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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.2 Goals for a Specific Retrospective Evaluation Using the Draft Protocols The goals of the retrospective evaluation of a rehabilitation technology in a specific municipality are: • To gather quantitative data on the current condition of a specific rehabilitation system using a draft protocol for the inspection, defect classification, sample collection, testing, analysis, and storage of such data. • To evaluate the protocol as to its appropriateness for use under field conditions in a municipality. Will it produce the desired data? Is the terminology used universally accepted and understood by the municipal engineering community? Is it excessively burdensome on the utility? Can the data collected be used effectively to guide asset management decisions? • To compile the evaluation results into a common database so that cities can understand how the systems that they are investing in today have performed over their commercial life to date. 3.3 Preliminary Outline of Anticipated Protocol for CIPP Evaluation The project team initiated discussions early on with municipalities interested in participating in the project in order to aid in the development of the data collection protocols. A preliminary outline was prepared that was intended to give the municipality an idea of the anticipated scope of the evaluation and a chance to make suggestions to improve the protocol or increase its feasibility for the municipality before it was finalized. The utility owners were expected to collaborate on the project and provide in-kind contributions associated with the following: • Providing historic and current background data, maps, and drawings to the Battelle team; • On-site support for field testing and sample collection for destructive testing, such as traffic control, utility locating and designation, excavation and surface restoration at access points, and CCTV inspection; and • On-site support for non-destructive testing (NDT), such as pipeline cleaning, traffic control, utility locating and designation, excavation of access points, and other relevant site work. More detail on the anticipated protocols and municipal interactions are provided below. 3.3.1 Identification of Municipal Partners • The municipality would have at least 10 years of experience with CIPP installations – preferably more. Experience with more than one contractor and/or technology supplier would be a plus. • The evaluation protocol was intended to be initially applied to mainline gravity sewers in the 8 in. to 24 in. range, although the diameter range was open to adjustment if special opportunities were presented themselves. • The municipality would be willing to help to identify appropriate segments for quantitative evaluation. • The municipality would be willing and able to provide a reasonable level of design and construction data for the rehabilitated segments – i.e., quantitative data that would establish the as-installed condition and engineering parameters for the liner. 16
• The municipality would be willing to provide the equipment and labor to retrieve field samples of a lined pipe for evaluation or field support for NDT of other lined segments. • Members of the EPA project team would be on site for the sample retrieval and liner evaluation in the field. The project team would also be responsible for all liner testing and analysis carried out off site and would provide a report of the data collected and its interpretation to the municipality. • The municipality will have the option to not have their name associated with specific data or analyses conducted. 3.3.2 Identification of Segments for Evaluation • Ideal segments for evaluation would be where a dig up and replacement of a rehabilitated segment is planned for reasons other than problems in the rehabilitated line or where a dig up and removal of a pipe segment can be scheduled prior to street repaving, etc. • If a dig up and replacement of a segment was not possible, then an area where a physical sample could be removed from within the line would be considered. This could be adjacent to a manhole or in a pipe large enough for the removal of a sample with adequate dimensions for physical property testing (e.g., 2 in. by 6 in. coupons). • NDT measurements would also be applied to segments where physical samples are removed to determine if the same conclusions concerning liner properties could be derived from the non-destructive measurements (either within the line or where the liner was accessible at a manhole). • Mainline segments where lateral rehabilitation was planned could also provide an opportunity to remove samples adjacent to the lateral and then covering the removed coupon areas with a T-Liner type of lateral rehabilitation that included an integral mainline collar. • In order to test the application of the protocols and monitor time and cost to perform the evaluations, it was anticipated that two different line segments would be selected in each cooperating utility. 3.3.3 Availability of Historical Data. The following historical data would preferably be available for use in the retrospective evaluation (it was realized that not all the elements of the list below would be available): • Location and length of lined segment, slope of pipe • Type and diameter of host pipe and condition of the host pipe prior to rehabilitation (partially or fully deteriorated, any recorded ovality, etc.) • Repair history prior to rehabilitation • Estimated flow data, frequency of surcharging, and any substantial changes since rehabilitation • Soil conditions and/or backfill conditions at the time of pipe construction • Any evidence of soil voids outside the pipe prior to rehabilitation • Any special chemical aspects to the wastewater carried in the rehabilitated pipe • CCTV data pre- and post-rehabilitation 17
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 and 18: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AMP Asse
Page 19 and 20: 1.0: INTRODUCTION This report forms
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: 3.0: DEVELOPMENT OF CIPP EVALUATION
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?