SPIDA Method for Reinforced Concrete Pipe Design
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 117, Issue 4
Abstract
The required supporting strength of a buried pipe is affected by the total load imposed upon the pipe and the manner in which the pipe is supported by the surrounding soil. The classic procedure for designing reinforced concrete pipe is the indirect design method, which is based on: (1) Determining the moment that will occur at the pipe invert under the specified loading conditions; (2) determining a three‐edge bearing load or D‐load that produces the same moment; and (3) designing the pipe reinforcing for that D‐load. Direct design methods determine the actual moments, thrusts, and shears in the entire buried pipe and they design the reinforcing to carry these forces. The advent of finite element modeling of soil behavior now allows an even more direct design method in which the actual soil conditions around a pipe are accurately modeled. This paper will demonstrate the differences between the various design methods by analyzing an actual installation with both methods. The finite element analyses are completed with the computer program SPIDA (Soil Pipe Interaction Design and Analysis).
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Concrete pipe design manual. (1987). American Concrete Pipe Association.
2.
Concrete pipe handbook. (1988). American Concrete Pipe Association, Vienna, Va.
3.
Heger, F. J., Liepins, A. A., and Selig, E. T. (1985). “SPIDA: An analysis and design system for buried concrete pipe.” Advances in underground pipeline engineering—proc. Int. Conf., ASCE, New York, N.Y.
4.
Heger, F. J., and McGrath, T. J. (1982). Design method for reinforced concrete pipe and box sections. Simpson Gumpertz and Heger, Inc., American Concrete Pipe Association, Vienna, Va.
5.
Heger, P. J. (1982). “Structural design method for precast reinforced concrete pipe.” Soil Structure Interaction of Sub‐Surface Conduits, (Transportation Research Record 878), Transportation Res. Board (TRB), Washington, D.C.
6.
Heger, P. J. (1988). “New installation designs for buried concrete pipe.” Proc. ASCE Pipeline Infrastructure, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
7.
McGrath, T. J., Tigue, D. B., and Heger, P. J. (1988). “PIPECAR and BOXCAR—Micro computer programs for the design of reinforced concrete pipe and box sections.” Transportation Research Record 1191, Culverts and Tiebacks, Transportation Res. Board (TRB), Washington, D.C.
8.
Selig, E. T. (1988). “Soil parameters for design of buried pipelines.” Proc. ASCE Pipeline Infrastructure Conference, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
9.
“Section 17.4—Reinforced Concrete Pipe.” (1990). Standard specifications for highway bridges, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.
10.
Standard specification for reinforced concrete culvert, storm drain and sewer pipe. (1983). Designation C 76, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, Pa.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 117 • Issue 4 • July 1991
Pages: 371 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jul 1, 1991
Published in print: Jul 1991
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.