Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

THE CRACKING OF STORMWATER PIPES ANDTHE SIGNIFICANCE OF CONSTRUCTION LOADS

Chris Demartini, Brisbane City Council Bruce Hansen, Brisbane City Council Dallas Lee, Brisbane City Council KEY WORDS Concrete Pipes, Cracking, Stormwater, Construction, Compaction, Loads, Drainage INTRODUCTION The Brisbane City Council (BCC) is the largest Local Government organisation in Australia and owns approximately 2500km of stormwater pipeline. This pipe network is continually growing with the construction of new and relief drainage by Council and private developers. The problem of premature cracking in small diameter (< 900mm) reinforced concrete drainage pipes was first brought to the Councils attention when an audit of subdivisions was undertaken. Video pictures revealed extensive cracking in stormwater lines, even though many of the pipes had been installed only a few months earlier. As the design life of a concrete pipe should be around 80-100 years, this evidence of wide spread premature cracking is a real concern, with long term asset management implications. As a result of these findings a detailed investigation of the construction and design practices used in stormwater pipeline installation was undertaken. A comparison of the modern construction equipment used with the general design live load clearly showed that during construction, pipes could be subjected to loads far in excess of that typically designed for. Since this investigation Council has consulted with the manufacturing industry, become involved in the development of improved design aids and has modified its pipe supply contract, in an effort to facilitate the better management of these assets. Input into the revision of AS3725 has also led to more emphasis on construction loads. SUBDIVIDIONAL AUDITS OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE Background In 1994/95 and 1997, BCCs Works Department conducted audits of a number of subdivisions. The aim of these audits was to investigate the quality of assets donated to Council following the recent subdivision of land. These assets included Pavements, Kerb and Channel, Footpaths, Traffic Islands, Bikeways, Fences, and Stormwater Drainage. The specific objectives of the audits were to: Measure the standard of construction of these assets compared to the established standards. Indicate the likely impact on the user community and maintenance costs for assets constructed to a less than acceptable standard. Determine if as-constructed drawings supplied for these assets were accurate and complete. Where deficiencies in construction quality were found, the audit examined the planning, design and construction phases, to establish the cause and make recommendations on corrective action.

Methodology For the audits of the stormwater pipes, representative sections from several subdivisions were internally inspected. A closed circuit television camera (CCTV) unit was used for pipes with a diameter of 900mm or less. The internal inspection included a condition assessment of the stormwater pipes and associated manholes. 1994/95 Audit In the 1994/95 audit a total of 25 residential subdivisions were audited. Due to cost and time constraints, internal inspection of stormwater pipes was restricted to only seven of these 25 subdivisions. The main finding of the inspections was an unusually high incidence of cracking in pipes with a diameter less than 900mm. Cracking consisted of two types as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Types of Pipe Cracking

Longitudinal cracks wandered between 11 and 1 oclock along the obvert, and 5 to 7 oclock along the invert. These indicated an overload from a vertical load on a fully supported pipe. It would be reasonable to assume that corresponding cracks would also be present on the outside of the pipe around the 3 and 9 oclock positions. Circumferential cracks appeared at the midpoint of the pipe or at around the third points. The midpoint cracks indicate a bending overload with the pipe acting as a beam. The third point cracks suggest the pipe is acting as a cantilever (ie supported in the middle but no support at the ends). Some degree of cracking was found in all pipes sizes less than 900mm diameter. Figure 2 shows examples of the cracks observed.

Figure 2

Examples of Pipe Cracking from 94/95 Audit

The 1994/95 audit concluded that the cracking was most likely related to trench backfilling and compaction methods. Figure 3 shows a chart that was produced to illustrate the sensitivity of small diameter pipes to live loading when the cover is small. This combination of live load and shallow cover is similar to that which occurs during backfilling.

Figure 3

Pipe Selection and Installation Chart

It can be seen from the chart that at covers of less than 600mm, the class 2 pipe typically specified in residential subdivisions is not adequate under the NAASRA A14 Axle Load. As mechanical compaction is usually employed at these shallow covers, it is not unrealistic to conclude that some types of compaction equipment may damage class 2 pipes. Recommendations resulting from this audit were: In the BCC standard drawings, specifications and Interim Development Guidelines, include references to trench backfill methods and materials that will not cause damage to pipes. Consider surveying all stormwater pipes in subdivisions during the maintenance period. 1997 Audit In 1997 five residential subdivisions were audited. Internal inspection of stormwater pipes was undertaken at all these sites. As for the 1994/95 audit, an unusually high incidence of cracking within pipes having a diameter less than 900mm, was recorded. The cracking consisted of the same circumferential and longitudinal types. Figure 4 shows examples the cracking observed.

Figure 4

Examples of Pipe Cracking from 1997 Audit

Once again, pipe cracking was found in all pipes inspected with a diameter of 600mm or less. A summary of the defects recorded for both audits is contained in Table 1.

Pipe Diameter (mm) 300 375 450 525 600 675 825 1200 1650 Table 1

Length Surveyed (m) 185 392 230 31 162 387 283 87 72

Length Cracked (m) 101 182 163 2 36 18 41 0 0

Cracked Length % 55% 46% 71% 6% 22% 5% 14% 0% 0%

Summary of defects for 194/95 and 1997 audits

It was again concluded that the cracking was most likely related to trench backfilling and compaction methods, and a recommendation was made to undertake a detailed study into the problem. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Trench Compaction Equipment Over recent years the type of equipment used in the compaction of trenches has changed considerably. Compaction equipment is becoming heavier, with more compactive effort capable of being applied. Common compaction equipment used in pipeline construction are the wacker packer, trench roller and excavator compaction wheel. These can induce loads ranging from 35kN to 150kN, and are applied at covers far less than is normal for the W7 service load of 70kN. The wacker packer is at the lower end of the load range, imparting only 35kN. This is considered to pose little threat of pipe damage. The excavator compaction wheel is shown in Figure 5. It is at the upper end of the range with loads reaching 150kN, and a contact area approximately equal to the W7 wheel load. This type of construction equipment can be a major contributor to pipe cracking.

Figure 5

Excavator Compaction Wheel

Pavement Construction Equipment Plant used to construct road pavements, such as scrapers, graders, rollers and water carts, can often have wheel loads equal to or greater than the W7 wheel load. It should also be noted that this equipment is typically applied at covers 200-400mm less than the service load (ie bottom of the pavement box). Loads from pavement construction equipment can be as high as 280kN, with the scraper and vibratory roller being the most damaging. A small fully loaded scrapers wheel load is approximately 100kN with a contact area slightly smaller than the W7 wheel load.

COMPARISON OF LOADS Load Charts Calculations based on AS3725 Loads on Buried Concrete Pipes, show that construction loads from compaction equipment and road construction plant can often be the critical load case in the design of a small diameter concrete pipeline. The loading charts in Figure 6 are based on calculations using CPAA and Pipeload software. These clearly show that for a given cover, the service load is often not the critical load case. It must also be noted that the construction loads are typically applied at covers less than the service load. If this is taken into account the charts clearly show that the construction load will more often than not be the critical load case. Class 2 pipe is generally satisfactory to support the service load, however the construction loads often require class 3,4 or 6.

Figure 6

Comparison Load Charts

Worked Example To illustrate the importance of including construction loads in design calculations a worked example is given below. This example takes a typical case of a small diameter pipe being laid in an industrial subdivision. The pipe in this example is a 375mm diameter reinforced concrete pipe with a final cover of 1200mm. The backfill is a clayey sand with a unit weight of 18kN/m 3. Trench support type H2 has been assumed with a bedding factor of 2. Trench compaction is carried out by a wacker packer from a cover of 250mm, and then by excavator compaction wheel from a cover of 450mm. The pavement box depth is 300mm. At the bottom of this box (ie 900mm cover), road construction equipment consisting of a scraper, grader and vibrating roller are applied. At the finished level of 1200mm above the pipe, the long term live load, consisting of a W7 wheel load, is applied. All trench widths and load calculations are in accordance with AS 3725 Loads on Buried Concrete Pipes. Distribution of loads at cover depths less than 600mm is allowed for in these calculations. The pipe classes necessary for the arrangement given above are shown in Table 2.

Live Load Wacker Packer Excavator Compaction Wheel Scraper Grader Vibrating Roller W7 Service Load Table 2

Min Cover to Pipe (mm) 250 450 900 900 900 1200

Pipe Class Required Class 2 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 3 Class 2

Results of Worked Example

The results in the table above clearly show that the excavator compaction wheel is the critical load case requiring a class 4 pipe. The scraper and vibrating roller both require a class 3 pipe, which is one class higher than that required if service load only were taken into account. If the above sequence of construction was undertaken using a class 2 pipe it is highly likely that damage to the pipe would have occurred and extensive cracking resulted. ACTION BY BCC SINCE AUDITS AS 3725 Loads on Buried Concrete Pipes In order to highlight the issue of construction loads BCC made two submissions (including a copy of a CCTV inspection video) to the Standards Committee responsible for the drafting of the revised code. Following these submissions a BCC representative attended a meeting of the committee in November 1998. The only mention of construction loads in the current Standard is a single clause at the very end of Section 6 Vertical Loads on Pipes. A single clause in the existing commentary also alerts designers to consider construction loads. The commentary ,which is a separate document, and this clause in particular appear to be little used. At the November meeting BCC successfully lobbied for a greater recognition of construction loads within the standard and a simplification of backfill conditions. Construction loads will now be explicitly addressed up front in the body of the code. They will also be explained in more detail in the commentary which will now be included as part of the new code. To ensure continued input into the standard, BCC now has a representative appointed to the committee. Industry Consultation Since the subdivision audits Brisbane City Council has consulted with the development industry, the Civil Contractors Federation and the Pipe Manufacturing Industry. The results of this initial consultation led BCC to introduce a no cracks policy on installed concrete pipe. Following this a joint research project was undertaken between BCC and CPAA. This project was to investigate the cracking of reinforced concrete pipes. This report was completed by a Brisbane based consultant in September 1998. The findings were similar to those of the Brisbane City Council subdivision audits, however agreement could not be reached on the long term significance of this cracking from an asset management perspective. On completion of this report an industry working group, including members of CPAA and BCC, was formed. This group was to examine issues for input into the Australian Standard, investigate appropriate design aids and standards, and formulate accept/reject criteria for cracked pipes. The problem of the inability to measure crack widths inside small diameter pipes must also be addressed.

BCC PIPE SUPPLY CONTRACT Scope In addition to the $20 million worth of stormwater drainage infrastructure donated to Council annually, BCC also funds the construction of approximately $21 million worth of new and relief drainage. This is installed mainly by Councils own day labour resources. It has been shown that the major causes of pipe cracking occur during the construction process. To assure pipes are crack free prior to construction, and also to assist in future asset management, several changes have been made to BCCs supply specification. The scope of the supply contract was increased to cover classes 1-10 steel reinforced and classes 14 fibre reinforced concrete pipe, giving BCC designers and constructors more options to specify and use the appropriate class and type of pipe for each job. Strength of Pipes In the past there have been some instances where pipes were delivered only 3-4 days after casting, meaning they may have been installed and loaded before reaching full design strength. To ensure this no longer occurs suppliers must now specify the age at which their pipes attain full strength. Supply of pipes before this time is not permitted. In addition to this BCC now requires copies of test load results to be supplied monthly. This allows monitoring of the pipe strength being supplied and allows an opportunity to gain a better understanding of any variability in strength. Identification Markings To assist future management of pipes, the contract now specifies that pipes be indelibly marked on the inside with the manufacturers name, date of casting, size, class and for salt water pipes, the internal and external cover. These markings ensure that when these pipes are inspected in the ground at a later date their attributes will be definable. No Cracks Policy To ensure pipes are free of defects prior to installation a no cracks clause has been added to the specification. This clause gives the on site supervisor the authority to reject any pipes that are found to be cracked when delivered. Hairline cracks or crazing cracks associated with concrete shrinkage are permitted. Design Aids Pipe suppliers and their industry associations now offer a wide range of state of the art design aids, and suppliers are now required to provide 10 copies of these to Council. This ensures that BCC designers, constructors, regulators and asset managers have aids available to access the impact of construction methods on pipes. CONCLUSIONS There is a proven link between the premature cracking of small diameter concrete stormwater pipes and construction loading. This link is being recognised in the revision of AS 3725 Loads on Buried Concrete Pipes. Construction loads will be addressed both in the body of the code and in the proposed commentary. The design and selection of pipe class must consider the construction loadings. For small diameter pipes (ie < 900mm) these loads will often be the critical load case. This fact appears to be largely ignored by designers and constructors.

The significance of this cracking will be an ongoing debate. Asset managers must decide how long they expect stormwater pipes to last and whether they are prepared to accept the risk these cracks present. If pipes survive construction without cracking then they must have a higher probability of lasting their normal service life (80-100years). The only way to confidently certify the condition of a small diameter pipe after construction is by video inspection. Greater communication is required between designer and constructor to identify construction methods and to convey design assumptions. Designers and constructors may also benefit greatly from the concrete pipe installation course currently offered by the CPAA in most capital cities. A standard format for drainage plans is to be developed by the CPAA, in consultation with BCC, to address construction load assumptions and to include notes regarding pipe class selection. This standard drawing format is proposed to form part of new Infrastructure Guidelines document within Brisbane City Council.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Authors wish to thank the staff of Brisbane City Councils Pipe Survey and Research & Development Sections, who were responsible for completing most of the fieldwork for the subdivision audits. The authors would also like to recognise the efforts of the pipe manufacturing industry in this area and thank them for their continued support. REFERENCES STANDARDS AUSTRALIA (1989), Loads on Buried Concrete Pipes, AS3725-1989, Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW. STANDARDS AUSTRALIA (1989), Loads on Buried Concrete Pipes - Commentary, AS3725 Supplement 1-1989, Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW. STANDARDS AUSTRALIA (1992), Precast Concrete Pipes (pressure and non-pressure), AS4058-1992, Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW. HANSEN, B. (1995), Subdivisional Audit 1994/95, Research & Development Section, Brisbane City Council, Brisbane, QLD. HANSEN, B. and ALFORD, S. (1997), Subdivisional Audit 1997, Research & Development Section, Brisbane City Council, Brisbane, QLD.

Potrebbero piacerti anche