AS 3725 - Design For Installation of Buried Concrete Pipes

AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
AS/NZS 3725 Supplement 1:2007
Design for installation of buried

concrete pipes—Commentary
(Supplement to AS/NZS 3725:2007)
Accessed by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 28 Aug 2007
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
This Joint Australian/New Zealand Standard Supplement was prepared by Joint
Technical Committee WS-006, Concrete Pipes. It was approved on behalf of the
Council of Standards Australia on 07 September 2006 and on behalf of the Council
of Standards New Zealand on 15 December 2006.
This Supplement was published on 23 January 2007.
The following are represented on Committee WS-006:
Australasian Railway Association

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Brisbane City Council
Business New Zealand
Cement & Concrete Association of New Zealand
Engineers Australia
Main Roads Department, QLD
Master Builders Australia
New Zealand Water and Waste Association
Precast New Zealand
University of Tasmania
Water Services Association of Australia
Keeping Standards up-to-date

Standards are living documents which reflect progress in science, technology and
systems. To maintain their currency, all Standards are periodically reviewed, and
new editions are published. Between editions, amendments may be issued.
Standards may also be withdrawn. It is important that readers assure themselves

they are using a current Standard, which should include any amendments which
may have been published since the Standard was purchased.
Detailed information about joint Australian/New Zealand Standards can be found by
visiting the Standards Web Shop at www.standards.com.au or Standards New
Zealand web site at www.standards.co.nz and looking up the relevant Standard in
the on-line catalogue.
Alternatively, both organizations publish an annual printed Catalogue with full
details of all current Standards. For more frequent listings or notification of
revisions, amendments and withdrawals, Standards Australia and Standards New
Zealand offer a number of update options. For information about these services,
users should contact their respective national Standards organization.
We also welcome suggestions for improvement in our Standards, and especially
encourage readers to notify us immediately of any apparent inaccuracies or
ambiguities. Please address your comments to the Chief Executive of either
Standards Australia or Standards New Zealand at the address shown on the back
cover.
This Standard was issued in draft form for comment as DR 04236.

AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
AS/NZS 3725 Supplement 1:2007
Design for installation of buried

concrete pipes—Commentary
Originated as AS 3725 Supp 1—1989.

Jointly revised and redesignated AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007.
COPYRIGHT
© Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand
All rights are reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without the written
permission of the publisher.
Jointly published by Standards Australia, GPO Box 476, Sydney, NSW 2001 and Standards
New Zealand, Private Bag 2439, Wellington 6020
ISBN 0 7337 7983 2
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 2
PREFACE
This Commentary was prepared by the Joint Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand
Committee WS-006, Concrete Pipes. It is intended that it be read in conjunction with
AS/NZS 3725, Design for installation of buried concrete pipes, but does not form part of
that Standard.
In preparing AS 3725—1989, the then committee considered it desirable that only
necessary requirements be detailed in the Standard and that any additional explanations,
advice or comments (based on experience gained over the years) be brought to the attention
of the design engineer and other users of the Standard by the production of a Commentary.
The current committee supports this view and has produced this updated commentary to
support the 2006 revision.
It is not intended that the Standard be interpreted as preventing the use of methods of load
assessment other than those specified, as indeed such alternative methods will possibly be
required for circumstances not covered by the Standard. However, the committee considers
that in the more usually encountered situations, the methods outlined in the Standard are
those most acceptable to all concerned, due to their relative simplicity and the length of
satisfactory experience so far obtained in their application.
For ease of cross-reference, clause numbers and titles used in the Commentary are the same
as those used in the body of the Standard, but are prefixed with the letter C. However,
figures (designated C1, C2, etc.) and appendices (designated CA, CB, etc.) provide
additional information and do not correspond to those in the Standard. Not all Clauses in
the Standard require comment and thus the numbering of this document is not
comprehensive.
References given in the Commentary text are listed in Appendix CA.
Appendix CC of the Commentary contains a number of examples illustrating the application
of the Standard to the selection of an appropriate pipe from AS 4058, Precast concrete
pipes—Pressure and non-pressure or AS 4139, Fibre-reinforced concrete pipes and fittings.
The examples are in the form of typical selection problems each followed by a worked
solution.
The term ‘Paragraph’ followed by ‘C’ refers to the text of the Commentary.
3 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
CONTENTS
Page
C1 SCOPE........................................................................................................................ 4
C4 DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................ 5
C5 NOTATION................................................................................................................ 6
C6 VERTICAL LOADS ON PIPES ................................................................................. 7
C8 COMPACTION ........................................................................................................ 20
C9 PIPE SUPPORT AND BEDDING FACTORS.......................................................... 22
C10 TEST LOADS........................................................................................................... 24
APPENDICES
CA REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ................................................................................ 27
CB GUIDE TO THE DESCRIPTION, IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF
SOILS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ............................................................ 29
CC EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF AS/NZS 3725 ........................................ 35
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 4
STANDARDS AUSTRALIA/STANDARDS NEW ZEALAND
Australian/New Zealand Standard

Design for installation of buried concrete pipes—Commentary
C1 SCOPE
The main purpose of the Standard is to provide an agreed basis for determining the vertical
working loads on installed steel-reinforced, fibre-reinforced and unreinforced concrete
pipes and a range of installation conditions. The Standard relates these loads to the loads
applied to sample pipes in the standard load tests, so that an appropriate ‘strength class’ of
pipe can be selected from AS 4058 or AS 4139, as applicable, which will be suitable for the
particular field application.
Designers should consider the possibility of the application of non-vertical permanent loads
on installed pipes such as steeply sloping soil surface or adjacent structures (but not
transient loads) for a particular application. Where non-vertical loads are present and are
assessed as significant, the designer should specify that the pipe be supplied with circular
grid reinforcements.
A secondary purpose of the Standard is to reduce the large variety of likely installation
conditions and bedding choices to a small number of representative types.
The earlier work of Spangler at the Iowa Engineering Experimental Station and that of the
Californian Department of Transport with high embankment fills form the background for
determining loads and for adopting standard installations. Previous editions of this Standard
and ASTM C 1479-01 (Ref. 16) are also considered. The standard installations of
ASTM C 1479-01 are the result of work by Heger (Ref. 17) and of Simpson, Gumpertz and
Heger for the American Concrete Pipe Association. Heger carried out extensive finite
element analysis modelling using a computerized direct design method SPIDA (Ref. 18)
which used the soil parameters determined experimentally by Selig (Ref. 19). Research
work at Adelaide University by Costin for the Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia has
also been referenced. The choice of bedding factors for the range of standard installations is
based on these works. The general acceptance of AS 5100.2, Bridge design, Part 2: Design
loads (Ref. 2) and the Transit New Zealand Bridge Manual (Ref. 3) have allowed fuller
treatment of railway and highway live loads to be presented here.
Methods of pipe laying and bedding preparation are not stipulated in the Standard because
the continuing and rapid development of specialized earthmoving equipment and
procedures would soon render such requirements obsolete. However, in Paragraph C8,
detailed procedures for haunch compaction are outlined, as experience has indicated this to
be one of the most difficult aspects of circular pipe bedding. Attention is also drawn to
Ref. 4 which contains much useful information on the subject.
Compaction percentages are included to be more specific with regard to bedding and
backfill compaction requirements. For side fill, the compaction percentages are given for
both cohesive and cohesionless soils to emphasize that some measure of cohesiveness is
acceptable in the select fill.
Documents referred to in this Commentary are listed in Appendix CA.
NOTE: See Preface to this Commentary for a description of the Clause numbering within.
COPYRIGHT
5 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
C4 DEFINITIONS
C4.2 Bedding
See Paragraph C9 covering pipe support and bedding factors.
C4.3 Bedding factor (F)
See Paragraph C9 for derivation and Paragraph C10 for application.
C4.4 Fill
The term ‘fill’ is used throughout with a qualifier indicating particular requirements as
follows:
(a) Backfill or embankment fill The Standard deals with the backfill and embankment
fill from the aspect of pipe performance only. In installations involving road and
railway embankments, or trenches through urban areas, the stability criteria for the
finished surface above the pipes may impose more restrictive requirements on the fill
specification than required for pipe performance.
(b) Ordinary fill The restrictions on size and percentage of stones in ordinary fill are to
facilitate compaction in restricted areas and to limit damage to the pipes during
placement and compaction.
(c) Select fill The relevant classification information from Appendix A of AS 1726 has
been reproduced as Appendix CB of this Supplement. Select fill covers material
classed as ‘coarse-grained soils’ in the ‘unified soil classification’ with the exclusion
of the silty-soil classes GM (silty gravels) and SM (silty sands).
C4.5 Foundation
Pipelines are installed for many purposes and in a variety of naturally occurring conditions.
The foundation material should be able to support the loads placed on it and should be
carefully graded or excavated to provide an even bed and maintain alignment of the pipes.
The trench width should be the minimum necessary to permit the pipes to be properly laid
and the fill compacted.
Very soft or expansive clays, irregular or fragmented rock and saturated soils, particularly
those containing aggressive groundwater, are all unsuitable foundations and should be
avoided. Where these types of foundation materials cannot be avoided, the use of one or
more of the following techniques may ensure that a uniform bedding support is obtained:
(a) Adequate drainage of groundwater.
(b) Use of geotextile fabrics.
(c) Removal of all unsuitable material and its replacement with compacted select
material.
(d) Use of cement-treated soils.
Since foundation conditions may vary considerably along a pipeline, specifications for
pipelaying should provide for over-excavation of unsuitable foundation material and specify
the replacement material required to form an acceptable foundation. This replacement
material should preferably be cohesionless material that resists washing (not more than 15%
less than 0.075 mm) and be free from perishable material and material aggressive to
concrete.
Figures 11 to 13 of the Standard give appropriate depths to foundation level from the
bottom of the pipe.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 6
C4.7 Installation condition

The various equations given in the Standard for calculating dead loads due to fill materials,
were derived from load conditions associated with particular configurations of an
installation. These configurations have been traditionally classified on the basis of the
relative levels of the top of the finished formation and the top of the pipe with respect to the
level of the adjacent ground surface, which can be most clearly seen in a cross-section of an
installation (see Figures 2 to 5 of the Standard). Thus, embankment or trench installation
conditions are distinguished by cross-sections where the finished surface is respectively
above or at the level of the adjacent ground surface, and positive or negative projection
conditions are distinguished by cross-sections where the top of the pipe is respectively
above or below the level of the adjacent ground surface.
The installation profiles given in Figures 2, 3 and 4 of the Standard have been adopted from
the previous edition with a change from 300 mm to 150 mm to height of overfill zone above
the pipe and minimum distance between multiple pipes added. The height of overfill zone
and the minimum distance between multiple pipes are selected to be in agreement with
other rigid and flexible pipe Standards requirements. For all installation types it is
imperative that the haunch material be placed and compacted without voids in the
embankment or trench profile. Where this degree of compaction is required, the minimum
distance between pipes should be increased to allow access for the work to be done.
C4.8 Overlay zone
The purpose of the overlay zone is to protect the exposed portion of the pipe from direct
physical damage due to construction activities following the laying and bedding of the pipe
and compaction of the support material around the lower part of the pipe. Ordinary fill is
quite satisfactory for this purpose but more finely graded material may be used, if
convenient.
C4.10 Settlement ratio (rs)
See Paragraph C6.3.6.
C5 NOTATION
w The actual unit weight of the fill material should be known or measured prior to
commencing calculations (see Clause 6.2) and a design value assessed. In the
absence of site-specific data, use a compacted fill value of 20 kN/m3
C e′ , C n The prime superscript has been used with these symbols in the Standard to
indicate that the coefficients are different from corresponding coefficients
attributed to Spangler (see also Paragraph C6.3.3)
COPYRIGHT
7 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
C6 VERTICAL LOADS ON PIPES

C6.3 Working dead loads due to fill or in situ materials
C6.3.2 Trench condition
The values of the coefficient C t obtained from Figure 6 are calculated from Equation C1
(Ref. 1):
1 − e −2 Kµ ′( H / B ) . . . C1
Ct =
2 Kµ ′
where
K = (1−sinφ)/(1+sinφ) and is the Rankine earth pressure coefficient
φ = angle of internal friction of the fill material in the trench
µ′ = tanφ′
= the coefficient of friction between the fill material and the sides of the trench
e = the base of natural logarithms
The values contained in Figure 6 have been calculated using the values of Kµ′ in Table C1.
TABLE C1
Kµ′ VALUES
Soil Angle of internal
Soil type parameter friction
Kµ′ φ
Silts and clays (ML, CL) (LL,50%) 0.11 25
Clayey sands (SC) or clayey gravels (GC) 0.15 30
Sand and gravel (SW, SP, GW. GP) 0.19 33
Where loads are determined from Equation 1, it should be noted that the values of C t
obtained from Figure 6 allow for the development and maintenance of a beneficial friction
between the trench wall and the fill material in the trench. If, for some reason, this friction
is decreased or not developed, the load on the pipe will be greater than that given by
Equation 1.
Decreased development or non-development may occur if, during construction, withdrawal
of a trench wall support system (shoring and/or sheeting) is allowed to destroy the contact
between the wall and the fill or if the area is subjected to prolonged heavy traffic vibrations.
Designers should therefore take into consideration the construction techniques and
regulatory requirements likely to apply in the particular project and/or location and adopt
appropriate bedding factors accordingly. The design of a pipeline assumes a particular
trench width. If anything occurs to increase this width, then referral should be made to the
designer.
The Clause specifies that the load in the trench condition has to be taken as the lower value
derived from either the trench or the embankment formula. Generally speaking, as a trench
becomes wider, the frictional forces noted above become a decreasing proportion of the
total vertical forces acting on the pipe until a width is reached where embankment
considerations begin to dominate. The theoretical transition point between trench and
embankment loading conditions may be obtained from Figure C1. Where sloping trench
sides are used, the working load due to fill in a tench condition is calculated using the
trench width at the top of the pipe. It is preferable to keep the sides of the trench vertical up
to the top of the pipe and then batter the slopes above this point.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 8
16
0
1
5
3
0
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
1.
=
=
=
=
=
=
14
p
rs p
p
p
p
rs p
rs
rs
rs
rs
12
VALUES OF H/D
10
0
1 2 3 4
B/D K = 0.15
FIGURE C1 TRANSITION POINT BETWEEN TRENCH AND EMBANKMENT LOADING

CONDITIONS
Since both the load on the pipe and the cost of excavation increase with trench width,
economy of design dictates a trench width as narrow as practicable.
The practical considerations governing minimum trench width are—
(a) the dimensions of the excavator bucket;
(b) the maximum external pipe diameter;
(c) the thickness of the trench wall supporting system, where required; and
(d) the clearance between the outside of the pipe and the trench wall or wall support
system, which should be sufficient to accommodate the operator and equipment
necessary to—
(i) place and compact the bedding and haunch materials to ensure complete filling
with material to the specified density;
(ii) make and inspect the joints; and
(iii) install any fittings.
The minimum clearance between pipe and trench wall, and between multiple pipes, given in
the Standard is generally considered satisfactory provided the methods of installation can
ensure that the specified embedment requirements for placement and compaction of haunch
and side zone materials can be achieved. Careful consideration is recommended for large
diameter pipe (greater than DN 1500), multiple pipe and Type HS3 bedding installations. It
is important that no voids exist within these zones as they have the potential to allow
migration of material and consequently reduce the compaction in the embedment profile.
COPYRIGHT
9 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
The design for concrete pipe embedment profile and the resultant recommended bedding
factors for the standard range of installations is based on work carried out both in Australia
and America by the respective Concrete Pipe Associations. The most recent work by
Simpson, Gumertz & Heger for the American Concrete Pipe Association involved the
development of standard installations based on investigations using finite element
techniques. The recommendations for embedment profile and requirements for natural
material each side of the pipe have been adopted from these investigations.
In all instances, the choice of trench width should be a compromise between the demand for
minimum excavation/backfilling and adequate work-space where side fill compaction is
important for the performance of the installation as a whole.
The determination of vertical load on a pipe, from the earth fill above the pipe, is based on
calculations for both trench and embankment (wide trench) conditions and the minimum
value adopted. Where the minimum value is from the trench condition calculation, a
maximum trench width should be specified on the drawings. Any increase in trench width
will increase the load on the pipe and may cause an overload for the specified pipe load
class.
Similarly, where the minimum value is from the embankment condition calculation, it is not
necessary to specify the trench width on the drawings as it has no effect on the specified
pipe load class.
C6.3.3 Embankment conditions
C6.3.3.1 Positive projection
The coefficients (C e′ ) in this Paragraph and (C n′ ) in Paragraph C6.3.3.2, are the Marston
and Spangler coefficients presented in a more convenient form. The prime superscript has
been used to emphasize the difference between these coefficients and the original
coefficients (Ce) and (C n ) (Ref. 1).
The value of C e′ obtained from Figure 7 is calculated from a series of formulae
(Equations C2 to C4). To use these equations it is necessary to introduce and explain the
concept of the plane of equal settlement (He ). In a positive projecting concrete pipe, the fill
either side of the pipe will settle more than the fill directly above the pipe, which will result
in shearing forces being developed within the fill. The plane of equal settlement is at a
height above the concrete pipe where the shearing forces induced by settlements are zero
(see Figure C2). The position of the plane of equal settlement will vary with the height of
fill above the pipe. For lower values of fill, the shear forces may extend to the top of the
fill. Marston referred to this condition as the ‘complete projection condition’ (Ref. 1).
Where the shear forces only extend part way up the fill as shown in Figure C2, Marston
referred to this as the ‘incomplete projection condition’.
The value of H e can be calculated from the following equation (Ref. 1):
2 Kµ ( H e / D ) 2
 1  H H  r p e − 1 1  He  r p  H H  2 Kµ ( H e / D )
 + − e + s ⋅ +   + s  − e ⋅e
 2 Kµ  D D  3  2 Kµ 2 D  3 D D 
. . . C2
1 He H He H
− ⋅ − ⋅ = rs p
2 Kµ D D D D
The solution to the equation may be such that H e > H, that is, the plane of equal settlement
is above the ground surface and is said to be imaginary. If such a solution is obtained the
shear forces extend to the top of the fill and the complete projection condition exists. If
H e < H, then the incomplete projection exists.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 10
For the complete projection condition (i.e., H e > H), C e′ is calculated from the following
equation:
 e 2 Kµ ( H / D ) − 1  D
C e′ =  ⋅ . . . C3
 2 Kµ  H
For the incomplete projection condition (i.e., H e < H), C e′ is calculated from the following
equation:
 e 2 Kµ ( H / D ) − 1 H H  D
C e′ =  +( − e ) ⋅e 2 K µ ( H / D )  ⋅ . . . C4
 2 Kµ D D  H
where
K = (1−sinφ)/(1+sinφ) and is the Rankine earth pressure coefficient
φ = angle of internal friction of the fill material
µ = tanφ
= the coefficient of internal friction between the fill material
e = base of natural logarithms
The values of C e′ in Figure 7 have been calculated using the values of Kµ in Table C2.
TABLE C2
Kµ VALUES
Soil Angle of
Soil type parameter internal friction
Kµ φ
Silts and clays (ML, CL) (LL,50%) 0.11 25
Clayey sands (SC) or clayey gravels (GC) 0.15 30
Sand and gravel (SW, SP, GW. GP) 0.19 33
In Figure 3 ‘natural surface’ can be the level of either undisturbed ground or equivalent
built-up and compacted fill. To be considered equivalent, the built-up compacted fill would
have to be select fill compacted to a minimum of 95% (R D) for a minimum distance from
each side of the pipe trench as specified in Clause 9.2.3.1.
Induced trench
Where pipes are laid in an embankment with tops above the adjacent natural or equivalent
surface in accordance with Figure C2, the working load due to the fill (W g ) is calculated
from Equation 3.
This installation condition can be used for pipes under high embankment fills. As it is less
commonly used, it has not been referred to in the Standard.
To obtain this condition, the embankment is constructed in the normal manner to a level
some distance above the top of the pipe. A trench is then excavated part-way through the
fill above the pipe, filled with straw bales and the construction of the embankment
continued normally to its full height. Alternatively, the straw bales may be placed over the
pipe and the embankment constructed around them.
As the height of fill above the trench increases, the straw bales are compressed, thereby
inducing frictional forces between the soil column above the trench and the adjacent
compacted fill. This results in a reduction of the effective load on the pipe in a manner
entirely analogous to that in the trench condition.
COPYRIGHT
11 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
Although the benefits of this method are well proven elsewhere (notably in California),
induced trench construction has not been used to any great extent in Australia and New
Zealand. This is probably due to some subsidence failures, caused by inadequate
construction procedures, experienced in the early history of the method. It has been
subsequently demonstrated that delayed subsidence will not occur if the embankment is
properly compacted throughout and is of sufficient height to compress the bales. To ensure
this, some authorities set a minimum embankment height of 15 m for the use of the induced
trench method and since embankment fill below 15 m can be readily handled without resort
to this approach, the limitation seems reasonable. However, successfully induced trench
installations have been made with embankment heights lower than 15 m.
FIGURE C2 INDUCED TRENCH CONDITION
C6.3.3.2 Negative projection

This installation condition, which is shown in Figure 3(b), often occurs where pipelines
requiring flat gradients pass through undulating terrain, resulting in the pipes being laid in a
shallow trench and subsequently covered by an embankment.
There are a number of benefits inherent in this condition and depending on the extent to
which advantage is to be taken of them, the trench may be filled with compressible material
or compacted fill.
Having regard to the commentary on the induced trench condition below, it is clear that a
negative projection embankment condition can be made to operate in an identical manner.
Indeed, if full advantage is to be taken of the load reduction offered by Equation 3, then
straw bales should be specified for the compressible material.
Loose fill may be specified for the compressible material if some load reduction is
desirable. No allowance should be made for a reduction in the load calculations, as the
compressibility of this material is indeterminate (in load calculations an assumption of
C e′ = 1.0 would be reasonable). However, for large values of H/B (say 3 and above), if it is
desired to take the trench effect into account, then a suitable procedure is described in
Ref. 6.
Where low embankments are required and localized subsidence would be unacceptable,
compacted fill should be specified for the trench.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 12
The concept of the plane of equal settlement is also applicable to negative projecting
conduits. For certain values of H/B, the plane of equal settlement will be at or above the
surface level. For this ‘complete negative projection condition’ the value of C n′ obtained
from Figure 8 is calculated from the following equation (Ref. 8):
e −2 Kµ ( H / B ) − 1 B
C n′ = ⋅ . . . C5
− 2 Kµ H
Equation C5 is similar to the formula for the coefficient for the trench condition except that
coefficient of internal friction of the fill material µ is used in lieu of µ′ and it is multiplied
by a ratio B/H.
Where the plane of equal settlement is below the surface level (i.e., He < H), the incomplete
negative projection condition exists and the above formula is not applicable. Spangler
provided a range of solutions for different settlement ratios (Ref. 1), which have been used
along with the formula for the complete negative projection condition, to generate the
values of C n′ obtained from Figure 8, which are given in Table C3. It should be noted that
the values plotted in Figure 8 are based on a value of Kµ = 0.13. The values of C n′ obtained
using this value may be conservative for other soil conditions. Ref. 7 contains additional
information which would enable different values of C n′ to be calculated for different soil
conditions.
TABLE C3
VALUES OF C n′ FOR Kµ = 0.13 and H/ B >16
Cn′
rs
p′ = 0.5 p′ = 1.0 p′ = 1.5 p′ = 2.0
0.0 (0.88H/B + 0.03) × (B/H) (0.77H/B + 0.11) × (B/H) (0.68H/B + 0.23) × (B/H) (0.59H/B + 0.37) × (B/H)
–0.1 (0.77H/B + 0.09) × (B/H) (0.65H/B + 0.25) × (B/H) (0.55H/B + 0.44) × (B/H) (0.47H/B + 0.65) × (B/H)
C6.3.3.4 Jacked (thrust) or bored pipes condition

When establishing the strength requirements for jacking pipes, the jacking force as well as
the vertical external load should be considered.
The effect of this on the pipe specification is dealt with in Ref. 8. As a general rule the
cross-sectional area of the pipe joint should be large enough to limit the compression stress
to between 12 MPa and 15 MPa for packed joints, assuming concentric compression. This
value allows for some measure of eccentricity in the transfer of the jacking force through
the joint. However, a higher stress may be used in specially controlled circumstances, or
where a detailed stress analysis of the joint is carried out.
The addition of a minimum design load (W g ) for jacking pipe based on a soil parameter (c)
of zero (effectively ignoring soil arching effects), and a value C t = 1.5, ensures that the
resultant load class for jacking pipes is necessarily conservative in its estimate of pipe
design, in particular, the required wall thickness. This requirement adds robustness to the
pipe and reduces the possibility of failure during pipe jacking due to excessive loads or
deflections that occasionally occur during this high-risk operation.
COPYRIGHT
13 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
C6.3.3.5 Settlement ratio

Settlement ratio refers to embankment conditions and is defined by the following equations:
rs = [(S m + S g ) − (S f + dc )]/S m for positive projection; or . . . C6
rs = [(S g − (Sd + S f + dc)]/S d for negative projection . . . C7
where
S m = compression of the side column of soil of height D
S g = settlement of the natural ground surface adjacent to pipes
S f = settlement of the pipes into their foundation
S d = compression of the fill material in the trench within the height—p′B
d c = deflection of the vertical diameter of the pipes (see Figure C3)
Depending on whether r s is positive or negative, the shear stresses between the soil prism
above the pipes and the adjacent soil columns will be acting downwards or upwards on the
prism. The implication of this difference is discussed in greater detail in Ref. 1.
FIGURE C3 SETTLEMENT RATIO TERMS

C6.4 Working loads due to superimposed dead loads
Concentrated dead loads applied to the surface close to pipes should be avoided wherever
possible; however, if it is necessary that a pipe pass close under or closely adjacent to such
a load, a load-relieving structure, which transfers the load directly to a level at or near the
pipe invert, should always be used. If this is not feasible, concentrated surface loads will be
transmitted to pipes through a reasonable depth of fill or natural ground. The designer
should use accepted methods of soil mechanics and structural analysis to determine the
effect of the load on the pipes, taking account of any proposed future additional loads.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 14
The designer is cautioned in the use of Equation 5 without first considering the actual
application being designed for. In trench or embankment installations, the working load on
the pipe due to earth load is calculated using various values of C t, Ce′ or C n′ which are all
indirectly a measure of the frictional forces acting in the fill above a pipe. Before using an
equivalent height of fill in Equations 1, 2 or 3, the designer should ensure that the relative
settlements that are required to induce these frictional forces can in fact occur. Ref. 7
contains a more complete treatment of surcharge loading.
C6.5 Working loads due to superimposed live loads

C6.5.1 General
The live loads of principal concern in pipe design are the concentrated surface loads
resulting from roadway, railway and construction vehicles. Live loads resulting from the
passage of heavy service or emergency vehicles over the pipes will also need to be
considered in off-road or off-rail areas.
Impact loadings, particularly those caused by construction equipment, may increase
considerably in the transition from smooth to rough surface conditions. Designers should
take into account the controls on heavy equipment movement and on the surface profiling
that will be in place during and subsequent to construction.
Live loads from cars and pedestrians in car parks and pedestrian thoroughfares, etc., are
usually negligible in relation to the loads due to the fill materials over the pipes and have
therefore not been considered in the Standard.
Where it is necessary to consider uniformly distributed live loads of this nature, appropriate
values of the loads may be obtained from AS/NZS 1170.1. These may then be treated as an
equivalent height of fill as for uniformly distributed dead loads and the working load on the
pipe calculated in accordance with the relevant installation condition. The portion of the
test load from these causes would be obtained by dividing the working load thus calculated
by 1.5, this being the bedding factor for live loads.
C6.5.2 Construction and other equipment loads
Live loads from construction equipment are an essential consideration in the design or
selection of pipes, as they may constitute the maximum design loading. Some authorities
have determined minimum cover requirements for passage of construction equipment, and
designers may be able to use such information for guidance; however, it is the designer’s
responsibility to ascertain the type of equipment likely to be used and to determine the
loads this equipment would transmit to the pipes at various depths of cover. For the selected
pipes, minimum depths of cover at which various items of equipment or maximum loads are
permitted to travel over the pipes can then be set. Adequate provisions, in the form of
instructions, supervision or contractual requirements, should then be made to ensure that
these design conditions are met during installation.
C6.5.3 Road vehicle loads
C6.5.3.2 Distribution of road traffic loads through fill
For covers ≥0.4 m, the assumptions on which pressure distributions resulting from road
vehicle wheel loads are based on elastic theory and the appropriate Boussinesq equations.
The equations in the Standard are based on the load distributions and tyre print sizes
recommended in the review paper (R ‘Distribution of Road Traffic Loads Through Fill—
Review of AS 5100.2—2004, Clause 6.12’, V. Nechvoglod/G. Forster, 16/3/2005, Ref. 20).
The values adopted are those specifically recommended for buried structures including
concrete culverts and pipes.
COPYRIGHT
15 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
For a single wheel load (i.e., where G = 0), L1 = b + 1.45H. For multiple abnormal wheel
loads and axle configurations, the appropriate distributed load should be determined in
accordance with Figure 9 and Equation 6. The same principles may be applied to loads from
vehicles in adjacent lanes (see Figure C4).
For covers less than 0.4 m, the whole wheel load should be assumed to bear directly on the
pipe but may be distributed over the effective length (Le) as defined in Clause 6.5.3.4. For
small diameter pipes, this can lead to high working loads that have to be resisted not only
circumferentially but also longitudinally in the direction of the pipes. Therefore, uniform
bedding conditions are of considerable importance in these circumstances.
Where authority-referenced specifications (e.g., AS 5100) are not mandatory, such as
within private property, experience has generally shown that for earth covers between 0.2 m
and 0.4 m, satisfactory performance can be achieved by a design using the same distribution
assumptions as illustrated in Figure 9. In these circumstances the user is responsible for the
design method adopted.
The effect of a pavement has not been considered in Clauses 6.5.3.2 to 6.5.3.4 mainly
because it might be removed at a later date, even if only temporarily.
The effect of a rigid pavement (concrete) is to distribute the load over a wider area than in
the case of unpaved areas. The influence of flexible pavements is small and can usually be
ignored.
Design load calculations for pipes bedded under rigid pavements are shown in
Appendix CA, Refs 9 and 10.
G1 G2 G1
b b b b
P P P P
0.725 H
0.75D D
L1 = Σ(G) + b + 1.45H
Le = L 1 + (1.45 x 0.75D)
DIMENSIONS IN METRES
FIGURE C4 LOADS FROM VEHICLES IN ADJACENT LANES
C6.5.3.3 Highway vehicle loads

General
Appendix B was compiled using the assumptions given in Paragraph C6.5.3.2 and the loads
and load arrangements as follows.
At a given depth below the road surface, the average load intensity is taken to be the greater
value obtained from these arrangements, using Equation 6 and an appropriate value of the
dynamic load allowance (α) taken from Table C4.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 16
Australia
The relevant wheel loading arrangements from AS 5100.2 are presented in Figures C5, C6
and C7. These are the W80, A160 and M1600 standard vehicle loading cases as follows:
(a) W80 is a load of 80 kN distributed over the load (tyre) contact area of 0.5 × 0.2 m.
(b) A160 is an individual heavy axle as given in Figure C5. Its origin is the A14 load
case from the 1976, NAASRA Bridge Design Standard.
(c) M1600 is a moving traffic load as given in Figure C6 (the 6 kN/m length applies over
the full standard lane width of 3.2 m).
(d) When required HLP320 and HLP400 load cases, as given in Figure C7, are specified
by the relevant authority.
New Zealand
The Transit New Zealand Bridge Manual (Ref. 3) HN and HO standard vehicle loadings are
given in Figure C8.
C6.5.3.4 Working loads due to other road vehicles
Equation 7 may also be used for calculating live loads from other average load intensities,
if the appropriate value of q, obtained from the relevant clauses, is substituted in the
equation.
The use of the effective length (Le) recognizes the ability of a pipe to spread the load over
the length of its supporting bed.
TABLE C4
DYNAMIC LOAD ALLOWANCE (SEE NOTE)
Dynamic load allowance at
Loading ground level (see Notes)
(α)
W80 wheel load 0.4
A160 axle load 0.4
M160 tri-axle load 0.35

M1600 load 0.3
HLP loading 0.1
NOTE: For buried structures, such as culverts, the dynamic
load allowance to be applied to the entire structure shall be—
(a) the ground level value for a cover depth of zero;
(b) 0.1 for a cover depth of 2 m or more; or
(c) a linear interpolation between depths of zero and 2 m.
C6.5.4 Railway loads

The average intensity of live load/depth shown in Table B4 is based on data from Ref. 11.
The data were modified to suit AS 5100.2 (Ref. 2), Figure 8.2, 300LA railway axle loading.
The configuration for railway loading 300LA is shown in Figures C9 and Figure C10. The
values shown in Table B4 have been calculated for the standard gauge track (1435 mm
gauge) with 2.44 m sleepers and incorporate an appropriate impact factor. For other track
gauges, the values need to be modified using the appropriate sleeper length.
Commonly used sleeper lengths for various track gauges are given in Table C5.
Pipes with shallow cover under railway track should be avoided, as they are liable to
damage from track maintenance equipment. Intensities from other railway loadings on the
same gauge track may be calculated by simple proportion.
COPYRIGHT
17 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
For example, if the intensity is required for a height of cover of 3 m for 250LA loading.
From Table B4 for 300LA loading, q = 28 kN/m 2 at H = 3. Hence, 250LA loading,
q = 28 × 250/300 = 23 kN/m 2 .
TABLE C5
COMMONLY USED SLEEPER LENGTHS
FOR VARIOUS TRACK GAUGES
Track gauge Normal sleeper length
mm mm
1600 (broad) 2750 (9 ft)
1435 (standard) 2440 (8 ft)
1067 (narrow) 2150 (7 ft)
C6.5.5 Aircraft loads

Aircraft loadings vary considerably depending on the type of aircraft and pavement
construction. This is a specialist area of design. Additional information to that given in
Clause 6.5.5 can be found in specialist literature such as Refs 9 and 12.
FIGURE C5 A160 AXLE LOAD
FIGURE C6 M1600 TRAFFIC LOAD
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 18
NOTE: HLP320 and HLP400 axles loads are centrally located on two standard design lanes (each 3 m wide). The axles
are permitted to be up to 1 m off centre.
FIGURE C7 HLP320/400 WHEEL ARRANGEMENTS
COPYRIGHT
19 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
FIGURE C8 TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND BRIDGE MANUAL (REF. 3)

FIGURE 3.1 HN-HO-72 TRAFFIC LOADING
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 20
FIGURE C9 300LA RAILWAY TRAFFIC LOADS (AS 5100.2 FIGURE 8.2(A))
FIGURE C10 300LA RAILWAY TRAFFIC LOADS—AXLE GROUP SPACINGS

(AS 5100.2 FIGURE 8.2(B))
C8 COMPACTION
Since disturbed natural soils exhibit a high degree of variability in both the extent and rate
of consolidation under load, thorough and uniform compaction of fill material under, over
and around pipes to at least the degree nominated is essential for maintaining—
(d) required grades and alignments, by compaction of the material below the invert and
along the sides of the pipes;
(e) the required degree of circumferential and longitudinal support, by compaction of the
material below the top of the pipe; and
(f) required surface levels, by compaction of all material between the foundation and the
finished surface.
To achieve the desired compaction, the bedding material should be laterally contained. In a
trench, this containment is provided by the trench walls; in an embankment; however,
sufficient lateral support will generally not be available. In such cases and where possible, a
shallow trench may be cut in the foundation material to contain the required depth of
bedding. Where the relative levels of the pipe invert and the adjacent natural surface
precludes trenching of the foundation, the embankment may have to be constructed to a
height approximately equal to the pipe diameter and the containment trench then the
compacted embankment fill may be cut through.
COPYRIGHT
21 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
Because of the relatively high costs involved in obtaining, placing and compacting bedding
material, the designer should examine carefully the economic consequences of choosing a
high bedding factor against the alternative of a lesser depth and compaction of bedding with
a consequently lower bedding factor and possibly stronger pipe.
As noted previously in Paragraphs C4.7 and C6.3.3, where maintenance of a smooth surface
is essential (roadways, aircraft runways, etc.), proper compaction of the fill materials over
and adjacent to the pipes will be required.
In order to achieve adequate compaction in the field, fill material should be placed and
compacted in relatively thin layers. For ordinary fill (no stones larger than 150 mm), the
layer thicknesses should not exceed 200 mm. For select fill (no stones larger than 75 mm),
the layer thicknesses should not exceed 150 mm. The moisture content of cohesive fill
should also be kept within a specified range, usually taken to be 85% to 115% of the
optimum moisture content of the material. Where physically possible, field tests, as
outlined in AS 1289/NZS 4402, should be regularly used to measure the degree of
compaction being achieved. In areas such as beneath the pipe in the haunch zone, it is not
possible to conduct tests such as AS 1289.5.3.1/NZS 4402.5.1.1 due to limited headroom.
Yet, in such areas compaction can be extremely critical and it is suggested that a dynamic
cone penetrometer, such as that described in AS 1289.5.3.2, be specified to be used on an
angle to probe adjacent to the haunch. It would be necessary to calibrate the cone, operating
at the same angle in the same material, with a known degree of compaction.
It is important that all support material is compacted to the minimum density specified in
Table 5 as the compaction influences the relevant bedding factors.
The bed and haunch zone material is usually placed and compacted in two stages. The first
stage consists of the bed zone, the second is the haunch zone. The bed zone can be
compacted by most conventional methods (tamping, rolling, vibration) but for the haunch
zone the following guidelines are given:
(i) Material complying with the grading limits in Clause 9.2.2.2 may be placed and
compacted in one operation by saturation and vibration. The acceptability of this
method should be confirmed with the asset owner.
(ii) Bedding materials with fines content in excess of the preferred grading should be
stabilized with cement and compacted by vibration. The cement content both
enhances its compaction qualities and stability when set.

(iii) Sound crushed rock can be an excellent material from a stability point of view, even
if gap graded. Its compaction qualities may be enhanced by cement stabilization.
The disadvantage with a gap-graded material is that it has to be surrounded by a
suitable geotextile material, if used in connection with foundation materials
containing fines which can leach into its voids.
(iv) Where cement stabilization of the bedding material is required, soil/cement ratios
ranging from 25 to 8 may be used, giving 28 day compressive strengths from 1 MPa
to 5 MPa (see Ref. 13). There is a slight indication of a bedding factor increase with
increased compressive strength, but generally the cement is used to enhance the
placing and compaction qualities of the material and the cement content should be
chosen with this in mind.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 22
C9 PIPE SUPPORT AND BEDDING FACTORS

C9.1 General
C9.1.1 Pipe supports
The purpose of using compacted material adjacent to the pipe is to ensure uniform
longitudinal support for the pipeline and where bedding factors in excess of one are
required, to provide appropriate support for the lower half of the pipe’s circumference and
sides as opposed to just a line load support.
Uniform foundation support should be maintained along the pipeline, particularly with
small diameter pipes, to prevent ‘broken back’ failures. If movement of the native soil
causes that type of fracture, the bending moment force applied to the pipe may be reduced
by decreasing the diameter to length ratio of the pipe, or alternatively a higher class of pipe
having a higher bending strength should be selected.
The above considerations and those in Paragraph C8 highlight the two aspects of the
concrete pipe bedding, which constitute the dominant influences on the structural
performance of the pipes, namely—
(g) the extent and degree to which an even and uniform support is provided under the
haunches of the pipes; and
(h) the effectiveness of the lateral restraint provided by the side supports.
When comparing the bedding factors applicable to the different support types, it becomes
obvious that if a high degree of haunch support can be achieved together with a very
effective side support, then very high bedding factors can be expected; however, the
practical difficulties in achieving this are considerable and the degree of field supervision
required to ensure its consistent achievement is very high.
The long-term stability of the installation should be considered when selecting materials for
the support zones, particularly for a trench condition. The excavation of a trench on a grade
in impervious material may constitute a drainage channel and any material placed in the
trench should therefore resist scouring. Material consisting mainly of fine sands would be
unsuitable in these circumstances.
C9.1.2 Bedding factors

The effect on the load-carrying capacity of installed pipes, due to live loads, has historically
been shown to be virtually independent of the type of bedding used or the installation
condition. Consequently, the bedding factor for live loads has been taken in the Standard as
a constant value of 1.5 for all live loads and installation conditions.
C9.2 Support types
C9.2.1 Type U support
Type U support is intended for minor reticulations in small diameter pipes, such as shallow
drainage lines crossing private properties, or where the pipes will not be subjected to
significant traffic loads. Rock foundations need to be covered by a soil material and
similarly it is customary to cover earth foundations to ensure that no boulders or rock
outcrops are present immediately below the pipes. If the absence of rocks or boulders is
guaranteed, a separate bedding cushion is not required and only grading of the foundation is
necessary.
Similarly, the provision of an overlay of 150 mm thickness of ordinary fill ensures that no
boulders or large rocks can damage the pipe during either backfilling or any subsequent
compaction.
COPYRIGHT
23 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
C9.2.2 Type H support

The loads acting on the top portion of a pipe are nearly always well distributed, irrespective
of how the overlay fill materials are initially placed or compacted; however, the distribution
of the reaction on the bottom part of the pipe depends almost entirely on the extent and
degree of compaction of the loading materials actually achieved in the field. Guidelines on
this operation are given in Paragraph C8.
Type H (haunch) support is aimed at reducing the bending effects in the pipe by distributing
the reaction to the applied loads over an appreciable arc of the pipe’s lower circumference.
(This can be likened to reducing the bending in a beam by substituting an equivalent
uniformly distributed load for a mid-span point load.) For a haunch zone depth of 0.3D, the
maximum effect of distributing the reaction in this way is a reduction of the bending in the
pipe wall to approximately 40% of the bending produced by the line support of the standard
load test. Hence, a maximum bedding factor of 2.5 is specified in Table 4, assuming that the
relevant compaction has been achieved. Note that for Type H support, the material in the
overlay zone is specified simply as ‘compacted ordinary fill’ but no degree of compaction is
indicated. This is because none of this material, even that along the sides of the pipe, is
relied upon to support the pipe in a structural sense.
Type H1 and H2 supports depend primarily on well-compacted bed and haunch zones to
support the pipe. Therefore, the materials in these zones need to be carefully selected to
ensure that the required compaction can be achieved and maintained during the effective
service life of the pipe. Select fill that satisfies the grading limits of Table 5 should meet
these requirements.
The cost of imported materials is high, and of importing materials that do not exceed the
specified limits may possibly be even higher. Materials with grading curves not lying
entirely within the limits given in Table 5 are, therefore, permitted, since in any case they
may still be capable of being compacted to the required density or, if not, may be so
compacted if cement stabilized. Materials with only the finer fraction (<0.15 mm) outside
the specified limits are particularly suited for the latter approach.
C9.2.3 Type HS support
Type HS supports are best specified for high-fill embankments or deep trench installations
and where pipes are laid on shallow grades (as for sewer lines) or under roadways with
shallow cover. High-fill and deep trench are considered where the ratio of height of fill to
pipe diameter exceeds a value in the region of 5 (i.e., the change point is not precise).
For high-fill embankments a HS3 installation is normally adopted; however, good practice
will ensure that the pipe class does not fall below Class 3 and, for high-fill embankments
and multiple pipe installations, the pipe class does not fall below Class 4.
Where HS supports are adopted for multiple pipe installations greater than DN 1500 it is
essential that the distance between adjacent pipes be carefully considered to ensure that the
haunch and side zone material can be placed and compacted such that no voids exist within
these zones. The voids have the potential to allow migration of material and consequently
loss in compaction in the embedment profile.
The effectiveness of the haunch and side support also depends on the lateral restraint
offered by the trench wall. Disturbed trench walls, or trenches dug in unstable materials
cannot be counted on to provide the degree of restraint assumed in the HS bedding factors.
Restrictions have thus been placed on the materials in the trench walls to ensure the side
zones are effective.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 24
Note that for HS supports, either H1 or H2 bed and haunch zone dimensions and materials
are specified, that is, H1 zones for HS1 support and H2 zones for HS2 and HS3 supports.
The latter is possible because the more effective the side support becomes, the less the
significance of the bed and haunch support distribution, as the position of the maximum
bending moment shifts away from the invert. This point has been confirmed by tests on
Type HS3 installations, which showed no difference in the load-bearing capacity of the
pipes when they were bedded on a shaped or a flat bed.
C9.3 Bedding factors for dead loads
The correlation between working loads on installed pipes and factory test loads specified in
AS 4058 for a particular pipe load class, represented by the bedding factors given in this
Standard, have been established from a combination of observation reports on pipes in
service, research investigations into trial installations and finite element studies of concrete
pipe in soil carried out both in the USA and Australia over the past 50 years.
For Types U, H and HS supports, Table 4 summarizes the criteria to be satisfied if a
particular bedding factor is assumed. Before assuming the maximum value, however, the
designer will need to satisfy himself that the required minimum degree of compaction in the
various zones will actually be achieved in the field. A well-written works specification,
with provision for adequate site testing and supervision, would usually be necessary for
such an assumption, otherwise a lower value than the maximum should be chosen.
Note that Clause 9.3.2 reduces the bedding factor to 1.5 if the fine fraction of the bed or
haunch zone material has a grading curve outside the limits of Table 5. This is because the
long-term stability of such material is suspect unless it has been cement-stabilized. For
jacked or bored pipes, the bedding factor can usually be assumed to be between 2 and 3,
depending on the degree of over-excavation. If the space between the limit of the
excavation and the outside of the pipes is too large, haunch support can only be effected
after either considerable vertical deflection of the pipes, or soil movement. In this case, the
lower value of the bedding factor should be assumed.
C10 TEST LOADS

C10.1 General
For the standard methods of test specified in AS 4058 and AS 4139, the test pipe is
supported at the bottom along its length on one-or two-line supports and the load is applied
along a line at the top of the pipe. This produces localized extremes of stress in the pipe
adjacent to the line of the support and the line of the load, and at right angles to these
positions.
For installed pipes, the load (and usually the support) is distributed over a much larger
proportion of the pipe circumference than is the case with the test loads, leading to lower
load intensities and more even distribution of stresses throughout the pipe wall.
Consequently, for a given pipe and failure criterion (viz. formation of a particular width of
crack or collapse), an installed pipe will carry a greater load than the test load. The ratio of
these loads is defined as the ‘bedding factor’, which can be seen in Clause 9 to be a
function of the nature of the applied load and the nature and extent of the support provided
to the pipe by the materials in the various support zones.
C10.2 and C10.3 Test loads for pipes not subject to internal pressure
The correlation between working loads and test loads obtained by using the bedding factor
in accordance with Clauses 10.2 and 10.3, defines a deemed to be equivalent relationship
between the two loads. On this basis, having calculated the working load for a given
installation condition, the equivalent test load can be determined from Equations 8 and 9.
An appropriate class of pipe may then be obtained from AS 4058 and AS 4139 by selecting,
for the required pipe diameter, the class whose test load is equal to or greater than the
equivalent test load. Examples of this type of calculation are given in Appendix CC of this
Supplement.
COPYRIGHT
25 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
C10.4 Test loads for steel reinforced pipes subject to internal pressure
Acceptance of pipes by proof testing implies that for in-service conditions of simultaneous
external loads and internal pressure, the pipes should be tested in a corresponding manner.
Such tests, however, are both expensive and difficult to perform. It has, therefore, been
customary to substitute separate external load tests and hydrostatic pressure tests and to
utilize an interaction formula to ascertain a combination of working load and pressure for
which the pipe will not leak.
The use of Equation 10 for this purpose is traditional for many pipe materials. The rationale
leading to its adoption for concrete pipes is given in Refs 14 and 15. Whilst these references
deal mainly with prestressed concrete pipes, Ref. 15 endorses its use for ‘other types of
concrete pipes’ and it has been successfully used for reinforced pipes in Australia for more
than a decade.
As can be seen from Equation 10, the relationship between the external test loads and
internal pressures is a fractional power function, which can be written in the form—
y = (1 − x) 1/3; 0 ≤ x ≤ 1.0
where
y = T c/T cd
x = P w/Pt
It should be particularly noted that Equation 10 does not yield a unique value of test load
for a particular working load and working pressure, but gives a range of values depending
on the choice of the ratio of working to test pressure, or vice versa. This can be clearly seen
from Figure C11 where for any value of the pressure ratio (x) the external load ratio (y) can
vary between zero and (1 − x) 1/3.
The extreme values of this relationship are shown by the ends of the curve in the Figure,
which indicates that, theoretically at least, the combination cracking load (Tcp) would equal
the non-pressure cracking load (Tc) only when x = 0, that is, when the working pressure
(Pw) equals zero. For practical purposes, however, the effects of internal pressure are taken
to be negligible if the test pressure (Tp) is not greater than 100 kPa. Hence, for reinforced
pipes where the working pressure is such that the test pressure is not greater than 100 kPa,
Equation 8 may be used as indicated in Clause 10.2.

Further limitations on the choice of the pressure ratio (x), are imposed by the inequality
given at the end of the clause. This is derived from considerations of the minimum factor of
safety on internal working pressure recommended in AS 4058 and the practical maximum
capacity of a given size of pipe to resist internal pressure as shown in Figure C12. The
resulting range of values for ‘x’ and ‘y’ permitted by the Standard are shown by the shaded
area of Figure C11.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 26
FIGURE C11 LOAD-PRESSURE RELATIONSHIP

FIGURE C12 MAXIMUM PRESSURES FOR REINFORCED PIPES
COPYRIGHT
27 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
APPENDIX CA
REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
CA1 STANDARDS
The following Standards are referred to in this Commentary:
AS
1289 Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes (all parts)
1726 Geotechnical site investigations
4058 Precast concrete pipes (pressure and non-pressure)
NOTE: At the time of publication of this Standard, AS 4058 was under review by
the Committee and intended to be replaced by a Joint Australian/New Zealand
Standard in due course (to become AS/NZS 4058). In the meantime, for New
Zealand applications, all references to AS 4058 throughout this Standard should
be deemed to include references to NZS 3107, Specification for precast concrete
drainage and pressure pipes, as appropriate and applicable.
4139 Fibre-reinforced concrete pipes and fittings
5100 Bridge design
5100.2 Part 2: Design loads
AS/NZS
1170 Structural design actions
1170.1 Part 1: Permanent, imposed and other actions
3725 Design for installation of buried concrete pipes
NZS
3107 Specification for precast concrete drainage and pressure pipes
4402 Methods of testing soils for civil engineering purposes (all parts)
CA2 OTHER DOCUMENTS

The following documents are referred to in this Commentary by reference number:
1 SPANGLER, M. G. and HANDY, R. L., Soil engineering, McGraw Hill, 1982.
2 AS 5100.2 Bridge Design—Design loads.
3 Bridge Manual—SP/M/014, Transit New Zealand, 1994 (with Amendments 1, 2, 3
and 4 (2002)).
4 Geotechnical Branch Training Manual, Denver, (Col): U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Centre, Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7.
5 AS CA33, Concrete pipelaying design, Standards Association of Australia, 1962.
6 YOUNG, O. C. and TROT, J. J., Buried rigid pipes (structural design of pipelines),
London, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, 1984, p.58-59.
7 Concrete Pipe Handbook, American Concrete Pipe Association, 1998.
8 Pipe jacking, Concrete Pipe Association of Australia, 1984.
9 Vertical pressures on culverts under wheel loads on concrete pavement slabs,
American Portland Cement Association, 1951, Publication No. ST-65.
10 Concrete pipe design manual, American Concrete Pipe Association, 1970.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 28
11 Manual for Railway Engineering 1999, American Railway Engineering and

Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA).
12 Aircraft loads, American Concrete Pipe Association, 1969, Design Data No. 15.
13 NUSSBAUM, P. J. and CADIENA, L., Load factors for concrete pipes bedded in
cement-treated soils, Skokie (Ill.), Portland Cement Assn., 1975.
14 Journal of the American Water Works Association, November 1950, p.1059-1064.
15 Journal of the American Water Works Association, January 1963, p.99.
16 ASTM C1479-01, Standard Practice for Installation of Precast Concrete Sewer,
Storm Drain, and Culvert Pipe Using Standard Installations. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 04.05.
17 HEGER, F. J., New Installation Designs for Buried Concrete Pipe, ASCE Conference
Proceeding ‘Pipeline Infrastructure’ 1988, pp.117–135.
18 HEGER, F.J., LIEPENS, A. A., SELIG, E. T., SPIDA: An Analysis and Design
System for Buried Concrete Pipe, ASCE Conference Proceeding ‘Advances in
Underground Pipeline Engineering’ 1985, pp.143–154.
19 SELIG, E. T., SPIDA: Soil Parameters for Design of Buried Pipes, ASCE Conference
Proceeding ‘Pipeline Infrastructure’ 1988, pp.99–116.
20 NECHVOGLOD, V. and FORSTER, G., Distribution of Road Traffic Load Through
Fill—Review of AS 5100.2—2004, Clause 6.12, March 2005, p.15, Section 6.2,
Recommendations.
COPYRIGHT
29 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
APPENDIX CB
GUIDE TO THE DESCRIPTION, IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF
SOILS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES
CB1 INTRODUCTION
Tables CB1 and CB2 are taken from Table A in Appendix A of AS 1726—1993. It is
included in this Supplement to assist users of AS/NZS 3725 to identify soils that meet the
definition of ‘select fill’ given in Clause 4 of the Standard and which are required to
provide support to the pipe in accordance with Clause 9 of AS/NZS 3725.
Figure CB1 (the plasticity chart) is required to further distinguish the select fill materials
from H1 bedding, which do not need cement stabilization, as noted in Clause 9.2.2.2 of
AS/NZS 3725.
It is recommended that AS 1726 be referred to, not only for selecting appropriate fill
materials but also for the initial investigation of the ground along the pipeline route, to
establish the basic data essential for determining loads in accordance with AS/NZS 3725.
CB2 FIELD IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR FINE-GRAINED SOILS OR

FRACTIONS
CB2.1 General
These procedures are to be performed on the minus 0.2 mm size particles. For field
classification purposes, screening is not intended; simply remove by hand the coarse
particles that interfere with the tests.
CB2.2 Dry strength (crushing characteristics)
After removing particles larger than 0.2 mm size, mould a pat of soil the consistency of
putty, adding water if necessary. Allow the pat to dry completely in the oven, under sun or
by air-drying, and then test its strength by breaking and crumbling between the fingers. This
strength is a measure of the character and quality of the colloidal fraction contained in the
soil. The dry strength increases with increasing plasticity. High dry strength is
characteristic of clays of the CH group.

A typical inorganic silt possesses only very slight dry strength.
Silty fine sands and silts have about the same slight dry strength, but can be distinguished
by the feel when powdering the dry specimen. Fine sand feels gritty, whereas a typical silt
has the smooth feel of flour.
CB2.3 Dilatancy (reaction to shaking)
After removing particles larger than 0.2 mm size, prepare a pat of moist soil with a volume
of 10 cm 3 . Add enough water if necessary to make the soil soft but not sticky.
Place the pat in the open palm of one hand and shake horizontally, striking vigorously
against the other hand several times. A positive reaction consists of the appearance of water
on the surface of the pat, which changes to a livery consistency and becomes glossy. When
the sample is squeezed between the fingers, the water and gloss disappear from the surface,
the pat stiffens, and finally it cracks or crumbles.
The rapidity of appearance of water during shaking, and of its disappearance during
squeezing, assist in identifying the character of the fines in a soil.
Very fine clean sands give the quickest and most distinct reaction whereas a plastic clay has
no reaction. Inorganic silts, such as a typical rock flour, show a moderately quick reaction.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 30
CB2.4 Toughness (consistency near plastic limit)

After removing particles larger than 0.2 mm size, a specimen of soil about 10 cm3 in size is
moulded to the consistency of putty. If too dry, water should be added and, if sticky, the
specimen should be spread out in a thin layer and allowed to lose some moisture by
evaporation. The specimen is then rolled out by hand on a smooth surface, or between the
palms, into a thread about 3 mm in diameter. The thread is then folded and re-rolled
repeatedly. During this manipulation the moisture content is gradually reduced and the
specimen stiffens, finally loses its plasticity and crumbles when the plastic limit is reached.
After the thread crumbles, the pieces should be lumped together, with a slight kneading
action continuing until the lump crumbles. The tougher the thread near the plastic limit, and
the stiffer the lump when it finally crumbles, the more potent is the colloidal clay fraction
in the soil.
Weakness of the thread at the plastic limit, and quick loss of coherence of the lump below
the plastic limit, indicate either inorganic clay of low plasticity, or materials, such as
kaolin-type clays and organic clays, that occur below the ‘A’ line (see Figure CB1). Highly
organic clays have a very weak and spongy feel at the plastic limit.
COPYRIGHT
TABLE CB1
DESCRIPTION, IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF COARSE GRAINED SOILS GUIDE
(More than half of the material less than 63 mm is larger than 0.075 mm)
Laboratory classification (Note 1)
Particle Group Field identification %
Major divisions Typical names Plasticity of C c = (D 30 )2/
size, mm symbol Sand and gravels <0.075 mm C u = D 60 /D 10
fine fraction D 10D 60
(Note 2)
Boulders >200
Cobbles >63
Gravels Coarse 20 GW Well-graded gravels, Wide range in grain size and substantial
Between 1
(more than half of gravel-sand mixtures, amounts of all intermediate sizes, not enough 0–5 — >4
and 3
coarse fraction is little or no fines fines to bind coarse grains, no dry strength
larger than
Medium 6 GP Poorly graded gravels, Predominantly one size or range of sizes with
2.36 mm)
gravel-sand mixtures some intermediate sizes missing, not enough
0–5 — Fails to comply with above
with little or no fines, fines to bind coarse grains, no dry strength
uniform gravels
31
GM Silty gravels, gravel- ‘Dirty’ materials with excess of non-plastic Below ‘A’ line
12–50 — —
sand-silt mixtures fines, zero to medium dry strength or l p < 4
COPYRIGHT
Fine 2.36 GC Clayey gravels, gravel- ‘Dirty’ materials with excess of plastic fines, Above ‘A’ and
12–50 — —
sand-clay mixtures medium to high dry strength lp > 7
Sands Coarse 0.6 SW Well-graded sands, Wide range in grain size and substantial
Between 1
(more than half of gravelly sands with little amounts of all intermediate sizes, not enough 0–5 — >6
and 3
coarse fraction is or no fines fines to bind coarse grains, no dry strength
smaller than
2.36 mm) Medium SP Poorly graded sands, Predominantly one size or range of sizes with
0.2 gravelly sands with little some intermediate sizes missing, not enough
0–5 — Fails to comply with above
or no fines, uniform fines to bind coarse grains, no dry strength
sands
SM Slity sands, sand-silt ‘Dirty’ materials with excess of non-plastic Below ‘A’ line
12–50 — —
mixtures fines, zero to medium dry strength or l p < 4
Fine 0.075 SC Clayey sands, sand-clay ‘Dirty’ materials with excess plastic fines, Above ‘A’ and
12–50 — —
mixtures medium to high dry strength lp > 7
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
NOTES TO TABLE CB1:

1 Use the gradation curve of material passing 63 mm for classification of fractions according to the criteria in ‘major division’.
2 Borderline classifications occur when the percentage of fines (fractions smaller than 0.075 mm size) is greater than 5% and less than 12%. Borderline classifications require
the use of dual symbols, e.g., SP-SM, GW-GC.
3 Identify ‘A’ lines (see Figure CB1) by the method given for fine-grained soils (see Paragraph CB2).
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
32
COPYRIGHT
33 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
TABLE CB2
DESCRIPTION, IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION
OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS GUIDE
(More than half of the material less than 63 mm is smaller than 0.075 mm)
Laboratory
classification
Dry Tough- (Note 1)
Major Group Dilatancy
Typical names Strength ness
divisions symbol (Note 3) %<0.075 Plasticity
(Note 3) (Note 3)
mm of fine
(Note 2) fraction
Silts and ML Inorganic silts and very fine None to Quick to None Below
clays sands, rock flour, silty or low slow ‘A’ line
(Liquid clayey fine sands or clayey
limit silts with slight plasticity
<50%)
CL, CI Inorganic clays of low to Medium None to Medium Above
medium plasticity, gravelly to high very slow ‘A’ line
clays, sandy clays, silty clays, More
lean clays than 50%
OL Organic silts and organic silty Low to Slow Low of Below
(Note 4) clays of low plasticity medium material ‘A’ line
passing
Silts and MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or Low to Slow to Low to 0.06 mm Below
clays diatomaceous fine sandy or medium none medium ‘A’ line
(Liquid silty soils, elastic silts
limit
CH Inorganic clays of high High to None High Above
>50%)
plasticity, fat clays very high ‘A’ line
OH Organic clays of medium to Medium None to Low to Below
(Note 4) high plasticity, organic silts to high very slow medium ‘A’ line
Highly Pt Peat and other highly organic Identified by colour, odour,
organic (Note 4) soils spongy feel and generally by
soils fibrous texture
NOTES:
1 Use the gradation curve of material passing 63 mm for classification of fractions according to the criteria
given in ‘major division’.
2 Borderline classifications occur when the percentage of fines (fractions smaller than 0.075 mm size) is
greater than 5% and less than 12%. Borderline classifications require the use of dual symbols, e.g., SP-SM,
GW-GC.
3 Identify ‘A’ lines (see Figure CB1) by the method given for fine-grained soils (see Paragraph CB2).
4 Effervesces with H2 O2 .
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 34
FIGURE CB1 PLASTICITY CHART FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

COPYRIGHT
35 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
APPENDIX CC
EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF AS/NZS 3725
CC1 INTRODUCTION
This Appendix presents practical problems and relevant calculations that illustrate how the
provisions of the Standard are applied in determining working loads on pipes and in
selecting for these loads the appropriate class of pipe manufactured in accordance with
AS 4058. The calculations are presented in an explanatory form to assist first or occasional
users of the Standard. The order of accuracy adopted in the calculations is consistent with
the accuracy of the assumptions on which they are based.
Figure CC1 illustrates terms relating to the pipe cross-section, which are used throughout
the examples.
FIGURE CC1 PIPE TERMS
CC2 EXAMPLE 1
CC2.1 Problem
A size 900 mm concrete drainage pipe is to be laid in a single trench through an open
paddock. The trench will be excavated entirely in clay, which satisfies the requirements for
ordinary fill. A gravelly sand (GW) complying with Table 5 is readily available nearby. The
specification calls for the pipe invert to be 5.0 m below ground level, Type H2 support for
the pipe and prohibits the passage of construction machinery or other vehicles over the
pipeline. What class of pipe is required?
CC2.2 Calculations
Assume the outside diameter (D), of the pipe is 1.0 m. From Figure 12, the minimum width
of the trench (B) = D + D/6 + D/6.
Width of trench B = 1.0 + 0.33 = 1.33 m
Depth of fill H = 5.0 – 1.0 = 4.0 m
Unit weight of fill w = 20 kN/m 3 (see Paragraph C5)
The working load due to fill for a trench condition is given by the lesser of the values
obtained from Equation 1 (Clause 6.3.2 of the Standard) and Equation 2 (Clause 6.3.3.1 of
the Standard) as follows:
(a) W g = C t wB2 (Equation 1)
From Figure 6, for H/B = 3.0 and Curve A for wet clay, C t = 2.2
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 36
Substituting in Equation 1—
W g = 2.2 × 20 × 1.332 = 77.8 kN/m
(b) Wg = C e′ wDH (Equation 2)
The projection ratio, p = h/D, equals 0.7 for H2 installation.
From Clause 6.3.4, the settlement ratio (rs) for positive projection and earth
foundation = 1.0.
Hence rs p = 0.7.
From Figure 7, for H/D = 4.0/1.0 = 4.0 and rs p = 0.7, C e′ = 1.42 .
W g = 1.42 × 2.0 × 1.0 × 4.0 = 113.6 kN/m
Since the value for W g obtained from Equation 1 is less than the value obtained from
Equation 2, this is the value to be used in Clause 10.2.
CC2.3 Solution
CC2.3.1 General
For reinforced pipes, where no internal pressures are involved, the test cracking load is
given by Equation 8 in Clause 10.2 and for no live loads—
T c ≥ W g /F
From Table 4 in Clause 9.1.2, for Type H2 support, the bedding factor (F) is 2.0. Hence, the
minimum test cracking load would be—
T c ≥ 77.8/2 ≥ 38.9 kN/m
For unreinforced pipes, where no internal pressures are involved, the ultimate failure load is
given by Equation 8 in Clause 10.2, and for no live loads—
T u ≥ 1.5W g /F
From Table 4 in Clause 9.1.2, for Type H2 support, the bedding factor (F) is 2.0. Hence, the
minimum failure load would be—
T u ≥ 1.5 × 77.8/2 ≥ 58.35 kN/m

CC2.3.2 Unreinforced concrete pipe
From AS 4058, 900 mm unreinforced concrete pipes are not available in this diameter and
therefore an unreinforced pipe cannot be used.
CC2.3.3 Steel reinforced concrete pipe
From AS 4058, the test load for a 900 mm diameter Class 3 pipe is 56 kN/m. Since this is
greater than the calculated value of T c, a Class 3 pipe would be suitable.
NOTE: A Class 2 pipe with a test load of 37 kN/m is only marginally below the calculated value.
CC2.3.4 Fibre reinforced concrete pipe
From AS 4139, the long-term design load for a 900 mm diameter Class 3 pipe is 56 kN/m.
Since this is greater than the calculated value of Tc a Class 3 pipe would be suitable.
NOTE: A Class 2 pipe with a long-term design load of 37 kN/m is only marginally below the
calculated value.
COPYRIGHT
37 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
CC3 EXAMPLE 2
CC3.1 Problem
A size 450 mm concrete drainage pipe is to be laid in a single trench through an open
paddock. The excavation is entirely in material that is classified as ordinary fill, and no
construction machinery or other vehicle will pass over the pipe. Select fill complying with
Table 5 is available.
The following data are given:
External diameter of pipe, D = 0.53 m
Depth of trench to pipe invert, 2.25 m
Support type H1
Which class of pipe is required—
(a) generally in the paddock; and
(b) for a section that will pass under a concrete water tank if the uniform intensity of load
at the surface due to the full tank is 35 kN/m2
CC3.2 Calculation (a)
Depth of fill, H = 2.25 − 0.53 = 1.72 m
Width of trench, B = 0.53 + 0.30 = 0.83 m (minimum from Figure 12)
Unit weight of fill = 20 kN/m3
Following the same procedure as for Example 1:
From Figure 6, for H/B = 2.07 and Curve A, C t = 1.73 (wet clay)
W g = 1.73 × 20 × 0.83 2 = 23.83 kN/m
From Figure 7, for H/D = 1.72/0.53 = 3.24 and rs p = 0.9, C' e = 1.62 for wet clay.
W g = 1.62 × 20 × 0.53 × 1.72 = 29.53 kN/m

Again adopting the lesser value and the bedding factor of 1.5 from Table 4, we have—
(a) from Clause 10.2, for reinforced pipe, the test load given by—
Tc = 23.83/1.5 = 15.89 kN/m; or
(b) from Clause 10.3, for unreinforced pipe, the test load given by—
T u ≥ 1.5 × 23.83/1.5 ≥ 23.83 kN/m
CC3.3 Solution (a)
From AS 4058, the test load for a 450 mm diameter Class LDU pipe is 30.0 kN/m, hence a
450 mm diameter Class LDU pipe would be satisfactory in this area.
CC3.3.2 Steel-reinforced concrete pipe
greater than the calculated value of T c a Class 2 is satisfactory in the open paddock.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 38
CC3.3.3 Fibre-reinforced concrete pipe

From AS 4139, the long-term design load for a 450 mm diameter Class 1 pipe is 15.0 kN/m
and for a Class 2 pipe is 20 KN/m. As the calculated value of Tc lies between these values, a
Class 2 pipe would be suitable.
CC3.4 Calculation (b)
In accordance with Clause 6.4, the uniformly distributed dead load of the tank is converted
to an equivalent height of fill using Equation 5, that is—
H e = 35/20 = 1.75 m
and the height of fill (H), now becomes 1.72 + 1.75 = 3.47 m.
Recalculating,
H/B = 3.47/0.83 = 4.18, C t from Figure 6 is found to be 2.50, and Equation 1 gives—
W g = 2.5 × 20 × 0.832 = 34.4 kN/m
Recalculating,
H/D = 3.47/0.53 = 6.55, C'e from Figure 7 is found to be 1.64 (r sp = 0.9), and
Equation 2 gives—
W g = 1.64 × 20 × 0.53 × 3.47 = 60.32 kN/m
Hence, the test loads from Clauses 10.2 and 10.3 are—
T c ≥ 34.4/1.5 ≥ 22.9 kN/m for reinforced pipes, and
T u ≥ 1.5 × 34.4/1.5 ≥ 34.4 kN/m for unreinforced pipes
CC3.5 Solution (b)
From AS 4058, the test load for a 450 mm diameter Class LDU (unreinforced) pipe is
30.0 kN/m, hence a 450 mm diameter Class LDU pipe would not be satisfactory in this
area.
greater than the calculated value of T c a Class 3 pipe would be satisfactory in the open
paddock.
From AS 4139, the long-term design load for a 450 mm diameter Class 3 pipe is 30.0 kN/m.
Since this is greater than the calculated value of Tc a Class 3 pipe would be suitable.
CC4 EXAMPLE 3
CC4.1 Problem
A size 600 mm concrete drainage pipe is to be laid in a trench that crosses under a single
lane country road designed for M1600 vehicles. The specification requires the pipe support
to be Type H2 and backfilled with SC material compacted to an in situ unit weight of
20 kN/m 3 . Given that the outside diameter of the pipe is 0.7 m and that no construction
equipment will be allowed to pass over the pipes, what class of pipe will be required if the
depth from the road surface to the pipe crown is 1.0 m, or alternatively 0.3 m? The
contractor is using an excavator bucket that excavates a 1300 mm wide trench.
COPYRIGHT
39 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
CC4.2 Calculations—Alternative 1
H = 1.0, D = 0.7 m
B = 1.3 m (bucket width) and B = 0`.7 + 0.6 = 1.3 m > 1.333D
Hence H/B = 0.77.
1 Working load due to fill:
(a) From Figure 6, for H/B = 0.77 and Curve B, C t = 0.69.
W g = 0.69 × 20 × 1.32 = 23.3 kN/m; or
(b) From Figure 7, for H/D = 1/0.7 = 1.43 and rsp = 0.7, C'e = 1.25.
W g = 1.25 × 20 ×0.7 × 1.0 = 17.5 kN/m
Taking the smaller of these values as the design working load, use
W g = 17.5 kN/m (Note the embankment condition governs due to the relatively wide
trench).
2 Working load due to vehicle load:
Since H is greater than 0.4 m, the intensity of the live load may be taken from
Table B2 of Appendix B, which gives q = 28 kN/m 2 for a M1600 wheel.
From Clause 6.5.3.2 and the data in Commentary Paragraph C6.5.3.2, the base of the
load prism has dimensions
L 2 = a + 1.45H = 0.2 + 1.45 × 1.0 = 1.65 m in the direction of travel (>D)
L 1 = G + b + 1.45H = 1.8 + 0.5 + 1.45 × 1.0 = 3.75 m transverse to the direction of
travel.
Hence Le = 3.75 + (1.45 × 0.75 × 0.7) = 4.51 m
From Clause 6.5.3.4, substituting in Equation 7:
W q = (28 × 3.75 × 0.7)/4.51 = 16.3 kN/m

3 Test load:
From Table 4, for support Type H2, the bedding factor (F), is 2.0.
Substituting in Equation 8 (Clause 10.2):
Tc ≥ (17.5/2.0) + (16.3/1.5) ≥ 19.6 kN/m for reinforced concrete pipes, and
T u ≥ 1.5 × [(17.5/2.0) + (16.3/1.5)] ≥ 29.4 kN/m for unreinforced pipes.
CC4.3 Alternative 1—Solution
Referring to AS 4058, the test load for a 600 mm Class LDU pipe is 39.0 kN/m. This is
greater than the calculated value of T u , a Class LDU pipe will be suitable.
CC4.3.2 Steel reinforced concrete pipe
Referring to AS 4058, the test load for a 600 mm diameter Class 2 pipe is 26 kN/m. This is
greater than the calculated value of T c; a Class 2 pipe will be suitable.
This is greater than the calculated value of T c; a Class 2 pipe will be suitable.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 40
CC4.4 Calculation—Alternative 2
H = 0.3 m, D = 0.7 m
B = 1.3 m
(a) From Figure 6, for H/B = 0.23 and Curve B, C t = 0.22
W g = 0.22 × 20 × 1.32 = 7.4 kN/m;or
(b) From Figure 7, for H/D = 0.57 and r sp = 0.7, C' e = 1.07.
W g = 1.07 × 20 × 0.7 × 0.3 = 4.5 kN/m.
Taking the smaller of these values as the design working load, use
W g = 4.5 kN/m
2 Working load due to vehicle load:
Since H is less than 0.4 m, Clause 6.5.3.2 indicates that the load should be considered
as acting directly on the pipe; however, Paragraph C6.5.3.2 indicates that the usual
distribution is acceptable where 0.2 ≤ H ≤ 0.4 and that the length of pipe assumed to
carry each wheel load is L e, as defined in Clause 6.5.2.4.
Referring to Figure 9 and using the data from Paragraph C6.5.3.3
L1 = 0.5 + 1.45 × 0.3 = 0.94 m
Le = L 1 + (1.45 × 0.75D) = 0.94 + (1.45 × 0.75 × 0.7) = 1.70 m
L2 = 0.2 + 1.45 × 0.3 = 0.64 m < D
From Equation 6, with α = 0.3 and ΣP = 60 kN (single M1600 wheel)
q = (1.3 × 60)/(0.94 × 0.64) = 130 kN/m 2
From Equation 7—
W q = (130 × 0.94 × 0.64)/1.7 = 46 kN/m

Substituting the above values for W g and W q in Equation 8
Tc = 4.5/2.0 + 46/1.5 ≥ 32.9 kN/m for reinforced pipes; and
Tu ≥ 1.5 × [(4.5/2.0) + (46/1.5)] ≥ 49.3 kN/m for unreinforced pipes.
CC4.5 Alternative 2—Solution
The test load for a 600 mm diameter Class LDU is 39.0 kN/m. This is less than the
calculated value T u ; a Class LDU pipe is unsuitable for this application.
Referring to AS 4058, the test load for 600 mm diameter Class 3 pipe is 39.0 kN/m. This is
greater than the calculated value of T c; a Class 3 pipe will be suitable.
COPYRIGHT
41 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007

NOTE: For other wheel loads, e.g., Transit New Zealand’s HN-HO-72, substitute appropriate
intensity from Table B3 Appendix B of the Standard, or the actual wheel load (for covers less
than 0.4 m) and repeat the calculations, e.g., for full HO axle at 1.0 m cover—
(a) W q = (35 × 4.45 × 0.7)/5.21 = 21.0 kN/m for 0.3 × 0.2 axle contact; and
(b) T c = 17.5/2.0 + 21.0/1.5 ≥ 22.8 kN/m;
thus, a Class 2 pipe is required.
CC5 EXAMPLE 4
CC5.1 Problem
A size 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe is required for the outlet to a retardation basin for a
flood-mitigation scheme. Normal creek flow through the basin will be contained in a
concrete-lined channel whose invert is 400 mm below natural ground level. The outlet will
pass through an embankment constructed from clayey sand to a depth of 5 m over the top of
the pipe and the top water level will be 0.5 m below the top of the embankment.
If Type HS2 support is specified, what class of drainage pipe will be required for the outlet?
CC5.2 Calculations
Assuming a minimum internal pipe diameter of 750 mm and a wall thickness of 50 mm, the
data we have is shown in Figure CC2.
FIGURE CC2 EXAMPLE 4 DATA
From this Figure, it can be seen that there is positive projection where
h = 0.75 - 0.40 + 0.05 = 0.40 m
Projection ratio, p = h/D = 0.4/0.85 = 0.47
NOTE: p = 0.5 for HS2, 0.47 slightly more favourable.
From Clause 6.3.4, rs = 1.0, hence rs p = 0.47.
The working load due to fill in the embankment condition, for positive projection, is given
by Equation 2, that is—
W g = C e wDH
From Figure 7, for rs p = 0.47 and H/D = 4.7, C e′ = 1.41 for clayey sand.
Substituting in Equation 2
W g = 1.41 × 18 × 0.85 × 4 = 86.3 kN/m
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 42
From Table 4, for Type HS2 support, F = 2.5.

Check internal water pressure:
Working pressure at level of spring line = (4.0 − 0.5 + 0.43) × 9.8 = 38.5 kPa
From AS 4058, minimum test pressure (Tp) = 1.2 × 38.5 = 46.2 kPa
Since this is less than 50 kPa, Equation 8 may be used.
Substituting in Equation 8 (no live load)
T c = 86.3/2.5 ≥ 34.5 kN/m
CC5.3 Solution
Referring to AS 4058, the test load for a 750 mm diameter Class 3 pipe is 48.0 kN/m. This
is greater than the calculated value of Tc; a Class 3 pipe will be suitable.
CC6 EXAMPLE 5
CC6.1 Problem
A dual-lane highway designed for AS 5100.2 loadings crosses a gully on an embankment
constructed of compacted clay having an in situ unit weight of 20 kN/m3 . A size 1500 mm
reinforced concrete drainage pipe is to be provided with Type HS3 support through the
bottom of the embankment, the top of which at this point is 15 m above the pipe crown. To
minimize costs, it is intended to utilize induced-trench construction in laying the pipe. If the
maximum height of excavation allowed in clay without using trench shoring is specified as
1.5 m, what class of pipe will be required?
CC6.2 Calculations
Assuming a pipe wall thickness of 85 mm

D = 1.50 + 0.17 = 1.67 m
Taking the depth of the induced trench as the maximum allowed without shoring, we
have from Figure 3(c) and the above
H = 15 m; h' = 1.5 m, B = D = 1.7 m
H/B = 15/1.7 = 8.8
Negative projection ratio, p' = h'/D = 1.5/1.7 = 0.88.
From Clause 6.3.6, for negative projection and earth foundation, rs = −0.5.
For the induced-trench condition, the working load due to fill is given by Equation 3
(Clause 6.3.3.2), the coefficient (C' n ) being determined from Figure 8.
Referring to
Figure 8(a) for p' = 0.5; H/B = 8.8 and r s = −0.5; C' n = 0.69.
Figure 8(b) for p' = 1.0; H/B = 8.8 and rs = −0.5; C' n = 0.58.
Interpolating linearly for p' = 0.88, C' n = 0.61.
COPYRIGHT
43 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
W g = 0.61 × 20 × 1.7 × 15 = 311.1 kN/m.
2 Working load due to live loads:
Referring to Table B2 of Appendix B of the Standard, it can be seen that for
H = 15 m, the intensity of the working live load would be less than 2 kN/m2 for all
Australasian road loadings. At this depth the ratio L 1/Le would be close to 1.0, hence
the working live load (W q ) from Equation 7 would be less than 2 kN/m. This is
negligible with respect to the working dead load and hence can be safely omitted
from the calculation of an appropriate test load.
3 Test load:
From Table 4 of the Standard for Type HS3 support, the maximum bedding factor (F)
is 4.0.
T c = 311.1/4.0 = 77.8 kN/m.
CC6.3 Solution
Referring to AS 4058 for 1500 mm diameter pipe, a Class 3 pipe would be required.
At the time of publication fibre-reinforced pipes in diameters greater than 750 mm are not
available.
CC6.3.3 Alternative solution
As the construction of the ‘induced trench’ is of itself a reasonably expensive item, a
reduction in the depth of the trench would be worthwhile investigating. For example, if the
depth (h') was reduced to 0.85 m, the test load, (Tc) would increase to 88 kN/m, which
would require a Class 4 pipe. A cost analysis of these two alternatives would indicate which
was the more cost-effective in terms of total construction costs.
CC7 EXAMPLE 6
CC7.1 Problem
A road embankment is to be constructed from sandy clay to cross a dry creek at a finished
height of 15 m above the bed. The specification calls for twin size 1050 mm concrete pipes
to carry the estimated peak creek flow through the embankment and requires the pipes to be
provided with Type HS2 support with a bed-zone thickness (X) of 150 mm.
If site investigations show that 0.5 m depth of silty material has to be removed from the
creek bed to expose a satisfactory earth foundation, what class of concrete pipe will be
required?
CC7.2 Calculations
Assume a pipe wall thickness of 85 mm
D = 1.05 + 0.17 = 1.22 m.
The top of the pipes will project above the creek bed by a distance (h) where
h = 1.22 + 0.15 - 0.5 = 0.87 m.
The (positive) projection ratio (p) = h/D = 0.87/1.22 = 0.71.
The HS2 support provides a p value of 0.5, which governs.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 44
From Clause 6.3.6 the settlement ratio (rs) for positive projection and earth foundation
is 1.0, hence r sp = 0.5.
The height of fill (H) above the pipes is given by
H = 15.0 - 0.87 = 14.13 m
Hence, H/D = 14.13/1.22 = 11.6.
From Clause 6.3.3.1, the working load due to fill is calculated from Equation 2
W g = C' e wDH
From Figure 7, for H/D = 11.6 and r sp = 0.5, C' e = 1.44 for clayey sand.
Assuming a value of 18 kN/m 3 for w (Paragaph C5)
W g = 1.44 × 18 × 1.22 × 14.13 = 446.8 kN/m.
2 Working load due to live loads:
As shown in Example 5, live loads due to road vehicles can be neglected.
3 Test load:
From Table 4, the bedding factor for HS2 bedding is 2.5.
T c = 446.8/2.5 = 178.7 kN/m.
CC7.3 Solution
Referring to AS 4058 for 1050 mm nominal diameter pipe, it can be seen that this value is
greater than the value given for Class 8 pipes but is well covered by Class 10. Note that
from Figure 13, the minimum depth of compacted material required above the bottom of the
pipes for Type HS2 support is 0.5D and from Table 4, the minimum depth of the bed zone
(X) is 100 mm.
Hence minimum total depth of compacted select fill = 0.5 × 1.22 + 0.10 = 0.71 m above
foundation level.
Since a non-standard pipe class is indicated, the use of Class 4 pipes with an ‘induced
trench should be investigated as a possible alternative (see Example 7).
CC8 EXAMPLE 7
CC8.1 Problem
A railway authority intends to construct a spur line requiring a 40 m high sandy clay
embankment at one point over a gully. The authority has a number of 2100 mm nominal
internal diameter pipes with 220 mm thick walls, which have been classified as Class 8, and
wishes to use them to drain the embankment by a single pipeline at this point. Can this be
done?
CC8.2 Calculations
Assume that Type HS3 bedding will be used with a bed zone thickness of 150 mm (see
Table 6). Also that the 40 m embankment represents cover over the top of the pipe.
1 Load capacity check
(a) Loads due to fill
D = 2.1 + 0.44 = 2.54 m
For an HS3 support a minimum p=0.5 is provided, see Figure 13.
COPYRIGHT
45 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
From Clause 6.3.6, rs = 1.0.

Hence rs p = 0.5, H = 40 m.
Hence H/D = 15.75.
From Figure 7, C'e = 1.44 for clayey sand.
W g = 1.44 × 18 × 2.54 × 40 = 2633 kN/m.
(b) Railway live loads
From Table B4 of Appendix B, it can be seen that railway live loads will be
negligible at H = 40 m and hence can be neglected.
(c) Test load
For Type-HS3 support, the bedding factor is 4.0 (from Table 4).
T c ≥ 2633/4 ≥ 658 kN/m
From AS 4058, the test load for 2 100 mm nominal size Class 8 pipes is 280 kN/m.
As this is less than the required test load, the pipes can not be used under straight
embankment conditions.
2 Induced-trench condition alternative:
For this height of embankment (40 m), an induced-trench condition is feasible and the
question becomes one of determining the depth of induced trench (h') required for the
pipes to be satisfactory.
From Equation 8, using the bedding factor of 4.0
4 × Tc = Wg
and from Equation 3 (Clause 6.3.3.2), for the induced-trench condition
W g = C' n wBH
Assuming B = D and substituting the known values
4 × 280 = C n′ × 18 × 2.54 × 40
Hence, required value of C' n is given by
C' n = (4 × 280)/(18 × 2.54 × 40) = 0.612.
From Table 3 (Clause 6.3.6), for the induced trench condition and earth foundation
rs = −0.5 and since B = D, then H/B = 40/2.54 = 15.75.
Referring to Figure 8 for C' n we find that for these values
p' = 0.5; C' n = 0.65*;
p' = 1.0; C' n = 0.51*; and
(* both values for Ku = 0.13 material)
by linear interpolation for C' n = 0.612, p' = 0.636.
Now p' = h'/B, therefore h' = 2.54 × 0.636 = 1.62 m
CC8.3 Solution
The pipes can be utilized if Type HS3 support is used and an ‘induced trench’ 1.6 m deep
by 2.6 m wide is constructed over them.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 46
CC9 EXAMPLE 8
CC9.1 Problem
A new size 1050 mm drainage line is to be put through an existing sandy clay embankment
carrying a major highway. The road authority requires the pipe to be jacked through the
embankment with the obvert of the pipe at 30 m below the road surface. If the in situ unit
weight of the embankment material is given as 18 kN/m3 , what class of concrete pipe will
be required?
CC9.2 Calculations
Assume a wall thickness of 75 mm
D = 1.05 + 0.15 = 1.20 m.
1 Dead load due to fill:
For jacked pipes the working dead load is given by Equation 4
W g = C t wB2 − 2cC tB
Assuming that B = D = 1.20 m, then H/B = 30/1.2 = 25.
From Figure 6, for H/B = 25 and Curve B for clayey sand (w = 18 kN/m3 ), the value of C t
is 3.2.
Assuming that the clay in the embankment has been well compacted but that jacking
will affect this somewhat, a conservative value of 2 kPa can be chosen from Table 2
for the soil parameter (c). Substituting the values in Equation 4 we have
W g = 3.2 × 18 × (1.2) 2 − 2 × 2 × 3.2 × 1.2 = 82.94 − 15.36 = 67.6 kN/m
2 Road live load:
From Table B2 of Appendix B it can be seen that the live loads from road traffic can
be neglected.
3 Test load:
From Commentary, Paragraph C9.3 and Clause 9.3.3, a bedding factor is chosen
conservatively as 2.
Substituting the above values in Equation 8

T c ≥ 67.6/2.0 ≥ 33.8 kN/m
CC9.3 Solution
Referring to AS 4058 for 1050 mm nominal size pipe, a Class 2 pipe will be satisfactory.
CC9.4 Joint check
Assume a 1000 kN jacking force.
Compressive stress on joint = 4 × P/π(D o 2 − D i 2), where Do and D i are respectively the
external and internal diameters of the joint (this assumes full butt bearing across joint).
Thus, compressive stress on joint = (4 × 1 ×  10 6)/π(1200 2 − 1050 2) = 3.8 MPa.
From Commentary, Paragraph C6.3.5, a jacking force of up to 3000 kN can be used.
CC10 EXAMPLE 9
CC10.1 Problem
A 750 mm nominal bore concrete irrigation line is to pass through a sandy clay roadway
embankment. The road is a dual lane highway designed for AS 5100.2 vehicle loads and
where it crosses the pipeline its surface is 2.5 m above the pipe invert.
COPYRIGHT
47 AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007
The design specification calls for the pipe to withstand a shut-down head of 40.0 m plus a
25% allowance for water hammer.
The construction specification calls for the pipe to have a Type HS2 support laid
concurrently with the embankment construction, and compaction of the material around and
over the line to be carried out by hand-held pneumatic tools.
Field tests on the embankment material have shown that it complies with Table 5 grading
but that the −0.6 material does not comply with Table 4 grading limits; however, it can be
compacted to an RD of 90% with a unit weight of 19 kN/m 3 and will, therefore, be used
unmodified for the pipe support material.
What class of pipe and test pressure is required for the section of the line passing through
the embankment?
CC10.2 Calculation
Assume the pipe wall thickness is 75 mm. The construction specification indicates positive
projection in embankment conditions with h = D, but the HS2 support determines the design
projection ratio.
D = 0.75 + 0.15 = 0.90 m
H = 2.5 − (0.75 + 0.075) = 1.68 m
p = 0.5 for HS2
w = 19 kN/m 3
Clause 6.3.3.1 applies.
From Clause 6.3.4, rs = 1.0.
Hence rs p = 0.5, and H/D = 1.68/0.9 = 1.86.
From Figure 7, C' e = 1.30 for clayey sand.
W q = 1.30 × 19 × 0.9 × 1.68 = 37.3 kN/m
2 Working live load:

The construction specification indicates that only the AS 5100.2 vehicle loads apply.
As the road is dual lane and H > 0.9 m, adjacent lane loads govern.
From Clause 6.5.3.2.
L1 = 2 × 1.8 + 1.2 0.5 + (1.45 × 1.68) = 7.74 m
L2 = 0.2 + (1.45 × 1.68) = 2.64 m > D, hence S = D
Le = L 1 + (1.45 × 0.75 × 0.9) = 8.71 m
From Table B2 for dual lane and H = 1.68, q = 16 kN/m 2 for multiple lane.
W q = (16 × 7.74 × 0.9)/8.71 = 12.8 kN/m
3 Internal working pressure:
From the design specification
P w = 1.25 × 40 × 9.8 = 490 kPa.
COPYRIGHT
AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007 48
4 Combined external load and internal pressure:

Bedding factor for dead loads
From Table 4, the bedding factor for Type HS2 support is 2.5. However, the
supplied field information indicates that this should be reduced in accordance
with Clause 9.3.2.
F = 2.5 × 0.85 = 2.13
Hence a value of 2.0 will be adopted.
Test pressure
From Clause 10.4—
1.2Pw ≤ P t ≤ 2.4P w
From Figure C8 in Commentary, Paragraph C10.4, the maximum sustainable
test pressure for a size 750 mm pipe is 950 kPa, i.e. 1.9P w.
Hence the practical range for P t is 1.2Pw to 1.9P w in this application.
Combined loading
Assume P t = 1.2Pw . Substituting in Equation 10—
T cp = (37.3/2.0 + 12.8/1.5) × ((1.2Pw)/(1.2Pw − Pw)) 1/3 ≥ 27.18 × 61/3 ≥ 49.4 kN/m
CC10.3 Solution
From AS 4058 for 750 mm nominal diameter pipe, a Class 4 pipe would be suitable, the
corresponding test pressure requirement being 588 kPa.
Alternatively, if P t is assumed to be 1.5P w, Tcp reduces to 39.2 kN/m, which would require a
Class 3 pipe but with a corresponding test pressure of 735 kPa.
In this example the most cost-effective solution will require the comparison of pipe prices
for both alternatives.
COPYRIGHT
Standards Australia
Standards Australia is an independent company, limited by guarantee, which prepares and publishes
most of the voluntary technical and commercial standards used in Australia. These standards are
developed through an open process of consultation and consensus, in which all interested parties are
invited to participate. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Commonwealth
government, Standards Australia is recognized as Australia’s peak national standards body.
Standards New Zealand

The first national Standards organization was created in New Zealand in 1932. The Standards
Council of New Zealand is the national authority responsible for the production of Standards.
Standards New Zealand is the trading arm of the Standards Council established under the Standards
Act 1988.
Australian/New Zealand Standards

Under a Memorandum of Understanding between Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand,
Australian/New Zealand Standards are prepared by committees of experts from industry,
governments, consumers and other sectors. The requirements or recommendations contained
in published Standards are a consensus of the views of representative interests and also take
account of comments received from other sources. They reflect the latest scientific and industry
experience. Australian/New Zealand Standards are kept under continuous review after publication
and are updated regularly to take account of changing technology.
International Involvement
Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand are responsible for ensuring that the Australian
and New Zealand viewpoints are considered in the formulation of international Standards and that
the latest international experience is incorporated in national and Joint Standards. This role is vital
in assisting local industry to compete in international markets. Both organizations are the national
members of ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) and IEC (the International
Electrotechnical Commission).
Visit our web sites
www.standards.org.au www.standards.co.nz
www.standards.com.au
GPO Box 476 Sydney NSW 2001 Level 10 Radio New Zealand House
Administration 155 The Terrace Wellington 6001
Phone (02) 8206 6000 (Private Bag 2439 Wellington 6020)
Fax (02) 8206 6001 Phone (04) 498 5990
Email mail@standards.com.au Fax (04) 498 5994
Customer Service Customer Services (04) 498 5991
Phone 1300 65 46 46 Information Service (04) 498 5992
Fax 1300 65 49 49 Email snz@standards.co.nz
Email sales@standards.com.au Internet www.standards.co.nz
Internet www.standards.org.au
ISBN 0 7337 7983 2 Printed in Australia

This page has been left blank intentionally.

AS 3725 - Design For Installation of Buried Concrete Pipes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AS 3725 - Design For Installation of Buried Concrete Pipes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AS 3725 - Design For Installation of Buried Concrete Pipes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007

AS/NZS 3725 Supp 1:2007

AS/NZS 3725 Supplement 1:2007

Design for installation of buried

The following are represented on Committee WS-006:

Australasian Railway Association

Keeping Standards up-to-date

Standards may also be withdrawn. It is important that readers assure themselves

This Standard was issued in draft form for comment as DR 04236.

AS/NZS 3725 Supplement 1:2007

Design for installation of buried

Originated as AS 3725 Supp 1—1989.

STANDARDS AUSTRALIA/STANDARDS NEW ZEALAND

Australian/New Zealand Standard

C4.7 Installation condition

C6 VERTICAL LOADS ON PIPES

FIGURE C1 TRANSITION POINT BETWEEN TRENCH AND EMBANKMENT LOADING

FIGURE C2 INDUCED TRENCH CONDITION

C6.3.3.2 Negative projection

C6.3.3.4 Jacked (thrust) or bored pipes condition

C6.3.3.5 Settlement ratio

FIGURE C3 SETTLEMENT RATIO TERMS

C6.5 Working loads due to superimposed live loads

FIGURE C4 LOADS FROM VEHICLES IN ADJACENT LANES

C6.5.3.3 Highway vehicle loads

M160 tri-axle load 0.35

C6.5.4 Railway loads

C6.5.5 Aircraft loads

FIGURE C5 A160 AXLE LOAD

FIGURE C6 M1600 TRAFFIC LOAD

FIGURE C7 HLP320/400 WHEEL ARRANGEMENTS

FIGURE C8 TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND BRIDGE MANUAL (REF. 3)

FIGURE C9 300LA RAILWAY TRAFFIC LOADS (AS 5100.2 FIGURE 8.2(A))

FIGURE C10 300LA RAILWAY TRAFFIC LOADS—AXLE GROUP SPACINGS

enhances its compaction qualities and stability when set.

C9 PIPE SUPPORT AND BEDDING FACTORS

C9.1.2 Bedding factors

C9.2.2 Type H support

C10 TEST LOADS

Equation 8 may be used as indicated in Clause 10.2.

FIGURE C11 LOAD-PRESSURE RELATIONSHIP

FIGURE C12 MAXIMUM PRESSURES FOR REINFORCED PIPES

CA2 OTHER DOCUMENTS

11 Manual for Railway Engineering 1999, American Railway Engineering and

CB2 FIELD IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR FINE-GRAINED SOILS OR

characteristic of clays of the CH group.

CB2.4 Toughness (consistency near plastic limit)

NOTES TO TABLE CB1:

FIGURE CB1 PLASTICITY CHART FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

FIGURE CC1 PIPE TERMS

T u ≥ 1.5 × 77.8/2 ≥ 58.35 kN/m

W g = 1.62 × 20 × 0.53 × 1.72 = 29.53 kN/m

CC3.3.3 Fibre-reinforced concrete pipe

W q = (28 × 3.75 × 0.7)/4.51 = 16.3 kN/m

W q = (130 × 0.94 × 0.64)/1.7 = 46 kN/m

CC4.5.3 Fibre reinforced concrete pipe

FIGURE CC2 EXAMPLE 4 DATA

From Table 4, for Type HS2 support, F = 2.5.

Assuming a pipe wall thickness of 85 mm