Design Data for Air Flow in Plastic Corrugated
Drainage Pipes
W. M. Carson, K. C. Watts, F. Desir
MEMBER
ASAE
ABSTRACT
EXPERIMENTAL data were obtained on flow in non-
dperforated and perforated plastic corrugated
drainage pipe of diameters 10.2, 15.2 and 20.3 cm. The
non-perforated pipe data are presented in terms of fric-
tion factors. The perforated pipe data were used both to
define design data, and to fix constants in a simple
mathematical model which in turn was used to extend
the data base.
Design curves are presented which define (a) the max-
imum usable length of pipe that will result in uniform
discharge through the walls and (b) required inlet
pressure for given inlet flow rate, for pipes of maximum
length. It is demonstrated how the design curves can be
used for shorter lengths of pipe.
INTRODUCTION
The utilization of plastic drainage pipes in small to
medium sized vegetable and grain storages is becoming
popular in several localities in Eastern Canada due to the
low cost and transportabilty. Non-perforated pipe is used
for ducts, with perforated pipe being used for air
distribution within the storage pile.
In order to properly design a ventilation system utiliz-
ing plastic drainage pipes, data describing the air flow
characteristics in corrugated pipe are required. A search
of the literature revealed a paucity of information in this
regard. For the case of non-perforated pipes, the Moody
Diagram provides some guidelines. However, the fun-
damental assumption in the development of the Moody
Diagram is that the friction factor is dependent only on
Reynolds number and the ratio of roughness height to
pipe diameter. It is not clear whether this assumption is
valid in pipes which have regular corrugations in the
direction of flow or in pipes which have large spaces in
between "roughness elements". The spaces are large
enough to create eddies which are large with respect to
the near-wall boundary layer.
For the case of nonsteady flow in the perforated pipes,
design data were completely lacking.
In the design of perforated air distribution systems,
the two primary requirements are: (a) to determine the
total head at the fan and (b) to determine local and
average discharge per unit length of duct. The former is
required for proper fan selection while the latter is re-
quired to ensure uniform air distribution. These two fac-
tors are dependent on the design and selection of air flow
Article has been reviewed and approved for publication by the Struc-
tures and Environment Division of ASAE.
The authors are: W. M. CARSON, Assistant Dean of Engineering,
K. C. WATTS, Associate Professor, and F. DESIR, Bio Resources
Dept., Nova Scotia Tech College, Halifax, NS.
Acknowledgement: The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial
support of the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing.
1980-TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE © 1980 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 0001-2351/80/2302-0409502.00
rate, pipe diameter, pipe roughness and the amount of
available open area in the pipe wall for discharge. Most
design methods currently use the recommendations of
ASHRAE (1974) for nonsteady pipe flow which are ap-
plicable to relatively smooth-walled pipes. Corrugated
plastic drainage pipe can be classified as very rough
pipes, based on roughness height to diameter ratio.
This research was conducted in order to learn more
about the flow characteristics of air in corrugated pipes
with the purpose of establishing criteria from which
design decisions can be made for utilizing corrugated
plastic pipe in vegetable and grain storage ventilation
systems. In particular the objectives were to:
1 Compare non-perforated pipe friction factors with
values derived from the Moody Diagram;
2 Develop and calibrate a computer model for flow
in perforated pipes; and
3 Outline some design limits for various pipe
diameters that ensure reasonable pressure requirements
and uniform air distribution using perforated pipes.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Description of Test Facility
The apparatus consisted of a Buffalo Blower and
Forge centrifugal fan 3-RB. The 7.6 cm fan discharge
was connected to the drainage pipes with a smooth tran-
sition section. The test section consisted of 15 m lengths
of 10.2 cm pipe and 15.2 cm pipe and 12 m lengths of
20.3 cm pipe. Flow rate was adjusted by restricting the
open area of the fan inlet.
Total head and static pressure rakes were constructed
of hypodermic needles twelve inches long. The tubes in
the rake were connected to a bank of sloping tube
manometers. The first probe was at the wall and the suc-
ceeding probes were spaced at increasing distances
towards the center. At the center line, the velocity was
measured by a pitot static tube connected to a Betz
manometer. Four probes were placed across the radius of
the 10.2 cm pipe, six across the radius of the 15.2 cm
pipe and nine across the radius of the 20.3 cm pipe.
The temperature, relative humidity and barometric
pressure were measured in the laboratory for all runs, us-
ing a centigrade thermometer (smallest division 0.2 °C),
a wet and dry bulb psychrometer (smallest division 1 °F),
and a mercury barometer (smallest division 0.01 in. of
mercury), respectively.
Geometric characteristics of the pipe tested are given
in Table 1.
Test Procedure
All pipes were fastened to a set of laboratory tables to
ensure proper alignment. Readings were taken along the
pipe at intervals of 0, 0.31, 0.91, 1.52, 2.44, 3.05, 4.57,
6.10, 9.14 and 12.2 m. To measure flow parameters, a
409
 TABLE 1. DATA ON PIPES USED TABLE 2. SAMPLE COMPARISON OF AVERAGE VELOCITIES
IN NON-PERFORATED CORRUGATED PIPES
Ratio of corrugation CALCULATED USING TWO METHODS
Nominal diameter (2) depth to diameter, Perforated pipe wall
(Perforated and e/D (Perforated and open area, cm 2 /m Velocity determination
non-perforated) non-perforated) (in.2 /ft ) of length method
Distance Center line
cm (in.) Test no. Pipe size, downstream, Annulus, curve fit,
10.2 (4) 0.031 36.8 (1.74) cm m m/s m/s
15.2 (6) 0.054 42.3 (2.0)
20.3 (8) 0.066 28.4 (1.34) Dl 15.2 0.91 6.1 5.2
1.52 4.9 4.0
2.44 4.6 3.7
slit was cut in the top of the pipe and the total head and 3.05 4.3 3.7
4.57 3.7 3.1
static head probes were inserted, the total head tubes be- 6.10 3.1 2.4
ing placed on the side wall, and the static head tubes on 9.14 2.4 1.8
the top wall. The manometer readings were recorded 12.19 0.9 0.9
manually as well as photographed to safeguard against
recording errors. Slits previously used were sealed with to the wall velocity for the annular method of calculating
plastic electrical tape. Data were taken at all average velocities. The magnitude of the increase is sen-
downstream locations for four arbitrarily chosen flow sitive to the location of the front of the probe relative to
rates. The only difference between the test procedure for the corrugation leading edge. The average velocities
non-perforated and perforatd pipes is that the perforated determined by the center line method were judged more
pipes were tested with their downstream end sealed. accurate and are reported in the remainder of the paper.
The static pressure data through a given pipe cross
Raw Data Evaluation section was averaged for use in calculations with both
The data in the first one meter of pipe showed con- non-perforated and perforated pipes. The static pressure
siderable upstream history effects from the fan and were across the pipe was nearly constant.
not used in any subsequent calculations.
The average velocity was determined in two ways: (1) A Simple Mathematical Model for Flow
averaging the annular probe velocities and (b) using the in Perforated Pipes
center line velocity obtained from the Betz manometer. In the model some basic, but valid assumptions are
In the annular probe method it was assumed that the made. The first assumption is that incompressible flow
velocity determined by each probe was the average veloci- exists. At the pressures developed in the experiments,
ty for an annulus whose smaller and larger radii were this assumption is valid. The second assumption is that
calculated as a distance from the pipe center to a point the downstream end of the pipe is closed. Since flow is
located midway between adjacent probes. The velocities leaving the pipes through uniformly spaced outlets, the
measured at the wall are subject not only to measure- outlet area per unit length of pipe becomes a significant
ment inaccuracies due to low velocities, but also to inac- variable in calculating discharge rates. The discharge
curacies due to random eddy movement in the large cor- coefficient, CD, is a measure of the decreased flow area at
rugations. The effect on average pipe velocity of the vena contracta and hence the effective open area of
measurement inaccuracies near the wall was magnified the pipe wall is:
by the probe spacing used on the rakes.
The second method of determining the average veloci- Ae = CD Aµ, [21
ty was to define the form of velocity profile using least
squares curve fit of the data to an assumed power law
equation, where
A, = the effective open area per incremental length
(Ro-R)1/n
of pipe (m2)
V
[11
A,, the actual open area of pipe wall per incremen-
Vmax (RO) tal length of pipe (m2)
CD the discharge coefficient, to be determined ex-
perimentally.
where Using equation [2] it is possible to define the flow
R,, = radius of the pipe (m) discharging through the walls over an incremental
= center line velocity (m/s). distance, AL, along the pipe by the orifice equation,
The least squares fit was done to the logarithm of equa-
tion [1] which then is a straight line whose slope is the ex-
2g (P ± AP/2 )
ponent. The exponent was very sensitive to the value of AQ = CD
the velocity at the wall. However, sufficient data were ob- 'Y
tained to conclude that the exponent should be approx-
2g (P ± AP/2)
imately 1/4 as advocated by Schlicting (1960) for rough- [3]
walled pipes. The average velocities were calculated us- 7
ing the center line velocities evaluated from the data ob-
tained from the Betz Manometer. A sample comparsion where
of the average velocities for one perforated pipe run using AQ = the volume flow rate (m'/s)
these two methods is given in Table 2. The center line P ± AP/2 = the average pressure in AL (N/m2)
velocity method produced results that were usually lower. y = the specific weight of air (N/m3)
The eddies at the wall should give an apparent increase g = the acceleration due to gravity = (m/s2)

410 TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE-1980

 TABLE 3. EXPERIMENTAL AND MOODY DIAGRAM DERIVED VALUES OF FRICTION FACTOR
FOR NON-PERFORATED DRAINAGE PIPES

h Lexp h moddY
e/D V avg., Q, Re f exp f moody
m/s m3 /s mm H2 O/m

10.2 cm pipe 0.031 2.0 0.017 1.26 x 104 0.099 0.96 0.06 0.23 0.13
4.4 0.036 2.76 x 104 0.088 1.0 0.059 1.0 0.65
8.0 0.065 4.99 x 104 0.089 1.0 0.058 3.2 2.1
11.0 0.087 6.85 x 104 0.086 1.0 0.058 5.8 4.0
15.2 cm pipe 0.054 4.3 0.079 4.06 x 104 0.077 1.0 0.075 0.52 0.53
9.2 0.168 8.66 x 104 0.079 0.97 0.075 2.5 2.4
16.0 0.292 1.50 x 10 5 0.081 0.98 0.075 7.7 7.2
20.7 0.378 1.94 x 10 4 0.078 1.0 0.075 12.8 12.1
20.3 cm pipe 0.066 2.5 0.081 3.12 x 104 0.068 0.92 0.08 0.12 0.14
5.5 0.179 6.93 x 104 0.068 0.99 0.08 0.59 0.69
9.8 0.317 1.23 x 10 5 0.075 0.99 0.08 2.1 2.2
13.1 0.424 1.64 x l0 s 0.082 1.0 0.08 3.9 3.9

Since the pressure changes slowly along the pipe, the From equation [4]
average pressure over the distance AL is closely approx-
AQ 2
imated by P. Therefore, the orifice discharge equation
P= [7]
becomes: 2g A e 2

2 gP
AQ = Ae [4] Combining equation [7] and [6] reduces [6] to:
7

A second equation to define the flow in the pipe can be 7 [ Q3 + AQ/ 3 AL I

AP = (1 f ) [81
derived from Bernoulli's equation. The equation is writ- (Q + AQ) 2gA2 2gA2
ten from the downstream end, progressing upstream,
since it is assumed that the downstream end of the pipe is Therefore, starting with an initial pressure, and zero in-
closed, and therefore, the initial velocity is zero. Since air itial velocity, flow through the wall, AQ, in an upstream
is leaving the pipe, the energy equation must include the distance, AL, is calculated by equation [3]. The change
weight flow terms. Bernoulli's equation in the upstream in pressure is then calculated using equation [8]. At this
direction over an incremental distance AL is: new location, the flow is defined as
V2 . P . (V + AV) 2 (VT
w- + w- (1,;/ + Aw) Aw Q= Q AQ [9]
2g 7 2g 2g
P = P + AP [10]
(P + AP) AL . (V + AV)2
+ (w + Aw) f (w + Aw) . . [5]
2g Integration then can proceed in a stepwise fashion
upstream to any length of pipe.
where the negative sign indicates energy added to the
system, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
V = the average velocity in the pipe, (m/s), Non-Perforated Pipes
V' = the velocity through the orifices (m/s), An important consideration in the designing of ven-
w = the weight flow rate at any point in the pipe, tilation systems using non-perforated pipes is whether or
(N/s), not the Moody diagram can be used to determine the
f = the friction factor, head loss and friction factor. From the experimental
D = the pipe diameter (m). data collected, high regression coefficients were obtained
Defining, for head loss versus distance downstream. These results
and the values derived from the Moody diagram for both
V head loss per meter and the friction factor are given in
A Table 3.
AQ The Moody diagram friction factors for the 15.2 and
v' 20.3 cm pipes were reasonably close to those derived
A e
from the laboratory experiments. However, the ex-
AA/ = 7@
perimentally determined friction factors for the 10.2 cm
pipe were much higher (40 to 50 percent) than those
Aw = 7AQ predicted by the Moody diagram which is probably due
to the fact that the eddies formed by the large scale cor-
A = cross sectional area of the pipe, we obtain rugations are of more consequence in the 10.2 cm pipe
than in the larger pipe sizes.
@P (Q + A@)3 fAL (AQ)3 QP
+
2gA2 7 2gA 2 D 2gAe 2 Perforated Pipes
The discharge per unit length of perforated pipe is a
PAQ AP (Q + AQ function of pipe diameter, flow rate in the pipe, open
[6]
7 area of the wall, friction factor and orifice discharge

1980-TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 411

 PIPE OPEN AREA
0.5—

0 cm 3 /m

24 0.3

15.
0.1

0.08 0.0
6 8 10 14 16
PIPE LENGTH PIPE LENGTH I meters
0.00
10
PIPE LENGTH I meters
FIG. 2 Experimental and predicted pressure FIG. 3 Variation of flow rate distribution as a
distribution in 15.2 cm pipe having a wall function of wall open area for the 15.2 cm pipe
FIG. 1 Experimental and predicted volume open area of 42.3 cm2/m, corresponding to with a constant pressure at the closed end of
flow rate in 15.2 cm pipe having a wall open the flow conditions in Fig. 1. The different the pipe.
area of 42.3 cm2 /m. The different symbols symbols corerespond to four arbitrarily chosen
correspond to four arbitrarily chosen flow flow rates investigated experimentally. Solid
rates investigated experimentally. Solid lines lines are computer predictions.
are computer predictions.
Smaller pipes have air blown holes which are much
coefficient. It is, therefore, impossible to take sufficient smoother. Therefore, for a given pressure in the pipe,
data for all conditions. It was felt appropiate to take con- there will be a fixed flow per unit length leaving through
siderable experimental data which could be used to the walls, but as a proportion of the total flow in the
determine the coefficients CD and f in the simple model pipe, there will be more flow leaving in the case of the
given in section 2C which could then be extended to smaller pipe. The boundary layer then will be thinner
wider applications. and the friction factor should be larger, as shown by the
The data required for the model were the diameter (d), data for the 10.2 cm pipe.
wall open area (A„,), discharge coefficient (CD) and fric- On porous walls, the skin friction equals the sucking
tion factor (f). The diameter used was the nominal fraction (the ratio of mass flow through the wall to the
diameter. The open area of the wall was measured, tak- mass flow in the free stream) for moderate and high suc-
ing into account the elliptical shape of the air blown tion rates and implies that the increase in friction factor
holes in the 10.2 and 15.2 cm pipe walls. To minimize in the perforated pipes could have a linear increase with
the effect of errors in the initial conditions, the program wall open area. The sucking fractions used in these data
was started at the downstream end where the velocity was are in the regime where this conclusion is valid. Thus, it
known to be zero, and the static pressure was known ex- may be possible to confidently predict flows in pipes with
perimentally. Numerical integration then was iterated an increased area. This has been done (Carson et al.,
upstream. 1978). The change in friction factor between non-
In order to obtain the coefficients CD and f, they were perforated and perforated pipes of 10.2 and 15.2 cm
varied in the computer model and the best simultaneous pipes is small, and so no adjustment in friction factor is
predictions of Q and P were noted. A sample of the com- warranted when predicting flows in pipes having a wall
parison of these predictions with the data is given in Figs. open area less than the values found experimentally. To
1 and 2, and the values of CD and f are summarized in give some idea of the effect of open area on flow, flow in a
Table 4. In this analysis one value of f is assumed for a 15.2 cm pipe, having a fixed pressure at the downstream
given inlet flow and pipe diameter. end, is calculated for three wall open areas as indicated
The first significant observation that can be made is in Fig. 3.
that the discharge coefficient is virtually constant at
0.55, a useful fact when extending the model to other UTILIZING TEST RESULTS FOR DESIGN
flows. The second point is the extremely high values of From the previous section one can conclude that the
friction factor for the 20.3 cm pipe which can be at- friction factors for both the non-perforated and per-
tributed to the roughly sawed slots in the 20.3 cm pipe. forated 10.2 and 15.2 cm pipe are realistic and probably
representative of most corrugated plastic drainage pipes
TABLE 4. VALUES OF DISCHARGE COEFFICIENT AND having about the same corrugation depth to diameter
FRICTION FACTOR DETERMINED FROM THE BEST
PREDICTIONS OF PERFORATED PIPE EXPERIMENTAL DATA
ratio. The friction factor data for the 20.3 cm perforated
pipe is representative for pipes with sawed slots. The
Experimental predicted flow in 20.3 cm pipes is not very sensitive to the
Pipe diameter, Pipe length, CD Q at 0.91 m
friction factor. It is, therefore, possible to approximate
CM m3 /s flow conditions in 20.3 cm perforated pipes over a range
15.2 0.085 0.08
of hole conditions estimating the friction factors from the
10.2 0.5
10.2 15.2 0.5 0.105 0.15 non-perforated pipe friction factors. The assumed fric-
10.2 15.2 0.6 0.105 0.30 tion factor for conditions noted in Table 4 are 0.07, 0.08,
10.2 15.2 0.6 0.105 0.36
0.085 and 0.09. Therefore, design data is presented for
15.2 15.2 0.55 0.065 0.10
15.2 0.55 0.085 0.19
10.2 and 15.2 cm perforated pipes with blown holes, and
15.2
15.2 15.2 0.55 0.085 0.33 20.3 cm pipes with both sawed holes and a condition
15.2 15.2 0.55 0.095 0.37 which approximates blown holes.
20.3 12.2 0.55 0.145 0.08 The most important criteria for ventilation of grain
20.3 12.2 0.55 0.145 0.16 and vegetable storages is a uniform discharge along the
20.3 12.2 0.55 0.145 0.30
20.3 12.2 0.55 0.145 0.43 length of the perforated pipes. It is, therefore, necessary
first to determine the maximum length of pipe which will

412 TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE-1980

 CLOSED END 0.10- 0.10-
2 +20 : 0.08 -
0.08-
. 0.06-
+10
0.06- _
_ WALL OPEN AREA WALL OPEN AREA
—
mE 0.04 - 36.8 cm 2! m
c;_, -10- r'sE 0.04- 36.8 cm 2! m
28.4 crn 2 1m
-20- 28.4 c m 2 / m 15.9 cm 2 fm
0.02 -
15.9 cm 2! m ce
a 0.02-
0
2' 4 6 8 10 W
0.01 -
LENGTH I meters
0.01-
FIG. 4 Example of the normalized variation of < 0.008 -
flow out of 15.2 cm pipe, Q 0.06 m3/s. ▪ 0.006 - 0 004 I I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.004 INITIAL STATIC PRESSURE I mm H 2O I
3 4 5 6 7
MAXIMUM PIPE LENGTH meters I FIG. 6 Inlet flow vs. inlet pressure for max-
imum length of 10.2 cm pipe.
FIG. 5 Maximum length of 10.2 cm pipe for
uniform flow ± 10 percent through the walls
for three wall open areas.

provide uniform discharge within certain limits. The If the designer wishes to utilize the maximum length of
design curves presented are based on uniform discharge pipe, he can obtain the inlet pressure as a function of
± 10 percent. The distribution of AQ/AL is not linear, open area (corresponding to the inlet flow rate used
but assumes a shape similar to the one given in Fig. 4. above) from Figs. 6, 8 and 10.
Although the flow has extremes of up to ± 10 percent, If the designer does not wish to utilize the maximum
the actual standard deviation is only 4 to 6 percent. Figs. allowable length of pipe, he can also obtain the inlet
5, 7 and 9 show the maximum lengths of pipe that can be pressure from Figs. 6, 8 and 10, but he must define Q' ,
used as a function of open area and inlet flow rate. the flow that woud exist at the inlet to the maximum
Because of the dependence on the pipe wall open area, it allowable length of pipe for the identical discharge
is necessary to obtain a pipe sample and critically deter- through the pipe walls. Therefore,
mine its open area, taking into account the elliptical
nature of air blown holes. Lm
=- [11]
L
0 60 -

0 40-
where
WALL OPEN AREAS
E Q = the desired inlet flow
0 20 -
42.3 cm 2 /m L = the desired length
LO 28.4 cm 2 im L„, = the maximum allowable length of pipe for Q'
C
Ce
15.9 cm 2 /m
(L„, can be approximated by using Q in Figs. 5,
W 0.10 - 7 and 9).
o
LL
▪ 0.08- The desired inlet pressure P can be obtained from Figs.
▪ 0.06— 6, 8 and 10 using Q' . Since the pressure variation must
be small along the pipe for uniform flow out through the
z 0 04 —
walls, the pressure so obtained will be a close but
somewhat conservative approximation.
6 8 10 12 14
MAXIMUM LENGTH I meters I
The pressure drop from flow through grain and
vegetable products is small in comparison with the
FIG. 7 Maximum length of 15.2 cm pipe for pressure losses in the pipes at all flow rates and,
uniform flow ± 10 percent through the walls
for three wall open areas.
therefore, the values for pressure and flow obtained here
should not be affected by external flow conditions.
00 - AIR BLOWN HOLES
80 - WALL OPEN AREA
0.60 - 36.8 cm 2 / m
\28.4 cm 2i m
4 0.40- 15.8 c m
AIR BLOWN HOLES
WALL OPEN AREAS WALT OREN AREA
r
0 20 - -42.3 cm 2I m „` 0.20- 23: C:22; , ,'
Ern 2 /m SAWED SLOTS 040- 151 cm 2 M
WALL OPEN AREA . SAWED SLOTS
INITIAL ROW RATE

cm 2 f m -WALL OPEN AREA

0.1°- 0.10-
36.8 cm 2 / m 0 o to - 36.8 cm 2 'm
0.08- 0.08- 78.9 c m 2, m 28.4 crn 2, m
0.06 - - 0.06 - 15.8 crn 2 im 15.8 cm',
0 10 -
0.04- 4 8 12 16 20
MAXIMUM LENGTH 1 meters / 0.06-
8 10 20 6 8 10 20 40
INITIAL STATIC PRESSURE t mm H2 O
FIG. 9 Maximum length of 20.3 cm pipe for MEI STATIC PRESSURE 1 mm H 2O 1
uniform flow ± 10 percent through the walls
FIG. 8 Inlet flow vs. inlet pressure for max- for three wall open areas, for both sawed slots FIG. 10 Inlet flow vs. inlet pressure for max-
imum length of 15.2 cm pipe. and air blown slots. imum length of 20.3 cm pipe.

1980—TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 413