
displacements, so corresponding failure mechanism changes from sliding block to circulation mechanism
and soil flows beneath the pipe. There is similar situation when soil is loose (Fig. 22). It means that by
increasing the depth of pipe, uplift resistance will increase, but failure mechanism is circulation from the
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 11

beginning of test and associated with soil flow under the pipe so is not observed any sign of sliding block
mechanism with angled planes.

Figure 20: Force-displacement diagram with H/D= 0.7

The cavity that forms beneath the pipe during initial uplift is filled by slumping of the surrounding
soil that this shows circulation mechanism around the pipe. It seems that loose sand has an important role
in determining observation mechanism type. Sand particles settle around the pipe quickly as result of
increasing water level and absence of interlock aggregate force in loose soil, induce quickly settlement
around the pipe. The comparison among Figures (20, 21 and 22) indicates that residual strength when the
soil is loose will be more than dense mode, because in dense situation failure is angled slide block (Fig.
19). Cracks induce in this block by movement toward up as Fig. 16(a) and the remained soil above pipe is
less than when soil is loose. Therefore, resistant force in this mode is less than residual resistant of loose
soil.

Figure 21: Force -displacement diagram with H/D= 1

According to dependence soil shear strength to load and because of decreasing vertical stress in this
mode, above analyzing is logical. In addition, Figure (20, 21 and 22) shows that with increasing soil
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 12

compaction, increase strength against uplift. Diagrams show that the effect of special weight is more than
depth. For sample for H/D=0.7 (Fig. 20) by increasing 20% of special

Figure 22: Force-displacement diagram with H/D = 1.3

Weight, strength increase 20% against uplift while to achieve 20% strength more, should depth
increase 40%. According to diagrams 23, 24, 25 observed that with increasing depth the value of resistant
against uplift would increase and this result is right for residual strength.

Figure 23: Force-displacement diagram with H/D = 1.6

 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 13

Figure 24: Force–displacement diagram for different depths of dense sand

Figure 25: Force–displacement diagram for different depths of loose and dense sand

CONCLUSION
A laboratory model was designed and constructed to analyze behavior of buried pipes in different
cases of dense and depth.

The results of this laboratory model provided two types of failure mechanisms:

• A mechanism of type one (sliding block with angled planes) that occurs in small displacements and
more related to tests for dense soil.
• A mechanism of type two (circular mechanism associated to soil flow under pipe) occurs in large
displacement for dense soil and for loose soil occurs from the beginning steps.

From economic point of view, design of pipes based on mechanism of type 1 is accomplished by
reduced costs. Tests show that special weight has more effect on uplift resistance than depth. It is
observed that an increase of 20% in special weight is equivalent to an increase of 40% in buried depth
 Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 14

when uplift resistance increases 20%. From economic point of view, increasing buried depth has greater
cost than increasing special weight.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the support and assistance provided by the Babol University of
Technology, Mazandaran, Iran.

REFERENCES
1. White, D.J., Barefoot, A.J., and Bolton, M.D. (2000) “Centrifuge Modelling of Upheaval
Buckling in Sand,” Cambridge University Engineering Department.
2. Matyase, E.L., and Davis, J.B. (1983) “Prediction of Vertical Earth loads on Rigid Pipes”, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 109, No.GT2, Paper17716, pp. 190-201.
3. Meyerhof, G.G., and Adams, J.I. (1968) “The Ultimate Uplift Capacity of Foundations”,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 225-244.
4. Kulhawy, F. H., Trautmann, C. H., Beech, J. F., O’Rourke, T. D., McGuire, W., Wood, W. A.,
and Capano, C. (1983) “Transmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift-Compression
Loading,” Research Report EL-2870, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., Feb.,
412 pp.
5. Rowe, R.K., and Davis, E.D. (1982) “The Behavior of Anchor Plate in Sand,” Géotechnique, Vol.
32, No. 1, London, England, pp. 25-41.
6. Spangler, M. G. (1962) “Culverts and Conduits”, Foundation Engineering, G. A. Leonards, ed.,
Chapter 11, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., pp. 965-999.
7. Vesić, A. S., (1971) “Breakout Resistance of Objects Embedded in Ocean Bottom,” Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, pp. 1183-1205
8. Spangler, M. G., and Handy, R. L. (1982) “Soil Engineering”, Harper & Row, New York, N.Y.,
819 pp.
9. Marston, A. (1930) “The Theory of External Loads on Closed Conduits in the Light of Latest
Experiments,” Bulletin 96, Iowa Engineering Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa.
10. American Water Works Association (1967) “USA Standard for Thickness Design of Cast-Iron
Pipe,” Standard H1-67, New York, N.Y., 78 pp.
11. Das, B. M., and Seely, G. R., (1975) “Breakout Resistance of Shallow Horizontal Anchors,”
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, vol. 101, No. GT9, Sept., pp. 999-
1003.
12. Van den Berghe, J.F., Cathie, D., and Ballard, J.C. (2005) “Pipeline uplift mechanisms using
finite element analysis.” Proceedings of 16th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Osaka, 1801-1804.
13. White, D.J., Barefoot, A.J., Bolton, M.D. (2001) “Centrifuge modeling of upheaval buckling in
sand.” International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Vol. 2 1:19-28
Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M 15

14. Schupp, J., By

yrne, B.W., Eacott,
E N., Maartin, C.M., Oliphant,
O J., Maconochie,
M A. and Cathhie, D.
(22006) “Pipeliine unburial behaviour inn loose sandd” Proc. 25thh Internationnal Conferencce on
O
Offshore Mech hanics and Arrctic Engineerring, Hamburrg. OMAE20006-92541.
15. W
Wang, J., Haig
gh, S.K., andd Thusyanthaan, N.I. (20099) “Uplift Reesistance of Buried
B Pipelinnes in
B
Blocky Clay Backfill”,
B KW
W Ltd., Fetchamm, Surrey, Unnited Kingdom, Paper No.. 2009-TPC-5564.
16. T
Troutmann, C..H., O’Rourkke, T.D., Kulhhawy, F.H. (11986) “Upliftt Force-Displacement Respponse
SCE, Vol. 113 , No. 1, pp.1061-
off Buried Pipee,” Journal of Geotechnicall Engineeringg Division, AS
10076.
17. Das,
D Braja M. (1998) ‘Princciples of Geottechnical Enggineering,” Unniversity of Texas
T at El Paaso.
18. American
A Sociiety of Testinng and Materiaals (ASTM), No. D 854-877.
19. American
A Sociiety of Testinng and Materiaals (ASTM), No. D 3083-990.

© 2009 ejgge