Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Laboratory tests and analysis of CIPP epoxy resin internal liners used in pipelines – part II: comparative analysis with the use of the FEM and engineering algorithms Cover

Laboratory tests and analysis of CIPP epoxy resin internal liners used in pipelines – part II: comparative analysis with the use of the FEM and engineering algorithms

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 43 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)
By: Tomasz Abel  
Open Access
|Sep 2021

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Three-point bending – test scheme.
Three-point bending – test scheme.

Figure 2

Computational models [11, 12].
Computational models [11, 12].

Figure 3

Imperfections of an existing conduit and liner: a) local deformation wv, b) ovalisation wGR,v, c) annular gap ws [6].
Imperfections of an existing conduit and liner: a) local deformation wv, b) ovalisation wGR,v, c) annular gap ws [6].

Figure 4

The value of critical pressure pcr for DN200.
The value of critical pressure pcr for DN200.

Figure 5

The value of critical pressure pcr for DN350.
The value of critical pressure pcr for DN350.

Figure 6

The value of critical pressure pcr for DN500.
The value of critical pressure pcr for DN500.

Figure 7

Static scheme (L=16h, see Fig. 1).
Static scheme (L=16h, see Fig. 1).

Figure 8

Example deflections for the force F1 (0.05%).
Example deflections for the force F1 (0.05%).

Figure 9

Example deflections for the force F2 (0.25%).
Example deflections for the force F2 (0.25%).

Comparison of results of numerical analyses and laboratory tests for a model of a liner with a diameter of 200mm and 7,50mm wall thickness_

No.h [mm]L [mm]Stage of deformation - 0,05%Stage of deformation - 0,25%
according to PN-EN ISO 178:2019-06 [9]
F1 [N]Lab. testsFEMdifferenceF2[N]Lab. testsFEMdifference
s1[mm]s2[mm]
17,60121,608,700,950,8215,53%255,002,913,20−9,21%
27,70123,208,650,970,8218,51%253,502,873,18−9,86%
37,50120,008,550,900,8111,19%256,202,823,22−12,41%
47,60121,608,740,920,8211,17%251,502,753,16−12,95%
57,70123,208,611,030,8126,75%255,602,873,21−10,60%
67,50120,008,520,990,8023,53%253,803,043,18−4,55%
Ave.7,60121,608,630,960,8117,76%254,272,873,19−9,93%

Comparison of results of numerical analyses and laboratory tests for a model of a liner with a diameter of 200mm and 6,00mm wall thickness_

No.h [mm]L [mm]Stage of deformation - 0,05%Stage of deformation - 0,25%
according to PN-EN ISO 178:2019-06 [9]
F1 [N]Lab. testsFEMdifferenceF2[N]Lab. testsFEMdifference
s1[mm]s2[mm]
16,1097,608,321,130,9223,16%242,12,923,10−5,78%
26,2099,208,121,090,9021,40%240,12,733,07−11,36%
36,1097,608,061,160,8929,96%238,13,023,05−0,89%
46,0096,008,161,150,9027,67%242,13,053,10−1,73%
56,30100,808,251,150,9125,61%240,52,853,08−7,37%
66,1097,608,411,030,9311,02%241,22,853,09−7,87%
Ave.6,1398,138,221,120,9123,07%240,682,903,08−5,84%

Percentage differences of results in each algorithm_

No.Diameter [mm]Calculation algorithm
Timo shenko'sGlock'sASTMWRcRERAUDVWK-ATV
1200333,64%347,14%425,28%291,81%206,21%100,00%
2 400,47%331,02%289,36%350,26%231,46%
3 456,26%315,47%212,63%399,05%245,70%
4350263,21%340,42%574,81%230,21%154,02%
5 306,53%331,63%430,29%268,09%175,18%
6 345,17%322,74%337,96%301,88%191,19%
7500261,29%324,99%518,01%228,53%140,09%
8 316,77%313,00%355,42%277,05%164,65%
9 349,33%305,13%289,15%305,53%176,56%

Comparison of results of numerical analyses and laboratory tests for a model of a liner with a diameter of 500mm and 14,00mm wall thickness_

No.h[mm]L [mm]Stage of deformation - 0,05%Stage of deformation - 0,25%
according to PN-EN ISO 178:2019-06 [9]
F1 [N]Lab. testsFEMdifferenceF2[N]Lab. testsFEMdifference
s1[mm]s2[mm]
114,00224,009,502,091,1090,06%350,004,965,30−6,46%
214,50232,009,602,131,05103,23%351,004,675,32−12,11%
314,10225,609,561,901,1171,45%350,504,745,31−10,60%
414,20227,209,592,241,11101,54%349,804,835,30−8,83%
514,60233,609,492,121,1092,87%349,904,585,30−13,52%
614,80236,809,622,201,1197,84%349,204,465,29−15,58%
Ave.14,37229,869,562,111,1092,75%350,074,715,30−11,18%

Comparison of results of numerical analyses and laboratory tests for a model of a liner with a diameter of 200mm and 4,50mm wall thickness_

No.h [mm]L [mm]Stage of deformation - 0,05%Stage of deformation - 0,25%
according to PN-EN ISO 178:2019-06 [9]
F1 [N]Lab. testsFEMdifferenceF2[N]Lab. testsFEMdifference
s1[mm] s2[mm]
14,6073,608,251,130,9518,63%230,20 −7,32%
24,7075,208,411,380,9742,37%230,102,943,04−3,21%
34,5072,008,031,570,9270,27%227,503,263,008,64%
44,6073,608,211,030,959,27%227,102,633,00−12,32%
54,7075,208,381,190,9623,83%224,402,762,96−6,95%
64,7075,208,391,380,9742,71%222,102,762,93−5,99%
Ave.4,6374,138,281,280,9534,39%226,902,863,00−4,51%

Comparison of results of numerical analyses and laboratory tests for a model of a liner with a diameter of 500mm and 9,00mm wall thickness_

No.h [mm]L [mm]Stage of deformation - 0,05%Stage of deformation - 0,25%
according to PN-EN ISO 178:2019-06 [9]
Lab. TestsFEMdifference Lab. TestsFEMdifference
F1[N]s1[mm]F2[N]s2[mm]
19,00144,008,851,341,2210,16%290,003,723,83−2,75%
29,10145,608,891,331,238,46%295,603,613,90−7,58%
39,20147,208,911,351,2310,10%296,103,493,91−10,66%
49,30148,808,821,341,2210,03%267,103,233,53−8,35%
59,00144,008,891,381,2312,80%292,203,573,86−7,46%
69,10145,608,851,331,228,95%293,503,533,88−8,88%
Ave.9,12145,868,871,351,2210,09%289,083,533,82−7,62%

Critical pressures according to the Timoshenko's and Glock's algorithms_

Timoshenko's formulaGlock's formula
pcr=3*E*1R3 {p_{cr}} = {{3*E*1} \over {{R^3}}}  (1) pcr=E*(hD)2,2 {p_{cr}} = E*{\left({{h \over D}} \right)^{2,2}}  (2)
where:

  • E – Young's modulus of the liner's material [MPa]

  • I – moment of inertia of the system [m4]

  • R – nominal radius of the pipeline [mm]

  • h – liner's wall thickness [mm]

  • D – liner's diameter [mm]

Comparison of results of numerical analyses and laboratory tests for a model of a liner with a diameter of 350mm and 9,00mm wall thickness_

No.h [mm]L [mm]Stage of deformation - 0,05 %Stage of deformation - 0,25 %
according to PN-EN ISO 178:2019-06 [9]
F1 [N]Lab. TestsFEMdifferenceF2[N]Lab. TestsFEMdifference
s1[mm]s2[mm]
19,10145,608,751,330,8752,79%260,003,273,49−6,42%
29,20147,208,761,130,8729,39%261,003,123,50−11,00%
39,00144,008,791,340,8753,78%262,503,343,52−5,19%
49,30148,808,861,340,8851,86%259,803,273,49−6,23%
59,00144,008,891,340,8852,05%259,503,343,48−4,09%
69,10145,608,851,370,8855,37%261,203,343,51−4,68%
Ave.9,12145,868,821,310,8849,23%260,673,283,50−6,27%

Comparison of results of numerical analyses and laboratory tests for a model of a liner with a diameter of 350mm and 7,50mm wall thickness_

No.h [mm]L [mm]Stage of deformation - 0,05%Stage of deformation - 0,25%
according to PN-EN ISO 178:2019-06 [9]
F1 [N]Lab. testFEMdifferenceF2[N]Lab. testsFEMdifference
s1[mm]s2[mm]
17,50120,008,561,120,9024,44%246,003,103,100,13%
27,60121,608,600,950,904,77%247,602,943,12−5,88%
37,70123,208,591,180,9031,14%246,502,963,11−4,68%
47,60121,608,611,230,9136,05%248,203,063,13−2,06%
57,50120,008,621,150,9127,11%246,802,983,11−4,31%
67,40118,408,551,170,9029,88%248,903,183,141,33%
Ave.7,55120,808,591,130,9025,56%247,333,043,12−2,57%

Comparison of results of numerical analyses and laboratory tests for a model of a liner with a diameter of 350mm and 6,00mm wall thickness_

No.h [mm]L [mm]Stage of deformation - 0,05%Stage of deformation - 0,25%
according to PN-EN ISO 178:2019-06 [9]
F1 [N]Lab. testsFEMdifferenceF2[N]Lab. testsFEMdifference
s1[mm]s2[mm]
16,1097,608,311,030,9212,22%242,002,773,00−7,67%
26,2099,208,411,040,9015,61%243,202,853,01−5,50%
36,0096,008,361,020,9310,64%244,103,023,03−0,17%
46,2099,208,280,970,925,40%242,102,733,00−9,20%
56,30100,808,361,000,938,00%243,502,663,02−11,96%
66,0096,008,421,020,939,85%241,502,872,99−4,23%
Ave.6,1398,138,361,010,9210,27%242,732,813,01−6,45%

Comparison of results of numerical analyses and laboratory tests for a model of a liner with a diameter of 500mm and 12,00mm wall thickness_

No.h [mm]L [mm]Stage of deformation - 0,05%Stage of deformation - 0,25%
according to PN-EN ISO 178:2019-06 [9]
F1 [N]Lab. testsFEMdifferenceF2[N]Lab. testsFEMdifference
s1[mm]s2[mm]
112,00192,009,101,691,1053,60%320,004,154,50−7,84%
212,20195,209,321,761,1356,46%321,204,034,52−10,80%
312,30196,809,151,751,1158,07%325,204,104,57−10,43%
412,10193,609,121,731,1056,60%321,504,014,52−11,27%
512,00192,009,001,891,0974,13%325,604,404,58−3,83%
612,40198,408,951,681,0855,72%318,603,964,48−11,53%
Ave.12,17194,669,111,751,1059,06%322,024,114,53−9,27%

Results of calculation algorithm_

Sample no.Liner thickness hDiameterRadiusCalculation algorithm
Timo- shenko'sGlock'sASTMWRcRERAUATV 143-2
[m]critical pressure pcr N/mm2
10,00450,2000,1000,570,590,730,500,350,17
20,00600,2000,1001,351,120,981,180,780,34
30,00750,2000,1002,641,821,232,311,420,58
40,00600,3500,1750,250,330,550,220,150,10
50,00750,3500,1750,490,530,690,430,280,16
60,00900,3500,1750,850,790,830,740,470,25
70,00900,5000,2500,290,360,580,260,160,11
80,01200,5000,2500,690,680,780,600,360,22
90,01400,5000,2501,100,960,910,960,550,31
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2021-0007 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 307 - 322
Submitted on: Nov 15, 2020
Accepted on: Mar 16, 2021
Published on: Sep 30, 2021
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
no-dig technologies,
laboratory tests,
close-fit lining,
sewer rehabilitation
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Materials sciences,
Composites,
Porous materials,
Physics,
Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2021 Tomasz Abel, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 43 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)