Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

International Comparison of Methods for the Design of Sewer Linings

Olivier Thépot

erschienen in 3R international 8-9/2004

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

FACHBERICHTE FACHBERICHTE

FACHBERICHTE

FACHBERICHTE

FACHBERICHTE FACHBERICHTE FFFFiiiigggg.... 2222:::: Vitrified clay pipe (above, source: ATV-M 143-2) egg shaped pipe (right) BBBBiiiilllldddd

FFFFiiiigggg....

2222:::: Vitrified clay pipe (above, source: ATV-M 143-2) egg shaped pipe (right)

BBBBiiiilllldddd 2222:::: 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 für Kanal-Liner

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) Muster-Li- ner für einen runden sowie für einen ovalen Kanal zu konstruieren. Jeder Experte der ITTRC-Gruppe 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 DIPP-Liner.

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

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 ATV-M 127-2, 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 127-2, 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 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 (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 Pr = 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

Long-term 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 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 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

FACHBERICHTE

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 rd ed. method and the lowest value (10.4 mm) is the result of a pro- posal.

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.

Buckling of a circular liner subjected to external hydrostatic pressure

FACHBERICHTE case of circular ND 800 90 % of the thick- nesses are between 12.4 and

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, ATV-M 127-2), 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 rd ed

(WRc SRM)

 

14.8

 

4 th 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

 

(ATV-M 127-2)

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

 
  • 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

 
FACHBERICHTE

FACHBERICHTE

FACHBERICHTE FFFFiiiigggg.... 3333:::: Buckling modes BBBBiiiilllldddd 3333:::: Knick-Modi Oval imperfection Oval imperfections are viewed as the
FFFFiiiigggg.... 3333:::: Buckling modes
FFFFiiiigggg....
3333:::: Buckling modes

BBBBiiiilllldddd 3333:::: Knick-Modi

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 non-circular 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 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 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 ATV-M 127-2 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 ATV-M 127-2 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);

=

= long-term modulus (creep modulus) of the material; = Poisson coefficient;

  • C = reduction factor for ovality:

  • C =

1 – q 3 ------------------- , 2 ( 1 + q )
1 – q
3
-------------------
,
2
(
1
+
q
)

[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 CIPP-linings.

Formula of Hall (Trenchless Technology Center, Louisiana Tech University Ruston USA)

Hall uses a one-lobe 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]

4444:::: Imperfections BBBBiiiilllldddd 4444:::: Fehler
4444:::: Imperfections
BBBBiiiilllldddd 4444:::: Fehler

Formula of Boot (University of Bradford UK)

Boot uses a two-lobe Glock formula with

variable coefficients, corrected for two im- perfections:

log 10

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]

FACHBERICHTE

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 10 c = 0.524. In a bi-logarith- mic diagram, sets of lines are obtained which are parameterized by the pairs of val- ues for ovality and gap.

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

The ATV-M 127-2

formula is a one-lobe

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 GR,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 one-lobe 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 long-term 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.

5555:::: Reduction factors for oval imperfections (ex- amples) BBBBiiiilllldddd 5555:::: Verminderungsfak- toren für ovale Fehler (Bei-
5555:::: Reduction factors
for oval imperfections (ex-
amples)
BBBBiiiilllldddd 5555:::: Verminderungsfak-
toren für ovale Fehler (Bei-
spiele)

Formula of Thépot (RERAU national project, France)

Thépot uses a Glock formula of one- or two-lobe 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 one-lobe mode and k = 2 in two-lobe 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 two-lobe 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.

FACHBERICHTE

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

AAAATTTTVVVV----MMMM 111122227777----2222

 

RRRREEEERRRRAAAAUUUU

FFFFEEEEMMMM

FFFFEEEEMMMM 1111))))

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 cr (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 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.

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 Glock-type 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 127-2 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 127-2 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 ATV-M

127-2 (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 one-lobe 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 quasi-mechanism in in- teraction with the soil. This particular state is

codified “stage III” in ATV-M 127-2 or “fully

FACHBERICHTE

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 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 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 semi-empirical 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 non-circular 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

-

-

 

-

 
  • 27.3 WRc

 

Falter

0.13 %

0.5

%

 

-

 
  • 21.8 FEM (beam elements)

Germany

Hoch

0.5

%

0.5

%

 

-

 
  • 22.2 FEM

Niemann

0.5

%

0.5

%

 

-

 
  • 21.2 FEM

           

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 egg-shaped 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

EI

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 one-lobe 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 (elasto-plasticity). 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 elasto-plastic 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 annular-gap 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,

FACHBERICHTE

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 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 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: ATV-M 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 ATV-M 127-2 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 non-linearity of the cal- culation models. The ATV-M 127-2 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 egg-shaped 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 non-circular 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

  • 12 (1-2) : 3-15, 1998

[3]

Cheney, J.A. Pressure buckling of ring encased in cavity. Journal of Engineering Mechanics , AS- CE, 333-343, 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. 1350-1357

[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 V-DVWK-M 127-2 für die statische Berech- nung von Linern. Korrespondenz Abwasser 50 (2003) S. 451-463

[7]

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

  • 46 (1977) S. 212-217

[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 thin-walled 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.: Long-term 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. 444-457,

1998

[12] Timoshenko, S.P.; Gere, J.M.: Theory of Elastic Stability. Mc Graw-Hill, New York, 1961

[13] Thépot, O.: A new design method for non-circu- lar sewer linings. Trenchless Technology Re- search 15 (200) No. 1 pp. 25-41

[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 resin-impregnated tube” (1998)

[17] ATV-M 127-2 “Structural analysis for the rehabi- litation of sewers by lining and prefabrication methods” (2000)

[18] ATV-M 143-2 “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 th ed. Sewerage Rehabilitation Ma- nual (SRM). UK Water Research Centre/Water Authorities Association.