Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OF
SOLMETAL STRUCFiJRE:S
KARLOS MELGAR
A Thesis Submitted
to the
College of Graduate Studies and Research
thmugh the
Department of Civil and Environmentai Engineering
in
Partid Fulfhent of the Requirements
for the
Degree of Master of Applied Science in Civü Engineering
at
The University of Windsor
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, disbi'bute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic fomiats. la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
Windsor to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of schoiarly
research.
KARLOS MELGAR
or by other means, in total or in part, at the request o f other institutions or individuals for
KARLOS MELGAR
e a multitude of wide ranging installations have led to
Years of dependable s e ~ c and
the comgated steel pipe industry to play a major role in modem engineering technology.
Flexible steel conduits play an important role in the fonn of culverts, storm m e r s ,
subdrains, spillways, underpasses, conveyor conduits and seNice tunnels; for highways,
railways, airports, municipalities, recreation areas, industrial parks, flood and consewation
Ln recent years developments have been made which dlow engineers and contractors
the use of conventional comgated structural plates to design and build structures having
These structures are generaily used for conditions where the depth-of-cover is lùnited
However, in ment years many accidents and sudden failures have been reported on
this type of structure. Such failures ofien originate fiom large soi1 senlements, poor soil
compacting practices, and frost-thaw cycles. As a result, many different mmhods have
been proposed to eliminate these problems. In this thesis the use of a Geogrid mesh to
reinforce the soil surrounding the comgated metal stnicture is proposed. It is the belief
of the author that this material (Geogrid), which is widely used in the design and
structures.
The study canied out imrolved building and testllig pipe-arches under shallow depth-of
cover. The results obtained fiom these tests sewed to compare and document the
vii
The author wishes to acknowledge Dr. J. B. Kennedy for his important suggestions
and encouragement. to him I say: thanks your invaluable advice wiil be remembered
always.
Also, the author iikes to thank the staff of the Technical Research Centre and Richard
Last but not least, the author k e s to thank his parents and sisters for their conthuous
viii
LIST OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... v
...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... VUI
LIST OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... ix
..
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ mi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 1
3 .4.4 Instrumentation.............................................................................................. 31
4.2 ReUiforced-Soi1 Structure (Failure of the Soii Surrounding Both Comer Plates) ..7 1
REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 139
Table 3.1 Sectional and Structurai Properties for Comgated Sheet and Plate .............40
Table 3.2 Sand Cone Method Test Results on Lake Erie Sand ....................................41
Table 4.1 5 PipaArch Axial Forces (Reinforcecl Soil) - Stage 2 .................................. -90
Table 4.19 Pipe-Arch Bending Moments (Reinforced Soil) .Uneven Soil Fdure ......... -94
Table 4.20 Pipe-Arch Axial Forces (Reinforced Soil) .Unwen Soi1 Failure ..................95
Table 4.21 Pipe-Arch Deflections (Reinforced Soil) .Uneven Soi1 Fdure .................... 96
Table 5.1 Geogrïd Soil-Reinforcement .Spacing and Horizontal Length ................... 134
Figure 3.2 1 Tensife Test on Geogrid Sheets - Equipment Set-up (dl in mm) ..................63
Figure 3.23 Load vs. Elongation Curve for Geogrid Specimen ....................................... 65
Figure 4.12 Beading Moment Diagram for Pipe- Arch - Uneven Soi1 Failure ................. 108
Figure 4.13 Axial Force Diagrarn for Pipe-Arch - Uneven Soii Failure.......................... 109
Figure 4.14 Deflected Shape for Pipe-Arch - Unwen Soil Faifure.............................. 110
Figure 4.15 Deflected Shape for Pipe-Arch - Soil Level at 970 mm fiom Invert............ 111
Figure 4.16 Bending Moment Diagram for Pipe-Arch
Figure 4.17 Axial Force Diagnun for Pipe-Arch - Soi1 Level at 970 mm fiom Invert..... 113
Figure 4.18 Deflected Shape for Pipe-Arch - Applied Load Range 6.9 kN to 7.1 kN .... 114
Figure 4.19 Ddected Shape for Pipe-Arch - Applied Load Range 8.7 kN to 9.4 kN .... 115
Figure 4.22 Defiected Shape for Pipe-Arch - Applied Load Range 8.3 kN to 8.8 kN
Applied Load Range 8.3 kN to 8.8 kN - Rubber Tubes Pressure 1.45 kN/m2.............. 122
Figure 4.27 Axial Force Moment Diagram for Pipe-Arch ......................................... 123
INTRODZJCIlON
A culvert is usually, although not aiways, differentiated from a bridge by Wnie of the
fàct that the top of the culvert does not form a part of the travelled roadway. More
fiequentiy, culverts are differentiated from bridges on the basis of span length. Cuiverts
dso m e r f?om bridges in that they are usually designed to flow niII under certain
There are two types of culverts; these are flexiile culverts and rigid dverts. Flexiile
adverts are eiuier thin-wded steel pipes or gaivanised corrugated metal pipes; they rely
onty partly on the strength of the pipe walls to resist the e x t d loads, and they are
designed to deflect under the ioads. When deflection takes place, the horizontal diameter
of the culvert increases and compresses the soi1 at the sides and in this marner the passive
resistance of the wil is triggered to help support the appiied loads. When fdure of a
the flexible pipes, rigid culverts are composed of reinforcd concret+ cast iron or vitrified
clay and their load-carrying ability is primarily a hction of the stifmess of the walis of the
culverts. When fàilure does occur it is usuaily due to rupture of the walls of the dvert.
Comgated metal plate pipes can be divided generically into two categones, namely,
those that are manufactureci in closed pipe shapes and those that are assembled on site
â o m curved comgated plates. The structures in the former category are refmed to as
comgated steel pipe and are n o d y of smder diameter than those of the latter
category, whïch are usualiy rderred to as strucniral plate comgated aeel pipes.
New technology bas ailowed agineers and designers to use these structures for longer
spans and under relatively shallow soil cover conditions. However, under these conditions
the surromding soil may not provide enough suppon for the structure. This in twn allows
the structure to move more fieely and therefore increase Îts deformations. The lack of
sufncient support for the structure also gives rise to a considerable increase in the bending
Through the years many of these structures have fded because of hadequate support
provideci by the surrounding soil. Fdures of two structures were reporteci and
documented. The nrst fdure occurred in Ohio and the second one in Ontario [33]. What
is most unfortunate is that they both involved the loss of Lives due to their sudden faiures.
in 1986 Moore [33] inspecteci 141 soi1 steel structures in the county of Elgin, Ontario.
Moore found that 56 out of the 141 structures showed some sign of distress. Some of the
1. Joint FaiIure.
4. Crimp formation.
building long span structures under shallow soil cover conditions. These difEerent
1. Techniques that reduce load effects, in partidar the thnist ,in the conduit wd.
2. Techniques that increase the strength of the conduit wall by reinforcing it.
3. Techniques that increase the strength of the conduit wall by stiffening the soi1 and thus
The f h t two techniques make the structure stronger by means of adding Meners or
by introducing relieving slabs over the metallic structure [16]. This approach, although
widely u s e -proves to be d e r expensive and will lead to divert more external load to the
m d c structure and less load to the smmounding soil. This in tuni wiîi decrease the
On the other band a l e s expensive and better rnethod is represented by the third
reinforcing the soil by means of Rat bars [22]. Many studies have been conducted on sale
models that have proved the effectiveness of increasing the strength of the structure and
the load bearing capacÏty of the soil and thus reducing the probabiiity of
In generai, out of ail the different shapes of structural plate corrugated steel pipes that
are fàbricated, none requkes more care and attention than the Pipe-arch. Pipe-arches (see
Figure 1.1) are more prone to distress than other mil-steel bridges mainly because the
the radius of n w a w e of the invert segment, as well as the soi1 under the haunches is
usually very difncuh to compact properly. Nevertheless, Pipe-arches have becorne widely
used throughout North America in the construction of highway bridges and drainage
structures. W
1th an increasing demand for using this type of structure a need for a more
reliable design method exists; one that prevents nidden and/or catastrophic f&e of the
structure. This study examines and compares the behaviour of reinforced-soi1 and
To accompli& this, experimental work was Cameci out to compare and analyse the
mentioned exdier.
2. To study the behaviour of reinforced-soi1 pipeaches during the three stages
mentioned earlier.
arches.
Figure 1.1 PipeArch Components
.'
,
/
-
/
/
Haunch ( Corner F l a te 1 Invert
This chapter reviews the previous research in the area of soil-metal structures,
reinforcexi earth and buckling of soil-metal structures. Also, previous research in the area
Soil-metal structures have b& buiit for many yean. However, a great number of
confiicting theories concerning their analysis and design stdi rernain. Some of the
M. G. Sprangler (1941) [40] observed that the Martson theory [31] for calculating
loads on buried pipes was not adquate for flexible pipe design. Sprangier noted that
flexible pipes provided little inherent stiflhess in cornparison to rîgid pipes, yet they
perfonn remarlcably well when buried in soil. This si@cant ability of a flexible pipe to
support vertical soil loads is derived from (a) the redistribution of loads around the pipe,
and (b) the passive pressures induced as the sides of the pipe move outward against the
surrounding s o l
Sprangier incorporated the &ects of the surrounding soil on the pipe's deflection.
This was accomplished by assuming that the loads applied would be d o r m l y distributeci
on the plane at the top of the pipe. He also assumed a d o m pressure over part of the
bottom, depending upon the bedding angle. On the sides, he assumed the horizontal
pressure on each side wodd be proportional to the deflection of the pipe into the soil.
The coostant of proportionabty was defined as shown in Figure 2.1 and was d e d the
modulus of passive resistance of the soil. The rnoddus would presumabiy be a constant
for a gR.m soii and could be measured in a simple laboratory test. Through analysis he
where,
through model studies and examineci the Iowa formula. As a r e d t of Watkins effort,
another soi1 parmeter was dehed. This was the modulus of soi1 reaction
Two obsewations f?om Watkins' work are of partidar note: (a) There is M e point in
evaluating E*by a model test and then using this modulus to predict ring ddection, since
the model gives ring deflection directiy. @) Ring deflection may not be the only
performance limit.
Work perforrned by White (1960) [47] showed that the deflection of underground
conduits does not govem the design ,but wall strength does. He introduced the su-caiied
"ring compression theory", assuming that the tangentid compressive stress q in a conduit
The problem with this theory is that it negiects the bending moments in the conduit
walls which is reasonabiy correct under high fdls. Although such a condition is met
successfùily in many installations, it is not applicable if the soil cover is shallow or the
Watkins (1964) [46]. He found that when soil density exceeds a critical value. waü
Brockenbrough (1964) [Il] suggested the following equations for a conduit's ultimate
design:
where,
S = diameter or span, in
Equations (2-5), (2-6), and (2-7) are anaiogous to the classical equatiom for column
design. Equation (2-5) specines the ultimate yield of the conduit wall material which
represented by equation (26). F ' d y , the zone of ring buckling is specrfied by equation
(2-7).
Lusher and Hoeg (1994) [29] studied the beneficial contributions of the backfiiî to the
contributions: (a) pressure redistribution which activates the laterai earth pressure, (b)
deformation restrain which forces the conduit to buckle in a higher mode, and (c) arching
Despite aii the difîerent theories available and their Iimitations, one of the most
commonly used formulas for designing and analysing shallow cover soil-metal structures is
the Iowa formula dweloped by Sprangier. The Iowa formula has been widely used and
Reinforced earth is a construction material comprishg soi1 that has been strengthened
(geotextiies), geogrids and the Wce. The fiindamentai idea of reinforcing the soi1 is not
new, in fàct, t goes back to biblical tirnes. However7 the present concept of systematic
Viciai (1%6) [Ml, applied this concept to retaining w d s and showed that the cost was
below that of conventional A s . Schlosser and (1979) [38] suggested that soi1 with
reinforcement inside the soil as a substitute for a lateral restraining force enabhg the soil
Juran et al. (1978) [19] tested sand samples reùiforced by ciradar plates made of
alumuiium discs. In generai, it was found that reinforcement stiffened the soil and also
Al-Hussaim (1978) [5] camied out a test on an insbumented reinforceci earth waii 4.88
m long and 3.66 m Iiigh. He found that the lateral earth pressure on the wall facing at the
end of the constniction could be reasonably approximated by the Rankine theory of earth
pressure. However7 the h e comecting the points of maximum tensiie stresses in the
reinforcing strips did not coincide with the theoretical Rankùie he.
reinforced earth retaining waii subjected to vertical surcharge load. Four differat
positions of the load were considered. They developed a simpHed patteni of distrîiution
Laba et al. (1984) [26] studied the &ect of horizontal as well as vertical surcharge
load on reinforced earth retalliing waiis. It was conchided that the location of the
maximum tende stresses dong the reinforcing strips and the potential M u r e plane can be
approrcimated by using Culmann's rnethod. It was also stated that the horizontal force
towards the wall facing wiIl increase the tensile stresses in the reinforcing strips and the
largest increase wili take place at a certain depth below the soil Surface.
Laba and Kennedy (1986) [25] proposed the stress &ér technique. It was found
that the over-stressed regions of the reinforcd earth wall trader stresses to the regions
where the reinforcing Nips have not yet reached their capacity. This transfer of stresses
was found to be influencecf by the surcharge load magnitude and its distance fiom the wail
fiKing.
More recent studies in the USA have revealed that the reinforcing material (metal
strips andior other materials) is capable of resisting fkost action effectively [33]. During
winter period the forces in the reinforcing material increased because they restricted the
In summary, some of the beneficial &ects for soil reinforcement are derived h m (a)
the soil's increased tende sîrength and (b) the shear resistance dweloped due to the
wncrete structures.
2.3 Buckiing o f Conduit W& of Soü-Metai Strnetures Under Sbillow Cover
the conduit w d . Sprangler (1941) [40] believed that the fdure of the conduit waU was
related either to wall cmshhg or to deformation of the pipe. Field performance of pipes
having diameters less than 3 m and under fairly large depths of soi1 cover has provideci
In recent years, a general increase in the sire of soil-metal stmctures has prompteci
performed on this phenomenon has brought to light the fact that buckling is a signincant
mode of failue, and that it cm take place even at small defonnations of the conduit. It is
component of the design process, especially when the spans are large and the depth of soi1
cover is smail.
In determining the bucklirig stress-f., different approaches are studied. One approach
is derived fkom a modification of the buckling formula proposed by Timoshenko and Gere
(1961) [42].
where,
This formula is subjected to the assumption that the soi1 in a mil-pipe system is non-
compressible and with an angle of fiction 9 tending to zero. In such a case the radial
pressure on the pipe is very neariy hydrostatic, and it can be d e s c r i i by equation (2-8).
assurnptions. He proposed thai, since the formula is based on the assumption that 9 = O, it
has the &kt of underestimating the buckling stress on the conduit d s . Watkins
developed a soi1 stiflhess parameter, K, to account for the Merence ôetween the actual
and assumed fluid mil. Watkins suggested that such a parameter could be taken as the
ratio of the horizontal to the vertical soi1 pressure. For cohesioniess =ils this factor is
qua1to the active earth pressure K = 16. Thus the equation for buckling becomes:
Abdel-Sayed et al. (1994) [4] proposed that the parameter K should also depend upon
the relative Stïfhess of the soil with respect to the rigidity of the conduit wall and they
Furthemiore, the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code OHBDC [36]adopted this
A ciiffixent approach for studying buckling effects in conduit w d s was taken by Booy
(1957) [9]. He suggested that the buckling f o d a available for analyshg elasticdy
supportai curved beams could be used for evduating the buckling stress of the conduit
walls:
where,
Lusher (1966) [28] deveioped the same buckling formula by studying the buckling of
cirdar beams under radial pressure and sumilating the soi1 e k c t by springs of constant
modulus. He proposed that the modulus of soi1 reaction is dependent on the thickness of
the soi1 cover. He also developed an expression for calculating the effective modulus of
where,
Subsequently, Meyerhof et al. ( 1968) [32] simplified this expression to the following
fonn:
The formula developed for curved beams represents a more accurate formula and it
was proved by Abdel-Sayed (1978) [2] that in the case of comgated sheets in plane strain
2.4.1 MetriCstrips
Lee et al. (1973) [27]showed that with a consemtive design, 5mm thick gdvanised
steel stnps would be enough to hold a waii about 14 to 15m in height. The reinforcing
sîrips, which are thin and wide placed at regular intervais are often used in the design of
Kennedy and Laba (1989) [22] proposed a concept of combining conventiond soil-
steel bridge design with the technique of reùiforcing the soil with stnps of steel. The steel
strips are laid at different lwels and tied to relatively thin facia panels.
corrosion. The rate of corrosion depends on severai environmental factors. Binquet and
Lee (1975) [8] suggested that the average rate of corrosion of gdvanised steel strips
varies between .O25 and -050 mm/yr. So, in the actuai design of reioforcement allowance
must be made for the rate of corrosion. This allowance is given by the following:
where,
In recent years, new materials have been dweloped and studied. These materials are
not only resistant to environmental factors but aiso in some uistances they have been
Non-biodegradable fabrics are generaily referred to as geotextiles. Since 1970 the use
of geotextiles has increased tremendously around the world [14]. The fabrics are usually
made from petroleum produas, polyester, polyethylene, and polypropylene. They may
Woven geotextiles are made of two sets of parallel filaments or strands of yam
interlockhg series of loops of one or more filaments or strands of yam to form a planar
structure. Non-woven geotextiles are fonned from filaments or strands of yarn to form a
planar stmcture. These filaments or short fibers are, in the be@nningarranged into a loose
areas, and are of special inîerest in the construction and design of highways because of :
1. Separation: Geotextiies help keep various soi1 layers separate after construction and
d u ~ the
g project s e ~ c period
e of the structure. For example, in the constmction of
of the soil.
Koemer (1990) [24] proposed a step by step procedure for designhg retaining walls
with geotextiie reinforcement. In this procedure the active pressure distribution on the
where,
=ta1?(45 - 4 J 2 )
Koemer suggested that by determinhg the active pressure required the appropriate
geotextile fhric couid be selected baseci on the aiiowable strength of the fabric.
Furthermore, Koemer proposed thaî the length of each geotextile could be calcuiated
fiom:
where,
f, =(H-~)/tan(45+ $ , / 2 )
f. =(Sa.[FSp,l ) / ( h v b )
0" =y, + z
Koerner deterrnined that the magnitude of FSp, is generally between 1.3 and 1.5 and
that the fiction angle can be taken as 2/3 of Based on the published resuhs
Many studies have shown that the introduction of reinforcing geotextiie matends in
the construction of reidiorced earth structures has given excellent results. BiUard and Wu
(1991) [q tested a full-de g e o t d e reinforcd retaining wd, 1.5 m high. It was
desigrmi based on the assumption of Rankùie active pressure distribution and a factor of
safety equal to I for a surcharge, q, of 40.7 W/m2 on the surface of the bacldill. They
discovered that the wall actudy failed when the surcharge reached 127.5 kPJ/rn2. This
experimental findiog proved that the geotextile material had in fact increased the overall
and are prepared by tende drawing. Netion Ltd. of the United Kingdom was the first
materials with large openings cded apertures. These apertures are large enough to ailow
interlockhg with the surrounding soi1 a d o r rock and perfonn the fiinction(s) of
In practice geogrids are found to be of two types: (a) biaxial geogrids and @) uniaxial
geogrids.
density polyethylene in one direction under carefùiiy controlled conditions. This process
aligns the polymer's long chah of molecules in the direction of draw and results in a
in two orthogonal directions. This process results in a product with high tensile strength
and different moduli in two perpendicuiar directions. The resulting grid apertures are
Geogrids are manufàctured so that the open areas of the 8 d s are greater that 50% of
the total area. Currently, geogrids are manufàctureci in many shapes andor sues.
However grids used for soi1 reinforcement d y have apertures that are rectangular or
eilipticai in shape. Carroll (1988)[13] performed experimental test on geogrids used for
reinforcing soils and discovered that geogrids develop reinforcing sîrength at low strain
Geogrids, like geotsctiles, are also used as reinforcement in granular b a c W for the
constniction of reidorced earth structures. The design procedure avaiiable for geogrïd
reinforceci soii construction is similar to the one used for geotextiie materials In 1990
Thamm et al. [4 11 tested a full-scale retaining waii reinfiorced with TENSAR SR2 geogrid.
Failure on the w d was caused by applying a load to a wncrete slab measuring 2.4 m x 0.9
m. The wall fded when the vertical load on the concrete slab reached 1065 kN. They
concludeci that the resistance of the wall had considerably increased when compared to a
Guido et al. (1987) [la] performed tests to determine the load bearing capacity of
square foundations on laboratoxy models with sandy mils (relative density = 500h). Such
soiis were reinforceci with layers of non-woven heat-bonded geotextiies. For these tests
depth of cover , etc.). In generai, results showed that when the g e o t d e layers are
placed within a depth equal to the width of the foundation they increase the load beariag
Sakti and Das (1987) [39] reported some mode1 test results on the bearing capacity of
a strip foundation on saturated clay. They used a heat-bonded non-woven geotextile for
reinforcement. They concluded that in general the load bearing capacity of the foundation
was increased when using geotextiie material for reinforcing the soii, specially when the
first layer of geotsctile material was placed at a depth of O.XB (B= width of foundation).
Omar et al. (1993) [35] after extensive experimental investigation concluded that
geogrids can be used as soi1 reinforcement to increase the ultimate and allowable bearing
capacity of s M o w foundations.
the load bearing capacity of soils. However, this becomes more advantageous when the
design involves a structure that will be placed under shallow soii cover conditions. This is
usually the case when designing pipe-arches and other soil-metal structures.
Figure 2.1 Basis of Sprangler's Derivation of the Iowa Formula
cxwPTxmnr
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
It was noted eariier that soil-metal structures are fabncated in many different shapes
and sizes (Figure 3.1). The selection of any particular shape and size of a soil-metai
structure often depends on the constraints goveming the design. However, out of al1 the
shapes available none represents more risk for sudden failure than the pipe-arch.
Specidy, those pipe-arches that have large spans and are built under shdow soii cover
conditions.
The structure studied here is a sale mode1 of the larges avaiiable span of a pipe-arch
stmcture with a comgation profile of 152 x 51mm (Figure 3.2). Such a prototype
structure. The sectionai properties for the profile as well as the structural properties of the
pipe-arch were obtained fiom design tables prepared by the Amencan Iron and Steel
Institute [il. These properties are s h o w in Table 3.1. and Figure 3-3.
3.2 Development o f the Modd Structure
In designing any soil-metal structure the three moa important factors to be considered
are (a) dead and live loads; (b) stiaiess of surrounding soi1 and soi1 cover. (c) waii
stirsiess of the metal structure. However, for structures under shallow soi1 cover
conditions deflection becornes the main constraint in the design. Thedore, the stnictural
components of the experùnental model were selected based on the relative deflection
ancilor deforrnation expected fiom the prototype structure. In order to accomplish this the
By applying the Iowa formula the horizontal deflection experienced by both the
prototype and the model can be related. From this relationship the stmctural components
The resulting structure, d e r several iterations, was a metal pipe-arch made from flat
aluminium sheets Imm in thickness havhg a comgation profile as the one described in
The sectional properties for the experimental model were derived rnathematically.
These included the calculation of moment of inertia, 1; are* A; section modulus, S; and
radius of gyration, r. In calculating the properties, Wolford's formulas [SOI were used:
where-
1 = moment of inertia
S = section modulus
! = length of comgation
d = de@ of comgation
t = thickness of sheet
Once the appropriate dimensions of the pipe-arch were determinecl (section 3.2)- the
The general procedure described by the American Society and Steel lndustry [Il for
buildhg aaual structural steel plate structures, was adapted to the mode1 structure. Three
First, two wooden templates were cut out of 19.0mm thick plywood. These templates
were cut according to the dimensions obtained in section 3.2 for the metal structure. The
two templates were then attached by using two pieces of 51 x 102m.mlumber having a
The metal arch was made out of Imm thick galvanised aluminium sheets. Each
alwninium sheet had to be cut and comgated to the required length and comgation
profile. The metai was comgated by using a maoual comgation machine such as the one
show in Figure 3.7. This machine aiiows the user to set the re@ed comgation profile
by means of adjusting the levers located on the sides of the machine. Also, the required
c m t u r e of the metal arch c m be achieved by using the fiont and back levers.
After the aluminium sheets had been corrugated and cut, they were then manually
attached. This was accomplished by using 9.5mrn steel-aiumuiium rivets and an air rivet
gun. The rivets were placed dong the span of the structure. Each plate was secwed at
the crest and valley of the comgation profile. Typicsl examples of finished structural
Finally, afler the structurai plates were attached together, they were moulded to the
appropriate shape by using the wooden template shown previously in Figure 3.6. Figure
system, two nibber pressure tubes, Lake Erie sand, and three pipe-arches. The following
The bacs used during construction of the structure was clean, fine. dry sand. Such
sand is obtained fiom Lake Erie and is available for commercial use. The properties of the
sand were investigated by applying the sand cone method and the direct shear test method.
B a d on the direct shear test method the angle of intemal fiction of the sand was
calculatecl to be $ = 40". The sand cone method revealed that the average d q compacted
unit weight of this particular batch of sand is y- = 16.8 kN / m3. with a saturation ratio S
The pipe-arches were built inside a plywood-Plexiglas box. The box was made fiom
angles. One side of the box was made out of Plexiglas sheet with a thickness of 12.7m.m.
Two pain of steel angles of 60 x 60 x 6mm were used as vertical Meners and two pairs
of the same size angles were used as post stiffeners for the veriical sides. The overail
dimensions of the box are presented in Figure 3.10. The use of Plexiglas faciüated the
testing procedure specially regarding observation and control of the structure during
constmction.
A rectanpuiar hole was cut out fiom the fiont face of the box to facilitate placement of
the testing equipment. Also, four holes were cut out fiom the fiont face and back face of
the box to introduce two mbber pressure tubes used during testing.
The pipe-arches were loaded by applyiug a stnp load. The footprht of the load ulas
equal to the inside width of the Plexiglas box, plus or minus a few millimetres to d o w for
fnaionless motion of a spreader beam during loading. The load was applied by using a 70
kN capacity hydraulic ram h e d vertically to the horizontal spreader beam of the loading
structural fiame. The load was transfèrred to the soil by a series of steps: first, the load
was hansferred fiom the hydraulic ram to the 950mm long spreader beam made out of
7 m thick steel plates. The beam then transfèrred the load to a piece of wood 950mm
long by 250mm wide and 38mm thick The wood rested over a rubber mat, 6mm thick, to
avoid local fdure in transferruig the load to the soil. Figure 3.1 1 shows the general
3.4.4 Instrumentation
In order to meanire and record the desireci data, twenty electrk resistance strain
gauges per mode1 were installeci. A total of 10 different locations around the
c i r d e r e n c e of the pipe-arch were chosen for the gauge locations. Each location had
two main gauges installed, one on the crest of the comgation and a second one on the
valley of the same comgation profile. Figure 3.12 and 3.13 show these locations and the
generai arrangement of the snain gauges. The strain gauges with a gauge length equal to
lOmm were f&ricated by Showa Measuring Instruments. Ltd. The type of gauges used
were N 11-FA- 10-350-23 gauges with a resistance of 349.8 R and a gauge factor of 2.1 1
k 1%.
The tangential strains detected during loading and backfiiling operation were recorded
components of this machine are: The VIC-22 automatic primer, VIE-25 scan controller,
VIE-21 switch and balance unit, and eight digital strain indicators (Figure 3.17).
A total of eight mechanical did gauges were instaiied to measure and control the
deflection profile of the pipe-arches during the bacldilling operation and then loading of
the finished structure. The dial gauges were placed inside the structure as shom in
Two universal flat load ceiis were also used during the loading of the structure in order
to monitor the applied load. Load ceil number 1 had a capacity of 25 kN and can be
identified by the serial nurnber equal to S N 06588-1. Load ce11 nurnber 2 was of the same
capacity as load ceii number 1 and its serial number was, S/N 012052-1. The load cells
In order to sirnulate loss of soil support due to fieeze-thaw cycle. A 7 m long piece
of flexible pressure hose was used to build two rubber pressure tubes each would hold air
inside to a maximum pressure of 2.98 kN/m2 . The flexible hose used had an inside
diameter qua1 to 130mm and was manufhctured by Checker Industrial. This type of
flemile hose is capable of holding pressure up to 7.25 k~/rn'. Each rubber tube built from
In order to seai the ends of the tubes, four flanges having a diameter of 11Omm were
made out of stainless steel. These k g e s were placed one at each end of the tubes and
secureci with two 1 14mm clamps (see Figure 3.18). Once the clamps were secured and
tightened, a silicon paste was applied to the outer face of the flanges to seal any spaces
between the rubber tubes and the clamps. This last step was necessary to mnire that no
air would leak out f?om the rubber tubes during the backfilhg operation andor initial
Two holes lOmm in diameter were dnlled in each flange. One of the holes was used
to attach a 90" shut-off valve to regulate the amount of air pumped into the tubes. The
second hole serveci to instd a 14.5 kbJ/rn2 mechanicd dial gauge to monitor the air
Sheets of gm@d materiai were used for reinforcing the soil. Two out of the three
structures tested had reinforcing material attached to them by means of small aluminium
plates secured to the structure with 9Smm alUminium/steel rivets. The materid used for
commerciaily available under the name heavy duty hardware net. The size of the mesh
was 95 x 65mm. The width of the reinforcing sheet was 950mm (the width of the
reinforcement is equal to the span of the pipe-arch). The spacing between layers of
were used on each side of the structure (see Figure 3.19). The span of the reinforcing
mesh varieci in length dependhg on the location of any particular layer relative to the
metai structure. Figure 3.20 shows the length and general arrangement of the
In order to detemiine the strength of the materiai being used for reinforcement, a
simple test was developed. A test set-up similar to the one shown in Figure 3.21 was
employed. In this test small weights were added to an aiurninium rod clamped to a piece
of geogrid similar to the one shown in Figure 3.22. The piece of geogrid material being
tested was in tuni clamped to a steel beam by means of duminium plates and C-clamps.
As the weight was increased the elongation of the materiai was measured and recorded
until failure. A total of 30 tests were performed. Table 3.3 shows the average results of
the tests p e r f o d , also Figure 3.23 shows the load vernis elongation obtained for this
rnaterial. Fïnaily the data f?om the experirnental tests were checked against the nominal
values obtained fiom Tensar Polytechnologies Inc. The nominal values were somewhat
A total of three pipe-arches were built as described in section 3.3. One of the three
pipe-arches was designed and built with no reinforcement material attached to it. The
other two structures were designed and built with geogrid rnaterial (used to reinforce the
s d ) aîtached to them.
In this section special attention is given to the testing procedure and the preparation of
the soi1 surrounding the structures tested. These two factors are critical since they
determine the stnictural behaviour ofthe structure and the reliabiiity of the results.
To ensure that each test provided the moa accurate results, the method outiined in this
section was ngorously foUowed and applied to each of the structures tested.
35.1 Preparation of Surrounding Soü and Backfiüi Operation
A good foundation for an underground pipe-arch will maintain the elevation and grade
of the invert to a planneci position (a) with the pipe-arch in the desired cross-sectionai
shape, and (b) without concentration of the foundation pressures that tend to produce
Buried pipe-arches rmist dways be relativeiy yielding compareci to the side fïii.
Thedore, preparing a hard bed for a buried pipe-arch would be equivalent to placing the
structure on an anvil for the load to strike. That is why softer foundations are desired.
When a load is appiied to a structure in a soft foundation, the load creates earth arching.
This results in reduction of the load on the structure as well as it provides a natual
In practice evaluation of the 508 is very important. When a soil contains undesirable
soil material such as muck or rock sledges, the soil in the site is excavated and replaced
with more desirable soil. For example large rocks or ledge rocks materials of poor or non-
uniform bearing capacity are often replaced with sand. Sand is accepted as a suitable fiii
In the laboratory, Lake Erie sand was used as the fill material (see section 3.4.1). A
200mm thick layer (often referred as bedding) was compacted on the bottorn of the soi1
container. Then a 5ûmm thick layer of sand was pre-shaped to fit the invert radius of the
pipe-arch. The structure's beddiag was prepared wide enough to permit compacting the
rerninder of the backfiil under the haunches of the structure efficiently. As explainecl
earlier, this last layer (50mm thick) was lefi uncompaaed to allow relaxation of the
Once the smicture was in place then the bacffiLl operation amed as follows:
Sand was placed in lOOmm thick layers and compacted on each side of the conduit.
structure to the point W e s t away from the structure. This technique of compacting
the soi1 provided two advantages: an adequate strength of the compacted soil; and
second, it prevented pockets of uncompacteci soi1 fiom being placed next to structure.
Two rubber tubes located a few millimetres under the haunches of the structure were
fïiled with air to a constant pressure of 2.9 kN/m2during the bacml operation.
Once the sand reached the top of the crown of the structure, two more layers, (one
lOOmm and a second one 75mm)were added and compacted on top of the structure.
The fïrst layer of reinforcing material atîached to the invert of the structure (geogrid)
was laid flat over the 200mm thick layer of compacted sand. This layer of geogrid was
A lOOmm layer of sand was placed on top of the first layer of geogrid and compacted
in the same mamer as it was done for the unreinforceci-soil structure (Figure 3.24).
For every lûûmm thick layer of well compacted sand, a layer of geogrid was unrolled
and laid f i t over the previous layer of sand. This process was repeated until the last
layer of reidorcement that was aîtached to the crown of the structure was covered
4. Two more iayers of sand were placed over the last layer of geogrid. The first was a
100- thick layer of well compacted sand, and the second was a layer 75mm thick of
5. The rubber tubes were kept at a constant pressure of 2.9 kWm2 during the entire
process-
6. Each of the shens of geogrid was hefd in place and M y extended during the
b a c m g operation.
Experience and research have shown that the aitical density of b a c W to be 85%
Standard Proctor density. Therefore, the backfili had to be compacted to a greater density
than the d c a l to assure good performance of the structure. A Standard Proctor densiîy
of 90% rninirnum was maintriinai during al1 of the test conducted, by means of a hand-held
The foliowing procedure appHes for both the unreinforced-soi1 and reinforceci-soi1
pipe-arches tested: During backfllhg, the structure was monitored by means of strain
gauge and dial gauges placed in the structure as describeci in section 3.4.4. Once the
Automatic Strain Indiaitor (see section 3.4.4) had been calibrated and set to zero,
readings for tangentid strain were taken after each layer of soi1 (100mm thick) had been
compacted. At the same time the deformation of the structure was monitored with 8 dial
gauges placed b i d e the structure (see section 3-4.4). This method was repeated until the
last layer of soi1 had been compacted. During the entire process of backfilling the pressure
in the flexible hoses located under the haunches was kept constant at 2.9 kWm2.
Mer compacting the soi1 on the top of the culvert, the loading device (described in
section 3.4.4) was set in place. With the aid of the hydraulic jack the load was applied to
the structure in equal uicrements. Mer each Uicrement readings for deflections, strains
and load magnitude were taken and recorded. During the application of the first few
increments of live load, the soi. surrounding the structure and specidly at the haunches
was kept undisturbed. The air pressure inside both of the rubber tubes was decreased
simultaneously and in small amounts for two of the three structures tested. M e r each
variation in pressure, readings for strains, deflections, and pressure inside the rubber tubes,
A third horizontaliy reinforced-soil pipe-arch was tested in the sarne manner, except
that the pressure inside one of the two mbber tubes was kept constant at 2.9 kN/m2, while
the pressure inside the second rubber tube was decreased in s d amounts. Again, strains
Moisture Content
Volume of hole
Excavated (mmA3)
O 3 9.8 0.0
22.4 39-8 0.2
44.8 40.0 0.6
67.2 40.3 1.3
69.4 40.7 2.4
70.3 41.0 3 .O
71.7 41.6 4.5
76.2 41.7 4.9
78 -4 43.0 5.7
80.6 42.3 6.4
82.9 42.3 6.4 (fdure)
Figure 3.1 ' Structural Plate Shapes [3]
Figure 3.2 Corrugation Profile - Prototype PipeArch (ail in mm)
Figure 3.3 Prototype Pipe-Arch - Overall Dimensions (al1 in mm)
Figure 3.4 Corrugation Profile - Modei PipeArch (a11 in mm)
Figure 3.5 Mode1 Pipe-Arch Overall Dimensions (al1 in mm)
Figure 3.6 Plywood Template - Side View
Figure 3.7 Corrugation Machine - Front View
Figure 3.8 Structural Sections - Haunches
Figure 3.9 Finished Pipe-Arch
Figure 3.10 Sand Box - Overall Dimensions (ail in mm)
Figure 3.11 Loading Beam - Overall Dimensions (al1 in mm)
tcod n9 B e a ~4 p c ~
rl
Figure 3.12 Location of Strain Gauges (al1 in mm)
Figure 3.13 Arrangement of Strain Gauges
figure 3.14 Location of Dia1 Gauges (al1 in mm)
- - - -l L - -- -
.
/
/
/
R O l o i Gouge
/
.A! 'Z Nunber
I
Figure 3.15 Arrangement of Dia1 Gauges
Figure 3.16 Load Cells and Loading Device
Figure 3.17 Automatic Strain Indicator
Figure 3.18 Components of Rubber Pressure Tubes
Figure 3.19 Spacing of Reinforcement (al1 in mm)
Figure 3.20 Length of Reinforcing Layers (al1 in mm)
-
Figure 331 Tende Test on Geogrid Sbeets Equipment Set-up (ail in mm)
Figure 3.22 Geogrid Specimen (al1 in mm)
Figure 3.24 First Layer of Geogrid - At Haunch Level
Figure 3.25 Sixth Layer of Geogrid - Below Crown Level
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION O F RESULTS
The first experimentai mode1 built and tested was the unreidorced-soi1 pipe-arch
shown in Figure 4.1. &ring construction, readings for main and defieaion were taken
&er each layer of sand was compacted. The numerical results of the defonnations are
presented in Table 4.1. Here it can be observeci that the maximum deflection experienced
(outwards). On the other h d , the invert of the structure deformed little in cornparison
with the rest ofthe structure having a total deflection of approxhately 2Smm (outwards).
The haunches of the structure, which are the most critical structural cornponents of the
The strains recorded at this first stage served to calculate moments and &al forces
experienced by the structure during construction. These are shown in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
From these tables, it can be obsexved that the maximum moment producing
compression at the inner fibers of the structure was qua1 to 79.6 N.m and it occuced at
the crown of the structure. The invert of the structure experienced a moment of 7.1 N.m.
The second stage of the test involved the application of a live load of a magnitude
equivalent to the standard live load required by the OHBDC [36] for these type of
structures.
During loading of the structure, the deftection, bending moment, and axial force varied
gradudy as the load increased. (note that during this stage the soi1 surrounding the metal
structure was kept undisturbed, by keeping the pressure inside the mbber tubes constant).
The ddection at the crown of the pipe-arch changed ftom approlrimately 4mm
(inward) for an applied load of 1.2 kN to 6 2 m (inward) for an applied load of 8.7 lcN.
(8.7 kN was the maximum load experienced by the structure before the soi1 surrounding
the structure failed). The haunches of the structure deformed little in cornparison to the
crown. They expenenced ddections ranghg tiom 0.OSrnm (outward) at a load of 1.2 kN
to 0.76mm (outward) at a load of 8.7 kN SUnilariy, the invert of the structure only
ddected 0.û9mm (inward) at a load of 8.7 kN (see figure 4.2). Table 4.4 shows the
The magnitude of the moment as weli as the axial force were also calculated at
different stages of loading. The moments at different loads are shown in Table 4.5 and the
moment was 61 N.m producing tension at the inner fibers as shown in Figure 4.3. The
moment at the crown was equal to 38 N.m (tension at the inner fibers). Aiso, the moment
at the haunches and invert was determined to be 15 N.m (compression at the inner fibers)
These moments were dl produced by an applied load of 8.7 kN,which was equal to
The axid force was also determined in the same manner as the bending moments and
ddections, Table 4.6 shows that the axial force at the cxown for the structure was 90.2
kN for the same load d e s c n i befiore. Also, results for the axial force at the haunches
and invert of the structure bave been included in this table. Figure 4.4 shows the axial
Once the applied load reached 8.7 kN, the next step was to study the effkct of
disturbing the soil around the haunches of the pipe-arch. This was accomplished by
reducing the pressure inside the rubber tubes. The pressure was reduced by letting air
flow out fiom the rubber tubes in a gradua1 rnanner. Tables 4.7 through 4.9 show the
variations in ddection, bending moment, axial force, nibber tube pressure, and applied
Ioad.
It can be readily observed from Table 4.7 and Figure 4.2 that the deflections at the
crown, haunches and invert increased to maximum value of 73mm (uiward), 3Smm
(outward) and 0.7mm (outward), respectiveiy. Also the applied live load of 8.7 kN had to
be reduced to a load of 6.8 kN, as a result of Mure of the soi1 surroundhg the structure.
Notice that this load was recorded once the pressure inside the rubber tubes had reached
zero.
S i a r results for bending moment and axial force for the pipe-arch are describecl in
Tables 4.8 and 4.9 and represented in Figures 4.3 and 4.4. The smcture was able to carry
the load successfully ody after small reductions in ihe pressure inside the rubber tubes had
occurred. However, once the soi1 completely lost its strength and the soi1 surrounding the
critical areas (haunches) of the pipe-arch had completely failed, the metal in various parts
of the structure starteci yielding, (see Tables 4.8 and 4.10) and the load carrying capacity
of the srnichue decreased. The pipe-arch structure eventuaily fded and was no longer
able to carry any load. A graphical history for the Mirent stages of the test conducted
4.2 Reinfomd-Soü Structure (Flilure of the Soil Surrounding Both Corner Plates)
similar manner as the one for the unreinforced-soil pipe-arch. The düference was that
geotextile material was used to horizontally reuiforce the soil surrounding the pipe-arch.
hiring construction the deformation, bending moment, and axial force were
monitored and measured. Tables 4.10 through 4.12 show the results obtained during
construction. The maximum defiection, during backfilling, occurred at the crown of the
structure and was equal to 25. lmm (outward), the haunches and the invert of the pipe-
moment recorded during construction was equal to 36.1 N-m(compression at the inner
fibers) and it was calculated f?om the readings of the strain gauges located at the crown of
the pipe-arch. The invert of the structure experienced a moment equal to 0.6 N.m
(compression at the innef fibers) and the corresponding moments at the haunches were
equal to 5.6 N.m (tension at the inner fibers). Likewise, results for the axial force are
At the loading stage, the horizontaily reinforced-soi1 pipe-arch was able to carry loads
of up to 11.2 W. The loading stage provided the following r e d t s (see Tables 4.13
through 4.15 and Figures 4.8 through 4.10): the deffection at the crown varïed fiom 2mm
(inward) at a initial applied load of 4.3 IrN to 12.8mm (inward) at a maximum applied load
of 11.2 kN. The conespondhg bencihg moment at these two stages were, 24.4 N.m
(tension at the inner fibers) at a load of 4.3 kN,and 15.9 N.m (tension at the inner fibers)
at a load of 11-2kN.
The haunches of the structure were aiso monitored and the r d t s obtained were as
load of 11.2 N.m. The corresponding moments were: 6.63 N.m (tension at the inner
fibers) at a load of 4.3 ldrl and 14.6 N.m (tension at the inner fibers) at a load of 11.2 M.
The invert of the pipe-arch produced the foilowing results: the deflection changed
form O.Omm at 4.3 kN. to 0 . 5 m (outward) at 11.2 kN. Also, the bending moment was
caldateci to be 0.6 N.m (tension at the inner fibers) at 4.3 kN and it varied to 0.89 N.m
Next, the finai stage of the experimentd test (Le.: when the soi1 is disturbed and the
pressure inside the rubber tubes is decreased) produced the results given in Tables 4.16
through 4.18 and are graphicaliy presented in Figures 4.8 through 4.1O.
One important observation to notice fiom these results is that, small variations in the
pressure inside the rubber tubes had alrnost no effèct on the bending moment, deflection,
and axial force for the reinforceci-soil pipe-arch. Also, as the soil around the structure
started to f
a the load ca-g capacity of the pipe-arch began to decrease, but it became
Finally, once the pressure ui the rubber tubes was reduced considerably, the load
canying capacity of the structure remaineci almoa unchangeci. This can be readily
obsefved fkom the renilts descnied in Tables 4.16 through 4.1 8. It is obvious fiom these
r&s that the reiaforcing material atîached to the structure was sàll carrying load even at
the 1st stage of testing, (Le.: when the soi1 surroundhg the stmcture had undergone a
considerable amount of M u e ) . The structure seems to recover its strength Ooad carrying
capacity) d e r the load surrounding the haunches had ftiiled (see Tables 4.16 through
The study of a reinforceci-soil structure when uneven mil settlernents ocnir was also
carried out in the laboratory. The fkst two stages of testing ( b a c m g and loading
before distwbing the mil) gave similar resuits as to the ones obtained in the previous test.
The last stage of testing, when the pressure was reduced in one of the rubber tubes,
provided sirnilar resdts to the remforcecl-soi1 pipe-arch subjected to even soi1 settiements.
praeut even d e r the load carxying capacity of the soi1 had decreased considerably. These
hdings are summarised in Tables 4.19 through 4.21 and shown in Figures 4.12 through
4.14.
In cornparison, the total deflection at the crown for the meinforced-soi1 model,
after construction, was 48mm (outward) which is almost 25mm more that the one
experienced for the reinforced-soi1 pipe-arch, similar cornparisons can be made at the
haunches, invert and sides of the structure. This difference proves to be a direct result
fiom the introduction of the reinforcing sheets. Figures 4.15 through 4.17, compare the
benduig moment, deflection and axial force for both reinforced-soi1 and unreinforced-mil
structure when temporary loads were applied to it. Since, this partida. pipe-arch was
under shaiiow soil cover conditions, temporary loads represent a great concem. The load
carrying capacity of the structure was increased by almost 400h when reinforcing sheets of
geotextile material were attached to the pipe-arch. The bending moments in the structure
were almost eliminated, and the axhi force and deflections g r d y reàuced. This can be
As explained earlier, rubber tubes med with air, located near to the haunches of the
pipe-arch, were used to sirnulate the effect of fieeze-thaw cycles which occur often in cold
regions. Figures 4.22 and 4.23 show that the reinforceci-soi1 structure sders iittie
deformations when the pressure inside the pressure tubes was decreased. On the other
hand when no reinforcement was osed the soii surroundhg the structure move rapidly.
This rapid fdure of the soil surroundhg the structure, produceci a sudden and
The axial forces and large bending moments accornpanied with this effect (fieezethaw
cycle) were also reduced when a rrinforced-soi1 system was used instead of an
(kN )
Soil Height From Invert
(mm) 102 204 306 4013 SI0 612 97iJ
Strain Gaune Location
1 onvert) 36.4 37.2 37.5 37.1 36.7 36.5 35.9
2
3 (Haunch)
4
5
6 (Cmwn)
7
8
9 (Haunch)
Table 4.4
(mm)
-
Rubber Tuba Pressure (kN/rnA2) 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Applied Load ( kN ) 1.2 1.7 2.4 4.0 5.7 7.0 8.4 8.7
Diril Gauge Location O
1 (cmwn)
2
3 (Baunch)
4
S (Invert)
6
7(Haunch)
8
Table 4.6
(kN)
-
Rubber Tubes Presaiure (kNlmA2) 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Applicd Load ( kN ) 1*2 1,7 2,4 , 4.0 5.7 7.0 8.4 83
Strdn Caupre Location
1 (Invert) 35.5 35.4 35.2 35.0 34.9 34.8 34.7 34.6
2
3 (Haunch)
4
5
6 (Crown)
7
8
9 (Haunch)
10
Table 4.7
(mm)
Rubber Tubes - Pressure (W/mA2) 2.61 2.32 1.74 2.61 2.03 1.45 1.45 0.58 O
Applied Laad ( kN )
b-
Dial Gauae Location
1 (crown)
2
3 (Haunch)
4
S (Invert)
6
7(Haunch)
Table 4.9
(M)
- 1
Rubber Tubes Pressure ( k ~ l r n ~ 2 ) 2.6 1 2.32 1.74 0.58 2.M 1.45 0.58 O
(mm)
Soi1 Height From Invert
(mm) 102 204 3
06 408 51O 612 970
Dial Cawe Location
1(Crown) O. 2 -2.9 -6.9 -1 2.8 -1 7.4 -23.9 -25,1
Table 4.1 1
(kN)
Soil Height From Inverl
(mm) 102 2W 306 408 51O 612 970
Strain Gauae Location
1 (lnvert)
2
3 (Haunch)
4
S
6(Crown)
7
9 (Raunch)
Table 4.14
( N.m )
Rubber Tuber-Pmsaure (kNlmA2) 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Applied Load ( kN ) 4.3 5.9 6.2 7.1 8.1 9.4 10.4 11.1 11.2
Strain Gauee Location
1 (Invert)
2
3 (Haunch)
4
9 (Haunch)
Table 4.16
(mm)
f
Rubber Tubes-Pressure (kN/mA2) 2.61 2.32 2.03 1.74 1.4s 0.58 1.45 1.45 O
Applied Lolid ( kN ) 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 8.8 9.2 10.7
Diai Gauge Location
1(Crown)
7(H aunch)
Table 4.1 7
( N.m )
Rubber Tubes-Prensure (kNlmA2) 2.61 2.32 2.03 1.74 1.4S 0.58 1.JS 1.43 O
Apptied Load ( kN ) 98 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 8.8 9.2 10.7
Strain Gauge Location
1 (Invert) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.O
2
3 (Htiunch)
4
S
6(Crown)
7
8
9 (Haunch)
10
Table 4.1 9
-
Rubber Tube 1 Pressure (kNlmA2)
Rubber Tube 2 - Pressure (kNlmA2)
Applled Load ( kN )
Strain Gaune Location
1 (lnvert)
2
3 (Haunch)
4
5
6(Crown)
7
8
9 (Haunch)
10
Table 4.20
(kN)
Rubbcr Tube 1 - Pressure (kNlmA2) 2.9 2.9 2,9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Rubber Tube 2 - Pressure (kNlmA2) 2,03 1.45 0.58 O O O
Applied Load ( kN ) 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 12.0 12.7
Strain Cauge Location rl
Ill
Figure 4.16 Bending Moment Diagram for Pipe-Arch - Soi1 Level at 970 mm
from Invert
A. Reference shape
B. Reinforced-soit
C. Unreinforced-soi1
Figure 4.17 Axial Force Diagram for PipeArch - Soi1 Level at 970 m m from
Invert
A. Rderence shape
B. Reinforced-soi1
C. Un reinforced-soi1
Figure 4.18 Ddected Shape for PipeArch - Applied Load Range 6.9 IrN to
7.1 IrN
A. Reference shape
B. Reinforced-soi1
CIUnreinforceci-soi1
-
Figure 4.19 Deflected Shape for Pipe-Arch Applied Load Range 8.7 kN to
9.4 kN
A Reference shape
B. Reinforced-soi1
CI Unreinforced-soi1
Figure 420 Axial Force Diagram for PipeArch - Applied Load Range 5.6 kN
to 5.9 kN
A. Reference shape
B. Reinforced-soi1
C. Unreinforceci-soi1
Figure 4.21 Bending Moment Diagram for PipeArch - Applied Load Range
6.9 kN to 7.1 kN
A. Reference shape
B. Unreinforced-soi1
C. Reinforced-soi1
-
Figure 4.22 Deflected Shape for Pipe-Arch Applied Load Range 8.3 kN to
-
8.8 kN Rubber Tubes Pressure of 1.45 kN/m2
Figure 4.23 Deflected Shape for Pipe-Arch
A Reference shape
B. Reinforced-soi1 - Applied load 10.7 kN - Rubber tubes pressure O kN/m2
-
C. Unreinforced-soi1 Applied load 6.8 kN - Rubber tubes pressure O kN/m2
Figure 4 2 4 Bending Moment Diagram for Pipe-Arch - Applied Load Range
8.3 kN to 8.8 W - Rubber Tubes Pressure 1.45 kNlm2
A. Reterence shape
B. Reinforced-soi1
CeUnreinforced-soi1
Figure 4.25 Bending Moment Diagram for PipeArch
A. Refereace sbape
-
B. Reinforced-soi1 - Applied lord 10.7 icN Rubber tubes pressure O kN/m2
C. Unreinforced-soi1 - Applied load 6.8 kN - Rubber tubes pressure O kN/rn2
-
Figure 4.26 Axial Force Diagram for Pipe-Arch Applied Load Range 8.3 kN
-
to 8.8 kN Rubber Tubes Pressure 1.45 kNlm2
A. Refereuce shape
B. Reinforced-soi1
C. Unreinforceci-soi1
Figure 4.27 Axial Force Moment Diagrnm for Pipe-Arch
A. Rderence shape
B. Reinforced-soi1 - Applied load 6.8 kN - Rubber tubes pressure O kN/m2
-
C. Unreinforced-soi1 - Applied load 10.7 kN Rubber tubes pressure O kN/m2
CaAPTER V
DESIGN
This chapter de& with the design of a reinforced-soi1 pipe-arch. The pipe-arch
designed in this chapter is sirnilar to the structure used as a prototype for obtaining the
models tested in the laboratory. The properties of the comgation profiie for this structure
as well as its overail dimensions are similar to the prototype structure described in chapîer
3. The material assumed for reinforcement is standard geogrid rnaterial commonly used in
practice.
Problem:
It is required to design a reinforced-soii pipe-arch that wiU cany a highway load equal
to 7.7 kPa. The structure is to have a span S = 6250m and a rise R = 3910mm. n i e
suggested comgation profile of the metai is 152 x 5 1mm (as described in chapter 3). The
comer plate of the structure has a radius R, = 840mm (see figure 5.1). The height of soil
cover is required to be H = 2m. The properties of the soil are as foiiows:angle of intemai
fiction éi = 40"; Weight of soi1 y = 19 kN/m3 . The rnaterial to be used to reinforce the
soil is BXlOO Tensar biaxial geogrid. Such materid is made out of polypropylene and has
the foilowing properties [14]: aperture size = 33mm; Open area = 70 % of total area;
The elements required in the design are: the wail thickness of the metal structure, the
bolting requirements, the corner plate pressure and the length and spacing of the layers of
geogrid material.
The f h t step is to determine the b a c m soi1 density required. For this case 85%
Next, the design pressure [l] for this structure is obtained fiom:
where,
LL = h e load, kPa
H = height of cover, rn
S =span,m
By applying equation (5-1) the design pressure for the conditions described above is
calculated as follows:
where,
P, = design pressure?kPa
S =span,m
detennùied as follows:
The dowable wall stress, E, for this structure is determinecl by using the foiiowing
relationship:
where,
fc = design stress, MPa
The ultimate compressive wall stress is cdculated by using equations (2-5), (2-61,
and/or (2-7). then by applying equation (5-3) the design waii stress is obtained and is @en
as:
Next, the waiJ cross-sectional area, 4 = 1.415 mrn2/mm, can be determined fkom the
relationship between the compressive thrust and the aliowable w d stress [ 11, as foîiows:
where,
C = ring compressio~kN/m
Equation (5-4). gives a value of 1.415 mm2/mmfor the wall cross-sectional area.
From design tables provided by the American Iron and Steel Institute [l], a specified wall
Next, the han- stiffiiess [l], FF, for the pipe-arch it is found by trial and error as
follows:
Iteration 1:
where,
S =spaq mm
For a pipe-arch the maximum dowable flexible factor, FF', is given by [Il:
Values for FF. have been established through experience, based on minimum pipe
e e s s requirements for practical handling and installation without undue care or bracing.
These values are avaiiable through reference [Il for Werent cornigaiion profles. From
these reference for a pipe-arch with a cormgation profile of 152 x 51mm, FFa is
determined to be 0.1 14 mm/N. Therefore the maximum aüowable flexible factor fkom (5-
6) is:
Iteration 2:
By increasing the thichess of the metal to 4.0mm, then the moment of inertia becomes
1 = 1867.12 mm4/mm. Equation (5-5) can be tried again for this new cross-section:
Therefore thû design is acceptable and 4.ûmm thick plates for construction can be
used*
Next, the corner bearing pressure on the soil must be determineci; this can be estimated
Iiom [il:
where,
R, = radius at crown, mm
R, = radius of corner, mm
Therefore, the dowable comer bearing pressure on the soil must be at lest 170 kPa.
The reinforcement and its placement is designed by applying the equations formulated
in section 2.4.2.1. First, the minimum required tende strength of the geogrid must be
Such value is compared to the specified tensile modulus for the geogrid available for
design. The tensile areagth for BXlOO geogrid is oc = 182 W/m, which is much Iarger
than the minimum required. Therefore the strength of the geogrid mesh is adequate.
Next the spacing ( S,)at different depths is fomd f?om the followllig equation [14]:
where,
The results obtained form this equation at different levels are m a r i s e d in Table 5.1.
Next, the length for each layer of reinforcement is determined for the most critical
spacing between layers (i.e. 840mm). This is done by using equation (2-16).
The resufting lengths are as show in table 5.1. From these results the length for each
layer is chosen depending on the depth at which the geogrid is located.
For this p a m d a r structure a total of 7 layers per side are required. Table 5.2 shows
the lengths rounded for each layer and its correspondhg location with respect to the pipe-
arch.
Table 5.1
-
Geogrid Soil-Reinforcement Spacing and Horizontal Length
BXlOO - Tensar Multinetting
* The length of reinforcement is based on the most critical spacing between layers ( Le. = 850 m m )
Table 5.2
Location L
Distance from Invert of Structure Length
m mm
6.1 Conclusions
1. Large moments, axial forces and deflections were observed during construction when
the unreinforced-soi1 structure was being backfded. On the other hand when the
lucial forces were reduced to a minimum. Thus, the shape of the structure was better
controlled.
2. The advmtage of the reinforcecl-soil systern are: first, aJ the defleaions that ocnu
during backfilling are kept evenly distributeci around the stnictare. Second, this system
not only proves to be beneficial when compaaing the so& but also later on when the
3. The load carrying capacity of the structure was greatly increased when the soii was
defkctions, moments, andor axial forces when the surrounding soi1 first s
W to fail.
t
5 . The fiction developed dong the mesh interfaces, made it possible to enhance the shear
elimiiiated when using reinforcement. Reinforcing the soi1 surrounding the pipe-arch
6.2 Recommendations
adding more reinforcing maîerial to the critical components of the pipe-arch (invert and
haunches).
rnodels.
REFERENCES
1. American Iron Steel Institute (1995) "Handbook of steel drainage and highway
3. Abdel-Sayed, G., Bakht, B., and Jaeger, G.L. (1994) "Soil-steel bridges: design and
4. Abdel-Sayed, G., Bakht, B., and Jaeger, G.L. (1994) "Soil-steel bridges: design and
6. Bakht,B., and Knobel, 2. (1984) "Testing of a soil-steel structure with reliwing slab",
7. Billard, J.W. and Wu, J.T.H. (1991) "Load test of a large scaie geotde-reinforceci
pp. 1257-1276.
Saskatchewan, Canada.
10. Brewer, W. (1990) "The design and construction of culverts ushg controlled low
12. Bryne, P.M., Srithar, T.,and Kem, C.B. (1990) "Field Meanirements and analysis of
large diameter flexible culvert", In structurai Performance of flexible Pipes, pp. 27-37,
Nethdands.
13. Carroll, R, Jr. (1988) "Specifying geogrids", Geotechnical Fabric Report, Indushial
15. Das, B.M. (1995) "Principles of foundation engineering", PWS Publishing Company,
16. Duncan, J.M. (1979) "Behaviour and design of long-span metal culverts", J. of
Soil Mechanics and Fouridation Engineering, San Francisco, Volume 3, pp. 1777-
1780.
18. Guido, V A , Knueppel J.D., and Sweeny, M.A (1987) "Plate load test on geogrid-
19. Juran, 1. Schlosser, F., Long, N.,and Leageay, G. (1978) ''Full sale experiment on a
Reinforcement.
20. Kennedy, J., Laba, and Shaheen, H. (1986) "Soil-metal arch bridge on reinforced soil
2 1. Kennedy, J., Laba, J., and Mossaid, M. (1980) "Reinforced earth retaining w d s under
strip loading", Canadian Geotechnicai Joumai, Volume 17, No. 3, pp. 382-394.
22. Kennedy, J.B. and Ma, J.T. (1989) "Suggested improvements in designing soil steel
24. Koerner, RB. (1990) "Design with geosynthetics", Prentice Hall, 2nd. edition,
25. Laba J.T.and Kennedy J.B. (1986) "Reinforceci earth retainurg waii analysis and
26. Laba, I.T., Kennedy, J., and Seymour, P. (1984) "Reidorced earth retaining w d
under vertical and horizontal strip loading", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Volume 99, No.
SMIO,pp. 745-763.
28. Lusher, U. (1966) "Buckling of soil-surrounded tubes", J o d of Soil Mechanics and
29. Lusher, U.and Hoeg, K. (1994) "The beneficial action of the surrounding soi1 on the
load carrying capacity of buried tubes", Procedure of the Symposium of Soil-Structure
31. Martson, Ansoo (1930)T h e theory of extemal loads on closed conduits", Bulletin
32. MeyerhoS G.G. (1968) "Some problerns in the design of shallow-buried steel
33. Moore, RG. (1986) "Observeci signs of distress in soil steel structures", Proceeding
34. Nicholsoon, P.J. (1986) "Soil nailing a wall", Civil engineering Magazine, pp. 37-39.
35. Omar, M.T., Das, B.M.,Yen, S C , Puri, V.K., and Cook, EE. (1993) "Ulthnate
36."Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code - Soi1 Steel Bridge Structures", Ministry of
37. Playdon, DX. and Symmonds S.H. (1988) 73ehaviour of slab-Meneci culvert
38. Schiosser, F. and Vidal, H. (1979) '"Reidorced Earth", Liais. Labs. Points et
-C pp. 1067-1087.
39.Sakti,J. and Das, B.M. (1987) "Model test for strip foudation on clay reidorced
40. Sprangler,M.G.(1941) "The structurai design of flexible pipe culvert', Bulletin 153,
41. Thann, B.R, Kreiger, B.,and Kneger, J. (1990) "Full-scale test on a geotextile-
New York.
pp. 1-16.
44. Vidai, H.(1966) "The reinforcd earth", Anuals de L71nstituteTechnique du Batiment
et des T r a m pp. 888-938.
45. Watkins, RK. (1966) "Structural design of buried circular conduits", Highway
46. Watkins, RK. (1964) ''Structural design trends in buried flexible conduits7', Procedure
47. White, H.L. (1960) "The comgated Metal Conduit as compression ring7', Armco
48. Yu, Wei-Wen (1989) "Cold formed steel design7', McGraw Hiil, Inc., Chapter 3, pp.
49-52.
49. Yu, Wei-Wen (1989) "Cold formed steel design", McGraw W, Inc., Chapter 11, pp.
442-443.
The author was bom on March 3, 1972 in San Salvador, El Salvador. In 1989, the
author completed secondary school at the Externado San Jose secondary school in San
Salvador city. The author aniveci to Canada in 1989 and lived in Chatham, Ontario,
Canada for two years. In 1991, the author joined the Faculty of Engineering at the
University of Widsor as a Research and Teaching assistant. Findy, the author prepared
this thesis in partial fùWnent of requirements for the Degree of Master of Applied