Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

958

Composite E (Modulus of Soil Reaction)


Amster Howard1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Civil Engineering Consultant, 1562 S Yank St, Lakewood CO, 303-989-5187,


amsterk@comcast.net, M ASCE

Abstract
The Modulus of Soil Reaction (E) represents the stiffness of the embedment
soil placed on the sides of buried flexible pipe. E is used to estimate the deflection
of the pipe due to dead and live loads over the pipe. E varies with the type of
embedment soil and with the degree of compaction. The resulting support for the
pipe also depends on the width of the embedment soil and the stiffness of the insitu
trench walls. This resulting support can be represented by a composite E that
combines the stiffness of the embedment soil and the trench wall soil. The composite
E is the E of the embedment soil modified by a Soil Support Combining Factor.
The Soil Support Combining Factors are given in a table that uses the ratio of the
trench width to the pipe diameter and the ratio of the E values of the embedment and
the trench walls.
The history and development of the composite E is discussed. A new
proposed table of presumptive E values of the insitu trench walls is presented.
Terminology
Terminology for the embedment soil around the pipe varies depending on the
standard or manual. The terms shown in Figure 1 will be used for this discussion.

BACKFILL
TRENCH
WALL

FOUNDATION

EMBEDMENT
BEDDING
REPLACED
FOUNDATION

Figure 1 Trench Cross Section Terminology

Pipelines 2009

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

959

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Introduction
A buried flexible pipe deflects under load with the vertical diameter
decreasing and the horizontal diameter increasing. The amount of horizontal
deflection depends on the stiffness of the soil beside the pipe. For a pipe with infinite
homogeneous soil on the sides, as in an embankment condition (Figure 2), the
horizontal deflection depends on the stiffness of the one soil type. However, for pipe
installed in a trench condition, as shown in Figure 3, the soil stiffness is a
combination of the stiffness properties of the embedment soil and the trench wall soil
(insitu soil)(native soil).

Figure 2 Embankment Condition

Figure 3 Trench Condition

If the trench width is large enough, the trench installation will approximate
the embankment condition and the soil stiffness will be only that of the embedment
material. For narrower trenches, there are several design methods available.
Trench Condition Considerations
Trench Walls Stiffer than Embedment - Many trench walls are insitu native
materials that have not been recently disturbed. These soils have a relative high
stiffness due to cementation, consolidation, or over-consolidation. While the stiff
trench walls may affect the horizontal deflection of the pipe, typically designers only
rely on the stiffness properties of the embedment material. Use of a composite E,
as discussed later, can be cost effective when specifying embedment materials and
compaction in a site with high stiffness trench walls.
Trench Walls Weaker than Embedment - The support for a deflecting pipe
becomes critical when the trench walls are weak and soft, such as muck, peat (PT),
organic soils (OL, OH), landfills, saturated low density clays (CL) and silts (ML),
and compressible soils such as fat clays (CH) and elastic silts (MH). In some poor
trench wall installations, flexible pipe has been encased in concrete to eliminate the
deflection problem. Flowable fill (CLSM) could also be used.
For example, in 2005 the US Bureau of Reclamation built a 72-in steel
pipeline through a man made hazardous waste area, about 1000 ft long, that had low
density materials. Tests showed the in-place densities were about 84 to 94 percent
compaction (% Proctor) with an average density below 90 percent compaction. Since
the cover over the pipe was 10 ft to 15 ft and unsure of the consistency of the trench
walls, Reclamation decided to use flowable fill (CLSM) as the embedment material

Pipelines 2009

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

with a 2 pipe diameter trench width. Thus, the width between the pipe and the trench
wall, measured at springline, was about 0.5 pipe diameter. A recent inspection with a
go/no-go 72-inch diameter rod showed insignificant deflection in the pipe.
The Modulus of Soil Reaction (E) is used to represent the stiffness of the
embedment soil placed on the sides of buried flexible pipe. E is used to estimate the
deflection of the pipe due to dead and live loads over the pipe. E varies with the type
of embedment soil and with the degree of compaction (Howard 2006) and, in most
cases, is independent of depth (Howard 2008).
There are three approaches to how to estimate the deflection of the pipe when
in a weak trench wall condition:
1 ASTM D2321 This ASTM standard covers the installation of PVC and
PE gravity pipe. The standard discusses the types of soils and compaction for trench
installations. D2321 recommends that for weak trench wall materials that will stand
on a vertical slope when cut, the horizontal distance between the pipe and the trench
wall should be at least 0.5 D (where D = pipe diameter). If the trench wall will not
stand at a vertical cut when excavated, then the distance between the pipe and the
trench, measured at the pipe springline, should be at least one pipe diameter. In both
instances, the embedment material should be compacted crushed rock or clean sand
or gravel (GW, GP, SW, SP). The premise of D2321 is to provide an E of about
1000 psi for the installed pipe-soil system.
2 USBR In specifications and literature, the US Bureau of Reclamation
recommends for poor insitu materials, the distance between the pipe and the trench
wall be two pipe diameters, measured at the pipe springline (Howard 1996). The
embedment soil should be a clean sand/gravel (GW, GP, SW, SP which includes
crushed rock) compacted to 70% Relative Density (roughly equivalent to 95%
Standard Proctor). In this case, the embedment material provides all of the support
for the pipe and does not depend on any stiffness from the trench wall. The E used
for design is then the E of the embedment material.
This requires the excavation be five pipe diameters wide at the pipe springline.
While impractical for larger pipelines, this system was sometimes used for smaller
pipe.
3 Composite E A modified value for E for design is calculated based on
the trench dimensions, the stiffness of the embedment material, and the stiffness of
the trench walls. As shown in Figure 4, the movement of the side of the pipe into the
surrounding soil would depend on the width of the bedding material (distance from
pipe wall to trench wall) characterized as B over D, where B is the width of the trench
at the pipe springline, and D is the pipe diameter. The movement of the side of the
pipe would also depend on the relative stiffness of the embedment material and the
stiffness of the trench wall material. This method uses a composite E for design.

Pipelines 2009

960

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

Figure 4 Pipe Moving into Surrounding Soil


One method to determine the composite stiffness is to compare the pipe
pushing on the surrounding soil to a footing on layered soil, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Footing on Layered Soil


Solutions exist for determining the settlement of the footing based on the load
and the different stiffness of each layers of soil under the footing. The ATV127
method for pipe design uses one of the methods for predicting pipe deflection
(ATV127 1999).
The ATV127 method is a European procedure for design of rigid and flexible
pipe. This method was developed by Abwasserbechnischen Vereinigung CoV (ATV)
and incorporates a calculation that takes into account the stiffness of the embedment
material and the trench wall material. This calculation is attributed to Leonhardt,
who worked with foundation engineering problems (Leonhardt 1988). He arrived at
a zeta () factor that is based on the ratio of the trench width to the pipe diameter and
the ratio of the stiffness of the embedment material to the stiffness of the native soil.
The final E for design is determined by multiplying zeta by the stiffness of the
embedment material. Using the parameters illustrated in Figure 6, the Leonhardt
chart for determining zeta is shown as Figure 7 and uses the B/D ratio and the
embedment stiffness and the trench wall stiffness.

Pipelines 2009

961

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

962

B
En = Stiffness of
Native Material
(Trench Wall)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

E = Stiffness of Embedment Material


Figure 6 Parameters for Leonhardt Chart

B = trench width
D = pipe diameter
Zeta
factor

ratio of E embedment/ E native


Figure 7 Leonhardt Chart for Zeta

Pipelines 2009

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

963

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In the early 1990s, an AWWA committee was developing a AWWA Manual


for design and installation of fiberglass pipe and wanted to incorporate some means
of accounting for soft trench walls. They preferred to put the data in table form and
developed the table shown as Table 1. The values were based on the Leonhardt
curves.

E'n /E'
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
5 or more

B/D
1.5
0.15
0.30
0.50
0.70
0.85
1.00
1.30
1.50
1.75
2.00

B/D
2.0
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.15
1.30
1.45
1.60

B/D
2.5
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.10
1.15
1.30
1.40

B/D
3.0
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
0.98
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.20
1.25

B/D
4.0
0.90
0.92
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.05
1.08
1.10

B/D
5.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

En = E of native soil (trench walls)


E = E of embedment soil
B = Trench width at springline of pipe, inches
D = Pipe diameter, inches
Table 1

Values of S (Soil Support Combining Factor)

The composite E is then calculated from the following equation:


Composite E = (S, soil support combining factor) x (E of embedment)

The committee also gathered data on values for the stiffness of the trench wall
and these are shown in Table 2. Although data is based on general stiffness terms,
the committee assigned E values to the various categories. AWWA Manual M45,
Fiberglass Pipe Design was first published in 1996 and includes Tables 1 and 2.
The 2nd Edition was published in 2005, with Errata published in 2008. The tables
have since been incorporated in AWWA Manual M55, PE Pipe Design and
Installation. These tables were also published in Pipeline Installation (Howard
(1996).

Pipelines 2009

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cohesionless Soils
SPT
Blows per foot
Description
ASTM D 1586

964

Cohesive Soils

Unconfined
Compressive
Description
Strength, Tsf
ASTM D 2166
01
Very, very, loose 0 0.125
Very, very, soft
12
Very loose
0.125 0.25
Very soft
24
Very loose
0.25 0.50
Soft
4-8
Loose
0.50 1.00
Medium
8 15
Slightly compact 1.00 2.00
Stiff
15 30
Compact
2.00 4.00
Very stiff
30 50
Dense
4.00 6.00
Hard
> 50
Very dense
> 6.00
Very hard
Rock
----SPT = Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586), blows per foot

En
lbs/in2
50
200
700
1500
3000
5000
10,000
20,000
50,000

Table 2 Values of En for In-Situ (Native) Soils


from AWWA Fiberglass Pipe Design (M45) 1996, or Howard 1996
NOTE The tables for the Soil Combining Factor (Tables 1) and
the values of En (Table 2) first appeared in AWWA Manual 45
and this manual should be referenced as the source.

The composite E is not only useful in poor soil conditions but can be used
when the trench walls are much stiffer than the embedment and add support to the
pipe. For example, if a narrow trench (B/D = 1.5) is cut through rock (En/ E 5),
the E for design would be twice the E of the embedment material (S = 2.00 from
Table 1).
Soil Stiffness
Embedment - The Reclamation table of presumptive E (Modulus of Soil
Reaction) values appears in many standards, guides, and manuals. The E value
represents the stiffness of the soil placed on the sides of the pipe and is used for
estimating the deflection of buried flexible pipe. In the Reclamation table, E varies
with the type of embedment soil and the degree of compaction. The 2006 version of
the Reclamation table is shown as Appendix A (Howard 2006).
These E values are empirical and are based on initial deflections from actual
field installations. They represent the stiffness of embedments of homogeneous,
remolded soils,
Trench Walls The stiffness of the trench walls could be estimated using the
table in Appendix A and determining the soil classification and density of the insitu
material. The stiffness of insitu materials is usually greater due to origin, structure,
cementation, overconsolidation, and stress history. The stiffness of the native soil

Pipelines 2009

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

can also be estimated based on insitu testing such as Standard Penetration, Cone
Penetration, Dilatometer, etc. Table 2 from AWWA Manual M45 is an estimate of
trench wall stiffness.
The values in AWWA M45 were based on data from several sources. For
cohesionless soils, the stiffness was determined using blow counts from a Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) using the procedures as outlined in ASTM D1586. For
cohesive soils, the unconfined compressive strength test (ASTM D2166) results were
used. This procedure uses an unrestrained cylinder of soil tested in a compression
machine. However, unconfined compression tests (ASTM D2166) are not normally
performed during a reconnaissance or feasibility study. More often, SPT or cone
penetration testing is performed.
A proposed new table for presumptive E values for insitu soils is shown in
Table 4. After reviewing several studies with Modulus values related to field SPT
tests (McGregor and Duncan 1998), it became apparent that the values are too high
and that there needs to a distinction according to soil type. The data showed that
there is a significant difference between the results for cohesionless and cohesive
soils. Accordingly, a new table for insitu E values is proposed based on soil type and
N value. The E values are estimated presumptive numbers; local experience
should take precedent. If the stiffness of the insitu soil is critical in estimating the
pipe deflection, then high quality samples of the soils should be obtained for
geotechnical testing to determine modulus values.
The studies gave E (Youngs Modulus of Elasticity) values and Ms
(Constrained Modulus) values (McGregor and Duncan 1998). There are various
opinions for the relationship between E, Ms, and E. In light of the variability of SPT
results, the terms may be considered interchangeable. Additionally, differentiating
between secant and tangent modulus may not be warranted.
Other changes in the proposed table include equating any N value below 5 to
zero soil stiffness. Soils that are so soft or loose that takes less than five blows to
drive the SPT sampler a foot, cannot be counted on to provide any significant side
support to pipe embedment. Therefore, a value of zero is recommended.
There are many factors to consider when using SPT results. ASTM D1586
states that the procedure should only be used in soils with maximum particle size of 1
inch. The standard also warns that results in the same area can vary by 100%
between different crews and equipment and can vary by 10% for the same crew and
equipment. Researchers have identified seven correction factors to be applied to the
blow count. Relationships between presumptive values and N values are less reliable
in fine-grained soils (clays and silts).
Values of E can be interpolated between N numbers. The field data shows
that above an N value of 10 the relationship between modulus and N is basically
linear. The numerical relationships in the new table between soil types and
loose/soft, compact/hard, and dense/stiff are generally the same as other tables for
presumptive values for bearing capacity and modulus.

Pipelines 2009

965

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

966

E for insitu soils, lbs per square inch


N Value from SPT test (number of
blows/foot)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Soil description and


classification - USCS

Clays and silts with


less than 30%
Sand/gravel
CL ML
Sandy silts, clays
With 30% or more
sand sCL sML
Silty or Clayey sand
SM
SC
Normally consolidated
sands SP, SP-SM,
SP-SC
Over-consolidated
sands
SP, SP-SM, SPSC
Gravels, soils with
gravel

05

zero

10

20

30

50
and
higher

500

750

1250

1500

2500

700

1000

1500

2000

3000

1000

1500

2500

3000

5000

2000

3000

4000

5000

8000

Typically higher than sands but SPT test


very
unreliable, use another method

Notes: Unified Soil Classification based on ASTM D2487 or D2488


For use in determining Composite E
Table 4 Suggested Table for En based on SPT Values
The values in the Table of Soil Support Combining Factors and the Table of
Soil Stiffness Values for Insitu (Native Soils) are based on engineering judgment.
While projects have been successfully built using the composite E concept, there are
no empirical data to support the numbers. The E values for the embedment are
empirical values derived from soil-pipe interaction. The En for the trench walls
loosely represent stiffness values based on descriptions of insitu density and
consistency from SPT testing. A pipe with a constantly changing shape moving
horizontally into a soil mass is not the same as a rigid or flexible footing on layered
soil. Insitu soils are typically not homogeneous or isotropic. Values for the native
soils can be affected by cementation, overconsolidation, structure, and moisture.
Trench wall stiffness can also be affected by a change in the amount of water
made available to the soil. Water can result from intercepting ground water aquifers,

Pipelines 2009

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

leaking pipe, leaking crossing pipe, or surface water infiltration before the backfill
settles into place. If the pipe embedment soil is a free-draining, cohesionless
material, water can fill the voids in the embedment soil and thus provide free water to
the trench walls. Trench walls of cohesive soils, even though dense or stiff materials,
can soften or slake and provide a soft zone at the embedment-trench wall contact that
reduces the support for the pipe.
Summary
The Modulus of Soil Reaction (E) represents the stiffness of the embedment
soil placed on the sides of buried flexible pipe. E is used to estimate the deflection
of the pipe due to dead and live loads over the pipe. E varies with the type of
embedment soil and with the degree of compaction. The resulting support for a
buried flexible pipe depends on the width of the embedment soil and the stiffness of
the insitu trench walls. This resulting support can be represented by a composite E
that combines the stiffness of the embedment soil and the trench wall soil. The
stiffness value for the trench walls can be much higher than the same soil in a
homogeneous, remolded state.
Factors such as structure, cementation,
overconsolidation, etc. can affect the stiffness and should be accounted for in design.
A new table is proposed of presumptive values for the trench wall stiffness
based on SPT results.

Pipelines 2009

967

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

968

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

APPENDIX A 2006 RECLAMATION TABLE OF E VALUES


(see notes 1, 2, 3)
E values are shown in lbs/in2
Degree of Compaction Of Pipe Embedment (note 7)
Soil-Classification
Dumped
Slight
Moderate
High
of Embedment
<85% P
85-95% P
>95% P
(notes 4, 5, 6)
<40% RD
40%-70% RD >70% RD
Highly compressible, plastic, or
DO NOT USE
organic clays/silts, peat, top soil
CH, MH, OH, OL, Pt
Clays and Silts with less than 30%
sand and/or gravel
50
200
400
1500
CL, ML
Sandy or Gravelly Silts and Clays
with 30% or more sand and/or
gravel
CL, ML
150
400
1000
2500
Sands and Gravels
with 13% or more fines
GC, GM, SC, SM
Sands and Gravels
with 12% or less fines
200
700
2000
4000
GW, GP, SW, SP (note 8)
Crushed Rock
With less than 25% passing 3/8
inch sieve and less than 12%
fines (note 9)

uncompacted

compacted

1000

6000

NOTES:
1 Values only valid for pipe cover of 50 ft or less
2 The E values shown are only valid when used with a prism load.
3 Using these E values will give an estimated initial average pipe vertical deflection.
Time-lag factors must be used for long term deflection
The actual deflection should agree with the estimated deflection within:
0.5% percentage points for high degree of compaction
1% percentage points for moderate degree of compaction
2% percentage points for dumped/slight degree of compaction
4 Unified Soil Classification based on ASTM D2487 or D2488
5 Soil Classification of Embedment also applies to dual symbol or borderline soils
beginning with the symbol shown in column.
6 Fines are soil particles that pass a No. 200 (75 micrometer) sieve (clays and silts)
7 P is standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T-99)
RD is Relative Density (ASTM D 4253 and D 4254)
8 Does not apply to SP soils containing more than 50% fine sand (passing No 40 sieve)
Consider these soils as ML soil for the purposes of this table
9 All faces of Crushed Rock should be fractured

Pipelines 2009

Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure's Hidden Assets 2009 ASCE

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

References
ASTM STANDARDS
American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards
D 698, "Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil
Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3))"
D 1586, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils
D 2166, Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil
D 2321, Underground Installation of Thermoplastic Pipe for Sewers and Other
Gravity-Flow Applications
D 2487, Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil
Classification System)
D 2488, Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)
D 4253, "Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit
Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table," Vol 04.08.
D 4254, "Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density of Soils
and Calculation of Relative Density"
AASHTO T-99, "Standard Methods of Test For the Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and
Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 5.5-lb (2.49-kg) Rammer and 12-in (304.8-mm) Drop,"
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC.
AWWA MANUALS
American Water Works Association, Denver CO
AWWA (1966) Fiberglass Pipe Design, AWWA Manual No. 45
AWWA (2008) PE Pipe Design and Installation, AWWA Manual No. 55
ATV 2000 - ATV Standard A 127, Directives for the structural calculation of drainage
sewers and lines, German Wastewater Association (Abwassertechnische Vereinigung) 2000,
Hennef Germany
Howard, A.K. (1977) Modulus of Soil Reaction Values for Buried Flexible Pipe, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, vol 103, No GT1
Howard, A.K. (1996) Pipeline Installation, Relativity Publishing, Lakewood CO, 1996
Howard, A. K. (2006)
The Reclamation E Table, 25 Years Later, Plastics Pipes
Symposium XIII, Wash DC
Howard, A. K. and B. C. Howard, (2008) A Discussion of E versus Depth, Proceeding
Pipelines 2008, ASCE Conference, Atlanta GA
Leonhardt, G. (1978), Belaslungsannakmen beu erdverkegten GFK - Rohren, AVK,
Freudenstadt 4 Okt.
McGregor, J. A., and J. M. Duncan (1998), Performance and Use of the Standard
Penetration Test in Geotechnical Engineering Practice, Virginia Tech Center for
Geotechnical Practice and Research, Blackburg VA

Pipelines 2009

969

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen