You are on page 1of 26

Click for previous page

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

301

TABLE 6.1 6 x 2 Shear Modulus and Poisson's Ratio


Shear modulus G, lb/in2

V12

^21

0.1345
0.1644
0.1838
0.2145
0.2451
0.2758
0.1875
0.2500
0.3125
0.3750

120,682
174,828
211,916
277,500
348,123
423,364
219,326
359,892
512,500
676,142

8.47E-04
1.26E-03
1.58E-03
2.15E-03
2.80E-03
3.54E-03
1.64E-03
2.91E-03
4.53E-03
6.49E-03

0.273
0.274
0.274
0.274
0.275
0.275
0.274
0.274
0.274
0.274

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

Thickness, in

TABLE 6.2 6 x 2 Extensional Modulus and Elastic Limit


Thickness, in

Extensional modulus E, lb/in2

Elastic limit, lb/in2

0.1345
0.1644
0.1838
0.2145
0.2451
0.2758
0.1875
0.2500
0.3125
0.3750

89,818
133,523
167,406
227,184
295,729
372,941
174,018
308,021
480,000
686,695

1004
1204
1518
1608
1854
1946
1520
1848
2211
2636

Tests on spiral ribbed steel pipe

Introduction. Tests were conducted on a ribbed steel pipe (approximately 29.4-in inside diameter). The pipe has a rib profile wall with a
smooth bore. It is a helical pipe with an interlocking helical joint. The
tests were conducted at Utah State University in the small soil load
cell (see Figs. 6.9 and 6.10).
The soil used for the tests was a silty sand. It was selected because
of the wide range of possible densities, which makes it ideal for pipe
testing. The soil gradation curve and the Proctor density curve for this
soil are given in Figs. 6.11 and 6.12, respectively.
Pipe material properties are as follows:
The Steel Sheet
Gauge

Thickness

Modulus,
lb/in2

16

0.064 in

29.5 X 106

Yield, lb/in2
Minimum
Actual
33,000

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

40,80044,000

Tensile strength, lb/in2


Minimum
Actual
45,000

51,10053,500

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Chapter Six

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

302

Figure 6.9 Placement

of ribbed steel pipe in test cell.

Sectional properties of the pipe are as follows:

Area per length:

A = 0.364 in2/ft

Moment of inertia:

2.390 in4/ft X

Radius of gyration:

0.281 in

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

303

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

Figure 6.10

Test cell in operation-pistons of cylinders extended.

Description of pipes tested. The pipe is ribbed and is formed by helical


winding. The closed rib is 1in tall and is spaced on 10.25-in centers.
The lockseam is spaced midway between the ribs.
Three tests were conducted by installing the test pipe in the small
soil load cell. The test data are reported in terms of height of cover.
Height of cover is calculated from measured vertical soil pressure
using a soil unit weight of 120 lb/ft3as follows:

Height of cover (ft) =

vertical soil pressure (lb/ft2)


120 lb/ft3

In each test vertical loading was increased until plastic hinging was
observed. At that point, the load was held constant. The pipe did not

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

304

Chapter Six

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

100 T-

101

10

10'

10'

GRAIN DIAMETER (mm)

Figure 6.11 Gradation curve and classification for the silty-sand soil
used in the tests. Atterberg limits: liquid limit, NA; plastic limit, NA.
Soil classification: SM. Specific gravity: 2.72.

126

124

122

55 120

LU
Q
>- 118

116

114

1 0 - 1 1

12

WATER CONTENT (w %)

Figure 6.12 Compaction (standard Proctor) curve for silty-sand soil used in
tests. Maximum dry density: 124.7 lb/ft3. Optimum moisture: 9.5 percent.

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

305

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

Figure 6.13 Inside the pipe at 35

ft of cover.

collapse or continue to deflect under that load. An increase in load was


required for the deflection to continue. Therefore, even after plastic
hinging, the pipe-soil system is still under stable equilibrium.

Test 1. The test pipe was installed in silty-sand soil compacted to 76


percent standard Proctor density. This type of installation would be
considered a poor installation and would normally not be recommended. At about 35 ft of cover, the top began to flatten, and signs of localized buckling began to appear at the sides of the pipe (see Fig. 6.13).
As the load was increased, the localized buckling became more pronounced, and at about 40 ft of cover, plastic hinges began to form. (See
Fig. 6.14.) The results of this test are shown in the graph of Fig. 6.15.
Test 2. This pipe was installed in silty-sand soil compacted to 84 percent standard Proctor density. This type of installation would be considered good and is typically what is achieved in normal practice. At
about 50 R of cover, the top began t o flatten, and the seams started to
show some signs of distress. As the load was increased, localized buckling started at the sides of the pipe. As the load increased further, this
buckling became more pronounced, and at 68 ft of cover, plastic hinges
began to form. The results of this test are shown in Fig. 6.16.

Test 3. The test pipe was installed in silty-sand soil compacted to 95


percent standard Proctor density. This type of installation would be
considered excellent and would normally be the very best installation
Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Chapter Six

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

306

Figure 6.14 Inside the pipe after completion of test

(40ft of cover).

Percent Deflection

Figure 6.15 Test 1, silty-sand soil at 76 percent standard Proctor density,

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

307

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

1 0

Percent Deflection

Figure 6.16 Test 2, silty-sand soil at 84 percent standard Proctor density.

that could be expected. At about 86 ft of cover, slight local buckling


began at the sides of the pipe. At about 100 ft of cover, the top began
to flatten and started to show signs of localized buckling. At 105 ft of
cover, small local buckles were visible at some seams. At 110 ft of cover, plastic hinges were definite at the sides of the pipe. Some bulging
also occurred at the bottom of the pipe. (See Fig. 6.17.) The results of
this test are shown in Fig. 6.18.

Overall results. The vertical deflections of the three tests are shown in
Fig. 6.19. This graph shows the importance of soil density in the performance of buried pipes. The response to soil pressure was excellent.
The resulting deflections were reasonable and about what would be
expected. No seams opened or failed during the tests, even at extreme
heights of cover. Because the rib height is properly designed, the rib
acts as an integral part of the pipe wall. This allows the rib to stiffen
the wall and resist buckling.
Tests on low-stiffness ribbed steel pipe

Introduction. Tests were performed on a ribbed steel pipe which has


been designed for use in the small-diameter drainage pipe market. The
pipe is a smooth bore, helically ribbed pipe with essentially closed ribs.
Pipes tested are 18-, 24-, and 30-in diameters. A total of 10 tests were

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Chapter Six

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

308

Figure 6.17

Inside pipe at completion of test 3. The cover height is 110 ft.

120
110

100

A
U

!5

.F

90

80
70

60

50

40
30
20

10
0

Percent Deflection

Figure 6.18

Test 3, silty-sand soil at 95 percent standard Proctor density.

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

10

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

309

120

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

95% Density
84% Density
76% Density

Beginning of Localized
Buckling

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

Deflection (Percent)

Figure 6.19 Vertical deflection for the three tests in silty-sand soil at various densities.

conducted. The tests were run at Utah State University in the small soil
load cell (see Figs. 6.20 and 6.21). The pipe properties are as follows:
The Steel Sheet

Gage

Measured
thickness, in

Modulus,
lb/in2

26

0.023

29.5 X 106

Yield, lb/in2
Actual
Minimum
33,000

48,700

Tensile strength, lb/in2


Minimum Actual
45,000

56,100

Description of pipes tested

1. The pipe is ribbed and is formed by helical winding with a lockseam.


2. The closed rib is 0.375 in tall for the 18- and 24-in pipes and 0.50 in
tall for the 30-in pipe. Three ribs are spaced over 5.43 in.
Sectional properties of the pipe are as follows:
30-in pipe

Area per length


Moment of inertia
Radius of gyration

A = 0.230 in /ft
/ - 0.550 in4/ft X 10~3
r = 0.169 in

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

18- and 24-in pipes

A = 0.200 in2/ft
I = 0.261 in4/ft X 10~3
r = 0.125 in

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
Figure 6.20 An 18-in ribbed pipe is being installed in small soil load cell at Utah State

University.

Figure 6.21 An 18-in ribbed pipe is being installed in small soil load cell

at Utah State

University.
310

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

311

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

The soil used for the tests was a silty sand. It was selected because of
the wide range of possible densities, which makes it ideal for pipe testing. The soil gradation curve and the Proctor density curve for this soil
are given in Figs. 6.11 and 6.12, respectively.
Test results

Live load tests. The purpose of these tests was to simulate a loaded
truck passing over the pipe. The standard AASHTO H-20 load represents a 16,000-lb load on a single dual-wheel assembly and distributed
over a 10-in X 20-in area, as shown in Fig. 6.22.
For low cover heights over the pipe, this test is very severe. These
test pipes were buried in silty-sand soil compacted to 90 percent standard Proctor density. From the level of the top of the pipe to the uppersoil surface, the soil was compacted to achieve as high a density as
possible to provide a compacted bearing surface for the 10-in X 20-in
plate.
The 18-in-diameter live load test. This test was conducted with
only 1 ft of cover over the pipe to simulate a minimum cover application. The load was first applied to the surface of the soil, but directly
to the side of the pipe. This simulates an approaching truck. At 16,000
Ib the 10-in X 20-in plate penetrated the soil about 2 in. The pipe reaction was a small inversion at the side of the pipe, as seen in Fig. 6.23.
This inversion is a precursor to the buckling seen in Fig. 6.24.
16,000 Ib

CO

coo

1.67 ft (20 in)

Figure 6.22 H-20 live load schematic.

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
Figure 6.23 Small inversion in sidewall due to 16,000-lb live load adjacent to pipe. Pipe
installed with 1ft of cover.

Figure 6.24 Buckling due to 14,000-lb live load over one-half of pipe.

312

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

313

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

The loading plate was then positioned on the soil surface, just off the
centerline of the pipe, so the load is over one-half of the pipe. This is
the most critical position for a live load. The load was increased toward
the required 16,000 Ib. At 14,000 Ib, a soil failure wedge formed, the
plate began to penetrate the soil, and the pipe could not support the
resulting load. At this load, there was a catastrophic failure (buckling)
of the pipe (see Fig. 6.24). It is evident from the figure that the pipe
does not have enough longitudinal stiffness to transfer the load longitudinally along the pipe.
The 24-in-diameter live load test This test was also conducted with
only 1 ft of cover over the pipe to simulate a minimum cover application. The load was first applied to the surface of the soil, but directly
to the side of the pipe. For this test, the loading plate was increased to
10 in X 40 intwice the area of the previous 18-in pipe. The decision
was made in view of the poor performance observed in that test and
because similar-sized plates had been used in the evaluation of other
types of pipe. In general, the larger plate is justified because the longitudinal distribution of pressure through the soil in this test is more
severe than in the case of an actual pavement. Also, penetration into
the soil does not occur in a typical application. The loading plate penetrated the soil about 1 in. The pipe showed no adverse reaction. This
pipe was more flexible than intended (see footnote to Table 6.3).
The loading plate was then positioned on the soil surface just off the
centerline of the pipe so the load is over one-half of the pipe. Again,
this is the most critical position for a live load. The load was increased
toward the required 16,000 Ib. A soil failure wedge formed at 16,000 Ib,
the plate began to penetrate the soil, and the pipe could not support
the resulting load. At this load, there was a catastrophic failure (buckling) of the pipe (see Figs. 6.25 and 6.26).
30-in-diameter live load test. This test was also conducted with
only 1 ft of cover over the pipe to simulate a minimum cover application. The load was first applied to the surface of the soil but directly to
TABLE 6.3 Summary of Soil Cell Results
Diameter, in
Rib depth, in
Wall thickness, intended, in
Wall thickness, measured, in
Fill height performance limit test
at 95 percent minimum density, ft
Fill height performance limit test
at 90 percent minimum density, ft

24*

18

3/7
8

3/7
8

30
%
0.022
0.023
52

0.028
0.023
27

0.022
0.023
64

30

24

30

*According to the manufacturer, the steel sheet used for the 24-in pipe
was thinner than intended (0.023 in instead of 0.028 in); hence, the pipe was
more flexible than would be permitted in practice.

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Chapter Six

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

314

Figure 6.25 Photograph showing soil surface, plate penetration, and resulting soil rise
due to buckling of the pipe.

Figure 6.26

Buckled 24-in pipe resulting from a 16,000-lb live load.

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

315

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

the side of the pipe. Again, because of the catastrophic failure of the
18-in pipe, the 16,000 lb was distributed over a 10-in X 40-in areatwice the area of the 18-in test. The loading plate penetrated the soil
about 1in. The pipe showed no adverse reaction.
The loading plate was then positioned on the soil surface just off the
centerline of the pipe (the most critical position for a live load), so the
load is over one-half of the pipe. The load was increased toward the
required 16,000 lb. At 16,000 lb, the plate penetrated the soil about 4
in and otherwise was in equilibrium (see Fig. 6.27). The load was held
for several minutes, and there was no adverse reaction of the pipe (see
Fig. 6.28). This pipe, when properly installed with cover heights of 1ft
or greater, will withstand an H-20 loading.
The load was gradually increased to determine what load would
cause failure. At 18,853 lb, a soil failure wedge formed, the plate began
to penetrate the soil, and the pipe could not support the resulting load.
At this load, there was a catastrophic failure (buckling) of the pipe (see
Figs. 6.29 and 6.30).
Rerun of the 18-in-diameter live load test. Based on the experience
with the previous tests, this test was run with 2 ft of cover instead of
the 1ft used for the other tests. Also, because of the 2 R of cover, the

Figure 6.27 Application of 16,000Ib.

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
Figure 6.28 A 30-in pipe showing no negative reaction to a 16,000-lb live load.

Figure 6.29 Application of an 18,853-113load.

316

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

317

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

Figure 6.30

A 304x1 pipe with buckled wall due to an 18,853-1b live load.

10-in X 20-in plate was used to distribute the load. The load was first
applied to the surface of the soil, but directly to the side of the pipe. At
16,000 lb, the 10-in X 20-in plate penetrated the soil about 3 in. The
pipe had no adverse reaction to the load.
The loading plate was then positioned on the soil surface just off the
centerline of the pipe (the most critical position for a live load), so the
load is over one-half of the pipe. The load was increased toward the
required 16,000 Ib. At 16,000 Ib, the plate penetrated the soil about 4
in and otherwise was in equilibrium. The load was held for several
minutes, and there was no adverse reaction of the pipe (see Figs. 6.31
and 6.32). This pipe, when properly installed with 2 ft of cover, will
withstand an H-20 loading.

Load-deflection tests. Six load-deflection tests were run on test pipes


buried in the small soil cell. There were three diameters (18-in, 24-in,
and 30-in) and two soil densities (90 and 95 percent standard Proctor).
In each test, vertical loading was increased until plastic hinging or
wall crushing was observed.
Height ofcouer. The tests were conducted by installing the test pipe
in the small soil load cell. The test data are reported in terms of height

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
Figure 6.31 Photograph showing 16,000-lb load being applied t o a 10-in
over one-half of the pipe.

Figure 6.32

20-in plate

A 24-in pipe, with 2 ft of cover, showing no adverse reaction to a 16,000-lb

live load.
318

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

319

of cover. Height of cover is calculated from measured vertical soil pressure by using a soil unit weight of 120 lb/ft3as follows:
vertical soil pressure (lb/ft2)
120 lb/ft3

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

Height of cover (ft) =

Load-deflection test 1. The 18-in test pipe was installed in siltysand soil compacted to 95 percent standard Proctor density. This type
of installation is considered excellent and is difficult to achieve in field
conditions. At about 64 ft of cover and 5.7 percent deflection, the top of
the pipe began to buckle (see Fig. 6.33).A buckling failure is a stiffness
failure and takes place because of low ring stiffness. As the load was
increased the buckling became more pronounced, and at 75 ft of cover
the test was terminated. The results of this test are shown in Fig. 6.34.
Load-deflection test 2. This 18-in test pipe was installed in siltysand soil compacted to 90 percent standard Proctor density. This type
of installation would be considered very good and is typically the best
that is achieved in normal practice. At about 30 ft of cover and 8 percent deflection, the top began to buckle, and the seams started to
show some signs of distress (see Fig. 6.35).As the load was increased,

Figure 6.33 Steel-ribbed pipe (18-in diameter) a t 75 ft of cover in silty-sand soil at 95


percent density.

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Chapter Six

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

320

Percent Deflection

Figure 6.34 Load-deflection curves for 18-in ribbed steel pipe, siltysand soil compacted to 95 percent standard Proctor density.

buckling became more pronounced. The test was stopped at 35 ft of


cover. The results of this test are shown in Fig. 6.36.
Load-deflection test 3. This test pipe had 24-in diameter and was
installed in silty-sand soil compacted to 95 percent standard Proctor
density. Again, this type of installation would be considered excellent
and is difficult to achieve in actual field conditions. At about 27 ft of cover and 3.5 percent deflection, the sidewalls began to crush (see Fig.
6.37). A wall-crushing failure is a strength failure and takes place
because the wall area is inadequate to support the ring compression
stress induced by the soil load. As the load was increased, wall crushing
became more pronounced. The test was stopped at about 45 ft of cover.
The results of this test are shown in Fig. 6.38. (See footnote to Table 6.3.)
Load-deflection test 4. This 24-in test pipe was installed in siltysand soil compacted to 91 percent standard Proctor density. This type
of installation would be considered very good and is typically the best
that is achieved in normal practice. At about 24 ft of cover and 4 percent deflection, the sidewalls began to crush (see Fig. 6.39). As the load
was increased, wall crushing became more pronounced. The test was
stopped at 50 ft of cover. The results of this test are shown in Fig. 6.40.
(See footnote to Table 6.3.)
Load-deflection test 5. This test pipe had 30-in diameter and was
installed in silty-sand soil compacted to 97 percent standard Proctor
density. Again, this type of installation would be considered excellent and is difficult to achieve in actual field conditions. At about 52
Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
'I

Figure 6.35 Steel-ribbed pipe (18-in diameter) at 30 ft of cover in silty-sand soil at 90


percent density.

10

12

Percent Deflection

Figure 6.36 Load-deflection curves for 18-in ribbed steel pipe, siltysand soil compacted to 90 percent standard Proctor density.
321

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Chapter Six

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

322

Figure 6.37 Steel-ribbed pipe (24-in diameter) at 43 ft of cover in silty-sand soil at 95


percent density.

50

45

2
C

20

10

.% 15
5

Percent Deflection

Figure 6.38 Load deflection curves for 24-in ribbed steel pipe, siltysand soil compacted to 95 percent standard Proctor density.

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

323

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

Figure 6.39 Steel-ribbed pipe (24411 diameter) at 49 ft of cover in silty-sand soil at 91


percent density.

10

12

Percent Deflection

Load-deflection curves for 24-in ribbed steel pipe, siltysand soil compacted to 91 percent standard Proctor density.

Figure 6.40

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Chapter Six

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

324

Figure 6.41 Steel-ribbed pipe (30-in diameter) at 60 ft of cover in silty-sand soil at 97


percent density.

ft of cover and 3 percent deflection, the sidewalls began to crush (see


Fig. 6.41). Again, a wall-crushing failure is a strength failure and
takes place because the wall area is inadequate to support the ring
compression stress induced by the soil load. As the load was
increased, wall crushing became more pronounced. The test was
stopped at about 65 ft of cover. The results of this test are shown in
Fig. 6.42.
Load-deflection test 6. This 30-in test pipe was installed in siltysand soil compacted to 90 percent standard Proctor density. This type
of installation would be considered very good and is typically the best
that is achieved in normal practice. At about 30 ft of cover and 3.4 percent deflection, the sidewalls began to crush. As the load was
increased, wall crushing became more pronounced, and simultaneously wall buckling took place (see Fig. 6.43). It is interesting to note that
in this test, the stiffness and the strength performance limits occur
almost simultaneously. The test was stopped at about 47 ft of cover.
The results of this test are shown in Fig. 6.44.
Comparison of results. The vertical deflections of the six tests are
shown in Fig. 6.45. This graph shows the importance of soil density in

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Steel and Ductile Iron Flexible Pipe Products

325

60
A

50

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

General Wall Crushing

tf
L

40

u
3

30

+VERTICAL

10

.ItHORIZONTAL -

Percent Deflection

Figure 6.42 Load-deflection curves for 30-in ribbed steel pipe, siltysand soil compacted to 97 percent standard Proctor density.

Figure 6.43 Steel-ribbed pipe (30-in diameter)

at 42 ft of cover in silty-sand soil at 90

percent density.

Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Chapter Six

Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l

326

Percent Deflection

Figure 6.44 Load-deflection curves for 30-in ribbed steel pipe, siltysand soil compacted to 90 percent standard Proctor density.

BUCKLING

CRUSHING

VERTICAL DEFLECTION (PERCENT)

Figure 6.45 Vertical deflections for the six load deflection tests. Start of wall
buckling and crushing are noted by B and C, respectively.

Click for next page


Copyright 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

You might also like