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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Although there were some leaks during the test, the liner held 40 to 45 psi (equivalent to 92 to 104 ft of water head) for approximately 1 hour in total. The applied pressure spiked during the test to a value of 200 psi, but was quickly reduced again to the 40 to 45 psi range (Figure 4-21). Even with the brief peak at 200 psi pressure, visible evidence did not show a buckling failure of the liner although there was evidence of water leaks through the liner that indicated some localized failures (Figure 4-22). Figure 4-21. Pressure on the Liner at Intervals During the Test Figure 4-22. Localized Leak on the Liner – Green Spots Due to Green Food Color 40
4.2.13 Shore D Hardness. Durometer (Shore) hardness (ASTM D2240) is used to determine the relative hardness of soft materials, such as thermoplastic and thermosetting materials. This test measures the penetration of a specified indenter into the subject material under specified conditions of force and time. Specimens measuring approximately 1 in. × 1 in. were cut from the crown, spring line, and invert of the retrieved CIPP liner using a band saw. All Shore tests were performed using the Shore D hardness scale, which utilizes a weight of 10 lb (4,536 g) and a tip diameter of 0.1 mm. A total of 144 readings were performed on samples taken from the crown, spring line, and invert. Tests were conducted on the inner and outer surfaces. The average recorded values are shown in Figure 4-23 and the recorded values are rounded to integer values in the discussion below. It can be seen that there is a progression of increased hardness from the inner invert surface of the liner (56), through the inner spring line surface (59) to the inner crown surface of the liner (63). The outer side of the liner enclosed by the host pipe was neither in contact with the soil nor with the waste stream, and provided hardness values of between 74 and 80 with an average of 77. This is approximately 38% higher than the inner invert surface and still significantly (22%) higher than the inner crown surface. This could suggest that the constant contact with the waste stream might result in progressive softening of the liner material (although some differences in hardness may be caused by the presence or eroded condition of the polyurethane layer). It is also not clear at the moment as to how a rougher surface that has been subjected to erosion may compare with a previously smooth surface even if there are no chemical changes involved. The hardness results are compared with the other liner tests and across all the retrospective sites in Section 6. 4.2.14 Barcol Hardness. In addition to the Shore hardness tests, tests were conducted using the Barcol hardness test (ASTM D2583) which uses a spherical-ended indenter. This allowed comparison with the hardness testing conducted by Insituform and the results and comparison are shown in Table 4-9. The TTC Barcol hardness results are shown in Figure 4-24. The results for the inner surface of the liner showed less differences between the crown, spring line, and invert (average values of 43, 39 and 39, respectively [rounded to integer values]) than the Shore D hardness testing. The outer surface results for the crown, spring line, and invert were 46, 39 and 42, respectively. The differences between the inner and outer surface values at the crown, spring line, and invert were 6%, 2% and 9%, respectively, with the outer surface always having the higher value. In the Barcol testing, the average outer surface value of 42 is 8% higher than the inner invert surface value of 39. Overall, the TTC results involving 972 measurements gave a mean Barcol hardness of 41±5 and the Insituform testing of five measurements gave a mean Barcol hardness of 38±3. The average of all the TTC inner surface readings gave a mean Barcol hardness of 40±4. Interpretation of the hardness results across all of the sites is provided in Section 6. Since a surface hardness test is simple and quick to perform, and it might serve as a basis for a nondestructive in-situ test for CIPP liners, the TTC is planning to conduct additional Shore and/or Barcol hardness tests on a number of recently cured CIPP specimens that employ different types of resins to explore possible relationships. 41
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 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: Figure 4-18. Pressure Gage and Pres
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?