Katebi Et Al Pipeline Paper
Katebi Et Al Pipeline Paper
Katebi Et Al Pipeline Paper
net/publication/330211438
CITATIONS READS
0 88
3 authors:
James Blatz
University of Manitoba
42 PUBLICATIONS 589 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Dynamic Analysis of Embankment Dams by Considering 2D Seismic Site Effects View project
De-Icing & Snow Melting of Bridge Decks and Pavements by Using Thermal Piles View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Pooneh Maghoul on 16 January 2019.
Abstract: A numerical analysis is carried out to study the behaviour of pipelines subjected to slow landslides at three
at-risk landslide zones of Manitoba Pipeline Network. The pipeline’s longitudinal axis is parallel to the slow landslides
at all three research sites. The ground displacements monitored for five years are imposed on the pipe using a special
purpose element (PSI element) using ABAQUS/Standard. The stiffness of PSI elements is defined based on soil-pipe
interface properties according to PRCI (2017). The results of the numerical analysis are compared with the instrumentation
data to draw recommendations for future monitoring programs in slow landslide zones.
Key words: pipeline, slow landslide, longitudinal, numerical, case study.
Résumé : Une analyse numérique est réalisée pour étudier le comportement des pipelines soumis à des glissements de
terrain lents dans trois zones à risque du Réseau de Pipelines du Manitoba. L’axe longitudinal du pipeline est parallèle au
glissement de terrain dans les trois sites de recherche. Les mouvements du sol monitorés pendant cinq ans sont appliqués
sur le pipeline en utilisant le logiciel de calcul ABAQUS/Standard et à l’aide d’un élément spécial appelé PSI. La rigidité
des éléments PSI est définie en fonction des propriétés de l’interface sol-pipeline selon PRCI (2017). Les résultats de
l’analyse numérique sont comparés avec les données d’instrumentation afin de fournir des recommandations pour de futurs
programmes de surveillance dans les zones à risque de glissements de terrain.
Key words: pipeline, glissement de terrain lent, longitudinal, axial, numérique, étude de cas.
1. Introduction pipelines at these sites are ductile steel gas transmission lines
with the minimum yield strength of 241 MPa for the oldest
Buried pipeline infrastructure is an integral component of gas sections to a maximum of 345 MPA for the newest sections.
and oil transportation networks across the country, and their in- The pipelines have been under operation for more than 30 years
tegrity has an essential impact on the strength of Canada’s econ- at Harrowby, and more than 50 years at Plum River and St-
omy. In Canada, there is an estimated 242,000 km of gas and Lazare. The ground displacement, temperature of the ground at
oil pipelines, which is considered the second longest network
the pipe’s burial depth, temperature of the outer wall of the pipe,
in the world. Loss-of-containment events are often environmen-
groundwater conditions, and longitudinal strain in the pipe’s
tally damaging and extremely costly to clean-up and remediate.
outer wall were instrumented from 2010 to 2015 with hourly
Also, civil, criminal or regulatory penalties from a pipeline loss measurements to analyze the behaviour of pipelines subjected
of containment may be very high (Oswell, 2016). In Canada, to slow soil movements.
according to the National Energy Board (NEB) database, about In this paper, ABAQUS/Standard, a FEM software, is used to
750 incidents have occurred since 2008 on major pipelines, model the soil-pipeline interaction under the effects of ground
including 454 gas and oil leaks, twenty-five cases of serious in- displacements. The pipeline is represented by Timoshenko
jury, six deaths, thirteen explosions and seven cases of adverse beam elements, and the soil-pipeline interaction is simulated by
environmental effects. In the United States, the average cost using a special-purpose element (PSI element) in ABAQUS/Stan-
from significant pipeline damage due to geotechnical incidents
dard. PSI elements reflect force transfer between the pipeline
such as landslides and earthquakes over the past ten years are
and soil as a result of their relative movements on the pipeline
evaluated at more than $400M/year (twice the damage from
through their stiffness. The stiffness is defined based on soil-
other hazards).
pipe interface properties according to PRCI (2017). The results
A program started in 2010 at the University of Manitoba to of the numerical simulations are compared with field data of
monitor the strain in the pipelines subjected to slow landslides Ferreira (2016) to examine the behaviour of pipelines subjected
(Ferreira, 2016). For this purpose, over ten Manitoba pipeline to slow landslide movements and to provide some recommen-
network locations visited in Fall 2009, three at-risk landslide dations for future monitoring programs in landslide zones.
areas at St-Lazare Assiniboine River valley, Plum River Cross-
ing and Harrowby Assiniboine River valley were selected. The
2. Field Monitoring Program
As noted earlier, three at-risk landslide areas of Manitoba
Mohammad Katebi, Pooneh Maghoul, and James Blatz.1 De- pipeline network are chosen for the field monitoring program:
partment of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, St-Lazare Assiniboine River valley, Plum River Crossing and
MB, R3T2M1 Harrowby Assiniboine River valley. The pipelines at these sites
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: pooneh.maghoul@umanitoba.ca, are parallel to the slope and the slopes are undergoing ongoing
katebim@myumanitoba.ca). soil creep. At the Plum River research site, the pipeline is also
Can. Geotech. J. 99: 1–12 (2018) DOI: 10.1139/Zxx-xxx Published by NRC Research Press
2 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 99, 2018
subjected to localized riverbank landslide activities. Table 1. Pipeline properties used for the numerical
These research sites were instrumented for five years, from simulation.
September 2010 to August 2015, with hourly monitoring of Parameters St-Lazare Plum River Harrowby
ground movements, longitudinal pipe strain, pipe/soil tempera- D (mm) 168.3 88.9 88.9
tures and groundwater levels to assess the behaviour of pipelines
t (mm) 4.78 3.17 3.18
subjected to slow landslides. A total of seven slope inclinome-
ν 0.3 0.3 0.3
ters (SI), six temperature gauges, twenty-three strain gauges
and ten vibrating wire (VW) piezometers were installed in the αL 12 × 10−6 12 × 10−6 12 × 10−6
three research sites (Ferreira, 2016). E (GPa) 207 207 207
Uniaxial strain gauges were installed on the pipes as the σy (MPa) 345 241 290
ground deformations are parallel to the pipeline’s longitudinal Pmax (kPa) 7230 6070 3450
axis. Two uniaxial strain gauges were attached to each pipe, one
at the top and another at the bottom. 2010. The ground displacement rate was expected to be ex-
One of the challenges of an instrumentation of this kind is to tremely slow, and as a result, the first inclinometer reading was
measure the initial conditions of the pipe before the instalment scheduled for June 2011. However, the inclinometer movement
of strain gauges. It has been known that the pipelines at St- exceeded expectations (i.e. the ground displacement was much
Lazare, and Plum River have been subjected to slow landslides faster.)
many years before the instalment of strain gauges. Therefore, The thickness of the moving ground can be estimated from
the assessment of initial conditions for the interpretation of the depth at which the inclinometers are impassible with the SI
measured data is extremely difficult. probes. These depths are approximately 7.3 m at the top of the
The pipelines were cut and replaced at Plum River and St- slope and 4 m at the bottom of the slope. According to Figure
Lazare which created an opportunity for the research team to 1, the SI at the top and bottom of the slope are approximately
measure the strain release after the cut. It was reported that the 80 m and 240 m away from the slope crest, respectively.
pipeline moved instantly after the cut which is a clear sign of The ground displacement monitoring then relied on surface
the presence of accumulated strain in the pipe. However, no monitoring using 12.5-mm rebars with RTK GPS survey equip-
strain release was picked up by the strain gauges installed on ment. The resolution of the survey was ± 5 mm in the horizon-
the pipes: the reasons are explained in detail in Section 3.5. In tal and ± 10 mm in the vertical direction. It was considered that
addition, a pipe push test was carried out on the abandoned the downslope ground movement would far exceed any lateral
portion of the pipe to estimate the undrained shear strength of movements associated with frost action. As a result, the pin was
the soil-pipe interface. The results of the instrumentation are installed simply by pushing them into the ground without any
explained and discussed in Section 2.4. In the following section, effort to control the effect of frost action on pin movements. The
a brief description of each research site is given. pin monitoring results for St-Lazare research site is presented
in Table 2. The negative values represent upslope movements,
2.1. St-Lazare Research Site which is likely due to the effect of frost heave, and freeze-thaw
2.1.1. Site Location cycles at the ground surface.
St-Lazare research site is located on the southern side of Strain gauges were installed approximately 80 m, 170 m and
Assiniboine River, which is about 1.3 Km southwest of St- 240 m away from the slope crest according to Figure 1. One
Lazare town. The research site is located between STA:0+00 temperature gauge was attached to the pipeline wall to measure
with the UTM coordinates of E335617 m, N5589666 m and the pipe temperature, and another used in the ground at the
STA:4+25 with the UTM coordinates of E335973 m, N5589898 elevation of the pipe to measure the ground temperature.
m. The slope is approximately 55 m high and 300 m wide According to VW piezometer data, the water table fluctuates
(5.5H:1V) as shown in Figure 1. between the depth of two metres to a maximum depth of six me-
The pipeline at the St-Lazare research site has been under op- tres over the five years of monitoring at the St-Lazare research
eration for more than fifty years. The pipeline was installed with site.
an open-cut method on October 5, 1965, with the burial depth
of one metre and was backfilled with the excavated material. 2.2. Harrowby Research Site
The pipeline burial depth in the valley varies from a minimum 2.2.1. Site Location
of 0.75 m to a maximum of 4.9 m which is illustrated in Fig- The Harrowby research site is approximately 37 km to the
ure 1b. The pipeline is a thin-walled (D/t > 20) ductile steel north of the St-Lazare research site and located about 12 km to
pipe with 168.3 mm diameter (D) and 4.78 mm wall thickness the west of Russell, Manitoba. The plan view and cross-section
(t). The material Poisson ratio (ν), linear expansion coefficient of the research site are presented in Figure 2. The research
(αL ), Elastic modulus (E), yield strength (σy ) and maximum site is located between the approximate UTM coordinates of
operating pressure (Pmax ) are detailed in Table 1. E327346 m, N5626147 m and E327820 m, N5626276 m. The
valley wall is about 75 m deep and 500 wide with a slope of
2.1.2. Site Investigation and Instrumentation 6.7H:1V.
Three boreholes were drilled for the installation of the slope The pipeline at Harrowby is a steel gas transmission line
inclinometers (SI) and site investigation to the depth of 27.1 m, with a burial depth of one metre along its right-of-way. The
11.1 m and 20.5 m in the top, middle and bottom of the slope, burial depth varies from a minimum of 0.8 m on the slope to a
respectively. The inclinometers were installed in September maximum of 4.1 m under the river as shown in Figure 2. The
properties of the steel pipe are detailed in Table 1.
PIN8
PIN7
PIN6
PIN5
PIN4
PIN3
PIN2
PIN1
B: STA:0+25
N UTM,NAD83, ZONE 14
N5589898, E335973
A
B
B: STA:0+00
ASSINIBOINE
UTM,NAD83, ZONE 14
N5589666, E335617 RIVER
B) CROSS SECTION
PIN2
PIN8
PIN7
PIN6
PIN5
PIN4
PIN3
PIN1
450 450
440 440
ELEVATION (METRE)
430 430
420 CLAY SHALE SILTY CLAY 420
410 410
400 CLAY SHALE ROCK ASSINIBOINE RIVER 400
390 390
380 380
370 370
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420
There are many indicators of historical landslides in the area, 2.3. Plum River Research Site
and heavy rainfall is known to trigger movements in the area. 2.3.1. Site Location
The pipeline is parallel to the slope as can be seen from the to- The Plum River research site is located about 10 km south of
pographic contours of the plan view. The pipeline was installed Morris, Manitoba and just at the southwest area of the town of
with an open-cut method and backfilled with the excavated ma- St.Jean Baptiste. The valley is about 4 to 5 m deep with a slope
terial. The pipeline has been in operation for more than thirty of 3.7H:1V. The plan view and cross-section of Plum River
years. research site are presented in Figure 3.
The pipeline at Plum River is a steel gas transmission line
2.2.2. Site Investigation and Instrumentation with the properties detailed in Table 1. This pipeline has been
Three boreholes were drilled at the Harrowby research site at under operation for more than fifty years. The burial depth of
the top, middle and bottom of the slope to a depth of 30 m, 11 m the pipeline is one metre along its right-of-way. The burial depth
and 30 m, respectively (Figure 2). The top, middle, and bottom varies from a minimum of 0.7 m on the slope to a maximum of
boreholes, as well as the strain gauges, are located 140 m, 290 2.5 m under the river.
m and 410 m down the crest of the slope, respectively. Three
inclinometers installed in November 2010 became inoperable 2.3.2. Site Investigation and Instrumentation
before the first reading in June 2011. The depth to the shearing A borehole to the depth of 11.8 m was drilled for the site
surface can be estimated from the depth at which the SIs are investigation and installation of a slope inclinometer. The SI
impassable with SI probes. The depth is 3.7 m, 18.3 m and 11 installed in August 2010 became inoperable within two months
m at the top, middle and bottom of the slope, respectively. The before the first reading. The impassable depth of the inclinome-
SIs are located 140 m, 290 m and 410 m away from the slope ters with the SI probe is 3.86 m, which shows the depth to the
crest, respectively as shown in Figure 2. ground movements. The ground displacement at Plum River
The ground displacement was monitored using surface pins research site was not instrumented after the inclinometer failure.
with RTK GPS survey equipment from June 2011 to September However, the pipe’s longitudinal deformation was instrumented
2015. The pin monitoring results of the Harrowby research site using two sets of strain gauges; one at X=93 m and another at
is presented in Table 3. Similar to St-Lazare site, the effect of 110 m as shown in Figure 3. A temperature gauge was installed
frost action on pins’ movements was not assessed. The neg- at X=110 m.
ative values in Table 3, which represents the upslope ground
displacements, are likely due to the effect of frost action on the 2.4. Instrumentation Results
pins. The results of the strain gauges of all three research sites
along with an estimation of thermal stress are presented in
Table 2. Monitoring pin results: downslope soil movement at St-Lazare (mm) (Ferreira, 2016)
Reading
PIN8 PIN7 PIN6 PIN5 PIN4 PIN3 PIN2 PIN1
interval
2011-05-31
547.1 268.3 246.7 146.4 54.7 41.7 23.5 25
2013-06-18
2013-06-18
-42.9 -19.8 -16.9 -44.4 -219.9 -25.8 -30.6 -347
2013-10-10
2013-10-10
26.5 32.4 25.6 37.9 - - 34.7 38.8
2014-05-29
2014-05-29
66.3 18.2 68.1 9.9 137.8 -11.9 -8.9 -
2014-10-07
2014-10-07
-14.9 -3.5 -28 -28.9 -48 17 3.9
2015-06-10
2015-06-10
-0.1 14.8 8.9 13.9 - -19.5 -9.4 -
2015-09-02
Table 3. Monitoring pin results: downslope soil movement at Harrowby (mm)(Ferreira, 2016).
Reading
PIN1 PIN2 PIN3 PIN4 PIN5 PIN6 PIN7 PIN8
interval
2011-05-31
0.3 67.3 75.7 82.3 107.2 199.9 149.8 135.4
2013-06-18
2013-06-18
-8.6 -3.2 13.5 4.9 -5.3 2.4 -3.8 0.4
2013-10-10
2013-10-10
15.4 7.4 10.3 12 10.9 -7.2 15.5 -2.5
2014-05-29
2014-05-29
-12.6 12.6 24.4 5.6 3.2 25.7 21.4 15.5
2014-10-07
2014-10-07
15.8 2.4 13.2 5.2 18.5 4.7 29.6 24.7
2015-06-10
2015-06-10
4.7 -7.8 -14.5 10.4 6.3 -3.7 -4.9 10.0
2015-09-02
Figure 4. It is worth mentioning that the thermal stress shown on the pipeline. The curves then follow the same trend driven
by the red curve in Figure 4 is calculated based on the data from by seasonal effects, rising in winter and falling in summer.
the temperature gauges attached to the pipeline’s wall. Katebi As mentioned earlier, the strain gauges did not show any
et al. (2018) carried out a thermal analysis using COMSOL strain release when the pipelines were cut at Plum River and
Multiphysics to estimate the ground temperature profile using St-Lazare research sites. However, an instant movement of the
weather data from Brandon, MB from Sep. 20th, 2011 to Aug. pipe after the cut was observed. The strain gauges were installed
24th, 2016. This established the boundary conditions at the in summer, and the pipe was cut in summer. Comparing the
ground surface. The numerical simulation suggested that the temperature of the pipe after the installation of the tempera-
temperature of the pipe wall is mainly influenced by seasonal ture gauge with the temperature of the pipe just before the cut
weather conditions. showed that almost no thermal stress existed in the pipe at the
According to Figure 4, the axial stress captured by the strain time of the cut. As a result, the movement of the pipe clearly
gauges fluctuates between winter and summer and resembles shows that there was accumulated elastic strain locked in the
the induced thermal stress. For example, the strain gauge at pipe.
X=93 m at Plum River was installed in April 2012 so compres-
sive stress is generated in the pipe each summer. As another
example, the strain gauge at X=293 m at Harrowby was in- 3. Numerical Simulation
stalled in September 2011. Tensile stress is induced in the pipe A numerical study is carried out using ABAQUS/Standard
in winter due to the contraction of the steel. These rises and to analyze the stress induced in a buried pipeline due to ground
falls in the stress profile due to the seasonal temperature varia- deformations in slow landslides. The pipeline is modelled using
tion is illustrated in Figure 4, however, no strain due to gradual Timoshenko beam element using PIPE21, which is a planar
landslide is visible from the curves. The reason of this will be pipe element. PIPE21 is used for the simulation because the
discussed in detail in Section 3. slopes are all parallel to the pipe and the transverse relative
The initial rise of the stress at the beginning of the instrumen- movements of soil and pipe are considered negligible according
tation following installation for two cases, shown by the green to the instrumentation. We note that the Timoshenko beams are
and purple colours in Figure 4, is due to the effect of backfilling good for dealing with large axial strain but the axial strain due
PIN1
PIN2
PIN3
PIN4
PIN5
PIN6
PIN7
PIN8
B: STA:0+00 416
412
UTM,NAD83, ZONE 14 424 420
B) CROSS SECTION
PIN1
PIN2
PIN3
PIN4
PIN5
PIN6
PIN7
PIN8
500 500
ELEVATION (METRE)
480 480
460 460
CLAY SHALE
440 440
SAND
ASSINIBOINE RIVER
420 420
CLAY SHALE ROCK SILTY CLAY
400 400
380 380
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
A) PLAN VIEW
N
PLUM RIVER
B) CROSS SECTION
236 236
ELEVATION (METRE)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150
vD πDtσy
Vn = Lanchor =
[3] cv [4] tu
where Vn is a normalized displacement parameter; v is the where Lanchor is the necessary length of the pipeline outside
displacement rate; and cv is the consolidation coefficient. The the landslide zone to balance out the axial soil force, tu ; t is the
loading is drained if Vn < 0.1, and undrained if Vn > 10. pipe wall thickness; σy is the pipe yield strength; and tu is the
The values of consolidation coefficient are usually between ultimate axial force on the pipe.
1 m2 /year to 10 m2 /year. If we use the lower-bound value The extent of the model should be long enough such that the
of 1 m2 /year for the consolidation coefficient, the maximum boundary conditions at both ends of the model do not affect the
rate of displacement in which the interface is drained would results of the analysis. Furthermore, the length of the pipeline
be 50 mm/month at St-Lazare and 93 mm/month at Har- should be sufficient so that the axial strain originating from the
rowby and Plum River. The maximum displacement rates moni- landslide dissipates within boundaries in the model.
tored were 3.75 mm/month at St-Lazare research site, and 5.2 Using Equation 4, the minimum length of the anchor at each
mm/month at Harrowby research site. Therefore, a drained side of the landslide is calculated being 585 m. The computation
model is considered appropriate for the interface. It is worth of the analysis is not affected much by increasing the extent
noting that the field full-scale tests on longitudinal soil-pipe in- of the anchor zones because the pipeline behaviour at these
teraction carried out by Cappelletto et al. (1998) showed that the locations is elastic. As a result, the pipeline length of 2000 m is
effective stress model should always be used regardless of the used to ensure that the noted boundary conditions are satisfied.
speed of the landslide movement due to the the narrow thickness Both ends of the pipeline are fixed to prevent the pipe from
of the interface. According to their work, the excess pore water rigid motion.
pressure is easily dissipated through the thin soil-pipe interface
along the pipe’s longitudinal axis even in case of a relatively 3.3. Pipeline and Soil Properties
rapid landslide. For the aforementioned reasons, the drained The pipeline and soil properties used in the numerical analy-
model (Equation 1) is used for the numerical simulation. sis are presented in Tables 1 and 4, respectively. The Atterberg
limits of soils at the three research sites are provided in Table
5. In this table, LL stands for Liquid Limit and PL stands for
3.2. Domain Extent and Boundary Conditions Plastic Limit. In Table 4, γ is the bulk unit weight of soil, k0
The pipeline should be simulated with sufficient length to 0
is the the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, φ is the drained
ensure that the imposed pipe loading are balanced out by the internal friction angle of soil, k is the friction factor of the soil-
soil-pipe interaction outside of the landslide zone. To estimate pipe interface, and xu is the ultimate relative displacement of
the necessary length of the pipe for simulation, Equation 4 the soil-pipe interface. As was presented earlier, the effective
introduced by C-CORE (2009) can be used: stress model is used for the soil-pipeline interface. The bulk
Fig. 4. Longitudinal stress captured by the strain gauges (Ferreira, 2016) and the thermal stress
2 6 0
P lu m R iv e r (b e y o n d s lo p e ) P lu m R iv e r (a lo n g s lo p e )
2 4 0 S t-L a z a re (to p ) S t-L a z a r e (b o t)
2 2 0 S t-L a z a re (m id d le ) H a rro w b y (b o t)
H a rro w b y (m id d le ) H a rro w b y (to p )
2 0 0 T h e rm a l s tre s s
1 8 0
1 6 0
1 4 0
S tre s s (M P a )
1 2 0
1 0 0
8 0
6 0
4 0
2 0
0
-2 0
b a c k f illin g
-4 0
-6 0
b a c k f illin g
-8 0
2 0 1 1 -0 9 -0 1
2 0 1 1 -1 0 -3 1
2 0 1 1 -1 2 -3 0
2 0 1 2 -0 2 -2 8
2 0 1 2 -0 4 -2 8
2 0 1 2 -0 6 -2 7
2 0 1 2 -0 8 -2 6
2 0 1 2 -1 0 -2 5
2 0 1 2 -1 2 -2 4
2 0 1 3 -0 2 -2 2
2 0 1 3 -0 4 -2 3
2 0 1 3 -0 6 -2 2
2 0 1 3 -0 8 -2 1
2 0 1 3 -1 0 -2 0
2 0 1 3 -1 2 -1 9
2 0 1 4 -0 2 -1 7
2 0 1 4 -0 4 -1 8
2 0 1 4 -0 6 -1 7
2 0 1 4 -0 8 -1 6
2 0 1 4 -1 0 -1 5
2 0 1 4 -1 2 -1 4
2 0 1 5 -0 2 -1 2
2 0 1 5 -0 4 -1 3
2 0 1 5 -0 6 -1 2
2 0 1 5 -0 8 -1 1
D a te
1 8
2 Table 5. Atterberg Limits of soil (Ferreira, 2016)
3
Site Soil LL PL
4
PIPELINE DISCRETIZED
WITH BEAM-TYPE ELEMENT
St-Lazare Silty Clay 73 26
St-Lazare Clay Shale 99 21
Harrowby Silty Clay 65 19
Plum River Lacustrine Clay 83 27
unit weight of soil is used in the simulation due to the ground
water table being below the pipeline, and therefore not affecting
the model. be one metre for all nodes outside of the landslide area; in
The drained internal friction angle of 15◦ is assumed for the valley, the varying burial depth is used for the simulation
St-Lazare and Plum River sites in relation to the slope grades according to Figures 1b, 2b, and 3b.
at these two sites being 10.3◦ and 15◦ , respectively. The soil
creep would generally not be expected if the internal friction 3.4.1. St-Lazare Research Sites
angles were higher than the slope grades. However, to be con- The downslope ground displacement that is used in the nu-
servative, the drained friction angle of 15◦ was assumed for merical simulation is presented in Figure 6. The horizontal
the simulation in these sites. For Harrowby, the slope grade axis of this figure represents the distance from the slope crest
is 8.5◦ and the drained friction angle of 13◦ was used for the (x=0 m) and the vertical axis shows the cumulative downslope
simulation. Correlations between drained friction angles and ground movements relative to 2013-10-10. As shown in Figure
Atterberg limits are used according to Kanji (1974) to verify 6, the displacements at the slope crest (x=0) and toe (x=300)
that the assumed drained friction angles are reasonable. The k0 are assumed to be zero. The displacements at different locations
coefficient for clay was chosen accrording to Mesri and Hayat along the slope are linearly interpolated using the data in Table
(1993). 2 and are used as boundary conditions at each PSI node in the
simulation. We note that the negative values of pin displace-
3.4. Result of Numerical Simulation ments in Tables 2 and 3 represent upslope pin movements. The
upslope movement likely occurred in the pins due to the frost
The pipeline is modelled with 2000 beam-type one-metre-
action in the ground. These negative values are ignored in the
long elements. The burial depth of the pipeline is assumed to
numerical simulation because there is no possibility that the Fig. 6. Downslope ground displacement versus longitudinal axis
soil moves upslope at the pipe’s burial depth. We note that the of the pipe at St-Lazare
frost depth was above the pipeline during the five years of in-
strumentation so there is no need to consider the effect of frost 7 0 0
action on the pipeline.
D o w n s lo p e g r o u n d d is p la c e m e n t
r e la tiv e to 2 0 1 3 - 1 0 - 1 0 ( m m )
6 0 0
The displacement corresponding to the second interval, 2013-
06-18 to 2013-10-10, is not used in the simulation because they 5 0 0
s tr a in g a u g e
L o n g itu d in a l s tr e s s ( M P a )
5 0
increase of the loading.
According to the analysis, the pipeline at St-Lazare can with- 0
B o tto m
stand the maximum soil loading of the 300-m-moving slope
with its elastic capacity, i.e. the maximum stress in the pipe is -5 0
T o p s tr a in g a u g e
lower than the pipe’s yield stress. As a result, the pipeline goes
M id d le s tr a in g a u g e
-1 0 0
into an ultimate deformed condition after which the soil slides
over the pipe all along the slope and the imposed forces are not
-1 5 0
going to be increased.
The pipeline, installed in 1965 at St. Lazard site, has been -2 0 0
C o m p r e s s iv e s tr e s s
Fig. 8. Downslope ground displacement versus longitudinal axis Fig. 9. Longitudinal stress due to slow downslope ground
of the pipe at Harrowby displacement at Harrowby
6 0 0 2 5 0
T e n s ile s tr e s s
2 0 0
5 0 0
s tr a in g a u g e
1 5 0
D o w n s lo p e g r o u n d d is p la c e m e n t
r e la tiv e to 2 0 1 3 - 0 6 - 1 8 ( m m )
4 0 0 1 0 0
B o tto m
L o n g itu d in a l s tr e s s ( M P a )
5 0
3 0 0
0
-5 0
2 0 0
-1 0 0
1 0 0 -1 5 0
T o p s tr a in g a u g e
M id d le s tr a in g a u g e
-2 0 0
0
-2 5 0
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 4 0 0 4 5 0 5 0 0 -3 0 0 C o m p r e s s iv e s tr e s s
X (m )
-3 0 0 -2 0 0 -1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0
2 0 1 3 -1 0 - 1 0 2 0 1 4 -0 5 -2 9 2 0 1 4 -1 0 -0 7
2 0 1 5 -0 6 - 1 0 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 2 X (m )
2 0 2 4 2 0 3 7 R id g e p a tte rn
0 .3 - m b lo c k -p a tte rn d is p la c e m e n t 2 0 1 3 -1 0 - 1 0 2 0 1 4 -0 5 -2 9 2 0 1 4 -1 0 -0 7
0 .4 - m b lo c k -p a tte rn d is p la c e m e n t 2 0 1 5 -0 6 - 1 0 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 2
2 0 2 4 2 0 3 7 R id g e p a tte rn
0 .3 - m b lo c k -p a tte rn d is p la c e m e n t
0 .4 - m b lo c k -p a tte rn d is p la c e m e n t
Fig. 10. Downslope ground displacement versus longitudinal axis Fig. 12. Longitudinal stress due to rapid landslide in Plum River
of the pipe research site
1 2 0 0
1 2 0
1 m m T e n s ile s tr e s s
2 5 0 m m
8 0 0 1 0 0 0 m m 9 0
A r b itr a r y d o w n s lo p e g r o u n d
d is p la c e m e n t ( m m )
4 0 0 6 0
L o n g itu d in a l S tr e s s ( M P a )
0 3 0
0
-4 0 0
-3 0
-8 0 0
-6 0
-1 2 0 0
0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 4 0 1 5 0
-9 0
X (m )
C o m p r e s s iv e s tr e s s
-1 2 0
4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 4 0 1 5 0
X (m )
8 2 5 0 m m
1 0 0 0 m m
6 sites. However, no strain release was measured by the strain
4 gauges. This is likely due to the anchoring effect of the pipeline
L o n g itu d in a l s tr e s s ( M P a )
2 in the soil. At Plum River, the pipeline was cut in a valve about
0 50 m away from the strain gauge. The location of cut was be-
-2 yond the crest of the slope. At St.Lazare, the location of cut
s tr a in g a u g e
-4 was about 100 m away from the bottom strain gauge close to
T o p s tr a in g a u g e
-6 the river . After the cut, the pipeline tends to move to relieve
B o tto m
The pipe is simulated using Timoshenko beam elements with the pipe. The extent of the anchor zones is related to soil-pipe
a linear elastic perfectly plastic behaviour. The soil-pipeline interface properties and the length of the moving ground.
interface is modelled with PSI elements. The stiffness of PSI For instrumentation, it is said that the stress condition of the
elements is defined according to PRCI (2017). The monitored pipeline should be examined before the installation of strain
landslide movements are imposed on the PSI elements as dis- gauges. If the pipeline is scheduled to be cut to capture the
placement boundaries. The pipeline behaviour subjected to the stress release, the position of the cut should be close to the
monitored ground displacement is examined. Furthermore, ar- slope, and also, the strain gauges should be placed next to the
bitrary block-pattern displacements are used to analyze the cut. However, this practice is not recommended. It is better to
pipeline behaviour under different loading conditions. install the strain gauges either on a newly constructed pipeline
It is shown that the pipelines at two of the three sites, Plum or to remove the soil cover over the entire length of the pipe
River and St-Lazare, withstand the landslide loading without in the active zone and also in the passive zone to ensure the
experiencing any plastic deformation. At these sites, the load- locked-in strain is released before the instalment of the strain
ing due to the slow landslides increases over time as the dis- gauges.
placements accumulate until the maximum frictional interface
capacity is reached. At this stage, the soil slides over the pipe
as the interface becomes plastic and as a result, the soil loading Acknowledgments
remains constant. This research was supported by the NSERC Discovery Grants
At Harrowby, the simulation does not converge under the Program and the University of Manitoba, Graduate Enhance-
ultimate loading because the pipeline at the toe of the slope ex- ment of Tri-Council Stipends (GETS) program.
periences plastic deformation. The plastic deformation contin-
ues to increase over the analysis steps until the analysis aborted
at some point due to the excessive deformation of the pipe. References
To be able to solve the problem numerically without changing
the elastoplatsic behaviour of the pipe, the yield stress of the C-CORE 2009. Guidelines for constructing natural gas and
steel is increased from 290 MPa to 350 MPa and the results liquid hydrocarbon pipelines through areas prone to landslide
are compared to the strain gauge data. Because a progressive and subsidence hazards. Technical report, D.G. Honegger
trend can not be seen from the green lines in Figure 4, we can Consulting, SSD, Inc.
assume that the pipeline at Harrowby has not experienced a
Cappelletto, A., Tagliaferri, R., Giurlani, G., Andrei, G., Furlani,
plastic deformation over its many years of operation. If the pipe
G., and Scarpelli, G. 1998. Field full scale tests on longitudi-
had reached its plastic behaviour under the soil loading, the
nal pipeline-soil interaction. In 2nd International Pipeline
slow landslide would have induced progressive strain in the
Conference, 1998, pages 771–778. American Society of Me-
pipe and the strain gauges would have picked them up. This
chanical Engineers.
overestimation in the pipeline behaviour was expected to occur
as the steel hardening after the yield point is ignored using a Ferreira, N. J. 2016. Risk to Buried Gas Pipelines in Landslide
linear elastic perfectly plastic pipe behaviour in the simulation. Areas. PhD thesis, The University of Manitoba.
By comparing the stress in the pipe from the instrumentation
with those of the numerical simulations, and the calculated ther- Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen 2001. ABAQUS/standard
mal stress, we can realize that the effect of the slow landslide on User’s Manual, volume 1. Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen.
the pipeline is not captured by the strain gauges. The numerical
simulation suggests that the pipeline would go into an ultimate Kanji, M. 1974. The relationship between drained friction
deformed condition under which the soil slides over the pipe angles and atterberg limits of natural soils. Geotechnique,
(the interface becomes plastic). At this stage, the soil loading re- 24(4).
mains constant throughout the life of the pipe given that the pipe
Katebi, M., Liu, H., Maghoul, P., and Blatz, J. 2018. The opti-
was able to withstand the ultimate loading condition without
mum pipeline burial depth considering slow downslope soil
deforming plastically. Given the fact that the strain gauges were
movement and seasonal temperature variation. In 2018 12th
installed on the pipes that have already went into the ultimate
International Pipeline Conference, pages V002T02A015–
deformed condition clearly explains why the strain gauges did
V002T02A015. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
not capture any of the soil loading effects on the pipe.
It is explained that cutting the pipeline is not a practical Mesri, G. and Hayat, T. 1993. The coefficient of earth pressure
way to estimate the initial condition of the pipe as the pipe is at rest. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30(4):647–666.
anchored in the soil and the soil resistant to pipe movement
prevents the release of the locked-in strain. Oswell, J. M. 2016. Soil Mechanics for Pipeline Stress Analysis,
At Plum River, a 15-m-long riverbank slide is the largest pos- volume 1. Naviq Consulting Inc.
sible landslide. The numerical simulation showed that the pipe
behaves elastically subjected to such ground movements. Nu- Paulin, M. J. 1998. An investigation into pipelines subjected
merical analysis shows that the maximum tensile stress occurs to lateral soil loading. PhD thesis, Memorial University of
at the top and the maximum compressive stress at the bottom Newfoundland.
of the slope. There is a transition from tensile to compressive
stress along the slope. Anchor zones form at the top and bot- PRCI 2017. Pipeline seismic design and assessment guideline.
tom sides of the slope to balance out the landslide loading on Technical report, PR-268-134501-R01.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: