Energy Geotechnics – Wuttke, Bauer & Sánchez (Eds)

© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-03299-6

A new backfill material enhancing axial bedding of district heating pipes

B. Wagner & T. Neidhart

Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Regensburg (OTH.R), Regensburg, Germany

ABSTRACT: District heating cost reduction efforts are amongst others focusing on the use of a new backfill
material. The OTH.R is investigating this material in regard to the engineering of buried district heating pipes.
The main focus of this soil-structure interaction problem is axial bedding to reduce thermal induced elongations.
The backfill material is characterized and an axial non-linear spring-based calculation method is described.
Centerpiece of the method is the contact-working-resistance-line (CWRL). A new Rod-Shear-Test based testing
device Re-SIST to investigate the CWRL for the new backfill material is presented. The investigated CWRL is
described and compared to the CWRL for sand, which is the conventional backfill material. Solutions using the
spring-based calculation method are presented and a comparative example of calculation shows the difference
in axial bedding when the new backfill material is used.

1 INTRODUCTION 1 a general axial non-linear spring-based calculation

District heating (DH) delivers sustainable energy,
especially when it is based on combined heat and
power generation, which considerably reduces car-
bon dioxide emissions. Cost reduction efforts in order
to increase competitiveness against other heat supply
technologies are amongst others focusing on the use
of a new backfill material. The material uses the spoil
or aggregate and cement, optionally bentonite and in
any case surplus water, requiring no compaction, sim-
ilar to Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM). The
material will subsequently be referred to as Temporary
Flowable, Self-compacting Backfill material (TFSB),
which would be an appropriate translation of the
German umbrella term Zeitweise selbstverdichtende,
fließfähige Verfüllbaustoffe (ZFSV).
The main focus of the engineering of district heating
pipes (DHP) is axial bedding by means of the back-
fill material with regard to the reduction and, finally,
compensation of thermal induced elongations. State of
the art is the use of non-cohesive soils, mainly sand,
using a(n) (elastic-)plastic interface friction approach
for engineering calculations. The centrepiece of cal-
culation methods involving interface contact is the
contact-resistance-working-line (CRWL) of the mate-
rials in contact. Little is known with regard to the
axial bedding and corresponding calculation basics
and methods when using TFSB, especially nothing
about the CWRL. This is hindering the usage, which
is, however, for the above mentioned reasons, in (high)
demand by public and private sector utilities. Similar
problems and interests exist in regard to high-voltage
underground power cables, as these are also subject to
thermal induced elongations. The research described
in this paper therefore deals with
method to solve the axial bedding problem.
2 a new Rod-Shear-Test-based testing device Re-
SIST in order to investigate the CWRLs of TFSB.
3 the deduced trilinear CWRL for TFSB as the result
of an extensive series of tests using the Re-SIST.
4 the adoption of the axial non-linear spring-based
calculation method, incorporating the identified
CWRL and comparative calculations.
All information is related to the first DHP warm-up
stage.
2 CHARACTERISATION OF BACKFILL
MATERIAL
If sand is used, the required grain size range is from 0
to 2 mm. No fines are allowed and the maximum grain
size (oversize particle) is limited to 4 mm (Wagner
et al. 2013).
TFSB consist of spoil or aggregate and cement,
optionally bentonite and in any case surplus water.
Such material mixtures are in a somewhat similar form
not unknown if one thinks of slurry walls. One sub-
stantial difference is the amount of added cement and
bentonite, which usually ranges significantly lower
between 25 kg m−3 –50 kg m−3 . Another fact is that
no bentonite slurry is used. All solid matter is mixed
(immediately) before the addition of water. Table 1
shows the composition of one of the TFSB used in the
tests. According to the USCS the spoil raw material is
classified as SC.
Tests were also conducted using a prefabricated dry
mortar consisting of ground limestone and cement
only. Both materials generally show the same CWRL,

105
Table 1. Composition of one TFSB used in the tests.
Quantity
Component kg m−3
Spoil SC (dry) 1308
Bentonite 40
Cement 38
Mixing water 479
Figure 1. Principle of the wall-effect.
indicating that the addition of cement is one of the
decisive factors. This shows in the process of setting,
solidifying and curing of the material once it has been
poured in place.
The boundary surface of TFSB to other materi-
als is always without observable grains. This can be
explained taking concrete technological findings into
account: At contact surfaces to other materials the
powder suspension prevents direct contact between the
bigger grains and the surface of the other material. This
is known as the so-called wall-effect, leading further-
more to deviating material composition and abilities at
the interface. (Geisenhanslüke 2008, Deutscher Beton
und Bautechnik-Verein e.V. 2004) Cement and ben-
tonite are part of the powder (grain ≤ 0,125 mm),
respectively powder suspension. Figure 1 gives an
illustration. The application of this concept regarding
TFSB seems to be justified and has to be taken into
account regarding interface behaviour.
3 THERMAL ELONGATION AND
AXIAL BEDDING
Unhindered thermal elongation of a rod and the cor-
responding displacements can be calculated using
equations 1 and 2. For symmetrical reasons only one
half of the rod of total length L = 2 × l needs to be
considered.
106
Figure 2. Superposition of strains and displacements and
resulting strains and displacements.
where εT (x) = thermal strain at coordinate x of a rod
of length l, αT = linear coefficient of thermal expan-
sion and T = change in temperature from the current
state.
where uT (x) = displacement due to thermal strain at
coordinate x and l(x) = length of rod at coordinate x.
If the rod surface is in (full) contact with another
material, thermal strains will induce (contact) shear
stresses. These shear stresses result from friction and
adhesion if present. The induced shear stresses τ(x)
generate mechanical strains εm (x) in the opposite
direction of the thermal strains, hindering these and
generating normal compressive forces in the rod. This
process can be described as axial bedding. If the rod
is long enough, finally a state along the rod will be
reached for which εT (x) = − εm (x) is valid. At this
and smaller coordinates no more elongation is hap-
pening and the rod will be at rest. εT (x) and εm (x)
can only be calculated separately from each other,
if τ(x) is at a given constant value and not dependent
on the displacement between the rod surface and the
contact material. Figure 2 gives an idea of the super-
position of strains and displacements and the resulting
strains ε(x) = εT (x) + εm (x) and displacements u(x) =
uT (x) + um (x) if τ(x) is at a given constant value.
If this is not the case, the opposing strains cannot
be determined separately as εT (x) influences εm (x) and
vice versa. In this case, starting from the normal force
in the rod, we have
where N (x) = normal force in the rod at coordinate
(x), E = Young’s modulus of rod, A = cross-sectional
area of rod and u (x) = first derivation of resulting
displacement u(x).
Figure 3 shows the balance of forces if we take a
look at a differential rod element and yields Equation 4.
with U = circumference of rod. Derivating Equation
3 and combining it with Equation 4 one gets the

Figure 3. Balance of forces for a differential rod element.
governing homogenous linear differential equation of
second order with constant coefficients.
with u = second derivation of resulting displacement
u. Equation 5 was in general imparted before. For
example in the context of friction pile engineering
(Alpan 1978). Assuming that E, A and U are of con-
stant value along the rod, the solution is governed by
τ and its displacement dependent relationship of acti-
vation. This can be described by means of a CWRL,
giving the value of τ for a certain (interfacial) displace-
ment w between the rod and the utilized other material.
Figure 6 shows amongst others a typical CWRL for
sand (Beilke 1993) in contact with the surface of a
DHP, representing the rod in this case.
One may note that the interfacial displacement is
named w(x) to point out that it has nothing to do with
the resulting displacements u(x) or the displacements
um (x) due to mechanical strains. Additional explana-
tions will be given in paragraph 7. In this context one
has to be clear on the fact that the CWRL must not
include any strains of the rod to reflect the true interfa-
cial displacement-force behaviour as this behaviour is
decisive on the activation of mechanical strains εm (x)
by thermal strains εT (x). The CRWL must therefore
be known to solve the problem analytically, but its
displacement-force behavior cannot directly be found
in any given final force-displacement state of the axi-
ally bedded rod, which comprises displacements of the
rod from different causes. If we furthermore assume
that displacements in the soil material in contact with
the rod are strictly limited to the interface surface, the
material around the rod can be represented by a soil
spring and the CWRL is then the corresponding non-
linear load deflexion curve. This simplification can be
regarded as valid in the case of TFSB due to the wall
effect and the mechanical cementation of the solid
matter by and within the powder suspension. All in
all, one may speak of an axial non-linear spring-based
calculation method.
107
Figure 4. Experimental interface test setup using a Simple
Shear device. (Weidlich 2008, slightly modified)
4 TESTING DEVICE RE-SIST
There are several laboratory devices on hand in order
to investigate CWRLs like Direct Shear Test devices,
Simple Shear Test Devices, Ring Torsion Devices
and Rod Shear Test devices. An overview is given,
for example, by Mooney (1998) and Musharaf &
Arumugam (1995).
For natural soils Direct Shear and Simple Shear Test
devices are commonly used, as they are available in
most testing laboratories and the necessary modifica-
tions for interface testing can be done at a moderate
effort. Figure 4 shows a typical experimental setup
using an altered Simple Shear device.
A large number of tests can rapidly performed
when natural soils are tested against other materials, as
contact-time-dependent effects are negligible in most
cases or waiting times are rather short. When it comes
down to TFSB because of the wall-effect the powder
suspension is the leading material constituent at the
interface. As setting, solidifying and curing are caused
by the components of and processes within the pow-
der suspension, interface behaviour is most likely to
be time-dependent to a large extent, too. This implies
at least two boundary conditions in regard to interface
tests with TFSB:
1 long-term time-dependent testing needs to be done
2 contact between TFSB and the other material needs
to be established permanently before setting of the
TFSB starts
This would require a large number of modified
laboratory testing devices, which are usually not on
hand for financial reasons. But even then problems
like drying, setup of a shearing gap, reduction of
shearing area would have to be solved. In order to over-
come these shortcomings a new Rod-Shear-Test-based
testing device Re-SIST (Regensburger Stab-I nterface-
Scher-T est) has been designed and realised. One of the
major advantages of the Re-SIST is that it serves as a
separate storable testing container which is placed in
the load frame only on the day of the test.
The Re-SIST device consists of a cylindrical pipe
with two square end-plates (all made of rigid-PVC)
which are screwed together by means of threaded
bars at the corners of the plates. The plates contain
a centric hole with auxiliary milled slots in order to
install and hold the rod (simulating the DHP) in place.

Figure 5. Re-SIST (Regensburger Stab-I nterface-Scher-
T est) device.
The holes are a bit larger in diameter than the rod
used in order to allow the unhindered development
of a shear plane to a certain extent. Centrical fixa-
tion of the rod is ensured by additional measures. The
inside of the plates are covered with a smooth drainage
fleece to reduce plate end friction and allow dewater-
ing by suitable water outlets in the plates. In order to
apply controllable radial pressure, simulating the lay-
ing depth, a custom-built latex membrane is placed
inside the pipe and clamped between the pipe and the
plates before screwing them together.
To prevent arching an additional fleece is placed
between the membrane and the pipe. As the surface
of the objective DHP is made of polyethylene pur-
chasable polyethylene rods with a non-ferrous metal
core to minimize rod strains by means of high axial
stiffness were used. Rods with a stiffer metal core
or DHPs with suitable diameter were not available.
Immediately after mixing, the container is filled with
TFSB and the filling holes in the top plate are sealed.
After 24 h of setting radial pressure is applied by means
of compressed air in the annular space between the
latex membrane and the inner pipe surface. The water
outlets are opened simultaneously. Figure 5 shows a
schematically sketch of the device according to the
preceding description.
5 TEST PROCEDURE, IMPORTANT
OBSERVATIONS AND SCOPE OF TESTS
On the day of the test, the pressurized Re-SIST
device is placed into a conventional load frame with
a suitable base spacer and the rod is pushed through
108
the TFSB. The required force and displacement of
the rod are logged. In order to determine the post-
fracture interface behaviour tests are performed using
displacement-control at 0.05 mm min−1 . The selected
velocity tends to minimize the influence of curing
during the tests. All tests and post-testing inspec-
tions showed localization directly at the interface and
no changes in the structure of the TFSB. The prime
explanations are the powder suspension as the leading
material constituent at the interface, dominating inter-
face behaviour and the cementation of the solid matter
in general. As localization is concentrated directly
around the interface significant changes in the pore
water distribution are regarded as insignificant in
continuation of the underlying considerations.
The scope of conducted tests comprised mostly
time-series (2 samples at 7 d, 14 d, 28 d, 56 d and
112 d) at a selected radial pressure of 50 kN m−2 .
Additional tests at a sample age of 28 d but at other
selected radial pressures of 12.5 kN m−2 , 25 kN m−2
and 100 kN m−2 complemented the time-series. Fur-
thermore, creep-tests have been executed and at the
moment cyclic testing is being done. In the interest of
brevity a detailed discussion cannot be included here
and the presentation of the results will be limited to
general findings.
6 TRILINEAR CWRL FOR TFSB
Presentation and evaluation of test results yield the
following major findings, partly in comparison to sand
(Figs 6, 7):
1 TFSB show a (idealized) trilinear and not bilinear
CWRL like sand, including elastic, softening and
plastic regions.
2 The peak elastic contact resistance stress is several
times the plastic contact resistance stress, time-
dependent and can be described by means of a
logarithmic best-fit curve.
3 Plastic contact resistance stress is time-dependent,
but only to a small extent.
4 Contact resistance stress is displacement-dependent
for the elastic and softening regions.
5 Contact resistance stress is not displacement-
dependent for the plastic region.
6 The peak elastic contact resistance stress displace-
ment is significantly smaller than for sand.
The reasons for these findings will be discussed and
explained later in another paper (Wagner, in prep.).
The area below the CWRL indicates the work poten-
tial of the CWRL. There is a difference in the areas
when comparing the two CWRLs up to a certain dis-
placement. This means that one of the CWRLs does
more work that is conveys more energy on the rod for
the same displacement, due to higher contact resis-
tance stresses. Taking a look at Figure 6 it becomes
clear that TFSB show a significantly additional work
potential compared to sand, indicated by the shaded
area. In regard to thermal elongation and axial bedding
Figure 6. Idealized CWRLs for TFSB and sand.
as described in paragraph 2 it becomes clear that
thermal strains εT (x) will therefore generate higher
opposing mechanical strains εm (x) by inducing higher
shear stresses τ(x). For the objective first DHP warm-
up stage this means that a rod of equal length will
sooner be at rest and show lower displacements when
TFSB are used as backfill material instead of sand. As
τ(x) is displacement-dependent εT (x) and εm (x) can-
not be calculated separately from each other and the
solution has to be determined using Equation 5, which
will be done in the next paragraph.
7 AXIAL NON-LINEAR SPRING BASED
CALCULATION METHOD
Equation 5 is the homogenous linear differential equa-
tion of second order with constant coefficients and has
been presented by Alpan (1978) and utilized for DH by
Beilke (1993) in regard to sand as backfill material. In
regard to the different regions of the CWRL one has to
distinguish between τ(x) = f (u(x)) and τ(x) = f (u(x)).
Please do note that here u and not w as the overall dis-
placement is now relevant as Equation 5 is the solution
to the axial bedding problem. This can be explained as
follows:
If we take a look at the elastic linear region of the
CWRL (Fig. 6), the soil spring rate c is described by
Equation 6:
For a certain overall displacement u(x) ≤ wel the
effective shear stress τ(x) can be calculated using
Equation 7
and that is the term describing τ(x) = f (u(x)) in regard
to Equation 5. The image is that even though the
CWRL clearly shows a linear activation of τ(x) within
109
Figure 7. Temporal development of τel,TFSB and τpl,TFSB with
logarithmic respectively linear best-fit curve.
the axially bedded system the distribution of τ(x) along
the rod will be nonlinear: Combining Equations 5 and
7 and solving the resulting Equation will lead to a non-
linear function describing u(x). Therefore, the elastic
linear region of the CWRL can be stretched over a long
section of the rod.
For each region of the CWRL a different general
solution to Equation 5, depending on the term describ-
ing τ(x), exists in the first instance, also dividing
the rod in different regions. The individual solu-
tions to the problem ensuring the required continuity
of displacements and forces along the rod are then
achieved by correct constants of integrations. These
are governed by Dirichlet- and Neumann-boundary
conditions including the coupling points. Dirichlet-
boundary conditions depend on the CWRL and this
is where the values of w(x) like wel at the region tran-
sition points of the CWRL become relevant. In this
paper only the solution for a simplified CWRL for
TFSB is presented as shown in Figure 9. The full solu-
tion will be presented later in another paper (Wagner,
in prep.).
Figure 8 shows the equivalent statical system.
The T -dependent displacement zero-point (εT (x) =
−εm (x)) along the rod can be represented by a fixa-
tion. Vertical, horizontally moveable supports are not
depicted.
With Equations 8 and 9
with a = decay ratio of axial stiffness.
with e = ratio of shear stresses the solution to Equa-
tions 5 and 3 are as follows for the elastic region of the

Figure 8. Equivalent statical system (state: T >
Tel,grenz ).
CWRL (Equations 10 and 11):
where lel,grenz = length of the rod along which u(x) ≤
wel and lpl = length of the rod along which u(x) > wel .
The solutions to Equation 5 and 3 are as follows for
the plastic region of the CWRL (Equations 12 and 13):
lel,grenz is a fixed value and decribes the “elastic” length
of the rod along which the displacement u(x), which
also represents the soil spring deflexion, is smaller or
equal to wel . lel,grenz can be determined using Equations
14 and 15.
where Tel,grenz = change in temperature for which
the displacement u at the free to move end of the rod
will exactly be wel .
This means that once Tel,grenz is exceeded the
“elastic” length of the rod is “frozen” and simply slips
to the left as the “plastic” length increases with increas-
ing T . The additional constant thermal strain along
the “elastic” length resulting from T > Tel,grenz is
compensated by the normal force generated in the
110
“plastic” length and passed in the “elastic” length at
the coupling point. This “plastic” compensation is rep-
resented by the term a2 × e × wel × lpl in Equations 10
and 11. This concept can easily be understood if εm (x),
along a rod induced by a normal force at one end of
the rod, is considered: εm (x) is then a constant value,
just like εT (x) but in the above case of contrariwise
direction. The required plastic length is determined
by the fact that at the fixation εT (x) = −εm (x) has to
be valid. As εT (x) increases with increasing T lpl
increases, too, as we are dealing with a linear self-
adjusting system. This is a main difference to the
solution proposed by Beilke (1993), who assumed that
the “elastic” length has to be determined iteratively.
Other differences are
– the explicit use of shear stress and circumference
instead of already circumferential integrated forces.
Equation 8 gives a term that represents a stiffness
decay ratio as the diameter dependent stiffness of
the soil spring and the rod are contrasted. a is a
governing factor if we look at Equations 10 to 13.
– the use of the shear stress ratio e (Equation 9), which
yields a solution that covers not only a continuous
elastic-plastic CWRL but all possible elastic-non-
continuous-plastic CWRLs.
Furthermore, Equations 10 and 13 show that the
change in temperature from the current state T is
the movement and normal force provoking cause. If
T = 0 there are no resulting displacements or nor-
mal forces as wel and terms including wel only become
relevant if T > Tel,grenz which would be contradic-
tory to the precondition T = 0. In contrast to piles
no external loads are required to provoke movement,
displacements and normal forces.
8 COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE OF
CALCULATION
Comparative calculations using sand respectively a
TFSB (Table 1) as backfill material have been done
for a rectilinear DHP made up of a plastic jacket
compound pipe DN 40/125 representing the rod. The
plastic jacket compound pipe is the most common
DHP in Germany (Espig 2012). The outer diameter
of the plastic jacket is 125 mm and 48.3 mm for the
steel medium pipe with a wall thickness of 2.6 mm.
The space between the medium pipe and the plastic
jacket is filled with polyurethane resin mainly for the
purpose of heat insulation. The stiffness (E and A)
of the pipe is dominated by the medium pipe. Shear
strains between the different components of the plas-
tic jacket compound pipe are usually neglected. The
laying depth has been assumed to be 2.6 m equaling
a vertical overburden stress of approximately 50 kN
m−2 . The CWRLS for the backfill materials are shown
in Figure 9 (standardized with sand values) and have
been determined for sand by the relevant rules and
standards (AGFW 2007, DIN e.V. 2010) respectively
by TFSB Re-SIST tests, assuming the first warm-up
stage is taking place 28 d after backfilling.
Figure 9. Calculation example: CWRLs for TFSB (simpli-
fied) and sand; standardized with sand values.
Figure 10. Displacements along DHP (= rod) for TFSB and
sand, T = 130K > Tel,grenz .
The CWRL for the TFSB includes necessary adjust-
ments in regard to the strains of the testing rod (see
paragraphs 3 and 4) by means of a developed appropri-
ate algorithm. The CWRL for the TFSB has in addition
been simplified neglecting the softening region as
already indicated in paragraph 7. To make up for
this neglect and in regard to findings of additional
large-scale test, the plastic value of τ has been raised.
Starting from a stress and strain-free state and the same
system temperature the required pipe lengths, the dis-
placements and the normal forces along the pipe for
T = 130 K have been calculated. Practical questions
like limitations of steel stresses are not considered
within the example.
Figures 10 (displacements) and 11 (normal forces)
show the calculation results.
In the subsequent discussion of results the term
“elastic” specifies that shear stresses from the elas-
tic region of the CWRLS are relevant and the term
“plastic” that the shear stresses from the plastic region
of the CWRLs are relevant.
111
Figure 11. Normal forces along DHP (= rod) for TFSB and
sand, T = 130K > Tel,grenz .
As theoretically discussed in paragraph 7 the calcu-
lations show that a significantly smaller length of the
DHP shows displacements when the backfill material
is TFSB. The DHP is sooner at rest. The displacements
are furthermore smaller compared to those when sand
is used, but the generated normal forces are equal (as
the condition of the equilibrium is full compensation
of thermal elongation). The elastic length for TFSB
is noticeably smaller but the normal force generated
along the elastic length is higher. This is due to the
fact that although compared to the CWRL for sand the
elastic displacement wel to reach the higher maximum
elastic shear stress τel is smaller higher mechanical
strains εm are generated within the elastic length. This
illustrates the higher elastic work potential of TFSB
compared to sand, resulting in a higher Tel,grenz .
Therefore and due to the higher plastic shear stress, the
required plastic length is smaller compared to sand.
The overall view clearly shows that the new back-
fill material TFSB enhances axial bedding of district
heating pipes. This is done by reducing the pipe
length showing displacements and by reducing these
displacements. This reduces the need for additional
technical measures like expansion joints.
9 CONCLUSIONS
The main focus of District heating engineering is axial
bedding to reduce and compensate thermal induced
elongations. For cost reducing Temporary Flowable,
Self-compacting Backfill material (TFSB) the corre-
sponding state of knowledge is small.
A possible way to calculate displacements and nor-
mal forces of axially bedded district heating pipes
(DHP) for the first warm-up stage is an axial non-linear
spring-based calculation method based on a differen-
tial equation. The soil spring represents the interface
behaviour between the DHP and the backfill material
and is described by the contact-resistance-working-
line (CRWL). The CRWL has to be investigated
by interface tests. For several reasons and bound-
ary conditions standard common interface tests are
less suitable for TFSB. A new Rod-Shear-Test-based
testing device Re-SIST (Regensburger Stab-I nterface-
Scher-T est) allows the investigation and identification
of the trilinear (linear, softening, plastic) CWRL for
TFSB. Based on the CWRL the solution to the differ-
ential equation can be determined using appropriate
Dirichlet- and Neumann-boundary conditions. Com-
parative calculations show that the new backfill mate-
rial TFSB enhances axial bedding of district heating
pipes due to its different CWRL compared to sand
as the standard backfill material. The CWRL shows
a significantly additional work potential. The main
effects are the reduction of the pipe length showing dis-
placements and the reduction of these displacements,
whereas the same normal forces are generated.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by the Federal Ministry for
Economic Affairs and Technology, support codes FKZ
03ET1063B and FKZ 03T1063D, whose support is
greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
AGFW (ed.) 2007. Arbeitsblatt FW 401 – Verlegung und
Statik von Kunststoffmantelrohren (KMR) für Fern-
wärmenetze. Frankfurt: AGFW.
112
Alpan, I. 1978. Das Last-Setzungsverhalten des Einzelpfahls.
Bauingenieur 53: 293–298.
Beilke, O. 1993. Interaktion des Bauwerks “Fern-
wärmeleitung – Bettungsmaterial”. Hannover: n.p.
Deutscher Beton und Bautechnik-Verein e.V. (ed.) 2004.
DBV-Sachstandsbericht. Betonoberfläche – Betonrand-
zone – Fassung November 1996, redaktionell überarbeitet
2004. Berlin: n.p.
DIN e.V. (ed.) 2010. DIN EN 13941. Auslegung und Instal-
lation von werkmäßig gedämmten Verbundmantelrohren
für die Fernwärme; Deutsche und Englische Fassung
EN13941;2009+A1:2010. Berlin: Beuth.
Espig, F. 2012. Schadensstatistik KMR 2010 des AGFW.
Euroheat & Power 41 (5): 32–35.
Geisenhanslüke, C. 2008. Einfluss der Granulometrie von
Feinstoffen auf die Rheologie von Feinstoffleimen. Kassel:
kassel university press.
Mooney, D.T. 1998. Experimental and numerical study of
the Rod Shear Test for determining steel-sand interface
behavior. Arizona: University of Arizona.
Musharaf, Z. & Arumugam, A. 1995. Soil-Structure Inter-
face: Experimental Aspects. In A.P.S. Selvadurai, & M.J.
Boulon, (eds), Studies in Applied Mechanics 42: Mechan-
ics of Geomaterial Interfaces: 127–145. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Wagner, B. et al. 2013. Einsatz fließfähiger Verfüll-
baustoffe zur KMR-Verlegung. Euroheat & Power 42 (9):
54–56.
Wagner, B. in prep. Ein Beitrag zur axialen Bettung von
warmgehenden Leitungen, speziell Kunststoffverbund-
mantelrohren des Fernwärmeleitungsbaus, in Zeitweise
fließfähigen, selbstverdichtendenVerfüllbaustoffen (work-
ing title).
Weidlich, I. 2008. Untersuchungen zur Reibung an zyk-
lisch axial verschobenen erdverlegten Rohren. Hannover:
IGBE.