Archive of SID

Determination of Design Parameters in

Large Size Reinforced Polyethylene Pipes
Mohamad Reza Shishesaz*
Petroleum University of Technology, Tehran-15996, I.R. Iran
Received 19 May 2002; accepted 24 November 2002

ABSTRACT
n this paper, large size polyethylene (PE) pipes (1000 mm in diameter), buried underground, are analyzed to determine the effect of both internal and external pressure on
their mechanical behaviour. The effect of surrounding soil and temperature change
caused during pipe installation and operation is also included. To determine the real
cause of failure (which occurs during operation), two types of reinforcement have been
considered. The first model deals with a pipe reinforced by external PE rings (core tube)
and in the second, a corrugated layer is used as a reinforcement. The failure cause in
each case has been analyzed and the relationship between pipe thickness, maximum
pipe stress, temperature drop, internal pressure, pipe depth, and elasticity of foundation
has been investigated to set a design basis for any further applications.

Iranian Polymer Journal, 12 (2), 2003, 109-114

Key Words:
polyethylene;
core tube;
corrugated;
elastic foundation.

INTRODUCTION

(*)To whom correspondence should be addressed.

E-mail: [email protected]

At present, water supply and sewerage systems are among leading

industries throughout the world [1].
In each type of usage, such as supplying water to villages and urban
areas, agricultural, or sewerage disposal, there is a need for certain

standards and design characteristics

which has to be met. Since world
population is widely increasing, then
a need for expanding towns and
cities has been resulted into a noticeable growth in pipe production.
Among these, pipes made from poly-

www.SID.ir

Shishesaz M.R.

Determination
Design Parameters in Large Size...
Archive
of ofSID

meric material have increased in a large scale, due to

their excellent resistance to environmental effects, corrosion, and lower costs of production and maintenance
[2]. There is no doubt that polymers have lower
strength than metals. Therefore, for those polymeric
pipes buried underground, reinforcement must be considerd to increase the ring stiffness, as well as strength,
to withstand any imposed internal and/or external pressure. One way of reaching this goal is to impose either
external rings around the pipe periphery or by attaching
a wavy (corrugated) layer on the outside wall.
For a proper selection of buried pipes, many parameters such as soil properties, and its pressure on the pipe
must be carefully examined.
Soil Properties
According to the existing standards, soil properties
used underneath, around, and above the pipe, must be
carefully selected [3,4]. In order to determine the proper dimensions of the trench path, as shown in Figure 1,
one must carefully study soil composition and its
integrity, in which the pipe lies. Since soil density is
directly proportional to its strength, then its effect
becomes an important parameter in designing underground pipes.

Pipe Flexibility
For the above reasons, several types of materials are
being used in pipe industry, where each type must satisfy certain conditions such as, strength, rigidity,
elasticity, and durability, etc. Hence, one can categorize
pipes into two groups, rigid and flexible. A pipe is considered to be flexible if it can sustain a load and show
flexibility as much as 2% of its initial diameter without
any drastic failure. Other than that, the pipe is considered to be rigid [5].
In flexible types, such as thin wall cast iron or polyethylene pipes, the radial deflection or buckling of the
wall becomes an important factor in pipe design or
selection. In rigid pipes, the stresses induced by the
external and/or internal loading become the dominant
factor for their usage. For polyethylene material, relationship between the stresses and strains can be considered to be linearly elastic if the induced displacement is
less than 10% of the original length [6,7]. This assumption is applied to each model in this research, and its
validity is justified throughout the results.
Design Theory
Any model or design theory that can best predict the
failure of an object, will be suitable for simulation of
stresses produced by the loading. As mentioned earlier,
in flexible pipes such as steel or polyethylene, controlling displacement, stresses and buckling are the important factors that must be considered throughout the
design process [8]. One of the most frequently used
equations in the design of plain polyethylene pipes (no
reinforcement), is the Sprangler-Iowa [9] formula. This
formula is used in a variety of ways, but it is generally
presented as:
x = ( KWR 3 ) / ( EI + 0.06 E R 3 )

(1)

where, E depends on the soil type. For buried pipes,

this value increases with the soil density and/or the pipe
depth.
A simplified state of the above formula is that in
which one replaces the amount of EI with the pipes
rigidity. This formula can be written as [4]:

x = KWR 3 / [ D 3 PS /(53.77 ) + (0.061E R 3 )]

(2)

Minimum values of pipe rigidity are presented in

ASTM and AASHTO standards [5].
Figure 1. Standard set up of a buried pipe.

110

Iranian Polymer Journal / Volume 12 Number 2 (2003)

www.SID.ir

Shishesaz M.R.
Archive
of SID

Determination of Design Parameters in Large Size...

conjugated
layer

core tube

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. Models of reinforced pipes, (a)- reinforced by core tubes, and (b)- reinforced by a corrugated layer.

Wall Buckling
Buckling phenomena can influence any flexible pipe
design, wherein pressure is exerted externally either by
the soil, hydrostatic pressure, or any relative vacuum.
High flexibility will result into lower resistance against
buckling. In buckling formula, it is assumed that the
external pressure is exerted uniformly along the wall
circumference at the outside wall. According to
ASSHTO standard, the suggested formula for critical
load differs slightly from the assumption above and it is
given by [5].
Pcr= 9.24(R/Ap)(CwEEI/0.149R3)0.5

(3)

Modelling of Polyethylene Pipes

Due to lack of information available on reinforced
polyethylene pipes with large diameters, it is required
to determine the stress propagation and any other
design factors, to set a ground basis for any future
application of such pipes. It should be emphasized that
the current modelling is based on a size that is mostly
available in Iran s market. Although these pipes are not
designed to take any internal pressure, they are subjected to a hammer shock, at no will, during the first minutes of operation. For this reason, to prevent excessive
loading of the pipe, the critical values of the following
parameters must be clarified.
a) Maximum deflection in the pipe.
b) Maximum stresses in the pipe.
c) Minimum thickness required to bear the load
imposed on the pipe.
Undoubtedly, in pipe design, if the above parame-

ters are not carefully selected (or studied), failure will

result in weak areas or areas, where stress concentration is highest. In this paper, the effects of several
parameters such as pipe depth and thickness, temperature drop, and inside pressure, are studied on the stresses induced in the pipe. Furthermore, a trial is made to
explain the real cause of failure for such pipes in the field.
To reach this goal, modelling is accomplished in a
few steps, where in each case the effect of a new
parameter is included to optimize the model which will
best suit the physical situation. These steps are as follow:
(a) Modelling of a plain polyethylene buried pipe and
comparing the results with those obtained from eqn (2)
to justify the assumptions made throughtout the modelling.
(b) Modelling of a reinforced pipe (either by core tubes
or by a corrugated layer) as shown in Figure 2. Modelling is accomplished for a case where the pipe is buried
one meter below the ground surface.
(c) Modification of the model in (b) to include the
effect of the pipe joints and soils elasticity.
(d) Application of the internal pressure, burial depth,
and temperature drop (between the two working times
of installation and operation).
In order to study pipe s failure, Von Mises stress is
chosen to be the limiting stress. The magnitude of this
stress is given by:

(1 2 ) 2 + ( 2 - 3 ) 2 + (1 - 3 ) 2

S=

(4)

To prevent failure, it is assumed that Von Mises

111
www.SID.ir

Iranian Polymer Journal / Volume 12 Number 2 (2003)

Shishesaz M.R.

Determination
Design Parameters in Large Size...
Archive
of ofSID

Pipe wall
Corrugated
layer
Mould dimensions

mm

inch
1.5

inch

Pipe dimensions

Number of corrugations
Mould block length
Pitch
Corrugation height
Inside dia.
Outside dia.
Sidewall angle
Crest width
Trough width
Crest fillet rad.
Trough fillet rad.

203.2
8.00
135.47
5.333
62.58
2.464
1052.84
41.450
1178.00
46.376
6.0
81.54
3.210
40.77
1.605
23.00
0.905
15.00
0.591

Pitch
Profile height
Inside dia.
Outside dia.
Crest width
Trough width
Crest wall thickness
Trough wall thickness
Sidewall thickness
Pipe lineer thickness
Cold plug dia.
Comper. Double wall thickness

Pipe shrinkage (%)

Liner compression factor
Density [lb/f t3. g/cm3]

2.5
0.800
0.96
59.933

Pipe properties

mm

132.08
5.200
74.28
2.924
39.370 1000.00
45.219 1145.55
79.51
3.130
39.75
1.565
6.80
0.265
11.00
0.433
8.90
0.350
6.00
0.236
40.380 1025.64
13.60
0.835
Units os noted

Figure 3. A cross section of the pipe and its corrugated layer.

stress must be smaller than the yield stress. That is,

S<y

(5)

For polyethylene pipes, a magnitude of 8 MPa is

used for yield stress throughout this analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

NISA Software has been used to determine the induced
stresses caused by the external and/or internal loading.
This program is a well known engineering software
that is widely used to solve both structural and fluid
problems. To model a problem, a wide number of elements are available which would enable the designer to
19
17

pipe depth = 1 m
inside pressure = 2.5 bar
pipe diameter = 1000 mm

15
13
11
9
7
5
7.5

8.5

9.5

10.5
11.5
12.5
Pipe thickness (mm)

) Von Mises stress for pipes reinforced by core tube; (

hoop stress for pipes with core tubes; (

(

13.5

14.5

) maximum

) Von Mises stress in plain pipes;

) maximum hoop stress in plain pipes.

Figure 4. Variation in maximum pipe stresses vs. pipe thickness.

112

model his problem properly. The software is capable of

analyzing both linear and non-linear problems. Time
dependent problems, fluid, and heat transfer problems,
can be solved as well. Modeling is performed using
DISPLAY III module where, upon successful application of the load and boundary conditions to the model,
a NISA file can be created. Running this file through
proper module (which depends on the type of analysis),
would lead into results which could be observed by
reading proper post files.
Using this software, the analysis is performed on
polyethylene pipes with a diameter of 1000 mm and a
modulus of elasticity E = 937 MPa [9]. The soil that
buries the pipes is considered to be clay with a proctor
density of 90-95%. For a reinforced pipe with core
tubes, a distance of 73 mm is used between any two
successive rings (which are located on the outside
wall). To analyze the pipe with a corrugated layer, the
same dimensions reported by the pipe manufacturer
were used (Figure 3). The internal pressure was
assigned to be 2.5 bar (250 kPa). This is the highest
water pressure (due to hammer shock) reported by
Sugar and Cane Company at the first minutes of operation. This company is one of the major users and suppliers of such products.
In order to verify the integrity of the model as well
as its initial assumptions, the deflection results for a
simple pipe (with no stiffener rings), were obtained and
compared to those associated with eqn (2). The precentage difference was found to be less than 2%. Moreover, for a reinforced pipe, the maximum radial displacement under an internal pressure of 2.5 bar, at T
= 60 C, and a depth of 1000 mm, was measured to
be almost 4 mm. This value is very small compared to
a diameter of 1000 mm. This result, along with the former, verifies the accuracy of the model and the initial
assumption made on its elastic behaviour.
Since pipes are exposed to direct sunshine for a
period of time before they are buried, they would warm
up. Hence, the temperature difference between the two
working times of installation and operation could be as
high as 60 C. This would impose additional stresses in
the pipe due to a drop in temperature.
Close examination of the post file results indicated
that the location of maximum stesses was next to the
second core tube adjacent to a pipe joint.
The variation in maximum Von Mises and hoop
stresses are shown as a funtion of thickness in Figure 4.
Using this figure, one can notice that for a wall thick-

Iranian Polymer Journal / Volume 12 Number 2 (2003)

www.SID.ir

Shishesaz M.R.
Archive
of SID

Determination of Design Parameters in Large Size...

15

inside diameter = 1000 mm

inside pressure = 2.5 bar
pipe depth = 1 m

14

inside pressure = 2.5 bar

pipe diameter = 1000 mm
pipe thickness = 8 mm
T = 60 C

14

12
13

10
12

8
11

10

4
7.5

8.5

9.5

10.5

9
200

11.5

400

Pipe thickness t,(mm)

(

) Von Mises stress in pipes with core tube; (

600

800

1000

Pipe depth, (mm)

) Von Mises stress in

) Maximum hoop stress in pipes with core tube; (

) maximum Von

corrugated pipes.

Mises in pipes with core tubes.

Figure 5. Variation in maximum Von Mises stresses vs. pipe

thickness.

Figure 7. Variation in maximum pipe stresses vs. pipe depth.

ness of 8 mm, the maximum hoops stress is 13.3 MPa,

where the maximum Von Mises stress happens to be
12.2 MPa. Comparison of these two stresses with that
of yield stress (8 MPa), indicates that if the pipe is
buried 1 m below the ground surface, at an internal
pressure of 2.5 bar, it can not withstand the induced
stresses, and hence, failure (in terms of bursting) might
happen. This has been actually the case, where bursting
failure has been reported in the farm, at the same location where the model has predicted. In order to compare the effect of reinforcement on the pipe stresses,

similar results (for a plain pipe), have been superimposed on the same figure. According to the results, the
reinforcement rings have greatly improved the mechanical behaviour of the pipe. Also, for load conditions
indicated on this figure, in order to prevent failure, the
wall thickness must be at least 12 mm to prevent any
excessive stress greater than that associated with the
yield point.
The results obtained on a pipe reinforced by external rings and those reinforced by a corrugated layer, are
shown in Figure 5. As noticed, under the same loading
conditions, the Von Mises stresses in a pipe reinforced
by a corrugated layer are less than those of a pipe reinforced by core tubes. Therefore, a corrugated pipe with
a diameter of 1000 mm can sustain the load easier compared to a pipe of similar diameter reinforced by core
tubes. This result has also been experienced in agricultural fields where under the same loading conditions,
failure (due to excessive stress) has only resulted into
bursting of those pipes reinforced by core tubes.
The relationship between maximum pipe stresses
vs. the internal pressure and burial depth are shown in
Figures 6 and 7. According to Figure 6, with a reduction in the internal pressure, both Von Mises and hoop
stresses are reduced linearly.
According to Figure 7, with the presence of an
internal pressure equal to 2.5 bar, an increase in depth
beyond 40 cm has almost no effect on stresses pro-

pipe depth = 1 m
pipe thickness = 8 mm
pipe diameter = 1000 m
T = 60 C

15
13

11
9
7
5
3
1
0.5
(

1.5
2
Inside pressure p, (bar)

) Maximum hoop stress in pipes with core tube; (

2.5
) maximum Von

Mises in pipes with core tubes.

Figure 6. Variation in maximum pipe stresses vs. inside pressure.

113
www.SID.ir

Iranian Polymer Journal / Volume 12 Number 2 (2003)

Shishesaz M.R.

Determination
Design Parameters in Large Size...
Archive
of ofSID

12

pipe depth = 1000 mm

inside pressure = 2.5 bar
pipe diameter = 1000 mm
pipe thickness = 8 mm

11.8

11.6

11.4

11.2

duced in a reinforced pipe through a corrugated layer is

less than those produced in a similar pipe stiffened by
core tubes (Figure 5).
- The maximum hoop and Von Mises stresses will
drop linearly as the internal pressure in pipe is
decreased (Figure 6).
- The induced stresses due to soil pressure (height
of the soil above the pipe) are much less than those produced by internal pressure (Figure 7).
- The stresses produced from a drop in temperature
(equal to 60 C) are much less than those created by an
internal pressure of 2.5 bar (Figure 8).

11
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

T ( C)
O

) Maximum hoop stress in pipes with core tube; (

) maximum Von

Mises in pipes with core tubes.

Figure 8. Variation in max stresses vs. temperature drop in

the pipe.

duced in the pipe (the results are for T= 60 C). As

indicated on both figures, the wall thickness is assumed
to be 8 mm. As mentioned earlier, for a pipe of
1000 mm in diameter, this thickness has a vast usage in
Iran s agricultural industry.
Figure 8 shows the relationship between the temperature drop and the induced stresses in the pipe. As
one can realize, the relationship is almost flat and
hence, in presence of an internal pressure equal to
2.5 bar, the change in stresses due to a drop in temperature is negligible compared to the cases produced by
the internal pressure.

CONCLUSION
According to the results, for polyethylene pipes of
1000 mm in diameter, when buried one meter below the
ground surface, one can conclude the following:
- Under an internal pressure of 2.5 bar, selection of
a wall thickness equal to 8 mm will result into excessive stress in the pipe (when reinforced through core
tubes), and hence, failure (even in terms of bursting)
might occur.
- Compared to a plain pipe, reinforcing the outside
wall through a corrugated layer, will result into a reduction of stresses as well as an increase in buckling
strength.
- For the same loading conditions, the stresses pro114

REFERENCES
1. Kolonko A. and Madryas C., Modernization of
underground pipes in towns in Poland, Infrastructure, 11, 215-220 (1996).
2. Goddard J.B., Structural design of plastic pipes, in
Advanced Drainage Systems Inc., Colombus, Ohio,
March (1983).
3. Goddard J.B., Plastic Pipe Design, Colombus, Ohio,
ADS, Technical note 4.103, 1-30, November (1994).
4. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 15th ed., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
(1990).
5. Teoh S.H. and Ong E.H., Tensile and pressure rupture behavior of flow-formed high density polyethylene pipes, Polymer, 36, 1, 101-107 (1995).
6. Shishehsaz M.R. and Donatelli A.A., Tensile properties of polyethylene blends, Polym. Eng. Sci., 21,
869-872, September (1981).
7. Han Liang-hao, Deng Yang-chun, Liu Ceng-dian,
The determination of J1c for polyethylene pipe
using non-standard arc-shaped specimen, Int. J.
Pres. Vessel Piping, 76, 644-651 (1999).
8. Moser A.P. Buried Pipe Design, McGraw Hill
(1990).
9. Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, 77, McGraw Hill,
531 (2000).

Iranian Polymer Journal / Volume 12 Number 2 (2003)

www.SID.ir