International Pipeline Conference — Volume II
ASME 1998
A FULL-SCALE INVESTIGATION INTO PIPELINE/SOIL INTERACTION
M ich ael J . Paulin, Ryan Phillips, and Jack I. Clark
C-CORE, Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, Newfoundland, A 1 B 3 X 5 Canada
Tel: 709 -7 3 7-83 5 4 Fax: 709-737-4706
e-mail: mpaulin@engr.mun.ca
Ibrahim Konuk
Terrain Sciences Division, Geological Survey of Canada
601 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E8 Canada
Tel: 613-992-1952 Fax: 613-992-2468 e-mail: IKonuk@NRCan.gc.ca
ABSTRACT
The ability of oil and gas pipelines to respond safely to
soil movements is an important consideration in pipeline
design and route selection. There are a number of suggested
methods of analysing pipeline/soil interaction in the literature
most of which consider the pipeline to be connected to the
soil via a series of discrete nonlinear springs. Many of these
methods have generally been based on soil/structure
interaction studies developed for other types of buried
structures such as anchor plates and vertical piles. There are
few pipeline-specific theoretical or experimental results
available for comparison and validation of accepted
design/analysis methods. To remediate this lack of large-
scale pipeline-specific data, a full-scale pipeline/soil
interaction test facility has been established in St. John's
Newfoundland. This paper presents a description of the test
facility, details on experimental procedures, and comparative
results from lateral and axial testing in sand and clay.
INTRODUCTION
The ability of oil and gas pipelines to resist forces
associated with soil movements is an important
consideration in pipeline design and route selection. These
soil movements may be due to landslides, creep of slopes,
seismicity, adjacent earth works, external loading, thaw of
permafrost, or frost heave. Soil movements load the
pipeline and may cause damage depending on the soil
backfill type, pipeline properties, backfill system geometry,
soil/pipeline interface, orientation of the pipe to the soil
movement, and the loading rate. There are a number of
suggested methods of analysing pipeline/soil interaction in
the literature most of which consider the pipeline to be
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
IPC1998-2091
A lan Trigg
NOVA Gas Transmission Limited
P.O. Box 2535, Station M
Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2N6 Canada
Tel: 403 -2 9 0-75 7 4
Fax: 403 -2 9 0-66 6 4
e-mail: Alan.Trigg@pipe.nova.ca
connected to the soil via a series of discrete nonlinear
springs. Many of these methods have been based on other
soil/structure interaction studies such as anchor plate/soil
and pile/soii interaction. There are few pipeline-specific
theoretical or experimental results available for comparison
and validation of accepted methods. The experimental
results which are available tend to be small in scale and may
not be confidently extrapolated to the full scale for design
or analysis purposes.
The authors are involved in a large international "Joint
Research Project on Soil/Pipe Interaction Mechanisms and
Modelling". The project objective is to develop and validate
finite element analyses using laboratory data on soil
stress/strain and pipe/soil interface behaviour, and full scale
experimental data on pipe performance in soils. The overall
experimental program includes five types of pipeline/soil
loading test conditions including: upward movement, lateral
movement, downward movement, axial movement, and
diametral deflection monitoring. The Canadian partners in
the international program are responsible for the evaluation
of the force-displacement response of buried pipelines in
various sand and clay conditions under both lateral and axial
loading at full scale. To conduct this research, a full-scale
pipeline/soil interaction test facility has been established in
St. John's, Newfoundland, where approximately 2 4 large-
scale pipeline tests have been conducted.
Copyright © 1998 by ASME
 TEST FACILITY
The test facility was constructed in the engineering
laboratories of the Faculty of Engineering and Applied
Science of Memorial University of Newfoundland. Tw o
different test bed configurations were required for lateral
and axial load tests. The lateral tests required a 1 ,4m deep,
3.0m wide, and 3.0m long (12m 3) testbed. The axial tests
required a 1 .4m deep, 0 .6 3 m wide and 5.2m (4m 3) long
testbed. Since the tw o testbeds were not required
concurrently, both could be created within a single test
chamber as shown in Fig. 1. A partitioning wall filled with
concrete blocks was used to change the configuration of
the tank. The actuator system was common for all tests.
The reaction wall included tw o jacking points, each set in
0.3m from the edge of the tank. Both jacking points were
used in the lateral loading tests and only one jacking point
in the axial loading tests. The 35 tonne horizontal reaction
loads were transmitted through the reaction wall into the
tank. The other end wall included attachment points and
access ways for the axial pipeline receptor and associated
displacement transducer. Each testbed was lined with
plywood.
In general, the scope of facility commissioning activities
included the following: reconfiguration of the existing
modelling tank to facilitate test tank construction,
equipment installations, and material transport/storage; an
upgrade of electrical and pneumatic services; the design and
construction of a test tank with a reaction wall strength
adequate to withstand pipe actuator loads and soil
pressures; the design and construction of suitably supported
partioning walls as needed to reconfigure the tank for each
test type; the design, construction, assembly, and
commissioning of mechanical actuators with a 3 5 tonne
pulling capacity and speed control capability in the range of
0 .5 - 10mm /hr; an upgrade of the ventilation system to
provide improved air flow from the confined work space of
the testing facility; the installation of a gantry crane and
floor mounted tracking; and the installation and
commissioning of the data acquisition system. A typical
experimental layout for a lateral test is shown in Fig. 2 while
Fig. 3 presents typical layout for an axial test.
ACTUATOR SYSTEM
Tw o actuator systems were used in the lateral load
tests to share the reaction loads equally (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
One of these systems was also used for the axial load tests
(Fig. 3). The maximum required displacement on these
systems was determined to be 120m m at a target rate of
either 10mm/hour or 0.5mm/hour. A 1 0% variation on this
rate was permitted. The actuators were attached to the
reaction wall of the test tank through a support bracket. To
displace the pipelines, actuator rods (2" diameter) were
connected via an in-line load cell to the actuator system.
The primary mechanical components used in each actuator
were a high-torque, low power electric gear motor and a 35
tonne Duff-Norton screw actuator.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
The speed control system for the mechanical actuators
utilized the frequency variation of the power supply to the
motors to maintain near constant speed. For system
operation, the inverters were connected in a master/slave
configuration. The desired speed setting was programmed
into the master inverter which in turn output the setting to
the slave. A shaft mounted encoder on each of the motors
provided closed loop speed-load regulation. The output of
each encoder was fed back to its respective inverter
ensuring the output speed was equal to the command speed
for varying actuator loads. Safeties built into the system
included fault interlocking and limit switches. Should a
motor overload, inverter fault or power failure occur on
either side, both inverters automatically would shut down.
Each actuator also incorporated a set of limit switches. A
tripped limit switch on either side commanded both
actuators to stop.
EXPERIMENTAL INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA
ACQUISITION SYSTEM
Electronic as well as passive instrumentation were used
during each test. The force-displacement response of the
pipelines was monitored using 2 in-line, 35 tonne load cells
and 2 displacement transducers for the lateral loading tests
and 1 in-line, 35 tonne load cell and 2 displacement
transducers (one at each end of the pipe) for the axial
loading tests. The custom designed in-line tension load cells
which connect the actuator arms to the Duff-Norton
actuator were strain gauged with foil-type strain gauges in
a full Wheatstone bridge configuration.
An ultrasonic surface profiler was developed to profile
the testbed surface at specific pipeline displacements along
centreline of the pipes path. Due to the number of profiles
needed and the short time between profiles, the only
realistic way to obtain these movements was to develop a
mechanical system to traverse the testbed and to attach an
ultrasonic transducer to it. Activation of the system as well
as the position of the mechanical system and output from
the ultrasonic transducer were obtained through a dedicated
data acquisition system.
Displacement markers were developed to measure
movement within the testbed. This was accomplished
through anchors embedded at discrete locations within the
testbed soil mass and connected to linear string
potentiometers via flexible soft plastic tubing. The tubes
with attached tips were driven into the testbed using a
metal rod which ran down inside the tubing. A fter the
desired depth o f penetration was achieved, the rod was
withdrawn and the tubing trimmed approximately 50mm
above the testbed surface. The coordinates of the location
where the tubing intersected the surface were then
measured and recorded. Connected to the anchor tip was
a string which ran up inside the plastic tubing and which
was connected to the linear potentiometer mounted
overhead.
 Vertical deformation tubes were developed to measure
deformation profiles within the testbed. The deformation
tubes consisted of flexible plastic tubing connected to a
metal tip. The tubes and attached tips were driven the
complete depth of the testbed (or at least until they made
contact with the pipe) using a metal rod which ran down
the tubing and rested in a recess in the metal tip. Prior to
removal of the rod, the entry angles of the tubes both
parallel and perpendicular to the pipeline were measured and
recorded to determine pre-test positions of the tubes. The
rod was then withdrawn and the tube was free to deform
w ith the soil. The coordinates of the location where the
tubing intersected the surface were then measured and
recorded. Following the test, the position of the tubing at
the testbed surface was recorded. The tubes were then
injected with a fibreglass resin which was allowed to cure
overnight prior to beginning excavation. The excavation
was conducted in stages and care was taken during the
excavation process not to disturb the tubing by securing
them in place. This was accomplished by tying the tubing
in place during the sand excavation and by securing the
tubing in place with wire staples as a vertical face in the
clay was excavated. The positions of the tubes were
measured at 50m m elevation increments.
Data acquisition was performed using a PC based data
acquisition system. Amplification, transducer excitation
voltages and filtering were provided using a custom
designed signal conditioning system. Transducer signals
were digitized using a 16 bit data acquisition board
operating through Snapmaster, a Windows based data
acquisition program.
TESTING PROCEDURE
The sand used during testing was well-graded with a
maximum grain size of 4-5m m , a uniformity coefficient of 4,
and a coefficient of curvature of 0 .8 . During sand testbed
preparation, the pipelines were either put into position and
the testbed placed around it or a bedding layer was placed
and the pipeline positioned on the bedding layer. To prepare
the loose sand testbed (approximately 0 % relative density),
the sand was slumped from a container; to prepare the
dense sand testbed (approximately 1 00% relative density)
soil was placed in 100m m layers and compacted with a
vibratory tamper. The final smoothing of the soil surface
was achieved by using a reference grid and hand trowel. A
number of density checks with density pans were
incorporated into the preparation procedure to characterize
the testbed. As well, several density pans were left in the
testbed and were excavated following the test. Following
completion of the testbed, the internal displacement
markets and vertical deformation tubes were inserted into
the testbed and the acoustic surface profiler was positioned
over the test area.
The target pipeline displacement rate during the sand
tests was 10mm/hour and the actuator system provided the
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
target within 2 % . Following the test, heave and settlement
of the testbed surface was measured using a transit and
rod. Prior to excavation, soil penetration tests were
conducted at select points using Mackintosh and Tecnotest
probes. During excavation, density pans were removed and
checked and the positions of the displacement markets and
vertical deformation tubes measured and recorded.
The clay used during testing was a Grade D kaolin with
a liquid limit of 5 6 % , a plastic limit of 3 1 % and a specific
gravity of 2 .6 6 . This clay was reconstituted from powder
at either a 3 3 % or 3 7 % water content depending on
whether soft or stiff soil conditions were desired. The clay
was mixed in a 1 2 .3 m 3 Morton ploughshare mixer capable
of mixing 6 0 0 -7 0 0 k g of clay in 5-6 minutes. A fter mixing,
samples were taken and water contents determined as part
of the quality control process. During preparation of the
clay testbed, the soil was placed in loose 1 50m m layers,
petamped by hand using a tamping plate, and finally tamped
using a jackhammer to which a tamping plate had been
attached. This yielded a tamped layer of approximately
100m m thickness. The final elevation of the soil surface
was smoothed using hand trowels. A reference grid was
put in place to conduct a pre-test elevation survey of the
surface using a transit and rod. A number of tests were
undertaken during testbed preparation to characterize the
clay; a number of cone penetration, laboratory vane, and
hand vane tests were carried out. The cone penetration
tests were carried out using a Tecnotest Dynastar
Penetrometer. Following completion of the testbed, the
internal displacement markers and vertical deformation
tubes were inserted into the testbed and the acoustic
surface profiler was positioned over the test area.
The target pipeline displacement rate during the clay
tests was either 0 .5 or lOmm/hour and the actuator system
provided the target within 1% . The post-test elevation of
the testbed surface was measured using a transit and rod.
Prior to excavation, soil penetration tests were conducted at
selected locations using the Tecnotest probe. During
excavation, hand vane and mechanical laboratory van
measurements were taken. As well, a number of cores
were taken to assess the bulk density of the testbed for
triaxial testing. Again, the positions of the displacement
markers and vertical deformation tubes were measured and
recorded at 50m m elevation increments during excavation.
COMPARATIVE RESULTS
Normalized results from the lateral tests in sand are
presented in Fig. 4 while comparative results from the axial
tests are presented in Fig. 5. As the data are proprietary at
the present time, only relative pipeline loads from each test
are presented. Comparisons using suggested methods of
analysis from the literature (ASCE, 1984; Rowe and Davis,
1 9 82) have also been normalized and are presented in the
figures.
 The effect of the difference in relative densities on the
interaction in sand was significant. Post-peak lateral loads
in the dense sand are approximately 8 0 % greater than those
in the loose sand at large displacements. Post-peak axial
loads in the dense sand are on average approximately 160%
of those in the loose sand at large displacements. For the
lateral dense sand tests, some methods from the literature
provide reasonable approximations to the peak loads;
however, in the loose sand, literature methods over-predict
the load transferred to the pipe. Experimental results from
the axial dense sand tests are comparable to the load
suggested in the literature while in the loose sand tests, the
suggested method over predicts the axial loading. Figure 6
presents an example of measurements taken from the
vertical deformation tubes during excavation of one of the
lateral dense tests. During this test a rupture plane was
observed to appear at the soil surface in front of the
pipeline. The position of this rupture surface is quite
obvious from the vertical deformation tubes. Less soil
deformation was measured during the lateral tests
conducted in loose sand and little if any soil deformation
was measured following the axial tests.
During clay testing, between pre- and post-test
elevation measurements of the surface, settlement on the
order of 0-5m m was measured over the testbed which was
primarily attributed to soil shrinkage. Strength
measurements indicated approximate undrained strengths of
25-35kPa in the soft soil beds and 65-70kP a in the stiff soil
beds. Normalized results from the clay tests are presented
in Fig. 7 and 8. The effect of the difference in soil strength
on the interaction was significant.
Peak axial loads in the stiff clay were approximately
1 5 0 % of the peak loads in the soft clay for the faster
loading condition. However, post-peak loads after large
displacements tended towards 2 7 -3 7 % of the maximum for
both axial clay conditions. Comparing the tw o displacement
rates in the soft clay suggests that peak loads from the
slow tests were 2 5 % larger than those measured during the
fast tests. It was also observed that the post-peak trend in
the data during the soft, slow tests tended to increase with
increasing pipeline displacement. This can be attributed in
part to strength increase in the soil during the course of
running the tests. No obvious distortion of the testbed
surface was observed during the course of the test and the
vertical deformation tubes indicated no internal deformation
of the soil in the vicinity of the pipeline. A method of
analysis (ASCE, 1 9 8 4 ) from the literature has been
compared to the experimental data but has not been
presented in Fig. 7 as the suggested method yielded values
in excess of 5 0 0 % of the experimental values.
Apparent steady-state values from the lateral stiff clay
tests were approximately 100% higher than the same loads
measured during the tests in soft clay. Predictions using
ASCE (1 9 8 4 ) guidelines were found to yield peak loads
1 0 0 % greater than those found experimentally in the soft
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
clay and 1 5 0 % greater than those found experimentally in
the stiff clay. Excavation of the vertical deformation tubes
indicated soil deformation in front of the pipeline similar to
w hat was presented in Fig. 6.
ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF SELECTED RESULTS
Detailed analysis of the results is currently ongoing and
only selected analyzed results from the axial testing in clay
are available. For axially loaded pipelines in clay, the
Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines (ASCE, 1984)
suggests a pipeline displacement of 5.1 to 10.2 mm to
ultimate load. No distinction is made between distances to
ultimate load in soft and stiff clay. Values of 0 .3 to 0.6m m
have been interpreted from the force-displacement data
from the current test series which is an order of magnitude
lower than the minimum Com mittee recommendations
(ASCE, 198 4 ).
Ultimate loads (t„) from the axial force-displacement
data in clay have been used to back-calculate the adhesion
factor or empirical coefficient, a , in the equation
tu = n D a c u [ 1]
where D is the external pipeline diameter and cu is the
undrained shear strength of the soil. Experimentally derived
values of the empirical coefficient are presented on the
graph of Figure 9 along w ith suggested empirical
coefficients based on ASCE (1 9 8 4 ) recommendations for
comparison purposes. Comparison of the recommended and
experimentally derived empirical coefficients indicate a gross
over-estimation by the ASCE (1 9 8 4 ) recommendations.
NOVA Gas Transmission Limited (NGTL) has undertaken
a number of research programs to assess and refine the
magnitudes and variation of longitudinal pipeline/soil
interaction factors with a focus on cohesive soils (Rizkalla
e t at.. 1 9 9 6 ). NGTL field data and the interpreted upper
bound for the trend in the NGTL field data have also been
presented in Figure 9. The full-scale experimental data fall
below the suggested trend for the NGTL data but, as
(Rizkalla e t al.. 1 9 9 6 ) point out, substantial variation in a-
values are possible due to different pipeline coatings (a
compliant pipeline coating will reduce in diameter with shear
strain reducing the contact pressure between coating and
soil), depths of cover, soil sampling techniques and soil
conditions (e.g. OCR). It should also be noted that the
undrained shear strengths from the NGTL field tests were
not as accurately measured as in the experiments and that
the trend of Figure 9 is conservative in that the NGTL curve
of the figure lies above the majority of the field data points.
SUMMARY
This paper has presented a description of a full-scale
pipeline/soil interaction test facility in which 2 4 full-scale
tests were conducted. Data have been presented for lateral
and axial pipeline/soil interaction tests conducted in sand
 and clay. Detailed analysis of the experimental data is
ongoing. Some interpretation of the axial tests in clay has
been undertaken. Overall, the adhesion factors or empirical
coefficients back-calculated from the current experimental
data are grossly overestimated by suggestions in the
literature and are in better agreement with field values
obtained by NGTL during previous studies. Suggested
methods of analysis from the literature tend to overpredict
the experimental results.
REFERENCES
ASCE (1 984). "Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and
Gas Pipeline Systems". Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel
Lifelines, American Society of Civil Engineers, N ew York.
Rizkalla, M . Trigg, A ., and Simmonds, G. (1 9 9 6 ). “Recent
Advances in the Modelling of Longitudinal Pipeline/Soil
Interaction for Cohesive Soils”. Proceedings, Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Symposium, ASM E,
Vol. V , pp. 3 2 5 -3 3 2 .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Rowe, R.K. and Davis, E.H. (1 9 8 2 ). “The Behaviour of

This project is being conducted as part of a large Anchor Plates in Sand". Geotechnique, Vol. 3 2 , No. 1,
international Joint-Industry-Project “Joint Research Project pp. 2 5 -4 1 .
on Soil/Pipe Interaction Mechanisms and Modelling”.
Funding for the Canadian portion of the research is being
provided by NOVA Gas Transmission Limited, the
Government of Canada through the Program on Energy
Research and Development (Geological Survey of Canada),
and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada (NSERC). The significant contribution of the C-
CORE Centrifuge and Experimental Modelling Group to this
project is gratefully acknowledged.

Figure 1: Experimental Test Facility (Plan View)

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ACTUATOR

Figure 2: Lateral Load Tank Configuration

V e r tic a l In te rn a l
D eform ation Displacement
Tubes M a rk e rs

ACTUATOR

Figure 3: Axial Load Test Tank Configuration

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Relative Pipeline Load, %
Relative Pipeline Load, %

Increasing Pipeline Displacement

Figure 5: Experimental Results and Comparisons from Axial Load Tests in Sand

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 TUBC 5 TUBE 4 TUBE 3 T,JBE 2

__________________ ------------------------ *------------------------- * -------------------------- + -

♦ 4 ♦ 4
4 4 + 4
4 4 4 4
♦ 4 4 4
4. ----------- P r e - T e s t P o s itio n o f V e r t ic a l
4 4 4 4
-* 4 4 4 4. D e f o r n a t io n T u b e s ( A v e r a g e )
< 4 4 4 41 41 P o s t - T e s t P o s itio n o f V e r t ic a l
4 4 4 4 4^ D e fo r n a t io n T u b e s
4 ♦ 4 4
- 4 4 4
- 4 4 4
4 4 4 4
- A 4 4
4 <■ 4 4 4
- ► 4 - - 4*
- ► i •4 ► +
4 - 4 ■ 4-
4 4 1 4
- 4 4 4
4 ► 4 < 4
4 4 - 4
4 4 < 4
4 4 4
--------------------- 4
P r e -T e s t Pipe Position

Figure 6: Post-test Positions of Vertical Deformation Tubes as Measured

Following Excavation of Lateral Test in Dense Sand

Figure 7: Experimental Results and Comparisons

from Axial Load Test in Clay

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Increasing Pipeline Displacement
Figure 8: Experimental Results and Comparisons from Lateral Load Test in Clay

Figure 9: Comparison of a values suggested by ASCE (1 9 8 4 ), NGTL field and current experimental
data (Adapted from Rizkalla et a!., 1 9 96)

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/15/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use