Proceedings of IPC2008

Proceedings of IPC 2008

7th International
th Pipeline Conference
7 International Pipeline Conference
September 29-October
September 3, 2008,
29-October Calgary,
3, 2008, Alberta,
Calgary, Canada
Alberta, Canada

IPC2008-64436
IPC2008-64436

STRESS ANALYSIS OF A GAS PIPELINE INSTALLED USING HDD AND AUGER

BORE TECHNIQUES

Paul Cousens Chas Jandu

Andrew Francis & Associates Andrew Francis & Associates
Ripley, Derbyshire, England Ripley, Derbyshire, England

ABSTRACT
As part of an important project to reinforce the natural gas
transmission network, a new pipeline has been constructed to
transport natural gas from a major UK LNG storage facility
into the national transmission system.
The project involved the installation of several sections by
trenchless methods, namely auger boring for a number of road
crossings and significant lengths of horizontal directional
drilling (HDD) beneath railroads, canals and marshland.
The installation of pipelines using trenchless techniques such as
HDD continues to increase in popularity. The various methods
available offer advantages over traditional open cut techniques,
in particular much reduced disruption during the construction
of road and rail crossings. Furthermore, increased awareness
and responsibility towards the environment leads us to seek
installation methods that cause the least disruption at the
surface and have the least impact to the environment.
It was required to assess the proposed crossing designs against
acceptable stress limits set out in company specifications and
against the requirements of UK design code IGE/TD/1 Edition
4 [1], which requires that ‘additional loads’ such as soil
loadings, thermal loads, settlement and traffic loading are
accounted for within the stress calculations. However, it does
not stipulate the sources of such equations and the pipeline
engineer must rely on other methods and published sources of
information.
This paper presents the method used to analyse those sections
of the new pipeline installed by auger boring and HDD
focusing on the methods and formulae used to calculate the
stresses in the pipeline from all loading sources.
INTRODUCTION
An assessment of the crossings was performed by splitting each
of the sections into straight pipe and bends and those sections
that have different loadings. Within IGE/TD/1, there is a
requirement to assess stresses against code limits for membrane
stress and membrane plus bending stress.
The stress analysis of these proposed routes required multi-
disciplinary knowledge of both geotechnical and mechanical
engineering. Furthermore, since IGE/TD/1 does not provide
formulae for the calculation of soil loads, traffic loads,
settlement loads or construction stress a variety of other
methods were used to determine these values. Soil loads were
calculated using guidance from the literature (Marston) and
from a Dutch national code, NEN 3650 [2]. Traffic loads were
calculated using the well known Boussinesq method, whilst
settlement stresses were estimated with the aid of Caesar II [4]
pipework stress analysis software. For auger sections the
construction loads associated with installation were calculated
based on the axial force required to overcome friction, the
crossing length and the most onerous radius of curvature of the
crossing. At HDD sections a similar method was used but
based on pulling loads supplied by the HDD contractor.
This paper gives a full description of the modelling technique
that was applied and gives a detailed description of the results.
NOMENCLATURE
A Cross sectional area
B1 Half width of soil column in shear
Bd Auger bore diameter
D Pipe outside diameter
E Young’s modulus (steel)
Es Soil elasticity modulus
FAX Auger axial load

1 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/16/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fc HDD pull load σprincipal Principal stress
Fr Adhesion due to arching σT Stress due to thermal expansion
frr Pressure re-rounding factor σz Stress due to traffic load
g Acceleration due to gravity ρf Fluid density
H or h Depth of cover ρp Pipe density
HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling ρs Soil density
Iw Pipe wall moment of inertia φ’ Soil angle of internal friction
km Soil subgrade modulus γ Soil unit weight
ky Deflection factor
Ko Rankine’s earth pressure coefficient (at rest) PROPOSED PIPELINE DETAILS
L Length
MOP Maximum Operating Pressure General
SMYS Specified minimum yield strength The proposed pipeline has a nominal bore of 900mm with wall
P Internal pressure thickness of 12.7mm at nominal sections to 19.1mm at sections
Pcr Critical buckling pressure where code [1] requires heavy wall, it will be constructed from
Q Load due to traffic steel with a material grade of X60. The pipeline is to have a
Qd Auger bore soil load on the pipe Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP) of 75barg with a design
QH Horizontal support pressure acting on the factor between 0.5 and 0.72 depending upon the location on the
pipe ring route.
Qn,r1 HDD soil load on the pipe
Qtot Total external load In addition, obstacles along the proposed route include roads,
Qv Load due to traffic canals, railways and environmentally sensitive areas where
R Radius of curvature HDD/ auger section or ground disturbance must be kept to a minimum. Accordingly,
forged bend the project requires a range of installation techniques to
r Pipe outer radius negotiate these obstacles. Traditional open-cut methods are to
rg Pipe mean radius be used along with trenchless techniques of HDD and auger
T Temperature boring.
t Pipe wall thickness
Ww Moment of resistance of pipe wall METHODOLOGY
α Coefficient of thermal expansion, steel
Δ Denotes a change Loadings & Stresses
θb Bedding angle for circumferential loading The loads can be categorised as follows:
θs Side support angle for circumferential ƒ Internal pressure
loading ƒ Thermal Loads
θt Applied load angle for circumferential ƒ Vertical Loads (soil and traffic)
loading ƒ Settlement Load. This is the load due to a change in
μ’ tanφ’ ground conditions during the installation and over a
μ Pipe to soil friction coefficient period of time.
ν Poisson’s ratio for steel ƒ Construction Load. This is the load due to ‘fit-up’
σam Axial membrane stress stresses.
σam-tot Total axial membrane stress
σamb-tot Total axial membrane plus bending stress Soil Parameters
σb A bending Stress A detailed geotechnical interpretative report of the route was
σb-aug Construction bending stress, auger bore provided. The proposed pipeline route begins and ends on
σb-hdd Construction bending stress, hdd estuary marshlands. The solid geology of the route includes a
σcm-tot Total circumferential membrane stress range of rocks from the Eocene, Palaeocence and Upper
σcmb-tot Total circumferential membrane plus bending Cretacoeous ages including Clay, Thanet Sands and Chalk.
stress The drift (quaternary) geology includes materials such as
σeqm von Mises equivalent membrane stress alluvium, river terrace gravels and head. Clay is also present at
σhp Hoop stress due to internal pressure subsoil level.
σm A membrane stress
σm-aug Construction membrane stress, auger bore Appropriate soil properties required for the loading analyses
σm-hdd Construction membrane stress, hdd were selected from the geotechnical report where available.
(σm+ σb)eq von Mises equivalent membrane plus Where required parameters were absent, typical parameters
bending stress were selected from Ref [2]. In order to determine lower bound

2 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/16/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 and upper bound soil properties, the partial factors (for spatial
distribution of parameters) recommended in Ref [2 ] were used.
Allowable Static Stress Criteria
Within IGE/TD/1, there is a requirement to take into
consideration ‘additional loads’ such as soil loadings, thermal
loads, settlement and traffic loading. The following
conservative criteria given in [1] and in company specific codes
are adopted herein.
σeqm≤0.8SMYS
(σm + σb)eq ≤0.9SMYS
The equivalent membrane and bending stresses arise from
different loadings which are discussed in the following
sections.
Allowable Cyclic Stress Criteria
Company specific standards used for the project state that the
cyclic stress range resulting from traffic loading should be
below the following criteria,
Δσprincipal ≤ 35 MPa
Where the maximum principal stress range exceeds the
allowable limit, an analysis was carried out to determine a
number of passes per day of the given vehicle load; this was
then passed to the Client to determine acceptability.
The number of allowable fatigue cycles, N can be determined
from fatigue S-N curves for weld in carbon steel, such as those
that can be found in IGE/TD/1 [1] or in codes such as PD 5500
[3]. In this case the Class F2 fatigue curve is considered
appropriate and refers to pipe sections joined by butt welds
made from one side with no backing strip. The general form of
the S-N curves is given by,
A = SmN
Where S is the principal stress range and r and C are constants
for the selected weld classification. For Class F2 welds
A=4.3x1011 and r=3.
The limit on stress range of 35MPa (prescribed by the client)
represents the point on the S-N curve where the number of
cycles (endurance) exceeds 107.
The fatigue analysis only takes into consideration the transient
loadings from traffic, since the Client confirmed that the
damage accrued from pressure fluctuations is insignificant.
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/16/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Allowable Deflection Criterion
Additionally, a deflection check is also required to ensure the
pipeline will not deform such as to prevent an on-line
inspection vehicle from passing through. Thus the
serviceability limit on ovalisation, to enable on line inspection,
is 5% of the diameter at the operating pressure..
Buckling Criterion
Additionally, a buckling check (according to the method of
Meyerhof and Baikie [7]) is required to show that a factor of
safety greater than 3 on the critical buckling load exists when
(1) the pipeline is in a depressurised state.
(2) AUGER BORED SECTIONS
General
Briefly the auger bore method is a trenchless construction
method in which the bore is formed with a rotating auger head
and spoil is removed by the helical screw conveyors (auger
flights). The casing or product pipe is normally simultaneously
installed by jacking with hydraulic rams. Jacking commences
from within an excavation termed the ‘launch pit’ and it is
pushed towards the ‘receive pit’. This technique generally
causes minimal surface disturbance
For this project, the technique was used for the shorter
(3) crossings (up to 50m in length) of major roads, minor roads,
ditches and tracks.
FIGURE 1 – AUGER BORING
Soil Load
For auger bored sections it is appropriate to use the Marston
(4) trench load as a conservative estimate, i.e. neglecting the
additional benefit of cohesion in the soil. The total load acting
over the pipe diameter, Qd is given by,
⎛ −2 Ka μ '
H
⎞
⎜ 1 − e Bd ⎟
Qd = γBd2 ⎜ ⎟ (5)
⎜ 2K a μ ' ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Other vertical loads acting are the self weight load and, if the
pipe is below the water table, the load due to buoyancy.
3 Copyright © 2008 by ASME
 For tangentially flexible pipes, the horizontal soil pressure Qv = σzD (8)
acting on the pipe cross section can become important. In the
pressurised case, any support given to pipe section due to
horizontal soil pressure was conservatively omitted. For the
de-pressurised case the at rest earth pressure was considered to
be acting on the pipe section, this is in accordance with the
recommendations of NEN 3650, where Rankine’s at rest earth
pressure coefficient is given by,

Ko = 1-sinφ (6)

FIGURE 3 - BOUSSINESQ NOTATION

Qtot

The vehicle used depends on the location of the crossing. For

θt
sections crossing beneath minor unsurfaced roads, the load
from a three axle vehicle with 60 kN per axle (including an
θs impact factor of 2) was considered; this simulates an
Dosin1/2θs
agricultural vehicle. For sections crossing beneath roads, the
QH appropriate ‘HB’ loading was considered. The HB load is a
θb bridge design load [6], which was used in lieu of actual vehicle
or traffic density information. HB load is expressed in terms of
‘units’, where 1 unit is 10 kN per axle, for example the
designated loading for a principal traffic route is HB37.5 or
Qtot 375 kN per axle.

Using the above method, the worst case loading due to the
relevant vehicle above the pipeline can be determined by
evaluating the load for a range of positions across the pipeline.
Dosin1/2θb
The determination of the traffic load is independent of the
FIGURE 2 – LOADING PATTERN PER NEN 3650 installation technique employed.

Settlement Load
Traffic Load In general when a pipeline is installed the soil in the bedding
Using the Boussinesq theory the stress, σz, at a point z due to a zone of the pipeline is disturbed, which leads to differential
point load Q at a location in space (z,r) is given by: settlement beneath the pipeline. Furthermore, differences in
soil loading occur between the send/receive pits and the
augered sections, which gives rise to further differential
5 settlement.
⎛ ⎞ 2
⎜ ⎟ For the analysis, finite element analysis using the CAESAR II
3Q ⎜ 1 ⎟ software [4] was used to determine the bending stresses due to
σz = 2 ⎜ 2 ⎟ the weight of the soil, pipe and fluid for the auger bored
2πH ⎜ ⎛ r ⎞ ⎟
⎜1 + ⎜ H ⎟ ⎟ sections. The models comprised of beam elements with springs
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ (7) modelling the soil restraint in the vertical (upward and
downwards), axial and lateral directions. The soil load
corresponding to the open cut and auger sections being applied
The effects of multiple loads Q are calculated from the as distributed loads.
summation of each load. The total load due to traffic is then
calculated as The spring values were calculated using the guidance presented
by the ASCE [5]. The soil restraint is represented by a bi-linear
spring relationship consisting of an ultimate load and a

4 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/16/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 displacement required to develop this ultimate load. The output
of the method is an ultimate force per unit length (N/mm) and a
stiffness per unit length (N/mm/mm). The referenced ASCE
document provides expressions for the calculation of the
ultimate load per unit length along with semi-empirical values
for the displacement required to develop these loads. This is
provided for axial, lateral and vertical soil restraint.
carefully controlled amounts of additives such as bentonite (a
clay mineral), polymers and surfactants added depending on the
soil type.
For this project, it is proposed to use HDD to cross two areas of
marshland that are internationally designated areas of
ecological importance.

Using the above method, the settlement stress is provided A detailed analysis of the loads on the pipeline during
directly. It should be noted that this settlement stress is distinct installation of the HDD sections was carried out by others and
from a settlement stress that may be caused due to this paper deals only with the loads in the pipeline after
consolidation at sections where open-cut techniques are used. installation.

Construction Load
Construction loads arise where physical force has been exerted
to ‘fit-up or ‘fit-in’ the pipeline. For conventional open-cut
trench installations, construction loads are minimal. However,
for trenchless installations such as auger bore, the pull and
alignment stresses can be significant

For the auger bored sections, the push through force will be
greater than the force required to overcome friction. FAX is the
axial soil friction load/unit length,

D
FAX = μ ⋅ D ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ ρ s ⋅ H + π ⋅ ρ p ⋅ t + π ⋅ ρ f ⋅ )⋅ g
4 (9)

From the crossing drawings, the maximum radius of curvature FIGURE 4 – THE HDD PROCESS
on any of the sections will be 40D m (cold field bend
curvature). Thus the membrane and bending construction Soil Load
stresses for the auger bored sections during pull through are For HDD installations the soil loads presented in section C4.8
given by, of NEN 3650 are appropriate. For sand this is given by,

− Kh tan ϕ
F .L ⎛ F ⎞⎛ ⎞
σ m −aug = Ax (10) Qn ,r1 = ⎜⎜ γh − r ⎟⎟⎜1 − e B1 ⎟ D (12)
A ⎝ 2 B1 ⎠⎜⎝ ⎟
⎠

Er For Clay and peat,

σ b −aug = (11)
R

HDD SECTIONS
General
Briefly this method involves drilling a pilot hole with a
continuous drill string along a pre-determined path. A back-
reamer is then attached to the string when it emerges at the
opposite side of the crossing. The reamer then bores out the
pilot hole and the pipe is then pulled through. Drilling fluid is
injected into the hole during drilling and reaming to stabilise
the hole and remove spoil. The drilling fluid is water with
⎛ F ⎞
Qn ,r 2 = ⎜⎜ γh − r ⎟⎟ D (13)
⎝ 2 B1 ⎠
Where, B1, is the half width of the soil column in shear and Fr
is the adhesion due to arching, as defined in NEN 3650. For
the purpose of these analyses Fr was conservatively assumed to
be zero meaning that the load in sand reduces to the Marston
trench load, whilst the load in clay or peat soils reduces to the
neutral load, both of which are considered conservative for this

5 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/16/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 installation technique. Some degree of arching will be
mobilised after installation since the drilling mud (bentonite
slurry) will set to form a compressible layer around the pipe.
Settlement Load
For the sections installed by HDD no settlement was required
to be calculated since settlement at sections installed by this
method is considered negligible.
Construction Load
Both tensile forces (due to the pulling) and bending stresses
(due to the shape of the borehole) will be exerted during the
installation.
Circumferential Bending Stress
Having determined the total external load, Qtot, acting on the
pipeline from sources such as soil and traffic, the
circumferential response of pipeline sections was determined
using the method of NEN 3650; refer to Figure 2 for notation.
In general, the side support angle, θs, was taken to be 120˚.
The bed support angle, θb, was taken to be 120˚ for pipeline
installed by a trenchless technique as allowed by NEN 3650.
The load angle, θt, is 180◦.
The bending stress at a given location around the
circumference per NEN 3650 is given by,

HDD pull forces at different points in the pulling process were

supplied; the maximum load for each HDD was used in these f rr .k .Qtot .rg
analyses. It was confirmed that the maximum bending radius σb = (18)
will not exceed 900m. Thus the membrane and bending WW
construction stresses for the HDD sections are given by;

Stresses were calculated at the top, sides and bottom of the

F section. The corresponding load factors kt, ks, and kb
σ m −hdd = c (14) (substituted for k in Equation 18) are provided in tabular form
A in NEN 3650 for a range of loading and support angles.

Er
σ b−hdd = (15)
The re-rounding factor, frr accounts for the reduction of
R circumferential bending stress due to the ring stiffening effect
of internal pressure and is given by,

Where Fc is the maximum pull through force at that location

and the other quantities have been defined above. 1
f rr = (19)
1+
2. P .rg .k y
STRESS AND DEFLECTION CALCULATIONS EI w
Stress and deflection calculations were carried out for both
lower and upper bound soil conditions for the crossings with
and without internal pressure. Buckling checks were carried
out for the de-pressurised case only. In which the pipe wall moment of inertia, Iw is given by,

Circumferential Membrane Stress

The circumferential membrane stress due to internal pressure, t3
σh, was calculated using, Iw = (20)
12

P( D − t )
σhp = (16) And ky is a deflection factor dependent on the loading and
2t support angles θt, θs and θb as per Figure 2.

And the ring membrane stress, σm-ring due to the total external Axial Membrane Stress
load, Qtot, The axial membrane stresses due to the construction type are
presented in equations 10 and 14. For auger bored sections the
membrane stress due to settlement as determined using Caesar
Qtot II was also included.
σ m−ring = (17)
2t

6 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/16/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The stress due to internal pressure in the axial direction was For the pressurised case the above expression is simply
taken to be the Poisson stress, i.e. the pipe sections were multiplied by the re-rounding factor, frr.
considered to be fixed by the soil.
Combined Stress
The axial membrane stress due to temperature differences in The calculated stresses were categorised as follows,
the pipeline from tie-in were determined using,
σcm-tot Total circumferential membrane stress
σam-tot Total axial membrane stress
σ T = − Eα ΔT (21) σcmb-tot Total circumferential membrane plus bending stress
σamb-tot Total axial membrane plus bending stress
Axial Bending Stresses Equivalent stress calculations were then carried out using the
The axial bending stresses due to construction type are von Mises combination but ignoring shear stresses since these
presented in equations 11 and 15. For auger bored sections the are negligible.
bending stress due to settlement as determined using Caesar II
was also included.

At bend locations all of the above stresses were multiplied by a σ eq m = σ cm−tot 2 + σ am−tot 2 − σ c m−totσ a m−tot (24)
stress concentration factor due to the geometry, given by,

(σ m + σ b ) eq = (σ c mb−tot − σ amb−tot )2 + σ cmb−totσ amb−tot (25)

0 .9
i= 2
(22)
⎛t R ⎞ 3
⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ Buckling
⎝ r ⎠ As per the requirements of the company specific standard used
for this job, a check on buckling was carried out with critical
buckling pressure calculated according to the method of
Meyerhof and Baikie.
Where Rb is the bend radius of curvature, r is the bend
diameter, and tb is the bend wall thickness.
The critical buckling pressure, Pcr, is given by,
Circumferential Deflection
If there is no internal pressure, the circumferential vertical
deflection as per NEN 3650 is, k m EI w
Pcr = 2 (26)
(1 −ν 2 )rg2
k y .Qtot .rg3
Δy = (23)
EIW Where km is the soil subgrade modulus given by,
Where ky is a deflection coefficient dependent on the bed
support angle, θb and the angle over which the load is applied,
θt. In the depressurised case only the effects of horizontal Es
km = (27)
support acting on the pipe ring were taken into account by 1.5rg
considering the horizontal side support pressure, QH (the
neutral horizontal earth pressure), acting over a side support
angle of 120◦. The support given by QH is calculated using a
similar formulation to (23) above with the relevant value of ky
dependent on the side support angle θs; the total deflection was RESULTS
then found by superposition. NEN 3650 allows QH to be For the numerous crossings analysed for this project it was
increased to take into account the horizontal soil resistance, generally found that the sections proposed to be installed by
making (23) similar to Marston Spangler’s Iowa formula. In trenchless construction methods will have acceptable stresses,
this case the effects of horizontal soil resistance on the deflections and an acceptable margin against buckling. Fatigue
deformation of the pipe ring were conservatively ignored. analyses based on the range of principal stress caused by
vehicle loadings yielded a given number of vehicle passes per
day.

7 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/16/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Stresses and deflections in excess of the presented acceptance
criteria were predicted to occur at open-cut sections such as
those present at auger send and receive pits primarily due to the
more onerous values of construction stress and loads due to
consolidation settlement. At these locations reduced depths of
cover or closely controlled backfilling techniques were
recommended in order to limit settlement loads.

CONCLUSIONS
A method has been presented that shows the process for
determining the acceptability of stresses at pipeline crossings
installed by trenchless methods, namely auger boring and
HDD.

A well designed and safe pipeline route was achieved.

REFERENCES
1. IGE/TD/1 Edition 4, Recommendations on
Transmission and Distribution Practice - Steel
Pipelines for High Pressure Gas Transmission,
The Institution of Gas Engineers
2. NEN 3650, ‘Requirements for Steel Pipeline
Transportation Systems’, Nederlands
Normalisatie Institut, March 2006.
3. BS 7608:1993, fatigue design and assessment of
steel strucrtures, BSi
4. COADE CAESAR II Pipe Stress Analysis
Software, Version 5.0.
5. Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas
Pipeline Systems, Prepared by the Committee on
Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines of the ASCE
Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake
Engineering
6. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 1
Section 3 part 14, Loads for Highway Bridges,
The Highways Agency, 2001
7. Strength of steel culvert sheets bearing against
compacted sand backfill, Highway Research
Record 30, Highway Research Board
(Washington DC), Meyerhof G.G. and Baikie
L.D, 1963

8 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/16/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use