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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.3.12 Comparison of 1995 and 2010 Test Results. Table 4-21 provides a tabulated comparison of the 1995 and 2010 test results for the Denver 48-in. liner. In comparing the results, it should be known that the 1995 sample was retrieved only from the upstream side of the manhole (a separate installation from the downstream with a different liner thickness). A summary of the combined results for all four sites evaluated is given in Section 6 where the significance of the various results is explored. The average thickness (14.2 mm) of the TTC-tested upstream sample (taken from the crown area of the liner) was less than the liner thickness specified for this liner (18 mm). The specific gravity of both the upstream and downstream liners as measured by TTC according to ASTM D792 (1.07 and 1.08, respectively) were lower than the results reported in the mercury penetrometer testing (1.16) and lower than the results reported by Insituform from its testing (1.19). All of the Denver 48-in. liner samples exceed the specified flexural strength for the liner and all of the samples, except for one set of tests on the TTC-tested upstream sample, exceed the specified flexural modulus for the liner. The average flexural modulus value measured for the initial set of coupons from the TTC-tested upstream sample (182,622 psi) is much lower than any of the other flexural modulus values reported in this study. The correlation of low values of flexural modulus with other liner properties such as tensile elongation at break, tensile strength, specific gravity, and porosity is explored in Section 6. Whether lower than specified values can be attributed to liner aging, to original installation issues, or to testing variability is also discussed in Section 6. Table 4-21. Comparison of 1995 and 2010 Test Results for the Denver 48-in. Liner Property No. of Samples Test Standard Minimum Specification Insituform (1995) TTC (2010) TTC (2010) Sample location - - - MH B3 Upstream MH B3 Downstream MH B3 Age, years - - - 8 23 23 Design Thickness, mm - - - 18 18 13.5 Thickness, mm - - - 18 14.2 ± 0.2 13.9 ± 0.3 Shore D Hardness (inner surface) Shore D Hardness (outer surface) 18 or 26 each ASTM D2240 - - 47 ± 2 63 ± 3 65 ± 3 79 ± 2 Barcol Hardness (inner surface) Barcol Hardness (outer surface) 15 or 25 each ASTM D2583 - - 14.9 ± 1.8 18.4 ± 2.4 16.5 ± 1.5 29.3 ± 1.3 7 ASTM D792 - 1.19 1.08 ± 0.03 1.07 ± 0.04 Specific Gravity 1 Mercury Penetrometer - - 1.16 1.16 Flexural Strength, psi 5 ASTM D790 4,500 6,900 ± 400 5,032±652 6,117±888 7,031 ± 346 Flexural Modulus of Elasticity, psi Tensile Strength, psi 5 ASTM D790 250,000 3 ASTM D638 - 62 490,000 ± 40,000 2,300 ± 170 182,622±23,126 302,960 ± 24,303 263,707±70,398 3,208±222 2,995 ± 227
5.1 Introduction 5.0: CITY OF COLUMBUS RETROSPECTIVE STUDY The initial discussions were held with the City of Columbus, OH in January 2010 about the City’s willingness to participate in the retrospective evaluation pilot studies. The draft protocol outlined in Section 3 was provided to the City so that they could understand the nature of the program and the requested role of the City. After the City indicated its interest in participation, a face-to-face meeting was organized and held in Columbus on February 16, 2010. The City offered two sites for sample retrieval. The first site was located in the suburb of Clintonville, OH and was offered due to a future project to upsize the sewer on this street. This site involved retrieval of a 6-ft section of CIPP from a 5-year old, 8in. CIPP of a VCP installed in 2005. The second site was a 21-year old, 36-in. CIPP installed in 1989 in a brick sewer near downtown Columbus at Pearl and Gay Streets. The City of Columbus collaborated on this project and provided in-kind support for sample collection and on-site support for field testing and destructive testing (traffic control, utility locating and designation, excavation, and surface restoration at access points, and CCTV inspection). 5.2 Site 1: 5-year Old CIPP Liner in 8-in. Clay Pipe This section describes the retrospective evaluation of a CIPP liner installed in Clintonville, OH in 2005. Although relatively new, the pipe was found suitable for destructive testing because it was already scheduled for upsizing due to insufficient hydraulic capacity. A short (6-ft) section of the pipe with the CIPP liner was carefully exhumed and sent to TTC, where comprehensive laboratory testing was performed. 5.2.1 Host Pipe and Liner Information Location: Richards Road and Foster Street in Clintonville, OH Host pipe: Circular, 8 in. diameter, VCP, installed in 1924 Burial depth: 6 ft (above crown) Liner dimensions: 8 in. diameter; 6 mm thick Resin: ARPOL MR 12018 Primary catalyst: Perkadox 16 Secondary catalyst: Tert-Butyl Peroxybenzoate Peroxide (TBPB) Felt: Unwoven fabric Seal: Polyethylene coating, 0.015 in. thick Year liner installed: 2005 Liner vendor: Reynolds Inliner Resin supplier: Ashland Tube manufacturer: Liner Products of Paoli, IN. 63
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 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: 4.3.11.2 Downstream Sample. The Ram
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?