See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273549506

Design, Analysis, and Full-Scale Testing of the Rolled Groove Gasket Joint
System in AWWA C303 Bar-Wrapped, Steel-Cylinder Concrete Pressure Pipe

Article  in  Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice · August 2013

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000133

CITATIONS READS

4 374

7 authors, including:

Mohammad Najafi Guillermo Ramirez

University of Texas at Arlington ABS Consulting
157 PUBLICATIONS   396 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shah Rahman Abhay Jain

Southern Methodist University Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology
45 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Corrosion induced failures View project

Reliability-based design of deep foundation systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shah Rahman on 20 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design, Analysis, and Full-Scale Testing of the Rolled
Groove Gasket Joint System in AWWA C303 Bar-Wrapped,
Steel-Cylinder Concrete Pressure Pipe
Mohammad Najafi, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE 1; Guillermo Ramirez, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 2;
Richard Mielke, P.E., M.ASCE 3; Brent Keil, P.E., M.ASCE 4; Glenn Davidenko, P.E., M.ASCE 5;
Shah Rahman, M.ASCE 6; and Abhay Jain, S.M.ASCE 7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents full-scale testing results of a 1,370-mm (54-in.) nominal diameter prototype rolled groove joint incorporated
into a bar-wrapped concrete pressure pipe manufactured to American Water Works Association (AWWA) standard C303 specifications. The
acceptance criteria for the prototype were no leakage or deformation at 1 MPa (150 psi) working pressure and 1.6 MPa (225 psi) transient
pressure. The joint was also required to be watertight at 2 MPa (300 psi), which represented a factor of safety of 2 over working pressure.
A 25.4-mm (1-in.) pull was used in the full-scale test to reflect the worst case scenario of an angularly deflected joint in the field to assess its
ability to tolerate unsymmetrical fit. The test pipe was loaded in excess of its circumferential elastic limit, without any visible leakage at the
joint. The three-dimensional (3D) nonlinear numerical simulation of the pipe joint was created by using software, resulting in acceptable
comparisons with the experimental data. Data collection instrumentation included strain gauges, cable displacement transducers, and acoustic
emissions (AE) technology. Joint design included an optimal stab depth for the spigot and appropriate rod-wrap termination design in both the
bell and spigot to provide sufficient stiffness. The strain in the internal and external cement mortar layers remained below the ultimate strain of
0.2% up to 1.7 MPa (250 psi). A steel cylinder with complete-penetration helical butt welded seams, which will allow a groove to be roll-
formed on the cylinder, with a minimum cylinder thickness of 3.4 mm (10 GA=0.135 in:), are noted as minimum requirements for the joint.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000133. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Full-scale tests; Concrete pipes; Pressure pipes; Joints.

Introduction
Spirally welded steel pipes and steel-cylinder-type concrete pres-
sure pipes are two of the most widely used materials in the design
and construction of large-diameter water transmission pipelines in
1
Principal Investigator, Director, Center for Underground Infrastructure
Research and Education (CUIRE), Assistant Professor, Univ. of Texas at
Arlington, Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019. E-mail: najafi@uta.edu
2 sure pipe, specifically an AWWA C301 prestressed concrete cylin-
Principal Investigator, Managing Engineer, Exponent Failure Analysis
Associates, 10850 Richmond Ave., Ste. 175, Houston, TX 77042;
previously, Assistant Professor, Univ. of Texas, Arlington, TX 76019.
E-mail: gramirez@exponent.com
3 out the country; there were at least two large manufacturers in
Director of Engineering, Northwest Pipe Company, 5721 SE Columbia
Way, Suite 200, Vancouver, WA 98661. E-mail: rmielke@nwpipe.com
4
Corporate Chief Engineer, Northwest Pipe Company, 5721 SE
Columbia Way, Suite 200, Vancouver, WA 98661. E-mail: bkeil@nwpipe
.com
5
Multisite Engineering Manager, Northwest Pipe Company, 351
Longhorn Rd., Saginaw, TX 76179. E-mail: gdavidenko@nwpipe.com
6 AWWA C200 (AWWA 2012) is the standard to which steel
Central Regional Engineer, Northwest Pipe Company, 351 Longhorn
Rd., Saginaw, TX 76179. E-mail: srahman@nwpipe.com
7
Program Manager, Center for Underground Infrastructure Research
and Education (CUIRE), Faculty Research Associate, Univ. of Texas,
Box 19308, Arlington, TX 76019 (corresponding author). E-mail:
jain@uta.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 27, 2012; approved on
November 2, 2012; published online on November 5, 2012. Discussion
period open until January 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Pipeline Systems
Engineering and Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, August 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN
1949-1190/2013/3-156-169/$25.00.
the United States. Although the former has been in use for more
than 150 years, with the first recorded installation of steel water
pipe taking place in 1858, composite concrete pressure pipes,
which make use of the tensile strength (prestressed or pretensioned)
of steel and the compressive strength of concrete, were introduced
out of necessity primarily during WWII because of steel shortages.
Use of noncylinder reinforced concrete pipes [American Water
Works Association (AWWA) C302] began in the 1920s and was
widely accepted by the 1930s. The first cylinder-type concrete pres-
der pipe, was installed in 1942 (AWWA 2007a). At the height of
its popularity in the 1970s, there were six major manufacturers of
PCCP in the United States, with at least 22 plants scattered through-
Canada also. Today, there are three PCCP manufacturers in the
United States, with a total of six plants. Two of the three PCCP
manufacturers also make steel pipes. Four major steel pipe manu-
facturers meet demand through 11 steel pipe plants in the United
States today (Rahman et al. 2012).
water pipe is manufactured; design is performed per AWWA M11
(AWWA 2004b). Diameters range from 150 mm (6 in.) through
4,000 mm (156 in.) and larger, whereas internal pressures can be
in excess of 3.1 MPa (450 psi). Cylinder-type concrete pressure
pipes are manufactured to AWWA C300 (AWWA 2004a), C301
(AWWA 2007a), and C303 (AWWA 2008a), and are designed per
AWWA M9 (AWWA 2008b) and C304 (AWWA 2007b). The C303
bar-wrapped concrete pressure pipe most closely resembles C200
steel pipe in design and manufacture. Unlike other buried concrete
pressure pipes, C303 is designed as a flexible conduit, a very

156 / JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.

 fundamental and important similarity to C200 steel pipe. The C303
diameters range from 250 mm (10 in.)–1,830 mm (72 in.) and can
be designed for internal pressures of up to 2.8 MPa (400 psi).
Arnaout (2005) discusses a number of similarities and differen-
ces between C303 bar-wrapped concrete pressure pipe and cement-
mortar lined-and-coated (CML/C) C200 steel pipe and concludes
that although there are some differences between the two types
they are indeed quite similar. Similarities include design theory and
methods (Mielke 2004), manufacture processes, pipe stiffness, and
corrosion protection offered by the CML/C. Manufacture of bar-
wrapped concrete pressure pipe and CML/C steel pipe is discussed
by Arnaout (2000, 2005) and Najafi et al. (2011). The performance
of gasket-joints of both pipe materials is expected to be the same.
Beieler and Rahman (2010) report that the allowable makeup water
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in both concrete pressure pipe and gasketed steel water pipes is
1 L=mm-dia:=km=day (10 gal=in-dia=mile=day). Although both
C303 and C200 allow the use of Carnegie-type gasket joints,
a key difference between the two standards is that the C303 does
not accommodate the Rolled Groove-type gasket joint, an integral
elastomeric sealing system that is commonly used in steel pipes.
The purpose of this research was to demonstrate that an appropri-
ately designed rolled groove joint can be incorporated into C303
bar-wrapped concrete pressure pipe while meeting all design,
manufacture and operational requirements.
Scope of Research
The principal investigators first developed then analyzed a finite-
element model (FEM) of the proposed rolled groove jointing sys-
tem, S303, for bar-wrapped concrete pipe. This was followed by
design optimization through refinement of the FEM. Finally, a
full-scale prototype joint was manufactured, instrumented, pressur-
ized, and monitored to provide repeatable and verifiable water
tightness test results, to demonstrate that the rolled-groove joint
can be utilized effectively in C303 bar-wrapped pipe.
State of the Art of Joint Technology
Bar-Wrapped Pipe Joints
Romer and Kienow (2004) discuss the state of the art in rubber
gasketed concrete pressure and gravity pipe. Various joint configu-
rations of concrete pressure pipes are shown in Chapter 2 of the M9
concrete pressure pipe design manual (AWWA 2008b). Cylinder-
type concrete pressure pipe joints, including that of C303 bar-
wrapped pipe, are of the Carnegie-type, which consists of a spigot
joint ring and a bell joint ring that are fillet-welded to the ends
of steel cylinders (Fig. 1). The hot-rolled Carnegie spigot shape is
named after Andrew Carnegie, founder of U.S. Steel Corporation,
which prepared the first dies for making spigot rings for Interpace
Corporation (Bardakjian 2004). After patents on the Carnegie joints
Fig. 1. (a) Cross section of AWWA C303 bar-wrapped pipe carnegie joint; (b) joint completion cross section
JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013 / 157
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.
expired in the late 1950s, other steel mills adopted similar shaped
spigots, and the name became a generic identifier. Manufacture
of Carnegie spigot rings consists of several steps (Kelemen et al.
2011): (1) acquisition of 6-m (20-ft.) long strips of preformed
Carnegie-shaped steel material formed by hot-rolling; (2) butt-
welding of the Carnegie strips to form appropriate cut lengths,
then cold-rolling into necessary diameters; (3) welding together
of the ends of the rolled strips to form a ring that is slightly smaller
than the necessary diameter; (4) expansion on a sizing die to ap-
propriately size the Carnegie rings; (5) fillet-welding of the spigot
joint ring to one end of a cylinder, and (6) checking for quality of
welds using nondestructive tests. For the bell joint ring, a similar
process is followed until it is fillet welded to the bell-end of a
pipe cylinder. Lengths of C303 bar-wrapped pipe range from
7.3 m (24 ft.)–12 m (40 ft.) and can vary based on a manufacturer’s
capability.
Romer and Kienow (2004) note that the Carnegie joints appear
to perform best with C303 bar-wrapped pipe, owing to its limited
flexibility, which allows some deformation of the bell to accommo-
date limited out-of-roundness of the matching spigot. In rigid con-
crete pressure pipes, the greater restraint requires that the bell and
spigot be both truly round and centered on the longitudinal axis
of the pipe. They also provide a detailed discussion on why spigot
joint rings are particularly vulnerable to cracking in embedded-
cylinder type PCCP at the pipe interior because of the significant
stiffness differential at that point. They call for high-pressure ap-
plication alternatives to the Carnegie joint and alternatives to modi-
fying these joints for thrust restraint. Joint innovations in concrete
pressure pipes have included the double-Carnegie joint (Bardakjian
2004, Kienow 1998), but Romer and Kienow (2004) also provide
instances of where the double-Carnegie joints have not performed
as intended.
In areas of thrust and fittings, thicker cylinders and or double
welded joint rings are typically provided with C303 bar-wrapped
pipe to handle additional longitudinal stresses. Restrained joint
systems include inside diameter (ID) full fillet welds of trimmed
Carnegie spigots, outside diameter (OD) fillet welds utilizing filler
bars and skip welds, or harnessed joints, in accordance with
Chapter 9 in AWWA M9 (2008b). Fabricated fittings are welded
into pipe sections or shipped separately.
Steel Pipe Joints
Although nonrestrained gasket-joint steel pipes are used more
frequently than restrained lap-welded joint pipes (also referred to
as welded-slip joints) in water transmission applications, research-
ers and practitioners have given disproportionate coverage to the
latter. Literature is replete with studies conducted on welded-joint
steel pipes: Bambei and Dechant (2009) and Watkins et al. (2006)
discuss the evolution and use of lap-welded steel pipe joints, Smith
(2006) addresses joint efficiencies of welded steel pipe joints, and
Mason et al. (2010a, b) study the performance of welded joints
 under compression and direct tension. Call and Sundberg (2007)
derive a basis for the use of single and double lap-welded steel pipe;
Luka and Ruchti (2008) also establish the use of double and single
lap-welded joints by accounting for various longitudinal stresses;
Greunen (2008) addresses seismic design of welded-joint steel
pipes. Tsetseni and Karamanos (2007) conclude that the effect of
the weld type (external and/or internal) has small influence on the
axial capacity of lap-welded pipeline joints.
Various configurations of gasketed joints for steel pipes are
shown in Chapter 8 of AWWA M11 (2004b), including both the
rolled groove and Carnegie-type. Fig. 2 shows a cross section of
the rolled groove gasket joint used in steel pipes.
Kelemen et al. (2011) discuss the design basis, manufacture and
quality control of rolled groove joints and also provide a chrono-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
logical account of its evolution and long history of use in steel
water pipes. The rolled groove joint is a fully integral system where
the groove for a rubber O-ring is formed on the spigot end of a pipe
by roll-forming, whereas the bell-end is formed by swedging. The
Carnegie joint for steel pipes, Fig. 3(a), is manufactured the same
way as discussed previously for concrete pressure pipes, whereas
the modified Carnegie joint for steel pipes, Fig. 3(b), uses a
swedged bell instead of a bell joint ring. Rolled groove joints are
typically placed in steel pipe in diameters of up to 2,000 mm
(78 in.) and working pressure in excess of 1.7 MPa (250 psi), with
a maximum allowable transient pressure of 2.6 MPa (375 psi). It is
more economical to manufacture the rolled groove joint for a
steel pipe than the Carnegie joint. The integral gasket groove and
swedged bell also eliminates the need for welding and maintains
cylinder cross section throughout the steel cylinder.
Fig. 2. (Color) Installed rolled groove gasket joint used in steel pipe
Fig. 3. (Color) (a) Carnegie joint; (b) modified carnegie joint with
swedged bell
158 / JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.
The effect of cold rolling of steel has been investigated. In the oil
and gas industry, pipes formed by U-ing or O-ing processes have
been shown to have no impact to the function or design of the pipe
(Shoemaker 1984; Maxey and Eiber 1988). Keil (2010) showed
that the physical/mechanical properties of steel do not change in
any significant way during the formation of bells and rolled
grooves for gasket joints in spirally welded C200 steel pipe. Keil
also showed that the factors of safety applied to steel water pipe
design are not reduced by the manufacture process, and therefore,
there is no need to limit design hoop stress for unrestrained rolled
groove gasket joints.
Relation of Cylinder Fabrication to Rolled Groove
Arnaout (2005) notes that both bar-wrapped pipes and steel pipes
are generally manufactured by using the same fabrication equip-
ment, i.e., spiral weld machines. However, although the AWWA
C200 steel pipe standard permits only complete-penetration butt-
joint welding of the spiral seams of the steel cylinder, AWWA C303
allows both an offset lap weld (also known as joggle welds in the
industry language) and complete-penetration butt-joint welding.
Figs. 4(a and b) detail a complete-penetration helical butt weld
and an offset lap weld as shown in ASME Code Section VIII Figure
UW 13.1 (i) (2010), respectively.
AWWA C303 permits the use of 1.5 mm (16 GA=0.0598 in:)–
2.7 mm (12 GA=0.105 in:) thick steel for pipe diameters of 250 mm
(10 in.)–1,200 mm (48 in.), 3.4 mm (10 GA=0.135 in:) steel thick-
ness for pipe diameters of 1,295 mm (51 in.)–1,675 mm (66 in.),
and 4.2 mm (8 GA=0.164 in:) thick steel for pipe diameters of
1,750 mm (69 in.)–1,830 mm (72 in.). In the art of steel cylinder
manufacture, it is very difficult to helically join steel coil less than
3.4 mm (10 GA=0.135 in:) thickness by complete-penetration butt-
welding, Fig. 4(a), without damaging the steel coil itself. Steel coils
thinner than 3.4 mm (10 GA=0.135 in:) are typically joined using
offset lap-welding, Fig. 4(b).
The two thicknesses of metal at the helical seams when cylin-
ders are made with offset lap welds prevent the roll-forming of
rolled grooves, unless one thickness of metal is removed. This is
one reason why Carnegie joint rings are the only joint option for an
offset lap welded cylinder.
Joint Design
Fig. 5 illustrates the geometry of the roll-grooved spigot and
swedged bell prototype S303 joint. The nominal cylinder thickness,
B, was 3.4 mm (10 GA=0.135 in:).
The steel coil used was produced to ASTM A1011 (2010),
structural grade steel, with actual yield strength of 299 MPa
(43.3 ksi). Fig. 6 shows the actual stress-strain data obtained from
testing of the steel coil. Per AWWA C303, allowable stress in cyl-
inder at working and transient pressures were 124 MPa (18 ksi) and
186 MPa (27 ksi), respectively.
In Fig. 5, the cement mortar lining thickness, A, and the mortar
coating thickness, C, met AWWA C303 requirements. The 28.6-mm
(1.125-in.) coating was a minimum of 19 mm (0.75 in.) higher than
the 9.5 mm (0.375 in.) bar wrap rod diameter, meeting AWWA
C303. The spigot was inserted a distance D into the bell, the opti-
mal stab depth, determined through FEM. The cement mortar on
the inside of the bell and the outside of the spigot, was held back
a distance E. The cement mortar and bar wrap on the exterior of
the spigot was held back to accommodate fit-up with the bell. This
resulted in a profile where only the interior lining and the steel from
the cylinder were present in the immediate area of the joint seal
 Fig. 4. (a) Helical butt weld; (b) helical offset lap weld (ASME 2010, with permission from ASME)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Geometry of S303 prototype joint

Stress-Strain Curve of Steel Utilized mortar used for the lining had a 28-day minimum compressive
50
strength of 31 MPa (4.5 ksi). The cement mortar coating absorption
40
was also measured. Both met the AWWA 303 standard.
Stress σ, (ksi)

30
20
10
0 contact interactions, and levels of deformation, pipe joints can only
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004
Strain ε, (in/in)
Fig. 6. Actual stress-strain curve of steel coil
with the bell. The rod wrap termination detail, at both the bell
and spigot ends, was determined through FEM to give additional
stiffness to the pipe ends. This additional stiffening effect was
reflected in both the FEM and the actual test results. A critical
area of study in the joint was on the spigot between the pressure
hump, F, and the termination of the rod reinforcement, G, a distance
of H, as shown in Fig. 5. Table 1 outlines all critical parameters
of the S303 prototype and presents comparisons to the AWWA
C303 standard.
AWWA C303 specifies that the area of bar reinforcement shall
not be greater than 60% of the total area of circumferential rein-
forcement. Consequently, industry-wide practice is to manufacture
bar wrap pipe with a cylinder: bar-wrap steel area ratio of 40∶60.
In the design of the S303 prototype joint, a cylinder: bar-wrap steel
area ratio of 60∶40 was utilized. This resulted in a robust pipe and
provided enough cylinder wall thickness to butt-weld the spiral cyl-
inder seams and consequently, to roll-form a groove. The cement
Numerical Simulation and Results
Finite-Element Modeling
Given the level of complexity in the material models, geometries,
be thoroughly analyzed with the aid of high-end nonlinear FEA
software packages (Dittel and Quesada 2008). A three-dimensional
(3D) nonlinear finite-element model (FEM) of the pipe joint
between the spigot and bell was created by using the ABAQUS/
CAE Version 6.9-1 (ABAQUS 2009) software. The FEM em-
ployed a nonlinear incremental solution algorithm, the modified
Newton-Raphson method, and was capable of simulating material,
geometric, and contact nonlinearities. An iterative process to ap-
proach one root of a function under specified conditions was widely
used in the model, which generated a complete picture of stress
conditions around the joint, in particular, for the metal section of
the spigot at that location. Several different element types and mesh
sizes were used because of the geometric shapes of the pipe com-
ponents. These elements were 8-noded 3D linear continuum stress/
displacement reduced-integration brick elements (C3D8R) and six-
noded 3D linear triangular continuum stress/displacement prism
elements (C3D6). Because of the slenderness of the pipe compo-
nents, the smallest applicable mesh sizes were selected, and analy-
sis was performed to include geometric and contact nonlinearities.
Results from the strain measurements during full-scale experi-
mentation validated the parameters, such as material properties
and constitutive model chosen in the numerical model. The model
accounted for the main components of the bar-wrap pipe: (1) steel

JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013 / 159

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.

 Table 1. Comparison of S303 Prototype with AWWA C303
Parameter S303 Prototype As-Designed AWWA C303
Joint type Rolled groove Carnegie-type with weld-on bell-ring and spigot-ring
Nominal diameter 1,370 mm (54 in.) 250 mm (10 in.) up to 1,830 mm (72 in.)
Steel coil type ASTM A1011/1011M SS ASTM A659/A659M,or ASTM A1011/A1011M SS, or ASTM A1011/
1011M CS, type B, or ASTM A1018/A1018M SS, or ASTM A1018/
A1018M CS, grades 1012 through 1020
Cylinder thickness 3.4 mm (10 GA=0.135 in:) Depending on diameter of pipe, cylinder thickness varies from 1.5 mm
(#16 GA or 0.060 in.) to 4.2 mm (#8 GA or 0.164 in.)
Cylinder: Bar-wrap steel area ratio 60∶40 Area of bar reinforcement cannot be greater than 60% of the total area of
circumferential reinforcement; all Manufacturers currently use a cylinder:
bar-wrap ratio of 40∶60 ratio
Steel cylinder minimum yield strength 290 MPa (42 ksi) Minimum 207 MPa (30 ksi)
Actual yield strength of prototype steel 299 MPa (43.3 ksi) Not Applicable
cylinder
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Allowable design stress in steel cylinder 124 MPa (18 ksi) Not to exceed 124 MPa (18 ksi) nor 50% of the min. yield strength of the
at working pressure cylinder steel, whichever is less.
Allowable design stress in steel cylinder 186 MPa (27 ksi) Not to exceed 186 MPa (27 ksi) nor 75% of the min. yield strength of the
at surge pressure cylinder steel, whichever is less.
Bar-wrap diameter 9.5 mm (0.375 in.) Not less than 5.6 mm (0.219 in.)
Area of bar reinforcement 1,900 mm2 =m (1.16 in:2 =ft) Not less than 487 mm2 =m (0.23 in:2 =ft
Bar spacing 29 mm (1.14 in.) center-to-center Center-to-center bar spacing shall not exceed 50 mm (2 in.)
Tension in bar-wrap Consistent w/ C303 Tensile stress of between 55 MPa and 69 MPa (8 ksi and 10 ksi)
CML thickness 20.4 mm (0.802 in.) 19 mm (0.750 in.) for 450 mm (18 in.) diameter and higher
CMC coating 28.6 mm (1.125 in.) 19 mm 19 mm (0.750 in.) over bar reinforcement, or 25 mm (1 in.) over cylinder,
(0.750 in.) over bar reinforcement whichever results in greater coating thickness
Steel cylinder welding type Complete-penetration butt-joint Allows complete-penetration butt-joint welds or offset lap welds; C303
welding pipe Manufacturers currently use offset lap welding for 3.4 mm
(10 GA=0.135 in:) and thinner cylinders as the standard

Fig. 7. (Color) FEM details for (a) bar-wrap in bell; (b) cement mortar and steel cylinder in bell; (c) bar-wrap in spigot; (d) cement mortar and steel
cylinder in spigot; (e) full joint structure; (f) full model

cylinder, (2) inner cement mortar lining, (3) outer cement mortar
coating, and (4) bar-wrap reinforcements. The circular steel stirrups
were used instead of the spiral bars, and they were embedded inside
the outer mortar lining. Flexibility of the rubber O-ring gasket was
not included because its use would have produced lower stresses in
the model and also lower confining stresses in an actual application.
Figs. 7(a–e) show FEM details for the bar-wrap in the bell [508 mm
(20 in.) length], cement mortar in the bell [508 mm (20 in.) length],
spiral bar wrap in the spigot [635 mm (25 in.) length], cement
mortar in the spigot [635 mm (25 in.) length], and the whole joint

160 / JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.

 structure [1,194 mm (47 in.) length], respectively. The full model is
shown in Fig. 7(f).
The interaction between the steel cylinder and cement mortar
lining and coating was tie constraint. A friction coefficient of 0.3
was chosen for surface-to-surface contact in the model. Displace-
ment in the longitudinal direction of the pipe and rotations with
respect to transverse and vertical axes of the pipe were constrained
by selecting an axisymmetric boundary condition on the edges of
the bell and spigot parts. This was done because of the high length
ratio where the total length of the pipe was 15.24 m (50 ft), whereas
the joint length in the FEM was 1,194 mm (47 in.). Steel and
cement mortar were the two distinct materials used in the FEM.
The model employed 42,000 psi yield strength for the steel. Elastic-
perfect-plastic constitutive model was chosen to simulate the non-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

linear behavior of steel. For the cement mortar material, the brittle
cracking model for concrete in ABAQUS was used. This feature
can best account for the behavior of cement mortar. Overall, the
FEM considered the materials’ inelastic behavior, structural non-
linearity, and interactions between faces.

FEA and Results

Although the model included the full body of the prototype,
Fig. 7(f), for clarity, results presented are only those of the joint
area. The Von Mises failure criterion was used to assess the con-
dition of the material in yielding because of the complex state of
stresses in the joint region of this system, resulting from the com-
plex edge geometry and the applied external stresses in the material.
Self-weighted dead load was considered during analysis because it
affected the results. Analysis did not account for the fluid structure
interaction, in leaking or seal failure; fluid pressure was modeled
as an applied area pressure on the interior wall of both the spigot
and bell sections. Hydrostatic pressure was applied from 0–2 MPa
(0–300 psi) in 50 psi increments. Results were presented at three
critical stages of the pressurization curve, as determined by the ex-
pected service pressure [1 MPa (150 psi)]; maximum allowed tran-
sient pressure [1.6 MPa (225 psi)] and first detected yield pressure
in the spigot body. This result was specific to the optimal stab-depth
of the spigot determined during the preliminary design work. The
general format of the Von Mises tensor is Eq. (1) (Sadd 2009):
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðσ1 − σ2 Þ2 þ ðσ2 − σ3 Þ2 þ ðσ1 − σ3 Þ2
σν ¼ ð1Þ
2

where σ1 , σ2 and σ3 = principal stresses acting in the location of

interest; and σν = equivalent Von Mises stress that is compared
against the yield strength of the materials evaluated. The most
common form of the Von Mises stress tensor for plane stresses
is the condition where the principal stress σ3 ¼ 0. The plane stress
form is commonly applied to pressure vessel walls when the wall is
thin in comparison to the other dimensions. Eq. (2) is the plane
stress form of the Von Mises tensor (Jirasek and Bazant 2002):

σ21 − σ1 σ2 þ σ22 ¼ σ2y ð2Þ

where in Eq. (2), σ1 and σ2 = principal stresses acting in the

location of interest; and σy = yield strength of the material obtained
from a uniaxial strength test.
Figs. 8(a–c) show Von Mises stress predictions at 1 MPa
(150 psi), 1.6 MPa (225 psi) and 2 MPa (300 psi) internal pres-
sures, respectively. Figs. 9(a–c) show the predicted radial growth
Fig. 8. (Color) Von Mises stress at (a) 1 MPa (150 psi); (b) 1.6 MPa
in the spigot at 1 MPa (150 psi), 1.6 MPa (225 psi), and 2 MPa
(225 psi); (c) 2 MPa (300 psi)
(300 psi) internal pressures, respectively. The results from the

JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013 / 161

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.

 analysis indicated that no yielding was predicted in the steel spigot
at any location at 1 MPa (150 psi). After 1 MPa (150 psi), it was
noted that at 1.6 MPa (225 psi), some high stress areas were pre-
dicted at the very end of the spigot between the edge of the metal
and the O-ring seal location. These high stress areas could reach
values of up to 250 MPa (36 ksi); however, these stress areas were
also outside of the seal area where the free edge of the spigot lies
and did not appear to propagate into the body of the spigot after the
seal. The model also artificially produced some of these stress areas
as the result of modeling conditions, such as application of pressure
on the inside of the spigot at that location and not accounting for the
benefit of equal and self-equilibrating fluid pressure in the metal
at that location. Because no considerable adverse effect to the
overall results developed from this modeling, it was not modified.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

At 2 MPa (300 psi) pressure, the model did not predict any yielding
in the body of the spigot; however, the stress levels were very close
to the yield limits for the material. Considering a tolerance for
the accuracy of the FE model, it was predicted that after 2 MPa
(300 psi), yielding of the 290 MPa (42 ksi) steel in the spigot metal
could result.

Full-Scale Testing

Full-scale testing was performed on a 1,370 mm (54 in.) nominal

diameter, 1 MPa (150 psi) pressure class pipe joint system, fabri-
cated as previously described. Both pipe pieces, bell-end and
spigot-end, were 7.6-m (25-ft) long each, bringing the total tested
prototype length to 15 m (50 ft). Although the FEM was for a
straight joint, a 25.4-mm (1-in.) pull was used in the full-scale test
to reflect the worst case scenario of an angularly deflected joint in
the field to assess its ability to tolerate asymmetrical fit. Fig. 10(a)
shows the test stand and hydrostatic tester loaded with the S303
prototype joint. Instrumentation to monitor performance of the
prototype joint during full-scale testing, Fig. 10(b), included resis-
tance bonded strain rosette gauges placed in the spigot to measure
internal deformation, cable displacement transducers placed on the
outside of the bell to track external deformation, and acoustic emis-
sion (AE) sensors placed externally to monitor signs of damage
progression during pressurization.

Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for the joint included no leakage or deformation
at 1 MPa (150 psi) working pressure and 1.6 MPa (225 psi) tran-
sient pressure. The joint was also required to be watertight to 2 MPa
(300 psi) internal pressure, which represented a factor of safety of 2
over working pressure.

Internal Strain Gauges

For measuring internal strains in the area of the spigot between the
pressure hump, F, and the termination of the rod reinforcement, G,
a distance of H, as shown in Fig. 11(a), resistance bonded strain
rosettes were appropriately placed. Four locations were selected in
the springline of the pipe: one at the very edge of the seal location,
two rosettes, each in opposite sides midway between seal and start
of external wrap, and one more rosette at the location of the overlap
in the spiral reinforcement part of the wrap opposite to the side
where the rosette at the end was placed. Locations for the internal
strain gauges were based on the results of a preliminary FEA cre-
ated to identify areas of high interest; the strains measured were
used in calibrating a final FEM of the joint area. The front gauge
Fig. 9. (Color) Maximum displacements in joint at (a) 1 MPa (150 psi);
is the location closest to the pressure hump and back is the closest
(b) 1.6 MPa (225 psi); (c) 2 MPa (300 psi)
to the rod-reinforcement termination. Left and right refer to the

162 / JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. (Color) (a) Test frame setup; (b) data collection instrumentation

Fig. 11. (Color) (a) Internal strain measurement rosettes locations; (b) installation of strain rosettes before and (c) after; (d) rosette placement and
designation

sides in the springline where the gauges were placed when directly The selected strain gauges were in the form of rectangular rosettes,
facing the joint of the spigot end. which are three resistance strain gauges in the same foil aligned
Figs. 11(b and c) shows before-and-after photos of the place- at 45° from each other, Fig. 11(d). The rosettes allowed for the
ment of strain gauges on the spigot cylinder of the prototype. determination of the principal strains in the selected areas without

JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013 / 163

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.

 concern for the initial alignment of the gauges to the longitudinal
axis of the pipe.
Cable Displacement Transducers
Overall external deformations were recorded by using cable dis-
placement transducers placed in three locations around the outside
of the bell, one on each spring-line of the pipe and one at the
top. Data from the cable transducers were not as accurate as those
from the strain gauge for the smaller deformations, but they gave a
reference for the movement of the pipe in the test frame and the
scale of the growth of the bell during the test. The O-ring rubber
gasket at the contact point between the bell and spigot would not
allow for a one-to-one correspondence between the radial expan-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sion of the bell and that of the spigot because some of the defor-
mation would be absorbed by the rubber gasket before the bell
reacting to the growth of the spigot, but the data was useful in
determining scale.
AE Sensors
Fowler (1979) and Gorman (1991) made early use of AE in various
applications. The AE sensors enable monitoring of damage pro-
gression during pressurization. As waves are generated by events
characterized with a sudden release of energy, such as leakage,
deformation of mortar, or delamination propagating along the
material thickness, is detected by the AE technology (ASTM
1982). Piezoelectric sensors were placed externally only in the
body of the spigot at two locations. The sensor locations were at
7 in. from the seal end of the spigot and 10 ft from the same location
and were selected so that their areas of influence would be able to
cover the complete body of the spigot. Micro deformations in con-
crete even at service condition or the most benign events associated
with the applications of stress to the material, would result in sig-
nals recorded by the AE system, but these would not necessarily
signify a critical or severe damage taking place. The data was evalu-
ated according to factors, such as measured strain, applied pressure,
and visual observations made during testing.
450
400
350
Applied Pressure (psi)
300
250
200
150 psi
150
100 psi
100
50
0
0 500
164 / JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013
Data Collection
Internal strain data from the gauges and external deformations from
the cable transducers were collected by the same system, the 5000
StrainSmart Data Acquisition software for stress analysis testing
from Intertechnology, Inc. and Vishay Instruments, connected to
a laptop computer using a PCMCIA card. The rate of acquisition
for the strain gauges was of 5 points=s or 5 Hz. Displacement data
was simultaneously collected by using the same acquisition rate
from the cable transducers attached to the outside of the bell joint
end. Data reduction was performed by converting the data files to a
comma separated value file and performing all calculations by us-
ing a spreadsheet. All plots were generated by the same spreadsheet
program. The AE data were collected by using a Physical Acoustics
Corp. microDiSP system with a PC card connection to a laptop
computer. Standard features of AE signals, such as amplitude of
signals, duration, and cumulative energy, were recorded and were
analyzed for energy content and digital pattern signatures. Because
the strain data were acquired in combination with the AE data, the
loading curve was adjusted to allow for analysis of the AE data. The
only modification from a typical monotonic loading curve was a
series of load holds of 2 minutes at every target pressure and a
single unloading step after 1.7 MPa (250 psi) down to 0.7 MPa
(100 psi) with a subsequent re-pressurization to system capacity.
The loading curve obtained during the test is shown in Fig. 12.
Data Comparison
To compare results of the strain measurements with those obtained
in the FEA, it was necessary to convert the data points from each
of the strain gauges in the rosette into the principal strains at the
application location. Typical conversion formulas for data from 45°
rosettes, where the locations of gauges a, b, and c are shown in
Fig. 11(d), are given in Eqs. (3) and (4):
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 1
ε1 ¼ · ðεa þ εc Þ þ · ðεa − εc Þ2 þ ð2 · εb − εa − εc Þ2 ð3Þ
2 2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 1
ε2 ¼ · ðεa þ εc Þ − · ðεa − εc Þ2 þ ð2 · εb − εa − εc Þ2 ð4Þ
2 2
Pressure Curve for Test
430 psi (Maximum Pressure)
400 psi
350 psi
300 psi
250 psi
250 psi
225 psi
225 psi
200 psi 200 psi
150 psi
100 psi
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time (seconds)
Fig. 12. (Color) Pressure loading curve
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.
 In the testing, location b was aligned with the axial direction of Figs. 13(a and b) show bell displacement versus load and bell
the pipe body. From here, stresses were calculated by using Eqs. (5) displacement versus time, respectively. This is the deformation
and (6) and the Von Mises strains by using Eq. 2. σ1 and σ2 in measured at either side of the spring line of the bell in the joint
Eqs. (5) and (6) are the principal stresses described previously: location at the stab depth, D (Fig. 8), from the very edge of the
pipe. Some small deformations were recorded in the bell during
E
σ1 ¼ · ðε1 þ ν · ε2 Þ ð5Þ the first cycle to 1.7 MPa (250 psi). During this first cycle, the side
1 − ν2 deformation recorded was less than 1.5 mm (0.06 in.). At the un-
loading cycle, the specimen moved as a rigid body inside the
E pressurization frame, as can be seen in the phase change of the
σ2 ¼ · ðε2 þ ν · ε1 Þ ð6Þ
1 − ν2 displacement on the left side that changed to positive, indicating
the specimen moved at the joint location to the right, Fig. 13(b).
Additionally, some specimen movement was recorded in the ver-
Test Results and Data Analysis tical direction upwards. This was expected because of the size of
the specimen and that it was free to grow and move during the test.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The maximum pressure recorded in the test was 3 MPa (437 psi).
At this pressure, the pump had reached its limit; testing was termi-
nated. Severe localized bulges were seen, and there was spalling
of portions of the exterior cement mortar coating. However, no
leakage of the joint was visually observed.
The change in slope recorded in the deformation plots after 2 MPa
(300 psi) corresponded to local bulging in the exposed steel of the
spigot body that was confirmed visually during the test.
Figs. 14 and 15 show the Von Mises stresses calculated from
the data by using the method discussed previously for the entire

Fig. 13. (Color) (a) Bell displacement versus load; (b) bell displacement versus time

JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013 / 165

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.

 200 450
180
400
160
350
140
Applied Pressure (psi)

300

Applied Pressure (psi)

120
250
100
200
80
150
60

40 100

Front Left 50 Back Left

20 Front Right Back Right
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
(a) Von Mises Stress (ksi) (a) Von Mises Stress (ksi)

250
250

200
200

Applied Pressure (psi)

150
Applied Pressure (psi)

150
Yield Point of Material

100 100

Yield Point of Material

50 50
Front Left
Front Right Back Left
Back Right
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(b) Von Mises Stress (ksi) (b) Von Mises Stress (ksi)

Fig. 14. (Color) Von Mises stresses in (a) front location full test; Fig. 15. (Color) Von Mises stresses in (a) back location full test;
(b) first cycle to 1.7 MPa (250 psi) (b) first cycle to 1.7 MPa (250 psi)

test and for the first cycle to 1.7 MPa (250 psi) for clarity.
Wherever appropriate, a line indicating the actual yield stress of
the steel used, 299 MPa (43.3 ksi), was added for reference. Left
and right refer to the locations, as described in Fig. 11(a). The plots
are also grouped in front and back to indicate the gauge location
per Fig. 11(a). Stress calculations from the strains for the full test
and for the portion of the test up to the first 1.7 MPa (250 psi) of
pressure before the first pressure drop, as described previously,
are shown.
Figs. 16(a and b) is the calculated Von Mises stresses against
time divided for the front and back of the spigot. The applied pres-
sure is superimposed in the plot to relate to the loading cycle in time
in the same plot, allowing the presentation of both values in the
same plot. The vertical scale on the left, (i.e., Von Mises stress)
is in kips per square in. for the stresses, and the vertical scale
on the right is in psi for the applied pressure. Sudden increases
in the Von Mises stresses are the result of corresponding spikes
in the strain gauge data. For easy reference, these spikes have been
numbered as 1 and 2 in Fig. 16(b) to refer to their order of appear-
ance with respect to the time. The use of time base plots allows for
comparison with the AE data recorded during the test. The use of
the AE allows the evaluation of these milestones and to determine if
they are the likely result of an actual change in the steel as the result
of the applied load or the result of an electrical spike in the data
acquisition system at the time of the test.
Key traditional AE features, calculated from the data recorded
during the test is shown in Figs. 17(a and b). In Fig. 17(a), the bot-
tom scale of the AE data is in time (s), whereas the vertical scale has
been normalized to provide for easy comparison. Fig. 17(b) shows
the historic index (HI) of the signals recorded.
The HI is a measure of the amount of energy increase from the
AE signals as they are recorded during a test and is widely used as
a determinant of how critical recorded AE signals are in the indi-
cation of severe damage produced by applied loading. The more
abrupt the change in the plot, the higher the significance of the sig-
nal strength measured during a test. This is because this approach
estimates the change in slope of the cumulative signal strength and
plots it against time. The standard interpretation of this plot is that
the higher the energy, the more significant the damage generated.
The vertical scale of the first plot has also been normalized for easy
interpretation. The higher number indicates that more energy was
used. The location of the sensors were both in the spigot side in
the top surface of the bar-wrap. From the HI plot, some significant
damage was generated during the unloading procedure, likely the
result of the recovery of the deformation generated in the joint
during the first loading. However, significant damage was not

166 / JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.

 AE Signal Strength of Deflected Joint

Comparative Scale for Signal Strength and Applied Pressure (psi)

200 420 500
Left Side Front
180 Right Side Back
360
Von Mises Stress Intensities (ksi)

Applied 400 Applied

160 Pressure Pressure

Applied Pressure (psi)

140 300
120 300
240
100
80 180 200

60 120
40 100
60
20
0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Test Time (seconds) (a) Test Time (seconds)

Historic Index
200 450 3.00E+05
Left Side
Von Mises Stress Intensities (ksi)

180 405 Front Sensor

Right Side Back Sensor
160 Applied 360 2.50E+05
Pressure
140 315

Applied Pressure (psi)

Historic Index Values

120 270 2.00E+05
100 225
80 180 1.50E+05

60 135
40 90 1.00E+05

20 45
0 0 5.00E+04
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
(b) Test Time (seconds)
1.00E+00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Fig. 16. (Color) Von Mises stresses versus time at (a) front; (b) at back
(b) Test Time (seconds)

Fig. 17. (Color) Von Mises stresses versus time at (a) front; (b) at back

generated until the pressure was higher than 2 MPa (300 psi),
or after the 53.33 min mark of the test. The sensor placed in the
back of the spigot showed that severe damage was generated after
2 MPa (300 psi) of pressure as well. Table 2. Visual Observations beyond 1.7 MPa (250 psi) Pressure Loading
The AE data did not show any indication of leakage during the Pressure level Visual observations
test. Most of the signals recorded at the initial stages of the test were
of low amplitude, which typically indicates damage in the cement 1.7 MPa (250 psi) First horizontal crack of the cement mortar coating of
1.5 mm (0.06 in.) observed on the pipe cylinder at 7 ft
mortar layers where micro cracks coalesce as part of the typical from the joint.
process associates with the application of load to cement mortar. 2 MPa (300 psi) Horizontal crack of cement mortar coating of 0.8 mm
Damage of this type at low levels of stress is typical in cement- (0.03 in.) observed at 2.4 m (8 ft.) from support; crack
mortar elements and poses no immediate consequence to the per- in mortar coating expanded to 1.5 mm (0.06 in.)
formance of the pipe. Visual observations made during the testing 2.4 MPa (350 psi) Crack started developing at the joint
at various pressures starting from 1.7 MPa (250 psi) until termina- 2.8 MPa (400 psi) Horizontal crack on the pipe cylinder expanded to
tion are given in Table 2. 2.5 mm (0.1 in.), and cement mortar coating started
failing at the support
3 MPa (437 psi) Testing was terminated caused by equipment
limitations
Discussion of Results

Capacity of Joint to Withstand Leakage

The maximum pressure attained in the testing of the proto-type Table 3. Maximum Tensile Strains under Applied Loads
jointing system was 4 MPa (437 psi). Bulging at the location of Applied load [MPa (psi)]
strain gauges began at 2.4 MPa (350 psi), or 3,700 s (61 minutes,
40 s) into the test. Up to the maximum pressure of 4 MPa (437 psi), Strain gauge Maximum 1 MPa 1.2 MPa 1.6 MPa 2 MPa
location strain (×10−6 ) (150 psi) (180 psi) (225 psi) (300 psi)
the performance of the seal was not compromised, and AE sensors
did not detect any leaks. Spigot deformation was clearly visible at Left front ε 700 800 1,200 3,800
4 MPa (437 psi). Left back ε 1,000 1,200 1,700 5,500
Table 3 shows recorded strains and corresponding Von Mises Right front ε 1,500 1,500 1,900 Out of range
Right back ε 1,050 1,400 1,875 Out of range
stresses. At 1 MPa (150 psi), there was no yielding of the steel at

JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013 / 167

J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.

 either the front or the back locations of the spigot. The FEM had
predicted Von Mises stress of 250 MPa (36 ksi) at 1 MPa (150 psi)
internal pressure. Experimental test results showed that stress mea-
sured at the front of the spigot was 270 MPa (39 ksi) on one side
and 207 MPa (30 ksi) on the opposite side. Although both values
were less than the minimum yield stress of the steel of 299 MPa
(43.3 ksi), it is likely that the asymmetry created by the deflected
joint configuration under which the testing was performed resulted
in a shift of stresses. One side was favored over the other, resulting
in stresses higher than that predicted by the FEM.
For the back side of the spigot, as defined in Fig. 11(a), a com-
bination of factors during the testing had an influence in the mea-
sured results from the test when compared to the FEM predictions.
The deflected geometry acted in conjunction with the measured
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
thickness of 3.4 mm (0.135 in.) of the material as tested and a slight
oversize in the diameter of the spigot of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) in com-
parison with the inside diameter of the bell, resulting in the discrep-
ancy in the FEA and test results. Localized Von Mises stresses,
resulting from the combination of the bending effects caused by
the overfit and the applied pressure are shown in Figs. 16(a and b).
No noticeable deformation was recorded until test pressures ex-
ceeded 2 MPa (300 psi). The AE data did not indicate any leakage
at these pressures.
Strain Performance of Lining and Coating
During the test, strain gauges were attached to the inner side of
the steel shell. Although this is a complex situation, it was assumed
that there was intimate contact between the steel shell and internal
cement mortar lining and steel shell and external cement coating.
Cement mortar lining and coating can be expected to take similar
deformations with steel shell. During the first loading process, up to
1.7 MPa (250 psi), the calculated strain values in the spigot area
did not reach the ultimate strain value of the cement mortar lining
and coating, considered to be 0.2% (Burgoyne 1993). These strain
values indicate that the cement mortar lining and coating showed
no significant cracks below 1.7 MPa (250 psi). In the case of im-
perfect bonding and occurrence of slippage, it can be expected that
the strain values of the cement mortar lining and coating will be less
than 0.2%.
AE Evaluation
Although the intention of the AE sensors was to provide support
during the testing, the preliminary evaluation of the data recorded
showed that the higher energy events were recorded after the proto-
type exceeded 1.7 MPa (250 psi) of pressure, and the more con-
sistent high energy events took place after 2 MPa (300 psi). A few
high energy hits were recorded in the first loading cycle, but they
were more likely caused by the deflected conditions, and it resulted
in some rubbing in the joint area as the pipe moved during the
test. The higher energy hits took place at pressures above 1.7 MPa
(250 psi) in the second pressure cycle. This would be expected
because the bulging was not noticed until pressure exceeded
2 MPa (300 psi).
Conclusion
This study was undertaken to demonstrate that an appropriately de-
signed rolled groove joint could be incorporated into AWWA C303
bar-wrapped concrete pressure pipe. Research consisted of 3D non-
linear FE modeling and analysis and design optimization to arrive
at a viable joint with an optimal stab depth and appropriate rod-
wrap termination design in both the bell and spigot to provide
168 / JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.
sufficient stiffness. A full-scale testing of the prototype S303 rolled
groove joint for bar-wrapped pipe was undertaken. The joint
performed successfully at the acceptance criteria levels of no leak-
age or deformation at 1 MPa (150 psi) working pressure, 1.6 MPa
(225 psi) transient pressure, and watertight joint at 2 MPa (300 psi),
representing a factor of safety of 2 over design pressure. At test
termination of 3 MPa (437 psi), joint leakage was not visually seen
nor detected through acoustic emission, despite noticeable defor-
mation initiating in the body of the pipe beyond 2 MPa (300 psi).
A 25.4-mm (1-in.) pull was used in the full-scale test to reflect the
worst case scenario of an angularly deflected joint in the field to
assess its ability to tolerate asymmetrical fit; again, this did not
compromise the joint’s performance. By using a cylinder: bar-wrap
steel area ratio of 60∶40, instead of the industry standard of 40∶60
ratio, resulted in a robust piping system. The strain in the internal
and external cement mortar remained below ultimate strain of
0.2% up to 1.7 MPa (250 psi). To manufacture AWWA C303 bar-
wrapped concrete pressure pipe with rolled groove joint, the steel
cylinder must have complete-penetration helical butt welded
seams, which will allow a groove to be roll-formed on the cylinder.
To stay in line with current state-of-the-art steel cylinder manufac-
turing, it is recommended that a minimum steel cylinder thick-
ness of 3.4 mm (10=0.135 in:) be used for complete-penetration
butt welding.
Acknowledgments
The principal investigators would like to acknowledge the work
performed by graduate students at the University of Texas at
Arlington; Mrs. Yeonho Park and Sanputt “Pat” Siamasthien, who
provided invaluable assistance during the experimental phases
and finite-element analysis; and Mr. David (Zhen) Zheng, Faculty
Research Associate, in helping in final report. The financial assis-
tance, technical expertise, and supervision provided by Northwest
Pipe Company are acknowledged.
References
ABAQUS. (2009). ABAQUS Theory Manual, ABAQUS, Inc., Providence,
RI.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2004a). “Reinforced con-
crete pressure pipe, steel cylinder type.” AWWA C300-04, Denver, CO.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2004b). “Steel water pipe:
A guide for design and installation (M11).” AWWA-M11, Denver, CO.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2007a). “Prestressed con-
crete pressure pipe, steel-cylinder type.” AWWA C301-07, Denver, CO.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2007b). “Design of
prestressed-concrete cylinder pipe.” AWWA C304-07, Denver, CO.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2008a). “Concrete pressure
pipe, bar-wrapped, steel-cylinder type.” AWWA C303-08, Denver, CO.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2008b). “Concrete pressure
pipe (M9).” AWWA-M9, Denver, CO.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2012). “Steel water pipe-6
in. (150 mm) and larger.” AWWA C200-12, Denver, CO.
Arnaout, S. (2000). “Design and installation of concrete bar-wrapped
cylinder pipe (AWWA C303—Type Pipe).” ASCE environmental and
pipeline engineering 2000, R. Surammpalli, ed., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Arnaout, S. (2005). “A comparison between bar-wrapped concrete cylinder
pipe and mortar lined and mortar coated steel pipe.” ASCE pipelines
2005: Optimizing pipeline design, operations, and maintenance in
today’s economy, C. Vipulanandan and R. Ortega, eds., ASCE, Reston,
VA.
ASME. (2010). Boiler and pressure vessel code, Section VIII, Division 1,
rules for construction of pressure vessels, New York.
 ASTM. (1982). “Standard definitions of terms relating to acoustic
emission.” E610—82, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2010). “Standard specification for steel, sheet and strip, hot-rolled,
carbon, structural, high-strength low-alloy, high-strength low-alloy with
improved formability, and ultra-high strength.” A1011/A1011M – 10,
West Conshohocken, PA.
Bambei, J. H., and Dechant, D. (2009). “Welded steel pipe joints—An
evolution.” ASCE pipelines 2009: Infrastructure’s hidden assets,
J. Galleher and M. Kenny, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Bardakjian, H. (2004). “A high pressure bar-wrapped concrete cylinder
pipeline with double-gasketed steel joints.” ASCE pipelines 2004: Pipe-
line engineering and construction: What’s on the horizon?, J. Galleher
and M. Stift, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Beieler, R., and Rahman, S. (2010). “Pipe joint integrity: Cementitious and
metallic pressure pipes.” ASCE pipelines 2010: Climbing new peaks to
infrastructure reliability, T. Roode and G. Ruchti, eds., ASCE, Reston,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 07/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
VA.
Burgoyne, C. J. (1993). “Should FRP tendons be bonded to concrete?”
Non-metallic reinforcement and prestressing, American Concrete Insti-
tute (ACI) Special Publication, ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, 367–380.
Call, J., and Sundberg, C. (2007). “A basis for using single-welded or
double-welded lap-joints for steel water pipe.” ASCE pipelines 2007:
Advances & experiences with trenchless pipeline projects, L. Osborn
and M. Najafi, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Dittel, C., and Quesada, G. (2008). “Modern techniques for integral pipe
joint design.” ASCE pipelines 2008: Pipeline asset management—
Maximizing performance of our pipeline infrastructure, S. Gokhale
and S. Rahman, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Fowler, T. J. (1979). “Acoustic emission of fiber reinforced plastics.”
J. Tech. Councils ASCE, 105(2), 281–289.
Gorman, M. R. (1991). “Plate wave acoustic emission.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
90(1), 358–364.
Greunen, J. V. (2008). “Seismic design of bell-and-spigot joints for
large diameter steel pipe.” ASCE pipelines 2008: Pipeline asset
management—Maximizing performance of our pipeline infrastructure,
S. Gokhale and S. Rahman, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Jirasek, M., and Bazant, Z. P. (2002). Inealstic analysis of structures, Wiley,
West Sussex, UK.
Keil, B. (2010). “Mechanical property changes in steel during the pipe
making process.” ASCE pipelines 2010: Climbing new peaks to infra-
structure reliability, T. Roode and G. Ruchti, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Kelemen, N., Keil, B., Mielke, R., Davidenko, G., and Gardner, J. (2011).
“Performance of gasket joints in steel pressure pipes.” ASCE pipelines
2011: A sound conduit for sharing solutions, D. Jeong and D. Pecha,
eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Kienow, K. (1998). “Pipe joint failure caused by an inadequately specified
constructed environment.” ASCE pipelines 1998: Pipelines in the
JOURNAL OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PRACTICE © ASCE / AUGUST 2013 / 169
View publication stats J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2013.4:156-169.
constructed environment, J. Castronovo and J. Clark, eds., ASCE,
Reston, VA.
Luka, J., and Ruchti, G. (2008). “Axial joint design for welded buried steel
pipe.” ASCE pipelines 2008: Pipeline asset management—Maximizing
performance of our pipeline infrastructure, S. Gokhale and S. Rahman,
eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Mason, J., O’Rourke, T., Jones, S., and Tutuncu, I. (2010a). “Compression
performance of steel pipeline with welded slip joints.” J. Pipeline Syst.
Eng. Pract., 1(1), 2–10.
Mason, J., O’Rourke, T., and Jung, J. (2010b). “Direct tension performance
of steel pipelines with welded slip joints.” J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract.,
1(4), 133–140.
Maxey, W. A., and Eiber, R. J. (1988). A study of the yield/tensile ratio and
its effect on line pipe behavior, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus,
OH.
Mielke, R. (2004). “A guide for the design of water transmission pipelines.”
ASCE pipelines 2004: Pipeline engineering and construction – What’s
on the horizon?, J. Galleher and M. Stift, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Najafi, M., Mielke, R., Ramirez, G., Keil, B., Davidenko, G., and
Rahman, S. (2011). “Analysis and Testing of a Prototype Jointing
System for Bar-wrapped, Steel Cylinder Concrete Pressure Pipe.” ASCE
Pipelines 2011: A Sound Conduit for Sharing Solutions, D. Jeong and
D. Pecha, eds., American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Rahman, S., Smith, G., Mielke, R., and Keil, B. (2012). “Rehabilitation of
Large Diameter PCCP: Relining and Sliplining with Steel Pipe.” ASCE
Pipelines 2012: Innovations in Design, Construction, Operations, and
Maintenance—Doing More with Less, R. Card and M. Kenny, eds.,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Romer, A., and Kienow, K. (2004). “Rubber gasket concrete pipe
gaskets : : : Eliminating the smoke and mirrors.” ASCE pipelines 2004:
Pipeline engineering and construction—What’s on the horizon?,
J. Galleher and M. Stift, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Sadd, M. H. (2009). Elasticity: Theory, application, and numerics,
Academic Press, Oxford, UK.
Shoemaker, A. K. (1984). “The effect of plate stress-strain behavior and
pipemaking variables on the yield strength of large-diameter DSAW
line pipe.” J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 106(2), 119–126.
Smith, G. (2006). “Steel water pipe joint testing.” ASCE pipelines 2006:
Service to the owner, A. Atalah and A. Tremblay, eds., ASCE, Reston,
VA.
Tsetseni, S., and Karamanos, S. (2007). “Axial compression capacity of
welded-slip pipeline joints.” J. Transp. Eng., 133(5), 335–340.
Watkins, R., Card, R., and Williams, N. (2006). “An investigation into
the history and use of welded lap joints for steel water pipe.” ASCE
pipelines 2006: Pipelines—Service to the owner, A. Trembley, ed.,
ASCE, Reston, VA.