 Article
 Open Access
Retrofit Design of Damaged Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipes
 Yongjei Lee^{1}Email author and
 EunTaik Lee^{2}
https://doi.org/10.1007/s4006901300579
© The Author(s) 2013
 Received: 27 April 2013
 Accepted: 18 September 2013
 Published: 6 December 2013
Abstract
Prestressed concrete cylindrical pipe (PCCP) has been widely used for the distribution of water in communal, industrial, and agricultural systems for a long time. However, as it deteriorates, structural failures have been experienced. Replacing the entire existing PCCP with partial damages is not an economical method. Currently, as a cost effective repairing method, a new approach using fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) has been applied. A new design procedure of this method was proposed considering various kinds of loading condition. However, it is not easy to apply this method for design purpose due to its complex procedures. The objective of this study is to provide a new design criteria and process for PCCP rehabilitation with FRP. Through this method, the appropriate quantities of FRP layers will be decided after examining of limit states of deteriorated PCCP. For this purpose, two deterioration conditions are assumed; fully deteriorated and partially deteriorated. Different limit states for each case are applied to decide the quantities of attached FRP. The concept of “margin of safety” is used to judge whether the design results are within the optimal ranges to satisfy all limit states.
Keywords
 PCCP
 FRP
 retrofit
 debonding
 limit states
1 Introduction
Prestressed concrete cylindrical pipe (PCCP) has been widely used for the distribution of water in communal, industrial, and agricultural systems for a long time. For example, the California Department of Water Resources has over 330,000 feet of PCCP in operation for more than 30 years. However, as it deteriorates, structural failures have been experienced. For example, the breaks in 1994 and 1998 in the Mojave Siphon pipeline resulted in significant damage and shut down of the east branch of the aqueduct. Due to the single rupture of 20 feet of pipeline, over $500,000 was spent for the restoration of service (Lee 2002).
The PCCP is composed of three major structural components: concrete core, steel liner, and prestressed (PS) strands. The typical initial stress in the PS wires is about 65 % of the ultimate value. For that reason, when the prestress fails, the internal pressure confined by the section bursts into an explosive failure as well as the energy stored in wires is released. It is the damage in the mortar coating where the ingress of water happens and causes the corrosion of the wires. The damage may also happen during the manufacturing, transportation, and installation of PCCP.
Replacing the entire existing PCCP with partial damages is not a cost effective way, so a few rehabilitation methods have been proposed. One of them is to use a repair sleeve which confines the damaged area from the outside (McReynolds 1999). This method is suitable for emergency repair but it requires heavy lifting equipment and it is applicable only up to four feet diameter pipe in maximum. Another method is posttension circumferential tendon system (Zarghamee et al. 1998). This method requires the removal of soil cover as well as the removal of PS wire. It may cause the cost and the environmental issues. The most popular repairing method currently used is an inner installation of steel cylinder (Fortner 1999). However, this method can be very costly in manufacturing of inner steel and raises technical difficulties in inserting the steel. To overcome the difficulties in previous PCCP rehabilitation methods, a new approach using fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) has been applied. The FRP rehabilitation method relies on manual installation of FRP sheets, and thus is currently suitable only for sectional repairs to keep the line in service and to prevent failure once an imminent failure threat is detected. However, because detection methods can be unreliable and the labor cost is high, there is a need to automate FRP technology to enable it to advance from highcost sectional repairs (Lee 2011).
A comprehensive review of current design practice is provided (Zarghamee 1988a). A review of current design practice and test results for determining the state of stress after losses due to creep, shrinkage, and wire relaxation is also presented (Zarghamee 1988c). According to these reviews, the typical pipes designed by current methods have ample safety against ultimate loads and pressures. A new design procedure for PS concrete pipe based on limiting the combined effects on the pipe wall of axial thrust and bending moment resulting from internal pressure and external loads is presented by Heger et al. (1990). The proposed design criteria include the serviceability for crack control in the core and coating of the pipe, elastic limits to maintain repeatability, and strength limits. The complex behavior of PS concrete pipe subjected to internal pressure and external loads can be explained with the nonlinearities of the constituent materials (Zarghamee 1988b). This model was extended to allow moment redistribution in the pipe as the core undergoes tensile softening, cracking, and yielding of the steel cylinder and PS wire (Zarghamee and Fok 1990). However it is not easy to apply this method for design purpose. In practice, a relatively simplified method is used to explain the nonlinear behavior of the concrete after crack happens. It assumes the modulus is reduced to a certain degree based on its condition (American Concrete Institute 2008a).
2 Theory and Method
Usually, PCCP in market is considered as a kind of thickwalled pipe because its thickness is more than 10 % of its diameter. However, a deteriorated PCCP that with cracks in the concrete layers doesn’t act like a thickwalled pipe anymore. Even with FRP layer reinforcements, it can be considered as a thinwalled pipe because the thickness of the FRP layer is very thin in comparison with the diameter. For this reason, a PCCP needs to be treated differently according to its deterioration state.

Case 1 (fully deteriorated): FRP layer is separated from the inner core with the concrete core cracked as a standalone buried flexible pipe. The limit states for this case are shown in Fig. 1. Fully deteriorated pipes have many broken prestressing wires, multiple wide cracks in the concrete core, uneven internal surface, and has deformed into a noncircular shape. Uneven internal surface and noncircular shape may reduce the buckling strength of the FRP liner.

Case 2 (partially deteriorated): FRP layer and inner concrete core are acting as a composite pipe with the outer core cracked. The limit states for this case are shown in Fig. 2. Partially deteriorated pipes are known to have some broken wires but have not lost their circular shape and do not have irregularities on their surface. For such pipes, hydroblasting will provide a uniform, round surface, resulting in no waviness in the FRP liner that could reduce its buckling strength.
The tolerable crack width of waterretaining structures like PCCP, is 0.1 mm (American Concrete Institute 2001). After measuring the crack width and/or evaluation of unevenness, the state of PCCP is decided and the design method is selected. For design purpose, various loadings and reasonable quantities of safety factors should be selected. In this study, as a loading set, working pressure, transient pressure, vacuum pressure, soil cover height, ground water, and surface live load are used. The safety factors and the design procedure follow AWWA C30107 (American Water Works Association 2007b) and AWWA C30407 (American Water Works Association 2007a).
Analysis methods for each limit states can be altered with change of conditions. For example, the monolayer method to get the pipe stress is used here but in some situation multilayers model may give more reasonable results (Lee 2011). There can also be alternative ways to get the buckling force, pipe deflection, debonding force and so on. It depends on the designer’s choice.
2.1 Deflection
2.2 Buckling and Debonding
2.3 Margin of Safety
The internal pressure could be short term loading like a water hammering as well as long term loading, and for that reason both short term and long term loading combined together to calculate the total applied pressure. In other cases, the longterm loading is considered the most severe loading condition.
Criteria according to the limit states.
Case  Limit states  Criteria  Description 

Fully deteriorated (FRP alone)  Pressure alone  $\frac{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{s}\xb7F{S}_{s}}{{\mathrm{\epsilon}}_{frp}}+\frac{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{l}\xb7F{S}_{l}}{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{frp}}\le 1.0$  Critical pressure be less then tensile strength of FRP 
Combined pressure and external loads  $\frac{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{comp}\xb7FS}{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{frp}}\le 1$  Critical strain be less than ultimate tensile strain of FRP  
Buckling  $\frac{{p}_{buck}}{{p}_{cr}}\le 1$  Critical buckling pressure be less than buckling resistance  
Partially deteriorated (inner core & FRP acting together)  Combined pressure and external loads  $\frac{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{comp}\xb7FS}{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{frp}}\le 1$  Critical strain be less than ultimate tensile strain of FRP 
Concrete crushing  $\frac{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{comp}\xb7FS}{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{co}}\le 1$  Critical compressive strain in concrete be less than ultimate compressive strain of concrete  
Debond  $\frac{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{comp}\xb7FS}{{\mathit{\epsilon}}_{deb}}\le 1$  Critical strain in FRP be less than debonding strain  
Radial tension  $\frac{{\mathit{\sigma}}_{rt}\xb7FS}{{\mathit{\sigma}}_{rf}}\le 1$  Radial tensile stress between FRP and inner core be less than radial tensile bond strength  
Buckling  $\frac{{p}_{buck}}{{p}_{cr}}\le 1$  Critical buckling pressure be less than buckling resistance 
3 Example and Result
The 1 mm thick FRP layers are attached to the inside of the deteriorated PCCP and the changes of the MS are examined as the number of the FRP layers changes. Eight limitstates in total are considered. Buckling model, debonding model and monolayer model presented in the previous sections are used to calculate each limitstate. The load factors and reduction factors follow American Concrete Institute (2008b) and American Society of Civil Engineers (2005). The resultant factor of safety is 3.5 for FRP subjected to longterm loads and 1.9 for FRP subjected to shortterm loads. It is 2.2 for concrete in flexure as well as for radial tension between concrete core and FRP layer. It is 2.5 for crackinduced debonding between concrete core and FRP layer. The rerounding factor of 0.77 and the bedding coefficient of 0.09 are used (American Water Works Association 2005).
When FRP acts alone with only internal pressure, and with the combined internal pressure and the external loads, the MS reaches 1.14 and 1.10 respectively, with seven layers of FRP. When FRP acts alone and considering the buckling, it requires 14 layers to reach the MS of 1. This means quite many FRP layers are required to rehabilitate PCCP when the inner core concrete is cracked. When FRP and core concrete act together subject to the combined internal pressure and the external loads, the MS reaches 1.06 with 9 layers of FRP.
Unlike expectation, there are certain limitstates at which the increase of the reinforcing layers would reduce the MS. For example, when it comes to the inner core concrete crush, the MS is less than 1 with the layers of 11 or more. Thick FRP layer would receive more portions of the applied loads than core concrete. Because of the higher strain limit of FRP, the concrete cracks before the total failure.
Similar trends are observed in debonding between FRP and concrete, and in radial tension between them. Although the MS is not going under 1 in this examination, it is continuously decreasing as more layers are attached. It is thought that the unequal distribution of the loads due to the increasing FRP portion causes the different behavior between FRP and attached inner core concrete.
After inspection of the PCCP, the degree of the deterioration can be informed. If the inner core concrete is already cracked so that the FRP is expected to act alone, it is recommended that more than 14 layers of SCH41 be applied. If the inner core is deteriorated but still in sound condition so that the FRP is expected to act along with it, then using of nine or ten layers of FRP is recommended.
4 Conclusions
The limitstates of the PCCP with FRP rehabilitation were studied. For design purpose, proper factors of safety were selected. To get the stress and strains of each layer under certain condition, the monolayer model was used. It was extended to get the stresses in radial direction and tangential direction of the pipe section. This monolayer model was also developed to be used in a plastic range behavior of thick and thin layered pipe. The Glock’s buckling model (Omara et al. 1997) was modified and used to express FRP behavior. Teng’s debonding limit equation (American Concrete Institute 2008b; Teng et al. 2001; Teng et al. 2004) was introduced for crackinduced debonding of FRP.
Through the analysis, the MS could be obtained for each limitstate. Total eight limitstates were considered: three states for FRP alone case, and five states for FRP and core concrete together case. Conducting an example analysis, the tendency of the MS according to the increase of the FRP layers was obtained. In general, the more FRP reinforcing produces the better performance of the pipe. However, some limitstates, for example, concrete crushing, crackinduced debonding, and radial tension showed opposite results to the general expectation. It may be caused by the increase of the nonuniform stress distribution due to the difference of the material properties as FRP layer getting thicker. It is very important to find the optimal quantities of the FRP layers considering all limitstates. As shown in above example, too much or too little rehabilitation can cause negative effects.
The debonding strain equation used in this example was originally developed for the FRP strengthened concrete beam. There could be some discrepancy in applying it to the PCCP. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, there is no proper study of PCCP for this topic. In the future studies, experimental data should be obtained to get the strain equation of FRP debonding of the PCCP as it’s done for the concrete beam.
Declarations
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 American Concrete Institute. (2001). ACI 224R01 control of cracking in concrete structures. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.Google Scholar
 American Concrete Institute. (2008a). ACI 318 building code requirements for concrete and commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.Google Scholar
 American Concrete Institute. (2008b). ACI 440.2R08 guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP system for strengthening concrete structures. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.Google Scholar
 American Society of Civil Engineers. (2005). ASCE 705 minimum design loads for building and other structures. Reston, VA: ASCE.Google Scholar
 American Water Works Association. (2005). AWWA M45 fiberglass pipe design, manual of water supply practices. Denver, CO: AWWA.Google Scholar
 American Water Works Association. (2007a). Design of prestressed concrete cylinder pipe. Denver, CO: AWWA.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 American Water Works Association. (2007b). Prestressed concrete pressure pipe, steelcylinder type. Denver, CO: AWWA.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Fortner, B. (1999). Main line mending. Civil Engineering,69, 25–42.Google Scholar
 Heger, F. J., Zarghamee, M. S., & Dana, W. R. (1990). Limitstates design of prestressed concrete pipe. I: CRITERIA. Journal of Structural Engineering,116, 2083–2104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Howard, A. K. (1977). Modulus of soil reaction values for buried flexible pipe. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,103, 33–43.Google Scholar
 Howard, A. (1996). Pipeline installation. Lakewood, CO: Relativity Publishing.Google Scholar
 Howard, A. K., Kinney, L. A., Jr., & Fuerst, R. P. (1995). Prediction of flexible pipe deflection. Denver, CO: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.Google Scholar
 Lee, D. C. (2002). Rehabilitation of large diameter PCCP with composites. San Diego, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
 Lee, Y. (2011). Analysis of prestressed concrete cylinder pipes for rehabilitation. Irvine, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
 McReynolds, M. (1999). An innovative solution for the repair of the sepulveda feeder. In International Public Works Congress and Exposition. American Public Works Association.Google Scholar
 Omara, A. M., Guice, L. K., Straughan, W. T., & Akl, F. A. (1997). Buckling of thin circular pipes encased in rigid cavity. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,123, 1294–1301.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Spangler, M. G. (1941). The structural design of flexible pipe culverts. Ames, IA: Iowa State Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin.Google Scholar
 Spangler, M. G., & Handy, R. L. (1982). Soil engineering. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
 Teng, J. G., Lu, X. Z., & Ye, L. P. (2004). Recent research on intermediate crack induced debonding in FRP strengthened beams. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials for Bridges and Structures. Calgary, Canada.Google Scholar
 Teng, J. G., Smith, S. T., & Chen, J. F. (2001). Intermediate crack induced debonding in RC beams and slabs. Construction and Building Materials,17, 447–462.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Watkins, R. K., & Spangler, M. G. (1958). Some characteristics of the modulus of passive resistance of soil: A study of similitude. Highway Research Board Proceedings,37, 576–583.Google Scholar
 Zarghamee, M. S. (1988a). Experimental evaluation of design methods for prestressed concrete pipe. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE,114, 635–655.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zarghamee, M. S. (1988b). A multilayered model for analysis of composite pipes. In Bruce A. Bennett (Ed.), Pipeline Infrastructure (pp. 136–147). New York, NY: ASCE.Google Scholar
 Zarghamee, M. S. (1988c). Predicting prestress losses in prestressed concrete pipe. Concrete International,10, 59–64.Google Scholar
 Zarghamee, M. S., & Fok, K. L. (1990). Analysis of prestressed concrete pipe under combined loads. Journal of Structural Engineering,116, 1734–1742.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zarghamee, M., Ojdrovic, R., & Fongemie, R. (1998). Condition assessment and repair of prestressed concrete pipelines. In Pipeline Division Conference (pp. 703–713).Google Scholar