Experimental and analytical investigation on friction resistance force between buried coated pressurized steel pipes and soil

Abstract

This paper presents an analytical approach for estimating frictional resistance to pipe movement at soil and external pipe surface of buried coated pressurized steel pipes relative to the internal thrust force. The proposed analytical method was developed based on 36 experiments, which involved three coating types (cement mortar (CM), polyurethane type-I (PT-I), prefabricated plastic tape (PPT)) on pipes’ surfaces, three different soils (pea-gravel (PG), sand (S), silty-clay (SC)), and four simulated over burden depths above the pipe’s crown. Investigation showed frictional resistance decreased with increasing over burden depth above the pipe’s crown. The degree of frictional resistance at the pipe-soil interface was found to be in the order of PG > SC > S for all coating variations and overburden depths. CM coated pipe buried in all three types of soil produced significantly higher frictional resistance as compared to other coating types. Based on experimental data, the developed analytical introduced a dimensionless factor “Z”, which included effects of types of coatings, soil, and overburden depths for simplified rapid calculation. Analysis showed that the method provided a better prediction of frictional resistance forces, in comparison to previous analytical methods, which were barely close in predicting friction resistance for different coating variations, soil types, and overburden depths. Friction resistance force values reported herein could be considered conservative.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

friction resistance force / thrust force / coated pressurized steel pipe / soil type / overburden depth

References

[1] Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. Pipeline Design Manual, 2019

[2] Jeyapalan J, Rajah S. Unified approach to thrust restraint design. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2007, 133(1): 57–61

[3] EBAA Iron, Inc. Technical Data for the Water and Waste−Water Professionals, 1995

[4] Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. Thrust Restraint Design for Ductile Iron Pipe, 2016

[5] Scarino J H. Evaluation of buried piping restrained against thrust. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2004, 130(6): 685–691

[6] ASCETask Committee on Thrust Restraint Design of Buried Pipelines. White paper on thrust restraint design of buried pipelines: Part 1—Current practice. In: Proceedings of Pipelines 2009 Infrastructure’s Hidden Assets. San Diego, CA: ASCE, 2009

[7] Subcommitteeon Thrust BlocksASCETask Committee on Thrust Restraint Design of Buried Pipelines. An improved approach for the design of thrust blocks in buried pipelines. In: Proceedings of Pipelines 2011 A Sound Conduit for Sharing Solution. Seattle, WA: ASCE, 2011

[8] Potyondy J. Skin friction between various soil and construction materials. Géotechnique, 1961, 11(4): 339–353

[9] Webb M C, McGrath T J, Selig E T. Field tests of buried pipe installation procedures. Transportation Research Record, 1996, 1541(1): 97–106

[10] Trautmann H C, O’Rourke T. Lateral force−displacement response of buried pipe. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1985, 111(9): 1068–1084

[11] PaulinM JPhillips RClarkJ ITriggAKonukI. A full-scale investigation into pipeline/soil interaction. In: Proceedings of 1998 2nd International Pipeline Conference. Calgary: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1998, 779–787

[12] Wijewickreme D, Karimian H, Honegger D. Response of buried steel pipelines subjected to relative axial soil movement. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2009, 46(7): 735–752

[13] Rowe R, Davis E. The behavior of anchor plates in sand. Géotechnique, 1982, 32(1): 25–41

[14] Rowe R, Davis E. The behavior of anchor plates in clay. Géotechnique, 1982, 32(1): 9–23

[15] SeligE T. Soil properties for plastic pipe installations. In: Buczala G S, Cassady M J, eds. Buried Plastic Pipe Technology. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM International, 1990

[16] AWWAM11. Steel Pipe: A Guide for Design and Installation. 5th ed. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association, 2019, 310

[17] AWWAC900-07. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe and Fabricated Fittings, 4 in through 12 in (100 mm through 300 mm), for Water Transmission and Distribution. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association, 2007, 44

[18] AWWAM41. Ductile-Iron Pipe and Fittings. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association, 2009, 276

[19] AWWAC301-14(R19). Prestressed Concrete Pressure Pipe, Steel Cylinder Type. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association, 2019, 32

[20] ASCETask Committee on Thrust Restraint Design of Buried Pipelines. White paper on thrust restraint design of buried pipelines: Part 2—Historical development. In: Proceedings of Pipelines 2009 Infrastructure’s Hidden Assets. San Diego, CA: ASCE, 2009

[21] AWWAC205-18. Cement–Mortar Protective Lining and Coating for Steel Water Pipe 4 in. (100 mm) and Larger−Shop Applied. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association, 2018, 22

[22] AWWAC222-18. Ployurethane Coatings and Linings for Steel Water Pipe and Fittings. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association, 2018, 17

[23] AWWAC214-14. Tape Coatings for Steel Water Pipe. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association, 2014, 32

[24] PotyondyJ G. Skin friction between cohesive granular soil and construction materials. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Halifax: Nova Scotia Technical College, 1960

[25] AlamSAllouche E N. Experimental investigation of pipe soil friction for direct buried PVC pipes. In: Proceedings of Pipelines 2010 Climbing New Peaks to Infrastructure Reliability: Renew, Rehab, and Reinvest. Keystone, CO: ASCE, 2010

[26] USDANRCS. Engineering classification of earth materials. In: National Engineering Handbook. Washington D.C.: USDA NRCS, 2012

[27] ASTMC127-12. Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007

[28] ASTMC128-07a. Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007

[29] ASTMC136-06. Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2006

[30] ASTMD422-63. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007

[31] ASTMD3080/D3080M-11. Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2011

[32] ASTMD2166-06. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2006

[33] ASTMD698-12e2. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12400 ft·lbf/ft³ (600 kN·m/m³)). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2012

[34] Höeg K. Stresses against underground structural cylinders. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1968, 94(4): 833–858

[35] Brachman R W, Moore I D, Rowe R K. Local strain on a leachate collection pipe. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2000, 27(6): 1273–1285

[36] Uni-BellPVC Pipe Association. Handbook of PVC Pipe Design and Construction. 3rd ed. New York: Industrial Press Inc., 1993, 166

[37] ASCE.Task Committee on Thrust Restraint Design of Buried Pipelines. Contribution of frictional resistance to restrain unbalanced thrust in buried pipelines. In: Proceedings of Pipelines 2010 Climbing New Peaks to Infrastructure Reliability: Renew, Rehab, and Reinvest. Keystone, CO: ASCE, 2010

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the technical and financial support provided by North-west Pipe Company Vancouver, WA for this research work. The authors are also grateful to the TTC technical staff members, for their invaluable assistance during the experimental program.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 Higher Education Press