Proceedings of Plastics Pipes XI

Munich, Germany, 3rd - 6th September 2001

Soil-Structure-Pipe Interaction with Particular

Reference to Ground Movement Induced
Failures
J.L. OLLIFF and S.J. ROLFE
Montomery Watson

D.C WIJEYESEKERA and J.T. REGINOLD

University of East London

ABSTRACT
Soil-pipe interaction studies generally recognise the significance of deformations in the
pipe due to soil loading, but not differential ground and structure movements, which can
induce excessive stress concentrations in the pipeline. Plastics pipes can suffer failure due
to such movements, though their flexibility makes them less vulnerable than rigid pipes.
This study examines the problems of interaction between pipelines and the surrounding
soil medium, subjected to differential ground movement.

A procedure for predicting pipeline settlements, based on strip foundation theory is

presented, and a detailed analysis is made of failures encountered by a group of submarine
plastics pipelines.

INTRODUCTION
Structural pipeline design is a subject that has been in and out of fashion over the
years. The first description of the behaviour of buried flexible pipelines under load was
given by Clarke(1) in 1897. Most of the research work in the next 40 years was on the
behaviour and design of rigid pipelines in the cross-sectional direction, most famously
by Marston, Spangler(2) and Schlick. The first analysis of flexible pipe behaviour taking
account of both soil and pipe stiffness was published by Lazard(3) in 1935.
The behaviour of a buried pipeline will depend very much on how its stiffness compares
with the stiffness of the native soil in which it is to be buried. Although traditionally
rigid materials are thought of as being concrete, clay and asbestos cement, and flexible
materials are thought of as being the plastics, the differentiation is not as simple as this.
The response of the pipes under load will be largely dependent on the behaviour of the
native soil. If the pipes are of medium stiffness (say 20,000N/m2), and buried in a stiff

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

1128

Plastics Pipes XI

Fig. 1 Soil at the sides of the pipeline compresses more than soil over the pipeline, and
due to friction, increases the load on the pipeline.

soil (such as a dense gravel of Es , soil modulus 150MN/m2, K, soil stiffness = 111 MN/m2)
then the pipes will exhibit predominantly flexible behaviour, i.e. they will tend to
deflect on loading. If, however, the same 20,000 N/m2 stiffness pipes are buried in a soft
soil (such as a very soft clay of Es 15 MN/m2, K 11 MN/m2), then the pipes will
exhibit predominantly rigid behaviour, i.e. they will tend to settle into their foundation
on loading. Pipes exhibiting rigid behaviour are those which attract a backfill pressure
which is higher than the overburden stress ( * H) value. In analysis, the overburden
pressure on a rigid pipeline, H, is multiplied by a load concentration factor, C1 (closely
related to the CC used in the U.K. and American tradition), which is greater than unity.
The reason for the load on a rigid pipeline being greater than gH is because the soil to the
sides of the pipes in the trench tends to compress more than the pipes themselves, and
hence by friction, additional load is placed on the column of soil above the pipeline, see
Figure 1.
Equilibrium of the pipeline demands that the vertical load (pressure multiplied by
diameter) is matched by the foundation reaction, and the increase in vertical load on the
pipes above the overburden value therefore increases the pressure on the foundation soil
beyond the previously existing overburden value. In addition, this load is transferred to
the underlying soil only over a small arc at the base of the pipeline, meaning that the
greater load distributed over a smaller area inevitably leads to the settlement of the
pipeline into the underlying soil. The resulting settlement of the pipes into the foundation
soil, in turn reduces the value of C1 until a new equilibrium is reached. This process of
interaction was taken account of by Marston and Spangler in their settlement-deflection
PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

Soil-Structure-Pipe Interaction with Particular Reference to Ground Movement

1129

ratio (rsd), which included a term (sf) denoting the settlement of the pipeline into its
foundation.

TRADITIONAL APPROACH
Generally speaking, if structural pipeline design is done at all, it is limited to the
cross-sectional design. Settlement is rarely, if ever, considered, and when it is, the chances
are that the chosen method of analysis will be a weight comparison calculation. In this
traditional approach the weights of the pipeline full of water, the pipe embedment and
the backfill are compared with the weight of the soil mass they replace in the trench,
with the difference in weights leading to a settlement prediction. This approach is wrong
because it overlooks one crucially important point - the pressure redistribution. As an
analogy, why must ladies not wear stiletto heels in halls with wooden floors? Because
the heels mark the floors. Why do the heels mark the floors? Are the ladies too heavy to
walk on the floor? The reason the heels mark the floors, of course, is because the ladies'
weight is transferred to the floor over a very small area. The same principle applies to
pipelines. As well as attracting a pressure greater than the previous overburden value,
which was present before the excavations began, stiff pipelines often transmit their
load to the underlying soil over a width which is less than the pipeline diameter. Hence
the settlement which occurs is likely to be much greater in magnitude than the value
predicted from a weight balance approach, which assumes uniform pressure distribution
on the trench bottom.
There are a number of ways of mitigating the effects of pipeline settlement. Both
Barnard4 and Leonhardt5 assumed a zone of influence around a buried pipeline, in
which the pipe-soil interaction occurred, extending a maximum of 2 pipe diameters
from the pipeline in every direction. If the native soil in this zone was very soft, therefore,
it could be removed to a depth of 2 pipe diameters beneath the pipeline, and replaced
with an incompressible material in order to minimise settlement. This might be a
reasonable solution with a small diameter pipeline, but with large diameter pipelines the
cost could be prohibitive.
Rigid, cement mortar pipe joints, as widely used in the nineteenth century, and often
well into the twentieth century, were eventually realised frequently to crack. The solution
was the adoption of flexible mechanical joints, sealed by rubber rings, and joints of this
type were widely adopted for use with PVC and GRP pipes. The success of such joints
in solving many problems led most engineers to believe they could solve all problems.
This resulted, for example, in recommendations that two such flexible joints should be
provided, close together, where pipelines approach and enter structures.6 The mistaken
belief was that these two flexible joints, and the short length rocker pipe between
them, would satisfactorily accommodate differential settlement between the pipeline
and the structure. What was overlooked, of course, was that the shorter the rocker
pipes were made, the greater would be the angles through which their joints would have

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

1130

Plastics Pipes XI

to rotate to accommodate a given amount of differential settlement. Short length may

therefore have reduced the risk of longitudinal bending failures in rocker pipes, but it
did this at the expense of increasing the risk of joint damage. The vulnerability of short
pipes to damage by settlement is well known, and is frequently observed in closedcircuit television surveys of clay pipe sewers.7 The mechanism by which damage occurs
has been described by Rolfe.8
The traditional approach therefore exacerbates the problems of differential settlement.
At the same time, the trend towards higher ring stiffnesses which has been followed in
the design of some plastics pipes, for example GRP and profile-wall polyethylene, has
brought these pipes into the semi-rigid category. Such pipes, when installed in soft
soils, then attract backfill pressure concentrations which cause them to settle into their
foundation soils.
The abilities of different types of pipe to accommodate the shear forces, bending
moments, curvatures and joint rotations caused by settlement and differential settlement,
vary greatly. This variation is evident between the different types of plastics pipe. The
low elongation at break of GRP pipes makes them unsuitable for accommodating the
longitudinal curvature which tends to develop as pipelines try to follow ground
settlements. Polyethylene pipes, on the other hand, having very large elongations, are
ideally suited for use where large settlements, and differential settlements, will occur.
The widespread lack of awareness of these problems, amongst consulting engineers,
contractors, and even some pipe manufacturers, often results in the adoption, or at least
proposal, of inappropriate pipe materials. The consequent failure, delays, and extra costs,
are harmful to all parties.

STRIP FOUNDATION APPROACH (OLLIFF 1994)9

Awareness of the patently incorrect assumption of uniform pressure distribution implicit
in the traditional approach, led the first two authors' company to develop a more rational,
and safer approach.
This approach consists of taking the vertical soil load on the pipeline, as calculated
for the normal cross-sectional design, and estimating the resulting settlements, by
analysing the pipeline as a strip foundation responding to that load. The procedure was
presented to the CEN committee attempting to draft a "common European method" for
structural pipeline design in 1994.9
The essential steps in the analysis are as follows:
1. Calculate pipe-soil stiffness ratio (e.g by Greatorex10, 11) using Eqn. 1

n = E / (105 S + 0.8 E )

(1)

2. Estimate vertical soil pressure concentrations factor using Eqn. 2

C1 =1 + 0.585 (1 n )

0.48

0.0875 (1 n ) D H

(2)

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

Soil-Structure-Pipe Interaction with Particular Reference to Ground Movement

1131

This formula closely reproduces the rigorous Marston-Spangler result, by combining

Greatorex's solution (from Eqn. 1) for the settlement-deflection ratio, with the
concentration factor proposed by Olliff.12
3. Calculate elastic settlement using Eqn. 3a (Spangler based methods) or Eqn. 3b (ATV/
ONORM based methods).

e = (C1 1)(2 T D ) H D E

(3a)

e = (C1 1) H D 0.6 E4

(3b)

4. Calculate long-term consolidation settlement in cohesive soils using Eqn. 4

c = 0.009 (LL 10 )T log (1 + C1 ) / (1 + eo )

(4)

This approach was first proposed by Olliff(9), and early verification of this approach
was obtained by comparing predicted elastic settlements with observed initial settlements
of a concrete pipe sewer in Hong Kong. The settlement predicted by Eqn. 3a was
180 mm, whilst observed settlements averaged 134 mm, but reached a maximum of
275 mm.

BEAM EFFECTS
The differential settlement between two points, distance l apart, is expressed in terms
of angular distortion . This should not exceed the allowable angular distortion all.

max =

s1 s2 s2 s3

all
l1
l2

(5)

Foundation settlements depend on the compressibility of the foundation, and the

magnitude of the pressure concentration. The influence of these is likely to vary along
the length of a pipeline, resulting in a variable settlement profile. These differential
settlements cause bending moments in the pipe barrels, shear forces across the pipe
joints, and angular rotation of the joints.
Frequently, adverse bending moments and shears induced by differential settlement
arise at positions where the pipelines approach structures. Most pipe joints can
accommodate angular movements of 0.5 to 4.0, so that the amount of differential
settlement a rocker pipe can accommodate is its length multiplied by the tangent of a
relatively small angle which may amount only to a few millimetres. Furthermore, the
settlements adjacent to structures can be relatively much larger, and accentuated by loose
backfill material beneath the pipeline, or raised ground levels in the formation around
the structure.
Vertical displacement of rocker pipe = L Sin
(6)
where L is the length of the rocker, and the joint rotation.
PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

1132

Plastics Pipes XI

This relationship suggests that longer pipes are desirable to accommodate large
differential settlements, but increasing the length of the pipe will also increase the shear
forces at the joints, and the bedding moment in the pipe. The first free pipe can be
regarded as a simply supported beam carrying a uniformly distributed load, in which
case the maximum bending moment will be:
M = 0.125 Pv.da.L2

(7)

In the case of flexible pipes, the limiting bending moment is more likely to be controlled
by consideration of stability against buckling, than bending stress. According to
Lundquist,13 the critical longitudinal bending moment for a pipe is given by the following
formula:
(8)
Mc = K.E.rm.t2/(1-v2)
The designer must first decide how much settlement is acceptable. This should include
consideration of the following possible constraints:
The bending strength of the pipes. (Note: the product standards for clay, concrete and
fibre - cement pipes all include minimum requirements for the moment of resistance
of small diameter pipes),
The shear strength of the pipes. (Note: this may be particularly significant for the
socket of mechanical joints and for butt fusion joints in polyethylene pipelines) and
Leak - tightness of mechanical joints. (Note: some pipe product standards include
requirements for shear force resistance whilst remaining watertight).

CALCULATION OF SETTLEMENT
Following Selvadurai14 (1984) and Fletcher and Herrmann15 (1971) we have the
following for near surface and deeply buried pipelines
Authors
Shallow
Foundation
Deep
Foundation

Selvadurai
(1984)

K=
K

0.65 E s
1 v S2

Fletcher and
Herrmann (1971)
K C (v ) E S

C (v ) 0.65 1 + v 2

Foundation Settlement

6 E S (1 + v S )
K C (v ) E S
(1 v S )(3 4vS ) C (v ) 0.60 3 + 2v 2

J.L.Olliff (1994)

Z = (C1 1.0 )(2 T D0 )H D0 E 3

Where T = Thickness of bedding

material under pipes

The foundation stiffness parameter K depends on the elastic constants, Elastic

modulus and Poissons ratio (ES and S) of the soil medium surrounding pipeline. It must
be emphasised that these approximate expressions are valid for situations in which the
soil/pipe material modular ratio satisfies the constraint (Es/E) < 0.01. Also, in these
expressions the material parameters encountered are the elastic modulus and Poisson's

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

Soil-Structure-Pipe Interaction with Particular Reference to Ground Movement

1133

ratio of the soil surrounding the buried pipeline. The assumed linear elastic behaviour
will be valid only for soils, which are strictly valid for small strains within the vicinity of
the buried pipeline. It may be noted that although the ground displacements are large the
ground strains around the pipeline region are expected to be small. The linear elastic
moduli for the soil medium can be estimated from results of triaxial tests conducted on
samples of the backfill material or the undistributed soil, Winterkorn and Fang16 (1974).
The cell pressure in the triaxial test is taken as H0 where is the unit weight of the
backfill or the natural soil. Typical results for Es and ns are given by Bowles17 (1977) and
Selvadurai18 (1979).

CASE STUDY
This case study presents the failure, at the point of commissioning, of a network of
offshore GRP pipelines, serving as intake pipelines installed in a powerhouse project.
Information was gathered by one of the authors, who was employed by the contractors
on the project, but the exact location details of the case study are not disclosed. Sandy
silts and occasionally sands and silty sands cover the seabed which gently deepens
reaching a maximum depth of 10 metres over the area that was actually investigated.
Three main lithological units occur in the submarine strata over a depth of 40 m from the
sea bed. Borehole investigations were carried out along the line of intake pipelines. The
nearest borehole to the shoreline was located at a distance of approximately 500 m,
which is similar to the soil properties of the near shore pump house foundation area. The
field geological data together with the interpreted logs from seven boreholes indicate
that the thickness and nature of the superficial and channel deposits vary over very short
distances, characteristic of the near shore depositional processes in a channel. An uneven
nature of the bedrock (marl) was observed from seismic surveys and showed the presence
of channel deposits overlying the marl. The geotechnical investigations revealed that
the superficial deposits are mainly composed of loose to very loose, soft to very soft
dark grey clayey sandy silts with an abundance of seaweeds and shells in some places.
These gave unfavourable geotechnical conditions with highly compressible soils having
almost no cohesion and very low angles of friction. The channel deposits were a more
favourable formation than the overlying superficial deposits due to the presence of
cemented horizons with an absence of fines and organic material. The dark grey marl
bedrock was therefore a relatively homogeneous formation with reasonable geotechnical
characteristics. The presence also of a Khaki marl with higher plasticity and
compressibility than the dark grey hard marl occurred in the transition zone accentuating
the threat of differential settlement.
The geotechnical properties for the superficial deposits overlying the marly bedrock
is summarised as follows for the purpose of this paper:

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

1134

Plastics Pipes XI

Bulk density: 1.6 1.9 Mg/m3

Clay fraction of 30-80 %
Liquid limit of 30-50%
Plastic Limit of 0-27%

Consolidation characteristics of Cc = 0.46

mv = 0.6 1.5 m2/MN,
Es = 0.6 -1.7MN/m2.
Unconfined compressive strength qu = 0.290.35 MPa.
Along the transition zone in the vicinity of the pumphouse, the trench for the pipeline
was excavated to the marly bedrock. The minimum depth of the trench was 200 mm
below the elevation of the pipeline invert. Ground investigations suggested that the
required excavation to reach the bedrock level would not exceed 300 mm below the
base of the pipeline, and in most cases, some excavation of the marl was required in
order to satisfy the minimum bedding thickness requirement of 200 mm.
The Filament wound GRP pipes of stiffness 2500 N/m2 were installed in 12m lengths.
These were of 2.7 m internal diameter with a wall thickness of 30 mm, and utilised GRP
sleeve joints. The pipe laying was started from the point of the intake structures and
progressed towards the inlet area of the pumphouse. The design did not accommodate
flexible joints or rocker pipe connections at the interface of the pipe with the structure in
the transition zone.
The water test was carried out on the cooling water intake system by flooding the
Pumphouse by opening one intake pipeline, while the other two pipelines were isolated
using their stop gates. When the initial flooding was completed up to -5.20 m level, the
other two pipelines were made active to successfully flood the pump house to 0.00 m
level. The three 2.7 m diameter GRP pipes failed at the forebay inlet area as a consequence
of the flooding of the cooling water pumphouse. The failure took place at a distance of
36.28 m from the inlet wall of the pumphouse, and was consistently at the crown of the
joints fracturing both the pipe and the coupling.
The mean thickness of the backfill layer (including the armour layers) was 4.46 m.
Assuming that the average unit weight of the backfill was 19 kN/m3, and that of the
in-situ soil was 16.5 kN/m3. The net additional pressure at the invert of the pipeline was
11.15 kPa.
The settlement of the underlying deposits was computed using the equation:

=H

1
Es

(9)

The ground settlement thus estimated was 30 mm for 2 m (H) of soft soil increasing to
90 mm for 6 m (H) of soft soil beneath the pipelines.

NUMERICAL MODELLING
In numerical modelling, the quantitative description of physical phenomena is
established with a system of ordinary or partial differential equations valid in a certain
region (or domain) with the imposition of suitable boundary and initial conditions. The

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

Soil-Structure-Pipe Interaction with Particular Reference to Ground Movement

1135

modelling acts to educate the intuition of the design engineer by providing a series of
cause-and-effect examples. Finite Difference Analysis (FD) is one of the simplest forms
of such discretization processes. In a field such as geomechanics, the field data (such as
in-situ stresses, material properties, and geological features) will never be known
completely. However, if extensive field data are available, then these can be incorporated
into a comprehensive model that can yield design information directly. More commonly,
however, the data-limited model does not produce such information directly, but provides
insight into mechanisms that may occur; the designer can then do simple calculations,
based on these mechanisms, which estimate the parameters of interest or the stability
conditions.
For the numerical modelling, the central pipeline out of the three was considered for
Flac3D modelling, as illustrated in Figure 2. The pipeline is modelled as a structural
element in which flexure takes place only in the longitudinal direction. The techniques
proposed by Selvadurai18 (1979), can be used to examine the flexural interaction between
both near surface and deeply embedded pipelines located in a transition zone. The trench
section for the central pipeline was assumed rectangular. The pipeline was considered as
a continuous beam fixed at both ends. The sign convention of compression as negative
and tension as positive was adopted.
The model is symmetrical about the global X-axis. The pipes, couplings, soil properties
and boundary conditions are defined for a transition zone of 9 pipe lengths. The model
was subjected to different settlement conditions for analysis in order to study the
development of critical stress regimes.
A soil stiffness, K, of 572.6 kN/m2 (based on the Selvadurai,14 1984) was adopted in
the numerical analysis. The corresponding settlement of the structure (weight of 1360
Tonnes) and the pipeline are 149.1 and 19.5 mm respectively. The differential settlement
of 129.6 mm occurring over a transition length of 9 pipe lengths was modelled. Figure 2
shows the results of the modelling to indicate a stress concentration to occur at the pipe
crown at a third of the modelled transition length. The failure that occurred in the field
was also at the third coupling and affected both the coupling and the crown of the pipe
(see Figures 3 and 4).
The model output analyse study illustrates that, the stress concentration at the crown
of the pipe is due to the induced settlement. Similar patterns of stress concentrations are
observed at the crown level of the joint couplings as illustrated in the Figures 3 and 4.
According to Leonhardt's adaptation of Jaky's theory, the additional soil stress caused
by the presence of the pipes, will be dissipated over a distance of about 2 pipe diameters.
Consequently, if the compressible foundation soil at the bottom of a trench is removed
for this additional depth, and replaced by gravel, or well-compacted sand, the settlements
will be minimal. Such a solution is likely only to be practicable with small diameter
pipes, and an alternative, which may be used with larger diameter pipes, is to construct
a reinforced concrete slab over the full width of the trench, to redistribute the pressure
concentration.

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

1030 Plastics Pipes XI

Fig. 2 "Maximum stress distribution on the soil pipe model"

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

Soil-Structure-Pipe Interaction with Particular Reference to Ground Movement 1031

Fig. 3 Fractured GRP coupling surface and the Numerical modelling output.

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

1032 Plastics Pipes XI

Fig. 4 Fractured GRP pipe surface and the Numerical modelling output.

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

Soil-Structure-Pipe Interaction with Particular Reference to Ground Movement

1139

A further possibility is to support the whole, or part, of the pipeline on piles. If this
solution is adopted, however, account must be taken of the increase in the vertical soil
pressure on the pipeline (due to the increased projection ratio).
None of the measures described above should be expected to eliminate differential
settlements completely, and designers should therefore ensure that flexible joints are
provided at adequate intervals. This is particularly important at the approach to structures,
where the first pipe flexibly jointed at each end should ideally be capable of
accommodating the differential settlement without exceeding the allowable angular
rotation of the joints.

CONCLUSIONS
Established pipeline design procedures frequently ignore or underestimate the
settlements of soil masses, pipelines and structures.
Settlement damage is frequently observed in old pipelines, and is the most common
cause of structural failure in new pipelines.
Analysis of pipelines as strip foundations can provide a useful estimate of likely
settlements.
Differential settlements between pipelines and structures are particularly dangerous.
Pipeline design should include analysis of settlements, and the provision of measures
to limit them and/or enable the pipelines to accommodate their effects.
The ability to accommodate settlements should be taken account of during the pipe
material selection process.
Major pipelines should be designed with the assistance of comprehensive ground
investigations, and more rigorous methods of analysing settlements.
The effective modulus of a pipeline foundation will vary from place to place, reflecting
inconsistencies in the placing and compaction of bedding material, variations in
bedding thickness, and in sub-grade properties.
Differential settlement is a serious hazard, needing consideration at the pipeline design
stage.
Pipeline, embedment, trench backfill and native soils can be modelled as an elastic
system.

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.

D.D. Clarke, The Distortion of Rivetted Pipe by Backfilling, Proc. ASCE, 1897
M.G. Spangler, Underground Conduits: An Appraisal of Modern Research, Trans
ASCE, 113, 1948.
R. Lazard, Ouvrages Circulaires Place en Terre, Travaux 33, 1935.

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER

1140
4.
5.

6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.
16.
17.
18.

Plastics Pipes XI
R.E. Barnard, Design and Deflection Control of Buried Steel Pipe Supporting
Earth Loads and Live Loads, Proc ASTM, 1957.
G. Leonhardt, Die Belastung von Erdverlegten Rohren unterschiedlicher Steifigkeit
unter Bercksichtigung des Verformungsverhaltens des umgebenden Bodens
(Loading of buried pipe of varying stiffness with emphasis on the deformation of
the surrounding soil), 3R International, 1977.
Civil Engineering Specification for the Water Industry, 5th Edition.
M.P. OReilly, R.B. Rosbrook, G.C. Cox and A. McCloskey, Analysis of Defects
in 180 km of Pipe Sewers in Southern Water Authority, Research Report 172,
TRRL, 1989.
S.J. Rolfe, The Effects of Pipeline Settlement, World Water and Environmental
Engineering, 22(6), 1999.
J.L. Olliff, Pipeline Foundation Design, Document TC164/165/JWG1/TG1, CEN,
1994.
C.B. Greatorex, Ductile Iron Pipelines-Embedment Design, Publication PJF268
Section 5, Stanton & Staveley, 1979.
C.B. Greatorex, Personal Communication to J. Olliff, 1990.
J.L. Olliff, European Structural Design Standardisation for Sewers and Water
Mains: A Report on Progress, Pipeline Management 93, 1993.
E.E. Lundquist, Strength Tests of Thin-Walled Duralumin Cylinders in Pure
Bending, Technical Note 479, Nat. Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, 1933.
A.P.S. Selvadurai, The Flexure of an Infinite Strip of Finite Width Embedded in
an Isotropic Elastic Medium of Finite Extent, International Journal of Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 8, 1984.
Fletcher and Herrman, Elastic Foundation Representation of Continuum, Journal
of the Engg Mechanics Division, Proc. ASCE, 97, 1971.
Winterkorn and Fang, Hand book of Foundation Engineering, VAN Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, U.S.A., 1974.
Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw Hill, New York, U.S.A., 1977.
A.P.S. Selvadurai, Elastic Analysis of Soil - Pipe Interaction, Development in
Geotechnical Engineering Series, Elsevier Scientific Publication Co., 17, 1979.

PREVIOUS PAPER | CONTENTS | INDEX | SEARCH | NEXT PAPER