ATTACHMENT 7-VI

PIPE STRESS CALCULATIONS

 Table 1: General Calculation Inputs
6" HDPE Leachate Collection Pipes

DO = = 6.625 in.
pipe outside diameter, in.
t= pipe wall thickness, in. = 0.602 in.
PT = total external pressure, psf = 28,080 psf
= 195.00 psi
psi (for 100 yrs,
E= apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi = 22,140
pipe at 90o F)
one-dimensional modulus, (for 90% standard proctor and vertical waste (for total pressure
MS = = 4,200
and soil stress (Table 3̻12, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) stated above)
Poisson’s ratio of soil, to model granular drainage layer, (Table 3-13, (value for coarse
ȝ= = 0.15
Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) sand)
The recommended long-term compressive strength design value for HDPE pipe = psi, (for pipe at 90o
820
(psi) (Tables B.1.2 & C.1, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) F)

RF = As calculated in ing deflection tab. = 2,156

Deformation Factor, (Figure 3-6, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) for RF as in

DF = = 1.42
ring deflection.
ij= Calibration Factor, (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.55 (for granular soils)
RH = Geometry Factor, (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 1 (for deep burial)

Summary/ConclusionTable

6" Leachate Collection Pipe

Ring Deflection (7.5% allowable) 6.96%
Wall Buckling F.S. = 2.3

Page 1
 Ring Deflection Analysis

Calculate the secant modulus of the soil, ES, using equation 10; determine the rigidity factor, RF, using equation 9
and the soil strain using equation 8. The rigidity factor is used to determine the deformation factor which is used
to calculate the percent deflection, ǻX/DM x 100, of the pipe using equation 7.

(1  ȝ) x (1  2 x ȝ) <10>
ES MS x
(1  ȝ)
Where: ES = secant modulus of the granular drainage layer, psi = 3,978
one-dimensional modulus, (for 90% standard proctor and vertical waste
MS = and soil stress (Table 3̻12, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 4,200
Poisson’s ratio of soil, used to represent the granular drainage layer
ȝ= material (Table 3-13, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.15

12 x E s x (DR  1) 3 <9>
RF
E
Where: RF = rigidity factor = 2,156
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, psi (see calculated value above) = 3,978
DR = dimension ratio, (DR = Do/t) = 11.0
Do = 6.625
t = 0.602
E= apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi = 22,140

PT <8>
H
144 x Es
Where: PT = total external pressure, psf = 28,080.00
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, psi (see calculated value above) = 3,978
İ = soil strain = 0.049

ǻX/DM = DF x İ <7>
Where: ǻX/DM = deflection = 0.0696
= Deformation Factor, (Figure 3-6, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) for RF
DF as calculated above. = 1.42
İ = soil strain = 0.049

Percent Deflection = deflection x 100 = 6.958

The recommended allowable ring deflection for non-pressure pipe is 7.5% which provides a large factor of safety
against instability and strain (Plastic Pipe Institute, Chapter 6, 2015).
Istheringdeflectionallowable?(actual<allowable) Yes

Page 2
Pipe Wall Buckling Analysis

Calculate the allowable pipe wall buckling pressure, PCR.

2.4 x M x R H
PCR x (E x I) 1 3 x (E S *) 2 3 < 11 >
DM
Where: PCR = allowable buckling pressure, psi = 453
ij = Calibration Factor (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.55
RH = Geometry Factor, (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 1
DM = mean diameter (DO – t), in. = 6.023
DO = pipe outside diameter, in. = 6.625
t = pipe wall thickness, in. = 0.602
E = apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi = 22,140
I = pipe wall moment of inertia, in4/in (t3/12) = 0.0182
ES* = ES/(1-ȝ), psi = 4,680
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, (see calculation in Ring Deflection) = 3,978
= Poisson’s ratio of soil, (from Table 3-13, used to represent the
ȝ granular drainage layer material, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.15

The allowable buckling pressure should be compared to the total “static load” pressure, PT, on the pipe.
Actual,psi:PT= 195
Allowable,psi:PCR= 453

Factor of safety for wall buckling is:

F.S. = PCR / PT = 2.32

Page 3
 Table 1: General Calculation Inputs
6" Sch 80 PVC Leachate Collection Pipes

DO = = 6.625 in.
pipe outside diameter, in.
t= pipe wall thickness, in. = 0.432 in.
PT = total external pressure, psf = 28,080 psf
= 195.00 psi
psi (for 50 yr, pipe
E= apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi = 75,000
at 90o F)
one-dimensional modulus, (for 90% standard proctor and vertical waste (for total pressure
MS = = 4,200
and soil stress (Table 3̻12, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) stated above)
Poisson’s ratio of soil, to model granular drainage layer, (Table 3-13, (value for coarse
ȝ= = 0.15
Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) sand)
The strength design value for PVC pipe (psi), reduced 50% to consider long psi, (for pipe at 90o
= 3600
term conditions. F)

RF = As calculated in ing deflection tab. = 1,861

Deformation Factor, (Figure 3-6, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) for RF as in

DF = = 1.42
ring deflection.
ij= Calibration Factor, (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.55 (for granular soils)
RH = Geometry Factor, (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 1 (for deep burial)

Summary/ConclusionTable

6" Sch 80 PVC Leachate

Collection Pipe
Ring Deflection (7.5% allowable) 6.96%
Wall Buckling F.S. = 2.4

Page 4
 Ring Deflection Analysis

Calculate the secant modulus of the soil, ES, using equation 10; determine the rigidity factor, RF, using equation 9
and the soil strain using equation 8. The rigidity factor is used to determine the deformation factor which is used
to calculate the percent deflection, ǻX/DM x 100, of the pipe using equation 7.

(1  ȝ) x (1  2 x ȝ) <10>
ES MS x
(1  ȝ)
Where: ES = secant modulus of the granular drainage layer, psi = 3,978
one-dimensional modulus, (for 90% standard proctor and vertical waste
MS = and soil stress (Table 3̻12, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 4,200
Poisson’s ratio of soil, used to represent the granular drainage layer
ȝ= material (Table 3-13, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.15

12 x E s x (DR  1) 3 <9>
RF
E
Where: RF = rigidity factor = 1,861
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, psi (see calculated value above) = 3,978
DR = dimension ratio, (DR = Do/t) = 15.3
Do = 6.625
t = 0.432
E= apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi = 75,000

PT <8>
H
144 x Es
Where: PT = total external pressure, psf = 28,080.00
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, psi (see calculated value above) = 3,978
İ = soil strain = 0.049

ǻX/DM = DF x İ <7>
Where: ǻX/DM = deflection = 0.0696
= Deformation Factor, (Figure 3-6, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) for RF
DF as calculated above. = 1.42
İ = soil strain = 0.049

Percent Deflection = deflection x 100 = 6.958

The recommended allowable ring deflection for non-pressure pipe is 7.5% which provides a large factor of safety
against instability and strain.
Istheringdeflectionallowable?(actual<allowable) Yes

Page 5
Pipe Wall Buckling Analysis

Calculate the allowable pipe wall buckling pressure, PCR.

2.4 x M x R H
PCR x (E x I) 1 3 x (E S *) 2 3 < 11 >
DM
Where: PCR = allowable buckling pressure, psi = 474
ij = Calibration Factor (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.55
RH = Geometry Factor, (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 1
DM = mean diameter (DO – t), in. = 6.193
DO = pipe outside diameter, in. = 6.625
t = pipe wall thickness, in. = 0.432
E = apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi = 75,000
I = pipe wall moment of inertia, in4/in (t3/12) = 0.0067
ES* = ES/(1-ȝ), psi = 4,680
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, (see calculation in Ring Deflection) = 3,978
= Poisson’s ratio of soil, (from Table 3-13, used to represent the
ȝ granular drainage layer material, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.15

The allowable buckling pressure should be compared to the total “static load” pressure, PT, on the pipe.
Actual,psi:PT= 195
Allowable,psi:PCR= 474

Factor of safety for wall buckling is:

F.S. = PCR / PT = 2.43

Page 6
 Table 1: General Calculation Inputs
18" HDPE SDR 11 Sump Riser Pipes

DO = = 18 in.
pipe outside diameter, in.
t= pipe wall thickness, in. = 1.636 in.
PT = total external pressure, psf = 4,800 psf
= 33.33 psi
psi (for 100 yrs,
E= apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi = 22,140
pipe at 90o F)
one-dimensional modulus, (for 90% standard proctor and vertical waste (for total pressure
MS = = 4,200
and soil stress (Table 3̻12, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) stated above)
Poisson’s ratio of soil, to model granular drainage layer, (Table 3-13, (value for coarse
ȝ = 0.15
Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) sand)
The recommended long-term compressive strength design value for HDPE pipe = psi, (for pipe at 90o
820
(psi) (Tables B.1.2 & C.1, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) F)

RF = As calculated in ing deflection tab. = 2,156

Deformation Factor, (Figure 3-6, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) for RF as in

DF = = 1.42
ring deflection.
ij Calibration Factor, (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.55 (for granular soils)
RH = Geometry Factor, (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 1 (for deep burial)

Summary/Conclusion Table

18" Leachate Collection Pipe

Ring Deflection (7.5% allowable) 1.19%
Wall Buckling F.S. = 13.6

Page 7
 Ring Deflection Analysis

Calculate the secant modulus of the soil, ES, using equation 10; determine the rigidity factor, RF, using equation 9
and the soil strain using equation 8. The rigidity factor is used to determine the deformation factor which is used
WRFDOFXODWHWKHSHUFHQWGHIOHFWLRQǻ;'M x 100, of the pipe using equation 7.

(1  ȝ x (1  2 x ȝ < 10 >
ES MS x
(1  ȝ
Where: ES = secant modulus of the granular drainage layer, psi = 3,978
one-dimensional modulus, (for 90% standard proctor and vertical waste
MS = and soil stress (Table 3̻12, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 4,200
Poisson’s ratio of soil, used to represent the granular drainage layer
ȝ material (Table 3-13, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.15

12 x Es x (DR  1)3 <9>

RF
E
Where: RF = rigidity factor = 2,156
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, psi (see calculated value above) = 3,978
DR = dimension ratio, (DR = Do/t) = 11.0
Do = 18
t = 1.636
E= apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi = 22,140

PT <8>
H
144 x Es
Where: PT = total external pressure, psf = 4,800.00
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, psi (see calculated value above) = 3,978
İ = soil strain = 0.0084

ǻ;'M = DF[İ <7>

Where: ǻ;'M = deflection = 0.0119
= Deformation Factor, (Figure 3-6, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) for RF
DF as calculated above. = 1.42
İ = soil strain = 0.0084

Percent Deflection = deflection x 100 = 1.1928

The recommended allowable ring deflection for non-pressure pipe is 7.5% which provides a large factor of safety
against instability and strain (Plastic Pipe Institute, Chapter 6, 2015).
Is the ring deflection allowable? (actual < allowable) Yes

Page 8
Pipe Wall Buckling Analysis

Calculate the allowable pipe wall buckling pressure, PCR.

2.4 x M x R H
PCR x (E x I)1 3 x (ES *)2 3 < 11 >
DM
Where: PCR = allowable buckling pressure, psi = 453
ij = Calibration Factor (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.55
RH = Geometry Factor, (equation 3-29, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 1
DM = mean diameter (DO – t), in. = 16.364
DO = pipe outside diameter, in. = 18
t = pipe wall thickness, in. = 1.636
E = apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi = 22,140
I = pipe wall moment of inertia, in4/in (t3/12) = 0.3649
ES* = ESȝSVL = 4,680
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, (see calculation in Ring Deflection) = 3,978
= Poisson’s ratio of soil, (from Table 3-13, used to represent the
ȝ granular drainage layer material, Plastic Pipe Institute, 2015) = 0.15

The allowable buckling pressure should be compared to the total “static load” pressure, PT, on the pipe.
Actual, psi: PT = 33.333
Allowable, psi: PCR = 453

Factor of safety for wall buckling is:

F.S. = PCR / PT = 13.59

Page 9
 $IBQUFS



Attachment 1 Material Properties

Source: "PPI Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe", downloaded February, 2015;

http://plasticpipe.org/publications/pe_handbook.html

"QQFOEJY
#

"QQBSFOU
&MBTUJD
.PEVMVT

#
°
"QQBSFOU
&MBTUJD
.PEVMVT
GPS
UIF
$POEJUJPO
PG
&JUIFS
B


4VTUBJOFE
$POTUBOU
-PBE
PS
B
4VTUBJOFE
$POTUBOU
%FGPSNBUJPO

#
°
%FTJHO
7BMVFT
GPS
UIF
#BTF
5FNQFSBUVSF
PG
'
$

5"#-&
#

Apparent Elastic Modulus for 73°F (23°C)

Duration of Design Values For 73°F (23°C) (1,2,3)

Sustained
Loading PE 2XXX PE3XXX PE4XXX
psi MPa psi MPa psi MPa
0.5hr 62,000 428 78,000 538 82,000 565
1hr 59,000 407 74,000 510 78,000 538
2hr 57,000 393 71,000 490 74,000 510
10hr 50,000 345 62,000 428 65,000 448
12hr 48,000 331 60,000 414 63,000 434
24hr 46,000 317 57,000 393 60,000 414
100hr 42,000 290 52,000 359 55,000 379
1,000hr 35,000 241 44,000 303 46,000 317
1 year 30,000 207 38,000 262 40,000 276
10 years 26,000 179 32,000 221 34,000 234
50 years 22,000 152 28,000 193 29,000 200
100 years 21,000 145 27,000 186 28,000 193
(1) Although there are various factors that determine the exact apparent modulus response of a PE, a major factor
is its ratio of crystalline to amorphous content – a parameter that is reÅected by a PE’s density. Hence, the
major headings PE2XXX, PE3XXX and, PE4XXX, which are based on PE’s Standard Designation Code. The
Ärst numeral of this code denotes the PE’s density category in accordance with ASTM D3350 (An explanation
of this code is presented in Chapter 5).
(2) The values in this table are applicable to both the condition of sustained and constant loading (under which
the resultant strain increases with increased duration of loading) and that of constant strain (under which an
initially generated stress gradually relaxes with increased time).
(3) The design values in this table are based on results obtained under uni-axial loading, such as occurs in a test
bar that is being subjected to a pulling load. When a PE is subjected to multi-axial stressing its strain response
is inhibited, which results in a somewhat higher apparent modulus. For example, the apparent modulus of a PE
pipe that is subjected to internal hydrostatic pressure – a condition that induces bi-axial stressing – is about
25% greater than that reported by this table. Thus, the Uni-axial condition represents a conservative estimate
of the value that is achieved in most applications.
It should also be kept in mind that these values are for the condition of continually sustained loading. If there is
an interruption or a decrease in the loading this, effectively, results in a somewhat larger modulus.
In addition, the values in this table apply to a stress intensity ranging up to about 400psi, a value that is
seldom exceeded under normal service conditions.

Page 10
 $IBQUFS


Material Properties
Attachment 1 cont.

#
°
7BMVFT
GPS
0UIFS
5FNQFSBUVSFT

The multipliers listed in Table B.1.2 when applied to the base temperature value
(Table B.1.1) yield the value for another temperature.

5"#-&
#

Temperature Compensating Multipliers for Determination of the
Apparent Modulus of Elasticity at Temperatures Other than at 73°F (23°C)
Equally Applicable to All Stress-Rated PE’s
(e.g., All PE2xxx’s, All PE3xxx’s and All PE4xxx’s)

Maximum Sustained Temperature

Compensating Multiplier
of the Pipe °F (°C)
-20 (-29) 2.54
-10 (-23) 2.36
0 (-18) 2.18
10 (-12) 2.00
20 (-7) 1.81
30 (-1) 1.65
40 (4) 1.49
50 (10) 1.32
60 (16) 1.18
73.4 (23) 1.00
80 (27) 0.93
90 (32) 0.82
100 (38) 0.73
110 (43) 0.64
120 (49) 0.58
130 (54) 0.50
140 (60) 0.43

Page 11
 $IBQUFS


Design of PE Piping Systems
Attachment 1 cont.

crown may completely reverse its curvature inward and collapse. See Figure 3-1A.
A deÁection limit of 7.5% provides at least a 3 to 1 safety factor against reverse
curvature.

Bending strain occurs in the pipe wall as a result of ring deÁection — outer-Àber
tensile strain at the pipe springline and outer-Àber compressive strain at the crown
and invert. While strain limits of 5% have been proposed, Jansen (12) reported
that, on tests of PE pipe manufactured from pressure-rated resins and subjected
to soil pressure only, “no upper limit from a practical design point of view seems
to exist for the bending strain.” In other words, as deÁection increases, the pipe’s
performance limit will not be overstraining but reverse curvature collapse.

Thus, for non-pressure applications, a 7.5 percent deÁection limit provides a

large safety factor against instability and strain and is considered a safe design
deÁection. Some engineers will design proÀle wall pipe and other non-pressure pipe
applications to a 5% deÁection limit, but allow spot deÁections up to 7.5% during
Àeld inspection.

The deÁection limits for pressurized pipe are generally lower than for non-
pressurized pipe. This is primarily due to strain considerations. Hoop strain from
pressurization adds to the outer-Àber tensile strain. But the internal pressure acts to
reround the pipe and, therefore, Eq. 3-10 overpredicts the actual long-term deÁection
for pressurized pipe. Safe allowable deÁections for pressurized pipe are given in
Table 3-11. Spangler and Handy (13) give equations for correcting deÁection to account
for rerounding.

5"#-&

Safe DeÅection Limits for Pressurized Pipe

DR or SDR Safe DeÅection as % of Diameter

32.5 7.5
26 7.5
21 7.5
17 6.0
13.5 6.0
11 5.0
9 4.0
7.3 3.0

* Based on Long-Term Design DeÅection of Buried Pressurized Pipe given in ASTM F1962.

Page 12
 $IBQUFS


Material Properties Attachment 1 cont.

"QQFOEJY
$

"MMPXBCMF
$PNQSFTTJWF
4USFTT
Table C.1 lists allowable compressive stress values for 73°F (23°C). Values for
allowable compressive stress for other temperatures may be determined by
application of the same multipliers that are used for pipe pressure rating (See
Table A.2).

5"#-&
$
Allowable Compressive Stress for 73°F (23°C)

Pe Pipe Material Designation Code (1)

PE 2406 PE3408
PE 3608
PE 3708 PE 4710
PE 2708
PE 3710
PE 4708
psi MPa psi MPa psi MPa
Allowable
Compressive 800 5.52 1000 6.90 1150 7.93
Stress
(1) See Chapter 5 for an explanation of the PE Pipe Material Designation Code.

"QQFOEJY
%

1PJTTPOµT
3BUJP
Poisson’s Ratio for ambient temperature for all PE pipe materials is approximately
0.45.

This 0.45 value applies both to the condition of tension and compression. While this
value increases with temperature, and vice versa, the effect is relatively small over the
range of typical working temperatures.

Page 13
 $IBQUFS


Design of PE Piping Systems Attachment 1 cont.

One-dimensional modulus values for soil can be obtained from soil testing,
geotechnical texts, or Table 3-12 which gives typical values. The typical values in
Table 3-12 were obtained by converting values from McGrath (20).

5"#-&

Typical Values of Ms, One-Dimensional Modulus of Soil

Gravelly Sand/Gravels Gravelly Sand/Gravels Gravelly Sand/Gravels

Vertical Soil Stress1 (psi)
95% Std. Proctor (psi) 90% Std. Proctor (psi) 85% Std. Proctor (psi)
10 3000 1600 550
20 3500 1800 650
40 4200 2100 800
60 5000 2500 1000
80 6000 2900 1300
100 6500 3200 1450

* Adapted and extended from values given by McGrath . For depths not shown in McGrath , the MS values
(20) (20)

were approximated using the hyperbolic soil model with appropriate values for K and n where n=0.4 and
K=200, K=100, and K=45 for 95% Proctor, 90% Proctor, and 85% Proctor, respectively.
1
Vertical Soil Stress (psi) = [ soil depth (ft) x soil density (pcf)]/144

The radial directed earth pressure can be found by multiplying the prism load
(pressure) by the vertical arching factor as shown in Eq. 3-23.
(3-23) P RD = (VAF)wH

8)&3&
PRD = radial directed earth pressure, lb/ft 2
w = unit weight of soil, pcf
H = depth of cover, ft

The ring compressive stress in the pipe wall can be found by substituting PRD from
Equation 3-23 for PE in Equation 3-13 for DR pipe and Equation 3-14 for proÀle
wall pipe.

&BSUI
1SFTTVSF
&YBNQMF
Determine the earth pressure acting on a 36” proÀle wall pipe buried 30 feet deep.
The following properties are for one unique 36” proÀle pipe made from PE3608
material. Other 36” proÀle pipe may have different properties. The pipe’s cross-
sectional area, A, equals 0.470 inches2/inch, its radius to the centroidal axis is 18.00
inches plus 0.58 inches, and its apparent modulus is 27,000 psi. Its wall height is 2.02
in and its DO equals 36 in +2 (2.02 in) or 40.04 in. Assume the pipe is installed in a
clean granular soil compacted to 90% Standard Proctor (Ms = 1875 psi), the insitu soil
is as stiff as the embedment, and the backÀll weighs 120 pcf. (Where the excavation
Page 14
 $IBQUFS


Design of PE Piping Systems
Attachment 1 cont.

this method is that it assumes a constant Deformation Factor independent of depth

of cover and it does not address the effect of the presence of ground water on the
Deformation Factor.

To use the Watkins-Gaube Graph, the designer Àrst determines the relative stiffness
between pipe and soil, which is given by the Rigidity Factor, R F. Equation 3-24 and
3-25 are for DR pipe and for proÀle pipe respectively:
(3-24) 12 E S ( DR  1) 3
RF
E

(3-25) 3
E S Dm
RF =
EI

8)&3&
DR = Dimension Ratio
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, psi
E = Apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi
I = Pipe wall moment of inertia of pipe, in4/in
Dm = Mean diameter (DI + 2z or DO – t), in

The secant modulus of the soil may be obtained from testing or from a geotechnical
engineer’s evaluation. In lieu of a precise determination, the soil modulus may
be related to the one-dimensional modulus, MS, from Table 3-12 by the following
equation where — is the soil’s Poisson ratio.
(3-26) (1+ P )(1- 2 P )
ES =
(1- P )
S

5"#-&

Typical range of Poisson’s Ratio for Soil (Bowles (21))

Soil Type Poisson’s Ratio, μ

Saturated Clay 0.4-0.5
Unsaturated Clay 0.1-0.3
Sandy Clay 0.2-0.3
Silt 0.3-0.35
Sand (Dense) 0.2-0.4
Coarse Sand (Void Ratio 0.4-0.7) 0.15
Fine-grained Sand (Void Ratio 0.4-0.7) 0.25

Page 15
 $IBQUFS


Design of PE Piping Systems

Attachment 1 cont.

Next, the designer determines the Deformation Factor, DF , by entering the Watkins-
Gaube Graph with the Rigidity Factor. See Fig. 3-6. The Deformation Factor is the
proportionality constant between vertical deÁection (compression) of the soil layer
containing the pipe and the deÁection of the pipe. Thus, pipe deÁection can be
obtained by multiplying the proportionality constant DF times the soil settlement.
If DF is less than 1.0 in Fig. 3-6, use 1.0.

The soil layer surrounding the pipe bears the entire load of the overburden above it
without arching. Therefore, settlement (compression) of the soil layer is proportional
to the prism load and not the radial directed earth pressure. Soil strain, ES, may be
determined from geotechnical analysis or from the following equation:
(3-27)
wH
HS =
144 E S
8)&3&
w = unit weight of soil, pcf
H = depth of cover (height of Äll above pipe crown), ft
Es = secant modulus of the soil, psi
The designer can Ànd the pipe deÁection as a percent of the diameter by multiplying
the soil strain, in percent, by the deformation factor:
Deformation Factor, DF

5 10 50 100 500 1000 5000 10,000

Rigidity Factor, RF

'JHVSF


8BULJOT(BVCF
(SBQI

(3-28) '
(100) = D F H S
D

8)&3&
¨X/D multiplied by 100 gives percent deÅection.

Page 16
 $IBQUFS


Design of PE Piping Systems
Attachment 1 cont.

The Moore-Selig Equation for critical buckling pressure follows: (Critical buckling
pressure is the pressure at which buckling will occur. A safety factor should be
provided.)
(3-29) 2.4 M R H 1 2
PCR = (EI )3 ( E*S )3
DM

8)&3&
P R = Critical constrained buckling pressure, psi
J= Calibration Factor, 0.55 for granular soils
R = Geometry Factor
E = Apparent modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi
= Pipe wall moment of Inertia, in4/in (t 3/12, if solid wall construction)
ES = ES /(1- )
ES = Secant modulus of the soil, psi
s = Poisson’s Ratio of Soil (Consult a textbook on soil for values. Bowles (1982) gives typical values
for sand and rock ranging from 0.1 to 0.4.)
The geometry factor is dependent on the depth of burial and the relative stiffness
between the embedment soil and the insitu soil. Moore has shown that for deep
burials in uniform Àlls, RH equals 1.0.

$SJUJDBM
#VDLMJOH
&YBNQMF
Determine the critical buckling pressure and safety factor against buckling for the
6” SDR 11 pipe (5.987” mean diameter) in the previous example.

SOLUTION:
2000 s
ES 28 0 2
( 03 in

2 0 55 0 2 s
P R (28250
(2 000 0 0 8 3 (28 0 3 358
35 22
5 8 inin
Determine the Safety Factor against buckling:

P R 358
35
S
PE 0 5

*OTUBMMBUJPO
$BUFHPSZ

4IBMMPX
$PWFS
'MPUBUJPO
&GGFDUT

Shallow cover presents some special considerations for Áexible pipes. As already
discussed, full soil structure interaction (membrane effect) may not occur, and live
loads are carried in part by the bending stiffness of the pipe. Even if the pipe has
sufÀcient strength to carry live load, the cover depth may not be sufÀcient to prevent
Page 17
 $IBQUFS


Design of PE Piping Systems
Attachment 1 cont.

Pipe Minimum
inside Wall
OD diameter Thickness Weight
(d) (t) (w)
Nominal Actual lb. per
in. in. DR in. in. foot
7 3.14 0.643 3.384
7.3 3.19 0.616 3.269
9 3.44 0.500 2.737
9.3 3.47 0.484 2.660
11 3.63 0.409 2.294
4 4.500 11.5 3.67 0.391 2.204
13.5 3.79 0.333 1.906
15.5 3.88 0.290 1.678
17 3.94 0.265 1.540
21 4.05 0.214 1.262
26 4.13 0.173 1.030
32.5 4.21 0.138 0.831

7 3.88 0.795 5.172

7.3 3.95 0.762 4.996
9 4.25 0.618 4.182
9.3 4.29 0.598 4.065
11 4.49 0.506 3.505
5 5.563 11.5 4.54 0.484 3.368
13.5 4.69 0.412 2.912
15.5 4.80 0.359 2.564
17 4.87 0.327 2.353
21 5.00 0.265 1.929
26 5.11 0.214 1.574
32.5 5.20 0.171 1.270

7 4.62 0.946 7.336

7.3 4.70 0.908 7.086
9 5.06 0.736 5.932
9.3 5.11 0.712 5.765
11 5.35 0.602 4.971
6 6.625 11.5 5.40 0.576 4.777
13.5 5.58 0.491 4.130
15.5 5.72 0.427 3.637
17 5.80 0.390 3.338
21 5.96 0.315 2.736
26 6.08 0.255 2.233
32.5 6.19 0.204 1.801

Page 18
 $IBQUFS


Design of PE Piping Systems
Attachment 1 cont.

Pipe Minimum
inside Wall
OD diameter Thickness Weight
(d) (t) (w)
Nominal Actual lb. per
in. in. DR in. in. foot
7 6.01 1.232 12.433
7.3 6.12 1.182 12.010
9 6.59 0.958 10.054
9.3 6.66 0.927 9.771
11 6.96 0.784 8.425
8 8.625 11.5 7.04 0.750 8.096
13.5 7.27 0.639 7.001
15.5 7.45 0.556 6.164
17 7.55 0.507 5.657
21 7.75 0.411 4.637
26 7.92 0.332 3.784

7 7.49 1.536 19.314

7.3 7.63 1.473 18.656
9 8.22 1.194 15.618
9.3 8.30 1.156 15.179
11 8.68 0.977 13.089
10 10.750 11.5 8.77 0.935 12.578
13.5 9.06 0.796 10.875
15.5 9.28 0.694 9.576
17 9.41 0.632 8.788
21 9.66 0.512 7.204
26 9.87 0.413 5.878
32.5 10.05 0.331 4.742

7 8.89 1.821 27.170

7.3 9.05 1.747 26.244
9 9.75 1.417 21.970
9.3 9.84 1.371 21.353
11 10.29 1.159 18.412
12 12.750 11.5 10.40 1.109 17.693
13.5 10.75 0.944 15.298
15.5 11.01 0.823 13.471
17 11.16 0.750 12.362
21 11.46 0.607 10.134
26 11.71 0.490 8.269
32.5 11.92 0.392 6.671

Page 19
 $IBQUFS


Design of PE Piping Systems
Attachment 1 cont.

Pipe Minimum
inside Wall
OD diameter Thickness Weight
(d) (t) (w)
Nominal Actual lb. per
in. in. DR in. in. foot
7 9.76 2.000 32.758
7.3 9.93 1.918 31.642
9 10.70 1.556 26.489
9.3 10.81 1.505 25.745
11 11.30 1.273 22.199
14 14.000 11.5 11.42 1.217 21.332
13.5 11.80 1.037 18.445
15.5 12.09 0.903 16.242
17 12.25 0.824 14.905
21 12.59 0.667 12.218
26 12.86 0.538 9.970
32.5 13.09 0.431 8.044

7 11.15 2.286 42.786

7.3 11.35 2.192 41.329
9 12.23 1.778 34.598
9.3 12.35 1.720 33.626
11 12.92 1.455 28.994
16 16.000 11.5 13.05 1.391 27.862
13.5 13.49 1.185 24.092
15.5 13.81 1.032 21.214
17 14.00 0.941 19.467
21 14.38 0.762 15.959
26 14.70 0.615 13.022

7 12.55 2.571 54.151

7.3 12.77 2.466 52.307
9 13.76 2.000 43.788
9.3 13.90 1.935 42.558
11 14.53 1.636 36.696
18 18.000 11.5 14.68 1.565 35.263
13.5 15.17 1.333 30.491
15.5 15.54 1.161 26.849
17 15.76 1.059 24.638
21 16.18 0.857 20.198
26 16.53 0.692 16.480
32.5 16.83 0.554 13.296

Page 20
 $IBQUFS


Design of PE Piping Systems
Attachment 1 cont.

Pipe Minimum
inside Wall
OD diameter Thickness Weight
(d) (t) (w)
Nominal Actual lb. per
in. in. DR in. in. foot
7 13.94 2.857 66.853
7.3 14.19 2.740 64.576
9 15.29 2.222 54.059
9.3 15.44 2.151 52.541
11 16.15 1.818 45.304
20 20.000 11.5 16.31 1.739 43.535
13.5 16.86 1.481 37.643
15.5 17.26 1.290 33.146
17 17.51 1.176 30.418
21 17.98 0.952 24.936
26 18.37 0.769 20.346
32.5 18.70 0.615 16.415

9 16.82 2.444 65.412

9.3 16.98 2.366 63.574
11 17.76 2.000 54.818
11.5 17.94 1.913 52.677
22 22.000 13.5 18.55 1.630 45.548
15.5 18.99 1.419 40.107
17 19.26 1.294 36.805
21 19.78 1.048 30.172
26 20.21 0.846 24.619
32.5 20.56 0.677 19.863

9 18.35 2.667 77.845

9.3 18.53 2.581 75.658
11 19.37 2.182 65.237
11.5 19.58 2.087 62.690
24 24.000 13.5 20.23 1.778 54.206
15.5 20.72 1.548 47.731
17 21.01 1.412 43.801
21 21.58 1.143 35.907
26 22.04 0.923 29.299
32.5 22.43 0.738 23.638

Page 21
Page 22
Attachment 3: From Plastic Pipe Institute TN-19/2010

In summary, as pipe diameter increases, less resistance to ring bending is required for the
same handling and installation capacity. Useful measures that compare handling and
installation capacity without regard to pipe size include AASHTO flexibility factor, FF, and
ring stiffness constant, RSC. Pipe stiffness, PS, however, is sensitive to pipe size, and is
not useful for comparing the handling and installation capacities between larger and
smaller pipes.

STRAIN CAPACITY

When subjected to earth loads, strain in the pipe wall results from deflection and ring
compression. If the pipe material has a low tolerance for strain, it is usually necessary to
limit strain by limiting pipe deformation.

There are two levels of deformation in buried pipe. One is elliptical deflection due to
uniform earth load; the other is a second order deformation from uneven loads around the
pipe circumference such as point loads that cause localized deviation from an elliptical
shape. Second order deformations are generally small but may induce high strains, and
they are directly proportional to the pipe's stiffness. Second-order deformations are of little
consequence with strain-tolerant pipes such as HDPE because of the high strain capacity.
In an eight-year study of pipes made using pressure-rated HDPE material, Janson reports
that for practical design purposes such as for gravity sewers, there does not appear to be
an upper limit on design strain [2]. This essentially means that a design for pipes made
from pressure-rated grades of HDPE does not need to address strains from second order
deformations when overall deflection and buckling are controlled.

BURIED PIPE PERFORMANCE

Buried pipe must possess sufficient stiffness to mobilize backfill soil resistance and resist
buckling. Deflection must be limited to a value that will not disrupt flow or cause joint
leakage. Extensive field experience with high DR stress-rated HDPE pipes and stress-
rated HDPE, profile wall pipes speaks to the capability of low stiffness pipes to perform
under soil loads.

Flexible pipe deflection depends on the combined contribution of its pipe stiffness and the
embedment soil stiffness (E'), but primarily on embedment soil stiffness. Considerable
testing and field measurements have established that for low stiffness pipes, deflection is
almost exclusively controlled by the embedment soil surrounding the pipe. This is true for
any flexible pipe, whether metal or plastic. Spangler's Iowa formula can be used to
demonstrate that the soil's contribution to resisting deflection is much more significant than
the pipe's contribution. Although Spangler’s Iowa formula was developed using pipes of
25-psi stiffness and higher, considerable field experience has demonstrated its applicability
to low stiffness pipes [3]. For example when pipes of 46 psi PS and 4.6 psi PS are
installed with a properly selected and compacted embedment, there is little difference in
either pipe’s deflection. On the other hand, when pipe is not installed properly, a low
embedment soil E' can result in excessive deflection for both 46 psi and 4.6 psi pipes.. It
can be shown mathematically that a 46 psi pipe supplies a stiffness to the soil/pipe system

Page
6
23