TG 10j - SA Water · PDF fileThe following lists the major changes to the December 2004...

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WATER CORPORATION

TECHNICAL GUIDELINE Issued by: Manager Engineering Issue Date: 10 January 2007

TG 10j

GENERAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

~ Part J ~ Pipelines

PLANNING & INFRASTRUCTURE

TG10j - Pipelines.docx Issued by: Manager Engineering

10 January 2007 Uncontrolled on printing

Page 2 of 52

© SA Water 2007 This document is copyright and all rights are reserved by SA Water. No part may be reproduced, copied or transmitted in any form or by any means without the express written permission of SA Water. The information contained in these Guidelines is strictly for the private use of the intended recipient in relation to works or projects of SA Water. These Guidelines have been prepared for SA Water’s own internal use and SA Water makes no representation as to the quality, accuracy or suitability of the information for any other purpose. It is the responsibility of the users of these Guidelines to ensure that the application of information is appropriate and that any designs based on these Guidelines are fit for SA Water’s purposes and comply with all relevant Australian Standards, Acts and regulations. Users of these Guidelines accept sole responsibility for interpretation and use of the information contained in these Guidelines. SA Water and its officers accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by reliance on these Guidelines whether caused by error, omission, misdirection, misstatement, misinterpretation or negligence of SA Water. Users should independently verify the accuracy, fitness for purpose and application of information contained in these Guidelines. The currency of these Guidelines should be checked prior to use.

No Changes Required In the January 2007 Edition The following lists the major changes to the December 2004 edition of TG 10j:

1. Nil




Page 3 of 52

Contents

© SA WATER 2007 ............................................................................................................... 2

NO CHANGES REQUIRED IN THE JANUARY 2007 EDITION ............................................ 2

TABLES & FIGURES............................................................................................................ 4

SECTION 1: SCOPE ............................................................................................................ 6

SECTION 2: PIPE ANCHOR BLOCK OUTLETS ................................................................. 6

SECTION 3: TEMPORARY FIRE PLUG END ANCHORS .................................................. 6

3.1 Geotechnical Recommendations ............................................................................. 6

3.2 Further Geotechnical Recommendations ................................................................. 8

3.3 Dimensions for In-Line Stop Valves & Temporary Dead End Fireplugs ...................10

3.4 Anchor Block Dimensions for In-Line Stop Valves & Temporary Dead End Fireplugs 11

SECTION 4: VALVE ANCHOR DESIGN ............................................................................12

4.1 Allowable Horizontal Bearing Pressure for The Ground ..........................................12

4.2 Anchor Design (See Following Diagram) ................................................................12

SECTION 5: EMBEDMENT – HOW IT WORKS .................................................................14

5.1 What Native Soil Modulus to Design For .................................................................16

5.2 What Embedment Soil Modulus to Design For ........................................................17

SECTION 6: EMBEDMENT SAND – SIMPLE FIELD TEST ...............................................18

6.1 Test Procedure .......................................................................................................18

SECTION 7: THE METHOD SPECIFICATION FOR EMBEDMENT COMPACTION ..........22

7.1 Discussion ..............................................................................................................22

SECTION 8: EMBEDMENT OVERLAY THICKNESS FOR SEWER ...................................23

SECTION 9: EMBEDMENT COMPACTION – ELASTIC MODULUS VS DENSITY............24

SECTION 10: CONTROLLED LOW-STRENGTH MATERIAL (CSLM) FOR EMBEDMENTS .............................................................................................................................................26

10.1 The Leeds clsm Embedment Trial ..........................................................................27

SECTION 11: DS4 REVIEW ...............................................................................................30

SECTION 12: PIPE LAYING – GROUNDWATER CONTROL SPECIFICATION CLAUSES .............................................................................................................................................32

SECTION 13: PIPE TRENCH WIDTH DISCUSSION ..........................................................32

SECTION 14: PIPE LAYING – GROUNDWATER CONTROL USING SCREENINGS .......33

SECTION 15: PIPE LAYING IN EMBANKMENTS .............................................................34

SECTION 16: PIPE TRENCH EXCAVATION STABILITY – SAMPLE LOG SHEET ..........36

SECTION 17: PIPE LAYING – ROADS OVER OLD MAINS ...............................................37

SECTION 18: PIPE LAYING IN ROADS – COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ...................38

18.1 Trench Floor Preparation ........................................................................................38

18.2 Bedding Placement .................................................................................................38

18.3 Side Support & Overlay Placement & Compaction ..................................................38




Page 4 of 52

18.4 Table of Minimum Densities (%) .............................................................................38

SECTION 19: PIPELINE HYDRAULIC TEST SPECIFICATION .........................................40

19.1 General ...................................................................................................................40

19.2 Filling the Pipeline...................................................................................................40

19.3 Pre-Conditioning Concrete Lined Pipes ..................................................................41

19.4 Test Pressure .........................................................................................................41

19.5 Pressure Test .........................................................................................................41

19.6 Reports ...................................................................................................................42

19.7 Emptying the Pipeline .............................................................................................42

19.8 Hydraulic Testing of Pipework (For HOCV Installations Etc) ...................................42

SECTION 20: SEWER SCREENINGS 10-7MM VS 75MM..................................................43

SECTION 21: SEWER SCREENINGS REVIEW OF SPECIFICATION 2004 .......................44

21.1 Background on the Use of Screenings for Sewer Embedment ................................44

21.2 The Proposal to Add 14 Mm Aggregate to the Specification ...................................45

21.3 Recommendation....................................................................................................46

SECTION 22: LAYING SEWERS IN REACTIVE SOILS .....................................................47

SECTION 23: SEWER MAINTENANCE SHAFT RAISERS 1 .............................................47

23.1 Analytical Model .....................................................................................................47

23.2 Formula for the Normal Force on The River Murray Water (MDBC) ........................48

23.3 Formula for the Down-Drag Force on The Riser .....................................................48

23.4 Calculation of Typical Down-Drag Forces ...............................................................48

23.5 Other Considerations ..............................................................................................49

23.6 Conclusions & Recommendations ..........................................................................51

SECTION 24: SEWER MAINTENANCE SHAFT RAISERS 2 .............................................51

Tables & Figures

Table 3.1 Recommended Distance of Fireplug Thrustblock from Open Channel .......... 8

Table 3.2 Minimum Length of Trench Downstream of Fireplug Dead End Anchor........ 9

Table 3.3 Dimensions for In-Line Stop Valves & Temporary Dead End Fireplugs ....... 10

Table 3.4 Anchor Block dimensions for In-line Stop Valves & Temporary Dead-end

Fireplugs ........................................................................................................ 11

Table 4.1 Thrust Collar standard details ......................................................................... 13

Table 6.1 Embedment Sand Sample Test Results ......................................................... 21

Table 9.1 Field Identification Tests ................................................................................. 25

Table 18.1 Table of Minimum Densities (%) ...................................................................... 39

Table 21.1 Coarse Aggregate – Grading Requirements .................................................. 46




Page 5 of 52

Figure 4.1 Illustration of Anchor Design .......................................................................... 13

Figure 5.1 Pipe Deflection Under Loads ........................................................................... 14

Figure 5.2 Reduced Deflection of Pipe Embedded in Soil .............................................. 14

Figure 5.3 The Spring Analogy for Side Support ............................................................. 15

Figure 5.4 Pipe Embedment Stiffness (or Modulus) ........................................................ 15

Figure 5.5 Illustration of Why Side Support Must be Uniform ........................................ 16

Figure 5.6 Minimum Practical Limit for Density of Pipe Embedment ............................. 16

Figure 6.1 A Simple Field Acceptance Test for Pipe Embedment Sand ........................ 18

Figure 10.1 The CLSM Embedment Trial Set-Up .............................................................. 30

Figure 23.1 Illustration of the Potential Down-drag Force on the Riser ......................... 47

Figure 23.2 Diagram of Forces on the Riser ..................................................................... 48




Page 6 of 52

Section 1: Scope

Section 2: Pipe Anchor Block Outlets Sometimes it is considered necessary to find alternative anchoring systems for block outlets, in particular whether the valve could be braced to the wall of the sump. The sump is unlikely to be able to resist the thrust, particularly with the bigger pipes (the drawings you gave showed that up to 200 diameter may be used). Such sumps are generally designed to resist only light, uniform, external loads which put the sump wall into compression. They are not designed to resist local internal thrust. The situation is made worse by the fact that the thrust would be near the base of the sump and that the base is unrestrained. There would also be the difficulty of ensuring adequate compaction of the backfill outside of the sump. Two alternatives appear possible: 1. Make the MSCL “special” longer so that the anchor can be located well

away from the disturbed ground near both the sump and the growers connection.

2. The main disadvantage would be that even with this approach it might still

be difficult to find undisturbed or sufficiently strong/dense ground. 3. Use a cast-in-place base slab for the sump, and design the base slab to act

as the anchor. The valve would be bolted to the slab on a standard pedestal. The sump would simply sit on the base slab.

This approach would have the advantage that the anchor would simply be a mass of unreinforced concrete poured into fresh excavation prior to any pipelaying. This would provide the best possible conditions for anchoring (deep, confined and undisturbed), simplify the MSCL special, require no formwork, and require no special care to be taken during the pipe trench excavation and backfilling. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 28/05/1999 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

Section 3: Temporary Fire Plug End Anchors

3.1 Geotechnical Recommendations

Below are the recommendations put forward by Ed Collingham, Ex Principal Engineer concerning temporary fireplug dead ends and anchors.




Page 7 of 52

THE SITUATION A temporary fireplug dead end requires a thrust block. The thrust block usually bears on a puddle flange around a specially cast extension pipe immediately upstream of the fireplug. When the trench downstream of the fireplug is reopened (to continue the main) the main is usually pressurised. If the distance between the thrust block and the open trench is too short there is a risk that the soil stresses from the block will cause the walls of the open trench to collapse inwards. SOLUTIONS It would be possible to come up with a set of special thrust block designs to eliminate this risk. They would need to take into account pipe size, design head, trench width, trench wall soil type etc. They would be considerably larger than standard thrust blocks for dead ends. The recommended alternative solution is to ensure that the thrust block is sufficiently far upstream of the open trench that the stresses in the soil have effectively dissipated. A standard thrust block can then be used. RECOMMENDATION I have calculated this distance required between the thrust block and the open trench for 100, 150 and 200 mm diameter mains based on:

A distance between the thrust block and the open trench of three times the width of the bearing area of the thrust block on undisturbed natural soil.

Thrust block dimensions appropriate for a design head of 140 m, a trench wall soil safe bearing capacity of 50 kPa, and the shape restrictions to be recommended for standard thrust blocks in the Blue Book.

The assumption that the fireplug will also be uncovered while the connection is being made.

The assumption that the upstream face of the anchor block is as close as possible to the upstream flange of the special (ie about 150 mm).

With these criteria, and for these pipe sizes, the required safe distance can be achieved by casting the anchor around one maximum standard length extension pipe, and adding one more maximum standard length extension between it and the fireplug. Details are tabulated below:




Page 8 of 52

Table 3.1: Recommended Distance of Fireplug Thrustblock from Open Channel.

Main Diameter (mm)

Required Distance (mm) Recommended Extension Pipes

Available Distance (mm)

100 900 760 for anchor plus 1 x 760

1170

150 1500 1120 for anchor plus 1 x 1120

1790

200 1800 1065 for anchor plus 1 x 1065

1680 (near enough)

3.2 Further Geotechnical Recommendations

Below are further recommendations put forward by Ed Collingham, Ex Principal Engineer concerning temporary fireplug dead ends and anchors. BACKGROUND The Water Supply Construction Manual and DS9 are currently being upgraded by the Water Systems section of ESG. I am providing the geotechnical input to this upgrade. Your formal approval is requested for a change in the installation procedure for anchors at all in-line stop valves and temporary fireplug dead ends. All stop valves and temporary fireplug dead ends on rubber-ring joint pipes require an anchor. The anchor is usually poured around a standard-length extension pipe specially cast with a puddle flange. Bolted flanged joints are therefore found immediately upstream and downstream of the anchor. The current DS9 calls for all joints on a main to be left exposed during the pressure test to allow them to be inspected for leakage. This means that the trench must be left open downstream of the anchor to allow inspection of the joint. Geotechnically, it is not possible to design an anchor of acceptable size or shape (except for the smallest main diameters) to cope with an unsupported open trench downstream of it. The Principal Engineer Pipelines and Structures, D G Kerry, in his minute dated 3.12.93, makes recommendations for pressure testing which require that all of the embedment (including that over the joints) be placed before the test (ie to 150 mm above the top of the pipe). While I concur with his recommendations, the placement of the embedment alone would not significantly improve the support given to an anchor. The trench downstream of any anchor must therefore be either strutted or completely backfilled to the surface with properly compacted material during the pressure test and under operating conditions. From our discussions on 3.12.92 I understand that you prefer complete backfilling instead of strutting on the grounds that strutting introduces a new technique which may not be done adequately or at all. I concur. For in-line stop valves (which would not normally be exhumed without first being isolated) it will be sufficient to use the standard puddle flanged extension pipe and to specify that the trench be fully backfilled for a certain distance downstream of the anchor prior to testing.




Page 9 of 52

For temporary fireplug dead ends however, it is expected that the trench downstream will be reopened while the main is in service (ie when the time comes to connect in the extension main). We therefore need to ensure that the anchor is sufficiently far upstream of the open trench that the stresses in the soil have effectively dissipated. A standard anchor can then be used. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the required minimum length of trench to be kept backfilled

downstream of a temporary fireplug dead end anchor be achieved by using a long fabricated mild steel special, which could include both the puddle flange and the fireplug tee, and thus reduce rather than increase the number of bolted joints (as discussed).

2. That the minimum lengths be as follows:

Table 3.2: Minimum Length of Trench Downstream of Fireplug Dead End Anchor.

Nominal Pipe Diameter Minimum Length of Trench to be Kept Backfilled Downstream of a Temporary Fireplug Dead End Anchor

100 mm 1200 mm

150 mm 1600 mm

200 mm 2100 mm

These lengths are based on:

Anchor dimensions appropriate for a test head of 140 m (in accordance with DGK recommendations), a trench wall soil allowable horizontal bearing pressure (AHBP) of 50 kPa, and the shape restrictions to be recommended for thrust blocks and anchors in the Water Supply Manual.

A distance between the downstream face of the anchor and the open trench of between three and four times the width of the bearing area of the anchor on undisturbed natural soil (varies with shape of bearing area).




Page 10 of 52

3.3 Dimensions for In-Line Stop Valves & Temporary Dead End Fireplugs

Table 3.3: Dimensions for In-Line Stop Valves & Temporary Dead End Fireplugs.

Reinforcing - Y16 bars both faces at 140 mm centres for all anchors, except 100 mm centres where indicated by *.

Nominal Pipe Diameter

SOIL CLASSIFICATION (See Notes 1 and 2)

Stiff Clay Medium Dense Clean Sand

(50 kPa AHBP) (3)

Very Stiff Clay Dense Clean Sand/Gravel

Decomposed Rock (100 kPa AHBP) (3)

Hard Clay Sound Rock

(200 kPa AHBP) (3)

ANCHOR BLOCK DIMENSIONS ANCHOR BLOCK DIMENSIONS ANCHOR BLOCK DIMENSIONS

W mm

H mm

T mm

W mm

H mm

T mm

W mm

H mm

T mm

100 mm 300 600 300 300 600 300 300 600 300

150 mm 500 700 300 300 600 300 300 700 300

200 mm 600 1000 300 400 800 300 300 700 300

250 mm 2000 total 1150 300 500 900 300 300 800 300

300 mm Anchor exceeds max standard width: special design required or

use Tyton-Lok joints.

500 1300 350 400 900 350*

375 mm 500 1500 400 500 1000 400*




Page 11 of 52

3.4 Anchor Block Dimensions for In-Line Stop Valves & Temporary Dead End

Fireplugs

Table 3.4: Anchor Block dimensions for In-line Stop Valves & Temporary Dead-end Fireplugs

Nominal Pipe Diameter

Very Soft, Soft or Firm Clay Loose Clean Sand Domestic Refuse Uncompacted Fill

ANCHOR BLOCK DIMENSIONS

W mm

H mm

T mm

W mm

H mm

T mm

100 mm Standard anchors cannot be used - arrange for geotechnical site investigation and special design or use Tyton-Lok joints. For domestic refuse and uncompacted fill, a geotechnical site investigation and special design is essential.

150 mm

200 mm

250 mm

300 mm

375 mm

NOTES: 1. For soil classification guidelines refer to drawing ###. 2. If the watertable is, or could rise, close to the surface then downgrade the

soil classification to the next weakest soil on the left in the above table. 3. AHBP = Allowable Horizontal Bearing Pressure. 4. Total anchor block width = trench width plus 2 times W. 5. Maximum standard anchor block width = 2000 mm. 6. Trench must be fully backfilled or strutted to surface downstream of anchor

block for a minimum distance of 4 times W during the pressure test. 7. Anchor blocks designed for a test pressure of 1.4 MPa (140 m head). 8. DICL pipe with Tyton-Lok joints may be used instead of anchor blocks. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 24/11/1993 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)




Page 12 of 52

Section 4: Valve Anchor Design Below are the recommendations put forward by Ed Collingham, Ex Principal Engineer concerning the Woolpunda SIS-Bore 14 Valve Anchor Design.

4.1 Allowable Horizontal Bearing Pressure for The Ground

Based on your photos and our discussion I would judge the ground at pipe depth to be equivalent to dense sand/gravel. For a normal Blue Book (BB) anchor design the allowable horizontal bearing pressure (AHBP) for such a soil would be 100 kPa. But note that the BB AHBPs are based on 750 mm pipe cover and keeping the pull-out at the first RRJ to less than 10 mm. At Bore 14 it is understood that the depth to the top of the pipe is 1400 mm, which is a depth increase to the centre line of the pipe of 70% over the BB standard. This would permit the AHBP to be increased somewhat.

4.2 Anchor Design (See Following Diagram)

This anchor is a special design, not a standard BB design, because: 1. The head on the valve will not exceed 100 m (BB standard is 140 m). 2. The excavations for the pipe trench and the anchor have already been dug

and are both over the normal BB size. (The anchor thickness is 600 mm compared to a BB standard of 350 mm, and the trench width is 1550 mm compared to a BB standard of 650 mm).

3. The thrust will only be in one direction. (The BB allows thrust from both

directions.) Note that the extra thickness would give the anchor a great increase in its “beam capacity” – more than compensating for the increased in span caused by the oversize trench width. The thrust on the valve would be about 90 kN (9 tonne). For an anchor height of 900 mm the total bearing area will be about 1.8 square metres, implying a horizontal bearing pressure of about 50 kPa – which is comfortable.




Page 13 of 52

Figure 1: Illustration of Anchor Design.

Reinforcement:

Vertical reinforcement: Y12 bars at 150 c/c*.

Horizontal reinforcement: Y16 bars at 140 c/c*.

Ensure equal and maximum number of bars above and below pipes.

Cut bars less than 300 long may be omitted.

Minimum cover 75 mm. Use Grade 20 concrete.

*Bar size and spacing can be adapted to materials on hand – contact if alternatives preferred.

Thrust Collar: As per Standard Drawing 75 2A (extract below):

Table 4.1: Thrust Collar standard details.

pipe plate thickness collar width collar thickness weld size*

5 mm 100 mm 12 mm 5 mm

6 mm 150 mm 16 mm 5 mm

*The weld on the inside of the anchor must be a recessed fillet weld to present a flat thrust face to the concrete. The weld on the outside may be a normal fillet weld. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 21/08/2003 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

600

1000

600

Thrust Collar

Reinforcement

Thrust Direction




Page 14 of 52

Section 5: Embedment – How it works VERTICALLY LOADED FREE PIPE

Figure 5.1: Pipe Deflection under Loads. A pipe loaded by trench fill and traffic will squash down vertically and bulge out sideways. The pipe itself could be designed to support the entire trench fill and traffic loads - but it would need to have a very thick wall. VERTICALLY LOADED PIPE WITH SIDE SUPPORT

Figure 5.2: Reduced Deflection of Pipe Embedded in Soil. It is usually more efficient to rely on the material at the sides of the pipe to provide some lateral resistance to the bulging. This is known as “side support”. Side support reduces the vertical deflection for a given load and so allows a thinner pipe wall to be used.

D

allowable deflection

typically 3% of D

for pressure pipe




Page 15 of 52

Figure 5.3: The Spring Analogy for Side Support.

The side support may be thought of as coming from elastic springs. The net side spring stiffness that the pipe feels depends on the stiffness of both the pipe embedment and the stiffness of the trench wall (the “effective combined soil modulus”).

Figure 5.4: Pipe Embedment Stiffness (or Modulus).

Usually little can be done about the stiffness of the trench wall material (the “native soil modulus”), so the designer is limited to specifying the stiffness of the pipe embedment material (the “embedment soil modulus”). The embedment soil modulus depends on the nature of the material (eg whether it is a silty sand or a gravel) and on its density.

Lower density Higher density Lower stiffness Higher stiffness (or modulus) or modulus)




Page 16 of 52

Figure 5.5: Minimum Practical Limit for Density of Pipe Embedment.

The density of the pipe embedment material must always be sufficient that it does not settle around the pipe under its self weight or under the trench fill or traffic loading. If it is loose enough to do this it is also too loose to provide proper side support.

Figure 5.6: Illustration of Why Side Support Must be Uniform.

5.1 What Native Soil Modulus to Design For

Native soil modulus is likely to be very variable.

If side support is placed and compacted in one lift it will push the pipe down with it - defeating the purpose of the side support. Also it cannot

be evenly dense.

Place and compact side support in layers. Pipe stays round. Density is uniform.

Very low density High density Compresses with pipe Settles around pipe Gives no side support Side support retained




Page 17 of 52

Little can usually be done economically to improve it.

It has less of an influence on pipe design than the embedment soil modulus.

It is difficult to measure in the field.

So it is generally reasonable to use a conservative value from established correlations with other soil parameters.

Table 3.2 in AS/NZS 2566.1:1998 gives correlations between soil type, density and modulus.

Natural soils can have densities below the “engineering” range (ie less than say 90% of standard MDD), so Table 3.2 gives correlations for as low as 85% of standard MDD.

5.2 What Embedment Soil Modulus to Design For

The embedment soil modulus can be controlled by specifying both the material and its density.

Gives the designer flexibility to take account of the cost of materials, availability of materials, compaction methods, degree of site supervision, etc

But it must be recognised that there is a minimum practical limit for embedment soil density, in that it must be at least sufficiently dense not to settle vertically down around the pipe under the loads from the trench fill or traffic. (See sheet 5)

The embedment should also be sufficiently dense that it does not creep or permanently compress under the lateral stresses. (Note that soils appear to have quite a high elastic modulus under the very low-strain cyclic loading they are subjected to in laboratory modulus tests, but suffer creep under static loading, and permanent compression under slight overload.)

Table 3.2 in AS/NZS 2566.1:1998 (and section 3.4 generally) does not alert the inexperienced designer to these points and so could lead to inappropriate designs.

There should be separate tables for native soils and compacted embedment materials in AS/NZS 2566.1.

AS/NZS 2566.1 is a design standard. It should not be referenced in specifications for use by contractors.

This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 26/04/2000 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)




Page 18 of 52

Section 6: Embedment Sand – Simple Field Test

Figure 6.1: A Simple Field Acceptance Test for Pipe Embedment Sand. The main requirements for a good pipe embedment sand are: 1. It will be easy to compact in the restricted area around a pipe. 2. Its ease of compaction will be relatively insensitive to moisture content. 3. If in contact with metal pipe or fittings it has a low specific conductivity. This simple field test described here checks only for the first two of these requirements – ie whether the sand will be easy to compact and whether its ease of compaction will be sensitive to changes in moisture content. The test relies on the fact that a sand that is free-draining will normally also be easy to compact and that its compaction will not be sensitive to changes in moisture content. This test was found to correlate well with the normal “grading” based acceptance criterion for embedment sands – namely that an embedment sand should be non-plastic and contain less than about 8% fines. (“Fines” are defined as material less than 75 micrometre in diameter.) This test checks the sands on three different criteria – drainage rate, liquefaction and penetration. The test procedure and a record sheet are presented below.

6.1 Test Procedure

Terminology used in

pipelaying

Overlay

Embedment Fill

Trench Fill

Side Support

Bedding 80 to 150 finished thickness Trench Floor




Page 19 of 52

Step 1 – Preparation Take the sieve and check that the 75 micrometre mesh is firmly in place and undamaged.

Step 2 – Filling Fill loosely with the sand to be tested up to the lower lip.

Step 3 – Saturating Distribute 500 mL of water over the sand in one continuous, fairly quick, but smooth pour, taking care to keep the surface reasonably flat.

Step 4 – Drainage Rate Record (in seconds) how long it takes for the water on top of the sand to disappear. (Photographs of four examples are presented below.)




Page 20 of 52

Step 5 – Liquefaction Wait twenty seconds after the water has cleared from the surface, then gently tap the whole sieve on the ground five times. Record how many seconds it takes for any new water that appears to disappear again. (If none appears record zero.)

Step 6 – Penetration Wait at least another five minutes then press the ball of the thumb into the surface of the sand, using moderate pressure. Record whether or not the impression is more than 5 mm deep.

The picture above-left shows an impression that is less than 5 mm deep. The surface felt firm. (This sand had 5% fines.) The picture left shows an impression that is greater than 5 mm deep. The full depth was completely sloppy. (This sand had 16% fines.)

Drainage Example 1 This sand had 0% fines in it. It took less than 5 seconds for the water to clear the surface.




Page 21 of 52

Drainage Example 2 This sand had 5% fines in it. It took about 45 seconds for the water to clear the surface.

Drainage Example 3 This sand had 10% fines in it. It took about 90 seconds for the water to clear the surface.

Drainage Example 4 This sand had 16% fines in it. Even after 3 hours the surface was still wet.

Table 6.1: Embedment Sand Sample Test results.

Sample Number

Drainage Rate Time taken for initial water to disappear

Liquefaction Time taken for “new” water to disappear (if none record zero)

Penetration Depth of thumbprint

Acceptance

Three = OK

Two or less = not OK

time in seconds

<90 s

>90 s

time in seconds

<30 s

>30 s

depth in mm

<5 mm

>5 mm

1 70 15 3 OK

2 110 40 >10 not OK




Page 22 of 52


Section 7: The Method Specification for Embedment Compaction Why use a method spec rather than a performance spec for the placement and compaction of pipe embedment sand? (A method spec says “HOW” a job should be done – it spells out the steps that need to be followed to achieve the required engineering result. A performance spec says only “WHAT” the final result should look like – but compliance is limited to things that can be measured.) It is important to use a method spec for the placement and compaction of pipe embedment sand because: 1. It is just as important HOW the required density is achieved in pipe

embedment sand as it is that the required density is achieved at all. 2. There is no field test available for measuring the density of pipe

embedment sand down the sides of a pipe in a trench. 3. It is possible to build into a method spec some feedback that instantly tells

the person laying the pipe that the required engineering result has been achieved at all points. (With a performance spec it is usually necessary to wait several days for the results of a few scattered density tests – which, as stated above, do not work in pipe embedment sand anyway).

7.1 Discussion

1. Why is it important HOW the required density is achieved in embedment sand? PVC, MSCL and DICL pipes are all “flexible” pipes. They are not designed to be strong enough to support the trench fill and the future traffic load by themselves. They need a lot of help from the embedment sand around them to prevent them from being squashed out of round by these loads (1). Squashing a flexible pipe out of round puts stresses in its walls that add to the hoop stress from the pressure of the water inside the pipe. Manufacturers usually design flexible pipes assuming that the embedment will be good (stiff) enough to limit the vertical deflection of the pipe to less than about 3% of its diameter under trench fill and traffic loads. If this deflection is exceeded, then the combined stress in the pipe walls from the oval shape and internal pressure will exceed the design stress, and the life of the pipe will be shortened. This means that the embedment sand must not only dense enough to provide the required support for the pipe, but that the density must be achieved in such a way that the pipe is not put out of round by the compaction process. And the most




Page 23 of 52

important place for a good density to be achieved is under the haunch of the pipe. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 16/12/2003 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

Section 8: Embedment Overlay Thickness for Sewer In pipelaying practice, whether water or sewer, the pipe overlay is that part of the pipe embedment which immediately overlies the pipe. The function of the pipe overlay is to act as a mechanical buffer between the pipe and the trench fill above. To act as a successful buffer, the pipe overlay must be: 1. A material that is sufficiently fine and uniform that it cannot itself damage

either the pipe or any protective coating on the pipe. For example, for PVC pressure pipes or “Greensleeve” protected DICL, it is necessary to use sand as the overlay to prevent scratching, whereas for non-pressure PVC sewers, which are less sensitive to minor scratching, screenings can be used.

2. Easy to compact, so that the effort required to compact it does not damage

the pipe. Again, sand or screenings are acceptable. 3. Sufficiently thick that any large stones in the trench fill above cannot

penetrate through it to the pipe. 4. Sufficiently thick that the compactive effort put into the trench fill above

cannot damage the pipe. 5. Sufficiently thick that, even if some were displaced during subsequent

construction operations, there would be sufficient thickness left. 6. Sufficiently thick that the minimum thickness achieved is sufficient, even

under laying conditions where the control of thickness is difficult, such as in a deep sewer trench.

If the above six criteria are applied to normal water main laying, it has been found that an overlay thickness of 150 mm is appropriate. (The overlay material is sand, which is both easy to compact and relatively difficult to displace once in place. The trench is shallow, and so it is easy to control overlay thickness. Quarry rubble is used as trench fill, so there are no large stones in it, and it is relatively easy to compact.) If the above six criteria are applied to normal sewer laying, it has been found that an overlay thickness of 300 mm is appropriate. (Sewer overlay material is screenings which, although easy to compact are also relatively easily displaced. A sewer trench is often deep, and so it is difficult control the thickness of the overlay. Sewer trench fill often contains large stones, and is also often difficult to compact.)




Page 24 of 52

In summary, there are at least six factors to be considered when determining an appropriate thickness for sewer overlay. The density to which the trench fill is to be compacted is only one of them. In road reserves we specify 95% of standard maximum dry density for trench fill in order to control surface settlement. In “easements” we specify 90% of standard maximum dry density because surface settlements are not usually so critical (although they could well be – land use, not location, should be the criterion – but that is another topic). The difference in the compactive effort required to achieve 90% as opposed 95% would not generally be significant. Indeed, depending on the plant and techniques used, the impact felt by the sewer might well be greater for 90% than for 95%, even for the same trench fill material. To this point may be added the fact that the quality of the trench fill material is more likely to be at the lower end of the allowable range in easements than under roads (ie it may contain large stones and/or be more clayey and so require heavier compaction). It is therefore suggested that there are no sound arguments for reducing the thickness of sewer overlay from 300 mm to 150 mm in “easements” as suggested in the National Code. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 22/05/2000 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

Section 9: Embedment Compaction – Elastic Modulus VS Density Please be aware that these correlations are incredibly rough! It would have been pushing the limits of the science even to say that the range 3 to 5 MPa implies “reasonably good compaction” (eg 95% of standard maximum dry density). To differentiate is a flight of fancy, and is more intended to show that they both imply reasonable compaction. I have included the “field identification tests” I worked out for page B7 of the Blue Book. You may wish to use these tests to supplement the results from the “Robert Bock, conical-tip, arboreal, static penetrometer device, with pain-gauge stress-limit control”.




Page 25 of 52

Table 9.1: Field Identification Tests.

Elastic Modulus MPa

SPT (blows per 300 mm) (1)

Consistency if Sandy - - - Field Identification Test (2)

Consistency if Clay - - - Field Identification Test (2)

Equivalent % of Standard Maximum Dry Density

5 22

Medium Dense (3) - - - takes a footprint 5 mm deep

Very Stiff (4) - - - readily indented with thumbnail

Approx 96% (6)

3 15

Medium Dense (3) - - - takes a footprint 8 mm deep

Stiff to Very Stiff (5) - - - readily indented with thumb but penetrated only with great effort

Approx 93% (6)

1. Based on Hobas design manual correlations. 2. Refer page B7 of Blue Book. 3. SPT range for “medium dense” is 10 to 30 blows per 300 mm. 4. SPT range for “very stiff” is 15 to 30 blows per 300 mm. 5. SPT range for “stiff” is 8 to 15 blows per 300 mm. 6. Correlations not to be used in any manner or for any other purpose than

that intended. I have previously prepared spec clauses to avoid just the (very bad) practise of compacting embedment after the placement of the overlay. This practice can clearly only achieve required density in the haunch and side support zones by squashing the pipe. It would be better if they did not compact at all. I have reproduced these clauses below. The pipe side support and overlay material shall be placed and compacted using methods and techniques which: 1. Will ensure that the specified density is achieved uniformly around the pipe, 2. Does not damage the pipe surface or protective coatings, 3. Does not displace the pipe from its laid position, and 4. Does not put any vertical load on the pipe until the pipe side support has

been compacted to its specified density. The pipe overlay material shall not be placed until the pipe side support material has been placed and compacted. The pipe side support and overlay material shall be placed in layers, and each layer compacted to a density of not less than 95% of the standard maximum dry density of the material. The layer thickness shall be appropriate to the nature of the material and the compaction techniques used. For pipes 450 mm diameter or less only, and provided it can be demonstrated that all of the foregoing criteria can be met, the bulk of the pipe side support material may be placed in one loose lift to the top of the pipe prior to compaction.




Page 26 of 52

I will try to do more research on (a) The use of modulus in specifications, (b) How to test for modulus in in-situ embedment material, and (c) Correlations to relative density. (But if they are going to compact down through the overlay it’s all pointless anyway!) This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 13/11/2003 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

Section 10: Controlled Low-Strength Material (CSLM) For Embedments The following provides geotechnical comment on the proposal by the contractor (Leeds) to use CSLM (Controlled Low-Strength Material) for pipe embedment on some sections of Pipelay Packages 1 and 3. CSLM, otherwise known as “flowable fill” or (in the past) “unshrinkable fill”, is a sand and cement based backfill material produced in a concrete batching plant and transported in a mixer truck – its cost on site is therefore similar to any other concrete product. (1) The main physical characteristics of well-designed CLSM are:

It will be free-flowing (with an almost creamy consistency) so that it fills small voids. (Mainly achieved with an air entraining agent and possibly also a plasticiser.)

It will have a specific maximum strength when cured – eg 1 to 5 MPa. (The usual mix design criteria are that it should be weak enough to allow it to be dug out by hand if required in the future, but high enough to give the required lateral modulus (stiffness) for the pipe and/or vertical/horizontal load carrying capacity.)

It will require no additional vibration or compaction after placing.

It will have an acceptably low shrinkage during curing.

It will reach its design strength in an acceptably short time. (2) The contractor considers that the advantages to him on this project would

be:

The ability to use a narrower trench (150 mm clearance either side proposed).

Avoiding having operatives in the trench (for compaction of embedment etc).

(3) Things to be wary of when using CLSM as pipe embedment are:

Buoyancy of the pipe in the CLSM – which is a fluid with about twice the density of water. (Can minimise by backfilling in several lifts or counter with saddle anchors.)

Reduced side support in very weak ground because of the narrower trench. (The side support given to the pipe comes from a combination of the width and modulus (stiffness) of the embedment and the modulus of the natural ground in the trench walls.




Page 27 of 52

The time required to achieve the design strength (or, in this application, sufficient strength to enable trench backfilling can be completed).

10.1 The Leeds CLSM Embedment Trial

I inspected the results of the trial on 28 April 2003 (see photos below):

The CLSM appeared to be fully cured. (It had been placed on 23 April 2003.)

Its strength in-situ was such that it could be slowly fretted away with the toe of a boot or (it was estimated) dug with difficulty using a spade.

In terms of its “strength in a hand specimen” (an engineering geologists method of classification) it could be “broken by hand with difficulty” indicating a compressive strength of a little over 1 MPa or a “very weak” (VW) rock.

I was informed that:

The mix contained 6% cement and had a target strength of 1.5 MPa.

One side of the trench was vibrated after pouring, the other was not.

It achieved a reasonable strength (sufficient to allow backfilling) within 5 to 7 hours.

The supplier considers that CLSM can be produced using 4% cement but not less.

Based on my observations of this trial, past experience with the use of CLSM, and general knowledge of its performance, I consider that CLSM would be appropriate for pipe embedment on these contracts. The mix should be similar to that trialled and the points listed in (3) should be considered in the design.




Page 28 of 52

A concrete pipe (background) was placed in the trench and the CLSM poured to mid-height. The CLSM was vibrated on the right hand side of the trench but not on the left. The pipe was removed when the CLSM had cured, revealing the quality of the contact.

The left side – not vibrated. Shows “flow banding” but otherwise full contact with the pipe.




Page 29 of 52

The right side – was vibrated. There has been some “aggregation” of the finely entrained bubbles to give the voids visible in the photograph, but otherwise there is still full contact with the pipe. Vibration is neither necessary nor recommended.

The CLSM made full contact with the bottom and sides of the pipe.




Page 30 of 52

These lumps were above half height and broke off as the pipe was removed. A lump of the cured CLSM could be “broken with difficulty by hand” indicating a compressive strength of about 1 MPa.

Figure 10.1: The CLSM Embedment Trial Set-Up. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 11/11/2003 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

Section 11: DS4 Review Difficulty has been experienced with the compaction of several batches of embedment sand on recent pipelaying contracts for the Loveday Irrigation Area, even though the sands complied with the grading specified in the EWS standard specification for packing sand "DS4(a)". It is considered that the compaction problems lie with the very broad grading limits of DS4(a) and PM31. Relevant points are given below and an alternative specification for packing sand is suggested.

EWS specification DS4(a) has the same grading as DRT specification PM31. They differ only in that DS4(a) is required to have high electrical resistivity to minimise corrosion.

Packing sand for pressure pipes must be a sand - ie not a single size gravel, which could damage the pipe. (DGK)

Packing sand needs to be easy to compact so that (i) the pipe can bed into it, (ii) it can be compacted into the haunch area and (iii) to minimise the




Page 31 of 52

compaction energy required and therefore possible damage to the pipe or displacement of the pipe in the trench.

Packing sand should be free draining and its compaction curve should be relatively insensitive to moisture content, as moisture content is not always easily controlled during pipelaying. (Water entry into the trench; the temptation to moisture-condition by saturating the sand after placing; rain; etc.)

The grading curve for DS4(a)/PM31 is shown on the attached (amended) mechanical analysis sheet. Also part of the specification is that the sands be "non-plastic", which implies that the 10% which passes the 75 m sieve should be mostly silt not clay.

It can be seen that anything from a clean, single size, 5 mm gravel, to a very fine sand with 10% clay, might pass, despite the vast difference in properties between these two extremes.

Also plotted on the sheet are the grading limits for PM61. This is the only other DRT standard specification for a non-plastic sand. It is very tight and would exclude many sands with satisfactory characteristics for packing sand.

The single curve is for a sand from a borrow pit in "Maple St". It has a grading similar to those sands which have been difficult to compact. By referring to the bar above the plot (a recommended amendment to the standard mechanical analysis sheet) it can be seen that it is a fine to very fine sand with 9% passing the 75 m sieve (much of which was reported to be clay).

Clearly DS4(a) is too loose a specification to guarantee the characteristics required of a good packing sand. It was probably written with the alluvial or glacial sands from metro sand pits in mind - not the much finer, siltier, and lime rich wind blown sands of the mallee country. Nor, possibly, did the original specifiers predict that some metro pit owners would resort to blending fine material with what would otherwise have been an ideal packing sand just to get rid of the fine stuff (and yet still comply with the specification)!

The suggested grading limits for a revised "DS4" are plotted on the sheet. The lower curve prevents the material being all 5 mm gravel by forcing some sand into it, while the upper curve avoids it being all fine sand. The "non-plastic" criterion is retained.

The suggested alternative specification requires further consideration by Ron Slack (STO Soils, Materials Sciences Centre) to ensure that it is appropriate - in particular that the grading is not so tight as to exclude materials which would have satisfactory properties, and also that the 10% passing 75m criterion is sufficiently strict by itself to ensure that the material will be free draining.




Page 32 of 52

Section 12: Pipe Laying – Groundwater Control Specification Clauses GROUNDWATER CONTROL The Contractor shall remove any water that may enter or be found in the pipe trench or associated excavation while the pipes are being laid, and while any other works under the contract are being constructed. Where the trench floor is wet but the trench is not actively making water, the SR may allow a stable working surface to be created by over-excavation and the placement of a bed of 20 mm aggregate wrapped in geotextile. Where the trench is making water slowly, the SR may allow the trench to be drained using a bed of aggregate as above, draining to a pump sump in the trench. Drainage to the sump may be assisted if necessary by an agricultural drainage pipe laid in the screenings. Where the trench would be expected to make water rapidly, or is found to make water rapidly, a wellpoint dewatering system shall be installed and the watertable lowered to below the floor of the trench before the commencement of pipelaying. The wellpoint system shall be operated until such time as there is no danger of flotation of the newly laid pipes and the trench has been backfilled to not less than 150 mm above normal groundwater level. Where approved by the SR, costs of materials for stabilisation and drainage will be reimbursed by the Principal. Water from excavations and wellpoints shall be disposed of in a manner that will not contravene EPA regulations, cause injury to persons, or cause damage to property, the work in progress or completed work. The Contractor shall be responsible for the consequences of, shall bear the costs of, and shall settle any claims for, personal injury, death, damage to property, and breaches of EPA regulations, caused by the dewatering operations. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 06/06/2001 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

Section 13: Pipe Trench Width Discussion WATER SUPPLY AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION MANUALS (The Explanation of Differing Trench Widths Specified in the Two Manuals)

A 600 mm minimum trench width is specified for sewers (150, 225 and 300 mm), as sewers are generally deep, and there is a need to ensure reasonable access for personnel during placement and compaction of the embedment.

A narrower trench width is allowed for water mains, as mains are generally shallow, and therefore reasonable access can be gained for




Page 33 of 52

placement and compaction of the embedment within a narrower trench than is required for the same size of sewer, particularly for the smaller diameter pipes.

No maximum trench width is specified for sewers, as sewer pipes in the 150 to 300 mm size range (with the specified embedment) are strong enough to support all trench fill and traffic loads without relying on the shedding of some of those loads to the trench wall.

Not specifying a maximum width allows the contractor to use battered or benched cut excavation if these are more economical.

A maximum trench width is specified for water mains as it is desirable to disturb the ground for the minimum width possible, because anchors and thrust blocks must be bear on undisturbed ground. Sewers do not need anchors.

Specifying a maximum trench width for a water main does not unduly restrict the contractor, as the mains are shallow and he is unlikely to want to use wide battered cuts anyway.

Having specified a maximum width for the above reason, it is taken into consideration in selecting the "support type" (H1) for the design of concrete pipes.


Section 14: Pipe Laying – Groundwater Control Using Screenings The groundwater appears to be related to the ornamental lake alongside the road. Judging by the greenness of the vegetation (roadside grass and trees even on the other side of the road) this lake is holding up the watertable over quite an area. Uphill of the lake all the vegetation is dry and brown. The watertable is also being held up by the blockage of the watercourse downstream of the culvert under the road. The soil appears to be stiff yellow clay that is not allowing water through because it is fissured. It would be necessary to get the groundwater under control and ensure a dry trench floor before laying the pipe. Whatever approach is taken to do this, should also ensure that there is no erosion of the pipe embedment or trench walls/floor after construction. I suggest you consider the following steps: 1. First clean out the watercourse downstream of the culvert so that the

ponded water upstream of the culvert can drain away.




Page 34 of 52

2. Open up the full length of the trench from the present point to the culvert so that seepage can drain out through the culvert (at least to culvert invert level).

3. Check that the soil in the trench walls and floor are stable even though

water is seeping from them - ie they are not soft clay or loose sand. 4. Judge the rate of flow of seepage down the trench. 5. If it is considered that the seepage flow is low enough to be carried down a

bed of screenings, then judge what depth and size of screenings would be required. (See Clause 4.5 in DS9.)

For example, if it is decided that a 100 mm thick bed of 10-7 mm

screenings (normal SA Water approved PM43 sewer screenings) would handle the seepage, then over-excavate the trench floor by 100 mm, place geotextile on the floor and up the sides, fill to a depth of 100 mm with the screenings and wrap the geotextile over the screenings. The pipe may then be laid with DS4b embedment in the normal manner.

Or if it is decided that more capacity is needed in the screenings, then

consider using say a 150 mm thickness of 16-10 mm screenings (PM41), and proceed in a similar manner.

Or if it is decided that there is too much water flow to be practically handled

by screenings then it may be necessary to consider wellpoint dewatering. 6. It will probably be necessary to dig a sump near the culvert and pump from

it to control seepage there. Be careful of the detail here. Nowhere should sand be in contact with screenings or screenings in contact with the trench floor or walls - all screenings should be wrapped in geotextile, and all water should be drained or pumped from the screenings in a way that ensures the screenings cannot be lost.

Repeat the same approach the other side of the culvert as and if

necessary. I would be interested to know how it all goes. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 14/02/2001 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

Section 15: Pipe Laying in Embankments Reclaimed Water Main through the Lagoon Embankment The section of the reclaimed water main through the embankment of Lagoon #3 shall be embedded in high-slump concrete with a maximum aggregate size of 10 mm to mid-height of the pipe. Precautions shall be taken to prevent flotation of the pipe in the concrete eg by filling the pipe with water, loading it with sandbags and/or strutting. The remainder of the pipe embedment, from the top of the concrete to 150 mm above the top of the pipe, shall consist of well-graded low-plasticity sand to




Page 35 of 52

Transport SA Standard Specification PM62 compacted to not less than 100% of its standard maximum dry density. The remainder of the trench through the embankment shall be backfilled with approved material won from the trench excavation (or equivalent imported material) compacted to not less than 95% of its standard maximum dry density in layers not exceeding 150 mm compacted thickness. Reclaimed Water Main beyond the Embankment The section of the reclaimed water main from the embankment of Lagoon #3 to the boundary shall be laid in accordance with drawing 91-0079-01E (B3) of the SA Water, Water Supply Construction Manual. Filter Backwash Return Pipe The filter backwash return pipe shall be laid in accordance with drawing 91-0079-01E (B3) of the SA Water, Water Supply Construction Manual Shared Trench Requirements Where the reclaimed water main, the filter backwash return pipe and/or the control cable are laid in the same trench, then neither the return pipe nor the control cable shall be laid closer than 150 mm to outside of the main, not closer than 100 mm to each other (if on the same side of the main), and not closer than 100 mm from the wall of the trench. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 19/10/2000 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)




Page 36 of 52

Section 16: Pipe Trench Excavation Stability – Sample Log Sheet

Excavation Conditions Summary Sheet Pit Number TP21B

Project: Loxton Irrigation District Rehabilitation - Stage 2 Pipe Route: Line 28 - Anderson Road Chainage: 730 m E of centre of Balfour Ogilvy Rd Location: 5 m north of centre of road – see comments GPS Co-ords: m East m North

Depth

Water Clay Soil

Sand Soil

Overall Rating for Trench Stability (sum of ratings to left)

Dry

Mo

ist

We

t

Inflow

Stiff

Firm

So

ft

ve

ry S

oft

Ce

me

nte

d

De

nse

Me

diu

m D

ense

Loo

se

Fair

ly S

tab

le

Les

s S

tab

le

Un

sta

ble

Ve

ry U

nsta

ble

Rating 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.0 – 0.5

0.5 – 1.0

1.0 – 1.5

1.5 – 2.0

2.0 – 2.5

2.5 – 3.0

3.0 – 3.5

3.5 – 4.0

4.0 – 4.5

4.5 – 5.0

Comments: This test location is in the road shoulder on the opposite side of the road to TP21A and the irrigation channel. It was investigated because conditions at TP21A appeared to be very unstable from a depth of 1 m down.

SAMPLE SHEET ONLY This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 15/01/2001 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)




Page 37 of 52

Section 17: Pipe Laying – Roads Over Old Mains Construction of Overtaking Lane – Noarlunga – Cape Jervis Rd, Myponga SA Water Requirements for Road Construction Works in the vicinity of its existing Infrastructure.

SA Water has concerns about Transport SA working adjacent to and above the existing 250 mm diameter AC water main located along the Noarlunga –Cape Jervis Rd. This main was laid in 1962.

Transport SA will be boxing out to a 400 mm depth along the causeway adjacent to the Myponga Reservoir and 450 mm depth further towards Myponga Township as part of their road reconstruction works.

The existing cover over the main is believed to vary from 600 mm to 750 mm. Potholing is to be undertaken shortly, and this will reveal actual cover over the main.

SA Water requires that no heavy vibration compaction equipment be used over the pipe except where, or until, the cover over the pipe is greater than 600 mm.

Only plate vibrator compaction equipment should be used for all fill/road pavement materials between 300 mm and 600 mm over the pipe and within 500 mm laterally from each edge of the pipe.

If the boxing-out comes within 300 mm of the top of the pipe, then the nature of the material over the pipe should be assessed. If it is not dense, or not uniform, or if it contains any stone larger than 50 mm, then it should be carefully removed over a width 500 mm either side of the pipe and replaced with clean, high-quality sand fill selected for its ease of compaction. Compaction of this sand should be achieved using light (hand guided) plate compaction equipment only.

SA Water will not take responsibility for risks associated with works to be carried out in close proximity to its infrastructure. Transport SA will therefore be charged full actual costs for repairs to any damage to pipework etc that might occur.

It is recommended that a site inspection with representatives from SA Water, Transport SA and its principal contractor, be arranged to discuss the appropriate course of action for working near the water main.

C B Nitschke Supv. Technical Officer – Fleurieu Region 2/11/01




Page 38 of 52

Section 18: Pipe Laying in Roads – Compaction Requirements

18.1 Trench Floor Preparation

The trench floor shall be inspected on excavation for rock outcrops, soft or loose areas, etc, and appropriate action taken to ensure that the pipe will not be subject to differential settlement in the future. The trench floor shall then be trimmed and/or filled to within the design trench floor level limits of 80 mm to 150 mm below the bottom of the pipe. All fill and all disturbed areas shall be compacted to not less than the density of the natural ground. All debris and water shall be removed before any of the bedding sand is placed.

18.2 Bedding Placement

The bedding shall not be compacted, but simply raked or otherwise placed to grade.

The centre of the bedding shall not be walked on either during or after placing. Chases shall be dug in the bedding to clear the pipe sockets.

18.3 Side Support & Overlay Placement & Compaction

Side support, overlay and trench fill materials shall be placed in layers of appropriate thickness for the material, location, and compaction equipment to be used, and each layer shall be compacted to the specified minimum densities. Where minimum densities are not specified the values of the following table shall be applied.

18.4 Table of Minimum Densities (%)




Page 39 of 52

Table 2: Table of Minimum Densities (%).

Material Test Method

Trafficable Areas Non-trafficable Areas

Side Support and Overlay

Trench/ Embankment Fill

Side Support and Overlay

Trench/ Embankment Fill

Very clean sands and gravels (See Note 1 of AS 1289.5.1.1)

Density Index AS 1289.5.6.1

80 90 75

compaction will depend on site requirements

Non-cohesive sands with <8% fines other than above

Dry density ratio - standard compaction AS 1289.5.1.1

97 100 95

Non-cohesive sands with >8% fines and all cohesive materials

Dry density ratio – standard compaction AS 1289.5.1.1

material not appropriate for use as embedment fill

100

material not appropriate for use as embedment fill

Commentary: (1) The minimum densities specified for side support and overlay fill in non-

trafficable areas are the minimum densities required for materials of this quality to ensure that they do not settle under trench fill loading and saturation. Any embedment fill that settles around a flexible pipe would not be providing the lateral support to the pipe assumed in the design method for flexible pipes, even if its laboratory measured modulus was apparently sufficient. Note that modulus is determined in the laboratory using an oscillating dynamic load and extremely low strains. Even a reasonably high modulus from this test is no guarantee that the material will not settle of even collapse under its self-weight.

(2) The minimum densities specified for side support, overlay and trench fill in

trafficable areas are intended to ensure that there will be no settlement in these zones under traffic loading and saturation at any time after laying. Note that any settlement at any depth in a normal trench is likely, ultimately, to be reflected at the surface.





Page 40 of 52

Section 19: Pipeline Hydraulic Test Specification HYDRAULIC TESTING OF PIPELINES

19.1 General

Tenderers shall submit with their tenders full details of how they propose to carry out the hydraulic testing of the pipelines, the purpose of which is to confirm that all pipe joints and fittings are watertight. The acceptance, by the Superintendent's Representative, of the details proposed by the Contractor shall not relieve the Contractor of any responsibility to successfully test the pipelines and rectify any leaks. The Contractor shall be responsible for supplying all the necessary equipment and labour for carrying out the hydraulic testing of the pipelines. Pressure gauges used for hydraulic testing shall have a current certificate of calibration from a NATA registered laboratory. The Contractor shall test the pipelines in sections as approved by the Superintendent's Representative. The Contractor shall give notice of not less than one working day to the Superintendent's Representative of intention to test any section of a pipeline. The hydraulic testing of a section shall not commence until at least the pipe overlay material has been placed and compacted in accordance with this specification and approved by the Superintendent's Representative. The hydraulic testing of a section shall not be carried out until at least 14 days after the pouring of any concrete thrust blocks or anchors unless otherwise agreed with the Superintendent's Representative. The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all permanent valves, air valves, scours, etc are installed in the section before hydraulic testing. The Contractor shall supply and install, as part of the tendered cost, all temporary anchors and thrust blocks, and all temporary air bleeds, plugs, caps, stops, and blank flanges necessary to enable the section to be tested. The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that anchors and thrust blocks, or any other means used to restrain the pipework, are designed by an appropriately qualified engineer to suit the hydraulic test pressure, the load-deflection characteristics of any supporting soil, and the allowable movement at the first rubber ring joint beyond the restrained section. The Contractor shall be responsible for any damage caused by the tests to the pipeline, structures and fittings.

19.2 Filling the Pipeline

The section of the pipeline to be hydraulically tested shall be filled with water at a rate sufficiently slow to ensure that all air is expelled. Each air valve and temporary air bleed shall be kept open during filling until there is no further




Page 41 of 52

escape of air from it. Once the pipeline is completely full, each of the air valves and temporary air bleeds shall be reopened to check for trapped air.

19.3 Pre-Conditioning Concrete Lined Pipes

Pipelines consisting of concrete lined pipes, or pipelines with concrete lined fittings or specials, shall be pre-conditioned (to encourage saturation of the concrete lining) by maintaining the pipeline full of water for a minimum period of 24 hours before commencing the pressure test. Each of the air valves and temporary air bleeds shall be reopened to check for trapped air immediately before commencing the pressure test.

19.4 Test Pressure

The required pressure gauge reading (P) for each section of pipeline to be tested shall be calculated as detailed below unless otherwise specified: P (kPa) = ((DPL - Gauge EL) x 9.81) x 1.25 DPL = Design Pressure Level for the section as given in Clause Y.Y Gauge EL = The elevation of the pressure gauge in metres, based on the

Australian Height Datum (AHD), and corrected to the centreline of the pipe

19.5 Pressure Test

For the first stage of the pressure test the Contractor shall pressurise the pipeline to 40% of P. The pipeline and all fittings, anchors, etc shall be inspected while this pressure is maintained. The final stage of the pressure test may be not be commenced until both the Contractor and Superintendent's Representative are satisfied that: (i) There are no obvious leaks; (ii) There has been no excessive movement at any anchor, thrust block or

other restraint; (iii) The rate of loss of pressure when the section is isolated from the pump is

not excessive; and (iv) The concrete lining has been sufficiently saturated. For the final stage of the pressure test the Contractor shall raise the pressure to the required pressure gauge reading (P) and shall maintain that pressure, to a tolerance of -0 and +10 kPa, for a minimum of 2 hours by adding “make-up” water. The Contractor shall accurately measure the volume of make-up water added in every 10-minute period during this final stage. If the maximum rate of addition of make-up water in any 10-minute period during the last 30 minutes of the test exceeds Q where: Q (litres per hour) = 0.01D x L x P D = nominal pipe diameter (m) P = required pressure gauge reading (kPa) L = length under test (km)




Page 42 of 52

Then the pipeline will be deemed to have failed the pressure test, and the leaks responsible shall be located and rectified by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Superintendent's Representative, and the hydraulic test repeated, all at the Contractor's cost. The Contractor shall record all leaking pipe joints and report the reason for the leak to the Superintendent's Representative. A leak at any pipe joint will be deemed to indicate unacceptable adherence to the Quality Assurance procedures, and the Contractor will be required, at the Contractor’s cost, to relay or repair sections of the pipeline as determined by the Superintendent's Representative.

19.6 Reports

At the completion of each day of testing the Contractor shall provide the Superintendent’s Representative with a copy of the test results. The final test results and test certificates shall be supplied within three working days of the date of testing. The pipeline shall not be emptied, or any trench fill placed, until authorised in writing by the Superintendent’s Representative.

19.7 Emptying the Pipeline

Where the pipeline is to be emptied, the Contractor shall provide details of how they propose to dispose of the water from the pipeline.

19.8 Hydraulic Testing of Pipework (For HOCV Installations Etc)

The Contractor shall ensure that the joints of pipes and fittings are watertight by pressurising the pipework and visually inspecting all joints. The required test pressure (P) shall be calculated as detailed below: P (kPa) = ((DPL - Gauge EL) x 9.81) x 1.25 DPL = Design Pressure Level Gauge EL = The elevation of the pressure gauge in metres, based on the

Australian Height Datum (AHD), and corrected to the centreline of the pipe The DPL for Strathalbyn North is EL 240, and for Gemmel is EL 400. The Contractor shall report the reason for all leaks in writing to the Superintendent’s Representative. The Contractor shall repair all leaks to the satisfaction of the Superintendent’s representative at the Contractor’s cost. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 19/06/2003 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)




Page 43 of 52

Section 20: SEWER SCREENINGS 10-7MM VS 75MM From time to time there are requests from contractors to vary the size of screenings used for sewer embedment. Ed Collingham advises that 10 mm - 7 mm screenings meeting DoT specification PM43 is the best material at meeting our performance requirements. It needs almost no additional mechanical compaction after placing and is free draining because (1) it consists of relatively large particles, (2) the particles are nearly all the same size, and (3) the DoT specification also requires that the particles have a good shape. The material specified in DoT specification PM44 (7 mm - 5 mm screenings) is not simply a slightly finer version of PM43. The specification allows it to contain quite a high percentage of fine gravel, sand, and poorly shaped particles. It may therefore not be as “self-compacting” and/or free draining as we require. These are the reasons why the standard drawings specify that all of the pipe embedment material (ie from the bottom of the trench to 300 mm above the pipe) consist of 10 mm - 7 mm screenings in accordance with DoT standard specification PM43, and why this requirement should generally be adhered to. USE OF 7 mm - 5 mm PM 43 SCREENINGS AS OVERLAY Under certain conditions, approval may be given for the use of PM 44 (7 mm - 5 mm) screenings as a partial replacement for PM43 screenings. These conditions are: 1. That the quarry advises that PM43 screenings are not available locally, and

there is a significant cost penalty associated with importing PM 43 to the job.

2. They may only be used in the pipe overlay zone ie. the 300 mm depth of

screenings above the pipe. 3. There must be no sheeting adjacent to the overlay zone (ie the 300 mm

above top of the pipe) while the screenings are being placed and compacted.

4. There must be no other stability problems with the trench. 5. The 7 mm - 5 mm screenings must be lightly compacted using a manually

operated vibrating plate. Vibrating plates attached to excavators are not acceptable as they provide too much compactive effort and could cause damage to the pipe.

6. Because of the requirement to use a manually operated vibrating plate,

there must be good access to the trench and adequate ventilation to diffuse the exhaust fumes from the motor.

AJ COLLETT MANAGER CONTRACT SERVICES / /97




Page 44 of 52

Section 21: Sewer Screenings Review of Specification 2004 The following background discussion and recommendation are offered in response to a request from the Manager Infrastructure Standards (Greg Rosser) to consider a revision of the specification for sewer embedment screenings to include 14 mm concrete aggregate in addition to the current 10 mm aggregate.

21.1 Background on the Use of Screenings for Sewer Embedment

It is SA Water policy to embed all sewer pipes in screenings, and all water pipes in sand. The reasons that screenings are used for sewers (instead of sand) are:

Sewer pipes (not being subject to internal pressure) are not sensitive to the shallow scratching caused by screenings, so we have the option to use them. (Note however that sewage pumping mains are embedded in sand.)

Screenings need minimal compaction (if any at all in addition to the agitation they receive during placement) to achieve a satisfactory density. (A great advantage when down a deep trench in which mechanical compaction equipment cannot be used because of fumes, or where wall sheeting or struts are being used.)

Because of the point above, density tests do not need to be done on screenings. (Just as well, as there are no tests available.)

“Lightly-compacted” screenings have a very high stiffness modulus compared to even well-compacted sand.

Screenings provide a free-draining layer on the floor of the trench to help with the control of any groundwater seeping into the trench.

So, the general characteristics required of sewer embedment screenings are:

That they achieve close to their maximum density with minimal compaction effort. This is achieved by specifying screenings that are: (a) “single-size” rather than graded; (b) reasonably well-shaped rather than elongated; and (c) have a nominal size that is neither too large nor too small.

That they will conduct water freely along the trench floor to a pumping sump without clogging. This is achieved by ensuring that they are (a) not too small in their nominal size; (b) are “single size” rather than graded; and (c) are clean (i.e. reasonably free from sand silt and clay size particles that might wash through the bedding to form “dams” within the bedding).

The history of specification revisions for sewer embedment screenings is as follows: In the past we had our own internal DS specification for sewer embedment screenings, but this was replaced several years ago with a Transport SA standard specification for spray-seal screenings. (Then called PM43 but now called SA10-7.) We made this change despite the fact that spray-seal screenings have durability and other attributes far in excess of what is needed for sewer embedment. The reason for adopting such a high-quality material was that most quarries at the time were set up to supply PM43 in large quantities and at a




Page 45 of 52

reasonable price but had become less geared to supplying screenings to our DS specification. In recent years however spray seal became progressively less popular as a wearing course and so PM43/SA10-7 itself became progressively more difficult to source and also (possibly related to its decline in popularity) its price rose greatly. Therefore, in late 1993, after trials by Ron Slack and me at the Materials Sciences laboratory, the specification for sewer embedment screenings was changed to “10 mm nominal size single-size (concrete) aggregate as per Table 1 of AS 2758.1-1998”. The only potential problem with that specification is if the mass of material passing the 2.36 mm and 75 µm sieve sizes were both at the top of their allowable range (i.e. 5% and 2% respectively). If they were then the product would be too “dirty” for our purposes (it would be at risk of clogging if it were required to transfer groundwater along the floor of the trench). However, mechanical analysis tests run on several samples sourced from various quarries found all of them to be at the low to middle end of the allowable range for both of these sieve sizes. The specification was therefore adopted, recognising that if it was found in the future that quarries were tending to dump dirty product on us or our contractors, then it would probably be sufficient to threaten the re-introduction of SA10-7 to bring them back into line.

21.2 The Proposal to Add 14 Mm Aggregate to the Specification

The current proposal to revise the specification for sewer embedment screenings to include 14 mm concrete aggregate follows from warnings received late last year of a proposed price rise of the order of 10% for 10 mm concrete aggregate. Offers were also received from the two largest aggregate suppliers (Boral and Readymix) for discounted prices on 14 mm concrete aggregate (about $4 less than for 10 mm aggregate – which means about $16 per tonne instead of $20 per tonne). This situation is understood to have arisen because of (a) increasing demand for 10 mm aggregate for special (pumpable etc) concrete mixes, and (b) the consequential build up of large stockpiles of 14 mm aggregate (which is produced as part of the process). Mechanical analysis tests had been done on several samples of the 14 mm aggregate by Ron Slack at the Materials Sciences laboratory at the request of the Manager Infrastructure Standards. The samples were then inspected jointly by Ron and me in respect of the other attributes required of screenings for use as sewer embedment. All of the samples were very clean (<1% fines), all had good shape and grading (and so, because of their larger size, would be even freer draining than 10 mm aggregate for the same fines content), and all self-compacted readily (as indicated by the simple “jar inversion” and bag tests). The other attribute looked at was their ability to scratch PVC pipe. This is only a secondary concern for sewers but because larger aggregates have a greater potential for causing scratches (fewer contact points mean higher contact pressures) it was felt necessary to make at least a subjective assessment of it. Surprisingly the 14 mm samples felt much “smoother” than expected (compared to what I remembered for 10 mm screenings in the past). Ron was able to offer a




Page 46 of 52

possible explanation for this. It seems that in recent years the quarries have installed a new type of crushing plant that produces better shaped particles than in the past. This, I understand, applies to both of the major quarries and to both their “dolomite” and quartzite products.

21.3 Recommendation

It is recommended that the SA Water specification for sewer embedment screenings be revised to include 14 mm concrete aggregate in addition to the current 10 mm aggregate. Appropriate wording in text might be: Screenings to be used for sewer embedment shall comply with the specifications for 10 mm OR 14 mm concrete aggregate given in Table 1 of AS 2758.1-1998 Or on a drawing: Embedment: 10 mm OR 14 mm aggregate as per Table 1 of AS 2758.1-1998 A copy of Table 1 is attached for reference. Others who may wish to comment on this proposal are:

Peter Martin Senior Engineer Civil

Greg Rosser Manager Infrastructure Standards

Ron Slack CAO Materials Sciences Laboratory

Greg Moore Principal Materials Scientist

Table 7: Coarse Aggregate – Grading Requirements.





Page 47 of 52

Section 22: Laying Sewers in Reactive Soils When selecting discharge locations for trench drainage systems, care shall be taken to ensure that there can be no backflow of water into the sewer trench fill from the stormwater pipes or surface drains the into which the trench water is being discharged when the stormwater pipes or surface drains are surcharging. LAYING SEWERS IN EXTREMELY REACTIVE SOILS Where a sewer is to be laid through an area of where extremely reactive soils are present, the design shall incorporate details to prevent the sewer embedment or trench fill materials from conducting groundwater around the site, and also to minimise, in general, the impact of potential soil movements on the sewer. Such design details might include, for example, using sand instead of screenings as the embedment material, paying additional attention to controlling the French-drain effect, ensuring that the invert of the sewer is sufficiently deep, staying well clear of native trees, or re-routing the sewer to avoid particularly reactive areas. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 19/11/2003 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

Section 23: Sewer Maintenance Shaft Raisers 1 PE/PVC Maintenance Shaft Design Estimation of the Potential Down-drag Force on the Riser

23.1 Analytical Model

Figure 10: Illustration of the Potential Down-drag Force on the Riser.

QUESTION: What is the potential

“punching” force (FD) due to down-drag on

the riser?

ASSUMPTION: Chamber is set in sand backfill which “settles” sufficiently with respect to the riser (either during compaction or subsequently) to mobilise full frictional down-drag on the riser. (See notes)

ASSUMPTION: The trench floor and the chamber do not settle, so the full punching force is felt at the top of the chamber.




Page 48 of 52

Notes: 1 It would take only a few millimetres of settlement (relative movement

between the shaft and the backfill) to generate full frictional down-drag. 2 This relative movement could be generated either by settlement of the

backfill after construction or (more likely) as each layer is compacted during backfilling.

3 The “normal stress” between the backfill and the riser would be generated

during the compaction of the backfill and so would be well above “active”

(kA), which is about 0.3 for a sand with a of about 30 , but less than “passive” (kP) which is about 3.0. For this analysis take “k” as 1.0 (k0).

4 Adopt an angle of friction between the smooth PVC shaft and the backfill

sand of 17 .

23.2 Formula for the Normal Force on The River Murray Water (MDBC)

maximum force per unit width = k gL

Figure 11: Diagram of Forces on the Riser

23.3 Formula for the Down-Drag Force on The Riser

If the full friction is mobilised all the way down the shaft (see notes 1.2 and 1.3 above) and if the angle of friction (note 1.4) is independent of depth, then:

FD = FN tan

where is the angle of friction between PE and the backfill.

So: FD = 0.5 tan d gL2

23.4 Calculation of Typical Down-Drag Forces

F

N

Total normal force on the riser = the area of the force triangle x the width (perimeter) of the riser

FN = 0.5 x k gL x L x d

if k = 1.0 (see note 1.3 above) then

FN = 0.5 d gL2

L

d

FN




Page 49 of 52

Most Likely Case

= 17 (tan = 0.31) d = 0.25 m g = 10 m/s2

= 2 000 kg/m3 (moist, dense, well-graded sand)

So FD = 0.5 x x 0.31 x 0.25 x 2 000 x 10 x L2 newtons Or FD = 2.4 x L2 kN L = 2 m FD = 10 kN L = 3 m FD = 22 kN L = 4 m FD = 38 kN Probable Minimum Case

= 10 (tan = 0.18) (poorly compacted silty sand against very smooth PE shaft) d = 0.25 m g = 10 m/s2


So FD = 0.5 x x 0.18 x 0.25 x 1 800 x 10 x L2 newtons Or FD = 1.3 x L2 kN L = 2 m FD = 5 kN L = 3 m FD = 12 kN L = 4 m FD = 21 kN Probable Maximum Case

= 22 (tan = 0.40) (well compacted angular/gravelly sand against rough PE shaft) d = 0.25 m g = 10 m/s2


So FD = 0.5 x x 0.4 x 0.25 x 2 000 x 10 x L2 newtons Or FD = 3.1 x L2 kN L = 2 m FD = 12 kN L = 3 m FD = 28 kN L = 4 m FD = 50 kN

23.5 Other Considerations

EFFECT OF DEPTH The simple analytical model adopted implies a downdrag force that continues to increase with the square of the depth. In practise this would not occur - the assumptions about rigidity would cease to apply, the backfill could “arch”, etc. A reasonable “limiting” depth for this model to apply may be about 2 m. EFFECT OF RISNG WATERTABLE Assume that the watertable rises to the ground surface in the backfill. The backfill sand would become buoyant and, theoretically, the normal effective stress on the riser should be reduced.




Page 50 of 52

However, if the backfill sand had been well compacted it would (a) not settle further, (b) the normal stress “locked in” during compaction would probably not be relieved much, and (c) the full down-drag force would probably already have been already mobilised during compaction. Raising the watertable would therefore not reduce the “design” down-drag. If the backfill sand had not been compacted, it is likely that (a) it would settle further, particularly when the watertable falls again, (b) the normal stress would increase on falling watertable, and (c) the down-drag force would increase on falling watertable. Therefore, even in situations where surface uses only require the backfill to be lightly compacted, the design down-drag should be based on the “most likely” scenario above. GRAVEL BACKFILL (eg 10-7 mm screenings) These materials need the application of very little compactive effort for them to reach their maximum density. However in most practical situations it would still probably be prudent to keep k = 1.0, rather than reducing it towards the active value. Screenings also have a very high modulus once in place, but would probably still settle enough to mobilise the full frictional down-drag force on the riser. Their angle of friction against the riser could be greater than assumed in the above

calculations – perhaps 25 . Overall, it is suggested that the forces calculated above are reasonable even if screenings are used as backfill. CLSM BACKFILL CLSM or “controlled low strength material” (otherwise called flowable fill, etc) is a cementitious backfill which is poured into a trench as a dense fluid. It cures to a strength of 0.5 to 2 MPa. In its fluid state it should not exert down-drag on the riser. Some down-drag may arise if it shrinks during curing. Resisting flotation would be a major problem if it were poured around the chamber, but its use could be confined to the riser only. However, it is unlikely to be commonly used as a backfill for these chambers, and so its use should not dominate the design of the chambers. BACKFILL LOADS ON THE CHAMBER ITSELF Although only asked to comment on the forces in the riser, I note from the background information supplied that there has been considerable discussion about the loads on the walls of the chamber itself, and the reasons as to why the chambers may be collapsing. The pressure on the chamber would come from two sources. One is the hydrostatic pressure from groundwater, the other is lateral pressure from the backfill. The hydrostatic pressure should be taken as that due to the watertable being at the surface - it will therefore be necessary to select a design maximum depth of installation - say 6 m. I argue above that the lateral pressure from the backfill should be taken as at least equal to that from the k0 condition (k = 1.0) and a limiting depth of about 2 m, and that it would be “locked in” even when the watertable rose - buoyancy effects would not reduce it.




Page 51 of 52

The lateral pressure from backfill with a mass density of 2 000 kg/m3 and with a limiting depth of 2 m would be equivalent to that from about 4 m of water. This should be added to the groundwater pressure head of 6 m, giving a working pressure equivalent to about 10 m of water head. This is convenient, as it is equivalent to atmospheric pressure, so (allowing for some factor of safety) the chambers should be easily able to withstand full evacuation.

23.6 Conclusions & Recommendations

The forces in the riser are difficult to predict but have the potential to be quite high. They are probably best avoided rather than trying to design for them. It is recommended that a sleeve joint be incorporated at the bottom of the riser. The joint should be able to cope with about 30 mm of compression. A standard rubber ring joint might suffice. The chamber itself should be designed to take external loads equal to the hydraulic head from the trench full of water to the ground surface, plus backfill loads derived from a “k = 1.0” model and limiting maximum backfill depth of about 2 m. For a 6 m deep trench this gives a working pressure equivalent to about 10 m of water head. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 06/02/2001 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

Section 24: Sewer Maintenance Shaft Raisers 2 Although I preceded my discussion with calculations, these calculations were not intended to form the basis of my suggested approach to the design of the chambers. They were merely meant to illustrate: 1. That the loads could be high - eg equivalent to about a 10 m water head on

the chamber, and 2. That the loads would mostly arise during (and from) the

placement/compaction of the embedment and/or trench fill material, not from subsequent settlement of these fills.

Note that embedment and trench fill must always be sufficiently well compacted that there is no post-installation settlement at any depth - if there was it would ultimately be "reflected" at the surface. To achieve this degree of compaction, normal good placement/compaction practise would also ensure that the loads on the chamber would be fairly uniform. In other words these chambers ought to be able to resist the same sorts of loads and handling stresses as reinforced concrete culvert pipes. From the photographs I have seen they appear not to be able to. As I intimated in my previous memo, I would start from the premise that they should as a minimum be designed to withstand sustained full vacuum. I would add that they should also be able to withstand being laid on the ground and jumped on while under half vacuum.




Page 52 of 52

FE soil-structure interaction models would probably not be very good at simulating such loadings. This “Technical Note” was prepared by Ed Collingham, 07/12/2001 (Ex Principal Engineer Geotechnical)

Date post:	16-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamcong
View:	245 times
Download:	1 times

TG 10j - SA Water · PDF fileThe following lists the major changes to the December 2004...

Documents