SOIL STRESS DISTRIBUTION AROUND BURIED PIPES

By I t z h a k Shmulevich, 1 Naftali Galili, 2 a n d A m n o n Foux 3

(Reviewed by the Pipeline Division)

ABSTRACT: An extensive experimental study of flexible and semi-rigid pipes

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

subjected to soil and superimposed loads was carried out in a large laboratory
soil box. Normal and tangential soil stresses were measured by plane-stress
hansducers at the pipe-soil interface in a wide trench laying conditions. The
results were used to calculate vertical and horizontal soil loads on the pipe. It
is shown that both normal and tangential soil stresses are essential for pipe
load evaluation. Horizontal to vertical soil load ratios as well as vertical load
concentration coefficients are presented for a wide range of pipe-soil stiffness
ratios.

INTRODUCTION

Soil pressure distribution around buried pipes has been studied by

many investigators. Because of difficulties in measuring shear stresses
at the soil pipe interface, most investigators measured normal stresses
only. Marston in his historical culvert experiments in Ames, Iowa used
"friction ribbons" to evaluate normal stress (see Ref. 15). Other inves-
tigators (9,12,18,19) measured normal soil loads b y m e a n s of m e m b r a n e
type pressure cells, strain gages, or deflection gages. In general, low
reliability of results was reported, mostly because of the m e a s u r e m e n t
method. James (10) a n d Bagge (3) used pressure-cells developed at Cam-
bridge University, for measuring both normal and tangential soil stresses.
But only limited results were published. Here again test conditions ef-
fected the stability of the results.
Because of the difficulties in direct measurement of soil pressure, some
indirect methods have been developed. Gabriel (6) suggested a m e t h o d
for calculating soil stress distribution around buried pipes, based on
measured local displacements in normal and tangential directions; actual
measurements were not conducted. Kaufer (11) reconstructed normal and
tangential stresses around buried arches by using h o o p strain gage mea-
surements. Both methods involve complicated analysis.
Several studies (1,2,12,14,16) have used finite element m e t h o d s to pre-
dict stress distribution around buried pipe. In most cases, the calculated
total loads on the pipe were found to be smaller t h a n loads calculated
by classical calculation m e t h o d s (17,22). A general conclusion of their
investigations is that tangential shear stresses around the pipe are n o t
Research Fellow, Faculty of Agricultural Engrg., Technion Israel Inst, of Tech.,
Haifa 32000, Israel.
2
Sr. Lect., Faculty of Agricultural Engrg., Technion Israel Inst, of Tech., Haifa
32000, Israel.
3
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Biomedical Engrg., Technion Israel Inst, of Tech., Haifa
32000, Israel.
Note.—Discussion open until February 1, 1987. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
March 27, 1985. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation Engineering,
Vol. 112, No. 5, September, 1986. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-947X/86/0005-0481/$01.00.
Paper No. 20751.

481

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 negligible, and that experimental data is urgently needed in order to
verify finite element programs dealing with soil-pipe interaction. The
objective of the present work is to study experimentally soil loads around
buried pipes, laid in a relatively wide trench conditions, and to evaluate
the influence of contact shear stresses on soil-pipe interaction. Ring de-
flections and bending moments of the loaded pipes are presented and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

discussed in a separate paper (21).

EXPERIMENTAL PHASE

Plane-Stress Transducer.—Plane-stress transducers for measuring both

normal and tangential contact stresses were developed and built. The
measuring principle of these transducers was similar to that of the Cam-
bridge soil transducer reported by Bransby (4). The transducer, shown
in Fig. 1, was machined from solid 7075-T6 aluminum. Four thin and
short columns were used to sense the normal load. The tangential load
was sensed by two thin cross bars connected between a load bearing
area of 1.4 sq in. (900 mm) and a rigid center. Strain gages were bonded
on both sensing elements, to form two full bridges. The transducer was
placed in a sealed housing, 1-11/32 in. (34 mm) in diameter and 1 in.
(25.4 mm) high. A general view of the plane-stress transducer is shown
in Fig. 2.
The transducers were calibrated by applying known forces in the nor-
mal and the tangential directions. Small and linear cross effects were
found between the normal and the tangential outputs; to account for
these, a stiffness matrix was determined experimentally for each trans-
ducer. Soil stresses were then calculated using the following expres-
sions:
P„ = K,me„ + K„ses (la)
Ps = Ksne„ + Ksses (lb)
in which P„ = soil stress in the normal direction; Ps = soil stress in the
tangential direction; e„ = measured strain in the normal direction; es =
measured strain in the tangential direction; and K„„, Kns, and Km, Kss
= stiffness coefficients of each transducer.

FIG. 1.—Plane-Stress Transducer: FIG. 2.-~Plane-Stress Transducer: (a)

General View of Sensing Element Cover of Sensing Element; (b) Flexible
Seal; (e) Housing (scale in cm)

482

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 TABLE 1.—Dimensions and Mechanical Properties of Pipe Specimens
Outside
Nominal diameter Thickness Elastic modulus Pipe stiffness
pipe size D (in.) t (in.) E (thousand psi) EI/R3 (psi)
(3)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(1) (2) (4) (5)

1,000/20 41.1 0.92 3,784 29.9
1,000/40 42.6 1.69 3,900 176.4
1,000/60 44.6 2.44 3,734 • 484.4
1,200/48 51.2 2.04 3,755 175.8
800/32 34.2 1.40 3,918 198.6
900/10 36.3 0.39 3,178 2.7
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 psi = 6.89 kPa.

TABLE 2 .—Soil Properties

Compaction standard Angle of Confined

Type of proctor, as a friction Unit weight modulus Ms
soil percentage (degrees) (Ibs/cu ft) (psi)
0) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Sand 85 31.0 96.7 651
(SP) 91 32.0 99.4 1,183
97 34.0 103.1 2,305
Clay 70 10.5 84.5 155
(CH) 85 13.0 91.8 555
Note: 1 lbs/cu ft = 16.018 kg/m 3 ; 1 psi = 6.89 kPa.

SURCHARGE PRESSURE

iuwuuwmuuuwiuw

FIG. 3.—Schematic View of Experimental Setup

483

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 Normal stresses of up to 87 psi (600 kPa) and tangential stresses of
up to 43.5 psi (300 kPa) could be measured by the transducers with an
accuracy of 1% of full scale and a fairly good stability.
Materials and Methods.—The experimental data used in this work
was obtained within the frame of a comprehensive study on buried pipes
(20). Pipe specimens and soil types, as well as the soil-box in which they
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

were tested, were described in detail (7,21). A brief description is re-

peated here.
Six pipe specimens, 78.7 in. (2.0 m) long, with diameters ranging from
34.2-51.2 in. (0.87-1.3 m) and wall thickness from 0.39-2.44 in. (9.9-
62.0 mm), were selected for the test program. Five pipes were made of
asbestos-cement and one of fiberglass reinforced polyester. Two soil types
were used as backfill material: (1) A fine uniform sand (SP); and (2) a

TABLE 3.—List of Tests Conducted

Surcharge Pressure
Nominal Test Shallow (psi)
Material pipe size number cover 7.25 14.50 21.75 29.00
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Sand, 85% Standard 1,000/20 1, 19, 31 * * *
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 7, 35 * * *
angle 30° 800/32 26 * * * *
1,200/48 23 *i * * *•
1,000/60 13 * * * * *
Sand, 85% Standard 1,000/20 2, 20, 33 * * * *
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 8, 37 * * * *
angle 90° 800/32 25, 51 * * * * *
1,200/48 22, 49 * * * * *
1,000/60 14, 44, 48 * * * * *
900/10" 55 * * * * *
Sand, 97% Standard 1,000/20 3, 32 * * * * *
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 9, 38 * * * * *
angle 90° 800/32 24, 52 * * * * *
1,200/48 21, 50 * * * * *
1,000/60 15, 45 * * * * *
900/10a 53 * * * * *
Clay, 70% Standard 1,000/20 6 * *
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 12, 42 * *
angle 30° 1,000/60 18 * * *
Clay, 70% Standard 1,000/20 4 * * *
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 10, 41 * * *
angle 90° 1,000/60 47, 16 * * * *
Clay, 85% Standard 1,000/20 5, 34 * * *
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 11, 39, 40 * * *
angle 90° 1,000/60 17, 46 * * * *
Sand, 91% Standard
Proctor, bedding
angle 120° 900/10 54 * * * * *
"Bedding angle 120°.
Note: 1 psi = 6.89 kPa.

484

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 Terra Rossa clay (CH). Pipe dimensions and properties are listed in Ta-
ble 1. Details of the mechanical properties of the soils are given in Table
2. Loading tests of the pipes, backfilled with the soils, were conducted
in a large 78.7 x 118.1 x 98.4 in. (2.0 X 3.0 x 2.5 m) rigid soil-box. A
schematic view of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 3.
Twelve plane-stress transducers were placed uniformly along the pipe
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

circumference, close to the mid-cross section of the pipe. The trans-

ducers were mounted in shaped holes, so that their sensing area was
flush with the surface of the pipe. Testing procedure began by preparing
the bedding for the pipe. The bedding for each test was formed of layers
of well-compacted sand (approximately 97% Standard Proctor). At least
11.8 in. (300 mm) of sand separated the pipe from the floor of the box.
After shaping the bedding with a rotating board, the pipe with the trans-
ducers was placed in the soil-box. Soil was added in layers of 7.8 in.
(200 mm) and each layer was compacted to the required degree.
Five to seven loads were applied to the pipe in each test. The first
one, referred to as "zero load," was the dead weight of the pipe laid on
the bedding. The second, called "crown-cover," was the load on the
pipe when it was embedded in soil to its crown. The third, called "shal-
low-cover," was the load of the soil when the soil-box was filled to its
top. Superimposed loads were applied to the top of the soil backfill
through a rubber membrane at the bottom of a semi-cylindrical steel cu-
pola, bolted to the top of the box and filled with pressurized air. Sur-
charge pressures of 7.25, 14.50, 21.75, and 29.00 psi (50, 100, 150, and
200 kPa), or some of these, were added. Readings of plane-stress trans-
ducers were taken at each loading after a stabilization period of one hour
for highly compacted sand and up to three hours for poorly compacted
clay. Most tests were repeated in a second test series, to check repro-
duceability of results. A list of the 49 tests performed in this study is
presented in Table 3. i

RESULTS

Experimental Results.—Detailed results of soil stress measurements

obtained in this study were recorded in 98 tables (7). Typical results are
shown in Figs. 4-6 in order to demonstrate the influence of pipe stiff-
ness, type of soil backfill and degrees of compaction on soil stress dis-
tribution. Figs. 4 and 5 represent the results of a relatively rigid pipe
(1,000/60) laying in clay (Fig. 4) and sand (Fig. 5) at different degrees
of compaction. Fig. 6 demonstrates the soil stresses around a very flex-
ible pipe (900/10) laying in sand at two degrees of compaction. Some
qualitative conclusions can be drawn from the results:

1. In general, increased compaction of both sand and clay resulted in

decrease of normal soil stresses at the upper part of the pipe and in-
crease of normal soil stresses on the pipe sides.
2. Normal side soil stresses were lower in clay than in sand, and much
lower in rigid pipes compared to flexible pipes.
3. Tangential soil stresses measured along the bedding interface were
very small compared to those measured on the upper part of the pipe.
485

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 • t l U U O W <OVII
O S O l N / u ' l O U 0VIIPI111UIJ
* WOIHfl*'
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 4.—Normal and Tangential (Shear) Soil Stresses around 1,000/60 Pipe in Clay,
90° Bedding Angle: (a) Test No. 16, 85% Standard Proctor; (b) Test No. 17, 70%
Standard Proctor

FIG. 5.—Normal and Tangential (Shear) Soil Stress around 1,000/60 Pipe in Sand,
90° Bedding Angle: (a) Test No. 15, 97% Standard Proctor; (b) Test No. 14, 85%
Standard Proctor

FIG. 6.—Normal and Tangential (Shear) Earth Stresses around 900/10 Pipe In Sand;
120° Angle: (a) Test No. 55, 85% Standard Proctor; (b) Test No. 53, 97% Standard
Proctor

486

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 4, In some places (close to 45° from the vertical axis) the tangential
stress reached about one half of the normal stress value, and could not
be ignored in evaluation of earth load exerted on a buried pipe.

In general, the measured vertical reactions at the bottom of the last

specimens were too small to maintain statistical equilibrium (7). This may
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

indicate an insufficient number of stress transducers at the bedding, and

also poor contact between the bottom of the pipe and the surrounding
soil. The same phenomenon was reported in a similar study of in-ground
concrete pipes (3). Thus, for further discussion oh vertical soil load, soil
stresses at the upper half of the pipe only were considered.
Effect of Shear Stresses at Soil-Pipe Interface.—Total earth loads act-
ing on the pipe were calculated from the measured soil stresses. "Crown-
cover" load was taken as zero reference in order to reduce installation
effects. As the measured stresses were not quite symmetrical, the mean
values of the stresses on both sides of the pipe were taken. These and
intermediate values obtained by Langrange four points interpolation (8)
were replaced by equivalent forces acting on a sector of the pipe wall in
the normal and the tangential directions. The components of these forces
in the vertical and horizontal directions were then summed to give the
total vertical load Fv on the upper half of the pipe:

Fv = — P„o + 2 ^ (Pm- cos e + Psi sin 9) + P„ (2)

12
and the total horizontal load FH on the pipe side:

F
H = — Zi (P-» sin 9 - Ps, cos 6) (3)
12 i=i
in which i = denotes the location of the equivalent force; P„, = the nor-
mal soil stress at the i location; Ps, = the tangential soil stress at the i
location; 6,- = IT i/12 •= the related central angle, measured from the crown
of the pipe; P„0 = the normal soil stresses at the top of the pipe; and P s6
= the tangential shear stress at the pipe spring line.
These loads (Fv and FH) were compared to vertical and horizontal loads
FV(N) and FH(N) calculated by considering the normal stresses P,„- only
in Eqs. 2 and 3. Results from 26 tests are presented in Table 4. It can
be seen that the vertical load calculated from the normal stresses only
FV(N) are up to 30% lower than those calculated from both normal and
tangential stresses Fv. On the other hand, the horizontal loads calcu-
lated from the normal stresses only FH(N) are in some cases more than
twice the FH calculated from both normal and tangential stresses. There-
fore, classical design methods that ignore shear stresses underestimate
the total vertical load and overestimate the total horizontal load. As a
result, the predicted values of ring bending moments and deflections
may be too small. This possibility should be considered, especially in
regard to engineering design methods.
Earth Load Parameters.—Two nondimensional parameters related to
earth loads on buried pipes were chosen to present the test results. One
is the vertical load concentration coefficient:
487

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 TABLE 4.—Ratios of Total Loads Calculated from Normal Stresses Only, to Those
Calculated from Both Normal and Tangential Stresses
Fy(N)/Fv FH(N)/FH
Nominal Test Standard Standard
Materials pipe size number Mean deviation Mean deviation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Sand, 85% Standard 1,000/20 1, 19 0.796 0.071 1.365 0.194
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 7 0.811 0.012 1.444 0.025
angle 30° 800/32 26 0.841 0.033 1.394 0.012
1,200/48 23 0.759 0.006 1.393 0.057
1,000/60 13 0.758 0.033 1.764 0.123
Sand, 85% Standard 1,000/20 2, 20 0.806 0.008 1.381 0.100
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 8 0.807 0.012 1.495 0.022
angle 90° 800/32 25 0.864 0.035 1.654 0.074
1,200/48 22 0.824 0.014 1.714 0.141
1,000/60 14 0.796 0.006 1.725 0.006
Sand, 97% Standard 1,000/20 3 0.851 0.050 1.319 0.056
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 9 0.873 0.060 1.600 0.017
angle 90° 800/32 24 0.862 0.045 1.784 0.036
1,200/48 21 0.807 0.004 1.648 0.045
1,000/60 15 0.816 0.006 1.696 0.086
Clay, 70% Standard 1,000/20 6 0.700 0.031 1.875 0.198
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 12 0.731 0.015 1.662 0.148
angle 30° 1,000/60 18 0.731 0.008 2.130 0.143
Clay, 70% Standard 1,000/20 4 0.710 0.017 2.023 0.124
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 10 0.729 0.016 2.165 0.151
angle 90° 1,000/60 16 0.785 0.020 2.164 0.203
Clay, 85% Standard 1,000/20 5 0.777 0.034 1.468 0.099
Proctor, bedding 1,000/40 11 0.718 0.014 1.503 0.160
angle 90° 1,000/60 17 0.793 0.011 2.202 0.173

Fv
C <4)
--Q;
where Qv = the original vertical earth load at the pipe depth, if no pipe
is present (see Appendix I).
The second is the horizontal to vertical soil load ratio:

FH
Cu = f (5)
The values of Cv and C H as affected by soil condition, pipe stiffness
and bedding angle are presented in Table 5. Cv values increased with
pipe stiffness while CH values decreased; higher CH values were ob-
tained in sand compared to those in clay; Cv values obtained in highly
compacted clay were higher then those obtained in highly compacted
sand; and C H values increased and Cv values decreased with the in-
crease in soil compaction. An increase of the bedding angle resulted with
lower CH values in sand and with no significant changes in Cv values.
Both Cv and C H values were uneffected by the applied surcharge pres-
sure.

488

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 TABLE 8,—Vertical Load Concentration Coefficients Cv, Horizontal to Vertical Load
Ratios C„ and Pipe-SofI Stiffness Ratios S for Various Compactions and Bedding
Conditions
Cy c„ Pipe-soil
Nominal Test Standard Standard stiffness
pipe size number Mean deviation Mean deviation ratio, S
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Materials
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Sand, 85% Stan- 1,000/20 1,19, 31 0.990 0.092 0.540 0.010 0.046
dard Proctor, 1,000/40 7, 35 0.827 0.029 0.420 0.046 0.271
bedding angle 800/32 26 1.090 0.040 0.368 0.033 0.305
30° 1,200/48 23 1.360 0.056 0.325 0.039 0.270
1,000/60 13 1.056 0.067 0.234 0.075 0.744
Sand, 85% Stan- 1,000/20 2, 20, 33 1.138 0.097 0.473 0.038 0.046
dard Proctor, 1,000/40 8, 37 1.180 0.028 0.308 0.051 0.271
bedding angle 800/32 25, 51 1.376 0.131 0.324 0.036 0.305
90° 1,200/48 22, 49 1.346 0.013 0.276 0.049 0.270
1,000/60 14, 44, 48 1.286 0.054 0.286 0.009 0.744
900/10" 55 1.108 0.086 0.572 0.049 0.004
Sand, 97% Stan- 1,000/20 3, 32 0.846 0.073 0.592 0.090 0.013
dard Proctor, 1,000/40 9, 38 0.964 0.112 0.338 0.034 0.077
bedding angle 800/32 24, 52 1.052 0.021 0.330 0.056 0.086
90° 1,200/48 21, 50 1.054 0.115 0.314 0.038 0.076
1,000/60 15, 45 1.024 0.054 0.284 0.076 0.210
900/10" 53 0.852 0.123 0.508 0.024 0.001
Clay, 70% Stan- 1,000/20 6 1.215 0.219 0.275 0.035 0.193
dard Proctor, 1,000/40 12, 42 1.625 0.389 0.235 0.078 1.138
bedding angle 1,000/60 18 1.707 0.271 0.123 0.021 3.119
30°
Clay, 70% Stan- 1,000/20 4 0.943 0.075 0.287 0.031 0.193
dard Proctor, 1,000/40 10, 41 0.910 0.044 0.220 0.099 1.138
bedding angle 1,000/60 * 47, 16 1.163 0.159 0.148 0.015 3.119
90°
Clay, 85% Stan- 1,000/20 5, 34 1.013 0.106 0.293 0.015 0.054
dard Proctor, 1,000/40 11, 39, 40 1.320 0.195 0.210 0.036 0.320
bedding angle 1,000/60 17, 46 1.118 0.048 0.150 0.035 0.877
90°
Sand, 91% Stan-
dard Proctor,
bedding angle
120° 900/10a 54 0.906 0.106 0.618 0.030 0.002
"Bedding angle 120°.

It is clearly shown that soil loads are affected not only by pipe stiff-
ness, but also by soil type and compaction. Thus, pipe-soil stiffness ratio
was selected for the analysis of the experimental results. Its form is

EI
(6)

where E = elastic modulus of the pipe; I = t3/12 = moment of inertia

489

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 TABLE 6.—Coefficients of i q . 7 for C„ and Cv at Various Bedding Angles
Bedding Angle (degrees)
Constant 30 90-120
(D (2) (3)
CH. 0.153 0.188
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CHO 0.641 0.575

AH 7.277 18.979
Cy. 2.047 2.047
Cvo 0.991 0.991
Av 0.547 0.547

of the pipe wall per unit length; R = average pipe radius; and Ms =
confined soil modulus.
The pipe-soil stiffness ratio S for each test is also listed in Table 5. The
range studied was fairly wide: from a very flexible pipe laying in well-
compacted sand (S = 0.00114) to a relatively rigid pipe laying in poorly
compacted clay (S = 3.119).
A hyperbolic type equation seems to represent the relation between

llglNP
- taddlng ••>•)•

-1 1—llll

Pipe-Soil Stiffness Ratio S

FIG. 7.—Vertical Load Concentration Coefficient Cv versus Pipe-Soil Stiffness

Ratio S

i i 1—i i i i m i — 1 — r r r T
Pipe-Soil Stiffness Ratio S

FIG. 8.—Horizontal to Vertical Soil Load Ratio C „ versus Pipe-Soil Stiffness

Ratio S

490

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 the soil load parameters (Cv and CH) and the soil-pipe stiffness ratios.
Its general form is
C - C
C =C + (7)
' '- TT7£
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where C, = the soil load parameter; and C!0o, C,„, and At = constants.
The subscript i = V denotes the vertical load concentration coefficient
Cv, while i = H denotes the horizontal to vertical load ratio CH . Cio and
C10o are the values of C, for very flexible (S -» 0) and very rigid pipes (S
—> o°), respectively. The constants A{ represents the rate of change of the
soil parameters in the intermediate range of S.
The constants of Eq. 7, as determined by least-square procedure (5),
are listed in Table 6. Curves of the load coefficients versus the pipe-soil
stiffness ratio are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 with the experimental values.
It is seen that the constants representing the Cv parameter are unaf-
fected by the bedding angle, while those representing the C H parameter
are somewhat affected. When pipe rigidity is reduced from rigid to flex-
ible condition the vertical load concentration coefficient is reduced to
one-half and the horizontal to vertical load ratio is increased by a factor
of four. This indicates the importance of the backfill material in sup-
porting flexible pipe.

CONCLUSION

The main objective of this study is to evaluate experimentally the mag-

nitude and significance of the contact shear stresses around buried pipes
that are laid in a wide trench conditions. A second goal is to determine
the total pipe loads, as affected by pipe-soil stiffness ratio and laying
conditions. In the range studied, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. Both normal and tangential stresses in soil-pipe interface should be

considered for the evaluation of soil loads on buried pipes. It is con-
cluded that neglection of tangential stresses leads to underestimation of
the total vertical load, and overestimation of the total horizontal load
which represents the lateral support of the backfill material..Thus, clas-
sical design methods that ignore tangential stresses may result in unsafe
pipe design.
2. The loads acting on buried pipes can be characterized by three non-
dimensional parameters, which are: (1) Vertical load concentration coef-
ficient, Cv; (2) horizontal to vertical load ratio, CH; and (3) soil-pipe
stiffness ratio, S.
3. The vertical concentration coefficient Cv varies with pipe-soil stiff-
ness, S. Other parameters such as bedding angle or surcharge pressure
do not affect Cv significantly.
4. The horizontal to vertical load ratio CH is strongly affected by the
pipe-soil stiffness ratio. CH is slightly affected by bedding angle.
5. The general behavior of both Cv and C H seemed to have an hy-
perbolic relation with S, with two limiting values, for very low or very
491

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 high S values. However, further study is needed in order to verify the
present results, especially in the flexible-pipe zone (S < 0.01).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was conducted at the Technion Israel Institute of Tech-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

nology a n d w a s supported by t h e Israel Asbestos-Cement Industry a n d

the Israel Electric Corporation. Thanks are d u e to S. Bar-Shlomo of As-
bestos Consulting Ltd., for his valuable contribution.

APPENDIX I.—CALCULATION OF VERTICAL EARTH LOAD QV IN SOIL BOX

Qv was defined as the original vertical earth load at the pipe d e p t h ,

if n o pipe is present. This value w a s calculated theoretically b y adapting
the Janssen method (20) to the test conditions in a soil box. The resulting
equation is

Qi MPo--)e<-z"> Do (8)
z
in which D 0 = external pipe diameter; P 0 = surcharge pressure; h = the
height of the soil backfill, measured from t h e crown of t h e pipe; y =
!
unit weight of backfill; and

2 ( B + * • t)a.n,2 /^ .4„5 ° - ±4»] t a n c | > ' (9)

LB

where B, L = width and length of the soil box; 4> = angle of internal
friction of the soil backfill; and cj>' = angle of friction between the backfill
and the walls of the soil box (assumed to b e 2 / 3 of 0').

APPENDIX II.—REFERENCES

1. Allgood, J. R., "Summary of Soil Structure Interaction," Technical Report R-

771, DNA 13.018, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, Calif.,
July, 1972.
2. Anand, S. C , "Stress Distributions around Shallow Buried Rigid Pipes," Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. ST1, Proc. Paper 10258, Jan.,
1974, pp. 161-174.
3. Bagge, G., and Funghange, L., "Measured Loads on a Buried Circular Pipe
with Base," presented at the 9th International Congress on Concrete, Vi-
enna, Austria, Oct., 1978.
4. Bransby, P. L., "Cambridge Contact Stress Transducers." CUED/C-SOILS/
LN2, Univ. of Cambridge, 1972.
5. Dixon, W. J., BMD-Biomedical Computer Programs X-Series Supplement, Uni-
versity of California Press, Calif., 1972, pp. 177-186.
6. Gabriel, L. H., and Dabaghinn, L., "An Analytical-Experimental Method for
Determining Interface Tractions for Buried Structures Subjected to Static
Loads," Highway Research Record, No. 185, 1967, pp. 51-79.
7. Galili, N., Shmulevich, I., Bar-Shlomo, S., and Foux, A., "Soil-Pipe Inter-
action, Stage I and II, Final Report," Publication No. 291, Agricultural Engi-
neering Department, Technion City, Haifa, Israel, Nov., 1978.

492

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 8. Handbook of Mathematical Foundations, Abramowitz and I. S. Stegum, Eds.,
Dover Publications, Inc., N.Y., 1964, pp. 879.
9. Hoeg, K., "Stresses against Underground Structural Cylinders," Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SM4, Proc. Paper
6022, July, 1968, pp. 833-858.
10. James, R. G., and Larsen, H., "Centrifugal Model Tests of Buried Rigid Pipes,"
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
Tokyo, Japan, 1977, pp. 567-750.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11. Kaufer, Z., "Experimental Study of Flexible Arches Buried in Sand," thesis
presented to the Israel Institute of Technology, at Haifa, Israel, in 1973, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
12. Rrizek, R. J., "Behaviour of Buried Concrete Pipe," Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT7, Proc. Paper 13899, July, 1978,
pp. 815-836.
13. Krizek, R. J., et al., "Structural Analysis and Design of Pipe Culverts," Na-
tional Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 116, 1971 (including Ap-
pendix N, Bibliography for 1900-1968).
14. Leonards, G. A., and Roy, M. B., "Predicting Performance of Pipe Culverts
Buried in Soil," Interim Report, Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette, Ind., May, 1976.
15. Marston, A., "The Theory of External Loads on Closed Conduits in the Light
of the Latest Experiments," Bulletin 96, Iowa State College, Ames, la., 1930.
16. Nayak, G. C , Prakash, S., and Gupta, R., "Finite Element Analysis of Ditch
Conduits," International Symposium On Soil Structure Interaction, Univ. of
Roorkee, India, Jan. 3-7, 1977.
17. Olander, H. C , "Stress Analysis of Concrete Pipe," Technical Editorial Office,
Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colo., 1950.
18. Pettibone, H. C , and Howard, A. K., "Distribution of Soil Pressure on Con-
crete Pipe," Journal of the Pipeline Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. PL2, Proc.
Paper 5354, July, 1967, pp. 85-102.
19. Rude, L. C , "Load Reductions on Buried Rigid Pipe," Journal of Transpor-
tation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. TE1, Paper 17638, Jan., 1983, pp. 107-
123.
20. Shmulevich, I., "An Experimental Investigation of the Interaction between
Pipe and Soil," thesis presented to Technion, Israel Institute of Technology,
at Haifa, Israel, in 1980, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
21. Shmulevich, I., and Galili, N., "Deflections and Bending Moments in Buried
Pipe," Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 4, July, 1986,
pp. 345-357.
22. Spangler, M. G., and Handy, R. L., Soil Engineering, 3rd ed., Harper & Row
Publishers, New York, N.Y., 1973, pp. 658-730.

APPENDIX III.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

At = constant;
B = width of soil-box;
CH = horizontal to vertical soil load ratio;
C, = soil load parameters;
C,0 = limit values of soil load parameters;
C,„ = limit values of soil load parameters;
Cv = vertical load concentration coefficient;
D0 = external pipe diameter;
E = elastic m o d u l u s of pipe;
e„ = measured strain in normal direction;
493

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494

 es = measured strain in tangential direction;
FH = total horizontal earth load;
FH(N) = total horizontal earth load calculated from normal stresses
only;
Fv = total vertical earth load;
FV(N) = total vertical earth load calculated from normal stresses only;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 03/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

h = height of soil backfill, m e a s u r e d from pipe crown;

I = m o m e n t of inertia of pipe wall p e r unit length;
K„„ = stiffness coefficient;
K„s = stiffness coefficient;
Kss = stiffness coefficient;
L = length of soil-box;
M s = confined soil m o d u l u s ;
Pn = soil stress in normal direction;
Ps = soil stress in tangential direction;
P0 = surcharge pressure;
Qv = vertical earth load at pipe depth if no pipe is present;
R = average pipe radius;
S = pipe-soil stiffness ratio;
7 = unit weight of backfill;
<|> = angle of internal friction of soil backfill;
(|>' = angle of friction b e t w e e n backfill a n d walls of soil-box; a n d
o central angle m e a s u r e d from pipe crown.

494

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 481-494