131

NOTE / NOTE

Tunneling effects on jointed pipelines

Assaf Klar, Alec M. Marshall, Kenichi Soga, and Robert J. Mair

Abstract: The problem of tunneling effects on existing jointed pipelines is studied using the boundary integral method.
Normalized solutions to evaluate the maximum bending moments and rotations are presented. They depend on tunnelinduced ground settlements at pipeline level, relative soilpipe stiffness, relative pipe-joint stiffness, and the location
of the joints in relation to the tunnel centerline. A jointed pipeline generally experiences smaller bending moments
than a continuous one owing to the joint rotation. The solutions indicate that there are certain cases where hinged
systems result in greater bending moments than continuous ones. However, these cases rarely occur in reality.
Key words: pipelines, tunneling, soilstructure interaction, continuum solute.
Resume : Au moyen de la methode integrale des frontie`res, on traite du proble`me des effets du creusage de tunnels sur
des pipelines avec joints. On presente les solutions normalizees pour evaluer les moments flechissants et les rotations
maximum. Ils dependent des tassements du sol induits par le tunnel au niveau du pipeline, de la rigidite relative sol
tuyau, de la rigidite tuyau-joint, et de la localization des joints par rapport a` laxe central du tunnel. Un pipeline avec
joints va en general subir de plus petits moments flechissants quun pipeline continu a` cause de la rotation dans les joints.
Les solutions indiquent quil y a certains cas ou` des syste`mes avec charnie`res donnent des moments flechissants plus
grands que des syste`mes continus. Cependant, ces cas se produisent rarement en realite.
Mots-cles : pipelines, creusage de tunnel, interaction sol structure, solution continue.
[Traduit par la Redaction]

Introduction
Construction of a tunnel may cause damage to buried
structures, such as pipelines. As a tunnel is excavated, it induces deformation in the soil above. These displacements
will cause additional loading on a pipeline positioned above
the tunnel, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The behavior of the pipeline depends on the stiffness of the pipeline sections, the position and behavior of the pipe joints, and the nature of the
ground deformations. Solutions to this problem are presented in this note so that potential risk of pipeline damage
can be evaluated.
The general problem of tunneling effects on pipelines was
covered extensively by the excellent monograph of Attewell
et al. (1986). They provided solutions for continuous and
jointed pipelines using a Winkler ground model and ground
movements derived using a Gaussian curve. Klar et al. (2005)
obtained an exact closed form solution for the Attewell et al.
(1986) Winkler problem and provided a more rigorous soluReceived 4 September 2006. Accepted 23 July 2007. Published
on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on
21 February 2008.
A. Klar.1 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Israel Institute of
Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel.
A.M. Marshall, K. Soga, and R.J. Mair. University of
Cambridge, Department of Engineering, Trumpington Street,
Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK.
1Corresponding

author (e-mail: klar@technion.ac.il).

Can. Geotech. J. 45: 131139 (2008)

tion based on a pipeline within an elastic soil continuum,

again using a Gaussian settlement curve. They compared
these two solutions and found that the continuum one resulted
in higher bending moments, hence, the continuum solution
may be considered more conservative. Vorster et al. (2005)
extended the continuum solution to allow more freedom in defining the shape of the settlement trough by using a modified
Gaussian curve. The solutions presented by Vorster et al.
(2005) were used to develop a conservative design procedure
based on the linear equivalent method for soil stiffness. Their
solutions were verified with centrifuge model tests.
The continuum solutions presented by Klar et al. (2005)
and Vorster et al. (2005) dealt solely with continuous pipelines and did not address the problem of jointed pipelines. In
reality, pipelines are composed of sections that are connected to each other by joints. If the joints are relatively stiff
compared to the flexural rigidity of the pipe, the solutions of
continuous pipes, mentioned above, may be considered appropriate. However, more often than not, joints are not rigid
or lose their rigidity as they deform. Attewell et al. (1986),
using the Winkler model, presented normalized solutions for
the problem of hinged pipelines (i.e., zero joint stiffness). In
addition, they suggested a complicated iterative procedure to
deal with cases where the joints possess stiffness.
This technical note extends the continuum solution to the
case of jointed pipelines and provides normalized solutions
that allow for simple evaluation of joint rotation and bending moments of a jointed pipeline that is affected by tunnel
construction underneath.

doi:10.1139/T07-068

2008 NRC Canada

132

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 45, 2008

Fig. 1. Illustration of the problem.

Fig. 2. Idealized joint behavior.

Table 1. Values of the parameters for bilinear joint model (modified from Attewell et al. 1986).
Pipe diameter
(cm)

Engineering considerations for jointed

pipelines
Although the focus in design of pipelines is concentrated
on the cross-sectional behavior, attention should also be
given to the problem of settlement-induced loading, such as
by tunneling. Pipelines are always built using discrete sections, but they may be categorized as continuous or jointed,
depending on their joint behavior. For example, high-pressure
gas-transmission pipelines may be considered continuous as
they are built of steel sections rigidly connected by either
welded or flanged joints. Design criteria for these joints include limits on allowable stresses across the joints (BS EN
14161. 2003). Current wastewater pipelines are commonly
built of concrete sections joined by flexible rubber pushon joints. Design criteria for these joints include maximum
allowable rotations (BS EN 545. 2002). Historically, cast iron
pipelines with semi-rigid push-on joints sealed with leadyarn were commonly used in the UK during the Victorian
time and these pipelines are still extensively used. The rotational stiffness of these joints is nonlinear and can be approximated by a bilinear relationship presented in Fig. 2.
Table 1 summarizes the parameters published by Attewell
et al. (1986) for the bilinear model.
When a jointed pipeline is subjected to tunneling-induced
settlement, both stresses and joint rotation need to be estimated to ensure pipeline serviceability. Generally, these
entail the evaluation of both axial forces and bending moments. If the joint is considered rigid (i.e., the pipeline is
continuous) and the design criterion to maintain its structural

Small rotation
angle,
s (rad)

1 (kNm/rad)

2 (kNm/rad)

Lead-yarn hardened jute packing

10
0.00875
1100
15
0.00875
2500
20
0.00875
2500

375
900
900

Lead-yarn with soft jute packing

7.5
0.00875
100
10
0.00875
160
15
0.0175
330
20
0.035
635
25
0.035
970
30
0.035
1320

50
80
165
320
480
660

Rubber gasket push-in type

10
0.005
15
0.005
20
0.0037
25
0.006

1.5
3.5
12
14

0.3
0.5
1.75
2.6

integrity is allowable tensile stress, one may use only the

bending moment solution to obtain a conservative evaluation
of tensile stresses for joints located in the sagging area
(above the tunnel centerline) where compressive axial forces
exist. For joints located in the hogging area (offset from the
tunnel centerline) where tensile axial forces exist, the bending moment solution alone is not sufficient to make a conservative evaluation of tensile stresses, and therefore one
also needs to consider an axial-force solution (such as that
given by Attewell et al. 1986). Nonetheless, as shown by
Vorster (2005), in many cases the value of tensile stress calculated from the maximum sagging bending moment alone
is higher than that calculated using the combination of both
maximum hogging bending moment and tensile forces. In
which case, the evaluation of tensile stresses based on maximum sagging bending moments is conservative for continuous pipelines (i.e., rigid joints). For flexible joints, tensile
stresses may not necessarily have to be considered because
these joints generally allow for longitudinal movement and
release the axial forces. Moreover, the design criteria for
these joints focus on joint rotation.
#

2008 NRC Canada

Klar et al.

133

Fig. 3. Representation of a pipeline as beam elements (right bottom) and joint elements (left bottom).

Fig. 4. Odd and even joint configurations.

1

S
K 
K 
 s
S

fug K 
fuCAT g

K 
i;j 1=Gi;j
 s
i;j Gi;j

The following sections provide normalized solutions for the

bending moments in the pipeline and rotations at the joints.

Formulation
The formulation essentially follows that presented by Klar
et al. (2005) with modifications to include the effects of
joints. The formulation is based on the following assumptions: (1) the tunnel is not affected by the presence of the
pipeline; (2) the pipeline is buried in an elastic homogeneous soil; (3) the soil response to loading, at the level of the
pipe, is unaware of the tunnel (this relaxing assumption allows the use of Mindlins (1936) Greens function for loading in a semi-infinite half space to construct barrel loads that
are used in the analysis); and (4) the pipe remains in contact
with the soil.
Using these assumptions, Klar et al. (2005) derived the
following equation, which can be solved to obtain the pipe
behavior:

for i j; 0
for i 6 j; 0

for i 6 j
for i j

where [S] is the stiffness matrix of the pipeline, {u} is the

displacement of the pipe, Gi,j is the Greens function that defines the elastic continuum displacement at point i due to a
unit loading at point j, and {uCAT} is the additional displacement at the pipeline level caused by the tunneling. By
employing assumption (1), {uCAT} becomes the green field
displacement (i.e., the soil displacement at the level of the
pipe if the pipe did not exist).
In the previous works (Klar et al. 2005; Vorster et al.
2005), the stiffness matrix of the pipeline was composed of
standard beam elements. In the current work, it is extended
to include joint elements, as described in Fig. 3.
For the bending behavior solution, the global pipeline
stiffness matrix, [S], is composed of the beam element matrix [KB] and the joint element matrix [KJ], defined as follows (Weaver and Gere 1990):
2
3
12EI
6EI
12EI 6EI

6 L3
L2e
L3e
L2e 7
e
6
7
6
7
4EI
6EI
2EI 7
6 6EI
6
7

6 L2e
Le
L2e
Le 7
6
7
KB
6 12EI
6EI 12EI
6EI 7
6
 2
 2 7
6
7
L3e
Le
L3e
Le 7
6
2

6
7
6 6EI
2EI
6EI
4EI 7
4
5
 2
L2e
Le
Le
Le
2
3
kjS
0
kjS
0
6 0
0
kjM 7
kjM
7
KJ
6
4 kjS
0
kjS
0 5
0
kjM
0
kjM
where EI is the bending stiffness of the pipeline sections, Le
is the length of the beam elements that constitute the pipeline sections (each pipe section is composed of several beam
elements), and kjM and kjS are the joint stiffness for rotation
and shear, respectively. Typical kjM values for different
#

2008 NRC Canada

134

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 45, 2008

Fig. 5. Distribution along the pipeline for R = 10 and Lj/i = 1.

Fig. 6. Distribution along the pipeline for R = 10 and Lj/i = 2.

2008 NRC Canada

Klar et al.

135

Fig. 7. Distribution along the pipeline for R = 10 and Lj/i = 4.

joints are presented in Table 1 as 1 and 2. It should be

noted that the above matrices refer to the behavior of the
pipe in flexure, ignoring the axial response. If necessary,
the axial response can be solved either by extending the
stiffness matrices and adding the longitudinal degree of
freedom or by solving independently the axial response. For
elastic joints considered in this study, these two will result
in the same behavior if the vertical soil response to loading
is decoupled from the horizontal response (a commonly
used assumption in elastic soil-structure interaction).
The following section presents normalized solutions for
elastic joints, for which the stiffness is constant and equal
for all joints, and is independent of the axial behavior.

Normalized solution for jointed pipelines

affected by tunnel excavation
In the present work, we consider the case of a pipeline
transverse to the tunnel line, which is believed to be the
worst case for bending moments and rotations. For this
case, the error function (Peck 1969) may be considered a
good estimate of the vertical green field displacements, Sv:



1 x2
3

Sv x Smax exp  2
2i
where Smax is the maximum settlement at the pipeline level, x
is the transverse distance from the tunnel centerline, and i is
the distance to the inflection point. Several parameters are
used in the normalization of the results: (1) the relative
pipesoil rigidity factor R = EI/Esi3r0 (where EI is the long-

itudinal bending stiffness of the pipe sections, Es is the

Youngs modulus of the soil, and r0 is the radius of the
pipe), (2) the joint stiffness ratio T = kjM/(EI/i), and (3) the
joint spacing ratio Lj/i (where Lj is the spacing between the
joints). By using the ratio R for normalization, the solution
becomes practically independent of the ratio i/r0. It should
be noted that all normalized solutions given in this paper correspond to a Poissons ratio of 0.25 and an embedment depth
ratio Z/r0 = 7 (Z is the depth to the pipe axis from the ground
surface). Nevertheless, the solutions are not significantly sensitive to these parameters, as shown by Klar et al. (2005).
In the current analysis, kjS is set to a very high value, practically forcing an infinite shear stiffness of the joint, leading
to zero relative vertical displacements across the joints.
Two possible symmetric cases are considered: (1) where
the tunnel centerline is located beneath a joint (referred to
as odd configuration) and (2) where the tunnel centerline
is located in between the joints (referred to as even configuration). The terms odd and even are derived from
the fact that a symmetric pipeline system with respect to
the tunnel has either an odd or an even number of joints, respectively, as illustrated in Fig. 4.
Different trends of the pipeline behavior may be seen in
Figs. 57, which show the normalized bending moment
(Mi2/EISmax) and the normalized settlements (Sp/Smax) of the
pipeline as a function of the joint rigidity for the cases of
R = 10 and Lj/i = 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0.
As joint stiffness decreases (T decreases), the solutions
shift from that of a continuous pipeline to that of a hinged
one. This shift results in either an increase or a decrease in
#

2008 NRC Canada

136

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 45, 2008

Fig. 8. Normalized solution for Lj/i = 1.

bending moments, depending on the joint normalized spacing

and configuration. This can be seen by comparing the even
configurations in Figs. 57. For Lj/i = 1 and 2, the shift from
continuous to hinged behavior is associated with a reduction
in the maximum bending moments, whereas for Lj/i = 4 an
increase in the maximum bending moment is observed.
The importance of the joint configuration is a function of
the normalized spacing: for small normalized spacing (i.e.,
Lj/i = 1), the overall decrease in bending moment is similar
for the even and odd configurations; whereas for the larger
Lj/i of 2 and 4, there is a significant difference in bending
moment for the even and odd configurations. The pipeline
displacement follows more closely to the green field settlement trough while the normalized joint spacing decreases,
approaching more and more a piecewise linear fit.
The design criteria for jointed pipelines that are influenced by nearby tunnel excavation may be related to both
rotations at the joints and bending moments along the pipe.
A jointed pipeline behaves between the two limit cases of a
continuous and a hinged pipeline. For a given jointed pipeline with either odd or even configuration, the maximum
bending moment and the maximum joint rotation are a function of the relative rigidities R and T. Figures 810 show
normalized solutions for the maximum bending moments
and the joint rotations along the pipeline as a function of
both R and T.
For a given T, the solution is closer to the hinged behavior at small R, but it becomes close to the continuous pipe-

line behavior at large R. For very small R values in even

configuration, the joints are too far away from the tunnel
centerline to influence the value of the maximum bending
moment (located above the tunnel centerline), and the pipeline bends according to the green field displacements.
As noted earlier and can also be seen in Fig. 10, a hinged
pipeline may result in higher bending moments than a continuous one. This happens in the case of the even configuration when the two innermost joints are located close to the
area where a continuous pipeline would experience hogging
moments. The critical condition for which the hinged solution may result in higher bending moments than the continuous one is given in Fig. 11. Figure 11a shows the ratio of
maximum bending moment in a hinged system to that in a
continuous one as a function of the normalized joint spacing
Lj/i for varying R values. Figure 11b recognizes the points
on Fig. 11a where the hinged system results in a higher
bending moment and creates a boundary line relating to
joint spacing and soilpipe relative rigidity; an example is
given for the point of R = 3.16. Although a point (Lj/i versus
R) in Fig. 11b may be located to the right of the critical condition line, it does not mean that the hinged solution will result in higher bending moments than the continuous one, as
the innermost joints may be farther away from the hogging
position.
It is worth noting that Lj/i = 4 is an extreme case because
precast sections of pipes are rarely long enough to result in
this ratio unless the pipeline is very close to the tunnel in
#

2008 NRC Canada

Klar et al.

137

Fig. 9. Normalized solution Lj/i = 2.

which case the value of i is relatively small. In such a case,

there may be significant tunnelpipeline interactions that do
not follow the assumptions used to derive these solutions,
and it may be necessary to perform a more rigorous interaction analysis using a finite element method, for example.
Nonetheless, this extreme case is included here to demonstrate the full range of potential behavior of pipelines.

Use of normalized graphs (Figs. 810)

Although the normalized graphs (Figs. 810) allow for a
wide range of input parameters, they do not cover all possible cases. That is, the tunnel centerline does not necessarily
have to lie symmetrically between joints (i.e., the even and
odd configuration). In addition, if the joints exceed the small
rotation region (see Fig. 2), each one will have a different
stiffness, but the given normalized solutions assume equal
stiffness values for all joints. However, since the exact locations of the joints are rarely known, the worst case scenarios
need to be considered and these are captured by the solutions of the odd and even geometrical configurations provided within the normalized graphs above. Additionally,
engineers should be cautious when applying the presented
solutions to problems giving normalized parameters outside
the ranges, as shown here.
To obtain an estimation of the maximum bending moment
and rotation values for a general jointed pipeline system, one
may use the normalized solution in the following manner.

For a given Lj/i and R, if a hinged (zero stiffness joint)

system results in smaller bending moments than a continuous one (left side of line in Fig. 11b), the small rotation
stiffness may be used to evaluate the maximum bending
moment. To evaluate the maximum rotation value, one may
use an iterative procedure, where a linear equivalent rotational stiffness is applied to all joints based on the maximum value of rotation in the previous iteration. If the
joints do not exceed the small rotation region, no iteration
is required and the solution of the bending moment and rotation may be considered correct. If the joint rotation exceeds the small rotation region, this iterative procedure is
considered to provide a conservative estimation of the correct values.
In the rare geometrical configuration where a hinged system may result in greater bending moments than a continuous system (right of the line in Fig. 11b), bending moments
shall also be evaluated based on the hinged system solutions, although the difference between the hinged and continuous solutions will be marginal.

Summary and conclusions

This study addresses the problem of soilpipe interaction
due to tunneling by extending the previous published continuum solution to include joints within the pipeline. The results are given in normalized graphs, as a function of the
#

2008 NRC Canada

138

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 45, 2008

Fig. 10. Normalized solution Lj/i = 4.

Fig. 11. Boundary line between critical hingedcontinuous system.

Gaussian settlement trough parameters Smax and i, the joint

spacing Lj/i, the relative pipesoil stiffness R = EI/Esr0i3,
and the relative joint-pipe stiffness T = kjM/(EI/i).
When a tunnel excavation induces ground settlements to
pipelines that lie above, a jointed pipeline experiences a
smaller maximum bending moment than a continuous one.
However, there are certain cases where hinged systems result in a greater bending moment than continuous ones and
these cases, even though rare, are classified within this note.
The given solutions assume linear elasticity of the soil. In
reality, soils rarely behave this way, and therefore the solutions must be considered with judgement. The value of soil
stiffness should be selected with care considering the stiffness degradation due to tunnel-induced ground settlement.
Moreover, the solutions are based on additional input parameters involved in the description of the soil settlement trough
in a green field (Smax, i). The effect of these parameters on
the bending moment and joint rotation is even greater than
that of the soil stiffness. It is therefore recommended that a
parametric study, covering the possible range of input parameters, be undertaken in any engineering use of the solutions presented in this paper.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC) and the Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMI) for their
financial support.
#

2008 NRC Canada

Klar et al.

References
Attewell, P.B., Yeates, J., and Selby, A.R. 1986. Soil movements
induced by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and structures. Blackie & Son Ltd., London, UK.
BS EN 545. 2002. Ductile iron pipes, fittings, accessories and their
joints for water pipelines requirements and test methods. British Standard Institute.
BS EN 14161. 2003. Petroleum and natural gas industries pipeline transportation systems. British Standard Institute.
Klar, A., Vorster, T.E.B., Soga, K., and Mair, R.J. 2005. Soilpipe
interaction due to tunnelling: comparison between Winkler and
elastic continuum solutions. Geotechnique, 55: 461466.
Mindlin, R.D. 1936. Forces at a point in the interior of a semiinfinite soild. Physics, 7: 195202. doi:10.1063/1.1745385.
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico.
pp. 266290.
Vorster, T.E.B. 2005. The effect of tunnelling on buried pipes.
Ph.D. thesis, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK.
Vorster, T.E.B., Klar, A., Soga, K., and Mair, R.J. 2005. Estimating
the effects of tunneling on existing pipelines. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131: 13991410.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:11(1399).
Weaver, W., and Gere, J.M. 1990 Matrix analysis of framed structures. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

139

List of symbols
EI
Es
F
Gi,j
i
[KB]
[KJ]
kjM
kjS
Lj
Le
M
Mmax
R
r0
[S]
Smax
Sp
Sv
T
{u}
{uCAT}
x
Z
1, 2



max

s

bending stiffness of the pipe

Youngs modulus of the soil
nodal force
Greens function (flexibility coefficient of point i to j)
distance to the inflection point
beam element matrix
joint element matrix
rotational stiffness of the joint
shear stiffness of the joint
spacing between joints
length of the beam elements
bending moment
maximum bending moment along the pipeline
relative pipesoil rigidity factor
radius of the pipe
global stiffness matrix of the pipeline
maximum green field settlement at the pipeline level
pipeline vertical displacement
Green field vertical settlement at the pipeline depth
relative joint-pipe stiffness
pipeline displacement
additional continuum displacement due to tunnel
excavation
transverse distance from the tunnel centerline
depth to pipe centerline
small and large rotational stiffness of the joint
joint rotation (rad)
maximum joint rotation along the pipeline
limit of small rotation stiffness

2008 NRC Canada