TRANSPORT AND ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY

Department of Transport RRL

C o n t r a c t o r Report 228

Buried flexible pipes: 1

Design m e t h o d s presently used in Britain

by G N Smith and O C Young. Consultants

The work reported herein was carried out under a contract placed on G N Smith and O C Young
Consultants by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The research customer for this work is
Highways Engineering Division, DTp.

This report, like others in the series, is reproduced with the authors' own text and illustrations. No
attempt has been made to prepare a standardised format or style of presentation.

Copyright Controller of HMSO 1991. The views expressed in this Report are not necessarily those of
the Department of Transport. Extracts from the text may be reproduced, except for commercial
purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

Ground Engineering Division

Structures Group
Transport and Road Research Laboratory
Old Wokingham Road
Crowthorne, Berkshire RG11 6AU

1991

ISSN 0266-7045
Ownership of the Transport Research
Laboratory was transferred from the
Department of Transport to a subsidiary of
the Transport Research Foundation on 1st
April 1996.

This report has been reproduced by

permission of the Controller of HMSO.
Extracts from the text may be reproduced,
except for .commercial purposes; provided
the source-is acknowledged:
CONTENTS
Page

i. I n t r o d u c t i o n 1

2. B u r i e d pipes - basic design approaches

2.1 Rigid pipes 2

2.2 F l e x i b l e pipes 4
2.3 D e f l e c t i o n time lag f a c t o r 13
2.4 B u c k l i n g of a c i r c u l a r pipe 13
2.5 Ring c o m p r e s s i o n theory 16

3. The C I R I A d e s i g n procedure for b u r i e d flexible pipes 18

3.1 R e q u i r e d data 18
3.2 External loads on pipes 19
3.3 M a x i m u m D/t ratio 22
3.4 Pipe s p e c i f i c stiffness 23
3.5 Critical buckling pressure 23
3.6 Deflection calculations 24
3.7 M i n i m u m pipe stiffness for h a n d l i n g stresses 26

4. The W a t e r R e s e a r c h C e n t r e design procedure for b u r i e d 2

f l e x i b l e pipes

4.1 B a c k f i l l m a t e r i a l selection 33
4.2 Pipe d e f l e c t i o n s 35
4.3 B u c k l i n g 36

5. C o m m e n t s on d e s i g n m e t h o d s presently used in B r i t a i n 39

6. Acknowledgements 39

7. References 40

Appendix I 43

Appendix II 44

Appendix III 50

Example 1 45

Example 2 46

Example 3 (Spangler's approach) 26

Example 4 (Barnard's approach) 28

Example 5 (W.R.C.'s approach) 37

Figures 51

i
NOTATION

A Cross sectional area of pipe wall per unit length, normal

atmospheric pressure
B W i d t h of a s s u m e d u n i f o r m l y loaded footing (= 0.766D),
(Barnard)
D O u t s i d e d i a m e t e r of pipe
DR Re-rounding factor
Db B u c k l i n g r e d u c t i o n factor
DL D e f l e c t i o n lag factor
E, Ep Y o u n g ' s m o d u l u s of pipe material
E' S p a n g l e r ' s m o d u l u s of soil (= ks/R )
E'' S p e c i f i c s t i f f n e s s of pipe per unit length (= EI/D s)
Es Y o u n g ' s m o d u l u s of elasticity of soil
F Shape f a c t o r (Barnard)
FS F a c t o r of s a f e t y
H D e p t h of c o v e r to crown of pipe
I M o m e n t of i n e r t i a of pipe wall per unit length
K L a t e r a l p r e s s u r e ratio (ratio of lateral to vertical
pressures).
Ka C o e f f i c i e n t of active earth pressure
Kb Bedding factor
Ko C o e f f i c i e n t of earth pressure at rest
L E f f e c t i v e l e n g t h of strut
•E f f e c t i v e l e n g t h o f • e q u i v a l e n t earth column (= 1.25D).
(Barnard)
Mmax M a x i m u m value of bending moment in wall
Me B e n d i n g m o m e n t in pipe wall at coordinates r and 8
P C o n c e n t r a t e d load
P0 F o r c e per u n i t length of pipe normal to a diameter
R E x t e r n a l pipe radius
Ri I n t e r n a l pipe radius
T T h r u s t in pipe wall per unit length of pipe, Euler's
c r i t i c a l load
We V e r t i c a l crown load per unit length of pipe
Z L i m i t i n g h e i g h t of cover

a Constant
b Constant
c D i m e n s i o n from c o n c e n t r a t e d live load to pipe crown
fa A l l o w a b l e c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l (i.e. tensile or compressive)
stress in pipe wall
fb S t r e s s in pipe wall due to the buckling pressure, Pb
fy Y i e l d stress of pipe wall material
h H e i g h t of g r o u n d w a t e r level above pipe invert
ks Soil s p r i n g c o n s t a n t for radial ring displacements
P E x t e r n a l v e r t i c a l p r e s s u r e on pipe at crown level
Pb V a l u e of e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e on pipe to cause buckling
Pd E x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e on pipe due to backfill
Pe E x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e a p p l i e d uniformly around the
c i r c u m f e r e n c e of the pipe
Pi I n t e r n a l p r e s s u r e a p p l i e d uniformly around the
c i r c u m f e r e n c e of the pipe
PL E x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e on pipe due to concentrated load

ii
Pq D e c r e a s e in a b s o l u t e p r e s s u r e in pipe b e l o w a t m o s p h e r i c
Ps V e r t i c a l p r e s s u r e due to any s u r c h a r g e l o a d i n g s
Pt Total external p r e s s u r e on pipe
Pv V e r t i c a l p r e s s u r e at c r o w n due to b a c k f i l l
Pw E x t e r n a l pressure on pipe due to g r o u n d w a t e r
r V a r i a b l e radius w i t h i n t h i c k n e s s of p i p e wall
t Pipe wall thickness
w Radial d i s p l a c e m e n t of pipe wall, U n i t w e i g h t of fill
wa V e r t i c a l p r e s s u r e s u p p o r t e d by a c t i v e soil p r e s s u r e ,
(Barnard)
Wh Value of h o r i z o n t a l c o n t a c t p r e s s u r e at axis of p i p e
(Barnard)
Wp V e r t i c a l p r e s s u r e s u p p o r t e d by pipe a l o n e w h e n av = .02D,
(Barnard)
wV Total v e r t i c a l p r e s s u r e on p i p e crown, (Barnard)
Wvd Dead load p r e s s u r e on pipe crown, (Barnard)
WvL Live load p r e s s u r e on pipe crown, (Barnard)
Z0 D e p t h at w h i c h full w e i g h t of fill a s s u m e d to act

G& Half of the angle s u b t e n d e d by the b e d d i n g w i d t h

7w Unit w e i g h t of w a t e r
~p Change in v e r t i c a l p r e s s u r e
~W c Change in crown load
~s Soil c o m p r e s s i v e s t r a i n
Ewh S t r a i n (%) c o r r e s p o n d i n g to Wh, (Barnard)
e A n g u l a r c o - o r d i n a t e ( m e a s u r e d f r o m h o r i z o n t a l p i p e axis)
M a j o r p r i n c i p a l stress
¢3 M i n o r p r i n c i p a l stress
~0 Hoop stress acting at r i g h t a n g l e s to r a d i u s at p o i n t
(r,0)
~r Radial c o m p r e s s i v e stress a c t i n g at r a d i u s r
70 C o m p r e s s i v e stress i n d u c e d in p i p e w a l l
A n g l e of shearing r e s i s t a n c e of fill
vp P o i s s o n ' s ratio of pipe m a t e r i a l
vs .Poisson's ratio of s u r r o u n d i n g soil
AL S h o r t e n i n g of e q u i v a l e n t e a r t h column, (Barnard)
av C h a n g e in v e r t i c a l d i a m e t e r of p i p e
ax C h a n g e in h o r i z o n t a l d i a m e t e r of pipe

iii
 BURIED FLEXIBLE PIPES

D E S I G N METHODS PRESENTLY USED IN B R I T A I N

1 INTRODUCTION

The present methods most w i d e l y used for the d e s i g n of buried

flexible pipes have been r e v i e w e d in two p u b l i c a t i o n s , one by the

American Highway Research Board, Progress R e p o r t No. 116,

p r e p a r e d by Krizek et al. (1971) and the other by the C o n s t r u c t i o n

Industry Research and I n f o r m a t i o n Association (CIRIA), Report

No.78, prepared by Compston et al. (1978).

It has long been felt that these m e t h o d s have a c o m m o n shortcoming

in that they all consider the various criteria used for the

structural performance of the p i p e s e p a r a t e l Y so that, with each

criterion based on a d i f f e r e n t set of assumptions, the d e s i g n e r

cannot readily assess which one is the m o s t c r i t i c a l for his

design.

In 1977 the T r a n s p o r t and Road R e s e a r c h Laboratory (TRRL)

commissioned Mott, Hay and Anderson, Consulting Engineers, to

examine this u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s i t u a t i o n and to a t t e m p t to d e v e l o p a

more rational approach to the d e s i g n of b u r i e d flexible pipes.

The work, backed up by both research, model and p r o t o t y p e tests,

has now been completed and l i m i t e d d e t a i l s of this new d e s i g n

method, which provides a unified approach to the p r e d i c t i o n of

values of deflection, stresses and buckling, have b e e n published

(Gumbel & Wilson, 1981; Gumbel, O'Reilly, Lake and Carder, 1982).

The project is at the start of the next stage, the p r e p a r a t i o n of a

series of four reports that will set out the p r i n c i p l e s of the

p r o p o s e d design model and e v e n t u a l l y may lead to the p r o d u c t i o n of

a design guide.

This first report in the series gives a brief r e v i e w of the present

position regarding the d e s i g n of b u r i e d flexible pipes in Britain.

Most of the m a t e r i a l presented has been abstracted f r o m the C I R I A

Report No. 78 a n d from Gumbel's treatise on the a n a l y s i s and design

of b u r i e d flexible pipes (1983).

The text is w r i t t e n on the a s s u m p t i o n that the r e a d e r has a working

knowledge of the terminology and theory used in b u r i e d flexible

pipe design but, if t h i s is not the case, reference can be made to

the a p p e n d i c e s which give an o u t l i n e of this m a t e r i a l and are

placed at the b a c k of the Report.

2 BURIED PIPES - BASIC DESIGN PROCEDURES

The object of this section is to d i s c u s s the c u r r e n t d e s i g n

approaches used for b u r i e d flexible p i p e s but, for the sake of

completeness, an i n t r o d u c t o r y s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h r i g i d pipes

has also been included.

2,1 Riaid DiDes

A guide fir the d e s i g n of such pipes, has b e e n p r e p a r e d by Young

and O'Reilly (1983) and published by the T r a n s p o r t and R o a d

Research Laboratory.

A r i g i d pipe, buried in soil, is s u b j e c t e d to soil p r e s s u r e s that

can rarely be considered as e q u i v a l e n t to an e x t e r n a l hydraulic

pressure hence, in m o s t situations, b e n d i n g m o m e n t s will be induced

in the p i p e walls. If the equilibrium distribution of the c o n t a c t

pressures between the p i p e and its surrounding soil is k n o w n or can

be a s s u m e d , then the m o m e n t s and thrusts in the pipe ring can be

determined from statics alone with no k n o w l e d g e of the material

properties of the pipe.

Consider a rigid pipe subjected at its crown level to a uniformly

distributed vertical pressure p, (Figure 5A). If w e ignore the

weight of the soil over the depth of the pipe then we can say that

the pipe will also be subjected to a u n i f o r m horizontal pressure Kp

where K is the ratio of horizontal to v e r t i c a l soil stresses.

The moment per unit length of pipe, Me, at a point on the pipe's

circumference, defined by the polar co-ordinates R and 8, can be

obtained from the equation quoted by Bulson (1985):-

pR 2
M0 - (2cos2e + 2Ksin2e - K - I) . . . . . . . . . (6)
4

The maximum value of b e n d i n g moment to w h i c h the cross section

will be subjected, Mmax, occurs at the springing, i.e. when e = 0°

Some designers prefer to think in terms of Wc, the load acting on

the crown of the pipe and equation (6) becomes::-

WcR
M0 - (2cos2e + 2Ksin20 - K - i) . . . . . . . . (6A)
8
where W c = 2pR

Charts for the determination of W c f o r a rigid pipe buried in a

trench or u n d e r an e m b a n k m e n t , have been prepared by Young and

O'Reilly (1983).

A plot of Mma x v a l u e s obtained from equation (6) for K values from

0 to 1.0 is shown in F i g . 5 B .

If t h e pipe is so s t i f f that horizontal deflections will be

negligible then K will tend to equal the coefficient of earth

pressure at rest, K 0. A t y p i c a l K 0 value for a granular fill is

0.45 giving a maximum bending moment, M, = 0.138pR 2 = 0.069WcR.

Because of the difficulty of ensuring good compaction of the side

fill for a pipe placed in a t r e n c h the effect of horizontal

pressures acting on a trenched rigid pipe is u s u a l l y ignored. In

effect K is taken as equal to 0 and the m a x i m u m bending moment

acting on the cross section as equal to 0 . 2 5 p R 2 = 0.125WcR. If the

pipe is flexible enough to d e f l e c t horizontally outwards into the

soil then the value of K will increase leading to a c o n s e q u e n t

reduction in the bending moment to w h i c h the pipe is subjected.

When K = 1.0 then M = 0 and the condition of an a p p l i e d hydrostatic

pressure has been achieved.

2,2 Fl~xibl# DiDes

The basic problem considered in the current design approaches is

the two dimensional plane strain response of the c i r c u l a r buried

pipe cross section, otherwise termed the "pipe ring" Possible

detrimental longitudinal effects are briefly discussed in s e c t i o n

1.6 of the second report of this series, Smith (1991).

The type of structural failure experienced by a b u r i e d pipe is

affected by its degree of flexibility. A rigid pipe, with its

thick walls, usually experiences a structural failure caused by a

form of bending failure of the cross section. A buried flexible

pipe can be subjected to one of three possible failure modes;-

i. Excesssve deflections - the m a x i m u m d e f l e c t i o n of the p i p e

ring must n o t e x c e e d some s p e c i f i e d a l l o w a b l e value.

2. B u c k l i n g f a i l u r e - b u c k l i n g of a p i p e c a n o c c u r in v a r i o u s
ways, w h i c h a r e d i s c u s s e d l a t e r in this section. The
c o m p r e s s i v e h o o p s t r e s s w i t h i n the pipe ring m u s t be
r e s t r i c t e d to s u c h a v a l u e t h a t b u c k l i n g f a i l u r e will not
occur.

3. 0verstressing of the p i p e w a l l s - due to the v a l u e of the

c o m p r e s s i v e h o o p s t r e s s b e c o m i n g e x c e s s i v e . It s h o u l d
be n o t e d t h a t w i t h f l e x i b l e p i p e s this f a i l u r e mode is
g e n e r a l l y l e s s c r i t i c a l t h a n (i) and (2).

Present practice is to check each condition and then choose a pipe

that will withstand the w o r s t case.

 2.2.1Spangler's deflection theory.

This theory is f u l l y d i s c u s s e d in the C I R I A Report No. 78 and o n l y

a brief r e s u m e will be g i v e n here.

Spangler (1941) used a discrete spring (Winkler) model to

represent the h o r i z o n t a l stiffness of the b a c k f i l l soil and

suggested that the f o r m of the p r e s s u r e distribution around a

buried flexible circular pipe c o u l d be o b t a i n e d by the following

assumptions:-

i) The v e r t i c a l load/unit length, We, acting on the crown

is a s s u m e d to be u n i f o r m l y distributed over an a r e a equal to the

d i a m e t e r of the pipe. W c is the summation of the effect of the

w e i g h t of the b a c k f i l l soil a b o v e the p i p e and the effect of a n y

vertical surcharge. The e f f e c t of the soil weight is d e t e r m i n e d

from Marston's theory (1913, 1930) which, in the c a s e of

pipes in a trench, allows for the transference of p a r t of the,

w e i g h t of the b a c k f i l l to the u n d i s t u r b e d soil at the sides of

the trench. As is d i s c u s s e d in s e c t i o n 3.2.1 of this report,

CIRIA conservatively recommends t h a t for m o s t practical

situations this r e d u c t i o n of l o a d can be i g n o r e d and the full

w e i g h t of the soil a b o v e the p i p e assumed to a c t at c r o w n level.

ii) The i n v e r t r e a c t i o n is a s s u m e d to be v e r t i c a l and to be

uniformly distributed o v e r the w i d t h of the b e d d i n g of the pipe.

iii) The h o r i z o n t a l soil p r e s s u r e is p a r a b o l i c a l l y distributed

o v e r the arc s u b t e n d e d by the c e n t r a l i00 d e g r e e s , varying from

z e r o to a m a x i m u m v a l u e of k s a x / 2 where ax is the total horizontal

deflection of the p i p e ring. k s is g e n e r a l l y known as the soil

stiffness or as the m o d u l u s of p a s s i v e resistance although CIRIA

Report 78 refers to it as S p a n g l e r ' s modulus of subgrade reaction.

The a s s u m e d p r e s s u r e distribution is i l l u s t r a t e d in F i g . 6 .

5
Spangler developed the following equation for ax:-

KbWcR 3
ax = . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
EI + 0.061ksR 4

where K b = the bedding factor whose value depends upon

= h a l f the v a l u e of the b e d d i n g angle

(in d e g r e e s ) - See Fig.6

R = radius of unloaded pipe

I = Mom. of inertia of pipe wall per unit length (= t3/12

k s = Soil spring stiffness

E = Young's Modulus of the pipe material

Spangler developed a relationship between ~ and the bedding

factor Kb:-

0 15 22.5 30 45 60 90
Kb 0.Ii 0.108 0.105 0.102 0.096 0.090 0.083

A linear regression analysis of these values gives the following

approximate formula:- K b : 0.11134 -0.00032~

With a smooth walled pipe the value of I per unit length is equal

to t3/12 where t = the wall thickness. However when a pipe wall is

corrugated its I value is considerably increased and this value

should be obtained from manufacturers' tables.

In order to establish a value for ks, CIRIA Report No. 78 u s e s the

approximate relationship E' = ksR where E' = Spangler's Modulus for

the soil.

Substituting E' = ksR and D = 2R, Eqn.(7) can be re-arranged as:-

KbWc
~x =
8EI/D 3 + 0.061E'

0.083W¢
or, when ~ = 90°: ~x =
8EI/D 3 + 0.061E'

E I / D 3, w h i c h only occurs in these modified forms of E q n . ( 7 ) ,

involves the properties of the pipe and its value is called the
 specific stiffness of the pipe and g i v e n the symbol E''

EI
Hence E . . . . the s p e c i f i c s t i f f n e s s of
D3 the p i p e per u n i t l e n g t h

Substituting 8E'' for 8EI/D s in the m o d i f i e d equations leads to:-

0.083W¢
~x = . ......... (7A)
8E'' + 0.061E'

Equation (7A) is the e x p r e s s i o n suggested by C I R I A a n d has the

general form:-

Factor x vertical load/unit length

~x =

Pipe stiffness factor + soil stiffness factor

The d e n o m i n a t o r therefore involves two c o n s t a n t s , 8E'', the

structural stiffness of the p i p e ring when its sides are

unsupported and 0.061E' the i n c r e a s e in stiffness with side

s u p p o r t from the backfill. It is i n t e r e s t i n g to l o o k m o r e closely

at t h e s e two p a r a m e t e r s .

At the p r e s e n t time the u p p e r l i m i t of specific stiffness, E'', is

taken as l l , 0 0 0 N / m 2 and therefore, with the thickest recommended

flexible pipe, giving the m a x i m u m value of E'', it is seen that

8E'' c a n n o t be g r e a t e r then 8 8 , 0 0 0 N / m 2

For b a c k f i l l s the l o w e s t v a l u e of E' considered to be an

acceptable limit for w o r k w i t h buried pipes is 2 x 1 0 6 N / m 2 so

that the s m a l l e s t p o s s i b l e value for 0 . 0 6 1 E ' is 122,000N/m 2

These two v a l u e s represent the e x t r e m e values at e i t h e r end of the

range of p o s s i b l e values. Obviously, at all times, the stiffness of

the b a c k f i l l is of c o n s i d e r a b l y more significance than the

structural stiffness of the p i p e ring.

Although the s i m p l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of e x t e r n a l loading as a

vertical load a c t i n g on the c r o w n leads to a s i m p l e design

approach, it m e a n s that o n l y the h o r i z o n t a l soil pressures

created by static vertical pressures are c o n s i d e r e d and the

effects of any horizontal components of earth p r e s s u r e created

during the p l a c i n g and compaction of the b a c k f i l l are ignored.

This implies that the soil modulus, E', is t a k e n as a c o n s t a n t

whose value can be e i t h e r assumed or can be d e t e r m i n e d from

laboratory tests.

In f a c t the v a l u e of E' can be e x t r e m e l y variable as it is heavily

dependent upon the v a l u e of lateral pressure created during

backfilling.

A further point worthy of m e n t i o n is that S p a n g l e r ' s approach

assumes a unique distribution of the e q u i l i b r i u m soil p r e s s u r e s

acting on the p i p e cross section. In fact b o t h the d i s t r i b u t i o n

and the m a g n i t u d e of these pressures are statically indeterminate

as they depend upon the p r o p e r t i e s of the p i p e - s o i l system.

In summary it c a n be said t h a t to a p p l y the M a r s t o n - S p a n g l e r

theory realistically is n o t at all simple as n e i t h e r the loads on

the pipe nor the p r o p e r t i e s of the b a c k f i l l material are u n i q u e l y

defined. Nevertheless it m u s t be stated that the d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n

of the S p a n g l e r method f o r the e s t i m a t i o n of d e f l e c t i o n values of

buried flexible pipes is w i d e l y u s e d and c o n s i d e r e d s a t i s f a c t o r y by

many engineers.

2.2.2 Barnard's method f o r pipe d e f l e c t i o n s . (1957)

The design method proposed by B a r n a r d for b u r i e d flexible pipes is

used by the A m e r i c a n Water Works Association and is d e s c r i b e d in

in their design manual, AWWA Manual MII, (1964). The m e t h o d is

discussed in the C I R I A Report No. 78, w h e r e it is p r e s e n t e d as an

alternative to the S p a n g l e r approach. The soil is c o n s i d e r e d to be

be elastic and the v a l u e of its Y o u n g ' s Modulus, Es, can be found

from the g r a p h s , . p r e p a r e d by B a r n a r d , of t y p i c a l axial stress/

strain relationships obtained from triaxial tests carried out on

different soil types, (Fig. SA).

The c a l c u l a t i o n procedure has the real advantage that it c o n s i d e r s ,

step by step, the way in w h i c h a steel pipe can resist earth loads.

Barnard considered three d i f f e r e n t cases of p i p e resisting action:-

case I - W h e n the wall thickness and the d i a m e t e r of the p i p e

selected to m e e t internal pressure and o t h e r service requirements

is such that the pipe is s t r o n g enough to c a r r y all live and soil

loads w i t h o u t u n d u e d e f l e c t i o n .

Case II - W h e n the pipe ring strength is s u f f i c i e n t to c a r r y part

of the live and e a r t h loads, but not all w i t h o u t undue deflection

To l i m i t d e f l e c t i o n values some side support must be p r o v i d e d by

the surrounding soil.

Case III- When the pipe is s o w e a k that its c r o s s section is a

completely flexible ring w h i c h can carry very little live and d e a d

load on its own w i t h o u t u n d u e d e f l e c t i o n . If a c c e p t a b l e values of

pipe ring d e f l e c t i o n are to be a c h i e v e d there must be full

mobilisation of the r e s i s t a n c e t h a t c a n be p r o v i d e d by the

surrounding soil. The r e s u l t i n g enveloping forces are essentially

radial, the pipe ring b e i n g confined and subjected to c o m p r e s s i v e

stress only. Barnard suggested that, for such situations, the

limiting value of c o m p r e s s i v e stress in the steel pipe ring

s h o u l d be t a k e n as 7 , 5 0 0 1 b / i n 2, i.e. 52 x 1 0 6 N / m z

As this r e p o r t d e a l s w i t h f l e x i b l e buried pipes Case III w i l l be

the one m o s t c o n s i d e r e d .

2.2.2.1 Barnard's shape factor

A buried flexible pipe that is p e r f e c t l y round is n o t subjected to

a b e n d i n g m o m e n t and 70, the v a l u e of the compressive stress

induced in the wall, is g i v e n by:-

pR
Te - where p = the p r e s s u r e at the
t crown of the pipe

As this same stress must prevail in e v e r y p o r t i o n of the pipe

periphery, the c o n f i n i n g pressure in the soil m u s t therefore

maintain the same compressive stress at e v e r y p o i n t of the pipe

ring if the p i p e is not to c h a n g e shape. This condition is only

possible if the confining pressure acts radially and is equal to

p. However, if the cross section of the pipe suffers a vertical

compression, together with a horizontal expansion, the c o n t a c t

pressure on the h o r i z o n t a l axis m u s t be g r e a t e r than that on the

vertical axis.

Barnard allowed for this effect by i n t r o d u c i n g a shape f a c t o r and

showed that, for 2% d e f l e c t i o n s of the h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l

diameters the shape factor equals 1.127.

2.2.2.2.Equivalent earth column

In o r d e r to c a l c u l a t e the h o r i z o n t a l pipe d e f l e c t i o n B a r n a r d used

an a n a l o g y with the m e t h o d of c a l c u l a t i n g settlement under a

foundation and considered the c e n t r a l i00 ° arcs on e i t h e r side of

the p i p e as u n i f o r m l y loaded strip footings, e a c h of w i d t h B =

0.766D, and bearing against vertical soil surfaces. These vertical

surfaces are shown in Fig. 6, a d i a g r a m of S p a n g l e r ' s assumed

pressure distribution.

The "sideways settlement", i.e. the h o r i z o n t a l deflection ax/2 on

either side of t h e pipe is a s s u m e d to be equal to the s h o r t e n i n g of

an equivalent earth column, (Fig. 7). The v a l u e of the h o r i z o n t a l

stresses varies throughout the l e n g t h of the e a r t h c o l u m n h a v i n g a

maximum value at the "footing" and reducing to a n e g l i g i b l e value

at some distance from the pipe. Because of this v a r i a t i o n ax/2 is

i0
taken as equal to aL, the shortening of a uniformly stressed earth

column of length L = 1.25D.

Barnard used the symbols w h for the value of the uniform horizontal

contact pressure assumed to a c t on the earth columns and ~wh for

the corresponding strain.

In o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e the v a l u e of Ewh the vertical overburden

pressure acting on the earth columns is considered analagous to a

triaxial cell pressure and w h as the axially applied compressive

stress. Barnard collected data of axial stress and strain values

obtained at d i f f e r e n t cell pressures from the results of triaxial

tests on v a r i o u s types of soil. In the original paper this

information was presented in g r a p h i c a l form and some of these

diagrams, converted to S.I. units, are reproduced in Fig.8A.

The shortening of one equivalent earth column, aL, is simply equal

to t h e product of its length and its strain;-

ax
aL - = Ewh.L = 1.25D~wh
2

Barnard's fundamental expression for the total horizontal

deflection of the pipe ring, ax, is therefore:-

ax = 2 x 1 . 2 5 D x ~wh . . . . . . . . . . (8)
°

The shape factor for 2% d e f l e c t i o n equals 1.127 which, when

multiplied by the constant 1.25 in the above equation, gives an

overall factor, F, = 1.4.

Barnard produced a set of v a l u e s for F varying from 1.25, for no

pipe deflection, to 1.70, for 5% p i p e deflection. He concluded

that, for practical design, F can be taken as equal to 1.35.

Hence Barnard's general design expression for the horizontal

deflection of the pipe is:-

~x = 2 x 1.35~wh D = 2.7~whD

ii
which, as ~wh = P/Es, can be w r i t t e n as:-

2.7pD 2.7W c
~x - ........ (8A)
Es Es

Remembering that Barnard assumed that the sideways settlement is

equal to the shortening of a soil column of length 1.25D, we can

express Barnard's value for the soil spring stiffness, ks, in terms

of Young's Modulus of the soil, E s.

Es 0.4E s ksR
ks - = i.e. Es -
1.25D R 0.4

Substituting for E s in Eqn. 8A g i v e s a further expression for ~x:-

0.4 x 2.7W c 1.08W c

~x = = . . . . . . . . . . . (8B)
ksR ksR

Eqn. (8B) gives a means of comparing the p r e d i c t i o n s obtained from

Barnard to those obtained from Spangler. In section 2.2.1, it was

shown that the structural stiffness of the pipe ring has

considerably less influence on the pipe's deflection than has the

backfill. If w e ignore the term 8E'' and take ~ as equal to 900

then Spangler's formula for ax, (Eqn 7), c a n be w r i t t e n as:-

0 . 0 8 3 W c R3 1.36W c
~X = - . ........ (7B)
0 . 0 6 1 k s R4 ksR

Comparingequations 7B a n d 8B it is seen that, if the values of E s

and E' exactly correspond, Spangler's prediction will be some 25%

greater than Barnard's. However, in v i e w of the u n c e r t a i n t y in the

estimation of the values of E' and Es, the two m e t h o d s can be

regarded as giving similar predictions.

For computational purposes Barnard included F in the d e t e r m i n a t i o n

of w h b y using the expression --

w h = F ( w v - Wp)

where w v = the total vertical load acting on the pipe crown

12
 wp = the ring load c a r r i e d by the p i p e when the pipe
d e f l e c t i o n e q u a l s 2%.

This value of w h is used to d e t e r m i n e Ewh (from F i g . 8 A ) and then

the horizontal pipe d e f l e c t i o n , ax, which is s i m p l y equal to 2EwhD.

2,$ D~flec~iQ~ ~ime l~g f a c t o r

The v a l u e of ax, as d e t e r m i n e d from either Spangler's or B a r n a r d ' s

approach, approximates to the instantaneous, or end of

construction, value of the h o r i z o n t a l deformation of the pipe.

Various studies have shown that the d e f o r m a t i o n of a b u r i e d

flexible pipe can i n c r e a s e w i t h time due to the consolidation of

the surrounding soil. The e f f e c t is m o s t noticeable with a non

pressurised pipe, i.e. one t h a t is not c a r r y i n g fluid under

pressure, and can be a l l o w e d for by m u l t i p l y i n g the value of ax

by a factor, DL, k n o w n as the d e f l e c t i o n lag factor. With a pipe

subjected to an i n t e r n a l p r e s s u r e at l e a s t equal to the v e r t i c a l

pressure c a u s e d by the soil w e i g h t the c o n s e q u e n t re-rounding of

the p i p e ring tends to n u l l i f y time effects and the horizontal

deformation of the pipe r e m a i n s sensibly constant throughout its

life, at a value of the o r d e r of ax.

The g e n e r a l l y accepted rule in b u r i e d flexible pipe design is, in

the a b s e n c e of soil tests, to t a k e D L as equal to 1.5 for

non-pressurised p i p e s and as 1.0 for p r e s s u r i s e d pipes. It should

be r e m e m b e r e d that D L is o n l y a p p l i e d to the v a l u e of the

deflection c a u s e d by d e a d l o a d i n g and not to a n y caused by

superimposed live loading.

2,4 B u c k l i n q Qf ~ c i r c u l a r DiDe

2.4.1 Pipe w i t h no radial support

The classic ring b u c k l i n g formula for an u n s u p p o r t e d circular ring

subjected to e x t e r n a l hydrostatic pressure only was derived by L e v y

13
in 1884 and is q u o t e d as Eqn. (5) at the end of A p p e n d i x II.

3EI
Pb -
R 3

For a long pipe the expression becomes:-

3EI 24EI/D 3
Pb = = . ..... (9)
(i- vp2)R 3 (I- vp 2)
where Pb = critical external pressure required to c a u s e
buckling.

vp = P o i s s o n ' s r a t i o of the pipe m a t e r i a l .

Eq. (9) is r e f e r r e d to as T i m o s h e n k o ' s buckling equation and is

simply the p l a n e strain version of the plane stress equation (5).

2.4.2 Pipe with elastic radial support

The simplest model of b u r i e d pipe buckling is that of a r i n g

loaded hydrostatically and supported by r a d i a l springs of u n i t

stiffness, k s , as shown in Fig.9. S u c h a ring u s u a l l y tends to

buckle by forming a series of symmetrical ripples, or waves,

around its circumference, of the f o r m shown in Fig.10A, whilst

its cross section remains sensibly circular. The n u m b e r of w a v e s

created can vary from 2 upwards and they are e s s e n t i a l l y

sinusoidal in shape being of the f o r m shown in Fig.10. Another

f o r m of b u c k l i n g is the formation of a l o c a l i s e d single wave,

illustrated in F i g . 1 0 B .

The multi-wave mode of b u c k l i n g is the simplest to a n a l y s e and is

also more critical than the s i n g l e w a v e mode, provided it is

assumed that the soil spring stiffness is c o n s t a n t for b o t h inward

and outward displacements of the p i p e wall. S i n g l e wave buckling

involves a much larger deformation and is t h e r e f o r e sensitive to

any initial out-of-roundess of the p i p e wall. It is for this reason

that soil-loaded pipes which intially buckle in a m u l t i - w a v e mode

14
invariably collapse in a s i n g l e w a v e m o d e w h i c h should really be

regarded as a p o s t - b u c k l i n g behaviour.

Many researchers have c o n s i d e r e d the p r o b l e m of m u l t i - w a v e mode

buckling, some of the more important being:- Link (1963),

Cheney (1963), Meyerhof and B a i k i e (1963) and Duns (1966).

For large values of n the p l a n e strain expression for Pb is

generally accepted to b e : -

/ ksREI
Pb = 2 / . . . . . . . . . . . . . (i0)
~/ R3(I - vp 2 )

At the p r e s e n t time, there is not a d e s i g n formula for single-wave

buckling that is c o m p a r a b l e in s i m p l i c i t y to the one u s e d for

multi-wave buckling, i.e. Eqn. (i0).

The m a j o r p r o b l e m w i t h the use of Eqn. (i0) is the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of

a realistic value for k s as its v a l u e varies with both the soil

properties and the size of the loaded area, Terzaghi (1955).

Various writers Habib & Luong (1965, 1966); Luscher (1966);

Chelapati (1966) have p r o p o s e d the f o l l o w i n g relationship for p l a n e

strain:-
,
m
ksR =
(i- VS 2 )

where v s = Poisson's ratio for the soil.

Current practice is to use the same k s v a l u e for the b u c k l i n g

c a l c u l a t i o n as is a s s u m e d for the d e f l e c t i o n calculation which

means that the f o r m u l a for b u c k l i n g used in C I R I A Report No 78 is

Eqn. (I0) w i t h E' substitued for ksR. There is no a t t e m p t to a l l o w

for the r e d u c t i o n in b u c k l i n g resistance due to a n y o u t of

roundness of the p i p e ' s cross section caused by non-uniform

loading in the ground.

More recent investigations of b u c k l i n g by o t h e r researchers have

led to o t h e r e x p r e s s i o n s for Pb- The p r o b l e m is t h a t all of them

15
depend heavily upon unreliable, and often unrelated, soil stiffness

measurements and it is a l m o s t impossible to use the d i f f e r e n c e

between calculated and m e a s u r e d results to d e t e r m i n e whether there

are errors in the particular theory used or w h e t h e r there are

errors in the values assumed for the soil parameters. This

difficulty has been overcome in the design method evolved by Gumbel

(1983) in w h i c h the interpretation of b u r i e d pipe buckling data

can be carried out without reference to the v a l u e of E'

2.4.3 Snap-through buckling

With some pipes excessive deflection at the c r o w n can lead to a

sudden, single wave, snap-through buckling failure as illustrated

in Fig.ll, which, like single wave buckling, is really a type of

post buckling behaviour. This form of f a i l u r e is not a f e a t u r e of

reinforced plastic pipes where deformations tend to o c c u r gradually

and although corrugated metal culverts can fail by snap-through

buckling the effect does not occur until the c r o w n deflection is at

least 0.2D. The main risk of a s n a p - t h r o u g h failure is w i t h smooth

thin-walled metal pipes where it c a n occur at r e l a t i v e l y l o w values

of crown deflection. Design practice is to l i m i t such d e f l e c t i o n s

to not more than 0.05D but it should be noted that full scale load

tests by Watkins & Moser (1969), Howard (1972) and C r a b b and Carder

(1985) illustrated that a flexible pipe wall can fail by b u c k l i n g

or crushing at d e f l e c t i o n s anywhere between 0.01D to 0.2D. As the

response is generally non-linear, a pipe that fails at 0.2D crown .

deflection will have a factor of safety considerably less than 4

when the crown deflection equals 0.05D.

2,2 Rinq compression theorv

It is iliustrated in A p p e n d i x II that a pipe subjected to a

16
uniform hydrostatic external pressure is n o t subjected to b e n d i n g

effects. This led W h i t e and L a y e r (1960) to suggest a simple

method for the e s t i m a t i o n of the strength of b u r i e d thin-wall

pipes. They maintained that d e e p - b u r i e d circular pipes are

subjected to a u n i f o r m radial soil p r e s s u r e equal to the

overburden pressure ( i n c l u d i n g any surcharges) at the p i p e crown.

The value of the m o m e n t a c t i n g at a p o i n t on a p i p e ' s

circumference d i v i d e d by the c o m p r e s s i v e thrust is the d i s t a n c e

that the line of t h r u s t is f r o m the c e n t r e of the w a l l thickness.

By i g n o r i n g bending moments the l i n e of t h r u s t is tacitly assumed

to c o i n c i d e with the c e n t r e of the w a l l and the v a l u e of

c o m p r e s s i v e t h r u s t can be o b t a i n e d from equation (3) listed in

Appendix II:-
Pe R
~8 =
t

w i t h Pi, the i n t e r n a l pressure, replaced by Pe, the external

pressure a c t i n g on the pipe.

If the value of a l l o w a b l e compressive stress is k n o w n then a

suitable p i p e can be d e t e r m i n e d . The theory does not consider

how the a s s u m e d e q u i l i b r i u m state comes about although some f o r m of

pipe d e f o r m a t i o n m u s t occur. However the d e f l e c t i o n s experienced by

a buried'flexible pipe during its installation c a n be c o n s i d e r a b l y

a f f e c t e d by c o n t r o l of the c o m p a c t i o n process as the w o r k proceeds.

The c o m p a c t i o n of the s i d e f i l l tends to e l l i p s e the p i p e upwards

which, with the s u b s e q u e n t p l a c i n g of b a c k f i l l above the pipe,

reverses. An e x p e r i e n c e d c r e w can t h e r e f o r e bury a flexible pipe

in such a m a n n e r that a f t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n there is v e r y l i t t l e

difference in the p i p e ' s horizontal and v e r t i c a l diameters. The u s e

of strutting, before any b a c k f i l l is p l a c e d , c a n a l s o be u s e d to

cause the p i p e to be e l l i p s e d u p w a r d s although some engineers

17
consider the p r a c t i c e to be u n n e c e s s a r y or even u n d e s i r a b l e .

However it s h o u l d be n o t e d that, in some situations, not to

consider possible buckling and/or deflections of the pipe ring can

lead to a s e r i o u s over estimation of the pipe strength.

3 THE CIRIA DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BURIED FLEXIBLE PIPES

At the p r e s e n t time the publications mainly referred to in the

U.K. for the d e s i g n of b u r i e d flexible pipes are the C I R I A R e p o r t

No.78 (1978), the A m e r i c a n Waterworks Association's manual MII

(1964), and, more recently, the W a t e r Research Centre's Manual

(1988).

A summary of the d e s i g n procedures suggested in the C I R I A R e p o r t

Report now follows. The Report uses plane stress formulae and

defines thin-walled pipes as t h o s e having specific stiffnesses,

E I / D ~, w i t h i n the range 400 to l l , 0 0 0 N / m 2 which, for m i l d steel

pipes, with E = 0.21 x 1 0 1 2 N / m 2, m e a n s a d i a m e t e r to t h i c k n e s s

ratio, D/t, ranging from 350 to 115.

Although the R e p o r t acknowledges that a draft British s t a n d a r d is

considering the u s e of p l a s t i c pipes with specific stiffnesses as

l o w as 2 5 0 N / m 2 it s t r e s s e s that the d e s i g n p r o c e d u r e it s u g g e s t s is

based on practical experience obtained f r o m b u r i e d pipes w i t h

specific stiffnesses of not l e s s than 2 0 0 0 N / m 2 and is t h e r e f o r e

only applicable to s u c h pipes. This means that, for m i l d steel

pipes, the D / t ratio should n o t be g r e a t e r than 200 or so.

5,1 ReQuiro~ data

The following information is r e q u i r e d :

The pipe diameter, the p i p e m a t e r i a l and its p r o p e r t i e s .

Depth of c o v e r and properties of b a c k f i l l .

18
 Superimposed loadings and the maximum and minimum internal

pressures to w h i c h the pipe will be subjected.

Maximum and m i n i m u m groundwater levels

3,2 External loads Qn bides

The total pressure, Pt, acting at the crown of a buried pipe is

equal to the w e i g h t of the b a c k f i l l plus the effects of any u n i f o r m

surcharges and c o n c e n t r a t e d loads, both dead and superimposed,

that act a b o v e the p i p e plus the value of the ground water pressure

acting at the i n v e r t level of the pipe.

3.2.1 Soil weight

The w e i g h t of the b a c k f i l l is taken to be equal to wH w h e r e H

is the height of soil above the pipe crown and w is the unit

weight of the fill. For a cover depth between 0.25 to 1.0D an

equivalent height of soil, H + 0.107D, should be used. (See

Appendix III). H should normally n o t be less than 1.0m unless

load-relieving slabs are u s e d or o t h e r precautions taken.

The CIRIA Report points out that, for large depths of cover, it is

possible to use M a r s t o n and A n d e r s o n ' s theory (1913) to allow for

alleviation in the w e i g h t of the soil on the pipe due to a r c h i n g

effects. A simple approximation to this theory is to a s s u m e that

the full w e i g h t of the fill acts to a c e r t a i n depth, z0, and that,

at f u r t h e r depths of cover, the pressure remains constant and equal

to wz 0. z 0 is o b t a i n e d from the formula:-

D
Z 0 =
2Katan#

where K a = The coefficient of a c t i v e earth pressure

# = Angle of s h e a r i n g resistance of fill

For a set of t y p i c a l soil values zo : 2.6D and the CIRIA Report

19
recommends that, for m o s t practical flexible pipe situations, the

total vertical pressure of the soil should be taken as equal to wH

and assumed to a c t at crown level, which is the same p r o c e d u r e as

that proposed by Barnard (1957).

3.2.2 Uniform surcharges

Uniform surcharges of great extent and a p p l i e d at the g r o u n d

surface are assumed to be transferred unaltered to the pipe. If

such a surcharge is to be a permanent feature then it is r e g a r d e d

as dead loading but if it is t e m p o r a r y , as m a y occur during

construction, then its transitory affect should be a l l o w e d for in

the design.

If a uniform surcharge is of l i m i t e d extent then the p r e s s u r e that

it w i l l exert on the buried pipe will tend to d i m i n i s h with depth.

This effect can be d e t e r m i n e d by the use of influence factors such

as those proposed by Fadum (1941).

3.2.3 Concentrated loads

Concentrated loads are assumed to spread in a c c o r d a n c e with the

Boussinesq theory (1885).

The all round pressure applied to the pipe at a p o i n t on its crown,

PL, due t9 a c o n c e n t r a t e d load P acting at the ground surface, is

taken to b e : -

3PH 3
PL -
2~C 5

where c is the d i s t a n c e from the p o i n t of a p p l i c a t i o n of P

to the point on the pipe crown.

3.2.4 Traffic and other transient surcharge loads

Surcharge loads on b u r i e d flexible pipes are normally assumed to be

the same as those on b u r i e d rigid pipes and c a n therefore be

20
obtained from p u b l i s h e d charts or tables.

Young and O ' R e i l l y (1983) prepared sets of v e h i c l e load charts to

c o v e r road loads (three classes), railway loads (two c l a s s e s ) and

construction traffic loads. The c h a r t that deals with road loadings

is r e p r o d u c e d in Fig. 12. S i m p l i f i e d tables using these charts have

since been p u b l i s h e d , (Young, Brennan and O'Reilly, 1986).

It w i l l be o b v i o u s to the r e a d e r t h a t the chart selected for

design should be the one that b e s t r e p r e s e n t s the w o r s t traffic

loading conditions that the b u r i e d pipe will experience. In this

connection it s h o u l d be n o t e d that T r o t t & Gaunt (1976) found

that, on large civil e n g i n e e r i n g works, buried pipes may w e l l be

subjected to t h e i r h i g h e s t life-time loads from contractor's

plant during construction.

3.2.5 G r o u n d w a t e r

Groundwater p r e s s u r e will only affect the p i p e if the w a t e r

table is above the i n v e r t level. If the w a t e r table is a b o v e the

c r o w n of the p i p e then, due to submergence, there is a r e d u c t i o n in

the a p p a r e n t w e i g h t of the soil below ground water level and a

resultant reduction in the v a l u e of Pt, to w h i c h must be a d d e d the

v a l u e of the g r o u n d w a t e r p r e s s u r e .

The g r o u n d w a t e r pressure, Pw, varies around the p i p e w i t h a

m a x i m u m value at the i n v e r t l e v e l equal to ~ w h w h e r e h is the

h e i g h t of the w a t e r table a b o v e the i n v e r t . This maximum value of

Pv s h o u l d be a d d e d to the r e d u c e d value of Pt if submergence is

allowed for. However the p r o c e d u r e involves the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of

the p r e c i s e level of the p e r m a n e n t w a t e r table and the effect of a

temporary lowering of the w a t e r table during installation should

also be checked.

The a p p r o a c h suggested in the C I R I A R e p o r t is t h a t submergence

21
effects should be ignored and that the soil's contribution to the

value of Pt t a k e n as equal to wH, w h e r e w is the s a t u r a t e d unit

weight of the soil. This approach is j u s t i f i e d w h e n it is

considered that any theoretical increase in the value of Pt, and

hence in the theoretical value of the a p p l i e d horizontal stress,

due to an e f f e c t i v e stress analysis, is l i k e l y to be of the same

order as the u n c e r t a i n t y in the v a l u e a s u m e d for the h o r i z o n t a l /

vertical pressure ratio.

This practice of i g n o r i n g submergence and s i m p l y regarding the soil

as saturated has b e e n adopted by b o t h the A m e r i c a n W a t e r W o r k s

Association in t h e i r Design Manual MII (1964) and by the B r i t i s h

Water Research Centre (See S e c t i o n 4). G u m b e l (1983) also uses

this approach.

3.2.6 Vacuum conditions

If the a b s o l u t e pressure in the p i p e can r e d u c e to a value

(A - pq) where A is the n o r m a l atmospheric pressure then the

pressure pq is t r e a t e d as a u n i f o r m live load a p p l i e d at the

ground surface, i.e. pq s h o u l d be a d d e d to the v a l u e of Pt-

3.3 Determination Q~ m ~ x i m D m d i a m e t e r / w ~ l l t h i c k n e s s ratio. D/~

A buried pipe is d e s i g n e d for one of two p o s s i b l e situations. It

will either be subjected to i n t e r n a l hydraulic pressure as it

carries a fluid under pressure, or it w i l l be o p e n to the

atmosphere, s u c h as a c u l v e r t u s e d as a p e d e s t r i a n underpass or

when a watermain is d r a i n e d .

For a pipe subjected to i n t e r n a l hydraulic pressure the m a x i m u m D/t

ratio is o b t a i n e d f r o m eqn. (3) in the f o r m : -

D 2f a

t Pi

22
where fa = a l l o w a b l e circumferential (in this case tensile) stress

in the pipe walls.

Pi = i n t e r n a l fluid pressure within the pipe

The pipe is then c h e c k e d to e n s u r e that it w i l l be safe to

withstand the c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l compressive stress induced in its

wall by the a c t i o n of the total, all-round, external pressure, Pt-

B u r i e d pipes w h i c h will only be subjected to i n t e r n a l atmospheric

pressure are d e s i g n e d to w i t h s t a n d the a c t i o n of the external

pressure, Pt, o n l y and the m a x i m u m D/t r a t i o is o b t a i n e d f r o m the

expression:-
D 2f a

t Pt

where fa = a l l o w a b l e circumferential (i.e. compressive) stress.

3.4 Determination Qf DiDe sDecific stiffness

The formula for the s p e c i f i c stiffness of the pipe, E'', is:-

EI
t l
m
D 3

As a l r e a d y discussed, the d e s i g n procedure suggested by the CIRIA

Report No.78 is i n t e n d e d to c o v e r buried pipes of s p e c i f i c

stiffnesses ranging f r o m 2000 to l l 0 0 0 N / m 2.

.

3.5 Determin@~ion Q~ the G r i ~ i G ~ l buGkling Dressure

The c r i t i c a l buckling pressure is the v a l u e of externally applied

hydraulic pressure that will cause buckling of the p i p e walls and

can be o b t a i n e d from Eqn.(10). The p l a n e stress equivalent of this

equation is:-

/ ksREI
pb = 2 /
~/ R3
8El
and p u t t i n g E' = ksR and E , , _ gives:-
R 3

23
 Pb = 2 4 8E'E'' which is the formula suggested in the CIRIA

Report.

The soil modulus, E', is a v a r i a b l e with a v a l u e that d e p e n d s upon

the type of soil, its d e n s i t y and the i n - s i t u effective vertical

stress which varies w i t h depth. CIRIA suggests that, for

preliminary design, a minimum value of i0 x 1 0 6 N / m 2 can be used for

E' Higher values for E' are justified when the soil is well

compacted and can be t a k e n as e q u a l to the e l a s t i c m o d u l u s of the

fill, as d e t e r m i n e d from triaxial tests carried out on 1 0 0 m m

diameter samples compacted to the expected i n s i t u density.

If the p i p e wall were unyielding t h e n fb, the c o m p r e s s i v e stress

created b y Pb, would be e q u a l to P b D / 2 t and the C I R I A R e p o r t

therefore suggests t h a t an e x p r e s s i o n f o r fa, the a l l o w a b l e

compressive stress in the p i p e wall, is:-

1 fy x fb
fa - x
FS fY + fb

Where FS = the f a c t o r of s a f e t y a g a i n s t buckling

(usuallytaken as 3)

fy = the y i e l d stress of the pipe m a t e r i a l

It is t h i s formula for fa w h i c h effectively limits the use of the

suggested design procedure to p i p e s with specific stiffnesses

between 2,000 and ii,000 N/m 2 The formula is not a c c e p t a b l e for

very flexible pipes whose h i g h v a l u e s of slenderness ratio

dictate that the r i s k of b u c k l i n g is c r i t i c a l l y d e p e n d e n t u p o n

any initial imperfections that may have c a u s e d d e p a r t u r e s from

the circular shape of the c r o s s s e c t i o n of the pipe.

~,~ D@fl@G~ion calcula~iQn~

The expressions for the t o t a l horizontal deflection, ax, by

24
Barnard and Spangler are b o t h recommended by C I R I A and have been

discussed in s e c t i o n s 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. It should be noted that,

the value for ax c a l c u l a t e d for d e a d loading should be increased

by m u l t i p l y i n g by 1.5 (the d e f l e c t i o n lag factor) unless the pipe

is to be subjected to an i n t e r n a l pressure at least equal to the

vertical soil pressure acting at the crown of the pipe, see

section 2.3.

The load to w h i c h a buried pipe will be subjected will be

applied in stages and it is convenient to m o d i f y the deflection

formula to use the term ~p w h e r e ~p is the change in the pressure

acting at the c r o w n due to a c h a n g e in the crown load, ~W c.

Now 5p.D = ~W c so the expression becomes:-

ax 0. 083 ~p
- . . . . . . . . . . . ( Z l )

D 8E'' + 0.061E'

where ax/D is k n o w n as the horizontal diametral change.

Two separate deflection calculations are necessary for a buried

flexible pipe.

The first one is to e s t i m a t e the amount of horizontal diametral

change that w i l l occur during the p l a c i n g and backfilling of the

pipe. The c o m p a c t i o n of the side fill tends to c o m p r e s s the pipe

horizontally and to i n c r e a s e its vertical diameter whilst the

placing of b a c k f i l l above the pipe tends to r e t u r n it to its

original circular cross section. For this stage of construction the

diametral change can be e s t i m a t e d from eqn. (ll) with ~p r e p l a c e d by

wH.

With corrugated steel pipes it is g e n e r a l l y not necessary to m a k e

this calculation. For other types of pipes, such as pipes with a

brittle protective coating, the limits of a l l o w a b l e deflections can

be o b t a i n e d from the m a n u f a c t u r e r s ' tables.

25
The second calculation is the estimation of the cycle of d i a m e t r a l

change that the pipe will experience under the action of live

loadings. The procedure is to d e t e r m i n e a relevant value for ~p,

from published tables, etc. and to d e t e r m i n e ax/D from Eqn. (ii).

Data presently available indicates that values of ax/D less than

0.03 do not affect either brittle pipe coatings, such as cement

mortar, or the compacted fill in w h i c h a pipe is e n c a s e d .

9,7 MinimDm DiDe stiffness Qr h~n~linq stresses

Experience in the construction of corrugated steel plate culverts

indicate that for pipes of 3m diameter or less the specific pipe

stiffness should be such that E''D is g r e a t e r than 4,000 N/m unless

some form of bracing is employed.

Example ~ - Spangler's approach

Data Pipe material - unlined mild steel

Diameter = 3.0m

Internal water pressure = 1,500kN/m a

Cover depth = 3.5m

Unit weight of granular fill = 20kN/m s

Ground water level - below invert of p i p e

_ The pipeline will cross under a dual carriageway

w h i c h w i l l be s u b j e c t e d to m a i n r o a d loading.

Steel properties

E = 0.21 x 10*2N/m 2
f¥ = 240 x 106N/m 2

Backfill properties

E' = i0 x 106N/m 2

M~ximDm D/t ratio

Allowable tensile stress = fa = fy/2 = 120 x 1 0 6 N / m 2

26
 D 2f a 2 x 120 x 106
Maxm. = 160
t Pi 1.5 x 106

3.0
Hence: minimum t - - 0.0188m = 20mm
160

t3 0.023
I = = 6.667 x i0- m 3
12 12

EI 0.21 x 10 *2 x 6.667 x 10 -7
m f t --
= 5,185N/m 2
D3 3.03

This value is within the range 2,000 to ll,000N/m 2 and is

therefore acceptable.

Ext~rn~l Dressur@ Pt

Soil load = wH = 20 x 103 x 3.5 = 70 x 103N/m 2

Uniform surcharge equivalent to main road

loadings with H = 3.5m (From Fig.12) = 24 x 103N/m 2

Vacuum conditions
(worst possible = -i atmosphere) = i00 x 103N 2
Pt = total = 194 x 103N/m 2

Buckling Dressure

Pb = 24 8E'E'' = 24 8 x i0 x 106 x 5185

= 1.288 x 106N/m 2

This corresponds to a wall stress value, fb:-

PbD 1.288 x 3 x 106

fb =
2t 2 x 0.02

= 96.6 x 106N/m 2

1 fy x fb
NOW allowable compressive stress, fa -
FS fY + fb

1 [240 x i0 e x 96.6 x i0 e]
i.e. fa =
3 (240 + 96.6)106 ]
= 23.0 x 106N/m 2

NOW Pb = 2fat/D which means that the maximum value of radial

27
pressure that can be withstood by the pipe is equal to:-

2 x 23.0 x 0.02 x 106

= 306 x 10SN/m 2
3.0

Pt = 194 x 103N/m 2 :- the chosen pipe is satisfactory.

Han¢linq stresses

E'' = 5,185N/m 2 so E''D = 5185 x 3.0 = 15,555N/m, which is

greater than 4,000 and therefore O.K.

D@fleGtion values

Considering the weight of the soil only:-

~p = 20 x 3.5 = 70kN/m 2 = 70 x 10SN/m 2

E'' = 5,185N/m 2 and E' = i0 x 106N/m 2

Hence 8E'' + 0.061E' = 8 x 5185 + 0.061 x i0 x 106

= 651 x 10SN/m 2

0.083 x 70 x i0 s x 3 x I0 s
ax = = 26.7mm
651 x i0 s

Cyclic change in diameter due to live loading:-

~p = 24kN/m 2 = 24 x 10SN/m 2

and ax = 9.2

Totab. pipe deflection = 26.7 + 9.2 = 35.9 : 36mm

If the pipe was coated these values of deflection would now be

checked against the manufacturer's tables as to their suitability.

It should be noted that as the internal water pressure is

considerably greater than the vertical soil pressure acting on the

crown of the pipe, deflection lag effects can be ignored, i.e. the

value of D L has been taken as 1.0.

Ex~mpl~ ~ - Barnard's approach

The suitability of the pipe section selected by Spangler's method

28
in Example 3 will now be checked using Barnard's approach.

Data Pipe material - unlined mild steel

Diameter = 3m

Wall thickness = 20mm

Internal water pressure = 1,500kN/m 2

Cover depth = 3.5m

The pipeline will cross under a dual carriageway

w h i c h w i l l be s u b j e c t e d to m a i n r o a d loading.

Ground water level - below invert of pipe.

Steel properties

Yield stress, fy = 240 x 1012N/m 2

B~ckfill proDer~i~$

Granular fill

Unit weight = 20kN/m z '

Stress/strain relationships from Fig.8A

W~ll thickness

Thickness of wall required for internal water pressure.

Allowable tensile stress, fa, = fy/2 = 120 x 106N/m 2

Pi D
For minimum wall thickness, t: fa
2t

1500 x 3
Required t = = 18.75mm
2 x 120

Actual value used = 20mm ....... O.K.

SteD l

The total vertical pressure, Wv, acting on the top of the pipe is

the sum of the dead load pressure, wv and live load pressure, WvL '

In example 3 the value of W v L was found from Young & O'Reilly's

chart (Fig.12) to be = 2 4 k N / m 2'

wv = 20 x 3.5 + 24 = 94kN/m 2

29
Step

The limiting height of cover H which the structural stiffness of

the pipe can support with 2% d e f l e c t i o n without side support is

obtained from Fig.8B and equals 0.47m. This height is n o w u s e d to

determine the value of vertical pressure, wp, that the pipe can

support.

If wp > w v then the pipe can carry the vertical loads on its own

and satisfies the conditions of Case I.

If wp < w v then aid from the active pressure of loose fill is

necessary and the pipe must be considered as Case II.

wp = 20 x 0.47 = 9.4kN/m 2

wp ( 9 . 4 k N / m 2) < wv ( 9 4 k N / m 2) : active pressure must be considered.

SteD

Wa, the active pressure value determined, is that acting at the

level of the pipe's horizontal axis and is equal to the vertical

pressure, due to d e a d load only, times a factor (either 0.5 for

clay or 0.33 for sand).

If (wp + Wa) > w v then the pipe can carry its vertical load with

the aid of loose fill around it a n d satisfies the conditions of

Case II.

If (wp +-wa) < w v then the pipe requires more aid from the side

fill and must be considered as Case III.

Vertical pressure at p i p e axis = 20(3.5 + 1.5) = 100kN/m 2

Sidefill is sand, hence w a = 0.33 x i00 = 3 3 k N / m 2

(wp + Wa) = 9.4 + 33 : 42kN/m 2 < w v ( 9 4 k N / m 2)

The pipe must be considered as a Case III situation.

Step

If the limiting compressive stress is taken as 52 x 1 0 3 k N / m 2

(See 2.2.2 Case III) then the limiting height of cover, Z, is

30
obtained from the expression:-

52 x 103 x 2t
20 x 103 x Z =
D

If H > Z £hen the assumed pipe is too weak and must be rejected.

If H < Z then the assumed pipe is satisfactory.

52 x i000 x 2 x 20
Z = = 34.7m
20 x 3 x i000

H = 3.5 hence the assumed pipe is satisfactory.

SteD

The contact pressure, wh, is determined from the formula:-

w h = F ( w v - wp)

Considering dead load only, with F = 1.35:-

Vertical pressure at crown of pipe = wv = 70kN/m 2

Hence wh = 1.35(70 - 9.4) = 81.8kN/m 2

Considering dead load + surcharge, with F = 1.35:-

Vertical pressure at crown of pipe = wv = 70 + 24 = 94kN/m 2

Hence wh = 1.35(94 - 9.4) = ll4.2kN/m 2

Deflection values

SteD

a) Deflection of pipe due to dead loads only

With dead load only: wh = 81.8kN/m 2

Vertical pressure at hoz. axis of pipe = 20(3.5+1.5) = 100kN/m 2

which is regarded as the minor principal stress, ~3, whilst w h

( 8 1 . 8 k N / m 2) iS regarded as the deviator stress, (~z - ~3)-

The value of ~wh that corresponds to these stress values can be

estimated from Fig.8A (for w e l l graded sand) and is appoximately

0.7%. Hence the deflection of the pipe due to dead load is in the

order of 2 x .007 x 3000 = 42mm.

31
b) Deflection of p i p e u n d e r dead and superimposed loads

With dead load + surcharge: w~ = l l 4 . 2 k N / m 2

Vertical pressure acting at c e n t r e of pipe (due to dead load only)

= 1 0 0 k N / m 2, w h i c h is r e g a r d e d as ~3 w h i l s t w h ( l l 4 . 2 k N / m 2) is

regarded as (~I - ~3)- The value of ~wh that c o r r e s p o n d s to these

values is f o u n d from Fig.8A and e q u a l s 0.9%.

The total horizontal deflection of the pipe is t h e r e f o r e : -

ax = 2 x .009 x 3000 = 54mm.

c) Cyclic change in d i a m e t e r

Due to the superimposed loading the c y c l i c change in d i a m e t e r

= 54 - 42 = 12mm.

4 WATER RESEARCH CENTRE DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BURIED

FLEXIBLE PIPES

In 1988 the W a t e r Research Centre p u b l i s h e d a m a n u a l w h i c h deals

with the d e s i g n of b u r i e d , rigid, semi-rigid and f l e x i b l e w a t e r

carrying pipes. As w i t h the d e s i g n methods recommended by CIRIA,

the m e t h o d s proposed by W R C are m a i n l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h the d e s i g n of

the pipe ring although possible longitudinal effects are discussed.

°

The Manual stresses that it is o n l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h w a t e r c a r r y i n g

pipes and a l s o that, whilst its d e s i g n p h i l o s o p h y is of g e n e r a l

application, the a s s u m e d performances of m a t e r i a l s , quality levels

and installation procedure are b a s e d on UK p r a c t i c e and may not be

applicable in n o n U K situations. A s u m m a r y of the m a n u a l ' s

recommendations for buried flexible pipe d e s i g n is g i v e n below.

i) A t r i a l pipe section is s e l e c t e d by a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the

proposed internal water pressure v a l u e and p o s s i b l e handling

stresses during installation, (As in b o t h e x a m p l e s 3 and 4). Sudden

32
stoppages in the w a t e r flow, due to the o p e r a t i o n of a valve, etc.,

can p r o d u c e surge p r e s s u r e s which can be e i t h e r positive or

negative and these should be a l l o w e d for.

ii) The d e s i g n limits for the p i p e are d e t e r m i n e d . The v a l u e of

the c r i t i c a l buckling pressure is c a l c u l a t e d whilst the v a l u e of

allowable deflection is e i t h e r taken to be 3% or is e s t a b l i s h e d

from manufacturers' tables. As has b e e n d i s c u s s e d , bending effects

are r a r e l y c o n s i d e r e d for f l e x i b l e steel pipes.

iii) Values for DL, the d e f l e c t i o n lag factor, and DR, the

re-rounding factor, are e s t a b l i s h e d .

iv) A suitable backfill material is s e l e c t e d .

v) The b u c k l i n g stability is e x a m i n e d .

vi) The i n i t i a l and l o n g - t e r m p i p e d e f l e c t i o n s are determined,

and c h e c k e d a g a i n s t their permissible values.

4,~ Backfill materi~l selection

The W a t e r r e s e a r c h Centre's manual uses E', Spangler's soil

modulus, for its c a l c u l a t i o n s and tabulates a set of c o n s e r v a t i v e

values for d e s i g n work. Those values applicable to f l e x i b l e buried

pipes are g i v e n in Table i. It s h o u l d be n o t e d that, in the table,

BSma isthe m a x i m u m dry d e n s i t y achieved in the 2.5kg rammer

compaction test described in BS1377: Part 2 (1990).

Fine m a t e r i a l is that m a t e r i a l passing the 63um sieve.

33
 Table 1 S u g g e s t e d E' v a l u e s for buried flexible pipes.
F r o m W.R.C. M a n u a l (1988)

Type of b a c k f i l l Modulus of soil reaction, E', (MN/m 2)

Loose 80% 85% 90% 95%

BSmax BSmax BSmax BSmax
Gravel - single size 7 i0 14

Gravel - graded 3 5 i0 20

Sand & coarse grained

soil w i t h l e s s t h a n 3 7 14
12% f i n e s

Coarse grained soil

with more than 1 5 i0
12% f i n e s

F i n e g r a i n e d soil w i t h
m e d i u m to no p l a s t i c i t y
(LL < 50%) a n d m o r e t h a n
25% c o a r s e p a r t i c l e s

F i n e g r a i n e d soil w i t h
m e d i u m to no p l a s t i c i t y
(LL < 50%) a n d l e s s t h a n
25% c o a r s e p a r t i c l e s

Because of the d i f f i c u l t y of a c h i e v i n g 95% BS m a x i m u m c o m p a c t i o n

in the field the m a x i m u m value of c o m p a c t i o n s h o u l d n o r m a l l y be

assumed to be limited to 90% BSma x and the m a x i m u m value for E'

used in c a l c u l a t i o n s should be 1 0 M N / m 2. This is m o r e conservative

o

than therecommendation given in the C I R I A R e p o r t No. 78 w h i c h

suggests a minimum value for E' of 1 0 M N / m 2 for p r e l i m i n a r y designs

(See section 3.5).

The WRC manual also considers that, for a b u r i e d flexible pipe,

fine grained soils of m e d i u m to h i g h plasticity, LL > 50%, are

unsuitable as b a c k f i l l and that s o i l s w i t h E' v a l u e s less than

3.0MN/m 2 should also n o t be u s e d as they c a n n o t o f f e r a d e q u a t e

lateral support to the pipe.

34
4,2 Pipe deflections

Pipe deflections are calculated from an equation based on

Spangler's formula (Eqn 7).

KbW¢
av = x D R ...... (12)
8EI/D 3 + 0.061E'

where av = c h a n g e in v e r t i c a l diameter

K b = bedding factor

W c = vertical crown load/unit length of pipe

= Pt D = (DLPv + Ps + pq)D

Pv = vertical pressure at crown due to b a c k f i l l

pq = value of v a c u u m pressure (if any)

Ps = vertical pressure due to a n y surcharge loads

D L = deflection lag factor (defined in section 2.3)

D R = re-rounding factor

EI/D 3 = pipe stiffness

E' = Spangler's modulus of backfill material

As explained in 2.2.1, the bedding factor, KB, has a value

ranging from 0.Ii to 0.083. The WRC Manual recommends that a value

of 0.083 is taken where the m a t e r i a l on w h i c h the pipe sits is

gravel and 0.ii when the bedding material is sand.

Values f o r DL, the deflection lag factor, suggested by WRC are

given in T a b l e 2. W R C maintains that the value of the re-rounding

factor, Dr, depends upon the value of the internal water pressure

and equals 1.0 f o r Pi = 300kN/m2 and 0.5 for Pi = 20,000kN/m2

However for cover depths greater than 2.5m D R should be taken as

1.0, irrespective of the value of the internal water pressure.

35
 Table 2 Deflection lag factor, D L, after WRC , (1988).

Backfill Normal case Long time lapse - b a c k f i l l i n g at

material least one year a f t e r initial
pressurisation

I Degree of c o m p a c t i o n

All I Heavy I Light

Gravel I 1.0 1.00 1.25

Sand I 1.0 1.25 2.00

Note. Backfill materials other than sands or gravels may produce

deflection lag factor values of up to 3.0.

It s h o u l d be n o t e d that Spangler's equation is for ax, the change

in the horizontal diameter, whereas WRC use av, the change in the

vertical diameter. Generally ax and av are equal and o p p o s i t e but,

in the case of n o n - e l l i p t i c a l pipe d e f o r m a t i o n s , this may not be

the case.

4,~ BDcklina

If the d e s i g n e r cannot be c e r t a i n that there will be c o n s t a n t soil

support throughout the life of the pipe it is r e c o m m e n d e d by WRC,

for w a t e r mains with less than 1.5m cover, that soil support should

be ignored and the b u c k l i n g resistance determined by using

Timoshenko's buckling equation, Eqn.(9):

24EI/D 3
p5 =
(I - vp 2)

where Pb = c r i t i c a l external pressure required to cause buckling.

%d

E I / D 3 = E'' = the pipe stiffness

vp = P o i s s o n ' s ratio of the pipe m a t e r i a l

For pipes buried at c o v e r depths greater than 1.5m, or shallower

pipes where soil support can safely be assumed, the value of P5

should be calculated from Luscher's formula, based on the work of

36
Luscher and Hoeg (1964).

Pb = ~ 32E'EI/D~

As the buckling resistance of the pipe ring is reduced by any

out-of-roundness of the pipe caused by the deflection achieved just

before bucking failure WRC suggests that a reduction factor, Db,

should normally be applied to the value of Pb- A formula for D 5 is:

3ax
Db = 1
D

As buckling can occur after a period of time the value of ax u s e d

in the formula can be the long term value, i.e including DL, the

lag deflection factor, but not including the re-rounding factor,

D R •

Example

The suitability of the pipe section discussed in Examples 3

and 4 will n o w be examined using WRC's design approach with the

properties of the steel pipe and the backfill assumed to be the

same as in E x a m p l e 3.

Selection of trial PiPe sectiQn

As in b o t h examples 3 and 4 the thickness of the pipe wall (20mm)

was obtained by a l l o w i n g for the internal water pressure of value

1,500kN/m 2 .

Buckling stability

Spangler's modulus for the backfill, E' = i0 x 106N/m 2

t3 0.02 s
Moment of inertia of p i p e ring, = 6.667 x 10-Tm 3
12 12

EI 0.210 x 6.67
Pipe stiffness - x l0 s = 5185N/m 2
D3 3.0 3

37
Note In order to have the same pipe loading conditions in this

example as in examples 3 and 4 a vacuum surge pressure, pq, of

100kN/m 2 has been assumed.

Hence total vertical pressure at crown, Pt, = Pv + P$ + Pq

i.e. Pt = 3.5 x 20 + 24 + I00 = 194kN/m 2

From section 4.3 it is seen that, as the cover depth exceeds 1.5m,

the value for Pb is obtained from Luscher's formula:

P5 = ~ 32E'EI/D~ = ~ 32 x i0000 x 5.185 = 1288kN/m 2

Pt = 194 so that FS, the factor of safety against buckling,

= 1288/194 = 6.6. The risk of buckling is negligible.

Deflection values

Deflection values are obtained by the use of Eqn.(12):

KbWc
av = x DR
8EI/D 3 + 0.061E'

For this example we can assume that av = ax

Considering only the weight of backfill:

W c = pvD = 3.5 x 20 x D = 70D

ax K5 x 70
Hence - x DR
D 8EI/D 3 + 0.061E'

For deptks greater than 2.5m, D~ = 1.0

~x 0.083 x 70

D 8 x 5.185 + 0.061 x 10000

= 0.0089 = 0.89%

Hence ax = .0089 x 3000 = 26.8mm

With live loading Pt = 70 + 24 = 94kN/m 2 and ax = 36mm

Cyclic change in diameter due to live loading : 9mm

Total pipe deflection = 36mm

38
5 COMMENTS ON DESIGN METHODS PRESENTLY USED IN B R I T A I N

As can be seen from the comments contained in section 2.2 the

design approaches suggested both in the C I R I A Report 78 a n d in the

WRC Manual are m a i n l y semi-empirical and are based on the

interpretation of test results and long experience. This approach

has u n d o u b t e d l y led to safe d e s i g n s but it c a n be conservative and,

with the increasing use of e x t r e m e l y thin-walled pipes, may well be

uneconomical. There is a n e e d for a n e w d e s i g n approach that will

take into a c c o u n t the n e w t y p e s of f l e x i b l e pipes now available.

In the past few years there has been a considerable increase in the

amount of i n v e s t i g a t i o n into the b e h a v i o u r of buried flexible

pipes. One field of r e s e a r c h has been the a n a l y s i s of pipe-soil

interaction and there has b e e n a move towards the assumption that

the soil acts as an i s o t r o p i c elastic medium. Although the stress-

strain curve of a soil medium is not linear, Katona (1978) has

shown that little error is i n v o l v e d if linearity is a s s u m e d and it

is n o w g e n e r a l l y felt that the a s s u m p t i o n that the soil is an

isotropic linear elastic medium is m o r e realistic than the W i n k l e r

model assumed by e a r l i e r workers. This, and other work relevant to

the p r o p o s e d new design method, will be d e s c r i b e d in the succeeding

reports of the series.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is one of four and forms part of a research contract

with the G r o u n d Engineering Division (Division Head Dr M.P.

O'Reilly) of the Structures Group of the T r a n s p o r t and Road

Research Laboratory. The m a t e r i a l on w h i c h this report is b a s e d has

39
been taken from several sources and particularly from J.E. Gumbel's

PhD thesis (1983). To all these sources (see list of references)

the authors wish to acknowledge their indebtedness.

7 REFERENCES

American Waterworks Association (1964)

Steel Pipe M a n u a l MII.

Barnard, R.E. (1957)

"Design and d e f l e c t i o n control of buried steel pipe supporting
earth loads and live loads". Proc. Am. Soc. Testing Materials,
Voi.57, pp 1233-1258.

Boussinesq, J. (1885)
" A p p l i c a t i o n des p o t e n t i e l s a l'etude de l'equilibre et du
m o u v e m e n t des solides elastiques". G a u t h i e r - V i l l a r s (Paris).

B r i t i s h S t a n d a r d s BS 1377 (1990)
"Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Part 2,
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n tests"

Bulson, P.S. (1985)

"Buried s t r u s t u r e s - static and dynamic strength" Chapman and
Hall Ltd., London.

Chelapati, C.V. (1966)

"Critical p r e s s u r e s for r a d i a l l y supported cylinders" Tech. Note
N-773, U.SD. N a v a l Civ. Engng. Lab., Port Hueneme, Calif., J a n .

Cheney, J.A. (1963)

"Bending and b u c k l i n g of t h i n - w a l l e d open section rings".Jour.
Engng. Mech. Div. Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs., Vol. 86, No. EM5,
Oct., pp 17-44.

Compston, D.G., Gray, P., Schofield, A.N. and Shan, C.D. (1978)
"Design and c o n s t r u c t i o n of buried thin-wall pipes" Construction
I n d u s t r y R e s e a r c h and I n f o r m a t i o n Association, Report No.78, July.

Crabb, G.I. and Carder, D.R. (1985)

" L o a d i n g tests on b u r i e d flexible pipes to validate a new design
model" R e s e a r c h R e p o r t 28, T r a n s p o r t & Road Research Laboratory,
Dept. of Transport, Crowthorne, Berks.

Duns, C.S. (1966)

"The e l a s t i c c r i t i c a l load of a cylindrical shell embedded in an
e l a s t i c medium". R e p o r t CE/I0/66, Univ. of Southampton.

Fadum, R.E. (1941)

" I n f l u e n c e v a l u e s for vertical stresses in a semi-infinite solid
due to s u r f a c e loads". School of Engineering, Harvard University.

40
Gumbel, J.E. (1983)
"Analysis and design of buried flexible pipes" PhD Thesis,
University of Surrey.

Gumbel, J.E. & Wilson, J. (1981)

"Interactive design of buried flexible pipes - a fresh a p p r o a c h
from basic principles" Ground Eng., Vol. 14, No. 4, May, pp 36-40.

Gumbel, J.E., O'Reilly, M.P., Lake, L.M. & Carder, D.R. (1982)
"The development of a new d e s i g n method for b u r i e d f l e x i b l e pipes"
Paper 8, Europipe '82 Conf. Basle, Switzerland.

Habib, P. & Luong, M.P. (1965)

"Comportement des tuyaux souples enterres" (Behaviour of flexible
conduits). Proc. 6th Int. Conf. SMFE, Montreal, Vol. II pp373-376.

Habib, P. and Luong, M.P. (1966)

"Etude theorique et experimentale de la s t a b i l i t i e des tuyaux et
buses cylindriques places dans les r e m b l a i s " (Theoretical and
experimental study of the stability of pipes and c y l i n d r i c a l
conduits placed in fill). A n n a l e s de l ' I n s t i t u t du B a t i m e n t et
des Travaix Publics, No. 218.

Katona, M.G. (1978)

"Analysis of long-span culverts by the finite e l e m e n t method",
Transp. Res. Rec. No. 678, pp 59-66, W a s h i n g t o n D.C., Transp. Res.
Board.

Krizek, R.J., Parmelee, R.A., Kay, J.N. and Elnaggar, H.A. (1971)
"Structural analysis and design of pipe c u l v e r t s " Nat. C o o p e r a t i v e
Highw. Res. Prog. Report 116, W a s h i n g t o n D.C.: Highw. Res. Board.

Levy, M. (1884)
"Memoire sur un nouveau cas i n t e g r a b l e du p r o b l e m e de l ' e a s t i q u e
et l'une de ses applications" (Memoir on a new i n t e g r a b l e case of
the p r o b l e m of elasticity and one of its a p p l i c a t i o n s ) J. Math.
Pure et Appl. (Liouville), Series 3, Vol. i0, pp 5-42.

Link, H. (1963)
"Beitrag zum K n i c k p r o b l e m des e l a s t i c h g e b e t t e t e n
K r e i s b o g e n t r a g e r s " . ( A c o n t r i b u t i o n on the p r o b l e m of b u c k l i n g of
an elastically embedded circular arch). Der Stabhlbau, 32 (7), pp
199-203.

Luscher, U. (1966)
"Buckling of soil-surrounded tubes" J. Soil Mech. Found. Div.,
Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs., Voi.92, No. SM6, Nov. pp 211-228.

Luscher, U. & Hoeg, K. (1964)

"The interaction between a structural tube and the s u r r o u n d i n g
soil." US Air Force Weapons Lab., K i r t l a n d Air Force Base, Rprt. RT
TDR-63-3109.

Marston, A. (1930)
"The theory of external loads on c l o s e d c o n d u i t s in the light of
recent experiments" Iowa Engng. Expt. Stn., B u l l e t i n No. 96.

41
Marston, A. & Anderson, A.O. (1913)
"The theory of loads on pipes in ditches and tests of cement and
clay drain tile and sewer pipe", Iowa State University
Engineering R e s e a r c h Institute, Bulletin No.31, Ames, Iowa.

Meyerhof, G.G. and Baikie, L.D. (1963)

"Strength of steel c u l v e r t sheets bearing against compacted sand
backfill" Highw. Res. Rec. No.30, pp 1-14, Washington D.C.:
Highw. Res. Board.

Morley, A. (.1943)
" S t r e n g t h of M a t e r i a l s " Longmans, Green and Co., London.

Smith, G.N. (1991)

"Buried F l e x i b l e Pipes - The analytical method developed by Gumbel
for TRRL". C o n t r a c t o r R e p o r t 229, Transport & Road Research
Laboratory, Dept. of Transport, Crowthorne, Berks.

Spangler, M.G. (1941)

"The structural d e s i g n of flexible pipe culverts" Bulletin No.153,
Iowa Engng. Expt. Stn., Ames, Iowa.

Terzaghi, K. (1955)
" E v a l u a t i o n of c o e f f i c i e n t s of subgrade reaction". Geotechnique,
Vol.5, No. 4, Dec. pp 279-326

Trott, J.J. & GAUNT, J. (1976)

" E x p e r i m e n t a l p i p e l i n e s under a major road: performance during and
a f t e r road c o n s t r u c t i o n " . Dept. of the Environ., Transport & Road
R e s e a r c h Laboratory, R e p o r t 692, Crowthorne, Berks.

Wang, C.T. (1953)

"Applied elasticity", McGraw-Hill, New York.

W a t e r R e s e a r c h Centre (1988)
"Pipe m a t e r i a l s s e l e c t i o n manual - Water mains, U.K. Edition,
A p p e n d i x 1 - S t r u c t u r a l design of pipelines". W.R.C., Marlow,
Bucks.

White, H~L. and Layer, J.P. (1960)

"The c o r r u g a t e d metal c o n d u i t as a compression ring" Proc.
Highw. Res. Board, Voi.39, pp 389-397.

Young, O.C. and O'Reilly, M.P. (1983)

"A guide to d e s i g n l o a d i n g s for buried rigid pipes" Transport
and Road R e s e a r c h Laboratory, D e p a r t m e n t of Transport, London.

Young, O.C., Brennan, G. & O'Reilly, M.P. (1986)

" S i m p l i f i e d tables of external loads on buried pipelines"
T r a n s p o r t and Road R e s e a r c h Laboratory, Department of Transport,
HMSO, London.

42
 APPENDIX I

TERMINOLOGY

The basic pipe terms used in this text are listed below and are

illustrated in Fig.l.

Crown - the uppermost part of the pipe ring.

Haunch - the side of the pipe between the springing and

the invert

Invert - the lowermost part of the pipe ring.

Shoulder - the side of the pipe between the crown and the
springing.

Springing - the level of the horizontal axis of the pipe

ring.

t - wall thickness

R - external radius of pipe

R i - internal radius of pipe

r - variable radius within wall thickness

43
 APPENDIX II

BASIC PIPE THEORY

AII,I PiDes $Dbj~cted ~Q in~@rn~l flDi~ Dressur@,

AII.I.I Thick walled pipe.

A thick cylinder subjected to an internal fluid pressure is a c t e d

upon by three principal stresses:- a circumferential tensile

stress, a radial compressive stress and a tensile stress acting

parallel to the axis of the cylinder caused by the fluid pressure

acting on the ends of the cylinder. With a pipe there are no ends

so the axial tensile stress is generally absent, although axial

tensile stresses can be induced by the action of turning valves on

or off along the length of the pipe. Fig.2A shows the cross

section of a thick pipe, of internal radius R i and external radius

R and subjected to a n internal pressure, Pl, and an external

pressure, Pe, both applied uniformly around the circumferences of

the pipe.

Let

d e = the circumferential t e n s i l e stress, or h o o p stress,

a c t i n g a t r a d i u s r w i t h i n t h e t h i c k n e s s of the p i p e and
a t r i g h t a n g l e s to t h e r a d i u s .

~r = the r a d i a l compressive stress acting at r, any variable

radius.

A pipe is assumed to operate in a s t a t e of p l a n e strain and the

study of its failure mechanisms involves the analysis of the cross "'

section of the pipe. If it is assumed that cross sections

originally plane will remain plane then it c a n be shown that:-

b
d e - + a ...... (i)
r2

b
and ~r - a ...... (2)
2
r

44
where a and b are constants which depend upon the dimensions of the

pipe and the magnitude of the applied pressures. The formulae for a

and b are derived in m o s t strength of m a t e r i a l s text books, for

example Morley (1943), and are:-

Pe R2 - PiRi 2 Ri2R2(pe - Pi)

a = and b =
R 2 _ Ri 2 R 2 - Ri 2

The values of the hoop tension and the radial pressure are not

constant but vary over the cross section of the pipe. The forms of

these variations are illustrated in F i g . 2 B (see example i below).

ExamPle !

A water main has internal and external diameters of 150 and 200mm

respectively and is subjected to a u n i f o r m water pressure of

7 5 0 0 k N / m 2. P r e p a r e a plot showing the variation of the

circumferential tension, ce, and the radial pressure, ~r, along

the length of a radius.

Solution

Pi = 7500kN/m2", Pe = 0; R i = 0.150m; R = 0.2m

7500 x .1502 7500 x .152 x .22

Hence a = = 9642.86; b = = 385.71
0.22 - 0.152 0.22 - 0.152

By selecting various values for r the corresponding values for ~e

and cr c a n be obtained, as shown tabulated below.

r (m) .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .20

~e (kN/m2) 26800 24700 23000 21500 20300 19300
~r (kN/m2) 7500 5420 3700 2260 1040 0

The resulting plots are shown in F i g . 2 . B .

AII.I.2 Thin walled pipe

Consider the case of a l a r g e diameter pipe, with a relatively thin

wall thickness, t, subjected to a n internal hydrostatic pressure,

Pi, (Fig.3A). Due to the thinness of the wall, the tensile hoop

45
stress, ~e, tends to be uniform and to a c t at the centre of the

wall thickness, at radius r, whereas the radial stress is r e d u c e d

to a negligible value. Under these circumstances a simple way to

determine the value of the hoop stress becomes possible.

Consider the equilibrium of the element of cross section contained

within the angle 80 a n d a unit length of the wall, between the

parallel sections AA and BB, (Fig.3B):-

Let the radial force acting on the element due to Pi be ~P0-

Then 8Pc = Pir~e and the vertical component of this force is

Pir~esine. Hence the total force normal to a d i a m e t e r is:-

O
P0 = I Pirsined0 = 2Pir
0o

Resisting force due to hoop stress = 2¢et (See F i g . 3 A ) and, for

equilibium, 2cet = 2Pir

Pi r
i.e. ~e
t

r is the' m e a n radius and equal to 0 . 5 ( R i + R) but, for m o s t

thin walled pipe calculations the outside radius, R, can be u s e d

in place of r and the equation written as:-

Pi R
= . . . . . . . . (3)

Determine the tensile hoop stress in a t h r e e metre diameter pipe

which has a wall thickness of 25mm and is s u b j e c t e d to a u n i f o r m

internal pressure of 1 5 0 0 k N / m 2.

Solution
pi R 1500 x 3
~e - =
= 90MN/m 2
2t 2 x 0.025

46
AII,2 PiDes subjected to ~ fluid

If a p i p e of circular cross section is subjected to an external

hydraulic pressure then the symmetry of loading ensures that no

bending moments are induced in the pipe walls, provided that the

pipe ring maintains its circular shape as it u n d e r g o e s compression.

For a thick pipe if the external hydraulic pressure, Pe, is the

only pressure acting on the p i p e then the value of Pi = 0 and,

substituting into equations (I) and (2), we obtain the following

expressions for Ce a n d Cr, the hoop and radial compressive

stresses:-

cTe
-
R 2 - R i2
[i2 I
r2
+ 1 and ¢r =
R2 Pe2 [i2 1
- R i2 r 2
1

It is seen that when R i is p u t equal to r then Cr = 0

and, as R ~ m a n d ¢8 ~ 2Pe:-

2Pe R2
Ce --
R 2 _ Ri 2

It c a n be shown, by the theory of elasticity, see Wang (1953) for

example, that the inward d i s p l a c e m e n t , w, caused by the elastic

compression of the pipe ring, at any point on the inner surface of

the pipe is found from the equation:-

2RiR2pe
W = where E = Y o u n g ' s M o d u l u s of
E ( R 2 - Ri 2 ) the pipe material.

~eRi
Hence w - . . . . . . . (4)
E

For a thin pipe the compressive hoop stress, ~e, will be almost

uniform and, by comparing with equation (3), the formula for this

stress, for a pipe of radius R, is seen to b e : -

Pe R
Ge -
t

47
and the inward displacement, w, at any point on the circumference

can be obtained by m o d i f y i n g eqn.(4):-

~0R
w =
E

AII.2.1 Buckling effects

There is a significant difference in the b e h a v i o u r of thick and

thin walled pipes when the applied pressure is e x t e r n a l instead of

internal. If its walls are thick enough a thick walled pipe will

maintain its circular cross section until the magnitude of its

compressive hoop stress reaches its limiting value and failure by

crushing is imminent. A thin walled pipe behaves in a m a n n e r

similar to an axially loaded strut and may collapse by e i t h e r

buckling or by crushing.

As established in the previous section, the formula for the

compressive circumferential stress, ~e, in a t h i n walled pipe of

radius R, is:-
Pe R
~e -
t

Consider a unit length of the pipe. Then the total circumferential

length of the wall = 2~R and the area of the rectangular cross

section acted upon by the compressive stress = t x unit length = t,

whilst its moment of inertia, I, = ts/12.

The total thrust, T, acting on the cross section of the p i p e is

equal to the compressive stress times the area. Hence:-

PeRt
T = ce x t x 1 = = pe R
t

An approximation to the critical value of T, i.e. the value that

could produce buckling failure, can be d e d u c e d by a n a l o g y to

Euler's rules if it is assumed that the form of collapse will be

-o

48
symmetrical. The s i m p l e s t f o r m of c o l l a p s e , proved by e x p e r i m e n t ,

is i l l u s t r a t e d in Fig.4 and has four p o i n t s of c o n t r a f l e x u r e

(points of change o v e r f r o m i n c r e a s e d to d e c r e a s e d curvature) A,B,C

and D. These four p o i n t s d i v i d e the c r o s s section into four equal

arcs, each of l e n g t h ~R/2.

Euler's formula for the c r i t i c a l load, T, acting on a s t r u t of

l e n g t h L and h i n g e d at b o t h ends, is g i v e n by the expression:-

~2EI
T -
L2

where I = Moment of i n e r t i a and E = Y o u n g ' s Modulus.

If we a s s u m e that the l e n g t h L is the d i s t a n c e between two

adjacent points of c o n t r a f l e x u r e , say AD, t h e n L = ~R/2. If Pb is

the v a l u e of Pe t h a t will cause buckling then:

4~2EI
pbR = T =
~2R2
4EI
or Pb -
R 3

Now I = t3/12 so that a n o t h e r expression f o r Pb is;--

Pb ~ . . . . .
3 R 3 D

The final expression glves an a p p r o x i m a t e value for the critical

external pressure. It s h o u l d be n o t e d that this value has been

determined by a n a l o g y and n o t by r i g o r o u s analysis. A more rigid

mathematical analysis leads to the c l a s s i c ring buckling formula

due to L e v y (1884):-

3EI
Pb - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
R 3

49
 APPENDIX III

Determination Qf ~h~ averaae GQver Qv~r ~h@ pipQ width

For depths of cover H between 0.25D and D the depth of soil above

the pipe is taken as equal to the average cover over the pipe

width. (See Para 3.2.1). The argument below explains why this value

of average cover is taken as equal to H + 0.107D.

The cross section of a buried pipe is illustrated below.

Ground level

H
Crown level

D/2

I L D
Pipe axis

H = cover = height of soil above pipe crown

D = outside diameter of pipe

Area of the half pipe above = ! ~D 2 = 0.3927D 2

its horizontal axis 2 4

Area of soil and pipe between = D.D = 0.5D 2

pipe axis and crown level 2

Area of soil between axis = (0.5 - 0.3927)D 2 = 0.107D 2

and crown level

Average cover of soil = H + 0.107D 2 = H + 0.107D

over pipe width D

50
J

FIGURES

51
 Crown

h0ulder

-t-- Springing

i aunch

Fi g. Pipe ferminotogy

0",, + ~ ~

R adiu s(mm)l '5 0

E
- 10000
(fill

~ t
I l/ ,I I1" , . I / I / ' 1 / ' "
stress d r
1 O0

~, -20000
HooI~ stress d e
u~

,- -30000
.,¢..
or)

(_A/ (8)
-°

Fig. 2 Examp[e 1

A B

%
u

[
e~ (A) o-et
A IB) 8
Fig. 3 Thin-walLed pipe
 A

'\~ I h/
o "~ -+- --.7-c

Fig. /. Simpte buck[ing

.,,,t

I
P

0"25

Kp~ Kp p•P-
0 •2 "4 .6 "8 1-0 K

I P
F i g . SA Loading on thick watled pipe B Variafion of Mmaxwith K

Wc/D c osd,.
Fig 6 Sp[angler 'S assumed
pressure distribufi on
 o: I I "-

~..i ~ "',,

Fig.7

Barnard's equivalent
earth column

" < ~ ,'~.'0

Well gr~leQ ~ n d

'=°1 i i l//
__ | AolSlie~l Lateral. /I A Lean claw Sand with clay bin(~er
a~. I-- P~,,,.,a-~N'm'2q7-1 - zoo. " I I I
~ooo/E i,~z'./l ~
200
I .°o,,.,.,-,
' : '
1 3'°°1 %=!J !I I
---- ~"~' [ - - ' ~ " Pressunl--kN/m:

0 I 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4
Axial strain. ~,,,.n (%} Axial strain, ewn (%| Axiai s1~i., ~wn (%)

(,4.) A x i a l strains in t y p i c a l soils .-

20

10

Fig.8 O
- 2
O
Diagrams relating to calculation "S
of pipe deflection (based on AWWA
Manual) and reproduced from CIRIA
Report No.78.

0.5

0.2.
200 500 1000 2000 5000
P ~ I dia. (ram)

B) Theoretical height of cover for stee:

pipe with 2% deflection.
(Unit w e i g h t o f s o i l = 2 0 k N / m ~)
 "- ks

Fig,9 Winkter mode[ of i

soit s t i f f n e s s

f ~

/ \

(A) Mu[ti-v~ave mode (B) Single ,dave mode

Fig_.fO Genera[ and local ring buckling i

J
I
m

Fig l t . Excessive d e f l e c t i o n After £ I R! A)

causing snap-through • buck[i ng 1978
i
 I
i t I I I I I I I I I i

100
9O

70

6O

m
50 --

40

30

20

Z Main roads

!
10
!
t,- 9
D Light roa~i m
8

-
Fields

Wc$u = (7 B c
Inclusive of relevant dynamic
faclors due to ~mpact
(See sect,on 2.6.1.4)

I I | I | I I I I
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.80.91.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Depth, H (m|

Fig.12 Equivalent pipe loads "due to v~nicle" loads

(From Young and o'Reilly, (1983)