Design Data 9

Standard Installations and Bedding Factors

for the Indirect Design Method
Background
The classic theory of earth loads on buried concrete
pipe published, in 1930 by A. Marston, was developed
for trench and embankment conditions.
In later work published in 1933, M. G. Spangler
presented three bedding configurations and the concept
of a bedding factor to relate the supporting strength of
buried pipe to the strength obtained in a three-edge
bearing test.
Spanglers theory proposed that the bedding factor
for a particular pipeline and, consequently, the supporting
strength of the buried pipe, is dependent on two installation characteristics:
1. Width and quality of contact between the pipe
and bedding.
2. Magnitude of lateral pressure and the portion
of the vertical height of the pipe over which it
acts.
For the embankment condition, Spangler developed
a general equation for the bedding factor, which partially
included the effects of lateral pressure. For the trench condition, Spangler established conservative fixed bedding
factors, which neglected the effects of lateral pressure, for
each of the three beddings. This separate development
of bedding factors for trench and embankment conditions
resulted in the belief that lateral pressure becomes effective only at transition, or greater, trench widths. Such an
assumption is not compatible with current engineering
concepts and construction methods. It is reasonable to
expect some lateral pressure to be effective at trench
widths less than transition widths. Although conservative
designs based on the work of Marston and Spangler have
been developed and installed successfully for years, the
design concepts have their limitations when applied to
real world installations.
The limitations include:
Loads considered acting only at the top of the
pipe.

Axial thrust not considered.

Bedding width of test installations less than width
designated in his bedding configurations.
Standard beddings developed to fit assumed

theories for soil support rather than ease of and

methods of construction.
Bedding materials and compaction levels not
adequately defined.
This publication, Design Data 9, discusses the more
recently developed Standard Installations and the appropriate indirect design procedures to be used with them.
Introduction
In 1970, ACPA began a long-range research program
on the interaction of buried concrete pipe and soil. The
research resulted in the comprehensive finite element
computer program SPIDA, Soil-Pipe Interaction Design
and Analysis, for the direct design of buried concrete
pipe.
Since the early 1980s, SPIDA has been used for
a variety of studies, including development of four new
Standard Installations, and a simplified microcomputer
design program, SIDD, Standard Installations Direct
Design.
This Design Data 9 replaces the historical A, B,
C, and D beddings used in the indirect design method
with the four new Standard Installations, and presents a
state-of-the-art method for determination of bedding factors for the Standard Installations. Pipe and installation
terminology as used in the Installations, SIDD, and this
Design Data are defined in Figure 1.
Four Standard Installations
Through consultations with engineers and contractors, and with the results of numerous SPIDA parameter
studies, four new Standard Installations were developed
and are presented in Table 2. The SPIDA studies were
conducted for positive projection embankment conditions, which are the worst-case vertical load conditions
for pipe, and which provide conservative results for other
embankment and trench conditions.
The parameter studies confirmed ideas postulated
from past experience and proved the following concepts:

Loosely placed, uncompacted bedding directly
under the invert of the pipe significantly reduces

American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]

2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.

1
DD 9 (11/13)

Figure 1

Standard Trench/Embankment Installation

Overfill Soil
Category I, II, III
Do/6 (Min.)

H
Do (Min.)

Do

Haunch
Springline
Lower Side
Di

Bedding
See Tables 1 & 2
Outer bedding
materials and
compaction each
side, same
requirements
as haunch

Middle bedding loosely

placed uncompacted
bedding except Type 4

Do/3

Foundation

stresses in the pipe.

Soil in those portions of the bedding and haunch
areas directly under the pipe is difficult to compact.

The soil in the haunch area from the foundation
to the pipe springline provides significant support
to the pipe and reduces pipe stresses.
Compaction level of the soil directly above the
haunch, from the pipe springline to the top of
the pipe grade level, has negligible effect on
pipe stresses. Compaction of the soil in this area
is not necessary unless required for pavement
structures.
Installation materials and compaction levels
below the springline have a significant effect on
pipe structural requirements.
The four Standard Installations provide an optimum
range of soil-pipe interaction characteristics. For the
relatively high quality materials and high compaction
effort of a Type 1 Installation, a lower strength pipe is required. Conversely, a Type 4 Installation requires a higher
strength pipe, because it was developed for conditions of
little or no control over materials or compaction.
Generic soil types are designated in Table 1. The
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO) soil classifications equivalent to the

generic soil types in the Standard Installations are also
presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Equivalent USCS and AASHTO Soil

Classifications for SIDD Soil Designations
Representative
Soil Types

SIDD Soil

USCS

AASHTO

Standard
Proctor

Modified
Proctor

Gravelly
Sand
(Category I)

SW, SP
GW, GP

A1, A3

100
95
90
85
80
61

95
90
85
80
75
59

Sandy Silt
(Category II)

GM, SM, ML
Also GC, SC
with less
than 20%
passing
#200 sieve

A2, A4

100
95
90
85
80
49

95
90
85
80
75
46

Silty Clay
(Category III)

CL, MH
GC, SC

A5, A6

100
95
90
85
80
45

90
85
80
75
70
40

American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]

2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.

Percent
Compaction

2
DD 9 (11/13)

Table 2

Standard Installations Soils and Minimum Compaction Requirements

Installation Type

Bedding Thickness

Haunch and Outer Bedding

Lower Side

Type 1

Do /24 minimum, not

less than 3 in.
If rock foundation, use
DO /12 minimum, not
less than 6 in.

95% Category I

90% Category I,
95% Category II.
or
100% Category III

Type 2

Do /24 minimum, not

less than 3 in.
If rock foundation, use
DO /12 minimum, not
less than 6 in.

90% Category I
or
Category II

85% Category I,
90% Category II,
or
95% Category III

Type 3

Do /24 minimum, not

less than 3 in.
If rock foundation, use
DO /12 minimum, not
less than 6 in.

85% Category I,
90% Category II,
or
95% Category III

85% Category I,
90% Category II,
or
95% Category III

Type 4

No bedding required,
except if rock foundation,
use DO /12 minimum, not
less than 6.0 in.

No compaction
required, except if
Category III,
use 85% Category III

No compaction require,
except if Category III,
use 85% Category III

Notes:
1. Compaction and soil symbols - i.e.95% Category I- refers to Category I soil material with minimum standard
Proctor compaction of 95%. See Table 1 for equivalent modified Proctor values.
2. Soil in the outer bedding, haunch, and lower side zones, except under the middle1/3 of the pipe, shall be compacted to at least the same
compaction as the majority of soil in the overfill zone.
3. For Type 1 installation, crushed rock is not an appropriate material for bedding under the pipe. An uncompacted, non-crushed material
must be used under the pipe. While crushed rock meeting the requirements of this specification may self compact vertically, it will not
flow laterally to provide support for the haunches of the pipe. To achieve a 90-95% compaction with crushed rock, work material under
the haunch and compact it to achieve the specified density. Otherwise, the specified installation is not achieved.
4. For trenches, the top elevation shall be no lower than 0.1 H below finished grade or, for roadways, its top shall be no lower than an elevation of 1 foot below the bottom of the pavement base material.
5. For trenches, the width shall be wider than shown if required for adequate space to attain the specified compaction in the haunch and
bedding zones.
6. For trench walls that are within 10 degrees of vertical, the compaction or firmness of the soil in the trench walls and lower side zone need
not be considered.
7. For trench walls with greater than 10 degree slopes that consist of embankment, the lower side shall be compacted to at least the same
compaction as specified for the soil in the backfill zone.
8. Subtrenches
7.1 A subtrench is defined as a trench with its top below finished grade by more than 0.1 H or, for roadways, its top is at an elevation
lower than 1ft. below the bottom of the pavement base material.
7.2 The minimum width of a subtrench shall be 1.33 Do or wider if required for adequate space to attain the specified compaction in the
haunch and bedding zones.
7.3 For subtrenches with walls of natural soil, any portion of the lower side zone in the subtrench wall shall be at least as firm as an
equivalent soil placed to the compaction requirements specified for the lower side zone and as firm as the majority of soil in the
overfill zone, or shall be removed and replaced with soil compacted to the specified level.

Load Pressures
SPIDA was programmed with the Standard Installations and many design runs were made. An evaluation of the output of the designs by Dr. Frank J. Heger
produced a load pressure diagram significantly different
than proposed by previous theories. See Figure 2. This
difference is particularly significant under the pipe in the
lower haunch area and is due in part to the assumption

of the existence of partial voids adjacent to the pipe wall

in this area. SIDD uses this pressure data to determine
moments, thrusts, and shears in the pipe wall, and then
uses the ACPA limit states design method to determine
the required reinforcement areas to handle the pipe wall
stresses. Using this method, each criteria that may limit
or govern the design is considered separately in the
evaluation of overall design requirements. SIDD, which

American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]

2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.

3
DD 9 (11/13)

Figure 2

Arching Coefficients and Heger Earth Pressure Distributions

VAF

A3

A6

A6
HAF

Dm = 1

b
A5
A4

c
uc

f
hI

h2

e A4
vd

A2
2
vh2
uhl

A1

A2
2

HAF

b
A5

VAF

Installation
Type

VAF

HAF

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

1.35

0.45

0.62

0.73

1.35

0.19

0.08

0.18

1.40

0.40

0.18

0.08

0.05

0.80

0.80

1.40

0.40

0.85

0.55

1.40

0.15

0.08

0.17

1.45

0.40

0.19

0.10

0.05

0.82

0.70

1.40

0.37

1.05

0.35

1.40

0.10

0.10

0.17

1.45

0.36

0.20

0.12

0.05

0.85

0.60

1.45

0.30

1.45

0.00

1.45

0.00

0.11

0.19

1.45

0.30

0.25

0.00

0.90

Notes:
1. VAF and HAF are vertical and horizontal arching factors. These coefficients represent non-dimensional total vertical and horizontal loads
on the pipe, respectively. The actual total vertical and horizontal loads are (VAF) X (PL) and (HAF) X (PL), respectively, where PL is the
prism load.
2. Coefficients A1 through A6 represent the integration of non-dimensional vertical and horizontal components of soil pressure under the
indicated portions of the component pressure diagrams (i.e. the area under the component pressure diagrams). The pressures are assumed to vary either parabolically or linearly, as shown, with the non-dimensional magnitudes at governing points represented by h1, h2,
uh1, vh2, a and b. Non-dimensional horizontal and vertical dimensions of component pressure regions are defined by c, d, e, vc, vd, and f
coefficients.
3. d is calculated as (0.5-c-e).
h1 is calculated as (1.5A1) / (c) (1+u).
h2 is calculated as (1.5A2) / [(d) (1+v) + (2e)]

is based on the four Standard Installations, is a standalone program developed by the American Concrete Pipe
Association.
The Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, developed a microcomputer program, PIPECAR, for the
direct design of concrete pipe prior to the development of
SIDD. PIPECAR determines moment, thrust, and shear
coefficients from either of two systems, a radial pressure
system developed by Olander in 1950 or a uniform pressure system developed by Paris in the 1920s, and also
uses the ACPA limit states design method to determine

the required reinforcement areas to handle the pipe wall

stresses. The SIDD system has been incorporated into
PIPECAR as a state-of-the-art enhancement.
The SPIDA design runs with the Standard Installations were made with medium compaction of the
bedding under the middle-third of the pipe, and with
some compaction of the overfill above the springline of
the pipe. This middle-third area under the pipe in the
Standard Installations has been designated as loosely
placed, uncompacted material. The intent is to maintain
a slightly yielding bedding under the middle-third of the

American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]

2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.

4
DD 9 (11/13)

pipe so that the pipe may settle slightly into the bedding
and achieve improved load distribution. Compactive efforts in the middle-third of the bedding with mechanical
compactors is undesirable, and could produce a hard
flat surface, which would result in highly concentrated
stresses in the pipe invert similar to those experienced in
the three-edge bearing test. The most desirable construction sequence is to place the bedding to grade; install
the pipe to grade; compact the bedding outside of the
middle-third of the pipe; and then place and compact the
haunch area up to the springline of the pipe. The bedding
outside the middle-third of the pipe may be compacted
prior to placing the pipe.
As indicated in Figure 1, when the design includes
surface loads, the overfill and lower side areas should
be compacted as required to support the surface load.
With no surface loads or surface structure requirements,
these areas need not be compacted.
Beddings
A bedding is provided to distribute the vertical reaction around the lower exterior surface of the pipe and
reduce stress concentrations within the pipe wall. The
load that a concrete pipe will support depends on the
width of the bedding contact area and the quality of the
contact between the pipe and bedding. An important
consideration in selecting a material for bedding is to
be sure that positive contact can be obtained between
the bed and the pipe. Since most granular materials will
shift to attain positive contact as the pipe settles, an ideal
load distribution can be attained through the use of clean
coarse sand, well-rounded pea gravel or well-graded
crushed rock.
Design Procedure
The six-step indirect design procedure presented in
the Concrete Pipe Design Manual7 for the selection of
pipe strength is still appropriate.

1. Determination of Earth Load

2. Determination of Live Load
3. Selection of Standard Installation
5. Determination of Bedding Factor
5. Application of Factor of Safety
6. Selection of Pipe Strength

DETERMINATION OF EARTH LOAD

One of the informative calculations output by SPIDA
is the arching factor, which is defined as the ratio of the
calculated vertical load on the pipe to the weight of the
prism of earth directly above the outside diameter of the
pipe. Evaluation of the arching factor from the SPIDA
studies shows that the factor approaches a value of 1.45
as an upper limit for any of the four Standard Installations.

The arching factor varies for each of the four Standard

Installations and are presented in Table 3.
Embankment Soil Load
Concrete pipe can be installed in either an embankment or trench condition as discussed previously. The
type of installation has a significant effect on the loads
carried by the rigid pipe. Although narrow trench installations are most typical, there are many cases where
the pipe is installed in a positive projecting embankment
condition, or a trench with a width significant enough that
it should be considered a positive projecting embankment
condition. In this condition the soil along side the pipe will
settle more than the soil above the rigid pipe structure,
thereby imposing additional load to the prism of soil
directly above the pipe. With the Standard Installations,
this additional load is accounted for by using a Vertical
Arching Factor. This factor is multiplied by the prism load
(weight of soil directly above the pipe) to give the total
load of soil on the pipe.
We

= VAF x PL

(1)

Unlike the previous design method used for the

Marston/Spangler beddings there is no need to assume
a projection or settlement ratio. The Vertical Arching Factors for the Standard Installations are as shown in Table
3, and the equation for soil prism load is shown below
in Equation (2).
Prism Load

PL

= w H+

Do(4 - )
8

Do

w = soil unit weight, (lbs/ft3)
H = height of fill, (ft)
Do = outside diameter of pipe, (ft)
Trench Soil Load
In narrow or moderate trench width conditions, the
resulting earth load is equal to the weight of the soil within
the trench minus the shearing (frictional) forces on the
sides of the trench. Since the new installed backfill material will settle more than the existing soil on the sides of
the trench, the friction along the trench walls will relieve
the pipe of some of its soil burden. The Vertical Arching
Factors in this case will be less than those used for embankment design. The backfill load on pipe installed in
a trench condition is computed by the equation:
Wd = CdwBd

Do (4 - )
+
w
8

American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]

2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.

(2)

(3)

5
DD 9 (11/13)

The value of Cd can be calculated using equation

4 below.

Cd =

1e

2K'

H
Bd

2K'

(4)

Where:

Bd = width of trench, (ft)

K = ratio of active lateral unit pressure to vertical
unit pressure
= tan , coefficient of friction between fill
material and sides of trench
Typical values of K are:
K = .1924 Max. for granular materials
without cohesion

K = .165 Max for sand and gravel

K = .150 Max. for saturated top soil

K = .130 Max. for ordinary clay

K = .110 Max for saturated clay
As trench width increases, the reduction in load
from the frictional forces is offset by the increase in soil
weight within the trench. As the trench width increases it
starts to behave like an embankment, where the soil on
the side of the pipe settles more than the soil above the
pipe. Eventually, the embankment condition is reached
when the trench walls are too far away from the pipe
to help support the soil immediately adjacent to it. The
transition width is the width of a trench at a particular
depth where the trench load equals the embankment
load. Once transition width is reached, there is no longer
any benefit from frictional forces along the wall of the
trench. Any pipe installed in a trench width equal to or
greater than transition width should be designed for the
embankment condition.
FLUID LOAD
Fluid weight typically is about the same order of
magnitude as pipe weight and generally represents a
significant portion of the pipe design load only for large
diameter pipe under relatively shallow fills. Fluid weight
has been neglected in the traditional design procedures
of the past, including the Marston Spangler design
method utilizing the B and C beddings. There is no
documentation of concrete pipe failures as a result of
neglecting fluid load. However, some specifying agencies such as AASHTO and CHBDC, now require that the
weight of the fluid inside the pipe always be considered
when determining the D-load.
The Sixteenth Edition of the AASHTO Standard
Specifications For HighwayBridges states: The weight

Table 3

Vertical Arching Factor, VAF

Standard Installation

Vertical Arching Factor, VAF

Type 1

1.35

Type 2

1.40

Type 3

1.40

Type 4

1.45

Note:
1. VAF are vertical arching factors. These coefficients represent
nondimensional total vertical loads on the pipe. The actual total
vertical loads are (VAF) X (PL), where PL is the prism load.

of fluid, Wf, in the pipe shall be considered in design

based on a fluid weight of 62.4 lbs/cu.ft, unless otherwise
specified.
DETERMINATION OF LIVE LOAD
Design Data 1 can be used to determine the live load
for both the trench and embankment conditions.

SELECTION OF STANDARD INSTALLATION
The selection of a Standard Installation for a project
should be based on an evaluation of the quality of construction and inspection anticipated. A Type 1 Standard
Installation requires the highest construction quality and
degree of inspection. Required construction quality is
reduced for a Type 2 Standard Installation, and reduced
further for a Type 3 Standard Installation. A Type 4
Standard Installation requires virtually no construction
or quality inspection. Consequently, a Type 4 Standard
Installation will require a higher strength pipe, and a Type
I Standard Installation will require a lower strength pipe
for the same depth of installation.
DETERMINATION OF BEDDING FACTOR
Under installed conditions the vertical load on a pipe
is distributed over its width and the reaction is distributed
in accordance with the type of bedding. When the pipe
strength used in design has been determined by plant
testing, bedding factors must be developed to relate the
in-place supporting strength to the more severe plant test
strength. The bedding factor is the ratio of the strength
of the pipe under the installed condition of loading and
bedding to the strength of the pipe in the plant test. This
same ratio was defined originally by Spangler as the
load factor. This latter term, however, was subsequently
defined in the ultimate strength method of reinforced
concrete design with an entirely different meaning. To
avoid confusion, therefore, Spanglers term was renamed
the bedding factor.
The three-edge bearing test as shown in Figure 3
is the normally accepted plant test so that all bedding

American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]

2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.

6
DD 9 (11/13)

Figure 3

where:
NFS = axial thrust at the springline under a threeedge bearing test load, pounds per foot
D = internal pipe diameter, inches
t = pipe wall thickness, inches
MFI = moment at the invert under field loading, inchpounds/ft
NFI = axial thrust at the invert under field loads,
pounds per foot
c = thickness of concrete cover over the inner
reinforcement, inches

Substituting equations 6 and 7 into equation 5.

Three-Edge Bearing Test

Rigid
Steel
Member

Bearing
Strips

Bf =

factors described in the following relate the in-place supporting strength to the three-edge bearing strength.
The Standard Installations are easier to construct
and provide more realistic designs than the historical
A, B, C, and D beddings. Development of bedding factors for the Standard Installations, as presented in the
following paragraphs, follows the concepts of reinforced
concrete design theories. The basic definition of bedding
factor is that it is the ratio of maximum moment in the
three-edge bearing test to the maximum moment in the
buried condition, when the vertical loads under each
condition are equal:
Bf =

MTEST
MFIELD

(5)

where:
Bf
= bedding factor
MTEST = maximum moment in pipe wall under threeedge bearing test load, inch-pounds
MFIELD = maximum moment in pipe wall under field
loads, inch-pounds
Consequently, to evaluate the proper bedding factor
relationship, the vertical load on the pipe for each condition must be equal, which occurs when the springline
axial thrusts for both conditions are equal. In accordance
with the laws of statics and equilibrium, MTEST and MFIELD
are:
MTEST = [0.318NFS] X [D + t]

(6)

MFIELD = [MFI] - [0.38tNFI] [0.125NFI X c]

(7)

[0.318NFS] X [D+t]

Using SIDD, bedding factors were determined for

a range of pipe diameters and depths of burial. These
calculations were based on one inch cover over the
reinforcement, a moment arm of 0.875d between the
resultant tensile and compressive forces, and a reinforcement diameter of 0.075t. Evaluations indicated that for
A, B and C pipe wall thicknesses there was negligible
variation in the bedding factor due to pipe wall thickness
or the concrete cover, c, over the reinforcement. The
resulting bedding factors are presented in Table 4.

Table 4

Bedding Factors, Embankment Condition, Bfe

Pipe
Diameter

Standard installation
Type 1

Type 2

Type 3

Type 4

12 in.

4.4

3.2

2.5

1.7

24 in.

4.2

3.0

2.4

1.7

36 in.

4.0

2.9

2.3

1.7

72 in.

3.8

2.8

2.2

1.7

144 in.

3.6

2.8

2.2

1.7

Notes:
1. For pipe diameters other than listed in Table 4, embankment
condition factors, Bfe can be obtained by interpolation.
2. Bedding factors are based on the soils being placed with the
minimum compaction specified in Table 2 for each standard
installation.

The use of the Standard Installations and bedding

factors presented in this Design Data simplifies the indirect design procedure. Changes to and use of each step
of the design procedure are described in the following
paragraphs.
Table 4 presents embankment bedding factors, Bfe,
for each of the Standard Installations. For trench installations as discussed in C. P. Info No. 124 and in

American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]

2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.

(8)

[MFI] [0.38tNFI] [0.125NFI X c]

7
DD 9 (11/13)

Figure 4

Variable Bedding Factor

Bdt
Bd
Bc
Bfe
Bfo

the Design Manual7, experience indicates that active

lateral pressure increases as trench width increases to
the transition width, provided the sidefill is compacted.
A SIDD parameter study of the Standard Installations
indicates the bedding factors are constant for all pipe
diameters under conditions of zero lateral pressure on
the pipe. These bedding factors exist at the interface of
the pipewall and the soil and are called minimum bedding
factors, Bfo, shown in Figure 4, to differentiate them from
the fixed bedding factors developed by Spangler. Table
5 presents the minimum bedding factors.

Table 5

Trench Minimum Bedding Factors, Bfo

Standard Installation

Minimum Bedding Factor, Bfo

Type 1

2.3

Type 2

1.9

Type 3

1.7

Type 4

1.5

Note:
1. Bedding factors are based on the soils being placed with the
minimum compaction specified in Table 2 for each Standard
Installation.
2. For pipe installed in trenches dug in previously constructed
embankment, the load and the bedding factor should be determined as an embankment condition unless the backfill placed
over the pipe is of lesser compaction than the embankment

The equation for the variable trench bedding factor

modified for use with the Standard Installations, is:
Bfv =

[ B fe B fo ][ B d B c ]

where:
Bc =
Bd =
Bdt =
Bfe =
Bfo =
Bfv =

[ B dt B c ]

+ Bfo

outside horizontal span of pipe, feet

trench width at top of pipe, feet
transition width at top of pipe, feet
bedding factor, embankment
minimum bedding factor, trench
variable bedding factor, trench

(9)

A conservative linear variation is assumed between

the minimum bedding factor and the bedding factor for
the embankment condition, which begins at transition
width.
The Design Manual (Tables 13 through 39) presents
transition width values for use in the preceding equation.
For pipe installed with 6.5 ft or less of overfill and subjected to truck loads, the controlling maximum moment
may be at the crown rather than the invert. Consequently,
the use of an earth load bedding factor may produce unconservative designs. Crown and invert moments of pipe
for a range of diameters and burial depths subjected to
HS20 truck live loadings were evaluated. Also evaluated,
was the effect of bedding angle and live load angle (width
of loading on the pipe). When HS20 or other live loadings
are encountered to a significant value, the live load bedding factors, BfLL, presented in Table 6 are satisfactory for
a Type 4 Standard Installation and become increasingly
conservative for Types 3, 2, and 1. Limitations on BfLL are
discussed in the section on Selection of Pipe Strength.
APPLICATION OF FACTOR OF SAFETY
The indirect design method for concrete pipe is similar
to the common working stress method of steel design,
which employs a factor of safety between yield stress and
the desired working stress. In the indirect method, the
factor of safety is defined as the relationship between the
ultimate strength D-load and the 0.01inch crack D-load.
This relationship is specified in the ASTM Standards C
76 and C 655 on concrete pipe. The relationship between
ultimate D-load and 0.01-inch crack D-load is 1.5 for 0.01
inch crack D-loads of 2,000 or less; 1.25 for 0.01 inch
crack D-loads of 3,000 or more; and a linear reduction
from 1.5 to 1.25 for 0.01 inch crack D-loads between
more than 2,000 and less than 3,000. Therefore, a factor
of safety of 1.0 should be applied if the 0.01 inch crack
strength is used as the design criterion rather than the
ultimate strength. The 0.01 inch crack width is an arbitrarily chosen test criterion and not a criteria for field
performance or service limit.
SELECTION OF PIPE STRENGTH
The American Society for Testing and Materials has
developed standard specifications for precast concrete
pipe. Each specification contains design, manufacturing
and testing criteria.
ASTM Standard C 14 covers three strength classes
for nonreinforced concrete pipe. These classes are
specified to meet minimum ultimate loads, expressed
in terms of three-edge bearing strength in pounds per
linear foot.
ASTM Standard C 76 for reinforced concrete culvert,
storm drain and sewer pipe specifies strength classes

American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]

2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.

8
DD 9 (11/13)

Table 6

Bedding Factors, BfLL, for HS20 Live Loadings

Fill
Height

Pipe Diameter, Inches

Ft.

12

24

36

48

60

72

84

96

108

120

144

0.5

2.2

1.7

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.0

2.2

2.2

1.7

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.5

2.2

2.2

2.1

1.8

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.1

2.0

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.3

2.5

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.3

3.0

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.5

1.4

3.5

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.4

4.0

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.5

4.5

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.7

5.0

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.0

1.9

1.8

5.5

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.0

1.9

6.0

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.1

2.0

6.5

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

Note:
1.

For pipe diameters other than listed in Table 6, BfLL values can be obtained by interpolation.

based on D-load at 0.01-inch crack and/or ultimate load as

shown below in Table 7. The 0.01-inch crack D-load (D0.01)
is the maximum three-edge-bearing test load supported
by a concrete pipe before a crack occurs having a width of
0.01 inch measured at close intervals, throughout a length
of at least 1 foot. The ultimate D-load (Dult) is the maximum
three-edge-bearing test load supported by a pipe divided by
the pipes inside diameter. D-loads are expressed in pounds
per linear foot per foot of inside diameter.
ASTM Standard C 655 for reinforced concrete D-load
culvert, storm drain and sewer pipe covers acceptance of
pipe designed to meet specific D-load requirements.
ASTM Standard C 985 for nonreinforced concrete
specified strength culvert, storm drain, and sewer pipe
covers acceptance of pipe designed for specified strength
requirements.
Since numerous reinforced concrete pipe sizes are
available, three-edge bearing test strengths are classified by
D-loads. The D-load concept provides strength classification
of pipe independent of pipe diameter. For reinforced circular
pipe the three-edge-bearing test load in pounds per linear
foot equals D-load times inside diameter in feet.
The required three-edge-bearing strength of nonreinforced concrete pipe is expressed in pounds per linear
foot, not as a D-load, and is computed by the equation:

T.E.B =

WE
Bf

WL
BfLL

x F.S.

(10)

The required three-edge bearing strength of circular

reinforced concrete pipe is expressed as D-load and is
computed by the equation:
D-load =

WE
Bf

WL
BfLL

F.S.

When an HS20 truck live loading is applied to the pipe,

use the live load bedding factor, BfLL, as indicated in Equations 10-11, unless the earth load bedding factor, Bf, is of
lesser value in which case, use the lower Bf value in place
of BfLL. For example, with a Type 4 Standard Installation
of a 48 inch diameter pipe under 1.0 feet of fill, the factors
used would be Bf = 1.7 and BfLL = 1.5; but under 2.5 feet or
greater fill, the factors used would be Bf= 1.7 and BfLL, = 1.7
rather than 2.2. For trench installations with trench widths
less than transition width, BfLL would be compared to the
variable trench bedding factor, Bfv.
The use of the six-step indirect design method is illustrated by an example on the following pages.

Table 7

Reinforced Pipe Classes for 0.01 inch

Crack Per ASTM C 76 (lbs/ft/ft)
Class I

800

Class II

1000

Class III

1350

Class IV

2000

Class V

3000

Special Design

> 3000

American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]

2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.

(11)

9
DD 9 (11/13)

EXAMPLE PROBLEM
Positive Projection Embankment Installation

H
Do

Di

Given: A 48 inch circular pipe is to be installed in a positive projecting embankment condition using a Type 1
installation. The pipe will be covered with 35 feet of 120 pounds per cubic foot overfill.
Find:

The required pipe strength in terms of 0.01 inch crack D-load.

1. Determination of Earth Load (WE)

Per the given information, the installation behaves as a positive projecting embankment. Therefore,
use Equation 2 to determine the soil prism load and multiply it by the appropriate vertical arching
factor.
Do =

48 + 2(5)
12

Note: The wall thickness for a 48-inch

pipe with a B wall is 5-inches per ASTM C76.

Do = 4.83 outside diameter of pipe in feet

w = 120 unit weight of soil in pounds per cubic foot
H = 35 height of cover in feet
PL = 120 35 +

4.83(4-)
4.83
8

PL = 20,586 pounds per linear foot

Immediately listed below Equation 1 are the vertical arching factors (VAFs) for the four types of
Standard Installations. Using a VAF of 1.35 for a Type 1 Installation, the earth load is:
WE = 1.35 x 20,586
WE = 27,791 pounds per linear foot
American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]
2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.

10
DD 9 (11/13)

Fluid Load, w = 62.4 lbs/ft3

WF = w * A
48

WF = 62.4 ()

12

WF = 784 lb/ft

2. Determination of Live Load (WL)

From Table 42 in the Design Manual, live load is negligible at a depth of 35 feet.

3. Selection of Bedding

A Type 1 Installation will be used for this example

4. Determination of Bedding Factor

The embankment bedding factor for a Type 1 Installation may be interpolated from Table 4

Bfe36 = 4.0
Bfe72 = 3.8
72-48
Bfe48 =
72-36
Bfe48 = 3.93

(4.0-3.8) + 3.8

5. Application of Factor of Safety (F.S.)

A factor of safety of 1.0 based on the 0.01 inch crack will be applied.

6. Selection of Pipe Strength

The D-load is given by Equation 11
WE
WF
WL
Bf
BfLL
D

=
=
=
=
=
=

D0.01 =

27,791 earth load in pounds per linear foot

784 fluid load in pounds per linear foot
0 live load is negligible
3.93 earth load bedding factor
N/A live load bedding factor is not applicable
4 inside diameter of pipe in feet
27,791 + 784
3.93

1.0
4

D0.01 = 1,818 pounds per linear foot per foot of diameter

Answer: A pipe which would withstand a minimum three-edge bearing test for the 0.01 inch crack

of 1,818 pounds per linear foot per foot of inside diameter would be required.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

The Theory of External Loads on Closed Conduits in the Light of the Latest Experiments, A. Marston, Bulletin 96, Iowa State
College, 1930.
The Supporting Strength of Rigid Pipe Culverts, M.G. Spangler, Bulletin 112, Iowa State College, 1933.
Design Data 38, Bedding Factors Trench Installations, American Concrete Pipe Association, July, 1980.
CP Information No. 12, Lateral Pressures and Bedding Factors, American Concrete Pipe Association, 1991.
Design Method for Reinforced Concrete Pipe and Box Sections, F.J. Heger and T.J. McGarth, Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger,
American Concrete Pipe Association, 1992.
Concrete Pipe Handbook, American Concrete Pipe Association, 1988.
Concrete Pipe Design Manual, American Concrete Pipe Association, 1992.

American Concrete Pipe Association www.concrete-pipe.org [email protected]

2013 American Concrete Pipe Association, all rights reserved.
Technical data herein is considered reliable, but no guarantee is made or liability assumed.

11
DD 9 (11/13)