Professional Documents
Culture Documents
301
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
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
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
40,80044,000
51,10053,500
Chapter Six
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
302
A = 0.364 in2/ft
Moment of inertia:
2.390 in4/ft X
Radius of gyration:
0.281 in
303
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
Figure 6.10
In each test vertical loading was increased until plastic hinging was
observed. At that point, the load was held constant. The pipe did not
304
Chapter Six
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
100 T-
101
10
10'
10'
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.
305
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
ft of cover.
Chapter Six
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
306
(40ft of cover).
Percent Deflection
307
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
1 0
Percent Deflection
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
Chapter Six
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
308
Figure 6.17
120
110
100
A
U
!5
.F
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percent Deflection
Figure 6.18
10
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
56,100
A = 0.230 in /ft
/ - 0.550 in4/ft X 10~3
r = 0.169 in
A = 0.200 in2/ft
I = 0.261 in4/ft X 10~3
r = 0.125 in
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
316
317
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
Figure 6.30
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.
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
live load.
318
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
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,
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.
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
'I
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
Chapter Six
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
322
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.
323
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
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
Chapter Six
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
324
325
60
A
50
Co
py
rig
hte
dM
ate
ria
l
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.
percent density.
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
Figure 6.45 Vertical deflections for the six load deflection tests. Start of wall
buckling and crushing are noted by B and C, respectively.