See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262965088

Circular precast concrete manholes: Numerical modeling

Article  in  Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering · August 2011

DOI: 10.1139/l11-059

CITATIONS READS
6 4,289

2 authors:

Reem Sabouni Mohamed Hesham El Naggar

Abu Dhabi University The University of Western Ontario
17 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS    413 PUBLICATIONS   7,756 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic performance evaluation of underground structure under liquefaction site View project

Investigation of Hybrid Foundation System for Offshore Wind Turbine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reem Sabouni on 27 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 909

Circular precast concrete manholes: numerical

modeling
Reem Sabouni and M.H. El Naggar
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11

Abstract: Concrete manholes are widely used in sanitary sewer and storm water systems in Canada. However, technical in-
formation regarding their structural aspects is limited. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the effect of main pa-
rameters that impact the design of precast concrete manholes. A three-dimensional finite element model for circular precast
concrete manholes was developed using Plaxis 3D and was calibrated against the experimental results presented in an earlier
paper by the authors. The calibrated numerical model was used to analyze different configurations of concrete manholes and
to conduct a parametric study on the parameters that govern its design including: type of native soil around the manhole;
trench width (Tw); water table elevation (Wt); effect of manhole stage installation; and effect of soil compaction. The critical
conditions were identified based on the change in the pressure underneath the centre of the manhole base and the bending
moments within the manhole base. It was found that the trench width, stage installation of manhole, and filling soil compac-
tion had marginal effects on the total vertical pressure beneath the centre of the manhole base. The presence of the water ta-
ble at the top of the manhole resulted in the most critical contact pressure at the manhole base.
Key words: precast concrete manholes, Ontario standard truck load, three dimensional finite element, bending moments in
manhole base, strain gauges, pressure cells, soil structure interaction, water table and manhole trench width.
Résumé : Les trous d’homme en béton préfabriqué sont largement utilisés dans les réseaux d’égouts sanitaires et pluviaux
au Canada. Cependant, l’information technique concernant leurs aspects structuraux est limitée. L’objectif principal de cet
For personal use only.

article est d’évaluer l’effet des principaux paramètres touchant la conception des trous d’homme en béton préfabriqué. Un
modèle par éléments finis tridimensionnel pour les trous d’homme circulaires en béton préfabriqué a été développé en utili-
sant Plaxis 3D et étalonné en utilisant les résultats expérimentaux présentés dans un autre article. Le modèle numérique éta-
lonné a été utilisé pour analyser différentes configurations de trous d’homme en béton et pour réaliser une étude
paramétrique des paramètres qui régissent sa conception, dont: type de sol naturel autour du trou d’homme, la largeur de la
tranchée (Tw), l’élévation de la nappe phréatique (Wt), l’effet du stade d’installation du trou d’homme et l’effet de la com-
paction du sol. Les conditions critiques ont été identifiées en se basant sur le changement de pression sous le centre de la
base du trou d’homme et les moments de flexion dans la base du trou d’homme. La largeur de la tranchée, le stade d’instal-
lation du trou d’homme et la compaction du sol de remplissage n’avaient que des effets marginaux sur la pression verticale
totale sous le centre de la base du trou d’homme. La présence de la nappe phréatique au haut du trou d’homme a engendré
la pression de contact la plus importante à la base du trou d’homme.
Mots‐clés : trous d’homme en béton préfabriqué, charge de camion standard en Ontario, éléments finis tridimensionnels,
moments de flexion dans la base du trou d’homme, jauges de déformation, cellules de mesure des pressions, interaction sol-
structure, nappe phréatique, largeur de tranchée pour le trou d’homme.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction
Literature on concrete sewer or storm water manholes is
scarce and concentrates on durability issues (Griffiths and
Ball 2000; Saricimen et al. 2003) or on the manhole perform-
ance as part of the overall sewer or storm water system (Bet-
tez et al. 2001; Zhou et. al. 2004 and Downey 2004).
Technical information regarding the structural aspects of this
type of manholes is limited. Brief technical information re-
garding the design loads and maximum allowed depth of pre-
cast concrete manholes is provided by the American
Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA 2008a). The association
also provided information on manhole floatation in the “De-
sign data 41” article (ACPA 2008b). To the best of the au-
thors’ knowledge, no full-scale testing of concrete manholes
under design loads was reported in the literature (Sabouni
and El Naggar 2008). However, several studies were con-
ducted on other types of manholes. For example, Petroff

Received 1 September 2009. Revision accepted 14 May 2011. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cjce on 19 August 2011.
R. Sabouni. Alhosn University, Department of Civil Engineering, P.O. Box 38772, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
M.H. El Naggar. Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Western Ontario,
London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada.
Corresponding author: M.H. El Naggar (e-mail: helnaggar@eng.uwo.ca).
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 31 December 2011.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 38: 909–920 (2011) doi:10.1139/L11-059 Published by NRC Research Press
 910
Table 1. Floor and wall data sets assigned properties.
Data set Material
type Data set name behavior
Floor 1200 mm dia. Linear isotropic
data manhole base
sets 1500 mm dia. Linear isotropic
manhole base
manhole cover Linear isotropic
Wall data 1200 mm dia. Linear isotropic
sets manhole wall
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11
1500 mm dia. Linear isotropic
manhole wall
manhole tapered top Linear isotropic
LSGTF walls Linear isotropic
Note: LSGTF, large-scale geotechnical testing facility.
(1994) presents a design methodology for the high density
polyethylene manholes. His design accounted for ring and di-
rected loads from applied earth pressure, load from ground-
water, and drag down of the surrounding soil. Hossain and
Lytton (1991) studied the response of flexible large diameter
high density polyethelen plastic vertical shafts in landfills to
soil structure interaction. They carried out a comprehensive
finite element analysis that included effect of incremental
construction, creep of pipe, compaction, and landfill material.
For personal use only.
This paper describes the numerical model and parameters
used and the verification of the model using experimental
data. The numerical model is then used to investigate the ef-
fect of rigid walls of the large-scale geotechnical testing fa-
cility (LSGTF) on the experimental results. Finally, a
comprehensive parametric study (involving the analysis of
85 models) is conducted to evaluate the effects of different
parameters that may influence the design of concrete man-
holes including: type of native soil around the manhole,
trench width (Tw), water table elevation (Wt), effect of man-
hole stage installation, and effect of filling soil compaction.
The critical conditions were identified based on the change
in the soil pressure underneath its base and bending moments
developed in the base.
Manhole models
All assigned dimensions were taken as measured from the
tested manholes setup. The elevation of the bottom of the
manhole base was taken as the datum (zero elevation) in the
model. The detailed properties of the data sets are taken to
match the physical and mechanical properties of the LSGTF,
manholes and soil bed as tested in the experimental program
described in Sabouni and El Naggar (2011). The details of
the manhole model including the LSGTF, manhole compo-
nents, soil bed and interfaces, wheel footprint (loading plates)
and applied loads are provided below.
The walls of the LSGTF are 4.5 m in width and 7.62 m in
height and were modeled using the Plaxis 3D wall (shell) el-
ement. The wall element is 8-noded quadrilateral plate with
six degrees of freedom per node: three translational (ux, uy,
and uz) and three rotational (fx, fy, and fz) (Brinkgreve et
al. 2007). The walls were assigned the LSGTF wall data set
with properties as presented in Table 1. The LSGTF base
was assumed to be fixed and was assigned the standard
boundary fixity. The outer faces of the walls were assumed
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011
Unit weight Modulus of elasticity Poisson’s
Depth [m] [kN/m3] (E1 = E2) [MPa] ratio (y12)
0.15 24 36.1×103 0.2
0.305 24 30.2×103 0.2
0.07 78.5 2.10×106 0.1
0.139 24 34.4×103 0.2
0.152 24 34.4×103 0.2
0.139 33.7 34.5×103 0.2
0.4 24 40.0×103 0.2
to be the model boundaries and were assigned the standard
boundary fixity.
The manhole base was modeled using the Plaxis 3D floor
element. The floor element was modeled as a 6-noded trian-
gular shell element with six degrees of freedom per node:
three translational (ux, uy, and uz) and three rotational (fx, fy,
and fz) (Brinkgreve et al. 2007). The 1200 mm diameter
manhole model base was circular with diameter, D =
1.219 m. The centre of the base was located at elevation
zero (0.94 m from the base of the model) and 2.25 m from
the model boundary. The “1200 mm dia. manhole base” data
set (Table 1) was assigned to the floor elements. The
1500 mm manhole model had a circular base with 1.524 m
diameter. The base centre was located at elevation zero
(1.92 m from the base of the model), 2.60 m in the x-direction
and 2.25 m in the z-direction. The “1500 mm dia. manhole
base” data set (Table 1) was assigned to the floor elements.
The floor (base) elements were assumed to remain linear
elastic during loading, as evidenced from the small strains
observed in the tested manhole floors during the experimen-
tal phase.
The monobase manhole risers were modeled using the
“Volume pile” option in Plaxis 3D. This pile option creates
a cylindrical tube pile composed of shell (wall) elements
with optional interfaces at both shell sides. Interface elements
are composed of eight pairs of nodes. Each pair has identical
coordinates, i.e., the element has zero thickness. Each node
has three translational degrees of freedom (ux, uy, and uz).
The interface element allows for differential displacements
between the node pairs to simulate slipping and gapping
(Brinkgreve et al. 2007). For the 1200 mm diameter manhole
model, the pile inner diameter was D = 1.219 m. The mono-
base and risers 1 to 4 heights were assigned their actual
heights, i.e., 1.219 m, 1.219 m, 0.914 m, 0.610 m, and
0.610 m, respectively. The monobase riser was connected to
the manhole base and the risers were stacked on top of it.
The “1200 mm dia. manhole wall” data set (Table 1) was as-
signed to the wall elements representing the manhole mono-
base and risers. For the 1500 mm diameter manhole model
the pile inner diameter was specified as D = 1.524 m. The
risers 1 to 3 heights were assigned their actual heights, i.e.,
1.21 m, 0.91 m, and 0.61 m, respectively. The first riser was
connected to the manhole base and the other risers were
stacked on top of it. The “1500 mm dia. manhole wall” data
Published by NRC Research Press
 Sabouni and El Naggar 911

Table 2. Borehole 1200 and 1500 soil layer elevations and assigned soil and interface data
sets.

Layer Beginning End elevation Assigned soil and

Borehole type
name elevation [m] [m] interface data set
Borehole 1200 1 –0.94 –0.295 Concrete sand
2 –0.295 0 Grade A gravel
3 0 5.292 Concrete sand
4 5.292 5.892 Grade A gravel
Borehole 1500 1 –1.92 –1.28 Concrete sand
–1.28 –0.98
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11

2 Grade A gravel
3 –0.98 –0.60 Concrete sand
4 –0.60 4.673 Grade A gravel

Table 3. Soil and interface data sets assigned properties.

Data set properties Concrete sand Grade A gravel

Material model Mohr Coulomb Mohr Coulomb
Material type Drained Drained
Unsaturated unit weight (gunsat) [kN/m3] 19 23
Saturated unit weights (gsat) [kN/m3] 22 26
Modulus of elasticity (Eref) [kN/m2] 5.2×105 6.80×105
Passion’s ratio (n) 0.3 0.3
Cohesion (cref) [kN/m2] 1 1
Angle of internal friction (f) 39° 42°
Angle of dilatancy (j) 3° 5°
For personal use only.

Interface strength factor (Rintr) 0.55 0.65

set (Table 1) was assigned to the wall elements representing
the manhole risers. The linear stiffness assigned to the wall
elements was justified as measured strains in the tested man-
hole were much less than the concrete cracking strain.
Due to the limitations of the program and the fact that the
variation of stresses in the tapered top area is of minor im-
portance to the scope of the research, the tapered top for
both manholes was taken as a cylindrical pipe similar to the
rest of the manhole with a 1.32 m height. The “Manhole ta-
pered top” data set (Table 1) was assigned to this part of the
model. The unit weight of this data set was assigned in a
manner that the weight of the modeled tapered top was equal
to the actual weight of the tapered top and the soil resting on
it. For the 1500 mm diameter manhole the transition cone
was modeled similar to the tapered top and had a height of
0.61 m.
The soil bed was modeled using 15-node wedge elements.
These elements are generated from the 6-node triangular
elements in the 2D mesh. The wedge element is composed
of 6-node triangles in the horizontal direction and 8-node
quadrilaterals in the vertical direction. Soil elements have
three translational degrees of freedom per node (ux, uy, and
uz) (Brinkgreve et al. 2007). In Plaxis 3D, the soil profile is
defined in the model by assigning boreholes. One borehole
was assigned to each model. Borehole 1200 was assigned to
the 1200 mm diameter manhole models and Borehole 1500
was assigned to the 1500 mm diameter manhole models.
The bottom of the manhole models was assigned zero eleva-
tion. The hydrostatic water level was assigned at zero elevation
for the 1200 mm diameter manhole model and at –0.98 m
elevation (0.98 m below the manhole base) for the 1500 mm
diameter manhole model (see Table 2). The Mohr-Coulomb
material model and the drained material type were assigned
for both soils used (concrete sand and grade A gravel). The
Mohr-Coulomb soil models in Plaxis 3D follows the elastic
perfectly plastic behaviour and the non associated flow
theory. The detailed assigned soil properties for both soil
types such as the: unsaturated and saturated unit weight,
modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion, angle of in-
ternal reaction, angle of dilatancy, and interface strength fac-
tor are shown in Table 3.
To select the optimum mesh size that will provide reason-
able accuracy with practical computational effort, several
mesh sizes were examined. Changing the mesh size from
very coarse to very fine in the 1200 mm diameter manhole
model changed the vertical displacements at the manhole
base centre by about 20% and the vertical stresses underneath
the manhole base centre by less than 10%. On the other hand,
the refinement in the mesh size dramatically increased the
computation time due to the large size of the three dimen-
sional model. An optimized mesh size with refinement
around the manhole perimeter where large stresses are ex-
pected (Laman and Yildiz 2007) was selected with due con-
sideration for both accuracy and computing efficiency.
The manhole cover was modeled as a floor element cover-
ing the top of the inner diameter of the tapered top and was
assigned the “Manhole cover” data set (Table 1). The loading
plates were modeled as 0.65 m × 0.25 m floor elements.
They were also assigned the Manhole cover data set. The
loads applied to the manhole in the model replicated the ap-
plied loads during testing the manhole in the experimental
program (described in Sabouni and El Naggar (2011). These
loads represent the critical loads from the standard Ontario
truck. Six different load configurations as shown in Table 4

Published by NRC Research Press

 912 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Table 4. Description of loading configurations.

CL-W truck axles

Load name represented Load types and locations Load factor Load amount
1PCLF 4th axle 1 point load (1 m from 1 175 kN
manhole cover)
4PCLF 2nd & 3rd axles 4 point loads (around the 1 70 kN each
manhole cover)
4PDLF 2nd & 3rd axles Distributed load (around 1 65 kN/m2
manhole cover)
2PCLF 4th axle 2 point loads (1 on mid- 1 87.5 kN
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11

dle of manhole cover

and the other 1.8 m
away)
1PTLF One wheel from 4th 1 point load (at manhole 2.1a 87.5×2.1 = 185 kN
axle (truck heavi- cover centre)
est wheel load)
1PXTLF (Used One wheel from 4th 1 point load (at manhole 2.4b 87.5×2.4 = 209 kN
design loads) axle (truck heavi- cover centre)
est wheel load)
a
Load factor × (1+dynamic load allowance for one axle) = 1.5 × (1+0.4) = 2.1.
b
Load factor × (1+dynamic load allowance for one axle) = 1.7 × (1+0.4) = 2.4.

Fig. 1. Model view of different loading configurations 1200 mm diameter manhole: (a) no load, (b) 1PCLF, (c) 2PCLF, (d) 4PCLF,
(e) 4PDLF, and (f) 1PTLF and 1PXTLF.
For personal use only.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Sabouni and El Naggar 913

Fig. 2. Locations of instrumentation in the experimental setup: a) 1200 mm dia. nonreinforced manhole base strain gauges, (b) 1500 mm dia.
nonreinforced manhole base strain gauges, (c) 1200 mm dia. reinforced manhole pressure cells at 0.6 m beneath base, (d) 1200 mm dia.
nonreinforced manhole pressure cells at 0.6 m beneath base, and (e) 1500 mm dia. reinforced manhole pressure cells at 0.4 m beneath base.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11
For personal use only.

and Fig. 1 were applied one at a time and the model response
was analyzed.
The construction stages option was used to simulate the in-
stallation process of the manhole in the soil pit and to apply
various loading configurations to the model. In the first con-
struction stage, the soil underneath the manhole was acti-
vated. A construction stage was then added for installation
of each manhole part, where the part and the surrounding
soil were activated. After completing the “installation” con-
struction stages, five “load” construction stages were acti-
vated, one at a time, to model the load cases described
earlier. Each of the load construction stages started from the
end of the last “installation” construction stage. The plastic
calculation type and the program’s default calculation settings
were used in performing the analyses.
Model verification using experimental results
The soil pressure underneath the manhole base obtained
from the analysis is compared with the values measured dur-

Published by NRC Research Press

 914 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Table 5. Vertical pressure under 1200 mm diameter reinforced and nonreinforced manholes [kPa].

Nonreinforced manhole
Reinforced manhole H1 H1 H3
Pressure cell
name Model Exp. %Diff. Model Exp. %Diff. Model Exp. %Diff.
Before loading 139.5 104 26% 139.5 113 19% 129.6 84.6 35%
1PCL 150.7 105 30% 150.7 124 18% 140 88.4 37%
2PCL 162.4 110 32% 162.4 127 22% 145.1 89.1 39%
4PCL 158.4 111 30% 158.4 121 24% 146.1 91.4 37%
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11

4PDL 186.5 113 39% 186.5 139 25% 158.4 95.8 40%
1PTL 170.8 102 40% 170.8 138 19% 148.9 91.5 39%
1PXTL — — — 175.1 143 18% 151.4 92.5 39%
Note: Locations of pressure cells in the related experimental setup are shown in Fig. 2.

Table 6. Vertical pressure underneath nonreinforced 1500 mm diameter manhole [kPa].

H1 H2 H3 H4
Pressure % % % %
cell name Model Exp. Diff. Model Exp. Diff. Model. Exp. Diff. Exp. Model Diff.
Before 129.3 176.0 –36% 132.9 155.2 –17% 136.0 136.7 0% 134.5 120.7 10%
loading
1PCL 138.5 179.8 –30% 142.6 159.5 –12% 145.7 141.6 3% 143.6 124.4 13%
2PCL 143.7 185.8 –29% 147.9 165.5 –12% 151.3 146.9 3% 148.8 131.3 12%
4PCL 146.3 196.9 –35% 150.3 171.7 –14% 153.9 155.2 –1% 152.1 137.2 10%
For personal use only.

4PDL 150.5 200.2 –33% 154.9 172.4 –11% 158.4 156.4 1% 155.3 137.6 11%
1PTL 147.7 205.2 –39% 152.0 177.1 –17% 155.5 160.6 –3% 152.5 137.9 10%
1PXTL 150.1 203.5 –36% 154.5 178.3 –15% 158.0 159.8 –1% 154.9 138.0 11%
Note: Locations of pressure cells in the related experimental setup are shown in Fig. 2.

Table 7. Numerical and experimental strain in the 1200 mm diameter manhole

base due to loading [strain × 10–6].

Strain CCL CCD CCU

gauge
name Model Exp. Model Exp. Model Exp.
2PCL –1.27 –0.50 3.30 –0.67 4.18 0.07
4PDL –2.47 –2.28 6.86 –2.25 8.58 –0.57
1PTL –1.68 –6.98 4.61 1.82 5.83 0.20
1PXTL –1.90 0.68 5.27 –2.36 6.64 4.18
Note: Locations and directions of strain gauges in the manhole base are shown in Fig. 2.

ing the experimental program (see Fig. 2 for locations of
pressure cells in related experiments). Furthermore, the calcu-
lated strains in the manhole base are compared with the ex-
perimental values at the same locations (see Fig. 2 for
locations of strain gauges in related experiments), and the
calculated maximum moments developed in the manhole
bases are compared to the pertinent base cracking moment.
The following paragraphs will show the results of the com-
parison.
the edges, which agreed with the experimental results. The
percentage differences between experimental and numerical
pressures ranged from 18% to 40% as shown in Table 5. On
the other hand, the comparison between the calculated soil
pressure at 0.45 m under the 1500 mm diameter modeled
manhole base and that of the tested manhole showed a per-
centage difference between the experimental and numerical
pressure results ranged from –36% to 12% as shown in Ta-
ble 6.

Pressure under manhole base Strain in manhole base

The calculated soil pressure under the 1200 mm manhole
base was compared with the measured pressure under both
the reinforced and nonreinforced 1200 mm manholes. The
pressure profile at 0.60 m under the manhole base showed
that the pressure was larger at the centre and decreased under
For the 1200 mm manhole model, the initial stains after
manhole installation and before loading at locations of the
concrete strain gauges in the nonreinforced 1200 mm man-
hole specimen were –11.3 × 10–6, 16.7 × 10–6, and 21.2 ×
10–6 for CCL, CCD, and CCU, respectively. The maximum

Published by NRC Research Press

 Sabouni and El Naggar 915

Table 8. Numerical and experimental strain in the 1500 mm diameter manhole base due to loading [strain × 10–6].

Strain SG1 SG2 SG3 SG5 SG6 SG7

gauge
name Model Exp. Model Exp. Model Exp. Model Exp. Model Exp. Model Exp.
1PCL 0.14 –0.87 1.32 –0.30 1.37 –0.57 1.36 –1.17 0.92 –0.40 1.33 –1.47
2PCL –0.58 –1.07 –3.13 –0.77 –3.09 –0.60 3.35 0.03 –1.88 –0.73 3.10 –1.60
4PCL 0.70 –0.43 2.50 0.67 2.53 –1.37 2.68 2.27 1.71 0.20 2.50 0.43
4PDL 1.63 4.30 4.35 2.70 4.38 2.97 4.73 4.97 3.12 2.27 4.50 3.40
1PTL 1.11 0.83 2.88 2.23 2.88 1.83 3.12 4.50 2.05 1.70 2.96 –0.03
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11

1PXTL 1.25 3.73 3.26 2.43 3.26 4.07 3.54 6.87 2.33 2.00 3.36 4.00
Note: Locations of strain gauges in the manhole base are shown in Fig. 2.

calculated tension strain due to loading in the manhole base Fig. 3. Pressure under manhole base: a) before loading, (b) 1PXTL,
was 8.58 × 10–6. The maximum overall calculated strain in and (c) 4PDL.
the manhole base (29.78 × 10–6) at the location of the strain
gauges was about 60% less than the base cracking strain. The
calculated strain due to loading (for fast loading cases) is
compared to the experimental strain due to loading for the
same loading cases at the same locations for the nonrein-
forced manhole specimen in Table 7. It should be taken into
consideration that the results due to loading shown in Table 7
do not represent the final state of tension or compression in
their location but demonstrate whether it is an increase or de-
crease in tension or compression from the before loading
strains condition in their location. The results demonstrate
For personal use only.

that the calculated strains are in the same order of magnitude

but slightly higher than the experimental strains.
The calculated initial strains after manhole installation, and
before loading, at the locations of the concrete strain gauges
in the nonreinforced 1500 mm diameter manhole specimen
are: 4.38 × 10–6, 15.92 × 10–6, 16.30 × 10–6, 17.50 × 10–6,
10.81 × 10–6, and 16.40 × 10–6, for SG1, SG2, SG3, SG5,
SG6, and SG7, respectively. The maximum tensile strain due
to loading in the manhole base was 3.46 × 10–6. The calcu-
lated maximum overall strain in the manhole base (22.23 ×
10–6) at the location of the strain gauges was about 75% less
than the base cracking strain. Table 8 compares the calcu-
lated strain in the 1500 mm diameter manhole base due to
loading with the experimental strain (for fast loading cases).
The results are very close, e.g., the maximum calculated and
measured strains due to loading were about 95% and 92%
less than the base cracking strain.

Investigation of the proximity of the LSGTF

strong walls
To examine the effect of the existence of the LSGTF
strong walls on the pressure under the manhole base, two
models were developed. The first model had rigid walls with
the rigidity factor for the soil–walls interface taken equal to
one (i.e., rigid connection between the walls and soil). In the
second model, the walls were removed and the model boun-
daries were placed at 15 m from the manhole in each direc-
tion (large boundaries model). Each model was analyzed for
three cases: no loading and loading cases 1PXTL (design
load) and 1PDL. The pressure profiles directly underneath
the manhole base (at zero elevation) for all cases are shown
in Fig. 3. The results showed that the models with the
LSGTF walls had pressures less than 10% higher than the
case with large boundaries, confirming that the existence of

Published by NRC Research Press

 916 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Table 9. Percentage difference of the maximum 1200 mm and 1500 mm diameter manhole models base bending moment from
the base cracking moment.

1200 mm diameter manhole 1500 mm diameter manhole

M11 max M22 max M11 max M22 max
Pressure cell % Diff. % Diff. % Diff. % Diff.
name Model from Mcr Model from Mcr Model from Mcr Model from Mcr
Before loading 4.12 –75% 4.13 –75% 9.53 –85% 9.04 –86%
1PCL 4.39 –73% 4.4 –73% 10.1 –84% 9.79 –84%
2PCL 4.85 –70% 4.86 –70% 10.4 –83% 10.03 –84%
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11

4PCL 4.73 –71% 4.74 –71% 10.8 –83% 10.4 –83%

4PDL 5.64 –65% 5.64 –65% 11.7 –81% 11.28 –82%
1PTL 5.14 –68% 5.14 –68% 10.9 –83% 10.5 –83%
1PXTL 5.28 –68% 5.29 –68% 11.1 –82% 10.7 –83%
Note: M11 and M22 are the bending moments due to bending over (around) the horizontal and vertical axes in the finite element model,
respectively.

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the manhole model showing the parameters considered in the parametric study.
For personal use only.

the LSGTF strong walls had marginal effect on the pressure
under the manhole base.
Manhole models results analysis
Pressure underneath the manhole bases
The average vertical soil pressure at 0.6 m and 0.4 m
under the manhole base (levels of pressure cells in related ex-
periments) before loading were found to be 143.5 kN/m2 and
130.5 kN/m2 for the 1200 mm and 1500 mm manholes.
These pressures correspond to total vertical loads of 168 kN
and 332 kN acting on the 1200 mm and 1500 mm manhole
base area, respectively. These loads are greater than the
weight of manhole and soil to the specified depth, which
means manholes are carrying 52 kN and 192 kN extra loads.
This could be due to additional load from surrounding soil
transmitted to the manholes walls through friction (Tadros et
al. 1989). The experimental results ofan earlier work by Sab-
ouni and El Naggar (2011) showed a similar behaviour where
the total loads at the same levels were found to be 175 kN
and 377 kN for the 1200 mm and 1500 mm diameter man-
holes, respectively.
Moment in manhole bases
Table 9 shows the maximum bending moments of the base
of the 1200 mm diameter and 1500 mm diameter manholes.
The cracking moment (Mcr) for these manhole bases were
found to be 16.3 kN·m/m and 62.4 kN·m/m for the
1200 mm and 1500 mm diameter manholes, respectively, as
calculated by (CSA 2004, 2006):
Ig fcr
½1 Mcr ¼
yt

Published by NRC Research Press

 Sabouni and El Naggar 917

Table 10. Properties of soil materials used in the finite element models.

cref Eref gunsat gsat

Soil type f [°] [kN/m2] [kN/m2] [kN/m3] [kN/m3] Drainage
Medium loose sand 30 1 100 000 19 22 Drained
Medium to stiff clay 3 48 50 000 16 18 Undrained
Very dense sand 39 1 520 000 19 22 Drained

Table 11. Combinations of soils used in the preliminary parametric study.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11

Name Soil around Soil under

Sand–sand Medium loose sand Medium loose sand
Clay–clay Medium to stiff clay Medium to stiff clay
Concrete sand – Very dense sand Very dense sand
concrete sand
Sand–clay Medium loose sand Medium to stiff clay
Clay–sand Medium to stiff clay Medium loose sand

Fig. 5. Effect of trench size on total vertical pressure under Fig. 6. Effect of water table on total vertical pressure under
1200 mm diameter and 5.89 m long manhole base centre: (a) before 1200 mm diameter and 5.89 m long manhole base centre with 0.6 m
loading and (b) 1PXTL applied. trench size.
For personal use only.

pffiffiffiffi
½3a fcr ¼ 0:6l fc0
8 9
>
> 1:00 rc  2150 kg=m3 >
>
< =
3 3
½3b l ¼ 0:85 1850 kg=m < rc < 2150 kg=m
>
> >
>
: 0:75 rc  1850 kg=m3 ;

where rc is the concrete mass density. As can be noted from

Table 9, the maximum bending moments of the 1200 mm
and 1500 mm diameter manholes bases were much less than
the cracking moments.

The parametric study

For circular concrete slabs, it becomes
2
bh fcr
½2 Mcr ¼
6 The factors considered in this preliminary study include:
where Ig is the gross moment of inertia [m4], b and h are the
width and thickness of the manhole base slab, respectively.
The flexural cracking strength (fcr) from Canadian Stand-
ards Association A23.3-04 clause 8.6.4 can be calculated in
terms of the concrete cylinder compressive strength (fc0 ) as
follows (CSA 2004):
The parametric study was conducted to identify the most
important factors affecting the pressure underneath the man-
hole base and the bending moment in its concrete sections.
type of native soil around the manhole; trench size; water ta-
ble elevation; and the manhole stage installation and filling
soil compaction. This study was carried out on 5.83 m long
1200 mm diameter manhole models. This preliminary study
involved the analysis of more than 85 different finite element
models.

Published by NRC Research Press

 918 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Table 12. Effect of modeling construction stages on soil pressure under manhole base
centre.

Total pressure [kPa]

No staged With staged
Soil type installation installation % Difference
Sand–sand 119.4 118.8 –0.5
Sand–sand (1PXTL) 127.1 124.7 –1.8
Clay–clay 90.5 96.3 6.4
Clay–clay (1PXTL) 93.6 98.8 5.6
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11

Concrete sand – concrete 105.0 106.7 1.6

sand
Concrete sand – concrete 119.7 121.2 1.3
sand (1PXTL)
Sand–clay 115.3 114.9 –0.4
Sand–clay (1PXTL) 124.0 121.7 –1.9
Clay–sand 91.7 96.6 5.3
Clay–sand (1PXTL) 96.5 100.9 4.6

Table 13. Effect of compaction on total pressure under manhole base centre.

Total pressure [kPa]

Soil type No compaction With compaction % Difference
Sand–sand 119.4 122.79 2.84
Clay–clay 90.5 92.3 1.99
Concrete sand – 105.0 104.99 –0.01
For personal use only.

concrete sand
Sand–clay 115.3 122.2 5.98
Clay–sand 91.7 92.3 0.65

The finite element models calibrated against the experi-
mental results were slightly modified for the purpose of the
parametric study (Fig. 4) to render it representative of in situ
conditions. For example, the walls representing the large-
scale geotechnical testing facility (LSGTF) were removed
and the boundaries of the model were placed at 6.0 m away
from the manhole walls, and 6.0 m away from the manhole
base, i.e., more than six times the radius of the manhole
(Zhao and Wang 2008). In addition, a trench was introduced
around the modeled manholes and the bedding under the
manhole was reduced to the minimum (0.15 m) required by
the Ontario provincial standard specification (OPSS516)
(MTO and MEA 2005). Both the trench filling around the
manhole and the bedding under the manhole were taken as
grade A gravel (grade A gravel soil data set Table 3). This
soil was chosen based on the requirements of the MTO and
MEA (2003, 2008). Three different native (in situ) soil types
were considered: medium dense sand, medium to stiff clay,
and very dense sand (see Table 10 for properties). The
Mohr-Coulomb material model was used for all three types
of soils. The first two materials represent in situ cohesionless
and cohesive soils; whereas, the third represents the case of a
stronger soil on the response of the modeled manholes (the
sandy soils represent two different soils).
Effect of type of native soil around manhole
Three types of soils, with five different combinations of
soils around the risers (outside the installation trench) and
under the manhole base (under the bedding soil) were con-
sidered in the preliminary parametric study as shown in Ta-
ble 11. Several finite element models were analyzed for each
soil configuration, changing the trench size and the water ta-
ble level. Each manhole model was analyzed for two cases:
no load applied, and the 1PXTL applied load. Figures 5 and
6 show that the largest total vertical pressure underneath the
manhole base centre occurred in sand–sand soil models. It is
also noted that pressure values for different soil conditions
are bounded by the values of the clay–clay and sand–sand
soil model.
Effect of trench width (Tw)
The trench width, Tw, is the width of grade A gravel back-
fill between the manhole riser and native soil as shown in
Fig. 4. Three values were considered, Tw = 0.3 m, 0.6 m,
and 1.64 m (as used in the experimental program). Each
width was considered with the five soil configurations and
for water table at the base level and at the manhole top and
the analysis was performed for both no loading and the
1PXTL loading case. The results shown in Fig. 5 indicate
that the trench size had a slight effect on the total vertical
pressure under the centre of the manhole. For example, as
the trench size increased from 0.3 m to 1.64 m, the pressure
underneath the centre of the manhole varied by ±8.5%, con-
firming that the LSGTF had minor effect on soil pressure
from a designer point of view.
Effect of water table elevation
Three water table levels were considered: 6 m below man-
hole base (dry model), elevation of manhole base, and top of
the manhole (submerged model). Five soil configurations

Published by NRC Research Press

 Sabouni and El Naggar
were considered, with Tw = 0.6 and the models were ana-
lyzed for both no loading and the 1PXTL loading case. The
total vertical pressure beneath the centre of the manhole base
was almost equal for the cases of water table at 6 m below
and at the manhole base, and it slightly increased for water
table at the manhole top (from 3% to 13.5%) as shown in
Fig. 6.
Effect of the model staged installation
The effect of the manhole staged installation on the soil
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11
pressure beneath the manhole base was investigated using
the construction stages option in Plaxis 3D. Analyses were
performed for the 1200 mm manhole installed in each of the
five different soil configurations with specifying construction
stages similar to those followed in manhole installation
within the experimental program. The construction stages
were as follows. In first stage, the soil underneath the man-
hole was activated. Two construction stages were added for
each manhole part: activating the manhole part and then acti-
vating the surrounding soil. The analysis was performed for
each stage beginning from the previous stage until the man-
hole was fully installed. The load 1PXTL was then applied in
a separate construction stage. The analysis considered trench
width, Tw = 0.6 m and water table at manhole base.
The total pressure beneath the manhole centre for staged
installation is compared to the one step installation case in
For personal use only.
Table 12. The results showed that for manholes installed in
sand, the staged construction slightly decreased the pressure
beneath the centre of the manhole base. On the other hand,
the pressure increased by up to 6.4% and 1.6% for manholes
in clay and concrete sand, respectively.
Effect of soil compaction
The compaction load is critical at the top layer where it is
significant compared to the soil overburden pressure. The ef-
fect of compaction in deeper soil layers is alleviated by the
deflection and rearrangement of soil particles and by the ef-
fect of the compaction of the following layers (Seed and
Duncan 1986; Duncan and Seed 1986). To study the effect
of soil compaction on the response of manholes, a distributed
load representative of the compactor load was applied at the
top of the Grade A gravel trench around the manhole top on
an area with width equal to the compactor shoe width
(0.254 m around the manhole top) (Ingold 1979). The man-
hole response was analyzed, the load was removed and the
analysis was performed again. For the compactor used in the
experimental program (Electrical wacker model ES52Y), the
distributed load (138 kN/m2) was calculated by dividing the
compactor force (1628 kN/blow) by its shoe area
(0.254 m × 0.33 m). Five different soil configurations (as
shown in Table 13) were analyzed considering Tw = 0.6 m
and water table at the manhole base level and the results are
presented in Table 13. Accounting for compaction in the
analysis increased the pressure beneath the base by less than
6%.
Conclusions
The behaviour of circular precast concrete manholes was
investigated using 3D finite element analysis. The bending
moment in the manhole base and the vertical stresses in the
919
soil underneath the manholes were evaluated in a parametric
study on a variety of manhole site conditions to identify the
critical factors affecting the manhole response.
The results showed that the maximum base moment for the
1200 mm diameter manhole model for all loading cases was
65% less than the cracking moment. For the 1500 mm diam-
eter manhole model base, the maximum moment for all load-
ing cases was 81% less than the cracking moment. These
results indicated that the 1200 mm and 1500 mm diameter
circular precast concrete manholes’ base designs were overly
conservative.
The results of the parametric study also showed that the
total vertical stresses underneath the centre of the manhole
base were highest for the sand–sand case and was lowest for
the clay–clay soil case. It was also found that the trench
width had a marginal effect on the total vertical stress be-
neath the centre of the manhole base. The critical water table
elevation was found to be at the top of the manhole level.
Accounting for the staged installation dramatically increased
the computational effort and had a marginal effect on the ver-
tical pressure beneath the manhole base. In general placing
the boundaries at 6 m away from the manhole sides and
base was proven to be sufficient to prevent the boundary ef-
fects on the calculated response of the modeled manholes.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to
the Ontario Concrete Pipe Association and NSERC for sup-
porting this research. Thanks are also extended to Con Cast
Pipe, Hanson Pipe and M-Con for providing us with the
tested manhole samples.
References
American Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA). 2008a. Design data
20: Circular precast concrete manhole. American Concrete Pipe
Association, Virginia, USA.
American Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA). 2008b. Design data
41: Manhole flotation. American Concrete Pipe Association,
Virginia, USA.
Bettez, J., Townsend, R.D., and Comeau, A. 2001. Scale model
testing and calibration of city of Ottawa sewer weirs. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 28(4): 627–639. doi:10.1139/l01-
024.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Broere, W., and Waterman, D. 2007. Plaxis 3D
foundation reference manual Version 2. A.A. Balkema Publisher,
Netherland.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2004. CSA Standard A23.3-
04, Design of concrete structures. Canadian Standards Associa-
tion, Canada.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2006. CSA Standard S6-05,
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Canadian Standards
Association, Canada.
Downey, D. 2004. Flood grouting tool solves inflow and infiltration
problems. Water and Wastewater International, 19(7): 37–39.
Duncan, J.M., and Seed, R.B. 1986. Compaction-induced earth
pressures under K0-conditions. Journal of Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, 112(1): 1–22. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:1(1).
Griffiths, R., and Ball, A. 2000. Assessment of the properties and
degradation behaviour of glass-fibre-reinforced polyester polymer
concrete. Composites Science and Technology, 60(14): 2747–
2753. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(00)00147-0.
Hossain, M.K., and Lytton, R.L. 1991. Analysis of large diameter
Published by NRC Research Press
 920
high density polyethylene plastic pipes as vertical shafts in
landfills. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 19(6): 475–484.
doi:10.1520/JTE12611J.
Ingold, T.S. 1979. Retaining wall performance during backfilling.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 105(GT5):
613–626.
Laman, M., and Yildiz, A. 2007. Numerical studies of ring
foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geosynthetics Interna-
tional, 14(2): 52–64. doi:10.1680/gein.2007.14.2.52.
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) and Municipal
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 10/12/11
Engineers Association. (MEA). 2003. Ontario Provincial Standard
Specifications OPSS 1010, Material specification for aggregates-
base, subbase, select subgrade, and backfill material. Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario, and Municipal Engineers Association,
Ontario, Canada.
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) and Municipal
Engineers Association. (MEA). 2005. Ontario Provincial Standard
Specifications OPSS 516, Construction specification for excavat-
ing, backfilling, and compacting maintenance hole, catch basins,
ditch inlets and valve chambers. Ministry of Transportation of
Ontario, and Municipal Engineers Association, Ontario, Canada.
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) and Municipal
Engineers Association. (MEA). 2008. Ontario Provincial Standard
Specifications OPSS 514, Construction specification for trenching,
backfilling, and compacting. Ministry of Transportation of
Ontario, and Municipal Engineers Association, Ontario, Canada.
Petroff, L.J. 1994. Design methodology for high density polyethylene
For personal use only.
View publication stats
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011
manholes. In Buried Plastic Pipe Technology, Vol. 2. (ASTM STP
1222). Edited by D. Eckstein. pp. 52–65.
Sabouni, R., and El Naggar, M.H. 2008. Full Scale Testing of
1200 mm Diameter Precast Concrete Manhole. In Proceedings of
2nd Canadian Conference on Effective Design of Structures,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 20–23 May 2008.
Sabouni, R., and El Naggar, M.H. 2011. Circular precast concrete
manholes: experimental investigation. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 38(3): 319–330. doi:10.1139/L10-135.
Saricimen, H., Shameem, M., Barry, M.S., Ibrahim, M., and Abbasi,
T.A. 2003. Durability of proprietary cementitious materials for use
in wastewater transport systems. Cement and Concrete Compo-
sites, 25(4–5): 421–427. doi:10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00082-3.
Seed, R.B., and Duncan, J.M. 1986. FE analysis: Compaction-
induced stresses and deformations. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 112(1): 23–43. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1986)112:1(23).
Tadros, M.K., Benak, J.V., and Gilliland, M.K. 1989. Soil Pressure on
box culverts. American Concrete Institute Structural Journal, 86(4):
439–450.
Zhao, L., and Wang, J.H. 2008. Vertical bearing capacity for ring
footings. Computers and Geotechnics, 35(2): 292–304. doi:10.
1016/j.compgeo.2007.05.005.
Zhou, F., Hicks, F., and Steffler, P. 2004. Analysis of effects of air
pocket on hydraulic failure of urban drainage infrastructure.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 31(1): 86–94. doi:10.1139/
l03-077.
Published by NRC Research Press