You are on page 1of 84

ExxonMobil Proprietary

CIVIL WORKS Section Page


XXIX-C 1 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

Changes shown by ➧

CONTENTS
Section Page

SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................4

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................4

OBJECTIVE.....................................................................................................................................................5

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................................................5

WASTE STREAM IDENTIFICATION ..............................................................................................................5

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................6


BASIC RUNOFF HYDROLOGY ..............................................................................................................6
Design Storms and Return Period Storms, Storm Durations, and Hourly Intensities............................6
Runoff Flow Rate, Based on the Rational Formula...............................................................................9
Calculation of “Time of Concentration" ...............................................................................................10
Runoff Volume Calculation Using Simple Methods ............................................................................11
Storm Runoff Hydrograph...................................................................................................................12
Sewer System Flow Routing; Computerized Models..........................................................................13

HYDRAULIC DESIGN ...................................................................................................................................14


BASIC HYDRAULIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................................14
HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF BURIED SEWER PIPES .............................................................................16
HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF OPEN CHANNELS......................................................................................17
CULVERT CROSSINGS OVER OPEN CHANNELS.............................................................................18
HYDROLOGY / HYDRAULICS ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ..............................................................19

STRUCTURAL DESIGN................................................................................................................................20
DETERMINATION OF LOADS IMPOSED ON A BURIED PIPE ...........................................................20
Marston Formula for Earth Portion of the Total Load on Buried Conduits ..........................................21
Effects of Surface Live Loads or Other Surface Loads.......................................................................22
STRUCTURAL DESIGN METHODS FOR SELECTING PIPE WALL THICKNESS..............................25
Rigid Pipe Design ...............................................................................................................................25
Flexible Pipe Design...........................................................................................................................27
Use of HDPE Pipe for Sewers in Plant Areas Where there are Hot Process Streams .......................30
Thermal Effects ..................................................................................................................................37
Corrugated Metal Pipe........................................................................................................................37
Open Channels...................................................................................................................................37
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS / DESIGN SOFTWARE ..............................................................................38

NOMENCLATURE.........................................................................................................................................39

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 2 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

CONTENTS (Cont)
Section Page

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS .......................................................................................................67


HYDROLOGIC DESIGN .......................................................................................................................67
Example Problem No. 1, Synthesizing a Local Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curve from 30-Minute
Storm Data .........................................................................................................................................67
Example Problem No. 2, Calculating Time of Concentration for Use in the Rational Formula ...........69
Example Problem No. 3, Use of the Rational Formula for Runoff Flow Rate .....................................70
Example Problem No.4, Runoff Volume via Simple Runoff Coefficient, and via SCS Curve Number
Method ...............................................................................................................................................70
Hydraulic Design ...................................................................................................................................70
Example Problem No. 5, Pipe Flowing Partly Full (Gravity Flow) .......................................................70
Example Problem No. 6, Flow in Small Pipe Network using Rational Method ...................................71
Example Problem No. 7, Open Channel Flow....................................................................................74
Example Problem No. 8, Culvert Sizing .............................................................................................74
Structural Design...................................................................................................................................75
Example Problem No. 9, Calculating Earth Load via Marston Formula, Conventional Cut-and-Cover
Pipe in Trench ....................................................................................................................................75
Example Problem No. 10, Load Imposed by Nearby Uniform Distributed Surface Load....................75
Example Problem No. 11, Loads Imposed by Surface Traffic ............................................................76
Example Problem No. 12, Selecting Wall Thickness, Reinforcing Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
Pipe ....................................................................................................................................................76
Example Problem No. 13, Selecting Wall Thickness Requirements for Plain (non-reinforced) Concrete
Pipe ....................................................................................................................................................77
Example Problem No. 14, Selecting Wall Thickness, Reinforcing Requirements for Vitrified Clay Pipe
(VCP) .................................................................................................................................................77
Example Problem No. 15, Selecting Wall Thickness Requirements for Ductile Iron Pipe ..................77
Example Problem No. 16, Selecting Wall Thickness for HDPE Pipe, Smooth Wall Type ..................78
Example Problem No. 17, Selecting Wall Thickness for HDPE Pipe, Profile (Ribbed) Wall Type ......81

APPENDIX B - Formulas for Calculating Hydraulic Radius (R) and Flow Area (A) for Circular Pipes
Flowing Partly Full .......................................................................................................................................83

TABLES
Table 1 Typical Runoff Coefficients For Use In The Rational Formula...........................................10
Table 2 Estimates Of Manning's “N" For Overland Flow ................................................................11
Table 3 Overview Of Stormwater Modeling Computer Programs ..................................................14
Table 4 Manning's Coefficient “N" For Commonly Used Drainage Pipe Materials .........................16
Table 5 Manning's Coefficient “N" For Commonly Used For Open Channels ................................17
Table 6 Description Of Parameters Implicit In Marston Coefficient ................................................22
Table 7 Critical Loading Configurations, Highway Truck Loadings ................................................24
Table 8 Impact Factors As A Function Of Depth Of Cover, Concrete Pipes ..................................24
Table 9 Allowances For Casting Tolerances, Ductile Iron (DI) Pipe...............................................29
Table 10 Kb Values For Various Bedding Angles For Use With Modified Iowa Formula ................33
Table 11 Treatment Of Design Considerations By Commercial HDPE Pipe Manufacturers ............34
Table 12 Stiffness Requirements For Plastic Sewer Pipe Parallel Plate Loadings ..........................36
Table 13 Long Term (50 Year) Elastic Modulus E For HDPE Pipe ..................................................37
Table 14 Maximum Permissible Velocities For Various Channel Lining Types................................38
Table A-1 Factors For Converting From 30-Minute Duration Storm Depths To Depths For
Other Storm Durations, Continental U.S. ..........................................................................67
Table A-2 Factors For Estimating Total Rainfall Depth For Various Recurrence Intervals,
Continental U.S. ................................................................................................................67

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 3 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

CONTENTS (Cont)
Section Page

FIGURES
Figure 1 Example Of Rainfall Depth Map, Continental U.S., From U.S. Weather Bureau's
TP 40 10 Year, 1 Hour Storm, Inches ...........................................................................41
Figure 2 Relationship Between Design Return Period And Exceedance Probability ...................42
Figure 3-A Example Of Published IDF Curve, Houston TX, From TP 25 (U.S. Weath. Bur.) ..........43
Figure 3-B Example Of User Synthesized IDF Curve, Houston TX, From Example No. 1 In
Appendix A.....................................................................................................................44
Figure 4 Example Of Hourly Rainfall Distribution Within A Storm, SCS Type II Storm, U.S. .......44
Figure 5 Nomograph For Solution Of “Time Of Concentration" For Overland Flow .....................45
Figure 6 Curve Numbers (CN) For Various Land Use Classifications And Soil Types.................46
Figure 7 Direct Runoff Vs. Rainfall For Various CN (Curve Numbers).........................................46
Figure 8 Example Of Runoff Hydrograph.....................................................................................47
Figure 9 Examples Of Refinery Manhole Seal Arrangements......................................................47
Figure 10 Ratios Of Hydraulic Elements For Circular Conduits Flowing Part Full..........................48
Figure 11-A Inlet Control Nomograph For Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Culvert .............................49
Figure 11-B Inlet Control Nomograph For Concrete Pipe Culvert......................................................50
Figure 11-C Outlet Control Nomograph For CMP Culvert .................................................................51
Figure 11-D Outlet Control Nomograph For Concrete Pipe Culvert...................................................52
Figure 12 Illustration Of Earth Loads On Buried Conduit ...............................................................53
Figure 13 Marston Coefficient Cd ..................................................................................................54
Figure 14 Summary Of Standard Methods For Calculating Earth Loads On Buried Conduits .......55
Figure 15 Influence Diagram For Effects Of Distributed Surface Loads On Buried Pipe ...............57
Figure 16 AASHTO HS-20 Truck Loads On Buried Pipe ...............................................................58
Figure 17 Illustration Of “Three Edge Bearing" Test For Use In Indirect Design Of Rigid Pipes ....59
Figure 18 Bedding Factor “Bf" For Concrete Pipe..........................................................................60
Figure 19-A Bedding Factor “Bf" For Vitrified Clay Pipe ....................................................................62
Figure 19-B Bedding Factor “Bf" For Vitrified Clay Pipe ....................................................................63
Figure 20 Manufacturer Specific Design Charts/Tables For Thickness Design Of HDPE..............64
Figure 21 Soil Modulus E' For Use In Modified Iowa Formula For Flexible Pipe Design................65
Figure 22 Rip-Rap Sizing Requirements For Use As Channel Lining ............................................66

Revision Memo
12/01 DP updated to include information Hydrology / Hydraulics and Structural Design
on computer software programs available in the public domain. New guidance
also provided on using HDPE pipe in plant areas where there are not process
streams. General editorial revisions, including new Nomenclature.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 4 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

SCOPE
This section covers the hydrologic, hydraulic, and structural design of industrial plant sewers and open channels which serve to
convey storm runoff and firewater return flows away from operational areas to a point at which they can be treated and/or
released in accordance with applicable law or recovered into the water supply system. The methods customarily used to
estimate the quantity and discharge rates for storm runoff, hydraulic design of sewers and open channels, and methods dealing
with the structural design of sewers are described in this Design Practice. Firefighting flows are established by company and/or
plant practice and are described in the applicable Global Practices.
The methods described in this Design Practice are drawn from generally accepted procedures commonly used by civil
engineers to design storm sewer systems. While these are expected to be applicable to most routine storm drainage problems,
they should not be viewed as the only methods available. The designer is ultimately responsible for selecting the analytical and
design methods appropriate to a particular problem, and it is certainly possible that methods other than those described herein
may be more applicable to a given problem.
This Design Practice does not directly address process wastewaters, their treatment, nor the design of process wastewater
sewers except to the extent that process wastewaters are sometimes conveyed along with storm runoff in combined sewers. It
should be recognized that disposition of such combined flows can have a major impact on the design of drainage systems, the
same as the large flow rates and volumes from storm runoff can impact process wastewater treatment strategy and treatment
system design.

REFERENCES
DESIGN PRACTICES
Section XIX-A Water Pollution Control, Guidelines for Selecting Wastewater Treatment Systems
Section XIX-A1 Water Pollution Control, Primary Oil / Water Separators

GLOBAL PRACTICES
GP 3-2-1 Sewer Systems

OTHER REFERENCES
ACPA Concrete Pipe Design Manual, American Concrete Pipe Association, 1992
ANSI / AWWA C150/A21.50 Thickness Design of Ductile Iron Pipe
ANSI / AWWA C906-90 Polyethylene (PE) Pressure PIpe and Fittings, 4 in. through 63 in., for Water Distribution
ANSI / AWWA C950-88 Fiberglass Pressure Pipe
ASCE No. 77 Design and Construction of Urban Stormwater Management Systems, Manual of Practice No. 77, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1992
ASCE No. 37 Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers, Manual of Practice No. 37, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1982
ASTM C 14 - 94 Standard Specification for Concrete Sewer, Storm Drain, and Culvert Pipe
ASTM C 76 - 94 Standard Specification for Reinforced Concrete Culvert, Storm Drain, and Sewer Pipe
ASTM C 301 - 93 Standard Methods of Testing Clay Pipe
ASTM C-497 - 95a Standard Test Methods for Concrete Pipe, Manhole Sections, or Tile
ASTM C 700 - 95 Standard Specification for Vitrified Clay Pipe, Extra Strength, Standard Strength, and Perforated
Chow, V. T., Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964
Design of Small Dams, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1974
Holman, J. P., Heat Transfer, 4th ed.
NCPI Clay Pipe Engineering Manual, National Clay Pipe Institute, 1974
TP 40 Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1961
TP 25 Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1955

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 5 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this Design Practice is to provide the designer with a technical guide relating to:
• Calculation of the appropriate design flow in an open channel or pipe (hydrologic design).
• Sizing of the channel or pipe to handle the design flow (hydraulic design).
• Determining the required wall thickness for pipes or lining requirements for open channels as necessary to minimize
maintenance costs and assure operability over the design life of the conduit (structural design).
A secondary objective is to provide the means necessary to compute storm runoff volumes and flow rates. These may be
needed in the design of treatment works for combined waste streams (storm flows and other wastewater streams), or for
stormwater permitting considerations.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The following factors would be expected to have a bearing on the design, and should be considered at an early stage of the
design process.
• Plant safety; Petrochemical plant sewers can contain hydrocarbon vapors which require special systems to control the risk
of explosions. Plant sewers are in general isolated via water seal boxes to prevent vapor releases from drop inlets and to
prevent the spread of a fire or explosion between fire risk zones. Seals in plant sewer systems are described in GP 3-2-1.
• Plant layout and the topography of the area of interest and any tributary area.
• Possible future expansion of the plant, or changes to the drainage area tributary to the plant.
• Source of flow in the line or channel; entirely storm runoff, or contaminated storm runoff, or combination of storm runoff
with other waste streams (see following section describing categories of wastewater streams).
• If flow includes waste streams in addition to storm runoff, the chemical quality (e.g., pH, presence and concentrations of
solvents, other hydrocarbons, or other corrosive chemicals) that may affect the line's durability or the integrity of joints.
• The consequences of moderate leakage from joints. If consequences are viewed to be significant, it may impact selection
of sewer line materials. For example, HDPE can be made to be continuous and virtually leak proof, and gasketted joints
that are for all practical purposes leaktight under nominal sewer line pressures can be specified for jointed pipes.
• Return period or design storm; the consequences of hydraulically undersizing the line, which could include backing up or
ponding of storm water in critical or inconsequential locations. Higher consequences generally imply larger design storm
(i.e., selection of a greater return period).
• Firewater return flows that may be larger than the storm induced runoff for an isolated local area.

WASTE STREAM IDENTIFICATION


Waste streams within a plant may be separated into the following categories:
• Clean water or storm water; storm or firewater runoff from areas that are not normally subject to oil or toxic chemical
contamination, including
– oil free stormwater
– steam turbine condensate
– boiler plant condensate blowdown
– once-through cooling water and cooling water tower blowdown where possible hydrocarbon contaminants are
equivalent to C5 and lighter
• Oily water or industrial wastewater; oil-contaminated wastewater that is low in sulfides, COD and BOD, including
– process plant area stormwater runoff and firewater runoff, or runoff from any areas that are normally subject to
hydrocarbon or oil contamination
– normal oily and non-oily process wastewater
– water drawn off from atmospheric storage tanks
– ballast water
– wastewater from plant buildings used for operations or storage, including shop floor drains

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 6 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

WASTE STREAM IDENTIFICATION (Cont)


• Chemical wastes; acidic, caustic, and other wastes which are not permitted to be released to either sanitary or industrial
sewers in the plant, including
– waste streams high in acids, alkalis, COD or BOD
– laboratory chemical wastes
– sour water stripper effluent
– slop tank drawoff and flare seal water
• Sanitary wastewater; waste from toilet facilities, lavatories, showers and floor drains in restrooms, locker rooms,
cafeterias, wash rooms, etc.
For combined sewers, which are defined as sewers that carry more than one type of wastewater, the design requirements will
be controlled by the most stringent requirements of the individual sewers included in the system. The most common type of
combined sewer is a combined industrial wastewater/stormwater sewer system. It will be subject to the environmental and
permitting considerations for the industrial effluent (which are the subject of Section XIX-A) as well as the wide range in flow
rates and runoff volumes associated with storm runoff events, which are the subject of this Section XXIX-C.

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN
Hydrologic design involves the determination of flow rates and runoff volumes that would result from precipitation runoff. For
the design of the sewer systems, the primary item of interest is the runoff flow rate. Common units of measurement are gpm
(gallons per minute), cfs (cubic ft per second), m3/sec (cubic meters per second), MGD (million gallons per day), etc.
Conversely, the design of storage and detention systems, which may be a factor in permitting questions for combined sewer
systems, is more concerned with runoff volumes. Common units of measurement for runoff volumes are MG (million gallons),
acre ft, Km3 (thousand cubic meters), etc. If storm routing studies are anticipated, which consider temporary storage during
and after the passage of a runoff event, then both the flow rates and the runoff volumes are of interest. In such cases it is
customary to consider both the flow rate and the runoff volume by developing the runoff hydrograph, which provides the
instantaneous flow rate (e.g., cfs) as a function of time throughout a runoff event. The area under the runoff hydrograph curve
is the runoff volume. Hydrologic design principles discussed in this section are the basis for calculating both runoff flow rates,
runoff volumes, and runoff hydrographs.
In most industrial sites, runoff that results from rainfall will control the design of pipes and channels, wherein peak flow rate is
the item of interest. Snowmelt runoff can be of interest in extreme northern latitudes, or in alpine environments, but the runoff
flow rates associated with large melt events are typically small compared to flow rates resulting from rainfall events. By
contrast, the runoff volumes produced by snowmelt are typically much larger than runoff volumes from individual return period
rain storms. Because the design of plant drainage systems (i.e., conveyances) is tied more toward the flow rates than to
volumes, the hydrologic design aspects of drainage systems included in this Design Practice are limited to runoff produced by
rainfall events. Depending on the application (conveyance design or temporary detention storage), the methods used to
calculate runoff will range from simple ones that produce only peak flow rates or runoff volumes to more sophisticated
computerized methods that produce the entire storm runoff hydrograph.

BASIC RUNOFF HYDROLOGY

Design Storms and Return Period Storms, Storm Durations, and Hourly Intensities
The following terms are commonly used in rainfall runoff determination:
• Return period storm; a storm which has a defined statistical probability of occurring within a specified return period;
example, a “10 year storm". The concept is described in more detail below. “Return period" is often referred to as
“recurrence interval".
• Storm duration; the theoretical beginning and end of the return period storm. Total rainfall depths for storms of specific
return periods and specified durations are tabulated and published, usually in a “rainfall atlas" by weather bureaus or
similar government agencies.
• Rainfall intensity or hourly intensity; the instantaneous or hourly average rainfall rate within a given storm, expressed in
units of L/T. Average hourly intensities for a storms of specified durations and specified recurrence intervals for various
geographic locations are often presented in “intensity-duration-frequency", or “IDF" curves. An IDF curve is specific to
a given geographic location, and may be published by government bureaus. Average hourly rainfall intensities are
fundamental to calculating runoff flow rates.
• Total rainfall or total rainfall depth; the total accumulated rainfall for the specified storm duration and return period,
measured simply in units of L (generally in. or mm).

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 7 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN (Cont)


• Time of concentration; the time, usually in minutes, that it would take water from the hydraulically most remote location in
the catchment area, to arrive at the point of interest.
• Rainfall hyetograph; the time distribution of rainfall within a storm of defined duration, usually expressed as a plot of
rainfall intensity (e.g., in./hr) vs. elapsed time into the storm.
All surface hydrologic evaluations are based on statistically defined return period storms. Typically, the design of a hydraulic
facility will be specified in terms of a return period storm, such as a “10 year storm." In some cases, in particular those cases in
which the volume of runoff is as important as the flow rate, both the return period and the duration have to be specified (e.g., a
10 year, 24 hour storm). The total rainfall amount for storms of various durations and various return periods are tabulated for
most locations. In the U.S., the tabulation is generally in the form of rainfall atlases, which provide total rainfall amounts for
storm durations from 30 minutes to 24 hours and return periods of 1 to 100 years. Figure 1 is excerpted from TP-40 published
by the U.S. Weather Bureau, depicting rainfall amounts for storms of several recurrence intervals and several durations for the
United States. Similar maps are maintained by local government agencies for various other locations.
A “10 year" storm is the storm which would occur or be exceeded on an average of once every 10 years. Storms are thus
defined in accordance with an exceedance probability. It does not mean that a 10 year storm will occur once in every ten year
period, although the probability is 65% that at least one 10 year storm will occur in any given ten year period. If the designer
wants to be 90% sure that a conduit will not be undersized in any single year, he should design for the 10 year storm (see
Figure 2). 95% assurance that the flow would not be exceeded in any single year would require selection of the 20 year storm
as the design storm. Normally, the design period is greater than a single year, and is related to the expected service life of the
facility in question. Thus, if a designer wanted to be 90% certain that a conveyance or conduit would not be under-sized
throughout a 25 year service life, the appropriate design storm would be on the order of a 250 year event. Obviously, such a
design criterion would be appropriate only if the anticipated failure consequences are severe. Normally much shorter
recurrence intervals are used in sizing drainage systems, as discussed below.
Selecting the appropriate return period is a critical first step. Typically, storm sewers are designed for return periods of 2 to 25
years, depending on the consequences of their being undersized, which may involve no more than temporary and tolerable
flooding in isolated areas of the plant. However, if expensive equipment would be damaged or if a health/safety risk is posed
by the temporary flooding, a greater return period (i.e., larger design storm) should be considered. At one extreme, residential
drainage systems are usually designed for return periods of 2 to 5 years, and drainage systems in high value commercial areas
are typically designed at 5 to 10 year storms. At the other extreme, large above ground impoundments, which could cause
significant damage if they were to overtop, are usually designed for at least the 100 year storm. Exxon's current practice, as
reflected in GP 3-2-1 Sewer Systems, calls for storm sewers to be designed for the 10 year storm unless otherwise specified.
At sites where storm response flow records have been maintained for a considerable period of time there may exist enough
historical data to enable the designer to extrapolate directly to flows associated with other return periods. This is expected to
be a rare situation at most industrial sites, since continuous recording flow meters on storm sewers are not likely to exist. For
example, it can be shown by statistics that a period of record of about 22 years would be needed in order to be 90% certain that
the 10 year flow had been experienced. To be 95% certain, a period of record of about 28 years would be required. Therefore,
it is more likely that flow estimates will be prepared based on regional rainfall data than on site specific flow data.
Hourly precipitation rates during storms of a specified duration are defined according to a set of rainfall distribution curves. The
most commonly used hourly distribution for the U.S. (SCS Type II distribution) places about 55% of the rainfall within the two
hour period at the center of a 24 hour storm (see Figure 4). Other hourly distributions of rainfall within a storm are possible, but
the hourly distribution within a given storm is of interest only if the designer is attempting to produce a runoff hydrograph.
For instantaneous peak flow, all that is needed is the peak rainfall intensity for a specified time period (called “time of
concentration," discussed below), an appropriate runoff coefficient, and the catchment area. If only the total runoff volume is
desired, all that is needed is the total rainfall amount, an appropriate runoff coefficient, and the catchment area. If more
sophisticated storm routing through a sewer system is required, then determination of the runoff hydrograph will be required,
including appropriate assumptions regarding hourly rainfall intensity during the storm. For the latter cases, the runoff
hydrograph will probably be calculated using one of a number of rainfall-runoff models (e.g., SCS, TR 55, HEC), many of which
are included within the comprehensive storm runoff modeling programs described later.
Since storm duration does directly affect the runoff volume, it is necessary to specify storm duration as well as return period in
cases where detention storage (off-line or on-line) is being considered to reduce peak flow rates.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 8 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN (Cont)


Probably the simplest application, and certainly the most common in the design of drainage structures, is the determination of
the peak flow rate. For this application, a quantity called “time of concentration" or “Tc" is defined. This is the time, usually in
minutes, that it would take water from the hydraulically most remote location in the catchment area, to arrive at the point of
interest (i.e., the “point of concentration"). The hydraulically most remote point is not necessarily the farthest point
geographically, as it involves both the distance and the speed at which the water must travel. The latter is dependent on the
slope of the terrain or the slope and diameter of the pipes conveying the water to the point of concentration. There are simple
methods and formulas to determine time of concentration for any given catchment area, which take into account site
topography for undeveloped land, and slow times in site sewers or surface ditches for developed land. Methods to estimate Tc
are presented later in this Design Practice.
Once the time of concentration is defined by an appropriate means, the parameter of interest is the peak rainfall intensity
(usually in in./hr or mm/hr) that would be sustained for a duration equal to that previously defined time of concentration. The
theory is that if it would rain at this intensity for this length of time, the entire catchment area would be reporting to the point of
concentration, and the runoff flow rate would thus be at its maximum for that particular storm. Since the time of concentration
will vary for specific drainage components within a given site, it is generally necessary to have a curve of rainfall intensity for
various durations (i.e., various Tc) for various return periods. Such curves are referred to as “Intensity-depth-frequency" curves,
or “IDF" curves. They are essential to use of the simpler runoff calculation methods, including the rational formula described
below and many PC-based computer programs, and they are unique to a particular location.
a
IDF curves take the general form id =
(b + D) n
where: id = Intensity of rainfall (in./hr in Customary units, mm/hr in Metric units)
D = Duration of the rainfall, minutes
a, b, and n = Equation coefficients.
Some methods to compute runoff from rainfall, including some PC-based computer programs, can create IDF curves if the user
has the appropriate coefficients. However, it is more common to make use of weather bureau derived IDF curves if these are
available, or to synthesize an IDF curve from weather bureau derived relationships linking return periods, storm durations and
intensities, as discussed below.
Similar to the total rainfall depth curves for various return period storms and durations described previously, many government
agencies have also compiled atlases of IDF curves for various locations. In the U.S., these were first consolidated by the U.S.
Weather Bureau (1955) into a set of rainfall IDF curves known as TP-25. An example, taken from TP-25 (U.S. Weather
Bureau), is presented as Figure 3-A. Since then, many states have updated and fine tuned the IDF curves for their particular
region. Similar curves should exist at other locations in developed areas.
If the designer has neither a set of published IDF curves for his site, nor adequate historical runoff flow records, but does have
the 30-minute total rainfall depth for various return period storms, or can arrive at the 30-minute storm from storms of longer
durations, it is possible to generate local IDF curves for use in calculating peak runoff by the Rational Formula. The method as
applied in the U.S. is described in a number of texts on hydrology and in design manuals published by some pipe
manufacturers. A comparatively simple and straightforward method to produce IDF curves needed for design is described in
Example Problem No. 1 in APPENDIX A, and the resulting IDF curve is presented as Figure 3-B.

CAUTION
When referring to return period storms, durations, and intensities, confusion sometimes arises due to the units that are
used. A very common mistake is to consider that the minimum duration needed in determining a peak flow rate is the
storm of one hour duration, simply because the rainfall intensity in the commonly used Rational Formula is usually
expressed in in. (or mm) per hour. In fact, the peak hourly intensity for a 30 minute storm is as much as twice the
hourly intensity for the 60 minute duration storm of the same return period. This difference is much greater than the
difference that would occur by switching from a 10 year to a 25 year return period. Thus, if rainfall intensity is
incorrectly chosen as that associated with a 1 hour duration in a catchment area that really has a time of concentration
of 17 minutes, the peak flow so determined will be off (short) by more than 100%. What was thought to be a 10 year
design flow may in fact be no more than a 1 year flow.

When calculating runoff based on rainfall data, it is necessary to have some estimate of the direct runoff coefficient (the fraction
of the incipient precipitation that becomes runoff). The formulation of the runoff coefficient will vary with the method used to
compute the runoff, but in all cases the more impervious the surface, the higher the coefficient. Industrial areas that have a
significant amount of paved areas and equipment surfaces, where runoff is nearly 100%, will tend to have relatively high runoff
rates in comparison to rural land.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 9 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN (Cont)


The methods used to convert rainfall into runoff are for the most part simple and straightforward. Some are customarily carried
out using a computer program while others depend only on simple calculations. When seeking to produce a complete runoff
hydrograph (plot of flow vs. elapsed time), the designer should bear in mind that a reasonably accurate prediction of the
hydrograph will result if the designer knows just three input parameters:
• The catchment area (acres, meters2, ft2, etc.), usually determined from a topographic map or site drawings.
• The catchment area's imperviousness, estimated based on land use.
• The rainfall hyetograph for the design storm of interest (i.e., the hourly precipitation rate at various times within the storm).
In view of the above, the designer should not be concerned about whether the method selected to produce a runoff hydrograph
is the most precise of the several accepted theories. Virtually any generally accepted method will be suitable. What is
important is a good understanding of the three parameters described above.
Similar guidance exists for those cases in which the entire runoff hydrograph is not required. If the designer seeks only the
peak runoff flow rate, then only the catchment area, a runoff coefficient, and the peak rainfall intensity associated with the
correct time of concentration are needed. To determine total volume of runoff, only the catchment area, a runoff coefficient,
and the total rainfall depth are needed.

Runoff Flow Rate, Based on the Rational Formula


The Rational Formula, referred to as the Lloyd-Davies method in the United Kingdom, is a simple and widely used means to
calculate peak runoff rates for small watersheds. It is not recommended for catchment areas much greater than 200 acres or
for any area where ponding in the catchment area might affect peak discharge. Where it is applicable, the Rational Formula
relates peak discharge to rainfall intensity by the simple expression
Q = C i Ac Eq. (1)
where: Q = Peak discharge ft3/s,
C = Non-dimensional runoff coefficient,
i = Rainfall intensity over a duration equal to the time of concentration, described
in detail below, in./hr,
Ac = Catchment area, acres.
The formula is most convenient when expressed in U.S. units, and then only because 1 acre in./hr = 1.008 cfs. In metric units,
the rational formula becomes
Q = 0.278 C x i mm/hr x A Eq. (2)
m3 /sec km 2

The method requires a good definition of the limits of the catchment area. Normally this can be developed by defining
watershed divides (local high points) on a topographic map. In developed sites, the limits of the various sub-catchment areas
will be defined by the grading of the surface and the presence of man-made channels and/or drainage facilities.
The normal range of runoff coefficients are described in the following Table 1. For estimating purposes it may be sufficient to
use C = 0.5 for unpaved industrial areas, and C = 1.0 for paved areas and equipment surface or roof areas. Tankage areas
enclosed by dikes should be excluded from the total area calculation if stormwater release from these areas is controlled by
valved drains or if the water percolates into the soil.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 10 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN (Cont)

TABLE 1
TYPICAL RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR USE IN THE RATIONAL FORMULA

BY SURFACE TYPE: RUNOFF COEFFICIENT “C" BY LAND USE: RUNOFF COEFFICIENT “C"

Pavement Business
Asphalt and Concrete 0.70 to 0.95 Downtown 0.70 to 0.95
Brick 0.70 to 0.85 Neighborhood 0.50 to 0.70

Roofs 0.75 to 0.95 Railroad Yards 0.20 to 0.35

Lawns Industrial
Flat, in sandy soil 0.05 to 0.10 Light 0.50 to 0.80
Steep, in clayey soil 0.25 to 0.35 Heavy 0.60 to 0.90

Residential
Residential Suburban 0.25 to 0.40
Apartments 0.50 to 0.70

Unimproved Land 0.10 to 0.30

Calculation of “Time of Concentration"


As described in the previous section, in order to select the rainfall intensity from the locally applicable “intensity-duration-
frequency" curve (IDF) for the return period storm of interest, it is necessary to have calculated the “time of concentration" for
the particular catchment area. The hourly intensity for the storm of interest can then be read directly from the IDF curve.
Time of concentration can be calculated by means of the Kirpich formula, or similar empirical expressions, for undeveloped
portions of the catchment area where overland flow would prevail, and by summing up travel times for flow in discreet
conveyances (upstream sewer pipes and ditches) for developed land or industrial sites.
The Kirpich formula, in Customary units is as follows:
Tc = (11.9 L3 /H) 0.385 Eq. (3)

where: L = Distance in miles, measured along the watercourse to the hydraulically most remote
point in the catchment area,
H = Elevation difference from that point to the point of concentration, ft.
The above described formula is for overland flow mainly over bare earth, mowed grass, and roadside ditches. For flow over
paved surfaces, it is customary to multiply the Tc calculated via the above expression by 0.4. For flows primarily over grassed
areas, the Tc calculated via the above expression should be multiplied by 2.0. The calculation can be made numerically or by
means of nomographs such as Figure 5.
Time of concentration can also be defined by kinematic wave theory, which couples the continuity equation with bottom slope
and friction slope for overland flow. The resulting expression for time of concentration in Customary units is:

no0.6 L o0.6
Tc = 0.938 Eq. (4)
ie0.4 So0.3

where: Tc = Time of concentration, minutes


no = Manning's roughness coefficient for overland flow, given in Table 2
Lo = Distance from the farthest point in the catchment area to the point of interest, ft
So = Dimensionless slope of the surface, averaged over the catchment area
ie = Excess rainfall rate, in./hr

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 11 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN (Cont)


In metric units, the expression is:
no0.6 Lo0.6
Tc = 6.99 where: L is in meters and ie is in mm/hr Eq. (5)
ie0.4 So0.3

Note that the rainfall intensity is included in the expression for Tc. While this is technically more correct than the simpler
empirical approaches such as Kirpich's formula, it complicates the calculation by forcing iteration between the above
expressions and the IDF curve.

TABLE 2
ESTIMATES OF MANNING'S “n" FOR OVERLAND FLOW

SURFACE TYPE MANNING'S “no"

Concrete / asphalt 0.011


Bare sand 0.01
Bare clay / loam 0.02

Hard packed clay 0.03

Light turf 0.02


Lawns 0.025

Dense turf 0.035


Pasture 0.35
Dense shrubbery and forest litter 0.40

For developed sites where upstream areas contribute their flows primarily via pipes and channels, an estimate must be made of
the actual flow time in those pipes and channels, plus a quantity referred to as the “inlet time", which is the time required for the
water to flow overland from the most remote area within the catchment area to the drop inlet or catch basin. Inlet times in
developed industrial areas with closely spaced storm drains are customarily taken as 5 minutes. Once inside the sewer line,
flow time depends on flow velocity, which itself depends on flow rate. Initially this may appear to be an overwhelming task
requiring a complex iterative procedure, but it should be remembered that the flow velocity is more dependent on conveyance
dimensions (pipe diameter, ditch cross section) and gradient, both of which are fixed and known, than on the flow rate. Thus,
with a reasonable estimate of the influent flow, sometimes taken as the capacity of the upstream influent pipe or ditch, the
travel time can be approximated accurately enough once the conveyance dimensions, gradient, and roughness coefficient for
the upstream conveyances are known. Velocities are normally calculated using Manning's Formula, described later. The time
of concentration equals the sum of travel times for the various parts of the route from the hydraulically most remote point in the
catchment area, including initial inlet time. Note that time of concentration is cumulative as the designer proceeds from the
upstream to the downstream areas. The calculations performed to determine Tc for the uppermost reaches need not be re-
done as the process moves downstream. These times only need to be accumulated as the process moves downstream. For
small areas within a plant that may be flowing through a series of laterals to a main or a sub-main, it would not be unusual to
calculate a time of concentration as short as 10 minutes.
An example problem illustrating the use of the Rational Formula to determine a flow rate is provided as Example Problem
No. 3 in APPENDIX A.

Runoff Volume Calculation Using Simple Methods


If the entire runoff volume is the only parameter of interest, all that is needed is the design storm (return period and duration),
catchment area, and a suitable runoff coefficient. Runoff coefficients for this purpose are similar to those described for use in
the Rational Formula, and can be viewed in simple terms as the fraction of the incipient rainfall that becomes runoff.
A design example is presented below for discussion purpose, and is also included as Example Problem No. 4 in
APPENDIX A. The simplest application of the above, on a small industrial catchment area 70 ft x 170 ft (21 m x 52 m), would
be to assume a runoff coefficient of 0.9, for a paved industrial area. If the design rainfall amount were specified to be the 10
year 24 hour storm, which for Houston Texas is 8.5 in. (216 mm), the volume of runoff (Vr) would be
Vr = 0.9 x (8.5 in./12) x 0.27 acres = 0.172 ac ft = 56,000 gallons
(Vr = 0.9 x 0.216 m x 1,092 m2 = 212 m3)

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 12 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN (Cont)


A somewhat more sophisticated approach is the use of the runoff Curve Numbers (CN) as developed by the USDA/SCS. This
methodology is intended mainly for use on undeveloped acreage, but it can be applied to other small watersheds. The method
takes into account the degree of surface imperviousness in a more rigorous manner than the broad based coefficients used in
the Rational Formula. The method takes into account the initial interception and depression storage that occurs as a result of
surface irregularities, and it takes into account the rate at which infiltration can consume a portion of the incipient precipitation.
Theoretically, these factors are already included in the coefficients used with the Rational Formula, but there is no direct
connection between the two methods. For nearly impervious surfaces, such as paved areas within a plant, the CN is very high,
and the portion of the runoff that is consumed by the initial depression storage and infiltration during the storm are consequently
both very low. Conversely, for unpaved surfaces, or areas covered with vegetation, the above two factors consume a
considerable portion of the incipient precipitation. If a particular catchment area includes several types of land use and cover,
the CN approach is probably preferred. It is in some ways less judgmental and easier to document, which may be of
importance if third party review or approval is involved. Curve Numbers (CNs) for various land uses and various soil types are
presented in numerous references (e.g., Design of Small Dams, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1974). An abbreviated
summary is included in this Design Practice as Figure 7.
The method is fairly easy to use. Surfaces are classified in accordance with their land use, and in accordance with the soil
type. The catchment area is broken up into sections of approximately uniform land cover and soil type, and a weighted
average CN is developed for the catchment area. The direct runoff (Qd, in.) is then calculated according to the following
formula or read directly from a graph such as Figure 7.

Qd =
(P− 0 .2 S ) 2
Eq. (6)
P + 0 .8 S

1000
where: S = − 10
CN
P = total precipitation
CN = USDA / SCS Curve Number
For the previously described example (10 year, 24 hour storm at Houston, Texas), in an industrial area with CN = 92, the direct
runoff (Q) and runoff volume (Vr) would be:

Qd =
(8.5 − 0.2 (0.8696 )) 2 = 7.5 in.
(8.5 + 0.8 (0.8696 ))
Vr = 7.5 in./12 x 0.27 acres = 0.169 ac ft = 54,980 gallons
Had a CN of 95 been selected, the calculated direct runoff would be 7.9 in., and the corresponding runoff volume would be
57,900 gallons. These two CNs bracket the assumption of a runoff coefficient of 0.9 in the previous method. While the Curve
Number method is somewhat more complex than a simple runoff coefficient, it has the advantage of being compatible with
most of the methods used to produce complete runoff hydrographs, many of which are included within the more common
drainage system modeling programs (e.g., XP-SWMM, TR-55).

Storm Runoff Hydrograph


There may be occasions when it is desired to produce the complete storm runoff hydrograph for one or more return period
storms at a given site. For example, a complete hydrograph is generally needed if the issue is temporary detention of storm
flows in on-line or off-line storage, unless it is planned to contain the entire runoff flow. The latter is generally impracticable for
return period storms larger than one or two year events, and even then a substantial amount of land is required for the
detention basins. Nevertheless, if retention of the entire storm runoff is required, the simpler manual calculation methods
described in the previous section would be sufficient.
If it is intended to contain only a portion of the runoff, such as the first 30 minutes, synthesis of the entire hydrograph would be
required. It should be noted, however, that in cases such as this, it is likely that a sophisticated sewer system routing analysis
would be required anyway (discussed in following section). The computer programs that perform system routing also include
routines for developing the runoff hydrograph, which is one part of the input required for the storm response modeling. While
the techniques to develop a runoff hydrograph are simple enough to be programmed in a BASIC program or a spreadsheet, it is
unlikely that these would be used out of context of a formal sewer system routing analysis. Therefore, only the concepts
involved in constructing a runoff hydrograph will be described here. Techniques for creating a runoff hydrograph from rainfall
are provided in references (SCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 4) and (Design of Small Dams).

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 13 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN (Cont)


The input parameters for synthesizing a runoff hydrograph when given only the total rainfall amount (presumably from a rainfall
atlas), are similar to those described in the previous sections. Parameters include watershed imperviousness, which is
analogous to the runoff coefficient in the Rational Formula. The SCS curve numbers (CNs) are in fact used directly in some
hydrograph synthesis methods. Watershed topography is also needed to set lag times for individual sub-drainage areas within
the watershed. This is analogous to the time of concentration concept in the Rational Formula. Mini-hydrographs from sub-
drainage areas of the watershed will not, in most cases, line up peak to peak. Rather, they will be offset by their respective
travel times. Finally, the rainfall distribution throughout the storm (i.e., rainfall rate at various points in the storm, also know as
the rainfall hyetograph) is needed. This is analogous to the rainfall intensity in the Rational Method, although the Rational
Method concerns itself only with the instantaneous peak rainfall intensity applicable to the particular component of interest (i.e.,
a single pipe or ditch for which the peak flow is desired).
The SCS methods used in TR-55 and other urban runoff models builds the watershed hydrograph from a series of
dimensionless unit-hydrographs which are determined by the geometry of the particular catchment area. The unit hydrographs
for increments within the storm are then converted to runoff hydrographs by means of the runoff coefficients, and are then
added together, offset as appropriate according to their time position within the storm, to arrive at a consolidated runoff
hydrograph for the entire storm. The result is a plot of flow rate (e.g., cfs) as a function of time from the start of the precipitation
event to the effective end of the runoff. The end of runoff occurs some time after the rain has ceased, as would be expected.
An example of a runoff hydrograph is presented as Figure 8.
The storm runoff hydrograph provides the peak flow, the total runoff volume (area under the hydrograph curve), and the time at
which peak flow would occur. Fractional volumes at various points through the storm can also be obtained from the area under
the curve. Development of the complete hydrograph may be viewed as an unnecessarily complicated means of obtaining
something as simple as a peak flow rate. However, once the designer has obtained or written the necessary program or
spreadsheet, it is as easy to obtain the complete hydrograph as to compute a single peak flow. All that is needed is the total
storm depth and duration, the weighted runoff curve number (CN), the length and elevation difference (for time of
concentration), and the catchment area. Note that these input parameters, or comparable ones, would have been required for
the simpler hand calculations using the Rational Formula.

Sewer System Flow Routing; Computerized Models


Computer modeling of storm sewer systems has been a part of storm drainage and design since the mid-1970s. Several
Federal agencies in the U.S. undertook to develop software for this purpose, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with
their Storm Treatment and Overflow Runoff Model (STORM) and their previous HEC-1 and HEC-2 series models. The U.S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) developed their program TR-20 and later specifically adapted it to urban areas in a procedure
which has come to be known as TR-55. SCS did not develop computer programs for TR-55, but private vendors have done so
and market them as TR-55 solutions. Finally, the U.S. EPA developed the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM)
specifically for the analysis of combined sewer systems (storm and sanitary flows) to enable the analysis of response to single
storm events. PC based versions of all of these programs are available, either from the sponsoring agencies or from private
vendors. Except for the STORM model, the models are well suited to handle the common problem of routing a specific storm
though a sewer system, taking into account live storage within the system as well as off-line detention facilities. All of the
models, including STORM, can evaluate the potential for drainage design problems such as temporary flooding. A few can
take into account the effects of surcharging on sewers (i.e., lines flowing full with the pressure head higher than the top of the
pipe). A listing of some of the major features of the most generally accepted models is provided in the following Table 3.
Although some of the models purport to be able to predict water quality as a function of time within the runoff hydrograph
(referred to as “pollutographs"), the methods to predict storm water quality during passage of a runoff event are best described
as being in their infancy. This is due in a large part to the lack of scientifically controlled studies on the pollutant removal
efficiencies of detention facilities. While these models may not presently be appropriate for making definitive predictions of
water quality in runoff, they are certainly appropriate for determining the hydraulic and hydrologic response of sewer systems to
storm events, including determinations of runoff volumes at various points within a storm event.
The process of implementing a model, including collecting the necessary input data (pipeline sizes, lengths, gradients,
catchment area sizes and characteristics), setting up, and de-bugging the model is a major task. Experience with a few U.S.
refineries that have made use of a private vendor version of the SWMM model (XP-SWMM) indicates that it can require 1 to 3
man-months for a 500 acre (200 hectare) site. In view of the cost associated with such an effort for a major refinery or
chemical plant, it is clear that use of a sophisticated system model can only be justified when there is no other way to work the
problem. In general, the simplest method that provides the desired analysis should be used.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 14 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN (Cont)

TABLE 3
OVERVIEW OF STORMWATER MODELING COMPUTER PROGRAMS

ATTRIBUTE STORM SWMM TR55 HEC-1 STORMCAD


Sponsoring agency COE/HEC EPA SCS COE/HEC Haested, Inc
Number of pollutants 6 10 None None None
Rainfall/runoff analysis Y Y Y Y Y
Sewer system flow routing N Y Y Y N
Surcharge N Y N N Y
Flow regulators, overflow structures, weirs, etc. Y Y N N Y
Storage analysis Y Y Y Y N
PC versions available N Y Y Y Y
Data and personnel requirements Low High Medium Medium Low
Overall model complexity Medium High Low High Low

➧ STORMCAD is relatively easy to use and is best suited for sizing pipes in a network for the peak flow from a given return period
storm, or for evaluating the peak flow capacity of an existing system during various storm events. XP-SWMM is a complex
watershed model used mainly for determining flow rates and runoff volumes at any point in the network at any time during a
runoff event. It's capabilities and data input requirements are considerably more involved than those associated with
STORMCAD. More complete descriptions of these programs are provided in Section XXIX-N.

HYDRAULIC DESIGN
The objective of hydraulic design is determination of the conduit dimensions necessary to carry the design flows. For pipes, the
critical dimension is the diameter. For open channels, the required dimensions are the channel depth, bottom width and side
slopes. Slope or gradient is a factor for both pipes and channels, although the designer normally has less control over gradient
as a design variable. Gradient is usually limited by existing topography, i.e., the elevation of the point of interest vs. the
elevation that the pipe or ditch must tie into. Materials that a pipe is constructed of, or channel lining materials for the case of
open channels, is another variable over which the designer has some control. The pipe material or channel wall determines the
conduit's frictional drag properties, which affects the flow capacity for a given set of dimensions and gradient.

BASIC HYDRAULIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS


Storm drainage systems are normally designed to flow as open channels as opposed to pressurized conduit flow. This concept
is easy to accept for open ditches, but it also applies to buried drainage pipes. When buried pipes are flowing as partly full
channels, the condition is often referred to as “gravity flow" to distinguish from pressurized flow.
Buried pipes behave as open channels as long as they are large enough to not flow full when delivering the design flow.
Restricting the design to open channel flow simplifies the design calculations to the extent that the energy grade line and the
hydraulic grade line are essentially parallel to the channel bottom, or pipe invert. This creates a minor computational
inconvenience when determining the hydraulic radius of a pipe or ditch, which varies with the flow depth, but it allows the
gradient to be treated as an independent variable, essentially equal to the pipe slope. As mentioned above, since gradient is
for all practical purposes fixed by the site topography, it is convenient to allow it to be treated as an independent variable. The
designer then needs only to consider the respective friction coefficients and available diameters of the various pipe materials in
order to size the pipe to carry the design flow.
Buried sewer lines do in fact pressurize and flow under a condition referred to as “surcharge", which occurs whenever the
applied flow is greater than the capacity of the pipe flowing full under gravity flow. Normally, the maximum pressure head that
is assumed is the water level ponded over the downstream manhole, or the ground surface elevation at that manhole. Since
storm drains can be sized for storms as small as 2-year events, it is not uncommon for them to be surcharged whenever a
larger storm is applied. However, calculating the flow capacity during a surcharge condition is a much more complicated
undertaking, as it may require treatment of the sewer system as a pipe network, with variable surcharge heads at each junction
(manhole). Therefore, sizing the pipes to insure that they flow as individual open channels (i.e., the less than full condition)
simplifies the calculations.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 15 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

HYDRAULIC DESIGN (Cont)


The presence of seals in an industrial sewer can present special problems which need to be considered in design. For
example, if the outlet of a manhole into which a pipe flows is higher than the pipe invert, which might be deliberately done to
insure a vapor seal, then portions of that pipe may flow as a full conduit with the hydraulic grade line dictated by the tailwater
elevation in the manhole. The mere presence of an inverted elbow, which is another common means to effect a vapor seal
(see Figure 9), would not cause the pipe to flow as a full conduit so long as the liquid level in the manhole is less than 2/3 the
pipe thickness.
There are also physical considerations that encourage the designer to restrict sewer design to a non-pressurized condition.
While joints in new sewer lines are practically leak proof under the nominal pressures applied to the sewer, sewers (other than
force mains) are generally not designed to be leakproof under pressurized flows. Water escaping through joints or defects in a
sewer wall during surcharge events often returns to the sewer when the storm has receded, but in the process it can carry with
it soil from the outside of the line. This gradually weakens the soil-structure arch that contributes a portion of the sewer's
structural strength. This is the classical case of gradual deterioration of the line due to frequent surcharging. Thus, frequent
surcharging of buried sewers is generally viewed as a poor practice primarily because it tends to shorten the service life of the
system.
Another practical constraint on sewer design is the flow velocity. Flow velocity must be kept above a certain minimum to
ensure that grit and other debris does not build up in the line or channel. For pipes, which tend to be more difficult to clean than
channels, it is customary to keep the flow velocity limits at least 2.5 fps when the pipe is delivering the design flow at its design
depth (typically 0.7 times the diameter). At the other extreme, maximum velocities are usually limited by erosion and scour
considerations. For pipes, it is customary to limit the maximum velocity to about 10 fps. Occasional bursts of over 10 fps are
not likely to cause any damage to pipes in good condition. For channels, the maximum velocity is set by erosion
considerations, which are dictated by the material used in the channel lining (if any). Another complication unique to
petrochemical plants is that firewater return flows may control the design of the laterals, which might otherwise be sized to carry
smaller storm flows.
While flow velocity limitations may appear to present another variable to an already complex problem, the velocity when flowing
partly full is more dependent on the gradient than on the pipe dimensions. The gradient is often fixed by topographic
considerations, simplifying the designer's task somewhat by removing gradient as a variable. Indeed, there are cases in which
the designer would like to have the luxury of treating pipe slope as a variable, but more often the gradient will be fixed by other
constraints and therefore out of the designer's control. Under these circumstances, the designer need only select the conduit
dimensions and check to see that the design flow can be accommodated in the pipe flowing partly full at velocities within the
generally accepted limits. If the gradient is too flat to allow the minimum velocity to be attained, use of a smaller or larger pipe
will unfortunately not make a large enough difference. That conduit will simply require more frequent maintenance (flushing)
than would have been required if a better velocity mix could have been achieved. As a practical matter, topography within an
industrial site is usually fairly flat, so the designer will have a fairly narrow band of gradients to consider.
For flow in open channels, it is customary to provide some nominal freeboard to keep the flow from jumping out of the channel
and to account for undulations in the water surface which might be present if the water is flowing relatively fast. A minimum of
one ft or one velocity head (V2/2g) is a customary allowance. If the consequences of the flow jumping the channel are
significant at any particular location, it would be reasonable to an increase in the freeboard requirements at that location.
Similarly, ride-up on bends in an open channel is accommodated by providing additional freeboard, estimated on the basis of
the centrifugal forces on the flowing stream.
Flow in buried pipes and in open channels is defined by Manning's Equation (in Customary units), as follows
1.49 2 / 3 1/ 2
V( fps) = R S Eq. (7)
n

where: n = Manning's roughness coefficient (frictional drag coefficient), which depends on the pipe
or ditch material
R = Hydraulic radius, which is the flow area divided by the wetted perimeter, ft.
For pipes flowing full, it is simply half the radius, but for pipes flowing partly full it must be
calculated and is a function of the flow depth. For open channels it also must be
calculated for each flow depth.
S = Pipe or channel gradient (slope) in decimal form (e.g., 1.5% slope is S = 0.015).
In metric units, Manning's Equation is
R2 / 3 S1/ 2
V (m/s ) = where R is in meters Eq. (8)
n

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 16 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

HYDRAULIC DESIGN (Cont)


Since the water is incompressible, continuity requires that
Q = VA Eq. (9)
where: A = The cross sectional area of flow. For pipes flowing partly full and for open channels, A
also must be calculated as a function of flow depth.

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF BURIED SEWER PIPES


Manning's Equation is used in an iterative process to size the line for given design flow. Except for the fact that R varies with
flow depth, the calculation is simple and straightforward. Normally the gradient is fixed, and the design flow has been
calculated. The first task is to select a pipe diameter that will deliver the design flow at a flow depth of approximately 0.7 times
the diameter. Since the friction coefficient “n" varies with pipe material, it is also necessary to select a trial pipe material.
Prior to the advent of PCs and programmable calculators it was customary to select a trial diameter (D), assume a trial depth of
0.7 D, and then read R and A from a table or a chart such as Figure 10 for that trial D. Given S and n, and R and A from the
chart, the flow at depth = 0.7 D could be calculated using Manning's Equation. If the calculated flow was smaller than the
desired design flow, a larger pipe was selected and the process repeated. Each pipe diameter required a separate trip to the
chart to define R and A, which are both functions of D and depth.
It is a simple matter to program the expression for R and A into a spreadsheet or a BASIC utility program. The derivation of the
algorithms is provided in APPENDIX B.
Manning's roughness coefficients have been tabulated for the common materials used in sewer pipes, and a summary is
provided in Table 4 below. For the materials commonly used in industrial sewers, it can be observed that the Manning's “n"
does not vary much from the from the range of 0.011 to 0.015 listed for concrete, mortar lined cast iron, vitrified clay, and
plastic pipe. To account for wear and corrosion that may occur as pipes age, it is customary to select “n" values at the upper
end of the range for design purposes.
TABLE 4
MANNING'S COEFFICIENT “n" FOR COMMONLY USED DRAINAGE PIPE MATERIALS

RANGE OF COMMON
MATERIAL
MANNING'S “n" DESIGN VALUE

Asbestos-Cement pipe 0.011 - 0.015 0.013

Brick 0.013 - 0.017 0.015

Cast iron pipe, cement mortar lined and seal coated 0.011 - 0.015 0.015

Concrete pipe 0.011 - 0.015 0.015

Corrugate metal pipe (1/2 in. x 2-1/2 in. corrugations)


Plain 0.022 - 0.026 0.024
Paved invert 0.018 - 0.022
Spun asphalt lined 0.011 - 0.015

Plastic pipe (smooth) 0.008 - 0.015 0.011 *

Vitrified clay pipe 0.011 - 0.015 0.013

* Plastic pipe manufacturers claim that a value of 0.009 can be used for HDPE pipe and 0.010 for PVC pipe, while ASCE leans
toward the higher value within a range of 0.011 to 0.015. Since plastic pipe is generally viewed to be less susceptible to
corrosion, pitting, tuberculation or biological growth, it is not necessary to design for the upper limit of the friction coefficient. A
value of 0.011 is considered a reasonable compromise.
An example problem illustrating the use of Manning's Formula for a buried pipe flowing partly full is provided as Example
Problem No. 5 in APPENDIX A.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 17 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

HYDRAULIC DESIGN (Cont)

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF OPEN CHANNELS


As in the case of buried pipes, Manning's Equation is also used in an iterative process to arrive at a set of dimensions for open
channels. However, in the case of open channels there is an infinite number of combinations of bottom width and side slopes
which could be hydraulically satisfactory. Gradient is usually restricted by topography, but it is not uncommon for an open
channel to more or less follow the lay of the land (within reason). The intent is to avoid excessive excavation depths while still
providing a reasonable bottom gradient, the required flow depth, and a reasonable freeboard allowance.
Open channels, by virtue of their large cross section, are capable of conveying considerably greater flows than closed pipes.
However, practical limitations on channel cross section include the obvious space limitations which may be applicable in
confined areas. In open terrain, side slopes can be laid back at slopes of 1(vt) on 3 (hz), which allows a vegetative cover to be
established. 1 on 3 slopes are probably near the limit of what can be practicably mowed, and slopes as flat as 1(vt) on 6(hz)
are preferred if regular mowing is contemplated and if space permits. In confined areas, steeper slopes would be required. If
side slopes are steeper than about 1.25 (hz): 1 (vt), vegetative linings will be precluded. Rip-rap linings, gabions, or paved
lining (concrete or asphalt) may be required for these steeper slopes. Flow area that is lost as the side slopes are steepened
generally has to be compensated by a wider bottom width, although channels with steeper side slopes are hydraulically more
efficient than extremely broad ditch sections. In any case, both the channel side slopes and the bottom width are dimensions
that the designer may choose to vary.
Open channel flow is categorized as either sub-critical or super-critical, based on the hydraulic principle that open channel flow
with a given specific energy can flow at either of two conjugate depths. The sub-critical, or “tranquil", flow regime is
characterized by deeper flow depth and a slower velocity, while the super-critical, or “shooting flow", regime has a shallower
depth but a higher velocity. The channel should be designed to assure that the flow will remain either sub-critical or super-
critical and will not shift from one to the other except under deliberately controlled conditions. Even if the design results in
subcritical flow for the design storm, the conditions that would occur when passing larger events should be checked. The
condition of rapid changes from one flow regime to the other is referred to “rapidly varied flow", and it involves hydraulic jumps
and “holes" in the water surface. These are inherently difficult to control, which is the reason that changes from one flow
regime to the other should be avoided or at least controlled. Similarly, any changes in the channel geometry from one section
to the next need to be accomplished gradually to avoid triggering a hydraulic jump or a shift to super-critical flow.
Manning's coefficients for various types of open channel linings are tabulated in a number of references. Typical values for
Manning's “n" for various open channel conditions that might be encountered in practice are presented in Table 5.
TABLE 5
MANNING'S COEFFICIENT “n" FOR COMMONLY USED FOR OPEN CHANNELS

CHANNEL CONDITION MANNING'S “n" DESIGN VALUE

Lined Channels Asphalt 0.013 - 0.017 0.015


Concrete 0.011 - 0.020 0.016
Rubble or rip-rap 0.020 - 0.035 0.035
Vegetative cover (grass) 0.030 - 0.040 0.035

Excavated or Dredged Channels Earth, straight and uniform 0.020 - 0.030 0.025
Earth, winding but uniform 0.025 - 0.040 0.035
Rock 0.030 - 0.045 0.045
Unmaintained 0.050 - 0.14 0.1

Natural Channels (Minor Streams) Fairly regular section 0.03 - 0.07 0.06
Irregular section with pools 0.04 - 0.10 0.07

As is the case with computations for pipe flows, the calculations for flow in open channels can be computerized or can be
carried out using nomographs. The problem can easily be set up in a utility BASIC or spreadsheet format. A summary of the
derivation of Manning's solution for trapezoidal channels of any dimensions is presented in APPENDIX B. A design example of
the solution of Manning's Equation for an open channel problem is presented as Example Problem No. 7 in APPENDIX A.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 18 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

HYDRAULIC DESIGN (Cont)


Freeboard requirements are generally based on velocity, although a minimum of 1 ft is sometimes specified. A simple
relationship to velocity is:
Hfb = Cfb d , ft

where: Cfb = Coefficient varying from 1.5 for channels with capacities of 20 ft3/s to 2.5 for
channels with capacities of 3000 ft3/s or more
d = Depth of flow, ft.
Superelevation, or “ride-up" on a curve can be calculated as:
V 2 Tw
h=
g rc

where: h = Additional elevation, ft


V = Velocity, ft/s
Tw = Top width of the channel, ft
g = Gravitational constant
rc = Radius of curvature, ft.
This expression is also valid for metric units provided consistent units are used.

CULVERT CROSSINGS OVER OPEN CHANNELS


A consequence of the use of open channels is the requirement to provide bridges over the channel at various locations. Most
often this is accomplished by the used of pre-fabricated pipes, either CMP (corrugated metal pipes) or concrete pipes. The
primary design consideration is to provide a waterway opening large enough to allow the design flow to pass through the
culvert without backing up water excessively on the upstream side. The depth required to force the water through the pipe
must be lower than the roadway elevation (unless overtopping can be tolerated) and low enough so as not to cause upstream
backwater effects (ponding) or upstream bank overflows. In general, it is unusual to select a pipe so small that the headwater
required to drive the design flow through the pipe is more than twice the diameter of the culvert (total headwater depth
measured from the pipe invert). Situations such as this often require consideration of several parallel pipes or shift to a
hydraulically more efficient pipe-arch culvert or a bridge.
Most culvert design is carried out using a set of nomographs developed by the Federal Highway Administration. The solution
considers two possible controlling mechanisms:
• Inlet control, wherein the flow through the culvert is limited by head losses at the entry point.
• Outlet control, where the limiting factor is frictional losses incurred as the water flows through the pipe.
The condition which requires the greater headwater (upstream side) for a given flow in a given pipe (or set of parallel pipes) is
the controlling condition, and the headwater is then determined according to that condition. If the required headwater depth is
excessive, then a larger culvert must be considered.
Outlet control nomographs can be derived by considering Bernoulli's' equation for conservation of energy, continuity for
conservation of mass, and using Manning's equation to relate frictional energy losses to flow velocity. The outlet control
nomographs can therefore be adapted to simple spreadsheets or BASIC programs. However, the inlet control solution is based
on experimental work on pipes of various diameters and various inlet conditions (e.g., projecting, mitered) that was sponsored
by the US. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration in the 1950s. Some programmed solutions exist, but it
remains common practice to rely on the nomographs, which are reproduced here as Figure 11-A through D. Since the
nomographs are needed for the inlet control condition, it is customary to use the parallel set of outlet control nomographs as
well. However, the use of the nomographs forces a trial-and-error solution. Nomographs included in Figure 11 are only for
circular corrugated metal and circular concrete pipes. There are additional charts provided in other reference for special
sections such as elliptical pipes and pipe-arch culverts. (e.g., Design of Small Dams).
Typically, the designer will have a design flow, determined as described earlier in this Design Practice. For a starting point, it is
reasonable to assume the flow velocity through the culvert will be no more than 10 fps (3 m/s), which allows the selection of a
trial pipe size. The pipe is then checked against the “Inlet Control" nomographs, for the pipe type (corrugated metal or concrete
pipe) and entry conditions (headwall, mitered pipe, or projecting pipe). The headwater required to deliver the design flow is
then read from the nomograph. If the headwater required is greater than what can be accommodated at the crossing (e.g., if
the headwater would imply water flowing over the crossing or backing up water such that it flows out of the ditch), then a larger
pipe is selected.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 19 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

HYDRAULIC DESIGN (Cont)


Once a satisfactory solution has been achieved for the inlet control condition, the pipe is checked against the “Outlet Control"
nomograph. For this, the length of the pipe is a factor, which is not surprising given the nature of the outlet control solution
(friction losses along the pipe). Tailwater, the depth of water at the pipe outlet, is also a parameter. If it is unknown, or can be
assumed to be low enough so as not to impeded flow in the pipe, the tailwater is set at 0.85 times the pipe diameter. (The
assumption here is that if there is no tailwater, the flow in the pipe will drop through critical depth near its outlet, and 0.85D is a
sufficiently accurate representation of this condition) The nomographs require selection of an entrance loss coefficient (Ke), but
the solution is generally not sensitive to this. Assuming Ke = 0.9 is the more conservative approach (i.e., greater head loss at
entry implies slightly higher total energy losses in the pipe, hence slightly higher headwater requirement).
The total head required at the upstream end to drive the design flow through the pipe is the sum of the head determined via the
outlet control nomograph plus the applicable tailwater (if any). If this implies a higher headwater elevation than that defined as
acceptable by the inlet control nomograph, then the flow is outlet controlled for this pipe diameter and this flow. The process
would need to be repeated for the next larger pipe size. Conversely, if the outlet control analysis results in a lower headwater
elevation than that previously determined as acceptable for the inlet control condition, then the pipe is inlet controlled, and the
pipe diameter selected in the inlet control analysis is adequate.
An example problem illustrating the selection of a culvert size for a crossing is provided as Example Problem No. 8 in
APPENDIX A.

➧ HYDROLOGY / HYDRAULICS ENGINEERING SOFTWARE


A considerable amount of hydrology and hydraulics engineering softare is available in the public domain, which can be used to
solve the types of problems discussed in the previous sections. One source of public domain software is the U.S. Department
of Transporation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA software can be accessed fromt he world-wide web at
www.fhwa.dot.govt/bridge/hyd.htm.
The following hydrology and hydraulics engineering software is available on the website:
HY7 WSPRO version 061698 (1998) - WSPRO, a water surface profile computation model, can be used to analyze one-
dimensional, gradually-varied, steady flow in open channels. WSPRO can also be used to analyze flow through bridges and
culverts, embankment overflow, and scour at bridges.
Minimum requirements: IBM PC/AT or compatible, DOS, 400 Kb memory
HY8 Culvert Analysis version 6.1 - Culvert Analysis automates the design methods described in FHWA publications HDS-5,
"Hyrdraulic Design of Highway Culverts," HEC-14, "Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels," and
HEC-19, "Hydrology."
Minimum requirements: IBM PC or compatible, DOS 2.1 or higher
HY22 Urban Drainage Design Programs - The programs perform the following hydraulic tasks in Metric or Customary units:
• Drainage of Highway Pavements
• Open Channel Flow Characteristics
• Critical Depth Calculators
• Development of Stage-Storage Relationships
• Reservoir Routing
Minimum Requirements: PC or clone, MS-DOS
HYDRAIN 6.1 (1999) Integrated Drainage Design Computer System - All the programs included with this release of
HYDRAIN can perform calculations and present results using either Customary or Metric units.
HYDRAIN contains the following programs:
• HYDRO generates rainfall estimates, peak runoff estimates, and /or hydrographs.
• HYDRA is a pipe network hydraulics program used to model an existing storm drain/sewer system or to design a new
system. HYDRA generates storm flows by using either the Rational Method or by accepting a hydrograph generated by a
HYDRO analysis.
• WSPRO is a step backwater program for natural channels with an orientation to bridge constrictions. HYDRAIN contains a
DOS graphic user interface for use with the WSPRO executable.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 20 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

HYDRAULIC DESIGN (Cont)


• HY8 is a program that presents HDS-5 procedures for analysis and design of highway culverts, design of energy
dissipators, storm hydrograph generation, and reservoir routing upstream of a culvert. Culvert hydraulics computations for
circular, rectangular, elliptical, metal box, high and low profile arch, and arch shapes as well as for a user-defined geometry
are performed.
• NFF is the USGS-developed flood frequency program. It summarizes techniques for estimating peak-flood discharges and
associated flood hydrographs for a given recurrence interval or exceedance probability of unregulated rural and urban
watersheds.
• HYCHL is a program which assists in the analysis and design of roadside channels and riprap lining. The program follows
the FHWA procedures presented in HEC-11 and HEC-15.
Minimum Requirements: IBM XT/PC compatible, DOS 3.0 or higher, 7 Mb disk space, 560 K RAM free.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN
The objective of structural design is to determine the pipe type and wall thickness necessary to carry the loads from the
overlying soil and any transient or permanent surface loads that may be imposed. For open channels, structural design is
limited to providing an adequate lining that can withstand the erosive forces of the design flow.
For most pipe materials, structural design has evolved into a set of standards which are published and maintained by the
industry groups for each of the more commonly used pipe material types. An exception is the design of plastic pipe, which at
the present time has not been consolidated into a single industry standard. For plastic pipe, structural design is often carried
out in accordance with individual manufacturers' design manuals. Nevertheless, if a designer already has decided upon a pipe
material, he can refer directly to the applicable industry standards or manufacturers' literature, wherein design charts and tables
for various depths of burial and soil conditions are addressed. The following discussion provides background into the theory
upon which these industry standards and design manuals are based.
The structural design of pipes involves two parts, which are to some degree dependent upon each other. The first is the
determination of the earth loads and other surface loads such as traffic that are imposed on the pipe. The second is the
determination of the stresses in the pipe wall, and selection of a thickness adequate to resist them. The latter determination
may be dependent on yield stresses or on deformation considerations, depending on the type of pipe.

DETERMINATION OF LOADS IMPOSED ON A BURIED PIPE


The earth loads imposed on pipes are in all cases based ultimately on the dead weight of the overlying soil. In most cases the
calculation of earth loads is based either on the Marston Formula, which takes into account the ability of the soil to arch over
the pipe, or the simple prism of soil directly over the pipe, neglecting any arching that might occur. The Marston formula was
originally published in 1930, based on research into loads on buried rigid pipes carried out at the University of Iowa. It was later
expanded in the 1940s to include loads on flexible pipes. Deciding which formulation is more appropriate for use in determining
the earth load on a pipe depends on consideration of the pipe's rigidity and the potential for the backfill in the trench to settle,
allowing it to mobilize the shear strength along its sides and produce the arching effect.
In general, if a pipe is rigid but is buried in a trench that will of settle somewhat relative to the natural ground in which the trench
was excavated, the Marston load is the appropriate method for determining the earth load on the crown. Consequently, the
Marston load is usually used for rigid pipes (concrete, reinforced concrete, vitrified clay pipe) that are buried in a conventional
cut-and-cover installation, even when the backfill overlying the pipe is well compacted. This is the most common field
condition, and the primary application of the Marston load. By similar reasoning, if a pipe is flexible enough to compress under
the imposed earth loads, then the Marston load should also be applicable. The key factor here is that the backfill is assumed to
move downward relative to the natural ground, thereby mobilizing some degree of side shear, and producing the arching effect
reflected in the Marston approach. Notwithstanding the above, flexible pipe design can be carried out using either the Marston
load, which takes arching into account, or by calculating the dead weight of the simple soil prism directly over the pipe,
neglecting arching. Ductile iron pipe, corrugated metal pipe, and steel pipe are customarily designed using the simple soil
prism, while some plastic pipe (HDPE) is designed using either method.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 21 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


It is commonly assumed, and often stated in the literature, that the prism load is the more conservative approach, i.e., results in
a greater calculated load on the pipe crown. A comparison of the two methods shows that this is the case only if the Marston
load, calculated on the basis of the ditch width and not the pipe width, is assumed to act over the entire ditch width rather than
simply over the pipe crown. As discussed in more detail below, the ditch width dimension that is used in the Marston Formula
is customarily assumed to be 3 to 4 ft (1 to 1.2 m) wider than the pipe diameter, thereby providing the construction space
necessary to allow alignment of the pipe and placement and compaction of the bedding material adjacent to the pipe. If the
material adjacent to the pipe can be assumed to settle the same as the pipe deflection under load, then the assumption of
spreading the Marston load over the entire ditch width is valid. Under these circumstances the prism load would be greater,
and therefore more conservative. If, however, the fill adjacent to the pipe is more compressible than the pipe, or it settles more
than the pipe, then the entire Marston load will be carried on the pipe crown, which is the assumption customarily made for rigid
pipes. The presumption that the prism load is more conservative than the Marston load is valid only in context of the relative
settlement of the pipe crown and the adjacent soil backfill, and is not solely dependent on the pipe being flexible, as is
commonly assumed. Since the calculations are simple enough, the prudent designer may wish to calculate the earth
component both ways before deciding on a method in cases where either approach can be used. In making this comparison it
is necessary to convert one or the other loads to arrive on a consistent basis. For example, the prism load produces a simple
pressure on the crown (p=gH), while the Marston method produces a load per unit length of pipe. The latter can be converted
to a pressure to enable comparison to the presumptively more conservative prism load by simply dividing by the pipe diameter
or the trench width, depending on the expected compression in the backfill adjacent to the pipe in comparison to the pipe
crown. This reasoning leads some flexible pipe manufacturers to endorse a practice of using a design load for flexible pipes
that is somewhere between the prism load and the Marston load.
Whichever method is used to determine the earth load on the crown, the designer must bear in mind how that load will be used
in subsequent calculations for pipe wall thickness. As is described in more detail later, rigid pipe design methods are based on
Marston type loads, i.e., weight per unit length of pipe. Conversely, flexible pipe design methods are based on a pressure on
the crown (weight per unit area of crown). Surcharges from overlying footings and/or traffic loadings are initially calculated as
pressures. If these are being used in a rigid pipe design approach (concrete, reinforced concrete, VCP, some plastic pipe),
they are converted to weight per unit length of pipe, as described later. If they are being used in a flexible pipe design
approach (ductile iron, corrugated metal, steel, and most plastic pipe applications), they can be used directly as pressure (load
per unit area) in the design procedures without conversion.
Surface loads, such as passing vehicles, are assumed to be carried down to the pipe crown by elastic theory, most often either
a Bousssinesq distribution or a simple stress distribution prism (e.g., 2 (vt):1 (hz) slopes). Most pipe manufacturers also
recommend the use of an impact factor, which decreases with depth of burial, to be applied to the traffic induced portion of the
distributed loads. The impact factor varies with the pipe material, from 1.3 for concrete pipes and 1.5 for ductile iron pipes with
less than 1 ft (0.3 m) of cover, to 1.0 for pipes with 3 or more ft (1 m) of cover.

Marston Formula for Earth Portion of the Total Load on Buried Conduits
The most common application of the Marston load is for a rigid pipe buried in a trench, via a conventional cut-and-cover
construction technique. In such a case, it is assumed that the soil prism that must be carried is the width of the trench, which is
always a few feet greater than the pipe diameter. It is also assumed that some arching and redistribution of stress occurs along
the walls of the trench as the backfill in the trench settles downward with respect to the natural earth adjacent to the trench.
There are variations to the Marston formula that are applicable in special cases such as “tunneled in" pipes or pipes buried at
the base of a fill. In these cases the relative settlement is not as described above, and the Marston load is calculated
differently. This Design Practice is limited to the more common case of a pipe buried in a trench constructed by conventional
cut-and-cover technique.
The general form of the Marston Formula is:
Wc = Cd w Bd2 Eq. (10)
where: Cd = Dimensionless coefficient that depends on the soil type and the trench geometry,
w = Soil unit weight (pcf or kg/m2),
Bd = Width of the ditch at the pipe crown in units consistent with the unit weight.
The formula produces a load on the conduit, W c, in lb/LF along the pipe. This load may be changed into a vertical pressure (in
psi, PSF, or kg/cm2) for some design methods.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 22 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


The Marston coefficient Cd takes the form:
æ H ö
ç − 2 K u′ ÷
ç B d ÷ø
1− e è
Cd =
2 K u′

1 − sin φ
where: K = Ka =
1 + sin φ
u′ = tan φ
H = Depth from the ground surface to the top of the pipe,
tan φ = Soil's frictional strength.
Note that the only place the depth over the pipe appears in the Marston derivation is in the H / Bd ratio in
the exponent.
The Marston Coefficient has been reduced to a graphical format, as shown in Figure 13. While it is not explicit in many of the
references dealing with this formula, the five soil backfill conditions and their corresponding friction angles are as described in
Table 6 below:

TABLE 6
DESCRIPTION OF PARAMETERS IMPLICIT IN MARSTON COEFFICIENT

BACKFILL
CONDITION
DESCRIPTION K u or K u′ f (arctan u)

A Granular materials without cohesion 0.1924 30°

B Maximum for sand and gravel 0.165 17°

C Maximum for saturated topsoil 0.150 14°

D Maximum for ordinary clay 0.130 11°

E Maximum for saturated clay 0.110 9°

Ignoring for the moment the small differences in unit weights for sand and clayey backfills, it can be inferred from the above
table, or from a plot of the Marston coefficient “Cd" (Figure 13), that the highest load on the conduit results from the curve for
backfill condition E, while the lightest load on the conduit results from condition A. For all backfill types, the Marston Coefficient
has reached its maximum value by about H/Bd ≅ 15 to 20. For the worst case (maximum load on the pipe), represented by
Backfill Condition E, the maximum Marston coefficient is 4. 3 at H/Bd ≅ 20. For the lightest load on the pipe, represented by
Backfill Condition A, the Marston coefficient reaches a maximum of 2.6 at H/Bd ≅ 15.
The recommendations on the use of the Marston formula as presented by the respective manufacturers associations for the
various types of sewer pipes differ in some details. A summary of current practice is presented in Figure 14. The most
significant differences are in what is selected for the trench width (Bd, or width of the “ditch" in the Marston Formula).
Obviously, the calculated load on the pipe crown is very dependent on this variable. Example Problem No. 9 in APPENDIX A
illustrates the use of the Marston Formula to determine the earth component of the load on a buried pipe.

Effects of Surface Live Loads or Other Surface Loads


Surface loads are assumed to be transmitted to the elevation of the pipe crown by means of elastic theory. When used in
conjunction with the Marston load, as would be the case for a rigid pipe, they are converted into a load per unit length that can
be added to the Marston earth load to arrive at a total design load on the pipe crown. The fundamental assumption is that the
surface loads will be spread out and attenuated on the way down to the pipe crown. Obviously, if the pipe is far enough below
the surface, the live loads may be spread out to the extent that they offer no significant additional load on the pipe. If the loads
are caused by traffic, it is customary to multiply the static load by an impact factor that varies from a maximum of 1.5 for pipes
within 1 ft of the surface to 1.0 for pipes 3 or more ft deep.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 23 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


Two general cases of distributed loads are described in this Design Practice, which cover the more common applications
expected in a plant. One is a static load that may be imposed by a footing or temporary load such as a crane directly over or
near an underground pipe. That case is generally evaluated using influence diagrams such as the one provided as Figure 15.
The other case is the standard AASHTO loading for trucks. In theory the approaches are similar to the extent that both take
into account the vertical pressure over a finite loaded area at the surface, and then proceed to determine an effective area as a
function of depth below the load. A summary of the stress distribution assumptions for truck loadings is provided in Figure 16.
More comprehensive discussion of the topic can be found in soil mechanics texts.
Distributed Loads, by Newmark's Integration of Boussinesq Equations
For a uniform load over a finite area of known dimensions over a pipe of known depth, the general form of the equation is
Wsd = Cs p Fi Bc

where: Wsd = Load on the sewer pipe in pounds per unit length,
p = Intensity of the distributed load at the surface, in units of W/L2,
Fi = Dimensionless impact factor (for traffic or railroad loads, if applicable),
Bc = Width of the sewer pipe,
Cs = Dimensionless load coefficient which is a function of dimensions of the loaded area
(length and width) in comparison to the depth to the crown of the sewer pipe, as
described on Figure 15.
Note that by multiplying by the pipe width Bc, the pressure is converted to a load per unit pipe length. As described in the
following sections, structural design methods for selecting pipe wall thickness for rigid pipelines requires a determination of the
load on the conduit in pounds or kips per unit length of pipe. The load calculated as described above, wherein the conversion
has been made to load per unit length, can be combined directly with the Marston load to determine the total load on the crown
so that the wall thickness selection can proceed.
For distributed loads that are not centered over the pipe, the effective load can be determined by breaking the area into
separate rectangles each of which has one corner over the point in question, and then adding or subtracting the coefficients for
the rectangles (i.e., superposition) as appropriate to arrive at the coefficient for the offset loaded area. Note that in assigning a
coefficient for each of the rectangles, the coefficients in the table on Figure 15 need to be divided by 4 to account for the fact
that the loaded point is under a corner, as opposed to the center, of each of four sub-areas.
An example of the load on a buried conduit caused by a rectangular loaded area above and just offset from the pipe is provided
as Example Problem No. 10 in APPENDIX A.
Distributed Loads for Highway Vehicles
If the pavement has been designed for heavy truck traffic, the pavement's effect is to substantially reduce the wheel pressure to
the extent that the effects of traffic load on a buried pipe can generally be neglected. This is true for concrete pavements and
heavy duty flexible (asphaltic concrete) pavements. Conversely, relatively thin pavements do not reduce the pressure
transmitted to an underlying conduit to any significant degree. For the purposes of determining the effect of traffic loads on
buried conduits, any gravel roadway or chip-and-seal surface would be treated as an unsurfaced roadway. Since it is more
likely that paved roadways within an industrial plant will have been designed for only occasional passage of heavy truck traffic,
the methodology used to take such traffic into account when determining loads on a buried pipe is needed, and is presented
below.
The standard highway truck loading is the AASHTO HS20 Load or the AASHTO Alternate Load. The standard AASHTO HS20
load involves a front axle with two wheels at 4,000 lb (1,800 kg), six ft apart (see Figure 16). Design is however controlled by
the rear axle which is 32,000 lb (14,500 kg) carried on two sets of dual wheels, each set loaded to 16,000 pounds (7,250 kg)
and centered six ft (2 m) apart. The alternate load is the common tandem set of dual wheels commonly associate with a semi
tractor-trailer. In the alternate loading, each of the four sets of dual wheels carries 12,000 lb (7,260 kg), spaced 6 ft (2 m) apart
left to right and 4 ft (1.2 m) apart front to back. Finally, if the roadway is a two lane roadway, the design loading condition may
need to consider the “passing" condition which places two HS20 trucks next to one another, with the centers of the dual wheels
spaced 4 ft (1.2 m) apart.
From the above discussion it is obvious that the critical loading condition for any given field application will vary with the depth
to the pipe. At shallow depths (less than 1.33 ft) the critical condition will develop as a result of the standard HS20 load (16,000
lb single axle). From 1.33 ft down to 4.1 ft, the critical loading transitions to the passing of two standard 16,000 lb single axles
(32,000 lb), and for depths greater than 4.1 ft, the critical load results from passing of two HS20 alternate loading tandem axles
(48,000 lb) (21,780 kg). The transition depths have been tabulated and are presented below in Table 7, along with the
dimensions of the effective area at various depths in with reference to Figure 16.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 24 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)

TABLE 7
CRITICAL LOADING CONFIGURATIONS, HIGHWAY TRUCK LOADINGS

H, ft Pw, lb Condition ALL, Distributed Loaded Area


H < 1.33 ft 16,000 One set of dual wheels (0.83 + 1.75 H) x (1.67 + 1.75H)
1.33 < H < 4.1 ft 32,000 Passing dual wheels (2 trucks) (0.83 + 1.75 H) x (5.67 + 1.75H)
H > 4.1 ft 48,000 Passing tandem dual sets (2 trucks) (4.83 + 1.75 H) x (5.67 + 1.75H)

Having determined the effective loaded area at the pipe crown as described above, the unit pressure applied to the pipe crown
is calculated as follows:
Pw (1 + lf )
wL =
ALL

where: wL = Average pressure intensity, in units of weight per unit area (psf if Table 7 and Figure
16 are used),
Pw = Wheel load,
ALL = Distributed liveload area on the plane at the outside top of the pipe,
If = Impact factor, described in the following Table 8.
Note that the loads calculated above are at this point still expressed as pressures, and have not been converted to loads per
unit length of pipe for use in rigid pipe design. Impact factors used in this calculation are tabulated below.

TABLE 8
IMPACT FACTORS AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH OF COVER, CONCRETE PIPES

THICKNESS OF COVER, H IMPACT FACTOR, If


H < 1 ft 0.30
1 ft < H < 2 ft 0.20
2 ft < H < 3 ft 0.10
H > 3 ft 0.00

Ductile iron pipe manufacturers and plastic pipe manufacturers commonly use a fixed impact factor of 1.5 regardless of depth.
In this configuration, the analogous If would be 0.5.
The pressure wL still has to be converted into a load per unit length of pipe to be compatible with the other loads on the pipe for
rigid pipe design. This is accomplished by determining an “effective supporting length of pipe", calculated according to the
following expression.
æ 3 Bc ö
L e = L ALL + 1.75 ç ÷
è 4 ø

where: Bc = Outside diameter of the pipe (or height in the case of elliptical pipes),
LALL = Length of ALL along the longitudinal axis of the pipe (refer again to Figure 16).
The load on the pipe, in units of weight per unit length of pipe, is then calculated as:
Wt = w L L e SL

where: SL = Outside horizontal span of the pipe or the width of ALL, whichever is less.
Note that W t is now in units of weight per unit length of pipe, and can be combined with other loads on the
pipe (Marston load for earth component, other distributed loads) to arrive at a total design load on the pipe
crown. Had the design procedure been based on flexible pipe design methods, the conversion would not
be necessary.
An example describing the calculation of a truck loading on a pipe is presented as Example Problem No. 11 in APPENDIX A.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 25 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)

STRUCTURAL DESIGN METHODS FOR SELECTING PIPE WALL THICKNESS


While the methodology used in determining the loads on the pipe is generally based on the Marston load or the simple prism of
earth directly over the pipe, plus whatever distributed live loads may exist, other structural design principles vary significantly
according to the pipe material. A summary of the design procedure for each type of sewer pipe are described below.
The structural design approach depends first on whether the pipe is considered rigid or flexible. The main difference is that
rigid pipes are assumed to be capable of carrying the imposed vertical loads on them with no assistance from the earth material
adjacent to the pipe. Rigid pipes include cast iron, concrete, reinforced concrete, and vitrified clay pipe. Flexible design
assumes that the pipe deforms enough to press outward against the soil adjacent to the pipe, and in so doing mobilizes some
lateral resistance from the soil, which then helps to carry the imposed vertical load. Flexible pipes include steel (tubular and
corrugated metal), all plastic and fiberglass reinforced plastic pipe, and ductile iron pipe. The latter might be viewed as rigid,
similar to the cast iron pipes which they have for the most part supplanted. However, most ductile iron pipe used in sewers is
internally lined with a cement mortar lining. The deformation limits of the lining are much smaller than the deformation needed
to mobilize the complete strength of ductile iron. Ductile iron is therefore designed in accordance with the procedures for
flexible pipes.
Pipe structural design is further broken down further into “direct" and “indirect" design methods. In direct design, the stresses in
the pipe of a given trial diameter and wall thickness are calculated and compared to allowable yield stresses. Such an analysis
would consider both the geometry of the system and the material properties of the sewer pipe and surrounding soil mass.
Depending on the degree of sophistication in the assumptions dealing with soil response, the direct design methods can be
analytically complicated. Their application is usually limited to flexible pipe design, and to large diameter reinforced concrete
pipe for which the simpler methods may produce overly conservative designs.
Indirect methods rely on long established empirical methods based on laboratory testing of standard dimensioned pipes (pipe
diameter, wall thickness, reinforcing arrangement), which result in tabulated ultimate loads for the various sizes of pipe. The
strengths are measured in terms of the ultimate “three edge bearing" tests. Indirect design for unreinforced concrete and
vitrified clay pipe is based on the ultimate crushing load (i.e., rupture) for pipes tested in accordance with the standard three
edge bearing test, while loading for reinforced concrete pipe is usually based on the three edge bearing load that causes a
crack 0.01 in. wide to open. Indirect design is applied most often to rigid pipes.
Indirect design methods are based on applying field loads calculated by means of the Marston formula to pre-defined pipe
sections for which the load carrying performance has been established via laboratory standard loading tests. The method can
result in conservative designs for pipes greater than 48 in. in diameter. In such cases a more precise analysis can be made
using a direct design method based on the principles of soil structure interaction. Such methods are considerably more
complex than the commonly applied indirect methods described below for rigid pipes, although advances in PC applications are
making such analyses more common. Nevertheless, soil-structure interaction analyses are beyond the scope of this Design
Practice. Direct method design for rigid pipe is therefore not discussed in any further detail.

Rigid Pipe Design


In general, rigid pipe design is based on the indirect method, which is applicable to concrete, reinforced concrete, and vitrified
clay pipe. Indirect methods are also applicable to cast iron pipes, but these are seldom used in direct burial applications today,
and have been supplanted by ductile iron, which is designed according to flexible pipe methods. However, understanding of
rigid pipe design as it applies to cast iron may still be of use in an evaluation of an existing installation.
The goal is to determine the required dimensions, essentially the necessary wall thickness required for a given pipe diameter
and a given field loading condition. The indirect design methods are based on a standardized laboratory test in which prototype
pipe specimens are loaded to failure (or to a specified crack width short of failure for reinforced concrete pipe) in accordance
with a standardized arrangement. Based on the results of standardized tests, ASTM C 700, C 14, and C 76 provide tables for
the load (in pounds per linear ft of pipe length) that a pipe of given dimensions and wall thickness is presumed capable of
carrying. Pipes meeting these industry standard specifications are fabricated and marketed by various manufacturers. It is
presumed that if a pipe of given dimensions (wall thickness and diameter) claims to meet the applicable standard, then the pipe
could be counted on to carry at least the specified load (in pounds per linear ft of pipe) that the standard says a pipe of those
dimension should be capable of carrying. That is the essence of the indirect design method.
To use the indirect method, the designer first calculates the combined earth and surcharge loads, in pounds or kips per linear ft
of pipe length (note, not per ft of width), applies a safety factor which depends on the pipe type, applies a bedding factor that
reflects the anticipated field conditions for support at the base of the pipe, and proceeds into the tables in the industry
standards in search of a pipe that has at least that load capacity.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 26 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


To understand the bedding factor, it is first necessary to understand the standard crushing test to which prototype pipes are
subjected. The test is referred to as “three edge bearing" test. Diagrams of the apparatus used to perform the test and a
photograph of a typical test in progress are provided in Figure 17. It can be observed that the pipe is supported on a cradle
formed by two strips that are set apart only enough to insure that the pipe does not squeeze out of the jig as it is loaded to
failure. The load on the top is for all practical purposes a concentrated line load. From a stress concentration perspective, the
load on the bottom is very nearly a concentrated line load. This is representative of the most severe loading to which a pipe
could be subjected, second only to a true point load on the top and on the bottom, which be impossible to effect safely in the
laboratory.
The bedding factors that are applied to design are based on reasonable assumptions regarding how close the field loading
condition will be to the “three edge bearing" laboratory condition described above. The bedding factor serves to reduce the
load imposed on the pipe by taking into account the field loading condition, which may or may not be as severe as the nearly
2-point loading imposed in the “three edge bearing" test. Higher bedding factors imply a less severe crushing strength
requirement, and therefore allow a thinner wall requirement for a given diameter. At the extreme, for a pipe resting on
essentially a flat hard surface with essentially no support under its haunches, the field loading would approximate the “three
edge bearing" loading condition, and a bedding factor of nearly unity (Bf = 1.1) would be used. At the other extreme, a pipe that
is fully encased in reinforced concrete, both over the crown and under its base, would have a bedding factor as high as 4.5.
Note that Bf appears in the denominator, and a larger Bf implies a less severe field loading condition in comparison to the
laboratory three-edge bearing test.
Bedding factors for the various pipe support conditions are provided in Figure 18 for concrete pipe and Figure 19 for vitrified
clay pipe (VCP). These concrete pipe bedding factors apply to concrete and reinforced concrete pipes. Note that the bedding
factors for the most optimistic case (Class A) are dependent on the pipe type, while the factors for the other classes of bedding
are the same for concrete and clay pipes. Class D bedding, essentially consisting of the pipe resting on a flat hard bottom,
used to be referred top as “impermissible" for concrete pipe. The bedding described as Class D is defined as that in which little
or no care is exercised to shape the foundation to fit the lower portion of the conduit or to refill all spaces under and around the
conduit. Clay pipe manufacturers made no such restriction, and current handbooks published by concrete pipe manufacturers'
groups no longer discourage this practice quite so strongly. However, the bedding factor associated with this type of bedding
remains at a pessimistic value of 1.1, implying that the load is assumed to be nearly equivalent to the three-edge bearing test.
Indirect design for plain concrete pipes and vitrified clay pipes is based on the ultimate crushing strength determined in a three
edge bearing test described in ASTM C 497 (ASTM C 497M for metric sizes and loads). Reinforced concrete design is based
on a variation of the three edge bearing test in that the load carrying capacity is not based on the ultimate crushing strength, but
is instead based on the load that causes a crack 0.01" (0.3 mm) in width to open. This load is further normalized by dividing by
the pipe diameter, and is referred to as the “D-load" strength. The application to design is similar, except that the factor of
safety used when design reinforced concrete pipes based on “D-load" tests is customarily taken as 1.0, while the factor of
safety for plain concrete and VCP, which are based on ultimate crushing load, is customarily set at 1.25 and 1.5 respectively.
For plain concrete pipes and vitrified clay pipes, the required three-edge bearing strength is determined as follows:
Design Load x Safety Factor
Req' d "3 - Edge" Bearing Strength =
Bedding Factor

The 3-edge bearing strength is the ultimate load per liner ft of pipe that the pipe can support at incipient rupture. Tables of
3-edge bearing strengths for plain concrete pipes with diameters from 4 in. to 36 in. and wall thicknesses from 5/8 in. to 4.75 in.
are provided in ASTM C 14. Corresponding 3-edge bearing strengths for plain concrete pipes in metric sizes (100 to 900 mm)
are provided in ASTM C 14M. Tables of 3-edge bearing strengths for clay pipes with diameters from 3 in. to 42 in. (75 to 1050
mm) for standard and extra strength pipes are provided in ASTM C 700.
For reinforced concrete pipe, the analogous D-load required strength is determined by the following formula:
Design Load x Safety Factor
Req' d " D - Load" Strength =
Bedding Factor x Diameter

In the above expression, the diameter “D" is in feet. The D-load strength is pounds per liner ft of pipe per ft of diameter that will
produce a 0.01 in. (0.3 mm) crack. Tables of D-load strengths applicable to reinforced concrete pipes with diameters ranging
from 12 in. to 96 in. and thicknesses from 1.75 in. to 9.75 in. are provided in ASTM C 76. Corresponding D-load strengths for
reinforced concrete pipes in metric sizes (1500 to 3600 mm) are provided in ASTM C 76M.
Examples of wall thickness determinations based on the indirect design method for reinforced concrete, plain concrete, and
vitrified clay pipes are presented respectively as Example Problems No. 12, 13 and 14 in APPENDIX A.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 27 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)

Flexible Pipe Design


Design performance limits for flexible sewer pipe may be expressed in terms of stress or strain in the pipe wall, crushing or
buckling of the wall, or deflection. The most common limit is deflection. Typically, a deflection limit is established to provide a
factor of safety against structural failure or any type of distress that might tend to limit the service life of the pipe. This limit will
vary with different pipe materials and different pipe manufacturing processes. Pipes must be able to deflect without cracking,
and without liner failure, joint leaks, excessive strain or other distress. Finally, they should be designed with a reasonable
factor of safety. Deflection limits for ductile iron pipes serve to illustrate this. While ductile iron pipe is capable of deflecting as
much as 20% before the wall material goes into yield, the deflection limit is usually set at about 3%. The basis for this is that
ductile iron pipes are usually provided with a cement mortar lining (CML), which must not be permitted to crack. Conversely,
flexible lined and coated steel pipe, flexible coated and CML “lined in-place" steel pipe, fiberglass pipe and thermoplastic pipe
(PVC, ABS, HDPE) are usually designed for a maximum deflection of 5%. The deflection limits of the lining therefore set the
deflection limits of this particular type of pipe.
The load carried by a flexible pipe in a narrow trench may be calculated by the Marston Formula, described previously. A more
conservative design that is often used for flexible pipe is to assume that the dead load carried by the pipe is the “prism load",
which is simply the column of soil directly over the pipe. Under normal installations, it is assumed that the prism load is the
maximum load that can be developed, although the designer is advised to verify this on a case basis. Recommendations
regarding selection of the Marston load or the prism load will vary by pipe type and sometimes by manufacturer.
While the principles involved in flexible pipe design are common to all types of flexible pipe, the design procedures and details
are specific to each type. These procedures are generally provided either in industry standards developed by a consortium of
manufacturers of a given pipe, as is the case for ductile iron pipe, or provided separately by the manufacturers, as is the case
for most plastic pipe. Design procedures for the more common classes of flexible pipe are therefore described separately.
Ductile Iron Pipe
The design of ductile iron pipe is based on the following criteria, which help to simplify the design:
• Earth load is based on the prism load concept, not the Marston load. This is generally viewed as a very conservative
assumption for flexible pipe.
• Truck loads are based on a single AASHTO H-20 loading, with 16,000 lb wheel loads and an impact factor of 1.5
regardless of depth.
• External load design includes calculation of both ring bending stress and deflection, with ring bending stress limited to 48
ksi, providing a safety factor of at least 2.0 based on ultimate bending stress.
• Deflection of the pipe is limited to 3% for CML (cement mortar lined) pipe, which provides a safety factor of at least 2.0
against applicable performance limits on the lining. Unlined pipe and pipe with flexible linings can withstand greater
deflections.
• Five trench types have been defined, to reflect the range of possible laying conditions. These take into account not only
the conditions under the bottom of the pipe, as in rigid pipe design. They also take into account the stiffness of the soil
backfill immediately surrounding and supporting the pipe walls.
There are additional criteria for ductile iron pipe used in pressure service, but these do not apply to use of this pipe in normal
gravity drainage applications.
The trench load used in design (Pv) is expressed as vertical pressure in psi, and is the sum of earth load (Pe) and truck load
(Pt). The earth load is simply the weight of the earth above the pipe to the ground. Earth load is calculated as
λ Hg
Pe =
144

where: Pe = Earth load, psi


γ = Unit weight of backfill, lb/ft3
Hg = Depth from ground surface to pipe crown, ft.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 28 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


Csf R P F
Truck load is calculated as Pt =
12 D
where: Pt = Truck load, psi,
Csf = A surface load factor for a single concentrated wheel load centered over an effective
pipe length of 3 ft,
R = A reduction factor which takes into account the fact that the part of the pipe directly
below the wheels is aided in carrying the truck load by adjacent parts of the pipe that
receive little or no direct load from the wheels,
Pw = Wheel load (16,000 lb for this case),
F = Impact factor (set at 1.5),
D = Outside diameter of the pipe, in.
The earth load Pe and the truck load Pt are added together to produce the total vertical load Pv, in units of pressure, that is
assumed to be acting on the pipe. While loads can be calculated for individual cases, tabulated values for earth loads, truck
loads, and their resulting combined trench load are provided for various depths and various pipe sizes in ANSI / AWWA C150 /
A21.50-91 Thickness Design of Ductile Iron Pipe.
The required wall thickness is then calculated via the expressions below. Thickness is based on maximum ring bending stress
of 48 ksi, which provides factors of safety under trench loading of at least 1.5 based on ring yield strength and at least 2.0
based on ultimate ring strength. Wall thickness based on ring yield is calculated by means of the expression on the left, while
thickness required to limit deflection is calculated by means of the expression to the right:

Based on Ring Yield: Based on Limiting Deflection:

é ù
ê ú
f 1
Pv = x ∆x / D ê 8E ú
æDö æD ö Kx Pv = ê + 0.732 E′ú
3 ç ÷ ç − 1÷ Kb − 12 K x ê æ D ö
3
ú
ètø èt ø æ ö ê çç − 1÷÷ ú
ç ÷
ç ÷ êë è t1 ø úû
ç 8E
+ 0.732 ÷
ç æD 3
ö ÷
ç E′ ç − 1÷÷ ÷
ç ç tw ÷
è è ø ø

where: Pv = Combined trench load, in psi (prism earth load plus truck load), calculated as
described above,
f = Maximum bending stress, 48 ksi,
tw = Net wall thickness, in.,
Do = Outside diameter, in.,
E = Modulus of elasticity of the pipe material (24 x 106 psi),
E′ = Soil modulus of reaction, also in psi, and defined for various pipe laying (essentially
bedding) conditions,
Kb = Bending moment coefficient,
Kx = Deflection coefficient, also defined as a function of pipe laying conditions,
∆x = Deflection in in., and for the customary limit of 3% to protect the cement mortar
lining, ∆x/D will be 0.03,
t1 = Minimum manufacturing thickness, which includes manufacturing tolerances, and is
set at t + 0.08 in.
While these equations could be solved by an iterative approach, the manual solution of these equations for bending stress and
deflection to determine net thickness is difficult and time consuming. Consequently, the equations have been solved and
reduced to design tables giving diameter-thickness ratios for a wide range of trench loads and for the five standard laying
conditions. The tables are presented in ANSI / AWWA C150 / A21.50-91. With these tables, a designer need only know the
trench load and the intended laying condition to determine net thickness required for bending stress and deflection controlled
design.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 29 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


Once the controlling net thickness has been determined, certain allowances are added to obtain the calculated total thickness
requirement. To obtain the minimum manufacturing thickness, which is a parameter in the deflection expression above, a
service allowance (0.08 in.) is added to provide an additional safety factor for unknowns. Then a casting tolerance is added to
provide the latitude needed by the manufacturing process and to prevent the possibility of significant minus deviation from the
design thickness. Casting tolerance is dependent on the pipe size as described below.
TABLE 9
ALLOWANCES FOR CASTING TOLERANCES, DUCTILE IRON (DI) PIPE

PIPE DIAMETER, in. CASTING TOLERANCE, in.

3-8 0.05
10 - 12 0.06

14 - 42 0.07

48 0.08
54 - 64 0.09

An example of the thickness design for a ductile iron pipe is provided as Example Problem No. 15 in APPENDIX A.
HDPE Pipe
At present, the various manufacturers of HDPE pipe have not incorporated their respective design methods into a single
industry standard, although this effort is currently in progress under the direction of the Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI). Until a
uniform industry standard is promulgated for HDPE pipe, it is necessary to rely on a mix of design procedures specified by the
several pipe manufacturers and theoretical formulas applicable to flexible pipe in general.
Various manufacturers of HDPE pipe prefer slightly different design methods to arrive at design loads, but the wall thickness is
in all cases based on SDR (standard dimension ratios) which relate wall thickness to pipe diameter. HDPE pipe is
manufactured to industry standard wall thicknesses, and standard SDRs. SDR is a key parameter in plastic pipe design, and is
defined as the ratio of the outside diameter of the pipe (OD) to the wall thickness (t).
OD
SDR (or DR) =
t

The manufacturer of PlexcoR and SpiroliteR pipe (Chevron) recommends the use of either the Marston formula or the simpler
prism load for determining earth loads, and recommends determination of other distributed loads and traffic loads the same as
described earlier in this Design Practice. The manufacturer of DriscopipeR (Phillips) recommends use of the simpler soil prism
(dead weight of soil directly over the pipe), and adds any distributed surface loads and traffic loads essentially as described
previously.
One additional design consideration in plastic pipe is the potential for a vacuum load. While such a uniform load has virtually
no impact on stronger pipes, it could lead to buckling of a plastic pipe if it is large enough. Further, since HDPE can be made
into a long continuous line that can flow under siphon conditions for part of its length, negative loads could be significant.
However, for applications to gravity sewers than cannot create negative pressure conditions, this type of loading will not be
further considered.
Finally, two factors unique to HDPE and other thermoplastic sewer pipes are effluent temperature and long term creep. The
strength and stiffness of the plastic which forms the pipe wall vary with temperature, and the elastic modulus also depends on
level of applied stress and duration. If a sewer line will be subjected to hot effluent, the temperature of the liquid will be an
important design consideration. Since elastic modulus is a factor in the design of flexible pipe, the stress level in the pipe and
the intended service life (usually set at 50 years) are also considered in design process.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 30 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)

➧ Use of HDPE Pipe for Sewers in Plant Areas


Where there are Hot Process Streams
It is noted that the melting point for HDPE pipe is only 450°F (230°C). Consequently, the use of HDPE pipe for sewers in plant
areas with hot process fluids needs careful consideration due to the potential for ruptures of process equipment/piping to cause
large volumes of hot petroleum product to flow into the sewer system. Whether HDPE pipe can be considered suitable in these
areas depends on the following:
• maximum credible spill size
• pipe wall thickness
• product temperature
• response time for the application of firewater
• type of backfill material placed around the pipe
• magnitude of external service loads
• consequence of a collapsed sewer pipe
When cement stabilized sand (or equivalent engineered cohesive material) is used as bedding/backfill around the pipe, HDPE
sewers may be used in areas where the maximum temperature of the unit process streams do not exceed 400°F (205°C). In
areas where there is a process stream above 400°F (205°C), spill scenarios should be developed and assessed to determine if
HDPE sewers may be used. HDPE sewers may not be used where the spill scenario temperature is more than 650°F (343°C).
In addition, the mid-wall temperature of the pipe should not be allowed to exceed 350°F (177°C) for the duration of exposure.
For spill scenarios where the process stream is 400-650°F (205-343°C), then determining whether HDPE can be used should
be based on a risk assessment considering the combined probability of the spill and subsequent failure (plugging / collapse due
to high temperature) of the pipe and the resulting consequences. If the risk with HDPE pipe is unacceptable, then only cast
iron or concrete sewer pipe that is suitable for the high temperature spill scenarios should be used in the area.
The probability of an HDPE sewer line collapse due to high temperature can be minimized if the predicted average pipe wall
thickness remains below 350°F (177°C) throughout the period of exposure. In previous risk assessment applications, the
probability of a sewer line collapse when following this criteria, in combination with normal process equipment maintenance
practices, has been judged to be "Remote" per the ExxonMobil Risk Assessment Matrix.
When determining the average pipe wall temperature for a spill scenario, a heat transfer analysis assuming transient heat flow
in a semi-infinite solid should be used. An example calculation technique, from Heat Transfer 4th ed. By J.P. Holman, is shown
below:
æ xm ö
T (xm, t) = To + (Ti - To) erf ç ÷
ç2 a t ÷
è d ex ø

where: T (x,t) = Pipe wall temperature at depth x and time t


Ti = Initial pipe wall temperature (°C)
To = Temperature of the process stream (°C)
xm = Mid wall depth (m)
ad = Thermal diffusivity
tex = Exposure time (sec.)
æ xm ö
erf ç ÷ is obtained from tables in the reference
ç2 a t ÷
è d ex ø

For new design applications, the figure below can be used to establish the minimum pipe wall thickness that should be
specified as function of the spill scenario temperature. In the figure it is assumed that the exposure time is a maximum of 15
min., which is considered a reasonable response time for firewater application. The initial temperature of the buried pipe is also
assumed to be at a maximum of 90°F (32°C). The pipe wall thickness should be increased if the predicted exposure time is
longer than 15 min. Shown in the figure is an adjustment factor that can be used if the exposure is 30 min. instead of 15 min.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 31 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


Minimum Required Wall Thickness for 15 min. Exposure
1.2

1
Pipe Wall Thickness (in.)

0.8

Mid pipe wall temperature at


0.6
maximum 350°F (177°C)

0.4

For a 30 min. Exposure Case - increase


0.2 the required pipe wall thickness by 35%

0 .
0 200 400 600 800

Process Stream Temperature (°F)


DP29Cfa

There are three stress conditions and one deformation condition that are evaluated. The first stress condition is almost trivial,
and consists of simple wall crushing. However, in conjunction with the intended design life and expected temperature, this will
impact the elastic modulus to be selected for use in the other loading conditions. The total load on the crown is assumed to be
carried in compression at the spring line, one half on each side. The second stress condition is wall buckling under a uniform
hydrostatic load, such as might be imposed by the ground water in the soil matrix. This condition is evaluated based on elastic
buckling of an unrestrained ring, and it depends directly on the elastic modulus. Since the latter is known to be a function of
service life and service temperature, tables or charts are provided by the pipe manufacturers to define the elastic modulus for
various service conditions. Finally, the pipe is evaluated in context of constrained wall buckling, which is more in line with the
design of other flexible pipes, and takes into account the lateral constraint provided by the soil surrounding the pipe. Vertical
deformation under design load is also evaluated as ring deflection. A brief overview of the equations relating to each condition
is presented below.

CAUTION
When calculating stresses in pipe walls, it is important to be sure that the loads and stresses are being determined on a
consistent basis. Loads on pipe crown, when determined in accordance with Marston theory, are based on load per unit
length of pipe. Distributed surface loads and/or traffic loads may have been converted to a similar basis. Conversely,
the prism load commonly used to define the earth portion of the load on a plastic pipe is expressed in units of pressure,
and distributed or traffic loads must be on the same basis to be applicable. Most plastic pipe manufacturers' literature
determines pipe wall thickness on the basis of pressure on the crown, not load per unit length.

Wall Crushing
The compressive stress (e.g., in psi) for a smooth wall pipe the wall is calculated according to
PL Do
S =
2t

where: PL = Vertical load on the pipe, in units of pressure,


Do = Outside diameter in units of length,
t = Wall thickness, also in units of length.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 32 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


Note the caution in the preceding paragraph with regard to external loads on the crown which need to be expressed in units of
pressure. For profile wall plastic pipes (i.e., ribbed walls), the derivation is similar to the above except that the “t" term is
replaced by an average cross sectional area term “A" which is in units of L2/unit length of pipe. Since HDPE pipe is normally
specified according to standard dimension ratio, SDR = OD/t, the above expression could be written:

S =
(SDR ) PL
2

At least one pipe manufacturer prefers to make this calculation via the expression:
(SDR − 1) PL
S =
2

Examination of that expression implies that the manufacturer considers the vertical pressure on the crown to act over a width
that is slightly less than OD, namely Dm or the “mean diameter." (Dm = OD - t). Since t is typically small in comparison to
OD, this difference does not produce a significant difference in the calculated stress.
Wall thickness must be great enough to maintain this stress below the allowable sustained compression stress, which varies
with manufacturer but is restricted to no more than about 50% of the compressive yield strength of the material. Instantaneous
yield strength of HDPE is about 1500 psi (10.3 mPa). One manufacturer recommends that the wall be thick enough such that
the compressive stress is no higher than 800 psi (5.1 mPa), which implies the same safety factor. The designer needs to check
against the yield strength that applies at the expected service temperature for pipes that will be subjected to high temperature
liquids.
Unconstrained Wall Buckling
Unconstrained buckling, also referred to as “unrestrained" or “hydrostatic" buckling, is governed by the following equation:
24 E l
Pc =
(1 − u2 ) Dm3

where: Pc = Critical buckling pressure, which can act on the crown or in any direction in the case of
hydrostatic loading,
E = Elastic modulus of the pipe material, which is a function of the temperature, stress
level, and the desired service life,
I = Pipe's moment of inertia per unit length of pipe, equal to t3/12, where t is wall thickness,
u = Poisson's ratio (0.45 for long-term loading of polyethylene),
Dm = Mean diameter, equal to the pipe outside diameter less approximately one wall
thickness.
The above listed expression appears in slightly different forms in various pipe manufacturers' literature, but is based on
fundamental Euler buckling of an unrestrained ring, as described in many engineering mechanics texts. It is sometimes
referred to as Love's Equation.
Unrestrained, or “hydrostatic", buckling applies only in a limited set of circumstances, including:
• A line that can operate under vacuum, such as might occur due to pump start-up or shut-off, separation of flow column
running downhill, or flow under siphon conditions.
• External hydrostatic load such as elevated groundwater table over an ungrouted PE or PVC slipliner.
• A partially full line under water and not constrained by firm earth backfill, or in soft marine deposits or marshland soil that is
incapable of providing any significant lateral support.
For most direct burial applications where backfill is provided around the pipe, or for slipline applications that are post-grouted,
the unconstrained buckling analysis described above will not apply. Rather, the following constrained analysis will apply.
Constrained Wall Buckling
This condition is evaluated in accordance with the Modified Iowa Formula developed by Spangler and Watkins, and is used
for design of flexible pipes which can be assumed to rely on lateral restraint provided by the surrounding soil. This complicated
soil-structure interaction problem depends on the soil and pipe moduli, bedding conditions, and pipe dimensions. The general
form of the expression is as follows:
Dt Kb We Dm3
∆X =
Ep l + 0.061 E′ Dm3

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 33 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


where: ∆X = Horizontal deflection, outward, which is resisted by the soil, in.,
Kb = Bedding constant dependent on the width of the sewer pipe bedding,
Dt = Deflection lag factor, empirically determined, ranging from 1.25 to 2.5, which
compensates for the time dependent consolidation characteristics of the soil.
Values of 1.25 to 1.5 are commonly used for HDPE pipe.
We = Applied load on the crown derived from the Marston load or soil prism load plus
any other loads applied to the sewer, lb/in.,
Dm = Mean pipe diameter, in.,
Ep = Pipe's modulus of elasticity in tension, psi,
I = Pipe section's moment of inertia per unit length, in.4/in., taken as
t3/12,
E′ = Modulus of soil reaction, also in psi, described in tables presented on Figure
21.
Note that manufacturers' design guides may refer to the Modified Iowa Formula and express it in terms of ∆X / D, with all other
terms except W e the same as in the above expression. However, in place of W e, which is a Marston based load in weight per
unit pipe length, the manufacturers' expressions will usually have P or Pt, which is a pressure in weight per unit area, arrived at
by dividing the Marston load W e by the pipe diameter D. The expressions are therefore equivalent.
The bedding factor Kb in the Iowa formula is based on the bedding angle, which is the angle subtended from the center of the
pipe to the effective edges of bearing material adjacent to the pipe haunches. Customary values for Kb are provided in
Table 10.

TABLE 10
Kb VALUES FOR VARIOUS BEDDING ANGLES FOR USE WITH MODIFIED IOWA FORMULA

BEDDING ANGLE,
Kb
DEGREES

0 0.110
30 0.108
45 0.105
60 0.102
90 0.096
120 0.090
180 0.083

Since there are design assumptions implied in the terms in the Iowa Formula, some discussion of those terms is in order. The
first term in the denominator, ‘E I’ (pipe stiffness factor) reflects the influence of the inherent stiffness of the sewer pipe. The
second term, 0.061 E′r3, reflects the influence of the passive earth pressure on the sides of the pipe. This second term may
predominate in the case of large-diameter pipe, with the result that a very lightweight pipe may appear satisfactory. Since the
pipe wall must have sufficient local strength in bending and thrust to develop and utilize the passive resistance pressure on the
sides of the pipe, it is recommended as a practical measure that the value of EI should never be less than about 10-15% of the
term 0.61 E′r3.
E′ values for use in the expression are tabulated on Figure 21. These are average values that do not necessarily reflect field
variables, so a degree of judgement by the designer is in order.
Structural design of all flexible pipes, including plastic pipes, requires definition of the critical deflection limit for the specific pipe
considered. For plastic pipes, the typical allowable long-term deflection limits are 5% of diameter.
A comparison of the applicable mathematical expressions for the various stress evaluations is provided in Table 11.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 34 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

TABLE 11
TREATMENT OF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS BY COMMERCIAL HDPE PIPE MANUFACTURERS

THEORETICAL CHEVRON PLEXCO AND SPRIOLITE PHILLIPS DRISCOPIPE


CONSIDERATION DESIGN MANUALS DESIGN MANUAL
Wall Crushing,
compressive stress S:
S = W c/2t or S = Pl PL Do (SDR − 1)
Do/2t S = for Plexco (smooth wall) or SA = Pt
288 t 2
Where Wc is load on crown
PL Do where Pt is external pressure on crown, psi.
per unit length, and Pt is
S = for Sprirolite (ribbed) 1500 psi
load on crown expressed as 288 A Designer calculates FS =
pressure; t is pipe wall SA
thickness, Do is outside where S is and P are in psf, t and Do, in.
diameter of pipe. Design goal is to maintain S ≤ 800 psi for service at While no minimum value for FS is specified, design
ambient temperature (78.4°F). guide implies that compressive yield strength at
78.4°F is about 1500 psi.
Hydrostatic (unrestrained
buckling, critical radial
pressure:
24 El 3 2.32 E
Pc = 2E æ 1 ö Pc = for round pipes, and
Pcr = çç ÷ , and P = Pcr foval
1 ÷ø
3
2
(1 − u ) Dm (1 − u ) è SDR −
2 (SDR )3
Euler load for unrestrained 3
where foval is dependent on % deflection, nearly 2 E( t / D)3 æ Dmin ö
ring buckling. linear to 0.55 @ 6% deflection, then 0.35 @ 10% Pc = ç ÷
deflection. (1 − u2 ) çè Dmax ÷
ø
Mfgr suggests apply FS = 2 against buckling, and for deflected shape
points out that E is time and temperature dependent;
u = 0.45 for HDPE.
Constrained Buckling, 5.65 El A simplified burial design is provided in the form of a
critical vertical buckling Pwc = R′ B′ E′ chart, reproduced on Figure 20. This assumes no
load: N Dm3 external loads.
where E′ is soil’s modulus of reaction in psi, based on More detailed pipe design is based on the following
soil type and compaction condition (see Figure 21), relationship:
Dm is pipe average diameter in in., R is a buoyancy Pcb = 0.8 E′ Pc
factor R = 1 - 0.333 (H′/H) where H′ is height of
where Pc is the unrestrained buckling load calculated
groundwater and H is total height of cover, E and I
are pipe material modulus and moment of inertia (per as described above, and E′ the soil modulus of
unit length), N is a safety factor, customarily set to 2, reaction (in psi) defined in accordance with the
and B″ is defined as: Modified Iowa Formula (see Figure 21).
1 The manufacturer endorses selecting a wall
B′ = thickness sufficient to achieve a safety factor of 2,
1 + 4e −0.065H expressed as:
The origins of this expression are found in an AWWA Pcb
standard C-950 which is actually for fiberglass FS =
Pt
reinforced thermoplastic pipe.
A simpler method is provided, as P = fofsPcr where Pr is the total external pressure applied to the
wherein fo and Pcr are as defined above in pipe (earth load plus other surcharge and/or traffic
“unrestrained buckling”, and fs is a “support factor” loads).
that ranges from 1 to about 4, and varies with SDR A separate safety factor designed to preclude
and soil condition. Only two soil conditions are buckling is applied by inverting the above expression
provided, “loose soil” and “compacted soil”. The for Pcb as follows:
value of fs must be read from a graph provided in the
Pcb 2
manufacturer’s design manual (see Figure 20). It is E′ = ,
unclear what safety factor, if any Is implied in this 0.64 Pc
alternate method. Note however that the implication which is the soil modulus necessary to prevent
is that good soil restraint can increase the buckling buckling. This modulus is then increased by FS = 2
load by as much as a factor of 3. to arrive at a minimum allowable soil modulus to be
achieved in the field:
E′min = E′ x FS.
The specification is then written to require that the
backfill material and compaction will be sufficient to
achieve the require E′min

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 35 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)

TABLE 11 (Cont)
TREATMENT OF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS BY COMMERCIAL HDPE PIPE MANUFACTURERS

CHEVRON PLEXCO AND SPRIOLITE PHILLIPS DRISCOPIPE


THEORETICAL CONSIDERATION
DESIGN MANUALS DESIGN MANUAL
Ring Bending (vertical deflection)
via Modified Iowa Formula:
Extensive research carried out in the Calculate deflection by means of Rather than calculate the pipe deflection,
1940s by Prof. Spangler at the Iowa this manufacturer makes the assumption
Engineering Experiment Station, é ù that the pipe deflection will be identical to
resulted in expressions for deflection ê ú the soil backfill surrounding the pipe acting
∆X P ê KL ú
and wall thickness for a specified = ê 3 ú under the influence of the vertical soil
deflection Dm 144 ê 2E æ 1 ö ú pressure at the pipe crown, according to
ê çç ÷÷ + 0.061E′ ú
Dt K b We Dm3 ë 3 è SDR − 1 ø û εsoil =
Pt
∆X = and E′min
Ep l + 0.061 E′Dm 3
for Plexco (smooth wall) pipe, or
Pipe vertical deflection, assumed to be
æ 12 KWr 3 ö é ù equal to soil strain calculated above, is
P êê ú
1 ç
t = 3 − 0.732 E′ r 4 ÷ ∆X KL compared to allowable deflections
E ç ∆X ÷ = ú
è ø 144 ê 1.24 (RSC)
tabulated for various SDRs, as follows:
Dm
+ 0 . 061 E′ú
Terms are as defined previously in the ê Dm ú SDR Allowable Ring Defl.
ë û
text on page 34. 32.5 8.1%
for Spirolite (ribbed wall) pie
26.0 6.5%
RSC is the ring stiffness constant for ribbed wall pipe,
21.0 5.2%
and is calculated as RSC = 6.44 E l/Dm2
19.0 4.7%
Then calculate ring bending strain ε via
17.0 4.2%
∆Y C
ε = fd 15.5 3.9%
Dm Dm
13.5 3.4%
where ε is wall strain, in %, Dm is mean diameter 11.0 2.7%
(OD-t), The above tabulated allowable ring
C is the distance from the outer fiber to the wall deflections are based on limiting outer
centroid, in in., and is calculated as fiber tangential strain to 1.5% or less,
C = 0.53 t for Plexco (smooth wall) pipe, and which is viewed to be conservative.

C = H - Z for Spirolite (ribbed) pipe, where H = A final check is made to determine what
wall height (in.) and Z = pipe wall centroid (in.). degree of compaction is necessary to
achieve the above calculated soil strain,
fd is an elliptical deformation correction factor, which εsoil, based on empirical date presented in
would be 4.28 if the pipe deformation were truly Figure 20. The backfill compaction
elliptical. Because buried plastic pipe rarely has a specification is set accordingly.
perfectly elliptical shape, it is common practice to
assume fd = 6
Calculated ring bending strains are then compared to
an allowable strain, taken conservatively as 4.2%.

Other Plastic Pipe (ABS, RPM, PVC)


Thermoplastic pipe other than HDPE is also designed according to flexible pipe methods. The design process is more
standardized however, and is not as dependent on individual manufacturer's literature. The most common procedure is that
based on a standardized laboratory load test, which determines “pipe stiffness" or load-deflection characteristics via a “parallel
plate test." In the U.S., the standard test is ASTM C 2412. In this test a short length of pipe is loaded between two rigid parallel
plates that are moved together at a controlled rate. Load and deflection data are recorded.
The parallel-plate loading test determines pipe stiffness (PS) at a prescribed deflection (∆Y) which is arbitrarily set at 5% of
original pipe diameter. Note that this is not to be considered a field deflection limit. The pipe stiffness is defined as the value
obtained by dividing the force (F) per unit length of pipe by the deflection in the same units at the prescribed deflection, and is
expressed in psi, as follows:

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 36 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


F El
PS = =
∆Y 0.149 Dm3

where: F = Force per unit length, lb/in.,


∆Y = Prescribed deflection, in.,
E = Modulus o elasticity, lb/ft2,
I = t3/12,
Dm = Mean radius of the pipe, in.,
t = Mean wall thickness, in.
Minimum required pipe stiffness values for various types and sizes of plastic pipe are specified in the various ASTM
specifications for plastic sewer pipe, as shown in Table 12.
A quantity defined as the “stiffness factor" (SF) is equivalent to EI as used in the Modified Iowa formula to determine
approximate deflections under applied loads in the field.
F
SF = E l = 0.149 Dm3 = 0.149 Dm3 (PS)
∆Y

The stiffness factor or ‘E I’ is used in the Modified Iowa Formula (page 31) to determine approximate field deflections under
earth loads. Approximate values of horizontal deflections (∆X) for field loadings can be calculated using the Modified Iowa
Formula. A correction factor must be applied to the calculated horizontal deflections to accurately predict the vertical deflection
for low pipe to soil stiffness ratios. The formula can be simplified to permit a calculation of approximate deflection based on
pipe stiffness as follows:
DL K b Wc
∆X =
0.149 PS + 0.061 E′

TABLE 12
STIFFNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PLASTIC SEWER PIPE PARALLEL PLATE LOADINGS

ASTM NOMINAL DIAMETER, REQ'D STIFFNESS


MATERIAL
SPECIFICATION in. @ 5% DEFLECTION, psi

ABS Composite D 2680 8 - 15 200

ABS Plain D 2751 SDR 23.5 4 and 6 150


SDR 35 3 50
4 and 6 45
SDR 42 8, 10 and 12 20

RPM (fiberglass) D 3262 8 to 18 Varies, 99 to 17


20 to 108 10

PVC D 2729 (PVC-12454) 3 19


4 11
5 9
6 8
D 2729 (PVC-13364) 3 24
4 13
5 12
6 10
D 3033 SDR 41 6 to 15 28
SDR 35 4 to 15 46
D 3034 SDR 41 6 to 15 28
SDR 35 4 to 15 46

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 37 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)

➧ Thermal Effects
HDPE pipe has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is about an order of magnitude greater than concrete or iron pipe,
although its modulus of elasticity is much less. Nevertheless, the potential exists for inducing large axial stresses and strains
which would need to be considered in design if a pipe will be subjected to temperature fluctuations. These factors are beyond
the scope of this Design Practice. The designer is referred to publications produced by pipe manufacturers for assistance with
problems of this nature.
Table 13 provides modulus for two commonly used grades of HDPE pipe at what is considered normal ambient temperature
(73°F, 23°C) and at one elevated temperature (140°F, 60°C).

TABLE 13
LONG TERM (50 YEAR) ELASTIC MODULUS E FOR HDPE PIPE

TEMPERATURE °F
HDPE GRADE
60 73 140

PE 2408 27,600 psi 22,600 psi 14,900 psi

PE 3208 38,700 psi 28,200 psi 18,700 psi

Corrugated Metal Pipe


Corrugated metal pipe (CMP) is manufactured in a variety of gages, corrugation depths, and corrugation spacings. For larger
sizes which are built up from sheets, the longitudinal seam formed by bolting or riveting curved sheets should be checked for
crushing strength. Tables of seam strengths for various metal gages and bolt or rivet sizes and spacing can be found in
manufacturers' handbooks.
Corrugated metal pipe may be designed for a limiting deflection using the Modified Iowa Formula (page 31) or by the
manufacturers' handbook figures and charts. A design deflection limit of 5% of initial diameter is commonly specified.

Open Channels
The analogous structural consideration for open channels is simply to insure that the side slopes and bottom remain reasonably
intact when delivering the design flow. This is accomplished by evaluating the resistance of the channel lining to erosive flow
velocities. Correlations for both permissible velocities and for permissible shear force (tractive force) exist, but the velocity
correlations are simpler and are adequate for most applications. Acceptable velocities for various ditch linings are presented in
Table 14 below.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 38 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)

TABLE 14
MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE VELOCITIES FOR VARIOUS CHANNEL LINING TYPES

VELOCITY
CHANNEL MATERIAL
ft/s m/s

Fine sand 2 (0.6)


Coarse sand 4 (1.2)
Fine gravel, < 20 mm or 3/4 in. 6 (1.8)
Earth (unlined) 2 (0.6)
Sandy silt 3.5 (1.1)
Silty clay 6 (1.8)
Clay
Grass-lined earth
Bermuda grass in sand 6 (1.8)
Bermuda grass in silty clay 8 (2.4)
Kentucky bluegrass in sand 5 (1.5)
Kentucky bluegrass in silty clay 7 (2.1)
Sedimentary rock 10 (3.0)
Soft sandstone 8 (2.4)
Soft shale 3.5 (1.1)
Hard rock (igneous or metamorphic) 20 (6.1)

Paved linings 20 + (6.1+)


Concrete, asphalt 6 to 25 (1.8 to 7.6)
Rip-rap lined (varies w/ rock size, see Figure 22)

➧ STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS / DESIGN SOFTWARE


Structural engineering software is available, which can be used to evaluate certain types of buried pipe subject to evaluate
certain types of buried pipe subject to internal and external loadings. Some structural analysis / design software can be
obtained through the world-wide web at www.fhwa.dot.govt/bridge/hyd.htm. The web site is mainted by the U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration and is linked to the American Concrete Pipe Associates.
➧ The following programs are available:
CANDE-89
This software is for the structural analysis and design of buried culverts and other soil-structure stystems. The CANDE
methodology incorporates the soil mass with the structure into an incremental static, plane-strain boundary value problem.
Three solutions are available:
1. closed for plan strain solution for circular conduit in elastic halfspace
2. 2D finite element solution iwth automated mesh generation
3. 2D finite element solution with user defined mesh.
Minimum requirements: IMB XT/AT compatible, 640 K RAM, 2Mb hard disk, DOS 3.2 or higher.
BOXCAR 1.0
BOXCAR is a program for the structural analysis and design of reinforced concrete box culvert sections. Load analysis
includes box weight, soil weight, internal fluid forces, live loads, and user-specified surcharges. Design criteria include ultimate
flexure, diagonal tension, service load crack control, and service load fatigue.
Minimum requirements: DOS, IBM PC or compatible.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 39 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (Cont)


PIPECAR 2.1
PIPECAR is a program for structural analysis and design of circular and horizontal reinforced concrete pipe. Load analysis
includes pipe weight, soil weight, internal fluid load, live loads, and internal pressures up to 50 ft. of head. Pipe can be
designed according to AASHTO "Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges" (13th Ed.) or to ASCE "Standard Practice for
Direct Design of Buried Precast Concrete Pipe using Standard Installations (SIDD)."
MInimum requirements: DOS 2.0 or higher, 640 k RAM plus math coprocessor.

NOMENCLATURE
a, b, and n = Equation coefficients
ad = Thermal diffusity
A = The cross sectional area of flow. For pipes flowing partly full and for open channels, A also must be
calculated as a function of flow depth.
Ac = Catchment area, acres
ALL = Distributed liveload area on the plane at the outside top of the pipe
Bc = Width of the sewer pipe
Bci = Outside diameter of the pipe (or height in the case of elliptical pipes)
Bd = Width of the ditch at the pipe crown in units consistent with the unit weight
C = Non-dimensional runoff coefficient
Csf = A surface load factor for a single concentrated wheel load centered over an effective pipe length of 3 ft
Cd = Dimensionless coefficient that depends on the soil type and the trench geometry
Cfb = Coefficient varying from 1.5 for channels with capacities of 20 ft3/s to 2.5 for channels with capacities of
3000 ft3/s or more
Cs = Dimensionless load coefficient which is a function of dimensions of the loaded area (length and width) in
comparison to the depth to the crown of the sewer pipe.
CN = USDA / SCS Curve Number
d = Depth of flow, ft
D = Duration of the rainfall, in minutes
Dm = Mean diameter, equal to the pipe outside diameter less approximately one wall thickness
Do = Outside diameter in units of length
Dt = Deflection lag factor, empirically determined, ranging from 1.25 to 2.5, which compensates for the time
dependent consolidation characteristics of the soil.
E = Elastic modulus of the pipe material, which is a function of the temperature, stress level, and the desired
service life
Ep = Pipe's modulus of elasticity in tension, psi
E′ = Soil modulus of reaction, also in psi, and defined for various pipe laying (essentially bedding) conditions
f = Maximum bending stress
F = Force per unit length, lb/in.
Fi = Dimensionless impact factor (for traffic or railroad loads, if applicable)
g = Gravitational constant
h = Additional elevation for a trapezoidal channel, ft
H = Elevation difference in ft from that point to the point of concentration
Hg = Depth from ground surface to pipe crown, ft
Hfb = Height of freeboard, ft

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 40 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

NOMENCLATURE (Cont)
i = Rainfall intensity in over a duration equal to the time of concentration, in./hr
id = Intensity of rainfall, in./hr (mm/hr)
ie = Excess rainfall rate, in./hr
I = Pipe's moment of inertia per unit length of pipe, equal to t3/12
If = Impact factor
Kb = Bending moment coefficient
Kb = Bedding constant dependent on the width of the sewer pipe bedding
Kx = Deflection coefficient, also defined as a function of pipe laying conditions
L = Distance, measured along the watercourse to the hydraulically most remote point in the catchment area,
miles
Lo = Distance from the farthest point in the catchment are to the point of interest, ft
LALL = Length of ALL along the longitudinal axis of the pipe (refer again to Figure 16)
n = Manning's roughness coefficient (frictional drag coefficient), for pipe or open channel flow
no = Manning's roughness coefficient for overland flow
p = Intensity of the distributed load at the surface, in units of W/L2
P = Total precipitation
Pc = Critical buckling pressure, which can act on the crown or in any direction in the case of hydrostatic loading
Pe = Earth load, psi
Pt = Truck load, psi
Pv = Combined trench load, in psi (prism earth load plus truck load), calculated as described above
Pw = Wheel load, lbs.
PL = Vertical load on the pipe, psi
Q = Peak discharge ft3/s,
Qd = Direct runoff, in.
rc = Radius of curvature, ft
R = Hydraulic radius, which is the flow area divided by the wetted perimeter, ft. For pipes flowing full, it is
simply half the radius, but for pipes flowing partly full it must be calculated and is a function of the flow
depth. For open channels it also must be calculated for each flow depth.
Rf = A reduction factor which takes into account the fact that the part of the pipe directly below the wheels is
aided in carrying the truck load by adjacent parts of the pipe that receive little or no direct load from the
wheels
S = Pipe or channel gradient (slope) in decimal form (e.g., 1.5% slope is S = 0.015).
So = Dimensionless slope of the surface, averaged over the catchment area
SL = Outside horizontal span of the pipe or the width of ALL, whichever is less
t = Wall thickness, in units of length
tex = Exposure time, sec.
tw = Net wall thickness, in.
t1 = Minimum manufacturing thickness, which includes manufacturing tolerances, in.
tan F = Soil's frictional strength
Tc = Time of concentration, minutes
Ti = Initial pipe wall temperature
To = Temperature of the process stream, °C
Tw = Top width of the channel, ft

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 41 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

NOMENCLATURE (Cont)

u = Poisson's ratio
u′ = tan φ
V = Velocity, ft/s
Vr = Volume of runoff, gallons (m3)
w = Soil unit weight (pcf or kg/m2)
wL = Average pressure intensity, in units of weight per unit area (psf if Table 7 and Figure 16 are used)
We = Applied load on the crown derived from the Marston load or soil prism load plus any other loads applied to
the sewer, lb/in.
Wsd = Load on the sewer pipe in pounds per unit length
∆Y = Prescribed deflection, in.
γ = Unit weight of backfill, lb/ft3
∆x = Deflection in in.
∆X = Horizontal deflection, outward, which is resisted by the soil, in.
Xm = Mid wall depth, m

FIGURE 1
EXAMPLE OF RAINFALL DEPTH MAP, CONTINENTAL U.S., FROM U.S. WEATHER BUREAU'S TP 40
10 YEAR, 1 HOUR STORM, INCHES

.8 .6 .6 .6 .6
.6 .6 .8
1 1.2 1.4
1 1.4
.8 1.4
.6
1 1.4 1.6

1.2 .8 1.8
2
.6
1.2
1 1 2.2
2.4
1
2.6
1.2
1.2 .6
.8
1.6
.6 2.8

1.2
1.2

3
1 1
1 1
1.2
1.4 3
1.8 2.8
2.2 2 1.6 1.4 1.4 2.6
1.6 3.4
3.8 3
1.8 3.6
2 3.4
2.4 2.6 3.8 3.8
2.8 3.6
3 3.2
3 3
DP29Cf01
3.2

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 42 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 2
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DESIGN RETURN PERIOD AND EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY
1000

800

600
500
400 95

300

200
90

100
Design Return Period, Td Years

85

50
75

70
25

60

50
10

40

2
Theoretical Probability (%) of not
being Exceeded in Td Years

1
1 2 5 10 25 50 100
Design Period, T d Years

Relationship between design return period, T years, design period,


Td, and probability of not being exceeded in T d years. DP29Cf02

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 43 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 3-A
EXAMPLE OF PUBLISHED IDF CURVE, HOUSTON TX, FROM TP 25 (U.S. WEATH. BUR.)
20.0

15.0

10.0
8.0

6.0
Return Period (Years)
100
4.0
25
50
5 10
2.0
Rainfall Intensity in Inches Per Hour

1.0
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.1
.08

.06

.04

.02
5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 18 24
Minutes Hours
Duration

Note: Frequency analysis by method of extreme values, after Gumbel DP29Cf3A

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 44 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 3-B
EXAMPLE OF USER SYNTHESIZED IDF CURVE, HOUSTON TX, FROM EXAMPLE NO. 1 IN APPENDIX A

100
Rainfall Intensity, in./hr

10

10 yr
5 yr
2 yr

1
1 10 100 1000

Duration, min. DP29Cf3b

FIGURE 4
EXAMPLE OF HOURLY RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION WITHIN A STORM, SCS TYPE II STORM, U.S.

100

80
% of Total Rainfall

60
Appoximately 55% of the Rainfall
Occurs During the 2 Hr Period
Around the Center of the Storm
40

Approximately 70% of the Rainfall


20 Occurs between Hour 8 and Hour 14

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Elapsed Time Into Storm, hrs. DP29Cf04

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 45 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 5
NOMOGRAPH FOR SOLUTION OF “TIME OF CONCENTRATION" FOR OVERLAND FLOW

H (ft)
500
400 Tc (min.)
200
300
Example: 150
Height = 100 ft
200
Length = 3,000 ft
150 Time of Concentration = 14 min. 100
80
100 L (ft)
10,000 60
Height of Most Remote Point Above Outlet

50
40
50
5,000
40 30
30 25
3,000

Time of Concentration
20
20 Maximum Length of Travel
2,000
15
1,500
10
10 1,000
8

6
5 500 5
4 4
300
3
3
200
2
150 2

100
1
1
Notes:

(1) Use nomograph Tc for natural basins with well defined channels, overland flows on bare earth and mowed grass roadside
channels.
(2) For overland flow, grassed surfaces, multiply Tc by 2.
(3) For overland flow, concrete or asphalt surfaces, multiply Tc by 0.4.
(4) For concrete channels, multiply Tc by 0.2.
(5) Solution may be made by equation:

0.385
Tc = 11.9 L3
H
Tc = Time of concentration, hrs.
L = Length of longest watercourse, miles
H = Elevation difference, ft

(6) Based on recommendations by the USBPR (1963 - C).


DP29Cf05

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 46 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 6
CURVE NUMBERS (CN) FOR VARIOUS LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND SOIL TYPES

CN for Hydrologic Soil Group


Land Use Description Soil Type
A B C D

Industrial districts Avg., 72% impervious 81 88 91 93

Commercial and business areas Avg., 85% impervious 89 92 94 95

Paved parking lots, roads, driveways, etc. 98 98 98 98

Streets and roads Paved, with curbs and storm sewers 98 98 98 98


Gravel 76 85 89 91
Dirt 72 82 87 89

Residential Avg. lot size 1/8 acre Avg. % impervious 65 77 85 90 92


1/3 acre 30 57 72 81 86
1 acre 20 51 68 79 84

Agricultural land Cropland Without conservation treatment 77 81 88 91


With conservation treatment 62 71 78 81
Pasture or range Good condition 68 78 86 89
Poor condition 39 61 74 80
Meadow Good condition 30 58 71 78
Wood or forest land Thin stand, poor cover, no mulch 45 66 77 83
Good cover, litter and brush cover the soil 25 55 70 77

Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, etc. Good condition, > 75% grass cover 39 61 74 80
Fair condition, 50% to 75% grass cover 49 69 79 84

FIGURE 7
DIRECT RUNOFF VS. RAINFALL FOR VARIOUS CN (CURVE NUMBERS)
8
SOIL GROUP DESCRIPTION
7
A High infiltration rate; deep
well-drained sands and gravels
(P – 0.2 S)2
6 Q=
P + 0.8 S B Moderate infiltration rate when
100 thoroughly wet; moderately deep
Direct Runoff (Q) in Inches

5 well-drained soils of moderately fine


1000 95 90 to moderately coarse texture
Curve Number CN =
10 + S
4 80 C Slow infiltration rate when wet; chiefly
85
moderately deep, well-drained soils of
70 moderately fine to moderately coarse
3 75
texture
60 D Very slow infiltration rate; chiefly soils
65
2 with high swelling potential,
55 50 permanently high groundwater table,
soils with a hardpan or claypan at or
1 45 40 near the surface and shallow soils
35 over nearly impervious materials
30
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DP29Cf07
Rainfall (P) in Inches

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 47 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 8
EXAMPLE OF RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH

.5 Loss – (Constant Rate Assumption)


Precipitation, in.

Excess Rainfall Portion of Dimensionless


1.0
Graph Computation
1.5
% of Net
Time, D Ordinate
70 Examples: Hydrograph
Hours Lg +
2 g
TCV = 9.5 Hours
D D = 4 Hours 6 63.2* 19.*7* 54,290
60
Lg = 7.5 Hours
7 73.7 24.9 68,510
Vol. = 26,150
50 Second-Feet-Days 8 84.2 25.8 71,000
D D
Lg + = 9.5 Hours
2 3 2 9 94.8 23.4 64,330
Lg
Discharge, sec-ft x 103

40
* 6
x 100
9.5
TCV
30 9.5
** Ordinate = 54,290 x
26,150

20

10

6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72
Time, hrs. DP29Cf08

FIGURE 9
EXAMPLES OF REFINERY MANHOLE SEAL ARRANGEMENTS

MH Flanged Elbow
From Outlet
CB
Outlet Invert

6" Min Seal To MH/ Outlet Invert


(At the MH Wall) Lateral
6" Min Seal

12"
12" Debris Debris
Pocket Pocket

DP29Cf09

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 48 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 10
RATIOS OF HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS FLOWING PART FULL

Ratios of Hydraulic Elements for Circular Conduit

1.0

0.9
Area, A

0.8

0.7
Ratio of Depth to Diameter d / D

0.6
Discharge, Q

0.5

0.4
Hydraulic Radius, R

0.3

Velocity, V
0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Ratios V / V f, Q / Qf, A / Af, R / Rf

Note:

(1) Elements Vf, Qf, and Rf, are for pipe flowing full.
(2) Values shown for ratios A/Af and R/Rf are independent of friction factor.
DP29Cf10
(3) Values shown for ratios V/Vf and Q/Qf are for constant friction factor with depth.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 49 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 11-A
INLET CONTROL NOMOGRAPH FOR CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (CMP) CULVERT

180 10,000
8,000 Example
168 (1)
156 6,000 D = 36 in. (3.0 ft) 6.
5,000 Q = 66 cfs (2)
144 4,000 5. 6.
H H (3)
D (ft)
132 3,000 5. 6.
(1) 1.8 5.4 4.
120 (2) 2.1 6.3 5.
2,000 4.
(3) 2.2 6.6
108 *D, ft 3. 4.

96 1,000 3.
800 3.

84 600 2.
500
400 2.
72 2.
300
1.5
Discharge (Q), CFS

Headwater Depth in Diameters ( H )


200

D
60 1.5
Diameter of Culvert (D), in.

Example 1.5

54
100
48 80

60
1.0 1.0
42 50
40
.9 1.0
.9
36 30 H
Scale Entrance Type .9
D
33 20 .8 .8
(1) Headwall
30 (2) Mitered to conform to slope .8
(3) Projecting
27 10
.7 .7
8
24 .7
6
5
To use scale (2) or (3) project
21 4 horizontally to scale (1), then .6
use straight inclined line through .6
3 D and Q scales, or reverse as .6
illustrated.
18
2

15 D .5
H .5
1.0 .5

12 Headwater Depth for Corrugated-Metal Pipe Culverts with Entrance Control.


(U.S. Bureau of Public Roads.) 288–D–2909. DP29Cf11a

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 50 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 11-B
INLET CONTROL NOMOGRAPH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT
To use scale (2) or (3), project horizontally to scale (1), then use straight inclined line through D and Q scales, or reverse as illustrated.
180 10,000
168 Example (1) (2) (3)
8,000
D = 42 in. (3.5 ft) 6.
156 6,000 6.
Q = 120 cfs
5,000 5.
144 5.
H H 6.
4,000
D (ft)
132
3,000 5. 4.
(1) 2.5 8.8 4.
120 (2) 2.1 7.4
2,000 (3) 2.2 7.7 4.
108 3.
*D, ft 3.

96 3.
1,000
800
84 2. 2.
600
500
Discharge (Q), CFS

2.
72 400

300 Example 1.5 1.5


)
H
60 200 D 1.5
Diameter of Culvert (D), in.

Headwater Depth in Diameters (

54

100
48
80

60 1.0 1.0
42
50
1.0
40
.9 .9
36 30
.9
33
20 .8
.8
30
.8

27 H
10 Scale Entrance Type
D .7
.7
8 .7
24 (1) Square edge with headwall
6 (2) Groove end with headwall
5 (3) Groove end projecting
21
4 .6
.6
3 .6
18
2

15 D
H .5 .5
.5
1.0

12 Headwater Depth for Concrete Pipe Culverts with Entrance Control.


(U.S. Bureau of Public Roads.) 288–D–2908. DP29Cf11b

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 51 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 11-C
OUTLET CONTROL NOMOGRAPH FOR CMP CULVERT
2000

H
H
0.85 D .4

Turning
1000 Low Tailwater High Tailwater

Line
.5
800
.6

600 120

500 108 .8

400 96 1.0

300 84

72
200 50
66
Length (L),ft 2
60
100
50

Head (H), ft
54
100
Discharge (Q), cfs

Diameter (D), in.

100 3
48
80 L = 120 Ke = 0.5

42 Ke = 0.9 200 4
60
200
50 5
36
40 Ke = 0.9 6
33 300
Q = 35
Example
30 30 300 H = 7.5
D = 27 8
27
400 10
20 400
24

21 500
500

10 18
20
8
2.5204 (1 + Ke) 466.18 n2 L Q 2
Equation: HT = +
6 15 D4 D 16/3 10

5 HT = Head, ft
Ke = Entrance loss coefficient
4 D = Diameter of pipe, ft
12
n = Manning's roughness coefficient
3 L = Length of culvert, ft
Q = Design discharge rate, cfs

2 Head for Corrugated - Metal Pipe Culverts Flowing Full, n = 0.024.


(U.S. Bureau of Public Roads.) 288 - D - 2911.
DP29Cf11c

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 52 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 11-D
OUTLET CONTROL NOMOGRAPH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT
2000 Pressure Line

HT
HT
0.85 D .4

Turning Low Tailwater High Tailwater


Line
1000 .5

800 .6
120

108
600 .8
500 96
1.0
HT = 0.94
400 84

300 72
50
66
Example 100 2
200 60
Diameter (D), in.

Length (L), ft

Head (H), ft
54
50 200
D = 48 L = 110
Discharge (Q), cfs

48 100 3
Ke = 0.5
300
100 200
Q = 70 42 4
80 400
36 300 5
60 500 6
33 400
50
30
500 Ke = 0.1 8
40
27
Ke = 0.2
10
30 Ke = 0.5
24

21
20

18
2.5204 (1 + Ke) 466.18 n2 L Q 2 20
Equatoin: HT = + 10
D4 D 16/3

10 15
HT = Head, ft
Ke = Entrance loss coefficient
8
D = Diameter of pipe, ft
n = Manning's roughness coefficient
12 L = Length of culvent, ft
6
Q = Design discharge rate, cfs
5

4
Head for concrete Pipe Culverts Flowing Full, n = 0.012.
(U.S. Bureau of Public Roads.) 288 – D – 2910.
DP29Cf11d

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 53 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 12
ILLUSTRATION OF EARTH LOADS ON BURIED CONDUIT

A P B

Bd
F F

H W c Load on Pipe

C D

Side Fill
Bc

DP29Cf12

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 54 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 13
MARSTON COEFFICIENT Cd

1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


30
Cd (Graph on Left)
25

20 2

15 1.5

A B C D E

10 1.0
9 0.9
8 0.8
Bt
H

7 0.7

Bd
H
or

6 0.6
Bd

Values of
H
Values of

5 0.5

4 0.4

3 0.3

Cd for Kµ and Kµ ′
2 0.2
A = 0.1924 for granular materials
without cohesion
B = 0.165 max for sand and gravel
1.5 C = 0.150 max for saturated top soil 0.15
D = 0.130 ordinary max for clay
E = 0.110 max for saturated clay
Cd (Graph on Right)
0.1
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.5

Values of Coefficient Cd or Ct
DP29Cf13

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 55 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 14
SUMMARY OF STANDARD METHODS FOR CALCULATING EARTH LOADS ON BURIED CONDUITS
PIPE TYPE, SIZE SKETCH COMMENTS REFERENCE

Concrete and Marston formula is used to Concrete Pipe Design


Reinforced Concrete determine earth loads, Manual, pp. 27-41, by Am.
h If " Cut & Cover " including the standard means Concrete Pipe Assn., 1985
Bd W c = Cd γ Bd2 of reducing loads on the
conduit when tunnel
installations by taking into
account the contribution of the
cohesion on the walls.

Concrete and Superimposed loads (e.g.,


reinforced concrete footing, truck) are brought
pipe are "rigid" in down to the top of the pipe
context of determining using Boussinesque or
pipe wall thickness h equivalent elastic methods.
If " Tunnelled In "
Wc = Ct Bc (γ Bc – 2c)
All sizes Bc Where: c = cohesion
Ct = Marston coefficient
with B = Bc

Cast Iron (CI) Standards for cast iron pipe in "Thickness Design of
Load on Conduit Crown
direct burial mode are Cast-Iron Pipe," ASA A21.
is the lesser of...
probably obsolete to the 1-1967
extent that this material is
seldom used anymore in
Bd = OD +2' direct burial. Cast iron pipe
h may be used within a building
down to grade, but at the point
it will likely tie into DIP,
Cast iron pipe is "rigid" concrete pipe, VCP or other
in context of common direct burial pipe.
determining pipe wall
thickness Wc = Cd γ Bd2 Marston load is used to
determine the trench (dead
or weight of earth) component,
with one caveat, as follows.
Bc
All sizes
First the standard Marston
load is calculated for the
h normal "ditch" end earth
condition, wherein the width is
taken as the ditch width at the
crown of the pipe (generally at
least 2 feet wider than the
pipe diameter). Then a
comparison is made to the
Wc = Cd γ Bc2 "positive projecting" condition
wherein a larger coefficient is
used, but the width is taken as
the pipe diameter, which is
smaller than the trench width.
The smaller earth load is then
used for designing the pipe.

Superimposed loads as truck


loads are distributed down to
the pipe crown via elastic
methods such as
Boussinesque.
DP29Cf14a

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 56 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 14 (Cont)
SUMMARY OF STANDARD METHODS FOR CALCULATING EARTH LOADS ON BURIED CONDUITS

PIPE TYPE, SIZE SKETCH COMMENTS REFERENCE


Ductile Iron (DI) γ = Soil Unit Weight Older standards (c.a. 1965) "Thickness Design of
used Marston formula for Φ Ductile Iron Pipe," ASA
up to 8", and simple prism A21.5-65.
w = γ hΦ of Φ > 18". For pipe
Bd = OD +2'
h h sizes in between 8" and 18",
pro-rated between the two
methods. Superimposed truck
Bc loads calculaed via elastic "Thickness Design of
stress distribution, although Ductile Iron Pipe," ANSI
tables were used to present C-50/A21.50-91.
DIP is considered φ < B" φ > 18"
"flexible" for pipe wall the results for varying depth of
Wc = Cd γ Bd2 Wc = γ Bch cover conditions.
thickness design

Current standard for earth "Design of Ductile Iron


load is the simple prism w = Pipe," by Ductile Iron
γhΦ , directly over the pipe. Pipe Research Assn.
h
Superimposed loads are
distributed down to the pipe by
Bc elastic methods, but the
results are presented in
tabular format, as previously
Wc = γ Bch
done (see above).
Plastic (HDPE) Design method varies by Driscopipe, "Systems
manufacturer. Design," pp. 40-46,
Bc Phillips Driscopipe, 1991
Driscopipe (Phillips)
recommends simple prism
over the pipe w = γhΦ , where:
Plastic pipe is h Φ is pipe OD. Other
considered "flexible" superimposed loads are
for pipe wall brought down to the pipe
Bc crown via elastic distribution
thickness design
(Boussinesque, or equivalent).

Wc = γ h Bc Plexco (Chevron) Plexco/Spirolite


acknowledges that the simple "Engineering Manual, 2.
prism load is the easiest to System Design", pp. 33-
All sizes calculate, but points out that it 50, Chevron Chemicals,
Bd fails to take advantage of the Performance Pipe
arching that is known to occur, Division, 1993.
especially with the flexible
h pipes. They then suggest that
the Marston formula is the
most common means to take
Bc arching into account for the
trench loads (earth dead
weight). Elastic distribution
Wc = Cd γ Bd2 methods (e.g. Boussinesque)
for other superimpodes loads.
In Marston formula, the trench
width at the pipe crown (the
standard Marston approach) is
used, not the smaller pipe
width.
DP29Cf14b

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 57 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 15
INFLUENCE DIAGRAM FOR EFFECTS OF DISTRIBUTED SURFACE LOADS ON BURIED PIPE

VALUES OF LOAD COEFFICIENTS, Cs, FOR CONCENTRATED AND DISTRIBUTED SUPERIMPOSED LOADS
VERTICALLY CENTERED OVER SEWER PIPEa
D M L
2H or
2H 2H
or
Bc 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 5.0
2H

0.1 0.019 0.037 0.053 0.067 0.079 0.089 0.097 0.103 0.108 0.112 0.117 0.121 0.124 0.128
0.2 0.037 0.072 0.103 0.131 0.155 0.174 0.189 0.202 0.211 0.219 0.229 0.238 0.244 0.248
0.3 0.053 0.103 0.149 0.190 0.224 0.252 0.274 0.292 0.306 0.318 0.333 0.345 0.355 0.360
0.4 0.067 0.131 0.190 0.241 0.284 0.320 0.349 0.373 0.391 0.405 0.425 0.440 0.454 0.460
0.5 0.079 0.155 0.224 0.284 0.336 0.379 0.414 0.441 0.463 0.481 0.505 0.525 0.540 0.548
0.6 0.089 0.174 0.252 0.320 0.379 0.428 0.467 0.499 0.524 0.544 0.572 0.596 0.613 0.624
0.7 0.097 0.189 0.274 0.349 0.414 0.467 0.511 0.546 0.584 0.597 o.628 0.650 0.674 0.688
0.8 0.103 0.202 0.292 0.373 0.441 0.499 0.546 0.584 0.615 0.639 0.674 0.703 0.725 0.740
0.9 0.108 0.211 0.306 0.391 0.463 0.524 0.574 0.615 0.647 0.673 0.711 0.742 0.766 0.784
1.0 0.112 0.219 0.318 0.405 0.481 0.544 0.597 0.639 0.673 0.701 0.740 0.774 0.800 0.816
1.2 0.117 0.229 0.333 0.425 0.505 0.572 0.628 0.674 0.711 0.740 0.783 0.820 0.849 0.868
1.5 0.121 0.238 0.345 0.440 0.525 0.596 0.650 0.703 0.742 0.774 0.820 0.861 0.894 0.916
2.0 0.124 0.244 0.355 0.454 0.540 0.613 0.674 0.725 0.766 0.800 0.849 0.894 0.930 0.956

aInfluence coefficients for solution of Holl's and Newmark's integration of the Boussinesq equation for vertical stress.

Uniform Load p, lb/ft2,


Acting on Area D x M A H J
D
M
G B C

F E D
Ground Surface Diagram for obtaining stress at point A caused
by load in shaded area BCDE (ASCE, 1969).
H

Bc
I
Bc

Distributed superimposed load vertically centered over


sewer pipe (psf x 47.9 = Pa) (ASCE, 1969). DP29Cf15

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 58 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 16
AASHTO HS-20 TRUCK LOADS ON BURIED PIPE
AASHTO AASHTO AASHTO
HS20 Load HS20 Load Alternate Load
4000 lb 4000 lb 4000 lb 4000 lb 12000 lb 12000 lb

6 ft 6 ft 12000
4 ft or
14 ft 14 ft 12000 lb 12000 lb 0.83 ft (10 in.)
16000 lb
HS20 and
Alternate
Loads
16000 lb 16000 lb 16000 lb 16000 lb
14 ft
to
30 ft 1.67 ft (20 in.)

6 ft 4 ft 6 ft Wheel Load Surface Contact Area


16000 lb 16000 lb (ft x 0.304 8 = m; in. x 25.4 = mm; lb x 0.453 6 = kg)
Live Load Spacing (ft x 0.304 8 = m; lb. x 0.453 6 = kg) Am. Concrete Pipe Assoc., 1988).
(Am. Concrete Pipe Assoc., 1988)

Direction of Travel Wheel Load Areas

0.83 ft
Direction of Travel 4.0 ft 1.67 ft
1.67 ft (20 in.)
0.83 ft (10 in.)
1.67 ft
Wheel Load Areas
Wheel Load Area
H Distributed Load Area
H ft

(5.67 + 1.75 H) ft

(1.67 + 1.75 H) ft Distributed Load Area


(0.83 + 1.75 H) ft (0.83 + 1.75 H) ft

Distributed Load Area – Single Dual Whell


(ft x 0.304 8 = m; in. x 25.4 = mm) Distributed Load Area – Two HS20 Trucks Passing
(Am. Concrete Pipe Assoc., 1988). (ft x 0.304 8 = m)
(Am. Concrete Pipe Assoc., 1988).

Direction of Travel
Wheel Load Areas 0.83 ft
1.67 ft
4.0 ft

1.67 ft
Wheel Load Areas 0.83 ft
L
H
H ft
3Bc Bc
4
(5.67 + 1.75 H) ft

(4.83 + 1.75 H) ft
Distributed Load Area 3Bc
Le = L + 1.75
4
Distributed Load Area – Alternate Loads in Passing Mode
(ft x 0.304 8 = m) Effective Supporting Length of Pipe
(Am. Concrete Pipe Assoc., 1988). (Am. Concrete Pipe Assoc., 1988).
DP29Cf16

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 59 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 17
ILLUSTRATION OF “THREE EDGE BEARING" TEST FOR USE IN INDIRECT DESIGN OF RIGID PIPES

Rigid Steel
Member

Pipe
Wall

Bearing Strips

DP29Cf17

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 60 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 18
BEDDING FACTOR “Bf" FOR CONCRETE PIPE
1-1/4 Bc 1-1/4 Bc
1/4 D 4" min.
Bc + 8" min. Bc + 8" min.

12" min. Densely 1/8 H 6" min.


Compacted
Backfill
Bc Plain or Reinforced Bc
Concrete 2000 psi min.
1/4 Bc
d (See Notes) Compacted
d
Granular
Material

Concrete Cradle Concrete Arch


Class A
Reinforced As = 1.0% Bf = 4.8
Reinforced As = 0.4% Bf = 3.4
Pain Bf = 2.8
12"
12"
Densely
Compacted
Bc Backfill Bc

Compacted
Fine Granular Fill Granular d
Material 2" min. 0.6 Bc Material

Shaped Subgrade with


Granular Foundation
Granular Foundation
Class B
Bf = 1.9

1/8 H 6" min. 1/8 H 6" min.


Lightly
Compacted
Bc Backfill Bc
1/6 Bc

Compacted Granular
0.5 Bc Material or Densely d
Compacted Backfill

Shaped Subgrade Granular Foundation


Class C
Bf = 1.5
Loose Backfill

1/8 H 6" min.

See next page for Legend and Notes


Bc

Class D
Flat Subgrade Bf = 1.1 DP29Cf18a

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 61 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 18 (Cont)
BEDDING FACTOR “Bf" FOR CONCRETE PIPE

Depth of Bedding Legend


Material Below Pipe
Bc = Outside diameter
D d (min.) H = Backfill cover above top of pipe
D = Inside diameter
27" & Smaller 3" d = Depth of bedding material
30" to 60" 4" below pipe
66" & Larger 6" As = Area of tranverse steel in the
cradle of arch expressed as a
percentage of area of concrete
at invert or crown.

Notes:
For Class A beddings, use d as depth of concrete below pipe unless otherwise indicated by soil or design conditions.
For Class B and C beddings, subgrades should be excavated or over excavated, if necessary, so a uniform foundation free of
protruding rocks may be provided.
Special care may be necessary with Class A or other unyielding foundations to cushion pipe from shock when blasting can be
anticipated in the area. DP29Cf18b

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 62 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 19-A
BEDDING FACTOR “Bf" FOR VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE

Load Factors – Class A


1.25 Bc or
Bc + 8 in. (200 mm) Min.

Hand 12 in.
Placed (300 mm) Min.
Backfill

Bc

Concrete Bc/4
Bc/4, 4 in.
(100 mm) Min.

Load Factors: 2.2 Native Backfill Material Lightly Tamped


2.8 ASTM D448 = 67 Crushed Stone
3.4 Reinforced Concrete, p = 0.4% 5 in.
1.25 Bc or Figure 1 Class A-1 (125 mm) Min.
Bc + 8 in. (200 mm) Min.
Hand
Placed
Backfill Hand 12 in.
Bc/4, 4 in. Placed (300 mm) Min.
Concrete (100 mm) Min. Backfill
Bc
Bc
Concrete 3/4 Bc Bc/8 Max.,
Bc/2 Bc/15 Min.
Bedding
Bedding
Bc/8, 4 in.
(100 mm) Min.
Bc/8, 4 in.
Load Factors: 2.8 Plain Concrete (100 mm) Min.
3.4 Reinforced Concrete, p = 0.4% Load Factor 2.7

Figure 2 Class A-ll Figure 3 Class A-III

6 in.
(150 mm) Min. 1.5 Bc or
Bc + 8 in. (200 mm) Min.

Bc/4, 5 in.
Bc/6, 5 in.
(125 mm) Min. Concrete
(125 mm) Min.
Concrete Bc Bc
Bc/8 Max., Bc/15 Min. Bc/15 Min.

Bedding
Const.
Joint

Load Factor 3.2 Bc/8 Max., 4 in. Load Factor 4.5 Bc/4, 4 in.
(100 mm) Min. (100 mm) Min.
Figure 4 Class A-IV Figure 5 Class A-V
DP29Cf19a

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 63 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 19-B
BEDDING FACTOR “Bf" FOR VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE

Load Factors – Class B,C and D

Hand 12 in.
Placed (300 mm) Min.
Backfill

Bc

Bc/2
Bedding
Bc/8, 4 in.
(100 mm) Min.

Load Factor 1.9

Figure 6 Class B

Hand Hand 12 in.


Placed 12 in. Placed (300 mm) Min.
Backfill (300 mm) Min. Backfill

Bc
Bc
Bc/6 Min.

Bedding Bc/8, 4 in.


(100 mm) Min.

Load Factor 1.5


0.5 Bc
Load Factor 1.5 Shaped Bottom Figure 8 Class C

Figure 7 Class C

Hand
Placed 12 in.
Backfill (300 mm) Min.

Bc

Load Factor 1.1


Flat or Unshaped Trench Bottom

Figure 9 Class D
DP29Cf19b

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 64 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 20
MANUFACTURER SPECIFIC DESIGN CHARTS/TABLES FOR THICKNESS DESIGN OF HDPE

MAXIMUM BURIAL DEPTH, ft MAXIMUM EXTERNAL MAXIMUM DEFLECTION, %


IN DRY SOIL OF 100 lb/ft3 PRESSURE psi AFTER INSTALLATION
SDR
SOIL MODULUS, psi* SOIL MODULUS, psi* SOIL MODULUS, psi*

1000 2000 3000 1000 2000 3000 1000 2000 3000

32.5 25 32 37 17 22 26 1.7 0.9 0.6

26 33 45 52 23 31 36 2.3 1.2 0.8

21 46 61 71 32 42 49 3.2 1.6 1.1

19 52 69 81 36 48 56 3.6 1.8 1.2

17 61 121 181 42 84 126 4.2 2.1 1.4

15.5 56 112 168 39 78 117 3.9 2.0 1.3

13.5 49 98 147 34 68 102 3.4 1.7 1.1

11 39 78 117 27 54 81 2.7 1.4 0.9

9.3 33 68 101 23 47 70 2.3 1.2 0.8

8.3 30 61 89 21 42 62 2.1 1.1 0.7

7.3 26 52 79 18 36 55 1.8 0.9 0.6

*assumes no external loads

Plot of Vertical Stress - Strain Data for Typical Trench Support Factor
Backfill (Except Clay) from Actual Test* 26 17 11 7
4000 5
90% Standard E' = Soil Modulus
Pt = Vertical Soil Pressure (Ib/ft2)

Density Pt 4
E' = ε
s
3000 80% Standard
Compacted Density
3
Soil
* Test Performed at the
Utah State University fs
2000
Experiment Station
2
Zone of Critical
Compacted Soil
Void Ratio
1000
70% Standard
Density
Loose Soil Loose Soil
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
32.5 21 13.5 9
εs Vertical Soil Strain (Percent)
SDR
DP29Cf20

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 65 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

FIGURE 21
SOIL MODULUS E′ FOR USE IN MODIFIED IOWA FORMULA FOR FLEXIBLE PIPE DESIGN
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AVERAGE VALUES OF E′ FOR IOWA FORMULA (INITIAL DEFLECTION)

E′ FOR DEGREE OF BEDDING COMPACTION, lb/in.2


Slight, Moderate, High,
Soil type-pipe bedding material <85% 85% - 95% >95%
(Unified Classification System)1 Proctor, Proctor, Proctor,
<40% 40% - 70% >70%
relative relative relative
Dumped density density density
Fine-grained soils (LL > 50)2 soils with medium to No data available: consult a competent soils engineer,
high plasticity CH, MH, CH-MH otherwise, use E' = 0
Fine-grained soils (LL < 50) soils with medium to no 50 200 400 1,000
plasticity CL, ML, ML-CL, with less than 25% coarse
grained particles
Fine-grained soils (LL < 50) soils with medium to no 100 400 1,000 2,000
plasticity CL, ML, ML-CL, with more than 25% coarse
grained particles
Coarse-grained soils with fines GM, GC, SM, SC3
contains more than 12% fines
Coarse-grained soils with little or no fines GW, GP, 200 1,000 2,000 3,000
SW, SP3 contains less than 12% fines
Crushed rock 1,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Accuracy in terms of percentage deflection4 ± 2% ± 2% ± 1% ± 0.5%

1 ASTM D-2487, USBR Designation E-3


2 LL = Liquid Limit
3 Or any borderline soil beginning with one of these symbols (i.e., GM-GC, GC-SC).
4 For ≥1% accuracy and predicted deflection of 3%, actual deflection would be between 2% and 4%.

Note: Values applicable only for fills less than 50 ft (15 m). Table does not include any safety factor. For use in
predicting initial deflections only; appropriate Deflection Lag Factor must be applied for long-term deflections. If
bedding falls on the borderline between tow compaction categories, select lower E' value, or average the two
values. Percentage Proctor based on laboratory maximum dry density from test standards using 12,500 ft-lb/ft3
(598,000 J/m2) (ASTM D-698, AASHTO T-99, USBR Designation E-11). 1 psi = 6.9 Kpa.

DUNCAN-HARTLEY SOIL REACTION MODULUS

DEPTH OF E′ FOR STANDARD AASHTO RELATIVE COMPACTION,


TYPE OF SOIL COVER, lb/in.2
ft
85% 90% 95% 100%
Fine-grained soils with less 0-5 500 700 1,000 1,500
than 25% sand content 5 - 10 600 1,000 1,400 2,000
(CL, ML, CL-ML) 10 - 15 700 1,200 1,600 2,300
15 - 20 800 1,300 1,800 2,600
Coarse-grained soils with 0-5 600 1,000 1,200 1,900
fines 5 - 10 900 1,400 1,800 2,700
(SM, SC) 10 - 15 1,000 1,500 2,100 3,200
15 - 20 1,100 1,600 2,400 3,700
Coarse-grained soils with 0-5 700 1,000 1,600 2,500
little or no fines 5 - 10 1,000 1,500 2,200 3,300
(SP, SW, GP, GW) 10 - 15 1,050 1,600 2,400 3,600
15 - 20 1,100 1,700 2,500 3,800

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 66 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

FIGURE 22
RIP-RAP SIZING REQUIREMENTS FOR USE AS CHANNEL LINING

190

Stone Weight, in Pounds


180 20 60 600 1000 1500 3000 5000
(W) in Pounds Per Cubic Ft

1 510 40 100 200 400 800 2000 4000


26
12:1 or
Unit Weight of Rock

Bottom
170 24 4:1
3:1
22
160 2:1

20 1 1/2:1
150
18
Velocity (V) in Feet Per Second 1:1
140
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 16

Side Slope (H:V)


Coefficient (C) for Stone
Size Correction 14

1.0
12
k
d

.8 10
For Stone Weighing
=

165 Lbs. Per Cu. Ft


Total Depth of Flow in Feet

8
Stone Diameter in Feet

.6

.4
4

.2 2

0
0 0 1 2 3 4
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Equivalent Spherical Diameter of Stone, (K) in Feet
Velocity Against Stone (FPS) Vs
=
Mean Velocity in Channel (FPS) Vm

Note:
(1) Adapted from USBPR (1970-b).
(2) Stone size (K) is the diameter in feet of an equivalent spherical stone having the same weight as the 50% (median) stone
size, by weight, of well-graded stones with a unit weight of 165 pounds per cubic foot.
(3) When the depth of flow exceeds about 10 feet, use 0.4 of the total depth.
(4) When the unit weight of the stone is not 165 PCF, the size (K) should be corrected by Creager's Equation:

Kw = 102.5 = C.K
W - 62.5

Where: K = Stone size in graphs


Kw = Corrected stone size for stone of unit weight W pounds per cubic foot
C = Correction cofficient
(5) For determining the stone size at the point of impingement, the velocity vs should be multiplied by a factor varying between 1
and 2 (depending upon the severity of the attack by the current) before entering into the graph.
DP29Cf22

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 67 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

HYDROLOGIC DESIGN

Example Problem No. 1, Synthesizing a Local Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curve from 30-Minute Storm Data
The 30-minute rainfall amount for the return period of interest must be known and is used as a starting point. That total rainfall
amount is then converted to longer or shorter durations by multiplying by the factors in the following table for the continental
U.S. A similar table of conversion factors would have to be obtained from the local weather authorities for other locations.

TABLE A-1
FACTORS FOR CONVERTING FROM 30-MINUTE DURATION STORM DEPTHS
TO DEPTHS FOR OTHER STORM DURATIONS, CONTINENTAL U.S.

DEPTH FACTOR
DURATION
(in., total)

2 hrs 1.60

90 min 1.50

60 min 1.26

30 min 1.00

15 min 0.72

10 min 0.57

5 min 0.37

The rainfall hourly intensity (in. per hour) for any other storm duration is then determined by multiplying by the appropriate
depth factor to convert the specified duration into an implied hourly rate. For example, if the 30 minute total rainfall is 2.7 in.,
then the corresponding 10 minute total rainfall would be 0.57 x 2.7 in. = 1.54 in. Since this amount of rain would have fallen in
a 10 minute period, the implied hourly intensity is 1.54 x (60 min/10 min) = 9.2 in./hour (six 10 minute periods in an hour). This
intensity (9.2 in./hour) is the value that would be used in the Rational Formula to calculate the runoff from a catchment area
whose time of concentration (see above) is 10 minutes. Alternatively, this value could be plotted along with hourly intensities
for other durations to develop an IDF curve for the location. The process is described in more detail later in this example
problem.
If intensity-duration data are required for return periods other than the one for which rainfall data is available, the total rainfall
depth for differing return periods can usually be approximated by data published by local government bureaus. In the U.S., the
factors presented in the following table can be used to convert total rainfall depths from one return period to another. Note that
a similar table providing conversion factors for various return periods would have to be obtained from the local weather
authorities for other locations.

TABLE A-2
FACTORS FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL RAINFALL DEPTH
FOR VARIOUS RECURRENCE INTERVALS, CONTINENTAL U.S.

RECURRENCE
FACTOR
INTERVAL (YEARS)

2 yr 1.0

5 yr 1.3

10 yr 1.6

25 yr 1.9

50 yr 2.2

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 68 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)


Note that the above factors are average factors suitable for estimating purposes or for use when more comprehensive rainfall
data is unavailable. Such an approach would apply to well developed areas such as the U.S. and most of Europe where
rainfall records are abundant. It may also applicable to more remote sites, again assuming that rainfall records are available
and assuming the conversion factors such as those presented in the above table have been compiled by government bureaus.
However, the values in these tables are regional averages, and as such will not necessarily conform precisely to site specific
rainfall data collected over several years, even for a site within the continental U.S. If rainfall data has been tabulated by
government authorities for a particular site, use of that data is obviously preferable to the factors provided in tables such as that
provided above.
To produce intensity-duration curves for a different return period storm, the 30-minute duration storm of the desired return
period would either be read directly from published local data or would be estimated using the above table and the 30-minute
storm of the known recurrence interval. Then intensities for durations other than 30 minutes would be calculated as described
previously. Presentation of intensity-duration data for storms of several return periods (frequencies) on the same graph would
result in a complete IDF curve (intensity-duration-frequency).
Based on the above described methodology, the following illustrates development of IDF curves for Houston, Texas, for
durations ranging from 5 minutes to 2 hours and recurrence intervals of 2, 5 and 10 years, given only the 10 year 1 hour storm
amount of 3.4 in., taken from maps provided in U.S. Weather Bureau's TP-40 (1961).
1. Calculate the 2 and 5 year one-hour rainfall amounts from the factors presented in Table A-2
Given 10 yr, 1 hr storm = 3.4 in.
then 5 yr, 1 hr storm = 3.4 x 1.3/1.6 = 2.8 in.
(Note, TP-40 would give 2.9 in., which is a more
accurate value. However, for this example, continue to
use 2.8)
and 2 yr, 1 hr storm = 3.4 x 1.0/1.6 = 2.1 in. (TP-40 would give 2.35 in.; use 2.1 for this example)
2. Determine corresponding 30-minute total rainfall depths using factors in Table A-1
10 yr, 30 minute = 3.4 in. / 1.26 = 2.7 in. (note converting back to 30-minute duration, therefore
divide)
5 yr, 30 minute = 2.8 in. / 1.26 = 2.2 in.
2 yr, 30 minute = 2.1 in. / 1.26 = 1.7 in.
3. Determine the hourly intensities for other return periods using the factors in Table A-1
Calculation is shown for 2 year storms; 2 yr, 30 min rainfall total is 1.7 in. over 30 minutes total time.
2 YR 5 YR 10 YR

HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY


FACTOR INTENSITY, INTENSITY, INTENSITY,
DURATION CALCULATION (2 YR STORMS SHOWN)
(TABLE 1)
in./hr in./hr in./hr

5 min 0.37 0.37 x 1.7 in. x (60 min/5 min) = 7.5 iph 9.8 12.0

10 min 0.57 0.57 x 1.7 in. x (60 min/10 min) = 5.8 iph 7.6 9.3

15 min 0.72 0.72 x 1.7 in. x (60 min/15 min) = 4.9 iph 6.4 7.8

30 min 1.00 1.00 x 1.7 in. x (60 min/30 min) = 3.4 iph 4.4 5.4

1 hr 1.26 1.26 x 1.7 in. x (60 min/60 min) = 2.1 iph 2.7 3.4

2 hr 1.60 1.60 x 1.7 in. x (60 min/120 min) = 1.4 iph 1.8 2.2

The hourly intensities for the 5 and 10 year 30 minute storms, with total depths of 2.2 and 2.7 in. respectively, were determined
by multiplying the 2 year storm values by 1.3 and 1.6 respectively (Table A-2) to arrive at the hourly intensities shown in the
right two columns. The results can be combined into an IDF plot such as Figure 3B. Such a plot can be used to interpolate
hourly intensities for a range of storm durations, as is customarily needed in order to calculate runoff flow rates using the
Rational Formula.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 69 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)

Example Problem No. 2, Calculating Time of Concentration for Use in the Rational Formula
Overland flow example
Given a 10 acre area, mostly undeveloped, within an industrial site, where flow is mainly via overland grassed surfaces which
are not mowed or otherwise maintained. The longest watercourse length is 900 ft, and the elevation difference along it is 6 ft
(dimensions from topographic map or survey). Determine the time of concentration either by use of the nomograph in Figure 5
or directly via the Kirpich formula.
By the Kirpich formula (see Eq. 3),
0.385
æ 11.9 L3 ö
Tc = ç ÷
ç ∆H ÷
è ø

where: Tc = Time for concentration, hrs.


L = Length of the longest watercourse in miles,
∆H = Elevation difference along the watercourse, ft.
Calculated Tc = 0.17 hrs, or 10 minutes. Since the undeveloped land is not maintained, the value
calculated by the above method should be doubled. Time of concentration for this catchment
area, or this portion of a larger catchment area, is therefore 2 x 0.17 hrs = 0.34 hrs or 20 minutes.
While it is difficult to imagine a paved area this large, the calculated concentration time would be multiplied by 0.4, if the area
were paved but not confined in discrete paved channels and ditches. If the flow were conveyed in channels, then the
calculated concentration time would be multiplied by 0.2, resulting in a Tc of only 2 minutes. However, for this latter condition,
the assumption of overland flow is probably no longer valid, and the determination of time of concentration should be carried
out as described below.
Time of Concentration via Pipe and Ditch Flow Travel Times
For developed land in which storm runoff is conveyed mainly by ditches and buried storm sewers, the time of concentration to
be used for determining the flow at any subsequent downstream point is determined by summing up discrete travel times for
the route from the most distant point in the catchment area.
Consider a paved industrial site where the flows are collected in sub-laterals which feed into lateral storm drains that feed into
mains. Determine the time of concentration for the flow reporting to the main, if the length of the catchment area is 1000 ft, and
the most remote sublateral feeding into the lateral is 50 ft in length, and receives its inflow through a drop inlet that drains a
paved area that is 80 ft by 50 ft. The sub-laterals and laterals have are at a nominal grade of 0.5% fixed by topography, and
assume they have been sized such that they flow at a velocity of 3 fps when delivering their respective design flows.
The time for runoff to travel by overland flow from the edges of each sub-catchment area to the respective drop inlet is called
the “inlet time". Inlet time will vary with the surface slope, the nature of the surface cover, and the length of the overland flow
path. In general, the higher the rainfall intensity, the shorter the inlet time.
Inlet time is usually selected, somewhat arbitrarily, to be anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes. In densely developed areas, where
impervious surfaces shed their water directly to storm sewers through closely spaced inlets, an inlet time of 5 minutes is often
reported. Times shorter than 5 minutes present problems in that the shortest duration presented on IDF curves is typically 5
minutes. Five minutes should be taken as the minimum inlet time for use in design unless there is reason to select a longer
inlet time (e.g., if calculation of travel time using the Kirpich formula indicates a longer time, the calculated value should be
used. However, for closely spaced inlets in a paved industrial area, it is not likely that the Kirpich formula would result in inlet
times greater than 5 minutes unless the surface slope is extremely flat.)
Adopting an inlet time of 5 minutes, the time of concentration is then determined by adding travel times within the pipe conduits.
Since the sub-laterals are 50 ft long, travel time to the lateral would be 50/3.5 fps = 14 seconds (0.2 minutes), which could
almost be ignored in view of the assumption regarding inlet time. Travel to the main in the lateral (1000 ft long) would require
4.8 minutes, which implies a combined Tc for the catchment area of 10 minutes (5 minutes inlet, 0.2 minutes in the sub-lateral,
and 4.8 minutes in the lateral enroute to the main).

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 70 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)

Example Problem No. 3, Use of the Rational Formula for Runoff Flow Rate
Assume for this problem that design for a 10 year flow in Houston, Texas is desired, and it had been determined by the
methods described in the body of the Design Practice that Tc is 10 minutes. The U.S. Weather Bureau IDF curve (from TP-25)
gives 7.2 in./hr as the intensity for a storm of 10 minutes duration for Houston, while the user developed IDF described in
Example Problem No.1 indicates 9.2 iph as the appropriate value. Note that a 10 year-one hour storm for the same location
produces 3.4 in. of rain, for an hourly intensity of only 3.4 iph, which if used would result in an underestimate of the flow for this
particular component by a factor of about 3. Assuming a mainly paved industrial area with C = 0.9, and a catchment area of
100 x 120 ft (30 x 37 m) (equals 0.27 acres), which might represent the catchment area for four storm drains, and adopting the
user developed value of 9.2 iph as the intensity, the 10 year flow via the Rational Formula (see Eq. 1) would be
Q = 0.9 x 9.2 iph x 0.27 = 2.23 cfs (1000 gpm)
Using the metric equivalent formula (see Eq. 2), and assuming the equivalent intensity is 9.2 x 25.4 = 234 mm/hr, A = 30 m x
37 m = 1110 m2 = 0.00111 km2, Q = 0.278 x 0.9 x 234 mm/hr x 0.00111 km2 = 0.065 m3/sec.
For the 2-year event, the IDF curve presents an intensity of 5.8 iph, and the corresponding flow would be 631 gpm. To place
this flow in perspective, a 12-in. pipe, at a slope of 0.6%, could carry a flow of about 2.3 cfs while flowing about 2/3 full.
Methods to calculate flow capacities in pipes are described later in this Design Practice.

Example Problem No.4, Runoff Volume via Simple Runoff Coefficient, and via SCS Curve Number Method
For the small industrial catchment area described above, assume the runoff coefficient is 0.9, for a paved industrial area. If the
design storm of interest were specified to be the 10 year 24 hour storm, which for Houston Texas is 8.5 in., the volume of runoff
for the 24 hour period would be
Vr = 0.9 x (8.5 in./12) x 0.27 acres = 0.172 ac ft = 56,000 gallons
The metric equivalent, with total storm depth = 8.5 x 25.4 = 216 mm and A = 1,110 m2, V = 0.9 x 0.216 m x 1,110 m2 = 216 m3
For the previously described example (10 year, 24 hour storm at Houston, Texas with total rainfall depth 8.5 in.), in an industrial
area with CN = 92, the runoff as read from Figure 7 or calculated from the expression provided there would be (Q) = 7.5 in..
Runoff volume would be
Vr = 7.5 in./12 x 0.27 acres = 0.169 ac ft = 54,980 gallons
Had a CN of 95 been selected, calculated direct runoff would be 7.9 in., and the corresponding runoff volume would be 57,900
gallons. These two CNs bracket the assumption of a runoff coefficient of 0.9 in the previous method.

HYDRAULIC DESIGN

Example Problem No. 5, Pipe Flowing Partly Full (Gravity Flow)


Given a gradient fixed by other constraints at 0.008, and the design flow is 2.23 cfs, what nominal diameter concrete pipe would
be required? The requirement is to deliver 2.23 cfs at a flow depth of approximately 0.7D, and to do so with a velocity between
2.5 and 10 fps. Assume n = 0.013.
Trial D = 8 in., has R = 0.197 ft and A = 0.261 ft2 when flowing at 0.7D (= 5.4 in. deep). Manning's equation, with S = 0.008
gives V = 3.47 fps, and Q = 0.91 cfs. Therefore, pipe is too small. Check the next larger size.
Trial D = 12 in., has R = 0.296 ft and A = 0.587 ft2 when flowing at 0.7D (= 8.4 in. deep). Manning's equation gives V = 4.55 fps
and Q = 2.67 cfs. Therefore, pipe is satisfactory.
If the gradient had been considerably smaller, say 0.003, the 12" pipe would be undersized (Q = 1.64 cfs), and an 18" pipe
would be required (Q = 4.83 cfs). However, the velocity when flowing 0.7 D would drop to 3.65 fps, which is still adequate, but
illustrates the impact of gradient on flow velocity.
Performing the same example in metric units, with Q = 2.23 cfs = 0.063 m3/sec, and using manual solution of Manning's
equation and Figure 10, targeting a pipe that will flow 0.063 m3/sec at 0.7 D depth.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 71 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)


Try 250 mm pipe. First calculate pipe flowing full condition.
For full pipe, A = ≈ (0.2502)/4 = 0.0491 m2, R = D/4 = 0.250/4 = 0.0625 m,

V
1 2 / 3 1/ 2
R S =
1
(0.0625 )2 / 3 (0.008 )1/ 2 = 1.08 m/s
n 0.013

From Figure 10, V @ 0.7 D ≈ 1.18 x V full, so V = 1.18 x 1.08 m/sec = 1.27 m/sec

From Figure 10, A @ 0.7 D ≈ 0.75 Afull, so A = 0.75 x 0.0491 m2 = 0.0368 m2 ;

Q = VA = 1.27 x 0.0368 = 0.047m3/sec; too small; try next larger size.


Try 280 mm pipe. Afull = 0.0616 m2, Rfull = D/4 = 0.070 m ; Vfull = 1.17 m/sec
From Figure 10, V @ 0.7 D ≈ 1.18 x V full, so V = 1.18 x 1.17m/sec = 1.38 m/sec;

A = 0.75 x 0.0616 = 0.046 m2


Q = VA = 1.38 x 0.046 = 0.063 m3/sec; OK
Note: 280 mm pipe ≈ 11 in. ID.

Example Problem No. 6, Flow in Small Pipe Network using Rational Method
This example problem is based on the conditions which might exist in the uppermost reach of a sewer network within an
industrial plant. Inlets 1 and 2 might represent the drop inlets common to a process unit, with tributary areas about 50 ft x 60 ft.
The analysis would probably be performed today using any of a number of PC based computer programs (see Table 3 in the
main body of this Design Practice). For illustration of manual calculations for larger networks, refer to water resources or civil
engineering texts.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 72 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)

C = 0.8
Area = 0.07 Acres

Inlet 1

Pipe 1 L = 60 ft
8 in. S = 0.5%
Area = 0.07 Acres HDPE n = 0.010
C = 0.7

Inlet 2
Pipe 2 Outfall
8 in. HDPE Pipe 4
L = 60 ft
S = 0.5%
n = 0.010 Junction J-1

Pipe 3

10" HDPE

L= 1000 ft
S= 0.53%
n= 0.010

Inlet 3
Area = 0.30 Acre
C = 0.6

DP29CAA1

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 73 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)


Given an industrial watershed with 3 inlets, connected via pipelines with dimensions and grades as shown in the sketch above,
and watershed data as described below. Calculate the flows reporting to Junction J-1 for a 10-year event, using the IDF curve
presented in Figure 3-A as the source of the applicable rainfall intensities.

TRIBUTARY RUNOFF
INLET
AREA COEFFICIENT

1 0.07 acre 0.8

2 0.07 acre 0.7

3 0.30 acre 0.6


Assume “inlet time" is fixed and is 5 minutes for each inlet.
To solve the problem, first obtain the rainfall intensities from the curve for the 10 year storm in Figure 3-A. These have been
tabulated below:
RAINFALL
DURATION INTENSITY
in./hr

5 min 8.1

15 min 6.4

30 min 4.7

60 min 3.5
Intensities corrresponding to intermediate durations will be determined by linear interpolation.
The inlet flows for the respective sub-watersheds (Inlets 1, 2 and 3) are shown in the following table. The corresponding travel
times in the various pipes are then calculated using velocities determined via methods described in Example Problem No. 5.
In this case the “system time" equals the inlet time (5 minutes) plus the longest of the respective pipe travel times. The longest
travel time (Pipe 3, from Inlet 3) sets the “system time" of concentration for flows at Junction J-1. This flow can then be used to
size or evaluate the adequacy of Pipe No. 4.

INLET SYSTEM
INLET FLOW, AVG VEL. TRAVEL SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM FLOW,
NODE C•A INTENSITY = CiA IN PIPE TIME TIME INTENSITY ΣC•A ΣCA•i
(in./hr.) ft3/s ft/s (min.) (min.) (in./hr.) ft3/s

Inlet I-1 0.8 x 0.07 = 0.056 8.1 0.454 2.08 2.40 7.40 — — —

Inlet I-2 0.7 x 0.07 = 0.049 8.1 0.397 1.81 2.76 7.76 — — —

Inlet I-3 0.6 x 0.30 = 0.180 8.1 1.458 3.64 4.58 9.58 ← controls — —

Jct. J-1 — — — — — 9.58 7.32 0.285 2.09

The system intensity of 7.32 iph for a system time of 9.58 minutes at Junction J-1 is obtained by interpolating from the data in
the rainfall intensity table. Note that the flow of 2.09 cfs at Junction J-1 is based on the time of concentration for the entire
system upstream of that point, and is less than the 2.31 cfs that would result if the flows from each pipe had simply been
added together.
In general, the farther downstream in the system, the “system time" will be increasing and the corresponding rainfall intensity
will be decreasing. However, flow will generally be increasing due to the inclusion of additional inlets and drainage areas.
In some designs a single intensity for storm sewers, set somewhat arbitrarily as the 10 year 1-hr intensity, has been used. In
this example problem, that intensity is equivalent to 3.5 in./hr, and it would produce a calculated flow at Junction J-1 of 0.285 x
3.5 iph = 1.00 cfs. This is about half of the actual 10 year flow at that junction, and it would correspond to actual return
frequency of less than 1 year using this rainfall data. Selecting a single intensity can therefore result in underdesign (i.e.,
temporary flooding) in all areas above the point that corresponds to a system time of 1 hour, and results in overdesign
(uneconomically large pipe sizes) for all areas downstream of that point. Since most industrial sites can be expected to have
system times well below 1 hour, at least within the individual upstream areas that are tributary to mains, the condition of
frequent flooding is the more likely consequence of using a single valued intensity. These drawbacks may be acceptable in
some cases, provided the designer is aware of the principles involved.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 74 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)

Example Problem No. 7, Open Channel Flow


Assume that the gradient is fixed by other constraints at 0.008, and the design flow has been determined to be 900 cfs. What
bottom width would be required if side slopes need to be held no steeper than 1(vt) on 3(hz), and a grass lining is to be
applied? Excavation depths of more than 6 ft are to be avoided.
The above conditions imply a Manning's “n" of 0.035. Iterative solutions of Manning's equation result in a nominal depth of 5.03
ft if the bottom width is set at 8 ft. The flow velocity is 7.7 fps, resulting in a velocity head (V2/2g) of 0.9 ft. The nominal 1 ft of
freeboard would control, and the channel bottom should be set at 6 ft below grade. It will flow with about 1 ft of freeboard when
delivering the design flow. The design flow for this section is sub-critical, but it is not far from the critical flow (1150 cfs). The
design should be checked for the condition of a larger flow which might be super-critical, to determine if there might be adverse
consequences should the flow become rapidly varying (i.e., extremely turbulent).
The flow velocity of 7.7 fps is near the upper limit of allowable velocities in grass lined channels, and would only be permissible
if the soil materials into which the channel is cut are clayey (refer to Table 14).

Example Problem No. 8, Culvert Sizing


Height of road above ditch bottom is 15 ft. Assume for this application that it is acceptable to pond water as deep as 14 ft on
the upstream side of the crossing. The roadway has a 40 ft top width, and 2.5:1 side slopes down to the ditch bottom, resulting
in a culvert length of 115 ft. Assume that a CMP is the preferred pipe if it will work, and that it will have a headwall at the inlet.
Design flow is 900 cfs. What is the minimum acceptable pipe diameter?
Solution:
First approximation is flow area required 900 cfs/10 fps = 90 ft2 → D ≈ 10 ft. Try 9 ft. Enter inlet control nomograph with 9 ft
diameter (108 in.), and read HW/D = 1.5 for headwall inlet, → HW=13.5 ft, OK (i.e., < 14 ft)
Next check the outlet control nomograph. With D = 9 ft (108 in.), L = 115 ft, Ke = 0.9, 7.9 ft of head over tailwater is required
(tailwater taken as Tw = 0.85D = 7.65 ft), for a total head of 7.9 + 7.64 = 15.5 > 14 ft; 9 ft pipe is too small.
Try D = 10 ft, L = 115 ft, Ke = 0.9. The outlet control nomograph requires 5.5 ft of head over tailwater for this condition. Since
no tailwater elevation has been specified, assume again that Tw = 0.85 D = 8.5 ft (minimum tailwater is assumed to be
approximately equal to critical depth in pipe), for a total head of 8.5 + 5.5 = 14 ft. OK
Since the 9 ft pipe was satisfactory in inlet control, it is not necessary to re-check the 10 ft pipe for inlet control. However, for
the purpose of instruction, the 10 ft pipe with the same headwall type entrance would require an inlet HW/D of 1.2, which
implies inlet HW of 10 * 1.2 = 12 ft, which is within the design requirement (< 14 ft), but it is obvious that the pipe is still outlet
controlled.
Had a pipe larger than 10 ft been required, the design would have been forced to elliptical pipe arch culvert or a set of smaller
diameter parallel pipes.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 75 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Example Problem No. 9, Calculating Earth Load via Marston Formula, Conventional Cut-and-Cover Pipe in Trench
36" ID (≈ 3.5 ft OD) concrete pipe, buried in trench with Bd = 6.5 ft
Backfill assumed to be saturated clay (Soil E in Marston curves), at
unit weight γ = 120 pcf. Calculate H/Bd = 6/6.5 = 0.92, → Cd = 0.83
from graph or via formula. Then Marston formula W c = Cd γ Bd2 gives
H = 6 ft
Wc = 0.83 x 120 pcf x (6.5 ft)2 = 4,208 lb/LF of pipe
where: LF = linear
Bd = 6.5 ft

Bc = 3.5 ft

Example Problem No. 10, Load Imposed by Nearby Uniform Distributed Surface Load
Calculate the load/LF on the crown of a pipe that is 6 ft below
and is offset as shown from a 4 ft x 6 ft area loaded at 3000 psf.
3.5' OD
Referring to Figures, and superpositioning the rectangles shown at right, J
C
D
H 4'
produces a net shape factor of 0.046, as illustrated below: 6'
B
A 3000 psf D
RECTANGLE M M/2H D D/2H Cso Cs/4 SUM
G
+ AJDF 8.5 0.71 5.6 0.47 0.395 0.099 + 0.099

- AJCG 8.5 0.71 1.7 0.14 0.134 0.033 - 0.033 E M

- AHEF 2.6 0.22 5.6 0.47 0.148 0.037 - 0.037 F


3'
+ AHBG 2.6 0.22 1.7 0.14 0.051 0.013 + 0.013
3000 psf
Net 0.046

Impact factor is 1.0 (static load). Incremental load to be added to Marston


load for use in calculating stress on pipe crown would be
Wsd = 0.046 x 3,000 psf x 1.0 x 3.5 ft (OD) = 483 lb/LF of pipe H = 6'

This is the peak load imposed by the distributed surface load. It would
be imposed only for a limited distance along the pipe. For design purposes
it can be added to the Marston load as though it continues indefinitely
along the pipe. The total design load would therefore be
4,208 + 483 = 4,691 lb/LF of pipe.

DP29CAA2

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 76 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)

Example Problem No. 11, Loads Imposed by Surface Traffic


For the pipe described in the previous problem, determine the additional load on the crown if the pipe crosses under a two-lane
road at right angles, such that two HS20 trucks could pass one another directly over the pipe. Although the road is paved, it is
basically a light duty asphaltic concrete pavement intended for only occasional heavy truck traffic.
Since this pavement is not considered stiff enough to effect any significant distribution of the truck load, it is assumed to have
no impact. The calculation of the load caused by the truck(s) is carried out as though the pavement were not present.
First determine the Impact factor. Since H > 3 ft, there is no effect from impact (refer to Table 7), and Impact factor is therefore
If = 0.0.
Next determine the critical truck wheel loading configuration, which depends on thickness of cover over the pipe. Since H > 4
ft, the critical loading configuration is P = 48,000 lb over ALL = (4.83 + 1.75 x 6 ft) x (5.67 + 1.75 x 6 ft) (refer to Table 6 and
Figure 16). ALL = 15.33 ft x 16.17 ft = 247.9 sq. ft. Referring again to Figure 16, the 15.33 ft dimension is in the direction of
truck travel, and the 16.17 ft dimension is along the axis of the pipe.
P(1 + lf ) 48,000 lbs (1 + 0.0)
wL = → wL = = 194 lb/ft2
ALL 247.8 ft 2

The load must be converted from a pressure to load per unit length of pipe. The first step is to determine the total load imposed
on the pipe by means of
WT = wL L SL
where: L = Length of ALL parallel to the longitudinal axis of the pipe (16.17 ft in this case),
SL = Outside span of the pipe or width of ALL transverse to the axis of the pipe,
whichever is less. SL is 3.5 ft (pipe OD) in this case.
WT = 194 psf x 16.17 ft x 3.5 ft = 10,980 lb
Note that the pipe is carrying only about one fourth of the total load imposed by the passing tandem dual wheels of two trucks.
The load per unit length of pipe for inclusion in the total design load is
WT
wL =
Le

3 Bc
where: Le = L + 1.75 or in this case,
4
3 x 3.5 ft
Le = 16.17 ft + 1.75 = 20.8 ft
4
wL = 10,980 lb/20.8 ft = 528 lb/LF of pipe
This load can be added directly to the Marston load (earth component), and any other surface loads that may be imposed on
the pipe, to arrive at a total design load for determining the necessary pipe wall thickness.

Example Problem No. 12, Selecting Wall Thickness, Reinforcing Requirements for Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Reinforced concrete pipe is designed in accordance with the procedures for rigid pipes.
Given that ID has been set at 36" by hydraulic requirements, and imposed loads have been determined as described above.
These design loads are:
Earth load (via Marston Formula) = 4208 lb/LF of pipe
Surface structure loads (via elastic influence charts) = 483 lb/LF of pipe
Traffic load (via AASHTO, passing HS20 trucks) = 528 lb/LF of pipe
Total design load = 5219 lb/LF of pipe
Assume that the pipe will be installed in a shaped and compacted granular bed, (Class B bedding, Bf = 1.9; refer to Figure 18),
which requires the pipe to be placed in a compacted granular bed that extends up to the pipe mid-section. Select the most
economic reinforced concrete pipe wall thickness and reinforcing arrangement. To determine trial section capacities, use the
D0.01 -Load as the criterion.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 77 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)


Design load x FS 5219 lbs/LF x 1.0
D - Loadreq’d = → D - loadreq’d = = 916 lb/LF/ft diameter
Bf x Diam ( ft ) 1.9 x 3 ft

Safety factor 1.0 was selected because the design is being specified in accordance with the D0.01 -load (load required to open a
0.01 in. crack). The bedding factor 1.9 was selected based on the bedding conditions that will be specified in the field.
Refer to ASTM C 76 “Reinforced Concrete Culvert, Storm Drain, and Sewer Pipe", and observe that Class I pipes are
inadequate (maximum D0.01 -load is 800 lb/LF/ft diameter). Proceed to Class II pipes (max D0.01-load = 1000 lb). Choose any
of three suitable wall configurations in Table 2 (Class II RCP) according to whichever is least expensive and available from
local pipe manufacturers.
Wall A Thickness = 3 in., w/inner cage steel at 0.14 in2 and outer cage 0.08 in2 per LF of wall
Wall B Thickness = 4 in., w/inner cage steel at 0.12 in2 and outer cage 0.07 in2 per LF of wall, or
Wall C Thickness = 4.75 in., w/inner cage steel at 0.07 in2 and outer cage 0.07 in2 per LF of wall

Example Problem No. 13, Selecting Wall Thickness Requirements for Plain (non-reinforced) Concrete Pipe
Plain concrete pipe is designed in accordance with the procedures for rigid pipes. The design load and bedding parameters as
described in Example Problem No. 12 apply.
Design of plain concrete pipe is based on Three Edge Bearing load (T.E.B. load). Can use safety factor of 1.25 to 1.5 for select
1.25.
Design Load x Safety Factor 5219 x 1.25
Req’d T.E.B. Strength = = = 3,433 lb/LF pipe
Bedding Factor 1 .9

Referring to Table 1 in ASTM C 14 “Concrete Sewer, Storm Drain, and Culvert Pipe", it can be observed that the thinnest
wall available (4 in., Class I pipe), with T.E.B. strength of 3300 lb/LF, is just short of the required 3,433 lb/LF. The next thicker
wall (4.75 in. for Class II) will be satisfactory. Since the Class I wall was close, the designer may want to explore whether
upgrading the bedding to Class A, which would enable the use of Class I (thinner wall) pipe, would be economically justified.
Since the minimum requirement for Class A bedding would be to pour a concrete cradle extending one fourth of the pipe depth,
and in so doing remove the need to place and compact the granular bedding material required for Class B, this may result in a
more economical design.
In general, when the pipe class is just short of the required T.E.B. load, it is worthwhile to evaluate whether an upgrade in
bedding class is economically warranted.

Example Problem No. 14, Selecting Wall Thickness, Reinforcing Requirements for Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP)
Vitrified clay pipe (VCP) is designed in accordance with the procedures for rigid pipes.
All parameters as described in Example Problems 12 and 13 for concrete pipes.
Design is based on Three Edge Bearing load (T.E.B. load). Use safety factor of 1.5 for VCP.
Design Load x Safety Factor 5219 x 1.25
Req’d T.E.B. Strength = = = 4,120 lb/LF pipe
Bedding Factor 1 .9

Bedding factors, referred to as “Load Factor", and bedding classes for clay pipe are similar to those for concrete pipe, although
there are differences in the Class A details. Bedding factors for clay pipe are presented in Figure 19. For Class B bedding, the
details and the bedding factor are the same as for concrete pipe, namely Bf=1.9.
Referring to Table 1 in ASTM C 700 “Extra Strength and Standard Strength Clay Pipe and Perforated Pipe", it can be
observed that the standard strength pipe would exhibit a T.E.B. load of only 4,000 lb/LF. The extra strength clay pipe, with
T.E.B strength at 6,000 lb/LF, would be satisfactory. As discussed above for the plain concrete pipe, the standard pipe is close
enough to the required bearing strength that an improvement in the assumed bedding condition might result in a more
economical design if this would allow selection of the standard strength pipe.

Example Problem No. 15, Selecting Wall Thickness Requirements for Ductile Iron Pipe
Ductile iron pipe (DIP) is designed in accordance with the procedures for flexible pipes. Relying on the design standard
published as ANSI/AWWA C150/A21.50.91, the earth load is calculated as a simple prism load, and the traffic load is
determined in accordance with the standard AASHTO H20 truck loading.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 78 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)


Determine the wall thickness requirements for a 36" ID ductile iron pipe, installed in a trench 6 ft below grade, and passing
under a roadway that might be subjected to truck traffic. Assume that the surface distributed load also is present. Pipe
bedding conditions are the same as described previously for the concrete, reinforced concrete and vitrified clay pipe, which
consists of the pipe bedded in granular material and supported on its sides by compacted fill up to half its height.
The above described bedding condition is best described as Laying Condition “Type 4" in the AWWA standard, i.e., pipe resting
on a granular layer and adjacent side fill placed in a controlled manner with deliberate compaction. Since that would result, in
this particular case, in a design for which deflection limits are not a factor, the pipe laying Condition “Type 3" will be used in this
example. The primary difference between “Type 3" and “Type 4" is the degree of backfill compaction assumed for the fill
adjacent to the pipe.
From Table 50.1 in C150/A21.50.91, Pe = 5.0 psi
From Table 50.1 in C150/A21.50.91, Pt = 1.7 psi; note this value obtained from the table includes applicable impact factors
and applicable stress distribution
The ductile iron pipe standard does not present a method for calculating other distributed loads. The elastic distribution method
described earlier can nevertheless be used.
Pdistrib = 0.46 x 3000 psf (from p. A-5) = 0.97 psi ≈ 1.0 psi

Total trench load Pv = 5.0 + 1.7 + 1.0 psi = 7.7 psi


Enter Table 50. 9 for diameter-thickness ratios for laying condition Type 3.
For bending stress, find required D/t = 186; From Table 50.5, D of a 36" pipe is 38.3 in., ∴ treq'd = 38.3/186 = 0.21"
For deflection design, (also Table 50.3), D/t1 req'd > 200 → t1req'd = 38.3/200 = 0.19"
Deduct service allowance from deflection design thickness, 0.19" - 0.08" = 0.11" req'd for deflection design
The thicker wall requirement (bending stress in this case, at t = 0.21") controls.
Select net thickness and add all allowances t = 0.21”
+ service allowance 0.08”
Minimum thickness 0.28”
+ casting allowance 0.07” for 36 in. pipe
Total calculated thickness 0.35”
The lowest class DIP (pressure class 150) has a wall thickness of 0.38" for 36" pipe, and is therefore suitable for this
application.

Example Problem No. 16, Selecting Wall Thickness for HDPE Pipe, Smooth Wall Type
For the conditions described in Example Problem No. 11, determine the wall thickness requirement for a smooth wall HDPE
pipe with 36 in. O.D. Depth to pipe crown in 6', and assume a permanent ground water table may exist coincident with the
ground surface. Assume the sewer will be installed in moderately dense clayey soil subgrade, with an E' moduls of ~ 1000 psi
(refer to Figure 21). Determine the required wall thickness for two conditions; ambient affluent temperature at 73°F and
sustained effluent temperature of 140°F. Flow is entirely gravity flow, and there is no chance for this line to operate under
siphon or vacuum loading.
Ambient temperature case (73°F)
Recapping loads applied to pipe crown from Example Problem No. 11,

Earth load 4208 lb/LF pipe


Structure live load ladjacent footing 483 lb/LF pipe
Traffic load 528 lb/LF pipe
5219 lb/LF pipe

Convert load per unit length into pressure on crown


lb
5219 / 3 ft crown width = 1740 psf = 12.08 psi applied
LF pipe

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 79 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)


Use procedures described in PlexcoR design manuals as these are closer to industry guidelines under development at Plastic
Pipe Institute (PPI).
Check for wall crushing:
æ OD ö
Start with thinnest wall pipe, SDR = 32.5 çç SDR = ÷
÷
è t wall ø

36"
For SDR 32.5, wall thickness t = = 1.108”
32.5

Wall crushing is based on applied load per unit area.

1740 psf x 36"


S = = 196 psi, OK, well below 800 psi guideline which has an implied safety factory of 2.
288 x 1.108"

Unconstrained (i.e., hydrostatic) buckling not applicable, as pipe will be buried in firm backfill and will not be exposed to vacuum
loading conditions.
Check for constrained buckling:
Note: crown loads, modulii, and buckling pressures are in “psi".
Pcr required = 12.08 psi based on loads applied to crown (see above); use N (safety factor) = 2
5.65 El
Pcr = R B′ E′ 3
N Dm

H′
where R = bouyancy correction = 1 - 0.333
H
in which H′ = groundwater height above crown,
and H = total backfill height above crown

æ6ö
R = 1 - 0.333 ç ÷ = 0.67
è6ø

1
B′ = = 0.27
1 + 4 e −0.065 H

E = 28,200 psi for PE 3408 @ 73°F

t3 1.1083
l = ,= = 0.1133 in.3
12 12

1
Dm = mean Diam = OD - (2t) = 36” - 1.08” = 34.89”
2

E′ = soil modulus = 1000 psi

solves to
Pcr = 10.42 psi; not enough, need 12.08

36"
Try next thicker wall, SDR 26, t = = 1.385”
26

l =
(1.385" )3 = 0.2212 in.3
12

Dm = 36" - 1.385" = 34.62"


Pcr = 13.25 psi; OK, 12.08 required

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 80 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)


Using alternative design methodology, P = fofs Pcr where Pcr is simple unrestrained (Euler) buckling load, fo is ovality correction
factor given by:

é (1 − % deflection) ù
3
fo = ê ú and fs = soil support factor given in Figure 20
ëê (1 + % deflection ) ûú
2

3
é 1 − 0.05 ù
Assuming 5% deflection, fo = ê ú = 0.64
êë (1 + 0.05 ) úû
2

3
2E æ 1 ö
Pcr = çç ÷÷ , with u = 0.45@73° = 28,200 psi
1 − u2 è SDR − 1 ø

For SDR - 32.5, Pcr = 2.26 psi For SDR = 26, Pcr = 4.53 psi

For compacted soil, Figure 20 gives

Ff = 3 if SDR = 32.5 and Ff = 2. 7 for SDR = 26

P = 0.64 x 3 x 2.26 psi = 4.33 psi P = 0.64 x 2.7 x 4.53 psi = 7.83 psi
Both of the above are insufficient. By trial, determine that SDR - 21 is required to achieve the required 12.08 psi.
Note: This alternative method tends to give overly conservative wall thickness and is used mainly for screening evaluation.
Design should be based on the longer form solution described previously.
Check for pipe deflection (via modified Iowa equation)
With SDR = 26, based on previous “long form" constrained buckling analysis,
é ù
ê ú
∆x P ê KL ú
= ê 3 ú
Dm 144 ê 2 E æ 1 ö ú
ê çç ÷÷ + 0.061E′ ú
ë 3 è SDR − 1 ø û

where: P = Load applied to crown, psf


K = Bedding factor, typically 0.1
L = Viscoelastic deflection lag factor, typically 1.25 to 1.5 for HDPE
é ù
ê ú
∆x 1740 ê 0 .1 x 1 .5 ú
= ê 3 ú = 0.029 = 2.9%
Dm 144 ê 2 x 28,200 æ 1 ö ú
ê çç ÷÷ + 0.061 x 1000 ú
ë 3 è 26 − 1 ø û
Manufacturers literature defines 7% as the allowable limit for SDR 26; therefore, SDR 26 is OK
High temperature case (140°F)
Check for constrained buckling, start with SDR 26 pipe
At 140°F, E = 18,700 psi

All other factors are same as ambient (73°F) case

5.65 18,700 x 0.212


Pcr = 0.67 x 0.27 x 1000 x = 12.0 psi; close enough to 12.08, OK
2 34.623

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 81 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)


é ù
ê ú
∆x 1740 ê 0 .1 x 1 .5 ú
Check for pipe deflection; = ê 3 ú = 0.029 = 2.9%, OK
Dm 144 ê 2 x 18,700 æ 1 ö ú
ê çç ÷÷ + 0.061 x 1000 ú
ë 3 è 26 − 1 ø û
Note that deflection is not extremely sensitive to changes in pipe modulus, as it is mainly governed by soil modulus.

Example Problem No. 17, Selecting Wall Thickness for HDPE Pipe, Profile (Ribbed) Wall Type
Assume loading condition, all other factors, are the same as in Example Problem 16. Find class rating of SpiroliteR pipe
necessary to satisfy stress, buckling and deflection criteria for ambient temperature case (73°F) and for elevated temperature
case (140°F).
6.44 E l
Note: RSC = ring stiffness constant - 2
= class rating
Dm
Available class ratings for 36" ID pipe are 40, 63, 100, 160. Refer to manufacturers literature for dimensional parameters for
specific classes.
Ambient temperature case (73°F)
PL Do
Check pipe crushing S =
288 A
where: PL = Crown load in lb/ft2
Do = Pipe outside diameter, in.
A = Pipe x-sectional area, in.
Try Class 40
From manufacturer's literature, wall thickness incl. ribs = 1.86" ; therefore, DO = 36" + 2 x 1.86" = 39.72"
A = 0.309 in.2/in. (also from manufacturer's literature)

1740 x 39.72 1740 x 39.72


S = = 777 psi < 800 psi, OK S = = 777 psi < 800 psi, OK
288 x 0.309 288 x 0.309

Check constrained buckling


From manufacturer's literature, for class 40 SpiroliteR pipe
I = 0.078 in3
Z = 0.42"
Dm = 36" + 2 x Z = 36 + 2 (0.42) = 36.84"
R′ = 0.67 as in Example Problem 16
B′ = 0.27 as in Example Problem 16
E = 28,200 psi (pipe) as in Example Problem 16
E′ = 1000 psi (soil) as in Example Problem 16
N = factor of safety = 2 as in Example Problem 16

5.65 E l
Pwc = R B′ E′ 3
N Dm

5.65 28,200 x 0.078


= 0.67 x 0.27 x 1000 x
2 36.843

= 7.97 psi; not enough, need 12.08 psi

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 82 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

APPENDIX A - EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (Cont)


Try next class (Class 63)
From manufacturers literature, I = 0.107
Z = 0.47
so Dm = 36 + 2 x 0.47 = 36.94
5.65 28,200 x 0.107
Pwc = 0.67 x 0.27 x 1000 x
2 36.943

= 9.30, need 12.08 psi


Try Class 100
I = 0.171
Z = 0.58 so Dm = 36 + 2 (0.58) = 37.16
Pwc = 11.65 psi, close enough to 12.08 psi, OK
Check deflection: Recall that RSC = 100 for Class 100 pipe
é ù é ù
∆x P êê KL ú 1740 ê
ú 0 .1 x 1 .5 ú
= = ê ú = 0.028 = 2.8%
Dm 144 ê 1.24 RSC ′ ú 144 ê 1 . 24 x 100 ú
ê + 0 . 061 E ú + 0 . 061 x 1000
ë Dm û ëê 37.16 úû

Manufacturer's literature lists 4.2% as allowable for profile pipe; OK


High temperature case (140°F)
E = 18,700 psi, all other factors unchanged; start with Class 100 pipe (from ambient temperature
case)

5.65 18,700 x 0.171


Pwc = 0.67 x 0.27 x 1000 x
2 37.163

= 9.49 psi; too low; need 12.08 psi

Try next class (Class 160)

From manufacturer's literature, I = 0.276, Z = 0.66, so Dm = 36 + 2 (0.66) = 37.32" and


Pwc = 11.97, close enough to 12.08 psi, OK

Check deflection for Class 160 pipe @ 140°F

é ù
∆x 1740 ê 0 .1 x 1 .5 ú
= ê ú = 0.027 = 2.7%, OK, less than 4.2%
Dm 144 ê 1.24 x 160
+ 0.061 x 1000 ú
ëê 37.32 úû

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page
XXIX-C 83 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2001

APPENDIX B - FORMULAS FOR CALCULATING HYDRAULIC RADIUS (R) AND


FLOW AREA (A) FOR CIRCULAR PIPES FLOWING PARTLY FULL

D
Pipe Flowing Less Than Half Full, D = pipe diameter, r = pipe
radius, y = depth below mid-point

Atotal = A1 – A2

where: A1 = (πD2/4)/2 = πD2/8 and

0,0 X
y
A2 = y √ r2 – y2 + r2 arctan x ()
A2 r y where: x = √ r2 – y2 + y is as shown

R = Atotal /Pwetted Pwetted = P1 – P2


A Total
where: P1 = πD/2 and
α° α
( 90° ) ( π/2 ) , and α = arctan ( yx )
D D
P2 = π or π
2 2
Pwetted
Pipe Flowing More Than Half Full, D = pipe diameter, r = pipe
radius, y = depth above mid-point

Atotal = A1 – A2

where: A1 = (πD2/4)/2 = πD2/8 and

A2
r y
y
A2 = y √ r2 – y2 + r2 arctan x ()
where: x = √ r2 – y2 and y is as shown
0,0 x
R = Atotal /Pwetted Pwetted = P1 + P2
A1
where: P1 = πD/2 and
α° α
( ) ( π/2 ) , and α = arctan ( yx )
D D
P2 = π 2 or π
90° 2

Pwetted
DP29CAB1

Flow area and hydraulic radii determined as described above can be used in Manning's equation to calculate flow rates in pipes
of given diameter, roughness coefficient (n) and gradient (s) for any partial depth of flow, via
1.49 1/ 2 2 / 3
Qcfs = A flow x V = A flow s R
n

which can be easily adapted to BASIC, QBASIC or standard spreadsheet programs such as Excel or Lotus 123, taking the
necessary care to define angles in radian or degree measure as appropriate.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA


ExxonMobil Proprietary
Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-C 84 of 84
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
December, 2001 DESIGN PRACTICES

APPENDIX B
FORMULAS FOR CALCULATING HYDRAULIC RADIUS (R) AND
FLOW AREA (A) FOR CIRCULAR PIPES FLOWING PARTLY FULL (Cont)

Z left Z rt

t t

B
DP29CAB2

æZ + Zrt ö
A flow = ( y B) + y 2 ç left ÷
è 2 ø

A flow A flow
R = =
Wp æ ö
B + y ç 1 + Zleft
2
+ 1 + Zrt2 ÷
ç ÷
è ø

1.49 1/ 2 0.667
Vfps = s R Manning’s Equation
n

Qcfs = V Aflow

where: n = Manning roughness coefficient, dependant upon channel lining material


R = Hydraulic radius, a function of flow depth and channel geometry, calculated as describe
above
s = Channel bed slope
Zleft = Left channel bank slope, ft/ft, i.e., horizontal distance required to drop 1 ft in elevation
Zrt = Right channel bank slope, ft/ft, i.e., horizontal distance required to drop 1 ft in elevation
B = Channel bottom width, ft
y = Flow depth, ft
Because flow area and wetted perimeter are both functions of flow depth (y) solution must be solved iteratively. A convenient
means is to specify the required flow (Q), assume a set of trial dimensions, assume a flow depth and calculate Q. Compare to
the required Q and repeat the process, zeroing in on a flow depth that achieves the required flow.
Once a satisfactory flow depth is obtained, it is a simple matter to calculate whether the flow is sub-critical or super-critical for
those channel dimensions. The flow that is critical for the assumed channel section and depth is

32.2 A 3flow
Qcrit =
T

where: T = Width of surface = B + y Zleft + y Zrt


If the flow being evaluated is greater than Qc, the channel would be flowing in a super-critical condition. Conversely, if the flow
being evaluated is less than Qc, the channel would be flowing in a sub-critical condition.
The above expressions can be easily adapted to BASIC, QBASIC or standard spreadsheet programs such as Excel or Lotus.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA