Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference

PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands

DRAINAGE HANDBOOK STRUCTURAL DESIGN

PROCEDURE FOR CORRUGATED POLYOLEFIN PIPE

Joe Babcanec, P.E. Dan Currence, P.E.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. Plastics Pipe Institute
Hilliard, OH, USA Irving, TX, USA

SHORT SUMMARY
Every major pipe material has a Handbook or Manual detailing the history, applications,
design and installation procedures recommended for the particular industry. The
Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI) Handbook has been in publication since 2008, but only
covers solid wall polyethylene (PE) pipe. Over the past 5 years, PPI has undertaken the
development of a handbook covering corrugated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and
polypropylene (PP) pipe used predominantly in gravity-flow drainage applications. The
new PPI Drainage Handbook [1] is now available on-line and will soon be available in
print. This paper discusses the rationale of key points chosen by the industry for
inclusion in the work, provides an overview of the content, and highlights the structural
design procedure for corrugated polyolefin pipe.

KEYWORDS
Structural Design, Handbook, LRFD, Corrugated, HDPE, PP

ABSTRACT
The newly released Drainage Handbook provides complete guidance on corrugated
polyolefin pipe. Perhaps the biggest contribution this new handbook makes to the
advancement of both HDPE and PP corrugated plastic pipe is the design procedure
presented. The design procedure reflects the industry’s recommended practice for using
the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications [2] methodology
currently utilized for bridge design by Departments of Transportation (DOTs) in the
United States. The LRFD procedure utilizes numerous load and resistance factors in the
design process to evaluate the performance of buried pipe as various limit states are
evaluated. The result is a very comprehensive design analysis with multiple layers of
conservativism built into the results. In the drainage handbook, the industry applied the
LRFD design methodology that most accurately reflects how corrugated plastic pipe is
installed in North America. The companion document to the Structural Design chapter,
the Design Guide, walks an engineer through the detailed calculation procedure for two
unique pipe design scenarios.

In this paper, key details of the structural design procedure in the drainage handbook will
be discussed, and one of the examples from the Design Guide will be presented.

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 1

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands

INTRODUCTION
The use of corrugated polyolefin pipe has grown dramatically since its introduction to
North America in 1966. Starting primarily in small diameter agricultural drainage
applications, annular corrugated polyolefin pipe is now manufactured up to 60” in
diameter and used in public stormwater applications for highway, rail, and aviation. Due
to this growth of use and complexity of application, there has been a need for the
corrugated plastic pipe industry to develop design recommendations for civil engineers
to properly specify both HDPE and PP pipe. Based off recommendations suggested by
McGrath et al. in NCHRP Report 631, “Updated Test and Design Methods for
Thermoplastic Drainage Pipe,” [3] the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
provide strain-based design limitations for thrust, thrust plus bending, and global
buckling, while also providing service criteria for allowable vertical deflection. While the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications provide a comprehensive procedure to
analyze corrugated polyolefin pipe for roadway design, the Drainage Handbook provides
additional commentary and technical justification to specifiers, owners, installers, and
manufacturers for areas within the specification that are not fully addressed. Two areas
in which the Drainage Handbook delivers additional guidance is in profile idealization
and pipe material properties for design.

NOMENCLATURE
Load-Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Design philosophy that examines load and resistance force combinations. Both the
loads applied to the structure and the resistance of a given structure or element to resist
the load are multiplied by modification factors to introduce a factor of safety to each
criterion. The structure is evaluated at various limit states to ensure the objectives of
constructability, safety, and serviceability are obtained.

Idealized Pipe Profile

Representation of the actual pipe profile but with straight sides and sharp corners. The
thin straight elements that make up the idealized profile are analyzed to determine their
effective width and resistance to buckling.

DISCUSSION
Profile Idealization
Prior to determining the buckling capacity of the pipe profile wall, the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications requires designers to determine the amount of total area
which is effective in withstanding compression forces in the pipe wall. In order to
determine the effective area, a designer must convert the actual pipe profile to an
idealized profile. The idealized profile is a representation of the actual profile but with
straight sides and sharp corners. The process to determine the idealized profile is
typically started by cutting, scanning, and measuring actual profiles. The thin straight
elements that make up the idealized profile are analyzed to determine their effective
width and resistance to buckling. Once the effective width of each element is calculated,
a reduced effective area is calculated and used to analyze the structural integrity of the
pipe section.

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 2

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Figure 1: Typical and Idealized Corrugated Pipe Profile

First used in the cold formed steel industry and adapted for corrugated polyolefin pipe by
AASHTO, guidance on profile idealization is included in the commentary of the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. However, it only states:
 The idealized profile elements should be rectangular
 The total area of the actual unidealized profile should match the idealized profile
 If the crest element is curved, it should be idealized at the centroid of the
curvature
 The idealized crests need not touch the idealized webs.
With only this guidance, there are numerous ways and variations to complete the profile
idealization process used among design engineers. Based off recommendations
proposed by Bass and Beaver in “Section Idealization of Corrugated Thermoplastic Pipe
in AASHTO Design,” [4] the Drainage Handbook has adopted a more comprehensive
approach to profile idealization. This procedure is more prescriptive in nature, requiring
a consistent approach by manufacturers and designers alike. This is important because
pipe profile shape is not standard among corrugated polyolefin pipe producers.
Examples of various corrugation shapes are shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Common Corrugation Shapes

The Drainage Handbook’s published recommendations for profile idealization allows for
the introduction of efficient and higher performing pipe profiles, while giving designers,

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 3

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands
owners, and manufacturers the confidence that the corrugated polyolefin pipe will be
structurally adequate in even the most demanding applications. For additional guidance
on the idealization of pipe profiles of corrugated polyolefin pipe please reference PPI
Drainage Handbook.

Pipe Material Properties

As a viscoelastic material, polyolefin pipe behaves differently than elastic materials
such as steel. Because of this fact, it is necessary to account for this time-load
dependent behavior of HDPE and PP pipe in design by utilizing both short term and
long-term material properties. It is important to note that short-term and long-term
material properties relate to the duration of the loading conditions, not to age of
installation. As an example, effects of vehicular traffic traversing above HDPE and PP
pipe shall be evaluated with the pipe’s respective short-term material properties even if
that vehicle crosses over the pipe 100 years after installation. Generally, the long-term
material properties used to evaluate the dead load in corrugated polyolefin pipe design
correspond with the pipe’s desired service life. In North America, a growing number of
corrugated polyolefin pipe specifications require a service life of 100 years. The
properties given in Tables 1 and 2 for HDPE and PP reference the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications for the initial, 50-, and 75-year modulus and tensile
strength. However, the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications currently do not
include 100-year material properties for design. Based off recommendations provided
by Hsuan in “Draft Final Report on Phase II of Long-Term Properties of Corrugated
HDPE Pipes” [5] prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation and Bass et al.
in “Proposed AASHTO Structural Design Properties for Corrugated Polypropylene Storm
Sewer Pipe,” [6] 100-year material design properties are included in the PPI Drainage
Handbook. For loads of intermediate durations, such as loads from parked vehicles or
snow banks, material properties matching the duration of the load can be determined by
testing or provided by the manufacturer.

Table 1: Design Values for Corrugated Polyolefin Pipe Modulus

Modulus (ksi)
Pipe Minimum Cell Short-Term Long-Term
Material
Specification Class 100-
Initial 50-Yr 75-Yr
Yr
AASHTO M ASTM D3350
HDPE 110 22 21 20
294 435400C
AASHTO M See requirements in
PP 175 29 28 27
330 AASHTO M 33

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 4

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Table 2: Design Values for Corrugated Polyolefin Pipe Tensile Strength

Design Strength, Fy (ksi)

Minimum Cell
Material Pipe Specification Short-Term Long-Term
Class
Initial 50-Yr 75-Yr 100-Yr
ASTM D3350
HDPE AASHTO M 294, 3.0 0.9 0.9 0.8
435400C
See requirements in
PP AASHTO M 330 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
AASHTO M 330

CONCLUSIONS

During the final phase of drafting the PPI Drainage Handbook, pipe producing member
companies submitted fill height tables utilizing the updated PPI recommended
idealization and design procedures. The following Tables 3 and 4 provide representative
maximum fill heights for dual wall corrugated HDPE (manufactured per AASHTO M294
[7]) and PP (manufactured per AASHTO M330 [8]) pipe. Representative fill heights are
tabulated corresponding to pipe diameter, soil type, and compaction level. Design
assumptions used for the calculations can be found in Table 5, incorporating the most
conservative load and resistance factors required by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. Due to the innovative nature of the corrugated polyolefin pipe industry in
North America, and specifications that do not require standard pipe profile shapes , exact
fill height recommendations vary by manufacturer. The maximum fill heights listed in
Tables 3 and 4 below represent the lowest representative fill heights among PPI
producing member companies. Deeper fill heights may be possible by consulting pipe
manufacturers to determine fill heights based on specific installation conditions and
manufacturer’s specific pipe profiles. For further guidance, Annex A contains an
example problem from the PPI Drainage Handbook Design Guide following the
recommendations spelled out in Chapter 7 of the PPI Drainage Handbook.

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 5

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Table 3: Representative Maximum Allowable Fill Heights (ft) for Corrugated HDPE
Pipe (Assumes AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and 100-Year Material Properties)

Table 4: Representative Maximum Allowable Fill Heights (ft) for Corrugated PP

Pipe (Assumes AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and 100-Year Material Properties)

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 6

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Table 5: Design Assumptions for Representative Maximum Allowable Fill Heights

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 7

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands

REFERENCES

[1] Plastics Pipe Institute Drainage Handbook for Corrugated Polyolefin Pipe,
2020.

[2] AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Ninth Edition, 2020.

[3] McGrath, T.J, Moore, I.D., and Hsuan, G.Y., “NCHRP Report 631 Updated Test and
Design Methods for Thermoplastic Drainage Pipe” Washington, D.C. NCHRP, 2009.

[4] Bass, B.J., and J.L. Beaver, “Section Idealization of Corrugated Thermoplastic Pipe
in AASHTO Design,” Proceedings of the 2018 Transportation Research Board Annual
Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2018.

[5] Hsuan, Y.G., “Draft Final Report on Phase II of Long-Term Properties of Corrugated
HDPE Pipes,” prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, 2012

[6] Bass, B.J., B.R. Vanhoose, and T.J. McGrath, “Proposed AASHTO Structural
Design Properties for Corrugated Polypropylene Storm Sewer Pipe,” Transportation
Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2310,
Washington, D.C., 2012.

[7] AASHTO M-294. Standard Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, 300- to
1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter. Washington D.C. : American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 2018.

[8] AASHTO M-330. Standard Specification for Polypropylene Pipe, 300- to

1500-mm (12- to 60-in.) Diameter. Washington D.C. : American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 2019.

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 8

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands

ANNEX A

DESIGN EXAMPLE – SHALLOW FILL OVER CORRUGATED HDPE CULVERT

diameter, Do
Background Pipe centroid 50 in. 7.2.3
diameter, D
An owner is developing a new building on her property. A Pipe gross area, Ag 0.47 in2/in. 7.2.3
48 in. diameter HDPE culvert will be buried beneath the Stub compression 1200 lbf/in. 7.2.2.2
construction vehicle access path. The ground surface will capacity, Pst
be at EL +6.00 ft and the top of the pipe will be at EL Pipe moment of 0.54 in4/in. 7.2.3
+4.00 ft. Construction documents show a very narrow inertia, Ip
trench installation (1.5 times the pipe OD) with Project-specific
embedment material specified as limestone with max HDPE material
particle size of ¾ in. (gravel, dumped Class I). The owner 50 ksi
creep modulus for
has asked an engineer to determine whether the planned 24 hrs, EPE24
culvert installation will be able to withstand the
construction vehicle loading. The construction vehicle is
specified as having a maximum duration of 24 hours, with The owner has provided the following information.
one 10 kip (1 kip = 1000 lb) front axle and two 45 kip rear Parameter Value Reference
axles.
Live load Construction 7.4.3.9
Vehicle
45 kip wheel load
Installation Parameters on 18 in. x 18 in.
The original construction documents provide the following ground contact
information. All references are to relevant sections of area
the PPI Drainage Handbook. Design life 75 years
Parameter Value Reference
Embedment Dumped Class I 7.3.2, 7.3.3.1
material (limestone)
Native soil Medium, 7.3.3.2 45 k
cohesive
material
Trench width, Bd 81 in. (6.5 ft, 2 ft
1.5*OD)
Fill depth, H 2 ft (EL 6 ft – EL 7.4.1, 7.5.6.1
4 ft)
Pipe inside 48 in. (4 ft) 48 in.
diameter, Di
Soil moist unit 120 pcf 7.4.1
s
Height of water Below springline Class I
table, Hw

81 in.
Manufacturer submittals for the specified pipe provide the
Cohesive,
following information.
soft
Parameter Value Reference
Pipe outside 54 in. (4.5 ft) 7.2.3

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 9


1
See Chapter 9 of the PPI Drainage Handbook for typical
installation details
Design Steps
1. Loading - calculate loading on pipe (soil,
hydrostatic, live).
2. Hoop thrust - calculate composite constrained
modulus, vertical arching factor, and factored
thrust strain. Check service stress and thrust
strain limit.
3. Thrust plus bending - calculate pipe stiffness,
shape factor, and service thrust strain.
Calculate factored flexural strain in pipe,
combine with factored thrust strain and check
against permissible limits.
4. Deflection – calculate service deflection and
check against allowable limit.
5. Global buckling – calculate global buckling
strain capacity and compare to maximum thrust
strain in pipe.
6. Flexibility factor – calculate the flexibility of the
pipe and compare to specified limits.
7. Buoyancy – not applicable, water table below
pipe.
1.1 Loading
The dead load, or vertical soil prism pressure, is
calculated as described in Section 7.4.1.
𝑃𝑠𝑝 = 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑚 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒
𝑃𝑠𝑝 = (𝐻 + 0.11𝐷𝑜)𝛾𝑠 for Hw ≤ 0.5Do,
𝑃𝑠𝑝 = (2𝑓𝑡 + 0.11 ∗ 4.5𝑓𝑡) ∗ 120𝑝𝑐𝑓
𝑃𝑠𝑝 = 299𝑝𝑠𝑓 = 2.1𝑝𝑠𝑖
There is no hydrostatic load since the water table is below
the springline.
This example will evaluate the construction vehicle wheel
load with the specified maximum 24-hour duration. As
Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 10
Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands
stated in Section 7.4.3.9, construction live loads may be
evaluated using a similar application method as that
shown for the Design Truck in Section 7.4.3.1.1,
considering the load magnitudes and ground surface
contact areas specified by the municipality. For sustained
loading, the dynamic load allowance (IM) is set to 1.0. .
The wheel load pressure is distributed through the soil as
described in Section 7.4.3.2.3. Due to large axle spacing
(8 ft) and shallow cover (2 ft), there is no interaction
between the wheel loads (Eq. 7-14 and 7-15). The live
load distribution factor (LLDF) for buried thermoplastic
pipes with minimum fill depth is 1.15, as described in
Section 7.4.3.2.3.
𝑙𝑑
= 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒
𝑙𝑑 = 𝑙𝑡 + 𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐹 ∗ 𝐻
𝑙𝑑 = 18𝑖𝑛 + 1.15 ∗ 24𝑖𝑛
𝑙𝑑 = 45.6𝑖𝑛
𝑤𝑑
= 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒
𝑤𝑑 = 𝑤𝑡 + 𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐹 ∗ 𝐻 + 0.06𝐷𝑖
𝑤𝑑 = 18𝑖𝑛 + 1.15 ∗ 24𝑖𝑛 + 0.06 ∗ 48𝑖𝑛
𝑤𝑑 = 48.5𝑖𝑛
𝑃𝐿 = 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑃𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓
𝑃𝐿 =
𝑤𝑑 𝑙𝑑
45000𝑙𝑏𝑓
𝑃𝐿 =
45.6𝑖𝑛 ∗ 48.5𝑖𝑛
𝑃𝐿 = 20.3𝑝𝑠𝑖 = 2930𝑝𝑠𝑓
1.2 Hoop thrust
Per Table 7.3-1, the constrained modulus for Class I
dumped limestone embedment material (Msb) is 3,500 psi.
Typically for shallow installations (under 10 ft in cover
depth) and stable trench walls, only the constrained soil
modulus for embedment (Msb) would be considered for
design. Since unstable trench walls were encountered
 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands
during installation, and the trench width (B d = 6.75 ft) is 7.2.3.4.5. The time factor (Kt) is taken from Table 7.2-4.
less than three times the pipe outside diameter (3Do = The yield strength (Fy) is taken from Table 7.2-2.
13.5 ft), the effect of the adjacent native material should
be considered. Per Table 7.3-5, a constrained modulus of 𝑃𝑠𝑡 𝐾𝑡
𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 = ≤ 𝐴𝑔
1,500 psi is appropriate for the medium native soil (M sn). 𝐹𝑦
Use Table 7.3-6 to determine the soil support combining
1200𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛 ∗ 0.25
factor (Sc). 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 =
900𝑝𝑠𝑖
2
𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 0.33 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛
𝐵𝑑
⁄𝐷 = 81𝑖𝑛⁄54𝑖𝑛 = 1.5
𝑜
𝑀𝑠𝑛 1500𝑝𝑠𝑖
⁄𝑀 = ⁄3500𝑝𝑠𝑖 = 0.43 The factored thrust at the pipe springline is calculated as
𝑠𝑏
described in Section 7.5.2.3.2. The construction vehicle is
𝑆𝑐 = 0.53 treated as an owner-specified load with reduced live load
factor as described in Section 7.5.4.

𝑀𝑠 = 𝑆𝑐 𝑀𝑠𝑏
𝑇𝐷
𝑀𝑠 = 0.53 ∗ 3500𝑝𝑠𝑖 = 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
𝑀𝑠 = 1850𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐷𝑜
𝑇𝐷 = 𝜂𝐸𝑉 (𝛾𝐸𝑉 𝐾2(𝑉𝐴𝐹)𝑃𝑠𝑝)
2
Per Table 7.2-1, the long-term creep modulus of the pipe 54𝑖𝑛
HDPE material (Elt) for the 75-year design life is 21 ksi 𝑇𝐷 = 1.00(1.95 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 0.32 ∗ 2.1𝑝𝑠𝑖)
2
and. the short-term modulus (Est) is 110 ksi. The project
specific 24-hr creep modulus (EPE24) for the HDPE 𝑇𝐷 = 35𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛
material is 50 ksi, as provided by the manufacturer. The
hoop stiffness factor (SH) and vertical arching factor (VAF)
are calculated as described in Section 7.5.2.3.1. 𝐹1 = 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

0.75𝐷𝑜 15
𝐹1 = max ( , , 1.0)
𝜙𝑠 𝑀𝑠 𝑅 𝑙𝑑 𝐷𝑖
𝑆𝐻 =
𝐸𝑙𝑡 𝐴𝑔 0.75 ∗ 54𝑖𝑛 15
𝐹1 = max ( , , 1.0) = max(0.89, 0.31, 1.0)
45.6𝑖𝑛 48𝑖𝑛
=1

0.9 ∗ 1850𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ (0.5 ∗ 50𝑖𝑛)

𝑆𝐻 = 2 𝐹2 = 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
21000𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 0.47 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛
𝑆𝐻 = 7.98 0.95
𝐹2 =
1 + 0.6𝑆𝐻
0.95
𝑆𝐻 − 1.17 𝐹2 = = 0.16
𝑉𝐴𝐹 = 0.76 − 0.71 [ ] 1 + 0.6 ∗ 7.98
𝑆𝐻 + 2.92

7.98 − 1.17 𝐶𝐿 = 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡

𝑉𝐴𝐹 = 0.76 − 0.71 [ ]
27.98 + 2.92
𝑉𝐴𝐹 = 0.32 𝐶𝐿 = 𝑙𝑑⁄𝐷
𝑜

𝐶𝐿 = 45.6𝑖𝑛⁄54𝑖𝑛 = 0.84
The corrugation effective area (Aeff) is calculated based
on stub compression test results, as described in Section
𝑇𝐿 = 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 11

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands
2.8 − 3.5
𝑇𝐿 = 𝜂𝐿𝐿 𝛾𝐿𝐿 𝐶𝐿 𝐹1𝐹2 𝑃𝐿
𝐷𝑜 𝐷𝑓 = ∗ (25.5𝑝𝑠𝑖 − 18𝑝𝑠𝑖) + 3.5
2 36𝑝𝑠𝑖 − 18𝑝𝑠𝑖
54𝑖𝑛 𝐷𝑓 = 3.21
𝑇𝐿 = 1.0 ∗ 1.35 ∗ 0.84 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 0.16 ∗ 20.3𝑝𝑠𝑖
2
𝑇𝐿 = 103𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛
The service pipe thrust at the springline is calculated as
described in Section 7.5.2.3.2 with all load factors
excluded.
The maximum factored hoop thrust strain is calculated as
described in Section 7.5.2.3.4.
𝑇𝑆𝐷
= 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑟
𝜀𝑐 = 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛

𝑇𝐷 𝑇𝐿 𝐷𝑜
𝜀𝑐 = + 𝑇𝑆𝐷 = (𝐾2 (𝑉𝐴𝐹)𝑃𝑠𝑝 + 𝑃𝑤 )
𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝐸𝑙𝑡 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝐸𝑃𝐸24 2
54𝑖𝑛
35𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛 103𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛 𝑇𝑆𝐷 = (1.0 ∗ 0.32 ∗ 2.1𝑝𝑠𝑖)
𝜀𝑐 = 2
+ 2 2
0.33 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛 ∗ 21000𝑝𝑠𝑖 0.33 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛 ∗ 50000𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑇𝑆𝐷 = 18𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛
𝜀𝑐 = 0.011 = 1.1%

𝑇𝑆𝐿 = 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒

The maximum factored hoop thrust strain is checked
against the limit as described in Section 7.5.2.3.5. The 𝐷𝑜
𝑇𝑆𝐿 = 𝐶𝐿 𝐹1 𝐹2 𝑃𝐿
t) is taken from Table 7.5-2. The 2

yc) is taken from Table 7.2-3 for 54𝑖𝑛

HDPE. 𝑇𝑆𝐿 = 0.84 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 0.16 ∗ 20.3𝑝𝑠𝑖
2
𝜀𝑐 ≤ 𝜙𝑡 𝜀𝑦𝑐 𝑇𝑆𝐿 = 76𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛

1.1% ≤ 1.0 ∗ 4.1%

The service hoop thrust strain is calculated as described
in Section 7.5.2.3.4 using the gross section area.
1.3 Thrust plus bending
Since the pipe stiffness (PS) is not provided, it is 𝜀𝑆𝐶 = 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
calculated as described in Section 7.2.2.1.
𝑇𝑆𝐷 𝑇𝑆𝐿
𝐸𝑠𝑡 𝐼𝑝 𝜀𝑆𝐶 = +
𝐴𝑔 𝐸𝑙𝑡 𝐴𝑔 𝐸𝑃𝐸24
𝑃𝑆 =
0.149𝑅3 18𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛 76𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛
4 𝜀𝑆𝐶 = 2
+ 2
110000psi ∗ 0.54 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛 0.47 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛 ∗ 21000𝑝𝑠𝑖 0.47 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛 ∗ 50000𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑃𝑆 =
0.149 ∗ (0.5 ∗ 50𝑖𝑛)3 𝜀𝑆𝐶 = 0.005 = 0.5%
𝑃𝑆 = 25.5psi

The centroid distance (c) is calculated from the inside,

Per Table 7.5-3, the shape factor for dumped Class I outside, and centroid diameters.
embedment (gravel - dumped) is 3.5 for a pipe stiffness of 𝐷𝑜 − 𝐷 𝐷 − 𝐷𝑖
18 psi and 2.8 for a pipe stiffness of 36 psi. Interpolate to 𝑐 = max ( , )
2 2
determine the appropriate shape factor for use in design 54𝑖𝑛 − 50𝑖𝑛 50𝑖𝑛 − 48𝑖𝑛
of a pipe with 25.5 psi pipe stiffness. = max ( , ) = 2𝑖𝑛
2 2

𝐷𝑓 = 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 12

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands
The flexural strain demand is calculated as described in |2.2% − 1.1%| ≤ 1.0 ∗ 5.0%
Section 7.5.2.4.2.
1.1% ≤ 5.0%
Since the flexural strain is less than the minimum thrust
𝜀𝑓 = 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 strain, net tension will not occur for the mid-term loading.
Note that net tension will occur for short-term loading of
𝑐 𝛿𝐷𝑖 − 𝜀𝑆𝐶 𝐷
𝜀𝑓 = 𝛾𝐸𝑉 𝐷𝑓 ( ) the wheel load (but is less than the limit).
𝑅 𝐷
2𝑖𝑛 5% ∗ 48𝑖𝑛 − 0.5% ∗ 50𝑖𝑛
𝜀𝑓 = 1.95 ∗ 3.21 ∗ ( )
0.5 ∗ 50𝑖𝑛 50𝑖𝑛 1.4 Deflection
𝜀𝑓 = 0.022 = 2.2%
The pipe deflection under service loads is checked as
described in Section 7.5.1.
The flexural and hoop thrust strains are combined and
checked against the compression limit for combined
thrust and bending as described in Section 7.5.2.4.4. ∆𝑡 = 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝜀𝑓 + 𝜀𝑐 ≤ 𝜙𝑡 1.5𝜀𝑦𝑐 𝐾𝐵 𝐷𝐿 𝑃𝑠𝑝𝐷𝑜 𝐾𝐵 𝐶𝐿 𝑃𝐿 𝐷𝑜
∆𝑡 = +
𝐸𝑙𝑡 𝐼𝑝 𝐸𝑃𝐸24𝐼𝑝
2.2% + 1.1% ≤ 1.0 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 4.1% + 0.061𝑀𝑠 + 0.061𝑀𝑠
𝑅3 𝑅3
+ 2𝑅𝜀𝑠𝑐
3.3% ≤ 6.1%
0.1 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 2.1𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 54𝑖𝑛
∆𝑡 = 4
To check net tension strain, as described in Section 21000𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 0.54 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛
7.5.2.4.3, the minimum thrust strain is calculated using (0.5 ∗ 50𝑖𝑛)3 + 0.061 ∗ 1850𝑝𝑠𝑖
the minimum dead load factor and the reduction factor for 0.1 ∗ 0.84 ∗ 20.4𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 54𝑖𝑛
+ 4
thrust at the crown (𝐾2 = 0.6). 50000𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 0.54 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛
(0.5 ∗ 50𝑖𝑛)3 + 0.061 ∗ 1850𝑝𝑠𝑖

𝑇𝐷 = 𝜂𝐸𝑉 (𝛾𝐸𝑉𝐾2 (𝑉𝐴𝐹)𝑃𝑠𝑝) 𝑜,

𝐷 + 2 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 50𝑖𝑛 ∗ 0.7%
2

54𝑖𝑛
𝑇𝐷 = 1.0(0.9 ∗ 0.6 ∗ 0.32 ∗ 2.1𝑝𝑠𝑖) ∆𝑡 = 0.15𝑖𝑛 + 0.81𝑖𝑛 + 0.36𝑖𝑛
2
𝑇𝐷 = 22𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛 ∆𝑡 = 1.3𝑖𝑛

𝜀𝑐 ∆𝑡 ≤ 𝛿𝐷𝑖
22𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛
= 2 1.3𝑛 ≤ 5% ∗ 48𝑖𝑛
21000𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 0.33 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛
103𝑙𝑏𝑓/𝑖𝑛 1.3𝑖𝑛 < 2.4𝑖𝑛
+ 2
50000𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 0.33 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛 1.3𝑖𝑛
= 2.7% < 5%
48𝑖𝑛
𝜀𝑐 = 0.9%

Deflection under sustained construction vehicle loading is

The hoop thrust strain is checked against the limit as expected to be less than the typical 5% limit.
described in Section 7.5.2.4.3. The resistance factor for
f) is taken from Table 7.5-2. The compression
yt) is taken from Table 7.2-3 for HDPE.
1.5 Global buckling
Global buckling is checked as described in Section
|𝜀𝑓 − 𝜀𝑐 | ≤ 𝜙𝑓 𝜀𝑦𝑡 7.5.2.5.

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 13

 Proceedings of the 20th Plastic Pipes Conference
PPXX
September 6-8, 2021, Amsterdam, Netherlands
𝑅ℎ = 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑔𝑒𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑦 1.7 Buoyancy
11.4 Since the maximum water table is below the pipe,
𝑅ℎ =
11 + 𝐷⁄12𝐻 buoyant force is not a concern.

11.4
𝑅ℎ = Conclusion
11 + 50𝑖𝑛⁄12 ∗ 2𝑓𝑡
The deflection of the specified 48 in. diameter HDPE pipe
𝑅ℎ = 0.87 under the maximum construction vehicle wheel loading is
expected to be 2.7%, less than the 5% limit.

𝑣 = 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜, estimated as 0.3 per Section

7.5.2.5 Limit State Demand-to-Capacity Ratio (DCR)
𝜀𝑏𝑐𝑘 = 𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 Thrust strain 1.1% / 4.1% = 0.28
Thrust plus 3.3% / 6.1% = 0.54
1 2 bending
1.2𝐶𝑛(𝐸𝑙𝑡 𝐼𝑝)3 𝜙𝑠 𝑀𝑠 (1 − 2𝜈) 3
𝜀𝑏𝑐𝑘 = [ ] 𝑅ℎ Deflection 2.7% / 5% = 0.55
𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝐸𝑙𝑡 (1 − 𝜈)2 Global buckling 1.1% / 15.9% = 0.07
Flexibility factor 0.042 in/lbf / 0.095 in/lbf = 0.44
𝜀𝑏𝑐𝑘
1 Buoyancy NA
4 2
1.2 ∗ 0.55 ∗ (21000𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 0.54 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛 ) 0.9 ∗ 1850𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ (1 − 2 ∗ 0.3) 3
3

= [ ]
2
0.33 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛 ∗ 21000𝑝𝑠𝑖 (1 − 0.3)2
∗ 0.87
𝜀𝑏𝑐𝑘 = 0.23 = 23%

𝜀𝑐 ≤ 𝜙𝑏𝑐𝑘 𝜀𝑏𝑐𝑘

1.1% ≤ 0.7 ∗ 23%

1.1% ≤ 15.9%

1.6 Flexibility factor

The flexibility factor is checked as described in Section
7.5.2.6.

𝐹𝐹 = 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝐷2
𝐹𝐹 = ≤ 0.095 𝑖𝑛⁄𝑙𝑏𝑓
𝐸𝑠𝑡 𝐼𝑝
(50𝑖𝑛)2
𝐹𝐹 = 4
110000𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 0.54 𝑖𝑛 ⁄𝑖𝑛
𝐹𝐹 = 0.042𝑖𝑛/𝑙𝑏𝑓 ≤ 0.095 𝑖𝑛⁄𝑙𝑏𝑓

Copyright © 2021 by (Babcanec, J., Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.) 14