You are on page 1of 9

Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada



Aaron Lockey Penspen Ltd. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK ABSTRACT Pipelines that cross mountainous areas are susceptible to ground movement loading from landslides. In-line inspection using inertial mapping tools provides an excellent method of evaluating the current pipeline integrity. A single inspection only gives an indication of the pipeline integrity at a single point in time. Multiple inspections over a period of time can be used to estimate positional change and the nature of the loading process. An essential element of pipeline integrity management in geohazard areas is the ability to determine future performance so that intervention methods are correctly designed and scheduled and resources are efficiently administered. This requires the reliable prediction of the future development of pipeline integrity based on trends in the mapping data from multiple inspections. The approach developed by the authors to predict the future integrity of pipelines affected by ground movements is set out in this paper. It involves inertial mapping data from multiple inspections and calculates future strains in the pipeline using finite element analysis. Unlike methods based on interpreting inspection data alone, the finite element model includes the effects of soil-pipe interaction and axial pipeline stress together with the operational loads to provide a more complete assessment of pipeline integrity. The method is illustrated through the use of a case study. BACKGROUND Pipelines routed through mountainous areas can be susceptible to damage by ground movement caused by landslides. The presence of landslides along a pipeline route can be missed or difficult to identify at the design stage, and routing through unstable regions is sometimes unavoidable. When a landslide does affect a pipeline, it is necessary to assess its effect on pipeline integrity as part of an integrity management programme [1-4]. Andy Young Penspen Ltd. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

A reliable assessment of current pipeline integrity and a prediction of the remaining period of safe operation would bring significant benefits to a pipeline operator. It could inform decisions on remedial works and help derive maximum value from the operators investment in in-line inspections. In areas of ground movement, and for landslides in particular, in-line inspection mapping tools are often used to monitor the displacement and curvature of a pipeline [5-8]. A single mapping inspection gives an indication of pipeline position and curvature at a single point in time. However, this includes the effect of all bends in the pipeline: field bends, installation geometry due to unevenness of the trench, as well as curvature due to ground movement. After a second mapping inspection has been carried out, taking the difference between the inspection results filters out features that have not changed. This can be used to show how pipeline position and curvature have changed over time, giving an indication of the profile and rate of landslide movement. For small landslide movements, a simple assessment of the pipeline integrity at the time of the second inspection can then be carried out. In limited circumstances, it may also be possible to project the position and curvature changes forward to predict future pipeline integrity. A method is required to reliably carry out an assessment of pipeline integrity for any amount of landslide movement, and to predict the future development of pipeline integrity. This will aid planning of further inspections or remedial works as part of an integrity management programme. Once an operator can predict the future development of pipeline integrity, it can be useful to determine the effect of remedial work that may be carried out. This would give an indication of the extension in safe operation achieved by an investment in remedial work. The authors have developed novel methodologies for carrying out these types of assessment, which are described in this paper.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

STRAIN BASED ASSESSMENT A buried pipeline passing through a landslide generally follows the profile of the displaced ground fairly closely except in very low strength materials. The longitudinal behavior of the pipeline is therefore displacement controlled, so strain based assessment methods of pipeline integrity can be applied successfully [3]. There are three significant components of strain that combine to give the total strain state in the pipe wall for pipelines operating under landslide loads at ambient temperatures, illustrated in Fig 1.

direction due to the Poisson effect. These strains affect the tensile and compressive material yield points in the longitudinal direction, so must be taken account of in a full assessment of pipeline integrity. A simple assessment based on bending strain alone is only reliable when landslide movement is small, such that axial strain is negligible and the material yield point is not approached. MODELLING APPROACH In order to take proper account of all factors contributing significantly to the strain in the pipe wall, a finite element model of a buried pipeline has been developed. The model includes both geometrical and material non-linearity to model axial strain development and post-yield behavior. Pipe-soil interaction is included in the model to simulate the application of a landslide movement load to the pipeline. The ground is displaced in the model according to a previously determined ground movement profile, imparting a load onto the pipeline via the soil. The soil is represented by a forcedisplacement relationship in four directions: vertically up, vertically down, lateral and axial. The restraining force imparted by the soil increases as relative movement increases. The pipe-soil interaction relationships in each direction are calculated according to standard formulations [3,4,9-14]. In each case these are based on data from site observations and laboratory testing of the local soil properties. Generally the relationships represent elastic-plastic soil behavior where small movements are resisted by a linear stiffness, whilst large movements are resisted by a limit force. Upper bound, lower bound and mean (best-estimate) soil properties are used separately, and assessments are carried out using each of the resulting interaction relationships in order to quantify the associated uncertainty. The landslide movement profile is determined from two or more sets of in-line inspection mapping data, supported by site surveys if these are available. The aim is to determine a profile that, when applied to the finite element model, gives bending strain change results that reproduce the measurements from the in-line inspections. Completing this loop by showing that the finite element model correctly predicts the known measurements gives confidence in its predictions when further landslide movement is applied to represent future development. In most cases, the absolute accuracy of the xyz positional data reported by the in-line inspections is not sufficient to reliably determine a pipeline movement profile, particularly where small measurements of the order of tens of millimeters are important. A typical quoted accuracy is 0.02% of the distance between fixed survey tie-points, equivalent to requiring survey points every 50 m to maintain 10 mm accuracy. Survey points are usually several kilometers apart, so this would be impractical.




Fig 1: Strain components acting on a pipeline subject to landslide loading

Bending strain This is a longitudinal strain caused by bending of the pipeline. It is equally tensile on the outside (extrados) of a bend and compressive on the inside (intrados). Inline inspection mapping tools measure pipeline curvature, which is directly proportional to bending strain at all times. Axial strain When landslide movement occurs, an initially straight pipeline trench effectively becomes longer, causing a tensile force to develop in the pipeline. This causes a corresponding strain which is constant around the pipe ring. The extension and strain are non-linear with respect to landslide movement: they increase more quickly when landslide movement is larger. The magnitude of extension is also dependent on the landslide profile. Landslides with narrow transition sections between the stable and moving ground will lead to higher axial strains. Hoop strain Internal pressure of the pipeline product causes a tensile strain in the pipe wall in the hoop direction and a corresponding tensile strain in the longitudinal

Copyright 2012 by ASME

A better approach is to determine the change in pipeline curvature between two sets of inspection results. This removes the dependence on fixed survey points. The curvature change can then be converted to movement y perpendicular to the pipeline axis by numerical integration according to the definition of curvature (the approximation is valid for landslides since the curvature is small):
y (1 y 2 )3 / 2 y

CALCULATION EXAMPLE An example of a 36 inch diameter crude oil pipeline will be used to help illustrate the method; the details are shown in Table 1. The buried pipeline crosses a landslide perpendicularly. Two in-line mapping inspections have been carried out at an interval of two years.
Table 1: Parameters for the example pipeline Diameter Wall thickness Material grade Product Burial depth 914.4 mm (36 inch) 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) API 5L X60 Crude Oil 1.2 m


A similar integration-based method is applied by inspection vendors to produce positional data from curvature measurements. The ground movement in the landslide will be different from the pipe movement. This must be true, since without a relative displacement between the pipe and soil, no load is transferred and the pipeline would not bend. By modeling the pipeline as a simple Euler-Bernoulli elastic beam [15], the required external load per unit length P can be determined from the curvature profile and bending stiffness B by numerical differentiation:

Before carrying out an assessment, appropriate tensile and compressive strain limits should be determined to represent ongoing safe operation of the pipeline. This paper uses strain limits from guidance provided by PRCI [3], which is based on fracture mechanics studies and full-scale testing of pipe that meets workmanship criteria [16]. The two principal failure modes are: Fracture of girth welds due to tensile strain; and, Local buckling (also known as wrinkling) due to compressive strain. Two limits are given: Maintain pressure integrity (Failure limit) This limit accepts significant ovalisation and possible initiation of wrinkle formation in the body of the pipe. Before this limit is approached, the operating pressure should be reduced and detailed analysis carried out on the highly strained areas. Replacement of the damaged portion of the pipeline may be necessary to resume normal operations. Maintain normal operation (Serviceability limit) This limit provides a high level of confidence of no significant pipeline damage such as loss of containment, wrinkling or ovalisation. There should be no restriction to product flow, no need to reduce operating pressure and the passage of in-line inspection tools should not be affected. This paper will make use of the normal operation limits only, since the intention of the methodology is to determine when intervention is necessary to prevent significant damage and interruption to normal operations. For safe operation of the example pipeline, the normal operation tensile and compressive strain limits are 1.7% and 0.5% respectively. The difference between the two horizontal longitudinal bending strain profiles measured by in-line inspection for the


This force comes from relative movement with the ground, so the difference between pipeline and ground movement can be determined by inverting the force-displacement relationship that represents the soil. This difference is added to the pipeline movement profile to determine the final ground movement profile. As a result of using this method, the calculated ground movement profile is now guaranteed to give the measured bending strain change when applied to the finite element model, since it has been determined by effectively reversing a simplified version of the finite element calculation. One small adjustment is required to make this method work in practice. The bending strain change determined from the in-line inspection data is not smooth, due to random errors in the measurements. When integrated to a pipeline movement profile, these errors are insignificant. However, the soil reaction force is calculated from the second differential of the bending strain change, and the errors dominate the real profile. Therefore it is necessary to smooth the bending strain change profile before it is used for calculation. Gaussian smoothing has been used successfully; this takes a weighted average of nearby values using a Gaussian curve. Note that regardless of the smoothing method used, the weights must sum to unity so that the integration method will work correctly. With only two inspections, it is generally assumed that the annualized landslide movement speed is constant and the shape of the movement profile remains the same. If more inspection results are available, it is possible to determine a more detailed model for past and future changes.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

example pipeline is shown in Fig 2. This has been smoothed using the Gaussian method described above. The resulting landslide movement profile and its development over time since construction of the pipeline are shown in Fig 3 at the time of each in-line inspection, assuming a constant annualized movement. The peak movement at the time of the second inspection is 0.76 m, with a movement rate of 0.15 m/year. This movement rate is described as a very slow landslide by Cruden and Varnes [17].
0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05

1.6 1.4 Tensile

Absolute strain (%)

1.2 1.0


0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2


Horizontal bending strain change (%)

0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Total landslide movement (m)

0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 -0.20 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Distance from centre of landslide (m)

Fig 4: The development of each peak strain component as landslide movement increases

Fig 2: Smoothed bending strain change between inspections

1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1

3 years

5 years

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Distance from centre of landslide (m)

Fig 3: Ground movement profile since construction, calculated from two inspections

The bending strain component increases in a gentle nonlinear trend with increasing landslide movement. The axial strain component increases slowly at first, but more quickly as the landslide movement becomes larger. The tensile and compressive strains represent the actual strains in the pipe wall; it is these that are checked against the strain limits for safe operation. The tensile and compressive strains diverge from the bending strain as the axial strain increases, since tensile strain is the sum of the bending and axial components, and compressive strain is the difference. The compressive strain limit is reached first, after approximately 2.4 m of total landslide movement. This corresponds to 1.6 m further movement from the time of the second inspection, or approximately 10 years. In this case, above-ground monitoring of landslide movement would be recommended, together with ongoing in-line inspection and assessment on a 2 year interval to ensure the annualized movement rate remained constant. Before the strain limit was approached, it would be recommended that planning for remedial works should be started and in-line inspection frequency should be increased. A similar form of results could be calculated for all pipeline and landslide geometries. However, the magnitude of the axial strain component and the landslide movement that causes the tensile and compressive strain results to diverge would vary. EVALUATION OF METHODOLOGY The calculation example has shown that for larger landslide movements, axial strain has a significant effect on the total tensile and compressive strains in the pipe wall. An assessment based only on checking the bending strain component against strain limits could be non-conservative. Compared to an assessment based only on bending strain, the tensile strain limit is reached after lower landslide

The predicted peaks of each strain component throughout the whole landslide area resulting from applying the ground movement profile to the finite element model are shown in Fig 4. This includes the total tensile and compressive strains, and the separated components of bending and axial strain.

Ground movement (m)

Copyright 2012 by ASME

movement and the compressive limit is reached after greater landslide movement. Whether the tensile or compressive strain limit is reached first depends on pipeline geometry (diameter to wall thickness ratio) and the nature of the loading on the pipeline. This corresponds to different failure modes: Local buckling failure mode For larger diameter, thin wall pipe, such as the example pipeline, local buckling will occur at lower strain than girth weld fracture, so the compressive strain limit is reached first. Since compressive strain is predicted to develop more slowly than bending strain, the full strain analysis predicts that the pipeline can operate safely at larger landslide movements. An assessment of pipeline integrity based on full strain analysis would therefore be beneficial in terms of extending safe operating life compared to an assessment based only on bending strain. It would increase the predicted remaining safe operation life with regard to compressive failure when landslide movements are large. Girth weld fracture failure mode For smaller diameter, thick wall pipe, girth weld fracture is likely to be the failure mode to occur at lowest strain, so the tensile strain limit is reached first. Since tensile strain is predicted to develop more quickly than bending strain, the full strain analysis predicts that the pipeline would only operate safely at smaller landslide movements. An assessment of pipeline integrity considering only bending strain may therefore be significantly non-conservative with regard to tensile failure when landslide movements are large. INFLUENCE OF SOIL RESTRAINT The strength and density of the soil material around the pipeline have a major influence on the load developed in the pipeline. These are the key soil parameters that define the force-displacement relationship for the pipe-soil interaction. The natural variability of soil materials makes characterization of these properties a challenge and it is good practice to assign distributions to the key properties based on sufficient site investigation. This allows the selection of soil restraints values and calculation of structural performance to specified confidence limits. Bounding calculations of the structural integrity provide important information on the significance of the soil inputs and aids decisions on calculation refinement or the implementation of intervention activities.

The variation in predicted peak bending strain for a landslide transition zone at three selected restraint bounds is illustrated in Fig 5. For this example, the upper bound soil restraint representing stiff soil generates the highest strains whilst a lower magnitude and smoother strain profile results from the adoption of lower bound soil restraint. The variation in predicted strain is approximately 50% of the mean value.
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5

Lower bound

Calculated bending strain (%)

Upper bound








Distance from centre of transition zone (m)

Fig 5: Variation of calculated bending strain profile with soil strength

INFLUENCE OF TRANSITION ZONE WIDTH A common assumption in modeling landslide loads on pipelines is that the transition zone between the stable and moving ground is abrupt or negligible in extent. Narrower transition zones apply greater loads and develop greater strains in the pipeline. However, in-line inspection data indicates that the assumption of narrow transitions is frequently conservative and that they can extend upwards of 20 m as illustrated in Fig 6. The use of in-line inspection data therefore improves the estimation of strain in the transition zone areas.
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 -0.20 -0.25

Measured bending strain (%)

Transition zone width

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5

10 15 20 25

Distance from centre of transition zone (m)

Fig 6: Transition zone width

Copyright 2012 by ASME

STRESS RELIEF It is possible to reduce locked-in ground movement loads on pipelines by carrying out stress relief works [18]. This involves the removal of the soil from around the pipeline and allowing the elastic strains to recover. Relaxation may need to be assisted by partial lifting of the pipeline off the trench bed to remove frictional or adhesion restraint. Stress relief may extend pipeline life in areas of progressive ground movement such as landslides, as shown for the example pipeline in Fig 7. Here a stress relief operation is carried out after approximately 1.2 m of landslide movement and most of the elastic strain is recovered. Continuing landslide movement re-applies the load and strain increases along a similar curve, but shifted to allow greater landslide movement before strain limits are reached.
1.6 1.4 No stress relief Relieved - Normal trench

Tensile strain (%)

1.2 1.0

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Total landslide movement (m)

Fig 7: Strain development after stress relief

The delay in approaching acceptable strain limits can provide time to consider longer term solutions such as permanent re-routing, or more rigorous characterization of the hazard and remediation. In some circumstances such as slow moving landslides, pipeline monitoring and repeated periodic stress relief can be effective in controlling pipeline integrity. Pipeline integrity can be permanently restored by one-off stress relief works in areas of ground movements with a limited duration such as mining subsidence. SPECIAL TRENCH DESIGN As an addition to stress relief works, an operator may choose to reinstate the backfill using a special trench design [3]. Such a design uses low strength granular backfill and low angle trench sidewalls. The intention is to cause the pipeline to lift upwards out of the ground as it displaces horizontally, thus reducing restraint, load transfer and strain. A successful special trench design should allow any degree of landslide movement without causing damage to the pipeline.

Modeling the effect of a special trench design on the response of a pipeline to a range of future landslide movements allows the operator to demonstrate the efficacy of the design. Conventional pipe-soil interaction models are not sufficient to describe the behavior of a pipeline buried in a special trench design and subject to large ground movements. These models are first-order; they assume that relative pipe-soil movement in a particular direction only generates a reaction force in the opposite direction. They therefore treat each of the three displacement directions separately. Such models are well suited to normal trenches and low relative movements between the pipe and soil. In order to model a special trench design together with large landslide movements, the first-order assumption is not appropriate. The intention of the trench design is that horizontal movement also leads to upward forces, causing the pipe to lift out of the ground. This leads to reduced restraint to the pipeline and therefore reduced strains. A second-order model is required, considering all movement directions simultaneously so that movement in one direction may result in forces in any direction. In this section, a candidate second-order pipe-soil interaction model is summarized. Due to its simplicity and analytical approach, this model will not generally be applicable to all situations and must be used with care. A discussion of the range of validity will be presented. This model and its assumptions have not been validated against experimental data, though the first principles on which it is based are well known and accepted, and it gives the correct overall behavior when applied in finite element models. The restraint model for movement perpendicular to the pipe axis is based on a prism of soil moving ahead of the pipeline. This is illustrated by the cross-section in Fig 8.
Moving prism Natural ground 27

Granular fill

Fig 8: Special trench design horizontal and vertical soil restraint model

The movement of the pipe is resisted by the interface friction between the soil inside and outside the prism, and the weight of the soil in the prism. The interface friction varies with depth:
g y tan


Copyright 2012 by ASME

where y = Distance below surface = Soil density (mass per unit volume) g = Acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 N/kg = Soil angle of internal friction Integrating along both interfaces gives a total resistance force in the opposite direction to pipe movement of magnitude:
2 sin

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

Shape depends on parameter = D / tan

g y tan dy

g Z 2 tan sin

Pv / Pvinit






rv / Zinit
Fig 9: Variation of vertical restraint with vertical movement

where Z = Depth of pipe below surface = Pipe movement angle When resolved into the two directions and the weight of soil in the prism W is included, the peak vertical and horizontal restraint forces are respectively:
Pv g Z 2 tan W

1.0 0.8

Assuming rh changes to maintain a constant

Ph / Phinit

0.6 0.4

(5) (6)


g Z 2 tan tan

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

In this formulation, the horizontal force grows without limit as approaches zero and the prism becomes very large. This is not physically realistic and leads to numerical problems during finite element analysis. As the natural ground is relatively strong compared to the granular backfill, the value of has been limited to a minimum of 27. This corresponds with the angle of the trench wall. The peak restraint force in all directions matches the intended behavior of the special trench design, reducing with upward relative movement (decreasing Z). The peak horizontal restraint force reduces with increasing movement angle. These relationships are illustrated non-dimensionally in Fig 9 and Fig 10 for upward movement and Fig 11 for movement angle. Note that the suffix init refers to an initial value when relative movement is zero in all directions; rv and rh are vertical and horizontal relative movement respectively.

rv / Zinit
Fig 10: Variation of horizontal restraint with vertical movement
2.5 2.0

Ph / Pv

1.5 1.0
0.5 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Fig 11: Variation of horizontal to vertical restraint ratio with movement direction

Copyright 2012 by ASME

An additional upward reaction force is applied when the pipeline moves horizontally. This represents the wedge of almost incompressible granular fill material being driven under the pipeline, lifting it out of the ground. The angle of the wedge is the angle of the trench wall, 27. The additional upward force is therefore defined as:
Sv Ph tan 27 2 Ph


In each direction, the peak restraint is the maximum force that may be applied for large relative movements. An initial stiffness is used for small relative movements in exactly the same manner as in a conventional pipe-soil interaction model. The application of a special trench design to the example pipeline has been modeled, and gives the strain results shown in Fig 12. Only tensile strain is shown for illustration, but compressive strain shows a similar pattern. When the pipeline is uncovered after 1.2 m ground movement, elastic strains relax out as for a normal stress relief operation. With further movement, additional strain is developed in the pipeline, but less than for a normal trench design. The strain development plateaus as intended, in this case at around 0.3%. Thus no degree of ground movement is predicted to cause unacceptable pipeline strain when the special trench design is used. A similar pattern would be expected for other pipeline parameters.
1.6 1.4 No stress relief Relieved - Normal trench Relieved - Special trench

Tensile strain (%)

1.2 1.0

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

certainty. In some cases, it may be possible to show that no site work is required at all, saving considerable costs. Appropriate remedial works can include slope stabilization, stress relief of the pipeline or re-routing, depending on the particular situation. By taking full account of the current and future effect of a landslide on pipeline integrity, the results of a full strain analysis can be used to help determine the most cost-effective option in both the short and long terms. Knowledge of the landslide movement required to cause a pipeline to approach safe operation limits can assist an operator in scheduling further in-line inspections. These inspections can be used to check on and refine the predictions made by a full strain analysis, and to prove that the pipeline remains safe to operate. The schedule can be optimised to minimise the number of additional inspections required. Due to the flexibility of the finite element modelling approach, further analysis can be carried out to assist the operators decision making. As illustrated in this paper, sophisticated analysis has been carried out of both stress relief works and special trench designs. This demonstrated the direct benefit of stress relieving a heavily loaded pipeline and determined the amount of further landslide movement the pipeline could withstand whilst remaining safe to operate. In both cases, being able to estimate the additional safe operational time bought by the cost of remedial works helped the operator quantify the value of carrying out the works, compared to other potential schemes. All of this is possible using the same in-line inspection data that would need to be collected for a more simple assessment based only on bending strain, and which is often collected in the course of conventional metal loss or other inspections. The operator therefore derives the maximum value from their inline inspection budget and investment. REFERENCES 1. C-Core, DG Honegger Consulting and SSD Inc., 2009, Guidelines for Constructing Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines Through Areas Prone to Landslide and Subsidence Hazards, PRCI Report No L52292. 2 Rizkalla M., 2008, Pipeline Geo-Environmental Design and Geohazard Management, ASME Pipeline Engineering Mongraph Series. Honegger D.G. and Nyman D.J., 2004, Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Assessment of Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines, PRCI Report No L51927. Anon, 1984, Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, ASCE, Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines. Wilde A., Palmer M., Van der Rijst, M., Roeleveld, M. and Patterson, A, 2011, The role of In-line inspection in the management of transmission pipelines affected by ground movement, Rio Pipeline Conference, IBP1856_11.

Total landslide movement (m)

Fig 12: Strain development after stress relief using special trench design

BENEFITS TO A PIPELINE OPERATOR An assessment of pipeline integrity based on full strain analysis gives many advantages to a pipeline operator, in addition to the improved assessment reliability explained above. As such it forms an important part of an integrity management program. By making reliable predictions for the remaining safe operating life of a pipeline subjected to landslide loading, planning for remedial works can be carried out with greater



Copyright 2012 by ASME


Hart J.D. and Zulfiqar N, 2008, 3rd Party review of geometry pig inertial survey data at the Colville River HDD, ASME, Proc. International Pipelines Conference IPC2008-64306. Czyz J. and McClarty E., 2004, Prevention of pipeline failures in geotechnically unstable areas by monitoring with inertial and caliper in-line inspection, Proc. Conf. Corrosion. Johnson E.R., Metz M.C. and Hackney D.A., 2003, Assessment of the below-ground Trans-Alaska pipeline following the Magnitude 7.9 Denali Fault Earthquake, ASCE, Sixth U.S. Conf. on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. Ng P.C.F., Pyrah I.C. and Anderson W.F., 1997, Prediction of soil restraint to a buried pipeline using interface elements, Proc. 6th International Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics - NUMOG VI, Montreal, Canada.




10. Dickin E.A., 1994, Uplift Resistance of Buried Pipelines in Sand. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 34, No.2, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 11. Rizkalla M., Trigg A. and Simmonds G, 1996, Recent Advances in the Modelling of Longitudinal Pipeline/Soil Interaction for Cohesive Soils, ASME, Proc. 15th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Volume V, Pipeline Technology. 12. Cappelletto A., Tagliaferri R., Giurlani G., Andrei G., Furlani G. and Scarpelli G, 1998, Field Full Scale Tests on Longitudinal Pipeline-Soil Interaction, ASME, International Pipeline Conference, Volume II. 13. Anon, 1985, Grondonderzoek Gedrag Van Buisleidingen In Klei. Onderzoek Uitgevoerd Te Kesteren In 1984, Laboratorium Voor Grondmechanica, Delft. 14. Anon, 2003, NEN3650-1. Requirements for Pipeline Systems Part 1. General, Netherlands Standardization Institute, Delft. 15. Young W.C., 1989, Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain, 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 93-96, Chap. 7. 16. Wang Y.I. and Cheng W, 2004, Guidelines on Tensile Strain Limits, Gas Research Institute Report No GRI04/0030. 2004.16. 17. Cruden D.M. and Varnes D.J., 1996, Landslides Investigations and Mitigation, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 247, pp. 36-75, Chap. 3. 18. Bing Song J.J., Cheng R., Chan D.H. and Zhou J., 2006, Numerical simulation of stress relief of buried pipeline at Pembina River crossing, ASME, Proc. International Pipelines Conference, IPC2006-10795.

Copyright 2012 by ASME