Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...
Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...
Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Figure 5-24. Localized Leak on the L<strong>in</strong>er – Green Spots Due to Green Food Color<br />
5.2.16 Shore D Hardness. The Durometer (Shore D) hardness test (ASTM D2240) is used to<br />
determ<strong>in</strong>e the relative hardness <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>t materials, such as thermoplastic and thermosett<strong>in</strong>g materials. This<br />
test measures the penetration <strong>of</strong> a specified <strong>in</strong>denter <strong>in</strong>to the subject material under predeterm<strong>in</strong>ed force<br />
and time. Specimens measur<strong>in</strong>g approximately 1 <strong>in</strong>. × 1 <strong>in</strong>. were cut from the crown, spr<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>e, and<br />
<strong>in</strong>vert <strong>of</strong> the retrieved CIPP l<strong>in</strong>er us<strong>in</strong>g a band saw. A total <strong>of</strong> 24 specimens were prepared and tested<br />
(eight from each location).<br />
All tests were performed us<strong>in</strong>g the Shore D hardness scale, which utilizes a weight <strong>of</strong> 10 lb (4,536 g) and<br />
a tip diameter <strong>of</strong> 0.1 mm. Tests were conducted on the <strong>in</strong>ner and outer surfaces and a total <strong>of</strong> 1,440<br />
read<strong>in</strong>gs were performed on samples taken from all <strong>of</strong> the locations. The recorded values are shown <strong>in</strong><br />
Figure 5-25. As was noted <strong>in</strong> the Denver studies, it can be seen that the <strong>in</strong>ner surface read<strong>in</strong>gs are<br />
approximately 23% s<strong>of</strong>ter (63.3, 62.3, and 62.4) compared with outer surfaces <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>in</strong>er (79.5, 81.7, and<br />
83.0). However, it is difficult to separate any effects <strong>of</strong> exposure to the waste stream from differences<br />
due to the presence <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>terior surface coat<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
5.2.17 Barcol Hardness. Specimens were also subjected to the Barcol hardness test (ASTM<br />
D2583) as described for the Denver samples <strong>in</strong> Section 4. The results <strong>of</strong> the Barcol hardness test<strong>in</strong>g for<br />
this l<strong>in</strong>er are shown <strong>in</strong> Figure 5-26. The values (average <strong>of</strong> 6.77 for the <strong>in</strong>ner surface and 13.76 for the<br />
outer surface) are much lower than for the equivalent test<strong>in</strong>g for the Denver samples. For the <strong>in</strong>ner<br />
surface, this may be a result <strong>of</strong> the different coat<strong>in</strong>g material used <strong>in</strong> recent l<strong>in</strong>ers than was used <strong>in</strong> the<br />
earlier l<strong>in</strong>ers retrieved from the Denver sites. Differences <strong>of</strong> similar magnitude are not seen <strong>in</strong> the Shore<br />
D hardness values between the Columbus and Denver 8-<strong>in</strong>. l<strong>in</strong>ers. While there is no correlation between<br />
these two hardness measurements methods, Barcol hardness is the more commonly utilized method <strong>in</strong> the<br />
CIPP <strong>in</strong>dustry. The Barcol hardness values for the 5-year old Columbus 8-<strong>in</strong>. l<strong>in</strong>er show little difference<br />
between the <strong>in</strong>ner and outer surfaces or between the <strong>in</strong>vert read<strong>in</strong>gs and the crown read<strong>in</strong>gs. This may be<br />
due to the relatively short exposure <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>in</strong>er to service conditions.<br />
81