International Comparison of

Methods for the Design of

Sewer Linings
Olivier Thpot

erschienen in 3R international 8-9/2004

Vulkan-Verlag GmbH, Essen
Kontakt: N. Hlsdau (Tel. 0201/82002-33, E-Mail: n.huelsdau@vulkan-verlag.de)

FACHBERICHTE

Introduction

Fig. 2: Vitried clay pipe (above, source: ATV-M 143-2) egg shaped pipe (right)
Bild 2: Rohr aus verglastem Ton (oben, Quelle: ATV-M 143-2), ovales Rohr (rechts)

International Comparison of
Methods for the Design of
Sewer Linings
Ein internationaler Vergleich der Konstruktionsmethoden fr
Kanal-Liner
Participants of the International Trenchless Technology Research Colloquium (ITTRC) decided 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 countries) and compares different research approaches and national design concepts for
CIPP liners.
In Jahr 2001 beschlossen die Teilnehmer des International Trenchless Technology Research Colloquium (ITTRC, "Internationales Kolloquium zur Erforschung der grabenlosen
Verlegungstechnik"), CIPP (Cured in Place Pipe = im Einsatz hrtende Rohre) Muster-Liner fr einen runden sowie fr einen ovalen Kanal zu konstruieren. Jeder Experte der
ITTRC-Gruppe erhielt die gleichen Schadensfallbilder sowie die gleichen Verlegungsvorgaben. Das Ziel war die Bestimmung der notwendigen Mindestwanddicken. Dieser Bericht fat die Ergebnisse des Workshops (19 Teilnehmer aus 6 Lndern) zusammen und
vergleicht unterschiedliche Forschungsanstze und lnderspezifische Auslegungskonzepte fr DIPP-Liner.

Olivier Thpot
SAGEP (F)
E-Mail: thepot@sagep.fr

520

3R international (43) Heft 8-9/2004

There are several methods of calculation

available around the world for determining
the thickness of a pipe liner. In North America the ASTM F1216 method is usually used,
in Germany the ATV-M 127-2, and in France
the AGHTM RRR, to give only three examples. The existence of several methods is not
a problem in itself, and is even quite a normal situation, but the following two questions naturally arise:
What are the differences between the calculation methods?
What are the differences between the results of these calculation methods?
To attempt to answer these two questions,
two examples of calculations were proposed
to a group of specialists (experts, researchers, consultants), who submitted 19 detailed
contributions from 7 different countries. Several calculation methods were used: ve
methods that are either published or being
prepared for publication (ASTM F1216, ATVM 127-2, WRc SRM, AGHTM RRR, RERAU),
the results of research that has been published or subjected to experimental validation, and nally the Finite Element Method,
which is the most effective tool for structural
calculations.
The rst example is that of a circular clay
pipe with 800 mm internal diameter and 75
mm wall-thickness; the second example is of
a non-circular non-reinforced egg-shaped
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 (FFigure 2). The pipelines 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 examples. The surrounding soil is a gravelly material with aggregate, of medium density (DPr =
90 %). The geometric characteristics of the
two examples are given in Figure 1.
The mechanical characteristics of the liners are:
Material of the liners: resin impregnated
plastic bre
Short term modulus: 3000 MPa
Long-term modulus: 1500 MPa (creep
modulus)
Ultimate exural strength: 20 MPa
Ultimate compressive strength: 40 MPa
Poissons ratio: 0.35
The objectives of renovation are to restore
the water tightness of the pipes and their
long-term structural stability.
The results of the 19 contributions (12 for
ND 800 and 7 for egg-shaped W/H = 700/
1050 mm) are given in Table 1 and Table 2.
In the contributions as a whole, the dispersion of results is very reasonable due to the
complexity of the proposed examples. In the

FACHBERICHTE

case of circular ND 800 90 % of the thicknesses are between 12.4 and 17 mm, with
an average value of 14.5 mm. The highest
value (22 mm), which stands out clearly, results from the WRc 3rd ed. method and the
lowest value (10.4 mm) is the result of a proposal.
For non-circular 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.
Fig. 1: Geometric characteristics of the two examples
Bild 1: Die geometrischen Eigenschaften der beiden Muster

Buckling of a circular liner

subjected to external hydrostatic
pressure
The basic formulas

EI
p er = 3----------3
R

Country

Author

UK
(WRc SRM)

Gumbel

USA
(ASTM F1216)

Germany
(ATV-M 127-2)
France
(AGHTM RRR)

Research /
proposed

[1]

where EI is the transverse exural stiffness

and R the radius of the pipe walls middle axis.
Glocks formula (Glock 1977) gives the
critical buckling pressure of a liner subjected
to external uniform pressure (the liner pipe
interface is perfectly frictionless):
t
p er = E ---
D

Table 1: Results of the example 1 (ND 800 circular)

Tabelle 1: Ergebnisse von Beispiel 1 (NW 800, rund)

Published
standards

Practically each author uses an original

formula. Certain formulas are published in
national regulations (ASTM F1216, ATV-M
127-2), in recommendations (AGHTM, RERAU) or are the result of academic publication.
The formulas can be classied in two categories according to whether they derive
from Timoshenkos or Glocks formula.
Timoshenkos formula (Timoshenko & Gere
1961) gives the critical buckling pressure of
an unconstrained pipe subjected to uniform
external pressure:

Hall

Minimum required wall

thickness t (mm)

Remarks

22

3rd ed

14.8

4th ed

13.7 - 14.5

"PD"

Doherty

17.8

"FD"

Falter

16 / 17

Host Pipe Stage II / III

Hoch

13.5 / 15

Host Pipe Stage II / III

Niemann

16.2

Host Pipe Stage II

Thpot/Gumbel

14.5

Poland

Szot

16

FEM

Canada

Moore

16

Analytical

France

Thpot

14

RERAU

Denmark

Romdal/Gumbel

12.8 - 15.8

UK

Boot

10.7 - 12.4

mean value

14.5 mm

Analytical + FEM

2,2

[2]

where t is the thickness of the liner, D the average diameter and E the Youngs 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 Figure 3.
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 deection
of limited angular extension (FFigure 4).

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

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

Author

Minimum required wall thickness t (mm)

Remarks

UK

Gumbel

27.3

Analytical

France

Thpot

23

Analytical

Germany

Falter

21.8

FEM

Germany

Hoch

22.2

FEM

Germany

Niemann

21.2

FEM

USA

Hall

23.9

Analytical

Canada

Moore

20

Analytical

mean value

22.8 mm

3R international (43) Heft 8-9/2004

521

FACHBERICHTE

wg
g ( % ) = 100 ----R

[4a]

But some (Hall for example) use the diameter of the host pipe:
wg
g ( % ) = 100 ----D
Fig. 3: Buckling modes
Bild 3: Knick-Modi

Oval imperfection
Oval imperfections are viewed as the elliptical deformation of a rigid pipe with for longitudinal cracks (Figure 2). Moore denes
ovality as follows:
Dh D
q ( % ) = 100 -----------------Dh + D

[3]

The estimation of oval imperfection is fairly 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 estimation.
Elliptical ovality is only encountered for
exible 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 segments articulated at the crown, springings,
and invert. This model is a convenient artice of calculation.

Annular gap
The annular gap is assumed uniform and
simply characterized by its amplitude wg.
However, as for ovality, a percentage of the
radius or of the diameter tends to be used.
Note that the authors use different denitions. One practice is to divide the amplitude
by the average radius of the liner or of the
host pipe:

[4b]

The relation of 2 between the two denitions must be kept in mind. However, the
rst denition is the most common and the
easiest to extend to non-circular situations.
The values habitually used in the calculations vary between 0 and 2 % of the radius.
The default value of 0.5 % of the radius is
recommended by the ATV-M 127-2 for CIPP
liners (for deformed and re-deformed liners
M 127-2 proposes 2 %); Hall proposes
0.45 % of the diameter (0.9 % of the radius)
based on experimental results; Boot proposes values between 0.5 and 0.75 %. The relatively narrow range of 0.5 to 1 % thus has
the majority of votes.

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.
2 K EL
P cr
C
1
- ------------------------ -------- = adm p = -----------------2
N
( 1 ) ( SDR 1 ) N

[6a]

N = safety coefcient (equal to 2);

K = casing coefcient (equal to 7 for liners);
EL = long-term modulus (creep modulus) of the
material;
= Poisson coefcient;
C = reduction factor for ovality:
3

1q
C = -----------------2
(1 + q )

[6b]

where q is the ovality due to eq. (3)

Eq. (6) includes the safety coefcient, and

directly yields the admissible pressure as a
function of the SDR, or the inverse. Its validity depends mostly on the coefcient K and
experimentation which has established the
value K = 7 for CIPP-linings.

Longitudinal intrusion
Longitudinal intrusion is characterized by
its angular extension and its maximum amplitude. It is dened in the Leaet ATV-M
127-2 by the following equation:
2
w ( ) = w v cos --- ------ ,
2

[5]

Formula of Hall (Trenchless Technology

Center, Louisiana Tech University Ruston
USA)
Hall uses a one-lobe Glock formula with
variable coefcients, corrected for three imperfections:
[7a]

valid for -

a EL
1
1
- --------------------------- --adm p = -----------------2
m
( 1 ) ( SDR 1 ) N

(for N, EL, and SDR see eq. [6a])

[7a]

where wv is the maximum deection and

is varied to come to the lowest critical pressure (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 annular gap, the maximum deection is expressed as a percentage of the radius. The
Leaet ATV-M 127-2 prescribes a minimum
value of 2 % of the liners radius, Hall uses
1 % of the diameter (thus 2 %), and Szot 3 %.
Moore prefers to divide the maximum deection by the thickness, which in terms of radius yields 5.4 %. Thus the range arrived at by
the Workshop is 2 to 5.4 %. Note that longitudinal intrusion is not applied by all authors.

The three imperfections are: annular gap

(x), ovality (y) and local intrusion (z). The coefcients take the following form:
i

a = b ijk x y z
i

m = c ijk x y z

These are polynomials with three variables whose 27 (= 33) coefcients have been
adjusted based on results of Finite Element
calculations. For x = y = z = 0 the coefcients m = 2.25 and a = 1.06 result, resulting almost in Glocks solution for the onelobe mode. The inverted form of eq. (7a) delivers the wall thickness required:
D
req t = ---------------------------------------------------------1m
a EL
---------------------------------+1
2
N p (1 )

[7b]

Formula of Boot (University of Bradford

UK)
Boot uses a two-lobe Glock formula with
variable coefcients, corrected for two imperfections:
p cr
D
log 10 ------ = m log 10 --- + log 10 c
E
t

[8a]

which can also be written:

Fig. 4: Imperfections
Bild 4: Fehler

522

3R international (43) Heft 8-9/2004

p cr
t m
------ = c ---
D
E

[8b]

FACHBERICHTE

m and c depend on the ovality and the annular gap and are obtained by interpolating
the results from nite element analysis or by
directly solving the Glock equation appropriately modied 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 log10c = 0.524. In a bi-logarithmic diagram, sets of lines are obtained
which are parameterized by the pairs of values for ovality and gap.

Fig. 5: Reduction factors

for oval imperfections (examples)
Bild 5: Verminderungsfaktoren fr ovale Fehler (Beispiele)

Formula of the ATV-M 127-2 (Germany)

The ATV-M 127-2 formula is a one-lobe
Glock formula with reduction factors, corrected for three imperfections. It is written:
p cr = GR, s D s L

[9]

where rL is the radius of the liner walls middle axis, and sL is the liners thickness;
r L 0.8
D = 2.62 ----
is the buckling factor
s L

Formula of Thpot (RERAU national

project, France)

( EI )
s L = -----------L is the exural stiffness of the liner
3
rL

= reduction factor due to a local intrusion of amplitude w

GR, = reduction factor due to ovality of amplitude
wGR,
s = reduction factor due to an annular gap of amplitude ws

The reduction factors are functions with

two variables (imperfection + ratio rL/sL).
They were calculated using the Finite Element Method and are represented graphically by sets of curves parameterized by the ratio rL/sL. Also reduction factors for combinations of imperfections are admitted and
available for standard situations (Falter et.
al. 2003).

Formula of Moore (Queens University

Canada)
Moore uses a one-lobe Glock formula with
reduction factors corrected for three imperfections. It is written:
EL
t
- ---
p cr = -----------------2
( 1 ) D

2.2

Rq R Rd

[10]

Where EL is the long-term modulus (homogenized), and t and D are respectively the
thickness and the diameter of the liner. The
reduction factors have simple analytical expressions and depend only on the value of
the imperfection:
Rq = e

q 10

: reduction factor due to ovality q (%)

Thpot uses a Glock formula of one- or

two-lobe type with reduction factors, corrected for two imperfections:
EI L
p cr = p,h p,g k ------3 ,
R

[11]

where
EA L R 3
k = 2.02 k -------- ------
P EI L

0.4

is the buckling factor (general form).

In the case of a solid, homogeneous material (EI/EA = t 2/12) and a circular shape
(P = 2R), k can be simplied using the following expression:
k = 2.62 k

0.4

R
---
t

0.8

(k = 1 in one-lobe mode and k = 2 in two-lobe

mode).
The two reduction factors are found using
the following expressions:
1
p,g = ---------------------------------------------------------2
1 + 0.41 g 0.006 g

reduction factor for annular gap

1
p,h = ---------------------------------------------------------2
1 + 0.41 h 0.006 h

reduction factor for ovality

where g and h are respectively the reduced annular gap and the reduced ovality.
They are found using the following expressions (in two-lobe mode):
g R 0.2
R 0.4
g = 2.94 - ---
and h = 0.515 h ---

t t
t

d t

There also exists a global reduction factor

which combines the two imperfections:

: reduction factor due to local intrusion of amplitude

: reduction factor due to annular gap of
amplitude d.

Note that the amplitudes of the local intrusion and the annular gap are divided by the
thickness of the liner t and not by the radius.
The formula is reversible.

The inuence of 3 % oval imperfection is

shown in Figure 5 comparing the reduction
factors 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 liners wall
thickness.
Conclusions on the calculation of
critical buckling pressure

0.56 t

R = e
Rd = e

Examples for the inuence of ovality

1 4 h + 4.9 h
p,g h = -----------------------------------------------------1 + 0.4 g 0.6 g h

For the difference between AGHTM and

RERAU see chapter 4.

The formulas used for calculating critical

buckling pressure can be classied in two
groups, according to whether they derive
from Timoshenkos formula or Glocks formula.
In the case of the Timoshenko formula,
the inuence of the different imperfections,
with the notable exception of ovality, is taken
into consideration in a single, constant enlargement factor which was determined experimentally.
In the case of the Glock formula, the imperfections are treated individually using reduction factors or variable coefcients. The
precise denition of the imperfections is
therefore of little importance for the Timoshenko formulas (with the exception of ovality),
where the safety factor is concentrated in a
global coefcient, but is very important for
Glocks formulas, where the safety factor is
distributed over a group of coefcients.
Since it is not always possible to estimate
imperfections, the default values are necessary to limit supposed optimistic behavior of
the structure.
It can be veried that the different Glocktype formulas, for the same imperfections,
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 coefcients, analytical formulas

3R international (43) Heft 8-9/2004

523

FACHBERICHTE

Table 3: Calculation of stresses - comparisons between German and French contribution

Tabelle 3: Spannungsberechnungen: Vergleich der deutschen und der franzsischen Beitrge
German method
ATV-M 127-2

Contribution

French method
RERAU

FEM
beam elements

FEM 1)
beam elements

Analytical

FEM
beam elements

48.8

48.8

48.8

48.8

16

14

14

14

EL (MPa)

1500

1500

1500

1500

0.35

Calculation method
Liner:
Water pressure pw (kPa)
Thickness t (mm)

Imperfections:
Ovality (%)

9%

5%

5%

5%

0.13%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

2%

0%

0%

0%

N (N/mm)

-21.6

-22.8

-21.3

-21.2

N (MPa)

-1.35

-1.63

-1.52

-1.51

Gap (%)
Intrusion (%)
Design results:

M (Nmm/mm)

488

243

201 (285)

192 (243)

M (MPa)

11.2

7.43

6.15

5.88

pcr (kPa)

145.7

109

100

106

1)

524

additional calculation for comparison with French method

Doherty observes that A problem with specifying default values is in their use. There is
a tendency to use a default value as a rational 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 denition of corresponding default values is obvious.

etc.). The FEM is the source of the calculation of the charts, the polynomial coefcients and the analytical formulas. However
note that certain authors only take two imperfections into account (ovality+annular
gap) and that there is an open debate regarding the mode of buckling (1 or 2 lobes),
though the majority opt for the one-lobe
mode, which results in the lowest critical
buckling pressure. Since the Glock formulas
are the same, the data are what makes all
the difference.

Stresses in a circular liner due to

external hydrostatic pressure

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 nal result
(here the thickness of the liner). A method of
dimensioning must also be based on a model that is consistent with physical reality, and
from this point of view taking the pipe liner
interaction into consideration, which is the
basis of Glocks 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 convenient to do so. But its 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 coefcient K (equal to 7); in
Glock-type formulas there is no global coefcient, and therefore the default values are
what contain the experimental results. But

A structure must be veried for all identied modes of failure. Moores 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 veried. Verication
of stresses or strains is not carried out systematically by all authors. Some authors assume that failure of a liner subjected to external hydrostatic pressure always takes the
form of buckling (shape instability) and never 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 ATVM 127-2 and the RERAU method. To these
two methods should be added those contributions based on the Finite Element Method,
where stresses are evaluated automatically.
The RERAU method allows the evaluation of
stresses using analytical formulas. The ATVM 127-2 method refers to diagrams with di-

3R international (43) Heft 8-9/2004

mensionless coefcients for the section forces in the liner wall.

Table 3 gives the detailed results of the
contributions of Falter (Germany) and Thpot (France). The German contribution comprises two calculations: a calculation using
Finite Element Analysis (with beam elements) following the indications of the ATV-M
127-2 (thickness 16 mm, intrusion 2 %, gap
0.13 % and ovality 9 %) and a second calculation made with the hypotheses of the
French contribution (thickness 14 mm, intrusion 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 pressure pw by the radius (which results in N =
19.5 N/mm). On the other hand, the German contribution no. 1 results in a double
exural 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 exural
moments.
In detail, note the very good correspondence between the results of the Finite Element calculations. The values between parentheses correspond to the calculations in
one-lobe mode and are directly comparable
to the calculations of the German contribution. For example, the critical pressure is
109 kPa for the German contribution and
106 kPa for the French contribution. The Finite Element Method results are perfectly reproducible (for equivalent assumptions).
In conclusion it is obvious that stresses
due to hydrostatic pressure loads are very
sensitive to imperfections. For certain combinations 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

trafc loading (circular liner)
Up to now the action of external hydrostatic pressure on the liner was the main topic,
supposing that the host pipe, even when deformed, remains rigid. In cases where the
host pipe is separated by at least four longitudinal cracks, or if its mechanical characteristics are very weak, possible movement of
the walls must be considered because the
pipe then becomes a quasi-mechanism in interaction with the soil. This particular state is
codied stage III in ATV-M 127-2 or fully

FACHBERICHTE

deteriorated in ASTM F1216. In the French

AGHTM recommendations, once the mechanical resistance of the existing installation is neglected, the liner is qualied 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 discharging arches, and correlatively the horizontal pressure increases by soil reactions
(in case of sufcient lateral soil stiffness).
The relation between the horizontal and the
vertical pressure thus increases abruptly to a
value near to 1 and the pipe generally nds
a new equilibrium, but one which is undened (hypostatic). While catastrophic failure
is no longer a risk, (since it has already occurred), movements are always possible because dimensional stability is no longer ensured. In such a situation, the alteration of
the soil pipe interface by bedding displacement, 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 Workshop have taken soil action into account, either by using the options provided for in the
published regulations, or with the Finite Element Method (Hoch, Szot), or else with specic methods (Moore, Thpot). The denition of the boundary between a stable and
an instable pipe remains largely the responsibility of the engineer, and not all participants 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 models derived from calculation methods for exible buried pipes. The existing host pipe is
neglected and the stresses and displacements are calculated as if the liner were
placed directly in the soil. The ATV-M 127-2
method stands out in that it uses a complete
liner+pipe+soil Finite Element model.

Calculation of non-circular liners

(W/H = 700/1050 mm)
The calculation of non-circular sections
was dealt with in seven contributions. The
authors used either the Finite Element calculation 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 semi-empirical analytical method
(WRc method). Table 4 gives the calculation
hypotheses concerning the imperfections
and the results in terms of thickness. Paradoxically, the results are more closely
spaced than those for circular sections (except for the WRc result).

Table 4: Calculation assumptions for the non-circular liner (W/H = 700/1050 mm)
Tabelle 4: Berechnungsannahmen fr den nicht runden Liner (Wa/H = 700/1050 mm)
Country

Author

Gap
g

Intrusion
wv

Ovality
ov

Thickness
t (mm)

Method

UK

Gumbel

27.3

WRc

Falter

0.13 %

0.5 %

21.8

FEM (beam elements)

Hoch

0.5 %

0.5 %

22.2

FEM

Niemann

0.5 %

0.5 %

21.2

FEM

France

Thpot

0%

0%

23

Analytical formula for

non circular linings

USA

Hall

0.9 %

0%

0%

23.9

Interpolation method

Canada

Moore

0%

(10 mm)

20 %

20

Interpolation method

Germany

a.

W = Weite?

Finite Element Methods

All results fall within a very tight range of
between 21.2 and 22.2 mm. The authors using FEM applied the same intrusion of 0.5 %
and a gap between 0.13 to 0.5 %.

Interpolation Methods
Authors considered two limit cases chosen from the three following sections:
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 32egg
shape)
C3: Circular section with a diameter H/
1.5 (based on the width of the 32egg
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 rst method is req t = 20 mm and that
of the second is 23.9 mm - these two results
frame the nite element results.

Analytical Method (RERAU Thpot)

Thpot developed a solution for the buckling pressure of a non circular lining (eggshaped) subject to external water pressure
(Thpot 2001):
p cr = 2.02 k

25

35

25

EI L EA L
-----------------------------25
95
p R

[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
simplied as follows:
2.2
p cr
t
0.4
------ = 0.455 k --------------------0.4
1.8
EL
p R

[13]

In the case of the 32 egg shape of height

H, R = H and P = 2.6433 H are valid, and
eq. (13) reduces in one-lobe mode (k = 1) to
the following expression:

p cr
t 2.2
------ = 0.308 ---

H
EL

[14]

Eq. (14) is equivalent, for the 32 egg

shape lining, to the Glocks formula for the
circular lining. Comparison between the
Glocks eq. (2) and eq. (14) shows that the
buckling pressure of a 32 egg-shaped lining of height H is equal to that of a circular
lining with a diameter of 1.71 H.

Conclusions
Designing a liner is a difcult mechanical
problem which combines several non linear
effects: contact, displacement, and material
(elasto-plasticity). Liners are thin, very deformable structures subject to signicant
creep and in variable contact with a rigid
host pipe structure. Sometimes the host
pipe is broken in segments that are in interaction with an elasto-plastic soil material.
Further, the geometrical and mechanical
characteristics of the problem are poorly understood; some are estimated or made default values.
For a long time a simple formula with a
global coefcient of experience (the Timoshenko formula modied by a casing factor)
was thought to be sufcient. In 1977 Glock
published an approximate analytic solution
to the problem of perfect circular liners submitted to hydrostatic pressure. Since design
calculation for circular liners had become
imaginable, dening differences from a perfect circle which does not exist in practice
became the subject of numerous debates. A
consensus emerged around three imperfections: an ovality imperfection (due to the
shape of longitudinally broken host pipes),
an annular-gap imperfection (due to shrinkage), and a local imperfection (intrusion).
These three imperfections are not always
measurable, and default values were dened based on experimental results and numerical evaluation.
The rst work using this concept was published in the 1990s (Falter 1997, Boot 1998,

3R international (43) Heft 8-9/2004

525

FACHBERICHTE

Thpot 2000). It was adopted in several

methods as a basic solution instead of
Timoshenko's formula and it is found in the
Leaet ATV-M 127-2, 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 soilstructure interaction, of contact between solids, and of large displacements for which
there were no analytical solutions. Today, the
Finite Element Method has become inescapable, and indeed the majority of the contributions of this Workshop use the Finite Element Method directly or indirectly.
Today, despite the apparent differences
between the methods (charts, formulas, interpolation 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 veried that the methods based on the FEM and Glocks formula
yield approximate results for equivalent assumptions. The default values for the imperfections ensure, in principle, coherence with
the global coefcient solution (ASTM F1216
formula).
Calculation of stresses due to the effect of
external hydrostatic pressure is currently
only dealt with by two methods: ATV-M 1272 and RERAU. Particularly the exural 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 verication of the stresses is a judicious complement to verication 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 mechanical stability of the pipe is no longer ensured.
This particular mechanical state is codied
type III in ATV-M 127-2 or fully deteriorated 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 neglect the existing host pipe and model the
liner as if it were a new exible pipe in bedding (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 exerted by the soil (via an arch effect), later
movement is always possible since the
pipes equilibrium is undened. This is why
the soil pipe+liner or soil liner interaction
must be studied when the mechanical stability of the pipe is no longer guaranteed. Generally speaking, taking soil action into consideration increases the minimum liner

526

3R international (43) Heft 8-9/2004

thickness obtained using the effect of hydrostatic pressure alone. The combination of
the actions of groundwater and soil is a delicate point due to the non-linearity of the calculation models. The ATV-M 127-2 method
uses interaction formulas (see chapter 4.3)
which combine the partial safety coefcients
of each action.
As a second example the calculation of an
egg-shaped liner was proposed (see chapter
5). The Finite Element Method was widely
used, but the authors also adapted the methods used for circular liners. A complete analytical solution is proposed by the RERAU
method, which is based on Glocks solution
extended to non-circular liners.
The Workshop was an opportunity to judge
the wide diversity of international design
methods although they yield acceptably similar 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 development, 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 reliability of the design and the level of condence in the results. While the complexity of
the methods of calculation increases, the engineers creative freedom also increases,
and in the end the eld of application of the
technique is broadened. Liners are structures 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 preparing the examples. All the design experts who
have been involved in the Workshop are
gratefully acknowledged for their contributions and their constructive remarks.
Workshop participants:
Jess Boot, University of Bradford, UK
Ian Doherty, Trenchless Design Engineering, Canada
Bernhard Falter, University of Applied Sciences, Mnster, Germany
John Gumbel, Insituform Technologies,
UK
David Hall, Trenchless Technology Center, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston,
USA
Albert Hoch, LGA in Nrnberg, Germany
Ian Moore, Queens University, Kingston,
Canada
Horst Niemann, Schwetzingen, Germany
Arek Szot, Wroclaw University of Technology, Poland
Olivier Thpot, SAGEP, France

Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or

recommendations expressed in this report
are those of the author and do not necessarily reect the views of the design experts.
References
[1] Aggarwal, S.C.; Cooper, M.J.: External pressure
testing of Insituform linings. Internal report, Coventry (Lanchester) Polytechnic, 1984
[2] Boot, J.C.: Elastic buckling of cylindrical pipe linings with small imperfections subject to external pressure. Trenchless Technology Research
12 (1-2) : 3-15, 1998
[3] Cheney, J.A. Pressure buckling of ring encased
in cavity. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 333-343, 1971
[4] Sawy, El; K., Moore, I.D., 1998. Stability of loosely tted liners used to rehabilitate rigid pipes.
J. of Struct. Eng. (11) pp. 1350-1357
[5] Falter, B.: Structural analysis of sewer linings.
Trenchless Technology Research 11 (2) pp. 2741, 1997
[6] Falter, B.; Hoch, A.; Wagner, V.: Hinweise und
Kommentare zur Anwendung des Merkblattes
ATV-DVWK-M 127-2 fr die statische Berechnung von Linern. Korrespondenz Abwasser 50
(2003) S. 451-463
[7] Glock, D.: berkritisches Verhalten eines starr
ummantelten Kreisrohres bei Wasserdruck von
auen und Temperaturerhhung. Der Stahlbau
46 (1977) S. 212-217
[8] Gumbel, J.E.: Structural design of pipe linings
1998 Review of principles, practice and current developments worldwide. http://www.insituform.com, 1998
[9] Hall, D.E.; Zhu, M.: Creep induced contact and
stress evolution in thin-walled pipe liners. ThinWalled Structures 39, (2001) No. 11, pp. 939959
[10] Guice, L.K.; Straughan, T.; Norris, C.R. & Bennett, R.D.: Long-term behavior of pipeline rehabilitation 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 NODIG 98 Conference, Albuquerque, pp. 444-457,
1998
[12] Timoshenko, S.P.; Gere, J.M.: Theory of Elastic
Stability. Mc Graw-Hill, New York, 1961
[13] Thpot, O.: A new design method for non-circular sewer linings. Trenchless Technology Research 15 (200) No. 1 pp. 25-41
[14] Design Codes and Recommendations
[15] AGHTM RRR, 1998. Recommendations pour la
rhabilitation des rseaux dassainissement
[16] ASTM F 1216, 1998. Standard practice for rehabilitation of existing pipelines and conduits by
the inversion and curing of a resin-impregnated
tube (1998)
[17] ATV-M 127-2 Structural analysis for the rehabilitation of sewers by lining and prefabrication
methods (2000)
[18] ATV-M 143-2 Digital sewer damage catalogue
(2001)
[19] RERAU Projet national Rhabilitation des rseaux dassainissement urbains. Reconstructuration des collecteurs visitables. Guide technique Tome 1. (2002)
[20] WRc/WAA 4th ed. Sewerage Rehabilitation Manual (SRM). UK Water Research Centre/Water
Authorities Association.