1 - Schalk Van Der Merwe

UNIVERSITY
OF STELLENBOSCH
PIPELINE DESIGN
FOR WATER ENGINEERS

IS van der Merwe
5/15/2017

Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3
2 PIPELINE HYDRAULICS CALCULATIONS .................................................................................... 4
2.1 FUNDAMENTAL PIPE HYDRAULICS EQUATIONS .............................................................. 4
2.2 HYDRAULIC GRADELINE AND ENERGY LINE .................................................................... 4
2.3 TOTAL HEAD LOSS EQUATION ............................................................................................ 6
2.4 FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPES ................................................................................................ 6
2.4.1 Darcy Weisbach formula and Moody Diagram .................................................................... 7
2.4.2 Colebrook-White equation ................................................................................................... 9
2.4.3 Hazen-Williams formula ..................................................................................................... 10
2.4.4 Manning formula ................................................................................................................ 11
2.5 COMPARISON OF PIPE FRICTION FORMULAE ................................................................ 11
2.5.1 Comparative Calculations .................................................................................................. 11
2.6 MINOR LOSSES ................................................................................................................... 15
2.6.1 Minor Head Loss Equations .............................................................................................. 15
2.7 PRACTICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................... 17
3 PIPE WALL THICKNESS DESIGN ................................................................................................ 19
3.1 INTERNAL PRESSURE ........................................................................................................ 19
3.2 EXTERNAL LOADS .............................................................................................................. 19
3.2.1 Soil load ............................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.2 Traffic Load ........................................................................................................................ 20
3.2.3 Combined Vertical Load .................................................................................................... 21
3.3 BUCKLING ............................................................................................................................ 22
3.4 BENDING AND DEFLECTION .............................................................................................. 22
3.4.1 Bending and Deflection without side support .................................................................... 22
3.4.2 Deflection with side support ............................................................................................... 23
3.4.3 Ring Bending and Arching Stress ...................................................................................... 24
3.5 PERMISSIBLE LOADS ON EMPTY PIPE ............................................................................ 26
3.5.1 Permissible Load Limited by Deflection ............................................................................. 26
3.5.2 Permissible Load Limited by Buckling ............................................................................... 27
3.5.3 Permissible Load Limited by Yield Stress ......................................................................... 27
3.5.4 Graphical Presentation of Formulae .................................................................................. 27
3.6 COMBINED STRESSES ....................................................................................................... 29
3.6.1 Method to Calculate Combined Stress .............................................................................. 29
3.7 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF SOIL .................................................................................. 30
3.7.1 Importance of Modulus of Elasticity ................................................................................... 31
3.7.2 Calculate Modulus of Elasticity .......................................................................................... 31
3.8 PIPE STIFFNESS .................................................................................................................. 32
3.8.1 Arching vs Bending stress Ratio ........................................................................................ 32
3.8.2 Pipe Stiffness Classification .............................................................................................. 33
Prepared by IS van der Merwe 31 August 2015 Revision 3 Page 1


3.9.1 Design Procedure .............................................................................................................. 33
3.9.2 Typical Deflection of Pipes ................................................................................................ 33
3.9.3 Typical Loads on Pipelines ................................................................................................ 34
3.9.4 Steel Pipes ........................................................................................................................ 34
3.9.5 Plastic Pipes and Vacuum ................................................................................................. 34
3.9.6 Plastic Pipes and External Loads ...................................................................................... 34
4 DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND THRUST BLOCKS ....................................................................... 36
4.1 VERTICAL UPWARD THRUSTBLOCK ................................................................................ 37
4.2 VERTICAL DOWNWARD THRUSTBLOCK .......................................................................... 37
4.3 HORIZONTAL THURSTBLOCK ............................................................................................ 38


PIPELINE DESIGN PRINCIPLES

FOR
WATER ENGINEERS

1 INTRODUCTION
The water pipeline design engineer is responsible for the design of a pipe system, pumping equipment
and/or other associated pipeline equipment as applicable to deliver water from one point to another in
the most economical way taking account of the growth in water demand and the maintenance
requirements.

Driven by market competition pipelines are being constructed to ever-increasing diameters, lengths
and strengths (for both working pressures and structural strength), and from ever-newer materials with
special reference to plastics and improving steel grades. The market competition and new materials
inevitably leads to thinner pipe wall thicknesses and thus increase the risk of pipe failure. This results
in higher design risks for the pipeline design engineer. Pipe failures and their consequences are
mostly extremely costly and very disruptive.

Pumping systems are large consumers of the world’s decreasing energy resources. Life cycle costing
and minimization of the energy cost of pipeline and pumping systems are therefore of paramount
importance.

The primary aspects to be addressed by the water pipeline design engineer include the following:

• Reliable yield of the source(s) of water supply.

• Route selection: length, longitudinal section, pressure ranges, working space, slopes, access,
servitudes, excavation conditions including rock and shoring needs, water table, services, rivers,
railways, roads, traffic diversions, reinstatement requirements, and environmental impacts.

• Pipe selection: steady state hydraulics, diameter, internal pressure including waterhammer,
external loadings, wall thickness, material, corrosion protection, friction factor, external protection,
jointing, anchorage, expansion and contraction of above ground pipelines, and maintenance.

• Pipe Equipment: air valves, scour valves, in-line valves, non-return valves, control valves,
waterhammer, monitoring equipment, and corrosion protection.

• Pump selection: discharge, delivery pressure, suction pressure, rotation speed, power
requirements, efficiency, control of starting and stopping, power failure, corrosion protection,
pumpstation layout, standby equipment, and maintenance.

• System optimization by means of present value discount analysis and/or other economic
modelling.

In the following sections some of the more important aspects of the above-mentioned are addressed
in more detail.


2 PIPELINE HYDRAULICS CALCULATIONS

2.1 FUNDAMENTAL PIPE HYDRAULICS EQUATIONS
The three most important equations in fluid mechanics for water engineers are as follows:
• Continuity equation: For steady, incompressible, one-dimensional flow the flow rate at any section
equates to the flow rate at any other section along the stream tube, i.e.:

Q1 = Q2 thus A1 V1 = A2 V2

• Momentum equation: From Newton’s basic law of motion follows that the change in momentum
flux between two sections equals the sum of the forces on the fluid causing the change, i.e.:

ΔFx = ρ Q Δ Vx

• Energy Equation: Most commonly known as the Bernouli equation the energy equation for steady
state flow of an incompressible fluid is as set out below showing the total energy between two
points on pipeline system. A term is included to account for energy loss due to friction and
turbulence:

𝑃" 𝑉"' 𝑃' 𝑉''
+ + 𝑍" = + + 𝑍' + ℎ-
γ 2𝑔 γ 2𝑔

Where:
P = Pressure Head (m)

V = Mean Velocity (m/s)
. /
= Velocity Head (m)
'0
Z = Elevation above arbitrary datum (m)
𝛾 = 𝜌𝑔
ρ = Fluid density (1000 kg/m³ for water)
g = Gravitational acceleration (9,81 m/s²)
h6 = Total head loss due to friction and minor losses between two points.

2.2 HYDRAULIC GRADELINE AND ENERGY LINE

The term 𝑃 𝛾 + 𝑍 from the Bernouli equation is referred to as the static head, or piezometric head at
any point, because it represents the level to which the water would rise in a piezometer tube if
connected to the water pipeline system. A line drawn through the tops of the piezometer columns
represents the hydraulic grade line (HGL).
2
If the kinetic energy represented by the velocity head (V /2g) in the Bernouli equation, is added to the
hydraulic grade line, the energy line (EL) is obtained. The following Figure 1 to Figure 5 illustrate the
application of the hydraulic grade line and the energy line.

Figure 1: Ideal Fluid

Figure 2: Sudden Contraction of Pipeline diameter

Figure 3: Sudden Enlargement in Pipeline diameter

Figure 4: Pipeline with varying ground profile

Figure 5: Gradual decreasing and increasing pipeline
2.3 TOTAL HEAD LOSS EQUATION

To mathematically model the hydraulic behaviour of pipelines the accurate calculation of the total head
losses in pipe systems, which arise from friction losses and from minor losses at pipe fittings, are an
important aspect of pipeline design. To calculate total head loss the head loss term in the Bernoulli
equation must be expanded as follows:

ℎ- = ℎ7 + ℎ8
Where

ℎ- = Total head loss between upstream end and down stream point (m)
ℎ7 = Friction losses between upstream end and down stream point (m)
ℎ8 = Minor losses between upstream end and down stream point (m)

2.4 FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPES

The most commonly used formulae for friction loss calculations in pipeline systems is discussed in the
following sections.


2.4.1 Darcy Weisbach formula and Moody Diagram

The Darcy Weisbach formula states that friction losses in pipes depend on a friction factor, the pipe
diameter, length, and mean flow velocity, as follows:

𝐿 𝑉 '
ℎ7 = 𝑓
𝐷 2𝑔
(2.1)

Where:
ℎ7 = Head loss due to friction (m)
𝑓 = Friction factor
L = Length of pipeline (m)
D = Diameter of pipeline (m)
𝑉2

2𝑔
= Velocity head (m)
The friction factor (𝑓 ) in the Darcy Weisbach formula depends on the Reynolds Number (𝑁= ) and
absolute wall roughness (e) of the pipe. The Reynolds Number in turn depends on the density (ρ) and
absolute viscosity (µ) of the fluid, as follows:

𝐷 𝑉𝜌 𝐷 𝑉
𝑁= = =
µμ 𝑣

Where:
𝑣 =
-6
Kinematic viscosity (equal to 1.003 x 10 m /s for water at 20 ºC)
2
D = Diameter of pipeline (m)

V = Mean Velocity (m/s)

The various relationships between the friction factor (𝑓 ) and relative roughness (𝑒/𝐷 ) relative to the
Reynolds Number (𝑁= ) were plotted by Moody on a single diagram, and this graph is presented as
Figure 6. This plot, known as the Moody diagram, illustrates how the friction factor varies with
Reynolds Number for different zones of flow, and helps to visualize the flow zones and increase the
understanding of pipe hydraulics.

The Moody diagram is divided into four flow zones, namely: 1) laminar flow zone, 2) critical flow zone,
3) Transition zone and 4) fully turbulence flow zone.

For laminar flow (𝑁= < 2 000) the friction factor is expressed as follows:

64
𝑓 =
𝑁=

The critical zone between laminar and turbulent is complex and undefined, but is also of little interest
in practice. The pipeline designer is normally only concerned with turbulent flow, which occurs for
Reynolds Numbers greater than 4 000. Turbulent flow may be divided into three categories, namely:

• Smooth pipes: This only occurs when the pipe wall is very smooth. See Moody diagram for
the “smooth pipes” line. The friction factor (f) depends on the Reynolds number only, and
may be expressed approximately as follows:


1 𝑁= 𝑓
= 2 log
𝑓 2.51

• Transition zone: The friction factor for flow in the transition zone between smooth and
rough pipes depends on the Reynolds Number and the surface roughness as described by
the Colebrook-White equation. See Section 2.4.2 for further discussion.

• Complete turbulence rough pipes: In this region the friction factor is constant as shown to
the right of the dotted line on the Moody diagram (Figure 2.6). The friction factor is only
dependent on the relative roughness (e/D) and could be expressed as

1 3.7 𝐷
= 2 log
𝑓 𝑒

Notice that for a smooth pipe, the friction factor (𝑓 ) is independent of the relative roughness (e/D) and
for a rough pipe it is independent of the Reynolds number (𝑁= )

Figure 6: Moody Diagram

Typical absolute roughness values of pipe materials are given in Table 2.1.


Table 2.1: Absolute Roughness of Pipe Materials (e)
Smooth Average Rough

Pipe Material
(mm) (mm) (mm)

Fibre cement, PVC
0,015 0,03 0,06
Coated steel 0,03 0,06 0,15
Cast-iron or cement mortar lined 0,15 0,3 0,6
Spun concrete 0,3 0,6 1,5
Rough concrete, riveted steel 1,5 3 6
Tuberculated water main 6 15 30

2.4.2 Colebrook-White equation

Flows in many pipelines do not follow either the smooth or rough pipe laws. Colebrook and White
developed an equation which approximately models the friction factor in the smooth, rough and in the
transition zones:

1 𝑒 2.51
= −2 log ( + )
𝑓 3.7 𝐷 𝑁= 𝑓

Unfortunately this equation is not very amenable to direct solutions and a trial and error analysis may
be necessary. A more recent formula published by Barr (1975) enables direct solution with reasonable
accuracy (Less than 1% error for 𝑁= > 10P ) and is as follows:

1
𝑓 = { } '
𝑒 5.1286
−2 log + S.TU
3.7 𝐷 𝑁=

A more accurate and simplified version of this formula (For the purpose of this article called the
Unknown Formula) may be expressed as:

1.325
𝑓 = '
𝑒 5.74
ln + S.U
3.7 𝐷 𝑁=
(2.2)

The results calculated form the Colebrook-White formula for the most commonly installed range of
pipe diameters, 50 to a 1000 mm diameter, a minimum velocity of 0.1 m/s, a maximum velocity of 6
m/s and for four roughness values, namely 0.015, 0.15, 0.3 and 0.6 mm, are plotted on the Moody
diagram as shown on Figure 7.


Figure 7: Friction factor results for commonly installed pipe range
0.100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
DN 50, e = 0.6
DN 1000, e = 0.6
0.010 DN 1000, e = 0.015

2.4.3 Hazen-Williams formula
The empirical nature of the Hazen-Williams formula makes direct calculation of flow possible and trial
and error analysis is not necessary.

The Hazen-Williams empirical formula applies to the transition zone of the Moody diagram and is
given by:

𝑉 = 0.849 𝐶Z 𝑅\ S.]^ 𝑆 S.P`

Where:
𝐶Z = Hazen-Williams roughness coefficient
𝑅\ = Hydraulic radius ( equal to 𝐷 4 for pipes)
S = Head loss per unit length (ℎ7 /L )


Table 2.2: Average values of the Hazen-Williams roughness coefficient for various materials
Hazen-Williams Pipe Material

140 Extremely smooth pipes;; asbestos-cement
130 Very smooth pipes;; cement, new cast-iron
120 Wood stave;; new welded steel
115 - 125 Cement mortar lined steel pipes after about 10
years of service (depending on water quality) Vitrified clay;;
110 new riveted steel
100 Cast-iron, old
95 Riveted steel, old
60- 80 Old pipes
2.4.4 Manning formula

The empirical Manning formula is more generally applied to open channels although (similar to Hazen-
Williams) the formula is also applicable to the transition zone of the Moody diagram:

1 '/^
𝑉 = 𝑅\ 𝑆 "/'
𝑛

Where:
n = Manning roughness coefficient (see Table 1.4)
𝑅\ = Hydraulic radius ( equal to 𝐷/4 for pipes)
S = Head loss per unit length (ℎ7 / L )

In the Manning (and Hazen-Williams) formula, head loss is directly proportional to the velocity
squared. Therefore Manning (and Hazen-Williams) coefficients are independent of Reynolds Number
and plot as a series of lines parallel to the Reynolds Number axis of the Moody diagram.

Table 2.3: Average values of the manning roughness factor for various materials
Pipe material Manning n
Fibre cement, PVC 0,010
Coated steel 0,011
New cast-iron, smooth cement mortar, spun concrete 0,012
Rough concrete, corroded steel or cast-iron 0,015
2.5 COMPARISON OF PIPE FRICTION FORMULAE

2.5.1 Comparative Calculations
The Manning and Hazen-Williams formulae are frequently used by practitioners instead of the more
rigorous Colebrook-White equation. However, the Colebrook-White equation is regarded as being
more accurate.

A direct comparison of the formulae in terms of the constants required for the Hazen-Williams and
Manning formula for equivalent Colebrook-White friction factor is made in the Table 2.4 for pipeline
diameters 200 mm and 600 mm, and typical roughness and design velocities.


Table 2.4: Equivalent friction factor/roughness coefficients for different equations, and absolute
roughnesses (e)
Diameter 200 200 200 600 600 600

Velocity 0.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 1.5 2.5
Reynolds number 1.0E+05 3.0E+05 5.0E+05 3.0E+05 9.0E+05 1.5E+06
e
Friction factor 0.015 0.0184 0.0152 0.0141 0.0147 0.0124 0.0116
f 0.15 0.0213 0.0195 0.0191 0.0166 0.0153 0.0149
for Colebrook-White equ. 0.6 0.0275 0.0266 0.0264 0.0206 0.0200 0.0198
Manning's constant 0.015 0.0093 0.0084 0.0081 0.0100 0.0091 0.0088
n 0.15 0.0100 0.0096 0.0095 0.0106 0.0102 0.0101
for equivant roughness 0.6 0.0114 0.0112 0.0111 0.0118 0.0116 0.0116
Hazen-Williams constant 0.015 148.8 151.0 150.7 152.0 152.9 152.3
C 0.15 137.5 132.1 128.4 142.3 136.5 132.6
for equivant roughness 0.6 119.9 111.7 107.6 126.8 118.1 113.8

The results for pipe diameters of 200 mm and 600 mm all plot in the transition zone on the Moody
Diagram (See Figure 8). It can also be seen that the smooth pipes (0,015 mm relative roughness) plot
near the smooth pipe zone, whereas the rougher pipes (0,6 mm roughness) plot closer to the fully
rough zone.

Figure 8: Results of pipe diameters 200 and 600 mm plots on Moody Diagram

Table 2.5 presents approximate average values as calculated from similar calculations to those shown
in Table 2.4 in order to obtain comparative values for the Hazen- Williams and the Manning
coefficients for selected absolute roughness values

Table 2.5: Approximate Equivalent Roughness Coefficients for selected Absolute Roughness
values
Hazen-Williams
Absolute Roughness Manning Coefficient
Coefficient
e n
C
Smooth Pipe 0.015 150 0.0088
Average Roughness 0.15 135 0.0100
Aged Pipes 0.3 125 0.0106
Very rough Pipes 0.6 115 0.0144

The following set of graphs depicted in Figure 9 directly compares the friction head loss in meters per
100 m for pipeline diameters 200 mm and 600 mm, using the values for Absolute Roughness, and
Hazen-Williams and Manning coefficients as given in Table 2.5.

It follows from Figure 9 that for a 600 mm diameter pipe there is a small difference between the three
formulae. However, for a 200 mm diameter pipe there is a significant difference for pipe flow velocities
higher than 2 m/s.

Figure 9: Friction loss comparison
FRICTION LOSS COMPARISON FOR DN 200
PIPE FRICTION LOSS COMPARISON FOR DN 600
PIPE
Smooth Pipes: e = 0.015 Smooth Pipes: e = 0.015

6.0 1.4
Head Loss (m/100m)
Head Loss (m/100m)
5.0 1.2
4.0 1.0
0.8
3.0
0.6
2.0
0.4
1.0 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Velocity (m/s) Velocity (m/s)
Colebrook HW Manning Colebrook HW Manning
Medium Roughness Pipes: e = 0.15 Medium Roughness Pipes: e = 0.15

7.0 2.0
Head Loss (m/100m)
6.0
Head Loss (m/100m)
5.0 1.5
4.0
1.0
3.0
2.0 0.5
1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Rough Pipes: e = 0.6 Rough Pipes: e = 0.6

10.0 3.0
9.0
Head Loss (m/100)
Head Loss (m/100)
8.0
7.0 2.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0 1.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0


Table 2.6 provides the comparative friction factor values calculated from the Colebrook-White formula,
Barr formula and the Unknown formula, for selected pipe roughness values and velocities.

Table 2.6: Comparative Friction Factors
Diameter 200 200 200 200 600 600 600 600
Velocity 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5

Reynolds number 1.0E+05 3.0E+05 5.0E+05 7.0E+05 3.0E+05 9.0E+05 1.5E+06 2.1E+06
e
Colebrook White 0.015 0.0184 0.0152 0.0141 0.0136 0.0147 0.0124 0.0116 0.0111
Unkown Formula 0.0183 0.0152 0.0142 0.0136 0.0147 0.0124 0.0116 0.0112

Barr formula 0.0183 0.0152 0.0142 0.0137 0.0147 0.0124 0.0116 0.0112

Colebrook White 0.15 0.0213 0.0195 0.0191 0.0189 0.0166 0.0153 0.0149 0.0148
Unkown Formula 0.0214 0.0196 0.0192 0.0190 0.0167 0.0154 0.0150 0.0149

Barr formula 0.0214 0.0197 0.0192 0.0190 0.0167 0.0154 0.0150 0.0149

Colebrook White 0.6 0.0275 0.0266 0.0264 0.0264 0.0206 0.0200 0.0198 0.0198
Unkown Formula 0.0277 0.0268 0.0265 0.0264 0.0207 0.0201 0.0199 0.0198

Barr formula 0.0277 0.0268 0.0266 0.0265 0.0208 0.0201 0.0199 0.0198

Table 2.7 provides the error margin if the head loss calculated with the Hazen-Williams, Manning, Barr
and Unknown formulae were compared to that derived using the Colebrook-White formula.

Table 2.7: Head Loss Error Margin Compared to Colebrook-White formula (mm/100m)
Diameter (mm) 200 200 200 200 600 600 600 600
Velocity (m/s) 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
e
Hazen-Williams 0.015 1.8 10.5 19.6 0.8 0.8 8.6 17.2 19.5
Formula 0.15 4.6 45.4 273.4 737.0 3.6 5.7 26.6 109.2
0.6 13.7 82.7 493.4 1297.0 8.6 18.9 21.5 134.4
Manning
Formula 0.015 12.1 73.7 373.9 911.9 7.0 17.8 6.5 33.2
0.15 0.0 103.2 356.6 761.2 3.9 9.7 9.3 2.2
0.6 1.3 60.9 197.9 412.4 3.0 14.9 34.4 61.3
Unknown
Formula 0.015 0.5 1.0 2.4 10.5 0.1 0.0 1.3 4.0
0.15 0.8 7.4 17.9 30.8 0.1 1.7 4.2 7.3
0.6 1.5 7.6 15.1 23.3 0.3 1.6 3.3 5.1
Barr Formula 0.015 0.4 1.3 9.1 23.6 0.0 0.9 3.9 8.9
0.15 0.9 8.7 21.4 37.2 0.2 2.2 5.4 9.5
0.6 1.6 8.6 17.7 28.2 0.3 1.9 4.1 6.5

It is evident from Table 2.7 that for the conditions high-lighted the Hazen-Williams or Manning
formulae are inaccurate by approximately 1m/1km to as high as almost 13m/1km. This obviously may
have significant consequences for the design of long-distance pipelines.


2.6 MINOR LOSSES

When calculating the head loss in a pipe system the designer must take into account minor losses
associated with bends, valves, air valves and off-takes, etc. This is particularly important for short and
smaller pipeline systems with a large number of fittings. For long pipelines with a relatively few fittings
these losses are often accounted for by providing a small percentage increase in the friction factor
selected. Minor losses should be properly estimated for the final design, but at preliminary design
stage the small percentage increase in the friction factor can be provided.
2.6.1 Minor Head Loss Equations

As illustrated in Figure 2 to Figure 5 minor losses occur at pipe inlets, contractions, expansions,
bends, valves, branches, exits, etc. The sum of the minor losses is calculated as follows:

𝑉2
ℎ8 = 𝑘 .
2𝑔

Where:
k = Minor loss coefficient
𝑉2
= Velocity head (m)
2𝑔

Typical values of minor loss coefficients (k) for different pipe fittings are given in Figure 2.14.


Figure 2.14: Minor Loss Coefficients
RESISTANCE COEFFICIENTS OF VALVES AND FITTINGS
Range of K-‐ Inlets

Butterfly
Fully Open Valves Values for Miter Bends Elbows Tees &
Valves
Valves Exits
20 20
50% Open
15 15
Foot V alve
10 10
9.0 9.0
Globe V alve
8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0
60% Open
For approximate
6.0 values use radius 6.0
designations
or
5.0 5.0
Obtain f from the
Values of K-‐ Coeffisient
Moody Diagram
Angle V alve then find K for
particular r/D
4.0 4.0
Lower Value
f = 0.006
Angle V alve for

Smooth surface
3.0 ___________ 3.0
70% Open
Diaphragm V alve Higher value r/D
for 0.5 -‐-‐
rough surfaces 0.6 -‐-‐
2.0 0.8 -‐-‐ 2.0
f = 0.04
1.0 -‐-‐ For All Exits

k = 1.0
1.5 Ɵ 1.5
r/D
Swing Check
Medium Radius Short Radius
80% Open 90º

0.5 -‐-‐
f = 0.02
1.0 1.00 0.6 -‐-‐ 1.0

Sudden 0.8 -‐-‐
0.8 Enlargeme 1.0 -‐-‐ 0.8
r/D
0.7 2.0 -‐-‐ 0.5 -‐-‐ 0.7
90% Open
0.6 Fully open 0.6
Sluice V alves 100% Open 60º
0.5 & 0.6 -‐-‐ 0.5
Sluice Gate
0.4 -‐-‐-‐-‐ 0.30 0.4
S/D for fully open position
Long Radius
0.3 -‐-‐-‐-‐ 0.25 0.3

0.8 -‐-‐
45º
-‐-‐-‐-‐ 0.20
0.2 1.0 -‐-‐ 0.2
Sudden 30º
Contraction -‐-‐-‐-‐ 0.15 2.0 -‐-‐
22º Min -‐
0.1 -‐-‐-‐-‐ 0.10 0.1
d/D 11.5º
-‐
0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0

Sources: Modified from AWWA M11

2.7 PRACTICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The Colebrook-White formula in combination with the Darcy-Weisbach formula should be used by
pipeline designers if at all possible. However, due to the trial and error method that is required for
using Colebrook-White, designers very often prefer the less rigorous Hazen-Wiliams or Manning
formulas.

It is evident from the preceding sections that the Manning and Hazen-Williams formulae have
limitations in their application ranges. It is highly recommended that the accuracy ranges for the
Manning and Hazen-Williams formulae are carefully checked before the designer applies them in
practice.

Figures 2.10 and 2.11 provide recommended ranges for the use of the Hazen-Williams and Manning
formulae in order to ensure an error margin of less than 0.05% for friction head loss calculations
compared to the Colebrook-White formula. This applies for the comparative coefficients as given in
Table 2.5 and for a maximum flow velocity of 6 m/s.

Figure 10: Accuracy Range for Hazen-William Figure 2.11: Accuracy Range for Manning

From Table 2.7 it follows that the error margin for the Barr and Unknown formulae are very small
compared to the error margins resulting from the Hazen-William or Manning formulae, when all are
compared to the Colebrook-White formula.

Figures 2.12 and 2.13 provide recommended ranges for the use of the Unknown and Barr formulae in
order to ensure an error margin of less than 0.05% for friction head loss calculations compared to the
Colebrook-White formula. This applies for the comparative roughness coefficients as given in
Table 2.5, and for a maximum flow velocity of 6 m/s.

Figure 2.12: Accuracy Range for Unknown Figure 2.13: Accuracy Range for Barr


The modified Colebrook-White formula as published by Barr or Unknown formula, provide a

convenient and accurate formula for direct calculation of the friction factor to be used in conjunction
with Darcy-Weisbach formula in most instances.

It is important for the pipeline designer to increase the accuracy of the hydraulic calculations for long-
distance pipelines by using more accurate formulae as appropriate. A small error margin in friction
head makes a significant difference if applied over a long-distance pipeline.

The designer must also consider the effects of ageing, which is mainly determined by the pipe material
and the quality of water conveyed. Examples of such effects are:

• Corrosion of steel and cast-iron pipelines.

• Increasing roughness of concrete and cement mortar linings in soft waters due to leaching of
cement and exposure of sand aggregate.

• Physical damage due to transport of sand and debris, particularly along the pipe invert.

• Tuberculation of cast-iron pipes and fittings to the extent that the pipe diameter is significantly
reduced, and the pipe wall is rougher.

• Calcarious deposits in hard waters can have a similar effect.

• Black slime growth, which may occur with certain of the dark mountain waters in the coastal
areas of the Cape, and effectively reduces the pipe diameter. However, this can be removed
by pigging.

Although various formulae have been published to represent the ageing of pipes, the designer should
preferably establish to what extent similar existing pipelines in the area of his project have aged and
select roughness coefficients accordingly.

It is highly recommended that the designer design for both minimum and maximum head loss
conditions under which the pipeline must operate satisfactorily. The higher head loss represent the
long-term aged condition, and the lower head loss the conditions for maximum waterhammer in gravity
systems and maximum power requirements for pumping.


3 PIPE WALL THICKNESS DESIGN

The development of new stronger pipe materials inevitably leads to thinner pipe wall thicknesses in
order to reduce the capital cost of pipes. The thin pipe walls reduce pipe stiffness and increase the risk
of the pipe collapsing under external pressure. It has therefore become increasingly important for
pipeline designers to design for external loads as well as internal pressures. The vertical soil load
acting in combination with internal pressure, vacuum or traffic loads could cause the pipe to collapse
unless the pipe is adequately supported or stiffened.
The following sections deal with the commonly used empirical formulae to calculate pipe wall
thickness. Finite element analysis is also a very helpful design method but limits the designer to one
selection of design parameters per setup. The empirical analysis provides the designer with practical
insights that should improve his design. It is recommended that the two design methods are always
used in parallel for complicated installations. In this section the empirical method is discussed.
Pipes can be laid in many different arrangements and conditions. In the following sections the trench
condition is discussed. The section only deals with pipes of homogeneous material and flexible or thin-
walled pipes.
3.1 INTERNAL PRESSURE

When the wall thickness of a pipe is about one-tenth of its radius or less, the stress that results from
pressurizing the pipe may be assumed to be uniformly distributed across the wall thickness. When this
assumption is made, the pipe is called a thin-walled pipe. Internal pressures in a thin-walled pipe
induce hoop stresses in the pipe wall, which may be expressed as:

𝑃𝐷
𝜎 =
2𝑡
(3.1)

Where:
P = Internal pressure (Pa)
D = Internal diameter of pipeline (m)
t = wall thickness (m)

𝑃 = 𝜌ℎ𝑔

Where:
h = pressure head (m)
g = Gravitational acceleration (9,8 m/s²)

Negative pressures or vacuums also induce hoop stresses in the pipe wall, but in the opposite
direction to that of the internal positive pressures.

3.2 EXTERNAL LOADS

External loads on the buried pipe will cause the pipe to deflect, and in extreme cases can even buckle.
The pipeline designer has to design the pipe to prevent excessive deflection or buckling. External
loads consist of soil loads and traffic loads. The side support from the soil increases the load that the
pipe can carry considerably when compared to no side support. The forces acting on a buried pipe are
depicted in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Forces on buried pipe

3.2.1 Soil load
Marston, Spangler and Clarke have developed extensive equations for evaluating soil loads on pipes
in various trench and embankment conditions. In this section only trench conditions are considered.
The vertical soil load on the pipe may be considered as the weight of the rectangular prism of soil
directly above the pipe. The soil prism would have a height equal to the depth of the earth cover and a
width equal to the pipe outside diameter.

𝑤 = 𝛾𝐻
or
𝑊 = 𝛾𝐻𝐷
(3.2)

Where:
𝑤 = Vertical soil pressure (kN/m²)
𝑊 = Vertical soil load (kN/m)
𝛾 = Unit weight of overburden (kN/m³)
H = Burial depth from the top of the pipe (m).
D = Diameter of pipe (m)

3.2.2 Traffic Load

Occasionally a pipeline is subjected to traffic loading conditions, e.g. construction vehicles during
construction, and if the pipe is laid underneath roads. A convenient method of solution for traffic load
determination is described in the AWWA M45 manual for pipelines deeper than 0.75 m. The AWWA
M11 proposes using the modified Boussinesq equation, but it is only applicable to relatively shallow
pipelines (approximately H < 1.2 m). Most pipes are laid deeper than 0.75 m and in order to enable the
calculation of the traffic load for pipes deeper than 1.2 m the method used by AWWA M45 is preferred
and described below (also see Figure 12).

From Figure 12 follows that the tire pattern is expressed by:
Load Area = L1 x L2
Where:
L1 = Load width parallel to direction of the travel.
= 0.253 + 1.75*H
L2 = Load width perpendicular to direction of travel
= 0.509 + 1.75*H for 0.6 m < H < 0.75 m, or
= (13.31 + 1.75*H)/8 for H > 0.75 m


Figure 12: Traffic load

The traffic load that is induce onto the pipe a depth H can be expressed as:

𝑤- = 𝑃 𝐼7 / (𝐿1 𝑥 𝐿2)
(3.3)

Where:
𝑤- = Traffic load pressure (kN/m²)
P = Wheel load (e.g. AASHTO HS-20 truck = 80kN per wheel)
𝐼7 = Impact factor
= 1.1 for 0.6 m < H < 0.9 m, or
= 1.0 for > 0.9 m

In certain applications the pipe may be exposed to two wheels simultaneously in which instance the
load as calculated above should be doubled.
3.2.3 Combined Vertical Load

Figure 13 shows a plot of a typical combination of soil (Equation 3.2) and traffic loads (Equation 3.3,
P = 80kN) for a burial depth up to 3m.

Figure 13: Combined Vertical Loads

Note that for depths less than approximately 1m the traffic load decreases with increasing burial depth
resulting in a minimum total vertical load of approximately 45 kN/m². The water load is discussed in
the next section.
3.3 BUCKLING
Buried pipes are subjected to external loads composed of vertical soil loads, but most likely also
hydrostatic pressures of groundwater and/or internal vacuum. The pipe may collapse or buckle from
elastic instability or deformation even before the stress limits in the pipe wall was reached. The
allowable buckling pressure (𝑤j ) may be determined by the following:

1 𝐸𝐼 "
𝑤j = (32 𝑅Z 𝐵 𝐸n ^ )'
𝐹𝑆 𝐷
(3.4)

Where:
𝑤j = Allowable buckling pressure (kN/m²)
FS = Design factor
= 2.5 for H/D ≥ 2
= 3.0 for H/D < 2,
Where: H = Burial depth and D = Pipe diameter (m)
𝑅Z = Water buoyancy factor
𝐻
= 1 – 0.33 Z 𝐻 , 0 ≤ 𝐻Z ≤ 𝐻 ,
Where: 𝐻Z = equal height of water surface above pipe (m)
B = Empirical coefficient of elastic support
"
=
" s`t (uv.vwx y z./{)

The summation of all the appropriate external loads should be less than or equal to the allowable
buckling pressure as follows:

For pipelines under negative pressure:

𝛾Z 𝐻Z + 𝑅Z 𝑤 + 𝑃. ≤ 𝑤j

For pipelines with possible traffic load:

𝛾Z 𝐻Z + 𝑅Z 𝑤 + 𝑤- ≤ 𝑤j

The possibility that negative pressure and traffic load are experienced simultaneous is therefore
ignored.

3.4 BENDING AND DEFLECTION

3.4.1 Bending and Deflection without side support
Spangler determined that the worst bending and deflections occur at the crown, the invert and on the
sides of the pipe. The bending moments per unit length are given by:

𝑀 = 𝑁𝑊𝑟
(3.5)
Where:
r = Pipe radius (m)
W = Vertical load per unit length (kN/m)

N = Bending coefficient (𝑁~ , 𝑁j or 𝑁n for top, bottom and sides respectively)
(See Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 provides the Spangler coefficients for bending and deflections of an elastic ring under
uniformly distributed vertical load.

Table 3.1: Spangler’s Coefficients for Bending Moments and Deflections for Elastic pipe.
Degrees of
Bottom Bending Top Bending Side Bending Vertical Deflection
Bottom Support
𝑁j 𝑁~ 𝑁n 𝑁€
𝜃
0 0.294 0.150 0.153 0.110
30 0.235 0.148 0.152 0.108
60 0.189 0.143 0.147 0.103
90 0.157 0.137 0.140 0.096
120 0.138 0.131 0.133 0.089
150 0.128 0.126 0.127 0.085
180 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.083

The vertical and horizontal deflections are practically equal and opposite and may be expressed as:

𝑁€ 𝑊 𝑟 ^
𝛥𝑦 =
𝐸𝐼
(3.6)
Where:
𝑁€ = Vertical deflection coefficient
3
𝐼 = Moment of inertia (equal to t /12 for pipes)
E = Modulus of elasticity of pipe material
3.4.2 Deflection with side support
The lateral support of sidefill in a trench increase the strength of flexible pipes considerably and
reduces deformations. A pipe in compacted fill will deflected outwards laterally as it is loaded vertically
thereby increasing the pressure of the sidefill against the sides of the pipe. An equilibrium condition
may be established with the vertical load being transferred to the haunches by arch action as well as
by ring action. The vertical load per unit area on a pipe may therefore be expressed as:

𝑤 = 𝑤ƒ + 𝑤„
Where:
𝑤ƒ = Ring bending load pressure (kN/m²)
𝑤„ = Lateral soil pressure on the side of
the pipe or active soil pressure or
arching effect. (kN/m²)

Barnard expressed the lateral support in terms of the elastic
theory (𝜎 = 𝑒𝐸). The horizontal stress will decrease away
from the pipe assuming a triangular stress distribution at the
pipe wall decreasing linearly to zero at 2.5D away from the
pipe wall. The corresponding lateral deflection of each side
of the pipe is:

𝛥𝑥/2 = 1.25 (𝑤 – 𝑤ƒ ) 𝐷 / 𝐸n
(3.7)
Where:
𝐸n = Modulus of Elasticity of the soil (Refer to Section 3.7)

It is important to note that with the preceding formula it is assumed that the soil reacts within its elastic
limit. This is only true for small displacements of the soil. In the literature typical allowable pipe
deflections range from 2% to maximum 5%.

Stephenson stated that the factor 1.25 should increase as the lateral deflection increases, since the
radial pressure increases as the radius of the curvature decreases. Stephenson suggested that the
factor becomes 1.4 for a deflection of 2% of the diameter and 1.7 for a 5% deflection.

Putting 𝛥𝑌 = 𝛥𝑋 = 𝛥 and then calculating 𝑤ƒ from both equations 3.6 and 3.7, and then solving for
𝛥/𝐷 by equating the two formulae and eliminating 𝑤ƒ , the deflection of the pipe can be expressed as:

∆ 𝑁€ 𝑤 𝐷^
=
𝐷 𝑁𝑦
8𝐸𝐼 + 𝐸n 𝐷^
2.5
(3.8)

Spangler allowed for lateral support to the pipe in a slightly different way to Barnard by changing the
term 𝑁€ /2.5 into a constant. He derived the following formula for vertical deflection:

∆ 𝐷- 𝑁€ 𝑤 𝐷^
=
𝐷 8𝐸𝐼 + 0.061 𝐸n 𝐷^
(3.9)

Where:
𝐷- = Deflection lag factor to compensate for the time-consolidation of the soil.
(Varies from 1.0 to 1.5)
Ny = Bedding constant (Varies from 0.11 for point support to 0.083 for bedding the
full width of the pipe, normally taken as 0.1)
w = Vertical pressure due to external loads
D = Pipe diameter

The Spangler formula is very widely used throughout the pipeline industry for deflection calculations.

Deflections due to external loads on pipes under pressure are different to those of an empty pipe. The
pressure inside a pipe increases its stiffness due to the fact that the vertical diameter is compressed to
slightly less than the horizontal diameter. By adding a term for pressure to equation 3.9 a more
accurate expression for vertical deflection for pipes under pressure is obtained:

∆ 𝐷- 𝑁€ 𝑤 𝐷^
=
𝐷 8𝐸𝐼 + 0.061 𝐸n 𝑑 ^ + 2𝐷- 𝑁€ 𝑝𝐷^
(3.10)

3.4.3 Ring Bending and Arching Stress
A portion of the vertical load on a pipe is resisted by bending stress due to the ring action of the pipe
wall. In order to determine the bending stress the related vertical load needs to be calculated.


From equation 3.6 and 3.7 follows:

𝛥𝑦 = 𝑁€ 𝑤ƒ 𝐷 ` / 8𝐸𝐼
and
𝛥𝑥 = 2.5 (𝑤 – 𝑤ƒ ) 𝐷 / 𝐸n

Where:
w = Vertical soil pressure (equal to W/d)

Equating Δy and Δx and solving for vertical pressure (𝑤ƒ ):

𝑤
𝑤ƒ =
𝑁€ 𝐷^ 𝐸n
( 1 + )
2.5 8 𝐸𝐼
(3.11)
The bending moment in the pipe due to the vertical pressure 𝑤ƒ is expressed as:

𝑓ƒ = 𝑀𝑦/𝐼 = 6𝑀/𝑡 '
(3.12)
Where:
t = Wall thickness
y = t/2
3
I = t /12

For the bottom of the pipe it follows from equation 3.5:

𝑀 = 𝑁j 𝑤ƒ 𝐷' /2
(3.13)
Replacing M in equation 3.12 with equation 3.13 gives:

𝐷'
𝑓ƒ = 6 Nj 𝑤ƒ '
2𝑡

Replacing 𝑤ƒ with equation 3.11, gives:

𝐷' 𝑤
𝑓ƒ = 6 Nj
2𝑡 ' 𝑁€ 𝐷^ 𝐸n
( 1 + )
2.5 8 𝐸𝐼
(3.14)
Or rearranged to

𝐷' 𝑤 8 𝐸𝐼
𝑓ƒ = 6 Nj '
2𝑡 𝑁€ ^
( 8 𝐸𝐼 + 𝐸 𝐷 )
2.5 n
(3.15)

Rearranging equation 3.15 in terms of the deflection formula, it is possible to express the hoop stress
in the pipe wall due to the vertical load as follows:

𝑁j 𝑡 ∆
𝑓ƒ = 2 𝐸
𝑁€ 𝐷 𝐷

(3.16)

The proportion of the vertical load that is not resisted by the ring bending action is resisted by the arch
action of the pipe. The stress due to the arch action is compressive and in the extreme case, the
lateral stress will be equal to the vertical load stress and the pipe wall will be in pure compression. The
arch action induces a hoop stress into the pipe wall, which is opposite in direction to that of positive
internal pressure, but in the same direction as negative internal pressure.
The hoop stress due to the vertical load is expressed as:

𝐷
𝑓„ = 𝑤„
2𝑡
or
𝐷
𝑓„ = 𝑤 − 𝑤ƒ
2𝑡

Replacing 𝑤ƒ with equation 3.11 gives:
𝑤 𝐷
𝑓„ = (𝑤 − )
𝑁€ 𝐷^ 𝐸n 2𝑡
1+
2.5 8𝐸𝐼
(3.17)
Or simplified to:

𝑁€ ^
𝐷 𝐸n 𝐷
𝑓„ = 𝑤( 2.5 )
𝑁€ 2𝑡
8𝐸𝐼 + 𝐸 𝐷^
2.5 n
(3.18)

Rearranging equation 3.18 in terms of the deflection formula, it is possible to express the hoop stress
in the pipe wall due to the vertical load as follows:

𝐸n 𝐷 ∆
𝑓„ =
5 𝑡 𝐷
(3.19)

3.5 PERMISSIBLE LOADS ON EMPTY PIPE

A very convenient design method to determine the wall thickness of a pipe is to determine the
maximum allowable or permissible load for a specified deflection, for buckling, or for the yield strength
of the pipe material.
3.5.1 Permissible Load Limited by Deflection

The permissible load for the specified maximum allowable deflection can be obtained from the
deflection equations 3.8 or 3.9. Rearranging equation 3.9 in terms of 𝑤 and ∆ 𝐷, the permissible
load on an empty pipe may be expressed as:

∆ 8𝐸𝐼 + 0.061 𝐸n 𝐷^
𝑤 =
𝐷 𝐷- 𝑁€ 𝐷^
(3.20)

or in terms of t and D:

8 ^ ^
∆ 12 𝐸𝑡 + 0.061 𝐸n 𝐷
𝑤 =
𝐷 𝐷- 𝑁€ 𝐷^

8
∆ 𝐸 𝑡 ^ 0.061 𝐸n
𝑤 = { 12 ^ + }
𝐷 𝐷- 𝑁€ 𝐷 𝐷- 𝑁€

3.5.2 Permissible Load Limited by Buckling

The permissible buckling load is calculated with Equation 3.4:

1 𝐸𝐼
𝑤j = (32 𝑅Z 𝐵 𝐸n ^ )'
𝐹𝑆 𝐷

3.5.3 Permissible Load Limited by Yield Stress

Total stress induced by a vertical load on an empty pipe may be expressed as follows:

𝑓 = 𝑓ƒ + 𝑓„

From equations 3.14 and 3.18, rearranged in terms of 𝑤, and equating 𝑓 equal to the allowable yield
strength (including a factor of safety) of the pipe material, it is possible to calculate the permissible
load that the pipe can withstand as follow:

𝑓€‹t-Œ
𝑤 =
𝐷' 1 1 𝐷
6 Nj ' 𝑁 + (1 − 𝑁 )
2𝑡 € 𝐷 𝐸n
^
€ 𝐷 𝐸n
^ 2𝑡
( 1 + ) 1+
2.5 8 𝐸𝐼 2.5 8𝐸𝐼

Simplified to

𝑁€ 𝐷^ 𝐸n
1+
𝑤 = 2.5 8𝐸𝐼 𝑥 𝑓€‹t-Œ
𝐷' 𝑁€ 𝐷^ 𝐸n 𝐷
6 Nj ' +
2𝑡 2.5 8𝐸𝐼 2𝑡

Rearrange in terms of 𝐷/𝑡 ratio (I = t /12) to
3

12 𝑁€ 𝐸n 𝐷^
1+
8 2.5 𝐸 𝑡 ^
𝑤 = 𝑥 𝑓€‹t-Œ
𝐷' 12 𝑁€ 𝐸n 𝐷`
3 Nj ' + `
𝑡 8 2.5 𝐸 𝑡
(3.21)

3.5.4 Graphical Presentation of Formulae
In Figure 14 the permissible loads as calculated from equations 3.20, 3.4 and 3.21 are plotted for a
typical 1000 mm diameter pipe installation for a range of wall thicknesses. The dotted line on the
figure represents the total external load that the pipe is designed for.

It is evident from Figure 3.2 that the pipe will buckle if the wall thickness is too thin even though the
stress limitation is not exceeded.

Deflection is rarely a limiting criterion in designing steel pipes. The pipe wall stresses or the possibility
of buckling usually rule. Pipe wall stresses are discussed in the next section.

Figure 14: Permissible loads

In Figure 15 the permissible loads determined for Buckling (Equation 3.4) and for stress
(Equation 3.21), for the most commonly used range of D/t ratios for three different pipe materials,
namely Steel, uPVC and HDPE, and for an Es-value of 3 MPa, are plotted. It is evident from Figure 15
that buckling is the limiting criterion for uPVC and for HDPE, even if the pipe wall is very thick. For
steel pipes with D/t ratios smaller than 150, stress becomes the limiting criterion. The same more or
less applies for Es-values higher than 3 MPa.


Figure 15: Permissible loads for different D/t ratios
3.6 COMBINED STRESSES

3.6.1 Method to Calculate Combined Stress
The total or the combination of all the stresses in the pipe wall is often the limiting criterion for the
design of a pipe. Pipelines are subjected to different modes of operation, and each mode induces
different stresses in the pipe wall.

The preceding sections provide equations that enables the stress calculations for the abovementioned
pipe operation scenarios. The hoop stress due to internal pressures is discussed in section 3.1. The
stresses due to external loads on empty pipes are discussed in section 3.4.

Stresses due to external loads on pipes under pressure are different to those of an empty pipe, and
the stress in the pipe, namely the ring bending 𝑓ƒ and arching stress 𝑓„ can be calculate using
equations 3.10, 3.16 and 3.19.

The designer should calculate the stresses for all the possible operating conditions of the pipeline to
determine the worst stress scenarios. The most common scenarios are described in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 : Operating Conditions Scenarios and Pipe Stresses
Stress Condition Applicable stresses Calculation Method
1) Calculate the external load as per
Scenario 1:
equation 3.2,
Empty pipeline under 𝑓 = 𝑓ƒ + 𝑓„ 2) Calculate the stresses as per equation 3.14
soil load conditions.
and 3.18.
Scenario 2: 1) Calculate the external load as per equation
Empty pipeline 3.2 and 3.3,
subjected to soil loads 𝑓 = 𝑓ƒ + 𝑓„ 2) Calculate the stresses as per equation 3.14
and traffic loads. and 3.18.
Scenario 3:
1) Calculate the stresses as per scenario 1,
Pipeline under
negative pressure and
𝑓 = 𝑓ƒ + 𝑓„ + 𝑓• 2) Add the hoop stress for negative pressure as
per equation 3.1.

Stress Condition Applicable stresses Calculation Method

1) The external loads are the same as per
Scenario 4: scenario 1,
Pipeline under positive 2) Calculate fr as per equation 3.14,
pressure and soil load
𝑓 = 𝑓ƒ − 𝑓„ + 𝑓Ž 3) Subtract the arching stress fa as per
conditions. equation 3.18,
4) Add the hoop stress as per equation 3.1.
scenario 2,
Scenario 5:
2) Calculate fr as per equation 3.14,
Pipeline under positive
pressure, soil load and
equation 3.18,
traffic load conditions.
4) Add the hoop stress as per equation 3.1 for
normal pressure condition.
scenario 1,
Scenario 6:
2) Calculate fr as per equation 3.14,
Pipeline subject to
water hammer and
equation 3.18,
4) Add the hoop stress as per equation 3.1 for
water hammer condition.

Scenarios 2, 3, 5 or 6 normally rule for the design of wall thickness if all the external load conditions
are applicable.

A typical plot for the Scenarios 2, 3, 5 or 6 calculation method and with the safety factors shown in
Error! Reference source not found. is shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Stress Analysis for DN 1000 pipe

3.7 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF SOIL

3.7.1 Importance of Modulus of Elasticity

The side support of the soil is extremely important for the design of flexible thin wall pipes to prevent
excessive deflection, buckling or overstress of the pipe. The side support is determined by the
Modulus of Elasticity (Es-value) of the trench backfill and the natural surrounding soil.

The following collage of figures illustrates the importance of side support. The stress analysis for a
1000 mm diameter steel pipe is shown in Figure 17 including the four most commonly used Modulus
of Elasticity values for soil, namely: 3 MPa, 7 MPa, 13MPa and 20 MPa.

Figure 17: Stress Analysis for different Side Support Es-Values

From Figure 17 it follows that the combined stress in the pipe wall of an empty pipe varies from
approximately 450 MPa to 150 MPa for E-values of 3 MPa to 20 MPa respectively. For 3 MPa side
support the combined stresses for the empty pipe scenario determines the pipe wall thickness, while
for the higher Es-values the combined stresses for the pressure pipe scenario determine the wall
thickness.

3.7.2 Calculate Modulus of Elasticity

The Es-value of the side support is determined by both the bedding and the surrounding soil condition.
The AWWA M11 and M45 manuals provide guidance for the calculation of the equivalent Es-values,
taking cognisance of both the bedding and the surrounding soil condition. Table 3.3 provides guideline
Es-values for trench conditions, but it is recommended that the designer study the tables and
calculations given in the AWWA M11 or M45 for important applications.

Table 3.3: Modulus of Elasticity for soil
Trench and Bedding Conditions Combined Modulus

of Elasticity (Es)
(MPa)
Water logged, marshy or very clayey soils trench
3
conditions e.g. river and stream crossings
Firm and dry natural trench conditions with coarse sand
7
no fines bedding and blanket, well compacted.
Natural soft or harder rock trenching with coarse sand no
13
fines bedding and blanket, well compacted.
Note: The Es-values assumes well compacted bedding and blanket.

It is also highly recommended that the modulus of soil reaction is confirmed from geological laboratory
and field tests prior to pipe design, instead of only relying on using the values given in AWWA M11
and M45.

3.8 PIPE STIFFNESS

3.8.1 Arching vs Bending stress Ratio
The pipe stiffness determines to what extent the pipe will deflect outwards laterally and thereby
increases the pressure of the side fill against the sides of the pipe.

The proportional relationship between arching and ring bending is defined by equations 3.16 and 3.19.
The 𝑓„ /𝑓ƒ relationship is only dependent on the D/t and Es/E ratios. The 𝑓„ /𝑓ƒ ratio is plotted in Figure
18 for a steel pipe.

Figure 18: Arching/Ring bending Ratio

It follows from Figure 18 that for bad trench conditions (Es-value = 3 MPa) the pipe cannot transfer
stress to the side fill, and the arching stress (𝑓„ ) is very small compared to the ring bending stress. For
low D/t ratios (D/t < 100) the pipe is stiff and bends more difficult and therefore cannot transfer the
load to the surrounding soil even if the Es-value is high and therefore the arching stress (𝑓„ ) is still
small compared to the ring bending stress.


However for pipes with low E-value (e.g. uPVC and HDPE) the opposite is true. The pipe deflects
easy and transfer the load to the surrounding soil. Pipes with a low E-value (low stiffness) are
therefore much more dependent on the soil condition than steel pipes with a high E-value (high
stiffness). Pipes with a low stiffness will therefore probably fail because of deformation (buckling)
rather than over stressing of the pipe wall.

3.8.2 Pipe Stiffness Classification

In some instances the pipe stiffness is specified in order to resist the vertical loads. The pipe stiffness
can be determined by conducting a parallel-plate loading test in accordance with ASTM D2412. During
the parallel-plate loading test, deflection due to loads on the top and bottom of the pipe are measured,
and the pipe stiffness is calculated as follows:

𝐹
𝑃𝑆 =
∆𝑦
Where:
F = load per unit length (kN/m)
∆𝑦 = Vertical deflection.

Using equation 3.6, pipe stiffness can also be calculated from the follow equation:

𝐸𝐼
𝑃𝑆 =
∆𝑦 ^
𝑁~ (𝑟 + )
2


3.9.1 Design Procedure
The following design procedure is recommended:
1. Check wall thickness for maximum allowable deflection as applicable (Equation 3.9).
2. Check wall thickness for buckling using equation 3.4
3. For high E-modulus and high yield materials (e.g. steel pipes), check for combined stresses as
described in section 3.6.

For high capital value pipeline installations it is recommended that the designer optimize the pipeline
design using the methods as described in this section. It is possible to reduce the capital cost of a
pipeline project considerably through specifying different wall thickness for different trench conditions
to suit the project, or the trench conditions could be improved e.g. by means of cement stabilization.

3.9.2 Typical Deflection of Pipes

Most designs prescribe a maximum allowable deflection for practical reasons. In practice deflections
of up to 5% of the diameter are sometimes tolerated. The deflection should normally be limited to
about 2% for pipes with rigid linings to prevent damage to linings, and for pipes with mechanical joints.
Deflections also increase over time due to soil settlement, and a factor of safety (Deflection lag factor)
should be incorporated.

Care should be taken when using deflection as a percentage for design purposes. On larger pipes the
displacement of the surrounding soil can be excessive for a relative small percentage deflection e.g.
5% on DN 1000 is 50 mm. A 50mm displacement of the soil will most possibly change the soil
characteristics and it will not act as an elastic material any more. The calculation given in this section

will therefore be invalid to use for design. It is again recommended that the maximum displacement is
determined by laboratory investigations.

In extreme cases it is also possible to reduce costs by installing pipe stiffeners. Stiffeners are not
discussed in this section.

3.9.3 Typical Loads on Pipelines

From Figure 13 it follows that the soil load is approximately 20 to 45 kN/m² for a 1 to 2 m deep
pipeline. Adding traffic load to the soil load, the total amounts to approximately 55 kN/m² for 1 to 2m
deep pipes. Vacuum load is approximately 88 kN/m², and combined with soil load totals to
approximately 125 kN/m².

3.9.4 Steel Pipes

For steel pipes the combined stress is most commonly the limiting criterion and particularly for pipes
with a D/t ratio of less than 150. It is highly recommended that the designer carefully design the pipe
wall thickness when using pipes in bad trench conditions (Es = 3 MPa) and pipe trenches deeper than
2m. Finite element analysis should also be considered in these instances.

The pipeline designer will mostly be concerned with bad trench conditions e.g. river crossing, marshy
areas etc. and/or pipes laid in deep trenches. As shown in Figure 18, under bad trench conditions and
for relative thick walled steel pipes the ring bending stress determines the decision on pipe wall
thickness, and the arching stresses can be ignored.

In practice many engineers commonly encase the pipes in concrete for bad trench conditions or for
high vertical loads in order to increase the side support and reduce the risk of failure.
3.9.5 Plastic Pipes and Vacuum

If the D/t ratio for uPVC pipes is calculated from equation 3.4 for Buckling (soil and vacuum loads of
125 kN/m²) it equates to a D/t ratio of approximately 15 and 20 for 3 and 7 MPa Es-values
respectively. From these ratios it is then possible to calculate the wall thickness for a particular pipe
diameter. If the calculated wall thicknesses are compared to the wall thicknesses as given by the
requirement of SABS 966/1976 (uPVC pipe manufacturing standard) the minimum class of pipe that
should be used for vacuum conditions is Class 16 and Class 12 for Es-values of 3 and 7 MPa
respectively.

As a general guide, when using plastic pipes under vacuum conditions (many pump lines experience
negative pressures) a minimum of class 12 pipe should be used unless the trench conditions are
carefully considered.

3.9.6 Plastic Pipes and External Loads

It follows from the preceding discussion that buckling is most likely the limiting criterion for the design
of wall thickness of plastic pipes.

It is evident from Figure 15 that the pipeline designer should be very careful when using plastic pipes
with D/t ratios of more than 40 because of their inability to withstand external vertical loads. If this is
compared with SABS 966/1976 it is of particular importance for pipes with diameters equal to and
greater than 300 mm.

Pipes larger than 300 mm diameter should not be used in bad trench conditions, deep trenches or
traffic load conditions, without proper trench condition consideration and wall thickness design. Trench
preparation and compaction also become increasingly important for plastic pipes from 300 mm
diameter and larger.



4 DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND THRUST BLOCKS

At bends in an underground pipeline unbalanced forces occurs as the result of two actions:

§ Dynamic forces
§ Pressure forces

The dynamic forces due to the change in direction of flow is proportional to the change in momentum
in the direction of the change. That is:

∆𝐹• = 𝜌 𝑄 ∆ 𝑉•

Where:
𝐹 = Force in direction of change (N)
𝑄 = Flow rate (m³/s)
𝑉 = Mean Velocity (m/s)

The dynamic force is, under conditions that are typically experienced by water pipeline design
engineers, negligible compared with the force due to the internal pressure in the pipeline.

The internal pressure force in the direction of each leg of the bend is:

𝐹• = 𝑝𝐴 sin 𝜃
Where:
𝐹 = Force in direction of change (N)
𝑝 = Internal pressure (Pa)
𝐴 = Cross sectional area of pipe flow (m²)
𝜃 = Combined angle of deviation of the pipe (degrees)

The angle of deviation must take into account the horizontal and vertical deflection of the bend. The
combined angle of deflection can be calculated as:

𝜃 = acos (cos 𝜃– cos 𝜃—˜ cos 𝜃—. − sin 𝜃– sin 𝜃—˜ )
Where:
𝜃– = Incoming angle
𝜃—˜ = Horizontal outgoing angle
𝜃—. = Vertical outgoing angle


Figure 19 : Resultant Force on Bend
Fr F1
F2

The resultant force is the vector sum of the forces in both directions of the pipe axis, that is:

𝐹ƒ = 2𝑝𝐴 sin 𝜃/2

This resultant force will typically consist of a downward, horizontal and upward component. The thrust
block needs to be designed in order to resist all three components. For each force component a
different design approach is required as discussed in the following sections.

In order to prevent overturning or unbalanced stresses, a thrust block should be designed as far as
possible so that the line of action of the resisting forces coincides with the centre line of the pipe or in
other words with the direction of the resultant force.
4.1 VERTICAL UPWARD THRUSTBLOCK

The vertical upward component of the resultant force must be restrained by the weight of the block or
in extreme instance with rock anchors. Rock anchors are not discussed in this document.

The following formula is applicable to determine the required weight of the block:

𝐹s™ . 𝐹𝑆 <= (𝑚j + 𝑚n )𝑔
Where:
𝐹s™ = Vertical Upward Force (N)
𝑚j = Mass of block (kg)
𝑚n = Mass soil on top of block (kg)
𝑔 = Gravitational acceleration (9,81 m/s²)
𝐹𝑆 = Factor of Safety = 2, recommended

4.2 VERTICAL DOWNWARD THRUSTBLOCK

The vertical downward component of the resultant force is restrained by relaying on the vertical soil
resistance pressure. The footprint area of the thrust block therefor needs to be large enough. The area
can be determined as follows:
𝐹›™ . 𝐹𝑆 <= 𝑝 𝐴
Where:
𝐹s™ = Vertical Downward Force (N)
𝑝 = Soil bearing pressure (Pa)
𝐴 = Horizontal Footprint area of thrust block (m²)


Typical soil bearing pressures for vertical restrain are given in Table xx.

Table 4.1: Typical Bearing Pressure for Vertical Downward Thrust
Bearing
Type of Soil Geological Pick Test Pressure
kPa
Hard Sound Rock Broken with some difficulty and rig when struck. 10 000
Cannot be scraped or peeled with a knife: hand-held

Medium Hard Rock 5 000
specimen breaks with firm blow of the pick.
Can just be scraped with a knife: indentation of 2 to

Soft Rock 2 000
4mm with firm blow of the pick point.
Can be peeled with a knife: material crumbles under

Very Soft Rock 1 000
firm blows with sharp end of a geological pick.
Dense Well-graded Dry 400

Sand, Gravel and
Sand-gravel mixture Saturated 200
Loose Well-graded Dry 200

Sand, Gravel,
Sand-gravel mixtures Saturated 100
Dry 100
Loose Uniform Sand
Saturated 40

4.3 HORIZONTAL THURSTBLOCK

The horizontal force component of the resultant force is restrained by relaying on the active or passive
soil pressure behind the thrust block. The required resisting area of the horizontal thrust block is then
calculated in the same manner as for a vertical downward thrust block. In addition the frictional
resistance of the block can be added, as follows:

𝐹• . 𝐹𝑆 <= 𝑝 𝐴 + 𝜇 (𝑚j + 𝑚n ) 𝑔
Where:
𝐹• = Horizontal Force (N)
𝜇 = Frictional resistance factor (typically = 0.3)

The passive resisting pressure of the soil may be calculated using soil mechanics theory as follows:

1 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∅ 1 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∅
𝑓Ž = 𝛾n ℎ + 2𝑐
1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∅ 1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∅
(4.1)
Where:

𝑓Ž = Horizontal Soil Resistant Pressure (Pa)

𝛾 = 𝜌𝑔
ℎ = Depth below ground level to the centre line of block (m)
𝑐 = Cohesion of soil (Pa)
∅ = Internal angle of friction of soil (degrees)

While the active resisting pressure may be calculated with:

1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∅ 1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∅
𝑓„ = 𝛾n ℎ − 2𝑐
1 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∅ 1 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∅

The active pressure is considerably less than the passive pressure. Typical values for 𝑐 and ∅ is given
in Table 4.2. The corresponding passive and active pressures when using the abovementioned
formula are also shown.

Table 4.2: Typical Bearing Pressure for Horizontal Thrust
Angle of Passive Pressure Active Pressure

Cohesion @ 1m depth @ 1m depth
Type of Soil Friction
kPa kPa kPa
∅
Gravel 35° 0 109 8
Sand 30° 0 88 10
Silt 28° 7 105 9
Dense Clay 5° 35 111 15
Soft Saturated 0° 15 59 25
Clay

Active pressure can be regarded as the pressure asserted by the soil onto the thrust block. While the
passive pressure is required in order to move the soil slightly. Movement of the pipe is usually not
permissible and therefore in practice the pressure which may be relied upon is slightly less than the
passive pressure. A factor of safety of at least 2 should therefore be used with the passive resistance
formula.

It is important to note that the resisting pressures of soils for vertical thrusts are higher than for
horizontal thrusts.

Valves installed in chambers are often installed with flexible couplings in order to facilitate installation
and maintenance. The wall of the valve chamber must therefore be designed as a thrust block.


BIBLIOGRAPHY :
Robert L. Daugherty, Joseph B. Franzini, “Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications”, Seventh
Edition, McGraw-Hill (1977).
Stephenson D, "Pipeline Design for Water Engineers", Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam
(1979)
A. Chadwick, J. Morfett, M Borthwick, “Hydraulics for Civil and Environmental Engineering”, Fourth
Edition, Spon Press (2004).
American Water Works Association, “Fiberglass Pipe Design”, AWWA M45, (1996)
American Water Works Association, “Steel Pipe – A guide for Design and Installation”, AWWA M11,
(1989)
South African Institute of Civil Engineers, “Short Course in Pumping Station Design”, September 1993.
Moody LF, "Friction factors for pipe flow", Trans. ASME 66.8, November, 671-84 (1944)
Streeter V Land Wylie E G, "Hydraulic Transients", McGraw-Hill (1967)
N.W.B Clarke, “Buried Pipelines, A manual of structural design and installation”, Maclaren and Sons,
(1968)
2015.08-29

1 - Schalk Van Der Merwe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 - Schalk Van Der Merwe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY

3.9 PRACTICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................... 33

PIPELINE DESIGN PRINCIPLES

2 PIPELINE HYDRAULICS CALCULATIONS

P = Pressure Head (m)

2.2 HYDRAULIC GRADELINE AND ENERGY LINE

2.3 TOTAL HEAD LOSS EQUATION

2.4 FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPES

2.4.1 Darcy Weisbach formula and Moody Diagram

D = Diameter of pipeline (m)

Table 2.1: Absolute Roughness of Pipe Materials (e)

Smooth Average Rough

2.4.2 Colebrook-­White equation

0.010 DN 1000, e = 0.015

Hazen-­Williams Pipe Material

2.4.4 Manning formula

S = Head loss per unit length (ℎ7 / L )

2.5 COMPARISON OF PIPE FRICTION FORMULAE

Diameter 200 200 200 600 600 600

Smooth Pipes: e = 0.015 Smooth Pipes: e = 0.015

Head Loss (m/100m)

Medium Roughness Pipes: e = 0.15 Medium Roughness Pipes: e = 0.15

Rough Pipes: e = 0.6 Rough Pipes: e = 0.6

Head Loss (m/100)

2.6 MINOR LOSSES

2.6.1 Minor Head Loss Equations

Figure 2.14: Minor Loss Coefficients

RESISTANCE COEFFICIENTS OF VALVES AND FITTINGS

Range of K-­‐ Inlets

Angle V alve for

1.0 -­‐-­‐ For All Exits

80% Open 90º

1.0 1.00 0.6 -­‐-­‐ 1.0

0.3 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐ 0.25 0.3

2.7 PRACTICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The modified Colebrook-­White formula as published by Barr or Unknown formula, provide a

3 PIPE WALL THICKNESS DESIGN

3.1 INTERNAL PRESSURE

3.2 EXTERNAL LOADS

Figure 11: Forces on buried pipe

3.2.2 Traffic Load

Load Area = L1 x L2

Figure 12: Traffic load

3.2.3 Combined Vertical Load

3.4 BENDING AND DEFLECTION

3.4.2 Deflection with side support

3.4.3 Ring Bending and Arching Stress

3.5 PERMISSIBLE LOADS ON EMPTY PIPE

3.5.1 Permissible Load Limited by Deflection

3.5.2 Permissible Load Limited by Buckling

3.5.3 Permissible Load Limited by Yield Stress

3.5.4 Graphical Presentation of Formulae

Figure 15: Permissible loads for different D/t ratios

3.6 COMBINED STRESSES

Stress Condition Applicable stresses Calculation Method

3.7.1 Importance of Modulus of Elasticity

3.7.2 Calculate Modulus of Elasticity

3.8 PIPE STIFFNESS

Figure 18: Arching/Ring bending Ratio

3.8.2 Pipe Stiffness Classification

3.9 PRACTICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

3.9.2 Typical Deflection of Pipes

3.9.3 Typical Loads on Pipelines

2.4.2 Colebrook-White equation

Hazen-Williams Pipe Material

Range of K-‐ Inlets

1.0 -‐-‐ For All Exits

1.0 1.00 0.6 -‐-‐ 1.0

0.3 -‐-‐-‐-‐ 0.25 0.3

The modified Colebrook-White formula as published by Barr or Unknown formula, provide a

Cannot be scraped or peeled with a knife: hand-held

Dense Well-graded Dry 400

Loose Well-graded Dry 200

Streeter V Land Wylie E G, "Hydraulic Transients", McGraw-Hill (1967)