Click for previous page

Design of Pressure Pipes 239

that the highest allowable deflection for a pipe determines the calcu-
lated behavior since the residual bending strain for an initial highly
deflected pipe is more than the residual strain for a low initial
deflected pipe.
Recommendation. Combined strain should be calculated as follows:

c r (4.25)
2tE \DI\D
where ec = combined strain
Df shape factor, from 3 to 8 (3 for uniform compaction and a
pipe stiffness greater than 40 lb/in2, 6 for poor haunch or
nonuniform compaction, 8 for nonuniform compaction and
pipe stiffness less than 15 lb/in2)
R = rerounding factor = 1 Pn/435
P = internal pressure
t = wall thickness
E = Young's modulus
D = pipe diameter
Ay = vertical pipe deflection
Pn = internal pressure, lb/in2 (0 < Pn < 435)

Thrust restraint
Unbalanced hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces in piping systems
are called thrust forces. In the range of pressures and fluid velocities
found in waterworks or wastewater piping, the hydrodynamic thrust
forces are generally insignificant in relation to the hydrostatic thrust
forces and are usually ignored. Simply stated, thrust forces occur at
any point in the piping system where the direction or cross-sectional
area of the waterway changes. Thus, there will be thrust forces at
bends, reducers, offsets, tees, wyes, dead ends, and valves.
Balancing thrust forces in underground pipelines is usually accom-
plished with bearing or gravity thrust blocks, restrained joint systems,
or combinations of these methods. The internal hydrostatic pressure
acts perpendicularly on any plane with a force equal to the pressure P
times the area A of the plane. All components of these forces, acting
radially within a pipe, are balanced by circumferential tension in the
wall of the pipe. Axial components acting on a plane perpendicular to
the pipe through a straight section of the pipe are balanced internally
by the force acting on each side of the plane. Consider, however, the
case of a bend, as shown in Fig. 4.31.
The forces PA acting axially along each leg of the bend are not bal-
anced. The vector sum of these forces is shown as T. This is the thrust
240 Chapter Four

T = 2PA sin 0/2

Figure 4.31 Thrust force. (Reprinted from Thrust Restraint Design

for Ductile Iron Pipe, by permission of the Ductile Iron Pipe Research
Association.)

force. To prevent separation of the joints, a reaction equal to and in the

opposite direction of T must be established.
Figure 4.32 depicts the net thrust force at various other configura-
tions. In each case, the expression for T can be derived by the vector
addition of the axial forces.

Thrust blocks. For buried pipelines, thrust restraint is achieved by

transferring the thrust force to the soil structure outside the pipe. The
objective of the design is to distribute the thrust forces to the soil
structure in such a manner that joint separation will not occur in unre-
strained joints.
Figure 4.33 shows standard types of thrust blocking commonly used
in pressurized water systems.
Table 4.11 displays the thrust which may develop at fittings and
appurtenances for each 100 lb/in2 of internal pressure. These are
approximate values. Thrusts from greater or lesser pressures may be
proportioned accordingly. The largest thrust may result from the test
pressure, which is usually higher than the operating pressure.
One method for sizing thrust blocks uses assumed soil bearing val-
ues. Table 4.12 gives approximate allowable bearing loads for various
types of soil. These allowable bearing loads are estimates only, for hor-
izontal thrusts, and for pipe buried 2 ft deep or deeper. When doubt
exists, safe bearing loads should be established by soil bearing tests.
 Design of Pressure Pipes 241

Dead end

T=P(A,-A 2 )

Reducer

Wye

Figure 4.32 Thrust forces. (Reprinted from Thrust Restraint Design for Ductile Iron Pipe,
by permission of the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association.}

The design calculation of a thrust block is illustrated in the next

example.
Example Problem 4.2 Required is thrust block at 10-in 90 elbow. Maximum
test pressure is 200 lb/in2. Soil type is sand and gravel with clay.
Calculate thrust. From Table 4.11, thrust on 10-in 90 elbow is 13,680 Ib
per 100 lb/in2 operating pressure. Total thrust = 2(13,680) = 27,360 Ib.
Calculate thrust block size. From Table 4.12, safe bearing load for sand
and gravel with clay is 2000 lb/ft2; total thrust support area = 27,360/2000
= 13.68 ft2.
Select type of thrust block. From Fig. 4.33, select type 3.

Restrained joints. An alternate method of thrust restraint uses

restrained joints. Various mechanical locking-type joints are available
to provide longitudinal restraint. Of course, a welded steel joint is con-
sidered to be rigid and provides maximum longitudinal restraint.
242 Chapter Four

1. Through line connection, tee

If thrusts, due to high pressure, are expected, anchor valves
2. Through line connection, cross
as below. At vertical bends, anchor to resist outward thrusts.
used as tee
3. Direction change, elbow
4. Change line size, reducer
5. Direction change, tee used
as elbow
6. Direction change, cross used
as elbow
7. Direction change
8. Through line connection, wye
9. Valve anchor
10. Direction change vertical,
bend anchor
Figure 4.33 Types of thrust blocking. (Reprinted from Handbook ofPVC Pipe,21 by per-
mission of the Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association.)

Restrained joint systems are subjected to the same thrust forces, but
these forces are resisted or distributed over the restrained pipe length.
The necessary length of restrained pipe interacting with the soil may
be determined by the design engineer. Referring to Fig. 4.34, the
restrained length on each side of the joint is L. The frictional resis-
tance and bearing resistance are given by Fs and Rb, respectively.
Summation of forces results in the following:
A A 1 0
PA sin = FSL cos + RbL cos
2t 2t 2
or
PA tan (6/2)
L=
 Design of Pressure Pipes 243

TABLE 4.11 Thrust Developed per 100 Ib/in2 Pressure

Fitting 90 Fitting 45 Valve tees
Pipe size, in elbow, Ibf elbow, Ibf dead ends, Ibf
4 2,560 1,390 1,810
6 5,290 2,860 3,740
8 9,100 4,920 6,430
10 13,680 7,410 9,680
12 19,350 10,470 13,690
14 26,010 14,090 18,390
16 33,640 18,230 23,780
18 42,250 22,890 29,860
20 51,840 28,090 36,640
24 73,950 40,070 52,280
30 113,770 61,640 80,420
36 162,970 88,310 115,210

TABLE 4.12 Estimated Bearing Load

Soil type lb/ft2
Muck, peat, etc. 0
Soft clay 500
Sand 1000
Sand and gravel 1500
Sand and gravel with clay 2000
Sand and gravel cemented with clay 4000
Hard pan 5000

Lcos -L

Figure 4.34 Free-body diagram for pipe with restrained joints. (Reprinted from Thrust
Restraint Design for Ductile Iron Pipe, by permission of the Ductile Iron Pipe Research
Association.}
244 Chapter Four

where P = internal pressure

A = cross-sectional area of pipe
Fs = frictional force
Rb = bearing force
For a cohesionless soil, the friction force Fs may be calculated as
follows:
Fs = W tan
where W = 2We + Wp

We = total soil load

Wp = weight of pipe plus water
f$ = friction factor between pipe and soil
4> = internal friction angle of soil
The above method will generally produce conservative results. If
cohesion is present, cohesive forces will also be involved, which will
make results even more conservative. However, since cohesive forces
are time-dependent, it is recommended that they be neglected.

Safety factors
Design of pressure pipe is based upon certain performance limits such
as long-term hydrostatic burst pressure and/or crush load acting
either independently or simultaneously. The allowable total stress or
strain is equal to the failure stress or strain reduced by a safety factor.
For example,

<TA = J or 8A = JL

where OA = allowable stress

ay = failure stress
A = allowable strain
f = failure strain
SF = safety factor
The total working stress/strain must be equal to or less than the
allowable stress/strain. If a combined loading analysis is not
required, stresses due to internal pressure and external loads are
evaluated separately, and the safety factor is applied to the largest
value. For combined loading, the safety factor is applied to the com-
bined stress.
 Design of Pressure Pipes 245

For nonlinear failure theories such as the Schlick formula, safety

factors must be applied to both internal pressure and external load.
These two factors need not be equal.
For plastic pipe, the design is based on life rather than a failure
stress. As previously discussed in this chapter, a hydrostatic design
basis (stress) is established on the basis of a life of 100,000 h. The
design stress is the hydrostatic design basis reduced by a factor of safe-
ty. A factor of safety of 2.0 will give, essentially, infinite life since the
stress regression curve is linear on a log-log plot (see Fig. 4.6).
Standards for each pipe product may list recommended safety fac-
tors. Also, manufacturers often recommend certain safety factors for
their products. The bases for the calculations of these are often quite
different. The design engineer should be aware of these differences
when comparing products and should always have the option of requir-
ing a safety factor that is different from the recommended value. The
need for safety factors arises mainly from uncertainties. These uncer-
tainties are due to causes ranging from the pipe manufacturer to the
pipe installation conditions. The greater the uncertainty, the higher
the safety factor should be. The engineer should be very cautious in
utilizing safety factors that are lower than those recommended by
national standards or by the manufacturer.

References
1. ASTM. 1976. Standard Method of Test for Time-to-Failure of Plastic Pipe under
Long-Term Hydrostatic Pressure, ASTM D 1598. Philadelphia.
2. American Water Works Association. AWWA Standards Mil, M9, M23, C150, C200,
C206, C300, C301, C303, C400, C401, C402, C403, C900, C901, and C950. Denver,
Colo.
3. Andrews, James S. 1970. Water Hammer Generated during Pipeline Filling.
Master's thesis. Fort Collins: Colorado State University.
4. Bair, D. A. 1984. Analysis of Strain vs. Internal Pressure of Buried FRP Pipe from
Tests and Finite Element Modeling. Master of science thesis. Logan: Utah State
University.
5. Bishop, R. R. 1983. Course Notebook. Logan: Utah State University.
6. Bowman, J. A. 1990. The Fatigue Response of Polyvinyl Chloride and Polyethylene
Pipe Systems. Buried Plastic Pipe Technology, ASTM STP 1093. Eds. George S.
Buczala and Michael J. Cassady. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
7. Carlstrom, B. I. 1981. Structural Design of Underground GRP Pipe. Paper present-
ed at the International Conference of Underground Plastic Pipe, New Orleans.
March.
8. Cole, B. W, and L. O. Timblin, Jr. 1981. Strain Calculations for FRP Pressure Pipe.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Underground Plastic Pipe, New
Orleans. March.
9. Devine, Miles. 1980. Course Notebook. Logan: Utah State University.
10. Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. 1984. Thrust Restraint Design for Ductile
Iron Pipe. Birmingham, Ala.
11. Hucks, Robert T. 1972. Design of PVC Water Distribution Pipe. Civil Engineering
ASCE 42(6):70-73.
246 Chapter Four

12. Jeppson, Roland W., Gordon H. Flammer, and Gary Z. Watters. 1972. Experimental
Study of Water Hammer in Buried PVC and Permastran Pipes. PRWG0113-1.
March. Logan: Utah Water Research Laboratory/College of Engineering, Utah State
University.
13. Jeppson, Roland W, Gordon H. Flammer, and Gary Z. Watters. 1972. Experimental
Study of Water Hammer in Buried PVC and Permastran Pipes. April. Logan: Utah
Water Research Laboratory/College of Engineering, Utah State University.
14. Kerr, S. Logan. May 1985. Water HammerA Problem in Engineering Design.
Consulting Engineer.
15. Lame, G. 1852. Lecons sur la theorie delasticite. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
16. Marshall, G. P., S. Brogden, and M. A. Shepherd. 1998. Evaluation of the Surge and
Fatigue Resistance of PVC and PE Pipeline Materials for Use in the U.K. Water
Industry. Water, U.K.
17. Moser, A. P. 1983. Course Notebook. Logan: Utah State University.
18. Moser, A. P., John Clark, and D. P. Bair. 1985. Strains Induced by Combined Loading
in Buried Pressurized Fiberglass Pipe. In Proceedings ASCE International
Conference on Advances in Underground Pipeline Engineering. Madison, Wis.:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
19. Sears, Edward C. 1964. Ductile Iron Pipe. AWWA Journal, January, p. 12, Table II.
20. Streeter, Victor L. 1958. Fluid Mechanics, 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp.
175-187.
21. Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association. 1991. Handbook of PVC Pipe. 3d ed. Dallas.
22. Vinson, H. W. 1981. Response of PVC Pipe to Large, Repetitive Pressure Surges. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Underground Plastic Pipe. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
23. Walker, Robert P. 1983. Course Notebook. Logan: Utah State University.
24. Watters, G. Z. 1971. The Behavior of PVC Pipe under the Action of Water Hammer
Pressure Waves. PRWG-93. Logan: Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State
University.