Atv-Dvwk M 127 e pt2 Appx5 9

ATV-DVWK-M 127 E, Part 2
Appendix 5
Bending moment and normal force coefficients nq, mq and elastic
deformation δv,el of the liner under earth and traffic loads qv and qh
(Old Pipe Conditions III).
Explanatory notes
1. Arithmetical model of the liner-old pipe system

• Double symmetric loading through earth and traffic loads
• External water pressure: treatment as for Condition II, comp. Appx. A4
• 90° FEM model, even deformation condition
• Exclusion of tensile and tangential forces between liner and old pipe (friction-free contact
• Constant directionally true earth and traffic loads qv and qh
• Iteration of the non-linear compressive bending and contact problem
• Load factor 2, following successful iteration the stress resultants are divided by 2
• Crown of liner or the invert relevant (coefficients are the same size)
2. Parameters
• Elasticity modulus of the liner EL = 2000 N/mm2
For EL < 2000 N/mm2 the coefficients mq lie on the safe side, however produce larger elastic
deformation δv,el.
With 2000 N/mm2 < EL ≤ ca. 2300 N/mm2 mq is exceeded by a maximum of 10 %.
• Arithmetical earth pressure coefficient qv/qh = K2’ = 0.2
With K2’ > 0.2 small stresses result, for K2’ < 0.2 the following diagrams are invalid.
• Link eccentricities crown eJ = +0.25 ⋅ s (outwards), springers eJ = -0.25 ⋅ s (inwards), larger
eccentricities lead to smaller stresses.
• The thicknesses of the old pipe walls s are selected unfavourably as minimum value:
DN 200 250 300 400 500 600

s 20 mm 23 mm 25 mm 30 mm 40.5 mm 43.5 mm
For sexist > s the coefficients mq lie on the safe side; for 0.9 ⋅ s < sexist the coefficients mq apply
approximately; for sexist < 0.9 ⋅ s the following diagrams are invalid.
• Local prestrain of the liner with earth and traffic loads has only a slight influence and is therefore
neglected. Therefore w v = 0 applies.
• Articulated ring prestrain w AR,v = 0.3 % and 6 % of the liner radius (ovalisation
• Annular gap w s = 0
Larger annular gaps have lead to smaller stresses with loadings qv and qh and are therefore are to be
neglected (as opposed to the load case external water pressure pe, comp. Appx. A4).
3. Interpolation of coefficients
• Normal force coefficient nq:
intermediate values may be interpolated linearly
• Bending moment coefficients mq:
non-linear interpolation (see example)
58 January 2000
Example for the non-linear interpolation of m-coefficients:
wAR,v / rm · 100 % =
mq
6
Reading 3
0
20 40 60 qv [kN/m2]
Input: 54 kN/m2
Diagram A5.1/1: Bending moment coefficients mq for liners under earth and traffic loads pv, old
pipe DN 200, Old Pipe Condition III; liner
EL = 2000 n/mm2; soil SBh = 2.5 N/mm2
0,3
Old Pipe Condition DN 250
sL [mm] =
0,2
mq
10
0,1 7.5
0,0
0 40 80 120 160 200
q v [kN/m 2]
January 2000 59
0,25
Old Pipe Condition III DN 300
0,20
sL [mm] =
0,15
mq
10
0,10 wAR,v / rm · 100 %

7.5 6
0,05 3
5 0
0,00
0 40 80 120 160 200
q v [kN/m2]
0,25
0,20 sL [mm] =
0,15
mq
15
0,10 wAR,v / rm · 100 % =
12.5
6
0,05 10
3
0
0,00
0 40 80 120 160 200
qv [kN/m2]
60 January 2000
0,20
0,15
sL [mm] =
wAR,v / rm · 100 % =
mq
0,10 15
12.5 6
0,05
10 3
7.5
0
0,00
0 40 80 120 160 200
q v [kN/m 2]
0,20
sL [mm] =
0,15
20
mq
0,10 wAR,v / rm · 100 %

=
15
6
0,05 3
10 0
0,00
0 40 80 120 160 200
qv [kN/m2]
January 2000 61
-0,5
Old Pipe Condition III
wAR,v / rm · 100 % =
-0,4
qv = 40 kN/m2
6
-0,3
3
nq
-0,2 0
-0,1
0,0
15 20 25
rL / sL
Diagram A5.1/7: Normal force coefficients nq for liners under earth and traffic loads pv, old pipe
DN 200 to DN 600, Old Pipe Condition III;
liner EL = 2000 n/mm2; soil SBh = 2.5 N/mm2, loading qv = 40 kN/m2
-0,6
wAR,v / rm · 100 % =
-0,5
2
6 qv = 80 kN/m
-0,4
3
-0,3
nq
-0,2
-0,1
0,0
15 20 25
rL / sL
Diagram A5.1/8: Normal force coefficients nq for liners under earth and traffic loads pv, old pipe
liner EL = 2000 n/mm2; soil SBh = 2.5 N/mm2, loading qv = 80 kN/m2
62 January 2000
20
Old Pipe Condition III DN 200 - DN 300
wAR,v / rm · 100 %
=
15 6
7,5
3
dv,el [%]
0
10
sL [mm] = 5 10
5
0
0 40 80 120 160 200
2
qv [kN/m ]
Diagram A5.1/9: Elastic defomation δv,el for liners under earth and traffic loads pv, old pipe DN
200 to DN 300, Old Pipe Condition III;
liner EL = 2000 n/mm2; soil SBh = 2.5 N/mm2
20
15 wAR,v / rm · 100
%=
6 15
dv,el [%]
10 3
0
sL [mm] = 10 20
5
0
0 40 80 120 160 200
qv [kN/m2]
Diagram A5.1/10: Elastic defomation δv,el for liners under earth and traffic loads pv, old pipe DN
liner EL = 2000 n/mm2; soil SBh = 2.5 N/mm2
January 2000 63
0,25
O ld Pipe Condition III DN 200
s L [m m ] = w AR,v / r m · 100 % =
0,20
3
10
0,15 0
6
mq
7.5 3
0,10 0
6 3
0,05
5 0
0,00
0 40 80 120 160 200
q v [kN/m 2 ]
Diagram A5.2/1: Bending moment coefficients mq for liners under earth and traffic loads qv, old
EL = 2000 n/mm2; soil SBh = 5 N/mm2
0,20
wAR,v / rm · 100 %6=
0,15 sL [mm] = 3
mq
10 0
0,10
6
3
7,5
0,05 0 6
3 0
5
0,00
0 40 80 120 160 200
qv [kN/m2]
64 January 2000
0,15
wAR,v / r m · 100 % = 6
sL [m m] =
0,10 3
mq
10 0
6
3
0,05
0
7.5
6
3 0
5
0,00
0 40 80 120 160 200
q v [kN/m 2]
0,20
wAR,v / rm · 100 % = 6
0,15
sL [mm] = 3
mq
0
0,10 6
15 3
0
12.5
0,05 6
3
0
10
0
7.5
0,00
0 40 80 120 160 200
qv [kN/m2]
January 2000 65
0,15
wAR,v / rm · 100 % =6
0,10
3
sL [mm] =
mq
0
6
15
0,05 3
6
12.5 0
3 0
10
7.5 0
0,00
0 40 80 120 160 200
qv [kN/m2]
0,15
sL [mm] =
0,10
mq
20
wAR,v / rm · 100
0,05 %
15
6
3
0
10
0,00
0 40 80 120 160 200
qv [kN/m2]
66 January 2000
-0,4
qv = 40 kN/m2
-0,3
wAR,v / rm · 100 % =
-0,2
nq
3
0
-0,1
0,0
15 20 25
rL / sL
Diagram A5.2/7: Normal force coefficients nq for liners under earth and traffic loads qv, old pipe
liner EL = 2000 n/mm2; soil SBh = 40 kN/m2
-0,4
qv = 80 kN/m2
-0,3
wAR,v / rm · 100 % =
6
-0,2
nq
0
-0,1
0,0
15 20 25
rL / sL
Diagram A5.2/8: Normal force coefficients nq for liners under earth and traffic loads qv, old pipe
liner EL = 2000 n/mm2; soil SBh = 80 kN/m2
January 2000 67
15
wAR,v / rm · 100 % =
10
dv,el [%]
6
3
0
sL [mm] = 5
5
10
7.5
0
0 40 80 120 160 200
2
qv [kN/m ]
Diagram A5.2/9: Elastic deformation δv,el for liners under earth and traffic loads qv, old pipe DN
liner EL = 2000 n/mm2; soil SBh = 5 N/mm2
15
wAR,v / rm · 100
10 %
6
dv,el [%]
3
0
sL [mm] = 10
5
20
15
0
0 40 80 120 160 200
2
qv [kN/m ]
Diagram A5.2/10: Elastic deformation δv,el for liners under earth and traffic loads qv, old pipe DN
liner EL = 2000 n/mm2; soil SBh = 5 N/mm2
68 January 2000
Appendix 6
Load-displacement curves for the determination of qv, qv,crit and
pe,crit of the old pipe-soil system
Explanatory notes
With the aid of the load-displacement curves of the four-link system it is possible,
• to read the snap-through loads of the system related to the horizontal bedding stiffness SBh and
• with specified loading p and deformation δv of an old pipe in Condition III to estimate the horizontal
bedding stiffness SBh of the old pipe-soil system.
The diagrams are given for the normal case of links with an eccentricity of eJ = s/4 (unbroken line) and the
special case central link eJ = 0 (dashed line. The less favourable case of central links is to be assumed
with a poor condition of the old pipe (corrosion, spalling etc.).
In all cases the radius/wall thickness ratio is assumed to be s/ri = 0.15. The curves apply as approximation
also for divergent conditions.
The particularly small results of max (pV/SBh) with traffic loads are justified in that, in accordance with ATV-
DVWK-A 127E no side pressure is applied from pV. In justified exceptional cases a side pressure can be
assumed (e.g. smaller nominal widths and greater covering) - in this case the traffic load pV can be added
to the earth load as an approximation.
Intermediate values with small divergence from the specified exceptions may be interpolated.
Assumptions:
All curves in the elastic soil condition are dependent on SBh. with plastic soil conditions (steeply falling
branch of the curve) the assumption of SBh = 5 N/mm2 is met.
• Earth pressure qv only (without traffic loads)

Diagram A6/1: Soil Group 2 with K2 = 0.3 and ϕ’ = 30°
• Traffic loads pv
(simultaneously effective: pE = 20 kN/m2)
Diagram A6/4: Soil Group 2 with K2 = 0.3 and ϕ’ 30°
• External Water pressure pe

(simultaneously effective: pE = 20 kN/m2)
January 2000 69
0,07
eJ = s/4
0,06
0,05
qv / SBh
0,04
wv = 0% eJ = 0
0,03
2%
0,02
4%
0,01 6%
0
0 5 10 15 20
δv [%]
Diagram A6/1: Load displacement curves of the four-link ring for earth loads qv
pv = 0 (low lying pipes); Soil Group 2; independent of SBh
0,07
0,06
eJ = s/4
0,05
0,04
qv / SBh
0,03
wv = 0%
0,02
2%
4% eJ = 0
0,01 6%
0
0 5 10 15 20
δv [%]
pv = 0 (low lying pipes); Soil Group 3; in the plastic range valid for SBh = 5
N/mm2 only
70 January 2000
0,008
0,006
pV / SBh
wv =
0,004 0%
eJ = s/4
2%
0,002 4%
6% eJ = 0
0,000
0 5 10 15 20
δv [%]
pE = 20 kN/m2, Soil Group 1; valid for SBh = 5 N/mm2
0,008
0,006
wv =
pV / SBh
0,004
0%
eJ = s/4
2%
0,002 4%
6%
eJ = 0
0,000
0 5 10 15 20
δv [%]
January 2000 71
0,4
eJ = s/4
wv = 0%
0,3 2%
pa / SBh
0,2
eJ = 0
0,1 4%
6%
0,0
0 5 10 15 20
δv [%]
Diagram A6/5: Load displacement curves of the four-link ring with external water pressure pe
0,4
0,3
eJ = s/4
wv = 0%
pa / SBh
0,2
2%
0,1 eJ = 0
4%
6%
0,0
0 5 10 15 20
δv [%]
Diagram A6/6: Load displacement curves of the four-link ring with external water pressure pe
72 January 2000
Appendix 7
Details on static calculation (Check list)
1. Old pipe
Material ______________
Geometry:
Circular profile Nominal width DN ________________ mm
Oval profile Diameter B/H ________________ mm
Other profile Precise dimensions and radii s. separate sheet
s ________________ mm
General description of damage (comp. ATV-M 143-1):

Invert washout _________________________________
Longitudinal crack at crown _________________________________
Transverse cracks _________________________________
Fragment formation _________________________________
Pipe defects maximum elongation: ________________ mm
Other damage _________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
Estimation of the bearing capability (mark as applicable):

Old Pipe Condition I: old pipe alone capable of bearing
Old Pipe Condition II: old pipe-soil system alone capable of bearing
Old Pipe Condition III: old pipe-soil system no longer capable of bearing
long-term
General description of possible existing old pipe deformation:

________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
2. Rehabilitation method ________________________________________
(Designation s. ATV-M 143-3) ________________________________________
Peculiarities ________________________________________
________________________________________
(e.g.: position of seam, U-point with U-liners, weakening through naps etc.)
3. Geometric liners
With circular profiles: mean radius rL __________________ mm

With oval profiles: mean crown radius __________________ mm
Mean wall thickness sL __________________ mm
January 2000 75
4. Material parameters of the liner
Liner material _________________________________________

Modulus of elasticity of the liner, short-term ______________ N/mm2
long-term ______________ N/mm2
If required tensile strength σT, long-term ______________ N/mm2

Bending tensile strength σbT, long-term ______________ N/mm2
Bending compressive strength σbC, long-term ______________ N/mm2
If required elongation at rupture εP _______________%
5. Loads, soil characteristic values (With Old Pipe Condition III only and, possibly, to
limit between Old Pipe Conditions I and II)
Traffic load ______________

Cover above pipe crown max h= ______________ m
min h = ______________ m
Soil in the pipeline zone
Elasticity modulus E2 = ______________ N/mm2
Angle of internal friction ϕ’ = ______________ °
6. Effects
Groundwater above pipe invert max hW,Inv = ______________ m

Locally limited prestrain with circular profiles:
i.a.w. Fig.6a, depth: wv/rL ⋅ 100% = ______________ %1)
spread: 2ϕ1 = ______________ ° (usually 40°)
posn. ϕv (pipe invert = 180°) ______________ ° (usually 180°)
Locally limited prestrain with oval profiles
i.a.w. Fig. 9, depth: wv/rL ⋅ 100% = ______________ %1)
spread: 2ϕ1 = ______________ ° (usually 30°)
posn. ϕv = ______________ ° (usually ≅ 18°)3)
Articulated ring prestrain (“ovalisation”
i.a.w. Fig. 6b, with Old Pipe Condition II or III):
wAR,v/rL ⋅ 100% = ______________ %
Gap width i.a.w. Fig. 6c: ws/rL ⋅ 100% = ______________ %
Heat effect: cooling ∆υ < 0 ______________ K
warming ∆υ > 0 ______________ K
Internal pressure: pi = ______________ bar
Wall thickness divergence: ∆sL/sL ⋅ 100% = ______________ %
Possibly internal stress: σE = ______________ N/mm2
______________
1)
Without precise measurements as a rule ≥ 2%
2)
As a rule 0.5 % of the springer radius
3)
As a rule in the centre of a flat range
76 January 2000
Appendix A8/1
Calculation examples for the structural condition
drawing-in of the pipe string
• Example 1 (Case1)
A liner DN 300 made from HDPE, Series 4 (PN 6) is reduced in cross-section at the edge of the trench and is
drawn into a vitrified clay pipe.
Given: height difference hOC = 1.8 m, trench length lOC = 10m
total length of pipe section L = 100 m
friction coefficients µP ≅ 0.1 (rolling friction, if necessary confirmed in a test)
slope of old pipe ϕP ≅ 0°, ground ϕG ≅ 0°
clearance between old pipe and liner ∆h ≅ 0
liner: γL = 9.4 kN/m3; dL,e = 355 mm; dL,i = 314.8; sL = 20.1 mm
stress-dependent short-term E moduli:
σ = 3 N/mm2; Eσ=3 = 970 N/mm2; σ = 15 N/mm2; Eσ=15 = 500 N/mm
lever arm for fixing in the reduction machine a2 ≅ 1 m
Material parameters, buckling limiting values:
R K,perm = 1.34 ⋅
(355 − 20.1) 2 = 7477 mm (5.1)
20.1
355
ε K,perm = ⋅ 100% = 2.37% < 3% (5.2), Table 3
2 ⋅ 7477
σ K,perm = 13.4 N / mm 2 Table 3
970 − 500
E σ = 970 + ⋅ (13.4 − 3) = 564 N / mm 2 (5.3a)
3 − 15
564 − 970
a= = − 0.4186 (5.4)
970
970 − 0.4186 3
Em = ⋅ = 657 N / mm 2 (5.4)
3 0.4186 / 2 + 0.4186 + ln(1 − 0.4186 )
2
Bending moments:
IQ =
π
64
( )
⋅ 0.355 4 − 0.3148 4 = 2.97 ⋅ 10 − 4 m 4 (5.6b)
1 .8
M1,h = 6 ⋅ 657 ⋅ 10 3 ⋅ 2.976 ⋅ 10 − 4 ⋅ 0 21.1 kNm (5.6a)
10 2
M2,h = − 21.1 kNm (5.6a)
π
( )
A Q = ⋅ 0.355 2 − 0.3148 2 = 0.0211 m 2
4
(5.7d)
_
gL = 0.0211 ⋅ 9.4 = 0.199 kN / m (5.7c)
− 10 2 + 1.8 2
g' L = 0.199 ⋅ = 0.202 kN / m (5.7b)
10
0.202 ⋅ 10 2
M1,g = M2,g = − = − 1.68 kNm (5.7a)
12
January 2000 77
Bearing forces
−
21.1
A1 ≅ = 29.7 kN (5.8)
2 ⋅ 0.355
10 1 .8
A 1 = 29.7 − 0.202 ⋅ + 12 ⋅ 657 ⋅ 10 3 ⋅ 2.97 ⋅ 10 − 4 ⋅ = 32.8 kN (5.9)
2 10 3
−
21.1
A2 = = 21.1 kN (5.10)
1 .0
10 1. 8
A 2 = 21.1 + 0.202 ⋅ + 12 ⋅ 657 ⋅ 10 3 ⋅ 2.97 ⋅ 10 − 4 ⋅ = 26.4 kN (5.11)
2 10 3
Tensile forces
Z g ≅ 0.199 ⋅ 100 ⋅ 0.10 = 1.99 kN (5.12a)

Z M ≅ (29.7 + 32.8 + 21.1 + 26.4) ⋅ 0.10 = 11.0 kN (5.12b)
Zβ = 0 (5.12c)
ΣZ ≅ 1.99 + 11.0 + 0 = 13.0 kN (5.12d)
Stresses, pulling head
Welding factor α w = 1.0

Net cross − sec tion Q Q,n = 0.80 ⋅ A Q = 0.0168m 2
13.0
σT = = 774 kN / m 2 = 0.774 N / mm 2
0.0168 ⋅ 1.0
Stresses on the old pipe (1)
2 ⋅ 2.97 ⋅ 10 −4
WQ = 3
= 1.68 ⋅ 10 −3 (5.14b)
0.355 m
13.0 21.1 − 1.68
σT = + −3
= 616 + 11565 = 12181 kN / m 2
0.0211 1.68 ⋅10 (5.14a)
= 12.18 N / mm 2
σ C = − 11.56 N / mm 2 ( without N − component ) (5.14c)
Elongation verification at the old pipe (1)
12.18
εT = ⋅ 100% = 2.44% < 3% = ε perm (5.15)
500
11.56
εC = ⋅ 100% = 2.05% < 2.37% = ε K,perm (5.16)
564
78 January 2000
Elongation verification at the edge of the trench (2)
Z 2 = ΣZ − ( A 1 + Ā1) ⋅ µ P ≅ 13.0 − (29.7 + 32.8) ⋅ 0.10 = 6.75 kN
6.75 1 − 21.1 − 1.681

εT = + −3
= 320 + 13550 = 13870 kN / m 2
0.0211 1.68 ⋅ 10 (5.14a)
= 13.87 kN / m 2
13.87
εT = ⋅ 100% = 2.77% < 3% = ε perm
500
σ C = − 13.55 N / mm 2 ( without N − component )

13.55
εC = − ⋅ 100% = 2.40% < 2.37% = ε K,perm
564
• Example 2 (Case 2)
A liner DN 300 made from HDPE, Series 4 (PN 6) is drawn into a concrete pipe DN 400 over a trestle at the
edge of the trench.
Given: total length of the pipe section L = 100 m

friction coefficient µ = 0.1 (rolling friction if necessary confirmed in tests)
height difference: hOC = 1.8 m
slope old pipe ϕP negligible. terrain ϕOC ≅ 0°
liner: γ= 9.4 kN/m3 ; dL,e = 355 mm; dL,i = 314.8 mm; sL = 20.1 mm
old pipe: di ≅ 400 mm
Separation between old pipe and liner:
∆h ≅ 400 - 355 = 45 mm
∆h/dL,e = 0.045/0.355 = 0.127
hOC/dL,e = 1.8/0/0.355 = 5.07
Minimum length of trench:
I 
min  OC  = 19 Diagram A1/5
 dL,e 
min IOC = 19 ⋅ 0.355 = 6.75 (5.17)
Bearing forces:
A1
= 90 Diagram A1/6
gL
gL = 0.199 kN / m see example 1
A 1 = 90 ⋅ 0.199 = 17.9 kN (5.18)
A2
= 50 Diagram A1/6
gL
A 2 = 50 ⋅ 0.199 = 10.0 kN (5.18)
January 2000 79
Appendix 8/2
Calculation example for the structural condition
filling of the annular space
A HDPE liner, Series 4 (PN 6) is to be bonded in a DN 500 concrete pipe. By filling with water and adjusting
the specific weight of the filler a subsidence of the liner on to the invert of the pipe is achieved (Case 2).
Given: annular gap between old pipe and liner 25 mm

water filling: γW = 10 kN/m3
specific weight of the filler: γF = 8 kN/m3
pressure height from slope of the old pipe: 0.25 m
+ additional overpressure with the injecting of the filler: 0.25 bar
liner: γL = 9.4 kN/m3; dL,e = 450 mm; dL,i = 399; sL = 25.5 mm
→rL = 250 - 25 - sL/2 = 212.25 mm
Criterion for subsidence, Eqn. (5.19):
π
ΣF = 9.4 ⋅ 0.0255 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 0.2122 ⋅ π + (10 ⋅ 0.399 2 − 8 ⋅ 0.450 2 ) ⋅ (5.19)
4
= 0.319 + 1.250 − 1.272 = 0.297 kN / m > 0 → Case A
Stress verification:
2
 450 
γF ' = 8 ⋅   = 8.99 kN / m
3
(5.21c)
 424 .5 
2
 399 
γ W ' = 10 ⋅   = 8.83 kN / m
3
(5.23c)
 424 .5 
The load combination dead-weight (g) + water filling (W) is relevant for the stress verification. Assumption:
rigid liner (= Bedding Case I)
relevant bending moments in the invert comp Appendix A2:
Mg = + 1.500 ⋅ 9.4 ⋅ 0.0255 ⋅ 0.2122 2 = + 0.0162 kNm / m (5.20a)

M W = + 0.750 ⋅ 8.83 ⋅ 0.2122 3 = + 0.0633 kNm / m (5.23a)
ΣM = + 0.0795 kNm/m
Combinations with the filling case (D) are not relevant here as MF reduces the bending moment from g + W:
MF = − 0.750 ⋅ 8.99 ⋅ 0.2122 3 = − 0.0644 kNm / m (5.21a)
Normal forces in the invert:
Ng = 0.500 ⋅ 9.4 ⋅ 0.0255 ⋅ 0.2122 = − 0.025 kN / m (5.20b)

N W = + 1.250 ⋅ 8.83 ⋅ 0.2122 3 = + 0.497 kN / m (5.23b)
ΣN = + 0.472 kN / m
Cross-sectional values:
A = 25.5 mm2/mm (6.19a)

W = 25.52/6 = 108.4 mm3/mm (6.19b)
αki = 1 + 25.5/(3 ⋅ 212.2) = 1.04; αke = 0.96 (6.18a,b)
80 January 2000
Stresses:
0.472 79.5
σ bT = + + 1.04 ⋅ = + 0.019 + 0.763 = + 0.782 N / mm 2
25.5 108.4
Short-term bending tensile strength of HDPE: σP = 21 N/mm2 Table 2
Safety:
21
γ bT = = 26.8 >> 2.0 = γ nec Table 4
0.782
The necessary safety with stress verification is clearly exceeded.
Deformation:
Hardening time of the fuller : t ≅ 10 h

Average hardening temperature: υ ≅ 40°C
Average material stress: σ = 2 N/mm2
→ modulus of creep of liner material EL (10h, 40°C) = 300 N/mm2
(comp. creep curves of material used)
3
12 ⋅ 0.297  212.2 
∆d v ≅ 0.1488 ⋅ ⋅  = 1.02 mm (5.24a)
300  25.5 
1.02
δv = ⋅ 100 % = 0.24 % (5.24b)
2 ⋅ 212.2
Deformation is to be taken into account as prestrains with the verification of the operating condition.
Stability verification:
Relevant load combination g + F + W + po (= 0.25 bar = 25 kN/m2):
Ng = − 0.500 ⋅ 9.4 ⋅ 0.0255 ⋅ 0.2122 = − 0.025 kN / m (5.20b)

NF = − 1.250 ⋅ 8.99 ⋅ 0.2122 2 = − 0.506 kN / m (5.21b)
NO ≅ − (8 ⋅ 0.25 + 25 ) ⋅ 0.225 = − 6.075 kN / m (5.22b)
N W = + 1.250 ⋅ 8.83 ⋅ 0.2122 2 = + 0.497 kN / m (5.23b)
ΣN = − 6.109 kN / m
ΣN 6.109
p e,exist = = = 28.8 kN / m 2 (5.26)
rL 0.2122
3
300  25.5 
p e,crit (10h, 40°C) = 3.0 ⋅ ⋅  = 0.130 N / mm
2
(5.25)
12  212.25 
p 130
γ exist = e,crit = = 4.51 > 2.0 = γ nec Table 4
p e,exist 28.8
The required safety against buckling is achieved during the filling.
January 2000 81
Appendix 9
Calculation example for the service condition
In the following the calculation process for a HDPE liner and a hose liner are shown for the rehabilitation of a
DN 500 old concrete and vitrified clay pipe.
The old pipe is carefully inspected beforehand so that quantitative statements on the prestrain are available.
The stability verifications for the hose liner are listed for comparative purposes for the Old Pipe Conditions I, II
and III.
The calculation process can be compared with the Advisory Leaflet through reference to formulas, tables,
diagrams and nos. of sections.
Input data Dimension Unit Long pipe Hose method

lining Old
Pipe Old Pipe Old Pipe Old Pipe
Condition I Condition I Condition II Condition III
Old pipe
Material - - Concrete Concrete Concrete Vitrified clay
Nominal width DN mm 500 500 500 500
Internal diameter di mm 500 500 500 500
External diameter de mm 600 600 600 581
Wall thickness s mm 50 50 50 40.5
Corrosion wear ∆s mm 5 0 0 ≈0
Bending tensile strength σP N/mm2 6 6 ≈0 ≈0
Bending compressive σdC N/mm2 >20 >20 >20 >20
strength
Eccentricity of the old pipe eJ/s - - - 0.25 0.25
joints
Liner
Material - - HDPE UP-SF3) UP-SF3) UP-SF3)
Radius (external) rL,e mm 225 250 250 250
Wall thickness sL mm 22.5 9 10 9
E-modulus, short-term EL N/mm2 800 3000
3)
3000
3)
3000
3)
long-term N/mm
2
110
1)
1800
3)
1800
3)
1800
3)
Bending tensile strength
short-term σbT N/mm2 21 2) 40 3) 40 3) 40 3)
long-term 2 2) 3) 3) 3)
σbT N/mm 14 20 20 20
Necessary safety
γbT,nec - 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5
Bending comp. strength
short-term
long-term σbC N/mm2 21 2) 50 3) 50 3) 50 3)
Necessary safety σbC N/mm2 14 2) 25 3) 25 3) 25 3)
γbC,nec - 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5
Imperfections
Prestrain old pipe
and/or liner wv/rL ⋅ 100% % 2 2 2 2 4)
Position ϕv ° 180 180 180 180 4)
Opening angle 2ϕ1 ° 40 40 40 40 4)
Gap width between old pipe
and liner ws/rL ⋅ 100% % 0.5 1 1 1
Articulated ring prestrain
(ovalisation) ws/rL ⋅ 100% % - - 3 6
82 January 2000
Input data Dimension Unit Long pipe Hose method

lining Old
Pipe Old Pipe Old Pipe Old Pipe
Condition I Condition I Condition II Condition III
Soil
Soil Group G - - - 3 3
Elasticity modulus for
pipeline zone E2 N/mm2 - - 8 8 5)
Internal friction angle ϕ’ ° - - 25° 25°
Cohesion c N/mm2 - - 0 0
Effects
Maximum height of ground-
water above pipe invert hW,Inv,max m 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.5
Unit weight of groundwater γW kN/m3 10 10 10 10
Unit weight of liner γL kN/m3 9.4 13.5 3) 13.5 3) 13.5 3)
Temperature change ∆υ °C - - - -
Coefficient of thermal
expansion 1/°C - - - -
αt
Old Pipe Condition s II + III:

Cover height m - - 4 4
h
Traffic load - - HGV 60 HGV 60
Area load - kN/m2 - - -
po
1)
Comp. Table 2 (long-term modulus for 2 years) and extrapolation for 50 years
2)
Comp. Table 2 and ATV-DVWK Standard ATV-DVWK-A 127E
3)
Unsaturated polyester resin, synthetic fibre reinforced (UP-SF); assumed arithmetical value
4)
The old pipeline is cracked before rehabilitation; application of wv necessary for external water pressure only
5) 2
For the example calculation it is assumed that the elasticity modulus in the pipeline zone E2 = 8 N/mm is taken from a soil experts
report.
January 2000 83
Section Dimension Unit Long pipe Hose method

(Formula No.) lining Old Pipe
Table No. Old Pipe Condition I
Diag. No. Condition I
Liner
Mean radius rL mm 213.8 245.5 245 245.5
Ratio rL/sL - 9.5 27.3 24.5 27.3
Local prestrain wv mm 4.3 4.9 4.9 -
Articulated ring prestrain
(ovalisation) wAR,v mm - - 7.35 14.7
Gap width ws mm 1.1 2.5 2.5 1/0 6)
Effects
External water pressure
(6.13) above liner invert pe kN/m2 45 45 45 258)
A 127E Unit weight of the soil γS kN/m3 - - 20 20
A 127E ............ under water γS’ kN/m3 - - - 10
(6.7b) Earth load pE kN/m2 - - 80 60
A 127E Traffic load p kN/m2 - - 12 12
A 127E ϕ - - - 1.2 1.2
A 127E pv kN/m2 - - 14.4 14.4
Load distribution
(6.8) SBh N/mm2 - - 4.8 4.8
A 127E K2 - - 0.2 0.2
(6.10a) λP - - - 0.75 0.75
(6.10a) λS - - - 1.08 1.08
(6.11a,b) qv kN/m2 - - 74.4 59.4
(6.11c,d) qh kN/m2 - - 17.9 13.2
(6.12) K2’ - - - 0.24 0.22
Old pipe-soil system
Related to specific
eccentricity eJ/s - - - 0.25 0.25
A6/2 Max (qv/SBh) ≅ max (pE/SBh) - - - 0.037 0.027
(6.1) qv,crit ≅ pE,crit N/mm2 - - 0.18 0.13
(6.4) γl = qv,crit/qv - - - 2.42 1.75
Table 4 γl,nec - - - 2.0 2.0
Intersectional forces from
pe
(6.13) External water pressure pe N/mm2 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.025
Bending moment coeff.
m-crown - - 7) +0.002 +0.004 +0.004 9)
m-invert - - 7) +0.045 +0.055 +0.073 9)
Normal force coefficient
n-crown - - 7) - - -
n-invert or: - - 7) - - -
(6.14a) lower limit min n - - -1.1 -1.1 -1.1
(6.14b) upper limit max n - - 0.8 0.8 0.8
Bending moment M
(6.15a) crown Nmm/mm +3.1 7) +5.4 +10.8 +6.0
(6.15a) invert Nmm/mm +82.1 7) +122.0 +148.6 +110.0
Normal force N
(6.15b) crown N/mm -95.5 7) - - -
(6.15b) invert or: N/mm -92.7 7) - - -
(6.15b) Estimate min N N/mm - -12.2 -12.1 -6.8
(6.15b) max N N/mm - -8.8 -8.8 -4.9
84 January 2000

(Formula No.) lining Old Pipe Old Pipe Old Pipe
Table No. Old Pipe Condition I Condition II Condition iii
Cross-sectional values of
the liner
(6.19a) Area A mm2/mm 25.5 9.0 10.0 9.0
(6.19b) Resistance moment W mm3/mm 108.4 13.5 16.67 13.5
(6.18a) αki 1.040 1.012 1.014 1.012
(6.18b) αke 0.960 0.988 0.986 0.988
Stresses from pe
(6.17a) Crown, internal σi N/mm2 -0.39 -0.57 +0.23 -0.09
(6.17b) external σe N/mm2 -0.46 -1.75 -1.85 -1.20
(6.17a) Invert, internal σi N/mm2 +0.60 +8.17 +8.16 +7.71
(6.17b) external σe N/mm2 -1.35 -10.29 -10.00 -8.81
Stress verification for pe
(safety factors)
(6.22a) γbT - 23.5 2.45 2.45 2.59
Table 4 γbT,nec - 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5
(6.22b) γbD - 10.4 2.43 2.50 2.84
Table 4 γbD,nec - 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5
Intersectional forces from
qv
(6.11b) Vertical total load qv N/mm2 - - - 0.0594
A5.1/5+ Bending moment coeff. - - - - +0.025 10)
A5.2/5 m-crown, invert
A5.2/8 Normal force coeff. - - - - -0.10 11)
n-crown, invert
(6.15a) Bending moment M Nmm/mm - - - +89.5
crown, invert
(6.15b) Normal force N N/mm - - - -1.5
crown, invert
Stresses from qv
(6.17a) N/mm2 - - - +6.54
(6.17B N/mm2 - - - -6.72
Stress verification for qv
(safety factors)
(6.22a) γbT ,γbT,nec - - - - 3.06>1.5
(6.22b) γbC ,γbCnec - - - - 3.72>1.5
Interaction pe and qv
(6.22c) Verification for flexural
tension - - - - 1.01 ≅ 1
(6.22c) Verification for flexural
compression - - - - 0.87 < 1
Deformation
A5.1/10 + Elastic deformation mm 7.877) - - -
A5.2/10 δv,el % 1.84 2.2 2.0 2.912)
1/2 ⋅ (wv/rL) ⋅ 100% % 1.00 1.0 1.0 -
wARv/rL ⋅ 100% % - - 3.0 6.0
Deformation verification
(6.20) δv % 2.84 3.2 6.0 8.9
6.5.2 Reference value for δv,perm % 10 10 10 10
January 2000 85

(Formula No.) lining Old Pipe Old Pipe Old Pipe
Table No. Old Pipe Condition I Condition II Condition iii
Stability verification
(Safety factors)
(6.13) Ext. water pressure pe N/mm2 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.025
rL/sL - 9.5 27.3 24.5 27.3
Imperfections:
6.3.1.1 wv/rL ⋅ 100% % 2 2 2 2
D1 →Reduction κv - 0.90 0.68 0.70 0.68
wAR,v/rL ⋅ 100% % - - 3 6
D2 →Reduction κAR,v - 1.0 1.0 0.80 0.53
ws/rL ⋅ 100% - 0.5 1 1
(6.27) ∆ wv/rL ⋅ 100% - - - 0 0.288)
D3 - 0.96 0.63 0.65 0.59
→Reduction κs
(6.25) - 0.86 0.43 0.36 0.25
κv,s ≈ κv ⋅ κAR,v ⋅ κs
(6.24) - 15.87 36.9 33.9 36.9
(6.26) αF N/mm2 0.0107 0.0074 0.0102 0.0074
SL (long-term pipe stiffness)
(6.23) pe,crit N/mm2 0.147 0.117 0.124 0.068
(6.29) γl - 3.26 2.60 2.76 2.72
Tab.4 γl,nec - 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Vertical total load qv N/mm2 - - - 0.0744
D4 Coefficient αqv - - - - 1.9213)
(6.38) qv,crit N/mm2 - - - 0.222
(6.39) γl - - - - 2.99
Tab.4 γl,nec - - - - 1.5
Heat effects
∆υ K 0 0 0 0
(6.33) pυ N/mm2 0 0 0 0
(6.31) pυ,crit N/mm2 - - - -
(6.34) γl - - - - -
Tab. 4 γl,nec - 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Dead-weights
gL N/mm2 ≈0 ≈0 ≈0 ≈ 0 14)
(6.36) αF - - - - -
(6.35) gL,crit N/mm2 - - - -
(6.37) γl - - - - -
Tab. 4 γl,nec - 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Interaction qv and pe
Tab. 4 γl,nec(qv) - - - - 1.5
Tab. 4 γl,nec(pe) - - - - 2.0
s. above qv,avail N/mm2 - - - 0.0594
s. above pe,avail N/mm2 - - - 0.025
s. above Coefficient αqv - - - - 1.92
s. above qv,crit N/mm2 - - - 0.222
6.5.3.4
ws/rL ⋅ 100%
% - - - 0 6)
D3 - - - - 1.0
→reduction κs
(6.25) - - - - 0.43
(6.23) κv,s ≈ κv ⋅ κAR,v ⋅ κs N/mm2 - - - 0.117
(6.41) pe,crit - - - - 0.59 < 1
Interaction verification
6)
With Old Pipe Condition III the earth and traffic loads are set on the safe side with the gap width ws = 0 (comp 6.3.2.1).
7)
From electronic calculation (the coefficients of Appx. A4 for Old Pipe Conditions I and II do not apply for HDPE liners, comp. validity
range with deviating values for EL, Page A4/1).
8)
Load case external water pressure: verification as for Old Pipe Condition II (here however: WAR,v/rL ⋅ 100% = 6%, ws = 1% of rL plus
link ring expansion i.a.w. Eqn. (6.27).)
9)
The coefficient for groundwater are to be extrapolated for WAR,v/rL ⋅ 100% = 6% (to be calculated with the aid of curves for WAR,v/rL ⋅
100% = 0% and 3%, Old Pipe Conditions I and II or electronically).
10) 2 2
Interpolation of bending moment coefficient mq = 0.22 / 0.026 with SbH = 2.5/5% N/mm gives mq = 0.025 with SbH = 4.8 N/mm .
11) 2 2
Interpolation of normal force coefficient nq = -0.24 / -0.09 with SbH = 2.5/5% N/mm gives nq = -0.10 with SbH = 4.8 N/mm .
12) 2 2
Interpolation of vertical deformation with δv = 6.8 / 2.6% with SbH = 2.5/5% N/mm gives δv = 2.9% with SbH = 4.8 N/mm .
13) 2 2
Interpolation of the coefficient for qv,crit with αqv = 1.0 / 2.0 with SbH = 2.5/5% N/mm gives αqv = 1.92 with SbH = 4.8 N/mm .
14)
The dead-weight of the liner counteracts the external water pressure and, on the safe side, can be neglected here.
86 January 2000

Atv-Dvwk M 127 e pt2 Appx5 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Atv-Dvwk M 127 e pt2 Appx5 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATV-DVWK-M 127 E, Part 2

1. Arithmetical model of the liner-old pipe system

DN 200 250 300 400 500 600

Example for the non-linear interpolation of m-coefficients:

0,10 wAR,v / rm · 100 %

0,10 wAR,v / rm · 100 %

• Earth pressure qv only (without traffic loads)

• External Water pressure pe

General description of damage (comp. ATV-M 143-1):

Estimation of the bearing capability (mark as applicable):

General description of possible existing old pipe deformation:

2. Rehabilitation method ________________________________________

(Designation s. ATV-M 143-3) ________________________________________

With circular profiles: mean radius rL __________________ mm

4. Material parameters of the liner

Liner material _________________________________________

If required tensile strength σT, long-term ______________ N/mm2

Traffic load ______________

Groundwater above pipe invert max hW,Inv = ______________ m

Z g ≅ 0.199 ⋅ 100 ⋅ 0.10 = 1.99 kN (5.12a)

Stresses, pulling head

Welding factor α w = 1.0

Stresses on the old pipe (1)

σ C = − 11.56 N / mm 2 ( without N − component ) (5.14c)

Elongation verification at the old pipe (1)

Elongation verification at the edge of the trench (2)

Z 2 = ΣZ − ( A 1 + Ā1) ⋅ µ P ≅ 13.0 − (29.7 + 32.8) ⋅ 0.10 = 6.75 kN

6.75 1 − 21.1 − 1.681

σ C = − 13.55 N / mm 2 ( without N − component )

Given: total length of the pipe section L = 100 m

Separation between old pipe and liner:

Minimum length of trench:

Given: annular gap between old pipe and liner 25 mm

Criterion for subsidence, Eqn. (5.19):

relevant bending moments in the invert comp Appendix A2:

Mg = + 1.500 ⋅ 9.4 ⋅ 0.0255 ⋅ 0.2122 2 = + 0.0162 kNm / m (5.20a)

MF = − 0.750 ⋅ 8.99 ⋅ 0.2122 3 = − 0.0644 kNm / m (5.21a)

Normal forces in the invert:

Ng = 0.500 ⋅ 9.4 ⋅ 0.0255 ⋅ 0.2122 = − 0.025 kN / m (5.20b)

A = 25.5 mm2/mm (6.19a)

Short-term bending tensile strength of HDPE: σP = 21 N/mm2 Table 2

The necessary safety with stress verification is clearly exceeded.

Hardening time of the fuller : t ≅ 10 h

Relevant load combination g + F + W + po (= 0.25 bar = 25 kN/m2):

Ng = − 0.500 ⋅ 9.4 ⋅ 0.0255 ⋅ 0.2122 = − 0.025 kN / m (5.20b)

Input data Dimension Unit Long pipe Hose method

Input data Dimension Unit Long pipe Hose method

Old Pipe Condition s II + III:

Section Dimension Unit Long pipe Hose method

Section Dimension Unit Long pipe Hose method

Section Dimension Unit Long pipe Hose method

You might also like