THERMOPLASTIC PRESSURE PIPE DESIGN AND SELECTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________________ 2

BACKGROUND INFORMATION _________________________________________________ 2

ENGINEERING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ______________________________________ 3

PRESSURE CAPACITY_______________________________________________________ 3
SAFETY FACTORS __________________________________________________________ 5
AWWA THERMOPLASTIC PIPE STANDARDS _________________________________ 6
SURGE PRESSURES _________________________________________________________ 8
CYCLIC FATIGUE CAPACITY________________________________________________ 9
HYDRAULICS______________________________________________________________ 11
EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION ___________________________________________ 12

INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS ____________________________________________ 16

JOINING___________________________________________________________________ 16
PRESSURE AND LEAKAGE TESTING ________________________________________ 17
APPURTENANCES _________________________________________________________ 19
REPAIRS __________________________________________________________________ 21

CONCLUSION ________________________________________________________________ 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY ______________________________________________________________ 22

APPENDIX A_________________________________________________________________A-1

APPENDIX B_________________________________________________________________B-1

APPENDIX C_________________________________________________________________C-1

C:\My Documents\Technical Report 7-2.doc

INTRODUCTION
Over the last thirty years, the underground piping market in North America has seen
tremendous growth in the use of thermoplastic materials. Benefits such as corrosion
resistance, improved hydraulics, and reduced installation costs have been paying large
dividends for owners of water, sanitary and storm sewer systems.

The most widely used and accepted of this group of non-metallic polymers is Polyvinyl
Chloride, also known as “PVC” or “vinyl”. Vinyl has a successful track record in
underground pipe applications dating back to the rebuilding of post-WWI Germany. It has
long been considered to be one of the most durable polymers for both underground and
aboveground piping systems.

The second most prominent thermoplastic used in the underground pipe market is
Polyethylene (PE). This material has been primarily used for gas piping and drainage
tubing before its recent introduction into the water and sewage force main markets.

Understanding the similarities and differences of PVC and PE is important in the proper
selection and specification of these two thermoplastic products for pressure service.
Essential pressure-pipe design considerations for both materials are examined in this
report.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

When designing any pressurized piping system, consideration must be given to the stress
created in the pipe wall due to the internal operating pressure. Metallic materials used in
pressure pipes are elastic, i.e., the relations between stress and strain are linear, and
independent of loading time. However, plastics are different. Their strain is not
proportional to stress or independent of loading time.

Even though plastics (such as PVC and PE) do not behave elastically , most of the design
equations that have been derived on the assumption of elastic behavior can still be used,
provided the strength values used are appropriately established. The use of elastic
equations requires the selection of strength values that account for long-term loading
response. For PVC and PE pipe materials such values are determined from long-term
pressure tests conducted on pipe specimens made from the material under evaluation.
Pipe testing is performed in accordance with ASTM D1598, “Time to Failure of Plastic Pipe
Under Constant Internal Pressure.” Sufficient pressures versus time-to-failure points are
obtained to plot a line on log stress versus log time-to-failure coordinates. In order for a
thermoplastic material to qualify for pressure piping, the data must plot along a nearly
straight line. That straight line is defined mathematically and extrapolated to the 100,000-
hour intercept. This extrapolation procedure is detailed in ASTM D2837, “Obtaining
Hydrostatic Design Basis for Thermoplastic Pipe Materials.” The resulting long-term
(extrapolated 100,000-hour) tensile strength values are categorized into Hydrostatic

2
Design Basis (HDB) values. The HDB values are appropriate for use in the elastic design
equations for determining either the pipe wall thickness or selecting the pipe pressure
rating/class needed.

All of the PVC and PE pipe standards referenced throughout this report assign pressure
capacity on the basis of HDB values generated in accordance with ASTM D2837. Also, the
“PE” described in this report is actually high-density polyethylene (HDPE), but will be
referred to as simply “PE” throughout.

Figure 1
Tensile Strengths, psi
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
PVC-Short Duration Loading (ASTM D638)
PVC-Long Duration Loading (ASTM D2837)
PE-Short Duration Loading (ASTM D638)
PE-Long Duration Loading (ASTM D2837)

ENGINEERING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

PRESSURE CAPACITY

Short-term and long-term tensile strengths for thermoplastic pipe materials are determined
in accordance with ASTM standard test methods D638 and D2837, respectively. PVC is an
inherently stronger material offering 2.5 times more long-term tensile strength than PE.
(See Figure 1.)

One of the more common terms used to describe the allowable pressure for a
thermoplastic pipe is the term Pressure Rating (PR). The pressure rating is determined
by applying a safety factor of 2.0 against the long-term pressure capacity of the material.
(The details of calculating a product’s pressure rating are shown in Appendix A.)

The pressure ratings of the various thermoplastic pipe standards are listed in Table 1 and
provide a direct comparison of PVC and PE pressure pipes using an equivalent design

3
basis. The table shows the Dimension Ratio (DR) required for the pressure rating listed.
The DR is defined as the pipe outside diameter divided by its minimum wall thickness.
Some pipe standards use the term Standard Dimension Ratio (SDR) instead of DR. DR
and SDR are interchangeable. For ease of reference and consistency, the term DR will be
used throughout this report.

Table 1

Pressure Ratings of Thermoplastic Products

Dimension Ratio Required for Pressure Rating Listed

Pressure PVC 12454, HDB = 4000 psi PE 3408, HDB = 1600 psi
Rating ASTM AWWA ASAE ASTM ASTM ASAE
(psi) 1 2 3 4 5
D 2241 C905 S376.1 D 3035 F 714 S376.1
315 13.5 -- 13.5 -- -- --
305 -- 14 -- -- -- --
267 -- -- -- 7 -- --
250 17 -- 17 -- 7.3 --
235 -- 18 -- -- -- --
200 21 21 21 9 9 --
192 -- -- -- 9.3 9.3 --
165 -- 25 -- -- -- --
160 26 26 26 11 11 11
125 32.5 32.5 32.5 13.5 -- --
110 -- -- -- 15.5 15.5 --
100 41 41 41 17 17 17
80 -- 51 51 21 21 21
64 64 -- 64 26 26 26
50 -- -- 81 32.5 32.5 32.5
40 -- -- 93.5 -- 41 41

The Pressure Rating approach employed in the product standards shown in Table 1 is
common for water distribution/transmission systems and irrigation systems, but is not the
only design approach used in thermoplastic pressure pipe standards. When the intended
application is different, a different design approach may be adopted. For instance, the
safety factor for natural gas distribution is higher and is set at a more conservative value of
3.125 for all thermoplastic pipe materials. In the case of water distribution, including fire
protection, the safety factors typically employed are in the 2.0 to 2.5 range and have
proven to be most adequate.

In the AWWA C9006 standard for PVC water distribution pipe (4”-12”), a safety factor of
2.5 is used together with a built-in surge allowance. The allowance is the surge pressure
that results from a 2 feet per second (fps) instantaneous change in velocity. The term that

4
describes the allowable pressure in AWWA C900 is Pressure Class (PC). (The AWWA
C906 standard for HDPE pressure pipe uses the term Pressure Class as well. However,
the PCs are not interchangeable because the AWWA C906 standard uses a less
conservative design approach.) While the AWWA C900 standard is a PVC product
standard, the approach may be applied to PE to achieve an equivalently conservative
design result or for the purpose of comparative evaluation.

Table 2 lists the DRs required for the Pressure Classes shown. The values for PVC are
the ones listed in AWWA C900. The values for PE were calculated using the AWWA
C900 design approach. The calculation details are provided in Appendix B. Conversely, if
Pressure Class values were assigned to PVC using the AWWA C906 design approach,
the Pressure Class values would equal the Pressure Ratings shown in Table 1 for AWWA
C905 and ASTM D2241.

Table 2

Pressure Class Dimension Ratio Requirements

Dimension Ratio Required

Pressure Class* (psi) PVC 12454 PE 3408
HDB = 4000 psi HDB = 1600 psi
100 25 11
150 18 7.3
200 14 6.3
*As defined in AWWA C900

Tables 1 and 2 point out that for a given allowable pressure, the required DR for PE is
lower. This means the wall thickness required for a PE pipe will be greater than that for a
PVC pipe of the same size. The wall thickness difference is due to the fact that the long-
term tensile strength (as expressed through the ASTM D2837, Hydrostatic Design Basis –
HDB) for PVC is 2.5 times greater than that of PE. PE pressure pipes always require a
lower DR (thicker pipe wall) to compensate for PE’s lower strength.

SAFETY FACTORS

The use of different design approaches and safety factors in product standards may create
confusion for those wishing to compare one thermoplastic product to another. Equivalent
comparisons require an understanding of the design differences and selecting a common
safety factor. Figure 2 shows the safety factors provided in various pipe standards against
the product’s long-term pressure capacity. (Safety Factor = HDB ÷ Design Stress)

5
 Figure 2
Safety Factors

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
A B C-I

A: ASTM D25137 for thermoplastic gas pressure pipe (PE, PVC and others)
B: AWWA C900 for water distribution (PVC)
C: AWWA C905 for water transmission (PVC)
D: ASTM D2241 for water (PVC)
E: ASTM D3035 for various pressure applications (PE)
F: ASTM F714 for various pressure applications (PE)
G: ASAE S376.1 for irrigation applications (PE, PVC and others)
H: CSA B137.3 for water and other pressure applications (PVC)
I: AWWA C9068 for water distribution and transmission (PE)

AWWA THERMOPLASTIC PIPE STANDARDS

To provide a clear perspective on pressure capacity and safety factors, a broad range of
thermoplastic pressure pipe product standards were discussed in the previous sections.
This section will focus solely on municipal water distribution and transmission pipes. The
field of thermoplastic product standards narrows to three: AWWA C900, C905, and C906.
Table 3 lists some basic information about each of the standards.

Table 3

AWWA Thermoplastic Pipe Standards

Pipe Size Initial AWWA Board

Standard Range Approval
AWWA C900 4” – 12” June 8, 1975
AWWA C905 14” – 48” June 19, 1988
AWWA C906 4” – 63” June 21, 1990

6
 AWWA C900 has the longest track record of the three product standards. As
municipalities learned of the performance advantages of PVC, the popularity of the product
grew. According to a 1994 AWWA Research Foundation Report 9, the primary reasons
utilities cite for selecting PVC pipe (in order of importance) are corrosion resistance, life
expectancy, durability, and frictional head loss. Through AWWA the utilities worked with
industry to develop a standard to provide the same performance advantages in larger
diameters for transmission applications. The result was the AWWA C905 standard,
approved in June of 1988. Polyethylene was first standardized for the municipal water
distribution and transmission market with the introduction of AWWA C906, in June of 1990.

While a successful performance history is one indicator of product quality and consistency,
another is the routine testing conducted on the finished product. Table 4 summarizes the
quality control testing requirements for PVC and PE pipes.

Table 4

Quality Control Testing Requirements

PVC, AWWA C900 PE, AWWA C906

Test Frequency Test Frequency
Visual Each Length Visual Each Length

Dimensional Hourly Dimensional Hourly

Elevated Temperature Sustained
Sustained Pressure Semi-Annually Semi-Annually
Pressure
Flattening Resistance Every 8 Hours Bend-Back or Elongation-at-Break Once/Production Run*
Ring-Tensile Strength
Quick Burst Every 24 Hours Once/Production Run*
or Quick Burst
Five-Second Hydrostatic Each Piece Five-Second Hydrostatic Once/Production Run*
Melt-Flow Index Once/Day
Acetone Every 8 Hours
Density Once/Day
Quality-Control Record Quality-Control Record
Two Year Minimum Not Required
Retention Retention
*Production runs can be for days, weeks, or longer.

For many utilities, an each-length hydrostatic pressure test is required to verify the strength
of the pipe going into their system. This may be especially important for fire protection
service and associated insurance ratings. The integrity of each length of AWWA C900
PVC pipe is verified through a hydrostatic test at four times the pipe’s Pressure Class. For
AWWA C905 PVC pipe, each length is tested to two times the Pressure Rating. The test
frequency for the five-second pressure test for AWWA C906 PE pipe is once per
production run. Utilities that desire the assurances of an each-length proof test must
include an additional provision for such testing in their specifications for PE pipe.

7
 Hydrostatic proof test of AWWA C900 PVC Pipe

In addition to conformance to AWWA standards, PVC and PE pipe may also carry
independent third-party certification from such organizations as Underwriter’s Laboratories
(UL), Factory Mutual (FM) or Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Water utilities and
fire insurance companies usually require some form of certification by a reputable third
party.

SURGE PRESSURES

One of the more significant advantages thermoplastic pipes provide is that surge
pressures created are lower than those associated with higher modulus materials of
similar dimensions – such as ductile iron, or concrete cylinder pipe. Table 5 lists the surge
pressures that are generated by an instantaneous 2 fps change in velocity in a 14 inch
water line.

Table 5

Surge Pressures for a 14 Inch Water Main, ∆V = 2 fps

Pipe Products Surge Pressure (psi)*

AWWA C905 PVC Pipe, PR 235, DR 18 34.8

AWWA C906 PE Pipe, PC 254, DR 7.3 32.6
AWWA C151 Ductile Iron Pipe, PC 250 97.3
AWWA C301 Concrete Cylinder Pipe, Class 150 96.4

* The methodology for calculating surge pressure is provided in Appendix C.

These lower pressure surge responses enable PVC and PE pipe systems to provide conservative
factors of safety with regard to handling dramatic transient velocity changes. PVC and PE pipes
are able to withstand short duration pressure surges, which are on the order of three times their
pressure ratings. This helps to prevent failures due to power outages and other occasional system
operation interruptions.

8
Surge pressure calculations for both PVC and PE pipes are shown in Appendix C along with a
table of surge pressures (Ps) associated with 1 fps and 2 fps instantaneous changes in flow
velocity.

CYCLIC FATIGUE CAPACITY

With any construction material, repeated cyclic stressing can cause fatigue and failure.
PVC and PE have cyclic endurance limits. Fluctuating internal pressures, if large enough,
can shorten their performance lifetimes. Data for PVC and PE pipes indicate fatigue
sensitivity varies not only from one plastic to another, but can be different within the same
plastics family, depending on molecular structure, formulation, and fabrication quality.10 If
cyclic surges are not controlled or designed out of the system, all pipes, fittings and
appurtenances must be designed with sufficient allowance to prevent premature fatigue
failure.

The response of PVC pipes, subjected to repeated internal pressure fluctuations, has been
examined in depth by researchers in both the United States and Europe. The results of
the different studies are similar and support a well-defined fatigue strength that is nearly
independent of the pipe manufacturer, the pipe diameter, and the frequency of the
pressure fluctuations. The number of cycles to failure is a function of two independent
variables. The two variables are surge amplitude and average hoop stress. A typical plot
of stress rupture data for PVC pipe, in terms of surge amplitude and average stress, takes
the form of a three-dimensional surface, as shown in Figure 3.11

Figure 3

9
Such data can be represented in a more useful form when plotted two-dimensionally on
semi-logarithmic axes, with average stress on a linear scale and amplitude stress on a
logarithmic scale (Figure 4).11 Knowing the anticipated cycle frequency, allows for service
life predictions using Figure 4 and the intersection location of surge stress amplitude and
average stress.

Figure 4

10
Pressure surge and surge stress amplitude calculations are provided in Appendix C. Most
water distribution systems do not experience frequent or repeated pressure surges of
sufficient magnitude to control or limit pipe wall thickness.

This PVC fatigue design principle was most recently confirmed in testing conducted at
Utah State University. A Pressure Class 150 (DR 18) PVC pipe was subjected to a base
pressure of 185 psi and surged over 3 million times to a peak pressure of 235 psi without
failure. Those test conditions produced an average hoop stress of 1,787 psi and surge
stress amplitude of 213 psi. The predicted number of cycles to failure, using Figure 4, is
slightly over 10 million cycles and would not limit design.11

Published data on the fatigue response of PE pressure pipes indicates a greater sensitivity
to the grade of the polymer. In studies on notched pipes and notched tensile samples, it is
well documented that different grades of polyethylene and different batches of lots within a
single grade, give different fatigue strengths.12 Those grades of PE with exceptional long-
term static crack growth resistance exhibit excellent fatigue properties. Those PE
materials with poor stress crack resistance will fail prematurely in fatigue. The variation in
fatigue strengths means no single graphic representation can be used to describe the
fatigue response of PE pipes. Cyclic fatigue performance testing information derived for
each grade and lot of PE material specified, should be reviewed and relied upon for proper
design.

HYDRAULICS

The hydraulic excellence of thermoplastics is one of their many advantages. Both PVC
and PE have smooth interior surfaces and attractive roughness coefficients (i.e., Hazen
Williams C= 150) for hydraulic calculations. Since both products are non-corroding, both
offer superior hydraulic performance for the life of the system.

Because PVC has more tensile strength than PE, the required wall thickness for a PVC
pressure pipe is less than that of an HDPE pipe of the same pressure capacity. (See the
Pressure Capacity section above for additional discussion.) As a result, PVC pipe
provides a larger inside diameter, a greater cross sectional flow area, and more flow
capacity. This is a consideration when analyzing the pumping costs for the two products.
Figures 5 through 7 graph these hydraulic parameters for PVC and PE of similar pressure
ratings, i.e., PVC with a Pressure Rating of 165 psi and a DR 25 is compared to PE with a
Pressure Rating of 160 psi and a DR 11. The diameter regimen selected for both products
was CIOD (Cast Iron Outside Diameter).

11
 Figure 5 Figure 6
Inside Diameters for PVC and PE Cross Sectional Area for PVC and PE
30 700
PVC, PR 165 PVC, PR 165

PE, PR 160
600
25

Cross Sectional Flow Area, Sq. In.

PE, PR 160

500
20
Inside Diameter, In.

400
15
300

10
200

5
100

0 0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Nominal Pipe Diameter, In. Nominal Diameter, In.

A review of the hydraulic capacity between PVC and PE pipe yields a flow capacity
advantage to PVC (Figure 7). For Pressure Rated 100 psi pipe, PVC provides 16% more
flow capacity. For Pressure Rated 160 psi pipe, PVC has a 27% flow advantage. For
Pressure Rated 200 psi pipe, PVC affords a 35% flow capacity advantage, when
compared with PE pipe that is also Pressure Rated 200 psi.

EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION

All pipe products expand and contract with changes in temperature. Variation in pipe
length due to thermal expansion or contraction depends on the pipe material’s coefficient
of thermal expansion and the variation in temperature (∆Τ). It should be noted that for any
one thermoplastic material, a change in pipe diameter or wall thickness, does not effect a
change in the rate of thermal expansion or contraction.

12
 Figure 7

PVC Pipe Additional Flow Capacity Compared to PE Pipe of Equal Pressure Rating

35

30
Additional Flow Capacity, %

25

20

15

10

0
100 psi 125 psi 160 psi 200 psi
Pressure Ratings, psi

Approximate coefficients of thermal expansion and expansion rates for PVC and PE pipe
materials are presented in Table 6.

13
 Table 6

Coefficients Of Thermal Expansion

Coefficient of Expansion Coefficient of Expansion

Pipe Material
in/in/°F in/100 ft/10°F in/in/°C mm/10m/5°C
-5 -4
PVC 3.0 x 10 0.36 0.5 X 10 2.7
PE 1.2 x 10-4 1.44 2.0 x 10-4 10.8

AWWA C900 and C905 PVC pressure pipes have gasketed, bell-and-spigot joints, while
AWWA C906 PE products primarily use heat fusion for joining. Due to the mobility in
gasketed joints, expansion and contraction in PVC pipe systems are accommodated at
each joint. With an unyielding, heat fused PE pipe system, expansion and contraction may
require additional physical and structural considerations. Temperature changes can result
in significant movement or significant thermal stresses if restrained from contracting or
expanding.

Figure 8 uses the coefficients from Table 6 to plot the movement that occurs if a PE pipe is
free to expand and contract. The lengths shown on the horizontal axis range from 500 feet
to 5,000 feet of continuous pipe after the sections have been butt-fused together. Five
lines are shown for temperature changes of 10°F, 20°F, 30°F, 40°F, and 50°F.

Figure 9 plots the forces that result if the PE pipe is restrained and expansion and
contraction are prevented. The forces were calculated for a Pressure Rated 160 psi, (DR
11) C906 PE pipe with a modulus of elasticity of 115,000 psi.

Figure 8 Figure 9
Expansion and Contraction Thermal Forces
Expansion and Contraction for PE
250

Delta t = 50 F

200
Expansion or Contraction, in.

Delta t = 40 F

150
Delta t = 30 F

100
Delta t = 20 F

50 Delta t = 10 F

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Length of Pipe, ft.

14
One prominent polyethylene pipe manufacturer provides the following recommendations
when addressing thermal expansion and contraction in polyethylene pipe.

“Normal good direct burial installation practices which include snaking the
pipe in the ditch, proper backfill compaction, making the tie-in at the
proper temperature, etc. should be used at all times and will substantially
reduce the possibility of pull-out at tie-in connections on such
installations.” 13

“The stress and the corresponding force developed by temperature

change in a restrained pipeline are independent of the length and burial
conditions of the pipe. If pipe movement at the end sections cannot be
tolerated, the pipe must be anchored mechanically to resist the thermal
forces. Concrete blocks or other special anchors designed to fit the
situation are usually used to transfer the thermal force into the soil
adjacent to the pipe lay trench. Adequate frictional resistance must also
be provided to transfer the force from the pipe into the concrete block.” 14

The same manufacturer goes on to state,

“If the pipe is not anchored at the ends to resist movement, the end
sections will expand or contract as the temperature changes. This change
in length will extend into the burial trench to a point at which the frictional
resistance of the backfill is equal to the thermal force. These movements
must be considered in the design of such physical features as connections
to pumps, catch batch basins, sewer manholes, etc.”

“Polyethylene flanged connections with metal back-up flanges should be

used to connect polyethylene pipe to metal fittings, valves, pumps or other
pipe materials. Where pipe or fittings are connected to rigid structures,
movement or bending at that point should be prevented.” 14

In summary, when plastic pipe joints are not capable of accommodating the movements
anticipated from thermal expansion and contraction, special anchors may be needed for
connected appurtenances to prevent their movement. Furthermore, the stress and
corresponding force developed by thermal expansion/contraction must be considered. The
mobility afforded by bell-and-spigot, gasket joints provides for longitudinal stress relief and
eliminates the need for special anchors and associated longitudinal force concerns.

15
INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS

JOINING

PVC and PE pipes have different joining methods.

PVC pressure pipes employ a gasketed bell and spigot joint similar to that found on ductile
iron and concrete cylinder pipes. Assembly involves application of a water soluble
lubricant and simply pushing or levering the joint together. Assembly of PVC pressure
pipe is quick, easy, and can be accomplished under a broad range of weather conditions.
Compatibility issues with PVC pipe from different manufacturers are limited to insertion
depth differences and minor variations in the geometry of the tapered spigot end. Proper
insertion depth for the receiving bell can be determined from the factory marked spigot end
of that pipe.

PE pressure pipes are typically joined using heat fusion, which requires special equipment
and trained crews. Whenever polyethylenes having different melt indexes are to be
joined, compatibility fusion techniques need to be considered (e.g., when fusing one
manufacturer’s PE pipe to that made by another manufacturer).15

To properly fuse large diameter PE pipe, sufficient time must be allowed for the joint to
cool. Cooling of the molten PE joint occurs in the clamps of the fusion machine where the
joint is held immobile and under pressure. Figure 10 plots the required cooling times
recommended by a major PE pipe manufacturer.16

Assembly of PVC joints is quick and easy. Special equipment required for PE pipe butt
fusion.

16
 Figure 10

Cooling Times for PE Pipe

120
PE DR 9

100
PE DR 11
Cooling Time, min

80

60 PE DR 17

40

20

0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Nominal Diameter, In.

PRESSURE AND LEAKAGE TESTING

A common acceptance test for installed pressure pipe is a combined pressure and
leakage test. During this test, a contractor is generally required to measure the amount of
water that is added to the line to maintain the test pressure. If the amount of water added
is less than the “leakage allowance,” the line passes the test. If the amount of water
added is greater than the “leakage allowance,” the line fails the test.

The purpose of the “leakage allowance” is to give the contractor some allowance for
trapped air, take-up of restraints, seating of gaskets, a slight swelling of the pipe diameter,
temperature variations, and the like. The fact that there is a “leakage allowance” does not
mean a pressure pipe system is allowed to leak. Section 7.3.5.4 of AWWA C605,
“Underground Installation of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe and Fittings for
Water,” states the following:

“All visible leaks shall be repaired, regardless of the amount of leakage.” 17

Most other pressure piping materials have similar requirements in their specifications.

17
The “leakage allowance” for PE pipe is usually referred to as a “Test Phase Make-Up
Amount.” Because PE has a lower modulus (stiffness), the “make-up” amount is greater
than that for more traditional water piping materials in order to allow for continued pipe
swelling/stretching under test pressures. Figure 11 graphically compares the allowances
of PVC, PE, and other piping materials for a range of pipe diameters. The values used in
Figure 11 came from the following sources:
18
• Concrete: AWWA M9, “Concrete Pressure Pipe”
19
• Steel: AWWA M11, “Steel Pipe – A Guide for Design and Installation”
20
• Ductile Iron: AWWA M41, “Ductile-Iron Pipe and Fittings”
,
• PVC: AWWA C605 “Standard for Underground Installation of PVC Pressure
17
Pipe and Fittings for Water”
TM 21
• PE: PLEXCO / Spirolite Application Note No. 8.,“System Testing,” Table 1

Figure 12 compares the allowable make-up water allowances for PVC and PE for nominal
pipe diameters of 4 inches through 24 inches.

Figure 11

Leakage Allowances for Pressure Piping Materials

Figure 9
Pressure Pipe Leakage Allowances

320
Leakage Allow., gal./in.-dia./mi./day

280

240

200

160

120

80
10 to 50

40 25
11.65 10 .5 41 to 317

0
Concrete Steel Ductile Iron PVC PE
Pressure Piping Material

18
 Figure 12

Make-Up Water Allowance Per 1000 ft-hr for PVC and PE Pipe

45
40
Make-up Water (gal)

35 PVC
30 PE
25
20
15
10
5
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24
Diameter (in)

APPURTENANCES

PVC pipe products are generally compatible with all commonly used pipeline
appurtenances. PVC pipe can be directly inserted into either belled PVC fittings or
mechanical joint and belled joint iron fittings. No special back-up flanges or internal
stiffeners are required. PVC pipe can be restrained against thrust at fittings using
mechanical devices conforming to ASTM F1674 22 or thrust blocks. Water utility
contractors are familiar with the installation of appurtenances with PVC pipe due to the
widespread use of PVC pipes for water distribution and transmission.

Source: Summer 1992 Uni-Bell PVC Pipe News Courtesy of EBAA Iron, Inc.
PVC tee levered onto a PVC pipe. Mechanical joint restraint glands
connect large diameter, AWWA
C905, PVC pipe to an iron fitting.

19
When joining PE to other materials, a flange adapter and metal back-up flanges are
frequently recommended in PE product literature.23 However, the use of flanged
connections in buried applications is not recommended in several AWWA standards. The
language found in those standards is as follows:

“The use of flanged joints underground is generally not recommended

because of the rigidity of the joint.”

The above recommendation appears in the following standards:

• Section A.3 Installation; Item a, AWWA C110, “Ductile-Iron and Gray-Iron Fittings, 3 in.
Through 48 In. (75 mm Through 1200 mm), for Water and Other Liquids.” 24

• Section A.3 Installation, Item 1, AWWA C111, “Rubber-Gasket Joints for Ductile-Iron
Pressure Pipe and Fittings.” 25

• Section A.3 Installation, Item 1, AWWA C115, “Flanged Ductile-Iron Pipe with Ductile-
Iron or Gray-Iron Threaded Flanges.” 26

Alternatives to the flanged connection receive conditional approval from polyethylene

manufacturers. The following comes from one polyethylene pipe manufacturer’s “Systems
Installation” manual under “Other Joining Methods.”

“Mechanical joining with bolt-on wrap-around clamps is generally not

recommended as a permanent, long-term method of joining polyethylene
unless the connection is stabilized in some manner. Due to the magnitude
of thermal expansion and contraction of polyethylene materials and its
creep characteristics under load, it can be difficult to maintain a permanent
leak-proof seal with certain mechanical wrap-around clamps. However, in
certain low pressure or non-pressure non-critical applications they have
been used when it is not feasible to flange or fuse the sections together.” 27

“Compression-type couplings with internal stiffeners are available in some

sizes and are generally satisfactory where temperature changes within the
system are small.” 27

“Consideration must be given to pull-out forces caused by circumferential

as well as longitudinal thermal contraction when certain mechanical joints
are used. If necessary, provisions must be made for sealing as well as
restraining to compensate for axial loading due to expansion or contraction
and/or pipe settlement.” 27

20
REPAIRS

The cost of appurtenance installation and cost of repairs are ongoing concerns for water
utilities. As a result of their complete immunity to galvanic corrosion and electrolysis, both
PVC and PE pipes enjoy much lower repair rates than metal pipes. With PVC pipe, the
section requiring repair can be cut out and a new section dropped in and connected to the
existing system with repair clamps.

The same factors involved in properly connecting PE pipe to appurtenances must also be
considered in the repair of damaged pipe. Referring to the previously cited polyethylene
“Systems Installation” manual:

“Damaged pipe may be repaired by any of the joining methods previously

discussed. Heat fusion is recommended for all applications where
conditions permit. Some of the joining methods are not satisfactory for
continuous pressure systems.” 28

“A wrap-around-type repair clamp with integral gasket can be used but is

not as permanent as a flanged or fused repair.” 29

As a result, work crews that have been properly trained to operate PE fusion equipment
are recommended not only for the installation of new lines, but also for the installation of
appurtenances and the execution of repairs.

CONCLUSION

This report reviewed many factors to consider when determining which thermoplastic –
PVC or PE – is the best option for pressurized water conveyance. PVC has greater
strength, more rigorous quality control testing, superior hydraulics, better provisions for
expansion and contraction, quicker and easier joining, tighter requirements for pressure
and leakage testing, and less complicated appurtenance installation when compared to
PE. These qualities are no doubt the reasons PVC is the most often used plastic pressure
pipe material.

21
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 ASTM D2241, “Standard Specification for Poly (Vinyl Chloride)(PVC) Pressure-

Rated Pipe (SDR Series),” American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1996.

2 ANSI/AWWA C905, “Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe and Fabricated

fittings, 14 in. Through 48 In. (350 mm Through 1,200 mm), for Water Transmission
and Distribution,” American Water Works Association, Denver, CO, 1997.

3 ANSI/ASAE S376.1, “Design, Installation and Performance of Underground,

Thermoplastic Irrigation Pipelines,” American Society of Agriculture Engineers, St.
Joseph, MI, 1992.

4 ASTM D3035, “Standard Specification for Polyethylene (PE) Plastic Pipe (DR-PR)
Based on Controlled Outside Diameter,” American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1995.

5 ASTM F714, “Standard Specification for Polyethylene (PE) Plastic Pipe (SDR-PR)
Based on Outside Diameter,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1997.

6 ANSI/AWWA C900, “Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe and Fabricated

Fittings, 4 In. Through 48 In. (100 mm Through 300 mm), for Water Distribution,”
American Water Works Association, Denver, CO, 1997.

7 ASTM D2513, “Standard Specification for Thermoplastic Gas Pressure Pipe,

Tubing and Fittings,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1996.

8 ANSI/AWWA C906, “Polyethylene (PE) Pressure Pipe and Fittings, 4 In. Through
63 In., for Water Distribution,” American Water Works Association, Denver, CO,
1990.

9 Moser, A.P. and Kenneth G. Kellogg, “Evaluation of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe
Performance,” AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO, 1994.

10 Nayar, Mohinder L., “Piping Handbook,” Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,
NY, 1992, p. D.36.

11 Moser, A.P., “Cyclic Life of PVC Pipe,” Utah State University, Logan, UT, February
17, 2001.

22
12 Bowman, Jeremy A., “The Fatigue Response of Polyvinyl Chloride and
Polyethylene Pipe Systems,” Buried Plastic Pipe Technology, STP 1093, ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA, 1990, pp. 100-121.

13 “Engineering Characteristics,” Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Richardson, TX, 1991, p. 13.

14 “Systems Installation,” Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Richardson, TX, 1991, p.10.

15 “Systems Installation,” Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Richardson, TX, 1991, p. 3.

16 “Driscopipe 4000/4100 – Butt Fusion Procedure for Water Pipe and Fittings,”
Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Richardson, TX, 1997.

17 ANSI/AWWA C605, “Underground Installation of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure

Pipe and Fittings for Water,” American Water Works Association, Denver, CO,
1994.

18 AWWA M9, “Concrete Pressure Pipe,” American Water Works Association, Denver,
CO, 1979.

19 AWWA M11, “Steel Pipe – A Guide for Design and Installation,” American Water
Works Association, Denver, CO, 1989.

20 AWWA M41, “Ductile-Iron Pipe and Fittings,” American Water Works Association,
Denver, CO, 1996.

21 “System Testing,” Chevron PLEXCO/Spirolite, Application Note No.8, Bensenville,

IL, 1991.

22 ASTM F1674, “Standard Test Method for Joint Restraint Products for Use With
PVC Pipe,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
1996.

23 “Systems Installation,” Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Richardson, TX, 1991, p.6.

24 ASNI/AWWA C110/A21.10, “Ductile-Iron and Gray-Iron Fittings, 3 In. Through 48

In. (75 mm Through 1200 mm), for Water and Other Liquids,” American Water
Works Association, Denver, CO 1993.

25 ANSI/AWWA C111/A21.11, “Rubber-Gasket Joints for Ductile-Iron Pressure Pipe

and Fittings,”American Water Works Association, Denver, CO, 1995.

26 ANSI/AWWA C115/A21.15, “Flanged Ductile-Iron Pipe with Ductile-Iron or Gray-

Iron Threaded Flanges,” American Water Work Association, Denver, CO, 1994.

23
27 “Systems Installation,” Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Richardson, TX, 1991, p. 7.

28 “Systems Installation,” Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Richardson, TX, 1991, p. 22.

29 “Systems Installation,” Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Richardson, TX, 1991, p. 23.

24
 APPENDIX A

CALCULATING PRESSURE RATING

One design approach is the Pressure Rated approach used in a variety of thermoplastic standards.
This approach uses a hydrostatic design safety factor of 2.0 (or a design factor, which is the
inverse of the safety factor, of 0.5) and the ISO equation to determine the product’s pressure
rating.

The Pressure Ratings for PVC and PE will be calculated using the ISO Equation. The ISO
Equation is shown below.

Equation (A1)

2S
P =
DR − 1

Where,P = Pressure Rating of the pipe

S = design stress of the pipe material
DR = dimension ratio of the pipe (OD÷t)

The main difference between PVC and PE lies in the value of the design stress. For PVC 12454
compounds, the design stress is 2000 psi, while that of PE 3408 is 800 psi. These design stresses
were both derived in the same manner. A factor of safety of 2.0 was applied to the long-term
hydrostatic strength (i.e., the Hydrostatic Design Basis or HDB) of each material. The HDB for
PVC 12454 is 4000 psi, while that of PE 3408 is 1600 psi.

The following example illustrates the use of the ISO Equation to determine Pressure Ratings.

Example 1 Find the pressure rating of DR21 for both (a) PVC and (b) PE

Solution Use Equation (A1)

(a) PVC:
( 2)( 2000psi )
P= = 200 psi
21 − 1

(b) PE:

( 2)(800psi )
P= = 80 psi
21 − 1

25
Example 2 (a) Find the pressure rating of PVC DR41 and then
(b) find the equivalent DR of PE to yield the same rating.

Solution Use Equation (A1)

(a)

( 2)( 2000psi )
P= = 100 psi
41 − 1

(b) Rearranging Equation (A1)

DR = (2S ÷ P) + 1
= [(2 x 800 psi) ÷ 100 psi] + 1
= 16 + 1 = 17

Therefore, there are two options for obtaining a Pressure Rated 100 psi pipe:
PVC DR41 or PE DR17.

26
 APPENDIX B

CALCULATING PRESSURE CLASS

Another design approach is the Pressure Class approach, which was standardized in 1975, and is
used for PVC AWWA C900. This approach uses a hydrostatic design safety factor of 2.5 and
provides a guilt-in surge allowance. The built-in surge allowance is based on the surge pressure
that results from instantaneously stopping a 2 foot-per-second column of water. Another
thermoplastic pipe standard, AWWA C906, uses the term Pressure Class as well. However, the
two are not interchangeable as the AWWA C906 standard uses a different design approach.

The equation for calculating the Pressure Class of PVC AWWA C900 is shown below.

Equation (B1)

2S
PC = − Ps
DR − 1

Where, PC = Pressure Class of the pipe

S = design stress of the pipe material
DR = dimension ratio of the pipe (OD÷t)
Ps = surge pressure for a ∆V of 2 fps

The following example illustrates the use of the AWWA C900 Pressure Class equation for PVC and
PE pipe.

Example 1 (a) Find the pressure class of PVC DR25 and then
(b) find the DR of PE to yield the same pressure class.

Solution First solve for the new design stress using a safety factor of 2.5.

PVC: S = HDB ÷ S.F. PE: S = HDB ÷ S.F.

S = 4000 psi ÷ 2.5 S = 1600 psi ÷ 2.5
S = 1600 psi S = 640 psi

Now use Equation (B1) and the values from Appendix C to solve.
(a)
( 2)(1600psi )
PC = − 29.3psi = 104psi
25 − 1

Round down the PC to 100 psi

(b) Selecting DR’s for PE by trial and error and using Equation (B1) and the values from
Appendix C to solve.

27
 ( 2)(640psi )
PC = − 25.3psi = 103psi
11 − 1

Round down the PC to 100 psi

Therefore, a DR11 PE pipe is required to yield the pressure class equivalent of a DR25
PVC pipe.

28
 APPENDIX C

CALCULATING SURGE PRESSURES

The formula for the surge response from an instantaneous change in velocity is presented in a
number of AWWA design manuals. For PVC pipe, the formula is presented in AWWA M23, “PVC
Pipe – Design and Installation.” Polyethylene does not have an AWWA design manual, but the
same formula is presented in AWWA C901, “Polyethylene (PE) Pressure Pipe and Tubing, ½ In.
(13 mm) Through 3 In. (76 mm), for Water Service.”

The surge pressure equations are shown below.

Equation (C1)

4660
a=
k( DR − 2)
1+
E

Where, a = wave velocity, in fps

k = fluid bulk modulus = 300,000 psi for water
DR = Dimension Ratio = O.D. ÷ t
E = modulus of elasticity of the pipe, in psi
= 400,000 psi for PVC 12454
= 115,000 psi for PE 3408 per AWWA C901
Equation (C2)

a ∆V
Ps =
2.31 g

Where, Ps = pressure surge, in psi

a = wave velocity, in fps
∆V = change in velocity, in fps
g = acceleration due to gravity, in ft/sec2

Using the above two equations, the surge pressures can be calculated for PVC and PE.

Example 1 Calculate the surge pressure in response to a 2 fps change in velocity for

(a) DR 25, PVC and for

(b) DR 11, PE, which has a comparable pressure capacity to DR25, PVC.

Solution Use Equations C1 and C2

29
 (a) PVC: Calculate the wave velocity, a, using Equation C1

Wave Velocity,

4660
a=
300,000 ( 25 − 2)
1+
400,000

= 1091 fps

Calculate the surge pressure, Ps, using Equation C2

Surge Pressure, Ps, = (a ∆V) / 2.31g

= (1091 x 2.00) / (2.31 x 32.2)

= 29.3 psi

(b) PE: Calculate the wave velocity, a, using Equation C1

Wave Velocity,

4660
a=
300,000 (11 − 2)
1+
115,000

= 942 fps

Calculate the surge pressure, Ps, using Equation C2

Surge Pressure, Ps, = (a ∆V) / 2.31g

= (942 x 2.00) / (2.31 x 32.2)

= 25.3 psi

Determining the pressure surge for any change in velocity is simplified with Equation C3, shown
below.

30
Equation (C3) Ps = ∆V Ps ∆V = 1 fps

Where,Ps = pressure surge, in psi

∆V = change in velocity, in fps
∆V Ps ∆V = 1 fps = pressure surge, in psi, for a 1 fps change
in velocity

Tables C1 and C2 list the pressure surges for PVC and PE. For ease of calculating pressure
surges for various velocity changes, the pressure surge in response to a 1 fps velocity change is
listed. To facilitate calculating the Pressure Class, the pressure surge in response to a 2 fps
velocity change is also shown.

Table C1

PVC Pipe Pressure Surge vs. Dimension Ratio

[In response to a 1 fps and 2 fps instantaneous flow velocity change]

Pressure Surge, psi Pressure Surge, psi

Dimension Ratio (∆V = 1 fps) (∆V = 2 fps)
13.5 20.2 40.4
14 19.8 39.6
17 17.9 35.8
18 17.4 34.8
21 16.0 32.0
25 14.7 29.4
26 14.4 28.8
32.5 12.8 25.6
41 11.4 22.8

Table C2

PE 3408 Pressure Surge vs. Dimension Ratio

[In response to a 1 fps and a 2 fps instantaneous flow velocity change]

Pressure Surge, psi Pressure Surge, psi

Dimension Ratio (∆V = 1 fps) (∆V = 2 fps)
7.3 16.3 32.6
9 14.3 28.6
9.3 14.0 28.0
11 12.7 25.4
13.5 11.3 22.6
17 9.9 19.8
21 8.8 17.6
26 7.9 15.8
32.5 7.0 14.0

31