A83593-17 Trans Mountain Attachment 1 Part 16 of 23 Condition 68 - A5L7T6

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project May 08, 2017
Seismic Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Assessment Update – Project No.: 0095-150-13
APPENDIX O
FREE FACE CASES PIPE-SOIL INTERACTION ANALYSIS BY DGHC
(2017)
2017_TMEP Seismic Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Assessment Update.docx
BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Assessment of Lateral Spread
Hazards to the TMEP Pipeline
Final Report
Rev. 0
May 2017
D.G. Honegger Consulting

2690 Shetland Place
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Telephone / Fax: 805-473-0856
May 8, 2017
Mr. Adam Neale
Project Manager, TMEP
Hatch Mott MacDonald, Inc.
1000-1066 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6E 3X2
Subject: Analytical Assessment of TMEP Pipeline Response to Lateral Spread

Displacement Hazards
Mr. Neale:
This report presents the analytical evaluation of sections of the proposed TMEP pipeline
for free-face lateral spread displacement hazards identified by BGC Engineering, Inc. The
analytical evaluation has been performed in a manner consistent with established
engineering practices for computing the response of buried pipelines to imposed ground
displacements. Assessment of the TMEP pipeline has relied upon estimates of the
probability of girth weld failure as a function of tensile strain provided by Universal
Pegasus International. Two performance levels were used to confirm adequacy:
1. A likelihood of failure no greater than 50% for a ground displacement hazard

produced by a level of earthquake ground shaking with an annual probability of
exceedance of 1/2,450 (2% chance in 50 years) and
2. An annual frequency for loss of containment considering the full probabilistic

ground displacement hazard no greater than 1/100,000.
Recommendations for modifying the TMEP pipeline design at four locations in the vicinity
of the Fraser River crossing have been provided to achieve the above performance goals.
I am thankful for the opportunity to support Hatch Mott MacDonald in this effort. If you
have any questions, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you.
Regards,
Douglas G. Honegger
President
D.G. Honegger Consulting
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... v
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
PIPELINE RESPONSE TO GROUND DISPLACEMENT ................................................. 3
2.1 Requirements for Designing for Ground Displacement ................................................... 3
2.2 Analysis Methodology ...................................................................................................... 3
PIPELINE PROPERTIES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA.............................................. 6
3.1 Pipeline Properties ............................................................................................................ 6
3.2 Strain Limits ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Determining Acceptable Pipeline Response ..................................................................... 6
DEFINING THE LATERAL SPREAD DISPLACEMENT HAZARD ............................... 8
4.1 Vedder River ..................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Vedder River Tributary................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Yarrow Road ................................................................................................................... 10
4.4 Sumas Canal ................................................................................................................... 11
4.5 Sumas River .................................................................................................................... 11
4.6 South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing ........................................................................... 11
4.7 Fraser River South Bank HDD ....................................................................................... 11
4.8 Fraser River North Bank HDD ....................................................................................... 12
PRESENTATION of analysis Results................................................................................. 13
5.1 Vedder River Crossing.................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Vedder River Tributary Crossing ................................................................................... 13
5.3 Yarrow Crossing ............................................................................................................. 14
5.4 Sumas Canal Crossing .................................................................................................... 15
5.5 Sumas River Crossing..................................................................................................... 15
5.6 South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing ........................................................................... 15
5.7 South Fraser River Bank Crossing.................................................................................. 16
5.8 South Fraser River HDD Crossing ................................................................................. 17
5.9 North Fraser River HDD Crossing ................................................................................. 17
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 19
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX A: SOIL SPRING DEFINITION ................................................................................ 90
May 2017 Page i

DGHC HMM TMEP Pipeline Lateral Spread Assessment Rev. 0
LIST OF TABLES
1. Soil Properties Used in Lateral Spread Analyses at Vedder River Tributary and Yarrow
Crossings .................................................................................................................................... 23
2. 50% Strain Capacities Provided by UPI .................................................................................... 23
3. Lateral Spread Displacement Estimates ..................................................................................... 24
4. TMEP Pipeline Properties Used in Lateral Spread Analyses ..................................................... 24
5. Summary of Analysis Results .................................................................................................... 25
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Locations of TMEP Pipeline River Crossings ........................................................................... 27
2. Process for Modeling Pipeline Response to Ground Displacement ........................................... 28
3. Schematic Representation of Applying Soil Displacements to Pipeline .................................... 29
4. Parameters for PIPE20 ANSYS Element ................................................................................... 30
5. Parameters for COMBIN39 ANSYS Element ........................................................................... 30
6. Stress-Strain Curves for Grades 483 Steel Used in ANSYS Analyses ...................................... 31
7. Variation of Free-Face Lateral Spread Displacement with Return Period ................................. 32
8. Method for Defining Lateral Spread Displacement Hazard ....................................................... 33
9. Plan and Profile for Vedder River Crossing............................................................................... 34
10. Ground Displacement Patterns for the Vedder River Crossing.................................................. 35
11. Vedder River Pipeline Model Geometry .................................................................................... 36
12. Ground Displacement Applied in Vedder River Analysis ......................................................... 37
13. Crossing Profile for Vedder River Tributary ............................................................................. 38
14. Google Earth Image of Extent of Vedder River Tributary Lateral Spread
Displacement Hazard ................................................................................................................. 38
15. Model Geometry for Vedder River Tributary ............................................................................ 39
16. Vedder River Tributary Model Geometry with Displacement 10° to Pipeline .......................... 40
17. Identification of Yarrow Lateral Spread Hazard Location ......................................................... 41
18. Crossing Profile for Yarrow Drainage ....................................................................................... 42
19. BGC Stratigraphy for Yarrow Crossing ..................................................................................... 42
20. Geometry for Analytical Models of the Yarrow Crossing ......................................................... 43
21. Sumas Canal Crossing................................................................................................................ 44
22. Sumas Canal Ground Displacement Pattern .............................................................................. 45
23. Sumas Canal Analytical Model Geometry ................................................................................. 45
24. Ground Displacements Applied in Sumas Canal Analysis ........................................................ 46
25. Sumas River Crossing ................................................................................................................ 47
26. Sumas River Ground Displacement Pattern ............................................................................... 48
27. Sumas River Crossing Model Geometry .................................................................................... 49
28. Applied Displacement for Sumas River Crossing Analysis ....................................................... 49
29. Pipeline Model Plan and Elevation at the South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing .................... 50
30. Lateral Spread Displacement Contours at South Fraser River Perimeter Road ......................... 50
May 2017 Page ii

31. Lateral Spread Displacement Applied in the South Fraser River Perimeter Road Crossing ..... 51
32. Fraser River Crossing ................................................................................................................. 52
33. Fraser River South Bank Displacements .................................................................................... 53
34. Fraser River South Bank Analytical Model Geometry .............................................................. 53
35. Applied Displacement for Fraser River South Bank Analysis ................................................... 54
36. Fraser River North Bank Displacements .................................................................................... 55
37. Fraser River North Bank Analytical Model Geometry .............................................................. 56
38. Applied Displacement for Fraser River North Bank Analysis ................................................... 57
39. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for the Vedder River Crossing
at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement ................................................................................ 58
40. Maximum Longitudinal Strain as a Function of Lateral Spread Displacement
for the Vedder River Crossing ................................................................................................... 59
41. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Vedder River Tributary Cases at
the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement.................................................................................... 60
42. Results for Vedder River Tributary Cases with -10° T and Displacement
10° from Pipeline at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement .................................................. 61
for Vedder River Tributary Cases .............................................................................................. 62
44. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Yarrow Cases at the 1/2475
Lateral Spread Displacement Perpendicular to Crossing ........................................................... 63
45. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Yarrow Cases at the 1/2475
Lateral Spread Displacement 10° from Parallel to the Pipeline ................................................. 64
46. Maximum Longitudinal Strain as a Function of Lateral Spread
Displacement for Yarrow Crossing ............................................................................................ 65
47. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Sumas Canal Crossing at the
1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement ......................................................................................... 66
for Sumas Canal Crossing .......................................................................................................... 67
49. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Sumas River Crossing at the
1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement ......................................................................................... 68
for Sumas River Crossing .......................................................................................................... 69
51. Pipeline Response for Initial Analysis of the South Fraser Perimeter Road
Crossing at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement (+33°) ..................................................... 70
52. Alternative Bend Considered at Road Crossing ......................................................................... 71
53. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for the Bend Modification at the
South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement ................. 72
for Bend Modification at the South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing ........................................ 73
55. Potential Geometry Modifications at the South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing ..................... 74
56. Analysis Results for the Option 2 Alternate South Fraser Perimeter Road
Crossing at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement ................................................................ 75
May 2017 Page iii

57. Model Geometry for the Evaluation of the Option 1 Crossing of South
Fraser Perimeter Road ................................................................................................................ 76
58. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Option 1 South Fraser Perimeter
Road Crossing at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement ....................................................... 77
for Option 1 South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing .................................................................. 78
60. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for South Fraser River Bank Crossing a
t the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement ................................................................................. 79
for the South Fraser River Bank Crossing.................................................................................. 80
62. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for South Fraser River HDD Crossing
for the South Fraser River HDD Crossing ................................................................................. 82
64. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for South Fraser River 21.5 mm HDD
Crossing at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement ................................................................ 83
for the South Fraser River 21.5 mm HDD Crossing .................................................................. 84
66. Modified Displacement Pattern Assuming Ground Improvement Measures............................. 85
67. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for South Fraser River 21.5 mm HDD
Crossing with Ground Improvement at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement ..................... 86
68. Maximum Longitudinal Strain as a Function of Lateral Spread Displacement for the
South Fraser River Crossing 21.5 mm HDD Crossing with Ground Improvement ................... 87
69. Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for the North Fraser River HDD Crossing
for the North Fraser River HDD Crossing ................................................................................. 89
May 2017 Page iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) includes 987 km of new buried pipeline in
Alberta and British Columbia. D.G. Honegger Consulting (DGHC) was retained by Hatch
Mott MacDonald (HMM) to assist in defining seismic design procedures and to provide
the analyses necessary to validate the proposed HMM crossing designs at the above
locations. In testimony to the National Energy Board (NEB,2016), Trans Mountain
committed to designing the pipeline for a seismic hazard with an annual probability of
exceedance (APE) of 1/2475. In addition, condition 16 required by the NEB calls for a
plan to be put in place to manage and mitigate geohazards (including seismic hazards) is
needed where the frequency for loss of containment (referred to by the acronym FLoC) is
greater than 10-5 (1/100000). Validation of the TMEP pipeline design required
consideration of both the response to the 1/2475 seismic hazards and FLoC requirements.
Compliance with the requirement that the seismic design of the pipeline be appropriate for
a hazard with an APE of 1/2475 was considered to be achieved if the computed pipeline
tensile strains were below the median tensile strain capacity. The focus on tensile strains is
appropriate as tensile strains are far more likely than compressive strains to lead to full-
bore rupture scenarios.
Verification that the FLoC was not greater than 10-5 considered the variation in seismic
hazard severity for a variety of APE values ranging from 1/50 to 1/100,000, the likelihood
of lateral spread occurrence, and the likelihood of a girth weld flaw existing at the location
of maximum tensile strain. Tensile strains for various hazard APE levels were obtained
from pipeline response analyses. The probability of tensile failure and the likelihood of a
girth weld flaw at the location of maximum strain were provided by Universal Pegasus
International (UPI) for the conventional pipe wall thicknesses used on the TMEP and for
14.7 mm high-strain capacity (HSC) pipe.
A geotechnical assessment of lateral spread hazards along the proposed TMEP pipeline
alignment performed by BGC Engineering, Inc. (BGC) identified several locations,
primarily at river and stream crossings with a potential to experience large lateral spread
displacements:
1. Vedder River
2. Vedder River Tributary
3. Drainage near Yarrow Road
4. Sumas Canal
5. Sumas River
6. South Fraser Perimeter Road
7. Fraser River Bank
May 2017 Page v

8. Fraser River
It is noted that the pipeline also crosses the Salmon River where large earthquake triggered
ground displacements are possible. However, the horizontal directional drilled (HDD)
crossing at this location is outside of the zone of ground displacement.
Based upon the analytical assessment of pipeline response modifications are suggested to
the pipeline between the South Fraser Perimeter Road, the portion of the pipeline parallel
to the south bank of the Fraser River, the Fraser River HDD entry location, and the north
side of the Fraser River HDD crossing.
 South Fraser Perimeter Road

o Utilize field bends and a 45° road crossing angle transition to normal burial
depth on either side of the crossing.
o Increase the pipe wall thickness from 14.7 mm to 19.0 mm between the
field bends and extending 75 m beyond the ends of the field bends or utilize
14.7-mm HSC pipe to satisfy FLoC criteria.
 South Fraser Bank
o Use 14.7 mm HSC pipe or 19.0 mm conventional pipe to meet the 1/2475
design requirement.
o Relocate the block valve upstream of the South Fraser River Perimeter
Road crossing.
 South Fraser River HDD
o Increase pipe wall thickness for the HDD pipe downstream of a point at
least 50 m from the side bend near the HDD entry point to 21.5 mm.
o Provide ground improvement to minimize ground displacement over at
distance extending 30 m north and 30 m east of the side bend near the HDD
entry point.
 North Fraser River HDD
o Utilize HSC pipe for the 90° induction bend approximately 185 m
downstream of the HDD exit point to meet the 1/2475 design requirement,
or
o Use 19 mm pipe for the induction bend and extending 6 m beyond the
induction bend.
o Relocate a block valve currently planned for under the Port Mann Bridge to
an area north of the HDD exit point where no ground displacement is
expected.
May 2017 Page vi

INTRODUCTION
The existing Trans Mountain Pipe Line (TMPL) system commenced operations over 60 years
ago and transports a range of crude oil and petroleum products from Western Canada to locations
in central and southwestern British Columbia (BC), Washington State, and offshore. The TMPL
system currently supplies much of the crude oil and refined products used in BC. Application is
being made pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) for the
proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (referred to as “TMEP” or “the Project”). The
proposed expansion will comprise the following:
 Pipeline segments that complete a twinning (or “looping”) of the pipeline in Alberta and
BC with about 987 km of new buried pipeline.
 New and modified facilities, including pump stations and tanks.
 Three new berths at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, BC, each capable of
handling Aframax class vessels.
D.G. Honegger Consulting (DGHC) was retained by Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) in 2015 to
assist in defining seismic design procedures and to provide the analyses necessary to validate the
proposed HMM crossing designs at seismic hazard locations identified by BGC Engineering
(BGC). DGHC participated in project discussions related to the development of the approach for
defining how lateral spread ground displacement hazards would be incorporated into the
analytical model of the TMEP watercourse crossings. A draft DGHC report was prepared in the
fall of 2015 addressing the crossings of the Vedder River, Vedder River Tributary, Yarrow
Drainage, Sumas River, and Salmon River crossings.
BGC refined the definition of lateral spread hazards in late 2016 for the Vedder River and Sumas
River crossings. In addition, new hazard locations were identified at the Sumas Canal, along the
south bank of the Fraser River, and the Fraser River HDD crossing. A decision to cross the
Salmon River with an HDD removed that crossing from the scope of the DGHC validation
effort.
In presenting the analytical approach and analysis results in this report, extracts from HMM and
BGC drawings have been incorporated in order to make this report as self-contained as possible.
As these figures have been extracted from documents prepared over the last 2 years or more from
different parties, the format for the presentation of background material is not consistent.
However, this is considered acceptable as opposed to the alternative of simply referencing the
source documents for the extracted figures.
Potential lateral spread hazards at watercourse crossings along the proposed TMEP alignment
have been defined by BGC (see Figure 1).
1. Vedder River crossing
May 2017 Page 1 of 97

DGHC HMM TMEP Lateral Spread Assessment Rev. 0
2. Vedder River Tributary crossing
3. Drainage crossing near Yarrow Road (Yarrow)
4. Sumas Canal crossing
5. Sumas River crossing
6. South Fraser Perimeter Road crossing
7. Fraser River Bank
8. Fraser River crossing
Section 2 of this report provides a brief summary of the analytical method used to evaluate
pipeline response. The acceptance criteria used to evaluate pipeline response are presented in
Section 3. The lateral spread displacement hazard at each of the eight sites listed above is
defined in Section 4. Results from the finite element analysis are summarized in Section 5 with
conclusions and recommendations based upon the analytical results provided in Section 6.

PIPELINE RESPONSE TO GROUND DISPLACEMENT
Loads are induced in a buried pipeline whenever it is subjected to movement relative to the
surrounding soil. This may occur when the soil restricts the free movement of a pipeline or when
the pipeline attempts to resist the movement of the surrounding soil. The loads on a buried
pipeline from ground displacement are deformation-limited. That is, pipeline displacement
cannot exceed the displacement of surrounding soil.
2.1 Requirements for Designing for Ground Displacement

Large ground displacements will typically produce pipeline strains well in excess of the elastic
levels produced by normal operating conditions. As the previous discussion illustrates, is not
necessarily a concern if pressure integrity of the pipeline can be maintained. It is often not
practical to design buried pipelines to maintain stresses below the nominal yield stress of the
pipe material for cases where the pipeline is in competent soil and subjected to large ground
displacements perpendicular to the pipeline alignment. For these cases, an accepted alternative
approach is to allow comparatively large strains to occur locally in the pipe and accept the fact
that local deformation of the pipe wall is likely to occur and repair may be needed. This
approach requires that the pipeline be reviewed soon after an earthquake to identify locations
where ground movement may have occurred, investigate the deformation condition of the
pipeline, and take measures to repair deformed sections as needed.
2.2 Analysis Methodology

The analysis of soil-pipeline interaction effects at zones of ground displacement requires the
utilization of analytical procedures that can account for inelastic pipeline behavior, the nonlinear
behavior of the surrounding soil mass, and large displacement effects. Nonlinear finite element
procedures are generally appropriate for this type of analysis, although some simple
configurations where bending of the pipeline is minimal can be assessed using hand calculations.
The primary advantage of using the finite element procedure is that it allows a more complete
assessment of the behavior of pipelines with arbitrary alignments and variable ground
displacement patterns. Stresses, strains, and displacements can be determined for virtually any
number of locations of interest, and the sensitivity of the results to parameter variation can be
investigated with relative ease. However, as with most nonlinear finite element applications,
care must be exercised to control problem complexity, as convergence of the nonlinear solution
can be difficult to achieve at high strain and large displacements, particularly considering the
potential for pipeline buckling under compressive loads.
2.2.1 Finite Element Model Characteristics

As shown in Figure 2, the three-dimensional soil restraint can be represented schematically by a
series of discrete springs whose load-deformation characteristics are denoted as t-x, p-y, and q-z
curves. These springs represent the nonlinear, stress-dependent behavior of soils in the axial,
horizontal, and vertical directions, respectively. The formulation of nonlinear load-deformation
relations provides the most accurate characterization of soil-pipeline interaction, but bilinear

representations generally are sufficient for most large displacement problems. In some cases,
such as pure horizontal ground displacement and a straight pipeline alignment, the model can be
simplified by a two-dimensional representation, but three-dimensional models are preferred for
crossings involving three significant components of ground displacement or more complicated
pipeline alignments. Inelastic pipeline behavior is simulated by specifying a nonlinear stress-
strain curve for the pipeline steel. The ground displacement pattern is input to the model as
displacements of the base of the soil springs as shown in Figure 3.
A typical section of the pipeline to be analyzed by the finite element procedure is divided into a
number of straight or curved pipe elements, which may vary in length along the line. The
segment of the pipeline used in the model must be long enough to appropriately characterize the
behavior at the location of ground movement, i.e., it should extend beyond points of virtual
anchorage on each side of the zone of ground displacement (the points where axial soil friction is
sufficient to oppose axial forces generated by ground displacement). Elements are generally
made shorter in regions of critical interest near the boundary of the zone of ground movement,
and longer in segments of the pipeline that are more distant from the area of ground movement.
For the TMEP, pipeline analyses, pipeline element lengths were approximately equivalent to one
pipe diameter.
The finite element analyses were performed using the ANSYS computer program. ANSYS is a
widely-accepted general purpose finite element stress analysis program that has the capability to
account for geometric, material, and boundary condition nonlinearities. Specifically, nonlinear
spring elements were used to simulate soil restraints and plastic pipe elements were used to
represent the pipeline. The large displacement analysis option of ANSYS was invoked to
account for the geometric changes in stiffness due to large transverse movements of the pipe.
Details on the use and capabilities of ANSYS can be found in the program user’s manual
(ANSYS, 2010).
2.2.2 Element Descriptions

The analyses utilized two elements available in ANSYS, a plastic straight pipe element (PIPE20)
and a nonlinear spring element (COMBIN39). A brief description of the capabilities of these
elements is provided below.
PIPE20 is a uniaxial element with tension-compression, bending, and torsion capabilities. The
element has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal, x, y, and z directions,
and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z axes. The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate
system for this element are shown in Figure 4. The element input data include two nodes, the
pipe outer diameter and wall thickness, optional stress factors, and the isotropic material
properties.
The element has plastic, creep and swelling capabilities. The PIPE20 element is assumed to
have “closed ends” so that the axial pressure effect is included. Options are available for
outputting element forces plus bending stress, direct stress, elastic strain, and plastic strain for
any of eight, equally-spaced, locations around the circumference of the pipe.

The COMBIN39 element used to model soil restraint is a unidirectional element with nonlinear
generalized force-deflection capability. The element has longitudinal or torsional capability in
one, two, or three-dimensional applications. The longitudinal option, which is applicable to
pipe-soil interaction, is a uniaxial tension-compression element with up to three degrees of
freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element has large
displacement capability for which there can be two or three degrees of freedom at each node.
The geometry, node locations and the coordinate system for the COMBIN39 element are shown
in Figure 5. The element is defined by two node points and a generalized piecewise-linear force-
deflection curve. The COMBIN39 element is nonlinear and requires an iterative solution.
2.2.3 Soil Modeling

The amount of restraint or load exerted on the pipeline is a nonlinear function of the amount of
relative soil-pipeline displacement. The pipeline itself is modeled using pipe elements that
account for stresses due to internal pressure and the beam-like behavior of the pipeline under
combined lateral and axial loading. Nodal forces (t, p, and q) represent soil loads. If large
relative displacements (greater than xu, yu, and zu) occur between the soil and pipeline, the soil
loads may reach a constant ultimate value tu, pu, and qu). When a pipeline is subjected to ground
displacement, the portion of the pipeline on each side of the zone of ground displacement is
restrained by the surrounding soil and is thus subjected to a combination of shear, bending, and
axial tension or compression. The assumption of any particular soil condition and the
development of spring restraint properties must be consistent with field conditions. Similarly,
for vertical ground displacement, the upward breakout must occur within the designated backfill.
Background on the definition of soil spring properties is provided in Appendix A.
Bi-linear soil springs were used in the finite element analyses and were defined in terms of the
maximum soil load on the pipe and the relative displacement necessary to develop the maximum
soil load. The formulations to compute soil spring parameters are presented in Appendix A. Soil
strength parameters for the analysis of all crossings were provided by BGC. For the Vedder
River Tributary, and Yarrow, Sumas Canal and South Fraser Perimeter Road crossings, the soil
strength parameters are summarized in
Table 1. For the HDD crossings of the Vedder River, Sumas River, and Fraser River, the soil
strength properties provided by BGC varied along the HDD bore path.

PIPELINE PROPERTIES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
For situations where the primary issue for the pipeline is public safety, strain acceptance criteria
for the analyses are typically based upon keeping pipeline strains below the level corresponding
to a significant potential for loss of pressure integrity. Establishing acceptable strain limits based
upon a goal of maintaining pressure integrity is appropriate when the event imposing strains in
the pipeline has a low likelihood of occurrence (e.g., less frequently than several hundred to a
thousand years).
These acceptance criteria accept some limited plastic deformation of the pipeline and recognize
that post-earthquake repairs may be necessary to make the pipe acceptable for long-term normal
operation. More restrictive strain limits are established when the pipeline is required to meet
more stringent performance requirements such as maintaining normal operation.
3.1 Pipeline Properties

Pipeline properties important for assessing pipeline response to permanent ground displacement
include the following:
1. Outside diameter: 913 mm

2. Wall thickness: 11.8 mm, 14.7 mm, 19.0 mm, and 21.5 mm
3. Steel grade: Grade 483 (X70)
4. Operating pressure: 9.93 MPa
5. Temperature differential: +33° and -10°
The pipeline material was represented in the analyses by a piece-wise linear stress versus
engineering strain curve corresponding to the specified minimum pipeline material strength
properties. The definition of the stress-strain curve is based upon a generic Ramberg-Osgood
formulation suggested by Walker and Williams (1995) and illustrated in Figure 6.
3.2 Strain Limits

Project-specific longitudinal tensile strain limits for the pipeline assessment were defined by UPI
(2016, 2017a, 2017b). Mean strain capacities for various pipeline wall thickness and material
assumptions are provided in Table 2. Relationships between longitudinal strain and other failure
probabilities are contained in the UPI report.
3.3 Determining Acceptable Pipeline Response

The evaluation of pipeline response was based upon whether or not the estimated annual
frequency for loss of pipe containment, referred to by the acronym “FLoC”, was no greater than
10-5 (1/100000). The computation of FLoC mirrored the methodology used by BGC for portions
of the pipeline alignment to evaluate the impact of lateral spread displacement in sloping ground
conditions with the following adjustments:

1. The variation of lateral spread displacement with return period was based upon free-face
conditions from Honegger et al. (2014) as shown in Figure 7 instead of the sloping
ground conditions used for the areas evaluated by BGC.
2. The probability of liquefaction was assumed to be 1.0 since all locations are in areas of
Very High liquefaction susceptibility.
3. The magnitude correction factor to account for earthquake magnitudes less than 7.5
(typically 1.125) was ignored.
4. The location of highest strain (typically over less than 6 m of pipe) was assumed to occur
at a girth weld.
5. The likelihood of a flaw being present at the girth weld and at a location of high tensile
strain was taken as 2.7% based upon recommendations in the UPI strain capacity report
(2017).
From Figure 7, it can be seen that the displacements for APE less than 1/10000 are considerably
greater than the 1/2475 displacement. In computing FLoC, a probability of pipeline failure of
100% was applied for the probability bin corresponding to APE values of 1/100000 to 1/6238
(hazard bin value of 0.00015).

DEFINING THE LATERAL SPREAD DISPLACEMENT HAZARD
Information required to perform a detailed assessment of pipeline response to lateral spread
displacement includes the following:
1. The amount of displacement,
2. The direction, or variation in direction of displacement,
3. The length of pipeline traversing the zone of potential displacement, and
4. The soil strength properties within the zone of lateral spread displacement along the
pipeline and extending outside the zone of lateral spread displacement for a distance
equal to the length of pipeline exposed to lateral spread displacement.
Information in the geohazards report prepared by BGC (BGC, 2015) covers the amount of
displacement and the soil strength properties. The range of displacement estimates for the sites
covered in this report are presented in Table 2. Based upon discussions with technical experts at
a project meeting on June 3rd, 2015 (HMM, 2015), the following rules were defined by the
Project to be used to establish the lateral spread ground displacement hazard:
1. The direction of lateral spread displacement is assumed to occur in a uniform direction

perpendicular to the river bank at the point where the pipeline crosses the river or the
closest point between the pipeline and the river bank.
2. The distance from the river bank that experiences lateral spread displacement is assumed
to be the lesser of the following:
a. 50 times the free-face height the elevation difference between the toe of the bank
within the river and the height of the bank adjacent to the river)
b. 300 m from any point in a direction perpendicular to the river bank, or
c. The distance from the river bank to a point where the ground surface slopes away
from the river.
Implementation of the above rules is illustrated in Figure 8.
For all crossings except the Vedder River Tributary and Yarrow crossings, the ground
displacement pattern provided by BGC varied with distance from the river bank as presented in
this section. For the Vedder River Tributary and Yarrow crossings, the ground displacement
hazard was defined as follows:
 The amount of displacement is assumed to be constant over the length of pipeline

within the zone of lateral spreading, as defined in point 2 above.

 The amount of displacement is assumed to be constant between the ground
surface and the depth to non-liquefiable soil.
Both banks of a river crossing are assumed to move at the same time with opposite motions.
This results in a concentration of compressive forces in the pipeline at the center of the crossing
for cases where the pipeline alignment is parallel to the direction of ground displacement or
abrupt shear and compression where non-parallel conditions exist.
These rules for defining lateral spread hazard to the TMEP pipeline can be very conservative,
particularly the assumptions of constant displacement and simultaneous displacement of both
river banks.
The analyses for the Vedder River Tributary and Yarrow that were performed in 2015 applied
ground displacements many time greater than the displacement estimated by BGC. For the
analyses performed in 2017, the maximum displacement applied in the analyses was generally
twice that estimated by BGC. The reason for applying displacements larger than the estimated
displacement are two-fold.
 The margin between acceptable and unacceptable response is not determined by the ratio
of computed strain to acceptable strain. Since strain in a pipeline does not vary linearly
with displacement, relying upon the ratio of computed strain to acceptable strain could
overestimate or underestimate the real margin. Instead, margin needs to be based upon
the ratio of the displacement leading to unacceptable strains and the displacement at the
acceptable strain limit.
 The FLoC calculations require considering displacements with an APE much less than
1/2475. While these displacements can be larger than twice the displacement at the
1/2475 APE, the strains at twice the 1/2475 displacement are associated with a failure
probability near 100%. Therefore, the fact that the target displacement at a low APE
might be greater than twice the 1/2475 level does not impact the FLoC calculation
because the failure probability is still essentially 100%.
4.1 Vedder River

The Vedder River will have an HDD crossing as illustrated in the plan and profile in Figure 9.
BGC provided two lateral spread ground displacement patterns for consideration at the Vedder
River crossing as shown in Figure 10. The BGC displacement patterns differ in the assumption
regarding whether or not the HDD bore path might be impacted by a potential flow failure.
Given the inability to eliminate the loading by a flow failure scenario and a larger portion of the
HDD exposed to ground displacement is obviously more demanding, only Pattern A in Figure 10
was considered. The horizontal displacement in Figure 10 is in a direction perpendicular to the
river bank. From Figure 9, the horizontal displacements perpendicular to the river bank are in a
north-south orientation.

The pipeline model geometry is illustrated in Figure 11. The ground displacement pattern
applied in the analysis is shown in Figure 12.
4.2 Vedder River Tributary

The tributary to the Vedder River will be crossed by conventional open cut methods as indicated
by the HMM profile in Figure 13. Based upon this profile, the free-face height is determined to
be 1.6 m. Based upon the rules for defining the extent of lateral spread displacement, lateral
spread displacement is assumed to extend out to a distance 78 m from the top of the river bank
(Figure 14). The pipeline plan alignment is straight across the Vedder River tributary and
perpendicular to the tributary at the crossing location. In the analytical model, the elevation of
the water table for computing effective stress was taken to be 11.3 m compared to a ground
elevation of 12.0 m for each side of the tributary crossing.
The analysis model incorporated a straight plan alignment with a vertical profile based upon the
HMM crossing geometry. The bends in the pipeline profile were modelled assuming field bends
(57D bends). Figure 15 presents plot of the geometry for the pipeline plan, elevation, and
applied ground displacement patterns. A total horizontal displacement of 10 m was applied in
the analysis.
Given that the Vedder River Tributary exhibits some meandering in the vicinity of the crossing,
an alternate displacement pattern was also considered. This displacement pattern, illustrated in
Figure 16, differs from Figure 15 in that the direction of ground displacement on either bank is
taken to be 10° offset from a perpendicular crossing angle.
4.3 Yarrow Road

The Yarrow Road location was initially identified as a potential lateral spread hazard as a result
of the close proximity to small drainage channel (see Figure 17). The potential lateral spread
hazard was reviewed with respect to the distance from the drainage and the topography
perpendicular to the drainage. At the drainage crossing, the free-face height of the drainage was
determined to be no greater than 2 m, based upon the HMM profile. Based upon a 2-m free-face
height, the lateral spread hazard associated with the drainage is limited to the actual drainage
crossing since the pipeline is more than 50 times the free-face height at other locations. This
crossing is approximately 850 m east of where BGC performed borings (see Figure 17).
Based upon the HMM profile (Figure 18), the Yarrow crossing will be constructed using
conventional techniques with field bends on either side of the crossing to achieve the required
clearance with the bottom of the drainage. The BGC stratigraphy developed for the initially
identified hazard location (Figure 19) is assumed to apply to the drainage crossing.
In the analytical model (Figure 21), two ground displacement patterns were considered because
of the meandering nature of the channel being crossed. One displacement pattern corresponding
to ground displacement perpendicular to the drainage at the pipeline crossing and another with
the ground displacement at a 10° angle relative to the pipeline. The displacement patterns

applied to the pipeline for these two assumptions illustrated in Figure 16. The elevation of the
water table for computing effective stress was taken to be 3.2 m compared to a ground elevation
of 4.0 m for each side of the tributary crossing.
4.4 Sumas Canal

The Sumas Canal crossing is planned as a bored crossing as illustrated in Figure 21. The ground
displacement pattern provided by BGC is provided in Figure 22. The pipeline model geometry is
illustrated in Figure 23. Sumas Canal flows due north at the crossing so the horizontal ground
displacements were applied in an east-west direction as illustrated in Figure 24.
4.5 Sumas River

The Sumas River crossing is planned to be installed using trenchless methods as illustrated in
Figure 25. As with the Vedder River crossing, BGC provided two alternative ground
displacement patterns to account for whether or not the pipeline is in a flow failure zone (see
Figure 26). Only the most severe case, Pattern A, was analyzed as there is no basis for excluding
the possibility of this pattern. Plots of the pipeline geometry at the crossing and the components
of ground displacement in the north-south and east-west directions are shown in Figure 27 and
Figure 28.
4.6 South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing

The pipeline geometry for the South Fraser Perimeter Road crossing is illustrated in Figure 29.
The location of the South Fraser Perimeter Road crossing is shown in Figure 30 with the lateral
spread horizontal displacement contours provided by BGC.
The exact location of zones of lateral spread displacement are unknown. The least demanding
scenario would be one in which the entire crossing is within the lateral spread displacement zone
with differential displacement at the margins. In that case, the pipeline response is similar to the
response computed for the portion of the pipeline parallel to the river bank as described in
Section 4.9. For the assessment of pipeline response, it was assumed that lateral spread
displacement begins just south of the crossing and extends west 2 m, encompassing the bend
north of the South Fraser River Perimeter Road (see Figure 31). Considering the variation in the
value of the displacement contours between the side bend north of the road and the south side of
the road is only 2.8 m to 2.5 m in Figure 30, the analysis was based upon an assumed uniform
displacement of a block of soil as shown in Figure 31. The maximum displacement applied in
the analysis was 4 m for trial cases and 5.6 m for the case that met both the 1/2475 design goals
and FLoC criteria.
4.7 Fraser River South Bank HDD

The Fraser River crossing will be an HDD crossing as indicated in Figure 32. The ground
displacement pattern provided by BGC for the south bank crossing is illustrated in Figure 33 and
can be seen in the contours of horizontal displacement in Figure 32. The analytical model

geometry is illustrated in Figure 34. Note that the block valve illustrated in Figure 34 was not
included in the analytical model. Relocation of the valve south of the South Fraser Perimeter
Road crossing is recommended to avoid potential vulnerabilities associated with ancillary piping
and valve connections that are vulnerable to damage as a result of differential ground
displacement.
The same model geometry is illustrated in Figure 35 with plots of the displacement components
applied in the analysis. Note that the ground displacements used in the south bank assessment
were twice the values estimated by BGC.
4.8 Fraser River North Bank HDD

The ground displacement pattern provided by BGC for the south bank crossing is illustrated in
Figure 36. The analytical model geometry is illustrated in Figure 37. The plan model geometry
is illustrated in Figure 38 with plots of the displacement components applied in the analysis.
Note that the ground displacements used in the north bank assessment were twice the values
estimated by BGC.
There are two plots of displacements imposed in the analysis in Figure 38. The variation of
displacement with respect to the east model coordinate is plotted below the pipeline plan plot.
The pipeline exits the region of lateral spread ground displacement north of the HDD exit
location and then turns to the west then the north and reenters the ground displacement zone. A
separate plot of the variation of lateral spread displacement with respect to the model north
coordinate is provided to show the displacements on the north-south section of pipeline between
model north 1555 and 1705 (north-south section of pipeline south of the dotted box in Figure
38).
The current pipeline alignment indicates a block valve located under Port Mann Bridge within a
zone of potential ground displacement. This block valve was not included in the analytical
model for the same reasons as noted above for the block valve on the south side of the Fraser
River. In addition, the valve installation on the north side will require a vault and interaction
with the walls of the vault from differential ground displacement is possible. Relocation in an
area where ground displacement is not expected is recommended. One option for relocation
would be to locate the valve east of the rail crossing north of Mary Hill Bypass.

PRESENTATION OF ANALYSIS RESULTS
Analytical validation of the crossing designs for the crossing described in Section 4 are presented
in this section. In all cases, the analyses were performed for a maximum lateral spread
displacement significantly greater than the estimated displacement in order to provide a means to
quantify the design margin. The ground displacement was applied incrementally with computed
pipeline deformations and strains extracted at increments equal to 1/120th of the applied
displacement.
Pipeline characteristics used in the analyses are summarized in Table 4. For each crossing, an
analysis was performed for the maximum and minimum difference between the tie-in
temperature and the operating temperature.
Results from the analyses are presented in several ways:
1. Plots of the deformed pipeline shape;
2. Plots of the variation of strain magnitude (absolute value of tension or compression

strain) along the pipeline model; and
3. Plots of the variation of maximum and minimum longitudinal strain at any location in the
model as a function of lateral spread displacement.
For the Vedder River Tributary and Yarrow crossings, a wall thickness of 14.7 mm wall was
used in the analyses. The wall thickness for the other locations was based upon information
provided by BGC. A summary of the computed strains at the 1/2475 displacement levels and the
FLoC values for all analysis cases is provided in Table 5.
5.1 Vedder River Crossing

The displaced shape and distribution of strain magnitude at the estimated 1/2475 ground
displacement for a -10°C and +33°C temperature differential are shown in Figure 39: Displaced
Shape and Strain Magnitude for the Vedder River Crossing at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread
DisplacementFigure 40. The location of maximum strain coincides with the large vertical
component of displacement on the northern half of the crossing. The strain demands on the
pipeline are modest with the maximum tensile strain less than 2.0% for displacements as large as
twice the 1/2475 displacement.
5.2 Vedder River Tributary Crossing

The displaced shape and distribution of strain magnitude at the estimated 1/2475 ground
displacement for a -10°C and +33°C temperature differential are shown in Figure 41 for the
assumption of ground displacement perpendicular to the banks of the tributary. The pipeline
response for both cases is characterized by local bending between the sag bend and over bend

used to lower the pipe profile at the crossing and uplifting of the overbend on either side of the
crossing. The uplift of the over bend is the result of the axial eccentricity provided by the over
bend and the high axial compressive force resulting from lateral spread displacement. Since the
tensile strains are higher at the end of the analysis for the -10° C temperature differential, only
the -10° C temperature differential case was examined to assess the impact of applying the
ground displacement 10° from a perpendicular tributary crossing. The displaced shape and
distribution of strain magnitude are shown in Figure 42.
The variation of maximum longitudinal strain with lateral spread displacement for all of the
Vedder River Tributary cases is illustrated in Figure 43. The difference between the case with
displacement direction perpendicular to the crossing and the case with the displacement direction
10° from the pipeline is negligible at the 1/2475 displacement. The magnitudes of the tensile and
compressive strains are nearly equal for all cases with maximum values associated with upheaval
bending of the overbends on either side of the crossing.
5.3 Yarrow Crossing

The deformed shape and distribution of strain magnitude at the end of the Yarrow crossing
analysis is illustrated in Figure 44 for the assumption of ground displacement perpendicular to
the drainage at the crossing and Figure 45 for ground displacement at 10° from parallel to the
pipeline. The variation of strain with lateral spread displacement is provided in the plots of
Figure 46. From these plots, the following observations can be made:
1. The assumption of ground movement perpendicular to the drainage at the crossing leads
to higher strains,
2. The maximum strains for ground displacements perpendicular to the drainage are located
at the eastern limit of ground displacement where the ground displacement imposes
bending and axial deformations on the pipeline.
3. A more perpendicular assumption of ground displacement relative to the pipeline results

in higher strains near the center of the crossing where ground displacements on opposite
banks converge. The highest strains are related to bending and upheaval of the over
bends on either side of the crossing.
The variation in tensile strain is similar for a -10°C and +33°C temperature differential for both
cases. The compressive strain is higher for the +33°C temperature differential which is
attributable to less initial tension that reduces the bending stiffness of the pipeline.
At the 1/2475 predicted lateral spread displacement of 2.1 m, the maximum tensile and
compressive strains from the two ground displacement assumptions are 1.50% and -0.77%,
respectively. At the end of the analysis with 6 m of applied ground displacement, the maximum
tensile strain is highest for the assumption of displacement perpendicular to the crossing, 2.50%.
The compressive strain at the end of the analysis is highest for the assumption of displacement
10° from the pipeline alignment, -1.88%.

5.4 Sumas Canal Crossing
The deformed shape and distribution of strain magnitude at the 1/2475 displacement is illustrated
in Figure 47. The plot of variation in strain with displacement in Figure 48 shows negligible
influence of lateral spread displacement on the pipeline. From these results, it is concluded that
the length of pipe exposed to lateral spread displacement is insufficient to generate significant
axial force in the pipeline. The pipeline response is essentially elastic regardless of lateral spread
displacement magnitude.
5.5 Sumas River Crossing

in Figure 49. The plot of variation in strain with displacement is provided in Figure 50. The
response of the pipeline is dominated by the large vertical ground displacements related to a
bearing-type failure of the south dyke to the Sumas River. The FLoC criteria are satisfied and
the probability of failure for the 1.75% tensile strain produced by the 1/2475 ground
displacement is 48%.
5.6 South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing

The response of the designed crossing configuration is provided in Figure 51. It is evident that
the pipeline experiences very high bending strains in the combination bend south of the crossing,
corresponding to the boundary of the assumed zone of lateral spread displacement. At the
1/2475 displacement level, the tensile strain is 8.74% and the probability of failure is 100% for
conventional pipe and 99.5% for high-strain capacity pipe. In terms of the FLoC calculation, the
FLoC criteria are not met with the conventional pipe but are satisfied if it is assumed the pipe is
high-strain capacity pipe material.
An assessment was made assuming the pipe wall thickness was increased to 19.0 mm and the 5D
combination induction bend south of the crossing was replaced by a bend with a radius of
approximately 13 m (see Figure 52). The results of this change reduced the maximum tensile
strain by more than 50% (see Figure 53 and Figure 54) but the probability of failure at the 1/2475
displacement level remained high at 91%.
Given the need to show a lower failure probability for a deterministic assessment of the 1/2475
displacement, alternative crossing geometries that cross the road at a 45° angle were defined by
HMM as shown in Figure 55. Option 3 in Figure 55 was similar to the case represented by
Figure 52 with 13-m radius bends on either side of the road. Option 2 incorporates at 45° road
crossing with two 13-m radius bends and Option 3 is similar to Option 2 but with two field
bends.
Option 2 was investigated first as this required less deviation from the original alignment. The
ground displacement boundary for the analysis of Option 2 was located coincident with the
northern bend. This change from the case for the prior 13-m bend case was done to assess the
impact of ground displacements that lead to opening of the bend rather than closing the bend.

The results for the Option 2 case are provided in Figure 56. These results support a conclusion
that opening the bend results in higher bending strains compared to closing the bend as the
tensile strain for the opening case is 4.75% compared to 4.24% for the closing case. The other
conclusion from the response of Option 2 is that the 45° crossing angle provides little benefit for
ground displacements targeting the bends.
Expecting a reduction in strain with the use of larger radius bends, Option 1 was analyzed. The
model geometry for the Option 1 analysis is shown in Figure 57. The pipe wall thickness was
assumed to be 19.0 mm between the field bends and extending approximately 75 m beyond the
ends of the field bends. The rest of the pipe was modeled with a thickness of 14.7 mm. The
applied ground displacement extended into the portion of pipe with a 14.7-mm wall thickness.
in Figure 58. From Figure 58 it can be seen that the maximum strains occur in the 14.7-mm
wall. The variation in maximum longitudinal strain in the 19.0-mm field bends with
displacement is provided in Figure 59. At the 1/2475 displacement, the maximum strains in the
19.0-mm wall pipe is modestly above yield, 0.74% and occurs for the case of +33°C. Given the
low strain, the +33°C case was reanalyzed with only a 14.7 mm wall thickness. The results for
this case are also plotted in Figure 59.
The probability of tensile failure for the 1/2475 ground displacement was 33% for the 14.7 mm
wall thickness. However, the FLoC value was higher than 10-5. Therefore, if 14.7 mm wall
thickness were to be used for the Option 1 alignment, it would need to be HSC pipe.
5.7 South Fraser River Bank Crossing

The lateral spread displacement applied in the analytical model for the South Fraser River
crossing analyses extended east and terminated at a location approximately 300 m upstream from
the side bend south of the HDD entry point. Computed strains were extracted from this location
and used to represent the response to lateral spread displacement of the portion of the pipeline
parallel to the river bank downstream of the South Fraser Perimeter Road crossing.
in Figure 60 and a plot of the variation in maximum longitudinal strain with displacement is
provided in Figure 61. The response of the pipeline is nearly pure bending as indicted by the
nearly equal size of strain magnitude contours on either side of the limit of applied displacement
and the nearly equal trends in tensile and compressive strain with displacement. The FLoC
criteria are satisfied and the probability of failure for the 2.1% tensile strain from the 1/2475
displacement has a probability of failure of 60% for conventional 14.7-mm wall pipe and 15%
for 14.7-mm wall high-strain capacity pipe. Neglecting the lower stains that would exist for a
thicker pipe wall, using 19.0-mm pipe wall would reduce the probability of failure from 60% to
49%.

5.8 South Fraser River HDD Crossing
The pipeline parameters for the HDD crossing of the Fraser River included 19.0 mm wall
thickness for the HDD portion of the crossing and 14.7 mm wall thickness elsewhere. The
deformed shape and distribution of strain magnitude at the 1/2475 displacement is illustrated in
Figure 62 and a plot of variation in maximum longitudinal strain with displacement in provided
in Figure 63. From Figure 62, it can be seen that high bending strains (greater than 20%) occur
at the northern extent of the lateral spread displacement zone. Significant strain also occurs in
the 5D induction side bend. The FLoC is less than 10% below the 10-5 criteria and the
probability of failure for the 1/2475 displacement level was 100%.
The analysis was repeated for a wall thickness of 21.5 mm. The 21.5-mm wall was assumed to
extend south and encompass the 5D side bend. At that point, the wall thickness transitioned to
19.0-mm wall thickness for a distance of 80 m before transitioning to a 14.7 mm wall thickness.
The results for the 21.5 mm wall are shown in Figure 64 and Figure 65. It can be seen that the
strains are reduced for the thicker wall pipe but the probability of failure for the 1/2475
displacement remains unacceptable at 87%.
In an effort to reduce the probability of failure at the level of strain induced by the 1/2475 ground
displacement, the ground displacement pattern was modified to represent the effect of some
ground improvement measures. Specifically, it was assumed that ground improvement would
eliminate ground displacement for a distance of 30 m toward the river from the side bend and
30 m upstream of the side bend. The assumed zone of no ground displacement and the resulting
displacement pattern applied in the analysis is shown in Figure 66.
Assuming the ground improvement measures in Figure 66, the resulting deformed shape and
distribution of strain magnitude at the 1/2475 displacement is as shown in Figure 67 and the
variation of maximum longitudinal strain with displacement is as shown in Figure 68. At the
1/2475 ground displacement level, the tensile strain is 2.22% and the probability of failure is
44%.
5.9 North Fraser River HDD Crossing

The pipeline configuration and subsequent response at the north bank of Fraser River differs in
several key respects from the south bank. The pipeline is perpendicular to the north bank which
eliminates issues related to lateral bending as occurs on the south bank. Also, the HDD exit
point on the north bank is further back from the river which results in reduced exposure of the
pipeline to ground displacement. Finally, the pipeline at and beyond the HDD exit point is
outside of the ground displacement zone and does not have any sharp bends in plan or profile.
in Figure 69. The highest strains occur in a 90° bend west of the HDD exit where the pipeline
turns to the south and reenters the zone of potential lateral spread displacement approximately 75
m south of the bend. The plot of variation in strain at the 90° bend with displacement in Figure
70 is illustrative nearly pure bending response by the nearly equal magnitude of tensile and
compressive strains. The FLoC criteria are satisfied and the probability of failure for the 2.7%

tensile strain from the 1/2475 displacement has a probability of failure of 75% for conventional
14.7-mm wall pipe and 24% for 14.7-mm wall high-strain capacity pipe.
If induction bending the high-strain capacity pipe alters properties sufficiently to substantially
increases the probability of tensile failure, an alternative is to utilize 19-mm conventional pipe
for the induction bend and at least 6 m beyond the induction bend. The computed strains for the
19-mm wall alternative for the governing case of a -10°C thermal differential are also shown in
Figure 70. At the 1/2475 ground displacement, the probability of failure for the 19-mm
induction bend is 49%.

CONCLUSIONS
The design configuration for nine crossings identified as potential locations where the TMEP
pipeline could be exposed to lateral spread displacement have been evaluated analytically using
finite element analysis methods. The evaluation of the suitability of the design configurations
was based upon two criteria:
1. Confirm the design adequacy for a displacement hazard with an APE of 1/2475 by
maintaining the probability of weld tensile failure below 50%.
2. Confirm the resulting annual frequency for loss of pipe containment (FLoC) related to
seismically induced ground displacement is less than 1/100000.
The relationship between computed pipeline strain and girth weld failure were provided by UPI
for conventional pipe and, for a wall thickness of 14.7 mm, pipe steel considered to have much
better post-yield strain capacity, termed HSC (High-Strain Capacity) pipe.
With the exception of lateral displacement hazards along the Fraser River, the two acceptance
criteria have been met as evidenced by the summary of results in Table 5. At the Fraser River,
the following design modifications are recommended for consideration:
 South Fraser Perimeter Road

o Utilize field bends and a 45° road crossing angle transition to normal burial depth
on either side of the crossing.
o Increase the pipe wall thickness from 14.7 mm to 19.0 mm between the field
bends and extending 75 m beyond the ends of the field bends or utilize 14.7-mm
HSC pipe to satisfy FloC criteria.
 South Fraser Bank
o Use 14.7 mm HSC pipe or 19.0 mm conventional pipe to meet the 1/2475 design
requirement.
o Relocate the block valve upstream of the South Fraser River Perimeter Road
crossing.
 South Fraser River HDD
o Increase pipe wall thickness for the HDD pipe downstream of a point at least 50
m from the side bend near the HDD entry point to 21.5 mm.
o Provide ground improvement to minimize ground displacement over at distance
extending 30 m north and 30 m east of the side bend near the HDD entry point.
 North Fraser River HDD
o Utilize HSC pipe for the 90° induction bend approximately 185 m downstream of
the HDD exit point to meet the 1/2475 design requirement, or

o Use 19 mm pipe for the induction bend and extending 6 m beyond the induction
bend.
o Relocate a block valve currently planned for under the Port Mann Bridge to an
area north of the HDD exit point where no ground displacement is expected.

REFERENCES
1. ANSYS, Inc., 2010. www.ansys.com.
2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1984. “Guidelines for the Seismic Design of
Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifeline Systems,” Nyman, D.J. (ed.), Gas and Liquid Fuels Lifeline
Committee, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering.
3. BGC Engineering, Inc., 2015. “Trans-Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion
Project, Seismic Hazard Update,” Project No. 0095-150-13, March, 30.
4. BGC Engineering, Inc., 2016. E-mail from Saman Zarnani to Doug Honegger transmitting
crossing information for Vedder River, Sumas Canal, and Sumas River Wednesday,
December 28, 23:39 GMT.
5. BGC Engineering, Inc., 2017a. e-mail from Saman Zarnani to Doug Honegger correcting
crossing information for Vedder and Sumas River, Thursday, January 5, 22:53 GMT.
6. BGC Engineering, Inc., 2017b. e-mail from Saman Zarnani to Doug Honegger transmitting
crossing information for Fraser River south bank, Tuesday, January 31, 23:33 GMT.
7. BGC Engineering, Inc., 2017c. e-mail from Saman Zarnani to Doug Honegger transmitting
crossing information for Fraser River north bank, Wednesday, February 22, 00:17 GMT.
8. BGC Engineering, Inc., 2017d. e-mail from Saman Zarnani to Doug Honegger transmitting
ground displacement pattern for Fraser River south bank, Friday, April 7, 01:32 GMT.
9. C-CORE, 2003, Extended model for pipe soil interaction, final report prepared for Pipeline
Research Council International, C-CORE Report R-02-044-113, August.
10. Greater Vancouver Region Task Force, 2007. “Geotechnical Design Guidelines for
Buildings on Liquefiable Sites in Accordance with NBCC 2005,”
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/523c951be4b0728273e73d94/t/53234518e4b0556272c
33257/1394820376117/2007+Task+Force+Report.pdf [last accessed 7-29-2015]
11. Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2015. “Geotechnical Input Requirements/Tensile Strain Capacity,
document 334890-PM-313-S0-0118, Rev. A, June 30.
12. Honegger, D.G. Assessing vulnerability of BC Gas pipelines to lateral spread hazards.
Proceedings from the Fifth U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of
Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against Soil Liquefaction, Technical Report
NCEER-94-0026, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, New York, 1994.
13. Honegger, D.G. and D.J. Nyman, 2004. “Guidelines for the Seismic Design and
Assessment of Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines,” Pipeline Research Council
International, Inc., Catalog No. L51927.
14. Honegger, D.G., Wijewickreme, D., and T.L. Youd, 2014. “Regional Pipeline
Vulnerability Assessment Based Upon Probabilistic Lateral Spread Hazard
Characterization,” 10th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2014.
15. PRCI, 2009. “Guidelines for Constructing Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines
in Areas Subject to Landslide and Subsidence Hazards,” report prepared by D.G. Honegger
Consulting, C-CORE, and SSD, Inc., Catalog No. L52292.

16. O’Rourke, T.D., Jezerski, J. M., Olson, N. A., Bonneau, A.L., Palmer, M.C., Stewart, H.E.,
O’Rourke, M. J., and Abdoun, T., 2008, Geotechnics of pipeline system response to
earthquakes, Proceedings of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV,
May.
17. Universal Pegasus International (UPI), 2016. “Strain-Based Design Strain Capacity
Report,’ Trans Mountain Expansion Project, report 19731-506-RPT-00058, November 9,
2016.
18. Universal Pegasus International (UPI), 2017a. e-mail from Marc Spencer to Doug
Honegger, transmitting tensile strain vs. failure probability file for 11.8-mm, 14.7-mm,
19.0-mm, 21.5-mm, and 25.4-mm pipe, Wednesday, April 12, 00:26 GMT
19. Universal Pegasus International (UPI), 2017b. e-mail from Marc Spencer to Doug
Honegger, transmitting tensile strain vs. failure probability file for 14.7 mm HSC pipe,
Wednesday, April 12, 21:51 GMT.
20. Walker, A.C. and Willams, K.A.J., 1995. “Strain Based Design of Pipelines,” Proceedings
of the 14th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
21. Wijewickreme, D., 2010. “Regional Seismic Assessment of TP & IP Pipelines of Terasen
Systems, B.C.,” letter report to D.G. Honegger Consulting, 29 January.
22. Yimsiri, S., Soga, K., Yoshizaki, K., Dasari, G.R., and O’Rourke, T.D., 2004, Lateral and
upward soil-pipeline interactions in sand for deep embedment conditions, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
vol. 130, no. 8.

Table 1: Soil Properties Used in Lateral Spread Analysis of the Vedder River Tributary
and Yarrow Crossings
Yarrow
Vedder River
Tributary
Depth  or Sr   Depth  or Sr  
v v
0-11 m 40° 0-2 m 40°

2-20 m 0.13
Table 2: 50% Strain Capacities Provided by UPI (2016)
Pipe Tensile (%) Compressive (%)

11.8-mm conventional 1.76 5.00
14.7-mm HSC 4.09 9.00

Table 2: Lateral Spread Displacement Estimates
Maximum Horizontal
Site Lateral Spread
Displacement (m)
Vedder River 4.0
Vedder Tributary 1.7
Yarrow 2.1
Sumas Canal 4.3
Sumas River3 6.2
South Fraser River Perimeter Road4 2.8
South Bank Fraser River 2.8
South Fraser River Crossing 4.0
North Fraser River Crossing 3.4
Table 3: TMEP Pipeline Properties Used in Lateral Spread Analyses

Outside Diameter 914 mm
Wall Thickness 11.8, 14.7, 19.0 & 21.5 mm
Pipe Grade 483
Pressure 9.93 Mpa
Maximum Operating Temperature 38°C
Minimum Operating Temperature -5°C
Tie-in Temperature 5°
Maximum Differential Temperature +33°C
Minimum Differential Temperature -10°C

Table 4: Summary of Analysis Results
Maximum Longitudinal Strain at
Tensile
Estimate 1/2475 Lateral Spread
Failure FloC1
Temperature of Horizontal Displacement
Wall Probability Conventional
Crossing Differential Lateral (%)
(mm) at 1/2475 Pipe
(°C) Spread
Lateral Spread [HSC Pipe]
Displacement Tension Compression Displacement
(m)
-10 19.0 1.59 -1.02
Vedder River 4.0 44% 5.8 (10)-6
33 19.0 1.61 -1.09
Vedder River -10 14.7 0.17 -0.17
4% 1.2 (10)-6
Tributary 33 14.7 0.24 -0.47
1.7
Vedder River
-10 14.7 0.17 -0.19 4% 1.2 (10)-6
Tributary at 10°
Yarrow Drainage -10 14.7 1.50 -0.77
40% 4.7 (10)-6
Perpendicular 33 14.7 1.41 -1.33
2.1
Yarrow Drainage -10 14.7 0.37 -0.49
6% 4.7 (10)-6
at 10° 33 14.7 0.30 -0.74
-10 14.7 0.15 -0.13
Sumas Canal 4.3 3% 3.1 (10)-6
33 14.7 0.64 -0.84
-10 19.0 1.73 -1.95
Sumas River 6.2 48% 5.4 (10)-6
33 19.0 1.75 -2.70
1.3 (10)-5
SFPR2 33 14.7 2.8 8.74 -3.83 100%
[5.0 (10)-7]
SFPR w/ 13-m -10 19.0 5.23 -1.62
2.8 97% 8.5 (10)-6
Bend 33 19.0 4.30 -2.31
SFPR Option 2 33 19.0 2.8 4.75 -2.89 94% 9.1 (10)-6
-10 19.0 0.68 -0.17
SFPR Option 1 2.8 25% 2.4 (10)-6
33 19.0 0.74 -0.24

Table 5: Summary of Analysis Results (continued)
Maximum Tensile
Longitudinal Strain at
Estimate Failure
1/2475 Lateral Spread FloC1
Temperature of Horizontal Probability
Wall Displacement Conventional
Crossing Differential Lateral at 1/2475
(mm) (%) Pipe
(°C) Spread Lateral Spread
[HSC Pipe]
Displacement Displacement
(m) Tension Compression [HSC Pipe]
33% 1.4 (10)-5
SFPR Option 1 33 14.7 2.8 1.29 -0.25
[5%] [1.5 (10)-7]
Fraser River -10 14.7 2.13 -0.82 60% 4.2 (10)-6
2.8
Bank 33 14.7 1.92 -1.46 [15%] [1.4 (10)-7]
Fraser River -10 19.0 7.19 -27.29

4.0 100% 9.3 10)-6
South HDD 33 19.0 7.28 -27.55
Fraser River -10 21.5 4.51 -13.1
4.0 87% 6.0 10)-6
South HDD 33 21.5 4.46 12.87
Fraser River -10 21.5 2.24 -3.94
South HDD w/
4.0 45% 4.1 (10)-6
Ground 33 21.5 2.22 -3.99
Improvement
Fraser River -10 14.7 2.68 -2.38 75% 6.7 (10)-6
3.4
North HDD 33 14.7 2.45 -2.15 [24%] [2.7 (10)-7]
Fraser River
-10 19 3.4 2.17 -1.93 49% 4.9 (10)-6
North HDD
Notes:
1. Brackets indicates value with high-strain capacity pipe.
2. SFPR = South Fraser Perimeter Road

Figure 1: Locations of TMEP Pipeline River Crossings

T
P
X Q
Y
Figure 2: Process for Modeling Pipeline Response to Ground Displacement

Ground Displacement Boundary
Ground Displacement
PRIOR TO GROUND DISPLACEMENT
Ground Displacement Boundary
Ground Displacement
AFTER GROUND DISPLACEMENT
SOIL SPRING FORCE vs. DISPLACEMENT
Figure 3: Schematic Representation of Applying Soil Displacements to Pipeline

Figure 4: Parameters for PIPE20 ANSYS Element
Figure 5: Parameters for COMBIN39 ANSYS Element

Figure 6: Stress-Strain Curves for Grades 483 Steel Used in ANSYS Analyses

Return
Period Displacement
(years) (cm)
50 1.3
100 4.6
200 15
500 51
1000 115
2475 286
10000 846
50000 2001
100000 2571
Figure 7: Variation of Free-Face Lateral Spread Displacement with Return Period

(based upon Honegger et al., 2014)

Figure 8: Method for Defining Lateral Spread Displacement Hazard

Figure 9: Plan and Profile for Vedder River Crossing
(extracted from HMM drawing M002-XD15050, Sht. 1, Rev. C)

Figure 10: Ground Displacement Patterns for the Vedder River Crossing
(BGC, 2017a)

Figure 11: Vedder River Pipeline Model Geometry

Figure 12: Ground Displacement Applied in Vedder River Analysis

Figure 13: Crossing Profile for Vedder River Tributary
(extracted from HMM drawing)
Figure 14: Google Earth Image of Extent of Vedder River Tributary Lateral Spread
Displacement Hazard

Figure 15: Model Geometry for Vedder River Tributary

Figure 16: Vedder River Tributary Model Geometry with Displacement 10° to Pipeline

Figure 17: Identification of Yarrow Lateral Spread Hazard Location

Figure 18. Crossing Profile for Yarrow Drainage
(extracted from HMM drawing)
Figure 19: BGC Stratigraphy for Yarrow Crossing

(BGC, 2015a)

GROUND DISPLACEMENT PERPENDICULAR TO DRAINAGE AT THE CROSSING
GROUND DISPLACEMENT 10° FROM PERPENDICULAR TO DRAINAGE AT THE CROSSING
Figure 20. Geometry for Analytical Models of the Yarrow Crossing

Figure 21. Sumas Canal Crossing
(extracted from BGC drawing 0095-150-13-B1)

Figure 22: Sumas Canal Ground Displacement Pattern
(BGC, 2016)
Figure 23: Sumas Canal Analytical Model Geometry

Figure 24: Ground Displacements Applied in Sumas Canal Analysis

Figure 25: Sumas River Crossing
(extracted from BGC drawing 0095-150-13-C1)

Figure 26: Sumas River Ground Displacement Pattern
(BGC, 2016)

Figure 27: Sumas River Crossing Model Geometry
Figure 28. Applied Displacement for Sumas River Crossing Analysis

Figure 29: Pipeline Model Plan and Elevation at the South Fraser Perimeter Road
Crossing
Figure 30: Lateral Spread Displacement Contours at South Fraser River Perimeter Road
(extracted from BGC drawing 0095-150-13-D1)

Figure 31: Lateral Spread Displacement Applied in the South Fraser River Perimeter
Road Crossing

Figure 32: Fraser River Crossing
(extracted from BGC drawing 0095-150-13-D1)

Figure 33: Fraser River South Bank Displacements
(BGC, 2017d)
Figure 34: Fraser River South Bank Analytical Model Geometry

Figure 35: Applied Displacement for Fraser River South Bank Analysis

Figure 36: Fraser River North Bank Displacements
(BGC, 2017c)

Figure 37: Fraser River North Bank Analytical Model Geometry

No Ground Displacement
Figure 38: Applied Displacement for Fraser River North Bank Analysis

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
DISPLACED SHAPE, -10°C T STRAIN MAGNITUDE, -10°C T
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
DISPLACED SHAPE, +33C T STRAIN MAGNITUDE, +33°C T
Figure 39: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for the Vedder River Crossing at the
1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement

Figure 40: Maximum Longitudinal Strain as a Function of Lateral Spread Displacement
for the Vedder River Crossing

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 41: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Vedder River Tributary Cases at
the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement

DISPLACED SHAPE
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
STRAIN MAGNITUDE
Figure 42: Results for Vedder River Tributary Cases with -10° T and Displacement 10°
from Pipeline at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement

for Vedder River Tributary Cases

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 44: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Yarrow Cases at the 1/2475 Lateral
Spread Displacement Perpendicular to Crossing

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 45: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Yarrow Cases at the 1/2475 Lateral
Spread Displacement 10° from Parallel to the Pipeline

for Yarrow Crossing

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 47: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Sumas Canal Crossing at the
1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement

for Sumas Canal Crossing

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 49: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Sumas River Crossing at the 1/2475
Lateral Spread Displacement

for Sumas River Crossing

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 51: Pipeline Response for Initial Analysis of the South Fraser Perimeter Road
Crossing at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement (+33°)

Figure 52: Alternative Bend Considered at Road Crossing

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 53: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for the Bend Modification at the South
Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement

for Bend Modification at the South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing

Figure 55: Geometry Modifications at the South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 56: Analysis Results for the Option 2 Alternate South Fraser Perimeter Road
Crossing at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement

Figure 57: Model Geometry for the Evaluation of the Option 1 Crossing of South Fraser
Perimeter Road

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 58: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for Option 1 South Fraser Perimeter
Road Crossing at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement

for Option 1 South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 60: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for South Fraser River Bank Crossing
at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement

for the South Fraser River Bank Crossing

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 62: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for South Fraser River HDD Crossing
at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement

for the South Fraser River HDD Crossing

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 64: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for South Fraser River 21.5 mm HDD

for the South Fraser River 21.5 mm HDD Crossing

Figure 66: Modified Displacement Pattern Assuming Ground Improvement Measures

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 67: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for South Fraser River 21.5 mm HDD
Crossing with Ground Improvement at the 1/2475 Lateral Spread Displacement

for the South Fraser River Crossing 21.5 mm HDD Crossing with Ground Improvement

SIZE AND COLOR
OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
SIZE AND COLOR

OF CONTOURS
INDICATES
MAGNITUDE OF
LONGITUDINAL
STRAIN IN in/in
Figure 69: Displaced Shape and Strain Magnitude for the North Fraser River HDD

for the North Fraser River HDD Crossing

APPENDIX A: SOIL SPRING DEFINITION
Bi-linear soil springs were used in the finite element analyses and were defined in terms of the
maximum soil load on the pipe and the relative displacement necessary to develop the maximum
soil load. The relationships used to quantify the maximum soil loads on the pipe are presented in
this appendix.
A.1 Axial Soil Springs

The maximum axial force, Tu, that the soil can transmit to the pipe can be estimated by the
following equation:
 1  Ko 
Tu   D c   DH   tan( ) (A-1)
 2 
where:
D = pipe outside diameter
c = soil cohesion or undrained shear strength
H = depth to pipe centerline
 = effective unit weight of soil
K = effective coefficient of horizontal earth pressure which may vary from the value for at
rest conditions for loose soil to values as high as 2 for dense dilative soils
 = adhesion factor that is defined by an upper and lower bound
0.8
 0.12 o 
 0.7    1 lower bound
 c 
0.8
 0.55 0 
 0.5    1 upper bound
 c 
 = atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
 = interface angle of friction for pipe and soil = f m
m  maximum internal friction angle of the soil
f = coating dependent factor relating the internal friction angle of the soil to the friction
angle at the soil-pipe interface (see table below)
t = displacement at Tu = 0.2 in (5 mm)

PIPE COATING f
Concrete 1.0
Coal Tar 0.9
Rough Steel 0.8
Smooth Steel 0.7
Fusion Bonded Epoxy 0.6
Polyethylene 0.6
A.2 Lateral Soil Springs

Recent tests (O’Rourke et al., 2008) indicate that the horizontal soil spring relationships for dry
sand are applicable to moist sand. Therefore, the following relationships for cohesionless
materials adopt an approximation to the recommendations in findings from Yimsiri et al. (2004).
The corresponding relationships for clay are based upon recommendations by C-CORE (2003).
Pu  NchcD  Nqh HD  Qd (see section A.4 for definition of Qd) (A-2)
where:
Nqh = horizontal bearing capacity factor (0 for  = 0)
Nch = horizontal bearing capacity factor for clay (0 for c = 0)
* H
 N ch  0.85  12
c
* H
N ch  2.15  1.72  7.25
D
Nqh = horizontal bearing capacity factors for sand (0 for  = 0)
H
= ab (see table below for coefficients)
D
H/D
 a b Maximum Nqh
Range
35º 0.5 to 12 4 0.92 15
0.5 to 6 5 1.43
40 23
6 to 15 8 1.00
0.5 to 7 5 2.17
45 30
7 to 15 10 1.33

Nqh can be interpolated for intermediate values of  between 35 and 45º but values of  should
not be taken less than 35º even if soil tests indicate lower  values.
p = displacement at Pu
 D
= 0.04  H    0.10 D to 0.15 D
 2
A.3 Vertical Uplift Soil Springs

The equations for determining upward vertical soil spring forces are based upon small-scale
laboratory tests and theoretical models. For this reason, the applicability of the equations is
limited to relatively shallow burial depths, as expressed as the ratio of the depth to pipe
centerline to the pipe diameter (H/D). Conditions in which the H/D ratio is greater than the limit
provided below require case-specific geotechnical guidance on the magnitude of soil spring force
and the relative displacement necessary to develop this force. The vertical uplift factor for sand
is based upon an approximate fit to recommendations provided by Yimsiri et al. (2004).
Qu  N cv cD  N qvHD (A-3)
where:
Ncv = vertical uplift factor for clay (0 for c = 0)
Nqv = vertical uplift factor for sand (0 for  = 0)
H H
Ncv = 2    10 applicable for    10
D D
H
Nqv = tan(0.9 )    Nqh (see section A.2 for definition of Nqh)
D
qu = displacement at Qu
= 0.01H to 0.02H for dense to loose sands  0.1D
= 0.1H to 0.2H for stiff to soft clays  0.2D
A.4 Vertical Bearing Soil Springs

The maximum vertical bearing soil spring force, Qd, that the soil can place on the pipe is
estimated by the expression below:
D2
Qd  Nc cD  N q HD  N  (A-4)
2
where:
Nc, Nq, N = bearing capacity factors

Nc =     0.001  
cot(  0.001)  e tan( 0.001) tan 2  45    1
  2  
 
Nq = e tan( ) tan 2  45  
 2
N = e(0.18  2.5) (this is a curve fit to plotted values of N in ASCE, 1984)
 = effective unit weight of soil
qd = displacement at Qd
= 0.1D for granular soils
= 0.2D for cohesive soils
A.5 Soil Spring Force-Displacement Relationship

Axial soil springs can be assumed to have a bi-linear force displacement relationship with the
maximum force Tu developed at displacements t. For all other soil springs, a hyperbolic
relationship between maximum soil load and relative pipe displacement can be assumed.
The general expression for the hyperbolic load-displacement relationship is provided in

Equation (3-5).
F x
 (A-5)
Fmax Axu  Bx
where:
F = soil spring force
Fmax = maximum soil spring force
x = relative displacement between pipe and soil
xu = relative displacement to achieve maximum force
When the ground displacements being evaluated are much greater than the displacements to
develop the maximum soil spring force, it is generally sufficient to define the force displacement
relationship as bilinear For a bilinear representation, the displacement corresponding to the
maximum soil spring force equal to the displacement, x85, from Equation (A-5) that results in
85% of the maximum soil spring force. From Equation (A-5), the displacement corresponding to
85% of the maximum soil spring force can be expressed as follows:
0.85 Axu
x85   Cxu (A-6)
1  0.85 B
Suggested values of A, B, and C for horizontal and vertical uplift soil spring definitions are
provided below:

Direction A B C
Horizontal and Bearing 0.15 0.85 0.46
Vertical Uplift 0.03 0.97 0.15

APPENDIX B: FLOC CALCULATION SUMMARY


A83593-17 Trans Mountain Attachment 1 Part 16 of 23 Condition 68 - A5L7T6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A83593-17 Trans Mountain Attachment 1 Part 16 of 23 Condition 68 - A5L7T6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A83593-17 Trans Mountain Attachment 1 Part 16 of 23 Condition 68 - A5L7T6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project May 08, 2017

2017_TMEP Seismic Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Assessment Update.docx

BGC ENGINEERING INC.

D.G. Honegger Consulting

Subject: Analytical Assessment of TMEP Pipeline Response to Lateral Spread

1. A likelihood of failure no greater than 50% for a ground displacement hazard

2. An annual frequency for loss of containment considering the full probabilistic

May 2017 Page i

May 2017 Page ii

May 2017 Page iii

May 2017 Page iv

May 2017 Page v

 South Fraser Perimeter Road

 North Fraser River HDD

May 2017 Page vi

 New and modified facilities, including pump stations and tanks.

1. Vedder River crossing

May 2017 Page 1 of 97

May 2017 Page 2 of 97

2.1 Requirements for Designing for Ground Displacement

2.2 Analysis Methodology

2.2.1 Finite Element Model Characteristics

May 2017 Page 3 of 97

2.2.2 Element Descriptions

May 2017 Page 4 of 97

2.2.3 Soil Modeling

May 2017 Page 5 of 97

3.1 Pipeline Properties

1. Outside diameter: 913 mm

3.2 Strain Limits

3.3 Determining Acceptable Pipeline Response

May 2017 Page 6 of 97

May 2017 Page 7 of 97

1. The amount of displacement,

2. The direction, or variation in direction of displacement,

3. The length of pipeline traversing the zone of potential displacement, and

1. The direction of lateral spread displacement is assumed to occur in a uniform direction

b. 300 m from any point in a direction perpendicular to the river bank, or

Implementation of the above rules is illustrated in Figure 8.

 The amount of displacement is assumed to be constant over the length of pipeline

May 2017 Page 8 of 97

4.1 Vedder River

May 2017 Page 9 of 97

4.2 Vedder River Tributary

4.3 Yarrow Road

May 2017 Page 10 of 97

4.4 Sumas Canal

4.5 Sumas River

4.6 South Fraser Perimeter Road Crossing

4.7 Fraser River South Bank HDD

May 2017 Page 11 of 97

4.8 Fraser River North Bank HDD

May 2017 Page 12 of 97

Results from the analyses are presented in several ways:

1. Plots of the deformed pipeline shape;

2. Plots of the variation of strain magnitude (absolute value of tension or compression

5.1 Vedder River Crossing