See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289710513

Safety concept in the new Dutch pipeline standard NEN 3650

Article · January 2004

CITATIONS READS
2 1,810

4 authors, including:

A.M. (Nol) Gresnigt

Delft University of Technology
68 PUBLICATIONS 1,171 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Local buckling of spiral-welded steel tubes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A.M. (Nol) Gresnigt on 15 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of The Fourteenth (2004) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Toulon, France, May 23−28, 2004
Copyright © 2004 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-62-1 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Safety Concept in
The New Dutch Pipeline Standard NEN 3650
Wim Guijt
Tebodin Consultants & Engineers, The Hague, The Netherlands
Ton Vrouwenvelder
TNO/Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Nol Gresnigt
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Gert Dijkstra
Tebodin Consultants & Engineers, The Hague, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

A Partial Factor Design Method was introduced in the 1992 version of
the Dutch Pipeline Standard NEN 3650. Within NEN 3650:1992, Load
combinations and Load Factors were taken from earlier Codes and
Standards or derived from other Limit State Design Guidelines and
applying good engineering judgment. When updating NEN 3650, it was
decided to carry out a research project for calibration of Load and
Resistance Factors, by adopting a reliability based verification method.
The new NEN 3650, published in July 2003, defines the new set of
Load Combinations, as well as Load and Resistance Factors for
Ultimate Limit States (ULS) and Serviceability Limit States (SLS). The
Load and Resistance Factors currently introduced are dependent of the
required safety level (Reliability Index b), the coefficient of variation
(CoV or V) and a sensitivity coefficient a (defining the importance of
load or resistance variable). Determination of Partial Factors for soil
parameters was also considered when performing the research project.
This paper summarizes the main outcome of the research project and
presents the Load and Resistance factors as introduced in NEN
3650:2003 (Reference 1, 2).
KEY WORDS: Pipeline Design, Partial Factor Design, (Reliability
Based) Limit State Design Method, Ultimate Limit States (ULS),
Serviceability Limit States (SLS), Pipeline Safety, NEN 3650.
INTRODUCTION
The NEN 3650 for Design of Buried Pipeline Systems was introduced
in 1992 (Reference 3). The stress and strain analysis of NEN 3650:1992
was based upon a previously developed model adopting elements from
the ASME Codes (distinction between primary and secondary stresses)
and a method defining limit states (plastic strain based design).
Application of partial factors on characteristic values of loads is typical
for the NEN 3650:1992 model. Furthermore Primary (load controlled)
and Secondary (displacement controlled) stresses were distinguished in
this Code, each having its own limit values.
Equivalent stresses, calculated by performing an elastic analysis, were
corrected adopting a so-called stress correction factor, to account for
the pipeline’s plastic deformation capacity. Considerable experience
was gained over a number of years by adopting this design method.
However, it was recognized that the NEN 3650:1992 design method
had some drawbacks, especially for pipelines being designed for
elevated temperatures (in combination with high pressures). These are
summarized as follows:
• The method as adopted was based on empirical factors only;
• A reliability based stochastic background was not available;
• The method did not reflect current developments in reliability
based limit state design methods;
• The use of stress correction factors needed to be
reconsidered, by adopting a stress range verification instead.
During update of NEN 3650 it was concluded to perform a research
project defining the required safety margins more clearly. Furthermore
it was envisaged to adopt a Limit State Design method in line with
current International Codes & Standards. The research project covered
the following main topics, and the main results are summarized in this
paper:
• Review of International developments regarding Limit State
Design Methods, such as ISO 2394 (Reference 4) and
ISO/CD 16708 (Reference 5);
• Introduction of a Resistance Factor for material properties,
and re-definition of Load Factors, by considering the
stochastic variation of different types of loads;
• Perform detailed stress and strain analyses for various
pipeline systems, and comparing the new method with the
previous method to derive a new stress criterion.

1
HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE
During development of the Dutch oil and gas pipeline transmission
networks in the period 1960-1970, many road, water and dyke
crossings had to be realized. Large diameter pipelines traversed soft
soil areas (soft clay, peat) with high ground water tables. It was
recognized that special attention needed to be paid when designing
crossings to ensure public safety. This necessitated the development of
a stress analysis method for pipelines in soft soils, adopting pipe-soil
interaction models. The Province of South-Holland introduced the first
“Pipeline Code” dealing with pipe-soil interaction in 1968.
According to pipeline operators this document was setting too
demanding requirements as the design was entirely based on an elastic
(allowable stress) design method. An extensive research project was
initiated defining the strength and deformation capacity of buried steel
pipelines, and introducing limit states and plastic design methods. This
plastic design method of buried steel pipelines in settlement areas was
published in 1986 (Reference 6).
In parallel the “Rules for Transportation Pipelines” were developed and
published in 1989. These Rules distinguished primary and secondary
stresses (in line with ASME B31.1 for piping systems and the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code) and introduced a Partial Factor
design method accounting for (plastic) deformation capacity. At this
moment in time International Standards were also being developed.
Therefore it was decided to combine the Rules for Transportation
Pipelines and the Pipeline Code by issuing the Dutch National
Standards NEN 3650 (1992) and NEN 3651 (1994).
Recognizing recent developments (with regard to public safety
constructing pipelines nearby built-up areas, use of high-grade
materials and operation of pipelines at elevated temperatures and
pressures) it was decided to review and update NEN 3650.
DEFINITION OF LIMIT STATES
Distinction is made between Ultimate Limit States (ULS) and
Serviceability Limit States (SLS) in NEN 3650:2003. The following
Limit States are to be considered designing pipelines:
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO LOAD AND
RESISTANCE (PARTIAL) FACTOR DESIGN
Today the principles of Limit State Design and Partial Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) are predominantly being adopted in
current International Codes & Standards for analysis of building
structures. For each of the different load combinations to be considered,
characteristic values of loads are multiplied with load factors to
determine the design loads. Characteristic values of resistance are
divided by a safety (resistance) factor to arrive at a design value for
resistance. For all significant limit states it is to be checked if the load
effect does not exceed the resistance. A representative design format
according to the Partial Load and Resistance Factor Design (ISO/CD
16708, NEN 3650:2003) is expressed in Eq. 1.
n
R
S (γ G LG , γ L1 L1, ∑ψ iγ Li Li ) ≤ (1)
i =2 γR
S Load Effect (e.g. Stress or Strain)
R Resistance (e.g. yield strength or strain)
γG Partial Load Factor for Permanent Load LG
LG Permanent Load (e.g. pipe’s own weight, soil overburden)
γL1 Partial Load Factor for dominating Load L1
L1 Load 1, which is chosen as dominating Load
ψi Load combination factor for non-dominant Load Li
γLi Partial Load Factor for non-dominant Load Li
Li non-dominant Load i (for i=2 to n)
γR Partial Resistance Factor
Figure 1 is a simplified illustration showing the probability distribution
of the Load Effect and Resistance. The probability of failure should be
less than or equal to the target level to be achieved. In other words: it is
to be ensured that the target reliability of the proposed design is
reached.
1,6000E-02

• Stresses: Exceeding the design value of the limit state stress may
cause bursting/rupture. 1,4000E-02

• Strains: Exceeding the limit state strain may also cause 1,2000E-02

bursting/rupture. Due consideration should be given when 1,0000E-02 Failure

determining the strain capacity (mechanical properties and
Probability

Load Region Resistance

imperfections of pipe material, welds and Heat Affected Zone). 8,0000E-03

• Excessive deformation: This limit state covers excessive 6,0000E-03

ovalization, local buckling, global (upheaval) buckling, stepwise

plastic deformation, and implosion. Although a loss of containment
4,0000E-03

might not be experienced for these cases, local strains may become 2,0000E-03

excessive. 0,0000E+00

• Alternating yield (ratcheting or low cycle fatigue): Variation of 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Load and Resistance probability distributions

loads in alternating directions (compressive and tensile) may result
in accumulated plastic deformations.
• Fatigue: Occurrence of fractures as a result of cyclic loading.
• Resonance: Excessive vibrations, e.g. due to vortices in offshore
pipelines or as a result of surge pressures in above ground onshore
pipelines.
• Displacement: Unacceptable large displacements, e.g. due to
currents in offshore pipelines.
• Indentation and/or scratches: Local loading, e.g. by excavators,
may cause dents and/or scratches, possibly leading to leakage.
• Leakage: leakage as a result of causes other than rupture (e.g. due
to inferior welding, corrosion, or third party damage) leading to
unacceptable consequences for health and safety.
Figure 1: Load and Resistance probability distribution
The magnitude of Load and Resistance Factors to be taken into account
when performing an analysis are thus dependent on the uncertainties of
loads, uncertainties of the resistance and the safety level to be achieved.
The uncertainties are defined by the type of probability distribution
function, the average value and Coefficient of Variation (CoV or V) of
loads and resistance. Also the importance of a load or resistance
(dominant variable or not) influences the magnitude of the Load and
Resistance Factor. Partial Load and Resistance Factors can be
determined by adopting the basic formula Eq. 2, applicable for a
lognormal distribution according to ISO 2394.

2
This formula can also be applied to determine a Model Factor to Formally the Sensitivity Coefficient α, which is used to characterize the
account for inaccuracies in (predictive) calculation models. importance of a Load/Resistance, should be derived by performing a
probabilistic reliability analysis; a so-called probabilistic FORM (First
Xd µ αβV X nom X Order Reliability Method) calculation. Alternatively “standardized
γL = = e or γR = = nom (2) FORM coefficients” or “standardized α-values” can be adopted;
X nom X nom Xd µeαβV especially for cases having more than one variable load, acting in
combination. Experience gained over time shows that FORM estimates
γL Partial Load Factor are adequate for a wide range of problems (Reference 7, 8, 9). Values
γR Partial Resistance Factor for α of the variables Load and Resistance, according to ISO 2394 and
Xd Design value adopted in NEN 3650:2003, are summarized in Table 1.
Xnom Characteristic (nominal) Value
µ Mean Value Table 1: Values for the Sensitivity Coefficient α
α Sensitivity Coefficient
β Reliability Index Importance of Variable Load Resistance
V Coefficient of Variation CoV, V=CoV=σ/µ Dominating Variable 0.70 0.80
σ Standard deviation Other Variables 0.28 0.32

Values for Xnom can be defined as:
• Characteristic values having a certain return period;
• Calibrated values having a certain probability of being
exceeded, characterized by a fractile value;
• Nominal values (often for geometrical properties).
To arrive at a Partial Factor, the Sensitivity Coefficient α, the
Reliability Index β and properties of the distribution function of the
load/resistance (the mean value µ, Coefficient of Variation V or
standard deviation σ and the characteristic nominal value Xnom) must be
defined. These properties are each separately described. Also the
Length effect and Mechanism effect, which are of importance for
pipeline systems as they influence the Reliability Index and Variation,
are discussed in a separate section.
Sensitivity Coefficient α
In general four possibilities can be distinguished to determine design
values for Loads and Resistances (see also Figure 2):
Dominating high value;
Non-dominant high value;
Non-dominant low value;
Dominating low value.
When performing an analysis it is often not known which variables
should be considered as dominating. Sometimes it is not even known
which of the variables are acting favorably or not for proper
functioning of the structure. In other words; what is to be considered a
load or resistance. Furthermore this can be different for each Limit
State to be considered. Formally each possible combination should be
evaluated. However, behavior of most of the variables is often already
known from experience, and the number of combinations to be
considered can be reduced in practice.
Reliability Index β
The Reliability Index β is related to the safety (reliability) level that is
required. The Probability of Failure Pf can be approximated by Eq. 3
for β-values above 0.5 up to approximately 4.
Pf = 10 − β or β = − log( Pf ) (3)
This approximation is inaccurate for β-values above 4, therefore the
probability of failure Pf and corresponding β-values are tabulated below
for the full range commonly adopted.
Table 2: Probability of Failure Pf and corresponding β-values

Dominating high values should be adopted for loads or resistances of Pf 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7
primary importance for a given Limit State; the non-dominant value β 1,3 2,3 3,1 3,7 4,3 4,8 5,2
can be used for other loads or resistances (so-called combination
value).
Values for β ranging from 1 to 3 are commonly adopted for
Serviceability Limit States, whereas target β-values of 3 up to 5 are
generally applied for Ultimate Limit States. As an example, Table 3
summarizes target β-values for a one-year reference period and
fX Ultimate Limit States according to the JCSS Probabilistic Model Code
low high (Reference 9), as obtained from a cost benefit analysis for
representative but simple structures.
dominant dominant

non-dominant Table 3: Target β-values for a 1-year reference period and ULS
according to JCSS, 2000

Relative cost of Consequence of Failure

safety measure Minor Moderate Great
High 3.1 3.3 3.7
Figure 2: Definition of dominant and non-dominant low and high Average 3.7 4.2 4.4
values Low 4.2 4.4 4.7

3
Over the period 1970-2001 the European gas and oil pipeline systems Table 4: Values for Reliability Index β adopted in NEN 3650:2003.
averaged 4 x10-4 to 5.5x10-4 incidents/year/km, with a loss of
containment. The incident frequency over the last 5-year period is Reliability Index β
significantly better, 2 x10-4 to 3x10-4 incidents/year/km over the period Global Local
1997-2001 (Reference 10). This failure rate cannot be compared Field section SLS 1.8 3.4
directly with failure probabilities for reliability analysis. However, it is Field section ULS 3.6 4.7
customary to assume that the acceptable failure probability for ULS Crossing ULS 4.7 5.15
should be one or two orders of magnitude smaller than the experienced
failure rate. Therefore with an experienced long-term loss of
containment frequency of 5x10-4 incidents/year/km, a target β-value for Mechanism-effect
a 1-year reference period of 3.9 to 4.4 (Probability of Failure of 5x10-5
to 5x10-6) can be considered reasonable. This corresponds with a β- The physical length of a mechanism (like friction and settlement along
value of 3.0 to 3.6 for a design life of 30 years. the pipeline axis) is also of importance when estimating the local
failure probability. Two extreme possibilities are to be considered:
In line with Dutch Structural Building Codes, a minimum value for β of • The mechanism length a is large when compared with
3.6 should be adopted for main construction elements of structures over parameter fluctuations (Lmech > ∆lpar), and
its design life (for pipelines in general 30-50 years. This corresponds to • The mechanism length a is small when compared with
a β-value of 4.4 for a 1-year reference period) considering Ultimate parameter fluctuations (Lmech < ∆lpar).
Limit States. This is also in agreement with the β-value derived from
the long-term incident frequency. Authorities do generally not set
minimum values for Serviceability Limit States (SLS). However, a In reality the transition between the extremes local variation (Vlocal) and
reliability index of 1.8 is generally adopted. In some cases higher β- variation taking into account the mechanism effect (Vmech) is rather
values are required, e.g. pipelines crossing dikes protecting the smooth, which can be approximated by adopting the following Eq. 5
surrounding area from flooding. As the consequences of pipeline failure for Lmech > ∆lpar.
in these cases could be significant and safety measures (e.g. increased
wall thickness) can be implemented at limited costs, a minimum β-
value is set at 4.7 by authorities for Ultimate Limit States (ULS). ∆l par
Vmech = Vlocal (5)
The probability of failure for a β-value of 4.7 is two orders of Lmech
magnitude lower compared with a β-value of 3.6 (1.3x10-6 versus
1.6x10-4). Acceptable failure probabilities for offshore and onshore Mechanism-effects have only been taken into account in NEN
pipelines are defined in ISO/CD 16708 “Petroleum and natural gas 3650:2003 for soil friction and settlement, therewith reducing the local
industries – Pipeline transportation systems – Reliability based limit Coefficient of Variation Vlocal, using Vmech instead. This takes into
state methods”. These failure probabilities are in line with β-values account the considerable length over which mechanisms such as
described in this section (β-value 1.8 for SLS, 3.6 for ULS in general friction and settlement are built-up.
and 4.7 for ULS considering special crossings requiring a higher safety Figure 3 shows that Mechanism I, having a relatively short length, is
level). sensitive to local fluctuations, whereas the variation of Mechanism II
could be reduced considering its length in comparison with the
parameter fluctuation.
Length-effect

As the probability of failure of a pipeline P(Fpipeline) is related to length, Variable

this should also be taken into account when determining the reliability
index. This so-called length effect is accounted for adopting Eq. 4:

Lref
P( Fpipeline ) = P( Flocal ) (4)
∆L
∆lpar
In which:
P(Fpipeline) probability of failure of a pipeline
Lmech Lmech
Lref Pipeline Reference Length
∆L Length over which parameters are strongly related
P(Flocal) probability of local failure of a pipeline
I II x
The probability of local failure of a pipeline section should be reduced Pipeline Length
by a factor 100 for field sections (Lref =5 km and ∆L = 50 m) and a
factor 10 for crossings (Lref = 100 m and ∆L =10 m) in order to achieve
an acceptable overall probability of failure or global reliability index of Figure 3: Mechanism length and parameter fluctuations
the pipeline. Values for the Reliability Index β, as adopted in NEN
3650:2003 are summarized in Table 4.

4
PARTIAL LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTORS ADOPTED obtained from geo-technical investigations and surveys and by
IN NEN3650:2003 performing laboratory tests. To account for the local variation a
Reliability Index β of 5.15 for crossings has been adopted estimating
The Partial Load and Resistance Factors of NEN 3650:2003 have been the Partial Factor for soil properties. A β-value of 4.7 could be applied
obtained by performing a reliability based verification method for field sections, but the reduction in load factor by adopting this lower
(Reference 11). This section defines the Factors for Functional Loads, β-value is only minor, and was therefore not considered.
Material and Geometry properties (Resistance Factors). It further The variation coefficients for soil properties have been chosen in such a
describes soil properties and soil parameters of interest for pipeline manner that the range between minimum and maximum covers the full
design as well as Model and Variation Factors for soil parameters range encountered in practice. For example, normally compacted dry
according to NEN 3650:2003. sand has an average density of 18 kN/m3, ranging from minimum 16
kN/m3 (loose sand) up to maximum 20 kN/m3 (dense sand), which
Functional Loads corresponds with a Partial Factor of 1.1.
Only the soil properties unit weight γ and Modulus of compression C
In NEN 3650:2003 the Reliability Index β has been set at 3.6 for are taken as dominating values (sensitivity coefficient α of 0.8). The
Ultimate Limit States. A value of 0.7, for dominating loads, is taken for unit weight is a property of high importance when calculating the soil
the sensitivity coefficient α. The sensitivity coefficient α is only parameters. The Modulus of Compression is of importance when
reduced to 0.5 for internal pressure in combination with other loads as estimating settlements, which is a load to be given due consideration
it is very unlikely that all maximum loads will occur at the same time when designing pipelines. The α-values of other soil properties are
and location. Table 5 presents the Partial Factors for Functional Loads reduced to 0.32 for non-dominant variables. Operational loads are taken
according to NEN 3650:2003. as dominating loads. Soil reaction forces are mobilized as a result of
these operational loads. Therefore not all soil properties are to be
Table 5: Partial Load factors (β=3.6 and α=0.7, α=0.5 for pressure in considered as dominating loads, which otherwise might result in an
combination) over conservative design. Table 7 summarizes the Partial Factors for
soil properties according to NEN 3650:2003.
Functional Load V γL
Pressure only p 0.08 1.25 Table 7: Partial factors for Soil Properties
Pressure in combination p 0.08 1.15
Temperature change ∆T 0.03 1.10 Soil properties V µ/Xnom γ
Steel weight G 0.03 1.10 Unit weight (density) γ 0.025 1.0 1.10
Traffic Load Qv - 1.35 Friction angle ϕ 0.050 1.0 1.10
Modulus of Elasticity E 0.125 1.0 1.25
Material and geometry properties Effective (drained) cohesion c’ 0.20 1.0 1.40
Undrained shear strength cu 0.20 1.0 1.40
The Partial Factors for material and geometry properties considering Modulus of Compression C 0.19 0.9 2.20
Ultimate Limit States according NEN 3650:2003 are summarized in
Table 6 for a Reliability Index β=3.6 and Sensitivity Coefficient α=0.8. From ongoing investigations regarding settlement predictions in the
For initial pipe ovality β has been set at 4.7, to recognize the Netherlands it has been derived that the (local) Coefficient of Variation
consequence of this parameter when estimating the collapse pressure. for the Modulus of Compression C amounts to 0.25 and µ/Xnom=0.9, as
The properties have been taken from ISO/DIS 16708 and TNO-report the actually measured settlements are in general over-predicted by 10%.
96-CON-R0500 (Reference 12). The pipeline diameter and Young’s Therefore the local Variation has been reduced taking into account the
modulus can be considered as deterministic values. Only when length effect of this mechanism (Vmech=0.19).
checking the Load Combination “internal pressure only”, the wall When designing high temperature pipelines, but also high pressure
thickness variation is to be considered. The nominal wall thickness pipelines in peat areas, friction mobilized along the pipeline is an
(deterministic value) can be adopted for all other Load Combinations important factor. Displacements are inversely proportional to friction.
according to NEN 3650:2003. Recognizing the importance of soil friction the sensitivity coefficient α
is taken at 0.8 for all soil properties. As friction is mobilized over
Table 6: Partial Factors for material and geometry properties considerable length (a lower boundary value of 50 meters has been
considered for the anchor length over which friction is built-up) the
Material and geometry properties V µ/Xnom γm length effect is taken into consideration for this mechanism. Table 8
Wall Thickness WT 0.05 1.05 1.10 summarizes the Partial Factors for soil properties to be adopted when
Initial pipe ovality f0 0.50 1.0 5.00 estimating soil friction.
Yield Strength SMYS 0.06 1.10 1.10
Ultimate Tensile Strength UTS 0.10 1.0 1.25 Table 8: Partial factors for Soil Properties for Friction taking into
Ultimate Strain εu 0.20 1.0 1.80 account Length Effect
Charpy, CTOD, Fatigue 0.50 1.0 4.00
Soil properties Vloc Vmech γ
Soil properties Unit weight (density) γ 0.025 0.004 1.02
Friction angle ϕ 0.050 0.027 1.12
Stress analysis of buried pipelines, especially high pressure and/or high Effective (drained) cohesion c’ 0.20 0.110 1.57
temperature (HPHT) pipelines, requires close attention to be paid with Undrained shear strength cu 0.20 0.110 1.57
regard to soil behavior by adopting a pipe-soil interaction model
(Reference 13). When determining soil parameters (soil stiffness and
maximum resistance) for a stress analysis, soil properties should be Soil parameters

5

Knowing the soil properties from laboratory tests, the soil parameters
required to perform a finite element stress analysis can be calculated
using analytical models. A model for Pipeline-Soil interaction is shown
in Figure 4, the soil parameters of interest are tabulated in Table 9.
qn qp
(friction) it is more common to adopt a bi-linear (elastic-fully plastic)
model, as the displacements in axial direction to obtain the ultimate soil
friction are quite small (typically 2-10 mm only). Displacements
required to obtain the maximum soil resistance for other displacement
directions are significantly larger (an order of centimeters at least) and
are therefore expressed instead as soil stiffness.

Nomalised Force-Displacement Diagram

kv, up Vertical displacement, upwards (Clay and Sand)

1.20

kh kh
1.00
Clay shallow, not compacted
qh qh Clay shallow, not compacted

Normalised Force
Clay shallow, compacted
0.80
Clay deep, not compacted
Clay deep, not compacted
0.60
Clay deep, compacted
Sand deep, not compacted
Sand deep, not compacted
kv, down 0.40 Sand deep, compacted
Trilineair
Hyp A=0.07
0.20

0.00
pwe 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Normalised Displacement

Figure 4: Model for Pipeline-Soil interaction

Figure 5: Soil response for upward pipeline displacement
Table 9: Soil parameters required for 3-D Pipeline-Soil interaction
modeling Nomalised Force-Displacement Diagram
Horizontal displacement (Clay)

Soil parameter Symbol 1.20

Soil overburden load (neutral soil load) qn

Uplift resistance (passive soil load) qp
1.00

Vertical soil stiffness for upward displacement kv,up

Normalised Force

0.80 Clay shallow, not compacted

Horizontal Ultimate soil resistance qh Clay shallow, compated
Clay deep, not compacted
Horizontal soil stiffness kh 0.60
Clay deep, compacted
Hyp A=0.05
Vertical Ultimate Bearing Capacity, pwe 0.40
Hyp A=0.10

Vertical soil stiffness for downward displacement kv,down

Ultimate Friction w 0.20

Displacement required to achieve ultimate friction uw

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

The analytical formulas presented in NEN 3650:1992 for estimating the Normalised Displacement

soil parameters have been reviewed as part of a Delft Cluster research

project (Reference 14). Available literature and test results were
analyzed and also finite element calculations for pipeline–soil Figure 6: Soil response for lateral pipeline displacement
interaction were carried out using PLAXIS. Test results of full-scale
tests in clay with different backfill materials, as performed in the Nomalised Force-Displacement Diagram
Vertical displacement, downwards (Clay)
Netherlands by GeoDelft, are presented in Figure 5, 6 and 7. As a result
of this research project, updated formulas for estimating the soil 1.20

properties have been implemented in NEN 3650:2003.

1.00

Analyzing literature and the tests carried out, it appeared that the soil
Normalised Force

0.80
response can be approximated best by a hyperbolic function (Eq. 6).
Clay shallow, not compacted
Clay shallow, not compacted
Clay shallow, compated
0.60 Clay deep, not compacted
Clay deep, not compacted
u Clay deep, compacted

q u max 0.40 Hyp A=0.10

=
Hyp A=0.20
(6)
qmax A + (1 − A) u 0.20

u max 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Normalised Displacement
The constant A defines the shape of the hyperbolic function, with
q/qmax the soil response load over the ultimate resistance and u/umax the
soil displacement over the displacement required to obtain the ultimate Figure 7: Soil response for downward pipeline displacement
resistance. This hyperbolic function can be used for vertical upward,
horizontal and vertical downward displacement. For axial displacement The soil stiffness (bedding constant) is commonly defined at 30% of

6
the ultimate resistance and can be determined using the ultimate Variation Factor for soil parameters
resistance and corresponding displacement together with the shape
factor A of the hyperbolic function (Eq. 7). The Model factor does not cover all uncertainties associated with soil
parameters. Soil properties vary along the pipeline axis and soil
qmax 1 − 0.3(1 − A) investigations are typically only carried out at a limited number of
k30% = * (7) locations of specific interest (large crossings, connections at locations,
u max A or sections requiring special construction techniques). Variation in soil
properties along pipeline axis should thus be accounted for. A special
The shape factor A is typically 0.05 for upward displacement, 0.10-0.15 calibration study was carried out, which envisaged to limit the
for horizontal displacements and 0.20 for downward displacements. calculation effort and also bring the newly introduced reliability
method in line with the current practice. Soil parameters were
calculated using the analytical models for a range of pipeline diameters
Model Factor for soil parameters (8” up to 48”) in different soil types (sand, soft clay) and depths of
cover (1 and 3 metres). Parameters were calculated for average, low
The test results were also compared with soil parameters estimated and high soil properties using the Partial Factors of Table 7 and 8. By
using the proposed analytical formulas in order to determine the comparing the calculated high and low values of the soil parameters
average and variation (i.e. accuracy) of the analytical Model. An with the average value, a factor FV was derived which covers for
example is presented in Figure 8 for maximum soil friction in sand variation of soil properties along the pipeline axis, see Figure 9.
(displacement in axial direction of the pipeline).

Maximum soil friction in Sand SOIL PROPERTIES

γ φ c cu E C
after 100 full displacement cycles

10 Partial Factors γ = eαβV

Maximum Friction, measured w (kN/m )
2

9
LOW AVERAGE HIGH
8
Average/γ γ=1 Average*γ
7

6 Calculate SOIL PARAMETERS, using MODEL

qn qp kv,up qh kh pwe kv,down w uw settlement
5

4
LOW AVERAGE HIGH
3

2
γ=Average/Low γ=High/Average
1

0
Factor
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FV
2
Maximum Friction, calculated wtheor (kN/m )
Figure 9: Scheme to derive Variation factors for Soil parameters
Figure 8: Comparison of calculated and measured friction to determine
the average and standard deviation of the calculation Model. Table 11: Variation factors for Soil parameters

Variation factor FV Sand Clay

The variation V and µ/Xnom (adjustment factor for the formula) were Peat
derived by comparing the test results with the calculated values used in Soil overburden load qn 1.1 1.1
analytical models. These are tabulated in Table 10 together with the Uplift resistance qp 1.1 1.1
corresponding Model Factor. A reliability index β=4.7 (for crossings) Vertical soil stiffness, up kv,up 1.2 1.5
and a sensitivity coefficient α=0.32 (non-dominant) have been adopted Horizontal soil resistance qh 1.4 1.4
in deriving the Model Factor γM,soil for soil parameters. Horizontal soil stiffness kh 1.4 1.4
Vertical Bearing Capacity pwe 1.5 1.4
Table 10: Model factors γM,soil for Soil properties Vertical soil stiffness, down kv,down 1.8 1.9
Ultimate Friction w 1.1 1.5
Model Displacement for w uw 1.3 1.2
Sand Clay/Peat
factor
Symbol V µ/Xnom γM,soil V µ/Xnom γM,soil Performing this calibration study it was concluded that it is possible to
qn 0.00 1.0 1.00 0.00 1.0 1.00 adopt a single factor FV for each of the parameters, differentiating
qp 0.20 1.0 1.35 0.20 1.0 1.35 between sand and clay/peat only, see Table 11. The derived factor FV
kv,up 0.10 1.0 1.16 0.15 1.0 1.25 was consistent (i.e. the variation was negligible) for the full range of
qh 0.10 1.0 1.16 0.25 0.70 1.46 pipeline diameters and depth of cover, as well as for low and high
kh 0.15 1.0 1.25 0.15 1.0 1.25 values. Instead of calculating the soil parameters for low, average and
high values of the soil properties, it is now only required to calculate
pwe 0.20 0.95 1.35 0.10 0.85 1.16
the soil parameters using the average value of soil properties and use
kv,down 0.40 1.0 1.83 0.30 1.0 1.57
the factor FV of Table 11 to determine the low or high value of the soil
w 0.15 1.0 1.25 0.30 0.60 1.57
parameters (dividing or multiplying by the factor FV). This reduces the
uw 0.15 1.0 1.25 0.15 1.0 1.25 calculation effort to determine all soil parameters.

7
MAIN RESULTS OF STRESS AND STRAIN ANALYSIS
PERFORMED FOR UPDATING OF NEN3650:2003

A detailed stress and strain analysis was performed in order to gain

better insight into the consequences of the calibrated Partial Factors on
pipeline design. The outcome of the analysis according to the new
method, using re-defined Load and Resistance factors, was compared
with the old method. The stress and strain analysis was performed for
different pipeline systems, as summarized in Table 12. The Finite
Element calculations (both elastic stress and plastic strain analyses)
were carried out with the program PLE-micro-CAD of Expert Design
Systems b.v., specifically developed for pipeline-soil interaction
modeling. This program has been verified using test results on straight
pipes and pipe bends, as performed and reported by TNO (Reference
15).
Figure 10: Isometric of 3D pipe-soil interaction model
Pipeline System Pressure Temperature
(barg) (°C)
Flow (insulated) 120 100 In NEN 3650:2003 the stress criterion has been modified to a check
Gas 80 50 against the available stress range (Re+Reθ) preventing alternate
District Heating (insulated) 20 130
yielding and introduced a material resistance factor γm (Eq. 8). The
Water 5 20 factor 0.85 has been used to ensure that the outcome of an elastic stress
analysis is conservative compared with a plastic strain assessment.
Table 12: Design conditions of typical pipeline systems
0.85(Re+ Re θ )
The design pressures and temperatures adopted are typical for these σ vM ≤ (8)
pipeline systems and cover all combinations of pressure and γm
temperature (high and low pressure in combination with high and low
design temperatures). Wall thickness, material grade and bend radii of
these typical pipeline systems are summarized in Table 13. Figure 11 shows the outcome of calculations performed for a 16” flow
A model was set-up which comprised all typical elements of relevance line having a design pressure of 120 barg and a design temperature of
for pipeline design; road crossing by boring, (hot, cold and elastic) 100 °C. Maximum (bending) stresses and strains are encountered at the
bends, changing depth of cover and (differential) settlement. An 90° hot bends as a result of expansion from the parallel sections along
isometric of the model is presented in Figure 10. Total length of the the road. High stresses and strains are also found at locations with
model from start to end point is in total 230 meters, of which two 100 differential settlement as a result of differences in construction
meters sections are in parallel with the road and a total of 30 meters techniques (open cut versus boring) and pulling of sheet piling. Elastic
perpendicular crossing the road (of which 18 meters by a boring and 6 bending of the pipeline (at coordinate 150,000 mm), having a bend
meters at each side up to the respective bend). radius of 1000D, also introduces significant stresses/strains.
The results of an elastic stress analysis according to NEN 3650:2003
Table 13: Wall thickness of typical pipeline systems was compared with the outcome of an analysis according to NEN
3650:1992, as well as a plastic strain analysis according to NEN
Pipeline Diameter Wall Thickness (mm) 3650:2003. The allowable Von Mises stress according to NEN
Diameter PE casing 3650:1992 amounts to 1.5 Reθ, which is equivalent to 603 N/mm2 for
DPE District API 5L X65 at 100 °C. According to NEN 3650:2003 the Von Mises
D (inch) Flow Gas Water
(mm) Heating equivalent stress should be checked against 85% of the stress range
8" 315 5.6 4.5 (sum of cold and hot yield stress) divided by the material resistance
12" 450 7.9 5.6 factor γm=1.1, thus 657 N/mm2. NEN 3650 defines an allowable strain
16" 520 9.5 6.6 5.6 6.3 of 0.5% for material grades having a yield strength above 360 N/mm2.
24" 780 9.3 6.3 6.3 Figure 11 shows that for the 16” flow line the NEN 3650:1992 is most
48" - 15.9 12.5 conservative (von Mises stress criterion is just not met at a single
Material Grade X65 X60/X70 GrB/X52 GrB
location). The overall stress ratio according to NEN 3650:2003 is on
10 3/5 2½/3½/ Mitre average 20% lower as a result of the re-defined load factors and stress
Bend Radius (xD) criterion compared with NEN 3650:1992. The plastic strain analysis
200 40 5/200 15°
proves that sufficient deformation capacity is still available as the strain
ratio is at least another 20% lower (on average 30%).
The results of the stress and strain analyses performed were analyzed to
The maximum equivalent strain calculated amounts to 0.3%, which is
derive a new stress criterion. According to NEN 3650:1992 the
significantly lower than the allowable strain of 0.5%. The equivalent
maximum Von Mises equivalent stress (including Load Factors) was
strain is plotted in Figure 12 together with the circumferential and axial
checked against the hot yield stress Reθ applying a stress correction
strain for the 16” flow line.
factor of 1.5 to account for plastic deformation capacity (σvM/1.5<Reθ).

8
 DN 400 mm Flowline CONCLUSIONS
120%
A consistent set of Load and Resistance Factors have been derived for
100%
NEN 3650:2003, by adopting a reliability based probabilistic method.
Factors derived for functional loads, material and geometry properties
and soil properties are dependent of the stochastic variation, safety
Stress/strain ratio

80%

level (reliability index) and importance of the load/resistance

NEN 3650:1992 vM stress
60% NEN 3650:2003 vM stress (sensitivity coefficient). The Model and Variation Factors for soil
NEN 3650:2003 eq. strain
parameters can be further optimized when other test results are
40% available.
20%

0%
REFERENCES
0 50000 100000 150000 200000

Distance (mm) 1. NEN 3650-1:2003. “Requirements for pipeline systems”,

Figure 11: Comparison of NEN 3650:1992 (elastic design) with NEN Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, July 2003.
3650:2003 (elastic and plastic design) for a 16” flow line 2. NEN 3650-2:2003. “Requirements for pipeline systems – Part 2:
Steel”, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, July 2003.
3. NEN 3650:1992. “Requirements for steel pipeline transportation
DN 400 mm Flowline
systems”, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut.
5.0
4. ISO 2394:1998 “General principles on reliability for structures”.
4.0 5. ISO/CD 16708 “Petroleum and natural gas industries – Pipeline
transportation systems – Reliability based limit state methods”.
6. Gresnigt, A.M. (1986). “Plastic Design of buried steel pipelines in
3.0
Strain (promille)

2.0 settlement areas”, HERON Vol. 31 no. 4.

1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
0 50000 100000
Distance (mm)
Figure 12: Axial, circumferential and combined strain according to
NEN 3650:2003 for a 16” flow line
Only the results of the analysis performed for the Limit States stress
and strain for the governing Load Case of the 16” flow line have been
presented in this paper. However, the outcome of this analysis is typical
for all analyses performed. A total of almost 100 cases have been
analyzed (stress and strain analyses for four types of pipelines having
different functional loads, pipeline diameters ranging from 8” up to
48”, different soil conditions and code requirements).
By performing the plastic strain analyses for different pipeline systems
for different operational loadings (especially pressure and temperature
combinations), it was possible to derive a new elastic stress criterion,
which is proven to be safe but also provides a less stringent
requirement.
Equivalent Strain
Circ. Strain
7. Vrouwenvelder, Ton (2002). “Reliability Based Code calibration
Axial Strain The use of the JCSS Probabilistic Model Code”, Joint Committee
of Structural Safety (JCSS), Workshop on Reliability Based Code
Calibration, March 21-22, 2002.
8. Vrouwenvelder, Ton (2004). “The Fundamentals of Structural
Building Codes”, TNO/TU-Delft, the Netherlands.
150000 200000
9. Joint Committee on Structural Safety (2000). “Probabilistic Model
Code”, obtained from www.jcss.ethz.ch.
10. Guijt, Wim (2004). “Analyses of incident data show US, European
pipelines becoming safer”, Oil & Gas Journal, January 26, 2004.
11. Vrouwenvelder, A.C.W.M., Guijt, W., Dijkstra, G.J., Gresnigt,
A.M. (2003). “Herziening Rekenfactoren en spanningscorrectie-
factoren in NEN 3650” TNO-report 2003-CI-R0031.
12. Foeken, R.J. van. Gresnigt, A.M. (1998) “Buckling and Collapse
of UOE manufactured steel pipes PR-238-9423 Final Report”,
TNO-report 96-CON-R0500.
13. Guijt, Wim (1999). “Design Consideration of High-Temperature
pipelines”, Proceedings of the Ninth (1999) International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference by the International Society of
Offshore and Polar Engineers, ISBN 1-880653-39-7.
14. Korff, Ir. M., Hergarden, Ir. H.J.A.M. (2002) “Integraal ontwerp
leidingen en riolen Grondmechanische randvoorwaarden”, Delft
Cluster Project 04.02.01.
15. r+k Consulting Engineers b.v. (2000). “Description and
Verification of a new module in PLE-micro-CAD to determine the
deformation and stress/strain behaviour in the elasto-plastic region
of buried, steel transport pipelines”, Version 1.0.

View publication stats