Bureau dEtudes Produits Ouvrages / Design dept.

01 Update according to last drawing 12/06/12 A.Mechoulam G. Gayrard

00 First issue 10/09/10 A.Mechoulam G. Gayrard
Rev Modifications Date Made y !hec"ed y Appro#ed y
$itre %


KARANG GENENG
Coal Fired Power Plant Proe!t
Central "ava




#el$%an!&oring o$ RCCP pipes and t&rust 'lo!(s




)e!&ni!al note n*+






&i''usion %

(. )A*$(++($ ,-.++A /+&.+(*/(0

-($.(



&oc n1% $echnical note n11



2ro3ect n1% 456978


51 place 9onde: ;uartier <almy 92966 2A9/* )A &(F(+*( !(&(8
% 55,001 =6 45 2= 00: % 55 ,001 =6 45 26 11




&oc n1% $echnical note n11
9e#. &ate )ang. *heet

)e!&ni!al note n* +
01 12/06/2012 (+ 2age 2 o' >




# #u u, ,, ,a ar r- -




+ #u'e!t o$ t&is note................................................................................................................... .


/ Fast !al!ulation o$ t&e t&rust 'lo!(s.......................................................................................... .
2.1 For one line o' pipe% ..............................................................................................................5
2.2 For two lines o' pipe: in the same hypothesis% ..........................................................................5
2.5 !onclusion ...........................................................................................................................=


. An!&oring o$ RCCP pipes '- soil $ri!tion.................................................................................... 0
5.1 9e'erence ............................................................................................................................=
5.2 5200 under 1:5= m o' ac"'ill ao#e pipe crown....................................................................4
5.5 5200 under 2:5= m o' ac"'ill ao#e pipe crown....................................................................4
5.= !onclusion ...........................................................................................................................6


0 Re,ar(s a'out t&rust 'lo!(s..................................................................................................... 1
=.1 &i''erentials settlements ........................................................................................................6
=.2 *eismic design .....................................................................................................................6


2 Con!lusion................................................................................................................................. 3


&oc n1% $echnical note n11
9e#. &ate )ang. *heet

)e!&ni!al note n* +
01 12/06/2012 (+ 2age 5 o' >



+ #u'e!t o$ t&is note
$he su3ect o' this note is to pro#ide the calculation o' the sel'7anchoring o' 9!!2 pipes o' ?arang Geneng: in
order to show that there is no need o' thrust loc"s.

/ Fast !al!ulation o$ t&e t&rust 'lo!(s
$he calculation is done according to A@@A M9 manual: chapter 9: with the hypothesis that pipes are not sel'
anchored: without ta"ing into account the un'a#ourale e''ect o' the groundwater nor the e''ect o' an
earthAua"e %

/.+ For one line o$ pipe4

-end angle B 56 deg
/nternal test pressure 2 B 6.>4 ar ,g0
!ross sectional area A B 6.41 m
2


9esultant thrust 'orce% $ B 2 C 2 C A C sin,a/20
$ B 6:125.6 "+

*a'e earing #alue 'or soil% s B 40 "+ / mD ,so't soil0
Area o' loc"% A B $/ s
A B 162.4 mD

/./ For two lines o$ pipe7 in t&e sa,e &-pot&esis4

9esultant thrust 'orce% $ B 16:2=>.2 "+

Area o' loc"% A B 52=.9 mD

$hen: we can consider a thrust loc" with the dimensions% 9 . 324 16 m C 16 m: and the thic"ness%
5.>2E0.4 C 2 B =.>2 m ,'or eCample0.
$his represents% 16 C 16 C =.>2 F ,5.>2D C 0/= C 2 C 16 B 1:156 m
5
o' concrete ,which means
1:156 C 2.4 B 2:6=4 tons o' concrete0



&oc n1% $echnical note n11
9e#. &ate )ang. *heet

)e!&ni!al note n* +
01 12/06/2012 (+ 2age = o' >



/.. Con!lusion
/' thrust loc"s were necessary: considering the layout o' the pipes: we count at least 10 thrust loc"s 'or 2
lines o' pipe with a end angle o' 901 ,thrust loc"s 'or lines where elowGs angles are less than 901 are not
ta"ing into account in order to simpli'y the calculation0. $hen we can estimate at more than 1:156 C 10 B
11:560 m
5
o' concrete ,which means 11:560 C 2.4 B 26:=40 tons o' concrete0 to achie#e the thrust loc"s.

. An!&oring o$ RCCP pipes '- soil $ri!tion
..+ Re$eren!e
$his calculation is done according to A@@A M9 manual: chapter 9%

$rust 'orces 'rom ends and direction changes are restrained y tying ad3acent pipes 3oint. $ying is achie#ed y
welding the steel end rings.
$ied 3oint are supposed to e realiHed y 'ull circum'erential welding.
&oc n1% $echnical note n11
9e#. &ate )ang. *heet

)e!&ni!al note n* +
01 12/06/2012 (+ 2age 4 o' >



$he position o' the water tale can a''ect negati#ely the pipe staility 'or thrust restrain: y reducing the
ac"'ill apparent speci'ic weight and the pipe weight under ArchimedesGs upli't 'orce.
/t is there'ore necessary to ha#e a closer loo" at the water tale position and especially the maCimum eCpected
le#el.
$he un'a#orale e''ect o' the groundwater is ta"en into account 'or this calculation.


../ ./66 under +720 , o$ 'a!($ill a'ove pipe !rown
-ac"'ill co#er% 1.4= m ao#e pipe crown
@ater tale% 0.=0 m ao#e pipe aCis ,I0
,I0 presumed position o' the water tale: 'or eCample only.
&ry soil speci'ic weight 16.00 "+/m
5

*aturated soil speci'ic weight 11.00 "+/m
5

-end angle B 02 deg
/nternal test pressure 2 B 6.>4 ar ,g0
!ross sectional area A B 6.41 m
2
(at internal steel cylinder diameter =3,291 m)
!oe''icient o' 'riction ' B 0.55 *oil/pipe 'riction coe''icient
This value of coefficient of friction is an average value (!! M9" the value of the coefficient of friction in the
soil #vary from $%2& to $%&$' de(ending of the ty(e of the soil)
.#erurden load @e B 105.12 "+/lm 'or ac"'ill co#er
@eight o' pipe @p B 7==.62 "+/lm ,pipe empty under water tale0
)y security, *e ta+e into account in the calculation the ,uoyancy of the (i(e as if it is com(letely immersed
under the *ater ta,le, *ith the ma-imum density of see *ater" 1%$2.% Then *e have"
/%. - 1$ 0 3%.21 - 2 34 - 1$,2. = 0 44%/2 +53lm
@eight o' water @w B 60.=2 "+/lm
2 C @e E @p E @w B 2=2.0= "+/lm
2 C A C sin,/20 B 2196.25 "+
*a'ety 'actor 1.40
)ength o' tied pipes 8 9 0+./: lm ,including sa'ety 'actor0

For a 56* 'end : instead o' a =41 end: the calculation gi#es 8 9 31./: l, including sa'ety 'actor.

6or the calculation of ,uoyancy and the coefficient of friction of the soil, (lease note that *e al*ays ta+e the
most unfavoura,le o(tion%

... ./66 under /7.0 , o$ 'a!($ill a'ove pipe !rown
-ac"'ill co#er% 2.5= m ao#e pipe crown
@ater tale% 1.=0 m ao#e pipe aCis ,I0
,I0 presumed position o' the water tale: 'or eCample only.
&ry soil speci'ic weight 16.00 "+/m
5

*aturated soil speci'ic weight 11.00 "+/m
5

-end angle B 02 deg
&oc n1% $echnical note n11
9e#. &ate )ang. *heet

)e!&ni!al note n* +
01 12/06/2012 (+ 2age 6 o' >



/nternal test pressure 2 B 6.>4 ar ,g0
!ross sectional area A B 6.41 m
2

!oe''icient o' 'riction ' B 0.55 *oil/pipe 'riction coe''icient
.#erurden load @e B 146.69 "+/lm 'or ac"'ill co#er
@eight o' pipe @p B 7==.62 "+/lm ,pipe empty under water tale0
@eight o' water @w B 60.=2 "+/lm
2 C @e E @p E @w B 5=9.16 "+/lm
2 C A C sin,/20 B 2196.25 "+
*a'ety 'actor 1.40
)ength o' tied pipes 8 9 /:.1/ lm ,including sa'ety 'actor0

For a 56* 'end : instead o' a =41 end: the calculation gi#es 8 9 2/.:3 l, including sa'ety 'actor.


..0 Con!lusion
For each ) ,length o' tied pipe0 calculated ao#e: it means that the pipe is anchored in the soil ecause the
thrust strength is restrained y soil 'riction i' the pipe is continuous on the length ) o' each side o' the elow
,or tee0.
According to this calculation: we can a''irm that no thrust loc" is needed to anchor 9!!2.

0 Re,ar(s a'out t&rust 'lo!(s
0.+ Di$$erentials settle,ents
!onsidering the soil composition: in our opinion hea#y load as thrust loc" would cause di''erential settlements
which may damage the pipes.
/' thrust loc"s ha#e to e maintained: it would e laid on deep 'oundations in order to a#oid these damages.

0./ #eis,i! design
.ur seismic design is ased on many principles: adapted to the speci'ied 2GA. .ne o' these principles is to gi#e
to the piping arrangement the longitudinal mo#ement possiility at speci'ic locations such as%
)ong straight lines.
!onnection to ci#il wor"s or others apparatus: as 'or eCample.
$his longitudinal mo#ement possiility is gi#en y speci'ic de#ices% seismic mo#ement 3oints ,*MJ0.
!onsidering the layout o' the pipes and the speci'ic seismic conditions o' the pro3ect: we considered 2 cases%
/' there are thrust loc"s: to pro#ide enough longitudinal mo#ement possiility to a#oid too
much damages to the pipes: we ha#e to put at least 41 seismic mo#ement 3oints.
7f there are thrust ,loc+s, *e have to add seismic movement 8oint 8ust ,efore and 8ust after thrust
,loc+ in order to (rovide longitudinal movement (ossi,ility%
/' there are no thrust loc"s: we need only 2= seismic mo#ement 3oints.

&oc n1% $echnical note n11
9e#. &ate )ang. *heet

)e!&ni!al note n* +
01 12/06/2012 (+ 2age > o' >



2 Con!lusion
According the layout: the speci'ications and the seismic conditions we can conclude that
$hrust loc"s are useless ecause -onna 9!!2 pipes are calculated to e sel' anchored in the
soil.
$he #olume o' concrete necessary to achie#e this thrust loc" will eCceed 11:560 m
5
,i.e
26:=40 tons0 o' concrete.
$he hea#y load o' thrust loc"s will cause damage to the pipes y causing di''erential
settlements: unless they are laid on deep 'oundations.
@e ha#e to put aout twice as much seismic mo#ement 3oints as there were no thrust loc"s.

@e there'ore strongly recommend to reconsider the use o' thrust loc"s and to aandon it.