Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NDT non-destructive testing NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory OD oven dry OFWAT Office of Water Services PE polyethylene psi pounds per square inch psia pounds per square inch absolute PUB Public Utilities Board (Singapore) PUBC PUB Consultants Private Limited PVC polyvinyl chloride QA quality assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Protocol Plan QC quality control QUU Queensland Urban Utilities SgSTT Singapore Society for Trenchless Technology SOP standard operating procedure SPR spiral pipe renewal SRM Sewer Rehabilitation Manual (U.K.) SSD saturated surface dry STW Severn Trent Water SW Sydney Water TBL Technische Betriebe der Stadt Leverkusen TBPB tert-butyl peroxybenzoate peroxide Tg glass transition temperature TGA thermo-gravimetric analysis TO task order TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons TTC Trenchless Technology Center TW Thames Water TWA Thames Water Authority UTM Universal Testing Machine UV ultraviolet VCP vitrified clay pipe VOC volatile organic compound WEFTEC Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference WIS Water Industry Specifications (U.K.) WRc Water Research Centre (U.K.) xvii
1.0: INTRODUCTION This report forms part of a project funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study and support technology development for the rehabilitation of water distribution and wastewater collection systems. During the early stages of this project, the need for a quantitative, retrospective evaluation of the performance of pipe rehabilitation systems emerged. Pipe rehabilitation and trenchless pipe replacement technologies have seen a steadily increasing use over the past 30 to 40 years and represent an increasing proportion of the approximately $25 billion annual expenditure on operations and maintenance of the nation’s water and wastewater infrastructure (EPA, 2002). Despite the massive public investment represented by the use of these technologies, there has been little formal and quantitative evaluation of whether they are performing as expected and whether rehabilitation is indeed cost-effective compared to replacement. The need for such information was reinforced by the participants at an international technology forum held as part of the project activities in September 2008. It was noted at the forum that the City of Montreal and a number of cities in Germany have already engaged in efforts to revisit previous rehabilitation projects to characterize their level of in-service performance to assess any evidence of deterioration (Sterling et al., 2009). Information collected on these and other international experiences with cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liners are included in this report. The major reasons for interest in a retrospective evaluation of pipe rehabilitation systems are: • The biggest data gap in asset management for pipeline systems involving rehabilitation is prediction of the remaining asset life for the existing pipe and how long rehabilitation techniques can extend that life. Municipalities have expressed a strong desire for some hard data on the current condition of previously installed systems to validate or correct the assumptions made at the time of rehabilitation. • Since several of the major pipe lining techniques have now been in use for at least 15 years (some nearly 30 years in the U.S. and 40 years internationally), it is a good time to undertake such an investigation to assess whether the originally planned lifetime (typically assumed to be 50 years) is reasonable based on the current condition of the liner. The outcome of an effective evaluation would be to address one of the largest unknowns in terms of decision-making for engineers carrying out life-cycle cost/benefit evaluations and to facilitate the sharing of lining performance data among municipalities in a systematic and transferable manner. This type of evaluation can provide answers to the question “How long can I extend the life of the asset if I rehabilitate it instead of replacing it?” but can also start to fill one of the biggest gaps in knowledge about rehabilitation technologies that exists today – their expected lifetimes under a variety of installation and service conditions. Evaluating rehabilitation technologies that have already been in service for a significant length of time could provide data that could be used immediately by other municipalities (e.g., what properties/defects are critical; what accelerates deterioration) and could establish benchmarks for vendors against which they can improve their products (i.e., it could become a driver for achieving excellence). It is an opportune time for such a concerted push in terms of evaluation because there has been a significant time in service for many technologies and there is a continued strong investment in the use of the technologies across the U.S. While the long-term goal of the retrospective evaluation effort is to provide significant and credible feedback on performance to the system owners and the engineers who specify rehabilitation and replacement, a few isolated evaluations of projects with a variety of existing and service conditions 1
Page 1 and 2: EPA/600/R-12/004 | January 2012 | w
Page 3 and 4: DISCLAIMER The work reported in thi
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report has bee
Page 7 and 8: samples had a flexural modulus valu
Page 9 and 10: CONTENTS DISCLAIMER ...............
Page 11 and 12: 4.3.10.2 Upstream Sample ..........
Page 13 and 14: 9.2.2 Recommendations for Developme
Page 15 and 16: Figure 5-27. Raman Spectra for the
Page 17: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AMP Asse
Page 21 and 22: 1.2 Organization of the Report Foll
Page 23 and 24: Some sections of a sewer system may
Page 25 and 26: • The depth of the pipe below the
Page 27 and 28: Figure 2-3 highlights the main diff
Page 29 and 30: The most commonly used resins are i
Page 31 and 32: the glass fiber. The tube, which is
Page 33 and 34: 3.0: DEVELOPMENT OF CIPP EVALUATION
Page 35 and 36: • The municipality would be willi
Page 37 and 38: • Measurements and/or physical sa
Page 39 and 40: Table 3-3. Laboratory Evaluation an
Page 41 and 42: 4.1 Introduction 4.0: CITY OF DENVE
Page 43 and 44: Figure 4-1. Images of the Recovered
Page 45 and 46: Sample ID Figure 4-4. Soil Grain Si
Page 47 and 48: Location Table 4-5. Denver 8-in. Li
Page 49 and 50: Profile Plot Red - Steel tube Green
Page 51 and 52: Table 4-7. Results from Flexural Te
Page 53 and 54: 35 Table 4-9. Comparison of Test Da
Page 55 and 56: 4.2.12 Buckling Test. A steel mecha
Page 57 and 58: Figure 4-18. Pressure Gage and Pres
Page 59 and 60: 4.2.13 Shore D Hardness. Durometer
Page 61 and 62: Figure 4-24. Barcol Hardness Readin
Page 63 and 64: increases and the heat of cure decr
Page 65 and 66: In summary, CCTV inspection of thre
Page 67 and 68: Figure 4-28. Thickness for Denver 4
Page 69 and 70:
4.3.6.2 Downstream Sample. Seven sp
Page 71 and 72:
Figure 4-34. Flexural Stress-Strain
Page 73 and 74:
Table 4-18. Flexural Test Results f
Page 75 and 76:
4.3.8.2 Upstream Sample. Specimens
Page 77 and 78:
4.3.10 Barcol Hardness 4.3.10.1 Dow
Page 79 and 80:
4.3.11.2 Downstream Sample. The Ram
Page 81 and 82:
5.1 Introduction 5.0: CITY OF COLUM
Page 83 and 84:
April 16, 2010 The specimen was rec
Page 85 and 86:
The resulting gradation curves are
Page 87 and 88:
Table 5-4. Soil pH at Designated Lo
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 5-8. Average Thickness at Di
Page 91 and 92:
5.2.12 Flexural Testing. Specimens
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 5-14. Flexural Stress-Strain
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 5-16. Tensile Stress-Strain
Page 97 and 98:
5.2.15 Buckling Test. A mechanical
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 5-24. Localized Leak on the
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 5-26. Barcol Hardness Readin
Page 103 and 104:
5.3.3 Visual Inspection of Liner. I
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 5-32. Ultrasonic Testing for
Page 107 and 108:
Table 5-13. Geometric Data for Flex
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 5-38. Shore D Hardness of Co
Page 111 and 112:
6.1 Introduction 6.0: REVIEW AND CO
Page 113 and 114:
Overall, the liners appear to be ho
Page 115 and 116:
age difference between the liners i
Page 117 and 118:
Looking for correlations to the low
Page 119 and 120:
A significantly lower range of Shor
Page 121 and 122:
7.0: RECOMMENDED TEST PROTOCOL FOR
Page 123 and 124:
combining this broadly available in
Page 125 and 126:
Table 7-3. Overall Structure for a
Page 127 and 128:
Table 8-2. CIPP and Other Rehabilit
Page 129 and 130:
Table 8-5. Rehabilitation Specifica
Page 131 and 132:
113 Table 8-9. Process Verification
Page 133 and 134:
Göttingen Stadtentwässerung: Göt
Page 135 and 136:
experience and quality, and do not
Page 137 and 138:
km of pipe and 50-year-old pipes ar
Page 139 and 140:
methods are detailed in the Guide t
Page 141 and 142:
The business of pipeline rehabilita
Page 143 and 144:
• Destructive testing (but will n
Page 145 and 146:
In Denver, in CCTV inspections of n
Page 147 and 148:
9.2 Recommendations for Future Work
Page 149 and 150:
Falter, B. 1996. “Structural Anal
Page 151 and 152:
Lehmann, M.A, J.P. Schroeder and C.
Page 153 and 154:
APPENDIX A LIST OF TEST STANDARDS R
Page 155 and 156:
The following table lists the non-A
Page 157 and 158:
B.1 Introduction This study was con
Page 159 and 160:
Mean thickness values for each cont
Page 161 and 162:
APPENDIX C INTERNATIONAL STUDY INTE
Page 163 and 164:
The original Insituform liner insta
Page 165 and 166:
However, the figures published by O
Page 167 and 168:
exfiltration and infiltration. Any
Page 169 and 170:
STW uses CIPP for virtually all of
Page 171 and 172:
method. Top hat repairs to junction
Page 173 and 174:
All design and construction supervi
Page 175 and 176:
Process verification test samples a
Page 177 and 178:
consultant born out of the corporat
Page 179 and 180:
BW continues to use CIPP, mainly in
Page 181 and 182:
East, but has not yet had marked su
Page 183 and 184:
D-1
Page 185 and 186:
D-3
Page 187 and 188:
D-5
Page 189 and 190:
D-7
Page 191 and 192:
D-9
Page 193 and 194:
D-11
Page 195 and 196:
D-13
Page 197 and 198:
D-15
Page 199 and 200:
D-17
Page 201 and 202:
D-19
Page 203 and 204:
D-21
Page 205 and 206:
D-23
Page 207 and 208:
D-25
Page 209 and 210:
D-27
Page 211 and 212:
D-29
Page 213 and 214:
D-31
Page 215 and 216:
D-33
Page 217 and 218:
D-35
Page 219 and 220:
D-37
Page 221 and 222:
D-39
Page 223 and 224:
D-41
Page 225 and 226:
D-43
Page 227 and 228:
D-45
Page 229 and 230:
D-47
Page 231 and 232:
D-49
show all

Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?