Maintenance of Deep Manhole

Recently installed complex sewer system access chambers (or parts thereof) were designed as reinforced concrete
structures in accordance with AS3600-2009 (Concrete Structures) and in some cases as water retaining structures in
accordance with AS3735-2001 (Concrete Structures Retaining Liquids). Design to these Australian Standards requires a
significant amount of reinforcement at significant cost.

Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) were engaged by Yarra Valley Water to review current industry best practice and prepare
guidelines for where reinforcement is required within sewer access chambers. A copy of SKMs guidelines is attached in
Appendix A.

SKMs investigation into industry best practice highlighted the following key points
Sewer manholes across Australia have been constructed from unreinforced concrete in accordance with accepted
industry practice extending back over many decades
Yarra Valley Water's sewerage system access chambers are primarily unreinforced, some as large as 3.6 metres
in diameter and 30 metres deep
Historically, our design guidelines have been based on the Colombo Plan Lectures (MMBW, 1977) which
recommended the following for manholes on main sewers
"as far as practicable, manhole shafts are designed to avoid the use of reinforcement"
This historic design approach adopted within the Colombo Plan Lectures has served Yarra Valley Waters system
very well over many years
more broadly, considerable diversity exists in sewerage infrastructure across Australian cities

The attached SKM guidelines represent a risk-based approach to facilitate an understanding of when access chamber
reinforcement is required. The guidelines focus on the shaft structure of circular manholes where 'shaft' refers to the
cylindrical part of a manhole (below the 'top' or cone and above the 'table'). The SKM guidelines address the following
items -
potential elements of risk associated with access chamber design which should be considered when assessing
the need for reinforcement
a summary view of design criteria required for -
Deep Sewer Access Chamber Reinforcement Guidelines
Recent design and installation of complex Yarra Valley Water access chambers (manholes) has highlighted
some deficiencies in our adopted standards and understanding regarding where reinforcement may be required.

In order to address this issue, Yarra Valley Water has engaged Sinclair Knight Merz to prepare guidelines for
where reinforcement is required within sewer access chambers.
Issue date : September 2010
general design
design of un-reinforced concrete
design of reinforced concrete in accordance with AS3600-2009
design of reinforced concrete in accordance with AS3735-2001
a set of conclusions that establish some context of where access chamber reinforcement may be required

In summary
Many sewer shafts exist and perform adequately in Melbourne, without any reinforcement in extensive areas of
the cylindrical shell and the use of plain, unreinforced concrete in shaft walls has been accepted practice for many
decades
In thick unreinforced concrete sections, if temperatures and shrinkage are not controlled, there is some risk of
wider cracks and greater groundwater inflow (when compared to reinforced concrete in which the reinforcement
would control the crack widths). However the absence of reinforcement has other benefits such as improved
access for concrete placement
Plain concrete has lower risk of structural deterioration over the long-term and durability advantages because of
the absence of steel reinforcement. In terms of cost, the savings gained by adopting plain concrete need to be off-
set against additional cost items such as grouting.
Reinforced concrete sections may be required to sustain unbalanced loading, significant traffic/live loads

Based on SKMs Guidelines and subsequent acceptance by Yarra Valley Water, the following design principles shall be
adopted for all sewer access chambers -
SKMs Sewer Manhole Reinforcement Guidelines, dated 1 March 2010, be adopted as a key reference for
sewer access chamber design
design and installation of unreinforced access chambers is preferred
the use of reinforcement in manholes shall be avoidable wherever practical
use of reinforcement within manholes shall only be considered where either, infiltration, unbalanced loads, traffic
loads, safety or risk issues cannot be addressed more effectively using unreinforced concrete
where there is potential for concrete temperature and shrinkage to occur, appropriate control measures need to
be defined to avoid concrete cracks;
where perimeter shrinkage is possible, specify appropriate grouting for unreinforced manholes to ensure contact
between the concrete and the surrounding ground

For more information
Contact ........................................................ Kevin Dawson
Telephone ......................................................... 9872 1474
Email ..................................... Kevin.Dawson@yvw.com.au
APPENDIX A Report by Sinclair Knight Merz Sewer Manhole Reinforcement Guidelines

8ewer Hanho|e Re|nforcement
Cu|de||nes

VCV123, 2ZJuNE 200
Rev C
1 Varcr 2010

Tre 3KV |ogo lrade rar| |s a reg|slered lrade rar| ol 3|rc|a|r Kr|grl Verz Ply Lld.

8ewer Hanho|e Re|nforcement
Cu|de||nes

Rev C
1 Varcr 2010

3|rc|a|r Kr|grl Verz
A8N 3Z 001 021 095
590 0rrorg Road, Arrada|e 3113
P0 8ox 2500
Va|verr vlC 3111 Auslra||a
Te|: 1 3 9218 3100
Fax: 1 3 9218 331
weo: WWW.s|rcorsu|l|rg.cor

COPYRGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair
Knight Merz Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written
permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright.
LMTATON: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair
Knight Merz Pty Ltd's Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the
agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or
responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third
party.

8|N6LA|R KN|ChT HERZ

V:\3u3TAlNA8LE 0EvEL0PVENT\Assel Creal|or 0|v|s|or\0e||very 3erv|ces\5 Projecls\Vl Re|rlorcererl
0u|de||res\Yvw3eWerVlRe|rlorcererl0u|de||res.doc PA0E |
Contents
1. Summary 1
1.1. Aims 1
1.2. Background 1
1.3. Risks 1
1.4. Recommendations 3
2. Introduction 5
2.1. Scope 5
2.2. Reference Documentation 5
2.3. Abbreviations 6
2.4. Definitions 6
3. Risk Considerations for ManhoIe Design 7
4. Risks Expressed in Standards 8
5. Risk Assessment 12
5.1. ManhoIe depth 12
5.2. ManhoIe diameter 12
5.3. Concrete thickness (i.e. risk of earIy age shrinkage cracking) 12
5.4. GeoIogy 12
5.5. Ground Loads 12
5.6. Traffic Ioads 13
5.7. Surcharge 13
5.8. Groundwater LeveI 13
5.9. Groundwater Chemistry 13
5.10. H2S 13
5.11. ManhoIe Shape/ Contents 14
6. Design of ManhoIes 15
6.1. GeneraI 15
6.1.1. Design for Temperature and Shrinkage Cracking 15
6.1.2. Design for nternal 'Surcharge' Pressure 15
6.1.3. Design of Manhole Tops and Top Slabs 15
6.1.4. Strength of Concrete 16
6.2. Design in Un-Reinforced, PIain Concrete 16
6.2.1. General 16
6.2.2. Compression 17

0u|de||res\Yvw3eWerVlRe|rlorcererl0u|de||res.doc PA0E ||
6.2.3. Tension 17
6.2.4. Grouting 17
6.2.5. Wall/Base Joint 17
6.2.6. Exceptions 17
6.2.7. Serviceability of Plain Concrete 18
6.2.8. Thermal and Drying Shrinkage 18
6.3. Design in Reinforced Concrete to AS3600 19
6.4. Design in Reinforced Concrete to AS3735 19
7. ConcIusions 20
8. Recommendations 22
Appendix A Existing Unreinforced ManhoIes 23


0u|de||res\Yvw3eWerVlRe|rlorcererl0u|de||res.doc PA0E |||
Document history and status
Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type
A 5/8/2009 D. Franklin D. Spackman 5/8/2009 Working Document
B 31/8/2009 D. Franklin D. Spackman 31/8/2009 Final
C 1/3/2010

Distribution of copies
Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to

Printed: 1 July 2010
Last saved: 1 March 2010 03:50 PM
FiIe name:
:\VWES\Projects\VW04301\Deliverables\CDA Projects\Sewer Manhole Reinforcement
Construction\090831 Sewer MH Reinforcement Guidelines.doc
Author: Daniel Spackman
Project manager: Daniel Spackman
Name of organisation: Yarra Valley Water
Name of project: Sewer Manhole Reinforcement Guidelines
Name of document:
Document version: Rev C
Project number: VW04301


0u|de||res\Yvw3eWerVlRe|rlorcererl0u|de||res.doc PA0E 1
1. Summary
1.1. Aims
Yarra Valley Water aims to develop 'business rules' for sewer manholes to; define acceptable limits
in terms of size or risk for unreinforced concrete manholes, and to determine design requirements
for reinforced concrete manholes. Sinclair Knight Merz was engaged to prepare a brief, desktop
study.
1.2. Background
Some recently constructed manholes (or parts thereof) were designed as reinforced concrete
structures (to AS3600), and even as water retaining structures (to AS3735). Design to these
Australian Standards requires a significant amount of reinforcement at significant cost.
However, sewer manholes are also constructed from unreinforced concrete in accordance with
accepted practice extending back over many decades. Yarra Valley Water's system includes many
unreinforced sewer manholes, some as large as 3.6 metres in diameter and 30 metres deep (refer
Appendix A for details). The Colombo Plan Lectures (MMBW, 1977) recommends for manholes
on main sewers: "as far as practicable, manhole shafts are designed to avoid the use of
reinforcement". The historic design approach adopted within the Colombo Plan Lectures has served
Yarra Valley Waters system well.
The design practice of other authorities such as ActewAGL, indicates standard drawings for
unreinforced manholes can be subject to specified limits such as:
Diameter no more than 1050 or 1200 mm;
Depth no more than 6.0 or 8.0 metres;
Wall thickness no less than 150 or 225 mm;
Sewers no larger than DN675.
However, there is considerable diversity in sewerage infrastructure across Australian cities and the
limits above do not reflect Melbourne experience.
1.3. Risks
This report presents a risk-based approach to the need for reinforcement. The report is focussed on
the shaft structure of circular manholes where 'shaft' refers to the cylindrical part of a manhole
(below the 'top' or cone and above the 'table').
The table below summarises the main potential risks.

Yvw3eWerVlRe|rlorcererl0u|de||res.doc PA0E 2

Risk Comments
Manhole
depth
Depth >= 15m. Increased manhole depth does not, by itself, justify a change from
unreinforced to reinforced concrete (there is no clear 'line in the
sand'). Increasing the depth of a manhole would be unlikely to
increase the probability of a structural failure; however the
consequences of failure would increase due to the extra depth.

Manhole
diameter
MH diameter >
5000mm.
In unreinforced manholes with wall thicknesses equal to 10% of
the diameter, walls 500mm thick (or more) are at risk of cracking
due to the heat of hydration of the cement. Consequently,
manholes with a diameter > 5 metres need either reinforcement to
control cracks, or control over concrete temperatures to prevent
early-age cracking.

Concrete
thickness
(i.e. risk of
early age
shrinkage
cracking)
Shaft wall thickness
>500mm;
Peak temperature
>60C;
Temperature
differential >20C
Restraint is also relevant to early age cracks, however CIRIA
C660, A5.3.1 includes: "Cylindrical structures in which the walls
are cast in complete rings are further complicated by the fact that
the diameter of the ring attempts to reduce as the concrete cools
down to the ambient temperature. In theory, this could result in a
horizontal crack between the new and old sections in addition to
any vertical cracks, but such cracks are rarely seen in practice."

Geology Rock with fracture
zones, slip planes,
intersecting joint planes
etc.;
Soft or variable clay;
"Floaters";
Silt, Sand, Fill;
Erodible material.

Non-uniform geology is a major risk to unreinforced manholes.
Ground Loads > 10 % out of balance
Point loads (e.g.
floaters);
Unbalanced loads;
Voids that do not
provide support.

Unbalanced loading induces bending and tensile stresses in shaft
walls. If these tensile stresses exceed the allowable value,
reinforcement or increased shaft wall thickness would be
necessary.
Traffic loads M/H located in a
trafficable area;
Subject to heavy, road
vehicle loads;
High speeds and high
frequency.
Vehicle loads represent a risk, mainly to the manhole top and the
upper few metres of shaft. Reinforcing the upper few metres of
shaft walls would mitigate this risk.

Unreinforced shafts located away from traffic may still be subject
to mowers/tractors with low pressure tyres.

Surcharge Surcharge above
groundwater level;
Surcharge to natural
surface.
Surcharge higher than groundwater creates the potential for tension
in shaft walls. Grouting to ensure contact with the surrounding
ground, or reinforcement of the shaft walls, would be necessary to
mitigate this risk.

Surcharge to natural surface creates a risk of unseating the top slab.
The manhole shaft could be reinforced as part of a structural
system designed to hold the top slab in place.

Limiting surcharge to sewer obvert level, a common design
criterion, may avoid air pockets in sewers, but is not necessary for
the structural stability of shafts.

Groundwater
Level
Groundwater above
invert in dry weather
(risk of continuous
infiltration).
Groundwater above
invert in wet weather
(risk of intermittent
infiltration).

High groundwater creates a risk of infiltration but tends to put shaft
walls into compression.

Construction joints or cracks in shaft walls, and joints around
incoming sewer pipes, would be susceptible to infiltration.
Attention to detail at joints and reinforcement to control cracks in
shaft walls would mitigate the risk of infiltration.

Groundwater
Chemistry
Salinity > 10 ppt;
pH < 4.5;
Corrosive or
contaminated;
Langelier Index < - 2.0;
Potential acid sulphate
soil.
Acidic groundwater would react with the alkaline cement mortar in
shaft concrete. Groundwater with a Langelier Index less than -2
tends to dissolve calcium carbonate and soften concrete.
Reinforcement would not mitigate this risk and the reinforcement
itself would be at risk of eventual corrosion.

Contaminated or saline groundwater is a risk for downstream
treatment plants. Reinforcement could be used to control cracks in
shaft walls and reduce this risk.

H
2
S H
2
S levels > 20 PPM;
No effective
ventilation;
Turbulence with
possible hydraulic
jumps (Fr>1.7);
Drops (tributary
sewers)

H
2
S corrosion is a risk to reinforcement (as the concrete cover over
the reinforcement is reduced with time). Reinforcement should be
avoided where practicable, especially where H
2
S corrosion may
ultimately expose it.
Manhole
Shape/
Contents
Cylindrical shaft with
major wall
penetrations, drop
structures or additional
chambers.

Complex manholes are more likely to require reinforcement.

1.4. Recommendations
It is recommended that YVW should:
a) Avoid the use of reinforcement in sewer manholes where uniform geology and balanced
loading ensure that concrete stresses remain within appropriate limits;
b) Specify appropriate controls on concrete temperature and shrinkage (to avoid cracks);

c) Specify appropriate grouting for unreinforced manhole at risk from perimeter shrinkage
gaps (to ensure contact between the concrete and the surrounding ground);
d) Provide reinforcement in manholes where infiltration, unbalanced loads, traffic loads,
safety or risk issues cannot be addressed more effectively in other ways (such as by
increasing concrete thickness).

2. Introduction
2.1. Scope
This report considers:
Risks and design criteria relevant to concrete manholes;
The circumstances, or level of risk, that would justify reinforcement;
Functional requirements for sewer manholes (i.e. are 0.2 mm shrinkage cracks
acceptable?); and
Typical limits for unreinforced manholes (some authorities specify upper limiting
sewer diameter or manhole depth/diameter etc.).
The report aims to present different risks and criteria underpinning business rules appropriate to
YVW, and present a recommended option for discussion at a presentation/workshop. This
workshop should involve key internal YVW stakeholders in order to consider the recommendation,
and develop business rules for YVW.
The following are not included in the scope of this assignment:
Sub-structures such as landings, top slabs, drops, penetrations;
The preparation of any drawings;
Considerations for corrosion lining options;
Integration of business rules with WSAA.

2.2. Reference Documentation
The following resources were reviewed as part of the development of this report:
Sewerage Code of Australia Melbourne Retail Water Agencies Edition Version
1.0 (WSA 02-2002);
Water Industry Technical Standards Technical Standards Manual Volume 2
Sewerage;
AS3600 2001 Concrete Structures;
AS3735 2001 Concrete Structures Retaining Liquids;
Colombo Plan Lectures, (International Training Course in Water Supply and
Sewerage Practice - Sewerage, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works,
1977);
BS5911-200:1994; Specification for Unreinforced and Reinforced Manholes and
Soakaways of Circular Cross-section.

Yvw3eWerVlRe|rlorcererl0u|de||res.doc PA0E
Sewers for Adoption, 5th ed., WRc (note, the 6th ed, 2006);
The ActewAGL website: Technical Requirements for Sewerage
(http://www.actewagl.com.au/water/standards/standards3.aspx)
Example drawings from past projects.

2.3. Abbreviations
Abbreviations used in this report include:
ActewAGL The entity that manages sewerage in the ACT
AS Australian Standard
BS British Standard
DN Nominal Diameter
HGL Hydraulic Grade Line
ID Internal Diameter
MPa Mega-Pascals (usually the strength of concrete)
WSA Water Services Association
YVW Yarra Valley Water

2.4. Definitions
Terms relevant to manholes and reinforcement include:
Benching Flat surface, also known as the 'table', at the bottom of a manhole but
above the sewer channel;
Depth The vertical distance from access cover level to sewer invert;
Invert The lowest point inside a pipe (at a specific cross-section);
Main sewers Non-reticulation sewers, including intercepting and trunk sewers, but
excluding major, deep tunnel sewers;
Manhole Access chamber, also known as Maintenance Hole or M/H;
Reinforcement Steel bars, or wire fabric/mesh, used to reinforce concrete;
Surcharge The internal hydrostatic pressure within a manhole when the HGL is
above the sewer obvert;

Yvw3eWerVlRe|rlorcererl0u|de||res.doc PA0E Z
3. Risk Considerations for ManhoIe Design
The following general risks were identified in the reference documents listed above and elsewhere.
Unbalanced earth/ground loads;
Heavy vehicle loads;
Wall thickness < 10% manhole diameter;
Early-age thermal and drying shrinkage crack control;
A tensile stress in plain concrete > 1.4 MPa;
Internal surcharge pressure/hydrostatic loads;
Transients such as those resulting from power failure at pumping stations;
Turbulence and erosion from high velocity flows in steep sewers;
Air entrapment and release during wet weather;
High groundwater or flood levels;
Presence of seawater or saline groundwater;
Hydrogen sulphide related concrete corrosion;
Unbalanced forces arising during installation and backfilling;
Differential settlements between the sewer pipelines and manholes;

4. Risks Expressed in Standards
RISK STANDARDS REFERENCES (MRWA, WITS, AS3600, AS3735)

Trench fill
loadings and
manhole depth

WSA02 Section 18.1
Referenced drawings SEW-1310, SEW-1311, SEW-1312 (Please note
that drawings SEW-1311 and SEW-1312 are not endorsed for use by
MRWA.)
SEW-1310 refers to permanent formwork greater than DN375
SEW-1311 refers to maintenance holes with a depth to invert 6m to 15m
(Reinforcement to be as detailed in design drawings)
SEW-1312 refers to maintenance holes with a depth to invert greater
than 15m:
o Design of MH to be in accordance with AS3735 exposure
condition as defined in AS3735 to be not less than condition
C and shown on design drawing
o Construction details, eg. Concrete thickness, reinforcement,
horizontal and vertical alignment to be shown on design
drawing
WSA02 Standard drawing SEW-1300-V
Precast concrete MHs are not approved for use in trafficable areas,
industrial areas, water charged ground, areas subject to surcharge, where
greater than 6m in depth or on surcharged sewers

Surcharge

WSA02 Standard drawing SEW-1300-V
greater than 6m in depth or on surcharged sewers
Assume that reinforcement is required where sewers are to be surcharged,
unless sewer is completely surrounded by rock.

AS3600 - 2001
AS3600 Section 15 has no serviceability requirements for plain concrete

Consideration should be given to likely groundwater inflow rates
High water table will cause more infiltration

Temporary and/or
fluctuating
groundwater levels

WSA02 Standard Drawing SEW-1300-V
greater than 6m in depth or on surcharged sewers.
In water charged ground or where there is significant risk of surcharge
use only cast in-situ MHs.

AS3600 - 2001
AS3600 Section 15 has no serviceability requirements for plain concrete
Consideration should be given to likely groundwater inflow rates
High water table will cause more infiltration

Traffic and
transient loads

WSA02 Section 8.4
Traffic loads must be considered when calculating external forces that
act on a pipeline

Sewer diameter

WSA02 Standard Drawing SEW-1309-V
Maintenance holes for sewers of diameter DN375 DN750 should be
reinforced.
Reinforcement as per structural design with 65 minimum cover.
Precast maintenance holes not permitted on >375 mm sewers.
Drawing only applies to maximum MH depth of 6000mm (from top of lid to
invert of pipe).


Surrounding soil
conditions

AS3600 - 2001
Where the shaft is not to be constructed in solid rock, the shaft walls are
potentially subject to stress conditions other than symmetrical
compression. Drying shrinkage cracks could also occur.

AS3600 Section 15
This describes members in which a crack will not induce a collapse,
and is also limited to plain concrete floors and pavements resting on the
ground, footings and bored piers.
Unreinforced concrete walls can therefore not be designed to the letter
of AS3600

Designing for strength
Compression shaft would be designed for axial (hoop) compression in
accordance with the strength limits specified in AS3600 Section 15
Tension arising from internal surcharging

Exceptions to non-reinforcement (where shafts must be reinforced)
Shaft walls must be reinforced near the top
Near drop inlets
At anchorage points for landings
Around openings
At the base of stilling chambers

Corrosion
prevention

WSA02 Section 4.7.2 Internal corrosion
Septic sewage gives rise to production of hydrogen sulphide (H2S),
which is released through turbulence as hydrogen sulphide gas. H2S will
corrode some metals. It can also be further converted to sulphuric acid
on walls of the sewer by bacteria, leading to attack of cementitious

products.
The Water Agency may therefore require lining or coating of
maintenance holes of sewers with diameters greater than DN450.

Clause 4.7.3 External Corrosion
External corrosion of sewer items is mainly affected by aggressive
environments through which the sewer may traverse. Ground
contaminated by organic compounds (eg hydrocarbons, and chlorinated
hydrocarbons) may have an adverse effect on:
Properties of materials
Corrosion resistance of metallic components

Corrosion prevention measures may include:
Selection of corrosion resistant materials
Coatings for metallic components

Acidic soils, very high salinity soils and sulphate bearing groundwater will
attack concrete pipe and maintenance structures. Sulphate resistant cement
will provide resistance to neutral sulphates. Use of calcareous aggregates
combined with increased cover will reduce the rate of attack in acidic ground
conditions.

5. Risk Assessment
5.1. ManhoIe depth
Increasing manhole depth does not, at any depth, cause a 'step-change' in risk (just a pro-rata
change). However, external loading and the associated thickness of shaft walls increase with
depth, so the risk of early age shrinkage and thermal cracking also increases.
5.2. ManhoIe diameter
Similarly, increasing manhole diameter does not, at any diameter, cause a 'step-change' in risk.
However the required thickness of shaft walls increases with diameter, so the risk of early age
shrinkage and thermal cracking also increases.
5.3. Concrete thickness (i.e. risk of earIy age shrinkage cracking)
Concrete sections thicker than 500mm are regarded as 'thick' and susceptible to early age shrinkage
and temperature cracking. However there are several mitigation strategies as follows:
Include supplementary cementitious materials (such as fly-ash) in the concrete mix to mitigate
the heat of hydration and reduce thermal shrinkage;
Control the temperature of the concrete on placement by scheduling thick pours early in the
morning, using chilled mix water, cooled aggregate or limiting temperatures in the
specification;
Use water curing to ensure a humid atmosphere and avoid drying the concrete; and
Include expansion additives in the concrete mix.

5.4. GeoIogy
Non-uniform geology represents a significant risk to unreinforced manholes. Rock with fracture
zones, slip planes, intersecting joint planes etc.; soft or variable clay; basalt "floaters"; silt or sand
lenses and fill all introduce the possibility of out of balance loading on the shaft. Erodible material
could also lead to voids and uneven loading around a manhole, especially where infiltration carries
silt into the sewer from where it is transported away.
5.5. Ground Loads
The Colombo Plan Lectures recommend the calculation of horizontal ground and hydrostatic
pressures on a shaft using the equation:
Horizontal Pressure (P) = k
soil
.
Soil
.g.H
Soil
+
Water
.g.H
Water
Maximum and minimum values for this pressure are calculated in orthogonal directions using
upper and lower limiting values for 'k' as shown in the following table.

Case k
min
k
max
Description
1 0.3 0.5 Variable ground
2 0.3 to 0.35 0.45 to 0.5 Normal ground
3 0.35 0.45 Uniform ground
The method finds that for shaft walls: "In normal ground, the stresses in a lining with thickness
10% of the shaft diameter are found satisfactory at depths to 15 metres assuming that ground
pressure is developed by the full depth from the surface without arching, and the maximum
permissible tensile stress is 1.4 MPa."
Based on the above, manhole depths in excess of 15 metres would need careful analysis.
5.6. Traffic Ioads
Traffic loads and the associated risk to sewer manholes must be carefully evaluated. Manholes in
roadways would be subject to impact and vibration. Manholes at some distance from roads may
still be subject to heavy earthmoving or construction equipment.
5.7. Surcharge
Internal surcharge will only occur in exceptional circumstances. Crack width control is not
required for internal surcharge reasons;
AS3735 applies mainly to structures acting in tension to 'retain' the liquid (i.e. tanks). This is
directly the opposite of the normal shaft condition where external water pressures tend to put
the cylindrical shell into compression (tending to close cracks);

5.8. Groundwater LeveI
High groundwater levels represent a risk of infiltration. Groundwater above invert in dry weather
creates a risk of continuous infiltration. Groundwater above invert in wet weather creates a risk of
intermittent infiltration.

5.9. Groundwater Chemistry
Geotechnical investigations should include an assessment of the risk of saline or acidic
groundwater.
5.10. H2S
The bacterial conversion of H
2
S gas delivers sulphuric acid to the internal surfaces of sewer
structures. This sulphuric acid reacts with the alkaline cement matrix in concrete and the resulting
corrosion products can be effortlessly washed away. The addition of steel reinforcement to sewer
manholes only serves to increase the risk of deterioration of the manhole.

5.11. ManhoIe Shape/ Contents
Complex manholes, containing additional structural elements, would be more likely to involve
some risk of structural failure and should therefore be reinforced.

6. Design of ManhoIes
6.1. GeneraI
6.1.1. Design for Temperature and Shrinkage Cracking
Concrete elements thicker than about 500mm are generally regarded as 'thick' and subject to
significant temperature rise due to the heat of hydration of the cement and, subsequently, greater
cooling back to ambient temperature.

Combined with drying shrinkage, thermal shrinkage represents a risk of early age cracking and
needs to be addressed through:
Controlling the cement content of the concrete;
Limiting the temperature of concrete on placement and during hydration; and
Considering other issues such as shading, water curing, restraint, removal of forms etc.

Drying shrinkage is more likely if:
Concrete is exposed to an above ground environment and subject to the drying effects of sun,
wind, and higher humidity (not likely in an underground manhole);
Parameters such as water:cement ratio and slump are not controlled by the specification; or
Concrete curing is inadequate.

6.1.2. Design for InternaI 'Surcharge' Pressure
In unreinforced concrete manholes, internal surcharge pressures must be transferred directly to the
surrounding ground to avoid any tensile stresses in the concrete. Grouting is used to ensure the
cylindrical concrete shaft remains in contact with the surrounding ground.
6.1.3. Design of ManhoIe Tops and Top SIabs
Manhole tops (conical) and top slabs (flat) should be designed to meet the expected loads in
accordance with Australian Standards such as AS1170 and with standard drawings and guidelines.
Reference can also be made to past standard drawings such as "Manhole Tops - General
Arrangement", drawing no. S 2.020.30.10. Loads could include:
Uniformly distributed live load e.g. 10kPa; or
Worst case vehicle loads e.g. W80 wheel load, A160 Axle Load or SM1600 Truck Load.
The design of manhole tops and top slabs is not addressed further in this report.

6.1.4. Strength of Concrete
Concrete strength and other parameters should be specified after taking into account the
requirements of Australian Standards such as AS3600 and AS3735 (however some of the
requirements of these standards are focussed on the protection of reinforcement and may not be
relevant). In accordance with AS3735, exposure classifications B1 and B2 can be addressed with
32 MPa concrete. Typically, concrete strength has increased over time and current grades may be
more than sufficient for sewer manholes. For example, the MMBW standard drawing "Manholes -
General Notes" dated 1981 (drawing no. S 2.020.30.01), specifies grade "MJ" concrete. This
concrete had a characteristic strength (f'c) of 20 MPa.
6.2. Design in Un-Reinforced, PIain Concrete
6.2.1. GeneraI
This approach acknowledges past practice for sewer manholes in Melbourne to, as far as
practicable, "avoid the use of reinforcement" (refer Colombo Plan Lectures, Melbourne and
Metropolitan Board of Works, 1977, Lecture 8, p14). Past practice included shaft wall thicknesses
of 10% of shaft diameter in "normal ground" and maximum permissible concrete tensile stresses of
1.4MPa (for elastic analysis with working loads).
Design should be undertaken to the limiting stresses (where applicable) in the Australian Standard
for Concrete Structures (AS3600) Section 15 using limit state design and ultimate load cases (Note
'plain concrete' is the terminology adopted by AS3600 for unreinforced concrete).
The scope of AS3600 Section 15 is limited to "members in which a crack will not induce a
collapse". As manhole shafts are circular and surrounded by solid ground, arching action is
applicable and mechanisms of collapse are limited (as evidenced by numerous unreinforced sewer
manholes in Melbourne). The figure below indicates the support provided by the surrounding
ground.

Yvw3eWerVlRe|rlorcererl0u|de||res.doc PA0E 1Z
The scope of Section 15 is also limited to "plain concrete floors and pavements resting on the
ground, footings and bored piers". Therefore, plain concrete shaft walls cannot be designed 'to the
letter' of AS3600. The Victorian water industrys past practice is effectively an 'in-house' standard.
6.2.2. Compression
Unreinforced concrete shafts should be designed for axial (hoop) compression in accordance with
the strength limits specified in AS3600 Section 15.
Wall thicknesses should be selected to ensure the axial compression (hoop) loads in the shaft wall
do not exceed the ultimate compressive strength of the plain concrete.
6.2.3. Tension
The axial (hoop) tension load case, where shafts may be internally surcharged to natural surface
and external ground water may be at sewer invert level (an extreme load case) is assumed to
transfer loads directly into the surrounding rock.
6.2.4. Grouting
Backfill or contact grouting was specified in past projects to ensure contact between the concrete
walls of the shafts and the surrounding ground. The Specification for the North Western Sewer
Stages 1 & 3 for example includes in Clause 6.5(b): "The Contractor shall backfill grout all spaces
... in the walls of the shafts remaining unfilled after placing the concrete lining against rock has
otherwise been completed".
Grouting should reduce tensile cracking due to internal surcharge loads. Grout 'takes' may be
minimal depending on concrete shrinkage and rock quality. Grouting could be omitted given the
risk of internal surcharge is relatively small.
6.2.5. WaII/Base Joint
The joint between the shaft wall and the manhole base needs to be checked for shear stress as the
external loads are close to their maximum and the cross-sectional area of the wall is limited. Deep
manholes may need thicker walls.
6.2.6. Exceptions
Nominally unreinforced shafts may still need some targeted reinforcement for specific situations
such as:
At the top of the shaft to support out-of-balance soil or vehicle loads;
In flat (planar) elements subject to bending (e.g. landings);

Around penetrations in the cylindrical shell;
At points of concentrated load such as anchorage points for landings; and
At the manhole base especially around stilling chambers.

6.2.7. ServiceabiIity of PIain Concrete
As AS3600 Section 15 has no serviceability requirements for plain concrete (there is no
reinforcement). Consideration should be given to likely groundwater inflow rates, autogenous
healing of cracks, H
2
S corrosion and groundwater chemistry.
6.2.8. ThermaI and Drying Shrinkage
The potential for shrinkage cracks to form in plain concrete shaft walls during curing was assessed.
The two main factors are (a) thermal shrinkage and (b) drying shrinkage.
a) Thermal shrinkage depends on:
The coefficient of thermal expansion (assumed to be 11 x 10
-6
/C but with basalt
aggregate could be 8 x 10
-6
/C ); and
The fall in temperature from the hydration peak to minimum ambient (a fall of about
30C).
Anecdotal evidence suggests cracks are uncommon. The apparent absence of significant cracks in
similar, previously constructed shafts may be due to the method of construction or the
specification. A review of the specification would be required to ensure appropriate limitations for
heat of hydration and temperature of concrete on placement.
b) Drying shrinkage is not likely to be severe as:
One surface of the shaft wall will be cast against rock (or against the temporary support);
Much of the surface cast against rock will be below the water table;
The other surface will be exposed to an underground environment, with limited exposure
to the drying effects of the sun, wind and low humidity;
The water-cement ratio of the concrete mix is limited in the specification;
The application of water for curing is under the control of the contractor; and
Ultimately the shaft is in a moist environment (unlike most other structures).

Also, Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) and low water/cement ratios mean that the
quantity of water ultimately lost from the concrete as-placed, is minimised.
It can be concluded that there is potential for shrinkage cracks. It also seems apparent that past
practice resulted in few, if any, reported cracks.

6.3. Design in Reinforced Concrete to AS3600
AS3600 requires reinforcement to be designed for (a) strength, (b) serviceability and (c) durability
as follows:
a) Design for bending and shear strength finds, in most cases, the reinforcement required is less
than the minimum required for serviceability (i.e. reinforcement design is not often determined
by loading);
b) Design for serviceability mainly relates to crack control and basically requires a minimum
reinforcement area of 0.45% to 0.60% of the cross-sectional area of the concrete (with a
maximum depth of 250mm); and
c) The minimum requirements for durability relate mainly to cover and have no impact on
reinforcement quantities.

6.4. Design in Reinforced Concrete to AS3735
The scope of AS3735 specifies that it does not apply to the design of "aqueducts, hydraulic tunnels
or similar structures". AS3735 is aimed mainly at tanks and similar structures in which the walls
retain liquids using tension or flexure. The applicability of AS3735 to shaft structures (which
mainly exclude liquids using compression) is marginal.
AS3735 requires reinforcement to be designed for (a) minimum reinforcement ratio and (b)
limiting stresses.
a) The minimum reinforcement ratio differs for restrained and unrestrained concrete. Based on
an assumption of full restraint, a minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.48% to 1.28% of the cross-
sectional area of the concrete, depending on bar diameter (with a maximum depth of 250mm)
is required. Partial restraint is allowed a 25% reduction in reinforcement ratio. This provision
is intended to achieve a mean crack width of 0.15mm.
b) Reinforcement design to limit stresses specifies stress limits of 110 to 150MPa (compared to
200 to 240MPa in AS3600). This provision is intended to limit mean crack widths to 0.10mm
in direct tension or 0.15mm in flexure.

The above requirements significantly increase the quantity of reinforcement required. However
where reinforcement would be in an oxygen free environment (i.e. in the base of the shaft below
the invert level of the sewer), crack width control and the durability provisions of AS3735 should
not apply.

7. ConcIusions
Many sewer shafts exist and perform adequately in Melbourne, without any reinforcement in
extensive areas of the cylindrical shell and the use of plain, unreinforced concrete in shaft walls has
been accepted practice for many decades.

In thick unreinforced concrete sections, if temperatures and shrinkage are not controlled, there is
some risk of wider cracks and greater groundwater inflow (when compared to reinforced concrete
in which the reinforcement would control the crack widths). However the absence of
reinforcement has other benefits such as improved access for concrete placement.

Plain concrete has lower risk of structural deterioration over the long-term and durability
advantages because of the absence of steel reinforcement. In terms of cost, the savings gained by
adopting plain concrete need to be off-set against additional cost items such as grouting.

It is concluded that:
a) There are numerous examples of unreinforced concrete shafts that have provided
acceptable performance for up to 50 years;
b) There is some risk of shrinkage cracking in concrete shaft walls, particularly where the
wall thickness exceeds 500mm. Shrinkage cracks in a plain concrete manhole would tend
to be wider than in an equivalent reinforced concrete manhole even if the shrinkage was
the same, as reinforcement is designed to limit crack widths and distribute cracks; If
cracks develop, and autogenous healing does not occur, repairs could be implemented
before commissioning the sewer;
c) Past specifications included contact grouting and temperature restrictions on concrete. A
specification for plain concrete in manholes should include temperature limits to reduce the
likelihood of thermal shrinkage (e.g. a specified maximum temperature on placement, a
specified absolute maximum temperature and a specified maximum temperature
differential from interior to surface). The specification could include sufficient water
curing to virtually prevent drying shrinkage;
d) Shrinkage cracks in an unreinforced cylindrical manhole are unlikely to result in any viable
mechanism of collapse as the surrounding ground prevents any outward deflection and
arching action transfers the loads into axial compression within the shaft wall. The cost of
contact grouting and possible crack repairs would reduce savings associated with plain
concrete;
e) As the depth and diameter of manholes increase, so do the consequences of structural
failure. However there is no 'line-in-the-sand' beyond which reinforcement becomes
absolutely necessary.

f) Balanced soil and hydrostatic loads do not induce bending in shaft walls and reinforcement
is not necessary to support these loads (however axial stresses need to be within
appropriate limits).
g) Direct tension in unreinforced shaft walls (due to internal surcharge) can be addressed by
grouting to ensure contact with the surrounding ground or by reinforcement.
h) The design of unreinforced concrete manholes is addressed in the Colombo Plan Lectures
(MMBW, 1977). The use of AS3600 to design unreinforced manholes would require some
assumptions and interpretation. The Clients or the designer would need to accept any risks
associated with plain concrete (such as the uncertainty as to whether AS3600 Section 15 is
applicable) before approving any design which excludes reinforcing steel in the shaft walls.
i) The geology surrounding a manhole and any unbalanced or concentrated ground loads on
the manhole structure is one of the main issues to consider in determining the need for
reinforcement.
j) Heavy vehicles and associated vibrations or issues of safety or unacceptable risk may
dictate the need for reinforcement, especially in the upper portion of a manhole.
k) Infiltration, and the potential impact on groundwater or on the sewerage system (e.g. salt
water at the treatment plant) could also determine the need for reinforcement.
l) The design of reinforcement in manhole shafts should respond to specific requirements for
infiltration flow rates (including salt load and associated crack widths), ground and vehicle
loads, safety and environmental risks. References such as AS3600, AS3735 and guideline
documents such as CIRIA C660 may be required to achieve a rational design.
m) The inclusion of reinforcement in manholes represents a long-term durability risk as
carbonation, chloride ingress etc. would eventually reduce the protection that concrete
provides reinforcing steel, and corrosion and spalling would result. Possible future costs
for rehabilitation of corroded reinforcement could be substantial;

8. Recommendations
It is recommended that YVW should:
a) Avoid the use of reinforcement in manholes where practicable;
b) Specify appropriate controls on concrete temperature and shrinkage (to avoid cracks);
c) Specify appropriate grouting for unreinforced manholes at risk from perimeter shrinkage
gaps (to ensure contact between the concrete and the surrounding ground);
d) Provide reinforcement in manholes where infiltration, unbalanced loads, traffic loads,
safety or risk issues cannot be addressed more effectively in other ways (such as by
increasing concrete thickness).

Appendix A Existing Unreinforced ManhoIes
Background data gathered to support the findings of this report is presented in the table below.
Drawings from a range of sewers designed in the past but still in operation were reviewed and
sample data collected. The manholes listed were selected to represent the upper end of the size
range normally managed by Yarra Valley Water.
Item Sewer M/H
no.
Date Depth
(m)
Internal
Dia.
(mm)
Wall
Thickness
(mm)
Un
reinforced
cylindrical
shaft?
Reinforcement
Location
Sewer
Dia
(mm)
1 Balwyn Br. RS 1983 13.5 2100 300 yes Top slab and
drop pipe
surround
525
2 Bolton St. Br. 1982 2.8 1800 300 yes Top slab 300
3 Bower Br. RS 1980 6.3 2400 325 yes Top slab, vortex
and drop pipe
surround
525
5 Cardinal Rd Br.
RS
34A 1982 5.0 2400 min 250 yes Top slab,
landing
750
4 Darling Br. 3 1987 2.5 1500 225 yes Nil (top slab not
shown)
450
6 Eltham MS 26 1980 10.0 1800 300 yes Top slab,
landing
900
7 Gardiners Ck.
Main RS
75 1975 29.5 3650 380 - 450 yes Top slab,
vortex, landings
and base to 2m
above top of
pipe
1800
8 Kew Nth 1976 13.0 1600 225 yes Top slab,
landing, mesh at
table
450
9 Keilor Br. 24 1979 8.0 1070 150 yes Landing (cone
top)
300
10 Koonung Ck.
MS
22 1980 6.6 2400 300 yes Top slab 1200
11 Kororoit Ck
MS
141 1970 9.5 2000 250 yes Top slab,
landing and
around sewer
pipe penetration
975
12 Kyle Rd MS
Sect 4
20 1979 8.5 1800 300 yes Top slab,
landing and
around sewer
pipe penetration
750
13 Merlynston Br.
RS
6 1981 15 2200 300 yes Drop pipe
surround,
internal wall
600
14 Merri Ck. Main
RS
18
29
1964 11.0 1500 225 yes Top slab,
landing, vortex
1050
15 Moreland Br. 1981 3.6 1500 150 yes 600
16 Pascoe Vale Rd
MS
std 1958 3.5 -
4.5
1350 225 yes Around cast
insitu sewer
750
17 Prahran East
Br. RS
1983 9.2 2000 225 yes Drop pipe
surround
450
18 Preston IS 7 1984 30.0 1500 225 yes Landing, vortex 600
19 Queen's Lane
Br. RS
typ 1984 3.0 -
9.0
1220 225 yes Landings 450
20 Trafalgar Av,
Br.
1 1984 10.9 1800 250 yes Landing, top
slab.
700

It can be seen from the table above that manholes ranging in size up to approximately 30 metres
deep, 3.6 metres in diameter and on sewers to 1800mm diameter have been successfully
constructed in plain concrete (where "plain concrete" is the term applied in AS3600 to unreinforced
concrete (or concrete containing some reinforcement but assumed to be unreinforced).

It is assumed that the manholes described above have performed satisfactorily as reports on defects
are rare.

Generally, reinforcement is only used in flat/planar elements where bending is possible (i.e.
elements such as landings, top slabs and around penetrations). In circular manholes subject to
uniform loading, the cylindrical shaft of the manhole is mainly subject to compression and
consequently reinforcement would not be stressed.

Larger, basically unreinforced manholes
also exist along many of Melbourne's
trunk sewers.

Zone D3 of Western Trunk Sewer
drawing C.3.250.04.36, 'Old Sneydes
Rd. Shaft Wall Reinforcement Details'
(see adjacent figure), specifies
"reinforcement not required" over much
of the height of the 35 metre high x 6.2
metre diameter shaft.

The drawing is dated 1988 and illustrates
the design approach typically adopted for
the plain, cylindrical portion of trunk
sewer shafts. Reinforcement was
specified at sewer level and at top slab
level.

Maintenance of Deep Manhole

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maintenance of Deep Manhole

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recently installed complex sewer system access chambers (or parts thereof) were designed as reinforced concrete

You might also like