Anderson, Loren Runar et al "ANALYSIS OF BURIED STRUCTURES BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD"

Structural Mechanics of Buried Pipes

Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2000
CHAPTER 28 ANALYSIS OF BURIED STRUCTURES BY THE FINITE ELEMENT
METHOD
Introduction
The finite element method was introduced as a tool
for engineering applications by Turner et al. (1956)
for the solution of stress analysis problems related
primarily to the aircraft industry. Since that time the
finite element method has become a useful and
accepted tool in many areas of civil engineering.
Applications in geotechnical engineering include
static and dynamic stress analysis of various soil and
soil-structure systems, seepage analysis including
groundwater modeling, and consolidation analysis
including both magnitude and rate of settlement.
Stress analysis applications in geotechnical
engineering for static and dynamic loading was
introduced in the late 1960s and early 1970s and
included such applications as: static analysis of
stresses and movements in embankments [Kulhawy,
et al. (1969); Duncan, (1972); Kulhawy and
Duncan, (1972)]; earthquake stress analysis of
embankments [Clough and Chopra, (1966)];
earthquake response analysis [Idriss, et al. (1974)],
and soil-structure interaction [Clough, (1972)].
Katona, et al. (1976) pioneered the application of the
finite element method for the solution of buried pipe
problems. Their FHWA-sponsored project
produced the well-known public domain computer
program CANDE (Culvert ANalysis and DEsign).
CANDE has been upgraded several times and is
now available for use on a PC. Others also made
early contributions in the use of the finite element
method for buried structures problems, Katona,
(1982); Leonards, et al. (1982); Sharp, et al. (1984);
and Sharp, et al. (1985); TRB Record 1008.
The basic idea behind the finite element method for
stress analysis is that a continuum is represented by
a number of elements connected only at the
©2000 CRC Press LLC
element nodal points (joints), as shown by the two-
dimensional representation of a buried pipe in Figure
28-1. A structural analysis of the finite element
assemblage can be made in a manner similar to the
structural analysis of a building. The process
involves solving for the nodal displacements and
then, based on the nodal displacements, the stresses
and strains within each element of the assemblage
can be determined. The elements shown in Figure
28-1 are the basic structural units of the soil-pipe
continuum, just as beams and columns are the basic
structural units of building frames. Each element is
continuous and stresses and strains can be evaluated
at any point within the element. The major
difference between the analysis of a continuum and
a framed structure is that even though the finite
element representation of a continuum is only
connected to adjacent elements at its nodal points, it
is necessary to maintain displacement compatibility
between adjacent elements. Special shape functions
are used to relate displacements along the element
boundaries to the nodal displacements and to specify
the displacement compatibility between adjacent
elements. Once the continuum has been idealized as
shown on Figure 28-1, an exact structural analysis of
the system is performed using the stiffness method
of analysis [Zienkiewicz, (1977); Gere and Weaver,
(1980); Dunn, Anderson and Kiefer, (1980)].
Note in Figure 28-1 that only half of the soil pipe
system is represented. The analysis results for the
other half of the pipe can be obtained by symmetry
as long as the geometry, properties, and loading
conditions are symmetrical. The boundary
conditions along the line of symmetry must be
properly established to model the full system
behavior. Taking advantage of symmetry
significantly reduces the size of the problem that
must be solved as discussed in the next section.
Figure 28-1 Mesh representing symmetric pipe-soil system.

©2000 CRC Press LLC

Most geotechnical engineering applications can be
solved using a two-dimensional idealization as shown
in Figure 28-1. However, there are some problems
that must recognize the three-dimensional nature of
the problem. Figure 28-2 shows a finite element
representation of a buried cylindric al tank. The
model was used to investigate the development of
leaks in the tank at the junction between the
cylindrical walls and the end plates on the tank.
Again, symmetry was used to minimize the size of
the problem.
Basic Principles of the Finite Element Analysis
Equation 28.1 represents the equilibrium equations,
in matrix form, for each node of a finite element
assemblage such as the one shown on Figure 28-1.
After applying boundary conditions (identifying
nodes with fixed or restricted movement) the system
of equations given by Equation 28.1 can be solved
for the unknown nodal displacements represented by
the vector {d}. These displacements can in turn be
used to evaluate element stresses and strains.
[K] {d} = {f} . . . . . (28.1)
where
[K] = the global stiffness matrix
{d} = the nodal displacement vector and
{f} = the nodal load vector.
The stiffness matrix [K] relates the nodal
displacements to nodal forces. The elements of the
martix are functions of the structural geometry, the
element dimensions, the elastic properties of the
elements, and the element shape functions. The size
of the stiffness matrix depends on the number of
degrees of freedom at each node and the number of
nodes. Thus, the more nodes that are used to
represent a contiuum, the larger the system of
simultaneous equations that must be solved. Taking
advantage of symmetry, as discussed in the previous
section, can significantly reduce the number of
equations that must be solved. A complete
derivation
©2000 CRC Press LLC
of the finite element method for soil-structure
interaction problems is presented by Nyby (1981).
A finite element analysis of a soil-structure
interaction system, such as a buried pipe, is
different from a finite element analysis of a simple
linearly elastic continuum in several ways.
1. The soil has a nonlinear stress-strain relationship.
2. Different element types must be used to
represent the pipe and the soil.
3. It may be necessary to allow movement between
the soil and the walls of the pipe, requiring the use of
an interface element.
4. Very flexible pipes may involve large displace-
ments for which the solution may be geometrically
nonlinear.
Nonlinear soil properties
The stress strain behavior of soil is nonlinear.
Therefore, large load increments can lead to
significant errors in evaluating stress and strain
within a soil mass. The stress-strain relationship
should be determined from the results of laboratory
tests on representative soil samples. Duncan et al.
(1980) suggested a method for describing the stress-
strain characteristics of soil using hyperbolic
parameters. They also presented typical values for
soil that can be used if the results of laboratory tests
are not available. Care should always be exercised
when using “typical” values.
The Duncan soil model is often used for
geotechnical engineering applications. (Duncan, et
al. 1980) The original development of hyperbolic
stress-strain theory that is used by the Duncan soil
model was presented by Kondner and Zelasko
(1963). The soil model assumes that the stress-
strain properties of soil can be modeled using a
hyperbolic relationship. A thorough discussion of the
Duncan soil model is presented in Duncan et al.
(1980).
Figure 28-3 shows a typical nonlinear stress-strain
Figure 28-2 Mesh for a buried tank which requires three-dimensional iterations.

©2000 CRC Press LLC

Figure 28-3 Hyperbolic representation of a stress-strain curve [after Duncan et al. (1980)].

©2000 CRC Press LLC

c urve and the corresponding hyperbolic
transformation that is often used as a convenient
w ay to represent the stress-strain properties.
(Duncan et al. 1980). In Figure 28-3, the value of
the initial tangent modulus Et is a function of the
confining pressure. Figure 28-3 shows the change
in the tangent modulus that occurs as strain
increases. For a given constant value of confining
pressure, the value of the elastic modulus is a
function of the percent of mobilized strength of the
soil, or the stress level. As the stress level
approaches unity (100% of the available strength is
mobilized) the value of the modulus of elasticity
approaches zero. The Mohr-Coulomb strength
theory of soil indicates that the strength of the soil is
also dependent on confining pressure, as shown in
Figure 28-4. Figure 28-5 shows the logarithmic
relationship between the initial tangent modulus
versus confining pressure. The soil model combines
the relationship of variation of initial tangent modulus
with confining pressure and the variation of elasticity
with stress level to evaluate the tangent modulus of
elasticity at any given stress condition. The equation
that is used to evaluate the modulus of elasticity as
a function of confining
pressure strength is:
where
Et = tangent elastic modulus
Pa = atmospheric pressure
K = an elastic modulus constant
n = elastic modulus exponent
σ1 = major principal stress
σ3 = minor principal stress (confining pressure),
and
Rf = failure ratio
©2000 CRC Press LLC
The soil model as presented in Duncan et al. (1980)
also uses a hyperbolic model for the bulk modulus.
The hyperbolic relationship for the bulk modulus is
similar to the initial elastic modulus relationship,
where the bulk modulus is exponentially related to
the confining pressure. This particular soil model
does not allow for dilatency of the soil during
straining. The equation that is used which relates
the bulk modulus to confining pressure is:
where
B = the bulk modulus
Kb = bulk modulus constant, and
m = bulk modulus exponent.
The two equations given above are used to evaluate
the strain-dependent elasticity parameters that are
required in the stiffness matrix. Poisson's ratio and
the shear modulus are both computed based on
equations developed in classical theory of elasticity.
Shear failure is tested by evaluating the stress level
before the modulus of elasticity is computed. If the
stress level is computed to be more than 95% of the
strength, the modulus of elasticity is computed based
on a stress level of 0.95. This result is a low modulus
of elasticity. The bulk modulus is unaffected, thus
modeling a high resistance to volumetric
compression in shear. A test must also be
performed to evaluate if tension failure has occurred
when computing the elastic parameters. If the
confining pressure is negative, then the soil element
is in tension failure, and the elastic parameters need
to be set to very small values, thus simulating a
tension condition.
Figure 28-6 shows a stress-strain curve for a soil
sample in a triaxial shear test. The loading sequence
for the sample was to increase the vertical stress
until the sample had undergone initial strain, then to
unload the sample, and
Figure 28-4 Variation of strength with confining pressure [after Duncan et al. (1980)]

Figure 28-5 Variation of initial tangent modulus with confining pressure [after Duncan et al. (1980)]

©2000 CRC Press LLC

Figure 28-6 Deviator stress versus strain for a triaxial soil sample showing primary loading, unloading, and
reloading.
finally to reload the sample until failure. In Figure
26-6 it can be seen that the sample has a nonlinear
stress-strain response on primary loading. The
unloading and reloading characteristics below the
previous maximum past pressure, however, do not
follow the initial primary curve; they show an
inelastic response. After reloading beyond the
maximum past pressure, the stress-strain curve
again follows the initial nonlinear primary loading
curve.
Duncan et al. (1980) discuss the behavior of soil on
unloading and reloading in comparison with that on
primary loading. The soil stiffness is reported to be
1.3 to 3.0 times greater when in the
overconsolidated range. Volumetric strain is
reported to be unaffected by stress history. Triaxial
testing for unloading and reloading generally shows
that the magnitudes of the hyperbolic constant and
exponent depend on whether the soil is in primary
loading or unloading and reloading. It is necessary
to model stress history for each soil element in a
finite element analysis in order to model initial
deformation of the pipe due to compaction. Some of
the soil elements should respond in the rebound
range because of compaction until the surcharge
©2000 CRC Press LLC
pressures exceed compactive loading pressures.
For other applications, such as pipe rerounding, soil
elements must respond appropriately as the pipe
rerounds when internal pressure is added to the
loading sequence. Because the soil is much stiffer
in the rebound range, the pipe deformation is
dependent on the stress history of the soil. Not all of
the soil elements in the finite-element mesh will
respond to the rebound range at any given time as
the pipe rerounds or as the compaction loads are
modeled. Thus, it is necessary to monitor the stress
history of each soil element during the analysis and
to use appropriate stiffness parameters depending on
the current stresses of each element.
The stress history of the soil elements can be
monitored by evaluating the position of the center of
Mohr’s circle for each element (the average stress).
The average stress at any load increment is
compared with the maximum average stress from
previous increments. If the average current stress
is less than the maximum previous stress, the soil
elastic modulus is computed by using the unloading
parameters. Likewise, the soil elements are
monitored in the rebound range and will convert to
the primary loading curve when the average current
stresses exceed the maximum past average stress.
This method allows simulation of soil element
response for any soil element on either rebound or
primary loading, depending on the loading conditions
and soil response. Two additional soil parameters
are required as inputs for the Duncan soil model that
account for the behavior of the soil in the unloading
and reloading range, and the maximum past
effective stress (preconsolidation stress or
compaction stress) must also be specified.
When using the finite element method to solve
geotechnical engineering problems the nonlinear
stress-strain conditions are generally accommo-
dated by adding loads in increments and adjusting
the soil properties according to the magnitude of the
strain. If an embankment is being constructed, it is
necessary to follow the construction sequence by
adding the soil layers in increments and then
adjusting the soil properties after each layer is
added. Each new layer is first represented as a load
to determine the increase in stress within the
embankment. After determining the stress increase
from the new layer, additional elements are added to
the finite element mesh to represent the new
material. This allows the FEA program to follow the
nonlinear stress-strain properties of the soil. The
stiffness matrix [K] in Equation 28-1 is a function of
the material properties, the geometry of the element
and the shape functions that are used to describe the
stress-strain behavior at the edges of the elements.
The stiffness matrix is initially formed using the
beginning soil properties and geometry of the
element. As loads are added to the soil structure the
soil deforms and the soil properties change, and thus,
the stiffness matrix must be adjusted to reflect the
new soil properties.
Interface Elements
In the finite element analysis of buried pipes, the
pipe is generally modeled using beam elements in
which shear, moment, and thrust can be represented
at the ends of each element. The nodes of the pipe
elements are connected to the adjacent soil elements
©2000 CRC Press LLC
at their common nodal points. In some cases,
however, it may be necessary to allow slip to occur
between the pipe and the soil. This can be
accommodated in the finite element analysis by
placing "interface" elements between the pipe nodes
and the soil element nodes. These interface
elements have essentially no size, but kinematic ally
allow movement between nodes when a specified
friction force is exceeded.
Geometric Nonlinearity
As described above in the section on nonlinear soil
properties, the stiffness matrix [K] in Equation 28.1
is a function of the material properties of each
element, the geometry of the element and the
element shape function. As the soil deforms under
added loads the geometry of the finite element mesh
changes. If these changes are small (small
displacement theory) the stiffness matrix does not
have to be reformulated after each load inc rement.
However, if the pipe is very flexible the
deformations can be large and it is necessary to
reformulate the geometry of the finite element mesh
after each loading increment. This is referred to as
geometric nonlinearity.
Construction of the Stiffness Matrix
The stiffness matrix is composed of several parts.
One component is a constitutive matrix relating
stress to strain through the elasticity parameters.
Another component relates element strains to nodal
displacements through the strain-displacement
matrix. This matrix is computed based on element
types, shape functions, and nodal coordinates. It is
not within the scope of this report to derive the
above mentioned relationships.
Beam, bar, and soil elements each have their own
particular stiffness matrices. This comes about due
to basic engineering mechanics principles. A beam
element is a three-force element and a bar is a two-
force element. Both beam and bar elements are
called one-dimensional elements, their strain-
displacement matrix is derived based on the
appropriate shape functions and their cross-sectional
area, length, and angle of inclination. A soil element
is a two-dimensional element. It does not transmit
moment stresses. The strain-displacement matrix is
derived based on the coordinates of each node
which comprise the element, and the shape functions
that are used to describe the deformation
characteristics of the soil elements.
A finite element analysis of a continuum involves the
solution of the system of equations shown as
Equation 28.1. If the continuum is a linear elastic
system and the displacements are small then the
stiffness matrix, [K], in Equation 28.1 can be
generated once and then used over and over again
for solving the problem for different loading
conditions. The load vector {f} changes for
different loading conditions but the stiffness matrix
remains the same. Furthermore, the load of interest
can be applied in one increment since the material
properties are linearly elastic. However, if the
material properties are non-linear (strain dependent)
then the stiffness matrix changes as the load
increases and it is not possible to apply the load to
the system in one large increment. The load must,
therefore, be added in increments and the stiffness
matrix modified with each loading increment. If the
problem involves large displacement, which may be
the case for very flexible pipes, then the geometry
component to the stiffness matrix must change as
the system deforms. The global stiffness matrix for
the entire system is made up from contributions from
all of the elements in the assemblage. Beam and
bar elements tend to be linear elastic and the soil
elements are non-linear (strain dependent). The
individual element stiffness matrices are inserted into
the overall global stiffness matrix by considering
equilibrium at each node in the finite element
assemblage.
Required Input
Execution of a finite element program requires the
user to prepare data that includes the mesh
©2000 CRC Press LLC
geometry, material properties and loading conditions.
Some programs have an automatic mesh generation
option that significantly reduces the effort required
to input the data. The data that are required include
nodal coordinates, element data, material properties,
interface properties, nodal link properties,
construction sequence information, preexisting
element stresses, strains, and displacements, and
external loading information. Boundary conditions
are input. The boundary conditions indicate whether
a node is free to displace in the x or y direction or in
rotation.
Material information.. Material information for
each specified material type must be input. Soil,
structure (bars and beams), and interface materials
will each have separate input requirements. The
material properties that are needed for bar elements
include the cross-sectional area, modulus of
elasticity, and weight/unit length. Beam materials
also require moment of inertia, shear area , Poisson's
ratio, and distances from extreme fibers to the
neutral axis. Soil material properties that are needed
include all the parameters that are used in the
Duncan soil model described in a previous section.
Additionally, Mohr-Coulomb strength information,
unit weight, and the lateral earth pressure coefficient
are generally necessary for each soil type. The
nodal link elements behave like springs. Normal and
shear spring coefficients and orientation angles are
required for the nodal link elements. Interface
elements are similar to nodal links except that spring
coefficients are nonlinear. Normal and shear spring
coefficients, a modulus exponent, wall friction angle,
and an adhesion value are necessary on each
interface element material type.
Construction information. The construction
sequence is modeled by adding layers of soil
elements or placing the structure (beam elements).
Soil layer construction information is indicated by
specifying the sequence at which the layers are to
be added relative to sequences of adding external
loads. Structural placement information is indicated
by specifying the soil layer that immediately follows
the structure placement and the largest soil layer
number that is adjacent to the structure. Soil layer
data that are needed for each layer are the largest
and smallest soil element numbers within the soil
layer, largest and smallest newly placed node
numbers within the soil layer, and a series of nodes
which define the top surface of the new layer.
Preexisting stresses. An important feature when
solving non-linear problems, such as soil-structure
interaction problems, is the ability to specify
preexisting stresses. These stresses may be in the
soil, structure, or interface elements. Preexisting
stresses are stresses which are already in place
before any construction layers or external loading
forces are added to the system. For some problems
it may also be important to specify preexisting
strains or displacements. The "preexisting stress"
concept is very convenient when performing a series
of analyses. The use of preexisting stresses, strains,
and displacements essentially defines the stress
condition for the preexisting elements. Construction
sequences, therefore, need only be modeled once for
a given mesh and soil configuration. Afterwards,
the preexisting stresses resulting from that
construction simulation can be input for the entire
mesh, and the subsequent analyses can be
performed by adding only combinations of external
loads to the mesh.
External loads. External loads are generally input as
either concentrated loads or uniform loads. Their
input is rather simple. Each loading sequence must
have the number of concentrated loads and number
of uniform loads that are to be used. Concentrated
loads are specified by denoting the node number
which will receive the load, and the x and y
components of the point load. Uniform loads are
specified for each element that will receive the
uniform load.
Output
Typical output from a finite element analysis
©2000 CRC Press LLC
includes a summary of the input data and the results
of the analysis in terms of stresses, strains, and
displacements. The input summary includes element
and node information, material properties,
construction and load sequencing, preexisting
element information, and initial stresses used for
estimating the initial elastic parameters.
Nodal displacements include the total displacements
for the x, y and rotation components, and the
incremental displacements and rotations for each
particular loading increment..
The structural responses that are listed include the
moment, shear, and thrust for each node of each
structural member. The listing contains the
incremental structural forces and the total structural
forces from the accumulated incremental forces.
The soil element strain information includes the soil
element strains in x and y direction and the shear
strain. The principal strains can also be listed for
each element.
Soil element stresses that can be output include the
horizontal and vertical stresses, shear stresses, and
principal stresses. The angle of orientation of the
origin of planes with respect to the principal plane,
the ratio of major to minor principle stress, and
stress levels can also be printed out for each
element. The stress levels that are output indicate
the stress condition of each element. If the
computed stress is greater than the strength of the
material, then the element has undergone a local
shear failure, and the elastic parameters would have
required adjustment. If tension stresses were
computed in the soil, the the element would have
undergone a tension failure. The element elasticity
parameters would again need to be adjusted to allow
the displacements that would occur for a soil
element in tension.
Summary
The finite element method is a powerful tool for
stress analysis of complex systems. It has been
particularly useful in geotechnical engineering for the
solution of a wide variety of problems including soil-
structure interaction problems such as the analysis
of buried structures. Its application in solving soil-
structure interaction problems requires an
understanding of basic engineering mechanics and
an understanding of soil behavior. Judgement is
required in conducting and reviewing the results of
finite element analysis of geotechnical problems.
Comparing the results of a finite element analysis
solution with measurements made on a physical
system is important whenever possible. The power
of the method lies in the ability to solve complex
systems and in being able to look at many different
loading conditions and system configurations.
However, never accept the results at face value
without a thorough critical review.
REFERENCES
J.M. Duncan, P. Byrne, K.S. Wong, and P. Mabry.
Strength, stress-strain and bulk-modulus parameters
for finite element analyses of stresses and
movements in soil masses. Geotechnical
Engineering Report UCB/GT/80-01. University of
California, Berkeley, 1980.
F.H.Kulhawy, J.M.Duncan, and H.B.Seed (1969),
Finite element analysis of stresses and movements
in embankments during construction. Geotechnical
Engineering Report TE-69-4. University of
California, 1969
M.G.Katona, J.B.Forrest, R.J.Odello,
andJ.R.Allgood (1976), CANDE—a modern
©2000 CRC Press LLC
approach for the structural design and analysis of
buried culverts, Report FHWA-RD-77-5. FHWA,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1976.
G.A.Leonards, T.H.Wu, and C.H.Juang (1982),
Predicting performance of buried conduits. Report
FHWA/IN/JHRP-81\3. FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1982
K.D.Sharp, F.W. Kiefer, L.R.Anderson, and
E.Jones (1984), Soils Testing Report for
applications of finite element analysis of FRP pipe
performance: Soils Testing Report. Buried
Structures Laboratory, Utah State University,
Logan, UT, 1984
I.S.Dunn, L.R.Anderson, and F.W.Kiefer, (1980)
Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis, Wiley, 1980
B.W.Nyby and L.R.Anderson (1981), Finite element
analysis of soil-structure interaction.
Proceedings of the International Conference on
Finite Element Methods (H.Guangqian and
Y.K.Cheung, eds.). Science Press, Beijing China,
1982.
K.D.Sharp, L.R.Anderson, A.P.Moser, and
M.J.Warner (1984), Applications of finite element
analysis of FRP pipe performance. Buried
Structures Laboratory, Utah State University,
Logan, UT, 1984