Page 48 - Failure Analysis Case Studies II
P. 48

34
                                  5. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

             The experimental program consisted of two components. The first was laboratory testing of pipe
           sections in order to determine their stiffness (stiffness factor = EO, vertical deflection or strain,
           which induces cracking in the inner pipe liner and collapse loads. The second was a field investigation
           which included opening of test pits at several sections along the pipeline. Excavation of the test pits
           allowed for visual description of the soil-trench cross section, and performance of dynamic cone
           penetration  (DCP) tests within the sand backfill alongside the pipe.  The field investigation was
           limited to a 330 m pipeline segment.

           5.1.  Results of tests on pipe sections
             Ring compression (bending) tests were carried out on three sections of pipe. Each section was
           placed in a hydraulic press and loaded across its vertical diameter by  a  line load  along the full
           segment length. Throughout  loading of each test section, vertical and horizontal deflections were
           monitored.  Visual physical damage to the inner pipe lining (cracking) was also recorded. Figure
           3(a) presents the experimental load deformation  curve of one of the pipe sections together with
           observations with respect to crack development throughout  the test.  Figure 3(b)  shows that  the
           results for the three sections are fairly similar.
             Based on the data presented in Fig. 3 it is possible to obtain the following information:
              The collapse load of the pipe section is between 50 and 55 kN/m. Collapse occurred at vertical
              deflections of 63-87  mm which correspond to diametrical strains of 5-7%.  It is noted that these
              values characterize the unsupported behavior of pipe sections.
              The maximum moment acting in the pipe section at the collapse load may be determined by
              eqn (l), after Timoshenko and Gere [I].  For the pipes tested the maximum moments at collapse
              varied between 5.M.O kN m/m,




              where P is the collapse load per unit length as noted above, and R is the pipe radius.
              The stiffness factor of the pipe (EI) can be determined based on the linear section of the force
              deflection curve using eqn (2) [I].




              where Ay is the vertical pipe deflection under load per unit length P.
              The calculated stiffness of the three pipe sections was found to be approximately 13.5 kN m. It
              is  noted  that  the  EI  is  an  inherent  property  of  the  pipe  section  which  is  independent  of
              lateral support conditions. This experimentally determined pipe stiffness is representative of the
              composite pipe cross section, which includes both concrete layers and the steel core.
              Severe cracking of the inner liner wall (defined as a crack opening of 0.3 mm [2]) occurred at a
              vertical diametric strain of approximately 1.2%. The working assumption used throughout the
              investigation has been that cracking occurs at the same strain value irrespective of the support
              conditions.  Obviously the load required to impose this strain level is dependent upon lateral
              support conditions.

           5.2.  Resuits offield investigation
             Dynamic cone penetration testing was performed at several stations along the investigated portion
           of the pipeline. Technical details of the testing procedure and interpretation of results may be found
           in [3]. The testing was performed following excavation of the fill material down to the pipe crown.
           Two or three DCP soundings were performed within each excavation to a depth of approximately
           1.61.8 m. The end point of the sounding was located at a depth of approximately 0.5 m below the
           pipe invert. The plots shown in Fig. 4 are typical results found at six stations. It is noted that, in
   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53