A PIPE IS A PIPE IS A PIPE- NOT ANYMORE!!!

Schalk van der Merwe 1 and Stephan Kleynhans 2

1.   Technical Director at Aurecon South Africa , Cape Town (Tel 021 – 526 5769
schalk.vandermerwe@aurecongroup.com)
2.   Technical Director at Aurecon South Africa, Cape Town (Tel 021– 526 5776
stephan.kleynhans@aurecongroup.com)

Introduction

Over the past 15 years, considerable changes have occurred in the pipeline manufacturing industry. New and/or
improved pipe materials have seen the light, e.g. unplasticised polyvinyl chloride (uPVC), Modified uPVC (mPVC), glass
reinforced polyester (GRP), Klambon, etc. and the focus turned to materials that are durable, easy to handle, install and
repair. Pipe manufacturers and suppliers are competing in an increasingly difficult economic environment and
technological innovations are therefore required to successfully compete in the pipeline industry.

The above has led to the development and manufacturing of "thin wall" pipes, where pipe wall thicknesses are reduced
through using improved technology and manufacturing techniques. The thin wall technology has resulted in the need for
engineers to change their approach to the design of pipelines, as critical consideration must now be given to external
loadings, handling stiffness, buckling strength, etc, whereas these criteria did not necessarily dictated the pipe selection in
the past, i.e. before the so-called thin wall pipes. Special attention must be paid to the potential occurrence of negative
pressures, as numerous thin wall pipes are not capable of handling these negative pressures. The assessment of negative
pressures has resulted in the need for detailed transient analyses for almost all pipelines, consideration of external loads
and the proper design of air valves to mitigate potential negative pressures. The scouring of pipelines has also become
critical where thin wall technologies are applied.

Three papers are attached, which will give the reader technical insight in some of the design criteria to be applied when
designing pipelines. These papers are:

•   Introduction to Soil Moduli (J Briand & S Buchanan)

•   Modulus of Soil Reaction Values for Pipeline Design (J Jeyapalan & R Watkins)
•   Sizing and positioning of air valves (WRC Report No KS/1177/1/03)
 12/9/2000

INTRODUCTION TO SOIL MODULI

by
Jean-Louis Briaud (briaud@tamu.edu)
Spencer J. Buchanan Professor Texas A&M University

INTRODUCTION

The modulus of a soil is one of the most difficult soil parameters to estimate because it depends on so many factors.
Therefore when one says for example: "The modulus of this soil is 10,000 kPa'', one should immediately ask: ''What are
the conditions associated with this number?" The following is an introduction to some of the important influencing
factors for soil moduli. It is not meant to be a thorough academic discourse but rather a first step in understanding the
complex world of soil moduli. In a first part, the modulus is defined. In a second part, the factors influencing the
modulus and related to the state of the soil are described. In a third part, the factors related to the loading process are
discussed. Fourth, some applications of soil moduli are presented. In a fifth and sixth part, the soil modulus is compared
to the soil stiffness and to the soil coefficient of subgrade reaction respectively.

DEFINITION

How does one obtain a modulus from a stress strain curve? In order to answer this question, the example of the stress
strain curve obtained in a triaxial test is used. The sample is a cylinder, it is wrapped in an impermeable membrane and
confined by an all around (hydrostatic) pressure. Then the vertical stress is increased gradually and the non-linear stress
strain curve shown on Figure 1 is obtained. Elasticity assumes that the strains experienced by the soil are linearly related
to the stresses applied. In reality this is not true for soils and there lies the complexity. The equations of elasticity for this
axi-symmetric loading relate the stresses and the strains in the three directions as shown in Figure 1. Because of the axi-
symmetry, equations 1 and 2 are identical. In equations 1 and 3 on Figure 1 there are two unknowns: the soil modulus E
and the Poisson’s ratio v. In the triaxial test, it is necessary to measure the stresses applied in both directions as well as
the strains induced in both directions in order to calculate the modulus of the soil. Indeed one needs two simultaneous
equation to solve for E and v. Note that the modulus is not the slope of the stress strain curve. An exception to this
statement is the case where the confining stress is zero as it is for a typical concrete cylinder test or an unconfined
compression test on clay. In order to calculate the Poisson's ratio, it is also necessary to measure the stresses applied in
both directions as well as the strains induced in both directions. Note also that the Poisson's ratio is not the ratio of the
strains in both directions (equation 5 on Figure 1). An exception to this statement is again the case where the confining
stress is zero.
Figure 1: Calculating a Modulus
Which modulus? Secant, tangent, unload, reload, or cyclic modulus? Because soils do not exhibit a linear stress
strain curve, many moduli can be defined from the triaxial test results for example. In the previous paragraph, it was
pointed out that the slope of the stress strain curve is not the modulus of the soil. However, the slope of the curve is
related to the modulus and it is convenient to associate the slope of the stress strain curve to a modulus. Indeed this gives
a simple image tied to the modulus value; note, however, that in the figures the slope is never labelled as modulus E but
rather as slope S. Referring to Figure 2, if the slope is drawn from the origin to a point on the curve (0 to A on Figure 2),
the secant slope Ss is obtained and the secant modulus Es is calculated from it. One would use such a modulus for
predicting the movement due to the first application of a load as in the case of a spread footing. If the slope is drawn as
the tangent to the point considered on the stress strain curve, then the tangent slope St is obtained and the tangent modulus
Et is calculated from it. One would use such a modulus to calculate the incremental movement due to ail incremental load
as in the case of the movement due to one more story in a high-rise building. If the slope is drawn as the line which joins
points A and B on Figure 2, then the unloading slope Su is obtained and the unloading modulus Eu is calculated from it.
One would use such a modulus when calculating the heave at the bottom of an excavation or the rebound of a pavement
after the loading by a truck tire (resilient modulus). If the slope is drawn from point B to point D on Figure 2, then the
reloading slope Sr is obtained and the reload modulus Er is calculated from it. One would use this modulus to calculate
the movement at the bottom of an excavation if the excavated soil or a building of equal weight was placed back in the
excavation or to calculate the movement of the pavement under reloading by the same truck tire. If the slope is drawn
from point B to point C on Figure 2, then the cyclic slope Sc is obtained and the cyclic modulus Ec is calculated from it.
One would use such a modulus and its evolution as a function of the number of cycles for the movement of a pile
foundation subjected to repeated wave loading.

Whichever one of these moduli is defined and considered, the state in which the soil is at a given time will affect that
modulus. The next section describes some of the main state parameters influencing soil moduli.

STATE FACTORS

The state factors include the following.

How closely packed are the particles? If they are closely packed, the modulus tends to be high. This is measured by the
dry density (ratio of the weight of solids over the total volume of the wet sample) of the soil for example; it can also be
measured by the porosity (ratio of the volume of voids over the total volume of the wet sample).

How are the particles organized? This refers to the structure of the soil. For example a coarse grain soil can have a loose
or dense structure and a fine grain soil can have a dispersed or flocculated structure. Note that two soil samples can have
the same dry density yet different structures and therefore different soil moduli. This is why taking a disturbed sample of
a coarse grain soil in the field and reconstituting it to the same dry density and water content in the laboratory can lead to
laboratory and field moduli which are different.
Figure 2: Definition of Soil Modulus
Figure 3 Influencing Factors for Soil Moduli
What is the water content? This parameter has a major impact because at low water contents the water binds the
particles (especially for fine grained soils) and increases the effective stress between the particles through the suction and
tensile skin of water phenomenon. Therefore in this case low water contents lead to high soil moduli. This is why clay
shrinks and becomes very stiff when it dries. At the same time at low water contents the compaction of coarse grain soils
is not as efficient as it is at higher water contents because the lubrication effect of water is not there. Therefore in this case
low water contents lead to low moduli. As the water content increases, the water occupies more and more room and gets
to the point where it pushes the particles apart thereby increasing compressibility and reducing the modulus.

What has the soil been subjected to in the past? This is referred to as the stress history factor. If the soil has been
prestressed in the past it is called over consolidated. This prestressing can come from a glacier which may have been 100
meters thick 10,000 years ago and has now totally melted. This prestressing can also come from the drying and wetting
cycles of the seasons in arid parts of the world. If the soil has not been prestressed in the past; in other words if today's
stress is the highest stress experienced by the soil and if the soil is at equilibrium under this stress; the soil is normally
consolidated. An over-consolidated (OC) soil will generally have higher moduli than the same normally consolidated
(NC) soil because the OC soil is on the reload part of the stress strain curve while the NC soil is on the first loading part.
Some soils are still in the process of consolidating under their own weight. These are called under consolidated soils such
as the clays deposited offshore the Mississippi Delta where the deposition rate is more rapid than the rate which would
allow the pore water pressures induced by deposition to dissipate. These clays have very low moduli.

What about cementation? This refers to the "glue" which can exist at the contacts between particles. As discussed
above, low water contents in fine grained soils can generate suction in the water strong enough to simulate a significant
"glue effect'' between particles. This effect is temporary as an increase in water content will destroy it. Another glue
effect is due to the chemical cementation which can develop at the contacts. This cementation can be due to the
deposition of calcium at the particle to particle contacts for example. Such cementation leads to a significant increase in
modulus.

These are some of the most important factors related to the state of the soil and influencing its modulus. In the following
part the factors associated with the loading process are discussed.

LOADING FACTORS

In this section it is assumed that the state factors for the soil considered are fixed. In other words the discussion of each
of the factors below can be prefaced by saying "all other factors being equal". Also in this section the secant modulus is
used.

What is the mean stress level in the soil? The loading process induces stresses in the soil. These Stresses can be shear
stresses or normal stresses or a combination of both. At one point and at any given time in a soil mass there is a set of
three principal normal stresses. The mean of these three stresses has a significant influence on the soil modulus. This is
also called the confinement effect. Figure 1(a) shows an example of two stress strain curves at two different confinement
levels. As common sense would indicate, the higher the confinement is the higher the soil modulus will be. A common
model for quantifying the influence of the confinement on the soil modulus is given on Figure 3(a) and is usually
attributed to the work of Kondner. According to this model, the modulus is proportional to a power law of the
confinement stress. The modulus Eo is the modulus obtained when the confinement stress is equal to the atmospheric
pressure pa. A common value for the power exponent in Figure 3(a) is 0.5.

What is the strain level in the soil? The loading process induces strains in the soil mass. Because soils are nonlinear
materials, the secant modulus depends on the mean strain level in the zone of influence. In most cases the secant modulus
will decrease as the strain level increases because the stress strain curve has a downward curvature. Note that an
exception to this downward curvature occurs when the results of a consolidation test is plotted as a stress strain curve on
arithmetic scales for both axes. Indeed in this case the stress strain curve exhibits an upward curvature because the
increase in confinement brought about by the steel ring is more influential than the decrease in modulus due to the
increase in strain in the soil. In the triaxial test, the stress strain curve can be fitted with a hyperbola and the associated
model for the modulus is shown on Figure 3(b). This hyperbolic model is usually attributed to the work of Duncan. In
this model (Figure 3(b)) Eo is the initial tangent modulus also equal to the secant modulus for a strain of zero. The
parameter s is the asymptotic value of the stress for a strain equal to infinity. In that sense it is related to the strength of
the soil.

What is the strain rate in the soil? Soils like many other materials are viscous. This means that the faster a soil is
loaded, the stiffer it is and therefore the higher the modulus is. In some instances the reverse behaviour is observed
Figure 3(c) shows an example of two stress strain curves obtained by loading the soil at two drastically different strain
rates. The strain rate is defined as the strain accumulated per unit of time. The modulus usually varies as a straight line
on a log-log plot of modulus versus strain rate. The slope of that line is the exponent b in Figure 3(c). In clays, common
values of this exponent vary from 0.02 for stiff clays to 0.1 for very soft clays. In sands common values of b vary from
0.01 to 0.03. The modulus Eo is the modulus obtained at a reference strain rate. Much of the work on this model has been
done at Texas A&M University.

What is the number of cycles experienced by the soil? If the loading process is repeated a number of times, the
number of cycles applied will influence the soil modulus. Again referring to the secant modulus, the larger the number of
cycles the smaller the modulus becomes. This is consistent with the accumulation of movement with an increasing
number of cycles. The model used to describe this phenomenon is shown on Figure 3(d). The exponent c in the model is
negative and varies significantly. The most common values are of the order of -0.1 to -0.3. Much of the work on this
model has been done at Texas A&M University.

Is there time for the water to drain during the loading process? Two extreme cases can occur: drained or undrained
loading. The undrained case may occur if the drainage valve is closed during a laboratory test or if the test is run
sufficiently fast in the field. The time required to maintain an undrained behaviour or to ensure that complete drainage
takes place depends mainly on the soil type. For example a 10 minute test in highly plastic clay is probably undrained
while a 10 minute test in a clean sand is probably a drained test. The Poisson's ratio is sensitive to whether or not
drainage takes place. For example if no drainage takes place during loading in clay it is common to assume a Poisson's
ratio equal to 0.5. On the other hand if complete drainage takes place (excess pore pressures are kept equal to zero), then
a Poisson's ratio value of 0.35 may be reasonable. The difference between the two calculated moduli is the difference
between the undrained modulus and the drained modulus. Note that the shear modulus remains theoretically constant
when the drainage varies. Note also that the Poisson's ratio can be larger than 0.5 if the soil dilates during shear
associated with compression.

MODULI FOR VARIOUS FIELDS OF APPLICATION

The modulus is useful in many fields of geotechnical engineering. It is clear by now that the modulus required for one
field may be significantly different from a modulus for another field.

In the case of shallow foundations, the mean stress level applied under the foundation is often between 100 and 200
kPa. The normal strain level in the vertical direction is about 0.01 or less and is typically associated with a movement of
about 25 mm. The rate of loading is extremely slow because that strain occurs first at the construction rate and is then
sustained over many years. The number of cycles is one unless cycles due to daily temperatures or other cyclic loading
(such as compressor foundations) are included. Example values of the modulus in this case are 10,000 to 20,000 kPa

In the case of deep foundations, the mean stress level varies because the side friction on the piles occurs over a range of
depth, while the point resistance occurs at a relatively large depth. The strain level at the pile point is usually smaller than
in shallow foundations because a percentage of the load dissipates in friction before getting to the pile point. The strain
rate is similar to the case of shallow foundations with rates associated with months of construction and years of sustained
loads. High strain rates do occur, however, in the case of earthquake or wave loading. Cycles can be a major issue for
earthquake loading of buildings and bridges or for wave loading of offshore structures. Because deep foundations are
used in very different types of soils and for very different types of loading, the moduli vary over a much wider range of
values than for shallow foundations.

In the case of slope stability and retaining structures, movements are associated with the deformation of the soil mass
essentially under its own weight. Therefore the stress level corresponds to gravity induced stresses. The strains are
usually very small and the strain rate is again associated with the rate of construction at first and the long term
deformation rate during the life of the slope or of the retaining structure. Cycles may occur due to earthquakes or other
cyclic phenomenons. For properly designed slopes and retaining structures, the moduli tend to be higher than in
foundation engineering because the strain levels tend to be smaller.

In the case of pavements, 'the mean stress level in the subgrade is relatively low. The pressure applied to the pavement
is of the order of 200 kPa for car tires, 500 kPa for truck tires, and 1700 kPa for airplane tires. However, the vertical
stress at the top of the subgrade under a properly designed pavement may be only one tenth of the tire pressure applied at
the surface of the pavement. The strain level is very low because the purpose of the pavement is to limit long term
deformations to movements measured in millimeters if not in tenths of millimeters. Typical strain levels are 0.001 or less
at the top of the subgrade. The rate of loading is very high and associated with the passing of a travelling vehicle. The
loading time is of the order of milliseconds for a car at 100 km/h but is measured in hours for an airplane parked at the
gate. The number of cycles is tied to the number of vehicles travelling on the, pavement during the life of the pavement.
This number varies drastically from less than a million of vehicle cycles for small roads to tens of millions for busy
interstates. Typical modulus values range from 20,000 kPa to 150,000 kPa.

MODULUS OR STIFFNESS?

The modulus E has been defined in Figure 1. It has units of force per unit area (kN/m²). The stiffness K is defined here
as the ratio of the force applied on a boundary through a loading area divided by the displacement experienced by the
loaded area. It has units of force per unit length (kN/m). The loaded area is typically a plate which can be square or
circular or in the shape of a ring. There is a relationship between the modulus and the stiffness. For the case of a circular
plate having a diameter B, the relationship is of the form:

E=f(K/B)

This relationship shows that, if the modulus is a soil property, the stiffness is not a soil property and depends on the
size of the loaded area. Therefore, for an elastic material, the stiffness measured with one test will be different from the
stiffness measured with another test if the loading areas are different. Yet, for the same elastic material, the modulus
obtained from both tests would be the same. In that sense the use of the stiffness is not as convenient as the modulus and
the use of the modulus is preferred,

MODULUS OR COEFFICIENT OF SUBGRADE REACTION?

The modulus E has been defined in Figure 1. It has units of force per unit area (kN/m²). The coefficient of subgrade
reaction k is defined here as the ratio of the pressure applied to the boundary through a loading area divided by the
displacement experienced by the loaded area. It has units of force per unit volume (kN/m³). The loaded area can be a
footing (coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction) or a horizontally loaded pile (coefficient of horizontal subgrade
reaction). There is a relationship between the modulus and the coefficient of subgrade reaction. For the footing and the
pile cases mentioned, that relationship is of the form:
 E=g(k x B)

where B is the footing width or the pile width or diameter. This relationship shows that, if the modulus is a soil property,
the coefficient of subgrade reaction is not a soil property and depends on the size of the loaded area. Therefore, if a
coefficient of subgrade reaction k is derived from load tests on a footing or a pile of a certain dimension, .the value of k
cannot be used directly for other footing or pile sizes. Indeed in this case, careful considerations of size and scale must be
addressed. The modulus is not affected by this problem. In that sense the use of the coefficient of subgrade reaction is
not as convenient as the modulus and the use of the modulus is preferred.
 Modulus of Soil Reaction (E') Values for Pipeline Design

Dr. Jey K. Jeyapalan, P.E.1 and Professor Reynold Watldns, P.E.2

1
Pipeline Engineering Consultant, 9 Sundance Road, New Milford, Connecticut, USA 06776-3840; Phone 1-860-354-
7299; jkjeyapalan@earthlink.net

2
Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, 4110 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah,
USA 84322-4110; Phone 1-435-797-2932

Abstract

The design of buried flexible pipe involves checking for load-induced deflection, buckling strength, strain or stress under
internal pressure, strain or stress from combined loading, and handling stiffness. Most of these design checks involve
using the design parameter commonly referred to as the modulus of soil reaction, E'. Despite the fact that modified
Spangler's equation has been around for over several decades few engineers in practice even know how this E' is defined
let alone how to obtain a proper value for it. The most popular form for E' comes from the empirical data published by
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and most consensus standards carry these values despite its numerous shortcomings. The
irony is that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation knew that their data were providing values of E' varying several hundred
percent from a mean value, yet, never even considered other factors that would be significant in explaining their
unreliable E' values. Its pure simplicity of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation values led to them being in use in the hands of
the pipe supplier and never its engineering soundness. The purpose of this paper is to start from the fundamental pipe-soil
interaction principles and geotechnical engineering and build the engineering know-how needed to establish E’ values on
a project-specific basis allowing for most significant factors. A step-by-step methodology is presented.

Introduction

Deflection can become the governing criterion in the design of buried flexible pipe, whether it is made of plastics, ductile
iron, corrugated steel, corrugated aluminium, or welded steel coated and lined with cement mortar. Even other design
criteria can be controlled, if the deflection is kept in check. The surrounding soil is usually expected to enhance the
ability of the underground pipelines to avoid failure. In this regard, it is the responsibility of the design engineer to pay
significant attention to the properties of native and trench soils proposed for a given pipeline project, including the
following as a minimum.

•   Soil type(s) and their engineering properties

•   General bedding and backfill requirements
•   Extent of undesirable material(s)
•   Location of the water table

As a minimum the following geotechnical information will be required for the design of pipelines:

•   Standard penetration values;

•   Soil unit weights;
•   Particle size distribution;
•   Shear strength;
•   Atterberg limits;
•   Moisture content;
•   Ground water elevation, historical data, and seasonal fluctuations.

Pipe Stiffness

The pipe stiffness, PS per ASTM D2412 is given in Eq.1. The moment of inertia is equal to tt³/12, where tt, is the total
wall thickness. When other than uniform wall construction is used, either consult the manufacturer or use laboratory tests
to obtain values for the proper moment of inertia.

𝐸𝐼
𝑃𝑆 =   (1)
0.149𝑟³

The pipe stiffness can be determined by conducting parallel-plate loading tests in accordance with ASTM D2412,
Standard Test Method for Determination of External Loading Characteristics of Plastic Pipe by Parallel-Plate Loading.
During the parallel plate loading test, deflection due to loads on the top and bottom of the pipe is measured, and pipe
stiffness is calculated from the following equation:

𝐹
𝑃𝑆 =   (2)
∆𝑦

provided that the test is run to meet all the conditioning and testing requirements of ASTM D2412.

Soil Stiffness

The formula for culvert deflections from Spangler was of the original form:

Del 𝑥 = D.P.K/ (E.I./R3 + 0.061 eR) (3)

Where

Del 𝑥 = change in horizontal diameter

D = time lag factor
P = external load
K = bedding constant
E = modulus of elasticity of the pipe material
I = second moment of area of the pipe wall
R = mean radius of the pipe
e = modulus of passive resistance of the embedment
Naturally when Spangler(1941) noticed that the ratio of the horizontal pressure acting on the culvert and its associated
deflection remained essentially constant, he settled on using the modulus of passive resistance, e. A careful review of
Spangler's original data even today would indicate that had he considered the time effects during backfilling, he would
have considered even as early as in 1941 that e indeed varied with soil depth. Later Watkins and Spangler(1958) together
noticed that e indeed was not a constant for a given soil, instead, e.R appeared even more of a constant this led to Watkins
proposing the use of the current E' as the modulus of soil reaction. This is what the modified Spangler's equation is about
and it is of the form:

Del 𝑥 = D.P.K/ (E.I./R3 + 0.061 E’) (4)

For this reason, this empirical parameter can be back calculated only under actual field conditions, and it is not a function
of the soil alone but of the soil-pipe system. Because of the empirical nature of the E’ value, this parameter alone could
introduce a wide degree of uncertainty into the design of buried pipelines. Much work has focused on establishing the E'
values in the ensuing years and Spangler (1941) was the first one to do this followed by Watkins (1958), again followed
by Spangler (1969). No one in the history has done more data collection than Howard (1977). However, Howard's work
created more confusion than settle outstanding issues on E', thus during the past two decades, the Bureau of Reclamation
E' values have been misused more often than Howard had originally intended. When the authors, who had done
multitude of pipeline projects around the world examined carefully the original data used by Howard,(1977) and
recalculated what E' values are possible rising his very database as shown in Table 1, the degree of error appears totally
unacceptable. Hence, one might draw the conclusion that a practicing engineer might arrive at a reasonable value for E'
using Howard’s (1977) work purely by luck and not via sound engineering principles.

Recently, Watkins (2000) has presented a form of the Modified Spangler's equation even simpler than the well-known
formulation as:

Del 𝑥 = D.P/[1.5(F/∆𝛾) + 0.061 E’] (5)

Table 1: Degree of error in Howard’s E’ Values
Notes on Table 1: CMP = corrugated metal pipe, CI = cast iron pipe, SI = smooth iron pipe, AL- CMP = corrugated
aluminium pipe, DI = ductile iron pipe, S = steel, R = reinforced plastic mortar pipe, and PT = pretensioned concrete pipe. Type
I-fine grained soils with LL>50, Type II-fine grained soils with LL<50 and fines >75%, Type III-fine grained soils with
LL<50 and fines <75%, Type IV-coarse grained soils with fines > 12 %, Type V-coarse grained soils with fines <12%, and Type
VI-crushed rock. Slight compaction = <85% Proctor or 40% RD, moderate = between 86 and 95% Proctor or 41 and 70% RD,
and high = >95% Proctor or 70% RD

Throughout the history, researchers have attempted to establish the relationships between E’ and the variables on which it
depends. These were efforts using theory of closed form solutions, finite element studies, model experiments, laboratory
tests, and field tests. No one doubted the dependency of E' on soil type and compaction density. However, the
researchers argued among themselves why still the E' values they were obtaining from various methods ranged several
hundred percents leading to reliable prediction of deflection an impossible task. With Hartley and Duncan’s (1982)
convincing evidence for the steel pipe industry, the variation of E' with depth of soil over the pipe became a settled issue,
yet, most of the standards have chosen not to adopt these values, let alone the engineering practitioners. Hartley and
Duncan's work involved finite element analyses and field data collection of the following conditions:

Steel pipe only

R = 24 to 72 inches
H = 5 to 20 ft
PS = 4 to 136 psi
EI/(.061E’R3) = 0.003 to 0.656

E’ is conceptually similar to a soil modulus and can be expected to behave in a manner similar to soil modulus in that just
like soil modulus being dependent on confining pressure or depth of soil column over it, the E’ will vary with height of
soil over the pipe. Additional evidence is there in the form laboratory and model tests in Watkins and Nielson (1964),
Nielson (1967), Allgood and Takahashi (1972), Chambers and McGrath (1980), Kritzek et al. (1971), Shafer (1948), and
Meyerhof (1966). In cases of field data, often the researchers drew the conclusion that E' did not depend on soil column
depth, without realizing that .the data reduction was somewhat tainted by many unknowns. These field data often groups
a wide variety of soil types and installation conditions compared to carefully controlled laboratory tests and model
experiments, whereas careful reduction of data from a single site in Shafer (1948) has shown a remarkable variation of E'
with soil height. All soil moduli vary with depth of soil with the exception of saturated clays with little drainage.
Saturated clays with little, possibility of drainage of pore water pressures are poor backfills around flexible pipe anyway.
Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that all backfill soils around buried pipe will have E' values varying with depth of
soil cover. Most native soils also will have E' values varying with depth of soil cover. Jaramillo's (1989) work using
field data from Donohue (1979), Contech (1986), and NCPI (1988) and a summary of the results in Jaramillo and
Jeyapalan's (1994) showed that the E' values also varied significantly with the stiffness and the size of the buried pipe.
Jaramillo's (1989) work involved field data collection of the following conditions:
 Plastic pipe only

R = 6 to 18 inches
H = 5 to 30 ft
PS = 25 to 200 psi
3
EI/(.061E’R ) = 0.015 to 2.44

Leonhart's (1973) original work and later in ATV A127 (1984) presented closed form solutions for incorporating
the effects of trench width when the native ground conditions are significantly different from those of bedding
materials. From t h e extensive research by the above researchers, and based on the re-analysis of Howard's own
data, it is reasonable to conclude that the E' values in Howard's (1977) work could result in erroneous predictions of
buried pipe deflections and any proper guidance on E' for design practice should include a careful consideration of
the following factors:

•   Native soil type

•   Native soil compaction density
•   Modulus of native soil
•   Trench material type
•   Trench material compaction density
•   Modulus of trench material
•   Size of pipe
•   Pipe stiffness soil stiffness ratio
•   Depth of cover
•   Trench width- Pipe diameter ratio
•   Location of water table

Modulus of Soil Reaction, E'

The flexible pipe industry has displaced the rigid pipe industry in a major sector of the pipeline market in the past
50 years. For example, more than 50% of the pipelines in the U.S. market would be completed with plastics in 2001 and
this trend would continue in the coming decade. Given this tremendous progress, one would tend to think that clear;
engineering guidelines would be available by now for the most important design parameter characterizing the soil
stiffness for the design of flexible pipe-soil systems. To the contrary, this modulus of soil reaction, E', is still neither
defined nor obtained using rational engineering principles by most design engineers.

The E' is not a fundamental geotechnical engineering property of the soil. This property cannot be measured either in the
laboratory or in the field. This is an empirical soil-pipe system parameter, which could be obtained only from back
calculating by knowing the values of other parameters in die modified Iowa equation. An experienced soil-pipe
interaction design engineer would expect the pipe-soil stiffness ratio to have an effect on the value one uses for E' in
design. It is interesting to note that the range of E' used for stiff ductile iron pipe ranges from 1 MN/m² (150 psi) to
5 MN/m² (700 psi), while much softer plastic pipe is designed with values in the range of 7 MN/m² (1,000 psi) to 20
MN/m² (3,000 psi). To determine E’ for a buried pipe, separate E’ values for the native soil, E’n and the pipe backfill
surround, E’b, must be determined and then combined using Eq. 4.

E’ = ScE’b (4)

The value of the Soil support combining factor, Sc is given in Table 2, as a function of E’n, E’b, and Bd / D
Table 2: Use of ATV for trench width effects on E’ for open-cut trenches

E'n/E' b S cforB d/D

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0

0.1 0.15 0.30 0.60 0.80. 0.90 1.00

0.2 0.30 0.45 0.70 0.85 0.92 1.00

0.4 0.50 0.60 0.80 0.90 0.95 1.00

0.8 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00

1.5 1.30 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 1.00

2.0 1.50 1.30 1.15 1.10. 1.05 1.00

3.0 1.75 1.45 1.30 1.20 1.08 1.00

>=5.0 2.00 1.60 1.40 1.25 1.10 1.00

Where Bd is the trench width at pipe spring line.

The values of modulus of soil reaction of the pipe zone-backfill embedment, E’b and that of the native soil, E'n can be
obtained from Table 3.

Table 3: MODULUS OF SOIL REACTION FOR PIPE EMBEDMENT, E’b

The units are in psi (Mpa)
Type of soil Standard Proctor Relative Compaction density (SPD)
85 % 90% 95% 100%
CL, ML, CL-ML 500(3.4) 700(4.8) 1000(6.8) 1400(9.6)
SM, SC 600(4.1) 900(6.2) 1350(9.3) 2000(13.6)
SP, SW, GP, GW 700(4.8) 1000(6.8) 1500(10.2) 2300(15.3)

Notes: The above values apply when the soil cover is between 0 and 5 feet (1.5 m). The designer may increase the above values
by 100 psi (0.7 Mpa), when the SPD is 100% and by 25 psi (0.17 Mpa), when the SPD is 85%, for every foot (0.3 m) above
the basic 5 feet (1.5 m) of soil cover over the pipe crown for which the above values are given. It is important to recognize that E'
for the soil-pipe system is also affected by the size of the pipe and pipe-soil stiffness ratio. If the pipe designed is either smaller
than 4 feet (1.2 m) in diameter or if the pipe-soil stiffness ratio computed using PSR = PS/.061E' is lower than 0.05, the
above values of E'b need be lowered

In summary, the following steps are helpful in establishing reasonable E' values for pipeline design:

Step 1: Review borings, plans, profiles, and obtain most appropriate SPT blow counts.
Step 2: Calculate total stress, pore water pressure, effective stress.
Step 3: Calculate relative density with some judgment.
Step 4: Estimate Standard Proctor relative compaction density.
Step 5: Select E' for native ground conditions using Table 3.
Step 6: Adjust E' to allow for Pipe-soil stiffness ratio, size, and other factors.
Step 7: Repeat the procedure for bedding soil to obtain its E'.
Step 8: Select trial trench width.
Step.9: Obtain the factor Sc allowing for native to bedding variation from Table 2.
Step10: Estimate design E' for the pipe-soil system and adjust up or down.

When fine grained soils or mixed soils are encountered, the above procedures have to be adjusted based on sound
geotechnical input for the area.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made for the benefit of pipeline designers, geotechnical engineers and pipeline
asset owners:

1. The modulus of soil reaction, E', is not a fundamental soil property that can be measured either in a laboratory or
from an in-situ test: E' is a soil-system parameter that can either be back-calculated from past field experience on
pipe deflections or from a systematic methodology outlined in this paper. Taking E' values from pipe vendors’
design guides or simple consensus standards should be avoided. If you have never worked with E’ values before,
its better you consult an expert on how to establish these values for design.

2. It is not ethical to call up a local geotechnical firm to collect a letter on E' values while being either a party or an
expert witness in the middle of a pipeline failure, dispute, claim, arbitration, mediation, or a suit to support either a
high or a low value that had already been used in the design of the pipeline.

3. Given the power of MS excel spreadsheet, the calculation of E' values as it varies along the alignment of the
pipeline could be done within a reasonable amount of engineering time. One of such projects where the power of
excel spreadsheet was demonstrated to save substantial cost on the design and construction of a project in San
Diego involving 20 km (13 miles) of 2749 mm (108 inch) of welded steel pipe was covered in Jeyapaylan (1993).

4. If the pipeline owner is unwilling to invest into proper establishment of E' values and reap the benefits for the 50
year design life of the pipe asset, it is a good idea to stay far away from that client. E' values used, in design start
with site specific geotechnical engineering data collection and will end up providing site specific input data for pipe
wall thickness selection.

5. We are engineers and our motto ought to be "assign E' values, design, build, and inspect a pipeline, collect field
data, check against the assumptions originally made, learn some lessons, make adjustments on the second go
around in the design, and build to verify the improved E' selection. Anything short of this is unacceptable.

6. If medical doctors are able to fee data into WebMD on patients and treatment methods, we engineers owe it to our
public that we are equally capable of holding our own when it comes to establishing, maintaining, and benefiting
from a national database on E’ values. The author is here to guide the engineering community with a good start on
what data to collect, how to organize; and how to back-calculate for E' toward this worthy cause, as E' varies with
the many variables listed in this paper.

7. The author is always of the view that if an engineer is unwilling to have some role in inspecting and collecting data
on a project she/he has designed for her/his client, sooner or later a disaster will happen and the engineer will have
serious trouble explaining in a court of law why what she/he engineered on paper is where the duty to their client
ended.
References

Allgood, J.F., and Takahashi H.; "Balanced, Design and Finite Element Analysis of Culverts," Hwy. Res. Rec. No. 413,
1972, pp 44-56

ATV-A-127, "Richtlinie fur die statische berechnung von Entwasserungskanalen und leitungen, Dec 1984.

Chambers RF., McGrath, T.J., and Heger, F.J., “Plastic Pipe for Subsurface Drainage of Transportation Facilities,''
NCHRP Report 225, Trans. Res. Brd., Oct. 1980, pp. 122-140.

Contech Canst. Products, Inc., "Armco Truss Pipe,'' product literature, 1986. Donahue and Associates, Inc.," PVC Sewer
Pipe Deflection,'' Sheboygan, WI,1979.

Hartley, J.D. and Duncan, J.M., "E' and its Variation with Depth," Journal of Transportation Eng., ASCE, Vol 113, No.
5, Sept 1987, pp. 538-553.

Howard, AK., "Modulus of Soil Reaction (E') Values for Buried Flexible Pipe," Engr. & Res. Ctr., Bur. of Recl., 1977.

Jaramillo, Peggy Ann," Review of Field Deflections of Plastic Pipes Under Soil Loads," Thesis at the University of
Wisconsin, Madison, 1989.

Jeyapalan, J.K and Jaramillo, Peggy Ann, "New Modulus of Soil Reaction,-E' Values for Buried Thermoplastic Pipe
Design," Proceed. Of ASCE Conference on Hydraulics of Pipelines, Phoenix, AZ,1994. pp. 239-260.

Jeyapalan, J.K, "Analysis and Design of Direct Burial Sections of San Diego County Water Authority's Pipeline
Extension No: 4," Proceedings of•ASCE infrastructure Conference II, August, San Antonio, Texas, 1993.

Krizek, RJ., Parmalee, RA., Kay, J.N., and Elnaggar, H.A., "Structural Analysis and Design of Pipe culverts," National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Rep. No. 116, Hwy. Res. Brd. ,1971,155 pp.

Leonhardt, G.,"Die Belastung von starren Rohrleitungen unter Dammen," Thesis at the Universitat of Hanover,1973.•

Meyerhof, G.G., "Composite Design of Shallow-Buried Steel Structures," Proc. 47th Ann. Conv. Canac. Good Roads
Assn., Sept. 1966.

National Clay Pipe Institute, "Unpublished Field Deflection Test Data on Numerous Sites in the U.S.," Lake Geneva,
WI, 1988.

Nielson, F.D., "Modulus of Soil Reaction as Determined from Triaxial Shear Test," Hwy. Res. Rec. No. 185, 1967, pp.
80-90.

Shafer, G.E, Discussion: Underground Conduits - An Appraisal of Modern Research Transactions, ASCE, vol.113,
1948, pp 354-363.

Spangler, M.G., "The Structural Design of Flexible Pipe Culverts, Bulletin 153, Iowa Eng. Exp. Sta.,1941.
Spangler, MG., "Discussion: Rebuilt Wolf Creek Culvert Behavior, ''Hwy. Res. Brd., Hwy. Res. Rec. No. 262,1969, pp
10-13.

Watkins, R.K. and Nielson, F. D., "Development and Use of the Modpares Device,'' Proc. ASCE, Vol. 90, Jan. 1964, no.
PL1, pp 155-178.

Watkins, R.K., and Spangler, MG., "Some Characteristics of the Modulus of Passive Resistance of Soil: A Study in
Similitude,'' Proceedings, Hwy. Res. Brd., Vol. 37, 1958, pp. 576-583.

Watkins, R.K., "Selected Topics of Interest,'' Notes presented as part of the seminars on Steel Pipe Design sponsored by
the Steel Plate Fabricators Association, 2000.