Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Received 05.09.2000
Abstract
The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the deflections and bending moments of buried High
density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes. The performance of buried HDPE pipes subjected to live loading was
studied in soil chambers for three levels of service loading. Strains and diametral changes were measured for
10,000 hours. The discussion of the experimental findings is focused on certain recent concerns, associated
with the HDPE piping related to deflection, longitudinal, and transverse stresses and bending moments. A
7.5% vertical change of diameter, which is the failure criterion, was observed at approximately 3,200 hours
for the specimens heated at 50 C, and subjected to maximum service loading.
293
REDDY, ATAOGLU
294
REDDY, ATAOGLU
10000
10
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 10000
Time (hours)
10000
10
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Time (hours)
10000
Vertical deflection (1/1000 in.)
1000
10
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
290000
295
REDDY, ATAOGLU
10000
Vertical deflection (1/1000 in.) 10000
II-40 UM PIPE 5
100 II-40 UM PIPE 6 II-50 UM PIPE 7
100 I-50 UM PIPE 6
10
10
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Time (hours) 16000 1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Time (hours)
Figure 9. Change in diameter of Pipes 5 and 6 Figure 10. Change in diameter of Pipes 7 and 8
Table 1. Moments for Pipes 23, Load Applied (M), 40 C, Table 2. Moments for Pipes 24, Load Applied (M), 40 C,
I,U I,U
Days M0 M0 M0
Days M0 M0 M0 (45) (135 ) (270 )
(45 ) (135) (270) 1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
6 7.03 196.24 122.3
6 0.292 228.44 131.7 9 8.561 289.39 226.5
9 1.843 321.58 138
16 9.683 387.2 177
16 3.011 419.15 141.1
19 11.13 498.78 208.3
19 4.48 530.61 151.3
24 12.33 623.01 261.4
24 5.71 654.59 159.7
27 12.75 681.63 294.8
27 6.151 713.21 193.4
39 13.66 874.92 334.1
39 7.14 906.01 234
41 14.26 997.56 373.6
41 7.758 1028.8 273.8
48 14.96 1049.8 423.7
48 8.499 1080.6 324.5
56 15.61 1194.4 456
56 9.207 1225 357.7
63 16.41 1249.1 533.9
63 10.06 1279.5 436.2
72 17.21 1262.5 608
72 10.91 1292.6 511.3
80 22.43 1305.4 652.6
80 16.19 1335.2 556.8
88 25.04 1327.5 687.9
88 18.84 1357.2 592.8
97 28.84 1444.4 717.9
97 22.71 1473.7 623.8
103 30.77 1483.6 758.2
103 24.68 1512.7 664.7 119 32.57 1536.4 827.2
119 26.58 1565 735.3
126 34.68 1552.9 869.4
126 28.74 1581.3 778.2 134 36.67 1627 923.8
134 30.79 1655.1 833.4
149 37.51 1714.8 985.5
149 31.72 1742.5 896.7 159 39.41 1801.2 1035
159 33.69 1828.5 946.8
185 40.72 1852.8 1059
185 35.18 1879.4 973.5
214 40.59 1792.6 1131
214 35.23 1818.3 1048
225 40.65 1880.8 1181
225 35.37 1906.2 1099
248 39.76 1851.8 1225
248 34.64 1876.4 1146
260 39.51 1900.5 1262
260 34.46 1924.7 1185
270 39.88 1933.1 1352
270 34.9 1956.9 1276
317 37.6 1842.5 1295
317 32.93 1864.9 1224
368 35.24 1736.1 1078
368 30.91 1756.8 1012
296
REDDY, ATAOGLU
10000
10000
1000
10
10
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
1 Time (hours)
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Figure 13. Change in diameter of Pipes 13 and 14
Time (hours)
Days M0 M0 M0
1000 (45 ) (135) (270)
1 0.00 0.00 0.00
I-40 NM PIPE 11
6 1.26 226.51 54.68
100 I-40 UM PIPE 12
9 2.75 334.87 176.00
16 3.87 448.56 119.10
10 19 5.28 578.29 155.75
24 6.45 722.70 217.88
1 27 6.88 790.89 257.00
1 10 100 1000 10000 12000 100000
Time (hours)
39 7.82 1015.56 303.76
41 8.41 1158.28 349.90
Figure 12. Change in diameter of Pipes 11 and 12 48 9.11 1218.86 408.78
56 9.79 1387.02 446.99
63 10.60 1450.64 538.09
Table 3. Moments for Pipe 8, Load Applied (M) , 50 C, 72 11.41 1466.18 625.03
I,U 80 16.48 1516.06 677.66
Days M0 M0 M0 88 19.03 1541.90 719.26
(45 ) (135) (270) 97 22.73 1677.69 754.96
1 0.00 0 0 103 24.62 1723.27 802.31
3 0.56 242.59 56.604 119 26.44 1784.75 884.05
5 1.41 457.32 107.61 126 28.50 1803.91 933.63
13 1.79 629.86 186.82 134 30.47 1890.09 997.59
28 6.75 880.74 315.49 149 31.36 1992.19 1070.55
38 9.74 1014.9 442.43 159 33.24 2092.61 1128.52
45 11.53 1188.6 620.15 185 34.64 2152.76 1158.69
56 18.68 1354.0 651.47 214 34.67 2082.83 1244.98
79 26.59 1683.2 649.62 225 34.79 2185.35 1303.86
87 33.58 1922.3 729.39 248 34.06 2151.73 1357.61
91 38.03 2197.2 824.73 260 33.88 2208.33 1402.00
101 41.13 2246.5 840.19 270 34.29 2246.20 1507.09
124 42.65 2343.3 874.76 317 32.35 2140.87 1446.01
148 43.95 2368.3 1016.7 368 30.36 2017.35 1197.36
188 46.73 2347.7 1058.1
297
REDDY, ATAOGLU
10000 10000
Vertical deflection (1/1000 in.)
10 10
1 1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Time (hours) Time (hours)
298
REDDY, ATAOGLU
1 1
1 10
10 100
100 1000
1000 10000
10000 100000
100000 Conclusions
Time (hours) 14000
The discussion of the experimental findings is fo-
Figure 18. Change in diameter of Pipes 23 and 24 cused on the HDPE piping related to deflections,
stresses, and bending moments. H-20 truck load-
ing was used to determine the maximum allowable
10000
loading of the specimens. The actual loading of most
of the vehicles is less severe than that for the H-20
Vertical deflection (1/1000 in.)
299
REDDY, ATAOGLU
Days M0 M0 M0
(45) (135 ) (270 )
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Table 8. Comparison of the Arrhenius and the Bi-
3 0.21 81.47 50.14 directional Methods
5 1.02 193.90 131.35
Type Arrhenius Bi-directional
13 1.40 260.63 245.12 (years) (years)
28 6.18 327.04 409.57 I-NM 32.6 31.9
38 9.05 521.92 521.92 I-UM 81.5 91.3
45 10.77 632.34 735.98 I-U1/3 1,141 1,712
56 17.66 871.71 744.00 II-NM 25.4 28.5
79 25.28 1098.75 755.21 II-UM 76.1 78.7
87 32.00 1329.41 840.76 II-U1/3 1,130 1,027.4
91 36.28 1438.18 944.48
101 39.26 1769.50 1111.25
Acknowledgements
148 40.74 1948.81 1193.99
162 41.99 2175.80 1316.22 The authors would like to thank the Florida Depart-
188 44.68 2152.70 1307.00 ment of Transportation (Contract Monitor: Mr. R.
For HDPE piping, the yield stress should not ex- G. Powers, Material Division) for financial support.
ceed 20.68 MPa (3000 psi). Test results indicated Thanks are also due to Dr. S.E. Dunn, Professor
that the maximum stress is at the shoulder, and is and former Chairman, Department of Ocean Engi-
much less than the CPPA limit (Reddy et al., 2001). neering, and Dr. J.S. Jurewicz, Dean of Engineering,
The CPPA limit (3000 psi), which is based on Florida Atlantic University, for their support and en-
yielding due to the bending, is not reasonable for couragement.
References
Ataoglu, S., and Reddy, D.V., Boundary Element NF, 237-238, 2001.
Analysis of Buried Pipe-Soil Interaction, Proceed-
ings of the 14th International Conference on Bound- Goddard, J.B., Research Problem Statement for
ary Element Technology, (eds. Kassab, A., & Breb- TRB Committee A2C06 on Culverts and Hydraulic
bia, C. A.), Witpress, Orlando, FL, 195-205, 2001. Structures, 1995.
Ataoglu, S., and Reddy, D.V., Boundary Element Reddy, D.V., Gazagnaire, C., Ataoglu, S., and Pow-
Analysis of Pipe-Soil Interaction, 18th Canadian ers, R., Analysis of HDPE Pipe-Compacted Soil
Congress of Applied Mechanics, (eds. Swamidas, A., Interaction, Proceedings of the 33rd International
Haddara, M.R., and Seshadri, R.), MUN, St. Johns, SAMPE Conference, Seattle, WA, 494-505, 2001.
300