Olivier Thépot
erschienen in 3R international 89/2004
VulkanVerlag GmbH, Essen Kontakt: N. Hülsdau (Tel. 0201/8200233, EMail: n.huelsdau@vulkanverlag.de)
FACHBERICHTE
FACHBERICHTE
FFFFiiiigggg....
2222:::: Vitriﬁed clay pipe (above, source: ATVM 1432) egg shaped pipe (right)
BBBBiiiilllldddd 2222:::: Rohr aus verglastem Ton (oben, Quelle: ATVM 1432), ovales Rohr (rechts)
Participants of the International Trenchless Technology Research Colloquium (ITTRC) de cided in the year 2001 to design CIPP (Cured in Place Pipe) liner examples for a circular and an egg shaped sewer. Each expert of the ITTRC group got the same damage case pictures and installation parameters – the goal was to evaluate the minimum required wall thicknesses. This report summarises the results of the Workshop (19 from 6 coun tries) and compares different research approaches and national design concepts for CIPP liners.
In Jahr 2001 beschlossen die Teilnehmer des International Trenchless Technology Re search Colloquium (ITTRC, "Internationales Kolloquium zur Erforschung der grabenlosen Verlegungstechnik"), CIPP (Cured in Place Pipe = im Einsatz härtende Rohre) MusterLi ner für einen runden sowie für einen ovalen Kanal zu konstruieren. Jeder Experte der ITTRCGruppe erhielt die gleichen Schadensfallbilder sowie die gleichen Verlegungsvor gaben. Das Ziel war die Bestimmung der notwendigen Mindestwanddicken. Dieser Be richt faßt die Ergebnisse des Workshops (19 Teilnehmer aus 6 Ländern) zusammen und vergleicht unterschiedliche Forschungsansätze und länderspezifische Auslegungskon zepte für DIPPLiner.
Introduction
There are several methods of calculation available around the world for determining the thickness of a pipe liner. In North Amer ica the ASTM F1216 method is usually used, in Germany the ATVM 1272, and in France the AGHTM RRR, to give only three exam ples. The existence of several methods is not a problem in itself, and is even quite a nor mal situation, but the following two ques tions naturally arise:
■
What are the differences between the cal
culation methods? ■ What are the differences between the re sults of these calculation methods?
To attempt to answer these two questions, two examples of calculations were proposed to a group of specialists (experts, research ers, consultants), who submitted 19 detailed contributions from 7 different countries. Sev eral calculation methods were used: ﬁve methods that are either published or being prepared for publication (ASTM F1216, ATV M 1272, WRc SRM, AGHTM RRR, RERAU), the results of research that has been pub lished or subjected to experimental valida tion, and ﬁnally the Finite Element Method, which is the most effective tool for structural calculations. The ﬁrst example is that of a circular clay pipe with 800 mm internal diameter and 75 mm wallthickness; the second example is of a noncircular nonreinforced eggshaped concrete pipe of type W/H = 700/1050 mm (usual thickness 110 mm). The two pipes are cracked longitudinally at the crown, invert and springings. Photos were supplied for evaluation of the ovality (FFFFiiiigggguuuurrrreeee 2222). The pipe lines are subject to the action of the soil, groundwater and a live load of 600 kN (heavy truck load). The soil cover is 5 m and the groundwater height is 4 m in both exam ples. The surrounding soil is a gravelly mate rial with aggregate, of medium density (D _{P}_{r} = 90 %). The geometric characteristics of the two examples are given in FFFFiiiigggguuuurrrreeee 1111. The mechanical characteristics of the lin ers are:
■ Material of the liners: resin impregnated plastic ﬁbre
■ 
Short term modulus: 3000 MPa 
■ 
Longterm modulus: 1500 MPa (creep 
■ 
modulus) Ultimate ﬂexural strength: 20 MPa 
■ 
Ultimate compressive strength: 40 MPa 
■ 
Poisson’s ratio: 0.35 
The objectives of renovation are to restore the water tightness of the pipes and their longterm structural stability. The results of the 19 contributions (12 for ND 800 and 7 for eggshaped W/H = 700/ 1050 mm) are given in TTTTaaaabbbblllleeee 1111 and TTTTaaaabbbblllleeee 2222. In the contributions as a whole, the disper sion of results is very reasonable due to the complexity of the proposed examples. In the
_{5}_{2}_{0}
3R international (43) Heft 89/2004
FACHBERICHTE
case of circular ND 800 90 % of the thick nesses are between 12.4 and 17 mm, with an average value of 14.5 mm. The highest value (22 mm), which stands out clearly, re sults from the WRc 3 ^{r}^{d} ed. method and the lowest value (10.4 mm) is the result of a pro posal.
For noncircular pipes,
the results
are
more closely grouped around the average
value of 22.8 mm. The highest value (27.3 mm) also results from application of the WRc method. The calculations with the
Finite Element Method 
(FEM) 
resulted in 

nicely grouped values, 
and 
the analytic 

methods 
are fairly close to those for 
the 

FEM. 
Buckling of a circular liner subjected to external hydrostatic pressure
FFFFiiiigggg....
1111:::: Geometric characteristics of the two examples
BBBBiiiilllldddd 1111:::: Die geometrischen Eigenschaften der beiden Muster
The basic formulas
Practically each author uses an original formula. Certain formulas are published in national regulations (ASTM F1216, ATVM 1272), in recommendations (AGHTM, RE RAU) or are the result of academic publica tion.
The formulas can be classiﬁed in two cat egories according to whether they derive from Timoshenko’s or Glock’s formula. Timoshenko’s formula (Timoshenko & Gere 1961) gives the critical buckling pressure of an unconstrained pipe subjected to uniform external pressure:
^{p} er
3 ⋅ EI
= 
R ^{3}
[1]
where EI is the transverse ﬂexural stiffness and R the radius of the pipe wall’s middle ax is.
Glock’s formula (Glock 1977) gives the critical buckling pressure of a liner subjected to external uniform pressure (the liner – pipe interface is perfectly frictionless):
^{p} er
=
E
⋅
2,2
t

D
[2]
where t is the thickness of the liner, D the av erage diameter and E the Young’s modulus of the material.
The Timoshenko formula is valid for the pipe without bedding and the Glock formula is valid for the pipe in a rigid cavity, see FFFFiiiigggg uuuurrrreeee 3333.
Imperfections
All the authors give some importance to oval imperfections of the host pipe and up to two additional imperfections: annular gap due to shrinkage and a horizontal deﬂection of limited angular extension (FFFFiiiigggguuuurrrreeee 4444).
TTTTaaaabbbblllleeee 1111:::: Results of the example 1 (ND 800 circular)
TTTTaaaabbbbeeeelllllllleeee 1111:::: Ergebnisse von Beispiel 1 (NW 800, rund)
CCCCoooouuuunnnnttttrrrryyyy 
AAAAuuuutttthhhhoooorrrr 
MMMMiiiinnnniiiimmmmuuuummmm rrrreeeeqqqquuuuiiiirrrreeeedddd wwwwaaaallllllll tttthhhhiiiicccckkkknnnneeeessssssss tttt ((((mmmmmmmm)))) 
RRRReeeemmmmaaaarrrrkkkkssss 

UK 
Gumbel 
22 
3 ^{r}^{d} ed 

(WRc SRM) 
14.8 
4 ^{t}^{h} ed 

USA 
Hall 
13.7 
 14.5 
"PD" 

Published 
standards 
(ASTM F1216) 
Doherty 
17.8 
"FD" 

Falter 
16 / 17 
Host Pipe Stage II / III 

Germany 
Hoch 
13.5 
/ 15 
Host Pipe Stage II / III 

(ATVM 1272) 

Niemann 
16.2 
Host Pipe Stage II 

France 

(AGHTM RRR) 
Thépot/Gumbel 
14.5 

Poland 
Szot 
16 
FEM 

Canada 
Moore 
16 
Analytical 

Research / 
proposed 
France 
Thépot 
14 
RERAU 

Denmark 
Romdal/Gumbel 
12.8 
 15.8 

UK 
Boot 
10.7 
 12.4 
Analytical + FEM 

mean value 
14.5 
mm 

TTTTaaaabbbblllleeee 2222:::: Results of the example 2 (egg shaped W/H = 700/1050 mm) 

TTTTaaaabbbbeeeelllllllleeee 2222:::: Ergebnisse von Beispiel 2 (Oval, W/H = 700/1050 mm) 

CCCCoooouuuunnnnttttrrrryyyy 
AAAAuuuutttthhhhoooorrrr 
MMMMiiiinnnniiiimmmmuuuummmm rrrreeeeqqqquuuuiiiirrrreeeedddd wwwwaaaallllllll tttthhhhiiiicccckkkknnnneeeessssssss tttt ((((mmmmmmmm)))) 
RRRReeeemmmmaaaarrrrkkkkssss 

UK 
Gumbel 
27.3 
Analytical 

France 
Thépot 
23 
Analytical 

Germany 
Falter 


Germany 
Hoch 


Germany 
Niemann 


USA 
Hall 


Canada 
Moore 
20 
Analytical 

mean value 
22.8 mm 
3R international (43) Heft 89/2004
521
FACHBERICHTE
BBBBiiiilllldddd 3333:::: KnickModi
Oval imperfection
Oval imperfections are viewed as the ellip tical deformation of a rigid pipe with for lon gitudinal cracks (Figure 2). Moore deﬁnes ovality as follows:
q ( % )
=
100
^{D} h
–
^{D} ν
_{⋅} 
^{D} h
+
^{D} ν
[3]
The estimation of oval imperfection is fair ly variable. Certain authors do not hesitate to measure ovality directly on the photograph of the pipe. In the case of example no. 1, the estimates vary between 3 and 9 %, which is a fairly wide range. Measuring from video print leads to 9 % (Figure 2) what is a more realistic value than that from visual estima tion. Elliptical ovality is only encountered for ﬂexible pipes, since it implies a capacity of deformation that rigid pipes does not have. However, longitudinally cracked pipes form hinges that allow rotations. The “classic” pattern is a separation into four arch seg ments articulated at the crown, springings, and invert. This model is a convenient arti ﬁce of calculation.
Annular gap
The annular gap is assumed uniform and simply characterized by its amplitude w _{g} . However, as for ovality, a percentage of the radius or of the diameter tends to be used. Note that the authors use different deﬁni tions. One practice is to divide the amplitude by the average radius of the liner or of the host pipe:
g ( % )
=
100
^{w} g
_{⋅} 
R
[4a]
But some (Hall for example) use the diam
eter of the host pipe:
g ( % )
=
100
^{w} g
D [4b]
_{⋅} 
The relation of 2 between the two deﬁni tions must be kept in mind. However, the ﬁrst deﬁnition is the most common and the easiest to extend to noncircular situations. The values habitually used in the calcula tions vary between 0 and 2 % of the radius. The default value of 0.5 % of the radius is recommended by the ATVM 1272 for CIPP liners (for deformed and redeformed liners M 1272 proposes 2 %); Hall proposes 0.45 % of the diameter (0.9 % of the radius) based on experimental results; Boot propos es values between 0.5 and 0.75 %. The rel
atively narrow range of 0.5 to 1 % thus has
the majority of votes.
Longitudinal intrusion
Longitudinal intrusion is characterized by its angular extension and its maximum am plitude. It is deﬁned in the Leaﬂet ATVM 1272 by the following equation:
w ( ϕ )
=
^{w} v
⋅ cos
2
π
ϕ
 ⋅ 
2 ϕ
ν
,
valid for ϕ _{ν} ≤ ϕ ≤ ϕ _{ν}
[5]
where w _{v} is the maximum deﬂection and ϕ _{ν} is varied to come to the lowest critical pres sure (the total critical angle is not so far from 40°). The shape of the intrusion is similar to that of the deformation lobe. As for the an nular gap, the maximum deﬂection is ex pressed as a percentage of the radius. The Leaﬂet ATVM 1272 prescribes a minimum value of 2 % of the liner’s radius, Hall uses 1 % of the diameter (thus 2 %), and Szot 3 %. Moore prefers to divide the maximum deﬂec tion by the thickness, which in terms of radi us yields 5.4 %. Thus the range arrived at by the Workshop is 2 to 5.4 %. Note that longi tudinal intrusion is not applied by all au thors.
Review of the formulas used
ASTM F 1216 Formula
The following formula, derived from that of Timoshenko, is the most frequently used. The critical buckling pressure is multiplied
by a casing factor K equal to 7 for liners.
^{P} cr
 =
N
adm p
=
2 K ⋅
^{E} L
1
C [6a]
N
 ⋅  _{⋅} 
(
1
–
ν
2 )
( SDR
– 1 )
N
K
E _{L}
ν
= safety coefﬁcient (equal to 2); casing coefﬁcient (equal to 7 for liners);
=
= longterm modulus (creep modulus) of the material; = Poisson coefﬁcient;
C = reduction factor for ovality:
C =
[6b]
where q is the ovality due to eq. (3)
Eq. (6) includes the safety coefﬁcient, and directly yields the admissible pressure as a function of the SDR, or the inverse. Its valid ity depends mostly on the coefﬁcient K and experimentation which has established the value K = 7 for CIPPlinings.
Formula of Hall (Trenchless Technology Center, Louisiana Tech University Ruston USA)
Hall uses a onelobe Glock formula with variable coefﬁcients, corrected for three im
perfections:
adm p
=
a
⋅
^{E} L
1
1 [7a]
N
 ⋅  _{⋅} 
(
1
–
ν
2 )
( SDR – 1 ) ^{m}
(for N, E _{L} , ν and SDR see eq. [6a])
[7a]
The three imperfections are: annular gap (x), ovality (y) and local intrusion (z). The co efﬁcients take the following form:
a
=
^{b} ijk
i j
⋅⋅⋅ x
y
k
z
m =
c
ijk
i j
⋅⋅⋅ x
y
k
z
These are polynomials with three varia bles whose 27 (= 3 ^{3} ) coefﬁcients have been adjusted based on results of Finite Element calculations. For x = y = z = 0 the coefﬁ cients m = 2.25 and a = 1.06 result, result ing almost in Glock’s solution for the one lobe mode. The inverted form of eq. (7a) de livers the wall thickness required:
D
req t = 
a
⋅
^{E} L
1
⁄ m
 + 1
N
⋅
p
⋅
(
1
–
ν
2 )
[7b]
Formula of Boot (University of Bradford UK)
Boot uses a twolobe Glock formula with
variable coefﬁcients, corrected for two im perfections:
log _{1}_{0}
^{p} cr

E
=
m
⋅
log
10
D

t
+
log
10
c
[8a]
which can also be written:
^{p} cr

E
=
c
⋅
– m
t

D
[8b]
_{5}_{2}_{2}
3R international (43) Heft 89/2004
FACHBERICHTE
m and c depend on the ovality and the an nular gap and are obtained by interpolating the results from ﬁnite element analysis or by directly solving the Glock equation appropri ately modiﬁed for imperfect behavior (Boot, 1998). For example, for an ovality of 5 % and an annular gap of 0.5 %, the results are m = –2.598 and log _{1}_{0} c = 0.524. In a bilogarith mic diagram, sets of lines are obtained which are parameterized by the pairs of val ues for ovality and gap.
Formula of the ATVM 1272 (Germany)
The ATVM 1272
formula is a onelobe
Glock formula with reduction factors, cor rected for three imperfections. It is written:
^{p} cr
=
κ
ν
⋅
κ
GR, ν
κ
⋅⋅
s
α
D
⋅
^{s} L
[9]
where r _{L} is the radius of the liner wall’s mid dle axis, and s _{L} is the liner’s thickness;
^{α} D
=
2.62
⋅
^{r} L

s
L
0.8
is the buckling factor
^{s} L
( EI ) _{L}
= 
3
r
L
is the ﬂexural stiffness of the liner
κ _{ν} = reduction factor due to a local intrusion of am plitude _{w} _{ν} κ _{G}_{R}_{,}_{ν} = reduction factor due to ovality of amplitude
^{w} GR,ν
κ _{s} = reduction factor due to an annular gap of am plitude _{w} _{s}
The reduction factors are functions with two variables (imperfection + ratio r _{L} /s _{L} ). They were calculated using the Finite Ele ment Method and are represented graphical ly by sets of curves parameterized by the ra tio r _{L} /s _{L} . Also reduction factors for combina tions of imperfections are admitted and available for standard situations (Falter et. al. 2003).
Formula of Moore (Queen’s University Canada)
Moore uses a onelobe Glock formula with reduction factors corrected for three imper fections. It is written:
^{p} cr
=
^{E} L

(
1
–
ν
2
)
⋅
t

D
2.2
⋅⋅⋅
^{R} q
^{R} ∆
^{R} d
[10]
Where E _{L} is the longterm modulus (ho mogenized), and t and D are respectively the thickness and the diameter of the liner. The reduction factors have simple analytical ex pressions and depend only on the value of the imperfection:
^{R} q 
= 
_{e} – q ⁄ 10 
– 0.56 ∆ ⁄ t 

^{R} ∆ 
= 
e 
sion of amplitude ∆ 

– d ⁄ t 

^{R} d 
= 
e 
amplitude _{d}_{.} 
: reduction factor due to ovality q (%)
: reduction factor due to local intru
: reduction factor due to annular gap of
Note that the amplitudes of the local intru sion and the annular gap are divided by the thickness of the liner t and not by the radius. The formula is reversible.
Formula of Thépot (RERAU national project, France)
Thépot uses a Glock formula of one or twolobe type with reduction factors, correct ed for two imperfections:
^{p} cr
=
Γ
p,h
⋅
^{Γ} p,g
EI _{L}
_{⋅}_{⋅} 
k
R ^{3}
β
,
where
[11]
Examples for the inﬂuence of ovality
The inﬂuence of 3 % oval imperfection is shown in FFFFiiiigggguuuurrrreeee 5555 comparing the reduction f actors for a typical liner with the ratio R/t = 25 und a relatively thin liner with R/t = 50. Note that reductions due to two methods do not differentiate between the liner’s wall thickness.
^{β} k
=
2.02
⋅
k ⋅
EA _{L}

P
R ^{3}
⋅ 
EI
L
0.4
Conclusions on the calculation of
critical buckling pressure
is the buckling factor (general form). In the case of a solid, homogeneous ma terial (EI/EA = t ^{2} /12) and a circular shape (P = 2πR), β _{k} can be simpliﬁed using the fol lowing expression:
^{β} k
=
2.62
⋅
_{k} 0.4
⋅
0.8
R

t
(k = 1 in onelobe mode and k = 2 in twolobe mode). The two reduction factors are found using the following expressions:
The formulas used for calculating critical buckling pressure can be classiﬁed in two groups, according to whether they derive from Timoshenko’s formula or Glock’s for mula. In the case of the Timoshenko formula,
the inﬂuence of the different imperfections, with the notable exception of ovality, is taken into consideration in a single, constant en largement factor which was determined ex perimentally. In the case of the Glock formula, the im
^{Γ} p,g
⋅
δ
1 perfections are treated individually using re
g
–
0.006
⋅
2
^{δ} g
duction factors or variable coefﬁcients. The precise deﬁnition of the imperfections is
= 
1
+
0.41
reduction factor for annular gap
1 therefore of little importance for the Timosh
⋅
δ
2 enko formulas (with the exception of ovality), where the safety factor is concentrated in a global coefﬁcient, but is very important for Glock’s formulas, where the safety factor is distributed over a group of coefﬁcients. Since it is not always possible to estimate imperfections, the default values are neces
^{Γ} p,h
= 
1
+
0.41
h
–
0.006
⋅
^{δ} h
reduction factor for ovality where δ _{g} and δ _{h} are respectively the re duced annular gap and the reduced ovality. They are found using the following expres sions (in twolobe mode):
^{δ} g
=
2.94
⋅
g

t
⋅
0.2
R

t
and
^{δ} h
=
0.515
⋅
h
⋅
0.4
R

t
There also exists a global reduction factor which combines the two imperfections:
sary to limit supposed optimistic behavior of
the structure. It can be veriﬁed that the different Glock type formulas, for the same imperfections,
⋅
2 give practically the same results though the appearance of the formulas and the details of the calculations differ considerably from one method to another (charts, polynomials with 27 coefﬁcients, analytical formulas
^{δ} g ^{δ} h
1
–
4
⋅
δ
h
+
4.9
^{δ} h
^{Γ} p,g × h
= 
1 + 0.4
⋅
δ
g
– 0.6 ⋅
For the difference between AGHTM and RERAU see chapter 4.
3R international (43) Heft 89/2004
523
FACHBERICHTE
TTTTaaaabbbblllleeee 3333:::: Calculation of stresses  comparisons between German and French contribution
TTTTaaaabbbbeeeelllllllleeee 3333:::: Spannungsberechnungen: Vergleich der deutschen und der französischen Beiträge
GGGGeeeerrrrmmmmaaaannnn mmmmeeeetttthhhhoooodddd 
FFFFrrrreeeennnncccchhhh mmmmeeeetttthhhhoooodddd 

CCCCoooonnnnttttrrrriiiibbbbuuuuttttiiiioooonnnn 
AAAATTTTVVVVMMMM 1111222277772222 
RRRREEEERRRRAAAAUUUU 

FFFFEEEEMMMM 
FFFFEEEEMMMM ^{1}^{1}^{1}^{1}^{)}^{)}^{)}^{)} 
AAAAnnnnaaaallllyyyyttttiiiiccccaaaallll 
FFFFEEEEMMMM 

CCCCaaaallllccccuuuullllaaaattttiiiioooonnnn mmmmeeeetttthhhhoooodddd 
bbbbeeeeaaaammmm eeeelllleeeemmmmeeeennnnttttssss 
bbbbeeeeaaaammmm eeeelllleeeemmmmeeeennnnttttssss 
bbbbeeeeaaaammmm eeeelllleeeemmmmeeeennnnttttssss 

LLLLiiiinnnneeeerrrr:::: 

Water pressure p _{w} (kPa) 
48.8 
48.8 
48.8 
48.8 
Thickness t (mm) 
16 
14 
14 
14 
E _{L} (MPa) 
1500 
1500 
1500 
1500 
ν L 
0.35 
0 
0 
0 
IIIImmmmppppeeeerrrrffffeeeeccccttttiiiioooonnnnssss:::: 

Ovality (%) 
9% 
5% 
5% 
5% 
Gap (%) 
0.13% 
0.5% 
0.5% 
0.5% 
Intrusion (%) 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
DDDDeeeessssiiiiggggnnnn rrrreeeessssuuuullllttttssss:::: 

N (N/mm) 
21.6 
22.8 
21.3 
21.2 
σ _{N} (MPa) 
1.35 
1.63 
1.52 
1.51 
M (Nmm/mm) 
488 
243 
201 (285) 
192 (243) 
σ _{M} (MPa) 
11.2 
7.43 
6.15 
5.88 
p _{c}_{r} (kPa) 
145.7 
109 
100 
106 
^{1}^{)}
additional calculation for comparison with French method
etc.). The FEM is the source of the calcula tion of the charts, the polynomial coefﬁ cients and the analytical formulas. However note that certain authors only take two im perfections into account (ovality+annular gap) and that there is an open debate re garding the mode of buckling (1 or 2 lobes), though the majority opt for the onelobe mode, which results in the lowest critical buckling pressure. Since the Glock formulas are the same, the data are what makes all the difference.
It is interesting if Glock formulas constitute progress as compared to a global formula of the ASTM F1216 (Timoshenko) type. Progress as regards dimensioning is not measured only in terms of the ﬁnal result (here the thickness of the liner). A method of dimensioning must also be based on a mod el that is consistent with physical reality, and from this point of view taking the pipe – liner interaction into consideration, which is the basis of Glock’s solution, constitutes real progress. Differentiated treatment of each imperfection is also an advance, since it means that an imperfection is not left out of the calculation simply because it is conven ient to do so. But it’s not enough to have a sophisticated model, even one validated by the Finite element Method. The power of fact is also needed. In a global formula of the Timoshenko type, that experience resides entirely in the coefﬁcient K (equal to 7); in Glocktype formulas there is no global coefﬁ cient, and therefore the default values are what “contain” the experimental results. But
Doherty observes that “A problem with spec ifying default values is in their use. There is a tendency to use a default value as a ration al for minimizing the liner thickness when the real situation calls for a higher value”. The importance of the boundary conditions of the liner and a realistic deﬁnition of corre sponding default values is obvious.
Stresses in a circular liner due to external hydrostatic pressure
A structure must be veriﬁed for all identi ﬁed modes of failure. Moore’s paper 1998, for example, cites four limit states, and it is a good practice to specify, in the introduction to a design report, the limit states for which the structure has been veriﬁed. Veriﬁcation of stresses or strains is not carried out sys tematically by all authors. Some authors as sume that failure of a liner subjected to ex ternal hydrostatic pressure always takes the form of buckling (shape instability) and nev er of rupture of the material. That opinion is not discussed here, but stress calculations are quite familiar in engineering practice. In the framework of the Workshop, only two methods recommend calculation of the stresses due to external pressure – the ATV
M 1272 and the RERAU method. To these
two methods should be added those contri
butions based on the Finite Element Method, where stresses are evaluated automatically.
The RERAU method allows the evaluation of stresses using analytical formulas. The ATV
M 1272 method refers to diagrams with di
mensionless coefﬁcients for the section forc es in the liner wall. TTTTaaaabbbblllleeee 3333 gives the detailed results of the contributions of Falter (Germany) and Thé pot (France). The German contribution com prises two calculations: a calculation using Finite Element Analysis (with beam ele
ments) following the indications of the ATVM
1272 (thickness 16 mm, intrusion 2 %, gap 0.13 % and ovality 9 %) and a second calcu
lation made with the hypotheses of the
French contribution (thickness 14 mm, intru sion 0 %, gap 0.5 %, and ovality 5 %) to allow direct comparisons. The French contribution includes results using the RERAU analytical method as well as the results of a calculation using the Finite Element Method. It is obvious that the normal forces N are practically identical in the four contributions. This is not surprising since the normal force is not greatly affected by imperfections; it is
slightly greater than the product of the pres
sure p _{w} by the radius (which results in N =
19.5 N/mm). On the other hand, the Ger man contribution no. 1 results in a double ﬂexural moment when compared with the three other contributions. This difference is due essentially to the effect of the intrusion imperfection, which is not taken into account in the French contribution and which results, even for a slight intrusion, in relevant ﬂexural moments. In detail, note the very good correspond ence between the results of the Finite Ele ment calculations. The values between pa rentheses correspond to the calculations in onelobe mode and are directly comparable to the calculations of the German contribu tion. For example, the critical pressure is 109 kPa for the German contribution and 106 kPa for the French contribution. The Fi nite Element Method results are perfectly re producible (for equivalent assumptions). In conclusion it is obvious that stresses due to hydrostatic pressure loads are very sensitive to imperfections. For certain com binations of imperfections it is possible, that the limit state for material rupture may be reached before the limit state for stability of shape.
Effects of the action of soil and trafﬁc loading (circular liner)
Up to now the action of external hydrostat ic pressure on the liner was the main topic, supposing that the host pipe, even when de formed, remains rigid. In cases where the
host pipe is separated by at least four longi tudinal cracks, or if its mechanical character istics are very weak, possible movement of the walls must be considered because the pipe then becomes a quasimechanism in in teraction with the soil. This particular state is
codiﬁed “stage III” in ATVM 1272 or “fully
_{5}_{2}_{4}
3R international (43) Heft 89/2004
FACHBERICHTE
deteriorated” in ASTM F1216. In the French AGHTM recommendations, once the me chanical resistance of the existing installa tion is neglected, the liner is qualiﬁed as “structural.” When a rigid pipe breaks into four arched segments and ovalizes under the effect of vertical pressure, the vertical pressure is reduced by the formation of dis charging arches, and correlatively the hori zontal pressure increases by soil reactions (in case of sufﬁcient lateral soil stiffness). The relation between the horizontal and the ver tical pressure thus increases abruptly to a value near to 1 and the pipe generally ﬁnds a new equilibrium, but one which is unde ﬁned (hypostatic). While catastrophic failure is no longer a risk, (since it has already oc curred), movements are always possible be cause dimensional stability is no longer en sured. In such a situation, the alteration of the soil – pipe interface by bedding displace ment, the diminution of the mechanical characteristics of the surrounding soil, or simply creep can have direct consequences on the liner.
The majority of the authors of the Work shop have taken soil action into account, ei ther by using the options provided for in the published regulations, or with the Finite Ele ment Method (Hoch, Szot), or else with spe ciﬁc methods (Moore, Thépot). The deﬁni tion of the boundary between a stable and an instable pipe remains largely the respon sibility of the engineer, and not all partici pants in the Workshop deemed it useful to take the soil action into account.
To describe the soil reactions, the ASTM F1216 FD and AGHTM guidelines use mod els derived from calculation methods for ﬂex ible buried pipes. The existing host pipe is neglected and the stresses and displace ments are calculated as if the liner were placed directly in the soil. The ATVM 1272 method stands out in that it uses a complete liner+pipe+soil Finite Element model.
Calculation of noncircular liners (W/H = 700/1050 mm)
The calculation of noncircular sections was dealt with in seven contributions. The authors used either the Finite Element calcu lation method (three contributions), or a method of interpolation with a calculation formula of circular type (two contributions), or an analytical solution (one contribution), or else a semiempirical analytical method (WRc method). TTTTaaaabbbblllleeee 4444 gives the calculation hypotheses concerning the imperfections and the results in terms of thickness. Para doxically, the results are more closely spaced than those for circular sections (ex cept for the WRc result).
TTTTaaaabbbblllleeee 4444:::: Calculation assumptions for the noncircular liner (W/H = 700/1050 mm)
TTTTaaaabbbbeeeelllllllleeee 4444:::: Berechnungsannahmen für den nicht runden Liner (W ^{a} /H = 700/1050 mm)
CCCCoooouuuunnnnttttrrrryyyy 
AAAAuuuutttthhhhoooorrrr 
GGGGaaaapppp 
IIIInnnnttttrrrruuuussssiiiioooonnnn 
OOOOvvvvaaaalllliiiittttyyyy 
TTTThhhhiiiicccckkkknnnneeeessssssss 
MMMMeeeetttthhhhoooodddd 

gggg 
wwww vvvv 
oooovvvv 
tttt ((((mmmmmmmm)))) 

UK 
Gumbel 
 
 
 


Falter 
0.13 % 
0.5 
% 
 


Germany 
Hoch 
0.5 
% 
0.5 
% 
 


Niemann 
0.5 
% 
0.5 
% 
 


Analytical formula for 

France 
Thépot 
0 % 
0 % 
 
23 
non circular linings 

USA 
Hall 
0.9 
% 
0 % 
0 % 
23.9 
Interpolation method 

Canada 
Moore 
0 % 
(10 mm) 
20 % 
20 
Interpolation method 

a. 
W = Weite? 

Finite Element Methods 
^{p} cr 

t 
2.2 
[14] 

All results fall within a very tight range of Interpolation Methods 
 ^{E} L 
= 
0.308 
⋅ 

 H 


between 21.2 and 22.2 mm. The authors us 
Eq. 
(14) 
is 
equivalent, for the 3×2 
egg 

ing FEM applied the same intrusion of 0.5 % and a gap between 0.13 to 0.5 %. 
shape lining, to the Glock’s formula for the circular lining. Comparison between the Glock’s eq. (2) and eq. (14) shows that the buckling pressure of a 3×2 eggshaped lin 

Authors considered two limit cases cho sen from the three following sections: 
ing of height H is equal to that of a circular lining with a diameter of 1.71 H. 
■ 
C1: Circular section with a diameter 2H 

■ 
(based on the radius of the haunch area) C2: Circular section with a diameter H 

(based 
on 
the 
height 
of 
the 
3×2egg 

shape) 

■ 
C3: Circular section with a diameter H/ 

1.5 (based on the width of the 3×2egg 
shape) With two sections two ways of calculation result: calculate the buckling pressure of the mean section or calculate the mean of the buckling pressure of each section. The result of the ﬁrst method is req t = 20 mm and that of the second is 23.9 mm  these two results frame the ﬁnite element results.
Analytical Method (RERAU – Thépot)
Thépot developed a solution for the buck ling pressure of a non circular lining (egg shaped) subject to external water pressure (Thépot 2001):
^{p} cr
=
2.02
⋅
_{k} 2 ⁄ 5
^{E}^{I}
3 ⁄ 5
L
⋅
2 ⁄ 5
EA _{L}
_{⋅} 
_{p} 2 ⁄ 5
⋅
_{R} 9 ⁄ 5
[12]
where k is the number of lobe (1 or 2), P is the mean perimeter of the lining and R is the radius of the arc where the lobe develops. In the case of a plain wall and homogeneous material (EI/EA = t ^{2} /12) formula (16) can be simpliﬁed as follows:
^{p} cr

^{E} L
=
0.455
⋅
k 0.4
t ^{2}^{.}^{2}
_{⋅} 
_{p} 0.4
⋅
_{R} 1.8
[13]
In the case of the 3×2 egg shape of height H, R = H and P = 2.6433 H are valid, and eq. (13) reduces in onelobe mode (k = 1) to the following expression:
Conclusions
Designing a liner is a difﬁcult mechanical problem which combines several non linear effects: contact, displacement, and material (elastoplasticity). Liners are thin, very de formable structures subject to signiﬁcant creep and in variable contact with a rigid host pipe structure. Sometimes the host pipe is broken in segments that are in inter action with an elastoplastic soil material. Further, the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the problem are poorly un derstood; some are estimated or made de f ault values. For a long time a simple formula with a global coefﬁcient of experience (the Timosh enko formula modiﬁed by a casing factor) was thought to be sufﬁcient. In 1977 Glock published an approximate analytic solution to the problem of perfect circular liners sub mitted to hydrostatic pressure. Since design
calculation for circular liners had become imaginable, deﬁning differences from a per fect circle which does not exist in practice became the subject of numerous debates. A consensus emerged around three imperfec tions: an ovality imperfection (due to the shape of longitudinally broken host pipes), an annulargap imperfection (due to shrink age), and a local imperfection (intrusion). These three imperfections are not always measurable, and default values were de ﬁned based on experimental results and nu merical evaluation. The ﬁrst work using this concept was pub lished in the 1990s (Falter 1997, Boot 1998,
3R international (43) Heft 89/2004
525
FACHBERICHTE
Thépot 2000). It
was adopted in several
methods as a basic solution instead of Timoshenko's formula and it is found in the Leaﬂet ATVM 1272, in the RERAU method, and in the methods of Boot and Moore.
In the 970s the Finite Element Method made it possible to solve problems of soil structure interaction, of contact between sol ids, and of large displacements for which there were no analytical solutions. Today, the Finite Element Method has become inescap able, and indeed the majority of the contri butions of this Workshop use the Finite Ele ment Method directly or indirectly.
Today, despite the apparent differences between the methods (charts, formulas, in terpolation polynomials, etc.), calculation of the critical buckling pressure of a liner is no longer a fundamental problem (chapter 2). There is still a debate on the number of lobes and it has been veriﬁed that the meth ods based on the FEM and Glock’s formula yield approximate results for equivalent as sumptions. The default values for the imper fections ensure, in principle, coherence with the global coefﬁcient solution (ASTM F1216 formula).
Calculation of stresses due to the effect of external hydrostatic pressure is currently only dealt with by two methods: ATVM 127 2 and RERAU. Particularly the ﬂexural stress is very sensitive to imperfections (chapter 3.2). It cannot be excluded that with certain combinations of imperfections, the limit state for material rupture could be reached before the limit state for stability of shape. Thus veriﬁcation of the stresses is a judi cious complement to veriﬁcation of critical buckling pressure increasing the level of safety in presence of hydrostatic pressure.
All published methods of calculation take the effects of soil action into consideration (see chapter 4) in cases where the mechan ical stability of the pipe is no longer ensured. This particular mechanical state is codiﬁed “type III” in ATVM 1272 or “fully deteriorat ed” in ASTM F1216. The calculation models show varying degrees of sophistication; some model the cracked host pipe with its four hinges and its interactions with the liner and the surrounding soil, while others ne glect the existing host pipe and model the liner as if it were a new ﬂexible pipe in bed ding (ASTM F1216 for example). The Finite Element Method is also widely used. While ovality of a pipe via formation of four hinges favors the equalization of the pressures ex erted by the soil (via an arch effect), later movement is always possible since the pipe’s equilibrium is undeﬁned. This is why the soil pipe+liner or soil – liner interaction must be studied when the mechanical stabil ity of the pipe is no longer guaranteed. Gen erally speaking, taking soil action into con sideration increases the minimum liner
thickness obtained using the effect of hydro static pressure alone. The combination of the actions of groundwater and soil is a del icate point due to the nonlinearity of the cal culation models. The ATVM 1272 method uses interaction formulas (see chapter 4.3) which combine the partial safety coefﬁcients of each action. As a second example the calculation of an eggshaped liner was proposed (see chapter 5). The Finite Element Method was widely used, but the authors also adapted the meth ods used for circular liners. A complete ana lytical solution is proposed by the RERAU method, which is based on Glock’s solution extended to noncircular liners. The Workshop was an opportunity to judge the wide diversity of international design methods although they yield acceptably sim ilar results (see Tables 1 and 2). There is a general tendency toward distribution of the safety factor over several imperfections and limit states. This is a very positive develop ment, since safety must not be based on a single formula or a single global constant; the combination of several imperfections and several limit states increases the relia bility of the design and the level of conﬁ dence in the results. While the complexity of the methods of calculation increases, the en gineer’s creative freedom also increases, and in the end the ﬁeld of application of the technique is broadened. Liners are struc tures which deserve design methods at least as sophisticated as other civil engineering projects, and the Workshop has shown that such methods exist and are operational.
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank Mark Knight from the University of Waterloo, Ontario for the organisation of the Workshop. Thanks to Bernhard Falter and Albert Hoch for prepar ing the examples. All the design experts who have been involved in the Workshop are gratefully acknowledged for their contribu tions and their constructive remarks. Workshop participants:
■ 
Jess Boot, University of Bradford, UK 
■ 
Ian Doherty, Trenchless Design Engineer 
■ 
ing, Canada Bernhard Falter, University of Applied Sci ences, Münster, Germany 
■ John Gumbel, Insituform Technologies, UK ■ David Hall, Trenchless Technology Cent
■
er, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, USA Albert Hoch, LGA in Nürnberg, Germany
■ Ian Moore, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
■ 
Horst Niemann, Schwetzingen, Germany 
■ 
Arek Szot, Wroclaw University of Technol 
■ 
ogy, Poland Olivier Thépot, SAGEP, France 
Any opinions, ﬁndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessar ily reﬂect the views of the design experts.
References
[1] 
Aggarwal, S.C.; Cooper, M.J.: External pressure testing of Insituform linings. Internal report, Co ventry (Lanchester) Polytechnic, 1984 

[2] 
Boot, J.C.: Elastic buckling of cylindrical pipe li nings with small imperfections subject to exter nal pressure. Trenchless Technology Research 



[3] 
Cheney, J.A. Pressure buckling of ring encased in cavity. Journal of Engineering Mechanics , AS CE, 333343, 1971 

[4] 
Sawy, El; K., Moore, I.D., 1998. Stability of loo sely ﬁtted liners used to rehabilitate rigid pipes. J. of Struct. Eng. (11) pp. 13501357 

[5] 
Falter, B.: Structural analysis of sewer linings. Trenchless Technology Research 11 (2) pp. 27 41, 1997 

[6] 
Falter, B.; Hoch, A.; Wagner, V.: Hinweise und Kommentare zur Anwendung des Merkblattes AT VDVWKM 1272 für die statische Berech nung von Linern. Korrespondenz Abwasser 50 (2003) S. 451463 

[7] 
Glock, D.: Überkritisches Verhalten eines starr ummantelten Kreisrohres bei Wasserdruck von außen und Temperaturerhöhung. Der Stahlbau 



[8] 
Gumbel, J.E.: Structural design of pipe linings 

1998 
– Review of principles, practice and cur 

rent developments worldwide. http://www.insi tuform.com, 1998 

[9] 
Hall, D.E.; Zhu, M.: Creep induced contact and stress evolution in thinwalled pipe liners. Thin Walled Structures 39, (2001) No. 11, pp. 939 

959 

[10] 
Guice, L.K.; Straughan, T.; Norris, C.R. & Ben nett, R.D.: Longterm behavior of pipeline rehabi litation systems. TTC Report #302, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston LA., 1994 

[11] 
Moore, I.D.: Tests for pipe liner stability: What we can and cannot learn. Proc. North American NO DIG ’98 Conference, Albuquerque, pp. 444457, 
1998
[12] Timoshenko, S.P.; Gere, J.M.: Theory of Elastic Stability. Mc GrawHill, New York, 1961
[13] Thépot, O.: A new design method for noncircu lar sewer linings. Trenchless Technology Re search 15 (200) No. 1 pp. 2541
[14] Design Codes and Recommendations
[15] AGHTM RRR, 1998. Recommendations pour la réhabilitation des réseaux d’assainissement
[16] ASTM F 1216, 1998. “Standard practice for re habilitation of existing pipelines and conduits by the inversion and curing of a resinimpregnated tube” (1998)
[17] ATVM 1272 “Structural analysis for the rehabi litation of sewers by lining and prefabrication methods” (2000)
[18] ATVM 1432 “Digital sewer damage catalogue”
(2001)
[19] RERAU “Projet national Réhabilitation des ré seaux d’assainissement urbains. Reconstructu ration des collecteurs visitables. Guide techni que Tome 1. ” (2002)
[20] WRc/WAA 4 ^{t}^{h} ed. Sewerage Rehabilitation Ma nual (SRM). UK Water Research Centre/Water Authorities Association.
_{5}_{2}_{6}
3R international (43) Heft 89/2004
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.