AWWAMANUAL

Chapter

6
External Loads

LOAD DETERMINATION _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Extemalloads on buried pipe are generally comprised of the weight of the backfill combined with live and impact loads. The Marston theory (1929) is generally used to determine the loads imposed on buried pipe by the soil surrounding it . This theory is applicable to both flexible and rigid pipes installed in a variety of conditions, including ditch and projecting conduit installations. Ditch conduits are structures installed and completely buried in narrow ditches in relatively passive or undisturbed soil. Projecting conduits are structures installed in shallow bedding with the top of the conduit projecting above the surface of the natural ground and then covered with the embankment. For purposes of calculating the extemal vertical loads on projecting conduits, the field conditions affecting the loads are conveniently grouped into four subclassifications. They are based on the magnitude of settlement of the interior prism of soil relative to that of the exterior prismt and the height of the embankment in relation to the height at which settlements of the interior and exterior prisms of soil are equal (Spangler 194 7). Steel pipe is considered to be flexible, and the Marston theory provides a simple procedure for calculating extemal soil loads on flexible pipe. If the flexible pipe is buried in a ditch less than two times the width of the pipe, the load is computed as follows:

(6-1)
Wher e:

We = dead load on the conduit , in lbllin ft (kg/m) of pipe Cd = load coefficient based on He!Bd where He is the h eight of fill above conduit, and Bd is defined below. w = unit weigh t of fill, in lb/ft3 (kg/m 3 ) Bd = width of trench at top of pipe in ft (m) Be = diameter of pipe in ft (m)
"'TI-le backfill prism directly above the pipe. tTI"le bacldill prism between the trench walls and vertical lines drawn at the OD of the pipe.

59
Copyright 2004 American Water Worhs Association, All Rights Reserued.

r
I

60

STEEL PIPE

If the pipe is buried in an embankment or wide trench, the load is computed as follows: (6-2) Where:

Cc

= coefficient for embankment conditions, a function of soil properties.

For flexible pipe, the settlement ratio (Spangler 1947) is assumed to be zero, in which case

(6-3)

Where:

He
Then:

= height of fill above top of pipe in ft (m)

(6-4) The dead load calculation in Eq 6-4 is the weight of a prism of soil with a width equal to that of the pipe and a height equal to the depth of fill over the pipe. This prism load is convenient to calculate and is usually used for all installation conditions for both trench and embankment conditions. For use in the Iowa deflection formula, divide Eq 6-4 by 12 for US Customary units and by 1,000 for metric units. In addition to supporting dead loads created by earth cover, buried pipelines can also be exposed to superimposed, concentrated, or distributed live loads. Concentrated live loads are generally caused by truck-wheel loads and railway-car loads. Distributed live loads are caused by surcharges, such as piles of material and temporary structures. The effect oflive loads on a pipeline depends on the depth of cover over the pipe. A method for determining the live load using modified Boussinesq equations is presented by Handy (1982).

DEFLECTION DETERMINATION _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
The Iowa deflection formula was first proposed by M.G. Spangler (1941). It was later modified by Watkins and Spangler (1958) and has frequently been rearranged. In one of its most common forms, deflection is calculated as follows:
A _

uX -

1(

KWr 3

) 3

(6-5)

EI + 0.061 E'r

Where:
tlx

= horizontal deflection of pipe, in in. (mm)

Dt

=deflection lag factor (1.0-1.5)

"'Deflection lag factor, D,, accounts for long-term deflection as a result of consolidation or settlement of backfill material at the sides of the pipe. For pressure pipe, D1 is 1.0, because long-term deflections are largely prevented by the supporting action of the internal hydrostatic pressure.

Copyright 2004 American Water Worl1s Association, All Rights Reserued.

EXTERNAL LOADS

61

K =bedding constant (0.1)

W = load per unit of pipe length, in lbllin in.

r = radius, in in. (mm)

EI =pipe wall stiffness Where:

E = modulus of elasticity (30,000,000 psi [206,842,710 kPa] for steel and 4,000,000 psi [27,579,028 kPa] for cement mortar) I= transverse moment of inertia per unit length of individual pipe wall components* = t 3/12, where t is in in. (mm) E' =modulus of soil reaction in lbf/in 2 (kPa) (Tables 6-1 and 6-2).

Allowable pipe deflection for various lining and coating systems that are oft en accepted are Mortar-lined and coated= 2 percent of pipe diametert Mortar-lined and flexible coated= 3 percent of pipe diameter Flexible lined and coated= 5 percent of pipe diameter In addition to other considerations, the allowable pipe deflection is also dependent on the type of jointing system being utilized. Live-load effect, added to dead load when applicable, is generally based on AASHTO HS-20 truck loads or Cooper E-80 railroad loads as indicated in Table 6-3., These values are given in pounds per square foot and include a 50 percent impact factor. There is no live-load effect for HS-20 loads when the earth cover exceeds 8 ft (2.44 m) or for E -80 loads when the earth cover exceeds 30ft (9.14 m). Modulus of soil reaction E' is a measure of stiffness of the embedment material, which surrounds the pipe. This modulus is required for the calculation of deflection and critical buckling stress. E' is actually a hybrid modulus that has been introduced to eliminate the spring constant used in the original Iowa formula. It is the product of the modulus of passive resistance of the soil used in Spangler's early derivation and the radius of the pipe. It is not a pure material property. Values of E' were originally determined by measuring deflections of actual installations of metal pipe and then back-calculating the effective soil reaction. Because E' is not a material property, it cannot be uniquely measured from a soil sample, therefore determining E' values for a given soil has historically presented a serious problem for designers.

"'Under load, the individual elements-i.e., mortar lining, steel shell, and mortar coating-work together as laminated rings (E8l 8 + E1h + Eclc-shell, lining, and coating.) Structurally, the combined action of these elements increases the moment of inertia of the pipe section, above that of the shell alone, thus increasing its ability to resist loads. The pipe wall stiffness of these individual elements is additive. tMortar-lined and coated (AWWA C205) pipe deflection is based on a maximum mortar coating thickness of Il/4 in. (32 mm). Flexible pipe coatings include AWWA C209, C210, C213, C214, C215, and C222. Flexible pipe linings and coatings include AWWA C210, C213, C222, C224, and C225.

Copyright 2004 American Water Worhs Association, All Rights Reserved.

62

STEEL PIPE

Table 6-1 Values* of modulus of soil reaction, ' (psi) based on depth of cover, type of soil, and relative compaction
Standard AASHTO relative compaction* Depth of Cover Type of Soilt Fine-grained soils with less than 25% sand content (CL, ML, CL-ML) Coarse-grained soils with fines (SM, SC)
85%

90% ~
psi
700 1,000 1,200 1,300

95%

100%

ft

(m)

psi
500 600 700 800 600 900 1,000 1,100 700 1,000 1,050 1,100

(kPa)
(3,450) (4,140) (4,830) (5,520) (4,140) (6,205) (6,895) (7,585) (4,830) (6,895) (7,240) (7,585)

(kPa)
(4,830) (6,895) (8,275) (8,965)

psi

(kPa)

psi
1,500 2,000 2,300 2,600 1,900 2,700 3,200 3,700 2,500 3,300 3,600 3,800

(kPa)
(10,340) (13,790) (15,860) (17,930) (13,100) (18,615) (22,065) (25,510) (17,235) (22,750) (24,820) (26,200)

2-5 (0.06-1.5) 5-10 (1.5-3.1) 10-15 (3.1-4.6) 15-20 (4.6-6.1) 2-5 (0.06-1.5) 5-10 (1.5-3.1) 10-15 (3.1-4.6) 15-20 (4.6-6.1)

1,000 (6,895) 1,400 (9,655) 1,600 (11,030) 1,800 (12,410) 1,200 (8,275) 1,800 (12,410) 2,100 (14,480) 2,400 (16,545) 1,600 2,200 2,400 2,500 (11,030) (15,170) (16,545) (17,235)

1,000 (6,895) 1,400 (9,655) 1,500 (10,340) 1,600 (11,030) 1,000 (6,895) 1,500 (10,340) 1,600 (11,030) 1,700 (11,720)

Coarse-grained soils 2-5 (0.06-1.5) with little or no fines 5-10 (1.5-3.1) (SP, SM, GP, GW) 10-15 (3.1-4.6) 15-20 (4.6-6.1)

* Hartley, James D. and Duncan, James M., "E' and its Variation with Depth." Journal ofTransportation, Division of ASCE, Sept. 1987.
t Soil type symbols are from the Unified Classifica tion System. * Soil compaction. When specifying the amount of compaction required, it is very important to consider the degree of soil compaction that is economically obtainable in the field for a particular installation. The density and supporting strength of the native soil should be taken into account. The densification of the backfill envelope must include th e haunches under the pipe to control both the horizontal and vertical pipe deflections. Specifying an unobtainable soil compaction value can result in inadequate support and injurious deflection. Therefore, a conservative assumption of the supporting capability of a soil is recommended, and good field inspection should be provided to verify tha t design assumptions arc met.

Table 6-2
Symbol GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL MH CH OL OH Pt

Unified soil classification

Description Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sand, silty or clayey fine sands Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, clastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat and other highly organic soils

Source: Clnssificntion of Soils for Engineering Purposes. ASTM Stnndnrd 02487-69, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa. (1969).

Copyright 200t/ American Water Worlis Association, All Rights Reserved.

EXTERNAL LOADS

63

Table 6-3

Live-load effect
Highway HS-20 Loading* Railroad E-80 Loading Height of Cover
(kg 1m 2 )

Height of Cover

Load
psf

Load
psf
(kg 1m 2 )

ft
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(m)

ft
2 5 8 10 12 15 20 30

(m)

(0.30) (0.61) (0.91) (1.22) (1.52) (1.83) (2.13) (2.44)

1,800 800 600 400 250 200 176 100

(8,788) (3,906) (2,929) (1,953) (1,221) (976) (859) (488)

(0.61) (1.52) (2.44) (3.05) (3.66) (4.57) (6.10) (9.14)

3,800 2,400 1,600 1,100 800 600 300 100

(18,553) (11,718) (7,812) (5,371) (3,906) (2,929) (1,465) (488)

"' Neglect live load when less than 100 psf; use dead load only.

To circumvent the problems inherent in working with the hybrid modulus E', the constrained soil modulus Ms (Krizek et al. 1971) has been used more frequently. The constrained modulus is a constitutive material property, which is measured as the slope of the secant of the stress-strain diagram obtained from a confined compression test of soil. It may also be calculated from Young's modulus Es, and Poisson's ratio u of the soil by
M
s

E 5 (1-u) (1+u)(1 - 2u)

(6-6)

The soil modulus can be determined from common consolidation tests, triaxial laboratory tests, or from field plate-bearing tests of the actual soil in which the pipe will be embedded. Because Ms is taken as the secant modulus, it accounts in part for nonlinearities in stress-strain response of soil around the pipe. Determination of Ms is based on the actual load applied to a pipe. Decreasing the load results in a decreased value for M 5 Many researchers have studied the relationship between E' and Ms, with recommendations varying widely (E'= 0.7 to 1.5 M 5 ). This is understandable, because Ms is a "pure" soil property, whereas E' is empirical. It appears justified to assume the two to be the same, E'= Ms.

BUCKLING
Pipe embedded in soil may collapse or buckle from elastic instability resulting from loads and deformations. The summation of external loads should be equal to or less than the allowable buckling pressure. The allowable buckling pressure Qa may be determined by the following:
qa

1 )( , ,EJ)l/2 = ( FS 32RwB E D3

(6-7)

Copyright 2004 American Water Works Association, All Rights Reserued.

64

STEEL PIPE

Where:
qa =allowable buckling pressure*, in psi (kPa) FS = 2.0 D = diameter of pipe, in in. (mm) Rw = water buoyancy factor = 1- 0.33(hwlh), 0 :s; hw :s; h h w = height of water surface above top of pipe, in in. (mm) h = height of ground surface above top of pipe, in in. (mm) B' = empirical coefficient of elastic support (dimensionless) 1 = ----,..,..--:::1 + 4 e(-0.065H)

Equivalent metric equation:

1

1 + 4 e(-0.213H)

Where:
H = height of fill above pipe, in ft (m) E' = modulus of soil reaction (see Table 6-1) EI = pipe wall stiffness (see Eq 6-5)

Normal Pipe Installations

For determination of external loads in normal pipe installations, u se the following equation: (6-8) Where:
h w = height of water above conduit in in. (mm) Yw = specific weight of water = 0.0361 lb/cu in. (0.0098 kPalmm 3) Pu =internal vacuum pressure in psi (kPa) =atmospheric pressure less absolute pressure inside pipe, in psi (kPa) We = vertical soil load on pipe per unit length, in lb/in. (kPalmm)

In some sit uations, live loads should be considered as well. However, simultaneous application oflive-load and internal-vacuum transients need not normally be considered. Therefore, iflive loads are also considered, the buckling requirement is satisfied by (6-9) Where:
WL =live load on th e pipe per unit length, in lb/in. (kPa/mm )

"'NOTE: Where internal vacu urn occurs with cover depth less than 4 ft. (1.2 m), but not less than 2ft (0.6 m), cure should be exercised. This is particularly important for large-diameter pipe. In no case shall cover depth be less than 2 ft (0.6 m) for pipe diameters less than 24 in. (600 mm), 3 ft. (0.9 m) for pipe diameters 24 in. (600 mm) through 96 in. (2,400 mm), und 4 ft. (1.2 m) for pipe over 96 in. (2,400 mm) in diameter.

Copyril{ht <D 2004 American Water Worl1s Association, All Rights Reserued.

EXTERNAL LOADS

65

EXTREME EXTERNAL LOADING CONDITIONS

An occasional need to calculate extreme external loading conditions arises-for exam-

ple, to determine off-highway loading from heavy construction equipment. A convenient method of solution for such load determination using modified Boussinesq equations (Table 6-4) is presented by Handy (1982). As an example: Assume: Live load from a large loader: Total weight= 127,000 lb (57,660 kg) Weight on one set of dual wheels, P = 42,300 lb (19,200 kg) Tire pattern is 44 in. x 24 in. (1,118 mm x 610 mm) Calculation: Using Figure 6-1 as reference :* Tire pattern : 44 24 - x12 12

= 3.66 x 2.0

= 7.33 sq ft (for dual wheels)

2 1 118 x ...!Q_ = 0.682 m ) ( 1,000 1,000

Surface pressure: 42 300 = 5 768 psf 7.33 '

(1 9200 k~ = 28,152 kg/m 2)

0.682 m
If height of cover His 2.0 ft, then
A =

3 66 2

= 183 .

= 220 = 1.0

(A= 1.;18 =0.559 m)

m

(B

= 0 -~10 = 0.305 m)
B =H = 0.5

A =H = 0.915

n
(n

(m

559 = 00.61 = 0.916)

= 0.305 = 0.5)
0.61

Coefficient from Table 6-4 = 0.1 17

P =0.117(4)(5,768) = 2,700 psf

(P = 0.117(4)(28,152) = 13,180 kg/m 2 )

"'NOTE: The product of A and B is 1 /4 of the total tire pattern.

Copyright 200-/ American Water Worhs Associatioll, All Rights RrJserued.

66

STEEL PIPE

Table 6-4
m =AIH or n =BIH
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.6

Influence coefficients for rectangular areas

n = BJH or m =AIH
0.1 0.005 0.009 0.013 0.017 0.020 0.022 0.024 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.029 0.030 0.031 0.031 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.2 0.009 0.018 0.026 0.033 0.039 0.043 0.047 0.050 0.053 0.055 0.057 0.059 0.061 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.3 0.013 0.026 0.037 0.047 0.056 0.063 0.069 0.073 0.077 0.079 0.083 0.086 0.089 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.4 0.017 0.033 0.047 0.060 0.071 0.080 0.087 0.093 0.098 0.101 0.106 0.110 0.113 0.115 0.115 0.115 0.115 0.115 0.5 0.020 0.039 0.056 0.071 0.084 0.095 0.103 0.110 0.116 0.120 0.126 0.131 0.135 0.137 0.137 0.137 0.137 0.137
0.6

0.7 0.024 0.047 0.069 0.087 0.103 0.117 0.128 0.137 0.144 0.149 0.157 0.164 0.169 0.170 0.171 0.172 0.172 0.172

0.8 0.026 0.050 0.073 0.093 0.110 0.125 0.137 0 .146 0.154 0.160 0.168 0.176 0.181 0.183 0.184 0.185 0.185 0.185

0.9 0.027 0.053

0.077

0.022 0.043 0.063 0.080 0.095 0.107 0.117 0.125 0.131 0.136 0.143 0.149 0.153 0.155 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.156

0.098 0.116 0.131 0.144 0.154 0.162 0.168 0.178 0.186 0.192 0.194 0.195 0.196 0.196 0.196

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

1.2

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 5.0 10.0

1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.6

1.2

1.5

2.0 0.031 0.061 0.089 0.113 0.135 0.153 0.169 0.181 0.192 0.200 0.212 0.223 0.232 0.236 0.238 0.239 0.240 0.240

2.5 0.031 0.062 0.090 0.115 0.137 0.155 0.170 0.183 0.194 0.202 0.215 0.226 0.236 0.240 0.242 0.244 0.244 0.244

3.0 0.032 0.062 0.090 0.115 0.137 0.156 0.171 0.184 0.195 0.203 0.216 0.228 0.238 0.242 0.244 0.246 0.247 0.247

5.0 0.032 0.062 0.090 0.115 0.137 0.156 0.172 0.185 0.196 0.204 0.217 0.229 0.239 0.244 0.246 0.249 0.249 0.249

10.0 0.032 0.062 0.090 0.115 0.137 0.156 0.172 0.185 0.196 0.205 0.218 0.230 0.240 0.244 0.247 0.249 0.250 0.250 0.032 0.062 0.090 0.115 0.137 0.156 0.172 0.185 0.196 0.205 0.218 0.230 0.240 0.244 0.247 0.249 0.250 0.250

0.028 0.055 0.079 0.101 0.120 0.136 0.149 0.160 0.168 0.175 0.185 0.193 0.200 0.202 0.203 0.204 0.205 0.205

0.029 0.057 0.083 0.106 0.126 0.143 0.157 0.168 0.178 0.185 0.196 0.205 0.212 0.215 0.216 0.217 0.218 0.218

0.030 0.059 0.086 0.110 0.131 0.149 0.164 0.176 0.186 0.193 0.205 0.215 0.223 0.226 0.228 0.229 0.230 0.230

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 5.0 10.0

Source: Newmark, N.M., Simplified Computation of Vertical Pressures in Elastic Foundations. Circ. 24. Engrg. Exp. Stn., Uniu. of Illinois (1935).

Copyright 2004 American Water Worhs Association, All Rights Reserued.

EXTERNAL LOADS
Uniformly Distributed Load, P

67

8 X'

I
X

Source: Spangle1; M.G. & Handy, R.L. Soil Engineering. Harper and Row, New Yorh (4th ed., 1982).

Figure 6-1

Position of area

If height of cover is 3.0 ft (0.914 m), then

m

= 0.610

= 0.333

Coefficient = 0.07

P = 1,615 psf
(P

= 0.7 (4)(28,152) = 7,883 kg/m 2)

Using the Iowa formula (Eq 6-5) to calculate defl ection for 54-in. (1,372 mm) pipe and 60-in. (1,524 mm) pipe, wall thickness 1/4 in. (6.35 mm) for each size, E' = 1,250 psi (8.618 MPa), Dt = 1.0, and soil weight of 120 pcf (1,922 kg/m 3) , the results are Total load (dead and live load): 2ft (0.61 m) cover :

we= [ (120)(2)

+ 2, 700 ] 1; 4 = 40.8r
2 r = 34.0r 1, 00 0

W c = ( 1, 922 (2) + 13, 180)

3 ft (0.914 m) cover:

we=

2 [< 120)(3) + 1,615 ]1 ;4 = 27.4r

= 19.279r

we = ( 1, 922 (0.914 ) + 7,883 ) 1,~;0

Using Spangler's formula, deflection = 60 in. (1,524 mm),

2ft (0.61 m) cover: = 1.58 in. (40.1 mm) = 2.6% 3 ft (0.914 mm) cover: = 1.06 in. (26.9 mm)

=1.8%

54 in. (1,372 mm),

=2.6% 3ft (0.914 m) cover:= 0.95 in. (24.1 mm) =1.8%

2ft (0.61 m) cover: = 1.41 in. (35.8 mm)

Copy right CD 2004 American Water Worles Association, All Rights Reserued.

68

STEEL PIPE

COMPUTER PROGRAMS ______________________________

Traditional procedures depending on weight and the elastic modulus of soil to determine pipe deflections and stress have been discussed. However, computer programs that permit a more rational determination in the design of pipe are now available from universities, consulting engineers, and manufacturers.

REFERENCES _____________________________________
Handy, R.L. 1982. Soil Engineering, 4th ed . New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Howard, A. 1977. Modules of Soil Reaction Values for Buried Flexible Pipe. Jour. Geotechnical Engr. Div.-ASLE. Krizek, R.J., R.A. Parmelee, J.N. Kay, and H.A. El Naggar. 1971. Structural Analysis and Design of Pipe. Report 116. HCHRP. Marston, A. 1929. The Theory of External Loads on Closed Conduits in the Light of the Latest Experiments. In Proc. of the Ninth Annual Meeting Highway Res. Board. Spangler, M .G. 1947. Underground Conduits-An Appraisal of Modern Research. Proc. ASCE. June. - - - . The Structural Design of Flexible Pipe Culverts. 1941. Bull. 153. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College. Watkins, R.K., and M.G. Spangler. 1958. Some Characteristics of the Modulus of Passive Resistance of Soil: A Study in Similitude. Highway Research Board Proc., 37:576. Housel, W.S. 1951. Interpretation of Triaxial Compression Tests on Granular Soils. Special Tech. Pub. 106. Philadelphia, Pa.: American Society for Testing and Materials. Luscher, U. 1966 . Buckling of Soil Surrounded Tubes. Jour. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div.-ASCE, November. Proctor, R.R. 1933. Design and Construction of Rolled-Earth Dams. Engineering News Record, 111:245. - - - . 1948. An Approximate Method for Predicting the Settlement of Foundations and Footings. In Second International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engr. The Hague, Netherlands. Proudfit, D.P. 1963. Performance of LargeDiameter Steel Pipe at St. Paul. Jour. AWWA, 55(3):303. Reitz, H.M. 1956. Soil Mechanics and Backfilling Practices. Jour. AWWA, 48(12):1497. Report on Steel Pipelines for Underground Water Service. 1936. Special Investigation 888. Chicago: Underwriters' Labs., Inc. Sowers, G.F. 1956. Trench Excavation and Backfilling. Jou r. AWWA, 48(7):854. Span gler, M .G. 1948 . Underground Conduits-An Appraisal of Modern Research. Trans. ASCE, 113:316. - - - . 1951-1952. Protective Casings for Pipelines. Engineering Reports 11. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College. Spangler, M.G., and D.L. Phillips. 1955. Deflections of Timber-Strutted CorrugatedMetal Pipe Culverts Under Earth Fills. Bull. 102. Highway Research Board; Pub. 350. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wagner, A.A. 1951. Shear Characteristics of Remolded Earth Materials. Special Tech. Pub. 106. Philadelphia, Pa.: American Society for Testing and Materials. Wiggin, T.I-I., M.L. Enger, and W.J. Schlick. 1939. A Proposed New Method for Determining Barrel Thicknesses of CastIron Pipe, Jour. AWWA, 31:811.

The follow ing references are not cited in the text. Barnard, R.E. 1948. Design Standards for Steel Water Pipe. Jour. AWWA, 40:24. - - . 1955. Behavior of Flexible Steel Pipe Under Embankm ents and in Trenches. Bull. Middletown, Ohio: Armco Drainage & Metal Products, Inc. - - - . 1957. Design and Deflection Control of Buried Steel Pipe Supporting Earth Loads and Live Loads. Proc. ASTM,
57:1233. Braune, Cain, and Janda. 1929. Earth Pressure Experiments on Culvert Pipe. Public Roads, 10:9. Burmister, D.M. 1951. The Importance of Natural Controlling Conditions Upon Triaxial Compression Test Conditions. Special Tech. Pub. 106. Philadelphia, Pa.: American Society for Testing and Materials.

Copyright ([) 20(J./ American Water Worhs Association, All Rights Reserved.