Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
JOINT HIGHWAY
RESEARCH PROJECT
JHRP-78-24
PERFORMANCE OF BURIED
FLEXIBLE CONDUITS
G. A. Leonards
R. A. Stetkar
PURDUE
UNIVERSIT^
'!
'CT''
'
yZ'Zi^
Interim Report
PERFORJ^ANCE OF BURIED FLEXIBLE CONDUITS
L. Michael, Director
Joint Highway Research Project
TO:
H.
FROM:
File:
G.
9-8-6
A.
Project:
C-36-62F
Respectfully submitted.
A. Leonards
Research Engineer
G.
GAL:ms
A.
W.
L.
R.
L.
G.
D.
W. H.
M. J.
G. K.
G.
Altschaeffl
Dolch
Eskew
Gibson
Goetz
Gutzwiller
Hallock
Hancher
Hoover
J. F. McLaughlin
R. F. Marsh
R. D. Miles
P L Owens
G, T. Satterly
D.
K.
E.
R.
Scholer
Scott
K. C. Sinha
C. A. Venable
L. E. Wood
E. J. Yoder
S. R. Yoder
C.
F.
M.
B.
http://www.archive.org/details/performanceofburOOIeon
Interim Report
by
G.
A.
Leonards
and
R.
E.
Stetkar
C-36-62F
File No.
9-8-6
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
December 12, 1978
Report No.
?.
3.
5.
Report Dote
6,
8.
JHRP-78-24
4.
7.
Author(5)
9,
Performing Organization
A.
G.
Leonards and
R.
E.
JHRP-78-24
Stetkar
H.
HPR-1(16) Part II
11.
Type
Covered
Interim Report
Review of Buckling Failure
Modes Task
10.
14.
Supplementary Notes
17.
Key Words
18.
19.
Unclassified
Form
DOT
F 1700.7 (8.69)
20.
Distribution Statement
No restrictions.
This document is
available to the public through the
National Technical Information Sorvlco,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Unclassified
21. No. of
100
Pages
22.
Price
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
iv
LIST OF SYMBOLS
INTRODUCTION
I,
BUCKLING THEORIES
A.
B.
C.
II.
III.
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
14
15
17
20
21
23
26
Amstutz (1953)
Cheney (1971)
El-Bayoumy (1972)
Kloppel and Clock (1970)
26
26
30
39
32
41
....
50
Controlled Experiments
50
Bulson (1963)
Luscher (1966)
Allgood and Ciani (1968)
Dorris (1965) and Albritton (1968)
Watkins and Moser (1969)
Meyerhof and Baikie (1963)
Howard (1971)
50
53
55
60
62
65
68
Page
B.
^^
Field Experiments
IV.
B.
76
SUMMARY
72
^3
^5
(1966)
Wu (1977)
Denimin
76
...
76
78
79
80
QO
^-^
88
^^
A.
Wall Crushing
^^
B.
Seam Failure
^^
C.
Excessive Deflection
90
D.
Elastic Buckling
^^
E.
Plastic Hinging
^^
F.
Inelastic Buckling
^^
G.
94
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
^^
9''
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Page
42
44
56
(1966)
58
64
67
70
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
13
29
35
35
37
46
47
48
52
77
11
81
12
4A
4B
10
A.
B.
C.
D.
Watkins
Howard
Watkins
Prairie
84
84
85
86
87
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Conduit diameter
Thrust force
F,
Fp
Ms
Conduit radius
R.
-2
(FL
Yield stress
'
_3
)
Buckling mode
Radius of gyration
a,
(^
Ring deflection
r\
a'
1.
INTRODUCTION
(1)
wall
(3)
(4)
(2)
or
to pipe stiffness.
(3),
However, bending
(4)
deflection
and Roy, 1976; Wenzel and Parmellee, 1976; Katona et al, 1976; Duncan, 1977),
Significant advances have been made, and more can be expected in the
future.
The
Seam
Wall Crushing
Inelastic
Plastic
Separation
Yielding
(Excessive Deflection)
FIGURE
assessed.
various theories for some typical culvert geometries and soil strengths
are made to show the relative effects of
tlie
assumptions usrd
In
lie
arc-
Finally, the
buckling is the
Experiments
4.
theoretically high modes crimping of the conduit wall may be visible only
at one or two locations.
or inversion
a
On the other
1.
BUCKLING THEORIES
along the axis of the cylinder, and thus no longitudinal buckling modes
A.
R = radius
n = buckling mode =
i\R/ i,
buckled shape
When solved in terms of the critical compressive stress,
ring, eqn
(1)
within the
t =
ring thickness
^-^
R^t
(2)
^^
6.
Application
Brockenbrough (1964)
Brockenb rough (1964) proposed the use of eqn (2) for determining the
critical stress of deeply buried, flexible culverts.
which the analysis was deemed applicable were to exceed those at which
live loads on the soil surface had a significant effect on the culvert.
From field experience a depth of ten feet was chosen as a limiting value,
independent of the culvert span.
P R
f =
-^
where, y
z
(3)
the critical stress obtained by eqn (2) to determine the maximum allowable
height of soil cover for a given conduit stiffness and soil density.
7.
Approximating the uniform external radial pressure by the nominal overburden pressure (yz) was thought to be conservative when considering
flexible conduits, because soil arching was apt to reduce the normal
reasoned that the weight of the overlying soil would deflect or flatten
the culvert and cause
value, but he did not indicate how much deflection was necessary to
Gere's solution did not consider flattening at the crown and invert,
(p
yz) would
In addition,
he
believed that localized yielding of the outer fibers of the culvert wall
due to combined bending and compressive stresses would probably not
cause failure.
Valentine (1964)
Valentine (1964) proposed an analysis to estimate the
critical buckling load on shallow (less than one diameter of soil cover
at the crown) flexible conduits subjected to live loads,
P^
^
" EI
R^
(4)
<
a <
a,
Some suggested
subjected to the AASHO H-20 design loading; when the depth of soil cover
was one radius, a equalled 0.62 and 0.69, respectively, for 54 in. and
24 in.
diameter conduits.
To be conservative,
He concluded that
buckling in conduits with shallow burial was critical for typical conduits
if the diameter was greater than 42 inches.
Bodner (1958)
9.
boundary pressures.
However, Bodner's
J,
1-v
=
p
""
"
{von Mises}
(5a)
{Bodner}
(5b)
R-^(l-V^)
-^
TT
r\i-v2)
V = Poisson's ratio
From equations
(5)
direction and
unifoLTii
normal pressures.
final deformed configuration was attained after the shell passed through
an intermediate equilibrium state of initial stress from an original
10.
unstressed condition.
initial displacements
in
it
pressures.
>
In
Pc = ^*
-^h-3
(1-V )R
<^)
2
K''^
/
K* =
n
1'
(n" - 1)
buckling mode
eqn
K'^
(6)
also reduces to
(5b) when n = 2.
< 50
buckling pressure for a finite length cylinder was greater than that for
a cylinder of infinite length.
Thus,
(6)
will give
11.
Donnell (1956)
Donnell investigated the lack of agreement between experimentally
measured external buckling pressures of cylindrical shells and theoretically calculated critical pressures.
were often much less than the theoretically predicted values, and the
observed buckling modes were much lower than the predicted modes.
Although these discrepancies had been attributed to geometric and
material imperfections, no attempt had previously been made to relate
the decrease in buckling resistance to the degree of imperfection.
The
Llic
inaiui-
and the critical pressure was then calculated as a function of the shell
geometry, yield strength, elastic modulus, and unevenness factor, U.
The results showed that the normalized critical buckling pressure
(1)
(2)
less pronoxinced.
12.
Figure
long tubes,
>
9.
between
and 250.
Cheney (1963)
Cheney (1963) analyzed the stability of a circular ring under plane
His results
Although
closely the effect of soil restraint on the critical buckJ.ing prt ssure.
In the solution, a uniform external pressure distribution was assumed to
develop around the cylinder after very small or negligible ring deformation.
This was necessary to obtain a closed form solution, as given by eqn
P^ =
-7
R
(n
- 1)
+ -^
(7)
n -1
_3
(FL
(7).
13.
fy -yield stress
- 0.05
Imperfection Level,-
DONNELL, 1956)
14.
presence of initial stress and displacement was used in the general solution
of the complicated boundary value problem.
tractions on the shell and caused changes in the initial uniform pressure
distribution.
ments, and equations developed by Armenakas and Herrmann (1963) were used
to determine the expression for the critical pressure causing buckling
(n
-l)(3-4v )/3 +
^
^y^^'-V
2n(l-v
3EI/r''(1-v^)
+ (l-2v
s
2
t
(8)
(n
-l)(3-4v
+ 2n(l-2v
= critical,
4-
pc
_ n -1
^
Pq
E /(1+v
s
3El/R-^(l-v^)
(1-2V )(n+l)+n
(9)
15.
pported
^^ub-
stitution of buckling mode numbers into the above equations until the
Pc
minimum
ratio is calculated,
in effect,
minimizing eqns
and (9)
(8)
with respect to n.
Equation (8) shows that the critical buckling load increases only
15% as Poisson's ratio of the supporting medium is changed from
to y,
conditions is only about 70% as large as the critical pressure for fullybonded interface conditions.
Luscher (1966)
In his study of buckling of soil-surrounded tubes,
Luscher (1966)
model
EI(n -1)
Pc -
-Jn -1
^^>
-2
R (FL
16.
Pc=
EI/R'
(lOi)
buckling tests on 1.63 inch diameter tubes and oedometer tests on the
supporting sand.
K
B(l+v )(l-2v
K
=
s
BE
r^
1-v
^M
s
(11)
R.^2
1 -
_i
R
(12)
R.^2
(1+v^) 1+
o^
R.
Young's
modulus of soil
*
E
s
if the 'experimental'
values of n are used, eqn (8) predicted critical pressures much larger
than those measured while eqn (lOi) accurately predicted the buckling
loads.
experimental results.
(lOi) may not be accurate for some ranges of tube and soil properties
17.
because;
(1)
(2)
experimental
However,
shells in an elastic medium, Duns and Butterfield used many of uhe same
(2)
(3)
(n
>_
7).
elastic support.
'
given by eqn (13), failure would occur by elastic buckling in high modes.
^^
(1-V
+ k
(FL
(FL
)
(13)
18.
as a
function of the soil properties, the radius of the conduit, and the mode
of buckling, given by
E^(n^-l)
\^
^^''^^'^
soil-pipe interface)
(14a)
displacement functions.
T-
(frictionless interface)
(14b)
^^+1^
^s^^-^^) ^^
li
(15)
The
iterative procedure ends when the assumed value equals the buckling mode
applied
19.
3(1-V
=
R p
V
(16)
27v
This expression does not consider the conduit stirfncss and appears to
be valid only for the case of neutral arching.
It
R.\2
1
1 -
(16a)
R.^2
'
F,
0-'
>
> 1,
2-V
p
-ji
F^
--^;
)
(1-v
'
5 (bonded interface)
,,
4n(l-v
,
2,
(17)
F^E^R^l-V^)
4(l-v )EI
s
1/3
(17a)
and
20.
conduit wall, Duns and Butterfield believed that there was little
developed in the second case was equal to the uniform thrust in the
first case.
The
first case assumed continuous elastic radial support around the entire
circumference, and the second case involved soil support only on outward
{eqn
(11)} was used directly by Chelapati and Allgood to describe the soil
21.
(i^^im
'
J^
(^3,
(l-v'")
term.
In the case
in eqn
(18)
gives
P. = 2.1
K EI/R^
(18i)
P, = 1.5
\.
It is to be
EI/R
(18ii)
noted that eqns (18i) and (ISii) are lower bound solutions
Cheney (1976)
Cheney (1976) revised his derivation of eqn (7) and obtained an
22,
E^(n -1)
(19)
k
s
R(l-v )(2n+l-v
s
E
s
p^ =
^ (1-v '^ +^
EI
(n -1)
R^
(20)
(2n+l-v )(l-v^)
s
1/3
P, = 1.2
2/3
EI
(20i)
2
(1-V'')R^
(1-v^)
s
However,
when this equation was used to predict the test results obtained by Allgood
and Ciani (1968), it made unconservative predictions.
Cheney believed
arouiiL.
Che
eqn
(21)
in eqn
and proposed
23.
1/3
p
=
c
2/3
EI
0.30
3
(21)
remains to be
proven by further tests in which the soil stress state at the onset of
Thus, eqn
(2)
developed by Timoshenko and Gere was combined with the equation for the
critical buckling force, F
plate to obtain.
'
=
c
(1-v )k R
EI
2
(l-V^)r
= subgrade
modulus
(n+1)^ - 1 +
{(n+1) -1}EI
(22)
24,
Poisson's ratio, V
and
=
s
(23)
2(l-v )R
s
EI
=
c
f(n+l) -1)1
(24)
(1-v^) 2{(n+l)^-l}
(1-v^)
valid for
R E
(25)
15
EI k
^c4
s_
(26)
(1-v^)
25.
Eqn
is equivalent to eqn
(26)
Allgood.
An empirical modification of eqn
similar to
(27)
(l-V^)(l-vJ)R
2
EI
E
s
where
yield stress
gives much lower critical stresses than eqn (26), and it was considered
that the additional safety factor could compensate for possible
conduit imperfections.
adjustments has not been verified for conduits with soil support.
Meyerhof (1968) suggested adjustment of eqn
(2 7)
for analyzing
culverts with depth of cover less than one diameter by using a reduced
soil modulus given by Luscher's eqn
n =
0.1<2|<1.0
where
(28)
26.
B.
Amstutz (1953)
(1953) presented a solution for the critical uniform
Amstutz
Calculation of the
not allowed to exceed the yield stress of the shell material and,
thus,
f^(l-v-)
+ 12
(1-v^)
_
2R
(n =
(V'c^^l-^
solution.
L
where
1)
= yield stress
y
f
= critical circumferential
thrust stress
Luscher's K
(29
27.
the soil.
Back-calculation of K
Cheney believed
Llie
sand in the tests changing to a value between the dense and loose
states before the full load was applied to the soil, and thus the
soil density at buckling was essentially the same for all the
laboratory tests.
because the
Luscher that may not have been properly modeled by his theory.
(1)
while Luscher'
loads
(2)
Thus, Luscher'
28.
illustrated in Figure
3,
As
However, a solution
for the critical uniform external radial pressure initiating a loc.il buckle
was obtained by minimizing the energy of distortion into the buckled shape
to determine the governing
equilibrium condition.
distortion was given as the sum of the internal strain energy due to
extension and bending minus work done by the boundary forces and moments.
Unlike Amstutz's model, in which the boundary hydrostatic pressure remained
constant during buckling,
As the deflection
was determined by the equilibrium equations and was not arbitrarily taken
to be a specific cosine function
with the thickness of the supporting soil ring and the effective soil
pressure producing buckling.
expression for K
given as.
29.
'Pc-^
spring
constant
deflection,
FIGURE 3
30.
R -R.
=
s
720 a'
R.
0.153
(30)
where,
a'
research was needed before his theory could be used practically to predict
local buckling.
El-Bayoumy (1972)
El-Bayoumy analyzed the critical uniform pressure producing snap-
31.
assumed to occur when the critical pressure was reached, and the rapidity of
the mechanism was such that a reduced pressure at the buckle location did
using variational calculus which related the strains and rotations of the
buckled configuration to the circumferential stress in the ring.
Solution of these equations gave lower bound buckling loads identical to
those obtained by Cheney (1971) for the constant pressure case (k^ = 0).
However, the detailed development revealed some important energy considerations
ring, the ring contracts in hoop compression and the stored strain energy
increases.
final buckling state the ring has a tendency to buckle and reach a lower
An
If such
to the initial buckling state, and then to large deflection buckling, with
an accompanying sudden release of energy.
existed which would allow snap-through buckling to occur when the strain
energy of the unbuckled ring equalled that of large deflection buckling
equilibrium.
32,
The
provided, and this criterion has been used extensively in culvert design,
Kloppel and Clock (1970) set out to develop a rational method of
portion where the conduit wall deflects away from the surrounding soil
and is subjected to "active" earth pressure, and the other on the
lower portion where the conduit wall presses into the surrounding soil
"
"^
R(l + V
Kloppel and
33.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
dependent
(e)
(f)
(2)
(3)
A.
defined by,
P spring = p s A
.
where p
(31)
34.
p = p
cos
(32a)
^
In
(32b)
4
cos
(X)
A,
which set
i|j
equal to
3tt
j-
A value of 0.5
radians.
conduit
(defined by
c{)
in Fig.
Restraint provided
and k
The
P = Pq
where, p
^o
and p
= p
= p
^s
+ p
cos
=
Pj^
p,
so that
sin
-z
(jj
(33)
It Lai
value of
F,
A second
35.
36.
CO
^S
were calculated.
^s
(f)
was
At
this point increasing the load did not increase the potential energy
Other values of
d)
critical buckling load were minimized with respect to the buckling mode
and a high mode buckling expression similar to the one derived by Luscher
(eqn lOi)
5)
load.
37.
-0.35
Snap-through
buckling of three-hinged
ASnap-through
+ Snap - through
-0.30
High
mode
buckling,
arch,
^ffO
k= O
buckling , k_?!
buckling
l^g=^ radians
Frictionless soil -conduit interface
-0.25
Constant
soil
support
2
o
UJ
u.
o
o
E
o
|X|0
EI(i+Vs)
Conduit-soil
FIGURE 5
flexibility factor,
^s"
E R3
38.
(2)
(k
(6)
increasing deformation.
{in fact,
should be assumed.
10
-4
However,
for F
-4
>
10
the critical snap-through buckling load is much lower than the high
mode buckling load, so that in this range high mode buckling theory is
39.
r.lock
were of a more general nature than previous work, there still remain
and
Experience has
sho-.^
Thus-, the
buckling at the
cro-^n
C.
40.
^eff
= secant
where E
- V
- V
(3A)
E E.
modulus
tangent modulus
V
P
after yielding.
In addition,
In such
the use
If an
as
However, in cases
(1962).
41.
II.
They
Table
includes a
b)
c)
d)
42.
>
1
i
a.
1
1
"x
1*
>;
>:
33
S:
3
o:
91
O 3
O M
X
Of
a
3J
01
F--
(Q
>
JJ
3
01
L,
c
O
iJ
5
.-(
(A
a E
r-(
2 a
0)
H
CO
(V
(0
--4
0)
41
U
U
T3
(U
01
T3
0)
a
m
r)
r4
a
q
a:
u o
C
-H
(T9
iJ
JJ
en
'J
(U
T3
w*
-H
u Q
(13
_y
>;
01
.a
u
>
CO
VJ3
CO
00
o
01
\0
oo
01
CO
^->
01
0)
OJ
to
CO
-3
13
o o
-a
<
ol
01
OJ
1
g
SI
'3
>
o
o
-a
IS
a;
>,
0)
o:
CO
cu
01
<
ll
at
-a
01
u
s.
CO
M
CO
o|
1
01
01
flj
(0
3
[2
OJ
3
41
01
OJ
>
0)
CD
00
a.
a
:o
1 w a
oo
-^
43.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
44.
TABLE
Investigator
Suggested Expression
For k
Lower- Bound
Value of k
s
(v^ = 0.4)
r-
^)^
E
(a)
0.71 E
^V
rR.^2
(1-2V )}R
(1+V ){l+hr^
4.0 E
Duns & Butterfield
(eqn 14a)
3.9 E
R(l-V^)(2n+1-V
s
0.60 E
Meyerhof
&
Baikie
2(1-V )R
(eqn 23)
0.71 E
(a)
R(l+V
>
> R.
and
f^il^
*
(b)
For n =
7.
(b)
o^
approaches zero,
(b)
45.
parameter
EI
in Figures
and
.3
'
respectively.
LO
psi,
=0.4.
given an elastic Young's modulus of 2000 psi, while the modulus for
dense sand is taken to be 20,000 psi.
Figures
and
plotted in
R"^
,,
_ 2,
From Figures
and
1.
2.
A6.
q:~uj
ujho
47.
No
Soil
Su pport
Soil
Su pporj
Critical
(36,000
psi)
1000
Luscher,
Eq
(iOi/
a Chelapafi a Allgood,Eq(l8i)
Cheney, Eq (201)
Forrestal a
Herrmann, Eq(8)
EI
(psi)
A8.
No
Soil
SfiiLSyppoLl
Su pport
+ Meyerhof a Baikie,Eq(27)
V Luscher.EqdOi)
(36,000
Q Chelopati aAllgood,Eq(l8i)
producing yield
psi)
10.000
Cheney, Eq(20i)
Forrestal a
Herrmann, Eq (8)
1000
Pipe Flexibility
Factor.
j-
(psi)
BOUND
FIGURES COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL. LOWERMODE
CRITICAL PRESSURES FOR HIGH
BUCKLING OF FLEXIBLE CONDUITS.
DENSE SAND, Es=20P00 PSI
-
49.
3.
flexible culverts.
predicted theoretically.
50.
III.
A.
Controlled Experiments
conduits and the surrounding soil, and the vagaries of field construction
practices, a number of controlled experiments in prefabricated soil bins
As in any
Bulson (1963)
Bulson conducted laboratory tests to study the behavior of soilsupported, flexible, tin-plated steel conduits
(f
= 26 ksi).
Tubes with a
to 10 inches
FT
-^
< 0.208} were buried in a five foot long steel test cell
R
with backfill sand compacted by a vibrating plate in three inch lifts.
{0.026 <
The 12 inch long tubes were restrained at the ends by relatively rigid
51.
JO
~
o"
"fT
or
7-
load.
Replication of p
ma x
was difficult and average values were used in comparisons with theoretical
Et
"
P
""
R(n^~l){l+
nL
2-,
}
2n2-l-v
(,2_i) ^
Et
3
(36)
"^
12R (1-v
ttR
Dp
J
d
^.
^
the ratio
increasing
max
T
was fairly
constant.
J-
It was
.
The ratio
found that,
P max
and
) were
for a given
,
entire soil surface), the soil support could not vary much over the
range of cover heights investigated.
Thus,
increase
pc
as it
52,
(2) Roof
Deflects
(4)
Buckle Fails
(6)
Rnal Collapse
(after
BULS0N,I963)
53.
Comparison of
'
'^max
to p
is inappropriate.
tlie
Comparison
of the initial buckling load (rather than
^
max
with
Nevertheless,
Luscher (1966)
Luscher attempted to check the validity of previously developed
(f
estimated to
Two-
equal 16 to 24 ksi)
The saturated sand, tested in both loose and dense states, was enclosed
by a flexible,
predicted by eqn
(8)
54.
(11) and
by eqns
(12).
P = P'
where, p
p'
(3^)
+ ^s R
(positive outwards)
(37),
However, a check
from each
circumference.
compared to M
Values of M
(I)
Good correlation was found, partly because the formulation of eqn (11)
was derived from the test observations.
No appreciable difference in
the back-figured support modulus was found between loose and dense
sand, which indicated that the test conditions were possibly forcing
artificial behavior.
55.
The
empirically obtained eqn (11) was verified only for the tested smallscale geometries.
significant.
3.
Thus,
it
imperfections
in the tubes tested governed their behavior, and the use of empirical
relationships obtained from these tests may not be valid for field
conditions.
= 89 ksi)
(f
The tubes,
of 0.006, 0.012 and 0.018 inches, were tested in a cylindrical tank with
56.
iH
H
cn
-a
CO
0)
4_1
(0
,H
3
O
rH
rt
..x-N
W -H
3 W
r-l
O,
13
in
CN
c
o
o
o
v)
in
r-
^
vO
in
CM
r-~
<r
00
CO
o
en
O
in
o
<!
00
00
00
CM
o
o
CO
CO
O
in
rco
o
O
oCN
in
r--
<Ti
CO
"o
rt
pq
QJ
Id
-a
0)
n]
<^
--^
Oi
4J
00
t=
-^S"^
O
r-l
Cfl
00
P
.H
iH
CN
00
r^
rn
1^
iH
CN
CM
C3N
CNl
00
00
(^
ro
CO
IT)
r^
CM
CM
Csl
<r
CN
CO
rH
C^J
CM
CN
CO
00
CO
00
CO
Csl
CO
00
CO
<M
o
CM
<r
CM
00
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
II
O C
3
03
0)
^N
H -H
O pC
00
.5
:^
u
d
pq
Q)
-a
(U
H
,H
CL
<S
^^
3
en
m
QJ
'-^
-H
a
^
<r
CTi
CJ^
CN
<!
CM
CT\
r-t
rH
<-t
o
lO
CO
00
<r
-3-
r--3-
s-i
o
o
CO
r~
r^
CJ^
vO
00
r^
in
r-^
un
in
in
(JN
in
r-i
P^
e
M
o
U-l
>%
4J
H
Cfl
C O
0)
-H
O
m
o
.t
CO
-a
-H
nH
>
0)
U)
3
dJ
Q
1
'3
C
H c
e CO
O
r.
V,
0)
QJ
QJ
M
3
w
3
W
3
QJ
QJ
o
1
QJ
#s
f^
QJ
CO
3
QJ
#1
QJ
CO
QJ
CO
o
o
O
O
o
o
.J
hJ
in
vO
hJ
X)
T)
H
X)
H
Xl
H
Td
QJ
QJ
H
13
H
tJ
H
T)
H
3
r^
H
TJ
QJ
QJ
QJ
QJ
QJ
QJ
hJ
g
3
O
o
O
O
g
3
#v
QJ
to
o
o
B
3
6
3
QJ
CO
B
3
e
3
W\
QJ
CO
6
3
e
3
#,
QJ
cn
B
a
CO
2:
-U
TJ Pi
to
r~~
QJ
3
0)
CO
57.
a diameter of 5 Teet.
The walls
were constructed to minimize friction, and the base of the tank was
raining technique.
placed around the inner and outer tube circumference to measure thrusts
and moments that developed in the tube walls.
A rotating deflection
gage was installed to measure the inside profile of the tube, and
deflection gages were placed in the soil below the tube to measure
stiffnesses, and the surface soil pressure was recorded at the onset of
buckling.
In all tests,
buckling and failures took the form of local buckles causing almost
immediate collapse in thinner tubes and collapse after increased load
in thicker tubes.
ways.
curvature and thrust of the deformed tube; the interface pressure was
Table
58.
>^
o
c o
(1)
-H
4J
M-l
C^
^
CM
o
in
CO
00
CO
00
in
r^
CO
00
CM
o
o
o
o
CO
00
00
<r
CO
00
CM
o
o
o
o
CO
O
O
O
C-J
r^ ei
>4-l
U-l
tn
to
<U
0)
M c
4-1
C/3
-H
iH ^-s
W).H
C w
C -H SH H C7
00
H
^
a.
CO
o
3
-u
pa
nj
vD
#
>H
CN
o
o
*
f\
-<r
CM
CO
o
o
CO
o
o
1-H
r^
#*
*.
CO
CO
<r
CM
o
CO
<r
vO
CO
cr\
r^
r-~-
r^
CM
iH
tH
.H
<r
CM
r^
<r
CM
r^
<r
CM
r~-
CO
CO
r-\
in
in
in
CM
oo
C u
X 4-1o
o o
M n)
'^
<;
o
o
ro
fe
CN
CN
ro
CT.
11
00
CO
.H
<r
CO
o
o
-H
CM
CO
CM
iH
'^
vD
CM
u-1
CO
r^
(U
o
rt
>
0)
J-l
M p
en /-N
w ^^
OJ
w
rH H (X
M3
tl3
O
H
4J
r~
.H
o
in
CNl
CO
CM
D-^^
(-1
0)
>
1-1
''
4-1
Xoo
i-l
13
CU
4-1
i-~
r^
U-i
vD
0^
vO
0^
Q,
rt
CAl
^-v
^-^
O
a\
o
o-
r--
t^
CJN
CO
a^
vD
CJN
(J\
iH
r-{
0)
cn
0)
tn
o
rH
<r
CO
o
rH
iH
>,
0)
to
u
rt
en
0)
cn
.5
B
o
Q)
tn
o
o
o
o
hJ
hJ
ci
0)
c;
QJ
x)
c
n3
^^
H
en
a,
^w'
(U
Q
1
e
3
d
tu
cn
C
Q)
OJ
tn
o
o
hJ
CJ
CO
Jo
H
-u
m
o
o
LO
CO
LTl
O
o
CO
o
o
m
CO
o
o
Q
1
^
^
-a
(U
LO
OJ
H
<u
CO
M ko
W 05
a)
tn
.H -H
00
eg
CO
CO
C^J
C7N
eJ^
CO
a\
CD
CD
00
59.
results.
the buckling pressures were not entirely consistent with the sand density.
p^ = P3
arching factor =
{l - F /p R},
c
s
(1 -
C)
where F
(38)
the springline.
Arching was found to vary among tests with identical soil densities
and tube stiffnesses and this was thought to be due to improper seating
of the tube during placement.
(18i) was developed for high mode buckling and only local buckling
was observed.
In the interpretation of buckling tests the writers foimd it useful
to compare the buckling stress,
material,
An efficiency ratio, R
was defined
Rf =
^y
(39)
In cases where f
The values of R
in
60.
From the measured behavior of the loaded tubes Allgood and Cianl
concluded that:
(1)
(2)
The use
In addition,
These factors,
it
unlikely
Dry
sand at a relative density equal to 80% was used to cover the tubes with
depths from
0-2
diameters.
inches, lengths 10.5 and 12 inches, and wall thicknesses of 0.01, 0.022
and 0.065 inches were tested in a cell with special provisions made to
reduce soil friction along the cell wall.
feet
61.
This
For burial of
to
diam (D),
Burial at
3
t-
and the strains measured at the initiation of buckling varied with the
depth of soil cover.
D) was provided.
cover, the largest measured strains were transferred from the crown
to the springline, and then to the invert.
that eqn (2) from Timoshenko and Gere (1961) was not a bad
62,
placement by rodding.
with
3x1
(f
= 40 ksi)
wall thicknesses.
A test bin 24 feet long, 15 feet wide and 18 feet high was used
to contain the culvert and backfill, and at least
five feet of
63.
limits for buried culverts and to develop a means for estimating when
a performance limit will be reached,
From their test results and observations Watkins and Moser concluded
that:
(1)
Std.
The curves were designed to reflect the fact that, with good soil
It was
decided
that this was due to neglect of soil arching, and load factors were
'
64.
o
U
tH
JJ
CO
MC
U
(U
>
-5
m
<u
c
-H XI
-'
fl)
to
01
rH
CO
f-H
>
U)
flj
CD
J^
V4
d)
OJ
>
d
>
c
O 3
(U
P>
k.
hJ
c
o
tn
CU
a>
>
c
ki
00
CO
a.
a
4.)
0)
(-H
5
a.
s
M
-H -H
iJ
2
OJ
kl
00
"^
-O
> c
c CO
-a
a.
CO
Q.
.H
<U
t4
.i!
o.
en
CO
OJ
-H
cn
00 ij
aj
,H -H
-H
CJ
ca
CO
14
u >
a. c
CO
4J
y)
-H
CO
IH
u
>
c
I-H
u
00
CTj
0)
rH
1)
-H
-H
^U
CQ
01
3J
3
lU
rH
u
CO
CO
\f\
0C5
sO
CN
rH
en
u-t
C^
CO
r^
ON
00
CO
CO
^u
-0
ns
CO
CO
t-i
CO
00
CO
CJ
CO
o s
00
CO
oo
t4
rH
<
4J
(0
CO
5
5
u
o
>o
3
3
O
00
o
O
tn
^^
-H
4J
T-(
CO
00
to
to
4J
^_^
CO
4J
>
(U
t-4
^
vO
13
4J
o
t
r-^
''^
O
01
aj
eg
O
(M
V4
OJ
u U
<u
rH
rH
r^
;o
CN
r-l
3 Q.-^
e-
CO
-3!3^
vr
en
vO
in
.H
rH
rH
Cu
IJ
C
O
o
ro>
o
m
rH
rH
CO
CO
-H
rH
^-<
OJ
<
>
O
>^
'^
O
OJ
dj
-W
-r^
CJ
4J
M-i
OS
~l CO
ui a:
ca
.i3
O o
o
o ON o
c fH
in
ON
cvj
-4-
^^
CVI
CO
CN
-cr
r^
^
vO
0^
<r
r\j
in
CO
00
4-1
fcl
UtO
3
H -H
C
O
r^
rt
CO
r-t
--1
-H
nj
V4
CJ
^S
0)
^-'
in
00
i-H
fn
rH
m
fn
Csl
in
in
>.>
00
00
<r
rH
-1
>*
> o
<u
a)
<-l
f;;
(U
l"4
CO
''^
CO
y-i
cn
-H
cu
CO
a
a^
u
< b
en
ON
00
rH
en
en
O'.
rH
tn
s)
v>
o
00
ON
03
<r
r^
00
c*l
so
in
CSJ
cr^
a^
en
in
C7^
vt
""
rg
vO
r-K
CN
<r
0^
O
CN
-J
00
0^
00
rH
OS
00
in
en
vf
ov
rH
C3^
On
rH
rH
rH
i-H
.-t
rH
rH
00
CO
00
in
in
oj
00
00
OD
ON
a
-^
ON
r^
ON
vO
CO
ON
r^
00
r^
<r
r->
O
rH
00
rH
OS
CM
rH
ON
rH
rH
r^
r^
r^
Q\
<T
rH
CM
rH
1-1
rH
CN
rH
fZ.
P*
O
en
r^
vD
rg
CO
vO
en
v>
'"'
<T\
r^
o\
-J-
>)
CJ\
>
O
>>
iJ
o 3
s
^"3
i-i
C/D
CO
U3
'^
CN
rH
ON
fH
^^
Mln
tr\
-H
01
0]
O ^
o.
rH
rH
<T
0)
3 -^
d
-H
3^
o m
O O
fn
ro
vT
^^J
CCI
rH
<r
~T
CN
<r
rsi
00
U3
rH
CO
rH
65.
No
Performance
curves developed from the test results have been adapted for use in
design practice (Handbook of Steel Drainage and Highway Construction
Products, 1971).
Smooth
2 7).
were loaded
Since
steel bin two feet long, four feet wide, and three feet deep.
inches of sand separated the ends of the sections from the bin.
1/2
At
to reduce friction between the sand and the bin, hence the boundary
66.
6.
(2 7)
experimental results,
(1)
(EI)
67.
^f
Efficiency
CN
rH
0.17
0.22
0.13
0.11
0.19
0.17
rH
0.87
rH
<r
rH
r-{
0.68
CD
O
O
O
X X X X
o o
o
O o
o o o
o o
o o o o o
Ratio,
f'
Stress,
(psl)
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
45,000
45,000
in
in
Average
o"
o~
CO
CO
Xo
to
e
o
u
14-4
CO
CO
n
Yield
OJ
&0
>.
4J
to
r^
M
C
0)
T3
u
m
C
o
-H
0)
at
4J
>
OJ
tn
4-1
ca
rH
Stress
(psi)
5780
7800
4690
3980
o
o
o
8770
7850
Buckling
in
CO
<u
4-1
to
B-?
26,100
in
-o
QJ
20,400
33,300
41,400
O
a\
^^
ij-i
Thrust
tiO
D
U
o
a
)H
-a
tu
T-{
rH
rH
rH
-o
4-1
o
u
CO
o
rH
00
in
6910
6910
6910
6910
<r
<t
CN
rH
CM
rH
00
1132
1132
CN
Ml CO
rH
rH
-H
0.0057
Pi
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
cn
ex.
o
o
to
tn
a
o
u
0)
4H
x:
0.086
0.086
CN
CM
CO
CO
4-1
CD
CD
rH
rH
I4H
O
4-1
tn
d
o
Q,
3
O
O
t)0
H
q;
CO
4-1
O
Curvature
(in)
Radius
d
o
of
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
in
CN
12.9
12.9
H
24.0
CNJ
24.0
12.0
12.0
d
:=)
4J
en
QJ
68.
resulted.
to develop.
This
Howard (1971)
Howard conducted tests on uncorrugated,
supported by sandy clay compacted to 90% and 100% Std. AASHO density.
The diameters tested ranged from 18 to 30 inches, and the pipe
flexibility parameter
EI-
The steel
feet deep.
feet wide,
restraint to deflection.
soil surface.
machine.
installed
flush with the outside surface at the crown, invert and springlines.
69.
7.
In the
weaker soil (90% Std. AASHO density) deflections were generally large
under relatively small surcharge loads.
crimps after measured strain on the interior of the conduit wall exceeded
the yield strain.
Because of the
the number of observed inelastic crimps decreased and the load at which
With the denser backfill (100% Std. AASHO density) deflections were
reduced.
EI
> 4)
did the improved backfill prevent wall buckling before the capacity of the
buckling load.
However,
the conduit supported by the denser backfill is well above that of the
4-1
Xl
CO
4J
4-1
CO
to
4-1
rt
iH
CO
Ml
r-(
cn
0)
4-1
4-1
'J}
QJO
iH in
O
3
XI -H
(U
>
H
(U
rH
.H
tn
nj
C^J
4J
to
CO
CO
60
00
00
CO
CO
QJ
S
U
O
4J
60 00
d <r
H CN
(X
e XI
H
a.
H
P.
eo
rl
Vj
CO
^1
^
ro
tN
o
O
4J
CO
to
to
H
XI
01
HQ
IH
4-1
CO
H
CU
4-1
O
r-
r-j
rO XI
XI XI
^a
CN
cj
in
C\l
HO
XI
X)
CO
4-1
4J
4-1
,-t
4-1
CO
4-1
CO
t/1
CO
CO
cn
iH
CO
CO
iHO
CX)
QJ
Om
in .H
<r ro
coo
rH CN
QJ rH
d -H
m
-
CO
.HO
QJ
r--
00
iH
CsJ
r-\
f^
coo
rH <r
QJ CN
d .H
CO
QJ
00
rH
CN
c^
rHO
QJ
to
tn
OJ
to
,-^
r-t
o
3
r-\
rH
S
rH
XJ
to
in
,-t
to
in
rH
cn
43
CO
O d
CO
cn
uo
^ W
w
CJ^
cn
to
rH
Q)
rHO
r-t
wo
CO
.HO
tn
QJO
in
<M
o OJ
r-i
t-l
(J OJ
H rH
CO
QJO
in
OJ
Xl
CN
(0 .H
-H -H
tn
4-1
O
O
4-10
O 3
e CN
H CN
^1
43
cum
H
&,
r-J
60
HO
CO
Md
CO
4J
d
r-l
'
4-1
>
cno
to in
rH <T
00
c
i-H
C
o
rt
-H
4J
iH
-^
O
3
CQ
4J
0)
x:
60
QJ
MH
>
3
n
s
^^
^5
^-'
^
rH
CJ^
rH
0)
x:
OJ
4-1
3
M
ex
CO
OJ
nj
/-v
-H
in
CN
oo
4-1
v-i
<:
QJ
<r
00
-<r
00
tJN
to
x.-^
O
O
CO
CJN
>
O
KD
CO
o
o
o
O
rH
ffi
C/J
^
o
S-5
QJ
H -H
M
0}
QJ
V^
r-(
nl
4-1
C^
in
X3
^^
4J
CJ
M-l
P!i
r-i
o
tH
r-t
,-t
rH
cn
rH
r-f
rH
r^
O
o
O
o
,-H
rH
IN
r^
rH
O
o
00
CM
00
a^
4-1
'4H
X)
4-1
QJ
CO
4-1
CJ
to
.H
CO
-H
4J /-v
.H
iH
to
4-1
a,
B^
^-'
QJ
OC
o
rH
CN
rH
<r
rH
,-t
in
rH
B
r-{
r-t
:s
LH
QJ
>
.H
QJ
CO
cd
>,
rH
rH
4-1
0)
Mc
4-1
3
M
<:
QJ
PQ
-H
O,
D-"-'
>-l
in
CM
O
CO
O
<r
o
m
o
o
o
^
-J-
00
o
m
o
CO
o
o
r-i
(-1
QJ
>
O
^
'C3
CO
CO
^H
QJ
aJ
r1
>4
'-v
-H
>itn
a,
u-i
4-1
m
o
'
Mlro
O
O
O
CTn
0^
CO
ro
Q ^
CM
^^
o
o
o
^
Pi
'-*
.H
ro
00
r--
iH
iH
rH
^_^
-H
<^l
VO
CO
o
o
o
o
r.
CN
o-
CJ^
00
o
o
o
o
<r
-cr
<r
o-l
ro
<r
vD
CN
vD
v)
v^
<JN
o
o
o
#,
o
o
o^
o
o
o
o
o
o
a\
m
OJ
<r
m
OJ
^
CI
vO
cn
r.
#.
o
o
oA
o
o
o
r.
o>
<r
ro
r^
X)
in
r--
00
C^
CN
r^
00
a^
,-t
ro
t3\
CD
rH
rH
rH
a^
CJ^
CN
rH
o\
l>J
in
rH
CJ^
CO
o
CN
r~-
^D
<JN
r-\
~3-
^
^
OJ
iH
n.
^a
^^
in
iH
(>J
in
rH
^-^
o
o
o
iH
r-{
CN
rH
ON
71.
uniform.
buckling, the crown pressure was up to 40% less than the springline
pressure.
it was
noted that
the effects were not large enough to control behavior, but he suggested
that field tests were needed to correlate and refine empirical relation-
B.
Field Experiments
72.
was constructed.
The 20 gage,
(f
= 40 ksi)
FT
(~t = 0.7}
R
was instrumented with strain gages to measure both compressive and bending
(2
strain and a field protractor was used to measure the deflected shape.
A clay backfill with medium plasticity was compacted to 98% Std. AASHO
density.
The com.pacted soil unit weight around the culvert showed + 11%
After the
final fill height was achieved, a small outward buckle was observed in
the lower haunch.
(R
deflection of
A vertical
It was
soil at the haunch provided a zone of weak support which allowed local
buckling.
6x2
foot diameter,
FT
73.
Demmin (1966)
Demmin reported the behavior of a long-span pipe arch subjected to
live loads applied through 5.2 feet of soil cover (one-quarter of the
span).
FTI
{
3
1.5}.
gage,
6x2
side slopes, and backfill placed around the pipe consisted of a sandy
Instrumentation included
produced during placement and backfilling of the pipe combined with the
live load strains to give a net strain well within the elastic limit.
t\Fhen
the live
74.
load was increased to 850 tons, two inward bulges with amplitudes of
11.8 and 5.9 inches formed on either side of the crown near the location
of the maximum moments.
(4
in).
increased to 954 tons, the grillage was observed to settle and cause
pressure on the pipe arch and caused the steadily increasing vertical
deflection to stabilize at 2.7% of the span (6.6 in).
by Demmin that in the absence of spreading,
It was
(2)
believed
If
75.
Wu (1977)
Wu examined the performance of several culverts that were installed
without
modem compaction
control.
soil moduli was used to determine the level and uniformity of soil
Strain gages
were placed on the inside of the culverts and small coupons containing
the gages were carefully removed from the wall.
Limited measurements of
importance of residual stresses was made evident by the fact that their
76.
IV.
A.
(e.g.
Luscher's
experiments).
(3)
of
pressure is reduced.
B.
there remains a
77.
E+ \
1-1
+
u
m3
\
;
CO
t-i
i-
3
O
LU
a+
u
3
Cl
O
c
x:
en
CD
0)
'-
O
a>
c
tn
s+
UJ
'in
in
B+
CL
o
O
Ul
LlI
-1
tn
<o+
\
ew\
O
N
(/^
o
ct
CQ
UJ
Q
LJ
0}
Ji
o
o
/1/
/^
y'
X/
o/
q5
(/)
Q.
CO
:o
.
-
Ad
O
O
O
"
-1
_J
C/)
-1
to
CO
CD
x:
OD
T3
O
O
C7>
3 <
E
ir>
\\
02 LU
CC
1-
o
1
2 CO
o
o
^>
o>
<
"1
Q
oo
zo
oQ
Ll z
^^y
1 5 X
"5
to
(OlD
(/^
LU
q:
-^
a:
U)
0}
"'Q
v)e
z>
(/^
^^
0)
j^
w<;J
0}
(J)
3
q:
WQ
0^
CO
to
tn
\-j>V
\
*"-*
en
_J
\-J
_i
-i-J
<
'3
o
o
C5
UJ
78.
are examined below with a view towards identifying future studies most
with the soil support modulus are based on the results of experiments on
small tubes (e.g. Luscher, 1966; Allgood and Ciani, 1968).
soil modulus is very sensitive to the type of soil
As the
was there any attempt to measure the actual soil modulus in backfill
supporting large culverts, but the results are typical only of culverts
In
79.
conduit.
is not
Imperfections and
(2
x 1/2 and
2/3 x 1/2)
culvert behavior.
80.
11,
increase as the span decreased, until a limiting size was reached such
that the bucklijig load was no longer dependent on the gap, and local
Because the
the reduction
In
with special
In cases
tloat
Demmin
'
Although
81.
buckling load
y^ ^^ -^ X^ ^^
Xi^
>^ '^
steel
platen
wooden shims
culvert
to distribute
load
FIGURE
II
(after
LANE, 1965)
82.
FT
the pipe arch was very flexible (r^ = 1-5), the wall stiffness
R
was relatively large, and only small changes in the radius of
(EI)
before collapse.
Howard believed the crimps resulted from plastic hinging, but because
deflections before crimping occurred increased as the conduits
became less flexible, the writers believe that local inelastic
Analysis
not possible at this time, and more study is needed in this area.
In
83.
Performance Limits
in
identifying the
(2)
indicate incipient
collapse, and
(3)
Thus,
it
conduit may not be near collapse, its structural load capacity has
been impaired.
In the
limits.
84.
(/)
\~
cn
LU
(vi
CD
2
_l
^
o
3
CD
2
o
d
cn
h=)
-^
^^
Q
21
O
O
c
o
UJ
_I
o
00
tJ
<
<*-
c/>
(U
o Q
_l
u.
L_
<1>
>
Li_
O
(r
o
^
o
>
<
X
LJ
CD
Z
o
Jo
cvi
Ijj
_l
Ll
LU
o o
ro
CVJ
OOOOOOOOOOOO
"OOOONcoio^rOCVJ
(isd) ajnsssjdJaAo aoD^jng
Q
Q
<
O
(M
LiJ
o
0)
3
C
*
c
o
o
(jsd)
ejnssaJdjaAO aoDpng
a:
86.
ro
CVJ
c
c
o
o
O
o
(jsd) ajnssajdjaAQ
eoD^jng
UJ
on
Ll
-TH
Q
o
o
o
0)
C
8
CVJ
(!sd)
ajnssaJd uapjnqjaAQ
Ld
OH
S2
Ul
88.
performance considerably.
Thus, the
failure mode.
To
Alternately,
89.
SUMMARY
in
predicting
Inability to
conditions under which different failure modes are critical has been
other than steel, for cohesive backfills, and for longer spans,
Only better
studies that have been conducted on buried flexible conduits and has
A.
Wall Crushing
with the relatively low stiffness of the section, insures that bending
will
90.
then the conduit has supported its overburden load in the most efficient
manner.
Seam Failure
B.
feet in diameter.
4
However,
Although
seam slippage occurs at loads less than the seam capacity, structural
below those required to induce wall crushing could result in significantly more economic designs.
C.
Elastic Buckling
Elastic buckling, the development of an instability before yielding is initiated in the conduit section, can occur in high modes if the
91.
initiated as a local buckle in one (or a few) locations and may occur
at the crown,
residual stress.
in
controlled experi-
buckling.
realized economically.
Kloppel and Clock's elastic snap-through buckling theory indicates
that elliptical conduits are more susceptible to buckling than those
of circular shape.
92.
from experience with circular culverts may not be applicable to longspan arches (Stetkar, 1978).
show that elastic local buckling can be the first sign of distress in
flexible conduits with moderately good soil support and can occur
D.
Excessive Deflection
during construction.
cause soil support is low in the vicinity of the crown (due to shallow
cover)
can follow.
the state-of-the-art.
93.
De-
sufficiently large, flattening of the culvert, coupled with the development of plastic yielding at the springlines, can induce an inversion
of curvature involving a large fraction of the circumference in the
AASHO density:
E.
Plastic Hinging
Even if a
Consequently, bending
94.
It
has been shown experimentally that plastic yieldinj; may develop aTter
F.
Inelastic Buckling
uniform loading.
Thus,
it
Probably no other
G.
95.
can be studied.
The
long-span arches.
including that of
96.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A.
K.
University, respectively.
The writers benefitted from discussions with R.
S.
Standley,
They
97.
REFERENCES
1-13.
Almroth, B. 0. (1962), "Buckling of a Cylindrical Shell Subjected to NonUniform External Pressure", Journal of Applied Mechanics American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 675-682.
,
Soil",
98.
Vol.
39,
No.
2.
99.
Lee, L.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1968), "Some Problems in the Design of ShallowBuried Steel Structures", Proceedings of Canadian Structural
Engineering Conference, Toronto, 1968.
Meyerhof, G. G. and Baikie, L. D. (1963), "Strength of Steel Culverts
Bearing Against Compacted Sand Backfill", Highway Research Record
No.
30, pp.
1-14.
Third Edition,
100.
81-85.
T.
^ii-^'^
i^--^AM^
^'=i
"
^i'^-'iK'-