See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276076530

Load Coefficient for Ditch Conduits Covered with Geosynthetic-Reinforced

Granular Backfill

Article  in  International Journal of Geomechanics · February 2013

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000181

CITATIONS READS
9 579

2 authors:

Sanjay Kumar Shukla Nagaratnam Sivakugan

Edith Cowan University James Cook University
251 PUBLICATIONS   2,452 CITATIONS    222 PUBLICATIONS   3,606 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fibre Reinforced Soil Engineering View project

Principles of Foundation Engineering 9th Edition with Braja M Das View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nagaratnam Sivakugan on 24 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Technical Note

Load Coefficient for Ditch Conduits Covered

with Geosynthetic-Reinforced Granular Backfill
Sanjay Kumar Shukla, M.ASCE1; and Nagaratnam Sivakugan, M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by JAMES COOK UNIV OF NTH QLDS on 02/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Conduits buried in narrow trenches and covered with granular soil backfills are commonly used for several services. Because of soil
arching action, a significant fraction of self-weight of the backfill is transferred to the wall. The load on top of the conduit is expressed as Cd gB2
where g is the unit weight of granular backfill, B is the trench width, andCd is the load coefficient, which increases with depth. Values of Cd for
ditch conduits covered with granular backfills have been presented in the literature. Recent research has shown that providing a layer of
geosynthetic above the conduit, anchored at both the walls, can reduce the overburden load transferred to the conduit. This paper is aimed at
formulating a theoretical framework for computing the load coefficient CdR for ditch conduits covered with geosynthetic-reinforced granular
backfills. The new CdR -value takes into account the load reduction attributable to soil arching as well as geosynthetic arching but ignores the soil-
geosynthetic frictional/adhesion interaction in the analysis for simplicity’s sake. It is shown that the CdR -values depend on the stiffness of the
geosynthetic layer and the rut depth, among other factors that govern the unreinforced case. The developed expression should be useful for field
applications of geosynthetics in buried structures and for developing standards for such applications. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000181. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Geosynthetics; Backfills; Load factors; Coefficients; Load transfer; Vertical loads; Conduits.
Author keywords: Arching; Ditch conduit; Geosynthetic reinforcement; Granular backfill; Load coefficient; Load transfer; Vertical load.

Introduction where g 5 unit weight of granular backfill; B 5 trench width; and

Underground conduits or buried pipes have been used for centuries
for transporting oil, water, sewage, and other services. They are
often placed at the bottom of narrow long trenches that are backfilled
mostly with granular soils as shown in Fig. 1. Such conduits are
known as ditch conduits. Because of the shear resistance provided by
the walls of the trench, known as soil arching action, a significant
fraction of the weight of the soil above the conduit is transferred to
the walls of the ditch, thus reducing the load on the conduit. There
has been abundant literature on soil arching action since Terzaghi’s
famous trap door problem appeared (Marston and Anderson 1913;
Marston 1930; Terzaghi 1943; Krynine 1945; Spangler 1962;
Ladanyi and Hoyaux 1969; Handy 1985; Nobahar et al. 2007;
Pirapakaran and Sivakugan 2007; Li and Aubertin 2009; Shukla
et al. 2009). Spangler’s (1962) work shows that at any depth z below
the ground level, the weight of the overburden soil transferred to the
underlying soil, with due consideration to soil arching action, is
given by
V ¼ Cd g B2 ð1Þ
1
Associate Professor and Program Leader, Discipline of Civil Engineer-
ing, School of Engineering, Edith Cowan Univ., Joondalup, Perth, Western
Australia 6027, Australia; and Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engi-
neering, Indian Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu Univ., Varanasi
221005, India (corresponding author). E-mail: s.shukla@ecu.edu.au
2
Associate Professor and Head, Discipline of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, James Cook
Univ., Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 15, 2010; approved
on September 23, 2011; published online on September 26, 2011. Discus-
sion period open until July 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This technical note is part of the International Journal
of Geomechanics, Vol. 13, No. 1, February 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-
3641/2013/1-76–82/$25.00.
Cd 5 load coefficient expressed as
h i
1
Cd ¼ 1 2 e22Kmðz=BÞ ð2Þ
2Km
where K 5 coefficient of earth pressure; and m 5 coefficient of
friction for the granular soil backfill–ditch wall interface, which can
vary between 0 for a smooth wall and tan f for a very rough wall,
where f is the angle of shearing resistance of the granular soil
backfill. Variation of Cd with z=B for different values of Km is shown
in Fig. 2. Handy and Spangler (2007) suggested that Km can be
taken conservatively as 0.11 for saturated clays and 0.19 for harsh
granular soils, with all other soils lying within this range. It can be
seen from Fig. 2 that when Km increases, there is significant re-
duction in Cd and hence the load transferred to the conduit. In the
early work of Marston (Marston and Anderson 1913; Marston
1930), K was assumed to be equal to Rankine’s active earth pressure
coefficient Ka , but lately it appears that it is better taken as the
coefficient of earth pressure at rest K0 (Handy 2004; Handy and
Spangler 2007). The coefficient of friction m is the same as tand,
where d is the angle of shearing resistance at the granular backfill–
ditch wall interface. Singh et al. (2010) have shown that Km is
almost independent of the angle of shearing resistance of the soil,
and hence, it does not vary significantly with the relative density
of the soil; it rather depends on d=f, which is governed by the
interface roughness, the backfill movement against the ditch wall,
and whether the earth pressure on the wall is close to being at rest
or in an active or passive state.
By providing a geosynthetic layer above the conduit, anchored
within the walls as shown in Fig. 3(a), the load on the conduit from
the overburden soil can be further reduced. A simple and practical
method for providing the anchorage is shown in Fig. 3(b). The
geosynthetic provides an arching action similar to soil arching action

76 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:76-82.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by JAMES COOK UNIV OF NTH QLDS on 02/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Ditch conduit

Fig. 3. (a) Ditch conduit with geosynthetic reinforcement; (b) a prac-

tical method for providing anchorage in the field situation

Fig. 2. Values of Cd for different Km and z=B

in transferring the overburden load to the ditch wall. Kawabata et al.

(2003) and Bueno et al. (2005) have observed experimentally that
there is significant reduction in the load transferred to the conduit
when one or more geosynthetic layers are provided above the buried
conduit. The reduction in the vertical load on the conduit occurs
because of the distribution of weight of the overburden soil by the
membrane action of the geosynthetic as explained earlier by several
researchers (Giroud and Noiray 1981; Bourdeau 1989; Sellmeijer
1990; Shukla and Chandra 1994). The objective of this paper is to
develop an analytical framework with necessary expressions for
computing the values for Cd when there is one layer of anchored
geosynthetic present above the buried conduit covered with
a granular soil backfill.
Analytical Framework
The free-body diagram of an infinitesimal layer of backfill as con-
sidered by Marston (1930), Terzaghi (1946), and Spangler (1962) is
Fig. 4. Free-body diagram of an infinitesimal backfill layer
shown in Fig. 4. Here, V is the vertical load transferred to the
underlying soil at depth z, dW is the self-weight of the soil element
of thickness dz, Fn 5 KðV=BÞdz is the normal load on the ditch
wall, and Fs 5 mFn is the shear (frictional) load acting on the ditch
wall. The geosynthetic reinforcement is placed at a height h above
the top of the conduit. From Eq. (2), the value of the Cd corre-
sponding to the depth of the geosynthetic layer (CdGL ) is given by
h i
1
CdGL ¼ 1 2 e22KmðH=B2h=BÞ
2Km
or

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 77

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:76-82.

 h i    
CdGL ¼ 1 1 2 e22KmðH p 2hp Þ ð3Þ 8E r 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4r
2Km V 00 ¼ CdGL gB2 2 2 ffi
3 B B2 þ 16r2
where H  5 H=B; and h 5 h=B. or
The vertical load (V 0 ) transferred from the overburden to the
geosynthetic layer at its initial horizontal level is then given by 2 3
3
6 ðr=BÞ 7
V 0 ¼ CdGL gB2 ð4Þ V 00 ¼ CdGL gB2 2 64E 4qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi5 ð12Þ
3 2
1 þ 16ðr=BÞ
Because of this load V 0 , the geosynthetic layer deflects with a rut
depth r at the center of the ditch. Assuming a parabolic shape for the Considering the equilibrium of the infinitesimal layer of thick-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by JAMES COOK UNIV OF NTH QLDS on 02/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

deflected geosynthetic layer, the coordinates x and y of a point on the ness dz at depth z (Fig. 4),
layer can be related by (Giroud 1995; Shukla and Sivakugan 2009)
  V þ g B dz 2 ðV þ dVÞ 2 2Km V dz ¼ 0
4r 2
y ¼ x ð5Þ B
B2
therefore,
For the wall of the ditch, x 5 B=2. Therefore from the ex-
pression dy=dx 5 8rx=B2 , the slope (u) of the geosynthetic layer at dV
dz ¼
the wall is given by g B 2 2KmðV=BÞ

tan u ¼ 4r ð6Þ Integrating both sides of the above equation from the geosynthetic
B layer (z 5 H  h 1 r) to the top of the conduit (z 5 H), the load
acting on the conduit V 000 can be computed as follows:
and hence,

4r ðH Vð000
sin u ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð7Þ dV
B þ 16r2
2 dz ¼
gB 2 2KmðV=BÞ
H 2hþr V 00
If V 00 is the overburden load that is transferred to the backfill
beneath the geosynthetic layer, it will be less than the load that is or
acting on top of the layer V 0 . From the equilibrium of the geo-
   
synthetic layer, gB 2 2KmðV 000 =BÞ
h 2 r ¼ 2 B ln
2Km gB 2 2KmðV 0 =BÞ
V 00 ¼ V 0 2 2T sin u ð8Þ
and hence,
It is important to note that the soil-geosynthetic frictional/
adhesion interaction has not been considered for equilibrium in
n o
Eq. (8). This is mainly for the purpose of making the analysis simple. 000 gB2
V ¼ 1 2 e22Km½ðh2rÞ=B þ V 00 e22Km½ðh2rÞ=B ð13Þ
Additionally, because the geosynthetic layer has been assumed to be 2Km
anchored at both walls of the trench as shown in Fig. 3 and because
the soil backfill in the trench is not allowed to get displaced laterally Substituting for V 00 from Eq. (12) into Eq. (13),
on account of the confinement of the walls, the soil-geosynthetic
frictional/adhesion interaction may not play a significant role in the n o
gB2
analysis, and moreover, its consideration will bring complexity into V 000 ¼ 1 2 e22Km½ðh2rÞ=B þ e22Km½ðh2rÞ=B
2Km
the analysis without any significant advantage. 8 2 39
The tensile force (T) in the geosynthetic reinforcement can be >
< 3 >
= ð14Þ
6 ðr=BÞ 7
written as  CdGL gB2 2 64E 4qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi5
>
: >
1 þ 16ðr=BÞ2 ;
3
T ¼ Eɛ ð9Þ
In rigid conduits, the side fills are more compressible than the
where E 5 stiffness (tensile modulus); and ɛ 5 tensile strain of the conduit, and hence, the entire load V 000 can be assumed to be applied
geosynthetic layer. Assuming the rut depth to be small, and hence on top of the conduit. Expressing V 000 in the form of Eq. (1), the load
applying small strain theory, the tensile strain can be expressed as coefficient CdR can be written as
(Giroud 1995; Shukla and Sivakugan 2009)
 2 000 n o
ɛ ¼ 8 r ð10Þ CdR ¼ V 2 ¼ 1 1 2 e22Km½ðh2rÞ=B
3 B gB 2Km
8 2 39
>
< 3 >
=
From Eqs. (9) and (10), 6 ðr=BÞ 7
þ e22Km½ðh2rÞ=B CdGL 2 64E2 4qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi5
  >
: >
1 þ 16ðr=BÞ2 ;
3gB
8E r 2
T ¼ ð11Þ
3 B

Substituting Eqs. (4), (7), and (11) into Eq. (8), or

78 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:76-82.

 h i  
V 000 1 22Kmðhp 2r p Þ p rp3
CdR ¼ ¼ 1 2 e ½CdR m → 0 ¼ H p 2 rp 2 64E pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð19Þ
gB2 2Km 3 1 þ 16rp2
  
22Kmðhp 2r p Þ 64E p pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rp3
þe CdGL 2 ð15Þ Eq. (19) shows that when there is no soil arching action taking
3 1 þ 16rp2 place, the load coefficient is independent of h , implying that the
height of the geosynthetic layer above the conduit has no influence
where r  5 r=B; and E p 5 E=ðgB2 Þ. If the conduit is flexible and the on the overburden load transferred to the top of the conduit.
backfill along the sides of the trench is well compacted, the stiffness However, any reduction in the overburden load is attributable to the
of the conduit and the side fills should be about the same (Spangler geosynthetic arching action only.
1962). Here, the backfills on the sides of the trench will carry For unreinforced soil, with no soil arching action (m 5 0), it can
a fraction of the load V 000 , and hence the expression for CdR in Eq. (15) be inferred from Eq. (19) that the load coefficient Cd becomes equal
can be multiplied by Bc =B where Bc is the outside diameter of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by JAMES COOK UNIV OF NTH QLDS on 02/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to H  , implying that the entire soil weight is transferred to the top of

conduit (see Fig. 4). Such factoring also applies to unreinforced the conduit. This fact is also evident from Eq. (1).
backfills. For unreinforced and reinforced soils, with and without soil
arching action, the load coefficient variation with H  is shown in
Fig. 5 for E  5 0, 5, 10, and 15; r 5 0 and 0:15; h 5 0:6; and
Analysis and Discussion
Km 5 0 and 0:17. The dashed lines represent the situations where
there is no soil arching (Km 5 0), and the continuous lines represent
The load coefficient for a ditch conduit consisting of one layer of
the situations where soil arching takes place (Km 5 0:17). The
anchored geosynthetic reinforcement can be determined from
following observations can be made from Fig. 5:
Eq. (15). It is evident that the coefficient CdR depends primarily on
1. When there is no soil arching (m 5 0) and for a specific r  , the
six dimensionless parameters, namely, K, m, E  , H  , h , and r .
load coefficient is proportional to H  ;
2. The load coefficients are significantly larger when there is no
Special Cases soil arching, especially for larger values of H  ;
3. The worst-case scenario occurs when there is neither soil arching
Case 1: Negligible Rut Depth (r 5 0) action (m 5 0) nor geosynthetic arching action (r  5 0), where
If the rut depth is very small, Eq. (15) becomes Cd 5 H  when the entire overburden is transferred to the top
  of the conduit;
V 000 1 22Kmhp p
½CdR rp 50 ¼ ¼ 1 2 e þ e22Kmh CdGL ð16Þ 4. With or without the presence of soil arching, for a specific rut
gB2 2Km depth, increasing the geosynthetic stiffness reduces the load
coefficient;
Substituting the expression for CdGL from Eq. (3) into Eq. (16), 5. Soil arching action is more pronounced than the geosynthetic
000   arching action for the parameters considered in Fig. 5; and
½CdR rp 50 ¼ V 2 ¼ 1 1 2 e22Kmh
p
6. When soil arching action is present, the load coefficient
gB 2Km reaches an asymptotic value at H  of approximately 8. Any
p h i
e 22Kmh p p further increase in H  will not result in further increase in the
þ 1 2 e22KmðH 2h Þ load on the conduit. When H  increases from 4 to 8, there is
2Km
only a slight increase in the load coefficient.
Therefore,
Fig. 6 shows the variation of the load coefficient with the di-
 
1 p mensionless tensile modulus E  for specific values of H  5 5,
½CdR rp 50 ¼ 1 2 e22Kmh ð17Þ
2Km Km 5 0:17, and h 5 0:6 for ditch conduits in unreinforced and
reinforced granular backfills. For a specific rut depth r , the load
It is noticed that the load coefficient value in Eq. (17) is the same coefficient is inversely proportional to the geosynthetic stiffness E  .
as the load coefficient Cd for unreinforced ditch conduits given in For any specific value of E* , the larger the rut depth is, the smaller the
Eq. (2) at z 5 H. The reason is that when the geosynthetic rein- load coefficient is. The reduction in the load coefficient can be
forcement does not deflect, it has no contribution in reducing the achieved by increasing both the geosynthetic stiffness and the rut
overburden soil weight on the conduit. It is also evident from Eq. (8), depth enabling larger strain.
where if u 5 0, V 0 5 V00 . That is, the load is the same just above and
just below the reinforcement layer. For the geosynthetic to be ef-
fective in distributing some of the overburden, it has to deflect. Illustrative Example

Consider a ditch conduit covered with the geosynthetic-reinforced

granular backfill with the following details:
Case 2: Negligible Soil Arching (m 5 0) • Width of the ditch B 5 1:8 m;
If the friction/shear resistance along the ditch wall is neglected, • Outside diameter of the ditch Bc 5 0:6 m;
there will be no soil arching. When m → 0, Eq. (15) becomes • Depth of granular backfill over the conduit H 5 8 m;
h i • Unit weight of granular backfill g 5 17:5 kN=m3 ;
1 p p
½CdR m → 0 ¼ limm → 0 1 2 e22Kmðh 2r Þ • Tensile modulus of the geosynthetic E 5 180 kN=m;
2Km
  • Allowable rut depth r 5 0:15 B 5 0:27 m; and
p rp3
þ limm → 0 CdGL 2 64E pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð18Þ • Distance between initial level of the geosynthetic layer and the
3 1 þ 16rp2 top of the conduit h 5 0:6 B 5 1:08 m.
If the load on the ditch conduit is to be calculated for both
or the reinforced and unreinforced backfills, it is assumed that Km of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 79

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:76-82.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by JAMES COOK UNIV OF NTH QLDS on 02/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Variation of the load coefficient for unreinforced (Cd ) and reinforced (CdR ) granular backfills with nondimensional depth H  ð 5 H=BÞ of the top
of the ditch conduit from the ground level

Fig. 6. Variation of the load coefficient for unreinforced (Cd ) and reinforced (CdR ) granular backfills with tensile modulus E ð 5 E=gB2 Þ for different
values of maximum geosynthetic deflection r ð 5 r=BÞ

the granular backfill is typically 0.17; consequently, Fig. 5 presented The nondimensional parameters can be calculated as
in this paper can be directly used as a design chart. For other values of
Km, the developed analytical expression in Eq. (15) will be applied
H 8
by the users. All the above typical values have been selected based Hp ¼ ¼ ¼ 4:44
on their practical ranges reported in the literature (Spangler 1962; B 1:8
Shukla 2002; Koerner 2005; Shukla and Yin 2006; AASHTO 2007)
as well as based on the possible geosynthetic installation and de- hp ¼ h ¼ 1:08 ¼ 0:6
flection values. B 1:8

80 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:76-82.


rp ¼ r ¼ 0:27 ¼ 0:15
B 1:8
and
Ep ¼ E 2 ¼ 180 ¼ 3:17
gB 17:5  ð1:8Þ2
Using Fig. 5 as a design chart, for parameters H p 5 4:44,
hp 5 0:6, r p 5 0:15, and E p 5 3:17, Cd 5 2:30 and CdR 5 2:10 are
obtained.
The load WRC on the rigid conduit for reinforced and unreinforced
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by JAMES COOK UNIV OF NTH QLDS on 02/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cases can be calculated as follows:
For the rigid conduit covered with reinforced granular backfill
WRCR ¼ CdR gB2 ¼ 2:10  17:5  ð1:8Þ2 ¼ 119:07 kN=m
For the rigid conduit covered with unreinforced granular backfill
WRCU ¼ Cd gB2 ¼ 2:30  17:5  ð1:8Þ2 ¼ 130:41 kN=m
The load on the flexible conduit for the reinforced and un-
reinforced cases can be calculated as follows:
For the flexible conduit covered with reinforced granular backfill
WFCR ¼ CdR gBBc ¼ 2:10  17:5  1:8  0:6 ¼ 39:69 kN=m
For the flexible conduit covered with unreinforced granular
backfill
WFCU ¼ Cd gBBc ¼ 2:30  17:5 1:8  0:6 ¼ 43:47 kN=m
The present numerical example indicates that the inclusion of the
geosynthetic reinforcement within the backfill over the conduit
reduces the load on the rigid or flexible ditch conduit by 8.70%.
Sometimes, this reduction may be required to meet the needs of the
construction sites; for example, if conduit of recommended or higher
thickness/strength is not available, this reduction may allow one
to install a conduit of lower thickness/strength. A reduction in the
vertical load has also been reported by Kawabata et al. (2003)
after conducting experiments on the buried pipe covered with the
geosynthetic-reinforced sand backfill.
Conclusions
The general conclusions of the current study are summarized as
follows:
1. A practical method is proposed for reinforcing the granular soil
backfill over the ditch conduit using a geosynthetic layer with
the aim of reducing the vertical load on the conduit. This
reduction should not be considered only as a cost-effective
solution, but it may be the best and only available practical
solution if conduit of recommended or higher thickness/
strength is not available at the site.
2. An analytical derivation is presented for the load coefficient for
the calculation of vertical load on the conduit considering both
the soil and the geosynthetic arching actions. The derived
expression is also found to be valid for calculating the vertical
load on the conduit covered only with unreinforced backfill.
3. Some graphical presentations with typical values of parameters
are presented, and a numerical example is illustrated to explain
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 81
Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:76-82.
the calculation of the load coefficient and the vertical load
on the conduit.
4. The inclusion of a geosynthetic layer within the granular
soil backfill reduces the load on the ditch conduit. However,
the amount of load reduction depends on the tensile modulus
and the maximum deflection or rut depth of the geosynthetic,
and the large reductions are obtained for higher values of the
tensile modulus and rut depth. Hence, these parameters should
be given due consideration while selecting a geosynthetic
for its inclusion as a reinforcement in granular soil backfills
over the ditch conduit.
5. The practical method and developed expression should be
useful for field applications of geosynthetics in buried
structures and for developing standards/codes of practice
for such applications.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
B 5 actual width of the ditch required for installation of
a conduit;
B0 5 width of the ditch above the level of geosynthetic
installation;
Bc 5 outside diameter of the ditch conduit;
Cd 5 load coefficient for vertical load at any depth for
the unreinforced soil backfill case;
CdGL 5 value of load coefficient Cd for vertical load at the
initial horizontal level of the geosynthetic layer for
the reinforced soil backfill case;
CdR 5 load coefficient for the vertical load at the top of the
conduit for the reinforced soil backfill case;
dW 5 weight per unit length of the soil element;
E 5 tensile modulus of the geosynthetic;
E  5 nondimensional tensile modulus of the
geosynthetic;
Fn 5 normal force on the sides of the soil element;
Fs 5 shear force on the sides of the soil element;
H 5 depth of the top of the ditch conduit below the
ground level;
H  5 nondimensional depth of the top of the ditch conduit
below the ground level (5H=B);
h 5 depth of the geosynthetic layer above the top of the
conduit;
h 5 nondimensional depth of the geosynthetic layer
above the top of the conduit (5h=B);
K 5 ratio of lateral pressure to average vertical pressure;
Ka 5 active earth pressure coefficient;
K0 5 coefficient of earth pressure at rest;
L 5 width of the geosynthetic layer;
r 5 maximum vertical deflection or rut depth;
r 5 nondimensional maximum vertical deflection or rut
depth;
T 5 tension in the geosynthetic layer;
V 5 force per unit length acting vertically downward on
the top of the soil element;
V 0 5 force per unit length acting vertically downward at
the horizontal level of the geosynthetic layer;
V 00 5 force per unit length acting vertically upward at the
bottom of the geosynthetic layer;
V 000 5 force per unit length acting vertically downward at
the top of the conduit;
 WFCR 5 vertical load on the flexible conduit for the
reinforced case;
WFCU 5 vertical load on the flexible conduit for the
unreinforced case;
WRCR 5 vertical load on the rigid conduit for the reinforced
case;
WRCU 5 vertical load on the rigid conduit for the
unreinforced case;
x 5 x-coordinate of a point on the deflected geosynthetic
layer;
y 5 y-coordinate of a point on the deflected geosynthetic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by JAMES COOK UNIV OF NTH QLDS on 02/05/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
layer;
z 5 depth of any soil element in the ditch below the
ground level;
g 5 unit weight of the soil backfill;
d 5 interface friction angle;
ɛ 5 tensile strain of the geosynthetic;
u 5 inclination to the horizontal of the tension in the
geosynthetic layer;
m 5 coefficient of friction; and
f 5 angle of shearing resistance of soil backfill.
References
AASHTO. (2007). LRFD bridge design specifications, SI units, 4th Ed.,
AASHTO, Washington, DC.
Bourdeau, P. L. (1989). “Modeling of membrane action in a two-layer
reinforced soil system.” Comput. Geotech., 7(1–2), 19–36.
Bueno, B. S., Viana, P. M. F., and Zornberg, J. G. (2005). “A novel con-
struction method for buried pipes using geosynthetics.” Proc., Sessions
of the Geo-Frontiers 2005 Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Giroud, J. P. (1995). “Determination of geosynthetic strain due to de-
flection.” Geosynth. Int., 2(3), 635–641.
Giroud, J. P., and Noiray, L. (1981). “Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road
design.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 107(9), 1233–1254.
Handy, R. L. (1985). “The arch in soil arching.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 111(3),
302–318.
Handy, R. L. (2004). “Anatomy of an error.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
130(7), 768–771.
Handy, R. L., and Spangler, M. G. (2007). Geotechnical engineering—Soil and
foundation principles and practice, 5th Ed., McGraw Hill, New York.
82 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013
View publication stats Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:76-82.
Kawabata, T., Uchida, K., Hirai, T., Ling, H. I., and Koyama, N. (2003).
“Experiments on buried pipe using backfill of cover with geosynthetics.”
Proc., ASCE Int. Conf. on Pipeline Engineering and Construction,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 1271–1278.
Koerner, R. M. (2005). Designing with geosynthetics, 5th Ed., Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Krynine, D. P. (1945). “Discussion of ‘Stability and stiffness of
cellular cofferdams’ by Karl Terzaghi.” Trans. ASCE, 110, 1175–1178.
Ladanyi, B., and Hoyaux, B. (1969). “A study of the trap-door problem in
a granular mass.” Can. Geotech. J., 6(1), 1–14.
Li, L., and Aubertin, M. (2009). “Numerical investigation of the stress state
in inclined backfilled stopes.” Int. J. Geomech., 9(2), 52–62.
Marston, A. (1930). “The theory of external loads on closed conduits in the
light of latest experiments.” Bulletin No. 96, Iowa Engineering Ex-
periment Station, Ames, IA.
Marston, A., and Anderson, A. O. (1913). “The theory of loads on pipes in
ditches and tests of cement and clay drain tile and sewer pipes.” Bulletin
No. 31, Iowa Engineering Experiment Station, Iowa State College,
Ames, IA.
Nobahar, A., Kenny, S., and Phillips, R. (2007). “Buried pipelines subject to
subgouge deformations.” Int. J. Geomech., 7(3), 206–216.
Pirapakaran, K., and Sivakugan, N. (2007). “Arching within hydraulic fill
stopes.” Geotech. Geol. Eng., 25(1), 25–35.
Sellmeijer, J. B. (1990). “Design of geotextile reinforced unpaved roads and
parking areas.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and
Related Products, International Geosynthetics Society, The Hague,
Netherlands, 177–182.
Shukla, S. K., ed. (2002). Geosynthetics and their applications, Thomas
Telford, London.
Shukla, S. K., and Chandra, S. (1994). “A generalized mechanical model for
geosynthetic-reinforced foundation soil.” Geotextiles Geomembranes,
13(12), 813–825.
Shukla, S. K., Gaurav, and Sivakugan, N. (2009). “A simplified extension of
the conventional theory of arching in soils,” Int. J. Geotech. Eng., 3(3),
353–359.
Shukla, S. K., and Sivakugan, N. (2009). “Analytical expression
for geosynthetic strain due to deflection.” Geosynth. Int., 16(5),
402–407.
Shukla, S. K., and Yin, J.-H. (2006). Fundamentals of geosynthetic engi-
neering, Taylor and Francis, London.
Singh, S., Sivakugan, N., and Shukla, S. K. (2010). “Can soil arching be
insensitive to f?” Int. J. Geomech., 10(3), 124–128.
Spangler, M. G. (1962). “Culverts and conduits.” Chapter 11, Founda-
tion engineering, G. A. Leonards, ed., McGraw Hill, New York,
965–999.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.