Ce 23 26 27 PDF

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ‫اﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ‬
KING SAUD UNIVERSITY ‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮد‬

Deanship of Scientific Research ‫ﻋﻤﺎدة اﻟﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ‬
FINAL REPORT
Temperature Effects on Polyethylene (HDPE)

and Fiberglass (GRP) Pipes.
Professor H. A. Alawaji
Civil Engineering
ABSTRACT
Temperature effects on deformation of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Fiberglass
(GRP) pipes are investigated. Pipe load tests and Nonlinear Finite elements analysis are
employed to investigate temperature effects on pipes buried in embankments. The testing
program consists of exposing HDPE & GRP ring pipe samples to water heated to prescribed
temperatures then loading up to 10% vertical deflection. Four temperatures of 30, 40, 50, 60,
and 70o C covering the range of operating field conditions in arid lands are considered.
Experimental results show that, deformation modulus of pipes decreases linearly with
increasing temperature. Due to temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, deformation modulus
decreased 62%. Numerical analysis is conducted to simulate temperature effects on buried
pipes in sand embankments. Staged Nonlinear finite element analysis program (Z_Soil) is
employed. Pipe springline deflection increases as soil density decreases and temperature
increases but pipe performance remains within acceptable limit of 3-5%. In practice, HDPE
and Fiberglass pipes are cost effective and efficient alternative for buried applications in arid
lands even under high temperature up to 70o C.
ii
SUMMARY
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Fiberglass (GRP) pipelines form an important part of
infrastructures that is necessary for major industrial, desalination, and water transmissions
activities. Increasing cost and severe technical difficulties associated with protected steel and
concrete pipes are increasingly forcing engineers to consider HDPE and GRP alternatives
pipes. To account for operational and environmental conditions, temperature effects on load
deformation characteristics of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Fiberglass (GRP) pipes
are investigated. The testing program consists of exposing HDPE & GRP ring pipe samples to
water heated to prescribed temperatures in large test box. Four temperatures of 30, 40, 50, 60,
and 70o C covering the range of operating field conditions in arid lands is considered. After
one day heating, line load has been applied diametrically at constant rate of 1-2 mm/min up to
10% deflection under constant prescribed temperature. Experimental results show that,
deformation modulus of pipes decreases linearly with increasing temperature. Due to
temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, deformation modulus decreased 62%. Numerical
analysis is conducted to simulate temperature effects on buried pipes in sand embankments.
Staged Nonlinear finite element analysis program (Z_Soil) is employed. Medium sand and
dense sand materials were used for pipe's backfilling and cover in embankment construction
procedure. Surface pressure as well as pipe internal pressure is considered in simulating
operation condition. Imposed stresses distribution and deformation response are determined
for selected pipes at various temperatures. Results show that pipe springline deflection
increases as soil density decreases and temperature increases but pipe performance remains
within acceptable limit of 3-5%. Further results indicate the significant of construction
procedure and the importance of actual pipe and backfill in-situ materials parameters. With
proper installation procedure and adequate backfill material quality, Fiberglass and
Polyethylene pipes are found to be cost effective and reliable alternatives in buried
applications under temperature in the range of 30 to 70o C. Proper in-situ evaluation of
backfill and cover soil's stiffness and engineering properties coupled with instrumented pipe
load tests can lead to efficient evaluation and proper design of buried flexible pipes.
Key words: Fiberglass Pipes, Polyethylene Pipes, Sand, FEM, Pipe-Soil Contact, Deflection,
Stiffness.
iii
‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫هﺬا اﻟﻤﺸﺮوع ﻟﺪراﺳ ﺔ ﺗ ﺎﺛﻴﺮ اﻟﺤ ﺮارة ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﺗ ﺸﻜﻞ وﺳ ﻠﻮك أﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ اﻟﺒ ﻮﻟﻴﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻋ ﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓ ﺔ )‪ (HDPE‬واﻟﻔﻴﺒ ﺮﻗﻼس‬
‫)‪ (GRP‬اﻟﻤﻄﻤﻮرة ﺗﺤﺖ ﺳﻄﺢ اﻻرض‪ .‬أﺟﺮﻳﺖ ﺗﺠﺎرب ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ ﻓ ﻰ اﻟﻤﻌﻤ ﻞ واﺳ ﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﻃﺮﻳﻘ ﺔ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴ ﻞ‬
‫اﻟﻌ ﺪدي ﺑﺎﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻ ﺮ اﻟﻤﺤ ﺪودة اﻟﻐﻴ ﺮ ﺧﻄﻴ ﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳ ﺪ اﺛ ﺮ اﻟﺤ ﺮارة ﻋﻠ ﻰ اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ اﻟﻤﻄﻤ ﻮرة ﺗﺤ ﺖ ﺳ ﻄﺢ‬
‫اﻻرض‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻌﻤﻞ ﻏﻤﺮ اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴﺐ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺎء ﻋﻨﺪ درﺟﺎت ﺣﺮارة ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ‪ 70 ،60 ،50 ،40 ،30‬درﺟﺔ ﻣﺌﻮﻳﺔ ﺛ ﻢ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻗ ﺪرة ‪ %10‬ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﻘﻄ ﺮ‪ .‬وﺗ ﻢ ﻗﻴ ﺎس ﺗﻐﻴ ﺮ ﻣﻌﺎﻣ ﻞ اﻟﺘ ﺸﻜﻞ‪ ،‬وإﺟﻬ ﺎد اﻟﺨ ﻀﻮع‪ ،‬واﻟﺘ ﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻐﻴ ﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺮن ﻓﻲ هﺬة اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴﺐ ﻋﻨﺪ درﺟﺎت ﺣﺮارة ﻣﺤﺪدة‪ .‬وﺿﺤﺖ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎرات ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺺ ﺧﻄﻲ ﻟﻘﻴﻤ ﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﻣ ﻞ اﻟﺘ ﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻼﻧﺎﺑﻴﺐ ﻣﻊ زﻳﺎدة درﺟﺔ اﻟﺤﺮارة‪ .‬ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ زﻳﺎدة درﺟ ﺔ اﻟﺤ ﺮارة ﻣ ﻦ ‪ 30‬اﻟ ﻰ ‪ o70‬م‪ ،‬ﻧﻘ ﺺ ﻣﻌﺎﻣ ﻞ اﻟﺘ ﺸﻜﻞ ﺑﻤﻘ ﺪار‬
‫‪ .%62‬واﺳﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﺤﺎﺳ ﺐ اﻻﻟ ﻲ واﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴ ﻞ اﻟﻌ ﺪدي ﻟﻤﺤﺎآ ﺎة ردم اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ واﻟﺘﺤﻤﻴ ﻞ ﻓ ﻮق ﺳ ﻄﺢ اﻻرض واﻟ ﻀﻐﻂ‬
‫داﺧﻞ اﻻﻧﺒﻮب ﻋﻨﺪ درﺟﺎت ﺣﺮارة ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﺗ ﺸﻜﻞ اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ اﻻﻓﻘ ﻲ ﻳ ﺰداد ﻣ ﻊ ﻧﻘ ﺺ آﺜﺎﻓ ﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑ ﺔ وﻣﻌﺎﻣ ﻞ اﻟﺘ ﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫اﻟﺤﻘﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ وزﻳ ﺎدة درﺟ ﺔ اﻟﺤ ﺮارة‪ ،‬ﻟﻜ ﻦ ﺗ ﺸﻜﻞ اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ ﻳﺒﻘ ﻰ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﺤ ﺪود اﻟﻤ ﺴﻤﻮﺣﺔ اﻗ ﻞ ﻣ ﻦ ‪ . %5-3‬ﺗﺆآ ﺪ‬
‫اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻧﺎﺑﻴﺐ اﻟﺒﻮﻟﻴﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ واﻟﻔﻴﺒﺮﻗﻼس آﺒﺪاﺋﻞ اﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳﺔ وذات آﻔﺎﺋﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴ ﺔ ﻟﻼﻏ ﺮاض‬
‫واﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎت اﻟﻤﻄﻤﻮرة ﺗﺤﺖ ﺳﻄﺢ اﻻرض ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻃﻖ اﻟﺼﺤﺮاوﻳﺔ ﺗﺤﺖ درﺟﺎت ﺣﺮارة ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺪود ‪ o70‬م‪.‬‬
‫‪iv‬‬
‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺘﺒ ﺮ أﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ اﻟﺒ ﻮﻟﻴﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻋ ﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓ ﺔ )‪ (HDPE‬واﻟﻔﻴﺒ ﺮﻗﻼس )‪ (GRP‬ﻣ ﻦ أه ﻢ ﺟ ﺰاء اﻟﺒﻨﺒ ﺔ اﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴ ﺔ اﻟ ﻀﺮورﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﺎت اﻻﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻌ ﺎت ﺳ ﺎﺑﻚ واﻟﺠﺒﻴ ﻞ وﻳﻨﺒ ﻊ وأراﻣﻜ ﻮ وﻏﻴﺮه ﺎ ﻣ ﻦ أﻋﻤ ﺎل اﺳ ﺘﺨﺮاج اﻟﺒﺘ ﺮول‬
‫واﻟﻐ ﺎز‪ .‬إن زﻳ ﺎد اﻟﺒ ﻮﻟﻴﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻋ ﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓ ﺔ )‪ (HDPE‬واﻟﻔﻴﺒ ﺮﻗﻼس ‪ (GRP‬ة ﺗﻜ ﺎﻟﻴﻒ وﺗﻌﻘ ﺪ اﻟﻤ ﺸﺎآﻞ ﻓ ﻲ أﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺪﻳﺔ واﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺤﻤﻴﺔ ﺿﺪ اﻟﺼﺪا واﻻﻣﻼح اﻟﻀﺎرة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ دﻓﻊ اﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﻤﻬﻨﺪﺳ ﻴﻦ ﻻﻋﺘﺒ ﺎر ﺧﻴ ﺎرات‬
‫أﺧﺮى ﻣﺜﻞ أﻧﺎﺑﻴﺐ اﻟﺒﻮﻟﻴﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻋ ﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓ ﺔ واﻟﻔﻴﺒ ﺮﻗﻼس‪ .‬ﻓ ﻲ ه ﺬا اﻟﻤ ﺸﺮوع ﺗ ﻢ دراﺳ ﺔ ﺗ ﺎﺛﻴﺮ اﻟﺤ ﺮارة ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﺗ ﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫وﺳ ﻠﻮك أﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ اﻟﺒ ﻮﻟﻴﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻋ ﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓ ﺔ واﻟﻔﻴﺒ ﺮﻗﻼس اﻟﻤﻄﻤ ﻮرة ﺗﺤ ﺖ ﺳ ﻄﺢ اﻻرض‪ .‬أﺟﺮﻳ ﺖ ﺗﺠ ﺎرب ﺗﺤﻤﻴ ﻞ‬
‫اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ ﻓ ﻰ اﻟﻤﻌﻤ ﻞ واﺳ ﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﻃﺮﻳﻘ ﺔ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴ ﻞ اﻟﻌ ﺪدي ﺑﺎﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻ ﺮ اﻟﻤﺤ ﺪودة اﻟﻐﻴ ﺮ ﺧﻄﻴ ﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳ ﺪ اﺛ ﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺮارة ﻋﻠ ﻰ اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ‪ .‬ﺗ ﻢ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﻤﻌﻤ ﻞ ﻏﻤ ﺮ ﻋﻴﻨ ﺎت اﺳ ﻄﻮاﻧﻴﺔ ﻣ ﻦ اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ ﻓ ﻲ ﻣ ﺎء ﻋﻨ ﺪ درﺟ ﺎت ﺣ ﺮارة ﺛﺎﺑﺘ ﻪ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ‪ 70 ،60 ،50 ،40 ،30‬درﺟﺔ ﻣﺌﻮﻳﺔ ﺛﻢ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺤﻤﻞ ﺧﻄﻲ ﻣﻨﺘﻈﻢ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺗ ﺸﻜﻞ ﻗ ﺪرة ‪ %10‬ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﻘﻄ ﺮ‪.‬‬
‫وﺗﻢ ﻗﻴ ﺎس ﺗﻐﻴ ﺮ ﻣﻌﺎﻣ ﻞ اﻟﺘ ﺸﻜﻞ‪ ،‬وإﺟﻬ ﺎد اﻟﺨ ﻀﻮع‪ ،‬واﻟﺘ ﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﻐﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﺮن ﻓ ﻲ ه ﺬة اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ ﻋﻨ ﺪ درﺟ ﺎت ﺣ ﺮارة‬
‫ﻣﺤﺪدة‪ .‬وﺿﺤﺖ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎرات ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺺ ﺧﻄﻲ ﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻟﺘ ﺸﻜﻞ ﻟﻼﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ ﻣ ﻊ زﻳ ﺎدة درﺟ ﺔ اﻟﺤ ﺮارة‪ .‬ﻧﺘﻴﺠ ﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺰﻳﺎدة درﺟﺔ اﻟﺤﺮارة ﻣ ﻦ ‪ 30‬اﻟ ﻰ ‪ o70‬م‪ ،‬ﻧﻘ ﺺ ﻣﻌﺎﻣ ﻞ اﻟﺘ ﺸﻜﻞ ﺑﻤﻘ ﺪار ‪ .%62‬اﺳ ﺘﺨﺪم اﻟﺤﺎﺳ ﺐ اﻻﻟ ﻲ واﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴ ﻞ‬
‫اﻟﻌﺪدي ﻟﻤﺤﺎآﺎة ردم اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴﺐ واﻟﺘﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﻓﻮق ﺳﻄﺢ اﻻرض واﻟﻀﻐﻂ داﺧﻞ اﻻﻧﺒ ﻮب ﻋﻨ ﺪ درﺟ ﺎت ﺣ ﺮارة ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔ ﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وﺿﺤﺖ اﻟﻨﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ ان ﺗ ﺸﻜﻞ اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴ ﺐ اﻻﻓﻘ ﻲ ﻳ ﺰداد ﻣ ﻊ ﻧﻘ ﺺ آﺜﺎﻓ ﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑ ﺔ وﻣﻌﺎﻣ ﻞ اﻟﺘ ﺸﻜﻞ اﻟﺤﻘﻠ ﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑ ﺔ وزﻳ ﺎدة‬
‫درﺟﺔ اﻟﺤﺮارة‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ اﻻﻧﺎﺑﻴﺐ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺪود اﻟﻤﺴﻤﻮﺣﺔ اي اﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ . %5-3‬ﺗﺆآﺪ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ اﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام‬
‫اﻧﺎﺑﻴﺐ اﻟﺒﻮﻟﻴﺜﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ واﻟﻔﻴﺒﺮﻗﻼس آﺒﺪاﺋﻞ اﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳﺔ وذات آﻔﺎﺋ ﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴ ﺔ ﻟﻼﻏ ﺮاض واﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘ ﺎت اﻟﻤﻄﻤ ﻮرة‬
‫ﺗﺤﺖ ﺳﻄﺢ اﻻرض ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻃﻖ اﻟﺼﺤﺮاوﻳﺔ ﺗﺤﺖ درﺟﺎت ﺣﺮارة ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺪود ‪ o70‬م‪.‬‬
‫‪v‬‬
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Page i
Abstract ii
Summary iii
Abstract (Arabic) iv
Summary (Arabic) v
List of Symbols and Abbreviations viii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables x
Acknowledgements xxii
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Research Objectives. 3
1.3 Research Methodology 3
1.3.1 Pipes Types 4
1.3.2 Temperature range 4
1.3.3 Finite Element Analysis 5
2. HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PIPES 6
2.1. General Introduction 6
2.2 Above Ground HDPE Pipes. 8
2.2.1. Experimental Study of HDPE Polyethylene Pipes 8
2.2.2 FEM Analysis of HDPE Polyethylene Pipes 11
2.3 HDPE PIPES BURIED IN DUNE SAND EMBANKMENTS 22
2.3.1 Numerical Models 22
xi
2.3.2 Soil Parameters 28
2.3.3 Pipe-Soil Contact Parameters 29
2.3.4 Staged Analysis 29
2.3.5 Results and Discussion 33
2.3.6 Conclusions 56
3. FIBERGLASS PIPES 58
3.1. General Introduction 58
3.2 Above Ground Fiberglass Pipes. 59
3.2.1. Experimental Study of Fiberglass Pipes 59
3.2.2 FEM Analysis of Fiberglass Pipes 64
3.3 FIBERGLASS PIPES BURIED IN DUNE SAND EMBANKMENTS 73
3.3.1 Numerical Models 73
3.3.2 Soil Parameters 79
3.3.3 Pipe-Soil Contact Parameters 80
3.3.4 Staged Analysis 82
3.3.5 Results and Discussion 83
3.3.6 Conclusions 107
4. RECOMMENDATIONS 109
REFERENCES 110
xii
LIST OF SYMPOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
KSU King Saud University
FEM Finite Element Analysis
3D Three dimensional
Exp Experimental
Num Numerical
AWWA American Water Works Association
DN Nominal diameter (mm)
PN Nominal Pressure (Bar)
LVDT Linear variable differential transducer
STIS Standard tangent initial stiffness
HDPE high-density polyethylene
Sand Th Thomamah sand
USCS unified classification system
Time Fictitious time for nonlinear analysis
E Deformation modulus
ν Poisson's ratio
kn Contact normal elastic multiplier
kt Contact tangent elastic multiplier
γ Unit weight
C Cohesion
φ Friction angle
ψ Dilation angle
xiii
φ cv Friction angle at critical state
I1t Tension cut off
N_MAX Maximum normal force
T_MAX Maximum shear force
M_MAX Maximum bending moment
fc Compressive strength
ft Tensile strength
DS Dune sand
Dcv Vertical crown displacement ratio (crown vertical displacement/ pipe vertical diameter)
θ Angular coordinate (Clock wise with θ=0o at vertical plan)
Sn Normal contact stress
Tau Shear contact stress
N Normal force
T Shear force
M Bending moment
σyy Vertical stress
σxx Horizontal stress
SP Poorly graded sand
Gs Specific gravity
D10 Effective grain size is the diameter below which 10 percent of the particles by weight lay.
Cu Coefficient of uniformity
Cc Coefficient of curvature
Ko Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
t Nominal steel cylinder thickness
D Outside diameter of pipe
xiv
Ux horizontal diameter change
E' Modulus of soil reaction
K Bedding constant
E Modulus of elasticity
H Cover height
xv
ACKNOWLEDEGMENT
Financial support for this study was provided by SABIC Co., Saudi Arabia, through the
Deanship of Scientific Research grant No. 426/23, King Saud University, Riyadh. Author
would also like to thank Amiantit Co., Saudi Arabia for providing pipe samples and relevant
pipe user's manuals.
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Pipe load test setup under elevated temperature 12
2.2 HDPE pipe alignment and buoyant force resistance plates 12
2.3 Typical load-deformation response curves for HDPE pipes at various temperatures 13
2.4 Mesh of single layer four nodes 3D shell elements used to model HDPE pipe load tests 14
2.5(a) Finite element fit to experimental results for HDPE pipe (PE 4-1) 15
2.5(b) Finite element fit to experimental results for HDPE pipe (PE 4-2) 15
2.5(c) Finite element fit to experimental results for HDPE pipe (PE 4-3) 16
2.5(d) Finite element fit to experimental results for HDPE pipe (PE 4-4) 16
2.5(e) Finite element fit to experimental results for HDPE pipe (PE 4-5) 17
2.6 Variations of secant deformation modulus (at 2.7% deformation) with temperature for
tested HDPE pipes 18
2.7 Predicted deformed configuration (4.71% vertical deflection) for tested HDPE pipe
(PE 4-5) at 70o C 21
2.8 Illustration of FEM mesh configuration for modeling buried HDPE pipes 23
(a) Embankment layers and surface pressure 23
(b) Elements refinement and transition zones 24
(c) Embankment layers and pipe internal pressure 25
(d) Zoomed view of pipe internal pressure 26
(e) Zoomed view for pipe-soil contact 27
2.9 Normal (N), shear (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams in buried HDPE pipe 34
2.10 Typical normal (Sn) and shear (Tau) contact stress diagrams on HDPE buried pipe 35
2.11 Typical stress diagrams in backfill soil near HDPE buried pipe 36
2.12 Plastic zone initiated in backfill soil (DS1) near buried HDPE pipe 37
vi
2.13 Typical stress levels in backfill soil near HDPE buried pipe 37
2.14 Normal force (N), Shear force (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams for HDPE
pipe buried in embankment under 1.723 m DS1 sand cover 42
(a) without internal pressure 42
(b) with 100 kPa internal radial pressure 43
(c) with 200 kPa internal radial pressure 44
(d) with 300 kPa internal radial pressure 45
(e) with 400 kPa internal radial pressure 46
(f) with 500 kPa internal radial pressure 47
(g) with 600 kPa internal radial pressure 48
(h) with 700 kPa internal radial pressure 49
2.15 Normal force (N), Shear force (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams for HDPE
pipe buried in embankment under 1.723 m DS1 sand cover and 700 kPa internal
radial pressure
(a) Temperature = 30o C 50
(b) Temperature = 40o C 51
(c) Temperature = 50o C 52
(d) Temperature = 60o C 53
(e) Temperature = 70o C 54
3.1 Pipe load test setup under elevated temperature 61
3.2 Fiberglass Pipe alignment and buoyant force resistance plates 62
3.3 Typical load-deformation response curves for Fiberglass pipes at various temperatures 63
3.4 Mesh of single layer four nodes 3D shell elements used to model Fiberglass pipe load
tests 65
3.5(a) Finite element fit to experimental results for Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-1) 66
vii
3.5(b) Finite element fit to experimental results for Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-2) 66
3.5(c) Finite element fit to experimental results for Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-3) 67
3.5(d) Finite element fit to experimental results for Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-4) 67
3.5(e) Finite element fit to experimental results for Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-5) 68
3.6 Variations of secant deformation modulus (at 2.5% deformation) with temperature for
tested Fiberglass pipes [FGP 5-(1-5)] 69
3.7 Predicted deformed configuration (5% vertical deflection) for tested Fiberglass pipe
(FGP5-5) at 70o C 72
3.8 Illustration of FEM mesh configuration for modeling buried Fiberglass pipes
(a) Embankment layers and surface pressure 74
(b) Elements refinement and transition zones 75
(c) Embankment layers and pipe internal pressure 76
(d) Zoomed view of pipe internal pressure 77
(e) Zoomed view for pipe-soil contact 78
3.9 Normal (N), shear (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams in Fiberglass pipe buried
under 2.72 m soil cover and 155 kPa overburden pressure in DS1 sand embankment
at 30o C 85
3.10 Typical normal (Sn) and shear (Tau) contact stress diagrams on Fiberglass pipe
buried under 2.72 m soil cover and 155 kPa overburden pressure in DS1 sand
embankment at 30o C 85
3.11 Typical stress diagrams in backfill soil near buried Fiberglass pipe with 2.72 m
soil cover and 155 kPa overburden pressure in DS1 sand embankment at 30o C 86
3.12 Plastic zone initiated in backfill soil (DS1) near buried Fiberglass pipe under
0.995 m backfill cover (Time = 4) at 30o C 87
3.13 Plastic zone in backfill soil (DS1) near buried Fiberglass pipe under 2.72 m
viii
backfill (Time = 51) at 30o C 87
3.14 Typical stress levels in backfill soil (DS1) near buried Fiberglass pipe under
2.72 m backfill (Time = 51) at 30o C: 88
3.14 Normal force (N), Shear force (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams for Fiberglass
pipe buried in embankment under 1.723 m DS1 sand cover:
(a) without internal pressure at Time = 7 93
(b) with 100 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 17 94
(c) with 200 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 27 95
(d) with 300 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 37 96
(e) with 400 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 47 97
(f) with 500 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 57 98
(g) with 600 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 67 99
(h) with 700 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 77 100
3.15 Normal force (N), Shear force (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams for Fiberglass
pipe buried in embankment under 1.723 m DS1 sand cover and 700 kPa
internal radial pressure:
(a) Temperature = 30o C 101
(b) Temperature = 40o C 102
(c) Temperature = 50o C 103
(d) Temperature = 60o C 104
(e) Temperature = 70o C 105
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 HDPE pipe material parameters at various temperatures 19
2.2 Summary of materials parameters used in FEM analyses 32
2.3 Horizontal displacement and deflection at springline of buried HDPE pipes under
155 kPa surface pressure at various temperatures: 39
(a) Dense dune sand (DS1) 39
(b) Medium dense dune sand (DS2) 39
2.4 Horizontal displacement and deflection at springline of buried HDPE pipes under
700 kPa internal pressure and at various temperatures : 55
3.1 Fiberglass pipe material parameters at various temperatures 70
3.2 Summary of materials parameters used in FEM analyses 81
3.3 Horizontal displacement and deflection at springline of buried Fiberglass pipes
under 2.723 m DS1 and DS2 sands covers and 155 kPa surface pressure at
various temperatures : 90
3.4 Horizontal displacement and deflection at springline of buried Fiberglass pipes
under 700 kPa internal pressure and at various temperatures: 106
x
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Introduction.
The discovery of oil and gas reserves and the associated chemical and petrochemical
industries required a sound and complete infrastructures system. Arid region in Saudi
Arabia witnessed unprecedented pipelines booms with rapidly growing pipes
manufacturing. Industrial programs for SABIC, Jubaila and Yanbu and ARAMCO
among others ambitious and advanced activities such as power and desalination plants,
portable water and sewerage relays mainly on pipelines and storage tanks. Thousands of
kilometers of various pipelines have been installed so far in varying soil conditions and
with different design and loading criteria. Selected types of pipes such as carbon steel,
ductile iron, reinforced concrete, Polyethylene, and Glass reinforced Plastic are produced
in Saudi Arabia for the Middle East markets. Different contractors shared the execution
of huge pipes construction at various parts of this arid region. The long-term quality
assessment and performance monitoring activities has never been considered. The rising
cost of pipelines maintenances and upgrading may reflect the need for comprehensive
infrastructure evaluation and assessment plan. With arid lands soils becoming more
aggressive and continuous corrosion degradation in existing pipelines, alternative pipes
such as fiberglass and polyethylene are increasingly used. Factors such as light weight
ease of fabrication, resistance to chemical corrosion, toughness, and low cost motivate
increasing use of these materials in buried pipelines. However, the significance of
environmental conditions such as temperature effects on fixable pipes behavior still needs
further investigations.
1
In simple practice, load determination is commonly based on Marston empirical
theory (Marston, 1930). Deflection criterion is commonly based on Spangler empirical
theory. Both theories were based on experimental work conducted during the first third
of the twentieth century at the Iowa Engineering Experimental Station, Iowa state
College, Iowa, USA (Spangler, 1941). However, an ideal design method should consider
the soil, pipe, and environmental conditions such as variations in temperature. Several
investigators have studied soil-pipe interaction during the past decade. Soil box testing
and Finite Element Analysis (FEM) have been used to simulate pipe field response (e.g.
Bishop and Lang, 1984; Sharp et al. 1985). Faragher et al. (1998) showed that pipe
surrounding soil stiffness depends on soil type and its placement and is consequently
greatly influenced by site installation processes. Zhang and Moore (1998) indicated that
thermoplastic pipes posse's nonlinear time and rate dependant stress-strain behaviors at
ambient temperature. Miyajima et al. (1994) demonstrated that polyethylene coating
exhibited excellent mechanical, physical, chemical, and high durability at 80o C. Seibi
(1999) found that the mechanical properties of HDPE samples were stable at lower
temperature of 20 to 40o C and they decrease for higher temperatures. Recent Alawaji
(2004a) employed highly sophisticated FEM code incorporating advanced constitutive
models, interfaces, and progressive backfilling simulation for modeling and analysis of
soil-pipe system. Results show the significant role of backfill material quality and
construction procedure in the overall buried pipes performance. High stability and long
time performance of low cost no corrosive flexible pipes such as Fiberglass and
Polyethylene can be guarantee with suitable construction procedure.
2
This project investigates temperature effects on load deformation responses of
fiberglass and polyethylene pipes. Experimental and numerical tools will be employed to
achieve the following research objectives.
1.2 Research Objectives.
The main objectives of this research program are the following:
1. Experimentally evaluate the temperature effects on deformation characteristics
of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes.
2. Experimentally evaluate the temperature effects on deformation characteristics
of Fiberglass (GRP) pipes.
3. Numerically simulate load test of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes at
various temperatures.
4. Numerically simulate deformation of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes
buried in sand embankments at various temperatures.
5. Numerically simulate pipe load test of Fiberglass (GRP) pipes at various
temperatures
6. Numerically simulate deformation of Fiberglass (GRP) pipes buried in sand
embankments at various temperatures.
1.3 Research Methodology.
To study deformation characteristics of HDPE and GRP pipes at different
temperatures, a proper design of testing fixture must be established. Large steel test
3
box will be made. Pipe ring samples will be submerged in water filled test box. Two
temperature thermo regulators will be used to obtain desired water temperature. Tank
will be externally isolated against temperature lost. Isolated plate will be used to cover
the top of the tank before loading test. Displacement controlled compression machine
will be used to impose vertical line load to submerged pipe at displacement rate of 1 to
2 mm/min. Pipe vertical deflection will be measured by LVDT. Load will be measured
by electronic load cell. Data acquisition system will be used to control the
measurements and scan control variables data. Nonlinear Finite Element analysis code
currently available at KSU research center will be used to simulate buried pipes in
sand embankments under various temperatures. Pipes manufacturers and main clients
will be consulted during the study. The main parts of this research methodology can
be stated as following:
1.3.1 Pipes Types
Fixed pipe geometry with 300 mm length and around 300 to 400 mm diameter will
be maintained for each pipe type. In this project, the tested pipes include the following:
1. High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes.
2. Fiberglass (GRP) pipes.
1.3.2 Temperature range
Two heaters will be used to achieve constant water temperatures of 30, 40, 50, 60,
and 70o C.
4
1.3.3 Finite Element Analysis
Nonlinear finite element analysis program with continuum, shell, beam, and
contact elements will be used to predict buried pipe deflection under various
temperatures for cases pertinent to arid lands such as the following:
1. Pipe load test on High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes at various
temperatures.
2. Pipe load test on Fiberglass (GRP) pipes at various temperatures.
3. High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe buried in sand embankment at various
temperatures.
4. Fiberglass (GRP) pipes buried in sand embankment at various temperatures.
Numerical simulation which takes into accounts the effects of initial soil in-situ ko
stresses state, bedding and pipe installation, pipe and pipe zone backfilling, progressive
layers of soil cover, internal pipe pressure as well as surface loads were conducted with
staged analysis and nonlinear solution iteration for each step as shown in the following
chapters.
Chapter 2 presents studies of High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes. Chapter 3
presents studies of Fiberglass (GRP) pipes. Chapter 4 presents conclusions drawn from
these studies. Finally, chapter 5 presents some practical recommendations.
5
2. HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PIPES
2.1. General Introduction
In arid lands; the pipelines operating temperature can be high especially for
desalination plants, water transmission and distribution systems and others hydrocarbons
explorations and applications. Widespread corrosion and increasing cost of installation
and maintenance of traditional pipes in desert environment suggests polyethylene pipe
alternative. Thorough understanding of performance of buried polyethylene pipe at
elevated temperature is essential for infrastructure sustainable developments in arid lands.
Corrosion and harsh environmental conditions caused failure and degradation of buried
pipes in aggressive soils. Corrosion caused failure of the reinforcing wire on over 10 km
of Pre-stressed Concrete Pipe (PCP) used for the central Arizona project cited by Travers
(1997). This PCP pipe had been in service less than 15 years which is significantly
shorter than its expected design life. Hassett et al. (1998) reported several leaks and
breaks over several years in 76 cm cast iron pipelines for Houston treated water
transmission system. Talesnick and Baker (1999) documented failure of a large diameter
concrete-lined steel sewage pipe, buried in a clay soil profile. The project consisted of a
3.5 km long gravity pipe which failed before being taken into service. Failure of the pipe
system was attributed to incompatibility between the mechanical behaviour of the pipe
and the methodology employed in its design. The studies illustrate the effects of a basic
design flaw resulting from lack of adherence to well accepted standard engineering
practices. Generally, published investigations of pipes failure illustrate the effectiveness
of a simple field test as a diagnostic tool to evaluate site conditions and overall
6
installation procedure quality. Unfortunately, despite the huge leakage and severe failure
of buried pipes in under developing countries, there are no documented case studies in
arid lands.
Several investigators cited temperature effects on the mechanical, physical, and
chemical properties of polyethylene material. Seibi (1999) presents the effect of heated
crude oil on adsorption and mechanical properties of High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
samples. Hydrocarbon cause swelling and influence the mechanical properties at elevated
temperatures as the cross links become weaker causing the chains to flow easily. It was
reported that, the permeability of HDPE is low even at high temperatures implying that
HDPE is strongly resistance to aggressive environment. Miyajima et al. (1994)
demonstrated the polyethylene exhibited excellent mechanical, physical, and chemical
properties at elevated temperature of 80oC.
Buried flexible pipes derived their stability from surrounding soil. Moore (1995)
reported a finite element parametric study to determine how stresses on profiled
polyethylene pipe are affected by burial depth and backfill quality. He emphasized the
deficiency of design practice that relays on ring compression theory which asserts that the
full overburden load acts on the pipe based on very conservative assumption. It is shown
by Moore that substantial positive arching and only a fraction of the overburden load
reaches the HDPE pipe. Spangler equation or "Iowa" formula Spangler (1941) ignores
the substantial positive arching associated with circumferential shortening and use a soil
subgrade modulus, E', which is generally not adjusted to account for the real stiffness of
the backfill surrounding the pipe. Faragher et al. (1998) experimentally evaluated
Spangler's moduli of soil reaction (E') from laboratory testing of buried plastic pipes.
7
They found that values of E' are significantly higher than those currently used in practice
and suggest a general underestimation of the support offered to a buried flexible structure
by the soil that surrounds it. Zhang and Moore (1998) used nonlinear time-dependant
finite element model to predict structural performance of HDPE pipe under parallel plate
loading and hoop compression tests. Simple plasticity (Von Misses J2 theory) was
successfully used in modeling the nonlinear and rate-dependant behavior of HDPE pipe
except where there is strain reversal as stated by Zhang and Moore (1997). Further
numerical and in-situ studies are needed to examine pipe burial under field conditions
and the implications of HDPE pipe limit states for pipe design. Temperature effects on
the performance of buried HDPE pipe require further investigations.
In this chapter the temperature effect on deformation characteristics of HDPE pipe is
evaluated. Line load was applied on HDPE pipe submerged in hot water under prescribed
temperature. Measured load-response curves are used to calibrate simple nonlinear finite
element model. The calibrated tool is employed in modeling and analysis of buried
HDPE pipes under various temperatures. Several installation methods are considered
including embankment and trench installation in both strong and weak soils. It is shown
that HDPE pipe performs adequately under elevated temperature up to 70o C.
2.2 Above Ground HDPE Pipes.
2.2.1. Experimental Study of HDPE Polyethylene Pipes
In this study, the experimental investigation is intended to study the nonlinear behaviour
of HDPE pipes and the potential effects of temperature on their mechanical properties. To
study the effect of temperature on the deformation characteristics and mechanical
8
properties of HDPE pipes, a proper design of the testing fixture must be established.
Tests were conducted in steel tank of 0.7 m length, 0.5 m width, and 0.7 m height and
supported by a relatively rigid steel framework. Rigid steel plate and I-beams assembly
were placed under the pipe at the bottom of the tank such that pipe crown is around 5 cm
from the container's rim. With proper adjustment, such arrangements permit testing of
various pipe sizes. Two heaters with control regulators were fixed at the bottom of the
tank to obtain desired accurate water temperature. During setting and before loading,
isolated wood cover was used with vents to allow vapor to ventilate from the water bath
as well as to measure the water temperature using thermometers. Initially, weight and
geometrical measurements of the pipe ring sample was performed before soaking in the
water bath of prescribed constant temperature. Monitoring and adjusting the temperature
controller were continued for 24 hours in order to achieve the desired constant
temperature of the water bath and submerged pipe. The identical HDPE polyethylene
pipe samples used in this study were supplied by Amiantit Co., Saudi Arabia. Physical
and mechanical properties and other quality control routine tests were conducted at the
manufactory according to relevant ASTM standards. Laboratory load tests were
conducted on polyethylene pipes of 355 mm diameter (D), 300 mm length (L), 34 mm
thickness. Vertical line load was applied to the pipe by means of 10 tone compression test
machine (Wykeham Farrance England). It is displacement controlled machine with rate
capability in the range 0.0001 to 59.99 mm/min. It is emphasized here that 6 mm steel bar
welded to rectangular hollow square steel beam was used to transfer vertical line load and
minimize boundary effects. Commonly used flat plate may cause increasing contact area
with pipe deformation and mixed boundary conditions. The applied load was measured
9
using a load cell (Tokyo Sokki) of 100 KN capacity placed at the bottom of the machine
top reaction beam. Displacement was measured by LVDT (Tokyo Sokki) placed
vertically along a diagonal through the center of the pipe. This LVDT had a 50 mm range
with 0.001 mm sensitivity. Data acquisition system (Tokyo Sokki) and Sony laptop
computer were used during the test to scan, monitor and store hoop strain, deflection and
load. Figure 2.1 shows assembled temperature controlled pipe load test. It is emphasized
here that the pipe invert was fixed between two thin steel plates (Figure 2.2) to resist
buoyant up lift force and to facilitate pipe alignment inside the test container. This
constraint has no effects on the experimental results since it gets remove (contact
released) after slight pipe vertical deformation. Elliptical deformed shape was observed
throughout the entire pipe loading history. Typical load-deformation response curves for
the tested HDPE polyethylene pipes at various temperatures are presented in Figure 2.3.
Further details of experimental description and test results including internal and external
hoop strains along the pipe circumferential line is recently presented by Alawaji (2004a).
It is emphasized here that nonlinearity is observed from the beginning of the load-
deformation response curve. Relatively large unrecoverable deformation which decreases
with increasing temperature was observed upon unloading. Reloading response was also
nonlinear even within the previous loading locus, i.e. below maximum previous load
level. These experimental results are compiled with physical and mechanical properties
of HDPE polyethylene pipes to calibrate and validate finite elements models as given in
the following section.
10
2.2.2 FEM Analysis of HDPE Polyethylene Pipes
The finite-element program, Z-Soil 3D Version 6.13, used in this study has been
developed by ZACE Co. (2004). Figure 2.4 shows 3D mesh of single layer four nodes 3D
shell elements used to model HDPE pipe load test. Only a quarter of the pipe is modeled
utilizing the dual symmetry of the problem. Simple elastic and Huber-Mises constitutive
models is employed. As might be expected, the initial linear elastic model predicts the
response successfully only for very small deflection (up to 1.2%). Therefore, nonlinear
model which consists of secant elastic deformation modulus (at 2.7% deformation) and
Huber-Mises criteria was considered. Figures 1.5 (a-e) present finite elements fit to the
experimental results for the tested HDPE pipes at various temperatures (30, 40, 50, 60,
and 70oC). Table 2.1 presents the calibrated HDPE pipe material parameters at various
temperatures in the range of 30 to 70o C. Constant Poisson's ratio, ν = 0.4, was assumed
for the HDPE pipes (1995). Results indicate that deformation modulus decreases linearly
with increasing temperature as shown in Figure 2.6. Due to temperature increase from 30
to 70oC, the HDPE pipe deformation modulus decreased by 62%. Yield strength
decreases while strain at yielding increases with increasing temperature. Where, yield
strength of the tested HDPE pipes decreased by 59% due to temperature increase from 30
to 70oC.
11
Figure 2.1. Pipe load test setup under elevated temperature.
Figure 2.2. HDPE pipe alignment and buoyant force resistance plates.
12
21
20 T = 30 C
19 T= 40 C
18
17 T = 50 C
16 T = 60 C
15 T = 70 C
14
Vertical force, F (kN)
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3 Pipe: PE 4 (1-5)
2 D = 35.5 cm
1 Rate = 2 mm/min
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pipe vertical deflection, δv/D (%)
Figure 2.3. Typical load-deformation response curves for HDPE pipes at various
temperatures.
13
Figure 2.4. Mesh of single layer four nodes 3D shell elements used to model
HDPE pipe load tests.
14
22
20 Experimental
Numerical
18
16
Vertical load (kN)

14
12
10
8
6 Pipe: PE 4-1
DN = 355 mm
4
Length = 300 mm
2 T = 30oC
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Vertical defliction (mm)
Figure 2.5(a). Finite element fit to experimental results for HDPE pipe (PE 4-1).
22
20 Experimental
Numerical
18
16
Vertical load (kN)
14
12
10
8
6 Pipe: PE 4-2
4 DN = 355 mm
Length = 300 mm
2
T = 40 oC
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 2.5(b). Finite element fit to experimental results for HDPE pipe (PE 4-2).
15
22
Experimental Pipe: PE 4-3
20
Numerical DN = 355 mm
18 Length = 300 mm
16 T = 50 oC
Vertical load (kN)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 2.5(c). Finite element fit to experimental results for HDPE pipe (PE 4-3).
22
20
18 Length = 300 mm
16 T = 60 oC
Vertical load (kN)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 2.5(d). Finite element fit to experimental results for HDPE pipe (PE 4-4).
16
22
20
18 Length = 300 mm
16 T = 70 oC
Vertical load (kN)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 2.5(e). Finite element fit to experimental results for HDPE pipe (PE 4-5).
17
2
1.8 Pipes: PE 4-(1-5)

Secant deformation Modulus,Εs (GPa)
DN = 355 mm
1.6 Length = 300 mm
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
Εs (GPa) = -0.02490105 * T (oC) + 2.3542449
0.2
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.9892
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Temperature, T (oC)
Figure 2.6. Variations of secant deformation modulus (at 2.7% deformation) with
temperature for tested HDPE pipes.
18
Table 2.1. HDPE pipe material parameters at various temperatures.
Temperature, Deformation Poisson ratio, Tensile &

modulus, Es compressive
T (oC) ν
(kN/m2) strength, ft& fc
(kN/m2)
30 1,630,609 0.4 15,000
40 1,300,000 0.4 13,000
50 1,159,129 0.4 11,000
60 841,335 0.4 8,829
70 614,889 0.4 6,200
19
Typical predicted deformed configuration at 4.71% vertical deflection and 70o C is
illustrated in Figure 2.7. It is clear that this mode of deformation is more general than
simple elliptical and uniform deformation assumptions. From the measured and predicted
response curves (Figures 1.5 a-e), it is clear that the used nonlinear model can predict
pipe response successfully up to 6% deflection. This deflection level is rarely attained in
practice without joint leaks or triggering maintenance and repair remarks. Therefore,
model prediction is considered adequate for buried pipe applications. However, failure
load was underestimated. Therefore, the overall analysis of buried polyethylene pipes
using this model is accurate for working conditions but conservative for ultimate failure
prediction. Zhang and Moore (1998) showed that, for high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
pipes under parallel plate loading, geometrical nonlinearity effect becomes significant
beyond 5 percent vertical diameter decrease for their tested pipes. Since design and
operation are limited to small deformation, geometrical nonlinearity will not be
considered in the following buried polyethylene pipes analyses.
20
Figure 2.7. Predicted deformed configuration (4.71% vertical deflection)
for tested HDPE pipe (PE 4-5) at 70 oC.
21
2.3 HDPE PIPES BURIED IN DUNE SAND EMBANKMENTS.
2.3.1 Numerical Models
In this study, plane strain nonlinear finite element analysis was used to model
polyethylene pipes buried in dune sand embankments. Typical polyethylene pipe of 355
mm diameter and 34 mm thickness was simulated. Four nodes Quadlateral and beam
elements were used and only a one half of the system was modeled due to symmetry of
the problem around X = 0 axis. The finite-element program used in this study, Z-Soil 3D
Version 6.13, was developed by ZACE Co. (2004). Mohr-Coulomb and Huber-Mises
constitutive models were employed for soil and pipe, respectively. The mesh extends
horizontally 3 m from pipe center. Complete fixity was enforced at the lower edge of the
mesh. Roller support was used at both vertical sides of the mesh. The mesh
configurations are shown in Figures 1.8 (a-e). Figure 2.8 (a) shows mesh used for
embankment and surface pressure at final stage. Elements refinement and transition zones
shown in Figure 2.8 (b) were used near the pipe to enhance nonlinear solution convergent
and prediction accuracy. Figure 2.8 (c) shows mesh used for embankment and internal
pressure at final stage. Figure 2.8 (d) shows near pipe view and internal pressure. Contact
elements were employed at pipe-soil interface as shown in Figure 2.8 (e). Soil cover
layers, soil overburden pressure, and pipe internal pressure were activated in consequent
stages to simulate embankment construction and pipe operation conditions as presented
in the following sections.
22
(a) Embankment layers and surface pressure.
Figure 2.8. Illustration of FEM mesh configuration for modeling buried HDPE pipes.
23
(b) Elements refinement and transition zones.
Figure 2.8. Illustration of FEM mesh configuration near buried HDPE pipes.
24
(c) Embankment layers and pipe internal pressure.
Figure 2.8. Illustration of FEM mesh configuration for buried HDPE pipes.
25
(d) Zoomed view of pipe internal pressure.
26
(e) Zoomed view for pipe-soil contact.
27
2.3.2 Soil Parameters
Thomamah sand (Sand Th) from sand dunes north eastern Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia,
was used to represent sand dunes material in arid lands. Geotechnical properties and
characteristics of Thomamah sand was given in details by Alawaji (1997). It can be
described as wind blown predominantly fine to medium sand which is classified as
poorly graded sand (SP) according to the unified classification system (USCS). The sand
has a specific gravity (Gs) of 2.67, and an effective size (D10) of 0.11 mm. The
maximum and minimum dry densities were 18.48 kN/m3 and 15.81 kN/m3 in accordance
to ASTM D-4253 and D-4254, respectively. The coefficient of uniformity (Cu) and the
coefficient of curvature (Cc) were 2.88 and 1.1, respectively. Shear strength for
Thomamah sand at 70% relative density (17.57 kN/m3) was determined from
conventional consolidated drained triaxial tests. It was found that, for confining pressure
in the range of 25 to 150 kPa, the friction angle was found to be 40 degrees at 70%
relative density Alawaji (1997).
For coarse grained soils, the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ko, can be estimated
by the empirical relationship of Jaky (1944),
K o = 1 - sin φ (2.1)
where φ is the soil drained friction angle. Furthermore, for coarse grained soils, the
dilation angle, ψ, can be obtained from the empirical expression of Bolton (1986),
0 .8 ψ = φ − φ cv
(2.2)
where φ cv is the soil friction angle at critical state. For the present purpose, φ cv has been
taken as 32o.
28
Solutions were sought for medium dense and loose sand states designated DS1 and
DS2, respectively. Moher-Coulomb (M-W) criteria were used for the sand material with
Drucker-Prager plastic flow and initial ko state. Table 2.2 presents the sand material
parameters for medium dense and loose sand states. These two material states represent
good and poor embankment construction procedures in dune sand at arid lands. Talesnick
and Baker (1999) measured wide variations in the in-situ stiffness of dune sand backfill
along buried pipeline with sand backfill material. Gravel backfill material commonly
used in pipe zone consists of crushed stone. The main advantage of gravel backfill near
pipe zone is that, gravel is self compaction material which insures adequate compaction
at pipe hunches and shoulders. Alawaji (2004a) emphasized the low confining pressure
effects near haunches and shoulders of flexible pipes even with uniform compacted
backfill material for both trench pipe construction procedure (Alawaji, 2004b) as well as
embankment pipe construction procedure (Alawaji, 2004c).
2.3.3 Pipe-Soil Contact Parameters
Frictional contact elements were used between pipe beam elements and soil
quadrilateral continuum elements. Mohr-Coulomb contact material parameters are given
in Table 2.2. Augmented Lagrangian Contact algorithm was activated in the nonlinear
equations solver with Maximum number of augmentations of 5, stop augmentation if
maximum over penetration is less than 1e-006, increase penalty stiffness with multiplier
of 2 at each augmentation, and maximum penalty stiffness multiplier of 100. Detailed
description of contact elements and contact algorithm are given in the Z_Soil code user
manual (2004).
29
2.3.4 Staged Analysis
Staged construction of buried HDPE polyethylene pipes in dune sand embankment
were simulated using nonlinear Z-Soil FEM program. The first stage activates soil initial
ko stress state in five steps (Time = 0.2 to 1 and Increment of 0.2). In this stage, soil layer
representing under base material of 0.75 m thickness was activated alone. The second
stage consists of successive backfilling of ten soil layers in ten analysis steps (Time = 0
to 11 and Increment of 1). The first step introduced pipe and soil layer of 0.8 m thickness.
The pipe was activated simultaneously in the middle of this layer. Then, soil cover layers
of 0.25 m thickness were activated in the remaining ten steps. The total soil cover over
pipe crown is 2.723 m. The third stage applies uniform vertical pressure of 155 kPa in
forty steps (Time = 11 to 51 and Increment of 1). This overburden pressure is equivalent
to adding forty successive soil layers of 0.25 m thickness. The complete FEM mesh at
final stage for embankment and surface pressure case is shown in Figure 2.8 (a). It is
emphasized here that solution iterations were employed at each analysis step. Compacted
material parameters were used without surface pressure over backfill lefts. Sharp et al.
(1985) indicated that pressure application on compacted layers does not improve the
results in simulating soil box tests. However, a more objectives layered compaction
simulation would require evolution of soil properties such as unit weight, deformation
and strength parameters with stress level during compaction of each soil layer.
To investigate the effect of internal pressure on HDPE pipes buried in sand
embankments at various temperatures, radial surface pressure was applied inside buried
HDPE polyethylene pipes. The pipes were installed and covered in staged as described
above. The first stage activates initial ko stress state in five steps (Time = 0.2 to 1 and
30
Increment of 0.2). In this stage, soil layer representing under base material of 0.75 m
thickness was activated alone. The second stage consists of successive backfilling of six
soil layers in six analysis steps (Time = 0 to 7 and Increment of 1). The first step
introduced pipe and soil layer of 0.8 m thickness. The pipe was activated simultaneously
in the middle of this layer. Then, soil cover layers of 0.25 m thickness were activated in
the remaining ten steps. Soil cover over pipe crown of 1.723 m was maintained without
surface pressure. Soil consists of medium dense and loose sand states designated DS1 and
DS2, respectively. Third stage applies incremental radial internal pressure. In this
analysis stage, internal pressure of 700 kPa was applied in 10 kPa increments. Seventy
analysis steps (Time = 7 to 77 and Increment of 1) were used with numerical iterations in
each step. The complete FEM mesh at final stage for embankment and internal pressure
case is shown in Figure 2.8 (c).
Numerical results obtained in this study show pipe bending moment, shear and
normal stresses; pipe-soil contact stresses; soil deformation, plastic zones, stress and
strain maps for each analysis step. Typical pipe-soil interaction characteristics for buried
polyethylene pipes in dune sand embankments at various temperatures are presented in
the following results and discussion section.
31
Table 2.2. Summary of materials parameters used in FEM analyses.
Material Model Parameter Value

DS1 Mohr-Coulomb Deformation modulus, E (MPa) 30
Poisson's ratio, ν 0.3
Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 17
Friction angles, θ o 45
Dilatancy angle, ψ o 15
Cohesion, C (kPa) 4
Tension cut-off, I1t (kPa) 0
Ko(x), ko(z), Inclination angle <x',x> 0.6, 0.6, 0

Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 15.5
Cohesion, C (kPa) 4
Contact Mohr-Coulomb Normal stiffness multiplier, kn 0.1

Tangent to normal stiffness
0.1
multiplier ratio, kt/kn
Cohesion, C (kPa) 0
32
2.3.5 Results and Discussion
The calibrated numerical tool and the refined material parameters are used for
modeling and analysis of staged backfilling of buried polyethylene pipes in dune sand
embankments at various temperatures. Figure 2.9 shows typical Normal force (N), shear
force (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams in HDPE pipe buried under 2.72 m soil
cover and 155 kPa overburden pressure in DS1 sand embankment at 30o C. Figure 2.10
shows typical normal and shear contact stress diagrams on HDPE pipe under 2.72 m soil
cover and 155 kPa overburden pressure in DS1 sand embankment at 30oC. Figures 1.11
(a) and (b) present typical variation of vertical and horizontal stresses in backfill soil near
HDPE pipe buried under 2.723 m soil cover and 155 kPa overburden pressure in DS1
sand embankment at 30oC. Low values of vertical stress were predicted near the pipe
springline, and high vales were predicted near the pipe shoulder as shown in Figure 2.11
(a). Low values of horizontal stress were predicted near the pipe hunch and shoulder, and
high vales were predicted near the pipe springline as presented in Figure 2.11 (b). Plastic
zone initiated in the soil near the pipe haunch when the soil cover height reached 1.22 m
at Time =5, as shown in Figure 2.12. The sand material was homogenous, but arching
and pipe-soil interaction causes low horizontal stress (low confining pressure) and high
stress level at these locations as depicted in Figure 2.13. In practice, reinforcing the soil
or placing stiffer material such as cemented crushed sand or gravel near the pipe
haunches and shoulders may improve buried flexible pipes performance.
33
Figure 2.9. Normal (N), shear (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams in buried
HDPE pipe.
34
Figure 2.10. Typical normal (Sn) and shear (Tau) contact stress diagrams on HDPE
buried pipe.
35
(a)Vertical stress.
(b) Horizontal stress.
Figure 2.11. Typical stress diagrams in backfill soil near HDPE buried pipe.
36
Figure 2.12. Plastic zone initiated in backfill soil (DS1) near buried HDPE pipe
Figure 2.13. Typical stress levels in backfill soil near HDPE buried pipe.
37
Installation procedure and temperature effects on polyethylene pipes buried in sand
embankments were also investigated. Two models for installation procedures were
considered. These installation procedures include backfilling and cover with dense sand
(DS1) and medium dense sand (DS2) soils (Table 2.2). Finite element analyses were
executed under 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70o C. The used HDPE pipe material parameters at
various temperatures were given in Table 2.1. Table 2.3 shows predicted horizontal
displacement (Ux) and horizontal deflection (δx = 2*Ux/D) at pipe springline, where D is
pipe diameter, for buried HDPE pipes under 2.723 m DS1 and DS2 sands covers and 155
kPa surface pressure. It is emphasized here that deflection slightly increases with
temperature, but performance remains acceptable and deflection still fare below permissible
limit of 3-5%. Due to temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, springline horizontal
displacement increased by 3% and 43% for HDPE pipes buried in DS1 and DS2 sand
embankments under 155 kPa surface pressures, respectively. Also it is been noticed that,
the rate of deflection increase slightly decreases at high temperature (T = 70o C), where
mode of pipe deformation probably changes from elliptical to rectangular, especially when
dense soil (DS1) is employed for embankments. Where, in case of rectangular mode of
deformation, more vertical crown displacement takes place without further increase in
springline horizontal displacement. Furthermore, in the investigated temperature range of
30 to 70o C, deflection increases as soil density decreases but pipe performance still
remains within acceptable limit of 3-5%. In practice, this may allow for little uncontrollable
variations in the in-situ density along the pipeline during field installation.
38
Table 2.3. Horizontal displacement and deflection at springline of buried HDPE
pipes under 155 kPa surface pressure at various temperatures.
(a) Dense dune sand (DS1).
T (oC) 30 40 50 60 70
Ux (mm) 0.69726 0.71959 0.72707 0.73334 0.71786
δx (%) 0.393 0.405 0.4096 0.413 0.404
(b) Medium dense dune sand (DS2).
T (oC) 30 40 50 60 70
Ux (mm) 0.0014 0.0016 0.0017 0.0019 0.002
δx (%) 0.7887 0.9014 0.9577 1.0704 1.1268
39
The effects of backfill and cover materials parameters (types) on cover height which
induced prescribed crown vertical deflections were recently studied by Alawaji (2004a,b,c).
It was found that stiff backfill near pipe zone and stiff embankment cover reduces pipe
deflection and allows larger cover height. However, gain from gravel backfill near pipe
zone is relatively small. For example; at cover height which induced 3% pipe deflection,
cover gain obtained from placing gravel backfill near pipe zone ranges from 17% for
medium dense sand to 13% for dense sand cover.
Internal pressure effects on polyethylene pipes buried in embankments were also
numerically investigated in this study. Pipe installation procedures include backfilling and
cover with dense sand (DS1) and medium dense sand (DS2) soils (Table 2.2). Operation
procedures include application of increasing vertical surface pressure and application of
increasing internal radial pressure inside the buried pipes. Finite element analyses of buried
HDPE pipes were executed under 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70o C. The used Pipe material
parameters at various temperatures were given in Table 2.1. Figures 1.14 (a-h) present
variations of normal force, shear force, and bending moment diagrams with internal
pressure (0-700 kPa) for HDPE pipes buried in 1.723 m DS1 sand cover at 30o C. It is
found that normal force changes from compressive to tensile when 100 kPa internal
pressure is applied; then it increases as internal pressure increased up to 700 kPa.
Maximum value of bending moment decreases as internal pressure increases up to 700 kPa.
Figures 1.15 (a-e) present variations of normal force, shear force, and bending moment
diagrams with temperature (30-70o C) for HDPE pipes buried under 1.723 m DS1 sand
cover with 700 kPa internal pressures. It is found that maximum values for normal force,
shear force, and bending moment decreases with increased temperature. Table 2.4 shows
pipes horizontal pipe springline displacement (Ux) and deflection (δx) for buried HDPE
40
pipes under 1.723 m DS1 and DS2 sand covers and 700 kPa internal radial pressures at
various temperatures. It is emphasized here that for both density states deflection slightly
increases with temperature, but performance still remains acceptable and deflection is fare
below permissible limit of 3-5%. Due to temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, springline
horizontal displacement increased by 112% and 106% for HDPE pipes buried in DS1 and
DS2 sand embankments under 700 kPa internal pressures, respectively. Furthermore, over
the investigated temperature range of 30 to 70o C, deflection increases as soil density
decreases but pipe performance still remains within acceptable limit of 3-5%. As expected,
it is found that internal pressure reduces pipe vertical crown displacement and increases
vertical invert displacement. In general, acceptable small deformations are predicted under
simulated operational and environmental conditions pertinent to arid lands.
41
(a) without internal pressure.
Figure 2.14. Normal force (N), Shear force (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams for
HDPE pipe buried in embankment under 1.723 m DS1 sand cover.
42
(b) with 100 kPa internal radial pressure.
Figure 2.14. Normal force (N), Shear force (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams
for HDPE pipe buried in embankment under 1.723 m DS1 sand cover.
43
(c) with 200 kPa internal radial pressure
44
(d) with 300 kPa internal radial pressure
45
(e) with 400 kPa internal radial pressure
46
(f) with 500 kPa internal radial pressure
47
(g) with 600 kPa internal radial pressure
48
(h) with 700 kPa internal radial pressure
49
(a) Temperature = 30o C.
HDPE pipe buried in embankment under 1.723 m DS1 sand cover and 700 kPa
internal radial pressure.
50
(b) Temperature = 40o C.
51
(c) Temperature = 50o C.
52
(d) Temperature = 60o C.
53
(e) Temperature = 70o C.
54
Table 2.4. Horizontal displacement and deflection at springline of buried HDPE
pipes under 700 kPa internal pressure and at various temperatures
T (oC) 30 40 50 60 70
Ux (mm) 0.47143 0.55968 0.61075 0.78133 0.99709
∆x (%) 0.266 0.315 0.3441 0.4402 0.5617
T (oC) 30 40 50 60 70
Ux (mm) 0.58355 0.69768 0.76283 0.97578 1.2
δx (%) 0.3288 0.3931 0.4298 0.5497 0.6761
55
2.3.6 Conclusions
From the HDPE pipe load tests at various temperatures and the staged construction
simulation of buried HDPE pipes in dune sand embankments, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. Pipe load test is essential for proper HDPE pipe material characterization and
numerical tool calibration and verification.
2. Secant deformation modulus and Huber-Mises (M-W) criteria accurately predict
HDPE pipe response up to 6-8% vertical pipe deflection.
3. HDPE pipes deformation modulus decreases linearly with increasing temperature.
Due to temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, the HDPE pipe deformation modulus
and yield strength decreased 60%.
4. Low confining pressure near pipe haunches and shoulders causes high stress level in
backfill soil (close to material plastic range) which could lead to lose of adequate
soil support for buried pipes.
5. Detailed investigation and evaluation of existing pipelines during maintenance and
operation activities will furnish further understanding of actual long time pipe
performance under various environmental conditions.
6. Physical tests and finite element analysis could be coupled for better evaluation of
buried pipe performance for particular site and construction procedure.
7. HDPE pipes can safely withstand large dune sand cover especially when good
quality control is exercised during construction procedure.
56
8. Type of material and density at both the backfill near pipe zone and cover
embankment significantly affect pipe performance during construction and
operation.
9. At cover height which induced 3% pipe deflection, additional cover gain obtained
from placing gravel backfill near pipe zone ranges from 17% for medium dense
sand to 13% for dense sand cover.
10. Temperature effects on buried HDPE pipes depends on installation procedure. For
example, due to temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, springline horizontal
displacement increased by 3% and 43% for HDPE pipes buried in DS1 and DS2
sand embankments under 155 kPa surface pressures, respectively.
11. Temperature effects on buried HDPE pipes depends on operation conditions. For
example, due to temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, springline horizontal
displacement increased by 112% and 106% for HDPE pipes buried in DS1 and DS2
sand embankments under 700 kPa internal pressures, respectively.
12. Staged FEM simulation of buried pipe is essential for proper modeling and analysis
which can leads to efficient and economical construction procedure.
13. In-situ evaluation of backfill and cover soil stiffness and other geotechnical
properties is necessary for accurate assessment of existing pipelines.
14. Polyethylene pipes are cost effective and efficient alternative for buried applications
under high temperature (up to 70o C) in arid lands.
57
3. FIBERGLASS PIPES
3.1. General Introduction
In arid lands; the pipelines operating temperature can be high especially for
desalination plants, water transmission and distribution systems and others hydrocarbons
explorations applications. Widespread corrosion and increasing cost of installation and
maintenance of traditional pipes in desert environment suggests Fiberglass pipes
alternative. Thorough understanding of performance of buried Fiberglass pipes at elevated
temperature is essential for infrastructure sustainable developments in arid lands.
Generally, published investigations of pipes failures illustrate the effectiveness of a
simple field test as a diagnostic tool to evaluate site conditions and overall installation
procedure quality for buried pipes. Unfortunately, despite the huge leakage and severe
failure of buried pipes in under developing countries, there are no documented case studies
in arid lands.
In this chapter the temperature effect on deformation characteristics of Fiberglass pipe
is evaluated. Line load was applied on Fiberglass pipe submerged in hot water under
prescribed temperature. Measured load-response curves are used to calibrate simple
nonlinear finite element model. The calibrated tool is employed in modeling and analysis of
buried Fiberglass pipes under various temperatures. Several installation methods are
considered including embankment and trench installation in both strong and weak soils. It
is shown that buried Fiberglass pipes perform adequately under elevated temperature up to
70o C.
58
3.2 Above Ground Fiberglass Pipes.
3.2.1. Experimental Study of Fiberglass Pipes
In this study, the experimental investigation is intended to study the nonlinear
behaviour of Fiberglass pipes and the potential effects of temperature on their mechanical
properties. To study the effect of temperature on the deformation characteristics and
mechanical properties of Fiberglass pipes, a proper design of the testing fixture must be
established. Tests were conducted in steel tank of 0.7 m length, 0.5 m width, and 0.7 m
height and supported by a relatively rigid steel framework. Rigid steel plate and I-beams
assembly were placed under the pipe at the bottom of the tank such that pipe crown is
around 5 cm from the container's rim. With proper adjustment, such arrangements permit
testing of various pipe sizes. Two heaters with control regulators were fixed at the bottom
of the tank to obtain desired accurate water temperature. During setting and before loading,
isolated wood cover was used with vents to allow vapor to ventilate from the water bath as
well as to measure the water temperature using thermometers. Initially, weight and
geometrical measurements of the pipe ring sample was performed before soaking in the
water bath of prescribed constant temperature. Monitoring and adjusting the temperature
controller were continued for 24 hours in order to achieve the desired constant temperature
of the water bath and submerged pipe. The identical Fiberglass pipe samples used in this
study were supplied by Amiantit Co., Saudi Arabia. Physical and mechanical properties and
other quality control routine tests were conducted at the manufactory according to relevant
ASTM standards. Laboratory load tests were conducted on Fiberglass pipes of 310 mm
diameter (D), 300 mm length (L), 8 mm thickness. Vertical line load was applied to the
pipe by means of 10 tone compression test machine (Wykeham Farrance England). It is
59
displacement controlled machine with rate capability in the range 0.0001 to 59.99 mm/min.
It is emphasized here that 6 mm steel bar welded to rectangular hollow square steel beam
was used to transfer vertical line load and minimize boundary effects. Commonly used flat
plate may cause increasing contact area with pipe deformation and mixed boundary
conditions. The applied load was measured using a load cell (Tokyo Sokki) of 100 KN
capacity placed at the bottom of the machine top reaction beam. Displacement was
measured by LVDT (Tokyo Sokki) placed vertically along a diagonal through the center of
the pipe. This LVDT had a 50 mm range with 0.001 mm sensitivity. Data acquisition
system (Tokyo Sokki) and Sony laptop computer were used during the test to scan, monitor
and store hoop strain, deflection and load. Figure 3.1 shows assembled temperature
controlled pipe load test. It is emphasized here that the pipe invert was fixed between two
thin steel plates, as shown in Figure 3.2, to resist buoyant up lift force and to facilitate pipe
alignment inside the test container. This constraint has no effects on the experimental
results since it gets remove (contact released) after slight pipe vertical deformation. Typical
load-deformation response curves for the tested Fiberglass pipes at various temperatures are
presented in Figure 3.3. Further details of experimental description and test results
including internal and external hoop strains along the pipe circumferential line is recently
presented by Alawaji (2004a). It is emphasized here that nonlinearity is observed from the
beginning of the load-deformation response curve. Relatively large unrecoverable
deformation which decreases with increasing temperature was observed upon unloading.
Reloading response was also nonlinear even within the previous loading locus, i.e. below
maximum previous load level. These experimental results are compiled with physical and
mechanical properties of Fiberglass pipes to calibrate and validate finite elements models as
given in the following section.
60
Figure 3.1. Pipe load test setup under elevated temperature.
61
Figure 3.2. Fiberglass Pipe alignment and buoyant force resistance plates.
62
21
20
19 Pipe: FGP 5-(1-5)
18 D: 310 mm
17 t: 80 mm
16 L : 30 cm
15
14
13
Force, F (kN)
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Vertical Deflection, δ/D (%)
Experiment: Temp = 70 oC, Theta = 0, Rate = 1 mm/min.

Linear Fit: Temp = 30 oC, Theta = 0, Rate = 1 mm/min.
Figure 3.3. Typical load-deformation response curves for Fiberglass pipes at various
temperatures.
63
3.2.2 FEM Analysis of Fiberglass Pipes
The finite-element program, Z-Soil 3D Version 6.13, used in this study has been
developed by ZACE Co. (2004). Figure 3.4 shows 3D mesh of single layer four nodes 3D
shell elements used to model Fiberglass pipe load test. Only a quarter of the pipe is
modeled utilizing the dual symmetry of the problem. Simple elastic and Huber-Mises
constitutive models is employed. As might be expected, the initial linear elastic model
predicts the response successfully only for very small deflection (up to 0.9 %). Therefore,
nonlinear model which consists of secant elastic deformation modulus (at 2.5%
deformation) and Huber-Mises criteria was considered. Figures 3.5 (a-e) present finite
elements fit to the experimental results for the tested Fiberglass pipes at various
temperatures (30, 40, 50, 60, and 70oC). Table 3.1 presents the calibrated Fiberglass pipe
material parameters at various temperatures in the range of 30 to 70o C. Constant Poisson's
ratio, ν = 0.25, was assumed for the Fiberglass pipes. Results indicate that deformation
modulus decreases linearly with increasing temperature as shown in Figure 3.6. Due to
temperature increase from 30 to 70oC, the Fiberglass pipe deformation modulus decreased
by 62%. Yield strength decreases while strain at yielding increases with increasing
temperature. Where, yield strength of the tested Fiberglass pipes decreased by 56% due to
temperature increase from 30 to 70oC.
64
Figure 3.4. Mesh of single layer four nodes 3D shell elements used to model
Fiberglass pipe load tests.
65
22
Experimental
20
Numerical
18
16
Vertical load (kN)

14
12
10
8
6 Pipe: FGP 5-1
Diameter = 310 mm
4 Thickness = 8 mm
2 Length = 300 mm
T = 30oC
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 3.5(a). Finite element fit to experimental results for Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-1).
22
Experimental
20
Numerical
18 Pipe: FGP 5-2
16 Diameter = 310 mm
Thickness = 8 mm
Vertical load (kN)
14 Length = 300 mm
12 T = 40oC
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 3.5(b). Finite element fit to experimental results for Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-2).
66
22
Experimental
20
Numerical
18 Pipe: FGP 5-3
Thickness = 8 mm
Vertical load (kN)

14 Length = 300 mm
12 T = 50oC
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 3.5(c). Finite element fit to experimental results for Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-3).
22
Experimental
20
Numerical
18
Pipe: FGP 5-3
Vertical load (kN)
Thickness = 8 mm
14
Length = 300 mm
12 T = 60oC
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 3.5(d). Finite element fit to experimental results for Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-4).
67
22
Experimental
20
Numerical
18
16 Pipe: FGP 5-3
Diameter = 310 mm
Vertical load (kN)
14 Thickness = 8 mm
12 Length = 300 mm
T = 70oC
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 3.5(e). Finite element fit to experimental results for Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-5).
68
100
Pipes: FGP 5-(1-5)
Secant deformation Modulus,Εs (GPa)
Diameter, D = 310 mm
80 Thickness, t = 9 mm
Length, L = 300 mm
60
40
20
Εs (GPa) = -1.362525 * T (oC) + 127.18997
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.9983
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Temperature, T (oC)
Figure 3.6. Variations of secant deformation modulus (at 2.5% deformation) with
temperature for tested Fiberglass pipes [FGP 5-(1-5)].
69
Table 3.1. Fiberglass pipe material parameters at various temperatures.
Temperature, Deformation Poisson ratio, Tensile &

modulus, Es compressive
To C ν
(kN/m2) strength, ft& fc
(MN/m2)
30 87121900 0.25 250000
40 71498500 0.25 200000
50 59582100 0.25 180000
60 44742400 0.25 140000
70 32373700 0.25 110345
70
Typical predicted deformed configuration at 5% vertical deflection and 70o C is
illustrated in Figure 3.7. It is clear that this mode of deformation is simple elliptical and
follow simple uniform elliptical deformation assumptions commonly employed in buried
pipes design practice. From the measured and predicted response curves (Figures 3.5 a-
e), it is clear that the used nonlinear model can predict pipe response successfully up to
7% deflection. This deflection level is rarely attained in practice without joint leaks or
triggering maintenance and repair remarks. Therefore, model prediction is considered
adequate for buried pipe applications. However, failure load was underestimated.
Therefore, the overall analysis of buried Fiberglass pipes using this model is accurate for
working conditions but conservative for ultimate failure prediction. Since design and
operation are limited to small deformation, geometrical nonlinearity will not be
considered in the following buried polyethylene pipes analyses.
71
Figure 3.7. Predicted deformed configuration (5% vertical deflection) for
tested Fiberglass pipe (FGP 5-5) at 70o C.
72
3.3 FIBERGLASS PIPES BURIED IN DUNE SAND EMBANKMENTS.
3.3.1 Numerical Models
In this study, plane strain nonlinear finite element analysis was used to model
Fiberglass pipes buried in dune sand embankments. Typical Fiberglass pipe of 310 mm
diameter and 8 mm thickness was simulated. Four nodes Quadlateral and beam elements
were used and only a one half of the system was modeled due to symmetry of the
problem around X = 0 axis. The finite-element program used in this study, Z-Soil 3D
Version 6.13, was developed by ZACE Co. (2004). Mohr-Coulomb and Huber-Mises
constitutive models were employed for soil and pipe, respectively. The mesh extends
horizontally 3 m from pipe center. Complete fixity was enforced at the lower edge of the
mesh. Roller support was used at both vertical sides of the mesh. The mesh
configurations are shown in Figures 3.8 (a-e). Figure 3.8 (a) shows mesh used for
embankment and surface pressure at final stage. Elements refinement and transition zones
shown in Figure 3.8 (b) were used near the pipe to enhance nonlinear solution convergent
and prediction accuracy. Figure 3.8 (c) shows mesh used for embankment and internal
pressure at final stage. Figure 3.8 (d) shows near pipe view and internal pressure. Contact
elements were employed at pipe-soil interface as shown in Figure 3.8 (e). Soil cover
layers, soil overburden pressure, and pipe internal pressure were activated in consequent
stages to simulate embankment construction and pipe operation conditions as presented
in the following sections.
73
(a) Embankment layers and surface pressure.
Figure 3.8. Illustration of FEM mesh configuration for modeling buried Fiberglass pipes.
74
(b) Elements refinement and transition zones.
Figure 3.8. Illustration of FEM mesh configuration near buried Fiberglass pipes.
75
(c) Embankment layers and pipe internal pressure.
Figure 3.8. Illustration of FEM mesh configuration for buried Fiberglass pipes.
76
(d) Zoomed view of pipe internal pressure.
77
(e) Zoomed view for pipe-soil contact.
78
3.3.2 Soil Parameters
Thomamah sand (Sand Th) from sand dunes north eastern Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia,
was used to represent sand dunes material in arid lands. Geotechnical properties and
characteristics of Thomamah sand was given in details by Alawaji (1997). It can be
described as wind blown predominantly fine to medium sand which is classified as
poorly graded sand (SP) according to the unified classification system (USCS). The sand
has a specific gravity (Gs) of 2.67, and an effective size (D10) of 0.11 mm. The
maximum and minimum dry densities were 18.48 kN/m3 and 15.81 kN/m3 in accordance
to ASTM D-4253 and D-4254, respectively. The coefficient of uniformity (Cu) and the
coefficient of curvature (Cc) were 2.88 and 1.1, respectively. Shear strength for
Thomamah sand at 70% relative density (17.57 kN/m3) was determined from
conventional consolidated drained triaxial tests. It was found that, for confining pressure
in the range of 25 to 150 kPa, the friction angle was found to be 40 degrees at 70%
relative density Alawaji (1997).
For coarse grained soils, the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ko, can be estimated
by the empirical relationship of Jaky (1944),
K o = 1 - sin φ (3.1)
where φ is the soil drained friction angle. Furthermore, for coarse grained soils, the
dilation angle, ψ, can be obtained from the empirical expression of Bolton (1986),
0 .8 ψ = φ − φ cv
(3.2)
where φ cv is the soil friction angle at critical state. For the present purpose, φ cv has been
taken as 32o.
79
Solutions were sought for medium dense and loose sand states designated DS1 and
DS2, respectively. Moher-Coulomb (M-W) criteria were used for the sand material with
Drucker-Prager plastic flow and initial ko state. Table 3.2 presents the sand material
parameters for medium dense and loose sand states. These two material states represent
good and poor embankment construction procedures in dune sand at arid lands. Talesnick
and Baker (1999) measured wide variations in the in-situ stiffness of dune sand backfill
along buried pipeline with sand backfill material. Gravel backfill material commonly
used in pipe zone consists of crushed stone. The main advantage of gravel backfill near
pipe zone is that, gravel is self compaction material which insures adequate compaction
at pipe hunches and shoulders. Alawaji (2004a) emphasized the low confining pressure
effects near haunches and shoulders of flexible pipes even with uniform compacted
backfill material for both trench pipe construction procedure (Alawaji , 2004b) as well as
embankment pipe construction procedure (Alawaji, 2004c).
3.3.3 Pipe-Soil Contact Parameters
Frictional contact elements were used between pipe beam elements and soil
quadrilateral continuum elements. Mohr-Coulomb contact material parameters are given
in Table 3.2. Augmented Lagrangian Contact algorithm was activated in the nonlinear
equations solver with Maximum number of augmentations of 5, stop augmentation if
maximum over penetration is less than 1e-006, increase penalty stiffness with multiplier
of 2 at each augmentation, and maximum penalty stiffness multiplier of 100. Detailed
description of contact elements and contact algorithm are given in the Z_Soil code user
manual (2004).
80
Table 3.2. Summary of materials parameters used in FEM analyses.
Material Model Parameter Value

Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 17
Cohesion, C (kPa) 4

Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 15.5
Cohesion, C (kPa) 4
Contact Mohr-Coulomb Normal stiffness multiplier, kn 0.1

Tangent to normal stiffness
0.1
multiplier ratio, kt/kn
Cohesion, C (kPa) 0
81
3.3.4 Staged Analysis
Staged construction of buried Fiberglass pipes in dune sand embankment was
simulated using nonlinear Z-Soil FEM program. The first stage activates soil initial ko
stress state in five steps (Time = 0.2 to 1 and Increment of 0.2). In this stage, soil layer
representing under base material of 0.75 m thickness was activated alone. The second
stage introduced pipe and pipe zone cover (Time = 0 to 1) then successive backfilling of
ten soil layers in ten analysis steps (Time = 1 to 11 and Increment of 1). The first step
introduced pipe and soil layer of 0.8 m thickness. The pipe was activated simultaneously
in the middle of this layer. Then, soil cover layers of 0.25 m thickness were activated in
the remaining ten steps. The total soil cover over pipe crown is 2.723 m. The third stage
applies uniform vertical pressure of 155 kPa in forty steps (Time = 11 to 51 and
Increment of 1). This overburden pressure is equivalent to adding forty successive soil
layers of 0.25 m thickness. The complete FEM mesh at final stage for embankment and
surface pressure case is shown in Figure 3.8 (a). It is emphasized here that solution
iterations were employed at each analysis step. Compacted material parameters were used
without surface pressure over backfill lefts. Sharp et al. (1985) indicated that pressure
application on compacted layers does not improve the results in simulating soil box tests.
However, a more objectives layered compaction simulation would require evolution of
soil properties such as unit weight, deformation and strength parameters with stress level
during compaction of each soil layer.
To investigate the effect of internal pressure on Fiberglass pipes buried in sand
embankments at various temperatures, radial surface pressure was applied inside buried
Fiberglass pipes. The pipes were installed and covered in staged as described above. The
82
first stage activates initial ko stress state in five steps (Time = 0.2 to 1 and Increment of
0.2). In this stage, soil layer representing under base material of 0.75 m thickness was
activated alone. The second stage introduce pipe and pipe zone layer (Time = 0 to 1) then
successive backfilling of six soil layers in six analysis steps (Time = 0 to 7 and Increment
of 1). The first step introduced pipe and soil layer of 0.8 m thickness. The pipe was
activated simultaneously in the middle of this layer. Then, soil cover layers of 0.25 m
thickness were activated in the remaining ten steps. Soil cover over pipe crown of 1.723
m was maintained without surface pressure. Soil consists of medium dense and loose
sand states designated DS1 and DS2, respectively. Third stage applies incremental radial
internal pressure. In this analysis stage, internal pressure of 700 kPa was applied in 10
kPa increments. Seventy analysis steps (Time = 7 to 77 and Increment of 1) were used
with numerical iterations in each step. The complete FEM mesh at final stage for
embankment and internal pressure case is shown in Figure 3.8 (c).
Numerical results obtained in this study show pipe bending moment, shear and
normal stresses; pipe-soil contact stresses; soil deformation, plastic zones, stress and
strain maps for each analysis step. Typical pipe-soil interaction characteristics for buried
Fiberglass pipes in dune sand embankments at various temperatures are presented in the
following results and discussion section.
3.3.5 Results and Discussion
The calibrated numerical tool and the refined material parameters are used for
modeling and analysis of staged backfilling of buried Fiberglass pipes in dune sand
embankments at various temperatures. Figure 3.9 shows typical Normal force (N), shear
83
force (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams in Fiberglass pipe buried under 2.72 m soil
cover and 155 kPa overburden pressure in DS1 sand embankment at 30o C. Figure 3.10
shows typical normal and shear contact stress diagrams on Fiberglass pipe under 2.72 m
soil cover and 155 kPa overburden pressure in DS1 sand embankment at 30o C. Figures
3.11 (a) and (b) present typical variation of vertical and horizontal stresses in backfill soil
near Fiberglass pipe buried under 2.723 m soil cover and 155 kPa overburden pressure in
DS1 sand embankment at 30o C. Low values of vertical stress were predicted near the
pipe springline, and high vales were predicted near the pipe shoulder as shown in Figure
3.11 (a). Low values of horizontal stress were predicted near the pipe hunch and
shoulder, and high vales were predicted near the pipe springline as presented in Figure
3.11 (b). Plastic zone initiated in the soil near the pipe haunch when the soil cover height
reached 0.995 m at Time = 4, as shown in Figure 3.12. Plastic zone further extends near
the pipe when the soil cover height reached 2.723 m at Time = 51, as shown in Figure
3.13. The sand material was homogenous, but arching and pipe-soil interaction causes
low horizontal stress (low confining pressure) and high stress level at these locations as
depicted in Figure 3.14. In practice, reinforcing the soil or placing stiffer material such as
cemented crushed sand or gravel near the pipe haunches and shoulders may improve
buried flexible pipes performance.
84
Figure 3.9. Normal (N), shear (T), and bending moment (M) diagrams in
Fiberglass pipe buried under 2.72 m soil cover and 155 kPa overburden
pressure in DS1 sand embankment at 30o C.
Figure 3.10. Typical normal (Sn) and shear (Tau) contact stress diagrams on
Fiberglass pipe buried under 2.72 m soil cover and 155 kPa overburden
pressure in DS1 sand embankment at 30o C.
85
(a)Vertical stress.
(b) Horizontal stress.
Figure 3.11. Typical stress diagrams in backfill soil near buried Fiberglass pipe
with 2.72 m soil cover and 155 kPa overburden pressure in DS1
sand embankment at 30o C.
86
Figure 3.12. Plastic zone initiated in backfill soil (DS1) near buried Fiberglass
pipe under 0.995 m backfill cover (Time = 4) at 30o C.
Figure 3.13. Plastic zone in backfill soil (DS1) near buried Fiberglass pipe
under 2.72 m backfill (Time = 51) at 30o C.
87
Figure 3.14. Typical stress levels in backfill soil (DS1) near buried Fiberglass pipe
under 2.72 m backfill (Time = 51) at 30o C.
88
Installation procedure and temperature effects on Fiberglass pipes buried in sand
embankments were also investigated. Two models for installation procedures were
considered. These installation procedures include backfilling and cover with dense sand
(DS1) and medium dense sand (DS2) soils (Table 3.2). Finite element analyses were
executed under 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70o C. The used Fiberglass pipe material parameters
at various temperatures were given in Table 3.1. Table 3.3 shows predicted horizontal
displacement (Ux) and horizontal deflection (δx = 2*Ux/D) at pipe springline, where D
is pipe diameter, for buried Fiberglass pipes under 2.723 m DS1 and DS2 sands covers
and 155 kPa surface pressure. It is emphasized here that deflection slightly increases
with temperature, but performance remains acceptable and deflection still fare below
permissible limit of 3-5%. Due to temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, springline
horizontal displacement increased by 20% and 46% for Fiberglass pipes buried under
2.723 m DS1 and DS2 sand embankments; respectively, with 155 kPa surface pressure.
Also it is been noticed that, in the investigated temperature range of 30 to 70o C,
deflection increases as soil density decreases but pipe performance still remains within
acceptable limit of 3-5%. In practice, this may allow for little uncontrollable variations
in the in-situ density along the pipeline during field installation.
89
Table 3.3. Horizontal displacement and deflection at springline of buried
Fiberglass pipes under 2.723 m DS1 and DS2 sands covers and 155
kPa surface pressure at various temperatures.
T (oC) 30 40 50 60 70
Ux (mm) 0.67566 0.71098 0.74016 0.77939 0.81359
δx (%) 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.53
T (oC) 30 40 50 60 70
Ux (mm) 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9
δx (%) 0.84 0.90 0.97 1.10 1.23
90
The effects of backfill and cover materials parameters (types) on cover height
which induced prescribed crown vertical deflections were recently studied by Alawaji
(2004a,b,c). It was found that stiff backfill near pipe zone and stiff embankment cover
reduces pipe deflection and allows larger cover height. However, gain from gravel
backfill near pipe zone is relatively small.
Internal pressure effects on Fiberglass pipes buried in embankments at various
temperatures were also numerically investigated in this study. Pipe installation
procedures include backfilling and cover with dense sand (DS1) and medium dense
sand (DS2) soils (Table 3.2). Operation procedures include application of increasing
vertical surface pressure and application of increasing internal radial pressure inside the
buried pipes. Finite element analyses of buried Fiberglass pipes were executed under
30, 40, 50, 60, and 70o C. The used pipe material parameters at various temperatures
were given in Table 3.1. Figures 3.14 (a-h) present variations of normal force, shear
force, and bending moment diagrams with internal pressure (0-700 kPa) for Fiberglass
pipes buried in 1.723 m DS1 sand cover at 30o C. It is found that normal force changes
from compressive to tensile when 100 kPa internal pressure is applied; then it increases
as internal pressure increased up to 700 kPa. Bending moment and shear values do not
change as internal pressure increases up to 700 kPa. Figures 3.15 (a-e) present
variations of normal force, shear force, and bending moment diagrams with temperature
(30-70o C) for Fiberglass pipes buried under 1.723 m DS1 sand cover with 700 kPa
internal pressures. It is found that maximum values for normal force, shear force, and
bending moment slightly decreases with increased temperature. Table 3.4 shows pipes
horizontal pipe springline displacement (Ux) and deflection (δx) for buried Fiberglass
pipes under 1.723 m DS1 and DS2 sand covers and 700 kPa internal radial pressures at
various temperatures. It is emphasized here that for both density states deflection
91
slightly increases with temperature, but performance still remains acceptable and
deflection is far below permissible limit of 3-5%. Due to temperature increase from 30
to 70o C, springline horizontal displacement increased by 48% and 66% for Fiberglass
pipes buried in DS1 and DS2 sand embankments; respectively, with 700 kPa internal
pressures. Furthermore, over the investigated temperature range of 30 to 70o C,
deflection increases as soil density decreases but pipe performance still remains within
acceptable limit of 3-5%. As expected, it is found that internal pressure reduces pipe
vertical crown displacement and increases vertical invert displacement. In general,
acceptable small deformations are predicted under simulated operational and
environmental conditions pertinent to arid lands.
92
(a) without internal pressure at Time = 7.
Fiberglass pipe buried in embankment under 1.723 m DS1 sand cover.
93
(b) with 100 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 17.
94
(c) with 200 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 27.
95
(d) with 300 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 37.
96
(e) with 400 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 47.
97
(f) with 500 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 57.
98
(g) with 600 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 67.
99
(h) with 700 kPa internal radial pressure at Time = 77.
100
(a) Temperature = 30o C.
Fiberglass pipe buried in embankment under 1.723 m DS1 sand cover and
700 kPa internal radial pressure.
101
(b) Temperature = 40o C.
102
(c) Temperature = 50o C.
103
(d) Temperature = 60o C.
104
(e) Temperature = 70o C.
105
Table 3.4. Horizontal displacement and deflection at springline of buried
Fiberglass pipes under 700 kPa internal pressure and at various
temperatures
T (oC) 30 40 50 60 70
Ux (mm) 0.12744 0.13823 0.14864 0.16628 0.18896
δx (%) 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12
T (oC) 30 40 50 60 70
Ux (mm) 0.20368 0.22856 0.25255 0.29191 0.33873
δx (%) 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.22
106
3.3.6 Conclusions
From the staged construction simulation of buried polyethylene pipes in dune sand
embankments, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Pipe load test is essential for proper Fiberglass pipe material characterization
and numerical tool calibration and verification.
2. Secant deformation modulus and Huber-Mises (M-W) criteria accurately predict
Fiberglass pipe response up to 6-8% vertical pipe deflection.
3. Deformation modulus of Fiberglass pipes decreases linearly with increasing
temperature. Due to temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, deformation
modulus and yield strength decreased 62%.
4. Detailed investigation and evaluation of existing pipelines during maintenance
and operation activities will furnish further understanding of actual long time
pipe performance under various environmental conditions.
5. Physical tests and finite element analysis could be coupled for better evaluation
of buried pipe performance for particular site and construction procedure.
6. Fiberglass pipes can safely withstand high (70o C) operational temperature
especially when good quality control is exercised during construction procedure.
7. Type of material and density (strength and deformation parameters) at both the
backfill near pipe zone and cover embankment significantly affect pipe
performance during construction and operation.
8. Temperature effects on buried Fiberglass pipes depend on installation procedure
and operation conditions. For example, due to temperature increase from 30 to
70o C, springline horizontal displacement increased by 20% and 46% for
Fiberglass pipes buried under 2.723 m DS1 and DS2 sand embankments;
respectively, with 155 kPa surface pressure.
107
9. Temperature effects on buried Fiberglass pipes depend on operation conditions.
For example, due to temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, springline
horizontal displacement increased by 48% and 66% for Fiberglass pipes buried
in DS1 and DS2 sand embankments; respectively, with 700 kPa internal
pressure.
10. Staged FEM simulation is essential for proper modeling and analysis of buried
Fiberglass pipes and temperature effects which can leads to efficient and
economical construction procedure.
11. In-situ evaluation of backfill and cover soil stiffness and other geotechnical
properties is necessary for accurate assessment of existing pipelines.
12. Fiberglass pipes are cost effective and efficient alternative for buried
applications under high temperature (up to 70o C) in arid lands.
108
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on experimental and numerical studies of buried HDPE and Fiberglass pipes at
various temperatures, the following general recommendations can be drawn:
1. Pipe load tests should be conducted and documented in electronic pipes national
data base for proper pipe material characterization and numerical analysis of
new and existing major pipelines.
2. Soil cover and backfill materials Geotechnical properties including in-situ soil
stiffness and strength characteristics should be properly measured during
construction of buried pipes and documented in electronic backfill material data
base for proper soil characterization and numerical analysis of new and existing
major pipelines.
3. Evaluation and assessment of buried pipes actual performance is essential
during maintenance and operation.
4. HDPE and Fiberglass pipes are cost effective and efficient alternative for buried
applications in arid lands even under high temperature up to 70o C.
5. Further cooperation of manufacturers, owners, contractors and researchers is
needed in the area of buried pipes.
109
REFERENCES
Alawaji, H., 2004a, "Numerical Studies of Buried Pipes", Final Report No. 23/4,
Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Alawaji, H., 2004b, "Characteristics of fiberglass pipes", Proceedings of Pipelines 2004
International conference, ASCE, San Diego, USA.
Alawaji, H., 2004c, "Characteristics of fiberglass pipes buried in dune sand
embankments", Proceedings of International Conference on Geotechnical
Engineering, Sharjah, UAE.
Alawaji, H., 1997, "Modeling of Settlement and Collapse of Footings on Sand Pad
Overlying Collapsible Soil", Proc. of the International Conf. on Foundation
Failures, Singapore, 385-392.
Bishop, R. and Lang, D, 1984, "Design and Performance of Buried Fiberglass Pipes – A
New Perspective", Proceedings of a Session sponsored by Pipeline Div., ASCE
National Convention, San Francisco, CA, 1-12.
Bolton, M. D., 1986, "Strength and dilatancy of sands", Geotechnique, London,
England, 36(1), 65-78.
Faragher, E., Rogers, C.D.F., Fleming, P.R., 1998, "Laboratory determination of soil
stiffness data for buried plastic pipes", Transportation Research Record, 1624, 231-
236.
Hassett, T., LeBlanc, S., Koch, J., 1998, "Underwater Pipeline Repair", Public Works,
129(6), 48-50.
Jaky, N., 1944, "The coefficient of earth pressure at rest", Journal of the Society of
Hungarian Architects and Engineers, 7, 355-358.
110
Marston, A., 1930, "The theory of external loads on closed conduits in the light of the
latest experiments", Bulletin 96. Iowa Engineering Experiment Station, Iowa state
College, Ames,.
Miyajima, Y., Kariyazono, Y., Funatsu, S., Ishida, M. and Endoh, E., 1994, "Durability
of Polyethylene-Coated Steel Pipe at Elevated Temperatures", Nippon Steel
technical report, 63, 48-52.
Moore, I. D., 1995, "Three-dimensional Response of Deeply Buried Profiled
Polyethylene Pipe ", Transportation Research Record, 1514, 49-58.
Seibi, A. C., 1999, "Effects of Crude Oil on the Thermo-Mechanical Properties of High
Density Polyethylene", Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., ASME 392, 37-44.
Sharp, K., Anderson, L., Moser, A. and Bishop, R., 1985, “Finite Element Analysis
Applied to the Response of Buried FRP Pipe due to Installation Conditions”,
Transportation Research Board Sixty-fourth Annual Meeting. 1-42
Spangler, M. G., 1941, "The structural Design of Flexible Pipe Culverts", Bulletin 153,
Iowa Engineering Experimental Station, Iowa State College, Ames.
Talesnick, M. and Baker, R., 1999, "Investigation of the Failure of a Concrete-Lined
Steel Pipe", International J of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 17(2), 99-
121.
Travers, F. A., 1997, "Acoustic Monitoring of Prestressed Concrete Pipe", Construction
and Building Materials, 11(3), 175-187.
Zhang, C. and Moore, I. D., 1998, "Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis for
Thermoplastic Pipes", Transportation Research Record, 1624, 225-230.
Zhang, C. and Moore, I. D., 1997, "Nonlinear Mechanical Response of High Density
Polyethylene, Part I: Experimental Investigation and Model Evaluation", Polymer
Engineering and Science, 37, 404-413.
111
Z_SOIL 2004, "V6.13 User Manual", ZACE Services Ltd, Report 1985-2004,
Lausanne, Elmepress International.
112

Ce 23 26 27 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ce 23 26 27 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ‫اﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ‬

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY ‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮد‬

Temperature Effects on Polyethylene (HDPE)

Temperature effects on deformation of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Fiberglass

employed to investigate temperature effects on pipes buried in embankments. The testing

increasing temperature. Due to temperature increase from 30 to 70o C, deformation modulus

decreased 62%. Numerical analysis is conducted to simulate temperature effects on buried

lands even under high temperature up to 70o C.

List of Symbols and Abbreviations viii

1.2 Research Objectives. 3

1.3 Research Methodology 3

1.3.1 Pipes Types 4

1.3.2 Temperature range 4

1.3.3 Finite Element Analysis 5

2. HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PIPES 6

2.1. General Introduction 6

2.2 Above Ground HDPE Pipes. 8

2.2.1. Experimental Study of HDPE Polyethylene Pipes 8

2.2.2 FEM Analysis of HDPE Polyethylene Pipes 11

2.3 HDPE PIPES BURIED IN DUNE SAND EMBANKMENTS 22

2.3.1 Numerical Models 22

2.3.3 Pipe-Soil Contact Parameters 29

2.3.4 Staged Analysis 29

2.3.5 Results and Discussion 33

3.1. General Introduction 58

3.2 Above Ground Fiberglass Pipes. 59

3.2.1. Experimental Study of Fiberglass Pipes 59

3.2.2 FEM Analysis of Fiberglass Pipes 64

3.3 FIBERGLASS PIPES BURIED IN DUNE SAND EMBANKMENTS 73

3.3.1 Numerical Models 73

3.3.2 Soil Parameters 79

3.3.3 Pipe-Soil Contact Parameters 80

3.3.4 Staged Analysis 82

3.3.5 Results and Discussion 83

3.3.6 Conclusions 107

KSU King Saud University

FEM Finite Element Analysis

AWWA American Water Works Association

DN Nominal diameter (mm)

PN Nominal Pressure (Bar)

LVDT Linear variable differential transducer

STIS Standard tangent initial stiffness

HDPE high-density polyethylene

Sand Th Thomamah sand

USCS unified classification system

Time Fictitious time for nonlinear analysis

kn Contact normal elastic multiplier

kt Contact tangent elastic multiplier

I1t Tension cut off

N_MAX Maximum normal force

T_MAX Maximum shear force

M_MAX Maximum bending moment

θ Angular coordinate (Clock wise with θ=0o at vertical plan)

Sn Normal contact stress

Tau Shear contact stress

σyy Vertical stress

σxx Horizontal stress

SP Poorly graded sand

Ko Coefficient of earth pressure at rest

t Nominal steel cylinder thickness

D Outside diameter of pipe

E' Modulus of soil reaction

pipe user's manuals.